[00:00:05]
[CALL TO ORDER ]
FOR JOINING US TONIGHT.IT IS NOW SEVEN O'CLOCK ON FEBRUARY 5TH AND I'M CALLING INTO ORDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CURRENT AGENDA.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY INFORMATION.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
[CONSENT AGENDA ]
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 THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.
I SEE WE HAVE A, UH, A PERSON ON ITEM C, BUT THEY'RE JUST AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CAREY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI.
TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.
LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT UH, COMMISSIONER BRONSKI WAS UNABLE TO JOIN US THIS EVENING.
[1. (JK) Public Hearing – Replat: Preston Meadow Office Park Addition, Block 1, Lot 3R – Professional/general administrative office on one lot on 0.9 acre located on the west side of Coit Road, 920 feet south of Legacy Drive. Zoned Planned Development-429Neighborhood Office. Project #R2023-052. Applicant: Redding-McHargue Partnership (Administrative consideration) ]
ITEM ONE, ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.
APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED.
REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
REPL PRESTON MEADOW, OFFICE PARK EDITION BLOCK ONE LOT THREE R.
PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON ONE LOT ON 0.9 ACRE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF KOYT ROAD 920 FEET SOUTH OF LEGACY DRIVE ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4 29 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE.
APPLICANT IS REDDING MCCARGO PARTNERSHIP.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS JOHN KIM PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.
AS SUBMITTED, I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ITEM ONE? ALL RIGHT.
SEEING NONE, I WILL THANK YOU ON THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE, THE HEARING CONFINED DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMISSION.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LEY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE.
THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.
[2. (KC) Public Hearing – Preliminary Replat & Revised Site Plan: Coit Crossings Addition, Block 1, Lot 1R – Superstore and convenience store on one lot on 22.5 acres located at the northwest corner of Coit Road and Mapleshade Lane. Zoned Corridor Commercial and located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway Overlay District. Projects #PR2023032 and #RSP2023-082. Applicant: Wal-Mart Estate Business Trust (Administrative consideration) ]
ITEM TWO, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPL AND REVISED SITE PLAN CO CROSSINGS EDITION BLOCK ONE LOT ONE R SUPERSTORE AND CONVENIENCE STORE ON ONE LOT ON 22.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COY ROAD AND MAPLE SHADE LANE ZONE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE ONE 90 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.APPLICANT IS WALMART ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST.
THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS KACHA COPELAND, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE PRELIMINARY REPL IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.
AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? MR. LAW? MICROPHONE PLEASE.
IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPL TO ADD SPACE FOR THE CONVENIENCE STORE? THE PURPOSE OF THE PRELIMINARY REPL IS TO PROPOSE EASEMENTS
[00:05:01]
RELATED TO THE ADDITION OF THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND FUELING PUMPS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY CLOSER TO KUWAIT IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO CURB CUTS.ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU.
I'LL OPEN PUBLIC HEARING OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? RIGHT, SAY NONE.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONFINED DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.
WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO PER PRELIMINARY REPLY AND SUBJECT TO AUDITIONS AND NO ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLIE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CURY TO APPROVE ITEM TWO PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION PLEASE.
NOW ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.
[Items 3A & 3B]
TO ITEM THREE AND YOU CAN READ THREE A AND B TOGETHER.ITEM AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE A IS A 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 ITEM WAS TABLED ON JANUARY 2ND, 2024.
THE PETITIONER IS FAIRVIEW FARM LAND COMPANY LIMITED AGENDA.
ITEM NUMBER THREE IS A PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT.
PLANT VILLAS AT PARK EDITION BLOCKS A THROUGH C 25, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS ATTACHED LOTS AND FIVE COMMON AREA LOTS ON 4.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE 175 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.
UH, THIS ITEM WAS ALSO TABLED ON JANUARY 2ND, 2024.
APPLICANT AGAIN IS FAIRVIEW FARMLAND COMPANY LIMITED BOTH OUR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGAIN, THIS REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED WITH MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO SETBACKS, BUILDING HEIGHT FENCING AND SCREENING.
THE REQUEST IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE A 25 UNIT TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT ON THE SCREEN HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
THIS ZONING CASE WAS HEARD BY THE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 2ND, 2024.
THE COMMISSION TABLE, THE CASE TO TONIGHT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RELATED TO THE CONCEPT PLAN AND PD STIPULATIONS.
THAT WILL BE SHOWN AND DISCUSSED IN LATER SLIDES.
HOWEVER, EVEN WITH THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE, FINDINGS STILL REMAIN AS A REQUIREMENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE.
ON THE SCREEN IS THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE SAW ON JANUARY 2ND AND THE UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN.
THIS IS A COLOR RENDERING OF THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT WITH THE UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN.
THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CHANGES THAT WERE MADE.
THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN HIGHLIGHTS THOSE CHANGES STARTING WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 26 TO 25 UNITS.
WITH THE LOT REDUCTION, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING LENGTH WAS ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE SFA ZONING.
IN ADDITION TO THE SIDE YARD SETBACK REQUIREMENT FOR CORNER LOTS, THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT REMAINS THE SAME.
HOWEVER, THE PD STIPULATION WORDING HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THAT OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS.
PATIOS AND ROOF DECKS ARE ALLOWED ABOVE.
THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE SETBACK PROVISION WAS EXTENDED BY TWO FEET TO 35 FEET INSTEAD OF 33 FEET.
THIS WAS ABLE TO BE EXTENDED DUE TO THE REDUCTION IN THE LOT UNIT COUNT.
A STIPULATION REQUIRING A METAL FENCE TO BE BUILT ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE STIPULATIONS, UH, FOR SAFETY MEASURES AS MENTIONED AT BY THE COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING.
FINALLY, THE SIDEWALK ALONG THE MUSE STREET LABELED STREET B WAS INCREASED BY TWO FEET TO PROPOSE A SIX FOOT SIDEWALK INSTEAD OF A FOUR FOOT SIDEWALK.
SHOWN ON THE SCREEN ARE ADDITIONS, SUBTRACTIONS, AND MODIFICATIONS TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS.
THE UNDERLYING INDICATES A CHANGE OR ADDITION TO THE STIPULATION THE STRIKE-THROUGH INDICATES THE REMOVAL OF A STIPULATION STIPULATIONS WITH NEITHER OF THOSE INDICATES.
NO CHANGE WAS MADE FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING TO TONIGHT ON THE STIPULATION AND HERE ARE THE REMAINING STIPULATIONS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK, CATEGORIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE REQUEST REMAINS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
[00:10:01]
THE SINGLE LOT, THE DEVELOPMENT NOW COMPLIES WITH THE ALLOWED MAXIMUM DENSITY FINDINGS, AGAIN, ARE STILL REQUIRED FOR THIS CASE.DUE TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT, WE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE ZONING FOR THE ZONING CASE AND 17 CITYWIDE.
TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED FOR A 25 UNIT INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OPEN SPACE NETWORK DASHBOARD AND 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 REASON THE REQUEST WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING CASE AND THE CONCEPT PLAN.
THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT WITH THE PRESENTATION AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
UM, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF MR. BRUNO? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.
UM, ARE THE MUSE STREETS BEING DEDICATED TO THE CITY OR ARE THEY GOING TO REMAIN PRIVATE? DEDICATED TO THE CITY.
SO NO, MY CONCERN IS IF MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED TO THE STREETS THERE, THERE'S AN ENTITY ESTABLISHED TO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF IT.
CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? I'M SORRY.
NO, MY CONCERN WAS THAT IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STREET SHOULD NEED REPAIR, LIKE TO REPAIR A POTHOLE, FOR EXAMPLE, UM, IF IT'S DEDICATED TO THE CITY, THEN THE CITY'S RESPONSIBLE TO TO TAKE, TAKE CARE OF THAT ISSUE.
OTHERWISE THERE WOULD NEED TO BE AN ENTITY ON THE PROPERTY AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT.
WITH ANY PRIVATE STREETS WE REQUIRE THAT, THAT BE IN PLACE.
THAT FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES.
UH, MR. LEY, UM, JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
SO ONCE, IF THIS PROPERTY IS GONNA BE FENCED IN, I I PRESUME RIGHT NOW THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING SEEMS TO CROSS ACROSS THE PROPERTY IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE CHISEL TRAIL.
IS THERE GONNA BE SOME KIND OF ACCESS, UH, PATH, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, THAT WILL BE MAINTAINED TO ALLOW EASY ACCESS TO THE TRAIL FOR THOSE PROPERTIES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE IT, THEIR NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH FROM THE MULTIFAMILY HAVING ACCESS TO THE CHISHOLM TRAIL? MM-HMM.
UM, I'M NOT A HUNDRED PERCENT SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT I DO KNOW THAT THIS PROPERTY IS PREPARING TO HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE CHISHOLM TRAIL, BUT I'LL BE ACCESS FROM THE PROPERTY.
UH, WILL THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS? RIGHT.
LIKELY NOT BECAUSE THERE IS A STIPULATION THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME LANDSCAPING ON THE NORTH SIDE IN ADDITION TO A FENCE.
UM, LAST QUESTION ON THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY ACTION THREE, IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY, THIS CHECKS EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHTS, CORRECT? AM I THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT.
UM, JUST ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION 'CAUSE I READ, UM, WE'VE ADDED THREE STORIES PLUS THE ROOFTOP DECK AND I'VE, I'VE READ THE LANGUAGE A COUPLE DIFFERENT TIMES, UM, AND I'M CONFIDENT WE'VE GOT IT COVERED.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE FOR THE RECORD THAT WE HAVE, THE FOURTH FLOOR IS NOT CONSIDERED A STORY BECAUSE WE NOW DEFINED IT AS AN OUTDOOR LIVING AREA.
DOES THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION IN THE FUTURE SO THAT SOME AMBITIOUS HOMEOWNER DECIDES THEY WANNA CLOSE THAT IN, THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS PD? IS THAT CORRECT? YES.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT PROTECTION.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, COMMISSIONER TOM.
I HAVE ONE MORE, JUST ONE QUESTION REGARDING THE HEIGHT.
UH, IT SAYS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE RGM ONE.
MAYBE I MISSED LIKE EXACTLY HOW IN, UH, INCONSISTENT.
IS IT TOO HIGH, TOO LOW, OR, UH, MAYBE I MISSED IT LAST TIME 'CAUSE I WASN'T HERE LAST TIME.
THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS ONE TO TWO STORIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS CATEGORY AND WITH THIS REQUEST PROPOSING THREE STORIES THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THEREFORE WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS.
BUT THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL SITE CONVERTED THE TWO, UH, UM, RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED, BUT IT HAS TO GO WITH THE RESIDENTIAL, UH, REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO STORIES.
[00:15:01]
IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS CATEGORY.AND WITH THAT, IT'S SUBJECT TO THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, UM, THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
AND MIKE BELL, PLEASE? THAT'S CORRECT.
WE APPEAR TO BE OUTTA QUESTIONS FOR YOU MS. COPELAND.
I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I'M ASSUMING THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO YES, IF, IF WE COULD HAVE PHYLLIS AND WARREN PACKER COME TO THE PODIUM.
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE P AND Z, UH, MY NAME IS, UH, WARREN PACKER.
MY COMPANY IS, UH, P CUSTOM HOMES.
I USED TO BUILD A LOT IN PLANO, BUT THERE ARE, HAVEN'T BEEN LOTS HERE FOR A LONG TIME, BUT, UM, WE'VE BEEN BUILDING HERE SINCE 1985 AND IN TEXAS SINCE 1977.
UM, JUST, UH, A COUPLE THINGS.
WE ARE DOING THIS SAME PRODUCT, SAME FLOOR PLAN, SAME EXTERIOR IN THE COLONY OVERLOOKING THE LAKE.
UH, THE ROOFTOP DECKS ARE VERY, VERY POPULAR.
UM, AND THEY'RE, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ENTERTAINMENT AREAS.
YOU CAN HEAR YOUR NEIGHBOR BUT YOU CAN'T SEE 'EM 'CAUSE THERE'S A MINIMUM OF A SIX FOOT WALL IN BETWEEN.
UM, BUT EVERYBODY THAT, THAT LIVES IN THESE, UH, WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WE'VE DONE IN FARMER'S BRANCH, UM, THAT'S THE SAME PRODUCT.
UH, AND IT'S DONE VERY WELL, EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO VIEW.
BUT, UM, SO WE'VE CLOSED DURING COVID AND UP TO NOW PRE COVID, WE'VE CLOSED OVER 50 UNITS RANGING FROM 700 TO 1.3 MILLION FROM, UH, ON THIS PROJECT.
WE, UH, ARE EXCITED ABOUT COMING TO PLANO.
UH, WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S A NEED FOR HIGHER END, UH, LIFESTYLE, A HOME IN THIS AREA, UM, THAT THERE'S PLENTY OF, UH, PLENTY OF DEMAND FOR IT.
AND, UH, BUT WE THINK IT'S A GREAT USE FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN SITTING HERE UNDEVELOPED FOR A HUNDRED YEARS.
SO, UH, JUST, UM, ON, ON THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, UH, THESE, THESE ARE, UH, 3000 SQUARE FOOT UNITS AND YOU CAN'T PUT A 3000 SQUARE FOOT UNIT ON A 25 FOOT LOT AND THREE BEDROOMS. IT JUST DOESN'T WORK.
SO, UH, OUR, OUR FIRST FLOOR IS A OVERSIZED TWO CAR GARAGE BIG ENOUGH FOR F-150 WITH A PIT, WITH A TRAILER HITCH.
UM, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER BEDROOM DOWNSTAIRS.
IT'S 11 BY 15, UH, WITH A BIG CLOSET.
AND THEN YOUR NEXT FLOOR UP, YOU HAVE, UH, A MASTER 15 BY 16 MASTER MASTER BEDROOM AREA, ANOTHER BEDROOM THAT'S 11 BY 15, UH, WITH ALL WITH THEIR OWN BATHS.
UM, AND THEN THE NEXT FLOOR, YOU HAVE THIS, UH, 50 BY 25 KITCHEN, BREAKFAST, FAMILY ROOM, UH, ALL OPEN WINDOWS ON BOTH SIDES.
