[00:00:01]
THANK YOU FOR JOINING.[CALL TO ORDER]
UH, THIS EVENING FOR THE NOVEMBER 6TH, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.ACCORDING TO THIS, IT'S SEVEN O'CLOCK.
SO WE'LL, UH, WE'LL GET OUR MEETING STARTED.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
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 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.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
YOU.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.
IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE'RE GONNA REMOVE ITEM C FROM THE CONSENT FOR CONSIDERATION.
AND DURING THAT TIME, UH, COMMISSIONER LYLE NEEDS TO RECUSE HIMSELF AS WELL.
SO ANYONE WANT TO REMOVE ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE, I MOVE.
WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH ITEM C REMOVED AS SUBMITTED.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA MINUS ITEM C, PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
SO COMMISSIONER LAW, IF YOU'D LIKE TO RECUSE YOURSELF AND PLEASE READ ITEM C, CONSENT
[c. (PM) Revised Site Plan: Southside 14th Street Addition, Block A, Lot 1 - Restaurant, three multifamily residence units, professional/general administrative office, and health/fitness center on one lot on 0.3 acre located on the south side of 14th Street, 125 feet east of K Avenue. Zoned Downtown Business/Government. Project #RSP2023-061. Applicant: Eastside 14th Street, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA, ITEM C, REVISED SITE PLAN, SOUTH SIDE 14TH STREET EDITION BLOCK A LOT ONE RESTAURANT, THREE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE UNITS, PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND HEALTH FITNESS CENTER ON ONE LOT ON 0.3 ACRE.LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 14TH STREET, 125 FEET EAST OF KAY AVENUE ZONE, DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS EAST SIDE 14TH STREET, LLC.
I'M PARKER MCDOWELL, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE THIS ITEM AS SHOWN WITH THE CORRECTIONS DURING THE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING, OR THEY MAY TABLE IT TO THE 1120 MEETING.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UH, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.
WE APPROVE ITEM C AS PRESENTED WITH THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE UM, SITE PLAN, REVISED SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED TO US IN PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING.
ALRIGHT, SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI TO APPROVE ITEM C, SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US IN PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE VOTE.
THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO WITH ONE, UH, ABSTENTION.
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER.
RES REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.
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 LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.
[Items 1A. & 1B.]
ITEMS NUMBER ONE A AND ONE B WILL BE, UH, PRESENTED TOGETHER.PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023 DASH ZERO SIX.
THIS WAS A, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMITS FOR PRIVATE CLUB AND FOOD TRUCK PARK ON 0.8 ACRE.
LOCATED 524 FEET NORTH OF PARK, UH, SORRY, PARK BOULEVARD AND 940 FEET EAST OF PRESTON ROAD.
PETITIONER IS AMIT, SSPF, PRESTON GOLD LP.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
[00:05:01]
THEY ALSO HAVE A REVISED SITE PLAN.PRESTON TOWN CROSSING BLOCK ONE, LOT TWO, RETAIL MEDICAL OFFICE, HEALTH FITNESS CENTER, RESTAURANT, PRIVATE CLUB, AND FOOD TRUCK PARK ON ONE LOT ON EIGHT ACRES.
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PARK BOULEVARD, 760 FEET EAST OF PRESTON ROAD, ZONED RETAIL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 5 64 FOR PRIVATE CLUB LO AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT.
AGAIN, THE A APPLICANT IS AMRI, SSPF, PRESTON GOLD LP.
AND THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
BEFORE WE GET STARTED, PLANO TV, CAN YOU PLEASE UH, MOVE TO SLIDE SEVEN THEN? UH, TO CLARIFY AGENDA NUMBER ONE A THANK YOU.
WE ALSO HAVE, HANG ON A SECOND.
CAN WE GET RID OF THE UNMUTE? THE HOST WOULD LIKE YOU TO UNMUTE.
I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM.
I DON'T KNOW WHO'S CONTROLLING THE ZOOM.
MY NAME IS KACHA COPELAND AND I'M SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR TWO S FOR A PRIVATE CLUB AND FOR A FOOD TRUCK PARK IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER.
ON THE SCREEN HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE THREE AND IS DEVELOPED WITH MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES TO THE SOUTH.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RETAIL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS 92 AND NUMBER 4 88 FOR PRIVATE CLUB AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A SHOPPING CENTER WITH RETAIL PERSONAL SERVICE SHOP AND RESTAURANT USES TO THE EAST.
THE PROPERTY ZONED RETAIL AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A PARKING LOT THAT SERVES THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND A REGIONAL THEATER TO THE WEST.
THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RETAIL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 5 6 4 4 PRIVATE CLUB.
A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY ACCOMPANIES THIS REQUEST AS ITEM NUMBER ONE B.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED SUBURBAN ACTIVITIES CENTER ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE DESIGNATION SUPPORTS ENTERTAINMENT USES SUCH AS FOOD, TRUCK, PARKS AND PRIVATE CLUBS TO CREATE A DESTINATION SHOPPING AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTERS.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE CLUB AND FOOD TRUCK PARK CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE ARE FOUR APPROVED SPECIFIC USE PERMITS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS WITHIN THE PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN AND THE SUVS ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW TODAY.
IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY OF THE FOUR LOCATIONS ARE OPERATING AS A PRIVATE CLUB AT THE OCTOBER 2ND.
PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED.
DUE TO CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT REGARDING OFF STREET PARKING.
THE OUTSTANDING PARKING QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED.
IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
THIS IS NOTED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON THE REVISED SITE.
FOOD TRUCK PARKS ARE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE PROPOSED FOOD TRUCK PARK IS 1600 SQUARE FEET AND APPROXIMATELY 275 FEET FROM THE ADJACENT MF THREE ZONING TO THE NORTH, WHICH EXCEEDS THE 150 FOOT REQUIREMENT PER ARTICLE 21.
TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION TO NEARBY RESIDENTS, STAFF RECOMMENDS A 250 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT AS A STIPULATION.
ADDITIONALLY, THE STIPULATION CONTINUES TO INCLUDE A 50 FOOT SEPARATION FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE.
THIS IS TO CONSIDER ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY.
WITH THIS STIPULATION, STAFF SUPPORTS THE FOOD TRUCK PARK.
WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES WITHIN 200 FEET AND WE RECEIVED NINE TOTAL RESPONSES, SIX IN SUPPORT AND THREE IN OPPOSITION.
TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO SPECIFIC USE PERMITS, ONE FOR A PRIVATE CLUB AND FOR A FOOD TRUCK PARK IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER.
STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE CLUB AND FOOD TRUCK PARK CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITIES CENTER CATEGORY.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM ONE A AND ONE B WITH RESTRICTIONS LISTED ON THE SCREEN RELATED TO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK AND TO THE COMPANION REVISED SITE
[00:10:01]
PLAN.THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE TONIGHT WITH THE PRESENTATION AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I DIDN'T MEAN TO SOUND LIKE ELVIS
UM, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS, TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? UH, MR. BRUNO? THANK YOU.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY.
THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH RESTRICTIONS FOR A 250 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE NORTH AND A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE PRESTON TOWN CROSSING BLOCK ONE LOT TWO AND ALSO SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR 47 PARKING SPACES OFFSITE.
250 FEET TO THE NORTH, 50 FEET FROM THE EAST AND ENTERING INTO A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
SO OUR MOTION, IF WE DECIDE TO APPROVE IT, SHOULD INCLUDE THOSE CONDITIONS? YES.
JUST TO CLARIFY, THE THE SEPARATION IS FOR THE SUP, THE CONDITION PARKING FOR THE PARKING IS ON THE SIDE PLAN? YEAH.
OKAY, SO THAT'S ONE A VERSUS ONE B, CORRECT? CORRECT.
BUT YOU DID SAY ALL THOSE STIPULATIONS THAT WERE LISTED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, COMMISSIONER LEY, UH, 50 FEET, UM, S THAT'S TO THE, APOLOGIES FOR MY VOICE ON THE EAST.
IT'S, UH, THE DESIGNATION IS FOR RETAIL IS DO WE HAVE, I DON'T THINK WE DO, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A FOOT TRUCK OR THIS KIND OF, UM, USE FROM A RETAIL? UH, WE JUST IMPOSING A 50 FEET, UM, SETBACK OR, UM, TO THIS PARTICULAR, DO WE HAVE ANYTHING IN OUR, IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A SETBACK FROM A RE A RETAIL DESIGNATION FROM ANOTHER ESSENTIALLY RETAIL RESTAURANT DESIGNATION FOR THIS CASE? THE RAS ONLY APPLIES TO THE NORTH.
AND SO WITH THE 50 FOOT, UM, TO THE EAST THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING IS FOR THE FOOD TRUCK PARK TO BE MORE DEFINED ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN.
IN ADDITION, WE ARE CONSIDERING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT EASTERN PROPERTY TO HAVE THAT BUFFER FROM THE FOOD TRUCK PARK.
WHAT MECHANISM DO WE HAVE TO ENFORCE THE PARKING AGREEMENT? SO IF THE, UM, ENTITY THAT THEY HAVE TO GET INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH REFUSES TO GET INTO AN AGREEMENT, WHAT, WHAT'S A MECHANISM TO, DOES THIS BLOW UP ESSENTIALLY? UM, WHAT'S OUR MECHANISM TO ENFORCE THAT? IS THERE AN AGREEMENT IN, IN SPIRIT ALREADY IN PLACE? UM, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW IF WE VOTE USING THE STIPULATION AND WE'VE NOT GONE ALONG THE LINES OF ENSURING THAT WE GET THAT AND WHAT'S THE MECHANISM THAT THIS BUDDY HAS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN? SURE.
AND I THINK THOSE QUESTIONS ARE EXACTLY WHY IT WAS TABLED ON OCTOBER 2ND, WAS WE NEEDED TO FIGURE THOSE ITEMS OUT.
NOW THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS A LOT OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS NORTHEAST CORNER, AND SO IT, THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THIS LOT WILL BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY UNLESS THAT PARKING AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY.
JUST TO, TO CLARIFY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IS THE SAME OWNER AS THIS SITE, JUST PROPERTY IS THE SAME OWNER? CORRECT.
I THINK IT'S WORTH THE, THE QUESTION IS VALUABLE IN UNDERSTANDING THOUGH, THAT IF WE APLU APPROVED AN SUP THAT'S WITH THE PROPERTY AND IF THIS PERSON WASN'T ABLE TO GET THAT PARKING, THEY COULD NEGOTIATE OR ANOTHER, UH, OWNER COULD EVENTUALLY NEGOTIATE SOMETHING TO MAKE THAT WORK.
SO APPROVING THE SUP IS SUBJECT TO A PARKING AGREEMENT.
IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE SUP GOES AWAY.
IT JUST MEANS THAT THEY CAN'T GET THEIR CERTIFICATE OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY AND UPGRADE.
WE STILL HAVE SEVERAL MORE QUESTIONS.
THAT WAS A GOOD TECHNICAL QUESTION.
LET'S MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE TECHNICAL BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE, UH, APPLICANT.
MR. LYLE, DOES THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD APPLY TO THE PRIVATE CLUB OR ONLY TO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK? FOOD TRUCK PARK AND NOT THE PRIVATE CLUB? NO.
AND DO YOU HAVE OTHER DISTANT REQUIREMENTS FOR HOSPITALS? SCHOOLS? AND THIS REQUEST IS MEETING THOSE AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD I STANDARDS, I BELIEVE IT TALKS ABOUT ASSOCIATED USES, UH, HAS STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE FOOD TRUCK PARK IS NOT AN ASSOCIATED USE TO THE PRIVATE CLUB.
[00:15:04]
SO THE RAS DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE CLUBS, THEREFORE WE DID NOT APPLY.SO WE'RE APPLYING THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD ONLY TO THE SUP FOR THE FOOD TRUCK.
RIGHT, BUT THE LETTER, IF, IF YOU READ THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD, DOESN'T IT SAY WHERE THERE'S MULTIPLE USES ON A SITE, IT'S TO BE APPLIED TO ASSOCIATED USES.
I HAD TO CLARIFY THAT, BUT I THINK IN THE INTENT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE FOOD TRUCK OPERATIONS ARE, COULD, COULD BE STANDALONE FROM THE PRIVATE CLUB.
AND SO IN THIS CASE WE'RE APPLYING IT ONLY TO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK.
THEY'RE NOT, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE BUILT, BUILT TOGETHER, CO TOGETHER, PERMANENT TOGETHER.
THEY'RE COMPLETELY STANDALONE.
ARE THEY ASSOCIATED, IS THE QUESTION THOUGH? THEY'RE ASSOCIATED ONLY IN THE FACT THAT THEY'RE PRESENTED TOGETHER FOR, UM, EASE OF CONSIDERATION BY THE P AND Z, BUT THEY COULD BE STANDALONE ON THEIR OWN.
AND JUST TO LET THE COMMISSIONER KNOW WHERE I'M, WELL, I GUESS THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE TIME TO EXPLAIN WHERE I'M GOING.
LET'S JUST GET TECHNICAL STAFF SO WE CAN MOVE ON.
UM, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
IF WE ALREADY HAVE ARAS OF 150 FEET TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE MEETING, WHAT IS THE RATIONALE ABOUT EX ABOUT MAKING THAT STRICTER AT TWO 50? OTHER THAN THEY STILL MEET IT, BUT IS THERE A REASON WHY WE ARE WRITING THAT INTO THE PD? ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR THOSE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH.
SO WE'RE JUST, IT, IT'S PURELY ABOUT JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T END UP SLIDING IT FURTHER SOUTH AT THIS POINT THAT THEY, BUT WOULDN'T THEY HAVE TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE? OR WOULD THAT, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT IF THEY, IF WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE DISTANCE? SURE.
