[00:00:05]
>> [MUSIC] WELCOME TO THE JANUARY 20 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
[CALL TO ORDER ]
I'LL CALL THE ORDER MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:01 P.M.IF YOU WOULD ALL, PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.
DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST TONIGHT?
>> THERE ARE NO COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.
>> LET'S MOVE TO CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE.
>> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND
[CONSENT AGENDA ]
CONTAINS ITEMS THAT ARE TYPICALLY ROUTINE AND NON CONTROVERSIAL.ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.
>> COMMISSION, DOES ANYBODY WISH TO PULL AN ITEM OFF THE CONSENT AGENDA? MR. LINGENFELTER.
>> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED.
PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO ZERO.
ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.
[1. (MC) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2025-003 – Request to expand and amend Urban Mixed-Use-1 on 160.4 acres of land out of the William Beverly Survey, Abstract No. 75, and the Samuel Klepper Survey, Abstract No. 216, located at the southeast corner of Plano Parkway and Custer Road in the City of Plano, Collin County, Texas, for the following changes: to expand the district by rezoning 4.1 acres from Light Industrial-1 to Urban Mixed-Use-1; to modify the required mix of uses; to allow outdoor commercial amusement, additional multifamily residence units, and single-family attached units on certain blocks of the development plan; and to modify other development standards for the district; presently zoned Urban Mixed-Use-1 and Light Industrial-1 and located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. Projects #ZC2025-003 & #DP2025-001. Petitioners: Rosewood Property Company, RPC Walnut, LLC, and CLP Plano, LLC. (Legislative consideration) ]
>> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE 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.
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.
NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. RESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.
RESIDING 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 ONE, REQUEST TO EXPAND AND AMEND URBAN MIXED USE ONE ON 160.4 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE WILLIAM BEVERLY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 75 IN THE SAMUEL CLIPPER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 216, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PLANO PARKWAY AND CUSTER ROAD IN THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, FOR THE FOLLOWING CHANGES.
TO EXPAND THE DISTRICT BY REZONING 4.1 ACRES FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE TO URBAN MIXED USE ONE, TO MODIFY THE REQUIRED MIX OF USES TO ALLOW OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT.
ADDITIONAL MULTI FAMILY RESIDENCE UNITS AND SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS ON CERTAIN BLOCKS OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND TO MODIFY OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE DISTRICT.
PRESENTLY ZONED URBAN MIXED USE ONE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY, PLANO PARKWAY, AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS, ADDITIONER IS THE ROSEWOOD PROPERTY COMPANY, RPC WALA, LLC, AND CLP PLANO, LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
>> BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, IS THERE A REASON THIS MONITOR IS NOT ON TONIGHT? IS THERE A SOME OF US DEPEND ON IT.
SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU. IT HELPS US IF WE CAN FOLLOW ALONG. THERE WE GO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SORRY TO DELAY YOU STAFF REPORT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR RATCLIFFE. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS MOLLY CORYELL, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OF THE ZONING CASE, WHICH IS THE ENTIRE UMU-1DISTRICT, STANDING FOR URBAN MIXED USE.
HERE IS THE ASSOCIATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN, HERE IS THE OVERALL AREA.
HERE IS THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AS WELL AS THE EASTERN PORTION.
MAJOR TOPICS OF TONIGHT'S REQUEST INCLUDE THE EXPANSION OF THE DISTRICT BY REZONING 4.1 ACRES OF ADJACENT LAND FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL-1 TO UMU-1 FOR ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS, AS WELL AS MODIFYING THE REQUIRED MIX OF USES TO EXCEED THE STANDARD MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE OF ANY ONE PRIMARY USE SPECIFICALLY FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
RELATED IS REDUCING THE MIX OF USES REQUIREMENT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES,
[00:05:01]
AS WELL AS MODIFYING OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE DISTRICT, PRIMARILY FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, AND PROPOSING ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION STANDARDS FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS THAT ARE WITHIN THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT.A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS CASE.
THE UMU-1 DISTRICT WAS ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED IN 2014 WITH PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL OFFICE AND HOTEL WITH ADDITIONAL SUPPORTIVE RESTAURANT AND RETAIL USES.
IN 2017, THE DISTRICT WAS EMITTED TWICE IN ORDER TO REFINE USE ALLOCATION, SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS, BLOCK CONFIGURATION, AND STREET LAYOUT.
THEN IN 2021, SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WERE MADE TO THE UMU-1 DISTRICT TO DEMOTE OFFICE AS A SUPPORTIVE USE OR SECONDARY USE.
THEN ALONG WITH A GREATER THAN 50% REDUCTION IN OFFICE BUILDING HEIGHTS, CONE A CONNECTION TO CUSTER ROAD WAS ESTABLISHED AND THE ADDITION OF 31 NEW SINGLE FAMILY LOTS.
