[00:00:01]
[CALL TO ORDER]
I WILL, UH, CALL TO ORDER THE JANUARY 2ND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE, A 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
[COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST]
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? YES.
YES, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM.
THIS IS MY FIRST TIME HERE, SO NO WORRIES.
GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY.
UH, 1812 DANBY DRIVE, PLANO, TEXAS 7 5 0 9 3.
I'M HERE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LUBY'S AT THE VENTURA AND PARK.
INTERSECTION OF THE REDEVELOPMENT IS FOR A CHICK-FIL-A AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE HOMEOWNERS, UH, ASSOCIATION IS RECENTLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT JUST LAST WEEK, AND WE'VE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SITUATION IS.
UM, SOME OF OUR, OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS HAD A VERY PRO, UH, GOOD MEETING THIS MORNING AT THAT LUBY'S WITH SOME OF THE MESS, UH, PEOPLE OF THE ZONING COMMISSION.
BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING HERE, AND THAT IS THE TRAFFIC AT AN ALREADY VERY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION, UM, IS GONNA CREATE FURTHER NUISANCE AND PERHAPS WORSE.
I MYSELF, UH, MY FAMILY HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN TWO ACCIDENTS AT THAT INTERSECTION, BOTH TOTALING CARS MY FAMILY WAS NOT AT CAUSE I HAVE PERSONALLY WITNESSED AN ACCIDENT AT THAT INTERSECTION WHERE I HAD TO LOAD A TEENAGER INTO AN AMBULANCE AND I ESCAPED AN ACCIDENT AT THAT INTERSECTION WITH A CAR RUNNING THE RED LIGHT AT PARK.
IT'S ONLY GONNA GET WORTH WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC FROM CHICK-FIL-A, WE NEED A DETAILED STUDY DONE AT THAT INTERSECTION TO ENSURE THERE'S NO LOSS OF LIFE OR FURTHER DAMAGE.
THE OTHER THING I UNDERSTAND IS THAT, UM, PLANO REQUIRES TWO ENTRANCES AND EXITS FOR EVERY BUILDING OR LOCATION.
UM, THIS IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THIS CHICK-FIL-A WILL BE THIS CHICK-FIL-A HAS ONE ENTRANCE GOING EAST ON PARK, AND WE'LL HAVE ONE ENTRANCE GOING NORTH ON VENTURA.
THAT IN OF ITSELF DOES NOT ALIGN TO PLANOS CURRENT STANDARDS.
ONCE AGAIN, WE NEED AN ASSESSMENT DONE AT THAT INTERSECTION TO ENSURE WE CAN MANAGE TRAFFIC AND THERE IS NO DANGER TO ANY INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN THIRD, BUT CERTAINLY.
UM, AND, AND IT IS LEASE, BUT IMPORTANT, THE HOMEOWNERS IN THAT INTERSECTION DO NOT WANT THEIR PROPERTY VALUES DIMINISHED.
AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY HERE WOULD SAY THE SAME THING.
NOISE, TRASH, INCREASE TRAFFIC AT THAT INTERSECTION.
INCREASE TRAFFIC AT THAT INTERSECTION WOULD ALL DIMINISH OUR PROPERTY VALUES.
SO I ASK, UM, THIS BOARD HERE, WHAT CAN I EXPECT OF YOU ALL TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS? THANK YOU.
JUST SO YOU'LL KNOW UNDER LAW, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO RESPOND.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
PLEASE.CONSENT AGENDA, THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE, FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.
WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL ANYTHING FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE? I MOVE.
WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA,
[00:05:01]
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER TONG WAS UNABLE TO JOIN US THIS EVENING.
[1. (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. Tabled on December 18, 2023. Project #PR2022-033. Applicant: City of Plano (Request to withdraw from consideration)]
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, UNLESS 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.
ADMINISTRATION CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.
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, SPRING CREEK PARKWAY ZONED AGRICULTURAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
I'M PARKER MCDOWELL, PLANNER OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE PRELIMINARY PLATT, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM, MR. BRUNO? I JUST, UH, BRIEFLY WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE WITHDRAWAL SO THEY HAVE TIMES TO ADDRESS, UH, ADDITIONAL COMMENTS.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU MR. MCDOWELL.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I WILL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING CONFINED DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION.
I MOVE THAT, UH, WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRELIMINARY RELA FOR AGENDA ITEM ONE.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM ONE, PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.
[2. (KC) Public Hearing - Extension of Approval Request - Preliminary Replat: City of Plano Los Rios Park, Block E, Lots 2R & 3R - Extension of approval for a preliminary replat for a park/playground on two lots on 11.5 acres located at the southeast corner of Country Club Drive and San Miguel Drive. Zoned Single-Family Residence Attached and SingleFamily Residence-7. Project #PR2023-031. Applicant: City of Plano (Request to withdraw from consideration)]
NUMBER TWO, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY RELA, CITY OF PLANO LOS RIOS PARK BLOCK E LOTS TWO R AND THREE R PARK PLAYGROUND ON TWO LOTS ON ONE 11.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AND SAN MIGUEL DRIVE ZONE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SEVEN.THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS KATYA COPELAND, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO WITHDRAW THIS PRELIMINARY REPL IN ORDER TO FURTHER ADDRESS STAFF'S COMMENTS AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION EXCEPT THE REQUEST TO WITHDRAW.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONFINED DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION.
WE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND ACCEPT THE, UH, WITHDRAWAL OF THE PRELIMINARY RELA FOR AGENDA ITEM TWO.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON AGENDA ITEM TWO.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.
[Items 3A & 3B]
BOTH THREE A AND THREE PB TOGETHER PLEASE.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.
THIS WAS TABLED ON DECEMBER 18TH, 2023.
PETITIONER IS FAIRVIEW FARMLAND COMPANY LIMITED.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION, PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT PLAN.
UH, ITEM THREE B VILLA IS AT PARK ADDITION BLOCKS A THROUGH C 26 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS ATTACHED LOTS AND FOUR COMMON AREA LOTS ON 4.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE, 175 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.
AGAIN, APPLICANT IS FAIRVIEW FARMLAND COMPANY LIMITED.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THIS REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT SINGLE
[00:10:01]
FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED WITH MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT AND SCREENING.THIS REQUEST IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE A 26 UNIT TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT.
ON THE SCREEN HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AND WEST IS ZONED.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT 67 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE TWO AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CITY OF PLANO CHISHOLM TRAIL SLASH SHARED USE PATH TO THE EAST ACROSS ENTERPRISE DRIVE IS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND IS UNDEVELOPED AND DEVELOPED WITH A VEHICLE FUELING STATION THAT IS NOT IN OPERATION TODAY.
SO THE SOUTH IS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A CONVENIENCE STORE AND VEHICLE FUELING STATION.
A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY ACCOMPANIES THIS REQUEST AS AGENDA ITEM THREE B.
THIS PLAN SHOWS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND SITE DESIGN OF THE 26 UNIT TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK.
CATEGORIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE OPEN SPACE NETWORK DESIGNATION AND PARTIALLY MEETS THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DESIGNATION, DESCRIPTION AND PRIORITIES OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CATEGORY.
THIS REQUEST WILL ALLOW FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE RECOMMENDED HEIGHT OF ONE TO TWO STORIES IN THE DESIRABLE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS AND R GM ONE REQUEST THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO BUILDING HEIGHTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE DASHBOARD ARE DISFAVORED AND DO REQUIRE FINDINGS.
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT OCCURRED ON THIS SITE DUE TO SEVERAL CHALLENGES, INCLUDING ITS UNIQUE SHAPE, LACK OF VISIBILITY, SIZE AND SIZE OF THE DRAINAGE AND FLOODWAY EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY REZONING.
THIS PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR INFILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD PROVIDE ADJACENCY BENEFITS WHILE PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE CITY OF PLAN OSM TRAIL.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT DON'T FULLY ALIGN WITH THE SFA ZONING.
THESE MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE LISTED IN THE PD STIPULATIONS.
THE SFA DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF TWO STORIES FOR BUILDINGS.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THREE STORIES WITH THE ALLOWANCE OF ROOFTOP DECKS ABOVE.
ADJACENT PROPERTIES INCLUDE A ONE STORY CONVENIENCE STORE AND A TWO STORY MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
THE HEIGHT IS INCONSISTENT WITH HEIGHTS OF THE NEARBY BUILDINGS.
FURTHER, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR CORNER LOTS FROM 10 FEET TO 7.5 FEET, AS WELL AS AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM BUILDING LENGTH FROM 200 FEET TO 250 FEET.
THE BUILDING LENGTH FROM THE CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN MEASURES 225 FEET BLOCK B LOT NINE SHOWS 7.5 SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK.
STAFF FINDS THESE MODIFICATIONS AVOIDABLE AS THE STANDARD SIDE YARD SETBACK AND BUILDING LENGTH COULD BE MET BY ELIMINATING ONE LOT.
THE ELIMINATION OF THE LOT WOULD ALSO ALLOW THE PROPOSED MUSE STREETS LABELED AS STREET B ON THE CONCEPT PLAN TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK WITH ON THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE STREET.
THE COMPANION CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS TWO DRIVEWAYS OFF OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE.
THIS SLIDE WILL FOCUS ON THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY THOUGH SHARED ACCESS WAS NEGOTIATED IN THE YEAR 2000 TO CREATE A SECOND ACCESS POINT WITH THE CONVENIENCE STORE OFF OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE.
IN A, IN AN EFFORT TO MITIGATE ANY TRAFFIC CONCERNS TO MAINTAIN THIS EXISTING CONDITION, THE SOUTHERN ACCESS POINT WILL BE SHARED WITH THE CONVENIENCE STORE.
THIS DRIVEWAY CONNECTION DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIREMENT OF THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS.
THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS ACCEPTED THE DESIGN TO THE LOW VOLUME OF ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC.
SHOWN ON THE SCREEN ARE FIVE OUT OF THE NINE PROPOSED PD STIPULATIONS.
STAFF IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE STIPULATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST THREE THAT ARE UNDERLINED ON THE SCREEN THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT IN A PREVIOUS SLIDE.
STIPULATION FOUR AND FIVE ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE A BUFFER FROM THE ADJACENT USES TO RESTRICT BUILDINGS FROM BEING LOCATED ANY CLOSER TO EXISTING BUILDINGS.
STIPULATION SIX AND SEVEN ARE FOCUSED ON PROVIDING LANDSCAPE BUFFERS.
THE FINAL TWO STIPULATIONS ARE FOCUSED ON TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE.
WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE WITHIN 200 FEET FOR THIS CASE WITHIN THE ALLOCATED TIMEFRAME.
WE DID RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL RESPONSE LATE THIS AFTERNOON WI FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, WHICH IS THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND FUELING STATION.
[00:15:04]
WE RECEIVED 17 RESPONSES FOR THIS CASE CITYWIDE.TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED FOR 26 UNIT TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT.
THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OPEN SPACE NETWORK DASHBOARD AND IS GEN, EXCUSE ME, GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DASHBOARD WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS DO NOT ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR THAT REASONS FIND THIS REQUEST IS DIS DISFAVORED AND FINDINGS WILL BE REQUIRED.
THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO BETTER ALIGN THIS DEVELOPMENT WITH THE SFA ZONING, WHICH WOULD BETTER SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT WITH A PRESENTATION AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
SO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MR. BRONSKI.
UH, SO I HAVE A QUESTION ON, UH, RGM EIGHT.
UH, IN YOUR REPORT YOU REPORT NEUTRAL.
WHAT, UM, WHAT PARAMETERS DO YOU USE TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU DISFAVOR YOU FAVOR OR YOU TAKE A NEUTRAL STANCE ON RGM EIGHT? SURE.
UM, I'M GONNA ASK MR. BELDA, HELP ME WITH THAT QUESTION.
SO RGM EIGHT TALKS ABOUT, UM, WHEN NEW HOUSING SHOULD BE SUPPORTED, THAT IT SHOULD HAS A TWO PART TEST.
IT SHOULD MEET ONE OF THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING, ONE OF THOSE GOALS, AND ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
IN THIS CASE, THEY MEET ONE AND THEN PARTIALLY MEET SOME OF THE OTHER TESTS, BUT NOT ALL OF THE OTHER TESTS.
SO IN THAT CASE, THE RECOMMENDATION WAS IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT TOTALLY IN ITS FAVOR, BUT IT'S NOT TOTALLY AGAINST IT AND THEREFORE WE, UH, INTERPRETED IT AS NEUTRAL.
UM, DO YOU, UM, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE CHANGES THAT CAN BE MADE TO MAKE THIS FULLY COM UH, COMPATIBLE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR, UM, YES AND NO.
UM, THE BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH PLANNING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO REDUCE THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO ONE OR TWO STORIES FOR US TO BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST.
BUT ALSO WITH OTHER ITEMS, UH, REGARDING THE STIPULATIONS THAT WE SHOWED ON THE SCREEN, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS REQUEST TO BETTER ALIGN WITH SFA AND NOT NEED NINE STIPULATIONS, BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT YOU SEE TODAY.
SO, UH, IS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF THE THREE STORY, UH, RESIDENTIAL, UH, COMMUNITIES OR IN THE AREA IN YOUR PACKET? THERE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE COLONY AND THAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT TYPE THAT THEY WOULD BE PRODUCING ON THE LOT.
WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THIS AS, UH, INNOVATIVE OR CREATIVE AS FAR AS THE, UH, THE TYPES OF HOUSING AND THE WAY THAT WE ARE PROVIDING, UH, SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, UH, IN A LOT THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY WORK FOR TRADITIONAL HOMES? SURE.
SO I THINK, UM, TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT IS GREAT AND I THINK WE, UM, HAVE ROOM FOR MORE.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS WE HAVE, WE HAVE ALLOCATED ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGES TO DEDICATE TO TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENTS AND DUE TO THE CHALLENGES OF THIS LOT, AND I THINK TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT COULD BE EFFECTIVE HERE.
AND MIKE, YOU CAN, IF I COULD ELABORATE, YOU ELABORATE BIT.
SO THE REMAINING UNDEVELOPED LAND IN PLANO A LOT OF TIMES IS CHALLENGING, ESPECIALLY ON THESE INFILL SITES AND ESPECIALLY DUE TO THE, UH, PRICE OF THE LAND TO MAKE THE RETURN.
UM, THE BUILDERS ALSO NEED MORE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEY GET THAT THROUGH HEIGHT.
AND SO WE'RE, WE'RE SEEING THAT COMMONLY NOW IS TO PROVIDE THE SINGLE FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP OPTION.
THEY'VE GOTTA GO A LITTLE TALLER TO MAKE IT WORK ON THE SITE.
SO I, I'LL SAY, UM, I HAVE A FRIEND THAT OWNS A A THREE STORY HOME IN A FARMER'S BRANCH AND, UH, IT'S A, IT'S A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY AND, UH, FOR, IT WOULDN'T WORK FOR ME BEING OLD WITH A BAD BACK.
BUT, UH, UH, I CERTAINLY, UH, YOU KNOW, UH, YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD ME SAY THIS A THOUSAND TIMES, BUT WHEN I SERVED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE, I WAS VERY HOPEFUL THAT WE WOULD FIND CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE WAYS TO PROVIDE DIFFERENT HOUSING AND MEET SOME OF THE HOUSING DEMANDS.
AND, UH, THIS SOUNDS VERY INTERESTING.
AND SO I'M, I'M EXCITED ABOUT HEARING MORE.
UM, ARE THESE MUSE STREETS WITHIN
[00:20:01]
THE DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE, UH, BEING PROPOSED? YES.UM, WHERE WOULD THE RESIDENTS PARK THEIR VEHICLES? THE RESIDENTS WILL PARK IN THEIR DRIVEWAY IN THEIR GARAGE, AND THERE ARE GUEST PARKING SPOTS AVAILABLE ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL.
ON THE PRO YOU MEAN ON THE PROPERTY, YOU MEAN ON THE STREETS OR ON EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT ON THE PROPERTY? WELL, I CAN GO BACK TO THE CONCEPT PLAN TO SHOW, OKAY.
ARE THE STREETS AS PROPOSED WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR, LET'S SAY VISITORS TO PARK ON THE STREET AND STILL ALLOW EMERGENCY VEHICLES LIKE FIRE TRUCKS TO GET THROUGH? SO THE, THE MUSE REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE STRIPED AS FIRE LANES.
WHICH MEANS YOU CAN'T PARK THERE, THERE THAT THEY CANNOT PARK WITHIN THE FIRE LANES.
HOW, HOW WOULD A VISITOR PARK AGAIN, THERE ARE OFF STREET PARKING SPACES PROVIDED ON, IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS ON SITE.
UM, ALRIGHT, SO YOU'RE, THE, THE, THE STAFF'S THREE MAJOR RESERVATIONS WITH THIS, AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, ARE NUMBER ONE, BUILDING HEIGHT NUMBER TWO, UNBROKEN LENGTH OF ONE BLOCK OF, UH, NINE UNITS AND CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACKS WIDTH, RIGHT.
7.5 FEET INSTEAD OF 10? THAT'S CORRECT.
CAN YOU PLEASE TAKE EACH ONE OF THOSE FACTORS AND EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE PROPOSAL FOR THREE STORIES, NINE UNBROKEN UNITS AND 7.5 FOOT CORNER SETBACKS WOULD, UM, IMPOSE ANY KIND OF HARDSHIP OR DISADVANTAGE OR NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? IF I COULD ANSWER THAT ONE.
SO THE GENERAL PHILOSOPHIES THAT PLAN DEVELOPMENTS SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A WAIVER PROCESS THAT THEY SHOULD BE PROVIDING, UM, SOME ENHANCED LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO GENERALLY WE TRY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STIPULATIONS THAT WE CAN, UNLESS THEY'RE PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENT TO THE SITE AS IS DONE WITH THE OPEN SPACE AND THE TRAIL CONNECTION.
UM, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO JUST MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF, OF PD, UM, STIPULATIONS AND GET CLOSER TO THE BASE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENCE ZONING.
AND THAT'S THE, THAT'S THE REASON THAT STAFF IS UNSUPPORTIVE OF THOSE STIPULATIONS.
BUT DOES THE, DOES THE THREE STORY PROPOSED HEIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, DO ANYTHING CONCRETE THAT'S BAD? IT'S, IT'S HARD TO SAY THAT IT'S BAD.
IT'S A LITTLE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES AROUND THEM.
UM, THERE ARE ONE STORY AND TWO STORIES, BUT MAY OR MAY NOT BE BAD.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND LIMITING THE UNBROKEN LENGTH? UM, THAT GOES BACK TO THE SFA BASED DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE THAT THEY HAVE NO MORE THAN 200 FEET IN LENGTH.
THE IDEA IS TO BREAK UP THE MASSING OF THOSE BUILDINGS AND IT ALSO PROVIDES ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE END CAP UNITS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY AT A HIGHER PREMIUM.
THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE LIGHT AND VISIBILITY.
UM, SO IT'S A AESTHETIC AND A LIVABILITY ISSUE.
I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER BRUNO WAS GOING DOWN THAT, UH, HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, THE TWO STORY CAP, AND I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING AROUND, UM, THAT AREA ZONE FOR TWO JUST FOR MY EDUCATION.
WHAT, WHAT'S THE LOGIC, THE BASIS, THE DATA BEHIND THE REQUIRE A TWO STORY CAP IN LIKE HOW SURPRISED THAT THE MULTIFAMILIES AT A TWO STORY CAP? BECAUSE YOU WOULD THINK THAT IT'S PROBABLY WHERE YOU TAKE A BIT MORE HIDE, BUT JUST TO EDUCATE ON HOW WE CAME UP WITH THAT OLD APARTMENTS.
THE THREE STORY HEIGHT WAS ONLY ALLOWED IN CERTAIN MULTI-FAMILY DISTRICTS FOR DECADES.
THAT'S THE HIGHEST RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT ALLOWED.
AGAIN, NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS LIKE THE, ALONG THE FREEWAYS, THEY CAN GET TALLER THAN THAT.
BUT GENERALLY THREE STORIES HAS BEEN THE HIGHEST.
WHEN, UM, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS BEING PREPARED, IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT THERE ARE THREE STORY, UM, MULTI-FAMILY UNITS OUT THERE THAT ARE WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S CATEGORY.
BUT THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT ONE TO TWO STORIES WAS THE APPROPRIATE RECOMMEND WAS THE DESIRABLE SETTING.
AND THAT GOING TO THREE STORIES SHOULD BE THE TRIGGER FOR THE FINDINGS PROCESS.
SO GIVEN THAT HARD CAP, I, I KNOW THIS, THIS, THIS IS A TOUGH QUESTION, BUT WHAT ELSE COULD BE BUILT HERE? UM, THAT WOULD, BECAUSE ALL OF THE STIPULATIONS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS COME
[00:25:01]
MORE IN COMPLIANCE IS A RETURN ON INVESTMENT ARGUMENT.YOU KNOW, YOU LOSE ONE LOT, YOUR ROI GOES DOWN, YOU LOSE HEIGHT, YOUR RI GOES DOWN, WHAT ELSE CAN BE BUILT HERE UNDER THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING.
THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT, RIGHT? IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE BECAUSE YOUR FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIRES 50 FEET AND THEN YOU'RE ALSO ADJACENT TO MULTIFAMILY AND SO YOUR HEIGHT'S RESTRICTED AND YOU HAVE THAT LARGE, UH, FLOODWAY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT MM-HMM.
AND SO IT WOULD BE A, A CHALLENGE TO DEVELOP THIS AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL HAS IN ADDITION TO ADJACENCY CONCERNS AND THE DRAINAGE AND FLOODWAY EASEMENT.