SO IT CREATES THE SAME FEEL THAT YOU'D HAVE IN A, IN A MUCH LARGER, UH, HOME.
THE NEXT FLOOR IS THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT OF, OF AN AIR CONDITIONED, YOU KNOW, OPEN ROOFTOP.
THERE'S, UH, THERE'S A GRILL UP THERE, A BATH UP THERE COM, UH, WITH A CLOSET, UH, GRILL FRIDGE, EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED TO HANG OUT.
AND YOU CAN SIT ON YOUR COUCH, PUSH YOUR PHONE AND LET SOMEBODY IN THE FRONT DOOR, THEN GET IN THE ELEVATOR AND COME ALL THE WAY TO THE ROOF.
WE'VE, WE'VE PUT ELEVATORS IN, IN EVERY UNIT SO FAR WITH WITHOUT THAT EXTRA HEIGHT AND THAT EXTRA STORY ON TOP, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T BUILD A, A UNIT THAT HAS BIG LIVING, BIG LIVING AREAS AND BIG, UH, BEDROOMS, UH, CLOSETS.
AND THE, THE ROOFTOP REALLY, IT'S, IT'S ONLY 10 FEET ON THE STAIRCASE AND THE ELEVATOR, UM, ELEVATOR, ELEVATOR MAG MEZZANINE THAT COMES UP TO THE TOP FLOOR.
UM, THAT'S REALLY ALL ALL I HAD.
PHYLLIS HAS A, UH, PRESENTATION.
[00:20:01]
TAKE LONG.UH, IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER.
I'M PHYLLIS CHERYL WITH CITY-CENTRIC PLANNING, UH, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTS TONIGHT.
AND, UH, MS. COPELAND HAD REVIEWED THE CHANGES THAT WE HAD MADE TO OUR PLAN.
UH, SO I WON'T, UH, GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE AGAIN.
BUT I DID WANT TO, UH, POINT OUT, UH, THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT ROOF DECKS.
AND SO I'VE PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS OF WHAT THOSE WILL LOOK LIKE.
UH, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY ARE, UH, CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PROJECT.
AS YOU CAN SEE, AS MR. PACKER NOTED, THE ONLY ENCLOSED AREAS WHERE THE STAIRWELL, UH, YOU KNOW, COMES UP ARE THE ELEVATOR.
UH, THE REST OF THE ROOF IS BE OPEN, UH, FOR THE VARIOUS, UH, AMENITIES THAT ARE ON TOP OF THE ROOF.
THERE WAS CONCERN AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT PRIVACY FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES.
UH, WE ARE ABOUT, UH, 220 FEET, UH, FROM THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL TO THE APARTMENTS TO THE WEST.
WE'RE ABOUT 325 FEET FROM THE NEAREST SINGLE FAMILY BACKYARDS, UH, TO THE NORTH.
WE DO HAVE, UH, APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT.
UH, THE MAJORITY OF, OF THAT, UH, ADJACENCY IS PARKING LOT AND OPEN SPACE.
ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A COUPLE OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALONG THAT, THAT BORDER, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT OUR INTENT TO INVADE ANYONE'S PRIVACY WITH THE ROOF DECKS.
WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS ONE TO TWO STORIES, UH, FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATIONS, BUT THE PLAN ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT THE VARIETY OF BUILDING HEIGHTS, BUILDING TYPES AND LOTS SIZES BE CONSIDERED.
AND WE ARE, UH, WITH THIS PROJECT BRINGING A HOUSING TYPE THAT IS NOT ELSEWHERE IN THIS AREA, GENERAL AREA.
IT'S A AREA THAT HASN'T SEEN ANY NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A COUPLE OF DECADES.
AND WE DO BELIEVE IT WILL HELP TO REVITALIZE THE, UH, US 75 CORRIDOR.
AND, UH, THERE WAS A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT MAINTENANCE.
SO THERE WILL BE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT WILL MAINTAIN THE, UH, COMMON AREAS, UH, AND, UH, THE, UH, VISITOR PARKING SPACES, MAILBOX, UH, EXTERIORS, THAT TYPE OF THING.
BUT THE STREETS WILL BE DEDICATED MAINTAINED BY, BY THE CITY.
AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL HAVE.
UH, THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
UH, THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE, UH, FOR GUESTS, ET CETERA.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT'S WAS REQUIRED UNDER THE ORDINANCE THEN? THERE WAS A SPECIFIC AMOUNT AND OF THAT AMOUNT, UH, IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONE HANDICAP PARKING AND IT'S RIGHT BY THE MAILBOX.
IS THAT ALL THAT'S REQUIRED? WE HAVE TO HAVE ONE HANDICAP PARKING SPACE IN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.
THERE IS A MINIMUM VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENT IN THE S FFA ZONING DISTRICT.
WE ALSO HAVE THE TWO DRIVEWAY PARKING SPACES FOR EACH UNIT.
UH, AND I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE NUMBER OF, OF HANDICAPPED, UH, SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED.
STAFF MIGHT BE ABLE TO, AND I'M ASSUMING IT'S HANDICAPPED ON IT BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S HASH MARKED ON HERE, BUT YES.
AND, AND THIS IS NOT A GATED COMMUNITY? NO, SIR.
OKAY, LET'S MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER CAREY.
UM, THE FACT YOU HAVE AN HOAI THINK IS GONNA BE HELPFUL TOO, MY MY QUESTION.
BUT, UM, YOU'VE SAID THAT YOU'VE BUILT THESE IN OTHER PLACES AND THESE TOP FLOORS WILL BE USED SIGNIFICANTLY FOR ENTERTAINMENT.
AND I'M CURIOUS HOW MUCH PROBLEM YOU HAVE WITH NOISE AS PEOPLE ARE PARTYING UP THERE.
AND WHAT KIND OF REMEDIES MIGHT BE AVAILABLE FOR, FOR THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD, THIS NEW NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'RE CREATING IS, IS SOMEWHAT, UH, UNDER CONTROL.
THE, UH, BOTH COMMUNITIES, WE'VE INSTITUTED A WAY THAT YOU CAN'T DO AIRBNB.
WE DID INITIALLY CAUSED A LOT OF GRIEF, BUT WE, 5% OF OUR, WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING.
WE HAVE, UH, SELECTIONS AND DEALS WITH ALL THE HOMEOWNER PROBLEMS, ISSUES AND OTHER,
[00:25:01]
BUT THEY'RE USED TO HAVING ONE MUSIC OVER HERE AND ANOTHER MUSIC ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BALL AND IT DOESN'T, DOESN'T BOTHER.UM, CAN YOU GO BACK TO MR. GERALD, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT PICTURE THAT YOU HAD KIND OF AN AERIAL SHOT OF THE OVERHEAD OF THE FOURTH FLOOR DECKS BACK.
SO, UM, YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SIX FOOT WALLS, OR, AND I, AND I AND I SEE IN THIS RENDERING THAT THAT'S TRUE BETWEEN THE UNITS, BUT I CAN'T TELL ON THE END UNIT.
IS THAT ALSO A SIX FOOT WALL LOOKING OUT OR IS THAT A SHORTER WALL LOOKING OVER THE NEXT DOOR PROPERTY? IT, IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SHORTER, BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.
UH, ON THE, ON THE END UNITS, UM, THEY HAD WALLS DOWN SO THAT THEY HAD MORE OF A PANORAMA VIEW OF THE SKYLINE.
UM, THE UNITS IN BETWEEN OR IN BETWEEN THE UNITS, THOSE WALLS WERE THE FIREPLACES, THOSE ARE SIX FOOT.
THAT WAS, I THINK, 'CAUSE MY CONCERN, I WAS THE ONE THAT WAS WORRIED ABOUT PRIVACY OF THE NEIGHBORS.
UM, IT'S THE VIEW OFF THE SIDES THAT IS WHERE THE, YOU'RE LOOKING LOOKING THE NEIGHBORS NOT THE VIEW OUT OF THE BACK.
UM, THERE'S ONE PLACE WHERE THAT OCCURS.
UH, ONE OF THE BUILDINGS TO, YOU KNOW, OPENS UP THE WHOLE PANORAMA ON THE CORNER UNITS BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE TWO 70 INSTEAD OF JUST STRAIGHT AHEAD ONE BUILDING.
BUT YES, IF YOU'RE WALKING DOWN THE STREET ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THOSE APARTMENTS, TRYING TO GET A LOT NUMBER, IT'S LOT NUMBER BLOCK A LOT NINE, I THINK IS THE ONE I'M WORRIED ABOUT.
LOWER LEFT HAND CORNER RIGHT THERE.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT REALLY LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE A PRIVACY ISSUE.
UM, WE'RE WILLING TO CHANGE THAT SO THAT WE'D LIKE TO LEAVE THE OTHER ONES 'CAUSE IT'S GET UP HIGH LIKE THAT.
YOU'RE, YOU'RE UP 40 SOMETHING OF THIS.
JUST THE SKYLINE OR THE TREES IS IS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT, EVEN THOUGH SURE.
YOU KNOW, YOU'RE NOT LOOKING AT
I'M NOT TRYING TO NEGOTIATE IT FROM THE DATA.
SO I JUST WANTED TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT ONE UNIT.
I KNOW IT LOOKS LIKE, AND ASSUMING THEY'LL STAY THERE, THERE'S SOME VERY LARGE TREES THAT WOULD PROBABLY SHIELD PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING GOING ON ON THE GROUND FROM THAT TOP FLOOR.
UM, THE PICTURE YOU SHOWED FROM THE, THE ROOFTOP VIEW, UM, THERE APPEARS TO BE A, AN OVERHEAD COVERING BETWEEN THE TOWERS OVER PART OF THE, THE OUTDOOR DECK SHADE.
UM, IS THAT A PERGOLA AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A, A SOLID ROOF? IT'S A PERGOLA.
A A LOT OF PEOPLE DO WANT TO PUT A STANDING SEAM METAL ROOF UP THERE WITHOUT THE RAIN AND, AND THE HEAT OPEN ON BOTH ENDS.
BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DO ADD A STANDING METAL ROOF, SO IT IT, IT COULD BECOME A ROOF IF THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER WANTS, WANTS IT THAT WAY.
A LOT OF 'EM HAVE ADDED BRUCE PROBABLY 30% HAVE ADDED.
BUT, BUT IT REMAINS OPEN FROM THE, SO FROM THE FRONT AND THE BACK OPEN BACK, BACK AND FRONT AND COVERED ON THE TOP.
JUST STILL SEE THE PERGOLA UNDERNEATH IT THAT'S ON TOP OF IT.
MR. BELL, WOULD THIS, IF THEY PUT OVER THE SOLID ROOF, WOULD THAT MAKE THIS A FOURTH FLOOR OR NOT? IT WOULD NOT, IT WOULD NOT.
I WAS JUST GONNA ASK COMMISSIONER RATLIFFE ABOUT, I GUESS THAT SHOULD BE WHEN WE CAN FIND THE COMMENTS WE HEAR, RIGHT? YES.
IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
THAT'S LOOKS LIKE THAT'S ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS.
I WILL NOW CL OH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS? NO, WE DO NOT.
WE HAVE, UH, SOMEONE, UH, THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON, UM, NO,
[00:30:01]
I'M SORRY, IT'S THE NEXT MEETING I'M OR THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM.I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FIND DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.
I I I DON'T FEEL LIKE IF IF SOMEONE CHOSES TO WALK TO THAT WALL AND LOOK OVER THERE, I MEAN SOMEONE WOULD BE IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE APARTMENTS.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE THERE'S A, IT'S NOT LOOKING IN A BACKYARD OR A ARE YOU SEEING SOMETHING I'M NOT SEEING? WELL, THAT, THAT WAS, I'M NOT THAT, THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN, BUT, YOU KNOW, UH, CHAIRMAN DOWNS MAKES POINT.
IT LOOKS LIKE PROBABLY WILL REMAIN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I'M NOT SURE WHERE THE, WHO OWNS THE TRUNK OF IT, BUT, UM, IF THAT TREE REMAINS, IT'S PROBABLY NOT AN ISSUE.
THAT WAS, THAT WAS MY CONCERN LAST MEETING.
AND I THINK THAT CHAIRMAN DOWNS MAKES A LEGITIMATE POINT ABOUT THE TREE.
SO, AND THEN, I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW RIGHT TO PRIVACY IF YOU'RE WALKING THROUGH THE PARKING LOT, RIGHT.
I'M WORRIED ABOUT, YOU KNOW, SOMEBODY TO LOOK DOWN AND LOOK IN THE SOMEBODY ELSE'S WINDOW FROM I GOTCHA.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS? EVERYBODY'S COMMISSIONER.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I JUST HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING THE, UM, THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS ON THE HEIGHT.
MAYBE THIS IS FOR THE STAFF AGAIN.
SO IF WE WERE HAVING A PROJECT HERE THAT'S, UM, JUST CORDO COMMERCIAL, WOULD THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS STILL APPLY? THEY CANNOT GO UP TO MORE THAN TWO STORIES.
UM, BY, RIGHT, TODAY THEY CAN GO MORE THAN TWO STORIES.
UH, I BELIEVE CORDO COMMERCIAL IS UP TO 20, BUT IT'S SIGN IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITED BY RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS.
SO THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET NEARLY THAT TALL.
UM, BUT IT WOULD BE MORE THAN FOUR.
SO I'M GOING TO JUST SAY THAT I'M GLAD THEY LOOKS LIKE THEY MET JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING THAT WE TALKED ABOUT FROM THE LAST TIME.
UM, AND THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE, WHETHER THEY SPLIT THAT BUILDING OR REDUCED IT, HONESTLY, I'M GLAD THEY REDUCED IT INSTEAD OF SPLITTING IT.
I JUST THINK ALL RIGHT, IT IT, IT SIMPLIFIES THINGS FOR THEM OBVIOUSLY.
BUT, UH, YOU KNOW, LAST TIME I WAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT AND NOW I'M, I'M MORE SO IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT.
MR. ALI, MAYBE A QUESTION SLASH COMMENT.