SO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE THAT DISTANCE AND THAT'S WITH THE ZONING.
SO YES, THE, THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE DESIGNATED AREA FOR THE FOOD TRUCK PARK.
SO SHOULD THEY ASK TO CHANGE THAT? THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BACK TO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
SO LONG AS THEY MEET THOSE SEPARATION DISC REQUIREMENTS OF THE SUP, THEY CAN MOVE IT SOMEWHERE ELSE, BUT THEY CAN'T GET ANY CLOSER THAN THOSE SETBACKS WITHOUT COMING BACK THROUGH TO AMEND THE SUP.
SO IF WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE DISTANCE, THEN THEY COULD JUST DO A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT.
IF THEY WANTED TO MOVE IT CLOSER ONCE WE PUT THIS IN, THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK FOR AN SUP AMENDMENT, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIGGER.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE WERE DOING THAT, SO, OKAY.
SO I THINK WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS THAT THE 250 FEET IS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH FOR THE FOOD TRUCKS, RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO IS IT THE STAFF'S POSITION OR BELIEF THAT THAT SAME TYPE OF PROTECTION SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED FOR THE LARGER FACILITY? AND I GUESS I WOULD, I'M CURIOUS WHY THE FOOD TRUCKS WOULD NEED MORE PROTECTION THAN THE LARGER FACILITY.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THINKING.
FOOD TRUCK PARKS YOU CAN ENJOY OUTDOORS AND THIS REVISED SITE PLAN DOES SHOW A CANOPY IN AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA THAT'S TOWARDS THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY.
AND SO WITH THE EXPOSURE OF THE FOOD TRUCK PARK, HAVING THAT EXTRA PROTECTION, UM, HAS STAFF THINKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTS AND HAVING THAT EXTRA A HUNDRED FEET.
AND IF I COULD ADD THE, THE FOOD TRUCK PARK HAS NOISE, UM, RUNNING VEHICLES, GENERATORS, THINGS LIKE THAT, THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT.
THAT ESSENTIALLY THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT STANDARDS ARE LARGELY ABOUT NOISE CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
THE APPLICANT PROPOSED THIS LOCATION AND SO JUST TO CEMENT THAT INTO THE, WHAT THEY ASKED FOR IS THE REASON THAT IS 250 FEET.
OKAY, UH, WE HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS AND STAFF.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT.
TOMMY MANN 500 WINSTEAD BUILDING IN DALLAS.
UH, HAPPY TO SHARE WITH YOU TONIGHT.
UH, SOME FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSED TENANT FOR PRESTON TOWN CROSSING.
MY CLIENT IS EDEN'S, THEY ACTUALLY OWN 50 ACRES AT THIS CORNER.
UH, SO THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE AGREEMENT WILL BE WITH OURSELVES.
WITH ME TONIGHT IS MICHAEL HALE, WHO'S ACTUALLY BEEN IN CHARGE OF THE LEASING FOR THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2007.
UH, THEY ARE LONG-TERM HOLDERS OF RETAIL REAL ESTATE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY.
IN THIS, UH, HE CAN OBVIOUSLY ANSWER A LOT OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT HOW WE ENDED UP WHERE WE ARE TODAY.
UH, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND THEN I'LL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSED TENANT.
SO OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING WITHIN THE SITE.
MM-HMM
THERE ARE PARTS OF IT THAT ARE THRIVING OVER, PRIMARILY ALONG THE PRESTON FRONTAGE WITH REI AND TRADER JOE'S.
[00:20:01]
THAT.BUT AS YOU KIND OF TURN TO THE SOUTH AND THE EAST AND YOU'VE BEEN BACK THERE, IT GETS A LITTLE TOUGHER.
UH, AND WE'VE HAD TROUBLE LEASING THESE AREAS.
THIS ACTUAL BOX WAS ORIGINALLY A TARGET BACK IN THE EARLY TWO THOUSANDS.
UH, AN ANTIQUE MALL CAME IN FOR A LITTLE BIT THAT DIDN'T GO GREAT.
UH, GOLD'S GYM CAME IN, THEY GOT CRUSHED BY THE HAILSTORM, UH, AND VACATED AND NOW COWBOYS FIT HAS TAKEN A CHUNK OF IT AND IS STARTING TO GAIN SOME MOMENTUM THERE.
BUT WE STILL HAVE THIS LARGE PORTION OF THE BOX THAT HAS REMAINED VACANT.
SO THE CONCEPT THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT IN HERE IS ACTUALLY, UH, THERE ARE THREE OF THESE LOCATIONS IN HOUSTON.
IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN TO ONE, THERE'S ONE OF THE WOODLANDS MEMORIAL AND A THIRD ONE.
IT'S A HOUSTON AREA BASED FAMILY, UH, WITH EXPERIENCE AND DEVELOPMENT THAT HAS OPENED THIS CONCEPT.
THE IDEA IS KIND OF A FRONT PORCH FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT'S A DOG FRIENDLY VENUE, UH, SET UP KIND OF WITH AN INDOOR OUTDOOR VIBE.
GOOD PLACE TO HAVE A CORPORATE EVENT.
GOOD PLACE TO MEET FRIENDS, UH, FOR HAPPY HOUR OR GO AFTER THE MOVIE OR BEFORE THE MOVIE NEXT DOOR.
UH, BUT IT'S ALSO FOR EDEN'S ABOUT VITALIZING THIS CENTER A LITTLE BIT.
I MEAN, WE'VE GOTTA FIND WAYS WITH, YOU KNOW, THIS CORNER HAS LIKE A MILLION SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND WE'VE GOTTA MAKE IT AN EXPERIENCE THAT IS WORTH COMING TO.
OTHERWISE YOU CAN ORDER WHAT YOU NEED RIGHT NOW WHILE YOU'RE LISTENING TO ME TALK AND IT'LL BE ON YOUR PORCH TOMORROW, RIGHT? UH, BUT IF YOU CREATE A VENUE WHERE PEOPLE GET TO HANG OUT AND SOCIALIZE AND ENJOY THEIR TIME, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO ALSO WALK AROUND THE CENTER AND VISIT THE OTHER TENANTS.
SO THE OTHER TENANTS ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS CONCEPT GOING IN HERE.
UH, AND WE THINK IT'LL BE A GREAT BOOST FOR THE CENTER OVERALL.
THESE ARE JUST PHOTOS OF THE OTHER LOCATIONS IN HOUSTON THAT I MENTIONED.
UH, THE FOOD PARK, UH, THE FOOD TRUCK PARK ELEMENT.
I'LL TALK A LITTLE BIT ON, ON A PLAN AND HOW THIS ONE'S A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S IN HOUSTON, BUT YOU SEE FOLKS WITH THEIR DOGS SITTING OUTSIDE AND INSIDE.
SO AT THE OTHER LOCATIONS IN HOUSTON, THE ONLY FOOD SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY THE FOOD TRUCKS.
HERE WE WILL HAVE THE FOOD TRUCKS IN THE AREA.
THERE'LL BE TWO MOST OF THE TIME, MAYBE THREE.
UH, BUT WE'LL ALSO HAVE A KITCHEN THAT IS PREPARING AND SERVING MEALS INTERNAL TO THE FACILITY IN THE AREA IN BLUE AT THIS LOCATION, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE IN HOUSTON.
AND THAT'S TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF PLANO FOR FOOD SALES.
UH, AND WE THINK IT'S GONNA WORK WELL HERE.
SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DISTANCE.
YEAH, THERE WASN'T MORE THINKING TO IT OTHER THAN THIS IS WHERE IT IS.
SO WE WERE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT, UH, CONCESSION.
AND THEN THE REST OF THE USE, WHAT YOU SEE IN BLUE IS ENCLOSED.
SO AS FAR AS THE, NO, THE NOISE AND THAT'S WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE KIND OF OPEN AIR PORTION OF IT'S ON THE SOUTHERN END WHERE THE FOOD TRUCK IS AND CAN'T BE.
AND SO THAT, THAT PART IS OBVIOUSLY THE PORTION THAT IS FARTHEST AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL.
SO OVERALL, WE'RE, WE'RE PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH STAFF'S RECOMME CONDITIONS, UH, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS USE IF YOU, UH, MOVE IT FORWARD.
UM, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
UH, MR. MANN, WOULD YOU HOLD ON ONE SECOND.
I, I SEE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS THAT ARE COMING UP.
UH, COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER.
THE, UM, PRIVATE CLUB IN BLUE AND THE FOOD TRUCK IN GREEN ARE IN FACT SEPARATE.
THE BLUE IS NOT IN ANY WAY DEPENDENT ON THE GREEN OR VICE VERSA.
IF YOU'RE THERE HAVING DINNER OR DRINK, YOU'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE, RIGHT? UM, BUT THE FOOD TRUCKS THEMSELVES CAN BE OPERATED BY THIRD PARTY FOOD TRUCK OWNERS.
THE KITCHEN WITHIN THE BLUE AREA WILL BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY KIRBY ITSELF.
BUT IF YOU'RE THERE, IT'S ALL AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE.
IT'S DEFINITELY PART OF THE VIBE, IF YOU WILL, TO HAVE BOTH.
SO I'M JUST TRYING TO MAKE SURE IT COULD, WE WERE TOLD A MINUTE AGO THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY DIDN'T, WEREN'T PART OF THE BLUE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CONNECTED TO THE GREEN.
AND SO I'M ASKING YOU, ARE THEY SEPARATE? I THINK THEY'RE LEGALLY SEPARATE.
THEY'RE TWO SEPARATELY CLASSIFIED USES THAT REQUIRE THEIR OWN SUVS.
SO IN ZONING RUNS WITH THE LAND.
TOTALLY AGREE WITH STAFF ON THAT.
I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THAT KIRBY WOULD SELL OFF THE FOOD TRUCK OPERATION AND ONLY OPERATE THE CLUB.
IT'S LIKELY TO REMAIN INTEGRATED THE WHOLE TIME IT'S IN BUSINESS.
BUT I THINK LEGALLY, TECHNICALLY THEY COULD BE SEPARATE.
COMMISSIONER TO, I HAVEN'T HAD THE SAME QUESTION REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BLUE BOX AND THE GREEN BOX.
SO MY, MY UNDERSTANDING, MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW IS THAT ACTUALLY KIRBY ICE'S HOUSE WILL BE OPERATING BOTH THE BLUE BOX AND THE GREEN BOX, HOWEVER, LEGALLY THE GREEN BOX CAN BE LEASED OUT TO SOMEBODY ELSE.
SO THE FOOD TRUCKS MAY COME IN, MAYBE THE SIMPLEST WAY TO ANSWER IT, KIRBY
[00:25:01]
WILL BE RENTING, LEASING, EVERYTHING YOU SEE HERE FROM EATS.SO KIRBY WILL BE RUNNING THOSE PLACES? YEAH, THEY'LL BE MANAGING AND OPERATING IT, BUT YOU CAN HAVE A THIRD PARTY FOOD TRUCK COME IN FOR TWO WEEKS OR WHATEVER FROM A DIFFERENT RESTAURANT THAT MAKES AND SERVES THEIR OWN FOOD.
BUT IT'LL BE MANAGED BY KIRBY.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KERRY? YEAH.
UM, SO ARE THE, THE FOOD TRUCKS, UM, NECESSARY FOR THIS WHOLE THING TO WORK? I MEAN, IF IF YOU DIDN'T GET APPROVAL FOR THE FOOD TRUCK ZONING, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE PROJECT? I DON'T THINK KIRBY WOULD GO FORWARD IN THEIR LEASE.
'CAUSE THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS MODEL.
AND THESE KINDA, THESE PHOTOS THAT I SHOWED YOU, YOU CAN SEE THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DONE AT THEIR THREE EXISTING LOCATIONS.
UM, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT THE VIBE FRANKLY.
AND IT'S ABOUT THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY THAT THEY THINK IT FOSTERS AND THEY THINK IT'S COOL TO HAVE THE FOOD TRUCKS AND IT'S INTEGRAL TO THE, WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO, THE EXPERIENCE THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE FOR CUSTOMERS.
SO I DO THINK, NOT IF I'M INCORRECT THAT THEY, THEY NEED 'EM TO OPERATE.
MR. LAW IS THE YELLOW, IT SAYS PROPOSED CANOPY AREA.
SO THERE'S LIKE A LITTLE GYM, A DENTIST AND A SPORTING GOODS TENANT IN THERE.
THEY ARE RELOCATING TO OTHER VACANCIES IN THE CENTER.
AND THEN THAT FACADE WILL BE ALTERED TO CREATE KIND OF AN INDOOR OUTDOOR VIBE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT IS TODAY.
I MEAN, I DROVE THE SITE THIS MOR OR THIS AFTERNOON AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS LIKE ADVENTURE.
THEY'RE GONNA MOVE TO A DIFFERENT SPOT IN THE CENTER.
THERE'S ALSO A LITTLE DENTIST IN THERE AND, AND SO Y'ALL ARE GONNA TAKE THAT FRONT FACADE AND OPEN IT UP AND MAKE IT FEEL GOTCHA.
UM, THE PRIVATE CLUB, THE BLUE AREA, IN ORDER TO PATRONIZE THAT, I ASSUME YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE A, A MEMBER OF THE CLUB.
YOU HAVE TO JOIN AS A MEMBER, IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S REGULATED BY THE TABC.
AND THAT'S HOW THE, THEY REGULATE THE ABILITY TO SELL ALCOHOL.