UM, FIRST THING, COULD YOU BRING BACK UP THE MAP OF, OF OPPOSITION OF THE ONES THAT AREN'T CLOSE FROM THE WHOLE COMMUNITY? I, THAT WENT, YOU WENT THROUGH IT VERY QUICKLY.
I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AGAIN.
UM, MY, UM, IF YOU'D JUST LEAVE IT UP.
UM, MY SECOND QUESTION IS, SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING MOVING FROM A NINE BUILDING UNIT TO TWO FOUR BUILDING UNITS.
IS DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? CORRECT.
SO DOES THAT GET US FROM TWO 50 TO 200? I MEAN, MAYBE I'M MISSING THE MATH HERE, BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD GO FROM TWO 50 TO 200, BUT MAYBE IT WILL.
THE, I'D LIKE TO FIRST, UM, ADDRESS THE RESPONSES RECEIVED.
THE INITIAL REQUEST FOR THIS CASE WAS CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WERE RELATED TO THE REQUEST THAT WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS ATTACHED.
AND THAT REQUEST CHANGED IN THE MIDDLE BEFORE WE CAME TO THIS BODY.
AND SO SOME OF THAT OPPOSITION WAS, CAME FROM THE FIRST ZONING, WHICH HAD THE BASE ZONING AS CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND THE CHANGE PLAN DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, WHICH POTENTIALLY COULD LEAD RESIDENTS TO BELIEVING THAT THIS IS FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IN THE STIPULATIONS WAS NOT TRUE.
IT WAS BEING PROPOSED AS SFA DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO WE REQUESTED THAT THE APPLICANT CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE TO REQUEST PLAN DEVELOPMENT SFA INSTEAD OF CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.
I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I READ ALL THE OPPOSITION AND YEAH.
SO THAT, THAT CLARIFICATION IS GREAT.
AND REGARDING THE BUILDING LENGTH, YOU WIND UP WITH 200 FOOT BUILDINGS.
GET, THERE'S A BUFFER BUFFER, UM, 250 FEET IS WHAT THE STIPULATION, NEVERMIND.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS BAD MOUTH ON MY PART, SO THANK YOU.
UM, AND THEN MY FINAL THING IS, AND AND IT'S SOMEWHAT OBSCURE MAYBE, BUT THERE ARE, UM, FUEL REFUELING STATIONS NEAR HERE AND IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THERE'S ANY KIND OF LEAKAGE, GROUND TANKS, ANYTHING THAT MIGHT AFFECT THIS COMMUNITY, WHICH IS GONNA BE ADJACENT TO IT? DO WE KNOW? I DON'T KNOW MR. BELL.
WE HAVE NO INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT.
BUT IS IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE DO AS A CITY TO, UM, TO ENSURE THAT ON A PROPERTY THAT'S ADJACENT LIKE THAT, THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS PROCESS? IT'S NOT, I THINK IF THEY WERE BUILDING RESIDENTIAL ON A, WHAT WAS A GAS STATION, THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT.
BUT SINCE THIS SITE HAS NOT BEEN HISTORICALLY USED IN THAT MANNER, WE DO NOT.
HEY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH COMMISSIONER RILEY.
UM, QUESTION OF DEFINITION FOR THE STAFF.
I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURES OF THE TOWN HOMES IN THE COLONY AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE FOURTH FLOOR BALCONY, THERE'S ACTUALLY CONDITION SPACE UP THERE IS, WHY IS THAT NOT CONSIDERED A FLOOR IF THERE'S CONDITIONED SPACE AT THE FOURTH LEVEL? I BELIEVE BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENCLOSED.
WELL, THERE, BASED ON THE PICTURES, THERE IS QUITE A BIT, PROBABLY AT LEAST A THIRD OF IT THAT IS ENCLOSED WITH WINDOWS AND DOORS AND MM-HMM.
SO THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ADDRESS, UM, THE COMMISSION TONIGHT WITH THE PRESENTATION AND MAYBE THIS DESIGN IS GOING TO BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED FROM WHAT WE SEE IN THE COLONY.
SO WHAT IS, AND THEY COULD POTENTIALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
SO WHAT IS THE DEFINITION IF IT DOES HAVE CONDITION SPACE, IS IT CONSIDERED A FLOOR? SURE.
UM, MR. BELL, CAN I GET ASSISTANCE WITH THAT DEFINITION? YEAH, LET US, LET'S FIND THEIR DEFINITION FOR YOU REAL QUICK AND WE'LL GET BACK TO, THE REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE I KEEP HEARING THREE STORIES AND I KEEP LOOKING AT THESE PICTURES AND LOOKING AT FOUR STORY BUILDINGS AND THEN THEY VERY CLEARLY GOT FOUR WINDOWS, UM, AND FOUR SETS OF, YOU KNOW, FOUR, FOUR STORY TALL WALLS AND THEY SURE LOOK LIKE FOUR STORY BUILDINGS WITH HALF OF THE TOP FLOOR BEING OUTDOORS.
AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT
[00:30:01]
I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.I CAN ASK THAT OF THE APPLICANT.
BUT I, I WOULD APPRECIATE A DEFINITION OF WHAT A STORY INCLUDES.
WELL, AND I THINK THAT'S A VALID QUESTION.
IT WAS ONE THAT I, I HAD AS WELL AND I'M ASSUMING THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DECK.
SO YOU'RE GONNA HAVE A STAIRWELL AT THE VERY LEAST, THAT COMES UP AND LEADS OUT ONTO THAT DECK.
NOW THE QUESTION IS, IF YOU GO OVER TO LEGACY WEST, THEY HAVE THESE ROOFTOP BEAUTIFUL PATIOS AND STUFF AND YOU COME UP TO THE STAIRS AND THEN THERE'S AN AREA THERE, AND THEN A LOT OF 'EM, THERE'S A KITCHENETTE WITH A LITTLE FRIDGE AND A BAR AND KIND OF A PLACE TO STAGE FOOD SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWNSTAIRS.
QUESTION TO STAFF WOULD BE, WOULD THAT TYPE OF AREA, EVEN THOUGH 80% OF THE FOURTH FLOOR IS OPEN PATIO, WOULD 20% OF THAT AREA BEING AIR CONDITIONED AND FINISHED OUT BE CONSIDERED A STORY? I THINK THE, THE PD STIPULATION THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IS BASED ON THE DESIGN THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT.
SO THE THREE STORY WITH THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE FOURTH FLOOR DECK WAS BASED ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS OF HOW THAT FOURTH FLOOR FLOOR BE USED.
WE'LL SEE THAT, UH, MR. IFF, GO AHEAD.
OH, THAT, THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD THAT HADN'T ALREADY BEEN ASKED, SO THANK YOU.
I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT.
YES, WE HAVE PHYLLIS GERALD, ARE YOU DOING THE PRESENTATION? YES.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, WE DO NOT.
WELL, GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.
I'M PHYLLIS GERALD CITY-CENTRIC PLANNING.
I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT'S FAIRVIEW FARM LAND COMPANY AND P CUSTOM HOMES.
TONIGHT WE ARE REQUESTING REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 26 LOT LUXURY TOWNHOUSE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE HOUSE WILL BE, HOUSES WILL BE THREE STORIES IN HIDE, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH ROOF DECKS FOR OUTDOOR LIVING.
IT WILL ALSO FEATURE PRIVATE BACKYARDS UNITS WILL BE FOR SALE AND RANGE IN SIZE FROM 2,800 TO 3000 SQUARE FEET WITH TWO CAR GARAGES.
UH, P CUSTOM HOMES IS BUILT SIMILAR TOWNHOUSE NEIGHBORHOODS IN BOTH THE COLONY AND IN FARMER'S BRANCH.
AND THEY'VE PROVEN TO BE VERY POPULAR WITH HOME BUYERS.
AND HERE'S JUST A FEW INTERIOR SHOTS THAT KIND OF GIVE YOU AN, UH, AN IDEA OF THE QUALITY OF THE, UH, INTERIOR DEVELOPMENT.
AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EARLIER, PART OF THE PROPERTY DOES LIE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN OF SPRING CREEK AND FLOODPLAIN RECLAMATION WILL BE NECESSARY.
AND WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
ADJACENCY TO THE CREEK, UH, PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A CONNECTION TO FURTHER THE HOMEOWNERS TO CHISHOLM TRAIL.
AND WE WILL BE, UH, ADDING A, A, UH, PAVED TRAIL CONNECTION, UH, FAR DIRECTLY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE ALSO PLAN TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE AS THE DEVELOPMENT PROGRESSES.
ADDITIONAL VISITOR PARKING SPACES WILL ALSO BE PROVIDED AS AS ALONG WITH AN ONSITE DOG PARK FOR THE RESIDENTS.
THIS SLIDE IS A COLOR RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED LOT AND STREET LAYOUT KIND OF HELP HELP YOU VISUALIZE, UH, HOW THE, UH, LOTS WILL BE, UH, DEVELOPED.
AND THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN, WHICH IS ITEM THREE B ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT.
WE ARE REQUESTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT ZONING TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT AS, AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN STAFF'S PRESENTATION.
THE PD STIPULATIONS WILL ADDRESS THIS THREE STORY HEIGHT LIMIT.
WE TRIED TO RESPECT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS THAT ARE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY SETTING MINIMUM SETBACKS FROM THE APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH AND THE CONVENIENCE STORE TO THE SOUTH.
AND WE'LL INSTALL FENCES WITH LIVING SCREENS ALONG THE SAME PROPERTIES.
WHILE THERE IS NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS WITH LESS THAN 50 LOTS, WE ARE COMMITTING TO PROVIDE AT LEAST A HALF ACRE OF OPEN SPACE THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
AND THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THIS, UH, SLIDE SHOWS ONE OF THE ROOF DECKS, AND YOU'RE CORRECT, THERE IS A, UH, PORTION WHERE THE STAIRWAY OR ELEVATOR, THESE, THESE UNITS COULD HAVE ELEVATORS IF, IF THE HOMEOWNER CHOOSES, UH, THEY WOULD COME UP, UH, TO THE, UH, ROOF DECK.
SO THERE IS SOME ENCLOSED SPACE ON THAT.
THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO ROOF DECKS, UH, THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED, UH, IN DOWNTOWN PLANO FOR BOTH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS WELL AS THREE STORY TOWNHOUSES.
SO I THINK THIS DESIGN'S PRETTY TYPICAL FOR ROOF DECKS, BUT THERE ARE AMENITIES
[00:35:01]
ON THE, UH, ROOF DECK, INCLUDING GRILLS, UH, OUTDOOR FIREPLACE, UH, SEATING AREAS.THERE ARE INFILL DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGES.
UH, WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, UH, THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE TRACK HAVE DICTATED THE LOT LAYOUT AND WHILE NOT IDEAL, UH, WE DO HAVE THE EXISTING CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT WITH THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE SHARED DRIVEWAY.