TONIGHT'S REQUESTS INCLUDE EXPANDING THE DISTRICT TO REZONE LI-1 PROPERTY INTO THE UMU-1 DISTRICT FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING 51 SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS.
THIS PROPOSED LAND USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE UMU-1 DISTRICT, AND REDUCTION IN LI-1 ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING, WHICH IS A MIX OF UMU-1 AND THEN SINGLE FAMILY TO THE NORTH.
THE PORTION OF THE REQUEST THAT RELATES TO MODIFYING THE MIX OF USES, HOWEVER, IS.
PARDON ME. THERE IS A REQUIRED MIX OF USES FOR ALL URBAN MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICTS, AND THEY MUST CONTAIN THREE OR MORE LAND USE CATEGORIES WITH EACH CATEGORY DESIGNATED AS EITHER PRIMARY SECONDARY AND TERTIARY USES.
THIS MIX OF USES IS DETERMINED BY THE TOTAL GROSS FLOOR AREA OF BUILDINGS WITHIN THE DISTRICT AND CALCULATING THE PERCENTAGE EACH USE HAS FROM THERE.
THE UMU-1 DISTRICT CURRENTLY MEETS THE STANDARD MIX OF USE REQUIREMENTS.
HOWEVER, THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING THAT THE MIX OF USES BE MODIFIED TO ALLOW AN INCREASE IN THE MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL USES FROM 70% AS CURRENTLY ALLOWED TO 88%, MAKING IT THE SOLE PRIMARY USE WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
OFFICE USES WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED AS A SECONDARY USE FOR THE DISTRICT, BUT WILL BE CONSIDERED A TERTIARY USE UNDER THE ZONING REQUEST ALONG WITH RETAIL AND SERVICE USES.
NOW, AS SHOWN ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WHICH IS ADOPTED AS PART OF THE ZONING, THE REDUCTIONS IN THE MIX OF USES SHOW AN INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL USES FROM 53%-88%, REDUCING OFFICE USES FROM 39%-9%.
THERE'S NO SIGNIFICANT CHANGE TO RETAILER SERVICE USAGE, WHICH IS STILL AROUND 3%.
HOWEVER, THERE IS ALSO THE REMOVAL OF THE HOTEL USE WHICH USED TO ACCOUNT FOR 4.8% OF THE OVERALL DISTRICT GROSS FLOOR AREA AS ON THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
THE RESIDENTIAL ELEMENT TO MODIFYING THE MIX OF USES INCLUDES ADDING 700 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE UNITS AND 51 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTS ATTACHED UNITS.
HOWEVER, WITH THIS, THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL PHASING OF OPEN SPACE OR NON RESIDENTIAL USES PROPOSED IN ORDER TO HELP BALANCE THE REQUEST.
ADDITIONALLY, THE SCALE, DENSITY, AND MASS OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS SURPASSES THE NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS BEING PROPOSED.
THE MIX OF USES AND NON RESIDENTIAL ELEMENTS.
THIS WOULD MEAN THAT NON RESIDENTIAL USES WOULD ONLY ACCOUNT FOR 12% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGES HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY APPROXIMATELY 86% SINCE THE ORIGINAL REQUEST, AND BUILDINGS HAVE A SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER HEIGHT AS WELL AS REDUCED LOT COVERAGE IN BUILDING AREA.
OVERALL, THE TREND, AS SHOWN ON THIS CHART IS THAT THERE IS A REDUCTION IN OVERALL SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, AS SHOWN IN THE BOX IN RED ON THE CHART.
HOWEVER, THERE ARE INCREASES IN RESIDENTIAL USES, SPECIFICALLY SINGLE FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY, AS SHOWN IN THE GREEN BOX.
THE REDUCTIONS ARE ALSO RELATED TO REDUCTIONS IN LOT COVERAGE AS WELL AS BUILDING HEIGHTS, AND THIS IS INDICATIVE OF BECOMING A HIGH DENSITY NEIGHBORHOOD RATHER THAN A MIXED USE DISTRICT.
THE REQUEST IS MODIFYING OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO PRIMARILY NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, A DECREASE IN LOT COVERAGE FROM 60% FROM ANYWHERE 9-40% FOR CERTAIN BLOCKS.
[00:10:06]
BUILDING HEIGHTS DECREASE TO 1-2 STORIES ON NON RESIDENTIAL LOTS, REDUCTIONS IN FREE STANDING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SIZES, AS WELL AS REQUESTED.ALL OF THESE EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
FOR BLOCKS A5 AND C, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO ALLOW FOR OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT AS AN ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USE.
THIS USE IS TYPICALLY PROHIBITED IN THE UMU DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, OUR DEFINITION IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE IS QUITE EXPANSIVE.
