[2. (DW) Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2024-012: Request to rezone from Neighborhood Office to Single-Family Residence-6 and rescind Specific Use Permit No. 585 for Veterinary Clinic and Kennel (Indoor Pens) on 7.7 acres located on the east side of Spring Creek Parkway, 540 feet west of Meadowlands Drive. Project #ZC2024-012 Petitioner: Big OS Properties, LP. (Legislative consideration)]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

PUBLIC HEARING. ZONING CASE 2024-012.

REQUEST TO REZONE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SIX.

AND RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 585 FOR VETERINARY CLINIC AND KENNEL ON 7.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY, 540FT WEST OF MEADOWLANDS DRIVE.

APPLICANT IS BIG OS PROPERTIES, L.P..

THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DESTINY WOODS, AND I'M A PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES.

THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT SHOWS THE AERIAL IMAGE OF THE PROPERTY.

THE ZONING EXHIBIT WAS SUBMITTED TO SHOW THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST.

FOR THE SITE HISTORY, IN 2007 THE SITE WAS REZONED FROM COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT TO NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR VETERINARY CLINIC AND KENNEL WITH INDOOR PENS.

IN 2012, A CONCEPT PLAN AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN WERE APPROVED FOR THE VETERINARY CLINIC AND OFFICE USES.

A SITE PLAN WAS NEVER SUBMITTED, SO THE PLANS WERE NEVER CONSTRUCTED.

AND IN 2023 LAST YEAR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PARKS MASTER PLAN WERE AMENDED TO INCLUDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AS A FUTURE PARK.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE THE SITE FROM NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SIX AND RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 585. VETERINARY CLINIC AND KENNEL WITH INDOOR PENS IS NOT A PERMITTED USE BY, RIGHT OR BY SUP AND THE SF 6 ZONING DISTRICT, SO THE SUP WILL NEED TO BE RESCINDED AS PART OF THIS REQUEST.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON AN ESTIMATED 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, BUT STAFF CANNOT VERIFY THE FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING 13 RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AS A CONCEPT PLAN WAS NOT PROVIDED FOR REVIEW.

AT THE TIME OF THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING STAFF NOTED THAT THE PROVIDED CONCEPTUAL DRAWINGS WOULD NOT CONFORM TO THE CITY'S 600 FOOT MAXIMUM CUL DE SAC LENGTH REQUIREMENTS, AND A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, AND THE INTERNATIONAL FIRE CODE MAY BE REQUIRED TO DEVELOP THE NUMBER OF LOTS DESCRIBED.

FOR THE FLOODPLAIN, APPROXIMATELY ONE THIRD OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE FEMA 100 YEAR FULLY DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE GRAPHIC.

A FLOOD STUDY IS NOT REQUIRED WITH THIS ZONING REQUEST, BUT MAY BE REQUIRED AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT.

[00:10:06]

DAM BREACH ANALYSIS.

IN 2024 KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES PREPARED A DAM BREACH ANALYSIS ON QUISENBERRY LAKE THAT IS LOCATED AROUND 1100FT NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THE ANALYSIS SHOWED WHAT AREAS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO FLOOD INUNDATION IN THE EVENT OF DAM FAILURE AT QUISENBERRY LAKE, IN TWO DIFFERENT SCENARIOS. THE FIRST SCENARIO IS ON A SUNNY DAY BREACH HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THE MAP ABOVE.

IN THIS SCENARIO, THE RESERVOIR IS AT MAXIMUM NORMAL OPERATING LEVEL DURING A PERIOD OF LITTLE OR NO PRECIPITATION.

THE SECOND SCENARIO IS HIGHLIGHTED IN RED.

IT'S A DESIGN FLOOD BREACH SCENARIO, MEANING WHERE THE RESERVOIR IS AT ITS MAXIMUM CAPACITY FOR FLOOD BY DESIGN.

MOST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN AREAS SUBJECT TO INUNDATION DURING EITHER BREACH EVENT.

UNLIKE THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN, THERE ARE NO FEDERAL REGULATIONS PROHIBITING DAM DEVELOPMENT.

EXCUSE ME? PROHIBITING DEVELOPMENT IN DAM BREACH INUNDATION BOUNDARIES.

IT IS ULTIMATELY THE PROPERTY OWNER'S RESPONSIBILITY FOR RESEARCHING THE RISK AND ACQUIRING APPROPRIATE INSURANCE TO MITIGATE IMPACTS OF POTENTIAL DAM FAILURE.

DUE TO LIFE, HEALTH AND SAFETY CONCERNS STAFF FINDS THAT NONRESIDENTIAL USES AS ALLOWED UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING WOULD BE A BETTER SUITED FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PLACE A DEED RESTRICTION OR INFORMATIONAL COVENANT IN THE HOMEOWNER ASSOCIATION DOCUMENTS TO NOTIFY FUTURE OWNERS ABOUT THE PROXIMITY OF THE DAM.

IF APPROVED, THIS DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE HOA RESTRICTIONS THAT ARE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY STAFF AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT.

HOWEVER, THERE IS NOT A MEANS OF SECURING THIS AGREEMENT THROUGH THE ZONING PROCESS, AND THE CITY WILL NOT CONTINUALLY MONITOR WHETHER THIS INFORMATION IS BEING BEING PROPERLY DISCLOSED.

THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STATES THAT THE CITY SHOULD ENSURE NEW HOUSING GROWTH ON UNDEVELOPED LAND PROVIDING PROXIMITY TO EXISTING COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

ALTHOUGH THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO OTHER SINGLE FAMILY ZONING, FUTURE HOMES WOULD BE SEPARATED BY THE FLOODPLAIN WITH NO DIRECT CONNECTIONS.

APPROVAL WOULD RESULT IN AN ENCLAVE OF HOMES LOCATED BETWEEN UNDEVELOPED NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING TO THE NORTH AND FLOODPLAIN TO THE SOUTH.

STAFF FINDS THE PROPERTY MORE SUITABLE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT DUE TO THE NONCONFORMANCE TO THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY.

IN 2023, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED AS FUTURE PARK ON THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN, WITH THE CORRESPONDING CHANGE TO OPEN SPACE NETWORK ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

DESIGNATION AS A FUTURE PARK SIGNALS A PROPERTY'S STRATEGIC LOCATION IN MEETING THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE PARK MASTER PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AS YOU CAN SEE ON THIS MAP, WHICH IS PAGE 80 OF THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN TO THE RIGHT, A FUTURE PARK WAS IDENTIFIED AT THIS LOCATION TO HELP FILL GAPS IN THE EXISTING PARK SERVICE AREA IN THE NORTHWEST SECTOR OF THE CITY LIMITS.

THIS SPECIFIC SITE WAS IDENTIFIED BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN AND HYDROLOGY CHALLENGES THAT MAKE IT DIFFICULT FOR PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT, ALSO ADD TO ITS POTENTIAL AS FUTURE PARK LAND.

HOWEVER, A PROPERTY CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO BE USED FOR PARK PURPOSES UNLESS IT IS OWNED BY THE CITY, UNLESS OR UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY THE CITY.

THE OWNER IS PERMITTED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS EXISTING ZONING, AND TO REQUEST ZONING FOR OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DOES NOT PROVIDE GUIDANCE ON WHAT TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT ARE SUITABLE IN OPEN SPACE NETWORK.

EXCUSE ME NETWORK LOCATIONS THAT CORRESPOND WITH FUTURE SITES THAT HAVE NOT BEEN PURCHASED BY THE CITY.

FINDINGS WILL BE REQUIRED DUE TO DUE TO THE REQUESTS AND CONSISTENCY WITH OPEN SPACE NETWORKS MIX OF USES.

HOWEVER, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION CONSIDER OTHER COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES IN DETERMINING THE SUITABILITY OF THIS SITE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. THESE INCLUDE THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY AND REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY.

[00:15:03]

ACTION EIGHT. SO THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY STATES THAT NEW HOUSING IN THESE AREAS WILL ONLY BE CONSIDERED APPROPRIATE WHERE IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND OTHER RELATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS.

THE REDEVELOPMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY ACTION EIGHT SAYS THAT WE SHOULD ENSURE THAT NEW HOUSING GROWTH ON UNDEVELOPED LAND PROVIDES FUNCTIONAL AND APPROPRIATE ENVIRONMENTS FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND ACTIVITIES, SUCH AS PROXIMITY TO EXISTING COMPATIBLE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, CONFIGURATION TO SUPPORT HOUSING AND ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND ENSURE ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDE ADEQUATE GREEN SPACE WHEN ADJACENT TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.

A COMPATIBLE TRANSITION IN BUILDING HEIGHT AND BULK SHOULD ALSO BE PROVIDED.

THE HOUSING TRENDS ANALYSIS SHOWS A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN THE CITY.

THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE HOUSING TRENDS ANALYSIS.

THIS REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THREE OF THE POLICIES OUTLINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FINDINGS POLICY.

THIS REQUEST MUST BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST, IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL.

STAFF RECEIVED THREE LETTERS IN SUPPORT WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER.

AND IN TOTAL STAFF RECEIVED SIX RESPONSES IN SUPPORT AT THE TIME OF THIS PRESENTATION.

DUE TO THE PROPERTY'S LOCATION WITH THE DAM BREACH ZONE OF QUISENBERRY LAKE AND THE LACK OF CONNECTIVITY TO ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST FOR RESIDENTIAL USES TO BE INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN STANDARDS.

THE SITE WOULD BE BETTER SUITED FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES AS PERMITTED UNDER ITS EXISTING ZONING.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ZONING REQUEST FOR DENIAL.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, AND RUSSELL ERSKINE FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS REGARDING THE FLOOD PLAIN AND DAM BREACH.

OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT PRESENTATION.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

AND I GOT ALL KINDS OF HANDS UP HERE.

TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE GOING TO START ON.

WE'LL GO CLOCKWISE AND WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

THANK YOU. WHO OWNS THE DAM? IT IS OWNED BY THE FRITO-LAY PROPERTY TO THE NORTH.

DO THEY HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT OR THE APPLICANT? I DON'T BELIEVE SO WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT THEY DO NOT HAVE CONNECTION WITH THE PROPERTY.

DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE ANY CONNECTION WITH THE DAM? NO, NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG.

MY QUESTION IS KIND OF RELATED TO THAT.

SO THE WHOLE PROPERTY NORTH OF THIS BOUNDARY OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS OWNED OR OWNED BY FRITO-LAY, IS THAT CORRECT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

AND RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ALL JUST BY LOOKING AT THE MAP, IT'S ALL GREENERY BECAUSE IT'S PART OF THE FLOOD ZONE.

I CAN PULL UP THE DAM BREACH AREA AGAIN.

THAT, YOU KNOW.

THE ZONING IS CENTRAL EMPLOYMENT ABOVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OR COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT.

I'M SORRY. THAT'S CORRECT.

IT'S IT'S OWNED BY PEPSICO.

IT'S UNDEVELOPED.

A PORTION OF IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT NOT THE MAJORITY OF IT.

OKAY, BUT IT'S ZONED FOR CENTRAL EMPLOYMENT.

YES. COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT.

YES. OKAY. AND WHAT ABOUT THE PROPERTIES TO KIND OF THE SOUTH EAST OF THIS PROPERTY? I SEE THERE SEEM TO BE SOME HOUSES OVER THERE.

ARE THEY KIND OF SINGLE FAMILY HOUSES OVER THERE? TO THE SOUTHEAST THE ZONING IS SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, AND ON FURTHER EAST IS ALSO PATIO HOME, I BELIEVE, AND THEY ARE DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES TO THE SOUTH.

DO YOU KNOW BEFORE THEY TURNED INTO FAMILY HOME, BEFORE THEY WERE DEVELOPED, WERE THERE ANY AREA IN THAT ALSO PART OF THIS CREEK OVERFLOW AREA? DO YOU KNOW, BEFORE DID THEY DO ANY ENGINEERING TO KIND OF BRING IT OUT OF THE.

AS MR. RUSSELL ERSKINE, DO YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON WHETHER THERE WAS DAM BREACH ANALYSIS ON THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL? THIS DAM BREACH ANALYSIS DIDN'T OCCUR UNTIL JUST RECENTLY.

SO THAT DEVELOPMENT OCCURRED BEFORE THE ANALYSIS OCCURRED ON THE DAM BREACH.

SO THIS IS SOME NEW INFORMATION THAT'S COME OUT IN THE LAST FIVE YEARS ON THIS DAM BREACH.

[00:20:01]

SO THAT DEVELOPMENT WAS BEFORE THEN.

OKAY. GOT YOU. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER CARY.

YEAH, JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

SO I JUST HAS NO PLAN BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE DEVELOPER FOR THIS? IS THAT ACCURATE? THERE WAS A INFORMATIONAL CONCEPT PLAN SUBMITTED, BUT NOT A FORMAL SUBMITTAL THAT FOLLOWS OUR STANDARDS FOR A PLAN.

HOWEVER, IT'S NOT REQUIRED WITH A STRAIGHT REZONING CASE AND THEY ELECTED NOT TO PROVIDE ONE.

OKAY. SO BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S REFERENCED AS A CUL DE SAC BUT WITHOUT A PLAN.

SO WHERE'S THE CUL DE SAC SINCE WE DON'T HAVE A PLAN? SO THE CUL DE SAC WAS SHOWN IN THE PRE-APPLICATION MEETING WHERE THE APPLICANT WOULD PROVIDE INFORMATIONAL DRAWINGS SO THAT WE CAN SEE WHAT THEY'RE PROVIDING.

