Jan 06, 2025 Planning and Zoning

COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? WE DO NOT.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER ALALI.

I SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE.

THE MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.

THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER TWO.

[2. (DS) Public Hearing – Replat: Townhomes @ 10th Street, Block A, Lots 1-8 & 1X – Eight Single-Family Residence Attached lots and one common area lot on 0.9 acre located at the southeast corner of K Avenue and 10th Street. Zoned Single-Family Residence Attached. Project #R2024-045. Applicant: Metropolitan Interests Corporation. (Administrative consideration)]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A REPLAT FOR TOWNHOMES AT 10TH STREET BLOCK A LOTS ONE THROUGH EIGHT AND ONE X WHICH ARE EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED LOTS AND ONE COMMON AREA LOT ON 0.9 ACRE.

[00:05:01]

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF KAY AVENUE AND 10TH STREET.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED.

THE APPLICANT IS METROPOLITAN INTEREST CORPORATION AND THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

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

THE PURPOSE FOR THIS REPLAT IS TO PROPOSE EIGHT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED LOTS IN ONE COMMON AREA LOT.

WE DID RECEIVE ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS? TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

LOOKS LIKE. LOOKS LIKE YOU ANSWERED THEM ALL.

OH, SORRY, MR. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

YEAH. IS THIS PROPOSAL CONSISTENT WITH THE PROPOSED TRANSIT RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE AS DESCRIBED IN THE PROPOSED TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT DART SILVER LINE PLAN, WHICH WILL WHICH WE WILL BE CONSIDERING TONIGHT.

YES, THIS PROJECT ACTUALLY CAME BEFORE THOSE PLANS AND IS THE ALLEY HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED.

SO THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT TO ACCEPT THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.

BUT GENERALLY, YES, IT DOES MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PLAN.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS? SEEING NONE I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE ONLINE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

IF THERE ARE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

COMMISSION. ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. SEEING. NONE.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER TONG.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM TWO, ACCORDING TO BASE STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM TWO CONSISTENT WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE.

WHOOP, WHOOP. HANG ON.

OH. I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

I THOUGHT YOU WERE GOING TO SECOND.

WELL, NO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A BRIEF COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WHETHER THIS WAS PROPOSED BEFORE OR AFTER.

YOU KNOW, THE SILVER LINE PLAN CAME ALONG.

THIS LOOKS LIKE, I THINK, OUR FIRST CASE TOWARD IMPLEMENTING THE SILVER LINE PLAN.

SO I THINK THESE PEOPLE HAVE THE HONOR OF BEING FIRST, AND I HOPE THEY ARE MORE LIKE IT TO FOLLOW.

SO COULDN'T AGREE MORE.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NOBODY. OKAY. PLEASE VOTE.

AND THAT PASSES 8 TO 0.

ITEM NUMBER 3A.

I GUESS WE'LL TAKE THREE A AND THREE B, READ THEM AT THE SAME TIME.

YES, SIR. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE A IS A REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 71 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL TO INCLUDE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY

[Items 3A. & 3B.]

RESIDENCE ATTACHED AND MODIFY STANDARDS FOR PHASING OPEN SPACE AND OTHER RELATED STANDARDS.

ON 89.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY.

305FT NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.

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

THE PETITIONERS ARE CENTENNIAL WATERFALL, WILLOW BEND LLC, THE NEIMAN MARCUS GROUP LLC, MACY'S, MACY'S RETAIL HOLDINGS, LLC, AND DILLARD'S, INC. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE B IS A REVISED CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SHOPPES AT WILLOWBEND.

BLOCK ONE LOTS ONE R, 356R, ONE X THROUGH THREE X AND 13377.

THIS IS A REGIONAL MALL, RETAIL, PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, EIGHT MULTIFAMILY UNITS, 907 MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 50 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED UNITS, OPEN SPACE, HOTEL AND VEHICLE PARKING LOT ON 72 ACRES.

I'M SORRY, 72 LOTS ON 76.2 ACRES.

LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY, 305FT NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD.

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

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

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

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THIS CASE TO THE FEBRUARY 3RD, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO INCORPORATE STANDARDS FOR SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED.

BASED ON THIS, STAFF WILL NEED TO SEND OUT NEW PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES AND BASED ON THIS CHANGE, STAFF DOES FEEL LIKE THE FEBRUARY 3RD MEETING IS AN APPROPRIATE DATE TO

[00:10:08]

TABLE TWO. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, I THINK WE'RE ALL AWARE OF THE REQUEST BY THE DEVELOPER TO TABLE THIS.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

I KNOW YOU MIGHT HAVE SOME FOR THE DEVELOPER, BUT LET'S ADDRESS TECHNICAL QUESTIONS TO STAFF AT THIS POINT.

ANYBODY? NO.

WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING POSTED FOR TONIGHT, BUT GIVEN THE REQUEST TO TABLE, I'M NOT GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

BUT I KNOW THE COMMISSION HAS SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

AND THEN IF THERE IS ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THAT DID COME FOR THIS CASE, I WILL GIVE YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, ALTHOUGH WE'RE NOT GOING TO OFFICIALLY OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO COMMISSIONERS AND ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, MR. DAHLSTROM. BILL DAHLSTROM, 2323 ROSS AVENUE.

YES, SIR. SO HERE WE ARE AGAIN TALKING ABOUT TABLING.

I'VE GOT SOME CONCERNS WHETHER WE CAN GET EVERYTHING DONE BY THE FEBRUARY THE 1ST FEBRUARY MEETING DATE, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE'VE NOW SEEN A COUPLE TIMES WHERE WE'VE HAD TO TABLE THINGS.

WHERE DO YOU HOW DO YOU FEEL ABOUT THE FEBRUARY 3RD MEETING? BACK IN DECEMBER, WHEN WE REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT, WE HAD SOME OUTSTANDING ISSUES WITH THE CITY STAFF.

WE RESOLVED ALL THOSE ISSUES.

WE WERE READY TO GO TONIGHT.

WITHIN THE LAST COUPLE OF WEEKS, AS WAS MENTIONED, WE HAD SOME FOLKS APPROACH US FOR A SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND WE FOUND OUT THAT OUR STANDARDS DIDN'T ALLOW THAT.

WE BELIEVE WE CAN WORK WITH STAFF, INCORPORATE SOME OF THE STANDARDS THAT ARE ALREADY PROVEN IN THE CITY, HAVE BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL IN THE CITY AND BRING IT BACK.

I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S GOING TO TAKE VERY LONG AT ALL TO INCORPORATE THOSE STANDARDS.

SO I AGAIN, I'VE GOT SOME CONCERN ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF TIME THAT WE USE IN TABLING THINGS AND BOTH IN YOUR TIME AS WELL AS STAFF TIME AND THE PEOPLE THAT VOLUNTEER TO SERVE HERE ON THE COMMISSION.

AND I'M WONDERING IF IN ORDER TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING IS ALL THE I'S ARE DOTTED AND T'S ARE CROSSED.

IF YOU MIGHT BE WILLING FOR US TO MOVE IT TO THE FEBRUARY 17TH MEETING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT I MEAN, WE CAN.

WE BELIEVE THAT EVERYTHING ELSE WAS ALREADY COVERED AND READY TO GO TONIGHT.

BUT FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY AND AGAIN, IT'S GOING TO BE BASICALLY TAKING WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE AND INCORPORATING IT INTO OUR PD.

SO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO TAKE VERY LONG TO DO THAT.

I HAVE CONCERNS.

I MEAN, I'VE LOOKED AT THE PLAN.

I'VE LOOKED AT WHAT YOU'VE SUBMITTED.

AND I THINK THERE ARE SOME, SOME AREAS THAT YOU MIGHT BE INTERESTED TO HEAR THAT ARE OF CONCERN.

I MEAN, WE DON'T HAVE TO TABLE IT TONIGHT FOR YOU.

I MEAN, IF YOU'D WE COULD DO A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS, BUT I, I REALLY.

THERE ARE SOME THINGS IN YOUR PLAN THAT I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT ADJUSTED AND I THINK THAT MAYBE HEARING FEEDBACK FROM STAFF AS WELL AS THE COMMISSION MIGHT HELP YOU TO CLARIFY SOME THINGS FOR US THAT MIGHT TAKE A LITTLE BIT LONGER OR MIGHT NEED TO BE LOOKED INTO A LITTLE BIT MORE. JUST A QUESTION.

ARE YOU ARE YOU IS THAT ALL, COMMISSIONER? YEAH. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY. JUST A QUICK QUESTION.

THIS IS PROBABLY MORE TO STAFF.

SO IN A SITUATION LIKE MR. DAHLSTROM JUST MENTIONED, DO WE HAVE A PROCESS WHERE IF WE ADOPT PD LANGUAGE AND STANDARDS AND A NEW ASK FOR A TYPE OF BUILDING COMES AROUND, DO WE HAVE A PD AMENDMENT PROCESS THAT WOULD HAVE ALLOWED US TALK THROUGH WHAT WAS SUBMITTED AND GIVE THEM THE ABILITY TO COME AFTER THE FACT TO ADJUST LANGUAGE WITHIN THEIR PROPOSED PD.

SO AFTER THE PD IS APPROVED, THE ONLY PROCESS TO AMEND IT IS TO GO THROUGH THE OTHER ZONING CHANGE TO AMEND THE PD STIPULATIONS, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE ASKING.

RIGHT. OKAY. SO THAT WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE THE DRIVER.

[00:15:04]

WHY THEY WOULD RATHER TABLE SO THAT ONCE WE VOTE ON SOMETHING IT'S COMPLETE.

AND SINCE THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE WHOLE RIGMAROLE.

