[00:00:01]
JOINING US THIS EVENING.IT'S SEVEN O'CLOCK I WILL CALL TO ORDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 20TH.
UH, 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]
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.
I UNDERSTAND THAT COMMISSIONER KERRY WANTS TO MAKE A STATEMENT.
DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS? NO, WE DO NOT.
SO, COMMISSIONER KIRA, YOU HAD SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO ADD? I WOULD JUST REMIND THE COMMISSION, THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION ITEM.
YOU'RE SIMPLY GONNA GIVE A STATEMENT.
IT'S JUST FOR SOME INFORMATION.
UM, I JUST WANTED TO, UH, MORE FULLY EXPLAIN SOMETHING FROM LESS TIME AS IT RELATED TO THE KIRBY ICE HOUSE AND THEN SPECIFICALLY THE COMPETITION ACROSS THE STREET, WHICH IS KATIE OUTPOST.
AND I HAD VISITED THAT, UH, KATIE.
I, UH, KATIE OUTPOST PRIOR TO US MEETING LAST WEEK, MET WITH THE MANAGER AND HE TOLD ME THAT THEY WERE OKAY WITH THE COMPETITION COMING IN ACROSS THE STREET.
AND THAT WAS AN ACCURATE DEPICTION OF WHAT HE SAID.
BUT AFTER THAT, UM, I GOT INFORMATION FROM THE OWNERS AND THEY HAD A LITTLE DIFFERENT VIEW, AND I JUST FELT IT IMPORTANT TO BRING THAT BACK.
AND I, BECAUSE I HADN'T GIVEN A FULL EXPLANATION THERE, I DIDN'T HAVE IT.
I, I FELT A RESPONSIBILITY TO DO THAT.
AND, UM, THEY, THE OWNERS DO HAVE SOME CONCERN WITH THE COMPETITION COMING IN ACROSS THE STREET.
AND I, I'M NOT SURE THAT'S OUR RESPONSIBILITY, THEIR COMPETITION, BUT THERE ARE A COUPLE THINGS I THINK THEY'RE GERMANE.
AND ONE IS, IS, UH, THE KATY OUTPOST, UH, WHICH HAS BEEN A LONG TIME PLANO BUSINESS IS GONNA PUT ABOUT $4 MILLION INTO REMODELING THEIRS BASED ON REVENUE TRENDS.
UM, AND THEY'RE CONCERNED WITH THE COMPETITION ACROSS THE STREET THAT MIGHT CHANGE THEIR ABILITY TO INVEST.
BUT I THINK THE THING THAT'S MOST IMPORTANT IS THEY HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT A LEVEL PLAYING FIELD AND, UM, IN TERMS OF FOOD TO ALCOHOL RATIO SALES, AND IF, IF, UM, KIRBY ICEHOUSE IS APPROVED ACROSS THE STREET, IF THEY WILL HAVE THE SAME FOOD TO ALCOHOL RATIO AS THE KATY OUTPOST.
AND SO I THOUGHT THAT, THAT, THAT PROBABLY IS GERMANE AS WE LOOK AT IT AND PASS OUR INFORMATION ON TO COUNSEL TO ULTIMATELY MAKE A DECISION.
AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT I CAME BACK AND FOLLOWED THAT UP.
SO ANYWAY, THANKS FOR THE TIME.
THANK YOU, UH, WITH NO OTHER COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
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.
ANYONE WANT TO PULL ANYTHING FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? I MOVE.
WE'VE APPROVED THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.
APPLICANTS ARE LI 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 CONSIDERATION.
[1. (RP) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-005 - Request to rezone from Regional Commercial to Planned Development-Regional Commercial and to rescind Specific Use Permits No. 56, 434, 444, 448 for Private Club on 89.1 acres located on the west side of the Dallas North Tollway, 305 feet north of Park Boulevard. Zoned Regional Commercial with Specific Use Permits No. 56, 434, 444, and 448 for Private Club and No. 570 for Automobile Leasing/Renting and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District. Project #ZC2023-005. Petitioners: Centennial Waterfall Willow Bend, LLC, The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Macy’s Retail Holdings LLC, and Dillard’s, Inc. (Request to table to December 4, 2023)]
ONE, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 0 5.THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TWO PLAN DEVELOPMENT REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, AND TO RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMITS.
NUMBER 56 4 34, 4 44 AND 4 48 FOR PRIVATE CLUB ON 89.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY 305 FEET NOR NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.
IT IS ZONED CURRENTLY REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS.
UH, NUMBER 56, 4 34, 4 44 AND 4 4 48 FOR PRIVATE CLUB.
AND NUMBER FIVE 70 FOR AUTOMOTIVE LEASING.
RENTING, RENTING AND LOCATED WITHIN THE
[00:05:01]
DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.PETITIONERS ARE CENTENNIAL WATERFALL, WILLOW BEND, LLC, THE NE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP, LLC, MACY'S RETAIL HOLDING, LLC AND DILLARD'S INCORPORATED.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
I'M RAHA KUI, THE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UM, THIS IS A TABLING REQUEST TO DECEMBER 4TH, UM, PLANNING AND ZONING AGENDA.
AND, UM, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE TABLING REQUESTS.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? UH, MR. ALI? UM, JUST ONE, ARE THERE ANY PARTICULAR POINTS OF REFINEMENT YOU'RE WORKING ON OR IS THIS MORE IN RESPONSE TO FEEDBACK THEY GOT? UM, THERE ARE SOME REFINEMENTS NEEDED, UH, ON THE PD STIPULATION AND STAFF WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT, UH, WE HAVE ALL THE T'S UH, CROSSED AND ALL I'S DOTTED.
UM, PARTICULARLY, UH, THERE WERE SOME, UM, DISCREPANCIES ON THE, UH, LOT COVERAGES AND LOT LINES, BUT, UM, WE ARE POSITIVE THAT WE CAN GET THAT FIGURED OUT.
ANYONE ELSE? THANK YOU, MS. PILATE.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION.
MR. BROSKY, I MOVE, WE TABLED THIS ITEM ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 0 5 TILL THE DECEMBER 4TH, 2023 MEETING.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO TABLE ITEM ONE TO THE DECEMBER 4TH MEETING, PLEASE VOTE.
THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ONE.
OKAY, SO WE'LL DO IT THIS WAY.
UM, MR. BROSKI, YOU WANT TO CHANGE YOUR VOTE? YES.
SO WE HAVE LITTLE, IF IT'S QUICK TO DO, THEN WE'LL REVOTE.
IF YOU VOTE NO AGAIN, MR. BROSKI, UM,
I JUST TURNED INTO A HANGING CHAT
THAT, THAT, THAT ITEM, THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
EVERYBODY'S IN GOOD SPIRITS TONIGHT.
[2. (JK) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-025 - Request for a Specific Use Permit for Tattooing and Permanent Cosmetics on 0.1 acre located 125 feet east of U.S. Highway 75 and 125 feet south of Parker Road. Zoned Corridor Commercial. Project #ZC2023- 025. Petitioners: Wentwoods Retail Center Incorporated and Remarkable Ink Studio (Legislative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE.REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS ON 0.1 ACRE.
LOCATED 125 FEET EAST OF US, HIGHWAY 75 AND 125 FEET.
25 FEET SOUTH OF PARKER ROAD, ZONED CORRIDOR.
COMMERCIAL PETITIONERS ARE WENT WOODS RETAIL CENTER INCORPORATED AND REMARKABLE INC.
STUDIO, THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
WE HAVE TWO PEOPLE VYING TO GIVE THE PRESENTATION.
MY NAME IS JOHN KIM PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARKER ROAD AND US HIGHWAY 75 ON THE SCREEN, HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE SUITE IN THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER.
ALL OF THESE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES ARE ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.
THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS DEVELOPED WITH CONVENIENCE STORE WITH A VEHICLE FUELING STATION TO THE SOUTH.
IT IS DEVELOPED WITH A RETAIL STORE TO THE EAST.
IT IS DEVELOPED OR IT IS UNDEVELOPED AND TO THE WEST.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED ACROSS US HIGHWAY 75, AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A SHOPPING CENTER.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED DOWNTOWN CORRIDORS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THIS DESIGNATION SUPPORTS RETAIL AND SERVICE USES.
THE PROPOSED USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDORS CATEGORY.
SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY CLASSIFIED AS RETAIL TYPES.
THE REQUEST WOULD RESULT IN NO CHANGES TO THE RECOMMENDED MIX OF USES.
STAFF FINDS A REQUEST FOR TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
S FOR TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS ARE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH ARTICLE 15 IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
IN THE ORDINANCE, IT STATES THAT A FACILITY OFFERING THESE SERVICES SHALL BE PROHIBITED WITHIN 1000 FEET OF ANY RELIGIOUS FACILITY, RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICT OR PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOL.
THERE ARE NO SUCH USES OR DISTRICTS WITHIN THE 1000 FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT IN THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER.
THERE ARE OTHER HIGHLY REGULATED RETAIL USES THAT INCLUDE A LIQUOR STORE AND A SMOKING VAPING CANNABIS STORE.
THERE ARE NO ISSUES WITH THE USES INDIVIDUALLY,
[00:10:01]
BUT THE CONCENTRATION OF SUCH USES MAY RAISE CONCERNS ABOUT THE COMMUNITY CHARACTER AND THE PERCEPTION OF THE AREA.THERE ARE NO POLICIES OR STANDARDS EXPLICITLY DISCOURAGING CONCENTRATION OF SUCH USES.
WE RECEIVE NO RESPONSES WITHIN 200 FEET FOR THIS CASE.
RECEIPT OF TOTAL OF TWO RESPONSES FOR THIS CASE, BOTH IN OPPOSITION.
TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING FOR AN SUP FOR TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS, AND AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER STAFF FINDS A REQUEST FOR AN SUP CONSISTENT WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A DOWNTOWN CORRIDORS CATEGORY.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY MEETS THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.
ITEM TWO IS SUBMITTED, AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TO, TO GIVE A PRESENTATION ABOUT THE REQUEST.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? MR. ROWLEY? UM, QUICK QUESTION.
SO CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL FOR THE VAPING AND THE, UM, LIQUOR STORE.
THEY'RE CONSIDERED A RETAIL USE AND ARE ALLOWED.
AND THE REASON WHY THE TATTOO USE REQUIRES AN S BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT CLASSIFIED AS A RETAIL USE WITHIN CODEX, RIGHT? IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT REQUIRES THE SAP, UM, FOR THAT AREA.
UM, THE COMMENT ON THE AGGREGATION OF HIGHLY REGULATED, UM, IT'S THAT A LEGAL CLASSIFICATION OR LEGAL THRESHOLD.
THERE'S ANOTHER VAPING STORE, THERE'S A CHECK CASH IN, AND THERE'S A LIQUOR STORE.
IF I'M NOT, UM, MISTAKEN, CHECK CASH IN IS, IS A HIGHLY REGULATED INDUSTRY.
AND, UM, BUT, BUT WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN INDUSTRIES THAT ARE MORE HEAVILY REGULATED AND AND CONSIDERED, UM, BY GOVERNMENT AT ALL LEVELS.
SO WE JUST WANTED TO POINT IT OUT.
UM, BUT THERE'S NO PARTICULAR MIX.
THERE'S NO PERCENTAGES BECAUSE WE SIMPLY HAVEN'T MADE THOSE DECISIONS IN PLANO.
UM, LAST QUESTION, HAVE WE, WITH THE TWO REGULATED, UM, STORES, UM, THERE ARE 2 0 3.
HAVE WE HAD ANY STATISTICS THAT SUGGEST AN INCIDENT OF POLICE CALLS, CRIME UNDESIRABLE EFFECTS OF THOSE? UM, I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT INFORMATION, SO I THINK WE COULD DO SOME RESEARCH AND GET IT, BUT I DON'T KNOW.
YEAH, IT IS NOT SOMETHING WE'RE AWARE OF.
UM, THESE CASES ARE PROVIDED TO PO PD FOR REVIEW, SO IF THEY HAD A CONCERN, THEY COULD RAISE IT.
BUT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, IT HASN'T BEEN RAISED.
UM, I'M GONNA, I'M QUITE CERTAIN THE QUESTION I HAVE IS GONNA BE FOR, UH, COUNSEL, SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR REPORT.
UM, WOULD IT BE EVEN LEGALLY POSSIBLE FOR US TO HAVE AN ORDINANCE OR A PLAN THAT WOULD SAY, OH, SORRY, YOU CAN'T HAVE A LIQUOR STORE, A VAPE STORE, A TATTOO PARLOR, AND A CANNABIS STORE WITHIN A HUNDRED FEET OR A THOUSAND FEET OF EACH OTHER? I MEAN, COULD WE DO THAT LEGALLY OR WOULD THERE BE SOME TYPE OF CHALLENGE TO THAT? I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE YOU'D WANT TO COMPILE SOME DATA FROM PD, GET THEM TO GIVE YOU SOME REPORTS ABOUT WHETHER THERE'S HIGHER INCIDENCES OF, UM, CRIME LOITERING MM-HMM,
OR WHETHER IT'S JUST A PUBLIC PERCEPTION ISSUE MM-HMM,
UH, THE FLIP SIDE OF THE COIN WOULD BE WOULD IT BE BETTER TO SCATTER THOSE USES OUT THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY AND CREATE CHALLENGES THAT WAY, OR DO YOU COMBINE THEM? SO, UH, INTERESTING.
AND, UH, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UNDERSTAND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.
HOW YOU GUYS DOING? I'M ALEX SMITH.
[00:15:01]
NERVOUS? YES.CAN YOU TELL
YOU GUYS HAVE GREAT ENERGY, SO I FEEL A LITTLE MORE COMFORTABLE.
WELL I WANNA START BY SAYING THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
UM, THIS OPPORTUNITY MEANS A LOT TO ME JUST TO BE ABLE TO PRESENT MY VISION TO YOU GUYS.
FOR THE RECORD, COULD YOU STATE YOUR, UH, ADDRESS, PLEASE? OH, YES.
COUPLE MINUTES AWAY FROM HERE.
YOU NEED THE ACTUAL, ACTUAL ADDRESS PLEASE? 3 5 5 3 5 5 1 WILSHIRE WAY.
UM, MY APARTMENT NUMBER ALSO RICHARDSON, TEXAS.
WE REALIZE THIS IS A BIG DEAL FOR YOU.
