[00:00:01]
ALL RIGHT, UH, WE'LL CALL OUR MEETING TO ORDER, UH, THIS EVENING
[CALL TO ORDER]
ON APRIL 15TH.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 SPR ALL.
[COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST]
COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CURRENT AGENDA.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY INFORMATION.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
UM, I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER.
DID WE CONFIRM IT'S FOR PUBLIC COMMENT? THIS IS CORRECT.
MR. REEVES, ARE YOU FOR PUBLIC COMMENT OR ONE OF THE ITEMS ON THE AGENDA? OKAY.
I LIVE AT 47 25 PORTRAIT LANE.
I WANNA BRING UP AN ISSUE AND SEE IF ANY OF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THIS, UM, FROM A RECENT PUBLISHED AUDIO FILE.
I UNDERSTAND THAT A CHAIRMAN WAS PART OF A MEETING IN SEPTEMBER WITH, WITH ONE OF THE TOPICS OF THAT MEETING BEING THE REMOVAL OF COMMISSIONER LYLE.
UH, I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS REGARDING THAT.
UH, WELL, MR. RES, I, I THINK YOU'RE, I THINK YOU UNDERSTAND WE CAN'T RESPOND TO PUBLIC COMMENTS, SO I MEAN, FEEL FREE TO READ YOUR QUESTIONS, BUT WE'RE NOT GONNA BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THEM.
CAN RESPOND FACTUAL INFORMATION.
YOUR MIC IS, I I THINK THE AGENDA SAYS WE'RE ALLOWED TO RESPOND WITH FACTUAL INFORMATION.
WE'LL SEE WHAT THE QUESTIONS ARE.
ONCE THE CHAIRMAN REFERRED TO IN THAT MEETING, UH, YOU MR. DOWNS, WHY WOULD YOU BE PART OF A MEETING TO REMOVE A COMMISSIONER WHEN YOU'RE NOT PART OF THE CITY? UH, NOT A MEMBER OF THE CITY COUNCIL.
WHAT WAS THE REASON THAT YOU BELIEVED COMMISSIONER LYLE SHOULD BE REMOVED? I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR, FOR INVITING ME TO SPEAK.
SHOULD I, WELL, YOU CAN RESPOND WITH FACTS IF, IF THERE'S FACTS THAT YOU THINK ARE RELEVANT.
SO IN TERMS OF WHY WAS I THERE? I WAS INVITED.
I WAS INVITED TO BE A PART OF THE MEETING.
THAT'S FACTUAL IN TERMS OF WHY WAS IT MY POSITION? I WON'T SAY THAT IT WAS MY POSITION.
I WAS ASKED FOR MY INPUT FOR THEM TO MAKE A DECISION THAT'S ABOUT AS FACTUAL, I THINK, AS I CAN GET.
LET'S MOVE ON TO, I'D LIKE TO, I'D LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT AS WELL.
SO WE CAN'T HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT ON THE AGENDA, AND THE QUESTIONS WERE ASKED DIRECTLY TO ME.
UH, HE, AT THE BEGINNING, HE ASKED IF ANY OF US WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND.
I JUST WANNA RESPOND WITH FACTUAL INFORMATION.
I I DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW YOU WOULD HAVE FACTUAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE QUESTIONS DIRECTED AT MR. DOWNS.
IT JUST SOUNDS LIKE SOMETHING YOU WOULD HAVE TO BE THERE IN ORDER TO ANSWER THOSE QUESTIONS.
SO I'M STRUGGLING WITH, WITH HOW YOU COULD HAVE FACTUAL INFORMATION THAT RESPONDED TO THOSE QUESTIONS.
UH, BECAUSE I WAS TOLD SPECIFICALLY BY COUNCILMAN HORN THAT THE CHAIRMAN WAS THERE, AND AGAIN, I WAS THERE BECAUSE I WAS INVITED.
THAT'S THE FACTUAL INFORMATION.
AND SO THERE WAS OTHER INFORMATION THAT WAS SHARED BY COUNCILMAN HORNE THAT I BELIEVE WAS ALSO FACTUAL.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT INFORMATION HE SHARED WITH YOU.
WHICH IS WHY I'M ASKING TO SHARE THI THIS IS, THIS IS NOT RESPONDING.
[00:05:03]
I WAS JUST TRYING TO RESPOND WITH FACTUAL INFORMATION TO THE PUBLIC COMMENT.LET'S MOVE ON TO, UM, OUR REGULAR 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.DOES ANYONE WANNA MOVE AN ITEM? REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? NOPE.
WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKI TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS,
[Items IA & 1B]
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 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 LE AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.
PLEASE DO ONE A AND ONE B PLEASE.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2 0 2 4 DASH 0 0 7.
REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4 8 9 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE.
ONE TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON 36.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LEGACY 770 FEET WEST OF CHASE OAKS BOULEVARD.
TA THIS ITEM WAS TABLED ON MARCH 18TH, 2024.
PETITIONER IS 7 0 1 LEGACY DRIVE, LLC 7 0 1 LEGACY DRIVE, TWO LLC 7 0 1 LEGACY DRIVE.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE B, PUBLIC HEARING REVISED CONCEPT PLAN.
CHASE OAKS APARTMENTS BLOCK A LOT.
ONE 416 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE UNITS ON ONE LOT ON 34.7 ACRES.
LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF LEGACY DRIVE.
770 FEET WEST OF CHASE OAKS BOULEVARD.
PROJECT NUMBER RRCP 2 0 2 4 0 0 1.
APPLICANT IS 7 0 1 LEGACY DRIVE.
LLC 7 0 0 1 LEGACY DRIVE, TWO LLC AND 7 0 1 LEGACY DRIVE.
THIS ONE IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS KACHA COPELAND AND I'M THE SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4 8 9 MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE ONE.
THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, EAST AND WEST ARE ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
62 FOR A GOLF COURSE AND 1 0 7 FOR A PRIVATE CLUB ACROSS LEGACY DRIVE TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 2 73.
MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE THREE AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 3 2 9 COMMUNITY CENTER.
SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE COMPANION REVISED CONCEPT PLAN SHOWING A BLEND OF WHAT IS EXISTING AND PROPOSED.
THE REVISED CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS AN ADDITIONAL 70 UNITS THROUGHOUT NINE BUILDINGS WITH VARIOUS ARRANGEMENTS OF PARKING.
THERE WILL ALSO BE AN EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING COMMUNITY CENTER AND TWO PROPOSED DOG PARKS.
THIS CASE MAY HAVE STARTED TO SOUND FAMILIAR TO SOME BACK IN 2020 AND 2022.
THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED TWO DIFFERENT REQUESTS TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASES.
HOWEVER, THE CITY COUNCIL DENIED BOTH REQUESTS.
TONIGHT'S REQUEST IS SIMILAR TO BOTH THE 2020 AND 2022 CASES.
MOST NOTABLE CHANGES BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT IS THE ZONING AND THE REDUCED UNIT COUNT.
OKAY, MY SLIDES ARE A LITTLE BIT OUT OF ORDER, SO I'M JUST GONNA FLIP BACK AND FORTH.
[00:10:03]
THE MAXIMUM DENSITY IN MF ONE IS 12 UNITS PER ACRE WITH A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THREE STORIES AND 40 FEET.THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE THE DENSITY TO MAXIMIZE THE MF ONE ZONING DISTRICT'S STANDARDS AND INCREASE THE BUILDING HEIGHT BY FIVE FEET BEYOND THE MF ONE ZONING REQUIREMENT.
THE REVISED CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS NINE NEW BUILDINGS.
FIVE BUILDINGS ARE PROPOSED TO BE THREE STORIES, AND 45 FEET AND FOUR BUILDINGS ARE PROPOSED TO BE TWO STORIES AND 35 FEET.
THIS TABLE SHOWS THE ALLOWED DENSITY AND HEIGHT WITHIN THE SFA MF ONE AND MF TWO COMPARED TO THE REQUEST.
THE ORIGINAL ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY WAS SFA AND THE 2020 AND 2022 ZONING CASES REQUESTED.
MF TWO ZONING, THE APPLICANT'S PARKING PD, STATE STIPULATIONS, AND A BREAKDOWN OF EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKING TYPES ARE PRESENTED ON THE SCREEN.
THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTS WITHIN MF ONE IS TWO PARKING SPACES PER EACH DWELLING UNIT WITH ONE OR MORE BEDROOMS. THE PREVIOUS REQUEST ASKED FOR A PARKING RATIO OF ONE SPACE PER BEDROOM.
TONIGHT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A 14% PARKING REDUCTION FOR THIS REQUIREMENT.
THIS WOULD REDUCE THE PARKING, THE AMOUNT OF PARKING, EXCUSE ME, FOR THE REQUIRED BY 116 SPACES.
THIS REDUCTION IS AN OPTION LISTED IN ARTICLE 16 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
IT ALLOWS THE COMMISSION TO GRANT PARKING REDUCTION IF IT MEETS THE LISTED FOR CRITERIA.
THIS SITE IS MADE UP OF VARIOUS PARKING FORMS. THE RED EQUALS EXISTING SURFACE PARKING.
THE GREEN EQUALS EXISTING PARKING SPACES, GARAGE SPACES WITH AVAILABLE TANDEM.
THE PINK EQUALS PROPOSED SURFACE PARKING.
THE BLUE EQUALS PROPOSED TUCKED PARKING, AND THE YELLOW REPRESENTS POTENTIAL FUTURE TANDEM SPACES.
THE TOTAL PARKING PROVIDED WITH THE EXISTING GARAGE SPACES EXISTING AND PROPOSED SURFACE PARKING AND TUCKED PARKING IS 731 SPACES.
HOWEVER, IF THE TANDEM SPACES BEHIND THE EXISTING GARAGES ARE COUNTED AND THE POSSIBLE FUTURE TANDEM SPACES ARE COUNTED, THE AVAILABLE PARKING COULD EXCEED 1030 SPACES.
STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE 14% PARKING REDUCTION AS NOTED IN THE PD STIPULATIONS.
AS THE SITE HAS MORE THAN ENOUGH ADEQUATE PARKING THROUGH THE SURFACE SPACES, ENCLOSED GARAGES AND TUCK SPACES AND TANDEM SPACES IN FRONT OF THE GARAGES, THE PARKING REDUCTION WILL ALLOW MORE OF THE SITE TO REMAIN AS GREEN SPACE, WHICH IS A DISTINCTIVE CHARACTERISTIC IN THIS COMPLEX.
THESE SLIDES BLOW UP THAT GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN.
THE PURPOSE OF SHOWING THIS IMAGE IS TO SHOW THE EXISTING ENCLOSED GARAGE SPACES PLUS THE AVAILABLE TANDEM SPACE.
THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PLAN COUNTED THE ENCLOSED GARAGES AND SURFACE SPACE SPACES TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT.
THE IMAGE SHOWS THE CONCRETE IS AVAILABLE FOR VEHICLES TO USE, AND GUESTS AND RESIDENTS ARE PARKING IN THIS AREA IN FRONT OF THE GARAGE TODAY.
AS STATED IN THE APPLICANT'S LETTER, THAT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET, THE PD STIPULATION REQUIRING 716 SPACES MEETS THE SITE'S ANTICIPATED PARKING DEMAND.
STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ANY NEW ISSUES FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
THERE ARE NO BUILT RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY.
THERE IS NO VEHICLE STORAGE ON SITE OR ADDITIONAL SITE MODIFICATIONS THAT IMPACT AVAILABLE PARKING AND A SINGLE ENTITY OWNS THE SITE.
ADDITIONALLY, THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE THE REDUCTION FOR MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES.
THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WORKING.
WE'LL GET ALL THIS FIGURED OUT RIGHT TIME.
THE NEW COUNCIL CHAMBERS ARE DONE.
I'M GONNA READ THAT SENTENCE AGAIN, IF THAT'S OKAY.
ADDITIONALLY, THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE THE REDUCTION FOR MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES WHEN THE AREA THAT WOULD BE USED BY THE REDUCED PARKING SPACES
[00:15:01]
IS EXCHANGED FOR AN EQUIVALENT AREA OF ADDITIONAL USABLE OPEN SPACE IN EXCESS OF THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENT FOR APPLICABLE REQUIREMENTS APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND RELATING TO THAT REQUIREMENT WITHIN 1601 16 POINT 100 ARE THE OPEN SPACE NUMBERS.THERE IS AN OPEN SPACE PLAN AVAILABLE FOR VIEWING IN YOUR PACKET.
HOWEVER, THE ILLUSTRATIVE CONCEPT PLAN THAT IS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT SHOWS THE OPEN SPACE IN THE CLEAREST FORM.
THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS 327,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING 432,532 SQUARE FEET.
AND THE 116 SPACE PARKING REDUCTION IS EQUIVALENT TO APPROXIMATELY 18,800 TO 20,880 SQUARE FEET, DEPENDING ON THE PARKING SPACE SIZE, AS THE CITY OF PLANO DOES HAVE TWO PARKING SPACE SIZE AVAILABLE, THAT EQUATES TO 1.1 TO 1.3% OF THE SITE.
A STIPULATION HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE REVISED CONCEPT PLAN RECOMMENDATION THAT AT LEAST 20,880 SQUARE FEET OF EQUIVALENT TO 116 PARKING SPACES OF OPEN SPACE SHALL BE DESIGNATED ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
IN ADDITION TO MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIRED BY THE MF ONE DISTRICT, THIS REQUIREMENT IS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE PARK-LIKE SETTING PRESERVED FOR THE PROPERTY.
THE PROPOSED CLUBHOUSE EXPANSION AND DOG PARKS ADDITION ARE A PART OF THE PREVIOUS REQUEST AND REMAINS A PART OF THE REQUEST TONIGHT.
THESE ARE NOTED TO BE BUILT PRIOR TO ANY NEW UNITS BEING CONSTRUCTED.
THESE AMENITIES ARE INTENDED TO ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE RESIDENTS AND BALANCE OUT THE ADDITIONAL DENSITY ADDED STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE ADDITIONAL AMENITIES.
THE PROPERTY INCLUDES SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN TOPOGRAPHY, AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO ON THE SCREEN.
AND I'D LIKE TO NOTE A CORRECTION.
UM, ON THE SCREEN, IT NOTES PROPOSED LOCATION OF FOUR TWO STORY BUILDINGS.
THAT SHOULD BE THREE, TWO STORY BUILDINGS.
THERE ARE OTHER AREAS ON THE PROPERTY WITH SIGNIFICANT GRADE CHANGES WHERE BUILDINGS ARE ALSO BEING PROPOSED.
STAFF HAS CONCERNS ABOUT THE GRADE CHANGES IN CONNECTION WITH CONSTRUCTION.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SEVEN PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS WITH THIS REQUEST, AND FIVE ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
THE UNDERLINE REPRESENTS THE CHANGE FROM THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATION.
THE STRIKE-THROUGH REPRESENTS THE CHANGE AND, UM, NO UNDERLINE OR STRIKETHROUGH REPRESENTS THAT THE STIPULATION IS REMAINING THE SAME.
THE TWO FINAL RESTRICTIONS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
AND SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS A SNAPSHOT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES OF THIS REQUEST THAT MEET PARTIALLY MEET OR DOES NOT MEET DUE TO INCONSISTENCY WITH THE RECOMMENDED HEIGHT AND MIX OF USES IN THE END DASHBOARD FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST.
STAFF RECEIVED ONE LETTER WITHIN 200 FEET, AND WE RECEIVED FIVE TOTAL RESPONSES, TWO OF WHICH WERE BY EMAIL AND ARE PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET.
THIS ZONING REQUEST IS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND REGARDING THE REVISED CONCEPT PLAN.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THE COMMISSION TAKE ACTION CONSISTENT WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR ZONING CASE 2024 DASH ZERO SEVEN ALONGSIDE THE CONDITION REGARDING THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE.
THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE TONIGHT WITH THE PRESENTATION.
OKAY,
I JUST HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION, UM, TO STAFF.
THERE WAS A SLIDE WITH THE STRIKE THROUGH AND THE UNDERLYING, CAN YOU REPEAT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THOSE, UM, ANNOTATIONS? I CAN, UM, YEAH, GO BACK MORE.
SO THE ZONING THAT IS IN PLACE TODAY HAS MULTIPLE RESTRICTIONS AND SOME OF THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE BEING USED IN THE REQUEST TONIGHT.
THERE ARE SOME CHANGES THAT ARE REPRESENTED WITH A STRIKETHROUGH OR AN UNDERLINE STRIKETHROUGH MEANS THEY'RE BEING CHANGED.
[00:20:01]
SO NUMBER ONE, MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS.TONIGHT, THEY'RE REQUESTING TO INCREASE THAT BY 70 TO FOUR 16, SO THAT WOULD BE A CHANGE IN THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS.
UM, THE SECOND ONE, MINIMUM FRONT YARD SETBACK 70.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MAINTAIN THAT STIPULATION AND THEREFORE NO CHANGE AS WELL AS THE NUMBER THREE.
NUMBER FOUR, MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.
THE CURRENT PD STIPULATION IS TWO STORY 35 FEET, AND TONIGHT THEY'RE REQUESTING TO INCREASE THAT TWO, THREE STORY 45 FEET WITH THE ADDITIONAL STIPULATION THAT THREE STORY BUILDINGS WILL BE SET BACK, A MINIMUM OF 150 FEET FROM LEGACY AND ANY SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL ZONING.
NUMBER FIVE, MINIMUM SIDE YARD AND REAR YARD THAT IS REMAINING UNCHANGED AT 50 FEET.
AND NUMBER SIX AND SEVEN ARE NEW STIPULATIONS REGARDING AMENITIES, THE CLUBHOUSE AND THE DOG PARKS.
THE 14% PARKING REDUCTION FROM THE REQUIRED TWO SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT EQUALS 716 SPACES ON THE PROPERTY.
WAS THERE ANY CHANGES ON THE PARKING OR THERE'S JUST NO CH UH, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYTHING BEFORE.
THIS IS JUST ADDITIONAL, THERE WAS NO MODIFICATION IN THE PREVIOUS ZONING.
AND SO WITH THE PROPOSAL TONIGHT, THEY NEED 832 SPACES AND THEY'RE REQUESTING A 14% PARKING REDUCTION FROM THE REQUIRED TWO SPACES PER DWELLING UNIT.
JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE PD NUMBER SIX.
IT SAYS THEY'LL BE CONSTRUCTING CONCURRENT OR PRIOR TO INCREASING THE NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
DOES THAT MEAN THEY'RE GONNA HAVE TO HAVE THE FINAL INSPECTIONS IN CO ON THE CLUBHOUSE BEFORE THEY CAN LEASE ANY OF THE NEW ONES OR WHAT CAN YOU HELP ME DEFINE CONCURRENT? THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT TO ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS REGARDING THEIR FACING PLAN, BUT THIS STIPULATION CONCURRENT OR PRIOR, PRIOR OBVIOUSLY MEANS BEFORE AND CONCURRENT AT THE SAME TIME.
SO IT IS LIKELY THEY WOULD NEED TO HAVE A CER CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WITH THE CLUBHOUSE.
UH, I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION ON, AND I, SO YOU'RE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORD IT CORRECTLY.
SO, UM, AS FAR AS THE HEIGHT, THE IS, IS THE THREE STORY, UM, HEIGHT REQUIREMENT 40 FEET? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? AND THEY'RE LOOKING TO GO TO 45? THAT'S CORRECT.
THE MF ONE BASE ZONING ALLOWS THREE STORY 40 FEET.
HOWEVER, THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATION THAT IS ENACTED TODAY LIMITS TWO STORY 35 FEET.
AND TONIGHT THEY'RE REQUESTING THREE STORY 45 FEET.
SO MY QUESTION IS THE THREE STORY 40 FEET, UM, THAT WE'VE, THAT WE'RE WORKING WITH, UH, FOR THE MF ONE DISTRICT, IS, UH, IS THAT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, UM, FLAT ROOFS OR IS THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DIRECTION THAT I THINK FROM THE, UM, DEVELOPMENT, UH, THE DEVELOPER, THEY'RE LOOKING TO GO TO 45 FEET BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HAVE VAULTED CEILINGS.
IS THAT KIND OF A NEW DIRECTION WE'VE SEEN AT ALL? UM, MR. BELL, IS THERE ANY WAY YOU COULD PULL UP THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT? YES.
UM, I COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT.
UM, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, YES, THERE, IT'S TO, IT'S TO DIFFERENTIATE ROOF PITCH, ALLOW TALLER ROOFS, AND THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK MORE TO THAT.
BUT, UM, THE IDEA IS TO GET HIGHER CEILINGS FOR THESE UNITS.
AND SO THAT WAS MY, WELL, I GUESS MY, SEE THAT'S WHY I WAS WORRIED ABOUT MY, THE WORDING OF MY QUESTION IS THE, I DON'T EVEN KNOW HOW TO SAY THIS.
THE, THE HIGHER ROOFS OR THE HIGHER CEILINGS IN THE UNITS, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE'RE SEEING MORE OFTEN OR IS THIS JUST UNIQUE TO THIS SITUATION, I GUESS? WELL, I THINK GENERALLY UNITS OF, OF ALL TYPES ARE GETTING TALLER CEILINGS IS, UM, PREFERENCES IN HOUSING CHANGES.
THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING TO GET.
UH, QUESTION ON THE OPEN SPACE.
I WAS KINDA LOST A LITTLE BIT THERE.
DOES THE APPLICANT CURRENTLY MEET THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT, UM, FOR THE ZONING? SORRY, GONNA WAIT TILL THE SLIDE.
SO THE PROVISION OF 432,000 ROUGHLY SQUARE FEET OF USABLE OPEN SPACE, THAT IS AFTER ALL, IF, IF THE NEW BUILDINGS ARE APPROVED,
[00:25:01]
WOULD THAT BE WHAT IS LEFT AFTER THE BUILDERS ARE APPROVED OR THAT'S WHAT'S CURRENTLY ON GROUND AND THEY WILL USE UP SOME OF THAT TO PLACE THIS NEW BUILDINGS? THE FIRST THING YOU SAID, THE FIRST THING WITH THE NINE NEW PROPOSED BUILDINGS AND THE ADDITION OF THE CLUBHOUSE, THEY'LL HAVE 432,000 APPROXIMATELY, AND THEY'RE REQUIRED 327,000.AND THE REASON WHY WE PUT THE STIPULATION ON THE REVISED CONCEPT PLAN IS TO MAINTAIN THAT PARK-LIKE SETTING THAT MF ONE STRIVES TO ACHIEVE.
SO THEY, THEY DON'T VIOLATE THAT, UM, ON THE CHALLENGING GRADING TOPOGRAPHY OF THE, UM, OF THE LAND BEFORE ANYTHING IS BUILT OR SIGNED OFF ON, THEY'LL HAVE TO GO TO ENGINEERING THAT SAYS YAY OR NAY.
THAT'S OUR GUARDRAIL FOR THAT.
THEY'LL HAVE TO HAVE, WITH THEIR ENGINEERING AND ARCHITECTURAL PLANS, THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THAT, UM, ENGINEERING STUDY AS REQUIRED BY CODES.