UM, IF THIS WAS THE SAME KIND OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT HAD NEIGHBORS THAT THEY WERE BROUGHT INTO THIS PARTICULAR LOT.
THERE'S A PARTICULAR, THE APARTMENT ON THE EDGE IS ON ELEVATED GROUND, UM, 45 FEET AND JUST DOING ROUGH MAT.
GIVEN THAT THIS PARTICULAR LOT IS SLIGHTLY DEPRESSED, DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'LL STAND OUT SIGNIFICANTLY ACROSS THAT SKYLINE.
IS THAT ASSUMPTION FAIR OR I THERE SOME BOGUS UH, ARCHITECTURE ON MATH HERE.
ARE YOU, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BASE LEVEL FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS LOWER THAN THE BASE? IT'S LOWER.
SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE 45 FEET COMPARED TO THE APARTMENTS ABOVE.
IT MAY FEEL LIKE THEY'RE, IT MAY FEEL 30 FEET INSTEAD, WHICH THE CONCERN ON BUILDING HEIGHT FEELS LIKE IT'S THAT TRANSITION, UM, IS WHAT WE ARE MOST WORRIED ABOUT.
EXCEPT IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR PLAN, THEY'RE GONNA END UP FILLING BACK THERE TO GET OUT THE FLOOD PLANE, GET THE FLOOD, THEY'RE FLOOD GONNA TO RAISE IT UP OUTTA THE FLOODPLAIN.
SO THEY'RE GONNA PROBABLY END UP PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION I WOULD GUESS.
SO IT'S PROBABLY TO BE SIMILAR BE ON THE FLOODPLAIN.
BUT I, THAT'S A, I I DID THINK OF ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT JUST FROM A CLARIFICATION STANDPOINT.
'CAUSE I'M THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP THE FENCE, UH, LAST TIME AND IT SAYS A METAL FENCE.
I'M ASSUMING THAT'S GONNA BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN CHAIN LINK.
UH, FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT REPLIED WROUGHT IRON, SO, OKAY, MR. ALI.
UM, I AGREE THE, THE APPLICANT DID PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO GO TO.
UM, I THINK THE GAS STATION HAS A FENCE ALONG THEIR, UM, WHATEVER ALONG THEIR RETAINING WALL.
SO I, I ASSUME THERE'LL BE SOME KIND OF CONTINUITY SO THAT JUST FROM AN AESTHETIC LEVEL, UM, THAT WORKS OUT.
I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE VIEW THEY'LL BE SEEN.
BUT THAT'S NOT A LAND USE ISSUE HERE, RIGHT? RIGHT.
[00:35:01]
THAT'S NOT LAND USE ISSUE.UM, SO THAT I, UM, I'M IN FAVOR.
UH, UH, THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF THAT COULD PERHAPS GO THERE IS IF WE DEDICATED THAT INTO SOME KIND OF PARK LINE GREEN SPACE, BUT AGAIN, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PURCHASE THAT FOR THAT TO HAPPEN.
SO, UH, I'LL PUT A MOTION THERE AND MOVE.
WE APPROVE, UH, I THINK THIS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE A, UM, SUBMITTED.
OKAY, SO I HAVE A MOTION, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLIE FOR THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO TO APPROVE ITEM THREE A.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO BEFORE WE CAN MOVE TO ITEM THREE B.
SHOULD WE DO OUR FINDINGS FORMS OR CAN WE DO THREE B FIRST? YOU CAN DO, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO THREE B FIRST AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK TO DO OUR FINDINGS FORM MR. ALI.
UH, I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE B, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 2 1 AND THE ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENT NUMBER TWO, VOLUME 4 5 3 6, PAGE 2 3 81 PRIOR TO OR WITH APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT.
SO MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO TO APPROVE ITEM THREE B, PLEASE VOTE.
AND THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO AS WELL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO US.
I THINK IT'LL BE A NICE PROJECT.
OKAY, FOR THOSE THAT ARE STILL HERE, WE NOW HAVE A PROCESS TO COMPLETE OUR FINDING FORMS, UH, ON THIS CASE.
SO WE'RE GONNA CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT FOR A MINUTE.
[Items 4A & 4B]
[00:42:10]
FIRST, LOCATED 1,440 FEET WEST OF NORTH STAR ROAD AND 940 FEET SOUTH OF PLANO PARKWAY.THIS IS ZONED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER.
IT WAS TABLED ON JANUARY 2ND, 2024.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR B IS A PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
FLEXTRONICS CAMPUS EDITION BLOCK A LOT FIVE DATA CENTER AND ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON ONE LOT ON 44.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH STAR ROAD 615 FEET SOUTH OF PLANO PARKWAY.
IT IS ALSO ZONED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER APPLICANT FOR BOTH IS, I'M SORRY, PETITION AND APPLICANT IS PLANO PROPERTY OWNER LP.
BOTH ARE FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THIS REQUEST IS FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATELY OWNED ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ASSOCIATED WITH PROPOSED DATA CENTER.
ON THIS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL WITH THE PROPERTY OR THE SUBSTATION AREA OF REQUEST HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
ON THIS SCREEN IS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FOR THE PROPOSED DATA CENTER HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE AND THE SUBSTATION BOUNDARY HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW.
THIS SUBSTATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH A 463,000 SQUARE HUNDRED 63,000 SQUARE FOOT DATA CENTER THAT IS ALLOWED BY WRIGHT IN THE RESEARCH DIS RESEARCH SLASH TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT.
THERE ARE EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES THAT RUN ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY WITHIN A 150 FOOT EASEMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY EXISTING TODAY.
THAT WILL REDUCE THE VIS POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT BY HAVING EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY ON SITE.
THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND FLOODWAY EASEMENTS.
ENGINEERING HAS DONE A PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND NOTED THAT THE SITE WILL NOT BE IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE NOTED THAT THE CURRENT LIMIT OF THE FLOOD FLOOD STUDY SPLITS THE PROPERTY AS SHOWN ON SCREEN.
THE ENTIRE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DATA CENTER WILL NEED A NEW FLOOD STUDY TO DETERMINE WHAT IMPACT AND MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT THE SITE PLAN STEP, WHICH WILL BE THE NEXT STEP AFTER THE ZONING.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EMPLOYMENT EMPLOYMENT CENTER CATEGORY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.
STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES WITHIN 200 FEET.
[00:45:04]
STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES.CITYWIDE STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ZONING CASE FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED AND FOR THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TAKE ACTION CONSISTENT WITH ZONING CASE 20 23 0 DASH DASH 0 2 9.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
JUST KIND OF A GLOBAL QUESTION, WHY THIS IS WHY WE NEED AN SUP FOR THIS.
IT FEELS LIKE AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT.
SO I, I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY THAT'S EVEN NECESSARY.
YES, BECAUSE, UM, SUBSTATIONS IN THE RT DISTRICT ARE NOT ALLOWED BY RIDE, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DATA CENTER, IT STILL NEEDS THE, UM, THE SEP TO BE OPERATED.
SO IS IT A PRIVATELY OWNED SUBSTATION THAT'S OWNED BY THE SAME PEOPLE THAT OWN THE DATA CENTER? THIS ONE? CORRECT.
THIS ONE WILL BE OWNED BY THE PROPERTY.
SO IT'S NOT A SEPARATE LOT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? CORRECT.
IT JUST, IT, I DUNNO, I I UNDERSTAND YOUR LOGIC.
IT JUST FEELS, UH, IT FEELS LIKE AN ACCESSORY USE TO ME, LIKE AN OUTDOOR SWITCHGEAR OR SOMETHING.
UM, I GENERATE IT OR GENERATOR, STANDBY GENERATOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
AND UM, MR. BELL, JUST MAYBE A NOTE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF HOW THIS IS INCLUDED IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.
YEAH, SO WE HAVE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR SUBSTATION THAT DIFFERENTIATES IT FROM THE SWITCH STATIONS LIKE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.
UM, SO IF IT HAD BEEN KIND OF A MECHANICAL YARD IN A SENSE THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS ACCESSORY, BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE THAT DISTINCT DEFINITION OF A SUBSTATION THAT TRIGGERED THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
YEAH, AND I GUESS I UNDERSTAND THAT IF IT'S THE, IF IT IS THE PRIMARY USE OF THE TRACT, IF IT'S A SUBSTATION THAT'S ON ITS OWN PLATTED LOT AND IT'S ONLY AT SUBSTATION, I GET THAT.
BUT THIS FEELS LIKE A ACCESS FOR USE RATHER THAN A ACCESSORY USE THAT'S REALLY PART OF THIS LIKE AN, LIKE AN EXTERIOR GENERATOR.
I THINK WE VIEWED THESE AS TWO PRIMARY USES ON THIS SITE AND FOR THAT REASON IT REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE FOR HIM.
IT'S JUST A, IT'S REALLY A NUANCE.
I WANTED THE EDUCATION, SO THANK YOU MR. LAW.
I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON SITE AND I NOTICED THAT WHAT'S REQUIRED IS 455 SPOTS, BUT THEY'RE PROVIDING ACTUALLY ADDITIONAL 465.
DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE INTENDED TO BE ON SITE? IT'S A PROPERTY LIKE THIS.
I AM UNSURE, BUT THE APPLICANT, UM, IS HERE TO HELP ANSWER THAT.
BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT IN THE RT DISTRICT, WE DO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPACES FOR PARKING FOR 75% IF THIS BUILDING WOULD BE USED AS OFFICE.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD IT TODAY, BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO SHOW THEY HAVE ENOUGH ROOMS TO DO THAT ON SITE.
SO THAT MAY BE WHY THEY PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING AS WELL AS SOME PARKING THAT I BELIEVE WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS A ALTERNATIVE PARKING EXHIBIT.
THIS IS A DIS REQUIRED FOR THE RT DISTRICT FOR THE DATA CENTER? YES.
YEAH, THE NEXT CASE IS NOT LOCATED IN THE RT DISTRICT.
IT'S A, WHAT MR. MCDOWELL'S REFERRING TO IS SPECIFIC TO THIS ZONING CATEGORY, UH, WHICH IS WHY YOU DON'T SEE IT ON THE OTHER ITEM.
GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT? DO THEY NEED ALL THIS PARKING TODAY? THEY JUST NEED TO PROVIDE TO BUILD TODAY ENOUGH SPACES TO MATCH THE ONE TO 1000 RATIO AND JUST SHOW THAT THEY HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO PROVIDE UP TO 75% IF THIS WAS PARKED THAT OFFICE WITH THE ONE BUT 300.
SO TODAY THEY ONLY NEED TO PROVIDE THAT, I BELIEVE THAT 400, THE FIRST 400 NUMBER YOU MENTIONED, WHICH IS THE ONE SPACE EVERY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET TO ELABORATE.
THERE WAS NOT A PARKING STUDY PERFORMED.
THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THE REQUIRED PARKING.
SO WE DIDN'T DIG INTO THEIR ESTIMATED ACTUAL DEMAND.
THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT FOR YOU.
MR. LEY, UH, COMMISSIONER RATLEY GOT ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, WHICH WAS THE SUBSTATION.
THE FLOOD PLANE, UM, ELECTRICITY AND WATER OBVIOUSLY DON'T MIX.
SO IF THIS, IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, IF WHEN THE DATA CENTER IS BUILT, THEN WE'LL TRIGGER ANOTHER FLOOD STUDY TO SEE WHAT THE PERMEABILITY IMPACT OF, YOU KNOW, PAVING OVER THE LAND AND ALL THAT STUFF.
HOW IT CHANGES THE FLOOD PLANE AND THAT WOULD, WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE THEN TO BUILD THE
[00:50:01]
SUBSTATION? WHAT, WHAT'S THE, IF WE APPROVE THIS, DO WE HAVE SOME KIND OF CLAWBACK MECHANISM? BASED ON MY CONVERSATIONS I'VE HAD WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WHO HAVE REVIEWED THIS, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN CIVIL SETS YET BECAUSE THAT COMES IN THE NEXT STEP.BUT FROM THE DATA THEY DO HAVE, THEY DO BELIEVE THAT THERE WILL BE NO ISSUE WITH THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED.
BUT THAT FOR THE DATA CENTER ITSELF THERE ITSELF, THERE MAY BE NEED ADDITIONAL MITIGATION DEPENDING ON THE IMPACT FROM THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING.
BUT WE DO HAVE, WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT ENGINEERING WITH THE LOCATION OF THIS, UH, SUBSTATION, IF IT'S FOUND IN NOT SUITABLE, THEN THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT BOUNDARIES TO GET IT OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
COMMISSIONER KERRY? I, I THINK, UH, COMMISSIONER LYLE, TO YOUR QUESTION, HOW MANY EMPLOYEES, I BELIEVE IT'S 30 AND THREE SHIFTS IS WHAT WAS IN THE PACKET AND YOUR MICROPHONE'S ON
UM, SO I, I THINK THAT'S WHAT I READ IN THE PACKET.
LET'S ASSUME THAT THEY, THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON WHAT THEY NEED TODAY AND THEN THE USE CHANGES.
DO WE NOT HAVE A MECHANISM THAT COULD THEN CAUSE THEM TO FIX THAT AT THAT TIME? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, UM, I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, UM, WE HAVE CHALLENGES IN A LOT OF CITIES WITH HEAT ISLANDS AND COMING FROM ARIZONA, PAVING, UH, PAVING ALL THE, THE LAND OVER IS EXACERBATING THAT.
AND SO WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT, IS THERE A MECHANISM TO, TO DEAL WITH THAT AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL COSTS? UH, AGAIN, PROBABLY FROM A FLOODING PERSPECTIVE, PARK, UH, PAVING OVER THIS PARKING LOT CREATES ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES.
SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THIS, IS THERE A MECHANISM TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THEIR NEEDS TODAY? AND THEN IF IN FACT THE USE CHANGES FOR US TO COME BACK AND DEAL WITH IT AT THAT POINT, AS MR. BELL MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS SITE HAS MET THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO WE HAVE NOT HAD TO REQUEST A PARKING STUDY FROM THIS APPLICANT TO SEE WHAT THEIR ACTUAL DEMAND IS VERSUS WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO WE HAVE NOT REALLY DOVE INTO THAT QUESTION.
