Sep 16, 2024 Planning and Zoning

>> THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I THINK WE HAVE SOMEBODY REGISTERED IN NEUTRALITY?

>> YES, SIR, DERECK SWEENEY.

>> MR. SWEENEY, YOU'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER OLLEY, YOU COULD TURN OFF YOUR MIC IF YOU'D LIKE.

>> HI THERE. I LIVE AT 2821 PARK HAVEN DRIVE.

WE LEARNED LAST SPRING THAT THERE WAS A SITE PLAN COMP COMING FOR HAGGARD SCHOOL.

I KNOW THAT THIS ISN'T PART OF THAT, BUT I CAME WITH SOME FOLKS THAT LIVE NEAR ME.

WE DO HAVE CONCERNS NOT SPECIFICALLY WITH THIS.

NOT REALLY SURE WHAT ALL THIS WILL BE YET.

[00:05:01]

BUT CONCERNS WITH THE SCHOOL WITH THE BALL FIELDS WITH LIGHTS AND THE TENNIS COURTS.

I JUST WANTED TO VOICE THOSE CONCERNS.

THERE'S PROBABLY ABOUT 10 OR 15 OF US THAT HAVE TALKED.

I JUST WOULD LIKE TO DO WHAT WE CAN TO SEE THE SITE BE MADE IN A WAY THAT'S GOOD FOR THE DISTRICT AND US. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> THANK YOU, SIR. APPRECIATE YOUR INPUT.

ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?

>> THEY'RE NOT.

>> THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

FIND DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION.

MAYBE WE SHOULD REITERATE THAT QUESTION SINCE IT'S BEEN BROUGHT UP.

IS THE ABILITY TO EVALUATE LIGHTS, SHOULD THEY BE INSTALLED AT A LATER DATE?

>> THERE'S CURRENTLY THIS SCOPE OF THE PLAN IS JUST FOR THE BALL FIELD IMPROVEMENTS IN THE PARKING LOT.

THE SITE PLAN IS APPROVABLE AT A STAFF LEVEL, SO IT WON'T COME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION.

HOWEVER, WE ARE EXPECTING A REVISED SITE PLAN AS A PHASE 2, WHICH INCLUDES SOME ADDITIONS TO THE SCHOOL, AS WELL AS RELOCATION OF HAGGARD MIDDLE SCHOOL.

WE HAVE HAD PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS, BUT THERE ARE NO OFFICIAL PLANS SUBMITTED AT THIS TIME.

I WOULD ENCOURAGE WE'LL HAVE SOMEONE FROM STAFF REACH OUT TO YOU AND GIVE YOU SOME INFORMATION ON THOSE UPCOMING PLANS.

>> I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO ENGAGE WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, AS WELL, OBVIOUSLY. I'M SURE YOU ARE.

IF YOU BOTHERED TO COME TO THIS MEETING, THEN I'M SURE YOU'RE TALKING TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?

>> AS THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO APPROVE ITEM 1 IS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0.

THANK YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT AND GO TALK TO THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

ITEM 2A AND B TOGETHER.

[Items 2A & 2B ]

>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2A, ZONING CASE 2024-015, REQUEST TO REZONE FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1 ON 4.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MAPLE SHADE LANE, 605 FEET NORTH OF STATE HIGHWAY 190, AND WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OLAY DISTRICT.

PETITIONERS MY POSSIBILITIES AND NTF B PEROT FAMILY CAMPUS.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2B, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND TRADE SCHOOL AND TWO LOTS ON 33.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF STATE HIGHWAY 190 AND MAPLE SHADE LANE, ZONE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.

APPLICANTS MA POSSIBILITIES AND NTF B PERO FAMILY CAMPUS.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION, PENDING ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2A.

>> HELLO AGAIN. THIS ITEM IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE TO EXPAND THE NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK.

THIS ZONING EXHIBIT SHOWS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST.

FOR THE SITE HISTORY, PRIOR TO 2000, THE AREA WAS ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE, AND THEN THE LAND AROUND THE INTERSECTIONS OF COIT ROAD AND STATE HIGHWAY 190 WERE REZONED TO CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AS A PART OF A CITY INITIATED REZONING TO ALIGN THE AREA WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AT THE TIME, THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY SHOWN IN YELLOW ON THIS MAP, WERE PART OF A TRIANGULAR AREA EXCLUDED FROM THE REZONING AND REMAINED AS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE.

IN 2017, THE MY POSSIBILITIES TRADE SCHOOL ACQUIRED THEIR CURRENT LOT, WHICH AT THE TIME HAD SPLIT ZONING BETWEEN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE AND CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

TO REMOVE THE SPLIT ZONING, THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS REZONED FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE TO CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

THIS REQUEST WILL REZONE A PORTION OF THAT LAND BACK TO ITS PRIOR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE DETERMINATION.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EXPANSION AREA, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS PROPOSED A 2.5 STORY OFFICE BUILDING, AS WELL AS A ONE-STORY BUILDING FOR FOOD SORTING AND LOADING DOCKS.

THE AREA OF REQUEST IS CURRENTLY BEING USED BY

[00:10:01]

THE MY POSSIBILITIES TRADE SCHOOL AS A SOCCER FIELD AND DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE ANY VERTICAL IMPROVEMENTS.

THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THAT WAS SUBMITTED WITH THIS REQUEST INCLUDES BOTH LOTS, BOTH MY POSSIBILITIES TRADE SCHOOL, AS WELL AS THE NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK.

SINCE THERE IS A PROPOSED LOT LINE SWITCH, SO THERE WOULD BE A LAND EXCHANGE.

THEREFORE, BOTH LOTS NEED TO BE ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

THIS IMAGE SHOWS THE PROPOSED LAND EXCHANGE WITH THE RED LINE SHOWING THE PROPOSED NEW LOT LINE AND THE YELLOW SHOWING THE EXISTING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN THE MIDDLE.

THESE GRAPHICS INDICATE THE BEFORE AND AFTER ZONING.

ON THE RIGHT, YOU CAN SEE WHERE THE ZONING WOULD EXTEND TO IF IT WERE ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE, AND THE CURRENT ZONING IS ON THE LEFT.

CONFORMANCE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS REQUEST IS LOCATED WITHIN THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS CATEGORY ON THE FUTURE LANE USE MAP.

WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER IS AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE USE, WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED IN THIS CATEGORY, AND THEREFORE IS AGAINST THE MIX OF USES.

ALSO, THE PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE AND OPEN SPACE DO NOT MEET THE CRITERIA DESIRED BY THIS CATEGORY AS WELL.

THIS REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THREE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS AS SHOWN ON THIS SUMMARY AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER OR CITYWIDE.

THE PROPOSED EXPANSION IS AN APPROPRIATE REQUEST GIVING THE SURROUNDING ZONING, LAND USES, AND SITE HISTORY.

HOWEVER, THE REQUEST IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS.

ITEM 2A, STAFF RECOMMENDS OR THIS REQUEST IS DISFAVORED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS.

FOR ITEM 2B, IT'S RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THIS ZONING CASE.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. COMMISSIONER TONG.

>> COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP THAT SHOWS WHERE THE NEW LOT LINE AND THE OLD LOT LINE ARE.

>> RIGHT THERE.

>> YEAH, AND THE PURPLE LINE ACTUALLY LINES UP THE WHOLE ZONING CASE REZONING THAT IF YOU ARE GOING TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE THAT APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE AREA?

>> NO, THAT'S INCORRECT.

THE MIDDLE SECTION THAT IS IN BETWEEN THE YELLOW AND RED LINES IS THE AREA OF THE ZONING REQUEST.

THE SIDE TO THE RIGHT OF THE RED LINE IS CURRENTLY ZONED AND WILL REMAIN ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

THE SIDE TO THE LEFT OF THE YELLOW YACHT LINE IS CURRENTLY ZONED NORTH TEXAS OR EXCUSE ME, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE.

THE MIDDLE PORTION IS CURRENTLY ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND IS REQUESTED TO BE REZONED TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE.

THAT'S THE ONLY PART OF THIS REQUEST.

>> THANK YOU. FURTHER QUESTION REGARDING THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING ON THE I GUESS NORTHWEST SIDE OF THE OLD LOT LINE, THAT WAS ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MANY YEARS AGO.

WHEN DO YOU KNOW?

>> PRIOR TO 2000, ALL OF THIS WAS ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE.

THEN AFTER 2000, IT'S A BIT UNCLEAR.

BUT AFTER 2000, A PORTION OF IT WAS REZONED TO CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WITH OTHER AREAS AS WELL AS ZONE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

THEN EVEN MORE OF IT LATER WAS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

NOW THEY ARE TRYING TO RESCIND PART OF THE ZONING THAT WAS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

>> GOT IT. THANK YOU.

>> SURE.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. BELL, IN PREPARING ITS ANALYSIS FOR OUR PACKETS ON ZONING CASES, DOES THE STAFF DISTINGUISH BETWEEN LANGUAGE THAT SAYS THAT A PARTICULAR ITEM MAY BE DISFAVORED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND RECOMMENDATION FOR DENIAL.

I ASKED THAT BECAUSE IN THIS CASE, YOU HAVE POINTED OUT THAT IT IS DISFAVORED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT YOU DO NOT USE DENIAL LANGUAGE IN YOUR RECOMMENDATION?

>> CORRECT. ANYTIME FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED,

[00:15:03]

STAFF HAS MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE PUBLIC IN RESPECT TO THE PROCESS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR YOU TOOK NOT TO EVER RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THOSE CASES.

AS A DEFAULT POSITION, WE SAY THAT IT IS DISFAVORED, STRICTLY USING THE LANGUAGE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THAT IT'S DISFAVORED UNLESS FINDINGS ARE MADE BY THE P&Z AND COUNCIL.

HOWEVER, WE DO RESERVE IN INSTANCES WHERE WE THINK THAT THE PLAN IS NOT APPROPRIATE OR DOES NOT MEET SOME ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

WE DO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO TAKE THE NEXT STEP AND RECOMMEND DENIAL.

>> YEAH, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

>> COMMISSIONER KERRY.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I DIDN'T SEE IN THIS PACKET, AND MAYBE I MISSED IT WAS THE SURROUNDING USES, WHICH TYPICALLY WE DO CALL OUT.

IF I MISSED IT, WOULD YOU MIND TALKING ABOUT SOME OF THE SURROUNDING USES?

>> SURE.

>> I'VE GOT A FEW QUESTIONS. THAT'S MY FIRST ONE.

>> TO THE SOUTH OF MAPLE SHADE LANE, THAT IS A,

>>.THAT IS A INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY.

TO THE NORTH, THERE IS A TRAIN TRACK THERE.

ABOVE THAT IS OPEN PARKING AND A RECREATIONAL FIELD FOR A FACILITY EVEN MORE NORTH OF THAT AREA.

IT'S BASICALLY JUST OPEN LAND RIGHT NOW THERE.

> BASICALLY, MR. KERRY, IT'S PAGE 37 OF THE PACKET INCLUDED. [OVERLAPPING]

>> IS IT IN THERE?

I MISSED THAT, SO I APOLOGIZE.

>> THERE IT IS. MY BAD.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THIS WAS REZONED TO WHAT THE ZONING THEY WANT, AND BACK NOW THEY'RE TRYING TO GET IT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL ZONING, DO I HAVE THAT CORRECT?

>> YES, BUT THE PARTIES ARE DIFFERENT.

BEFORE NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK DIDN'T NECESSARILY WANT IT TO BE OR DIDN'T REQUEST FOR IT TO BE ZONE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, MYPOSSIBILITIES REQUESTED FOR IT TO BE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, SO THERE'S A DIFFERENT APPLICANT AT THIS TIME.

>> I UNDERSTAND. I APPRECIATE THAT.

MY FINAL THING HERE IS, I'M LOOKING AT THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY DESCRIPTION, AND IT APPLIES TO AREAS WITH LARGE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS THAT SERVE SPECIALLY SHOPPING, DINING SERVICE, AND ENTERTAINMENT NEEDS, TYPICALLY 50-100 ACRES, ANCHORED BY MAJOR RETAILERS, SUPERSTORES, LARGE GROCERS, THEATERS, HOTELS, OFFICES, AND SUCH.

I'M NOT SEEING ANY OF THAT IN THIS AREA ALREADY. AM I MISSING IT? BECAUSE I DRIVE UP AND DOWN HERE SOMETIMES, AND I DON'T THINK THAT THE ZONING THAT'S HERE, I DON'T THINK IT'S 50-100 ACRES OF THIS ZONING AND I DON'T SEE ALL THESE USES THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT IT NEEDS TO BE IN THE SURROUNDING AREA.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT.

>> THAT DESIGNATION APPLIES TO THE BROADER AREA OF EVERYTHING NORTH OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE AND THE RAILROAD.

THAT INCLUDES THE BEACON SQUARE, UMU ZONING, THE APARTMENTS ON THE EAST SIDE OF COIT, AS WELL AS THE CENTRAL MARKET, THAT LARGER AREA IS PART OF THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER.

THIS IS ONE PROPERTY THAT OR THE LI ZONING IS SOMEWHAT REMNANT FROM PAST DECADES OF ZONING.

>> GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

>> COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

>> JUST CLARIFICATION, THOSE USES APPLY TO THE SA DESIGNATION, NOT NECESSARILY CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL?

>> THAT'S RIGHT. THAT'S THE DESCRIPTION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER.

I WANT TO CLARIFY, THERE IS A SMALL ALLOWANCE FOR INDUSTRIAL AND THE MIXED USES, IT'S AT ZERO TO 5%.

THIS IS CURRENTLY AT 6%, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S ABOVE THE ZERO TO 5% RECOMMENDED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

>> GOT IT. MYPOSSIBILITIES PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, THE NTFP PORTION IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND WE'RE TRYING TO EXPAND THAT 4.7 ACRES TO BECOME LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

DO WE KNOW WHY THAT SMALL SLIVER THAT IS NTFB REMAINED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

DO WE HAVE ANY HISTORY TO THAT?

>> SURE. IT ISN'T OWNED BY NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK AT THIS TIME, SO THAT'S WHY IT ISN'T LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

IT'S OWNED BY MYPOSSIBILITIES, AND THEY WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE SPLIT ZONING ON THEIR LOT AFTER THEY ACQUIRED IT, SO THAT'S WHY IT'S ZONED.

>> MS. WOODS, IF YOU WOULD GO BACK TO THE SLIDE WITH THE TRIANGLE FROM THE 2000 REZONING.

AT THE TIME THIS WAS REZONED IN 2000 TO COMPLY WITH THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN AT THAT TIME, THIS WAS ALL UNDEVELOPED, SO THAT LINE OF THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND QUARTER COMMERCIAL DID NOT FOLLOW PROPERTY LINES AT THE TIME.

IT WAS INTENDED TO HAVE SOME DISTANCE OFF OF THE FRONT EDGE OF THE TOLL ROAD, AND THAT'S WHY THE LINE WAS ESTABLISHED IN THAT LOCATION.

[00:20:02]

>> IT STILL FEELS WEIRD THAT THAT RANDOM TRIANGLE PIZZA SHAPE.

>> THE SAME THING ON THE WEST SIDE, YOU'LL SEE THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ON THE WEST SIDE OF COIT, IT WAS ALSO SPLIT.

WHAT IS NORTH OF MAPLE SHADE, LARGELY STAYED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE, AND WHAT WAS SOUTH OF MAPLE SHADE, WHICH WASN'T THERE AT THE TIME WAS CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

>> FOR CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DESIGNATION, WAREHOUSING USES, IS THAT A USED BY RIGHT?

