>> I LIKE THEY GOT ME A LITTLE WOOD BLOCK TO BANG ON. [00:00:02] SOUNDS BETTER THAT WAY. GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. [CALL TO ORDER] WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 16TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AT 7:00 PM. AND WE WILL START OUR MEETING TONIGHT WITH THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE. >> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN [CONSENT AGENDA] ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS THAT ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NON-CONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE, I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> I MOVE. WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED. REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1, [1. (DW) Public Hearing – Preliminary Replat: Park Blvd. Estates West School Site No. 2, Block A, Lot 1R – Public school on one lot on 89.4 acres located on the northeast corner of Independence Parkway and Park Boulevard. Zoned Single-Family Residence-9. Project #PR2024-016. Applicant: Plano Independent School District. (Administrative consideration)] PUBLIC HEARING PRELIMINARY REPLOT. PARK BOULEVARD ESTATES WEST SCHOOL SITE NUMBER 2, BLOCK A LOT 1R, PUBLIC SCHOOL ON ONE LOT ON 89.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY IN PARK BOULEVARD, ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE, APPLICANT, PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS. >> PULL THAT DOWN IF YOU LIKE. THERE YOU GO. >> BETTER. GOOD EVENING. >> ALL DISTRACTIONS GOING ON. I'M SORRY. WE'RE RUINING YOUR EVENING. GO AHEAD. >> THAT'S OKAY. MY NAME IS DESTINY WOODS, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO ANY AMENDMENTS OR ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CIVIL ENGINEERING PLANS. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ARE YOU DONE? >> I'M DONE. >> JUST TO MAKE SURE. QUESTIONS. MICROPHONE, PLEASE. >> ARE THEY GOING TO BUILD A BASEBALL FIELD IN THAT AREA? BECAUSE, THE REASON FOR THEIR REPLOT IS. >> YES, THEY DO HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT IS UNDER STAFF APPROVAL, AND THEN THIS PRELIMINARY REPLOT IS GOING TO ALLOW THEM TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE. >> IS THERE ANY ISSUES WITH LIGHTING, IF THEY'RE GOING TO PUT SOME LIGHTING NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS? >> I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S BEEN REVIEWED BY STAFF AT THIS TIME, AND THAT MIGHT BE REVIEWED WHEN THEY COME IN WITH THEIR LATER SITE PLAN. >> WILL THIS AFFECT OUR DECISION? >> NOT FOR THE PRELIMINARY REPLOT. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLOT IS TO ADJUST EASEMENTS, SO THAT SHOULDN'T AFFECT THE LIGHTING. >> THANK YOU. >> 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. >> MR. BRUNOV. >> 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. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER KERRY. >> YEAH, JUST A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. 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? >> YES. >> THERE IT IS. MY BAD. I MISSED THAT, SO I APOLOGIZE. 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? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE ZONING NEEDS TO REFLECT THE MOVEMENT OF THAT LINE, CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> THANK YOU. >> MS. MERALLI. >> WILL THIS CHANGE AFFECT THE ZONING REGULATION ON MYPOSSIBILITIES SITE? DO THEY NEED MORE OPEN SPACE OR WILL THAT AFFECT ANYTHING? >> 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. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER TONG. >> ONE MORE QUESTION REGARDING THE CHANGES. 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. >> THANK YOU. >> COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. [OVERLAPPING] >> 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. >> SECOND. >> 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] >> YES. >> 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. >> SECOND. >> 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. >> I HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION YOUR YEARS ABOUT VEHICLE REPAIR, BUT MORE OF A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, BECAUSE WHILE VEHICLE REPAIR ISN'T ALLOWED USE, THERE'S A PD STIPULATION THAT SAYS PRIVATE BUSINESSES WON'T BE RUN OUT OF THIS FACILITY. 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? >> YEAH. >> 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. >> YEAH. >> 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. >> YEAH. >> 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. >> YEAH. >> 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. >> IT'S NOT RELATED TO OUR ZONING OR REGULATION OR ANYTHING. THANK YOU. >> 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? >> YES. >> 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. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. RATLIFF. >> YES. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, EACH INDIVIDUAL UNIT, I PRESUME YOU'LL DO SOME CORN SHELL, HAVE A PRIVATE BATHROOM AND EACH UNIT. 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? >> THANK YOU. >> MR. BRONSKY? >> JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING YOU HAD MENTIONED ABOUT THE COURTYARD AREA WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO BE USING THE TURF. 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. >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> ARE WE GOOD? >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE QUICK COMMENT. 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. >> SECOND. >> 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? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> 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. >> MR. BRUNOV. >> 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? >> YES. >> THAT'S ALL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD THAT CORRECTLY. >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. BRUNOV? >> 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. >> 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? >> YES. >> 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? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> 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. >> YES. >> 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. >> THANK YOU. >> YOU'RE WELCOME. >> MR. BRUNOV. >> 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. >> THANK YOU. >> 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? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OPTIONS, ONE OF THEM, THEY CAN USE ONE OF THEM. >> ARE WE DONE? THANK YOU. >> 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. >> MR. BRUNOV. >> 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] >> THANK YOU. >> BUT I WISH THEM SUCCESS EITHER WAY. >> THANK YOU. MR. ALI. >> CLARIFYING QUESTION. DO ALL CRITERIA HAVE TO BE MET? >> YES. >> YES. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. RADLEY. >> 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. 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 FEEL SIMILARLY, YOU COULD SAY THAT THERE IS POTENTIALLY NO NEGATIVE IMPACT FROM ADDING ONE, BUT WHAT'S THE REAL BENEFIT OF ADDING ANOTHER ACCESS POINT ALONG A SERVICE ROAD WHERE PEOPLE DRIVE 60 MILES AN HOUR? I SEE THIS AS BEING A POTENTIAL ISSUE. 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. >> SECOND. >> SECOND. >> WELL, I HAD TWO QUICK. A MOTION BY CHAIR DOWNS WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE. ITEM 5, PLEASE VOTE, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, OPPOSED? THE ITEM CARRIES 6, 2 AND THEY STILL HAVE TO BRING THIS BEFORE COUNCIL? >> NO. PNZ IS THE FINAL DECISION. >> WE'RE ALL GOOD. CONGRATS. GOOD LUCK, AND I'LL COME HAVE A MEAL, ONCE YOU GUYS GET UP. >> IT'S ON ME. >> NO. NO. NO. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYBODY. THANK YOU. [02:00:04] >> I'VE NOT BEEN TO ONE. WE WERE GOING TO MOVE TO ITEM 4A, 4B JUST TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO ONE HERE FROM ITEM 6. [6. (RP) Replat & Revised Site Plan: Hunters Glen 5, Block A, Lots 3R & 7R – Retail, personal service shop, and kennel (indoor pens)/commercial pet sitting on two lots on 2.3 acres located on the north side of Spring Creek Parkway, 270 feet west of Custer Road. Zoned Retail. Projects #R2024-027 & #RSP2023-087. Applicant: London Enterprises, Inc. (Legislative consideration of subdivision ordinance variance)] OH, THERE IS SOMEBODY HERE FROM ITEM 6. I ASKED EARLIER. DO WE THINK THAT'S GOING TO GO? WE DON'T KNOW. BUT WE'VE ALREADY MOVED INTO THE NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. SORRY. WE'LL GO TO ITEM 6, AND WE'LL COME BACK TO 4A. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU GUYS FOR BEING PATIENT. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6, REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLAN, HUNTERS GLEN 5, BLOCK A LOT 3R AND 7R. RETAIL PERSONAL SERVICE SHOP AND KENNEL INDOOR PENS COMMERCIAL PET SITTING ON TWO LOTS ON 2.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY, 270 FEET WEST OF CUSTER ROAD, ZONED RETAIL APPLICANT, LONDON ENTERPRISES INC. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. MY NAME IS ROJA POLOTI, THE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. >> WELCOME BACK. >> THANK YOU. THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A CONSIDERATION REGARDING A REPLOT, A REVISED SITE PLAN, AS WELL AS A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT FOR FLAG LOT SIZE. THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE REPLOT. THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE REVISED SITE PLAN. BEFORE GOING INTO DETAILS, I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS PROPERTY. IN 1997, A SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED ALLOWING CONSTRUCTION OF A MEDICAL OFFICE ON LOT 3R. IN 2020, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED AN APPLICATION TO SUBDIVIDE LOT 3R INTO TWO LOTS. AS PART OF THAT PROJECT, AND THE APPLICANT REQUESTED TWO VARIANCES FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. ONE VARIANCE REQUEST WAS TO ALLOW A 142 LOT WIDTH FOR LOT 3, AND ALSO TO ALLOW THE CREATION OF A 1.6 ACRE FLAG LOT AS LOT 7R. LET ME GO TO MY NOTES. BOTH OF THESE REQUESTS WERE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SUBJECT TO THE EXECUTION OF A UNIFIED LOT SIGN AGREEMENT. THIS AGREEMENT IS YET TO BE EXECUTED. THE APPLICANT THEN SUBMITTED PLANS TO ALLOW MINOR MODIFICATIONS IN 2023. UPON REVIEW, STAFF NOTICED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WITH RESPECT TO EXCESS PARKING DID NOT MET. THEREFORE, STAFF PROVIDED DIRECTIONS TO THE APPLICANT. ONE OF THE OPTIONS AND ONE OF THE ACTUALLY THE FIRST AND RECOMMENDED OPTION WAS TO ABANDON THE DEDICATION OF PARKING SPACES FROM LOT 7R TO LOT 3R. THE OTHER OPTION WAS TO PROVIDE A GRASSY SWALE TO MITIGATE THE STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM IMPERVIOUS SURFACE OF THE PARKING SPACE IN EXCESS. HOWEVER, THIS SOLUTION WOULD HAVE CAUSED A LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE FROM LOT 3R TO LOT 7R, WHICH IS NOT ALLOWED. IN ORDER TO REMEDY THIS ISSUE, THE APPLICANT DECIDED TO MODIFY THE PROPERTY LINE TO CONTAIN ALL 31 PARKING SPACES IN EXCESS WITHIN 3R ELIMINATING LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE. BUT THIS PRESENTED A NEW CHALLENGE, AND THIS MODIFICATION WOULD REDUCE THE SIZE OF LOT 7R FROM 1.6 TO 1.3, WHICH WAS LESS THAN WHAT WAS ALLOWED AS PART OF THE VARIANCE APPROVED BACK IN 2020. AS NOTED, BEFORE THE APPROVAL OF THE ORIGINAL PLAN IN 2020 WAS CONDITIONAL UPON APPROVAL OF A UNIFIED LOT SIGN AGREEMENT. AND ALSO, WITH RESPECT TO THE FRONTAGE REQUIREMENT OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ALLOWS THE MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF ANY NON CORNER LOT TO BE REDUCED TO 24 FEET, IF THE LOT HAS ONE DIRECT ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET, [02:05:01] AND THE LOT IS GREATER THAN TWO ACRES, WHICH IN THIS CASE, IT IS NOT. HERE ARE SOME CRITERIA NOTED IN THE SUBSECTION 1.11 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, WHEN CONSIDERING A VARIANCE. BASED ON THE DETAILS PROVIDED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THIS PROPOSAL DOES NOT MEET CRITERIA NUMBERS 1 THROUGH 3, MEETING ON THE CRITERION NUMBER 4. FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE VARIANCE REQUEST. IF A VARIANCE IS SUPPORTED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DUE TO THE FINDING THAT REASONABLE HARDSHIP OR DIFFICULTIES MAY RESULT FROM STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS AND/OR THE PURPOSES OF THESE REGULATIONS MAY BE SERVED TO A GREATER EXTENT BY ALTERNATIVE PROPOSALS, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL BE GRANTED SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF A UNIFIED LOT SIGN AGREEMENT. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. MR. BRUNOV. HYPOTHETICALLY SPEAKING, IF THIS APPLICATION WERE TO BE DENIED, WHAT OTHER OPTION WOULD THE PROPERTY OWNER HAVE IN ORDER TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCES? >> ABANDON THE PARKING SPACES DEDICATED FROM LOT 7R TO LOT 3R. >> IN OTHER WORDS, ELIMINATE THE PARKING SPACES ALTOGETHER OR SIMPLY TRANSFER THEM TO ANOTHER LOT. >> CURRENTLY THERE ARE PEXCESS PARKING SPACES THAT ARE CURRENTLY ON LOT 7R, BUT ARE DEDICATED TO LOT 3R. IF THEY ABANDON THAT BY A REPLOT, THEN THEY WON'T HAVE ANY EXCESS PARKING. >> IN OTHER WORDS, JUST ALLOW THE PARKING SPACES TO REMAIN ON LOT 7R? >> CORRECT. >> THAT WAY, THE FACT THAT THEY MAY DRAIN ONTO LOT 7R DOES NOT CREATE AN ISSUE. >> WELL, IN THAT POINT, BASED ON THE PROPOSED USE ON LOT 7R, THOSE PARKING SPACES WOULDN'T BE IN EXCESS. >> WOULD NOT BE AN EXCESS? >> CORRECT. >> I'M WONDERING WHY THE APPLICANT WOULD NOT SIMPLY DO THAT AND NOT GO TO THE TROUBLE OF HAVING A NEW PLAT PRESENTED TO US. >> THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT HERE, BUT ONE OF THE REASONS THAT THEY NOTED DURING PLAN REVIEW WAS THAT THEY ANTICIPATE THE DEMAND FOR PARKING SPACES FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE THAT THEY HAVE ON LOT 3R WOULD EXCEED WHAT ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES FOR THE CURRENT USERS. >> NOW, DID I READ CORRECTLY IN THE PACKET MATERIAL THAT AN APPROVAL WAS GRANTED FOR THE PRESENT SITUATION IN ERROR? >> NOT IN 2020, HOWEVER, IN 2020, WE HAD A SUBMITTAL IN 2021 THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2022. IT DIDN'T INVOLVE ANY VARIANCE REQUEST. HOWEVER, THE PARKING CALCULATION WAS NOT DONE CORRECTLY, AND WE DIDN'T CAPTURE THAT ERROR AT THAT TIME, UNFORTUNATELY. WHEN THEY CAME BACK IN 2023, WE NOTICED THAT, AND WE TRIED TO ADDRESS IT. >> IS THIS CURRENT APPLICATION AN ATTEMPT TO UNDO THE ERROR THAT WAS COMMITTED IN 2022? >> WHEN THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THEIR APPLICATION, THAT WAS NOT THE INTENT. HOWEVER, THEY WANTED TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE AND SOME OTHER MINOR MODIFICATIONS. HOWEVER, WHEN WE REVIEWED IT, WE NOTICED THAT WE MADE AN ERROR APPROVING IT BACK IN 2022. >> WELL, IF THIS IS APPROVED, WOULD THAT HAVE THE EFFECT OF REMEDYING THE ERROR? >> CORRECT. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> MR. RATLIFF. >> I GUESS I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE WHOLE WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE HERE, BUT MAYBE THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. BUT IF THIS IS ABOUT THE EXCESS PARKING QUESTION, WHICH IS WHAT IT APPEARS TO ME, COULD THAT NOT BE SOLVED WITH A PRIVATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO LOT OWNERS TO ADDRESS THIS WHOLE ISSUE AND NOT EVEN REQUIRE THIS PLANT CHANGE. >> AS PART OF THE PROVISIONS IN ZONING ORDINANCE, IF WE HAVE PARKING IN EXCESS OF 10% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING, SO100% OF THE REQUIRED PARKING PLUS 10%, THE APPLICANTS HAVE A COUPLE OF SOLUTIONS TO MITIGATE THAT. ONE IS TO USE POROUS MATERIAL, WHICH IS A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING BASED ON THE TYPE OF SOIL THAT WE HAVE IN COLLIN COUNTY, AND USUALLY IT'S MORE EXPENSIVE IN TERMS OF INFRASTRUCTURE THAT NEEDS TO PUT TO BE PLACED UNDERNEATH THAT POROUS SURFACE. [02:10:05] THE OTHER OPTION IS TO DRAIN THE RUNOFF STORM WATER FROM THOSE PARKINGS IN EXCESS TO A GRASSY SWALE/BUFFER, WHICH CAN BE DONE HERE. HOWEVER, CURRENTLY, WITH THIS CURRENT LOT SITUATION, IT WILL CAUSE A LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE. >> THE USE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS THE PET SITTING USE. WHAT IS THE CURRENT USE THAT'S REQUIRING THE ADDITIONAL PARKING TODAY? >> I NEED TO CLARIFY THAT. THE PET SITTING USE IS ON LOT 7R, AND THE PARKING ISSUE IS ON LOT 3R. THE LOT 3R WAS CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED AS A MEDICAL OFFICE. HOWEVER, THE USE IS RIGHT NOW, I BELIEVE, A RETAIL IT WAS NOTED IN THE CAPTION. PERSONAL SERVICE SHOP. SORRY. II SLIPPED MY MIND. >> IT'S A MIX OF RETAIL AND SERVICE CURRENTLY. >> THE OPPORTUNITY FOR WHAT WE DID BEFORE WITH THE ASSEMBLY AREA, THAT SHARE PARKING IS NOT REALLY THERE BECAUSE THE HOURS OF OPERATION ARE SOMEWHERE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. THANK YOU. >> THAT WAS YOUR QUESTION. NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT I'M ASSUMING THE APPLICANTS HERE WISHES TO SPEAK TO US. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> OKAY. >> I HAVE COSTA MASJI AND STEPHEN RACAR. >> CIVIL ENGINEER ON THAT PROJECT, MASSAGE GROUP ENGINEERING. DR. STEPHEN RACAR. >> YES. MY NAME IS STEVE RACAR I'M THE OWNER OF LONDON ENTERPRISES, AND I'M THE OPERATOR OF THE HAIR SALON ON LOT 3R. >> WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IS, WE'RE TRYING TO REALLY MAKE THAT DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTIVE, STEP, ESPECIALLY FOR LOT 7R. WE'D LIKE TO BUILD THE DRIVE AND BUILD THESE ADDITIONAL PARKING SPOTS BECAUSE DR. RACAR NEEDS THEM FOR HIS BUILDING FOR HIS SERVICE. HOW MANY SALONS DO YOU HAVE? YEAH, GO AHEAD. >> FIRST OF ALL, I WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY, APPROVED THIS VARIANCE REQUEST. WE STILL HAVE THE SAME AMOUNT OF AREA, WE STILL HAVE THE TWO LOTS JUST THAT WERE APPROVED PREVIOUSLY. ALL WE'RE MOVING IS ONE OF THE PROPERTY LINES BY ABOUT 20 FEET OR 25 FEET FROM ONE LOT TO THE OTHER. THERE'S NO BIG CHANGE. IT'S SIMPLY MOVING ONE OF THE PROPERTY LINES ON THE WEST SIDE, A LITTLE BIT MORE NORTH. THE REASON WHY WE'RE DOING THAT IS WE NEED SOME MORE PARKING ON LOT 3R. THE ISSUE IS THAT IT USED TO BE MY MEDICAL OFFICE, AND THEN BECAUSE OF CHANGES IN MEDICINE OVER THE LAST 30, 40 YEARS, WE DON'T NEED THAT SPACE, AND IT'S NO LONGER VIABLE TO USE IT AS MEDICAL SPACE, SO WE CHANGED IT INTO A HAIR SALON AND A PHARMACY. >> THE CITY HAS ALREADY APPROVED ABOUT 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO BE USED AS A HAIR SALON. AS YOU KNOW, IN THE HAIR SALONS, WE HAVE MANY DIFFERENT STATIONS FOR HAIR TECHNICIANS. WHAT THEY DO, WHAT WE HAVE APPROVED OR WHAT YOU HAVE APPROVED, OR THE CITY HAS APPROVED IS SO FAR, WE HAVE 32 APPROVED STATIONS FOR LADIES OR TECHNICIANS TO CUT HAIR AND FOR CLIENTS TO COME IN. WELL, YOU CAN IMAGINE THAT ON A FRIDAY OR A SATURDAY, WHEN THINGS ARE VERY BUSY, WE ASSUME WILL BE FULL. WE HAVE 32 PEOPLE TECHNICIANS CUTTING HAIR. WELL, THEN IF YOU HAVE 32 CLIENTS THAT COME IN WHO WANT THEIR HAIR CUT, WELL, THEN YOU HAVE 64 PEOPLE THAT NEED TO BE IN THE BUILDING, EITHER TO CUT HAIR OR TO HAVE THEIR HAIR CUT. WHILE, 64 PEOPLE, PLUS, YOU MAY HAVE A FEW ADDITIONAL VISITORS, PEOPLE WHO ARE WAITING, SO EVENTUALLY, YOU MAY NEED MORE THAN 64. ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE THE SPACES THAT WE NEED FOR THE PHARMACY, [02:15:01] WHICH PROBABLY IS USING ABOUT 7-10 SPACES. WE VERY QUICKLY REALIZED THAT ON LOT 3R, WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH SPACES FOR US TO FULLY FUNCTION. THAT IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR INCREASED PARKING. IT'S NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO SPEND A LOT OF MONEY, OR I HAVE A LOT OF MONEY, OR I WANT TO COVER GREEN SPACE OR HAVE EXCESS CONCRETE. THIS IS NOT MY IDEA OF ANY FUN, BUT WE NEED THE SPACE OR WE NEED THE PARKING SIMPLY SO WE CAN FULLY OPERATE WITHOUT HAVING PEOPLE SURREPTITIOUSLY PARKING THEIR CARS ON CVS SPACE OR THE NEIGHBOR SPACE OR OUT ON THE STREET. THANK YOU. >> ALSO, WE ADDED LITTLE WIGGLE, ALSO, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THAT LOT. THAT WIGGLE IS TO COMPRISE WE HAVE SOME WATER METERS THAT BELONG TO BUILDING ON LOT 3R, SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO BE INCLUDING THESE WATER METERS IN THAT LOT ITSELF. THAT LITTLE WIGGLE A LITTLE BIT ON THE TOP. >> QUESTIONS? >> YES, COMMISSIONER TOM. >> YOU ARE THE OWNER OF LOT 3R, SO WHO IS THE OWNER OF LOT 7R? >> HE'S OWNER OF BOTH LOTS? >> I'M THE OWNER OF BOTH LOTS. OR MY COMPANY, LONDON ENTERPRISES, OWNS BOTH LOTS. >> YOU REALIZE THAT BY DIVIDING THESE TWO LOTS, WE HAD TO CREATE TWO VARIANCES YEARS BEFORE, AND NOW WE HAD TO CREATE MORE VARIANCES BECAUSE YOU'RE MOVING A LOT LINE. WHY ARE YOU SEPARATING THESE TWO LOTS? >> WELL, BECAUSE IT WAS VERY DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP THE BACK AREA. WE WANTED TO SELL THIS AS A SEPARATE LOT. IN FACT, ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO, WE DID HAVE A BUYER WHO WAS INTERESTED IN PURCHASING THE BACK LOT, WHICH WE'D NEVER HAD BEFORE UNTIL WE DIVIDED IT INTO TWO LOTS. >> BY ADDING THAT DRIVE IN THE BACK, IT MAKES THAT LOT 7R MORE SELLABLE, SO THAT WOULD ADD MORE TAX REVENUE TO THE CITY, TOO, SO THINK ABOUT IT. >> WELL, TO GRANT VARIANCE, WE HAVE TO LOOK FOR HARDSHIP AND WHAT'S THE OTHER? WE HAVE TO ASSESS THE SITUATION AND SEE IF YOU MEET THE THESE REQUIREMENTS. >> THE HARDSHIP IS THAT WE WOULD HAVE HAD A CHALLENGE TO MEET THE STORM WATER MITIGATION MEASURES. IF WE HAD THESE TWO LOTS AND AND USING THE PARKING LOT FROM LOT 7R FOR LOT 3R, WOULD HAVE TO HAD TO GET SOME STORM WATER MITIGATION CHALLENGES THERE. WE COULDN'T GET THE FLOW FROM LOT 3R TO CROSS ACROSS LOT 7R, AND THAT WILL BE A LOT TO LOT DRAINAGE. THAT'S THE REASON WE MOVE THESE PARKING SPACES INTO LOT 3R SO THAT WE CAN USE THEM FOR THAT LOT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> MR. BRUNOV. >> I JUST WANT TO FOLLOW UP A BIT ON MR. RATLIFF'S SUGGESTION HERE. COULD THE PROBLEM NOT BE REMEDIED BY SIMPLY ENTERING INTO A RECIPROCAL PARKING SPACE SHARING AGREEMENT WITH THE OWNER OF LOT 7R SO THAT YOU CAN USE PARKING. PARDON? >> WHICH IS HIMSELF. >> AT THE PRESENT TIME, IT IS, BUT IF HE'S FIXING TO SELL THE LOT 7R TO A THIRD PARTY. >> YEAH. >> COULD YOU ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE THIRD PARTY BUYER TO SHARE THE PARKING SPACES ON LOT 7R WITHOUT CHANGING THE CURRENT DIVISION OF THE LOTS, THAT WAY, YOU WOULD NOT HAVE EXCESS PARKING SPACES. >> WE DO HAVE THAT AN EASEMENT TO PARK GET A FEW PARKING STALLS FOR LOT 3R OR LOT 7R. BUT WE STILL HAVE THE CHALLENGE OF GETTING THE STORM WATER VACATED FROM LOT 3R, AND THAT'S THE STORM WATER THAT'S MITIGATED AS A RESULT OF HAVING THE EXCESS PARKING SPOTS. [02:20:04] >> MR. BELL, WOULD A RECIPROCAL PARKING AGREEMENT SOLVE THEIR PROBLEM WITHOUT HAVING TO RE-PLANT THE PROPERTY? >> NO, IT WOULD NOT. THAT'S NOT AN ALLOWANCE HERE. THEY COULD GET CREDIT FOR OFFSITE PARKING TO MEET THEIR DEMANDS, BUT THAT DOES NOT APPLY IN AN EXCESS PARKING REQUIREMENT. IF THEY NEEDED TO MEET A DEFICIT, THEN THEY COULD GET IT FROM OFFSITE. BUT WE DON'T HAVE AN ALLOWANCE FOR SHARED PARKING IN EXCESS. >> WELL, IF YOU'RE LOOKING FOR A HARDSHIP, THAT MEAN THE CITY APPROVED SOMETHING THAT SHOULDN'T HAVE APPROVED. THAT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE A HARDSHIP. I DON'T KNOW. >> I HAVE VAGUE RECOLLECTIONS OF THE LAST TIME THIS CAME AROUND, AND I BELIEVE IT WAS A THREE HOUR DISCUSSION TO JUST FIGURE OUT THIS LITTLE PIECE. I'M REALLY NOT HAPPY TO SEE IT BACK HERE AGAIN WITH ANOTHER VARIANCE. ANYBODY BRING SLEEPING BAGS? ARE THERE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> WHAT DO YOU WANT TO DO, GUYS? YEAH, I THINK THAT'S THE CHALLENGE WITH IT, AND IT WAS THE SAME THING LAST TIME. ONE THING I'M SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTED IN IS THAT WE SPENT A LONG TIME ON THIS SHARED SIGN ORDINANCE LAST TIME AND REQUIREMENT, AND IT'S NEVER EVEN BEEN DONE YET. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S BECAUSE SIMPLY THE LOT DIDN'T SELL BECAUSE THAT WAS AT THE TIME OF THE PLAN. IT'S SUCH AN ODD LOOKING DEAL, AND LOOKING BACK ON IT, I REGRET THAT WE PROBABLY ALLOWED THEM TO DO THIS BECAUSE IT CREATED EXACTLY THE SITUATION WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> YES, SIR. >> I'M THINKING THAT WE MADE OUR OWN BED. WE HAVE TO LIE IN IT IN THIS CASE, BUT SUBJECT TO GETTING THAT JOINT SIGN AGREEMENT. >> IS THAT SOMETHING? >> NO. >> WELL, I MEAN, THE JOINT SIGN AGREEMENT WOULD BE SOMETHING NECESSARY IF HE SOLD THE LOT, RIGHT? BUT AS THE OWNER OF BOTH LOTS, THEN IS IT REALLY RELEVANT? >> THE JOINT SIGN AGREEMENT IS BECAUSE THE REPLY BACK IN 2020 CREATED A SIGN THAT WAS TOO CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THE UNIFIED LOT SIGN AGREEMENT ALLOWS THAT 3R AND 7R TO BE TREATED ESSENTIALLY AS ONE LOT FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE, SO IT RECTIFIES THE SIGN ISSUE, BUT THAT'S IT. >> THAT'S A MINOR ISSUE, BUT IT CAN BE SOLVED. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> YEAH. >> MR. BRUNOV. >> I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 6, SUBJECT TO OBTAINING A JOINT SIGN AGREEMENT. >> THAT'S A MOTION. WOW. WE HAVE A MOTION BY MR. BRUNOV FOR A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALI TO APPROVE ITEM 6, PLEASE VOTE, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7. >> I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE WHOLE THING. >> I LIKE COMMISSIONER KERRY A GREAT DEAL, AND I APPRECIATE IT. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7,0 WITH ONE ABSTENTION. >> WE CAN PUT THE SLEEPING BAGS AWAY NOW? >> YES, PLEASE PUT THE SLEEPING BAGS AWAY. THANK YOU. I HOPE YOU'RE NOT BACK HERE AGAIN, BECAUSE AT THIS POINT, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE WOULD DO. WE'RE GOING TO MOVE BACK TO OUR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, SO IF YOU WOULD READ THE CALL OUT FOR PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS AND THEN MOVE TO 4A AND B AT ONE. >> YES, SIR. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL, IF NEEDED. REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4A, [Items 4A & 4B ] ZONING CASE 2020 4-003, REQUEST TO REZONE FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS 1 TO PLAN 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 HEAD HEADQUARTERS DRIVE, TABLED ON AUGUST 19, 2024 IN SEPTEMBER 3, 2024. PETITIONER CCID 6501 LEGACY OWNERS LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. AGENDA ITEM 4B, IS CONCEPT PLAN AND OPEN SPACE PLAN. [02:25:02] LEGACY WEST ADDITION BLOCK E, LOTS 2R, 5R THROUGH 7R AND 10R, PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, RESTAURANT, RETAIL, HOTEL, AND 750 MID RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ON FIVE LOTS ON 99.0 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LEGACY DRIVE AND HEADQUARTERS DRIVE, ZONE CENTRAL BUSINESS 1, PETITIONER CCID, 6501 LEGACY OWNERS LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION, PENDING ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM 4A. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM CENTRAL BUSINESS 1 TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT CENTRAL BUSINESS 1. THIS SITE IS COMMONLY KNOWN AS THE JCPENNEY HEADQUARTERS SITE. SOME OF THE ORIGINAL JCPENNEY CAMPUS HAS BEEN SUBDIVIDED AND SOLD AND ARE NOT A PART OF THE REQUEST, INCLUDING THE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION TO THE EAST, WHICH IS PART OF THE LEGACY WEST DEVELOPMENT, THE BRUCE GLASCOCK PARK, THE BANK AND RETAIL STORES AT LEGACY AND COMMUNICATIONS, AND LOT 8R, WHICH IS APPROVED FOR A HOTEL DEVELOPMENT. THIS SITE WAS REZONED FROM COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT TO CENTRAL BUSINESS 1 IN 2016, WHICH INCLUDED AN APPROVED CONCEPT PLAN FOR AN ENTIRELY NON RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THERE WERE PREVIOUSLY THREE ATTEMPTS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FOR A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT IN 2018, 2019, AND 2020. THESE WERE EVENTUALLY WITHDRAWN OR DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL. SINCE THAT TIME, THE SITE HAS BEEN ACQUIRED BY A NEW OWNER WHO HAS INVESTED IN RENOVATIONS TO THE EXISTING SITE, INCLUDING SIGNIFICANT INTERIOR RESTORATIONS AND UPGRADES TO THE COURTYARDS LOCATED BETWEEN THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING AND PARKING GARAGES OF THE 1.8 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF LEASABLE SPACE IN THE BUILDING, APPROXIMATELY 560,000 SQUARE FEET ARE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. BEFORE DETAILING THE PROPOSED CHANGES, IT IS IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE EXISTING CENTRAL BUSINESS ONE ZONING. ACCORDING TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE PURPOSE OF THE CB1 ZONING IS TO PERMIT A HIGHLY CONCENTRATED BUSINESS CENTER SIMILAR TO TRADITIONAL DOWNTOWN AREAS OF MAJOR CITIES. THE ZONING HAS EXCLUSIVELY BEEN APPLIED TO THE LEGACY AREA AT PLANO, INCLUDING THE SHOPS AT LEGACY, LEGACY WEST, AND GRANITE PARK. IT ALLOWS FOR HIGH INTENSITY URBAN FORM WITH NO MAXIMUM HEIGHT, NO MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, NO MINIMUM SETBACKS, AND A MAXIMUM DENSITY OF 174 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, WHICH IS THE HIGHEST DENSITY ALLOWED IN ALL OF PLANO. NOTE THAT THE CB ONE DISTRICT HAS A COMBINED CAP ON MULTIFAMILY UNITS, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN MET WITH OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. ADDITIONALLY, RESIDENTIAL APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT OR MAY BE APPROVED THROUGH A PLAN DEVELOPMENT. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ADDITIONAL MIDRISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, MOST OF THE PROPOSED REZONING REQUEST IS ALREADY PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN THE EXISTING ZONING. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN ORDER TO FACILITATE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. THIS WILL INCLUDE OFFICE, HOTEL, RETAIL, AND RESTAURANTS. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW UP TO 750 MID RISE OR INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY UNITS. A CONCEPT PLAN AND AN OPEN SPACE PLAN ACCOMPANY THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE OPEN SPACE PLAN TO BE A PART OF THE ORDINANCE, ADOPTING THE ZONING CHANGE, WHICH WOULD MEAN CHANGES TO THE PLAN WOULD NEED TO FOLLOW THE REZONING PROCESS, INCLUDING APPROVAL BY PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. THE CONCEPT PLAN WOULD NOT BE ADOPTED. IT COULD BE CHANGED WITH PNC APPROVAL AT A LATE DATE, SUBJECT TO RESTRICTION OF THE ZONING AND THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS. >> I WILL NOW WALK YOU THROUGH THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN AND OPEN SPACE PLAN, STARTING WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN. THE AREAS SHOWN IN GRAY ARE OUTSIDE OF THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND ARE NOT A PART OF THIS REQUEST. PLANS INCLUDE MAINTAINING THE EXISTING FOUR STORY OFFICE BUILDING AND TWO PARKING GARAGES. FOUR NEW OFFICE TOWERS AT HEIGHTS OF THREE STORIES, 20 STORIES, AND TWO-21 STORIES IN HEIGHT. TWO MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL TOWERS AT 20 AND 22 STORIES IN HEIGHT. THERE ALSO WILL BE A THREE-STORY TOWN HOME STYLE BUILDING CONTAINING FIVE UNITS TO BUFFER THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY TO THE EAST. SIX-ONE STORY RESTAURANT BUILDINGS, A 10-STORY HOTEL BUILDING, AND ONE-21 STORY BUILDING CONTAINING A MIX OF OFFICE, HOTEL, AND RETAIL. THE PD STIPULATIONS AND OPEN SPACE PLAN ARE TIED TOGETHER WITH CERTAIN AREAS DEFINED AND TIED TO PHASING REQUIREMENTS. FIRST, IN THE EXISTING SEVEN-ACRE COURTYARD LOCATED BETWEEN THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. [02:30:08] SEVEN ACRES OF OPEN SPACE SURROUNDING THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. THIS WILL INCLUDE FOUR NEW RECREATIONAL GAME COURTS, TWO NEW DOG PARKS, A PLACE OF A SEATING FOR 100 PEOPLE, AND A HALF AN ACRE POCKET PARK WITHIN AN EXISTING MEDIAN. A FOUR-ACRE POND AND A PERIMETER TRAIL. TWO SUB AREAS ARE IDENTIFIED FOR ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE WHERE EXACT LOCATIONS ARE NOT SPECIFIED ON THE PLAN YET. THIS INCLUDES AN ADDITIONAL TWO ACRES IN THE AREA SURROUNDING THE POND AND AN ADDITIONAL HALF ACRE IN THE SOUTHERN BLOCK. LASTLY, A FIVE-MILE TRAIL AND SIDEWALK NETWORK RAGING FROM 7-12 FEET IN WIDTH AT VARIOUS LOCATIONS IS ALSO PROPOSED. IN TOTAL, THE PROPOSAL INCLUDES 21 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE AND FIVE MILES OF TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS. THE PROPOSED PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THIS DISTRICT ARE QUITE EXTENSIVE AND INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. FOR THE SAKE OF TIME, STAFF WILL FOCUS ON THE AREAS COVERED IN BOLD, BUT IS HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT OTHER SECTIONS AS NEEDED. THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AREA STUDY SECTION WILL BE COVERED IN A LATER PART, AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS. STANDARDS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL WILL INCLUDE AN ALLOWANCE FOR UP TO 750 UNITS WITH NO MINIMUM LOT DEPTH, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH THE STANDARDS FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IN THE CB-1 DISTRICT. A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT STORIES FOR MOST OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN 240 FEET OF EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY, THERE WILL BE A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THREE STORIES AND A FIVE-STORY BUILDING. THESE MUST BE DESIGNED WITHIN A TOWN HOME STYLE WITH INDIVIDUAL ENTRANCES FOR EACH UNIT. A RESTRICTION ON RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN A 300 BY 300 SQUARE FOOT BOUNDARY AT THE INTERSECTION OF LEGACY AND HEADQUARTERS. STAFF ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO FURTHER RESTRICT THE LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL USES. AS CURRENTLY WRITTEN, THE CONCEPT PLAN COULD BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW MANY MORE RESIDENTIAL TOWERS THAN ARE CURRENTLY SHOWN. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A NETWORK OF INTERNAL DRIVES. STAFF ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A GRITTED NETWORK OF PRIVATE STREETS THAT MEET THE CITY'S STANDARD MIXED USE TYPE DRE, CROSS SECTION THAT IS COMMONLY USED IN OTHER MIXED USE DISTRICTS OF THE CITY. APPLICANT DID NOT WISH TO USE THIS THROUGHOUT AND INSTEAD IS COMMITTING TO A SYSTEM OF INTERNAL DRIVES IN THE AREAS SHOWN IN YELLOW ON THE PLAN. ON-STREET PARKING WILL ONLY BE PROVIDED IN SPECIFIED LOCATIONS ON THE OPEN SPACE PLAN. IT ALSO ALLOWS THE USE OF PERPENDICULAR PARKING BETWEEN THE EXISTING OFFICE AND PROPOSED RESTAURANT AREA. THIS FAILS TO MEET THE CITY'S STANDARDS FOR INTERNAL STREET SYSTEMS THAT IS TYPICAL FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS. PHASE 1 WILL ALLOW UP TO 365 UNITS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS. A MINIMUM OF 560,000 SQUARE FEET OF THE EXISTING BUILDING MUST RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THIS IS THE AMOUNT OF SPACE CURRENTLY OCCUPIED IN THE BUILDING. THE EXISTING COURTYARD SHALL BE MAINTAINED. THE OPEN SPACE SHOWN IN GREEN ON THE IMAGE TO THE RIGHT MUST BE PROVIDED. THIS IS MOSTLY THE FRONT AND BACK YARD SPACE SURROUNDING THE EXISTING BUILDINGS WITH THE ADDITION OF FOUR NEW GAMES, TWO DOG PARKS, AND A PLAZA WITH SEATING FOR 100 PEOPLE. ONE-AND-A-HALF MILES OF TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS, AND COMBINATION OF EXISTING AND NEW MUST BE PROVIDED. IN SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS ESSENTIALLY REQUESTING AN ALLOWANCE FOR UP TO 365 UNITS BASED ON PRESERVING EXISTING OPEN SPACE AROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING. THESE TWO WOULD ALLOW AN ADDITIONAL 385 UNITS BASED ON THE FOLLOWING. OCCUPANCY OF AN ADDITIONAL 400,000 SQUARE FEET OF SPACE IN THE EXISTING BUILDING, WHICH IS A TOTAL OF 960,000 SQUARE FEET OR ROUGHLY HALF OF THE BUILDING. INSTALLATION OF THE POND WITH PERIMETER TRAIL. NOTE, THERE IS AN EXISTING POND IN THIS LOCATION. AN ADDITIONAL HALF AN ACRE OF OPEN SPACE IN AREAS A AND AREA B. AN ADDITIONAL 1.5 MILES OF TRAILS AND SIDEWALKS FOR A TOTAL OF THREE MILES. TEN PARKING SPACES MUST BE DEDICATED TO THE BRUCE GLASSCOCK PARK. IN SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING ALL THE UNITS TO BE PERMITTED WITH PRESERVATION OF OPEN SPACE AND UNDETERMINED LOCATIONS, AND A TRAIL CONSTRUCTED AROUND THE POND. EARLIER ITERATIONS OF PHASING REQUIRED CREATION OF [02:35:01] A BOARDWALK AREA WITH DIRECT CONNECTIONS TO THE RESTAURANTS AND POND, ALSO A REQUIREMENT OF ANOTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. THESE WERE REMOVED OVER THE COURSE OF THE PLAN REVIEW. NOW FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS, AND RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT SUPPORTED IN EITHER CATEGORY. REVIEWING THE APPLICANT'S PLAN FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP WAS CHALLENGING DUE TO THE MISMATCH WITH THE EXISTING ZONING. THE PROPERTY'S EMPLOYMENT CENTER FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION GENERALLY CORRESPONDS WITH THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT ZONING, AS THEY ARE INTENDED TO PROMOTE SUBURBAN CAMPUS LIKE SETTINGS WITH NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, THE PROPERTIES CB-1 ZONING GENERALLY CORRESPONDS WITH THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHICH ARE INTENDED TO CREATE URBAN DOWNTOWN-LIKE SETTINGS. THE APPLICANT WAS ENCOURAGED TO FULLY COMMIT TO ONE OR THE OTHER, EITHER THE SUBURBAN OFFICE CAMPUS OR THE URBAN DOWNTOWN, AND IN THE END, THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A BLEND THAT FAILS TO MEET EITHER VISION. AS A RESULT, THE PLAN FEELS DISCONNECTED, LACKING A STREET NETWORK AND DEVELOPMENT FORUM THAT CONNECTS RESIDENTIAL IN A MEANINGFUL WAY TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACES. FOR EXAMPLE, THE RESIDENTIAL TOWERS ARE PRIMARILY ORIENTED TOWARDS HEADQUARTERS DRIVE. THE INTERNAL DRIVE ALONG THE BACK SIDE OF THE RESIDENTIAL IS MOSTLY PARKING GARAGES AND SURFACE PLOTS IN BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET, A LESS THAN IDEAL PLACE TO WALK TO NEARBY AMENITIES. IN 2023, THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY WAS DESIGNATED AS FUTURE PARK ON THE PARKS MASTER PLAN, WITH A CORRESPONDING CHANGE TO THE OPEN SPACE NETWORK ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. DESIGNATION AS A FUTURE PARK SIGNALS A PROPERTY STRATEGIC LOCATION IN MEETING THE GOALS AND POLICIES OF THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. HOWEVER, A PROPERTY CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO BE USED FOR PARK PURPOSES UNLESS IT IS OWNED BY THE CITY. UNLESS OR UNTIL THE PROPERTY IS PURCHASED BY THE CITY, THE OWNER IS PERMITTED TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS EXISTING ZONING AND TO REQUEST REZONING FOR OTHER TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT. A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EHA-1 OF THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MAP, SINCE THE LAND USES REQUIRE A STUDY, HOWEVER, NO STUDY WAS PROVIDED WITH THIS REQUEST. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN, A PORTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EHA-1 BOUNDARY IN BLUE. TO AVOID REQUIREMENT FOR THE STUDY, THE APPLICANT WAS ENCOURAGED TO SHIFT THE BUILDING TO THE WEST OR PLACE THE PARKING GARAGES IN THESE LOCATIONS. INSTEAD, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING PD STIPULATIONS THAT WOULD ALLOW THE STUDY PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A BUILDING PERMIT. THIS IS IN VIOLATION OF THE ORDINANCE, AND THERE ARE CURRENTLY NO ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES TO REVIEW THESE STUDIES OUTSIDE OF THE ZONING PROCESS. THE REQUEST DOES NOT COMPLETELY MEET THE RGM POLICIES. IT IS ONLY MEETING RGM5A AND 5B. THE PLAN FAILS TO MEET ACTION RGM1 AS MIX ABUSES AND DENSITY OF THE EM CATEGORY DO NOT SUPPORT ANY RESIDENTIAL. RGM5C RECOMMENDS THAT KEY AMENITIES BE PROVIDED IN EARLY PHASES. SOME OF THE AMENITIES ARE PROVIDED. THEREFORE, CONFORMANCE TO THIS SECTION IS LEFT TO THE DISCRETION OF THE COMMISSION. NEXT, A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED A TIA IN THE EARLY REVIEWS, BUT FAILED TO COMPLETE THE REVIEW WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. AS A RESULT, STAFF CANNOT DETERMINE THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ON THE PROPERTY AND WHAT MITIGATION SHOULD BE REQUIRED WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN. THE REQUIREMENTS FOR LEFT TURN LANES, TRAFFIC SIGNALS, ETC, WOULD TYPICALLY BE TIED TO THE CONCEPT PLAN APPROVAL AT THIS STAGE. AS A RESULT, THE REQUEST FAILS TO MEET THE FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. TO RECAP, THIS SLIDE SHOWS A SUMMARY OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS. IN MIXED USE MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENTS, INCLUDING REDEVELOPMENTS, IT IS IMPORTANT FOR ZONING TO HAVE BALANCED STANDARDS THAT ARE BOTH FLEXIBLE AND FIRM. FLEXIBLE ENOUGH TO ALLOW THE DEVELOPER FREEDOM TO EXECUTE THE VISION THEY DESIRE, WHILE FIRM ENOUGH TO ENSURE COMMITMENTS TO THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ARE MET WITH CLARITY AND PRECISION. ULTIMATELY STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE LEVEL OF COMMITMENT THAT IS TYPICAL FOR LARGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN PLANNING. THROUGH THE REVIEW PROCESS, STAFF IDENTIFIED AREAS, WHERE WHAT WAS SHOWN ON THE CONCEPT PLAN, AND OPEN SPACE PLAN WASN'T ACCURATELY REFLECTED IN THE WRITTEN TEXT OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. WHEN THESE WERE POINTED OUT, THE APPLICANTS TYPICAL RESPONSE [02:40:02] WAS TO LESSEN THE WRITTEN REQUIREMENT RATHER THAN TO MATCH THE PICTURES. THESE INCLUDES COMMITMENTS TO A UNIFIED STREET DESIGN, BEING EXACT ON THE LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL USES, AND ESTABLISHING CLEAR EXPECTATIONS FOR THE STANDARDS AND LOCATIONS OF OPEN SPACE. ADDITIONALLY, EARLIER, COMMITMENTS TO A BOARDWALK STYLE CONNECTION BETWEEN THE RESTAURANTS AND POND WAS SOFTENED, AND A COMMITMENT FOR ANOTHER NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING AND PHASING WAS REMOVED. ANOTHER KEY EXAMPLE IS THE VISION FOR THE OPEN SPACE AND THE DEVELOPMENT. IN JANUARY, THE ORIGINAL SUBMITTAL INCLUDED IMPROVEMENTS TO THE POND IN ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE AT THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY. BY JUNE, THE APPLICANT HAD INCLUDED THE FRONT YARD OF THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING, AND A SIZABLE OPEN SPACE WITH A POND AND BOARDWALK THAT STAFF VIEWED POSITIVELY AS AN ATTRACTIVE FEATURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, WHEN STAFF POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF GREEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE PLAN WAS SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER THAN THE COMMITMENT OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT'S RESPONSE WAS TO SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE GREEN SPACE SHOWN ON THE PLAN. ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, THIS WAS AN ERROR OR MISUNDERSTANDING OF HOW THE OPEN SPACE WOULD BE ADMINISTERED. BY SEPTEMBER, THE APPLICANT WAS NO LONGER COMMITTING TO OPEN SPACE IN DEFINED AREAS OF THE PLAN, EXCEPT FOR THOSE AROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT RETITLED THE PLAN IN PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATION AS A CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE PLAN TO EMPHASIZE THAT THERE WERE NO INTENTIONS TO DEVELOP THE OPEN SPACE AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN. THE CITY DOES NOT ADMINISTER OPEN SPACE PLANS IN DISPLAY, AND HAS NEVER APPROVED A CONCEPTUAL OPEN SPACE PLAN. IN SUMMARY, MUCH OF THE PROPOSED PLAN COULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT UNDER EXISTING ZONING. THEREFORE, THIS REQUEST BOILS DOWN TO AN ASK TO ADD MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL USES. WHILE CONTINUED REDEVELOPMENT AND REINVESTMENT IN THE CAMPUS IS SUPPORTED, THERE ARE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS REMAINING. THEY INCLUDE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AN INCOMPLETE TIA, AND NO EHA ANALYSIS AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING, AND LACK OF COMMITMENT TO STANDARDS TYPICAL FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN PLANO, AND A MIX OF SUBURBAN OFFICE CAMPUS FORM AND A DOWNTOWN URBAN FORM THAT FAILS TO ADEQUATELY INTEGRATE RESIDENTIAL USES IN A MEANINGFUL WAY. LASTLY, I'LL GO OVER THE RESPONSES. WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WE RECEIVED THREE RESPONSES IN FAVOR, AND WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER, WE RECEIVED FOUR RESPONSES IN SUPPORT, ONE NEUTRAL AND ONE IN OPPOSITION FOR A TOTAL OF SIX RESPONSES. CITYWIDE, WE RECEIVED 18 RESPONSES IN SUPPORT, ONE NEUTRAL, TWO IN OPPOSITION FOR A TOTAL OF 21 RESPONSES. THE ZONING CASE AND CONCEPT PLAN, AS WELL AS THE OPEN SPACE PLAN ARE RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE WITH A PRESENTATION AS WELL. >> YOU CAN TAKE A BREATH NOW. BUT DON'T SIT DOWN BECAUSE THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. [OVERLAPPING] >> JUST PRESENTER FOR THIS ONE. SHE'S THE PRESENTER. THERE WAS A WHOLE LOT OF INFORMATION IN THAT PRESENTATION. I'M NOT GOING TO START. WHO WANTS TO START? QUESTIONS. IF NOBODY'S GOING TO ASK, I'LL START. I WAS LOOKING IN HERE FOR THE SAME LIST THAT SHE JUST WENT THROUGH THAT BASICALLY SAID, THESE ARE THE 5 OR 6 REASONS THAT WE'RE SAYING, DON'T DO THIS. I PROBABLY KEEP SCROLLING BY IT. WELL, SHE HAD THEM BROKE OUT AS BULLET POINTS. >> I THINK THAT'S JUST FOR PRESENTATION AND PURPOSES. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR UP THERE. INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE DEAL WITH THAT ALL THE TIME. TIA NOT COMPLETED. IT'S REQUIRED. THAT GIVES ME A PROBLEM. EHA ANALYSIS WAS NOT SUBMITTED. REQUIRED? >> THE LACK OF COMMITMENT TO TYPICAL STANDARDS, I'M KIND OF OKAY SOMETIMES WE GET COMMITMENTS, SOMETIMES WE HAVE TO WAIVE THEM A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE OF UNIQUE CIRCUMSTANCES. THEN A LACK OF INTEGRATION FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THEY COULD MAYBE SHOW IF THEY HAVE IT, STAFF'S INTERPRETATION IS ONE THING, BUT THEY COULD MAKE A CASE FOR THAT. BUT I STRUGGLE WITH IF A TIA IS REQUIRED FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION AND AN EHA ANALYSIS IS REQUIRED. [02:45:02] I STRUGGLE WITH THAT A LITTLE BIT. I GUESS THEY COULD MAKE A CASE OF WHY THEY DIDN'T HAVE ONE, BUT I STRUGGLE WITH THAT. MR. RATLIFF. >> I'M GOING TO TAKE THAT QUESTION A STEP FURTHER BECAUSE DONNA SAID SOMETHING IN HER PRESENTATION THAT ALL THE USES EXCEPT THE RESIDENTIAL ARE ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING TODAY. DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> OKAY. IN THAT CASE, WOULD THE TIA AND EHA BE REQUIRED FOR EXAMPLE, A NEW OFFICE BUILDING ON THAT PROPERTY? >> IT WOULD. YES. >> WOULD IT BE A ZONING CASE OR WOULD IT BE A STAFF REVIEW? >> IT WOULD BE WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN. >> WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN REVIEW AT P&Z. >> CORRECT. >> FOR TIA? >> CORRECT. >> BUT EHA IS ONLY BECAUSE OF RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THE TYPICAL STANDARDS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ARE ROADWAY STANDARDS THAT ARE TYPICAL FOR MIXED USE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> AGAIN, BACK TO THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT THEN LACK OF INTEGRATION FOR RESIDENTIAL USES OBVIOUSLY IS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL, AND THE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN NUMBER ONE IS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL SO OF THE FIVE BULLET POINTS UP THERE, ONLY THE TIA WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED, WERE IT NOT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT. IS THAT FAIR? >> THAT'S CORRECT. THEY COULD HAVE HAD THE SAME MIXED USE STREETS WITH NON RESIDENTIAL, BUT THAT WOULDN'T BE A REQUIREMENT. >> WHAT I'M DRIVING AT IS THIS IS ALL COMING DOWN TO A RESIDENTIAL QUESTION, IS THAT CORRECT? >> I THINK IT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT, YES. >> THAT WAS JUST ADDING ON TO YOUR DISCUSSION POINTS IS THAT REALLY THIS IS BOILING DOWN TO A QUESTION ABOUT RESIDENTIAL USE AND THE CORRESPONDING SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS TO JUSTIFY AND ALLOW US TO MAKE A DECISION ABOUT RESIDENTIAL USE. >> I THINK THAT'S A RELATIVELY CONCISE WAY TO PUT IT. I THINK THE DECISION AROUND WHETHER OR NOT TO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL HERE IS A REASONABLE REQUEST AND SOMETHING TO CONSIDER. BUT IF WE'RE GOING TO CONSIDER IT, WE NEED TO HAVE, WE NEED TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION, I THINK. BUT AGAIN, THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION AND WE'LL LET THEM SPEAK. BUT SO LET'S RATHER THAN DEBATE THAT RIGHT NOW, THERE CLARIFICATION QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, SIMILAR TO WHAT I ASKED. DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS? DO YOU HAVE TO HAVE THIS? BUT GO AHEAD. >> ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. THERE WAS A SLIDE THAT TALKED ABOUT A COMMITMENT TO EITHER CENTRAL BUSINESS ONE OR COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT OR WHAT HAVE YOU. CAN YOU EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT? I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE. >> SURE. THE EXISTING ZONING IS VERY INTENSE. IT ALLOWS LIMITED HEIGHT, NO LOT COVERAGE SO IT'S INTENDED TO BE THAT VERY INTENSE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT. WE TYPICALLY SEE THAT IN THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION, WHICH THIS IS NOT. THIS IS IN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER DESIGNATION, WHICH RECOMMENDS THE MORE OF THE SUBURBAN CAMPUS LIKE SETTING OF THE OFFICES SO THERE'S A MISMATCH BETWEEN THE ZONING AND THE FUTURE LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS. >> BUT ALL THE SURROUNDING AREAS AROUND THE SITE IS LIKE A PD WITH DOWNTOWN, RIGHT? >> PROPERTIES TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST ARE THE SAME CV1 ZONING. >> YEAH, CV1 ZONING. >> PROPERTIES TO THE WEST AND THE SOUTH ARE THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT. >> THERE'S OTHER RESIDENTIAL THAT IS AROUND, SO IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE NECESSARILY [OVERLAPPING]. >> THAT'S WHY AGAIN THAT'S WHY, AGAIN, I THINK IT'S WORTH HAVING THE DISCUSSION, JUST NOT SURE WE HAVE THE STUFF THAT WE NEED TO DO IT JUSTICE. MR. KERRY. >> A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR STAFF HERE. I THINK I UNDERSTAND THAT THERE IS NO COMMITMENT TO GREEN SPACE HERE. >> NO, THERE'S A COMMITMENT. 21. >> BUT IT'S UNDEFINED, RIGHT? >> IT'S AROUND THE EXISTING BUILDING, THE FRONT YARD, THE BACKYARDS, THE INTERIOR COURTYARD IS COMMITTED, OTHER LOCATIONS ARE NOT. >> OTHER THAN THE PHASING REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL, I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER COMMITMENTS TO ANY OTHER BUILDING BEYOND THE RESIDENTIAL, IS THAT ACCURATE? >> THAT'S ACCURATE. THE MAIN COMMITMENT ON THAT END IS TO OCCUPY SOME OF THE EXISTING BUILDING. THE FIRST PHASE WOULD BE WHAT'S CURRENTLY OCCUPIED AND THE SECOND PHASE WOULD BE AN ADDITIONAL 400,000 SQUARE FEET TO EQUAL APPROXIMATELY HALF OF THE BUILDING. [02:50:04] >> BASICALLY, THEY COULD IMMEDIATELY BEGIN TO BUILD MULTIFAMILY BECAUSE THEY'VE ALREADY MET THE FIRST CRITERIA, RIGHT? >> THERE ARE SOME GAMES COURTS, DOG PARK SOME SITE PLANNING WORK TO DO. >> LARGELY, YEAH. >> THANK YOU. >> YES. >> ON THE STREET DESIGN, SEVEN FOOT WIDTH, WHAT HAVE YOU, THE PHASE 1 IS NOT CONTINGENT ON THEM CHANGE IN THE STREET DESIGN TO MEET OUR STANDARDS? >> IT'S NOT, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED WITH DEVELOPMENT OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY FOR THE PD STIPULATIONS. >> SECOND QUESTION, WE USE THE SAME STANDARD DESIGN IN THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THE SAME CB1 DESIGNATION. >> CORRECT. THE STREET SECTION ORIGINATES FROM THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT, BUT HAS BEEN APPLIED IN MOST MIXED USE LOCATIONS ACROSS THE CITY. >> MRS. TONG. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. ONE IS REGARDING THE GREEN SPACE CONCEPTUAL PLAN. IS THAT ALSO REQUIRED, EVEN IF THEY DIDN'T HAVE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OR NOT? >> IT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. >> THAT'S COMPLETELY BECAUSE [OVERLAPPING] >> THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT PLAN AS A WAY TO TIE IT TO THE PHASING REQUIREMENT OF THE PD STIPULATIONS. >> GOT YOU. SECOND QUESTION IS BECAUSE OF THAT RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS THERE, IS THAT STILL PART OF A CONCEPTUAL PLAN OR IS THE ACTUAL SITE PLAN WHERE THE BUILDING WILL BE, OR IT'S JUST THEY CAN PUT THE BUILDING ANYWHERE ON THE CAMPUS? >> CURRENTLY, THEY HAVE THIS CONCEPT PLAN IF IT'S APPROVED, THEN THE NEXT STEP WOULD BE PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS OR SUBDIVIDING THE PROPERTY TO DO IT IN PIECES. THOSE WOULD NEED TO COMPLY WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN OR THE CONCEPT PLAN COULD COME BACK TO P&Z, NOT THROUGH A ZONING CHANGE, BUT JUST THROUGH A SIMPLE CONSENT ITEM TO MODIFY TO ALLOW THEM TO CHANGE THE BUILDINGS. ESSENTIALLY, THESE BUILDINGS ARE SET AS SHOWN IN THE CONCEPT PLAN, BUT THEY COULD BE CHANGED WITHOUT A ZONING CHANGE APPROVAL. >> THANK YOU. >> LET'S HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND WE WILL HAVE THE APPLICANT. >> ANDREW LEDESMA. >> GOOD EVENING. >> GOOD EVENING. HELLO, I'M ANDREW LEDESMA WITH CAPITAL COMMERCIAL INVESTMENTS, AND WE ARE THE PROUD OWNER OF THE PARKE LEGACY, THE FORMER JC BENNY CAMPUS. THANK YOU GUYS FOR THE LATE NIGHT IN CONSIDERING OUR CASE, AND I REALLY WANT TO THANK STAFF. THEY'VE PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS PROJECT. IT'S NOT AN EASY CASE, BY ANY MEANS WHATSOEVER, AND THEIR EFFORT HAS BEEN NOTICED. TONIGHT, I'M PLANNING TO SHARE WITH YOU OUR ACQUISITION STORY, OUR 3.5 YEARS OF PROGRESS, AND OUR PLAN TO MAKE THE PARKE LEGACY A BEST IN CLASS CONTINUATION IN LEGACY WEST. LET'S SEE IF I CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO WORK THIS. >> IT MOVES FAST. WHEN IT STARTS MOVING, IT JUST FLIES. >> IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW A LITTLE BIT ABOUT US. CAPITAL COMMERCIAL IS A 32-YEAR-OLD REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT FIRM. WE HAVE A CORE BELIEF OF CAPITAL PRESERVATION FIRST AND PROFIT SECOND. OUR STRATEGY FOCUSES ON ACQUIRING HIGH QUALITY VACANT OFFICE BUILDINGS IN PRIME LOCATIONS THAT REQUIRE REPOSITIONING. OVER THE YEARS, WE'VE COMPLETED 220 TRANSACTIONS, AND WE'RE CURRENTLY THE LARGEST PRIVATE OWNER A COMMERCIAL OFFICE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. OUR STRENGTHS, OUR TEAMS CREATIVE ABILITY TO REPOSITION AND ACTION FIRST APPROACH TO REAL ESTATE OWNERSHIP. OUT OF OUR 220 TRANSACTIONS, WE'VE HAD EIGHT LARGE CAMPUSES. BACK IN NOVEMBER 19TH OF 2021, WE CLOSED ON OUR SEVENTH, 6501 LEGACY DRIVE, THE FORMER JC BANNING HEADQUARTERS. NOW WE ARE DRAWN TO THIS PROJECT BECAUSE IT PERFECTLY ALIGNED WITH OUR ACQUISITIONS CRITERIA. BEING IN THE CITY OF EXCELLENCE, ADJACENT TO LEGACY WEST, IN A HIGH QUALITY NEARLY VACANT ASSET IN DESPERATE NEED OF REPOSITIONING. DURING DUE DILIGENCE, WE SPENT MONTHS EXPLORING THE FACILITY AND ITS SURROUNDINGS. WE CAREFULLY LEARNED LEGACY WEST IS A CLOSE KNIT COMMUNITY OF TOP TIER BUSINESSES, AND WE KNEW WE WOULD NEED TO BRING SOMETHING SPECIAL TO THE ACTIVATION OF THIS PRIME LOCATION. WE WANTED TO SHOW THIS COMMUNITY WHO WE ARE, WHAT WE DO AND HOW WE DO THINGS SO WE ELECTED TO COMPLETE ONE OF THE PREVIOUS OWNERS COMMITMENTS. GOING BACK A LITTLE FURTHER, BACK IN 2017, THE KINTETSU CORPORATION BOUGHT A PORTION OF THE SITE FROM THE PREVIOUS OWNER FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A LUXURY JAPANESE BUSINESS TRAVEL HOTEL. DUE TO THE PREVIOUS OWNERS HARDSHIPS, THE SITE WAS LEFT IN AN INCOMPLETE STATE. DURING DUE DILIGENCE, WE THOUGHT ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORS, [02:55:02] THESE BUSINESSES, THEIR EMPLOYEES, AND ALL THE CUSTOMERS OF THOSE BUSINESSES AND WE IDENTIFIED THIS ISO AS SOMETHING WE WANTED TO COMPLETE. DURING OUR ACQUISITIONS, WE INCLUDED THE NECESSARY FUNDS TO COMPLETE THE PROJECT. THE PROJECT SINCE BEEN COMPLETED, AND RECENTLY THE HOTEL ANNOUNCED 2027 OPENING. THE KINTETSU CORPORATION HAS WRITTEN A LETTER IN SUPPORT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT, AND THEY'VE BEEN GREAT COLLABORATORS. WE'RE VERY EXCITED FOR THE FUTURE SUCCESS OF THIS HOTEL, AND THE STRONG SIGNAL IT SENDS TO THE INTERNATIONAL COMMUNITY, PLANO IS IN TEXAS IS RESILIENT AND WE'RE ALWAYS OPEN FOR BUSINESS, AND WE'RE HAPPY TO HAVE CONTRIBUTED TO THAT. NOW, IN ADDITION TO OUR SUCCESSES WITH KINTETSU, WE'VE SPENT THE PAST 3.5 YEARS DOING EVERYTHING POSSIBLE TO MAKE THIS FACILITY MARKETABLE IN TODAY'S POST COVID ENVIRONMENT. WE'VE ADDED AMENITIES. WE HAVE PICKLEBALL COURTS, WE HAVE GAME ROOMS, WE HAVE GOLF SIMULATORS, FULL SERVICE GYMS, GRAB AND GO MARKETS, COFFEE BARS, CONFERENCING CENTERS, CAFES, A CHILDCARE FACILITY. WE HAVE MADE THE PARKE LEGACY THE MOST HIGHLY AMENITIZED BUILDING IN THE METROPLEX. WE HAVE COMPLETED ALL THE DEFERRED MAINTENANCE REPAIRS FROM THE MECHANICAL ROOMS, EDDY CURRENT TESTING ON CHILLERS AND FILTERS TO REMOVING, I THINK IT WAS 46 TREES DAMAGED IN THE GREAT FREEZE. WE SPENT ABOUT $22 MILLION REPOSITIONING THIS CAMPUS. VERY IMPORTANTLY, WE MOVED THE JCPENNEY CORPORATION BACK INTO THEIR FORMER HEADQUARTERS. NOW, ALL THESE EFFORTS COMBINED ALLOWED US TO WIN THE 2024 COSTAR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE YEAR IMPACT AWARD, AND OUR PEERS IN THE METROPLEX ARE STARTING TO PAY US GREAT ATTENTION. NOW, WHAT'S VERY IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND IS WE ARE AN OFFICE OWNER. OUR PRIMARY OBJECTIVE IS TO FILL THIS BUILDING WITH TOP TIER BUSINESSES. ACHIEVING THIS IN A POST COVID ENVIRONMENT IS A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE WHERE THE NATIONAL OFFICE MARKET EXPERIENCED A NET NEGATIVE ABSORPTION OF 21.3 MILLION SQUARE FEET. NOW, DESPITE THE CHALLENGE, WE'RE BEGINNING TO SEE A LITTLE BIT OF AN UPTICK IN ACTIVITY WITH A FLIGHT TO QUALITY AND A GROWING PREFERENCE FOR CLASS A OFFICE AND MIXED USE SETTINGS, UNDERSCORING THE NEED FOR HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT WITH AN ABUNDANCE OF ONSITE AND OFFSITE AMENITIES. LOCAL SUCCESSORS HAVE PROVEN THIS WITH THE OFFICES AT LEGACY, FRISCO STATION, HALL PARK, THEIR OFFICE COMPONENTS RANGE FROM 80% -100% OCCUPIED. NOW, AFTER WE ADDED EVERY POSSIBLE ON SITE AMENITY IN THE BUILDING, WE PARTNERED WITH BOCA PAL ARCHITECTURE TO ASSIST WITH THE OFFSITE, THE PERIMETER AND SURROUNDING LANDS. WE LANDED ON A SUBURBAN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT ACTIVATION. NOW, MULTI FAMILY IS A NECESSARY COMPONENT TO THE SUCCESS OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT, AND IT'S A GROWING REQUIREMENT FOR CLASS A OFFICE USERS, WHO, ON AVERAGE, IT'S 54% OF EMPLOYEES WANT TO BE IN THE LIVE WORK PLAY COMMUNITY. NOW, WITH MULTI FAMILY BEING THE ONLY USE NOT APPROVED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING, WE KNEW WE NEEDED TO BRING SOMETHING UNIQUE AND SPECIAL SO I EVALUATED 168 MULTIFAMILY PROJECTS IN THE CITY. I QUICKLY LEARNED THERE'S ONLY TWO TYPE ONE CLASS A PROJECTS, LEVEL 29 IN THE KINCADE. NOW, BOTH OF THESE PROJECTS ARE AT THE TOP OF THE LIST OF PROPERTY TAX GENERATION ON A PER ACRE BASIS. AFTER THIS IDENTIFICATION, I WANTED TO FIND THE BEST LOCAL DEVELOPER THAT COULD PUSH THE LIMITS QUALITY AND BRING SOMETHING TRULY UNIQUE TO OUR SITE. IT TOOK ME ABOUT SIX MONTHS TO IDENTIFY STREET LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL. ARGUABLY THE BEST IN QUALITY LOCATED HERE IN THE METROPLEX IS A PRETTY SIMPLE CHOICE. OUR COLLABORATION GREW VERY QUICK AFTER LEARNING ABOUT THEIR DESIGN DRIVEN APPROACH TO VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT, AND THEIR DESIRE TO JOIN US IN DEPLOYING CAPITAL IN PLANO AND BRINGING SOMETHING TRULY UNIQUE TO THE CITY. I'D LIKE TO TURN THE MIC OVER TO MY COUNTERPART IN STREET LIGHTS, GREG KITAN. >> THANK YOU, ANDREW. GREG KITAN, STREET LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL, 2300 NORTHFIELD TREAT, DALLAS, TEXAS. AS I JUST MENTIONED, MY NAME IS GREG KITAN WITH STREET LIGHTS RESIDENTIAL. STREETLIGHTS IS A DFW BASED DESIGN DRIVEN DEVELOPER. WE BELIEVE IN CRAFTING BEAUTIFUL PLACES, HOMES AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT LIFT THE HUMAN SPIRIT. WE UNDERSTAND THAT A HOME IS A TESTAMENT TO WHO THESE INDIVIDUALS ARE AS PEOPLE AND WE UTILIZE TRUE DESIGN BUILD OPERATIONS, INCLUDING IN HOUSE ARCHITECTURE, INTERIOR DESIGN, IN HOUSE CONSTRUCTION, AND BRANDING, TO CRAFT AN EXPERIENCE THAT'S UNIQUE IN THE MARKET. SINCE OUR COMPANY'S INCEPTION IN 2011, THE DEMOGRAPHICS OF WHO RENTERS ARE HAS BEEN CHANGING. SINCE THAT TIME, WE'VE SEEN RENTERS MOVE FROM RENTER BY NECESSITY TO A GROWING CONTINGENT OF RENTERS BY CHOICE. >> FORGOT THE CONTROLS HERE. SORRY ABOUT THAT. WE'VE INCLUDED A FEW OF OUR PERSPECTIVE OR FEATURED PROPERTIES HERE THAT SPEAK TO THE QUALITY THAT [03:00:03] OUR IN HOUSE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION TEAMS BUILD. INCLUDED FOUR REPRESENTATIVE HIGH RISES HERE IN THE DFW METROPLEX, THE FIRST IS MCKENZIE. YOU'LL NOTICE THE TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURE HERE ADJACENT TO SMU CAMPUS THAT DRAWS A LOT OF INSPIRATION FROM THAT EXISTING RED BRICK. WE'VE BEEN ABLE TO ATTRACT A VERY DISCERNING DEMOGRAPHIC AT THIS PROPERTY. THESE ARE PEOPLE THAT CHOOSE TO RENT BECAUSE OF THE CONVENIENCE AND QUALITY OF LIFE ASPECT THAT THEY'RE ABLE TO GET FROM THIS HOUSING OPTION. MOST OF THESE RESIDENTS HAVE LIVED IN THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS FOR DECADES. MOST OF THEM HAVE KIDS THAT HAVE GROWN UP, HAVE LEFT HOME, AND AT THIS POINT, THEY'RE EITHER WINDING DOWN THEIR CAREER OR STAYING CLOSE TO THEIR GRANDKIDS. IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO STAY ACTIVE IN THEIR EXISTING COMMUNITIES AND SIMPLIFY LIFE. WE ALSO HAVE ANOTHER PROPERTY HERE THAT SPEAKS TO THE TRADITIONAL NATURE OF OUR PROJECTS THAT REALLY ADHERE TO THIS DEMOGRAPHIC I'M DESCRIBING. THIS IS THE GALLATIN. IT'S A 20 STORY BUILDING IN DALLAS KNOX NEIGHBORHOOD. AGAIN, LARGE OUTDOOR SPACES, A TRADITIONAL ARCHITECTURE THAT HAS RHYTHM, IT'S BALANCE, IT HAS SYMMETRY AND REVOKES THE EMOTION AND THE EXPERIENCE OF YOUR FAVORITE BOUTIQUE HOTEL. ANOTHER PROJECT HERE IN THE DFW METROPLEX, A LITTLE BIT MORE CONTEMPORARY STYLE IS THE OLIVER AT THE CENTRAL. THIS PROJECT IS ADJACENT TO A LARGE GREEN SPACE. WE FIND THESE RESIDENTS REALLY CRAVE THAT OUTDOOR EXPERIENCE, THAT OUTDOOR AMENITY THEY GET FROM BEING ABLE TO WALK OUT THEIR DOORSTEP STRAIGHT INTO AN URBAN PARK. FINALLY, TO CHRISTOPHER, THIS PROJECT IS IN DALLAS UPTOWN NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS IS A MIXED USE PROJECT WITH A GROCERY STORE, 40,000 SQUARE FEET OF OTHER F&B RETAIL SPACE, A 400,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO GOLDMAN SACHS PROPOSED NEW REGIONAL HEADQUARTERS. AGAIN, WHAT WE'VE SEEN FROM THIS PROJECT IS A HUGE DEMAND FROM EMPTY NESTORS, AND THEIR ABILITY TO REALLY ADD A NEW DEMOGRAPHIC TO THIS FOUR RENT POOL. TRADITIONALLY, WE'VE SEEN A LOT OF DISCERNING PROFESSIONALS, WHICH WE STILL GET IN OUR MARKETPLACE. BUT THESE RESIDENTS THAT HAVE AGAIN, RAISED THEIR FAMILIES AND ARE LOOKING FOR QUALITY OF LIFE ABOVE ALL ELSE IS REALLY WHO STREET LIGHTS HAS DESIGNED TO CATER TO. WITH THAT IN MIND, WE'VE GOT A RENDERING HERE OF OUR PROPOSED PROJECT. THIS IS LOOKING WEST WITH THE RENTAL TOWN HOMES IN THE FOREGROUND HERE ON THE LEFT SIDE. IT'S IMPERATIVE FOR US TO CRAFT A VERY HIGH END FRONT DOOR EXPERIENCE. AS WE PULL IN OFF HEADQUARTERS, OUR FIRST VIEW IS OF THE EXISTING GARAGE. THIS IS JUST FIVE UNITS THAT ARE REALLY INTENDED TO CREATE A VISUAL BARRIER FROM THAT GARAGE IN THE BACKGROUND. WE'VE GOT A BEAUTIFUL PLAZA AREA THAT LEADS INTO OUR FRONT DOOR WITH THE TOWER BEYOND. WE'VE TAKEN GREAT CARE TO TRY AND LOCATE THAT DENSITY, 240 FEET FROM THE EXISTING SINGLE FAMILY LOT SO THAT WE'VE GOT APPROPRIATE SETBACK. AGAIN, THESE TOWN HOMES ARE INTENDED TO CREATE SOME USE THERE IN THAT RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION ZONE. ANOTHER 3D MASSING HERE AS WE LOOK AT THE INTERSECTION OF LEADERSHIP AND HEADQUARTERS, PHASE 1 ON THE FAR LEFT THERE, PULLING THAT RESIDENTIAL ACTIVITY FROM THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL ZONES WITH A SINGLE FAMILY AND THE REST OF LEGACY WEST ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THIS SITE. THEN THAT SECOND FUTURE PHASE THERE AGAIN, AT THE HARD CORNER OF THE LEADERSHIP INTERSECTION AND HEADQUARTERS DRIVE. WITH THAT, I'LL TURN IT OVER TO THE REST OF MY TEAM. >> MR. CHAIR, COMMISSION, BILL DAHLSTROM, 2323 ROSS AVENUE. I ALSO WANT TO THANK YOU ALL FOR THE TIME TONIGHT. WHAT I THINK IS A VERY COMPLEX AND VERY COMPLICATED CASE. IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT CASE TO THE CITY. IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT CASE TO THIS PART OF THE CITY AS WELL, BUT IT'S A VERY IMPORTANT CASE FOR A LOT OF REASONS. AS WE STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT THREE TIMES BEFORE THE APPLICATION CAME FORWARD TO PUT MULTIFAMILY IN THE PROPERTY, AND A COUPLE OF TIMES WAS MORE UNITS, ONE TIME, THE LAST TIME WAS FEWER UNITS, I GUESS, THEY WERE EITHER WITHDRAWN OR DENIED, BUT P&Z DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL ON ALL THREE OF THOSE. WE'RE PROPOSING AGAIN, FEWER UNITS TWO OF THE CASES, BUT WE'RE PROPOSING A HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT IN TERMS OF STICKS AND BRICK, ABOUT 20 STORY BUILDINGS THAT ARE INTENDED TO BE 100 YEAR BUILDINGS, HIGH QUALITY AND I WOULD ECHO WHAT ANDREW SAID, STREET LIGHTS, I CONSIDER THEM TO BE THE HIGHEST QUALITY MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPER [03:05:02] IN THE REGION, IF NOT THE COUNTRY. THEY'RE OUTSTANDING. I WAS REALLY EXCITED WHEN ANDREW TOLD ME THAT WE WERE GOING TO BE BRINGING STREET LIGHTS TO THIS PROJECT. THEY'RE SUPERB AND LOOKING AT THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH I DID SEVERAL TIMES, IT SEEMED LIKE OUR LISTS WERE CONSISTENT WITH THE FIVE ISSUES THAT WERE OUTSTANDING. I'D LIKE TO ADDRESS THOSE. ONE WAS THE LOCATION DESIGN OF THE OPEN SPACE. THE OTHER WAS THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS, THE THIRD WAS THE LOCATION OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE THIRD WAS THE EHA STUDY, AND THE FOURTH WAS THE TIA AND I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THOSE, BUT I JUST WANTED TO REITERATE WHAT SOMETHING ANDREW SAID. WE'RE AT A VERY SENSITIVE TIME IN THE SUCCESS OF THIS CAMPUS. IT IS A CAMPUS REDEVELOPMENT. WE'RE LOOKING AT A CAMPUS THAT WAS BUILT, WHAT? THREE STORIES, MAYBE. 