1. (MC) Public Hearing – Preliminary Replat & Site Plan: L.A. Davis Addition, Block 3, Lot 27R – Religious facility on one lot on 0.2 acre located on the east side of F Avenue, 150 feet south of 11th Street. Zoned General Residential. Preliminary replat tabled on October 21, 2024. Projects #PR2024-026 and #SP2024-008. Applicant: Good Faith Baptist Church. (Legislative consideration due to Subdivision Ordinance variances and pending Board of Adjustment approval of Zoning Ordinance variances.)

[1. (MC) Public Hearing – Preliminary Replat & Site Plan: L.A. Davis Addition, Block 3, Lot 27R – Religious facility on one lot on 0.2 acre located on the east side of F Avenue, 150 feet south of 11th Street. Zoned General Residential. Preliminary replat tabled on October 21, 2024. Projects #PR2024-026 and #SP2024-008. Applicant: Good Faith Baptist Church. (Legislative consideration due to Subdivision Ordinance variances and pending Board of Adjustment approval of Zoning Ordinance variances.)]

THIS IS A RELIGIOUS FACILITY ON ONE LOT ON 0.2 ACRE, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF F AVENUE, 150FT SOUTH OF 11TH STREET.

ZONED, REGIONAL, RESIDENTIAL.

APPLICANT, GOOD FAITH BAPTIST CHURCH.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION DUE TO SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCES AND PENDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCES.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS MOLLY CORYELL, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS ITEM IS FOR A PRELIMINARY REPLAT AND A SITE PLAN FOR AN EXISTING DEVELOPMENT LOCATED AT 1024 F AVENUE.

IT'S A CHURCH.

THE, FOR THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT, THE PURPOSE OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT IS TO COMBINE THESE TWO LOTS INTO ONE AND DEDICATE EASEMENTS FOR THE EXISTING RELIGIOUS FACILITY.

AND AS PART OF THIS PRELIMINARY REPLAT, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO VARIANCES FROM THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

THE FIRST ONE IS A VARIANCE FROM THE 100 FOOT MINIMUM FOR STREET FRONTAGE ALONG TYPE D OR LOWER STREETS.

AND THEN THE SECOND VARIANCE IS FOR THE REQUIREMENT THAT NONRESIDENTIAL LOTS PROVIDE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.

THIS LOT JUST HAS ONE POINT OF ACCESS OFF OF F AVENUE FOR THE SITE PLAN.

THE PURPOSE OF THE SITE PLAN IS TO CONSTRUCT A NEW SURFACE, NEW SURFACE PARKING LOT AND SHOW RELATED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE LOT, AND APPROVAL OF THE SITE PLAN WILL REQUIRE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT TO GRANT TWO VARIANCES FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE FIRST ONE BEING THAT THE SIDE YARD SETBACK BE REDUCED FROM 5FT TO 0FT FOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS FOR THE BUILDING OF NORTH OF THE LOT, AND THEN A VARIANCE TO WAIVE THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE SOLID WASTE CONTAINER ENCLOSURES FOR NONRESIDENTIAL USES.

THIS NEXT SLIDE IS JUST TO SHOW THE EXISTING CONDITIONS OF THE LOT TODAY.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE LOT FUNCTIONS RIGHT NOW AS A NONRESIDENTIAL CHURCH USE TODAY.

AND THE UNIMPROVED LOT JUST SOUTH OF IT IS USED AS A PARKING LOT.

SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO UPDATE THE PARKING LOT, PER OUR STANDARDS FOR SURFACE PARKING, AS AN IMPROVEMENT TO THE SITE FOR THE CHURCH.

PER THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, SECTION 5.2 C3A REQUIRES THAT NONRESIDENTIAL LOTS HAVE A MINIMUM CONTINUOUS FRONTAGE OF 100FT WHEN ABUTTING TYPE D OR LOWER STREETS.

AS I MENTIONED, THE PROPOSED LOT HAS 80FT OF FRONTAGE ALONG F AVENUE AND THEN FOR ACCESS.

THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT LOTS HAVE A MINIMUM TWO POINTS OF ACCESS.

AND THE SITE IS CURRENTLY SHOWING THAT A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS FROM DIRECT DIRECTLY FROM F AVENUE WILL BE AVAILABLE AS PART OF THIS SITE PLAN.

SO TO GO OVER THE VARIANCE APPROVAL CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS.

THE COMMISSION MAY APPROVE A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE UPON FINDINGS OF THE EVIDENCE PRESENTED IN EACH SPECIFIC CASE, GIVEN THAT ONE FOR THE VARIANCE NOT

[00:05:07]

BEING DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY OR WELFARE, OR INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTY.

PLANO FIRE RESCUE AND THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAVE REVIEWED THE PROPOSED PLANS AND DO NOT ANTICIPATE GRANTING THE VARIANCE WILL BE DETRIMENTAL.

PUBLIC HEALTH, DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH OR WELFARE, OR INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTY.

AND THEN THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE IS BASED ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY FOR WHICH THE VARIANCE IS SOUGHT, AND ARE NOT APPLICABLE GENERALLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES. THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS INTENDED TO PROVIDE FOR INFILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE LONG STANDING EXISTENCE OF THIS NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING ON LOTS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR RESIDENTIAL USE IS LIKELY A CONDITION RESULTING FROM THE AGE OF THE USE ON SITE, AND IT'S NOT A CONDITION GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE CITY OF PLANO.

AND BECAUSE OF THE PHYSICAL SURROUNDING SHAPE OR TOP OR TOPOGRAPHICAL CONDITIONS OF THE SPECIFIC PROPERTY INVOLVED, A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP TO THE OWNER WOULD RESULT AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A MERE INCONVENIENCE IF THE STRICT LETTER OF THESE REGULATIONS IS CARRIED OUT.

THIS PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY EXISTING RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO THE EAST AND SOUTH.

AND BASED ON THE PHYSICAL SURROUNDINGS, THERE'S NOT AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPAND THE PROPERTY TO MEET THIS 100 FOOT STREET FRONTAGE WITHOUT ACQUIRING ADDITIONAL PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

SO STRICT ENFORCEMENT OF THE REGULATIONS WOULD NOT ALLOW ADEQUATE SPACE TO PROVIDE PAVED PARKING TO SERVE THE EXISTING STRUCTURE.

AND THEN FINALLY, THE VARIANCE WILL NOT IN ANY MANNER VARY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, EXCEPT THAT EXCEPT THAT THOSE DOCUMENT MAY BE AMENDED IN THE MANNER PRESCRIBED BY LAW, AND THIS REQUEST WILL NOT VARY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

OH, I ACCIDENTALLY PRESSED THE WRONG BUTTON BY MISTAKE FOR THE VARIANCE CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS NOTWITHSTANDING, THE COMMISSION CAN APPROVE A LOT, ONLY HAVING ONE POINT OF ACCESS IF IT DETERMINES THAT A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS CANNOT BE OBTAINED.

AND SO THE SECONDARY POINT OF ACCESS CANNOT BE PROVIDED ALONG F AVENUE BECAUSE IT WOULD NOT MEET THE DRIVEWAY SPACING REQUIREMENTS.

AND THEN TRAFFIC SAFETY AND FIRE PROTECTION ARE SUFFICIENT.

THE PLANO FIRE RESCUE AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAVE APPROVED THE SITE PLAN, SHOWING ONE POINT OF ACCESS AND A VARIANCE TO THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO ALLOW FOR A NONRESIDENTIAL DRIVEWAY NARROWER THAN TYPICALLY REQUIRED.

THAT BEING SAID, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL FOR THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION FINDING THAT UNREASONABLE HARDSHIPS OR DIFFICULTIES MAY RESULT FOR STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH THESE REGULATIONS.

AND THEN THE COMMISSION GRANTING VARIANCE FOR THE FOLLOWING SECTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THE FIRST ONE BEING ALLOWING FOR A SINGLE POINT OF ACCESS FOR A NONRESIDENTIAL LOT, AND THEN REDUCING THE REQUIRED FRONTAGE FROM 100FT TO 80FT.

AND THEN FOR THE SITE PLAN.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTING VARIANCES TO THE FOLLOWING SUBSECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE FIRST ONE BEING REDUCING THE SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 5FT TO 0FT, AND THEN WAIVING THE REQUIREMENT TO PROVIDE A SOLID WASTE ENCLOSURE ON THE SITE FOR NONRESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE STAFF REPORT? JUST ONE.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, I THINK YOU DID A FABULOUS JOB ON THAT.

THANK YOU. OH. THANK YOU, MR. LINGENFELTER, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION? NO. OKAY.

MR. OLLEY. A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS.

THE J.R. ZONING DISTRICT IS PARTICULAR TO DOUGLAS.

CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION FOR ME, COMMISSIONER? OLLEY. THE GENERAL RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT IS A PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT TO THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY.

IT'S NOT FOUND.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT. PLANO.

SO IF MY UNDERSTANDING IS RIGHT, THIS CHURCH HAS ESSENTIALLY BEEN A NONRESIDENTIAL USE SINCE THE 50S, 60S.

AND THE ONLY REASON WHY THEY HAVE EVEN BEEN TRIGGERED TO APPLY FOR VARIANCE IS BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PAVE THE LOT.

DID WE IMPOSE ON THEM TO PAVE THE LOT OR DID THEY COME FORWARD? NO. THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT OF THEIR OWN CHOOSING.

OKAY. LAST QUESTION.

CHURCH TRAFFIC USE THROUGH THAT AT ONE POINT OF ACCESS SO FAR AS THERE HAVE BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS.

OF ANY KIND REGARDING THAT? THERE'S HAVE BEEN NO COMPLAINTS, AND YES, AND THERE WERE A FEW LETTERS OF SUPPORT FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS SINCE THIS IS A PRELIMINARY RESIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY REPLAT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?

[00:10:04]

ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE AN APPLICANT WITH US TONIGHT THAT WANTS TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION? ANYBODY REGISTERED? WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSION. WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, AS DESCRIBED FOR THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT AND THE SITE PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

SECOND. MOTION BY BRONSKY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, SIR.

IS THE MOTION WITH RESPECT TO THE SITE PLAN, IS THAT A CONDITION ON APPROVAL BY THE BOARD? OF THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS OF THE TWO VARIANCES AS DESCRIBED THE RECOMMENDATIONS AS DESCRIBED BY STAFF.

YES. ALL RIGHT.

ANY COMMENTS ON THE MOTION? ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0.

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

[2. (DS) Public Hearing – Replat & Revised Site Plan: Willow Bend Polo Estates Phase B, Block B, Lot 4R – One Patio Home lot on 0.1 acre located on the east side of Shaddock Boulevard, 160 feet north of Turtle Creek Drive. Zoned Planned Development-423-Patio Home. Projects #R2024-030 & #RSP2024-049. Applicant: Lacey Rayman. (Administrative consideration)]

WILLOWBEND POLO ESTATES, PHASE B, BLOCK B, LOT FOUR R.

THIS IS ONE PATIO HOME LOT ON 0.1 ACRE, LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SHATTUCK BOULEVARD, 160FT NORTH OF TURTLE CREEK DRIVE.

ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR 23 PATIO HOME.

APPLICANT IS LACEY RAYMOND.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS DONNA SEPULVADO, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THESE ITEMS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMISSION ANY QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF REPORT? NOBODY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON APPLICANT? WE DO NOT. ALL RIGHT.

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

ALL IN FAVOR, RAISE YOUR HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.

[3. (MC) Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2024-020: Request to amend Planned Development71-Regional Commercial to modify development standards and the adopted open space plan on 89.1 acres located on the west side of the Dallas North Tollway, 305 feet north of Park Boulevard. Zoned Planned Development-71-Regional Commercial with Specific Use Permit No. 570 for Automobile Leasing/Renting and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District. Project #ZC2024-020. Petitioner: Centennial Waterfall Willow Bend, LLC, The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Macy’s Retail Holdings, LLC, and Dillard’s Inc. (Request to table to December 2, 2024.)]

THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 71.

REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND THE ADOPTED OPEN SPACE PLAN ON 89.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY.

305FT NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.

ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 71 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 570 FOR AUTOMOBILE LEASING, RENTING, AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.

EXCUSE ME. PETITIONERS ARE CENTENNIAL WATERFALL, WILLOW BEND LLC, THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC, MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, AND DILLARD'S, INC..

THANK YOU. I THINK THE CAPTION MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN MY PRESENTATION TONIGHT.

SO AGAIN, MOLLY CARY, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THE ZONING CASE TO THE DECEMBER 2ND, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

I BELIEVE THAT WILL BE OUR FIRST MEETING BACK IN THE RENOVATED CHAMBERS.

SO THAT'S EXCITING.

AND THIS IS IN ORDER TO CONTINUE REFINING THE ASSOCIATED REVISED CONCEPT PLAN AND REVISED OPEN SPACE PLAN AS PART OF THIS REQUEST.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMISSION. ANY QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF? YES, SIR. MR. BRONSKY. YEAH.

SO IS THIS PART OF WHAT WE I GUESS, REOPENED A COUPLE OF MEETINGS BACK? THAT IS CORRECT. THAT IS WHAT ALLOWED THEM TO COME BACK AND APPLY FOR THIS ZONING CASE.

OKAY. AND DO WE FEEL PRETTY CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS ENOUGH TIME TO COMPLETE WHAT IT NEEDS TO BE WORKED OUT? WE'VE MET WITH THE APPLICANTS, AND WE'RE CONTINUING TO WORK THROUGH THE OUTSTANDING COMMENTS IN ORDER TO HELP THEM MAKE THAT DATE.

SO TERRIFIC.

LOOK FORWARD TO IT. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, COMMISSION.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SEEING NONE.

OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYBODY REGISTERED SPEAKERS? WE DO NOT. OKAY.

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSION. I MOVE, WE GO AHEAD.

PLEASE. I, I MOVE THAT WE GRANT THE ACCEPT THE PETITIONERS REQUEST TO TABLE THE ITEM TO THE DECEMBER 2ND HEARING.

SECOND. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.

ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES SEVEN ZERO.

ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

[Items 4A. & 4B.]

WOULD YOU LIKE FOUR A AND FOUR B? FOUR A. FOUR B. LET'S READ THOSE TOGETHER, PLEASE.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR A IS A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 60 GENERAL OFFICE AND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 109.

RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 109.

RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON 19.8 ACRES.

LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF ALMA DRIVE AND PARK BOULEVARD.

PETITIONER IS PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.

[00:15:02]

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR BE CALLING CREEK CORPORATE CENTER.

BLOCK A, LOT ONE R, THIS IS A PUBLIC SCHOOL IN 15.1 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ALMA ROAD, 260FT SOUTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.

ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

60 GENERAL OFFICE AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 109 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE.

PETITIONER IS PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING CONSIDERATION OF AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR A.

MY NAME IS DESTINY WOODS, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

SO HERE YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE THE AERIAL VIEW AND THE LOCATION OF THE REQUEST.

IT'S AT THE CORNER OF PARK AND ALMA, AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, AS SHOWN BY THIS GRAPHIC.

SO FOR THE SITE HISTORY, THE SITE IN IN THE 1970S WAS PARTIALLY REZONED TO PD 60 IN THE LOWER AREA AND IN THE 90S DEVELOPED A CONVENIENCE STORE TO PD 59 STANDARDS.

AT THE CORNER OF PARK AND ALMA IN 2001.

THE LAND WAS ORIGINALLY WITH WITHIN THE PD 59 RETAIL DISTRICT, AND WAS REZONED TO PD 109 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE TO DEVELOP A LARGE OFFICE PARK, SHOWN IN THE GRAPHIC ON THE RIGHT.

AND THE CONCEPT PLAN WAS ATTACHED TO THE ORDINANCE.

AND IN 2009, PD 109, THE CONCEPT PLAN, WAS AMENDED TO UPDATE THE CONVENIENCE STORE SITE PLAN.

THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT WILL EXPAND PD 109 TO INCLUDE THE ENTIRE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SINCE IT IS CURRENTLY SPLIT ZONED.

IT WILL ELIMINATE THE ASSOCIATED CONCEPT PLAN TO ALLOW FOR A CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION CENTER, AND IT WILL INTRODUCE DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS TO PROTECT THE ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD FROM THE PROPOSED OPEN STORAGE.

THE PROPOSED PUBLIC SCHOOL WILL PROVIDE CAREER AND TECHNICAL EDUCATION CLASSES IN FIELDS SUCH AS BUSINESS, MARKETING, FINANCE, GRAPHIC DESIGN, INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY, ROBOTICS, RADIOLOGY, WELDING AND PAINT, AND COLLISION REPAIR AND IT WILL DRAW STUDENTS FROM OTHER PISD FACILITIES FOR SPECIALIZED LEARNING DURING THE CLASS DAY.

FOR THE OPERATIONS STUDENT ROLE, STUDENTS WILL REPORT TO THEIR MAIN HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS AND THEN COMMUTE EITHER BY BUS OR BY PERSONAL VEHICLE, FOR THEIR SINGLE CLASS THAT THEY ATTEND AT THE CTE SCHOOL, AND THEN RETURN TO THEIR MAIN CAMPUSES AFTER THAT CLASS IS CONCLUDED.

TO ACCOMMODATE THIS, THE BUS SCHEDULES WILL BE COORDINATED WITH THE CLASS SCHEDULES OF ALL THREE HIGH SCHOOLS, WITH BUSSES OPERATING THROUGHOUT THE DAY TO FACILITATE THAT. TRANSPORTATION.

BUSSES TRAVELING EAST OR WEST ON PARK BOULEVARD WILL HAVE THE OPTION TO TURN ONTO COLUMBIA PLACE OR PARK BOULEVARD, AS SHOWN IN THE GRAPHIC IN BLUE.

AND ALL BUSSES WILL EXIT THE SITE AT PARK BOULEVARD AND INDICATED BY THE RED LINE ON THE GRAPHIC.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SEE THAT.

AND STUDENTS DRIVING PERSONAL VEHICLES WILL ENTER AND EXIT THE SITE VIA ALMA DRIVE AND THE ORANGE TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE SCREEN, AND A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS WILL BE COMPLETED AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT, BUT IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE ZONING PORTION OF THIS REQUEST.

THE AMENDED PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS WILL REMOVE THE CONCEPT PLAN AS A STIPULATION AND REQUIRE A 50 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, A 150 FOOT GENERATOR SETBACK, AND A MASONRY EIGHT FOOT MASONRY SCREENING WALL.

EXCUSE ME, AND THE IMAGE SHOWS THE PLACEMENT OF THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALONG COLUMBIA PLACE.

THE AMENDED STIPULATIONS WILL ALSO ADD THAT THE REQUIRED PARKING BE 1 TO 400FT² OF A FLOOR AREA INSTEAD OF THE TYPICAL STUDENT RATIO FOR PUBLIC SCHOOL.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED AS SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND PUBLIC SCHOOL IS SUPPORTED AS AN INSTITUTIONAL TYPE. AND THIS REQUEST PARTIALLY MEETS ONE AND FULLY MEETS THE OTHER POLICIES SET BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER, AND WE RECEIVED FOUR RESPONSES CITYWIDE, WITH ONE IN SUPPORT AND THREE OPPOSED.

[00:20:02]

AND STAFF RECOMMENDS ITEM FOUR A FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, AND ITEM FOUR B FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

WE ALSO HAVE A SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER FOR QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE TO WRITE COMMISSION QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

START HERE. MR. BROUNOFF. YEAH.

IF YOU CAN ANSWER THIS QUESTION.

OTHERWISE I CAN ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY IF THEY'RE HERE.

IS THIS A SITUATION WHERE STUDENTS WOULD BE COMING AND GOING FROM THIS FACILITY, YOU KNOW, MAKING THE COMMUTE BETWEEN A BASE HIGH SCHOOL AND THIS FACILITY FOR CERTAIN CLASSES AND THEN GOING BACK TO THEIR BASE HIGH SCHOOL.

THAT'S CORRECT. OR WOULD THEY BASICALLY BE THERE ALL, ALL DAY? NO. THEY WOULD REPORT TO THEIR MAIN HIGH SCHOOL AND THEN GO TO THE PROPOSED SCHOOL FOR THEIR CLASS, PERIOD THAT THEY MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE AT THIS SCHOOL AND THEN RETURN TO BACK TO THEIR REGULAR CURRICULUM AT THEIR HIGH SCHOOL.

OKAY. AND THE REASON I ASK THAT IS IF ALL THE STUDENTS ARE NOT GOING TO BE THERE ALL DAY, THERE WOULD NOT BE A NEED FOR ALL OF THE PARKING THAT WOULD NORMALLY BE REQUIRED FOR A SCHOOL. BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE COMING AND GOING.

YOU HAVE PART ATTENDANCE ALL DAY LONG, SO I THINK THE PARKING IS GREAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER OLLEY? YES I CAN. WHAT'S THE RATIO OF THE PARKING? THE REGULAR SCHOOL PARKING FOR THIS? PULL YOUR MICROPHONE DOWN IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. SO TYPICALLY, A PUBLIC SCHOOL WOULD HAVE A RATIO FOR ONE PARKING SPACE PER 1.5 STUDENTS.

AND IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE ONE PARKING SPACE PER 400FT² OF FLOOR AREA.

AND DO WE KNOW HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE GOING TO BE ENROLLED OR LIKE ROUGHLY? YES, I DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION.

ONE SECOND.

SO. MAYBE WE'LL ASK THAT QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.

IF WE WANT TO HOLD THAT, LET'S WE'LL ASK THE APPLICANT.

YES. AND YOU'RE LIKE IN THE TIME OF LIKE PROBABLY THIS FOR THE APPLICANT TO LIKE THE TIMING.

IS IT GOING TO BE JUST LIKE A SCHOOL TIME IN THE MORNING? NO. AFTERNOON EVENING CLASSES.

I'M ASSUMING IT WOULD BE DURING THE REGULAR SCHOOL DAY AT JUST DIFFERENT TIMES, BUT THAT MIGHT BE BETTER FOR THE APPLICANT AS WELL.

