[00:00:02]
GOTTA REMEMBER THE TALK BUTTON.
[CALL TO ORDER]
IT'S UH, 7:02 PM OR A COUPLE MINUTES, UH, LATE.WE HAD A, UH, BRIEFING, UH, IN OUR PRELIMINARY THAT THAT RAN A LITTLE LONG.
SO IF YOU WOULD, UH, 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.
PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
[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.
UH, I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION, BUT YOU WANNA PULL ITEM D? YES, SIR.
ANYONE WANNA PULL ANOTHER ITEM FROM THE CONSENT? VERY WELL.
WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED WITH ITEM D.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY.
'CAUSE IT SIMPLIFIES EVERYTHING IF IT'S WORKING THERE VERSUS THANK YOU COMMISSIONER CAREY FOR POINTING THAT OUT.
ALL RIGHT, WE'RE ALMOST THERE.
OKAY, SHALL WE TRY THIS AGAIN? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITHOUT ITEM D VOTE.
AND THAT CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO ITEM D.
YOU WANNA READ ITEM D, CONSENT AGENDA.
[d. (PM) Revised Site Plan: High Point North Athletic Complex, Block A, Lot 1R - Park/playground and public service yard on one lot on 23.8 acres located on the east side of Alma Drive, 1,430 feet north of Spring Creek Parkway. Zoned Planned Development-329-Community Center. Project #RSP2023-075. Applicant: City of Plano (Administrative consideration)]
ITEM D IS HIGH POINT.IT'S A REVISED SITE PLAN, HIGH POINT NORTH, ATHLETIC COMPLEX BLOCK A LOT.
ONE R PARK PLAYGROUND AND PUBLIC SERVICE SHARD ON ONE LOT ON 23.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ALMA DRIVE.
1,430 FEET NORTH OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY.
IT'S ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 3 29 COMMUNITY CENTER.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
GOOD AFTERNOON COMMISSIONERS AND PARKER MCDOWELL, PLANNER OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE JANUARY 2ND, 2024 MEETING AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITH ARNE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
UM, MR. BROSKI, UH, I'D LIKE, SINCE THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, I'D LIKE TO TABLE, UH, ITEM D TO JANUARY 2ND, 2020 FOURS.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LIN TO TABLE ITEM D TO THE JANUARY 2ND, 2024 MEETING.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES.
WE'LL GO TO ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
[1. (PM) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-020 - Request to amend Planned Development124-Neighborhood Office to modify development standards on 7.1 acres located on the east side of Independence Parkway, 810 feet north of 15th Street. Project #ZC2023- 020. Petitioner: City of Plano (Legislative consideration)]
INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER.APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED.
REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
[00:05:01]
LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATION.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE.
2023 DASH 0 2 0 REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1 24 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON 7.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY.
810 FEET NORTH OF EAST 15TH STREET.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1 24 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO MODIFY THE LOT COVERAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
ON THIS SLIDE IS THE SUBJECT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HIGHLIGHT IN YELLOW TO THE NORTH IS SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED, NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
NINE TO THE EAST IS SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED NEIGHBORHOOD ZONE, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE TO THE SOUTH OF DORCHESTER DRIVE.
THERE'S RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER ZONED RETAIL AND COM, EXCUSE ME, TO THE SOUTH OF DORCHESTER DRIVE.
THERE'S A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER ZONED RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANT ZONE ARE SOUTH OF REGAL ROAD TO THE WEST.
THERE ARE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TO NEIGHBORHOOD ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE COMMERCIAL RETAIL ZONED RETAIL.
ON AUGUST 7TH, 2023, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 1 24 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE AT THE REQUEST OF A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THE ORIGINAL APPLICATION, APPLICANT INTENDED TO REQUEST MODIFICATIONS TO ALLOW A HEALTH SLASH FITNESS CENTER USE ON THIS PROPERTY, BUT IS NO LONGER PURSUING THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE ASSOCIATED ZONING.
HOWEVER, DURING THE REVIEW OF THE ASSOCIATED SITE PLAN, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT MANY OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE PD EXCEED THE 30% MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE OF THE DISTRICT BASE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ZONING.
THE PDS BASED NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR A 30% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, WHICH IS CALCULATED BASED ON THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND LOT SIZE AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL.
ALL BUT ONE WITHIN THE 10 LOT DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AS SHOWN IN THE 1977 SITE PLAN OF THE ROYAL CENTRAL EDITION AND CORRESPONDING TABLE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE.
THIS CHANGE TO THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE WILL ALLOW THE CURRENT BUILDING TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE INTO AND A BUILDING TO BE CONSTRUCTED ON LOT THREE AT ITS ORIGINAL SIZE.
NO NEW USES ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN THIS REQUEST TONIGHT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY CORNERS CATEGORY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS THE REQUEST DOES NOT IMPACT THE PREVIOUS EXISTING LAND USE TYPE MIX OF USES AND OTHER POLICY STAFF FINDS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
1 24 DARE PUT OFFICE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AS YOU SEE ON THE TABLE ON THE SLIDE, THEY ALL MEET OR THERE ARE NO CHANGES.
WE RECEIVED TWO OFFICIAL LETTERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS CASE.
ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT AND ONE NEUTRAL TO THE REQUEST.
WE RECEIVED THREE TOTAL RESPONSES CITYWIDE, ONE IN SUPPORT, ONE NEUTRAL, AND ONE OPPOSED.
SUMMARIZE THE REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE MAXIMUM LOCK COVERAGE AND BRING PROPERTIES INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING STANDARDS AND TO AVOID UNEXPECTED COMPLICATIONS FOR EFFECTIVE PROPERTY OWNERS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE UM, GRID THAT SHOWED THE AMOUNT THE SIZE OF EACH BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE LOT SIZE? IS THERE, I MEAN THEY'RE ALL LIKE 33%, 31%, UM, A COUPLE OF OUTLIERS THERE, BUT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD'VE CHANGED EITHER IN THE LOT DESIGNATIONS OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD PUT THEM ALL SO CLOSE IN TERMS OF THEIR, IT'S LIKE THEY WERE ALL TRYING TO BE RIGHT AT THAT.
SO IS THERE SOMETHING THAT CHANGED OR WHAT WOULD'VE CAUSED US? I JUST FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THEY PURPOSELY ALL TRIED TO EXCEED THEIR BUILDING SIZE BY 3%.
UM, IN OUR RESEARCH OF THIS, IT LOOKS LIKE THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT, THEY CALCULATED ALL THE LOT COVERAGE FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, NOT FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT AS THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE WITH THE ZONING.
AND SO THAT'S HOW WE THINK THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS.
IT JUST, IT WAS TOO CONSISTENT FOR IT TO BE SOMETHING, AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION FOR EACH BUILDING.
AND SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REALLY IS JUST TO LET THESE SET NOW THEY'RE IN CONFORMANCE BECAUSE OF THE ONE, UH, DEAL ON THE PD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? UH, FOR STAFF ON
[00:10:01]
THIS BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HERE? OH, UP HERE MR. BRONSKI.UH, SO I GUESS MY, MY QUESTION IS, UH, WHAT DO WE HAVE IN PLACE, UH, OR DO WE THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO HAVE IN PLACE IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE DISCOVERIES LIKE THIS COMING UP AT OTHER POINTS IN TIMES RELATED TO LOT COVERAGE OR ANYTHING KIND OF RELATED TO THAT? AS FAR AS SITUATIONS LIKE THIS, IT REALLY IS A CASE BY CASE BASIS AS IT COMES UP AS OF RIGHT NOW, UM, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO KIND OF SEEK OUT THESE ISSUES OTHER THAN AS THEY COME TO US.
I, I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN IS ONCE THINGS PASS AND LEAVE US AND THEN THEY GET OUT INTO THE REAL WORLD AND GET ACTIVE, UM, AND THINGS CHANGE UH, BEYOND WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING THEM TO SEE THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THAT WHAT THIS BODY ACTUALLY PASSES IS WHAT WE ACTUALLY PROVIDE TO OUR CITIZENS, I GUESS IS MY CONCERN.
UM, MR. BELL, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ONE? YEAH, MOST CASES WE'RE, UM, HAVING SURVEYED LOT ENGINEERED DRAWINGS AND THAT'S WHAT GETS INSPECTED IN FINAL SITE DESIGN AND WE HAVE PLATS AND EASEMENTS THAT ARE ALL RECORDED AT THE END JUST TO VERIFY WHAT WAS BUILT IS ACTUALLY WHAT WAS APPROVED IN THIS CASE.
WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, DECADES OF DEVELOPMENT WHERE RULES HAVE CHANGED, THE WAY PEOPLE INTERPRET ORDINANCES HAVE CHANGED, ZONING HAS CHANGED.
UM, AS IT WAS MENTIONED HERE, WE DON'T THINK THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL YEAH, GOING OVER THE LOT COVERAGE, JUST A MATTER OF, IT'S BEEN SEVERAL DECADES SINCE THIS WAS APPROVED AND AND TIMES HAVE CHANGED SLIGHTLY.
SO THAT'S WHY ANYTIME WE LOOK AT CHANGING ZONING REQUIREMENTS, WE WANNA SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS FOR SITUATIONS SUCH AS LIKE SUCH AS THIS.
SO WE DON'T CREATE NONCONFORMITIES UNINTENTIONALLY.
UH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS HOPING.
SO THIS, THE CAP OF THE 30% WILL EFFECTIVELY ONLY CAP BLOCK A LOT.
ONE, IF THEY EVER DECIDE TO BREAK DOWN BUILD AND BUILD SOMETHING ELSE THAT CAN GO ABOVE 30% AND YOU'RE SAYING WELL CAP BLOCK C LOT THREE, WHICH IS VACANT CURRENTLY AND THEY CANNOT BUILD PAST THE 30% IF WE PUT THE CAP ON IT? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO IT'D EITHER BE IF THEY CAN MEET THE 30%, WHICH AS YOU MENTIONED WOULD BE JUST BE BLOCK ONE LOT A OR IT'D BE WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED HISTORICALLY.
SO THE LOT, FOR INSTANCE, FOR THIS ONE BLOCK C LOT THREE, AS YOU MENTIONED, THERE'S NO LONGER BUILDING ON SITE, BUT IT WILL NOW BE ALLOWED TO BE BILLED FOR THE HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT.
THE ATTENDED USE OF A CHURCH THAT IS GONNA BE PERMITTED ON LOT TWO BLOCK C, WOULD THAT NOW BE AN ACCESSORY USE ACROSS THE PD, UM, FOR RELIGIOUS FACILITIES OR ARE WE ABLE TO KEEP IT TO JUST THAT PARTICULAR? YEAH, SO THIS REQUEST IS NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE ALLOWED USES FOR THE PD.
SO THAT USE WILL REMAIN JUST FOR THAT LOT AS WELL AS THE OTHER LIMITED USES AS SHOWN IN BULLET FIVE.
WELL, LEMME, LEMME CLARIFY THIS, THAT RESTRICTION IN NUMBER FIVE WAS WRITTEN IN THE NINETIES PRIOR TO, UM, THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSON ACT, WHICH ALLOWS CHURCHES MUCH MORE BROAD AUTHORITY AND LAND USE.
SO CHURCHES WOULD BE ALLOWED, WOULD WE ESSENTIALLY BE PREEMPTED ON THIS FEDERAL LAW? THANK YOU MR. IFF.
JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M COMPLETELY CLEAR, SO THIS PD IS BASICALLY GONNA MEMORIALIZE WHAT'S THERE TODAY SO THAT WHEN SOMEBODY GOES TO SELL OR WHATEVER, WE DON'T HAVE A TITLE EXCEPTION? THAT IS CORRECT.
SO AS I MENTIONED, UM, THE PREVIOUS REQUEST WE WERE LOOKING THROUGH IT, WE'VE NOTICED THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE LOT THREE HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT, IT'S THE ENTIRE PD.
SO THIS WILL CREATE A, THIS WILL AVOID SITUATIONS WHERE IF THEY DECIDE TO COME FOR A BUILDING PERMIT FOR SOMETHING ELSE AND IT TRIPS UP THAT THEY'RE OVER 30%, THEY CAN PROCEED WITH BUILDING PERMITS FOR INTERNAL STUFF THAT THEY'RE CURRENTLY DOING TODAY WITHOUT AFFECTING THE FOOTPRINT.
WELL, SO THAT LEADS TO MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS, SHOULD ONE OF THOSE BUSINESSES WANT TO EXPAND THEIR BUILDING BY A HUNDRED SQUARE FEET OR, YOU KNOW, COVER A PATIO OR, AND CLOSE SOMETHING, THERE'S STILL A MECHANISM FOR THEM TO COME IN AND GET A VARIANCE FROM THAT REQUIREMENT.
THEY'D HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.
THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK THROUGH ZONING AND REQUEST ANOTHER AMENDMENT TO THE PD TO INCREASE THE LOT COVERAGE FOR THAT PART PARTICULAR USE.
SO IF WE DON'T DO THIS, OR IF THIS HAD BEEN, IF THEY HAD COME IN A MONTH AGO BEFORE THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO GO BACK THROUGH P AND Z ANYWAY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
SO THIS ISN'T CHANGING WHAT ONE OF THOSE BUSINESS OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO DO BY DOING THIS VERSUS WHAT THEY WOULD'VE HAD TO DO SIX MONTHS AGO HAD THEY COME FORWARD? CORRECT.
IT JUST WILL HELP PROTECT THEM FOR THEIR CURRENT OPERATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND GETTING ADDITIONAL
[00:15:01]
MAY SAY LIKE JUST CHANGING THEIR FACADE OR GETTING ADDITIONAL INTERIOR PERMITS.I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T CREATING A HURDLE FOR SOME OF THE, FROM THE OWNERS THAT WASN'T THERE ALREADY, SO, SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE HURDLES THAT THEY WOULD'VE HAD, IT'S JUST WE'RE MEMORIALIZING WHAT'S THERE TODAY TO HELP CLEAN UP THE RECORDS.
THAT IS CORRECT FOR EVERYBODY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH MR. BRUNO.
UM, I JUST WANNA BRING UP A POINT OF SUBTLE DRAFTING.
I KNOW WHAT THE INTENT IS HERE, BUT I'M READING THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR PROPOSED, UH, STIPULATION NUMBER SIX.
IT SAYS MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, 30% OR AS THE BUILDING SIZE WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION DATE OF THIS PROVISION, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT LANGUAGE WOULD STOP HYPOTHETICALLY SOMEBODY FROM TEARING DOWN AN EXISTING BUILDING AND THEN ARGUING THAT A NEW BUILDING COULD BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME BUILDING SIZE AS PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED.
I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THERE BE AN INSERTION IN THAT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS WITH RESPECT TO EXISTING BUILDINGS ONLY, AND THEN THE REST OF IT CAN BE FINE.
SO I THINK THE MS. DEANDRE, WHAT DO YOU THINK THE INTENT WAS? THAT IF, IF A BUILDING BURNED DOWN YEAH, THEY COULD REBUILD ON THE SAME PLA THE SAME SLAB TO THE SAME SIZE THAT'S THERE.
I I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS LANGUAGE WOULD PROHIBIT THAT OR WE DON'T WANNA PROHIBIT IT.
I AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION.
I THINK THE INTENT MAY BE THAT THEY WANTED TO LET THE THEM RECONSTRUCT THE LARGER IF IT THEY WANTED TO LET RECONSTRUCT.
THAT, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT DROVE THIS PD TO BEGIN WITH.
THERE WAS AN EXISTING BUILDING PAD THAT WAS AT 31%.
THEY WANTED TO REUSE IT, BUT THEY COULDN'T BASED ON THE, THE 30% ZONING THAT WAS IN PLACE.
AND SO THIS IS ALLOWING THEM TO GET THAT WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED AND REUSE THAT PAD SITE.
WELL IF THAT'S THE INTENT, OKAY.
I HAD UNDERSTOOD THE INTENT TO BE THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM AN EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS, BUT, BUT AFTER THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY AND THAT'S CURRENTLY NOT OKAY.
ANYTHING NEW BUILT WOULD HAVE TO BE 30% OR LESS EXISTING BUILDINGS THOUGH THOSE SITES YOU COULD REBUILD ON THE, ON THE PAD SITE TO THE SAME SIZE THAT WAS THERE EXISTING.
SO THERE'S AN EXEMPTION FOR THOSE THAT ARE OVER 30% CLEAR AS MUD.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINED DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION.
THOUGHTS, ANYONE? I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS AS, UH, RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MOTION, UH, TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI.
ITEM ONE IS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES.
[2. (KC) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-021 - Request to rezone 5.0 acres located on the west side of Enterprise Drive, 175 feet north of Park Boulevard from Corridor Commercial to Planned Development-Single-Family Residence Attached. Project #ZC2023-021. Petitioner: Fairview Farm Land Company, Ltd. (Request to table to January 2, 2024)]
ITEM NUMBER TWO, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 21.REQUEST TO REZONE 5.0 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE 175 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE.
ATTACHED PETITIONER IS FAIRVIEW FARMLAND COMPANY LIMITED.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME'S KACHA COPELAND, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED TO THE JANUARY 2ND, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? MS. COPELAND, CAN YOU JUST TELL US WHY IT'S BEING TABLED? STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE STILL WORKING ON THE SITE DESIGN OF THE LOT AND WANT TO CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS BEFORE BRINGING THE ITEM FORWARD.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? AND CONSIDERING THE HOLIDAYS JANUARY 2ND IS ENOUGH TIME? YES.
STAFF MA'AM? THEY WORK 24 7 24 7.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEM TWO? THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I MOVE WE TABLE, UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO TO THE JANUARY 2ND, 2024, PLANNING HIS OWN COMMISSION MEETING.
[00:20:01]
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, BUT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO TABLE ITEM TWO TO THE JANUARY 2ND MEETING, PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES.[ Items 3A. & 3B.]
ITEM THREE A AND THREE B WILL BE READ TOGETHER.PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 26.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A NEW VEHICLE DEALER ON 5.4 ACRES.
LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TENON PARKWAY AND DALLAS PARKWAY.
IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DA DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THE PETITIONER IS SRHC PLATINUM PARK, PHASE TWO LP.
THAT'S FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE UH, COMPANY IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
TENON PARKWAY OFFICE CENTER BLOCK ONE LOT FOUR NEW DE AGAIN NEW DEALER, NEW VEHICLE DEALER ON ONE LOT ON 5.4 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TENON PARKWAY AND DALLAS PARKWAY.
THIS APPLICANT IS AGAIN SRHC PLATINUM PARK, PHASE TWO LP AND THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AS MS. BRIDGES STATED, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN SUP SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A NEW VEHICLE DEALER ON AN UNDEVELOPED PIECE OF LAND.
SHOWN ON THE SCREEN AND HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH ACROSS TENNYSON PARKWAY IS ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS ONE AND IS UNDEVELOPED TO THE EAST ACROSS DALLAS.
NORTH TOLLWAY IS ALSO ZONED CB ONE AND IS DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE.
THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ZONED CE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT.
THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY SOUTH IS DEVELOPED WITH THE HOTEL.
THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTHWEST IS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TRANSIT CENTER SLASH STATION AND TO THE WEST IS ZONED CE AND IS DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE.
A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY ACCOMPANIES THIS REQUEST AS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE B.
THIS PLAN SHOWS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND SITE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED USE.
ON THE SCREEN IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGNED FOR THE NEW VEHICLE DEALERSHIP, THE IMAGES SHOWING THE NORTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS.
THE FOLLOWING PAGE WILL SHOW THE SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS ADDING.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT WITH A PRESENTATION TO DISCUSS IN GREATER DETAIL THE LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING.
THE IMAGE SHOWS A TWO TO FIVE STORY, APPROXIMATELY 250,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING.
THE BUILDING WILL INCLUDE TWO STORY SHOWROOM SERVICE AREA BELOW A THREE STORY PARKING GARAGE.
THE GARAGE WILL BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE 454 GARAGE SPACES AND 300, OR EXCUSE ME, 235 SURFACE STALLS FOR A TOTAL OF 689 PARKING SPACES.
VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO USE WHAT LIMITED SPACE MAY BE AVAILABLE ON A SITE AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS APPLICANT IS DOING WITH THIS 5.4 ACRE PROPERTY.
THE VERTICALITY IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT TO THE DESIGN.
DISTINGUISHING THE THIS FROM OTHER DEALERSHIPS.
TWO STIPULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE BUILDING HEIGHT IF APPROVED.
EXECUTING THIS VERTICAL DESIGN IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE REQUEST.
THERE ARE ALSO SEVEN ROLL-UP STYLE DOORS PROPOSED ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING TENNISON PARKWAY AND DALLAS PARKWAY.
THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN A LATER SLIDE.
THE IMAGE SHOWING THE SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS.
NOW THESE TWO SIDES FOCUS ON THE PARKING GARAGE IN THE REAR OF THE THE BUILDING ADDING MAJORITY OF THE SURFACE PARKING SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS AND THE OPEN STORAGE ELEMENTS ARE LOCATED ON THIS AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
THERE ARE SIX ROLL-UP DOORS FACING THE WEST AND SOUTH.
THE ENTRANCE OF THE PARKING GARAGE WILL ALSO BE ON THE WEST SIDE.
A STIPULATION HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT AT LEAST 65% OF THE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED INTERIOR TO THE PARKING STRUCTURE.
THIS ENSURES THAT THE PROPOSED PARKING STRUCTURE IS A KEY ELEMENT TO THE VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED EMPLOYMENT CENTER ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE PRIMARY USES FOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE CORPORATE OFFICE CAMPUSES, MEDICAL CENTERS, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY CENTERS AND RESEARCH FACILITIES.
LIMITED MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE SYSTEMS WAIT MAY BE ALLOWED TO SUPPORT THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS WHILE THE REQUEST IS FOR A COMMERCIAL USE THAT WILL PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT.
THE REQUESTED USE IS NOT PART OF THE DESIRED LAND USES WITHIN THE EM DASHBOARD.
THIS SITE REQUIRES AN ANALYSIS REGARDING THE UNDER UNDERDEVELOPED LAND USE POLICY.
SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY AS POSTED ON THE PLANO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WEBSITE.
[00:25:01]
POLICY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY RESERVE ITS LIMITED UNDEVELOPED LAND FOR HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT WITH DISTINCTIVE CHARACTER PRIORITIZING BUSINESSES OFFERING SKILLED EMPLOYMENT.THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A UNIQUE NON-TRADITIONAL FORM OF A DEALERSHIP THAT RESEMBLES AN OFFICE PARK CHARACTER THAT THE AREA SEES TODAY.
IT DOES NOT MAXIMIZE THE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT MAY BE PROVIDED IF THE SITE WAS RESERVED FOR ALTERNATIVE USES.
FOR THIS REASON, STAFF FINDS IT ONLY PARTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY ADDING A CONCENTRATION OF NEW VEHICLE DEALERSHIPS HAVE BEEN APPROVED ALONG DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY NORTH OF WINHAVEN PARKWAY SINCE 2004.
ALL OF THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED SUVS WERE REVIEWED UNDER A PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAN THE ONE THAT IS USED TODAY.
LAND ALONG THIS CORRIDOR PROVIDES CONVENIENT ACCESS AND VISIBILITY FOR HIGH HIGHER DENSITY EMPLOYMENT.
VEHICLE DEALERSHIP SITES CAN BE DIFFICULT TO REUSE AND OR REDEVELOP LONG-TERM WITH ONLY 1900 ACRES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND REMAINING IN PLANO.
THIS REQUEST SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED.
