[CALL TO ORDER]
[00:00:10]
PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.VERY GOOD. DOES ANYONE WANT TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY. I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.
PLEASE VOTE. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, HOW DO YOU VOTE? PLEASE SPEAK.
AND I'LL REMIND THE COMMISSIONERS TO SPEAK INTO YOUR MICS.
THANK YOU. ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
[1. (RP) Public Hearing – Replat and Revised Site Plan: Willow Bend Polo Estates Phase B, Block B, Lot 15R – One Patio Home lot on 0.2 acre located on the west side of Old Westbury Lane, 240 feet north of Turtle Creek Drive. Zoned Planned Development-423- Patio Home. Projects #R2024-028 & #RSP2024-038. Applicant: The Janicki-Brown Family Trust. (Administrative consideration)]
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLAN WILLOWBEND POLO ESTATES.
PHASE B, BLOCK B, LOT 15 R ONE PATIO HOME LOT ON POINT TWO ACRE, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OLD WESTBURY LANE, 240FT NORTH OF TURTLE CREEK DRIVE.
ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 423 PATIO HOME.
APPLICANT IS THE JANICKI-BROWN FAMILY TRUST.
THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MY NAME IS JOHN KIM, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
HERE IS THE SITE FOR THE REPLAT.
AND THEN HERE IS THE REVISED SITE PLAN.
AND SO THE ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? YES, COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
BRING THE MIC RIGHT DOWN TO YOUR FACE.
IS THERE GOING TO BE ONLY ONE PATIO HOME ON THE LOT? YES. CORRECT. OKAY.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. SEEING NONE.
THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE OR OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M SORRY.
ALL RIGHT. THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
I GOT CONVERSATIONS HERE AND HER TELLING ME YOU'RE NOT DOING YOUR JOB.
SO THANK YOU FOR KEEPING ME STRAIGHT.
ALL RIGHT. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.
IF THERE IS NO DISCUSSION, I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM AS SUBMITTED RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
OKAY. MR. OLLEY EVEN SPOKE INTO HIS MIC.
SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO APPROVE ITEM ONE.
PLEASE VOTE. MR. RATLIFF, AYE.
THANK YOU. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8 TO 0.
[2. (MC) Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2024-017: Request for a Specific Use Permit for a Trade School on one lot on 0.02 acre located 230 feet north of Park Boulevard and 440 feet west of Coit Road. Zoned Retail. Project #ZC2024-017. Petitioner: DFW Chinatown Coit, LLC. (Legislative consideration)]
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.ZONING CASE 2024-017 REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A TRADE SCHOOL ON ONE LOT ON .02 ACRE, LOCATED 230FT NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD AND 440FT WEST OF COIT ROAD.
PETITIONER IS DFW CHINATOWN COIT, LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
MOLLY CORELL, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF PLANO PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC UNIT SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A TRADE SCHOOL.
[00:05:07]
NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARK BOULEVARD AND COIT ROAD.HERE'S THE RELATED ZONING EXHIBIT SO YOU CAN SEE SUITE 204 IS DISPLAYED NEAR THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE, JUST NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.
TRADE SCHOOLS ARE ESTABLISHMENTS WHICH ARE OTHER THAN PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, OR COLLEGES THAT OFFER TRAINING OR INSTRUCTION IN A TRADE, ART, OR OCCUPATION.
STAFF DID WANT TO NOTE THAT LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPY IS A HEALTH CARE SERVICE BY A LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPIST, AND IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE RETAIL R ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN.
ADDITIONALLY, THE HOURS OF OPERATION WILL BE FROM 9 A.M.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED COMMUNITY CORNERS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND THE COMMUNITY CORNERS CATEGORY APPLIES TO RETAIL SITES ON THE CORNERS OF MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS THAT TRADITIONALLY SERVE GENERAL RETAIL, SERVICE, OFFICE, AND INSTITUTIONAL NEEDS OF SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS.
THIS PARTICULAR REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR TRADE SCHOOL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMUNITY CORNER'S LAND USE FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, AS WELL AS OTHER APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES.
ONE NEUTRAL RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED WITHIN 200FT OF THE PROPOSED SUP SITE AREA.
AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED BASED ON THE USE BEING COMPLEMENTARY WITH THE ADJACENT RETAIL USES AND WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING AREA.
WE STAFF CONSIDERS THE USE TO BE LOW INTENSITY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED, THE SIZE OF THE SUITE, AS WELL AS THE AMOUNT OF PARKING REQUIRED, AND THE REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SO FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST.
THANK YOU AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. DON'T WORRY ABOUT THE CLICKER.
I'M NOT FUNCTIONING PROPERLY TONIGHT EITHER, SO IT'S ALL GOOD.
DO WE HAVE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. BRONSKY. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION PURPOSES, THEY'RE THEY'RE ASKING FOR OR EXPECTING UP TO 20 WITH THREE INSTRUCTORS.
IT'LL STILL BE SUBJECT TO OUR BUILDING INSPECTIONS.
THAT IS CORRECT. THE OCCUPANCY MAX OCCUPANCY LOAD IS DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF APPLYING FOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, AND THERE ARE NO STIPULATIONS TO THE SUP REQUESTS THAT ARE RELATED TO THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF STUDENTS ALLOWED ENROLLED AT ONE TIME.
THAT LETTER WAS JUST PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT.
YES. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS. THANK YOU.
EVERYBODY UNDERSTOOD THAT. THANK YOU, MR. OLLEY. MORE FOR MY EDUCATION.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR TEACHING ME TWO NEW WORDS [INAUDIBLE].
THAT WAS KIND OF COOL TO LEARN.
NEVER MIND. RETAIL DESIGNATION LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPY AS A BUSINESS IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN HERE. THAT'S CORRECT.
BUT LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPY AS A TRADE SCHOOL IS NOT.
ALL TRADE SCHOOLS REQUIRE A SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE RETAIL DISTRICT.
IT JUST HAPPENS THAT IT'S KIND OF UMBRELLA.
THERE'S MULTIPLE TYPES OF TRADE SCHOOLS.
WHAT ZONING DESIGNATIONS WOULD TRADE SCHOOLS BE PERMITTED BY? RIGHT? NONE.
THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
THANKS. WE HAVE TO CHECK THE LIST AND GET BACK TO YOU.
I DON'T THINK THEY'RE ALLOWED BY RIGHT ANYWHERE.
I THINK EVERY ALL OF THEM REQUIRE AN SUP.
SO THE SPECIFIC USE I THINK IS EVALUATED BASED ON THE SITE AMENITIES AVAILABLE.
OTHER QUESTIONS? JUST TO CLARIFY, TRADE SCHOOLS ARE PERMITTED IN SEVERAL DISTRICTS, INCLUDING LIGHT COMMERCIAL, CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT, CENTRAL BUSINESS ONE AND SEVERAL OTHER COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS.
[00:10:04]
THEY MUST BE IN RETAIL DISTRICTS.SO IN THOSE DISTRICTS THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE AN SUP.
AND SO THE REQUIREMENTS MIGHT BE UNIQUE.
SO ANYWAY OKAY OBVIOUSLY WE'RE MORE LENIENT THAN I EXPECTED.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU.
I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT.
THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND HAS REGISTERED REGISTERED IN SUPPORT OF THE ITEM.
OKAY, SO SINCE I'VE OPENED THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE.
DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? WOW. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
ARE YOU THERE, MR. RATLIFF? [INAUDIBLE] JUST REJOINING YOU.
WHAT DID I MISS? YOU VOTE YES.
IF YOU'RE HAVING CONNECTION PROBLEMS, MR. RATLIFF. THAT'S A LITTLE PROBLEMATIC FOR US, BECAUSE WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'VE HEARD ALL DISCUSSIONS, AND I REALIZE THAT WAS A PRETTY MINOR CASE.
BUT IF IT CONTINUES TO HAPPEN, WE MAY HAVE TO PROCEED WITHOUT YOU, JUST FYI.
UNDERSTOOD. I'LL DROP OFF IF I CONTINUE TO HAVE A PROBLEM.
THANK YOU. AND JUST CHAT SEND A MESSAGE TO CHRISTINA AND LET HER KNOW.
THANK YOU. OKAY, SO THAT ITEM CARRIES 8 TO 0.
[Items 3A & 3B]
IF IT PLEASES THE CHAIR, I CAN READ THREE A AND THREE B.THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE A ZONING CASE 2024-016 REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON ONE LOT ON 0.7 ACRE, LOCATED 345FT SOUTH OF SUMMIT AVENUE AND 1245FT WEST OF KLEIN ROAD.
ZONED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.
PETITIONER IS ALIGNED DATA CENTERS DFW PROPCO, LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE B PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
BLOCK A LOT ONE DATA CENTER AND ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON ONE LOT ON 19.0 ACRES.
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF SUMMIT AVENUE, 1315FT EAST OF JUPITER ROAD.
PETITIONER IS ALIGNED DATA CENTERS DFW PROPCO, LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING.
AND THAT'S WHERE THEY ARE PROPOSING THE SUBSTATION TO BE BUILT.
IN 1918, THE SITE WAS DEVELOPED WITH THE MANUFACTURING BUSINESS IN 98.
AND THEN IN 2017, IT WAS CONVERTED TO BE A DATA CENTER.
AND THEN IN 2023, THERE WAS A BUILDING EXPANSION.
SO AS MENTIONED, THERE IS A DATA CENTER ON THE PROPERTY AND THE SUP WOULD ALLOW A PRIVATE ELECTRIC SUBSTATION TO SUPPORT THE EXISTING DATA CENTER, AND SO IT WOULD BE RUNNING A LOT MORE EFFICIENTLY FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER.
AND AGAIN, IT IS SHOWN IN RED RELATIVE TO THE AERIAL.
THERE ARE GOING TO BE SOME TRANSMISSION TRANSMISSION LINES CONNECTED TO THE PROPERTY.
[00:15:05]
AND THOSE ARE GOING TO BE A COMBINATION OF UNDERGROUND AND OVERHEAD LINES RUNNING ALONG SUMMIT AND KLEIN.AND SO THAT'S HOW THEY THAT'S HOW THEY WILL GET THE TEMPORARY POWER.
THERE IS A TRANSMISSION LINE ADJACENT TO THE RAILROAD.
AND SO THAT IS WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO CONNECT INTO AT THE MOMENT.
IT HAS NOT BEEN APPROVED BY ENGINEERING OR CITY STAFF, SO IT IS STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION.
AND THEN ON THIS NEXT PAGE, I HAVE A QUICK LITTLE MAP FOR YOU SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SEE, BUT IN THE MIDDLE WHERE IT SAYS SITE, THAT IS THE SUBSTATION SITE.
AND SO IT'S GOING TO RUN ALONG SUMMIT AND KLEIN THROUGH THOSE PROPERTIES UP THERE.
AND THEN TO THE WEST OF THE SUBSTATION OF THE PROPERTY SUBSTATION, THERE IS A TRANSMISSION LINE TO THE SOUTH, SO THEY WILL CONNECT TO THE WEST AND THEN SOUTH.
IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES FOR THE ZONING CASE AS OF AUGUST 30TH.
AND THE SAME IS REFLECTED HERE.
THE REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, AND THEN FOR THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IT'S RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2024-016.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
MAYBE MORE OF AN OBSERVATION, BUT WE'RE APPROVING THE SITE.
BUT IN TERMS OF HOW THE POWER GETS TO THAT SITE, THAT'S NOT UNDER OUR NOTHING THAT WE CAN CONTROL.