YES. THANK YOU.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER LANGFELDER I, MINE WASN'T AS MUCH ON THE PARKING AS MUCH AS KIND OF THE NOISE.

WITH DELIVERIES, I SUSPECT, WITH THIS BEING A KIND OF A TRADE SCHOOL TYPE DEAL WITH, LIKE, WELDING AND CONSTRUCTION AND THAT TYPE OF STUFF, YOU'LL HAVE A LOT OF MATERIALS COMING IN AND OUT FOR THEM TO PRACTICE ON AND LEARN ON.

WHAT DID THE APPLICANT OR DO THEY HAVE AN IDEA OF WHEN DELIVERIES WOULD BE HAPPENING OR WOULD THEY CAN WE CONTROL.

BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY YOU DON'T WANT BIG SEMIS SHOWING UP WITH MATERIALS LATE AT NIGHT, YOU KNOW, FOR THE RESIDENTS NEARBY.

I KNOW THAT THERE'S A NICE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND YOU DID A GREAT JOB REQUIRING THAT.

BUT THERE'S SOUND TRAVELS, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT THE THOUGHT PROCESS IS ON THAT.

SO WHEN ASKED, THE APPLICANT DID INDICATE THAT THERE WOULD BE NO TRUCK DELIVERIES TO THE SITE, BUT I WOULD BE HAPPY TO LET THEM SPEAK TO THAT AS WELL.

OKAY. AND THEN MY OTHER THING IS THERE'S A TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICE THERE.

CURRENTLY THERE'S A LITTLE TURNABOUT IN COLUMBIA.

I ASSUME THERE'S A REASON BEHIND THAT.

THERE'S PROBABLY USED TO BE A SPEEDWAY, AND THEY HAD SOMEBODY PETITIONED TO DO THAT AND HAVE THAT BUILT.

IS THAT TO REMAIN OR WHAT'S.

I DON'T SEE IT ON THE PLANS.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT DISAPPEARED.

SO IF THEY WERE TAKING THAT OUT OR WHAT THE PLAN IS ON FOR THAT.

I THINK THAT'S A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN.

SO IT WASN'T SHOWN THERE.

BUT THAT TRAFFIC INFORMATION MIGHT BE ADDRESSED AT THE SITE PLAN STEP WITH MORE DETAIL ON THAT STAGE.

COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. ONE QUESTION THE OPEN STORAGE SPACE.

IN ANY REASON WHY THE AREA RIGHT BY COLUMBIA WAS CHOSEN? IT FEELS LIKE THERE COULD BE BETTER SITES AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

AGREED. WE HAVE THE MASONRY WALL OR WHATEVER TO OBSCURE THE VIEW, BUT DID YOU EXPLORE ANY OTHER DIFFERENT SITES FOR THE GENERATOR AND THE OPEN STORAGE? THEY DIDN'T SUBMIT ANY OTHER PLANS WITH DIFFERENT LOCATIONS FOR OPEN STORAGE OR THE GENERATOR? NO. OKAY.

THANK YOU. WE DID HAVE A CONVERSATION ABOUT POTENTIALLY MAKING, LIKE, A U-SHAPED BUILDING, SO THERE'D BE, LIKE, AN INTERIOR COURTYARD, BUT THAT DIDN'T SUIT THEIR CLASSROOM NEEDS.

SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

[00:25:03]

OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

NOBODY. ALL RIGHT.

I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SOUNDS LIKE WE DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND CAN ADDRESS SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

KEN KESSLER REGISTERED? YES. OKAY. WELCOME.

YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FIRST, PLEASE.

KEN KESSLER.

I'M AN ARCHITECT WITH HUCKABEE.

MY OFFICE ADDRESS IS 5830 GRANITE PARKWAY IN PLANO.

THANK YOU. DO YOU WANT HIM TO ASK YOU THE QUESTIONS INDIVIDUALLY, OR DID YOU MAKE NOTES OF THE ONES THAT WERE THAT YOU CAN RESPOND TO? WELL, I CAN ANSWER HER QUESTION ON THE STUDENT COUNT.

SO IF I ADD UP, MY TOTAL CAPACITY AT ONE TIME IS GOING TO BE ABOUT 750 STUDENTS AT THE 1.5, I BELIEVE THAT'S LIKE 590 SPACES.

WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE 590 DRIVERS DRIVING THE SCHOOL BECAUSE MAJORITY OF THE SCHOOL HOURS, IT'S GOING TO BE A STAGGERED DELIVERY.

THEY'LL BE COMING FROM ALL THREE HIGH SCHOOLS AND POSSIBLY ALL THREE.

WELL, MAYBE REPHRASE THAT MAJORITY OF THE STUDENTS WILL COME FROM ALL THREE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS, WITH SOME OPTIONS FROM THE OTHER HIGH SCHOOLS. EXACT COUNTS JUST DEPENDS ON WHO'S TAKING WHAT COURSE.

BUT THE PLAN IS THEY'LL BE BUSED DURING THOSE CLASS PERIOD TIMES.

AND THOSE CLASSES ARE GOING TO BE STAGGERED, VARYING LIKE AUTO BODY, MAYBE A TWO HOUR BLOCK.

SO DEPENDING ON HOW THEY STAGGER THEIR DELIVERY OR STUDENTS COMING FROM THE SCHOOLS WILL JUST DETERMINE HOW THE BUS ROUTE IS.

AND I DON'T THINK THE DISTRICT HAS THAT EXACT BUS ROUTE YET.

IT WON'T BE A TYPICAL SCHOOL WHERE AT 8:00 YOU HAVE ALL 750 STUDENTS.

THEY'RE GOING TO COME FOR THOSE THREE CLASS PERIODS A DAY AT A TWO HOUR BLOCK.

SO THE BUSSES ARE GOING TO BE LIKE COMING EVERY TWO HOURS.

THEY COULD BE. YEAH.

AND HOW MANY BUSSES YOU LIKE DO YOU ANTICIPATE? YOU'RE PROBABLY LOOKING AT, DEPENDING ON HOW MANY STUDENTS ARE COMING FROM WHICH HIGH SCHOOL AND WHO'S GOT AND HOW MANY ARE DRIVING.

WE'RE PLANNING FOR A AREA TO DELIVER BUSSES OF HAVING A COUNT OF ABOUT EIGHT AT A TIME, LIKE EVERY TWO HOURS.

EIGHT BUSSES, NOT EVERY TWO HOURS.

YEAH. SO IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE CONSISTENT DURING THE, THE MORNING HOURS.

RIGHT. 2:00 TO 4:00.

WELL, DURING SCHOOL HOURS IT'LL BE A CONSISTENT YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE LIKE AN EVENING CLASSES AND THEY MIGHT NOT THAT I KNOW OF.

WE HAVEN'T PLANNED FOR EVENING CLASSES.

THEY COULD HAVE EVENTS.

I MEAN, WE HAVE A RESTAURANT.

WE HAVE A CULINARY KITCHEN.

THERE'S GOING TO BE THERE'S A BANK AND THEN THERE'S ALSO TONY AND GUY HAIR SALON.

BUT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO OPERATE DURING SCHOOL HOURS.

THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

OH. OH, SORRY.

JUST, HAD A QUESTION.

THIS SITE DIRECTLY ACROSS THE STREET.

ISN'T THAT THE ROBINSON FINE ARTS CENTER? CORRECT. AND THEN.

AND THEN ONE BUILDING OVER THAT'S ALREADY A SCHOOL, RIGHT? IT'S THE ACHIEVE ACADEMY IS A HIGH SCHOOL.

THE ACADEMY HIGH SCHOOL IS ONE BUILDING OVER.

IT'S THE OFFICE BUILDING.

I THINK THERE'S A HARLEY DAVIDSON OR SOMETHING BETWEEN IT.

SO THE TRAFFIC PATTERNS ARE FAIRLY CONSISTENT WITH SCHOOL OPERATED BUSSES IN THAT CORRECT AREA.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY. I THINK YOU STARTED SCRATCHING OUT AN ANSWER TO THE QUESTION.

SO IT'S OPEN FOR THE THREE SENIOR HIGH SCHOOLS AND POSSIBLY ACADEMY, THE IB ACADEMY SCHOOLS COULD BE.

YES. OKAY.

ONE QUESTION THAT WAS PUT BY A RESPONDENT IN THE PACKET WAS.

AND THIS MIGHT BE MORE TO PERHAPS THE ADMINISTRATION.

WHY THE NEED TO BUILD A NEW STANDALONE CTE CENTER VERSUS EMBED THESE CLASSES IN THE HIGH SCHOOLS THAT EXIST. WELL, THEY DO THEY DO HAVE CTE IN THEIR IN EACH HIGH SCHOOL.

EACH HIGH SCHOOL HAS SOME PROGRAMS AVAILABLE TO THAT SCHOOL.

THE REASON FOR BUILDING THE CTE CENTER IS BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING SOME OF THE MOST, SOME OF THE VERY EXPENSIVE CLASS ITEMS AND MAKING IT AVAILABLE TO ALL SCHOOLS.

ALL THREE HIGH SCHOOLS WHERE CURRENTLY.

THEY HAVE CERTAIN CTE PROGRAMS AT EACH SCHOOL, BUT NOT AT ALL.

SO PEOPLE AT PLANO EAST DON'T HAVE ACCESS TO AUTO PAINT AND BODY BECAUSE IT'S AT PLANO SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL.

[00:30:06]

RIGHT. AND THEY COULD BUS THEM THERE.

THEY DO. BUT THAT THEY'RE ALSO LIMITED IN SPACE AT THOSE HIGH SCHOOLS.

AND THEY'RE TRYING TO EXPAND THEIR CTE PROGRAM.

SO THEY TAKE AND BUILD ONE CENTRAL CAMPUS FOR JUST CTE FOR THEIR LARGER, MORE ELABORATE PROGRAMS THAT THEY DON'T EITHER THEY DON'T HAVE TO REPEAT THREE TIMES, OR THEY CAN EXCEL AND MAKE IT A BETTER PROGRAM, MAKING IT BIGGER SCALE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

YEAH. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

YEAH. SO, LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN, IF WE CAN PULL UP THE SITE PLAN BECAUSE YOU, LIKE MOST OF THE OPPOSITION FROM THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ON COLUMBUS STREET.

COLUMBIA PLACE STREET.

SO YOU'RE LIKE IT'S JUST LIKE A SUGGESTION.

YOU'RE LIKE, IS THERE A WAY? AND YOU'RE LIKE AND WHEN I LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN ALSO THE LIKE THE ENTRANCE, THE BUS ENTRANCE FROM THE FROM COLUMBIA PLACE, THERE'S NO PARKING IN THAT AREA.

SO IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU'RE LIKE, IF YOU COULD ELIMINATE THIS ENTRANCE AND JUST KEEP THE TWO FROM PARKER AND THE STUDENTS FROM ALMA, AND THAT WILL, LIKE, ELIMINATE AND KEEP ALL THE, LIKE THE BUFFER, THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH THE 100 FOOT OR 150 FROM THE NOISE GENERATING.

