1. (DW) Discussion and Action – Preliminary Site Plan: Preston Park Business Center Addition, Block A, Lot 4 – Medical office on one lot on 0.8 acre located at the northeast corner of Old Shepard Place and Preston Park Court. Zoned Planned Development189-Retail/General Office. Project #PSP2025-003. Applicant: KAR Development Group LLC. (Legislative consideration of parking reduction)

[1. (DW) Discussion and Action – Preliminary Site Plan: Preston Park Business Center Addition, Block A, Lot 4 – Medical office on one lot on 0.8 acre located at the northeast corner of Old Shepard Place and Preston Park Court. Zoned Planned Development189-Retail/General Office. Project #PSP2025-003. Applicant: KAR Development Group LLC. (Legislative consideration of parking reduction)]

ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. 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 INSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE IS A DISCUSSION AND ACTION FOR PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

PRESTON PARK BUSINESS CENTER ADDITION BLOCK A LOT 4, MEDICAL OFFICE ON ONE LOT ON .8 ACRE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OLD SHEPHERD PLACE AND PRESTON PARK COURT.

ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 189 RETAIL/ GENERAL OFFICE.

THE APPLICANT IS KAR DEVELOPMENT GROUP, LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF A PARKING REDUCTION.

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

GO THROUGH SOME OF THESE. SO THIS ITEM IS FOR A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR A PROPOSED MEDICAL OFFICE.

THE LOT WAS CREATED IN 2004, AND A SITE PLAN FOR AN OFFICE BUILDING WAS APPROVED IN 2006.

AND THAT SITE PLAN PROPOSED AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE.

THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT OF THAT UNDERGROUND GARAGE IS INDICATED BY THE YELLOW ARROWS ON THE SCREEN, AND THIS PROPOSAL WAS NEVER DEVELOPED. TODAY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 16% PARKING REDUCTION DUE TO THE LIMITED SIZE OF THE SITE, AND BASED ON THE USE AND SIZE OF THE BUILDING, 31 SPACES ARE REQUIRED BY OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

A 16% REDUCTION WILL RELIEVE THE APPLICANT OF 5 OF THOSE SPACES AND WILL CREATE A NEW REQUIREMENT OF 26 SPACES.

THIS REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA FOR PARKING REDUCTION BASED ON OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM FOR APPROVAL WITH A 16% REDUCTION AS REQUESTED. I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER OLLEY. I HAVE A QUESTION.

I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IS THERE, LIKE, A LIMIT FOR US TO GIVE A REDUCTION LIKE PERCENTAGE? YES. THERE'S A 20% LIMIT. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMMISSIONER OLLEY.

JUST ONE. BASED ON THE USE OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT MEDICAL OFFICE IS 26 PARKING SPOTS.

IS THAT IS THAT ENOUGH? FROM OUR ANALYSIS, IT DOES LOOK LIKE IT WOULD BE ENOUGH PARKING SPACES.

AND THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT DID NOT HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL ISSUES WITH THIS SITE.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. HAS THE STAFF RECEIVED ANY INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT AS TO A PROJECTED NUMBER OF DOCTORS AND MEDICAL STAFF AND PATIENTS THAT WOULD BE EXPECTED TO BE ON THE PROPERTY AT ANY GIVEN TIME? WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED THAT INFORMATION. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT.

THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? OH, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. GO AHEAD.

[00:05:02]

OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? THERE ARE NONE.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM ONE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO PROVIDE THE 16% PARKING REDUCTION AS REQUESTED. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. WHERE ARE WE GOING TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT.

OR IS HE HERE? NOT THERE. WE DON'T HAVE ANYBODY REGISTERED TO SPEAK. OKAY.

W E HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR? AND I'D LIKE TO ADD A SECOND OR NO SECOND. I NEED A SECOND, AND THEN WE'LL HAVE SOME DISCUSSION IF WE NEED TO.