TO ELABORATE, THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
IT'S CALLED THE PARKING REDUCTION PROGRAM.
AND, UM, THAT'S WHAT I PROVIDED INFORMATION ON EARLIER TODAY, BUT IT REQUIRES A PARKING STUDY AND MITIGATION PLAN, UM, PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS.
SO THAT, UM, SHOULD THE, THE, THE USE CHANGE SHOULD SOMETHING HAPPEN WHERE THEY'RE IN VIOLATION OF THAT, UM, OR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, THEY HAVE TO COME IN AND PROVIDE THE PARKING AT THAT TIME.
UM, THAT'S, UM, A LITTLE BIT MORE EXTENSIVE PROCESS AND REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL THAT THAT IS AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO THEM.
BUT THEY, AGAIN, THEY'VE CHOSEN JUST TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS, I GUESS THEN YOU DISCUSSED THAT OPTION WITH THEM.
I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE PARKER, DO YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE FROM THE FIRST ITERATION THEY'VE SUBMITTED, THEY MET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, SO THAT WASN'T A CONVERSATION WE HAD.
SO THEY MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN BE AWARE OF THAT.
MAYBE THEY'RE PROBABLY AWARE NOW.
IT, IT IS AN, IT IS OF, I THINK WE'VE ONLY DONE A HANDFUL SINCE IT'S EXISTED.
IT'S A, IT'S A EXTENSIVE PROCESS.
IS THAT BASICALLY? I THINK SO, YES.
I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD, SO, UM, THANK YOU.
WELL, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THERE'S NOT A PRESENTATION JUST AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT.
AND WE DO HAVE ONE, UH, CITIZEN, UH, THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
OKAY, WELL, WE'LL LET THE CITIZEN ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AND THEN WE WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION.
UH, CAN I HAVE, UH, LINDA ZIMMERMAN? OH, OKAY.
UH, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? YES.
UH, WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE QUESTION FOR YOU.
IF YOU WOULD COME DOWN AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
MY NAME IS LUKE FRANZ OF 2323.
JA, UH, ROSS AVENUE WITH JACKSON WALKER REPRESENTING APPLICANT ALIGNED DATA IN THIS CASE.
I HAVE CARDELL ANDREWS WITH THE LINES HERE AS WELL TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC OPERATION QUESTIONS.
IT'S MORE OF AN OPERATION QUESTION.
DOESN'T IMPACT LAND USE POWER CONSUMPTION FOR DATA CENTERS, WATER UTILITY FOR YOUR LIQUID COLON.
[00:55:01]
THE LARGEST DATA CENTER COMPANY FOR A YEAR AND A HALF.WHAT IS THE MITIGATE, DO YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF MITIGATING FACTORS AS YOU BUILD THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOESN'T DRAIN THE CRAP OUT OF OUR RESOURCES, UH, FROM A POWER AND WATER PERSPECTIVE? GREAT HELP WITH THE ANSWER TO THAT.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER COUNCIL, CARDELL ANDREWS 2,800 SUMMIT AVENUE ALIGNED DATA CENTERS.
I'M THE SENIOR DIRECTOR OF OUR TECHNICAL, I'M ACTUALLY A CIVIL ENGINEER, SO I'M GONNA ANSWER YOUR FLOOD QUESTION ALSO.
UM, WE HAVE A PATENTED PRODUCT THAT WE USE FOR OUR WATER COOLING.
SO BASICALLY ALL YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS POTABLE WATER COMING IN A LOOP SYSTEM.
SO YOU'RE, WE'RE ONLY USING ABOUT 3,500 GPM, WHICH IS VERY SMALL AND EQUIVALENT TO LESS.
IF YOU DEVELOP THIS AS A RESIDENTIAL OR ABOUT FOUR TIMES LESS.
IF SO, IF YOU TOOK THE SAME PROPERTY AND DEVELOP IT AS RESIDENTIAL, YOU WOULD BE USING MORE WATER AND SEWER, THEN YOU WOULD BE USING FOR OUR DATA CENTER.
AND THEN BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ON THE FLOODING, TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO IS WE GRADE OUT THE SITE, WE COULD RAISE UP THE SITE WITH EARTH OR WE COULD RAISE UP THE SITE WITH THE BUILDING TO GET IT OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
BUT BASED ON OUR PRELIMINARY NUMBERS, THIS SITE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RAISED THAT MUCH.
YOU'RE ONLY LOOKING AT A COUPLE FEET, LIKE LESS THAN A FOOT TO RAISE UP TO GET OUT THE FLOODPLAIN.
SO IT WOULD BE VERY LIMITED ON THE RAISING OF FLOORS TO GET IT OUTTA THE FLOODPLAIN.
I SET YOU UP FOR MORE QUESTIONS.
3,500 GALLONS PER DAY? PER OH, PER DAY.
I GONNA SAY THAT'S 3,500 A MINUTE
NO, THAT'S A LOT OF SHOWERS PER DAY.
AND YOU SAID IT'S A LOOP SYSTEM? IT'S A LOOP SYSTEM.
SO THE WATER GOES IN, IT STAYS IN THE LOOP SYSTEM NEVER COMES OUT.
HOW DOES IT COOL AND STAY EFFECTIVE ONCE IT'S HOT.
SO ONCE IT'S HOT, IT'S, IT'S GOING THROUGH THIS CYCLE AND IT'S GOING THROUGH AND COOLING DOWN IN THAT SAME LOOP SYSTEM, A TYPICAL DATA CENTER IS GONNA BLOW THAT WATER OUT AND THEN BRING IT BACK IN.
SO THAT'S WHAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONER WAS TALKING ABOUT.
HAS MOST DATA CENTERS USE A LOT OF WATER.
WE HAVE A PATENTED TECHNIQUE THAT WE USE ON OUR DATA CENTERS, WHICH DIFFERENTIATES US FROM OTHER DATA CENTERS.
3,500 A DAY IS A LOT DIFFERENT THAN 3,500 A MINUTE, WHICH IS WHAT I UNDERSTOOD.
BUT I'M IN THE IRRIGATION BUSINESS.
SO THEY'LL, WE TALK IN, WE'LL TALK IN MINUTES.
CAN YOU ADDRESS, I MEAN MY, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT IS EXCESSIVE AND YOU'RE GONNA SPEND ALL THE MONEY TO BUILD THIS.
WE'RE GONNA HAVE HEAT CONCERNS AS COMMISSIONER KERRY MENTIONED.
AND AT ONE POINT, IF THIS WAS TO EVER CONVERT TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN A DATA CENTER, YOUR PARKING'S GONNA BE 30 YEARS OLD AND PROBABLY HAVE TO BE REBUILT ANYWAY.
AND SO I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND, DO YOU NEED ALL THIS PARKING OR DO YOU NOT? SO I, I TOO AM FROM PHOENIX.
WE DO NOT LIKE TO OVERBUILD PARKING BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT 75 SPACES IS ALL WE USE FOR THIS BUILDING.
IF WE COULD DO LESS THAN WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, WE WOULD LOVE IT.
WE'RE DOING THE, THE SITE PARKING BASED ON THE ZONING CODE, WHICH IS LIKE ONE PER 1000.
WE BUILT THIS SAME BUILDING PROTOTYPE ALL OVER THE US WE CAN SHOW THAT.
WE CAN SUBMIT A TRAFFIC STUDY TO SHOW THAT WE DON'T NEED THAT MANY PARKING SPACES.
AND IF THE COUNCIL WOULD, AND THE CITY WOULD AGREE TO IT, WE WOULD LOVE TO BUILD LESS THAN THAT.
THE LAST QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, BUT I WILL MAKE MORE COMMENTS.
I GUESS MY QUESTION IS THIS, THEN MICROPHONE QUESTION IS HOW DO I REMEMBER TO TURN ON THE MICROPHONE? THAT'S MY FIRST QUESTION.
UM, MY SECOND QUESTION IS, UM, SO NOW THAT YOU'RE AWARE THAT THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE THIS PARKING, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU THINK THAT YOU WILL NOW PURSUE? YES.
THE REASON WE'RE SHOWING THE PLAN THE WAY IT IS NOW, IS JUST TO SHOW THAT WE MEET THE ZONING FOLKS.
IF THAT WAS UP TO ME, WE WOULDN'T BUILD ANOTHER PARKING SPACE IN THE CITY UNLESS WE ABSOLUTELY HAD TO.
IT DOESN'T APPEAR WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING CONFINED DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION.
MR. RATLIFF, YOU WANT TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS? MR HAS A QUESTION.
OH YEAH, WE, YEAH, THAT CAME UP.
YOU PUSHED YOUR BUTTON AND THEN THAT POPPED UP.
MR. LALE, YOU HAVE A COMMENT QUESTION.
MY QUESTION IS FOR MIKE BELL ON THE PARKING ISSUE, YOU SAID AT THE END OF YOUR EARLIER COMMENTS THAT IT WAS AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS FOR THE APPLICANT TO GO THROUGH ESSENTIALLY PROOF
[01:00:01]
THAT THEY DON'T NEED ALL THIS PARKING.IS THERE ANY WAY TO SHOW THIS PARKING AS GREEN SPACE AND HAVE A NOTE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT SAYS IF THE USE CHANGES DOWN THE ROAD, MORE PARKING WOULD, YOU KNOW, THE PARKING WOULD HAVE TO BE RECALCULATED TO, TO THE NEW USE? AND I, I JUST, IT, IT SEEMED LIKE FROM YOUR OWN COMMENTS THAT IT WAS A VERY BURDENSOME PROCESS JUST TO PROVE WHAT I THINK WE ALL BELIEVE TODAY.
AND SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THAT PROCESS AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO AND IF THERE'S ANY SIMPLER METHOD TO GET US THERE? SO YOU REMEMBER WE DID, UM, THE C COUNCIL DID APPROVE A 20% REDUCTION.
THAT IS THE ONLY OTHER FLEXIBILITY BUILT INTO THE ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME.
SO YOU COULD REDUCE THE PARKING BY 20%.
UM, THAT IS THE MAX, UM, OVER THAT WOULD REQUIRE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL.
UM, THOSE ARE REALLY THE ONLY TWO MECHANISMS. THE PARKING REDUCTION PROGRAM, AGAIN, THAT REQUIRES STUDY A MITIGATION PLAN.
THEY HAVE TO DESIGN THE SITE TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THAT.
'CAUSE THE, THE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT REQUIRES A SITE PLAN APPROVED THAT SHOWS HOW THEY WILL ACTUALLY PROVIDE THAT PARKING IF THEY NEED IT IN THE FUTURE.
AND THEN IT REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.
AND SO THERE'S, I DON'T WANT IT SOUNDS OVERSIMPLIFIED THE WAY I'M DESCRIBING IT NOW, BUT THERE'S SIGNIFICANT LIST OF REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THEY WOULD NEED TO MEET.
THEY'RE CERTAINLY WELCOME TO DO IT.
WE WOULD HAPPY TO WALK 'EM THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
BUT I WOULD SAY THAT THE QUICKER PROCESS IS THE 20% REDUCTION THAT YOU'LL HAVE ABSOLUTE FREEDOM TO GRANT.
UM, AND I WOULD SAY BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT WE'RE, I THINK WE'RE OVER PARKED BY ABOUT 375 REDUCING.
I MEAN, IF THEY NEED 75 WHEN WE'RE AT 4 50, 4 50 MINUS 75 GETS US 3 75, REDUCING THAT BY 20%, THAT'S ANOTHER 20, 40 60 SPOTS.
I MEAN, WE'RE STILL OVER PARKED BY 250 SPACES.
THAT'S, THAT'S THE LIMITATIONS THE ORDINANCE HAVE SET ON US.
SO THAT'S ALL WE CAN GRANT, UM, AGAIN, THAT THEY CAN DO THAT PARKING REDUCTION PROGRAM, BUT THAT WOULD NEED TO GO THROUGH THE FULL PROCESS TO DO THAT.
AND I WOULD JUST NOTE THAT THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT LED ME TO VOTE AGAINST THE PARKING AND DIRECTION REQUIREMENT.
'CAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WENT FAR ENOUGH.
IF Y'ALL RECALL, THAT VOTE WAS SEVEN TO ONE.
AND I FEEL LIKE INSTEAD OF PUTTING A BANDAID ON SOMETHING, WE HAD A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME REAL RELIEF.
AND THIS IS A SITUATION JUST A FEW WEEKS LATER WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES FORCING SOMEONE TO OVER PARK BY 250 SPACES.
AND SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD REVISIT AND I THINK THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS.
AND I, I THINK WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ADVOCATES FOR SMART, A CITY AND SMART DEVELOPMENT.
AND THIS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT MEETS THAT TO ME.
AND HONESTLY, I'M HAPPY WITH US FOR US TO TAKE THAT UP UPON DIRECTION FROM COUNSEL TO DO SO.
SO MAYBE THIS CASE, GOING TO COUNSEL AND SEEING EXACTLY THIS WILL CAUSE THEM TO SAY WE NEED TO ACCELERATE AN OPTION, YOU KNOW, HERE.
AND I WOULD, SO, UH, I APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE.
I THINK COUNCIL RELIES ON US AS A LAND USE BODY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM.
AND SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING OUR JOB.
MR. CAREY? YEAH, I I'D LIKE TO CHANGE MY VOTE ON THAT, UH, PARKING THING FROM ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO.
UM, SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS, IT, THIS SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE, BUT, BUT I'M REALLY, UM, BOTHERED BY THE FACT THAT IT FEELS LIKE THIS COMMISSION'S HANDS ARE TIED BEHIND THEIR BACK AND POSSIBLY, UNLESS, UNLESS THE APPLICANT REALLY WANTS TO TAKE THIS ON.
AND SO I, I, YOU KNOW, IT'S A, IT'S A CURIOUS POSITION TO BE IN BECAUSE I THINK ALL OF US RECOGNIZE WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS, AND, AND HERE WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO IT SOMEHOW WITHOUT GOING THROUGH WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BURDENSOME PROCESS.