SO MY QUESTION IS, SINCE THE GREEN AREA IS COOPERATED BY THE SAME PEOPLE THAT ARE OPERATING THE PRIVATE CLUB, DO YOU HAVE TO BE A, A MEMBER IN ORDER TO PATRONIZE THE FOOD TRUCKS OR IS THAT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC? I THINK ANYBODY COULD GO IN THERE AND ORDER I THINK WHEN YOU'LL BE MY EXPERIENCE.
IT'S PROBABLY THE SAME AS YOURS.
IF YOU TRY TO ORDER A BEER, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO JOIN THE PRIVATE CLUB, BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO IN THERE AND BUY A MEAL, THAT'S, I THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO BUY A MEAL.
NO, I I DON'T MEAN GO INTO THE BLUE AREA.
I MEAN IT CAN I, AS A NON-MEMBER OF THE PRIVATE CLUB BUY A SANDWICH FROM, FROM THE FOOD TRUCKER, FOR EXAMPLE? I THINK YOU CAN, YEAH.
I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE EXACTLY.
AND I'M NOT SURE THAT KIRBY KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THAT'S GONNA OPERATE, BUT THEY'RE NOT INTENDING TO KEEP PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOPPING IN THE CENTER FROM COMING OVER AND HAVING LUNCH.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE FOOD TRUCK IS NOT PART OF THE PRIVATE CLUB.
IT'LL HAVE ITS OWN CO AND ITS OWN PARKING REQUIREMENT, BUT YOU WILL FEEL LIKE YOU'RE IN THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT IF YOU'RE HONOR, HONOR.
I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUESTIONS.
AND WE HAD NO MORE SPEAKERS YOU SAID? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONFINED DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION.
UM, TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE IN A KIND OF A, A FUN VIBE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A, I MEAN, ACROSS THE STREET I THINK IS WHAT KATY I'S HOUSE.
IT IS SO LITTLE COMPETITION FOR THEM.
UM, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FOR THE PRIVATE CLUB IS THAT IF YOU ORDER ALCOHOL, YOU HAVE TO JOIN.
BUT IF YOU'RE JUST, IF YOU'RE NOT, AND I DON'T THINK THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR IT.
AND WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH ON THAT.
COMMISSIONER CAREY? YEAH, UM, I ECHO YOUR COMMENTS.
UM, THIS IS, I, I LIVE NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE, SO I KNOW THIS AREA REALLY WELL AND I'VE, I'VE, UH, BEEN OVER TO KATY ICEHOUSE OR THE OTHER KATY TRAIL NUMEROUS TIMES AND IT'S, IT'S A GREAT ESTABLISHMENT.
UM, I LIKE, I LIKE THIS PROJECT, UM, AND I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE AREA.
UM, AND I'VE TALKED TO, I WENT AND TALKED TO A NUMBER OF BUSINESS OWNERS, INCLUDING THE PEOPLE OVER AT KATY TRAIL, UM, TO SEE WHAT THEY THOUGHT, UM, AS THEY'RE ALREADY OPERATING THERE AND, YOU KNOW, AND, AND THEY WERE POSITIVE ABOUT THIS COMING INTO THE AREA.
UM, THE ONLY THING THAT CONCERNS ME, AND IT'S REALLY FOR US, NOT THEM, IS HOW WE'RE MANAGING THESE SEPARATE SUVS.
AND IT FEELS CONSTRUCTED TO ME.
AND I, I GUESS I DON'T LIKE IT.
UM, AND, AND I, I, IT SEEMS TO ME WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD WAY.
THIS TO ME IS ALL ONE BUSINESS AND IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE BIFURCATING IT HERE SOMEHOW.
AND SOMETHING ABOUT IT JUST DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME.
UM, AND, AND MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO THAT, THEN THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT STANDARDS ARE GONNA BE VIOLATED.
[00:30:01]
UM, AND, AND I THINK THAT'S OKAY.AND THEN MAYBE WE JUST, IN MY OPINION THEN JUST NEED TO GIVE THEM EXEMPTION FOR THAT.
BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS A BIT CONSTRUCTED AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY.
AND SO, BUT I'M, FOR THIS PROJECT, I JUST, I THINK THE OTHER THING IS MAYBE ON OUR SIDE.
UM, I'VE GOT FAMILY DOWN IN HOUSTON.
I HAVE TO ADMIT, I MAY HAVE BEEN TO A KIRBY ICE HOUSE MORE THAN ONCE.
UH, AND IT DOES HAVE A VERY UNIQUE VIBE.
SO, UH, WHEN I READ THIS CASE AND SAW IT WAS KIRBY ICE HOUSE, I HAVE TO ADMIT THAT IT WAS A PRETTY EASY SELL BECAUSE Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT THING GOING DOWN THERE.
AND IF Y'ALL BRING THAT TO PLANO, I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT.
UM, UH, I, I I DO, I I I GUESS I'M, I UNDERSTAND THAT Y'ALL AGREE TO THE 250 FOOT SETBACK.
I DON'T SEE WHY IT'S NECESSARY, BUT I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I DON'T, IT'S NOT WORTH LIVING OR DYING OVER.
UM, AND UM, I GUESS I GET WHY THEY'RE SEPARATE USES.
'CAUSE THERE'LL BE DIFFERENT COSS AND DIFFERENT TENANTS BASICALLY, BECAUSE THE FOOD TRUCKS WILL BE A DIFFERENT TENANT, QUOTE UNQUOTE, BUT NOT, NOT REALLY.
AND THAT'S, I'M, I'M KIND OF CONFUSED ABOUT THAT TOO.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT EITHER WAY.
UM, AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT.
SO IF THAT'S THE WAY THE STAFF THINKS, IT'S THE CLEANEST TO, TO PRESENT IT, UH, UH, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE MORE, BUT I DON'T SEE IT.
I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE IT'S DONE THAT WAY.
SO IT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY.
IT'S NOT ASSOCIATED USES IT'S ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY.
SO AN ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY WITH A FOOD TRUCK PARK WOULD BE LIKE THE SEATING AREA THAT'S WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ADJACENCY STANDARDS, BUT IT ALSO APPLIES TO ACCESSORY USES.
IN THIS CASE, A PRIVATE CLUB IS NOT ACCESSORY TO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK.
THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE PRIMARY USES THAT ARE HAPPENING TO BE OPERATED BY THE SAME BUSINESS AND THEY'LL FUNCTIONALLY WORK THE SAME.
BUT THEY ARE TWO STANDALONE USES COULD BE PERMITTED SEPARATELY, COED SEPARATELY FROM A ZONING PERSPECTIVE.
MR. BROSKY, SO I UNDERSTAND, I I GET THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE SEPARATE USES, BUT FROM WHAT IT SOUNDED LIKE TO ME, FROM THE PEOPLE OPERATING IT, UH, THERE'S NOT A WAY FOR THEM TO OPERATE THE BLUE WITHOUT THE GREEN.
IS THAT, I MEAN, THAT THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT I, I I GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT IF BOTH OF THEM DID NOT COME TOGETHER, THAT THEY WOULD NOT, THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE, I THINK THAT'S A DECISION MADE BY THE, UH, POTENTIAL TENANT VERSUS THE PROPERTY OWNER.
BUT THAT WAS A, THAT WAS A QUESTION I HAD ASKED THEM AND THAT WAS, SO I STRUGGLE WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE AS INTEGRAL, INTRICATELY CONNECTED, UM, AS DESCRIBED BY THE, UM, GENTLEMAN SPEAKING.
SO I'D SUGGEST WE, WE GET PAST SOME OF THE STRUCTURE AND OPERATION THERE.
STAFF IS RECOMMENDING SOMETHING THEY THINK IS THE CLEANEST WAY FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS.
AND FOR US FROM A LAND USE STANDPOINT, DO WE LIKE THE IDEA OF THIS BEING HERE? IF SOMEBODY, ANYBODY ELSE CAME AND SAID, WE'RE GONNA OPEN UP THE PRIVATE CLUB, OH, AND BY THE WAY, WE'RE GONNA POTENTIALLY OPEN UP THIS CANOPY AREA, WOULD WE THINK THAT'S A GOOD USE OF THIS LAND? NO, I, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT AND OKAY, I GET THE, UH, I GUESS IT WOULD'VE BEEN IF THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO NO, I'M, I GET IT.
IT, BUT IT JUST SEEMS TO ME THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE INTRICATELY CONNECTED AND THE WAY THAT IT'S, WELL, I DON'T KNOW.
OKAY, WE GOT LOTS OF COMMENTS HERE.
UM, MR. LAU, IS THERE ANY WAY AROUND THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS? LIKE A VARIANCE, BUT, BUT I'M, I'M, WHY ARE WE ASKING FOR THAT? WELL, I'M ASKING FOR IT BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS INCLUDES ASSOCIATED USES.
AND IF I'M HAVING A SANDWICH IN THE GREEN BOX AND I WANT A BEER, I GET IT FROM THE BLUE BOX.
AND SO I KNOW STAFF HAS SAID THESE THINGS AREN'T ASSOCIATED, THEY'RE DIFFERENT, BUT IN MY MIND THEY'RE VERY ASSOCIATED.
I'M FOR THE PROJECT, I JUST WANT TO GET THERE IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE.
AND SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT ASSOCIATED DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME.
THEY SEEM VERY ASSOCIATED TO ME.
AND SO I'M ASKING STAFF, CAN WE GET THERE WITH ANOTHER MECHANISM THAT ESSENTIALLY VARIES.
THE STANDARD INSTEAD OF WAVES ARE WAND AND ACTS LIKE WE MET THE STANDARD.
THERE IS NO INTENT TO BYPASS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS IN THIS INSTANCE.
THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE USES IN THE USE TABLE.
THEY ARE BOTH REQUIRE AN SUP, BUT ONLY ONE REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS.
I WOULD SAY THAT YOU ARE, YOU ARE MISTAKEN IN SAYING IT'S AN ASSOCIATED USE.
[00:35:01]
WITH THE FOOD TRUCK PARK.SO, AND AGAIN, CAN YOU HELP UNDERSTAND THE DIFFERENCE IN A USE AND AN ACTIVITY? YES, EXACTLY.
SO ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY, AGAIN, A FOOD TRUCK PARK WOULD BE THE SEATING THAT GOES WITH THE FOOD TRUCK PARK OR PEOPLE'S SUPPOSED TO SIT, NOT JUST THE TRUCK ITSELF.
THAT'S AN ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY.
IF I WANT A BEER IN THE GREEN BOX, IF I'M SITTING IN THE GREEN BOX AND I WANT A BEER, I GO TO THE BLUE BOX.
THIS IS AN SUP, YOU'RE WELCOME TO APPLY RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS IN THIS INSTANCE IF YOU WISH.
BUT THE WAY THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS CONSTRUCTED IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PRIVATE CLUB.
THE THE ASSOCIATION, WHY THE ASSOCIATION IN THIS CASE, IT'S A BUSINESS MODEL, NOT A ZONING MODEL.
THAT'S THE BEST WAY I'VE HEARD SAID BUSINESS MODEL.
I, I'M, I'M GONNA, I'M GONNA ASK US AGAIN 'CAUSE I SEE ALL, ALL THE QUESTIONS HERE.
LET'S NOT TEAR APART THE WAY THIS APPLICATION'S DONE AND LOOK INSTEAD AT IS THE USE APPROPRIATE? I THINK HE'S EXPLAINED IT TWICE.
THE, THE PRIVATE CLUB ITSELF ISN'T DEALING WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS.
THIS USE IS WHERE OUTSIDE THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO A 250 FOOT SETBACK, WHICH IS FURTHER THAN IS EVEN REQUIRED.
SO I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE TEARING SOMETHING APART HERE BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO TRY TO SAY, WELL, LET'S FIGURE OUT A DIFFERENT WAY TO DO IT, WE'RE TELLING THEM THEY GOTTA GO AWAY AND COME BACK AND DO A NEW APPLICATION.
THERE'S GOTTA BE A WHOLE NOTHER PROCESS DONE.
SO I WANT US TO AGAIN, FOCUS HERE IS THIS A GOOD USE FOR THIS PROPERTY? AND WHAT I'VE HEARD SO FAR IS YES, WE'RE JUST NOT SURE WE UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GOING ABOUT.
THAT'S WHY WE HAVE STAFF WHO UNDERSTANDS OUR ORDINANCE BETTER THAN ANY OF US WILL, AND THE BEST WAY TO GET TO A GOOD PROJECT.
SO AGAIN, IS THIS A GOOD USE OF THE LAND COMMISSIONER TONG? THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.
MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN.
UH, THAT'S THE, UH, SECOND PART OF THE APPLICATION.
SO THE CHANGE, CAN YOU ACTUALLY SPEC, UH, POINT OUT THE EXACT CHANGE OF THE SITE PLAN? I KNOW THERE'S A FOOD TRUCK AREA THAT'S MORE THAN THAT.
IT WAS BEFORE, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE IT IS STILL THE, THE ORIGINAL LINE AND INCLUDING THE PARKING.
I DON'T SEE THAT LITTLE, UM, FOOD TRUCK AREA THAT'S KIND OF BUMPED OUT LIKE THE YELLOW LINED AREA.
IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE NEW SITE PLAN? RIGHT.
SO THIS IS A, A CHANGE IN USE AS WELL AS ADDING THE FOOD TRUCK PARK LOCATION WHERE IT JUST PRIVATE CLUB.
IT WOULD BE, UM, WE'D COME TO THIS SUP PROCESS, BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE BUILDING ITSELF, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
SO WE'RE REALLY JUST UPDATING FOR THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, MAKE SURE ALL THAT'S COMPLIED WITH AS WELL AS THE FOOD TRUCK PARK LOCATION.