THE SECOND ACCESS IS NEEDED TO ADDRESS TRAFFIC STACKING UP AN ENTERPRISE DRIVE, BUT IT WILL BE REDESIGNED TO LIMIT THE IMPACT ON THE TOWNHOUSES, YET STILL PROVIDE ACCESS FOR BOTH PROPERTIES.
WE DID, UH, PROVIDE INFORMATION TO FIVE NEIGHBORHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IN THE GENERAL AREA.
SEVERAL FOLKS HAVE COMMENTED ON DENSITY AND CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC.
OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES PROVIDE ONLY 26 ADDITIONAL LOTS.
THE TRAFFIC GENERATOR WILL BE LESS THAN MANY COMMERCIAL AND RESTAURANT USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE, THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE PROPERTY.
I WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
WHILE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR NEIGHBORHOODS IS ONE TO TWO STORIES, THE PLAN ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT A VARIETY OF BUILDING HEIGHTS, HOUSING TYPES AND LOT SIZES BE CONSIDERED.
OUR REQUEST IS FOR THREE STORIES OR 45 FEET.
THE PROPERTY IS ON THE EDGE OF A DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL USES.
THE THREE STORY HEIGHT ALLOWS US TO PROVIDE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND AMENITIES THAT TODAY'S HOME BUYERS ARE SEEKING.
AND JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT, THE HEIGHT LIMITS FOR RICE FIELD AND, AND THE TOWNHOUSES IN DOWNTOWN PLANO ARE THREE STORIES OR 50 FEET.
THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CALLED COMMODORE ON PRESTON THAT'S ON RAZOR BOULEVARD.
THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT IS THREE STORIES OR 45 FEET.
SO WE ARE IN KEEPING, UH, WITH OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT.
THE STAFF REPORT ALSO REFERENCES LOSING ONE LOT TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THE PD STIPULATIONS.
NOW EVERY DEVELOPER'S GONNA STAND UP HERE AND TELL YOU WE CAN'T LOSE LOTS.
USUALLY, UH, THE LOT COUNT DOES MATTER IN TERMS OF HAVING A SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT.
WE WORKED WITH STAFF ON SEVERAL LOT LAYOUTS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND THE RESULT IS A MORE, IS A BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT DESIGN.
AND WE APPRECIATE STAFFS, UH, WORKING WITH US, UH, TO COME UP WITH THESE IMPROVEMENTS.
WE DID ALREADY LOSE AT LEAST ONE LOT IN THAT PROCESS.
HOWEVER, TO SUMMARIZE, WE BELIEVE THAT THREE STORY TOWNHOUSES ARE AN APPROPRIATE USE ON THE EDGE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING NEW HOUSING OPTIONS FOR HOME BUYERS AND WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE REVITALIZATION OF THE S 75 CORRIDOR.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE.
UH, WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF FAIRVIEW FARM LAND COMPANY, UH, TONIGHT AS WELL AS MARIA BONILLA WHO'S THE HYDROLOGIST, DESIGNING THE FLOODPLAIN RECLAMATION.
UM, WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS YOU SAID SO.
ALRIGHT, SO WE'LL QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS PROJECT.
UH, I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE EXTRA HEIGHT TO UNDERSTAND THE, UH, RELUCTANCE TO LOSE AN ADDITIONAL LOT.
AND THANKS FOR THE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT THAT YOU'VE ALREADY LOST ONE LOT.
STILL, I SEE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE BUILT IN THE COLONY.
UM, IT STILL FEELS LIKE A VERY WEIRD SPOT FOR LUXURY TOWN HOMES.
UM, GIVEN THE CHALLENGES OF THE AREA, GIVEN WHAT IS AROUND, THERE IS NO LAKE LOUISVILLE AROUND THERE, UH, WHY CHOOSE THIS SPOT IS ESSENTIALLY THE QUESTION.
WELL, I, I THINK CERTAINLY P CUSTOM HOMES, UH, SEES AN OPPORTUNITY, UH, TO SELL HOUSES IN THIS LOCATION.
UH, I THINK, UH, MR. WARREN PACKER, WHO, WHO'S THE HOME BUILDER, WAS ATTRACTED BY THE LOCATION IN TERMS OF ITS ACCESS TO US 75.
UH, THE COLONY DEVELOPMENT IS VERY SIMILAR IN TERMS OF IT'S ADJACENT TO AUTOMOTIVE USES AS WELL.
UH, BUT, UH, THEY, HE'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN SELLING THE TOWNHOUSES IN THAT DEVELOPMENT.
UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK HE JUST SEES OPPORTUNITY, UH, UH, FOR A SUCCESSFUL NEIGHBORHOOD.
HE THINKS BUYERS WILL PURCHASE HOUSES IN THIS LOCATION.
UM, WHICH ONE OF THE TWO IS A DEAL BREAKER LOSING AN EXTRA LOT OR RESTRICTING THE HEIGHT? IF WE, IF STAFF IS ON SHAKING ON ONE OF THE TWO,
[00:40:01]
WHAT'S THE WELL, WE CERTAINLY WOULD, WOULD HOPE THAT YOU COULD WORK WITH US ON BOTH OF THOSE THINGS BECAUSE WE THINK, WE DO THINK IT, UH, GIVES US A, UH, MORE SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT.UM, AND IF I HAD TO TO CHOOSE, UH, YOU KNOW, I, I THINK THE HEIGHT IS MORE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL SUCCESS AND BEING ABLE TO SELL A UNIT THAT IS ATTRACTIVE TO TODAY'S HOME BUYERS.
THEY WANT THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE.
UH, THEY WANT TO HAVE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACES SO THAT, THAT WOULD BE, UH, THE PRIORITY.
I'M GLAD TO HEAR YOU YOU SAY THAT.
'CAUSE I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITY THERE AND I REALIZE THERE'S A COUPLE OTHER PEOPLE WITH QUESTIONS, BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, LOSING A LOT ON THAT LONG STRETCH I THINK CERTAINLY BREAKS US UP.
IT MAKES IT FEEL A LITTLE LESS OVERWHELMING, BUT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELL LAND BACK WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY KIND OF IMPROVEMENT.
UM, BUT CERTAINLY THE TWO NEIGHBORS THAT BACK UP TO WHERE THAT LOT WAS AT, YOU'RE GONNA LOSE A LITTLE BIT 'CAUSE YOU'RE GONNA WANT TO TRY TO GET TO THE 10 FOOT SETBACKS, BUT THEN YOU COULD SELL THAT STRIPED SIDE YARD.
THOSE UNITS WILL HAVE MORE WINDOWS IN THEM.
UH, THEY COULD CERTAINLY GO FOR A PREMIUM.
SO I COULD SEE, I COULD SEE THAT THE HEIGHT IS, I THINK IT'S PART OF THE INNOVATION OF, OF THE PROJECT.
UM, BUT ALRIGHT, I, I'VE GOT OFF COURSE MR. RATLIFF.
UM, PHYLLIS, YOU KNOW, I I LIVED IN RICE FIELDS FOR FOUR YEARS.
I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIRD FLOOR ROOF DECKS.
BEEN ON, BEEN ON THEM MANY, MANY EVENINGS.
UM, WHERE I'M STRUGGLING IS YOU ENCAPSULATED MY ARGUMENT EXACTLY OR MY, MY STRUGGLE EXACTLY, WHICH IS THE HEIGHT LIMITS ARE THE SAME.
AND THEY'RE BOTH CALLED THREE STORIES.
BUT AT RICE FIELDS, THE THIRD FLOOR IS THE BALCONY.
YOU'RE TALKING LIKE A FOURTH FLOOR OF THE BALCONY.
I I KNOW WHAT THE VISTA LOOKS LIKE OFF A THIRD FLOOR BALCONY AT RICE FIELDS.
YOU'RE UP THERE IN THE AIR A LONG WAY.
AND I CAN ONLY IMAGINE ANOTHER FLOOR ABOVE THAT.
UM, IT, IT, THE DEFINITION IS WHAT I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH.
THESE LOOK LIKE, FEEL LIKE, ACT LIKE A FOUR STORY TOWN HOME.
AND RICE FIELDS LOOKS LIKE, ACTS LIKE LIVES LIKE A THREE STORY TOWN HOME.
AND SO I, I'M HAVING TROUBLE MAKING THESE EQUIVALENT TO RICE FIELDS BECAUSE RICE FIELDS ARE THREE FLOORS, TWO SETS OF STAIRS, THREE FLOORS.
THESE ARE THREE SETS OF STAIRS, FOUR FLOORS.
UM, AND SO CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE,
'CAUSE THAT ALSO COMES INTO PLAY WITH THESE, UH, TOWNHOUSES THAT ARE THIS HEIGHT.
UM, I DO KNOW THAT IN TOWN HOMES HAS HAD, UH, TOWNHOUSES APPROVED IN DOWNTOWN PLANO.
UH, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BUILT YET.
BUT THERE IS, THERE ARE PROVISIONS, UH, FOR, FOR VERY SIMILAR TO THIS THREE STORIES.
AND IN THE UPPER FLOOR, THERE'S A ROOF DECK ON TOP OF THE, THE THIRD STORY.
SO, UH, IT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE CITY, UH, YOU KNOW, AND HAS BEEN THROUGH BUILDING CODE ISSUES AND THAT TYPE OF THING.
UM, SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, UH, WE THINK THAT IT, IT CERTAINLY ADDS THE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE THAT TODAY'S HOME BUYERS ARE LOOKING FOR.
UM, AND IT'S NOT A TOTALLY ENCLOSED FOURTH FLOOR.
ONLY THE STAIRWAY THAT COMES UP IS WHAT IS ENCLOSED AND CONDITIONED.
I UNDERSTAND FROM A MARKETING PERSPECTIVE THE VALUE OF THE, FOR, OF THE, OF THE PATIO, OF THE ROOFTOP PATIO UNQUESTIONABLY, LIKE I SAID, BEEN MANY EVENINGS ON ONE.
UM, THE STRUGGLE I HAVE IS THAT IN MY MIND, WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A FOUR STORY DEVELOPMENT IN A, IN A, UM, DISTRICT.
UH, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A 50% VARIANCE.
WE'RE ASKING FOR A HUNDRED PERCENT VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT.
AND THAT'S WHAT I'M, I'LL JUST BE HONEST, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT BECAUSE I, I, I FEEL LIKE THAT IS A MUCH, MUCH LARGER VARIANCE THAN THREE STORIES.
I, I FEEL LIKE THIS, THIS FEELS LIKE A FOUR STORY BUILDING TO ME.
SO, UM, UH, YOU'VE GOT THE YARDS.
I MEAN, IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL, DON'T GET ME WRONG.
I THINK IT'S A VERY INNOVATIVE PRODUCT.
I'M JUST REALLY STRUGGLING WITH A FOUR STORY BUILDING ADJACENT TO TWO STORY RESIDENTIAL.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, UH, I WOULD ASK IF THERE ARE, UH, ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS THAT WE COULD PLACE THAT WOULD, COULD CONTROL THE, UH, ROOF DECK DESIGN.