SO, MR. BELL, JUST A QUESTION TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

DO WE HAVE A ANOTHER PD WITH SOME SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL STIPULATIONS THAT'S A GO BY? WE CAN USE THAT WE'VE USED IN MULTIPLE PLACES? OR ARE WE CREATING SOMETHING OUT OF WHOLE CLOTH? SURE, YEAH. WE DO.

PRELIMINARY DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT HAVE BEEN ABOUT THAT VERY THING, AND IT WOULD BE AN EASY CHANGE TO INCORPORATE IF THAT IS THE ONLY CHANGE MADE.

SO WE THINK FEBRUARY 3RD, WE COULD ACCOMMODATE THAT.

HOWEVER, IF THERE'S ANY OTHER CHANGES WE CAN'T SPEAK TO HOW LONG THOSE WOULD TAKE.

OKAY. SO BACK TO YOU, MR. DAHLSTROM. IS THAT THE ONLY CHANGE THAT Y'ALL ARE GOING TO BE LOOKING TO MAKE? WE REALLY WANTED TO GO TONIGHT, BUT THAT'S THE ONLY CHANGE.

OKAY, SO Y'ALL AREN'T ANTICIPATING ANY OTHER CHANGES OTHER THAN THAT AT ALL? THAT ONE THING.

ALRIGHT. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT.

COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU, MR. DAWSON.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE? THIS IS NOT AN OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING, BUT IF THERE IS SOMEBODY THAT CAME TONIGHT IN ANTICIPATION OF THIS ITEM AND WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK, I'LL GIVE YOU TWO MINUTES.

IS THERE ANYBODY ELSE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THIS ITEM? NO. SEEING NOBODY.

OKAY. COMMISSIONERS WHAT'S YOUR PLEASURE? COMMISSIONER OLLEY. I MOVE, WE ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL TO TABLE TO THE FEBRUARY 3RD PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. I GOT COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER NEXT ON THE BOARD.

I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY? ANY COMMENTS? QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT.

EVERYBODY VOTE, PLEASE.

MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.

THANK YOU, MR. DAWSON. WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU BACK HERE IN A MONTH.

ITEM THREE B. ITEM THREE B.

SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I MOVE WE TABLE ITEM THREE B TO THE FEBRUARY 3RD, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

SECOND. COMMISSIONER.

LIGHTS OFF. COMMISSIONER TONG, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT? I DO, OKAY.

I JUST WONDER WHAT KIND OF PROCESS WE CAN HAVE TO PREVENT CONTINUOUS POSTPONING OR TABLING.

BECAUSE I HEAR COMMISSIONER BRONSKY AND HE HAD THIS CONCERN LAST TWO TIMES ALREADY.

EVERY TIME HE HAD THE SAME CONCERN.

I FEEL FOR HIM.

AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT I AGREE OR DISAGREE, BUT I CAN SEE THAT THERE IS A CONCERN AND WE DON'T HAVE A PROCESS.

DO WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT ACTUALLY HOLD THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANTS ACCOUNTABLE WHEN THEY MAKE THE PREDICTIONS ABOUT WHEN THEY CAN GET THINGS DONE? AND WHEN.

HOW MANY TIMES THEY CAN TABLE OR IF THEY DON'T MEET THEIR DEADLINE.

IS THERE ANY PROCESS WE CAN HELP THEM TO IMPROVE THEIR PREDICTION? LIKE MAYBE EXTEND OR HELP THEM WITH SOME, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS ON THAT? WE HAD THIS CONVERSATION ACTUALLY BEFORE THIS MEETING TONIGHT.

AND NO, CURRENTLY THERE'S NOT, ALTHOUGH WE ARE GOING TO TRY TO PUT THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA TO DISCUSS AND IN PRELIMINARY SESSION TO DISCUSS IF WE WOULD LIKE TO PUT OR DISCUSS PUTTING SOMETHING IN PLACE TO ADDRESS THIS.

APPRECIATE IT.

MR. BELL, IS THAT ALL CORRECT? OKAY. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR TO POSTPONE ITEM THREE B TO THE FEBRUARY 3RD MEETING.

IF EVERYBODY WOULD VOTE, PLEASE.

MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.

[Items 4A. & 4B.]

ITEM FOUR A.

WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ FOR A AND FOR B? YEAH, FOR A AND FOR B. I'M SORRY.

FOR A AND FOR B TOGETHER. OKAY.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR A IS A REQUEST TO REZONE PROPERTY FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED ON 6.6 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF K AVENUE, 2240FT SOUTH OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY.

THE PETITIONER IS SHAHID RASOUL AND THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR B IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR SPLIT TRAIL TOWNHOMES.

BLOCK A LOTS ONE THROUGH 21 AND ONE X BLOCK B LOTS ONE THROUGH 28 AND ONE X THROUGH TWO X AND BLOCK C LOT ONE X, WHICH ARE

[00:20:10]

49 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS, DETACHED LOTS AND FOUR COMMON AREA LOTS ON 6.0 ACRES.

LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF K AVENUE, 2240FT SOUTH OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY.

THE PROPERTY IS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

THE APPLICANT IS SHAHID RASOOL AND THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING ACTION ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR A.

OKAY. SO HERE IS THE LOCATOR AND THE AERIAL.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF SPLIT TRAIL ROAD AND THE WEST SIDE OF K AVENUE, JUST SOUTH OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY.

SO THE ZONING REQUEST IS FOR A STRAIGHT REZONE FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 49 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENCES WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.

AND HERE IS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ATTACHED WITH THIS REQUEST.

SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE ENVISION OAK POINT SMALL AREA PLAN.

THE SMALL AREA PLAN IS AN EXTENSION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND DUE TO THE EXTENSIVE OUTREACH AND ADDITIONAL DETAILS PROVIDED BY THE PLAN.

IT IS USED TO GUIDE AHEAD OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND SO THIS IS WHAT CONTROLS THE AREA.

AND IN THE GRAPHIC YOU'LL SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE BLUE OUTLINE ALONG THE LEFT SIDE OF THE GRAPHIC.

OKAY. SO IN THE ENVISION OAK POINT AREA THIS PROPERTY IS IDENTIFIED AS A TRANSIT READY AREA.

THIS TRANSIT READY AREA IS APPROXIMATELY 45.9 ACRES IN TOTAL.

THE ENVISION OAK POINT DOES RECOMMEND RESIDENTIAL AS A MIX OF USE.

THAT WOULD BE 3.7 ACRES OF THAT 18.36 ACRES RECOMMENDED.

SO THE PROPOSED USE IS 6.6 ACRES, SO IT IS OVER THE RECOMMENDED AMOUNT FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED WITH THIS PROPOSAL.

AND IT IS ALSO PROPOSING HALF AN ACRE OF OPEN SPACE WITH A PLAN WHICH IS ABOUT 8%, WHICH IS ALSO UNDER THE 10% RECOMMENDED OPEN SPACE AS RECOMMENDED BY THE DIVISIONAL POINT.

AND ADDITIONALLY, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT IN THIS AREA THE COMMERCIAL USES ARE DEVELOPED FIRST, FOLLOWED BY TRANSIT AND THEN RESIDENTIAL.

SO THEN, YOU KNOW, AS THE TRANSIT ARRIVES, MORE CONNECTIONS TO RESIDENTIAL AND SURROUNDING AREAS ARE IMPROVED. OKAY.

AND SO WITH ENVISION OAK POINT, THIS AREA IS RECOMMENDED AS A POTENTIAL SITE FOR A TRANSIT OPPORTUNITY.

THERE'S NO CONFIRMED LOCATION FOR ANY, YOU KNOW, TRANSIT STATIONS.

SO AS THE SEARCH FOR THAT AREA GOES ON, THE EXISTING USES UNDER THE CORRIDOR, COMMERCIAL USES ARE APPROPRIATE FOR DEVELOPMENT.

AND WITHIN ENVISION OAK POINT THE AREA IS WITHIN THE SUB AREA OF THE WESTERN QUADRANT.

THIS ENCOURAGES PRESERVATION OF LAND FOR THIS POTENTIAL TRANSIT STATION AND SO AROUND THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY THERE ARE SOME VACANT PROPERTIES AS WELL AS WELL AS SOME OTHER BUSINESSES IN THE AREA.

ONE OF THE GOALS OF THE SUB AREA IS TO PROMOTE ADDITIONAL CONNECTIONS EAST AND WEST, TO CONNECT THAT POTENTIAL TRANSIT AREA TO AREAS EAST OF K AVENUE.

AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, YOU KNOW, STREETS FOR VEHICLES AND PEDESTRIANS TO ACCESS BOTH WAYS.

SO IN SUMMARY, THE PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ENVISION OAK POINT PLAN.

SO THERE ARE A MIX OF VARYING USES AROUND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE USES SUCH AS RELIGIOUS FACILITIES AND MOBILE HOMES IN THE AREAS THAT MAY BE COMPATIBLE.

THERE ARE OTHER USES SUCH AS CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES, LANDSCAPING, LANDSCAPING, MATERIAL BUSINESSES, AND TRUCK LEASING THAT MAY NOT BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE BUSINESS OR WITH THE PROPOSAL. FOR EXAMPLE, THE LANDSCAPING MATERIAL BUSINESS.

IT CAN BE KNOWN TO CREATE STRONG ODORS OR DEBRIS IN THE AREA, WHICH MAY BE HARMFUL FOR THE RESIDENTS.

THERE HAVE ALSO BEEN SOME.

IT CAN BE SUBJECT TO FIRES FOR REGULAR OPERATIONS OF, YOU KNOW, COMPOSTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

AND THEN ON THE GRAPHIC, ON THE GRAPHIC, YOU'LL SEE SOME OF THE EXISTING USES AROUND THE SITE.

TO THE EAST IS THE PUBLIC WHERE MINI WAREHOUSE PUBLIC STORAGE TO THE SOUTH IS THE SERVICE CONTRACTOR.

[00:25:02]

TO THE NORTH IS A RELIGIOUS FACILITY.