BUT I DON'T HAVE A CROSS.

I DON'T HAVE A WAY OF CROSSING THE MEDIAN TO GET THE BUSSES IN OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE ON PARK.

THE REASON WE'RE THE WAY THE BUSSES ARE SET AND THE REASON THEY DROP OFF ON COLUMBIA IS BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THE MEDIAN BREAK IS FROM FOR THE ROAD TO CROSS.

SO IF I HAVE BUSSES COME FROM PLANO EAST, SO THEY COME VIA BUSSES COMING FROM PLANO EAST WHO ARE GOING TO BE COMING.

EASTBOUND. AND I GOT BUSSES COMING FROM PLANO SENIOR HIGH THAT ARE GOING TO BE COMING WEST.

I NEED TO BE ABLE TO TURN INTO A STREET AND I CAN'T TURN WITH.

I DON'T HAVE A MEDIAN CUT AND WE CAN'T DO A MEDIAN CUT.

IT'D BE TOO CLOSE TO MEET WITHIN THE CITY PARAMETERS ON A MEDIAN LIKE THE YEAH, I BELIEVE THERE'S A MEDIAN BREAK ON THE EASTERNMOST DRIVE IS DOES THAT NOT? MATT TILKI, OUR SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS HERE.

WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME ADDRESS SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS? GOOD EVENING, MATT TILKI, SENIOR TRAFFIC ENGINEER, CITY OF PLANO.

SO THE THERE IS A MEDIAN OPENING THAT CURRENTLY SERVES THE RACETRAC GAS STATION THAT THEY'RE SHOWING TO CONNECT TO.

SO YES, THAT COULD BE UTILIZED.

YES. THE LENGTH OF THAT TURN LANE IF YOU HAVE MULTIPLE BUSSES THAT PULL IN THERE, YOU COULD HAVE QUEUING ISSUES.

OH THANK YOU.

YEAH. THANK YOU. OKAY.

OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT OR THE TRAFFIC ENGINEER? I DID WITH MY QUESTIONS THAT I HAD BROUGHT UP.

HAVE YOU? I'M SURE YOU GUYS HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT ALL THESE THINGS.

THERE WAS THAT TRAFFIC CALMING DEVICE AT COLUMBIA.

I SUSPECT IT WILL BE AN ISSUE WITH THE BUSSES TRYING TO GET IN THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY INTENTION TO HAVE BUSSES GOING THAT FAR DOWN COLUMBIA.

OKAY, SO IT WAS FAR ENOUGH DOWN.

OKAY. IT'S FURTHER DOWN.

IT'S ACTUALLY ALMOST TO THE BOTTOM ENTRY.

IT'S KIND OF OKAY.

YEAH, YEAH. TOWARD THE BOTTOM OF THE STREET WHEN I, WHEN I DROVE IT THE OTHER DAY I WAS CAN YOU TELL US WHERE IT WAS CLOSER TO.

I FELT LIKE IT WAS CLOSER TO PARK.

YEAH. THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE THAT HE'S DESCRIBING IS ACTUALLY NORTH OF THE, OF THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY.

IT'S AT THE NEXT STREET.

IS IT AT SACRAMENTO TERRACE? IS THAT WHERE IT IS? I BELIEVE IT'S AT SACRAMENTO.

YES. AND THEN ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE DON'T USE THE RACETRAC TURN FOR THE BUSSES, BECAUSE ONE WILL GET CONGESTION FROM THE RACETRAC, AND TWO, IT'LL MAKE MY BUSSES THE WRONG DIRECTION ON THE SITE.

MY DOOR ON THE BUS TO EXIT KIDS IS ON.

THE CHILDREN IS ON ONE SIDE OF THE BUS, AND IT'S ONLY ON ONE SIDE AND I.

AND IF I HAVE, IF I HAVE TO COME IN OPPOSITE, THEN I BRING I BRING CHILDREN INTO TRAFFIC.

I NEED TO KEEP THEM TO WHERE MY BUS GOES THROUGH THE SITE IN ONE DIRECTION.

TO GO TO THE MICROPHONE.

IT'S NOT LIKE THE SAME.

NO, IT'S COMING DOWN AND IT THEY STACK.

YES. I'M TURNING. IF MY BUS COULD MAKE A U-TURN ON THE ROAD, I COULD ELIMINATE.

BUT THAT BUS ISN'T GOING TO MAKE THAT TURN.

I NEED 60FT.

AND THEN MY OTHER QUESTION WAS, WAS ABOUT THE DELIVERIES OF MATERIAL AND VARIOUS THINGS.

WELL, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE GOT A WHOLE BANK OF POTENTIALLY DOCS.

I ASSUME THAT'S WHAT THOSE ARE.

WE HAVE FOUR SHOPS.

WE HAVE ONE SHOP FOR AUTO BODY REPAIR, WHICH WOULD BE SMALL VEHICLES.

[00:35:05]

WE WOULDN'T REALLY HAVE MANY BIG TRUCKS DELIVERING.

WE HAVE WELDING WHICH WE COULD HAVE TRUCKS COMING IN FOR SUPPLIES ON THAT.

WE HAVE A BUILDING TRADE SHOP WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO BE BUILDING LITTLE MINI HOUSES, AND THEN WE HAVE A AC BUILDING MAINTENANCE WHERE THEY WORK ON AIR CONDITIONING SYSTEMS. I DON'T ANTICIPATE THERE BEING A LOT OF DELIVERIES.

IF THERE IS A DELIVERY, THERE'LL BE MAYBE ONE EVERY FEW MONTHS TO DELIVER RAW STEEL FOR THEIR WELDING PROGRAMS, BUT IT WOULD NOT BE SOMETHING THAT COULDN'T BE STAGED DURING THE AFTERNOON.

BESIDES THAT, IT'S GOING TO BE DROPPED IN A SERVICE YARD.

NOW, REMEMBER, MY SERVICE YARD IS SEVEN FEET BELOW THE ROAD.

PLUS I HAVE A TEN FOOT RETAINING WALL OR TEN FOOT SCREEN WALL, SO MY SHOPS ARE LITERALLY 17FT BELOW THE TOP OF THAT WALL.

SO WHEN I BRING ANY KIND OF VEHICLE AND I HAVE ANY KIND OF SERVICE TRUCK IN THERE, I'M NOT TOO CONCERNED WITH SOUND BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY HARD FOR IT TO BUFFER TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

YEAH, IT'S HARD TO SEE THAT WITH THE CONTOURS.

I JUST SEE THE EXISTING CONTOURS, NOT THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

WHEN THEY IF THEY LOOKED OVER MY OVER THE FENCE OR COULD SEE OVER THE EIGHT FOOT FENCE, THEY'RE NOT EVEN GOING TO SEE THE BAY DOORS.

OH, GREAT. THE BAY DOORS ARE, THE HIGHEST BAY DOOR IS 16FT AND THE 17 FOOT TO THE TOP OF THE WALL.

OKAY, THAT'S GOOD THEN.

IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE HAVE IT OVER THERE.

THE OTHER REASON IS THERE'S TWO MAIN FRONTS TO THIS BUILDING.

WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC ENTRANCES.

WE HAVE ONE, THE ENTRANCES ON PARK ARE COSMETIC OR TONI AND GUY, THE BANK AND THEIR GENERAL STORE.

THE ENTRANCES OFF OF ALMA IS THE RESTAURANT AND THE EVENT CENTER.

THE HOTEL RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT.

OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS? NONE OTHER.

ONE MORE THING ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE BECAUSE LIKE, IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO MEET THE OPEN SPACE.

SO MY QUESTION ACTUALLY TO STAFF BECAUSE ON THE NORTH SIDE WE DO HAVE THIS OPEN SPACE AND THE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO IS THIS GOING TO YOU KNOW LIKE SATISFY THEIR OPEN SPACE IN THAT AREA AT LEAST.

WELL WE HAVE AN OPEN SPACE IN THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING, WHICH IS A LARGE PLAZA THAT'S IN FRONT OF THE EVENT CENTER OR THE HOTEL RESTAURANT MANAGEMENT AND THE RESTAURANT, AND I'M BUILDING A 50 FOOT BUFFER WITH TREES AND EVERYTHING ON THE BACK SIDE, WHICH IS A PRETTY LARGE OPEN SPACE.

AND THEN I HAVE OPEN SPACE ACROSS THE FRONT ON PARK.

DO WE HAVE A DO WE HAVE AN ELEVATION VIEW THAT WE CAN SHOW? I'M SORRY. NO, I HAVE ONE IN MY POCKET.

AND ELEVATION, AN ELEVATION THAT WOULD BE A LITTLE BIT MORE DESCRIPTIVE.

YEAH, YEAH. DO WE IF YOU CAN PUT THIS PDF UP, I HAVE A WHOLE PRESENTATION THAT SHOWS THE WHOLE ALL THE ELEVATIONS.

LET'S SEE IF WE CAN ANSWER THIS OPEN SPACE QUESTION FIRST.

YES. I'M SORRY.

IF YOU WANT TO SUBMIT THOSE FOR CITY COUNCIL BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WE CAN YOU CAN MAKE A PRESENTATION.

OKAY. SO THE QUESTION THOUGH IS THIS, DO WE COMPLY WITH ALL THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS WITH THE PERIMETER, IS THIS MEETING THE OPEN SPACE? IT IS NOT MEETING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS GUIDANCE ON OPEN SPACE.

IT IS MEETING THE ZONING DISTRICTS REQUIREMENTS ON OPEN SPACE, LIKE THE LIKE THE COVERAGE AREA COVERAGE, LIKE THE LOT COVERAGE AND EVERYTHING.

YES. YES, MA'AM.

IT IS MEETING THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS.

IT IS NOT MEETING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE. WE HAVE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

WE DO NOT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

I'LL CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, SIR. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR THE APPLICANT AND YOUR PRESENTATION.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

I THINK THIS IS A VERY NICE PROJECT.

WITH RESPECT TO PARKING, I THINK THE PARKING NEEDS ARE DIMINISHED BECAUSE OF THE STAGGERED, THE STAGGERED ARRIVALS OF THE STUDENTS THROUGHOUT THE DAY, AND BECAUSE MANY OF THEM WILL BE COMING ON BUSSES AND NOT THEIR OWN PERSONAL CARS, AND BECAUSE EVEN SOME OF THEM WILL EVEN BE FROM THE NINTH AND 10TH GRADE HIGH SCHOOLS, AND THEY ARE PROBABLY ARE NOT DRIVING YET AT THAT POINT.

SO PARKING DOESN'T CONCERN ME.

[00:40:04]

NOISE DOES NOT CONCERN ME.

AS THE APPLICANT POINTED OUT, ANYTHING THAT IS LIKELY PRODUCING NOISE IS GOING TO BE SO BURIED BELOW GROUND LEVEL THAT IT'S PROBABLY NOT GOING TO PENETRATE.

I THINK THE LANDSCAPED BORDER ALONG COLUMBIA PLACE IS A NICE TOUCH.

IT MAKES THE LOT ATTRACTIVE.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ABOUT A SCHOOL THAT IS INHERENTLY UNSIGHTLY.