UH, CERTAINLY IF YOU HAVE A ROOF DECK, PEOPLE ARE GONNA USE IT THERE.
YOU KNOW, THEY'RE, THEY'RE GOING TO ADD FURNITURE, OF COURSE THEY'RE GONNA GRILLS AND, YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY ALL OF THAT.
SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT IN PRACTICALITY WE COULD LIMIT THE USE, BUT IF, IF THERE ARE CERTAIN DESIGN
[00:45:01]
ASPECTS THAT ARE TROUBLESOME THAT WE COULD ADDRESS, CERTAINLY WILLING TO DO THAT.MY MY CONCERN IS, UH, IS BEING ABLE TO LOOK OFF THE DECK INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD, THAT'S MY CONCERN.
AND FROM 40 SOMETHING FEET IN THE AIR, YOU CAN SEE INTO A LOT OF BACKYARDS.
UH, AND, AND THAT'S MY CONCERN.
AND I DON'T KNOW THAT A DESIGN ELEMENT SOLVES THAT BECAUSE I THINK THE WHOLE REASON YOU'RE BUILDING IT IS FOR THE VIEW
AND IF I ASKED YOU TO PUT EIGHT FOOT WALLS ALL AROUND IT, THAT KIND OF DESTROYS THE CONCEPT, RIGHT? THAT'S, THAT'S CORRECT.
AND SO, UM, I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A SOLUTION THERE.
UM, I KNOW MOST OF THE RESIDENTIAL IS TO THE NORTH SIDE AND MAYBE, MAYBE THERE'S A, UM, I'M NOT GONNA SIT UP HERE AND TRY TO REDESIGN YOUR PROJECT.
THAT'S NOT SURE, THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE.
UM, BUT, BUT THAT'S MY CONCERN.
I JUST WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY, MY RESERVATION IS A FOUR STORY BUILDING.
SO THANK YOU CHAIRMAN, MR. RUNOFF.
UM, I'VE BEEN THINKING A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THIS.
AND THE FIRST THING I NOTICED WAS THAT THIS IS SORT OF AN ODDLY SHAPED LOT, UM, THAT'S SORT OF SITTING THERE BY ITSELF.
I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF AN ORPHAN LOT.
OKAY? AND THE STAFF HAS ALREADY TOLD US THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REALLY ISN'T PRACTICAL THERE FOR THE REASONS THEY STATED, WHICH LEAVES US WITH SOME FORM OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
SO GIVEN THE, YOU KNOW, AND YOU HAVE A, A DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS, WHICH IS A MAJOR, YOU KNOW, A, A MAJOR CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR PEOPLE.
IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE, THE, THE THING THAT GAVE ME THE GREATEST PAUSE WITH THIS WASN'T SO MUCH THE HEIGHT BECAUSE I WAS THINKING THAT GIVEN THAT THIS IS AN ORPHAN LOT, YOU KNOW, SOME CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES IS, IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE HERE.
THAT MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE ON A ANOTHER LOT AT ANOTHER LOCATION.
BUT WHAT, WHAT WAS GIVING ME PAUSE WAS THAT UNBROKEN BUILDING WITH NINE UNITS IN THE MIDDLE.
AND THE REASON IS THERE'S ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY, AND I'M NOT GONNA USE ANY NAMES OR LOCATIONS, BUT JUST THERE IS ANOTHER UNIT THAT I HAVE IN MIND THAT WE, YOU KNOW, I DRIVE BY FREQUENTLY, UM, THAT HAS SOME AWFULLY LONG BUILDINGS FACING THE STREET.
AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, IN MY OPINION, THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS UH, LET'S SAY NOT AS ATTRACTIVE AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN AND NOT AS GREAT AN ASSET TO THE CITY AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN FOR THAT REASON.
AND I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF THAT LONG BLOCK OF NINE UNITS WAS BROKEN UP INTO TWO BY REMOVING ONE UNIT AND MOVING THEM A LITTLE CLOSER TOGETHER TO INCREASE THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS ON THE ENDS AS, YOU KNOW, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING.
SO THE QUESTION I WANNA PUT TO YOU IS THIS, AND, AND I HAVE NOT POLLED THE COMMISSION.
I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHERS ARE THINKING PARTICULARLY, BUT, UH, IF HYPOTHETICALLY WE WERE, UM, WILLING TO CUT YOU SOME SLACK ON THE HEIGHT, COULD YOU LIVE WITH, I'M NOT SAYING WOULD IT BE YOUR FIRST CHOICE, BUT COULD YOU LIVE WITH REMOVING A UNIT OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THAT LONG BLOCK AND GIVING US BACK THE, THE REQUIRED SETBACKS SO THAT WE HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, TWO BUILDINGS OF, OF FOUR UNITS INSTEAD OF A LONG BUILDING OF NINE? SO LET'S, LET'S, LET'S HOLD THAT QUESTION, SPECIFIC QUESTION RIGHT NOW.
AND LET'S, UH, LET ME LET OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC VERSUS A DESIGN ELEMENT, BUT SPECIFIC TO IT.
'CAUSE WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE USE OF THE LAND PRIMARILY.
NOW WE CAN REQUIRE IT'S LEGISLATIVE, WE CAN REQUIRE SOME DISCRETION ON THIS AND, AND I THINK WE'LL GET THERE, BUT, WELL, I ONLY ASKED IT BECAUSE THE STAFF POINTED IT OUT AS ONE OF THEIR MAJOR, MAJOR OBJECTIVE.
AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN ASKED ONCE, AND THEIR PREFERENCE WOULD BE OBVIOUSLY HEIGHT, THE END NUMBER OF BUILDINGS.
BUT LET'S, LET'S GET TO A POINT OF WHERE WE KIND OF DECIDE IS THE LAND USE APPROPRIATE AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM THERE.
SO DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION BESIDES, NOPE, THAT WAS IT.
AND IT'S NOT AN UN INVALID POINT, AND I THINK WE'RE GONNA, MR. BRONSKI, WELL FIRST I WANNA SAY, UH, THANK YOU FOR, UH, CONSIDERING PLANO.
UM, I DO THINK THAT, UM, DEVELOPMENTS OF THIS KIND ARE INNOVATIVE AND CREATIVE.
UH, I DO STRUGGLE WITH THE IDEA OF THE FOURTH, UH, FLOOR.
UH, BUT I'M GONNA START WITH, UH,
[00:50:01]
MY FIRST QUESTION IS, YOU MENTIONED, UH, WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK YOU SAID FIVE DIFFERENT.CAN YOU, UH, CAN YOU GIVE ME THE SENSE OF, OF FEEDBACK YOU RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY AND THEN WHAT YOU GUYS DID WITH IT? WELL, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK DIRECTLY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
UM, I SENT OUT INFORMATION, THE PLAN PICTURES OF THE COLONY, YOU KNOW, SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT THE TOWNHOUSES WOULD LOOK LIKE, UH, HAD SENT THOSE OUT.
UH, AND THEN WHEN THE CASE WAS TABLED, UH, ON DECEMBER 18TH, IN ADVANCE OF THAT MEETING, I HAD SENT OUT INFORMATION JUST SO THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS WOULD KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE CASE.
BUT I DID, UH, NO, UH, NO REQUEST TO MEET WITH GROUPS, ALTHOUGH CERTAINLY HAPPY TO DO THAT.
UM, BUT UH, SO THAT WAS, SO YOU, YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY GO OUT AND MEET WITH HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATIONS? WE DID, NO, WE, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, WE CERTAINLY WOULD, WOULD HAVE DONE THAT HAD WE BEEN ASKED TO DO SO.
UM, MY SECOND QUESTION, AND I I DO HAVE TO SAY I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BRUNO, UH, ABOUT A PARTICULAR HOUSING OR DEVELOPMENT.
UM, MY QUESTION IS, AS I'M LOOKING AT THE, UM, THE COLONY, UH, BUILDING ITSELF, THE FACADE AND THE, IT LOOKS VERY INDUSTRIAL, UH, DOES THAT, DOES THAT REALLY FIT WITHIN THE, THE FULL CONCEPT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT'S GOING INTO? WELL, I, I THINK FIRST OF ALL, MO MORE MODERN HOUSE DESIGNS ARE POPULAR NOW WITH HOME BUYERS.
UH, THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIALLY DATES FROM THE SEVENTIES, EIGHTIES, AND NINETIES.
SO I THINK ANYTHING THAT WILL BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY IN RESIDENTIAL TERMS IS GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT.
SO, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDER IS TRYING TO MEET THOSE DEMANDS AND DESIRES, UH, AND CREATE A PRODUCT HE KNOWS HE CAN SELL.
AND YOU, YOU MENTIONED THE SCREENING WALL, UH, ATTEND.
WHAT WAS THE, UH, HEIGHT OF THE SCREENING WALL WE'RE PROPOSING TO, TO INSTALL SIX FOOT TALL METAL FENCES ALONG THE APARTMENT PROPERTY LINE AND THE CONVENIENCE STORE PROPERTY LINE AND SUPPLEMENT THAT WITH LIVING SCREEN.
UM, SO THERE'S NO WALLS BUT CERTAINLY FENCES IN LIVING SCREEN THAT WOULD BE BUILT.
SO HYPOTHETICALLY, A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET PER FLOOR.
I SAID 3000 SQUARE FEET WAS THE UPPER END, SO WE GOT A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET PER FLOOR, THE FOURTH FLOOR.
WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT A THOUSAND FEET WOULD BE CONSIDERED CONDITIONED? YOU KNOW, THE, UH, DEVELOPMENT IN THE COLONY, THOSE UNITS, THE CONDITION SPACE IS ABOUT 72 SQUARE FEET, SIX BY 12, NOT VERY BIG.
SO THIS COMING UP, SO THAT'S NOT REALLY LIVING SPACE, IT'S NOT CONDITION SPACE.
UM, ANY IDEA WHAT THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THAT RETENTION WALL IS ON THE BACKSIDE TO ALLEVIATE THE FLOODPLAIN ISSUE? I DON'T KNOW, BUT, UH, WE CAN ASK OUR HYDROLOGIST.
WHO IS HERE? DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? EIGHT FEET.
YOU WANT ME TO HAVE HER COME DOWN OR HAS IT GOT NO, NOPE.
I JUST WONDERED WHAT THAT HEIGHT IS.
SO, AND BASED ON THE PLAN, GO BACK TO THIS, THAT EIGHT FEET, UH, RETENTION WALL IS NOT AT THE BACKYARDS OF THE UNITS.
THERE'S ACTUALLY SPACE BETWEEN THE BACKYARDS AND THAT RETENTION WALL.
IS THERE ANY PROTECTION OR ANYTHING TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM FALLING OFF THAT EIGHT FOOT RETENTION WALL? UH, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR YET IN, IN THE DESIGN WE ARE AT THE CONCEPT PLAN STAGE, BUT CERTAINLY IF THAT'S A CONCERN, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT, IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A CONCERN OF MINE.