SO THE SHADED SITE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT LITTLE 1600 SQUARE FEET FOOD TRUCK AREA, DOES IT? IT DOES.
IT'S THE GREEN, IT'S ADJACENT TO THE PROPOSED CANOPY AREA.
YEAH, IT DOES SHOW IT IN THERE.
THERE'S A PROPOSED 1600 FOOT SQUARE FOOT FOOD TRUCK PARKING LOCATION.
UM, SO IF YOU'RE APPLYING TWO DIFFERENT SUVS OR TWO DIFFERENT AREAS, UM, IS THERE ANY NEEDS OR NECESSARY OR IS IT NECESSARY TO SEPARATE THEM BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUVS APPLIED TO THEM? YEAH, THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THEY BE SEPARATED.
SO WE'RE, WE'RE MAKING ONE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PRIVATE CLUB AND A SEPARATE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE FOOD TRUCK PARK.
THEY WILL GO DOWN AS TWO SEPARATE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS, NUM NUMBERS IF THEY'RE APPROVED.
WOULD THAT BE REFLECTED ON THE SIDE PLAN OR NO? UH, NOT ON THE SIDE PLAN.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER LEY ANOTHER QUESTION.
ONE MORE OF A COMMENT, UM, AND IF I GET THIS WRONG, PLEASE UH, JUMP IN.
WE'RE ESSENTIALLY LOOKING AT A PIECE OF DIRT, RIGHT? AND BY RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNATED RETAIL, UM, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE THIS AS A PRIVATE CLUB AND OR A FOOD TRUCK, WHICH IS WHY THEY APPLY FOR THE SUP.
SO THE LAND USE THAT THEY'RE APPLYING FOR TO ADD A RIGHT THAT IS NOT GIVEN TO THEM BY RIGHT.
FOR PRIVATE CLUB, WHICH THEY'VE BET ALL OF THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH, UH, THE COMPLIANT AND FOR THE FOOD TRUCK THEY'VE MET THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT STANDARDS, WHICH IS THE ONLY SUP THAT REQUIRES A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT
[00:40:01]
THAT APPLY TO IT.THE BUSINESS MODEL DOESN'T MATTER.
THEY'RE ASKING CAN WE USE THIS LAND WITH THIS RIGHT ATTACHED TO IT? IT SO HAPPENS THAT THIS ALSO, UM, ACHIEVES THE PRIORITIES THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS.
IN TERMS OF CREATING DESTINATION SHOPPING, ENTERTAINMENT CENTERS, AND A THOUGHTFUL USE OF MIX.
THIS IS TO ME AS STRAIGHT SHOT AND APPROVAL AS I HAVE SEEN IN A WHILE.
AND UM, I MOVE, WE APPROVE, I THINK IT'S ONE A AND B PENDING COMMISSIONER BRUNO.
UM, SO WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS THAT SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE, UM, SINCE WE CAN HAVE COMMENTS AFTER A MOTION.
SO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM ONE A.
DO I HAVE A SECOND ON ITEM ONE A? UM, THE MOTION SHOULD BE CONDITIONED, MR. CHAIRMAN? THAT'S CORRECT.
DO YOU WANNA MAKE THAT MOTION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS IN THE I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM ONE A SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED BY STAFF.
ALRIGHT, SO NOW I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
DO WE HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AROUND ITEM ONE A? OKAY, VERY GOOD.
SO WITH THAT, PLEASE VOTE ON ITEM ONE A, NOT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
CAN I GET A MOTION ON ITEM ONE B? MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, I MAKE A MOTION.
WE APPROVE ITEM ONE B WITH THE, UH, PROVISION THAT, UM, THE APPLICANT ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL OFF STREET PARKING AS SPECIFIED IN, UH, BY STAFF.
UH, DO WE ALSO NEED TO CONDITION THIS ON TO THE ZONING CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING CASE, WHICH I ALSO MOVE AS I INCLUDE? I'LL INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF YOUR MOTION.
SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO ON ITEM ONE B WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY TO APPROVE ITEM ONE B, SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE AND THE, UH, PRO THE PARKING AGREEMENT, SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT COMMISSIONER LAW.
OKAY, THANK YOU EVERYONE FOR THEIR PATIENCE.
[Items 2A., 2B & 2C.]
I WILL PRES, UH, READ AB, C TWO, A, B, AND C TOGETHER PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 24.REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR PUBLIC SERVICE YARD ON 5.2 ACRES LOCATED 325 FEET NORTH OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE AND 700 FEET WEST OF SHILOH ROAD.
UH, IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER.
PETITIONER IS DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN TWO B IS SHILOH LAYOVER FACILITY PUBLIC SERVICE YARD ON 5.2 ACRES LOCATED 325 FEET NORTH OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE AND 250 FEET WEST OF KLEIN ROAD.
AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS DALLAS AREA RAPID TRANSIT.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
ITEM TWO C IS A REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
HEMA TONICS EDITION BLOCK A LOT ONE R OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE ON ONE LOT ON 2.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE 1000 FEET WEST OF KLEIN ROAD.
APPLICANT IS BURLINGTON VENTURES, LLC, THE THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
I'M RAHA TI THE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING AND DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR ASUP, UM, FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE YARD.
WITH THE DART RIGHT OF WAY, THE REQUEST WOULD ALLOW DART TO CONSTRUCT A MAINTENANCE BUILDING, A WASH BUILDING, AND AN OPEN AIR FUELING CANOPY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY ZONING DISTRICT AND IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
THE BASE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS LIGHT COMMERCIAL AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH A VARIETY OF, UM, INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USES.
THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE ZONE RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR TRANSIT STATION AND ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND ARE DEVELOPED ACCORDINGLY.
THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ARE ZONED RT AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH DISTRIBUTION CENTER WAREHOUSE, PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AND LIGHT INTENSITY MANUFACTURING.
[00:45:01]
THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS ZONED RT AND IS PART OF THE DARK SILVER LINE RIGHT OF WAY.THERE ARE TWO COMPANION PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SUP REQUEST.
ITEM TWO B AS IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE YARD.
ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUP REQUEST IS DEDICATING NECESSARY PARKING AND EASEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE YARD.
THESE CHANGES ARE REFLECTING ON THE REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN INCLUDED IN ITEM TWO C.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER CATEGORY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE PRIMARY USES OF EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE CORPORATE OFFICE CAMPUSES, MEDICAL CENTERS, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY CENTERS AND RESEARCH FACILITY.
LIMITED MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE USES MAY BE ALLOWED TO SUPPORT THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE YARD CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE RECEIVE NO RESPONSES FOR THIS ZONING CASE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUP REQUEST, SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS LISTED ON THE SCREEN AND THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANION PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUB SUBJECT TO THE SUP APPROVAL.
THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION WITH A PRESENTATION AFTER THE COMMISSION'S.
QUESTIONS FROM STAFF ARE CONCLUDED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
I'M LOOKING AT THE BOARD AND I SEE MR. RATLIFF HAS A QUESTION, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
ONE OF YOUR CONDITIONS IS THAT THE SOUND WALL BE CONSTRUCTED NORTH OF PUBLIC SERVICE YARD THAT'S LIMITED TO WHERE IT'S SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN.
HOPE THAT ANSWERED HIS QUESTION AS WELL.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF TECHNICAL QUESTIONS? UH OH.
MR. ALI, THE CONDITION OF THE SOUND WALL WAS THAT, UH, CONDITION BROUGHT UP BY STAFF? WAS THAT GIVEN UP BY THE APPLICANT? UH, HOW DID THAT PROCESS GO? THE APPLICANT VOLUNTEERED TO VOLUNTEERED IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? VERY GOOD.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT.
YES, WE HAVE UH, CARL CROWLEY WHO WOULD LIKE TO, UH, PRESENT AND AMY MATTHEWS IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
CARL CROWLEY 2201 MAIN STREET, DALLAS, TEXAS REPRESENTING DART.
I'VE GOT A LOT OF SLIDES, BUT I'M NOT GONNA GO THROUGH ALL OF 'EM, I PROMISE.
WISH Y'ALL REALLY LIKE TO LOOK AT SLIDES.
IT'S A RAILROAD
OKAY, WE'LL GO QUESTIONS A LITTLE FURTHER.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR APPLICANT ON THE SIDE? WE'LL GO A LITTLE FURTHER.
UM, AS, UH, RAH MENTIONED THAT WE'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE END OF THE LINE.
THE STATION IS SORT OF NEXT DOOR TO US.
UM, AT ONE POINT THERE WAS CONSIDERATION OF MOVING THIS MAINTENANCE FACILITY WAY UP THE DCTA LINE WAY UP NORTH, AND IT'S LIKE THERE WAS AN AHA MOMENT AND GO, WAIT A MINUTE.
NOW GUYS, WE GOT A WIDE SPOT IN THE ROAD HERE.
UM, SEEMS TO BE A, A GOOD PLACE TO PUT IT.
AND ALSO OBVIOUSLY AT THE END OF THE LINE, YOUR TRAINS USUALLY END UP AT THE END OF THE LINE.
SO, UM, YOU, YOU'VE GOT TWO REQUESTS, BASIC OR THREE REQUESTS, BASICALLY SUP, THEN THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND THE REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
THAT BUILDING IS BEING LEASED BY DART AT THIS TIME.
THE, THE STAFF CAN BE THERE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
THE REASON FOR THE REVISION IS TO, UM, CODIFY OF SORTS WHERE THE FIRE LANES ARE AND THE ACCESS FOR FIRE EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
THEY'D HAVE AN ACCESS POINT TO GET TO THE RAIL LINE SINCE THERE'S NOW FACILITIES THERE.
UM,
UM, OBVIOUSLY, UM, THESE ARE THE REASONS WE'RE HERE.
A WIDE SPOT IN THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, THE VEHICLES THAT WILL ARE LEFT THERE AT NIGHT ARE, ARE NOT RUNNING.
THEY ARE RUNNING, BUT THEY'RE PLUGGED IN, LITERALLY PLUGGED IN ELECTRICITY, SO THEY'RE NOT RUNNING DIESEL.
IT'S NOT THE LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM.
UM, SO THAT WAY THEY'RE NOT PUTTING OUT FUMES AND THEY'RE NOT MAKING THAT DIESEL.
[00:50:01]
THEY'RE JUST LITERALLY PLUGGED IN LIKE YOU'RE PLUGGING IN YOUR, YOUR CAR.UM, THE, THE QUESTION ABOUT THE WALL CAME UP.
UM, AND I'LL, WHEN I GET TO ANOTHER SLIDE I'LL POINT OUT THERE IS ACTUALLY IN THAT ZONING ACROSS THE WAY A NURSING HOME, YOU CAN SEE THE CLASSIC SPOKE, UH, OF, OF A NURSING HOME, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL USE, WHICH IS, I ASSUME, AND THE, THE SOUND WALL WILL BE PLACED IN THAT AREA BASICALLY TO BUFFER THAT AREA OF THAT AREA OF THE, OF THE TRACK.
AND IT WAS ALWAYS IN THE PLAN.
IT'LL BE DONE WHEN THE RAIL IS IMPROVED, NOT, YOU KNOW, SO, UH, WE'LL MOVE ON.
YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THAT, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S A LONG, SKINNY PIECE OF THE TRACK.
UM, I'LL GO, THERE'S A BETTER SLIDE.
I'M GONNA TO THE NEXT ONE IF YOU DON'T MIND.
UM, THAT SHOWS ACTUALLY WHAT WE'RE BUILDING.
UM, IT'S A, UH, IT'S A TRAIN WASH.
UM, YEAH, YOU PULL YOUR TRAIN IN
YOU BETTER BE ON THAT TRACK, RIGHT? BECAUSE YOU'RE PULLING IT IN, THE DOORS ARE CLOSED, THEY WASH IT, THEY BRING IT ON DOWN THE LINE.
UM, PAST THAT IS THE LARGER BUILDING IS THE ACTUAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY BUILDING.
UM, THE DOORS ON EACH END, THEY'RE CLOSED, THEY DO THE MAINTENANCE WORK ON IT, AND THEY MOVE IT OUT.
AND THEN THE LAST STRUCTURE IS A FUELING CANOPY.
THE STORAGE TANKS ARE UNDERGROUND TO FUEL THE VEHICLES.
AGAIN, THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SORT OF SEE THIS LITTLE HATCHED AREA NEXT TO THE RAIL LINE.
THOSE HAVE BEEN WERE PARKING SPACES THAT WERE REMOVED.
UM, WE HAVE THE PARKING IN PLACE TO, TO COVER OUR, OUR NEEDS.
UM, BUT THOSE WERE REMOVED TO BASICALLY DESIGNATE AREAS SO THAT, UH, EMERGENCY COULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE BUILDINGS AND EVERYTHING.
AND THEN THE SORT OF THE SHADED AREAS, THE IMMORTALIZING OR CODIFYING THE ACTUAL FIRE LANES, UM, FOR THAT USE.
THERE'S YOUR, UH, THERE'S YOUR SPOKE, YOUR CLASSIC SPOKE OF NURSING HOME USE SHOWS, THE SOUND WALL, UM, THE, UM, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE WASH, UH, THE CANOPY, UM, AND THE MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS.
THESE ARE ACTUALLY THE OLD, THE ORIGINAL FACILITY THAT WE HAD PLANNED TO HAVE WAS AN OPEN FACILITY.
UH, AND THEN WORKING WITH STAFF AND WITH USE WAS, YOU CAN SEE NOW AND I'LL MOVE FORWARD.
I'LL GO THROUGH THESE TO GET TO THE, THAT WAS AGAIN, AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT WAS A CANOPY OPEN FACILITY.