SCHOOLS TEND TO BE, WELL, VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC STREETS BORDERING THEM ON ALL FOUR SIDES.

LET'S FACE IT. I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYTHING ABOUT THIS SCHOOL THAT NEEDS A LOT OF SCREENING.

WITH RESPECT TO THE LOCATION AND THE LAND USE NEXT TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA ACROSS COLUMBIA PLACE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IT IS TYPICAL FOR SCHOOLS TO BE LOCATED EITHER RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT OR ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, BASICALLY, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE THEIR KIDS COME FROM.

YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SCHOOLS OPERATE IN DISTRICTS AND THE KIDS COME FROM WITHIN THAT DISTRICT, AND THE SCHOOL HAS TO BE LOCATED WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAT IT SERVES.

AND THAT'S ALWAYS A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

I THINK THE TRAFFIC FLOW HAS BEEN WELL THOUGHT OUT BY THE ARCHITECT AND BY THE PLANNERS AT THE BY THE SCHOOL DISTRICT.

I ESPECIALLY APPRECIATE THAT THEY'RE DIRECTING THE THE STUDENT ENTRANCE AND EXIT OFF OF ALMA DRIVE, WHICH IS A SCHEDULED, YOU KNOW, WHICH IS DESIGNED TO AVOID IMPACTING THE HOMES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF COLUMBIA PLACE.

AND FINALLY, I JUST WANT TO COMMENT ABOUT A COUPLE OF THE OBJECTIONS WE HAD, THE UNFAVORABLE INPUTS FROM A COUPLE OF CITIZENS WHO WERE QUESTIONING WHETHER IT WOULD HAVE BEEN A MORE COST EFFECTIVE USE OF TAX DOLLARS TO CONVERT AN EXISTING ABANDONED BUILDING RATHER THAN BUILD A NEW BUILDING.

I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE SCHOOL BOARD, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO.

IT'S NOT OUR PURVIEW TO REEXAMINE THE PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT SPENDING DECISIONS.

I THINK OUR PURVIEW IS TO EXAMINE THE LAND USE.

I THINK THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE.

YEAH. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER. HOLD ON.

SO I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM FOUR A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

BEFORE WE NEED TO DO THEM AS SEPARATE MOTIONS.

ACTUALLY I JUST WANTED TO ECHO A COUPLE OF THINGS AND PERHAPS ANSWER THE QUESTION ON WHY A NEW SCHOOL? I WORK IN FOUR OF THE FIRST SIX FIELDS THAT IS MENTIONED HERE, AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW THAT WE NEED THIS SKILL SET.

AND FOR PLANO THAT CLOSED ECOSYSTEM, IF WE'RE TRYING TO ATTRACT BUSINESSES TO THE LEGACY BUSINESS PARK, THE OLD ROSBOROUGH BUILDING AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

BY THE TIME MOST EMPLOYEES GO THROUGH A FOUR YEAR DEGREE, THE TECHNOLOGY HAS MOVED ON.

SO BEING ABLE TO CERTIFY OUR HIGH SCHOOL FOLKS IN THIS TANGIBLE SKILL SETS WILL BE CRITICAL TO ANCHORING FUTURE BUSINESS USE IN PLANO.

AND I'M GLAD TO SEE THAT THE SCHOOL DISTRICT IS ACTUALLY THINKING THAT FAR.

AND MISS ALALI TO SECOND THE MOTION BECAUSE I THINK IT'S NEEDED.

ALL RIGHT, SO I'VE GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE VOTE? ANYONE. ALL RIGHT.

ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SEVEN ZERO.

ITEM FOUR B, I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM FOUR B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

I'LL SECOND.

WHO SAID SECOND? YOU GOT IT. OKAY. GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

ANY COMMENTS? NONE. ALL IN FAVOR? RAISE YOUR HAND. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SEVEN ZERO.

ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

[5. (DS) Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2024-022: Request for a Specific Use Permit for Trade School on one lot on 0.1 acre located 190 feet west of Coit Road and 650 feet south of Rockingham Way. Zoned Retail. Project #ZC2024-022. Petitioner: Werbo, LLC. (Legislative consideration)]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR TRADE SCHOOL ON ONE LOT ON 0.1 ACRE, LOCATED 190FT WEST OF COIT ROAD AND 650FT SOUTH OF ROCKINGHAM WAY.

ZONED RETAIL PETITIONER IS WARBOW, LLC.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

ITERATION. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A TRADE SCHOOL.

FOR A MASSAGE SCHOOL WITHIN AN EXISTING LEASE SPACE.

THE LEASE SPACE IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT, ON THE SCREEN.

THE TRADE SCHOOL WILL SPECIALIZE IN LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPISTS.

TRADE SCHOOLS ARE ESTABLISHMENTS OTHER THAN PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, PRIVATE SCHOOLS, OR COLLEGES OFFERING TRAINING, INSTRUCTION IN TRADE, ART, OR OCCUPATION.

[00:45:07]

OF NOTE, LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPY IS A PERMITTED USE BY RIGHT IN THIS LOCATION.

STAFF CONSIDERS THE USE TO BE LOW INTENSITY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED, SIZE OF THE SUITE, AND AMOUNT OF PARKING REQUIRED.

NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE SITE OR SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE ANTICIPATED BY THIS BUSINESS FOR THIS REASON.

STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED TRADE SCHOOL TO BE COMPLEMENTARY WITH THE EXISTING USES.

THE MASSAGE SCHOOL WILL ALSO HAVE TEN STUDENTS WITH TWO INSTRUCTORS.

ACCORDING TO THE APPLICANT, AND THE SUBJECT IS DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

AND THE REQUEST FOR THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR TRADE SCHOOL IS CONSISTENT WITH THE APPLICABLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

AND STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES IN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER.

NEXT, CITYWIDE, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES.

OF NOTE. WE DID RECEIVE ONE ONLINE RESPONSE, BUT THEY CHECKED THAT THEY WERE OUTSIDE OF PLANO.

THE USE IS COMPLEMENTARY WITH THE ADJACENT USES AND WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE SURROUNDING AREA.

STAFF CONSIDERS THE USE TO BE LOW INTENSITY BASED ON THE NUMBER OF TRIPS GENERATED, SIZE OF THE SUITE, AND AMOUNT OF PARKING REQUIRED.

NO NEGATIVE IMPACTS TO THE SITE OR SURROUNDING LAND USES ARE ANTICIPATED.

THE REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE POLICIES AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. YEAH.

SO THE RESPONSE THAT I WAS LOOKING AT DOES LIST A PLANO ADDRESS.

SO OUR ONLINE RESPONSE MAP, YOU FIRST BEFORE YOU PUT IN THE ADDRESS CHECK IF YOU ARE WITHIN THE PLANO LIMITS.

AND THEY PUT NO, EVEN THOUGH THEY PUT A PLANO ADDRESS, I DID REACH OUT TO TRY AND CLARIFY THAT.

BUT FOR THIS PRESENTATION WE DECIDED TO LEAVE IT AS OUTSIDE OF PLANO SINCE THAT'S WHAT THEY CHECKED.

IF THIS DOES MOVE ON TO CITY COUNCIL AND WE HEAR BACK FROM THEM, WE'LL UPDATE THE RESPONSE BEFORE THEN.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

A COUPLE OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS.

RETAIL IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

LICENSED MASSAGE THERAPY WILL MOST LIKELY GENERATE MORE TRAFFIC THAN A SCHOOL.

IS THAT A FAIR ASSUMPTION, THEN GENERATE MORE TRAFFIC THAN WHAT USE? THAN THE TRADE SCHOOL USE, THE CURRENT USE BEEN ASKED FOR? YES, THAT'S A FAIR ASSUMPTION FOR THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE SITE.

ARE THERE OTHER RETAIL USES THAT COULD GENERATE EVEN MORE TRAFFIC THAN THE TRADE SCHOOL? YES. IF A RETAIL USE MOVED IN THERE, THEY WOULD REQUIRE PARKING AT 1 TO 200FT² OF FLOOR AREA VERSUS THE TRADE SCHOOL JUST REQUIRES PARKING FOR THE NUMBER OF INSTRUCTORS AND THE PARKING SUFFICES CURRENTLY FOR THE TRADE SCHOOL.

YES. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

ANYBODY? ALL RIGHT.

OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY REGISTERED TO SPEAK? WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE REGISTERED TO SPEAK.

BUT WE DO HAVE TWO REGISTERED OPINIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE PROJECT.

ALL RIGHT. SEEING NOBODY CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

ALL RIGHT. SO I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE SUP FOR THE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. SECOND.

GOT A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SEVEN ZERO.

ITEM NUMBER SIX.

[6. (JR) Discussion and Action – Work Session & Call for Public Hearing: Request to provide direction and call a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance regarding a proposed Expressway Corridor Overlay District. Project #CPH2024-009. Applicant: City of Plano. (Legislative consideration)]

WE'RE NOW ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

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

THIS IS A REQUEST TO PROVIDE DIRECTION AND CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING A PROPOSED EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT.

APPLICANT IS CITY OF PLANO AND THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS JORDAN ROCKERBIE, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

[00:50:02]

SO AS MENTIONED, THIS IS REGARDING THE CURRENT EHA POLICY.

BIT OF HISTORY HERE.

SO PLANO HAS HAD POLICIES LIMITING RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CLOSE TO OUR EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS.

INITIALLY, IT WAS A SIMPLE SETBACK FROM A HIGHWAY 121, AND THAT WAS GRADUALLY EXPANDED TO OTHER HIGHWAYS OVER TIME.

THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THAT WAS NOT ONLY TO IMPROVE THE LIVING CONDITIONS AND MAINTAIN A HIGH QUALITY OF LIFE FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS, BUT ALSO TO RESERVE SPACES CLOSE TO OUR EXPRESSWAYS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.

SO A FEW YEARS AGO, BACK IN 2019, THE CITY AMENDED THE POLICY TO WHAT IT IS TODAY, WHAT YOU'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH.

THIS WAS BASED ON A STUDY DONE BY THE CONSULTANT MH.

THEY DEVELOPED A MAP USING ON THE GROUND MEASUREMENTS OF NOISE AND GUIDELINES THAT WERE ADDED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR DEVELOPMENT.

WITHIN THAT, TORTURE AND MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS WERE ALSO ADDED TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THE GUIDELINES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN APPLY TO ALL THE ZONING CASES THAT ARE REVIEWED, AND THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPLY DURING ANY SITE PLAN REVIEW.

SO THIS IS THE MAP OF THE CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AREA BOUNDARIES.

SO AS YOU CAN SEE THEY FOLLOW OUR EXPRESSWAYS.

THEY ARE DIVIDED INTO A1 AND A2.

A2 IS THE ONE CLOSER TO THE EXPRESSWAY SUBJECT TO HIGHER LEVELS OF NOISE.

SOME FURTHER BACKGROUND ON NOISE.

IT VARIES BASED ON THE SPEED THE VEHICLES ARE TRAVELING AT, THE SIZE OF THE VEHICLES AND THEIR WEIGHTS, AS WELL AS THE VOLUME OF TRAFFIC ON THOSE EXPRESSWAYS.