WE REALIZE THIS IS A BIG DEAL FOR YOU, SO IT IS.
OKAY, SO I'M GONNA TRY TO TAKE MY TIME, BUT NOT TAKE UP TOO MUCH OF YOUR, YOUR TIME.
SO, UM, MY MISSION STATEMENT FOR A REMARKABLE INK WOULD BE, UM, TO PROVIDE AN ABOVE AVERAGE TATTOO EXPERIENCE WHILE PRIORITIZING SANITATION, SIMPLICITY, CUSTOMER SERVICE, AND QUALITY.
UM, JUST TO BRIEFLY TOUCH ON EACH, UM, ITEM.
SO I HAVE WHAT IS CALLED THE FOUR PILLARS OF OPERATION THAT'LL BE IMPLEMENTED WITHIN THE SHOP OR THE STUDIO, RATHER.
UM, SANITATION WOULD BE THE FIRST ONE AS IT IS THE MOST IMPORTANT ASPECT OF ANY TATTOO.
UM, UM, SO YES, SANITATION IS, WILL BE HEAVILY ENFORCED, UM, DISINFECTING OF, UM, ALL KINDS, UM, WITH GERMICIDAL SOAPS AND, UM, CHOP CLEANING WILL BE A MANDATORY ROUTINE FOR US HERE.
UH, WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS JUST THE DESIGN OF THE STUDIO.
IT'S GONNA BE VERY, UH, MONOCHROMATIC.
NOT TOO MUCH GOING ON, BUT SOMETHING TO MAKE, YOU KNOW, UM, ENCOURAGED COMFORTABILITY FOR MY CLIENTS.
UM, CUSTOMER SERVICE IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US, UM, AND QUALITY IS ALSO VERY IMPORTANT.
WE WANT TO, UH, UPHOLD A STANDARD AT THIS TATTOO STUDIO AND, UM, THAT'S ANOTHER PRIORITY FOR US.
SO, SO MY INSPIRATION, UM, THIS IS MY GRANDMOTHER.
SHE WAS AN ENTREPRENEUR HERSELF.
UH, THERE'S A PICTURE OF HER AT HER FIRST SHOW AND SHE PUT ON, I BELIEVE IT WAS IN THE EIGHTIES, UM, LATE EIGHTIES.
BUT, UM, SHE'S VERY DRI, VERY DRIVEN PERSON.
UH, I GET MY DRIVE IN MY, UM, CONFIDENCE LEVEL, I WOULD SAY, TO GO OUT AND, YOU KNOW, PURSUE SOMETHING LIKE THIS FROM HER.
UM, JUST ANOTHER COUPLE OF IMAGES OF HER IN FRONT OF HER, UM, BOUTIQUE THAT SHE OWNED AT ONE POINT.
UM, COUPLE MORE PICTURES OF HER DOING WHAT SHE DID.
SHE WAS A SPEAKER, PUBLIC SPEAKER.
SHE HAD A BOOK THAT SHE RELEASED, UM, CALLED STOP THE INSANITY AND CHRISTIANITY.
SO, UM, HUGE INSPIRATION FOR ME RIGHT HERE.
UH, THIS IS HER MAKING A COUPLE TV APPEARANCES, PROMOTING HER BOOK.
UM, YEAH, SO, UM, THIS SHOP IS CALLED REMARKABLE INC BECAUSE MY GRANDMOTHER WAS TO ME VERY REMARKABLE IN EVERY WAY.
UM, I BELIEVE I GOT MY, UM, ENTREPRENEURSHIP JEANS FROM HER.
UH, SHE ENCOURAGED ME HEAVILY TO FOLLOW MY DREAMS AND TO BE A DOER, NOT JUST, YOU KNOW, A, A, A DREAMER.
AND, UM, YEAH, SO THE NAME OF THE SHOP WAS DIRECTLY INSPIRED BY MY GRANDMOTHER, SO THAT'S WHY I'VE INCLUDED HER INTO THE SHOP, INTO THE SLIDES.
UM, SO SOME DIFFERENTIATING FACTORS OF REMARKABLE INK WOULD BE WE HAVE AN EARLIER OPENING AND CLOSING TIME, WHICH MEANS WE WON'T BE OPEN LATE DURING THE WEE HOURS OF THE NIGHT.
UM, I THINK THAT COULD SPEAK TO THE, UM, THE QUESTION YOU HAD ABOUT LIKE, CRIMES OR ANYTHING GOING ON.
I WANT TO CLOSE AT A EARLY TIME JUST TO KIND OF PREVENT SOME OF THAT STUFF THAT COULD HAPPEN AT A LATER HOUR.
UM, AND ALSO MY CLIENTS, THEY APPRECIATE COMING IN EARLIER FOR MY SERVICES AS OPPOSED TO COMING IN LATE AT NIGHT.
YOU KNOW, PEOPLE HAVE THINGS TO DO.
THEY HAVE JOBS, CHILDREN, SO THAT, THAT'S MORE CONVENIENT FOR THEM AND MYSELF ALSO.
UM, SO, UM, THAT, LET'S SEE, CUSTOMER SERVICE I TOUCHED ON A LITTLE BIT EARLIER.
I WANNA MAKE MY CLIENTS FEEL LIKE IT'S MORE THAN A TRANSACTION.
YOU KNOW, WE SPEND, I SPEND ROUGHLY FOUR TO EIGHT HOURS, MAYBE 10 HOURS SOMETIMES WITH MY CLIENTS.
[00:20:01]
UM, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE, UM, LETTING THEM KNOW THAT IT'S NOT JUST A TRANSACTION HERE.WITH REMARKABLE INC IT'LL BE, UM, MUCH MORE THAN THAT.
UM, SHOP DESIGN AND ATMOSPHERE.
WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, UM, MY GOAL IS JUST FOR THIS NOT TO BE A TYPICAL TO TATTOO SHOP.
IT'S GONNA BE MORE OF A PERSONALIZED STUDIO, UM, THAT I THINK MY CLIENTS CAN APPRECIATE WITH A GOOD ATMOSPHERE.
UM, AND LASTLY, APPOINTMENT BASED.
SO MY STUDIO WOULD BE APPOINTMENT BASED, WHICH MEANS THAT, UM, YOU CAN COME IN AND BOOK AN APPOINTMENT FOR THE FOLLOWING WEEK OR THE NEXT DAY.
UH, I WON'T BE DOING TOO MANY LIKE, RANDOM WALK-INS THROUGHOUT THE DAY.
UM, THE WAY I LIKE TO WORK IS THROUGH APPOINTMENTS ONLY.
THAT'S HOW I'VE ALWAYS WORKED.
SO I THINK THAT'LL BE A, UM, A DIFFERENTIATING FACTOR FOR US AS WELL.
UM, SO A COUPLE OF FACTS ABOUT THE TATTOO INDUSTRY.
UM, THE GLOBAL TATTOO MARKET SIZE WAS VALUED AT $1.89 BILLION IN 2022 IS PROJECTED TO GROW TO $3.93 BILLION BY THE YEAR 2030.
UM, THE TATTOO INDUSTRY HAS BEEN INCREASING BY NEARLY 10% EVERY YEAR FOR THE, FOR MORE THAN A DECADE NOW.
UM, I, I PUT THIS IN THE POWERPOINT JUST TO KIND OF SHOW THAT THE INDUSTRY IS GROWING.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT TATTOO STUDIOS SHOULD AND WILL BE AS COMMON AS LIKE, UM, YOUR LOCAL BARBERSHOP OR SOMETHING LIKE, LIKE THAT.
UM, SO YEAH, THE MARKET IS GROWING.
THAT'S A GOOD THING FOR ANY TATTOO ARTIST IN THE INDUSTRY NOW.
AND ALSO FOR THE CITY, UM, WHICH WE WOULD RESIDE.
UM, WHY DO PEOPLE GET TATTOOS, UH, TO COMMEMORATE? LOVE THE MEMORY OF LOVED ONES.
UM, STRESS RELIEVER COULD BE KIND OF, COULD BE COMPARED TO WORKING OUT.
UM, SOMETHING ABOUT GETTING SOMETHING BEAUTIFUL FROM THAT, THAT PAIN, UH, PEOPLE LOVE, UM, TO CELEBRATE A MILESTONE AND TO ULTIMATELY EXPRESS ONE'S INDIVIDUALITY, TELL THEIR STORY THROUGH ARTWORK AND TATTOOS.
UH, IF YOU WERE TO ASK THE QUESTION OF HOW COULD A TATTOO STUDIO BENEFIT THE COMMUNITY, I WOULD SAY, UM, INCLUSION WOULD BE ONE, JUST KIND OF LIKE EMBRACING, UM, THE NEW GENERATION AND JUST ANYONE WHO WANTS TO EXPRESS THEMSELVES THROUGH TATTOOS.
UM, I BELIEVE THAT, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, THE MARKET IS THRIVING.
I THINK THAT COULD BE GOOD FOR THE COMMUNITY AS WELL.
AND GIVING BACK, I PLAN TO, UM, GIVE BACK IN MY STUDIO.
SO DURING CHRISTMAS TIME WE WOULD HAVE THINGS LIKE TOY DRIVES WHERE YOU COULD BRING A TOY AND POSSIBLY GET A PERCENTAGE OFF OF YOUR NEXT TATTOO.
UH, HERE'S LIKE SOME IMAGES OF THE STUDIO, A SMALL QUAINT SPOT, NOT TOO BIG, JUST I FELT LIKE WAS PERFECT FOR ME.
AND IF I WANNA, YOU KNOW, WHOEVER WANTS TO JOIN ME, I MIGHT HAVE ONE OR TWO OTHER ARTISTS, BUT YOU KNOW, FOR RIGHT NOW IT'LL JUST BE ME WORKING WITH MY CLIENTELE.
I THOUGHT THIS SPACE WAS PERFECT.
SO, UM, HERE'S A COUPLE OF IMAGES OF THE ARTWORK THAT I DO.
I AM VERY PARTICULAR ON THE TYPE OF WORK THAT I DO.
I HAVE TO, IT HAS TO ALIGN WITH ME, UH, SPIRITUALLY.
AND SO, UM, I THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING TO MENTION.
I FEEL LIKE I RAMBLED THROUGH THAT WHOLE THING, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH,
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS? WE HAVE, UH, GEORGE, IS IT HOME? HOME? CORRECT.
WE'LL, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND LET MR. HOLMES SPEAK AND THEN WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
UH, THANK YOU JUST FOR TAKING A COUPLE MINUTES TO TALK.
I LIVE AT 7 0 0 9 HUNTER COVE DRIVE IN ARLINGTON, TEXAS.
AND I WOULD BE ALEX'S GRANDFATHER.
THE, THAT FABULOUSLY BEAUTIFUL BLACK WOMAN YOU SAW UP THERE WAS MY WIFE FOR NEARLY 40 YEARS.
AND, UH, YOU KNOW, SHE WAS ALWAYS AN INSPIRATION TO ALEX.
AND, UH, SHE, SHE WAS, MY WIFE WAS VERY ENTREPRENEURIAL.
[00:25:01]
AND AS ALEX, OBVIOUSLY I'VE KNOWN HER SINCE THE DAY SHE WAS, SHE WAS BORN.AND SHE HAS ALWAYS HAD A VERY ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT.
AND I RECALL, I MEAN, IT'S BEEN A COUPLE OF YEARS NOW, SHE'S BEEN INTO HER TATTOOING.
SHE SAID, YOU KNOW, I'M LOOKING FOR A SPOT, GRANDPA.
AND SHE NEVER COULD QUITE COME UP WITH ONE UNTIL A FEW MONTHS AGO.
SHE SAYS, GRANDPA, I FOUND MY SPOT.
SO I SAID, WELL, LET'S CHECK IT OUT, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE MY MYSELF, WHEN I, INTERESTING, IT'S COINCIDENTAL, BUT WHEN I WAS EXACTLY HER AGE, 27, I GOT INTO THE SALON BUSINESS.
I 10 YEARS, I HAD THREE DIFFERENT, OPENED UP THREE DIFFERENT HAIR SALONS, WHICH IS A RELATED BUSINESS.
AND SO I SAID, WELL, YEAH, I'D LOVE TO SEE YOUR, I'D LOVE TO SEE YOUR, UH, SPOT.
SO I WENT UP THERE AND I CHECKED IT OUT.
IT, I THOUGHT IT WAS VERY IDEAL FOR WHAT SHE WANTED TO DO.
IT WASN'T TOO BIG THOUGHT SHE COULD MANAGE IT, THOUGHT THE THE TRAFFIC THAT WAS GONNA COME BY WOULD MAKE IT, WOULD REALLY, UH, HELP HER SUCCEED IN HER BUSINESS.
SO I WAS PRETTY MUCH ON BOARD RIGHT AWAY.
OF COURSE, I WAS WAITING FOR THE NEXT QUESTION AFTER SHE SAID, AND THERE'S ENOUGH GRAY HAIR IN THIS ROOM, YOU'LL UNDERSTAND THIS.
I WOULD SAY, THE NEXT QUESTION'S GONNA BE LIKE, GRAMS, YOU KNOW, WHAT? COULD YOU HELP ME FINANCE IT? AND I SAID, BUT YOU KNOW WHAT, THE QUESTION NEVER CAME.
AND SO FINALLY ONE DAY I SAID, WELL, ALEX, HOW IS, HOW'S UH, HOW ARE YOU GONNA DO THIS? SHE SAYS, WELL, GRANDPA, I'VE BEEN SAVING MY MONEY FOR FIVE YEARS AND I'M SET TO GO.
I'VE JUST BEEN WAITING FOR THE SPOT.
SO THAT'S KIND OF, UH, I WAS SO PROUD OF HER TO SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, BUT I, WE SHOULDN'T BE SURPRISED.
I WAS, WHEN SHE WAS A TEENAGER, SHE WOULD HAVE A REGULAR JOBS.
AND I REMEMBER ONE IN PARTICULAR, SHE WAS WORKING AT THE FOOT LOCKER AND SHE'D COME HOME WITH SHOE AFTER SHOE AND BOXES AND PUT IT IN HER CLOSET.
AND I'M, ALLIE, WHAT DO YOU WANT ALL THESE SHOES FOR? AND SHE SAYS, GRANDPA, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT.
SO LIKE ABOUT SIX MONTHS LATER, WHENEVER SOMETHING WOULD COME UP, SHE'D WANT SOMETHING.