WITH THAT SAID, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
A NEW VEHICLE DEALER DOES NOT MEET THE GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PRIORITIES OF THE EEN DASHBOARD, BUT THE DESIGN SUPPORTS THE GENERAL CAMPUS LIKE SETTING INTENDED FOR THE CE ZONING DISTRICT ADJACENT LAND USES SUCH AS THE HOTEL DART PROPERTY AND OFFICE BUILDING COMBINED WITH THIS PARCEL.
UM, AND ACCESS MAY PROVIDE A DESIRABLE LOCATION FOR A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF ANOTHER USE THAT SUPPORTS THE ADJACENCIES AND COMPLETELY ALIGNS WITH THIS POLICY.
AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE VERTICALITY IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT OF THE DESIGN OF THIS BUILDING.
IF RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, PLEASE CONSIDER THESE TWO STIPULATIONS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN RELATED TO BUILDING HEIGHT.
A LARGE COMPONENT OF THE VEHICLE DEALERSHIP IS THE SERVICE ASPECT.
SEVEN ROLL UP STYLE DOORS ARE PROPOSED ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE OF BUILDING FACING TENNYSON PARKWAY AND THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY STAFF IS MORE FOCUSED ON THE NORTH AND EAST DOORS AS THEY DO FACE THE RIGHT OF WAY.
IT'S WORTH MENTIONING THAT NONE OF THESE DOORS HAVE SERVE AS A DIRECT ENTRANCE TO VEHICLE SERVICE.
AREAS ON THE NORTH SIDE CIRCLED IN RED AND MARKED WITH THE LETTER A WILL BE THE VEHICLE SHOWROOM CIRCLED IN RED AND MARKED WITH THE LETTER C WILL BE THE PHOTO BOOTH AREA WHERE 360 DEGREE PHOTOS WILL BE TAKEN OF VEHICLES ON THE EAST SIDE.
LETTER B INDICATES THE SERVICE LANE ENTRY CUSTOMERS WILL DRIVE UP, PARK THEIR VEHICLE AND A TEAM MEMBER WILL TAKE THEIR CAR AND DRIVE IT INTO THE SERVICING AREA.
THE VEHICLE SERVICE WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE BUILDING, NOT OUTSIDE OR NEAR THE PROPOSED DOORS.
FACING THE RIGHT OF WAY, STAFF RECOMMENDS A STIPULATION THAT THE VEHICLE SERVICE BASE SHALL NOT BE ORIENTED TOWARDS DALLAS PARKWAY OR TENSON PARKWAY, EXCEPT AS SPECIFICALLY NOTED.
BLAZING AND TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE PROPOSED STIPULATION TO MAINTAIN BUILDING AESTHETICS TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY AESTHETIC AND CHARACTER OF THE CE DISTRICT.
THERE ARE TWO STIPULATIONS ON THE SCREEN REGARDING CANOPIES AND PARKING.
WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS REQUEST AND WE ALSO DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES CITYWIDE.
TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A NEW VEHICLE DEALER.
THE REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER DASHBOARD.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE A AND THREE B DUE TO THE UNIQUE DESIGN OF THE PROPERTY AND WITH THE RESTRICTIONS LISTED ON THE SCREEN.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT AND HAS A PRESENTATION TO SHARE.
BUT WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU SO MUCH MR. BURNOFF.
UM, DOES THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING AS IT IS PRESENTLY PRESENTED, UH, AND THE SITE PLAN THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS ZONING REQUEST, DO THEY PRESENTLY COMPLY WITH THE, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS NUMBERED ONE THROUGH FIVE? YES, IT DOES.
SO YOUR STIPULATIONS IF ADOPTED WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGES TO THEIR, THEIR PLANS AS THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THEM AT THIS TIME? CORRECT.
CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE? YEAH.
SO ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE STIPULATIONS IF WE ADOPT THEM, WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THEIR PROPOSAL? NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO.
NOW, BETWEEN PSP AND SP, THERE CAN BE MINOR MODIFICATIONS.
THESE STIPULATIONS WOULD NEED TO BE ADHERED TO IN THE SITE PLAN STAGE.
[00:30:01]
SO, SO THEN, UH, THE APPLICANT IS ON BOARD WITH THESE STIPULATIONS AS BEING PART OF, THEY'RE NODDING THEIR HEADS OUT THERE IN THE AUDIENCE.SHE CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT YES, I KNOW.
I SAW TWO HEADS GOING UP AND DOWN.
SO THAT, I GUESS THAT'S AN INDICATION.
YEAH, UM, SOME INTERESTING POINTS ON THIS AND JUST ONE I WANT TO ASK ABOUT MAYBE TO JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE EDUCATION.
ONE OF THE THINGS IN YOUR PACKET YOU TALK ABOUT IS THE CHALLENGE TO REDEVELOP LAND FOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIPS.
IF IN FACT, UH, SOMEBODY WANTED TO REDEVELOP THAT LAND, CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE TEXTURE ON WHY THAT MIGHT BE CHALLENGING? NOW, THIS PARTICULAR SITE, I COULD SEE WHERE IT MIGHT BE BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT, BUT MY, MY AWARENESS OF VEHICLE DEALERSHIPS IS TYPICALLY IT'S A BUILDING WITH A, WITH A LOT OF PARKING SPACES FOR CARS.
AND SO I'M CURIOUS WHY WE THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO POSSIBLY REDEVELOP SOME OF THAT.
UM, SEA OF PARKING LOT AND A BUILDING WITH A NEW VEHICLE DEALER OR USED VEHICLE DEALERSHIP, UM, TAKES OUT A LOT OF THE EXISTING LANDSCAPING THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO POTENTIALLY TEAR UP.
AND UH, I'D LIKE TO SEE IF MR. BELL WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT AS WELL.
YEAH, I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS REUSING THE EXISTING BUILDING LONG TERM IS THE CHALLENGE.
UM, AND TYPICALLY WHERE YOU HAVE A NEW VEHICLE DEALER, IT ENDS UP BECOMING A USED VEHICLE DEALER AT SOME POINT.
UM, 'CAUSE THERE'RE NOT MUCH OTHER USE FOR THE BUILDING OTHER THAN VEHICLE DISPLAY.
UH, ALONG THOSE POINTS, SO READING THIS, IT FEELS LIKE THIS RUNS INTO THREE BOT SAWS IN MY HEAD.
UH, FOR THE GRANTING OF AN SUP.
AN SUP IS SUPPOSED TO AUTHORIZE A REGULATOR USE NOT NORMALLY PERMITTED IN A DISTRICT WHICH COULD BENEFIT THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THAT PARTICULAR DISTRICT.
THIS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT MEETS THAT BAR FOR ON THE ON ON DEVELOPED LAND IN PLANO.
UM, IT'S SUPPOSED TO PRIORITIZE EMPLOYMENT AGAIN, DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT REIDS THAT BAR FOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT MEETS THAT BAR.
THE ONLY THING THAT WE SEEM TO MEET IS AESTHETICS.
SO I'M CURIOUS WHY STAFF IS ACTUALLY BACK IN THIS.
AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE THOSE STIPULATIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS BECAUSE THE VERTICALITY OF THE DESIGN AND THE HEIGHT STARTS TO SOMEWHAT FIT WITHIN CE.
AND SO WE WANNA ENSURE THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS PUT IN PLACE IF YOU AS THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL APPROVE THIS SUP REQUEST AS THAT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OR THAT HEIGHT THAT THEY'RE SHOWING IS MORE ALIGNED WITH CE ZONING RATHER THAN ZONING DISTRICTS THAT HAVE A ONE OR TWO STORY HEIGHT LIMIT.
IF I MAY ADD, THE STAFF REALLY STRUGGLED WITH THOSE POINTS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP.
UM, WHAT WE REALLY CAME DOWN TO WAS IT HAS THE DISTRICT ALLOWS OR PROMOTES A CAMPUS LIKE SETTING THE BUILDING DOES RESEMBLE A CAMPUS SETTING, AND THEN THE OTHER USES THAT ARE PERMITTED IN BY RIGHT WITHIN THIS DISTRICT, SUCH AS VEHICLE REPAIR.
BUT THIS WAS SUPERIOR TO THE OTHER USES THAT MIGHT GO IN HERE.
UM, AND THEN LASTLY, THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY SPEAKS TO, UM, NOT ONLY HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT BUT HIGH SKILLED EMPLOYMENT AND WITHOUT A DEFINITION OF WHAT HIGHLY SKILLED MEAN MEANT, YOU KNOW, MASTER TECHNICIANS FOR PORSCHES ARE VERY HIGHLY SKILLED.
UM, SO ABSENT THAT DEFINITION, UH, WE, WE FELT THAT WE COULDN'T HANG OUR HAT ON THAT, THAT TERM ALONE WHEN THE UNIQUENESS OF THE DEALERSHIP, UM, GENERALLY MEANT THE LOOK AND FEEL OF WHAT THE DISTRICT WAS GOING FOR.
THAT TO THE POINT YOU MADE EARLIER.
UM, THE ONLY OTHER ABILITY TO REUSE A NEW CAR, UM, DEVELOPMENT IS A USED CAR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH FROM A SKILLED EMPLOYMENT PERSPECTIVE, IT DOES JUST DOESN'T FEEL EVERGREEN.
IF THIS DID NOT HAVE THE PARKING STRUCTURE AND IT WAS SURFACE PARKING ALONE, UM, THE RECOMMENDATION I'M SURE WOULD BE DIFFERENT.
BUT THE FACT THAT IT HAS A PARKING STRUCTURE THAT, UM, ALLOWS THAT BUILDING TO POSSIBLY BE REUSE FOR OTHER MORE INTENSE USES, IT WOULD HAVE ENOUGH ADEQUATE PARKING ON SITE WITH THE PARKING STRUCTURE.
WE FELT THAT IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE REUSED FOR OFFICE OR OTHER EMPLOYMENT USES THAN A STRICT SURFACE LOT COULD BE.
UM, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY AGAIN, I KIND OF HEARD A LITTLE BIT, UH,
[00:35:01]
NOT VERY CLEAR LIKE CLARITY BETWEEN THE QUESTIONS FROM, UH, COMMISSIONER BRONO AND YOUR ANSWERS TO THE, UM, DESIGN OF THE, THE CURRENT DESIGN FROM THE APPLICANTS.SO READING YOUR RECOMMENDATION HERE, NUMBERS, ESPECIALLY NUMBER THREE, THOSE ARE RELATING TO THE, THE ROLLUP DOORS, I GUESS THE ROLLUP DOORS ON THE, THE SIDE THAT'S THIS EAST, WHICH IS THE DALLAS NORTH TOW WAY, RIGHT.
AND NORTH IS THE TENSON PARKWAY.
AND THEN IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE ELEVATION, THE NORTH ELEVATION AND, AND EAST ELEVATION, THE NORTH ELEVATION HAS TWO ROLL-UP DOORS AS CURRENT DESIGN THAT'S PRESENTING TODAY.
AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE DOORS MAY BE USED FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY.
UH, SORRY, THOSE DOORS NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT AND MAY BE USED FOR FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY.
SO THOSE TWO DOORS AND ONE OF THEM MAY BE USED FOR DRIVING, UH, ACCESS TO THE PHOTO SHOWROOM.
THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE, RIGHT? THAT'S NORTH ELEVATION.
AND THE EAST ELEVATION HAS THREE ROLL UP DOORS RIGHT NOW ACCORDING TO THE ELEVATION DESIGN.
AND THOSE NEED BE TO BE MINIMUM OF 50% GLAZING.
IS THAT PART OF THE, UM, KIND OF OUR OVERALL REQUIREMENTS FOR, FOR THE FACADE ON THE SIDE ON, ON THE SIDE OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY? NO, THIS IS NOT A STANDARD REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE FOR ROLLUP DOORS.
WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT PREVENT ROLLUP DOORS FACING THE RIGHT OF WAY.
AND SO REGARDING THIS REQUEST, WITH THESE ROLLUP DOORS BEING A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE, AS THE SERVICING IS NOT GOING TO OCCUR RIGHT NEXT TO THOSE DOORS, WE WANTED TO ENHANCE THE AESTHETICS, RIGHT? SO WHEN DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS ARE DRIVING PAST OR WALKING PAST THE SITE, THEY WON'T SEE THOSE MORE STANDARD SURFACE BAY DOORS THAT YOU MAY SEE, UM, THROUGHOUT THE CITY OR THROUGHOUT, UM, THE STATE.
AND THIS IS MORE OF A, AN, AN AESTHETIC BECAUSE THE SERVICING'S GOING TO BE HAPPENING INSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
RIGHT? SO THE ROLL-UP DOORS ARE IMPORTANT COMPONENT FOR THE VEHICLES TO TRAVEL IN AND OUT.
UM, AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO DISCUSS MORE OF THE FACADE REQUIREMENT OR FACADE CHOICES FOR THE ROLL UP DOORS.
BUT THIS IS WHAT STAFF'S GONNA RECOMMEND TO HAVE A REALLY HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT ON THIS CORNER.
I GUESS MY UNDERSTANDING I'M TRYING TO GET IS THE MINIMUM OF 50% GLAZING, THAT MEANS IT WILL MAKE THE DOORS LOOK MORE LIKE THE WALLS OR WELL, WHAT'S THE, UH, ADVANTAGE OF HAVE THAT, THAT MINIMUM PERCENT OF UH, MINIMUM OF 50% GLAZING? SURE.
THE INTENT HERE IS NOT TO HAVE A METAL ROLLUP DOOR.
UM, SO THE GLAZING IS MEANT TO BE A SHOWROOM SO THAT PEOPLE CAN DISPLAY, THEY CAN DISPLAY THE CARS INSIDE AND THAT'S CAN BE VISIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE.
I THINK THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION WILL REALLY SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE DOORS AND 'CAUSE STAFF WAS ORIGINALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MANY OF THESE, BUT THEY TALKED US THROUGH HOW THE OPERATIONS WORK AND HOW THAT ACTUALLY WORKS.
AND IT WAS, UH, IT WAS MUCH MORE CLEAR IF THEY PRESENTED THAT.
SO I'D RECOMMEND WE, WE SEE THAT WE'LL WAIT FOR THE APPLICANT.
I THINK MOST OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED EXCEPT, AND OR I'LL HOLD 'EM FOR THE APPLICANT EXCEPT FOR ONE, UM, THREE C ON THE ROLL UP DOOR FOR THE DRIVE-IN ACCESS.
ON THE FIRST TWO YOU TALKED ABOUT HOW MUCH WAS GLAZING ON THE ONE FOR THE PHOTO BOOTH.
IT DOESN'T MENTION GLAZING ON THE ELEVATIONS.
IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S A SOLID DOOR, WHICH BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE.
UM, AND SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE NEEDED TO SOMEHOW MAKE SURE THAT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED IN THE, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.
IF, UH, YOU AND, UM, THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT BE ADDED TO LETTER C, WE CAN DEFINITELY ADD THAT.
I SAID THE REASON THAT THAT STAFF DID NOT WAS BECAUSE OF BUILDING MATERIALS.
SO, UM, IN THIS CASE, THEY CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT THIS IS, THAT WHAT THAT DOOR LEADS INTO IS A SINGLE SPACE THAT'S THE 360 SHOWROOM.
SO THEY'RE NOT INTENDING TO HAVE THE GLASS THERE.
UM, BUT 'CAUSE WE'RE PREEMPTED ON BUILDING MATERIALS, UM, STAFF DIDN'T, DIDN'T, DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT SAME RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT SINGLE DOOR WE ASKED THE APPLICANT THEN.
SO UNDER THE, UH, UNDEVELOPED LAND USE POLICY, UM, IT SAYS, UM, IN YOUR REPORT, ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A UNIQUE NON-TRADITIONAL FORM OF DEALERSHIP THAT RESEMBLES AN OFFICE PARK CHARACTER IN OF THIS AREA, IT DOESN'T MAXIMIZE THE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY
[00:40:01]
THAT MAY BE PROVIDED IF THE SITE WERE RESERVED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE USE.WHAT SORT OF ALTERNATIVE USE WOULD MAXIMIZE EMPLOYMENT IN THIS AREA? I THINK GOING WITH THE E EM DASHBOARD, NOTING MEDICAL CENTERS, CORPORATE OFFICES, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY CENTERS AND RESEARCH FACILITIES.
AND, UM, THE ONE, SO IN IN TWO PARTS IT'S NOT COMPLETELY ALIGNING WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
AND THE SECOND ONE IS THE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS, WHICH IS THE INTENSITY, WHICH IS AT 2020 7% AS OPPOSED TO 50%.
AND YOU GUYS FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, UM, DISTANCE FROM THERE SAYING THAT IT, IT MAKES SENSE.
THANK YOU FOR A LITTLE BIT OF GRILLING THERE.
UM, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND KNOW THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE.
SO YES, MR. UH, BILL DAHLSTROM, MR. CHAIR, SOMEBODY REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
I DON'T THINK YOU OWN THE PORSCHE, UH, DEALER.
BUT, UH, UH, BILL DAHLSTROM 23, 23 ROSS AVENUE HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT.
IT'S REALLY PRIVILEGED TO BE HERE FOR THIS APPLICANT AT THIS LOCATION ON THIS SPECIFIC, REALLY EXCITING, INNOVATIVE PROJECT.
WE HAVE A FULL TEAM AVAILABLE.
UH, DAVID, SARAH, WHO'S WITH AUTONATION IS ONLINE TO ANSWER OPERATIONAL QUESTIONS.
JOHN PENNEY, WHO'S OUR ARCHITECT IS ALSO ONLINE.
DAVID NORRIS, OUR CIVIL ENGINEERS IN THE AUDIENCE.
UH, KIRK WILLIAMS, WHO'S THE, UH, UH, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER IS ALSO HERE.
UH, MY COLLEAGUE LUKE FRANZ IS HERE.
SO WE'VE GOT A FULL TEAM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
NOW I'M GONNA TRY TO ANSWER AS MANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS AS I CAN.
I KNOW THERE ARE A COUPLE OPERATIONAL QUESTIONS I WILL DEFER TO MR. SARAH, BUT AGAIN, THIS IS REALLY A, A, A, A EXCITING PROJECT.
UM, UH, I'D LIKE TO THANK MIKE AND KADIA FOR THEIR HELP WITH THIS PROJECT AS WELL.
'CAUSE THEY REALLY COACHED US SO ALONG AND WHAT TO DO TO MAKE SURE WE CONFORM TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS MUCH AS WE CAN.
AND I THINK WE'VE, WE'VE, WE'VE REACHED THERE, BUT THIS, THIS WHOLE, UH, DESTINATION PORSCHE IS A NEW CONCEPT FOR PORSCHE BEING DONE ALL OVER THE WORLD.
AND THERE ARE A FEW OF THEM ALREADY BUILT.
THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST IN THE UNITED STATES.
UH, THEY'RE REALLY FOCUSING ON CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT THAT'S A, A NEW EXPERIENCE FOR THE PORSCHE ENTHUSIAST.
AND MOST PORSCHE ENTHUSIASTS AREN'T, YOU KNOW, WEEKEND ENTHUSIASTS.
THEY'RE FULL-TIME ENTHUSIASTS.
THIS IS A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN COME LEARN ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN PORSCHE, NEW PRODUCTS, UH, VERY DIGITAL, UH, ORIENTED, YOU KNOW, PUT THEMSELVES INTO THE, UH, THE ENVIRONMENT.
UM, AND THIS IS, THIS IS QUITE, QUITE A, UH, OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY.
WE ARE RELOCATING FROM THE, UH, LOCATION DOWN ON, UH, PLANO PARKWAY.
I'M SURE YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH IT.
THE, THE AUDI DEALER NEXT DOOR NEEDS TO EXPAND.
SO WE NEEDED A PLACE TO PUT PORSCHE.
SO THEY FOUND THIS SITE AND, UH, AS WAS REPORTED IN THE STAFF, IT'S, UH, VERTICAL DEALERSHIP DESIGN, I THINK IS THE, THE TERM THE STAFF USED.
UM, I'M GONNA GO THROUGH SOME SLIDES HERE.
UM, AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UH, I, I, I CHARACTERIZED IT MORE AS A JEWEL BOX TYPE SITE.
UH, IT LOOKS LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING, BUT BECAUSE OF THE, THE, THE GLASS ON, UH, THE FRONT, THE CORNER AND THE SIDE, IT, IT, IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A, A A A JEWEL BOX TYPE KIND OF RESTAURANT.
I'M SURE YOU'VE ALL HEARD OF THOSE TERMS, WHERE YOU SEE WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE THE, UH, FACILITY WITH THE OPERATIONS, THE, THE VEHICLES, THE BEAUTIFUL VEHICLES, AND, UH, THAT'S ALL PART OF THE DESIGN.
UH, THEIR, THEIR NEW CORPORATE ARCHITECTURE AND THE PARKING GARAGE AT THE BACK.
AND THEN YOU STILL SEE SOME MORE DISPLAY UP ABOVE IN THE PARKING GARAGE.
SO AGAIN, UH, PROVIDING, UH, MUCH VISIBILITY.
THIS IS, THIS IS THE EAST SIDE FACING THE TOLL ROAD.
AND THOSE THREE DOORS YOU SEE OVER TO THE LEFT, UM, THEY AREN'T BY THEMSELVES.
THE, THE, THE SPACE BEHIND THOSE DOORS IS NOT BY ITSELF.
IT'S ACTUALLY INTEGRATED TO THE ENTIRE OFFICE SHOWROOM AREA SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE COME IN, DRIVE IN, THEY GO THROUGH THOSE DOORS, UH, FOR REGISTRATION.
IT'S A FULLY AIR CONDITIONED SPACE.
SO THEY LEAVE THERE, GET, UM, THEIR CAR, UH, SERVICED ON THE INSIDE, BUT FROM THE SHOWROOM SIDE ON THE OFFICE SIDE, IT'S ALL GLASS.
SO YOU SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THERE.
SO IT'S, IT'S TOTAL EXPERIENTIAL, TOTAL ACTIVITY AT, AT ALL TIMES AS, AS, AS PART OF THIS WHOLE DEALERSHIP.
UM, THIS IS AGAIN, SHOWING YOU ON THE NORTH
[00:45:01]
SIDE, THE TWO GLASS DOORS THAT ARE FOR THE SHOWROOM ARE THERE.UH, THE ONE DOOR, IT'S BEHIND THIS INSET IS, UH, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF THE DOOR FOR THE 360 PHOTO.
IT, IT, IT, IT, IT, IT'S THE SAME MATERIAL AS THE, UH, THE, UH, THE BUILDING ITSELF.
UH, CARS GO IN THERE AND THEY'RE PHOTOGRAPHED 360.
I'M SURE YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN THOSE ON TV OR YOU KNOW, MAYBE EVEN ONLINE.
UH, BUT THAT'S WHERE THAT IS DONE.
SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'LL HAVE A BIG LINE OF CARS, JUST ONE AT A TIME.
SO, AND AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE CARS THAT WILL BE DISPLAYED ABOVE THIS IS THAT INDOOR REGISTRATION AREA.
THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS TWO LANES.
WE'LL HAVE THREE LANES OBVIOUSLY IN OUR FACILITY.
AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS.
IT'S, IT'S TOTALLY INTERACTIVE THAT PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT OTHER VEHICLES WHILE THEIR VEHICLE'S BEING SERVICED OR THEY'RE WALKING AROUND LOOKING AT NEW VEHICLES AND HOPEFULLY PURCHASING NEW VEHICLES.
UH, AND THE, YOU KNOW, THE, UH, SERVICE AREA WHICH IS TOTALLY INSIDE, THERE'S NO DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE OUTSIDE.
UH, YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT'S AS CLEAN AS CAN BE VERY UPSCALE.
AND AGAIN, THE MORE OF THE INSIDE OF THE SHOWROOM IN RENDERINGS.