UM, THIS IS LITERALLY JUST SOMETHING THAT JUMPED INTO MY HEAD.
IS THERE A THRESHOLD IN OUR PARKING ORDINANCE? LIKE IF YOU HAVE 500 PARKING SPACES, YOU NEED X PERCENTAGE TO BE ACCESSIBLE OR THERE IS, IT'S IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
SO THEY DO MEET THE REQUIREMENT FOR ACCESSIBLE PARK.
I SAW 10 SPOTS, WHICH FELT VERY, I DUNNO, FELT A LITTLE BIT LOW, BUT THEY'LL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE ACCESSIBLE PARKING.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE, WHEN THEY BROUGHT IT IN 2022 VERSUS NOW, AM I CORRECT IN READING THAT THEY ESSENTIALLY HALED THE NUMBER OF TWO STORY AND THE NUMBER OF THREE STORY THAT THEY SUBMITTED FROM 2022 TO NOW? OR DID I COUNT WITHOUT MY GLASSES? THEIR PREVIOUS REQUEST WAS 470 UNITS? NO, NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT UNITS.
I'M TALKING ABOUT BUILDINGS THAT THEY WERE THROWN ON THE GROUND.
I THINK THE APPLICANT CAN PROBABLY GIVE US THE DETAILS THERE.
I'LL, I'LL RESERVE 20 BUILDINGS TO NINE.
THAT'S WHAT, THAT'S WHAT IT FELT LIKE.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING ELSE YOU WANTED TO ADD? JUST ON THE OPEN SPACE COMMENT, I JUST WANNA CLARIFY THAT THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO PD STIPULATION PROPOSED TO REQUIRE THEM TO PROVIDE THAT EXCESS OPEN SPACE AS WRITTEN.
THAT'S JUST WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
SO THE STIPULATION ON THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE ADDITIONAL 20,000, THAT'S AN, THAT'S IN EXCESS OF THE 300,000 PLUS CHANGE REQUIRED BY THE BASE DISTRICT.
SO THEY'RE PROVIDING EVEN BEYOND THAT IN THEIR, IN THEIR CONCEPT PLAN.
I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, UH, WHERE THAT APPLIES.
I JUST HAVE A QUICK COMMENTS ABOUT THAT.
A QUE ALSO A QUESTION MAYBE FOR MR. BELL ABOUT THAT ACCESS.
YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO GET CLOSER ABOUT THAT ACCESS, UM, PARK SPACE.
COULD THEY TURN INTO PARKING SPACE IF IT'S NECESSARY? WOULD THAT BE ALLOWED OR IS THAT BE SOMETHING THAT WE CAN KEEP IN MIND? YEAH, AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED, THEY COULD CERTAINLY COME BACK AND ADD MORE PARKINGS OR, UM, OR ENLARGE THE BUILDINGS.
IF THEY WANTED MORE, MORE SIZABLE BUILDINGS, THEY COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT AS IT'S CURRENTLY WRITTEN.
YEAH, JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION.
I I WANNA MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
THE BUILDINGS, THERE ARE NINE BUILDINGS, THREE OF THEM ARE TWO STORY, FOUR OF THEM ARE TWO STORY FOUR OF, IN THE IMAGE THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE TOPOGRAPHY SIDE.
I WROTE THERE WERE, THE IMAGE WAS SHOWING WHERE THE FOUR BUILDINGS WERE GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
THAT IMAGE WOULDN'T SHOW THAT FOURTH BUILDING.
AND, UM, THOSE BUILDINGS DO NOT INCLUDE THE EXPANSION OF THE CLUBHOUSE, CORRECT? AT NOT NUMBER NINE? UM, NO.
THESE WILL BE THE FOUR BUILDINGS THAT WILL HAVE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON THEM.
ANY OTHER MR. LAU? THIS IS FOR MIKE.
WHAT IF, IF THIS WAS BE TO BE DEVELOPED TODAY, WHAT ZONING MOST CLOSELY ALIGNS WITH IT? MF? SO MF ONE IS THE LOWEST DENSITY MULTIFAMILY ZONING, AND THIS IS LESS DENSITY THAN, THAN THAT.
SO IF, IF THEY WERE TO BUILD THIS UNDER MF ONE TODAY, WHICH IS OUR LOWEST DENSITY MULTIFAMILY, WOULD THIS BE ALLOWED IF THIS WERE STRAIGHT MF ONE ZONING? YES, THE NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD BE ALLOWED WITH THE OTHER RESTRICTIONS ABOUT HEIGHT, UM, THE HEIGHT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AND THE PARKING REDUCTION WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED BY THE BASE DISTRICT.
BUT THE NUMBER OF UNITS WOULD, WOULD THE PARKING REDUCTION BE ALLOWED
[00:30:01]
BY SOMETHING ELSE IN THE ORDINANCE? IT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD APPROVE THROUGH THE, FOR THE COMMISSION'S ACTIONS, BUT PER THE BASE DISTRICT, IT'S, IT'S HIGHER NUMBER.AND SO, AM I CORRECT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S ONE DIFFERENCE IF, IF THIS WAS TO BE DEVELOPED TODAY UNDER MF ONE, THE ONE, WELL, WE WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE A, A PARKING VARIANCE AND THEN WE'D HAVE TO APPROVE A BUILDING HEIGHT VARIANCE.
ONE MORE QUESTION, ONE MORE, SORRY.
THAT WAS A BUILDING HEIGHT INCREASE BASED ON THE, UH, RECENT, UH, RESIDENTIAL DESIGN REQUIREMENTS OR DESIGN DESIRES DISAPPROVED OVER.
I KNOW WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL FROM HEIGHT.
AND STAFF FEEL FREE TO JUMP IN IF YOU KNOW OF OTHERS.
BUT FOR THE, FOR THESE DISTRICTS, MF ONE, TWO, AND THREE THAT HAVE BEEN IN PLACE FOR SEVERAL DECADES, I CAN'T THINK OF ANY OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I KNOW WE'VE HAD SOME HEIGHT REGGIE CHANGES FOR, UM, I THINK A BG CASE THAT WAS RECENTLY DONE, BUT THOSE ARE MORE RECENTLY APPROVED, DEVELOPED ZONING DISTRICTS THAN THE MF ONE, TWO, AND THREE.
I THINK THEY'VE BEEN THE SAME HEIGHT FOR, FOR QUITE SOME TIME.
AND I'D LIKE TO ADD THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED CASE, 20 23 0 2 1 HAD A HEIGHT INCREASE AS WELL TO 45 FEET.
AND THAT REQUIRED FINDINGS AS WELL? RIGHT.
WELL, YOU KNOW, FOR THE LONGEST TIME ON AT THE DAAS, THEY HAD THE THING THERE AND THEY WOULD POP UP THAT THEY HAD A QUESTION AND I, FOR THE LONGEST TIME, IGNORED IT.
AND ALL I WANNA DO IS LOOK FOR IT.
IS EVERYBODY DONE? WE'RE GOOD.
I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT.
WELL, WE HAVE A LITTLE LOGISTICAL CHALLENGE FIRST.
UH, I BELIEVE MICHAEL RENICK IS AVAILABLE BY ZOOM TO BEGIN THE PRESENTATION.
HAVE YOU GOT HIM ACTIVE? HE IS AVAILABLE BY ZOOM.
AND I KNOW HE WAS HAVING DIFFICULTY HEARING THE PRESENTATION.
WELL, AND YOU'RE GONNA HAVE TO LEAN RIGHT INTO THAT MIC BECAUSE YEAH.
FIRST OFF, IF HE'S CONNECTED, IF YOU CAN PULL MICHAEL IN.
SO SOMEBODY ELSE IS DOING IT FROM SOMEWHERE ELSE, SO, OKAY.
WE'LL, WE'LL GIVE HIM A MINUTE.
HELLO? CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU HEAR ME? THERE WE GO.
I CAN, CAN WE SEE YOU? THAT WOULD BE THE MOST IMPORTANT PART.
SO FEEL FREE TO BEGIN AT ANY TIME.
UH, THANK YOU CHAIRMAN DOWNS FOR ALWAYS WELCOMING US, UH, TO YOUR MEETINGS.
AND THANK YOU, UH, UH, ALL THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS FOR, FOR YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.
I'VE, I'VE BEEN THERE MANY TIMES.
THIS, THIS MORNING WHEN I WOKE UP, I WAS FLYING IN AND I DIDN'T WANNA GET THE WHOLE WORLD SICK, SO I DECIDED TO STAY HERE.
SO I DO APOLOGIZE FOR NOT BEING ABLE TO BE THERE IN PERSON.
UM, THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO, UH, UH, HEAR OUR CASE.
UH, JUST TO GIVE YOU A QUICK, UH, UPDATE, AS FOR STARPOINT, UH, WE'VE BEEN IN BUSINESS SINCE 1993, UM, ON ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES OF STARPOINT PROPERTIES.
UM, WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF, UH, MULTIFAMILY, UH, AS WELL AS OFFICE, AS WELL AS, UH, UH, RETAIL AND WAREHOUSING.
UM, WE OWN ABOUT, UH, 3000 MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND ABOUT, UH, 7 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE AND RETAIL THROUGHOUT THE UNITED STATES.
UH, OBVIOUSLY ONE OF OUR FACILITIES THAT WE HAVE IS OUR, IS OUR, UH, PLANO FACILITY, WHICH WE LOVE TREMENDOUSLY.
AND, UH, WE'VE, WE'VE OWNED SINCE 2019.
UM, WE DO A LOT OF WORK AS FAR AS THE ADD VALUE IS CONCERNED, AS FAR AS REPOSITIONING OF ASSETS ARE CONCERNED.
UH, AND RIGHT NOW WE'RE VERY BUSY.
THERE IS A LOT OF ITEMS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REPOSITION, HAVING MADE A, A FEW, UH, UH, UPDATED PURCHASES AS FAR AS OUR PORTFOLIO IS CONCERNED.
SO THANK GOD WE'RE DOING WELL, AND WE ARE VERY BUSY, AND WE WANNA GET EVEN BUSIER AS FAR AS, UH, UH, PLANO IS CONCERNED, UH, ONCE WE CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT STAGE.
UM, NEXT, NEXT, UH, SLIDE PLEASE.
UM, WE LOVE OUR PROPERTY AT LEGEND, LEGEND CHASE OAK.
WHEN WE FI, UH, BOUGHT THIS PROPERTY IN 2019, WHAT ATTRACTED US TO THE PROPERTY WAS THE UNIQUE SETTING THAT IT HAS.
IT'S GOT A LOT OF OPEN SETTING, IT'S GOT TOWN HOMES.
ABOUT 65% OF THE UNITS HAVE TOWN HOMES, WHICH MAKE IT VERY SIMILAR AS FAR AS A CONDO PROCESS IS CONCERNED, WHICH IS VERY, VERY ATTRACTIVE TO THAT, UH, TO, TO THE TENANT BASE THAT WE'RE GOING AFTER.
UH, WE LOVE THE CHASE OAK NEIGHBORHOOD.
UH, YOU KNOW, WE'VE HAD THE APPROVAL
[00:35:01]
FROM THE CHASE OAK, UH, OAK, HOA CITY OF ALLEN, AND EVERYONE AROUND FOR THE LAST THREE TIMES THAT WE'VE BEEN TO, UH, THE, UH, THE, UH, PNZ.AND WE HAVE IT AGAIN, AS FAR AS EVERYTHING IS CONCERNED.
AND FRANK WILL GO MORE INTO OUR, OUR LAST MEETING THAT WE TRIED TO HOLD.
UM, AS FAR AS THE HOA WAS CONCERNED, UH, OUR, OUR PROPERTY'S VERY CLOSE TO EMPLOYMENT, UH, AND OBVIOUSLY WITH THE, WITH THE TEXAS ECONOMY, IT'S DOING VERY WELL.
WE'RE RUNNING ABOUT 95, 90 6%, UH, OCCUPANCY.
UH, AND, UH, WE'RE, WE'RE VERY HAPPY WITH, WITH WHERE WE ARE AND, AND, AND THE PROPERTY.
UM, WE HAVE COME BEFORE PNZA COUPLE OF TIMES.
UH, WE HAVE CHANGED COURSES AT THIS POINT, LOOKING TO NOT DO AS MANY UNITS, WHICH WAS A HUNDRED AND, UH, 20 PRIOR.
UH, WE HAVE MADE A DECISION TO JUST GO AFTER 120 UNITS AS FAR AS OUR, OUR UNITS ARE CONCERNED, WHICH IS 10 TO 12 PER ACRE.
UH, WE, WE HAVE A DIVERSIFIED UNIT MIX, SO WE'VE GONE AFTER OUR TWO AND THREE BEDROOM UNITS AT THIS POINT, WHICH IS MORE FAMILY ORIENTED.
AND WE MADE THAT DECISION TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN PICK UP MORE FAMILIES, UH, SINCE A LOT OF TWOS AND THREES ARE NOT BEING BUILT AS FAR AS THE AREA'S CONCERNED.
UH, SO THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE, THAT WE WERE AFTER, AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE ACHIEVED.
UM, WE HAVE KEPT ALL THE FOUR STORY UNITS IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND ALL THE, UH, TWO STORIES IN THE FRONT.
SO THERE'S, SO THAT, UH, ALL THE GREENERY THAT WE HAVE, THE LUSH GREENERY THAT WE HAVE HIDES A LOT OF THE THREE STORY BUILDINGS, UH, TO IN THE BACK.
AND A QUESTION WAS ASKED EARLIER, AS FAR AS VAULTED CEILINGS, YES, A LOT OF UNITS.
EVERYTHING THAT WE'RE DOING RIGHT NOW AS FAR AS TWO AND THREE STORIES ARE CONCERNED, WE'RE DOING VAULTED CEILINGS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT THE TENANT BASE IS LOOKING FOR.
AND THAT'S WHY WE HAD ASKED FOR THE 45 HEIGHT IN THE BACK TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN MEET THE TENANT'S NEEDS AS FAR AS THE, THE VAULTED CEILINGS ARE CONCERNED, UM, OUR PROPERTY IS A FANTASTIC PROPERTY.
UH, IT WAS, IT WAS BUILT IN 1997.
UH, IT'S AN OLDER STOCK, SO WE NEED TO START UPGRADING A LOT OF THE UNITS THAT WE'VE GOT AT THIS POINT.
UM, WE'VE, UH, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GONNA BE DOING IS UPGRADING, UH, ALL OF OUR UNITS ONCE WE CAN GET OUR CREWS IN THERE TO BE, BUILD THESE 70 UNITS.
SO, UH, YOU KNOW, WE, WE ARE, WE'RE ABLE TO COMPETE WITH THE REST OF THE MARKET AT THIS POINT, BUT OUR, OUR, OUR GRADE IS GETTING A LITTLE OLD, SO WE WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO UPGRADE THE EXISTING UNITS, OUR CONCERNED, AND THAT'S GONNA BE BIG UNDERTAKING AND A BIG, BIG CAPITAL BUDGET FOR US AS WELL.
WE LOVE THE AREA AND, AND, AND WE LOVE, LOVE THE PROPERTY.
UM, AS WAS MENTIONED BEFORE, WE'RE ADDING A DOG PARK.
WE'RE ADDING, UH, A, WE'RE ADDING ONTO OUR CLUBHOUSE, UM, WHICH IS, UH, WHICH IS ADDING MORE AMENITIES AS FAR AS THE TENANTS ARE CONCERNED.
UM, AS A WHOLE, WE ARE VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT.
UM, INITIALLY WHEN WE, WHEN WE ASKED FOR 120 UNITS THAT WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY CONTRACTORS THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THAT, THAT WE'RE GOING TO DO THE 1 24 US, WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO FIND ONE THAT CAN DO THE 70.
OUR COSTS ARE GONNA GO UP A LOT MORE AS FAR AS THE 70 IS CONCERNED FOR THE ECONOMIES OF SCALE.
BUT IT, IT STILL IS GONNA MAKE SENSE FOR US AND IT'S GONNA BE CREATED FOR US TO ADD THE 70 UNITS TO THE PROPERTY.
AND EVEN AT, AT THE END OF THE DAY, AFTER WE ADD THE 70 UNITS, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF, UH, LIFE LANDSCAPING.
AND THAT'S WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO AS FAR AS THE PROPERTY IS CONCERNED.
UM, ON THE NEXT, UH, FRANK IS GONNA CONTINUE, UH, ON, ON THE NEXT SLIDES, I WOULD LIKE TO RESERVE TIME AT THE END OF THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR ADDITIONAL REMARKS IF POSSIBLE, PLEASE, MR. CHAIRMAN.
FRANK, YOU CAN GO AHEAD AND, UH, CONTINUE PLEASE.
I GUESS THIS IS, HAVE YOUR HEARING BE VERY GOOD.
YEAH, I'LL TRY MY BEST TO HOVER OVER IT INTO, UH, THIS IS, UH, UNUSUAL BEING IN THIS ROOM.
I'M SO USED TO THE COUNCIL CHAMBER, BUT, UH, JOKING BEFORE THE MEETING, I SAID THIS IS KINDA LIKE BINS ME OF OLD FIREHOUSE DAYS WHEN WE USED TO HAVE MEETINGS FOR COUNCIL AND, AND, UH, PLANNING COMMISSION.
UH, AS MR. NIK SAID, UM, I'M LOOKING AT THE SLIDE UP THERE.
IT SAYS, THE HOST WOULD LIKE YOU GO MUTE, MUTE.
WE HAVE SOMETHING GOING ON WITH OUR VIRTUAL MEETING.
WE NEED TO SEE IF WE CAN FIX THAT.
LIKE YOU SAID, CHAIRMAN DOWNS, JUST ABOUT THE TIME YOU GET THIS DOWN, YOU'LL BE MOVING BACK.
AND LEARNING ANOTHER TECHNOLOGY.
I REMEMBER USING TRANSPARENCIES AND SLIDES AND ALL THOSE FUN DAYS.
WELL, ANYWAY, UH, TO DESCRIBE THE PLAN VERY BRIEFLY, UM, UH, THIS IS VERY MUCH LIKE THE PLANS YOU'VE SEEN PREVIOUSLY, EXCEPT VERY MUCH ON A DIET.
[00:40:01]
UNITS AND 20 BUILDINGS TO NINE BUILDINGS AND, UH, 70 UNITS.SO IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY REDUCED.
IT CONFORMS TO MF ONE WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS.
PARKING, WHICH IS NORMALLY TWO SPACES PER UNIT.
AND THEN THE HEIGHT, WHICH IS LIMITED TO IT, IS PROVIDES FOR THREE STORIES IN MF ONE, BUT WE'RE RESTRICTED TO TWO BY THE PD CONDITIONS.
THE 45 FEET IS THE HEIGHT PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN MF THREE.
FOR SOME REASON IT'S FIVE FEET LOWER IN MF ONE, THEY HAVE THE SAME TYPE OF SETBACK RELATIONSHIP TO SINGLE FAMILIES ZONE.
BOTH ARE REQUIRED BY GENERAL STANDARDS TO BE 150 FEET AWAY FROM A SINGLE FAMILY ZONING DISTRICT.
UH, BUT OTHER THAN THAT, THEY'RE THE SAME.
UH, SO AGAIN, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE PLAN HAS VERY GENEROUS ALLOTMENT OF OPEN SPACE.
IN EFFECT, IT'S ABOUT 30% MORE USABLE OPEN SPACE THAN IS REQUIRED BY YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE.
WE ARE EXPANDING AMENITIES, PARTICULARLY THE DOG PARKS 'CAUSE THEY'RE VERY POPULAR TODAY.
UM, AND AS I SAID, THERE IS AT LEAST 10 ACRES OF USABLE OPEN SPACE PROVIDED IN THIS PLAN, WHICH IS ABOUT 30% OF THE ENTIRE SITE IS IN OPEN SPACE.
WE HAVE WORKED CLOSELY WITH THE CHASE OAKS, HOA, UH, THROUGHOUT THIS PROCESS AND DO HAVE A LETTER OF THEIR SUPPORT THAT'S INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.
I'M GONNA COME BACK TO THAT IN A MOMENT LATER ABOUT, UH, OUR EFFORTS.
I WANNA TALK ABOUT THE LEGEND'S PROPERTY IN COMPARISON TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS SLIDE, THERE ARE EIGHT APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN THE IMMEDIATE CHASE OAKS AREA.
UH, ONLY LEGENDS HAS THE RESTRICTION AT 10 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE AND MF ONE DESIGNATION.
THE REMAINING PROPERTIES ARE COMBINATION OF MF TWO AND MF THREE, AND FOUR OF THE EIGHT UNITS ARE COMPLEXES HAVE THREE STORY BUILDINGS ALREADY ON SITE ADJACENT.
WERE OVER NEAR THE CENTER MARK THEATER.
ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY, UH, BUILDINGS THAT ARE ACTUALLY AGE RESTRICTED, UH, SENIOR HOUSING, AND THEY'RE EVEN TALLER.
THEY'RE OF COURSE OUTSIDE OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD CLASSIFICATION.
HERE'S SOME MORE COMPARISONS TO SURROUNDING AREAS.
AS YOU CAN SEE, UM, MOST OF THE SETBACKS FOR THE OTHER APARTMENT COMPLEXES IN THIS AREA, UH, ARE THE STANDARD PROVISIONS OF TYPICALLY ANYWHERE FROM 25 TO 15 FEET ONLY LEGENDS HAS THE 70 FOOT SETBACK ALONG LEGACY AND A 50 FOOT SETBACK, UH, GREEN BELT, IF YOU WILL, THAT IS ADJACENT TO THE GOLF COURSE.
UM, ALSO, AS OUR PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED, FOUR OF THE EIGHT COMPLEXES ACTUALLY HAVE THREE STORY BUILDINGS.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE 45 FEET, BUT, UH, SOME OF 'EM MAY BE 'CAUSE THEY WOULD'VE BEEN BUILT UNDER MF THREE, WHICH ALLOWS FOR 45 FEET.
SO THE KEY PD STIPULATIONS WOULD BE TO GO TO ALLOWING FOR, UH, 416 UNITS A 70 UNIT INCREASE.
IT'S REALLY NOT EVEN NECESSARY TO BE IN THE PD BECAUSE IF YOU WENT TO STRAIGHT MF ONE, YOU'D COME TO THE EXACT SAME NUMBER.
IT'S 12 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
WE MAINTAIN ALL THE FRONT AND REAR SETBACKS AND THE, UH, GREEN BELT ALONG LEGACY DRIVE.
WE EXPAND TO HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL DOG PARK.
WE'LL PROBABLY RELOCATE THE EXISTING ONE, SO THERE'LL BE EFFECTIVELY TWO NEW ONES.
AND THEN THERE IS A 2000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION TO THE CLUBHOUSE THAT'LL BE DONE.
THE QUESTION WAS, WHAT IS CONCURRENT OR PRIOR TWO? WELL, IT'S POSSIBLE THAT THE, UH, EXPANSION TO THE CLUBHOUSE WILL HAPPEN IN ADVANCE, BUT WORST CASE SCENARIO, THEY'RE BUILT CONCURRENTLY.