NOW SHE MIGHT PAY A HUNDRED BUCKS, YOU KNOW, I'M A HUNDRED DOLLARS FOR A PAIR OF AIR JORDANS OR WHATEVER IT WAS.
AND I'D COME UP AND, UH, I'D SAY, WHAT'S GOING ON? AND SHE SAYS, DON'T WORRY ABOUT IT, GRANDPA.
AND SHE'D JUST STACK HER CLOSET FULL OF IT.
AND THEN, SO ONE DAY, ABOUT SIX MONTHS LATER WHEN SHE WANTED SOMETHING, SIR, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS.
AND WHEN SHE COME, SHE WOULD JUST GOING, SHE'D SAY SHE'D JUST SELL THOSE SHOES AND MAKE 'EM SELL 'EM FOR TWO 50.
SO IMMEDIATELY SHE HAD THIS ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT THAT I THINK REALLY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, WILL DO HER WELL.
I THINK THE CITY OF PLANO IS A GREAT PLACE FOR HER TO DO IT.
YOU OBVIOUSLY WEREN'T NERVOUS.
SO LET ME ASK, DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT BEFORE WE YEAH.
UM, GREAT JOB ON THE PRESENTATION.
YOU DID BETTER THAN YOU THOUGHT YOU DID
UM, SO THIS IS YOUR FIRST JOB? YES, YES.
HOW LONG HAVE YOU BEEN, HOW LONG HAVE I BEEN TATTOOING? ABOUT FIVE YEARS.
ABOUT 2017 I STARTED, SO YEAH.
AND THE REASON FOR THE LOCATION, IS IT SIMILAR TO WHAT GRANDPA SAID? TRAFFIC? YES.
UM, THE SIZE WAS A BIG PART OF IT.
UH, IT'S, IT'S A SMALL SPACE FOR WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO.
IT WAS JUST, I HAD A VISION IN MY HEAD AND THE WAY IT'S SHAPED, THE NARROWNESS, IT WAS JUST PERFECT AS FAR AS LIKE MY VISION FOR IT.
UM, PRICE POINT IS GOOD FOR ME.
UM, ALL OF THAT IS A PART OF IT.
AND THE LOCATION IS GREAT, I THINK FOR SURE.
ANYONE ELSE? ALRIGHT, THANKS FOR BEING HERE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINED DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.
UH, MR. BRUNO, YOU WERE FIRST.
UM, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, WHILE I AM IMPRESSED WITH THE APPLICANTS, I, I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT OF COURSE, ZONING INVOLVES ZONING LAND, NOT PEOPLE.
BUT EVEN LOOKING AT THIS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE, UH, OF THE APPROPRIATE USE OF THIS PROPERTY, I DON'T FIND IT OBJECTIONABLE AT ALL.
UM, FIRST OF ALL, IF SOMEONE WANTS TO GO GET A TATTOO, I DON'T THINK IT HARMS ANYBODY.
I THINK IT'S JUST A PERSONAL DECISION THAT SOMEONE CAN MAKE.
I DON'T SEE THAT THIS IS A PROPERTY THAT IS, UH, GOING TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT OTHER PROPERTIES IN ANY WAY.
IT'S NOT GONNA PRODUCE NOISE, IT'S NOT GONNA PRODUCE FUMES, IT'S NOT GONNA HAVE BRIGHT LIGHTS OR LOUDSPEAKERS OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT MIGHT DISTURB OR ANNOY OTHER PROPERTIES.
IT'S BOUNDED BY TWO HIGHWAYS, UH, ON TWO SIDES TO THE SOUTH IS THE BEST BUY ELECTRONICS STORE.
UM, AND, UH, IT IS LOCATED NOWHERE NEAR, UM,
[00:30:01]
HOMES, SCHOOLS, RELIGIOUS FACILITIES, OR ANY OTHER SENSITIVE USE.UH, AND FINALLY, I THINK IT WOULD BE UNFAIR TO BURDEN THIS PROPERTY WITH WHAT WE MIGHT CONCEIVE AS NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM OTHER PROPERTIES BECAUSE THIS PROPERTY IS NOT PRODUCING NEGATIVE IMPACTS.
SO, UM, I I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH THIS APPLICATION.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KERRY? YEAH, UM, WELL SAID COMMISSIONER BRUNO.
UM, I, I SEE THIS AS A, AS A GOOD USE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY, UM, ESPECIALLY UH, WITH THE ENTREPRENEURIAL SPIRIT THIS YOUNG LADY WOULD BRING.
I THINK THAT'S A GREAT THING FOR PLANO.
UM, AS COMMISSIONER BRUNO SAID, WE'RE WE'RE UH, LOOKING AT LAND USE, NOT NECESSARILY PEOPLE, BUT IN THIS INSTANCE I THINK THERE IS A BENEFIT TO THE PEOPLE AND IT SEEMS LIKE SHE'S GOT A GOOD PLAN.
BUT, UH, MOST IMPORTANTLY I THINK THIS FITS IN THERE, HERE.
WELL, SO I'D BE IN SUPPORTIVE COMMISSIONER LEY, IS THAT EVERYTHING I WAS GONNA SAY? SO I JUST WANT TO, WITH THAT MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, UM, AS SUBMITTED SECOND.
WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM TWO AS SUBMITTED BY COMMISSIONER OLLIE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, PLEASE VOTE.
AND THAT ITEM CARRIES UNANIMOUSLY EIGHT TO ZERO.
ANOTHER STEP TO GO, BUT THANK YOU SO MUCH.
I'LL HAVE TO STOP BY AND SEE YOU ONCE IT'S OPEN.
I DID AN IRONMAN TRIATHLON SO I GOT THE MDOT ON MY LEG.
[Items 3A. & 3B.]
IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, I'LL READ THREE A AND THREE B TOGETHER PLEASE.PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ZONING CASE 2023 DASH ZERO 15.
REQUEST TO AMEND URBAN MIXED USE THREE ON 103.6 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ALMA DRIVE.
760 FEET SOUTH OF 15TH STREET.
IN ORDER TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, CURRENTLY ZONED URBAN MIXED USE THREE.
ITEM THREE B IS A PUBLIC HEARING REVISED SITE PLAN.
COL CREEK SINGLE FAMILY BLOCKS A THROUGH L 104 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS DETACHED LOTS 298 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS ATTACHED LOTS AND 25 COMMON AREA LOTS ON 35.1 ACRES.
LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ALMA DRIVE, 550 FEET NORTH OF PLANO PARKWAY.
AGAIN, IT'S ZONED URBAN MIXED USE.
THREE PETITIONERS AND APPLICANTS ARE MCCM 48 MLLC VM FUND ONE LLC MAHONEY HOMES, ASHTON, DALLAS RESIDENTIAL LLC.
AND FINALLY BRIGHTON BRIGHT HOMES LIMITED.
THE FIRST ITEM, THE THREE A IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION AND ITEM THREE B IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS DONNA SEPULVEDA, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE URBAN MIXED USE THREE ZONING DISTRICT TO ALLOW FOR PROJECTIONS OF SINGLE FAMILY HOMES INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND TO MAKE OTHER CLARIFICATION EDITS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN IN YELLOW.
A REVISED SITE PLAN HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THIS REQUEST TO SHOW THE TWO FOOT PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT TO ALLOW THE PROJECTIONS OF BUILDINGS INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY.
THIS REQUEST HAS BEEN REVIEWED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE REQUEST MEETS THE DESCRIPTIONS AND PRIORITIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARDS.
THIS REQUEST DOES NOT IMPACT PREVIOUS APPROVED EXISTING LAND USE TYPES, MIX OF USES OR ANY OTHER POLICIES.
STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS SITE.
THE EMU THREE DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2018.
THE FIRST PHASE OF CONSTRUCTION INCLUDES MANY OF THE SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX HOMES.
THE APPLICANT IS READY TO GO VERTICAL ON THE HOMES.
HOWEVER, UPON REVIEW OF THE BUILDING PERMIT, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING PLANS INCLUDED ROOF PROJECTIONS INTO THE CITY'S RIGHT OF WAY.
CURRENTLY ONLY AWNINGS, CANOPIES AND OTHER DETACHABLE FIXTURES MAY EXTEND INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE UMU THREE EXCEPTIONS TO ALLOW OTHER NON DETACHABLE FEATURES INCLUDING ROOF OVERHANGS AND BAY WINDOWS TO EXTEND UP TO TWO FEET IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY WITH APPROVAL OF A LICENSE AGREEMENT FROM THE CITY OF PLANO.
[00:35:01]
ON THE SCREEN SHOWS A ROOF PROJECTION SHOWN IN RED INTO UM, THE SIDEWALK SHOWN IN BLUE, WHICH IS CITY RIGHT OF WAY.AND THESE TYPES OF ENCROACHMENT ALLOWANCES ARE NOT UNCOMMON FOR AREAS IN PLANO THAT PROMOTE A MIXED USE URBAN FORM.
OTHER AREAS INCLUDE DOWNTOWN PLANO, THE LEGACY AREA PLANO GATEWAY IN THE AURA ONE 90 APARTMENTS.
NEXT WITH THE AGREEMENT FROM THE APPLICANT STAFF IS REQUESTING TWO ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION EDITS IN THE UMU THREE LANGUAGE.
FIRST IS TO AMEND THE TABLE OF PERMITTED USES TO CLARIFY INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES ARE PERMITTED ON BLOCK S.
UM, THIS HAS BEEN IN PLACE FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE UU THREE DISTRICT AND WE ARE JUST CLARIFYING THAT.
NEXT WE ARE CLARIFYING THAT NO MINIMUM FLOOR AREA RATIO IS NECESSARY FOR THE PRIVATE STREET LOT AND BLOCK AA.
ALTHOUGH THERE WILL BE A BUILDING OVERHANG, IT WAS NEVER INTENDED THAT THIS BLOCK BE DEVELOPED WITH BUILDINGS.
AS FAR AS RESPONSES, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER.
WE DID RECEIVE ONE RESPONSE CITYWIDE AND IT WAS IN OPPOSITION.
LASTLY, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE SUBJECT TO THE STIPULATION SHOWN ON THE SCREEN AND IN THE STAFF REPORT.
AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THIS ZONING CASE.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
COMMISSIONER LYLE, CAN YOU BACK UP A SLIDE OR TWO TO THE, HAD ALL THE LANG THERE YOU GO.
I AM JUST, I HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT WHERE THERE'S A COMMA AFTER BOXES AND IT SAYS, AND OTHER BUILDING PROJECTIONS.
WHAT WOULD KEEP SOMEONE FROM TAKING THE SECOND FLOOR AND CANTING CANTILEVERING OR MOVING THE SECOND FLOOR TWO FOOT OUT.
AND ACTUALLY, SO IT'S NOT JUST A BUILDING PROJECTION, I HAVE NO OBJECTIONS TO THE BAY WINDOWS AWNINGS PLANTER BOXES.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AT PERHAPS ADDING SOME LANGUAGE THAT WOULD SAY THAT WHATEVER THE PROJECTION IS, IT CAN'T ADD SQUARE FOOTAGE TO THE FOOTPRINT TO THE FLOOR PLAN BECAUSE I THINK ALL OF THESE PROJECTIONS ARE FINE.
I JUST DON'T WANT SOMEONE TO TAKE THAT LANGUAGE AND RUIN THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN OF THE BUILDING BY TRYING TO GET A FEW MORE SQUARE FOOT, FEW MORE SQUARE FEET.
YES, WE WILL REVIEW THEIR BUILDING PLANS WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THEN THEY HAVE TO ENTER INTO A LICENSE AGREEMENT.
AND I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S THE APPLICANT'S INTENT TO, UM, CANTILEVER THEIR BUILDINGS OVER.
UM, IT'S STRICTLY FOR ROOFS AND BAY WINDOWS AND UM, SUCH FEATURES LIKE THAT.
BUT I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO TALK WITH THE APPLICANT AND UM, IF WE DID LOOK AT THAT LANGUAGE THAT YOU PROPOSED AND THEY WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO THAT.
UM, DO YOU WANNA READ IT IN OR SHOULD I, OR I CAN ALSO PUT I, I WENT TO THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS OFFICE THIS AFTERNOON AS WELL AND LOOKED AT THE BUILDING PLANS JUST 'CAUSE I WANTED TO SEE WHAT THEY WERE DOING AND I TALKED TO THE PLANS EXAMINER AND SHE WAS ACTUALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE LANGUAGE THAT I PROPOSED AS WELL, JUST SO THAT IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT IT WAS FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES THAT NON OCCUPIED SPACE.
NOT ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO DO YOU WANNA READ IT IN OR SHOULD I MR. BELL A SLIGHT MODIFICATION.
'CAUSE I THINK WHAT YOU WROTE ON WAS NOT THE TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION, IT WAS THE SUMMARY IN THE REPORT.
SO WHAT I WOULD, IF I COULD SUMMARIZE YOUR POINT WOULD BE ADDING TO THIS ROMAN NUMERAL TWO THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE.
UM, ADDING A SENTENCE AT THE END THAT SAYS ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE INTENDED TO BE DECORATIVE IN NATURE AND SHALL NOT INCREASE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE.
I THINK THAT ADEQUATELY REASONABLE.
SO ANY APPROVAL WILL INCLUDE THIS SENTENCE AS PART OF THAT.
SO CAN WE TIE BACK ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES TO BUILDING PROJECTIONS? SO WE SAY AND OTHER ARCHITECTURAL, WHAT WAS THE, JUST TIE IT SO THAT BUILDING PROJECTIONS AND ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE NOT DIFFERENT THINGS.
THAT LET ME MODIFY IT TO BUILDING PROJECTIONS ARE INTENDED TO BE DECORATIVE IN NATURE AND SHOULD NOT INCREASE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE.
I THINK AS WE'RE ALL ALL ON THE SAME PAGE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH, STAFF CAN WORK THE LANGUAGE REALLY WELL.
UM, JUST LOOKING AT ONE OF THE EXHIBITS WHERE YOU UH, DREW A RED BOX AROUND ALL THE LOTS THAT THIS WOULD APPLY TO.