AND THIS IS A SMALL SITES, I THINK WE'RE DOING A GREAT JOB OF PROBABLY MAKING A GOOD USE OF A SMALL SITE.
UM, WE, WE THINK WE ARE SATISFYING THE CO, UH, CONFERENCE PLAN SECTION WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT.
YOU KNOW, WE ARE, UH, PROVIDING 80 JOBS, AVERAGE SALARY, A LITTLE LESS THAN A HUNDRED THOUSAND DOLLARS.
UM, THEY'RE, THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD JOBS HERE.
UM, A LOT OF THE USES THAT WERE ALSO MENTIONED COULD PROVIDE FEWER JOBS WITH LESS AVERAGE SALARY.
SO I THINK, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE SATISFYING THAT, THAT PROVISION.
BUT AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE, THE QUALITY OF MATERIALS IN ARCHITECTURE, INTERIOR, UH, INSIDE THE, UH, FACILITY.
UH, THIS IS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE INSIDE FIRST FLOOR AND THE TOTAL RIBS OVER TO THE RIGHT TENONS ON TOP.
AND YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE CIRCLE FROM THE ON THE TOP.
THAT'S THE 360 DEGREE, UH, UH, PHOTO BOOTH.
UH, OFF TO THE RIGHT YOU CAN SEE THE OFFICE AND SHOWROOM OPERATIONS AND THE LARGE SPACE, I GUESS I CAN SHOW HERE.
CAN I, WELL, THE LARGE SPACE, THE LOWER RIGHT SIDE, THAT'S THE REGISTRATION AREA WHERE CARS COME IN OFF THE TOLL ROAD THROUGH THE SEMI GLASS, 50% GLAZING DOORS.
UH, THEY, THEY PARK THERE, THEY, UH, REGISTER THEIR CAR, UH, FOR SERVICE.
UM, AGAIN, THERE'S GLASS ON BOTH SIDES AND YOU CAN SEE OVER TO THE LEFT OF THAT INSIDE SPACE, THERE ARE ANOTHER SET OF DOORS.
SO THERE'S NO ACCESS DIRECTLY TO THE SERVICE AREA.
UM, AGAIN, UH, THE REGISTRATION IS DONE INSIDE IN THAT AIR CONDITIONED SPACE.
AND AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE HOW IT'S, IT'S REALLY ALL CONNECTED.
IT'S THIS WHOLE INTENTION, OUR WHOLE WHOLE, UM, STRATEGY IS TO PROVIDE A, A NEW EXPERIENCE VIA, UM, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE, THE CITY STAFF'S POSITION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE, WE AGREE, WE WORKED REALLY HARD WITH THEM ON THAT.
UM, AND WE, WE THINK WE'RE BRINGING SOMETHING AND ACTUALLY LEAVING SOMETHING.
WE TALK ABOUT DESTINATION PORSCHE, DESTINATION PORSCHE ALSO, MY OPINION, THINK IT RELATES TO PEOPLE ARE COMING HERE FROM OUT OF THE REGION, OUT OF THE CITY.
SO THIS IS A PLACE WHERE PORSCHE ENTHUSIASTS FROM ALL OVER THE REGION ARE COMING TO CONGREGATE TO, UH, TO LEARN MORE ABOUT PORSCHE AND HAVE THEIR VEHICLE SERVICE MAYBE EVEN SHOP FOR VEHICLES, HOPEFULLY.
SO, UH, DESTINATION PORSCHE, I THINK HAS SEVERAL DIFFERENT MEANINGS.
UM, THE, AS FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION GOES, YOU KNOW, THEY ARE TRYING TO BE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY SAVVY AS POSSIBLE.
THIS WILL BE A MINIMUM, UH, LEAD SILVER CONSTRUCTION.
UH, THEY ARE VERY ADVANCED INTO NEW TECHNOLOGIES SUCH AS ELECTRIFICATION OF CARS AND CARBON NEUTRAL STRATEGY.
SO, YOU KNOW, ALL THIS FITS IN TOGETHER WITH, WITH THIS NEW EXPERIENCE THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE FOR THE PORSCHE ENTHUSIAST.
UM, THAT BEING SAID, I, I THINK I'M GONNA FINISH IN I HOW I DID THAT SLIDE FORWARD AND RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
AGAIN, OUR WHOLE TEAM IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UM, I, I THINK I ADDRESSED SEVERAL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED, BUT AGAIN, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
UM, BEFORE WE GET INTO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, I DON'T THINK, I DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF ANYONE OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT SPEAKING TONIGHT, IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
UH, I WAS JUST, IF WE HAD OTHER SPEAKERS, I WAS GONNA TRY TO GET THEM AND THEN WE COULD ASK THE APPLICANT
[00:50:01]
AND HE WOULD'VE A CHANCE OR THEY WOULD'VE A CHANCE TO RESPOND IF THERE WERE OTHER COMMENTS THAT BROUGHT UP.SO VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY HAS A QUESTION, SO WE'LL SEE.
WE'LL SEE HOW THIS, UH, SEE HOW THIS GOES.
UM, BILL, JUST A COUPLE THINGS.
UH, YOU TALKED TO EMPLOYEE COUNT TALKING ABOUT 80 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES.
IS THAT SALES SERVICE PARTS? EVERYBODY? EVERYBODY? YES SIR.
UM, DO, UM, JUST RANDOM QUESTION.
YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS.
UM, MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT PORSCHE TECHNICIANS ARE PRETTY SPECIALIZED AND TEND TO STICK AROUND A LITTLE WHILE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE AVERAGE TENURE IS ON YOUR I DO NOT, BUT, BUT MY EXPERIENCE WITH, WITH VEHICLES SUCH AS PORSCHE, OTHERS, UH, THEY TEND TO STAY FOR A LONG TIME.
AND THE, UH, YES, THEY, THEY TEND TO BE VERY, UH, HIGHLY TECHNICAL, HIGHLY EDUCATED AS FAR AS THOSE, UH, DIFFERENT AREAS OF THE, OF, UH, MECHANICS GO.
YEAH, THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE AS WELL.
UM, COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUILDING.
THE, THE ROLLUP DOORS FOR THE SERVICE LANE ENTRANCE LANE ARE 50% GLAZING, WHERE SOME OF THE OTHER ONES ARE, ARE MORE, IS THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE THE HIGH SPEED DOORS? THEY ARE, YES, SIR.
SO THEY ARE THE FULL GLASS, BUT THEY'RE THE HIGH SPEED.
THEY'RE THE HIGH IS WHY IT'S THE 50% UP AND DOWN, LITERALLY SECONDS.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WAS THE INTENT.
IT LOOKED LIKE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS ON THE PLAN.
JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THOUGHT IT WAS.
AND THE OTHER ONES ON THE SIDE FOR THE DELIVERY AREAS, THAT'S JUST THE, THE, THE TYPICAL OVERHEAD DOORS THAT'LL ACTUALLY ACTUALLY HAVE MORE GLASS IN 'EM, CORRECT? CORRECT.
UM, AND THEN, UH, THIS MIGHT BE A LEADING QUESTION, BUT, UM, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT, THAT I THINK THIS PART OF TOWN WE'VE FOCUSED ON IS TECHNOLOGY OR RESEARCH FACILITIES, UM, WITH 80 EMPLOYEES.
I REALIZE THAT MIGHT BE NOT AS BE AS MANY AS WE MIGHT OTHERWISE, BUT TECHNOLOGY WISE, UM, YOU'VE TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CARS.
YOU, HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE NEW ELECTRICAL CAR, ELECTRIC PORSCHES THAT ARE COMING OUT, TECHNICALLY ADVANCED THEY ARE.
AND HOW MUCH WORK GOES INTO THOSE? ARE YOU, ARE YOU UP TO SPEED ON ALL THAT, SO TO SPEAK?
I, I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT 'EM FOR YEARS, BUT, UM, I I, I KNOW THEY'RE GONNA BE TECHNICIANS THERE, IF THAT'S THE QUESTION WE MIGHT ASK.
UH, I GUESS DAVID, SARAH, IF HE'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
YEAH, I GUESS THE POINT I WANNA BRING OUT IS THAT IF, IF WE REALLY DO WANT TECHNOLOGY EMPHASIS IN THIS PART OF THIS PART OF THE CITY, I, I CAN'T HONESTLY, BASED ON MY KNOWLEDGE, I CAN'T THINK OF ANYTHING THAT'S MUCH MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED THAN AN ELECTRIC PORSCHE RIGHT NOW.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO GO INTO THAT.
THAT WAS MORE OF A STATEMENT THAN A QUESTION.
SO, UM, THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW.
THANK YOU CHAIRMAN, MR. TO THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND THANK YOU.
UM, FORGOT YOUR NAME, GENTLEMEN, FOR COMING HERE.
I THINK THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING PROJECT AND APPRECIATE THAT.
I I THINK A LOT OF US ALREADY AGREE TO THAT.
UM, AS YOU HAVE HEARD ALREADY EARLIER, I THINK WE ALL HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THE, UH, THE ROLLING ROLL UP DOORS AND THE, THE, THE LOOKS OF THOSE DOORS AT HOW TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE DFW, UH, SORRY, DASS NORTH TOLLWAY, UM, BUILDING IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT.
ALSO, IT'S VERY CLOSE TO LEGACY WEST, WHICH IS REALLY HIGH PROFILE SHOPPING AREA.
SO I WANNA ASK A COUPLE QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR OPERATIONS.
SO WILL THOSE DOORS BE OPENED? MOST OF THE TIMES WHEN YOU'RE OPEN, WHEN YOU'RE OPERATING, THE THREE DOORS ON THE EAST WILL BE CLOSED FOR THE MOST PART.
I MEAN, THEY, THEY WILL OPEN TO ALLOW CARS IN, BUT THEY ARE, AS COMMISSIONER RATLIFF SAID, THEY'RE HIGH SPEED.
THEY U GO UP AND DOWN THE GLASS DOORS ON THE NORTH SIDE, AND I'LL DEFER TO DAVID.
SARAH FOR THE MOST PART SHOULD BE CLOSED AND THE PHOTO DOOR SHOULD BE CLOSED FOR THE MOST PART.
'CAUSE THEY'RE GONNA BE TAKING PHOTOS OF THE AUTOMOBILES.
THERE'S NO REASON FOR THAT DOOR TO BE OPEN OTHER THAN LET VEHICLES IN AND TAKE VEHICLES OUT.
AND DAVID, IF YOU'RE ONLINE, IF YOU COULD CONFIRM THAT, I'D APPRECIATE IT.
DO WE HAVE OUR, IS ANYBODY ONLINE? I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ELSE ONLINE.
WELL, I THINK YOU MENTIONED THAT ALL OF THOSE SPACES ARE AIR CONDITIONED.
I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY WOULD LEAVE THE DOORS OPEN.
THE, UH, REGISTRATION AREA IS AIR CONDITIONED.
THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION AND THEN I DON'T HAVE A SECOND QUESTION.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER KERRY? YEAH.
UM, HOW BIG OF A MARKET AREA DO YOU EXPECT THIS TO SERVICE? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.
UH, I'M ASKING MR. WILLIAMS IF HE HAS ANY IDEA THE MARKET AREA.
PLEASE, YES, PLEASE COME DOWN TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE.
AND, AND I, I GUESS JUST KIND OF PIGGYBACKING ON IT THOUGH, ON, I THINK THERE'RE ONLY FOUR OR FIVE, UH, PORCH DEALERSHIPS IN NORTH.
YEAH, THAT'S MY NEXT QUESTION IS, IS ARE THERE ANY COMPETING DEALERSHIPS, EVEN, ALTHOUGH THIS OBVIOUSLY IS GONNA BE
[00:55:01]
DIFFERENT, WHAT'S THE, WHAT ARE THE OTHER CLOSEST THIS WILL BE REPLACING? ONE THAT'S ALREADY HERE, RIGHT, THAT'S WHAT I WAS GONNA SPEAK TO.IT'S REPLACING THE EXISTING PLANO DEALERSHIP.
AND, AND THIS IS FOR THE NORTH DALLAS.
NOW, THEIR MARKET AREA WILL EXTEND, YOU KNOW, WELL UP TO THE RED RIVER AND, AND COMING DOWN IN, INTO DALLAS, BUT THEN IT GETS CONCENTRATED IN DALLAS.
BUT FOR THE MOST PART, THIS DISTRICT, THIS AREA IS, IS PRETTY MUCH A THREE OR FOUR COUNTY AREA THAT, THAT THEY'RE CONCENTRATED IN.
SO WE DO HAVE HIM ONLINE NOW, SO MAYBE WE CAN COME BACK TO HIM IF WE HAVE A QUESTION.
I, I HAVE A CLIENT WHO LIVES IN EAST TEXAS, AND THIS IS HIS HOME DEALERSHIP IS RIGHT HERE IN PLANO.
COMMISSIONER LEY, UH, JUMPING OFF OF THAT POINT.
UM, SO RD POSH OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY OWNED BY VOLKSWAGEN, FOR THEM TO BE EXPANDING THE AUDI BUSINESS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS KICKING YOU OFF OF PLANO PARKWAY AND LOOKING FOR A NEW SITE.
DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST THAT THE PORSCHE IN DALLAS IS ENOUGH TO SERVICE THE DEMAND? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY WE GIVE UP THAT PLOT OF LAND, WHICH IS VERY DESIRABLE FOR WHAT SEEMS TO BE BY YOUR MOVE A SHRINKING MARKET FOR PORSCHE.
WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A SHRINKING MARKET FOR PORSCHE, IF THAT'S THE QUESTION.
I MEAN, WE'RE TAKING A SITE AND A, A SITE THAT'S TIGHTS, FIVE ACRES ON THE CORNER.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK IT'S GOT GREAT VISIBILITY.
UH, ACCESS IS IS OKAY, BUT IT'S WELL BELOW THE TOLL ROAD AT THAT LOCATION.
I THINK THIS IS A GREAT DESTINATION USE FOR THAT PROPERTY.
UH, BUT AS FAR AS THE, THE, UH, WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE PORSCHE, I DON'T THINK THEY'RE, THEIR, THEIR MARKET'S DIMINISHING.
I THINK IT'S PROBABLY, ESPECIALLY IN, IN TERMS OF THE, THE ELECTRIC VEHICLES WHERE THEY'RE REALLY FOCUSING A LOT OF THEIR ATTENTION ON ELECTRIC VEHICLES LIKE MANY AUTO MAKERS.
SO WE, YOU HAVE A, A PORSCHE SITE IN DALLAS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, AND ONE IN MCKINNEY? THERE, THERE ARE, THERE'S ONE, YES.
UM, JUST A LITTLE TECHNICAL QUESTION, SINCE ALL THIS IS ENCLOSED INDOORS, UM, IS IT GOING TO BE EQUIPPED WITH VENTILATION SYSTEM TO, TO REMOVE PERFUMES FROM THE BUILDING? YES.
AND AGAIN, OUR ARCHITECT IS ON THE LINE, AND THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION FOR HIM.
COMMISSIONER BRANO, UH, JOHN PENNY, CAN YOU HEAR US? I'M NOT SURE IF, UH, JOHN CAN HEAR US, BUT THIS IS DAVID, SARAH WITH OUR NATION.
DAVID, THE QUESTION WAS, WILL THE, SINCE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE COMPLETELY, UH, CONTAINED ALL THE SERVICES, IS THERE GOING TO BE A VENTILATION SYSTEM, UH, FOR THE, THE BUILDING TO ADDRESS? YES, ABSOLUTELY.
THE, THE, UH, SERVICE AREA WILL BE COMPLETELY VENTILATED.
UM, SO THERE, THERE WON'T BE THE RELEASE OF FUMES IN THE OCCUPIED SPACE.
DOES THAT ALSO APPLY TO THE REGISTRATION AREA, FOR EXAMPLE? OH YES.
BUT, UH, GENERALLY, I MEAN, THIS IMPRESSES ME AS A HIGH-END DESIGN, UH, BEFITTING THE HIGH-END AUTOMOBILES THAT, THAT, THAT THEY PLAN TO SELL THERE.
I I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION.
UH, SO YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST DESTINATION PORSCHE DEALERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES, ONE OF THE FIRST PORSCHE DESTINATION.
SO I HAPPEN TO NOTICE THE, THE SUCCESSES THEY WERE HAVING IN THE UK AND AUSTRALIA AS WELL.
CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS, UH, THE TRANSITION FROM THE DEALERSHIP THEY HAVE NOW TO THIS, UH, DESTINATION DEALERSHIP? WHAT, WHAT HAVE THEY SEEN IN OTHER PLACES? AGAIN, I'LL DEFER TO DAVID.
SARAH, DAVID, DID YOU HEAR THAT QUESTION? ABSOLUTELY.
SO, UM, THIS, THIS IS ACTUALLY OUR FIRST PORSCHE DESTINATION DESIGN IN THE COUNTRY.
UH, BUT WHAT WE'RE PROJECTING IS AMAZING GROWTH IN THE, UM, IN THE BUSINESS BECAUSE WE'RE DOUBLING OUR CAPACITY FOR SERVICE AND WE'RE DOUBLING OUR CAPACITY FOR SALES.
UM, SO WE ARE EXTREMELY EXCITED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO, TO BE ABLE TO GROW OUR BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANUM.
UM, AND SO FOR ME, UH, AS I LOOK AT, UH, THE COMPREHENSIVE
[01:00:01]
PLAN AND A COUPLE THINGS, UM, THE, UM, UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY AND WE TALK ABOUT MAXIMIZING EMPLOYMENT, UH, I THINK WE ACTUALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY HERE, UH, TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS UNIQUE IN THE UNITED STATES AND DRAWING, UH, REVIEWS IN AUSTRALIA AND THE UK, UH, TO ACTUALLY, RATHER THAN BEING REVENUE NEUTRAL, IT LOOKS TO ME THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE NOT ONLY A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT BY PORSCHE INTO THE PLANO COMMUNITY, BUT IT'S ALSO GOING TO DRAW, UH, PEOPLE FROM OTHER AREAS, UH, AND POSSIBLY EVEN OUTSIDE OF THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR, FOR PORSCHE, UH, ENTHUSIASTS TO ARRIVE HERE FROM AS FAR AWAY AS POSSIBLY LOS ANGELES OR NEW YORK, BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST ONE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT THESE DESTINATIONS ARE, ARE GONNA BE AN AREA WHERE THE ENTHUSIASTS CAN GET TOGETHER.I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S PART OF THE CONCEPT.
AND SO MY ONLY OTHER CONCERN, UH, AND CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE INTENSITY THAT WE TALK ABOUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BETWEEN 50 AND 75%, UH, AT 26.9, UH, WE'RE ACTUALLY LEAVING QUITE A BIT OF SPACE AVAILABLE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO WE'RE, I MIGHT ADD THE ACTUAL ZONING, THE MAXIMUM PER THE EXISTING ZONING IS 40% FOR NON-RETAIL USES.
SO THEY COULDN'T EVEN ACHIEVE THE 50% FOR THE EXISTING ZONING.
AND SO MY POINT WAS, I ACTUALLY THINK IT'S BETTER FOR THE CITY TO HAVE MORE GREEN SPACE, UH, RATHER THAN HAVING, UH, A, A MORE CROWDED INTENSITY THAT COULD, UH, COULD BE THERE.
I DON'T SEE ANY MORE LIGHTS LIT UP, BUT I, I RESERVED A QUESTION FOR MYSELF.
SO IT, IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT, UM, HOW HARD IT IS TO REUTILIZE OLD CAR DEALERSHIPS.
AND I KNOW PARKWAY THAT USED TO BE CAR SALES CENTRAL AND I BOUGHT VEHICLES THERE.
ACTUALLY, THE OLD FORD DEALERSHIP I HELPED BUILD.
SO, UM, IF YOU'RE INVESTING, I REMEMBER WHEN BUILDING A STRUCTURED PARKING, THE LAND WASN'T WORTH IT, AND NOW IT'S ALMOST A REQUIREMENT 'CAUSE THE LAND'S SO VALUABLE.
SO AUTONATION AND I, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S BEST TO SPEAK TO THIS, BUT WHEN YOU BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHAT'S YOUR TIME HORIZON ON IT? ARE YOU THINKING, WELL, IN 10 YEARS WE'RE GONNA MOVE OUT? OR IS THIS NO, THIS IS 30 YEARS.
THIS IS, WE'RE GONNA OWN THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND WE'RE GONNA OPERATE HERE FOR THE NEXT THREE DECADES.
WHAT'S YOUR MINDSET WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THAT? SO WHEN WE MAKE A LAND USE DECISION, WE HAVE SOME COMFORT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE VALUABLE TO THE CITY FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS.
UH, DAVID, SARAH, DID YOU HEAR THE QUESTION? YES, SIR.
SO YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE, YOU'RE RIGHT ON WITH THE LEVEL OF INVESTMENT THAT AUTOMATION IS MAKING IN THIS PARTICULAR SITE, IT'S NOT A SHORT TERM PLAY FOR US.
THIS IS, UH, AND WILL BE OUR HOME, UH, FOR THE NEXT 30, 40 YEARS WITH THIS LEVEL OF INVESTMENT, UH, IN OUR DEALERSHIP.
IT'S, IT'S NOT, UM, WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO, UH, GET TODAY AND BE OUT IN FIVE OR 10 YEARS.
THERE'S, THIS IS DEFINITELY A LONG TERM PLAY FOR US, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS BRAND.
I, I'D ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT OUR REQUEST, IT'S AN SUP FOUR NEW VEHICLE DEALER.
SO YEAH, THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A ZONING CHANGE TO GO TO A USE OR PRE-OWNED DEALERSHIP.
UH, COMMISSIONER TOM, YOU HAVE A LAST, UM, THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN.
ACTUALLY, YOU REMINDED ME, I HAD A QUESTION EARLIER REGARDING YOUR CURRENT DEALERSHIP.
HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN, UH, OPERATING IN THAT, UM, LOCATION AND WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE, UH, ABOUT THAT LOCATION? AGAIN? THE, THE CURRENT DEALERSHIP WILL BE CONVERTED TO, UH, AN AUDI.
OH, THE AUDI IS TAKING OVER THAT SPACE? YES.
HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN THERE? LIKE, HAD YOU, UM, HAVE YOU BEEN OPERATING IN THAT LOCATION? IT'S BEEN A WHILE.
UH, I DON'T KNOW, DAVID, IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION.
UH, I DON'T KNOW, UH, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHEN THE ORIGINAL FACILITY WAS BUILT, BUT WE ACQUIRED IT OVER 10 YEARS AGO.
I'M THINKING IT'S OVER 20, 25 YEARS.
I GO UP THERE QUITE OFTEN, ACTUALLY.
NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.
I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COURSE.
[01:05:01]
SUVS THAT WE HAVE FOR TESLA AND LEGACY WEST AND, UH, LUCID MOTORS, IS THAT STRICT SHOWROOM STATUS, OR, AND THEY SERVICE WITHIN THOSE LOCATIONS.I HAVE TO LOOK INTO WHETHER, UM, VEHICLE REPAIR IS PERMITTED IN THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
I'D, I'D BE SURPRISED IF IT WAS, BUT THIS, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS SO RESTRICTED.
THAT I THINK IT'S ALMOST LI IN EFFECT, LIMITED TO SHOWROOM PURPOSES.
OKAY, MR. BURNOFF? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, THIS IMPRESSES ME AS A, A SHOWCASE DESIGN.
UM, AS I SAID BEFORE, BEFITTING THE, THE CALIBER OF CARS THAT THEY WILL BE SELLING.
UM, I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD WANT TO BE SELLING PORSCHES ON A DIRTY LOT SOMEWHERE.
UM, UH, I ALSO KNOW WE'RE PROBABLY ALL AWARE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY UP, IT'S A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY AT SPRING CREEK.