UM, AND THEN, UH, THE 14% REDUCTION IN PARKING, WHICH IS ALREADY PROVIDED FOR IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION, YOU COULD HAVE DONE THAT ADMINISTRATIVELY.
UH, BUT WE HAVE PLACED IT IN THE PD AS WELL.
NOW, WHILE THAT SOUNDS LIKE A HUGE REDUCTION IN PARKING, AND IT IS,
[00:45:01]
AND IT SAVES OVER AN ACRE, UH, OF OPEN SPACE BY NOT REQUIRING THAT THERE'S OVER 200 TANDEM PARKING SPACE IS ON SITE, MEANING A SPACE IN FRONT OF A GARAGE THAT IS IN THE SITE.SO THERE IS AMPLE PARKING, NOTHING TO BE CONCERNED ABOUT IN TERMS OF SUPPLY OF PARKING, HOA SUPPORT.
AS I SAID, WE'VE MAINTAINED CONTACT WITH THE OFFICERS OF THE CHASE OAKS, HOA ALL THROUGH THESE YEARS.
AND, UH, AS A EXTRA STEP IN THIS PROCESS, WE INVITED NEIGHBORHOOD RESIDENTS.
YOU CAN SEE THE NOTIFICATION MAP ON THE SCREEN TO 1100 SINGLE FAMILY, UH, HOMEOWNERS OR RESIDENTS WITHIN THE AREA.
THEY'RE ALL TO THE NORTH OF OUR DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S PARKLAND AND ADDITIONAL APARTMENTS TO THE SOUTH.
THIS WAS TO BE HELD ON, UH, MARCH 21ST, NO ONE ATTENDED.
NOW THERE ARE LOTS OF EXPLANATIONS FOR THAT.
UH, QUITE HONESTLY, IF I'D BEEN INVITED, I PROBABLY
THERE'S A LOT OF FAMILY ACTIVITIES AND OTHER THINGS THAT NEED TO BE A HIGHER PRIORITY, BUT THE PRESIDENT OF THE HOA SAID THAT THEY HAD, UH, SOMEWHERE AROUND 15 CONTACTS THAT DAY, OR JUST IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE, THE MEETING.
AND NONE OF THOSE 15 CONTACTS REPORTED ANY CONCERNS.
AND OBVIOUSLY THEY'VE HAD OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO THROUGH RESPONDING TO CITY NOTIFICATIONS OR GETTING ONTO THE WEBSITE.
WE FEEL LIKE WE HAVE GOOD SUPPORT.
CITY OF ALLEN, UH, CERTAINLY IS VERY APPRECIATIVE OF ANY REINVESTMENT THAT TAKES PLACE IN PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE GOLF COURSE.
AND WHILE THEY CERTAINLY CAN'T, UH, SUPPORT OR, UH, A ZONING CASE PER SE, THEY INDICATED THAT THEY HAD NO OBJECTION TO IT.
SO AGAIN, THEY SUPPORT THE REINVESTMENT.
SO I'M GONNA TURN IT BACK TO MICHAEL, AND THEN OF COURSE, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, UH, LET ME ASK IF YOU HAVE THOSE NOW, AND THEN LET MICHAEL WRAP UP ANY QUESTIONS CONCERNING THIS? SO LET'S LET YOU FINISH.
I'LL SEE IF THERE'S ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK.
AND THEN WE'LL GET, WE'LL COME BACK TO THE, THE APPLICANTS ONE MINUTE REMAINING.
UH, CAN YOU HEAR ME? ABSOLUTELY, YES.
THANK YOU AGAIN, AGAIN, UH, WE WOULD, UH, LOVE THE SUPPORT OF YOURSELF AND THE, AND THE P AND Z CH, UH, TO TAKE THIS, UH, PROCESS TO THE NEXT LEVEL AND TO HELP US INVEST ANOTHER 25 TO $30 MILLION IN ON THIS PROPERTY.
UH, WE, WE LOVE THIS PROPERTY.
WE LOVE THE AREA, AND, UH, WE'D LIKE TO BE MORE INVOLVED.
LET'S SEE IF WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS.
I KNOW EARLIER, I DON'T THINK THAT WE DID, BUT JUST IN CASE, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NO OTHER SPEAKERS, BUT JUST WANTED FOR THE RECORD TO LET YOU KNOW THERE'S THREE REGISTERED OPINIONS IN SUPPORT OF ONE A AND FIVE IN SUPPORT OF ONE B.
SINCE WE HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKERS, THEN, UM, IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, AND I HAVE ONE, AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHAT, WHAT ELSE I MAY HAVE.
SO WOULD YOU SAY THAT THERE ARE EXTRA SPACES NOW THAT YOU HAVE A LOT OF EMPTY SPACES, NOT IN FRONT OF APARTMENTS, BUT OPEN SPACES THAT ARE NOT USED IN THE DEVELOPMENT? YES.
UM, AND PART OF THE REASON THAT I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT IT ONLY IS BECAUSE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AS WAS MENTIONED, THESE 70 UNITS ARE MORE TWO AND THREE BEDROOM, WHICH IS MORE LIKELY TO HAVE TWO OCCUPANTS AND NEED TWO CARS, VERSUS SOME OF THE OTHERS MAY ONLY NEED ONE.
SO THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE ADDING, IN TERMS OF ADDITIONAL PARKING, WE'RE ONLY ADDING LIKE 39 SPACES TO THE TOTAL, BUT WE'RE ADDING 70 UNITS, AND MORE THAN LIKELY, MOST OF THOSE WILL HAVE AT TWO VEHICLES.
SO COUNTING THE TANDEM SPACES WOULD BE CLOSE TO A THOUSAND SPACES ON SITE.
SO THERE'S A, AGAIN, AMPLE PARKING BEING PROVIDED HERE.
UH, THAT, THAT WASN'T REALLY MY ONLY CONCERN WAS THAT BASED ON THE TYPE OF UNITS BEING DEVELOPED AND JUST THE, AND FURTHER, IF EXPLAIN ON THIS FOR A BIT, UM, TYPICALLY PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT JUST WRITTEN TO SATISFY THE INTERNAL DEMAND.
IT'S ALSO TO PROTECT ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
RIGHT? THERE ARE NO CONNECTING STREETS
[00:50:01]
TO ANYTHING OUT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT ALL ACCESS IS ONTO LEGACY.UH, SO THE CHANCES OF PEOPLE POACHING PARKING ON ADJACENT PROPERTY ARE, ARE ZERO.
SO MANAGEMENT'S GONNA BE VERY SENSITIVE TO INTERNAL DEMAND AND MAKING SURE IT'S SATISFIED.
AND I THINK I REMEMBER THIS DISCUSSION FROM OUR LAST, UH, THE TUCK UNDER PARKING ISN'T, THOSE AREN'T ENCLOSED GARAGES.
SO IN THE CASE OF A TANDEM THERE, THEY'RE ONE OF TWO WAYS.
YOU'RE EITHER COUNTING THE SPACE OUT IN FRONT OR THE GARAGE.
TYPICALLY WE COUNT THE GARAGE AND NOT THE SPACE IN FRONT, IN THE CASE OF, OF, UH, WE'LL CALL TUCKED PARKING, RIGHT.
THE TUCKED PARKING COUNTS BECAUSE IT'S CLEARLY VISIBLE, IT'S OPEN, RIGHT.
SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF TANDEM, OR EXCUSE ME, TUCK SPACES THAT ARE INCLUDED IN THE NEW SUPPLY.
UH, IF IT IS GOT A PARKING SPACE IN FRONT OF IT, IT DOESN'T COUNT.
I MEAN, THAT PART DOESN'T COUNT.
IT'S ONLY SURFACE SPACES AND THE NEW SPACES THAT ARE GARAGE OR TUCKED THAT COUNT.
UM, IS A TUCKED SPACE ESSENTIALLY A GARAGE WITHOUT A DOOR? NO.
I MEAN, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S AN OPEN AIR PARKING SPACE WHERE THE BUILDING IS ABOVE IT.
IT IT SOUNDS LIKE A GARAGE WITHOUT A DOOR
IT NO, IT'S WITHOUT A DOOR, BUT THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY PETITIONED SUCH THAT THERE'S, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE SEVERAL SPACES IN A ROW.
IT'S, IT'S NOT ONE SPACE PER, PER UNIT.
THOSE, AGAIN, THEY HAVE NOT BEEN DESIGNED OTHER THAN WE KNOW THAT THEY'RE UNDER THE BUILDING IN THOSE LOCATIONS.
UM, WHAT DOES THE RENOVATION AND THE UPGRADING OF THE EXISTING UNITS HAVE TO DO WITH BUILDING NEW BUILDINGS WITH 70 NEW UNITS? YEAH, ACTUALLY THEY'RE INTEGRALLY RELATED BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S A LOT OF MONEY BEING SPENT ON NEW UNITS AND YOU WOULD WANT, I, I WON'T SAY INABLE, BUT, OR EXTINGUISHABLE, BUT YOU NEED TO UPGRADE THE ENTIRE COMPLEX TO BE MARKET VIABLE.
SO THE NEW UNITS EFFECTIVELY PLACE FORCE, IF YOU WILL, UPGRADING OF THE EXISTING UNITS TO BE COMPETITIVE INTERNALLY TO THE DEVELOPMENT.
I HAVE, UH, TWO QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANTS.
ONE IS ACTUALLY RELATED TO WHAT, UH, MR. CHAIRMAN JUST MENTIONED ABOUT THE PARKING SPACES.
I UNDERSTAND THAT WITH THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS, THEY'RE UNDERUTILIZED, THAT MAYBE WITH 14 REDUCTION, 14% REDUCTION, THAT KIND OF SATISFIES THE OVERALL REQUIREMENTS.
BUT WITH THE NEW BUILDINGS, THE EX I, I'M ASSUMING THE EXISTING RESIDENTS HAVE THEIR PARKINGS RIGHT UNDERNEATH THEIR BUILDING OR RIGHT.
THE ATTENDANT PARKING IS RIGHT IN FRONT OF THEIR PARKING GARAGES.
SO THE NEW UNITS, THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO USE THE ONES THAT ARE ATTEND THEM TO THE OTHER UNITS.
SO ARE YOU GOING TO BUILD? SURE.
I SEE THAT YOU'RE NODDING AND MAYBE YOU ALREADY HAVE AN ANSWER.
AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SLIDE THAT'S UP RIGHT NOW, THE NEW UNITS ARE SCATTERED THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO, UH, A LOT OF SHARING OF PARKING FROM NEW PARKING AND OLD PARKING IS ANTICIPATED.
IN FACT, SOME OF THE BUILDINGS SIT ON EXISTING PARKING TODAY.
THEY'LL BE REMOVED, BUT REPLACED WITHIN THE PLAN.
UH, THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE PARKING IS REGULATED BY ORDINANCE.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE SPACES WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF A DWELLING UNIT.
AND SO THAT REVIEW WILL TAKE PLACE AS WE GO THROUGH PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, BUT THERE MAY BE SOME REFINEMENT AND MOVEMENT OF PARKING SPACES FROM THIS PLAN TO THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT YOU, WHY YOU GO THROUGH THOSE ITERATIVE PROCESSES.
UH, THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD WAS REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDINGS.
UM, I KNOW THAT THEY, UH, MAY NOT INTERFERE WITH THE SETBACKS AND THE FRONT FROM THE MAIN STREET OR FROM THE GOLF COURSE, BUT WOULD IT, UM, COST AS ANY SHUTTLE TO THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS? SO THERE MIGHT BE BUILDINGS RIGHT NEXT TO THEM IF THEY'RE HIGHER THAN, UM, THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS.
WOULD THEY BLOCK ANY, UH, MAYBE SUNLIGHT OR MAYBE ANY VIEWS OF THE, UH, THE CURRENT EXISTING BUILDINGS? SO IF YOU LOOK TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PLAN, ALL OF THOSE BUILDINGS ARE TWO STORIES AS YOU RUN DOWN
[00:55:01]
IN THAT SECTION.SO EFFECTIVELY, THEY'RE NO DIFFERENT THAN THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE AROUND THEM.
THE, UH, BUILDINGS THAT ARE THREE STORIES ARE ON THE WESTERN EDGE.
AND, UM, BEING THAT THEY'RE THE INSIDE PROPERTIES, THEY WOULD NOT BLOCK THE AFTERNOON SUN.
THEY MAY HAVE SOME MARGINAL IMPACT ON THE MORNING SUN, WHICH MOST PEOPLE WOULD APPRECIATE
45 FEET AGAIN, IS THERE TO PRIMARILY ACCOMMODATE FLOOR TO CEILING, UH, DISTANCE SO THAT YOU HAVE A GREAT, LIKE THIS ROOM, YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH THE HIGHER CEILINGS AND THEN STILL BE ABLE TO HAVE A DECENT PITCH TO THE ROOF AND AVOID FLAT ROOFS.
BUT THAT BUILDING HEIGHT IS COMMON THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
THERE ARE, MF THREE IS A LOT MORE POPULAR ZONING DISTRICT THAN MF ONE.
AND OF COURSE THERE ARE THREE STORY APARTMENTS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.
UM, MR. TURNER, OBVIOUSLY WE HAD A PLAN THAT WAS HERE PREVIOUSLY.
CAN YOU SUMMARIZE THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ONE WE'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT AND THE ONE THAT YOU PRESENTED TO US TWO YEARS AGO? YEAH.
THE, THE MAIN DIFFERENCES I SAID EARLIER WAS THAT THERE WERE 20 BUILDINGS THAT WERE ON THE OLD PLAN, AND I WISH I'D BROUGHT A COPY OF IT, BUT 20 NEW BUILDINGS ON THE OLD PLAN, THERE WERE 20 BUILDINGS PROPOSED, AND IT'S NOW BEING REDUCED TO DIME BUILDINGS.
THE REASON WHY YOU SEE SUCH A DRAMATIC DROP IN NUMBER OF BUILDINGS IS MOST OF THOSE BUILDINGS WERE FAIRLY SMALL, UM, AND WERE MORE TIGHTLY LOCATED WITHIN THE SITE.
UM, THIS GOES BACK TO BEING BASICALLY ALL LARGER BUILDING TYPES, BUT THIS IS A MUCH MORE COMFORTABLE FIT TO THE SITE, I MEAN, TRUTHFULLY THAN COMPARED TO THE OTHER PLAN.
MR. BRONSKI? UH, I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
I WAS LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT ON, UH, PAGE 17.
THEY TALK ABOUT THE, UH, SPECIAL HOUSING NEED ACTION ITEM NUMBER SIX IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SAYS, UH, IDENTIFYING THE METHODS TO INCORPORATING UNIVERSAL DESIGN PRACTICES AND ENCOURAGING THEIR IMPLEMENTATION IN THE NEW HOUSING PROJECTS AND HOME RENOVATIONS.
SO, AM I TO UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT INCORPORATING UNIVERSAL DESIGN IN THE CONSTRUCTION? NO, UNFORTUNATELY, THERE ISN'T A UNIVERSAL DESIGN CODE.
THERE ARE, UH, DIFFERENT UNIVERSITIES AND PEOPLE WHO HAVE, UM, WRITTEN ABOUT UNI, UH, UNIVERSAL DESIGN AND HAVE GIVEN SOME INDICATION OF THE TYPES OF CONSIDERATIONS, BUT THAT'S NEVER BEEN PROMULGATED INTO A NATIONAL BUILDING CODE OR SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN SAY, OH, LET'S ADOPT THAT.
IN FACT, THERE'S DISAGREEMENT AMONG ARCHITECTS AND DESIGNERS AS TO WHAT CONSTITUTES GOOD UNIVERSAL DESIGN.
IT'S A CONCEPT, IT'S A LAUDABLE CONCEPT, AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOMETHING THAT ALL PEOPLE LOOK AT IN THE DESIGN OF THEIR PROPERTIES.
NOW, OBVIOUSLY YOU HAVE TO MEET A DA REQUIREMENTS ON ACCESS AND DESIGN ON THE LOWER LEVEL UNITS.
SO I COULD ONLY TELL YOU THERE'S NOT A CODE THAT YOU COULD READILY ADOPT TO SAY, OH, UNIVERSAL DESIGN WILL BE DONE HERE AND KNOW WHAT THAT MEANT.
SO I WAS JUST SIMPLY TALKING IN RELATION TO, UH, WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY ASKING FOR IN THAT.
UH, CAN YOU, CAN YOU HELP AT ALL, MR. BELL? SURE.
THERE'S, THERE'S NOT A CODE, BUT WE'RE TYPICALLY LOOKING FOR, UM, INTERIOR UNIT DESIGN, SITE DESIGN, THAT IT'S NOT SPECIFICALLY FOR A DA COMPLIANCE, BUT IT'S ALL NEEDS, ALL AGES.
SO THINGS LIKE COUNTERTOP HEIGHTS, LOCATING WHERE YOUR, UM, ACCESSORY OR YOUR APPLIANCES ARE TO MAKE THEM MORE ACCESSIBLE.
IT'S MORE OF AN INTERIOR WORK, BUT THERE IS NOT A SPECIFIC CODE THAT WE CAN SAY DO X, Y, AND Z AND YOU ARE MEETING UNIVERSAL DESIGN.
IT'S, IT'S A LAUDABLE GOAL AND I HOPE THE CITIES WITHIN THE REGION WILL WORK ON ADOPTING SOMETHING, FORMULATING SOMETHING THAT WOULD GIVE MEANING TO THE TERM SO PEOPLE WOULD KNOW HOW TO RESPOND IT AND INCORPORATE IT INTO THEIR LOCAL ORDINANCES.
I DO WANNA MAKE ONE BRIEF FINAL COMMENT OF IT, KIM AS CHAIRMAN, AND THAT IS ABOUT THE HOUSING TYPE.
UH, WE TALK ABOUT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS AND, AND SO ON.
ALL THOSE THINGS ARE VERY IMPORTANT.
UH, BUT I WANT TO POINT OUT THE IMPORTANCE OF GETTING MORE TWO AND THREE STORY UNITS IN OUR DEVELOPMENT.
[01:00:01]
OF OUR APARTMENTS ARE ONE STORIES THAT ARE ONE UNIT, ONE BEDROOM INEFFICIENCIES AND RIGHT.THERE'S TREMENDOUS DEMAND FOR FAMILY TYPE APARTMENT HOUSING, WHICH JUST OFFERS 80% OF THE NEW UNITS.
MR. RALEIGH, YOU ACTUALLY STARTED ANSWERING PART OF MY QUESTION.
YOU TALKED ABOUT DIVERSIFYING MIX, SO I DUNNO IF YOU HAVE THE RATIO IN YOUR, UM, WHAT IS CURRENTLY ON THIS PROPERTY IN TERMS OF THE RATIO OF THREE UNIT, THREE BEDROOM TO TWO TO ONE TO TOWN HOME, AND WHAT'S THE CHANGE THAT IS NEW? YEAH, SO CURRENTLY THE PROPERTY, UH, IS, IS ROUGHLY 50 50 ON THE SMALLER UNITS AND LARGER UNITS.
THIS WILL MOVE IT CLOSER TO BEING, UH, GOT IT WRITTEN 54 I BELIEVE, OVERALL, BUT OF THIS NEW SECTION, 80% OR TWO AND THREE BEDROOM.
UM, NOW IN TERMS OF UNIT COUNT TOTAL, AS YOU KNOW, IT'S 70 UNITS THAT'S BEING REQUESTED AND THAT IS A 20% INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF UNITS ON SITE DO COUNT COUNTING BEDROOMS, BUT 20% UNITS ONLY, A LITTLE OVER 6% OF THE USABLE OFFICE OPEN SPACES BEING LOST.
NOW HOW ARE WE DOING THAT? BY USING THREE STORY BUILDINGS AND BY REDUCING PARKING, AND THAT'S MAKING 'EM MORE EFFICIENT, UH, DEVELOPMENT THAT STILL PROVIDES MORE THAN 30%, UH, ADDITIONAL USABLE OPEN SPACE THAN IS REQUIRED BY ORDINANCE.
UM, AND AGAIN, YOU ALLUDED TO IT WITH THE OPEN SPACE.
WHEN LOOKING BACK AT THE, WHEN THIS WAS LAST APPROVED BY BOTH COUNCIL AND PNZ IN 1995, UM, IT FEELS LIKE THE INTENT WAS TO PROVIDE A DIFFERENT KIND OF ENVIRONMENT WITHIN, UM, WITHIN THAT DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT'S YOUR REACTION TO IF WE CAN DO THIS, ALMOST MAINTAINING AN OPEN SPACE RESTRICTION THAT ESSENTIALLY ENSURES THAT THAT PARK-LIKE SETTING IS KEPT ON THAT DEVELOPMENT BY MAINTAINING THAT 400,000 OR 4 32 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS? I THINK YOU GET THERE IN EFFECT BY THE DESIGN BY LIMITING IT AGAIN TO 12 UNITS PER ACRE.
UH, THERE'S LITTLE CHANCE THAT YOU'RE GONNA SEE SIGNIFICANT DIMINUTION OF THE OPEN SPACE.
I MEAN, IT'S, THERE'S NOT REALLY AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO GOBBLE UP, IF YOU WILL, MORE LAND OUT OF THE OPEN SPACE.
IT'S CAPPED AT THE 1212 UNITS IS BETWEEN, BETWEEN THE BUILDING HEIGHTS RESTRICTION AND THE DENSITY.
IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR THEM TO COME BACK AND TAKE BACK COVER MORE UNLESS THEY DID IT WITH PARKING SPACES, WHICH NONE OF US WANT THEM TO DO.
WELL, I DO WANNA CLARIFY THAT THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR THREE BEDROOMS IN THE STIPULATION.
SO THE ARGUMENTS MADE ABOUT HOUSING DIVERSIFICATION IS NOT A REQUIREMENT.
THEY COULD CERTAINLY DO THOSE AS ONE BEDROOMS IF, IF, YOU KNOW, THERE'S NOTHING TYING THEM DOWN TO THE OPEN SPACE EITHER.
SO IF THOSE ARE THINGS THAT YOU FEEL ARE IMPORTANT TO THE CHARACTER WITHOUT THE PD RESTRICTIONS, THEY CAN COME IN AND REVISE THE CONCEPT PLAN LATER AND ADD ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS AND THE FEASIBILITY OF THAT.
THERE'S SOME ARGUMENTS TO BE MADE, UM, BUT THEY COULD CERTAINLY TRY WHAT, WHAT I, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY PROACTIVELY TO GUARD AGAINST THAT? WELL, HERE'S THE PD STIPULATIONS.
IS THE, IS THE, WOULD BE THE BEST WAY TO CLARIFY THAT? YES.
LET, LET ME MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON THIS.
ONE IS THAT IT IS BEST TO TRY TO KEEP ZONING, UH, CONSISTENT, IF YOU WILL, AMONG AREAS OF TOWN AND NOT HAVE VERY UNIQUE REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH PD.
THAT MAKES IT HARDER TO ADMINISTER, HARDER TO INTERPRET, AND INVARIABLY REQUIRES AMENDMENTS LATER DOWN THE PIKE.