I JUST WANNA POINT OF CLARIFICATION.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ENCROACHMENT INTO THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, WHICH I PRESUME IN THIS CASE WOULD BE THE STREET IN FRONT AND OR THE ALLEY
[00:40:01]
IN THE REAR, UM, BUT NOT THE SIDE LOT LINES.IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SO TO TO FURTHER CLARIFY ON THE ALLEYS IN THE REAR WHERE THERE ARE NO SIDEWALKS, WOULD WE BE ALLOWING THE PROJECTIONS THERE AS WELL OR ONLY ON THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY WHERE THERE'S A SIDEWALK THAT IT WOULD BE ENCROACHING OVER THE ALLEYS ARE STILL PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
SO IF THERE WAS A BAY WINDOW OVER AN ALLEY THAT'S STILL PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY THAT WOULD NEED A LICENSE AGREEMENT.
SO IS THAT THE CONDITION WHERE THE 14 FOOT WOULD PROBABLY APPLY? IS THAT WHY THE 14 FOOT RULE IS IN THERE FOR FIRETRUCKS, ET CETERA? THAT ONLY OCCURS IF A UTILITY IS LOCATED WITHIN EIGHT FEET.
SO IT SHOULD UTILITIES BE LOCATED IN THE ALLEY, IT WOULD APPLY THERE, BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS INTENDED SPECIFICALLY FOR THAT PURPOSE.
'CAUSE I THINK A LOT OF TIMES THESE ALLEYS ARE ALSO FIRE LANES.
SO WOULD IT BE EXCLUDED IN AN AREA WHERE THAT STREET IS DESIGNATED AS A FIRE LANE? I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT WE'VE GOT A PROJECTION THAT STICKS OUT AT EIGHT OR 10 OR 12 FEETS FIRE LANES.
A FIRE LANE'S 24 FEET ALLEYS, MOST OF THESE ALLEYS ARE 24 FEET.
'CAUSE IF IT SAYS JUST PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND THAT'S THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY, I'M CONCERNED WE'VE GOT PROJECTIONS STICKING OUT IN AN AREA WHERE TYPICALLY FIRETRUCK WANTS 16 FEET.
YEAH, THAT'S CERTAINLY WE SOMETHING WE COULD DISCUSS PERHAPS GET THE APPLICANT'S, UM, THOUGHTS ON THAT.
BUT I WOULD SAY WE ALSO HAVE THIS AS SUBJECT TO A CITY ISSUED LICENSE AGREEMENT.
AND SO IF THERE WERE FIRE CONCERNS, WE HAVE THE RIGHT NOT TO ISSUE THAT LICENSE AGREEMENT.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE I WAS KIND OF GOING WITH THIS IS TOO IS WE HAVE A PROCESS IN PLACE THAT WILL ALLOW ENGINEERING, FIRE DEPARTMENT, ET CETERA TO REVIEW ANY REQUESTS FOR THIS.
SO I DON'T KNOW HOW SPECIFIC WE REALLY HAVE TO GET, I LIKE THE CHANGE THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT TALKS ABOUT THE LIVING AREA OCCUPIED SPACE, BUT ANY CHANGE IS GONNA, ANY UH, ATTEMPT FOR THIS IS GONNA REQUIRE THE LICENSING AGREEMENT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW FOR A MORE IN-DEPTH REVIEW THAN WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO DO HERE.
SO YEAH, I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THE CONCERN, UM, YEAH, ON THOSE AREAS THAT WE DON'T RESTRICT FIRE ACCESS WITH ANY OF THESE PROJECTIONS.
THOSE, THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.
I I GUESS THE VALID QUESTION AT THAT POINT WOULD BE, DOES THE LICENSE AGREEMENT CONTAIN A PROCESS THAT INCLUDES A FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW OF THIS CHANGE? IF THAT PROCESS DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT, THEN WE HAVE AN ISSUE.
RIGHT? SO DO WE HAVE A SENSE OF WHAT THAT LICENSING AGREEMENT REVIEW LOOKS LIKE? YEAH, UM, LEGAL LOOKS AT IT WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TYPICALLY IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
IF IT'S JUST A FIRE, AN ACCESS EASEMENT, IT WON'T BE PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY.
UM, BUT, BUT IF IT'S, YOU KNOW, AN EASEMENT OR A FEE INTEREST, IT WILL BE, I DON'T WANNA GO SOME TOO TECHNICAL, BUT THE DEFINITELY I'LL LOOK AT IT IN THE ENGINEERS WILL LOOK AT IT.
IS THAT ENOUGH OR I, YEAH, I THINK I JUST WANNA GET MY CONCERN OUT IN THE PUBLIC RECORD THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T KNOW CREATE A FIRE ISSUE IN SOME OF THESE ALLEYS.
UM, HAVING LIVED IN A COMMUNITY LIKE THIS, UH, THE ALLEYS ARE AWFULLY TIGHT AND THEY ARE COUNTED ON BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT.
UH, I KNOW THEY, AND THEY PRACTICE IN 'EM.
AT LEAST MY EXPERIENCE IS THEY DO.
AND UH, I DON'T WANNA MAKE THEIR JOB ANY HARDER THAN IT ALREADY IS IN THOSE TIGHT SITUATIONS.
SO WHETHER IT'S OCCUPIED OR NOT, A PROJECTION INTO THAT SPACE COULD CREATE A DANGER TO THEM.
OR DAMAGE TO PRIVATE PROPERTY.
YEAH, IF, IF IT RESTRICTS THEIR ABILITY TO GET THEIR LADDER TRUCK IN AND TO DO THE JOB THAT THEY'RE TRAINED TO DO, THEN I'M CONCERNED THAT WE WOULD ALLOW IT TO PROJECT INTO, BUT EFFECTIVELY AS A FIRE LANE, EVEN IF IT'S A PRIVATE ONE.
SO IF WE JUST HAVE THAT IN THE PUBLIC RECORDS TO MAKE SURE THE STAFF IS AWARE OF IT, UM, THAT WOULD SATISFY MY CONCERNS.
UH, THAT'S, THAT'S VERY VALID.
SO I WOULD TAKE IT BACK TO THE PROCESS AND IF IT'S LEGAL AND ENGINEERING REVIEWING IT, SHOULD THAT PROCESS INCLUDE FIRE DEPARTMENT REVIEW OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES? MAYBE ENGINEERING DOES COVER FIRE.
COMMISSIONER TOM? THANKS CHAIRMAN.
I ACTUALLY HAD A SIMILAR CONCERN AS A, UH, COMMISSIONER IFF.
I ALSO HAD ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING YOU, ME WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS TYPE OF ENCROACHMENTS IS NOT UNUSUAL, UH, THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
SO DO YOU ACTUALLY HAVE ACTUAL, UH, EXAMPLES OR CASES THAT WE HAVE WORKED ON THAT HAD THIS TYPE OF ENCROACHMENTS? UH, I HAVE A LITTLE BIT CONCERN ABOUT THE SAFETY OF THE PEDESTRIANS IF IT'S ENCROACHING INTO, INTO THE SIDEWALK.
WOULD THERE BE ANY SAFETY CONCERNS, UM, YOU KNOW, THINGS FALLING OFF THE PROJECTIONS OR MAYBE THERE'S A BALCONY OR THERE SOMETHING
[00:45:01]
GOING OFF THE ROOF? UM, ANY CONCERN OR ANY SAFETY CONCERNS OR ANY SAFETY ISSUES THAT HAVE, UM, THAT HAVE WE HAVE ENCOUNTERED FROM OTHER CASES? I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY SAFETY ISSUES FROM OTHER AREAS IN TOWN WHERE THIS IS PRESENT.DO YOU HAVE A, UM, SPECIFIC CASE IN MIND WHERE WE HAVE SEEN THIS BEFORE? I JUST DON'T CANNOT RECALL THE LEGACY AREA.
UM, THE AURA ONE 90 APARTMENTS, PLANO GATEWAY, DOWNTOWN PLANO.
IT'S IN A FEW AREAS WITHIN THE CITY AND WE'VE NEVER HAD ANY SAFETY ISSUES WITH THAT.
WE'VE ALSO ADDED THE REQUIREMENT THAT IT WOULD BE, UM, THE MENTS ARE LIMITED TO A CERTAIN HEIGHT AND ABOVE THAT WAY WE KEEP THE PEDESTRIAN CLEAR ZONE AND PROTECT THE SIDEWALK.
SO THAT'S INCLUDED IN THIS LANGUAGE.
UM, I WAS WONDERING WHETHER A BALCONY IS SOMETHING THAT INCREASES THE LIVABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF LET'S SAY A SECOND OR THIRD FLOOR AND IF SO THEN LANGUAGE PROHIBITING AN INCREASE IN LIVABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE MIGHT HAVE THE UNINTENDED EFFECT OF PROHIBITING BALCONIES.
NO, AND I THINK A LOT OF THESE ARE JULIE BALCONIES ANYWAY.
THEY JUST HAVE A RAILING ACROSS THE SLIDING DOOR FROM THE PLANS I LOOKED AT TODAY LIVABLE.
SO FROM STAFF STANDPOINT THAT LANGUAGE DOESN'T PRESENT OR DOESN'T PREVENT THE, UH, INCLUSION OF A BALCONY OR SOME FORM OF, AND WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT AN EIGHT FOOT PATIO TYPE ENVIRONMENT? NO, I I THINK IT'S ONLY TWO PEOPLE.
I THINK THE BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.
COMMISSIONER LEY, UM, JUST A QUESTION.
DETACHABLE DETACHABLE FEATURES ALREADY PERMITTED TO THE RIGHT OF WAY ON THEIR EXISTING, UM, STANDARDS.
THIS DETACHABLE GIMME, CAN YOU GIMME AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT IS PERMITTED AS A DETACHABLE DETACHABLE FEATURE AND DO THOSE ALREADY HAVE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OR THRESHOLDS ATTACHED TO THEM? AWNINGS AND CANOPIES WOULD BE CONSIDERED DETACHABLE AND ARE ALLOWED CURRENTLY.
SO THIS JUST THE AWNINGS AND CANOPIES ALREADY ALLOWED BECAUSE THEY'RE DETACHABLE WITH THE BAY WINDOWS AND OTHER QUOTE UNQUOTE BUILDING PROJECTIONS THAT WHAT WE JUST BROADENING THE LANGUAGE WITH.
I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION OR JUST, UH, ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? WE DO NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT WITH THIS? OKAY, MR. RATLIFF HAS A QUESTION.
SO WHY DON'T WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME DOWN? THANK YOU SIR.
GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
ADDRESS IS 14 9 51 NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY, SUITE EIGHT 50, DALLAS, TEXAS 7 5 2 5 4.
UM, SO I THINK I HAVE AN ANSWER TO ALL FIVE OF THE QUESTIONS I JOTTED DOWN.
WELL, THERE MAY ONLY BE, THERE MAY ONLY BE ONE QUESTION.
MR. RATLIFF, THE ONLY ONE THAT THAT SAID HE HAS A QUESTION, SO I'LL LET YOU ANSWER.
OKAY, LET ME, LET ME RUN THROUGH THIS REAL QUICK AND THEN IF THERE'S MORE PLEASE.
UH, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR.
UM, SO FIRST OF ALL, WE'VE LOOKED AT THIS AS A FORMALITY.
UM, THIS WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION WHEN THE FIRST BUILDING PERMITS WERE SUBMITTED.
SO, UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THIS IS A NECESSARY STEP TO BEGIN THOSE LICENSE PROCESSES AND, AND ALLOW AN AIR RIGHT EASEMENT BUILD SOMETHING.
UM, I WANTED TO START BY SAYING THE SIDEWALKS AT COLIN CREEK ARE EITHER SEVEN FOOT OR 12 FOOT WIDE.
SO THAT TWO FOOT WILL NEVER BRING IT DOWN BELOW A FIVE FOOT WIDE SIDEWALK, WHICH IS, UM, GREATER THAN MOST OF THE SIDEWALKS THAT I'VE, YOU KNOW, THAT SURROUND MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, IN EAST PLANO, UM, THE EIGHT FOOT MINIMUM HEIGHT IS ONE FOOT FOUR ABOVE THE MINIMUM ACCESSIBLE STANDARDS.
SO, UH, WE FEEL THAT THAT WAS ADEQUATE FOR SOMEBODY RIDING A BIKE, UH, RIDING A SKATEBOARD.
BUT, UM, WE'VE GIVEN MORE THAN THE BARE MINIMUM CLEARANCE FOR THIS REQUIREMENT.
UM, A QUICK COMMENT ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE DISCUSSION.
I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE CLARIFY THE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THE TYPE OF SQUARE FOOTAGE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, ANY KIND OF PROJECTION WOULD THEORETICALLY EXTEND OUR, EITHER OUR ROOF AREA
[00:50:01]
OR OUR BUILDING FOOTPRINT.UM, EVEN IF IT AN EXTERIOR SPACE.
UM, SO SOMETHING LIKE, UH, WILL NOT INCREASE INTERIOR OR CONDITION SQUARE FOOT WOULD THEN CLARIFY THAT A BALCONY COULD STILL BE ALLOWED TO PROJECT A LITTLE BIT OR JUST THE RAILING OF THE BALCONY.
UM, AND THEN IF THE GROSS BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE GROWS BEYOND THE PROPERTY LINE BECAUSE OF ROOF OVERHANG, THAT STILL CAN BE CLARIFIED, UM, AND ACCEPTED.
UM, UM, IN RESPONSE TO THE FIRE LANES, OUR MINIMUM FIRE LANES ARE, OUR ALLEYS ARE 28 FEET WIDE WITH A TWO FOOT, UH, UTILITY EASEMENT.
SO AT THE REAR WE WILL NOT GO BELOW 14 FEET.
UM, SO THAT'S BEEN TAKEN CARE OF THROUGH, UH, WORKING WITH STAFF ON THE LANGUAGE AND, AND THE DIRECTOR OF SPECIAL PROJECTS.
UM, SO WE'RE GONNA MAINTAIN THAT CLEARANCE ON THE BACK.
UM, AND THEN WE'LL MAINTAIN AT LEAST A 24 FOOT WIDE FIRE ACCESS THROUGHOUT EVERY ALLEY, WHETHER IT'S PUBLIC OR PRIVATE.
UM, I, I COVERED NUMBER FOUR ON MY LIST HERE.
THE SAFETY, UM, WE'RE EITHER EIGHT OR 14 FEET, BUT WE'RE WELL ABOVE THE MINIMUM OF SIX FOOT EIGHT.
AND THEN LANGUAGE ON WHAT IS DETACHABLE NON-STRUCTURAL IS THE FIRST AND FOREMOST CONCERN THERE.