AND IT WAS ALSO SHOWN IN THEIR INFORMATIONAL PLAN THAT WAS NOT REVIEWED.

OKAY. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS A SLIDE SHOWING THEIR INTENT, THEIR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IN THEIR SLIDE DECK.

AND I GUESS THERE WE ARE CONCERNED TO HAVE A CUL DE SAC THAT'S LONGER THAN 600FT.

AND I GUESS I'M CURIOUS WHY THAT MIGHT BE A PROBLEM.

I WOULD GUESS, BECAUSE MAYBE FIRE AND ABILITY TO TURN AROUND.

BUT IN A CUL DE SAC YOU COULD PROBABLY TURN AROUND.

SO I'M LOOKING FOR SOME EDUCATION ON THE 600 FOOT CUL DE SAC.

EXACTLY TYPICALLY THERE ARE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOODS FOR FIRE PROTECTION, AND A CUL DE SAC ONLY PROVIDES ONE.

SO THE 600 FOOT LENGTH IS ESTABLISHED BY THE ORDINANCE AS A LENGTH DEEMED SAFE BY THE FIRE DEPARTMENT, NOT TO SAY THEY COULD NOT REQUEST A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE THAT WOULD BE THEIR CHOICE TO DO SO, BUT THAT WILL COME LATER AT THE PLAT STAGE.

OKAY, GREAT. AND THEN THAT LEADS INTO MY NEXT QUESTION.

SO ONE OF THE SOME OF THE CONCERNS WITH THIS WERE THAT THERE WAS CONCERNS WITH LIFE, HEALTH AND SAFETY.

AND I THINK WE JUST TALKED ABOUT SAFETY.

BUT WHAT WERE THE LIFE AND HEALTH CONCERNS? WHAT MIGHT THOSE BE? BECAUSE WE CITED THOSE FROM STAFF AS CONCERNS.

CAN YOU TELL ME SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE LIFE AND HEALTH MIGHT BE, PLEASE? SURE. SO IN THE DAM BREACH AREA IF THERE WAS A SITUATION FOR A FLOOD, THEN RESIDENTIAL HOMES WOULD BE IN THE AREAS THAT A FLOOD WOULD OCCUR.

SO THAT'S WHERE OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER RATLIFF.

THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF ENGINEERING QUESTIONS.

I'M GOING TO DUST OFF MY ENGINEERING TRAINING HERE A LITTLE BIT.

JUST HAVE YOU ALL LOOKED AT THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE ACTUAL FEMA MAP WHERE THE FLOODPLAIN IS DESIGNATED VERSUS THAT DAM BREACH? AND THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS LOOKING AT THEIR TOPO MAP.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE FLOODPLAIN GOES UP THE HILL AND BACK DOWN, WHICH I'VE NEVER SEEN WATER DO.

BUT THE INUNDATION STUDY LOOKS LIKE IT'S FAIRLY ACCURATE, FOLLOWING THE CONTOURS.

AND SO I CAN ONLY CONCLUDE THAT THE FLOOD STUDY IS NOT ACCURATE IN THAT ZONE, AND THAT THE INUNDATION WOULD BE SIMILAR TO WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS, EVEN IN A REGULAR FLOOD.

IS THAT A FAIR? THAT'S SOMEWHAT FAIR. I WILL SAY THAT THE EXISTING FEMA FLOODPLAIN IN THIS AREA IS OUTDATED.

IT'S NOT BEEN STUDIED IN QUITE A WHILE, AND THAT THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS IS FAIRLY NEW, SO THAT DAM BREACH ANALYSIS IS MORE ACCURATE, I'D SAY, THAN WHAT THE FEMA CURRENT MAPPING IS IN THIS AREA.

NOW, ONE THING YOU HAVE TO BE ADVISED ON IS THAT FEMA LOOKS AT HUNDRED YEAR AND 500 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

THIS DAM BREACH IS WELL ABOVE THAT ON AN INUNDATION LEVEL.

THERE IS THAT ONE LITTLE FINGER THAT DOES GO UP TOWARDS THAT SMALL POND.

BUT MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE CLARIFIED, PROBABLY WITH A NEW STUDY, WHEN IF THIS WAS TO MOVE FORWARD.

SO WOULD YOU ALL NORMALLY REQUIRE THAT TO BE LOOKED AT IN DETAIL AS THEY MOVE FORWARD TO SEE WHERE THE ACTUAL FLOODPLAIN IS ON THIS TRACT? CORRECT. WE WOULD ASK FOR A NEW FLOOD STUDY TO SEE IF THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD WORK PER OUR CRITERIA.

OKAY. AND SO WHAT? WHAT IS THE CURRENT CRITERIA? I'M JUST GOING TO SAY FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, IN OUR PACKET THERE, THE INUNDATION STUDY, THERE'S A YELLOW LINE IN THERE, IF JUST FOR ARGUMENT'S SAKE, THAT IS THE ACTUAL FLOODPLAIN. WHAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FOR BUILDING IN A FLOODPLAIN RIGHT NOW? THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE SURE THEY ADHERE TO OUR CRITERIA, WHICH IS ONE THAT THE WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS DON'T CAUSE ANY NEGATIVE IMPACT EITHER UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM ON ANYBODY. TWO YOU LOOK AT VELOCITIES TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE NOT CREATING OR INCREASING AN EROSIVE VELOCITY IN THERE.

AND THEN THIRDLY IS KIND OF THE BIG ONE, WHICH IS THE VALUE STORAGE, WHICH BASICALLY IF YOU PUT A SPOONFUL OF DIRT INTO THE FLOODPLAIN, YOU TYPICALLY GET TO TAKE ONE OUT TO COMPENSATE FOR THAT. SO THAT WAY YOU'RE NOT CAUSING ANY ADDITIONAL IMPACTS EITHER UPSTREAM OR DOWNSTREAM.

SO THEY HAD TO MAKE SURE THEY COULD ADHERE TO THAT CRITERIA BEFORE THEY COULD GET APPROVAL FROM THE ENGINEERING.

[00:25:01]

AND WHAT'S THE CURRENT RULE ABOUT FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION IN A FLOODPLAIN.

ON THE FINISHED FLOOR WOULD HAVE TO BE TWO FOOT ABOVE THE 100 YEAR FLOOD DEVELOPED CONDITIONS, WHICH IS IN THIS CASE COULD BE 100 YEAR, OR THE FEMA 100 YEAR, OR SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN 100 YEAR FEMA. OKAY, JUST A LOT OF TOPOGRAPHY ON THIS SITE SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTOOD.

SO OKAY. THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

SO AS PART OF THE COMP PLANS, RGM 5 WE HAVE TWO REASONS IN HERE WHY THEY'RE REQUIRING FINDINGS FORM.

THE FIRST ONE IS IT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH THE MIX OF USE AS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DASHBOARDS.

CAN YOU GO INTO A LITTLE MORE DETAIL FOR ME THERE? I'M HAPPY TO DO THAT. THE OPEN SPACE NETWORK CATEGORY RECOMMENDS NO RESIDENTIAL THAT'S BECAUSE IT'S INTENDED PURELY FOR INSTITUTIONAL PARK AND REC CENTER TYPE USES.

SO BECAUSE THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL AND THIS WOULD INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL, IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE MIX OF USES.

OKAY. AND THAT WOULD I GUESS, BE THE REASON FOR THE MAXIMUM DENSITY AS WELL.

CORRECT. OKAY.

THE GOING BACK TO THE DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE DID I UNDERSTAND YOU RIGHT IN SAYING THERE IS NO REAL MECHANISM TO ENSURE THAT SOMEBODY BUYING THE SECOND OR THIRD PERSON BUYING THIS PROPERTY MIGHT HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE OF THIS BEING IN A FLOODPLAIN. SO THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO PROVIDE DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE IN THE HOA DOCUMENTS OR IN A I'M LOSING THE WORD.

DEED RESTRICTION. RIGHT A DEED RESTRICTION.

SORRY. BUT WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT AT THE TIME OF ZONING.

IT WOULD ONLY BE REVIEWED AT THE TIME OF PRELIMINARY PLAT, AND THEN AFTER THAT HAPPENS, WE WOULDN'T SEE IT AGAIN.

AFTER THAT, THE CITY WOULDN'T.

JUST WANT TO CLARIFY, THERE IS ONE NARROW PATH.

IF THE COMMISSION WANTED TO CREATE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS AND WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A CONCEPT PLAN, THEN YOU COULD STIPULATE THAT THAT BE PROVIDED AT TIME OF PLAT. OKAY.

AND I ALSO UNDERSTOOD YOU TO SAY THAT BY PUTTING THIS IN, ESPECIALLY THE WAY THAT IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S LAID OUT, WE WOULD BASICALLY END UP WITH ORPHANED HOMES KIND OF BY THEMSELVES AND NOT REALLY PART OF A COMMUNITY.

IS THAT CORRECT? THEY WOULDN'T BE CONNECTED TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

IT WOULD BE KIND OF BROKEN OFF BY THE FLOODPLAIN TO THE BOTTOM AND NONRESIDENTIAL TO THE NORTH.

AND THE STAFF BELIEVES THAT IT FUNCTIONALLY NOT APPROPRIATE AND DOESN'T TRULY SHOW A SUBSTANTIAL BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY.

RIGHT. IT DOES NOT MEET THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY.

YEAH. AND WHEN WE PUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TOGETHER, IT WAS A LONG JOURNEY OF MAKING A LOT OF VERY STRONG DECISIONS AND HELPING PEOPLE COME TOGETHER.

AND I BELIEVE VERY STRONGLY THAT WHEN WE LOOK AT SOMETHING COMING BEFORE US, IT REALLY DOES HAVE TO BE SOMETHING USING EXACTLY THE LANGUAGE YOU SAID SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO GO AGAINST WHAT WE PUT IN PLACE.

SO AT THIS TIME, I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE WAY THIS IS PUT TOGETHER, ESPECIALLY NOT GETTING ALL THE INFORMATION.

DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

AND WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT.

YES. YEAH. SO YOU'LL LIKE SOME OF MY QUESTION IS TO THE STAFF IS, YOU KNOW LIKE.

GET CLOSER TO THE MIC PLEASE.

HOW MANY YOU KNOW LIKE ACCESS TO THE SITE.

AND IT'S LIKE CURRENT YOU KNOW, LIKE LAYOUT DO YOU ALLOW.

SO I THINK DUE TO DRIVEWAY SPACING THEY WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED TO PROBABLY GET ONE DRIVEWAY OFF OF SPRING CREEK.

THERE MAY BE ROOM FOR TWO.

WE CAN'T VERIFY THAT BASED ON THAT WITHOUT PLANS.

YEAH, IT'LL LIKELY BE ONE DRIVEWAY WITH A MEDIAN OPENING OFF OF SPRING CREEK.

THAT'S SERVED BY A CUL DE SAC OR THE HOMES ARE.

CORRECT. AND MY OTHER QUESTION IS ALSO, YOU LIKE I WANTED TO SEE IF THE DAM BREACH LIKE ANY OTHER RESIDENTIAL AREAS WITHIN THIS, YOU KNOW, LIKE OTHER THAN THIS AREA WITHIN THE DAM BREACH ANY LIKE AN EXISTING.

SO IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE MAP HERE THAT IT KIND OF REACHES SOME OF THE PATIO HOMES TO THE WEST.

BUT THIS MAP IS KIND OF ZOOMED IN, SO IT'S HARD TO SAY FOR SURE.

OKAY. BUT SO WE DON'T KNOW AT THIS TIME, WE DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER, YOU KNOW, LIKE DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE SITE THAT ARE? THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS SHOWED THAT THERE WAS 21 SITES DOWNSTREAM THAT WOULD BE INUNDATED DUE TO THE DAM BREACH.

[00:30:02]

THERE'S 19 THAT ARE IN PLANO AND THEN THE OTHERS ARE IN THE COLONY.

OTHER THAN THE SITE.

RIGHT? CORRECT. RIGHT.

THANK YOU. AND MR. ERSKINE, COULD YOU CLARIFY, BECAUSE WE HAVE THREE DIFFERENT LINES WE'RE WORKING WITH HERE.

WE HAVE THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, WHICH IS NOT WHAT YOU SEE ON THE MAP HERE.

THAT'S NOT THE FLOODPLAIN.

WE HAVE THE SUNNY DAY BREACH AND THE I FORGET THE OTHER.

[INAUDIBLE] DAY BREACH, ESSENTIALLY.

COULD YOU CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THOSE TWO? THE SUNNY DAY BREACH IS AS IF THE LAKE IS FULL TODAY.

AND IF IT WAS TO FAIL TODAY, AS THE SUN SHINING, WHATEVER, IT'S JUST THAT THERE WAS A FAILURE OF SOME SORT WITH THAT STRUCTURE.

THE RED LINE IS THE DESIGN FLOOD, WHICH MEANS IT'S THE LAKE IS FULL, YOU'RE HAVING A HEAVY RAIN COMING DOWN, AND THEN THAT DAM IS EITHER OVERTOPPED OR BREACHED IN SOME FORM OR FASHION. AND SO THAT'D BE THE GREATEST FLOOD THAT WOULD HAPPEN DUE TO AN EVENT.

SO THAT'S WHAT THE RED LINE REPRESENTS.

THAT'S NOT THE FEMA.

NO, MA'AM, BECAUSE I CHECKED.