THEY DON'T HAVE THE THE PERMITS THAT THEY NEED TO GET THE POWER THERE.
BUT THERE'S NO SENSE IN GETTING ALL OF THAT WORK DONE IF THEY DON'T GET THE SITE APPROVED.
THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. BRONSKY, I'VE GOT ONE SMALL ONE.
AND THIS IS SIMPLY EDUCATIONALLY.
IS THERE A REASON FOR THAT, OR HOW DOES THAT HOW DO THEY DETERMINE THAT? YEAH. THE APPLICANT IS HERE CAN ADDRESS THE QUESTIONS.
MY UNDERSTANDING AND CAN BE CORRECTED IF THE ANSWER IS INCORRECT.
BUT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY PLANNING TO GO UNDERGROUND THE ENTIRE WAY.
HOWEVER IN ALONG SUMMIT AVENUE, THAT'S A CITY RIGHT OF WAY THEY'RE REQUIRED TO GO UNDERGROUND.
THERE ARE SOME LARGE WATER LINES THAT DO NOT ACCOMMODATE ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL UTILITIES.
AND SO THEY'RE HAVING TO FIND A DIFFERENT ROUTE, WHICH WOULD BE THE PERMANENT ROUTE TO THE SOUTH.
EDUCATION. ANYONE ELSE? MR. BROUNOFF. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ON THE THE THE DRAWING OF THE SITE PLAN THAT YOU SHOWED US WITH THE LITTLE SQUARE IN RED OR RECTANGLE IN RED AT THE BOTTOM RIGHT HAND CORNER. YEP.
LET'S TRY TO GET IN THERE. YOU JUST WENT BY IT.
ARE WE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THE WHOLE SITE WITHIN THE BLUE LINE OR JUST THE SITE? THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WITH WITHIN THE RED LINE.
SO YOU'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE THE SPECIFIC RED BOUNDARY FOR THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
SO THEY WILL BOTH BE APPROVED, BUT IT WILL JUST BE FOR THE SUP, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
OKAY. DOES THE SITE PLAN FOR THE AREA OUTSIDE THE RED RECTANGLE SIMPLY REFLECT EXISTING CONDITIONS? CORRECT. OKAY.
AND THOSE HAVE PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED FROM A ZONING STANDPOINT.
THERE IS A THERE IS A PAGE TWO OF THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
[00:20:01]
OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG, YOUR MIC IS ON.DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? YES, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION.
IT'S MORE OF A MY, I GUESS ALSO EDUCATIONAL TO MYSELF.
THERE IS ANOTHER EXISTING SUBSTATION, AND THIS IS THIS GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL OR IS REPLACING THE OTHER ONE? SO DO YOU MEAN THE ONE THAT'S EXISTING ON LIKE THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
YEAH. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE SPECIFICALLY FOR THE DATA CENTER.
AND SO IT'S GOING TO BE OPERATING FOR THEIR PROPERTY.
OKAY. THIS IS IN ADDITION TO THE ONE THAT'S BUT THAT ONE SAYS TEMPORARY.
SO THEY'RE GOING TO BE GETTING THE TEMPORARY POWER FROM THE EXISTING SUBSTATION.
JUST MEANING TEMPORARY USING THAT POWER FROM THERE.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. SO, IS THERE ANYTHING IN ZONING SAYS THAT THE POWER LINES NEEDS TO BE UNDERGROUND FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION? SO MY UNDERSTANDING, IT'S LIKE IT IS.
SO WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANYTHING OUTSIDE OF LIKE RIGHT OF WAY THAT DICTATES IT BE UNDERGROUND.
BUT IF THE NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS WANT TO MAKE THAT A REQUIREMENT AS PART OF THEIR CONSENT FOR THE TRANSMISSION LINES ON THEIR PROPERTY THEN THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN EXPLORE WITH ONCORE AND THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT WE DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE THAT POSITION.
THIS IS AN ACCESSORY USE TO, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, A BY RIGHT USE FOR THAT ZONE.
WHY DOES IT REQUIRE AN SUP? JUST A SUBSTATION REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
SO THE DATA CENTER ITSELF DOESN'T REQUIRE THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.
NO. CORRECT. SO THE SUBSTATION IS AN ACCESSORY USE.
YOU NEED POWER TO RUN THE DATA CENTER.
ALLOWED BY RIGHT FOR THE WHOLE SITE REQUIRES AN SUP.
YEAH, I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY LOOK AT IT AS AN ACCESSORY IN THIS CASE.
THERE ARE TWO USES ON THE SAME SITE.
WE CONSIDER THEM BOTH PRIMARY USES.
AND THE SUBSTATION REQUIRES THE SUP.
SO THAT'S WHY THEY'RE HERE TONIGHT.
SO FOLLOW UP QUESTION WHAT THRESHOLD WOULD DETERMINE MAKE THIS A SECOND PRIMARY USE? SO IF I'M TRYING TO THINK TOWARDS THE WE HAD A CASE WITH HOME DEPOT OR WHAT HAVE YOU WHERE THE LARGE EQUIPMENT OR WHAT HAVE YOU THAT THEY HAD OUTSIDE OF THE BUILDING WAS DETERMINED AN ACCESSORY USE.
AND BECAUSE IT WAS PART OF THE RETAIL OPERATIONS AND WHAT HAVE YOU, THEY DIDN'T REQUIRE AN SUP.
SO I'M TRYING TO WHAT MAKES THIS A SECOND PRIMARY USE? YEAH, I BELIEVE IN THIS CASE, THE THE SUBSTATION FUNCTIONS SEPARATELY ON ITS OWN.
IT'S A IT'S A WHOLLY DISTINCT FUNCTION.
NOW IT'S SERVING THE DATA CENTER, BUT IT DOESN'T HAVE TO SERVE THE DATA CENTER.
IT COULD SERVE OTHER USES ON THIS SITE.
SO BECAUSE THEY'RE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER, OKAY.
THEY'RE ONLY RELATED OPERATIONALLY.
BUT BUT THEY COULD BE SEPARATED IN THE FUTURE.
SO THAT'S NOT AN ACCESSORY USE.
OKAY. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR.
THEY COULD BE SEPARATED IN THE FUTURE.
YES. COULD SERVE OTHER PURPOSES.
BUT YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT.
I MEAN, WE HAVE MORE DATA CENTERS THAT ARE BEING, YOU KNOW, PROPOSED SHOULD THERE BE I DON'T KNOW, LET'S JUST SAY AN ACCEPTED USE ACCESSORY USE FOR A DATA CENTER ADDING, BECAUSE ALMOST ALL OF THEM ARE GOING TO NEED HUGE POWER SOURCES.
THERE WAS A LINE THAT SAID I THINK THE CITY ALLOWED OVERHEAD LINES ALONG KLEIN AND SUMMIT BECAUSE IT WAS ON THE GROUND UTILITY AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
IN THE PROPOSED NEW ROUTE, DO WE KNOW IF WE HAVE UNDERGROUND UTILITY LINES ALREADY THERE, WHICH WE COULD.
IF NOT, THEN COULD WE IMPOSE EITHER THROUGH ENGINEERING THAT THEY BURY THEIR UTILITY LINES IN THIS CASE? THE ISSUE IS NOT THE UTILITIES.
IT'S THE USING THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY WHICH THE WESTERN ROUTE DOES NOT USE CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
IT'S FOLLOWING A DRAINAGE CHANNEL.
I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE UTILITIES THERE, BUT THERE IS DRAINAGE.
[00:25:09]
NOW, THAT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT ENGINEERING HAS REVIEWED AND STUDIED.YES. BUT THAT'S STILL STILL TO BE WORKED OUT.
SO WHEN THIS COMES BACK WHERE WE ARE APPROVING THE SITE PLAN, WE WILL HAVE THE STANDARD LANGUAGE FOR ENGINEERING, BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH THAT WE USUALLY HAVE IN CASES OF DRAINAGE, TOPOGRAPHY, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
SO THIS WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE TRANSMISSION LINES THEMSELVES OR UTILITY.
THEY DON'T REQUIRE A SITE PLAN.
THEY JUST HAVE TO BE PUT IN AN EASEMENT.
AND THEY'LL SUBMIT A SET OF CIVIL PLANS TO OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW.
ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THANK YOU. AND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.
DO WE HAVE A PRESENTATION OR IT'S JUST TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.
OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT DIRECTLY? OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
PLEASE VOTE. MR. RATLIFF, YOU'RE STILL HERE.
THANK YOU. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8 TO 0.
I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM THREE B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
OKAY. DO YOU WANT SINCE I INTERRUPTED YOUR MOTION.
I'M SORRY, MR. BRONSKY. WOULD YOU LIKE TO YEAH.
GIVE ME ONE SECOND. LET ME GET BACK THERE.
SOMEBODY ELSE CAN MAKE A MOTION BECAUSE MR. BRONSKY WON'T BE HERE ONE NIGHT AND MR. BROUNOFF. THANK YOU.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM THREE B CONDITIONED ON THE CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE A.
A MOTION FROM THIS SIDE OF THE TABLE.
MR. BROUNOFF HAS MOVED APPROVAL OF ITEM THREE B.
AND THAT'S SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER TONG.
ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8 TO 0.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. MY NECK WAS GETTING SORE FROM LOOKING THIS WAY CONSTANTLY.
ITEM FOUR A WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ IT WITH FOUR B?
[Items 4A & 4B]
YES. THANK YOU.ITEM NUMBER FOUR A ZONING CASE 2024-002.
REQUEST TO REZONE FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 123 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 123 DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT ON 8.6 ACRES.
LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 14TH STREET, 330FT EAST OF U.S.
THIS ITEM WAS TABLED JULY 15TH, 2024.
PETITIONERS ARE REGENCY PROPERTY INVESTORS, L.P..
MICHAEL AND PAMELA WALKER, PLANO FAMILY, 001 L.P.
AND TEXAS STATE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CORPORATION.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR B REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PATRIOT PARK BLOCK A LOT 2R 129 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE UNITS ON ONE LOT ON 2.4 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 14TH STREET, 330FT EAST OF U.S. HIGHWAY 75.
AND MICHAEL AND PAMELA WALKER.
THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING ITEM NUMBER FOUR A.
IT IS ABOUT 0.2 ACRES, AND THE PROPERTY THAT WE'RE REQUESTING TO REZONE AGAIN IS THE SMALL CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY AND TO INCORPORATE IT INTO THE PD 123 AND BUSINESS GOVERNMENT, DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT.
SO IF YOU'LL REMEMBER, ON JULY 15TH, THE ITEM WAS BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION AND IT WAS TABLED.
THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE.
THEY HAD PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED USING STIPULATIONS FOR GARAGE AND TANDEM PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE.
AND SINCE THEN, THE APPLICANT HAS COME AND REVISED WITH CITY STAFF.
[00:30:02]
AND SO THERE'S NO LONGER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE STIPULATIONS FOR GARAGE AND TANDEM PARKING.AND SO IN THE NEXT SLIDE HERE.
THE ONE ON THE LEFT IS THE PLAN THAT WAS PROPOSED ON JULY 15TH.
AND THE PLAN ON THE RIGHT WAS THE ONE PROPOSED ON SEPTEMBER 3RD, WHICH WOULD BE TONIGHT.
AND SO THE PINK SQUARES ARE WHERE THE INDIVIDUAL GARAGE UNITS USED TO BE.