UH, SUPPORT CLEARLY THOSE PROVISIONS IN A PD THAT ARE NECESSARY AND CRITICAL TO THE DESIGN OF THE PLAN.
UH, THAT'S PERFECTLY LEGITIMATE.
BUT WHEN YOU START PUTTING IN LOTS OF EXTRA PROVISIONS, IT DOES COMPLICATE THINGS.
IT'S BETTER TO USE STANDARDIZED ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE POSSIBLE.
I KNOW STAFF HAS THEIR DIFFICULTIES WITH PDS AS I DO THROUGH A CAREER OF DEALING WITH THEM.
UM, BUT THE ORIGINAL INTENT ALSO, WHEN THIS PARCEL WAS BUILT ESSENTIALLY IN NINE FIVE IN CONJUNCTION WITH CHASE OAKS AND WHAT HAVE YOU, WAS TO ARRIVE AT A DIFF I WASN'T HERE IN
[01:05:01]
NINE FIVE, BUT DIFFERENT HOUSING VIBE FOR THAT.IT WAS ORIGINALLY SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED ZONING, AND PART OF THE DISCUSSION WAS TO KEEP THE SAME DENSITY AND RIGHT TYPE OF SETTING.
SO THE PD LANGUAGE IS OUR TOOL TO, SO HAVING KEEP TO THAT IN SOME WAY, I HAVEN'T BEEN PART OF THAT NEGOTIATION
I CAN JUST TELL YOU THAT BILL PARSONS WITH CAMBRIDGE DEVELOPMENT WAS LOOKING TO TURN THE PROPERTY QUICKLY, AND THAT WAS THE, THE, UH, WAY THAT HE DECIDED TO PROCEED WAS TO TRY TO KEEP THINGS AT THE SAME DENSITY AS SFA.
AND OF COURSE THE ZONING WAS APPROVED, BUT THE TOPOGRAPHY, VEGETATION AND SO ON, ON THIS SITE IS NOT SIGNIFICANTLY DIFFERENT THAN THE THORNBERRY DEVELOPMENT OR AVALON NEXT DOOR.
UH, ALL OF IT IS, HAS 20 TO 30 FEET OF CROP AND IS HEAVILY VEGETATED, UH, PART OF THE BRUSSEL CREEK BASIN.
AND, UH, SO IT'S, CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? IT'S NOT DISTINCTIVE IN THAT RESPECT.
UM, YOU HAD A NOTE ON THE 1100, UH, MAILERS THAT WENT OUT TO THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.
I REMEMBER FROM THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE WATCHING THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, THAT WAS A PARTICULAR SORE POINT, UM, THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOT CONTACTED AND THE HOA WAS NOT QUITE REPRESENTED OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS.
DID YOU TRY AGAIN, SINCE YOU DIDN'T GET ANY RESPONSE? DID YOU DO SOMETHING EXTRA? IS AS, AS I SAID, WE PROVIDED THE 1100 MAILERS.
OF COURSE, THAT'S ON TOP OF THE NOTICE THAT THE CITY PROVIDED.
UH, I THINK THE, THE, THE TRUTH IS OUTTA SIGHT OUT OF MIND, THERE'S NEARLY 500 FEET OF GOLF COURSE IN BETWEEN THIS DEVELOPMENT AND ANY ADJACENT, UH, SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTIES.
AND FOR THAT REASON, I DON'T THINK IT JUST DRAWS A LOT OF ATTENTION ON IT TO THE HOMEOWNER'S MIND AS TO WHAT'S TAKING PLACE.
UH, BUT THEY WERE CERTAINLY MADE AWARE OF IT.
AND YOU CAN SEE BY THE RESPONSES THAT CAME IN THROUGH ALL THE DIFFERENT AVENUES, UH, THAT IT IS A SUPPORTED PROJECT.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS.
UM, IT, IT, HERE'S WHAT I REMEMBER FROM THE FIRST TIME, AND THEN THE SECOND TIME, AND NOW THE THIRD TIME, FIRST TIME WE SAID WE DON'T LIKE X, Y, AND Z.
AND THEY WENT AWAY AND THEY CHANGED ALL OF THAT, AND THEY BROUGHT IT BACK.
AND WE STILL DIDN'T LIKE STUFF FOR WHATEVER REASON, BUT IT DID PASS B AND Z THE SECOND TIME AROUND, WENT TO COUNCIL.
IT DIDN'T GET PAST COUNSEL, AND I DON'T RECALL THE REASONS WHY, BUT, UH, FOR THE SAME REASONS I SUPPORTED IT LAST TIME, I, I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF IT THIS TIME.
WE NEED TO REDEVELOP THE PROPERTY.
UM, BASED ON WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE DEVELOPER, MR. TURNER, IT'S MY BELIEF THEY WANT TO BUILD WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, WHICH IS TWO AND THREE STORY APARTMENTS, MAINTAIN THE FIELD, THE OPEN SPACE, AND, UM, I THINK BASED ON WHAT I KNOW ABOUT THE DEVELOPER, THEY'LL DO A GOOD JOB OF IT TOO.
SO IT'S A REINVESTMENT IN AN EXISTING PROPERTY.
IT'S STILL ONE OF THE LOWEST DENSITY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY.
UM, I'M, I'M NOT SURE WHY WE WOULDN'T APPROVE IT, BUT THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I STAND ON IT.
SO I WILL START WITH MR. BRUNO AND WE'LL GO AROUND THE HORN.
I ALSO VOTED FOR IT THE LAST TIME, THE 2022 CASE.
I WAS NOT ON THE COMMISSION FOR THE, THE FIRST ONE BACK IN 2020.
AND THIS IMPRESSES ME AS AN EVEN BETTER PROJECT THAN THE ONE I VOTED FOR BEFORE.
IT IS, IT'S STILL, THE DENSITY IS WITHIN, UH, MF ONE STANDARDS, WHICH IS THE LOWEST DENSITY WITHIN THE CITY.
UH, IT PROVIDES A GENEROUS AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE, USABLE OPEN SPACE.
AND I THINK SUBSTANTIAL PARK-LIKE SETTING WOULD BE PRESERVED WITHIN THE PROPERTY.
IN ADDITION TO THE FACT THAT IT IS STILL SURROUNDED ON THREE SIDES BY A GOLF COURSE, WHICH IS MORE PARK-LIKE SETTING.
THERE IS A CITY OF PLANO INFIELD PUBLIC PARK ACROSS THE STREET WITH BALL FIELDS.
UM, I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT PARK-LIKE SETTING.
UM, THE STAFF HAS IN, HAS INFORMED US THAT THE, THE PARKING THAT THEY WANNA PROVIDE IS ADEQUATE.
AND THE TANDEM PARK, THE, THE TANDEM PARKING AND THE, WHAT'S THE TUCKED, TUCKED PARKING.
UM, EXPAND THOSE NUMBERS EVEN MORE.
TELLINGLY, THERE IS NO SUBSTANTIAL OPPOSITION FROM ANYBODY IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
ALL OF THE SURROUNDING APARTMENT COMPLEXES SEEMED TO BE IN FAVOR OF IT.
PROPERTY OWNERS BASICALLY DIDN'T BOTHER TO RESPOND TO THE NOTICE OF WHAT THEY WERE TRYING TO DO.
[01:10:01]
I THINK THE HEIGHT IS JUSTIFIED, THE EXTRA FIVE FEET OF HEIGHT IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN ARCHITECTURAL UNIFORMITY WITHIN THE COMPLEX.AND I THINK, UH, MR. BURNOFF WAS, UM, SAID IT SAID IT ALL AND SAID IT WELL, AND IT'S HARD TO FOLLOW.
SO I'M JUST SAYING I'M IN FAVOR.
YOU KNOW, ORIGINALLY THIS WAS NOT ZONE MULTIFAMILY AND, AND, UH, THEY GOT IT ZONE MULTIFAMILY WITH SOME PROVISIONS AND SOME PD STIPULATIONS.
IT'S A VERY DESIRABLE SETTING.
UM, AND, UH, YOU KNOW, BUT IN THIS AREA, BY THE DOCUMENTS WE HAD, THERE HAVE BEEN 1,386 NEW APARTMENTS BUILT IN THE AREA ALREADY.
AND THAT DOESN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE THOUSANDS OF APARTMENTS THAT THIS COMMISSION HAS APPROVED IN PLANO OVER THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS.
I'VE BEEN SITTING HERE THAT MANY OF THEM STILL UNBUILT.
UM, YOU KNOW, UH, A CASE IS MADE HERE, UM, I THINK EFFECTIVELY BY THE OWNERS IN SOME REGARDS THAT, THAT THEY WANNA UPGRADE THIS PROPERTY AND THEY WILL, BECAUSE THAT'S THE NATURE OF THESE KIND OF PROPERTIES AS THEY AGE, ESPECIALLY AN ASSET LIKE THIS.
AND SO THEY'LL UPGRADE IT WHETHER THESE NEW BUILDINGS ARE PUT IN OR NOT.
AND, UM, AND THEY'LL PROBABLY BE ABLE TO GET PREMIUM RENTS FOR IT, WHICH I THINK IS THE BEAUTY OF THIS PROPERTY THE WAY IT SETS TODAY.
UM, YOU KNOW, IT'S BEEN TURNED DOWN BY COUNCIL BEFORE THIS COMMISSION CONTINUES TO APPROVE IT.
UM, BUT I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY OF ADDING THESE 70 UNITS PERSONALLY.
SO, UM, YOU KNOW, I THINK STAFF HAS THIS RIGHT.
AND, UM, I'D, I'D LIKE TO SEE THIS GET UPGRADED.
I THINK IT'D BE A BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S CERTAINLY THE PROPERTY OWNER'S, UM, BUSINESS.
BUT, UM, YOU KNOW, I, I'VE GOT PROBLEMS WITH THE HEIGHT AND I'VE GOT PROBLEMS WITH THE PROXIMITY TO SOME OF THE OTHER BUILDINGS.
AND WHILE THERE STILL IS PLENTY OF SPACE HERE AND OPEN SPACE, THIS DOES TREMENDOUSLY CHANGE THE NATURE OF THIS, THIS PROJECT AND THIS PROPERTY.
SO I, I, I WILL VOTE AGAINST IT AGAIN FOR THE SAME REASONS I DID BEFORE, BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE CHANGING IT IN A WAY THAT'S, THAT'S NOT GOOD FOR THE PROPERTY.
I THINK IT'S A VERY UNIQUE PROPERTY.
THANK YOU, MR. S THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
I THINK YOU SUMMARIZED IT VERY WELL, BUT I'M GONNA ADD ON TOP OF THAT SOMETHING COMMISSIONER LAU POINTED OUT, WHICH IS, IF THIS WAS MF ONE, WE'D ONLY BE TALKING ABOUT PARKING AND HEIGHT.
AND, UM, WITH THAT SAID, I, THE MARKET IS EVOLVING AND THE HIGHER BUILDINGS ARE IN DEMAND WITH MORE CEILING HEIGHTS.
AND SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE HEIGHT.
AND, UM, I THINK BECAUSE OF THE UNIQUE LOCATION OF THIS PROPERTY, THE PARKING IS GOING TO BE A MUCH BIGGER CONCERN BY THE OWNER THAN BY US, BECAUSE IF THEY HAVE A PROBLEM, IT'S GONNA BE THEIR PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH INTERNALLY, UM, A LOT FASTER THAN IT'S GONNA BE OUR PROBLEM TO DEAL WITH EXTERNALLY.
SO, UH, WITH THAT SAID, I VOTED FOR IT BEFORE AND I LIKE IT EVEN BETTER NOW.
SO I, I HAVE TO AGREE THAT I LIKE THIS PROPOSAL A LOT BETTER THAN THE LAST ONE THAT I VOTED AGAINST.
UM, PART OF MY CONCERN THEN, AS IS MY CONCERN TODAY, UH, IS THE ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT ARE GOING TO BE ADDED TO THIS.
UH, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE HEIGHT.
I THINK THE HEIGHT MAKES SENSE.
UM, WHEN I WENT OVER AND SAT AFTER I MET WITH MR. TURNER, UH, SAT THROUGH THIS PROPERTY, UM, WHAT I'LL SAY IS, UH, THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE A LOT OF POTENTIAL AND, UH, I'VE, I HEAR THE CONFIDENCE, UH, THAT THOSE IN THIS COMMISSION HAVE ABOUT, UM, THE LONG TERM UPKEEP AND, UH, HOW WELL THIS DEVELOPER HAS DONE.
BUT IN ME SITTING THERE AND TRAVELING THROUGH THERE, UH, I THINK THE CITY, UH, HAS AN ARGUMENT WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT THE LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
UH, I DON'T FEEL LIKE, I DON'T FEEL CONFIDENT THAT, UH, THIS DEVELOPER IS GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT WHEN THEY'VE GOT GARAGE DOORS RIGHT NOW PAINTED THREE DIFFERENT COLORS, UH, BUILDINGS THAT, UH, ARE STRUGGLING.
SOME OF THEIR, UM, PARKING, UH, COVERS ARE DENTED IN.
AND THIS PRODUCT, THIS PLACE COULD BE A LOT BETTER TODAY WITHOUT ADDING ANYTHING ADDITIONAL.
UH, AND I THINK MAINTAINING THE MF ONE, UH, I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS DOING THAT.
I THINK THAT, UH, THE MF ONE IS UNIQUE WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANO.
I DON'T THINK, UM, ADDING ADDITIONAL UNITS, UH, AS I DID LAST TIME, I STILL DON'T THINK ADDING ADDITIONAL UNITS TO THIS,
[01:15:01]
UH, IS AN OVERALL ENHANCEMENT.I BELIEVE THAT OUR JOB HERE IS TO CONSIDER LAND USE AND I THINK THE APPROPRIATE LAND USE, UH, WE MET WHENEVER WE PUT IT TOGETHER.
AND I THINK MAINTAINING WHAT WE HAVE TODAY, UH, IS THE BEST THING FOR THE CITIZENS.
I JUST WISH THAT THE, UH, THE OWNERS WOULD, UH, INVEST, UH, AS MUCH MONEY INTO CURRENTLY UPKEEPING THEIR FACILITY AS EVERYBODY IS HOPING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO IN THE FUTURE.
SO ALL THAT SAID, UH, I'VE WEIGHED THIS BACK AND FORTH.
UH, I STILL WILL VOTE NO A SECOND TIME COMMISSIONER LEY STRANDED.
I DON'T THINK I EVER CONSIDERED UPKEEP NECESSARILY AS ANY REASON, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT'S A LAND USE, UM, A VIABLE LAND USE CHARACTERISTIC.
UH, THE, A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT HAVE STUCK WITH ME WITH THIS CASE EVEN IN THE PAST WAS ONE, HOW IT'S JUDGED DIFFERENTLY FROM THE AJ ADJACENT PROPERTIES, RIGHT? AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S HISTORY AS TO WHY THE CITY WENT A CERTAIN WAY.
UM, AND TWO, EVEN WITHIN THE BASE MF ONE ZONING, WHICH IS OUR LEAST, UM, APARTMENT MULTIFAMILY ZONING IN THE CITY.
UM, THE PD STIPULATIONS ESSENTIALLY CUT THEM OFF AT THE KNEES.
AND AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS NEEDED IN 99.5 TO, TO PASS THAT, UM, MIX OF VIEWS.
THIS DOESN'T INCREASE THE MIX OF VIEWS IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CATEGORIZATION, BY WHAT 0.1% IF MY MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT? SO IT'S REALLY DOESN'T CHANGE MUCH.
UM, IT TAKES US SLIGHTLY IN THE DIRECTION WE DON'T WANT TO GO, BUT IT'S IN FINANCE, WE CALL THAT FLAT.
UM, THE CHARACTER DEFINING CHARACTER, UM, CHARACTERISTICS, THE THREE STORY BUILDINGS I ESSENTIALLY TALKED IN, IN TO THE CORE.
AND WHEN I THINK OF CHARACTER DEFINING CHARACTERISTICS, I'M LOOKING AT TWO THINGS.
UM, WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE FROM THE OUTSIDE? I DON'T THINK ANYBODY CAN SEE THEM.
UM, AND HOW MUCH DOES IT REALLY CHANGE THE VIBE OF WHAT IS WITHIN THE PROPERTY? WHICH BRINGS ME BACK TO THE OPEN SPACE.
UM, I MOVED THAT WE APPROVED IT THE LAST TIME, AND I'LL PROBABLY DO SO AGAIN, THE ONE QUESTION I HAVE IS IF WE CAN ALMOST EMBED THAT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT A LITTLE BIT MORE FIRMLY, UM, WITHIN THE PD STIPULATIONS, THAT WOULD MAKE ME EVEN MORE, UM, CONFIDENT THAT WE ARE MEETING THE SPIRIT OF WHAT THE 1995 BOARD AND COMMISSION AND CITY WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THAT PARK-LIKE SETTING.
YOU DON'T HAVE TO ANSWER THAT DOWN, BUT, SO I'D LIKE YOU COMMISSIONER, CAN I JUST MAKE A QUICK STATEMENT ABOUT WHAT HE JUST SAID? SO ON PAGE 10 OF THE STAFF REPORT, IT SAYS, QUOTE, FURTHERMORE, LONG-TERM MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF EXISTING MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IS EMPHASIZED IN THE DESCRIPTION OF THE END CATEGORY AND PRIORITY TWO, WHICH IS RECOMMENDED UPKEEP OF EXISTING HOUSING STOCK.
SO, SO WHAT I WAS ESSENTIALLY SAYING IS I DON'T, I DIDN'T MAKE MY DECISION THEN THAT I NEED TO BUILD, WHAT, 120 MORE BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO GET THE MONEY TO UPGRADE.
SO STUFF, THAT ARGUMENT NEVER FLEW WITH ME.
WHAT ALWAYS I CAME BACK TO WAS, ARE WE TREATING THIS SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT FOR THE MF ONE CATEGORY AND FOR THE SURROUNDING MULTIFAMILY UNITS? AND DOES THAT, UM, FLY WITH PLANO TODAY, PLANO 2050 PLANO TOGETHER THAT WE ARE HANDCUFFING ESSENTIALLY A DEVELOPMENT TO PLANO 20 YEARS AGO OR WHATEVER.
QUICKLY, MR. LAU, I, UH, I WILL COME AT THIS LIKE, I TRY TO THINK ABOUT EACH OF THE CASES, BUT FIRST I WANT TO ASK MR. BELL A QUESTION IN LINE WITH MR. COMMISSIONER OLLIE'S, Y'ALL WANNA TALK WITH ALL OF US OR
IN LINE WITH MR. OLLIE'S, UH, CONCERNS ABOUT OPEN SPACE, I, I DON'T SHARE THOSE CONCERNS BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO APPROVE NINE BUILDINGS AS IS REPRESENTED ON THIS IN FRONT OF US, HOW DO YOU EAT UP ANY MORE OPEN SPACE?
[01:20:01]
WELL, AGAIN, THEY COULD REDEVELOP THE SITE.YOU'RE APPROVING A NUMBER OF UNITS, NOT A NUMBER OF BUILDINGS.
SO THEY COULD COME BACK AND TEAR ALL OF THEM DOWN AND REBUILD NEW BUILDINGS AT THE, AT THE UNIT COUNT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
SO IT COULD BE DONE A NUMBER OF WAYS.
IS IT PRACTIC, IS IT FEASIBLE? IS IT PRACTICAL? I DON'T KNOW, BUT IT'S POSSIBLE.
AND I DON'T, I DON'T SHARE THAT CONCERN.
I, I UNDER, I APPRECIATE THE, I GO BACK TO WHAT 2022 LOOKED LIKE.
SO, UH, AS I STARTED JUST THINKING THROUGH, AS I TRY TO THINK THROUGH EVERYTHING, WHO, WHO DESERVES PROTECTION BY THE ORDINANCE HERE IS, IS WHAT I KIND OF, WHAT I START WITH.
AND WE HAVE APARTMENTS REALLY ON AN ISLAND SURROUNDED BY A GOLF COURSE.
AND SO I DON'T, I DON'T SEE THE PROTECTION FACTOR THAT, THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT TO CONSIDER.
WHAT THE LAW WAS WRITTEN TO DO IS TO, IS TO GIVE EVERYONE AN UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT'S HAPPENING.
BUT WE HAVE APARTMENTS ON AN ISLAND, ESSENTIALLY SURROUNDED BY A GOLF COURSE.
WE HAVE 70 FOOT SETBACKS OFF LEGACY.
WE HAVE 50 FOOT SETBACKS AND THE SETBACKS TO A GOLF COURSE.
WE HAVE 10 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE.
AND SO, I MEAN, A FEW MORE APARTMENTS IN HERE.
ONCE WE'VE MET THE PROTECTION OF THE PEOPLE THAT DESERVE BEING PROTECTED BY THE ORDINANCE, I, I, I DEFER TO SOMEONE MAKING AN INVESTMENT IN PLANO.
AND SO THAT'S WHAT I SEE THIS AS SOMEONE COMING IN IMPROVING THE PROPERTY, I'M OKAY WITH THEM MAKING SOME MORE MONEY.
THAT'S WHY PEOPLE DEVELOP PROPERTY.
AND, UM, UH, FROM EVERYTHING I'VE HEARD, I I, I'M, I'M IN SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT THE, WHAT THEY'VE DONE HERE.
UH, UM, MR. BELL UNDERSTAND ANSWER, COMMISSIONER OLLIE'S QUESTION, WITH THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE PROPOSED ROUGHLY COMES OUT TO ABOUT 28%, 28.5% OPEN SPACE.
SO IF THAT WAS SOMETHING YOU WANTED TO RECOMMEND, THAT WOULD BE THE NUMBER SOMEWHERE IN THERE THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD LOCK THAT INTO THAT AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE.
SO A MOTION TO APPROVE THE PD AS STATED WITH A MINIMUM OF 28% OPEN SPACE.
UNLESS YOUR PLANS ARE TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT YOU'VE STATED, THAT SHOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM, RIGHT? WELL, UH, YES SIR.
I MEAN, FIRST OFF, WE'RE AT A CONCEPT PLAN.
WE'RE NOT A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
WE DON'T HAVE EXACT MEASUREMENTS THAT MIGHT BE, UH, MAYBE IT'S 27%, MAYBE IT'S A DIFFERENT NUMBER.
ALSO, I ASK YOU TO THINK ABOUT WHY THIS PROPERTY AND THAT RESTRICTION THAT DOESN'T APPLY ANYWHERE ELSE IN PLANO, WHY WOULD YOU SET A DIFFERENT OPEN SPACE STANDARD? YOU HAVE ONE THAT'S IN MF ONE, WHICH WE ARE EXCEEDING BY NEARLY 30%.
WHY WOULD YOU MAKE A DIFFERENT STANDARD FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT YOU DIDN'T APPLY TO ANYBODY ELSE IN PLANO? I, I THINK MY THOUGHT ON THAT IS BECAUSE WE'RE NOT REALLY AGREEING TO JUST CHANGE THE ZONING TO MF ONE, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS CREATING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT WHICH MIGHT HAVE VARIABLE REQUIREMENTS.
SO, YOU KNOW, ALRIGHT, IF IT'S NOT 28%, IT'S 27%.