THERE'S A BMW DEALER, AN EQUALLY HIGH-END VEHICLE IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO SELL BMWS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE FREEWAY.
I DON'T SEE WHY IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO SELL PORSCHES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE FREEWAY.
UM, MY WIFE DRIVES A SUBARU, AND THE SUBARU DEALER IS ALSO ON THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE OF THE FREEWAY FURTHER SOUTH.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WANTING US TO PRIORITIZE BUSINESSES OFFERING, UM, A HIGHLY SKILLED EMPLOYMENT, UM, AS YOU ALL MAY KNOW, I HAVE A BACKGROUND OF HAVING SPENT 15 YEARS ADJUDICATING DISABILITY CLAIMS FOR THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.
IN THE, IN THAT PROCESS, WE HAD TO EVALUATE THE PAST WORK HISTORY OF THE CLAIMANTS WHO APPEARED BEFORE US.
AND I'M TALKING THOUSANDS OF CLAIMANTS OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER.
AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD TO EVALUATE WAS THE SKILL LEVEL OF THEIR PAST EMPLOYMENT.
AND WE DID THAT ACCORDING TO A SCALE PROMULGATED BY THE LABOR DEPARTMENT CALLED SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION.
SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION IS MEASURED ON A NINE, ON NINE LEVELS FROM ONE TO NINE, ONE BEING HIGHLY UNSKILLED, AND NINE BEING THE MOST HIGHLY SKILLED.
YOU CAN HAVE LEVELS ONE AND TWO WERE UNSKILLED.
LEVELS THREE AND FOUR ARE SEMI-SKILLED.
FIVE AND UP ARE SKILLED EMPLOYMENT.
SO I LOOKED UP THE SKILL LEVEL OF THE TYPES OF EMPLOYEES IN A CAR DEALERSHIP THAT WOULD, WHOSE WORK WOULD HAVE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF CONTACT DIRECTLY WITH THE, WITH THE CUSTOMERS IN THE DEALERSHIP.
UH, NAMELY CAR SALESPEOPLE AND, UM, AUTO MECHANICS, CAR SALESPEOPLE.
AND THIS APPLIES TO BOTH, UH, NEW AND USED CAR.
SALESPEOPLE HAVE A SKILL LEVEL, A SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION LEVEL SIX THAT IS SKILLED.
IT MEANS IT TAKES THEM AT MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND UP TO TWO YEARS TO ACQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY FOR AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF THE JOB.
AND THAT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN, UH, PORSCHE SALESPEOPLE AND PEOPLE SELLING CHEVYS OR FORDS OR 20-YEAR-OLD USED CHEVYS OR FORDS.
UH, THIS IS JUST GENERIC CAR SALESMAN.
I WOULD IMAGINE THAT SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SALES FORCE OF A PORSCHE DEALER WOULD HAVE TO HAVE WOULD PROBABLY BE HIGHER AUTOMOBILE MECHANIC.
IT'S NOT, UH, DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OR MAKES OF CARS.
IT COULD APPLY EQUALLY TO SOMEONE WORKING AT A PET BOYS, AS IT WOULD TO A PORSCHE DEALER.
BUT THE SKILL LEVEL OF A CAR MECHANIC IS SEVEN, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND UP TO FOUR YEARS TO ACQUIRE THE NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE FOR ADEQUATE PERFORMANCE.
UM, JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, MR. BELL, I LOOKED UP URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNER, AND THE SKILL LEVEL IS EIGHT.
AND MS. DEANDRA, THE SKILL LEVEL REQUIRED FOR AN ATTORNEY IS ALSO 8.0 AND UP, DEPENDING ON THE JOB.
SO I FIND, I FIND THAT THE DEALERS, WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING HERE IS IN, IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE, UM, THE PRIORITIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO OFFER HIGHLY SKILLED EMPLOYMENT.
I ALMOST THOUGHT THAT WAS MO GOING INTO A MOTION.
THAT'S SOME GREAT POINTS THERE.
UM, YOU DIDN'T, UM, ANALYZE WHAT A COMMISSIONER IS, AND MAYBE THAT'S GOOD.
UM, SO I, I, I LIKE IT SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE CHAIR.
YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T A HUGE PIECE OF LAND AND WE LOOK AT HOW IT CAN BEST BE USED.
AND IT'S MY SENSE THESE GUYS ARE GONNA USE IT REALLY WELL FOR A LOT OF THE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID.
I, I LIKE THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THIS IS GONNA BE ICONIC FOR PLANO, AND I LIKE THE MARKET SIZE THAT I THINK IT'LL SERVE.
AND SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE IT'LL BRING BUSINESS AND PEOPLE TO PLANO.
UM, AND I THINK IT'LL BE ICONIC.
AND I, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD SITE
[01:10:01]
FOR IT.AND I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE MOVING FROM PLANO PARKWAY, WHICH, YOU KNOW, SO, UM, I, I LIKE IT A LOT.
UM, WHAT MOST OF Y'ALL PROBABLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT ME IS THAT I BUILD CAR DEALERSHIPS FOR A LIVING.
UM, AND SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROGRAM.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS OWNER, UH, NOT A CLIENT, NO CONFLICT THERE.
UM, UH, BUT I, I WILL TELL YOU, COMMISSIONER BRUNO, THAT THE AVERAGE TECHNICIAN IN A PORSCHE DEALERSHIP IS HIGHLY, HIGHLY SKILLED.
UH, THAT THEY ARE VERY COMPLICATED VEHICLES.
AND I HAVE A HUGE RESPECT FOR THOSE GUYS.
'CAUSE IT, IT, IT AMAZES ME WHAT THEY DO BACK IN THOSE SHOPS.
SOMETIMES IT'S A MORE OF A SURGICAL SWEEP THAN IT IS A MECHANIC SHOP IN A COURSE DEALERSHIP.
UM, AND IN MY OPINION THAT THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THAT MEETS THE TECHNOLOGY RESEARCH COMPONENT OF THIS PART OF TOWN BECAUSE, UH, THERE IS VERY, VERY FEW THINGS ON THE PLANET THAT ARE MORE COMPLICATED THAN A PORSCHE
AND, UH, UM, I ALSO KNOW JUST BY RECENT EXPERIENCE, HOW EXPENSIVE THESE BUILDINGS ARE.
AND SO, UH, I KNOW THAT, THAT THE, UH, DEVELOPER OR THE OWNER IS MAKING A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY, UM, AND EXPANDING THEIR OPERATIONS AND, AND THAT DEVELOPMENT, THAT THAT, UH, UH, COMMITMENT ISN'T TAKEN LIGHTLY.
AND, UM, I ANTICIPATE YOUR PAYBACK IS YOU'RE ANTICIPATING A GOOD PAYBACK ON THAT, OR YOU WOULDN'T BE DOING IT.
AND SO, UM, I'M, I'M ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE GONNA BE BRINGING TO TOWN AND THE INVESTMENT THAT YOU'RE MAKING IN OUR COMMUNITY, AND CREATING THOSE VERY, VERY, VERY HIGH SKILLED JOBS.
SO I WILL, I I WILL RESERVE MY MOTION.
THEN I, I WOULD LIKE A MOTION, MOTION TO APPROVE THIS, UM, AS PRESENTED WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS AS, UH, LISTED BY THE CITY STAFF.
SO I HAVE A MOTION SECOND, BUT WE STILL HAVE SOME COMMENTS.
MR. ALL YOU HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE.
UM, I'M GONNA LAND IN THE MINORITY HERE.
UM, FROM A LAND LOOK PERSPECTIVE, BEAUTIFUL.
FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, THIS IN MY MIND RUNS INTO A MATRIX OF HIGH BARS IN TERMS OF THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY, PLANO 2050.
HOW DO WE, UH, THE VIABILITY OF THIS BEING REUSED FOR SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN A CAR DEALERSHIP IN 30 YEARS? UM, THE FACT THAT IT'S IN LEGACY WEST, AND I DON'T SEE HOW THIS ATTRACTS BUSINESSES OR, UH, ENSURES THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE BUSINESSES AND THE CORPORATE CAMPUSES IN LEGACY WEST.
IT, IT, IT RUNS INTO TOO MANY, FOR ME, TOO MANY BAR ZONES.
BUT WE ARE HERE TO EDUCATE LAND USE, AND I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT CROSSES, IT CHECKS OFF ENOUGH OF THE BARS FOR YOU.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF FOR THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY TO APPROVE ITEM THREE, A SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
PLEASE VOTE NOT ITEM CARRIE SEVEN TO ONE.
A MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM THREE B AS RECOMMENDED BY CITY STAFF SECOND.
AND IT'S, THAT'S SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE SUBJECT COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE A.
AND THAT WAS A MOTION BY MR. RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, PLEASE VOTE.
AND THAT ITEM ALSO PASSED THE SEVEN TO ONE.
LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE PROJECT WHEN IT'S DONE.
[4. (CC) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-027 - Request to amend Article 16 (Parking and Loading) and related sections of the Zoning Ordinance to modify off-street parking requirements. Tabled on December 4, 2023. Project #ZC2023-027. Petitioner: City of Plano (Legislative Consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PUBLIC HEARING, EXCUSE ME.REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 16, PARKING AND LOADING AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
THIS IS FOR LEGIS LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS CONNOR CAMPBELL, AND I'M PLANNER HERE WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
I'M HERE TONIGHT TO REQUEST, UH, AS MS. BRIDGE JUST SAID, UM, TO AMEND ARTICLE 16, UM, THE PARKING LOADING REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MODIFY OFF STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
SO, JUST SOME QUICK BACKGROUND ON, UM, THE CURRENT CASE ON THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION CALLED THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE ON OCTOBER 16TH.
AND THE CASE, UH, THE ITEM WAS TABLED BY THE PLANNING ZONING
[01:15:01]
COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 4TH, UM, TO THIS MEETING.SO THE REASON STAFF ARE BRINGING, UM, UH, WANT TO BRING AMENDMENTS TO THE, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS WE ARE FACING A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES, UH, WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, THE EXISTING REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT MINIMUMS, THAT PARKING MINIMUMS MUST BE MET UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, THAT WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY FLEXIBILITY WITH THOSE MINIMUMS. UM, AND A DEVELOPER WHEN THEY'VE DEVELOPED A SITE CAN GO ABOVE THOSE MINIMUMS, BUT THEY HAVE TO ABSOLUTELY MEET THAT MINIMUM, UM, FOR WHATEVER PROPOSED USE THAT IS, UM, THE REQUIREMENTS.
UM, THE OTHER CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE FACING IS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE DO HAVE FOR OFF STREET PARKING, UM, ARE GEARED TOWARDS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
SO MANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS COME FROM THE 1986, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WE SEE IN TODAY'S ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, YOU KNOW, A TIME OF HIGH GROWTH IN PLANO, UM, AND OTHERS DATE BACK AS FAR AS THE 1960S, SOME OF THOSE VERY BASE, UM, PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO ACCOUNT FOR A CHANGE OF USE OR, UH, REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING SITES OR SMALL INTEL, UH, INFILL SITES THAT WE SEE TODAY IN PLANO.
UM, WE HAVE SEEN, UM, CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY THAT REDUCE THE NEED FOR PARKING.
UM, THINGS SUCH AS RIDE SHARING APPS, UM, DELIVERY SERVICES.
UM, WE ARE HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT SITES THAT ARE BEING REPURPOSED, UM, FOR D ARE BEING REDEVELOPED FOR DIFFERENT USES.
THERE'S NOT THE APPETITE IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MARKET TO PROVIDE KIND OF THESE HIGH PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, INCREASINGLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS ARE BEING UTILIZED TO REDUCE, UH, PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND MORE IMPORTANTLY, WE KNOW THAT TYPICALLY THE EXISTING PARKING MEETS, UM, A LOT OF OUR OPERATIONAL DEMANDS THAT WE SEE ON OUR COMMERCIAL SITES.
AND SO, UM, AND FINALLY, JUST ONE LAST POINT IS THAT, UM, PROACTIVE, UH, CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS ENCUMBER HAS UNCOVERED, UM, RECENTLY DISCREPANCY BET, UM, BETWEEN PROVIDED PARKING AND THEN WHAT WAS ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO WE'RE SEEING, UM, WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PROVIDED WAS LESS THAN WHAT WAS REQUIRED.
UM, SO REALLY WHAT STAFF ARE SEEING IS THERE'S TWO ISSUES, UM, WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
UM, THE FIRST, UM, OCCURS WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE OF USE ON A SITE.
UM, THERE ARE A LOT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SITES THAT ARE NO LONGER BEING USED, UM, FOR THE USE THAT WAS, THAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED FOR.
UM, BUT THEY ARE, THAT USE IS STILL PERMITTED IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT.
UM, THE NEW USES TYPICALLY HAVE A HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENT, IS WHAT WE'RE SEEING AS CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY COME IN.
UM, AND BECAUSE THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE PARKING MINIMUM STILL BE MET, UM, STAFF ARE HAVING TO HOLD BACK CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY PERMITS.
UM, SOME OF THE MOST COMMON ISSUES WE SEE, UM, WE SEE, UM, WE SEE RESTAURANTS COMING INTO INLINE RETAIL SITES.
UM, THE PARKING, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL IS ONLY ONE TO 200, MAYBE ONE TO TWO 50.
UM, IF THE SITE IS GREATER THAN 50,000 SQUARE FEET, UM, RESTAURANT USE REQUIRES A ONE TO 100 PARKING RATIO.
UM, ANOTHER ONE THAT WE'VE SEEN, UM, IS WE'VE SEE WE'RE SEEING OLD BANK SITES BEING CONVERTED FROM BANKS, WHICH HAVE A PARKING RATIO OF ONE TO 300 BEING CONVERTED TO NEW RETAIL STORES AT ONE TO 200.
AND SO REALLY WHAT, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPERS TYPICALLY HAVE CREATED SOME ACCESS PARKING WHEN WE'RE REVIEWING SITE PLANS, UM, FOR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
BUT WE GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE THE USE IS JUST HIGH ENOUGH THAT WE'RE SHORT A COUPLE OF PARKING SPOTS, AND SO WE'RE HAVING TO HOLD BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MEET THE MINIMUMS, UH, DUE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE HAVE TO HOLD BACK THESE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, OR WE WIND UP PUTTING UNDUE, OR WE WIND UP PUTTING REALLY BURDENSOME, UH, BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS ON SOME OF OUR APPLICANTS.
UH, YOU KNOW, THE, THE REDUCTION PROGRAMS THAT EXIST IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE CURRENTLY, CURRENTLY FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE REALLY GEARED TOWARDS NEW CONSTRUCTION.
UM, A PROPERTY OWNER CAN SEEK TO GET A PARKING AGREEMENT FROM A NEIGHBORING PARKING, UH, NEIGHBORING LOT FROM THROUGH EASEMENTS.
UM, THOSE ARE NOT NECESSARILY EASY TO OBTAIN.
UM, YOU'VE GOT WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN GET AHOLD OF THAT PROPERTY OWNER.
IF THE PROPERTY OWNER IS OPEN TO THAT SORT OF AGREEMENT, THEY, YOU KNOW, THEY MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING THEMSELVES, THERE MAY NOT BE A NEIGHBORING LOT.
UM, AND REALLY THE FINAL OPTION IS FOR AN APPLICANT TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM, UH, FROM
[01:20:01]
THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.UM, THE SECOND ISSUE THAT WE'RE SEEING IS FOR SMALLER INS, UH, INFILL SITES, REDEVELOPMENTS OR EXPANSIONS, UM, THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, UM, WHILE ALSO MEETING OTHER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, UM, ON THE SITE.
SO SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS LIKE LANDSCAPING, DRY VALVES, EASEMENTS ARE EATING INTO THE SPACE ON SOME OF THESE REALLY SMALL SITES WHERE, UM, THEY COULD POTENTIALLY, YOU KNOW, MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT WITHOUT THOSE.
BUT BECAUSE THERE'S A COMBINATION OF ALL THESE FACTORS GOING IN, THEY, THEY CAN'T MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS.
AND SO, STAFF, UM, LOOKED AT ZONING ORDINANCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO KINDA SEE WHAT FLEXIBILITY OTHER CITIES HAVE.
UM, WHEN TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO THIS ISSUE.
UM, WE FOUND KIND OF A DIVERSE MIX OF CITIES, UM, SUBURBAN CENTERS SIMILAR TO PLANO, AS WELL AS SOME CITIES THAT ARE WELL SUITED FOR REDEVELOPMENT, UM, THAT HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO, UM, CHANGES OF USE SPECIFICALLY.
UM, AND BASED ON THAT REVIEW OF THESE CITIES.
UM, AND YOU CAN SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT KIND OF A BETTER BREAKDOWN.
UM, WE ARE, WE'RE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING, UM, SOME OF OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE FOR THESE CHANGES OF USE IN INFILL DEVELOPMENT.
UM, STAFF DOES PLAN TO DO A FULL REVIEW OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITH THE ZONING REWRITE.
UM, THAT'S ONE OF OUR TOP PRIORITIES AS STAFF IS IT'S A PROBLEM THAT WE FACE EVERY DAY WHEN TRYING TO PROVE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
BUT WITH THE BURDEN THAT PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESSES ARE FACING RIGHT NOW, WE NEED AN IMMEDIATE FIX.
UM, DOING THAT COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW IS GONNA TAKE US A LOT OF TIME.
UM, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS THAT WE HAVE, WE BELIEVE ARE A, YOU KNOW, A RESEARCH-BASED SOLUTION, UM, TO PROVIDE THAT IMMEDIATE RELIEF THAT SOME OF THESE BUSINESS OWNERS ARE SEEKING HERE IN PLANO.
AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS, IS WE'VE GOT KIND OF TWO SETS OF CHANGES HERE.
ONE IS TO ADDRESS THE CHANGES OF USE.
UM, THE AMENDMENTS, UM, WILL REQUIRE NO NEW PARKING.
UM, WHEN A PROPERTY OWNER, UM, SUBMITS A SIGNED LETTER TO THE CITY, THE OWNER MUST, UH, AGREE TO MANAGE PARKING ON THE SITE.
UM, AND THE LETTER MUST BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY AS PART OF THE COUNTY LAND, LAND RECORDS.
UM, THE AMENDMENT GIVES THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING THE DISCRETION TO REQUIRE PARKING STUDY AT ANY TIME, UM, TO ENSURE THAT PARKING NEEDS ARE BEING ACCURATELY, UM, MET ON THE SITE.
UM, WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS REALLY GONNA GIVE US KIND OF THE FLEXIBILITY TO MANAGE THE CHANGES OF USE THAT WE'RE SEEING ON SOME OF OUR SITES HERE IN PLANO, AND ALLOW PROPERTY MANAGERS THE ABILITY TO MANAGE THEIR PARKING WHILE AT THE SAME TIME ALSO GIVING THE CITY THE TOOLS TO MAKE SURE THAT PARKING, UH, PARKING NEEDS ARE MET AND KIND OF THAT MANAGING THAT BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO.
UM, ONE THING TO NOTE IS THAT THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT, UH, DISTRICT IS EXCLUDED FROM THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, UM, AS THE ZONING DISTRICT ALREADY HAS A NUMBER OF ALLOWANCES FOR PARKING ALREADY.
UH, SO, AND THEN THE, FOR THE PROPOSED, UH, CHANGES FOR INFILL REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSIONS, UM, THE REDUCTIONS ARE, UH, MAYBE GRANTED UP TO 10% OF THE REQUIREMENTS BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ZONING AND A REDUCTION OF 20%, UM, SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION.
UM, THESE WERE, UH, REDUCTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED IN INSTANCES WHERE, UH, PARKING WILL NOT CREATE ISSUES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR POTENTIALLY CREATE PARKING SPILLOVER IN ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, EXCLUSIONS, UM, FROM THESE REDUCTIONS INCLUDE VEHICLE STORAGE OR OTHER MODIFICATIONS ON A SITE THAT ARE PREVENTING THEM, UM, FROM THAT, THAT EAT UP SPACE THAT MAY, UM, ALREADY, UH, CHALLENGE THEM FROM MEETING THE PARKING, UM, REQUIREMENTS.
UM, AND WE'VE ALSO PUT IN AN EXCLUSION FOR CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP UNLESS ALL OWNERS PARTICIPATE IN THE PARKING REDUCTION, UM, FOR THIS PLAN REDUCTIONS ARE GRANTED THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, UM, AND ARE NOT GUARANTEED ON A FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT.
UM, FINALLY WITH THIS, THERE ARE, THERE IS AN EXISTING REDUCTION FOR EASEMENTS AND RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATIONS THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
AND WE PLAN OUT JUST FOR BEST ORDINANCE PRACTICES, MOVING THAT TO WHERE OF ALL THESE REDUCTIONS WOULD EXIST IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
UM, THIS PLAN, UH, THESE AMENDMENTS, THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY, UH, RESPONSES FOR THIS ZONING CASE.
UH, STAFF RECOMMENDED THE PROPOSED CHANGES BE ADOPTED AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
[01:25:01]
SOMETHING BECAUSE WE USE THE WORD REDUCTION.SO IT WOULD BE A REDUCTION OF WHATEVER THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE.
BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT AN EXPANSION OF UP TO 4,500 FEET DOESN'T REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING.
I THINK THAT'S WHAT I SAW IN HERE SOMEWHERE.
WELL, LET'S JUST GO THE OTHER DIRECTION.
AMENDMENT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE.
SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLES INCLUDE ALLOWS EXPANSIONS UP TO 4,500 SQUARE FEET PER HERITAGE RESOURCE PROPERTIES WITH NO ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENT.
I'M NOT SURE I'M READING THIS PROPERLY.
THOSE ARE EXEMPTIONS IN THE BUSINESS GOVERNMENT DISTRICT ALREADY.
SO MY, AND THEY'RE ONLY IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT.
SO WE'RE NOT PROPOSING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IN AN EXISTING SITE, LET'S TAKE A BANK BUILDING.
AND THEY EXPAND IT BY 4,500 FEET TO TURN IT INTO WHATEVER IT IS, AND THAT ELIMINATES PARKING ON SITE.
AND THEN THEY WANT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AVAILABLE.
SO THEY'VE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF, OF, OF PARKING SITES AVAILABLE, AND THEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION.
IS THAT HOW THIS IS GONNA WORK? OR, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING IS IF THEY HADN'T EXPANDED, THEY'D MEET THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS, BUT BECAUSE THEY EXPANDED, NOW THEY DON'T.
SO HOW DOES THAT PROCESS WORK? IS THAT MAKING SENSE? SO WHEN AN EXPANSION, THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE, THE SECOND, SECOND OPTION THAT, UM, MR. CAMPBELL PRESENTED.
UM, THE, UM, THE EXPANSION WOULD BE IF THEY DID 4,500 SQUARE FEET OF THEIR BUILDING AND, AND THAT ATE UP ALL OF THEIR PARKING, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF PARKING, UM, BASED ON THAT NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE.
AND IT COULD BE REDUCED BY, BY STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY UP TO 10% OF WHATEVER THAT NEW REQUIRED PARKING AMOUNT IS.
AND SO, UM, THEY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE SOME PARKING.
JUST THAT THAT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE REDUCED IF, IF YOU OR A STAFF APPROVED.
UM, AS USUAL, I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE STARTED OFF ASKING THE QUESTIONS.
THEY'RE GONNA ASK IT BETTER THAN I WOULD ANYWAY.
UM, SO WE'LL MOVE THROUGH ALL OF THAT, AND THEN IF I'M STILL UNCLEAR OR I, I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS, BUT MR. LAW, JUST TO BE CLEAR, MM-HMM.
AND THERE'S NOT EXCESS SPACES ON SITE.
UH, THIS, THE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE WAS A RESTAURANT OWNER.