AND THEN THE BLUE ONE IS TANDEM PARKING.
AND THEN THE YELLOW ONE WAS THE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED TUCK UNDER PARKING.
AND SINCE THEN THEY HAVE REMOVED THE TANDEM AND THE GARAGE PARKING.
AND THEN INSTEAD THEY HAVE REPLACED IT WITH YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE LIGHT GREEN IT'S A LITTLE HARD TO SHOW HERE, BUT THAT'S ALL SURFACE PARKING 14 SPACES THERE. AND THEN FOR THE OTHER GARAGES TO THE SOUTH OF THE TANDEM SPACES.
THOSE ARE ALL NOW TUCK UNDER AS WELL.
AND JUST TO NOTE FOR THE TUCK UNDER GARAGE SPACES, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO BE 8.5FT WIDE PER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AS A PARKING GARAGE PARKING SPACE, AND SO THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO ADD MORE PARKING SPACES UNDER BOTH BUILDINGS.
AND SO YOU'LL SEE HERE THIS IS THE TOTAL PARKING COUNT.
THEY ARE PROVIDING 145 INSTEAD OF 142 SPACES.
THERE ARE 76 STANDARD SURFACE PARKING AND THEN 69 COMPACT PARKING.
OKAY. AND THEN SO HERE IS THEIR NEWLY PROPOSED REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
AND I DON'T WANT TO GO OVER THE HISTORY TOO MUCH, BUT JUST TO REPEAT THAT, THE 129 UNITS THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, AND IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON A DIFFERENT PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND THIS IS STILL WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING.
SO THE UNIT COUNT IS NOT CHANGING.
THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING ANY CHANGES TO THE EXISTING PD 123 STIPULATIONS.
SO ALL OF THESE WILL STAY THE SAME.
THERE IS A 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THE SIX FOOT FENCE THAT IS REQUIRED.
OKAY. AND HERE ARE THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.
AND AGAIN, THE GARAGE AND TANDEM PARKING STIPULATIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED.
SO IT IS JUST CONFIRMING THAT.
AND THEN FOR THE OTHER TWO STIPULATIONS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AREA IN MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENCE IS CONSIDERED A SENSITIVE LAND USE. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A NOISE STUDY FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
EXCUSE ME. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE PORTION OF THE MAP.
MOST OF THE SITE IS WITHIN THAT EHA-1, THAT LIGHT BLUE.
OKAY. AND SO HERE IS THE NOISE MITIGATION PROPOSED STIPULATIONS.
AND THEN HERE'S THE POLLUTION MITIGATION AS WELL.
AND BOTH OF THESE ARE PRETTY STANDARD LANGUAGE WITH OUR PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN CORRIDORS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
AND WE RECEIVED NO NEW RESPONSES SINCE THE JULY 15TH MEETING.
SO THESE RESPONSES ARE STILL THE SAME.
WE RECEIVED SEVEN TOTAL OR EIGHT TOTAL, BUT ONE WAS A BLANK LETTER.
[00:35:01]
PATRIOT PARK PHASE TWO.BUT THE PROPOSAL DOES MEET THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT.
AND AGAIN, THEY ARE REMOVING THE GARAGE AND TANDEM PARKING SPACES HERE.
THANK YOU. OKAY, QUESTIONS, MR. BROUNOFF. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOU SAID THEY WERE SEEKING OVERALL 330 UNITS? DOESN'T THAT INCLUDE THE UNITS FROM THE OTHER TWO RELATED SECTIONS OF THIS LARGER LOT? CORRECT. AS I READ THE PACKET THE PHASE THREE THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD INCLUDES 129 UNITS.
I MEAN, I COULDN'T IMAGINE THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING TO PROVIDE 145 PARKING SPACES FOR 330 UNITS.
ALL RIGHT. NOW, LOOKING AT THE PARKING CHART ON PAGE 76 OF OUR PACKET, I'LL TRY TO FLIP, THE COMPACT SURFACE PARKING SPACES OF WHICH THEY'RE PROPOSING 69 CORRECT, ARE LISTED SEPARATELY FROM THE TUCK UNDER GARAGE PARKING SPACES OF WHICH THEY'RE PROPOSING 52. CORRECT.
CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. THE COMPACT SURFACE PARKING SPACES AT OUR, THE LAST MEETING THAT WE CONSIDERED THIS MATTER WHEN IT WAS POSTPONED, THEY WERE SHOWING THE COMPACT SURFACE PARKING SPACES AS BEING 7.5FT WIDE.
IS THAT STILL THE CASE? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. AND A HALF FEET WIDE BY 16FT LONG.
CORRECT. AND THAT'S WITH RESPECT TO SIDE BY SIDE PARKING SPACES, NOT PARALLEL PARKING SPACES.
OKAY. IF THE STAFF HAS CONCERN ABOUT THE NUMBER OF COMPACT PARKING SPACES, COULD YOU PLEASE ARTICULATE THAT THE NATURE OF THE STAFF'S CONCERN ON THAT MATTER? YEAH, I THINK JUST THE AGAIN, WITH THE REDUCTION OF THE PARKING SPACES, LIKE FOR BG AND I THINK THE PRACTICAL CONCERN OF THE VEHICLES KIND OF DRIVEN IN THE AREA AND THE, I GUESS, EFFECTIVENESS OF THE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION, I THINK, YOU KNOW, THERE IS JUST SOME CONCERN ABOUT HOW MANY VEHICLES MAY BE PARKED IN, LIKE REALISTICALLY.
AND SO I THINK THAT IS A POTENTIAL CONCERN.
BUT AGAIN IT DOES MEET THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.
SO WE ARE RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL.
BUT THAT IS JUST A CONCERN THAT WE HAVE.
OKAY. THANK YOU I'LL HAVE MORE COMMENT LATER MR. CHAIRMAN. IS THE 145 SPACES THE MINIMUM REQUIRED SPACES? THE MINIMUM IS 142, 142.
SO THEY WERE AT 142 BEFORE BUT BECAUSE THEY TANDEM THAT WAS OUR OUR CHALLENGE I THINK IT DOES LOOK LIKE THEY'VE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF STANDARD PARKING SPACES FROM 11 TO 24, WHICH IS GOOD NEWS I GUESS.
CAN YOU TELL ME ON THE REMAINDER OF THE LOT DO WE KNOW THE NUMBER OF SPACES FOR THE OTHER 201 UNITS? LIKE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES FOR THE OTHER TWO PROJECTS? ULTIMATELY, WHERE I'M GOING WITH IT IS, YOU KNOW, DO THEY HAVE PARKING? DO THEY HAVE EXTRA PARKING THERE SO THAT WE'RE WE'RE WE'RE I UNDERSTAND THAT WE'RE JUDGING THIS BASED ON THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES ASSIGNED TO HIS TO THESE UNITS.
BUT IF THE PARKING THAT'S AVAILABLE FOR THE OTHER UNITS IS NOT FULL, THEN THAT PARKING WOULD ALSO BE AVAILABLE FOR FOR THESE RESIDENTS, I WOULD ASSUME, SINCE IT'S ALL PART OF A CONTIGUOUS DEVELOPMENT.
AND SO IF THE PATRIOT PARK PHASE ONE, IF THEY HAD EXCESS PARKING ON THEIR SITE AND THEY WANTED TO DEDICATE SOME PARKING TO PHASE TWO, THEN THAT COULD KIND OF HELP THEM WITH THAT.
I THINK WE LOOKED AT THAT, JOHN.
THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION AS WHAT COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF HAS REGARDING THE SIZE OF THE PARKING SPACES.
[00:40:09]
STANDARD OF 20FT IS PLUS A LOT OF THE NEW BUILDINGS, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY EXTRA SPACE OUTSIDE THE FRAME OF THE GARAGE THEN WHEN YOU PARK THE CAR, YOU CAN'T OPEN THE DOORS. SO THAT'S A COMMON PROBLEM.SO IF YOU HAVE A NARROW COMPACT CAR AND IF ANY OF THE CARS IN THE SPACES IS NOT DEAD CENTER PARKED IN THEIR SPACE EITHER SIDE OR ON ONE SIDE OF THE OTHER CAR, THEY CAN'T OPEN DOORS, THEY CAN'T GET IN OR THEY CAN'T GET OUT.
I AM REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.
BUT I UNDERSTAND THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS AND WE CAN'T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
IT'S, YOU KNOW, YOU RECOMMEND APPROVAL, WE'LL PROBABLY APPROVE IT.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
YES. I'M SORRY. ON PAGE 73, ON OUR PACKET IN OUR PACKET, IT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE.
BECAUSE, LIKE THEY PUT IN THE POOL, SO THEY REDUCED THE OPEN SPACE.
LET ME SEE. SO THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE FENCING FOR THE OPEN SPACE.
YEAH LIKE THE REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN SPACE THIS IS HOW I UNDERSTOOD THE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT'S ON PAGE 73 ON IN OUR PACKET, SO.
AND PART OF THEIR ASSUMPTIONS WERE THAT THERE WOULD BE A METAL FENCE SHIELDING THAT POOL AREA.
BECAUSE IT SAYS LIKE IT'S RECOMMENDED, LIKE 10 TO 20% AND ALL THEY HAVE IS LIKE 1.7%.
YEAH. THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN SPACE IN THE ZONING.
THAT'S A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR THE DISTRICT AS A WHOLE.
YEAH, JUST A LITTLE TEXTURE TO THE QUESTIONS THAT THESE COMMISSIONERS HAVE BEEN ASKING.
I JUST KIND OF GOOGLED WHAT IS THE WIDTH OF A STANDARD CAR? AND IT HAPPENS TO BE FIVE FEET, EIGHT INCHES, AND THE WIDTH OF A JEEP IS 73, 74IN.
SO WHEN YOU START THINKING ABOUT THAT AND YOU START THINKING ABOUT TRYING TO OPEN YOUR DOORS AND WITH WITH REGARD TO THE FACT THAT WE LIVE IN TEXAS AND SOME OF THE VEHICLES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PARKED THERE, I DO I SHARE YOUR CONCERN ON NOT WHILE IT MIGHT MEET THE ORDINANCE AND THE CODE, DOES IT MEET THE COMMON SENSE TEST.
SO I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS NUMBER OF SPACES FOR THIS THIS ADDITION AND THE ULTIMATE EFFECT IT MIGHT HAVE ON THE AREA AND EVEN THE ADJACENT AREAS.
MR. RATLIFF? YEAH, JUST ONE COMMENT.
BUT IT YOU KNOW, JUST THAT JUST MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME.
BUT JUST A SUGGESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THIS IS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SO THE COMMISSION COULD ADD STIPULATIONS.
WE HAVE IT'S A LEGISLATIVE ITEM.
WE DO HAVE SOME CONTROL ON THAT.
JUST TRYING TO REGROUND MYSELF.
WE'RE ESSENTIALLY TRYING TO DECIDE ON REZONING THAT CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL PARCEL
[00:45:09]
RIGHT TO THE PD DEVELOPMENT.SO WE'RE JUST ADDING THAT ESSENTIALLY THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE HERE.
I UNDERSTAND THEY THEY MEET THE PARKING ORDINANCE AND WHAT HAVE YOU, BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE A REQUIREMENT FOR THAT 0.2MI² THAT WE'RE TRYING TO REZONE.
BECAUSE THE OF THE 330 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY APPROVED EVERYTHING ALREADY.