BUT, UM, OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE DETACHABLE WOULD BE LIGHT FIXTURES, GUTTERS, DOWNSPOUTS, UM, ITEMS OF THAT NATURE.
SO AGAIN, WE FEEL THIS IS, UH, SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T CHANGE THE INTENT OF ANYTHING THAT'S BEEN APPROVED PREVIOUSLY.
UH, WE WERE, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS NEVER ANY DISCUSSION ON GROWING THE OCCUPIABLE SQUARE FOOTAGE.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF YOUR CONCERNS.
AND IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS I'M HERE TO ANSWER.
UH, MR. ROW, IF YOU STILL HAVE YOUR OH, GO AHEAD.
JUST THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION 'CAUSE I WAS NOT SEEING THAT 28 FOOT DIMENSION THAT DOES ADDRESS MY CONCERN, SO, OKAY.
I APPRECIATE THE, THE CLARIFICATION.
SO IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ONLY REAL CLARIFICATION HAS TO DO WITH THAT DEFINITION OF LIVABLE SPACE AND UH, I KIND OF LIKE YOUR TERMINOLOGY.
YOU WANNA READ THAT BACK AGAIN? YEAH.
UH, UH, I DON'T REMEMBER THE WHOLE SENTENCE BUT NO, BUT DOT, DOT DOT WILL NOT INCREASE INTERIOR OR CONDITION SQUARE FOOTAGE, INTERIOR OR AIR CONDITION SQUARE FOOTAGE.
CONDITION SQUARE FOOTAGE IS A COMMON TERMINOLOGY IN, IN A, THE BUILDER'S WORLD.
SO SOMEHOW YOU'RE MODIFYING THE ENVIRONMENT.
MY ONLY COMMENT ON THAT IS BAY WINDOWS EXTEND SOME OF THE AIR CONDITIONED SPACE.
SO BETWEEN BALCONIES AND BAY WINDOWS WE'RE GOING BACK AND FORTH.
YEAH, WE COULD GET INTO, IF YOU HAVE IT FROM THE BAY, FROM THE FLOOR UP OR EVEN A SEATED AREA.
I THINK WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT.
AS LONG AS WE HAVE LANGUAGE THAT'S NOT ONLY CLEAR TO US NOW, BUT CLEAR TO THE NEXT COMMISSION THAT'S SITTING HERE AND WE KNOW THEY DON'T GO THROUGH THE SAME LOOPS.
SO QUICK QUESTION REGARDING THE A FOOT CLEARANCE.
UM, THIS IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY BUILDINGS, RIGHT? WHAT'S YOUR, UM, INTERIOR CEILING HEIGHT ARE YOU PLANNING TO BUILD SO THAT THE SECOND FLOOR IS, HAS ONLY A EIGHT FOOT CLEARANCE OUTSIDE? UM, WELL THE TYPICAL FLOOR TO FLOOR HEIGHT WOULD BE 10 FOOT EIGHT, WHICH WOULD RESULT IN A NINE FOOT CEILING.
IT, IT RELIEVES THAT STRESS OF A, A SMALLER FOOTPRINT.
UM, SO THE EIGHT FOOT HIGH WOULD BE MORE LIKE A DECORATIVE LIGHT FIXTURE OR THAT GUTTER DOWNSPOUT THAT I MENTIONED BEFORE.
UM, AND THEN TYPICALLY YOU'RE UP AT THAT SECOND FLOOR BEFORE YOU HAVE ANY KIND OF AN AWNING OR A, A BALCONY PROJECTION.
SO IT, IT WOULDN'T BE PART OF THE CEILING PROJECTION, IT WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE PATTERN BOOK THAT ALLOWS US TO MAINTAIN THE INTENT OF THE DESIGN THAT'S BEEN APPROVED.
WE JUST, WE GOTTA GET THIS DONE SO THEY CAN START BUILDING.
AND WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, WE DO NOT.
UM, MR. IFF, YOU'VE GOT YOUR FINGERS OVER THE BUTTON HERE, CHAIR.
I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT, UH, OR I MOVE, EXCUSE ME, I, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM THREE A, UH, WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS PRESENTED BY CITY STAFF AND INCLUDING THE AMENDMENT AND INCLUDING THE CLARIFICATION ON THE LANGUAGE IN ITEM ROMAN TWO SECOND.
I THINK THAT'S FAIRLY CLEAR CERTAINLY TO ANYONE WATCHING THIS LATER.
SO, UH, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF FOR THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI TO APPROVE ITEM THREE A, UH, SUBJECT TO THE STAFF'S MODIFICATION OF THE LANGUAGE ON ROOM NUMERAL TWO.
[00:55:01]
THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO ITEM THREE BI MOVE, WE APPROVE ITEM THREE B UH, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023 DASH ZERO 15.I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI TO APPROVE ITEM THREE B SUBJECT TO COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE.
A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO, PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[4. (DS) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Collin Creek, Block M, Lot 1R, Block N, Lot 1, Block O, Lot 1, Block P, Lot 1, Block R, Lot 2, Block S, Lots 1-4, Block W, Lot 2, Block Y, Lot 1, Block Z, Lot 1, and Block AA, Lot 1 - Vehicle parking garage, common area lot, 472 multifamily residence units, retail, and restaurant, and vacant land on 13 lots on 64.9 acres located on the east side of Paseo Lane, 150 feet south of Janwood Drive. Zoned Urban Mixed-Use-3. Project #PR2023-029. Applicants: MM CCM 48M, LLC, and VM Fund I, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPL COLIN CREEK BLOCK M LOT ONE R BLOCK N LOT ONE BLOCK O LOT ONE BLOCK P LOT ONE BLOCK R LOT TWO BLOCK S LOTS FOUR THROUGH FOUR, ONE THROUGH FOUR BLOCK W LOT TWO BLOCK Y LOT ONE BLOCK Z, LOT ONE AND BLOCK AA LOT ONE VEHICLE PARKING GARAGE, COMMON AREA LOT 472.FAMILY RESIDENT UNITS, RETAIL AND RESTAURANT AND VACANT, I'M SORRY, RETAIL AND RESTAURANT AND VACANT LAND ON 13 LOTS ON 64.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF PASS LANE 150 FEET SOUTH OF JAN WOOD DRIVE ZONED URBAN MIXED USE THREE APPLICANTS ARE MM, CCM 48, MLLC AND VM FUND ONE LLC.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THIS PROJECT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUE AN ANSWER.
ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UM, MR. BRONSKI, SO FIRST I WANNA SAY, UH, MS. BRIDGES, I'M SO HAPPY THAT YOU DO SUCH A FINE JOB ON UH, READING ALL OF THESE TO US.
UM, AND I WOULD WANT TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE, UH, AGENDA ITEM FOUR, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER.
ALL I NEED TO APPROVE ITEM FOUR, PLEASE VOTE.
THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT ZERO ITEM FIVE.
[5. (JK) Public Hearing - Replat: Braum’s Addition No. 2, Block A, Lot 1R - Bank on one lot on 1.5 acres located at the southeast corner of 15th Street and E Avenue. Zoned Corridor Commercial. Project #R2023-040. Applicant: Frost Bank (Administrative consideration)]
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PUBLIC HEARING REPL BRAHMS EDITION NUMBER TWO BLOCK A LOT ONE R BANK ON ONE LOT ON 1.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 15TH STREET AND E AVENUE ZONE CORRIDOR.COMMIS COMMERCIAL APPLICANT IS FROST BANK.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS A APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IF WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM.
CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONFINED DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.
UH, FIRST OF ALL, I WENT BY THERE TODAY AND IT'S A UNBELIEVABLY BEAUTIFUL NEW FACILITY.
UM, AND I WOULD BE PROUD TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS AS PRESENTED.
SECOND, YOU HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ROW FOR THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY TO APPROVE ITEM FIVE AS SUBMITTED, PLEASE VOTE.
THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[6. (PM) Public Hearing - Replat & Revised Site Plan: Spring Creek First United Methodist Church Addition, Block 1, Lots 1R & 2 - Religious facility on Lot 1R and vacant land on Lot 2 on 27.2 acres located at the northwest corner of Parker Road and Spring Creek Parkway. Zoned Single-Family Residence-9 and located within the Parkway Overlay District. Projects #R2023-041 and #RSP2023-078. Applicant: First United Methodist Church (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, PUBLIC HEARING REPL AND REVISED SITE PLAN.SPRING CREEK FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH EDITION BLOCK ONE LOTS ONE R AND TWO RELIGIOUS FACILITY ON LOT ONE R AND VACANT LAND ON LOT TWO ON SE 27.2 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARKER ROAD AND SPRING CREEK PARKWAY ZONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PAR PARKWAY OVERLAID DISTRICT APPLICANT IS FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
I'M PARKER MCDOWELL, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THESE ITEMS FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? UH, OKAY, WELL, UH, COMMISSIONER CAREY, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
WHY, WHY DO THEY WANT TO UH, DIVIDE THIS INTO TWO LOTS? UH, THEY'RE DIVIDING THIS IN TWO LOTS TO PREPARE FOR LOT TWO AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN TO BE RESIDENTIAL SHOULD THAT SHOULD BE COMING TO YOU AT THE NEXT AGENDA.
OKAY, I GUESS THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION AS WELL.
[01:00:01]
WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.WE FIND DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSIONER.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX AS SUBMITTED.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRENNO TO APPROVE ITEM SIX, PLEASE VOTE.
THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[7. (KC) Public Hearing - Replat: McDermott Square, Block A, Lot 8R - Assembly hall on one lot on 2.0 acres located on the east side of Independence Parkway, 480 feet north of McDermott Road. Zoned Planned Development-400-Retail. Project #R2023-044. Applicant: Athiti Ventures, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PUBLIC HEARING REPL MCDERMOTT SQUARE BLOCK A LOT.EIGHT R ASSEMBLY HALL ON ONE LOT ON 2.0 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY.
480 FEET NORTH OF MCDERMOTT ROAD ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 400 RETAIL.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER BRUNO? YEAH.
IN TRYING TO VIEW THIS PROPERTY, UM, I MEAN THERE WAS NO SIGN OR ANYTHING GOES.
IS THIS AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEVOTING TO THESE USES? I BELIEVE IT'S A NEW BUILDING, BUT I'M FILLING IN EXISTING.
IT'S IT'S NOT A VACANT PIECE OF LAND AT THIS POINT THAT THERE IS A BUILDING ON IT, IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AS SUBMITTED.
OKAY, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM SEVEN AS SUBMITTED, PLEASE VOTE.
THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[8. (DS) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat & Revised Site Plan: Miller & Hood Highway Addition, Block A, Lots 4R & 5R - Professional/general administrative office on two lots on 0.5 acre located on the south side of 20th Street, 220 feet west of K Avenue. Zoned Retail. Projects #PR2023-009 and #RSP2023-026. Applicants: PCTA Ventures, LLC, and Chris Polito (Administrative consideration)]
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, PUBLIC HEARING, PRELIMINARY REPLANT AND REVISED SITE PLAN.HOOD MILLER AND HOOD HIGHWAY EDITION BLOCK A LOTS FOUR R AND FIVE R.
PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON TWO LOTS ON 0.5 ACRE.
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 20TH STREET, 220 FEET WEST OF KAY AVENUE.
ZONED RETAIL APPLICANTS ARE PCTA VENTURES, LLC AND CHRIS POLITO.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE PRELIMINARY REPL IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER ROW, WELCOME.
IT SAYS THE PURPOSE FOR THE RE REPLY IS TO ABANDON AND PROPOSE EASEMENTS NECESSARY TO REFLECT THE EXISTING CONDITIONS.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT, WHAT EXISTING CONDITIONS THERE, UM, HAS BEEN PAVEMENT THAT HAS BEEN ADDED.
SO, UM, THEY UPDATED A ACCESS EASEMENT TO ALIGN WITH THE DRIVEWAYS THAT WERE CONSTRUCTED BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS, WHICH IS THAT NEW U SHAPE GOING THROUGH.
YOU CAN SEE THE OLD ONE IS CROSSED THROUGH AND THAT'S NOT WHERE THE DRIVEWAYS WERE CONSTRUCTED.
UH, MR. ALI, YOUR QUESTION BUTTONS GO? NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
UNDERSTAND WE HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? YES.
THE APPLICANT'S, UH, MR. POLITO AND TED ANDERSON WOULD LIKE TO, UH, PRESENT TO THE COMMISSION.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TODAY.
UH, I JUST WANNA GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY, SIR, CAN YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS PLEASE? PLEASE.
I LIVE IN 1901 RICK'S COURT AND PARKER, I WAS A, A, UM, I LIVED IN PLANO FOR 25 YEARS.
I LIVED 12 MINUTES WEST OF OUR OFFICE.
NOW, NOW I LIVE 12 MINUTES EAST.
I SERVED ON THE, UH, BUILDING STANDARDS COMMISSION IN PLANO.
FOR YEARS I WAS THE A, UH, BOARD PERSON AND THE CHAIR OF THE, UH, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
AND I ENJOYED THAT TIME, BUT WHEN I MOVED OUT OF PLANO, I HAD TO RELINQUISH MY, MY AUTHORITY.
WE'VE BEEN HERE FOR 12 YEARS AND THIS ALL STARTED WHEN WE TRIED
[01:05:01]
TO REPLACE SOME FENCING ON THE SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY.WE WERE TOLD WE NEED TO GET A PERMIT, SO WE APPLIED FOR THE PERMIT AND WE WERE TOLD THE SITE PLAN OR THE CONFIGURATION OF OUR, OUR, UH, PARKING LOT NOW DOES NOT MEET THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN THAT WE ENTERED YEARS AGO.
THE REASON BEING, WE HAD GRAVEL ON THE, WE HAD THREE SEPARATE LOTS.
WE GRAVELED THE THIRD LOT TO PROVIDE PARKING, UH, WAS TAKEN OR, UH, CITED BY THE CITY AND HAD TO PAY A FINE BECAUSE WE WERE PARKING ON A NON-APPROVED SURFACE.
SO WE ASPHALT TO DEBT SURFACE AND NOW WE'RE TOLD WE DON'T MEET THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, SO WE NEED TO SUBMIT FOR A NEW ONE.
UH, THIS IS OUR FOURTH REVISION.