THEY COME IN AND THEY SAY, WELL, WE NEED, WE NEED TWO MORE SPOTS.
THEN WHAT MS. SEBASTIAN JUST SAID WAS THAT THIS IS GONNA HAPPEN THROUGH A SITE PLAN PROCESS.
SO WITH THE, UM, WITH THE CHANGE OF USE, THIS WOULD JUST BE, THAT'S THE SIGNED LETTER PROCESS.
SO THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE TO SEND A SIGNED LETTER TO US SAYING THAT THEY'RE GONNA AGREE TO MANAGE PARKING ON THE SITE SUFFICIENTLY THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE PARKING ISSUES.
THE DIRECTOR CAN, UH, REQUIRE A PARKING STUDY TO ENSURE THAT, UM, AND THEN IT HAS TO BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY LAND RECORDS.
SO THAT'S FOR THE CHANGE OF USE SPECIFICALLY.
SO IF SOMEONE'S RESTAURANT'S MOVING IN AND WE SEE THAT, HEY, THEY'RE SHORT TWO PARKING SPOTS, OR, YOU KNOW, UP TO THAT, UM, 10%, WE CAN GRANT THEM AN ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER AND SAY, YOU'RE GOOD TO GO.
LET'S, LET'S SAY IT'S 30 AND THEY'RE SHORT TO, THAT WOULD BE IN THAT 10%.
UM, UH, WE COULD, THEY WOULD HAVE, THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD THEN SEND US A LETTER, WE WOULD SIGN OFF ON IT, AND THEN IT WOULD GO WITH THE COUNTY LAND RECORDS.
SO DOES THE LETTER COME FROM THE NEW GUY THAT'S BRINGING THE RESTAURANT OR FROM THE GUY THAT OWNS THE WHOLE STRIP CENTER? IT WOULD BE THE PROPERTY OWNER.
SO THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE WHOLE STRIP CENTER.
SO HE'S GONNA WRITE A LETTER MM-HMM.
THEN THEY'RE GONNA FILE IT WITH THE COUNTY.
AND THEN WHEN CAN THE Y'ALL REQUIRE A STUDY? WE CAN REQUIRE IT AT ANY TIME.
SO IF WE, IF WE START GETTING COMPLAINTS ABOUT POTENTIAL PARKING ISSUES, WE CAN, THE DIRECTOR HAS THE DISCRETION TO, TO ASK FOR PARKING STAY.
IF STAFF BELIEVE IT'S GONNA BE FINE, YOU KNOW, IT, IT'S, IT'S AT THE DISCRETION.
[01:30:01]
I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THE GUY ACTUALLY, THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER WRITES THE LETTER.THE GUY PUTS HIS SANDWICH SHOP, SHOP IN, THERE'S PARKING ISSUES ON SITE, THEN Y'ALL SAY, WE WANT A PARKING STUDY.
WELL, THEN WHAT, HOW DO, ARE YOU GONNA THEN RETROACTIVELY SAY YOUR PARKING STUDY PROVES THAT YOU ACTUALLY NEED THOSE TWO SPOTS AND MAKE 'EM GO BUILD THEM? I, I THINK THE, IT, IT MAY DEPEND.
UM, BUT THE, THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IT, IF THEY ARE VIOLATING THE LETTER AGREEMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE ISSUES ON SITE OR AT NEIGHBORING OR SITES IN THE VICINITY, THAT'S, THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE LETTER.
UM, AND THEN THAT'S CONSIDERED THE, IN THE DRAFT, IT'S CONSIDERED AN OFFENSE FOR THE OWNER TO, TO FAIL TO ADHERE TO THAT.
SO WE WOULD PURSUE IT AS A, A VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO WHAT IS THE LETTER GONNA SAY? THEY, THEY MUST AGREE THAT THEY'LL MANAGE PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE, THE REMAINDER OF THE, THE PARKING STANDARDS.
AND THEN ALSO THAT NO ADVERSE EFFECTS WILL OCCUR TO THE SITE OR ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY.
BUT MAYBE THEY WRITE THAT LETTER AND MAYBE A NEIGHBORING BUSINESS BECOMES WILDLY SUCCESSFUL, AND THERE WAS NO WAY FOR THEM TO PREDICT THAT THAT PLACE WAS GONNA BECOME WILDLY SUCCESSFUL.
AND THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT THE PARKING, OR THAT'S WHAT IS DRIVING THE PARKING PROBLEM, IS THAT A TENANT THAT MET THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ACTUALLY USING MORE THAN, AND THEN HOW DOES THAT WORK? BECAUSE IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WRITES THE LETTER, HE'S WRITING IT FOR THE WHOLE THING.
SO HE'S WRITING IT FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY THAT HE OWNS.
IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THE SANDWICH SHOP THAT CAME IN, IN MY EXAMPLE.
SO I GUESS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S MANAGING IT, RIGHT? THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS ESSENTIALLY TAKING ON THE BURDEN FOR THEIR FULL PROPERTY.
SO IF, IF, IF THAT, THAT MORE POPULAR SITE THAT COMES IN LATER IS THEIR PROPERTY, THEN, THEN THAT'S STILL THEIR RESPONSIBILITY.
IT'LL APPLY TO ALL THE USES ON THE SITE.
IF, IF IT'S A SITE THAT BECOMES VERY POPULAR ON A NEIGHBORING SITE, IT WOULD BE THAT THE INTENT IS FOR IT TO BE, UM, AS NO ADVERSE EFFECTS AS A RESULT OF THIS, UH, THERE NOT BEING ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THIS CHANGE OF USE.
IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE OKAY.
AND I WANTED, I WANTED TO HONE IN ON THE SITE PLAN PROCESS IF, UH, HYPOTHETICALLY ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS ALREADY HAVE A SITE PLAN AND THEY HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENT ON THERE.
AND SO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, DOES THIS MEAN THEY CAN LINE, LET'S SAY THERE'S 92 SPOTS REQUIRED AND THERE'S GONNA BE A REDUCTION OF LESS THAN 10%, FIVE SPOTS.
ARE THEY GONNA BE REQ, LET'S SAY THEY DON'T HAVE A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE, BUT NOW THEY HAVE TO.
WELL, I MEAN, YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND THERE'S, SO THEY GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
NOW THEY HAVE TO BUILD THE DUMPSTERS, RIGHT.
BECAUSE THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO BRING THE WHOLE SITE UP TO CONFORMANCE RIGHT.
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST CHANGING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT ON THE SITE PLAN.
IF, IF THEY'RE DOING DEVELOPMENT OR ON, OR EXPANSION ON THE SITE, THEN YES, THEY'LL, THEY'LL BE NEEDING TO BRING MOST ELEMENTS OF THE SITE UP IN COMPLIANCE.
YOU SAID DEVELOPMENT OR EXPANSION.
BUT THE HYPOTHETICAL IS THAT SOMEONE'S JUST REOCCUPYING SPACE.
THERE'S NO SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT IF THEY'RE JUST CHANGING USES, I'M JUST FLUSHING ALL THIS.
SO IF YOU'RE GONNA BUILD SOMETHING, THEN, SO ONE STEP ONE, IF YOU'RE JUST CHANGING THE USE, YOU WRITE A LETTER.
IF YOU'RE EXPANDING SOMETHING, THEN YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND BRING EVERYTHING UP TO CURRENT CODE.
AND JUST SO Y'ALL KNOW, MAYBE IT'S DISGUISED BY MY QUESTIONS.
I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT BE THE SIMPLEST REDUCTION OF PARKING POSSIBLE, WHICH IS WHY I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WITH THIS LETTER PROCESS THAT HANDLES THE EASY ONES AND THEN THE MORE DIFFICULT ONES.
I MEAN, IF YOU'RE GONNA ACTUALLY BUILD MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE TO DO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
S CHAIRMAN, UM, FIRST OF ALL, I'M WITH MR. LYLE.
I JUST HAVE SOME QUESTIONS, QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DETAILS.
[01:35:01]
OF USE MM-HMM.AND SO THEY COME, GO THROUGH THE LETTER PROCESS THAT GETS RECORDED, UH, AND THEN THEY COME BACK FIVE YEARS LATER AND SAY, OH, WELL, NOW IT'S, IT'S, IT'S A GREAT CORNER.
NOW WE WANNA MAKE IT A COFFEE SHOP.
DOES THE COFFEE SHOP HAVE TO JUSTIFY THE INCREASE IN PARKING FROM RETAIL TO COFFEE SHOP OR FROM THE ORIGINAL BANK VERSUS, YOU FOLLOW MY QUESTION? YES.
WE WERE AT FIRST AT ONE TO 300, THEN WE WENT TO 200, NOW WE'RE GOING TO 100.
IT IT, IT'S THE, YOU KNOW, BOILING WATER ANALOGY.
AT WHAT POINT DO WE START OVER AND LOOK AT IT AGAIN? OR DO WE FILE ANOTHER LETTER? OR DOES THAT LETTER STILL APPLY? WHAT, WHAT HAPPENS IN THAT SECOND ITERATION WITH A PIECE OF PROPERTY? THE IDEA IS THE, THAT THE LETTER WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND.
UM, AND THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER, I, I BELIEVE WE WOULD PROBABLY LET IT BE REVOCABLE IF, IF THE PROPERTY OWNER CHANGES THEIR MIND ON, ON THE PROPERTY OWNER SIDE, UM, OBVI THE CITY, WE HANDLE, WE TALKED ABOUT THE VIOLATIONS.
UM, BUT THE, ALSO, THE, THE OTHER GOAL OF THIS IS THAT THERE'S, THIS IS, UH, AN IMMEDIATE FIX.
AND SO IN THE LONG TERM, WE HOPE TO HAVE A, A, A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF OUR STANDARDS, BUT ALSO POTENTIALLY EVEN OTHER TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX TO ADDRESS ISSUES YEARS DOWN THE ROAD.
BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THAT LETTER STANDS FOR THE PROPERTY AND FUTURE CHANGES OF USES AS WELL.
SO THAT SECOND TENANT, THEN THEIR CO WOULDN'T NECESSARILY, OR THEIR APPLICATION FOR A CO OR EVEN A BUILDING PERMIT TO DO SOME MINOR MODIFICATIONS WOULDN'T NECESSARILY TRIGGER THIS PROCESS? AGAIN, THE LANDOWNER WOULD STILL BE ON THE HOOK TO MANAGE THEIR PARKING ON THEIR SITE? THAT'S CORRECT.
AND IF THEY BRING A NEW TENANT THAT'S MORE PARKING INTENSIVE, THEN IT'S BACK TO MR. LYLE'S QUESTION, IT'S STILL THEIR PROBLEM TO MANAGE.
UM, ON THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, ONE OF, ONE OF MY CONCERNS ALL ALONG HAS BEEN, UM, WHEN WE'RE DOING MORE AND MORE MIXED USE AND ENCOURAGING AND EMPHASIZING TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, UH, WALKABILITY, UH, ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION, BICYCLE, ET CETERA.
I'LL BE HONEST, 20% DOESN'T SEEM LIKE ENOUGH.
I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE UPSTAIRS, WORK DOWNSTAIRS, SHOP AT DOWNSTAIRS.
AND, AND RIGHT NOW, IF I UNDERSTAND THE CODE CORRECTLY, IF I'VE GOT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, I GOTTA PARK THE MULTIFAMILY, I'VE GOTTA PARK THE OFFICE AND I'VE GOTTA PARK THE RETAIL.
THAT'S WHERE IT'S THE SAME PERSON GOING ALL THREE PLACES.
WELL, A LOT OF TIMES OUR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS ARE THROUGH A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND WE SEE THE PARKING REDUCTIONS BUILT INTO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AS OPPOSED TO THE BASE DISTRICT STANDARDS.
I GUESS I HAVEN'T NOTICED THAT.
SO Y'ALL ARE ALREADY DOING THAT FACTORING IN THAT THAT'S ONE PERSON GOING THREE PLACES, NOT THREE PEOPLE.
BECAUSE THAT WASN'T, SO IS THAT, DOES THAT NEED TO BE PART OF THIS OR IS THAT ALREADY BAKED IN TO THE PD PROCESS? IT'S NOT BAKED IN.
I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALWAYS CONSIDER ON A SITE BY SITE BASIS.
BUT THOSE VERY PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND MIXED USE IS SOMETHING WE'D WANNA LOOK AT COMPREHENSIVELY.
'CAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE STEADY THAN JUST A QUICK FIX THAT WE'RE PROPOSING TODAY.
BUT IT'S DEFINITELY ON OUR RADAR.
AND, AND, AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, UM, PUBLIC STREET PARKING.
UH, NOT JUST IN THE BG DISTRICT, BUT WE'RE BUILDING IT AT COL CREEK AND WE'RE, WE HAVE IT AT LEGACY.
AND, AND HOW IS THAT FACTORED IN TO THE 10 AND 20%? OR IS IT BECAUSE THERE'S GROWING AMOUNT OF PUBLIC STREET PARKING THROUGHOUT THE CITY? ESPECIALLY IN THE NEWER DEVELOPMENTS? LEGACY WEST AND CONCRETE, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN, IS THAT IN THEIR PD? YEAH, THEY'RE IN PDS.
MR. BELL? I, OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, I KNOW GENERALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDING, IN THE PAST, THOSE URBAN STREET SECTIONS WITH THE ON STREET PARKING HAD TO BE DONE THROUGH PLAN DEVELOPMENTS.
WE ONLY JUST RECENTLY ADDED IT AS A STANDARD OPTION TO THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS IN CERTAIN LOCATIONS.
AND SO CREDIT FOR ON-STREET PARKING IS, IS OFTEN BUT NOT ALWAYS BUILT INTO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS.
SO DON'T THINK, AND CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THAT THERE'S AN AREA OUTSIDE OF BG THAT WHERE WE HAVE NEW STREET CROSS SECTIONS IN THE TRANSPORTATION PLAN THAT ARE GONNA HAVE SUBSTANTIAL OFF STREET PARKING.
IS THAT ACCURATE? THERE'S THE DOWNTOWN AREAS, AND THEN EVERYTHING THAT IS URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER, SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER ON THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN CAN USE THOSE STANDARDS AS WELL AS IF THEY'RE IN A COMMUNITY CORNER AND DEVELOPING WITH, UM, KINDA A MIXED USE APPROACH.
THERE'S A FEW MORE OPTIONS THAN JUST
[01:40:01]
DOWNTOWN BG ANYWHERE YOU, YOU'RE DOING KINDA A MIXED USE APPROACH.YOU CAN UTILIZE THOSE STANDARDS.
I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE COUNTING THAT IN THIS 10 TO 20% CONSIDERATION THAT THERE'S, THERE IS MORE AND MORE STREET PARKING AVAILABLE, WHICH IS GREAT, BUT THERE'S NO REASON TO BUILD ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IF THERE'S A PARKING SPACE ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF MY BUSINESS.
AND THERE ARE ALSO, UM, LIKE OUR URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT ALSO ALLOWS FOR ON STREET PARKING TO BE, TO BE COUNTED.
AND SO AGAIN, THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD BE THE, THE RATIO THAT WE'D BE STARTING WITH THE, THE CALCULATION WE'D BE STARTING WITH TO TAKE THAT REDUCTION WOULD, WOULD INCLUDE THE ON STREET PARKING, UM, AS ALLOWED PER THE, EITHER THE PD OR THE, THE UMU DISTRICT.
SO I TRUST Y'ALL WILL FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO KEEP UP WITH WHO CLAIMED WHICH SPACES AND PART OF THEIR PARKING SO THAT THEY DON'T GET DOUBLE AND TRIPLE COUNTED.
THAT'S JUST A
I WAS JUST GONNA ADD, A LOT OF TIMES THOSE ARE PRIVATE STREETS, AND SO THEY'RE FACTORED INTO THE OVERALL PARKING CALCULATION FOR THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT.
MR. LEY, I WAS GONNA SUGGEST PUT IN CHAIRS, LIKE WE USED TO DO IT IN DOWNTOWN CHICAGO TO CLAIM YOUR PARKING SPACE.
BUT, UM, I'M STUCK ON THE LETTER, UH, TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT HAS TEETH BEHIND IT.
YOU KNOW, IT'S ESSENTIALLY AN HONOR CODE ON MY OWN.
I PROMISE I'LL MANAGE THE PARKING AND THE CITY'S LEFT TO REACTIVELY CHASE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AROUND THAT.
IS THERE, DID WE LOOK AT ANY OTHER MECHANISM TO HOLD THE PROPERTY OWNER ACCOUNTABLE, YOU KNOW, MITIGATE WHAT COULD BE SPILLOVER AND WHAT HAVE YOU? RIGHT.
WE DID CONSIDER A PARKING OBLIGATION DEEDED AT ONE POINT.
UM, THIS JUST SEEMED LIKE A, A WHAT? DEEDED, SORRY, A PARKING OBLIGATION DEEDED WAS AN IDEA THAT WAS FLOATED.
UM, WE HAD ALSO, UM, ORIGINALLY CONSIDERED EVEN FOR ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTIONS THAT THEY MUST BE NOTED ON A SITE PLAN.
UM, I THINK THIS WAS WHAT WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO DO IS WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT THIS, ESPECIALLY WITH THE CHANGES OF USE WHERE WE SEE THIS A LOT IS GONNA BE SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, AND WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO, UM, MAKE THESE REQUIREMENTS AS EASY TO ACHIEVE AS POSSIBLE, I THINK FOR THOSE FOLKS IN THE CHEAPEST WAY POSSIBLE.
UM, MS. SEBASTIAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? I, I THINK YOU GENERALLY COVERED IT.
I, I THINK THE, WHAT WE'RE SEEING A LOT IS EXISTING CENTERS WHERE THERE'S CLEARLY WAY TOO MUCH, WAY TOO MUCH PARKING.
BUT ON PAPER THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH.
AND WE HAVE NO FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW THAT.
AND THAT'S THE MOST COMMON CASE THAT WE SEE IS THEY HAVE TOO MUCH, THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING ON PAPER OR ENOUGH PARKING ON SITE, BUT NOT ENOUGH ON PAPER.
SO THIS IS, UH, YOU MENTIONED A COUPLE OF TIME, UH, A QUICK FIX AS WE GO FOR THE MORE PERMANENT SOLUTION.
HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THIS WOULD BE IN ENFORCEMENT? I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT THE TIMELINE FOR THE ORDINANCE REWRITE IS.
I THINK WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT TO KICK OFF EARLY NEXT YEAR.
SO HOW LONG THAT TAKES? COULD BE A YEAR OR TWO.
UM, THE OTHER SUGGESTION, NOT NECESSARILY A QUESTION, AND THIS IS, YOU KNOW, STUPID TAX FOR ME, IF IT COMES FOR THE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION, UH, WHERE IT REQUIRES THE THRESHOLD OF 20% FOR PLANNING ZONING, CAN WE REQUIRE A PARKING STUDY? UM, IF IT'S GONNA COME BEFORE THIS BODY, UH, I ALWAYS LIKE TO LEAN IN FAVOR OF MORE INFORMATION SINCE THAT'S A HIGHER VARIANCE THEY'RE LOOKING FOR.
I WOULD SUGGEST WE'RE WRITE IN, IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXTRA BAR FOR THEM TO, TO HURDLE, BUT IT HELPS US MAKE A, A MORE ENLIGHTENED DECISION ALONG THOSE LINES.
ANY IDEA WHAT A PARKING STUDY COSTS? KEEPING IN MIND, WE'RE TALKING PRIMARILY ABOUT SMALL BUSINESS AND A, YOU KNOW, UNDERUTILIZED CENTER.
UM, I DO, UH, I DO THINK THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT AND SOMETHING THAT, UM, WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT.
AND, UH, I FRANKLY AGREE WITH, UH, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF ABOUT THE PERCENTAGES, BUT I'VE GOT A COUPLE CONCERNS.
UM, YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT PROACTIVE
[01:45:01]
ENFORCEMENT HAD FOUND WHAT THAT, UM, SO IT PRIOR, JUST GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND FOR THIS.PRIOR TO 2014 COMMERCIAL, UM, PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS COMPLAINT DRIVEN FOR THE MOST PART.
UM, IN, UH, AROUND 2014, UH, THERE WAS MORE OF A PROACTIVE, UM, APPROACH TAKEN FROM PROPERTY STANDARDS TO KIND OF SEE WHAT VIOLATIONS WERE GOING ON.
THEY SPECIFICALLY STARTED DOING THE DOWNTOWN SWEEP.
THEY FOUND ILLEGAL USES, THEY FOUND WIDE VARIETY OF THING AND WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT PARKING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE WAS NOT.
AND SO THE KIND OF THE DIRECTION THAT WAS GIVEN IN 2018 FROM CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME WAS TO CONTINUE THAT PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND TO, AND FOR PROPERTY STANDARDS TO HAVE TO GO OUT AND FORCE AND BE MORE STRINGENT WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS.
WHEN IT COMES TO THE SITE PLAN, SO, UH, THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN VIOLATING THIS MM-HMM.
SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM SEND A LETTER PROMISING THAT THE PEOPLE, THE PROPERTY MANAGERS, MANY OF WHOM MAY BE ALREADY VIOLATING IT, ARE GONNA PROMISE US DOUBLE THAT THEY'RE GONNA FOLLOW WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO.
PINKY PROMISE, FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WHEN THE SWEEPS WERE CONDUCTED AND THIS PROACTIVE APPROACH WAS FIRST TAKEN, UM, OUR PROPERTY STANDARD STAFF, THEY, THEY WORKED TO REMEDY THESE ISSUES.
SO A LOT OF THE VIOLATORS WERE BROUGHT IN.
THEY NEEDED, NEEDED TO REDO THEIR SITE PLANS, THEY NEEDED TO UPDATE THEIR REQUIREMENTS.
UM, SO A I, FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE REPORT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, IS THAT THEY WERE ACTIVELY WORKING TO ADDRESS THOSE VIOLATIONS ALREADY.
SO, NO, I CAN APPRECIATE IT, BUT MY, MY STRUGGLE IS YOU'RE PUTTING, YOU'RE PUTTING PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF SOMETHING WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN NOT FOLLOWING WITH THEIR PROMISES AND HAVE HISTORY OF NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THAT.
UH, AND THE SECOND PART IS WITH THE ZONING REWRITE COMING, UH, I THINK A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH RATHER THAN, UH, A BANDAID MIGHT BE A BETTER SOLUTION FOR US.
AND SO THAT'S MY CONCERN IS, UH, I WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING, BUT I AM, I A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE THAT THIS IS THE SOLUTION.
AND I CAN GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.
AT THE CORNER OF PARKER AND CUSTER ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER, THAT PROPERTY, THERE'S THREE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT MAKE UP THAT ENTIRE COMPLEX OF BUILDINGS.
IF SOMEBODY DRIVES IN THERE AND IS GOING TO THE, UH, O'REILLY'S, BUT THEY'RE PARKING ON A DIFFERENT SPOT OR A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY AND OVERUSING THAT PROPERTY OWNER'S, IT'S THE O'REILLY'S THAT'S PRODUCING THE PROBLEM AS OPPOSED TO THE ACTUAL PROPERTY OWNER WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP TO THE O'REILLY'S.
YEAH, I THINK WE, WE DEAL WITH THESE CHALLENGES EVERY DAY AND THEY'RE VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK THROUGH.
I, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN 100%.
I WOULD JUST TELL YOU, IN OUR EXPERIENCE, IT'S MUCH MORE THEY HAVE EXCESS PARKING AND WE'RE HANDCUFFED IN WHAT WE CAN ALLOW THEM.
THAT IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT WE HAVE AND WHY WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THIS FORWARD IS TO HELP, IS TO RELIEVE THAT BURDEN THAT WE'RE SEEING EVERY DAY THROUGH THE CO PROCESS.