THE BOTTOM LINE IS BEING, IS LOOKING FOR A WAY TO MAKE SURE IT MAINTAINS THE CHARACTER OF THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT.
I I WOULD ADD, I THINK WHEN WE, WHEN WE WERE WRITING PD STIPULATIONS, WE'RE WORKING WITH APPLICANTS, WE TYPICALLY NOT TO GET SO SPECIFIC AS A 28%, WE WOULD PROBABLY ROUND TO A 2025 SOMEWHERE IN THERE.
SO, UM, I JUST, I'M JUST OFFERING THAT UP AS IF THAT'S SOMETHING YOU, 'CAUSE THAT WAS A QUESTION YOU ASKED.
HOW WOULD WE GET THAT IN THE, IN CEMENTED INTO THE PD REQUIRING A MINIMUM OPEN SPACE OF SOME PERCENTAGE WOULD BE THE WAY TO DO THAT.
A MINIMUM OPEN SPACE HIGHER THAN THE MICROPHONE, A MINIMUM OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT HIGHER THAN THE MF ONE, WHICH AGAIN, I THINK WHAT THE PD WAS MEANT TO DO IS TO GIVE US A, A LEVER TO ALMOST ENACT EXCEPTIONS TO CREATE A PARTICULAR ENVIRONMENT.
SO IF I'LL GO WITH YOUR GUIDANCE IF IT'S 25, YOU KNOW, TO GIVE YOU GUYS SOME LEEWAY TO PLAY WITH IT OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
BUT I FEEL LIKE THERE NEEDS TO BE A LEVER TO KEEP THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IN 1995.
UM, NOT TO, UH, THROW THE HARMONY OF THE OVERALL AREA OF CHASE OAKS OUT OF BALANCE.
MR. CAREY? YEAH, I MEAN, I GUESS MY ANSWER TO, UH, MR. TURNER WOULD BE THE REASON WE'RE DEALING WITH IT DIFFERENTLY IS IT WAS BUILT DIFFERENTLY TO BEGIN WITH.
I MEAN, SO IT'S ALREADY DIFFERENT.
AND SO THAT WOULD BE MY ANSWER TO THAT.
THE OTHER THING I THINK IS CONCERNING HERE IS WE DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH GREEN SPACE THIS IS GONNA END UP WITH.
AND SO POSSIBLY, ALTHOUGH I'M NOT FOR THIS CHANGE TO BEGIN WITH, BUT, UM, I, I DO.
[01:25:01]
BECAUSE I BELIEVE THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE PLACE.AND WHILE, UH, COMMISSIONER LYLE IS SAYING, WHO ARE WE PROTECTING? UM, PART OF WHO WE'RE PROTECTING IS ALL THE RESIDENTS THAT LIVE THERE ALREADY, WHO SHOULDN'T BE AN AFTERTHOUGHT, BY THE WAY.
THAT'S PART OF WHO WE'RE PROTECTING.
BUT WITH THAT SAID, I, I DO BELIEVE THAT SOME KIND OF GOVERNOR, IF THIS IS GONNA GET APPROVED, WHICH APPEARS IT IS SOME KIND OF GOVERNOR ON PROTECTING THE GREEN SPACE, I THINK SHOULD BE IMPORTANT TO THIS COMMISSION.
OKAY, MA'AM, MAKE A SUGGESTION TO YOU LOOKING AT THE NUMBERS.
UM, ACTUALLY WE'RE, WE'RE DOING IT ON OUR THING.
WELL, UM, I, I, I RESPECT MR. TURNER'S POSITION, BUT I THINK WE, WE PROBABLY DO NEED TO SET SOME SORT OF A BOUNDARY.
IF WE LOOK AT MF ONE THAT WORKS OUT TO ABOUT 21% IS WHAT WOULD BE REQUIRED UNDER MF ONE.
RIGHT? I DON'T THINK IT'S UNREASONABLE THAT WE WOULD SET THAT HIGHER.
AND 28 BEING WHAT HE'S PROPOSING TODAY.
BUT IT SEEMS LIKE TO ME, IF WE WANNA GIVE 'EM A LITTLE BIT OF FLEXIBILITY, WE MIGHT DO A 25 OR 26 THAT WAY THAT GIVES THEM SOME ROOM TO WORK WITH STAFF AND STILL HAVE SOME WIGGLE ROOM ONCE THEY START THEIR ARCHITECTURE.
THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT THAT, UM, BUT THE 21, I, I AGREE COMPLETELY.
I THINK GOING TO THE, THE BARE MINIMUM MF ONE IS NOT ENOUGH GIVEN THE UNIQUE CHARACTER OF THIS PROPERTY, BUT I THINK IF WE WENT STRAIGHT TO 28 AND A HALF, WE MIGHT TIE THEIR HANDS PRETTY TIGHT.
RIGHT? SO IT'S SOUNDS LIKE ONE OF YOU GUYS ARE GONNA MAKE A MOTION HERE IN A SECOND.
I CAN GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION, UM, KEEP THE TREND GOING, UM, BEFORE YOU MAKE A MOTION.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF THE DEVELOPER? I KNOW YOU SAID WE'RE HERE, BUT CAN I ASK HIM WHAT HIS COMMENTS ARE? UM, IS IT RELEVANT TO, IT'S RELEVANT TO THE MOTION, THE DECISION THAT'S ABOUT TO HAPPEN.
I MEAN, HE, OKAY, MR. TURNER, YOU SAID YOU HAD A SUGGESTION, YOU'D DONE SOME MATH.
I'M JUST CURIOUS WHAT WHAT YOU'D COME UP WITH.
WELL, AGAIN, PART OF MY CONCERN IS THAT IT, WE'RE DEALING WITH SOME DETAILS THAT ARE ACTUALLY MORE RELEVANT TO THE CONCEPT PLAN AND NOT NECESSARILY THE ZONING.
I UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO, TO GIVE A NEW DEFINITION.
WE CAN ROUND IT OUT TWO DIFFERENT WAYS.
ONE IS TODAY THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 327,000.
MAKE IT 350,000 SQUARE FEET OF OPEN SPACE OR TAKE 25.
I'M A LITTLE RELUCTANT BECAUSE ONLY BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T GONE TO THE NEXT LEVEL OF PLANNING AND ENGINEERING TO SAY, GOSH, I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEASUREMENT IS.
SO TO JUST SUMMARIZE THAT, YOU WERE SAYING GO TO 300 AND WE'RE, WE'RE AT ALMOST 10 ACRES RIGHT NOW AT 423 OR 4 32.
THIS WOULDN'T ACTUALLY ENLARGE WHAT IT IS.
IT'S A QUESTION OF, OF DEFINING WHAT IT IS SO THAT WE HOPE TO STAY WITH THE PLAN JUST AS STRONG.
WE ARE NOT THAT LEVEL THAT I CAN SAY COMFORTABLY, GOSH, THIS IS EXACTLY THE WAY THIS SEGMENT'S GONNA TAKE PLACE.
THAT LEVEL OF ENGINEERING AND PLANNING HAS NOT TAKEN PLACE YET.
SO YOU, YOU WANNA BE VERY CAUTIOUS ABOUT PUTTING A NUMBER THAT MAY LEAD TO A SUBSEQUENT REQUEST.
UH, SO THREE 150,000 OR I BELIEVE IT'S WHAT IT WORKED OUT OR CALL IT 25%, BUT IT'S JUST KIND OF A ROLL OF THE DICE IF IT'S EXACTLY THAT NUMBER OR NOT.
WELL, WELL WE GOT HERE BECAUSE THERE WAS A SPECIFIC NUMBER LISTED AND THAT LEADS US TO BELIEVE THAT THE MATH'S BEEN DONE.
DID HE ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? ALRIGHT, MR. ALI, I THINK, UM, SO A COUPLE OF ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THINGS.
UH, FOR US TO GO AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE, WELL NOT GO AGAINST TO UH, APPROVE THIS.
WE HAVE TO FIND A COUPLE OF THINGS.
UM, IS IT CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING, UM, PRINCIPLES? I THINK IT IS.
WE, IT TAKES PLANO 2050 HOUSING TRENDS.
PLANO TOGETHER MAINTAINS THAT PARK LIGHT SETTING PLANO TODAY.
UM, IT DOESN'T BOTHER THE NEIGHBORS.
THEY DON'T CARE TO, UH, COME TO AN 1100 MEDIAN HOA WHAT HAVE YOU.
UM, GENERAL PUBLIC DOESN'T SOUND LIKE, UM, IT CARES.
AND TO WHAT COMMISSIONER BRONSKI SAID, UM, IF THIS GIVES THE ABILITY TO UPGRADE THE QUALITY OF HOUSING STOCK AND BRING IN SOME ENTRY LEVEL HOUSING AND THAT IS BADLY NEEDED IN THE CITY, I THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
WITH ALL OF THAT BEING SAID, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS.
UM, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE A WITH THE STIPULATION, ADDITIONAL PD STIPULATION OF A MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF 25% OF OPEN SPACE ADDED.
[01:30:02]
I'LL, I'LL SECOND THAT, BUT I THINK WE DON'T NEED THE WORD ADDED.I THINK ADDED MEANS YOU'RE GONNA BE IN ADDITION TO WHAT'S ALREADY THERE.
WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, I'LL SECOND THAT, THAT CLARIFICATION NOTED.
SO THE MOTION IS TO APPROVE ITEM ONE A SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT THAT THE MINIMUM OPEN SPACE IS 25%.
THAT WAS SECONDED BY MR. RATLIFF.
ALL IN FAVOR? ALL OPPOSED THAT ITEM CARRIES SIX TO TWO.
NOW WE NEED A SEPARATE, UH, MOTION ON ITEM ONE BI MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE B.
WE NEED THE SAME RESTRICTION ON THAT.
UM, WE DO NOT, THE CONCEPT PLAN WILL HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THE PD STIPULATION.
STAFF HAD A REC HAD A RECOMMENDED STIPULATION FOR ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE EQUIVALENT TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET FOR THE OFFSET OF PARKING.
THAT'S NO LONGER NEEDED WITH THE ADDITIONAL 25%.
'CAUSE THAT'S HIGHER THAN WHAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING.
SO JUST DISREGARD THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THAT.
SO ITEM ONE B WOULD BE, CAN YOU, I MOVE WE ITEM ONE B, UM, DISREGARDING THE STAFF, UM, ADDITIONAL RECOMMENDATION OF THE 20,000 WHAT MIKE SAID,
ARE YOU COMFORTABLE WITH THAT? OKAY, WE GOT IT.
SO ALL IN FAVOR ON ONE B AND OPPOSED.
AND THAT ITEM ALSO CARRIES SIX TWO.
ALRIGHT, WE NEED TO DO, YEAH, SO, UM, WHAT I'M GONNA DO IS SUGGEST THAT, UM, WE'VE STILL GOT, WE'VE GOT SOME WORK TO DO ON OUR FINDINGS.
SO IF YOU GUYS WANT TO TAKE A BREAK, IT'S GONNA TAKE US A FEW MINUTES HERE TO GET THIS DONE.
AND WE MAY EVEN TAKE A, A FIVE MINUTE RECESS WHEN THAT'S DONE BEFORE WE MOVE ON.
SO EVERYBODY GET INTO YOUR FINDINGS FORMS IF YOU CAN.
SHE HAS HARD COPIES IF YOU'RE HAVING DIFFICULTY GETTING INTO.
[01:37:21]
ALL RIGHT.WE'LL RECONVENE INTO OUR REGULAR MEETING AND
[Items 2A & 2B]
START WITH ITEM TWO A AND TWO B.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, A PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE.
REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A 120 FOOT COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE ON 0.1 ACRE, LOCATED 225 FEET NORTH OF DEMOCRACY DRIVE AND 220 FEET EAST OF PARTNERSHIP ROAD ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT.
THIS ITEM WAS TABLED ON MARCH 4TH, 2024.
PETITIONER AS DEMOCRACY PARTNERS LIMITED, THIS IS LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO B, PUBLIC HEARING REVISED SITE PLAN, MARADA BUSINESS SYSTEMS, INC.
ONE R PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE ON ONE LOT ON 4.8 ACRES.
LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DEMOCRACY DRIVE AND PARTNERSHIP ROAD ZONE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT APPLICANT IS DEMOCRACY OF PARTNERS.
LIMITED ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING ITEM TWO A.
I'M MELISSA KLE, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR 120 FOOT COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE LOCATED AT 55 60 TENON PARKWAY.
AN SUP IS REQUIRED IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FOR COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURES THAT ARE GREATER THAN 60 FEET IN HEIGHT.
THE BOUNDARIES OF THE SUP ARE LOCATED WITHIN A LARGER 4.8 ACRE LOT, WHICH IS ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT AND DEVELOPED WITH A PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE TOWER IS TO PROVIDE INCREASED WIRELESS CAPACITY AND COVERAGE IN THE AREA.
THREE WIRELESS PROVIDERS WILL HAVE ANTENNAS ON THE PROPOSED TOWER AND THERE IS SUFFICIENT SPACE FOR A FOURTH SET OF ANTENNAS WITHOUT INCREASING THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE.
THE STRUCTURE IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REGULATIONS OF SECTION 15.2 HUNDRED OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING ANTENNAS AND SUPPORT STRUCTURES.
AND A RENDERING IS SHOWN HERE.
UM, SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE IS THE ASSOCIATED REVISED SITE PLAN.
SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO RESTRICT THE DESIGN OF THE COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE TO A FLAG LIST FLAGPOLE WITH THE ANTENNAS CONCEALED BY INTERNAL PLACEMENT.
[01:40:01]
SUP STIPULATIONS INCLUDE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE POLE MUST BE UNIFORM IN COLOR, ACCOMMODATE INTERNAL PLACEMENT FOR ALL ANTENNAS AND EQUIPMENT, AND ALLOW FOR CO-LOCATION.THE SUBJECT SITE IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER'S CATEGORY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
THE REQUEST RESULTS IN NO CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARDS AND IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
NO RESPONSES WERE RECEIVED WITHIN 200 FEET OF THE REQUEST, AND ONE RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION WAS RECEIVED CITYWIDE.
SO ZONING CASE 2024 DASH 0 0 1 IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE SEP STIPULATIONS AND THE ASSOCIATED REVISED SITE PLAN.
2024 DASH 0 0 2 IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE.
AND I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? MR. ALI? MORE CURIOSITY, THE RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION.
WHAT DID IT SAY? THERE WAS NOT A COMMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT, IT WAS JUST SELECTED IN OPPOSITION.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS MR. CAREY? DO, DO WE KNOW, UM, HOW APPROXIMATE IS THIS TO OTHERS? AND MY REAL QUESTION, I GUESS IS THIS, UM, IS THERE AN ISSUE WITH HAVING TOO MANY OF THESE TOO CLOSE IN TERMS OF INTERFERENCE WITH EACH OTHER? IT'S A IT'S AN IGNORANT QUESTION 'CAUSE I DON'T KNOW, BUT I'M CURIOUS, AS WE APPROVE THESE THINGS, WHAT, IF ANY, UM, CHALLENGES THAT MIGHT PRESENT IF THEY'RE CLUSTERED TOO CLOSE TOGETHER? I I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW.
SO I CANNOT SPEAK TO THE INTERFERENCE QUESTION.
I'M SURE THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO RESPOND TO THAT.
UM, BUT AS FAR AS DISTANCE FROM OTHER ANTENNAS, IT IS, UM, LOCATED, I BELIEVE THE CLOSEST ONE IS OVER 2000 FEET FROM THIS TOWER.
UM, THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR SEPARATION.
THEY DON'T APPLY TO A, UM, STEALTH DESIGN.
SO THIS IS CONSIDERED A STEALTH DESIGN.
SO THEY DON'T APPLY, BUT THIS DOES HAPPEN TO MEET THOSE.
SO IF SOMEONE ELSE WANTED TO DO A NON STEALTH DESIGN, THIS ONE IS AS IF IT'S NOT, UH, THIS ONE IS TREATED AS IF IT'S NOT EVEN THERE.
IN OTHER WORDS, ANOTHER NON STEALTH DESIGN COULD BE LESS THAN 2000 FEET FROM THIS ONE.
SO THE SEPARATION DISTANCE IN THE ORDINANCE, IT'S BASED ON THE TYPE OF IN OF TOWER THAT'S THERE.
UM, AND THE STEALTH DESIGNS, THEY ARE EXEMPT FROM IT.
'CAUSE THEY DON'T, THEY, THEY'RE NOT CATEGORIZED AS ONE OF THOSE TYPES OF TOWERS.
SO THERE'S CERTAIN FEET, LIKE 700 FEET SAY FROM LIKE CERTAIN TYPES OF MONOPOLES OR IF THERE'S THE LATTICE OR THE GUY WIRE.
THERE'S DIFFERENT SEPARATION DISTANCES BASED ON THOSE TYPES.
SO IF IT DOES NOT QUALIFY AS ONE OF THOSE TYPES, IF IT'S LIKE INCORPORATED INTO A BUILDING THAT'S ONE OF THE STEALTH DESIGNS OR THIS FLAG LIST FLAGPOLE TYPE, IT DOESN'T HAVE TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT'S NOT ONE OF THOSE SPECIFIC TYPES.
THE, THE INTENT BEING TO ENCOURAGE STEALTH TYPES FOR MM-HMM.
NOW WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
AND IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO ADDRESS? YES.
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE THIS EVENING.
UH, ON GO, I'M SAY I'M TO THE 0.0, BUT I'M USED TO IT.
I, UH, REPRESENT, UH, ANTHEM NET.
WHO IS THE APPLICANT ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE.
UH, THIS IS GOING TO HOLD UP TO FOUR CARRIERS.
WE HAVE OTHER CARRIERS VERY INTERESTED.
SO I BELIEVE THIS IS GONNA BE WELL UTILIZED.
AM I SPEAKING THROUGH THIS? I DON'T HEAR AMPLIFICATION AT ALL.
YOU'RE NOT? IT'S, IT, I CAN HEAR YOU.
YOU CAN SLIGHTLY, BUT I THINK, OKAY.
IS THAT BETTER? YEAH, IT'S UNFORTUNATELY YOU HAVE TO BASICALLY GET LIKE THIS.
YEAH, I SEE WHAT SHE'S TALKING ABOUT.
UM, TO ANSWER ONE OF YOUR QUESTIONS ABOUT THE, UH, DISTANCE, UM, LIKE FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN THEY BUILT THE STAR IN FRISCO, THE CARRIERS HAD TO PUT MULTIPLE SITES TO COVER THE TRAFFIC.
SO FOR EXAMPLE, I WAS A PLANNER IN ARLINGTON IN THE NINETIES, UH, BEFORE WIRE WHEN WIRELESS WAS TAKING OFF.
OUR THINKING AT THE TIME WAS THAT WE WOULD SPACE THESE THING THINGS OUT LIKE A HEXAGON AND THEY WOULD EVENTUALLY COVER EVERYTHING.
WELL THEN DEMAND WITH THE IPADS AND THE WATCHES AND, YOU KNOW, THE, THE PERSONAL DEVICES.
ALL THAT DATA STARTED COMING THROUGH, WHICH MADE US HAD TO SPLIT.
WE HAD TO JUST DIVIDE THESE THINGS UP INTO VERY SMALL UNITS.
I WAS THINKING ABOUT WHEN YOU MADE THAT COMMENT AT THE GALLERIA, UH, THE CARRIERS HAVE FIVE
[01:45:01]
SITES WITHIN EYESIGHT OF EACH OTHER JUST TO COVER THE DEMAND THAT WAS AT THE GALLERIA 15 YEARS AGO.SO IT'S KIND OF, IT STARTED OUT THAT WAY WHERE WE THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS GONNA BE A KINDA LIKE A GRID AND YOU DO THE CITY AND IT WAS COVERED.
WE WROTE OUR ORDINANCE BACK THEN THINKING THAT WE NEEDED THAT SPACING TO KIND OF SEPARATE THESE THINGS OUT.
BUT DEMAND JUST JUST WENT THROUGH THE ROAD.
SO IT'S DRIVEN MORE BY BANDWIDTH THAN JUST COVERAGE.
UHHUH AND THE DATA AND THE, EVERYTHING YOU GOT ON AN IPAD, I MEAN, IT USED TO BE VOICE.
UM, WAS THERE OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS? OKAY, YOU'RE GOOD.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, FIND DISCUSSIONS OF THE COMMISSION.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE, UH, THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF SECOND.
SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CAREY TO APPROVE ITEM TWO A.
PLEASE VOTE THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
MR. CHAIRMAN? YES, I, I DO HAVE A COMMENT AND I WANNA UM, UM, ECHO WHAT, UM, COMMISSIONER CAREY SAID ABOUT, UH, THE DISTANCE REQUIRED.
'CAUSE I UNDERSTAND THE, UH, DEMAND OF HAVING THOSE TOWERS, BUT I ALSO AM CONCERNED ABOUT HAVING TOO MANY, UH, INSIGHT IN THE CITY.
'CAUSE WE'RE GETTING MORE AND MORE.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY ORDINANCE IN OUR CITY THAT'LL PREVENT THAT EVENTUALLY HAPPENING.
WE DON'T HAVE AN ORDINANCE WRITTEN THAT THAT WAY.
AND I THINK TO SOME DEGREE IT'S DRIVEN BY THE, UH, FCC CONTROL.
YEAH, THEY CONTROL, IT'S OUTSIDE OUR CONTROL.
MR. LEY, CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YES.
THE, IT'S OUTSIDE OF OUR CONTROL AS TO TRANSMISSION AND WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT SIMILAR TO HOW WE HAVE BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR NON STEALTH, IT'S WITHIN OUR CONTROL.
IF WE WANTED TO PUT, EVEN IF IT'S MINIMAL OR REDUCED BUFFER REQUIREMENTS FOR, EVEN IF IT'S A STEALTH DESIGN, JUST TO GUARD AGAINST PACKING IN AREAS.
JUST MORE OF A QUESTION THAN ANYTHING.
IT COULD BE AN ITEM FOR FUTURE AGENDA.
YEAH, I, I I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE, WE FOCUS ON THIS ITEM AND THEN WE CAN CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED.
AGAIN, I THINK WE'RE GONNA FIND OURSELVES VERY LIMITED, UM, BASED ON THE DEMAND, RIGHT? IF WE, BECAUSE OF OUR CITY AND THE DENSITY, UH, IN CERTAIN ECONOMIC AREAS OR EMPLOYMENT AREAS, HAVE A DEMAND FOR 12 TOWERS AND THE CARRIERS NEED THOSE TOWERS IN ORDER TO MEET THE DEMAND, IT'S NOT IN OUR BEST INTEREST TO LIMIT THE NUMBER OF TOWERS.
SO MR. BROSKI, I MOVE THAT, UH, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM TWO B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF SUBJECT TO COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF ITEM TWO A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROSKY.
TO PROVE ITEM TWO B, PLEASE VOTE.
AND THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT ZERO.