AND NOW WE'RE INTO THE NEW FACILITY, WHICH HAS, UM, I LIKE THIS SLIDE BETTER THERE.
THAT SHOWS ACTUALLY THE TWO ACCESS POINTS FROM THE REVISED.
UM, YOU CAN SEE ONE ACCESS POINT, YOU CAN SEE THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING IN THE BACK.
THAT'S SOMEBODY BRINGING SOME FUEL TO THE, TO THE UNDERGROUND FUEL.
BUT THAT'S THE, UH, THE, WE'RE SITTING IN THE ACTUAL, UH, BUILDING THAT'S BEING REVISED.
AND THEN THERE'S A, A LITTLE SORT OF A CLOSEUP.
YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE THE TRACKS THERE, BUT THERE ARE TRACKS THERE, THERE'S A DOOR FOR THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY.
YOU CAN SEE, UH, THE, THE TRAINS WILL ALL BE FULLY ENCLOSED.
THAT'S JUST A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT.
AND THEN THE NEXT THING PASSED IT IS THE CANOPY FOR THE FUELING IS DONE UNDERNEATH THE CANOPY.
YOU CAN SEE THE TWO TRACKS COMING IN AND OUT.
THERE'S A, A DOOR IN THE MIDDLE FOR EQUIPMENT AND, AND PEOPLE TO COME IN AND OUT.
AND THEN THE TRAINS WILL COME OUT, THE TWO LARGER DOORS AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE DOORS ARE CLOSED.
UM, IF THERE'S ANYBODY WORKING INSIDE AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SAME SITUATION, YOU CAN SEE THEN THE STILL SEE THE NURSING HOME USE IN THE BACKGROUND AND THE, AND THE SOUND WALL.
AND AGAIN, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY, BUT LOTS OF PER, UH, RENDERINGS THAT, UH, BUILDING I GUESS ON THE RIGHT THERE IS ACTUALLY THE, I WAS GONNA CALL IT A CAR WASH.
THE TRAIN WASH FACILITY TRACK GOING IN THE TRAIN, PULLS IN THE CAR, DOES THEY WASH IT MOVING ON DOWN THE LINE.
SO, AND YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THERE IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS AS THE TRAIN WOULD GO FURTHER DOWN THE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
UM, THE, THE V THE TRAINS ARE, UM, WASHED HERE, CLEANED HERE OVERNIGHT.
UM, AS, AS
SO I DON'T THINK CARLTON CAN SAY THAT OR, OR RICHARDSON OR, OR IRVING.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK ANY OF THE, OR COP, ACTUALLY IT'S IN DALLAS.
THERE'S A COUPLE STATIONS IN DALLAS.
I'M JUST GONNA GO THROUGH THESE.
IF YOU WANT ME TO STOP, JUST LET ME KNOW.
THERE'S A LOT OF COMPUTER GRAPHICS AND STUFF.
UH, SO HERE'S, HERE'S WHERE WE ARE.
WE ASKED FOR APPROVAL OF THE SUP AND THE TWO SITE PLANS, THE REGULAR SITE PLAN AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN.
UM, IT'S, IT'S A MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND A FUELING FACILITY AND A WASHING FACILITY FOR THE SILVER LINE.
UM, IT'S, AS I MENTIONED, IT'S IDEAL LOCATION.
IT'S A, A WIDE SPOT IN THE ROAD.
[00:55:01]
THE TRUCK, THE, THE TRAINS.WERE GONNA STOP THERE AT THE END OF THE LINE ANYWAY.
IT SEEMS TO MAKE A LOGICAL PLACE.
HAVE A MAINTENANCE FACILITY THERE THAN SOME PLACE THAT'S NOT ON THE END OF THE LINE.
ALL THE, UH, ALL THE NOISE RELATED STUFF OR THE, OR THE WORK RELATED STUFF IS INDOORS.
UM, EITHER THE WASH OR THE MAINTENANCE, THE FUELING IS, IS OUTSIDE JUST BECAUSE IT'S, OBVIOUSLY IT NEEDS TO BE OUTSIDE.
UM, AND THEN AS, AS I JUST MENTIONED, EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE INSIDE.
SO, UM, I GUESS THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE.
WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ENGINEERS AND DART AND A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE THAT KNOW A LOT MORE AB ABOUT TRAINS THAN I DO.
ALTHOUGH I, I, I'VE WORKED FOR DART FOR AS A CONSULTANT FOR 25 YEARS, SO I KNOW A GOOD BIT.
I WAS GONNA SAY, ARE YOU SAYING THAT THEY PUT YOU UP THERE AS A PRETTY FACE? UH, NO.
THAT WOULD, IF THEY DID, THEY MADE A BIG MISTAKE, DIDN'T THEY?
I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER, OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS SCRIPT.
COMMISSIONER LEY, I THINK YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION IN YOUR LAST STATEMENTS, BUT THIS IS GONNA BE THE END OF THE LINE ANYWAY.
SO THE VEHICLE MOVEMENTS, UM, THAT WE ARE IMPLIED IN YOUR MOIST STUDY, WHAT'S GONNA HAPPEN ANYWAY.
IT'S NOT A CAUSALITY OF THIS PARTICULAR SUP.
AND ACTUALLY, AND ACTUALLY I WAS SORT OF MISLEADING.
THE, THE END OF THE LINE IS ACTUALLY JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE TRACKS WITH THE STATION.
IF YOU CAN SEE THERE ON THE RIGHT SIDE, IT'S A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE TRACKS, BUT FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES IT'S THE, THAT STATION IS THE END.
UM, JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, HOW MANY JOBS OR IS DART BRINGING INTO PLANO AS PART OF THIS? DO YOU KNOW? 65 A VOICE.
65 JOBS, AND I'M GONNA GUESS THESE ARE NOT SHORT TERM JOBS THAT PEOPLE MIGHT BE HERE A WHILE.
UH, RAILROAD WORKERS USUALLY STAY FOR A WHILE.
THAT'S, THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION.
THANK YOU FOR BRINGING 'EM TO PLANO.
COMMISSIONER THONG, UH, MY QUESTIONS IS RELATED TO THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING.
I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER BUILDINGS IN DALLAS.
HAVE YOU DONE A SIMILAR, LIKE A NOISE ANALYSIS ON THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING ITSELF TO, UH, BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THIS NURSING HOME IS VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING.
UM, IS THE NOISE INSIDE THE BUILDING, UM, CONTAINED INSIDE THE BUILDING? RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT, RIGHT.
IF, IF WE'RE DOING ANY, ANY HEAVY LIFTING IN THERE AND THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN BY HEAVY LIFTING, ALL THAT NOISE STAYS INSIDE THE BUILDING.
UM, THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS KNOW THAT I USED TO LIVE IN IRVING ONCE UPON A TIME, BUT YOU FOUND THE, WELL, I FOUND THE RIGHT PLACE TO GO TO.
WELL, WHILE I WA WHILE I WAS IN IRVING, I HAD THE HONOR TO BE PART OF THE SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN IN 1996 WHERE IRVING VOTED TO STAY IN DART THERE HAD, THANK YOU.
JERRY JONES HAD SPONSORED A CAMPAIGN TO GET IRVING TO VOTE OUT OF DART, AND WE KEPT IT IN.
I ALSO HAD SUBSEQUENTLY HAD THE PLEASURE OF SERVING AS THE IRVING'S REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY THAT RESULTED IN THE ROUTING OF THE GREEN LINE TO CARROLLTON AND THE ORANGE LINE THROUGH IRVING ON ITS WAY TO DFW AIRPORT.
AND I'M MORE THAN HONORED FOR THE THIRD TIME TO BE A PART OF A MAJOR EVENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF DART'S MISSION TO PROVIDE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION TO THIS AREA.
UH, MY QUESTION IS, UM, THERE IS REFERENCE IN THE MATERIALS TO ACCESS TO THE SITE FOR NOT ONLY EMERGENCY VEHICLES, BUT ALSO PARKING FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND STAFF.
I GUESS, DOES THAT RUN ALONG THE, UM, WHAT LOOKED TO ME LIKE AN ABANDONED, UH, SPUR RAILROAD TRACK THAT SORT OF CURVES INTO THE AREA? IT'S OVERGROWN WITH WEEDS RIGHT NOW BECAUSE IT HASN'T BEEN USED IN A WHILE, BUT THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE A NATURAL POINT OF INGRESS.
WELL, THE, THE, THE EGRESS, UH, I THINK I MAY HAVE GONE TOO FAR.
UM, THAT ONE MIGHT WORK OR THAT ONE ACTUALLY STOP.
UM, THE, THE EMPLOYEES WILL BE IN THIS BUILDING THAT IS PART OF THE REVISED SITE PLAN AND THE EGRESS POINTS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT THERE ACTUALLY WHERE IT CONNECTS, UM, TWO FROM THAT BUILDING TO THE RAIL LINE.
SO THAT'S, THAT'S THE EMPLOYEE CONNECTION IN THAT SITUATION.
AND, AND THEY PROBABLY HAVE SOME WORK INSIDE THE BUILDING TOO, BUT IF ANY WORK INSIDE THE, THE TRACK FACILITIES, THE MAINTENANCE
[01:00:01]
FACILITY AND THE WASH, THEY'RE JUST LITERALLY GONNA BE ABLE TO WALK FROM THAT BUILDING TO THE TRACKS.HOW DO THE, HOW WOULD EMERGENCY VEHICLES GET IN THE, THE SAME, THE SAME WAY.
AND YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN THERE, THERE'S ACTUALLY A, A TRUCK THAT'S PULLED THROUGH, BUT THOSE ARE THOSE TWO SORT OF PORTALS OUT THERE WHERE THE, THE FIRE LANE IS THE RED LINE YOU CAN SEE THERE.
BUT THEN IT'S, IT IS PAVED ALL THE WAY TO THE, TO THE PLATFORM AREA.
'CAUSE THE PLATFORM IS AT A STATION, BUT THE, UH, PAVED AREA AROUND THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY.
SO THAT'S HOW THOSE VEHICLES WOULD GET TO THERE.
THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME DOWN THE TRACKS OR ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE.
NOW THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THREE CONDITIONS.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE GOOD WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS.
TWO OF THEM YOU'VE ALREADY REFERRED TO.
ONE IS THE ENCLOSED, FULLY ENCLOSED, UH, BUILDING.
THE OTHER ONE YOU'VE, WAS THE, UH, THE, THE SOUND WALL ON THE NORTH SIDE? YES.
AND THE THIRD ONE WAS NECESSARY PARKING FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE YARD PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN REVIEW.
THAT'S, WE'RE, WE'RE REARRANGING THE PARKING IN THAT, UH, REVISED SITE PLAN PORTION OF THE REQUEST.
SO WE'LL HAVE THE PARKING THERE.
THE PARKING WILL NOT BE IN THE RAIL LINE ITSELF.
UM, I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SILVER LINE.
I THINK IT'S A, IT'S A BIG BOON FOR THE CITY OF PLANO AND I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT IN OPERATION.
THERE'VE BEEN SEVERAL REFERENCES TO THIS BEING THE END OF THE LINE.
IT'S REALLY JUST THE END OF THE LINE FOR DART, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, YES.
I'M SORRY, LIKE THE TRACKS KEEP GOING.
AND THIS IS A SHARED TRACK, IS THAT CORRECT? SO LIKE THE FREIGHT, THE FREIGHT'S GONNA CONTINUE TO RUN? YEAH.
JUST TO BE THEY'RE NOT GONNA, THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS PART THOUGH.
THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP GOING BY.
AND THEN LASTLY, IN THESE SLIDES, THERE'S THIS SIDEWALK WITH PEOPLE.
IS THERE ANY, MAYBE THAT'S A STAFF QUESTION.
THERE IS A TRAIL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LINE.
THIS REQUEST, ARE Y'ALL BUILDING THAT OR IS THAT JUST A FUTURE PLAN TRAIL? NO, THAT'S PART OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM.
YEAH, THAT'S, THAT'S BEING BUILT.
IT'S AN HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL'S ON THIS BIKE MASTER PLAN.
NOT MASTER PLAN, BUT TWO WORDS, MASTER PLAN,
THE TRAIN WASH INTERNAL EXTERNAL IN THE, THE BODY OF THE TRAIN AND IN THE, THEY WILL CLEAN THE OUTSIDE OF THE TRAIN AND THEY'LL BE CLEANING THE INSIDE VACUUMING, PICKING UP TRASH INSIDE THE TRAIN.
SO IT'LL REALLY BE THE CLEAN TRAINS.
CLEAN TRAINS WILL BE LEAVING PLANO OR, YEAH.
NO, WE MAY NOT ARRIVE CLEAN, BUT THEY'LL LEAVE CLEAN.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME HERE, DART.
THANK YOU'S A GOOD COMMUNITY PARTNER FOR PLANO.
WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE THIS EVENING.
NO OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, THERE ARE NOT.
ALRIGHT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO FIND CONFINED DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.
UM, I'M READY TO MAKE A MOTION.
DO I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM TWO A, UH, ON CONDITION THAT, UM, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS SUBJECT TO STAFF'S REC THREE RECOMMENDATIONS? YES.
WE'LL GO WITH A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRUNHOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM TWO A, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
WE APPROVE ITEM TWO B, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023 DASH OH 24 SECOND.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF FOR THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI TO APPROVE ITEM TWO B SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE.
PLEASE VOTE MR TO THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT ZERO ITEM TWO CI MOVE, WE APPROVE ITEM TWO C, UH, SUBJECT TO THE, UH, APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 24.
SECOND, UH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRO.
GIVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI TO APPROVE ITEM TWO C SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PARTNERSHIP.