YEAH I CHECKED THOSE. YEAH.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

WE'RE LOOKING LIKE FOLLOW UP.

BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER OLLEY WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION.

SO LET'S LET COMMISSIONER OLLEY HAVE HIS TURN, AND THEN WE'LL CIRCLE BACK.

WELL, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HAVE ALREADY BEEN ASKED, BUT JUST TO CLARIFY, THE C DESIGNATION ZONE AND TO THE NORTH OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT IS OWNED BY ONE ENTITY, IS THAT ALL FRITO-LAY PEPSICO? YES IT IS.

OKAY. SO ANY DAM BREAK FLOOD IMPACT, WHICH WOULD THEORETICALLY HIT THAT ZONE IN IT'S ESSENTIALLY THE LIABILITY OF ONE ENTITY.

CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAVE FOR THE OFTEN COMMUNITY COMMENT THAT COMMISSIONER BRONSKY MENTIONED.

SO I UNDERSTAND THE CONNECTION TO THE PATIO HOMES TO THE EAST SPRING CREEK KIND OF CUTS THAT OFF SO THAT THAT BECOMES AN ISSUE.

BUT TO THE HOMES ON THE WEST, THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ON THE WEST, IS THAT BECAUSE ANY CONNECTION WOULD HAVE TO CUT THROUGH THAT FLOOD PLAIN ZONE AE TOWARDS THE WEST? IS THAT WHERE WE ARE? YES.

THAT'S CORRECT. ALSO, TYPICALLY A SIX LANE DIVIDED ARTERIAL ROADWAY WOULD SEPARATE THE TWO.

AND THAT'S TYPICALLY NOT SOMETHING WE WOULD CLASSIFY AS HAVING HIGH CONNECTIVITY.

GOT IT. FROM AN EDUCATION PERSPECTIVE, FEMA REGULATIONS TEND TO DO THEY PROHIBIT OR DO THEY JUST DISCOURAGE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON A FLOODPLAIN? I BELIEVE FEDERAL AND CITY LIMITS REGULATIONS PROHIBIT BUILDING IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

IS THAT CORRECT, MR. ERSKINE? YEAH. FEMA ONLY REGULATES THE 100 YEAR AND 500 YEAR, AND THAT'S WHAT THE CITY DOES.

THEY DO NOT REGULATE AGAINST A DAM BREACH ANALYSIS OR A DAM BREACH INUNDATION.

SO FEMA JUST BASICALLY DOESN'T SAY, OKAY, WE NEED TO MAP THAT.

GOT YOU.

SO ESSENTIALLY, ONCE IT'S DESIGNATED 100 YEAR FEMA REGULATIONS EXPLICITLY PROHIBIT RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND CONSUMING YOUR WHETHER IT.

GO AHEAD. I WAS SAYING FEMA BASICALLY DISCOURAGES IT.

YOU CAN, BUT YOU HAVE TO MEET OUR CITY CRITERIA FIRST AND FOREMOST, WHICH OUR STANDARDS ARE MORE STRINGENT THAN FEMA FOR DEVELOPMENT.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAINS IN PLANO? AND DO WE HAVE ANY RESIDENTIAL BUILT ON ANY OF THOSE? WELL, THERE'S NO, WE DO NOT HAVE RESIDENTIAL AREAS THAT ARE PROPOSED.

WE DO HAVE SOME AREAS THAT ARE IN 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN FOR FEMA, BUT THAT HAS BEEN DUE TO SOME MAPPING CHANGES THAT HAVE OCCURRED OVER TIME OR THEY WERE DUE TO BEING DEVELOPED UNDER DIFFERENT CRITERIA BECAUSE SOME OF THOSE AREAS WERE DEVELOPED, MAYBE BACK IN THE 60S AND 70S WHERE WE DIDN'T HAVE A FEMA.

AND NOW SOME OF THOSE AREAS MAY BE IN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

AND BECAUSE FEMA DID NOT COME ABOUT OR WE DIDN'T BECOME A PART OF THE NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM UNTIL 1980.

GOTCHA, GOTCHA.

SO THEY WERE GRANDFATHERED IN TO SOME EXTENT.

YES, SIR. OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG.

A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS.

ONE IS THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO LOOK AT THIS LAND AS IF THERE'S NO DAM BREACH ISSUES OR CONCERNS WITH THE FRONTAGE LONG ENOUGH TO PUT IN INGRESS AND EGRESS I GUESS LANES THERE OR IT'S NOT LONG

[00:35:09]

ENOUGH. IS THERE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF HOW FAR APART THEY HAVE TO BE? YEAH, I BELIEVE IT'D BE DIFFICULT TO PROVIDE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS WITHOUT SOME FORM OF VARIANCE.

IT MIGHT BE POSSIBLE BUT I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE UNLIKELY.

OKAY, SO THAT IS A VERY DIFFICULT SITE TO DEVELOP.

AND ANOTHER THING IS THAT I JUST WANT TO KIND OF COMMENT ON THE QUESTIONS THAT COMMISSIONER OLLEY MENTIONED THAT WE HAVE.

I PERSONALLY HAVE DEALT WITH PROPERTIES IN PLANO THAT WERE MAPPED ON THE FEMA MAP WITHIN THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, BUT THE BUILDER HAD DEVELOPED THAT THEY WOULD DEVELOP IT IN THE 90S, AND THEY ACTUALLY BROUGHT IT UP OUT OF THE PLAIN, OUT OF THE PLAIN MAP.

HOWEVER, FEMA HAS NOT UPDATED THE PLAN YET.

THEY ARE WAY, WAY, WAY BEHIND UPDATING.

SO WE DO HAVE PROPERTIES IN PLANO HAS BEEN DEVELOPED UNDER THE 100 YEAR FLOOD MAP.

HOWEVER THEY'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO BE IN THERE ANYMORE.

IT'S JUST IT TAKES A LOT OF WORK TO BRING IT OUT OF THE MAP.

OKAY, COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE]. SO MY QUESTION IS, DOES IT LIKE, DOES THE REGULATION DIFFERENCE FOR RESIDENTIAL VERSUS COMMERCIAL, BUT YOU LIKE, WHICH IS THE [INAUDIBLE] ZONING.

REGULATIONS FOR THE FLOODPLAIN? YES. THE REGULATIONS FOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ARE THE SAME FOR RESIDENTIAL AND VICE VERSA, SO THAT NO MATTER WHAT, THEY'LL HAVE TO BOTH ADHERE TO OUR CRITERIA FOR FLOODPLAIN.

YEAH, THEY HAVE TO BRING IT OUT OF THE.

YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU.

MR. RATLIFF, ONE MORE ENGINEERING FOLLOW UP QUESTION.

I KNOW YOU DID YOUR ANALYSIS BASED ON HIGH HAZARD DAM CRITERIA.

IS THIS DAM LISTED AS HIGH HAZARD? THIS DAM IS LISTED AS HIGH HAZARD BECAUSE OF THE THREAT TO DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES DOWN THERE.

OKAY. DOES IT HAVE ANY.

WELL, NOW THAT'S. I SHOULDN'T ASK THAT QUESTION.

NEVER MIND. THANK YOU.

ANOTHER QUESTION.

WE HAVE TOO MANY ENGINEERS ON THIS PANEL.

[LAUGHTER] IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU LIKE IN THE PROPERTIES NORTH OF THE SITE LIKE IS THERE A WAY THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE WE ASK THE ONCE THEY WANTED YOU, LIKE, DEVELOP THIS LAND? CAN THEY, CAN WE ASK THEM FOR, YOU KNOW, LIKE SOME SORT OF MITIGATION, LIKE RETENTION PONDS OR SOMETHING THAT TAKES, ABSORBS THIS OR WILL THIS BE OUT OF THE QUESTION? SO YOU'RE ASKING THAT THE UPSTREAM PROPERTY OWNER COULD DO SOME KIND OF MITIGATION TO OFFSET SOME OF THE FLOODING DOWNSTREAM? EXACTLY. POTENTIALLY, POTENTIALLY.

I MEAN, IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ASK FOR, BUT SOMETIMES IT'S KIND OF HARD TO DO THAT IF THEY'RE FOLLOWING OUR STANDARDS.

THEY COULD COME BACK AND SAY, HEY, WE'RE MEETING YOUR STANDARDS.

WE'RE MEETING WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS, WE'RE MEETING VELOCITY, WE'RE MEETING THE VALUE OF STORAGE.

SO WHY SHOULD WE GO IN TO HELP BENEFIT THOSE RESIDENTS DOWNSTREAM OF THIS SITE? I MEAN, SOMETHING WE COULD ASK FOR, BUT WE JUST CAN'T GUARANTEE IT.

[INAUDIBLE] THANK YOU.

CAN I GET A FOLLOW UP JUST REAL QUICK.

HOW BIG IS THIS POND THAT WE HAVE THE CONCERN ABOUT, OR THIS LAKE OR WHATEVER WE'RE CALLING? HOW BIG IS THIS THING? I AM NOT SURE.

I DON'T HAVE AN IDEA. I JUST KNOW THAT BY THE STATE OF TEXAS ON DAM SAFETY, IT'S MORE THAN LIKELY HIGHER THAN SIX FOOT AND THEN THE VOLUME IS OVER PROBABLY 40 ACRE FOOT.

SO THAT'S WHY IT'S CLASSIFIED AS HIGH HAZARD.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER OLLEY HAS ANOTHER QUESTION.

YEAH. TWO FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.

JUST AGAIN, FROM TIMING THE PEPSICO GLOBAL CAMPUS AND THE POND AND THE DAM AND WHAT HAVE YOU PREDATES ANY OF THE OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS ADJOINING THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY? YES. WHO CAME FIRST? PEPSICO OR THE RESIDENTS? PEPSICO CAME FIRST.

OKAY. SO THE RESIDENTS, WHEN THEY BUILT THE PATIO HOMES AND ANY OTHER THING WITHIN THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS WOULD HAVE HAD TO BUILD SOME KIND OF.

DO THEY HAVE COVENANT RESTRICTIONS IN THEIR DEEDS THAT SIGNAL THAT THIS THIS POSSIBILITY IS THERE? I BELIEVE THE STUDY FOR THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS WAS NOT CONDUCTED UNTIL AFTER THOSE HOMES WERE DEVELOPED.

SO THE SAME INFORMATION WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE TIME.

OKAY. SO THOSE HOMES ARE ESSENTIALLY BUILT WITH A, YOU KNOW, GOOD LUCK A LITTLE BIT.

SECOND QUESTION FOR MY LITTLE KNOWLEDGE OF REAL ESTATE LAW, COVENANT RESTRICTIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY

[00:40:10]

MOSTLY AROUND WHAT YOU CAN BUILD.

LIKE, YOU KNOW, THE FACADE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, HOW WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE.

AND THIS MIGHT BE LEGAL MORE THAN ANYTHING, WHAT KIND OF LANGUAGE COULD GO INTO A RESTRICTION THAT WOULD QUITE FRANKLY, HAVE ANY TEETH TO MITIGATE WHAT IS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY IF THAT INDIVIDUALS ARE SIGNING UP TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR IF THEY BUILD AND OR BUY A LOT IN THIS PLOT OF LAND.

I BELIEVE WHAT STAFF HAS REQUESTED IS DISCLOSURE TO FUTURE HOMEBUYERS ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE DAM.

AND THEN THROUGH AWARENESS AND THEIR OWN EDUCATION, THEY CAN PURCHASE THE NECESSARY INSURANCE TO MITIGATE ANY RISKS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

I'M AFRAID TO LOOK AROUND.

DO WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS? BUT WE'RE NOT DONE.

OF COURSE, WE STILL HAVE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE MORE QUESTIONS.

I DO THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND, TOO, THAT I MEAN, WITH ALMOST NINE YEARS NOW ON P&Z AND FOUR YEARS ON COUNCIL, I'VE NEVER HAD TO MAKE A DECISION TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THERE MIGHT BE A DAM THAT BREAKS AND FLOODS A BUNCH OF PEOPLE.

SO INTERESTING CASE OKAY.

IF WE'RE DONE, I AM NOW GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION FOR US.

GOOD EVENING.

BRYAN ROBERTSON WITH ROBERTSON COMPANIES, 5700 GRANITE PARK WAY, SUITE 380, IN PLANO, TEXAS.

DO I HAVE A CLICKER? QUITE. ALL RIGHT, SO FORWARD TO THE RIGHT.

OKAY. HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THIS VERY BRIEFLY, JUST SO IT'S NOT SO REDUNDANT. BUT WE'RE PROPOSING TO UNITE 6.62 ACRES OF SF 6 ZONING EXISTING ZONING O 1 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE WITH 19,000 SQUARE FOOT OF OFFICE, 36 FOOT HEIGHT MAX SUP FOR A VETERINARIAN OFFICE AND KENNEL 15,900FT.

TOTAL OFFICE SPACE ABOUT 35,000 SQUARE FOOT.

AS YOU ALL KNOW, THIS WAS APPROVED IN 2007.

TOTAL TRIPS PER DAY, PER THE CITY'S REQUIRED CALCULATIONS THAT WE HAD TO SUBMIT.

IT'S ABOUT 628 TRIPS OF VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY.

WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE, AND I'LL HAVE A LITTLE BIT LARGER CONCEPTUAL PLAN.

I'LL GO AHEAD AND NOTE THAT STAFF DID LET ME KNOW THAT THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED OR APPROVED BY THE CITY, BUT I'LL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE OF THE INITIAL APPLICATION MEETING WHERE WE DISCUSSED THE 600 FOOT LENGTH IS NOW LESS THAN 600 WITH THE CUL DE SAC, SO I'LL BE ABLE TO EXPLAIN ALL THAT.