THAT'S REALLY TRULY THE INTENT IS A QUICK FIX.
YOUR, YOUR POINTS ARE VERY WELL TAKEN.
UM, I THINK WE WOULD, WE WOULD ASK THAT WE CAN ADDRESS THAT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE RATHER THAN PUTTING THIS OFF.
UM, 'CAUSE WE HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS THERE WHO ARE, THEY'RE GETTING HELD UP.
THEY'RE NOT BEING ALLOWED TO OPEN FOR BUSINESS.
IT'S REALLY NOT THE BUS, THE, THE TE THE TENANTS ISSUE.
IT'S A PROPERTY OWNER MANAGEMENT ISSUE.
A LOT OF TIMES IT'S NOT THAT THEY DIDN'T OBEY THE RULES, IT'S NOT THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW IT'S, SOME OF THESE SITES ARE DECADES OLD.
THINGS HAVE CHANGED OVER TIME.
ENFORCEMENT HAS BEEN UP AND DOWN OVER TIME.
YOU KNOW, OUR, OUR STRINGENCY AND OUR REGULATIONS HAS BEEN UP AND DOWN OVER TIME, SO I DON'T WANNA PUT IT ALL ON THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UM, WE'RE JUST REALLY LOOKING FOR THIS STOP THE BLEEDING A LITTLE BIT ON THE PARKING ISSUE SO WE CAN HELP OUR BUSINESSES OPEN.
AND, AND AGAIN, UH, I'VE SAID I REALLY THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS A PROBLEM, SOMETHING THAT IS A PROBLEM.
AND I COULD CERTAINLY POINT TO AREAS WHERE THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED.
MY HESITATION IS, UH, A QUICK FIX BANDAID ON THIS ONE ISSUE, UH, WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT NOT HAVING
[01:50:01]
QUICK FIX ISSUES ON, UH, OTHER ISSUES THAT I THINK WE COULD HAVE SOLVED, MUCH SIMPLER THAN, THAN THIS ONE.UM, AND I REALLY DON'T WANT HIM TO TALK ABOUT A ENCLOSURE, BUT I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT WHERE IT'S AT.
SO, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER TOM.
AND WE DO HAVE A, I THINK A PUBLIC SPEAKER ON THIS TOO.
AND I WANNA APPLAUSE THE EFFORT.
'CAUSE I PERSONALLY WORK WITH ALL OF TE TENANTS.
I'M A TENANT REP A LOT OF TIMES WORK WITH A LOT OF SHOPPING CENTER OWNERS, ESPECIALLY IN PLANO, UH, MULTIPLE SHOPPING CENTER OWNERS.
THEY HAVE SUFFERED THE SAME ISSUE THAT YOU JUST BROUGHT UP.
FINALLY WE ARE ADDRESSING THIS.
'CAUSE THERE'S SO MANY, UM, OLD SPACES.
THEY'RE RETAIL ONLY, THEY'RE GIFT SHOPS.
THERE ARE LITTLE CLOTHING STORES, JEWELRY STORES.
AND NOW THEY ONLY CHANGE, TURN THEM INTO LIKE DRINK SHOPS OR COFFEE SHOPS OR RESTAURANT THAT CAN THRIVE OR SURVIVE.
BUT THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING DESIGNATED TO THAT SPECIFIC USE WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING THE SHOPPING CENTER.
UM, BUT THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF SPACE AVAILABLE.
IT'S JUST ON PAPER LIKE WHAT, UM, MR. BELL SAID.
SO I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR SOLUTION AND I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE OWNER SIGNING A LETTER SAYING THAT WE WILL MANAGE THE ISSUES.
AND IT'S, I THINK THE OWNERS, THEY WORK FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST.
IF THERE'S AN ISSUE TO THE PARKING, THEY KNOW ABOUT IT.
IT WILL BE AN ISSUE TO THEMSELVES AND THEY'LL BE ISSUED TO THE BUSINESS IN THE SHOPPING CENTERS AND THEY WILL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR OWN POCKET.
SO THEY WILL NOT WANT TO SEE EACH PARKING ISSUES.
'CAUSE THAT'S GONNA IMPACT THE BUSINESS, IMPACT THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE THAT'S GONNA IMPACT THEIR BOTTOM LINES.
SO I THINK THEY WILL SEE TO IT.
I FIRMLY BELIEVE THE BUSINESS OWNERS OR, OR PROPERTY OWNERS OR PROPERTY MANAGEMENT MANAGERS, THEY WILL, UH, WELCOME THE SOLUTION AND THEY WILL BE HONESTLY, UM, YOU KNOW, SEE TO THE ISSUES IF THERE IS AN ISSUE, UM, THEY WILL ADDRESS IT MORE DILIGENTLY THAN US, I BELIEVE, UM, TO MAKE SURE THEIR BUSINESS ARE SURVIVING AND SURVIVING.
UM, THE, THE, BUT I DO HAVE TWO CONCERNS.
ONE IS KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT, UM, COMM, COMMISSIONER EF, UH, MENTIONED EARLIER.
HOW DO, LIKE, HOW DID YOU DETERMINE 10% OR 20% IS ENOUGH? BECAUSE IF WE JUST LOOK AT YOUR EXAMPLE OR CONVERTING A BANK TO A RETAIL STORE FROM A ONE TO 300 TO ONE TO 200 RATIO, IT, THAT LITERALLY INCREASES FROM 10 SPOTS TO 15 SPOTS.
THAT'S ALREADY 50% INCREASE FROM THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENTS.
IF WE CONVERT A RETAIL TO A RESTAURANT, THAT MIGHT BE ANOTHER LIKE 30% INCREASE.
UM, THE PARKING SPOTS REQUIREMENTS.
SO I WASN'T SURE HOW WE DETERMINED THAT 10% OR 20%, EVEN IF WE JUST TURN ONE SPOT IN LINE, UM, 2000 OR MAYBE EVEN 1800 SQUARE FEET SPOT TO, UH, A CHANGE TO USE FROM A REGULAR GIFT SHOP TO A RESTAURANT.
UH, I THINK THAT'LL BE MORE THAN 20%.
DO WE HAVE TO BRING THOSE CASES TO THE COMMISSION TO GET APPROVAL EVERY TIME? SO WITH THE CHANGE OF USE, IT'S JUST THE LETTER.
SO THERE'S NO, UM, WE DON'T HAVE THE PERCENTAGE RESTRICTIONS ON THOSE.
SO THAT ONE, THEY, THEY WOULD JUST COME TO US, STAFF WOULD EVALUATE IT.
UM, WE, WE WOULD REQUEST THE PARKING STUDY, OBVIOUSLY IF IT WE'RE SEEING THESE KIND OF MASSIVE CHANGES.
UM, BUT JUST TO KIND OF SPEAK TO THAT TOO, SO WE DID AN ANALYSIS OF ROUGHLY NINE SITES ACROSS THE CITY WHERE WE HAVE KIND OF THESE PARKING CHALLENGES.
AND OF THE, UH, OF THOSE NINE, THE AVERAGE REDUCTION THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT WAS 11%.
I WAS JUST DOING IT IN MY HEAD AS OFF.
SO, SO YEAH, WE'RE NOT SEEING, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THESE, LIKE I SAID, A LOT OF THEM ARE PROVIDING PARKING IN EXCESS ALREADY.
UM, IT, IT'S WHERE WE WIND UP IN THESE SITUATIONS WHERE MAYBE THEY PROVIDED, SAY LIKE A ONE TO ONE 50 OR SOMETHING RATIO IS WHAT IT WAS.
SO THERE'S NO LIMIT, THERE'S NO PERCENTAGE, UH, REDUCTION, WHATEVER, IF THEY JUST WRITE A LETTER.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT I'M NOT SAYING RIGHT, RIGHT OR WRONG OR GOOD OR BAD.
WE'RE WE'RE LETTING THE PROPERTY OWNER TAKE AGREE TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY
[01:55:01]
TO MANAGE THE PARKING.WITH, WITH, WITH NO SET LIMIT.
THAT ANSWERS MY SECOND QUESTION TOO, SO THANK YOU MR. BRUNO.
UM, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT.
UM, BUT I THINK THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS.
LOOKING AT THE TWO SIDES OF THIS, THE CHANGE OF USE SIDE AND THE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT EXPANSION SIDE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LATTER, THE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION IS MORE SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT THAN THE, UM, THE CHANGE OF USE SIDE, THE INFILL ET CETERA SIDE SPECIFIES, UH, AVAILABILITY CRITERIA.
IT SPECIFIES A PROCEDURE, NAMELY A SITE PLAN PROCEDURE, WHICH INVOLVES AN APPLICATION, PERHAPS A HEARING OR SOME SORT OF A CONSIDERATION AND FORMAL DETERMINATION AND STANDARDS, YOU KNOW, 10% OR 20%.
AND THOSE ARE NUMBERS THAT CAN BE WORKED WITH.
AND IT GIVES THE APPLICANT, UH, NOTICE OF WHAT IS GOING ON AND THE, AND WHAT THE FINAL DECISION'S GONNA BE AND WHAT, IF ANYTHING IS GONNA BE REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT.
ON THE OTHER HAND, ON THE, UH, CHANGE OF USE SIDE, LET'S SAY YOU'VE GOT OUR PROPERTY OWNER WHO BUYS AN ABANDONED BANK BUILDING AND TURNS IT INTO THAT COFFEE SHOP, WHICH IS A LEGAL USE UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING.
SO HE DOESN'T NEED TO APPLY FOR HIS ZONING.
AND HE DOES JUST WHAT THIS SAYS, HE SENDS A LETTER TO THE CITY, HE AGREES TO MANAGE THE PARKING, HE AGREES THAT NO ADVERSE EFFECTS WILL OCCUR.
AND HE RECORDS THE LETTER WITH THE COUNTY.
NOW, HOW IS THE OWNER SUPPOSED TO MANAGE PARKING? HE CAN'T STOP PEOPLE FROM PARKING ON THE PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLIC STREET.
UM, HE CAN'T, HOW IS HE SUPPOSED TO STOP HIS CUSTOMERS FROM PARKING ON THE PARKING LOT OF THE WALMART NEXT DOOR? YOU KNOW, THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT.
BUT HOW, FROM A REALISTIC STANDPOINT, HOW'S THE OWNER OF THIS COFFEE SHOP SUPPOSED TO MONITOR WHERE ALL OF HIS CUSTOMERS ARE PARKING AND WHAT IS HE SUPPOSED TO DO TO THEM IF THEY DO PARK AT THE WALMART NEXT DOOR? UM, THIS SAYS THAT A PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY MAY BE OBTAINED OR REQUIRED.
IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY WHO'S GONNA BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE STUDY DONE? WHO'S GONNA BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT? WHAT IS THE TIMEFRAME WITHIN WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE VULNERABLE TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PARKING STUDY? THIS SAYS A PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY MAY BE OBTAINED OR REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY AT ANY TIME.
ARE YOU SAYING THAT FIVE YEARS AFTER THE COFFEE SHOP OPENED AND HAS SUDDENLY BECOME VERY POPULAR, HE COULD GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY SAYING YOU ARE REQUIRED TO, UM, TO HAVE A PARKING STUDY DONE? IT SEEMS TO ME TO BE UNFAIR, IT SEEMS TO ME AT A VERY, AT THE VERY LEAST, THE CITY SHOULD BE UNDER SOME SORT OF REASONABLE TIMEFRAME IN WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE LETTER THAT HAS BEEN FILED AND NOTIFY THE OWNER WHETHER SOMETHING MORE NEEDS TO BE DONE.
UM, THE OWNER SHOULD BE SORT OF, YOU KNOW, HOME FREE AT THAT POINT.
IF, IF, IF THE CITY DETERMINES AT THAT POINT THAT NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE, I DON'T SEE HOW HOLDING THE OWNER VULNERABLE TO HAVING TO DO A STUDY 2, 3, 5, 10 YEARS OUT WHENEVER THE CITY DECIDES YOU NEED MORE PARKING SPACES.
THERE'S NO PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
THERE IS NO PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER EXPECTED TO DO ONCE THIS PROPERTY STUDY COMES IN.
HE CAN'T PUT MORE SPACE PARKING SPACES ON THE PROPERTY.
'CAUSE THE WHOLE PREMISE IS THAT HE DOESN'T HAVE TO, HE DIDN'T HAVE TO INCLUDE ANY, HE COULD GO WITH HIS LEGAL OTHER USE WITH THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE THERE.
AND THERE, THERE MAY NOT BE AND PROBABLY WON'T BE PHYSICAL ROOM ON THE PROPERTY TO, TO PAINT IN MORE PARKING STRIPES.
SO I THINK YOU'RE PUTTING UNDER THE CHANGE OF VIEWS, YOU'RE PUTTING THE OWNER IN A POTENTIAL BOX FROM WHICH HE CAN'T ESCAPE BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF SPECIFIC SPECIFICITY, THE LACK OF PROCEDURE, THE LACK OF STANDARDS.
UM, WHAT, HOW IS THE, THE, HOW IS THE, UM, DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE THE NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY? WHAT CONSTITUTES A NEED? HOW, HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY IT? HOW DO YOU, HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THAT THE PROPERTY NEEDS SEVEN PARKING SPACES?
[02:00:02]
I MEAN, I'M FINDING THAT THE CHANGE OF USE IS SOMEWHAT NOT SOMEWHAT VERY VAGUE AT THIS POINT.I'M HAPPIER WITH THE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSIONS PORTION.
SO I THINK WE, WE ARE ALL FINDING SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS.
UM, AND I THINK IT'S, WE'RE COMING FROM IT FROM THAT PROCESS DRIVEN.
WE'RE VERY, WE REVIEW SITE PLANS, WE REVIEW ZONING REQUESTS AND SUVS, ALL OF THAT STUFF.
AND STAFF IS COMING AT IT FROM A REAL, REAL WORLD PRACTICAL, HERE'S WHAT COMES BEFORE US EVERY DAY.
AND IT CREATES HEARTBURN FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER AND US BECAUSE THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF IT.
UM, I I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE WE'RE WORRYING ABOUT, WELL, HOW IS A PROPERTY OWNER, PROPERTY OWNER GONNA MANAGE THIS? AND HOW'S HE GONNA DEAL WITH THIS COFFEE SHOP, UH, THAT HE'S GOT ON HIS PROPERTY THAT IS NEXT DOOR TO THE MAKEUP STORE OR WHATEVER? AND THE TRUTH IS, IS THAT EXISTS ALL OVER THE CITY RIGHT NOW BECAUSE ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO DESIGNATE TWO SPACES FOR THE FEDEX STORE AND THREE SPACES.
AND THEY CAN'T GUARANTEE WHO'S GONNA PARK IN THOSE.
IF THERE IS SOMEONE WHO IS ROUTINELY VIOLATING IT, WELL, THEY PROBABLY HAVE TOWING ENFORCEMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
BUT I THINK WE'RE LOOKING TO REMOVE SOME OF THAT FROM WHAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH AND THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH ON A DAILY BASIS, MAKE THE PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT IF THEY OWN AND MANAGE THE PROPERTY.
UM, I THINK TO, TO COMMISSIONERS TONG'S POINT, THERE ARE HOW MANY RETAIL STORES AND PLACES ALL OVER THE CITY WHERE THE, ON THE OWNER IS MANAGING THE PARKING ALREADY UNDER THE GUIDELINES THAT WERE SET UP 30 YEARS AGO OR 40 YEARS AGO, HOWEVER LONG AGO IT WAS.
AND WE KEEP ADDRESSING LITTLE PIECES OF IT, BUT WE DO NEED AN, AN OVERHAUL ON IT BECAUSE WE'VE ALL SEEN THESE ACRES AND ACRES OF EMPTY PARKING, UM, IN UNDERUTILIZED SPACES.
SO I THINK WHAT STAFF'S REALLY ASKING US FOR HERE, AND I APPRECIATE MR. BRUNO, YOUR THING ABOUT, WELL, THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CLARITY THERE.
UM, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS GONNA SAY I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING TOO, BUT I'M ALSO, I DON'T WANNA MAKE A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLE HILL IF, IF WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DO HERE IS GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF TO SOME SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS.
UM, MAYBE THE SOLUTION THAT WOULD MAKE MOST OF US A LITTLE MORE HAPPY IS EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT CREATE MORE WORK FOR US AND PROBABLY NOT ALLEVIATE AS MUCH WORK FOR STAFF AS THEY'D LIKE, IS JUST WE GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT.
I, I, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPFUL OR NOT TO YOU GUYS, BUT, UM, UM, I, I DON'T KNOW.
LET'S, MR. LYLE, I THINK YOU SPOKE ONCE ALREADY.
AND THEN COMMISSIONER CAREY, WE DO HAVE SOMEONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM TOO.
SO I WAS JUST GONNA, I GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
ONE IS THAT, IS PARKING A PART OF ZONING? AND ONCE WE'VE EXTENDED IT, CAN WE TAKE IT BACK? THAT'S THE PROBLEM.
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS WHOLE LETTER IDEA IN HERE AND, AND THE CONVERSION OF AN AGREEMENT INTO A MISDEMEANOR, BECAUSE NO, ONCE WE GIVE IT, WE CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY.
SO, UM, IF, IF YOU GUYS AREN'T CRAZY ABOUT THIS WHOLE LETTER IDEA, ONE OF THE THINGS WE COULD DO IS JUST ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN.
AND THEN IF IT CAUSES PROBLEMS, WELL, TOO BAD IT WAS ALLOWED.
UM, BUT THIS WAS A WAY WE WERE THINKING TO TRY TO KIND OF HEDGE IN CASE IT REALLY DID CAUSE SERIOUS PROBLEMS FOR THE NEIGHBORS.
BUT I DON'T, YOU KNOW, I I DON'T THINK IT WOULD, IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE A LEGAL PROBLEM IF YOU DECIDED YOU DON'T LIKE THE AGREEMENTS AND JUST ALLOW THESE AND JUST RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE IT MAY CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS THAT WE CAN'T SOLVE.
I'LL RESERVE MY COMMENTS FOR AFTER WE LISTEN TO THE SPEAKER.
UM, WITH RESPECT TO EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID, UM, WHEN WE, WHEN WE LOOK AT JUST A COUPLE SIMPLE THINGS, WE KNOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS, WE HAVE TOO MUCH PARKING AND, AND, UM, AND THEN WE HAVE THE OBVIOUS ISSUES OF PEOPLE, UM, WANTING TO CHANGE THOSE USES.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO ME, WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, I, I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE, THE ENEMY OF OF THE GOOD IS THE PERFECT.
AND I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET IT PERFECT HERE, AND I DON'T EVEN THINK WE SHOULD TRY BECAUSE I THINK THAT WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE IS A GREAT STEP FORWARD IN MOVING FORWARD.
AND YOU KNOW WHAT WE'RE GONNA COME BACK IN A WHILE AND FIX THIS, BUT WHAT, WE COULD SIT
[02:05:01]
IN HERE ALL NIGHT AND DO THIS, AND WE MIGHT SOLVE ONE OR TWO PROBLEMS OUT THERE.BUT GUYS, I'VE BEEN RESPONSIBLE FOR LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF RETAIL SITES.
AND GUESS WHAT? AT TIMES THIS IS A PROBLEM.
AND, AND IT GETS SOLVED BY LANDLORDS WHEN IT IS A PROBLEM, ALMOST ALWAYS TO COMMISSIONER TONG'S POINT.
AND ALSO IN THE ENVIRONMENT WE'RE IN TODAY, GOD BLESS SOME PEOPLE, IF WE HAD TOO MUCH TRAFFIC IN A CENTER,
RIGHT? SO I JUST, I I THINK THAT THIS IS A GREAT STEP FORWARD.
AND IT FREES, IT FREES OUR BUSINESSES AND OUR CITY UP TO DO GOOD THINGS.
OH, MR. BURNOFF, REAL QUICKLY.
WELL, I THINK MOST OF MY PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED OR AT LEAST MADE BETTER IF YOU JUST ELIMINATE LITTLE TRIPLE PARAGRAPH, TRIPLE I UNDER B.
THAT'S THE PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY.
JUST TAKE IT OUT, LEAVE THE, LEAVE THE LETTER PROCEDURE IN, TAKE OUT THE PARKING UTILIZATION POTENTIAL.
I BELIEVE WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE DONE
UH, SO, SO YOU CAN, YOU CAN GO REST YOURSELF AFTER HAVING STOOD THERE FOR A WHILE.
UH, AND, AND I'M GONNA OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER? I DON'T HAVE ONE ON MY SHEET, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ONE THAT DID NOT REGISTER YET THAT WANTS TO SPEAK.
MAKE SURE, GIVE US YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND THEN GET WITH HER TO GET A CARD BEFORE YOU LEAVE.
I'M WITH EUREKA BUSINESS GROUP.
I'M A RESIDENT OF THE CITY, A COMMERCIAL BROKER AND A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MANAGER.
AND, UM, I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE, AND THE REASON I'M HERE IS BECAUSE IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS I'VE BEEN, UM, WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM TO TRY TO GET A CEO APPROVED FOR A TENANT IN A BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN 1980.
THERE IS NO WAY TO MANUFACTURE MORE PARKING SPOTS IN AN OLD BUILDING.
AND WE CAN'T JUST IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE HIRE A DIRECTOR IN THE CITY AND GIVE HER ZERO LEEWAY FOR COMMON SENSE.
IF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM COMES OUT, THEY SEE THIS SITE, THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING SPOTS.
THERE'S NO REASON FOR ME TO SIT WITH THE, ALL THE WAY UP TO THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.
AND EVERYBODY TELL ME, WELL, NOT EVEN THE MAYOR CAN GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO DO THIS, THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT CO EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE PLENTY OF PARKING SPACES.
UM, THE ORDINANCE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IS NOT GIVEN ANY LEEWAY TO THE DEPARTMENT TEAM.
AND IT'S NOT GIVING ANY LEEWAY TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND IT'S RIDICULOUS AT SOME POINT WHERE WE HAVE A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, WE GOT A CONTRACT, THEY AGREED TO GIVE US PARKING SPOTS, BUT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN IRREVOCABLE.
AND THE, THE ATTORNEY AND THE, UH, REAL ESTATE, UH, PERSON HERE CAN TESTIFY AN IRREVOCABLE PERMANENT EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
THERE IS NO SINGLE REAL ESTATE OWNER IN THE WORLD THAT WOULD DO THAT.
JUST SO THEY CAN LEASE TO YOU A FEW PARKING SPOTS.
UH, WE, THE TENANT THAT ACTUALLY IS TAKING THAT SPACE HAS A DIFFERENT LOCATION, 350 FEET AWAY.
BUT NO, THE ORDINANCE SAYS UP TO 300 FEET.
AND EVEN THAT 50 FEET IS NOT IN THE LEEWAY OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OR THE CD MANAGER.
SO WE'RE ASKING FOR COMMON SENSE, NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE.
I UNDERSTAND THERE'S RED TAPE.
I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE WHOLE LETTER IDEA.
I WOULD PROBABLY DO IT SOME OTHER WAY, OR YOU CAN DO AN ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OR WHATEVER.
BUT GIVE SOME TRUST TO THE, UM, MANAGER, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.
'CAUSE THIS IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY, I SENT THE LETTER, IT'S APPROVED.
THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AT HER DISCRETION, AND THE 20% IS AT YOURS DISCRETION.
SO GIVE YOURSELF THE CREDIT THAT YOU CAN MAKE THE DECISION WITHOUT A LOT OF RED TAPE AND A LOT OF LEGAL LIMITATIONS THAT YOU CAN MAKE A GOOD DECISION AND SHE CAN MAKE A GOOD DECISION.
OTHERWISE, FIND SOMEBODY ELSE.
YOU DO TRUST TO MAKE THE GOOD DECISIONS.