[3. (JK) Public Hearing - Replat: Williams High School, Block 1, Lot 1R - Public school on one lot on 25.2 acres located at the southeast corner of 18th Street and P Avenue. Zoned Single-Family Residence-7. Project #R2023-043. Applicant: Plano Independent School District (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A RELA WILLIAMS HIGH SCHOOL BLOCK, ONE LOT ONE R PUBLIC SCHOOL ON ONE LOT ON 25.2 ACRES.LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 18TH STREET AND P AVENUE ZONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SEVEN.
APPLICANT IS PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS JOHN KIM PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
[01:05:01]
THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.DID I HAVE AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY TO APPROVE ITEM THREE AS SUBMITTED, PLEASE VOTE NOT.
[4. (PM) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Legacy Town Center No. 2, Block A, Lots 3R & 4R - Hotel on Lot 3R and professional/general administrative office on Lot 4R on 3.6 acres located at the northwest corner of the Dallas North Tollway and Headquarters Drive. Zoned Planned Development-65-Central Business-1 and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District. Project #PR2022-032. Applicant: Plano Cabosparkles HQ3, LLC and Supreme Bright Plano II, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PRELIMINARY REPL LEGACY TOWN CENTER NUMBER TWO, BLOCK A LOTS THREE R AND FOUR R HOTEL ON LOT THREE R AND PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON LOT FOUR R ON 3.6 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND HEADQUARTERS DRIVE ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 65 CENTRAL BUSINESS ONE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT APPLICANTS ARE PLANO, CABOS SPARKLES, HQ THREE LLC AND SUPREME BRIGHT PLANO TWO LLC.THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
PLEASE NOTE COMMISSIONERS THAT IN THE DESCRIPTION, UH, THERE IS AN ERROR THAT SHOULD READ THAT LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND HEADQUARTERS DRIVE.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS PLAN FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITION TO INTER ALTERATIONS AS REQUIRED TO ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS SIDE? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS SIDE? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CONFINED DISCUSSION COMMISSION.
MR. BERNOFF, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM FOUR, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BERNOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY TO APPROVE ITEM FOUR AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[5. (DS) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Plano Medical Plaza, Block 1, Lot 1R - Hospital and medical office on one lot on 41.0 acres located at the northeast corner of Coit Road and 15th Street. Zoned Planned Development-129-General Office. Project #PR2023- 017. Applicant: Columbia Medical Center of Plano Subsidiary, LP (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS A PRELIMINARY REPL PLANO MEDICAL PLAZA BLOCK ONE LOT ONE R HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE ON ONE LOT ON 41.0 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF QUAT ROAD AND 15TH STREET ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1 29 GENERAL OFFICE APPLICANT IS COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF PLANO SUBSIDIARY LLP.THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONFINED DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION.
UH, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLIE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATMAN TO APPROVE ITEM FIVE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO AGENDA ITEM
[6. (PM) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Southwest 121 & Ohio Addition, Block 1, Lot 6R - Restaurant with drive-through on one lot on 0.5 acre located on the west side of Ohio Drive, 270 feet north of McDermott Road. Zoned Regional Commercial. Project #PR2023-023. Applicant: Pizza Hut of America, Inc. (Administrative consideration)]
NUMBER SIX IS A PRELIMINARY REPL SOUTHWEST 1 21 IN OHIO EDITION BLOCK ONE LOT SIX R RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH ON ONE LOT ON 0.5 ACRE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OHIO.DRIVE 270 FEET NORTH OF MCDERMOTT ROAD.
ZONED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL APPLICANT IS PIZZA HUTT OF AMERICA INCORPORATED.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS PLAN FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONS, INTER ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CAUSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMBINED DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSION.
WE APPROVE THIS SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM SIX, UM, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
AND THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT ZERO THANK YOU
[01:10:01]
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC CON COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.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.
[7. (JR) Discussion and Direction: Discussion and direction regarding Article 21 (Residential Adjacency Standards) of the Zoning Ordinance and the Planning & Zoning Commission Work Program. Project #DI2023-018. Applicant: City of Plano (Administrative Consideration)]
SEVEN IS DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION.DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING ARTICLE 21, RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
UH, MY NAME IS JORDAN ERBE, SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPED SERVICES.
SO THE COMMISSION REQUESTED A DISCUSSION ITEM TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD FOCUSED ON THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AND WITHIN THE COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM.
UM, THIS WAS AT THE SEPTEMBER 5TH MEETING.
THE WORK PROGRAM SERVES AS A GUIDE FOR FUTURE PROJECTS AND IS MODIFIED BASED ON THE DIRECTION RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSION.
PRIORITIES MAY ALSO CHANGE BASED ON DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL OR AS REQUIRED BY LEGISLATIVE CHANGES OR MARKET DEMANDS.
THERE ARE SEVERAL, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE PROJECTS ON THE WORK PLAN, WHICH HAVE EITHER BEEN RECENTLY COMPLETED OR ARE IN PROGRESS, INCLUDING A COMPLETE REWRITE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES.
REVIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS HAS BEEN ON THE WORK PROGRAM SINCE AT LEAST 2014 AND WORK WAS STARTED IN 2019, BUT IT WAS PAUSED DUE TO THE PANDEMIC AND PRIORITIZATION OF OTHER PROJECTS ON THE WORK PROGRAM.
REVIEW WAS UNFOLDED INTO THE SCOPE OF THE LARGER REWRITE, UH, CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE ACTION FIVE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UNDERTAKE A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF ADJACENCY STANDARDS FOUND THROUGHOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS WERE ADDED TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN 1999.
THE PURPOSE WAS AND CONTINUES TO BE, TO PRESERVE AND PROTECT THE INTEGRITY, ENJOYMENT, AND PROPERTY VALUES OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
THESE STANDARDS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TODAY AS THEY WERE WHEN WRITTEN IN 1999 WITH ONLY A HANDFUL OF MINOR AMENDMENTS, WHICH, UH, WERE OUTLINED IN THE PACKET YOU RECEIVED.
THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE CODIFIED IN ARTICLE 21 AND SECTION 14.2 HUNDRED OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND CAN GENERALLY BE THOUGHT OF IN THREE BASIC PARTS.
THESE ARE THE LAND USE TABLES, THE REVIEW PROCESS AND THE APPLIED STANDARDS.
UH, THE LAND USE TABLES ARE PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY.
THERE ARE 27 LAND USES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ARE MARKED WITH AN R IN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT LAND USE TABLE.
THIS R MEANS THAT THE USE IS PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOUND IN ARTICLE 21.
UH, IN THE EXAMPLE ON SCREEN, THE FOOD TRUCK PARK LAND USE REQUIRES BOTH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND RIS REVIEW IN THE MARKET DISTRICTS.
UH, ARTICLE 21 INCLUDES, UH, THE CRITERIA FOR TRIGGERING THIS RIS REVIEW.
UH, FIRST THE LAND USE MUST BE MARKED WITH AN R IN THE PROCEEDING TABLES AND IT MUST ALSO BE ON A PROPERTY WITHIN 150 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR 1000 FEET IF A PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM IS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PROPOSAL.
THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS IF THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED BY A TYPE D OR LARGER THOROUGHFARE OR IF THE, UM, ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
IF THE PROPOSAL MEETS THESE CRITERIA, THEN THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT STANDARDS ARE APPLIED DURING STAFF REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN.
I, I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT CAN YOU GO BACK ONE, UH, YES.
YOU SAID CERTAIN USES ON PROPERTIES WITHIN 150 FEET OR 1000 FEET AND THEN I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND WHAT, OH, SORRY.
IF THERE IS A PUBLIC ADDRESS, A PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM.
SO A PA SYSTEM, A PUBLIC ADDRESS SYSTEM, YEAH.
YEAH, SO IT'S, UM, AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN, UH, A PREVIOUS CASE, THE RAS ARE FOCUSED ON NOISE.
SO IT WOULD BE, UM, OUTDOOR SPEAKERS.
UH, THE LAST PIECE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE THE ACTUAL APPLIED STANDARDS.
UM, THESE STANDARDS APPLY TO SPECIFIC LAND USES AND STRUCTURES THAT MAY POSE A NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
UH, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT NOT EVERY LAND USE MARKED WITH AN R ON THE LAND USE TABLE HAS AN EXPLICIT ACCOMPANYING STANDARD.
UM, AS AN ASIDE, THERE ARE MANY OTHER LAND USES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH HAVE SIMILAR ADJACENCY STANDARDS, WHICH ARE NOT FOUND IN ARTICLE 21, UH, PREDOMINANTLY THESE ARE IN ARTICLE 15.
THE USE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS, THE KEY DIFFERENCES IN THE NAME, UH, USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY, APPLY ONLY TO THE NAMED LAND USE, WHEREAS THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS APPLY TO ANY USE MARKED WITH AN
[01:15:01]
R.UH, THERE'S SEVERAL KNOWN ISSUES, UH, WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE FUTURE REVIEW.
UH, FOREMOST IS THAT THE RESIDENTIAL LOGISTIC STANDARDS ONLY APPLY TO LAND USE AS MARKED WITH AN R IN, UH, THOSE LAND USE TABLES AND THAT MEASUREMENT IS BASED ON DISTANCE FROM A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
THIS IS DIFFICULT TO ADMINISTER AS THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAS CHANGED SINCE 1999.
AND DEVELOPMENT NO LONGER REFLECTS THE BINARY RESIDENTIAL NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STRUCTURE.
INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARDS CAN ALSO BE DIFFICULT WHEN A USE IS MARKED WITH AN R BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CLEARLY APPLIED STANDARD, UH, IN ARTICLE 21.
AND FINALLY, UNDEFINED OR IMPRECISE LANGUAGE BECOMES A POINT OF ARGUMENT IN HOW THESE STANDARDS SHOULD BE APPLIED.
UH, TO SUMMARIZE, THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM CERTAIN, UM, OFFENSIVE OR NUISANCE LAND USES.
THERE ARE KNOWN ISSUES WITH THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THESE STANDARDS, BUT THESE ISSUES ARE NEITHER CRITICAL NOR EASILY ISOLATED FROM, UH, THE ZONING ORDINANCE REVIEW AND UPDATES TO THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
STANDARDS ARE PLANNED AS PART OF THE LARGER, UM, REWRITE AND STAFF SEE VALUE IN THIS HOLISTIC APPROACH WITHIN THE REWRITE PROJECT AND DO NOT SEE, NEED TO SEPARATE THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS BACK OUT AS A STANDALONE PROJECT.
UH, STAFF IS SEEKING THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION ON THESE TWO QUESTIONS, WHICH ARE ALSO FOUND IN YOUR PACKET AND RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AND THEIR PRIORITY WITHIN THE COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, UH, I'M GONNA ASK ONE FIRST AND I, I LOOKED ON HERE AND MAYBE I'M MISSING IT.
I WAS LOOKING FOR OUR WORK PROGRAM IN TERMS OF THAT PRIORITIZATION, UH, LIST.
UH, FOR EXAMPLE, UH, DO WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT LISTS, ALL RIGHT, WHAT ARE WE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW? WHAT ARE WE TARGETED TO WORK ON NEXT MONTH AND THE MONTH AFTER THAT? AND I, AGAIN, IF IT'S IN HERE, I I MISSED IT.
MAYBE THAT'S WHERE I NEEDED TO BE.
SO, AND THIS IS JUST ME, I GUESS FROM A STANDPOINT OF, UM, UNDERSTANDING A LITTLE BIT, SO I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW EXHIBIT A, UH, COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN IN PROGRESS PRIORITIES HIGH, AND THEN WE GOT SHORT TERM RENTALS IS HIGH SIGN ORDINANCE, SILVER LINE ZONING, AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
THOSE ARE MEDIUM, BUT THEY'RE CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS.
UH, SHORT TERM RENTALS, SIGNS AND SILVER LINE ARE ALL MARKED AS HIGH PRIORITY.
AND THEY'RE ALSO PART OF THE IN PROGRESS SECTION, RIGHT? CORRECT.
AS ARE, UM, NUMBER FIVE AND SIX ON YOUR LIST, THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REWRITE AND PRIORITY POLICY DOCUMENTS.
AND THEN PENDING ON HOLD, WE'VE GOT UPDATE OF COMMISSION, INTENT, ORDINANCE, AND THEN FUTURE ITEMS WE'VE GOT HIGH AND THEN MEDIUM AND LOW.
AND THEN WE HAVE ACTIVE CASES THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON.
UM, I GUESS THE, THE THING THAT I'M LOOKING AT ON HERE IS THAT IT TELLS US IT'S A HIGH PRIORITY ITEM.
CAN I SEE SOMEWHERE, ANYWHERE ON HERE THAT SAYS, HERE'S OUR TARGET FOR ADDRESSING THIS, HERE'S OUR TARGET DATE FOR BRINGING THIS TO THE COMMISSION, OR OUR TARGET DATE FOR ASKING FOR INPUT? OR IS THAT NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA SEE ON HERE? IT'S JUST SOMETHING YOU GUYS HAVE INTERNAL SOMEWHERE.
THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF MANAGES AS, AS, AS SITUATION CHANGES.
SO, WELL, THIS IS THE COMMISSION'S PRIORITIES AND WE BRING THEM FORWARD AS SOON AS WE CAN, UH, BALANCE WITH OTHER PRIORITIES.
AND, AND OTHER ACTIONS OUTSIDE OF LIKE, THIS IS THE COMMISSION'S WORK PLAN AND THERE THERE ARE OTHER PRIORITIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT BEYOND THESE THAT ARE ALSO BEING WORKED ON.