>> NO. WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER IS NOT AN ALLOWED USE, BUT OFFICE WAREHOUSE IS A PERMITTED USE.

>> AS IS LIGHT MANUFACTURING, IT'S THE DISTRIBUTION CENTER THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.

>> LAST QUESTION. THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE PACKET THAT FEELS TO ME LIKE WE ARE STRADDLING A LITTLE BIT.

IT SAYS THE CONTIGIOUS EXPANSION IS AN APPROPRIATE REQUEST GIVEN THE SURROUNDING ZONING, LAND USES, AND SITE HISTORY, HOWEVER, THE REQUEST IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

FEELS LIKE THEY'RE TREADING A LITTLE BIT OF A NEEDLE HERE, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT I NEED TO PUT MORE WEIGHT ON, THE SITE HISTORY, SURROUNDING ZONING, LAND USES, OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? I GUESS THAT'S MY JOB? YEAH. THERE WE GO. FAIR POINT.

[LAUGHTER]

>> ARE YOU GOOD, MR. RATLIFF?

>> YEAH, JUST TO SUMMARIZE WHAT I BELIEVE IS HAPPENING HERE IS WE HAVE TWO EXISTING USES.

ALL WE'RE DOING IS MOVING THE LINE THAT SEPARATES THE TWO USES, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> THE ZONING NEEDS TO REFLECT THE MOVEMENT OF THAT LINE, CORRECT?

>> THAT'S RIGHT.

>> WILL THIS CHANGE AFFECT THE ZONING REGULATION ON MYPOSSIBILITIES SITE? DO THEY NEED MORE OPEN SPACE OR WILL THAT AFFECT ANYTHING?

>> MS. MERALLI.

>> NO. AS PART OF THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THAT'S ATTACHED TO THIS REQUEST, WE REVIEWED ALL THAT TO MAKE SURE IT'S STILL COMPLIED WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND IT DOES.

>> ONE MORE QUESTION REGARDING THE CHANGES.

>> COMMISSIONER TONG.

IF WE WERE GOING TO PROVE DURING THE FINDING, WOULD THE NORTH TEXAS BANK HAVE TO BUILD THE BUILDING THERE, OR IS IT PART OF THE APPROVAL THAT WE'RE APPROVING, OR AFTER WE APPROVE IT, THEY CAN BUILD ANOTHER TOTALLY DIFFERENT BUILDING, OR ANOTHER LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF WAREHOUSE THERE BY A THIRD-PARTY, IS THAT PART OF THE APPROVAL OR NOT?

>> THAT IS NOT PART OF THE APPROVAL.

THIS IS A STRAIGHT REZONING TO LI1.

IT WOULD PERMIT ANY OF THE USES ALLOWED UNDER LI1, SHOULD THEY NOT MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR EXPANSION.

>> GOT IT. THANK YOU.

>> ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU.

I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM, AND I THINK WE HAD A SPEAKER.

THAT WOULD BE YOU. HE'S ALREADY THERE.

IT WAS LIKE MAGIC. GOOD EVENING. GO AHEAD.

>> I GOT MY CUES. DAVID BOND WITH SPIARS ENGINEERING, 765 CUSTER ROAD HERE IN PLANO, HERE ON BEHALF OF NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK AND MYPOSSIBILITIES WITH THIS REQUEST.

THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THE HISTORY, AND I THINK IT'S INTERESTING TO NOTE, ORIGINALLY, WHEN THIS LAND WAS UNDEVELOPED, IT WAS OWNED BY UT DALLAS.

IT WAS SEPARATED IN THE LATE '90S BY THE HIGHWAY, OBVIOUSLY, BUT UT DALLAS ORIGINALLY SOLD TO MYPOSSIBILITIES.

I BELIEVE THE REASON YOU SEE THIS ODD LOOKING CC ZONING IS JUST TO GET A 300 FOOT COMMERCIAL DEPTH OFF THE HIGHWAY.

JUST SAYING, HEY, IT'S VACANT.

IT'S OWNED BY THE UNIVERSITY.

WHO KNOWS? BUT THIS SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE WITH THE COMP PLAN.

THAT WAS I GUESS DONE IN 2000 OR SO, PREDATING MY EXPERIENCE, WE GOT INVOLVED WITH THE SITE WHEN MYPOSSIBILITIES CAME IN AND AROUND 2017.

AT THAT TIME, THEY DEVELOPED THEIR 20-ACRE CAMPUS, AND THE THOUGHT WAS, THEY DON'T NEED THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, SO LET'S MAKE ALL 20 ACRES CC.

THE FOOD BANK CAME IN SUBSEQUENT TO THAT.

NOW, ESSENTIALLY, MYPOSSIBILITIES IS GOING TO MOVE THAT SOCCER FIELD OUT TO THE FRONT.

YOU'VE SEEN THAT ON THE SITE PLAN THERE.

THE SOCCER FIELD MOVES TO ALLOW A LITTLE MORE SPACE FOR THE FOOD BANK THERE.

YOU'VE GOT TWO EXISTING ENTITIES, AS MS. RATLIFF MENTIONED, THE INTENT REALLY IS JUST TO MOVE THAT PROPERTY LINE OVER.

THE FOOD BANK JUST DEALS WITH A LOT OF TRUCKS.

THERE'S OVERFLOW. IF YOU PULL UP A GOOGLE MAP IMAGE, IT WAS PROBABLY TAKEN DURING COVID WHEN THERE'S TRAILERS PARKED OUT THERE.

I THINK AROUND THAT TIME IS WHEN THE TWO PARTIES HAD A DISCUSSION, HEY, DOES IT MAKE SENSE FOR THIS LAND TO COME FROM ONE TO THE OTHER?

[00:25:03]

WE COULD USE THE SPACE.

WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE, THAT SORT OF THING.

TO YOUR POINT, THOUGH, MS. TONG, IT IS A ZONING REQUEST, AS FAR AS WHAT YOU COULD FIT ON THAT, BOTH SITES ARE PLOTTED RIGHT NOW, AND SO YOU'VE ALREADY GOT IT'S NOT WHERE YOU HAVE A BUYER AND A SELLER.

YOU'VE GOT TWO OWNERS, YOU'RE SAYING, HEY, LET'S MOVE OUR COMMON LOT LINE.

IT COULD BE USED, AS MR. BELL MENTIONED, FOR ANYTHING ALLOWED UNDER LI, BUT IT'S SUCH A SKINNY NARROW STRIP THROUGH THERE THAT I DON'T REALLY KNOW WHAT YOU COULD DO AND USE IT AS AN INDUSTRIAL USER THAT'S A THIRD-PARTY.

THE FOOD BANK, IT MAKES SENSE.

THEY'VE GOT SOME CONCEPT PLANS IN HERE THAT SHOW ADDITIONAL PAVILION FACILITIES, POTENTIALLY AN OFFICE.

I CAN'T REMEMBER IF THAT WAS YOU, MR. KERRY, THAT HAD THE QUESTION, ALL YOU'LL SEE DAY 1 IS JUST MYPOSSIBILITIES IS MOVING THE SOCCER FIELD OUT ALONG THE FRONTAGE.

WITH THAT, WE THINK THIS HAS A LOT OF MERIT.

THE COMP PLAN IS WONDERFUL, BUT, UNFORTUNATELY, WE'VE ALREADY DEVELOPED HERE, AND SO I THINK TO STAFF'S SECOND POINT THERE, WE DO THINK THIS IS A COMPATIBLE REQUEST.

WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS ALL OF THE FINDINGS WITH YOU GUYS.

BUT I THINK WE WOULD ASK MAYBE TO ZOOM OUT, AND I THINK THE IDEA OF TWO PROPERTY OWNERS AGREEING TO MOVE THE COMMON LOT LINE JUST MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, AND SO WE WOULD BE ASKING FOR YOUR SUPPORT, YOUR FINDINGS IN THE REPORT THERE.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE FROM THERE. THANK YOU.

>> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?

>> WE DO NOT.

>> THEN WE'LL LET YOU STAY AT THE MIC FOR A MOMENT IN CASE THERE ARE QUESTIONS. MR. BRONSKY.

>> I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION.

THE CHANGING THAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS IS SOME OPEN SPACE THERE AND I WAS WONDERING HOW CLOSE DO YOU THINK, THE COMP PLAN IS TALKING 15-20%, AND WE'RE LOOKING AT BASICALLY ZERO PERCENT OF ACTIVE OPEN SPACE, WAS THERE ANY FURTHER IDEA OF GETTING A LITTLE CLOSER TO SOME OPEN SPACE THERE FOR THAT?

>> WHEN WE GET INTO THE REZONE, WE REALLY DID NOT LOOK VERY CLOSELY AT HOW WE COULD MEET THAT.

WHEN I THINK OPEN SPACE ON A COMP PLAN, I THINK OF BIG PARKS OR LEAVING 10, 12 ACRES OUT IN A RESIDENTIAL TYPE DEVELOPMENT, IN A WALKABLE COMMUNITY, YOU'D THINK OF YOUR FOUNTAINS, AND GATHERING SPACES, AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

IN A INSTITUTIONAL TYPE OF USERS LIKE THIS, I DIDN'T MENTION THIS STEP, I FEEL LIKE WE DO HAVE MORE THAN ZERO PERCENT CERTAINLY.

AT THE MYPOSSIBILITIES CAMPUS, YOU HAVE THE WHOLE THING IS DESIGNED AROUND THAT CENTRAL COURTYARD AREA, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF, I'LL CALL IT USABLE OPEN SPACE, I'M NOT SURE THAT IT MEETS THE DEFINITIONS IN THE COMP PLAN, BUT I THINK IF YOU GO OUT THERE, WE HAVE A TWO-ACRE SOCCER FIELD, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT AMENITY.

IT'S GOING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC.

WELL, MAYBE NOT THE PUBLIC.

I'M SORRY, BUT I KNOW THERE ARE REC LEAGUE GAMES THAT TAKE PLACE OUT THERE.

THE CAMPUS ITSELF HAS A LOT OF INTERCONNECTIVITY.

YOU'VE GOT FOLKS THAT, A LOT OF THEM AREN'T DRIVING VEHICLES, AND GET OUT THERE, AND CAN BE ON THE SITE AND WALK AROUND AND USE IT WITH THE GREENHOUSE TYPE OF SPACES.

ON THE FOOD BANK PROPERTY, YOU'VE GOT A PLAZA THERE OFF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE BUILDING.

I THINK WE'VE GOT A LOT OF MAYBE AMENITIES THAT DON'T QUITE MEET THAT BAROMETER OF OPEN SPACE BUT DO DO TOUCH TO THAT IDEA OF LET'S PROVIDE SOMETHING FOR FOLKS THAT CAN GET ON SITE WITHOUT IT JUST BEING JUST A CONCRETE DEVELOPMENT.

>> THE OTHER THING THAT I NOTICED WHEN I WAS WATCHING AND LOOKING AT THE MAPS, THE NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK IS ALREADY ZONED LI IN THE SA AREA ALREADY, AND SO WE'RE SIMPLY GIVING YOU A LITTLE BIT MORE SPACE OVER AS MOVING THE LOT LINE WITH SOME OF THE GREEN SPACE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. I THINK SO. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU.

>> WELL, THERE'S SO MANY OTHER FOLKS THAT COME ON THE PROPERTY FOR THE FOOD BANK.

YOU'VE GOT VOLUNTEERS THERE ALL THE TIME, CORPORATIONS WILL COME IN AND DO FOOD SORTING AND THAT SORT OF THING, A LOT OF DELIVERIES.

I THINK THERE ARE, FROM THAT SIDE OF DESIRE TO MAKE SURE THAT FOLKS THAT COME ON TO CAMPUS AREN'T JUST STANDING AROUND ON THE PARKING LOT FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.

>> THAT'S PART OF THE REASON I ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP THE OPEN SPACE IS I WAS CONSIDERING THOSE TOPICS,

[00:30:03]

AND I THOUGHT THAT THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT YOU GUYS WOULD LOOK TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU'RE ABLE TO PROVIDE IN MEETING THE COMP PLAN FOR THOSE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING OUT. THANK YOU.

>> YOU LOOK PUZZLED.

SHE'S GOT A LIGHT ON, SO WE'RE GOING TO GO TO COMMISSIONER TONG. OH, OKAY.

>> THANKS, MR. CHAIRMAN.

REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP, YOU MENTIONED THAT THIS IS NOT A BUYER SELLER CASE, IT'S TWO OWNERS, SO MY QUESTION IS, THIS LAND CURRENTLY WHO OWNS IT? IT CANNOT BE TWO OWNERS.

>> CORRECT. YEAH. I CAN SEE HOW THAT WAS CONFUSING.

IT'S CURRENTLY OWNED BY MYPOSSIBILITIES UNDER CONTRACT FOR THE FOOD BANK TO PURCHASE.

I SAY THAT TO MEAN, A LOT OF TIMES I'M BEFORE YOU GUYS WITH A REQUEST FOR SOME THIRD-PARTY THAT'S NOT YET OWNING THE PROPERTY WHERE MAYBE THEY COME IN AND THE ZONING GETS APPROVED, BUT FOR SOME REASON, THE CONTRACT DROPS.

INSTEAD OF GETTING USER A, YOU'RE LEFT WITH USER B, AND MAYBE THAT WOULD HAVE IMPACTED THE REQUEST.

I ONLY SAID THAT TO SAY, NEITHER OF THESE ARE UNKNOWN FOLKS. THEY'RE ALREADY HERE.

THEY'VE BEEN IN THE COMMUNITY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO STAY.

THEY'RE JUST SWAPPING THE PURPLE AREA THAT'S ON THE SCREEN THERE.

BUT IT'S CURRENTLY OWNED BY MYPOSSIBILITIES.

>> IT'S UNDER CONTRACT TO BE TRANSFERRED TO NORTH TEXAS FOOD BANK?

>> CORRECT. [OVERLAPPING]

>> IS IT CONTINGENT UPON THIS APPROVAL.

>> I'M SORRY. I CUT YOU OFF ON YOUR OWN. [OVERLAPPING]

>> IS IT CONTINGENT UPON THIS APPROVAL?

>> YES, IT WOULD BE.

BECAUSE WE WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THE FOOD BANK WANTS TO DO UNDER CC ZONING, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE IN THE FIRST PLACE, YES.

>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. [OVERLAPPING]

>> COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

>> GO AHEAD.

>> THE TWO CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS THAT THIS DOESN'T MEET, THE LOT COVERAGE AND OPEN SPACE THAT COMMISSIONER BRONSKY BROUGHT UP.

DO WE KNOW HOW MUCH ACTIVE OPEN SPACE IS IN THAT SA DESIGNATION CURRENTLY?

>> WE DON'T. IT WOULD BE PROPERTY BY PROPERTY, AND THAT ANALYSIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE.

>> BECAUSE ONE SOCCER FIELD, I DON'T THINK EQUATES TO 15-20 EITHER FOR THE SA. [OVERLAPPING]

>> SURE. THE ZONING AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE TWO SEPARATE THINGS.

THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD UNDER THE ZONING.

THE ZONING DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE.

TYPICALLY, FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL, IT'S JUST GOING TO BE A LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.

IN THE REZONING, WE LOOK AT THESE AS A GUIDE, BUT THE ZONING IS ULTIMATELY GOING TO DICTATE WHAT'S ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY.