SAME THING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
IF WE SAY WE CAN HANDLE THIS, WE CAN HANDLE THIS.
I'M A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER, MYSELF, NOT IN THE CITY OF PLANO.
AND I'VE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER.
IN THE LAST 15 YEARS, I'VE SEEN PLANO GO FROM, UH, UH, A NICE GIRL TO THE PRETTY GIRL, TO THE PRETTIEST GIRL, TO A MEAN GIRL, TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE CLIENTS, COMMERCIAL CLIENTS THAT REFUSE TO COME LEASING THE CITY BECAUSE THEY TELL ME THERE'S TOO MUCH RED TAPE.
I DON'T WANNA DEAL WITH THE CITY OF PLANO.
THERE'S NO WAY I'M GONNA GET A CO THERE'S NO WAY THEY'RE GONNA GIMME A PERMIT.
THEY'RE GONNA GIMME HELL AND WE'RE HURTING THE CITY.
[02:10:01]
REACHED YOUR THREE MINUTE LIMIT.I'LL GIVE YOU EVERYTHING YOU NEED.
UH, UM, THE, THE PROBLEM WE'RE, WE'RE GETTING TO IS, UH, UM, I THINK YOU, YOU UNDERSTOOD, SORRY.
MAKE SURE YOU GET HER YOUR INFORMATION.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, WE DO NOT.
ALRIGHT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND NOW, COMMISSIONER LAW, ONCE I PUSH THE WHOOPS, UH, COMMISSIONER LAW.
THE SCENARIO THAT MATTERS IS IF THERE'S NO PARKING AT ALL, I THINK THE SCENARIO THAT Y'ALL PAINTED IN MY MIND THERE WAS THE SEA OF PARKING, WHICH IS WHAT I SEE ALL OVER PLANO ALL THE TIME.
IT DOESN'T MATTER THAT IF SOMEONE PARKED IN THE WRONG SPOT AND WALKED TO THIS BUSINESS BECAUSE THERE'S A PROPERTY LINE THERE THAT NOBODY CAN SEE.
'CAUSE THERE'S THREE OWNERS ON ONE CORNER.
THE ISSUE THAT CREATES A PROBLEM THAT WE'RE DOCKING TONIGHT IS WHEN THERE'S NO PARKING THERE.
AND SO I JUST WANNA BRING Y'ALL BACK TO THAT.
AND THEN I WOULD RATHER SEE A BLANKET.
I MEAN, IF, IF MOST OF THE PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED UNDER 11%, I WOULD RATHER SEE US GET OUT OF THE LETTER BUSINESS AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
I THINK THIS GENTLEMAN MADE SOME VALID POINTS.
WE HAVE A DIRECTOR OF PLANNING, WE HAVE A PLANNING STAFF.
WE'VE DONE NINE DIFFERENT, UH, PROPERTY, UH, EVALUATIONS.
WE CAN SEE WITH OUR EYES THAT WERE WAY OVER PARKED.
LET'S CHANGE THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY 11, 12, 15%.
AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT EVERYWHERE.
I KNOW BGS OUT, I KNOW MULTI'S OUT.
BUT ON THESE RETAIL CORNERS THAT ARE OVER PARKED, WHY DON'T WE JUST DO A REDUCTION TO THE PARKING? AND DOES THAT NOT GET US WHERE WE NEED TO GET TO? DO WE NEED THE SECURITY BLANKET OF A LETTER AND FILING SOMETHING AND THEN KEEPING UP WITH IT AND THEN GOING BACK AND NOW WE'RE GONNA REVOKE IT.
SO ANYWAY, MY SUPPORT WOULD BE A BLANKET REDUCTION IN PARKING UP TO 15% IN THESE RETAIL AREAS THAT WERE RUNNING INTO THESE ISSUES.
THIS IS A QUICK STITCH FOR ISSUES LIKE THAT UNTIL WE GET TO THE MORE PERMANENT SURGERY, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE SO THAT WE MAYBE BECOME THE MAIN PRETTY GIRL RATHER THAN PRETTY MEAN GIRL.
UM, AS WE GO ALONG, UH, WITH THAT IN MIND, AND I THINK SOMETHING, UH, COUNCIL SAID THAT THE LETTER GIVES US A WAY TO ENFORCE THAT YOU VIOLATED AN AGREEMENT IF YOU DIDN'T DO WHAT YOU, UM, BUT WITHOUT THAT, THERE'S NO, UM, METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT, UH, ACTUALLY WOULD BE FULLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.
UM, IF WE DO REDUCE THE OWNERS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, IF IT'S JUST A CHANGE OF USE AND REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A STUDY AND LEAVE IT JUST AT THE DISCRETION OF, UH, THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR A CHANGE OF USE, I'M VERY FINE WITH UPPING THE BAR IF IT'S A REDEVELOPMENT AND INFILL THE STUDY COSTS MONEY OR WHAT HAVE YOU, BAKE THAT INTO THE COST OF DEVELOPING OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
BUT IF WE CAN FOR THE BANDAID STRIKE OUT, UM, OR AT LEAST REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT, IT SUFFICES FOR NOW.
AND WHEN THE MORE PERMANENT SOLUTION COMES BEFORE US, I'M SURE WE'LL GET INTO A LOT MORE MEATY TO MAKE SURE THE THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IN THE MANNER THAT IS ADAPTABLE.
I HOPE WE HAD THAT DISCUSSION TONIGHT, MR. BRUNO.
LET ME MAKE THIS FORMAL, BUT I FEARED MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE MISCONSTRUED.
MY, MY EMPHASIS WAS SUPPOSED TO, THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS FAIRNESS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I THOUGHT THE LACK OF SPECIFICITY COULD, IN THE LONG RUN IMPOSE OF COURSE UNMANAGEABLE BURDENS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER.
I WASN'T OUT TO TRY TO MAKE THINGS DIFFICULT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
UH, WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE IS NOW MAKE THIS A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM FOUR, EXCEPT THAT WE REMOVE PARAGRAPH B ROMAN NUMERAL LOWERCASE THREE RE RELATING TO PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY.
WE KEEP THE REST OF IT, WE KEEP THE
[02:15:01]
LETTER PROCEDURE FOR THE CHANGE OF USE PROPERTIES AND WE KEEP, UH, SECTION C RELATING TO INFILL REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSIONS OF BUILDING SPACE AS WRITTEN.SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND WE HAVE A SECOND, UH, MR. ATLAS, I WAS VERY CLOSE TO THAT EXACT SAME THING.
AND LET ME EXPRESS MY CONCERN.
UH, I, I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR MOTION.
MY, MY CONCERN, AND I'M TO THE, TO THE SPEAKER THAT SPOKE TONIGHT, UM, PROPERTY OWNERS, I'M, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE LETTER, BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY ACADEMIC BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY, THE PROPERTY MANAGERS ARE SELF-POLICING.
IF YOU HAVE A PROPERTY THAT'S UNDERPART, YOUR TENANTS ARE GOING TO COMPLAIN TO YOU OR THEY'RE GONNA LEAVE.
AND AS A PROPERTY OWNER, YOU'RE GONNA FIX THE PROBLEM OR YOU'RE GONNA LOSE A TENANT OR MORE MULTIPLE TENANTS AND I, AND THAT IS THE ULTIMATE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM.
GETTING A TICKET FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR.
LOSING A LEASE IS GOING TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR.
AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THE LETTER IS REALLY NECESSARY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S, IT, IT, IT'S A WAY TO MEMORIALIZE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE PARKING.
AND SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY HARM IN IT.
UM, I THINK IT'S THE, THE ENFORCEMENT IS NOT REALLY NECESSARILY, THE CITY IS NOT THE HAMMER THAT IT NEEDS.
MY, MY BIGGER CONCERN IS WE HAD A RECENT CASE, I WON'T CALL THEM OUT BY NAME, WHERE IT WAS PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT THEY HAD CALCULATED THEIR PARKING BASED ON WHAT WAS AVAILABLE AS THIS MANY SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT AND THIS MANY SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL.
AND THEREFORE THEY ARE NOW IN WITH A SITE PLAN THAT HAS 60% RESTAURANT, 40% RETAIL IF DAY AFTER TOMORROW IT BECOMES A HUNDRED PERCENT RESTAURANT.
EVEN THOUGH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IS EXISTING PROPERTY OUT THERE.
IT IS, IF WE ADOPT THIS IS THIS SAYING PROPERTY THAT'S EXISTING TODAY OR THAT IT'S BEEN APPROVED PRIOR TO TODAY IS ALLOWED TO OPERATE UNDER THIS RULE.
BECAUSE OTHERWISE I THINK YOU'RE GONNA GET AN AWFUL LOT OF SITE PLANS THAT SAY I'M A HUNDRED PERCENT BANKING BECAUSE IT'S ONE TO 300.
AND THEN THEY COME PUT A RESTAURANT IN AND THEY SIGN A LETTER.
AND, UH, CONCERN IS THAT IT'S SHORTCUT, IT'S A SHORTCUT TO UNDER PARKING SITES MOVING FORWARD IF THIS ISN'T SOMEHOW GRANDFA A GRANDFATHERING EXERCISE.
UH, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE, IF YOU'D BE OPEN TO AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION.
UM, LET'S DO THIS, UM, BEFORE WE MAKE AN, UH, COUNSEL WANTS TO WEIGH IN ON, ON GO AHEAD.
SO, UM, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WERE JUST SAYING THERE MADE ME THINK THAT I SHOULD BRING UP, IF WE HAVE THESE LETTERS, THEY'RE GONNA BE IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE.
WE'RE GOING TO GET CALLS FROM PEOPLE WHENEVER THE PROPERTY'S CONVEYED ASKING WE'RE, IF WE'RE, UM, IF THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE, UM, IT'S GONNA CREATE A FAIRLY LARGE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN.
IF THIS COMMISSION IS REALLY NOT VERY CONCERNED ABOUT, UM, TRYING TO HOLD THE LANDLORDS ACCOUNTABLE THROUGH A MISDEMEANOR PROCESS, THEN I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT WE SKIP REQUIRING THE LETTER AND, YOU KNOW, AND THE UTILIZATION STUDY BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING A PRETTY BIG BURDEN ON OURSELVES ADMINISTRATIVELY, TO POLICE THIS.
IF YOU, IF YOU THINK THAT AS, AS A COMMISSION THAT THE LANDLORDS WILL SELF-POLICE THEN RELIEVE US OF THAT BURDEN.
AND ON ALL THE CALLS THAT WE GET ABOUT COMPLIANCE AND THAT SORT OF THING, YEAH, WE CAN STILL HAVE DIALOGUE.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR.
AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT, I DUNNO.
'CAUSE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE ON THAT UNLESS MR. BURNOFF DECIDES TO, TO, UH, REMOVE HIS MOTION OR, SO I, I, I WANNA I WANNA ASK A QUESTION OF HER REAL QUICK THOUGH.
SO IF THERE'S NO LETTER, IF THERE'S NO REAL DOCUMENTATION AND SOMEBODY SIMPLY COMES IN, SPEAKS WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THEY SAY, YEAH, OKAY, WE'LL WE'LL LET YOU CUT FOUR SPACES OUT.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE GOOD 'CAUSE YOU'RE AT 10% OR UNDER 10%.
[02:20:02]
AND THEN THE USE CHANGES AGAIN, ARE WE GONNA GO BACK AND COMPARE? I FEEL LIKE WE NEED SOME FORM OF DOCUMENTATION ABOUT A DECISION BEING MADE BY OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR OR STAFF OR SOMEBODY SAYING THAT WE EVALUATED THIS AND WHETHER IT'S A LETTER FROM THE CLIENT OR WE HAVE TO MEMORIALIZE THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS, I DON'T THINK WE CAN JUST SIMPLY GIVE 'EM A THUMBS UP AND THEN THEY GO DO IT.NOW, AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE WE NEED THE LETTER, BUT I, I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FALLBACK IS.
IF WE AGREE TO REMOVE THE LETTER, WHAT'S THE FALLBACK TO MAKING SURE THIS IS IN THE RECORD FOR THE NEXT USE, FOR THE NEXT USE? FOR SURE.
SO IN TERMS OF, UM, UH, CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, THOSE ARE, UM, APPLICATIONS THAT COME INTO THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT.
UM, THERE'S A REVIEW PROCESS WHERE STAFF ARE ABLE TO LEAVE COMMENTS.
UM, WHEN PLANNING APPROVES THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WE DO HAVE A FIELD IN THAT PROJECT MANAGEMENT, UM, SOFTWARE TO ADD COMMENTS WHERE WE CAN SAY IT WAS REVIEWED BY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ON THIS DATE AND AGREED TO X, Y, AND Z.
SO YES, WE CAN, UM, MEMORIALIZE ANY DECISION THAT WAY.
AND SINCE WE KNOW THAT THIS IS SHORT TERM, THEN IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT WE'RE GONNA BE DEALING WITH FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS OF ALL THESE APPLICATIONS.
MR. LONG, MAYBE I'M WRONG HERE, BUT BASED ON MICHELLE'S COMMENTS, I THINK THAT PUTS US BACK TO JUST A BLANKET REDUCTION, BUT THEN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMENTS YOU JUST MADE, I JUST WANNA REITERATE HERE THAT THE, THE LETTER PROCESS THAT'S NOW NOT THE LETTER PROCESS, IT'S JUST A REDUC, IT'S JUST A, IT'S JUST FOR A, A CHANGE OF USE IN AN EXISTING CENTER.
NO PARKING SPACE THAT'S THERE TODAY IS ACTUALLY GONNA GO AWAY.
ALL THERE REQUIREMENTS, NOT THE PHYSICAL SPACES, RIGHT? THE PHYSICAL SPACES ARE GONNA BE THERE.
THE REQUIREMENT IS JUST BEING REDUCED.
AND SO THE MEMORIALIZATION I THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT, BUT THAT'S GONNA HAPPEN WHEN THERE'S ACTUALLY NEW CONSTRUCTION AND A SITE PLAN, AND THEN IT'S GONNA BE MEMORIALIZED ON THAT SITE PLAN IF THERE'S RENOVATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT GOING ON.
OR A NEW DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD BE IN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS.
BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AGAIN, THAT CONVERSION OF USE, SIMPLE CONVERSION OF USE.
AND THE CONVERSION OF USE IS WHERE I HAVE THE LEAST ANGST BECAUSE OF THE BUILT-IN MECHANISM THAT MR. CAREY AND MR. RATLIFF HAVE TALKED ABOUT.
WHICH IS THAT, I MEAN, I OWN A SALON ON 18TH STREET, I PROMISE YOU.
SO WE HAVE AN EXISTING MOTION, UH, WHICH IS TO SIMPLY REMOVE ITEM THREE, OR EXCUSE ME, UH, B'S UH, B THREE, UH, WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY.
WHO'S, WHO'S COMMISSIONER OLLIE.
MAY I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION BEFORE WE VOTE THOUGH? YES, WHENEVER YOU'RE DONE.
I WAS GONNA SAY, 'CAUSE I MEAN THE LIGHTS ARE ALL LIT BACK UP AGAIN.
SO IF, IF, IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD, MR. BRUNO, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A VOTE ON YOUR MOTION? YES.
COMMISSIONER CAREY, HIS HIS MOTION WOULD STILL REQUIRE A LETTER, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, IT WOULD.
COMMISSIONER LEY FOR ME, UM, THE CHANGE OF VIEWS, I'M LESS CONCERNED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, UH, POLICING THEMSELVES.
I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH THE ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE NEIGHBOR AND WHAT TOOL CAN WE USE AS A CITY TO IMPEDE THAT PROPERTY OR NOT PUNISH THE PROPERTY.
SO I STILL THINK THE LETTER IS PROBABLY THE LOWEST BAR WE CAN THROW OUT THERE, UM, TO, TO ENFORCE THAT.
UM, COMMISSIONER TONG, MY, UH, QUESTION IS THAT I, I THINK EITHER THE LETTER OR NOT THE LETTER IS GOOD.
WE JUST NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING THERE FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD.
UH, BUT MY CONCERN IS ABOUT NO LIMIT.
I, MY MY UNDERSTANDING IS EITHER WAY, EITHER WE GO WITH A LETTER OR WITHOUT A LETTER, WHEN IT'S CHANGE OF VIEWS, IT'S A, A FLEXIBILITY PLAN OR, OR, OR SOMETHING CALLED A FLEXIBILITY OF CHANGE OF VIEWS.
WHEN WE GO THAT ROUTE, THERE'S NO LIMIT.
RIGHT? DID YOU SAY THAT? I I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING EARLIER YOU, WHEN YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION WAS THAT THERE'S, IT'S NOT 10%, IT'S NOT 20%.
SO I HAVE A SMALL CONCERN ABOUT THAT.
MAYBE WE SHOULD PUT A LIMIT THERE.
SHOULD WE, I MEAN, THERE SHOULD BE A, I THINK THERE
[02:25:01]
OUGHT TO BE A GUIDELINE.THEY CAN'T JUST, I KNOW THE HOME, UH, THE BUSINESS OWNERS WILL MANAGE THAT, BUT SOMETIMES AS A, AS A A GOVERNING BODY, I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE A GUIDELINE.
SO TO BE CLEAR, IF IT'S A CHANGE OF USE, THEY COULD ASK FOR A 50% REDUCTION AND THEN IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO MAKE THAT DECISION.
UM, DEPENDS WHICH VARIATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE WITH, WITH A LETTER, WITH THE LETTER, EVEN WITHOUT THE LETTER, IF IT'S JUST SIMPLE CHANGE OF USE, NO CHANGE IN THE BUILDING PLATFORM, NO CHANGE OF NOTHING, IT'S JUST A CHANGE OF USE.
YOU'RE GOING FROM A BANK TO A RESTAURANT, THEY COULD ASK FOR A 50% REDUCTION AND IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DECIDE YES OR NO OR TO SET THE, WHATEVER THE LIMIT IS.
SHE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE DISCRETION IF THEY SIGN THE LETTER, IT'S IN.
IF Y'ALL DON'T LIKE THAT, YOU COULD TREAT CHANGES OF, USE MORE LIKE THE OTHER PROVISION AND SEE WE'VE, WE'VE TRIED SO MANY ITERATIONS OF THIS, TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE.
I'M NOT SURPRISED AT ALL THAT Y'ALL'S CONVERSATION IS GOING LIKE THIS, BUT OKAY.
UM, MR. IFF, BACK TO MY OTHER CONCERN, LEGAL QUESTION, THE PHRASE IN B NUMERAL I, WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE OF USE ON AN EXISTING SITE, IS THAT INTERPRETED AS EXISTING AS THE DATE OF ADOPTION OR IS THAT DETERMINED AS EXISTING ON THE DATE OF APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE OF USE? MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'RE OPENING UP THE PANDORA'S BOX FOR EVERYBODY TO COME IN WITH ONE TO 300 AND CHANGE IT THREE DAYS LATER.
DO WE NEED TO ADD LEGALLY FROM AN ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE, DO WE NEED TO ADD DEFINITION OF THAT? A DEFINITION OF EXISTING AND, UM, I THINK EXISTING WAS MEANT JUST THERE'S NO RE REDEVELOPMENT OCCURRING.
HOWEVER, I THINK, UM, YOU BRING UP A, A GOOD POINT.
AND SO I THINK WE COULD REVERT IT SLIGHTLY AND SAY WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE OF USE ON EXCITE EXISTING PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE, IF WE WANTED TO GO THAT ROUTE, UM, THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO WITH A LOT OF AMENDMENTS.
MR. BERNOFF, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION? YES.
SO THAT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE ADJUSTMENT TO YOUR MOTION, MR. LAW.
AND THEN I'M GONNA CALL FOR A VOTE ON THIS AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHERE WE WANT TO GO.
SO THE MOTION TO BE CLEAR BY MR. BRUNO IS TO SIMPLY REMOVE ITEM B THREE, WHICH IS THE PARKING STUDY, AND MODIFY THE, OR MORE CLEARLY DEFINED EXISTING AS PROPERTY, UH, IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE.
IS THAT CLEAR? AND IS THAT YOUR MOTION? AND IS THAT CLEAR FOR YOU AS A SECOND? OKAY.
UM, YOU READY FOR A VOTE? I HAD TO WAKE HER UP.
YEAH, I MEAN, THIS IS THE MOST RIVETING TOPIC THAT WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT.
WE HAVE A MOTION WITH A SECOND.
THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.
WHAT IS, OH, WAS THAT A NO,
SO THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ONE.
THANK YOU STAFF FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND THANK YOU COUNSEL FOR, FOR MAKING US REALIZE THAT THIS IS WHAT YOU EXPECTED.
WE ARE GONNA TAKE A, UH, A QUICK FIVE MINUTE RECESS, UM, FOR BIOLOGICAL ISSUES I GUESS TO OUR SESSION.
WE WILL, UM, UH, COMMISSIONER CAREY WILL JOIN US, UH, SHORTLY, BUT, UH, WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS, UM, IN THE FUTURE.
WE'RE LOOKING AT MOVING THESE THINGS TO THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA.
SO THANK YOU FOR THOSE THAT ARE PATIENTLY SITTING THROUGH OUR DISCUSSIONS AGAIN AROUND THINGS THAT MAY NOT BE THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU TODAY.
[5. (JK) Public Hearing - Replat: K Avenue Lofts Addition, Block A, Lot 1 - 226 multifamily residence units on one lot on 4.5 acres located on the west side of K Avenue, 150 feet north of Park Boulevard. Zoned Planned Development-47-Corridor Commercial. Project #R2023-042. Applicant: Plano Housing Authority (Administrative consideration)]
ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PUBLIC HEARING.REPL K AVENUE LOSS SED EDITION BLOCK A LOT.
[02:30:01]
UNITS ON ONE LOT ON 4.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF KAY AVENUE, 150 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 47 CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL APPLICANT IS PLANO HOUSING AUTHORITY.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS JOHN KIM PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
AS SUBMITTED, I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.
JUST IT'S RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
ALRIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT, BY THE WAY, IS THIS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT, BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION, WOULD THEN IN THE FUTURE NOT COME TO US? I THINK SO, YES.
WE'RE WE'RE WORKING ON APPROV EVERY DAY.
ANY, ANY SPEAKERS? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINED DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION.
UH, AGENDA ITEM FIVE AS SUBMITTED.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE.
PLEASE VOTE AND NOT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[6. (JK) Public Hearing - Replat & Conveyance Plat: Frito-Lay National Headquarters, Block 1, Lots 1R, 2, & 3 - Professional/general administrative office on Lot 1R and two conveyance lots on Lots 2 and 3 lots on 273.5 acres located at the southwest corner of Legacy Drive and Headquarters Drive. Zoned Commercial Employment. Projects #R2023-047 and #COP2023-004. Applicant: Frito-Lay, Inc. (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, PUBLIC HEARING REPL AND CONVEYANCE PLAT FRITO-LAY NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS BLOCK ONE LOTS.PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON LOT ONE R AND TWO CONVEYANCE SLOTS ON LOTS TWO AND THREE ON 273.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LAKE SEA DRIVE AND HEADQUARTERS DRIVE ZONE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT APPLICANT FRITO-LAY INCORPORATED.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
REPLANNING COMMAND PLA IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
AS SUBMITTED, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
WE APP APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX AS SUBMITTED.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW MR. BROSKY IS PURSUING THE WORLD RECORD, UH, MOTIONS IN THE EVENING.
[7. (PM) Public Hearing - Replat & Revised Site Plan: Flextronics Campus Addition, Block A, Lots 4R & 6 - Office showroom/warehouse on two lots on 22.2 acres located on the south side of Plano Parkway, 550 feet east of Shiloh Road. Zoned Research/Technology Center. Projects #R2023-048 and #RSP2023-081. Applicant: Plano Property Owner, LP (Administrative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, PUBLIC HEARING REPL AND REVISE SITE PLAN FLEXTRONICS CAMPUS EDITION BLOCK A LOTS FOUR R AND SIX OFFICE SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE ON TWO LOTS ON 22.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PLANO PARKWAY.ZONED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER.