IT'S BEEN A CONSIDERABLE TIME AND EFFORT AND MONEY TO GET TO THIS POINT, AND I AM SAYING THAT, UM, BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE OF HOW THESE THESE COUNCILS WORK, THIS LOT IS THE DEFINITION OF A NON-CONFORMING LOT.
IT WAS A HOME BUILT 65 YEARS AGO THAT WAS TURNED INTO A, UH, WELL, WE'RE ZONED RETAIL.
UM, AND SO WAS THE FIRE STATION BEHIND US.
UH, WE, YOU KNOW, NOBODY SELLS RETAIL IN THIS AREA.
WE HAVE A USED CAR LOT ACROSS THE STREET.
WE HAVE A DOCTOR'S OFFICE ACROSS THE STREET, A RETAIL OFFICE, OR A, I'M SORRY, A REALTY OFFICE ACROSS THE STREET.
AND WE ARE TRYING TO BE GOOD PATRONS OF THE CITY, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEING, UM, WE'RE BEING HELD TO STANDARDS.
LIKE WE WERE A BRAND NEW PROPERTY.
WE'RE TOLD WE HAVE TO BUILD A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ON THE PROPERTY LINE FOR THE TWO LOTS TO USE, EVEN THOUGH WE'VE BEEN APPROVED TO USE ROLL OFF TRASH CANS.
WE WERE TOLD, WELL, YOU CAN BUILD THE ENCLOSURE, BUT YOU DON'T NEED TO USE IT.
TO ME, THAT'S JUST A WASTE OF MONEY.
THIS IS A POOL BUSINESS AND IF YOU'VE NOTICED ABOUT HOW POOL BUSINESSES BEEN DOING, THEY'RE STRUGGLING NOW WITH THE INTEREST RATES.
IT'S BEEN A CHALLENGING YEAR AND JUST SOME OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE BEING ASKED TO DO, IF WE HAD A BRAND NEW PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT'D BE ONE THING.
BUT WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITHIN THE CONFINES OF A HOUSE THAT WAS BUILT 65 YEARS AGO AND THE LAWS HAVE CHANGED.
SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR A LITTLE CONSIDERATION.
WE WANT TO BE GOOD PATRONS, WE WANT TO BE GOOD PEOPLE, AND WE HAVE 26 EMPLOYEES THAT WE PAY TAXES AND WE PAY, UH, THE TAXES EVERY YEAR ON, UH, PERSONAL PROPERTY.
AND WE'RE JUST TRYING TO KEEP OUR HEADS DOWN AND DO A GOOD JOB AND GO HOME AT THE END OF THE NIGHT KNOWING WE'VE DONE WHAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO.
I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.
UM, THERE'S SOMEBODY ELSE TO SPEAK HERE.
MR. ANDERSON, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK NEXT? YOU HAVE 11 MINUTES REMAINING.
TED ANDERSON, CHRIS PLATO'S BUSINESS PARTNER.
I LIVE AT 8 0 5 CLOISTER WAY MCKINNEY 7 5 0 6 9.
CHRIS ELOQUENTLY STATED MOST OF THIS EVERY TIME THAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED IN TRYING TO UPDATE THE PROPERTY, WE'VE TRIED THE VERY BEST WE CAN TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO.
AND WE EVEN TRIED TO DO A VERY LARGE REMODEL ON ONE OF THE BUILDINGS AND ON ONE OF THE PIECES OF PROPERTY, AND WE SUBMITTED PLAN AFTER PLAN AFTER PLANT AND SPENT THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS.
FINALLY THREW IT MY HAND AND SAID, THIS PROCESS, IT'S TOO EXPENSIVE.
SO WE'RE JUST GONNA LEAVE THE ONE PROPERTY AS IT IS, PAINTED FLOORS TRYING TO MOVE IN.
WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO GET AN OCCUPANCY ABILITY IN THE NEW BUILDING FOR TWO MONTHS, AND WE'VE BEEN HELD UP BECAUSE OF A DUMPSTER GARAGE OR A PLOT PLAN ISSUE, OR AS CHRIS DESCRIBED, WE'RE TRYING TO WORK WITH A 65 YEAR OLD AREA.
WE WANNA MAKE IT LOOK NICE, WE WANT TO TRY TO MAKE IT PLEASANT FOR EVERYBODY AND OUR NEIGHBORS, BUT IT'S ALSO, WE'RE THE ONLY ONE ON THAT STREET THAT'S BEING HELD TO ANY OF THESE STANDARDS.
AND SO I'M, WE ARE FEELING VERY HARASSED.
[01:10:01]
WANTED TO SAY THAT, MAKE THAT POINT, WE'D LIKE TO GET THIS DONE, BUT ASKING US TO REVISE SOMETHING THAT'S 65 YEARS OLD OR SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN THERE 10 YEARS, AND I'M, I'M KIND OF GETTING THE DRIFT OF THIS.WE REPLANTED FROM THREE TO TO TWO SO THAT WE COULD GET A SOLID SURFACE PARKING AREA FOR THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WOULD COMPLY.
SO WHEN WE DID THAT, WE STIRRED UP THIS HORNET'S NEST ABOUT HAVING TO MAKE ALL THESE OTHER THINGS IN COMPLIANCE.
NOW I'M WONDERING WHY'D WE REPL IT AT ALL? I JUST, I, WE COULD HAVE DONE THE CENTER PLOT A PARKING LOT AND LEFT IT AS IT WAS AND LEFT THEM THREE DIFFERENT PROPERTIES AND, YOU KNOW, DONE SOME SORT OF LEGAL AGREEMENT THAT THEY WERE EASEMENTS BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS.
WE'RE REALLY, REALLY QUALITY POOL BUILDERS, BUT WE DON'T DO THIS FOR A LIVING.
SO, YOU KNOW, AT SOME OF THIS, UH, OUR IGNORANCE, I FEEL LIKE IS, HAS COMPLICATED THE MATTER.
I I DON'T THINK IT'S THAT DIFFICULT, BUT I'VE BEEN NOW WAITING TWO MONTHS, HAD SOMEBODY TO POSSIBLY MOVE IN AND RENT THE OTHER FACILITY TO GET SOME CASH FLOW AND THEY COULDN'T WAIT.
SO HOPEFULLY YOU CAN SEE MY FRUSTRATION AND AS I'M VIEWING THIS PROCESS FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER, IT'S, UH, IT'S RATHER INTERESTING.
SO I, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.
ALL YOU'RE ASKING US TO DO THOUGH TONIGHT IS APPROVE THIS, RIGHT? 'CAUSE NEITHER OF YOU REALLY TALKED TOO MUCH ABOUT THIS.
I'VE HEARD YOU TALK ABOUT THE DUMPSTER AND OTHER STUFF.
BUT THIS ITEM IS ABOUT THIS REPL AND REVISED SITE PLAN.
AND YOU WOULD LIKE FOR US TO APPROVE IT WITH MIXED FEELINGS.
THE, THE SITE PLAN SPECIFIES THAT WE HAVE TO BUILD A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AND SOME OTHER THINGS.
WE HAVE TO MOVE A STORAGE BUILDING THAT'S BEEN ON ONE PROPERTY FOR ABOUT 10 YEARS, TWO FEET OFF OF THE PROPERTY LINE.
AND, AND IT NEEDS TO BE THREE FEET.
SO THEY'RE SAYING WE HAVE TO MOVE IT TWO FEET.
IT CAN BE DONE, IT'S BEEN THERE 10 YEARS.
I'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY FOR 12.
UM, I JUST LOOK AROUND, I SEE EXPOSED DUMPSTERS ACROSS THE STREET FROM US.
NOW WE'RE ASKED TO BUILD A, AN, AN EXPENSIVE UNIT THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO USE.
I'M JUST ASKING FOR A LITTLE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT ON THAT.
BUT THIS WHOLE PROCESS IS, HAS HELD THAT OTHER BUILDING HOSTAGE BECAUSE WE CAN'T GET A CO WE CAN'T TURN THE POWER ON.
SO WE HAVE A BUILDING THAT HAS NO POWER.
WE CAN'T GET THE CO UNTIL WE GET THE SITE PLAN APPROVED.
SO OUR, OUR OPTIONS DENIED ARE TO REALLY APPROVE THIS OR NOT APPROVE IT.
AND IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT, I DON'T THINK THAT HELPS YOUR CASE ANY.
NO, IT'S, UH, IT'S, I'M HERE WITH MIXED BLESSINGS.
I'M JUST WANT TO GET IT ON THE RECORD THAT I DON'T APPRECIATE IT.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THE SIDE? NO, WE DO NOT.
UH, I SEE SEVERAL QUESTIONS THERE.
I'M ASSUMING, ARE THEY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR DO YOU JUST WANNA SPEAK? OKAY.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? OH, YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
ALRIGHT, SO I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL START WITH MR. BRONSKI.
YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? WELL, HE, HE JUST, YOU DON'T HAVE A QUESTION.
SO LET'S LET THE QUESTION GET ASKED AND THEN WE'LL, OH, SORRY.
I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T YEAH, UNDERSTAND.
SO FOR STAFF, UH, I'M CURIOUS IF YOU CAN GIVE ME SOME INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO THIS DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENT THAT HE'S NOT EVEN GONNA BE REQUIRED TO USE.
SO THERE'S A REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE DUMPSTERS ON SITE, OUR DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ON SITE.
STAFF CANNOT WAIVE, IT'S A REQUIREMENT.
SO EVEN THOUGH THERE WAS AN EXCEPTION MADE TO ALLOW THEM TO USE CARTS, REQUIREMENT IS STILL TO PROVIDE THAT ENCLOSURE.
IF IN THE FUTURE THEY WANT TO USE IT, IT'S UP TO THEM.
BUT THAT IS THE, THAT IS HOW THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENT.
THEIR ALTERNATIVE IS TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND REQUEST A VARIANCE.
BUT, BUT IN FACT THEY DO HAVE AN EXCEPTION SAYING THEY DO NOT NEED TO USE IT.
SO, UM, THERE'S NOTHING IN THE ORDINANCE AS IF YOU HAVE CART SERVICE.
YOU DO NOT PROVIDE THE, THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE.
DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE IS STILL REQUIRED.
IT JUST TO, TO ME IT SEEMS PROBLEMATIC THAT WE WOULD PUT A REQUIREMENT ON A BUSINESS OWNER, UM, OR A PROPERTY OWNER THAT THEN WE TELL THEM, WELL, UH, YOU HAVE TO, YOU HAVE TO PAY ALL THIS MONEY TO HAVE THIS DONE.
BUT UH, YOU'VE ALREADY GOTTEN AN EXCEPTION TO NOT USE IT.
IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'RE NOT.
[01:15:01]
QUESTION THEN THAT COMES ALONG WITH THAT IS, DOES THE CART SERVICE ALLOWANCE, IT ONLY APPLIES FOR THIS BUSINESS, THIS PURPOSE, PURPOSE, THIS USE, IT'S NOT BASED ON LAND, IT'S BASED ON USE.THEY HAD TO APPLY FOR THIS, RIGHT? I BELIEVE THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, THE, THE CART SERVICE IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE SERVICE THAT PROVIDES IT.
IN THIS CASE, THE CITY, THEY WERE ACCEPTABLE WITH THE CART SERVICE DUE TO CONDITIONS ON THIS SITE.
THAT IS NOT A COMMON CONDITION.
AND THIS IS APPLIED A LOT OF TIMES ACROSS THE CITY.
UM, BUT THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE IS PROVIDED INSTEAD.
SO THIS IS NOT ANY DIFFERENT THAN ANY OTHER BUSINESS OR REDEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENT.
'CAUSE THERE COULD BE A DIFFERENT USE IN THESE BUILDINGS IN THE FUTURE THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE DUMPSTER AND THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO PUT IT IN ANYWAY.
SO TECHNICALLY EACH LOT IS SUPPOSED TO HAVE ITS OWN ENCLOSURE.
WE ALLOWED THEM TO COMBINE THEM ONTO ONE LOT TO BE SHARED.
SO WE USED OUR, WE'VE STAFF HAS USED OUR FLEXIBILITY WITHIN THE ORDINANCE TO THE GREATEST EXTENT WE CAN.
UNDERSTANDING THIS IS A CHALLENGING SITE.
UM, MR. LAW SHARED DUMPSTER BETWEEN LOTS IS ACTUALLY PROVIDED WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.
IS IT? NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
WHERE THAT WAS ONE OF OUR SOLUTIONS WE CAME UP WITH.
I MEAN, I BELIEVE IT IS, I HAVE A SITE THAT HAS SHARED DUMPSTER ACCESS AS WELL THAT WAS ALLOWED BY ORDINANCE AND I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
AND THEY WERE SAYING THIS WAS THREE LOTS AT ONE POINT, BUT IT WAS PLATTED INTO TWO OR IS THIS US PLATTING IT FROM THREE TO TWO.
THERE WAS A PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENT ON THE SITE WHICH REQUIRED THE REPL.
THEY DID NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THAT DEVELOPMENT, BUT THAT WAS WHAT FACILITATED THE REPL.
SO IT'S ALREADY BEEN RE PLATTED FROM THREE TO TWO? CORRECT.
AND WHERE IS THE DUMPSTER ON THIS PLATT PULL IT IN.
I BELIEVE IT'S RUNNING THE LOT LINE BOTTOM RIGHT BETWEEN THE, IT'S ON THE SITE PLAN IN THE MIDDLE LOT LINE IN THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY.
WE'RE AT THE PRELIMINARY RE PLATT.
CAN WE, WE SEE THE SITE PLAN, THE WHERE THE LOT RUN RUNS RUNS DOWN THE MIDDLE IN THE, AT THE BOTTOM.
AND SO I WOULD JUST TELL Y'ALL AS THE APPLICANTS, I'M A EAST PLANO BUSINESS OWNER AS WELL AND I'VE RUN INTO THIS ISSUE BEFORE AND NOW SITTING HERE, THE QUESTION IS WHEN WHEN DO WE REQUIRE SOMEONE TO COME UP TO A, TO A A STANDARD? AND AS FRUSTRATING AS IT CAN BE, I'VE BEEN IN YOUR SHOES.
UM, THERE HAS TO BE, AT SOME POINT YOU HAVE TO BRING IT UP TO THE NEW STANDARD.
AND SO IF YOU DON'T LIKE, I MEAN I DON'T LIKE THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ANYMORE THAN YOU DO, ESPECIALLY IF YOU HAVE TRASH CART ACCESS.