>> FOR THE LOT COVERAGE, ESSENTIALLY THEY DON'T MEET BECAUSE WE WOULD REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD A LARGER STRUCTURE IN ORDER TO MEET THE LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT?

>> I WOULD SAY IF THIS IS SOMEWHAT OF A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ON THE PROPERTY, AND EVEN THE EXISTING ZONING DOES NOT REQUIRE THAT AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> GOT YOU.

>> AGAIN, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP IS ONE ASPECT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THERE ARE OTHER POLICIES THAT YOU CAN LOOK TO FOR GUIDANCE IN THESE SITUATIONS.

>> THIS ADDITIONAL SPACE IS GOING TO GO LIKE FOR ADDITIONAL OPERATION FOR THE FOOD BANK?

>> THAT WOULD BE THE PLAN. YES, MA'AM.

>> YEAH, BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SELL IT.

THEY NEEDED THIS SPACE, SO THAT'S WHY THEY PURCHASED.

>> YEAH, IT'S AN EXPANSION. IN THE PLAT, THE COMPANION ITEM, YOU SEE THAT YOU HAVE TWO LOTS TODAY, AND YOU END UP WITH TWO LOTS.

IT'S JUST A SHIFT, SO IT'S NOT BEING CUT INTO A THIRD 2.5 ACRE PARCEL THAT COULD BE SOLD TO JOE SCHMO BLOOD INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPER.

[OVERLAPPING] IT'D BE BLOCKED IN WITH THE REMAINING 17 ACRES OF THE FOOD BANK CAMPUS AND ALL ONE PLOTTED PROPERTY. YES, MA'AM.

>> IF WE APPROVE THIS, YOU LIKE TO BE ADDED TO THE FOOD BANK, AND THEN IT TURNS OUT THAT THEY SELL IT TO SOMEBODY ELSE [OVERLAPPING], LIKE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADDING LIKE NOW IT'S ALREADY OVER THE PERCENTAGE THAT THEY WANT IT.

IF WE APPROVE ADDITIONAL, LIKE OWNERS, IF WE BASICALLY GOING AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

I UNDERSTAND IT'S LIKE THE ORIGINAL ZONING WAS, THE LI. THANK YOU.

>> WELL, IF THEY WERE TRYING TO SELL IT, THEY'D HAVE TO SELL THE ENTIRE LOT, INCLUDING THEIR EXISTING FACILITIES.

>> YEAH. THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING.

[OVERLAPPING] THANK YOU.

>> THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH.

>> ANYONE ELSE? I GUESS WE'RE DONE.

[00:35:02]

THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, IT'S BECAUSE THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE ELEMENTS OF THE PLAN, IT DOES REQUIRE FINDINGS.

BUT AS I THINK MY FAVORITE LANGUAGE IN THE STAFF'S REPORT, LET ME FIND IT HERE.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY OCCASIONALLY ALLOW PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT STRICTLY CONFORM TO THE PLAN STANDARDS, IF THE REQUEST IS FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST, AND TO ME, THAT CHECKS THAT BOX IN A BIG WAY.

THAT'S WHERE I'M AT ON IT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO HAVE MORE DISCUSSION OR NOT.

>> I CONCUR WITH YOU. [LAUGHTER]

>> I LIKE IT. HE'S USUALLY LONG WINDED.

I'M KIDDING. SOMEBODY PLEASE MAKE A MOTION.

>> HOLD ON. LET ME GET THE CORRECT LANGUAGE.

[LAUGHTER] I MOVE WE APPROVED ZONING CASE 2024-015, SUBJECT TO OBVIOUSLY OUR FINANCE POLICY.

>> YEAH, WE HAVE TO DO THEM SEPARATE, THOUGH.

WE HAVE TO ACTUALLY DO 2A, DO OUR FINDINGS, AND THEN WE CAN MOVE ON.

I HEARD THE MOTION, AND I HEARD A SECOND FROM MR. BRONSKY.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALLAN WITH SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, TO APPROVE ITEM 2A.

PLEASE VOTE AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0.

WE'RE NOT OFFICIALLY IN RECESS OR TAKING A BREAK BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE ACTIONS TO DO, AND THAT IS TO COMPLETE OUR FINDINGS FORMS, BUT WE WON'T BE BOTHERED IF YOU GUYS CHATTER A LITTLE BIT AMONGST YOURSELVES WHILE WE'RE DOING THIS.

[BACKGROUND] THEY'RE ONLINE, BUT I THINK SHE BROUGHT HARD COPIES FOR PEOPLE LIKE MYSELF THAT IT NEVER WORKS FOR.

WE ONLY HAVE TO DO 2B AFTER WE DO 2A AND WE GET OUR FINDINGS COMPLETE.

THEN WE'LL MAKE A MOTION ON 2B.

[BACKGROUND] PARDON? [BACKGROUND] WHAT ARE YOU PULLING UP? [BACKGROUND] NO, I THINK HE SAID 05, BUT I THINK WE'LL BE ALL RIGHT.

EVERYONE KNOWS WHAT CASE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

[BACKGROUND]

[00:45:23]

ARE WE FINISHED?

[00:45:23]

>> WE'RE GOOD. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE.

I NOW NEED A MOTION ON ITEM 2B.

>> I MOVE. [OVERLAPPING]

>> MICROPHONE.

>> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 2B, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2024-015.

>> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER ALLAN WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, TO APPROVE ITEM 2B, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, PLEASE VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0 AS WELL, AND NO FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED AT THIS POINT FOR THAT ONE.

WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO ITEM 3A,

[Items 3A & 3B]

AND B. IT'S 3A AND B.

>> YES, SIR. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3A, ZONING CASE 2024-013, REQUEST TO REZONE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1 TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1 TO MODIFY THE STANDARDS FOR MANY WAREHOUSE PUBLIC STORAGE USES ON 12.6 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAPLE SHADE LANE, 230 FEET EAST OF OHIO DRIVE, AND WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.

TABLED ON AUGUST 19TH, 2024, PETITIONER CROW-BILLINGSLEY PARDUE LTD.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM 3B, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN CONCEPT PLAN, AND REVISED CONVEYANCE PLOT, CROW-BILLINGSLEY PARDUE ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 2, AND 3, MINI WAREHOUSE PUBLIC STORAGE AND PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON TWO LOTS ON 18.9 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF MAPLE SHADE LANE AND OHIO DRIVE, ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1 AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.

APPLICANT CROW-BILLINGSLEY PARDUE LTD.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION, PENDING ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM 3A.

>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

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

HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN QUESTION.

ON THE LEFT, YOU WILL SEE THE SUP PLAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY IN YELLOW, AND IT IS AT THE CORNER OF MAPLE SHADE IN OHIO.

THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ZONING CASE AS WELL.

THIS FIRST ONE ON THE SCREEN IS THE REVISED CONVEYANCE PLAT.

CURRENTLY IT IS ALL ONE PROPERTY, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SUBDIVIDE IT INTO TWO DIFFERENT LOTS WITH THE CREEK RUNNING DOWN THE MIDDLE AS THE BOUNDARY.

THERE IS ALSO A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING CASE.

THIS IS ON THE EASTERN LOT.

THIS IS WHERE THE PROPOSAL FOR TONIGHT'S PROPOSAL FOR THE CAR CLUB IS BEING SHOWN.

THERE ARE THREE ACCESS POINTS ALONG MAPLE SHADE LANE.

THEN THERE'S A FIRE LANE AROUND THE BUILDING.

THEN HERE'S THE CONCEPT PLAN, AND THIS IS RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF OHIO AND MAPLE SHADE, WITH TWO ACCESS POINTS OFF OHIO.

THIS IS FOR JUST A GENERAL OFFICE CONCEPT.

THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1, AND IT IS UNDEVELOPED.

THE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE, INCLUDING THE WESTERN IS ALSO UNDEVELOPED.

IN 2000, THE PROPERTY WAS PART OF A CITY INITIATED ZONING, AND IT WASN'T LIGHT INDUSTRIAL THEN, AND IT IS STILL LIGHT INDUSTRIAL.

TODAY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CAR CLUB BUSINESS, WHICH IS A MIX OF DIFFERENT USES.

OUR ZONING ORDINANCE CURRENTLY DOES NOT HAVE A SPECIFIC USE LISTED FOR A CAR CLUB.

IN THEIR PROPOSAL, THERE ARE MULTIPLE USES THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH THEIR PROPOSAL.

THE PRIMARY DESIGNATION WITH WHAT THEY ARE PURSUING IS THE MINI WAREHOUSE AND PUBLIC STORAGE.

I'LL GET ONTO THAT NEXT, BUT THERE'S ALSO A PROFESSIONAL GENERAL OFFICE, ASSEMBLY HALL, AND A VEHICLE REPAIR.

THE GENERAL CONCEPT IS THERE WILL BE UNITS ON SITE, AND THEY WILL BE SOLD TO STORED VEHICLES.

THEY CAN ALSO HAVE A MEZZANINE SPACE FOR LOUNGE AREA,

[00:50:01]

THINGS LIKE THAT FOR ANY OF THE OWNERS TO ENJOY.

IT WILL BE OPERATED LIKE A CONDO BUSINESS, SO THEY WILL BE INDIVIDUAL CONDOMINIUMS IN THE CONDOMINIUM ASSOCIATION, AND THEN THERE WILL BE A VEHICLE REPAIR TO THE NORTH IN THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING.

HERE IS THE CURRENT DEFINITION OF THE MINI WAREHOUSE HOUSE PUBLIC STORAGE.

IT IS A BUILDING CONTAINING SEPARATE INDIVIDUAL SELF STORAGE UNITS OF 500 SQUARE FEET OR LESS FOR RENT RELEASE.

THE CONDUCT OF SALES, BUSINESS OR ANY ACTIVITY OTHER THAN STORAGE SHALL BE PROHIBITED WITHIN ANY INDIVIDUAL STORAGE UNIT.

THE REASON WHY WE ARE REQUESTING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT TODAY IS THIS CURRENT DEFINITION OF THE MINI WAREHOUSE IS TOO RESTRICTIVE FOR THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS PROPOSAL.

WE NEED TO INCREASE THE ALLOWABLE SIZE OF EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT.

[NOISE]

>> HERE IS THE FIRST PROPOSED FD STIPULATION.

THE MINI WAREHOUSE PUBLIC STORAGE DEVELOPMENT MAY HAVE RENTED LEASE OR INDIVIDUALLY OWNED UNITS, GREATER THAN 500 SQUARE FEET, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STANDARDS.

THE FIRST IS THIS IS STILL REMAINING FOR THE DEFINITION, CONDUCT OF SALES OR BUSINESS PROHIBITED WITHIN ANY INDIVIDUAL UNIT.

BUT THEN THE ACCESSORY USE FOR RECREATIONAL PURPOSES IS ALLOWED WITHIN INDIVIDUAL UNITS AND THAT'S DESCRIBING THE MEZZANINE RECREATIONAL USES THAT WILL BE ACCESSORY TO THE MINI-WAREHOUSE USE AND THEN THE MAXIMUM UNIT SIZE CAN BE UP TO 12,000 SQUARE FEET.

THEN THE SECOND IS THERE WILL BE A ASSEMBLY HALL EVENT SPACE AS MENTIONED.

OUTDOOR VEHICLE DISPLAY MAY BE PROVIDED.

YOU'LL SEE IN THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

IN THE CENTER, THERE'S THE LIGHT GREEN SHADED.

THAT'S GOING TO BE THE OUTDOOR EVENT SPACE, AND THAT'S GOING TO BE TURF.

ARTIFICIAL TURF ISN'T NECESSARILY USUALLY TYPICALLY RECOMMENDED FOR PARKING, JUST BECAUSE IT'S LONGEVITY AND IT FADES OUT THAT TYPICAL CONCRETE PARKING.

BUT THERE WILL BE SCREENING ALL AROUND, EXCEPT FOR THE ACCESS DRIVE DOWN THE MIDDLE.

STAFF WAS COMFORTABLE WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS EMPLOYMENT CENTERS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

IT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WE RECEIVED ONE SIGN LETTER OF SUPPORT AND WITHIN 200 FEET, WE RECEIVED TWO DIFFERENT LETTERS.

JUST TO CLARIFY, ON THE WEST SIDE, THERE'S THE LIGHT GREEN, AND THEN THE CENTER, THERE'S A DARKER GREEN SO THE WHOLE PROPERTY AS A WHOLE IS CURRENTLY NOT DIVIDED.

THE ONE LETTER COVERS BOTH OF THOSE PROPERTIES.

IT'S STILL WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND WITHIN THE 200 FEET LIMIT.

THEN IN TOTAL, WE RECEIVED THREE DIFFERENT RESPONSES, TWO IN SUPPORT, AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.

IN SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CAR CLUB FOR STORAGE OF VEHICLES WITHIN INDIVIDUAL CONDO UNITS.

THERE WILL BE EVENT SPACE IN THE CENTER, AS WELL AS VEHICLE REPAIR AND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS ARE PROPOSED TO MODIFY THE CURRENT STANDARDS OF THE MINI-WAREHOUSE AND PUBLIC STORAGE IN ORDER TO MEET THEIR PROPOSAL.

RECOMMENDATIONS, THE ZONING CASE IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.

THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2024-013, AND THE EXECUTION OF AN AGREEMENT ASSURING THE PERPETUAL JOINT USE OF UP TO 60 PARKING SPACES, REQUIRED FOR PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PARKED AT THE RATIO REQUIRED FOR ASSEMBLY USE WITH OTHER PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT, PARKED AT THE RATIO REQUIRED FOR MINI-WAREHOUSE PUBLIC STORAGE, PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AND OR MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR.

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

THEN THE CONCEPT PLAN AND REVISED CONVEYANCE PLAT ARE ALSO RECOMMENDED FOR SO FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2024-013.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER WHO'S THE BEST TO ASK THIS QUESTION OF.

REALLY, THE ONLY THING THAT'S MAKING ME NERVOUS IS VEHICLE REPAIR, AND IS THERE A WAY FOR US TO LIMIT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT CAN BE UTILIZED FOR THAT PURPOSE SO THAT THIS DOESN'T TURN INTO A LARGE VEHICLE REPAIR SHOP?

>> WELL VEHICLE REPAIR IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT ON THE PROPERTY TODAY, SO THEY COULD BUILD THAT IF THEY WISH TO.

[00:55:01]

BUT YES, THIS IS A PLAN DEVELOPMENT SO THAT STIPULATION COULD BE ADDED IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO DO SO.

>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS HOPING. THANK YOU.

I GOT TWO, THREE FINGERS GOING ON HERE.

WE'LL START WITH MR. RADLEY.

DOES THAT MEAN VEHICLE REPAIR CAN BE DONE, BUT THEY CAN'T BE FOR HIRE?

>> THAT IS IN RELATION TO THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS, LIKE THE INDIVIDUAL OWN UNITS THERE CAN'T BE ANY BUSINESSES RUNNING OUT OF THEM.

BECAUSE THE VEHICLE REPAIR IS JUST GOING TO BE A SEPARATE USE, NOT WITHIN THE MINI-WAREHOUSE USE, IT'S GOING TO BE SEPARATE.

THAT BUSINESS OPERATION ISN'T NECESSARILY THE VEHICLE REPAIR.

>> I'M NOT SURE I FOLLOWED THAT.

COULD SOMEBODY RENT ONE OF THE UNITS AND PUT IN AN AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY?

>> NO, THAT WOULD BE A PROHIBITED USE OF THE STORAGE UNIT ITSELF.

>> THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING BECAUSE THE STAFF REPORT SAID IT WAS ALLOWED, BUT THEN PRIVATE BUSINESSES WEREN'T ALLOWED SO YOU COULDN'T RENT ONE OF THE UNITS AND PUT IN AN AUTO BODY SHOP, AN AUTO REPAIR SHOP?

>> CORRECT. THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS AS PROPOSED NO.

>> OKAY. THAT WAS MY FIRST QUESTION.

SECOND QUESTION IS THE OFFSITE PARKING.

THERE'S NOTHING ADJACENT TO THAT.

IS ANY IDEA WHERE THE OFF SITE UP TO 60 SPACES IS GOING TO BE BECAUSE IT'S ACROSS THE CREEK TO A FUTURE OFFICE BUILDING, ACROSS THE ROAD, TO SOMEBODY ELSE THAT'S RETAIL.

>> I CAN ANSWER THIS. REMEMBER A COUPLE OF MEETINGS BACK, WE HAD A ASSEMBLY HALL USE THAT WAS SHARING PARKING WITH THE WITH AN OFFICE IN THE SAME USE?

>> THEY'RE SHARING WITHIN THE SAME PROPERTY.

IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE GOING TO SHARE THE PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE ASSEMBLY HALL, WHICH IS ONLY GOING TO BE ON WEEKENDS WITH OTHER ASPECTS OF THE SAME PROPERTY TO REDUCE THEIR OVERALL PARKING REQUIREMENT.

>> THIS IS A SHARED PARKING ON SITE, NOT AN OFFSITE PARKING CONTRACT, WHICH IS WHY I WAS CONFUSED BECAUSE ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS IS A AGREEMENT THAT WAS SIGNED TO FORM.

>> THAT'S A REQUIREMENT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT IT BE A PERPETUAL AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY ATTORNEY.

WE'RE JUST REPLICATING THE ZONING ORDINANCE LANGUAGE.

>> OKAY SO THE WAY THAT'S CONCEIVED IS THIS PROPERTY WILL COMPLETELY PARK ON SITE, IS JUST ABOUT THE MIX OF USES IN THE FACILITY, CORRECT?

>> CORRECT. GREAT. THANK YOU.

>> MR. BRONSKY.

>> HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHEN WITHIN THE CITY, IF YOU'RE PARKING A VEHICLE, IT'S GENERALLY REQUIRED TO BE ON CONCRETE AND YOU MENTIONED IN THE REPORT ON PAGE 11, TALKING ABOUT THE PARKING FOR THE ASSEMBLY HALL AND THE SPECIAL EVENTS.

IT SAYS, THIS LIMITATION IS BECAUSE ARTIFICIAL TURF DOES NOT HAVE THE SAME DURABILITY AND MAY CREATE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS IF THERE IS RUNOFF FROM VEHICLES AND MAY CREATE LONG TERM MAINTENANCE ISSUES.

SO THAT'S GENERALLY WHY WE DON'T DO THAT, RIGHT?

>> GREAT.

>> I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ARE NOT ADDRESSED WHENEVER WE TALK ABOUT WHY WE'RE PROPOSING TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN TO PARK USED VEHICLES ON TURF, IT JUST SIMPLY SAYS THAT BECAUSE OF THE SCREENING, WE'RE GOOD WITH THAT.

I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING HOW THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS OF PARKING ON THIS TURF FOR USED VEHICLES IS OKAY WHENEVER IT'S BUILT HAS WALLS AROUND IT. CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THAT?

>> YEAH SO BASICALLY, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO, LIKE PROPOSING, LIKE, ADDITIONAL, LIKE RUNOFF MITIGATION AS WELL ON THE SITE WITH THE DETENTION POND.

I THINK WITH THE ASSEMBLY HALL ON THIS CENTER, THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE TYPICALLY PARKING THERE.

IT'S JUST ONLY FOR THE EVENT SPACE DAYS.

IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'LL BE PARKING THERE EVERY DAY AND LEAVING THEIR CARS ON OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

>> OPERATIONS INCLUDE STORAGE OF HIGH END VEHICLES.

IT'S A CLUB FOR HIGH END VEHICLE OWNERS AND THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE WEEKEND CAR SHOWS AND SO THE CAR SHOWS WOULD BE LOCATED ON THE TURF AREA IN THE CENTRAL PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT, IN WHICH CASE, THERE'S NO RUNOFF THAT'S GOING INTO NEARBY CREATES THAT WOULD CREATE THAT ISSUE THAT WE WOULD SEE IF IT WERE ELSEWHERE ON THE PROPERTY, LIKE ON THE PERIMETER NEXT TO THE CREEK, WE WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT IN THAT LOCATION.

BUT HERE IT'S GOING TO BE SELF CONTAINED, AND SO WE DON'T HAVE THE SAME CONCERN.

>> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE IT WASN'T CLEAR ENOUGH FOR ME. THANK YOU.

[01:00:04]

>> MR. ALI.

>> TO THAT POINT, THEN WHAT'S THE REASON FOR THE SCREENING? WE ARE NOT REPAIRING VEHICLES ON THE TURF.

>> ARTIFICIAL TURF JUST WEARS OUT OVER TIME AND BECOMES A KIND OF AESTHETIC ISSUE.

OKAY. LONG TERM MAINTENANCE AND SINCE IT'S SCREENED, IF IT DOES BECOME AN ISSUE, IT'S NOT AN ISSUE FOR THE PUBLIC.

>> IF IT LOOKS UGLY, JUST BLOCK IT OFF KIND OF DEAL.

OTHER QUESTION, THE ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION TALKED ABOUT, WE DON'T NEED ANOTHER CAR DEALERSHIP.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY.

THE BUSINESS OPERATION HERE IS RENTING OUT OF THE SPACE TO STORE.

I DON'T HAVE A CLASSIC CAR, BUT I USED TO DRIVE A 97 HONDA TO STORE MY OLD CAR HERE.

THAT'S THE BUSINESS OPERATION.

THIS IS NOT A CAR DEALERSHIP. YES?

>> RIGHT. IT IS NOT A CAR DEALERSHIP.

THE PROPOSAL.

THE APPLICANT'S INTENT IS TO STORE HIGH END VEHICLES WITHIN THE UNITS AND SO THERE WON'T BE ANY SELLING OF THE VEHICLES DIRECTLY IN THE UNITS.

>> MADE ME SOUND LIKE 97 HONDA WAS NOT A HIGH END VEHICLE.

>> OBJECT WELL, NO, I WAS GOING TO SAY A 97 HONDA.

>> I MEAN, I HAVE THE BEHOLDER.

>> MANLY VEHICLE.

>> WERE THEY RARE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND. MR. BRUNOV.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COUPLE OF ISSUES I SEE.

FIRST OF ALL, IN ORDER TO GET THE CARS INTO EACH STORAGE SPACE, WOULD THE ENTRANCE BE FROM THE INTERIOR COURTYARD, FROM THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING OR BOTH?

>> LET ME TRY TO POINT THAT OUT IN THE PLAN HERE.

THE APPLICANT DOES ALSO HAVE A PRESENTATION WITH THE FLOOR PLAN. LET ME.

WELL, THE LASER POINTER ISN'T REALLY WORKING.

BUT THERE ARE THREE DIFFERENT ACCESS POINTS FROM MAPLE SHADE, AND THEN.

>> THE QUESTION. I WANT TO DRIVE THIS CAR INTO HIS STORAGE SPACE. DOES HE.

>> ENTER IT FROM THE COURTYARD FROM THE OUTSIDE OR FROM BOTH?

>> RIGHT SO ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER, THE SOUTHEAST CORNER AND THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE BUILDING.

I JUST CAN'T GET THE LASER POINT AT IT WORK.

THERE ARE DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES FOR AN INDOOR DRIVE, SO TO SPEAK, TO GET TO EACH UNIT.

>> AN INDOOR HALLWAY FOR THE CAR TO DRIVE THROUGH AN ACCESS.

>> LIKE IN A SERVICE REPAIR AT A PORT MAJOR DEALERSHIP WHERE THEY HAD THE LONG HALLWAY.

>> YEAH, THERE'S NO THERE'S NO RIGHT ACCESS FACING THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.

YOU SIMPLY GO THROUGH A GARAGE DOOR INTO THE HALLWAY AND INTO YOUR UNIT IN THE INTERIOR.

>> AND IT'S BIG ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THE CARS BEING DRIVEN IN?

>> CORRECT.

>> SECOND OF ALL, WITH REGARD TO VEHICLE REPAIR, WOULD EACH OF THESE STORAGE UNITS POTENTIALLY BE EQUIPPED AS A FULL SERVICE AUTO REPAIR GARAGE WITH THINGS LIKE A HYDRAULIC LIFT, TIRE CHANGING MACHINES, WHEEL BALANCING MACHINES, ALL THE EQUIPMENT THAT YOU NORMALLY SEE IN A CAR GARAGE, WOULD IT BE STORING PARTS, FLUIDS, OIL, TRANSMISSION FLUID, BRAKE FLUID? HOW WOULD THEY DISPOSE OF USED OIL, TRANSMISSION FLUID, BREAK FLUID, ETC OR USE TIRES? IN OTHER WORDS, TO WHAT EXTENT DOES THE PRO WOULD THE PROPERTY LEND ITSELF TO THE NORMAL ACTIVITIES OF A CAR REPAIR FACILITY, EVEN IF IT'S NOT A BUSINESS?

>> AGAIN, AS PART OF THE PROPOSED STIPULATION, NUMBER ONE, THE INTENT IS FOR THE ACCESSORY USE FOR ONLY RECREATIONAL PURPOSES AND NOT ANY, LIKE VEHICLE REPAIR OR OTHER USES LIKE THAT.

I THINK WHAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING WOULD BE, ADDING ANOTHER VEHICLE REPAIR USE, AND THAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED BY THE PD.

REALLY THE ONLY THING THEY CAN DO IS STORE THEIR VEHICLE AND THEN HAVE, LIKE A LOUNGE SPACE TO.

>> WAIT A MINUTE, IF IN ALLOWED USES VEHICLE REPAIR, EXACTLY WHAT REPAIRS ARE BEING CONTEMPLATED?

>> THAT WOULD BE A ZONING VIOLATION WERE THEY TO DO THAT AND THAT WOULD BE A PROPERTY STANDARDS ISSUE WHERE THEY WOULD GO OUT AND INSPECT IF THERE'S REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THEY'RE USING THEM FOR THAT PURPOSE.

THERE WILL NOT BE ANY SIGNAGE ALLOWED FOR THOSE BUSINESSES. THERE WOULD NOT BE.

>> I'M NOT ASKING ABOUT A BUSINESS USE.

I'M JUST SAYING A OWNER REPAIRING HIS OWN EXPENSIVE SPORTS.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> I UNDERSTAND. CORRECT. WE IMAGINE THERE MIGHT BE SOMEBODY POLISHING THEIR VEHICLE AND THERE, THINGS LIKE THAT.

BUT THE LIFTS, THE TIRE MOUNTING AND BALANCING, LIKE YOU MENTIONED.

>> THOSE WOULD ALL BE ZONING VIOLATIONS.

WE DIDN'T GET TO THAT LEVEL OF DETAIL, BUT WE CERTAINLY COULD IN THE PROHIBITIONS.

>> HOW ABOUT REPAIRS THAT WOULD REQUIRE THE ENGINE TO BE RUNNING AND IF THAT IS INDOORS,

[01:05:03]

WOULD THERE BE A PROVISION FOR VENTILATION TO GET THE FUMES OUT OF THERE?

>> THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY INCLUDED, BUT COULD BE.

BUT I'D RECOMMEND YOU HEAR FROM THE THE OPERATIONS.

>> YEAH. I THINK LET'S HEAR FROM THEM BECAUSE IT MAY ANSWER SOME OF OUR QUESTIONS OR GIVE RISE TO OTHERS, BUT WE CERTAINLY CAN CHAT WITH THEM ABOUT IT.

>> I DO HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN, REGARDING THE SIZE OF THE UNIT AS MORE OF EDUCATIONAL.

I UNDERSTAND THAT WE NEED TO MAKE IT GREATER THAN 500 SQUARE FEET, AND WE'RE MAKING IT A MAXIMUM 12,000.

WHERE IS THAT NUMBER COMING FROM? WHY IS THE 12,000?

>> THAT WAS WHAT THE APPLICANT HAD PROPOSED AND SO THEY HAD GIVEN US A FLOOR PLAN AND THE LARGEST UNITS WERE UP TO 12,000 SQUARE FEET, AND SO OUR STIPULATIONS WERE BASED AROUND THEIR PROPOSAL.

>> DO YOU KNOW IF THE 500 SQUARE FEET INCLUDES MEZZANINE SQUARE FOOTAGE OR IS IT 500 SQUARE FEET PLUS WHATEVER MIGHT BE IN THE MEZZANINE?

>> I BELIEVE THE ORIGINAL 500 DID NOT INCLUDE IT BECAUSE IT ONLY ALLOWED THE USE OF STORAGE.

>> WELL, IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT I MEAN, 500 SQUARE FEET, 25 BY 20, IF YOU THREW IN THE MEZZANINE ON TOP OF THAT, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE SPACE BELOW WOULD BE SO TINY AS TO BE.

ALMOST UNUSABLE. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I THINK WE SHOULD HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

>> I HAVE MICHAEL HOLIGAN, REGISTERED TO SPEAK, AND THEN I HAVE BRIAN STAGAJ AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

>> DO YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION?

>> THEY DON'T HAVE IT. YOU DON'T HAVE IT?

>> I'M FROM MISSOURI. I NEED TO SHOW PEOPLE. I DON'T KNOW.

>> OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE YOUR PRESENTATION.

>> WELL, I'M GOING TO USE MY HANDS A LOT THEN.

I'M MICHAEL HOLIGAN, 15001 WINWOOD ROAD, DALLAS, TEXAS 75254.

I'M THE OWNER OF MARINELO, LLC, THE ONE THAT WILL BE THE DEVELOPER OF THIS PROJECT THAT WE'VE BEEN DISCUSSING. YOU'RE ABLE TO FIND IT?

>> NO.

>> I'LL GIVE YOU A BACK STORY.

I'M A FERRARI OWNER. I BOUGHT A GARAGE FROM ONE OF THESE GARAGE DEVELOPMENTS.

IT WAS REALLY GREAT WHEN THEY'D HAVE A CARS AND COFFEE.

EVERYONE WOULD OPEN THEIR GARAGE DOOR, PULL THEIR CAR OUT.

A FEW HUNDRED PEOPLE WOULD SHOW UP.

WE'D SEE EACH OTHER'S CARS, WE'D TALK ABOUT CARS, TALK ABOUT BUSINESS, AND THEN EVERYONE WOULD CLOSE THEIR DOORS AT THE END OF THE SHOW AND YOU WOULDN'T SEE ANYBODY FOR 29 DAYS.

THE REASON IS, IT'S HOT.

THEY DON'T OPEN THEIR DOORS, NO ONE COMES OUTSIDE.

NO SENSE OF COMMUNITY WHATSOEVER.

COMES JUST SELF STORAGE AT THAT POINT.

I DECIDED I WANTED TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

LET'S MAKE IT WHERE YOU CAN BUY A GARAGE, YOU CAN PUT YOUR FERRARI, YOUR LAMBORGHINI, OR MASERATI, YOUR ALFA ROMEO, IN YOUR GARAGE, AND YOU HAVE GLASS GARAGE DOORS, SO PEOPLE CAN SEE IF YOU'RE THERE.