2.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET, BUT THERE IS A NEED TO REACTIVATE IT TO BRING IN RESIDENTIAL USES TO HELP IT BECOME A TRUE, REACTIVATED CENTER. THE USES FOR MULTI FAMILY ARE CONSISTENT WITH LITERALLY WHAT'S SOME OF US, MAYBE A FIVE IRONWAY, OR MAYBE A DRIVE AWAY. THEY'RE FAIRLY CLOSE TO EXISTING RESIDENTIAL AND LEGACY WEST. IT'S NOT THAT FAR FROM AN EXISTING RESIDENTIAL PATTERN. OBVIOUSLY, WE'VE GOT A SINGLE FAMILY RIGHT NEXT DOOR, BUT THIS IS A TURNING POINT FOR THE SUCCESS OF THIS CAMPUS, AND APPLAUD THE CHAIR SAID ABOUT, THERE IS A GOOD ARGUMENT. THERE COULD BE A GOOD ARGUMENT FOR RESIDENTIAL IN THIS PROPERTY, AND WE THINK THERE IS. THE CLASS A COMMERCIAL, AND CLASS A RESIDENTIAL, WE'RE PROPOSING ALL ONE AT THE SAME THING; LIVE WORK, PLAY, ALL CONNECTIVITY, WALKING, AND ENGAGING COMMUNITY. BUT WITH REGARD TO THE LOCATION AND DESIGN OF OPEN SPACE, WE'VE GOT 21 ACRES WE'RE PROPOSING. MUCH OF IT IS AROUND THE EXISTING CAMPUS. THERE IS A HALF ACRE IN WHAT WE'RE CALLING THE AREA AROUND THE POND THAT HAS TO BE DETERMINED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLANNING. LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF THIS PROJECT, ANYTIME FROM A PLANNING POINT OF VIEW, YOU HAVE TO DO BOOTS ON THE GROUND AND GO OUT AND TAKE A LOOK AT THE SITE. YOU DON'T JUST LOOK AT A TWO DIMENSIONAL DRAWING AND SAY, THIS IS WHERE THINGS ARE GOING TO GO. WHAT MATTERS EXISTING TREES, AND WHEN THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT EXISTING TREES THAT THERE, WE DON'T WANT TO LOSE, YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT TOPOGRAPHY, AND THERE'S SOME DIFFICULT TOPOGRAPHY YOU HAVE TO CONSIDER WHEN LOOKING AT A DEVELOPABLE SITE. WHAT'S ALSO NOT NECESSARILY APPARENT, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO LOOK AT A TITLE REPORT AND SEE WHAT EASEMENTS ARE TRAVERSING THE PROPERTY. YOU TAKE A LOOK AT ALL THESE DIFFERENT LAYERS IN DOING TRUE SITE DESIGN IN DETERMINING WHERE THE DEVELOPABLE SITES ARE. FOR THAT REASON, WE KNOW THAT THE EXISTING OPEN SPACE IS GIVEN. THE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE IN AREAS A AND B, WE NEED TO DO THAT LEVEL OF DESIGN, THAT LEVEL OF INVESTIGATION WHEN WE DO OUR PRELIMINARY SITE DESIGN TO DETERMINE WHERE THE OPTIMAL BUILDING SITE WOULD BE IN ORDER TO LOCATE OUR OPEN SPACE. BUT YES, COMMISSIONER KERRY, WE ARE COMMITTED TO PROVIDING ADDITIONAL OPEN SPACE, AS WELL AS THE NUMEROUS TRAILS AND 4-5 MILES OF TRAILS THROUGHOUT THE PROPERTY THAT ARE REQUIRED OF US IN THE PD. >> MR. DALTON, YOU HAVE TWO MINUTES LEFT. >> I HAVE TWO MINUTES? >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO SECTIONS. >> LET'S DO THAT. WE'LL DEFER TO DON POWELL ON THE STREET LOCATION OF THE MULTIFAMILY. I THINK WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE CAN AGREE WHERE THOSE CAN GO. THE TIEHA, AS WAS STATED, WE WERE ASKED TO BE DEFERRED, AND THEN THE TIA. OUR ORIGINAL TIA WAS BASED ON 1,400 UNITS. WE'RE PROPOSING 750, FAR FEWER UNITS, AND THE RESIDENTIAL UNITS THAT WILL BE THERE WILL TAKE AWAY FROM SOME OF THE TRIPS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CREATED BY A MORE INTENSIVE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT THAT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT TODAY. DON POWELL. >> THANK YOU. I HAVE 35 MINUTES OF NOTES HERE IN TWO MINUTES. I JUST WANT TO CHALLENGE SOME CONVENTIONAL WISDOM HERE. I'M DON POWELL BOCA PALA ARCHITECTS. I DESIGNED GRANITE PARK. I DID THE MASTER PLAN, HAVE SEEN THE EXECUTION OF 2.2 MILLION SQUARE FEET AND A LOT MORE TO COME. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO TALK ABOUT WHAT I THINK WE NEED TO BE THINKING ABOUT WITH REGARD TO THIS MASTER PLAN. CB1 ZONING CONJURES UP CITY GRID, STRAIGHT LINE STREETS. SHOW ME A STRAIGHT LINE STREET AROUND THE SITE. SHOW ME A STRAIGHT LINE ROAD ON THE SITE. SOMETIMES WE LET FORMULAIC DECISIONS DRIVE OUR THOUGHT PROCESS PARKING ON STREETS, WELL, THIS SITE, WE ARE REDEVELOPING THE FRONT YARD OF THE JCPENNEY HEADQUARTERS. [03:10:01] THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY DOING. WE'RE SUBDIVIDING THAT YARD. IT'S POETRY. IT'S SOMETHING THAT IS PASTORAL. EVERYTHING THAT I SEE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS TRYING TO INTEGRATE, IF YOU WILL, A GRID ON TOP OF IT. CAN WE GO TO A SLIDE THAT WE'VE GOT IN THE DECK HERE THAT I'D LIKE TO SHOW YOU? I ASK ONE OF MY DESIGNERS JUST TO SUPERIMPOSE A STREET GRID ON THIS MASTER PLAN. THE IDEA IS OVER 60% OF THE SITE IS ALREADY DEVELOPED, AND I WOULD LOVE TO SAY THAT WE COULD TAKE THE 40% AND MAKE IT FEEL AT HOME WITH THE 60%. THE IDEA IS THAT WE REALLY NEED TO THINK ABOUT THE STREETSCAPE, THE SIDEWALKS, THE WALKABILITY. WHERE DO WE GET THE KATY TRAIL ATMOSPHERE ESTABLISHED IN THIS OPEN SPACE? WHERE DO WE GET MEANINGFUL PROGRAMMED ACTIVATED PUBLIC SPACES? WE WANT TO DEVELOP THOSE AS WE GO, BUT RIGHT NOW, I WILL TELL YOU, THERE IS ONLY ONE BUILDING TYPE IN THE UNITED STATES THAT CAN GO FORWARD IN THIS ECONOMY WE ARE IN, AND THAT'S HIGH RISE MULTI FAMILY AT THE HIGHEST QUALITY. I AM SO EXCITED TO HAVE STREET LIGHTS ON THIS TEAM. THEY CAN BRING TWO RESIDENTIAL TOWERS HERE THAT CAN GO AND BE PROSPEROUS AND FEED THE MOMENTUM TO GET THIS PROJECT UP AND RUNNING. WE ALSO HAVE A HOTEL A 300K HOTEL, IT'S NOT BEEN MENTIONED TONIGHT. WE ALSO HAVE 125 KEY INTEGRATED MIXED USE TOWER. WE'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT WAYS TO ACTIVATE THIS, BUT WHAT I'M KEEP RUNNING INTO OUR WALLS. WE CAN'T DO THIS FOR THIS REASON. WE CAN'T DO THAT FOR THIS REASON. I'M ASKING YOU, FOLKS JUST TO LET US HAVE, THIS IS A PD THAT WE'RE GOING FOR. WE WANT TO USE THAT UNLIMITED HEIGHT, THAT UNLIMITED AREA. BUT WE ALSO KNOW WE HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY TO BE GOOD CITIZENS, AND WE WANT TO PUT THE GREEN SPACE WHERE IT MATTERS TO PEOPLE ON THE PERIMETER, AS WELL AS PEOPLE WHO EXIST ON SITE. I BELIEVE THAT WITH OUR PARTNER WITH STREET LIGHTS, WE CAN MAKE THIS RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT A GAME CHANGER FOR REPOPULATING THIS OFFICE BUILDING. WHEN I DID GRANITE PARK, UNTIL WE BUILT THE HOTEL, THEY STRUGGLED. ONCE THE RESTAURANTS CAME ON BOARD, IT TOOK OFF. THE HOTEL AND THE RESTAURANTS TOTALLY TRANSFORMED GRANITE PARK. BUT WHAT I'M TELLING YOU IS GRANITE WANTS RESIDENTIAL NOW TOO. EVERYBODY WANTS TO ADD HIGH END RESIDENTIAL BECAUSE IT'S NOT SUBJECT TO THE WAY THE WIND IS BLOWING. PEOPLE WHO ARE EMPTY NESTORS LIKE MYSELF, MY WIFE AND I MOVED OUT OF A TWO ACRE LOT IN PARKER SEVEN YEARS AGO, WE EXPERIMENTED WITH LIVING IN A HIGH RISE. WE HAVEN'T LEFT IN SEVEN YEARS. WE LOVE LIVING IN A HIGH RISE ON THE KATY TRAIL AND UP TOWN AND WALK FOUR BLOCKS TO THE BEST RESTAURANT SELECTION WE COULD HAVE. PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THESE STREET LIGHTS PROJECTS WILL HAVE GREAT ACCESS TO THOSE RESTAURANTS IN LEGACY WEST. I JUST HOPE THAT YOU'LL FOLKS LET US HAVE A MOMENT TO REALLY SHOW YOU WHAT CAN HAPPEN WITH THIS SITE AND UNLEASH US FROM THE SQUARE PEG IN THE ROUND HOLE. THERE AREN'T ANY STRAIGHT STREETS HERE TODAY. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT A GRID IS GOING TO MAKE THIS PLACE MORE MIXED USE FRIENDLY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANYONE OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT REGISTERED TO SPEAK? >> WE DO NOT. >> OKAY, THANK YOU. LET'S DO THIS. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND JUST A LITTLE HISTORY, MAYBE TO START WITH. WHEN THEY WERE BUILDING THIS, BEFORE THEY EVEN STARTED THE FOUNDATION OF THIS PLACE, I WANDERED THIS PROPERTY. THEN AS IT WAS BEING BUILT, I MAY HAVE STUCK ON SITE MORE THAN ONCE TO SEE IT BECAUSE I WAS IN CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME. VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE PROPERTY AND EVERYTHING THAT WENT ON AROUND IT, EDS, WHEN IT WAS GETTING STARTED. LOOKING AT WHAT'S OUT THERE NOW, I CAN SAY THAT I THINK THAT IT MET THE VISION OF THE DEVELOPERS IN SOME PARK, BUT THE DEVELOPERS ALSO WEREN'T MAYBE AT THE TIME AWARE OF HOW LIFE WOULD CHANGE. IT'S CREATED A UNIQUE SITUATION OUT THERE. I COULD SEE THIS BEING A BUSINESS PARK, BUT I DO THINK THERE'S ROOM FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, AND JUST THE FACT THAT THE AREAS TO THE EAST OF IT HAVE SHOWN GREAT SUCCESS BY INTEGRATING RESIDENTIAL WITH THE BUSINESS. THIS FEELS A LITTLE MORE UNIQUE. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF DISCUSSION AROUND RETAIL, BUT THERE'S ALREADY RETAIL NEARBY. I THINK A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WERE BROUGHT UP. [03:15:01] ONE IS LOOKING AT THE MORPHING OF THIS PROPERTY AND THE WAY THE LAYOUT HAS BEEN, YOU DON'T NECESSARILY HAVE TO RECREATE THE BOARDWALK, BUT THAT IDEA OF RESTAURANTS RIGHT OUT THERE ON THE WATER LOOKS TO ME LIKE A WINNER, BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT'S WHAT'S COMMITTED TO NOW. I CAN'T TELL THAT IN HERE. IT SEEMS MORE FLEXIBLE, LIKE YOU'VE ASKED FOR FLEXIBLE. I'M NOT ASKING A QUESTION. >> BUT I'M ASKING. >> OKAY. >> I GUESS THAT'S THE QUESTIONS LOOKING AT SOME OF THIS. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE AREA B IS VAGUE. LIKE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE. THAT LEADS ME TO A POINT I WANT TO MAKE, WHICH IS I THINK I SERVED ON COUNSEL AT THE TIME WHEN THE HAGGARDS TRIED TO BRING THEIR FIRST DEVELOPMENT OVER THERE AT THE HAGGARD AREA, AND THEY CAME IN AND THEY ASKED FOR ALMOST A BLANK CHECK. NOT QUITE. THEY SAID, HERE'S A VISION THAT WE HAVE FOR THE AREA, AND IT DIDN'T PASS ANYWHERE. I THINK IT FAILED P AND Z, AND THEN IT WAS APPEALED TO COUNSEL, AND IT FAILED COUNSEL. THEN THEY CAME BACK WITH A MORE DEVELOPED PLAN THAT HAD MET THE CRITERIA, TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. THAT IT INCLUDED RESIDENTIAL, IT INCLUDED RESTAURANTS AND ALL OF THAT STUFF. EVERYBODY WAS REALLY EXCITED ABOUT IT, INCLUDING THE NEIGHBORS IN THE RESIDENTIAL NEXT DOOR, WHO AT THE VERY BEGINNING OF ALL OF OUR COMPLAINTS AROUND HIGH DENSITY, THEY'RE THE ONES THAT SPARKED THE WHOLE THING. IN THE END, THEY CAME TO SUPPORT IT BECAUSE THERE WAS SPECIFICITY AROUND WHAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THE CHALLENGE HERE. I'M JUST STATING MY OPINION, THIS IS JUST THE REST OF THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE A DIFFERENT MINDSET. I ABSOLUTELY BELIEVE THAT HIGH END RESIDENTIAL WILL DO VERY WELL ON THIS SPACE. I BELIEVE THAT ROADS SHOULDN'T BE SQUARE. THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS ABOUT THIS FROM A DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, I LOOK AT AND LIKE, AND I WOULD LOVE NOTHING MORE THAN IN THE END THIS TO LOOK EXACTLY LIKE THAT FANCY THREE DIMENSIONAL VIEW WITH ALL OF IT BUILT UP. I DON'T HEAR IN HERE SOMETHING THAT SAYS, WE'RE GOING TO START THE HOTEL TOMORROW. I'VE HEARD IT'S SUPPOSED TO OPEN IN 2027, BUT I DON'T HEAR ANYTHING THAT SAYS, IT'S PART OF THE PLAN, IT'S REQUIRED BEFORE WE CAN DO SOMETHING ELSE. I AGREE WITH YOU. A HOTEL ON THERE CHANGES THE FEELING OF WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN ON THIS SITE. AN APARTMENT BUILDING, AND NO OTHER BUILDING BECAUSE THE REQUIREMENTS ARE YOU JUST BUILD OUT THE SPACE YOU GOT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE SOMETHING'S HAPPENED. WHEN I WORKED IN CONSTRUCTION, WE WOULD DO TILT UP WALL PANELS, AND WE'D SPEND MONTHS ON SITE, AND EVERYBODY WOULD SAY, WHEN ARE THEY EVER GO TO DO ANYTHING? THEN ONE DAY, WE'D STILT STAND PANELS, AND SUDDENLY HE SAID, MY GOD, THERE'S SOMETHING GOING ON THERE. YOUR ARCHITECT LOOKING AT ME, HE SAYS THIS GUY DOESN'T KNOW WHAT HE'S TALKING ABOUT. THE SAME THING HERE IS THE PLAN IS WE'RE GOING TO FILL UP A BUILDING THAT'S ALREADY THERE AND THROW UP AN APARTMENT TOWER. I DON'T CARE HOW QUALITY THAT TOWER IS. IF NOTHING ELSE IS HAPPENING, IT'S GOING TO FEEL LIKE, WE APPROVED A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S ALL IT'S GOING TO FEEL LIKE. DOESN'T EVEN MATTER HOW HIGH THE QUALITY IS. I STRUGGLE WITH THAT PIECE OF THIS. STAFF MAKES SOME GOOD POINTS ON THEIR DEAL, BUT TO ME, IT ALL COMES BACK TO WE NEED TO CHECK OFF A COUPLE OF MORE BOXES THAT ARE REQUIREMENTS. THEN I FEEL NOW WE CAN SAY, DOES THIS DEVELOPMENT LOOK LIKE A COMPLETE PROJECT FOR US THAT'S PROPERLY PHASED AND DOES SHOW SOMETHING BESIDES FILLING AN EXISTING BUILDING. I UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. I DO UNDERSTAND HOW IMPORTANT THAT IS. MIKE IS 21 ACRES IS WHAT'S PROPOSED IN GREEN SPACE. DOES THAT MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT? >> IN WHAT WAY DOES IT MEET THE REQUIREMENT, I'M NOT SURE? >> THE NUMBER OF ACRES. >> TWENTY ACRES WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENT OVERALL