IT DOESN'T, I MEAN, I WOULD THINK THAT WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE THEM HAVE THAT AREA SO THAT IT COULD BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE, BUT ACTUALLY BUILDING THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, IT MIGHT BE A $5,000 DEAL.
AND THEN ALL YOU HAVE IS A HOLE WITH TWO DOORS THAT IS NOT USED FOR ANYTHING.
AND SO I COULD SEE PROVIDING, I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
I'M JUST TALKING ABOUT THIS IS NOT GONNA BE THE LAST TIME THAT THIS ISSUE COMES.
AND SO NO, I I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE QUEST.
THEY BRING UP A COUPLE OF POINTS AND THEY'RE LIKE, HMM, OKAY, MAYBE WE KIND OF PUT THIS ON OUR AGENDA FOR DISCUSSIONS IN THE FUTURE, BUT TONIGHT WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION.
AND WHEN I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, WHEN DID THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE REQUIREMENT HAPPEN OR BECOME A REQUIREMENT WHEN TRASH CARTS ARE AVAILABLE FOR USE? BECAUSE IF YOUR TRASH SERVICE IS NOT A DUMPSTER AND IT'S THE CART AND THAT'S THE TRUCK THAT'S GONNA COME BY, WHEN DID THE REQUIREMENT TO HAVE A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE BECOME A REQUIREMENT? I HAVE TO LOOK.
I HAVE TO LOOK AT THAT AND GET BACK TO YOU.
I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION.
ARE WE SURE THAT IT IS A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE YES, IT'S, I CAN THINK OF SITES THAT DON'T HAVE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES.
MS. ULA, DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON THIS? SURE.
SO, UH, PER SECTION TWO, UH, 20, UH, POINT 400 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ITEM TWO, A MINIMUM OF TWO CONTAINERS PER LOT TO ACCOMMODATE BOTH REFUSE AND RECYCLING ADDITIONAL CONTAINERS, UH, ARE REQUIRED PER LOT ADDITIONAL CONTAINER SPACES MAY BE REQUIRED FOR NON NON RESIDENTIAL USES FOR THE SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS.
AND TO YOUR POINT, REGARDING SHARED CONTAINERS, WE HAVE IT, IT'S, UM, NOT SHARED CONTAINERS, BUT THE, FOR THE LOCATION, ONE OR MORE REQUIRED CONTAINER LOCATIONS MAY BE OFFSITE IN A PERMANENT EASEMENT WITHIN 150 FEET OF THE BUILDING AS DETERMINED SUFFICIENT THROUGH THE, UM, SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS.
SO IT DOESN'T TALK ABOUT SHARED, UH, DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES,
[01:20:01]
BUT RATHER HAVING AN OFFSITE ENCLOSURE.AND SO THE LANGUAGE THAT I WAS WAS HEARING WAS TWO CONTAINERS.
WHY ARE THE ROLLING TRASH CARTS NOT CONTAINERS, IF THAT'S THE SERVICE? YEAH, I THINK YOU'RE READING THIS ONE SENTENCE THAT MAY CONSIDER IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE REQUIREMENTS.
AND THIS DUMPSTER, THIS SECTION IS ABOUT DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES.
I WOULD THINK WE WOULD USE THE TERM DUMPSTER THEN, BECAUSE I'M HEARING CONTAINERS AND WE CALL THOSE TRASH CARTS.
SO IF, IF YOU WEREN'T SURE WHEN YOU WALKED IN HERE THAT WE SHARE SOME OF YOUR FRUSTRATIONS AND WE DO TRY TO MAKE IT ALL MAKE SENSE, JUST KNOW THAT WE HEAR YOU.
THAT'S ABOUT THE BEST I CAN DO TONIGHT.
COMMISSIONER ROWLEY, UM, JUST A QUICK CLARIFICATION ON A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE THERE.
SOUNDS LIKE THERE IS A WAIVER PROCESS WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IF THEY SO CHOSE BY THE INSTEAD.
UNLESS DELEGATED SPECIFICALLY TO P AND Z, ANY OTHER VARIANCE GOES TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
CAN THEY, WHETHER THIS IS APPROVED OR NOT, CAN THEY ADD AN ADDITIONAL STEP TO NOW GO ASK FOR A WAIVER FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS FOR THIS PARTICULAR ENCLOSURE? SO WE APPROVE THE SIDE PLAN, WHICH REQUIRES THE ENCLOSURE.
IS THERE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE AN EXTRA STEP? I'M SURE IT COSTS MORE MONEY AND ALL THAT STUFF.
THERE ARE SOME, MICHELLE, I'M GONNA SAY THERE'S SOME COMPLICATIONS IN WHAT HAS TO GO FIRST, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
SO I THINK THEORETICALLY THAT COULD BE DONE.
I'M NOT SURE THAT WE HAVE HIT ALL THE CROSSED ALL THE T'S ON MAKING THAT HAPPEN, BUT THERE IS AN AVENUE TO GET THERE.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE A TIME CONSIDERATION THOUGH THAT THEY'RE ALREADY FRUSTRATED BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TIME AND AT THIS POINT IT SOUNDS LIKE THEY'VE KIND OF THROWN UP THEIR HANDS AND SAID, HERE'S HOW WE GOTTA DEAL WITH THIS.
UM, UH, COMMISSIONER TOM? I THINK CHAIRMAN, UM, I THINK, WELL FIRST OF ALL, I THINK WE SHOULD, I, UH, WANNA APPROVE.
I I'M GONNA THINK THAT THAT THE BEST WAY TO DO IT TODAY IS TO APPROVE SO THAT THEY CAN GET CEO ON THEIR BUILDING.
UM, BUT I DO WANNA TAKE THIS, THIS OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE.
'CAUSE I AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER LYLE, THIS MAY NOT BE THE LAST TIME WE'LL HEAR FROM, UH, HEAR SOMETHING LIKE THIS.
SO JUST TO EDUCATE US, IF, UM, A BUILDING HAS BEEN THERE FOR A LONG TIME, AT WHAT POINT THEY ARE REQUIRED TO BUILD THIS DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE THING OR WHAT KIND OF BUILDING? 'CAUSE 'CAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE BUILDINGS THAT DO NOT HAVE DOWN DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES, BUT THERE ARE BUILDINGS, THEY HAVE TO HAVE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE.
WHAT'S THE UM, DELINEATOR OR THE DIFFERENTIATOR THAT REQUIRES THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE? I WOULD JUST SAY AT A, AT A HIGH LEVEL, THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN PRIMARILY FOR, FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S WRITTEN IN THAT CONTEXT WITH THE UPCOMING REWRITE, WE WOULD LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLORE PROVISIONS FOR REDEVELOPMENT THAT DON'T CURRENTLY EXIST THAT MIGHT ADDRESS SOME SITUATIONS LIKE THIS WHERE YOU HAVE, UM, OLDER DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS BUILT UNDER PREVIOUS STANDARDS AND THEN THRESHOLDS OF WHEN THOSE NEWER REQUIREMENTS KICK IN.
WE DON'T CURRENTLY HAVE THOSE.
WHAT'S THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT FOR THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE HAS TO BE BUILT.
ALL ALL REQUIREMENTS MUST BE MET AT THE TIME OF SITE POINT.
WHAT KIND OF VIEWS OR WHAT WHATEVER'S APPLICABLE TO THE SITE? WE HAVE NO, WE HAVE NO THRESHOLDS AT THIS MOMENT.
UM, ALRIGHT, WE CAN KEEP GOING, BUT LET'S KEEP IN MIND THAT IF WE'RE THINKING ABOUT WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS IN THE FUTURE, THAT DOESN'T HELP US MAKE OUR DECISION TONIGHT.
WE JUST, UH, COMMISSIONER LYLE, I JUST WANTED TO SAY QUICKLY THAT WHILE I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE YOUR FRUSTRATION, I ALSO WANNA ACKNOWLEDGE STAFF'S ABILITY OR EFFORTS TO DO THE BEST THEY CAN AND THEY'RE TRYING TO WRITE RULES FOR THE ENTIRE CITY AND JUST LIKE YOU SAID HERE, IT'S PRIMARILY WRITTEN FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT AND SO IT'S, IT'S DIFFICULT, BUT WE HEAR YOUR CONCERNS AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE MIGHT BE AN AVENUE FORTHCOMING THAT WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO CLARIFY SOME OF THESE THINGS.
BUT THE ISSUE, IF I HAD TO PUT AN UMBRELLA OVER THE WHOLE THING, IS THAT THE SAME STANDARD IF YOU'RE BUILDING THE TOYOTA CAMPUS IN WEST PLANO APPLIES IF YOU'RE REMODELING A 65 YEAR OLD, UH, THREE RESIDENTIAL LOTS IN EAST PLANO, THERE'S NO DIFFERENT STANDARD.
IS THAT RIGHT MIKE? WHATEVER'S APPLICABLE TO THE SITE, YES.
THEY MUST COME UP TO THOSE TAB.
AND SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE TWO VERY DIFFERENT THINGS.
YOU'VE GOT TWO OLD HOUSES ON THREE DIFFERENT RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND THEN YOU HAVE A 50 ACRE CAMPUS IN WEST PLANO AND THE STANDARDS ARE LARGELY THE SAME.
I MEAN, THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES WRITTEN INTO IT, BUT NONETHELESS,
[01:25:01]
I THINK WE SHOULD MOVE ON.I JUST WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE STAFFS DOING THEIR BEST THEY CAN AS WELL.
MR. RILEY, JUST A KIND OF A QUESTION OF PROCESS FOR THE STAFF, MAYBE FOR MY EDUCATION AS WELL, IS THE APPLICANT, UM, I THINK IT SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF THEIR MAIN CONCERNS IS GETTING THEIR CO SO THEY CAN GET THE POWER TURNED ON SO THEY CAN EITHER RENT, LEASE, OR OPEN THIS BUILDING.
IS THERE ATCO PROCESS THEY CAN GO THROUGH? BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THIS, SOME OF THESE IMPROVEMENTS ARE GONNA TAKE TIME TO GET BUILT, INCLUDING THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE.
IS THERE A PROCESS THEY CAN PURSUE? OBVIOUSLY THEY NEED TO COME MEET WITH Y'ALL AND GO THROUGH IT TO HELP THEM GET THAT BUILDING WHERE THEY CAN START UTILIZING IT QUICKLY.
UM, OR IS THAT A BUILDING PERMITTING QUESTION? YEAH, THAT'S HANDLED COMPLETELY BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL.
SO THERE IS A PROCESS, BUT I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH ALL THE INTRICACIES OF WHAT THE CRITERIA ARE FOR HIM TO GRANT ONE.
BUT, SO I GUESS I WOULD ENCOURAGE Y'ALL TO GO MEET WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIALS, SEE IF THERE'S A WAY THAT THEY CAN HELP YOU TO ACHIEVE YOUR GOALS AND GET IN THAT BUILDING, UM, MAYBE SOONER THAN, UH, THAN LATER.
THANK YOU COMMISSIONER KERRY? UH, THANK YOU.
UH, REAL QUICK, JUST A COUPLE THINGS.
I, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER THESE GUYS WOULD WANNA CHANGE DIRECTION, BUT I'M, I'M REALLY, I I HEARD THEM WHEN THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT THE STRUGGLE OF THE BUSINESS, THE CAPITAL OUTLAYS THAT THEY'RE, THAT THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH.
AND SO I HAVE TWO QUICK QUESTIONS.
ONE IS, IF WE APPROVE THIS TONIGHT, DOES THAT FORESTALL THEM FROM GOING FOR A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS? IF THEY DECIDE TO DO THAT, DO WE KNOW THAT? WOULD IT PRECLUDE THEM FROM DOING THAT? DO WE KNOW? I DON'T THINK THAT IT DOES.
THEY HAVE AN APPROVED SLAP PLAN.
THEY MAY NEED TO COME BACK AND HAVE OTHER REVISIONS TO THEIR PLANS, BUT IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE THEM FROM COMING BACK AND ASKING, AS FAR AS I KNOW, THEY WOULD NOT GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PRIOR TO THIS.
THEY NOT, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT ALWAYS COMES AFTER PLANNING AND ZONING.
I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THEY NEED ANOTHER CHANGE HERE.
IF THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THERE THINK THAT'S THE THAT'S OUR HESITANCY.
I WAS JUST, YOU GUYS ALWAYS GO FIRST JUST RESPONDING TO SEE, I WAS JUST RESPONDING TO SOMETHING EARLIER, WHICH SEEMED LIKE THAT WASN'T CLEAR.
I JUST WANT, YOU KNOW, I THINK EVERYBODY HERE WANTS TO HELP THESE GUYS.
AND, UH, I, I, I GUESS, UM, IF, IF THEY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO PULL THIS RIGHT NOW AND GO DOWN A DIFFERENT PATH, IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO TRY TO HELP THEM WITH THEIR SITUATION FROM AP AND Z POINT OF VIEW? IF THEY SAY, HEY WAIT, IF DON'T APPROVE THIS.
I MEAN I, I JUST WANNA TRY TO HELP THESE GUYS DO IT.
I THINK EVERYBODY DOES AND THEY, THEY MAY NOT WANNA DO THAT.
YOU GUYS PROBABLY JUST WANNA MOVE AHEAD WITH THIS.
OKAY, SO I RETRACT THE QUESTION.
ANYTHING THAT WE DO HERE OTHER THAN APPROVING THIS IS GOING TO JUST DELAY THEM FURTHER.
UH, WHETHER THEY BUILD THE DUMPSTER OR THEY GO TO A BOARD OF ADJUST ANYTHING.
IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, IF WE TABLE IT, THEY'VE STILL GOTTA COME BACK TO US.
UM, SO I AGAIN, AND WE HAVE NO CHANGE MAKING AUTHORITY, WE CAN APPROVE OR NOT APPROVE, CORRECT? THAT'S WHERE WE SET IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL.
IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE MR. BROSKI.
SO BECAUSE THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, CONSIDERATION AND I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT IS OUTSIDE OF THE REQUIREMENTS TO APPROVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, CONSIDERATION, I MOVE THAT THE, UH, PRELIMINARY REPAT UH, BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN.