YOU CAN LEAVE YOUR GARAGE DOORS OPEN BECAUSE IT'S HEATED AND COOLED, EVERYTHING IS INDOORS.

THIS BUILDING IS A GIANT RECTANGLE.

THERE'S THREE ENTRIES TO ENTER THE BUILDING; TWO ON THE SOUTH SIDE OFF A MAPLE SHADE THAT GO INTO THE BUILDING ITSELF, AND THEN ONE ON THE BACK OF THE NORTHEAST CORNER OUT OF THE PARKING LOT THAT COMES INTO THE BUILDING.

THERE'S DRIVE LANES THROUGH THE BUILDING IN A U-SHAPE COMING THROUGH THERE.

THE DRIVE LANES ARE 24 FEET WIDE, AND THEN ON EACH SIDE, THERE'S A THREE-FOOT WALKING LANE.

THEN NEXT TO THAT IS THE GLASS GARAGE DOORS AND THE GLASS PASSAGE DOORS GOING INTO THE UNITS.

THE UNITS ARE CONDOS, NOT A RESIDENTIAL CONDO, BUT A COMMERCIAL CONDO.

THE CAR OR COLLECTOR WOULD ACTUALLY BUY THEIR UNIT, AND THEIR CARS WOULD BE STORED INSIDE THERE.

THEY CAN COME OUT ANYTIME, 365 DAYS A YEAR, 24 HOURS A DAY, BE INSIDE THE BUILDING, NOT WORRIED ABOUT WHAT THE WEATHER IS DOING.

IT DOESN'T MATTER IF IT'S COLD, IF IT'S HOT, THEY CAN GO AROUND, TALK TO OTHER PEOPLE, LOOK AT EACH OTHER'S CARS.

EVERYTHING IS WIDE OPEN.

IN THE FRONT, THERE IS AN OFFICE, AND THERE'S A LOUNGE.

THE LOUNGE IS TWO STORIES, 13,000 SQUARE FEET, AND THEN THERE'S MY OFFICE COMPLEX, IT'S 7,000 SQUARE FEET.

THEY'RE CONNECTED ON THE SECOND FLOOR, BUT ON THE FIRST FLOOR, THERE'S A TUNNEL THAT GOES INTO THE CONCURSO, THIS TURF AREA THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

THE BUILDING SURROUNDS THE ONE-ACRE CONCURSO.

WHEN YOU PULL IN THE DRIVE LANES, THERE'S GARAGES ON BOTH SIDES, THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT.

[01:10:01]

THE ONES THAT FACE THE CONCURSO, BESIDES THE DOORS OFF THE HALLWAYS, THEY ALSO HAVE DOORS THAT GO OUT TO THE CONCOURSE.

LET'S SAY THE FERRARI CLUB OR THE PORSCHE CLUB SHOWS UP.

THEY DRIVE INTO THE TUNNEL BETWEEN THE OFFICE AND THE LOUNGE TO ENTER THE CONCOURSE AREA, TO SET UP THEIR CARS.

ALL OF THE OWNERS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE CONCOURSE CAN OPEN UP THEIR GARAGE DOORS, PULL THEIR CARS OUT, ALSO, AND THEN EVERYONE CAN VISIT AND GO BACK AND FORTH.

IN THE VERY BACK, THERE'S 29,000 SQUARE FEET ON THE BACK OF THE RECTANGLE THAT'S AGAINST THE DRIVE LANES.

THAT'S A SHOP TO DO DETAILING ON CARS, PPF, WHICH IS PAINT PROTECTION FILM, COLOR CORRECTION, AND PARTS.

THAT BUSINESS IS CURRENTLY ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

IF YOU THIS BUILDING ON MAPLE SHADE, IT BACKS UP TO THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

THIS BUILDING IS CURRENTLY IN PLANO, THE PEOPLE THAT ARE MOVING IN HERE, RUNNING THEIR BUSINESS RIGHT NOW, 100 YARDS NORTH OF WHERE THIS BUILDING GOES.

THEY'RE GOING TO SELL THAT BUILDING.

THEY'RE RIGHT NEXT TO STEWART PAINT.

IT'S CALLED SCUTTERIA SMITH, AND THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE INTO THIS BUILDING.

WHAT SCUTTERIA SMITH DOES IS THEY REPAIR LAMBORGHINIS, MASERATIS, AND FERRARIS.

THEY SELL PARTS FOR FERRARIS, MASERATIS, AND LAMBORGHINIS.

THAT'S WHO WILL BE IN THE 29,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE REASON FOR THEM IS IF ONE OF THESE PEOPLE ARE COMING IN TOWN, SOME OF OUR BUYERS AREN'T FROM DALLAS FOWORTH.

IF THEY FLY INTO ADDISON AIRPORT AND THEY WANT THEIR FERRARI READY, THEY CALL SCUTTERIA SMITH AND SAY, HEY, I WANT MY CAR READY.

THEY'LL MAKE SURE THAT TIRES ARE AIRED UP, BATTERY IS GOOD, OIL IS CHANGE, THE CAR IS READY, PICK THEM UP AT THE AIRPORT.

BRING THEM HERE, THEY GET THEIR CAR, THEY DO THEIR BUSINESS FOR HOWEVER LONG, DROP THEIR CAR BACK OFF IN THEIR OWN GARAGE THAT THEY OWN AND TAKE THEM BACK TO THE AIRPORT.

THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE MECHANIC SHOP IN THERE.

THE INDIVIDUALS IN THE UNITS THEMSELVES, THEY CAN WORK ON THEIR CAR.

I CAN TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT AS A FERRARI OWNER.

THERE'S A THREE-YEAR WARRANTY, AND THERE'S SEVEN YEARS OF MAINTENANCE WITH THE FERRARI.

IN THAT TIME PERIOD, YOU DON'T TOUCH THE CAR.

YOU ACTUALLY TAKE IT TO FERRARI, IF YOU WANT TO WASH. HEY, THERE IT IS.

THERE'S OUR PRESENTATION. LOOK AT THAT.

>> THAT'S NAME ON THAT ON PURPOSE? >. YEAH. WE LOOKED THAT UP.

>> SHOULD I RECUSE MYSELF?

>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE FRONT THERE, THE PART IN RED, THERE'S YOUR TUNNEL THAT GOES INTO THE CONCURSO IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.

ON YOUR LEFT AND ABOVE THE TUNNEL IS THE LOUNGE, ON THE RIGHT IS MY OFFICES.

THEN YOU SEE THE TWO RED RECTANGLES.

THAT'S WHERE A GARAGE DOOR IS TO ENTER THE BUILDING AND GO DOWN THE DRIVE LANES. CAN YOU GO THE NEXT SLIDE? PERFECT. THERE YOU CAN SEE THE CONCOURSE FROM AN OVERHEAD, LOOKING TOWARDS THE NORTH.

TO ENTER THE CONCOURSE, YOU CAN'T JUST DRIVE IN. THE PUBLIC CAN'T DRIVE IN.

THERE'S A HYDRAULIC BALLARD FENCE THAT RAISES UP THERE.

THE ONLY WAY TO GET IN IS WE LOWER THE BOLLARDS, SO YOU CAN'T GO IN THERE.

TO ACCESS THE GARAGE UNITS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE REMOTE TO GET IN.

THEN THERE'S FENCE THAT GOES FROM THE CORNER OF THE BUILDING OUT TO THE PERIMETER, GOES DOWN THE SIDES AND ALONG THE BACK.

FOR CAR SHOWS THEMSELVES, WE'VE GOT 100 PLUS SPACES OUTDOORS FOR VISITORS.

WE HAVE 79 CONDOS INSIDE THE BUILDING.

THEN WHEN SOMEONE IS VISITING, LET'S SAY THE FERRARI CLUB OR THE PORTIA CLUB, THEY WOULD PULL THEIR SHOW CARS IN ON THE TURF.

AS FAR AS THE TURF ITSELF, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHY PEOPLE ARE ASKING ABOUT THE ENVIRONMENTAL.

WE'RE NOT PUTTING THE TURF ON DIRT.

WE'RE HOLDING CARS THAT ARE 0.5 MILLION TO FIVE MILLION DOLLARS.

THERE'S GOING TO BE SIX INCHES OF CONCRETE.

THE TURF WILL BE ON TOP OF IT.

IT'S NO DIFFERENT. IF WE LEFT THE TURF OFF, IT'S STILL THE SAME THING.

YOU HAVE CONCRETE, IT DRAINS TO THE STORM SEWER IN THE CENTER.

WE'RE JUST PUTTING THE TURF ON FOR PHOTOS AND STUFF.

WE ALL WENT TO PEBBLE BEACH A MONTH AGO FOR THE CONCURSO TO LOOK AT THE CARS AND, SAME THING.

IT JUST PHOTOGRAPHS BETTER ON A GOLF COURSE.

I PROPOSE WE DON'T BUILD A GOLF COURSE IN THIS BUILDING.

THAT'S WHY WE GOT THIS. THEN, LET'S SEE.

FORWARD. BACK UP.

THIS IS THE LOOK OF THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING.

YOU SEE YOU DRIVE YOUR CAR INTO THE BUILDING.

AGAIN, 24 FOOT DRIVE AISLE, SO 12 FOOT EACH DIRECTION, THREE FOOT OF WALKWAY ON EACH SIDE.

THEN IN FRONT OF EVERY PASSAGE DOOR, WE'RE ALSO PUTTING STEEL KEYS WITH A CABLE ON THERE JUST SO SOMEONE DOESN'T ACCIDENTALLY WALK OUT INTO THE DRIVE LANE.

YOU'LL SEE BIG FANS RUNNING DOWN THE MIDDLE AS WELL AS HVAC.

THIS IS TO HELP OUT A LITTLE BIT, TOO.

THERE, YOU CAN SEE ON THE BOTTOM ON THE SOUTH PART OF THE BUILDING.

ON THE LEFT IS THE LOUNGE, ON THE RIGHT IS MY OFFICES.

THERE'S THE TUNNEL GOING INTO THE CONCOURSE.

THE DRIVE LANES ARE THE GRAY PART.

THEY GO UP AND COME BACK DOWN THROUGH THE BUILDING.

THE DIFFERENT COLORS ARE BECAUSE OF THE DIFFERENT SIZE.

THE UNITS THEMSELVES ARE 25 FOOT WIDE.

[01:15:02]

THERE ARE DIFFERENT DEPTHS, 40, 50, 60S, 70S AND 80S.

THE REASON THAT WE'RE HERE IS BY RIGHT, WE CAN DO MINI SELF STORAGE, WHICH IS WHAT THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT GOES UNDER IN PLANO, BUT IT'S LIMITED TO 500 SQUARE FEET.

OUR MINIMUM UNIT IS 1,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE REASON WE ASK FOR 12,000 SQUARE FEET IS SEVERAL OF THESE BUYERS ARE GOING TO TAKE MORE THAN ONE UNIT.

SOME OF THEM, A LOT OF UNITS.

THEY GIVE YOU IDEAS ON WHAT GOES IN HERE.

PROBABLY THE AVERAGE GARAGE WILL HAVE 5-$10 MILLION WORTH OF CARS BEING HIGH END SPORTS CARS.

THE STARTING PRICE ON THE UNITS IS $600 A SQUARE FOOT.

IT'S MUCH MORE THAN THE AVERAGE HOUSE.

THERE ARE NO UNITS FOR RENT.

YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO RENT OR LEASE IN HERE. IT'S ONLY FOR SALE.

WE HAVEN'T REALLY STARTED MARKETING, AND WE'VE PROBABLY GOT 20 UNITS THAT ARE GOING UNDER CONTRACT RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S 35,000 SUPERCARS IN THE METROPLEX.

WE HAVE 79 UNITS.

ANOTHER WAY TO SAY IT THERE'S EIGHT MILLION PEOPLE IN THE METROPLEX, WE HAVE 79 UNITS.

I PREDICT THAT PEOPLE FROM ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY WILL COME TO SEE THIS, NOT BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING ITSELF, BUT WHAT'S IN THE BUILDING, 40S, 50S AND ZOES ARE SOME VERY HIGH END CARS FROM VERY WEALTHY PEOPLE. ANY QUESTIONS?

>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS?

>> WE DO NOT.

>> THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN IT UP TO THE COMMISSION.

I JUST LOOK AT IT AND THINK, THIS IS WHAT JAY LENO WOULD BUILD, MAYBE FOR HIS STUFF.

>> I WOULD BET MONEY, ANY AMOUNT YOU WANT THAT JAY SHOWS UP HERE AND DOES A TV SHOW HERE.

>> I WOULD IMAGINE THAT YES, HE WILL COME VISIT.

WE'LL LET LADIES FIRST, I GUESS.

COMMISSIONER TONG, GO AHEAD.

>> WELL, FIRST OF ALL, BECAUSE YOU BROUGHT UP JAY LENO, AND I AM A TV HOST MYSELF, SO MAYBE WE WILL DO A TV HOST.

>> WAIT A SECOND, THAT'S NOT LAND USE DISCUSSION.

LET'S KEEP IT KEEPING.

>> MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE EXHAUST SYSTEM BECAUSE ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS MENTIONED THAT EARLIER, AND I THOUGHT THAT WAS A GREAT QUESTION BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE WILL BE SOME DRIVING INSIDE THE BUILDING.

WHAT IS YOUR PLAN ON THE EXHAUST SYSTEM?

>> WE'RE GOING TO WORK WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT FOR THE VENTILATION SYSTEM, MAKE SURE THAT WE FIT ALL THE CODES AND EVERYTHING AS ANY OTHER BUILDING THAT YOU MIGHT DRIVE INTO, WHETHER IT BE A PARKING GARAGE BELOW A BUILDING OR ANYTHING ELSE.

THE HVAC PEOPLE WILL MAKE SURE THAT IT'S VENTED.

WE DO HAVE A LARGE NUMBER OF DOORS BECAUSE OF THESE ARE INDIVIDUAL GARAGES.

AS WELL AS THE THREE MAIN ENTRIES, WE'VE GOT THREE, FOUR DOORS THAT OPEN IN THE CONCURSO AS WELL.

JUST BY PURE LEAKAGE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A LOT OF VENTILATION THAT WE DON'T WANT, BUT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ANYWAY.

>> WELL, IT SOUNDS GOOD.

SECOND QUESTION IS, FROM ONE OF YOUR PICTURES SHOWS THERE ARE MULTI LEVELS OF THE BUILDING, IS THERE MORE LIKE THE TWO, THREE STORIES OR JUST ONE?

>> ON THE EXTERIOR, IT'S TWO STORIES.

>> TWO STORIES.

>> INSIDE THE GARAGE ITSELF, IT'S A ONE STORY WITH A MEZZANINE.

THERE'S A STEEL MEZZANINE THAT YOU CAN GO UP WITH AIRCRAFT CABLE AS FAR AS RAILING AND EVERYTHING.

NORMALLY, THEY USE IT FOR A SETTING AREA, BATHROOM, HALF KITCHEN, SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

>> OKAY. IS IT WITHIN ONE UNIT, THEY HAVE A MEZZANINE, THEY CAN GO UP, OR IT'S JUST EACH UNIT IS ON ONE LEVEL, AND THEN IF YOU GO TO AS YOU GO IN?

>> EACH UNIT IS ON ONE LEVEL, AND EACH UNIT HAS ITS OWN MEZZANINE.

>> GOT YOU.

>> NOW, THE UNITS THAT FACE THE CONCOURSE IN THE CENTER, THEY HAVE A SECONDARY GARAGE DOOR THAT GOES OUT TO THE CONCURSO.

