[00:00:02]
[CALL TO ORDER]
2025, CITY OF PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:00 PM.
IF YOU'D ALL RISE, AND PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT FEELS LIKE IT'S BEEN A MONTH SINCE WE'VE BEEN HERE, SO THANK YOU EVERYBODY THAT WE TOOK A LITTLE TIME OFF FOR THIS SUMMER, SO IT'S NICE.
THE FIRST ITEM IS COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
DO YOU HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST?
>> THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
>> LET'S MOVE ON TO CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
>> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS THAT ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NON-CONTROVERSIAL.
ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.
>> COMMISSIONERS, WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO REMOVE THE ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION? COUNCIL MEMBER LINGENFELTER?
>> NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND.
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
[1. (CST) Public Hearing – Replat: El Ranchero Country Estates, Lot 16R – One Estate Development lot on 4.6 acres located on the east side of Ranchero Road, 630 feet north of Parker Road. Zoned Estate Development. Project #R2025-018. Applicants: Gregory J. Wren & Alix G. Wren. (Administrative consideration)]
ITEM NUMBER 1, PLEASE.>> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UNLESS OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED AND THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.
APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED.
REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER.
THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.
ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY, EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1, EL RANCHERO COUNTY ESTATES, LOT 16R.
ONE ESTATE DEVELOPMENT LOT ON 4.6 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF RANCHERO ROAD, 630 FEET NORTH OF PARKER ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS GREGORY J WREN AND ALEX G WREN.
THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS CAROLINE STEWART, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THE PURPOSE FOR THE RE-PLOT IS PROPOSE A DRAINAGE AND FLOODWAY EASEMENT.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? SEEING NONE, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?
>> THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
>> I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
COMMISSION? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.
>> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8-0. ITEM NUMBER 2.
[Item 2.A & 2.B]
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO READ BOTH?
>> YEAH. LET'S READ 2A AND 2B TOGETHER, PLEASE.
REQUEST TO REZONE 19 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF US HIGHWAY 75, AND STATE HIGHWAY 190, INCLUDING REZONING 2.2 ACRES FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-58-CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND AMENDING THE REMAINING 16-POINT ACRES WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-58-CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO REMOVE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND CREATE A NEW PERMITTED USE OF COMMERCIAL FLEX WAREHOUSE WITH ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 PLANO PARKWAY AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
PETITIONER IS ONALP PROPERTY OWNER, LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2B, FRY'S ELECTRONICS ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 1R, A COMMERCIAL FLEX WAREHOUSE ON ONE LOT ON 14.9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PLANO PARKWAY, AND EXECUTIVE DRIVE, ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT -8-CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY, AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
THE APPLICANT IS ONALP PROPERTY OWNER, LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION, PENDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2A.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS JOHN KIM, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
ON THIS MAP, YOU'LL SEE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION.
IT IS LOCATED APPROXIMATELY AT GEORGE BUSH AND CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY.
[00:05:02]
THERE ARE TWO TRACTS ON THE SITE.TRACT 1 IS THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE EXISTING SUPERSTORE BUILDING.
THEN TRACT 2 IS AN UNDEVELOPED STRIP.
WITH THIS REQUEST, TRACT 1 WILL BE STAYING IN THE PD-58-CC ZONING, WHILE TRACT 2 WILL BE REZONED TO STRAIGHT CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.
THERE IS ALSO A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING CASE, AND WE'LL GO OVER THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS LATER ON.
JUST A BRIEF HISTORY OF THE SITE.
IN 1999, IT WAS REZONED TO CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.
IN 2004, THE PROPERTY WAS DEVELOPED IN AS FRY'S SUPERSTORE BUILDING.
THAT'S WHAT WE'VE BEEN FAMILIAR WITH FOR A WHILE.
THEN IN 2021, FRY'S CLOSED, AND THE BUILDING REMAINED VACANT.
IN 2022, THERE WAS A EFFORT TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO DEVELOP A MIXED USE PROPERTY.
AND THAT'S WHEN PLAN DEVELOPMENT-58-CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WAS ESTABLISHED FOR THE AREA, INCLUDING BOTH TRACTS 1 AND 2.
AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, IT IS TO AMEND PD-58-CC, AND IT IS THREE OBJECTIVES, IS TO REMOVE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
ALL OF THE PREVIOUS STANDARDS, THEY WILL BE REPLACED.
SECOND IS TO PROPOSE A NEW USE OF COMMERCIAL FLEX WAREHOUSE WITH ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON TRACT 1, AND THAT'S IN THE EXISTING BUILDING.
THREE, REASON TRACT 2 FROM PD-58-CC TO CC.
HERE IS THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL FLEX WAREHOUSE.
THE BUSINESS IS ESSENTIALLY A SHARED WAREHOUSE SPACE FOR SMALL BUSINESSES AND ENTREPRENEURS.
IN THE BUILDING, THERE WILL BE SOME OFFICE SPACE AVAILABLE.
SOME LEASABLE WAREHOUSE SPACES, THEY'LL RANGE FROM 300 SQUARE FEET FOR SMALLER OPERATIONS UP TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
THERE IS APPROXIMATELY 160 UNITS PROPOSED.
I SAY APPROXIMATELY BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT SOME OF THE UNITS AS NEEDED CAN BE YOU KNOW, RESIZED AND REWORKED JUST TO MEET THE TENANTS NEEDS.
THERE ARE SOME SHARED COMMON FACILITIES IN THE BUILDING, SUCH AS REST ROOMS, CONFERENCE ROOMS, THE TRUCK DOCKS, PARKING, ALL OF THAT CAN BE SHARED, AND THERE IS ALSO SOME SHARED EQUIPMENT.
ONE KEY THING TO NOTE IS THERE WILL BE ONE CO HOLDER FOR THE ENTIRE BUILDING.
ON THAT, THERE WILL BE SUB LEASES FOR EACH OF THE TENANTS.
HERE ARE SOME PHOTOS FROM SOME OF THE EXISTING WARE SPACE BUSINESSES AROUND THE COUNTRY.
THE TOP LEFT ONE IS ONE IN NORTH RICHLAND HILLS.
THESE FLEX WAREHOUSE SPACES BEING DEVELOPED THROUGHOUT THE FW AS THEY ARE STARTING TO BECOME MORE POPULAR.
SAME WITH THE WAREHOUSE SPACES.
THEY HAVE WALLS THAT ARE ABOUT 12 FEET HIGH.
THEY'RE SEPARATED THROUGH THESE WALL DIVISIONS.
THEY ARE LOCKED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CEO HOLDER, AND IT IS CLIMATE CONTROLLED AS WELL.
YOU CAN SEE SOME OF THE EXAMPLES OF WHAT BUSINESSES MAY GO IN.
SOME OF THE EXAMPLES OF ANTICIPATED USES ARE DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND WAREHOUSE, SERVICE CONTRACTORS, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND MODERATE MANUFACTURING, STUDIOS, WORKSHOPS, AND PRINT SHOPS.
I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT THE DISTRIBUTION CENTER, WAREHOUSE, AND THE MODERATE MANUFACTURING IS LIMITED TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET PER TENANT.
THAT'S JUST TO MAINTAIN SOME OF THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF THE BUILDING AND MAKE SURE IT DOESN'T BECOME TOO INDUSTRIAL OF A USE.
I DON'T THINK THE SLIDES ARE WORKING.
SOME OF THE PROHIBITED USES, PROHIBITED STIPULATIONS, IS THE MINI-WAREHOUSE AND PUBLIC STORAGE, PERSONAL SERVICE SHOPS, VEHICLE REPAIR SHOPS, RESTAURANTS, ANY MANUFACTURING OF FOOD PRODUCTS OR USES THAT REQUIRE FOOD HANDLING PERMIT.
THAT MIGHT BE LIKE A RESTAURANT, AS WELL, BUT OTHER MANUFACTURING.
ASSEMBLY USES AS DEFINED BY THE BUILDING CODE, AND THAT'S FOR THINGS LIKE BANQUET HALLS, ART GALLERIES,
[00:10:02]
ANY ACTIVITY THAT MAY HAVE A LARGE GATHERING AS DEFINED BY THE BUILDING CODE, AND THEN CAR WASH. FOR SOME OF THESE PROHIBITED USES, THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT HOW TO MANAGE POTENTIAL POLLUTANTS, WHETHER THEY ARE AIR-RELATED OR LIQUIDS.HOW DO YOU EFFICIENTLY MANAGE THAT? OTHERS WERE RELATED TO FIRE SAFETY DIFFERENT USES.
THEY HAVE HIGHER OCCUPANT LOADS, AND THEY REQUIRE MORE FIRE SAFETY MEASURES.
THEY MAY REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING.
THERE WAS A LOT OF CONCERNS ABOUT SOME OF THE CHALLENGES THAT THESE PROHIBITED USES MAY CREATE.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THESE ARE PROHIBITED JUST TO MAINTAIN MORE OF THE USES THAT WOULD BE MORE EASILY REGULATED BY THE BUSINESS.
HERE ARE SOME OF THE SITE IMPROVEMENTS WITH THIS BUSINESS.
THEY ARE PROPOSING TO ADD UP TO SIX ADDITIONAL TRUCK DOCKS TO THE EXISTING TWO FOR A TOTAL OF EIGHT.
THERE WILL BE SOME LOADING AREAS ON THE SITE.
LIVING SCREEN IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY AND ALONG THE TRUCK DOCKS AS WELL.
THAT WILL BE TO LIMIT VISIBILITY FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, AS WELL AS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAYS.
THERE WILL BE SOME DESIGNATED FLEET VEHICLE STORAGE.
YOU CAN SEE ON THE PHOTO, THE STRIPS OF ORANGE, THAT WILL BE THE AREAS THAT ARE THE FLEET STORAGE, AND THEY ARE STILL ABLE TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT, EVEN WITH THE FLEET VEHICLE STORAGE AND LOADING AREAS.
THE OPEN STORAGE IS LIMITED TO JUST EXISTING, AND PARKING IS PROVIDED FOR THE SITE, AND SIGNAGE WILL BE LIMITED TO THE CO HOLDER, CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
PARKING, IT WAS BASED ON SOME OF THE EXISTING WE SPACE SITES.
WE ENDED WITH A RATIO OF 1:600.
WE FIGURED THAT WOULD BE ENOUGH TO MEET THEIR REQUIREMENTS.
JUST TO NOTE, REDUCED PARKING WOULD ALLOW POTENTIAL ADDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTY.
IF THEY DO WANT TO ADD A FUTURE BUILDING ON THE SITE, WE MAY BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THAT.
THERE ARE SOME OPERATIONAL CONCERNS DUE TO THE COMPATIBILITY OF ALL THE VARIETY OF USES HERE.
THERE MAY BE ISSUES WITH AIR QUALITY, FIRE HAZARDS OR EXCESS NOISE.
BUT WE DO THINK THAT WITH THE PROHIBITED USES AND THE SELF REGULATION BY THE BUSINESS, THERE MAY BE SUFFICIENT SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE TO PREVENT SOME OF THESE CONCERNS.
BUT IF THERE ARE SOME ADDITIONAL MITIGATIONS REQUIRED, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE THAT ONSITE AND MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
MIKE BELL AND I, WE DID DO A SITE VISIT AT THE NORTH RICHLAND HILLS LOCATION.
GENERALLY, I THINK IT SEEMED VERY CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY WERE PROPOSING.
THE WAREHOUSE SPACES WERE WELL MAINTAINED, AND THE TRUCK DOGS, FIRE AREAS, HALLWAYS, THEY WERE MAINTAINED, AS WELL.
WE DO HAVE A AN ISSUE WITH CODE COMPLIANCE BECAUSE WE HAVEN'T HAD A USE LIKE THIS BEFORE.
OUR SOLUTION WAS THAT THE BUSINESS IS PROPOSING TO HAVE ONE CO HOLDER, AND THEN THEY WOULD PROVIDE A MONTHLY REPORT.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE. WE REDACTED THE ID AND BUSINESS NAMES, BUT YOU WILL GET THE USE, THE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING, HOW MUCH SPACE THEY ARE TAKING UP IN THE BUILDING.
THIS WILL BE PROVIDED TO ALL OF THE CITY STAFF DEPARTMENTS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WE CAN MAINTAIN AND THEY CAN STAY COMPLIANT WITH ALL OF OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS.
THE INDIVIDUAL TENANTS WILL BE MANAGED BY THE HOLDER OF THE CO, AND THEY WILL SUBLEASE THROUGH THEM AS WELL.
THE CO HOLDER WILL BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY OF THESE POTENTIAL ISSUES ON SITE.
IF THERE ARE ANY COMPLAINTS OR ISSUES ARE RAISED, THEN IT WILL BE INVESTIGATED BY NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES.
THIS PROPOSAL IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
FOR RESPONSES, WE DID RECEIVE ONE OFFICIAL LETTER FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST.
IT IS A 5.3 ACRE PROPERTY AND DOES TRIGGER OVER 20% OPPOSITION FOR CITY COUNCIL.
[00:15:08]
IT WAS THE ONLY RESPONSE WE HAVE RECEIVED.IN SUMMARY, THE REQUEST US TO AMEND PD-58-CC TO REMOVE THE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, RE-ZONE TRACT 2 FROM PD-58-22 CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, AND ESTABLISHED THE COMMERCIAL FLEX WAREHOUSE USE ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
ITEM 2A IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, AND ITEM 2B IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2025-004.
>> I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, AND CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL SELSO MATA IS HERE AS WELL AS THE APPLICANTS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU AND THEN I'LL HAND IT OFF TO THE COMMISSIONERS.
THE NEW DEFINITION OF COMMERCIAL FLEX WAREHOUSE IS NOW ONLY GOING TO APPLY IN PD58, CORRECT?
>> THIS IS NOT A CITY WIDE CHANGE.
THIS IS SITE SPECIFIC FOR THIS DEFINITION.
>> GREAT. COMMISSIONER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WHAT WAS THE BASIS OF THE OPPOSITION BY THE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST?
>> WE DIDN'T RECEIVE A REASON IN THE LETTER.
WE JUST RECEIVED A LETTER MARKED OPPOSED.
I THINK THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE TRIED TO CONTACT THEM SO THEY MAY HAVE MORE INFORMATION, BUT WE ARE UNSURE AT THIS TIME.
>> IS THE AUTHOR OF THAT LETTER HERE THIS EVENING?
>> I DON'T BELIEVE IF THEY REGISTER.
>> THEY'VE NOT REGISTERED AS A SPEAKER.
>> SECOND. IS THE APPLICANT OF THIS CASE THE SAME AS THE APPLICANT OF THE PD58 THAT WAS PASSED IN 2022?
>> AS FAR AS YOU KNOW, WOULD ANY OF THE PROPOSED AUTHORIZED USES INVOLVE A FIRE HAZARD TO THE OTHER TENANTS.
>> WE DON'T BELIEVE SO. I THINK ONE OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE HAD DISCUSSED WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT WAS THAT, THE BUILDING WAS BUILT FOR THAT SUPERSTORE WHICH IT REQUIRED TO BE SPRINKLED, AND REQUIRED TO HAVE FIRE EXITS AND ENTRY.
I THINK THERE IS ALSO A REQUIREMENT TO HAVE FIRE MITIGATION MEASURES FOR THE HIGHEST ALLOWED USE OR PROPOSED USE IN THE BUILDING.
IF THERE ISN'T SUFFICIENT FIRE PROTECTION ALLOWED, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS.
>> WOULD ANY OF THE AUTHORIZED OR ALLOWED USES INVOLVE THE PRODUCTION OF NOXIOUS FUMES?
>> WE DID TRY TO LIMIT THOSE, AND I THINK THAT IS PART OF OUR PROHIBITED USE LIST.
BUT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WE WOULD DEFINITELY TRY TO MAINTAIN WITH THE BUSINESS OWNER.
>> WOULD ANY OF THE USES REQUIRE THE INSTALLATION OF RUNNING WATER WITHIN THE INDIVIDUAL UNIT, OR SPECIAL ELECTRICAL CONNECTIONS?
>> ON OUR SITE VISIT, I THINK THEY MENTIONED THAT THEY DON'T REALLY PROVIDE SPECIALIZED WATER UNITS FOR EACH SPACE, BUT THEY MAY BE ABLE TO CLARIFY THAT.
>> WELL, JUST IN GENERAL, IS THERE ANYTHING ABOUT THE AUTHORIZED USES THAT MIGHT PRODUCE A NEGATIVE IMPACT TO THE OTHER TENANTS? I'M NOT SUGGESTING THAT THERE IS. I JUST WANT TO KNOW.
>> I THINK THERE ARE ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE THAT IF THERE DOES BECOME THAT ISSUE, THEN WE CAN INVESTIGATE IT.
BUT GENERALLY, THERE MAY NOT BE THAT ISSUE.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE FLEX WAREHOUSE, AND I THINK CHAIR RATLIFF POINTED TO ONE OF THEM.
THAT DESIGNATED USE WE ARE CREATING SPECIFICALLY FOR PD58 AND NOWHERE ELSE.
IS THIS THE ONLY SITE THAT WE HAVE PD58 IN PLANO?
>> THE REASON WHY WE ARE GIVING THIS NEW DESIGNATION IS WATER AGAIN.
CAN YOU EXPAND ON WHY WE ARE CREATING A NEW USE?
>> THE ZONING ORDINANCE CURRENTLY DOESN'T HAVE A USE THAT QUITE MEETS THIS BUSINESS PROPOSAL.
WE BASE IT OFF OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN THE ORDINANCE TO COME UP WITH THIS NEW USE SO THAT IT CAN REMAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHILE STILL HELPING ACCOMMODATE THE BUSINESS PROPOSAL.
>> IF I COULD ADD TO THAT. WE HAVE OTHER EXAMPLES OF SIMILAR USES IN PLANO.
BUT THERE IN LIGHT INDUSTRIAL WHERE
[00:20:02]
WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTERS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT.BECAUSE THIS IS CODE COMMERCIAL ZONING, WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION IS NOT PERMITTED BY RIGHT.
WE FELT THAT THIS BUSINESS CONCEPT WAS A LITTLE LESS INTENSE THAN YOUR TYPICAL WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER.
THEREFORE, CREATING THIS USE WITH CUSTOM STANDARDS COULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THIS INSTANCE.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY CONCERN OF OTHER APPLICANTS IN CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ENCROACHING AND ASKING FOR A SIMILAR EXCEPTION IN CURRENT CC DISTRICTS?
>> WE DON'T. A LOT OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS ARE CUSTOMIZED TO THIS SPECIFIC BUILDING.
FOR EXAMPLE, WE LIMITED THE NUMBER OF TRUCK DOCS, THE SCREENING.
THIS PLACE HAS ADEQUATE PARKING AVAILABLE.
THOSE SIMILAR CONDITIONS WILL NEED TO BE PRESENT FOR US TO CONSIDER IT IN OTHER LOCATIONS.
>> HOW MUCH CONTROL THAT THE CITY HAS AFTER YOU RECEIVE THE REPORT, THE MONTHLY REPORT, LET'S SAY ABOUT THE CO, HOW MUCH CONTROL YOU HAVE SAYING THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING TO ALLOW THIS USE OR WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THIS USE?
>> YEAH, AGAIN, WE WOULD HOLD THE CO HOLDER ACCOUNTABLE FOR THAT.
THEY DO HAVE TO MAINTAIN AND MAKE SURE THAT THEIR BUSINESS, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER, IS COMPLYING WITH ALL OF OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS.
I THINK IF ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY, THERE COULD BE A CO REVOCATION ULTIMATELY MAYBE.
BUT STANDARD TO ANY OTHER BUSINESS, THEY WOULD JUST HAVE TO MEET THE CODE REQUIREMENTS.
>> YOU ARE GOING TO REVIEW THIS REPORT MONTHLY OR BI-MONTHLY OR WHATEVER.
THEN CAN YOU COMMENT ON WHATEVER RENTED OR LEASE SPACE THAT THEY HAVE.
>> IF YOU THINK THAT IT'S NOT THE APPROPRIATE USE.
IMPOSE SOMETHING LIKE A FIRE HAZARD.
>> YEAH, WE WOULD INVESTIGATE.
EACH DEPARTMENT, I'M SURE, WOULD DO SOME LEVEL OF RESEARCH IF THERE WAS A MAJOR CONCERN OR ISSUE REPORTED.
I KNOW NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES WOULD ALSO LOOK INTO THAT AS WELL.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION, AND I GUESS IT'S A MULTIPART QUESTION.
AS IT RELATES TO THE SINGLE CO, IS THERE OR ARE THERE ANY BUSINESSES OR ANY ENTITIES THAT WOULD REQUIRE SOME DIFFERENT CO THAT COULD FALL INTO THIS SPACE WITHOUT HAVING TO GET THAT CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY SINCE THERE'S ONLY ONE?
>> ALL THE TENANTS WILL BE SUBLEASING THROUGH THE MAIN CO.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WOULD BE A SITUATION WHERE THEY WOULD HAVE TO GET ANOTHER CO INDIVIDUALLY.
>> WELL, NO, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO GET INTO THE SPACE WITHOUT HAVING TO GET A SECOND CO, ALTHOUGH WE MIGHT REQUIRE IT IF THEY WERE MOVING INTO AN OFFICE BUILDING, OR INTO SOME OTHER SPACE? > IF IT'S AS PART OF A SUBLEASE WITH THIS BUSINESS, THEN I THINK THEY CAN FOREGO THAT CO PROCESS.
BUT IF THEY WERE DOWN THE LINE, RECONFIGURE THE BUILDING SO THAT THEY ONLY OCCUPY PORTIONS OF THE BUILDING, THEN THAT MAY BE A CONCERN DOWN THE LINE.
BUT I THINK WITH THIS PROPOSAL, THERE WOULDN'T BE THAT REQUIREMENT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. ACTUALLY, COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TRIGGERED ANOTHER QUESTION FOR MINE ALSO REGARDING THE BUILDING.
IN THE FUTURE, RIGHT NOW THEY MAY HAVE SECTION IT OFF FOR, I DON'T KNOW, 100 UNITS.
MAYBE BASED ON THE NEW SUB-TENANTS COMING IN, THEY MAY HAVE TO REPARTITION OR PLUMBING, ELECTRICAL, AND ALL THE THINGS MAY CHANGE.
WHEN THAT HAPPENS, DO WE NEED TO DO NEW INSPECTIONS, ISSUE NEW COS? WHAT'S THE PROCESS ON THAT?
>> I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE SELF MANAGED, BUT THAT MAY BE SOMETHING THAT THE BUILDING OFFICIAL COULD ADDRESS.
I DON'T KNOW IF THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR.
>> I ALSO WANT TO ADD THIS, DOES NOT EXEMPT THEM FROM REQUIRING BUILDING PERMITS FOR INTERIOR ALTERATIONS.
THEY WOULD STILL NEED THOSE THROUGH THE CITY, AND WE COULD MANAGE IT THROUGH THAT PROCESS.
[00:25:02]
WHEN THEY'RE SUBLEASING, THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.>> THAT'S CORRECT. ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES A PERMIT IS GOING TO NEED TO COME THROUGH THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION FOR ME, IS THERE A MAXIMUM SIZE FOR ANY SUB-TENANT?
>> LET ME GO BACK. IT WAS FOR THE MODERATE INTENSITY MANUFACTURING AND THE DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND WAREHOUSE.
THEY ARE LIMITED TO 20,000 SQUARE FEET PER TENANT.
>> THANK YOU. I GOT ALL LIGHTS JUMP IN.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT'S THE DEFINITION OF THE MODERATE INTENSITY INDUSTRIAL? WHAT ARE SOME OF THE USES, LIKE WELDING, WHAT DOES IT INVOLVE?
>> IN SHORT, IT MAY JUST BE SOMETHING THAT REQUIRES THE ASSEMBLY, BUT THEY WOULD ALSO BE FABRICATING SOMETHING OUT OF NON-HAZARDOUS MATERIALS.
>> POTENTIALLY THAT COULD BE PART OF THE ASSEMBLY PROCESS.
IF THEY HAD LET'S SAY MANUFACTURE AN ALUMINUM PART AND TO PUT PARTS TOGETHER, TO MAKE THE PRODUCT, I THINK THAT COULD FOLLOW THE MODERATE INTENSITY MANUFACTURING.
>> NOW, THE REASON I'M ASKING BECAUSE NOW IF WE HAVE A ONE WHOLE BUILDING AND YOU HAVE DIFFERENT TENANTS, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A FIREWALL BETWEEN THE TENANT.
BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU DON'T HAVE ONE.
>> IT SEEMS LIKE EVERYBODY IS GOING TO BE EXPOSED TO ANY HAZARDS THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING FROM YOU ANYWHERE ELSE.
>> IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL CONCERNS OR ADDITIONAL MITIGATION THAT IS REQUIRED, THE APPLICANT WOULD HAVE TO MEET THAT TO MEET OUR CODE REQUIREMENTS.
>> GETTING INTO ANYTHING THAT'S USING TRANSFORMING RAW MATERIALS INTO SOMETHING THAT GETS INTO THE HEAVY MANUFACTURING CATEGORY WHICH IS NOT PERMITTED HERE.
MODERATE YOU MAY HAVE SOME FABRICATION.
THEN HEAVY IS YOU'RE USING RAW SOURCE PRODUCTS TO CREATE NEW CHEMICALS.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YOUR REFERENCE TO SUBTENANTS RAISES A QUESTION IN MY MIND AS TO, IS THERE A PRIMARY TENANT WHO IS LEASING THE WHOLE PROPERTY FROM AN OWNER, AND WHO IS IN TURN THEN SUBLEASING TO INDIVIDUAL UNIT SUBTENANTS?
>>YEAH. WARE SPACE, THAT'S THE IMAGE I HAVE HERE.
THE ASSOCIATED BUSINESS WITH THIS REQUEST.
THEY WOULD BE MANAGING THE WHOLE SPACE.
THEY MANAGE ALL THE SHARED FACILITIES SUCH AS A TRUCK DOCKS AND EVERYTHING, MANAGE ALL THE SUBLEASES WITH THE BUSINESS.
>> YOU'RE NOT UNDERSTANDING MY QUESTION.
YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT MANAGING.
I'M TALKING ABOUT IN ORDER TO HAVE A SUBTENANT, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PRIMARY TENANT WHO WHO DOES THE SUBLEASING.
IS WARE SPACE AN OWNER OR A TENANT WHO IS LEASING FROM AN OWNER?
>> THEY WOULD BE THE PRIMARY TENANT FOR THE WHOLE BUILDING, AND THEN SUBLEASE THE SPACES THAT NEEDED.
>> SOME OF THE ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE RAISED IN THEIR QUESTIONS COME UP LIKE AN UNAUTHORIZED USE OR SOME CONDITION OF THE PROPERTY THAT NEEDS TO BE REMEDIED OR SOMETHING, WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO ADDRESS IT? PRIMARY TENANT, THE OWNER, WHO?
THAT USUALLY ALSO WOULD PROBABLY IMPLY THE SUBLEASE AS WELL TO WORK WITH THE CO HOLDER.
>> WHO WOULD BE THE CO HOLDER?
>> THAT WOULD BE WARE SPACE IN THIS CASE.
>> I THINK IT WOULD BE WARE SPACE IN THAT CASE.
>> PERHAPS YOU CAN HAVE MAYBE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL COME DOWN AND CLARIFY THE CO PROCESS.
>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND TITLE.
>> MY NAME IS SELSO MATA, CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL.
WE WILL VIEW THE ENTIRE BUILDING AS ONE SPACE THAT IS GOING TO BE SECTIONED OUT WITH DIFFERENT LEASE SPACES, AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.
IT'S A DIFFERENT BUILDING TYPE.
THE CO WOULD BE ISSUED TO WARE SPACE, WHICH WILL BE THE BUILDING OWNER, AS I UNDERSTAND IT.
THEY'LL ALSO MANAGE THE SPACE.
WHAT WE DID WAS LOOK AT A CHAPTER IN THE BUILDING CODE, WHICH WAS A POINT THAT COMMISSIONER ALALI POINTED OUT, WHERE THERE ARE DIFFERENT USES AND THERE ARE DIFFERENT WALLS THAT ARE REQUIRED BETWEEN CERTAIN SPACES.
[00:30:04]
THERE ARE SPACES THAT ARE ALLOWED.THE BUILDING CODE GIVES DIFFERENT DETERMINATIONS TO BUILDING SPACES THAN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
THERE ARE EVEN F1S, WHICH ARE FACTORY.
A LOT OF THOSE WHEN THEY ALIGN AND ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER, TO MY SURPRISE BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THIS A LOT, BUT I LOOKED AT IT AND RESEARCHING.
DON'T REQUIRE A WALL BETWEEN THEM THAT IS FIRE RATED.
SOME DO, AND SOME DON'T BASED ON THE TYPE OF BUSINESS THAT'S GOING IN.
BUT WITH THE MAINTENANCE AND REQUIREMENTS THAT WARE SPACE PROPOSES, OVERSIGHT OF THAT WILL BE AVOIDED BECAUSE SPACES WILL ALIGN WITH WHAT IS ALLOWED PER THE BUILDING CODE.
LOOKING AT THEIR BUSINESS MODEL, THEY HAVE PRACTICED THIS BEFORE, LOOKING AT OTHER AREA CITIES THAT HAVE ALSO HAVE THEM IN PLACE, WHERE WE'RE LEARNING WHAT THE USE IS DOING AND HOW IT'S BEING SPREAD OUT AMONG THE ENTIRE SPACE.
IT WAS A CONCERN OF OURS THAT IF WE WERE GOING TO CO EACH INDIVIDUAL SPACE, IT MIGHT HAVE A LOT OF DIFFERENT SPACES THAT WE WOULD LOOK AT, AND FROM TIME TO TIME, THEY MAY BE DIFFERENT.
>> IF IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE COULD HELP STAFF UNDERSTAND, THE MONTHLY REPORT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE THOUGHT WOULD BE PROACTIVE AND HELPFUL TO CONVEY ALL THE INFORMATION OF WHAT ARE ALL THE SPACES IN THERE.
LOOKING AT IT MONTHLY, WE THOUGHT THAT WE COULD HANDLE THAT, ALSO WORKING WITH NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, INVESTIGATING ANY COMPLAINTS.
AS YOU ALL KNOW, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE DO ALONG WITH DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION IS INVESTIGATE COMPLAINTS.
WE GET SOME OF THE BEST INFORMATION FROM CITIZENS AND BUSINESS OWNERS WHO ARE WATCHING THEIR SPACES.
I THINK KNOWING THAT AND HAVING EXPERIENCE THAT AND WORKING WITH WARESPACE, WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS POSSIBLE TO MANAGE THE SPACES.
WE DON'T HAVE A SITUATION THAT WOULD BE OF ANY SAFETY CONCERNS FROM A BUILDING CODE STANDPOINT.
AGAIN, AS MR. KIM MENTIONED, THE BUILDING BEFORE HAS SPRINKLERS IN PLACE, WHICH WILL BE ADJUSTED AS NECESSARY BECAUSE THE PLANS WILL BE REQUIRED TO LOOK AT ALL THE SPRINKLER HEADS AND THERE WILL BE SOME ADJUSTMENT THAT IS NECESSARY FOR THE SPRINKLER HEADS TO ACTIVATE AS NECESSARY AND AS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT LOOKS AT THAT.
THE EXITS WILL REMAIN IN PLACE AND I THINK IT'S PROBABLY GOT MORE EXITS THAN IT NEEDS BECAUSE IT'S NOT THE SAME SPACE AS IT WAS AS AN OCCUPANCY WHEN IT WAS A FRY'S.
BUT THE EXITS WILL PROBABLY BE ACCESSIBLE AS WE LOOK AT THE PLANS GOING FORWARD.
I DON'T KNOW IF I'VE ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION AS I'M RAMBLING ON. I'M SORRY.
>> MR. BROUNOFF DID THAT ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN?
>> NO, THE THRUST OF MY QUESTION WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS AN ENTITY THAT IS IDENTIFIABLE WHO WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE TO THE CITY FOR COMPLIANCE WITH ALL CITY ORDINANCES?
I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE JUST SAID THAT FIRST.
>> WE APPRECIATE YOUR SUMMARY, THOUGH.
THAT WAS HELPFUL. COMMISSIONER TONG.
I'M NOT SURE IF IT'S TO THE DEPARTMENT OR MR. KIM.
THIS IS A SIMPLE QUESTION REGARDING THE USE OF THE SPACE OR THE ZONING, I GUESS ORDINANCE, BECAUSE THIS IS NEW.
I UNDERSTAND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME PLANO HAS SOME SPECIAL USE LIKE THIS IN OUR CITY.
I SEE THAT WE'RE REZONING IT TO ORDO COMMERCIAL WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT, I GUESS.
WOULD IT BE EASIER TO JUST REZONE IT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR WHAT'S THE PROS AND CONS BETWEEN THESE TWO TYPE OF CHANGES?
>> HELLO. IT IS ALREADY ZONED AS PD58CC SO I THINK JUST MODIFYING THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN THIS LOCATION MAYBE SIMPLER.
I THINK IF IT WAS REZONED TO, LET'S SAY, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL OR OTHER ZONING, IT MAY BE INCOMPATIBLE WITH SOME OF THESE SURROUNDING AREAS.
[00:35:03]
FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WAS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, THERE'S AN APARTMENT COMPLEX RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL MAY BE VERY INCOMPATIBLE WITH RESIDENCES SO I THINK THAT WOULD CREATE SOME CHALLENGES.I THINK THROUGH THE PD, REQUIRING SOME ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT HELPS US TO MAKE THIS USE AS COMPATIBLE AS IT COULD BE TO THE ADJACENT AREA.
>> RESORTING TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL HERE WOULD ALLOW MUCH MORE ADDITIONAL USES IN THIS AREA THAT ARE INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY PROHIBITING THROUGH THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.
ALSO, THE NUMBER OF TRUCK DOCKS AND THINGS THAT ARE MORE INDUSTRIAL IN NATURE TO THE BUILDING ARE BEING LIMITED THROUGH THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
IF IT WENT TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, THAT WOULD NOT BE THE CASE.