THAT LANDSCAPING COMPANY AS WELL AS THE TRUCK, TRUCK LEASING AND RETAIL.

AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE WANT TO POINT OUT THAT K AVENUE IN THIS AREA ESPECIALLY SERVES AS KIND OF A TRANSITION AREA FOR THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND COMPARED TO THE RESIDENTIAL USES ACROSS THE PROPERTY OR ACROSS THE STREET.

AND SO YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A PRETTY CLEARLY DEFINED LINE.

AND IN THE GRAPHIC YOU WILL SEE LIKE IN THE BOTTOM MIDDLE PORTION, THAT IS WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND THE LIGHT GREEN.

SO THE REZONING OF THE PROPERTY TO RESIDENTIAL MAY CREATE ADDITIONAL BURDENS AND RESTRICTIONS ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES THAT WOULD NOT EXIST IF IT REMAINED COMMERCIAL ZONING. COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES OFTEN MUST MEET ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS WHEN DEVELOPING ADJACENT TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT COMPARED TO A COMMERCIAL DISTRICT.

SOME OF THE BURDENS INCLUDE A REQUIRED SCREENING MASONRY EIGHT FOOT WALL.

THEY MAY HAVE ADDITIONAL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR HEIGHT, THINGS LIKE THAT, AND THEN SOME USES WILL BE SUBJECT TO THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS.

AND SO THESE KINDS OF RESTRICTIONS MAY IMPACT, YOU KNOW, THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES.

WHEREAS IF IT REMAINED COMMERCIAL IT WOULD NOT.

AND THERE IS AN EXISTING ANTENNA TO THE SOUTH.

AND SO THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR ANTENNAS TO BE SET BACK A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICTS AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.

AND SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, A MINIMUM 161FT AWAY FROM THE ANTENNA.

AND THIS IS IN CASE THERE'S ANY ANTENNA FALLING IN AN EMERGENCY.

THIS WILL KIND OF HELP PROTECT RESIDENTS IN THE AREA.

ALTHOUGH THEY ARE MEETING THE SETBACK FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES, THEY ARE STILL NOT MEETING THE RESIDENTIAL, THE DISTANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

AND SO THEY WOULD NOT BE CONFORMING ANYMORE.

NEXT, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THE ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY.

SO THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE IS FROM K AVENUE WHILE THE SECONDARY ENTRANCE IS OFF SPLIT TRAIL, AND THIS IS DETERMINED BY TRAFFIC BEING THAT K AVENUE IS AN ARTERIAL STREET AND WE'LL HAVE HEAVIER TRAFFIC FLOW THAN SPLIT TRAIL.

SO ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT WE HAD WITH THIS SITE IS DETERMINING THE ACCESS.

THERE IS NO DIRECT ACCESS MEDIAN DIRECT ACCESS TO A MEDIAN OPENING ON THE SITE ALONG K AVENUE.

THERE WERE SOME EARLY DISCUSSIONS YOU KNOW, TRYING TO CENTER IT AS CLOSE TO THE MEDIAN AS WE COULD, BUT WE WEREN'T ABLE TO CREATE, YOU KNOW, A SAFE DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINT.

SO THE APPLICANT HAS PROPOSED THE DRIVEWAY TO BE THE SOUTHERNMOST PORTION OF THE PROPERTY ALONG THE FRONTAGE.

AND SO THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL SEE REFLECTED HERE.

DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY DRIVERS GOING NORTHBOUND ON K AVENUE.

WE'LL HAVE TO DO A U-TURN AS SHOWN IN THE GRAPHIC THERE, AND IT WILL BE ACROSS THREE LANES OF TRAFFIC, WHICH MAY BE UNSAFE CONDITION IN THE FUTURE. AS WELL AS WELL AS THAT U-TURN, THE DRIVEWAY LOCATION DOES REQUIRE A VARIANCE TO THE STREET DESIGN STANDARD FOR DRIVEWAY SPACING ON THIS PORTION OF THE ROAD.

IT REQUIRES 235FT OF DRIVEWAY SPACING, AND THAT'S FROM THE MEDIAN OPENING BECAUSE IT IS AN BECAUSE IT IS NOT A CROSS STREET.

AND SO IT MUST APPLY THERE.

AND THEN I ALSO WANT TO SPEAK ABOUT THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH AS WELL.

SO IF THIS PROPERTY REMAINED COMMERCIAL, IT'S VERY COMMON THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT TWO COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY ON A MEDIAN OPENING, CAN SHARE AN ACCESS POINT.

SO THEY WOULD SHARE AN ACCESS DRIVE ALONG THEIR PROPERTY LINES.

AND YOU KNOW, THAT'S TYPICAL THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

AND SO WITHOUT THIS ACCESS POINT AND WITH THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY SPACING, WHERE IT IS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH WOULD ALSO REQUIRE DRIVEWAY SPACING AND VARIANCES AS WELL FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

AND THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES FOR THAT SITE DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THE CREEK AND JUST THE SHORTER FRONTAGE ON THAT SITE.

AND SO IT WOULD JUST CREATE ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND BARRIERS FOR THEM.

PORTIONS OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ARE LOCATED IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AREA, AS SHOWN IN THE GRAPHIC.

ROUGHLY LIKE THE WESTERN THIRD OF THE SITE IS IMPACTED BY THIS AREA.

AND ABOUT THREE BUILDINGS WOULD HAVE BEEN INCLUDED WITHIN THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH BOUNDARIES.

AND SO THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A NOISE STUDY AND FOUND THAT THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE HEIGHT GUIDELINES.

HOWEVER, IT DOES RECOMMEND MITIGATION METHODS IN THE NOISE STUDY AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MEET TO MEET THESE MITIGATION METHODS.

[00:30:07]

HOWEVER, WITHOUT ANY PD STIPULATIONS, WE CAN'T ENFORCE THESE REGULATIONS, SO IT IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE EAA GUIDELINES. FOR RESPONSES, WE GOT TWO NOTICES OR TWO LETTERS WITHIN 200FT ONE NEUTRAL ONE AGAINST.

AND FOR ALL RESPONSES WE RECEIVED A TOTAL OF SIX.

ONE SUPPORTING, ONE NEUTRAL AND FOUR AGAINST.

AND THEN WE ALSO RECEIVED THREE OTHER LETTERS.

OKAY. SO IN SUMMARY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED.

THE PROPOSAL IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE ENVISION OAK POINT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS.

STAFF HAS CONCERNS OVER COMPATIBILITY, IMPACT ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES AND SITE ACCESS ISSUES.

THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING CASE IS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL.

ITEM FOUR B. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL.

HOWEVER, IF APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION, STAFF RECOMMENDS THE APPROVAL BE SUBJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2024023.

ITEM FOUR A AND THE APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT FOR DRIVEWAY SEPARATION FROM A MEDIAN OPENING.

AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, MR. KIM. BEFORE I OPEN IT TO THE COMMISSION, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF CAN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR PROBABLY SECOND SLIDE WITH THE ENVISION OAK POINT PLAN? YES. LAND USES.

THERE YOU GO. THAT ONE.

THERE YOU GO. SO, THE AREA SHOWN IN PURPLE WHERE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED, WHAT IS THAT LAND USE DESIGNATION IN THE ENVISION OAK POINT PLAN.

SO THAT WILL BE THE TRANSIT READY AREA.

OKAY. SO DEFINE TRANSIT READY AREA FOR US.

SO THE TRANSIT READY AREA.

LET ME PULL UP THAT SLIDE.

SO THE TRANSIT READY AREA IS, IT'S RECOMMENDED THAT YOU KNOW THERE'S COMMERCIAL AND OFFICE RETAIL IN THAT AREA FIRST.

AND THEN LATER IT RECOMMENDS THE TRANSIT AREA BE YOU KNOW, IF IT DOES COME IN THEN IT WOULD BE ABLE TO BETTER SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL AND THEN IT WOULD THEN RESIDENTIAL WOULD FOLLOW ALONG AFTER THAT.

SO THEN THERE WOULD JUST BE BETTER CONNECTIONS PROVIDED FOR THAT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT AFTER.

SO WE KIND OF RECOMMEND THE ORDER OF DEVELOPMENT.

OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HEARD THAT RIGHT.

BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE REALLY TALKING ABOUT IS A MIXED USE TYPE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE TYPICALLY AROUND OUR TRANSIT ORIENTED STATIONS.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

OKAY. AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS ABOUT THE MEDIAN ACCESS.

IF YOU CAN GO TO THAT SLIDE FOR ME.

OF COURSE. HAVE HAS EMERGENCY SERVICES LOOKED AT THIS FIRE AND POLICE ABOUT WHERE THEY'LL BE, SPECIFICALLY FIRE AND AMBULANCE, FROM WHICH DIRECTION THEY'D BE RESPONDING IN AN EMERGENCY? WOULD WE BE ASKING EMERGENCY SERVICES TO MAKE U-TURNS? I DO NOT HAVE THAT INFORMATION, BUT I CAN DEFINITELY LOOK INTO IT.

I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS SERVED OUT OF STATION ONE.

JUST. WELL, IT'S PROBABLY HAS TO BE BECAUSE THIS IS RIGHT DOWN K.

SO. OKAY.

I JUST DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU KNEW THAT ANSWER.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONERS. OTHER QUESTIONS.

TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

MR. BELL, DID YOU HAVE AN ANSWER TO MY QUESTION? JUST ONE CLARIFICATION ON THE TRANSIT READY.

I JUST WANTED TO EMPHASIZE THAT THE MIXED USE IS CORRECT, BUT IT'S AFTER THE STATION HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED AND FUNDED THAT THAT IT TRANSITIONS TO THE MIXED USE.