[3. (PM) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2024-005 – Request to rezone 0.9 acres located at the northeast corner of Tokalon Drive and National Drive from Regional Employment to Regional Commercial. Zoned Regional Employment and located within the State Highway 121 Overlay District. Project #ZC2024-005. Petitioner: Talo Two, LLC (Legislative consideration)]
ITEM THREE, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2 0 2 4 DASH 0 0 5.REQUEST TO REZONE 0.9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TO TOLIN DRIVE AND NATIONAL DRIVE FROM REGION EMPLOYMENT TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONED REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 1 21 OVERLAY DISTRICT.
PROJECT NUMBER ZC 2 0 2 4 DASH ZERO FIVE PETITIONER IS TALLOW TWO LLC.
THIS ITEM'S FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
I AM PARKER MCDOWELL PLANNER WITH THE PLANE DEPARTMENT.
THIS REQUEST IS A REZONE FROM REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL.
THE SUBJECT AREA IS HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW ON THIS SCREEN.
THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH ACROSS STATE HIGHWAY 1 21 IS AN UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY OF FRISCO.
THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS ZONED RE AND DEVELOPED WITH MEDICAL OFFICE.
THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH ACROSS NATIONAL DRIVE ARE ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SIX AND DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.
THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST ACROSS TOLAND DRIVE IS ZONED RC AND DEVELOPED WITH MEDICAL OFFICE.
SO FOR SOME HISTORY ON THIS PROJECT, THE RE AND RC ZONING WAS FIRST ESTABLISHED IN OCTOBER, 2000.
[01:50:02]
IN 2017, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WAS REZONED FROM RE AND RC TO THE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SIX, CREATING THE CURRENT ZONING BOUNDARY THAT WILL BE SHOWN ON THE NEXT SCREEN.ALSO, IN 2017, THIS PROPERTY REQUESTED TO REZONE FROM RE TO RC TO ALLOW FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL.
CITY COUNCIL DENIED THAT CASE IN AN EIGHT TO ZERO VOTE.
ON THIS SCREEN YOU'LL SEE THE HISTORICAL MAPS OF ZONING.
THE MAP TO THE LEFT SHOWS THE ORIGINAL ZONING BOUNDARY FOR RE AND RC IN 2001 AND THE BOUNDARY AFTER 2007 EIGHT 2017 CHANGE IN ALIGNMENT WITH TOON DRIVE SHOWN IN YELLOW.
ON THE MAP ON THE RIGHT, THE RE AND RC DISTRICTS ARE IDENTICAL IN AREA, YARD AND BULK REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS OTHER DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS.
BUT WITH KEY DIFFERENCES IN ALLOWED USES, THE RC DISTRICT IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE RETAIL AND SERVICE USES AT APPROPRIATE NODES.
WHILE THE RE DISTRICT IS INTENDED PRIMARILY FOR OFFICE AND LIMITED MANUFACTURING USES ALONG CORRIDORS, THE RE DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW FOR RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES BY RIGHT, WHEREAS THE EXISTING RE DISTRICT, OR EXCUSE ME, THE RC DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW FOR RETAIL AND RESIDENCE USE BY WRIGHT.
WHEREAS THE EXISTING RE DISTRICT PLACES SQUARE FOOT LIMITATIONS AROUND RETAIL AND RESTAURANT USES IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A FOCUS ON EMPLOYMENT BASED USES.
MOVING THE RC BOUNDARY FARTHER EAST WOULD PROMOTE STRIP RETAIL ALONG THE EXPRESSWAY FRONTAGE AND NOT CREATE THE DESIRED RETAIL AND SERVICE NODE, WHICH ALREADY EXIST IN CLOSE PROXIMITY.
ALTHOUGH THE REQUEST COULD BE SEEN AS A MINOR ADJUSTMENT.
THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO REMOVE THE SPLIT ZONING STAFF BELIEVES THE TOKEN ON DRIVE WOULD BE A MORE APPROPRIATE BOUNDARY BETWEEN THE TWO DISTRICTS ON THIS SCREEN SHOWN IN BLUE ARE THE EXISTING PROPOSED SHOPPING CENTERS AT THE STATE HIGHWAY 1 21 AND KOYT ROAD INTERSECTIONS.
THE ONE TO THE SOUTHWEST INTERSECTION IS UCD PLANO KOT EDITION, WHICH IS PROPOSED OR CURRENTLY UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
AND THEN THE ONE IN THE SOUTHEAST IS THE SIGNATURE PLAZA, WHICH IS EXISTING.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS THE ONE SHOWN IN YELLOW.
THESE SHOPPING CENTERS ARE ZONED RC AND FORMED AN ADEQUATE NODE FOR RETAIL AND SERVICE USES THAT ARE CONS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE RC ZONING CATEGORY.
OH, AND THEN THE PROPOSED CHANGE WOULD NOT CREATE OR CONTRIBUTE TO THE EXISTING NODE AND BE MORE CREATE THE, UH, THE FRONTAGE RETAIL.
IN 2003, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE RETAIL STUDY OF UNDERPERFORMING AND VACANT RETAIL AREAS INDICATED, EXCUSE ME, INITIATED BY THE CITIES OF CAR CARROLLTON, RICHARDSON AND PLATO.
THE STUDY EXAMINED THE RETAIL MARKET CONDITIONS OF THE THREE CITIES AND OFFERED ALTERNATIVE TO ADDRESSES UNDERPERFORMING AND VACANT RETAIL PROPERTIES.
THE STUDY IDENTIFIED PLANO AS HAVING AN OVERABUNDANCE OF ZONING RESULTING IN COMMERCIAL DECLINE.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS A EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS A SNAPSHOT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES.
THIS REQUEST MEETS PARTIALLY MEETS OR DOES NOT MEET THIS PROPOSAL, DOES NOT MEET THE REDEVELOPMENT OR REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR POLICY.
THE REVITALIZATION OF RETAIL SHOPPING CENTERS POLICY AND THE LAND USE POLICY ACTION.
FOUR OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STAFF RECEIVED ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER STAFF RECEIVED A TOTAL OF FIVE RESPONSES CITYWIDE, ONE IN SUPPORT, ONE NEUTRAL, AND THREE OPPOSED.
SO THIS AREA HAS ADEQUATE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AND THE REQUEST IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS AND POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
FOR THIS REASON, STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM FOR DENIAL.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT ALSO HAS A PRESENTATION.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE, THE SLIDE THAT SHOWS WHERE YOU'RE PROPOSING THAT A BETTER DEMARCATION LINE IS THE, THE, UH, STREET, WHATEVER THE NAME OF THE STREET WAS THERE? YEAH, SO, UH, LET ME, I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW STAFF WROTE THIS.
SO TO THE RIGHT OF THE RED SQUARE IS RC RIGHT? IT'S A SPLIT.
THIS PROPERTY IS SPLIT ZONING.
SO PART OF THE OF THE SQUARE IS REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT WITH MOST OF IT BEING REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND A SMALL SLIVER.
LET'S SEE, THIS MIGHT BE BETTER TO, TO THE WEST OF SOLON IS
[01:55:01]
ALL R RE YEAH.SO THIS IS ALL, UH, EXCUSE ME, ALL REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT TO THE RIGHT.
AND THEN THE LITTLE YELLOW TRIANGLE IS RC? NO, THAT IS THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT.
SO WHAT PART OF THIS RIGHT HERE IS RC? ANY OF IT? THE CORNER OUTSIDE OF THE YELLOW, UM, TRIANGLE THAT'S WITHIN THAT PROPERTY.
SO BETWEEN TOON AND THE YELLOW TRIANGLE, THAT'S THE SMALL PORTION THAT IS CURRENTLY REGIONAL COMMERCIAL.
THIS FEELS EXACTLY LIKE SPOT ZONING TO ME.
WELL EVERYTHING ALSO TO THE, TO THE WEST OR YEAH, TO THE WEST OF TOLAND DRIVE IS CURRENTLY RC AS WELL.
SO THAT BOUNDARY, THAT THOSE TWO BUILDINGS RIGHT THERE ON THE LEFT, THOSE ARE OUR RC CURRENTLY? YES.
AND THEN CONNECTED TO THOSE TWO BUILDINGS IS WHERE YOU HAVE THE TWO BIG SHOPPING CENTERS, COMMERCIAL RETAIL SHOPPING CENTERS.
SO IT'S A MATTER OF DO WE MOVE THE RC FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD TO THE WEST OR EAST? MM-HMM.
THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUESTION.
UM, DO, DO YOU KNOW IF DID THEY PROVIDE AND WHAT KIND OF RETAIL THEY'RE PLANNING TO DO IF WE APPROVE THE CHANGES? THE CURRENT REQUEST GENERALLY IS JUST FOR OUR RETAIL USES, BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE SO THEY CAN MAYBE PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION OF WHAT TENANTS THEY'RE POSSIBLY SEEKING.
AND THE SECOND QUESTION I HAVE IS, SO THE TWO BUILDINGS TO THE WEST OF THIS YELLOW SPOT, THEY'RE ALL MEDICAL OFFICES, IS THAT CORRECT? EAST IT'S THE BUILDINGS OF THE EAST THAT ARE MEDICAL OFFICES.
SO WHAT ARE THE ONES TO THE WEST? YEAH, WHAT ARE THE ONES TO THE WEST? I THOUGHT I HEARD, I THOUGHT YOU SAID THE ONES TO THE WEST WERE MEDICAL OFFICE.
SO IT IS MEDICAL OFFICE, BUT THEY COULD ALSO DO MORE RETAIL OR UM, SERVICE USE IF THEY SO DESIRED.
SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE ZONED RC BUT WHAT'S IN THERE ARE MEDICAL OFFICES? CORRECT.
I THINK THAT'S WHERE I HAD SOME CONFUSION TOO, RIGHT? BECAUSE IT WAS RIGHT, RIGHT.
YEAH, EMPLOYMENT USE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S ZONED RC.
THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN THE PACKET THAT SAID, UH, RE AND RC ZONING IN WERE INTENDING TO WORK IN CONJUNCTION, UM, I PRESUME YES, IF WE HAD A NICE STRAIGHT CLEAN LINE BETWEEN BOTH AND WE'RE ESSENTIALLY THEY'RE WORKING IN CONJUNCTION, BUT THE ONLY ISSUE HERE IS THAT THE WEIRDNESS OF THE ANGLE THAT DESIGNATES THE SPLIT.
SO IF YOU GO BACK TO THIS SLIDE WITH THE HISTORICAL ONE, UM, WHAT KIND OF CREATED THAT SPLIT WAS THAT PLACEMENT OF TOON DRIVE.
WHEN THAT CAME IN THROUGH THE, UM, THE SINGLE FAMILY, WHEN THAT WAS DEVELOPED, THEY NEEDED THE ACCESS TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD.
AND THE WAY THEY DID THAT MADE THE REST OF THE LOTS NOT EXACTLY LINE UP WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU HAVE THAT SMALL SPLIT THERE.
WHENEVER THOSE ORIGINAL LINE WAS DRAWN, THAT WAS ALL PASTURES.
UM, SO THE LINE WAS DRAWN STRAIGHT UP AND DOWN AND CONTINUED ALL THE WAY FURTHER SOUTH.
UM, AND THEN IN 20, IN THE TWO THOUSANDS IT WAS REZONED FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY.
AND IN 2017 THEY, THEY ESSENTIALLY CREATED THE SPLIT ON THAT PROPERTY BY PUTTING TOLE ON WHERE IT IS TODAY.
SO SECOND QUESTION, CAN THE CITY OR IS IT WITHIN THE CITY'S PURVIEW TO DRAW THAT BOUNDARY TIGHTER TO TOLO AND MAKE ALL OF WHAT IS TO THE RIGHT R I'M MIXING UP MY RS BUT RE RE NOT AS PART OF THIS DECISION TONIGHT, BUT IT IT'S AN ACTION THAT COULD BE TAKEN BY THE CITY.
MR. RATLIFF, SO JUST LOOK, JUST LOOKING AT THE LAND USE OUT THERE, IF YOU CAN GO BACK TO, YOU HAD THE SLIDE THAT HAD ALL THE PROPERTIES EAST AND WEST.
UH, THEY GOT A ZOOMED IN VERSION OF THAT.
BUT, BUT THE, EVERYTHING WEST OF TOON IS ACTUALLY CONNECTED TO THE BIG SHOPPING CENTER WITH INTERNAL ACCESS, CORRECT? YEAH, THERE YOU GO.
THAT, THAT ONE, THAT ONE RIGHT THERE.
EVERYTHING TO THE WEST TOLAN HAS BASICALLY CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS WITH THE BIG SHOPPING CENTER AROUND THE CORNER.
SO THEY DON'T ACTUALLY GET OUT INTO A PUBLIC STREET TO GO TO THOSE BUILDINGS THERE.
THEY CAN WANDER THROUGH THE SHOPPING CENTER.
IT'S EFFECTIVELY AN EXTENSION OF THE SHOPPING CENTER.
THOSE, I BELIEVE IT'S SIX BUILDINGS THAT ARE TO THE WEST OF THIS DO HAVE ACCESS TO IT, TO THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER, THE EXISTING ONE, WHICH IS THE, I BELIEVE THE SYNERGY ONE THAT I MENTIONED.
SO I GUESS THE, THE POINT I'M CURIOUS ABOUT, SO IF THE DIVIDING LINE WAS ON
[02:00:01]
TOON, IT WOULD MAKE SENSE BECAUSE BASICALLY YOU HAVE TO CROSS A PUBLIC STREET, THE USE CHANGES, UM, FROM RETAIL TO EMPLOYMENT.THE RETAIL ENVIRONMENT IS WEST OF TOON.
WHERE ALL THE TRAFFIC AND CIRCULATE WITHOUT GETTING OUTTA THE STREET, BACKING UP IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ET CETERA.
THAT'S WHY STAFF IF WE THE, THAT WOULD BE THE BETTER LINE FOR THE TOKO ON, FOR THE RC AND ALREADY, SO, OKAY.
SO RIGHT NOW JUST OUTTA CURIOSITY, EXPLAIN.
OKAY, WE'RE GONNA, WE'RE GONNA HAVE A, WE STILL NEED THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK.
LET'S CIRCLE BACK TO JUST A, SO I HAVE A USAGE QUESTION ON THAT BUILDING.
THERE'S SOME RETAIL USES IN IT TODAY.
WHAT, WHAT PERC AND YOU COVERED THAT, BUT I WOULDN'T REALLY FOLLOW IT.
YEAH, THERE IS, UM, THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT DOES ALLOW SOME RETAIL USES IF IT'S I BELIEVE 10% OF A BUILDING OR A LOT THAT'S IN THE RE THEY CAN USE UP TO 10% OF THAT BUILDING AS RETAIL USES, WHICH THIS PROPERTY ALREADY HAS MAXED OUT FOR THAT.
SO THEY ALREADY DO HAVE SOME RETAIL THERE, BUT THEY'VE ALREADY MET, MET THEIR ALLOWABLE.
SO FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS, A BANK ISN'T CONSIDERED RETAIL? NO BANK IS A SEPARATE USE FROM RETAIL.
WHAT IS PERHAPS MR. BELL, YOU MIGHT BE THE RIGHT RESPON RESPONDENT HERE, BUT WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE REQUESTING THAT WHAT, WHAT USE COULD HAPPEN THERE THAT CAN'T HAPPEN IN THE OTHER ONE? SO THE RETAIL FAMILY, I'M, I'M GONNA SAY RETAIL IS A SPECIFIC USE, BUT A BROADER RETAIL FAMILY OF THINGS.
YOU MAY THINK OF HARDWARE STORES, ET CETERA.
UM, THOSE ARE PERMIT, THERE ARE MORE PERMISSIONS FOR THOSE IN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS WHAT'S TO THE WEST HERE.
THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT IS, IS MORE OF YOUR MEDICAL OFFICE, OFFICE EMPLOYMENT SPECIFIC USES.
THEY HAVE THE, THE DISTRICTS HAVE THE EXACT SAME DIMENSIONAL REQUIREMENTS, LOT SIZE, SETBACKS, EVERYTHING ELSE.
THE DEFINING DIFFERENCE IS ONE ALLOWS RETAIL USES, ONE IS MOSTLY EMPLOYMENT USES AND AT THE EXPENSE OF SOUNDING DUMB, THE THE TRIANGLE IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT.
THE YELLOW TRIANGLE IS RE TODAY AND THEY WANNA MAKE IT RC THEY WOULD, THAT WOULD MAKE THE ENTIRE LOT RC IF THAT WAS REZONED.
SO THE TRIANGLE THAT EXISTS OUTSIDE OF THE YELLOW LINE IS ALREADY WHAT THEY WANT.
WHICH IS WHY IT'S SPLIT ZONED.
AND IF WE WERE TO DENY WHAT THEY'RE REQUESTING TODAY, THEY'RE GONNA BE LEFT WITH A SPLIT ZONE PROPERTY, CORRECT? CORRECT.
I'M GONNA DIRECT YOU, I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING IT IN THE, IN THE PRESENTATION, BUT, UM, SLIDE 90 OR PAGE 93 OF YOUR PACKET HAS THE ZONING MAP, IF THAT HELPS CLARIFY WHAT THE EXISTING, HOW THE RE AND RC BREAKS DOWN ON THIS PROPERTY.
AND I I GUESS AGAIN, FOR STAFF, WHAT IS IN, IN MY THINKING, THE, THE TIE GOES TO THE RUNNER AND THEY'RE ON BASE
LETS, I JUST GOT A LITTLE CORNER OF IT, BUT THEY'RE ON BASE.
AND SO WHAT IS IT THAT COULD HAPPEN THAT, THAT WOULD BE DETRIMENTAL IF WE GAVE THEM THE TIE? SO AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN ZONED THIS WAY.
95% OF THE BUILDING IS IN OUR CR IS CURRENTLY IN RE THE EMPLOYMENT ZONE.
THEY BUILT A BUILDING THAT IS A RETAIL SHAPED BUILDING AND NOW THEY CAN'T OCCUPY IT BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE OF THAT LIMITATION.
BUT THE ZONING HAS BEEN THERE IN PLACE.
THEY COULD HAVE BUILT A BUILDING THAT WAS MORE CONDUCIVE TO EMPLOYMENT AND THEY HAVE NO, THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THE OCCUPANCY ISSUES THAT THEY'RE CLAIMING TODAY.
UM, THE ISSUE HISTORICALLY HAS BEEN THAT WE ALLOW MORE RETAIL THAT CANNIBALIZES EXISTING RETAIL ACROSS THE CITY.
AND IN THIS CASE IT'S CREATING STRIP RETAIL INSTEAD OF NODE RETAIL, WHICH IS THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT.
THIS WOULD CREATE STRIP RETAIL ON THE FRONTAGE.
IF THE LINE MOVES TO THE, IF THE LINE WERE TO MOVE HERE, THEN IT CAN MOVE TO THE NEXT PROPERTY AND THE NEXT PROPERTY AND THEN WE GET A STRIP OF RETAIL ALONG 1 21, WHICH IS NOT THE INTENT OF THE DISTRICT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.
UH, IF YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION OR YES, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
I'VE OWNED THE BUILDING, ACTUALLY DEVELOPED THE BUILDING TWO LOTS DOWN ALSO.
SO WE'RE GONNA, TALKING ABOUT THE BUILDINGS TO YOUR LEFT,
[02:05:01]
I DEVELOPED THE BUILDING TWO LOTS DOWN, WHICH IS, UM, THE SAME AS THIS.SO A LITTLE HISTORY ABOUT WHAT HAPPENED WAS WE BOUGHT THE LAND IN 2016 BEFORE THEY PUT IN TOON DRIVE.
AND IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING OF THE NEXT SCREEN LATER ON, IT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF OUR PROPERTY.
AND SO, UH, AT THAT POINT WE DIDN'T KNOW IF IT WAS REGIONAL COMMERCIAL OR REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT.
AND SO WE HIRED A CIVIL ENGINEER TO COME IN AND ACTUALLY TRY TO DO A, A ZONING PROPOSAL TO YOU GUYS.
AND UNFORTUNATELY I COULDN'T BE HERE.
AND OBVIOUSLY IT FAILED AT THAT POINT IT WAS EIGHT TO ZERO.
UM, AND SO WE SAID LET'S JUST TRY REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT FOR A COUPLE YEARS AND SEE WHAT HAPPENS.
AND IF WE CAN FILL THE BUILDING AND BE HAPPY, THEN WE'RE ALL GOOD.
I DON'T NEED TO WORRY ABOUT IT.
UH, UNFORTUNATELY, UM, WE FINISHED THE BUILDING IN 2018.
REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT, AS YOU GUYS KNOW, UH, WE STILL HAVE 2,400 SQUARE FEET OF BACON SPACE SINCE THE BUILDING WAS BUILT.
AND SO IT'S KIND OF UGLY THAT THE FACT THAT THERE'S A VACANT SPOT FOR SIX YEARS ALMOST.
UM, SO IT'S, I JUST THOUGHT THAT MAYBE I CAN TRY AGAIN AND COME OUT TO YOU GUYS AND KIND OF BASICALLY PLEAD OUR, OUR, OUR OUR CASE.
UM, ON THE NEXT SCREEN, LET ME SEE.
SO THIS WAS HOW IT WAS SPLIT, UH, BEFORE TOKA LINE DRIVE WAS ACTUALLY PUT IN A LONG TIME AGO.
UH, IT WOULD GO RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF OUR PROPERTY, SO WE DIDN'T REALLY KNOW WHICH SIDE IT WAS ON.
UM, BUT OBVIOUSLY AS YOU GUYS KNOW, HALF OF IT'S WERE BA OUR BUILDING.
I DIDN'T KNOW THAT THEY PUT OUR BUILDING AS WHAT THE LINE WAS ACTUALLY GONNA BE.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY BASED OUR BUILDING OFF OF THE RE ZONING, WHICH THEY ONLY GAVE US A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF, UH, OF, UH, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL SPACE.
SO WHEN I DID THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING JUST TO SEE WHAT, HOW IT WAS, UM, THEY ACTUALLY SAID IT WOULD NOT RESULT IN THE REQUEST OF BEING, UH, DISFAVORED OR REQUIRED FINDINGS.
SO I THOUGHT THAT IT WAS POSITIVE.
SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND PAY FOR THE, UH, ZONING CHANGE AND JUST GO AHEAD AND TRY IT.
SO THIS LIST IS THE, THIS IS ONE OF THE, THE, THE QUESTIONS THAT GUYS HAD EARLIER THE LIST OF POTENTIAL TENANTS THAT WE ACTUALLY HAD TO REJECT WAS ONE OF 'EM WAS AN AT T STORE.
AND UH, WHAT WE ENVISIONED WAS ACTUALLY HAVING MOM AND POP RESTAURANTS AND, AND, AND CAFES THERE.
UH, WHICH WE HAD TO DENY BECAUSE WE COULD ONLY PUT IN A THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SPACE.
AND ACTUALLY WHAT'S WHAT'S FUNNY IS, UM, WE, WE HAD THESE COMPLAINTS THAT, THAT SAID THAT IT WAS OPPOSED TO OUR, OUR BUILDING TURNING TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL.
IF YOU READ THEM, IT'S ACTUALLY A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE TENANTS AND NOT REALLY A COMPLAINT ABOUT THE ZONING.