THAT SOMEBODY WOULD WANDER ALONG THE SIDE IN THE OPEN SPACE OR WHATEVER IN THE DARK AND FALL OFF AN EIGHT FOOT HIGH RETENTION WALL.
I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUESTIONS THERE, SO LET'S, OKAY.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE CAN HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS.
[00:55:01]
I, I I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME GOOD QUESTIONS ASK HERE AND A LOT OF GOOD VETTING OF THIS PRODUCT, UH, THIS PROJECT.UM, I THINK COMMISSIONER BRUNO OVER HERE REALLY, UM, OUTLINED MY THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PROPERTY.
I THINK COMMISSIONER LEY WAS TALKING ABOUT REALLY WHAT ELSE MIGHT GO IN HERE.
AND I, I PERSONALLY LIKE THIS PROJECT AND NOTWITHSTANDING COMMISSIONER RATLIFFS CONCERNS ABOUT THE FOUR LEVELS, BUT FRANKLY, PERSONALLY, I LIKE THE FOUR LEVELS.
I THINK IT DOES SOMETHING INTERESTING.
I'VE REALLY BEEN LOOKING AT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.
I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT'S EGREGIOUS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, BACKYARDS WERE MENTIONED AS I SURVEY THE AREA, I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY BACKYARDS COULD BE LOOKED INTO 'CAUSE I DON'T SEE A LOT OF THEM.
AND, AND SO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S APARTMENTS AROUND HERE, MULTI-FAMILY, BUT MAYBE SOME, UM, AND SO I, I PERSONALLY LIKE THIS PROJECT.
I THINK IT IS CREATIVE, BUT IT'S UNIQUE.
IT'S IN AN AREA WE NEED HOUSING IN THIS TOWN.
UM, THE PRICING HERE IS MAYBE, UM, IT'S AWFUL ON THE FRINGE OF BEING, IT'S ON THE FRINGE OF MAYBE AFFORDABILITY IN THE WORLD WE LIVE IN.
MAYBE, YOU KNOW, IN THE WORLD WE LIVE IN TODAY.
BUT I DO SHARE THE, THE CONCERN ABOUT THE, THE 200 FEET IN THE LONG BUILDING AND, UM, I, I WOULD LOBBY TO SEE IF THEY COULD IN FACT GIVE UP ONE MORE UNIT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THEY'VE GIVEN UP ONE ALREADY.
UM, I LIKE THE HEIGHT PERSONALLY FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, SO I, I THINK IT'S VERY UNIQUE AND I THINK THEY WON'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE SELLING THESE AND WITH THE, THE PROXIMITY TO A LOT OF OTHER THINGS HERE.
SO, UM, I, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS EXCEPT FOR THE ONE CAVEAT THAT WAS LAID OUT BY STAFF.
AND SO, UH, I GUESS THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT.
I WOULD JUST REITERATE THAT, UM, I CAME IN HERE AFTER READING A STAFF REPORT AND THE, THE 10 LAW OR THE NINE, THE NINE UNITS IN A ROW THERE, I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE BROKEN UP AND I'D LIKE TO SEE THOSE, UH, A SIDEWALK ACTUALLY BETWEEN, BETWEEN THOSE UNITS SO THAT THE 10, 11, 12, 13 AND 14 COULD COME OUT THROUGH THEIR YARD AND THEN COME THROUGH THAT, UM, THAT GREEN BELT IF YOU WILL, AND COME THROUGH THE NEXT GREEN BELT.
AND I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT TRAIL ACCESS ALL CONNECT THAT TO THE MIDDLE AND THEN THAT SIDEWALK WOULD TIE THOSE FOUR PARKING SPOTS.
UM, FOR OVERFLOW PARKING, YOU KNOW, IT, IT JUST TIES EVERYTHING AND BRINGS PEOPLE TO THE MIDDLE INSTEAD OF SENDING 'EM OUT TO THE EDGES.
AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT, THE HEIGHT DOESN'T BOTHER ME.
I THINK WITH THE AGE OF THE MULTIFAMILY AROUND IT, I THINK IN THE NEXT 10 YEARS OR SO, WE'LL PROBABLY BE LOOKING AT A THREE STORY DEVELOPMENT THERE.
AND SO, UM, THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THE ONE, THE, THE ONE LOT GIVEN UP, LOT FIVE, AND THEN MOVE THAT GREEN BELT MAYBE OVER BETWEEN FOUR AND FIVE ON THAT WESTERNMOST SIDE AND SEE A SIDEWALK CONNECTING EVERYONE THROUGH THE MIDDLE.
AND I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
UM, OVERALL I THINK IT'S AN INNOVATIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LAYOUT.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE TOWN HOMES.
UH, I DON'T HAVE, FRANKLY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH A LONG BUILDING.
I UNDERSTAND THE, THE PERSPECTIVE THAT IT'S BETTER BROKEN UP AND I THINK PERSONALLY I THINK IT IS BETTER.
UM, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT AFFECTS MY OPINION OF THE LAND USE.
WHERE I DO HAVE A PROBLEM IS WITH FOUR STORIES.
AND I, I NOW, ESPECIALLY HEARING THAT THE RETAINING WALL AT THE BACK IS GONNA BE EIGHT FEET TALL.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE GONNA, GOING DOWN THE CHISHOLM TRAIL, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 45 FOOT TALL BUILDING ON TOP OF AN EIGHT FOOT WALL, YOU'RE GONNA BE 53 FEET UP IN THE AIR TO THAT BALCONY, UH, OVERLOOKING THE CHISHOLM TRAIL.
AND, AND THAT'S A, THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL VERTICAL.
YOU'RE NOT GONNA SEE THE SUNRISE ON THE CHISHOLM TRAIL EVER AGAIN.
UH, AND, AND THAT, THAT CONCERNS ME, UM, FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, THAT THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT DEVIATION FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD.
AND, UM, I'M, I'M NOT SURE I CAN, UH, I CAN SUPPORT THAT, UH, FOR THAT REASON.
UM, SO, UH, BUT I, I DO LIKE THE PRODUCT.
I DO LIKE THE CONCEPT, I DO LIKE THE USE OF THIS PIECE OF LAND.
I JUST HAVE TROUBLE WITH THE HEIGHT.
A LOT OF WHAT COMMISSIONER ATLEY SAID, UM, I'M TORN BECAUSE I, TO THE QUESTION I ASKED STAFF, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ELSE COULD GO IN HERE.
IT'S A CHALLENGE AND PIECE OF PROPERTY TO SAY THE LEAST.
UM, I HAVE NO DOUBT IT WILL SELL BECAUSE HOUSING SUPPLY IS LOW.
UM, I LIKE MODERN, I'LL BUY THAT IN A HEARTBEAT.
YOU KNOW, THAT'S THE STYLE OF THE, OF THE AGE.
[01:00:01]
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WORKING WITH STAFF CAN DO THAT ACTUALLY HELPS.YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T REMOVE THE FLOOD PLANE.
IT, IT IS THERE
UM, THE FOLKS THAT ARE OVERSEEING THE FLOOD PLANE WOULD PROBABLY HAVE THE BEST VIEW.
UH, HAVING A FOUR FOOT VIEW INTO THE GAS STATION AREA, YOU KNOW, MIGHT NOT EXACTLY BE WHAT I HOPE I, I'M TORN.
UM, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS REMAINS AS IS.
UM, AND CONSIDERING, CONSIDERING THE PREMIUM THE LAND IS WITHIN PLANO AND THE DI NEED OF HOUSING, THAT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE A GOOD ENOUGH ANSWER TO ME.
BUT I'M SORRY, MR. BURNOFF, UM, THANK YOU.
TAKING INTO ACCOUNT YOUR SUGGESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN AND SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS, UM, AND OPERATING FROM A PREMISE THAT, UM, WE CAN LIVE WITH THE HEIGHT AS PROPOSED, AND I KNOW MAYBE SOME COMMISSIONERS CAN'T, BUT I CAN, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THEY, THE, THE OVERALL, YOU KNOW, STRUCTURE OF WHAT WE CAN DO HERE IS TO APPROVE THE ITEM WITH THE STIPULATIONS THAT NO BUILDING SHALL EXCEED 200 FEET IN LENGTH.
LET THEM WORRY ABOUT HOW TO DO THAT.
WHICH UNIT, IF ANY, TO TAKE OUT.
I'M NOT GONNA SPECIFY A UNIT NUMBER, BUT JUST NO BUILDING WOULD EXCEED 200 FEET IN LENGTH.
SIDE YARD SETBACKS ON THE ENDS WOULD BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCES AND THAT A FENCE BE CONSTRUCTED ATOP THE RETAINING WALL TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM FALLING OFF.
SO YEAH, IT'S NOT A MOTION, BUT YOU'RE PUTTING OUT THERE KIND OF THE, THE STIPULATIONS THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE WITHIN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
THAT'S WHAT WE, THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO.
AND, AND ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS WAS WE WOULD ACCEPT THE BILLING.
WE COULD SAY WE'RE NOT GONNA ACCEPT THAT STIPULATION.
THEY'RE STILL WITHHELD, THEY'RE STILL HELD TO THE 200 FOOT LIMIT.
THEY GET TO DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO LAY THAT PIECE OUT.
UM, AND KEEP IN MIND, ANY CHANGES WE'RE MAKING HERE IS GONNA FLOW THROUGH TO THE CONCEPT PLAN, WHICH ALSO REQUIRES APPROVAL, MR. BRONSKI.
SO, UH, AS I'VE SAID MORE THAN ONCE, I REALLY DO THINK THIS IS INNOVATIVE AND CREATIVE.
UM, BUT I, I'M REALLY HAVING A PROBLEM, UH, AS WE CONTINUE TO TRY TO DECONSTRUCT AND THEN RECONSTRUCT THIS PLAN, UH, UH, ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT OUR STAFF HAS SAID AND, UH, WHAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, IT WOULD BE MY, I WOULD FEEL A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE, UM, GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK WITH THE FEEDBACK WE'VE HAD, UH, AND TABLE IT TO LET THEM WORK WITH STAFF AND SEE IF THEY CAN ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS RATHER THAN HAVING US CONTINUE TO ENGINEER IT OURSELVES.
LET, WHY DON'T WE LET OUR EXPERTS TAKE CARE OF THAT AND, UH, GO FROM THERE.
UH, I'M NOT GONNA MAKE THAT AS A MOTION, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION.
I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
I I THINK THAT, AND I, I SEE THERE'S SOME OTHER, MY ONLY COMMENT THERE IS THAT THERE, THEY MAY HAVE A PLAN B
AND RATHER THAN DELAY THE PROCESS, IF WE SIMPLY SAID, LOOK, WE'RE GONNA HOLD YOU TO THE 200 FOOT LIMIT, THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT.
THE ONLY THING THAT I SEE REALLY HERE IS THAT THAT BOTHERS ME BEYOND THAT IS THAT RETENTION WALL WITH NO PROTECTION OFF THE BACK OF IT.