>> MORE OF A STATEMENT TELL ME IF I'M WRONG IN MY UNDERSTANDING.
ESSENTIALLY, AGAIN, OUT OF THE BOX, I ACTUALLY APPLAUD PLANNING DEPARTMENT FOR THINKING ABOUT THIS.
WE REQUIRING ONE CEO, THE LIABILITY IS ON THAT ONE CEO OWNER TO STAY WITHIN OUR BUILDING CODE AND BUILDING PERMITS AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
ANY VIOLATION IN THOSE LITTLE SPACES IS ON THE HEAD OF THE ONE CEO OWNER TO GO ADDRESS IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN THE CEO.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. JUST A COMMENT.
I THINK THIS IS A GREAT SMALL BUSINESS INCUBATOR I THINK WITH GREAT ACCESS TO THE CITY, SO I LIKE THE CONCEPT. JUST A COMMENT.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. MORE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION.
I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE SOME REGISTERED SPEAKERS, ONE OF WHICH IS THE APPLICANT.
IF YOU'D LIKE TO COME FORWARD, ALL HAVE A PRESENTATION FOR US.
STATE YOUR NAME AND BILL, YOU KNOW THE ROUTINE.
>> MR. CHAIR, COMMISSION, MY NAME IS BILL DOLS FROM 2323 ROSS AVENUE.
I'M PRIVILEGED TO BE HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF WARESPACE.
COMMISSIONER BENDER, YOU TOOK SOME OF MY THRUST.
THIS IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO CREATE A SPACE FOR INCUBATING SMALL BUSINESSES IN THE CITY.
THEY GET IN, THEY GET A SMALLER SPACE AND AS THEY GROW, WARESPACE CAN ACCOMMODATE THEIR GROWTH.
BUT AS A STAFF SAID, IT'S A UNIQUE BUSINESS CONCEPT.
WE DON'T HAVE IT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME AND QUITE A BIT OF TIME CRAFTING THIS DEFINITION, MAKING SURE THAT, AS, AGAIN, STAFF SAID, WE'VE GOT A USE THAT SOMEWHAT OF AN INDUSTRIAL CHARACTER, BUT IS NOT INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND USE, SO WE SPENT AN INCREDIBLE AMOUNT OF TIME.
WITH ME TONIGHT ARE JASON THURBERG AND JEFF JENKINS FROM WARESPACE, WHO'VE BEEN INVOLVED WITH ALSO FROM DAY ONE.
TO CONTINUE OUR PRESENTATION, I'M GOING TO TURN IT OVER TO JASON.
HE'S GOT A PRESENTATION ON OTHER FACILITIES LIKE THIS, AND HE CAN ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS AS FAR AS THE OPERATIONS GO SO JASON.
>> COMMISSIONERS, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME TONIGHT AND HAVING US AND WE LOOK FORWARD TO BEING A PART OF THIS COMMUNITY AND HELPING SMALL BUSINESSES. THAT'S OUR ONE GOAL.
>> GIVE US YOUR FULL NAME AND ADDRESS.
I'M THE VICE PRESIDENT OF CONSTRUCTION OF WARESPACE, 10632 LITTLE PATUXENT PARKWAY, COLUMBIA, MARYLAND.
WARESPACE, WE ARE A REAL ESTATE COMPANY THAT OWNS, MANAGES, OPERATES, MAINTAINS WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.
WE TAKE, WHETHER IT'S OLD GENERATION WAREHOUSE BUILDING, THAT DOESN'T MEET MODERN INDUSTRIAL CLEAR HEIGHTS OR OLD RETAIL, THAT'S GONE OBSOLETE.
OFFICE BUILDINGS, CALL CENTERS, USING THE BUILT ENVIRONMENTS ALREADY THERE TO BOLSTER AND SUPPORT SMALL BUSINESSES.
OUR SOLE PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE THE BEST WAREHOUSE SPACE WE CAN FOR SMALL BUSINESSES.
THAT MAY BE MOM AND POPS WHO HAVE OUTGROWN THEIR BASEMENT OR THEIR GARAGE OR WHEREVER THEY MAY BE WORKING, BUT BY THE SAME TOKEN AREN'T FAR ENOUGH ALONG IN THE LIFE CYCLE OF THEIR COMPANY TO GO RENT A 50 OR 10,000 SQUARE FOOT WAREHOUSE FROM YOUR NORMAL CHANNELS IN THAT.
BY THE SAME TOKEN WITH ALL OF THAT, WE PROVIDE AN ALL IN PACKAGE WHEREBY A NORMAL TRADITIONAL MODEL OF SMALL BUSINESS HAVE TO GO FACTOR ALL IN, WHETHER IT BE INDUSTRIAL RACKING, STORE THEIR PRODUCT ON, ELECTRICAL, BREAK ROOMS, RESTROOMS, LOGISTICS AREAS FOR LOADING DOCKS, MATERIAL HANDLING EQUIPMENT TO HANDLE THEIR PRODUCTS AND THAT PROVIDE THAT ALL IN SO THAT THEY CAN USE THIS AREA AND FORMS A COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE NICE THING WE SEE IS A LOT OF
[00:40:02]
THESE SMALL BUSINESSES HELP EACH OTHER OUT AND PROVIDES A REAL SENSE OF COMMUNITY, WHICH IS GREAT TO SEE EVERYONE HELP EACH OTHER AS THEY IN SMALL BUSINESS AND COMPUTER SPACE.AS YOU'RE AWARE, THIS BUILDING WAS THE FORMER FRY'S ELECTRONICS STORE, WHICH, AGAIN, OLDER REAL RETAIL THAT HAS NO LONGER NO LONGER FUNCTION AS A RETAIL.
OUR GOAL IS TO REPURPOSE THIS AND REACTIVATE THIS PORTION OF THE CITY AND AGAIN, BRING THAT ACTIVITY IN THERE TO HELP SMALL BUSINESSES.
WITH THE EXTERIOR, THE BUILDING, WE PLAN TO KEEP THE FACADE IN THAT, AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURE IN THAT, THE SAME OUTSIDE OF ADDING ADDITIONAL DRIVE IN DOORS AND SOME LOADING DOCK AREAS, AS WE'VE DESCRIBED, WE CAN GO INTO FURTHER DETAIL ON THE SITE PLAN.
WE'LL REPAINT IT AND THEN, AGAIN, AS THE OWNER AND OPERATOR AND SOLE TENANT, IF YOU WILL, PRIMARY TENANT, IF THAT'S THE RIGHT WORD AND OUR SIGNAGE WOULD BE THE ONLY ONE THERE IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CITY'S ORDINANCES.
WITH THIS FACILITY, AS YOU CAN SEE, WE'VE GOT OFFICE AREAS WHERE TENANTS CAN RENT THEIR OWN OFFICES.
WE HAVE SHARED AMENITY SPACES FOR LIKE, SO THE BREAK ROOMS, THE RESTROOMS, CONFERENCE ROOMS THE TENANTS ARE ABLE TO USE AND THEN ALSO THE LOGISTICS AREAS.
UPON STABILIZATION OF THIS, WE WOULD BASED ON OTHER BUILDINGS IN OUR PORTFOLIO, TYPICALLY 120-160 ROUGHLY, SMALL BUSINESSES CALLING THIS SECTION OF PLANO HOME AND BE ABLE TO THRIVE TOGETHER.
WITH THAT, LIKE I SAID, WE'LL BE USING THE EXISTING LOADING DOCKS ARE ON THE REAR OF THE BUILDING THAT ARE CURRENTLY SCREENED AND THEN ALSO ADDING NEW LOADING DOCKS ON THE SIDE TO JUST GIVE THE NUMBER OF TENANTS AND THAT TO BE ABLE TO HELP FACILITATE GETTING PRODUCT IN AND OUT AND SUPPORT THEIR BUSINESSES.
WE DO PLAN TO HAVE ON SOME OF THE LARGER UNITS THAT ARE ALL ON THE PERIMETER OF THE BUILDING, DEDICATED PRIVATE DRIVE IN LOADING LOCATIONS.
THEY CAN PULL PRODUCT UP AS OPPOSED TO HAVING TO GO THROUGH A COMMONER.
THAT WOULD NOT BE LOADING DOCKS, THAT WOULD JUST BE AN AVENUE SO THEY CAN PULL UP AND FREIGHT FROM THEIR CARS.
THERE WITH THIS, THERE WAS A PICTURE THAT WAS ON HERE, I THINK IT WAS ON ONE OF THE PREVIOUS SLIDES OF STAFF HAD, BUT WE PROVIDE THE SHELVING IN THE UNITS.
WE BUILD THESE PARTITIONS WALLS OUT, WE USING RACKING.
A TENANT ARRIVES AND AGAIN, RATHER THAN HAVING TO SET UP AND PURCHASE THEIR OWN SHELVING, THEY CAN START STORING THEIR PRODUCT RIGHT ON THE SHELVES AND THAT TRYING TO GET AS BUILDING COMMISSIONERS ALLUDED TO, WE KEEP EVERYTHING WITHIN BOTH ZONING ORDINANCES, BUILDING REQUIREMENTS, FOR BUILDING CODE, FIRE CODE AND OTHERWISE, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ENVISIONING A SAFE BUILDING.
TOUCH SCREENS GIVE ME ISSUES HERE. KITCHEN AND LOUNGE AND THAT AGAIN, THERE'S COLLABORATIVE AREAS IF YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE, AS WELL AS THE CONFERENCE ROOMS AND THAT AGAIN, TENANTS ARE ALLOWED, YOU CAN USE THROUGHOUT THE SPACE RESERVE FOR MEETINGS.
TYPICAL CORRIDORS THAT WE HAVE.
AGAIN, WE LIKE TO KEEP NICE, LARGE CORRIDORS THROUGHOUT THESE, ONE FOR PASSING OF PRODUCTS BACK AND FORTH AND FOR EGRESS AND SAFETY, BUT AGAIN, CREATES A CLEAN ENVIRONMENT WELL LIT.
JUST AGAIN, IT'S FOSTERS THAT COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT WITH THE AIR-CONDITIONING.
OTHERWISE AS OPPOSED TO WORK IN A TRADITIONAL WAREHOUSE WHERE A TENANT WOULD HAVE TO INSTALL THEIR OWN AIR-CONDITIONING AND A LOT OF ADDITIONAL UPFRONT COSTS THAT WE CAN PROVIDE THAT ALL IN VALUE.
WITH OUR TENANTS, AGAIN, FOLLOWING WITHIN THE ZONING AND ALLOWED USES.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR TENANTS ARE WAREHOUSING.
YOU'RE USING THIS AS A STORAGE FACILITY TO OPERATE THEIR BUSINESS OUT OF.
AGAIN RUNNING THROUGH LOGISTICS, THIRD PARTY LOGISTICS A LITTLE BIT ON THAT FRONT.
TECHNOLOGY COMPANIES TO DISTRIBUTE, THE LIGHT ASSEMBLY OF WIDGETS, WHATEVER THAT MAY BE, NOT HEAVY MANUFACTURING BY ANY SEARCH IN THE MEANS.
AGAIN, WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE AN ENVIRONMENT THAT IS ABSENT OF LOUD NOISES AND NOXIOUS ODORS AND OTHERWISE, ONE FROM HEALTH AND SAFETY, BUT TWO, AGAIN, IT HELPS US TO LEASE UP THE BUILDING, TOO.
AGAIN, WE WANT THAT COLLABORATIVE ENVIRONMENT THAT PEOPLE WANT TO BE IN.
IN ADDITION, SOME OF THOSE OFFICES IN THAT, AGAIN, ALLOWS SOME TENANTS WHO WILL OPERATE OUT OF THEIR WAREHOUSES THEMSELVES, OTHER UNITS THEMSELVES.
AGAIN, AS COMPANIES ARE ALLOWED AND COMPANIES GROW THROUGHOUT THEIR LIFE CYCLE, THEY NEED MORE SPACE.
THEY DECIDE THEY DON'T WANT TO WORK IN YOU HAVE THEIR OFFICE DESK IN THEIR WAREHOUSE SPACE.
THEY CAN GET A SEPARATE OFFICE SEPARATE TO BIFURCATE THOSE TWO PRODUCTS IN THAT.
BUT AGAIN, PROVIDING THAT FLEXIBILITY FOR TENANTS TO GROW WITHIN A SPACE.
[00:45:04]
AGAIN, WITH ALL OF THIS, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS ALL INSIDE, CONFINED INTO THE WALLS OF THE BUILDING.I KNOW THERE'S A SMALL SECTION OF OPEN STORAGE THAT WAS ON THE ORIGINAL FRY'S PLAN, WHICH WE PLAN TO JUST LEAVE AS IS.
BUT BEYOND THAT NO PLANS FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE, BEYOND THE FLEET VEHICLE STORAGE.
BUT IF THE TENANTS OPERATING WITHIN THE BUSINESS, LET'S JUST SAY MOBILE DOG GROOMING, THEY HAVE THAT.
WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO THIS IS THEIR HOME.
THEY'RE GOING TO STORE THEIR PRODUCTS AND THAT INSIDE.
THEIR VANS MAY PARK OUT THERE IN THE FLEET STORAGE OVERNIGHT.
THEY'LL LOAD UP AND THEN DISPERSE OUT TO WHEREVER THEY MAY BE OPERATING ACROSS THE METROPLEX.
CAN GET JUST GOING THROUGH A COUPLE OF JUST IDEAS OF TYPICAL TENANTS THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THERE. AGAIN, IT VARIES.
BUT AGAIN, ALL PREDOMINANTLY SMALL BUSINESSES.
WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO TURN THIS INTO A LARGE SCALE DISTRIBUTION CENTER THAT AGAIN, WOULD NOT FIT THE CHARACTER OF THIS SITE.
COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF APOLOGIZE IF I PRONOUNCE YOUR NAME INCORRECTLY, BUT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION.
YOU ASKED A QUESTION ABOUT SPECIAL ELECTRIC AND UNITS AND WATER UNITS.
THE VAST MAJORITY OF OUR TENANTS WILL PROVIDE JUST BASIC OUTLETS WITHIN THE UNITS THEMSELVES.
THERE ARE ONE OFFS WHERE A TENANT MAY NEED EQUIPMENT FOR EQUIPMENT CONNECTION, OR THEY MAY NEED WATER AND SEWER, FOR WHATEVER THAT MEANS.
VERY SMALL PERCENTAGE, BUT AGAIN, WHEN THAT COMES UP, THAT'S PART OF THE LEASING PROCESS AGAIN, WE MAKE TENANTS VERY CLEAR THAT THERE'S A BUILDING PERMIT PROCESS.
ANYTHING THAT REQUIRES A BUILDING PERMIT, WE'RE GOING THROUGH AND WORKING WITH THE STAFF TO GET THE PROSPECTIVE PERMITS AS REQUIRED.
FORTUNATELY, WITH THIS BUILDING, THERE IS A LOT OF POWER SO GOOD THING IS, WE HAVE THE POWER TO BE ABLE TO MEET THOSE TENANTS NEEDS, SHOULD IT ARISE.
I THINK IT'S ALSO CLARIFIED, AS WELL AS SOME OF THE OTHER QUESTIONS, WARESPACE WE OWN, OPERATE, MAINTAIN.
WE ARE THE OWNER, AS OPPOSED TO, WE'RE NOT ENTERING INTO A LEASE.
WE ARE THE ENTITY WE ARE FULLY OPERATING AND RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT AND THEN WE LICENSE LEASE OUT THE INDIVIDUAL SPACES TO THE TENANTS.
THROUGHOUT THAT. AS FAR AS CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCIES, AGAIN, WORKING WITH BUILDING DEPARTMENT AND THOSE, WHAT WE'VE SEEN WITH OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ESPECIALLY THE [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE PROVIDING THAT MONTHLY REPORT, ESPECIALLY AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE LEASE UP PERIOD, HERE'S THE TENANTS THAT WE HAVE IN THE BUILDING.
ESPECIALLY ONCE WE REACH STABILIZATION, THAT REALLY DOESN'T MOVE A WHOLE LOT AS FAR AS WHAT THOSE TENANTS ARE.
WE'RE OBVIOUSLY THE FIRST LINE OF DEFENSE.
WE'RE NOT LEASING THIS TWO TENANTS WHO AREN'T ALLOWED TO BE HERE, WHETHER IT BE BY ZONING OR BASED ON THEIR BUILDING CODE USES, THE DEFINITIONS, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE IN COMPLIANCE FOR THE SAFETY OF EVERYONE WITHIN THE BUILDINGS.
TYPICALLY, WHAT WE ARE DOING, COMMISSIONER OLLEY AGAIN, WE'RE MEETING THE BUILDING REQUIREMENTS AS FAR AS SEPARATIONS.
TYPICALLY, WE'RE DESIGNING THESE BUILDINGS AS NON SEPARATED MIXED USES.
AGAIN, F ONES, THE S ONES, AND THAT, THE BS, THAT WHERE THEY CAN COMMINGLE WITHOUT HAVING THE REQUIRED SEPARATION WALLS IN THEM.
ONE THING WE DO THROUGHOUT THIS ALSO MONITOR THIS, WE ALSO DON'T DO HIGH PILE STORAGE FROM FIRE HAZARD SAMPLE TO REDUCE THAT FIRE LOAD WITHIN THE BUILDING.
ONE REASON WE DO 12 FOOT HIGH WALLS ACROSS IS BECAUSE THAT'S EASY POLICING FOR OUR GENERAL MANAGER.
WE HAVE FULL TIME GENERAL MANAGERS WHO OPERATE ON THE SITE.
IT'S NOT AN ABSENT OPERATION, WHICH AGAIN, HELPS POLICE THAT AND MAINTAIN THAT COMMUNITY AS WELL.
BUT THE GENERAL MANAGER CAN LOOK THE BUILDING AND SEE, HEY, WE'VE GOT A TENANT WHO'S STORING ABOVE OUR WALLS.
I CAN SEE THAT THEY'RE STORING TOO HIGH.
THEY NEED TO GET DOWN AND AGAIN HELPS ENSURE THAT SAFETY.
>> WITH THAT, I APPRECIATE THE TIME.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.
VERY THOROUGH. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.
>> I THINK I SAW SOMEWHERE THAT THINGS LIKE 3D PRINTING AND THINGS LIKE THAT ARE STUFF THAT YOU SUPPORT IN SOME OF THIS.
>> AGAIN, AS LONG AS IT MEETS THE ZONING AND THE BUILDING CODE, WE WILL ALLOW THAT.
AGAIN, WE DON'T PROVIDE THAT MACHINERY OR EQUIPMENT BUT AGAIN, IF A TENANT HAS A 3D PRINTING BUSINESS, AND THEY WERE TO MOVE IN AND BRING THEIR EQUIPMENT, THAT'S PROBABLY SOMETHING WHERE MORE THAN LIKELY WOULD REQUIRE A LITTLE BIT ADDITIONAL POWER.
>> THAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION WAS, I'M FAMILIAR WITH A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT GROUPS THAT ARE DOING THAT, AND IT SEEMS LIKE THEY'VE HAD TO MAKE SOME VERY SIGNIFICANT POWER UPGRADES TO BE ABLE TO OPERATE, ESPECIALLY THE INITIAL SURGE OF THE DEVICES TO BEGIN WITH.
DO YOU ANTICIPATE THAT WHAT YOU CURRENTLY HAVE THERE WOULD BE ABLE TO MEET THAT DEMAND?
>> YES. FORTUNATELY, WHEN THIS BUILDING WAS BUILT WITH THE RETAIL AMOUNT OF FLIGHTING REQUIRED, AND BACK THEN WAS METAL HALIDE LIGHTS, WHICH REQUIRES SIGNIFICANT ADDITIONAL WATTAGE VERSUS LED FIXTURES TODAY.
AS WE GO THROUGH THIS ALSO, WE WILL RE-FIX THIS ENTIRE BUILDING, BUT NEW LED FIXTURES WILL BE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT.
BUT AGAIN, GIVEN THAT AND THE DRAW THAT THE SYSTEM WAS ORIGINALLY DESIGNED FOR, AND THE CAPACITY IN IT.
[00:50:01]
WELL, WE'RE REMOVING THAT CAPACITY BUT NOT HAVING MIDDLE HALIDE FIXTURES.WE HAVE THE CAPACITY TO ALLOW FOR WITHIN THE CONFINES OF THE EXISTING SERVICE, ADDITIONAL POWER.
>> THAT'S GOOD. SECOND QUESTION.
I THINK YOU ANSWERED IT, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE REALLY CLEAR.
YOU TALKED ABOUT YOUR TENANTS GROWING IN THE SPACE, WHICH SOMETIMES MEANS THEY NEED TO TAKE OVER NEW SPACE OR THEY NEED TO KNOCK DOWN WALLS AND MAKE CHANGES.
YOU'RE COMMITTING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO SEE A WALL OR TWO KNOCKED DOWN, BUT NOT COMING BACK TO THE CITY TO MAKE THOSE CHANGES.
>> CORRECT. WHEREVER WE NEED TO GET BUILDING PERMITS, WE WILL GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
AGAIN, AS ALLOWED BY THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT, THAT OUR CORRIDOR WALLS ALWAYS REMAIN INTACT SO THAT WE'RE NOT AFFECTING PASSIVE EGRESS IN THE EMERGENCY EXITS, AS WELL AS OUR SPINES, THE BUILDINGS, AS WE LAY THEM OUT, THOSE STATE COUNTS AS WELL.
SOME OF THE SUB WALLS, GOING PERPENDICULAR TO THE CORRIDOR.
AGAIN, ALLOWING THAT FLEXIBILITY FOR TENANTS TO REMOVE A SMALL SECTION OF RACKING AND THE SIDING THAT CREATES THAT TENANT SEPARATION TO ALLOW THEM TO GROW IN PLACE OR FIND A UNIT THAT'S A LARGER SQUARE FOOTAGE WITHIN THE BUILDING ELSEWHERE.
>> MY FINAL QUESTION, AND AS MORE OF A COMMENT, I'M REALLY HAPPY TO HEAR ABOUT YOUR FULL TIME GENERAL MANAGER ON SITE, WHICH MEANS THAT SHOULD WE HAVE PROBLEMS WITH THE CEO, WE CAN COME DIRECTLY TO THAT PERSON RATHER THAN HAVING TO SERVE SOMEBODY IN MARYLAND AND GO THROUGH A LONG PROCESS.
YOU'RE COMMITTING THAT THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO KEEP UP ON A POSITIVE WAY.
>> YES. WE HAVE CURRENTLY 11 FACILITIES ACROSS THE COUNTRY, AND EACH ONE HAS ITS OWN DEDICATED GENERAL MANAGER.
WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT IN VARIOUS PARTS OF THE COUNTRY AS WELL.
WE OPERATE WHERE WE FIND THE BEST WAY TO LEASE THE BUILDING, OPERATE IT, AND GET THAT CAMARADERIE IN COMMUNITY DEVELOPED AMONGST TENANTS.
>> I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING TO THE TABLE.
I APPRECIATE MORE THAN YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING ON THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
I THINK IT'S A GREAT CONCEPT, AND I REALLY THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A BIG ASSET TO PLANO, AS WELL AS TO THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION.
I'M GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.
>> I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY, AS FAR AS I DO THINK THIS IS A GREAT CONCEPT.
I COME FROM THE OFFICE SIDE OF THINGS SO YOU SEE THE SAME CONCEPT IN THE OFFICE WORLD WITH CO-WORKING ENVIRONMENTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT.
MY ONLY CONCERN AND IT SOUNDS LIKE CODE ENFORCEMENT AND EVERYTHING.
IN THE OFFICE ROOM REALM, YOU MIGHT HAVE A USE THAT COMES IN THAT MAYBE THEY COME IN WITH A LAB OR SOMETHING, AND THEN THEY GET DISCOVERED, AND OKAY, THEN WE'VE GOT TO EVICT AND DO ALL THAT STUFF.
SINCE THESE WALLS DO NOT GO TO DECK, THEY'RE NOT FULLY DEMISED, THEY'RE NOT FIRE-RATED, HOW DO YOU CONTROL THE USE FOR PEOPLE STORING FLAMMABLE CHEMICALS, OR FIRE-COMBUSTIBLE TYPE THINGS THAT CAN REALLY CAUSE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT ISSUE? HOW ARE YOU POLICING THAT? THEY DON'T GO 12 FEET HIGH, WHERE YOU DON'T SEE IT WHEN YOU'RE WALK IN THE HOT CORRIDOR, BUT THEY'RE IN THE SPACE? ARE WE ALLOWING THAT USE? ARE WE ALLOWING THAT THING GOING ON WHERE WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT'S HIGHLY FLAMMABLE?
>> WE DO NOT, AS A GENERAL RULE, ALLOW HAZARDOUS MATERIALS OR LET'S JUST SAY, WOODWORKING, FOR INSTANCE.
IF OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THAT USE, LET'S USE WOODWORKING AS EXAMPLE, AGAIN, NOT WHAT WE SEE OFTEN, BUT WOODWORKING PRODUCES A LOT OF FINE, HIGHLY FLAMMABLE DUST.
IF WE WERE TO HAVE A WOODWORKING USE IN A BUILDING, IT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO GO THROUGH AGAIN THAT'D BE SOMETHING WITH EXTRA PERMIT PROCESS TO GET THE DUST COLLECTION SYSTEMS AND EXHAUSTED OTHERWISE FOR THAT.
AS A GENERAL RULE, HAZARDOUS MATERIALS ARE NOT ALLOWED IN THERE.
I DO KNOW THAT, OBVIOUSLY, FROM A FIRE CODE STANDPOINT, CERTAIN HOUSEHOLD AMOUNTS OF, LET'S JUST SAY, CLEANERS.
OTHERWISE, SOMETIMES, ONCE YOU GO ABOVE THOSE THRESHOLDS OF HOUSEHOLD AMOUNTS CAN CONSTITUTE MORE OF A HAZARDOUS MATERIAL.
WE REQUIRE ALL OF THE TENANTS TO LOG ANY OF THOSE HOUSEHOLD MATERIALS WITH THE GENERAL MANAGER, AND THE GENERAL MANAGER KEEPS A LOG OF THOSE SO THEY CAN HELP POLICE THAT SO THAT AGAIN, WE'RE MAKING SURE THAT ON AGGREGATE ACROSS THE BUILDING, WE'RE NOT EXCEEDING THOSE THRESHOLDS.
FROM A FIRE SPRINKLER STANDPOINT, TYPICALLY, WE'RE DESIGNED AN ORDINARY HAZARD 2 USE GROUP, SINCE STAYING BELOW THAT 12 FOOT THRESHOLD, WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH A HIGH PILE, WHICH AGAIN KICKS UP ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, AND THAT AGAIN, PART OF THE REASON THAT WE CAN, LIKE I SAID, BUILDING CODE, ZONING ORDINANCE, FIRE CODE.
THERE'S ALL THESE BOXES WE HAVE TO CHECK BEFORE WE ALLOW A TENANT TO MOVE IN.
EVERYONE'S HUMAN HERE, BUT IF WE'RE TOLD THAT A TENANT DOESN'T DO THIS, DOESN'T DO THAT, THEN WE FIND OUT THAT THEY DO DO THAT,
[00:55:01]
THERE'S GROUNDS FOR EVICTION IN OUR LEASE FOR THAT TO AGAIN, POLICE THAT FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE COMMUNITY.>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I ALSO HAVE TO AGREE THIS IS A UNIQUE AND INTERESTING CONCEPT, AND I'M GENERALLY IN FAVOR OF IT.
I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT ONE THING TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE AWARE OF IT.
ONE OF THE SLIDES YOU SHOWED REFERRED TO THE TYPES OF TENANTS THAT MIGHT RENT SPACE WITHIN THE FACILITY HERE.
UNDER THE HEADING OF, LIKE, PROFESSIONAL SERVICES, YOU HAD LAWYERS LISTED.
FROM READING THE PACKET, THERE WAS A REFERENCE TO THE FACT THAT THE WALL SUBDIVIDING THE UNITS MAY NOT REACH ALL THE WAY TO THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING.
LAWYERS ARE REQUIRED TO MAINTAIN CONFIDENTIALITY BETWEEN ALL THEIR DEALINGS WITH THEIR CLIENTS, WHICH MEANS IF YOU RENT TO A LAWYER, THE SPACE WILL HAVE TO BE COMPLETELY ENCLOSED.
>> EITHER WALLS GOING UP TO THE ROOF OF THE BUILDING OR A CEILING INSTALLED, AN ABSENCE OF WINDOWS WHERE SOMEONE IN AN ADJACENT OFFICE OR OUT IN THE CORRIDOR COULD BE ABLE TO LOOK IN AND SEE CONFIDENTIAL DOCUMENTS OR SOMETHING ON A COMPUTER SCREEN AND ENOUGH SOUND PROOFING TO WHERE CONVERSATION COULD NOT BE OVERHEARD FROM THE CORRIDOR OR AN ADJACENT BUILDING.
I WANT TO MAKE YOU AWARE OF THAT.
I'M NOT SAYING DON'T LEASE TO LAWYERS, BUT IF YOU DO, THERE'S THAT IMPORTANT CONSIDERATION.
>> UNDERSTOOD. TYPICALLY, WHEN WE SEE A LAWYER RENTING A SPACE, A LOT OF TIME MAYBE IN JUST AN OFFICE AREA OR OTHERWISE.
AGAIN, WHERE WE DO PROVIDE CEILINGS, WE DO PROVIDE INSULATION ON THE WALLS, AND THAT TO HELP MITIGATE SOME OF THOSE.
>> I PRESUME IT'S UP TO THE LAWYER TO MAINTAIN THOSE CONFIDENTIALITY IN THE LIABILITIES.
BUT TO HIS POINT, YOU SHOWED CONSTRUCTION, I THINK, AS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE TENANT TYPES, AND E-COMMERCE, WHICH I PRESUME IS NOT RETAIL IN FUNCTION.
>> THE ZONING ORDINANCES TEND TO PROTECT THE ENVIRONMENT FROM THE BUILDING USE.
BUT I DON'T THINK WE REGULATE NOISE LEVELS INSIDE THE BUILDING OR PARTICULATE MATTER INSIDE THE BUILDING.
WHAT'S THE PLAN TO ENSURE THAT THIS IS SAFE SPACE FOR THE ENTREPRENEURS AND THE BUSINESS OWNERS AND WHAT HAVE YOU?
>> IT'S SIMILAR TO THE HOUSEHOLD USE OF CHEMICALS OR OTHERWISE, THOSE PSEUDO-HAZARD MATERIALS WHEN AND COMBINED THE AGGREGATE.
AGAIN, NOISE, NOXIOUS FUMES, DUST GENERATORS, OR OTHERWISE, ALL GROUNDS WITHIN OUR LEASE, THAT, AGAIN, IF BECOME A NUISANCE, IT BECOMES AN ISSUE, WE HAVE GROUNDS FOR EVICTION OF THOSE TENANTS.
AGAIN, OUR GOAL, IT BEHOOVES US TO HAVE A QUIET, NOT ODOR-FREE ZONE OR OTHERWISE, TO LEASE UP THE ENTIRETY OF THE BUILDING.
>> ESSENTIALLY, THE MARKET WILL FORCE YOU TO KEEP YOUR SPACE.
>> IN SUMMARY, I WILL SAY IN THE 11 FACILITIES THAT WE HAVE IN OPERATION RIGHT NOW, I HAVE NOT ONCE NOTICED A NOXIOUS FUME OR CONTINUOUS EXCESSIVE NOISE.
SOMEBODY MAY RUN A CARTON OR SOMETHING YOU CAN'T PREVENT THAT.
BUT AGAIN, NOT TO THE CONSISTENT BANGING OR OTHERWISE.
WHEN WE HAVE CONSTRUCTION COMPANIES WHO MAY LEASE SPACE FROM US, TYPICALLY, THEY'RE USING IT TO STORE, MAYBE SMALL MATERIALS OR OTHERWISE, THEY'RE NOT ACTIVELY CONSTRUCTING THINGS WITHIN THE UNITS.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE LOADING DOCKS.
YOU'RE ADDING FOUR OR SIX LOADING DOCKS NOW.
BUT YOU SAID ALSO IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT YOU HAVE THE POSSIBILITY OF TENANTS PULLING UP TO THEIR SPACES ON BOTH SIDES ON BOTH ENDS ON THE PERIMETER.
>> YES. FROM YOUR EXPERIENCE ON OTHER LOCATIONS, WHAT'S THE TRAFFIC LOAD ON THIS, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THIS FACILITY?
>> FAR LESS THAN RETAIL IN OFFICE.
>> BUT THEY'RE GOING TO BE LIKE TRUCKS OR LIKE A SEMI TRAILERS.
AGAIN, WE GET THEM FOR DELIVERIES DURING THE DAY.
>> BUT HOW DO RATE THE TRAFFIC? LIKE HOW MANY PER HOUR.
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT DEAD OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.
I WILL SAY IT'S FAR LESS THAN A TYPICAL MODERN INDUSTRIAL CLASS A NEW TILT UP WAREHOUSE BUILDING.
IT'S NOT CONSTANT TRAFFIC THROUGHOUT THERE.
>> I BELIEVE, THE CITY PROBABLY LOOKED INTO THIS.
>> WE DID, AND WE ACTUALLY TOURED THERE.
NORTH [INAUDIBLE] HILLS FACILITY, ASKED THE MANAGER THERE THE EXACT SAME QUESTION.
I THINK THE ANSWER THAT WE GOT WAS RARELY, IS IT AN ISSUE, BUT THERE IS SOMETIMES WHERE ONE TRUCK HAS TO SIT AND WAIT FOR SOMEBODY TO GET DONE UNLOADING,
[01:00:01]
AND THEN THEY WAIT THEIR TURN, BUT THAT'S INFREQUENT.IT'S NOT LIKE THERE'S A LINE RUNNING BACK TO WAIT TO LOAD.
>> THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY WE WANT ADDITIONAL.
SHOWING THE NUMBER OF DOCKS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD RIGHT NOW TO ALLEVIATE SOME OF THOSE WAITING.