SF 6 ZONING IS TWO STORY, 35 FOOT MAX HEIGHT.

WE'RE PROPOSING 13 SINGLE FAMILY SF 6 HOMES.

AVERAGE SIZE OF OUR HOUSE WE'RE PROPOSING IS ABOUT 4200 SQUARE FOOT.

AND I'LL ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT MORE ON WHY WE'RE DICTATING WHAT THAT SIZE OF THE HOUSE WILL BE.

TOTAL OPEN SPACE, ABOUT 3.87.

OBVIOUSLY, YOU ALL KNOW THAT THE MAJORITY OF THIS IS THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN.

SO WE DO HAVE ON THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN A BREAKDOWN OF USABLE RECREATIONAL AND THEN THE FLOODPLAIN AREA.

TOTAL VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY PORTION IS ABOUT 187.

SO IN COMPARISON, JUST A BRIEF OVERVIEW THE CURRENT LAYOUT THAT'S APPROVED THAT ANYONE CAN COME IN AND BUILD TODAY GENERATES 441 MORE VEHICLE TRIPS PER DAY, INCREASES TRAFFIC ALONG SPRING CREEK PARKWAY.

THE OFFICE OBVIOUSLY THE APPROVED ZONING WAS APPROVED 17 YEARS AGO.

AND WE RESPECT THE CITY'S NATIONAL RECOGNIZED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ALL THAT YOU'VE DONE AND HARD WORK YOU'VE DONE. WE DO RECOGNIZE THAT.

I WOULD SAY IN MY OPINION THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLANS ARE A GUIDE.

AND SO WHEN YOU HAVE DIFFERENT SITUATIONS OR SIZE OF PROPERTIES OR SOMETHING A LITTLE PECULIAR LIKE THIS AND GET SUPPORT OF

[00:45:07]

SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS THAT, THAT FULLY SUPPORT NEIGHBORHOOD VERSUS OFFICE I BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE A CHANGE.

SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE PROPOSING THE SINGLE FAMILY.

SINGLE FAMILY SF 6. SF 6 HOMES THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD HERE ARE GOING TO RANGE FROM 2.2 TO $2.5 MILLION.

IT FITS THE EXISTING ZONING OF NORMANDY ESTATES, KINGS RIDGE, SHOAL CREEK, TO SAY THE LEAST.

WITH THE YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY THE REAL ESTATE BOOM IN A SINGLE FAMILY AND THE DEMAND FOR EXECUTIVE OR CORPORATE HOUSING AROUND THE LEGACY WEST DISTRICT WE THINK THIS IS A PERFECT FIT FOR THAT.

WE ACTUALLY WERE CONSIDERING THIS BACK IN 2017.

WE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH THE LAND SELLER, WENT BACK, GOT IT UNDER CONTRACT, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY.

WE WERE GOING TO DO A LEGACY WEST PRODUCT, BUT WE CAME TO OUR SENSES AND SAID, LET'S DO FEWER HOMES, HIGHER DOLLAR HOMES, BECAUSE THE DEMAND IS THERE AND WE KNEW THE RECEPTION AROUND FROM EXISTING PROPERTY OWNERS, NOT ONLY TO THE SOUTH BUT TO THE WEST WOULD APPRECIATE THAT.

I MET WITH 8 TO 10 DIFFERENT HOMEOWNERS.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE 3 OR 4 OF THEM HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T WANT TO OVERLOAD YOU WITH SUPPORT.

WE ALSO MET WITH SOME HOMEOWNERS TO THE WEST.

I KNOW SOMEONE HAD BROUGHT THAT UP, BUT IN GENERAL, I DON'T WANT TO KEEP IT LONG BECAUSE I KNOW I'M GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO ANSWER.

BUT I AM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WE'VE GOT SOME SPECIFIC ANSWERS FOR ANY OF THE ENGINEERING STUFF.

WE ALSO HAVE BRIAN MOODY WITH KIMLEY-HORN, WHO IS OUR ENGINEER OF RECORD TO ANSWER ANY OF THOSE.

SO AGAIN, I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME AND CONSIDERATION.

AND WE'RE HOPEFUL THAT YOU GUYS WILL ACT AND CONSIDER OUR REQUEST.

THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE OTHER SPEAKER ON THIS ITEM.

CORRECT? YES, SIR.

WE HAVE A CHARLIE VOGT.

GOOD EVENING. SIR, IF YOU COULD GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

SURE. MY NAME IS CHARLIE VOGT, AND I'M A RESIDENT IN NORMANDY ESTATES, 6817 POURCHOT.

AND I'M REPRESENTING EVERYONE WHO IS CURRENTLY ON THAT STREET, AS WE HAVE A STRONG INTEREST IN WHAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE DEVELOPED.

WE REQUESTED ALL OF THE HOMEOWNERS ON THAT STREET, INCLUDING MY WIFE AND I REQUESTED A MEETING WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPER ON WHAT SPECIFICALLY WOULD BE DEVELOPED.

AND I'M HERE TO SHARE WITH YOU THAT AFTER WE HAVE THOROUGHLY REVIEWED WHAT WAS BEING PROPOSED, THAT THE HOMEOWNERS ON THE STREET COLLECTIVELY SUPPORT THE PROPOSED NEW DEVELOPMENT FOR NEW HOMES.

THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE NO MORE SPEAKERS, CORRECT? YES, SIR. WE HAVE MARK HESSE AND THEN LISA PRICE.

OKAY. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS MARK HESSE, AND JUST FOR BACKGROUND PURPOSES, I AM A REAL ESTATE ATTORNEY, AND I REPRESENT THE DEVELOPER THAT DEVELOPED NORMANDY ESTATES, WHICH IS DUE EAST OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AND I GUESS FOR BACKGROUND PURPOSES ALSO, I'VE LIVED IN PLANO FOR THE LAST 40 YEARS AND I'VE REALLY ENJOYED WATCHING THE CITY EVOLVE INTO WHAT IT IS TODAY, AND IT'S KIND OF BEEN FUN.

I'VE SORT OF JUST SLOWLY BUT SURELY MOVED FROM THE EAST SIDE OF PLANO ALL THE WAY OVER TO THE WEST SIDE NOW, AND I ALSO LIVE IN NORMANDY ESTATES, WHICH IS JUST RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND THE ONLY THING I WOULD SAY IS I'M IN FULL SUPPORT OF WHAT'S GOING ON HERE, BECAUSE IF YOU GO BACK AND YOU LOOK AT WHEN THEY WERE TRYING TO PUT A VETERINARY CLINIC THERE IN 2007, THERE WEREN'T VERY MANY RESIDENTIAL HOUSES IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS.

IT WAS KIND OF VACANT LAND.

IT WAS KIND OF OUT IN THE MIDDLE OF WEST PLANO AND THERE WASN'T MUCH THERE.

NOW IT'S COMPLETELY SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND QUITE FRANKLY, RESIDENTIAL USE IS REALLY WHAT WOULD BEST SERVE THAT AREA AT THIS TIME.

AND MORE IMPORTANTLY I JUST THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT A PARK THERE.

I KNOW THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INDICATED THAT THE CITY WAS GOING TO BE USING THAT AREA FOR A PARK, BUT THAT AREA IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT THAN YOUR NORMAL PARK AREAS.

THE TERRAIN IS DIFFERENT.

IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN, I THINK IT WOULD BE.

AND PLUS THE CITY DOESN'T OWN THE LAND ANYWAY RIGHT NOW.

SO THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING I WOULD FIND THE CITY WOULD BE A DIFFICULT TASK TO MAKE IT A PARK.

BUT ANYWAY, I'M HERE JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT I THINK THAT IS THE BEST USE FOR IT, AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF MAKING IT THAT RESIDENTIAL USE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SIR.

LISA PRICE. HI THERE.

MY HUSBAND AND I, TERRY, LIVE AT 6821 POURCHOT PLACE.

[00:50:02]

AND WE'VE SEEN THE SITE PLAN THAT ROBERTSON COMPANIES HAS PROPOSED AND WE'RE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND US.

OUR HOMES ARE JUST TO THE EAST OF THAT RED LINE, AND JUST KEEPING THE INTEGRITY OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THE WAY IT IS OURS AND BRINGING IN SOMETHING THAT'S COMPARABLE TO OUR HOMES, FIRST OF ALL, POURCHOT PLACE.

THOSE HOMES AREN'T PATIO HOMES.

THAT'S A CUL DE SAC IN ITSELF.

AND SO WE WANT SOMETHING THAT IS EQUALLY AS NICE TO BE REPRESENTED IN THAT AREA.

THANK YOU, THANK YOU, THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING AND SPEAKING TONIGHT.

IS THAT IT? THAT'S IT.

OKAY, GREAT.

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, WE CAN BRING HIM BACK UP.

IF THAT'S ALL OF OUR SPEAKERS.

NOW, DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I SEE A COUPLE. SO BRYAN, IF YOU WANT TO COME BACK UP.

IT'S BRYAN, RIGHT? YES, SIR.

OKAY. MR. BRONSKY. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE BEGINNING OF YOUR SLIDES? SURE. FOR A SECOND.

OKAY, SO YOU'RE SAYING ORIGINALLY IT WAS 628 TRIPS PER DAY, AND THEN IT'S GOING DOWN TO 187 TRIPS.

OKAY. YEAH, THERE'S. YEAH.

AND THE DELTA DIFFERENCE, I BELIEVE IS 441.

OKAY. AND SO DESCRIBE TO ME SAY IN 30 YEARS, MY GRANDCHILDREN COME OVER TO BUY THIS, BUY ONE OF YOUR HOUSES.

RIGHT. HOW ARE THEY GOING TO BE 100% SURE OF WHAT THEY'RE BUYING AS IT RELATES TO IT BEING IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE DANGER THAT THAT COULD POSE. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE FLOOD PLAIN OR THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS? I'M SORRY. THE DAM BREACH AREA.

YES. SO I AM A CIVIL ENGINEER BY TRADE, BUT I PRACTICE REAL ESTATE NOW, SO I DON'T KNOW IF I CAN SPEAK 100% ON DAM BREACH AND LIKELIHOOD OF A DAM BREAKING.

I MEAN, I'M LOOKING FOR MORE AT THE WARNINGS AND FOR THEM TO BE YEAH. SO SO I DON'T OWN THE DAM AND I'VE HAD VERY IN-DEPTH CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF AND STAFF'S DONE A REALLY, REALLY GOOD JOB IN PROTECTING THE INTEREST OF THE CITY, HOWEVER, IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN IF THE LAKE LEWISVILLE DAM BREAKS AND FLOODS THE CITY OF DALLAS.

SO WHY IS IT MY.

WHY DO I HAVE TO TAKE ON THE RISK AND PUT EVERYTHING IN WRITING WHEN IT'S SOMEONE ELSE'S PROPERTY I HAVE ZERO CONTROL OVER SO MY POINT IS I WILL WORK WITH STAFF IN TRYING TO PUT A DISCLOSURE SO PEOPLE ARE AWARE THAT THERE IS A DAM UPSTREAM FROM HERE.

BUT FOR ME TO SAY, OH, YOU'RE GOOD, I'M GOING TO DEVELOP THIS.

AND THEN SOMETHING HAPPENS AND ALL THAT RISK IS ON ME.

WHAT I'VE LEARNED IS THAT WHEN THIS ALL CAME UP AND MR. ERSKINE'S BEEN VERY, VERY HELPFUL IN DISCUSSING ALL THE DETAILS ON THIS, THEY WERE OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE TCEQ.

SO KIMLEY-HORN, WHO IS OUR ENGINEER RECORD, DID THE REPORT FOR PEPSICO AND PEPSICO PAID THEM TO DO THE REPORT.

THEY GOT IT IN COMPLIANCE AND IT NOW HAS TO BE INSPECTED AND MONITORED BY THE TCEQ.

IT'S REGISTERED WITH THE TCEQ, WHICH YOU ALL I'M SURE IS TEXAS CONSERVATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY.

AND NOT ONLY DO THEY HAVE TO DO THE INSPECTIONS EVERY FIVE YEARS, BUT THE OWNER HAS TO INSPECT ON AN ANNUAL BASIS, IS MY UNDERSTANDING.

BUT THAT'S ABOUT AS MUCH AS I CAN TELL YOU ABOUT A DAM BREACH.

[LAUGHTER] OKAY. NO, MINE WAS LOOKING FOR MORE OF THE DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE.

AND YEAH, THE DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE THAT I BRIEFLY DISCUSSED WITH STAFF WAS THAT WE WILL RECOGNIZE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY, BECAUSE IT IS THE DEED RESTRICTION. GENTLEMEN COMMISSIONER OLLEY, I KNOW HAD MENTIONED ABOUT THIS AND WE WOULD JUST PUT IT IN THERE FOR INFORMATIONAL PURPOSES ONLY SO IT THEN CAN PASS DOWN FROM HOMEOWNER TO HOMEOWNER.

OKAY. THANK YOU. RATHER THAN TITLE COMMITMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE GOING TO T HROW UP A RED FLAG WITH UNDERWRITING.

YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS.

YEAH, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS WORRIED ABOUT.

THANK YOU. RIGHT. MR. RATLIFF. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ABOUT THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS PER SE, BECAUSE I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU.

THAT'S NOT YOUR RESPONSIBILITY.