IN THE END? >> YES. >> AS PART OF IT NO. YES. >> THE REASON I ASKED THAT IS BECAUSE, FOR EXAMPLE, AT COLLIN CREEK MALL. WE APPROVED THE TOTAL GREEN SPACE, AND IT INCLUDED LIKE THE SIX FOOT STRIPS AROUND THE EDGES OF THE APARTMENT. I'M NOT GOING TO SPLIT TOO MANY HAIRS THERE IF THEY'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENT. IT IS IMPORTANT THAT THE RESIDENTIAL HAVE CONNECTIVITY TO ALL OF THAT GREEN SPACE. I WASN'T CLEAR THAT THIS SHOWED HOW THAT WAS HAPPENING IN THIS PARTICULAR SPACE. I SAID THERE'S A WHOLE BUNCH OF TRAILS. I WOULD SAY, SHOW ME EXACTLY HOW RESIDENTS ARE GOING TO VERY EASILY [03:20:02] MOVE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL INTO THE OTHER SPACES. THAT TO ME, DIDN'T STAND OUT AS SOMETHING. YOUR CONCEPT IS BEAUTIFUL. THAT THREE DIMENSIONAL FROM AN AIRPLANE OR A DRONE VIEW OR WHATEVER, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE THAT THERE. WE JUST GOT TO GET THERE, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO REQUIRE A LITTLE MORE WORK. BUT I'VE TALKED FOR QUITE A WHILE IT'S LATE. I'M HAPPY TO LISTEN TO MR. ALI, YOU'VE GOT YOUR MIC ON, SO I'LL START WITH YOU. >> I WILL ADD ON TO WHAT YOU SAID. NOT SO HANDCUFFED. I'M CURIOUS. MAYBE IT'S A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. IT'S BEEN FOUR YEARS OF COMING BACK AND COMING BACK AND COMING BACK OR MAYBE THIS IS A DIFFERENT APPLICANT. THE BASE REQUIREMENT FOR THE TIA AND THE EHA, WHAT'S THE RUSH TO WHY NOT COMPLETE THAT AND AT LEAST CHECK SO THE THREE BUCKS. [OVERLAPPING] >> THE APPLICATIONS DID NOT REQUIRE A TIA OR THE EHA. THERE'S A WITH REGARDS TO THE EHA, WE INCORPORATED MITIGATION MEASURES AS PART OF THE PD. WE'RE PLANNING TO MITIGATE THAT AND WE'RE GOING TO DO THE STUDY ONCE THE ZONING WAS APPROVED. WHAT'S IN THE PD? >> THAT'S HORSE BEFORE THE CART OR CART BEFORE THE HORSE, HOWEVER WE GET IT. IT'S STUDY THEN MITIGATION. >> WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE EHA MAP IN THE AREAS IN RED, IS THE EXISTING RESIDENTIAL THAT IS IN THE EHA ZONE. WE INCORPORATED THE SAME MITIGATING MEASURES INTO OUR PD THAT'S SEEN THROUGHOUT THESE OTHER PROJECTS. >> YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE USING THE OTHER PROPERTIES EHA STUDIES AS YOUR GUIDELINE FOR YOUR MITIGATION. >> LET ME CLARIFY THAT THE PD STIPULATIONS DOES NOT REQUIRE THOSE MITIGATIONS. IT REQUIRES A STUDY AT THE TIME OF PERMIT WITH MITIGATIONS SUCH AS DOES NOT REQUIRE THOSE MITIGATION MEASURES AND THAT WOULD BE OKAY. >> THE STUDIES THE THRESHOLD REQUIREMENT, NOT THE MITIGATION. AM I PUTTING THAT CORRECTLY? >> I THINK AS STAFF READS IT, THE MITIGATION STRATEGIES ARE POSSIBILITIES OF MITIGATION, BUT NOT REQUIREMENTS. >> THE TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STUDY, THAT'S A BENCHMARK REQUIREMENT. >> THAT IS REQUIRED, YES. WE DID LOWER OUR TIA THRESHOLD LAST YEAR WITH THE NEW STREET DESIGN STANDARDS SIGNIFICANTLY, SO THAT'S WHY THE PREVIOUS REQUEST DID NOT REQUIRE TA IN THIS ONE DOES. >> WE DID CREATE A TIA AND IT WAS HIGH A MUCH HIGHER DENSITY DEVELOPMENT. WE HAD A LOT MORE OFFICE AND MULTIFAMILY AT THAT TIME, AND WE RECEIVED SOME COMMENTS, WHICH KIMMY HORN IS HERE TO ADDRESS TODAY THAT THEY COULD TALK THROUGH, BUT IT WOULD REQUIRE REVISED ITERATION. BUT WITH THAT SAME CONCEPT, AS THIS DEVELOPMENT EVOLVES, THERE WILL BE CONTINUED SCOTCHES AND RECONFIGURATIONS OF THE PLAN. AS USERS COME ALONG FOR OFFICE SPACE OR HOTEL USES. ROADS MAY TWEAK A LITTLE TO THE LEFT, AND WE WANT TO COMPLY AND THEY'LL BE A RE-MODIFICATION AND RESUBMISSION OF THE TIA. WHAT WE'VE COMPLETED HAS SHOWN THAT IN THE REGION, THE MULTIFAMILY IS A CONTRADICTORY USE TO THE OFFICE, WHICH WE COULD DO AS MUCH AS WE WANT TO RIGHT NOW, AND IT ACTUALLY HELPS THE MINIMAL TRIPS PER DAY OPPOSED TO WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS. >> I THINK HE IS WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH IT. FOR A PLAN TO BE FULLY APPROVED, REGARDLESS OF WHAT BUSINESS FUNCTION, FINANCE, TECHNOLOGY, WHAT HAVE YOU. THERE IS SPECIFICITY AND THRESHOLD AND TRIGGERS AND GUARD RAILS THAT NEED TO BE MET FOR SOMETHING TO BE APPROVED. WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THINGS MIGHT CHANGE, BUT THERE'S A REASON WHY WE CALL IT A CONCEPT PLAN. IT FEELS THE ANSWER HERE IS, THINGS MIGHT CHANGE, THE CONCEPT MIGHT CHANGE, SO WE DON'T THINK THAT REQUIREMENT THRESHOLD NEEDS TO BE SUBMITTED AND I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT. >> NO. WHAT I'M SAYING IS WHAT WE GENERATED AND PROVIDED TO THE CITY WAS A WORST CASE SCENARIO OF TRAFFIC. AS THE DEVELOPMENT EVOLVED, THE ACTUAL DENSITY HAS REDUCED, SO THE TRAFFIC COUNTS WILL REDUCE. >> WE'VE ALREADY PROVIDED THE WORST CASE SCENARIO. >> YOU PROVIDED THAT ENGINEERING AT. [OVERLAPPING] >> CORRECT. >> COMMENTS. >> ACCORDING TO THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, THE STATE OF THAT TAA, THERE WAS A LOT OF CORRECTIONS DONE. THERE WAS NO ACTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE MITIGATION THAT WAS PROPOSED. [03:25:02] THAT ANALYSIS HASN'T OCCURRED BECAUSE THE TIA WAS NOT SUBMITTED. [OVERLAPPING] >> IN CORRECTED FORM, SO WHY NOT SUBMIT A CORRECTED FORM. >> HE'S WITH KIMMY HORN AND HE CAN ADDRESS SOME OF THE COMMENTS IN THAT BACK AND FORTH WITH WANT TO SEE. >> MAYBE I'LL SAVE US SOME TIME. JUST IN GENERAL, NOT HAVING A PROPERLY SUBMITTED TIA FOR THIS LEVEL OF CONCEPT PLAN, FOR GENERALLY, HOW MANY OF YOU WOULD THAT BE A GATE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? >> THAT'S A GATEWAY. >> YOU CAN TALK TO IT ALL YOU WANT, BUT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO MOVE FORWARD TONIGHT. YOU CAN TALK AS MUCH AS YOU WANT ABOUT IT, BUT I THINK AT THIS POINT, WHERE WE'RE LIKE, WE NEED THE ANTE TO STAY IN THE GAME. I JUST DON'T WANT US TO SPEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING THROUGH STUFF THAT ISN'T BENEFICIAL TO US MOVING FORWARD, WE ALL WANT TO LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AND SAY, LET'S CONSIDER THIS BECAUSE IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROJECT FOR THE CITY. IT'S AN IMPORTANT PROJECT. WE'VE GOT TO BE ABLE TO CHECK OFF SOME OF THESE BOXES AND SAY, WE'VE DOTTED OUR EYES ACROSS OUR TS. NOW, LET'S MAKE A DECISION, EVEN IF IT FLIES IN THE FACE OF WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS WE'VE DONE THAT BEFORE. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> WE JUST FEEL LIKE THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS. I CAN UNDERSTAND COMING FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW THAT SAYS, LOOK, WE'VE ALREADY SUBMITTED A TIA. THAT WAS FOR A LOT MORE TRAFFIC THAN WHAT WE'RE GOING TO GENERATE NOW, SO IT'S REALLY MEANINGLESS. IT'S NOT. FOR US TO DO OUR JOB PROPERLY, BASED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. WE WE NEED THE TIA, THE EHA, I THINK THE LANGUAGE CAN BE CHANGED, PERHAPS THAT SAYS, LOOK, WE'RE HELD TO A MITIGATION STANDARD BASED ON THE RESULTS OF OUR STUDY, WHICH WILL BE PROVIDED BY X DATE, SOMETHING LIKE THIS. AGAIN, WE CAN CONTINUE WITH THE CONVERSATION, BUT I JUST WANT YOU TO KNOW UPFRONT, YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE TONIGHT. >> UNDERSTAND. >> WE'RE NOT GOING TO VOTE YET OR ANYTHING. THERE'S BEEN NO MOTIONS OR ANYTHING. I THINK I WANT TO SEE DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE WITH A PRESENTATION, OR YOU GUYS WANT TO TAKE A MINUTE AND JUST TALK FOR A SECOND ABOUT HOW YOU WANT TO MOVE FORWARD? BECAUSE I WANT US TO MAKE SMART DECISIONS, BOTTOM LINE. [BACKGROUND] WE ABSOLUTELY CAN, SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WANT TO START. MR. BRUNOV. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID. A PROJECT OF THIS MAGNITUDE, I THINK NEEDS TO BE NAILED DOWN FOR US TO EVALUATE IT PROPERLY. WHEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT MANY TOWER HIGH RISE BUILDINGS, WHETHER RESIDENTIAL OR BUSINESS OF 20 STORIES OR MORE, PLUS THE HOTEL PLUS THE EXISTING JCPENNEY BUILDING, PLUS THE RESTAURANTS. I THINK THAT TRAFFIC ANALYSIS IS A BIG DEAL. IS THE EHA, AND I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHERE THE BUILDINGS ARE GOING TO BE LOCATED. THERE WAS SO MUCH SO CALLED FLEXIBILITY BUILT INTO THE PD STANDARDS THAT I DON'T KNOW THAT THE CONCEPT PLAN IS GOING TO BE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO WIND UP WITH IN THE END. WE'RE GOING TO BE APPROVING GUESSWORK. I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. >> I UNDERSTAND MR. KERRY. >> I THINK I SHARE MOST OF THE COMMENTS MADE UP HERE. WITH THAT SAID, THESE GUYS HAVE DONE SOME GOOD WORK, SOME GREAT WORK. I'VE BEEN INSIDE THEIR OFFICE, AND THEY'RE DOING SOME WONDERFUL THINGS THERE. MY CHALLENGE IS OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROHIBITS MULTIFAMILY HERE. I JUST START THERE AFTER SEVERAL YEARS OF WORKING ON A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'LL START THERE. I HEAR THAT THE MULTIFAMILY IS NECESSARY TO CONTINUE TO FILL OUT THE OFFICE. I'M A LITTLE LOST ON THAT, FRANKLY. I HEAR THAT THERE'S ONLY ONE BUILDING THAT'S VIABLE AT THIS POINT, AND THAT IS A LUXURY HIGH RISE. THAT VERY WELL MAY BE TRUE. WHAT I DON'T KNOW IS WHAT'S GOING TO BE VIABLE IN 20 YEARS OR 10 YEARS OR 15 YEARS, BECAUSE TODAY, PLANO IS STRUGGLING WITH THE NUMBER OF THINGS THAT WE THOUGHT WAS TRUE THEN. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING SIDE. I WONDER WHAT THE OCCUPANCY RATE IS ON ALL OF THE OTHER MULTIFAMILY THAT'S PROXIMATE TO THIS, AND THEN HOW VIABLE THE MULTIFAMILY HERE WILL BE. THEN I HAVE TO LEAN INTO ALL THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE JUST ABOUT THE UNCERTAINTY ABOUT THE PROJECT. NOT THAT I THINK THAT THESE GENTLEMEN WON'T BUILD A FABULOUS PROJECT, BUT OUR CHARTER HERE IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE [03:30:03] VOTING ON IT IN A MORE DEFINED MANNER, I THINK. IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT THEY'LL DELIVER. THOSE THINGS ARE CONCERNS TO ME, AS WELL AS THE OTHER THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED. I GUESS THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> THANK YOU. ANYONE MR. RUFF. >> YEAH, I'M WHERE YOU ARE, MR. CHAIRMAN, I LIKE THE CONCEPT OF THE PROJECT. I THINK IF WE CAN TAKE WHAT'S ON THE SCREEN AND MEMORIALIZE IT IN SUFFICIENT DETAIL IN THE PD. I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE PRESENTING. I LEARNED A PHRASE MANY YEARS AGO THAT SAID BACK THE JOCKEY, NOT THE HORSE. UNFORTUNATELY, IN PLANNING AND ZONING, WE GOT TO LOOK AT THE HORSE, NOT THE JOCKEY. THIS IS ABOUT LAND USE. IT'S NOT ABOUT WHO'S AT THE MICROPHONE, BECAUSE THE LAND USE SURVIVES WHEN ALL LEAVE. AS MUCH AS I LIKE YOUR TEAM, AND I THINK ALL ARE BRINGING THE RIGHT TALENTS TO THE TABLE. I HAVE TO SET THAT ASIDE TO SOME DEGREE AND MAKE SURE THAT WHAT'S DOCUMENTED IN THE PD, THE DEVIL IS IN THE DETAILS. SOME THINGS JUST SO WHEN YOU GET A CHANCE TO GO WORK ON THIS SOME MORE, I THINK WE'VE GOT TO NAIL DOWN YOU KNOW, RESIDENTIAL IS GOING TO BE ON LOT SEVEN AND 10. IF THAT'S NOT TRUE, WE NEED TO KNOW THAT. IF IT IS TRUE, WE NEED IT MEMORIALIZED. WE'VE GOT TO KNOW WHAT THE TRAFFIC IS, WHAT THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH STUDY ISSUES ARE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL, BECAUSE THE EHA STUDY FOR A THREE STORY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT IS DIFFERENT THAN AN EHA STUDY FOR A 25 STORY RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT. IT'S A DIFFERENT STUDY AND HAS DIFFERENT RESULTS AND DIFFERENT ISSUES, AND WE NEED TO KNOW WHAT THOSE ARE BASED ON EXPERTS DOING THOSE ANALYSES. THEN I REALLY WOULD LIKE MORE SPECIFICITY ON YOUR PHASING PLAN. I THINK YOU'VE HEARD SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT PHASE 1, BASICALLY, WE COULD BUILD TODAY, PHASE 2, YOU COULD REALLY BUILD WITH VERY I DON'T WANT TO CALL IT MINIMAL, BUT NO OTHER VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION BEFORE PHASE 2 COULD GO FORWARD. I PERSONALLY AM NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE SOME OTHER VERTICAL CONSTRUCTION BEFORE PHASE 2 OF THE RESIDENTIAL COULD GO FORWARD. BUT AGAIN, THE DEVILS IN THE DETAILS, WE WANT PLANS AND SPECIFICITY ABOUT HOW THAT'S GOING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED AND WHAT ORDER IS GOING TO BE ACCOMPLISHED. I DO THINK THERE'S A PLACE FOR THIS PROJECT HERE. I DO BELIEVE THAT YOU HAVE THE BIG IDEAS NAILED DOWN, AND YOU MAY HAVE YOUR ARMS AROUND IT, BUT WHAT WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED DOESN'T DOCUMENT THOSE THINGS. FOR ME, TO GET ME TO YES, I NEED TO SEE THE DETAILS. THANK YOU. >> MR. BRONSKY. >> WELL, WE CAN TAKE OFF RGM 1. I REALLY THINK THAT WE'RE BEING EXTREMELY GENEROUS IN ASCRIBING RGM 5B AND THE PHASING TO SOMETHING THAT'S ALREADY EXISTING VERSUS SOMETHING THAT WHEN WE WROTE THAT, ORIGINALLY, WE'RE LOOKING AT CONSTRUCTION AS A PROCESS RATHER THAN FILLING IN WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY GOT. IF I'M GOING TO SIGN MY NAME TO A FINDINGS FORM, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME WITH A LOT MORE THAN WHAT YOU'VE GOT. THE CITY HAS PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND IT'S VERY MEANINGFUL. IT'S MEANINGFUL FOR THE RESIDENTS, IT'S MEANINGFUL FOR THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE HERE, AND FRANKLY, IT'S MEANINGFUL FOR US. NOT COMING WITH AN APPROPRIATE EHA, NOT COMING WITH THE TRAFFIC IMPACT, WANTING US TO LOOK AT PICTURES THAT STAFF SAYS DON'T REALLY MATCH OR LINE UP WITH SOME OF THE TEXT