AND THESE WERE DEVELOPED FROM THE, THE, UH, SUBCOMMITTEES THAT WE PULLED OUT AND WE IDENTIFIED IN THOSE WHICH ONES WERE HIGH PRIORITY, WHICH ONE WERE MEDIUM.
SO THIS WORK PLAN HAS BEEN, I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS CREATED, BUT IT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR A WHILE.
UM, THE SUBCOMMITTEE WORK WAS SPECIFIC TO THOSE OBSOLETE PLANS RIGHT.
TO REMOVE THOSE, WHICH IS LISTED ON HERE AS, AS A, AS A LINE ITEM.
BUT THE WORK PLAN AS, AS A WHOLE STAFF BRINGS BACK PERIODICALLY FOR THE COMMISSION TO COMMENT, DO YOU WANNA CHANGE PRIORITY? IS THERE THINGS TO ADD OR REMOVE? AND, BUT SOME OF THESE ITEMS CAME ABOUT, OR SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE ON OUR SUBCOMMITTEE LISTS KIND OF GOT ROLLED INTO SOME OF THESE ITEMS. CORRECT.
[01:20:01]
RIGHT.'CAUSE WE WERE SUNSETTING AT SOMETHING, BUT WE FELT LIKE THERE WERE TWO OR THREE PIECES OF IT THAT STILL NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR UPDATED.
SO AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE PRIVATE STREET SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES WAS ONES THAT WAS REVIEWED.
IT WAS TACKED ONTO THE, UH, THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE.
AND THAT WORK WORK PR OR WORK ITEM WORK, WE'VE DONE OUR JOB THERE AND IT'S MOVED ON WORK PROGRAM ITEM.
IT'S NOW CHECKED IN UNDER THE COMPLETED ITEMS. OKAY.
SO ULTIMATELY THE STAFF HAS LOOKED AT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AND SAID, YES, IT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE REWORKING AS PART OF GETTING ALL OF OUR ORDINANCE KIND OF ALIGNED WITH THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT THERE'S NOTHING CURRENTLY DRIVING A NEED TO PULL THAT OUT AS A SEPARATE HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT.
IN STAFF'S OPINION, MS. SEBASTIAN CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE IT USED TO BE A SEPARATE ITEM.
IT'S SINCE BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE.
SEVERAL LINE ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO THAT ONE LINE ITEM.
I JUST, YOU WERE LEANING FORWARD, SO I WAS WAITING ON YOUR DISPUTE.
UM, MANY OF THEM USED TO BE THEIR OWN LINE ITEMS, BUT AS WE GOT CLOSER TO GETTING THE REWRITE GOING, UH, WE REALIZED WE JUST NEEDED, WE WOULD APPROACH THEM MORE HOLISTICALLY AND ADDRESS THEM ALL TOGETHER AS PART OF THE REWRITE.
SO WE HAVE THE QUESTIONS IN FRONT OF US, UH, FIRST OFF, AND I'M GONNA GO TO MR. RATLIFF, UH, AND WE'LL JUST WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THE DEALS.
UM, JUST IN LOOKING AT READING THE MEMO, IT, IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT YOU'RE GONNA BE LOOKING AT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AS PART OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REWRITE, OBVIOUSLY, RIGHT? THAT'S CORRECT.
IS IT FAIR TO ASSUME THAT OR TO, IF WE, IF WE ACCELERATED JUST THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, YOU WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE DOING THAT WORK TWICE BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO COORDINATE IT WITH TODAY'S ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE FOLLOWED BY COORDINATING IT AGAIN WITH THE NEW ONE.
IS THAT, THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION THAT WE WOULD NEED TO FIRST FIT IT INTO OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE TODAY.
AND THEN ONCE WE START ON THE REWRITE, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT NOT ONLY EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AT THAT, AT THAT TIME, BUT THEN HOW THAT INTERACTS WITH, YOU KNOW, WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THE NEW ONE.
SO AS MENTIONED, THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS IN ARTICLE 21, THOSE AREN'T THE ONLY ADJACENCY STANDARDS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR ORDINANCE.
STAFF FEEL THAT IT IS BEST LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS HOLISTICALLY, SEEING HOW THEY WORK WITH EACH OTHER, AND THAT'S STARTING TO GET A VERY LARGE SCOPE, UM, AS OPPOSED TO JUST ZEROING IN ON ARTICLE 21.
SO THE QUESTION IN MY MIND THEN IS NOT, DO WE ASK YOU TO BREAK OUT THIS PART OF THE PROJECT AND DO IT FASTER? IT'S A QUESTION OF DO WE ASK YOU TO DO IT TWICE? IS THAT, IS THAT, AM I OVER, MAYBE I OVER OVERSIMPLIFYING IT? I THINK WE WOULD, UNTIL WE ENGAGE WITH THE FUTURE CONSULTANT AND WORK THROUGH HOW DRASTIC OF A CHANGE OUR REWRITE IS GOING TO BE, WE WON'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF HOW MUCH IS GONNA CHANGE IN THE REWRITE.
UM, SO IT'S DIFFICULT TO ANSWER IF WE'LL BE DOING THE EXACT SAME WORK TWICE, BUT, UM, IT IS A POTENTIAL, UM, DANGER THAT WE WOULD BE DUPLICATING WORK.
THAT, THAT'S THE WAY I WAS READING IT.
SO THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING THAT FOR ME.
SO I'VE GOT A, I'VE GOT A TECHNICAL QUESTION ON PAGES FOUR AND FIVE OF, UH, THE DOCUMENT WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT, UH, OTHER RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS.
IT GIVES YOU THAT LITTLE, UH, BOX THAT GOES ON TWO PAGES AND UH, UM, THIS MAY BE ME NITPICKING, BUT I'M CURIOUS.
SO FOR HELIPORTS, WE USE THE WORD SCHOOL, BUT THEN WE GO DOWN TO PRIVATE CLUBS.
UH, THE FIRST ONE WE GIVE A 300 FOOT SETBACK FOR PRIVATE, I'M SORRY, FOR PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, BUT NOT PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
SO THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE GOING DOWN THIS REWRITE PATH IS WE'RE DEALING WITH AN ORDINANCE THAT DATES BACK TO THE EIGHTIES AND IT HAS BEEN PATCHED UP MANY TIMES.
SO LEAGUE, WHICH IS NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT FROM USE TO USE, IT SEEMED VERY CONFUSING TO HAVE THE 300 FOOT SETBACK FOR PUBLIC AND PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS AND THEN A THOUSAND FOOT SETBACK FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS.
THAT KIND OF STRUCK ME AS ODD.
AND SO, YEAH, I MEAN, UH, AND THEN GOING DOWN TO THE TATTOO PARLOR, I ACTUALLY THOUGHT WE HAD CLEANED THAT UP SO THAT IT DID INCLUDE, BUT NONETHELESS, THAT'S MY ONLY THING IS I'D LIKE US TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ENCOMPASSING WHEN IT COMES TO, UH, EACH
[01:25:01]
OF THESE SCHOOLS AND TREATING EVERYBODY EQUALLY AND FAIRLY.UH, AND THE VERBIAGE FOR THE HELIPORT MAKES MORE SENSE THAN SOME OF THE MORE COMPLICATED VERBIAGE THAT WE INCLUDE IN OTHER PLACES.
IT FEELS LIKE I'M JUST CONDITIONED TO THINKING THE RED LIGHT MEANS NO AND I, OKAY.
UH,
ACTUALLY TWO, BECAUSE TONIGHT THERE WAS ONE, SO BEFORE TONIGHT THERE WAS ONLY ONE THAT I REMEMBER.
AND THAT WAS THE TATTOO PARLOR IN RUSSO VILLAGE.
AND IN THAT CASE, THE COMMISSION HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SHORTEN THE REQUIRED SEPARATION DISTANCE IF WE THOUGHT A SHORTER DISTANCE WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL, THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
SO IT STRIKES ME THAT AS LONG AS WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION, IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT IT, THAT THERE WOULD BE NOTHING IN THE WAY OF URGENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO WANT TO ADDRESS A REWRITE OF RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS IMMEDIATELY AS A SEPARATE ITEM.
BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS CONTROL THE IMPACT OF WHAT WE DO ON THE, ON THE, UH, ADJACENT RESIDENCES BY UTILIZING THE AUTHORITY.
WE HAVE TO VARY THE DISTANCE IF WE HAVE TO.
NOW, UH, DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT? ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SORT OF URGENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY? OR WOULD IS THE STAFF OF THE OPINION THAT IT WOULD, UH, THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO HANDLE IT IS, IS AS PART OF THE LARGER REWRITE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE? FOR SURE.
SO I GUESS THERE'S, UH, I'LL HAVE TWO PIECES OF AN ANSWER.
UM, THE FIRST REGARDING TATTOO STUDIOS, SO THOSE AREN'T PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, THAT'S THE USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
UM, THEY DON'T FALL UNDER THE RIS, UM, UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS.
UM, THERE'S A COUPLE USES THAT ARE CALLED OUT AND IT'S, IT SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN X FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
THERE'S NO WIGGLE ROOM ON THOSE.
IT'S AN ABSOLUTE, THERE'S OTHERS WHERE IT'S, THIS IS PERMITTED WITH SUFFICIENT SCREENING AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION.
SO THOSE ONES YOU DO STILL CONTINUE TO HAVE, UH, SOME, UH, DISCRETION ON, IN TERMS OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE QUESTION OF DO STAFF FEEL THAT, UM, IT'S AN URGENT ISSUE? UM, I WOULD SAY NO, THIS IS NOT ONE OF OUR DAILY PAIN POINTS.
WE DON'T HAVE TO ARGUE THESE EVERY DAY.
IT'S NOT CAUSING, UM, HOLDUPS IN ANY OF OUR APPLICATION REVIEWS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE, UH, PULLED OUT FROM THE REWRITE.
DO YOU THINK THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTED IN THE INTERIM UNDER THE CURRENT STATE OF THE ORDINANCE? IT'S WHILE YOU WORK ON THE LARGER REWRITE.
SO IN THE INTERIM, UM, THE RAS PROTECT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHERE IT BECOMES DIFFICULT IS THE INTERPRETATION OF HOW THAT APPLIES TO OUR MIXED USE DISTRICTS.
SO CB ONE UU AND WHETHER OR NOT, UM, THOSE RESIDENCES ARE, UH, EQUALLY PROTECTED.
I'M NOT SURE YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION.
UM, ARE WE, UH, ARE YOU CONTENT TO GO WITH THE PRESENCE OF THE PRESENT STRUCTURE WHILE YOU WORK ON THE LARGER REWRITE RATHER THAN HAVE TO PULL OUT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS FOR AN IMMEDIATE, FOR AN IMMEDIATE
AND THE, THE WAY THAT THEY'VE BEEN INTERPRETED SINCE NINE NINE, UM, THESE, THE INTENT IS TO PROTECT RESIDENCES.
AND WE, WE FEEL THAT THAT IS, THAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE.
BASED ON THAT, I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE HANDLED AS PART OF THE LARGER, THE REWRITE PROGRAM AND NOT HANDLE IT SEPARATE.
UM, 2014 TO 2019 WAS THIS HIGH PRIORITY, LOW PRIORITY, MEDIUM PRIORITY JUST STRIKES ME AS ALL THAT THIS IS ON A WORK PROGRAM FOR FIVE YEARS AND IT'S WHAT MOVEMENT HAPPENED IN THAT TIME?
[01:30:01]
MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO THE, TO THE REWRITE HAPPENING.I THINK IT'S ON THE VERY NEAR HORIZON.
PERHAPS AS SOON AS NEXT QUARTER THAT WE INITIATE THIS PROCESS, WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO GET IT STARTED.
JUST CURIOUS, COMMISSIONER LAW, UH, MAYBE I'M REMEMBERING THIS INCORRECTLY, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS MY COMMENTS AT THE SEPTEMBER 5TH MEETING THAT SPARKED THIS, AND I JUST WANT TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW, MY COMMENTS WERE RELATED VERY SPECIFICALLY TO THE SITE PLAN AT THE HOME DEPOT.
IT GOT RECORDED AS BRINGING THIS BACK AS PART OF THE WORK PROGRAM, WHICH WAS NOT MY INTENT.
MY INTENT WAS TO LOOK AT HOW THIS WAS APPLIED AT A VERY SPECIFIC LOCATION.
AND SO I TOO THINK THAT THE QUESTION TO ANSWER NUMBER ONE IS WE DON'T NEED TO SEPARATE IT OUT.
THAT WAS ERIC'S RECOMMENDATION TO US, NOT WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY REQUESTING.
NOW WE'VE BEEN EDUCATED ON HOW MY CONCERNS CAN OR CANNOT GO FORWARD, AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE.
BUT I DON'T HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS.
I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THEY WERE APPLIED IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION, AND THAT'S NOW A SEPARATE ISSUE.
I THINK THAT MY QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO WHAT MR. LYO JUST SAID IS THAT I, MAYBE THIS SHOULD HELP TO HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORKS BECAUSE I REALIZE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, EFFICIENCY STANDARDS ARE, UH, BEING APPLIED TO CERTAIN TYPES OF PROPERTIES AND CERTAIN TYPES OF ZONING, UH, CATEGORIES.
AND THOSE ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED BY THE, THE, THE LETTER R.
BUT HOW ARE THESE IDENTIFIED? HOW WERE THEY IDENTIFIED AND WHEN WERE THEY, WHEN WERE THEY IDENTIFIED? UH, ARE WE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW THOSE BEFORE WE REVIEW THE STANDARDS THEMSELVES? SO, UM, EVERYTHING THAT'S CURRENTLY MARKED WITH AN R WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE, UM, THE FOOD TRUCK YARDS, FOOD TRUCK COURTS, UM, ALL OF THOSE WERE MARKED WITH AN R, UM, BACK IN 1999.