I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY PARKING SPACES AND WIDTHS AND WHAT HAVE YOU REALLY HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH 0.2MI² OF PARCEL? YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW.
IT'S NOT WANTING TO WORK WITH ME.
AND SO IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED ON THE SITE.
BUT THE APPLICANT HAS STATED, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE CHANGES TO THE DESIGN THAT THEY WERE PURSUING.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THE, YOU KNOW, THE REZONING OF THIS LOT IS REQUESTED BECAUSE THEY WANT TO REZONE IT AND THEN PLAT IT TOGETHER WITH THE EXISTING LOT TWO TO COMBINE THE NEW LOT.
AND SO THAT'S WHY THE REQUEST IS FOR REZONING THIS LOT, TO COMBINE IT WITH THE LOT TWO.
UNDERSTOOD. SO HYPOTHETICAL WE DON'T APPROVE THAT PARCEL OF LAND.
DOES THAT DRASTICALLY CHANGE THE ABILITY TO MEET OUR PARKING ORDINANCE? WE'VE HAD WE'VE HAD A PREVIOUS PLAN APPROVED ON THE SITE WITHOUT THE CC SMALLER CC PORTION THAT MET ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS, THROUGH ALL OF IT BEING PODIUM PARKING SO THAT IT WAS ALL FIRST LEVEL GROUND LEVEL PARKING WITH THE UNITS ABOVE.
IT'S A KIND OF A SITE DESIGN CONCERN MORE THAN IT IS A ZONING CONCERN.
AND SO THAT'S ULTIMATELY WHY WE'RE IN THE PREVIOUS CASE, THEY WERE RECOMMENDING STIPULATIONS TO ALLOW PARKING EXCEPTIONS BECAUSE THEY'VE REMOVED THOSE AND NOW THEY'RE FOLLOWING THE STANDARD ZONING ORDINANCE.
THAT'S WHY STAFF HAS CHANGED OUR POSITION FROM DENIAL TO APPROVAL.
THANK YOU. ANYONE ELSE? MR. BROUNOFF? YEAH. YEAH. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF.
OUR ORDINANCE SPECIFIES A REQUIRED MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES BASED ON THE NUMBER OF ONE BEDROOM AND TWO BEDROOM UNITS? CORRECT. THE THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT HAS SPECIFIC STANDARDS.
YES, THAT THAT'S BASED ON THE NUMBER OF BEDROOMS. RIGHT. IT'S IT'S DIFFERENT THAN THE STANDARD MULTIFAMILY REQUIREMENTS ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY.
SO THEY'RE SPECIFIC TO THIS DISTRICT WITH RESPECT TO THIS DISTRICT.
IS THE REQUIRED NUMBER INTENDED TO BE AN APPROXIMATION OF THE NUMBER OF CARS THAT MIGHT BE OWNED OR OPERATED BY THE RESIDENTS IN THOSE ONE AND TWO BEDROOM APARTMENTS? OR IS IT ALSO INTENDED TO ALLOW A CERTAIN NUMBER OF EXTRA PARKING SPACES FOR LIKE VISITORS, SERVICE PROVIDERS, CONTRACTORS, REPAIR PEOPLE, DELIVERY PEOPLE? I THINK THE NUMBER IS REDUCED BEYOND THE STANDARD MULTIFAMILY REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE IT'S IN A TRANSIT ORIENTED AREA, AND IT'S EXPECTED THAT SOME PEOPLE WILL BE ABLE TO USE TRANSIT AND NOT NEED NEED THE CAR.
YES. WHAT PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTS DO YOU THINK ARE NOT GOING TO HAVE A CAR? I COULD NOT GUESS, BUT THAT'S THE THEORY BEHIND THE PARKING REDUCTION.
OKAY. I WOULD PROPOSE HARDLY ANYBODY DOESN'T HAVE A CAR.
I MEAN, COME ON, LET'S BE REAL.
SO I THINK IT'S NOT UNCOMMON FOR THERE TO BE PEOPLE WHO DON'T OWN A CAR AND COMMUTE TO WORK.
YEAH. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S SPECIFIC WHEN WE LOOK THROUGH ALL OF THE DATA TO PUT THESE DISTRICTS TOGETHER, IN PARTICULAR, ANYTHING WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF THE TRAIN STATION, IT WAS ASSUMED THAT THEY WOULD THERE WOULD BE PEOPLE WITHOUT, WITHOUT VEHICLES.
SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR STAFF. JUST ONE MORE.
[00:50:03]
AND APOLOGIES, I DIDN'T READ THIS UP IN OUR ORDINANCE.HOW PRESCRIPTIVE ARE WE AS TO WHAT DETERMINES A PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS? DO WE HAVE A LEVEL OF PRESCRIPTION IN A PARKING SPACES 8 BY 4 OR 5 BY TWO, WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE? YES. A STANDARD SPACE IS 9 BY 20.
A TYPICAL COMPACT SPACE IS EIGHT AND A HALF.
THERE IS AN ALLOWANCE SPECIFIC TO THE BG DISTRICT THAT ALLOWS IT TO GO DOWN TO SEVEN AND A HALF.
THIS IS THE ONLY DISTRICT THAT HAS THAT NARROWER WIDTH.
GOTCHA. AND THEY'VE MET OUR PRESCRIBED STANDARDS.
BUT WHAT SHE'S COMMENTED WAS THAT IN DALLAS, THE COMPACT PARKING 7.5FT.
I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE NOISE MODELING THAT THEY DID.
SO YOU'RE LIKE LOOKING AT THE NOISE MODELING FOR THE CURRENT TRAFFIC IS ALL IN LIKE 65, 67DB.
AND THE WALL CONSTRUCTION THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS ONLY 39.
SO WILL THIS BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE LIKE THE NOISE IS GOING TO COME LIKE ACCORDING TO THE WALL ASSEMBLY THAT THEY PROPOSING. AND I APOLOGIZE.
I HAVE TO BE BY THE MICROPHONE.
YES. I THINK IN SUMMARY, THERE ARE RECOMMENDATIONS FOUND THAT THERE WERE NO WAY TO MITIGATE THE NOISE DOWN TO THE LEVELS RECOMMENDED BY THE ORDINANCE FOR OUTSIDE NOISE LEVELS.
JUST ONE MORE FOR THE RECORD THAN ANYTHING.
I'M THINKING OF THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBOR.
THEY WILL BE REQUIRED BEFORE WE APPROVE FINAL SITE PLANS OR WHAT HAVE YOU, TO BUILD A SIX FOOT TALL SOLID FENCE AND A LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND RELOCATE THE UTILITY AT THEIR EXPENSE? THAT'S CORRECT. IT'LL BE PART OF THEIR PLANS.
CONSTRUCTED AND INSPECTED BEFORE RELEASE OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY.
AND THE MAINTENANCE OF SAID BUFFER IS ON THEIR EXPENSE, NOT THE NEIGHBOR.
AND JUST TO CLARIFY, THE SIX FOOT FENCE IS ON THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S A SIX FOOT WOOD FENCE, BUT THE LANDSCAPE, THE LANDSCAPING IN THE BUFFER STILL NEEDS TO BE PLANTED BEFORE CONSTRUCTION.
SO THAT'S GOING TO BE ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS WE HAVE.
OKAY. ARE WE GOOD? ALL RIGHT. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
SPEAKERS? THERE IS ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER FOR FOR A MARK LEONE.
HE'S THE APPLICANT WITH CROSS ARCHITECTS.
YOU JUST HAVE TO GET CLOSE TO IT.
I APOLOGIZE. NO, YOU'RE TOTALLY FINE.
YOU'RE A TALL GUY, SO YOU NEED AN EXTENSION ON IT.
IT'S OKAY. I'LL CROUCH DOWN A LITTLE BIT.
GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONING STAFF.
MY NAME IS MARK LEONE WITH CROSS ARCHITECTS.
OUR ADDRESS IS 879 JUNCTION DRIVE, ALLEN, TEXAS.
SO I'M GOING TO BORE YOU A LITTLE BIT BY REITERATING SOME OF THE THINGS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT AND THEN TALKING TO YOU ABOUT WHAT WE'VE CHANGED SINCE YOU'VE SEEN US TWO MONTHS AGO. SO LET'S TALK ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OF THE RECENT HISTORY ON THIS SITE.
SO AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT BEFORE, THIS SITE PLAN WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED AND FULLY APPROVED BY THIS SAME STAFF APPROXIMATELY TWO YEARS AGO. WE DID NOT HAVE THAT COMMERCIAL LOT, THE 0.2 ACRE LOT WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THAT.
BECAUSE OF THAT, OUR CLIENT REGENCY, CAME TO US, CROSS ARCHITECTS, AND ASKED US TO REDESIGN THE SITE TO FIT IN TODAY'S MARKETING PARAMETERS.
[00:55:06]
WALKER'S LAND THAT IS LOCATED ON 14TH STREET, THE SOUTH SIDE, THAT LITTLE 0.2 ACRE LOT.OKAY, I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY WORDS LIKE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, TAX CREDIT, ASSISTED LIVING, SECTION EIGHT, ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN OUR MINDS WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THESE APARTMENTS, THAT IS NOT WHAT THESE ARE.
THESE WILL BE LUXURY HIGH END APARTMENTS IS OUR GOAL.
YOU VOICED CONCERNS WITH THAT? WE HEARD YOUR CONCERNS.
WE HAD CONFERENCE CALLS AND TEAM MEETINGS WITH MR. MIKE BELL, JOHN KIM, FIRE MARSHAL, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ALL THE POWERS THAT BE IN ORDER TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH WHAT IS ALLOWED, WHAT'S NOT ALLOWED, AND HOW WE CAN COME TO A BETTER PARKING DESIGN FOR THE SITE.
AND THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT HERE TODAY.
THE THINGS THAT YOU VOICED LAST TWO MONTHS AGO WAS WE HAD CONCERNS WITH THE GARAGE PARKING.
SAME THING WITH TANDEM PARKING, YOU KNOW, THAT DIDN'T COUNT AS A PARKING STALL.
SO WHAT WE'VE DONE IS WE'VE JUST COMPLETELY GOT RID OF IT.
WE ARE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCES, ANY EXCEPTIONS.
WE ARE LIVING WITHIN THE CODE, THE PD 123 DOWNTOWN DISTRICT, WITH ZERO EXCEPTIONS BEING ASKED OTHER THAN TRYING TO GET THE 0.2 ACRE LOT INCLUDED IN THE SAME PD.
THAT IS ALL WE'RE REQUESTING TODAY.
I WANT TO TALK ABOUT SOME OF THE DIFFICULTIES IN DESIGNING THE PROJECT AND WHAT WE'VE WORKED THROUGH, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT A LOT OF THEM TODAY, AND YOU GUYS HAVE ALL VOICED QUESTIONS, AND I JUST WANT TO TALK TO THEM BRIEFLY.
THE FIRST ONE IS OBVIOUSLY HIGHWAY 75 AND THE NOISE.
WE DID HIRE A THIRD PARTY NOISE CONSULTANT THAT WENT OUT AND MEASURED THE NOISE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND PROVIDED A NOISE STUDY REPORT, WHICH WE HAVE PROVIDED TO CITY STAFF.
BECAUSE OF THAT NOISE STUDY CITY STAFF GAVE US THEIR KIND OF BOILERPLATE TEMPLATE.
NOISE MITIGATION ITEMS THAT YOU APPLY TO OTHER PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANO.
AND WE AGREED TO PUT THOSE STIPULATIONS ON OURSELVES, WITH ZERO EXCEPTIONS.