APPLICANT IS PLANO PROPERTY OWNER LP.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE REPLAY AND REVISED SITE PLANNER RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU SIR.
ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AS SUBMITTED.
OKAY, RUNNING NECK AND NECK OVER HERE.
MR. BROSKY UH, MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE.
ITEM SEVEN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, PLEASE VOTE AND THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE SIR.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, PUBLIC HEARING RE PLATT AND REVISE SITE PLAN.
[8. (PM) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Bob Woodruff Park Addition, Block A, Lots 1R & 2 - Park/playground on two lots on 187.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Park Boulevard and Spring Creek Parkway. Zoned Agricultural, Estate Development, SingleFamily Residence-9, and Single-Family Residence Attached and located within the Parkway Overlay District. Projects #PR2022-033. Applicant: City of Plano (Request to table to January 2, 2024)]
ITEM NUMBER EIGHT, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPL BOB WOODRUFF PARK EDITION BLOCK A LOTS ONE R AND TWO PARK PLAYGROUND ON TWO LOTS ON 187.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARK BOULEVARD AND SPRING CREEK PARKWAY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PAR PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST.
THE TABLE TABLE, THE PRELIMINARY REPL TO THE JANUARY 2ND, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? CAN YOU JUST GIVE US THE REASON FOR THE DELAY AND IF JANUARY 2ND WILL BE SUFFICIENT? YES, IT IS FOR UM, THE CITY OR THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS FINAL COMMENTS ON THE ENGINEERING PLANS AND THE CIVIL PLANS AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THEY'LL WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE BY THEN.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
WE ANY SPEAKERS? NO WE DO NOT.
I'LL THE PUBLIC HEARING I MOVE WE TABLE, UH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT TO THE JANUARY 2ND, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
[02:35:01]
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO TABLE ITEM EIGHT TO JANUARY 2ND, PLEASE VOTE EIGHT TO ZERO.THESE GUYS UP THERE GETTING EXCITED.
[9. (PM) Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat: Paradise Heights, Blocks A-C - 42 Single-Family Residence-9 lots and two common area lots on 14.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Spring Creek Parkway and Fieldlark Drive. Zoned Single-Family Residence-9 and located within the Parkway Overlay District. Tabled on December 4, 2023. Project #PR2023-025. Applicant: First United Methodist Church (Administrative Consideration)]
ITEM NUMBER NINE, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPL PARADISE HEIGHTS BLOCKS A THROUGH C 42, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, NINE LOTS ON AND TWO COMMON AREA LOTS ON 14 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTH, UH, SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY AND FIELD LA LARK DRIVE ZONE FM SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE.AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT, APPLICANT IS FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
STAFF RECOMMEND THIS ITEM FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE ADDITION INTER ALTERATION TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY, I DON'T HAVE THIS ONE MEMORIZED
UM, OKAY, SO THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE.
SO IS THIS A DIFFERENT RIGHT, IS THIS NUMBER? YEAH, I BELIEVE THAT.
UM, LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT, I BELIEVE THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE SUBJECT TO THE ADDITION ALTERATIONS.
BUT THE STAFF PORT SAYS APPROVAL ESTIMATED.
SOMEONE ASKED, SOMEBODY HAD ASKED A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT THE LOT SIZES AND YOU WERE GONNA DO A LITTLE RESEARCH.
DID YOU FIND ANYTHING OUT ON THAT? YES, WE WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM.
WE WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM PER THE ORDINANCE THERE IS A STORM WATER INCENTIVE TWO OPTION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO REDUCE THEIR LOT SIZE WITH A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE THAT ARE UTILIZING THE STORMWATER INCENTIVE.
AND JUST TO ADD TO THAT, IT IS, UM, STORMWATER INCENTIVE TWO, WHICH REQUIRES A MAXIM OR AT LEAST 10% OPEN SPACE FOR THE STORMWATER CONSERVATION.
AND THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED THIS YEAR IS PROVIDING 13%.
UM, AND SO THIS IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE ENGINEERING AND THAT IS CORRECT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALRIGHT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? UH, WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY, UH, QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? NO.
ALRIGHT, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER NINE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY.
SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RAT LEFT TO APPROVE ITEM NINE AS RECOMMENDED PER STAFF PLEASE VOTE.
AND ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[10. (DS) Discussion and Action – Call for Public Hearing: Request to call a public hearing to amend Planned Development-60-General Office on 46.8 acres located at the northwest corner of Alma Drive and 15th Street. Project #CPH2023-016. Applicant: Fred Gans (Administrative Consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 10.THIS IS NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC 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 LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT.
ITEM 10 IS A DISCUSSION AND ACTION CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.
REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 60 GENERAL OFFICE ON 46.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ALMA DRIVE AND 15TH STREET.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CAR CLUB BUSINESS WITH AUTOMOTIVE STORAGE ON SITE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY NOT AN ALLOWED USE.
THIS REQUEST WOULD INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY INTO, INTO THE SURROUNDING PD 60 GENERAL OFFICE ZONING AND MODIFY THE STANDARDS TO INCORPORATE MINI WAREHOUSE AND PUBLIC STORAGE USE.
ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE HARRINGTON ESTATE HOUSE AND THE APPLICANT PLANS ON INCORPORATING IT INTO THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
WE MET WITH THE APPLICANT IN EARLY NOVEMBER AND THEY HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT TO ALL THE OWNERS IN THE PD 60, BUT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GET RESPONSE FROM ALL OWNERS.
AND SO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED REZONING IS RECOMMENDED.
AND TO BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE ZONING CASE, I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE, IF THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO GET THE SIGNATURES, THEY WOULD'VE SIMPLY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO JUST BRING THE ZONING CASE FORWARD.
BUT WITHOUT THE SIGNATURES, THEY NEED US TO BASICALLY APPROVE THEM MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ZONING REQUEST.
AND IN THE ZONING REQUEST WE'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT AND WHETHER OR NOT REZONING IS THE RIGHT MOVE.
ANY OTHER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MR. ALI? JUST ONE.
UM, JUST UNDERSTAND THAT THE DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING.
MM-HMM,
[02:40:01]
DOES THAT COUNT AS SPOT ZONING? SINCE IT'S NOT, IT, IT WOULD BE MORE IF WE CHANGED IT JUST TO ALLOW THIS ONE USE IN THIS PARTICULAR SPOT.AND SO WE DON'T WANNA, WANNA, AG IS THE BASE ZONING APPLIED WHEN THE PROPERTY IS ANNEXED? SO THAT'S THE STARTING POINT.
SO THE FACT THAT IT'S JUST THAT TINY LITTLE AG ALMOST THAT DOESN'T COUNT, DOESN'T COUNT A SPOT.
UM, IF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE A SPOT ZONING WITHOUT AMENDING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, HOW DOES AMENDING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT MAKE IT ANY LESS OF A SPOT ZONING? OH, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO REST, THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THAT SITE.
SO IN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, UM, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE, THE LOCATOR HERE, ALL THE STRIPED HATCH PORTION IS ALL WITHIN THE PD 60 GENERAL OFFICE ZONING.
SO BASICALLY IT WOULD JUST AMEND THE BOUNDARY OF THE PD TO INCLUDE THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY.
WHICH PART OF THIS DRAWING IS THE APPLICANT SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED WITH? UH, JUST A, JUST A, OKAY.
I WONDER IF WE HAVE, IN REFERENCE TO WHAT YOU JUST ASKED, SPOT ZONING.
COULD, CAN YOU GIVE US A A DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING? MIKE? WELL, MAYBE MISS DEANDRA COULD DO A BETTER JOB AT THIS, BUT ESSENTIALLY IT'S YOU'RE, UH, APPLYING A UNIQUE ZONING THAT'S NOT COMMON TO OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.
UM, SO IN THIS CASE, TO ALLOW THE USE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO ON THIS PROPERTY BY RIGHT.
THEY WOULD NEED TO GO TO SOMETHING LIKE LIGHT COMMERCIAL WHERE THERE'S NO LIGHT COMMERCIAL ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE AREA.
I JUST, I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS.
THE ONLY OTHER ZONING DISTRICT THAT TOUCHES THIS PROPERTY IS ACROSS THE STREET IN THE COURT.
AND IF YOU GO UP THERE TO THE TOP OF THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, YOU SEE PD 1 95 AND THERE IS A MANY WAREHOUSE USE THERE, BUT BUILT INTO THAT PD, THE FIRST THREE PD STIPULATIONS ARE NO AUTOMOTIVE.
AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE GO RIGHT INTO THAT A AND INCLUDE THEM IN PART OF THAT BIGGER PD, WE'RE JUST MANIPULATING THE SYSTEM TO CREATE SPOT ZONING.
IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO ME.
SO FOR TONIGHT, THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE.
AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN THEY COME, COME BACK.
AND THE QUESTION TONIGHT IS, SHOULD WE EVEN WELL GO FORWARD WITH PUBLIC HERE? I MEAN, THEY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO, TO BRING THIS TO US AND THEY, THEY DIDN'T, NOW THEY WANT US TO DO WHAT THEY COULDN'T DO.
UM, NO, THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN THE SIGNATURES OF THE PEOPLE IN THE PD AND BROUGHT THIS TO AMEND THE PD.
WELL, UNDERSTANDING IS THEY REACHED OUT TO THE PEOPLE, TO THE PEOPLE AND YES.
THEY, THEY DID REACH OUT TO ALL OF THE OWNERS AND THEY DID MAKE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO GET IN CONTACT WITH THEM.
UH, SOME OF THE OWNERS ARE IN SUPPORT, SOME OF THEM, UM, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LEGAL PROCESSES AND SOME JUST WERE NOT RESPONSIVE.
SO, SO LIKE I SAID, THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND BRING IT TO US AND THEY DIDN'T.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS, THIS IS PART OF THE WAY OUR SYSTEM WORKS.
THEY, THEY STILL HAVE TO MAKE THEIR CASE AND SO IT MIGHT WORK, IT MAY NOT.
BUT WHAT ARE THE, WHAT ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR US TO PASS THIS OR NOT PASS IT? NOT PASS IT, IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE FOR US TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING.
BUT DO WE HAVE TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING? YEAH, THE ANSWER IS WE DON'T.
I I, I STRUGGLE WITH SAYING, HEY, WE'RE NOT GONNA GIVE ANYBODY A CHANCE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE BEFORE THE COMMISSION.
AND SO TO YOUR POINT, YEAH, WE DON'T HAVE TO CALL IT, BUT TO ME THAT'S PREEMPTIVE IN TERMS OF, AND WHAT I WOULD SAY IS, MIKE, I MEAN OUR STAFF JUST SAID THAT THE AREA THAT YOU WOULD REALLY HAVE TO GO TO DO THIS AND IT'S, IT'S NOT THERE.
DO YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL POINTS? I WANT MR. BRUNO, YOU WERE NEXT? NO, MR. CHAIRMAN, I AGREE WITH YOU.
I THINK, UH, JUST OUT OF COMMON FAIRNESS, WE OWE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE AND BE HEARD.
I DON'T GO BEYOND THAT AT THIS POINT.
I'M NOT JUDGING THE MERITS OF THE CASE, BUT I THINK HE HAS, UM, OUT OF FAIRNESS, WE SHOULD GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD.
SO YOU STILL HAVE YOUR QUESTION BUTTON.
[02:45:01]
OKAY.UM, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO SPEAKER.
SO YOU SAID, UH, THAT THE APPLICANT DID CONTACT, UH, ALL OF THE OWNERS AND THAT, UM, SOME WERE UNAVAILABLE TO BE ACCESSED, BUT YOU ALSO SAID, UH, SOME WERE AGAINST IT.
UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WERE AGAINST IT, BUT THEY WERE UNRESPONSIVE OR, UM, I BELIEVE ONE OF THE, A PROPERTY OWNERS IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY.
AND I GUESS THEY HAVE A MORE COMPLICATED LEGAL PROCESS THAT THEY HAVE TO REACH OUT TO THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE ABOUT ANY PROPERTY ISSUES.
AND SO THEY WERE UNABLE TO GET CONTACT WITH THEM EITHER.
SO THEN WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS NONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE CONTACTED WERE OPPOSED, CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO.
I WOULD, I WOULD'VE TO DOUBLE CHECK BUT HAVE ANOTHER CHANCE.
NO, I'M JUST, I JUST WANTED, I JUST, WHEN I HEARD YOU SAY IT THE FIRST TIME, I THOUGHT YOU SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT, SO I APOLOGIZE.
SO, SO, UM, YOU KNOW, WE ALL HAVE OUR OPINIONS HERE, BUT IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AND SO DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. BRONSKI? I MOVE.
WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ISSUE.
WELL, I NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
YEAH, SO ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
THIS, OH, I THOUGHT THIS WAS STILL ON OUR PUBLIC AGENDA.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI SECOND AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUESTED FOR ITEM 10, PLEASE VOTE.
AND THAT'S 7 2 1 APPROVED AND THEY'LL WORK WITH STAFF TO GET ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[11. (KC) Discussion and Action - Extension of Approval Request - Preliminary Site Plan: Plano Gateway East, Block B, Lots 1-91 & 1X-10X - 91 Single-Family Residence Attached lots and ten common area lots on 6.7 acres located at the northwest corner of Shiloh Road and Wynview Drive. Zoned Planned Development-207-Retail and located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway Overlay District. Project #PSP2023-028. Applicant: Skorburg Company (Administrative consideration)]
NUMBER 11, DISCUSSION AND ACTION.EXTENSION OF APPROVAL REQUEST.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, PLANO GATEWAY EAST BLOCK B LOTS ONE THROUGH 91 AND ONE X THROUGH 10 X 91 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT ATTACHED LOTS AND 10, COMMON AREA LOTS ON 6.7 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHILOH ROAD AND WIND VIEW DRIVE ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 2 0 7 RETAIL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE ONE 90 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, UH, CONSIDERATION.
AGAIN, THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL REQUEST.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED ON JANUARY 18TH, 2022.
APPROVALS FOR PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS ARE VALID FOR TWO YEARS, AND AS SUCH, THIS PLAN WILL EXPIRE ON JANUARY 18TH, 2024.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ONE YEAR EXTENSION ON THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ON THE SCREEN IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT DISCUSSES EXTENSION CRITERIA.
AND SO WE HAVE THE REASON FOR THE LAPSE.
THE PROPERTY IS BEING SOLD AND THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER IS REQUESTING AN EXTENSION TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH ANY CONDITIONS OF THE APPROVAL.
AS STATED PREVIOUSLY, THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS PLACED ON THIS PSP BACK IN 2022.
AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE NEWLY ADOPTED REGULATION SHALL APPLY TO THE PLAN.
IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023, THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS WERE ADOPTED AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAS UPDATED AS WELL.
AND THE DESIGN OF THIS PLAN COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED TODAY WITH THE 2023 STANDARDS THAT WERE ADOPTED.
UM, HOWEVER, WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST HAS A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WITH APPROVAL FROM 2021 AND TODAY IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
AND WITH THAT, DUE TO THE COHESIVE DESIGN WITHIN THE TURNPIKE, COMMONS DEVELOPMENT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS TO BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTED.
AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. ALI? UH, UM, LAW PROCESS DRIVEN, YOU HAVE TWO YEARS, UH, FOR APPROVAL TO EXPIRE.
UH, AN EXISTING OWNER APPROVAL CAN COME BACK FOR AN EXTENSION.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD TO TRIGGER THAT EXCEPTION FOR AN EXTENSION.
AM I READING THAT RIGHT OR CORRECT? SO THIS SITE PLAN OR PSP WILL EXPIRE IN 59 DAYS
[02:50:01]
PROSPECTIVE BUYERS REQUESTING AN EXTENSION REQUEST SO THEY CAN WORK TOGETHER TO GET THIS PLAN, UH, SUBMITTED TO US WITH THE SITE PLAN, SUBMITTAL PACKAGE, INCLUDING, UH, THEIR SITE PLAN, CIVIL SETS, AND THEN THEY CAN GET UNDER CONSTRUCTION.SO 59 DAYS, THEY MAY NOT BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
SO THE, AND SO THE, THE PLAN WOULD EXPIRE.
AND THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER, IT'S A VALID REASON TO GIVE THEM TIME TO ESSENTIALLY IMPLEMENT THEIR, UM, THEIR VISION.
UM, MORE FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE.
LET'S ASSUME THIS WASN'T BEING SOLD.
IS THERE ANY REASON THAT THE ORIGINAL OWNER COULD COME FORWARD FOR AN EXTENSION? UM, FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, I'M SELLING IT TO BILL.
BILL TRIGGERS AN EXCEPTION FOR AN EXTENSION.
LET'S ASSUME I WASN'T SELLING IT AND I JUST HAVEN'T DEVELOPED THE SITE PLAN OVER TWO YEARS AND I WANT ANOTHER YEAR.
DO WE HAVE THAT LEEWAY, UH, WITHIN OUR PROCESSES? YES, WE DO.
THERE'S, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT.
IT'S JUST ANYBODY CAN COME ASK FOR THE APPROVAL.
THANK YOU MS. UH, COMMISSIONER TOM.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING HOW OUR PROCESS IS THIS EXTENSION IS GONNA EXTEND THEM FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS, OR IS THERE, IS THERE THE TIME LIMIT FOR THE EXTENSION IN THEIR LETTER THAT IS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKETS? THEY NOTE THAT THEY WANT A ONE YEAR EXTENSION, ONE YEAR EXTENSION.
AND HOW MANY TIMES CAN THEY EXTEND AFTER THAT IF THEY, WELL, A LOT OF BUILDERS, I'VE SEEN SO MANY, THEY SAY, OH, WELL BREAK GROUND IN TWO MONTHS AND 12 MONTHS LATER THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT.
SO IN 12, AFTER THIS ONE TIME EXPANSION NOW, SORRY, EXTENSION, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO EXTEND AGAIN AFTER A YEAR? DO WE HAVE A LIMIT OF HOW MANY TIMES THEY CAN EXTEND? I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BUT WHAT WE DO SEE IS MORE TYPICAL ABOUT TWO YEAR EXTENSION REQUESTS, BUT THIS WAS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO HAVE A ONE YEAR EXTENSION.
NOW, IF THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT WE NEED TO EXTEND THAT TO A SECOND YEAR, THAT IS Y'ALL'S CHOICE.
NO, I'M NOT SAYING THEY'RE GIVING THEM MORE TIME.
I'M JUST SAYING THAT DO WE HAVE, I'M JUST ASKING QUESTION ABOUT OUR PROCESS.
THEY, THEY CAN ASK AS MANY TIMES AS THEY WANT.
SO AFTER THE NEXT, WHEN THEY GET TO THE NEXT END OF NEXT YEAR, IF THEY NEED TO EXTEND, THEY CAN APPLY AGAIN.
THEY CAN, YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT, BUT THEY CAN ASK AGAIN.
MR. S SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.
MY, MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHAT TRIGGERS, IS IT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL THAT BASICALLY MAKES THIS PERMANENT OR IS IT ACTUAL BREAKING GROUND FOR CONSTRUCTION? THAT ACTUALLY ENDS THE TIME, IT'S THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS.
SO IF THEY COME IN AND GET A SITE PLAN, THAT SITE PLAN IS GOOD FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS.
IF THE SITE PLAN EXPIRES, THEN EVERYTHING EXPIRES, THEN THEY HAVE TO START ALL OVER AGAIN.
BUT TO GET THE SITE PLAN, IT'S FULLY ENGINEERED DRAWINGS.
SO BASICALLY READY TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION? THAT'S RIGHT.
AND, AND THE REASON I ASK IS 'CAUSE I, I THINK WE PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THE NEW STANDARDS AND I DON'T WANNA CHANGE THE RULES ON SOMEBODY IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME.
UM, BUT I DON'T THINK OUGHT TO BE OPEN-ENDED.
SO, UM, I'LL SAVE THAT FOR LATER.
UM, THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
I'M WONDERING WHAT WERE THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THE 25 LOT LIMIT? UH, WITH SOLE ACCESS FROM A MUSE STREET? I BELIEVE THE IDEA THAT MUSE STREETS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO WHERE THEY'RE SERVING LOTS THAT HAVE AC FRONTAGE ON A PUBLIC OPEN SPACE.
IT'S MORE OF A DESIGN FEATURE THAN IT IS THAT THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION TAKES ACCESS FROM MUSE.
UM, THERE'S JUST FIRE AND OTHER CONSIDERATIONS WHEN YOU GET THAT MANY LOTS SERVED ON SUCH A SMALL STREET NETWORK.
I WAS WONDERING IF, IF CONSIDERATION HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH A LONG MUSE STREET, MIGHT, MIGHT ENCOURAGE, YOU KNOW, SPEEDING VEHICLES IN A, IN A DISTRICT THAT THAT REALLY SHOULDN'T, THERE'S ANOTHER REQUIREMENT.
I MEAN, THERE'S ANOTHER REQUIREMENT ABOUT THE LENGTH, MAXIMUM LENGTH OF A MU STREET THAT WAS ALSO CHANGED.
BUT THAT, I DON'T THINK THAT APPLIES IN THIS CASE.
I'M WONDERING IF IT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTIVE TO MAYBE ASK THEM TO INSTALL SOME SORT OF SPEED CONTROLS IN THE, ON, ON THE ME STREETS TO KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING.
THAT'S UNRELATED TO OUR EXTENSION REQUEST.
RIGHT? I BELIEVE YOU CAN PLACE CONDITIONS ON THE EXTENSION, UM, BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING OUR ENGINEERING HAS EVALUATED.
SO THEY MIGHT, THEY MIGHT WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT FIRST.
YOU CERTAINLY CAN ON THE SITE PLAN.
I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT WE DID HAVE AN, UH, AT THE VERY BOTTOM, UH, OF THIS, THE, UH, PLANO FIRE RESCUE AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS BOTH HAVE REVIEWED IT, UH, AND HAVE NO ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO THE FIRE.
[02:55:01]
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO IT'S, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.UM, SO WE, WE, CAN I MOVE, WE, UH, APPROVE THE EXTENSION FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 11.
I, I'LL SECOND, BUT, UH, I DO WANNA MAKE THE COMMENT THAT, UH, AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS IS A ONE AND DONE.
UM, THEY NEED TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR WE'LL NEED TO REEVALUATE.
I'LL, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT REEVALUATED UNDER THE NEW STANDARDS IF THERE'S ANOTHER EXTENSION REQUESTED CAN, WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A NEED THAT'S JUST A COMMENT.
WE JUST, WE IMPROVE THE YEAR AND WE'LL SEE.
THEY'LL EITHER COME BACK TO US FOR AN EXTENSION AND WE'LL GO, EH, YOU HAD YOUR SHOT OR WHATEVER.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OR BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION REQUEST ON ITEM 11.
THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
I THINK THAT'S THE END OF OUR AGENDA, RIGHT? OTHER THAN ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA BILL SCREEN STILL SHOWS THE BOAT, SO EVIDENTLY HE'S NOT WANTING TO SPEAK, SO THAT'S GOOD.
OH, I'M, I'M PUSHING ALL MY BUTTONS HERE.
MERRY, MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE.
I WAS GONNA, I WAS GONNA WRAP UP WITH A, UM, YOU KNOW, MERRY CHRISTMAS.
UH, I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE FOR US THIS YEAR,
ANYWAY, YOU GUYS HAVE, HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY BREAK AND, UM, WE'LL SEE YOU ALL ON JANUARY 2ND.