NOISE IS MOST DISRUPTIVE TO PEOPLE AT NIGHT DURING DUE TO ITS EFFECT ON SLEEP AND THE POLICY GOAL, AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS TO LIMIT THE OUTDOOR NOISE HIS EXPOSURE TO 65DB LDN THAT DECIBELS LDN IS NOT A POINT IN TIME MEASUREMENT.

IT'S A OVERTIME MEASUREMENT THAT IS A WEIGHTED AVERAGE OF HOW MUCH NOISE THAT AREA IS EXPOSED TO.

SO JUST BECAUSE THERE IS A NOISE HIGHER THAN 65DB, IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE DBA, LDN IS GOING TO BE HIGHER THAN 65.

IF IT'S JUST A SINGLE POINT IN TIME MEASUREMENT.

THE UPDATED H.R REQUIREMENTS ADDED SOME CONSIDERATIONS FOR AIR QUALITY CLOSE TO THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS. HOWEVER, AIR QUALITY IS A LITTLE MORE DIFFICULT TO MEASURE IN THE FIELD BECAUSE IT CHANGES SO MUCH BASED ON WIND SPEED, THE WIND DIRECTION, AND CURRENT WEATHER, AS WELL AS THE TYPE OF POLLUTANT.

HOWEVER, MANY OF THE NOISE MITIGATION STRATEGIES ARE ALSO EFFECTIVE AT LIMITING EXPOSURE TO AIRBORNE POLLUTANTS.

SO SEVERAL MITIGATION STRATEGIES ARE REFERENCED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THERE'S A TOTAL OF SIX OF THEM THAT ARE SUGGESTED AS WAYS THAT YOU CAN ACHIEVE REDUCED NOISE AND REDUCED EXPOSURE TO AIR POLLUTANTS.

IN ADDITION, THREE OF THE MITIGATION STRATEGIES IN THE COMP PLAN ARE INCLUDED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS REQUIREMENTS FOR CERTAIN LAND USES. THIS IS THE BUFFERING REQUIREMENT WITH A NONRESIDENTIAL USE, SUCH AS A PARKING STRUCTURE, PLACING OPEN SPACES BEHIND THE BUILDING AWAY FROM AN EXPRESSWAY, AND LOCATING AIR INTAKES AT THE ELEVATION FURTHEST FROM THE SOURCE OF POLLUTION.

APPLICANTS CAN ALSO SUGGEST ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION STRATEGIES, WHICH YOU GUYS HAVE SEEN UPON OCCASION, AND THE COMP PLAN DOES RECOMMEND THAT MULTIPLE STRATEGIES ARE INCORPORATED TO BEST MITIGATE EXPOSURE TO NOISE AND POLLUTANTS.

CURRENTLY, ANY APPLICATION THAT SEEKS TO ADD A SENSITIVE LAND USE IN AN AREA WHERE THOSE USES ARE RESTRICTED IS REQUIRED TO INCLUDE AN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AREA.

SITE ANALYSIS.

THIS IS PREPARED BY A CONSULTANT HIRED BY THE APPLICANT, AND THAT CONSULTANT WILL GO INTO THE FIELD TO MEASURE THE EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURE TO CONFIRM THE MEASUREMENTS ARE ACCURATE TO WHAT WE HAVE FROM 2019, AND THEY WILL ALSO PROPOSE MITIGATION METHODS FOR HOW TO MEET THE POLICY GOAL OF 65DB LDN, AND THEY WOULD PROJECT THE ANTICIPATED FUTURE NOISE EXPOSURE ON THE DEVELOPMENT, BOTH WITH AND WITHOUT THE MITIGATION, SO THAT WE CAN GAUGE WHETHER OR NOT THE PROPOSED MITIGATION METHODS ARE ACTUALLY EFFECTIVE IN ACHIEVING THE POLICY GOAL.

[00:55:04]

THE SITE ANALYZES ARE VERY TECHNICAL DOCUMENTS.

STAFF EVEN HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF TROUBLE REVIEWING THEM SOMETIMES, SO WE RELY VERY HEAVILY ON THE EXPERTISE OF THAT APPLICANT'S CONSULTANT IN RELAYING ACCURATE INFORMATION TO US.

SO ON TO THE CURRENT APPLICATION ISSUES AND OPPORTUNITIES WITH THE EHA GUIDELINES.

SO TO DATE, WE'VE HAD NINE ZONING CASES PRESENTED TO THE COMMISSION THAT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THESE GUIDELINES.

SEVEN HAVE BEEN APPROVED, ONE WAS DENIED AND ONE THAT JCPENNEY DEVELOPMENT IS PENDING COUNCIL CONSIDERATION.

WE DO HAVE A 10TH ZONING CASE UNDER REVIEW RIGHT NOW FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, AND THAT WILL BE COMING TO YOU LATER THIS YEAR.

MOST, IF NOT ALL, OF THE NINE ZONING CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE YOU HAVE PROPOSED ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION STRATEGIES BEYOND WHAT IS SUGGESTED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND PLANNING REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

THESE OTHER MITIGATION STRATEGIES HAVE OFTEN BEEN VERY SIMILAR, BUT NOT IDENTICAL.

SO THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO STANDARDIZE NEW MITIGATION STRATEGIES BASED ON OUR EXPERIENCE TO DATE.

SO UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND ZONING ORDINANCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED TO RECENTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS A GOAL OF THE POLICY.

CURRENTLY, A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION IS AROUND THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR RESIDENTS.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE COULD ALSO BE UPDATED TO SIMPLIFY THE REVIEW PROCESS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EHAS, TO STRENGTHEN AND STANDARDIZE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS, AND TO IMPROVE TRANSPARENCY OF THE REVIEW PROCESS AND THE OUTCOMES.

SO THE BIG PROPOSAL IS TO MOVE THE EHA MAP OUT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS AN OVERLAY DISTRICT.

AND ALSO RENAMING OUR TWO EHA AREAS A1 AND A2 TO CONDITIONAL EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR AREA C-ECA AND RESTRICTED EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR AREA R-ECA.

THE CONDITIONAL EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR AREA.

DEVELOPMENT OF SENSITIVE USES WOULD BE PERMITTED IN THAT AREA WITH MITIGATION, AND ANY SENSITIVE USE WOULD BE RESTRICTED AND NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THAT RESTRICTED ECA.

WE ALSO SUGGEST ADDING NEW MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE BASED ON ZONING CASES APPROVED TO DATE, AND TO APPLY THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS TO ALL PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USES AND INSTITUTIONAL DWELLINGS.

CURRENTLY, THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ONLY APPLY TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES AND INSTITUTIONAL DWELLINGS, SO IF THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY OR A DUPLEX PROPOSAL, IT ONLY GETS CAPTURED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDELINES, NOT THE ZONING ORDINANCE GUIDELINES. AND FINALLY, WITHIN THAT PROPOSED ZONING OVERLAY TO MODIFY THE EXISTING REQUIREMENT FOR ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, TO APPLY A LITTLE BIT MORE BROADLY. THERE'D BE A COUPLE PROPOSED LAND USE CHANGES.

FIRST WOULD BE TO REMOVE NONRESIDENTIAL USES FROM THE LIST OF SENSITIVE USES.

SO CURRENTLY WE REQUIRE SOME FORM OF MITIGATION FOR DAYCARES, SCHOOLS AND PARKS.

BASED ON THE STUDY.

AND WE'RE SAYING THAT NOISE IS MOST DISRUPTIVE AT NIGHT.

AND WHILE SLEEPING, WE FEEL IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ONLY REQUIRE MITIGATION FOR THOSE USES WHERE PEOPLE ARE LIVING AND PRESENT AT NIGHT. THIS WAY, WE ARE APPLYING THE REGULATIONS WHERE THEY ARE MOST IMPACTFUL, AND REFOCUSING THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF THE POLICY TO INCLUDE BOTH QUALITY OF LIFE AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. THE FINAL SET OF PROPOSED ZONING CHANGES IS TO MOVE SOME OF THE EXISTING STANDARDS IN THE NBD, THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DESIGN DISTRICT FOR PARKING GARAGES OUT OF NBD, AND INTO THE LARGER ZONING ORDINANCE TO APPLY CITYWIDE.

THE COMMISSION HAS PREVIOUSLY EXPRESSED SOME CONCERN WITH ENCOURAGING PARKING STRUCTURES AS BUFFERS FOR SENSITIVE USES, BECAUSE OF THE LARGE AMOUNT OF VISUAL SPACE THAT THEY TAKE UP, AND THE HIGH VISIBILITY OF THESE STRUCTURES HAS THE POTENTIAL TO NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT.

SO, WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT BOTH THE THAT ALL ASPECTS OF DEVELOPMENT ARE HIGH QUALITY.

IN TERMS OF NEXT STEPS, THE COMMISSION, YOU GUYS ALREADY CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING BACK IN MAY TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

A SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARING WOULD BE NECESSARY TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND STAFF WOULD BE PLACING BOTH PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE SAME COMMISSION AGENDA.

[01:00:06]

SO STAFF ARE REQUESTING SOME DISCUSSION ON TWO QUESTIONS BEFORE THE RECOMMENDATION.

SO WE'RE ASKING SHOULD AN OVERLAY DISTRICT BE ESTABLISHED AS PROPOSED IN THE REPORT, AND SHOULD PARKING GARAGE STANDARDS BE IMPLEMENTED CITYWIDE AS PROPOSED? I WILL NOTE THAT THERE WAS A SUPPLEMENT TO YOUR PACKET THAT WENT OUT.

THE ONLY CHANGE IN THAT SUPPLEMENT IS WE ADDED THE UNDERLINE TO THE ENTIRELY NEW SECTION IN THERE.

IT WASN'T UNDERLINED IN THE ORIGINAL VERSION, AND WE ALSO ADDED THE SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE REMOVED AND MIGRATED TO THE NEW SECTION AS A STRIKETHROUGH IN THAT SUPPLEMENT.

SO ONCE WE HAVE THE DISCUSSION, THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO AMEND THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS, USE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ORDINANCE TO CREATE THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, AND THAT'S ALL FROM ME.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

OH. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO US BICKER ON EHA FOR SO LONG AND ACTUALLY STANDARDIZING AND INCORPORATING AIR QUALITY INTO THE STANDARDS.

VERY MUCH APPRECIATED.

TO THE AIR QUALITY QUESTION, I HAD ONLY ONE QUESTION.

THE PROPOSED STANDARD SAYS AN AIR FILTRATION SYSTEM CAPABLE OF ACCOMMODATING AN MERV 13 OR HIGHER.

I WONDER IF I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SUGGEST IS THE FILTER SHOULD BE A MERV 13 OR HIGHER.

BUT ACCOMMODATION TO ME THINK, I THINK OF IT AS A THE BOX WHICH COULD HOLD A MERV 13 BUT DOESN'T REQUIRE THEM PUT IN A MERV 13 IN THERE.