HOWEVER, SURE, THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS DOES PROVIDE SOME INFORMATION ABOUT YOUR PROPERTY THAT IS NOT, IN MY OPINION, ACCURATELY REFLECTED IN THE FLOODPLAIN MAPS.

OKAY. IT LOOKS TO ME BASED ON THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS, LIKE TWO THIRDS OF THIS TRACT IS IN THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAYBE MORE.

[00:55:01]

CERTAINLY THE ENTIRE RIGHT SIDE OF YOUR CUL DE SAC IS IN THE FLOODPLAIN, POSSIBLY IN THE FLOODWAY, AND PROBABLY AT LEAST 1 OR 2 OF THE HOUSES ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE STREET.

AND SO MY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO DEVELOP THAT PLAN WITH MORE THAN SIX SLOTS, PROBABLY.

AND I APPRECIATE YOUR CONCERN.

SO THIS IS NOT AN ACTUAL DEPICTION OF TODAY'S FEMA.

BUT I DO KNOW ENOUGH ABOUT DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU HAVE TO DEVELOP TO A FULLY DEVELOPED 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, WHICH IS LARGER THAN THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN. WE HAVE ALREADY KICKED OFF OUR ENGINEER ON OUR PRELIMINARY FLOOD ANALYSIS.

IT'S NOT THE FULL FLOOD ANALYSIS BECAUSE I SAID, WHY PAY FOR A FULL FLOOD ANALYSIS WHEN I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF I'M GOING TO GET A ZONING APPROVED? SO WE'VE DONE A PARTIAL FLOOD ANALYSIS, AND THEY HAVE DETERMINED OUR ORIGINAL 15 LOTS THAT WE HAD IN OUR INITIAL PREAPP MEETING.

SO NOW WE'RE UNDER THE 600 ON THE CUL DE SAC LENGTH.

WE ALSO HAD TWO LOTS UNDER THE CUL DE SAC BULB, OR TO THE LEFT OF THE CUL DE SAC BULB.

WE NOW REMOVED THOSE BECAUSE IN OUR PRELIMINARY FLOOD ANALYSIS, WE DETERMINED THAT THERE'S NO WAY TO DEVELOP 15 LOTS THAT WERE WITH 13.

SO WHAT I PRESENT TO YOU TODAY, I DON'T THINK I WOULD BE TAKING THE RISK AND SPENDING THE MONEY IF WE DIDN'T KNOW.

WE COULD ACCURATELY BUILD BY THE CITY OF PLANO'S ORDINANCE TO BE TWO FOOT ABOVE BASE FLOOD ELEVATION, WITH AN ADDITIONAL FOOT TO FOOT AND A HALF IN PAD HEIGHT TO MEET YOUR ORDINANCE.

SO WE FEEL REALLY CONFIDENT AND I ACTUALLY HAVE KIMLEY-HORN HERE TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC ENGINEERING CLASS QUESTIONS IF NEED BE, BUT WE FULLY INTEND TO HAVE TO PROVIDE THAT FULL FLOOD STUDY PROVING UP VALLEY STORAGE EVERYTHING THAT MR. ERSKINE DISCUSSED EARLIER.

WE'VE ALREADY GOT THOSE RESULTS.

WE JUST HAVEN'T SUBMITTED THEM BECAUSE WE'RE NOT AT PRELIMINARY PLAT STAGE YET.

SO THAT'LL BE OUR NEXT STEP IS PRELIMINARY PLAT.

WE'LL BE DRAFTING THE DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE.

THE PROBLEM OR WHAT DESTINY HAD MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT IT BEING THE LATTER OF IS WE DON'T RECORD THOSE DOCS UNTIL THE PLAT GETS RECORDED, AND THE FINAL PLAT GETS RECORDED AT THE COMPLETION OF CONSTRUCTION.

SO THAT'S WHY ALL THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN BEFORE WE START CONSTRUCTION.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION OR TOO MUCH? [LAUGHTER] NO, BUT YOU DON'T HAVE. YES AND NO.

BUT YOU DON'T HAVE THE ANSWER. SO THAT'S THE I KNOW YOU'RE WORKING ON IT AND I RESPECT THAT.

I KNOW THAT WE GOT TO GET THROUGH THE PROCESS.

SO. SURE. AND THE FULLY HUNDRED YEAR DEVELOPED, IF I MIGHT DO WE HAVE A POINTER OR ANYTHING? POSSIBLY. OH, YEAH.

TRY THIS. OH, THERE IT IS.

SO, SEE THIS WROUGHT IRON FENCE RIGHT HERE, MR. RATLIFF? ALL OF THIS WILL BE FULLY EXCAVATED OUT.

ALL OF THIS RIGHT IN THIS AREA BE FULLY EXCAVATED OUT TO MAKE UP THAT ADDITIONAL STORAGE.

SO WE WILL HAVE A CONCRETE CAST IN PLACE WALL FROM HERE TO HERE TO THERE, FROM HERE TO THERE, ALL WILL HOLD UP THAT ENTIRE CUL DE SAC.

WE'LL HAVE A CAST IN PLACE WALL THAT RANGES ANYWHERE FROM SEVEN TO ABOUT 12 TO 13FT IN HEIGHT, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE CREEK LEVEL.

SO WE HAVE DONE WE'RE NOT AT A POINT WHERE WE'RE GOING TO SUBMIT TO ENGINEERING AND HAVING TO REVIEW THAT, BUT THAT'S THE LEVEL OF DETAIL AND ENERGY WE PUT INTO KNOWING THAT WE CAN DO THIS AND THAT IT IS VIABLE TO DO 13 LOTS.

AND THEN BACK TO THE POINT OF THE PRICE POINT OF THE HOUSE, OBVIOUSLY, WE GOT LOW DENSITY, WE GOT HIGH DOLLAR LAND, WE GOT HIGH DOLLAR INFRASTRUCTURE.

SO THE PRICE POINT OF BUILDING A 4200 SQUARE FOOT HOME HAS TO MEET THE DEMAND TO BE COMPARABLE TO SURROUNDING PROPERTY.

AND SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY WE HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE 2.2 TO $2.5 MILLION HOUSE THAT WILL BE PROVIDING A CUSTOM BUILDER TO BUILD.

SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THAT ANSWERS MINE. THANK YOU.

I THINK, COMMISSIONER OLLEY, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? I DO, AND IN SOME WAYS I TRYING TO DIVORCE THE DAM BREACH FROM THIS, AND THAT'S WHY I'M HOPING YOU COULD HELP ME THERE.

IF MY BACK OF ENVELOPE MATH IS RIGHT BUILDING IN QUOTE UNQUOTE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN OVER 30 YEAR MORTGAGES.

[01:00:02]

SO SUGGEST THAT THERE'S ABOUT A 20 TO 30% CHANCE OF FLOOD DAMAGE ON A $2.5 MILLION HOME.

THE DISCLOSURE THAT YOU JUST SUGGESTED FEELS VERY LIGHT IN WITH REGARDS TO WHAT I AM PUTTING IF I'M BUYING THAT HOME, WHAT I'M PUTTING AT RISK THAT IS A 25% CHANCE THAT MY MILLION DOLLAR HOME GETS HIT.

WHAT HAVE YOU THOUGHT OF MITIGATING ANY MITIGATING STRUCTURES THAT YOU BUILD IN PLACE THAT COULD A REDUCE THAT RISK OR LIABILITY ON MY PART OR B SOME HEAVIER DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE, WHICH I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE UNDERWRITING CONCERNS AND WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT AT LEAST ALLOWS ME TO MAKE A MORE INFORMED DECISION IF I AM A HOMEOWNER TRYING TO BUY WHAT IS A VERY EXPENSIVE ASSET.

I DON'T THINK I CAN ANSWER THAT.

AGAIN, THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN EXISTING CONDITIONS DOWNSTREAM IN A CITY LIVING AT THE SOUTHERN END OF THE LOUISVILLE DAM AND TO BE IN BUSINESS AND DISCLOSE ALL THAT WHICH I HAVE ZERO CONTROL OVER FROM UPSTREAM PROPERTY OWNER.

I JUST I CAN'T WE'RE IN BUSINESS TO SELL HOMES, BUT MEETING THE CITY OF PLANO STANDARD ORDINANCE AND REQUIREMENT OR EXCEEDING IT.

THAT'S WHERE WE STAND TODAY. RIGHT. SO THAT'S WHY I DIVORCED THE DAM.

RIGHT. YOU SHOULDN'T BE HELD LIABLE FOR A DAM STRUCTURE.

I GET THAT RIGHT? RIGHT. BUT THE FLOODPLAIN IS A NATURALLY OCCURRING EVENT.

THAT IS NOT CAUSED BY YOUR NEIGHBORS OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

BUT ADD SIGNIFICANTLY TO THE COST OF A HOME FROM AN INSURANCE PERSPECTIVE AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

AND THE IDEA THAT JUST A WHAT FEELS LIKE A LIGHT DISCLOSURE LIKE, HEY, YOU KNOW BUT NOT DISCLOSING ENOUGH TO QUOTE UNQUOTE IMPACT MARKET VIABILITY SITS FUNNY WITH ME.

SO I'M JUST TRYING TO PUSH THAT A LITTLE.

YEAH. LET ME ASK YOU, ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN LIABILITY OR THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS? I'M REFERRING TO THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN BECAUSE.

THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENT WILL BE THE ENTIRE FLOOD STUDY WILL BE REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF PLANO.

WE WILL NOT BE ABLE TO CONSTRUCT THESE 13 HOMES UNLESS WE MEET OR EXCEED THE FLOODPLAIN REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS A DOWNSTREAM ANALYSIS PROVING UP FLOOD STUDY VALLEY STORAGE.

AGAIN I GOT MY ENGINEER HERE IF WE NEED TO TALK DETAILS.

BUT IT IS ALL OVER OUR FINAL RECORDED PLAT ABOUT FLOODPLAIN SHOWING.

AND WE ARE CERTIFYING BY THE SURVEYOR THAT WE ARE OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN TO BUILD THE HOMES.

NOW, THERE WILL BE PROPERTY, HOA AREA THAT'S WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT NOT A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT.

WE WILL DEVELOP THE LOTS AND THE HOMES.

THE ENTIRE FEE SIMPLE LOT WILL CANNOT BE IN A FLOODPLAIN.

OUR BUILDERS WON'T PURCHASE A LOT IF IT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN AFTER IT'S DEVELOPED.

SO WE WILL DESIGN AND BUILD THE LOTS OUTSIDE OF THE FUTURE 100 YEAR, FULLY DEVELOPED FLOODPLAIN.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IT MAKES SENSE.

BUT THEN THERE'S NO NEED TO DISCLOSE, EITHER IN THE MARKETING OR IN THE HOA COVENANTS OR THE DEED THAT THIS WAS ESSENTIALLY.

YEAH. GO AHEAD.

I WOULD SAY THAT 50 TO 60% OF THE CITY OF PLANO PROBABLY HAS SOME SORT OF FEMA FLOODPLAIN THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED AND IS OUT OF THAT 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN, AND IT'S ONLY SHOWN ON THE FINAL PLAT BY THE SURVEYOR CERTIFICATE, UNLESS I'M MISTAKEN OTHERWISE.

IF I MAY, I THINK STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DISCLOSURE IS SPECIFIC TO THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS, BECAUSE THAT ANALYSIS IS NOT PUBLISHED OR WIDELY KNOWN.

I BELIEVE THE FEMA FLOODPLAIN IS PUBLISHED AND WIDELY KNOWN AND IN OUR ENGINEERING REGULATIONS ACCOUNT FOR IT.

THEREFORE, WE DON'T BELIEVE THE DISCLOSURE IS NEEDED FOR THAT BECAUSE IT'S FAIRLY ROUTINE FROM AN ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE.

OKAY, I THOUGHT MR. OLLEY SAID FEMA BECAUSE I ASKED HIM, IS THIS THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS OR FEMA? NO, NO, I DID I DID ASK FOR FEMA BECAUSE THERE'S NO REGULATION THAT BARS RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS

[01:05:01]

DUE TO A DAM BREACH RATHER INCIDENT.

RIGHT. BUT THE REGULATIONS FROM A FEMA PERSPECTIVE.

SO I'M TRYING TO TIE BACK TO WHAT IS REGULATORY IN NATURE AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT MAKES SENSE IF I PUT MYSELF IN THAT REGULATORY BOX.

BUT I'LL HOLD FOR NOW.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

I DON'T THINK I REALLY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

I THINK WHAT WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO FIGURE OUT, THOUGH, IS WHETHER OR NOT WE NEED TO INCLUDE SOME KIND OF REQUIREMENT ON LANGUAGE RELATED TO THE DAM BREACH.

I THINK IT'S REASONABLE TO ASK WHETHER, YOU KNOW, THAT'S OUR ROLE, ONLY BECAUSE WE KNOW ABOUT IT NOW.

IT'S HARD TO FORGET ABOUT IT.

BUT, YOU KNOW, TO THE APPLICANT'S POINT, A LOT OF PEOPLE LIVE DOWNSTREAM OF DAMS AND THEY EITHER KNOW IT OR THEY DON'T.

AND SO I GUESS THE LAST QUESTION I WOULD HAVE FOR YOU REALLY IS WHAT'S YOUR TIME FRAME? ASSUME THIS WAS APPROVED.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE HOUSES UP NEXT YEAR OR WHAT? YEAH. WELL, MORE THAN LIKELY, DEPENDING ON HOW QUICKLY WE GET THROUGH ENGINEERING, I WOULD ASSUME IT'S SOMEWHERE BETWEEN 4 TO 6 MONTHS REVIEW TIME WITH 3 TO 4 ROUNDS OF BACK AND FORTH.