'CAUSE IT'S A GREEN BELT, IT'S A GREEN AREA SPACE RIGHT THERE ON THAT, THAT JUST BOTHERS ME A LITTLE BIT, BUT, ALL RIGHT.
MR. IFF, I CAN ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU.
'CAUSE CODE IS GONNA REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE A PROTECTED FENCE AT THE TOP OF THAT WALL.
SO THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE THERE.
HOW WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS UP TO THEM.
WELL, TO YOUR POINT EARLIER, I'D RATHER IT BE PROBABLY WROUGHT IRON OR SOMETHING RATHER THAN SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT A 16 FOOT VERTICAL WALL THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO THE TRAIL.
UM, MY, MY, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF.
IN THE INTERIM OF ALL OF OUR DEBATE, HAS ANYBODY BEEN ABLE TO DECIPHER THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR? YES.
THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF FLOOR.
THERE IS A DEFINITION OF STORY, STORY THAT WORKS.
THE HEIGHT BETWEEN THE SUCCESSIVE FLOORS OF A BUILDING OR FROM THE TOP FLOOR TO THE ROOF.
THE HEIGHT BETWEEN THE SUCCESSIVE FLOORS OF A BUILDING OR FROM THE TOP FLOOR TO THE ROOF.
SO WOULD THE FOURTH DECK PATIO WOULD BE CALLED THE TOP FLOOR? 'CAUSE THAT'S A FLOOR YOU CAN STAND ON IT, IT MAY ALSO BE THE ROOF, BUT YOU HAVE A, BUT THERE'S
[01:05:01]
A ROOF ABOVE THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT ENCLOSED AREA.I, I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN OUT, BUT IF WE WANNA MAKE IT MORE CLEAR OKAY.
IF, IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THE COMMISSION'S GOING, WE CAN MODIFY THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE CLEAR THAT IT INCLUDES THE LANDING SPACE, UM, AND THE ELEVATOR OR STAIRWELL.
SO I'M GONNA PUT YOU ON THE SPOT BASED ON THE PICTURE THAT THEY PROVIDED US.
IS THAT A THREE STORY OR A FOUR STORY STRUCTURE BASED ON THAT DEFINITION? MAYBE THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION.
WELL, IF YOU CAN STAND ON TOP OF THE 45 FEET, IT'S DIFFERENT THAN IF THE ROOF IS AT 45 FEET.
STAND ON TOP OF AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.
IT DOESN'T MAKE IT 16 FEET TALL.
WELL, BUT I'M, I'M LOOKING AT MY EXPERIENCE AT RICE FIELDS WHERE THE 45 FEET IS TO THE TOP OF THE RIDGE OF THE ROOF ABOVE THE TOP FLOOR.
VERSUS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THE 45 FEET, YOU CAN ACTUALLY BE STANDING AT 45 FEET.
AND THAT'S IS, IS THE 45 FOOT HEIGHT TO THE TOP OF THE STAIRWELLS AND STUFF, OR IS THAT 45 FEET TO THE DECK OF THE PATIO? THE ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINES HEIGHT AS TO THE TALLEST ELEMENT ON THE BUILDING.
AND THAT WOULD BE THE TOP OF THE, UH, ACCESS.
UH, SO, SO IT'S NOT 45 FEET, THE PATIO, IT'S 45 FEET TO THE TOP OF THE STAIRWELL ACCESS.
THAT'S THE CLARITY I'M LOOKING FOR.
SO YOU'RE NOT STANDING ON TOP OF THAT.
BUT EXCUSE ME, YOU COULD, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOME OF US, REGARDLESS OF THE DEFINITION, ARE GONNA HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THIS.
THAT'S WHAT SEEMS LISTENING TO THE DISCUSSION.
SO, SO WE, WE'VE GOT, LET'S CALL IT 45 FEET, THREE STORIES, TWO STORIES, FOUR STORIES.
IT'S 45 FEET AND THAT'S THE TOP OF THOSE TALLEST PARTS OF THE BUILDING.
UH, I MAY, MR. LAU, I WAS MR. RAT, IF I WAS COMMISSIONER RAT, IF I WAS THINKING ABOUT YOUR EARLIER CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT THAT WE'RE STILL KIND OF ON THAT TOPIC AND THEN THE EIGHT FOOT WALL.
AND I WAS LOOKING AT THE ZONING EXHIBIT THAT'S EARLIER IN THE PACKET.
AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR PHYLLIS, IF I MAY, CHAIRMAN, MAY I ASK PHYLLIS A QUESTION? MAY YOU ASK WHO? PHYLLIS.
MR. GERALD, HANG ON ONE SECOND.
YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK? I WAS JUST TRYING TO, YEAH, I WAS JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT ON THE ZONING EXHIBIT WHERE THE TRAIL IS, BECAUSE THERE'S, ALRIGHT, SO I'M, I'M GONNA READ UP TO THE PUBLIC HEARING SO THAT WE CAN CONTINUE DIALOGUE WITH THE APP.
ON THE ZONING EXHIBIT, MS. GERALD, DO YOU, IS THE, THERE'S, THERE'S ELEVATION SHOWN 6 0 5, 6 0 6, 6 0 7.
IS THE TRAIL JUST OFF THAT BACK PROPERTY OR THAT WESTERN PROPERTY LINE? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING TRAIL? THE EXISTING TRAIL, UM, THE EXISTING TRAIL IS FURTHER IN, CLOSER TO THE CREEK THAN WHERE OUR RETAINING WALL WILL BE.
YOU CAN SEE IT ON THIS AERIAL, IT'S ON THE SCREEN.
UH, AND OUR RETAINING WALL WILL BE PROBABLY ABOUT WHERE THAT TREE LINE IS SO THAT THERE'S STILL QUITE A BIT OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN EVEN AFTER RECLAMATION.
SO YOU'D BE ON THE TRAIL AND THEN THERE'S GONNA BE THIS GENTLE RISE AND THEN THERE'S GONNA BE A WALL.
AND THEN THERE'S GONNA BE THE BUILDING.
SO BECAUSE OF THE, THE SETBACK THAT'S CREATED BY THE FLOODPLAIN, THE HEIGHT FROM THAT TRAIL PERSPECTIVE DOESN'T MATTER TO ME AS MUCH EITHER.
THE TRAIL IS LOW THERE BECAUSE IT'S COMING UNDER PARKER.
I WALKED THIS THING A MONTH AGO.
UM, BUT THE BUILDING HEIGHT AGAIN DOESN'T, DOESN'T BOTHER ME.
I, I THINK, I THINK I'M THROUGH, UH, WITH THIS RIGHT NOW, SO I'M GONNA CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN.
UM, I, I SUGGEST, CAN WE HAVE STAFF TAKE THIS BACK TO THE STIPULATIONS? OKAY.
[01:10:01]
STIPULATIONS AND LET'S, I WANT TO KIND OF SET THE STAGE A LITTLE BIT HERE.FIRST OFF, UH, IT IS A FINANCIAL DECISION FOR THE DEVELOPER.
THEY, THEY HAVE TO, THEY HAVE TO MAKE MONEY ON THIS OR THEY'RE NOT GONNA DO IT.
I THINK WE ALL SEEM TO BE OKAY WITH THE IDEA OF RESIDENTIAL USE.
AND I'M NOT HEARING ANYBODY SAY, OH NO, THIS IS A TERRIBLE PLACE FOR RESIDENTIAL.
SO THEN IT BECOMES A MATTER OF, OKAY, GREAT.
WE'RE WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT THIS LAND USE FOR RESIDENTIAL IS WORTHWHILE.
THEN IF THEY WERE BUILDING SOMETHING THAT WAS COMPLETELY WITHIN THE PLAN AND WE JUST ALL AGREED IT WAS FINE FOR RESIDENTIAL, WE APPROVE IT.
BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE WANTING TO DO THINGS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT, AND RATHER THAN GO THROUGH THIS, THE WAIVER PROCESS THAT MR. BELL WAS TALKING ABOUT, THEY'VE ASKED FOR THESE STIPULATIONS IN HERE.
WE CAN SAY WE'RE OKAY WITH 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 OF 'EM.
OR WE CAN SAY, NOPE, WE'RE ONLY GONNA APPROVE IT WITH THESE STIPULATIONS.
AND THEN WHATEVER WE DON'T INCLUDE AS A STIPULATION, THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A DESIGN THAT FITS WITHIN THAT.
IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE MAY HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE HEIGHT.
SOME FOLKS MAYBE, UM, I WOULD PREFER THAT THEY STILL HAD THE SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 10 FOOT INSTEAD OF SEVEN AND A HALF.
AND I PREFER THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BUILDING THAT WAS OVER 250 FEET IN LENGTH.
SO FROM MY STANDPOINT WHERE I'M AT, I'M SUGGESTING THAT I'M OKAY WITH THIS.
IF WE WILL ELIMINATING STIPULATIONS TWO AND THREE, WHICH MEANT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY WITH THAT CENTER ROW OF NINE BUILDINGS TO BREAK THAT UP.
I DON'T WANT TO PICK WHICH LOT.
I DON'T WANT TO DO ANY OF THAT.
I JUST WANNA SAY, HEY, WE'RE NOT GONNA GIVE YOU THIS STIPULATION.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO THAT, UH, AND THEN COME BACK WITH A, UM, A PLAN THAT CAN WORK FOR US.
SO THAT'S MY PREFERRED METHOD OF APPROACHING THIS.
IF, IF YOU GUYS WANNA DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT, FEEL FREE TO SPEAK UP.
I I'M IN LOCKSTEP WITH YOU EXCEPT WITH ONE THING.
I'M, I'M, I'M NOT CLEAR THAT, UH, IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT NOT ALLOWING THEM STIPULATION TWO WOULD WORK, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF US NOT ALLOWING STIPULATION THREE.
SO I WOULD BE IN LOCKSTEP WITH YOU IF WE SAID, HEY, WE'RE, WE'RE NOT GONNA GIVE THEM STIPULATION THREE, BUT WE'RE GIVING THEM THE REST OF IT.
AND, AND TO ME, I I THINK, UH, THAT THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD GIVE THEM A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE TO BEGIN WITH.
AND I I WOULD HOPE THEY COULD FIGURE IT OUT.
MR. LAW STIPULATION TWO FALSELY.
AND I GUESS IF WE LEFT THEM WITH THE SEVEN AND A HALF FEET, IF THEY DECIDED THEY WANTED TO GO THERE, IT GIVES 'EM MORE SPACE SOMEWHERE IN THERE FOR GREEN SPACE, FOR PUBLIC ACCESS FOR WHATEVER IT IS.
UH, TO YOUR POINT, IF SOMEBODY WAS ASKING, IS IT BAD THAT THEY'RE AT SEVEN AND A HALF FEET VERSUS 10, WHAT'S THE, WHAT'S THE DAMAGE DONE IF THEY'RE AT SEVEN AND A HALF VERSUS 10? AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, MAYBE NOT MUCH.