AND SO I JUST, UM, I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THAT AT THIS POINT.
MR. ALI, QUESTION AND COMMENTS.
UM, SO THE PARKING SPACES, 400 OR WHATEVER, DO THEY HAVE TO, IN THE ESTATE PLAN PAVE ALL 400? I'M ALSO GONNA REMIND THE COMMISSION THAT THERE IS A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR ANY USE THAT'S NOT OFFICE IN RT TO PROVIDE THAT OFFICE PARKING.
SO THERE'S A VARIANCE FROM THAT REQUIRED AS WELL.
SO THIS IS MORE FOR MY KNOWLEDGE, LIKE IF, IF YOU HAVE TO PAVE, ARE YOU REQUIRED TO PAVE ALL PARKING SPACES THAT HAS SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN TO MAKE IT READILY AVAILABLE? OR ARE YOU JUST REQUIRED TO SHOW YOU'RE ABLE TO BUILD THE PARKING
[01:05:01]
NEEDED? WHAT'S THE UNDER THE, UNDER THE TYPICAL PROCESS, THE, ALL THE PARKING NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO GET YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.AND, UM, AND I'M THE, THE COMMENT, I, I'M FINE WITH THE HANDCUFF OF THE 20% BECAUSE THIS LESS PARKING AID IS SPECIFIC TO A DATA CENTER USE.
IF THIS WAS AN OFFICE OR WAREHOUSE AND ALL OF THAT STUFF, THEN WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE THE ONE TO 1000, UM, REQUIREMENT FOR THAT KIND OF USE.
AND SINCE WE ARE NOT BUILDING DATA CENTERS EVERY SINGLE DAY, THIS ONE-OFFS, THE CITY COUNCIL, UM, LIKE CHAIRMAN DOWNS JUST SAID, WOULD GUIDE US ON HOW WE CAN DEAL WITH ONE-OFFS.
I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY NEED TO REWRITE THE ORDINANCE FOR THE VERY UNIQUE USE MR. LAW.
AND, AND LET'S, LET'S DO THIS TOO.
WE HAVE LIMITATIONS ON WHAT WE CAN DO, RIGHT? AND WE NEED TO DECIDE IS THIS A GOOD USE OF THE LAND OR NOT? WE CAN ARGUE PARKING.
I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION AND I'LL LET THIS GO.
A, A PD ALLOWS YOU TO ALTER THE ORDINANCE.
WHY NOT CALL IT A PD AND THEN WRITE IN TO THE ORDINANCE A REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENT? YEAH, THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION FOR THE DATA CENTER.
IT'S PERMITTED BY USE OR BY, RIGHT.
I GUESS THEY COULD DO THE PD TO ALLOW THE SUBSTATION BY RIGHT.
UM, BUT REALLY THE PURPOSE OF A PLAN OF ELEMENT IS NOT TO GRANT VARIANCES AND WAIVERS, IT'S TO DO AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT FORM.
UH, SOMETHING THAT ISN'T QUITE FORESEEN BY CODE.
SO I WOULDN'T SAY IT MEETS THE INTENT OF A PD, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION THEY COULD PURSUE AS WELL.
I'M JUST TRYING TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN.
UM, AT THIS POINT, I, I'D, I'D LIKE TO, UH, MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023 DASH OH NINE.
UM, WHICH I THINK IS THIS WHAT? THAT'S THE SECOND ONE.
I, I, I'D RECOMMEND THIS FOR APPROVAL IS SUBMITTED, UM, WITH, WITH A CALL OUT TO THE APPLICANTS THAT IF THEY SO DESIRE THAT THEY SHOULD GO TO THE, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN AN EFFORT.
BECAUSE EVEN AFTER WE APPROVE THIS, I UNDERSTAND THEY DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT IF THEY SO DESIRE.
SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LIMITED BY WHAT WE CAN DO.
AND SO I, I, I SUGGEST WE MOVE THIS FORWARD AND THEN ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DESIRE TO DO.
I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT, BUT I NEED A CLARIFICATION.
IS THAT A MOTION ON FOUR A, FOUR B OR BOTH? FOUR A.
SO FOR ITEM FOUR A, WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KERRY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED, PLEASE VOTE.
AND THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.
NOW LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO ON FOUR B.
THE MOST WE COULD DO WOULD BE A 20% FROM OUR STANDPOINT.
YOU COULD GRANT A 20% REDUCTION AND WE COULD ALLOW THAT IN THE FINAL SITE PLAN.
AND THEN IT'S UP TO THEM TO THEM IF THEY WANNA PURSUE FURTHER THAN THAT.
IS THAT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY? OKAY.
THEN I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND THIS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023 DASH NINE WITH A 20% REDUCTION IN PARKING AS ALLOWED TO US BY ORDINANCE.
SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KERRY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI TO APPROVE FOUR B.
AND THAT ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO AS WELL.
HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET YOU DOWN TO A HUNDRED SPOTS OR SO ANYWAY SOMEHOW.
AND AT LEAST NOT BUILD 'EM NOW, RIGHT? JUST LEAVE IT ALL GREEN, BUILD WHAT YOU NEED, AND THEN THE SPACE IS THERE LATER.
[5A. (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. Tabled on January 2, 2024. Project #SOA2023-003. Petitioner: City of Plano (Legislative consideration) ]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, A 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 PLATS PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF AS PERMITTED UNDER THE BILL.THIS WAS TABLED ON JANUARY 2ND, 2024.
THE PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
I'M SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
IN THIS AGENDA, BOTH STEM FROM UPDATES REQUIRED BY STATE, LEGISLATIVE AND CODE CHANGES.
ITEM FIVE A INCLUDES OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE UPDATES, AND ITEM FIVE B WILL INCLUDE OUR ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATES.
THESE ITEMS WILL BE HEARD SEPARATELY.
ITEM FIVE A IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE
[01:10:01]
SECTIONS RELATED TO HOUSE BILL 36 99, INCLUDING EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PLAID APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF.YOU CAN SEE HERE THE FOUR BACKGROUND ITEMS THAT ARE INCLUDED.
UH, THE BILL WAS PASSED LAST YEAR DURING THE 88TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE.
THE COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING IN AUGUST TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING EXTENDING ADDITIONAL PLA APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF.
IN TWO SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS, THE COMMISSION DID DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE AHEAD WITH PROPOSING THESE CHANGES.
HOUSE BILL 36 99 INCLUDES SEVERAL CHANGES AS SHOWN HERE ON THIS SLIDE.
THE CHANGE BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT ALLOWS, UH, PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO BE DELEGATED TO CITY STAFF.
SO THIS TABLE THAT'S REPRODUCED FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT SHOWS THE PREVIOUS DIRECTION WE RECEIVED ON APPROVAL AUTHORITY.
THIS IS SPLIT OUT BY PROJECT TYPE, CAN SEE THE PLAT TYPE.
UM, THE NUMBER THAT WE HAD USING AN EXAMPLE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR.
CURRENTLY, WE WOULD SEE 128 OF THESE GO THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNDER THE PROPOSED CHANGES.
IF YOU LOOK IN THE LOWER RIGHT HAND CORNER OF THIS TABLE, UM, THE STAFF APPROVED NUMBER WOULD'VE BEEN 111 AND PNZ WOULD'VE HEARD 17 OF THESE BASED ON THE DIRECTION WE RECEIVED.
SINCE THESE PLATS RECEIVE ONLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION, THIS WOULD REPRESENT A LARGE TIME SAVINGS FOR DEVELOPERS AND FOR THE COMMISSION.
JUST TO KIND OF REVIEW THIS, UM, IT INDICATES THAT ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY COMPLY WITH ALL CITY REGULATIONS.
THIS IS AS OPPOSED TO LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION, WHICH CONSIDERS FACTORS OTHER THAN JUST REGULATORY COMPLIANCE WHEN MAKING DECISIONS.
SO SHOWN HERE IS A TIMELINE OF HOW THE CHANGE IN APPROVAL AUTHORITY WOULD AFFECT THE EFFICIENCY OF THE PLAT APPROVAL PROCESS, PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND TO DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY.
SO CURRENTLY, STAFF REVIEW OFTEN CONCLUDES DAYS PRIOR TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL.
DEVELOPERS WAIT FOR THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING AND FOR THE PREPARATION BY STAFF OF RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR THAT MEETING.
SLOWING DOWN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS, WE DID SURVEY 23 PEER COMMUNITIES AND FOUND THAT OF THE 18 RESPONSES WE'VE RECEIVED ABOUT HALF HAVE EITHER ALREADY ADOPTED REGULATIONS DELEGATING PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF, OR ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DISCUSSING THAT OPTION.
UH, PLANO IS TYPICALLY AHEAD OF OTHER COMMUNITIES IN RESPONDING TO THESE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES YEAR OVER YEAR DURING THESE SESSIONS.
SO WE DO EXPECT SOME COMMUNITIES TO BE SLOWER IN CONSIDERING THESE CHANGES THAN US.
AS FAR AS TRANSPARENCY IS A CONCERN, UH, THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO PLAT REVIEW INFORMATION THROUGH THIS GIS BASED MAP.
UH, OF COURSE OUR ZONING AND RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MAP IS PUBLIC FACING.
UM, AND OUR NEW SUBMITTAL AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LISTS ARE PUBLIC, PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AS WELL.
UH, SO WE'LL CONTINUE OUR PRACTICE OF TRANSPARENCY AROUND ALL CURRENT DEVELOPMENT WORK, INCLUDING PLATS.
THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED OPTIONS FOR REPORTING ON STAFF APPROVAL OF PLATS, UH, AND ONE OPTION DISCUSSED WAS A MONTHLY STAFF APPROVAL REPORT, WHICH WOULD CONTAIN A LIST AND THEN COPIES OF DRAWING COPIES OF ALL PLATS APPROVED BY STAFF DURING THAT PERIOD.
UH, WE DID NOTE THAT STAFF DOES CURRENTLY APPROVE MULTIPLE PROJECT TYPES WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY TYPE OF SEPARATE REPORT.
SO THIS WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL TREATMENT OF PLATS AS DIFFERENT PROJECT TYPES.
WE CURRENTLY DO THINGS LIKE LANDSCAPE PLANS, SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMING SITE PLANS.
IN FACT, OVER 400 ITEMS WERE APPROVED BY STAFF LAST YEAR WITHOUT ANY REPORT PROVIDED.
UM, ALTERNATIVELY, THE NEW SUBMITTAL LIST CAN BE SENT TO ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS PROVIDING AN EARLY OPPORTUNITY TO CONTACT STAFF ABOUT ANY ITEMS OF INTEREST INCLUDING PLAS.
THE SLIDE JUST SHOWS ADDITIONAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT YOU CAN FIND IN THAT STRIKE THROUGH UNDERLINED SECTION OF THE PACKET.
THEY'RE RELATED TO THE PLATTING PROCESS OR ARE JUST CLERICAL ITEMS, CLEANUP ITEMS, UH, SINGLE FAMILY AND TWO FAMILY RESIDENTIAL RELAS PLOTS THAT REQUIRE VARIANCES AND PLAT VACATIONS WILL CONTINUE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS PROPOSAL.
BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
UM, AS DISCUSSED PREVIOUSLY, DELEGATING ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF PROVIDES BENEFITS TO DEVELOPERS AND TO THE PUBLIC.
DEVELOPERS CAN MOVE THOSE PROJECTS FORWARD MORE QUICKLY WITH A MORE RAPID APPROVAL PROCESS.
AND COMMISSION MEETINGS CAN PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH GREATER FOCUS ON LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS AND STREAMLINE THE PACKET PREPARATION PROCESS FOR STAFF BY REMOVING THE NEED TO PREPARE FOR THOSE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED ITEMS. ITEM FIVE A IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A IN THE STAFF REPORT PACKET.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
[01:15:02]
A COUPLE REAL QUICK FROM ME BEFORE WE MOVE ON.THERE ARE EIGHT OF THE MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERING ANY CHANGES AT THIS TIME.
DO WE KNOW WHY THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERING IT? IS IT WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT IT OR IS IT WE'VE LOOKED AT IT AND DETERMINED THAT'S NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OR DO WE KNOW? I'M NOT SURE IF WE KNOW FOR SURE FOR EVERY MUNICIPALITY.
I KNOW A COUPLE THAT WE TALKED TO, UM, MAY HAVE LIKE RECENTLY UPDATED THEIR ZONING ORDINANCE OR, UM, UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE HAS MM-HMM,
UM, AND SO, UH, THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS PROCESS OF MAKING A, AN, A NEW AMENDMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS.
UM, BUT, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S JUST A, A COUPLE THAT WE HEARD FROM.
AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WAS JUST CONFIRMING, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WAS, THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT EFFICIENCY, BUT UH, WE'VE BEFORE PUSHED FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THE AGENDA OUT A LITTLE EARLIER.
UM, OR THE PACKET OUT A LITTLE EARLIER.
IS IT LIKELY THAT THIS CHANGE WILL RESULT IN A EARLIER RELEASE OF THE PACKET, IN YOUR OPINION? THIS IS ONE OF OUR TOP PRIORITIES.
I CAN'T GUARANTEE IT, BUT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS THAT.
WELL, THIS CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HELP HURT.
UM, YOU REPORTED ABOUT CREATING A NEW REPORT FOR JUST PLATS, AND I RESPECT THAT THAT WOULD CREATE WORK FOR YOU.
UM, BUT YOU KIND OF PROVIDED AS AN ALTERNATE A SUBMITTAL LOG FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES OF, IS THAT WHAT THAT, ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WOULD BE EVERYTHING THAT IS SUBMITTED, INCLUDING THE THREE OR 400 ITEMS THAT, UM, Y'ALL APPROVED LAST YEAR THAT WE DIDN'T SEE A REPORT ON? OR IS ARE YOU JUST TALKING ABOUT PLATS AND OTHER THINGS THAT WE WOULD'VE OTHERWISE SEEN? SO THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION PERTAINED TO A PLAT REPORT.
WE DID NOTE THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE OF A REASON WHY PLATS WOULD GET SPECIAL TREATMENT.