I'M NOT SECONDING. OKAY. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. I'LL SECOND.

OKAY. NOW, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. OKAY. THANK YOU.

WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A PARKING REDUCTION BASED SOLELY ON THE CRITERION AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT THE LOT IS TOO SMALL TO ACCOMMODATE THE BUILDING THEY WANT TO BUILD AND THE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE, SO THEY'RE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.

IT IS NOT BASED ON ANY CONSIDERATION OF THE LIKELY PARKING DEMAND THAT THIS THIS USE WILL GENERATE.

AND I'M THINKING ABOUT REQUIREMENT NUMBER A HERE THAT THE REDUCTION MUST NOT BE ANTICIPATED TO CREATE PARKING ISSUES FOR ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY.

WHICH TO ME MEANS WE HAVE TO YOU KNOW, WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING AT SOME POINT HERE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO MEET A REASONABLY ANTICIPATED DEMAND FOR PARKING USE ON THE PROPERTY OTHERWISE, CARS WILL SPILL OVER ONTO THE STREET OR ONTO NEIGHBORING PROPERTY.

LOOKING BACK AT THE HISTORY OF OTHER CASES WE HAVE DECIDED EARLIER THIS YEAR WE HAD A CASE INVOLVING AN ELECTRONIC DATA CENTER WHERE THEY WERE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THREE FIGURES WORTH OF PARKING SPACES FOR A HUGE BUILDING THAT WAS FILLED WITH VERY LARGE MACHINERY, BUT THAT COULD BE RUN BY A HANDFUL OF STAFF, AND THEY DIDN'T NEED ANYTHING APPROACHING THREE FIGURES WITH PARKING SPACES.

AND THE PUBLIC WOULD NOT COME ONTO THE PROPERTY.

IT WASN'T THAT TYPE OF BUSINESS. AND OF COURSE, WE EASILY GRANTED THAT EXCEPTION.

AT OUR LAST MEETING TWO WEEKS AGO, WE GRANTED AN EXCEPTION WHERE THE ONLY CHANGE BEING MADE WAS TO SHIFT A LOT LINE, YOU KNOW, TO ONE SIDE WHICH MOVED SOME PARKING SPACES FROM ONE LOT TO ANOTHER, BUT DID NOT ELIMINATE ANY OF THOSE PARKING SPACES.

AND THE PEOPLE WERE STILL WERE STILL FREE TO PARK WHEREVER THEY WANTED TO. SO IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES, WE CONSIDERED THAT THE THE PARKING DEMAND WOULD BE ADEQUATELY MET BY THE PARKING SPACES BEING PROPOSED.

THAT'S NOT BEING PRESENTED HERE. ALL WE'RE BEING ASKED TO LOOK AT IS THE FACT THIS IS A SMALL LOT.

OKAY. IF IT'S A SMALL LOT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE CONSIDERATIONS THE APPLICANT MIGHT ENTERTAIN WOULD BE EITHER BUILD A SMALLER BUILDING, SHRINK THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING, AND PUT ANOTHER STORY ON TOP OF THE BUILDING, OR BETTER YET, FIND A BIGGER LOT. TODAY AS IT HAPPENS, I TOOK MY WIFE TO A DOCTOR'S APPOINTMENT, THE EYE DOCTOR. OKAY. I COUNTED THE NUMBER OF PEOPLE THAT WE SAW OTHER THAN THE DOCTOR.

THERE WERE SEVEN PEOPLE ON THAT MEDICAL STAFF THAT WE INTERACTED WITH BEFORE THE DOCTOR EVER CAME INTO THE ROOM.

THAT'S A TOTAL OF EIGHT PEOPLE AND THAT'S EIGHT PARKING SPACES, BECAUSE THE STAFF AND THE DOCTORS HAVE TO PARK.