BUT THAT WAS WHAT WAS CONSIDERED WHAT WAS CONTEMPLATED IN THE ENVISION OAK POINT.

COMMISSIONERS, TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

COMMISSIONER. EXCUSE ME.

COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE YOU JUST CAME FROM? THAT YOU'RE THE PURPLE AREA.

I'M JUST TRYING TO ORIENT MYSELF IN THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY.

SO THE PACKET SUGGESTS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ENCOMPASSES THE MOBILE HOME PARK.

AM I READING THIS CORRECTLY, OR THIS IS JUST MORE OF A LARGER TRACT THAT THIS CURRENT OWNERSHIP DOES NOT OWN? SO LOOKING AT SOME AERIALS, AT ONE POINT IN TIME, THERE APPEARED TO BE SOME MOBILE HOMES WITHIN THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY.

THEY ARE SINCE GONE.

BUT MOBILE HOMES ARE LOCATED ACROSS TRAIL ROAD ALONG THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE RAILROAD.

OKAY, SO THE MOBILE HOME PARK WE SAW IN THE AREA OF PHOTOGRAPHS FROM HISTORY IS NOT WHAT IS NEXT TO THE COSTCO CURRENTLY, CORRECT? OKAY. YEAH. SECOND QUESTION, ASSUMING WE APPROVE THIS, WHICH ESSENTIALLY PUTS ALMOST EVERYTHING AROUND

[00:35:09]

THEM INTO SOME KIND OF NONCONFORMING STATUS.

WHO BEARS THE BURDEN TO BRING THOSE NEIGHBORS UP TO CONFORMANCE? THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OWNER OR THE NEIGHBORS? SO THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES AS THEY DEVELOP WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE LIKE ITEMS SUCH AS SCREENING FOR THIS PROPERTY. SO THEY WILL HAVE TO BEAR THE BURDEN OF THE COST TO SOMEHOW ADJUST TO.

CAN WE GO BACK TO THE SLIDES THAT HAS THE ACCESS TO SHARING BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE NORTH? THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF THIS ONE.

MY QUESTION IS REGARDING OUR YEAH THAT ONE.

OKAY. SO BASED ON WHAT I HEARD IS BECAUSE NOW WE'RE IF WE WERE GOING TO REZONE THIS AREA INTO A RESIDENTIAL, THEN THE COMMON ACCESS BETWEEN THESE TWO PROPERTIES CANNOT BE USED AS AN ACCESS POINT AND THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE.

THE PROPERTY HAS TO HAVE A ACCESS POINT.

HOW FAR IS THERE LIKE A LIMIT ON HOW FAR FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO HAVE AN ACCESS POINT? IS THAT WHAT'S REQUIRED? IS THAT THE REQUIREMENT? SO IS THERE ANY TYPE OF RESIDENTIAL ZONING THAT IN OUR CITY CODE THAT ALLOWS THE ACCESS POINT TO BE SHARED WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY? SO I THINK OVERALL IN THE CITY OF PLANO, IT'S NOT ENCOURAGED.

THERE ARE A FEW INSTANCES THROUGHOUT THE CITY WHERE, YOU KNOW, WITH SPECIAL DESIGNS AND CONFIGURATIONS THAT RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, YOU KNOW, HAVE A SHARED ACCESS.

BUT IT IS DISCOURAGED FROM THE CITY DUE TO INCOMPATIBILITY ISSUES AND AMONG OTHER REASONS, IF I CAN ELABORATE.

TYPICALLY WE WOULD SEE THAT THE HOMES WOULD BACK, THEY WOULD THE BACK OF THE HOMES WOULD FACE THE COMMERCIAL, NOT THE FRONT OF THE HOMES.

WE DID WORK WITH THE APPLICANT ON ON THAT TYPE OF DESIGN, BUT ULTIMATELY BECAUSE OF THE SHAPE OF THE LOT, THEY COULDN'T GET THE STREET CONNECTIVITY THROUGH IN A WAY THAT MADE THAT WORK. SO THEY CHOSE TO JUST RATHER THAN TRY TO MAKE THAT WORK, MOVE THE DRIVEWAY FURTHER TO THE SOUTH.

OKAY. GOT YOU.

AND CAN YOU DO YOU KNOW THE THE KIND OF THE FRONTAGE OF THE OTHER PROPERTY, LIKE, DOES IT MAKE IT TOTALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO HAVE AN ACCESS POINT ON THE COMMERCIAL LOT OR IT KIND OF JUST MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT DIFFICULT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT MAY NOT BE POSSIBLE AT ALL TO HAVE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS BECAUSE OF THIS.

IT MAY BE POSSIBLE, BUT THEY WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE FROM THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, SO THEY WOULD HAVE TO REVIEW THE IMPACT AND SAFETY IF THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY WAS ON THEIR PROPERTY. SOMEWHERE ALONG THAT POINT, IF THEY WERE BOTH, IF THEY BOTH STAYED COMMERCIAL, THEN THAT ONE SHARED DRIVE COULD COUNT AS ACCESS FOR BOTH TOWARDS MEETING THEIR TWO POINTS OF ACCESS, AND THEY COULD HAVE A SHARED ACCESS VIA AN EASEMENT SOMEWHERE ELSE, EITHER WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OR SOMEWHERE ELSE ON THIS PROPERTY IF IT'S RESIDENTIAL AND DEVELOPED.

IF THIS PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH RESIDENTIAL AS PROPOSED, THEN THIS SITE WILL NO LONGER HAVE ACCESS TO THE MEDIAN OPENING, WHICH I THINK IS THE MOST CRITICAL POINT.

THEY COULD GET A DRIVEWAY, BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANY ACCESS TO THAT MEDIAN OPENING AND REQUIRE ADDITIONAL UNSAFE U-TURN MOVEMENTS TO ACCESS AND GO NORTHBOUND FROM THAT SITE.

OKAY. GOT YOU.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

YEAH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR ALL OF THE EFFORTS YOU'VE PUT IN SO FAR.

SO I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

I NOTICED IN THE.

EXCUSE ME. SO THIS IS IN AN EHA ONE, CORRECT? CORRECT. AND I SAW THE MITIGATION INFORMATION AND DATA FOR SOUND.

WHAT ABOUT PARTICULATE MATTER? I DON'T HAVE THE INFORMATION ON THAT AT THIS TIME.

MISTER BELL, DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER INFO ON THAT? MISTER ROCKERBIE, I BELIEVE, HAS SOME INFORMATION ON THAT.

YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT.

SO THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A STUDY FROM A CONSULTANT.

THAT STUDY DID RECOMMEND A I BELIEVE THREE DIFFERENT MITIGATION SOLUTIONS FOR THIS SITE.

ONE OF THEM DID INCLUDE, I BELIEVE IT WAS MERV 12 FILTRATION FOR THE UNITS.

HOWEVER, AS MR. KIM NOTED, WITHOUT A PD, THERE'S NO STIPULATIONS HOLDING THEM TO ANY OF THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS.

BUT MERV 12 FILTRATION WAS INCLUDED AS A RECOMMENDATION IN THE REPORT PROVIDED BY THEIR CONSULTANT.

[00:40:03]

IS THAT IN ADDITION TO SOME OF THE OTHER MITIGATION STANDARDS THAT WE TYPICALLY ASK FOR.

SO THE SUITE OF STANDARDS THAT WERE PROPOSED IN THE REPORT WAS THE MERV 12 TO ADDRESS AIRBORNE PARTICULATES.

THE INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS AND THE INSTALLATION OF MORE ROBUST FENCING ALONG SPLIT TRAIL, WHICH WOULD ALSO PROVIDE A BIT OF AN ACOUSTIC SHIELD FOR THE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACES.

OKAY. AND SO IN ADDITION TO THE PARTICULATE MATTER THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ON 75 WHEN I LOOK AT WHERE THIS IS LOCATED.

I'VE GOT TO WONDER, IS THERE A PARTICULATE MATTER ISSUE THAT WE COULD HAVE WITH THE LANDSCAPING OR THE MASONRY CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES AS WELL? YES. THAT, OF COURSE, WOULD FACTOR INTO THINGS.

SOME OF OUR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS FOR CERTAIN USES CONTEMPLATE THAT.

BUT IN TERMS OF THE EHA, IT'S STRICTLY LOOKING AT THE PROXIMITY TO THE EXPRESSWAY.

OKAY. AND I KNOW ANOTHER THING THAT IS IMPORTANT FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS IS CONNECTIVITY TO OTHER RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENTS.

AND YOU DID MENTION THAT THIS IS THIS HAS A THE TRAILER PARK THAT'S NEARBY.

WHAT'S THE DISTANCE FROM WHERE THIS WOULD BE TO THAT TRAILER PARK? SO IT WOULD ACTUALLY BE LET ME SEE IF I CAN PULL THE AERIAL.

OKAY. THERE YOU GO. I THINK THIS WILL WORK.

SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE THE MOBILE HOME TRAILER PARK ON THE WEST SIDE.

SO THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO CROSS SPLIT TRAIL ROAD.

AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER RAILROAD THAT DART OWNS.

AND THEN. SO THEN THAT WOULD BE THE DISTANCE THAT THEY HAVE TO CONNECT.

SO IN ORDER TO GET TO ANYBODY WHO'S OF ANY KIND OF RESIDENTIAL THEY'VE GOT TO GO ACROSS THE ROAD AND THEN OVER THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

AND IF I, IF I REMEMBER THIS CORRECTLY, THERE'S NOT AN ENTRANCE BACK THERE ON THAT BACKSIDE OF THE TRAILER PARK, IS THERE? I DON'T BELIEVE SO, BUT THERE IS NOT.

OKAY. SO THERE IS NO CONNECTIVITY TO RESIDENTIAL IN REALITY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YEAH, NOT AT THIS TIME.

IS THERE ONE PLANNED? I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE NOW.