THERE WERE TWO MAJOR ITEMS POINTED OUT IN THE NOISE STUDY.
YOU ALL KIND OF VOICED THOSE ITEMS. ONE WAS THE WELL, LET'S TALK ABOUT THE MAJOR ONE.
THE EXTERIOR SPACE WAS THE FIRST ONE.
IF YOU LOOK AT OUR SITE PLAN HERE, OUR PRETTY COLOR SITE PLAN.
THE BLUE BOX, TOP LEFT CORNER, THAT IS OUR OUTDOOR POOL AREA.
OKAY. THAT SECTION IS CUT AWAY FOUR STORIES TALL.
THERE'S NO ROOF ELEMENT OVER IT.
OBVIOUSLY, WITH 75 BEING JUST TO THE WEST, ABOUT 330FT, TO BE EXACT.
THE NOISE STUDY, AS WELL AS CITY STAFF, OUTLINED PUTTING A SOLID WALL CONNECTING THE CORNERS OF THE BUILDING GOING NORTH AND SOUTH, SO THERE IS A SOLID SIX FOOT TALL WALL SEPARATING OUR PRIVATE POOL AREA FROM THE TRAFFIC TO THE WEST.
IN ADDITION TO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT IS REQUIRED ALONG THE ENTIRE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE.
SO THERE WILL BE A LIVE GREEN SCREEN, AS WELL AS A SOLID SIX FOOT WALL IN THAT LOCATION TO MAKE THAT OUTDOOR AMENITY SPACE USABLE AND WITHIN THE APPROPRIATE DECIBEL RATINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED.
SO IT WAS MEASURED AT, I BELIEVE, REMEMBERING OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD I THINK IT WAS 67 WAS THE DECIBEL RATING THAT WAS MEASURED, WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE PER HUD STANDARD GUIDELINES ANYTHING UNDER 65 IS KIND OF WHERE YOU'RE AIMING AT.
THE STC RATING OF OUR EXTERIOR WALL IS 45.
THE WAY THE MATH WORKS FOR THAT IS YOU KIND OF TAKE THE DECIBEL RATING YOU MINUS THE STC RATING, AND THE NUMBER THAT'S LEFT OVER IS THE APPROXIMATE ESTIMATED NOISE THAT WOULD BE MEASURED INSIDE OF THE UNIT.
SO IF WE'RE AT 67 OUTSIDE, WE HAVE A 45 STC RATED WALL.
SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR.
ALSO AS PART OF THAT, WE AGREED TO NOT PUT ANY BALCONIES ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
SO THERE IS NO BALCONIES ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING TOWARDS 75.
WE ALSO AGREED THAT WE WOULD HAVE NO MECHANICAL VENTS OR OPENINGS ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
[01:00:04]
WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL THAT VENTILATION AND LOUVERS AND ANYTHING REQUIRED WITH CONSTRUCTION IS ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE NOISE COMING INTO THE BUILDING FROM THOSE MECHANICAL PENETRATIONS.ONE OF THE OTHER LAYERS OF KIND OF DESIGN TO THE SITE WAS THE SINGLE FAMILY LOT TO OUR SOUTH.
I BELIEVE HER EXACT STATEMENT WAS, I WILL DIE IN THIS HOME AND NO ONE IS MOVING ME OUT OF HERE.
SO WE ARE RESPECTING HER, HER LAND, AND THERE WE'VE ALREADY PAID FOR AND BUILT THE WALL OR THE FENCE THAT'S REQUIRED AROUND HER PROPERTY. IT IS EXISTING TODAY.
AND THE CLIENT THAT I WORK FOR THAT I WORK FOR, PAID FOR THAT WALL.
WE WILL OBVIOUSLY ADHERE TO THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE, BUFFER, THE REQUIREMENTS FOR IT AND THEN RELOCATE THOSE UTILITIES AND THAT WILL BE PART OF OUR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ONCE WE GET PAST THIS STEP, HOPEFULLY WITH YOUR SUPPORT.
AND THEN THE LAST ITEM THAT ADDED A LITTLE BIT OF DESIGN TO THIS IS OBVIOUSLY MR. WALKER'S SITE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE, THAT 0.2 ACRES.
THE REASON WE REALLY REQUESTED AND WANTED THAT TRACT OF LAND AND WHY IT WAS APPEALING TO US, IS TO GET TO THE PARKING, YOU KNOW, IN ORDER TO REDESIGN THE PROJECT AND NOT DO THAT PODIUM STYLE PRODUCT.
I DID WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE PARKING COUNT.
I KNOW THAT'S BEEN A BIG TOPIC TOPIC OF DISCUSSION HERE.
THERE IS TWO ADJACENT PROPERTIES RIGHT NEXT TO US THAT ARE WORKING AND FUNCTIONAL TODAY THAT HAVE THESE EXACT SAME PARKING EXISTING TODAY ON THEIR PROPERTY THAT ARE FUNCTIONING, THAT HAVE BEEN IMPROVED BY THE CITY.
SO THE COMPACT PARKING, THE 7.5FT PARKING STALLS THAT ARE UP TO THE 50% MAX, WE ARE UNDER THAT NUMBER, THE 142 PARKING STALLS THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR OUR UNITS.
AND TO BE CLEAR, 80% OF OUR UNITS WILL BE ONE BEDROOMS, 20% WILL BE TWO BEDROOMS. IT'S ONE PARKING STALL FOR A ONE BEDROOM AND ONE AND A HALF FOR A TWO BEDROOM.
IN THIS SPECIFIC PD 142 IS REQUIRED.
WE HAVE SPOKEN WITH JEAN BROWN, WHO OWNS THE PATRIOT PARK APARTMENTS JUST SOUTH OF US, AND SPOKE WITH HER ABOUT POSSIBLY RENTING SPACES FROM HER.
PER CODE, YOU KNOW, BLACK AND WHITE CODE BOOK SHE HAS NO EXTRA PARKING FROM A CODE STANDPOINT, FROM A USABLE DAILY FUNCTIONAL WHOSE PARKING THEIR STANDPOINT? SHE HAS ABOUT 32 PARKING STALLS ON HER SITE THAT ARE UNUSED.
AND AGAIN, THAT'S BECAUSE WHERE WE'RE LOCATED AT, WE'RE A BLOCK AWAY FROM THE DART.
THIS ENTIRE AREA IS BUILT ON FOLKS THAT DON'T HAVE MULTIPLE CARS OR A CAR AT ALL.
YOU KNOW, YOU'LL HAVE A TWO FAMILY HOUSEHOLD THAT'S LIVING ON ONE CAR.
THAT'S WHAT'S EXISTING TODAY IN THAT DOWNTOWN DISTRICT WITH THOSE APARTMENTS IN THAT AREA.
SO WE'RE CONFORMING WITH ALL THOSE ITEMS. AND THEN THERE WAS ONE CONCERN.
LET ME FLIP TO THE NEXT SLIDE.
I HAVE TO USE I MIGHT HAVE TO USE THE CLICKER THAT'S OVER HERE.
IT MOVED. IS THAT WHERE YOU WANTED TO GO? THAT'S EXACTLY WHERE I WANTED TO GO.
SO THERE WAS ONE OTHER CONCERN THAT WAS BROUGHT UP BY CITY STAFF, AND I JUST IT HASN'T REALLY BEEN BROUGHT UP TODAY, BUT I JUST WANT TO SPEAK TO IT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE BEING TRANSPARENT HERE.
THERE WERE CONCERNS ABOUT US POTENTIALLY PUTTING TOO MUCH PARKING UNDER THE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE SUFFICIENT SPACE TO PROVIDE THE PARKING, AS WELL AS THE STRUCTURAL STEEL THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THE BUILDING.
SO WHAT WE DID IS WE WENT IN AND WE DID A BLOW UP DESIGN UNDER THE BUILDING, DIMENSIONALLY DIVIDED OUT THE PARKING PER THE 8.5FT FOR PARKING THAT'S REQUIRED IN THE CITY OF PLANO FOR A GARAGE STYLE PARKING.
IT'S A STATE OF TEXAS LICENSED STRUCTURAL ENGINEER THAT WORKS IN THE MULTIFAMILY WORLD.
AND WE'VE WORKED WITH HIM FOR, YOU KNOW, THE 17 YEARS THAT I'VE BEEN DOING THIS.
[01:05:05]
AND HE HAS VERIFIED FOR US THAT THE POST THAT WILL BE NEEDED TO SUPPORT THE PARKING IS AN EIGHT BY EIGHT STEEL POST EVERY THREE PARKING STALLS.SO WE HAVE ESSENTIALLY PLANNED OUT AN EIGHT INCH SPACE EVERY THREE PARKING STALLS, IN ORDER FOR THERE TO BE A COLUMN THAT DOES NOT PROJECT INTO ANY PARKING STALL BY ANY MEASURABLE AMOUNT.
SO YOU WILL HAVE THREE PARKING STALLS.
AND THAT'S HOW WE WERE ABLE TO KIND OF GET PAST THAT 142 NUMBER AND GET A LITTLE BIT OF EXCESS WAS JUST BY SQUEEZING AS MUCH PARKING UNDER THESE TWO BUILDINGS AS WE POSSIBLY COULD TO PROVIDE MORE PARKING FOR OUR TENANTS.
SO AND THAT'S REALLY A KIND OF A SUMMARY ON IT.
WE'RE NOT COMING TO THE TABLE ASKING FOR ANY OF THAT.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? THERE ARE NONE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. CARY? ONE OF THE THINGS YOU SAID WAS THAT THESE ARE GOING TO BE LUXURY APARTMENTS.
DO YOU MIND JUST HELPING US UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS MEAN BY THAT PLEASE? ABSOLUTELY. SO THAT COULD BE A BIG BANDWIDTH OF WHAT PEOPLE WOULD CONSIDER LUXURY.
SO LET ME TELL YOU SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE CONSIDER LUXURY.
WE'RE TALKING STAINLESS STEEL APPLIANCES.
WE'RE TALKING HIGH END PLUSH CARPETS IN JUST THE BEDROOMS AND THEN VINYL KIND OF THROUGHOUT.
WE FOUND THAT A LOT OF FOLKS DON'T LIKE HAVING CARPET IN THEIR LIVING ROOM AREAS.
IT'S A LOT MORE USABLE HAVING VINYL IN THOSE AREAS.
USB OUTLETS, IN THE KITCHEN AND IN THE BEDROOMS THAT ARE BUILT IN.
SO THAT WAY YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE YOUR OWN BLOCKS.
YEAH, I THINK THAT'S KIND OF A SUMMARY OF THE INTERIOR AMENITIES THAT YOU WOULD GET IN A LUXURY APARTMENT, THOSE KIND OF HIGH END FINISHES THAT YOU WOULD EXPECT IN LIKE A NEW SINGLE FAMILY HOME.
AND THEN AS FAR AS THE ITEMS ON THE OUTSIDE OBVIOUSLY THERE'S OUR AMENITIES.
WE HAVE THE LUXURY POOL THAT'S GOING TO BE PRIVATE AND SCREENED FOR OUR TENANTS.
THESE ARE GOING TO HAVE HIGH END MASONRY FACADES.
A LOT OF BRICK AND MASONRY ON THE BUILDING.
PROBABLY 80 PLUS PERCENT MASONRY ON THE BUILDINGS.
SO A LITTLE BIT OF SHADE FOR YOUR VEHICLE.