SO WE'LL IF THAT'S THE CASE WE'LL BE GOING TO COUNCIL.

WE WOULD BE GOING TO COUNCIL ON THE 26TH, I BELIEVE.

PROBABLY OCTOBER, NOVEMBER, PRELIMINARY PLAT ISH AND THEN CLOSE ON THE PROPERTY AND ALREADY HAVE PREPARED OR STARTED DESIGNING ENGINEERING.

SO WE'LL PROBABLY BREAK GROUND SECOND QUARTER OF 25.

SO YOU HAVEN'T PURCHASED THE PROPERTY YET.

IT'S CONTINGENT ON THE ZONING APPROVAL.

CORRECT WITH THE CAVEAT OF WE'VE GOT TO HAVE APPROVAL BY THE END OF AUGUST.

UNDERSTOOD. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. SURE.

OKAY. I THINK WE'RE DONE WITH QUESTIONS.

SO THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU.

YOU KNOW, IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY TO ME BECAUSE LIKE I SAID, I'VE NEVER HAD TO DEAL WITH A DAM BREACH BEFORE, BUT.

AND THE TRUTH IS, IS THAT SOMEBODY COULD BUILD A VETERINARY CLINIC RIGHT NOW WITH INDOOR KENNELS FULL OF ANIMALS, THE DAM BREAKS AND NOW YOU GOT A BUNCH OF DEAD ANIMALS.

THAT'S NOT GOING TO GO OVER TOO WELL EITHER.

BUT WE'RE ALLOWING IT TO HAPPEN, RIGHT.

SO I STRUGGLE A LITTLE BIT WITH TRYING TO REALLY TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, BUT IT'S HARD TO IGNORE IT.

I DO THINK IT'S WORTHWHILE FIGURING OUT A WAY, IF POSSIBLE, THROUGH THIS ZONING, TO INCLUDE SOMETHING THAT DOES REQUIRE AT LEAST SOME MINIMAL NOTICE THAT GOES WITH THE PROPERTY THAT, HEY, BY THE WAY, YOU DO LIVE DOWNSTREAM FROM A DAM.

NO GUARANTEES, BUT I'M OPEN ANYONE ELSE FEEDBACK? COMMENT MR. BROUNOFF.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION AND THE HOMEOWNERS WHO SPOKE TO US.

I HAVE SOME FUNDAMENTAL PROBLEMS WITH THIS, STARTING WITH THE FACT THAT WE WERE JUST TOLD TONIGHT THAT THE FEMA 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN MAP MAY BE OUTDATED AND MAY NO LONGER BE ACCURATE.

AND IF THAT IS THE CASE, WHO KNOWS WHERE THE APPLICANT CAN PUT THE HOUSES OR HOW MANY HOUSES HE CAN PUT.

SO JUST TO ANSWER THAT, PERHAPS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE OUR ENGINEERING GUY WENT, BUT I BELIEVE YOU SAID THAT A NEW FLOOD STUDY HAD TO BE DONE PRIOR TO THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE FEMA MAP SAYS, BEFORE HE CAN BUILD ANYTHING ON IT, HE'S GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE ANOTHER STUDY DONE.

WELL, OKAY. SUPPOSE THE STUDY SHOWS THAT THE THE AREA IS BIGGER THAN PREVIOUSLY ASSUMED AND THEY CAN'T PUT 13 HOUSES ON IT AND THEY CAN'T ECONOMICALLY BUILD THE PROJECT.

I THINK WE SHOULD KNOW THAT BEFORE WE APPROVE THE ZONING.

BUT JUST WORKING WITH THE FEMA MAP THAT EXISTS RIGHT NOW AND LOOKING AT THE DIAGRAM THAT'S ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW, THE FIRST PROBLEM I SEE IS THAT IN THE EVENT OF A 100 YEAR FLOOD, THE FLOOD WATER COVERS THE ROAD LEADING TO THE CUL DE SAC, WHICH MIGHT CUT OFF THE FIVE HOMES TO THE EAST FROM INGRESS AND EGRESS BY VIRTUE OF THE ONLY ROAD BEING FLOODED.

THE PROPOSAL TO BUILD WHAT ARE ESSENTIALLY TWO CONCRETE LINE STORAGE PITS FOR FLOOD WATER ALSO ACTS AS A BARRIER BETWEEN THE EASTERN AND THE WESTERN PORTIONS OF THIS PROPOSAL, WHICH I THINK IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CONCEPT OF NEIGHBORHOOD.

IN ADDITION TO POSING A SAFETY HAZARD FENCE OR NO FENCE.

BODIES OF WATER CAN POSE WHAT IS KNOWN IN THE LAW AS AN ATTRACTIVE NUISANCE.

[01:10:03]

IT MAY ATTRACT YOUNG CHILDREN WHO DON'T KNOW ANY BETTER, THINKING THEY MIGHT WANT TO CLIMB THE FENCE AND GO SWIMMING.

AND THEN YOU HAVE TRAGEDY.

MY OTHER CONCERN WITH THIS IS THE DAM.

TO ME, THE FACT THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT CONTROL THE DAM MEANS THAT BY BUILDING THIS DEVELOPMENT, HE WOULD BE EXPOSING FUTURE HOMEOWNERS TO A RISK WHICH THE APPLICANT COULD NOT MITIGATE AND WHICH THE HOMEOWNERS COULD NOT MITIGATE EXCEPT BY SPENDING MONEY FOR INSURANCE.

I CANNOT CONCEIVE OF A HOMEOWNER WHO WOULD BUY A HOUSE SAYING, OH WELL, I CAN ALWAYS BUY INSURANCE IN THE EVENT I GET FLOODED OUT.

AND THE PROPOSAL FOR DISCLOSURE LANGUAGE IN A DEED RESTRICTION TYPE DOCUMENT DOESN'T FILL ME WITH A WHOLE LOT OF COMFORT.

I MEAN, TELLING A HOME, A PROSPECTIVE HOME BUYER THAT, HEY, YOU MIGHT GET FLOODED TO ME WOULD TEND TO, YOU KNOW, TURN OFF PEOPLE'S DESIRE TO BUY THE HOME.

I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T.

MAYBE THERE ARE THOSE THAT WOULD, BUT I WOULD NOT WANT TO BUY A HOME KNOWING THAT I HAVE TO SPEND EXTRA MONEY OUT OF POCKET FOR FLOOD INSURANCE BECAUSE I COULD GET FLOODED BY A DAM THAT I DON'T CONTROL AND CAN'T MITIGATE.

SO WE WOULD BE DEPENDING UPON THE GOOD OFFICES OF WHOEVER OWNS THE DAM AT THE TIME.

RIGHT NOW IT'S FRITO-LAY, PEPSICO.

IT COULD BE A FUTURE BUYER WHO MAY OR MAY NOT BE FILLED WITH GOOD INTENT, YOU KNOW, DEPENDING ON THEM TO PROTECT THE HOMEOWNER, FROM FLOODING. NORMALLY, YOU KNOW, I THINK BUILDING HOMES AND IS A GOOD THING I VOTED, I THINK I VOTED FOR EVERY CASE WE'VE HAD FOR BUILDING HOMES.

CONSIDERING THE HOUSING SHORTAGE WE'RE FACING AS A CITY, I THINK, YOU KNOW, MORE HOME BUILDING IS NECESSARY.

SO IT'S WITH SOME RELUCTANCE THAT I HAVE MAJOR PROBLEMS WITH THIS CASE.

SO. THANK YOU.

SHOULD WE JUST GO AROUND? BECAUSE I KNOW SHE HAD HER HAND UP, SO.

SURE, SURE.

YEAH, I KIND OF AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF ABOUT A FEW THINGS.

I'M NOT VERY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PLAN.

ONE IS THAT THE CURRENT BUYER OR WHOEVER IS UNDER CONTRACT HAS NOT DONE THE FLOOD STUDY YET, AND THEY'RE PROPOSING A PLAN THAT THEY DON'T EVEN KNOW WHETHER THEY WILL BE ABLE BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH UNDERWRITING OR NOT.

THAT'S JUST A BIG QUESTION.

AND ALSO LOOKING AT THE DAM BREACH STUDY IT REALLY LOOKS LIKE MORE THAN TWO THIRDS OF THE LAND IS UNDER THE BREACH AREA, WHICH IS A HUGE HAZARD TO HOMEOWNERS.

AND I LOVE ANIMALS.

I UNDERSTAND THAT IF THEY'RE BUILT, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD YOU KNOW, ANIMAL KENNEL OR WHATEVER.

THERE WILL BE DANGER TO THEM, TOO, BUT IT WILL BE GREATER DANGER IF WE HAD CHILDREN AND FAMILIES AND VALUABLES ESPECIALLY THESE ARE SUPPOSED TO BE VERY, VERY HIGH DOLLAR AMOUNT HOUSES.

I WOULD ASSUME THAT IT WOULD BE EVEN MORE DIFFICULT OR DANGEROUS TO THEM.

SO THAT BEING SAID, I APPRECIATE THE APPLICANTS AND THE ENGINEERS THAT HAVE DONE SO MUCH WORK ON THIS.

IT WOULD I MEAN, AS A CITY, WE DEFINITELY WELCOME MORE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES AND STRUCTURES.

AND PERSONALLY, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, I HAVE VOTED YES TO EVERY SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE PAST. FOR THIS ONE, I'M REALLY HESITANT BECAUSE I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE POTENTIAL HAZARD IN THIS AREA.

AND PLUS, LIKE I SAID EARLIER, WITH THE SHAPE AND THE SIZE OF THIS PARTICULAR PARCEL IS JUST DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP IT ANYWAY.

AND THE SINGLE CUL DE SAC THAT'S PROPOSING IS EVEN NOT MEETING OUR REQUIRED MAXIMUM LENGTH RIGHT NOW.

THEY ADJUSTED THAT, HE SAID.

BUT IT'S NOW WITHIN THE CODE ACCORDING TO WHAT HE SAID.

OKAY, OKAY, WELL, THERE ARE MITIGATIONS THAT YOU CAN DO.

IT'S A LOT OF WORK AND I, I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S SUITABLE FOR THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.

COMMISSIONER CARY. SURE, I'LL TRY TO KEEP THIS CRISP.

I'M SEEING IT A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY FROM OTHER PEOPLE.

IT'S THE PROPERTY'S BEEN SITTING THERE VACANT FOR 17 YEARS.

THE CITY NEEDS HOUSING.

THE NEIGHBORS ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

I DON'T SHARE THE CONCERNS ON THIS DAM BREACH.

I MEAN, I GUESS IT'S POSSIBLE THAT SOMETHING HAPPENS, BUT ALL KINDS OF THINGS HAPPEN.

AND IN TERMS OF PEOPLE BUYING INSURANCE, TALK TO EVERYONE AROUND THE COAST THAT CONTINUES TO BUY INSURANCE FOR THEIR HOMES FOR FLOODS.

SO I GUESS I DON'T SEE THAT AS A SIGNIFICANT CONCERN, BECAUSE IF PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE HERE, THEN MAYBE IF THEY WANT THAT INSURANCE, THEY'LL BUY IT.

[01:15:06]

IT HAPPENS ALL THE TIME.

WHETHER YOU LIVE NEAR A RIVER OR OTHER THINGS.

YOU KNOW, AGAIN, GO LIVE NEAR THE COAST AND, AND YOU'RE GOING TO REPLACE YOUR HOUSE AFTER IT GETS BLOWN DOWN BY A HURRICANE.

I APPRECIATE THAT HE'S MITIGATED THE SITUATION WITH THE CUL DE SAC.

I THINK BECAUSE IT'S SUCH A STRANGE PIECE OF PROPERTY, I THINK THAT THE SOLUTION IN TERMS OF BUILDING SOME HOMES HERE IS A GOOD ONE.

AGAIN, THE THING HAS SET HERE FOR 17 YEARS, NOTHING'S HAPPENED.

IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS BY RIGHT, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE EXACTLY COULD COME IN HERE WITH THE OTHER ZONING THAT MIGHT CREATE MORE RISK FOR PEOPLE THAT ARE WORKING THERE OR WHATEVER THAN THIS CREATES, IN THE EVENT THAT THIS DAM BREAKS OR THIS, LAKE OF UNKNOWN SIZE, BY THE WAY.

SO THAT'S ANOTHER ISSUE.

SO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO INSPECT THIS YEARLY AND EVERY FIVE YEARS THEY'RE GOING TO INSPECT THIS.

I MEAN, I THINK WE'RE LOOKING AT LAND USE HERE, AND I DON'T THINK WE CAN PROTECT EVERYBODY FROM EVERYTHING.

AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TRY.

AND SO WHEN I LOOK AT LAND USE HERE, I PERSONALLY THINK THAT ALL THINGS CONSIDERED, WITHOUT IT BEING PERFECT, I THINK IT'S A GOOD LAND USE FOR OUR CITY AT THIS POINT, AND I'M GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT.

OKAY I'LL TELL YOU WHAT.

I'LL JUST GO. SINCE WE'RE IN, WE'LL JUST GO AROUND THE HORN HERE.

I TEND TO FALL IN LINE WITH COMMISSIONER CARY ON THIS.

WE COULD HAVE A TORNADO TOMORROW.

THERE'S ANY NUMBER OF THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN.

AND THERE'S JUST THINGS THAT WE CAN'T PREPARE FOR.