AND DEPENDING ON THE TYPE OF PRACTICE YOU MAY NOT EVEN BE SEEING THE DOCTOR, YOU MAY BE SEEING A PHYSICIAN'S ASSISTANT OR A NURSE PRACTITIONER.

BUT AT THAT RATE, YOU KNOW, IF ASSUMING THAT WITH YOUR YOUR ORDINARY DOCTOR'S VISIT, YOU'RE GOING TO BE SEEING THREE, FOUR, MAYBE FIVE STAFF PEOPLE IN ADDITION TO THE DOCTOR WHO WILL BE IT COULD INCLUDE A TECHNICIAN.

IT COULD INCLUDE A RECEPTIONIST, A SCHEDULER, A NURSE, SOMEBODY TO OPERATE SOME KIND OF MACHINERY OR ANOTHER, SOMEBODY TO COME AND PUT DROPS IN YOUR EYES OR WHATEVER, SOMEBODY TO TAKE X-RAYS.

WITH THAT KIND OF STAFF LOAD THAT THE DOCTORS CARRY, I MEAN, FOUR OR FIVE DOCTORS IN THIS, YOU KNOW, IN THIS BUILDING THEY WANT TO BUILD YOU'RE RUNNING OUT OF PARKING SPACES.

AND THEREFORE, I HAVE DOUBTS THAT THE PARKING DEMAND WILL BE MET BY THE REDUCED NUMBER OF 26 PARKING SPACES.

I'M NOT EVEN SURE ABOUT 31, BUT AT LEAST THE 31 COMPLIES WITH THE ORDINANCE, AND WE COULD NOT QUESTION THAT.

I WISH THE APPLICANT WERE HERE, AND I COULD ASK THE APPLICANT WHETHER THEY HAD, YOU KNOW, LOOKED INTO THE QUESTION OF, YOU KNOW, HOW DID THEY DETERMINE THAT 26 WAS GOING TO BE AN ADEQUATE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES TO AVOID SPILLOVER? BUT THEY AREN'T HERE. IT SEEMS TO ME ALSO THAT FROM A, IN A MEDICAL PRACTICE, YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY FORCING PATIENTS TO PARK AT SOME DISTANCE

[00:10:02]

FROM THE FRONT DOOR OF THE BUILDING, LET ALONE ON THE STREET OR IN A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY, IS A BAD IDEA BECAUSE YOU ARE DEALING WITH PEOPLE WHO ARE SICK, PEOPLE WHO ARE INJURED, PEOPLE WHO MAY BE AN ELDERLY POPULATION.

THEY MAY BE NEEDING TO USE WHEELCHAIRS, WALKERS, CRUTCHES, CANES.

SO I DON'T THINK WE'VE BEEN GIVEN THE RIGHT TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT WOULD SUPPORT THE EXCEPTION IN A CASE LIKE THIS.

SO THAT'S MY COMMENT. WHOEVER'S RUNNING THE SCREEN, CAN YOU PUT THE AERIAL BACK UP HERE FOR US, PLEASE? THERE'S A SLIDE THAT HAD THE AERIAL PHOTO ON IT.

THERE YOU GO. RIGHT THERE. MR. BROUNOFF, YOU MADE SOME GOOD POINTS.

LET ME ASK SOME QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF, IF I COULD, PLEASE.

MISS WOODS, COULD YOU COME BACK UP? IS THERE STREET PARKING ON OLD SHEPHERD PLACE? THERE'S NOT. IS THERE STREET PARKING ON PRESTON? NO THERE'S NOT. OKAY. AND IS THE PROPERTY TO THE IMMEDIATELY TO THE NORTH OF THIS ONE, WHAT IS THAT BUILDING? THAT IS NOT A MEDICAL OFFICE. ONE SECOND.

I BELIEVE IF I REMEMBER YOUR REPORT, THERE'S A THERE'S A SCREENING WALL TO THE EAST BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND THE MULTIFAMILY. I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION RIGHT NOW, BUT I CAN FIND IT ON MY ON THE SITE PLAN. IT'S AN OFFICE TYPE USE.