OF WHAT YOU'RE PROVIDING, THE OPEN SPACE ISSUES. YOU'VE GOT A GOOD IDEA, BUT YOU ARE A MILE SHORT RIGHT NOW FROM FINDING SUCCESS, AND I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE, BUT FOR ME RIGHT NOW, NO. ABSOLUTELY, NO. >> THEY'RE HEARING THE SAME THING OVER AND OVER AGAIN. BUT MR. ALLAN? >> JUST TO WRAP IT UP. I'VE APPROVED MULTI-MILLION DOLLAR INTANGIBLE ASSET INVESTMENTS, SO I AM VERY COMFORTABLE WITH APPROVING SOMETHING WITH A 'VAGUEY' CONCEPT PLAN. BUT EVEN WITH THOSE THINGS, FOR IT TO GO DOWN MY APPROVAL CHAIN, THEIR GUARD RAILS. WHAT YOU'RE HEARING IS TABLE STAKES ARE EHA, TIA. [03:35:04] THEY'RE GUARD RAILS THAT WE NEED TO EVEN BE COMFORTABLE ENOUGH TO DIG INTO THE MEAT OF WHAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S A GOOD-LOOKING PLAN. I'M ALMOST BEGGING YOU GUYS TO MEET THOSE GUARD RAILS FOR US SO THAT WE ARE COMFORTABLE ACTUALLY HAVING A MUCH MORE MEANINGFUL DISCUSSION. >> DO YOU WANT TO ADD ANYTHING? >> WELL, I HAVE HEARD EVERYTHING BECAUSE EVERYBODY IS REPEATING THE SAME THING. I LIKE THE PROJECT. THERE'S A ROOM FOR MULTI FAMILY. IN MY OPINION, I LIKE THE IDEA OF MULTI FAMILY, LIKE MIXED USE, WITH THE RETAIL, WITH OFFICES. BUT WE NEED MORE CONCRETE SOME PLAN TO LOOK AT. >> IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT, I DON'T KNOW, WE'VE HAD A DEBATE WITHOUT HAVING ANY MOTION OR ANYTHING ELSE GOING ON. BUT I THINK WE'VE SENT A MESSAGE THAT WILL HELP YOU, I HOPE, COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT AT LEAST WARRANTS REASONABLE DIALOGUE. MY GUESS IS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET A UNANIMOUS VOTE OUT OF THIS, BUT YOU NEED SOMETHING THAT ALLOWS YOU TO MOVE FORWARD FEELING COMFORTABLE BEFORE YOU EVEN GO TO COUNCIL. THAT'S WHERE WE SIT. I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE THIS. MY PREFERENCE WOULD BE TO TABLE THIS. I DON'T WANT TO SAY NO, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE AT A POINT WHERE WE CAN SAY NO OR YES. THE FEELING IS MORE OF A, HEY, HOW DO WE TABLE THIS? I GUESS THE QUESTION BECOMES IS, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU NEED? HANG ON ONE SECOND. WELL, I KNOW WE'VE GOT MULTIPLE OPTIONS, BUT I WANT TO SEE WHAT THEY SAY BEFORE I SAY, HERE ARE OUR OPTIONS, BECAUSE WE CAN ACCEPT A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ANY NUMBER OF THINGS. >> CAN I ADD TO THAT, HOW MUCH TIME DOES STAFF NEED ASSUMING THERE'S TIMELY SUBMITTALS OF THESE OTHER ITEMS. >> YEAH, AND THEY MAY NOT. THEY MAY SAY, NO, TAKE A VOTE. >> SO WE CAN TURN AROUND THE REPORTS IN A WEEK OR TWO. THE LAST SUBMISSION, WE DIDN'T GET FULL COMMENTS ON THE TIA. WE CAN BE WITHIN A MONTH AS LONG AS WE GET THE FULL COMMENTS AND TIME TO WORK THROUGH IT. >> YOU'RE PRETTY QUICK, IT SOUNDS LIKE. STAFF? MIKE? >> I THINK THE WILD CARD HERE IS THE EHA ANALYSIS. I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH TIME IT REQUIRES TO COMPLETE THAT STUDY, AND THEN WE'LL NEED TIME TO ANALYZE IT AND OBVIOUSLY MAKE SURE THAT THE STIPULATIONS OR CONCEPT PLANS ARE INCORPORATED. HONESTLY, I THINK OCTOBER 17 WOULD BE PUSHING IT, BUT WE CAN ALWAYS TABLE AGAIN IF THEY'RE NOT READY. >> MAY I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE PLANS, BECAUSE I LIKE THE COMMENTS THAT COMMISSIONER RATLIFF MENTIONED, THAT WE WANTED THE DETAILS OF WHERE THINGS ARE ON THE LAWS. I THINK WITHIN A WEEK, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE TIA MAY BE DONE, BUT WOULD THAT BE SUFFICIENT TIME TO CREATE ALL THE DETAILS OF THE PLANS? >> TO ME, THE PHASING IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION, BECAUSE WE'RE ALMOST NOT WILLING TO EVEN CONSIDER IT. THE PHASING IS A QUESTION ONCE WE'VE GOT OUR GUARD RAILS IN PLACE, THEN WE CAN HAVE A DIALOGUE AROUND PHASING AND DECIDE WE WANT TO ACCEPT IT OR NOT BASED ON WHAT THEY'RE PRESENTING. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT WITH THAT. TO ME, THEM MAKING A DECISION ABOUT THEIR PHASING IS SOMETHING THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO SEPARATE. I'M NOT ASKING THEM TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT'S GUARANTEED TO GET OUR APPROVAL OR DENIAL. IT'S MORE A CASE OF WE'VE GOT AN INCOMPLETE PROPOSAL IN MY OPINION. BECAUSE WE'RE MISSING SOME INFORMATION, WE NEED TO MAKE A DECISION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT, WE'VE ALREADY TABLED THIS ISSUE TWICE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I SPECIFICALLY ASKED THE QUESTION AT THE LAST MEETING, WERE WE GOING TO BE ABLE TO GET THIS DONE? I WAS ASSURED THAT EVERYTHING WAS IN PLACE. THEY BROUGHT IT FORWARD. IT SOUNDS TO ME THAT STAFF HAD SEVERAL ISSUES AND PROBLEMS. FRANKLY, I'M READY TO VOTE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF THEY WANTED MORE TIME, THEY PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT THAT AND GOTTEN SOME THINGS SUBMITTED TIMELY. >> I HEAR YOU. WE CAN GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS, I GUESS, ON THE VOTE. >> IF I COULD? >> YES, SIR. >> IF THIS GROUP IS GOING TO TABLE THIS, I WOULD LIKE TO DO IT WITH THE EXPECTATION THAT [03:40:01] WE'RE GOING TO GET A MORE FULLY DEVELOPED PLAN. GUARD RAILS ARE NICE, BUT THEN WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ENSUING MEETINGS. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE FULLY FORMED PLAN IF I'M GOING TO LOOK AT THIS AGAIN. THAT WOULD BE MY VOTE AS OPPOSED TO TABLING IT AND GETTING A NEXT STEP, BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE THAT'S IN ANYBODY'S BEST INTEREST. >> I UNDERSTAND. TO ME, THE DEAL IS THEY CAN CHOOSE TO COME BACK WITH SOMETHING LESS DEVELOPED AND UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT'S ALREADY SOMETHING WE'VE ASKED FOR, AND THAT RUNS THE RISK OF THEM GETTING ANOVA. MR. BRUNOV? >> I THINK THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE PATHS TO GETTING A MORE FULLY FLESHED OUT PROPOSAL, WHICH IS WHAT WE WANT. PLAN A, WHICH WOULD BE MY PREFERENCE IS TO TABLE IT FOR A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME TO ENABLE THEM TO ACCOMPLISH THAT, HAVE THE STAFF REVIEW IT, AND THEN GET IT TO US IN A FORM ACCEPTABLE TO BE VOTED ON. IF FOR ANY REASON THAT IS NOT FEASIBLE, PLAN B, AND I'M NOT ADVOCATING THIS AS MY FIRST CHOICE, BUT I'M SAYING IT IS A PLAN B. IT IS NOT AS HARSH AS IT SOUNDS. PLAN B WOULD BE FOR THEM TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION, WORK ON IT, GET IT IN SHAPE, AND THEN REFILE WHEN IT'S IN FINISHED FORM. I WOULD LEAVE THAT CHOICE UP TO THEM AT THIS POINT. >> THAT'S WHERE I'M WITH THIS, IS THAT I'M TRYING TO GET THEM TO A POINT TO WHERE THEY CAN MAKE THAT DECISION. IF WE TABLE THIS FOR UNTIL OCTOBER 17 MEETING, WELL, THEY'VE GOT FOUR WEEKS ROUGHLY TO DECIDE, "HEY, WE'RE GOING TO RUSH AND GET OUR TIA AND EHA AND EVERYTHING ELSE WE NEED TO DO," OR THEY'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND SAY, "WELL, WE WANT TO ACTUALLY TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT HOW WE CAN PHASE THIS." I'M NOT WANTING TO DICTATE IT. I'M JUST WANTING TO GIVE THEM SUFFICIENT TIME TO MAKE A DECISION. >> I'M JUST POINTING OUT THAT THAT IS AN OPTION FOR THEM TO MAKE IT IF THEY WANT TO. >> YES. HERE'S WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. IT SHOULD BE THE 21ST. I'LL ACCEPT MOTIONS FOR ANYTHING AT THIS POINT, BECAUSE NOW WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH OUR. WELL, I'M NOT TRYING TO BE FUNNY ABOUT IT. WHAT I MEAN IS, IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MAKE A MOTION TO JUST SIMPLY DENY THE CASE, AND IT GETS A SECOND, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A VOTE. WE'LL GO THAT DIRECTION. IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO MOVE TO APPROVE IT, WE'LL GO THAT DIRECTION. OR WE CAN MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE. WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH OUR STEPS THE WAY WE'RE SUPPOSED TO TO GET TO A DECISION. MR. BRONSKY, YOU HAVE THE FLOOR. >> I MOVE THAT WE DECLINE THIS FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4A, AS STAFF HAS SUGGESTED. >> I'VE GOT A MOTION. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> MICROPHONE. >> I SECOND. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO DENY THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST IN 4A. MR. ALLAN? >> QUICK PROCEDURAL QUESTION. IF DENIED, IS THERE ANY BARRIER CAP FOR THEM TO BRING THIS BACK OR RESUBMIT? >> THEY COULD SIMPLY APPEAL TO COUNCIL IF THEY WANTED TO. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THEY COULD APPEAL TO COUNCIL, BUT DENIAL OF THE CASE STARTS THE TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND REQUEST A WAIVER. >> UNLESS THEY HAVE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE? >> THAT'S RIGHT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THEIR REQUESTS BASED ON MAKING A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. >> FRANKLY, I WOULD ARGUE THAT HALF OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR WOULD BE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. >> WHO'S DETERMINE SIGNIFICANT CHANGE? >> ON THE COMMISSIONER'S DISCRETION. >> YEAH. I WOULD SUBMIT TO MY PART OF MY MOTION IS, THAT IF THEY COME BACK WITH HALF OF THE THINGS THAT WE'VE ASKED FOR, IT WOULD BE VERY SIGNIFICANT TO PRODUCE AN EHA, TO PRODUCE A TIA. WE'VE ALL ADMITTED THAT THOSE ARE SIGNIFICANT THINGS HOLDING US BACK RIGHT NOW. WE'VE DEFINED THEM AS SIGNIFICANT. >> YOU'VE MADE YOUR POINT. YOU'VE MADE YOUR MOTION. WE HAVE A SECOND. GUYS, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. THOSE IN FAVOR OF DENYING? THAT'S THREE. THOSE OPPOSED? THAT MOTION DOES NOT CARRY. MR. RATLIFF? >> I MAKE A MOTION WE TABLE THIS TO THE OCTOBER 21 MEETING FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION. >> I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALLALI TO TABLE ITEM 4A TO THE OCTOBER 21ST MEETING. >> CAN WE HAVE DISCUSSION? >> I DON'T KNOW WHAT DISCUSSION WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THAT'S GOING- >> WELL, WE'RE MAKING A MOTION TO TABLE WITHOUT EVEN KNOWING IF THAT'S SOMETHING THEY'RE LOOKING FOR OR EVEN GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET. [03:45:02] >> THEY HAVE OPTIONS ONCE WE'VE TABLED IT. THEY CAN DECIDE WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. THEY CAN COME BACK TO STAFF EVEN BEFORE OCTOBER 21ST AND SAY, "WE WANT TO WITHDRAW OUR APPLICATION." MR. RATLIFF, YOU WANT TO AMEND YOUR MOTION OR NOT? >> NO, I HAVE A QUESTION ON WHETHER IT'S LEGAL OR NOT FOR MIKE. DURING THAT TIME, THEY COULD CHOOSE TO WITHDRAW, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> THEY COULD CHOOSE. >> THEY CAN MAKE A LOT OF CHOICES BETWEEN NOW AND OCTOBER 21ST. THEY HAVE LOTS OF OPTIONS. >> THE PROCEDURE THAT WILL HAPPEN IS, THE NOTICE WILL BE PRESERVED, SO THEN THIS WILL BE ON THE SCHEDULE FOR OCTOBER 21ST WITH A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW. >> WOULD IT BE ENOUGH TIME? IF THEY WANT TO DO A FULL CONCEPTUAL, SO WE CAN UNDERSTAND, IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS. >> I CLARIFY I MISSPOKE EARLIER. THE DENIAL OF THE REQUEST DOES NOT INITIATE THE TWO-YEAR WAVING PERIOD, JUST APPROVAL. MY APOLOGIES. >> BUT I DON'T WANT TO CIRCLE BACK. I'M TRYING TO MOVE US THROUGH THIS ONE STEP AT A TIME. WE CAN ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY WANT TO DELAY TO A LATER DATE. HERE'S MY UNDERSTANDING AND MY GUESS. ONE IS, COULD THEY GET A TIA AND EHA DONE IN FOUR WEEKS? POTENTIALLY, THEY CAN GET IT DONE. POTENTIALLY, STAFF COULD DO THEIR ANALYSIS. I DON'T THINK IN FOUR WEEKS THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO COME BACK AND TELL US, "HEY, THE HOTEL HAS DECIDED THEY'RE GOING TO BREAK GROUND, AND WE CAN COMMIT TO THAT." I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO THAT. I JUST THINK THEY NEED MORE TIME, BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO TABLE THIS TILL JANUARY OF NEXT YEAR, OR DECEMBER, OR NOVEMBER. THEY NEED A SHORT TIME FRAME TO TAKE SOME ACTION, AND WHATEVER THAT ACTION IS IS UP TO THEM. WE DON'T WANT TO DICTATE IT. >> TO THAT POINT. MR. DOLSTRUM APPROACHED THAT. >> HE DID. >> MAYBE BEFORE WE GO, IT WOULD BE INTERESTING TO HEAR WHAT HE HAS TO SAY. IT WOULD BE TO ME. >> OKAY. >> I APPROACHED BECAUSE WE DID NOT WANT A RECOMMENDATION OF DENIAL. WE DO UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU ALL ARE COMING FROM. OCTOBER 21ST, WE WILL SHOOT FOR THAT. WE WILL WORK REAL HARD TO MEET THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> IF YOU CAN'T, YOU MAY HAVE OTHER OPTIONS. WE HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST, AND A SECOND. THOSE IN FAVOR OF TABLING UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. THOSE OPPOSED? TWO. ITEM 4A IS TABLED UNTIL OCTOBER 21ST BY A VOTE OF 6-2. I NEED A MOTION ON ITEM 4B. >> I MOVE TO TABLE ITEM 4B TO OCTOBER 21ST AS WELL. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ALLALI TO TABLE ITEM 4B TO OCTOBER 21ST. PLEASE VOTE. THAT SEVEN OPPOSED, ONE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-1. THANK YOU, GUYS. I HOPE WE CAN FIGURE OUT A WAY. THIS IS ONE OF THE MOST IMPORTANT PROJECTS, I THINK, IN THE CITY FROM A REDEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT. IT'S A HUGE DEAL. SO LET'S JUST GET IT RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC SPEAKER ITEMS? ANYBODY SPEAKING? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> NO. WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 10:54 P.M. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.