THERE'S NOTHING PLANNED IMMINENTLY, NO.

OKAY, SO IT'S NOT CONNECTED TO ANY RESIDENTIAL.

THERE'S NO WAY THAT THIS EXISTS WITHIN AN AREA.

AND WE HAVE NO WAY TO ENFORCE ANY REGULATIONS, WHETHER IT'S SOUND OR PARTICULATE MATTER.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT.

WE'VE GOT PROBLEMS WITH WHERE WE'RE GETTING ACCESS TO THE PROPERTY, AND WE'RE CREATING POTENTIAL PROBLEMS FOR LANDOWNERS ON EITHER SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY.

IS THAT. AM I UNDERSTANDING ALL THIS RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY.

YEAH. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER OLLEY, DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? YES. SLIGHT BUILD UP.

SO IF I CONTINUE ALONG.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TRAIN OF THOUGHT FOR THIS RESIDENCE SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE MOBILE HOME PARK.

THE BURDEN OF ACCESS WOULD BE ON THE MOBILE HOME PARK DEVELOPMENT TO CREATE AN ACCESS POINT THAT WOULD ACTUALLY EVEN ALLOW THE CROSSING OVER SPLIT, YOU KNOW.

SO IT'S I DON'T KNOW.

ONE QUESTION I DO HAVE IS THERE ANY RESIDENTIAL USE PERMITTED FOR CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL? NO, THERE IS NOT.

THE MOBILE HOME PARK IS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

DOES THAT PREDATE THAT ZONING? WAS THAT GRANDFATHERED IN SOME WAY? THE MOBILE HOME PARK, I BELIEVE, WAS BUILT BEFORE IT WAS INCORPORATED INTO THE CITY OF PLANO.

OKAY. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT BEAUTIFUL CHART THAT SHOWED THE GRAPH OF THAT ONE? THIS ONE? OKAY. AGAIN, HYPOTHETICAL.

WE APPROVED THIS SOMEHOW.

THEY STILL WOULD ADMIT ENVISION OAK POINTS, GUIDELINES AND REQUIREMENTS BECAUSE THEY HAVE MOSTLY SINGLE FAMILY VIOLATES THE OPEN SPACE GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE THERE.

AND THERE WAS A THIRD ONE THAT I'M MISSING.

[00:45:03]

YES. FOR THE OPEN SPACE AS WELL.

IS THAT SO THE OPEN SPACE MULTI-FAMILY.

BUT THE LAND USE, WOULD THAT VIOLATE THE SPLIT THAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING FOR ENVISION OAK POINT? YEAH. SO THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED IS PART OF THE MIX OF USE, BUT IT IS ONLY RECOMMENDED TO BE ABOUT 3.7 ACRES OR THAT THE 20% THAT IS ALLOTTED HERE.

AND SO WHILE IT IS A RECOMMENDED MIX OF USE IT IS OVER THE AMOUNT RECOMMENDED AMOUNT.

LAST QUESTION.

THE ADJACENCY GUIDELINES THAT WE HAVE FOR USAGE BY THE MASONRY COMPANY AND THE MULCH AND WHAT HAVE YOU.

IF WE ENFORCE THOSE BUFFERS, DOESN'T I DON'T KNOW.

IT FEELS LIKE THAT ESSENTIALLY COLLAPSES THIS PARCEL INTO LIKE WAY LESS THAN THE 49 ACRES IF WE ENFORCE THE BUFFERS THOSE RESIDENCY ADJACENCY BUFFERS THAT WE HAVE, IF THAT IS ENFORCED ON THE APPLICANT, NOT ON THE NEIGHBORS, HOW MUCH LAND IS LEFT? I THINK I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED BY THE QUESTION.

I THINK IT'S ROUGHLY I THINK A SIX ACRE SITE, I THINK APPROXIMATELY TWO ACRES WOULD PROBABLY BE WITHIN THE BUFFER ZONE, AT LEAST FOR THE CELL TOWER THAT THEY WOULD NEED. WE DID DISCUSS WITH THE APPLICANT DOING COMMERCIAL ALONG THE FRONTAGE FOR THAT VERY REASON, BUT I ROUGHLY GUESS ABOUT TWO ACRES.

OKAY. AND ONE QUICK CORRECTION TO THE QUESTION ABOUT RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE CORRIDOR.

COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES AND MID-RISE, MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL FIVE STORY PLUS MULTIFAMILY IS ALLOWED WITH APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

THAT'S THE RESIDENTIAL ALLOWANCES.

MR. OLLEY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

THANK YOU.

MR. KIM, DO I UNDERSTAND THAT FOR TRAFFIC ENTERING THIS, THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT OFF OF K AVENUE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO DRIVE ACROSS SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND IN ORDER TO ACCESS THEIR RESIDENTIAL UNITS.

THEY DON'T HAVE TO DRIVE ACROSS SOMEONE ELSE'S LAND TO GET THERE.

SO THERE ARE TWO POINTS OF ACCESS FOR THIS PROPERTY.

AND SO YOU'LL EITHER DO SOUTHBOUND ON K.

AND YOU JUST MAKE A RIGHT TURN INTO THE PROPERTY OR A U-TURN FOR NORTHBOUND K DRIVERS.

AND THEN THERE IS OPEN ENTRY OR I GUESS LEFT AND RIGHT SIDE ENTRY FROM SPLIT TRAIL ROAD SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH.

NO, THE ACCESS THAT IS PROPOSED IS THAT A SHARED ACCESS WITH THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OR NOT? OH NO, IT IS NOT. OH, SO OKAY.

SO THAT WAS DONE TO AVOID HAVING TO DO A SHARED ACCESS.

WITH RESPECT TO THE TRAILER PARK ACROSS SPLIT TRAIL AND ACROSS THE RAILROAD TRACK, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF DRIVES, LIKE PARALLEL DRIVES THAT THE VARIOUS TRAILER HOMES ARE SITUATED ON.

ARE THOSE PUBLIC STREETS OR IS THAT ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY? I BELIEVE THOSE ARE ALL PRIVATE PROPERTY.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT'S FOR PUBLIC ACCESS FOR PEOPLE TO DRIVE ACROSS RIGHT WILLY NILLY.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE ASKING, THEY CAN'T JUST, LIKE, DRIVE THROUGH THE MOBILE HOME PARK TO GET TO THE.

THAT'S RIGHT. EXPRESSWAY.

THE EXPRESSWAY? EXACTLY. THEY CAN'T.

CORRECT. AND FINALLY, HAS THE APPLICANT MADE ANY EFFORT TO WORK WITH OR OBTAIN AGREEMENT FROM ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS WITH RESPECT TO RELIEVING THE BURDENS AND RESTRICTIONS REGARDING SETBACKS AND SCREENINGS AND BUFFERING? THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT, SO HE MAY BE ABLE TO BETTER ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

ARE THERE ANY AGREEMENTS THAT YOU'RE AWARE OF? NO, NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF.

COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. SO I THINK I'VE ALREADY KIND OF KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT I STILL WANT TO KIND OF PUT IT OUT THERE FOR TO PUT ON RECORD AND FOR THE COMMISSION AS WELL. EVERYBODY'S ANSWERED A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS ALREADY.

BUT FOR EXAMPLE, IF WE WERE TO TALK TO THE APPLICANT AND JUST SAID, A, THEY WOULD TAKE ON ALL THOSE BURDENS THAT WOULD LIKE THEY WOULD PUT IN THEIR SCREENING WALLS, THEY WOULD PUT IN LANDSCAPING BUFFERS, THEY WOULD DO ALL THESE THINGS AND TAKE ON THOSE BURDENS.

THAT DOESN'T COMPLETELY ELIMINATE SOME OF THE BURDENS, SUCH AS DISTANCES FROM DRIVEWAYS AND STUFF FOR THE BURDEN FOR THE OTHER, OTHER PROPERTIES SURROUNDING IT.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

AND THERE WOULD STILL BE SOME LIKE USE RESTRICTIONS ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL.

[00:50:01]

SO IT DOESN'T FULLY CLEAR, EVEN IF THEY TOOK ON ALL THE BURDENS AND ALL THOSE COSTS THAT I JUST DESCRIBED, IT STILL DOESN'T CLEAR UP THE BURDENS THAT STILL REMAIN ON THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES, RIGHT? YEAH. SO THE NORTHERN PROPERTY, JUST TO ADD A LITTLE MORE INFO I WHENEVER I WAS KIND OF MEASURING OUT THE SITE, I THINK IN THE, ALONG THE STREET FRONT, IT'S MAYBE AT MOST 300FT AND JUST KIND OF GOES A LITTLE BIT WIDER THROUGH THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.

AND SO WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS BEING 150FT, YOU KNOW, FOR A LOT OF THE SITE, IT WOULD MAYBE BE A HALF TO A THIRD OF THE SITE WHERE USERS MAY BE LIMITED.

AND SO I THINK THERE WOULD BE THAT RESTRICTION STILL ON THE ON THAT PROPERTY.

IF I COULD FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUESTION JUST REAL QUICK AND THEN I'LL GET TO YOU, MR. BRONSKY. SO LET ME MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING THAT.

RIGHT. IF IF THIS ZONING WAS APPROVED, WE'RE BASICALLY PUTTING A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY BUFFER 50FT ONTO EVERY ADJACENT PARCEL FOR ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT OF THOSE TRACKS, IS THAT CORRECT? 150FT? YES.

150FT ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS.

THAT DOESN'T EXIST TODAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

HE BROUGHT UP ANOTHER QUESTION THAT I HAD.

SO COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER HIS COMMENT WAS IF THE DEVELOPMENT RIGHT NOW WOULD TAKE ON ALL OF THAT BURDEN.

BUT IN FACT, WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN THERE? THAT BURDEN IS GOING TO BE SEPARATED INTO 49 DIFFERENT BURDENS.