UM, AND THEY CONTINUED TO BE MARKED WITH AN R TODAY.
THE ONLY TWO CHANGES WERE, UM, UH, DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS WERE ADDED IN 2001.
AND THEN THE, THE FOOD TRUCKS WERE ADDED, UM, IN WHENEVER THAT WAS 2013.
UM, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, ALL OF THE, UM, OTHER 25 LAND USES WERE MARKED WITH AN R IN 1999.
THANK YOU FOR IDENTIFYING THE, THE TIME.
UH, DO WE EVEN KNOW HOW WERE THEY IDENTIFIED? DID, DID, ARE WE JUST IDENTIFYING THEM ONE AT A TIME WHEN THEY HAPPENS? WHEN THEY HAPPENS, OR HOW, HOW WERE THEY IDENTIFY? HOW WOULD I KNOW THAT THIS IS SPECIFIC USE THAT I HAVE TO APPLY RHS ON IT? SO I, I THINK YOU'RE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION.
IT'S JUST, IT WOULD BE A QUESTION THAT WOULD BE ASKED WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS.
AND TONIGHT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE DO WE WANT THAT TO BE A HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT OR NOT? BUT AS PART OF THAT REWRITE, WE'LL HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO ONE, GET A LITTLE HISTORY ON HOW WERE THEY DEVELOPED, WHEN WERE THEY DEVELOPED, HOW WERE THEY APPLIED, AND NOW HOW DO WE INCORPORATE THESE USE SPECIFIC SETBACKS, UH, OR STANDARDS WITH A GENERAL OVERALL, UH, RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD IN THE ORDINANCE.
SO I THINK THE QUESTION TONIGHT IS, IS IT A HIGH PRIORITY PROJECT OR JUST PART OF OUR STANDARD WORK PROGRAM? THAT'S ALL WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DETERMINE TONIGHT.
UH, YEAH, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT'S PROBABLY SHOULD BE A, THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTION.
'CAUSE I THINK IT'S A PART OF THE, THE WHOLE REWRITE, IT CANNOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE OTHER PARTS OF THE, UH, STANDARDS OR THE ORDINANCE.
YEAH, I MEAN, UH, AS I LOOK THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS YOU GUYS PUT FORTH, I MEAN, THERE'S CLEARLY SOME NEED FOR, FOR SOME WORK HERE.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT MEASURES THAT NEED CONSISTENCY AND DEVELOPERS ARE INTERPRETING THEM DIFFERENTLY.
UM, WITH THAT SAID, I THINK, UH, THIS PROJECT WA IS ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED IN IN THE ZONING REWRITE, CORRECT? MM-HMM.
SO THERE IS MOTION THAT WAY, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, UM, THAT IS SOMEWHAT CONTINGENT ON US HIRING A SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK THIS THROUGH WITH US.
SO OUR, I GUESS CURRENTLY, UM, WE ARE STILL IN THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR OUR CONSULTANT.
AND AS, UH, MR. BELL MENTIONED, WE COULD BE LOOKING AT A KICKOFF SOMETIME IN FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT YEAR.
UM, BUT YES, WE'RE CURRENTLY STILL, UH, SELECTING.
AND, AND SO SINCE THE, THE, THE TASK HERE IS TO GIVE YOU GUYS DIRECTION, I'LL GIVE YOU MINE.
UM, I, I, I THINK THAT THAT, YOU KNOW, AS THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID, UH, THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE SUPER
[01:35:01]
URGENT.IT, I THINK THE IMPORTANT THING IS TO, AS, AS COMMISSIONER TONG SAID, IS TO GET THIS RIGHT.
AND SO IT PROBABLY ALL SHOULD BE DOVETAILED IN THERE.
I GUESS THE ONE THING THAT CAUSED ME JUST A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE IS THE, THE COMMENT IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT SAID, IF IN FACT WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THIS MORE URGENTLY, IT WOULD CAUSE US POTENTIALLY TO DELAY AND OTHER PROJECTS MAY SUFFER, I THINK WERE THE WORDS THAT WERE USED.
AND I, AND SO I JUST WONDER, UM, GOSH, DO WE NEED TO, AND MAYBE THIS IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION AND MORE FOR CITY COUNCIL, BUT DOES THIS TEAM NEED SOME HELP OUT THERE? AND, AND I THINK THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS C DO WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GIVE THE TEAM MORE HELP? BECAUSE IF WE DO THIS, OTHER THINGS WILL SUFFER.
AND FOR, YOU KNOW, A CITY THAT'S GOT AS MANY THINGS GOING ON AS WE DO, I FEEL LIKE MAYBE YOU GUYS ARE UNDER THE GUN.
AND I THINK RECENTLY I HEARD A COMMENT THAT MAYBE THE TEAM IS SHORT STAFFED.
AND SO I GUESS MY PLEA IS REALLY, YES, I THINK YOU GUYS, THIS IS RIGHT.
DO THIS THE WAY YOU'RE DOING IT, BUT, UM, HOW, HOW DO WE TAKE A LOOK AT HOW WE MAYBE GET THIS TEAM SOME MORE, UM, HELP.
SO WITH THAT, I'M DONE JUST FOR STAFF'S NOTICE, UH, MR. KERRY LOVES CHEWY'S, SO GIFT CARDS TO THE CHEWY'S AND IT'S ACCEPTABLE.
THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN BY ACCIDENT.
I THINK, I THINK THE, THE, THE RESPONSE TO ALL OF THIS IS DO NOT SEPARATE IT.
UH, EVEN AS MR. LAW SAID, THAT WASN'T HIS INTENT ORIGINALLY, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT WOUND UP.
SO THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TONIGHT.
WE'LL ROLL IT INTO THE REWRITE OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE.
UM, AND THEN AS FAR AS UPDATES TO THE WORK PROGRAM, UNLESS YOU CAN HIRE A BUNCH MORE PEOPLE REAL QUICKLY, WE'LL JUST CONTINUE ON THE PATH WE'RE ON.
UM, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY OF YOU GUYS WANT TO ADDRESS THIS ON THIS ISSUE.
IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT SHE'LL YELL AT ME IF I DON'T AT LEAST OFFER IT TO.
UH, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE JUST ONE COMMENT.
I THINK THE COMMISSION'S GOALS AND STAFF GOALS ARE PERFECTLY ALIGNED.
IT'S, IT'S OUR GOALS TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR OUR RESIDENTS.
WE DO THAT EVERY DAY, EVEN IF THERE ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS APPLIED, RIGHT? YOU CAN HEAR THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE ABOUT MOVING DUMPSTERS AWAY AND THINGS THAT AREN'T REQUIRED.
AND SO TO SOME DEGREE WE'RE ASKED TO, UM, EXPLAIN AN ORDINANCE THAT WE DIDN'T WRITE.
UM, AND WE WILL WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE CHANCE TO WORK WITH THAT WORK THROUGH THOSE WITH YOU IN THE REWRITE.
LIKE TONIGHT IN OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ON ITEM, I THINK IT WAS ONE AND TWO, ONE AND TWO, YOU MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND A LAND USE ASSOCIATION.
AND SO WHERE IF, IF WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT MORE, OR IF I DO, WHAT IS THE BEST, LIKE, I DON'T WANNA MAKE IT A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM, DO I COME TO YOU PRIVATELY AND ASK, BUT IF I WANT THE WHOLE COMMISSION TO KNOW, IS THAT YOUR JOB TO TAKE TO THEM? WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO YEAH, THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS WE COULD DO IT.
UM, STAFF'S HAPPY TO PROVIDE A MEMO AS A STARTING PLACE TO EXPLAIN IT, IF THAT'S HELPFUL.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE'S SOME TERMS THROWN AROUND THAT HAVE VERY SPECIFIC MEANINGS FROM ZONING USE IS ONE.
SO ACTIVITY IS A DIFFERENT ONE.
USE USE HAS A VERY DISTINCT MEANING ACTIVITY IS NOT DEFINED, RIGHT? SO WE KNOW WHAT USE MEANS.
AND SO THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF THAT WHERE I THINK MAYBE HELPING EXPLAIN THE WAY STAFF LOOKS AT CERTAIN WORDS WOULD HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE WAY IT'S BEING INTERPRETED, UM, THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS.
SO WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT I WOULD ASK YOU THE QUESTION AND THEN IF YOU THINK IT'S WORTHY, YOU WOULD SEND A MEMO TO OTHER FOLKS.
WE'RE HAPPY TO PROVIDE THE MEMO TO EVERYONE SO THEY HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION.
ARE WE DONE WITH ITEM SEVEN? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
[8. (MB) Discussion and Action: Election of 1st and 2nd Vice Chairs. Applicant: City of Plano (Administrative Consideration)]
EIGHT IS DISCUSSION IN ACTION.ELECTION OF FIRST AND SECOND VICE CHAIRS.
MR. CHAIRMAN, UH, WELL, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, UH, LET ME GIMME ONE SECOND HERE.
UH, FIRST I WANTED TO SAY, UH, I WAS HONORED TO BE SELECTED AGAIN TO CHAIR IT.
UH, I, I APPRECIATE THE PASSION THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU BRING TO THIS DIOCESE.
UH, AND, AND IN EVERY CASE, WHAT I HEAR FIRST AND FOREMOST IS HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR CITIZENS? HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS, RIGHT? MM-HMM,
UM, THAT BEING SAID, THE ITEM IS PRETTY CLEAR.
I THINK LAST YEAR WE HAD GREAT DISCUSSIONS AROUND THAT, THE
[01:40:01]
PROCESS, EVEN CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT.AND SO, UH, WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL NOW TURN TO MR. BRUNO.
UM, IT'S AN HONOR TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION, UH, YOUR CHAIRMANSHIP.
UM, I'VE ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT I BELIEVE OUR FIRST AND SECOND VICE CHAIRS OF THE PAST YEAR HAVE PERFORMED ADMIRABLY TO THE EXTENT THEY'VE BEEN CALLED UPON TO PERFORM.
AND, UH, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THEM CONTINUE IN THEIR PRESENT ROLES.
SO I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER CAREY AS TO CONTINUE AS FIRST VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO CONTINUE AS, UH, SECOND VICE CHAIR.
WELL, THERE'S, ALRIGHT, SO UNDER THE RULES, WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANYMORE REALLY.
WE'RE JUST GONNA OPEN THE FLOOR UP FOR NOMINATIONS.
AND RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER CAREY AS VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER, UH, RATLIFF, THE SECOND VICE CHAIR.
UH, COMMISSIONER ALI MIGHT BE MESSING UP THE PROCESS A LITTLE BIT.
UM, ECHO COMMISSIONER BRUNO'S COMMENTS ON, UM, BEING HAPPY THAT YOU GOT REAPPOINTED, UM, TO CHAIR.
UM, WOULD PRO WOULD WANT TO MOVE TWO DIFFERENT NOMINATIONS.
UM, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, UM, TO FIRST VICE CHAIR AND GOING BACK TO, UM, THE NOMINATIONS LAST YEAR, I ACTUALLY WANT TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER BROSKY TO SECOND VICE CHAIR.
UM, AS I BELIEVE HIS GUARDIANSHIP OF AND THE FIDELITY TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT HAS SERVED HIS BODY WELL.
UH, COMMISSIONER LONG YOUR, I WOULD ECHO MR. BRUNO'S, UH, SENTIMENT THAT FIRST VICE CHAIR AND SECOND VICE CHAIR THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THEIR ROLES ARE DOING A GOOD JOB.
AND IF IT WAS UP TO ME, I WOULD LEAVE IT ALONE.
ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? DOES ANYONE ELSE WANNA MAKE NOMINATION? NOPE.
SO WHY DON'T WE START MAYBE WITH, UH, THE, UH, FIRST VICE CHAIR.
AND SO WE HAVE A, A NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER CAREY AND WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER RATLIFF.
NEITHER OF YOU WANNA SAY ANYTHING.
WE'LL JUST DO A HAND VOTE HERE.
UM, MY PERSONAL OPINION IS, UH, HAVING SERVED ON THE COMMISSION BEFORE IS THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN THIS ROTATION IN THE LEADERSHIP JUST TO GIVE EVERYBODY CHANCES TO SERVE.
UM, I'VE BEEN IN THAT POSITION WHERE I WAS FIRST ON THE PNZI WAS VICE CHAIR ONE YEAR, AND THEN THE NEXT YEAR I, I WAS A NOBODY
ALRIGHT, SO LET'S, UM, LET'S VOTE ON THAT, I GUESS.
AND FOR VICE CHAIR, IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF, UH, COMMISSIONER CAREY CONTINUING TO SERVE IN THAT ROLE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.
UM, THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE BODY.
SO IN THIS CASE, CONGRATULATIONS MR. CAREY.
YOU WILL NOW SERVE AS THE FIRST VICE CHAIR.
AND THEN, UH, FOR SECOND VICE CHAIR, WE HAVE, UH, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF.
AND THOSE IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER RATLIFF CONTINUING TO SERVE.
YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR YOURSELF.
SO THAT ITEM CARRIES, UH, SIX TO TWO.
SO CONGRATULATIONS MR. RATLIFF.
YOU ARE THE SECOND VICE CHAIR AGAIN.
ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE SIX IN FAVOR AND TWO ABSTENTIONS.
LAST ITEM WOULD BE NEW BUSINESS FOR THE RECORD.
I WAS ABSTAINING ON YOUR ROAD AS WELL.
[9. (MB) Items for Future Agendas.]
ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS.AND ITEM NUMBER NINE, FUTURE AGENDA, ANYTHING? OKAY.