SO THE, THE TENANTS, WE WOULD'VE HAD MORE LIKE SUPPLY OF GOOD TENANTS AND QUALITY TENANTS IF WE WERE ZONED COMMERCIAL AND WE CAN PICK FROM AT AND T AND, AND RESTAURANTS INSTEAD OF BASICALLY LEASING IT OUT TO, YOU KNOW, THE, THE COMPLAINTS OF OUR, OF OUR COM.
IT'S A COMMUNION CENTER THAT'S THERE, BUT THEN THEY'RE HAVING RAMADAN RIGHT NOW OR JUST PASSED.
AND THEY HAD A LOT OF PEOPLE COME THROUGH AND THEY, THEY PARKED A LOT OF CARS THERE AND, AND THAT'S WHAT THEY WERE COMPLAINING ABOUT.
UM, IF WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY, ACTUALLY THEIR LEASE IS UP.
SO IF WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A JEWELRY STORE THERE OR AN AT T STORE THERE, WE WOULD OBVIOUSLY LOVE TO PUT THEM IN THERE VERSUS A COMMUNITY CENTER THAT HAS A LOT OF CARS BEING PARKED THERE.
BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT O OPPORTUNITY.
WE HAVE TO, WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY THESE RULES.
SO I MEAN, JUST CONSIDER BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, US HAVING A VACANT SPOT FOR SIX YEARS, 2,400 SQUARE FEET THAT'S JUST SITTING THERE.
WE WOULD HAVE BETTER TENANTS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
UM, I MEAN, JUST SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT.
WE, THERE'S NO, THERE'S NO VACANCIES.
ACTUALLY IF YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT THAT CORNER OF KOT AND 1 21 AND YOU DRIVE BY THERE, THERE'S NO VACANCIES AT ALL.
SO I DON'T THINK THAT MY 2,400 SQUARE FEET WOULD CHANGE THAT MUCH IN THE GRAND SCHEME OF THE GRAND SCHEME OF PLANO ITSELF.
BUT THANK, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME.
HOPEFULLY YOU GUYS CAN CONSIDER THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I, I DO.
WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS, RIGHT? THERE ARE NONE.
OKAY, SO IT'S 2,400 SQUARE FEET AND YOU'VE HAD CHALLENGE LEASING THIS SINCE YOU BUILT THE BUILDING IN 2018.
IT'S STILL, IT'S STILL IN ITS SHELL STAGE IN THAT 2,400 SQUARE FEET.
AND WHEN YOU PURCHASED THE LAND OR BUILT THE BUILDING, IT WASN'T CLEAR TO YOU WHAT THE ACTUAL ZONING WAS.
IS THAT, IS THAT TRUE? THAT'S TRUE.
IT LOOKS LIKE THIS LINE GOES THROUGH YOUR BUILDING, WHICH IS AMAZING.
IT GOES RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF OUR PROPERTY.
WE BOUGHT THE LAND AND DEVELOPED IT OURSELVES.
SO WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW WHICH WAY WE COULD PUT A BUILDING AT THE, AT THE TIME AND IT WAS HALF AND HALF.
AND AT THAT TIME WHEN WE CALLED THE CITY, IT WAS FUNNY 'CAUSE WE CALLED THE CITY AND WHEN PER FIRST PERSON WE CALLED IT SAID, OH,
[02:10:01]
IT'S REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, WE CALLED AGAIN, IT SAID IT'S REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT.SO WE JUST SAID, LET'S HAVE OUR CIVIL ENGINEER GO OUT THERE AND SPEAK TO THE, THE COUNCIL AND MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY GET REGIONAL COMMERCIAL.
AND THEN IT FAILED AT THAT POINT.
YOU MENTIONED TWO BUILDINGS DOWN, YOU HAVE ANOTHER BUILDING.
YOU'RE NOT HAVING TROUBLE LEASING THAT ONE? NO, WE, WE ACTUALLY PRE-LEASED THAT BUILDING A HUNDRED PERCENT BEFORE WE ACTUALLY DEVELOPED THAT BUILDING.
YEAH, I MEAN, TO ME THIS LOOKS LIKE A SERIES OF UNFORTUNATE EVENTS THAT, UH, THAT YOU'RE, YOU'RE PAYING THE PRICE FOR.
MR. ALI? SORRY, WHEN DID YOU BUY THE PROPERTY? 2016.
I WAS TRYING TO GET MY DATES STRAIGHT AND THE DEVELOPING CAME IN IN 2017 AND WHERE THE, THE, THE, THE, THE RESIDENTIAL LABOR RIGHT BEHIND US DIDN'T COME IN UNTIL AFTER THAT.
DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING MR. BELL? OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES, MR. BURNOFF, UM, DID YOU RESEARCH THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE YOU BOUGHT IT? WELL, IT, IT WAS, THE LINE WAS RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE, SO THAT'S WHEN I SAID WE CALLED THE CITY.
WE CALLED THE CITY TWICE AND WE GOT TWO DIFFERENT ANSWERS.
SO WE HAD OUR CIVIL ENGINEER COME OUT AND TRY TO FIGURE IT OUT FOR US.
AND SO WAS THAT BEFORE YOU BOUGHT IT OR AFTER YOU BOUGHT IT? THIS IS, THIS IS AFTER WE BOUGHT IT.
DID YOU RESEARCH THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE YOU BOUGHT IT? HOW WOULD I SAY THAT? I MEAN, WE, OUR BROKER, WELL, GETTING THE CORRECT INFORMATION IS, IS THE KEY, RIGHT? MM-HMM.
SO THE BROKERS THAT SOLD IT TO US SAID WE CAN DO RETAIL AND WHICH IT'S OUR FAULT THAT WE PROBABLY DIDN'T LOOK INTO IT OKAY.
BUT THE BROKERS WHO SOLD IT TO US SAID WE CAN DO RETAIL.
DID YOU RESEARCH THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY BEFORE YOU BUILT THE BUILDING? NO, NOT, NOT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY, THANK YOU SIR.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND FIND DISCUSSIONS TO THE COMMISSION.
AND THE REST OF THE BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT FOR RC USES IS IN AN RE ZONE THAT HE DIDN'T RESEARCH BEFORE HE BUILT IT.
UM, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME ESCAPING THE FACT THAT A LITTLE RESEARCH TIMELY PERFORMED COULD HAVE AVOIDED THE PROBLEM.
UH, I'M ALSO INFLUENCED BY THE FACT THAT THE CITY HAS A GREAT OVERABUNDANCE OF RETAIL SPACE AND ADDING MORE RETAIL SPACE, EVEN IN THIS LITTLE BUILDING, DOESN'T HELP THAT IT WOULD, YOU KNOW, IT WOULD PUT THEM IN THE MARKET OF ATTRACTING, YOU KNOW, OF HAVING AN OVERSUPPLY OF RETAIL SPACE IN RELATION TO THE DEMAND FOR RETAIL SPACE, WHICH IS CITYWIDE.
AND THAT WOULD, UH, BOUNCE BACK AND, UH, DISTRACT AWAY TENANTS WHO COULD HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT PROPERTIES THAT ARE PROPERLY ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL USES ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY TO TRY TO COME HERE.
IN OTHER WORDS, THE MORE RECENT, THE MORE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WE ZONE, THE MORE WE'RE HURTING EXISTING, UH, UH, COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES THAT, THAT THAT CAN'T FILL THE SPACE THAT THEY HAVE.
SO, UM, MR. BELL, JUST, JUST ONE FOR CLARIFICATION THAT A BANK IS PERMITTED IN BOTH ZONING DISTRICTS? IT, YES.
I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT I HEARD YOU SAY BEFORE THAT IT, THAT IT WAS A, IT WAS NOT A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.
LITTLE R IS NOT PERMITTED HERE, BUT A BANK SPECIFICALLY IS PERMITTED IN BOTH DISTRICTS.
UM, BUT I THINK BECAUSE OF THE OVERABUNDANCE OF, OF, OF RETAIL PROPERTY IN THE CITY, UM, I CAN'T GO ALONG WITH THIS.
ANYONE ELSE? MR. RATLIFF? YEAH.
QUE QUESTION FOR STAFF, REALLY.
UM, IN THE PRE-DEVELOPMENT MEETING, WOULDN'T THIS MAP BE ON THE TABLE NORMALLY, YES, IT'S PROVIDED IN EVERY PRE-APPLICATION MEETING.
UM, WE INDICATED IN THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING THAT STAFF WOULD NOT SUPPORT THE REQUEST.
SO IN THE PRE NO, NO, I'M TALKING ABOUT WHEN YOU CAME, BROUGHT IN THE PLANS, THE INITIAL SITE PLAN.
UM, WOULDN'T Y'ALL HAVE DONE A ZONING REVIEW? THAT'S STANDARD PROCESS.
SO THIS DISCUSSION WOULD'VE BEEN HELD PRIOR TO THE BUILDING BEING CONSTRUCTED? MORE THAN LIKELY.
THAT'S WHAT I, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.
UH, THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR COUNSEL.
SO IF WE ESSENTIALLY DON'T APPROVE THIS, AND SOMETIME LATER THE CITY ACTUALLY MOVES THE LINE THAT WAY AND MAKES EVERYTHING TO THE RIGHT
[02:15:01]
RE AND RC A TOON, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, ARE WE PERFORMING A TAKEN OF SOME KIND? NO.UM, IF, IF THE LINE GETS MOVED THROUGH A ZONING CASE, THEN UM, ONLY IF THERE WE WERE MAKING SOMEBODY NONCONFORMING, WOULD WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH AN ISSUE LIKE THAT.
UM, GOSH, THIS, THIS IS UNFORTUNATE.
WE'VE GOT A GUY HERE WHO HAS SPLIT ZONING ON A LOT, AND, UM, WE'VE GOT 2,400 FEET OF RETAIL AND I JUST, I, I DON'T BELIEVE THAT THIS IS GONNA CHANGE THE RETAIL LANDSCAPE AND, AND THAT THE 2,400 FEET HERE IS GONNA BE GONNA BE AN ISSUE.
UH, BUT I, I'M CONFUSED BY SOMETHING.
AND, AND FOR YOU, COMMISSIONER BRUNO, WE JUST HAD A CASE WHERE THE PEOPLE KNEW THE ZONING, BUT YOU WANTED TO CHANGE THE ZONING AND THEY KNEW IT.
AND SO I'M, I'M STRUCK BY THE INCONSISTENCY OF THAT, QUITE FRANKLY, WHERE WE'VE GOT 2,400 FEET HERE AND THE LAST ONE, EVERYBODY KNEW THE ZONING WHEN THEY HAD IT, AND THIS GUY DIDN'T KNOW IT.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, NOT NECESSARILY LOOKING FOR A RESPONSE 'CAUSE IT DOESN'T MATTER.
BUT, BUT I'M JUST STRUCK BY THE, BY THE INCONSISTENCY THERE.
YOU CAN CERTAINLY RESPOND IF YOU WANT, BUT I, I JUST, I, I THINK WE'RE, WE'RE FIGHTING OVER NOT MUCH.
I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE DOMINO EFFECT OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
THIS, THIS POOR GUY'S TRYING TO RUN A BUSINESS.
AND, AND BY THAT I MEAN, OKAY, WE'RE GONNA KEEP MOVING THIS LINE.
IF WE GIVE THIS GUY RETAIL, THEN WE'RE GONNA KEEP MOVING IT.
I'M, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THAT AT ALL.
AND, UM, YOU KNOW, THIS GUY'S GOT SPLIT ZONING.
IT'S, UM, I, I'M ALL FOR SMALL BUSINESS.
UM, WE JUST CHANGE ZONING FOR A, A GUY WITH THOUSANDS OF APARTMENT UNITS, AND I, I JUST, I, I FEEL WE'RE MAKING A MISTAKE IF WE DON'T LET THIS GUY RUN HIS BUSINESS.
I, I MADE MY COMMENTS EARLY, EARLIER, BEFORE HIS PRESENTATION, AND I, I'M, I AS A SMALL BUSINESSMAN, AM INCLINED TO GO WITH MR. CAREY.
I DON'T THINK THIS AMOUNT OF RETAIL CHANGES OUR CITY.
I HAVE BEEN, UM, A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER THAT HAVE COME A LONG WAY IN MY UNDERSTANDING OF ZONING
AND IT, WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO BUY SOMETHING AND THERE'S A MIX, YOU KIND OF THINK, OH, WELL IT'S GONNA WORK OUT THE CITY.
YOU KNOW, IT'S, IT SURELY THIS IS GONNA MAKE SENSE IN THE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT'S GONNA WORK.
AND OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY PAGES THERE ARE, BUT HUNDREDS OF THEM OF REGULATIONS.
AND TO THINK THAT SOMEONE'S GONNA FIGURE THAT OUT IS, IS A LOT TO ASK.
UH, I GO BACK TO WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT EARLIER, LIKE, WHO DOES THIS PROTECT? I, I DON'T, I DON'T THINK IT, I DON'T THINK IT HURTS ANYBODY TO, TO DRAW THIS LINE.
IF YOU LOOK AT DISTRICT BOUNDARIES, WHICH IS UNDER ARTICLE TWO IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, BOUNDARIES INDICATED AS APPROXIMATELY FOLLOWING CENTER LINES OF STREETS, HIGHWAYS, ALLEYS SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS CONSTRUED AS THE CENTER LINES.
I THINK WHEN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD CAME IN AND THE ROAD WENT IN THERE, IT CLEARLY DIDN'T MAKE SENSE TO LEAVE THE ZONING.
AND I THINK THERE SHOULD HAVE BEEN, IT, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN CLEANED UP AT THE TIME.
BUT THERE WAS AMBIGUITY CREATED BY, BY THAT LACK OF FOLLOWING THE PROCEDURES IN THE DISTRICT BOUNDARY 0.1, 2, 2 3, I'M LOOKING AT TWO POINT 300.1.
AND SO AGAIN, WITH, WITH THERE NOT BEING ANYONE HURT AND THE GUY HAVING VACANT SPACE AND BEING A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, I, I, I THINK THE TIE GOES TO THE RUNNER HERE.
I THINK WE REDRAW THE LINE TO PUT HIM ON BASE.
I DON'T OFF OFF ALWAYS HAVE 'EM HERE, BUT OFTEN I LEAVE HERE AND I GO, HOW DO WE, HOW DO WE END UP HERE WHEN WE WERE JUST HERE? LIKE THIS COMMISSION MAKES ADJUSTMENTS ALL THE TIME FOR PEOPLE, AND THEN WE'RE GONNA COME IN HERE AND ACT LIKE THIS 2,400 SQUARE FEET MATTERS AND MAKES A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE IT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE TO THAT SMALL BUSINESS OWNER.
BUT I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES OUR CITY ONE LITTLE BIT.
SO I'M GONNA VOTE TO SUPPORT THIS SMALL BUSINESSMAN, REDRAW THE LINE AND HOPE THAT HE GETS A TENANT.
SO, UH, I'M, I'M CONCERNED ABOUT THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE THE STAFF, UH, WENT THROUGH THIS WHEN THE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED.
UM, AND I BELIEVE, UH, THAT STAFF EXPLAINED, UM, WHERE THIS WAS GOING AT THE TIME.
UH, I AGREE THAT IT CERTAINLY NEEDS TO BE CLEANED UP.
[02:20:01]
UH, BUT I DO NOT, UH, I, I CAN'T, I CAN'T SUPPORT THE IDEA THAT THE WAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE REDRAWING THIS LINE, UM, MAKES THE BEST SENSE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.I THINK IT DOES MAKE SENSE TO MAKE IT ALONG THE TOKA LONG LINE AND MAKE AN ADJUSTMENT THAT THAT BE, UM, THE RE DISTRICT, UM, THAT ENTIRE SIDE THERE.
BUT I JUST DON'T BELIEVE SPLITTING THAT, UM, GROUP OF BUILDINGS TOGETHER, UH, MAKES LOGICAL SENSE TO DO IT RIGHT DOWN THE MIDDLE.
CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF, UH, I, I'M, I'VE HEARD THIS SAID A COUPLE OF TIMES THAT THE REQUEST TO CHANGE THIS ZONING WAS MADE ONCE BEFORE AND WAS DENIED BY COUNCIL EIGHT TO ZERO.
MR. ALI, CAN YOU PUT THE MAP BACK UP? UH, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE, IF THIS REQUEST IS APPROVED, WHAT WOULD BE THE NEW SHAPE? DO WE THE ENTIRE GO FROM THE TOP OF THE TRIANGLE STRAIGHT DOWN THE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS? THAT THAT YELLOW LINE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS WOULD BE THE NEW DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN R AND RRC ALONG? SO THAT LINED UP WITH THE CENTER LINE OF FERN RIDGE, CORRECT.
THAT ENTIRE 1.1 ACRE LOT WHERE THAT BUILDING IS LOCATED WOULD BECOME RC.
SO THE PROPERTY LINE, SO THOSE TWO OTHER BUILDINGS TO THE TOP RIGHT WILL STILL REMAIN RE, RE, RE CORRECT, BUT THOSE TWO OTHER BUILDINGS ARE NOT OWNED BY THE APPLICANT.
SO THAT SELLS THE SPLIT IN SOME WAY.
UM, I THINK HE DOES, DOESN'T HE? I BELIEVE HE SAID HE DID, BUT SO HE'LL STILL BE SPLIT.
HE'LL HAVE, WELL, IT'S NOT ONE LOT, IT'S THREE DIFFERENT LOTS.
SO HE'LL HAVE, SO THE NEW LINE THREE LOTS ON A LOT LINE ON A LOT LINE.
SO HE'S ASKING FOR IT TO BE DRAWN ON THE LOT LINE TO THE RIGHT.
THE CITY IS LIKE, EH, IT'S PROBABLY BETTER TO BE DRAWN ON THE LOT LINE TO THE LEFT, CORRECT.
IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, IT'S, I I THINK WE, THERE WERE MULTIPLE OPPORTUNITIES.
UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE FOR THE APPLICANT TO CATCH IT PRE-DEVELOPMENT AND WHAT HAVE YOU, SOMETHING FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS.
UM, I THINK THE CITY HAD OPPORTUNITIES TO CATCH AND CLEAN IT AND SOMETHING FELL THROUGH THE CRACKS.
AND I THINK MY QUESTION IS, REGARDLESS OF WHAT WE DO, OR ACTUALLY IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, WHAT'S OUR ACTION TO CLEAN IT? RIGHT? UM, AND I DON'T THINK THIS IS THE SAME AS THE PREVIOUS CASE.
YOU KNOW, WE DIDN'T CHANGE BASE ZONING THERE, THAT'S JUST PD AMENDMENT.
BUT WHAT IS OUR ACTION TO CLEAN IT SO THAT DOESN'T COME? I THINK THAT WOULD BE COUNCIL'S JOB, RIGHT? TO, SO THE COMMISSION CAN CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO INITIATE A ZONING CHANGE.
UM, THAT'S ONE, ONE AVENUE OR CITY COUNCIL CAN DO THAT IF THEY CHOOSE.
UM, SO THAT, SO YOU'LL SEE ON THE NEXT CASE IS THE CITY INITIATED VERSION.
RIGHT? BUT THAT'S NOT MY, MY ONLY CONCERN WITH THIS BODY CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON A ZONING CHANGE ON THIS
WHAT WAS THE REASON COUNCIL DENY IT EIGHT ZERO, THE SAME REASONS LISTED IN THE REPORT ABOUT RETAIL? YEAH.
I BELIEVE THAT WAS THE MAJOR CONCERN.
AND, AND I WOULD SAY ALSO IT, IT'S, IT'S NOT SOMETHING THE CITY COMMONLY DOES IS IS REZONE PRIVATE PROPERTY.
IT HAPPENS TYPICALLY WHEN WE'RE CREATING A NEW CATEGORY OR DOING AN ENTIRE STRIP.
IT'S RARELY DONE ON THIS, THIS YEAH.
ANYONE ELSE? MR. RATLIFF? YEAH, JUST KIND OF ONE FOLLOW UP COMMENT.
I WAS THINKING WHAT COMMISSIONER LYLE SAID ABOUT IT SHOULD BE CONSTRUED IS DOWN THE CENTER LINES.
AND, AND I, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY ACCURATE, BUT I THINK WHAT WOULD BE IMPLIED BY THE LAND USE MAP IS THAT THAT SHOULD BE THE DIVIDER BETWEEN RE AND RC IS DOWN THE CENTER LINE OF TOON.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THE DEVELOPABLE PART OF THAT LOT IS RE AND IF YOU WERE GONNA GO DOWN TO A MICRO LEVEL AND REDRAW THAT LINE, THE INTERSECTION IS IN THE MIDDLE OF THE INTERSECTION AND IT SHOULD BE ALONG THE CENTER OF TOON.
THE OTHER REASON IN MY MIND IS WHAT I SAID EARLIER IS THAT EVERYTHING WEST OF TOON IS CONNECTED BY INTERNAL CIRCULATION TO OTHER RETAIL.
EVERYTHING EAST OF TOON IS NOT.
[02:25:01]
CIRCULATION TO OTHER EMPLOYMENT CENTERS.AND SO THOSE ARE, THE DIVIDING LINE BETWEEN THOSE PRIMARY USES SHOULD BE A PUBLIC ROAD, WHICH WOULD BE TOON.
SO, I MEAN, IT, IT MAKES ALL THE SENSE IN THE WORLD THAT IT, THAT TO ME THAT IT SHOULD BE RE ON THE EAST SIDE AND RC ON THE WEST SIDE.
AND I, I THINK THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN INTERPRETED.
AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT INTERPRETATION.
IF YOU GO FROM.ONE IN DISTRICT BOUNDARIES TO DOT TWO BOUNDARIES INDICATED AS APPROXIMATELY FOLLOWING PLATTED, LOT LINES SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS FOLLOWING SUCH LINES.
SO WE DRAW 'EM IN THE CENTER LINES OF ROADS AND WE DRAW 'EM ON THE PROPERTY LINES.
AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT DIFFERENCE IT MAKES TO THAT PARKING LOT IF SOMEONE IS THERE TO GO TO A JOB OR TO BUY A CELL PHONE CHARGER.
I MEAN, WHAT HE, HE WAS TRYING TO MAKE IT THERE ALL INTERNAL PARKING.
HE WAS TALKING ABOUT THE THE ACCESS THOUGH.
THE, THE ACCESS DOESN'T LOOK ANY DIFFERENT TO ME FROM THAT PROPERTY OUT TO NATIONAL DRIVE IN TOON.
AS, AS THE, THE PROPERTY ON THE E UH, WEST SIDE OF TOON, THE ACCESS IS THE SAME.
WELL, EXCEPT YOU'RE CROSSING THE PUBLIC STREET OF THE PEOPLE GOING IN AND OUTTA THAT SUBDIVISION WHERE IT'S EMPLOYMENT ON ONE SIDE AND COMMERCIAL ON THE OTHER COMMERCIAL GENERS MORE TRAFFIC.
THERE'S, THERE'S, THERE'S RESIDENTIAL TO THE SOUTH OF BOTH DISTRICTS NO MATTER WHERE YOU DRAW THE LINE.