IS THERE A LITTLE TWEAK OF LANGUAGE WE CAN USE TO ENFORCE THAT? IS THE FILTER STANDARD THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY DRIVING TO? OKAY, YES, WE CAN MAKE THAT CHANGE.

YEAH. THAT'S A DISCUSSION THAT THAT WE CAN HAVE.

OKAY. IS THERE A QUESTION DOWN HERE? COMMISSIONER. SO WITH THE CONDITIONAL, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT AN OVERLAY DISTRICT AND STUFF, AND I KNOW YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, AND YOU SAID YOU ALLUDED TO A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED.

I BELIEVE YOU DESCRIBED IT AS AND I GUESS IT'S GOING TO FALL ON THIS CORRIDOR WITHIN THE POTENTIAL OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

SO IF IT'S RESTRICTED, DOES THAT DOES THAT MEAN THAT THERE IS NO RESIDENTIAL USE AND CONDITIONAL MEANS YOU CAN HAVE RESIDENTIAL WITH THE BUFFERING SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, BUFFERING STANDARDS.

WHAT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THERE? YES. SO THE RESTRICTED IS EXACTLY AS IT SOUNDS.

IT'S RESTRICTED. IT'S NOT PERMITTED.

CONDITIONAL IS IT'S ALLOWED WHEN YOU FOLLOW THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS.

THAT WOULD BE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

I WAS JUST CLARIFYING THAT'S I WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD IT RIGHT.

SO I JUST HAD I JUST HAD A I'M SORRY.

SORRY. I JUST HAD A QUICK COMMENT, JUST MAYBE A LITTLE HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE.

THIS IS GOOD CLARIFICATION ON THIS BECAUSE I CAN RECALL IN YEARS PAST THERE WAS LOTS OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS.

SO HAVING IT CLEAR AND HAVING IT DEFINED I THINK IS A GOOD THING MOVING FORWARD.

MR. BRONSKY.

OKAY. SO, I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS.

FIRST OF ALL, I'M VERY HAPPY ABOUT THE MERV 13 PIECE FOR PARTICULATES.

SO UNDER THE CESA OR ECA NUMBER TWO, LETTER A, IT TALKS ABOUT THE INTERIOR NOISE.

AND I THINK THAT'S A MUCH BETTER WAY OF GOING ABOUT IT THAN MEASURING EXTERIOR NOISE.

BUT LETTER B, I'VE GOT A QUESTION ABOUT.

IT SAYS ALL DWELLINGS, IT WOULD SEEM, IS THAT OVER PRESCRIPTIVE.

BECAUSE IF WE'RE ABLE TO VERIFY ONE, THE NEXT ONE OVER.

IS THAT TOO MUCH? IT IS A DISCUSSION THAT WE'VE HAD WITH OUR BUILDING INSPECTIONS TEAM PARTICULARLY ON HOW MANY OF THE UNITS THEY WOULD ANTICIPATE RECEIVING A REPORT FROM.

IF WE GO WITH A STANDARD THAT REQUIRES A REPORT FOR 100% OF THE UNITS, OR IF IT'S A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THE UNITS. THAT'S CERTAINLY SOMETHING WE CAN EXPLORE FURTHER TO SEE WHERE THAT SWEET SPOT IS.

WHAT'S PRESENTED TO YOU IS IT'S A DRAFT OF WHERE, WHERE WE'RE LOOKING AND THAT'S.

[01:05:04]

BUT YEAH, JUST IT SEEMED TO ME THAT EVERY UNIT SEEMED TO BE MAYBE A LITTLE TOO MUCH, BUT YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO LEAVE THAT TO YOU GUYS TO, TO FIGURE OUT.

AND THEN ON PAGE TEN, I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE VEHICLE PARKING AND STORAGE STANDARDS.

WHAT IS FENESTRATION? THE WINDOWS. SO THE WINDOW OPENINGS OF THE PARKING GARAGE.

OKAY. ON LETTER B, GARAGES MUST BE SCREENED SO THAT NO VEHICLE HEADLIGHTS OR LIGHT FIXTURES FROM WITHIN THE STRUCTURE ARE VISIBLE FROM THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR STREETS.

SO WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN'T SEE NOT ONLY HEADLIGHTS, BUT EVERY LIGHT FIXTURE IN THE FACILITY.

THAT CHRISTINA'S GOING TO ADDRESS THAT.

I HAVE SOME SPECIFIC BACKGROUND ON THAT.

WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS BUILT AT LEGACY CENTRAL, THE PARKING GARAGE.

IF ANY OF YOU ALL HAVE DRIVEN DOWN US 75 AT NIGHT.

IT'S PRETTY DISTRACTING, I WANT TO SAY, BECAUSE THE LIGHTS ARE ALL VERY VISIBLE FOR AS YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN 75 AND IT'S BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE UP INTO THE GARAGE AND SEE ALL THE INTERIOR LIGHTING.

AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT EXPERIENCE, WE HAVE DECIDED THAT THIS STANDARD IS BENEFICIAL BECAUSE WE THINK IT'S A IT CAN BE A DISTRACTION TO TRAFFIC. OKAY.

YEAH I GET THAT. AND THEN LETTER D THE PARKING GARAGES MUST NOT EXCEED THE HEIGHT OF THE SURROUNDING BUILDINGS AND MUST NOT BE VISUALLY DOMINANT. SO HOW DO WE PUT A PARKING GARAGE OUT THERE IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING AND THEN MAKE IT NOT VISUALLY DOMINANT? YEAH, YOU'LL YOU'LL ALWAYS HAVE ONE, AT LEAST ONE FACADE OF THE BUILDING BEING VISUALLY DOMINANT WHEN IT IS SCREENING A BUILDING.

SO THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT NEEDS FURTHER WORK IF IT'S BEING MOVED OUT OF THE WHERE IT CURRENTLY IS AN NBD, WHICH DOESN'T HAVE THE SAME EHA OR ECA CONSTRAINTS, WHERE MOVING IT LARGE INTO THE LARGER ORDINANCE, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE NEED.

I JUST WANT TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I AM ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT I TALK ABOUT HOW THE GARAGES, I THINK, LOOK.

BUT I ALSO WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE REASONABLE WITH OUR LANGUAGE SO THAT IT DOESN'T THERE ISN'T CONTRADICTORY INFORMATION IN DIFFERENT PLACES THAT WE CAN'T MAKE SOMETHING VISUALLY DOMINANT, BUT THERE'S NO OTHER WAY TO PUT IT INTO THE.

SO THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

I THINK YOU GUYS WERE VERY RESPONSIVE TO OUR CALLS AND INTEREST IN ADDRESSING THIS STUDY.

YOU KNOW, I DID WANT TO CAN I ASK ONE OTHER QUESTION? I HAD SOMEBODY CALL ME AND ASK.

SO IN THE ORIGINAL STUDY THAT IS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE LANGUAGE THAT THE STUDY USED TALKED ABOUT HIGH VOLUME STREETS, I THINK WAS THE TERMINOLOGY IT USED.

WHAT WAS OUR, WAS IT WHAT, JUST WHAT WE'VE ALREADY DONE? AND THAT'S WHY WE STICK WITH THE OVERLAY DISTRICT BEING THE FOUR TYPE A ROADS AS OPPOSED TO CONSIDERING A TYPE B ROAD AS WELL, AND THE POLLUTION OR SOUND AND PARTICULATES THAT IT MIGHT PRODUCE.

I WOULD DEFER TO CHRISTINA DEY ON THAT QUESTION.

THIS BECAUSE I THINK THIS POLICY IS TWOFOLD.

IT'S FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AS FAR AS OUR EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS, SPECIFICALLY, WHAT'S OUR LAND USE ALONG THESE CORRIDORS? IS IT GOING TO REMAIN COMMERCIAL BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS WE HAVE ON THE AVAILABILITY OF LAND, AND PARTICULARLY THE DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THE COMMUNITY? IT WOULD BE VERY EASY TO UTILIZE ALL THE VACANT LAND IN THESE CORRIDORS FOR RESIDENTIAL, WERE WE TO ALLOW IT.

SO IT'S BOTH TO PROTECT FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND PRESERVE WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THE VERY GOOD QUALITY OF LIFE OF PLANO RESIDENTS, GENERALLY IN A NEIGHBORHOOD OR MIXED USE SETTING.

SO THAT'S THE PURPOSE BEHIND KEEPING THIS TO THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS.

WE COULD LOOK AT EXPANDING IT TO OTHER PLACES IF WE WANT TO, BUT I THINK THERE'S NOT SO MUCH VACANT LAND ON OUR OTHER CORRIDORS, SO IT MIGHT NOT BE AS IMPACTFUL.

YEAH, IT COULD BE IF WE WERE IN THE PROCESS OF REDEVELOPMENT THINGS.

BUT NO, I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THE RATIONALE BEHIND IT.

I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORIGINAL STUDY VERSUS WHAT OUR INTENTIONS WERE FOR THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PIECE HERE FOR THIS.

SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

GOOD JOB. OTHER QUESTIONS.

AND REGARDING THE PARKING, I KNOW THAT YOU LIKE I WASN'T INVOLVED IN THE ALL THE PREVIOUS STUDIES AND EVERYTHING, BUT YOU LIKE.

SO NOW WE'RE WANTING THE PARKING.

AND IF IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE A DOMINANT STRUCTURE, IT'S TO BE BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE THOROUGHFARE.

[01:10:07]

SO, LIKE, IN MY OPINION, YOU LIKE, WE CAN JUST, LIKE, PUSH THE PARKING TO THE BACK.

AND BECAUSE YOU'RE LIKE DRIVING DOWN THE TOLLWAY, YOU SEE THE BUILDING, THE HIGH RISE BUILDINGS IS CLOSER TO THE, TO THE HIGHWAY.

AND IT FEELS MORE, YOU KNOW, LIKE MORE HUMANE YOU KNOW, LIKE, BUT WHEN YOU DRIVE THROUGH THE 75 WITH ALL THESE PARKING AREAS, I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT PARKING GARAGES, BUT YOU LIKE PARKING LOTS, AND IT FEELS LIKE.

SO YOU KNOW, LIKE, SO DISTANCE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, EVEN ANY DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO BE AROUND THE THOROUGHFARE IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, YOU DON'T FEEL LIKE IT'S CLOSE IN CLOSE TO THE STREET.

SO IN MY OPINION, LIKE IF WE WANT TO DO ANY PARKING OR PARKING GARAGES, WE WOULD PUSH IT BEHIND THE LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS.

BUT THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT AND SUGGESTION ON THAT.

ALL RIGHT. YOU WANT TO ANSWER THAT? I CAN SAY I THINK THIS BECOMES CHALLENGING BECAUSE IT'S WHAT USE DO YOU PUT THAT'S TALL ENOUGH TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS? THAT THAT BUFFER BECOMES A CHALLENGE IN A MARKET WHERE WE COULD SUPPORT TALLER BUILDINGS, LIKE BASICALLY OFFICE BUILDINGS, GENERALLY SPEAKING, THAT YOU COULD HAVE OFFICE BUILDINGS AND THEN PARKING GARAGES AND THEN RESIDENTIAL SORT OF TOWARD THE INTERIOR.