SO IT WOULD BE THE REPORT AS THE COMMISSION ORDER.
SO CURRENTLY, UM, INTERNALLY AMONG STAFF, UH, AFTER EVERY SUBMITTAL DAY, WE GENERATE A REPORT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THAT SUBMITTAL DAY, WHETHER IT'S A PLAT, A ZONING CASE, A SITE PLAN, UM, AND THEN WE ALSO RUN A LIST OF EVERYTHING THAT IS ACTIVE.
UH, THOSE REPORTS ARE CIRCULATED AMONG, UH, LIKE THE PLANNING, ENGINEERING AND I BELIEVE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENTS.
SO WE'D BE SIMPLY, UM, ADDING THE COMMISSION TO THE ROUTING FOR THOSE REPORTS.
SO Y'ALL HAVE A REPORT YOU'RE ALREADY DOING THAT YOU WOULD JUST PUT US ON THE DISTRIBUTION LIST SO WE WOULDN'T BE ASKING Y'ALL TO DO ANY ADDITIONAL WORK.
JUST CC US COUPLE MORE EMAILS INTO THE, UH, SUBSEQUENT.
THAT, THAT'S, I LIKE THAT ANSWER BECAUSE THAT WAY WE'RE NOT CREATING ANY NEW WORK FOR YOU.
WE'RE JUST ASKING THE, A LITTLE TRANSPARENCY SO WE SEE WHAT YOU'RE WORKING ON.
AND, AND JUST TO NOTE, THESE ARE THE SAME, THE, THE NEW SUBMITTAL LIST AND THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LIST ARE CURRENTLY POSTED ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL.
SO THEY'RE CIRCULATED INTERNALLY BUT ALSO POSTED ONLINE CURRENTLY.
WE'RE JUST NOT DIRECTLY, UM, PROVIDING THEM TO THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME, BUT WE COULD.
UM, I THINK AS WE KNOW, THE PLATS MOVE THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVELY AND UNLESS THERE'S SOME PERCEIVED MISTAKE OR A MISTAKE, THEN TYPICALLY THEY MOVE THROUGH.
SO MY, MY QUESTION IS THIS, IN 2023, HOW MANY PROTESTS OR CHALLENGES DO WE HAVE IN TERMS OF THE PLATS THAT WERE DONE? DO YOU GUYS KNOW? ZERO, I BELIEVE.
SO TO THAT END, IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GIVING UP A CHANCE TO REALLY REVIEW THINGS AND, AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING'S DONE.
THE, THE WAY YOU GUYS ARE DOING, IT SEEMS TO REALLY BE STREAMLINED AND EFFECTIVE.
AND SO I I I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE REALLY LOSING ANYTHING HERE.
THE ADDENDUM THAT SHOWED, UH, THE STAFF APPROVED PLATS REPORTS, IS THERE A WAY TO ADD, UH, IN THE REPORT THAT IS GENERATED IF IT'S NOT ADDITIONAL WORK, WHERE WE SEE WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE RE PLAT? IS IT AN EASEMENT TO ADD ON AN EASEMENT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE? DOES THAT ALREADY GET GENERATED BY YOUR REPORT? IT DOES NOT.
AND IT CAN BE PRETTY COMPLICATED ON CERTAIN SITES.
UM, IF IT'S JUST ONE SMALL SITE AND THEY'RE DEDICATING AN EASEMENT FOR ACCESS, THAT'S PRETTY EASY TO SHOW.
BUT IF THEY'RE CHANGING UTILITY WORK, PARKING ACCESS, ALMOST EVERYTHING IN THERE IS A CHANGE.
AND I THINK AT THE CORE OF THAT IS REGARDLESS OF HOW SIMPLE OR COMPLICATED IT IS, 'CAUSE IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION,
[01:20:01]
WE WOULDN'T REALLY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ANYWAY.UH, COMMISSIONER TOM, THANK YOU CHAIRMAN.
AND MY QUESTION IS REGARDING REPLIES.
I ACTUALLY HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION AS COMMISSIONER KERRY REGARDING, YOU KNOW, OUR DATA FROM THE PAST AND LIKE, HOW BIG OF IMPACT OF THIS WOULD CREATE TO THE PUBLIC AND TO US AND TO THE STAFF, TO, UH, ON THE OTHER SIDE IS THAT, DO YOU SEE ANY CONTROVERSIAL, LIKE FOR REPLYING CASES, HAVE WE EVER HAD ANY CONTROVERSIAL CASES? MAYBE SOME REPLYING, UM, CASES WILL, UM, INVOKE SOME KIND OF, UH, ISSUES AMONG THE COMMUNITIES? MAYBE IT REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT WE CAN HAVE A KIND OF A EXCEPTION? YOU KNOW, SO THERE ARE A COUPLE I CAN THINK OF NOW.
RESIDENTIAL RELAS WILL STILL COME TO THE COMMISSION.
UM, IS THERE MULTIFAMILY LIKE APARTMENT? I KNOW THOSE ARE LIKE REALLY HOT TOPICS AMONG THE COMMUNITIES, RIGHT? THOSE, UM, I'M GONNA ASK THE STAFF TO HELP ME OUT HERE, BUT I BELIEVE THOSE BY, BY STATE STATUTE DO NOT REQUIRE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
UH, 'CAUSE IT'S TECHNICALLY WHERE IT'S DUPLEX OR LESS IS WHAT REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE.
I BELIEVE WE DO THAT ANYWAY AS A CONTINGENCY, BUT, UM, STAFF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
UM, SO THE, THE ISSUE IS WITH THOSE, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL OF THOSE IN THE PAST WHERE WE'VE HAD FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO'VE COME OUT AND PROTEST THE PLAT.
BUT AGAIN, THE COMMISSIONS HANDS ARE TIED.
THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT IF IT MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.
SO AT BEST WHAT IT DOES IS GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO TRY TO FIND THOSE ERRORS ON THEIR OWN.
WHICH, WHICH AGAIN, THEY'VE TRIED TO DO.
UM, BUT AGAIN, UH, WE, THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS.
SO ALONG THOSE LINES, ONE OF THE ITEMS THERE WAS THAT, YOU KNOW, A PLAT COULD BE APPEALED AND THEN THE COMMISSION WOULD HEAR IT.
SO IT DOES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE US IF SOMEBODY APPEALS IT.
BUT THEN IS ALL IT TAKE TAKES FOR AN APPEAL? IS SOMEONE TO SIMPLY SAY, I APPEAL THIS, OR ARE THERE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO APPEAL IT? IN OTHER WORDS, DO THEY HAVE TO HAVE STANDING? DO THEY HAVE TO BE, UH, UH, WITHIN 200 FEET? OR WHAT ARE THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SOMEONE TO BE ELIGIBLE TO ACTUALLY APPEAL A PLAID DECISION? I BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE A VARIANCE REQUIREMENT.
SANDRA, DO YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHEN THE, I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S ANY APPEAL PROCESS FOR A STANDARD PLAT REQUIREMENT.
CAN YOU GO BACK TWO OR THREE SLIDES TO WHERE IT TO YEAH, CERTAINLY.
UM, WE ADDED IN THAT RIGHT THERE, PLATT'S APPROVED OR DENIED BY STAFF CAN BE APPEAL ADDITIONAL APPEALED TO, TO THE COMMISSION.
SO THAT'S WHERE I'M, THAT'S THE APPLICANT APPEALING IF RIGHT STAFF DID NOT, OH, THAT'S THE APPLICANT.
THAT'S THE APPLICANT APPEALING.
UM, THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE GRIEVED PERSONS HAVE RIGHTS TO APPEAL, BUT THERE'S NOT A GRIEVED PERSONS IN PLATS.
SO IN THIS SITUATION, IT'S ONLY THE APPLICANT.
I'M ASSUMING IF IT WAS A BIG ENOUGH DEAL, THEY'D STILL COME HERE AND SPEAK BEFORE US IN THE PUBLIC HEARING IN THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION.
SO WE ALSO INCLUDED LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THE DIRECTOR TO SEND IT STRAIGHT TO YOU ALL IF, IF SHE'S NOT COMFORTABLE MAKING A DECISION, WHICH, WHICH I EXPECT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THERE'S ENOUGH, IF THERE'S A REAL PROBLEM.
AND IF I MAY, UM, THE APPEAL ALSO ALLOWS FOR TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO REQUEST THAT IT BE APPEALED.
UM, OR TWO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL.
SO THERE ARE MECHANISMS IF YOU HEAR THINGS FROM THE PUBLIC.
MR. LAW, GOING BACK TO ISSUES I'VE HEARD ON THIS TOPIC BEFORE.
ONE IS TRANSPARENCY AND THAT'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE FOR ME.
I MEAN, THESE THINGS ARE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE PUBLICIZED, AND THEN MIKE, IF, IF THERE'S AN ERROR ON A PLAT, THERE'S NO REAL ADVANTAGE.
I MEAN, IF SOMEONE, THE WATERLINE EASEMENT IN THE WRONG SPOT, THEY ALMOST HAVE TO CORRECT IT, RIGHT? YEAH.
I MEAN, A LOT OF THAT STUFF GETS SORTED OUT THROUGH, UM, THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AND THEN THE, YOU KNOW, LOT OF TIMES FINAL PLAT THAT'LL GET, THAT'LL GET FIXED IN THE FINAL PLAT IF SAY IT WAS A BALLOON PLAT, WHERE THAT'S GONNA BE A CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, THERE'S AN ERROR IN STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OR LOT SIZE OR THINGS LIKE THAT THAT GET WORKED THROUGH IN THE PLATINUM.
WE'RE PRETTY DILIGENT ABOUT THAT.
BUT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE IT COULD MEET, NOT MEET A ZONING REQUIREMENT, FOR INSTANCE, THE CHANCES OF ONE OF US CATCHING IT, RIGHT? WE MIGHT HAVE IT.
[01:25:01]
I JUST WANNA ADD BEFORE WE MOVE ON, UM, STAFF IS PROVIDED, PLEASE MOVE ON.
WELL CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF.
SO THANK YOU IS THAT WE ONLY SEND THE NOTICES ON SINGLE FAMILY AND DUPLEX PLATS.
SO A MULTI-FAMILY WOULD NOT GET THE, UM, THE NOTICE.
ARE WE DONE WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THIS IS FIVE A MR. ALI, I MOVE.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MR. SPEAKER? MR. CHAIRMAN? PARDON? OH, MR. BRUNO.
UM, I, WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND, BUT GO AHEAD.
I'VE MADE MY POSITION KNOWN THAT PAST MEETINGS.
UM, JUST BY WAY OF SUMMARY, I THINK THERE IS NOTHING AS TRANSPARENT AS A, A PUBLIC BODY CONSIDERING A MATTER AT A PUBLIC HEARING.
IT GIVES THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO ATTEND.
IT GIVES THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT GOVERNMENT IS DOING RATHER THAN WHAT GOVERNMENT ALREADY DID.
IT GIVES THEM A CHANCE TO PROTEST.
IT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PULL AN ITEM OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PUT IT ON THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA FOR DISCUSSION.
UM, I THINK THAT, UM, HAVING THE COMMISSION EXERCISE PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY IS AN EXTRA INCENTIVE TO THE STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING DOES COMPLY WITH THE CITY ORDINANCES, UH, BEFORE IT COMES TO US, SO THAT IT, IT CAN QUALIFY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION RATHER THAN LEGISLATIVE.
IN SHORT, I THINK THE SYSTEM AS IT HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES UP TO NOW IS NOT BROKEN.
I, I DON'T SEE WHY WE NEED TO FIX IT.
ANYONE ELSE? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLIE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM FIVE A.
THAT ITEM CARRIES SIX TO ONE ITEM FIVE B AGENDA
[5B. (RK) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2023-019 – Request to amend various sections of the Zoning Ordinance pertaining to recent state legislative actions to ensure compliance with state law, including amendments related to SB 929. Tabled on January 2, 2024. Project #ZC2023-019. Petitioner: City of Plano (Legislative consideration) ]
ITEM NUMBER FIVE B, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023 DASH ZERO 19.REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO RECENT STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SB 9 29.
THIS WAS TABLED ON JANUARY 2ND, 2024.
PETITIONER CITY OF PLANO, THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
SO FIVE B INCLUDES ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATES RELATED TO STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS AND A CHANGE IN THE, UH, TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE.
ITEM FIVE B IS A REQUEST TO AMEND ZONING ORDINANCE SECTIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING AMENDMENT RELATED TO SENATE BILL 9 29.
THE NEXT TWO SLIDES SHOW THE BACKGROUND FOR THIS ITEM.
THE 88TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE PASSED THREE BILLS THAT REQUIRE ORDINANCE UPDATES.
THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WAS ALSO UPDATED REQUIRING ONE ORDINANCE CHANGE.
IN ADDITION, A BILL FROM THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION HAS BEEN REVISITED AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES ARE BEING PROPOSED.
TWO PREVIOUS COMMISSION MEETINGS ADDRESSED CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING NON-CONFORMING USES ON JANUARY 2ND.
THIS ITEM WAS TABLED TO ALLOW FURTHER STAFF WORK ON THESE UPDATES.
HOUSE BILL 1750 AND 2308 ADDRESS GENERAL AGRICULTURAL PRACTICES.
THEY REQUIRE THAT VETERINARY SERVICES AND KENNEL AND PET SITTING USES RESPECTIVELY CANNOT BE PROHIBITED.
ORDINANCE CHANGES PROPOSED PERMIT THESE USES BY RIGHT IN ALL DISTRICTS WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURAL USES.
SENATE BILL 9 29 PROVIDES PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION, NOTICING AND AMORTIZATION OR BUYOUTS OF NON-CONFORMING USES.
THE CHANGES PROPOSED HERE DEAL WITH THE AMORTIZATION AND BUYOUT SINCE PREVIOUS ZONING CASES ADDRESS THE OTHER TOPICS.
THIS FLOW CHART ILLUSTRATES THE PROCESS OF STOPPING A NON-CONFORMING USE.