AND THE DAM BREACH IS, AGAIN, SOMETHING I'VE NEVER RUN ACROSS AND ACTUALLY TRYING TO GO, WELL, HOW ARE WE GOING TO PREVENT THAT FROM HAPPENING? YOU JUST CAN'T. BUT THERE IS AN INSPECTION PROTOCOL FOR IT.

IT'S REQUIRED.

SO I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO THEIR JOB.

I STILL LIKE THE IDEA OF THERE BEING SOME KIND OF NOTICE ABOUT JUST HEY, THIS IS WHAT'S GOING ON.

IF YOU MOVE NEXT TO THE COAST, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE MOVING NEXT TO A HURRICANE.

IF YOU'RE BUYING A HOUSE HERE, YOU MAY NOT REALIZE THERE'S A DAM RIGHT UPSTREAM.

SO I'M KIND OF IN FAVOR OF THAT.

BUT I DO FALL MORE ON THE LAND USE AND LOOKING AT IT, IS IT BETTER OFFICE OR IS IT BETTER RESIDENTIAL? I KNOW IT'S NOT DIRECTLY CONNECTED TO RESIDENTIAL, BUT IT'S REALLY SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.

AND I DID A LITTLE BIT OF SHOPPING, ONLINE SHOPPING.

AND THE HOUSE PRICES ARE COMPARABLE TO WHAT'S IN THAT AREA.

SO I FEEL LIKE IT FITS RIGHT IN.

I'VE ALWAYS BEEN SOMEBODY WHO WAS VERY INTERESTED IN ANY REZONING CASE IF THE NEIGHBORS WERE IN FAVOR OF IT, IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY NO.

IF THE NEIGHBORS WANT IT, WHY SHOULD I SAY NO? I TAKE THE DEVELOPER AT THEIR WORD.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD IN THE FLOODPLAIN.

SOME OF THE REMEDIATION THEY'RE TALKING ABOUT.

I'M ASSUMING, WITH OUR EXCELLENT ENGINEERING AND PLANNING STAFF AT THE CITY, THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE IT'S DONE APPROPRIATELY.

AND BE MANAGED THE WAY OTHER HOMES THAT HAVE BEEN BUILT NEAR THE FLOODPLAIN HAVE BEEN HANDLED.

SO I AM IN FAVOR OF IT.

I THINK IT'S A GOOD USE OF THE PROPERTY AT THIS POINT.

SO THAT'S WHERE I COME DOWN ON THIS.

IN LOOKING AT THIS, I'LL BE HONEST.

WHEN I FIRST LOOKED AT IT, I THINK IN TWO DIMENSIONS I HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH THE LAND USE IN TWO DIMENSIONS.

WHEN I LOOK AT IT, THE WHEN I LOOK AT THE LAND USE PLAN, IT MAKES SENSE.

IT'S GOT ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL.

IT ALL MAKES SENSE IN TWO DIMENSIONS.

MY PROBLEM IS, AS A CIVIL ENGINEER, I HAVE THE PROBLEM WITH THE THIRD DIMENSION, AND I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH BUILDING HOUSES IN A POTENTIALLY FLOOD PRONE AREA.

NOT JUST THE BREACH ANALYSIS, BUT IN WHAT IS UNDOUBTEDLY THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN ONCE THIS STUDY GETS DONE.

AND THE REASON I HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT IS THAT IS THAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE O 1.

99% OF THE TIME, VETERINARY CLINIC KENNELS ASIDE, THE PEOPLE IN THOSE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE AWAKE.

IT STARTS TO RAIN, STARTS TO FLOOD.

THOSE PEOPLE SEE IT COMING. THEY GET OUT.

RESIDENTIAL IS NOT THAT WAY.

RESIDENTIAL THOSE PEOPLE ARE ASLEEP WHEN IT'S RAINING MOST OF THE TIME, OR HALF THE TIME AND NOT GOING TO SEE THAT FLOOD COMING.

AND THAT'S WHAT BOTHERS ME AS AN ENGINEER.

AND THAT'S WHY I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN WAY TOO MANY PROJECTS WHERE HOUSES WERE FLOODED, AND THERE'S ALWAYS ENGINEERING SOLUTIONS TO SHOW WE CAN BUILD IT OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN.

THE QUESTION IS, IS IT REALLY AND WHY IN MY MIND IT'S THE RISK IS NOT WORTH THE REWARD TO POTENTIALLY BUILD HOMES IN A FLOOD PRONE AREA WHERE COMMERCIAL USE IS MORE APPROPRIATE AND OFFICE USE IS MORE APPROPRIATE.

GIVEN THE POTENTIAL FLOODING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN.

AND SO REGARDLESS OF THE FACT THAT I THINK ON TWO DIMENSIONS, IT WORKS.

[01:20:05]

I CAN'T SUPPORT IT JUST BECAUSE OF THE FLOOD POTENTIAL OF THE 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN.

NOT EVEN LOOKING AT THE DAM BREACH ANALYSIS OF THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN AND THE FACT THAT I BELIEVE OVER HALF THIS DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE BUILT IN THE HUNDRED YEAR FLOODPLAIN. MR. BRONSKY. SO I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING COMMISSIONER RATLIFF JUST SAID, AND I GO A STEP FURTHER.

I LISTENED TO STAFF.

I THINK THEY MAKE VERY GOOD POINTS ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

RGM 1 AND RGM 5.

WE GO FURTHER.

I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE THIS SEEMS LIKE IT'S AN ORPHAN QUASI COMMUNITY AND NOT SURE THAT WILL FIT 13. WE'VE ALREADY GONE FROM 15 TO 13.

I THINK WE'LL PROBABLY END UP HALVING THAT AGAIN.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT'S FUNCTIONAL OR APPROPRIATE.

AND TO ME THAT BAR OF SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL YOU KNOW, WE CAN TALK ABOUT YOU LIVE A CERTAIN PEOPLE, LIVE IN DALLAS OR SOMEWHERE ELSE.

BUT THIS ISN'T DALLAS.

THIS IS PLANO.

AND WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO PROTECT AND GUARD NOT ONLY THE CITIZENS TODAY, BUT THE CITIZENS IN THE FUTURE.

SO I'M GOING TO VOTE NO.

COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].

I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING WHAT WAS SAID.

YOU KNOW, LIKE BY ALL THE COMMISSIONERS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE, I'M FINDING IT VERY HARD FOR ME TO APPROVE THIS ZONING CHANGE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, LIKE NOW YOU'RE LIKE, CURRENTLY IT'S ZONED OFFICE AND IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT'S ZONED OPEN SPACE.

AND WITH OPEN SPACE, YOU ALSO ALLOW TO CONSTRUCT SOME COMMERCIAL.

RIGHT? SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE, IT'S TO ME, I KNOW THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE, ALL THE NEIGHBORS WANTS TO DO THE RESIDENTIAL.

I FIND IT IS VERY APPEALING CONCEPT, BUT IT DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE FOR IT.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT? I DO AND I UNDERSTAND THE NEIGHBORS, I THINK THE NEIGHBORS ARE REACTING TO WHAT THE ALTERNATIVE IS, RIGHT? WHAT? I WANT HOUSES OVER OFFICES AND COMMERCIAL ABSOLUTELY.

BUT WHERE I STRUGGLE WITH THIS, AND I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE HAVE ECHOED SOME OF IT IS A THE ZONING TO THE NORTH, FRITO-LAY PREDATES EVERYTHING AROUND IT.

SO I ALMOST HAVE TO REACT TO FRITO-LAY.

IF I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP CORRECTLY, THAT ZONING CE GIVES FRITO-LAY THE RIGHT TO BUILD COMMERCIAL ALMOST ALL THE WAY UP TO THE THRESHOLD OF THE RESIDENTIAL, GIVEN OUR REGULATIONS OF TRANSITIONS AND WHAT HAVE YOU MEANING THIS PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND IS REALLY THE ONLY BUFFER THAT EXISTS BETWEEN COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AND THE RESIDENTS TO THE OTHER SIDE.

I, QUITE FRANKLY, AM STILL STRUGGLING TO UNDERSTAND WHY THIS WAS ZONED NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE IN THE FIRST PLACE.

THAT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT FITS, BUT GIVEN WHAT EVERYONE ELSE HAS ALREADY SAID DIVORCING THE DAM FROM MY THOUGHTS AND JUST STICKING ON IS THIS THE CORRECT LAND USE? UNDERSTANDING THE FLOODPLAIN MITIGATION IS A 100 YEAR FLOOD AS WE HAVE SEEN, IS NO LONGER REALLY A 100 YEAR THIS DOES HAPPEN MORE FREQUENTLY THAN WE LIKE.

UNFORTUNATELY, I CAN'T PRETZEL MYSELF INTO AGREEING OR AGREEING WITH THIS BEING THE RIGHT USE FOR THIS PLOT OF LAND.

OKAY. WE'VE HEARD FROM EVERYONE.

I JUST WANT US TO BE VERY CLEAR THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SAID THEY'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY REGULATIONS REGARDING FLOODPLAIN, AND SO THEY WILL BE TREATED NO, OR SHOULD BE TREATED NO DIFFERENTLY THAN ANY OTHER APPLICANT BUILDING SOMETHING NEAR A FLOODPLAIN AND THE DAM BREACH. AGAIN, I THINK IT'S JUST A HAZARD.

BUT ANY OF US COULD BE HIT BY A TORNADO.

IT'S A KNOWN HAZARD, BUT IT'S INSPECTED.

SO I JUST WANT US TO BE CLEAR THAT IF WE'RE SAYING THAT, WE DON'T THINK IT'S A GOOD USE BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN, EVEN THOUGH THE APPLICANT'S TELLING US WE'RE WE'RE DEALING WITH

[01:25:08]

THE FLOODPLAIN, WE'RE USING THE CITY'S ENGINEERS AND REQUIREMENTS TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

I STRUGGLE WITH HOLDING THAT AGAINST THEM.

BUT ANYWAY.

ALL RIGHT. I THINK I'VE HEARD EVERYTHING.

MR. BRONSKY. I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF AND VOTE FOR DENIAL FOR AGENDA ITEM TWO.

OKAY, SO I HAVE A PARDON.

YEAH, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF TO DENY THE APPLICANT AND FOLLOW STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM TWO.

PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT'S FIVE MR. OLLEY. YES.

OKAY. AND OPPOSED.

OKAY. SO ITEM TWO FAILS BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 2.

I THINK WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ITEM THREE DOWN, RIGHT.

[4. (JK) Preliminary Site Plan: Mustang Square Addition, Block A, Lot 3 – Professional/general administrative office and assembly hall on one lot on 3.3 acres located at the southwest corner of State Highway 121 and Dijon Street. Zoned Planned Development-32-Regional Commercial and located within the State Highway 121 Overlay District. Project #PSP2023-031. Applicant: Dhanam Realty, LLC. (Administrative consideration with legislative consideration of joint parking agreement)]

AND COVER ITEMS FOUR AND FIVE.

SO LET'S GET THROUGH FOUR AND FIVE REAL QUICK.

AND THEN BEFORE WE GET CIP.

SO FOUR.

FOUR. OKAY. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC 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 ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

MUSTANG SQUARE ADDITION BLOCK A LOT THREE PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND ASSEMBLY HALL ON ONE LOT ON 3.3 ACRES. LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND DIJON STREET.

ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 32 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THE APPLICANT IS DHANAM REALTY, LLC.

THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS JOHN KIM, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

SO HERE IS THE LOCATOR FOR THE SITE AND THEN THE PLAN FOR THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THE GENERAL OFFICE AND THE ASSEMBLY HALL IN SECTION 16.900 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

IT DOES ALLOW USES OF THE USES THAT ARE FOR THE EVENINGS, AND SOME USES, SUCH AS THE OFFICE, TO SHARE UP TO 60% OF THE PARKING.

AND SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO HAVE 261 SPACES, ALL DEDICATED FOR THE ASSEMBLY HALL, AND THEN TO HAVE 59 SPACES DEDICATED ALSO FOR THE OFFICE, SO THEY WOULD SHARE AT DIFFERENT TIMES.

SO THE ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT ASSURING THE PERPETUAL JOINT USE OF 59 PARKING SPACES BETWEEN THE PROPOSED PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND ASSEMBLY HALL.

APPROVED AS THE FORM AND EXECUTED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY OR DESIGNEE PRIOR TO SITE PLAN APPROVAL.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM.

COMMISSIONER CARY. HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT THE ASSEMBLY HALL WILL ONLY BE USED ON WEEKDAY NIGHTS AND WEEKENDS? WE CAN'T. WE CAN'T, CAN WE? SO I THINK THAT IS THROUGH THE JOINT PARKING AGREEMENT THAT KIND OF PERPETUATES THAT USE.

AND IF THEY VIOLATE THAT THEN WHAT'S THE REMEDY? SO THERE IS A WAY FOR THE CITY COUNCIL TO, IF THEY DETERMINE THAT A PUBLIC NUISANCE IS CREATED FROM THE PROPERTY, THEN THEY CAN HAVE THEM ADD ADDITIONAL PARKING AS NEEDED.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER TONG, DO YOU KNOW THE MAXIMUM CAPACITY OF THE ASSEMBLY HALL? HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN THEY HOLD AT ONE TIME? YES. I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT IT IS ABOUT 760 OR 80 SOMEWHERE IN THERE.

780? IF IT'S FOR, HOW MANY VEHICLES WOULD YOU EXPECT TO PARK THERE? BECAUSE THERE ALTOGETHER IS ONLY 300 PARKING SPACES.