THAT WOULD BE AN IDEAL SITUATION, RIGHT? I JUST DON'T KNOW.

WE'RE IN THE MARKET THAT SUPPORTS THAT TODAY.

SO IF WE WANT TO ENCOURAGE REDEVELOPMENT OF SOME OF THESE PIECES, WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT SOME CREATIVE SOLUTIONS.

SO THAT IS TRUE.

YEAH. BUT YOU'RE LIKE BUT WITH THE MITIGATION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING, WE CAN STILL HAVE THE LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL TOWER CLOSER AND LIKE WITH THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR LIKE OTHER MITIGATION.

YEAH, THAT'S AND THAT'S STILL AN OPTION I THINK FOR PEOPLE IF THEY HAVE THE LAND TO DO THAT.

ABSOLUTELY. AND LIKE IN MY OTHER NOTES IS ON LIKE PAGE, WHICH PAGE, IT'S 103. AND C-ECA POINT NUMBER TWO B FOR THE DECIBEL FOR THE INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL.

SO LIKE IT SAYS MAXIMUM LEVEL OF 45 DECIBEL.

IS THAT FOR THE INTERIOR? BECAUSE YOU LIKE PER CODE, IT SAYS NOT LESS THAN 45.

SO WE SHOULD BE LIKE WE CAN BE OVER 45 BUT NOT MAXIMUM 45.

SO I DON'T KNOW IF I'M MISTAKEN OR BECAUSE PER CODE LIKE PER IBC, IT SAYS NOT LESS FOR ANY INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL. IT SAYS LIKE ON CHAPTER 12 IT SAYS NOT LESS THAN 45.

THAT'S FOR THE FOR THE HOUSING AND IBC.

WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ON THE BUILDING CODE.

OH YEAH I WAS I HAVE IT HERE PULLED UP SO IT SAYS NOT LESS THAN 45.

SO 45 IS LIKE MINIMUM.

AND THEN YOU CAN BE LIKE 65 RIGHT LIKE THIS.

FOR INTERIOR. SO IT'S LIKE A MAXIMUM OF 45.

SO IT'S THE OPPOSITE.

IT WOULD BE THE OPPOSITE. IT SAYS LIKE THERE IT'S NOT LESS THAN 45 OR PROBABLY IT'S A DIFFERENT UNIT.

I THINK IT'S A DIFFERENT USE.

IT'S A DIFFERENT USE FOR RESIDENTIAL INTERIOR.

I'M SURPRISED THAT THEY DO THAT.

YEAH. YEAH. SO IT'S A MAXIMUM OF.

I JUST WANTED TO CHECK.

YEAH. ALL RIGHT.

WE'LL DOUBLE CHECK ON THAT, 45 IS THE HUD STANDARD.

SO WHEN YOU DO A HUD ENVIRONMENTAL YOU HAVE TO USE THE 45 DECIBEL STANDARD.

COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

EXCUSE ME. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

EXCUSE ME, ON WHETHER OR NOT WE SHOULD CALL A PUBLIC HEARING, I THINK DEFINITELY WE SHOULD.

I THINK THIS IS AN IMPORTANT MATTER ON WHICH WE SHOULD SOLICIT PUBLIC INPUT.

I THINK AN OVERLAY DISTRICT IS CALLED FOR BECAUSE OF THE PROXIMITY TO MAJOR HIGHWAYS, CREATES SPECIAL CONDITIONS THAT DO NOT APPLY TO THE CITY AS A WHOLE. AND SO AN OVERLAY DISTRICT WOULD PROVIDE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS APPLICABLE TO THOSE SPECIAL CONDITIONS.

DO I ASSUME CORRECTLY THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BE GRANDFATHERED IN? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY.

AND WOULD WE BE PRESERVING THE 65 AND 75 DECIBEL CUTOFF LEVELS FOR THE CONDITIONAL AND THE RESTRICTIVE ZONES? THRESHOLD LEVELS, I SHOULD SAY.

SEBASTIAN I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT'S PART OF THE ORDINANCE THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, BUT I'LL DEFER TO THOSE SPECIFIC THRESHOLDS ARE NOT IN THE CURRENT DRAFT.

[01:15:04]

IN YOUR PACKET, HOWEVER, THE CONTOURS THAT ARE IN THE CURRENT MAP IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ARE BASED ON THOSE NUMBERS.

AND THOSE ARE NOT THOSE CONTOURS ARE NOT PROPOSED TO CHANGE.

THEY WOULD BE BE THE CONTOURS WE WOULD USE FOR THE OVERLAY.

SO THE CONTOURS ARE BASED ON THE DECIBEL LEVELS.

THAT IS CORRECT. WHICH BRINGS ME TO MY NEXT QUESTION.

WE'VE HAD SOME DISCUSSION AND I KNOW THERE MAY NOT BE CURRENT FUNDING TO DO THIS, BUT WE'VE HAD DISCUSSION ABOUT UPDATING THE CONTOURS EVERY SO OFTEN TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY REFLECT ACTUAL NOISE CONDITIONS, AS THEY MAY BE CHANGING OVER TIME.

I DON'T SEE THAT THIS PROPOSAL FOR AN OVERLAY DISTRICT WOULD IN ANY WAY OBVIATE THE NEED FOR PERIODIC UPDATE OF OUR CONTOURS. CORRECT.

IT IS STILL OUR INTENTION WHEN FUNDING IS AVAILABLE TO UPDATE THE CONTOURS.

RIGHT. OKAY.

AND FINALLY, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN YOU'RE DEALING WITH RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS, WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT IS QUALITY OF LIFE.

OKAY. SO WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT PRESERVING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, I INTERPRET THAT TO MEAN THAT THE NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WOULD, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENTS WOULD HAVE MORE FREEDOM TO DEVELOP, WHEREAS WE WOULD STILL BE PRESERVING THE QUALITY OF LIFE CONSIDERATIONS FOR OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

IS THAT AN ACCURATE STATEMENT? OF WHAT? THAT IS ACCURATE? YES. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

ALL RIGHT, I HAVE.

OKAY. ONE MORE QUESTION. I'VE GOT ONE TOO, SO DON'T MAKE A MOTION YET.

NO I WASN'T. SO AND THIS MAY BE YOUR QUESTION.

HOW DOES THIS PROPOSAL WORK TOGETHER? HAND IN HAND WITH THE REWRITE COMMITTEE FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE PROCESS THAT'S ALREADY IN PLACE.

DOES THIS BELONG MORE IN THAT BUCKET AS OPPOSED TO US, AND THEN COME TO US AFTER THAT OR.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT MIXING THINGS UP, I GUESS.

NO. SO THIS WOULD THIS IS A SEPARATE FROM THAT REWRITE PROCESS.

THAT'S A LONG PROCESS, AS YOU KNOW.

AND THIS MATTER THE COMMISSION HAS EXPRESSED, A SENSE OF URGENCY WITH THIS MATTER.

SO THIS IS HANDLED SEPARATELY AND WOULD COME AS AN AMENDMENT TO THE EXISTING ZONING ORDINANCE AND WOULD BE MAINTAINED IN THE REWRITE UNLESS WE NEEDED TO MAKE TWEAKS TO IT THROUGH THAT REWRITING PHASE.

SO IS THE, IS FREEZING NICKELS OF THE UNDERSTANDING OF THE PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BE INSERTING SOME NEW THINGS INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO THAT WHENEVER THE REWRITE COMMITTEE STARTS LOOKING AT IT, THAT IT'S ALL TOGETHER FOR THEM.

CORRECT. THERE'S A COUPLE ZONING AMENDMENTS THAT ARE IN PROCESS.

THIS IS ONE THE SIGN SECTION OF THE ORDINANCE IS ANOTHER, AND THE CONSULTANT IS AWARE THAT THOSE ARE HAPPENING OUTSIDE OF THE LARGER REWRITE PROCESS.

OKAY. THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE QUESTION OF MY OWN.

ON THE TESTING FOR INTERIOR NOISE.

MUCH LIKE COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, I THINK THIS IS ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE INSIDE THE UNITS, WHICH I APPRECIATE.

THAT'S REALLY KIND OF HOW WE'VE REFOCUSED THIS, THIS REVISION.

BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO A JUST A POINT IN TIME CHECK OF THE NOISE THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WALK IN AT 3:00 ON A WEEKDAY AFTERNOON AND SAY, YEAH, WE PASS THAT.

THERE'S SOME SORT OF A 48, 72 HOUR TEST BECAUSE NOISE AT 3 A.M.

IS VERY DIFFERENT THAN NOISE AT 3:00 PM AND VICE VERSA.

AND IF THIS IS ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE FOR FAMILIES THAT LIVE NEARBY, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, LITTLE ONES THAT TAKE NAPS DURING THE DAY OR PEOPLE THAT ARE TRYING TO WORK AT HOME. IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT NIGHTTIME NOISE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT THAT DOCUMENTS THAT THEY'VE ACHIEVED THAT BELOW THE LEVEL OVER A 24 HOUR PERIOD, BUT THAT WE TEST IT OVER A WEEK, DAY, WEEKDAY WEEKEND.

YOU KNOW, FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THAT IN.

IF Y'ALL COULD WORK WITH BUILDING DEPARTMENT TO FIGURE OUT HOW THEY'RE GOING TO TEST THAT, BECAUSE THAT MAY BE A CHALLENGE.

CERTAINLY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ANYBODY CARE TO MAKE A MOTION? I MOVE WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT FOR THE EXPRESS CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. SECOND.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? ALL IN FAVOR, SAY AYE. RAISE YOUR HAND.

ANY OPPOSED? ALL RIGHT.

PASSES SEVEN ZERO.

[7. (MB) Discussion and Action: Election of 1st and 2nd Vice Chairs – Nomination and Election of 1st and 2nd Vice Chairs for the Planning & Zoning Commission.]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN.

THIS IS A DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM FOR THE NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF FIRST AND SECOND VICE CHAIRS FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

[01:20:08]

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION.

I'VE. CHRISTINA AND I MET ON THIS A COUPLE OF TIMES, AND AT MY ENCOURAGEMENT, WE'VE CHANGED THE PROCESS A LITTLE BIT.

SO LET ME TELL YOU HOW WE'RE GOING TO DO THINGS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THIS GO ROUND.

WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TO LET THE COMMISSIONERS MAKE NOMINATIONS.

WE'RE NOT IN THE FORM OF MOTIONS.

JUST IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO BE NOMINATED, WANTS TO NOMINATE THEMSELVES TO MAKE NOMINATIONS ONCE THE NOMINATIONS ARE CLOSED, WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT ALL THE NOMINATIONS.

THEN WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO DO A WRITTEN BALLOT THAT'S COUNTED.

AND IF WE HAVE MORE THAN TWO NOMINEES AND ONE PERSON DOESN'T GET IN, TODAY'S 6 OR 7 OF US, FOUR VOTES IN THE FIRST BALLOT, THE LOWEST VOTE GETTER GETS STRUCK OFF AND WE GO AGAIN.

SO WE'RE GOING TO DO A LITTLE MORE DEMOCRACY MAYBE THAN WE HAD IN THE PAST.