THERE'S A, THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY.
THIS SITE'S NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED AND SO WE'RE NOT, WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH A NEXT OPTION.
LIKE THIS IS A GOOD PROPOSAL, IT'S A GOOD LAND USE, IT'S NEXT TO A TRAIL.
I THINK WE JUST GOTTA HAVE A PERSPECTIVE THAT THIS HAS BEEN SITTING EMPTY SINCE PLANO WAS DEVELOPED.
AND SO I THINK THIS IS A POSITIVE OVERALL.
I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN PERSPECTIVE.
MR. ALL, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU, YOUR MIC WAS ON FOR A SECOND? OH, WELL, MR. BRUNO WAS OH, MR. BRUNO, SORRY.
UM, IF EVERYONE'S FINISHED WITH DISCUSSION, I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT IF IF, IF SOMEONE ELSE HAS A DISCUSSION, I'M, I'M, YOU KNOW, LET'S HEAR EVERYBODY.
UM, MY BRAIN IS SHUTTING DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
SO IF WE REMOVE STIPULATION THREE FOR THEM TO, WHAT DOES THAT DO TO THE WHOLE LOSING ONE LOT? UM, I JUST WANNA NOTE IF, IF COMMISSION MAKES THAT CHANGE, WE NEED, WE NEED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONCEPT PLAN WHICH CANNOT BE APPROVED WITH THESE STIPULATIONS.
SO, SO REMOVING STIPULATION THREE, DOES THAT IN FACT SOLVE THE, MAKING THEM GIVE UP A LOT TO MEET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OR, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW STIPULATION THREE FACTORS IN HERE TAKE AWAY NUMBER THREE.
AM I READING RIGHT? IT ALMOST FORCES THEM TO CORRECT.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADJUST THE MINIMUM WA WIDTH TO KEEP THE SAME BUILDING THE SAME NUMBER OF UNITS.
SO THEY'D BE COMING BACK FOR A DIFFERENT REQUEST.
[01:15:02]
MR. BRUNO? WELL YOU HAD YOUR BUTTON ALREADY ON MR. YOU BROSKY? YEAH.DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YEAH, I DO.
FOR STAFF, UM, IF WE TINKER AROUND WITH THE STIPULATIONS AND MAKE CHANGES, WILL, UH, WHAT WILL THAT DO TO ITEM THREE B? THEY WOULD NEED TO REVISE THREE B AND BRING IT BACK TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THOSE CHANGES.
SO, UH, AGAIN, I STILL FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE TO ALLOW THEM TO FULLY TAKE THE ENTIRE THING BACK SINCE THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO TAKE IT BACK TO DO THREE B ANYWAY.
UM, NO, THAT'S MY, TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING HERE IS TO NO, THAT'S, I'M SAYING I'VE, I'VE SAID THAT FROM THE BEGINNING.
I THINK WE'VE ALREADY OVER, ONE OF THE THINGS THE CHAIRMAN HAS SAID TO ME SEVERAL TIMES IS WE SHOULDN'T ENGINEER FROM THE DAIS AND I FEEL LIKE WE'VE REALLY WORKED AT ENGINEERING THIS ONE FROM THE DAIS, AND I, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS BE SUCCESSFUL.
UM, AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK FOR THREE B ANYWAY.
SO, UH, I'M WITH STAFF ON THIS TO, UH, SEND THIS BACK WITHOUT VOTING AGAINST IT, WHICH I MIGHT FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO DO AT THIS POINT, EVEN THOUGH I LIKE IT.
UM, ANYWAY, THAT'S MY FEEDBACK IS, UH, WE CAN KEEP CHANGING STIPULATIONS, BUT IT'S STILL NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE TONIGHT.
MR. RA TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH 'CAUSE I WAS ABOUT TO SAY THE SAME THING.
IF WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO GO BACK AND REDO THREE B, THEN WHY DON'T WE COME BACK WITH A CLEAN PACKAGE, REDO THREE A AND THREE B, COME BACK WITH A CLEAN PACKAGE BASED ON OUR DEBATE TONIGHT, LET THEM LET THEM DECIDE.
DO THEY WANT WIDER UNITS AND LESS OF THEM WITH A SMALLER GAP? OR DO THEY WANT, YOU KNOW, 'CAUSE THERE'S OTHER VARIABLES OTHER THAN JUST LOSING A LOT.
WELL, YES, THEY COULD DECIDE THEY WANNA MAKE ALL THE LOTS A LITTLE WIDER AND ALL THE UNITS A LITTLE BIGGER AND NOT LOSE THE ENTIRE LOT.
BUT THAT'S UP TO THEM, NOT TO US.
AND THAT'S WHY I WAS SAYING SIMPLY IT SOUNDS LIKE OUR NUMBER ONE ISSUE IS THE BUILDING FOR, FOR MOST OF US.
WE'RE, WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE, WE NEED TO TAKE SOME ACTION HERE.
DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A MOTION? A MOTION? MR. LYLE, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A MOTION? GO AHEAD, MIKE.
IF, IF THEY HAVE TO TAKE OUT, IF THEY HAVE TO CREATE A BREAK IN THE BUILDINGS, IS THERE A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THOSE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WOULD BE THEN LEFT THERE? THERE'S A BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENT OF 10 FEET.
UM, CAN WE REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? IT LOOKS LIKE PHYLLIS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US ONE MORE TIME AND WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GOING ON, I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY TONIGHT.
IT MIGHT, IT MIGHT CLARIFY SOME THINGS.
DOES IT MATTER? WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO YOU IF, IF THEY SAID GREAT, WE'LL GIVE UP A LOT, WOULD YOU GUYS BE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS OR DO YOU WE ARE NOT HAVE TO COME BACK SOMETHING.
YEAH, THEY'RE NOT, THERE'S NO WAY THAT THEY'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL WITH THREE B TONIGHT, PERIOD.
UNLESS WE APPROVE IT AS IT IS.
I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
WE ARE WILLING TO TABLE BOTH ITEMS TONIGHT IF, UH, 'CAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION.
THIS HAS BEEN GOOD FEEDBACK, UH, TO HEAR, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL, UH, FOR US TO, UH, GO BACK, TAKE A LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF, UH, THE CHANGE IN THE BUILDING LENGTH AND WHAT THAT, UH, DOES TO SETBACKS AND, AND A LOT LAYOUT AND EVERYTHING.
SO CERTAINLY WILLING TO TABLE IF, IF THAT'S THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION.
BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM US AND THE COMMUNICATION WITH THE STAFF, DO YOU THINK HOW LONG, WHAT, 'CAUSE WE HAVE TO TABLE IT TWO A TIME.
SO WHAT KIND OF TIMEFRAME WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU PREFER? UH, WE'RE FINE WITH TABLING IT TO FEBRUARY 5TH, WHICH I THINK IS YOUR FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY.
AND THAT WILL GIVE US TIME TO, UH, LOOK AT OUR PLANS, MAKE IT THE PLAN REVISIONS MADE, GET EVERYTHING BACK TO STAFF AND GET BACK ON ON AN AGENDA.
WELL BASED ON, UM, THE STATEMENT THAT WE'VE JUST HEARD IN THAT CASE, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL OUR MEETING FEBRUARY 5TH.
SO IS IT A, WE'LL DO 'EM A SEPARATE.
UH, FOR ITEM THREE A, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY TO TABLE ITEM THREE A
[01:20:01]
TO FEBRUARY 5TH.PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO ZERO.
I MOVE THAT WE TABLE ITEM THREE B TO THE FEBRUARY 5TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO TO TABLE ITEM THREE B TO FEBRUARY 5TH, NOT ITEM CARRIE.
[4. (PM) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-029 - Request for a Specific Use Permit for Electrical Substation on one lot on 3.4 acres located 1,440 feet west of North Star Road and 940 feet south of Plano Parkway. Zoned Research/Technology Center. Project #ZC2023-029. Petitioner: Plano Property Owner, LP (Request to table to February 5, 2024)]
ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 29.REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON ONE LOT ON 3.4 ACRES LOCATED 1,440 FEET WEST OF NORTH STAR ROAD AND 940 FEET SOUTH OF PLAN PARKWAY.
ZONED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER, PETITIONER IS PLANO PROPERTY OWNER LP.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR TABLE TWO, THE ZONING CASE TO THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO REFINE THE REZONING REQUEST, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST, A TABLE OF ZONING CASE THROUGH THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 MEETING.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS SIDE? NONE.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE, I MOVE WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM FOUR TO, UH, THE, UH, WE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF AND TABLE IT TO FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024.
SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO TABLE ITEM FOUR TO FEBRUARY 5TH, PLEASE VOTE SEVEN.
[5. (RK) Public Hearing: Subdivision Ordinance Amendment 2023-003 - Request to amend various sections of the Subdivision Ordinance related to HB 3699, including extension of certain plat approval authority to staff as permitted under the bill. Project #SOA2023- 003. Petitioner: City of Plano (Request to table to February 5, 2024)]
AGENDA NINE.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, PUBLIC HEARING.
SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023 DASH 0 0 3 REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATED TO HB 36 99, INCLUDING EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PLATT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF AS PERMITTED UNDER THE BILL.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
EVENING, MR. CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, I'M RAHAL PAL.
THE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE REQUEST TO TABLE, UM, ZONING CA UH, SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023 DASH 0 0 3 TO THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I MOVE WITH TABLE AGENDA ITEM FIVE, UH, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO THE FEBRUARY 20, THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
ALRIGHT, HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WAS A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI TO TABLE ITEM FIVE TO FEBRUARY 5TH AND MR. RUNOFF ABSTAINED.
OKAY, SO WE HAVE A SIX TO ONE, UH, SIX TO ZERO WITH ONE ABSTENTION.
[6. (RK) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-019 - Request to amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to recent state legislative actions and to ensure compliance with state law, including amendments related to SB 929. Project #ZC2023-019. Petitioner: City of Plano (Request to table to February 5, 2024)]
SIX, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE.2023 DASH ZERO 19 REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO RECENT LE STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS AND TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SB 9 29.
PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO, THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MS. BRIDGES STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE REQUEST TO TABLE THIS, UM, ZONING CASE 2023 DASH ZERO 19 TO FEBRUARY, UH, FIFTH 2024.
PLANNING, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ITEM SIX? ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.
SEEING NONE I'LL THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
I MOVE, WE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF AND TABLE ZONING CASE 20 23 0 19 TO THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
ALRIGHT, I HAVE A WELL WORDED MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LYLE TO TABLE ITEM SIX PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
AND THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO AND I BELIEVE THE LAST ITEM IS, UH, ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS.
IS THERE ANYBODY WANT TO ADD ANYTHING TO A FUTURE AGENDA?
[01:25:04]
ARE WE GONNA TABLE THAT ITEM TO FEBRUARY 5TH? NO.SEEING NONE, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 8 25.