GREAT. THANK YOU. JUST ONE MORE QUICK QUESTION, BUT THERE ARE NO GARAGES IN THE NEW DESIGN.
IS THAT. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? THAT IS 100% CORRECT.
THERE ARE NO LIKE, ENCLOSED SINGLE USE GARAGES.
THERE ARE TUCK UNDER GARAGE AREAS BUT NOT ENCLOSED GARAGES.
MR. OLLEY. JUST A QUICK QUESTION.
LOOKING AT WHAT YOU HAVE UP THERE.
SO WHERE THE STRIKE THROUGH FOR THE STEEL BEAMS. IT'S A LITTLE BIT INTO WHAT IS SLOTTED AS A PARKING SLOT.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S NOT COUNTED IN THE 142 145 WHERE THE BEAMS CURRENTLY SIT.
SO LET ME MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING.
SO THAT HATCHED AREA THAT'S GOING HORIZONTAL.
IT'S GOT THE 45 DEGREE LINES IN IT.
THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. YEAH.
YEAH. SO THAT THAT'S EIGHT INCHES WIDE AND IT DOES NOT PROJECT INTO THE PARKING STALL AT ALL.
YOU'LL HAVE 8.5FT CLEAR AND THEN YOU'LL HAVE AN EIGHT INCH HATCHED AREA.
AND IN THAT EIGHT INCH AREA WILL BE YOUR STEEL POSTS.
SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE SCALE WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, IT'S EATING INTO ONE PARKING SLOT OR IT MIGHT BE.
WHERE ARE YOU SEEING THE OVERLAP?
[01:10:03]
IT'S NOT. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE DIMENSION STRING ON THE FAR LEFT.SO WE AT THE STARTING AT THE BOTTOM, THERE'S, YOU SEE THE EIGHT INCH AT THE BOTTOM.
AND THEN IT SAYS EIGHT AND A HALF, EIGHT AND A HALF, EIGHT AND A HALF AND THEN EIGHT INCH.
AS YOU WORK FROM BOTTOM UP WITH THAT DIMENSION STRING ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE.
DO YOU SEE THAT DIMENSION STRING? I NEED MY GLASSES. OKAY.
I'LL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. YEAH.
SO ESSENTIALLY, NO, WE WON'T HAVE ANY OF THOSE POSTS, WON'T PROJECT INTO ANY OF THE PARKING.
OKAY. THAT MIGHT JUST BE A DRAFTING THE WAY IT'S DRAWN AND THE BOLDNESS OF THE LINE POSSIBLY.
BUT OUR INTENT IS TO HAVE THAT POST.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION, AND I'LL START BY SAYING THAT I CAN UNDERSTAND STRUGGLING WITH THE PARKING.
BUT I DO THINK THAT THERE'S THERE'S PROBABLY SUFFICIENT PARKING.
I DO KNOW THAT, FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU GO TO OUR SHOPPING CENTERS THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WAS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WAS ALLOCATED BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE USE AND STUFF, AND THE PARKING LOTS ARE ALWAYS EMPTY.
AND IF YOU GO OVER TO LIKE PATRIOT PARK AND LOOK, IT'S IT'S THE LAST TIME I CHECKED IT WAS 97% LEASED, BUT THE PARKING LOT IS ONLY ABOUT 70% FULL.
SO WHERE'S, YOU KNOW, ALL THE CARS.
SO I THINK THERE'S PROBABLY SUFFICIENT PARKING.
I DON'T KNOW IF MAYBE I SHOULD HAVE ASKED THAT WHILE I WAS UP HERE.
THE PROBLEM IS, IF WE SAY, WELL, LET'S REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE, WELL, WE'VE GOT ENOUGH PARKING, BUT WE DON'T LIKE THE SIZE OF THE PARKING.
SO I STRUGGLE WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT.
AND IN PARTICULAR, THE FACT THAT, I MEAN, THEY HAVE THE RIGHTS TO BUILD THIS.
AND THE ONLY REASON WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IS BECAUSE THEY'RE TRYING TO ADD MORE SPACE INTO IT.
SO I STRUGGLE REALLY WITH WITH GETTING TOO DEEP INTO THE WEEDS ON THIS.
THANK YOU DAVID. SO THIS IS AN INTERESTING CASE BECAUSE WE'RE CONSIDERING THIS BECAUSE OF MARKET CONDITIONS WHICH HAVE DRIVEN THESE GUYS TO LOOK AT NEW WAYS TO DO IT, WHICH I GUESS I'M SOMEWHAT SYMPATHETIC TO THAT.
I DON'T KNOW, I DON'T KNOW THAT I'VE HEARD THAT BEFORE.
I HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH THE PARKING, BUT I ALSO I SUPPORT WHAT YOU JUST SAID, DAVID.
I YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT ALL MAKES SENSE.
AND SO FOR ME, I THINK THE TIEBREAKER HERE IS TWO THINGS.
ONE IS, IS THAT THEY HAVE MET ALL OF THE CODES AND THE ORDINANCES.
SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S IN THEIR FAVOR.
AND SO FOR THOSE REASONS I'LL BE IN FAVOR OF IT.
AND SO TO ME, THAT'S ANOTHER THING IN FAVOR OF THIS.
SO THANK YOU, MR. BROUNOFF. THANK YOU.
I MEAN, I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THE CONCEPT FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE DOWNTOWN.
I AM NOT CONSTITUTIONALLY OPPOSED TO APARTMENTS.
I THINK A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF APARTMENTS ARE NECESSARY WITHIN THE CITY.
WE HAVE A DEMAND TO MEET IN TERMS OF HOUSING.
WITH RESPECT TO THE NOISE LEVEL, I THINK THE MITIGATION THEY HAVE PROPOSED IS ADEQUATE.
I'M NOT SO CONCERNED ABOUT THE NOISE.
THE ONLY USABLE OUTDOOR SPACE IS THE SWIMMING POOL, AND THAT IS ADEQUATELY MITIGATED, BUT IT IS ALSO THE ONLY USABLE OUTDOOR SPACE.
I AGREE WITH MISS [INAUDIBLE] THAT THE THE AMOUNT OF USABLE OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE THAT THEY'VE PROVIDED IS FAR BELOW WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS.
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS 10 TO 20%, THEY'RE PROVIDING 1.7%.
AND THAT IS IT'S AN OUTDOOR BUT TOTALLY ENCLOSED SWIMMING POOL WHERE YOU ARE, YOU KNOW, SURROUNDED BY WALLS ON ALL FOUR SIDES. WITH RESPECT TO THE PARKING I WOULD LIKE TO DO A LITTLE BIT OF ARITHMETIC, AND I'M LOOKING AT THE PARKING CHART ON PAGE 76
[01:15:04]
OF THE PACKET. OKAY.129 UNITS NOW, WHEREAS THERE MAY BE A FEW TENANTS WHO ARE RELYING ON PUBLIC TRANSIT, YOU KNOW, MAYBE WALKING TO WORK, DON'T NEED A CAR, DON'T HAVE A CAR.
I THINK THERE WOULD ALSO BE PROBABLY A CORRESPONDING NUMBER OF COUPLES, FOR EXAMPLE.
BOTH OF THEM WORK AND THEY ARE TWO CAR FAMILIES.
BECAUSE TWO CAR FAMILIES ARE MORE THE NORM THESE DAYS FOR A FAMILY THAN JUST A ONE CAR FAMILY.
SO IF WE ASSUME, FOR THE SAKE OF OUR CALCULATIONS HERE, THAT THE HUNT FOR THE 121 UNITS REPRESENT 129, EXCUSE ME, 129 UNITS REPRESENT 129 CARS THAT NEED TO BE PARKED.
AND LET'S ASSUME THAT THE TENANTS TAKE UP ALL 52 OF THE TUCK UNDER GARAGE PARKING SPACES.
THAT LEAVES 77 OF THE TENANT'S CARS THAT HAVE TO BE PARKED OUTDOORS.
OKAY NOW, OUTDOORS, THERE ARE 24 STANDARD PARKING SPACES, 9 FEET BY 18FT.
69 COMPACT SPACES, 7.5FT WIDE, 16FT LONG.
I SUBMIT THAT WHATEVER THE SIZE OF THE CARS THAT THE TENANTS HAVE, IF THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO PARK IN A STANDARD SPACE, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE IT BECAUSE THE COMPACT PARKING SPACE IS INHERENTLY CRAMPED.
IF THEY CAN PUT IT INTO AN 18 FOOT WIDE, 18 FOOT LONG, 9 FOOT WIDE PARKING SPACE, THEY WILL SO OF THE 77 SURFACE PARKERS, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE UP THE 24 STANDARD PARKING SPACES, THAT LEAVES 53 OF THEM THAT WILL HAVE TO PARK IN THE COMPACT SURFACE PARKING SPACES.
OKAY. AND THEY'RE OF NECESSITY.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PARK IN THOSE SPACES THOSE COMPACT SPACES.
THAT LEAVES 13 COMPACT PARKING SPACES FOR WHOEVER MAY BE VISITING.
IF SOMEBODY IS HAVING A SOCIAL EVENT AND THEY ARE INVITING PEOPLE OVER AND PEOPLE WILL BE COMING IN THEIR CARS, WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK IN A 7.5FT WIDE PARKING SPACE? HOW ABOUT THE TELEPHONE MAN COMING TO INSTALL TELEPHONES? OR THE REPAIRMAN COMING TO REPAIR WHATEVER NEEDS REPAIRING? OR A DELIVERY PERSON DELIVERING A PIZZA THAT HAVE TO PARK SOMEWHERE? WITH A 7.5FT PARKING SPACE REPRESENTING THE THE MAJORITY OF THE SURFACE PARKING SPACES, YOU ARE LOOKING AT A LOT OF DOOR DINGS. YOU ARE LOOKING AT A LOT OF SPACES THAT ARE RENDERED UNUSABLE BY THE FACT THAT CARS DON'T PARK IN THE CENTER OF THE SPACE, THEY MAY PARK OVER TO ONE SIDE.
THEY MAY EVEN OVERLAP THE PAINTED LINE BETWEEN PARKING SPACES, AS SOME LESS COURTEOUS DRIVERS DO, RENDERING THE ADJACENT SPACE UNUSABLE OR MAKING IT SO THAT SOMEONE DRIVING A SOMETHING BIGGER THAN A COMPACT CAR CANNOT PRACTICALLY PARK IN A COMPACT PARKING SPACE.
THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH ROOM FOR THEM.
SO WHILE I UNDERSTAND THAT THE NUMBER OF SPACES MEETS THE ORDINANCE AND THE AND THEY HAVE THE REQUIRED LESS THAN 50% COMPACT PARKING SPACES THE ORDINANCE PROVIDES FOR IN THIS DISTRICT, I DON'T THINK IT'S PRACTICAL.
AND I ALSO THINK THAT BECAUSE THIS IS AN ITEM FOR OUR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION WE HAVE THE CONSIDERATION, WE HAVE THE POWER AND THE AUTHORITY TO TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT IN DECIDING WHETHER TO TO APPROVE THIS, THIS APPLICATION OR NOT.
[01:20:02]
SO I HAVE THOSE CONCERNS WITH THE PARKING, AND I HAVE A CONCERN WITH THE LACK OF OPEN SPACE, WHICH I THINK IS CURIOUS IN A SO-CALLED HIGH END LUXURY APARTMENT COMPLEX THAT ISN'T PROVIDING ANYTHING OUTDOORS FOR THE PEOPLE TO ENJOY OTHER THAN AN ENCLOSED SWIMMING POOL.SO BASED ON THOSE CONSIDERATIONS I, I'M GOING TO BE OPPOSED.