THEIR MEZZANINE ALSO WALKS OUT ONTO AN EXTERIOR DECK.

THERE'S DECKS ON THREE, FOUR UNITS AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE CONCOURSE, SO THEY CAN SIT OUT THERE AND WATCH THE CAR SHOWS FROM THE DECK INSTEAD OF BEING DOWN ON THE GROUND.

>> MY GUESS IS THAT'S A PREMIUM?

>> HUNDRED AND FIFTY THOUSAND, YES.

>> SOUNDS LIKE A GOOD POINT.

I HAVE A THIRD QUESTION THOUGH, REGARDING THE HOA, BECAUSE I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S GOING TO BE SHARED BY THE OWNERS, AND THESE SOUNDS LIKE A CO-OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING.

ARE YOU THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY?

>> I'M BUYING THE PROPERTY FROM CROW BILLINGSLEY, AND I'M THE DEVELOPER OF THE PROJECT, AND THERE WILL BE A CONDO ASSOCIATION.

AT SOME POINT, THE OWNERS OF THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS WILL TAKE OVER THE CONDO ASSOCIATION AND RUN IT THEMSELVES.

UP UNTIL IT'S SOLD OUT, I'M GOING TO RUN THE CONDO ASSOCIATION.

>> OKAY. YOU WILL BE MANAGING THE CONDO OR OWNER, OR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE BUILDING.

I GUESS MY CONCERN IS IN THE FUTURE, WHEN THE DEVELOPMENT IS FINISHED, WHO'S GOING TO BE RESPONSIBLE OF MAINTAINING

[01:20:01]

THE COMMON AREAS AND THE BUILDING AND EVERYTHING.

MAKE SURE THAT IT'S STILL DECENT ALL THE YEARS?

>> SURE. WE OFFICE IN THE FRONT.

I'M BUYING THAT 7,700 SQUARE FEET FROM OUR GROUP IN THE FRONT FOR OUR PERSONAL OFFICES.

I HAVE TWO GARAGES THAT ATTACHED TO MY OFFICE.

I WOULD LIKE TO CONTINUE DOING IT, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE UP TO THE GROUP TO DECIDE IF THEY KEEP ME IN THAT PLACE TO DO THAT OR USE SOMEONE ELSE.

I HAVE TO WALK A THIN LINE.

EVERYONE WHO'S BUYING IN HERE EITHER HAS A LAW DEGREE OR HAS SEVERAL ATTORNEYS ON RETAINER.

I HAVE TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS WITH EVERYTHING I DO.

>> I DO. THANK YOU.

>> A QUESTION REAL QUICK.

THE OWNERS OF THESE SPACES HAVE FLEXIBILITY ON HOW THEY DEVELOP THOSE MEZZANINE AREAS?

>> THERE'S SOME. THERE WILL BE AN ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE MADE UP OF THE CONDO ASSOCIATION, SO THEY'LL NEED TO GET APPROVALS BEFORE THEY MAKE CHANGES, AND OF COURSE, COME INTO THE CITY TO GET A PERMIT.

>> WELL, THAT'S WHAT I WAS WONDERING ABOUT A LITTLE BIT IS IN THIS ZONING IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM, ARE WE EITHER RESTRICTING OR MISSING SOMETHING IN REGARDS TO WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO IN THOSE MEZZANINE AREAS?

>> THE CURRENT DEFINITION RESTRICTS INDIVIDUAL STORAGE UNITS TO NO ACTIVITIES OTHER THAN STORAGE.

THE PURPOSE OF THE PD STIPULATIONS IS TO BROADEN THAT.

WHAT IS PROPOSED CURRENTLY IS TO ALLOW THOSE INDIVIDUAL UNITS TO INCLUDE RECREATIONAL SPACE.

THAT'S THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS WORKED THROUGH WITH PROPERTY STANDARDS AS A WAY TO ALLOW THE MEZZANINE SPACE WITHOUT BEING IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

>> IS THAT BROAD ENOUGH OR TOO BROAD IN TERMS OF WHAT THEY CAN DO? JUST HYPOTHETICALLY, SOMEBODY THROWS A PARTY OBVIOUSLY, THERE COULD BE ALCOHOL AND LIABILITY FOR SERVICE OF ALCOHOL.

I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, IT SEEMS TO ME LIKE IT'S OPEN ENDED.

I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT ANY OF YOUR OWNERS ARE GOING TO DO SOMETHING INCORRECT.

I'M REALLY SETTING THE STAGE FOR, HOW ARE THEY GOING TO GO THROUGH A PERMIT PROCESS FOR EACH OF THESE INDIVIDUAL UNITS INSIDE THIS BUILDING, AND EACH ONE OF THEM IS GOING TO HAVE TO GO THROUGH AND GET PERMITS AND SUBMIT PLANS? I'M JUST TRYING TO WORK THROUGH WHAT THAT PROCESS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK I'VE SEEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE WHERE EVERYBODY HAS THEIR OWN OPTIONS OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO.

>> I THINK IT'D BE SIMILAR TO A OFFICE CONDO PROJECT.

YOU HAVE A CONDO ASSOCIATION, AND YOU HAVE CERTAIN RULES BY THE CONDO ASSOCIATION.

BUT IF ANYBODY WANTS TO BUILD ANYTHING OR CHANGE ANYTHING IN THEIR OFFICE CONDO, THEY HAVE TO COME THROUGH THE CITY TO GET A PERMIT TO DO WORK THERE.

>> THAT'S CORRECT. IN A STANDARD STORAGE UNIT, IF SOMEBODY WERE TO COME IN AND PULL A PERMIT FOR 240 ELECTRICAL OR SOMETHING, THAT WOULD SEND UP RED FLAGS THAT THIS IS NOT BEING USED FOR STORAGE AND THAT WOULD COME UP IN A ZONING DISCUSSION.

IS THAT ALLOWED? THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET THEIR PERMITS FOR APPLIANCES AND OTHER TYPES OF THINGS THAT AREN'T STORAGE.

>> I THINK THAT NEEDS TO BE CLEAR TO YOU SO THAT YOU CAN CLEARLY COMMUNICATE TO YOUR BUYERS SO THAT NOBODY SPENDS $100,000 ON AN ARCHITECT TO DESIGN A SPACE THAT THEN THEY CAN'T BUILD.

I JUST THINK WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WHATEVER WE DO THAT WE COMMUNICATE CLEARLY, WHAT ISN'T ALLOWED IN THOSE INDIVIDUAL DEVELOPMENTS.

I GET WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, THAT A MEDICAL OFFICE OR SOMETHING, EACH PERSON GOES IN, THEY BUY IT, THEY DEVELOP IT UNDER CITY CODES.

I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW CLEAR OUR CODES WOULD BE IN THIS ENVIRONMENT, BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT TO THE EXPERTS.

MR. BRUNOV, I KNOW YOU HAD YOUR MIC ON ALMOST FIRST, SO GO AHEAD.

>> THANK YOU. COULD YOU DESCRIBE THE EXTENT OF THE VEHICLE REPAIR ACTIVITY THAT WOULD BE GOING ON IN THESE UNITS?

>> IN THE UNITS THEMSELVES, THE INDIVIDUAL OWNERS, I DON'T REALLY EXPECT MUCH IN THE WAY OF REPAIR, MAYBE CHANGING SPARK PLUGS OR WIRES OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

AGAIN, MOST OF THESE CARS DUE TO THE WARRANTIES THAT ARE ON THEM OR THE MAINTENANCE DEALS, YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO ACTUALLY TOUCH THE CAR INTERIOR OR WORK ON IT.

THE OLDER CARS, THE VINTAGE GUYS, THEY NORMALLY SEND THEM OUT TO SPECIALTY SHOPS TO BUILD THOSE CARS FOR THEM AND MAINTAIN THOSE CARS.

IT'S A VERY WEALTHY CLIENTELE, BUT THEY DON'T DO A LOT OF WORK.

I DON'T HAVE TO SAY THAT PROPERLY.

>> WOULD THERE BE A NEED FOR ANY SPECIALTY CAR REPAIR EQUIPMENT OR MACHINES?

>> IN THE INDIVIDUAL UNITS? NO.

>> OKAY.

>> YES. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT, I PRESUME YOU'LL DO SOME CORN SHELL, HAVE A PRIVATE BATHROOM AND EACH UNIT.

>> MR. RATLIFF.

BUT FOR THOSE BIG CAR SHOWS AND WHEN THE CLUBS SHOW UP, IS THE TWO STORY SPACE IN FRONT,

[01:25:03]

ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE SOME COMMON FACILITIES UP THERE OR I'M JUST WORRIED ABOUT THIS ASSEMBLY COMPONENT.

>> IS THERE ANY WAY TO ENHANCE THE SIZE OF THE PROJECTOR THERE? YES PLEASE.

ON BOTH SIDES, IF YOU SEE BELOW UNIT 701 AND BELOW UNIT 601, THERE'S MEN AND WOMEN'S BATHROOMS ON BOTH SIDES.

EACH ONE HAS THREE STALLS.

THERE'S SIX ON THE EAST SIDE AND SIX ON THE WEST SIDE ON THE GROUND FLOOR.

IF YOU GO UP THE ELEVATOR OR GO UP THE STAIRS IN THE LOUNGE, THERE'S ANOTHER SIX BELOW WHAT WOULD BE 601.

AND THEN, OF COURSE, OUR OFFICES ON THE OTHER SIDE ARE THE ONLY THING THAT HAVE ACCESS TO THE SECOND FLOOR ABOVE 701, THERE'S ANOTHER SIX THERE.

>> YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE SOME COMMON FACILITIES FOR THOSE GATHERINGS?

>> EXACTLY.

>> AND THE GATHERINGS WILL BE A LITTLE DIFFERENT, PUT IN THERE REAL QUICK THAN SOME OF THE CARS AND COFFEES HERE.

THERE'S SOME WHERE THEY REALLY MARKETING THEM HARD AND THERE'S 15, 20,000 PEOPLE SHOW UP.

THAT'S NOT OUR CLIENTELE, AND THAT'S NOT WHO WE'RE AFTER AS AN AUDIENCE.

YOU KNOW, THESE ARE THE FERRARI CLUB SHOWS UP OR THE PORTIA CLUB SHOWS UP OR THE LAMBO OR MCLAREN.

IT'S NOT HEY, DFW, WE'RE HAVING A CAR SHOW THIS WEEK.

THE CLUB COMES TO.

>> I JUST HEARD 100 CARS, WHICH 100 CARS IS 100 DRIVERS.

A HUNDRED DRIVERS.

>> NEED SOME RESTROOMS, DON'T THEY?

>> JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING YOU HAD MENTIONED ABOUT THE COURTYARD AREA WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING THE TURF.

>> MR. BRONSKY?

AND YOU SAID THAT IF THERE WAS A SPILL OR IF THERE WAS SOMETHING, IT WOULD BE DRAINED INTO THE STORM SHELTER OR STORM DRAIN? IS THAT WHAT YOU SAID?

>> IT WOULD BE THE SAME AS IF WE WERE A PARKING LOT.

IF WE'RE A PARKING LOT AND A CAR DRAINS, THAT'S WHERE IT GOES.

IT'D BE THE SAME WAY HERE. IT WOULDN'T BE DIFFERENT.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS THE TURF ITSELF THAT'S GLUED ON TOP OF THE CONCRETE.

>> AND YOU DON'T HAVE ANY CONCERNS ABOUT THE CHEMICALS INTERACTING WITH THE TURF OR HAVING SOME PROBLEM WITH THAT?

>> I DON'T AT THIS POINT, BUT AT SCUTTERIA SMITH, THAT'S GOING TO BE BACK THERE, WE HAVE GLUED LARGE PIECES OF TURF 20 FEET WIDE, AND 20 OR 40 FEET DEEP IN THEIR DETAIL SHOP AND IN THEIR PPF SHOP.

SO THEY'RE SETTING CARS ON TOP OF IT EVERY DAY.

THEY'RE TURNING THE WHEELS.

THEY'RE SPILLING ANTIFREEZE, OILS, GREASE ON IT. SEE WHAT HAPPENS.

WE'RE WATCHING ON THE VINTAGE CARS THE EXHAUST ARE LOWER, SO WE'RE SEEING IF THAT HEAT BEING CLOSE ON THE EXHAUST TIP MELTS IT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WATCHING RIGHT NOW.

IF IT TURNS OUT TO BE A PROBLEM, WE'LL COME BACK AND ASK TO DO COBBLESTONE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT IN THERE.

>> THAT'S MY ONLY CONCERN, IS I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING SOME POSSIBLE ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD BY PARKING ON SOMETHING THAT'S NOT CONCRETE.

>> I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THE CITY IS CONCERNED ABOUT THAT.

PERSONAL GREED CONCERN IS THAT IT DOESN'T JUST TEAR UP REAL FAST OR MELT OR LOOK BAD.

>> MR. OLLEY.

>> ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION.

YOU MENTIONED THE REPAIR SHOP THAT WORKS ON HIGH END VEHICLES OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

THAT'S NOT PART OF THE LOT.

THERE'S SOMETHING THAT EXISTS THAT YOU TRY TO BUY OR?

>> THEY WANT TO COME INTO THE SPACE.

ALONG THE TOP, SEE THAT GRAY SPACE THERE THAT'S 29,500 SQUARE FEET.

THE PEOPLE THAT WANT TO COME IN THERE AND OPEN UP ARE CURRENTLY ABOUT 100 YARDS NORTH OF IT RIGHT NOW.

THEY OWN A SHOP IN PLANO CALLED SCUDERIA SMITH.

IT'S JUST NORTH OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

THOSE BUILDINGS RIGHT IN THERE, THOSE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS. THEY'RE IN THERE RIGHT NOW.

>> GOT YOU.

>> COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

>> SO THESE SPACES IN THE BACK, THEY'RE GOING TO RENT THEM?

>> NO.

>> FOR THE SERVICE. SO HOW ARE THEY GOING TO COME AND HOW ARE THEY GOING TO DO THEIR BUSINESS THERE?

>> WELL, NO, THE COMPANY IS MOVING INTO THAT SPACE.

>> THAT COMPANY IS BUYING THAT 29,000 SQUARE FEET TO OFFICE.

>> SO IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE A REPAIR SHOP, RIGHT? IN THE BACK?

>> YEAH. IT'S THE SAME COMPANY THAT'S WORKING RIGHT ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACKS, DOING THE SAME THING THEY DO NOW, WHICH IS.

>> BUT IT IS ALLOWED, IT'S ALLOWED BY ZONING?

>> SPEAK REPAIR IS CURRENTLY ALLOWED IN THE ZONING.

>> BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ONE OF THE RENTERS, BASICALLY?

>> WELL, THERE ARE NO RENTALS ALLOWED IN THIS BUILDING.

>> CO-OWNERS?

>> ONE OF THE OWNERS.

>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT.

>> ARE WE GOOD?

THIS IS NOT RELATED TO THE ZONING.

HOWEVER, I HOPE FOR YOUR SUCCESS BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT, GREAT ADDITION TO THE CITY.

[01:30:01]

AND I JUST SAW, THERE WAS A GREAT QUESTION REGARDING THE BATHROOMS AND THE AMENITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE PLACE.

AND I HOPE THAT YOU REALLY HAVE A REALLY NICE BATHROOM.

WHAT THE [INAUDIBLE] MARKETS HAS FOR THEIR CLIENTELLE.

>> THE INTERIOR DESIGNERS PUSHING THE FINISH OUT.