ONCE A DECISION IS MADE THAT A NON-CONFORMING USE MUST STOP THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOTIFIED AND CHOOSES BETWEEN A BUYOUT OR AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD IN WHICH THE BUSINESS CONTINUES TO OPERATE UNTIL A CERTAIN TIME THRESHOLD IS REACHED.
IN EITHER CASE, THE CITY WOULD APPOINT AN EXPERT TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT PAYMENT OR THE CORRECT TIME PERIOD.
PROPERTY OWNERS CAN APPEAL THE DECISION FOR EITHER OF THOSE OPTIONS.
THE UPDATE TO THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIRES THAT SCHOOL FENCING BE A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET HIGH IF IT INCLUDES FEATURES TO PREVENT SCALING OR EIGHT FEET HIGH.
OTHERWISE, THE PROPOSED ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATE REPLACES THE CURRENT MAXIMUM FRONT YARD FENCE HEIGHT OF 60 INCHES WITH EIGHT FEET FOR SCHOOLS AND DAYCARES TO COMPLY WITH THIS CHANGE.
[01:30:01]
HOUSE BILL 24 39 FROM THE 2019 STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION PROHIBITED SOME TYPES OF REGULATION OF BUILDING MATERIALS.SO AFTER ADDITIONAL REVIEW, STAFF IS PROPOSING FURTHER CHANGES TO COMPLY WITH THESE REGULATIONS, INCLUDING LANGUAGE CLARIFYING THE STATUS OF THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY IS CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT AND THEN CHANGES TO INDIVIDUAL ZONING DISTRICT REGULATIONS REGARDING MATERIAL STANDARDS PLAN USE ACTION ONE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS, REVIEW AND EVALUATE THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND MAKE APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS BASED ON GUIDANCE FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW.
SO THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THIS ACTION STATEMENT.
WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES RELATED TO THIS ITEM.
ITEM FIVE B IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A IN THE STAFF REPORT PACKET.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
UH, MR. LYLE, I WANTED TO SEE IF MICHELLE COULD ADD SOME INFORMATION AROUND THE AMORTIZATION OF A USE IN THE BUYOUT.
DO YOU KNOW, I I CAN'T IMAGINE RUNNING A BUS.
WELL, FIRST OF ALL, THIS IS, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT'S COMING FROM THE LEGISLATURE THAT'S PROMPTING THIS CHANGE? YOU KNOW, I'M, I'M NOT, I'M NOT CERTAIN I'M SPECULATING A LITTLE BIT.
I, I WONDERED IF IT WASN'T TIED TO SOME OF THE THINGS THEY WERE CONSIDERING WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
UM, JUST BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE WAS LOOKING AT SHORT TERM RENTALS AND, UM, THERE WERE A LOT OF CITIES THAT WERE AT LEAST TOYING WITH BANNING THEM ALTOGETHER AND NOT GRANDFATHERING THEM.
SO, I MEAN, THAT'S JUST A BIT OF SPECULATION FROM ME, BUT, BUT IT DEFINITELY GIVES MORE WARNING TO PEOPLE NOW THAN IN THE PAST.
'CAUSE IN THE, IN THE PAST, YOU COULD MAKE SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY NONCONFORMING WITHOUT GIVING THEM ANY KIND OF PERSONAL NOTICE.
AND, AND NOW WE DO GIVE PERSONAL NOTICE, AND THEN THEY'VE MADE IT REALLY CLEAR WHAT OUR PRACTICE NEEDS TO BE.
IT WAS ALWAYS, UM, THE CASE THAT WE HAD TO AMORTIZE, BUT, UM, THEY WEREN'T GIVEN THE OPTION OF JUST GETTING STRAIGHT PAYMENT IN THE PAST.
UM, SO MANY CITIES WOULD LOOK AT HOW LONG A PROPERTY'S BEEN OWNED AND, UM, SAY WE'RE GONNA TERMINATE THE USE AND GIVE SAY 10, 12 MONTHS FOR THEM TO WRAP UP THE BUSINESS AND SAY, THAT'S ENOUGH TIME, YOU KNOW, FOR YOU TO BE AMORTIZED AND GET YOUR MONEY BACK OUT OF YOUR PROJECT.
AND NOW THE COURT'S SETTING IT UP SO THAT, UM, AN APPRAISER'S GONNA BE INVOLVED, YOU'RE GONNA HAVE THIRD PARTY EXPERTS, THAT SORT OF THING.
SO THERE'S JUST A LOT MORE PROCESS.
IS, IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE ASKING? YES.
CAN, CAN YOU THINK OF ANY SITUA HAS WITH YOUR TIME WITH PLANO? I'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION FOR A DECADE OR SO, BUT WITH YOUR TIME WITH PLANO, HAVE YOU EVER SEEN US GO IN AND TELL SOMEONE, YOU CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE AND WE'RE GONNA AM YOU'VE GOT, YOU'VE GOT FIVE YEARS AND YOU NEED TO MOVE.
UM, AND WHEN I TALKED TO, UM, MS. DAY ABOUT IT, SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT HAD HAPPENED.
WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE GOOD PROCEDURE IN OUR ORDINANCE.
SO I'D BE SURPRISED IF WE'VE EVER DONE IT.
I'M JUST WONDERING, I MEAN, IT SEEMS WITH THE NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS THERE ARE, IF THAT'S WHERE THE LEGISLATURE'S GOING, THAT THEY'RE GONNA GET THERE AND THEY'RE GONNA DETERMINE SOME AMOUNT OF TIME AND IT'S GONNA BE A FAIRLY STANDARD PRACTICE.
I'M JUST WONDERING HOW SOMETHING LIKE THIS CAN AFFECT, WE'LL JUST SAY LIVING EARTH UP ON FOOT TRAIL.
I MEAN, THEY'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, PILES OF MULCH 30 FEET IN THE AIR AND OTHER THINGS THAT, I MEAN, I THINK THERE ARE PRIME SUSPECT TO BE AMORTIZED AND TOLD TO MOVE ON OUT OF THE CITY WITH THE DUST AND THE SMELL AND EVERYTHING ELSE.
AND SO I'M JUST WONDERING HOW SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS GONNA AFFECT OTHER USES OUTSIDE OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
AND SO IF WE FOLLOWED THIS FLOW CHART, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS A RESOLUTION.
SO CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO SAY, WE'RE NOT GONNA LET YOU DO THAT ANYMORE.
AND THEN 10 DAYS LATER, WE'RE GONNA NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER AND THEN THEY'RE GONNA CHOOSE A REMEDY WITHIN 30 DAYS.
AND THOSE REMEDIES ARE EITHER WE HIRE AN APPRAISER AND THEN WE NOTIFY AND PAY YOU, OR WE HIRE ANOTHER EXPERT TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH LONGER THEY CAN STAY THERE.
I MEAN, I THINK APPRAISERS DO BOTH THINGS, BUT YEAH, IN, IN THE END IT'S, IT'S TIME OR MONEY UP FRONT.
UM, YOU KNOW, THE, I I'VE HEARD ABOUT THESE SINCE I'VE BEEN LIVING BACK IN TEXAS SINCE 2016, MOSTLY IN THE CONTEXT
[01:35:01]
OF WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO, TO CHANGE A CORRIDOR.LIKE, LIKE AT A CERTAIN POINT THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT ROSS AVENUE AND GETTING RID OF THE AUTOMOTIVE USES IN DALLAS.
I MEAN, I THINK THAT'S OUR MOST RECENT ONE THAT WAS WELL PUBLICIZED.
AND SO NOW FOR STAFF OR FOR MICHELLE, WHAT THE LEGISLATURE'S ACTUALLY PUTTING IN PLACE THAT WE'RE ADOPTING, IS IT JUST THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS? BECAUSE THE NON-CONFORMING USE, I KNOW WE'VE NEVER DONE IT IN PLANO, BUT IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE.
WE DIDN'T HAVE IT ALL SPELLED OUT EXACTLY HOW OUR PROCESS WORKED.
THERE WAS MAYBE A SENTENCE OR TWO ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE PROBABLY THE ONES, AND THERE WAS SOME STATUTES.
THERE'S A STATUTE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOING THAT.
BUT NOW BECAUSE OF THIS BILL, WE, WE'VE GOT A MORE ROBUST PROCESS THAT MIMICS WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES US TO DO.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE CHANGE WE MADE.
AND SO THIS FLOWCHART, IT WAS LAID OUT BY THE LEGISLATURE, WE'RE JUST ADOPTING WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US TO DO STATE LAW.
AND THEN EARLIER YOU ADOPTED A WHOLE PROCESS ABOUT WHAT IS A NON-CONFORMING USE.
UM, HOW TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROPERTY'S NON-CONFORMING OR CONFORMING.
THAT WAS A NEW PLANO ADD-ON, BECAUSE THAT HAD ALWAYS BEEN DONE VERY INFORMALLY.
AND WHEN WE SAW THIS COMING FROM THE LEGISLATURE, THAT PLUS WE KNEW SHORT-TERM RENTALS THAT COULD BECOME A HOT TOPIC.
WE CREATED THAT OTHER POLICY TO GIVE PEOPLE AN APPEALS PROCESS AND A FORMAL OPINION, UM, TO APPEAL AND THAT SORT OF THING.
AND THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LEADS INTO THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE CONSIDERED CONFORMING OR NON-CONFORMING BEFORE ANY OF THIS REALLY HAPPENS.
DO RESIDENTS HAVE ANY RIGHT TO, FOR FORCE THE ISSUE TO MAKE A NEIGHBOR NON-CONFORMING? I MEAN, THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY'RE ALL INVOLVED, THEY DON'T LIKE THE SHORT TERM RENTALS.
HOW DOES, HOW DOES THE PROCESS HAPPEN TO, TO TELL SOMEONE YOU'RE NON-CONFORMING AND THEN I'M JUST THINKING SHORT TERM RENTALS.
AND I MEAN, WHO'S GONNA, LET'S SAY THAT THE APPRAISER SAYS THAT THE VALUE OF RENTING THAT PROPERTY OUT, UM, IS, YOU KNOW, A HUNDRED PERCENT OF 80% OF THE VALUE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS.
AND THE PEOPLE HAVE GENERATED, I DON'T KNOW, LET'S JUST SAY WE OWE 'EM ALL 30 GRAND.
IT SEEMS LIKE A WHOLE BUNCH OF MONEY IF THEY ALL CHOOSE TO TAKE THEIR MONEY NOW OPTION.
SO WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM? SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BUDGETED, BUT I THINK THE THING IS HERE, THERE, THERE'S A TWO STEP PROCESS AND THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE BECAUSE ALL WE HAVE TO DO TO MAKE SOMEBODY NON-CONFORMING IS GIVE NOTICE.
OKAY, SO, SO WE CAN SAY THIS USE WAS ALLOWED.
NOW IT'S NOT ALLOWED, BUT YOU GET TO CONTINUE ON.
IT'S ONLY IF WE WANNA TELL THEM, NOPE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.
YOU'VE GOTTA STOP THAT, USE THAT.
THEN WE GIVE ANOTHER NOTICE AND WE HAVE TO PAY.
AND THAT WOULD BE COUNCIL DECISIONS TO EVEN GO DOWN THAT PROCESS.
WHEREAS, UM, THE MAKING SOMEBODY A NON-CONFORMING USE, THAT'S GONNA ALWAYS START WITH P AND Z THROUGH ZONING, TEXT AMENDMENTS, AND THE NORMAL PROCESS.
I DON'T WANNA TALK TOO MUCH SPECIFIC TO SHORT TERM RENTAL BECAUSE WE'RE NOT POSTED FOR THAT.
I MEAN, I KNOW I MENTIONED IT, BUT LET'S NOT GO TOO FAR DOWN THAT ROAD.
UM, I ASKED A QUESTION IN PRELIMINARY SESSION, BUT I WANT TO ASK IT AGAIN HERE JUST FOR THE RECORD IN CASE NOBODY'S WATCHING.
UM, ON PAGE FIVE OF EXHIBIT A, WE ARE, THERE'S A SENTENCE I WANNA READ THAT SAYS, THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY IS A UNIQUE LOCATION, WHICH IS OF ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY, AND WE'RE CHANGING THEIR DESIGNATION TO BE AN ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE AREA.
UM, BUT I JUST, I'M GONNA ASK THE QUESTION.
I KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS, BUT I'M GONNA ASK IT AGAIN ANYWAY.
THIS IS NOT IMPOSING ANY NEW REGULATION ON THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY.
WE'RE JUST RECOGNIZING THEIR IMPORTANCE IN THE COMMUNITY AND CHANGING IT TO MATCH STATE LAW.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.
SO I JUST WANT THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY, FOR ANYBODY THAT'S LISTENING TO RECOGNIZE WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE RULES, WE'RE JUST MORE UNIQUELY RECOGNIZING THEIR CULTURE AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY.
I UNDERSTAND THAT, YOU KNOW, NON-CONFORMING USE PROCEDURE APPLIES IF SOME ACTION BY THE CITY RENDERS A PREVIOUSLY CONFORMING USE NON-CONFORMING, SUCH AS AN ORDINANCE ADOPTION OF COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE.
WOULD IT ALSO APPLY TO SOMEONE WHO ATTEMPTS TO ESTABLISH A
[01:40:01]
BUSINESS THAT AT THE TIME OF ESTABLISHMENT IS IN VIOLATION OF, OF, OF THE ZONING FOR THAT PROPERTY? RIGHT.BECAUSE THE, AS THE ESSENCE OF BEING A NON-CONFORMING USE IS THAT AT ONE TIME YOU WERE CONFORMING MM-HMM.
YOU WERE LEGAL IN OTHER WORDS.
I JUST WANNA COME BACK TO, UH, COMMISSIONER LAW'S QUESTION AND, UH, MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHO CAN ACTUALLY TRIGGER THE PROCESS WHERE NOW WE'RE COMING TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION IN THE, IN THE SECOND STEP OF THE PROCESS, WHETHER TO AMORTIZE OR WHAT, WHO CAN ACTUALLY FORCE THAT ISSUE THERE? UM, BACK TO COMMISSIONER LAO'S QUESTION ABOUT WHO CAN REALLY GET THIS, THIS RULING VERSUS NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN THE PROXIMITY.