I'M SORRY, I ON THE BOTTOM LINE BOTTOM LINE IS, I THINK THAT THE TRACT OF LAND WE'RE LOOKING AT IS PROBABLY TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYTHING THAT THIS APPLICANT IS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WITH THIS APPLICATION.
THANK YOU. YEAH. ANYONE ELSE? MR. OLLEY. SHARE YOUR CONCERNS BUT THAT WAS THE REASON WHY I ASKED THE CLARIFYING QUESTION AS TO WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DECIDE HERE, WHICH IS THE REZONING ESSENTIALLY OF THAT POINT TWO INTO THE PD.
BECAUSE THE WAY I READ THE PACKET EVERYTHING HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE DENSITY HAS BEEN APPROVED, THE USE HAS BEEN APPROVED, EVERYTHING HAS BEEN APPROVED.
MARKET CONDITIONS WILL DETERMINE WHO GOES INTO THOSE APARTMENTS.
WHEN I LIVED IN AN APARTMENT WE CHOSE A PARTICULAR TYPE BECAUSE OF THE KIND OF FAMILY WE WERE THAT HAD VAST OPEN SPACES AND PLAYGROUNDS AND BLAH, BLAH, BECAUSE WE HAD TWO KIDS AND THAT'S WHAT WE NEEDED.
WHEN I WAS SINGLE WITHOUT KIDS, AND I LIVED IN A TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IN CHICAGO I DIDN'T HAVE A CAR BECAUSE I HOPPED OVER TO WHAT WAS NOT THE DART, THE SUBWAY GOT WHERE I WAS GOING DOWNTOWN, GOT BACK, AND SAVED MYSELF ALL OF THE PARKING FEES THAT CHICAGO HITS YOU WITH.
IF YOU PARK WRONGLY ON THE WRONG SIDE ON THE WRONG DAY.
THE POINT I'M BASICALLY TRYING TO MAKE IS THEY'VE MET OUR ORDINANCE.
I'LL, I'LL, I'LL CEDE TO MIKE'S EXPERTISE ON THE COMP PLAN, BUT THAT IS ESSENTIALLY TO DRIVE A CERTAIN KIND OF PEOPLE TO OUR DOWNTOWN TO REVITALIZE THE DOWNTOWN AREA AND THE TRANSIT ORIENTED AREA TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PAVED OVER PARKING WE NEED OR WE WE HAVE IN THE CITY WHICH FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, THE ORDINANCE IS WORKING.
IT'S GIVING A CERTAIN KIND OF DEVELOPMENT TO THE OPEN SPACE AGAIN, AS THE MARKET WILL DETERMINE WHO WILL GO INTO A DEVELOPMENT THAT DOES NOT HAVE A TON OF OPEN SPACE OR A TON OF AMENITIES THAT ARE MORE QUOTE UNQUOTE, FAMILY ORIENTED.
SO AT THIS STAGE OF MY LIFE, I WON'T LIVE THERE, BUT FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, I THINK THIS MEETS EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO WITHIN THAT AREA.
ANYONE ELSE WANT TO COMMENT? I'VE GOT I'VE GOT ONE.
SO I'VE BEEN DOING A LITTLE MATH.
I VISITED THE NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION.
THEY HAVE A TRANSPORTATION STUDY THAT TALKS ABOUT PARKING SPECIFICALLY.
AND SO THEY LIST THE VEHICLE USAGE FOR APARTMENTS IN 2016.
IF I TAKE THAT USING THE 129 I THINK I COME UP WITH 23.
SO IT TAKES 23 PLUS THE 145 THAT THEY'RE AT IN TOTAL NUMBERS NOW, WHEN YOU CONSIDER THE APARTMENTS BEING USED, THEN THE NUMBER OF ONE VEHICLE UNITS OR ONE VEHICLE PARKING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE IS 45.5%.
I TAKE THAT AT 68, SUBTRACT THAT FROM THE 172 AND THEN THE NUMBER OF ONE VEHICLE I'M SORRY, TWO VEHICLE IS 27.3. AND SO MY MATH FROM THEM TELLS ME THAT THEY SHOULD BE OKAY WITH THE WAY THEIR PARKING IS SITUATED. EVEN IF SOME OF THE COMPACT PARKING TAKES UP TWO SPOTS, THEY SHOULD STILL HAVE ENOUGH PARKING LEFT ACCORDING TO
[01:25:05]
THE MOST RECENT STUDIES FROM FROM THE NATIONAL APARTMENT ASSOCIATION'S WEBSITE AND VEHICLE OCCUPIED HOUSEHOLDS. SO YOU FEEL THE PARKING IS SUFFICIENT? I FEEL THAT THE PARKING IS FINE.I DON'T KNOW THAT WE NEED TO KEEP GOING DOWN THAT ROUTE UNLESS SOMEBODY REALLY WANTS TO BRING IT UP.
NO, MR. BROUNOFF, JUST A QUICK RESPONSE.
YEAH. THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES IS FINE.
IT'S NOT THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
WHAT ELSE DO YOU HAVE? SO I WOULD ESPECIALLY AS THIS IS IN A SENSITIVE LAND USE EHA-1 AND I LOVE THE IDEA OF THE LUXURY HIGH END APARTMENTS. I DO HAVE ONE THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDED AS IT RELATES TO THE PARTICULATE MATTER RELATIONSHIP FOR THE EHA. AND I BELIEVE MR. BELL HAS SOME LANGUAGE FOR ME.
SO I BELIEVE WHAT WAS DISCUSSED AT THE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING WAS ABOUT REQUIRING POSTING ABOUT THE FILTRATION REQUIREMENTS AND THE MANUFACTURER'S SPECIFICATIONS ON REPLACEMENT, AND PUTTING THAT IN A LOCATION VISIBLE TO RESIDENTS SO THE LANGUAGE WOULD BE NUMBER THREE UNDER THE AIR FILTRATION SECTION, PROPERTY MANAGEMENT SHALL POST NOTICE OF THE AIR FILTRATION MANUFACTURERS, RECOMMENDED REPLACEMENT SPECIFICATIONS AND A LOG OF RECENT FILTER CHANGES IN A LOCATION VISIBLE TO RESIDENTS.
I CAN READ THAT AGAIN IF YOU'D LIKE.
VISIBLE OR ACCESSIBLE VISIBLE.
WE COULD DO ACCESSIBLE AS WELL.
WHAT'S VISIBLE TO ONE PERSON MAY NOT BE VISIBLE TO ANOTHER.
SPECIFICATIONS AND A LOG OF RECENT FILTER CHANGES IN A LOCATION ACCESSIBLE TO RESIDENTS.
SO OUR APPLICANT QUICKLY STOOD TO THE MIC.
SO I DON'T KNOW IF HE'S GOING TO SAY, WELL YEAH WE DO THAT ANYWAY OR WHAT.
SO WE HAVE ZERO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
WE HAVE ZERO PROBLEM WITH THAT.
OKAY. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE REAL LIFE INSIGHT INTO APARTMENTS.
TENANTS DON'T REPLACE FILTERS.
CORRECT. JUST TO BE TRANSPARENT.
THEY'RE NOT PAINTING THE WALLS.
THEY'RE NOT SHAMPOOING THE CARPETS.
THEY'RE NOT REPLACING FILTERS.
THEY'RE STAYING THERE FOR ONE YEAR.
THEY'RE MOVING OUT. SO IT'S IT'S MANAGEMENT AND MAINTENANCE.
WHO ARE THE ONES THAT ARE REPLACING THE FILTERS? THANK YOU. SO THAT'S REALITY, BUT WE HAVE NO PROBLEM POSTING THAT FOR TENANTS KNOWLEDGE.
THANK YOU. SO YOU'D BE OKAY WITH THAT STIPULATION BEING ADDED.
WE HAVE ZERO PROBLEM WITH THAT STIPULATION BEING ADDED.
OF COURSE HE'S GOING TO SAY HE'S GOING TO DO THAT BECAUSE IT'S NOT A BIG DEAL.
BUT I JUST FIND OVERREACH HERE.
I MEAN, I JUST THINK, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO LEGISLATE TOO MUCH.
THESE GUYS ARE GOING TO MANAGE THAT STUFF ANYWAY.
AND MY MY CONCERN IS WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MANAGE AND WHAT IT MEANS AND WHAT'S NEXT AND CREEP FROM THIS COMMISSION INTO WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO MANAGE AND ULTIMATELY WHAT WE'RE PUTTING ON OUR PLATE THAT WE HAVE TO MANAGE.
AND SO, YOU KNOW, I PERSONALLY, I MEAN, I HAVE SEVERAL MULTIFAMILY INVESTMENTS, AND THIS ISN'T A CONCERN BECAUSE MANAGEMENT TAKES CARE OF IT. AND SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, IT'S A IT'S A NICE IDEA.
AND I DON'T MEAN TO INSULT MIKE DOWN THERE, BUT I JUST DON'T FIND IT NECESSARY.
UNDERSTOOD. COMMISSIONER TONG.
I JUST BECAUSE OF A COUPLE OF COMMENTS REGARDING THE LUXURY ASPECT OF THIS PRODUCT.
KIND OF ACUTE QUESTION ABOUT THE APPLICANT SINCE HE WAS THERE.
THAT'S WHY I TURNED ON THE MIC.
IS THAT PART IS THIS PART OF AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROJECT?
[01:30:04]
NO, IT'S NOT.THE REASON THAT'S REFERENCED ON THERE IS THE OVERALL PD, THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PD.
THERE'S AN EXISTING APARTMENT COMPLEX AND THAT IS OWNED BY TSHC.
SO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT INCLUDES ALL OF THESE PROPERTIES.
RIGHT. AND THAT'S WHY THAT'S REFERENCED.
SO THERE ARE THERE ARE TWO EXISTING APARTMENTS THAT ARE AFFORDABLE HOUSING PRODUCTS IN THE PD, AND WE'RE JUST SEPARATING OURSELVES AS, YES, WE'RE IN THE SAME PD, BUT WE ARE NOT BRINGING AN AFFORDABLE PRODUCT TO THAT PD.
WE ARE HAVING MARKET RATE APARTMENTS.
MR. OLLEY. JUST ONE QUICK COMMENT ON COMMISSIONER CARY'S COMMENT.
IT'S A NICE TO HAVE IT'S ACTIVITY, MAYBE NOT ACTION.
LIKE WE DID SOMETHING KIND OF DEAL.
I THINK ONE THING I WOULD LIKE TO SEE AS WE CONTINUE ALONG IS LANGUAGE THAT HAS MEANING AND TEETH WHEN IT CONCERNS EHA SENSITIVE USES AROUND NOISE POLLUTION, OBVIOUSLY, WHICH WE ALREADY HAVE, BUT ALSO AROUND PARTICULATE MATTER AS THE RESEARCH AS TO THE CAUSES OF THAT OR THE IMPACTS OF THAT CONTINUE TO EVOLVE.
I HOPE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT FUTURE EVOLUTIONS OF P&Z OR THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT CAN LOOK INTO.
SO WHERE I COME DOWN ON THIS A LITTLE BIT IS AND YOU GUYS HEARD ME TALK ABOUT IT EARLIER.
IS IT. IT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A SLIPPERY SLOPE RIGHT.
WHAT ARE WE WHAT ARE WE WHAT ARE WE DOING? ON THE OTHER HAND, AND AGAIN, I GUESS IT'S CODE, BUT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S LOGS POSTED IN THE BATHROOMS AT SOME OF THE RESTAURANTS YOU GO TO.