SO THE ORDINANCE, THE WAY THE ASSEMBLY HALL IS PARKED AT IS ONE SPACE FOR EVERY THREE OCCUPANTS, LIKE IN THE MAX CAPACITY.

SO THAT'S HOW IT'S PARKED? THEY WOULD NEED THAT. YES.

THANK YOU.

[01:30:01]

MR. BROUNOFF.

I'M KIND OF DOUBTING THE ACCURACY OF 760 PEOPLE ON THE SECOND FLOOR OF ONE BUILDING.

THAT SOUNDS LIKE SO.

SHOULDER TO SHOULDER.

JAMMED IT'S ALMOST LIKE HOW MANY PEOPLE CAN YOU STUFF INSIDE A TELEPHONE BOOTH? WE SHOULD ASK THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WHAT'S LEGALLY ALLOWED.

I WILL ASK BOTH OF YOU.

AND YOU'RE TRYING TO BE POLITE AND LOOK AT HIM WHEN YOU TALK, BUT NOBODY CAN HEAR YOU, SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GET IN FRONT OF THAT MIC OR HE'LL UNDERSTAND YOU'RE NOT BEING RUDE IF YOU DON'T LOOK AT HIM WHEN YOU'RE ASKING YOUR QUESTION OR TALKING.

SO, OKAY.

I'M SORRY.

AND I'M DOING THIS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THEM, BUT ALSO HOME AUDIENCE.

I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT WE DETERMINE THE OCCUPANCY THE APPLICANT PROVIDES THE FLOOR PLANS TO OUR BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT, AND THEY DETERMINE MAXIMUM OCCUPANCY FOR BUILDINGS. THAT IS THE NUMBER THAT WE USED FOR THE ONE SPACE PER THREE PERSONS.

THE APPLICANT WOULD PROBABLY TELL YOU THEY ARE NOT EXPECTING TO HAVE THAT MANY PEOPLE, BUT THAT'S THE WAY WE CAME UP WITH THE CALCULATION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YES. LIKE SO.

NOW, YOU KNOW, LIKE THEY'RE PROPOSING THIS.

THIS IS JUST LIKE A PROPOSED SITE PLAN, RIGHT? WHEN THEY SUBMIT TO BUILDING.

AND IF IT'S THE NUMBERS ARE DIFFERENT.

AND WE APPROVED, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE AGREEMENT AND EVERYTHING.

SO HOW ARE THEY GOING TO? THEY HAVE TO COME BACK TO THIS BODY TO CHANGE THE AGREEMENT.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

YEP. AND THE APPLICANT WILL NEED TO SUBMIT THE JOINT PARKING AGREEMENT TO BUILDING INSPECTIONS FOR THEIR PERMIT.

SO THAT WILL ALSO BE A PART OF THE AGREEMENT.

I MEAN, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF THERE WERE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A LITTLE BIT OF CHANGES ON THE PLANS OR, YOU KNOW SO THAT'S THE QUESTION.

THANK YOU.

A QUESTION WITH SORT OF A COMMENT TO START WITH.

ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT FOR EVER SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION IS DOING THIS EXACT THING, HAVING PARKING STUDIES TO LIMIT THE SIZE OF ALL THESE PARKING LOTS THAT ARE BUILT PEAK ON PEAK.

SO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR COMING WITH A CREATIVE SOLUTION.

BUT IS I GUESS I'M CURIOUS AS TO WHY WE DON'T SEE MORE OF THIS.

IS THIS BECAUSE THEY'VE GOT TO GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, OR IS THIS SOMETHING THAT IS STAFF OUTSIDE OF STAFF'S JURISDICTION TO APPROVE THE ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS IT TO A NARROW SET OF USES SUCH AS THEATERS, RELIGIOUS FACILITIES, THINGS THAT HAVE NIGHT AND WEEKEND ACTIVITIES. SO WE JUST DON'T SEE A LOT OF THOSE COMBINATIONS.

JUST TWO SPECIFIC USES ON A SAME SITE PLAN.

DULY NOTED. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? I DO JUST SOME CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING IS IT THE SAME OWNER OF THE TWO USES OF THE OFFICE? AND WHAT'S THE OTHER USE? THE ASSEMBLY HALL. THE ASSEMBLY HALL? YES, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.

OKAY, SO THIS THE ENFORCEMENT OF THE JOINT AGREEMENT IS ESSENTIALLY THE SAME PERSON, RIGHT? ENFORCING NOT TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES.

CORRECT. OKAY.

THAT'S ALL. THAT'S THE ONLY QUESTION.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WAS GOING TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NONE. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. BRONSKY. SINCE THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR AS SUBMITTED.

SECOND. OKAY.

I HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM FOUR AS SUBMITTED.

PLEASE VOTE. MR. OLLEY. YES.

THAT ITEM CARRIES 8 TO 0.

OKAY. ITEM FIVE.

[5. (DS) Discussion and Action: Call for Public Hearing – Request to call a public hearing to amend Planned Development-65-Central Business-1 to modify the open space plan on 275.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Dallas North Tollway and Tennyson Parkway. Project #CPH2024-006. Applicant: Legacy West Investors LP. (Legislative consideration)]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION.

CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING.

REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 65 CENTRAL ONE.

TO MODIFY THE OPEN SPACE PLAN OF 275.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND TENNYSON PARKWAY.

APPLICANT IS LEGACY WEST INVESTORS, LP.

THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE COMMISSION TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO ALLOW THEM TO SUBMIT A ZONING CASE TO MODIFY THEIR OPEN SPACE.

HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

IF I COULD MODIFY STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION JUST ONE BIT, I THINK THE ORIGINAL REQUEST WAS OPEN SPACE, BUT I BELIEVE THERE MIGHT BE A FEW OTHER RELATED REGULATORY STANDARDS.

SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT SO NARROWLY FOCUSED ON JUST THE OPEN SPACE.

SO OPEN SPACE AND OTHER MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

OKAY. SO WE NEED TO OR THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING.

SAY THAT AGAIN. WHAT PURPOSE? HOW DO YOU WANT US TO WORD THAT? TO AMEND THE OPEN SPACE AND OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

OKAY. OKAY.

[01:35:02]

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO IS THIS CHANGING THE LIKE THE PD BASICALLY REGULATION? THE OPEN SPACE PLAN IS CURRENTLY ATTACHED TO THE ZONING.

THE APPLICANT IS PLANNING TO, I THINK, ACTUALLY INCREASE.

IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE MAYBE A LITTLE BIT, BUT THEY ARE CHANGING THE LOCATION ON THE SITE.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, BECAUSE THE OPEN SPACES EXHIBIT IS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE, THEY HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE ZONING CHANGE PROCESS TO AMEND THAT PLAN.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION.

OH, YES. SORRY.

LET ME SAY THIS BACK TO YOU, MIKE.

THE REASON WHY THEY'RE GOING THROUGH THE COMMISSION TO AMEND THE PD IS BECAUSE THEY ARE TRYING TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THE OPEN SPACE AND A COUPLE OF OTHER PD STANDARDS.

OR IS IT BECAUSE THERE ARE MULTIPLE OWNERS AND THIS GIVES THEM THE PUBLIC HEARING GIVES THEM THE ABILITY TO MAKE CHANGES WITHOUT HAVING TO GET 500 AND GOD KNOWS WHAT OWNERS TO SIGN ON TO SOMETHING.

SO TONIGHT'S ACTION IS JUST TO CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND IT ALLOWS THE COMMISSION TO DO THAT, THAT THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE TO COLLECT ALL THE SIGNATURES OF ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

SO THE ZONING CHANGE SUPPORT AFTER THIS AS A SEPARATE ITEM SPECIFIC TO THE APPLICANT'S PROPERTY IN THE OPEN SPACE PLAN.

THAT'LL BE OKAY. SO TONIGHT'S ACTION IS TO GIVE THEM AN AVENUE THAT MAKES THEM ABLE TO BRING THIS ZONING CASE FORWARD WITHOUT HAVING 500 AND SOMETHING SIGNATURES.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

IS THAT CLEAR, MR. BROUNOFF? THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE AGENDA DESCRIBES THE PROPERTY AS LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND TENNYSON PARKWAY. THE LOCATOR MAP ON OUR PACKET SHOWS A MUCH BIGGER AREA THAN THAT, NOT RESTRICTED TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF TENNYSON PARKWAY IN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY.

IT INCLUDES BOTH THE NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNERS OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AT LEGACY DRIVE, AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE TOLLWAY AND HEADQUARTERS DRIVE. SO PERHAPS OUR MOTION SHOULD REFLECT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY THAT IS THE SUBJECT OF THE REQUEST.

THIS ITEM HAS COME BEFORE THE COMMISSION SEVERAL TIMES FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AMENDMENTS.

THAT HAS BEEN THE STANDARD LANGUAGE USED.

THE IDEA IS JUST TO DEFINE A GENERAL LOCATION ADEQUATE FOR NOTICE? NO. SO MY CONCERN IS THAT THE SCOPE OF THE HEARING MIGHT BE TOO LIMITED COMPARED TO WHAT THE APPLICANT IS TRULY LOOKING FOR, BECAUSE THE AGENDA DESCRIBES A SMALLER PARCEL OF LAND THAN OUR LOCATOR MAP DOES.

THE OPEN SPACE PLAN.

THE LOCATIONS OF OPEN SPACE AND THE OPEN SPACE PLAN ARE LIMITED TO A MUCH SMALLER AREA THAN WHAT YOU SEE IN THE MAP IN FRONT OF YOU ON THE SCREEN, BUT THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COVERS A MUCH LARGER ACREAGE, AND BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHED TO IT I THINK IT'S BROKEN UP INTO FOUR TRACKS A, B, C, AND D, AND THE CHANGES ARE SPECIFIC TO TRACK C, BUT BECAUSE IT'S ATTACHED TO THE WHOLE AMENDMENT, THE ENTIRE THE NOTICE IS REQUIRED FROM THE ENTIRE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY, WHICH IS WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? NO, NO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT THE APPLICANT'S LOOKING FOR.

MY POINT IS THAT THE AGENDA IS NOT DOES NOT ACCURATELY DESCRIBE IT.

AND IF WE SIMPLY APPROVE ITEM FIVE ON THE AGENDA, WE WILL BE CALLING A HEARING THAT DOES NOT ENCOMPASS THE TRUE SCOPE OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH.

WHAT DO YOU THINK? DO YOU WANT TO WEIGH IN? IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE YOU SHOULD MAKE THE BROAD MOTION AND SAVE US FROM THAT.

PLEASE, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

GO RIGHT AHEAD. ALL RIGHT.

UNLESS THERE ARE OTHER DISCUSSION.

NO. OKAY.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE APPLICATION TO CALL A HEARING TO CONSIDER THE APPLICANT'S PLAN TO REQUEST CHANGES TO THE OPEN SPACE AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON THE TRACT AS DESCRIBED ON OUR LOCATOR MAP IN OUR PACKET. SUFFICIENT.

AND WE HAVE A SECOND. SO COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF MADE THE MOTION.

WE HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].

ALL IN FAVOR? AND MR. OLLEY, YES, THAT CARRIES 8 TO 0.

IT'S 8:41.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE ABOUT A FOUR MINUTE BREAK AND THEN WE WILL HEAR OUR CIP PRESENTATION.

OKAY. WE ARE ALL BACK EXCEPT FOR MR.

[01:40:01]

THERE'S MR. OLLEY. OKAY, GOOD.

WE HAVE ALL EIGHT OF US BACK.

LET'S MOVE TO GO BACK TO ITEM THREE, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.

[3. (AY) Public Hearing: Proposed 2024-25 Community Investment Program – Discussion and consideration of the proposed 2024-25 Community Investment Program (CIP) to ensure projects and programs are aligned with the Comprehensive Plan and other adopted master plans. Project #DI2024-013. Applicant: City of Plano. (Legislative consideration)]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.

PUBLIC HEARING PROPOSED 24.

CORRECTION 2024-25.

COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM DISCUSSION AND CONSIDERATION OF THE PROPOSED 2024-25 COMMUNITY INVESTMENT PROGRAM TO ENSURE PROJECTS AND PROGRAMS ARE ALIGNED WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER ADOPTED MASTER PLANS.

APPLICANT IS CITY OF PLANO.

THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

MY NAME IS AUDREY YOUNG. I'M A LONG RANGE PLANNER IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, AND I AM HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU THE CIP COMPREHENSIVE ANALYSIS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS IS JUST TO SPECIFY WE WILL GET INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT WE'LL TAKE A LOOK AT THE OVERVIEW OF HOW WE USE A CIP SERVES AS THE FIVE YEAR GUIDE.

HOWEVER, THIS PARTICULAR ANALYSIS IS GOING TO LOOK AT THIS YEAR'S CIP PROJECTS.

AS THE COMMISSION IT IS OUR GOAL TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE CIP IS ONE WAY THAT WE'RE ABLE TO GO AHEAD AND DO THAT. SO THAT'S WHY THIS IS SO IMPORTANT THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT THESE PROJECTS AND MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE IN, THAT THEY ARE CONSISTENT.

AS YOU KNOW, HERE ARE THE FIVE PILLARS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FRAMEWORK AND ALL OF THE COMPONENTS AND POLICIES.

WE ARE GOING TO TAKE A SPECIFIC LOOK AT THE FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY AND ACTIONS, AND SPECIFICALLY ACTION 5, 4.