AM I IS THAT CORRECT? I THINK THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THESE AREN'T THESE AREN'T GOING TO BE RENTALS.

THIS ISN'T A MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

CORRECT? CORRECT.

SO WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ENFORCEMENT OF FHA GUIDELINES AND A LOT OF OTHER THINGS, INCLUDING SCREENING WALLS AND ALL OF THAT.

IS THERE ANY WAY TO EVEN WRITE THAT INTO SOMEBODY'S BUYING THE BUYING A HOME? TYPICALLY THOSE KINDS OF FEATURES ARE MAINTAINED BY THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION AND WOULD BE PART OF THEIR CCNRS WHEN THE PLATS FILED.

SO, IS THERE A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION PLAN FOR THIS? AND I DIDN'T THINK I SAW THAT IN THE PACKET.

I AM NOT AWARE IF THOSE PLANS EXIST.

THERE WILL BE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THEY HAVE OPEN SPACE LOTS.

THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES FORMATION OF A HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, BUT THAT WILL COME AT LATER STEPS WHEN THEY GET TO PLATING.

SO, THE EHA OR THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION WOULD, WOULD THEN BE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN THE SCREENING WALLS AND MAINTAIN THE MERV FILTERS AND ALL OF THOSE KIND OF THINGS.

NOT NECESSARILY FILTERS, BUT THE TYPICAL DESIGN LIKE THE EIGHT FOOT MASONRY WALLS, FOR EXAMPLE THE IF THERE'S LANDSCAPE BERM MITIGATION, THINGS LIKE THAT WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA.

ANYTHING WITHIN THE HOMES THEMSELVES WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER.

SO AGAIN, THE REGULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE PARTICULATE MATTERS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

THAT REALLY PUTS IT EVERYTHING UP IN THE AIR ON THAT, AM I CORRECT? CORRECT. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ALALI.

I HAVE A QUESTION JUST TO CONFIRM.

YOU KNOW LIKE, SO THE CELL TOWER CLEARANCE OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE CLEARANCE DISTANCE, IT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE, GOES INTO THE PROPERTY, RIGHT? YES.

IT DOES. HOW FAR? SO LET ME PULL UP THE GRAPHIC.

SO IF YOU SEE THE PURPLE CIRCLE THAT'S ON THE SCREEN THERE.

SO THE EXISTING CELL TOWER IS THE LITTLE PURPLE DOT IN THE BOTTOM MIDDLE.

SO THAT'S 161FT OUT TO THAT CIRCLE.

OKAY. AND SO BASICALLY THEY'VE COMMITTED TO NOT BUILDING ANY RESIDENTIAL HOMES WITHIN THAT 161FT.

SO WHICH IS THE BLOCK C? YES. OKAY.

THANK YOU. AND YOU KNOW LIKE AND I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.

I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DO LIKE A RESEARCH ABOUT THE CAPACITY OF SCHOOLS.

SO I FEEL LIKE BECAUSE THESE ARE, YOU KNOW, LIKE WHAT, 49 RESIDENCES AND YOU'RE LIKE, IN THE HOUSEHOLD IS WHAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE 2 OR 3 KIDS MAYBE IN EACH HOUSEHOLD. SO YOU'RE LIKE, DO YOU DO SOME RESEARCH ABOUT THE SCHOOLS OR.

NO. YEAH, TYPICALLY WE WOULD REACH OUT TO PLANO ISD.

BUT I THINK JUST BASED ON THEIR SCHEDULE FOR THE HOLIDAYS WE WEREN'T ABLE TO OBTAIN A LETTER AT THIS TIME, BUT WE CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ONCE WE RECEIVE IT.

OH, THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BENDER.

THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.

I, A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT I HAD HAVE BEEN ANSWERED OR BROUGHT UP BY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, AND I THINK WHAT I SEE IS THE PROPOSED LAND

[00:55:06]

USE HERE IS INCONSISTENT WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S SURROUNDING IT.

AND IT WOULD PUT ADDITIONAL BURDENS ON SOME OF THOSE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS.

SO THAT'S JUST MY COMMENT.

OKAY. CAN I CLARIFY ONE POINT? I JUST WANT TO. NOT EVERY NONRESIDENTIAL USE WOULD NEED TO BE 150FT.

ONLY THOSE USES THAT ARE SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, THINGS LIKE CAR WASHES, THINGS WITH OPEN STORAGE, THINGS WITH FUNCTIONS WITH LOUDSPEAKERS, THOSE HAVE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT STANDARDS.

NOT EVERY BUSINESS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET THOSE.

I WANT TO ASK ONE FINAL QUESTION ABOUT THE CELL TOWER, AND THEN WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

JUST TO CLARIFY, THE REASON WE HAVE SETBACKS FOR CELL TOWERS IS FOR SAFETY, CORRECT.

IN CASE SOMETHING CATASTROPHIC HAPPENS AND IT FALLS.

CORRECT. AND SO THE 161FT SETBACK, I PRESUME, IS BECAUSE THAT'S THE HEIGHT OF THAT TOWER.

IS THAT. SO THERE IS A SPECIAL FORMULA WHICH I DON'T REMEMBER AT THIS TIME, BUT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, IT DOES HAVE A SPECIFIC FORMULA.

I BELIEVE IT'S A 93FT TOWER.

AND SO WITH THAT FORMULA APPLIED, THE SETBACK IS 161FT.

OKAY, SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO THAT NUMBER.

BUT IT'S INTENDED FOR SAFETY.

SO THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY IS NOT JUST ABOUT RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES.

IT'S ABOUT RESIDENTIAL USES.

YES. SO IT ALSO IS REQUIRED TO BE SET BACK FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AS WELL.

SO IT WOULD STILL BE NON-CONFORMING EVEN WHILE MEETING THE DISTANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

SO UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, THAT'S AN OPEN SPACE LOT, WHICH BECOMES A PLAYGROUND, WHICH PUTS THE PLAYGROUND IN THE DANGER ZONE FOR THE CELL TOWER.

THEORETICALLY, YES. OKAY.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS READING THAT CORRECTLY.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, ONE MORE FOLLOW UP ON THAT.

FROM LOOKING AT THE MAP THAT YOU HAVE THERE, SHOULD SOMETHING CATASTROPHIC HAPPEN WITH THAT TOWER.

IT CLOSES STREET A, THERE'S ONLY ONE OTHER ENTRANCE INTO THIS ENTIRE AREA.

CORRECT. AND THAT'S OUR PROBLEM SIDE ON AVENUE K.

CORRECT. SO WE'RE REALLY IT FEELS LIKE CREATING SOME DANGER THERE WITH ENTRANCES INTO AND OUT OF THIS FOR 49 RESIDENTS.

SHOULD SOMETHING HAPPEN IN THAT ONE ACCESS POINT BE BLOCKED, WE COULD HAVE FIRE AND RESCUE HAVING TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND, THEN UP NORTH ON AVENUE K, MAKING A U TURN TO GET UP INTO THIS AREA.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, POTENTIALLY, I THINK SO.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO CLEAR THAT UP.

ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE? AND DO THEY HAVE A PRESENTATION? THE APPLICANT HAS REGISTERED TO SPEAK.

IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR HAVING ME.

MY NAME IS NORDAN.

I'M ONE OF THE ARCHITECTURE TEAM WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.

I PREPARED A PRESENTATION. I PREPARED A PRESENTATION, BUT I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO NOT PRESENT AS MUCH AS ANSWER SOME QUESTIONS BECAUSE I HEARD A LOT OF SOME NEW INFORMATION FROM ME.

IF YOU COULD GIVE US THE NAME OF YOUR FIRM AND YOUR ADDRESS REAL QUICK, JUST FOR THE RECORD, NOR NADINE, 6070 JEREMY TRAIL, DALLAS AVENUE. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. SPEAKING ABOUT THE TOWER.

SO THE TOWER IS THE HEIGHT OF THE TOWER IS 90FT.

AND WITH THE FORMULA MR. MICHAEL HELPED US DOING IT.

WE HAVE TO BE 161FT AWAY.

SO FOR ANY HAZARD HAPPEN IN THE TOWER, LIKE FAIL WITHIN 161FT, IT'S NOT GOING TO BLOCK STREET A THE TOWER IS 90 90FT HEIGHT.

FOR THE U-TURN PROBLEM THAT WE HAVE IN HERE WE HAVE CREATED MORE THAN MAYBE EIGHT DIFFERENT SITE PLANS.

WE'RE TRYING TO PRESENT THE CITY OF PLANO.

WE'VE GOT A LOT OF FEEDBACK.

ONE OF THE ONE OF THE OPTIONS WE PRESENTED FOR THEM.

I'M GOING TO GO WITH MY PRESENTATION NEXT SLIDE REAL QUICK.

SORRY. SO THE OPTION IN THE MIDDLE BOTTOM IN THE SCREEN, WE HAD THE ENTRY IN FRONT OF THE U-TURN TRYING TO PREVENT THIS KIND OF U-TURN, THEN TURN RIGHT ISSUE.

BUT WE GOT KIND OF REJECTION OR NOT RECOMMENDATION DURING THE MEETING WITH THE COMMENTS WITH THE CITY OF PLANO, BECAUSE

[01:00:09]

THEY DON'T WANT TO SHARE A RESIDENTIAL ENTRY WITH THE COMMERCIAL ENTRY.

THAT'S WHY WE TRIED TO PUSH IT ALL THE WAY SOUTH TO THE PROPERTY.

NOT LIKE WE DON'T WANT TO DO IT.

WE ACTUALLY PROPOSED IT.

IT'S JUST WE THOUGHT TO THE BEST OF THE LAND USE, MAYBE PUSH IT TO THE SOUTH, BUT WE'RE OPEN TO MOVE IT BACK TO THE NORTH IF THAT'S GOING TO HELP FIXING THE ISSUE.