WHAT I PUSHED THE ARCHITECTS WERE, I WANT BUCKIES WIDTH.

I WANT TO SIT DOWN AND REACH BOTH DIRECTIONS FOR IT.

>> NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

I'LL CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING.

>> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

>> ONE COMMENT. BEFORE WE VOTE.

BY MY CALCULATION, THIS IS WHAT THE THIRD HIGH END SLASH COLLECTIBLE SLASH DEALER.

PLANO MUST BE DOING SOMETHING GOOD.

FOR THE MARKET TO HOLD THIS THREE THIN, SO.

IT'S JUST A CURIOSITY.

>> SO JUST BE SURE.

WE'RE TRYING TO WRAP UP THE MEETING IN TIME FOR YOU TO VISIT WITH HIM ABOUT YOUR 97 HONDA.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH THE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF.

TO APPROVE ITEM 3A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, PLEASE VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO.

>> LOOKING AT AGENDA ITEM 3B AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THE STAFF HAS THERE, INCLUDING THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE BY COUNSEL, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 3B AS STATED BY THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KERRY.

TO APPROVE ITEM 3B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES EIGHT TO ZERO AS WELL.

GOOD LUCK, GUYS. MIGHT HAVE TO COME SEE IT WHEN YOU GET IT DONE.

THANK YOU. FIRST QUARTER OF 26.

WE'LL HAVE TO THROW A PARTY FOR P&Z.

IT IS 832.

WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE RECESS.

WE'RE WAITING ON COMMISSIONER TONG, BUT JUST FOR EVERYONE'S BENEFIT, WE'RE GOING TO GO TO ITEM FIVE.

HOPEFULLY, THAT WILL MOVE FAIRLY QUICKLY, HOPEFULLY.

EVERYBODY, LISTENING.

>> HOPEFULLY.

>> AND THEN WE'LL GO BACK TO 4A, 4B SINCE THERE'S NO ONE HERE FOR SIX, EVIDENTLY.

SO LET'S WAIT ON COMMISSIONER TONG, AND THEN WE'LL.

IF YOU WANT TO GO AHEAD AND READ THE NON PUBLIC HEARING DISCLOSURE PIECE.

[5. (MK) Preliminary Plat: Tinseltown Addition, Block A, Lot 8 – Restaurant on one lot on 2.0 acres located on the east side of Dallas Parkway, 250 feet south of Windhaven Parkway. Zoned Regional Commercial and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District. Project #PP2024-011. Applicant: Wattsec LTD. (Legislative consideration of subdivision ordinance variance)]

>> ITEM FIVE IS AN ITEM FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, THE PRECEDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA, NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PRECEDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, I MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT.

>> GO AHEAD AND READ ITEM FIVE.

>> ITEM FIVE, PRELIMINARY PLAT.

TENSIL TOWN ADDITION, BLOCK A LOT EIGHT RESTAURANT ON ONE LOT ON 2.0 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DALLAS PARKWAY, 250 FEET SOUTH OF WINDHAVEN PARKWAY, ZONED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.

APPLICANT WATTS LTD.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE.

>> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DONNA SPOLVDO, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A RESTAURANT ON A VACANT LOT.

AND WITH THIS REQUEST, THEY ARE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE TO NOT PROVIDE A DIRECT POINT OF ACCESS TO THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY.

THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE THE VARIANCE IF THE VARIANCE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY.

THE CONDITIONS OF THE VARIANCE ARE BASED UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY.

IF THERE ARE UNIQUE PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THE PROPERTY, AND THE VARIANCE WILL NOT IN ANY MANNER, VARY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THE PURPOSE OF ACQUIRING A DIRECT POINT OF ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET IS TO ENSURE THE VEHICLE MOVEMENTS IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY CAN BE ACHIEVED WITHOUT PLACING ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC BURDENS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

IN THIS CASE, ALL TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF THE PROPERTY MUST ENTER TO THE NORTH OR THE SOUTH, WHICH PLACES ADDITIONAL TRAFFIC BURDEN AND MAINTENANCE NEEDS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS REVIEWED THE PLAN AND DETERMINED THAT A DIRECT POINT OF ACCESS CAN BE PROVIDED AND PROVIDED THE APPLICANT WITH TWO OPTIONS AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

[01:35:03]

ADDITIONALLY, THIS PROPERTY HAS NO PHYSICAL CONDITIONS THAT ARE UNIQUE THAT WARRANT A VARIANCE.

LASTLY, THE REQUEST WILL NOT VARY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AS THIS PLAN FAILS TO MEET ALL OF THE CRITERIA, STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THE REQUEST AND RECOMMENDS DENIAL, AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AND HAS A PRESENTATION.

>> THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GO TO THE APPLICANT, JUST GENERAL QUESTION FROM MY STANDPOINT, IS THE DENIAL IS SIMPLY BASED TO THE LETTER OF THE PLAN KIND OF SITUATION INSTEAD OF THERE BEING SOMETHING SIGNIFICANTLY WRONG WITH THE USE?

>> I THINK THAT WAS CLEAR AND YOUR ANSWER WAS SHORT AND SWEET.

THANK YOU. OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. RATLIFF.

>> AND I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYBODY HERE FROM ENGINEERING OR NOT, BUT HAVING WORKED IN THIS CORRIDOR, I KNOW THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON HOW OFTEN THERE CAN BE DRIVEWAYS ON THE TOLLWAY SERVICE ROAD.

IS THAT IS THERE ANALYSIS OF THE POSSIBLE DRIVEWAY LOCATIONS CONSIDERING THE TOLLWAY DRIVEWAY SPACING REQUIREMENTS.

DO THOSE FIT THE DRIVEWAY SPACING REQUIREMENTS ON THE TOLLWAY CORRIDOR?

>> YES. MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THE OPTIONS ON THE SCREEN DO MEET THE DRIVEWAY SPACING REQUIREMENTS.

>> THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU.

>> CAN YOU TELL US WHY THE APPLICANT DOES NOT WANT TO PROVIDE DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE DALLAS PARKWAY STRAIGHT INTO THE PROPERTY?

>> I'LL DEFER THAT QUESTION TO THE APPLICANT.

>> WELL. I IMAGINE YOU'VE HAD DISCUSSIONS WITH THEM AND POINTED OUT WHAT THE ORDINANCES REQUIRE, AND THEY WOULD HAVE SAID SOMETHING ABOUT WHY THEY WANT TO DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS MAYBE COST IS A FACTOR IN IT, AND THEY BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE SUFFICIENT ACCESS THROUGH THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

>> ARE THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES EITHER ONE OR BOTH OF THEM OWNED BY THE SAME OWNER AS THIS PROPERTY?

>> I DON'T BELIEVE SO.

WE CAN CONFIRM THAT, THOUGH.

>> ANYONE ELSE? VERY GOOD.

THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

WE'LL HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD.

>> GOOD EVENING. DO YOU HAVE THE SPREADSHEET AT THE PRESENTATION THAT WE.

FANTASTIC. MY NAME IS ANDY FELBERG.

I REPRESENT SPB HOSPITALITY FOR THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF J ALEXANDER'S.

THAT'S THE FRONT THING.

LET'S SEE HERE.

JUST A LITTLE BIT ABOUT SPB.

THIS IS GOING TO BE OUR FIRST LOCATION IN THE METROPLEX.

WE'RE REALLY EXCITED TO COME HERE.

WE'RE DOING ANOTHER ONE, WORKING ON A NEW ONE AS WELL IN PROSPER.

SO WE'RE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT COMING TO THE AREA.

AS NOTED BEFORE, OUR SITE IS ON THAT CORNER RIGHT THERE NEXT TO THE GAS STATION, AND NEXT TO A RESTAURANT.

LET ME GO BACK ONE. AS NOTED BEFORE, THERE'S TWO EXISTING ENTRANCES TO THE SPACE.

ONE IS IN THE RESTAURANT TO THE SOUTH AND ONE IS AT THE GAS STATION TO THE NORTH.

WE HAVE A CROSS EASEMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE HAVE ALL THE LEGAL INFORMATION.

WE HAVE A FREE USE OF THOSE ENTRANCES.

OUR SITE PLAN THAT WE'RE REQUESTING, AGAIN, IS TO LEAVE THOSE TWO IN PLACE.

YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A NICE, JUST BEAUTIFUL SITE PLAN WITH PARKING IN FRONT.

THERE IS NO COST CONCERN ABOUT THIS.

IT'S MORE ABOUT OUR CUSTOMERS, AND WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP.

WE FEEL THAT FOR PUTTING IN THE ENTRANCES WE'RE GIVING UP PRIME PARKING SPOTS, AS WELL AS, AND THAT'S THE CROSS EASEMENT AREA.

AND I'M JUST GOING TO MOVE BACK TO THIS SLIDE HERE.

PUTTING IN ANY ONE OF THOSE ENTRANCES IS ONE THAT I FEEL IS GOING TO BE VERY IMPACTFUL TO EITHER THE NORTH ENTRANCE OR THE SOUTH ENTRANCE.

AND IT TAKES AWAY FROM OUR ENTRANCE.

YOU'VE GOT WITH THAT PROXIMITY BETWEEN THE TWO EXISTING ENTRANCES, I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A MAJOR TRAFFIC ISSUE, AND WE'RE CONCERNED THAT'S GOING TO CAUSE ACCIDENTS.

AND THEN I'M GOING TO GO BACK A SLIDE.

I'LL SHOW YOU, IF YOU LOOK AT FORD'S GARAGE DOES NOT HAVE A DIRECT ACCESS.

SO THEIRS IS FURTHER DOWN SOUTH AND THEN THEY HAVE THE ONE TO CHEWY'S THAT THEY WOULD USE, BUT THEY DON'T HAVE DIRECT ACCESS.

[01:40:01]

SO OUR REQUEST IS TO NOT HAVE THE ENTRANCES AND TO LEAVE THE TWO EXISTING ENTRANCES IN PLACE AS OUR MAIN ENTRANCES.

WE ALSO ON THE BACK OF THE LOT, THERE'S A CROSS EASEMENT WHAT RUNS TO COMPLETE NORTH AND SOUTH OF THAT DEVELOPMENT, WHICH GIVES PLENTY OF ACCESS AS WELL TO THE SITE.

AS FOR QUESTIONS, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES.

NO, WE DO NOT OWN THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES.

AND AGAIN, IT SEEMS THAT IT'S GOING TO BE VERY CONGESTED THERE, AND WE DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.

>> IS THAT IT?

>> YES, SIR.

>> I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU HAD ADDITIONAL SLIDES OR NOT.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?

>> WE DO NOT.

>> THANK YOU. THEN I'LL ALLOW QUESTIONS, MR. RATLIFF.

>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, IF WE CAN GO BACK TO THE STAFF PRESENTATION WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS OVERALL PLAN WITH THE DRIVEWAYS ON ALL FOUR SIDES? IT'S ON PAGE 138 OF OUR PACKET, PAGE TWO OF THE PRESENTATION STAFF REPORT.

>> KEEP GOING.

>> THERE IT IS. RIGHT THERE. THIS IS THE SAME PICTURE?

>> I WANTED TO ZOOM OUT TO TALK ABOUT THE DRIVEWAY IN THE BACK.

SO DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY THAT BASICALLY ALL OF THESE AREAS THAT ARE SHADED GRAY ARE CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS TO YOUR BENEFIT AS WELL AS THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, IS THAT?

>> THAT IS CORRECT. YES. AND INTERNAL ONES ARE THE FIRE DEPARTMENTS OR THE FIRE LANES.

SO YES, THOSE WOULD COME.

>> BUT THOSE ARE PLATTED, RECORDED CROSS ACCESS EASEMENTS THAT YOU HAVE THE RIGHTS TO?

>> THAT'S ALL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD THAT CORRECTLY.

>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. BRUNOV?

>> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

>> LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICE. THANK YOU.

>> IN WHAT WAY WOULD INSTALLING DRIVEWAY ENTRANCES DIRECTLY ONTO YOUR PROPERTY BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY HEALTH OR WELFARE?

>> KAITLIN, CAN I ASK YOU TO COME UP? SHE'S MY CIVIL ENGINEER WITH KIMMY HORN? IS IT POSSIBLE TO ALTER DICIER?

>> YEAH, ABSOLUTELY.

>> SURE.

>> WE HAVEN'T DONE ANY STUDIES OF THIS AREA, BUT I THINK THE POINT THAT ANDY IS TRYING TO MAKE IS IT JUST CAUSES MORE DISRUPTION ALONG THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY.

BY ADDING THAT EXTRA ENTRANCE, WE FEEL LIKE IT WOULD RUN A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENT IF WE DIRECTED TRAFFIC TO THE DESIGNATED DRIVEWAYS THAT WERE PROVIDED FOR OUR SITE.

>>TO WHAT EXTENT ARE YOU SAYING THAT CONDITIONS UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY MAKE A VARIANCE NECESSARY.

>>WHY?

>> BECAUSE THE TWO CHOICES, AGAIN, PUT SO MANY ENTRANCES WITHIN A SHORT AMOUNT OF DISTANCE, WE FEEL THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE A TRAFFIC HAZARD.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE PEOPLE PULLING OUT OR PULLING IN WITHIN 120 FEET WITH THE TRAFFIC THAT IS MOVING ALONG FUNDS ROAD. IT'S A CONCERN.

>> THEY WOULD BE PULLING OUT OR PULLING IN TO THE EXISTING ENTRANCES ON THE OTHER PROPERTIES ANYWAY?

>> HOW WOULD ADDING AN ENTRANCE TO YOUR PROPERTY BE ANY DIFFERENT IN TERMS OF THE PULLING IN AND THE PULLING OUT?

>> BECAUSE AGAIN, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PULLING OUT, AND IF WE HAVE ANOTHER ENTRANCE, SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BE GOING INTO THE DCL LANE TO GET INTO OUR PROPERTY AND SOMEBODY'S GOING TO BE PULLING OUT AND THAT BECOMES A TRAFFIC HAZARD. THAT'S THE WAY WE SEE IT.

>>TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD NOT GIVING YOU A VARIANCE CREATE A HARDSHIP TO YOU AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE?

>>I THINK THE HARDSHIP, THE WAY WE FEEL IS ON OUR CUSTOMERS BECAUSE WE'D BE TAKING AWAY PRIME SPOTS IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT WOULD AFFECT THEM WALKING INTO THE BUILDING.

>> NOW THE STANDARD WE HAVE TO APPLY IS WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER.

TO WHAT EXTENT WOULD THERE BE A HARDSHIP TO YOU AS THE OWNER IF THE VARIANCE IS NOT GRANTED?

>> WE FEEL THAT IF WE PUT IN THAT ENTRANCE AND THE TRAFFIC ON THE SAFETY ON THE STREET COULD COME A HAZARD IF AN ACCIDENT OCCURS, WE COULD GET SUED. THAT'S ONE REASON.

>> THERE'S ALSO A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PARKING SPOTS THE OWNER IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE.

BY PLACING THAT DRIVEWAY THERE, WE WOULD BE REMOVING EIGHT PARKING SPOT.

[01:45:02]

>> MR. BELL, IF THEY INSTALL THE TWO DRIVEWAYS, WOULD THEY STILL MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS?

>>NO, WE WOULDN'T BE INSTALLING TOO.

>> THERE'S A ONE DRIVEWAY.

>> ONE DRIVEWAY IS WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED, OPTION 1 AND OPTION 2.

>>IF THEY INSTALL ONE DRIVEWAY, WOULD THEY STILL MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS?