I MEAN, IS THIS, IS THIS COMPLETELY UNDER THE CITY'S CONTROL IN TERMS OF TRIGGERING A NON-CONFORMING BUYOUT OR WHATEVER? OR ARE THERE OTHER, UM, ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD DO IT? DO WE KNOW? YES.
UM, UNDER THE DRAFT STANDARDS AND THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE ONES USING THEIR STANDARD PROCESS, THEY NEED TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE AGENDA, UM, AND THEN AGREE TO SPEAK ON IT.
IT HAPPENS AT A LATER MEETING.
AND THEN THEY WOULD, IF THEY AGREE TO, THEY WOULD ADOPT THE RESOLUTION THAT WOULD START THAT FLOW CHART, UH, THAT WE SAW ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
SO IT'S, IT'S ALL WITHIN CITY COUNCIL'S DOMAIN.
SO BASED ON THE STANDARDS WE HAVE, IF SOMETHING WAS CLEARLY NON-CONFORMING, CAN WE IGNORE IT? AS A CITY, CAN WE CHOOSE TO DO NOTHING? UH, TO, TO NOT STOP IT? WE CAN, WE CAN.
THAT'S, AND THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT WE DO.
DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, WE DO NOT.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE, UH, ITEM ONE B CONSISTING OF ZONING CASE FIVE B FIVE B THANK YOU CONSISTING OF ZONING CASE 2023 DASH 0 1 9 AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY TO APPROVE ITEM FIVE B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
[6. (KC) Discussion and Action – Preliminary Site Plan: WPLC Parkwood-Dominion Addition, Block A, Lot 2 – Data center on one lot on 16.0 acres located at the southwest corner of Dominion Parkway and Parkwood Boulevard. Zoned Commercial Employment. Project #PSP2023-023. Applicant: Db Data Center Plano, LLC (Legislative consideration) ]
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 AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, DISCUSSION AND ACTION.
PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, WPLC, PARKWOOD DOMINION ADDITION BLOCK A LOT TWO DATA CENTER ON ONE LOT ON 16.0 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DOMINION PARKWAY AND PARKWOOD BOULEVARD ZONE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT APPLICANT IS DB DATA CENTER PLANO, LLC.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGAIN, THIS REQUEST IS TO PROPOSE AN EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING DATA CENTER IN ADDITION TO REQUESTING A 20% PARKING REDUCTION FROM THE COMMISSION.
SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
THE EXISTING DATA CENTER IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND FROM 145,000 SQUARE FEET TO FOUR HUNDRED AND TWELVE ONE HUNDRED AND FORTY SIX SQUARE FEET, A 267 A SQUARE FOOT ADDITION.
THIS SITE IS PROPOSING TO ADD 185 PARKING STALLS TO THE EXISTING 145 STALLS THEY HAVE ON SITE TODAY.
HOWEVER, THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES DATA CENTERS TO BE PARKED AT ONE TO 1,412 SPACES ARE REQUIRED.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO REVIEW AND APPROVE REQUESTS RELATED TO AN EXPANSION OF A BUILDING SPACE WITH A REQUESTED PARKING REDUCTION OF UP TO 20%.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A LETTER AND IT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS AND SHOWN ON THE SCREEN ARE THE PROVISIONS FOR EXPANSIONS OF A BUILDING SPACE.
AS NOTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE 330 PARKING SPACES THAT ARE PROPOSED EXCEEDS THE SITES ANTICIPATED PARKING DEMAND OF 90 SPACES.
AS NOTED IN THE APPLICANT'S LETTER, STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ANY PARKING ISSUES FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITH THE 82, UH, PARKING SPACE REDUCTION.
THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY.
THERE IS NO VEHICLE STORAGE ON SITE OR OTHER SITE MODIFICATIONS THAT IMPACT THE AVAILABLE PARKING.
AND A SINGLE ENTITY OWNS THIS SITE.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED AND THE 20%
[01:45:01]
PARKING REDUCTION.AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I THINK I KNOW HOW THIS IS GONNA GO.
THIS IS A NON, UH, PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTS TO TALK? SURE.
YOU DON'T WANNA TALK AGAINST PARKING.
UM, THANK YOU PERMISSION MR. ALI.
UM, JUST FOR SLIDE EDUCATION, I, I ASSUME THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE PROCESS IS APPLICABLE TO THESE FOLKS IF THEY WANT TO, UH, REDUCE IT EVEN FURTHER.
I USED TO WORK FOR A DATA CENTER COMPANY THAT WAS 12,000 FOLKS.
OF THOSE 12,000 FOLKS, MAYBE ONLY 300 IN THE WHOLE COMPANY HAD ACCESS TO THE DATA CENTER, RIGHT? 'CAUSE THE SECURITY MEASURES AROUND WHAT THEY HOLD IN THAT BUILDING, IT'S LIKE GOING THROUGH THE PENTAGON.
THEY PROBABLY WILL NEVER NEED MORE THAN 50, UH, IF, IF, IF THEY HAVE THIS OPERATIONAL.
SO, UM, HOPEFULLY IF THEY'RE LISTENING, BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE PROCESS IS APPLICABLE TO YOU.
I WANT TO, I WANT TO QUICKLY CAUTION THOUGH THAT BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IS NOT A GIVEN.
THEY HAVE CRITERIA FOR HARDSHIP THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET.
THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO PURSUE IT, BUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES AND CRITERIA THEY MUST MEET.
SO I JUST WANNA POINT THAT OUT.
DO WE NEED MOTION? OH, MR. LAW WANTS TO TALK ABOUT PARKING AGAIN.
I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T GO IN LIKE WE'VE DONE WITH OTHER USES AND JUST SAY THAT A DATA CENTER USE, OKAY.
IS THIS YOU'RE WANTING US TO CHANGE OUR ORDINANCE MOVING FORWARD? NO, TONIGHT
WELL, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I'M JUST SAYING THAT CONVERSATION TONIGHT IS POINTLESS.
WHAT ARE WE GONNA DO ON THIS PROJECT? MOST OF MY CONVERSATIONS FROM THIS DIET FEEL POINTLESS, BUT I'M HERE TO TRY TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PEOPLE THAT I'VE TAKEN AN OATH TO SERVE.
ALL OF US HERE UNDERSTAND, RIGHT? AND SO I JUST WANT TO, YOU KNOW, MR. BELL, I APPRECIATE YOU CHIMING IN BECAUSE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS VERY SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
AND THIS DOESN'T MEET IT, IT DOES NOT.
THEY WOULD HAVE TO BY LAW SAY, NOPE, WE CAN'T HELP YOU EITHER.
YES, IT'S THIS BURDENSOME GOVERNMENT THAT ISN'T PASSING LAWS THAT MAKES SENSE FOR EVERY DIFFERENT SITUATION, AND I GET IT.
BUT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND FIX IT OR MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BETTER THAN WE HAVE.
IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO FIX TONIGHT.
SO, MR. ALI, ALL RIGHT, WE'LL, WE'LL THROW THAT OUT AS A POSSIBLE IF A
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX, UM, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, I SAY AGAIN.
WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLIE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SONG TO APPROVE.
ITEM SIX, AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF, PLEASE VOTE.
AND ITEM CARRIES SEVEN TO ZERO.
[7. (JR) Discussion: Short-term Rental Study Update – Presentation of the Short-term Rental Study progress to date. Project #DI2024-001. Applicant: City of Plano ]
DO GET TO HEAR ABOUT SHORT TERM RENTALS.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE IS DISCUSSION.
SHORT TERM RENTAL STUDY UPDATE PRESENTATION OF THE SHORT TERM RENTAL STUDY.
UH, APPLICANT IS CITY OF PLANO.
UH, JORDAN RBY, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, SO THIS IS REALLY JUST A QUICK UPDATE ON THE, UH, PROGRESS OF PHASE TWO WITH THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL STUDY TO DATE.
SO IF YOU REMEMBER, WE, UH, KICKED THINGS OFF IN, I BELIEVE NOVEMBER OF 2022, UH, INITIATING THIS STUDY.
UM, INTERIM MEASURES WERE ADOPTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN MAY OF LAST YEAR, AND WE ARE NOW IN THE THICK OF THE OUTREACH AND DATA COLLECTION PHASE.
SO PHASE ONE ALREADY WRAPPED UP.
UH, WE PRESENTED THOSE, UH, FINDINGS TO THE COMMISSION IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR.
SINCE THEN, UH, WE HAVE ENTERED PHASE TWO OF, UM, THIS TIMELINE.
WE ARE NEARING, UH, THE END OF THAT.
WE'VE HAD TWO, UM, ADDITIONAL MEETINGS WITH THE TASK FORCE.
WE WILL HAVE A FINAL MEETING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH.
UM, BETWEEN THEN AND NOW, WE HAVE A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE, UH, SCHEDULED.
SO PHASE TWO HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON EXPLORING POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE PHASE ONE FINDINGS.
UH, THE TASK FORCE, UH, CAME UP WITH APPROXIMATELY 40 IDEAS, UM, TO DISCUSS.
[01:50:01]
NARROWED THOSE DOWN TO 32 AND THOSE 32 ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE OPEN HOUSE.UM, AS MENTIONED THAT LAST TASK FORCE MEETING WILL BE AT THE END OF THE MONTH.
THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GONNA SOLIDIFY THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE PACKAGE OF THEIR SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS, UM, TO THE PLANNING, THE ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ANYTHING INVOLVING THE REGISTRATION, UM, OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS.
NEXT STEP IS A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE ON THOSE, UH, 32 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS.
THE ONLINE OPEN HOUSE, UH, STARTED THIS MORNING.
UH, IT'LL RUN THROUGH, UH, THE REST OF THE WEEK UNTIL FEBRUARY THE 11TH.
THERE IS AN IN-PERSON EVENT THAT STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT WILL BE ATTENDING THAT'S DOWNTOWN AT EVENTS.
THAT WILL BE ON WEDNESDAY EVENING THIS WEEK.
AND THAT CONCLUDES THE UPDATE.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? I, I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT STR OPEN HOUSE ON MY CALENDAR FOR THE LAST MONTH AND GOING, WHAT IS THAT? 'CAUSE I DIDN'T PUT IN ENOUGH DETAIL, BUT NOW I KNOW.
I, I THINK WE'RE ALL JUST WAITING ON THE, UH, RESULTS.
WE HAVE NO QUESTIONS SINCE IT DOESN'T INVOLVE PARKING.
I WONDER IF THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING AT HAD EVENT.
NO PARKING TRAINS OBVIOUSLY GETTING LATE.
[8. (MB) Items for Future Agendas. ]
UH, AGENDA ITEM EIGHT ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS.IF A, MR. MR. LYLE, WE HAVE A PROCESS, RIGHT, THAT WE'RE GONNA GO THROUGH PURSUANT TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN THE PRELIMINARY, I THINK CLOSED MEETING ACTUALLY.
OH, IT MIGHT'VE BEEN OPEN MEETING.
BUT NONETHELESS, THERE IS A NEW RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE TO FOLLOW IN ORDER TO PUT ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
WE'VE NAMED IT IF A, WHICH STANDS FOR ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA.
AND I'M CURIOUS, OR I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA AND I'D LIKE FOR IT TO BE OUT HERE SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AS WELL.
BUT ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, IS THERE A FORM, ARE WE GONNA GET A LIST OF CRITERIA WHEN WE SUBMIT THIS SORT OF THING? SO IS THERE A FORM OR IS THERE JUST A LIST OF, OR IS THERE JUST A LIST OF CRITERIA? DO WE JUST TYPE UP A LETTER AND HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGN I'D, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS.
AND THEN I'D ALSO LIKE TO KNOW HOW IT AFFECTS POWERS THAT ARE EXPRESSLY GRANTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.
SO THAT SOUNDS LIKE A QUESTION TO STAFF VERSUS AN AGENDA ITEM EIGHT ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA.
I ASKED IT ON THE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING AND IT WAS SUGGESTED THAT WE PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
SO THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO IS TO PUT ANSWERS TO THAT OR A DISCUSSION AROUND THAT ON THE FUTURE AGENDA.
SO LET ME SUGGEST THAT A QUESTION'S BEEN ASKED OF STAFF IF THEY COULD PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE TO US.
JUST TO, FOR CLARIFICATION IN PARTICULAR, I THINK AROUND IS THERE A FORM THAT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO USE OR WHAT? SO, SO ARE, ARE WE WANTING A, A DISCUSSION ABOUT IF A THAT'S BROADER OR ARE WE WANTING JUST A STAFF ANSWER TO THESE COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT IS THERE A FORM AND FOR THE, THE PARTICULAR, YOU KNOW, THE SPECIFIC POWERS THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE, IF, IF THE PROCESS APPLIES.
SO IF, IF WE HAVE IMPLIED POWERS, BUT COUNSEL TELLS US THIS IS THE PROCESS YOU'RE GONNA USE NOW THAT MODIFIES THOSE POWERS.
YEAH, I'M, I'M, I WOULD SAY THEY'RE NOT QUESTION, I DON'T WANNA, WOULD START THE DISCUSSION BECAUSE I, BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THAT ACTUALLY WAS COVERED IN THE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING BEFORE BOTH OF THOSE.
BUT, BUT SO I, I TEND TO THINK WE COULD JUST WRITE AN EMAIL TO REMIND YOU OF THE ANSWERS.
IF THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO QUESTIONS, I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.
THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS I HAVE TODAY.
AND SO IF I GET ANSWERS ON THOSE, THAT WOULD HELP ME OUT.
IF I MISSED THEM, IF THERE'S A WAY I CAN GO BACK AND RE-LISTEN TO THE PRELIMINARY OPEN, ARE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETINGS RECORDED,
IF I REALLY MISSED IT, WE CAN GO FIND IT ONLINE.
PRELIMINARY MEETINGS ARE JUST RECORDED AND ASKED, BUT WE CAN YOU A COPY? I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT THEY WERE STORED ONLINE TOO.
IF THERE'S NO OTHER, UH, ITEMS, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 8 55.
[01:55:01]
SO.