ONE MORE THING, I HEARD ABOUT THE BUSINESSES TO BE 150FT AWAY.

THAT'S KIND OF NEW INFORMATION FOR ME.

I HAVEN'T HEARD THAT. BUT THANK YOU, MR. MICHAEL, FOR CLEARING THAT TO US.

IT'S NOT ALL THE BUSINESSES.

AND I MADE, LIKE, A QUICK SKETCH.

ON HERE.

I'M SORRY. JUMPING BETWEEN SLIDES, BUT THE SKETCH HERE IN THE BOTTOM LEFT, THIS IS THE LAYOUT OUR NEIGHBOR NORTH PLANNING TO DO OR LIKE PRESENTING TO DO.

AND THE TWO CIRCLES IN THE RED I MADE IS 160FT AWAY FROM OUR PROPERTY.

SO EVEN IF WE MADE 160FT AWAY CIRCLE, HE WILL HAVE FOUR UNITS AVAILABLE FOR RENTAL AS A CAR SHOP OR ANY OTHER USES.

IT'S NOT WORKING.

OH, NO. OH, SORRY.

SO EVEN IF WE TAKE THE 160FT AWAY, STILL THE TENANT OR THE OUR NEIGHBOR WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO DO SOME SHOP RENTALS IF HE WANTS TO.

AT THE SAME TIME, I WANT TO EXPLAIN THAT THERE IS ANOTHER COMMERCIAL USE PLANT NORTH OF OUR PROPERTY.

IT'S ALREADY BEEN ALREADY BEEN BUILT LIKE ONE YEAR AGO.

UNTIL TODAY, IT'S ONLY 25% TENANT BEEN RENTING IT.

THE REST IS JUST EMPTY.

I THINK IT'S 22 UNITS.

COMMERCIAL, IT'S ONLY RENTED TWO OF THEM AND TWO OF THEM UNDER CONTRACT.

SO EVEN IF THERE IS A SHARPS OR DIFFERENT TENANTS NEED TO USE THE SPACE, THERE IS A PLACE FOR IT.

AND THE REASON WE WANTED TO DO THIS AS A COMMERCIAL, I HAD THE HONOR TO BE PART OF THE ARCHITECTURE TEAM AT PBK TO DO RENOVATION AT WILLIAMS HIGH SCHOOL, AND I REALLY CARE ABOUT THE COMMUNITY.

I REALLY CARE ABOUT THE KIDS.

AND LOOKING AT THE DATA, THERE IS A LOT OF INCREASE IN HOUSE PRICING IN THE CITY OF PLANO, AND THERE IS THAT LIKE PUSH A LOT OF YOUNG, YOUNG GENERATION WITH KIDS TO MOVE OUT OF THE CITY.

AND RECENTLY FOR SCHOOLS TRYING TO LIKE CLOSE OR ARE GOING TO BE CLOSING.

AND I'M SURE YOU ALL ARE ALL AWARE OF THAT.

SO, DAVIS ELEMENTARY, FORMAN ELEMENTARY CARPENTER AND ARMSTRONG MIDDLE SCHOOL.

AND THE REASON IS BECAUSE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH AFFORDABLE SINGLE FAMILY FOR YOUNG GENERATIONS.

AND WHEN WE DESIGN OUR LAYOUT, YES, IT'S A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED.

YES, IT'S A TOWNHOME, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE IT WITH A BACKYARD FOR A BETTER QUALITY FOR THE FAMILY.

THAT'S ALL I WANT TO EXPLAIN ABOUT OUR LAYOUT.

AND IF I GO BACK TO OUR PROPOSALS, WE TRIED A LOT TO MEET ALL THE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY WANTED.

OF COURSE, WE CAN'T MEET EVERYTHING.

THE SITE IS VERY CHALLENGING, AND WE'RE DOING OUR BEST.

SPEAKING ABOUT THE DART, I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ABOUT THAT REALLY QUICK TOO.

SO I LOOKED AT THE DART, THE IMAGE IN THE NORTH PLAN NORTHWEST, THE SPACING BETWEEN EACH STATION IS ROUGHLY 1.5 TO 1.8 MILES.

OUR LAST STATION SOUTH OF OUR SITE IS PARKER.

IF THE STATION OF THE DART IS GOING TO BE IN FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY, THAT'S GOING TO PUT US ROUGHLY ONE MILES AWAY FROM PARKER.

IF WE FOLLOW THE SAME SPACING, THE NEW DART STATION IS GOING TO BE PLANNED NORTH OF US, WHICH IS THE INTERSECTIONS BETWEEN SPRING CREEK AND SPREAD TRAIL, WHICH ALSO MAKES SENSE BECAUSE THE BUS STATION IS OVER THERE.

SAM'S CLUB IS OVER THERE.

WALMART IS OVER THERE.

IF WE MADE THE STATION IN FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY, IT'S DOABLE BECAUSE THE WIDTH OF EACH STATION DURING ALL THIS LINE DESIGNED ROUGHLY 60FT, WHICH IS THE PICTURE SOUTH LEFT.

AND IN FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE, THERE IS EXISTING RAILROAD AND WE HAVE A 90FT WIDTH, SO IT'S DOABLE.

[01:05:02]

EVEN IF THEY WANT TO DO IT IN FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY, IT CAN HAPPEN.

ALSO, IF THE 90FT IS NOT ENOUGH, THEY CAN GO VERTICAL AS SOME STATIONS IN RICHARDSON.

SO I DON'T THINK DART I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN, BUT I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO PREVENT OF IF WE DID OUR PROJECT.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOING TO PREVENT DART FROM DOING THE STATION.

I THINK IT'S STILL DOABLE.

AND AGAIN FOLLOWING THE SPACING, WHAT MAKES MORE SENSE, I THINK TO BE THE STATION TO BE PLANNED NORTH OF US.

ALSO IF THE STATION.

DART STATION IN FRONT OF OUR PROPERTY, THAT WILL MAKE PEOPLE WALK HALF A MILE JUST TO GO TO THE NEAREST BUS STATION, WHICH IS NORTH, I THINK THAT'S ALL THE KIND OF RESPONSES I HAVE TO OR WANTED TO EXPLAIN WHY.

IT'S OKAY. WE TAKE SOME QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION? YES, PLEASE. OKAY, COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

YOU LOST ME A LITTLE BIT.

WHEN YOU WERE EXPLAINING THAT.

BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE HAVE A CONCERN NECESSARILY AS TO WHERE DART BUILDS.

MY QUESTION, MORE THAN ANYTHING, IS, AS AN ARCHITECT, I'M SURE ONCE YOU, WHEN YOU BUILD OR DEVELOP A PROPERTY, YOU ARE TRYING TO TIE IN THE PROPERTY TO THE SURROUNDING LAND AND MAKE SURE THERE IS EGRESS AND INGRESS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. ALMOST NONE OF THAT IS VIABLE ON THIS, SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY.

YOU THINK THAT 49 NINE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PARTICULAR PLOT OF LAND.

HOW YOU UNDERSTAND HOW IT WORKS.

I'M NOT SURE IF I'M YOU HAVE ACCESS ISSUES.

OKAY, LET'S TALK ABOUT ACCESS ISSUE.

FOR EXAMPLE WE'VE BEEN ASKED TO DO TWO ACCESS OR ENTRY WAY TO THE, TO THE SITE, WHICH IS WE PROVIDED THE TO ACCESS.

SO WHAT WAS THE ISSUE EXACTLY? ONE OF YOUR ACCESS POINTS REQUIRES ESSENTIALLY CUTTING THROUGH THE MEDIAN OR FORCING FOLKS TO DO A U-TURN.

OKAY. ACCORDING TO THE MEDIAN, IT'S GOING STRAIGHT FROM THE U-TURN TO THE PROPERTY IS RECOMMENDED.

THE PROBLEM IS, WE DIDN'T WANT TO SHARE OUR ENTRY WITH THE COMMERCIAL.

THAT WAS A PROBLEM.

THAT'S WHY WE MOVED IT.

CORRECT. WHICH AGAIN, IF YOU'RE BUILDING A RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

IN COHESION WITH YOUR SURROUNDING USERS, SHARING ACCESS WITH A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY DOESN'T SOUND LIKE IT'S THE MOST VIABLE USE.

CORRECT. YOU HAVE ACCESS ISSUES CONNECTING TO THE OTHER PIECE OF RESIDENTIAL THAT IS RELATIVELY CLOSE.

YOU HAVE YOU'RE ESSENTIALLY.

IT FEELS LIKE.

AND MAYBE I'M NOT ASKING A QUESTION, BUT MORE MAKING A COMMENT.

YOU'RE BUILDING PROJECT ESSENTIALLY ABSOLVES YOU OF ALL OF THE BURDEN TO MAKE IT WORK WITH THE LAND, AND THROWS THAT BACK ON EVERYONE ELSE WHO HAS PREDATED YOU TO THAT.

AND I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S.

SOMETHING YOU THINK THE COMMISSION SHOULD PUSH.

OKAY, THAT'S FAIR QUESTION.

AGAIN, WE DID OUR BEST TRYING TO WORK WITH THE SITE.

IT'S VERY CHALLENGING.

WE'VE BEEN WE DID A LOT OF DIFFERENT VERSIONS OF THE SITE PLAN.

SO I DON'T HAVE I DON'T HAVE IT'S CHALLENGING BECAUSE OF THE USE.

IT'S CHALLENGING BECAUSE IT'S NOT CONFORMANCE TO RESIDENTIAL USE.

I'M TRYING TO SEE IF YOU UNDERSTAND THAT.

I DO UNDERSTAND THAT.