SO LET'S, LET'S, LET'S, IT'S A MESS.
I THINK WE'RE, WHERE WE NEED TO GO WITH THIS IS WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION, RIGHT? SO WE NEED, I NEED A MOTION.
CAN I MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT? PLEASE COMMENT.
I I TAKE ISSUE WITH YOU DRAWING A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A BASE ZONING AND A PD.
PD LANGUAGE IS THE BASE ZONING, ONCE YOU APPROVE IT, YOU'RE YOUR ZONING? WELL, IT IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT BASE ZONING, BUT IT'S THE ZONING OF THE PROPERTY.
IT'S THE REGULATIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THAT PROPERTY.
AND THEY GO WITH THE PROPERTY FROM THAT POINT AND THEY GO WITH THE PROPERTY.
AND SO THE, THE, THE I THE IDEA THAT THAT'S A BIGGER DEAL TO CHANGE A BASE THAN A PD I DISAGREE WITH.
I WOULD LIKE TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION FROM SOMEBODY.
THIS IS NOT GONNA BE AN EASY DECISION, GUYS.
WE HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT FROM STAFF JUST BECAUSE IT'S RELEVANT TO SOME OF THE COMMENTS THAT HAD MADE.
UM, BACK TO THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN FROM 2018, UH, 2017, EXCUSE ME.
THE SITE WAS ACTUALLY CALLED OUT FOR OFFICE BUILDING.
IT LISTED RE AND RC AS THE ZONING AND THE TABLE.
SO JUST FOR YOUR CONTEXTUAL INFORMATION OF WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED, IT WAS DESIGNED FOR OFFICE.
SO I, I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE FOLLOW THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION AND DENY THIS SECOND.
OKAY? SO WE'LL HAVE A VOTE, WE'LL SEE WHERE IT GOES.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO DENY BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
I WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE ON TRACK HERE BY MR. BRONSKI WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, THOSE IN FAVOR OF DENIAL.
THE, UH, APPLICANT IS DENIED BY VOTE WITH FIVE TO THREE, AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT COULD APPEAL THIS TO COUNSEL AND THEN THEY WOULD NEED A SUPER MAJORITY APPROVAL BY COUNSEL TO MOVE FORWARD.
UM, I WOULD SUGGEST THOUGH, AND, AND I WILL LEAN ON LEGAL FOR THIS A LITTLE BIT TOO, IS, IS WOULD IT BE APPROPRIATE FOR THIS COMMISSION TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON MOVING THAT OR RESETTING THIS ZONING LINE AT THIS TIME? UM, THE PROBLEM WITH THAT IS, IS OUR WHOLE NEW, UM, IF A CORRECT PROCESS.
AND, AND SO I, I THINK WE NEED TO FOLLOW THAT PROCESS.
I JUST, I KNOW THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT DOING IT, SO, UM, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
[4. (RP) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2024-006 – Request to rezone 7.1 acres located at the southwest corner of Independence Parkway and Lotus Drive from Planned Development-381-Retail/General Office to Light Industrial-1 and to rezone 8.1 acres situated on President George Bush Turnpike, 600 feet west of Independence Parkway from Agricultural to Light Industrial-1. Both properties are located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway Overlay District. Project #ZC2024-006. Petitioner: City of Plano (Legislative consideration)]
ITEM FOUR.THE OTHER THING I WOULD ADD IS THERE IS A, THERE IS AN APPEAL PERIOD.
DOES THAT RECOMMEND THAT THE APPEAL PERIOD EXPIRE BEFORE THE COMMISSION ENTERTAIN A MOTION LIKE THAT? THAT'S A GREAT RECOMMENDATION.
WHAT'S THE APPEAL PERIOD? I BELIEVE IT'S 30 DAYS.
SO SIR, YOU HAVE 30 DAYS TO APPEAL TO COUNSEL.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2 0 2 4 DASH 0 0 6.
[02:30:01]
REQUEST TO REZONE 7.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY AND LOTUS DRIVE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 3 8 1 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE AND TO REZONE 8.1 ACRES SITUATED ON PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE, 600 FEET WEST OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY FROM AGRICULTURAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE.BOTH PROPERTIES ARE LOCATED WITHIN THE ONE 90 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
I'M RAHA TI LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
UH, THIS IS A CITY INITIATED ZONING REQUEST TO REZONE TWO TRACKS OF LAND FROM, UH, PD PLAN DEVELOPMENT 381, UH, RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE AND AGRICULTURAL, UH, DISTRICT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
THE PRIMARY PURPOSE OF THE ZONING REQUEST IS TO REMOVE SPLIT ZONING FROM THREE LOTS
AND WHY ARE YOU LAUGHING? BECAUSE I THINK IT'S FUNNY, YOU KNOW, MR. CHAIR, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SAY I, I THINK THESE, UH, CALLING EACH OTHER OUT I DON'T THINK IS EFFECTIVE OR, UH, PRODUCTIVE.
AND, UH, I WOULD LIKE AT LEAST SOME KIND OF DIRECTION THAT YOU ENCOURAGE US NOT TO DO SO, SO NOTED.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OUTLINED HERE IN YELLOW.
FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRESENTATION, WE ARE REFERRING TO THE NORTHERN LOT AS TRACK ONE, AND WE ARE REFERRING TO THE SOUTHERN LOT AS, UH, TRACK TWO.
UM, THE PROPERTIES SURROUNDING TRACK ONE ARE GENERALLY ZONED, UM, PLAN DEVELOPMENT, RETAIL, REGIONAL O GENERAL OFFICE, UM, AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.
THOSE PROPERTIES ARE DEVELOPED WITH RETAIL OFFICE, UH, ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION, GOVERNMENT FACILITIES, INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY.
UM, AND THE PROPERTIES AROUND, UH, ON THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDE OF TRACK TWO ARE WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF CITY OF RICHARDSON.
AND THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND WEST OF TRACK TWO ARE, UM, ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH OFFICE.
TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND TRACK, ONE IS APPROXIMATELY 7.1 ACRES AND IS ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THREE, UH, 381 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE, AND WAS ZONED IN, UH, 1987.
UH, THE PROPERTY AT THE TIME OF ZONING CHANGE, WA ZONING CHANGE WAS VACANT AND WAS NOT DEVELOPED UNTIL EARLY 2000.
AND, UM, THE SPLIT ZONING WAS CAUSED BY THE CONSTRUCTION AND DEDICATION OF LOTUS DRIVE.
AS FOR TRACK TWO, THIS TRACK IS, UH, APPROXIMATELY 8.1 ACRES, CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL.
THE TRACT WAS ANNEXED IN, UH, 1985 WITH DEFAULT ZONING OF AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT AND WAS NEVER REZONED.
THE PROPOSED, UH, REQUEST IS WITHIN EMPLOYMENT CENTERS IN ITS, UH, IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES.
WE RECEIVED ONLY ONE SIGNED LETTER, UH, WITHIN THE 200 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH WAS IN SUPPORT.
THAT SIGNED LETTER WAS THE ONLY RESPONSE THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED FOR THIS ZONING CASE.
AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND, UH, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS ZONING CASE.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.
MR. BERNOFF, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? WE HAVE A QUESTION.
MR. LAW, THE TRIANGLE IN THE MIDDLE OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH HAS AGRICULTURE.
THAT A REAL OBVIOUS CLEANUP TO ME COMING OFF THE LAST CASE.
I'M LOOKING AT THIS ONE A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENTLY THAN I HAD.
HOW DOES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FIND THIS TO BE CONFORMING? AND IT FOUND THAT ONE TO BE NON-CONFORMING.
WHEN LI ONE IS THE SECOND MOST PERMISSIBLE ZONING IN OUR ZONING CHART.
YOU HAVE LI ONE AND LI TWO, AND THOSE ARE THE MOST PERMISSIBLE THINGS YOU CAN POSSIBLY HAVE.
AND SO THE REASONING ON THE LAST CASE WAS GOING FROM RC TO RE AND THE THREAT WAS 2,400 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 7.1 ACRES
[02:35:01]
OF LI ONE, WHICH IS, UH, IT, IT ALLOWS OPEN STORAGE ON GRAVEL, UM, LOTS OF VERY PERMISSIBLE USES.IT'S MY FAVORITE LAND TO, TO, TO, TO OWN AND OPERATE BECAUSE YOU CAN PARK TRUCKS AND TRAILERS ON GRAVEL.
AND SO HOW, HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW WE'RE GOING TO LI ONE HERE.
AGAIN, IT'S AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
LI ONE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING IN THE AREA, SPECIFICALLY ALONG THE LOTUS DRIVE FURTHER TO THE WEST.
SO THE LI ONE IS COMPLIMENTARY AND CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA.
AND CON IS CONDUCIVE TO THE TYPE OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT THAT CITY COUNCIL WANTED TO SEE HERE.
I, AND I WANT TO ADD THAT IN, UM, THE CASE OF ZONING CASE, UH, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT IN CASE OF, UH, ZONING CASE 2 2 4 0 0 5, THE PROPOSED USE WAS, UM, NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE, UM, POLICIES RECOMMENDED BY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
HOWEVER, THE USE HERE, THE PROPOSED USE WILL BE A SERVICE USE, WHICH IS NOT, UM, IN, UM, IN OPPOSITION OF ANY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS.
WHAT, WHAT, WHAT USE IS CONTEMPLATED TO GO HERE IN THIS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT? I CAN'T SPEAK TO THAT.
I MEAN, I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU CAN'T SPEAK TO IT, BUT MR. RATLIFF, UM, JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION.
I'M WILLING TO BET THAT WHAT'S DRIVING THIS WHOLE THING IS THE FAR WEST END OF THIS AND THAT SLIVER ALONG LOTUS AND THE LITTLE TURNOUT AT INDEPENDENCE IS REALLY JUST AUXILIARY TO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE.
IT'S REALLY THIS CORNER OF WHAT LOOKS LIKE A PARKING LOT, UM, DOWN THERE AT THE WEST END.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT, YEAH.
AND THE GEORGE, THE PIECE ON GEORGE BUSH, YOU KNOW, WHILE WE'RE HERE, LET'S CLEAN THAT UP.
SO THAT DOESN'T MAKE ANY, I HAVE NO OBJECTION TO THAT.
UH, WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE, IT'S THE CITY'S THE APPLICANT.
SO I GUESS
CAN I ASK ONE QUICK QUESTION? YEAH.
SO THE CITY BR BROUGHT THIS UP AS THE APPLICANT.
UM, JUST FOR MY MEMORY, WHAT TRIGGERED US BRINGING THIS TO PUBLIC HEARING IN ON FEBRUARY 26TH? 26TH? IT SAYS ON FEBRUARY 26TH, WE CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING TO INITIATE REZONING.
CITY COUNCIL CALLED THE PUBLIC CITY COUNCIL WAS A TRIGGER IN OKAY.
THEY REQUESTED TO REZONE, BUT THEY REQUIRED US TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING GOTCHA.
I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR MIKE.
I KNOW YOU GAVE ME AN ANSWER, BUT I JUST WANNA UNDERSTAND THE ANSWER MORE.
SO MY CONCERN WAS THAT YOU HAVE A PD AND YOU'RE GOING TAKING THIS LAND OUT OF THE PD AND MAKING IT LI ONE.
AND WHAT WAS YOUR RESPONSE? SO LI ONE VERSUS RETAIL O2 ARE VERY DIFFERENT CATEGORIES AND DIFFERENT, VERY DIFFERENT STANDARDS AND USES.
SO WITH EVERYTHING SOUTH OF LOTUS DRIVE AND FURTHER TO THE WEST BEING LI ONE, WE'RE MAKING ALL THREE OF THESE PROPERTIES THAT ARE SOUTH OF BETWEEN LOTUS AND GEORGE BUSH, LI ONE, WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE AREA.
AND THE STUFF THAT'S NORTH OF LOTUS IS GONNA STAY THAT BIG PD.
SO I, I THINK, UH, THIS MAKES COMPLETE SENSE AND IT BEING ON THE LINES WITH LOTUS, UH, AND IT, THE CLEANUP OF THE AGRICULTURAL PIECE, UH, I THINK IT'S A NO-BRAINER.
SO I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF SECOND BEFORE WE VOTE I, I'D TO MAKE SOME, OKAY, SO WE HAVE, WE HAVE A, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
UM, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MIKE.
WHO OWNS THIS LAND CURRENTLY? OH, UM, MS. PAL, DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? I KNOW ONE IS ENCORE SINCE THE CITY REQUESTED THIS ZONING CHANGE.
WHO OWNS IT? NO, IT'S WHILE SHE'S, OH, GO AHEAD.
WHILE SHE'S LOOKING AT IT, I'LL MAKE MY, MY OTHER COMMENT AND, YOU KNOW, UH, COMMISSIONER BRONSKI DOWN THERE MADE A COMMENT THAT I GUESS WE SHOULDN'T CALL EACH OTHER OUT, BUT, BUT I, I THINK, I THINK DEBATE SITTING ON, ON THIS DIOCESE IS IMPORTANT TO GET TO THE RIGHT ANSWER.
AND I CERTAINLY WOULD HATE TO SEE THAT SQUASHED WHERE WE GET THE ABILITY TO DISAGREE ON HERE EVEN PASSIONATELY, AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT AGGRESSIVE OR HOSTILE.
I, UM, I, I, I JUST THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL WITH THAT.
SO, UM, MIKE, I, I RESPECT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, BUT I THINK WE NEED TO BE CAREFUL, UM, IN TERMS OF HOW WE'RE MANAGING IT.
SO ANYWAY, UM, I, I THINK THERE'S AN, THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN I DISAGREE WITH MR. OLLIE OR I DISAGREE WITH THE POSITION THAT, SO
[02:40:01]
YEAH, I WOULD LIKE TO PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT IN THAT SCENARIO.I LOOKED AT YOU AND SAID, WHY ARE YOU LAUGHING? AND I UNDERSTAND THAT, THAT I, I WENT TOO FAR.
AND SO I THINK I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND I CAN APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS AND I CAN OWN THAT IN THAT SCENARIO.
WE, WE GET PASSIONATE ABOUT OUR CAUSES, UM, SOMETIMES, BUT, UM, I, I DON'T DOUBT FOR A SECOND THAT EVERYONE HERE IS MAKING DECISIONS BASED ON WHAT THEY THINK IS BEST FOR THE CITY.
AND SO WE GET PASSIONATE ABOUT THAT.
THAT'S WHY WE'RE SITTING HERE AT 9 47 ON A MONDAY NIGHT.
AND I, I FRANKLY, I DID NOT WANT TO END DISAGREEMENT, BUT I JUST, I UNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT.
DID WE FIND OUT THE OWNERS? YES.
SO I DUNNO IF I CAN USE THE POINTER.
SO THIS ONE IS OWNED BY ENCORE.
THIS PIECE, THE OWNER FOR THIS ONE IS CALLED APEX BUILDING OWNER, LLC.
WHICH OWNS THIS SECTION AS WELL.
UH, THE LITTLE, THE LITTLE PIECE, THE LITTLE, THE REST, THE REST OF THAT IS OWNED BY NTTA AND IT'S PART OF, UH, GEORGE BUSH.
WELL, THERE IS, THERE IS ONE OTHER, YEAH, THERE'S MORE.
DELTA ELECTRONICS OWN THE OWNS THIS PIECE.
THEN I GUESS ALL THESE OWNERS ARE, ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THIS CHANGE.
OKAY, MR. BRUNO? UM, I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT, I THINK THIS IS A ALSO A NO BRAINER.
UM, I'D ALSO LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT WHAT THE CITY IS DOING HERE IS RESOLVING A SPLIT ZONING SITUATION BY MOVING THE BOUNDARY LINE BETWEEN ZONING DISTRICTS TO THE, TO A STREET, WHICH IS EXACTLY THE SAME THING THAT THE CITY IS RECOMMENDING HAPPEN AT SOME POINT IN SOME WAY AS TO, TO ON DRIVING.
ANYONE ELSE? I WOULD JUST SAY CONSISTENT WITH MY COMMENTS EARLIER, THERE ARE LOT LINES CAN ALSO SERVE AS RIGHT.
AND SO THEY CAN, ALL RIGHT, WITHIN, WE HAVE A, THERE'S LOTS OF WAYS YOU CAN DRAW THE LINES PER THE, THE ORDINANCE.
WE, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND IF THERE ARE ANY MORE COMMENTS RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO THE MOTION OR THE SECOND I'D CALL FOR A VOTE.
ALRIGHT, THIS ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.
[5. (PM) Discussion and Action – Revised Preliminary Site Plan: Flextronics Campus Addition, Block A, Lot 5 – 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. Zoned Research/Technology Center with Specific Use Permit No. 63 for Electrical Substation. Project #RPSP2024-002. Applicant: Aligned Data Centers (Plano) Propco, LLC (Administrative consideration)]
FIVE NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC CONTENT COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA.
AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT AGENDA.
DISCUSSION AND ACTION REVISED 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.
ZONED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
NUMBER 63 FOR ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION.
APPLICANT IS ALIGNED DATA CENTERS PLANO, PROPCO, LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FOR THE REQUIRED PARKING AND REQUIRED OFF STREET LOADING FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS WITH THIS REVISED SITE PLAN, WHICH IS WHY IT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY.
ON THIS SCREEN IS THE NEW LAYOUT OF THE REVISED, REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
HERE'S THE ZOOM END OF THE WEST.
LET'S MAKE SURE IT'S NOT OKAY.
BUT THE PORTION WHERE THE PARKING IS NOW CHANGING, AS YOU CAN SEE, IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THIS PLAN.
UH, TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT ON FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PSP 2023 DASH 0 2 6 FOR THE ASSOCIATED DATA CENTER AND ASSOCIATED ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND GRANTED A 20% PARKING REDUCTION.
WITH THAT APPROVAL, THE APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE PARKING BEYOND THE 20% ALLOWED BY THE COMMISSION, WHICH REQUIRES A VARIANCE FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.
A SECOND VARIANCE IS BEING REQUESTED
[02:45:01]
TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE MINIMUM OFFSITE.OFFSITE OFF STREET LOADING FOR SERVICE USES ON THIS SCREEN SHOWS THE PARKING BREAKDOWN OF THE REQUEST.
426 SPACES WOULD BE REQUIRED WITHOUT ANY REDUCTIONS.
298 WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE 20% REDUCTION GRANTED BY THE PLANNING ZONE COMMISSION BACK IN FEBRUARY, PLUS AN ADDITIONAL 10% FROM AN ALLOWABLE REDUCTION DUE TO STORM WATER CONSERVATION, WHICH IS ALLOWED BY WRIGHT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO PROVIDE 90 SPACES IN TOTAL WITH THE ZONING WITH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REQUEST, WHICH WOULD BE A 79% REDUCTION IN PARKING.
THE COMMISSION LACKS JURISDICTION TO APPROVE OR DENY THE REQUESTED VARIANCES.
APPROVAL OF THE REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN WILL ALLOW THE APPLICA APPLICATION TO PROCEED TO THE SUBMITTAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS AND WILL FOLLOW THE NORMAL BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT PROCEDURES.
IF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENIES THE REQUESTED VARIANCE, THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE THE REQUIRED MINIMUM OFF STREET PARKING AND LOADING SPACES REQUIREMENTS PER THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PSP 2023 DASH 0 26.
WITH THAT STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLAN FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT THE APPROVAL OF THE VARIANCE TO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING FOR DATA CENTERS AND MINIMUM OFF STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE SERVICE USES AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN, AS WELL AS IF BOTH VARIANCES ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THEN THIS NEW RPSP 2024 DASH 0 0 2 SHALL SUPERSEDE PSP 2023 DASH 0 2 6.
AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I SEE NONE.
SO THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE HERE IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS.
UH, MY NAME IS JONATHAN VINCENT, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, REPRESENTING THE LINE DATA CENTERS.
UM, HAPPY TO GIVE YOU A VERY BRIEF EXPLANATION IF YOU'D CARE TO HEAR IT.
UM, WELL, I, I THINK YOU, YOU WANT LESS PARKING SPACES 'CAUSE YOU DON'T NEED 'EM.
WELL, THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY IT.
I MEAN, THAT'S KIND OF THE NUB OF IT, YOU KNOW, 298 SPACES FOR 60 INDIVIDUALS ON SITE.
YEAH, I'M, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE GLIB.
TRUST ME, WE'RE ALL IN, YOU KNOW, UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM ON HERE.
YEAH, I'M, I'M HAPPY TO EXPLAIN HOW THIS MEETS THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE SUSTAINABILITY POLICY AND ALL THAT.
WE'LL BE MAKING THOSE ARGUMENTS TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AS WELL.
SO I'M SURE YOU WILL RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL.
THAT, UM, HANG TIGHT JUST A SECOND.
SO, UM, AGAIN, NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, SO IT'S REALLY KIND OF MORE OPEN, MR. BRUNO? NO, I THINK THE APPLICANT IS KIND OF PREACHING TO THE CHOIR HERE.
UM, I THINK WE'RE ALL IN AGREEMENT THAT THE, THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE, UH, ZONING ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO PARKING AND LOADING AREAS ARE IN EXCESS OF WHAT THE USE OF THE PROPERTY CURRENT USE REALLY NEEDS.
OF THE PROPOSED USE REALLY NEEDS.
AND HE'S LOOKING FOR SOME RELIEF, UH, WHICH IS BEYOND OUR AUTHORITY TO GRANT APPARENTLY, AND IT'S WITHIN THE SOLE AUTHORITY OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM FIVE CONDITION THAT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANT APPROVAL OF VARIANCES TO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED OFF-STREET PARKING FOR DATA CENTERS AND THE MINIMUM OFF STREET LOADING REQUIREMENTS FOR SERVICE USES AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN.
AND IF BOTH VARIANCES ARE ALSO CONDITIONED THAT IF BOTH VARIANCES ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, RPSP 2024 DASH OH OH TWO SHALL SUPERSEDE PSP 2023 DASH OH OH OH, EXCUSE ME.
I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRUNO.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI.
ANY DISCUSSION? ALL IN FAVOR? AYE.
I REALIZED THE HOUR IS LATE FOR ALL OF US AND I, I DID NEGLECT TO MENTION THAT, UH, MR. ERIC BENSON WITH LINE IS HERE IN CASE YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS FOR HIM.
SO DIDN'T WANNA LET, UH, GENTLEMEN, I, I APOLOGIZE THAT YOU HAD TO SIT HERE THIS LONG.
I CONSIDERED EARLIER THAT MAYBE WE WOULD GET THROUGH QUICKER AND THEN QUICKLY REALIZE THAT WAS A MISTAKE.
YOU GOT WHAT YOU WANT? YES, SIR.
I JUST WANT TO FORMALLY ASK MR. B UH, BRODSKY'S FORGIVENESS.
I WA I WAS OUTTA LINE PLEASE FOR A, I WAS OUTTA LINE.
IT WAS BY TONE AND THE FACT THAT I POINTED AND SO I JUST WANT PUBLICLY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I GOT IT WRONG AND I COMPLETELY, UH, ALWAYS ACCEPT.