UM, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THAT AS SUBMITTED SECOND.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY TO APPROVE ITEM EIGHT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, PLEASE VOTE AND THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[9. (PM) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat & Revised Site Plan: North Central Addition, Block 1, Lot 3BR - Restaurant and retail on one lot on 1.7 acres located on the east side of U.S. Highway 75, 608 feet north of 16th Street. Zoned Corridor Commercial. Projects #PR2023-013 and #RSP2023-038. Applicant: 1700N Central Realty, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
NUMBER.UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPL AND REVISED SITE PLAN.
NORTH CENTRAL EDITION BLOCK ONE LOT THREE B RESTAURANT AND RETAIL ON ONE LOT ON 1.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF US.
HIGHWAY 75 608 NORTH OF 16TH STREET ZONE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL APPLICANT IS 1700 N CENTRAL REALTY LLC.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. LAU? UH, CAN WE LOOK AT THE, ISN'T THERE A SITE PLAN ON THIS? MM-HMM?
IT'S THIS RIGHT HERE, RIGHT? SO I WAS LOOKING AT THE, I THINK THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
WHERE'S THE, THE TABLE? THE SUMMARY TABLE.
IT WOULDN'T BE ON THE GRAPHIC.
THE GRAPHIC I GOT JUST NOT ON HERE.
THERE WAS JUST A DIFFERENT IN THE WAY THAT THE PARKING WAS CALCULATED.
[01:30:01]
SOME OF IT WAS RETAIL, SOME OF IT WAS RESTAURANT WHAT AND, BUT I DIDN'T SEE ANY DELINEATION IN THE ACTUAL BUILDING.WHAT, WHAT DID YOU APPLY THE PARKING RATIO FOR RETAIL VERSUS WHAT YOU APPLIED THE PARKING.
WHAT SECTION OF THE BUILDING DID YOU APPLY THE PARKING RATIO FOR? THE RETAIL VERSUS THE RESTAURANT? SINCE I DIDN'T SEE A DELINEATION IN THE BUILDING SINCE I BELIEVE THIS IS GONNA BE THE, UH, MULTIPLE SUITES, WE DON'T REQUIRE THEM TO DIFFERENTIATE WHERE EXACTLY IT IS.
WE JUST ASK THEM TO PROVIDE THE TOTAL THAT THEY'RE DELEGATING FOR EACH ON THE, IN THE BUILDING.
SO THERE'S NOT DESIGNATED SWEET SPOTS LIKE ONE SUITE THAT COULD BE RETAIL COULD END UP BEING RESTAURANT, BUT THEY HAVE, THEY HAVE CAPS ON BOTH OF THOSE.
I THOUGHT IT WAS JUST ONE BIG RESTAURANT.
I DON'T SEE SUITES BROKEN UP ON THE FLOOR PLAN OR ARE WE NOT SEEING A FLOOR PLAN? YEAH, WE DON'T LOOK AT THE FLOOR PLAN.
WE JUST LOOK AT THE BUILDING FOOTPRINTS.
IT'S, THEY PROVIDE A SITE SITE SUMMARY TABLE WHICH DESCRIBES THE USES ON THE SITE AND THEN THE PARKING BREAKDOWN AS PER SQUARE FOOTAGE BROKEN DOWN FOR EACH USE.
SO WE GET THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THROUGH THE, THROUGH THAT SITE, SITE DATA SUMMARY TABLE.
BUT THEY DON'T GIVE YOU THE BUILDING FLOOR PRINT AND SAY THAT'S THEIR RETAIL AND THIS IS THEIR RESTAURANT NOT AT THIS STAGE.
THEIR AT BUILDING AT PERMIT WILL NEED TO MATCH THEIR SITE PLAN BUT THEN IT WILL MATCH WHEN THEY BRING IT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? OKAY, THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO WE DO NOT.
FINAL DISCUSSION WITH COMMISSIONER MR. BROSKY.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE.
UH, THE PRELIMINARY RELA UH, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED.
HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BURNOFF TO APPROVE ITEM NINE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF PLEASE VOTE.
ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO ITEM 10 AGENDA
[10. (PM) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat & Revised Site Plan: Crest Cadillac Addition, Block B, Lot 1R - Vehicle storage on 2.8 acres located on the west side of Premier Drive, 1,660 feet north of Enterprise Drive. Zoned Corridor Commercial with Specific Use Permit No. 35 for Vehicle Storage. Projects #PR2023-020 and #RSP2023-064. Applicant: VTC Plano Rental Properties, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
ITEM NUMBER 10, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPL AND REVISED SITE PLAN CREST CADILLAC EDITION BLOCK B LOT ONE R VEHICLE STORAGE ON 2.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PREMIER DRIVE 1,660 FEET NORTH OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE ZONE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 35 FOR VEHICLE STORAGE.APPLICANT IS VTC PLANO RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE PRELIMINARY RE PLATT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE ADDITION TO ENTER ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED FOR THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SO I WENT BACK AND WATCHED WHEN THEY PRESENTED THIS BACK ON JULY 17TH AND THEY TOLD US ABOUT ALL THESE TREES THEY WERE GONNA ADD AND THAT THEY WERE GONNA ADD A SCREEN BACK THERE ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE PARKING LOT BETWEEN THE PARKING LOT AND THE HOUSES.
IS THERE A LANDSCAPE PLAN THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED WITH THE SITE PLAN? BECAUSE I THOUGHT LIVING SCREENS OR TREES, THERE IS A LANDSCAPE PLAN SUBMITTED WITH THIS BUT THAT'S ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED AND DOESN'T NEED TO BE APPROVED BY THIS BODY.
AND WERE THE COMMENTS THAT THEY MADE AND AT THE MEETING FOLLOWED THROUGH WITH ON THEIR LANDSCAPE PLAN.
OKAY, NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.
ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS? WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10, PRELIMINARY REPL SUBJECT TO, UH, ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS BY THE ENGINEERING TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED.
ALL RIGHT, SO A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RAT LEFT TO APPROVE.
ITEM 10 IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT ZERO.
NOT A LONG SUFFERING INDIVIDUALS STILL SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE.
[11. (PM) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Van Tuyl Addition, Block A, Lots 2R & 3 - New vehicle dealer and major vehicle repair on two lots on 11.8 acres located on the west side of U.S. Highway 75, 1,345 feet north of Enterprise Drive. Zoned Corridor Commercial. Project #PR2023-021 and RSP2023-065. Applicants: VTC Plano Rental Properties, LLC, and Delynn A. Davidson (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPL AND REVISED SITE PLAN VAN TILE EDITION BLOCK A LOTS TWO R AND THREE NEW VEHICLE DEALER AND MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR ON TWO LOTS ON 11.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF US.HIGHWAY 75 1,345 FEET NORTH OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE ZONE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL APPLICANT'S RVTC PLANO RE RENTAL PROPERTIES LLC AND DELIN A DAVIDSON.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE PRELIMINARY REPLANT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONS INTER ALTERATION TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I THINK YOU HAVE THAT MEMORIZED.
[01:35:01]
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11, PRELIMINARY REPL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED AND I HAVEN'T MEMORIZED THAT.
A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE.
ITEM 11 IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[12. (JK) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Los Rios Plaza, Block 1, Lot 2R - Vehicle parts sales (inside) on one lot on 0.6 acre located on the north side of Park Boulevard, 210 feet west of Los Rios Boulevard. Zoned Retail. Project #PR2023-024. Applicant: Ferguson Glen, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPL LOS RIOS PLAZA BLOCK ONE LOT TWO R VEHICLE PARTS SALES INSIDE ON ONE LOT ON 0.6 ACRE LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PARK BOULEVARD, 210 FEET WEST OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD.ZONED RETAIL APPLICANT IS FERGUSON GLEN, LLC.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIONS.
THE PRE THE PRELIMINARY RELA IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS OF THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
SEEING NONE I THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? UH, THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER AND ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS ITEM RIGHT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONFINED DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 12, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI TO APPROVE ITEM 12 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
I THINK WE'LL JUST GO AHEAD AND LET MR. THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
WE'LL LET MR. BRONSKI READ THE NEXT ONE AND THEN MOVE RIGHT INTO THE MOTION.
[13. (JK) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Walton Park Square Addition, Block 1, Lot 2R - Restaurant with drive-through on one lot on 2.6 acres located at the southeast corner of Park Boulevard and Ventura Drive. Zoned Retail and located within the Preston Road Overlay District. Projects #PR2023-026. Applicant: 5040 Reunion, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
ITEM NUMBER 13, PUBLIC HEARING.PRELIMINARY REPL WALTON PARK SQUARE EDITION BLOCK ONE LOT TWO R RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THROUGH ON ONE LOT ON 2.6 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARK BOULEVARD AND VENTURA DRIVE ZONED RETAIL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT.
APPLICANT IS 50 40 REUNION LLC.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND ARE ALTERATIONS OF THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU WANT NEXT TIME WE CAN HAVE MR. BRONSKI READ THAT LAST LINE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? UH, MR. BRUNO.
UM, THIS IS A LUBY'S CAFETERIA.
I'M JUST CURIOUS AS AS TO WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO THAT THAT REQUIRES A REPL.
UM, SO THEY ARE ABANDONING, UM, SOME EASEMENTS LIKE A FIRE LANE AND SOME DRAINAGE EASEMENTS AS WELL.
AND THEY'RE PROPOSING NEW FIRE LANES AND UTILITY EASEMENTS THROUGHOUT THE LOT.
IT, IT'S NOT GONNA CHANGE LIKE THE CHARACTER OF THE PROPERTY OR, OR THE OPERA OR, OR THE CAFETERIA OPERATION.
UM, THERE WILL BE A NEW BUILDING ON THE SITE FOR, IT WILL BE A NEW CHICK-FIL-A RESTAURANT.
OH, IT'S IT'S NOT GONNA BE LUBY'S ANYMORE.
I HEARD DISAPPOINTMENT IN THAT.
THERE GOES YOUR LUANN, THERE GOES MY LUANN SPECIAL.
MY LUANN PLATE IS GONE FOREVER.
WE CAN GET LIVER, YOU KNOW, I MEAN THAT'S TRUE.
DO WE HAVE, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEYOND THE LOU LIVER SPECIAL? NO, I GUESS NOT.
IT'S NOT EVEN NINE O'CLOCK AND YOU'RE ALREADY LOSING IT.
OKAY, I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'M SURPRISED WE DON'T HAVE AN ARMY OF LUBY FANS SITTING HERE GOING.
WHAT ARE YOU DOING? WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I THINK MR. BRUNO SHOULD MAKE THAT MOTION JUST BECAUSE
ITEM NUMBER 13, UM, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRUNO OF A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY TO APPROVE ITEM 13.
UH, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, PLEASE VOTE.
ITEM THIS CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[14. (DS) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat & Revised Site Plan: Classic BMW Addition, Block 1, Lot 1R - New vehicle dealer on one lot on 23.6 acres located on the northeast corner of Dallas North Tollway and Spring Creek Parkway. Zoned Commercial Employment with Specific Use Permit No. 539 for New Car Dealer and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District. Projects #PR2023-027 and #RSP2023-079. Applicant: VHC, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
NUMBER 14, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPL AND REVISED SITE PLAN.[01:40:01]
BLOCK ONE LOT ONE R NEW VEHICLE DEALER ON ONE LOT ON 23.6 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH DALLAS, NORTH TOLLWAY AND SPRING CREEK PARKWAY ZONE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 5 39 FOR NEW CAR DEALER AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE PRELIMINARY RE PLATT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
SUBMITTED HAVING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BARELY EVEN GLANCED AT THE THING SO SHE'S GOT IT MEMORIZED FOR SURE.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? I DON'T SEE ANY.
ANY DISCUSSION OR ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO.
I'LL THE PUBLIC HEARING I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA FOR ITEM 14, UH, PRELIMINARY REPL SUBJECT TO, UH, ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED.
AND AS MUCH AS I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO ASK THE LONELY REMAINDER IN THE AUDIENCE A QUESTION, I WILL SECOND THAT.
SOMEBODY GET THAT MAN OF BEER.
ALRIGHT, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER, RIGHT LEFT TO APPROVE.
ITEM 14 IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
[15. (MB) Items for Future Agendas.]
15, ITEM 15 ARE ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS.I FEEL LIKE I NEED TO SAY SOMETHING, BUT I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD.
UH, MR. RATLIFF, YOUR MICROPHONE IS ON.
IS THAT OKAY? UH, THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD SAY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, ALL OF OUR DISCUSSIONS AROUND THE DUMPSTER ISSUE AND THOSE REQUIREMENTS I THINK I WAS ABOUT TO ADDRESS.
NO, I THINK YOU'RE ABOUT TO ADDRESS IT.
I JUST WANTED TO ASK IF THE, WHAT YOU'RE ABOUT TO SAY THE DUMPSTER ISSUES AND WHAT HAVE YOU WILL BE NATURALLY A PART OF THE REWRITE THAT WE'RE GOING THROUGH.
AND, AND THAT'S, AS MR. BELL'S FRUSTRATION KIND OF SHOWED THAT'S WORK THAT WE NEED TO GET DONE.
UH, BUT IT JUST TAKES A WHILE TO GET, PULL IT ALL TOGETHER.
AND WE HAVE PRIORITIES THAT WE SET AS A BODY AND THEY'RE KIND OF MOVING ALONG WITH THOSE.
THEY ALSO RECEIVE INSTRUCTION NATURALLY ENOUGH FROM COUNSEL.
SO, UH, YES, THESE TYPES OF ISSUES WILL DEFINITELY BE, I SEE.
MR. BRUNO, ON THAT SUBJECT OF, OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE SORT OF SEEMED TO ME THAT THE PRESENT REQUIREMENT PUTS THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE.
IT REQUIRES AN ENCLOSURE WITHOUT REQUIRING.
SO I'M, I'M SORRY, BUT WE CAN'T DISCUSS, WE CAN'T REALLY GET INTO THE DETAILS AS, AS A HOW WE WANNA CHANGE THE ORDINANCE.
WE COULD, WE COULD PUT THAT ON THE AGENDA FOR THE FUTURE OR WE COULD WAIT FOR THE ORDINANCE REWRITE, BUT WE CAN'T DISCUSS IT NOW.
WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO DISCUSS IT.
SO WE DIDN'T NEED TO ADD IT TO A FUTURE AGENDA BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE WORK PROCESS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE.
WE GOOD? UH, TO THE EXTENT, MR. BRENNO, YOU HAVE A POINT YOU WANNA BRING UP TO STAFF, FEEL FREE TO EMAIL 'EM.