YES, SIR. YEAH. BUT ALSO IN THE OTHER HAND, WHAT THE NEEDS OF THE CITY DID THE CITY NEED MORE OF RESIDENTIAL OR MORE OF THE COMMERCIAL? WHICH ONE BENEFIT MORE TO THE COMMUNITY? THAT'S OKAY.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

[01:10:04]

SO FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR CONSIDERING PLANO, AND I APPRECIATE THE TIME AND ENERGY AND EFFORT THAT HAS GOTTEN YOU TO WHERE YOU'RE STANDING TODAY IN THIS PRESENTATION.

SO I'M SURE YOU'VE HEARD A FEW OF MY CONCERNS ALREADY.

CORRECT. AND THE STAFF SAYS THAT YOU REALIZE THIS IS IN AN A ZONE, AND YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT IS WHAT THAT REPRESENTS.

AND OBVIOUSLY YOU'VE DONE YOUR STUDIES FOR THAT.

HOW ARE WE GOING TO BE CONFIDENT THAT THAT'S MAINTAINED THAT MERV FILTRATION 12 ARE IN ALL 49 RESIDENTS? IS THAT SOMETHING YOUR HOA IS GOING TO INSPECT.

YES. WE HAVE TO HAVE HOA FOR SURE FOR THE COMMUNITY BASED ON THE ZONING AND FOR.

YOU MEAN FOR THE SOUND AND ALL THE? I'M TALKING ABOUT THE PARTICULATE MATTER.

PART OF YOUR MITIGATION WAS, IS THAT THERE WOULD BE A MERV 12 FILTRATION SYSTEM USED IN EACH OF THE, EACH OF THE RESIDENCES.

SO THAT'S 49 RESIDENCES THAT YOU'RE I'M ASKING, IS YOUR HOA GOING TO INSPECT THAT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S UP TO CODE AND REGULATION ON A REGULAR BASIS? I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT RIGHT NOW, BUT I THINK WE CAN MAKE THAT HAPPEN.

BUT I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER. I NEED TO SPEAK TO THE.

OKAY. AND ALSO FOR THE SOUND AND THE COST OF MAINTAINING ALL OF THE HOA REGULATIONS AS IT RELATES TO THE 49 SEPARATE PARCELS.

YOU'RE TELLING US YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN HOA THAT'S GOING TO BE ABLE TO A AFFORD THE COST AND B BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE REGULATIONS THAT WERE NOT REALLY ABLE TO PUT IN PLACE.

SO MOST OF THE RECOMMENDATION HAPPENED WITH THE SOUND.

WHAT BY HIGHER FENCE, BY SPECIFIC MATERIALS IN THE FACADE FACING LAND WEST.

AND THESE ARE ALL VERY DOABLE.

IT'S NOT IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE CAN.

I UNDERSTAND THE SOUND IS DOABLE.

YES. THAT'S NOT MY CONCERN.

I'M SORRY. OKAY. MY CONCERN IS THE PARTICULATE MATTER AND THE FILTRATION THAT YOUR STUDY SUGGESTS THAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO AS MITIGATION EFFORTS.

AND TYPICALLY, THOSE KIND OF MITIGATION EFFORTS ARE DONE IN MULTIFAMILY.

AND WE CAN BE FAIRLY CONFIDENT THAT THAT'S MAINTAINED BECAUSE IT'S ONE PARCEL OR ONE GROUP OF PEOPLE CONTROLLING IT.

BUT IN YOUR CASE, IT'S 49 DIFFERENT PARCELS TO BE MAINTAINED.

RIGHT. AGAIN, THAT BACK TO THE HOA AND I DON'T HAVE A SPECIFIC ANSWER, BUT WE CAN MAKE THAT GUARANTEE SPEAKING WITH THE CLIENT. OKAY, SO ANOTHER QUESTION YOU TALKED ABOUT, AND BELIEVE ME, SOMEBODY WHO'S LIVED IN PLANO ALMOST 28 YEARS, QUALITY OF LIFE IS VERY IMPORTANT, RIGHT? SO I HAVE A QUESTION.

IN WORKING ON THIS PROPERTY AND ALL THE EFFORT THAT YOU GUYS THAT YOU HAVE PUT IN, HOW MUCH TIME HAVE YOU SPENT AT DIFFERENT TIMES OF THE YEAR OR WHAT HAVE YOU EXACTLY IN THIS PARCEL? IT'S BEEN ABOUT LIKE HOURS, WORK AND HOURS.

YEAH. JUST IN GENERAL, HOW MANY DIFFERENT TIMES? HOW MANY DIFFERENT DAYS? HOW LONG HAVE YOU HOW FAMILIAR ARE YOU WITH BEING PHYSICALLY ON THE GROUND IN THIS PARCEL? I VISIT THE SITE.

YOU MEAN PHYSICALLY ON THE GROUND, WALKING THE PARCEL IN THAT GENERAL AREA? HOW MANY TIMES? HOW LONG? MAYBE LIKE 3 OR 4 TIMES.

OKAY, SO I'VE LIVED IN PLANO, LIKE I SAID, ABOUT 28 YEARS.

AND WHEN I THINK ABOUT QUALITY OF LIFE AND I REALIZE THAT I CAN BE ON 75 AND SPRING CREEK AND I CAN SMELL THE LANDSCAPE COMPANY. I WONDER WHAT KIND OF QUALITY OF LIFE WE'RE GOING TO BE PRODUCING FOR A RESIDENT THAT LIVES 30 TIMES CLOSER.

AND YOU'VE VISITED THE SITE MAYBE THREE TIMES.

YOU'RE PROBABLY NOT EVEN FAMILIAR WITH THE ODORS THAT CAN BE PRODUCED OVER THERE THEN I GUESS.

NO. I'M NOT. YEAH.

THAT'S A GRAVE CONCERN I HAVE AS WELL.

NOT ONLY DO I AM I NOT SURE THAT YOU CAN MEET THE PARTICULATE MATTERS AND SATISFY THE EHA STUDY, BUT WE'RE PUTTING RESIDENTS IN AN AREA THAT COULD BE PRACTICALLY DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR HEALTH, AND WE'RE NOT EVEN SURE OTHER THAN 75.

WE DON'T KNOW WHAT OTHER KINDS OF PARTICULATE MATTERS ARE BEING PRODUCED FOR A LIVABLE AREA LIKE THAT RELATED TO THE LANDSCAPE COMPANY PRODUCTION AS WELL AS THE MASONRY CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES.

[01:15:05]

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT THAT'S JUST IT'S VERY CONCERNING TO ME.

COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

I JUST WANTED TO THEY'VE ADDRESSED A LOT OF CONCERNS AS WELL THAT I HAD, BUT I ALSO YOU HAD MENTIONED YOU REALLY PUT A LOT OF EFFORT INTO THIS, AND I SEE THAT. HOW MUCH EFFORT DID YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT REACHING OUT TO YOUR NEIGHBORS AND REALLY WORKING WITH THEM, SUCH AS THE DRIVEWAY? YOU TALK ABOUT A SHARED DRIVEWAY ACCESS TO THE NORTH.

DID YOU ACTUALLY APPROACH THAT NEIGHBOR AND TALK ABOUT AH CREATING ONE THAT THEY WOULD AGREE UPON AS WELL AS DID YOU, DID YOU TALK TO THE CITY OR ANYBODY AND SAY, YOU KNOW, I WON'T LET YOU.

I WILL GO AHEAD AND PUT THE SCREENING WALL UP AND DO ALL THESE THINGS, THIS MASONRY SCREENING WALL, I WON'T LET YOU HAVE TO TAKE ON THAT BURDEN.

WHAT KIND OF EFFORTS DID YOU TAKE WITH YOUR NEIGHBORS? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION.

SO I PERSONALLY DIDN'T SPEAK WITH THE NEIGHBOR, BUT MY CLIENT DID.

AND THE MEETING HAPPENED ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO.

THE PROBLEM IS THE MEETING HAPPENED AFTER WE PROPOSED THE SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH THE NEIGHBOR.

AND BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN PUSHED WITH THE CITY, WE DIDN'T ACTUALLY WORK TOGETHER THROUGH THE ENTRYWAY.

THE CONCERNS THAT WE GOT FROM THE NEIGHBOR WAS ALL ABOUT THE NOISE, THE COMMERCIAL DUE TO THE RESIDENTIAL.

THE LIGHTING ISSUE FROM THE COMMERCIAL TO RESIDENTIAL AND THESE ALL ADDRESS THAT WITH THE NEIGHBOR.

FOR THE SCREENING, WHEN WE DID IN THE BEGINNING, DURING ALL THIS DEVELOPMENT WORK, SOME OF THE COMMENTS WE GOT, WE NEED TO HAVE MASONRY SCREENING WALL AND WE WERE WILLING TO DO IT, AND WE HAD IT IN OUR FLOOR PLAN UNTIL WE GOT THE STAFF COMMENT THAT IT'S NOT REQUIRED.

SO WE HAD TO REMOVE THAT BACK, BUT WE'RE WILLING TO PUT MASONRY SCREENING IF THAT NEEDED.

GOOD. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

IN LIGHT OF THE VARIOUS CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED BY THE COMMISSIONERS THIS EVENING ABOUT THIS PROJECT, I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR TO GIVE YOU AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS WHAT I THINK IS THE IMPORTANT UNDERLYING ISSUE THAT IS BEFORE US.

AND BEAR IN MIND, OUR FUNCTION IS TO CONSIDER WHETHER THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE USE FOR THIS LAND.

OKAY. THAT THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DECIDE.

SO THEREFORE, I WANT TO ASK YOU THAT CONSIDERING ALL OF THE CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED THIS EVENING, WHAT ARE THE SPECIFIC ATTRIBUTES AND CHARACTERISTICS OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IN YOUR VIEW, MAKE IT SUITABLE AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED RESIDENTIAL USE THAT YOU ARE PROPOSING? IN OTHER WORDS, WHY HERE? OKAY. I DON'T HAVE ANSWER.

I'M SORRY ABOUT THAT. OKAY.