AGAIN, BEST VERY RARE THAT WE'D EVER HAVE ALL SIX OF THE INITIAL ONES THAT ARE TWO EXISTING PLUS 4 ADDITIONAL NOW.
VERY RARE THAT WE HAVE TRUCKS AT ALL SIX OF THOSE LOCATIONS.
BUT AGAIN, THERE ARE ALWAYS THOSE ONE OFF WHERE SOMEBODY MAY STACK, BUT ALLOWS US TO PREVENT THAT STACKING ELSEWHERE SO THAT TENANTS CAN ACCESS THOSE GOODS.
>> YEAH, MY QUESTION IS NOT FOR LOADING DOCKS, BUT FOR THE OTHER LIKE HOW MANY UNITS ON THE PERIMETER THAT THE PEOPLE CAN ENTER SO YOU LIKE IT'S A LOT OF TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT.
>> ON THOSE PRIVATE ONES, AGAIN, THEY'RE NOT DOC HIGH POSITIONS, EITHER.
LARGE TRUCKS AREN'T PULLING UP TO IF SOMEBODY HAS A PICKUP TRUCK THAT THEY'RE USING FOR BUSINESS, THEY CAN ROLL THAT UP AND PULL STUFF OFF STRAIGHT INTO THEIR UNIT.
AGAIN, HAVING A LARGER UNIT, WE SEE THAT AS A BENEFIT, SINCE THEY'RE NOT HAVING TO NAVIGATE THROUGHOUT THE CORRIDORS TO THE SHARED COMMON AREAS.
AGAIN, PART OF ONE OF THE BENEFITS AND THE SELLING POINTS OF HAVING A LARGER DEDICATED UNIT.
>> I ASSUME THAT YOU HAVE A SCHEDULE FOR PEOPLE.
DO THEY HAVE TO BOOK THE LOADING DOCK?
>> NO. TYPICALLY DON'T HAVE THOSE ISSUES.
BUT AGAIN, PART OF THE REASON WHY WE TRY TO HAVE, THIS RUNS AROUND OUR RATIO.
WE LOOK SOME OF THE RATIOS AS FAR AS SQUARE FOOT DOCS PER SQUARE FOOT ACROSS SOME OF THE FACILITIES AND THIS HITS THAT SWEET SPOT.
>> ONE LAST QUESTION. WE'VE BEEN TALKING A LOT ABOUT TRACK 1, WHAT'S GOING ON WITH TRACK 2?
>> RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE NO PLANS FOR TRACK 2.
AGAIN, OUR FOCUS SOLELY AS A COMPANY IS WAREHOUSES TO SERVE SMALL BUSINESSES.
WE WOULD PROBABLY LOOK TO MARKET THAT AND POTENTIALLY SELL THAT OFF TO SOMEONE ELSE, DEVELOPER WHO MAY BE ABLE TO USE THAT FOR ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE, WHICH IS SUBJECT TO FURTHER FUTURE PROCEEDINGS FOR ZONING, SITE PLAN, OR OTHERWISE.
>> ARE WE MAKING A CHANGE TO BOTH TRACKS?
>> THE CHANGE TO THE SMALLER TRACT AGAINST THE HIGHWAY IS TO REMOVE IT FROM THE PD SO THAT REVERTS BACK TO JUST THE BASELINE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR DISTRICT.
>> COMMISSION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, I THINK WE HAVE ONE MORE REGISTERED SPEAKER, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
>> MR. BILL LYLE, FROM LYLE INCORPORATED.
PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME'S BILL LYLE, 1724, 15TH PLACE.
I'M JUST READING FROM THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY HERE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PARAGRAPH.
IT SAYS, SINCE THIS USE DOES NOT FIT ANY LISTED USE ALLOWED IN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, A NEW USE IS PROPOSED.
THEN UNDER THAT, IT GOES ONE, TWO, THREE.
NUMBER THREE SAYS, TO CREATE A NEW USE OF COMMERCIAL FLEX WAREHOUSE.
A COUPLE PARAGRAPHS LATER, THE ZONING ORDINANCE COULD ACCOMMODATE THIS AS A WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER.
HOWEVER, WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER USE IS MUCH BROADER THAN THE COMMERCIAL FLEX WAREHOUSE USE PROPOSED.
WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER IS NOT ALLOWED IN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT.
THEREFORE, THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW A NEW USE CALLED COMMERCIAL FLEX WAREHOUSE THROUGH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.
IF YOU GO TO CHAPTER 14.400 IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, IT SAYS, CLASSIFICATION OF NEW AND UNLISTED USES.
IT IS RECOGNIZED THAT NEW TYPES OF LAND OR USES WILL DEVELOP AND FORMS OF LAND USE THAT ARE NOT ANTICIPATED MAY SEEK TO LOCATE IN THE CITY OF PLANO.
IN ORDER TO PROVIDE FOR SUCH A CHANGE, CHANGES IN CONTINGENCIES, A DETERMINATION AS TO THE APPROPRIATE CLASSIFICATION OF ANY NEW OR UNLISTED USE, FORM OF LAND USE SHALL BE MADE AS FOLLOWS.
THEN IT GOES DOT ONE DOT TWO DOT THREE.
THERE'S A PROCESS THAT'S SPELLED OUT HERE WHERE YOU CONSIDER THE USE, AND THEN YOU TAKE YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL.
THEN BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A TEXT CHANGE, I'M ASSUMING THEY HAVE TO GIVE NOTICE TO EVERYONE, AND THEN YOU DETERMINE WHAT ZONING DISTRICTS THIS USE WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN, AND THEN YOU CHANGE THE USE CHART IN 14.1 AND 14.2 THEN WE'RE ALL TREATED EQUALLY, WHICH IS THE POINT OF ZONING.
RIGHT HERE, YOU'RE USING A PD TO GO AROUND THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
IF I OWN LAND IN LI1 OR LI2 OR LC OR RETAIL, CAN I DO THIS OR NOT DO THIS? WELL, WE DON'T KNOW BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT EDITING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MAKE IT AVAILABLE TO EVERYONE.
YOU'RE USING A PD TO GO AROUND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND THAT'S NOT ALLOWED.
SOME OTHER CONCERNS THAT I HAVE, JUST AS A MATTER OF PRACTICAL.
[01:05:04]
>> THE SHEET THAT'S GOT THE COLOR ON IT.
IT'S THE SITE PLAN AND IT'S JUST GOT THE COLOR ON IT.
IN THE LEGEND, IT SAYS, NO PARKING, OPEN STORAGE LOADING, OR OTHER USES.
WELL, THAT'S WHERE THE DIAGONAL LINES ARE, BUT THE DIAGONAL LINES AREN'T EVERYWHERE ELSE ON THE SITE.
THAT SINCE THE DIAGONAL LINES AREN'T ON THE REST OF THE SITE, THAT THOSE THINGS ARE ALLOWED THERE.
IT IS NOT A GREAT ARGUMENT BECAUSE THERE IS ONE LITTLE SECTION ON THE BACK OF THIS BUILDING THAT'S TITLED AS OPEN STORAGE.
BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED WITH THIS LANGUAGE THAT IT COULD CREATE CONFUSION FOR SOMEONE DOWN THE ROAD.
THIS SHOULDN'T SAY OPEN STORAGE IS NOT ALLOWED THERE BECAUSE OPEN STORAGE IS NOT ALLOWED ANYWHERE EXCEPT WHERE IT'S SPECIFICALLY DESIGNATED ON THE SITE PLAN.
>> THIS HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS. IF YOU DON'T SEE ME AT THE TOP OF THE STAIRS, I'M NOT GOING TO TALK ON 840 LATER. THANK YOU.
>> YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT QUESTION ABOUT ASSIGNING A NEW DESIGNATION, PLEASE?
>> I WILL ADDRESS THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED.
THERE ARE TWO METHODS THAT CAN BE USED WHEN DEALING WITH A NEW USE.
THE FIRST IS THE ONE THAT MR. LYLE DESCRIBED.
THAT'S IF YOU WANT TO CREATE A NEW USE THAT CAN BE ALLOWED IN VARIOUS DISTRICTS IN THE CITY.
BUT THERE'S ALSO LANGUAGE ABOUT CREATING PDS AND PD DISTRICT TYPES IS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 12.500.1, WHICH IS AN OVERLAY PD DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE.
AND IT SAYS A PD OVERLAY MAY SUPPLEMENT THE REGULATIONS OF A STANDARD ZONING DISTRICT.
THIS NEW USE IS A SUPPLEMENT TO THIS PARTICULAR PD, SO THIS IS AN APPROPRIATE PROCESS TO USE.
IT'S JUST AN ALTERNATIVE TO WHAT MR. LYLE PROPOSED.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE ANY OTHER WRITTEN.
>> [INAUDIBLE] IT IS NOT ALLOWED.
>> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS?
>> THERE ARE NO OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
>> I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE YOU PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION? COMMISSIONER ALI.
>> MORE OF A COMMENT, WHICH IS WHY WE ASKED THE QUESTION ON IF THIS IS SPECIFIC TO PD58 JUST TO ENSURE THAT WE WERE NOT CREATING SOME ARBITRARY, UNIQUENESS ACROSS THE CITY THAT OTHER FOLKS COULD NOT TAKE ADVANTAGE OF.
BUT THAT IN MIND, I MOVED THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2(A) AND 2(B) AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>> COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT.
MR. LYLE BROUGHT UP THE LEGEND AND THE MAP.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THE LEGEND IS IN NO WAY AND I GUESS THIS IS A CITY QUESTION.
THE LEGEND IS IN NO WAY ALLOWING EVEN IF A BACK HANDED WAY FOR OPEN STORAGE TO OCCUR ANYWHERE THAT IS NOT SPECIFICALLY LINED OUT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS OF THE PD IS THAT OPEN STORAGE IS NOT PERMITTED EXCEPT WHERE SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT.
THOSE AREAS ARE SPECIFICALLY LABELED WHERE OPEN STORAGE IS ALLOWED.
THE REASONING WHY WE ADDED IN THAT SPECIFIC LOCATION, THAT IT WASN'T ALLOWED IS BECAUSE THEY'RE TAKING EXISTING PARKING SPACES AND STRIPING THEM OFF.
ANYWHERE YOU HAVE THAT SITUATION, IT'S AN INVITATION.
IF YOU'VE GOT A BLANK SPACE, PEOPLE TEND TO STORE STUFF THERE AS OUR EXPERIENCE IN THESE AREAS.
WE JUST WANT TO GET EXTRA CLEAR IN THIS LOCATION THAT OPEN STORAGE WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED IN THAT LOCATION.
>> THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO ASK. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ABOUT THE SITE PLAN, BUT LET'S GO AHEAD AND VOTE ON 2(A).
>> WELL, LET'S TAKE DID YOU MAKE A MOTION ON BOTH OR JUST 2(A).
>> LET'S HANDLE THIS ONE AT A TIME.
IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND AMENDING YOUR MOTION, PLEASE.
OH, SORRY. WHERE ARE YOU? THERE YOU ARE.
>> MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2A.
[01:10:04]
PASSES 8-0. ITEM 2(B).I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF ON THE SITE PLAN.
IF WE CAN PUT IT UP ON THE SCREEN.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THE APPLICANT SAID IN THEIR PRESENTATION IS THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE SOME UNITS THAT HAD DIRECT OUTSIDE ACCESS DOORS, AND I DON'T SEE THOSE ON THE SITE PLAN ANYWHERE.
CAN YOU POINT THOSE OUT? IT WAS ON HIS FLOOR PLAN.
IT WAS ON THE APPLICANT'S FLOOR PLAN, BUT I DON'T SEE IT ON THE SITE PLAN THAT'S IN FRONT OF US FOR APPROVAL.
>> THERE YOU GO. AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THERE REALLY AREN'T ANY MODIFICATIONS TO THE ENTRANCES AND EXITS THAT ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING, THEY WERE THOSE, PROPOSED TRUCK DOG ENTRANCES ALONG THE WEST SIDE.
IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO CLARIFY WHETHER THEY WANTED TO ADD ENTRY OR EXIT POINTS, THEY MAY CLARIFY, BUT AS FAR AS I'M AWARE, THEY WEREN'T ADDING ANY.
>> FROM A STAFF PERSPECTIVE, IT APPEARS TO ME THAT IF THERE WERE GOING TO BE ADDITIONAL OUTSIDE DOORS, THEY SHOULD BE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING IN THE SCREENED AREA, AS OPPOSED TO THE EAST SIDE FACING THE STREET WHERE YOU'D SEE THEM FROM THE ROADWAY.
>> I THINK IF IT'S, MAYBE JUST ON SIMPLE ENTRY EXIT POINT, THEN I THINK THAT COULD BE OPEN TO DIFFERENT LOCATIONS.
BUT IF IT IS PART OF THE LOADING OPERATIONS OR SOMETHING RELATED TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY, THEN I THINK IT WOULD BE LIMITED.
>> WELL, MAYBE I ASKED A QUESTION DIFFERENT.
DOES THIS NEED TO BE ON THE SITE PLAN?
>> IT'S CURRENTLY SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN, THE TWO PROPOSED FUTURE LOCATIONS.
THOSE ARE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT ON THE SITE PLAN.
THEY HAVE TWO EXISTING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, PROPOSING FOUR ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND THERE'S TWO PROPOSED FUTURE THAT ARE JUST TO THE SOUTH WHERE THEY'RE PROPOSING THE ONES THAT WILL BE BUILT IMMEDIATELY.
IN OUR UNDERSTANDING, THOSE ARE THE EIGHT LOCATIONS WHERE TRUCK LOADING WOULD BE PERMITTED.
>> THEN LET ME ASK THE APPLICANT REAL QUICK IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND COMING BACK TO THE MICROPHONE.
IN YOUR PRESENTATION, YOU SHOWED US ON THE FLOOR PLAN.
YOU AT LEAST IMPLIED THAT BASICALLY EVERYBODY ALONG AN OUTSIDE WALL WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO THEIR OWN OVERHEAD DOOR.
WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING ON THE SITE PLAN TODAY, SEE, IT SAYS, PRIVATE DRIVE IN WHICH IMPLIES EVERYBODY ON THAT SIDE WOULD HAVE ACCESS TO AN OVERHEAD DOOR.
>> THERE WAS A CONVERSATION WITH STAFF AT ONE POINT ABOUT DRIVE INDOOR SINCE WE'RE NOT MODIFYING ANY OF THE EXISTING PARKING, AND THEY'RE NOT SERVING AS A LOADING DOCK, THAT THE DRIVE DRIVE UP DOORS, THEY'RE NOT DRIVE INDOORS.
WE'RE NOT ALLOWING VEHICLES IN THE BUILDING, THAT THOSE WEREN'T THAT THOSE ARE SEPARATE THAN LOADING DOCKS.
LOADING DOCKS WERE THE PRIMARY CONCERN, AND THAT DRIVE UP DOORS WERE JUST ADDITIONAL ACCESS POINTS ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
>> I THINK THOSE NEED TO BE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN. THEY'RE REQUIRED.
IF THEY'RE PROPOSED, THEN WE NEED TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN ACCORDINGLY.
>> THE REASON THAT'S THE REASON I'M BRINGING THIS UP BECAUSE TYPICALLY OVERHEAD DOORS HAVE NOT BEEN ALLOWED WHERE YOU CAN OPEN THEM UP AND THE INTERIOR OF THE BUILDING BE VISIBLE FROM THE PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE.
IF I'M READING YOUR SITE PLAN, YOUR FLOOR PLAN HERE CORRECTLY THAT YOU'VE GOT IN FRONT OF US ON THE.
>> THE PLANNED NORTH SIDE OF YOUR FLOOR PLAN.
THAT'S WHERE YOU'RE SHOWING THE OVERHEAD DOORS, WHICH WOULD BE THE PLANNED EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WHICH FACES EXECUTIVE DRIVE, WHICH MEANS SOMEBODY DRIVING DOWN EXECUTIVE DRIVE COULD LOOK INTO THE OVERHEAD DOOR AND INSIDE YOUR FACILITY AND SEE WHAT WAS BEING STORED THERE, WHICH I DON'T THINK WE'VE TYPICALLY ALLOWED.
>> EVEN WITH LIVING SCREENING, IF WE HAD TO PUT SOME OF THAT ALONG THE DRIVE?
>> WELL, I THINK I DON'T WANT TO GET INTO REDESIGNING YOUR SITES PLAN FROM THE DAIS.
IT SOUNDS LIKE AT LEAST FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, WE MIGHT NEED TO LET YOU WORK A LITTLE BIT MORE ON THIS WITH THE STAFF AND BRING IT BACK TO US.
HANG ON. LET ME TURN YOUR MICROPHONE.
>> BUT THE LAYOUT DOES NOT REFLECT YOU LIKE THE ACTUAL SIDE PLAN? BECAUSE THEY HAVE THE LOADING DOCKS LIKE 90 DEGREE, AND THEIR LAYOUT SHOWING IT'S 180, RIGHT?
>> I THINK THAT'S WHY I'M CONFUSED [INAUDIBLE]. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THIS IS JUST LIKE A PROTOTYPE. IS THIS A PROTOTYPE?
>> NO, THIS IS LAID OUT FOR THE BUILDING.
THE LOADING DOCKS, THE EXISTING ONES ON THE RIGHT PLAN [OVERLAPPING]
[01:15:02]
>> YOU'VE GOT TO ROTATE THIS PLAN 90 DEGREES BECAUSE THE FRONT DOORS ARE THE LEFT?
>> CORRECT. THE THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS PLAN.
>> I MEAN, YOU'RE LIKE ON 180 DEGREE, BUT YOU'RE LIKE ON THE SIDE PLAN THAT'S SHOWING LIKE 90 DEGREE, SO WE HAVE TWO LOADING DOCKS ON THE [INAUDIBLE].
YOU CURRENTLY SHOW LOADING DOCKS ON THE SOUTH WEST SIDES OF THE BUILDING.
>> THAT'S WHAT THEIR FLOOR PLAN SHOWS.
I THINK THE QUESTION IS WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING?
>> THAT'S A BLOW UP THERE SHOW [INAUDIBLE].
>> WE HAVE THOSE EXISTING LOADING DOCKS ON THE BOTTOM OF THAT.
THOSE TWO THAT ARE PURP PARALLEL WITH WHAT STREET IS ON THAT SIDE [OVERLAPPING] EXECUTIVE.
>> THE OTHER ONES ARE ON THAT SIDE.
>> ON THE WEST SIDE, ROUGHLY CENTERED NEARLY CENTERED THE WEST SIDE.
>> ON THE PLAN THAT YOU'RE SHOWING.
THAT LOOKS LIKE IT'S ON BOTH SIDE.
>> IT'S THE SAME. IT'S JUST ROTATED 90 DEGREES.
>> BE NICE IF WE GET THEM NEXT TO EACH OTHER.
>>BECAUSE TO ME IT'S LIKE ONE ON THIS SIDE AND ONE ON THE SIDE.
>> THIS, IF YOU ROTATE IT 90 DE THE SCREEN 90 DEGREE, [OVERLAPPING] I STILL THE SAME ORIENTATIONS.
>> BUT IT'S STILL. NO. YOU LIKE ON THE SIDE PLAN, ONE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OR WEST SIDE, LET'S SAY, WEST, AND THEN ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE.
BUT ON THIS ONE, IT'S OPPOSITE SIDE.
>> NORTH AND SOUTH BUT YOU ARE LIKE ON WORKS ON THIS ONE AND THIS ONE, 90 DEGREE.
IT'S NOT OPPOSITE SIDE, SO YOU LIKE IT'S NOT HERE AND HERE.
>> IF WE COULD HAVE THE APPLICANT.
[OVERLAPPING] NO APPROACHED DIES, PLEASE GO BACK TO BACK TO THE SPEAKER DIAS. THANK YOU.
>> TO ME IT'S YOU ARE [INAUDIBLE].
>> GIVE ME JUST A SECOND. LET ME TALK CITY ATTORNEY.
[BACKGROUND] COMMISSION , LET ME LAY OUT WHAT OUR CHALLENGE IS HERE.
WE'VE ALREADY APPROVED THE ZONING CHANGE, AND IT'S HEADED ON TO COUNCIL ON THE CALENDAR PROCESS.
WE HAVE AN AFFILIATED SITE PLAN THAT AT LEAST IN MY OPINION, I BELIEVE NEEDS TO BE MODIFIED.
BUT WE CAN'T TABLE IT BECAUSE IT NEEDS TO GO WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO COUNCIL.
WHAT I'M BEING ADVISED IS, I THINK THE APPROPRIATE PROCESS WOULD BE ASSUMING THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER ISSUES WITH THE SITE PLAN, IF THE ONLY ISSUE IS THESE OVERHEAD DOORS THAT WE CONSIDER APPROVING THE SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT IT DOES NOT SHOW THESE GRADE LEVEL DOORS THAT YOU SAY ARE IN YOUR PLAN.
THEN YOU WOULD BE REQUIRED TO COME BACK AND AMEND YOUR SITE PLAN, WHICH CAN BE DONE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT DOESN'T HAVE TO GO TO COUNCIL.
YOU WOULD HAVE TO AMEND YOUR SITE PLAN IMMEDIATELY WHENEVER YOU'RE READY OR ONCE COUNCIL APPROVES IT.
OTHERWISE, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE A WAY TO BACKUP AND UNAPPROVED YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE TO HOLD IT TILL NEXT MEETING.
[LAUGHTER] WE DON'T HAVE A PROCESS FOR THAT.
WE'RE IN A CATCH 22 HERE A LITTLE BIT.
>> FROM A CLARIFICATION STANDPOINT, ESPECIALLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING IT, IF IT WERE JUST DOORS, SETS OF DOUBLE DOORS AS OPPOSED TO OVERHEAD DOORS, IS THAT NO LONGER SUBJECT TO.
>> I WOULD PROBABLY WANT TO DEFER THAT TO COUNCIL.
[01:20:14]
>> LET'S TAKE A FIVE-MINUTE RECESS IF WE COULD PLEASE.
WE'LL RECONVENE IN FIVE MINUTES.
>> LET'S RECONVENE. HENRY, IF YOU WOULD PLEASE.
LET'S RECONVENE BACK INTO SESSION, PLEASE.
A LOT OF DISCUSSION AND ADVICE AND LEGAL AND PLANNING INPUT, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPROPRIATE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION, AND THEN WE CAN SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR IT. I WOULD MAKE A MOTION.
WE APPROVE THE SITE PLAN 2B AS PRESENTED WITH A CONDITION THAT THE APPLICANT WORK WITH THE STAFF TO MAKE REVISIONS REGARDING THE OPENINGS ON THE EAST SIDE BETWEEN NOW AND WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL, AND MAKE SURE THAT THE STAFF WILL VALIDATE THAT IT MEETS ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR OPENINGS ON THAT FACADE.
>> LET ME GET A SECOND THEN WE CAN ASK QUESTIONS.
LET'S SEE IF THERE'S A SECOND FOR THAT.
>> I'M BREAKING ALL KINDS OF RULES HERE, BUT I WILL LET THE APPLICANT CLARIFY IF HE'D LIKE TO.
>> IT'S A QUICK CLARIFICATION. WORKING WITH STAFF ON THE OPENINGS WOULD BE ON BOTH THE EAST AND THE WEST SIDES, WORKING WITH STAFF AS FAR AS ANY OPENINGS, NOT JUST THE EAST SIDE.
WE HAVE THE SAME POTENTIAL ON THE WEST SIDE AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION.
WELL, THEN I'LL AMEND MY MOTION TO SAY WORK WITH STAFF REGARDING OPENINGS ON EAST AND WEST FACADES BETWEEN NOW AND THE COUNCIL MEETING TO CONFIRM THAT THEY COMPLY WITH ALL APPLICABLE CODES AND ORDINANCES.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
ANY DISCUSSION ON THIS? LET'S VOTE.
>> COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, I DON'T THINK YOUR PHOTO IS REGISTERED. THERE WE GO.
IF ALL WOULD PLEASE WORK WITH STAFF THIS WEEK AND TRY TO GET THOSE MODIFICATIONS MADE AND HAVE THOSE READY FOR CITY COUNCIL.
>> THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THE INCUBATOR THAT YOU'RE BRINGING TO TOWN.
I REALLY AM EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A GREAT ADDITION TO THAT PART OF TOWN.
[3. (JR) Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2025-008: Request to amend Section 10.1300 (RT, Research/Technology Center District) of the Zoning Ordinance to remove Section 10.1300.4.D, consistent with the implementation of Ordinance Number 2011-5-7. Project #ZC2025-008. Petitioner: City of Plano. (Legislative consideration)]
>> ITEM NUMBER 3. ZONING CASE 2025-008, A REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 10.1300 RT, RESEARCH/TECHNOLOGY CENTER DISTRICT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REMOVE SECTION 10.1300.4.D, CONSISTENT WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 2011-5-7.
THE PETITIONER IS THE CITY OF PLANO.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS JORDAN ROKERBIE.
I'M THE LEAD PLANNER IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WORK GROUP OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS IS A PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENT TO THE RT DISTRICT.
THE RT DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED IN, I FORGET THE YEAR IT WAS ESTABLISHED, BUT IT WAS AMENDED IN 2011 TO REMOVE SOME SECTIONS IN RESPONSE TO SOME ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CONCERNS.
THE FULL TEXT OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS UNDER REVIEW AT THE TIME.
WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS READOPTED IN FULL IN 2015, ONE SECTION THAT WAS REMOVED IN 2011 WAS ACCIDENTALLY RETAINED IN THAT 2015 ORDINANCE.
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT IS TO DELETE WHAT IS NOW SUBSECTION 10.1300.4.D, CONSISTENT WITH THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2011.
THE TEXT OF THAT SECTION IS CURRENTLY ON SCREEN, AND IT WILL BE REPEATED IN THE RECOMMENDATION SLIDE AS WELL.
THIS AMENDMENT IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS DESCRIBED ON THE SCREEN AND IN YOUR PACKET.
WE DID RECEIVE ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR OF THIS AMENDMENT, AND ONE LETTER, WHICH WAS A DUPLICATE OF THAT RESPONSE RECEIVED THROUGH OUR ZONING CASE RESPONSE TOOL.
[01:25:05]
THE RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN AND IN YOUR PACKET.HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE.
>> COMMISSION, ANY QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.
>> ONE COMMENT IS, I AM SO THANKFUL THAT WE HAVE THE ZONING CASE RESPONSE TOOL TO ALLOW OUR CITIZENS THAT KIND OF INPUT, AND I THINK IT GOES A LONG WAY TO SHOW HOW INTENTIONAL THE CITY IS ABOUT HEARING FROM THE CITIZENS AND INTENTIONALLY SEEKING INPUT.
I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT OUT THERE AND SAY, THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I'LL GIVE A BRIEF SHOUT OUT TO OUR GIS TEAM.
THESE TEXT-BASED CASES WEREN'T ON THERE FOR A WHILE, SO I THINK THIS IS ONE OF THE FIRST ONES WHERE WE'RE ACTUALLY RECEIVING RESPONSES FOR A TEXT CASE THROUGH THAT TOOL.
>> THAT'S GOOD TO KNOW. COMMISSIONER, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, STAFF? NONE. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
DO WE HAVE TO REGISTER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM?
>> THE APPLICANT IS REGISTERED TO SPEAK. ONLY THE APPLICANT.
>> IS THAT SCOTT WILLIAMS, IS THAT CORRECT? SCOTT HERE?
>> NO. MR. WILLIAMS, HE WAS THE PERSON WHO WROTE THE LETTER IN SUPPORT HE'S UNABLE TO ATTEND TONIGHT.
>> HE WAS REGISTERED AS A SPEAKER AS WELL.
NOBODY ELSE? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. BRONSKY.
>> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>> I HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.
NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. ITEM NUMBER 4.
COMMISSION, IF YOU'LL BEAR WITH ME, WE'LL TAKE A BREAK AFTER ITEM 6 UNLESS SOMEBODY IS ONE BEFORE THEN.
>> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS.
[4. (CST) Discussion and Action – Preliminary Site Plan: Coit Road Office and Miniwarehouse Addition, Block 1, Lot 1R – Major vehicle repair on one lot on 2.2 acres located on the west side of Coit Road, 320 feet south of Plano Parkway. Zoned Light Industrial-1 and located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. Project #PSP2025-009. Applicant: 601 Coit Partners LP. (Legislative consideration of parking reduction request)]
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 4, COIT ROAD OFFICE AND MINIWAREHOUSE ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 1R.
MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR ON ONE LOT ON 2.2 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COIT ROAD, 320 FEET SOUTH OF PLANO PARKWAY.
ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL-1 AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS.
THE APPLICANT IS 601 COIT PARTNERS LP.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME NOW?
>> THERE YOU ARE. NOW YOU'RE ON. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, DESTINY WOODS, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS THE SUBMITTED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR THE MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR BUILDING EXPANSION.
NINETY-ONE PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED BASED ON THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES AND SERVICE BAYS THAT ARE PROPOSED.
SEVENTY-THREE PARKING SPACES ARE PROVIDED WITH THE PROPOSAL, WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO THE 20% MAXIMUM REDUCTION THAT THIS COMMISSION IS AUTHORIZED TO APPROVE.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A PARKING ANALYSIS REGARDING THE ANTICIPATED PARKING DEMAND BASED ON ITS OPERATIONS.
PER THAT ANALYSIS, THE PROPOSED USE WILL DEMAND A MAXIMUM OF 62 SPACES AT ITS BUSIEST TIME OF DAY.
THE MEMO WAS REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND NO ISSUES WITH THE DATA OR METHODOLOGY WERE NOTED.
THE CONDITIONS FOR A 20% PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUED PARKING REDUCTION HAVE BEEN MET, AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THESE ARE THE CONDITIONS ON THE SCREEN.
THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH THE 20% PARKING REDUCTION AS REQUESTED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
>> JUST ONE ON THE METHODOLOGY. TWO ISSUES.
PEAK PARKING FOR AUTO SERVICE IS NOT A TUESDAY AT 9:00 AM.
I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S A WEEKEND.
THAT WILL BE A PEAK PARKING TO OBSERVE IF THE 31 AND THE 62 SPACES ARE APPROPRIATE.
[01:30:03]
I'M SURPRISED PARKING SERVICES OR WHAT HAVE YOU DID NOT HAVE ISSUE WITH THAT?>> THAT'S CORRECT. THE TRAFFIC DIVISION OF ENGINEERING DID NOT HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT.
I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT MAY BE HERE TO DISCUSS THEIR METHODOLOGY.
>> I'LL RESERVE MY OTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> WELL, WE WE CAN ALLOW THEM UP HERE IN JUST A MINUTE.
LET'S FINISH QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF, AND THEN WE CAN TALK TO THE APPLICANT.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM STAFF, COMMISSIONER OLLEY?.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO KNOW HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THE PARKING RATIO BECAUSE WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF PARKING REDUCTION REQUESTS.
HOW DOES THE CITY DETERMINE THE PARKING RATIO?
>> IT'S DETERMINED BY OUR ZONING ORDINANCE IN ARTICLE 16.
IT DESCRIBES THE USE, WHICH IS MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR, AND THE PROPOSED USE WILL REQUIRE PARKING FOR THE NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES.
THE EXACT NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES THAT ARE EXPECTED AT A SHIFT MAXIMUM, PARKING NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED FOR THAT NUMBER.
THEN ALSO PARKING IS REQUIRED FOR EACH THREE PARKING SPACES PER SERVICE BAY.
THAT'S HOW WE CALCULATE THAT NUMBER.
>> HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THESE NUMBERS? LIKE PER EMPLOYEE OR IS THERE LIKE A NATIONAL STANDARDS THAT YOU GO OFF ON?
>> NO. THE APPLICANT WILL PROVIDE US WITH THEIR CAPACITY TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IN THEIR REQUEST.
>> COMMISSIONER, I BELIEVE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS, WHAT IS THE REASONING THAT IT'S SET AT ONE SPACE?
>> THERE ARE INDUSTRY STANDARDS.
THERE ARE GROUPS THAT TAKE A LOOK AT THE PARKINGS OF DIFFERENT USES AND PROPOSE THOSE.
THEN CITIES MODIFY THEM TO THEIR OWN NEEDS.
I THINK IT'S BEEN SOME TIME SINCE WE'VE LOOKED AT THE KIND OF STANDARD PARKING RATIOS IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT THAT'S BEING LOOKED AT AS ONE OF THE MODULES WITH THE REWRITE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.
MY QUESTION IS WHAT'S THE REASON? DO YOU KNOW WHY THEY REQUESTED REDUCTION? ARE THEY LOOKING TO EXPAND THE SHOP?
>> YES. THEY ARE EXPANDING THE BUILDING BY AROUND 15,000 SQUARE FEET.
THEY'RE USING SOME OF THE SPACE THAT WAS OCCUPIED BY PARKING BEFORE WE'RE NOW A BUILDING WILL BE.
IN CONDUCTING THEIR PARKING ANALYSIS, THEY REALIZED WE ACTUALLY DON'T NEED THIS MUCH PARKING, SO THEY'RE REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT.
>> DID WE OR THE STAFF OR THE ENGINEER DO ANY ANALYSIS ON THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AFTER THE ADDITION THAT'S BEEN DONE? IF AFTER THE 15,000 SQUARE FEET BEING ADDED TO THE BUILDING, WHAT WOULD THE REQUIREMENT ON THE PARKING BE?
>> WITH THE 15,000 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION, THE PARKING REQUIREMENT IS, LET ME GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE, 91 SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED.
WE CONDUCTED THIS ANALYSIS BASED ON THEIR PROPOSED BUILDING AND NOT THE EXISTING BUILDING.
THIS ENTIRE PRESENTATION IS BASED ON THE-
>>PROPOSED GOT YOU. THANK YOU.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND.
I KNOW BASED ON YOUR ANALYSIS, THERE'S NOT REALLY A PLACE FOR ANY PARKING TO OVERFLOW, IS THAT CORRECT? SHOULD THERE BE A PROBLEM, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> OVERFLOW IS NOT ANTICIPATED SINCE ACCORDING TO THIS ANALYSIS, THEY'RE OVER PARKED BY THEIR DEMAND.
WE DIDN'T ANTICIPATE ANY OVERFLOW OR ISSUES TO OTHER PROPERTIES NEARBY.
>> GOOD. IF I READ THE STAFF REPORT, CORRECT, THERE'S NOT REALLY A PLACE FOR IT TO OVERFLOW IF THAT WAS THE CASE, IS THAT RIGHT, OTHER THAN DOWN STREET OR ACROSS THE STREET?
>> TO THE SOUTH, THERE'S A TRAIN TRACK, AND YOU'D HAVE TO DO A LOT TO PARK SOUTHERN, AND THEN YES, THAT'S WHAT THE STAFF REPORTS GETTING AT.
>> MY FOLLOW-UP QUESTION IS THERE'S A DEDICATED FIRE LANE THROUGH HERE.
BACK UP. HAS THIS TENANT OCCUPANT HAD A GOOD TRACK RECORD WITH THE FIRE DEPARTMENT KEEPING THE FIRE LANES OPEN?
>> I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THEIR TRACK RECORD, BUT THEY DO HAVE A FIRE LANE THAT'S PROPOSED AROUND THE SITE, AND OUR FIRE DEPARTMENT DID REVIEW THE PLAN AND WAS SATISFIED WITH THEIR COVERAGE.
>> WHEN THEY HAD THE SITE THE WAY IT CURRENTLY SITS WITH 91 PARKING SPACES.
IS THAT THE NUMBER THEY WERE REQUIRED TO HAVE AT
[01:35:03]
THAT OPERATIONAL TIME WHEN WE APPROVED THIS ORIGINALLY.>> YOU'RE SPEAKING OF THE EXISTING LOT, HOW IT'S CURRENTLY.
I DON'T BELIEVE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE A 91 SPACES, BUT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF SERVICE BAYS AND EMPLOYEES THEY HAD AT THAT TIME AS WELL.
>> HERE'S MY MATH THAT'S CONFUSING ME.
WE'RE EXPANDING THE OPERATION, BUT WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING THE NUMBER OF PARKING.
>> THIS WAS RECENTLY CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
WE HAD EXCESS RIGHT OF WAY ON COIT ROAD.
THE PARKING THAT'S THERE WAS TECHNICALLY WITHIN CITY RIGHT OF WAY.
THEY HAVE PURCHASED THAT PROPERTY FROM THE CITY, THUS THEREBY ACQUIRING ADDITIONAL PARKING.
WITH THAT, THEY'RE NOW EXPANDING THEIR BUILDING INTO THAT AREA.
THERE WAS ADEQUATE PARKING BEFORE, THEN THEY'VE ACQUIRED THE SPACE, WHICH WAS PREVIOUSLY ANOTHER BUILDING ALTOGETHER.
THERE WAS ANOTHER USE THERE AT THE TIME.
THEY'RE TEARING THAT DOWN BECAUSE THEY'VE ACQUIRED IT AND THEY WANT TO EXPAND.
THERE'S, IN OUR, OPINION ADEQUATE PARKING IN THE LOCATION.
>> MY QUESTION IS, WHAT'S THE USE OF THE EXPANSION, THE ADDITION? IS IT GOING TO BE AN AUTO REPAIR BECAUSE THERE'S A MEZZANINE ALSO?
>> IT'S STILL A MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR.
>> I HAVE QUESTIONS ON METHODOLOGY, BUT I'M ACTUALLY WONDERING WHY I'M ASKING THE APPLICANT RATHER THAN THE CITY ON HOW DID WE GET COMFORTABLE WITH THE METHODOLOGY THAT WAS PROPOSED?
>> THEY DID A PARKING COUNT BASED ON THE DEMAND OF THEIR EXISTING BUILDING, AND THEY EXTRAPOLATED THAT OUT BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE EXPANSION.
SO THIS IS WHAT WE HAVE ON OUR PEAK TIMES IN OUR CURRENT FACILITY.
WE ANTICIPATE THIS WILL BE OUR PEAK TIME BASED ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IN CREATES, AND THAT WAS THEIR METHODOLOGY.
IT CAME OUT LESS THAN WHAT THE 20% REDUCTION WOULD ACTUALLY BE.
>> IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. CAN WE TALK TO THE APPLICANT?
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF?
>> IF I COULD JUST STATE ONE THING JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE TWO OF THESE TONIGHT, JUST A REMINDER TO THE COMMISSION THAT THE CITY INSTALLED THIS PARKING REDUCTION PROGRAM LAST YEAR AS A RELIEF VALVE, BECAUSE WE UNDERSTOOD THAT OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS MAY NOT FIT THE SITUATION ANYMORE, BUT THERE WAS NO RELIEF VALVE AT ALL WITHOUT GOING TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT OR SOME COUNCIL APPROVED PARKING REDUCTION PROGRAMS. THIS WAS PUT IN AS A TEMPORARY PATCH TO GET US THROUGH THE REWRITE WHEN WE COULD EVALUATE THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS A WHOLE.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS TO STAFF, ANYBODY? I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE AN APPLICANT HERE, AND WHILE THIS ISN'T A PUBLIC HEARING, I THINK WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS.
ARE YOU REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT TONIGHT?
>> PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS?
>> MY NAME IS JAMIE GALLAGHER.
MY ADDRESS IS 11468 DUMBARTON DRIVE IN DALLAS, TEXAS, 75228.
THEN WE HAVE LIZ WITH THE OWNERSHIP AS WELL.
>> PLEASE YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS TOO?
IT'S 601 COIT ROAD, PLANO, 75075.
>> QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. COMMISSIONER OLLEY?
>> THREE QUESTIONS. WHY ARE WE STATING 9:00 AM ON TUESDAY AS PEAK?
>> THEY ARE NOT OPEN ON THE WEEKENDS, SO TYPICALLY, ON YOUR MONDAY, TUESDAYS, YOU GET PEOPLE DROPPING OFF THE CARS, AND THEY PUT THEM IN THEIR QUEUE, THEY'LL WORK ON THEM THROUGH THE WEEK, TRYING TO GET THEM OUT BY FRIDAY AFTERNOON.
>> GOT IT. SECOND QUESTION ON THE 31 SPACES FOR DEMAND, DOES THE PEOPLE BRING IT IN THEIR CARS? DOES THE PEOPLE WHO CARS HAVE BEEN WORKED ON, BUT THEY HAVE NOT PICKED IT UP.
I'M GOING TO GUESS THEY WILL LEAVE THE CARS IN THE, NO? WHERE ARE THE CARS?
>> CURRENTLY, WE DON'T LEAVE ANY VEHICLES OUT AT ALL.
IF THEY'RE IF THEY DON'T RUN, THEN THEY'RE OUT IN A PARKING SPOT.
BUT ONE OF OUR THINGS IS WE PULL ALL THE VEHICLES INSIDE THE BUILDING TO PROTECT THE CLIENT'S VEHICLES.
>> EVERYTHING IS INSIDE [OVERLAPPING]. YOU CAN DRIVE BY TONIGHT, AND THE ONLY VEHICLE THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S BEEN DONE, PAID FOR, AND NEEDS TO BE TOWED OUT, AND IT'S IN THE BACK.
>> LAST QUESTION, AND THIS IS MORE NITPICKY.
YOU DOUBLE THE SPACE, YOU ARE AT 62 PLUS 13 EMPLOYEES, THAT'S 75.
ASKING FOR TWO MORE SPACES LESS, I'M BEING NITPICKY.
>> [LAUGHTER] I DON'T KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THAT.
[01:40:02]
I JUST KNOW WE DON'T FEEL.>> IT'S JUST THE 20% MADE IT 73, ESSENTIALLY?
>> YEAH,20% MADE IT 73, AND THAT'S, I BELIEVE, ROUNDING IN FAVOR OF THE CITY AS WELL.
IT'D BE LIKE 72.5 AND I ROUND IT UP. [INAUDIBLE].
>> THANK YOU. THAT'S RIGHT. THIS GIVES US A LITTLE FLEXIBILITY AS THEY MOVE TO FINAL SITE PLAN.
IF THE DESIGN CHANGES A BIT, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT THE SITE IN THE MOST STRICT CIRCUMSTANCE INSIDE THE BUILDING.
THEY HAVE DIFFERENT USES FOR DIFFERENT SPOTS, SO THERE COULD BE LIKE A CAR WASH BAY INSIDE THE BUILDING, AND WE'RE COUNTING THAT AS A SERVICE BAY.
THREE PARKING SPACES FOR THAT AS WELL.
>> THE EXPLANATION THAT IT DON'T OPEN ON THE WEEKENDS, WAS THE MISSING FACTOR I DID NOT HAVE. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? MR. BRONSKY?
>> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>> MR. ALALI, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 4 AS PRESENTED.
OH, DID I MISS SOMEBODY? COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. SORRY, I DIDN'T SEE YOUR LIGHT COME ON.
>> NO, I JUST WANTED TO BRIEFLY SAY THAT I AM PLEASED THAT THE TYPE OF INFORMATION THAT HAS BEEN OFFERED IN SUPPORT OF THIS APPLICATION RELATING TO THE NUMBER OF DEMAND PARKING SPACES IN RELATION TO WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR IS PRECISELY THE KIND OF INFORMATION THAT WE OUGHT TO BE GETTING IN ORDER TO SUPPORT A PARKING REDUCTION.
I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT TREND CONTINUED. THANK YOU.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT.
I APPRECIATE YOU EXPANDING IN PLANO AND STAYING IN PLANO. THANK YOU.
>> THE OWNER'S BEEN IN PLANO FOR 30 YEARS.
>> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8-0.
LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR BUSINESS GROWING.
[5. (CST) Discussion and Action – Preliminary Site Plan: Spring Creek Golf Center, Block 1, Lot 1 – Data center on one lot on 16.0 acres located on the north side of Spring Creek Parkway, 1,250 feet east of Parkwood Boulevard. Zoned Commercial Employment with Specific Use Permit No. 336 for Outdoor Commercial Amusement. Project #PSP2025- 012. Applicant: SI DFW01C LLC. (Legislative consideration of parking reduction request)]
SPRING CREEK GOLF CENTER BLOCK 1, LOT 1.
DATA CENTER ON ONE LOT ON 16 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY, 01,250 FEET EAST OF PARKWOOD BOULEVARD.
ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 336 FOR OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS SI DFW01C LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF A PARKING REDUCTION REQUEST.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THE PURPOSE FOR THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS TO PROPOSE AN INFILL DATA CENTER DEVELOPMENT AS SHOWN ON THE NEXT FEW SLIDES.
THE REQUIRED PARKING FOR DATA CENTERS IS ONE SPACE FOR EVERY THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF TOTAL BUILDING AREA.
BASED ON THE USE AND THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING, 363 PARKING SPACES ARE REQUIRED.
THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A PARKING MEMO REGARDING THE PARKING DEMAND OF THE PROPOSED USE BASED ON ITS OPERATIONS.
PER THE MEMO, THE PROPOSED USE WILL DEMAND A MAXIMUM OF 48 PARKING SPACES.
THE MEMO WAS REVIEWED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, AND NO ISSUES WITH THE DATA OR METHODOLOGY WERE NOTED.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 20% REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED PARKING FROM THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING A STORMWATER CONSERVATION AREA TO REDUCE THE PARKING BY ANOTHER 10%, WHICH IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH MAKES THE REDUCTION 30% TOTAL.
THE CONDITIONS FOR THE 20% PLANNING AND ZONING ISSUED PARKING REDUCTION HAVE BEEN MET AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL WITH A 20% PARKING REDUCTION AS REQUESTED, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE.
>> COMMISSION, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. BROUNOFF.
>> HOW DID THE DATA CENTER GET TO BE CALLED THE GOLF CENTER?
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS ORIGINALLY SOME TYPE OF GOLF OR [INAUDIBLE] FACILITY IN THE PAST.
[01:45:08]
>> I SEE. OKAY. IT TAKES A DATA CENTER TO COUNT THE STROKES IN THE GOLF COURSE, IS THAT IT? [LAUGHTER]
>> JUST ONE, THE STORM WATER CONSERVATION AREA, THE 10% REDUCTION, DOES THAT MEAN WE LEAVE THAT AS NATIVE LAND TO ENSURE MORE PERMEABLE?
>> YES. INSTEAD OF DRAINING IT TO AN INLET TO GET PIPED OUT, IT GOES TO SOME FORM OF GRASSY SWALE TO GET FILTERED BEFORE IT DRAINS OUT.
>> THAT MAKES SENSE. THANK YOU.
>> I WANTED TO ASK, IN YOUR OPINION, WITH THE 30% REDUCTION OF PARKING WITH THE DATA THAT YOU GOT FROM THE APPLICANT, DO YOU THINK THAT IT SEEM LIKE IT SATISFIES THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS? IT WOULD BE ENOUGH [OVERLAPPING].
I THINK WE'VE SEEN SEVERAL DATA CENTERS OVER THE LAST FEW YEARS, AND ALL OF THEM HAVE SAID THEY DON'T NEED NEARLY AS MUCH PARKING.
I THINK WE'LL LOOK AT THAT WITH THE REWRITE.
I THINK THE CONCERN GENERALLY IS THAT THESE BUILDINGS MAY GET REPURPOSED OVER TIME, AND WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE IS SOME ROOM FOR PARKING AS ANOTHER USE, AND SO 20% SEEMS LIKE AN APPROPRIATE REDUCTION.
EVEN WITH THE 10% IN STORMWATER, STILL THERE SHOULD BE ADEQUATE PARKING FOR THIS PARTICULAR USE.
>> JUST TO GIVE SOME CONTEXT TO THE COMMISSION.
I WAS IN THIS INDUSTRY FOR A WHILE.
THIS IS STILL TOO MUCH PARKING FOR DATA CENTERS.
SECURITY-WISE AND WHAT HAVE YOU, DATA CENTERS RESTRICT ACCESS TO PEOPLE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MY QUESTION IS THAT THIS IS EXISTING BUILDING, AND THEY'RE JUST ASKING FOR REDUCTION FOR PARKING.
>> THIS IS A PROPOSED BUILDING.
>> A PROPOSED, SO THEY HAVEN'T BUILT ANYTHING YET? THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? WELL, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS?
>> THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
>> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE PARKING REDUCTION AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.
PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8-0.
[6. (CST) Discussion and Action – Request to Waive the Two-Year Waiting Period: Request to waive the two-year waiting period for consideration to amend Specific Use Permit No. 56 from a flagpole design to a faux tree design on 0.1 acre located 225 feet north of Democracy Drive and 220 feet east of Partnership Road. Zoned Commercial Employment. Project #DI2025-009. Applicant: C.A. Bass, LLC. (Legislative consideration)]
REQUEST TO WAIVE THE TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR CONSIDERATION TO AMEND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 56 FROM A FLAGPOLE DESIGN TO A FAUX TREE DESIGN ON 0.1 ACRE LOCATED 220 FEET NORTH OF DEMOCRACY DRIVE AT 220 FEET EAST OF PARTNERSHIP ROAD.
THE APPLICANT IS CA BASS, LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO WAIVE THE TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD TO AMEND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 56 FROM A FLAGPOLE DESIGN TO A FAUX TREE DESIGN.
IN 2024, A 120-FOOT COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE WAS APPROVED BY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 56.
APPROVAL INCLUDED A CONDITION THAT THE ANTENNA HAVE A FLAGPOLE DESIGN FOR COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
SINCE THAT TIME, NO PERMITS FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED.
THE APPLICANT WISHES TO MODIFY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 56 TO CHANGE FROM A FLAGPOLE DESIGN TO A FAUX TREE DESIGN.
A FAUX TREE DESIGN WAS INITIALLY PROPOSED WITH THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE, BUT THE APPLICANT CHANGED THE DESIGN TO BE A FLAG POLE DURING THE REVIEW AND RESPONSE TO STAFF COMMENTS.
>> SORRY, GO AHEAD. [LAUGHTER]
>> UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, A TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD IS REQUIRED FOR APPROVAL FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S DISCRETION.
THE TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD FOR THIS PROPERTY WILL END ON MAY 13, 2026.
THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR A WAIVER OF THE TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THERE ARE SUBSTANTIVE REASONS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.
THE ONLY CHANGE IN CONDITION IS THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE FOR A DIFFERENT DESIGN.
[01:50:02]
THERE ARE NO ERRORS TO CORRECT AND NO CHANGES TO PUBLIC PLANS OR POLICIES AFFECTING THE SITE.THE COMMISSION IS NOT LIMITED TO THESE CRITERIA AND MAY CONSIDER OTHER REASONS TO GRANT REQUEST.
IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT A WAIVER OF THE TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD BE GRANTED IF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FINDS SUBSTANTIVE REASONS FOR GRANTING THE REQUEST.
>> GOOD. JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE DOING.
BEFORE US IS JUST TO CONSIDER WAIVING THE TWO-YEAR REQUESTS? WE'RE NOT REVIEWING THE NEW DESIGN, THIS IS JUST ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE GOING TO WAIVE THE REQUESTS TO ALLOW THEM TO COME BACK, CORRECT?
>> YES, SIR. FROM THE FLAGPOLE DESIGN TO THE FAUX TREE.
>> JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
>> JUST ONE DRIVING COMMENT, THE APPLICANT WANTED THE FAUX TREE, STAFF PROVIDED FEEDBACK.
AT THAT POINT, WE DROVE THE FLAG POLE.
WHAT WAS THAT FEEDBACK? IS IT STILL IN CONSIDERATION TODAY?
>> IN THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL, STAFF WAS NOT SUPPORTIVE OF THE TREE DESIGN, THEREFORE, RECOMMENDED GOING TO THE FLAGPOLE DESIGN TO GET STAFF SUPPORT.
THEY CHOSE TO DO THAT AND MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FLAGPOLE DESIGNED TO P&Z AND COUNCIL.
>> ARE THERE ANY HAZARDS WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND, TREE VERSUS FLAGPOLE? BIRDS LAND ON THEM AND GET ELECTROCUTED?
>> NO, IT WAS NOT A SAFETY CONCERN, IT'S AN AESTHETIC CONCERN WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA.
[OVERLAPPING] THE CITY DOES NOT HAVE NATURAL TREES OF THOSE SIZES.
>> OH, [LAUGHTER] SO IT'LL STAND OUT.
>> [INAUDIBLE] MY NEIGHBORHOOD.
>> THE FEEDBACK WE PROVIDED TO THEM THAT WE DIDN'T REALLY WANT THAT, AND WHAT CHANGED ON OUR END THAT NOW WE'RE OKAY WITH THIS?
>> CLARIFIER, THIS IS JUST A REQUEST TO ASK THE COMMISSION TO COME BACK FOR ZONING CHANGE.
THIS ISN'T INDICATIVE OF STAFF SUPPORT EITHER WAY FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGE THAT WILL COME BEFORE YOU IF YOU APPROVE IT.
>> CURRENTLY, IT DOESN'T MEET ANY OF THE CRITERIA FOR WAIVING THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD THAT WAS ON THE SCREEN, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THERE ARE THREE CRITERIA LISTED IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT THE COMMISSION IS NOT LIMITED TO THOSE THREE REASONS.
IF YOU FIND SOMETHING ELSE SUBSTANTIVE, THEN THE COMMISSION COULD GRANT THE REQUEST.
>> NO, I GOT IT. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT IT DOESN'T MEET THE CRITERIA THAT WE HAVE LAID OUT, BUT WE CAN CONSIDER OTHER CRITERIA.
BUT IN FACT, WE ACTUALLY ENCOURAGED THEM THAT WE WANTED TO GO WITH THE DESIGN THAT THEY CURRENTLY HAVE.
THEY'RE COMING BACK LOOKING TO GO BACK TO SOMETHING THAT WE'VE ALREADY TOLD THEM WE REALLY DIDN'T WANT THE FIRST TIME AROUND, IS THAT CORRECT?
I WOULD ENCOURAGE THIS COMMISSION TO LOOK AT WHAT CONDITIONS HAVE CHANGED HERE, THAT'S WORTHY OF A RECONSIDERATION.
>> WHAT CONDITION HAS CHANGED FOR THE RECONSIDERATION?
>> THE ONLY CHANGES THAT THEY STATE THE OWNER WAS NOT AWARE OF THE FLAG POLE DESIGN AND WANTS TO GO BACK TO A TREE, BUT THE APPLICANT, I BELIEVE, CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
>> I'D LOVE TO ASK THE APPLICANT IF WE WERE AWARE OF WHAT THEY ACTUALLY AGREED TO OR NOT.
>> WE HAVE THE APPLICANT DISPOSED TO BE AVAILABLE, BUT LET'S FINISH STAFF QUESTIONS, AND THEN WE CAN GET THE APPLICANT ONLINE.
>> IF THE APPLICANT WENT BEFORE US AND ASKED FOR THIS THAT THEY HAVE, AND CONFUSING TO ME, I GUESS. THAT'S ALL.
I THINK I HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION REGARDING THE REASON BEHIND THIS.
ALSO, I WANT TO CLARIFY AGAIN, THE PROCESS TODAY IS JUST TO APPROVE THE RESUBMISSION OF THIS, ALLOWING THE CHANGE OF THE DESIGN WITHIN THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.
BUT THAT DOESN'T REALLY MEAN THAT THEY HAVE TO CHANGE IT TO A FOOL TREE DESIGN.
THAT JUST GIVES THEM THE OPTION TO CHANGE DESIGN.
THEY COULD COME BACK WITH A TOTALLY DIFFERENT DESIGN.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THIS IS JUST ALLOWING THEM TO SUBMIT ANOTHER APPLICATION.
COMMISSIONER ALALI, I THINK TO BUILD ON THAT THE CONDITION I'M GOING WITH THAT IS NOT LISTED HERE IS GIVING AN APPLICANT WHAT FEELS LIKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THEIR CASE AND NOT HAVING THEM WAIT TWO YEARS TO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THEIR CASE.
WE STILL HAVE THE PURVIEW TO DETERMINE IF THAT CASE MEETS MERIT OR NOT.
BUT THIS IS JUST GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE US AND ARGUE FOR A TREE,
[01:55:02]
CHRISTMAS TREE, WHATEVER TREE.>> YES, I THINK I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER ALALI ON THIS.
FOR A SUBSTANTIVE REASON TO ALLOW THEM THE WAIVER OF THE TWO YEARS.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO ALLOW PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE US AND PRESENT THEIR CASE.
I THINK FAIRNESS DEMANDS THAT.
THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT I SUPPORT OR DON'T SUPPORT THE FAUX TREE DESIGN.
I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE, SO I CAN'T EITHER EXPRESS AN OPINION ON IT.
BUT I'M IN FAVOR OF GIVING THEM THE CHANCE TO COME DOWN HERE AND AT LEAST PRESENT THEIR CASE. MR. BRONSKY?
>> MY COMMENT TO BOTH OF THOSE LAST TWO WERE THE APPLICANT HAS ALREADY GONE THROUGH THIS PROCESS ONCE AND CAME TO US AND MADE A DECISION, WHETHER THEY KNEW THEY WERE MAKING THE DECISION OR NOT.
THEY CAME BEFORE US ONCE ALREADY, AND ASKED FOR WHAT THEY'RE GETTING.
I'M JUST LOOKING FOR SOME SUBSTANTIVE REASON FROM THE APPLICANT THAT HAS CHANGED, BEYOND, I DIDN'T KNOW WHAT I WAS DOING, AS TO WHY WE'RE COMING AROUND AGAIN AT IT.
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF FAIRNESS.
THEY'VE ALREADY HAD AN OPPORTUNITY ONCE BEFORE US.
I THINK I REMEMBER THIS CASE ON THE FLAG POLE BECAUSE WE HAD A SUP AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
THE WAY I READ THIS IS BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM PLANNING DEPARTMENT, THE APPLICANT MADE THAT CHANGE AND DID NOT ARGUE ONE CHANGE OR THE OTHER, WHAT HAVE YOU.
THEY'RE REACTING IN, BASICALLY, I DON'T THINK THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO ARGUE THEIR CASE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY PREEMPTIVELY MADE THE CHANGE BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY.
I THINK THE FAIRNESS, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, DEMANDS THAT IF THEY WANT TO NOT TAKE THE FEEDBACK FROM THE CITY AND BRING THE ORIGINAL DESIGN FORWARD, THEY SHOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO DO SO.
>> HANG ON ONE SECOND, LET ME INTERJECT SOMETHING.
IF YOU READ THE LETTER FROM THE APPLICANT.
WHAT THE LETTER SAYS IS THAT THIS IS DUE TO LAND OWNER'S PREFERENCES FOR THE VISUAL IMPACT OF THE ANTENNA STRUCTURE.
WHAT THAT TELLS ME IS THAT THEY GOT A FLAGPOLE APPROVED.
THEY WENT BACK TO THE OWNER TO BUILD IT, AND THE OWNER WENT, I DON'T LIKE TO LOOK AT THAT.
THEY'RE COMING BACK BECAUSE OF LANDOWNER PREFERENCE, NOT NECESSARILY THE APPLICANT'S PREFERENCE.
BECAUSE THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY LEASING THE GROUND FROM SOMEBODY.
THAT'S WHAT THEIR LETTER SAYS.
WITH THAT CLARIFICATION, COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
>> MY POINT IS, WHAT'S THE POINT? BECAUSE YOU LIKE, THEY KNOW THAT THEY ARE SAYING THAT THEY'RE COMING BACK WITH THE OLD DESIGN THAT THE CITY DIDN'T APPROVE BECAUSE IT WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING.
WHY ARE THEY ASKING TO COME BACK AGAIN AFTER LESS THAN TWO YEARS AT LEAST? WHAT'S THE POINT? WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S THEIR POINT OF COMING BACK WITH THE OLD DESIGN THAT THEY KNOW THAT IT WAS REJECTED.
>> JUST A QUESTION. ASSUMING WE WERE TO WAIVE THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD AND THEY COME TO US ON A FUTURE MEETING AND PRESENT THE FAUX TREE DESIGN OR SOME OTHER DESIGN, IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO DISAPPROVE THAT APPLICATION FOR AN ALTERNATE DESIGN, WOULD THE FLAGPOLE DESIGN STILL REMAIN IN EFFECT?
>> WE APPARENTLY HAVE THE APPLICANT AVAILABLE BY ZOOM.
DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT THAT THEY WANT TO ASK THAT WE NEED TO GET THE APPLICANT ON ZOOM? NOBODY? THE APPLICANT WAS JUST THERE, JUST IN CASE WE HAD QUESTIONS, IS THAT CORRECT? IF YOU CAN GET THE APPLICANT ON ZOOM, I THINK WE DO HAVE AT LEAST ONE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.
>> IF YOU'D INTRODUCE YOURSELF, GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.
>> ABSOLUTELY. MY NAME IS HOLLY GADI, AND I RESIDE AT 1710 TYLER, TEXAS 75709.
THE REASON THAT WE ARE COMING BACK WITH THE REVISION AND DESIGN IS BECAUSE,
[02:00:07]
AND YOU GUYS MAY REMEMBER THIS FROM JANUARY, WE HAD TO SUBMIT FOR A EXTENSION BECAUSE THE LANDOWNER WAS INCAPACITATED IN THE HOSPITAL FOR SEVERAL MONTHS, AND HE WAS UNABLE TO SIGN.WHEN CITY STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT WE MOVE TO A FLAGLESS FLAGPOLE DESIGN.
>> MISS COURTNEY, IF I CAN INTERRUPT YOU REAL QUICK, OUR REGULATIONS HAVE THAT WE ASK YOU TO HAVE YOUR CAMERA ON SO WE CAN SEE YOU, IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, PLEASE?
>> OF COURSE, I'M JUST NOT SURE HOW TO TURN THAT ON.
I DON'T THINK THAT OPTION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO ME YET.
>> SHOULD BE A BUTTON AT THE BOTTOM OF YOUR SCREEN THAT HAS A CAMERA ICON WHERE YOU CAN TURN IT ON, I WOULD THINK?
>> IS THAT SOMETHING ON OUR END WE CAN FIX? WHILE THEY WORK ON THIS, WHY DON'T YOU CONTINUE WITH YOUR COMMENTS? DID WE MUTE HER?
>> NO. THERE YOU ARE. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. AS I WAS SAYING, THE UNDERLYING LAND OWNER HAD BEEN IN THE HOSPITAL FOR A WHILE.
WE WERE UNABLE TO GET HIS SIGNATURE ON THE PLAT AND UNABLE TO GET THAT, SO WHEN CITY STAFF RECOMMENDED WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FLAGLIST FLAGPOLE DURING OUR PRE-APPLICATION MEETING, WE WERE MORE THAN HAPPY TO DO THAT.
HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF HIS STAY IN THE HOSPITAL, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET HIS FINAL STAMP OF APPROVAL.
HIS INTERIM MANAGER STEPPED IN AND SAID, GO AHEAD, MOVE FORWARD WITH THE FLAGPOLE.
WELL, ONCE THE ACTUAL MANAGER GOT OUT OF THE HOSPITAL.
HE SAID, NO, I AGREED TO A FAUX TREE DESIGN.
THAT'S THE REASON FOR OUR REQUEST TO WAIVE THE TWO-YEAR WAITING PERIOD.
WE'D LIKE TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYBODY INVOLVED AND HELP MOVE THIS ALONG TO HAVE THE LANDOWNER BE HAPPY WITH IT AS WELL.
>> COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, DID YOU HAVE SOME QUESTIONS OF THE [OVERLAPPING]?
>> I GUESS THAT WAS MY FIRST PART OF MY QUESTION IS THAT WAS THE PERSON THAT MOVED FORWARD, THE INTERIM MANAGER THAT YOU'RE DESCRIBING, WAS HE A LEGAL AGENT ACTING ON BEHALF OF THE OWNER WHEN HE SIGNED THE APPLICATION?
>> I BELIEVE SO. I WAS NOT IN DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH HIM.
WHO I'M WORKING FOR IS ETHERNET, AND THEY'RE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO BE OWNING THIS TOWER SITE.
THEY WERE IN DIRECT COMMUNICATION WITH THEM.
SO AS FAR AS HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATION OF THE COMPANY, I'M NOT SURE, BUT I WANT TO SAY HE WAS ACTING AS A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE.
>> SO ACTING AS A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE.
GIVING APPROVAL FOR WHAT WE MOVED FORWARD WITH ORIGINALLY. IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THEN?
>> NOW, AFTER WE'VE GONE THROUGH THAT, HE NOW WANTS TO BACK OUT OF THE PROCESS THAT HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE APPROVED FOR US TO GO FORWARD WITH, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> IS THERE ANYTHING BEYOND HE JUST DOESN'T LIKE THE DESIGN?
>> YOU'RE ASKING US TO GO [OVERLAPPING]
>> HE JUST DOES NOT WANT THE TOWER.
>> YOU'RE ASKING US TO GO BACK AND REDO THE PROCESS THAT HE HIS LEGAL AUTHORITY GRANTED AND THAT THE CITY MOVED FORWARD WITH UNDER THE SUGGESTION BECAUSE HE DIDN'T LIKE THE DECISION THAT HIS LEGAL AUTHORITY MADE FOR HIM.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.
THAT'S ALL I WANTED TO KNOW. THANK YOU.
>> I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT HE WAS AWARE ALSO, AFTER THE FACT, AFTER HE GOT HEALTHY AND WAS ABLE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON.
WAS HE AWARE OF OR MADE AWARE THAT THE CITY WAS NOT IN FAVOR OF A TREE THAT WAS MUCH LARGER THAN WHAT ANY OTHER TREE THAT'S NATIVE TO THIS AREA IN THAT AREA IS AROUND IT? IT WOULD STICK OUT, AND IT WAS A CONCERN.
>> YES, SIR. HE IS AWARE OF THAT, BUT HE STUCK TO HIS GUNS AND SAID THAT'S THE ONLY THING HE WOULD WANT ON HIS PROPERTY.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOBODY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR JOINING US ON ZOOM.
[02:05:04]
OF COURSE. COMMISSION. ANYBODY, COMMISSIONER ALALI?>> I'M STILL HUNG ON THE WORDS IN RESPONSE TO STAFF REVIEW.
I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DO AUDITS AND CROSS AUDITS, AND COVER OURSELVES FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE.
I MOVED THAT WE GRANT THE WAIVER AND APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6.
>> I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION WITH THE COMMENT THAT IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SUBSTANTIVE REASON TO WAIVE THE TWO YEAR PERIOD TO REQUEST AN AMENDMENT, THE FACT THAT THE LAND OWNER HIMSELF WAS INCAPACITATED AT THE TIME WE INITIALLY CONSIDERED THE CASE TO ME IS A SUBSTANTIVE REASON BECAUSE IT PRECLUDED HIM FROM MAKING HIS OWN PERSONAL WISHES KNOWN AT THE TIME.
NOW, THE FACT THAT HE HAD AN AGENT WORKING FOR HIM AT THE TIME CERTAINLY MADE OUR INITIAL APPROVAL OF THE FLAGPOLE DESIGN POSSIBLE AND LEGALLY SUPPORTABLE.
IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE US FROM REOPENING IT.
IT DOES NOT PRECLUDE US FROM CONSIDERING WAIVING THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD.
IT IS NOT A BARRIER TO OUR CONSIDERING WAIVING THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD FOR A SUBSTANTIVE REASON.
AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THE LANDOWNER'S INCAPACITY IS A SUBSTANTIVE REASON TO WAIVE THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD AND AT LEAST GIVE HIM A CHANCE TO COME FORWARD AND TELL US WHAT HE WANTS AND WHY, AND THEN WE CAN MAKE A DECISION ON THE MERITS AT THAT TIME.
WE MAY OR MAY NOT APPROVE IT, BUT AT LEAST WE'RE GIVING HIM THE CHANCE.
>> WELL, I DON'T MIND GIVING THEM THE WAIVER, BUT I'M ASKING THE STAFF, DO YOU THINK THAT ANYTHING CHANGED ON YOUR END THAT YOU WILL APPROVE THIS, OTHER THAN JUST BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE EVERYBODY'S TIME, THEIR EFFORT, OUR EFFORT, YOU LIKE THE CITY'S EFFORT.
IF IT'S DETERMINED THAT THIS IS NO, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO APPROVE IT.
>> STAFF'S OPINION DOESN'T MEET THE THREE CRITERIA THERE, BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S P&Z'S DECISION IF THEY THINK THERE ARE OTHER REASONS OR IF THEY THINK THAT IT MEETS ONE OF THESE REASONS, YOU COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT AS WELL.
>> NO. IS THERE ANYTHING CHANGED ON THE CITY SIDE THAT YOU THINK THAT YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO APPROVE THIS DESIGN?
>> NO. BUT THEY HAVEN'T BROUGHT IT FORWARD FOR US TO CONSIDER THE DETAILS.
YOU'RE UNFAIR TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION?
>> BUT THEY HAVE BROUGHT IT FORWARD ONCE.
AM I NOT UNDERSTANDING THAT THE FIRST TIME THEY BROUGHT IT THROUGH, THEY BROUGHT IT THROUGH AS A FLAGPOLE DESIGN, WHAT THEY SUBMITTED THE FIRST TIME?
>> CORRECT. I'M SAYING, I'M NOT WE'RE NOT GOING TO EVALUATE THE ZONING CASE UNTIL THE PETITION IS ACTUALLY IN OUR HANDS.
FOR THE NEW CASE, WE RESERVE ANY JUDGMENT UNTIL THEY'VE ACTUALLY SUBMITTED THE DOCUMENTS.
>> WOULD THERE BE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE THAT COULD BE MADE FOR A FLAGPOLE DESIGN TO HAVE APPROVAL BY THE STAFF RELATIVE TO WHAT WE'VE ALREADY TOLD THEM WE DON'T WANT?
>> THE PURPOSE OF THE REGULATIONS IS TO PROVIDE A STEALTH OBJECTIVE.
IF THERE ARE OTHER THINGS THEY HAVE, THAT COULD BE STEALTH.
STAFF WOULD CONSIDER THOSE. OUR OPINION IN THE FIRST TIME WAS THAT A TREE WOULD HAVE THE OPPOSITE EFFECT.
I WOULD ATTRACT ATTENTION AND NOT BE STEALTHY.
BUT IF THEY HAVE SOMETHING ELSE THEY WANT TO DO, WE'LL CONSIDER THAT.
>> JUST A COMMENT BEFORE WE VOTE.
I TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.
THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION WHERE WE HAD A HEALTH ISSUE WITH THE LAND OWNER.
WE'VE ALREADY GRANTED THEM AN EXTENSION ON A PLATE.
I THINK IT WOULD BE INCONSISTENT FOR US TO NOT LIKEWISE GRANT THEM ALSO THE EXTENSION TO RECONSIDER THE OR THE RECONSIDERATION OF THE TOWER.
I JUST THINK THE LAND OWNER WAS NOT IN A PLACE WHERE HE COULD MAKE HIS OWN DECISIONS AND HAD AGENTS DOING IT FOR HIM.
OBVIOUSLY, WHEN HE GOT HEALTHY, HE FINALLY GOES AROUND ASSIGNING PLATS AND MAKING DECISIONS AND I TEND TO GO WITH THE LANDOWNER HAS THE RIGHT TO MAKE HIS DECISIONS AND IF HE WANTS TO HAVE IT RECONSIDERED, I SHOW THE MAN A LITTLE GRACE AND LET HIM HAVE IT RECONSIDERED, IS MY THOUGHT. MR. BRONSKY.
BUT AT WHAT POINT DO WE GET TO WHERE SOMEBODY'S OPINION CHANGES AFTER THEY'VE GIVEN A LEGAL I JUST THINK THAT I'M GOING TO VOTE NO AGAINST THIS, NOT BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT HE DESERVES THE RIGHT TO COME AND MAKE HIS PRESENTATION, BUT BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY DONE THIS AND BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY WALKED THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND BECAUSE HE HAD SOMEBODY LEGALLY REPRESENTING HIM,
[02:10:01]
AND WE BELIEVED HAD THE AUTHORITY TO ACT ON HIS BEHALF.NOW IT SOUNDS LIKE, I'M NOT SAYING IT IS, BUT IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE THAT EITHER THIS PERSON DIDN'T HAVE THE LEGAL AUTHORITY TO ACT ON HIS BEHALF OR DID SOMETHING ELSE.
NOW, IF THAT WERE THE CASE, THEN I CERTAINLY WOULD UNDERSTAND THE BRINGING BACK AND ARGUING THAT THE PERSON THAT ACTED ON HIS BEHALF DID SO IN A MANNER THAT WASN'T CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HE SAID.
BUT ALL WE'RE GETTING IS HIS OPINION WAS SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT HIS LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE HAD FOR HIM.
I JUST THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THE PEOPLE THAT STAND BEFORE US AND TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THEM AT THEIR WORD THAT THEY'RE LEGALLY REPRESENTING THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PERSON THAT THEY CLAIM TO BE REPRESENTING AND THIS DOESN'T APPEAR TO BE THE CASE, BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING.
>> I'M A LITTLE TORN RIGHT NOW BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN AND COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF AND COMMISSIONER ALALI ABOUT GIVING THIS PERSON OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND DO IT AGAIN BECAUSE THIS PERSON WAS SICK IN THE HOSPITAL, WHATEVER REASON HE WAS NOT ABLE TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DECISION MAKING.
HOWEVER, I'M ALSO THINKING ABOUT THE COMMENTS THE LADY APPLICANT PROVIDED IN HER PRESENTATION THAT THE LANDOWNER REALLY JUST WANTED WHAT THEY HAD BEFORE.
HE REALLY WANTED WHAT HE SAW BEFORE AND THAT WAS THE THING THAT THE STAFF BASICALLY DENIED.
THEY DIDN'T WANT THE DESIGN, THEY SAY THEY DIDN'T WANT IT BECAUSE THEY DRAW ATTENTION INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MINIMIZE THE TENSION OF THE ANTENNA. MY UNDERSTANDING.
I'M THINKING THAT MAYBE WE CAN TABLE THIS.
I'M THROWN OUT A SUGGESTION TABLE IT SO THAT GIVE THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT OPPORTUNITY TO TALK TO THE LAND OWNER.
IF YOU JUST HAD YOUR HEART SET ON THIS DESIGN, THIS ALREADY BEEN DENIED BY THE CITY.
WHY WOULD WE WANT TO APPLY AGAIN? BECAUSE IF THE CITY HOLDS THE SAME STANDARD AT LAST TIME, LITERALLY JUST LAST YEAR, IT WILL BEEN JUST A YEAR.
IF YOU HOLD THE STATE SAME STANDARD, I'M ASSUMING YOU'RE GOING TO DENY AGAIN BECAUSE THAT DESIGN WILL DRAW ATTENTION, AND THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT.
>> LET ME ANSWER THAT REAL QUICK BECAUSE I BELIEVE MIKE CHRIS ME IF I'M WRONG.
JUST BECAUSE WE GRANT THE WAIVER, DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THEY WILL BRING BACK ANOTHER APP.
THEY STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH STAFF.
MY GUESS IS, IF STAFF SAYS IF IT GOES FORWARD, IT WILL GO WITHOUT OUR RECOMMENDATION OR WITH OUR REQUEST FOR DENIAL, THEN THEY CAN MAKE THAT DECISION WHETHER TO BRING IT FORWARD OR NOT.
JUST BECAUSE WE'RE GRANTING THE WAIVER DOES NOT NECESSARILY MEAN THEY WILL SUBMIT, IT JUST MEANS THEY CAN SUBMIT, CORRECT?
>> TABLE WOULDN'T CHANGE IT'S THE SAME THING EITHER WAY.
>> WE HAVE HAD A PRE APPLICATION MEETING AND THAT CONVERSATION HAS ALREADY HAPPENED, AND THEY'VE DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THE WAIVER REQUEST.
>> TO ME, LIKE WE'RE GRANTING THEM THIS WAIVER JUST TO COME BACK.
WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PRESENT.
MAYBE IT'S BEEN OVER A LITTLE BIT OVER A YEAR RIGHT NOW.
MAYBE THEY COME WITH A LITTLE BIT YOU MIGHT CHANGE DETAILS. WE DON'T KNOW.
TO ME, I THINK THAT LIKE THE OTHER COMMISSIONER SAID, WE WOULD LIKE TO GIVE THEM THIS OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE COMING BACK WITH.
THEY'RE SAYING THAT THEY'RE COMING WITH THE DESIGN, BUT WE'RE NOT 100% SURE THAT THEY'RE COMING WITH THE EXACT DESIGN.
COMMISSIONERS, WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE AND A SECOND TO GRANT THE WAIVER OF THE TWO YEAR WAITING PERIOD.
IF EVERYBODY WOULD VOTE, PLEASE.
COMMISSION, LET'S TAKE A 10 MINUTE BREAK BEFORE WE START OUR ITEM NUMBER 7.
STRETCH OUR LEGS AND BE BACK HERE AT 8:30, PLEASE.
[MUSIC] LET'S RECONVENE, EVERYBODY, IF YOU'LL TAKE YOUR SEATS, PLEASE.
[7. (CSE) Discussion and Direction – Legislative Updates: Discussion and direction on impacts from the 89th Legislative Session. Project #DI2025-008. Applicant: City of Plano]
I'LL LET HENRY READ THE ITEM.>> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION.
[02:15:01]
LEGISLATIVE UPDATES, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ON IMPACTS FROM THE 89TH LEGISLATIVE SESSION.THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF PLANO.
>> HANG ON, HANG ON, HANG ON. LET'S SEE.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, CHRISTINA SEBASTIAN LAND RECORDS PLANNING MANAGER.
HERE TO DISCUSS SOME SIGNIFICANT BILLS FROM THIS YEAR'S LEGISLATIVE SESSION AND SEEK SOME DIRECTION FROM YOU.
THIS YEAR, THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT MONITORED OVER 100 BILLS FROM THE OVER 9,000 BILLS FILED DURING THE SESSION, 29 OF THOSE PASSED, AND NINE IMPACT PLANNINGS OPERATIONS TO VARIOUS DEGREES.
WE'RE GOING TO BE DISCUSSING THREE OF THOSE TONIGHT.
I WANT TO NOTE THE SCHEDULE FOR IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE BILLS.
OF COURSE, WE'RE DOING THIS WORK SESSION THIS EVENING NEXT WEEK ON MONDAY AT 4:00.
WE'RE DOING A JOINT WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL IN THE SAME SPACE HERE.
THEN WE ARE GOING TO HAVE A SPECIAL CALLED MEETING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 6 AT 6:00 PM.
THEN A CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING ON MONDAY, AUGUST 25 AT 7:00 PM IS THE PLANNED DATE.
ALL OF THIS IS SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THESE AMENDMENTS IN PLACE BEFORE THE BILLS ARE EFFECTIVE ON SEPTEMBER 1ST.
WE'RE GOING TO BE TALKING ABOUT THREE SIGNIFICANT BILLS TONIGHT.
SENATE BILL 15 REGARDS SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY.
SENATE BILL 840 REGARDS MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL AREAS.
SENATE BILL 2477 IS FOR CONVERSION OF OFFICE BUILDINGS TO MULTIFAMILY, AND SORRY, THERE'S ALSO CONVERSION OF NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS ON 840.
ALL THREE BILLS ARE BRACKETED, SO THEY ONLY APPLY TO CITIES WITH POPULATIONS OVER 150,000 IN COUNTIES OVER 300,000 PEOPLE.
ALL THREE BILLS ALSO INCLUDE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW MORE TYPES OF LITIGANTS TO SUE THE CITY AND A SUCCESSFUL LITIGANT IS ENTITLED TO ATTORNEY'S FEES, SO THAT IF THERE WAS A SUCCESSFUL SUIT, THE CITY WOULD BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE LITIGANTS ATTORNEY'S FEES AND, OF COURSE, OUR ATTORNEY FEES.
HERE'S A MAP OF THE CITIES THAT ARE AFFECTED BY THESE BILLS.
THAT SAYS JUST 15 AND 840, BUT 2477 IS ALSO PART OF THIS.
WE'LL PROVIDE SOME MORE DETAILS ON THAT IN A MOMENT.
THERE ARE 19 TOTAL CITIES IN THE STATE THAT ARE AFFECTED.
TEN OF THOSE ARE IN THE METROPLEX HERE.
THERE ARE TWO CITIES WHO MEET THE POPULATION THRESHOLD, BUT NOT THE COUNTY POPULATION THRESHOLD.
AMARILLO AND LOREDO ARE NOT AFFECTED BY THESE BILLS AT THIS TIME.
THIS IS ALL BASED OFF OF 2020 CENSUS DATA.
A LITTLE SUMMARY OF EACH BILL, BEFORE WE GET INTO SOME RECOMMENDATIONS, SENATE BILL 15 REQUIRES CITIES TO ALLOW SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY ON LAND THAT IS ZONED FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, HAS NEVER BEEN PLOTTED, AND IT'S FIVE ACRES OR MORE.
THERE ARE SOME LIMITED EXCEPTIONS WITHIN 3,000 FEET OF AN AIRPORT, AND IT PRESCRIBES VARIOUS STANDARDS, INCLUDING SETBACKS, HEIGHT, AND PARKING, 840 ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL IN ANY AREAS THAT ALLOW OFFICE, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, WAREHOUSE, OR MIXED USE.
FOR PLANO, THIS MEANS ALL OF OUR NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS.
THERE ARE SOME LIMITED EXCEPTIONS IN THE BILLS.
THE BILL ALSO REGULATES WHAT THE CITY CAN REGULATE.
ANYWHERE MULTIFAMILY IS BUILT REGARDING HEIGHT, DENSITY, SETBACKS, PARKING, ETC.
THIS APPLIES BOTH TO THE NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND ALSO THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.
ANYWHERE MULTIFAMILY IS PERMITTED IS SUBJECT TO THESE REQUIREMENTS.
PERMITS, PLOTS, AND SITE PLANS MUST BE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED PER THE BILL.
THEN THE BILL ALSO ALLOWS CONVERSION OF MOST NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS TO MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE WITH THOSE SAME EXCEPTIONS.
SENATE BILL 2477 IS ACTUALLY SPECIFIC TO OFFICE CONVERSIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY OR MIXED USE.
BUT THERE IS LANGUAGE IN THE BILL THAT RECOGNIZED THAT THERE WERE TWO BILLS GOING ON AT ONCE, AND SO THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO BE HARMONIZED BETWEEN THE TWO BILLS AND THE END, BUT SENATE BILL 840 IF THERE ARE CONFLICTS CONTROLS.
AS WE'VE LOOKED AT THESE BILLS, WE'VE IDENTIFIED FOUR MAIN GOALS TO KEEP IN MIND AS ORDINANCES ARE AMENDED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS.
FIRST, TO PRESERVE PLANO'S ABILITY TO FOSTER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, PARTICULARLY IN THE BUSINESS AREAS OF LEGACY AND THE RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CROSSROADS AREAS.
TWO, PRESERVE NEIGHBORHOOD COMPATIBILITY AND INTEGRITY.
THREE, ENSURE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE SO THAT WE HAVE THE CAPACITY WHERE WE CAN FOR THESE,
[02:20:02]
AND THEN REQUIRE WELL BUILT MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS.SOMETHING ELSE TO KEEP IN MIND AS WE LOOK AT THESE BILLS IS NON CONFORMING USES.
THERE'S A POTENTIAL FOR FINANCIAL IMPACTS TO BUSINESSES OR PROPERTY OWNERS WHEN A USE OR A SITE IS MADE NON CONFORMING.
SENATE BILL 929 FROM THE LAST LEGISLATIVE SESSION REQUIRES NOTIFICATION TO OWNERS AND TENANTS WHEN A USE IS MADE NON CONFORMING.
THESE PROPOSED SOLUTIONS ARE INTENDED TO AVOID CREATING NON CONFORMING USES, SO NO 929 NOTICE HAS BEEN SENT FOR THE ASSOCIATED ZONING CASE.
QUICKLY, WE'LL GO OVER SOME DETAILS ON SENATE BILL 15 AND SOME PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS.
I'M GOING TO PRESENT THE INFORMATION THAT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THEN AFTER WE'VE HEARD FROM THE PUBLIC, IF THERE ARE PUBLIC COMMENTS, WE CAN BRING UP THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS IN THE STAFF REPORT SO WE CAN GET YOUR DIRECTION ON THOSE.
AGAIN, SENATE BILL 15 ALLOWS SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY ON VERY SPECIFIC SITUATIONS.
GO AHEAD AND JUST GET TO OUR MAP.
THE YELLOW AREA ON THIS MAP IS AREAS WHERE SINGLE FAMILY IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT AND IT'S NEVER BEEN PLATTED.
IT IS FIVE ACRES OR MORE, PERHAPS WITH ITS NEIGHBORING PARCEL, AND IT ALLOWS SINGLE FAMILY.
THE GRAY PARCELS ARE ALSO THAT EXCEPT THEY ARE OWNED BY THE CITY.
THEN WE HAVE THE BLUE AREA JUST OUTSIDE THE CITY LIMITS FOR AIR PARK-DALLAS AND THE ASSOCIATED 3,000 FOOT BUFFER.
WE DID EXCLUDE SOME MAJOR UTILITY EASEMENTS ON THIS MAP, AS YOU WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BUILD IN THEM ANYWAY.
THE BILL REGULATES A HANDFUL OF OR A NUMBER OF REGULATIONS THAT THE CITY CANNOT REGULATE OR CAN BE NO LARGER OR LESSER THAN.
I APOLOGIZE BECAUSE THIS IS CONFUSING THINGS THAT ARE MAXIMUMS AND THINGS THAT ARE MINIMUMS SO WE'LL TRY TO EXPLAIN IT AS BEST WE CAN.
BUT BASICALLY, LOT SIZES FOR THESE SUBDIVISIONS ARE 3,000 SQUARE FEET.
THEY COULD BE BIGGER, BUT THAT'S THE MINIMUM THAT WE CAN REQUIRE A LOT WIDTH, 30 FEET.
SAME THING THERE, 75 FEET DEEP.
THERE ARE SETBACK REGULATIONS AS PART OF THE BILL FOR PARKING, THAT IS LIMITED TO ONE SPACE PER HOME THAT CAN BE REQUIRED AND THEN THAT CANNOT BE COVERED, AND WE CANNOT REQUIRE OFFSITE PARKING, SO WE MIGHT REQUIRE SOME VISITOR PARKING, FOR EXAMPLE.
THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON LOT COVERAGE AND REGULATING THE BULK OF THE BUILDING.
THERE IS A REGULATION REGARDING HEIGHT, AND WE CAN'T REQUIRE VARIATION AND DEPTHS OF WALLS TO OBTAIN WALL ARTICULATION.
THERE ARE SOME SPECIFIC THINGS THAT ARE CALLED OUT IN THE BILL THAT WE ARE ALLOWED TO REGULATE.
SHORT TERM RENTALS IS ONE OF THOSE FLOODING, SEWER, SERVING AN INDIVIDUAL LOT.
DRIVEWAYS CAN BE SHARED WITH ANOTHER LOT IF THE CITY OPTS TO ALLOW THAT.
WE CAN HAVE IMPACT FEES FOR SENATE BILL 15 LOTS.
OUR RECOMMENDATIONS TO RESPOND TO SENATE BILL 15 FIT ON ONE SLIDE.
WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO CREATE USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOT SINGLE FAMILY.
THESE STANDARDS WOULD ALIGN WITH THE BILL AND ANY PROPERTIES THAT MEET THE BILL THRESHOLDS WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO USE THOSE STANDARDS, OR THEY COULD DEVELOP UNDER THEIR BASE ZONING DISTRICT AT THE TIME OF THEIR PLANTING.
WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REQUIRE OPEN SPACE BASED ON THE NUMBER OF LOTS.
THEN ALSO UPDATE THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS TO REQUIRE ALLEYS ON THESE SMALLER LOTS, ALIGN OUR PLAT VACATION STANDARDS WITH LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE, AND THEN JUST REQUIRE THAT THE PLATS NOTE THAT THEY'RE USING THESE STANDARDS FOR EFFICIENCY ADMINISTRATION OVER TIME AS HOMES ARE BUILT.
>> GETTING INTO THE MAJOR BILL, I'D SAY, THAT MANY OF US ARE HERE FOR.
SENATE BILL 840 INCLUDES DEFINITIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL.
THE ACTUAL LANGUAGE IS A BIT MORE ROBUST THAN THIS, BUT MULTIFAMILY IS A SITE WITH THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS WITHIN ONE OR MORE BUILDINGS.
TO BE CONSIDERED MIXED USE, IT NEEDS TO HAVE BOTH RESIDENTIAL AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, AND THE RESIDENTIAL USES NEED TO BE AT LEAST 65% OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
IN THIS PRESENTATION, SOMETIMES I REFER TO BOTH MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL, BUT FOR EFFICIENCY, OFTENTIMES I JUST SAY MULTIFAMILY, AND I MEAN BOTH MOST OF THE TIME.
WE HAVE TO ALLOW THESE TWO USES IN ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW OFFICE,
[02:25:04]
COMMERCIAL, RETAIL, WAREHOUSE, OR MIXED USE.AS I SAID, THAT'S ALL THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS IN PLANO.
HERE IS A MAP OF THE IMPACTED AREAS.
THE LIGHT BLUE, THERE ARE NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT HAVE A HEIGHT LIMIT OF 45 FEET OR LESS.
THE DARK BLUE ARE NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WITH A HEIGHT LIMIT OVER 45 FEET.
I WILL JUST NOTE THAT SOME OF THAT DARK BLUE DOES ALREADY ALLOW MULTIFAMILY, BUT IT IS CONSIDERED A NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT UNDER OUR CURRENT ZONING ORDINANCE.
ORANGE IS OUR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT, SO MF-1, 2, AND 3.
THEN WE'VE IDENTIFIED THREE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES PER THE DEFINITION IN THE BILL, AND THERE'S A 1,000-FOOT BUFFER AROUND THOSE.
THOSE ARE THE BROWN AND PINK AREAS.
THEN WE AGAIN HAVE THAT AIR PARK-DALLAS BUFFER OF 3,000 FEET, SIMILAR TO SB-15.
AGAIN, FOR THIS BILL, THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS THAT ARE LIMITED FOR THE CITY.
THERE ARE SOME DISTINCTIONS THAT ARE LAYERED AND HARD TO KEEP TRACK OF BETWEEN THE TWO BILLS AND BETWEEN THE DIFFERENT STANDARDS.
WE ALL CAN LEARN AND GET USED TO THESE STANDARDS TOGETHER.
DENSITY IS LIMITED TO THE GREATER OF THE HIGHEST DENSITY ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, OR 36 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
FOR THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND THE SETBACKS, THIS IS BASED ON THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT AND THE SETBACK OF THE SPECIFIC SITE.
SO IT'S NOT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE CITY.
IT'S BASED ON THAT ONE SITE THAT THEY MIGHT BE LOOKING TO DO MULTIFAMILY.
SO IT'S THE HIGHEST HEIGHT THAT WOULD APPLY TO A NON-RESIDENTIAL USE ON THE SAME SITE OR 45 FEET, WHICHEVER IS GREATER.
THE SETBACK IS A SETBACK THAT WOULD APPLY TO NON-RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE SAME SITE, OR 25 FEET, WHICHEVER IS SMALLER.
FOR PARKING, WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE SPACE PER DWELLING UNIT, NOR ARE WE ALLOWED TO REQUIRE A PARKING STRUCTURE.
THERE ARE LIMITATIONS ON LOT COVERAGE.
WE CANNOT RESTRICT THE BUILDING FLOOR AREA IN RELATION TO THE LOT AREA, SO THAT EFFECTIVELY MEANS OPEN SPACE CANNOT BE REQUIRED FOR THESE USES.
THERE'S ALSO LANGUAGE ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO REQUIRE MULTIFAMILY TO CONTAIN NON-RESIDENTIAL USES WHEN LOCATED IN AN AREA NOT ZONED FOR MIXED-USE RESIDENTIAL.
THAT'S A LOT OF WORDS THAT ARE A BIT HARD TO UNPACK, BUT WE'RE KEEPING THAT IN MIND AS WELL.
THEN AS I MENTIONED, APPROVALS MUST BE DONE ADMINISTRATIVELY.
JUST QUICKLY TO EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT ABOUT LOT COVERAGE FOR PEOPLE WHO MAY BE WATCHING AND ARE NOT FAMILIAR.
YOU HAVE THESE TWO PRETEND LOTS.
ONE OF THEM HAS A MAXIMUM 75% LOT COVERAGE, SO A LOT OF THE LOT IS COVERED.
THE BUILDING DOESN'T NEED TO BE IN THE CENTER LIKE THIS, BUT OFTENTIMES IT IS.
THEN THIS OTHER SITE HAS A 50% LOT COVERAGE REQUIREMENT.
BOTH OF THESE HAVE THIS REMAINING OPEN SPACE AROUND THE BUILDING, AND WE CAN'T DO EITHER OF THOSE UNDER THE BILL.
THEN JUST A COUPLE OF EXAMPLES TO THINK ABOUT WHAT THIS MEANS.
IN OUR RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT, TODAY, YOU COULD BUILD THIS BUILDING HERE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, SO YOU WOULD HAVE A 35-FOOT-TALL RETAIL BUILDING, 50 FEET AWAY FROM THE FRONT STREET.
BUT UNDER SENATE BILL 840, ON THAT SAME SITE, YOU COULD NOW BUILD A 45-FOOT MULTIFAMILY BUILDING WITH ONLY A 25-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE STREET.
THEN OUR SECOND EXAMPLE IS FOR O-2, OUR GENERAL OFFICE ZONING DISTRICT.
TODAY, YOU COULD BUILD A 10-STORY BUILDING.
IT ACTUALLY HAS AN UNLIMITED HEIGHT LIMIT, FOR EXAMPLE, AND THEN YOU HAVE A 50-FOOT SETBACK.
THEN, UNDER THE BILL, YOU COULD BUILD A 10-STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDING OR POTENTIALLY TALLER, WITH A 25 FOOT SETBACK FROM THE STREET.
BUT I WILL NOTE THAT O-2 DOES HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL SETBACKS BASED ON RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, BUT THE BILL DOES NOT PERMIT ADDITIONAL SETBACKS BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
THE BILL DOES LIST SOME SPECIFIC THINGS THAT CITIES ARE PERMITTED TO DO, INCLUDING SHORT-TERM RENTAL REGULATIONS, WATER QUALITY PROTECTION, SEWER AND WATER ACCESS, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND SOME OTHER ITEMS HERE ON THE SLIDE.
THEN AGAIN, IT DOES HAVE LANGUAGE TO ALLOW NON-RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS.
[02:30:03]
IN THIS CASE, IT'S FOR OFFICE, RETAIL, OR WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS.THEY MUST HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED AT LEAST FIVE YEARS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF CONVERSION.
THEN AT LEAST 65% OF THE BUILDING, AND AT LEAST 65% OF EACH OCCUPIED FLOOR, MUST BE CONVERTED TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE OR MIXED USE.
CONVERTED BUILDINGS CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, CONSTRUCTION OF IMPROVEMENTS, OR PAYMENT OF A FEE FOR TRAFFIC MITIGATION, ADDITIONAL PARKING, OR EXTENSION OR UPGRADE OF UTILITY, EXCEPT TO MEET MINIMUM CAPACITY TO SERVE THE CONVERSION, AND THEN ANY DESIGN REQUIREMENTS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.
GETTING INTO SOME RECOMMENDATIONS.
AS I'VE MENTIONED, THE BILL REQUIRES 36 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OR THE HIGHEST DENSITY PERMITTED IN THE CITY, WHICHEVER IS LARGER.
PLANO HAS A NUMBER OF AREAS, AS YOU'RE AWARE, WITH HIGHER DENSITIES, INCLUDING DOWNTOWN, LEGACY MIXED-USE AREAS, OUR VARIOUS URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICTS, AS WELL AS THE NUMBER OF PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.
WE WANTED TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE DENSITY VERSUS HEIGHT.
BUILDINGS WITH SIMILAR HEIGHTS, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, CAN HAVE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT DENSITIES.
THE BUILDING ON THE LEFT IS 340 FEET TALL AND HAS DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OF 45.
THE BUILDING ON THE RIGHT, WHICH IS JUST A BLOCK OR TWO AWAY FROM THE OTHER BUILDING IS JUST A LITTLE BIT TALLER AND HAS THE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE OF 156 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
THEY'RE SUBSTANTIALLY SIMILAR IN FORM, BUT THE DENSITIES ARE DRASTICALLY DIFFERENT.
WE WANTED TO THINK MORE ABOUT HEIGHT AND LESS ABOUT THE DENSITY.
WE'RE GOING TO LOOK AT A COUPLE OF OTHER EXAMPLES OF WHAT THESE DIFFERENT HEIGHTS CAN BE, JUST TO NOT FOCUS JUST ON THE TALL BUILDINGS.
HERE ARE A COUPLE APARTMENT EXAMPLES OF 45 FEET OR LESS.
WE HAVE PROMONTORY ON PRESTON, A FAIRLY NEW CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN THE LIVINGSTON OVER ON WINDHAVEN.
WE MADE A CATEGORY FOR BETWEEN 45-75 FT, SO WE'VE GOT A FOUR-STORY BUILDING AT CITYSCAPE AT MARKET CENTER AND A FIVE-STORY BUILDING AT LEGACY TOWN CENTER NORTH.
BETWEEN 75-120, WE HAVE OUR HUNTINGTON APARTMENTS, WHICH IS ACTUALLY FIVE STORIES.
THEN WE DON'T HAVE AS MANY MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS, SO WE'RE LOOKING AT SOME OFFICE BUILDINGS, BUT AS WE NOTED, THEY CAN BE CONVERTED.
I WANTED TO TALK ABOUT THEM AS WELL.
THIS IS CITY VIEW TOWER OVER ON WEST 15TH STREET, AND IT IS 110 FEET, NOT STORIES.
[LAUGHTER] THEN LASTLY, WE HAVE THE 120 FEET.
WE ALREADY SAW THE OTHER TWO EXAMPLES.
BUT AGAIN, WE HAVE OFFICE BUILDINGS AT PRESTON PARK TOWERS, WHICH ARE JUST A LITTLE BIT TALLER THAN 120 FEET, AND THEN KINCAID AT LEGACY ON DALLAS PARKWAY.
I WANTED TO LOOK AT WHAT OUR EXISTING HEIGHT MAXIMUMS ARE FOR OUR VARIOUS DISTRICTS.
THESE ARE OUR FOUR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW MULTIFAMILY TODAY.
THEY HAVE A VARIATION IN MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT.
THE FIRST THREE WOULD EITHER REMAIN THE SAME OR HAVE TO GO UP TO 45 FEET FOR MULTIFAMILY UNDER THE BILL.
FOR RCD, WE'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE MULTIFAMILY AS AN ALLOWED USE, AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT MORE IN A MOMENT.
THEN WE'LL MOVE TO OUR NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
WE HAVE DIVIDED THEM INTO LOW-RISE AND HIGH-RISE JUST FOR EASE OF THINKING ABOUT THEM AND THE IMPACTS OF THE BILL.
WE HAVE OUR O-1 OFFICE RETAIL DISTRICT, LIGHT COMMERCIAL, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DESIGN, AND DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT.
AGAIN, THEY HAVE SOME VARIATION IN HEIGHTS THAT ARE PERMITTED, BUT THE FIRST THREE WOULD NEED TO ALLOW INCREASED HEIGHT UNDER THE BILL FOR MULTIFAMILY USES.
BUT THE OTHER TWO COULD REMAIN AS THEY ARE TODAY.
THEN LOOKING AT OUR MORE HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHERE OUR MAXIMUM START AT 15-STORY, WE HAVE OUR URBAN MIXED-USE DISTRICT, CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, REGIONAL COMMERCIAL, REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT, RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, OUR GENERAL OFFICE O-2, COMMERCIAL BUSINESS.
I FEEL I'M MESSING UP THE NAME ON THAT. COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT.
THEN OUR LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS 1 AND 2.
YOU CAN SEE THE ONES ON THE RIGHT SIDE.
THEY ACTUALLY HAVE NO MAXIMUM AT THIS TIME.
[02:35:01]
THE OTHER ONES ARE EITHER AGAIN, 15-STORY FOR UMU, OR 325.WE'RE ACTUALLY PROPOSING THAT WE REQUIRE MINIMUM HEIGHTS FOR MULTI-FAMILY IN THESE DISTRICTS.
THIS WILL PROVIDE THE BENEFIT OF GENERALLY PROVIDING HIGHER QUALITY MULTIFAMILY PER THE BUILDING CODE.
THEN WE HAVE THESE PARTICULARLY HIGH MINIMUMS IN RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, AND COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE THOSE ARE THE AREAS WE NOTED THAT WE WANTED TO FOCUS ON AND TRY TO PROTECT FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT.
IF THERE IS GOING TO BE AN APARTMENT COMPLEX IN THESE DISTRICTS, WE WANT IT TO BE HIGH-QUALITY.
THESE ARE THE CURRENT PROPOSALS FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION.
ALONG WITH THE MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM HEIGHT CHANGES, WE'D LIKE TO PROPOSE CONTROLLING DENSITY USING THE BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS FOR DWELLINGS, BUT ALSO MINIMUM UNIT SIZES, WHICH ARE CURRENTLY IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
WE HAVE THEM IN THE THREE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS, AND WE'RE PROPOSING TO APPLY THEM CITYWIDE, EXCEPT IN THE DISTRICTS WHERE THEY'RE NOTED OTHERWISE.
I THINK DOWNTOWN AND UMU HAVE SLIGHTLY REVISED VERSIONS OF THESE MINIMUM FLOOR AREAS.
THEN WE HAVE A NUMBER OF POTENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS.
I'LL TRY TO SUMMARIZE THEM FAIRLY QUICKLY.
THEY'RE ALL LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.
BUT JUST KNOW, AND THIS GOES FOR ALL OF OUR PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, WE STILL NEED TO DRAFT MANY OF THEM, AND AS WE DO THAT, WE MAY FIND WE NEED TO REVISE THEM VERY SLIGHTLY.
ESPECIALLY, I THINK FOR THE DESIGN STANDARDS, TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CAN BE ADMINISTERED EFFICIENTLY.
WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR BEST TO MEET THE SPIRIT OF WHAT'S DISCUSSED HERE.
PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION AND SURFACE PARKING ARE LOOKING TO REALLY REDUCE THE VISUAL IMPACT OF SURFACE PARKING AND ENCOURAGE PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION WITHIN THE SITE.
PUT THE PARKING AT THE REAR OR SIDE OF THE BUILDING, HAVE THAT INTERNAL PEDESTRIAN NETWORK.
IF PARKING STRUCTURES ARE PROVIDED, WE WANT THEM TO BE SCREENED OR WRAPPED WITH NON-PARKING USES AND MINIMIZE THE APPEARANCE OF THE GARAGE OR THE PARKING STRUCTURE.
WE'RE ALSO LOOKING AT HAVING SOME SITE AMENITY REQUIREMENTS, SO DEVELOPMENTS WOULD NEED TO SELECT A MINIMUM NUMBER OF AMENITIES FROM A CITY-APPROVED LIST THAT WOULD BE IN THE ORDINANCE.
THERE ARE IDEAS FOR BUILDING MASSING AND ARTICULATION, WHERE WE WOULD HAVE FACADE ARTICULATION TO BREAK UP ANY FLAT LINES, WHERE WE CAN.
GROUND FLOOR ENTRY DESIGN, SO THAT RESIDENTIAL UNITS ALONG THE GROUND FLOOR WOULD HAVE PORCHES OR RECESSED ENTRIES TO PROMOTE A MORE ACTIVE STREET, SO IT'S NOT FULLY BROKEN UP OR NOT BROKEN UP.
THEN HAVE A MAIN BUILDING ENTRY FOR THE BUILDINGS AS WELL, WITH SECONDARY ACCESS ALONG PEDESTRIAN ROUTES.
CONSIDERATION IS REQUIRING SUSTAINABILITY AND SITE EFFICIENCY UNDER THE LEAD US GREEN BUILDING COUNCIL STANDARDS.
THEN, FOR ANY DEVELOPMENTS THAT MIGHT PROPOSE INDIVIDUAL UNIT GARAGES, HAVING THOSE ENTRIES BE FROM THE REAR SIDE OR BEHIND THE PRIMARY STRUCTURE, WHERE THERE'S HORIZONTAL MIXED USE, LOOKING AT THINGS WE DO TODAY WITH A LOT OF SITES ALREADY IS WHERE ARE THE LOADING DOCKS, WHERE IS THE TRASH? DO WE NEED SCREENING JUST BETWEEN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES AND RESIDENTIAL USES? FOR VERTICAL MIXED USE, AGAIN, WE'RE WANTING TO ENHANCE THAT PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE.
HAVING THE BUILDINGS FRONT, THE SIDEWALK, HAVE SOME AWNINGS AND CANOPIES, AND HAVE SOME GROUND FLOOR TRANSPARENCY SO PEOPLE CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING INSIDE THE BUILDINGS AS THEY WALK BY.
>> THEN MOVING ON TO SOME LANDSCAPING STANDARDS.
AS WE NOTED, THE SETBACK, THE MOST IT COULD BE FOR THESE MULTIFAMILY USES IS 25 FEET.
BUT THERE ARE SOME AREAS WHERE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IS GREATER THAN 25 FEET; IN THOSE AREAS, WE WOULD RECOMMEND THAT THE SETBACK BE 25 FEET, BUT ALSO THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE EDGE IS 25 FEET, WITH SOME ENHANCED REQUIREMENTS ALIGNING WITH OUR CURRENT OVERLAY STANDARDS.
THEN WHERE THE REQUIRED SETBACK FOR THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USE IS 25 FEET OR LESS, WE WOULD HAVE THE SAME STANDARD FOR MULTIFAMILY,
[02:40:02]
BOTH FOR THE SETBACK AND THE LANDSCAPE EDGE.THEN, JUST A QUICK NOTE THAT OUR OVERLAY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ARE GENERALLY 30 FEET FOR A LANDSCAPE EDGE, SO WE'LL HAVE TO REDUCE THAT TO 25 FOR MULTIFAMILY.
FOR PARKING. AGAIN, WE CAN'T REQUIRE MORE THAN ONE PARKING SPACE, AND WE CAN'T REQUIRE A PARKING STRUCTURE.
SOME POSSIBLE IDEAS FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER IS IF SOME OR ALL SURFACE PARKING FOR MULTIFAMILY SHOULD HAVE BE COVERED VIA CARPORTS.
THEN SHOULD THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR SURFACE PARKING LOTS BE ENHANCED FOR NEW DEVELOPMENTS AND REDEVELOPMENT FOR MULTIFAMILY.
FOR THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY THAT MANY OF YOU REMEMBER FROM EARLIER THIS YEAR, ACTUALLY, WHEN IT WAS ADOPTED.
MANY OF THE STIPULATIONS IN THAT FOR MULTIFAMILY USES ARE PREEMPTED BY THE BILLS.
WE CAN NO LONGER REQUIRE A 100-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE OR A NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO BE BETWEEN THE MULTIFAMILY USE AND THE EXPRESSWAY, AND WE CAN NO LONGER PROHIBIT MULTIFAMILY DWELLINGS IN THE RESTRICTED EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR AREA.
THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE STILL PERMITTED, THOUGH.
WE CAN STILL REQUIRE MERV 13 OR HIGHER FILTRATION SYSTEMS. WE CAN REQUIRE THE AIR INTAKE OPENINGS BEYOND THE FAR SIDE OF THE EXPRESSWAY.
BUILDING DESIGN FOR INTERIOR NOISE COULD STILL BE REQUIRED, AND A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE WOULD STILL BE APPROPRIATE, AS WELL AS PROHIBITING SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN THAT RESTRICTED DIS AREA.
THE COMMISSION COULD CONSIDER IF THE OVERLAY SHOULD PERHAPS BE REMOVED COMPLETELY, INCLUDING THE STANDARDS.
THE OVERLAY COULD BE REMOVED COMPLETELY, BUT WE COULD REQUIRE STANDARDS ONE THROUGH FOUR FOR ALL INSTITUTIONAL DWELLINGS AND MULTIFAMILY CITYWIDE.
WE WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE ITEM NUMBER 4 TO BE MORE APPROPRIATE AS A CITYWIDE STANDARD.
OR IF THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE THE OVERLAY TO REMAIN, WE COULD, OF COURSE, ADJUST IT AS NEEDED TO COMPLY WITH THE BILL AND THEN HAVE THEM APPLY TO ALL DWELLINGS IN THE OVERLAY.
WE COULD ALSO CONSIDER BALCONIES FROM FACING THE EXPRESSWAYS FOR ALL DWELLINGS IN THE OVERLAY.
I TALKED ABOUT THIS BRIEFLY EARLIER, BUT RCD PERMITS SOME SMALL-SCALE, MULTIFAMILY.
UNDER THE BILL, WE CAN'T RESTRICT THAT MULTIFAMILY THAT'S BUILT IN RCD BE SMALL SCALE.
FOR NOW, WE'RE PROPOSING THAT WE REMOVE MULTIFAMILY AS AN ALLOWED USE IN RCD. IT'S NOT IN USE.
THE MULTIFAMILY COMPONENTS ANYWAY OF RCD ARE NOT IN USE TODAY ON THE ZONING MAP, BUT WE WOULD BRING BACK OPTIONS FOR SMALL-SCALE, MULTIFAMILY LATER, PERHAPS AS PART OF THE REWRITE.
THERE ARE SOME CHANGES PROPOSED FOR THE SUBDIVISION STANDARDS.
STREET AND BLOCK REQUIREMENTS, REQUIRING INTERNAL STREET NETWORKS WITH ON-STREET PARKING, SHORTER BLOCK LENGTH, ELEMENTS LIKE THAT, INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSES FOR DEVELOPMENTS TO ANALYZE CAPACITY, SO THAT THESE ANALYSES COME IN EARLIER IN THE DESIGN PROCESS.
COST PARTICIPATION TO REQUIRE SOME PROPORTIONALITY ASSESSMENTS ON DEVELOPER PARTICIPATION VERSUS CITY PARTICIPATION.
THEN, STORMWATER MITIGATION, WHERE WE HAVE SOME ALLOWANCES OR INCENTIVES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE TODAY, BUT PERHAPS MOVING SOME OF THOSE TO BE REQUIRED RATHER THAN INCENTIVES, BECAUSE SOME OF THE INCENTIVES RELATE TO THINGS LIKE PARKING THAT WE CAN'T RESTRICT OR REGULATE LIKE WE USED TO BE ABLE TO.
THEN, GETTING CLOSE TO THE END, FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES, WE RECOGNIZE THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GENERALLY RECOMMENDS MORE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ACROSS THE CITY.
NOT NECESSARILY IN NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, BUT IN GENERAL, SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES ARE SUPPORTED.
THE QUESTION IS IF WE HAVE TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY IN THESE AREAS, WOULD WE PERHAPS WANT TO ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY USES AS WELL, SO THAT DEVELOPERS HAVE AN OPTION ON WHAT THEY CAN BUILD.
IF THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN THAT APPROACH, WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OPTIONS LAID OUT HERE WHERE WE WOULD ALLOW RCD SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING TYPES IN OUR NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, OR ALLOW PATIO HOME, DUPLEX, AND SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED IN THE DISTRICTS? THOSE ARE KIND OF OUR STANDARD ZONING DISTRICTS THAT WE USE FOR DISTRICTS LIKE RETAIL, WHERE WE DO ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY USES TODAY? THEN, OF COURSE, THERE'S AN OPTION OF ALLOWING ALL OF BOTH THE TYPES AND ONE AND NUMBER 2.
JUST QUICKLY, WANT TO LOOK AT WHAT THOSE RCD HOUSING TYPES GENERALLY ARE.
WE HAVE A SINGLE-FAMILY 3 THAT'S ACTUALLY 3,000 SQUARE FOOT MINIMUM LOT SIZE, SINGLE-FAMILY 2 FOR 2000 DUPLEXES,
[02:45:02]
BUT AT A SLIGHTLY SMALLER SCALE, THAN OUR STANDARD DUPLEX DISTRICT, SINGLE FAMILY 1.5, 1,500 SQUARE FEET HOMES, TOWN HOMES, AGAIN, SLIGHTLY SMALLER THAN OUR STANDARD TOWN HOMES UNDER SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DISTRICT, AND THEN STACKED TOWN HOMES WHERE THEY CAN HAVE THEM POTENTIALLY SLIGHTLY ON TOP OF EACH OTHER, BUT STILL WITH A GROUND FLOOR ENTRANCE FOR BOTH UNITS.THEN JUST A QUICK EXAMPLE OF OUR STANDARD HOUSING TYPES YOU SEE AROUND THE CITY, PATIO HOME, DUPLEXES, AND SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED.
HOWEVER, IF WE WERE TO ALLOW THIS, THAT WOULD MEAN THAT THE IMPACTS OF SENATE BILL 15 WOULD BE MORE BROAD.
THIS IS THE SAME MAP WE SAW EARLIER, BUT WE'VE ADDED IN THESE BLUE AREAS, AND THESE ARE NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, PARCELS THAT ARE ZONED FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL THAT MEET THE STANDARDS OF SENATE BILL 15.
THEY'RE FIVE ACRES OR MORE, AND THEY'VE NEVER BEEN PLATTED.
THAT'S JUST A CONSIDERATION TO KEEP IN MIND IF YOU ARE INTERESTED IN ALLOWING SINGLE-FAMILY IN MORE LOCATIONS.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER EFFORTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, CHANGES TO THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS TO REQUIRE WIDER ALLEYS FOR SMALLER WIDTH LOTS.
THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT IS RECOMMENDING INCREASES TO PARK FEES, SHALL BE CONSIDERED BY THE PARKS BOARD AND CITY COUNCIL.
THEN, TO COMPLY WITH THE NON-RESIDENTIAL CONVERSIONS PART OF THE BILL, WE WOULD NEED TO CHANGE OUR TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS STANDARDS TO COMPLY WITH IT.
ONE IS TO POTENTIALLY REQUIRE DEVELOPMENTS OR CONVERSIONS THAT ARE HAPPENING DUE TO SENATE BILL 840 TO POST A SIGN ON THE PROPERTY DURING CONSTRUCTION, JUST BRIEFLY EXPLAINING WHY THE DEVELOPMENT IS OCCURRING.
THEN, ANOTHER OPTION IS TO CHARGE AN ADDITIONAL FEE FOR DEVELOPMENTS OR CONVERSIONS THAT ARE DUE TO SENATE BILL 840, AND THAT FEE WOULD SUPPORT SENDING NOTICES TO SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, INCLUDING SOME INFORMATION ABOUT THE RELEVANT BILLS AND EVEN CONTACT INFORMATION FOR STATE OFFICIALS, IF WE'D LIKE.
THERE WAS SOME OUTREACH DONE LAST WEEK WHERE THIS INFORMATION, OR A VERY SHORT VERSION OF IT, WAS SENT IN SOME CITY NEWSLETTERS.
IT'S POSTED ON THE CITY WEBSITE, AND THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SOCIAL MEDIA POSTS AS WELL.
THERE IS AN ASSOCIATED ZONING CASE FOR THIS.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GIVE THE CORRECT NUMBER.
IT IS A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.
WE ALSO HAVE A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2025-001.
BUT FOR THE ZONING CASE, RESIDENTS CAN PROVIDE THEIR RESPONSE THROUGH THE ZONING CASE RESPONSE MAP, AS WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER.
IF THEY CAN FIND MORE INFORMATION ON THE PROPOSALS ONCE WE GET THEM DRAFTED, WE WILL POST THEM TO THE ACTIVE ZONING PETITIONS PAGE AT PLANO.GOV/ACTIVEZONING, AND, OF COURSE, WE'LL POST THEM IN YOUR PACKETS FOR YOUR AUGUST 6 MEETING.
AGAIN, WORK SESSION NEXT MONDAY, PUBLIC HEARINGS ON AUGUST 6 AND AUGUST 25.
THEN I CAN PAUSE THERE IN CASE THERE IS ANY PUBLIC COMMENT, AND THEN WE CAN GET INTO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.
>> THANK YOU. YOU COVERED A LOT OF MATERIAL REAL FAST.
WHILE, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, WE DO WANT TO PROVIDE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR PUBLIC INPUT.
I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE MR. LYLE SAID IT, IF HE LEFT.
>> THERE WAS ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER.
HE SAID, IF HE WASN'T HERE THAT, HE WASN'T SPEAKING.
>> I GUESS WE DON'T HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
PER WHAT WE DISCUSSED EARLIER, YOU AND I, I THINK WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO, JUST TO KEEP THINGS ORDERLY FOR THE COMMISSION IS GO THROUGH THE QUESTIONS OR RECOMMENDATIONS ONE AT A TIME FOR THOSE THAT WANT TO FOLLOW ALONG.
IT'S ON PAGE 99 IN YOUR PACKAGE AND THE ADOBE FILE THAT WAS DOWNLOADED OFF THE INTERNET.
IT'S ALSO 16 OF 17 IN THE STAFF REPORT.
THERE'S A HEADING CALLED STAFF REPORT REQUEST FOR DIRECTION.
THESE ARE THE 12 QUESTIONS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE SOME DIRECTION ON.
THEN WE CAN OPEN IT UP FOR ADDITIONAL COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS AFTER THAT BEYOND THESE 12.
>> JUST TO KEEP THINGS ORDERLY.
QUESTION NUMBER 1, DO THE PROPOSED HEIGHT, MAXIMUMS, AND MINIMUMS APPROPRIATELY ADDRESS 840 IN THE COMMUNITY'S EXPECTATIONS? I THINK I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE TALK ABOUT HEIGHT, MAXIMUMS,
[02:50:04]
AND MINIMUMS BECAUSE YOU ARE PROPOSING TO PUT IN SOME MINIMUMS IN CERTAIN DISTRICTS TO ENCOURAGE HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENT, BECAUSE IT'S GOT TO BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT, CORRECT?>> THAT'S CORRECT. COMMISSION, THOUGHTS, PROS, CONS OF THE MAXIMUMS AND MINIMUMS AS PRESENTED IN THE REPORT.
OH, LET ME GET MY DEAL. MR. BROUNOFF.
>> DO YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS GO BEYOND WHAT SB 840 REQUIRES?
>> LET'S SEE. FOR THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, IT'S WHAT SB 840 REQUIRES FOR THE MAXIMUMS. FOR THESE DISTRICTS, IT'S THE SAME FOR 1R AND LC.
BUT FOR NBD AND BG, WHERE MULTIFAMILY IS PERMITTED, NBD IS DIFFERENT BECAUSE IT USES THE RCD STANDARDS.
BUT BG ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY, AND THESE ARE THE EXISTING HEIGHTS THAT ARE ALLOWED UNDER THOSE DISTRICTS.
IT'S MORE PERMISSIVE FOR MULTIFAMILY THAN THE BILL NECESSARILY REQUIRES, BUT IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST WHAT IS ALLOWED ON THE SITE.
THESE ARE THE NON-RESIDENTIAL MAXIMUM HEIGHTS AS WELL, WHICH WE NEED TO ALIGN WITH.
IN REALITY, ACTUALLY, I GUESS I REALLY SAID THAT, NOT QUITE ACCURATELY, BECAUSE UNDER THE BILL, THESE MAXIMUMS ARE WHAT WE HAVE TO ALLOW FOR MULTIFAMILY UNLESS WE WERE TO CHANGE THOSE MAXIMUMS.
>> AS LONG AS THE MAXIMUMS ARE WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO, I'LL SUPPORT IT.
I MAY HOLD MY NOSE, BUT I'LL SUPPORT IT.
THE ADDITION OF THE MINIMUM HEIGHTS ON CERTAIN TYPES OF CONSTRUCTION, I THINK ARE FINE TO ENSURE QUALITY.
I WAS GOING TO ASK A GENERAL QUESTION IF YOU WANT TO DO IT NOW OR LATER.
>> LET'S HOLD THE GENERAL QUESTIONS FOR THE END.
YOU TALKING ABOUT FOR THE BILLS IN SPECIFIC?
>> OKAY. GO AHEAD. LET'S JUST KNOW THE GENERAL QUESTION.
>> I'M WONDERING, HOW MUCH TIME DID THE STAFF SPEND REVIEWING THESE BILLS AND CRAFTING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS?
>> A LOT MORE THAN YOU ARE SPENDING ON THEM TONIGHT.
>> HOW MANY PEOPLE IN THE STAFF WERE INVOLVED IN THAT PROCESS?
>> ON A REGULAR BASIS, FIVE, BUT OFTENTIMES, MANY MORE.
>> NOW, YOU UNDERSTAND WE HAVE TO REVIEW THESE INDIVIDUALLY? WE CAN'T HAVE GROUP MEETINGS BECAUSE OF THE OPEN MEETINGS ACT.
>> I'M GLAD THAT YOU TOOK THE TIME THAT YOU DID BECAUSE IT WAS PROBABLY NECESSARY.
BUT YOU'RE ASKING AN AWFUL LOT OF US TO DIGEST ALL THIS AND COME UP WITH RECOMMENDATIONS WITH REACTIONS TO YOUR 12 PROPOSALS ON A SUBJECT THIS MAMMOTH ON FOUR DAYS NOTICE AND WITHOUT ANY OUTSIDE INPUT.
I FEEL LIKE I'M TARGET SHOOTING BLINDFOLDED, BUT HAVING SAID THAT, YEAH, NUMBER 1, OKAY. WITH THE COMMENTS I MADE.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONER TONG.
>> I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE MINIMUM.
I UNDERSTAND THE MAXIMUM THAT WE'RE JUST GOING BY THE NEW LAW.
BUT THE MINIMUMS THAT WE'RE SETTING, ARE THERE ACTUAL NUMBERS OR IT'S GOING TO BE CASE BY CASE? DO YOU HAVE A MINIMUM SET ALREADY RIGHT NOW?
>> OUR CURRENT PROPOSAL IS CHARTED ON THE SCREEN HERE.
FOR TWO OF THE DISTRICTS FOR URBAN MIXED USE AND QUARTER COMMERCIAL, IT'S PROPOSED AT 45 FEET MINIMUM.
FOR A NUMBER OF THE DISTRICTS, IT'S 75-FOOT PROPOSED MINIMUM.
THEN, FOR RESEARCH, TECHNOLOGY, AND COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT, IT'S PROPOSED AT 120 FEET, AS THOSE ARE THE BUSINESS DISTRICTS THAT WE IDENTIFIED AS GOALS TO LOOK AT AS WE CRAFT THESE BILLS.
>> I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU WANT TO ENSURE THE QUALITY OF THE BUILDINGS, AND THAT'S WHY WE SET A MINIMUM, BUT WHAT ANALYSIS THAT YOU HAVE DONE TO DETERMINE, BASED ON THE TYPE OF BUSINESS, TO SAY THIS IS 75 OR A 45? HOW DO YOU COME OUT WITH THE NUMBERS?
>> FORTY-FIVE IS, AS WE TALKED ABOUT, THE NUMBER REQUIRED BY THE BILL.
[02:55:01]
[OVERLAPPING] THAT'S THE MINIMUM.BUT FOR 75, WE CAME UP WITH THAT AS A GROUP, AS WE LOOKED AT OTHER HEIGHT REGULATIONS AND CURRENT DEVELOPMENTS.
I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE REMEMBER SPECIFICS OF WHY WE PICKED THESE EXACT NUMBERS, BUT THEY SEEM TO ALIGN WITH OUR ANALYSIS AS WE WERE CRAFTING THESE RECOMMENDATIONS.
>> WELL, THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE A 45 FEET IS PRETTY STANDARD ALREADY.
IF WE REQUIRE IT TO BE 75 FEET, IS IT REALLY NECESSARY? HAVE WE ALREADY LOOK INTO THAT? REALLY, MINIMUM OF 75 FEET WILL INCREASE WHAT QUALITY OF THE PRODUCT? BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO SET TOO MUCH RESTRICTIONS ON THE CITIZENS AND THE DEVELOPERS, IF THEY WERE GOING TO FOLLOW THE LAW AND DO SOMETHING.
DO WE HAVE TO REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE TO BE THIS TALL?
>> WOULD YOU LIKE ME TO RESPOND TO THAT? INITIALLY, WE LOOKED AT WHAT DOES THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRE IN THESE AREAS.
THERE'S THOSE DESIGN GUIDELINES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
WE MAPPED OUT WHAT IS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LOOK FOR IN THE GENERAL AREAS AND TRIED TO RELATE THAT BACK TO THE ZONING DISTRICTS.
SIX STORIES IN HEIGHT IS A STANDARD AT WHICH YOU START GETTING CONCRETE CONSTRUCTION.
THAT IS A DIFFERENT BUILDING STANDARD, AND SO THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WE USE 75 FEET BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT'S ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT WITH A SIX-STORY BUILDING.
THEN 120 FEET WAS INTENDED TO BE ROUGHLY EQUIVALENT WITH A 10-STORY BUILDING, AND THAT IS RELATED DIRECTLY TO COMP PLAN POLICIES THAT SUPPORT ADDITIONAL HOUSING DIVERSITY IN THE COMMUNITY.
I THINK WHAT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT IS HOW DO WE GET DIVERSE HOUSING PRODUCTS THAT ARE HIGHER QUALITY IN CERTAIN AREAS, BUT ALSO IN OTHER AREAS ALLOW THINGS SO THAT WE'RE NOT PROHIBITIVE? WE DON'T WANT TO BE PROHIBITIVE, WE WANT TO STILL ALLOW A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING PRODUCT.
THOSE ARE THE THINGS WE TRIED TO LAYER AND STACK TOGETHER AND COME UP WITH THIS PLAN FOR YOU.
>> I CAN ADD TO THAT. IN SOME OF THESE DISTRICTS, THE ONLY PERMITTED MULTIFAMILY TODAY IS MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL, WHICH BY DEFINITION HAS TO BE AT LEAST FIVE STORIES. THAT WAS THE BASIS.
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION.
THAT WAS ACTUALLY A QUESTION I HAD IN MIND.
IT SEEMS LIKE YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A GOOD JOB OF BOXING BETWEEN THE COMP PLAN AND STATE REGULATION, AND COMING UP WITH A NOT-SO UGLY MIDDLE.
I THINK QUESTION NUMBER 1 IS FINE AS LONG AS IT'S TIED TO QUESTION 6.
IF WE DON'T ALIGN TO THE REMOVAL OF MULTIFAMILY IN THE RCD DISTRICT, THEN MY OPINION OF ONE CHANGES DRASTICALLY.
IT'S A HANGING CHAD A LITTLE BIT.
>> I THINK THAT'S FAIR. COMMISSIONER ALALI.
>> I DO HAVE QUESTIONS. THESE RECOMMENDATIONS OR ANALYSIS IS FOR NEW CONSTRUCTION, RIGHT?
>> NEW CONSTRUCTION WOULD DEFINITELY BE SUBJECT TO THIS.
REDEVELOPMENT OF A SITE, BE IT AN EXISTING MULTIFAMILY COMPLEX OR A RETAIL AREA THAT DECIDES TO TEAR DOWN AND REBUILD-
>> THE EXISTING MULTIFAMILY, THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO ADD MORE STORIES, BUT IF THEIR STRUCTURE AND ALL THE UTILITIES ARE NOT DESIGNED FOR THIS ADDITION, WILL IT BE NON-CONFORMING USE?
>> FOR THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO GO UP TO 45 FEET.
THEY CAN, BUT IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE OPTION, STRUCTURALLY.
>> IF THEY DON'T HAVE THE CAPACITY FOR IT AND THEY DON'T WANT TO BUILD THE CAPACITY PER THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THEN THEY WOULDN'T BE NON-CONFORMING BECAUSE FOR MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS, THERE WOULD BE NO MINIMUM.
THEY COULD STAY WHERE THEY ARE AND BE JUST FINE.
THERE'S A COUPLE DISTRICTS WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING MINIMUMS THAT WE'VE
[03:00:01]
DONE A QUICK ANALYSIS OF CURRENT MULTIFAMILY, AND SO WE DO NEED TO LOOK AT THAT A LITTLE CLOSER BEFORE WE [OVERLAPPING] PROPOSE THE AMENDMENTS SO THAT WE MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE AVOIDING THOSE NON-CONFORMING SITUATIONS.>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. ON SB 840, I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF SUPPORTING MINIMUM AND MAXIMUM STANDARDS.
I THINK, YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT HOW YOU CAME TO SOME OF THE NUMBERS, AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT JOB OF TAKING THE COMP PLAN AND TAKING THE NEW LAW, AND TRYING TO FIND OUT WHAT WORKS BEST.
BUT DEFINITELY, I THINK THAT'S THE WAY TO GO.
>> THANKS. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING THE MAXIMUM OR MINIMUM, BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT 45 FEET.
IF WE'RE JUST LOOKING AT THE NEW LAW, THE SB 840, IT SAYS THE MULTIFAMILY FOR ALL THESE COMMERCIAL OR CURRENT USE, AN OFFICE, WHATEVER, IF WE CANNOT REGULATE IF THEY WANT TO CONVERT IT TO MULTIFAMILY, IS IT THIS LAW SAYS THE MAXIMUM IS 45 FEET OR IS A MINIMUM 45 FEET, OR WE CANNOT REGULATE IT? I'M NOT SURE IF I CAN SAY IT CORRECTLY.
CAN YOU HELP ME? WHAT IS THAT 45 FEET?
>> THE LAWS TALKS TO A LIMIT ON BUILDING HEIGHT THAT IS MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN EITHER THE 45 FEET OR WHAT'S PERMITTED ON THE SITE.
THAT IS LOOKING AT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT.
THE BILL IS SILENT REGARDING MINIMUM HEIGHTS.
IT'S THE LIMIT ON THE BUILDING HEIGHT THAT THE BILL REQUIRES.
>> THE LAW ACTUALLY SAYS, IF WE WERE GOING TO CONVERT THIS BUILDING TO A MULTIFAMILY, THE MAXIMUM IS 45 FEET. IS THAT RIGHT?
>> IT'S THE GREATER OF 45 FEET OR WHATEVER IS PERMITTED-
>> GOT YOU. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BE 45 FEET.
THEY COULD BE TWO-STORY MULTIFAMILY.
>> UNDER THE LAW, THAT'S CORRECT.
WITH OUR PROPOSALS IN THESE DISTRICTS, WE ARE SAYING THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO BE 45 FEET, BUT IN OUR STANDARD MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS, THEY COULD STAY AS THEY ARE.
>> WE'RE PUTTING MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS THAN THE LAW BECAUSE WE WANT IT TO BE HIGHER QUALITY?
>> MY QUESTION IS THAT IF I HAVE A USE CASE, LIKE WE HAVE SOME SMALL OFFICE BUILDINGS THAT ARE PRETTY VACANT FOR A LONG TIME, THERE MAY BE TWO STORIES OR MAYBE PART OF IT IS TWO STORY, THE OTHER PART IS THREE STORY.
IF THEY WANT TO CONVERT IT TO MULTIFAMILY, THEY HAVE TO BRING IT UP TO THREE STORIES OR 45 FEET.
>> THE INTENT IS THAT THIS WOULD BE FOR NEW DEVELOPMENT OR REDEVELOPMENT, BUT CONVERSIONS CAN JUST REMAIN AS THEY ARE TODAY.
IF THEY WERE TO CONVERT AN EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING, WE WOULD WRITE IT SO THAT THEY'RE NOT SUBJECT TO THESE MINIMUMS.
>> NOT A CLARIFYING STATEMENT, BUT MORE TO REQUOTE.
I DON'T THINK WE'RE BUILDING MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENTS THAT THE LAW REQUIRES.
WE'RE ESSENTIALLY COMPLYING TO THE LAW, BUT BRINGING IN OUR COMP PLAN OBJECTIVES IN A WAY TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE'RE MEETING THE LAW, WE'RE NOT VIOLATING THE SPIRIT OF THE COMP PLAN.
THAT'S THE DANCE WE'RE TRYING TO DO RIGHT HERE.
ONE QUESTION, THERE WAS SOMETHING ABOUT LIMITED EXCEPTIONS FOR SB 840, AND I WILL CONFESS I DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO GO FIND WHAT THOSE ARE.
ARE THEY PERTINENT TO THIS? IS THAT SOMETHING WE SHOULD HAVE AT THE BACK OF OUR MIND?
>> THE ONLY EXCEPTIONS, THERE ARE FOUR LOCATIONS.
I CAN PULL UP THE MAP, IF YOU'D LIKE.
IT'LL TAKE ME A MINUTE TO GET THERE. BUT THAT'S THE AIRPORT.
>> THEN THE THREE HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES UNDER THE BILL'S DEFINITION FOR THAT.
>> I'M HEARING CONSENSUS AROUND THE TABLE THAT WE LIKE THE MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUMS THE STAFF PRESENTED?
>> WE'LL GET TO NUMBER 6 BECAUSE I THINK TOSAN MAKES A GOOD POINT, BUT AS FAR AS NUMBER 1 IS CONCERNED, I THINK WE HAVE CONSENSUS. NUMBER 2.
>> THE THREE DIFFERENT SLIDES OF DESIGN STANDARDS.
I GUESS, MAYBE THE QUESTION IS, ARE THEY APPROPRIATE, BUT ALSO, ARE THERE ANY THAT ARE CONCERNING? MIGHT BE A WAY TO LOOK AT IT.
I CAN PULL UP THE STANDARDS AS WELL SO WE COULD LOOK AT THEM.
[03:05:02]
>> I'M GOING TO ANSWER THAT WITH THE QUESTION THAT CAME UP AND HAS COME UP IN OTHER CONVERSATIONS AS TO WHETHER WE CAN EXPLORE AN ADDITIONAL STANDARD FOR STEP-BACKS WITH WHERE THERE'S RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.
I KNOW WE CAN'T STEP BACK BELOW 45 FEET, BUT CAN WE EXPLORE THE OPTIONS IN THE BILL TO HAVE STEP-BACKS ABOVE 45 FEET WHERE THERE'S RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY?
>> COMMISSION, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, ISSUES WITH THE POTENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS THAT THE STAFF PRESENTED? I THOUGHT THEY DID A PRETTY GOOD JOB OF GIVING US A LOT OF REALLY GOOD IDEAS.
I'M GOING TO HAVE ONE MORE COMMENT.
I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LEED RATING SYSTEM, JUST HAVING WORKED IN LEED.
IT CAN BE A DIFFICULT SYSTEM TO WORK IN DEPENDING ON YOUR PRODUCT.
IT'S ALSO AN OUTSIDE THIRD-PARTY ENTITY, AND OVER THE YEARS, THEIR STANDARDS HAVE EVOLVED, AND SO WHAT WAS CERTIFIED AT THE BEGINNING OF THAT PROCESS WOULD NO LONGER BE CONSIDERED CERTIFIED.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT TYING OUR STANDARDS TO A THIRD PARTY'S STANDARD.
I'M NOT SURE IF WE CAN DEVELOP OUR OWN STANDARDS OR REFERENCE SOME SORT OF AN INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE STANDARD FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY OR SOMETHING THAT'S-
>> INTERNATIONAL GREEN BUILDING CODES.
>> THE CITY OF DALLAS, THEY DID DEVELOP THEIR OWN, BUT THEY ARE BASING THEIR GREEN CODE ON IT.
>> THE DALLAS GREEN GOLD STANDARD.
>> THERE'S THE INTERNATIONAL GREEN AND IT IS COMPREHENSIVE.
>> MAYBE LOOK AT SOMETHING LIKE THAT INSTEAD OF LEED.
>> I CAN ADD SOME THINGS FOR THE COMMISSION ON THIS.
THE BUILDING CODE REQUIRES AN EXTRA 30 DAYS OF APPROVAL, SO WE CAN'T GET THAT TO YOU BY SEPTEMBER 1ST.
IF YOU WANT US TO DO THAT, WE CAN DO THAT AS A NEXT STEP, BUT WE CAN'T HAVE IT READY BY THE SEPTEMBER 1ST DEADLINE.
>> I'M NOT OPPOSED TO HAVING SOME ENVIRONMENTAL SUSTAINABILITY COMPONENT.
I'M NOT SURE HOW TO PUT THAT IN THE ORDINANCE, BUT I'M JUST CONCERNED ABOUT US CODIFYING A PRIVATE THIRD ENTITY AS THE STANDARD.
>> WOULD YOU BE INTERESTED LEED? THAT'S WHY WE ACTUALLY THOUGHT IT WAS A POTENTIALLY GOOD SOLUTION FOR US BECAUSE IT WAS OUTSIDE.
IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WOULDN'T COST THE CITY MONEY, FRANKLY, BECAUSE IT WOULD BE A THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION.
WE COULD LOOK AT THIS NOW AS A GAP MEASURE WHILE WE LOOK AT ADOPTING THE BUILDING CODE STANDARDS, OR WE COULD JUST NOT DO IT, BUT KNOW THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE THAT SIDE EFFICIENCY AND SUSTAINABILITY STANDARD ADOPTED DURING THE PERIOD IT TAKES US TO ADOPT THE BUILDING CODES.
>> I'M FINE WITH IT EITHER WAY, FRANKLY.
I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THE CONCERN.
>> UNDERSTOOD. WE CAN WORK WITH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL ON ADOPTING THE GREEN CODES.
I KNOW THE CITY OF IRVING, I THINK IS GOING THAT ROUTE, BUT WE JUST DIDN'T HAVE TIME FOR IT.
>> I KNOW YOU HAVE REAL SHORT VIEWS.
>> I RECOGNIZE THAT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS ABOUT THE DESIGN STANDARDS?
>> I HAD A COMMENT ON THE BUILDING MASSING.
YOU MENTIONED THE VERTICAL SETBACK.
CAN WE INCLUDE IT WITH THE BUILDING MASSING AND ARCHITECTURE? BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE WE CAN JUST INCLUDE IT IN THAT DESIGN STANDARD, LIKE A VERTICAL ARTICULATION.
RATHER THAN JUST BEING AN ITEM BY ITSELF, IT CAN BE INCLUDED WITH THE BUILDING MASSING AND ARTICULATION.
IT'S FOR VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL ARTICULATION.
>> WE CAN LOOK AT BOTH TOGETHER HOW THEY WOULD WORK SIMULTANEOUSLY.
>> COMMISSIONER OLLEY, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT?
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY, THE OPTIONS MS. DAY PROPOSED, I'LL PROBABLY GO LEAN MORE IN FAVOR AND AT WORST USING THE LEED AS A STOP GAP UNTIL WE GET TO SOMETHING WE HAVE MORE CONCRETE ABOUT RATHER THAN HAVING NO COVERAGE.
>> I'M FINE WITH IT. COMMISSIONER BENDER, SORRY, I DID SEE YOUR LIGHT COME UP.
[03:10:02]
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
I THINK HAVING LEED AS A STOP GAP UNTIL WE GET SOMETHING ELSE IN PLACE IS A GOOD IDEA.
>> I LIKE HOW WE DO WITH THE MINIMUMS. IT IS FORCING THEIR HAND TO UTILIZE A BETTER CONSTRUCTION BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHTS.
STRUCTURALLY THEY HAVE TO DO THAT JUST BECAUSE YOU CAN'T GO SO HIGH.
YOU CAN ONLY GO SO HIGH WITH CERTAIN BUILDING STRUCTURES. THAT'S A GOOD THING.
CAN YOU GO FURTHER WITH THAT IN THE DESIGN STANDARDS AS FAR AS WHAT FACADES AND WHAT THINGS COULD BE UTILIZED THERE AS WELL SO THAT WE RESTRICT AND WE CAN CONTROL THE LOOK AS WELL AND HOW MUCH MASONRY THEY USE AND HOW MUCH PERCENT AND STUFF LIKE THAT.
>> THERE WAS ANOTHER STATE LAW PASSED SIX OR EIGHT YEARS AGO THAT BASICALLY TIES OUR HANDS ON THAT ISSUE.
>> WE'VE ALREADY HAD THAT POWER RESTRICTED.
I THINK WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS ON DESIGN STANDARDS.
YOU'VE GOT DIRECTION ON THE LEAD STANDARD.
OUR BUILDING ARTICULATION ISSUE, YOU COVERED ON THAT ONE?
I THINK WE LOOK AT NUMBER THREE AND FOUR TOGETHER.
PERFECT. YOU ALREADY ANTICIPATED ME.
OKAY. SURFACE PARKING LOTS, SHOULD ALL OR PART OF THEM BE COVERED AND OR SHOULD THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIRED FOR SURFACE PARKING LOTS? OBVIOUSLY, THE EXCEPTION IS NON-RESIDENTIAL CONVERSION, BECAUSE THEY WILL HAVE EXISTING PARKING LOTS, CORRECT?
>> OKAY. FOR ANY NEW MULTIFAMILY SURFACE PARKED PROJECTS, IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
>> WHETHER THEY BE REDEVELOPMENT OR NEW DEVELOPMENT?
>> I PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING.
FOR ME IT'S A STEP TOO FAR TO REQUIRE CARPORTS.
I THINK THAT'S A MARKET BASED QUESTION.
I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO DO SOME ANYWAY IF THEY DO SURFACE PARKING.
FOR ME ANYWAY, I THINK THAT'S AN OVERREACH FOR US TO REQUIRE CARPORTS, BUT I CERTAINLY WILL LET THE COMMISSION WEIGH IN. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
>> [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BENDER.
>> DIDO ON THE CARPORTS, BUT ON THE LANDSCAPING, I WOULD AGREE.
I THINK WITH THE REDUCED SETBACKS I THINK WE NEED TO GO THE EXTRA MILE TO MAKE IT LOOK AS ATTRACTIVE AS POSSIBLE.
I WOULD AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, NOT ONLY IN THE PARKING LOTS, BUT IN THE LANDSCAPE SETBACKS AROUND THE BUILDINGS.
>> THAT GOES BACK TO DESIGN STANDARDS, BUT I DON'T THINK WE TALKED ABOUT THAT, SO.
THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY?
>> I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BENDER ON BOTH.
WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT ONE.
ALL RIGHT. WE'RE KNOCKING THESE OUT.
I'M GOING TO GO OUT ON A LIMB AND SAY MR. OLLEY MIGHT HAVE AN OPINION ON THIS.
EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR, SHOULD IT BE REMOVED OR ENHANCED FOR ALL DWELLINGS OR SHOULD WE TALK ABOUT BALCONIES.
>> NO. THEY WANT TO TAKE MY BABY AWAY.
ACTUALLY I HAVE AN OPTION THREE, AND TELL ME IF THIS MAKES SENSE.
BASICALLY COMBINE OPTION TWO WITH OPTION 1B.
>> I WENT BACK TO THE RECOMMENDATIONS.
RECOMMENDATION ONE IS TO REMOVE THE EC OVERLAY COMPLETELY AND ELIMINATE THE STANDARDS COMPLETELY OR REQUIRE STANDARDS ONE THROUGH FOUR LISTED FOR ALL INSTITUTIONAL DWELLINGS, MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE BUILDINGS IN THE CITY WITH ITEM FOUR ADAPTED AS A CITYWIDE STANDARD.
I LIKE OPTION 1B, BUT I WOULD LOVE IT TO BE ADDED ALMOST AS A BULLET POINT C IN OPTION 2.
>> OKAY. YOU WANT TO MOVE 1B DOWN AND DUPLICATE IT UNDER OPTION 2 SO IT HAS A, B, C, AND THEN YOU WOULD SUPPORT OPTION 2 WITH THE OVERLAY REMAINING.
REMOVE THE STANDARDS, IT CAN'T BE REQUIRED.
[03:15:03]
>> THEN HAVE THEM APPLY TO ALL DWELLING UNITS IN THE OVERLAY AND PROHIBIT BALCONIES AND REQUIRE THE STANDARDS FOR ALL INSTITUTIONAL DWELLINGS, MULTIFAMILY AND MIXED USE IN THE CITY WITH ITEM FOUR ADAPTED TO A CITYWIDE STANDARD, CORRECT?
THIS IS WHY WE'RE HERE. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.
>> COMMISSIONER OLLEY HAD ACTUALLY THE EXACT SAME THING THAT I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST AS WELL.
I COMPLETELY AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER OLLEY HAS MENTIONED, AND I THINK IT IS VERY IMPORTANT THAT WE DO MAINTAIN THIS OVERLAY.
>> OKAY. ANYBODY ELSE? IT'S KIND OF COMMISSIONER OLLEY'S BABY.
I CAN'T DISAGREE WITH HIM. COMMISSIONER ALALI.
>> WELL, I ACTUALLY LIKE IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THE OVERLAY, BUT KEEPING THE STANDARDS AND MAKE IT CITYWIDE. I'M SORRY.
OKAY. I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE CONSENSUS, BUT I THINK YOU HAVE SOME DIRECTIONS.
>> I'M SORRY. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, I DIDN'T SEE YOUR LIGHT COME ON. SORRY.
>> NO, I WOULD SAY THAT KEEPING THE OVERLAY IS A GOOD IDEA BECAUSE EXPRESSWAYS HAVE IMPACTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES THAT ARE NOT CITYWIDE.
THEY ARE ONLY APPLICABLE TO THOSE THAT HAPPEN TO BE LOCATED NEXT TO THE EXPRESSWAYS.
NO, I FAVOR KEEPING THE OVERLAY TO THE EXTENT THAT IT'S NOT PROHIBITED BY SB 840.
COMMISSIONER OLLEY'S PROPOSAL WAS FINE.
>> WITH COMMISSIONER OLLEY? COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
>> TO GIVE IT CONTEXT TO MAY BE BRING COMMISSIONER ALALI TO MY SIDE, WE'VE PUT IN A LOT OF WORK INTO THE OVERLAY AND THE EHA IS A LOT OF WORK, A LOT OF MONEY.
TO ABANDON THAT JUST DOESN'T FEEL PRUDENT.
LET'S TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE WORK.
>> WE DON'T LIKE MODIFY IT, RIGHT? BECAUSE THE 500 FOOT IS NOT ALLOWED ANYMORE.
THERE ARE A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS BUILT INTO IT BECAUSE OF THE BILLS.
WE WILL BE FORCED TO MODIFY IT, YES.
WHY NOT JUST TAKE THE GOOD POINTS OFF IT, WHICH IS LIKE THE ENERGY INTAKES, EVEN THE BALCONY, BUT JUST IN GENERAL, AND APPLY IT TO EVERYWHERE FOR ALL THE MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS.
>> WHICH IS WHY I BROUGHT 1B DOWN TO TAKE AS MUCH AS I CAN. GO AHEAD. SORRY.
>> I WAS JUST GOING TO TRY TO SUMMARIZE YOUR RECOMMENDATION.
THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN 1B AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS THAT SINGLE FAMILY USES WOULD CONTINUE TO BE PROHIBITED IN THE RESTRICTED ECA AREA, AND THE BALCONIES FACING THE EXPRESSWAY WOULD BE PROHIBITED FOR DWELLINGS IN THE OVERLAY.
BUT OTHERWISE, ESSENTIALLY 2A IS SAYING ONE THROUGH FOUR ARE APPLIED TO ALL DWELLINGS IN THE OVERLAY, AND 1B IS SAYING IT'S APPLIED TO ALL DWELLINGS ESSENTIALLY CITYWIDE INSTITUTIONAL AND MULTIFAMILY.
>> I'LL ACTUALLY SAY THE ONE PART OF 1B THAT MADE ME WANT TO BRING IT DOWN IS BULLET POINT FOUR BECOMING A CITYWIDE STANDARD.
>> THAT'S THE PART THAT PARTICULARLY I WANTED TO BRING DOWN.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.
>> I PUSHED IT AGAIN, SORRY. I WAS JUST SIMPLY GOING TO SAY THAT I DO THINK WE SHOULD MAINTAIN THE OVERLAY DISTRICT.
IT'S JUST TO MODIFY IT SO THAT IT COMPLIES, AND I'M FINE WITH WHAT HAS BEEN PRESENTED.
[03:20:02]
>> SIX. SHOULD MULTIFAMILY BE REMOVED AS AN ALLOWED USE IN THE RCD ZONING DISTRICT? IS THERE ANY OBJECTION TO THAT? WE ALL GOOD WITH THAT?
>> ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE CONSENSUS ON THAT ONE.
SHOULD THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BE REVISED TO ENSURE ADEQUATE INFRASTRUCTURE CAPACITY AND ENHANCE THE CITY'S ABILITY TO CHOOSE WHEN AND HOW TO ALLOCATE FUNDING? YEAH. LET ME MAKE SURE THAT FOR THE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE.
WE DO ACTUALLY HAVE PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE, WHICH IS NICE.
WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT IF SOMEBODY SHOWS UP AND WANTS TO REDEVELOP A PIECE OF LAND, AND JUST CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG HERE.
WANTS TO REDEVELOP A PIECE OF LAND, THERE MAY NOT BE AN IMPACT FEE, BUT IF WE FIND OUT THAT WE DON'T HAVE ADEQUATE WATER UTILITIES IN THE AREA TO SERVE THAT PARCEL, THEN WE WOULD BE IN ONE OF TWO RESPONSES, WHICH IS, I'M SORRY, WE CAN'T BUILD THERE BECAUSE WE CAN'T BRING YOU ADEQUATE SERVICE, OR YOU CAN PAY TO UPGRADE THE SERVICE IF YOU WANT TO STILL BUILD THERE, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO COMMIT THE TAXPAYERS TO UPGRADING THE WATER LINES IN THE AREA SO THAT YOU CAN REDEVELOP THIS IF IT'S NOT ALREADY IN A BOND PROGRAM SOMEWHERE. IS THAT FAIR?
>> THAT'S ONE OF THE COMPONENTS IN THE SUGGESTED CHANGES FOR THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. YES.
>> IS THAT AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT WOULD BE IN NUMBER SEVEN?
>> I KNOW THERE'S OTHER EXAMPLES.
>> THAT'S A FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT ONE, YES.
>> ALL RIGHT. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH NUMBER SEVEN? NO. OKAY. WE'RE GOOD ON NUMBER SEVEN. NUMBER EIGHT.
>> SHOULD SINGLE FAMILY USES BE PERMITTED IN MORE NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SUCH AS THE RCD TIER 1 AND TIER 2 HOUSING TYPES, PATIO HOMES, TWO-FAMILY SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, SHOULD ALL RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN A AND B BE ALLOWED? I THINK THAT'S SEVERAL QUESTIONS IN THERE.
LET'S TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME.
SHOULD SINGLE FAMILY USES BE PERMITTED IN NON-RESIDENTIAL? IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY IN NON-RESIDENTIAL.
SHOULD WE ALSO ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY IN NON-RESIDENTIAL TO ENCOURAGE MORE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT? COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.
>> I WOULD SAY NO EXCEPT FOR MULTI USE DISTRICTS IN WHICH THEY MAY BE APPROPRIATE.
BUT GENERALLY, I MEAN, WE SEPARATE RESIDENTIAL FROM NON-RESIDENTIAL IN ORDER BECAUSE THEY'RE VIEWED AS INHERENTLY INCOMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER.
NEIGHBORHOODS REQUIRE QUIET PEACE AND NOT THE HUSTLE AND BUSTLE AND ADVERSE IMPACTS THAT NON-RESIDENTIAL USES CAN IMPOSE UPON THEM.
THESE PARTICULAR TYPES OF HOUSING MIGHT BE APPROPRIATE AS TRANSITIONAL DISTRICTS BETWEEN, LET'S SAY, A SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT AND A MULTIFAMILY DISTRICT OR SINGLE FAMILY AND A COMMERCIAL TYPE DISTRICT.
BUT NO, EXCEPT FOR MULTI USE PLAN DEVELOPMENTS, I DO NOT SEE RESIDENTIAL USES IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS.
BUT ALSO WE GOT SOME ZONING CASES THAT WE LOOKED AT AND THEY PROPOSE SOMETHING LIKE SINGLE FAMILY WITH THE MULTI FAMILY WITH A MIXED USE ACTUALLY, THE ONE FOR THE WILL EVENT.
YEAH. PROBABLY IT'S AN OPTION FOR THEM IF THEY WANT TO.
I DON'T KNOW. I'M NOT SO SURE ABOUT THAT, BUT I KNOW THAT USUALLY THE SINGLE FAMILY NEEDS MORE QUIET, BUT I THINK IT'S GIVING THEM THE OPTION.
>> OKAY. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.
>> TYPICALLY WITH A SINGLE FAMILY, IT ALSO AFFECTS THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES AROUND IT AS IT IS TODAY NOW.
I NEED TO REALLY STUDY THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE, BUT FOR THE TIME I HAD, I HAVE TO MR. BROUNOFF HAD MADE AT THE START OF THIS POINTED OUT, WE'VE ONLY HAD FOUR DAYS.
BUT WHAT I'VE BEEN ABLE TO DIGEST, AND WHAT I KNOW FROM THE PAST, IF THERE'S A SINGLE FAMILY IN THERE, IT AFFECTS OTHER PROPERTY AROUND IT.
IT REQUIRES THE JOINING PROPERTIES TO HAVE BIGGER SETBACKS AND DIFFERENT THINGS.
I KNOW SETBACK IS IN THIS NOW, SO HOW DOES THAT WORK?
[03:25:01]
IT'S BECAUSE THEY JUST DON'T CONFORM, AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.THERE IS A REASON WE PUT BUFFERS, AND WE PUT SINGLE FAMILY AND SEPARATE THEM FROM INDUSTRIAL.
WE DON'T WANT TO, NOT TO PICK ON A CITY, BUT WE DON'T WANT TO BE LIKE HOUSTON WHERE YOU HAVE NO ZONING AND EVERYTHING'S JUST MISHMASHED AROUND.
THERE IS SOME CONFORMITY IN STRUCTURE, I GUESS, THAT SHOULD BE ALWAYS UTILIZED HERE, OR IT'S JUST YOU GOT A BUMBLE MESS.
I DON'T KNOW. I THINK NO RIGHT NOW IS WHAT I'M LEANING TOWARDS ON THIS PART.
>> I THINK IF WE THINK OF THE PURPOSE OF 842, LET ME GIVE GRACE, PRIMARILY DIVERSIFY HOUSING STOCK TO ALLOW FOR MORE MULTIFAMILY OPTIONS.
THEN MY REACTION TO THAT BULLET POINT IS, NO.
IT FEELS MORE LIKE A BIT OF A BACKDOOR WAY TO MUTE THE PURPOSE OF THE BILL WITH A CAVEAT THAT IF WE DO THAT FROM MORE OF A AESTHETIC AND KEEPING WITH THE SPIRIT OF DIVERSIFYING HOUSING STOCK, WE SHOULD PROBABLY LIMIT THOSE SINGLE FAMILY TYPES TO THINGS THAT ARE MORE MULTIFAMILY IN FIELD.
LIKE THE STACKTOWN HOME, THE MANOR HOUSE, THOSE KIND OF BUILDINGS, WHERE AGAIN, WE ACHIEVE THE PURPOSE OF DIVERSIFYING HOUSING STOCK WHILE STILL SATISFYING.
WE'RE ACHIEVING THE COMPLIANT AND SB 840 AT THE SAME TIME.
FIRST, WHATEVER IS NO, BUT IF WE DO DO THAT, IT'S NOT THE CLASSIC SF3, SF2 DUPLEX.
IT'S MORE MULTIFAMILY STYLE SINGLE FAMILY, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> IF I CAN TO INTERJECT ONE THING IN THERE, AND THEN I'LL GET TO THE REST OF THE PEOPLE ASKING.
RCD TIER 1 AND TIER 2, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, ARE SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY.
>> THEY'RE SINGLE FAMILY PRODUCTS.
THEY'RE DESIGNED TO FIT IN WITH SMALL SCALE MULTIFAMILY.
BUT I THINK THAT THE TIER 1 ARE CLOSER TO THE KIND OF OUR TRADITIONAL HOUSING TYPE SO THAT THEY ARE SMALL SMALL LOTS.
TIER 2 STARTS TO BE, ESPECIALLY WITH THE STACKED TOWN HOME, AS COMMISSIONER OLLEY SAID, STARTS TO LOOK A LITTLE BIT MORE LIKE MULTIFAMILY SEEING THIS EXAMPLE.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WAS THINKING. A STACK TOWN HOME FEELS LIKE MULTIFAMILY, LOOKS LIKE MULTIFAMILY EVEN THOUGH TECHNICALLY IS OWNED BY SINGLE FAMILY.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS ON THE SAME PAGE. COMMISSIONER TONG.
>> I HAVE A DIFFERENT OPINION FROM, I GUESS, EVERYONE ELSE.
I PERSONALLY FEEL LIKE PLANO NEEDS MORE HOUSING.
BUT FROM VERY BEGINNING, OUR COMPLAINT IS THAT WE DON'T WANT APARTMENT BUILDINGS, BASICALLY, BUT SINCE NOW WE HAVE A NEW LAW THAT ALLOWS ALL THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES LAND THAT CAN BE USED FOR MULTIFAMILY, WHY NOT ALLOW THEM TO BE SINGLE FAMILY, ESPECIALLY THE SINGLE FAMILY USES WE'RE CONSIDERING ARE SMALL LOTS, LIKE 3,000 SQUARE FEET, 02,000 SQUARE FEET DUPLEXES AND 1,500 SQUARE FEET AND STACK TOWN HOMES.
I PERSONALLY THINK THESE ARE VERY GOOD USES FOR THOSE CURRENTLY NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES THAT IF WE SHOULD ALLOW THEM TO BE CONVERTED TO BE RESIDENTIAL USES, I THINK WE SHOULD ALLOW SINGLE FAMILY USES.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I THINK WE'RE TALKING IN VERY GENERAL TERMS RIGHT NOW.
NOT ABOUT ANY SPECIFIC AREAS OR ADJACENCY.
JUST OUT OF RESPECT FOR EXISTING HOMEOWNERS, THERE ARE VALUES THAT CAN BE AFFECTED BY ALLOWING ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY NOT BE COMPATIBLE.
I JUST THINK THAT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING VERY GENERAL,
[03:30:02]
WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SPECIFIC AREA OR ADJACENCY.I THINK AS WE MOVE FORWARD, I THINK THE CITIZENS WOULD WANT US TO BE MINDFUL TO THE EXTENT THAT WE CAN BASED ON WHAT THE LAW SAYS THAT WE MAKE DECISIONS THAT TRY TO PRESERVE EXISTING HOME VALUES WHERE THEY SIT TODAY WITH DEVELOPMENT THAT MAY BECOME ADJACENT IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
>> I THINK THAT'S FAIR. GOOD STATEMENT. MR. BRONSKY.
>> IN GENERAL, I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS ONE.
I GUESS I'M TRYING TO THINK THROUGH THE PROCESS AND IT'S NOT DIRECTLY TO SINGLE FAMILY HOMES AS MUCH AS IT IS, THE CONVERSION PIECE OF PROPERTIES THAT CAN BE CONVERTED FROM COMMERCIAL INTO MULTIFAMILY AFTER FIVE YEARS OF BEING VACANT AND WHETHER THE FLEXIBILITY OF GIVING SOMEBODY THE OPTION OF SCRAPING THE PROPERTY AND REDOING IT AS A SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, DETACHED, SOME COMBINATION THEREOF.
BUT I'VE GOT TO AGREE WITH MR. BROUNOFF I GUESS.
I FEEL LIKE I'M JUST NOT HAVING AN ORIGINAL OPINION AT ALL, BUT NOT HAVING ENOUGH TIME TO REALLY PROCESS ENOUGH OF THIS, INITIAL TAKE HAS GOT TO BE IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE RIGHT NOW FOR THIS PARTICULAR PUTTING SINGLE FAMILY HOMES IN THE MIDST OF THAT MIX OF POSSIBILITY, AS COMMISSIONER BENDER POINTS OUT, AND TO THE POINT OF WHAT IS THAT SINGLE FAMILY PROPERTY NOW GOING TO CAUSE ON THESE OTHER PROPERTIES AS THOSE OTHER PROPERTIES MIGHT REDEVELOP.
NOW, THEY'RE BOUND BY SOME OF THE ADJACENCY REQUIREMENTS THAT SINGLE FAMILY HOMES BRING THAT THEY MAY NOT HAVE OTHERWISE BEEN BOUND TO OTHERWISE.
I GUESS THAT'S THAT'S MY THOUGHT.
>> I'M GOING TO TELL YOU WE HAVE CONSENSUS EXCEPT I'M GOING TO BE THE CONTRARIAN ON THIS ONE.
I HAVE A HARD TIME DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN THE TIER 2 RCDS AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, AND A LOT OF THE MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT'S OUT THERE RIGHT NOW.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT A LOT OF THE MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT'S OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, IT'S THREE STORY WITH A GROUND LEVEL ENTRANCE AND IT'S FOR LEASE VERSUS THREE STORY WITH A GROUND LEVEL ENTRANCE THAT'S FOR SALE.
IT'S REALLY THE ONLY DIFFERENCE.
THAT'S WHY, I GUESS, FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH STACKED TOWN HOMES, TOWN HOMES, SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, RCD 2, AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED BEING ALLOWED IN THE SAME AS THE MULTIFAMILIES BECAUSE IT'S VISUALLY, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE RENTING OR OWNING.
I CAN'T TELL BY LOOKING AT YOUR FRONT DOOR.
I DON'T KNOW IT COULD HAVE BEEN ORIGINALLY OWNED AND NOW IT'S OWNED BY AN INVESTOR, AND NOW IT'S RENTED.
THAT'S WHY I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I DO RESPECT Y'ALL'S OPINION ABOUT THE SINGLE FAMILY HOUSE, THE PATIO HOME, EVEN THE TWO FAMILY RESIDENTS.
I WAS TOLD RECENTLY THAT I'LL CALL TWIN HOMES.
BUT ANYWAY, THEY'RE DUPLEXES TO ME.
BUT I GET THAT, AND I DON'T THINK THOSE ARE APPROPRIATE.
BUT I THINK WE SHOULD TAKE A HARD LOOK AT TOWN HOMES AND STUFF BECAUSE THEY LOOK LIKE THE MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT THAT MIGHT BE BUILT THERE ANYWAY.
DO I HAVE A NOD, TOSAN. SORRY.
>> JUST TO ADD SOMETHING COMMISSIONER BRONSKY BROUGHT UP.
IF MULTIFAMILY GOES THERE, THE ADJACENCY EFFECT ON THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES KICKS IN ANYWAY.
IF IF THERE'S A NEIGHBORING COMMERCIAL PROPERTY,
[03:35:03]
WHETHER WE PUT A MULTIFAMILY IN THAT RESCRUBBED PIECE OF LAND OR WE PUT A SINGLE FAMILY IN THAT, I THINK WE STILL HAVE SIMILAR EFFECTS TO THE NEIGHBORING COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES.IS THAT A FAIR READING, MIKE, OR AM I OFF?
>> YEAH, I THINK AT LEAST IN MY MIND, THE QUESTION IS, IF I PUT A THREE STORY TOWN HOME FOR RENT NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY VERSUS A THREE STORY TOWN HOME FOR SALE, ISN'T THE EFFECT ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL EXACTLY THE SAME?
>> THE SAME. I THINK FOR OPTION 1, NO.
OPTION 2, IF WE DO, WE'RE RESTRICTED TO TIER 2 STYLE HOMES, WHICH ACTUALLY GIVES A DIFFERENT HOUSING STOCK FOR THE FAMILIES THAT ARE MOVING INTO PLANO, WHICH ARE MULTI-GENERATIONAL, NEEDING THAT LIVING TOGETHER, BUT FEELING SEPARATE OR INDEPENDENT AND WHAT HAVE YOU SO.
IF WE GO SINGLE FAMILY, I WOULD WANT A RESTRICTION TO TIER 2 TYPES.
>> I DON'T WANT TO SEE RESIDENTIAL HOMES OF ANY KIND NEXT TO A WAREHOUSE.
THAT'S A NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.
>> UNFORTUNATELY, WE COULD GET APARTMENTS THERE UNDER 840.
HOLD ON. LET ME TURN YOUR MIC ON. SORRY.
>> THERE IS A RESTRICTION ON HEAVY INDUSTRIAL.
>> FOR HEAVY INDUSTRIAL USES, BUT NOT WAREHOUSES.
>> WAREHOUSES WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO ADJACENCY BUFFERS OR ANYTHING.
>> I'M GOING TO PUT THIS OUT THERE AND SEE IF I GET HEADS NODDING THE SHORT ANSWER IS NO.
WE DON'T WANT TO EXPAND SINGLE FAMILY USES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF RCD TIER 2 TYPES.
CAN WE ALL AGREE? HOLD ON. SEAN.
>> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. IF WE WERE TO GO TO TIER 2 TYPES, THIS IS MY QUESTION, CAN WE PREVENT THE RESTRICTIONS THAT COME WITH SINGLE FAMILY TYPE STUFF THAT AFFECT THE PROPERTIES SURROUNDING IT? HOW WOULD THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL BUFFERS, THEY HAVE ADDITIONAL SCREENING, OR WHATEVER THAT COMES ALONG WITH SINGLE FAMILY ADJOINCY? MULTIFAMILY IS DIFFERENT.
IT DOESN'T REQUIRE A LOT OF THE SAME STUFF A SINGLE FAMILY DOES.
IF WE WENT TO A SINGLE FAMILY USE, DOES THAT ALL COME ALONG WITH IT?
>> I THINK CURRENTLY THE ORDINANCE TREATS MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY AS RESIDENTIAL AND THEY APPLY TO RESIDENTIAL.
THERE MAY BE SOME SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE IT'S DIFFERENT, BUT GENERALLY THAT'S THE CASE.
>> WE'LL NEED TO LOOK AT THIS A LITTLE BIT CLOSER IN REGARDS TO MULTIFAMILY AS WELL AS SINGLE FAMILY.
BUT FOR EXAMPLE, WHEN WE EXPANDED THE SINGLE FAMILY ALLOWANCES FOR RETAIL, THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THERE THAT THE SCREENING WHILE THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED FOR THE RETAIL USE IS NOW THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPER TO BUILD THAT IN.
WE CAN LOOK AT THAT AS AN EXAMPLE, BUT ALSO ANY BUFFERS, WE CAN LOOK AT POSSIBLY WRITING SO THAT IT'S CLEAR BASED ON WHO COMES FIRST OR SECOND.
>> THINK WE HAVE SOME CONSENSUS ON THAT.
NUMBER 9, SHOULD SIGNAGE BE REQUIRED FOR DEVELOPMENTS THAT RECEIVE LAND USE PERMISSIONS DUE TO SB 840? I'M GOING TO LEAD OFF ON THIS ONE AND SAY, I SEE THAT AS MORE OF A POLITICAL QUESTION FOR THE COUNCIL THAN A LAND USE QUESTION FOR PLANNING AND ZONING.
THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL OPINION.
BUT I WILL CERTAINLY DEFER TO THE COMMISSION IF Y'ALL FEEL OTHERWISE. MR. OLLEY.
>> YES, IT DOES HAVE POLITICAL CONSIDERATIONS,
[03:40:05]
BUT I THINK WE GOVERN NOTICE AND REQUIREMENTS.WE GOVERN NOTICE AND REQUIREMENTS WHERE THERE ARE MULTIPLE OWNERS ON A LOT, YOU NEED TO GIVE NOTICE TO MULTIPLE OWNERS, OTHERWISE, CALL A PUBLIC HEARING.
WE HAVE LANGUAGE THAT ALMOST GIVES US THE POWER TO MAKE SURE, AND I'M GOING TO STEAL SOMETHING MIKE SAID A LONG TIME AGO THAT THE PUBLIC IS WELL INFORMED.
I THINK THIS FALLS UNDER OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO MAKE SURE THE PUBLIC IS WELL INFORMED, AND CITY COUNCIL CAN CHEW ON THE POLITICAL PART.
>> FAIR STATEMENT. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.
>> YES, I AGREE. WE NEED TO SEE THAT THE PUBLIC IS WELL INFORMED.
IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH ZONING CASES NOW.
IF WE DON'T INFORM THE PUBLIC, WE'LL BE OPENING OURSELVES UP TO HAVING THE PUBLIC COME DOWN HERE AND EXPRESS OPINIONS THAT ARE BASED ON INADEQUATE INFORMATION.
CONTROVERSY COULD BE AVOIDED BY MAKING SURE THEY'RE WELL INFORMED.
COLLATERALLY SHOULD THEY FORM OPINIONS ABOUT THE LAND USE AND SHOULD THEY BE MOVED TO COMMUNICATE WITH THEIR ELECTED REPRESENTATIVES ABOUT IT, THAT'S FINE WITH ME.
BUT I THINK WE NEED TO INFORM THE PUBLIC.
>> CHAIRMAN, I AGREE WITH YOUR COMMENT.
THAT'S PROBABLY A QUESTION FOR CITY COUNCIL.
I DO ALSO AGREE THAT WE REQUIRE SIGNAGE FOR ZONING.
I THINK THAT WHEN A RESIDENT SEES SOMETHING THAT'S BEING DEVELOPED OR BUILT THAT'S INCONSISTENT WITH WHAT THEY THOUGHT WAS GOING TO OCCUR, I THINK WE OWE THEM COMMUNICATION.
I THINK COMMUNICATING IS IMPORTANT.
I THINK ALSO, WHETHER WE AGREE OR DISAGREE WITH THE LAW WE'RE OBLIGATED TO COMPLY WITH IT, WHICH WE ARE.
BUT I BELIEVE THERE IS A POLITICAL COMPONENT OF THAT, BUT I THINK WE ALSO ARE OBLIGATED TO KEEP THEM INFORMED.
I BELIEVE THAT THIS IS MORE THAN A POLITICAL QUESTION BECAUSE WE HAD A LOT OF TURMOIL AND TROUBLE WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANO, THAT A LOT OF CITIZENS AND STAFF PUT YEARS OF TIME IN TO CREATE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WAS ABLE TO BE UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED AT MULTIPLE DIFFERENT LEVELS.
TO ME, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE ADDRESS AND IMPLEMENT THIS LAW AS IT'S GIVEN TO US.
>> BUT FOR US NOT TO TELL IN VERY PLAIN LANGUAGE, THE CITIZENS, AS WELL AS THE BUSINESSES THAT WE MADE AGREEMENTS WITH WHEN WE CREATED OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT THESE CHANGES ARE NOT NECESSARILY BECAUSE THIS BODY OR OUR COUNCIL AND CERTAINLY NOT OUR STAFF ARE MAKING THESE ON THEIR OWN, BUT THAT WE'RE BEING PUT INTO A POSITION THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WE PUT FORWARD AND PUT THE TIME AND EFFORT WE DID INTO IT IS BEING OVERRIDDEN BY STATE LAW.
I THINK IT IS ABSOLUTELY 100% THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THIS BODY TO COMMUNICATE TO THOSE CITIZENS AND THOSE BUSINESSES WHY WE ARE ALLOWING SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT THIS BILL REQUIRES TO HAVE HAPPEN, AND COMMUNICATING THAT IN AS MANY WAYS POSSIBLE.
[03:45:02]
TO ME, BOTH OF THESE, WE SHOULD FIND THE BEST WAYS POSSIBLE TO CONTINUALLY PUT THIS AT THE FOREFRONT OF EVERY CITIZEN THAT'S IN PLANO, THAT WHEN THINGS LIKE SB 840 ARE OUT THERE AND CREATING SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE CITIZENS WANT, AND THE BUSINESSES EXPECT THAT WE ARE ABLE TO CLEARLY TELL THEM THAT WE'RE COMPLYING WITH STATE LAW AS OPPOSED TO OVERRIDING THEIR WISHES.I DO HAVE A QUESTION, THOUGH NOW THAT THIS LAW IS COMING TO PASS.
NOW THAT THEY HAVE BY RIGHT TO PUT MULTIFAMILY, DOES THAT MEAN IT REALLY ISN'T A ZONING CASE? THEY CAN JUST GO IN NOW WITHOUT HAVING TO PUT SIGNAGE UP AT ALL, AND THEY CAN DEVELOP IT HOW THEY WANT WITH MULTIFAMILY BECAUSE IT'S NOW BY RIGHT.
>> WE'RE NOW BASICALLY SAYING, WE KNOW YOU HAVE IT BY RIGHT DUE TO THE STATE LAW, BUT WE'RE GOING TO NOW STILL REQUIRE YOU TO PUT UP SIGNAGE.
I ACTUALLY SAY YES ON BOTH, WHAT IS IT NINE AND 10? ALSO SEND OUT NOTICES LIKE IT WAS A ZONING CASE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT.
THEY HAVE IT BY RIGHT ALREADY.
OBVIOUSLY, I DON'T KNOW WE'LL HAVE TO CROSS THAT PATH, HOW THAT WORKS WITH OTHER THINGS TO CONSIDER.
BUT I JUST WANTED TO CHECK TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS THE CASE, THAT TECHNICALLY, THEY HAVE IT BY RIGHT, SO THEY DON'T EVEN HAVE TO NOTICE AT ALL, RIGHT?
I DO THINK IT IS OUR RESPONSIBILITY TO INFORM THE PUBLIC.
>> I AGREE THAT WE HAVE TO, LIKE, SEND THOSE NOTICES.
MY QUESTION IS, BECAUSE THIS LAW IS GOING TO CHANGE THE TEXTURE OF THE CITY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO BE THE SAME AFTER THIS.
LIKE NOT THE CITY THAT YOU'RE ALWAYS FAMILIAR WITH AND OR HOW WE USED TO LOOK AT THE CITY.
BUT MY QUESTION IS, YOU'RE LIKE, WILL THIS BE A BURDEN TO THE CITY TO SEND ALL THESE NOTICES? WELL, WILL IT BE ADDITIONAL WORK FOR YOU GUYS TO DO THAT?
>> THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL WORK.
THOUGH WE ARE SUGGESTING THAT THERE WOULD POTENTIALLY BE A FEE.
I THINK IT'S NOT WORDED IN THIS QUESTION, BUT THAT'S PART OF THAT TO POTENTIALLY ACCOMMODATE THAT OR ACCOUNT FOR THAT STAFF TIME.
>> THAT'S GOOD. I THINK WE SHOULD.
>> ALSO, I WANT TO START WITH DITTO TO ALL THE ABOVE, BUT I WANT TO GO A LITTLE BIT FURTHER ON THE SPECIFICS ABOUT THE NOTICES.
I'M NOT SURE IF YOU ARE DISCUSSING ONLY NUMBER 9 OR NUMBER 10 AND 9 AND 10 TOGETHER.
I PERSONALLY THINK NUMBER NINE IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD DO, BUT WE SHOULD LIMIT IT TO ONLY THE PROJECTS THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED A ZONING CHANGE BEFORE SBA 40.
NOW, BECAUSE OF A40, IT'S NOT A ZONING CHANGE ANYMORE.
ANY PROJECT THAT'S IN THAT CATEGORY, I'M NOT SURE IF THERE'S ANY CASE FOLLOWING THE SBA 40, BUT IT WASN'T A ZONING CHANGE BEFORE.
I JUST DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY SETS OF PROJECTS LIKE THAT.
BUT IF ANYTHING, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A ZONING CHANGE; THAT THE CITIZENS ARE EXPECTING, IF THEY SEE THIS CORNER RETAIL CENTER IS BEING CHANGED INTO A MULTIFAMILY, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN EXPECTING A ZONING CHANGE SIGN.
THAT'S WHERE I THINK WE SHOULD PUT A SIGN THERE SAYING, WAIT A MINUTE, THIS IS NOT A ZONING CHANGE.
THIS IS FOLLOWING THE SB A 40 LAW.
JUST PROVIDED INFORMATION TO THE CITIZENS.
ALSO, I'M NOT SURE IF WE SHOULD PUT A TIME FRAME ON THIS TYPE OF NOTICES.
WHEN SHOULD WE STOP? WHEN WOULD THE CITIZENS ALREADY KNOW THIS IS WHAT'S HAPPENING? WE DON'T HAVE TO?
[03:50:02]
BECAUSE I THINK AS A CITY, WE HAVE OUR ORDINANCES TO SAY THAT THE SIGN AND NOTICE IS REQUIRED FOR ZONING CHANGES.MOVING FORWARD, WHEN EVERYBODY ALREADY KNOW THAT WITHIN THIS LAW, THIS IS NOT A ZONING CHANGES THIS IS BY RIGHT MAYBE THEY DON'T EXPECT THE SIGN TO BE THERE, AND PUTTING A SIGN THERE MAY BE CONFUSING EVERYONE.
I THINK THAT'S A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF, MAYBE FOR THE ENTIRE BODY OF THE COMMISSION TO DISCUSS.
SHOULD WE PUT A TIME LIMIT THERE? OR SHOULD WE SAY THIS IS OUTSIDE OF THE PLAN, OR MAYBE THERE'S A LIMIT ON HOW LONG THE COMPLAINT CAN GOVERN?
>> WE DISCUSSED THAT A LITTLE BIT INTERNALLY, AND WE'RE THINKING THAT PERHAPS WE'LL KNOW WHEN THOSE SIGNS MIGHT NOT BE NECESSARY ANYMORE, AND WE COULD CONSIDER AN AMENDMENT TO NO LONGER REQUIRE THOSE SIGNS AT THAT TIME, JUST AS AN OPTION.
>> IT'S JUST SOMETHING TO CONSIDER.
PERSONALLY, I DON'T THINK NUMBER 10 IS NECESSARY.
AS LONG AS WE HAVE A SIGN THERE, IT'S GOOD ENOUGH BECAUSE THIS IS NOT A ZONING CHANGE.
>> I WAS GOING TO AGREE WITH YOUR POINT.
THE REASON WHY ACTUALLY, 1,9, AND 10 IS IF WE WERE GOING TO DO ZONING CHANGES, ACCORDING TO THE CITY'S REGULATIONS, WE WOULD REQUIRE NOTICE.
THIS IS ALMOST LIKE A STATE-DRIVEN ZONING CHANGE.
IN THE SAME FRAMEWORK, WE SHOULD REQUIRE NOTICES OF A STATE-DRIVEN ZONING CHANGE, WHICH INCLUDES NUMBER 10.
TO THE QUESTION, THAT'S ACTUALLY A VERY GREAT POINT.
I THINK WE HAVE TO REVISE THE COMPLAINT ANYWAY I BELIEVE IN A COUPLE OF YEARS.
THAT'S A NATURAL INSERTION POINT BECAUSE WE WILL HAVE TO ADJUST OUR COMPLAINT TO MATCH STATE REGULATIONS, WHERE WE CAN NOW REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE NOW IT'S THE CITY'S REGULATIONS.
>> I'M GOING TO JUMP IN AND TAKE A TURN REAL QUICK, AND I'LL COME BACK TO YOU, SEAN.
NUMBER 1, APPARENTLY, I'M OUT OF STEP WITH MY COMMISSION, WHICH IS FINE.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE NOTICING FOUR ZONING CASES ON 840.
I'M GOING TO CALL THEM 840 TRACTS BUT WE ARE GOING TO HAVE SITE PLAN THAT COMES FORWARD TO US, EVEN IF IT'S ALLOWED UNDER 840, WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT COMES FORWARD TO US.
IF THAT'S THE CASE, CAN WE ADD IN THE ORDINANCE A REQUIREMENT FOR THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS FOR SITE PLAN APPROVAL ON 840 CASES?
>> I THINK THAT COULD BE A GOOD TRIGGER.
>> BECAUSE THAT WAY, THEY'LL BE HERE TO LISTEN TO THE PRESENTATION, THEY CAN SEE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THEY CAN PROVIDE THEIR INPUT.
WE STILL HAVE AN ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL REQUIREMENT, BUT IT DOES PROVIDE THE NORMAL MECHANISM THAT PEOPLE ARE USED TO SEEING FOR NOTICES ZONING CASES, WHICH IS A SITE PLAN CASE IN THIS CASE.
>> I THINK ASSISTANT DIRECTOR BILL CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK SOME OF THE SITE PLANS WILL BE APPROVED THROUGH THE CONSENT AGENDA, SO THERE MIGHT NOT BE A PRESENTATION.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING TO THINK ABOUT. THAT'S CORRECT.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. THEN, ALSO ADMINISTRATIVELY, WE DON'T OFTEN KNOW THE P&Z MEETING UNTIL THE WEEK BEFORE.
THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO MAKE THE AGENDA, SO IT'D BE HARD TO NOTICE FOR A DATE.
BUT I THINK I HEAR THE INTENT.
WE COULD LOOK AT OPTIONS FOR THAT.
>> MAYBE 840S DON'T GO ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
MAYBE WE HAVE TO HAVE A STAND SEPARATE ITEM FOR THEM.
LET'S LOOK AT OPTIONS FOR THAT BECAUSE I'M HEARING A BROAD CONSENSUS FROM THE COMMISSION HERE. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER?
>> I LIKE THAT IDEA, BUT I DO THINK MAYBE THE GO-AROUND IS THAT IT'S NOT ON THE CONSENT.
THEY HAVE TO GO BEFORE US, EVEN IF IT IS SIMPLY A STRAIGHT-ON APPROVAL, RUBBER STAMP KIND OF THING, BUT IT'S AT LEAST PRESENTED, AND PEOPLE UNDERSTAND.
THE REASON I THOUGHT THAT THE NOTICES WERE IMPORTANT BEYOND JUST THE SIGNAGE BECAUSE MY FIRST THOUGHT WAS NO, BUT THEN THE MORE I THOUGHT ABOUT IT, IF YOU SAW THE SIGN AND YOU AUTOMATICALLY SEE ZONING CHANGE.
YOU MAY NOT EVEN READ IT VERY WELL.
YOU MIGHT BE DRIVING BY, AND YOU CAN'T READ IT BECAUSE YOU'RE DRIVING BY 40 MILES AN HOUR, BUT YOU SAW THE ZONING SIGN, THE TRADITIONAL ZONING SIGNS.
YOU'RE THINKING THERE'S A ZONING CHANGE.
BUT HAVING THAT NOTICE WOULD EXPLAIN YOU HAVE SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN READ AND UNDERSTAND WHAT IS 840?
[03:55:02]
DOES ANYBODY IN THE CROWD TRULY KNOW WHAT 840 IS UNTIL WE BROUGHT IT UP HERE? THE AVERAGE CITIZEN HAS NO IDEA BUT THOSE WRITTEN NOTICES WOULD EXPLAIN WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHY IT'S GOING ON, AND GIVE THEM A BETTER UNDERSTANDING SO THAT THEY'RE NOT JUST NOTIFIED.>> THE REASON WHY I JUST WANT TO EXPLAIN THE REASON WHY I DON'T THINK 10 WAS NECESSARY WAS BECAUSE TRADITIONALLY, THE NOTICES TO THE CITIZENS WITHIN THE 200 FEET OR 500 FEET IS FOR THE CITIZENS TO RESPOND.
THE NOTICES HAS A PAGE FOR THE CITIZENS TO RESPOND TO SAY, I SUPPORT, I OPPOSE BLAH BLAH, BLAH BUT I THINK IF WE WERE GOING TO SEND NOTICES, I'M FINE WITH SENDING NOTICES, BUT WE NEED TO MAKE IT DIFFERENT BECAUSE WE NEED TO TELL THEM, YOU DO NOT HAVE A VOICE IN THIS BECAUSE I HAVE BEEN TO I DON'T KNOW IF ALL OF YOU ARE HERE, MANY SESSIONS THAT WE HAVE HALF THE ROOM PEOPLE COMING TO SAY, WE'RE AGAINST THIS DEPARTMENT, BUT IT WAS BUILT BY RIGHT.
I THINK THAT'S A WASTE OF TIME FOR THE CITIZENS, AND THAT'S MISLEADING TO THE PEOPLE, AND WITH THE TIME OF OURS, TOO, WITH THE EFFORT OF ALL THE STAFF MEMBER TO SEND NOTICES OR RECEIVE IT, COMBINE THEM AND DO THE DATA ANALYSIS BECAUSE THIS IS BILLED BY RIGHT.
NO MATTER HOW MANY PEOPLE SHOW UP HERE AGAINST TO TALK FOR THREE HOURS, WE CANNOT DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT.
IF WE WERE GOING TO SEND NOTICES OUT, WE HAVE TO BE SO CLEAR THAT THIS IS NOT A DISCUSSION.
THAT THIS IS HAPPENING, BUT YOU DO NOT HAVE A VOICE.
ALSO, I THINK, COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER, REMINDED ME THAT I WANTED TO SAY THAT EARLIER.
I FORGOT THAT THE SIGNS FOR THIS.
I WOULDN'T CALL IT A ZONING CHANGE AT ALL.
IT'S BY RIGHT; IT HAS TO BE DIFFERENT.
I HIGHLY RECOMMEND THAT WE MAKE A SIGN THAT TOTALLY DIFFERENT.
LOOK AND FEEL DIFFERENT FROM OUR TRADITIONAL ZONING CHANGE REQUEST SIGNS SO THAT PEOPLE CAN KNOW IT'S DIFFERENT.
OLD HABITS WILL THINK, THIS IS A ZONING CHANGE, BUT IT'S NOT A ZONING CHANGE.
MAKE SURE THAT BIG BOLD LETTER SAYING THIS IS NOT A ZONING CHANGE. MY TWO CENTS.
>> I THINK WE HAVE A CONSENSUS.
>> I THINK SO. THAT'S FOR BOTH NINE AND 10, CORRECT?
>> I BELIEVE SO. COMMISSIONER ALALI, YOU HAD ANOTHER THOUGHT.
THIS ZONING CHANGE OR THIS LAW CHANGE, LET'S SAY, IT'S NOT THE APARTMENT BUILDINGS THAT THE COMMUNITY REJECT BECAUSE THE APARTMENT, THEY PICK A SITE, AND IT'S JUST GOING TO BE LIKE AN APARTMENT BUT THIS ONE IS GOING TO BE WITHIN RETAIL, WITHIN A COMMERCIAL SETTING, JUST LIKE THOSE THEY'RE POPPING OUT EVERYWHERE.
IN DALLAS AND IN ALLEN AND PLANO, JUST LIKE THE FEEL OF THE LEGACY WEST THING.
I KNOW IT'S ON A SMALLER SCALE, BUT JUST INCORPORATING THE MULTI-FAMILY WITH THE COMMERCIAL.
MAYBE LIKE WHY WAS IT IMPLEMENTED BECAUSE PROBABLY A LOT OF THE DEVELOPERS ARE THINKING THAT WAY.
YOU DON'T JUST BUILD APARTMENT BUILDING OR RESIDENTIAL, BUT YOU ALSO SUPPLY IT WITH ALL THE COMMERCIAL SUPPORT, LIKE ENVIRONMENT, SO YOU CAN GO HOME AND WORK AND EAT IN THE SAME SETTING.
MAYBE IT IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT.
MAYBE THE PUBLIC WILL ACCEPT IT.
WELL, LET ME PREFACE JUST A SECOND BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE, NO OFFENSE, STARTING TO WANDER OFF INTO GENERAL COMMENTS ABOUT THIS.
LET'S STAY ON THE ITEMS, AND THEN WE'LL GET TO THE END AND WE CAN OFFER HER GENERAL COMMENTS IF WE WANT TO.
>> NO, I WAS JUST GOING TO ANSWER HER STATEMENT,
[04:00:01]
THAT THE FOUR CORNER 47, I THINK, OR 41 OR WHATEVER THE NUMBER IS, THE 41 LOCATIONS ACROSS THE CITY THAT NOW HAVE ACCESS TO PUT IN MULTIFAMILY.DURING THE PROCESS OF A LOT OF OUR CITIZENRY HAVING CONCERNS WITH MULTIFAMILY SHOWING UP IN THOSE.
NOW, WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH THAT, BUT THE PEOPLE IN PLANO WERE NOT LOOKING FORWARD TO MULTIFAMILY, IN YOUR WORDS, POPPING UP ALL ACROSS OUR CITY.
WELL, BUT I'M SAYING THE COMMERCIAL SETTINGS- [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, AND TOYOTA PROVED THAT THEY WEREN'T REALLY INTERESTED IN THAT POPPING UP THERE EITHER.
TO SAY, THERE WERE A LOT OF CITIZENS ALL ACROSS THE SPECTRUM THAT FINALLY CAME TO AN AGREEMENT ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF WHERE WE WANTED MULTIFAMILY AND WHERE WE DIDN'T WANT MULTIFAMILY.
I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF PLANO KNOWS WHERE WE'RE DEVIATING FROM WHAT WE SAID WE WERE GOING TO DO TO MAKE SURE WE LET THEM KNOW.
>> GO BACK TO NUMBERS 9 AND 10?
>> THANK YOU FOR CLOSING THE LOOP.
I THINK YOU'VE GOT DIRECTION ON 9 AND 10. NUMBER 11.
ARE PROPOSED CHANGES TO LANDSCAPE STANDARDS AND MINIMUM UNIT SIZES APPROPRIATE FOR MIXED-USE AND MULTIFAMILY? I THINK WE'VE ALREADY TALKED ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING, SO WE'LL SET THAT ASIDE.
WE'VE ALREADY ADDRESSED THAT QUESTION.
MINIMUM UNIT SIZES, AND I KNOW YOU SHOWED US, BUT REFRESH MY MEMORY.
THE MINIMUM UNIT SIZES THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT IN THE PRESENTATION ARE THOSE IN ORDINANCE TODAY, OR IS THIS IN ADDITION TO THE ORDINANCE TODAY?
>> THEY'RE IN THE ORDINANCE TODAY UNDER OUR THREE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICTS, 1, 2, AND 3.
>> HOW IS THIS DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE ALREADY HAVE?
>> IT WOULD JUST EXPAND IT AND APPLY TO ALL MULTIFAMILY IN THE CITY, EXCEPT IN I THINK IT'S UMU AND BG, WHERE THERE ARE SLIGHTLY SMALLER RESTRICTIONS ON UNIT SIZES.
>> WE'RE BASICALLY TAKING THE STANDARDS WE'VE ALREADY HAD AND JUST EXPANDING THEM TO COVER ANY POTENTIAL ZONING CATEGORY WHERE MULTIFAMILY COULD NOW BE BUILT?
IT'S JUST AN EXPANSION TO MAKE EVERYTHING UNIFORM.
>> ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT FROM ANYBODY? WE ALL GOOD WITH CONTINUING OUR STANDARDS? NOW HERE'S THE FREE-FOR-ALL.
ANY OTHER ISSUES WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT? I HAVE TWO, SO LET ME GET MINE OUT OF THE WAY FIRST.
IN THE SMALL LOT SUBDIVISION UNDER SP-15, ONE OF THE STAFF COMMENTS WAS LOOKING AT WIDER ALLEYS FOR ANYTHING THAT'S BUILT UNDER 15, BUT I CAUGHT SOMETHING IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT I HADN'T CAUGHT BEFORE, WHICH WAS THAT UNDER SP-15, THEY'RE ONLY REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE OFF STREET PARKING PLACE PER RESIDENCE, WHICH CONCERNS ME GREATLY BECAUSE IS NOT OUR STANDARD RESIDENTIAL STREET WIDTH 33 FEET.
>> I'M NOT SURE OF THE EXACT WIDTH.
>> WE DON'T REQUIRE ALLEYS CURRENTLY, SO THEY CAN BE FRONT-LOADED, AND THE CURRENT RESIDENTIAL STREET IS 26 FEET.
NOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE UNDER THIS LAW, IF WE STAY WITH THE STANDARD 26 FOOT, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A NINE-FOOT CAR ON ONE SIDE AND A NINE-FOOT CAR ON THE OTHER SIDE BECAUSE THERE'S ONLY ONE SPACE IN THE DRIVEWAY.
THE SPACE IN BETWEEN IS NOT ENOUGH FOR A FIRE TRUCK.
I THINK WE NEED TO LOOK AT SOME OPTION FOR THE DEVELOPER TO SAY, IF YOU GIVE US TWO OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES, YOU CAN STAY WITH THE STANDARD STREET WIDTH.
IF YOU ONLY GIVE US ONE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE, YOU'VE GOT TO GO TO A 35-FOOT STREET, BECAUSE OTHERWISE, I CAN'T PUT EMERGENCY VEHICLES DOWN THE ROAD.
BECAUSE WE'VE GOT TO HAVE EMERGENCY ACCESS.
>> I THINK WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS IF THE LOTS ARE BENEATH THE CERTAIN WIDTH OF 50 FEET, THEN THEY HAVE TO PROVIDE AN ALLEY.
THAT WAY, ALL THE PARKING OUT FRONT IS AVAILABLE FOR CURBSIDE PARKING.
THAT'S NOT CURRENTLY THE REQUIREMENT.
ANOTHER THING WE'RE LOOKING AT IS REQUIRING OUR STREET DESIGN THAT HAS THE ON-STREET PARKING IN THESE TYPES OF SUBDIVISIONS SO THAT THERE'S ESSENTIALLY VISITOR PARKING IN THE PUBLIC STREET.
>> WELL, I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT VISITOR PARKING.
[04:05:02]
I'M WORRIED ABOUT A SPOUSE'S CAR, A TEENAGER'S CAR, A GRANDMA'S CAR.IF THERE'S ONLY ONE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACE, I KNOW VERY FEW HOUSES THAT ONLY HAVE ONE CAR.
EVERYBODY'S GOT AT LEAST TWO, SOME THREE, FOUR OR FIVE, SO WHERE ARE THEY GOING TO PARK? I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE ADEQUATE PARKING, WHETHER IT'S ADEQUATE OR NOT.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, KNOWING THEY'RE GOING TO PARK ON THE STREET, WE'VE GOT ADEQUATE EMERGENCY VEHICLE ACCESS OR MAKE ONE SIDE OF THE STREET NO PARKING OR SOMETHING.
I WANT US TO REALLY THINK HARD ABOUT MAKING SURE THAT STREET IS ADEQUATE FOR EMERGENCY VEHICLES.
THE OTHER ONE IS, THIS IS JUST A GENERAL QUESTION.
IN THE DISTRICTS WHERE OUR CURRENT HEIGHT IS LESS THAN 45, BUT WE'RE REQUIRED TO ALLOW 45 FOR MULTIFAMILY.
ARE WE GOING TO RAISE OUR HEIGHTS TO 45 FOR EVERYTHING ELSE? OR IS COMMERCIAL STILL GOING TO BE LIMITED TO 35 EVEN THOUGH THE MULTIFAMILY CAN GO TO 45?
>> IN OUR CURRENT PROPOSAL, WE WOULD LEAVE THE NON-RESIDENTIAL MINIMUMS AS THEY ARE, BUT OPEN TO DIRECTION ON THAT.
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE AN ANSWER.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING WE CAN SOLVE THAT TONIGHT, BUT I JUST WANTED CLARIFICATION ON THAT.
THOSE WERE MY QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.
>> IT'S FUNNY, YOU BROUGHT UP THE SAME THING WITH 15 THAT I WAS GOING TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT, BECAUSE I KEEP THINKING, 03,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU CAN DO A 30-FOOT WIDE LOT BY 100.
IT LOOKED LIKE THE 30-FOOT WIDE WAS YOUR MINIMUM, TOO, SO YOU COULD GO THAT SMALL, WHICH NOW YOU'RE REALLY PACKING THEM IN.
I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALLUDED TO THAT, MIKE, WITH THE ALLEY.
ANYTHING LESS THAN 50, THEY HAVE TO HAVE ALLEY. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE SAYING?
>> YES, THAT'S RIGHT. THAT THE DRIVEWAY WOULD BE IN THE BACK.
>> IF THEY GO TO 30 FOOT OR ANYTHING LESS THAN 50, MAYBE EVEN 60, YOU HAVE TO HAVE AN ALLEY.
I DO THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA.
I ALSO THINK, IF THERE MAY BE SOME STREET, YOU MIGHT NEED TO LOOK AT A LITTLE WIDER STREET FOR SURE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS 26 FEET.
I FEEL LIKE MINE IS BIGGER THAN THAT, BUT THAT'S TIGHT.
YOU DEFINITELY CAN'T GET A FIRE TRUCK THROUGH THERE.
I'VE GOT FOUR KIDS, AND THREE OF THEM ARE DRIVING.
I'M STRUGGLING TO GET ALL THE CARS AROUND MY HOUSE IN FRONT OF MY HOUSE, SO I'M NOT MAKING NEIGHBORS MAD, SO YEAH, THAT'S DEFINITELY AN ISSUE.
>> I WOULD JUST DO YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT THE FIRE TRUCK.
WE'VE HAD PREVIOUS CASES AND CIRCUMSTANCES, AND I'VE LIVED IN A DEVELOPMENT WHERE YOU COULDN'T GET A FIRE TRUCK DOWN THE ALLEY, AND COULDN'T GET IT DOWN THE STREET, EITHER.
I THINK THOSE ARE VERY LEGITIMATE CONCERNS THAT WE SHOULD TAKE A LOOK AT.
>> I WAS GOING TO SAY THAT REGARDING SP-15, I HAVE LIVED IN A COMMUNITY IN THE WASHINGTON, DC AREA.
LIKE 30 YEARS AGO, THEY ALREADY HAVE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE BUILT WITH SINGLE-CAR GARAGE HOUSES, AND ROWS OF SINGLE-CAR GARAGE HOUSES.
IT'S NOT THAT TERRIBLE, SO DON'T WORRY.
SECOND OF ALL, I THINK I WOULD RECOMMEND TO EXAMINE THE BUILDING LINE FROM THEIR NEEDS.
I'M NOT SURE IF THAT'S CALLED A SETBACK OR JUST MAYBE THE BUILDING SETBACK FROM WHERE YOUR PROPERTY LINE IS, BASICALLY, YOU WANT TO ALLOW ENOUGH DRIVEWAY.
BECAUSE IT'S A SINGLE-CAR GARAGE, THAT DRIVEWAY IS VERY IMPORTANT.
YOU DO NOT WANT PEOPLE TO HAVE CARS PARKED STICKING OUT TO THE ROAD.
ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ROADS ARE NARROW.
YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT REQUIREMENT TO MAKE SURE THE DRIVEWAY IS LONG ENOUGH FOR THE CAR TO PARK ON THE DRIVEWAY WITHOUT GOING INTO THE GARAGE.
THAT'S THE ONLY THING THAT I CAN THINK OF WE SHOULD PROBABLY MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE THAT IN OUR STANDARDS.
HOPEFULLY, THAT'S NOT ANY VIOLATION OF THAT NEW LAW.
[04:10:04]
>> CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG FROM YOUR MEMO.
THE LAW REQUIRES A MINIMUM 15-FOOT FRONT YARD SETBACK.
>> A ONE PARKING SPACE PER HOME THAT CANNOT BE REQUIRED TO BE COVERED, SO THEY CAN HAVE ONE DRIVEWAY TO THE FRONT WALL OF THEIR HOUSE THAT THEY CAN PARK IN WITH ONE CAR UNDER THIS LAW.
AM I READING THAT RIGHT? THEY DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A GARAGE.
>> THEY DO NOT HAVE TO HAVE A GARAGE.
>> WE'RE REQUIRING THEM TO BE REAR ENTRY, THOUGH, CORRECT?
>> WELL, THE WAY I'M READING THIS IS YOU COULD REQUIRE REAR ENTRY, BUT YOU CAN'T REQUIRE A GARAGE.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A ONE-CAR PARKING PAD?
>> THE REAR YARD SETBACK IS ONLY 10 FEET.
>> YES. I THINK BECAUSE WE ARE ALLOWED TO REQUIRE ONE PARKING SPACE, WE WOULD BE ABLE TO USE OUR STANDARD PARKING SPACE DIMENSIONS THAT WE REQUIRE FOR MOST DRIVEWAYS.
>> WE CAN DO THAT, DO YOU THINK? LET'S LOOK AT THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK YOU'RE HEARING THE CONCERN OF THE COMMISSION ABOUT OFF-STREET PARKING VERSUS ON-STREET PARKING.
>> WE'VE GOT REDUCED SETBACKS IN SOME DISTRICTS, AND WE STILL REQUIRE 20 FEET TO THE GARAGE, EVEN IF THE SETBACK FOR THE HOUSE ITSELF IS SOMETHING LESS THAN 20 FEET.
WE'VE GOT STANDARDS FOR THAT THAT I THINK WILL ACCOMMODATE YOUR CONCERNS.
>> GREAT. COMMISSIONER BENDER.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. COMMISSIONER TONG, I JUST WANTED TO FOLLOW UP ON YOUR COMMENT ABOUT WASHINGTON, DC.
WE HAVE MASS TRANSIT HERE, BUT WE DON'T HAVE MASS TRANSIT, AND IN WASHINGTON, DC, PEOPLE TAKE MASS TRANSIT, AND YOU'RE RIGHT.
IT'S NOT AN ISSUE IN WASHINGTON, DC, BUT IT'S AN ISSUE IN PLANO, TEXAS.
I WOULD JUST REMIND EVERYBODY THAT WE DON'T HAVE A MASS TRANSIT SYSTEM LIKE SOME OF THESE OTHER CITIES HAVE, THAT'S ACCESSIBLE TO CITIZENS TO BE ABLE TO WALK TO GET TO A TRANSIT STATION IN MOST CASES.
THAT'S WHY I THINK PARKING IS VERY CRITICAL.
WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO NAVIGATE THAT THE BEST WE CAN UNDER THE LAW.
>> I AGREE. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
>> ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE TO THIS COMMENT.
I JUST THOUGHT OF AN F150 IN SOME OF THE SPACES, AND IT MADE ME CHUCKLE A LITTLE BIT, SO NO VALUE.
>> WHO ELSE HAS NOTES IN THE MARGINS THAT WE NEED TO COMMUNICATE TO THE STAFF? THEY'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO AND A SHORT TIME TO DO IT, AND WE WANT TO GIVE THEM AS MUCH AMMUNITION AS WE CAN TO KNOW WHAT WE'RE THINKING.
ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.
>> ONE COMMENT. FOR ALL OF THE TIME, ENERGY, AND EFFORT THAT MISS DAY AND YOUR STAFF, THAT MISS SEBASTIAN, AND EVEN MR. BELL.
[LAUGHTER] I WANT TO SAY I SINCERELY APPRECIATE ALL OF THE TIME AND EFFORT THAT YOU ALL PUT IN IN TRACKING ALL OF THIS, THE WAY THAT YOU HAVE KEPT US, AS WELL AS COUNCIL, UPDATED ON IT.
I FEEL LIKE YOU GUYS DID AN ADMIRABLE JOB, AND ALL OF YOUR RECOMMENDATIONS AND ALL OF THE THOUGHT, ENERGY, AND EFFORT THAT HAVE BEEN PUT INTO WHAT YOU'VE PRESENTED TONIGHT, I THINK YOU'VE DONE PLANO PROUD AGAIN, SO THANK YOU.
>> WELL, THANK YOU. WE APPRECIATE ALL OF YOUR TIME, AND YOU WILL GET A CHANCE IN A WEEK TO TALK ABOUT ALL OF THIS SOME MORE.
>> I'M GOING TO ASK ONE LOADED QUESTION.
IF ANYBODY HAS ONE OF THOSE AH-HA MOMENTS AT 3 O'CLOCK IN THE MORNING, DO YOU WANT US TO EMAIL YOU OR WANT US TO HOLD THE COMMENTS TILL NEXT WEEK?
>> I THINK I'M HAPPY TO HAVE YOU EMAIL US SO THAT WE CAN BE CHEWING ON IT IN THE MEANTIME.
>> ANY OTHER BUSINESS WE HAVE TONIGHT?
>> THERE'S NO FURTHER BUSINESS.
>> NO OTHER FURTHER BUSINESS, WE STAND ADJOURNED AT 10:28 PM. [LAUGHTER]
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.