YES, IT'S AN OPHTHALMOLOGIST MEDICAL OFFICE. OKAY.

THANK YOU. OKAY. SO REALLY, THE ONLY PLACE THAT PARKING COULD SPILL OVER WOULD BE TO THE END OF THE OPHTHALMOLOGIST'S OFFICE.

PROBABLY BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PARK ON, THEY CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET. RIGHT. AND THEY HAVE THAT CONNECTING ACCESS EASEMENT THERE, SO. OH, OKAY, THE CONNECTING ACCESS EASEMENT.

ALL RIGHT. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

I THINK YOU COVERED ESSENTIALLY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

THE ONLY REASON WHY I DIDN'T TRIGGER A CONCERN IS IT FEELS LIKE IT'S RING FENCED, ESSENTIALLY.

AND THE MARKET WILL DETERMINE IF THAT IS A SUCCESSFUL MEDICAL OFFICE.

IF I HAVE TO WALK ACROSS OLD SHEPHERD TO GET TO MY APPOINTMENT AND DODGE TRAFFIC OR WHAT HAVE YOU.

BUT GIVEN THE RE-INFEST NATURE AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE A BURDEN TO ITS NEIGHBORS, THAT'S THE MAJOR REASON WHY I'M OPEN TO APPROVING.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. MRS. WOOD, COULD YOU GO OVER THE PROCESS AT WHICH THE STAFF LOOKS AT THE REASONS FOR APPROVAL OF THIS, AND WALK ME THROUGH THE WHAT YOU DID TO DETERMINE THE SUGGESTION FOR APPROVAL? YES. SO I'LL GO TO THIS SLIDE. MISS WOODS, IF I MAY.

I BELIEVE IF YOU GO TO THE PREVIOUS SITE PLAN THE ISSUE WITH THIS IS NO MATTER WHAT THEY BUILD, THEY NEED A DRIVE AISLE AND THEY NEED TO PROVIDE DUMPSTERS.

YOU GO TO THE PROPOSED SITE PLAN. THEY NEED TO PROVIDE THESE BASICS THAT ANY SITE WILL NEED, WHICH SQUEEZES THE SITE DOWN EVEN FURTHER. SO JUST TO GET A PRODUCTIVE BUILDING OUT OF THIS SITE CONSIDERING IT'S, YOU KNOW, SINGLE USE, SINGLE USER, WE THOUGHT THAT THEY COULD SELF-MANAGE THEIR OWN PARKING.

SO THAT WAS REALLY THE THOUGHT BEHIND THE SUPPORT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE.

AND THAT IN THE SITE HISTORY BEING THAT THE REASON THIS SITE WORKED AS SUCH A SMALL LOT IN THE PAST PLANS WAS BECAUSE IT WAS A SUBTERRANEAN PARKING GARAGE.

WE JUST DIDN'T THINK THAT WAS FEASIBLE, PROBABLY FOR THIS SITE INTO TODAY'S MARKET.

SO THOSE TWO REASONS STAFF WAS SUPPORTIVE OF THE REQUEST.

BUT IF THE COMMISSION WANTS THAT INFORMATION, WE CAN CERTAINLY TABLE AND REQUEST IT FROM THE APPLICANT.

SO IN LOOKING AT THE FOUR REASONS FOR THE ANALYSIS, FOR THE APPROVAL.

YEAH. BEYOND WHAT MR. BELL SAID, HOW HOW DO WE ADDRESS THESE FOUR ISSUES ON THIS SITE? SO I THINK THE BIGGEST ONE IS NUMBER TWO, WHICH IS THE SPILLOVER INTO ANY NEIGHBORHOODS.

SO THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH IS GUARDED OFF BY A WALL IN AN ALLEY, SO YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO JUST DRIVE ACROSS AND YOU'D HAVE TO DO A LOT OF WORK TO GO INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WALK OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND BACK TO THE THE MEDICAL OFFICE.

SO WE DIDN'T SEE ANY REASON WHY THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.

[00:15:04]

NUMBER THREE, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY VEHICLE STORAGE ON THE SITE THAT'S PROPOSED OR EXISTING, SO THAT IS NOT APPLICABLE. AND THE SITE IS NOT UNDER CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP.

SO THAT'S ALSO NOT APPLICABLE. AND THE FIRST ONE, ANTICIPATED IT IS NOT IN OUR ANALYSIS.

IT WASN'T ANTICIPATED TO CREATE ANY PARKING ISSUES FOR THE SURROUNDING SITES BECAUSE THOSE SITES HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING.

AND YOU HAD MENTIONED THAT THIS HAD GONE THROUGH THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT ALREADY.

THE TRAFFIC DEPARTMENT DOES DO A REVIEW OVER PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS.

AND THEY FELT GOOD ABOUT THIS, RIGHT? IT'S APPROVED BY THEM.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. YES.

IN RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT ABOUT THE MARKET, IN ORDER FOR THE MARKET TO REVEAL THAT THERE'S A PROBLEM WITH THE PROJECT, YOU'D HAVE TO FIRST SPEND A COUPLE MILLION DOLLARS AND BUILD IT, AND THEN USE IT FOR A FEW MONTHS BEFORE IT'S FINALLY APPARENT THAT, OOPS, THIS ISN'T WORKING. AND THEN WHERE ARE YOU? YOU ARE STUCK WITH A BUILDING THAT'S NOT WORKING.

I'D RATHER USE A LITTLE FORESIGHT AND ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO EITHER, YOU KNOW, WE COULD TABLE IT AND ENCOURAGE THE APPLICANT TO COME FORWARD WITH ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ALONG THE LINES THAT I SUGGESTED, OR DENY IT, AND WAIT FOR SOME MORE APPROPRIATE USE TO COME ALONG FOR THIS SMALL LOT, SO, YOU KNOW. COMMISSIONERS OTHER COMMENTS? NOBODY.

OKAY. WE DO HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE ON THE FLOOR FOR A VOTE TO APPROVE MADE BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY AND SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

SO THE VOTE IS TO SUPPORT THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND APPROVE THE VARIANCE.

EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. ITEM TWO. AGENDA. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO IS A DISCUSSION AND

[2. (JG) Discussion and Action – Call for Public Hearing: Request to call a public hearing to consider amendments to the Zoning Ordinance to provide procedures for the denial and revocation of Certificates of Occupancy by the City’s Building Official. Project #CPH2025-003. Applicant: City of Plano. (Legislative consideration)]

ACTION CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING. REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR THE DENIAL AND REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY BY THE CITY'S BUILDING OFFICIAL.

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

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JASON GILLIS WITH PLANNER, WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS REQUEST IS TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

CITY COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO PROVIDE PROCEDURES FOR DENIAL AND REVOCATION OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL, AND AMENDMENTS TO THE BUILDING CODE IS ALSO ANTICIPATED AND WILL BE CONSIDERED SEPARATELY BY CITY COUNCIL.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION CALL PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PROPOSAL, AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

IS THIS SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENING IMMINENT, OR IS THIS A MONTH OR TWO OUT IN THE FUTURE? DO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHEN WE'LL BE HAVING THIS PUBLIC HEARING? IT SHOULD. WE ARE CURRENTLY WORKING THROUGH THAT, BUT IT SHOULD BE PRETTY IMMINENT FROM MY UNDERSTANDING.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? SEEING NONE. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I MOVE WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PARTICULAR DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL AND HAVE OUR HEARING.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT? NO, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, MR. BELL? NO. ALL RIGHT. WE STAND ADJOURNED AT 6:18.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

May 05, 2025 Planning and Zoning

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item