YOU KNOW, THERE'S REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT.
AND WHY? BECAUSE THEY'RE A RESTAURANT.
IF THIS WAS ANYWHERE BUT IN AN EHA ZONE, I WOULDN'T EVEN THINK TWICE.
AND IS IT GOING TO CHANGE THE ACTIONS OF THE MANAGEMENT? PROBABLY NOT.
SO WE'RE NOT REALLY PUTTING ANY ADDITIONAL BURDEN ON THEM, PROBABLY THAT THEY WOULDN'T ALREADY DO.
BUT WHAT WE ARE DOING IS MAYBE GIVING RESIDENTS JUST ONE MORE LITTLE CHECK THE BOX.
OKAY. THIS IS GOOD. I HAVE ACCESS TO THIS, SO.
IT'S A TOUGH ONE, BUT HONESTLY, I IT'S NOT IT'S NOT GOING TO SINK THIS THING IF WE DON'T HAVE IT OR IF WE DO HAVE IT, AND I CAN I THINK WE CAN THROW IT IN WITHOUT CREATING TOO MUCH TROUBLE FOR FOR ANYBODY IN THAT CASE.
SO I TELL YOU WHAT, I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM FOUR A SUBJECT TO THE CHANGE, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND THE ADDITION OF THE LANGUAGE JUST PRESENTED TO US REGARDING THE ACCESSIBILITY OF A FILTER LOG.
AND, MR. RATLIFF, I NEVER SAW YOU SAY YOU WANTED TO SAY ANYTHING.
I APOLOGIZE IF WE OVERLOOKED YOU.
AND NOW THERE'S A MOTION AND A SECOND.
DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A CONVERSATION BEFORE MOVING ON? NO, I THINK ALL MY CONCERNS WERE COVERED IN OTHER QUESTIONS.
PLEASE VOTE. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. OKAY.
FOUR. FIVE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6 TO 2.
SOMEONE ELSE WANT TO DO FOUR B OR.
HOLD ON. I'M TRYING TO GET THERE.
I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM FOUR B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
SUBJECT TO THE DETERMINATION BY COUNCIL'S APPROVAL ON ZONING CASE 2024-002.
EVERYBODY IN FAVOR OF ITEM FOUR B 123456.
[5. (MB) Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2024-003: Request to rezone from Central Business-1 to Planned Development-Central Business-1 to establish uses and development standards for mixed-use development on 107.0 acres located on the southeast corner of Legacy Drive and Headquarters Drive. Project #ZC2024-003. Tabled on August 19, 2024. Petitioner: CCI-D 6501 Legacy Owners, LLC. (Request to Table to September 16, 2024)]
THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.REQUEST TO REZONE FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS ONE TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL BUSINESS ONE TO ESTABLISH USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ON 107.0 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LEGACY DRIVE AND HEADQUARTERS DRIVE.
THIS ITEM WAS TABLED ON AUGUST 19TH, 2024.
PETITIONER IS CCI-D 6501 LEGACY OWNERS, LLC.
MY NAME IS DONNA SEPULVADO, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
[01:35:08]
SEPTEMBER 16TH MEETING.I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, MR. BRONSKY. HI.
SO THE LAST MEETING I ASKED ABOUT THE REASON FOR IT BEING MOVED AND HAD REQUESTED ASKED YOU IF WE FELT THAT WE HAD ENOUGH TIME TO GET IT DONE.
AND THERE ARE SOME OF US ON THE COMMISSION THAT REALLY STRUGGLE ABOUT CONTINUING TO TABLE THESE.
DO YOU WHAT KIND OF ARE YOU? ARE YOU SURE THAT THIS IS GOING TO WORK ON THIS TIME FRAME? AND MAYBE WE SHOULDN'T GIVE YOU TILL THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER? I CAN ANSWER THAT. WE WERE ACTUALLY MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT IN A MULTI-HOUR MEETING TOMORROW TO HASH OUT THE LAST FEW DETAILS OF THIS PLAN.
SO WE'RE VERY CONFIDENT, PENDING ANY SURPRISES, THIS WILL BE READY FOR THE 9/16 MEETING.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER TONG? JUST A GENERAL QUESTION.
HOW MANY TIMES CAN AN APPLICANT TABLE OR A REQUEST? IS THERE A TIME LIMIT, A TIME LIMIT OR A NUMBER OF NUMBER OF TRIES? SORRY, NUMBER OF TABLES I GUESS.
I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BUT I CAN CONFIRM AND LET YOU KNOW IF THERE'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU.
DO WE HAVE ANYBODY TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I MAKE A MOTION WE ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE TO THE SEPTEMBER 16TH MEETING.
I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY.
I'M NOT SEEING COMMISSIONER RATLIFF.
DID WE LOSE HIM? YES. HE. HE IS OFFICIALLY DROPPING OFF BECAUSE OF HIS CONNECTION.
WE'VE LOST HIM WITH HIS CONNECTION.
OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR OF THE TABLING? NOT ITEM CARRIES 7 TO 0, AND WE'VE LOST COMMISSIONER RATLIFF OFF ZOOM.
[6. (MC) Discussion and Action – Request to Waive the Two-Year Waiting Period: Request to waive the two-year waiting period for consideration of a rezoning request for Planned Development-71-Regional Commercial on 89.1 acres located on the west side of the Dallas North Tollway, 305 feet north of Park Boulevard. Applicant: Centennial Waterfall Willow Bend, LLC & The Neiman Marcus Group. Project #DI2024-014. (Legislative consideration)]
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION THAT ARE 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, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX.
APPLICANTS ARE CENTENNIAL WATERFALL, WILLOW BEND LLC, AND THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
SUBSTANTIVE REASONS FOR WAIVING THE TWO YEAR PERIOD INCLUDE, BUT ARE NOT LIMITED TO, A CORRECTION OF AN ERROR, A CHANGE OF CONDITIONS AFFECTING THE PROPERTY WHICH WERE NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME OF ZONING, AND A CHANGE IN PUBLIC PLANS OR POLICIES AS IT AFFECTS THE PROPERTY.
THERE HAVE BEEN CHANGES IN PROPERTY OWNERSHIP THAT WERE NOT KNOWN AT THE TIME OF THE REZONING, AND IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE P&Z WAIVE THE TWO YEAR WAITING PERIOD.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. AND THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT DOES ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
AND I DON'T SEE ANYBODY HERE TO SPEAK ON IT.
OH, MR. OLLEY, JUST ONE TECHNICALITY MORE THAN ANYTHING, WAIVING THE TWO YEAR PERIOD IS THAT ESSENTIALLY THEY HAVE AD INFINITUM THEY CAN.
IF WE WAIVE THE TWO YEAR PERIOD, DOES IT START THE CLOCK ON A NEW TWO YEAR PERIOD, OR IS THERE NOW NO LIMIT, NO PERIOD? I BELIEVE THERE'S NO LIMIT AT THIS POINT.
THEY COULD COME BACK IN WITH THE APPLICATION.
WELL, I GUESS THE QUESTION IS, COULD THEY WAIT AND COME BACK IN EIGHT YEARS? TEN YEARS? OR ARE WE WAIVING IT FOR A SET PERIOD OF TIME OR.
SO I THINK THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO SUBMIT VERY, VERY QUICKLY AS I'M HEARING FROM THE AUDIENCE.
BUT ONCE THE WAIVER IS GRANTED, IT'S GRANTED THEY CAN COME BACK IN.
THEY CAN COME BACK IN IMMEDIATELY, ESSENTIALLY.
[01:40:03]
OKAY. OKAY.AND THE ONLY REASON THEY CAN COME BACK IN.
BUT YOU LIKE IF THEY HAVE TO LIKE IF WE DENY THEM, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO COME BACK AGAIN WITHOUT THE TWO YEAR PERIOD? NO, THERE'S ONLY ONE TIME WAIVER.
ONE TIME. ONE TIME. NOT FOREVER.
YES, SIR. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO SHARE ANY INFORMATION WITH US ON THIS? IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM.
CHAIR. COMMISSIONER BILL DAHLSTROM, 2323 ROSS AVENUE.
JUST THAT WE'VE MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES.
IT'S REALLY AN INTERESTING OPPORTUNITY FOR US, FOR THE CITY.
I THOUGHT IT WAS A GOOD PLAN TO BEGIN WITH, SO I'M EXCITED IF IT'S EVEN BETTER.
WE HAVEN'T DONE IT IN THE PAST.
OKAY. MR. BRONSKY YOU GOT YOUR FINGER READY OVER THERE.
SO I MOVE BASED ON SUBSECTION OR THE SECTION TWO, A CHANGE IN CONDITION THAT WE APPROVE.
AGENDA ITEM SIX, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
[7. (JK) Discussion and Action – Call for Public Hearing: Request to call a public hearing to rezone from Planned Development-60-General Office and Planned Development-109- Retail/General Office to Planned Development-109-Retail/General Office and modify development standards on 21.0 acres located on the west side of Alma Road, 260 feet south of Park Boulevard. Project #CPH2024-007. Applicant: Plano Independent School District. (Legislative consideration)]
THANK YOU, MR. DAWSON.REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO REZONE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 60 GENERAL OFFICE AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 109 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 109 RETAIL, GENERAL OFFICE AND MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON 21.0 ACRES.
LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ALMA ROAD, 260FT SOUTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.
APPLICANT PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
SO HERE'S THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE LOCATOR MAP.
AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED SPLIT ZONED PD 109 RETAIL AND GENERAL OFFICE, AS WELL AS PD 60 FOR THE GENERAL OFFICE, AND THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE WHOLE SITE SO THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY IS WITHIN PD 109 FOR RETAIL AND GENERAL OFFICE.
AND ON THIS PAGE YOU CAN KIND OF SEE WHERE THE ZONING IS SPLIT.
IT'S THE DARK BLUE WHICH IS KIND OF A LIGHT PURPLE.
THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES IN YELLOW.
SO THE WHOLE PROPERTY WILL BE IN PD 109 AND STILL ZONED RETAIL AND GENERAL OFFICE.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.
THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? MR. OLLEY.
SO IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, THE MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS ARE PISD.
I'M GUESSING PISD WAS NOT ABLE TO GET THE CONVENIENCE STORE OWNER TO SIGN ON TO A ZONING CHANGE.
YEAH, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO REACH THEM.
I DON'T HAVE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT.
AND I GUESS WE CAN GET INTO THIS WHEN THE ZONING REQUEST COMES IN.
BUT ARE THERE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCES IN WHAT IS ALLOWED IN THE PD 60 VERSUS THE PD 109? SO A PART OF THE REASON THAT THEY ARE WANTING TO REZONE IS THEY'RE WANTING TO PROPOSE THE A CTE CENTER ON THE PROPERTY.
[01:45:04]
OKAY. THANK YOU.AND CAN I STATE THE RECOMMENDATION REAL QUICK? I DON'T KNOW IF I SAID THAT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PURPOSE.
THERE'S NO MORE QUESTIONS. AND THERE'S NO ONE LEFT IN THE ROOM TO ASK A QUESTION OR SPEAK TO US.
SO I MOVE THAT WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.
AND SINCE THERE'S NO ONE HERE, I'M ASSUMING WE HAVE NO PUBLIC SPEAKER ITEMS. THERE ARE NO COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ THAT ITEM OR.
THANK YOU EVERYBODY.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.