>> I BELIEVE SO. WE CAN VERIFY.

>> PARDON.

>> WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE PLAN AND VERIFY. I WAS JUST ONE MOMENT.

>> HOLD THAT.

>> WE'RE 23 IN EXCESS PARKING, BUT WE ARE PROVIDING A BIO SWALE ON THE PLAN EAST SIDE RIGHT THERE TO MAKE UP FOR THE EXCESS PARKING PER THE CODE.

>> YOU WILL BE MAKING UP FOR THE LOST SPACES IN FRONT?

>> CORRECT.

>> NO, WE'RE NOT MAKING UP FOR LOST SPACES IN THE FRONT.

I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT SHE JUST SAID.

>>WELL, THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID, BUT AGAIN, WE DON'T WANT TO GIVE UP THOSE FRONT SPACES BECAUSE WE FEEL THEY'RE VERY IMPORTANT TO OUR CUSTOMERS.

>> THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION. THE ORDINANCES FOR RESTAURANTS REQUIRE A CERTAIN A MINIMUM NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

I'M ASKING IF YOU STILL HAVE THAT MINIMUM NUMBER IF YOU INSTALL THE DRIVEWAY?

>> WE WOULD.

>> THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

SUBJECT TO CLARIFYING.

WELL, HE SAID THEY WOULD STILL MEET THE NUMBER.

I DON'T THINK FURTHER CLARIFICATION IS NECESSARY.

>> MR. ALI.

>> THE PROPERTIES ON EACH EITHER SIDE OF YOU.

YOU SAID YOU HAVE LEGAL AGREEMENTS WITH THEM TO ESSENTIALLY ALLOW [INAUDIBLE]?

>> AGAIN, IT'S A DEVELOPMENT CROSS EASEMENT AGREEMENT THAT AFFECTS EVERYBODY ON THAT, I THINK FROM PARK OR WAS IT ALL THE WAY DOWN TO THE NEXT TREE.

>> CAN THAT BE BROKEN? FOR INSTANCE, IF THE OWNERSHIP ON THOSE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

>> I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO COME BACK AND SAY THAT THAT THEY WANTED THEIRS.

AGAIN, THEY HAVE THAT'S PART OF THE DEVELOPMENTS REQUIREMENTS, RESTRICTED RECOVENT.

NO, THE OWNERS CAN'T COME BACK AND CHANGE IT.

NO WAY. NO MEANS.

>> DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT?

>> IT'S RECORDED.

>> IT'S RECORDED. ABSOLUTELY. YES, SIR.

>> YOU'RE WELCOME.

>> MY QUESTION ACTUALLY, I THINK IS FOR MR. BELL.

RIGHT DOWN THE ROAD FROM THIS IS CHEWY'S AND FORD'S RESTAURANT, CORRECT? NEITHER OF THOSE TWO RESTAURANTS HAVE ACCESS TO 75, IS THAT CORRECT?

>> YOU MEAN THE TOLLWAY.

>> TO THE TOLLWAY.

>> THAT'S TRUE.

>> THEY DO NOT. DID THEY HAVE TO HAVE EXCEPTIONS AS WELL?

>> WE CAN SEE IF THERE WAS A VARIANCE, HOWEVER IF THERE'S A SHARED DRIVE, THAT COUNTS AS A DIRECT POINT OF ACCESS.

IF THE PROPERTY LINE IS SPLITTING A DRIVE, THAT MEETS THE REQUIREMENTS, BUT WE CAN LOOK AND SEE IF THAT WAS CONSIDERATION AND APPROVAL OF THOSE PLANS?

>> BECAUSE I'VE EATEN AT BOTH OF THOSE RESTAURANTS, AND TO ANSWER MR. BRUNOV'S CONCERN, FRANKLY, EITHER OF THE LOCATIONS WHERE WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT THIS, IT WOULD CERTAINLY CAUSE ME AS A CONSUMER TO SECOND GUESS VISITING THIS RESTAURANT FOR CONCERNS RELATED TO SAFETY WITH EITHER OF THESE TWO THAT ARE AVAILABLE.

TO ME, IT DOES SEEM TO FIT ALONG WITH OTHER RESTAURANTS THAT ARE BEING HANDLED SIMILARLY.

>> AGAIN, IF I COULD CLARIFY, CHEWY'S DOES HAVE DIRECT POINT OF ACCESS.

IT'S SHARED WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH, SO THE PROPERTY LINE SPLITS THE DRIVE, AND THEN THE FORDS ON THE SOUTH HAS A VERY SIMILAR POSITION. THEY MAY HAVE.

>> CAN I HAVE MY PRESENTATION BACK UP.

I CAN SHOW YOU IN A DICE.

WE HAVE A MAP THAT SHOWS EXACTLY THAT WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, SIR.

>> PLEASE.

>> AS YOU'LL SEE IT, THOSE RED ARROWS REPRESENTING THE ENTRANCES FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD.

YOU HAVE ONE THAT IS SOUTH OF FORD'S GARAGE.

YOU HAVE ONE NORTH OF CHEWY'S, AND THEN DELTA BLUE IS THE ONE THAT IS ADJOINING OUR PROPERTY.

>> THE ONE ADJOINING YOUR PROPERTY, DOES THAT NOT MEET THAT.

>> AGAIN, THOSE HAVE DIRECT ACCESS THROUGH SHARE DRIVE.

THEY ARE MEETING THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS. VARIANCE WAS NOT NECESSARY.

>> BASICALLY, THE DRIVEWAYS SPLITS THE PROPERTY LINE SO THAT BOTH BOTH SIDES CAN CLAIM ACCESS.

IT'S CALLED SPLITTING HAIRS, SPLITTING DRIVEWAYS.

>> IT DOES SEEM TO BE A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT FOR ME ON BEING ABLE TO SAY

[01:50:07]

THAT THE EXEMPTION SHOULDN'T APPLY OR THE THAT WE SHOULD NOT GRANT THIS VARIANCE.

PERSONALLY, I THINK IT DOES PROVIDE FOR PUBLIC SAFETY TO NOT HAVE AN ENTRANCE THERE RIGHT SO CLOSE TO THEIR ENTRANCE TO THEIR RESTAURANT.

>> DO HAVE QUESTIONS?

>> JUST TO CONFIRM THAT YOU HAVE ACCESS PARKING SPACES?

>> YES, MA'AM.

>> MORE THAN MORE THAN YOU NEEDED.

YOU'RE PROVIDING SOMETHING ON SITE FOR YOU, LIKE DETENTION OR SOMETHING AS WELL AS WELL, JUST TO COMPENSATE FOR THE EXTRA PARKING.

>> CORRECT.

>> IF YOU PUT THE DRIVE AND YOU LOSE MUHAMMED PARKING?

>> EIGHT BARS.

>> FOUR

>> ACCORDING TO HIM.

>> WELL, BUT IF YOU PUT IT SOMEWHERE, YOU PROBABLY, LIKE, HOW MANY PARKING DO YOU THINK THAT YOU STILL CAN YOU STILL CAN YOU HAVE THE MINIMUM PARKING.

WHY DID YOU WANT THE EXTRA PARKING?

>> BECAUSE THE FRONT OF THE PARKING IN FRONT OF OUR BUILDING IS PRIME SPOTS.

WE THINK THAT'S VERY IMPORTANT FOR OUR CUSTOMERS TO LITERALLY COME IN, PARK IN AND WALK INTO THE DOOR.

PLAIN AND SIMPLE. THAT'S IT.

AS FOR THE PARKING, WE'RE GOING TO BE SO CROWDED THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE ANY PAR.

>> I UNDERSTAND.

>> WE'D LOVE TO HAVE YOU GUYS AT THE OPENING, AND WE WILL INVITE YOU TO THAT.

>> YOU'RE GOOD.

>> MR. BELL, YOU HAVE A COMMENT.

>> I JUST WANT TO REITERATE THAT WE HAVE ESTABLISHED STANDARDS THROUGH OUR STREET DESIGN STANDARDS FOR ACCESS AND DRIVEWAY CONTROL.

THE CITY'S TRAFFIC ENGINEERING HAS NOT IDENTIFIED A PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUES WITH EITHER OF THE OPTIONS IN THIS LOCATION.

IF THEY HAD, THEY WOULD HAVE PROVIDED IN WITH THAT INFORMATION TO PROVIDE TO YOU IN SUPPORT OF THE VARIANCE.

>> ANYONE ELSE? MR. BRUNOV?

>> OH, I WAS GOING TO ASK IF THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT HAD IDENTIFIED A SAFETY ISSUE, AND YOU JUST ANSWERED THAT FOR ME.

>> THANK YOU. NO MORE QUESTIONS?

>> THESE ARE THE OPTIONS FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT?

>> OPTIONS, ONE OF THEM, THEY CAN USE ONE OF THEM.

>> ARE WE DONE? THANK YOU.

>> LOSE A PUBLIC HEARING, MR. KERRY.

>> MAYBE LIKE MANY OF US HERE.

I ACTUALLY USE THIS AREA QUITE A BIT BECAUSE I'M FAIRLY PROXIMATE TO IT.

ALTHOUGH ENGINEERING HAS SAID THERE AREN'T ISSUES HERE, I PERSONALLY DISAGREE JUST FROM EXPERIENCE.

I DON'T SEE THE BENEFIT OF FORCING THESE GUYS TO CREATE ANOTHER INLET INTO HERE.

WHEN THERE'S OTHERS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO IT, I THINK THAT IT COULD CREATE WELL MAYBE NOT A SAFETY PROBLEM, CERTAINLY A CONGESTION PROBLEM AS PEOPLE ARE MAKING DECISIONS THERE.

WHILE I UNDERSTAND THE ORDINANCE, AND I THINK PROBABLY IN MOST SITUATIONS, IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE, I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S AN ADVANTAGE HERE.

I PERSONALLY THINK THAT WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS VERY REASONABLE, AND I THINK WE SHOULD GIVE THEM THE VARIANCE.

>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG.

>> I CONCUR.

>> APPROACHING THIS, I THINK, FROM A LEGAL POINT OF VIEW, WHICH IS MY BACKGROUND.

WE ARE GIVEN A LEGAL TEST OR A STANDARD THAT WE HAVE TO APPLY.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER KERRY IS SAYING.

I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER TONG IS SAYING.

MY READING OF THE TEST IS, WILL THE GRANTING OF A VARIANCE LETTING THEM RELY ON EXISTING DRIVEWAYS ON OTHER PROPERTIES AS A POINT OF ENTRANCE? WOULD THAT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH SAFETY OR WELFARE OR BE INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTY? NOT SO LONG AS THEY HAVE THE RECIPROCAL EASEMENT AGREEMENTS.

OTHERWISE, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN HARM TO JASON PROPERTIES, BUT SINCE THEY HAVE THE AGREEMENT, I'M SATISFIED ON 0.1.

BUT ON 0.2, I DON'T FIND THAT THE CONDITIONS ON WHICH THE VARIANCE REQUEST IS BASED ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S PARTICULARLY UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PROPERTY OR ITS CIRCUMSTANCES THAT MAKE IT UNDESIRABLE TO HAVE THE REQUIRED DRIVEWAY.

I DON'T SEE A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER THAT WOULD RESULT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM ANY INCONVENIENCE THAT WOULD RESULT FROM REQUIRING HIM TO INSTALL A DRIVEWAY OTHER THAN, OF COURSE, THE COST OF PAYING TO HAVE SOMEONE PAVE A DRIVEWAY.

BUT THAT'S JUST A COST OF DOING BUSINESS.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP.

I DON'T THINK IT MEETS CRITERIA 2 AND 3, AND THEREFORE, I WOULD BE VOTING AGAINST IT.

[01:55:03]

>> BUT I WISH THEM SUCCESS EITHER WAY.

>> THANK YOU. MR. ALI.

>> CLARIFYING QUESTION.

DO ALL CRITERIA HAVE TO BE MET?

>> I'M LOOKING AT THIS MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENTLY IN THAT IN MY MIND, THE WHOEVER THE MASTER DEVELOPER WAS OF THIS PROPERTY OBVIOUSLY SET IT UP FOR CROSS ACCESS AND RECORDED THOSE EASEMENTS.

>> MR. RADLEY.

WHILE THEY MAY NOT BE PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, THERE ARE FOUR VERY DISTINCT PLATED ACCESS POINTS TO THIS LOT THAT THAT HAVE LEGAL ACCESS TO A PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY.

THEY'RE ALL FIRE LANES.

THEY'RE ALL RECORDED, ACCORDING TO THE TESTIMONY.

I FEEL LIKE THAT THAT IS UNIQUE TO THIS PROPERTY AND DOES NOT WARRANT THE REQUIREMENT THAT AN ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO THE PUBLIC RIGHT AWAY BE PROVIDED WHEN THOSE ALREADY EFFECTIVELY FOUR OF THEM.

AT LEAST THE WAY I'M READING THE PLATE OR BECAUSE HE'S GOT TWO ACCESSES IMMEDIATELY TO THE TOLLWAY.

HE'S GOT ONE HEADED OUT TO WINDHAVEN, AND THEN ANOTHER ONE HEADED OVER WHERE YOU CAN GO BY CHEWYS AND TURN BACK OUT AND THEY'RE ALL PLATTED RECORDED ACCESS POINTS.

THEREFORE, THEY ARE LEGAL ACCESS POINTS BY DEFINITION, WOULD THAT NOT MET A LEGAL ACCESS POINT BY DEFINITION EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT TECHNICALLY ON THEIR PROPERTY?

>>YES, THAT'S THE CROSS ACCESS IS COUNTED AS A POINT OF ACCESS.

>> THAT WAS MY CLARIFYING QUESTION.

FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, IN MY MIND, THEY DO MEET THE CRITERIA FOR HAVING THE LEGAL ACCESS POINTS THAT ARE REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE WITHOUT ADDING ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAYS TO THE TOLLWAY.

I WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF THE VARIANCE.

>> MR. BRUNOV PLEASE.

>> I COMPLETELY CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER RATLIFF AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER KERRY.

I THINK THAT THIS IS AN IDEAL CIRCUMSTANCE TO DO EXACTLY PROVIDING THE VARIANCE. THAT'S ALL I'M GOING TO SAY.

>> I'M LOOKING AT IT DIFFERENTLY.

I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE ALTHOUGH THEY HAVE THE SHARED ACCESS, BUT EACH LOT IT'S BY ITS OWN.

IT'S NOT LIKE THOSE DEVELOPMENT LIKE SHOPPING CENTER WHERE WE HAVE CERTAIN ACCESS AND YOU CAN GO FROM ONE STORE TO THE OTHER ONE.

I BELIEVE THEY DO NEED, ALTHOUGH I SEE THAT IT'S TOO MUCH TO ADD ADDITIONAL ACCESS TO THE LOT.

BUT I BELIEVE THEY DON'T MEET THE ORDINANCE, THE HARDSHIP SO FOR THAT I'M GOING TO BE AGAINST.

>> THANKS FOR ALL THE INPUT.

MY PERSONAL VIEW IS THAT IF OUR PLAN AND OUR VARIANCE REQUIREMENTS AND EVERYTHING WERE ABLE TO BE APPLIED, ABSOLUTELY, THEN WE WOULDN'T BE MAKING A DECISION HERE, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE BEING ASKED TO EVALUATE IT.

I DO BELIEVE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT ACCESS, AND SO I WISH THAT WE WEREN'T HERE HAVING TO ASK FOR A VARIANCE ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY.

WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE APPLICANTS REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE.