[00:00:04] LET'S TRY THAT AGAIN. WELCOME TO THE SEPTEMBER 2ND CITY OF PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:00 PM. [CALL TO ORDER] IF Y'ALL WOULD ALL PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY CITIZENS SIGNED UP FOR CITIZEN PARTICIPATION TONIGHT? WE DO NOT. ALL RIGHT. SO CONSENT AGENDA. CONSENT AGENDA. [CONSENT AGENDA] CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS THAT ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. COMMISSIONERS ANYBODY LIKE AN ITEM REMOVED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, UNLESS OTHERWISE INSTRUCTED BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME, WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED. REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME, WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. HERITAGE HOUSES. ADDITION BLOCK A LOTS ONE THROUGH SIX SIX URBAN RESIDENTIAL LOTS ON 1.3 ACRES. LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF I AVENUE AND 17TH STREET. ZONED URBAN RESIDENTIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE HAGGARD PARK HERITAGE RESOURCE OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE APPLICANT IS JEAN LU DESIGN, LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JOHN KIM, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF EIGHTH AVENUE AND 17TH STREET. IT IS A TOTAL OF SIX LOTS. AND HERE'S THE REPLAT. SO THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THE ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE. HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. BROUNOFF. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IS THE APPLICANT AWARE THAT IF WE POSTPONE THIS CASE TO THE 15TH, WE CANNOT AFTER THAT POSTPONE IT AGAIN? WE WOULD HAVE TO ACT ON THE 15TH. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. WE DID EMAIL SOME OF THE OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO HIM. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NOBODY. OKAY, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE. IF THEY WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT OR IF ANYBODY HAS ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. NOBODY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS. MR. BROUNOFF. I MOVE THAT WE POSTPONE ITEM ONE TO OUR SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 MEETING. COMMISSIONER BENDER. SECOND THE MOTION. I'M SORRY. CAN WE JUST CALL THAT A MOTION TO TABLE? YES. DO WE NEED TO PUT A DATE ON IT? MOTION TO TABLE. RIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S UNTIL SEPTEMBER 15TH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. THANK YOU. WE'LL SEE YOU NEXT MEETING. ITEM TWO. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. RCCG-HGE ADDITION BLOCK A, LOT 1R, A RELIGIOUS FACILITY ON ONE LOT ON [2. (CST) Public Hearing – Preliminary Replat: RCCG-HGE Addition, Block A, Lot 1R – Religious facility on one lot on 11.9 acres located on the south side of Parker Road, 955 feet east of Los Rios Boulevard. Zoned Agricultural. Project #PR2025-014. Applicant: Redeemed Christian Church of God Heavens Glorious Embassy Inc. (Administrative consideration)] 11.9 ACRES. LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PARKER ROAD, 955 FT EAST OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD. ZONED AGRICULTURAL. THE APPLICANT IS REDEEMED CHRISTIAN CHURCH OF GOD, HEAVEN'S GLORIOUS EMBASSY, INCORPORATED. THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MOLLY CORYELL, INTERIM LEAD PLANNER. THE PURPOSE OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT IS TO [00:05:06] DEDICATE AN ABANDONED EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE PROPOSED RELIGIOUS FACILITIES BUILDING EXPANSION. THE PROPERTY IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL. THEREFORE, A PUBLIC HEARING IS REQUIRED AS IT IS CONSIDERED A RESIDENTIAL REPLAT. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND OR ALTERATIONS AS REQUIRED BY ENGINEERING PLANS. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSION TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. NOBODY. ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY REGISTERED ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION. MR. BRONSKY. I MOVE, WE APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE. EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. ITEM NUMBER THREE. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. [3. (CST) Discussion and Action: Reinstatement of Approval Request – Revised Site Plan: Rowlett Creek Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant, Block 1, Lots 1 & 2 – Request to reinstate approval of a revised site plan for a sewage treatment plant on two lots on 26.6 acres located at the northeast corner of 14th Street and Los Rios Boulevard. Zoned Agricultural with Specific Use Permit No. 4 for Sewage Treatment Plant. Project #RSP2022-067. Applicant: North Texas Municipal Water District. (Legislative consideration)] EXCUSE ME. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR PUBLIC HEARING. PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND TO INSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. DISCUSSION AND ACTION, REINSTATEMENT OF APPROVAL. REQUEST FOR REVISED SITE PLAN AT ROWLETT CREEK REGIONAL WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT, BLOCK ONE, LOTS ONE AND TWO. REQUEST TO REINSTATE APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT ON TWO LOTS ON 26.6 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF 14TH STREET AND LOS RIOS BOULEVARD. ZONED AGRICULTURAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 4 FOR SEWAGE TREATMENT PLANT. THE APPLICANT IS THE NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ORIGINALLY APPROVED THIS REVISED SITE PLAN ON JUNE 19TH, 2023. AS NO CONSTRUCTION HAS COMMENCED WITHIN TWO YEARS, THE PLAN EXPIRED ON JUNE 19TH, 2025. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THE REINSTATEMENT OF THIS REVISED SITE PLAN, AND HAS PROVIDED A LETTER SAYING THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS REQUIRED TO COMPLETE THE BID EVALUATION PROCESS AND AWARD THE PROJECT TO A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER. ONCE THE BID IS AWARDED, CONSTRUCTION WILL THEN BEGIN. SECTION 3.70 OF ARTICLE THREE OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE STATES THAT 60 DAYS PRIOR TO OR FOLLOWING THE LAPSE OF AN APPROVAL OF A REVISED SITE PLAN, THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY PETITION THE COMMISSION TO EXTEND OR REINSTATE THE APPROVAL. THE OWNER IS REQUESTING THAT THE EXPIRATION PERIOD FOR THE REVISED SITE PLAN BE REINSTATED FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS. IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT SUCH A REQUEST, THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THE REASONS FOR THE LAPSE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S ABILITY TO COMPLY WITH ANY CONDITIONS ATTACHED TO THE ORIGINAL APPROVAL, AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH NEWLY ADOPTED ZONING REGULATIONS SHALL APPLY TO THE PLAN. NO CONDITIONS. NO REGULATION CHANGES ARE APPLICABLE TO THE DEVELOPMENT BASED ON EXISTING REGULATIONS AND SINCE THE SITE PLAN HAS EXPIRED. SO STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REINSTATEMENT REQUEST AS SUBMITTED AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSION. ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER ALALI. I HAVE A QUESTION. SO IF WE, YOU KNOW, LIKE, IF WE APPROVE, LIKE THE EXTENSION NOW. AND SOMETHING HAPPENED BETWEEN NOW AND 27, LIKE ANY REGULATION, ANY CONDITION, WOULD THAT AFFECT THE SITE PLAN OR IS IT GOING TO BE LIKE APPROVED FOR ANOTHER LIKE 27, EVEN REGARDLESS OF ANY CHANGES? THAT IS CORRECT. EVEN IF REGULATIONS CHANGE BETWEEN NOW AND THE REINSTATEMENT FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS, THOSE NEW REGULATIONS WILL NOT IMPACT THE APPROVAL OF THIS REVISED SITE PLAN. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. JUST ONE YOU, STATEMENT, AS NO CONSTRUCTION COMMENCED WITHIN THE LAST TWO YEARS, IS THERE A MINIMUM THRESHOLD OF CONSTRUCTION THAT IS NEEDED TO KEEP THE SITE PLAN ACTIVE OR. WHAT'S WHAT'S THE RANGE? ESSENTIALLY, THE ISSUANCE OF LIKE AN ENGINEER OF THE ENGINEERING PERMIT TO APPROVE THE CONSTRUCTION AND FOR THE CONSTRUCTION TO COMMENCE. I OBVIOUSLY, YOU KNOW, PUTTING IN UTILITIES AND BEING READY TO GO VERTICAL AND BE A GOOD THRESHOLD. BUT SO IF I JUST PERMIT IS ISSUED I DIG A HOLE. [00:10:03] DOES THAT DOES THAT CLASSIFY AS CONSTRUCTION LIKE GRADING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. NO A GRADING PERMIT WOULD NOT. MIKE. MR. BELL. YEAH. THE WHAT HAPPENS IS THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENTS NEED TO APPROVE PLAN ON FILE TO ISSUE THAT PERMIT. SINCE THIS HAS BEEN EXPIRED, THE APPLICANT CANNOT PULL THE PERMITS ON THIS PROJECT. IF THIS IS REINSTATED, THEY COULD PULL THOSE PERMITS, AND THEN THE PROJECT IS GOOD FOR THE LIFE OF THOSE PERMITS. ESSENTIALLY, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN DEADLINE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BELL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. YES. THANK YOU. AS I POINTED OUT IN OUR PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING ON PAGE ONE OF THE SITE, PLAN 14TH STREET IS MISLABELED AS LOS RIOS BOULEVARD. WHAT IS THE TECHNICALLY CORRECT WAY OF REQUIRING THAT THAT LITTLE TECHNICAL CORRECTION, WE COULD ADD A STIPULATION FOR APPROVAL. HOWEVER, WITH THAT BEING A SCRIVENER'S ERROR, WE COULD JUST COORDINATE WITH THE APPLICANT AND MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS CORRECTED PRIOR TO THE PLAN BEING STAMPED. SO WE DON'T NEED TO INCLUDE THAT IN A MOTION, PARTICULARLY? IT IS THE COMMISSION'S DECISION, BUT STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE SO. CORRECT. UP TO THE COMMISSION. CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NO OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER OLLEY. APPLICANT FOR THE APPLICANT. OKAY. IF THE APPLICANT IF YOU COULD COME FORWARD AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. MARK SIMON, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING FOR NORTH TEXAS MUNICIPAL WATER DISTRICT. SO 501 EAST BROWN STREET, WYLIE, TEXAS. 75098. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. JUST CONTEXT. THE BID EVALUATION PROCESS IS CITED AS THE BLOCKER FOR THIS. IS IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? IS THERE PRIOR REGULATION OR, YOU KNOW, FUNDING OR WHAT? WHAT'S THE BLOCKER? BID EVALUATION SEEMS TO BE NOT QUITE A BLOCKER. YEAH. SO THIS IS AN INTERESTING PROJECT. WE BID THIS PROJECT IN 2023 OR ACTUALLY IN 2024. IT CAME IN AROUND $300 MILLION. OKAY. AND THAT PRICE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE SUBSTANTIALLY. BUT ONE OF THE CHALLENGES WITH THE PROJECT, WHEN WE SAT DOWN WITH THE CONTRACTOR WAS THAT WE HAVE TO KEEP THE PLANT OPERATIONAL AT ALL TIMES. THIS DOES TREAT 50% OF THE FLOW FOR PLANO, AND ROUGHLY 25 TO 30% OF THE FLOW FROM RICHARDSON. SO WHEN WE TALK TO THEM, THEY'RE LIKE, THERE'S JUST TOO MANY SEQUENCING ISSUES FOR US TO BID THIS PROJECT AT A LOWER PRICE, WE WOULD RATHER DO IT IN SMALL PIECES. SO WE CHANGED OUR CONTRACTING APPROACH AND WE REINSTITUTED BIDDING EVALUATION USING A CONSTRUCTION MANAGER AT RISK PROCESS, WHICH ALLOWS US TO PUT TOGETHER INDIVIDUAL BID PACKAGES UNDER A LARGER PROJECT. SO HE'LL BID OUT THE PACKAGES AS HE HAS AVAILABLE ACCESS TO PARTS OF THE PLANT. THE OTHER BIG COMPONENT OF THIS IS WE HAVE TO CHANGE SOME OF THE ENCORE POWER FEEDS THAT COME INTO THE PLANT DUE TO AN INCREASED LOAD OF ELECTRICITY FOR THE BLOWERS. SO YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU WORK WITH ENCORE, YOU SORT OF PUT IN THE REQUEST TO THEM AND THEY KIND OF EVALUATE ON THEIR END WHAT THE TIMING WILL BE WHEN THEY CAN COME AND MAKE THE UPGRADES. AND SINCE WE DON'T HAVE CONTROL OF THAT SCHEDULE, WE WANTED THE CONTRACTOR TO KIND OF COORDINATE THAT FOR US AS OPPOSED TO US ASSUMING A SPECIFIC DATE. RIGHT. AND THEN AND THEN PUTTING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES ON THAT DATE THAT THEY CAN'T CONTROL. RIGHT. THAT'S FAIR. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION COMMISSIONER OLLEY. I MOVE WE APPROVE THE REINSTATEMENT REQUEST AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. SECOND THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. NEXT ITEM. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. [4. (CST) Discussion and Action – Call for Public Hearing: Request to call a public hearing to initiate rezoning of a 0.2 acre lot located on the east side of Municipal Avenue, 80 feet north of 12th Street, from Light Industrial-1 to Single-Family Residence-6. Located within the Expressway Corridor Overlay District. Project #CPH2025-008. Applicant: Thies Raymond Herman & Janet Lynn. (Legislative consideration)] DISCUSSION AND ACTION. A REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO INITIATE REZONING OF A TWO ACRE LOT LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF MUNICIPAL AVENUE, 80FT NORTH OF 12TH STREET, FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1 TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 6, LOCATED WITHIN THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT. [00:15:05] THE APPLICANTS ARE MR. HERMAN AND MRS. LYNN. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. THE PURPOSE OF THIS CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING IS TO START THE PROCESS FOR A CITY INITIATED REZONING REQUEST FOR THE PROPERTY, LOCATED AT 1202 MUNICIPAL AVENUE. THIS REQUEST IS ON THE BEHALF OF THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO ASKED STAFF TO BEGIN. THE CITY INITIATED REZONING REQUEST AND CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED LI-1. IT WAS REZONED TO LI-1 AS PART OF A LARGER REZONING OF THIS BLOCK. THE BLOCK WAS BLANKET ZONED TO LI-1 IN THE 1970S. IN 2015, 1203 12TH STREET WAS REZONED FROM LI-1 TO SF-6, AND THEN SOON AFTER, IN 2016, 1201 12TH STREET WAS REZONED FROM LI-1 TO SF-6 VIA A CITY INITIATED REZONING REQUEST. THE PROPERTIES, INCLUDING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TONIGHT, HAVE HISTORICALLY BEEN USED AS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. THE PROPERTY OWNER AT 1202 MUNICIPAL AVENUE IS REQUESTING THAT THE CITY INITIATE A REZONING OF THEIR PROPERTY FROM LI-1 TO SF-6, SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CITY INITIATED REZONING IN 2016. 1202 MUNICIPAL AVENUE IS THE ONLY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE BLOCK NORTH OF 12TH STREET THAT RETAINS THE LI-1 REZONING BACK FROM THE, IN THE 1970S, AND CURRENTLY CITY STAFF HAS THE CAPACITY TO CONDUCT THIS REZONING REQUEST, BUT REQUESTS THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER COVER THE ASSOCIATED COST OF POSTING THE ZONING SIGNS ON THEIR PROPERTY AS PART OF THE PROCESS, 28 DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. THE PROCESS FOR THIS BEGINS WITH A CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY THE COMMISSION, AND THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL ALLOWS THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH BEGINNING TO PROCESS THE REZONING REQUEST. AND THE SUPPORT OR LACK OF SUPPORT BY THE COMMISSION IS NOT CONVEYED OR IMPLIED BY CALLING FOR A PUBLIC HEARING TO INITIATE THIS REZONING REQUEST. THIS IS JUST A NECESSARY STEP IN STARTING THE ZONING REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PURPOSE, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION THAT THE PROPERTY OWNER INSTALL THE SIGNAGE REQUIRED WITH THE ZONING PETITION. I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION IS THE PROPERTY OWNER AGREEABLE TO THAT ONE CONDITION? I TALKED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER ON FRIDAY AND EXPLAINED THAT THIS WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS WITH THE ZONING REQUEST. HE UNDERSTOOD THE INFORMATION. OKAY. THEY DIDN'T OBJECT TO THAT. SORRY. MICHELLE, CAN I SAY THAT THEY AGREE TO THE STIPULATION OR NOT? IS THAT? I THINK THAT'S OKAY. THEY CAN ALWAYS COME UP AND CORRECT ME. THEY SEEMED COOL WITH IT OR OKAY WITH IT. SORRY. I'M SORRY. THAT'S A THAT'S A TECHNICAL TERM I REALIZE. I APOLOGIZE [LAUGHS] THAT'S ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ALALI. SO, YOU KNOW, IT IS USED AS RESIDENTIAL LOTS, RIGHT? THERE IS A HOUSE ON THE LOT. YES. SO WHY ARE THEY, LIKE, IF IT'S EXISTING HOUSE AND IF THEY WANT TO DEMOLISH AND BUILD ANOTHER HOUSE, WILL THAT BE AGAINST, LIKE THE ZONING? YES. THE LI ZONING DOES NOT ALLOW FOR TYPICALLY TRADITIONALLY A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. AND SO THERE WOULD BE POTENTIAL ISSUES, LIKE IF THE PROPERTY WERE TO BE DESTROYED BY AN ACT OF GOD OR A WEATHER EVENT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS IN ORDER TO GET A BUILDING PERMIT. SORRY. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. OR SORRY, MAYBE I MISUSED THE. THERE ARE SOME LEGAL NONCONFORMING RIGHTS TO REBUILD THE HOME, BUT THEY HAVE EXPIRATION PERIODS AND OTHER STRINGS ATTACHED, SO IT'S POSSIBLE THEY COULD REBUILD THE HOME UNDER LI-1. BUT THE APPLICANT BELIEVES AND STAFF AGREES, THAT SINGLE FAMILY SIX MAKES MORE SENSE GIVEN EVERYBODY AROUND THEM. AND IT WAS, IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED. IT WAS PREVIOUSLY ZONED RESIDENTIAL BEFORE THE 1970S REZONING TO LI-1. THANK YOU, MR. BELL. YEAH, THANKS. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. I KNOW IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT AM I RIGHT TO ASSUME THAT THE PROPERTY OWNERS. RIGHT. OKAY. SO THEY THEY NODDED WHEN YOU SAID IT WAS COOL. JUST A QUICK QUESTION ON THE CITY INITIATED REZONING IN 2015-2016. [00:20:04] WHY WASN'T THIS RESIDENTIAL PULLED INTO THAT CITY INITIATED IN 2015-2016? SO THE PROPERTY IN THE FAR EAST CORNER SUBMITTED THE APPLICATION TO REZONE THEIR PROPERTY. DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT WAS EXPRESSED BY STAFF THAT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WAS IN SUPPORT OF THE ZONING CHANGE. AND P AND Z ASKED, WELL, IF THEY'RE IN SUPPORT, I THINK WE SHOULD ALSO REZONE THAT ONE. IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FOR THE ENTIRE BLOCK FACE FACING 12TH STREET TO BE THE SAME ZONING. AND SO THE CITY INITIATED IT ON THEIR BEHALF. AND THAT LED TO THE 2016 CASE WHERE THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY WAS APPROVED. SO IT WAS 2015 WAS INITIATED BY THE PROPERTY OWNER, WHICH LED TO THE CITY NEIGHBORING REZONING THE NEIGHBOR. THIS ONE WAS NOT INCLUDED IN THE DISCUSSION. I THINK MOSTLY BECAUSE THAT PROPERTY OWNER DID NOT RESPOND TO THE ZONING CASE IN 2015. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER. JUST A QUESTION IS, DOES THIS HOUSE ACTUALLY FRONT ON MUNICIPAL? YES IT DOES. YES. OKAY. SO THAT MIGHT BE A REASON WHY IT WAS LEFT OUT BACK THEN TOO. SO. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I MOVE, WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSE AS DISCUSSED BY STAFF, SUBJECT TO THE CONDITION PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. OOPS. LET'S TRY THAT ONE MORE TIME. I'LL SECOND. THERE YOU GO. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. JUST LET ME, LET ME. WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED ON THIS ITEM, DID WE? WE DID NOT. OKAY. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. ALL RIGHT. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. ITEM FIVE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE. [5. (DW) Discussion and Action – Call for Public Hearing: Request to call a public hearing to amend Planned Development-189-Retail/General Office on 108.0 acres located on the southeast corner of Park Boulevard and Preston Road. Zoned Planned Development189-Retail/General Office with Specific Use Permits No. 229 for Private Club, No. 445 for Day Care Center, No. 601 for Public Storage/Mini-warehouse, and No. 649 for Private Club. Project #CPH2025-009. Applicant: Trevor D. Armstong. (Legislative consideration)] DISCUSSION AND ACTION. CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING. REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 189 RETAIL/GENERAL OFFICE ON 108 ACRES, LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARK BOULEVARD AND PRESTON ROAD. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 189 RETAIL/GENERAL OFFICE WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS NUMBER 229 FOR PRIVATE CLUB. NUMBER 445 FOR DAYCARE CENTER. NUMBER 601 FOR PUBLIC STORAGE/MINI WAREHOUSE AND NUMBER 649 FOR PRIVATE CLUB. THE APPLICANT IS TREVOR D. ARMSTRONG. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. DESTINY WOODS, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE GRAPHIC ON THE SCREEN SHOWS THE AREA OF REQUEST AND THIS APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY ON ONE SPECIFIC LOT WITHIN PD-189. THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY IS NOT CURRENTLY ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THIS DISTRICT. SO THE APPLICANT WOULD NEED TO AMEND THE STIPULATIONS IN ORDER TO BUILD THEIR REQUEST. SO WHERE PD IS DIVIDED AMONG MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS, ALL OWNERS MUST AUTHORIZE THE SUBMISSION OF PETITIONS TO AMEND THE REGULATIONS THAT APPLY TO THAT DISTRICT. AND IT'S REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING, SINCE CONSENT HAS NOT BEEN GIVEN BY ALL OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS. SO FOR A CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, THE PROCESS BEGINS WITH A CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING BY THIS COMMISSION. AND THEN THE COMMISSION'S APPROVAL WILL ALLOW THE CITY TO MOVE FORWARD AND SUBMIT THE ZONING PETITION. AND THIS COMMISSION'S SUPPORT OR LACK OF SUPPORT FOR THE ZONING REQUEST IS NOT IMPLIED BY CALLING THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALL A PUBLIC HEARING, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. I HAVE ONE TECHNICAL QUESTION FOR YOU. I KNOW WE NORMALLY NOTIFY EVERYBODY WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS OF THE CASE. IN THIS CASE, FOR THE PD, DO WE NOTIFY ALL OF THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THAT PD AS WELL? OR SINCE WE'RE BASICALLY DOING IT ON THEIR BEHALF, OR IF THEY'RE OUTSIDE THE RADIUS, DO THEY NOT GET A NOTICE. THEY WILL STILL BE NOTICED. RIGHT. OKAY. SO ALL THE OTHER OWNERS IN THE PD WILL BE NOTIFIED REGARDLESS OF DISTANCE. OKAY, GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE OTHER PROPERTY HOLDERS WITHIN THIS. YOU MENTIONED THAT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GET THE CONSENT OF ALL OF THEM. ARE ANY OF THEM IN OPPOSITION TO THIS? I'M NOT SURE AS CITY, THE CITY DID NOT CONTACT THE PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT THE APPLICANT DID MENTION THAT THEY CONTACTED SOME OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO GET A HOLD WITH ALL OF THEM. SO THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT IF THEY ARE HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. SURE. MR. OLLEY. PIGGYBACKING OFF OF THE LAST TWO SO WE ISSUE A CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, [00:25:08] THERE ARE 100 PLUS STAKEHOLDERS WITH THIS. WHAT IS THE CITY'S ROADMAP? TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE APPROPRIATE NOTICE TO THOSE STAKEHOLDERS. SO FOR EVERY ZONING CASE, A NOTICE WILL BE SENT OUT FOR 200FT OUTSIDE OR OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS THE ENTIRE ZONING DISTRICT, AND THEN AN ADDITIONAL 500FT OUTSIDE OF THAT AREA. SO THAT MEANS THAT WITHIN THE ZONING BOUNDARY THERE, WITHIN THAT 200FT. SO THEY'LL BE NOTICED. NOTICED ELECTRONICALLY. DOOR HANGERS. SENT. HOW DO WE INTENT OF WE GETTING THERE? SEND SOMETHING IN THE MAIL, AND IT GIVES THEM A BRIEF OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE PROPOSAL IS. IT GIVES THEM LOCATION OF WHERE THE PROPOSAL IS HAPPENING AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO LEAVE COMMENT OR RESPONSE WITH THEIR SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION OR NEUTRALITY. THERE'S ALSO A SIGNED REQUIREMENT HAS TO BE POSTED ON THE PROPERTY. ARE WE? AND WE ARE NOT BEHOLDEN TO ANY MEASURE OF RESPONSE AS LONG AS WE HAVE GOOD FAITH IN COMMUNICATING THIS, THE ZONING CASE GOES AHEAD AS CALLED. WE DON'T NEED LIKE 10% OF RESPONDENTS TO MAKE THIS CASE VIABLE OR WHAT HAVE YOU. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WOULD DEPEND ON HOW MANY RESPONSES WE RECEIVE BACK. OKAY. THANK YOU. SURE. MR. BENDER. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. YOU MENTIONED ON THE NOTICE YOU SAID, IN ADDITION, 500FT OUTSIDE OF THE, OF 189. SO IT WOULD BE SPECIFICALLY TO THE EAST WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES ALONG OHIO? YES. INCLUDED IN THAT NOTICE. THEY MIGHT BE, I THINK THEY'RE WITHIN THAT 500 FOOT DISTANCE. YEAH. I WOULD THINK THEY WOULD. YEP. THANK YOU. SURE. COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WONDER IF THIS WILL FALL INTO THE NEW LAWS CATEGORY, LIKE THE WHETHER IT'S A ZONING CHANGE OR NOT. YES. SO THE SENATE BILL 840 UPDATES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WE JUST MADE WILL DO AFFECT THIS PROPERTY. HOWEVER, IT'S OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY WOULD NEED A PLAN DEVELOPMENT EITHER WAY, BASED ON THE HEIGHTS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE REQUESTING. SO IF IT'S NOT A ZONING CHANGE, MAYBE THEY DON'T REQUIRE NOTICES. IT'LL BE A ZONING CHANGE EITHER WAY. UNDER THE CURRENT LAW OR THE NEW LAW, IT WOULD STILL REQUIRE ZONING CHANGE. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ALALI. SO WHAT HAPPENS IF, LIKE, WE KNOW THAT SOME OF THE OWNERS ARE, LIKE, NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS PROPOSITION? THEY'LL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND TO THEIR NOTICE THAT IS SENT OUT. I MEAN, WILL IT, WILL IT AFFECT, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE ZONING REQUEST, IF THERE ARE OWNERS? LIKE JUST IN GENERAL. THERE ARE, THE 20% RULE APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY ITSELF THAT'S BEING REZONED. SO IF 20% OR MORE OF THE LAND, IT'S BY LAND, SO 20% OR MORE OF THE LAND SUBMITS A RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION, IT TRIGGERS A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE AT CITY COUNCIL. SO YOU'RE LIKE, OKAY, THANKS. SO MAKE SURE, TO TRIGGER A SUPERMAJORITY, JUST TO COUNCIL OR HERE TOO? JUST TO COUNCIL. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. IS THAT 20% OF THE LANDHOLDERS OR OF ANYBODY WITHIN THAT? COULD THAT BE A NONRESIDENTIAL PEOPLE SUBMITTING AS WELL? 20% OF PROPERTY OWNERS, PROPERTY OWNERS, OR 20% OF THE NOTICE GOES TO PROPERTY OWNERS AND THEIR EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF LAND. ALL THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS MUST ADD UP TO 20% OR MORE OF THE LAND AREA, EITHER INSIDE THE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING REZONED, OR WITHIN 200FT SURROUNDING THE PROPERTY OWNER TO BE TO BE REZONED. SO IF I WERE SOMEBODY OPERATING A BUSINESS IN HERE AND I SUBMITTED A NEGATIVE RESPONSE, HOW WOULD THAT BE CALCULATED? WHERE WOULD THAT. THE PROPERTY OWNER IS WHAT'S CALCULATED IN THE 20% OPPOSITION. SO IF IT'S A BUSINESS OWNER, WE WILL STILL PROVIDE THAT INFORMATION TO THE P&Z AND THE COUNCIL BUT IT DOESN'T COUNT TOWARDS THE 20%. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE. THEY OWN THE LAND THEY SIT ON. YES. CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. IF NO FURTHER DISCUSSION IS, I'M OKAY TO MAKE WE HAVE AN APPLICANT HERE. LET'S SEE IF ANYBODY HAS QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOT SEEING ANY. ALL RIGHT. WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE. DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. YEAH I THINK I HAVE ONE. SO THE APPLICANT. IF YOU CAN GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. [00:30:09] GOOD EVENING. COMMISSIONERS TREVOR ARMSTRONG 111 CARNOUSTIE DRIVE TROPHY CLUB TEXAS. SO I THINK ONE OF THE COMMISSIONERS, I DON'T REMEMBER WHO. HAVE YOU ALL REACHED OUT TO THE OTHER PROPERTY OWNERS IN THE PD AND HAVE HOW SUCCESSFUL HAVE YOU BEEN GETTING IN TOUCH WITH THEM? WE HAVE. SO WE HAD A COMMUNITY MEETING IN MAY. WE MAILED AND EMAILED OUR INVITATIONS TO THAT MEETING TO OVER 100 ADDRESSES. WE HAD ABOUT 20 PEOPLE SHOW UP TO THE MEETING. WHAT WE LEARNED, THOUGH, WITH THE PD IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF THOSE OWNERS IN THE RETAIL CENTER ARE OUT OF STATE CORPORATIONS, SO THE ACTUAL BUSINESSES THEMSELVES ARE HARDER TO GET AHOLD OF. WE HAVE TO DO A LOT MORE GRASSROOTS MOVEMENT TO GET IN FRONT OF THEM AT THE DOOR, BUT OTHERWISE WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY NEGATIVE RESPONSES FROM THE INVITATIONS THAT WE SENT. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOBODY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION. MR. BRONSKY. I MOVE WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PURPOSES AS DISCUSSED IN AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER BUSINESS WE HAVE BEFORE THE COMMISSION TONIGHT? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'LL ADJOURN THIS MEETING AT 6:31 P.M.. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.