IT INCLUDES OUTDOOR LEISURE ACTIVITIES SUCH AS GO CARTS, MINI GOLF, CARNIVALS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED EXCEPTIONS ARE LIMITING THE OUTDOOR LEISURE ACTIVITIES TO THINGS LIKE TABLE COURTS AND FIELDS, MINI GOLF, OTHER SIMILAR LEISURE ACTIVITIES THAT DON'T HAVE THOSE SAME NOISE CONCERNS AS SOMETHING LIKE A GO CART OR A CARNIVAL.
STAFF BELIEVES THAT THE USE WILL BE COMPLIMENTARY TO THE DISTRICT AND TO THE ADJACENT OPEN SPACE.
ADDITIONALLY, ALL USES WILL BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ALL APPLICABLE NOISE AND LIGHT ORDINANCES, AS ADOPTED AS PART OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.
I'D LIKE TO MAKE AN AMENDMENT TO THE SLIDE.
THE SLIDE REFERS TO THE THE LIGHT BLUE AREA AS THE R-ECA.
THAT'S ACTUALLY THE CECA, THE CONDITIONAL EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR AREA.
HOWEVER, WITHIN THE CONDITIONAL EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR AREA, IT'S REQUIRED THAT SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS BE BUFFERED FROM TYPE A THOROUGHFARES BY EITHER A 100 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR OR GREATER HEIGHT AND LENGTH TO THE HOMES.
THAT WOULD BE THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO BLOCK M. IT'S CURRENTLY SHOWN AS A NON-RESIDENTIAL BLOCK.
WOULD HAVE TO BE DEVELOPED AS SUCH IN ORDER FOR THE TOWN HOMES TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT.
THIS CHART SHOWS OUR TYPICAL AND PROPOSED STANDARDS FOR DEVELOPMENT WITHIN THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT FOR RESIDENTIAL USES.
AS YOU CAN SEE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MEET THE APPLICABLE VENTILATION AND NOISE REQUIREMENTS.
HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO THE REQUIRED SEPARATION THAT I TALKED ABOUT ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, YOU CAN SEE THAT THE ALTERNATIVE STANDARD BEING PROPOSED IS NON-CONTINUOUS NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF A SHORTER HEIGHT.
TO THE RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURES LOCATED ON BLOCK C. HOWEVER, WITH TREES PLANTED IN BETWEEN THE BUILDINGS IN ORDER TO HELP CREATE THAT BUFFER.
HOWEVER, THE PROPOSED STANDARD DOES NOT PROVIDE EQUAL MITIGATION TO THE TYPICAL STANDARD, SO STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT.
THERE ARE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW.
THE APPLICATION WAS MADE PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1, 2025 AND IS BEING REVIEWED UNDER THE ORDINANCES ADOPTED AT THAT TIME.
HOWEVER, THE APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT COULD AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION.
AN APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT COULD BE SUBMITTED AND AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE SITE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A ZONING CHANGE AND WOULD BE REVIEWED UNDER CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.
THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE URBAN ACTIVITIES FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.
FOR THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS MIX OF USES, THE PROPOSAL RESULTS IN THE FOLLOWING IMPACTS TO THE RECOMMENDED URBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS MIX OF USES, WHICH CREATES AN INCREASE IN THE OVERALL HOUSING ACREAGE, AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY TYPES, INCREASE IN ATTACHED SINGLE FAMILY TYPES, WHICH IS RECOMMENDED FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AS WELL AS DECREASES AND OFFICE TYPES BELOW THE RECOMMENDED RANGE.
THUS THE PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE MIX OF USES.
THE REQUEST IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE INTENSITY RECOMMENDATION OF THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER'S DESIRABLE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS DASHBOARD, WHICH IS RELATED TO THE PROPOSED REDUCTIONS IN LOCK COVERAGE AS PART OF THIS REQUEST.
FINALLY, THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY OR ACTIONS 1, 5A, 5B, 5C AND 8 OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY.
BECAUSE THE REQUEST DOES NOT MEET THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER'S MIX OF USES OR THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY ACTION 8, FINDINGS WILL BE REQUIRED.
STAFF RECEIVED 12 RESPONSES TOTAL WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY,
[00:15:03]
NINE BEING IN FAVOR, ONE NEUTRAL, AND TWO IN OPPOSITION.WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER, STAFF RECEIVED THREE RESPONSES, OVERALL, ALL IN FAVOR OF THEIR REQUEST.
CITY WIDE, THERE WAS 28 RESPONSES RECEIVED TOTAL, INCLUDING THE ONLINE RESPONSES.
THE REQUEST TONIGHT IS TO INCORPORATE AN AREA OF LAND CURRENTLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING TOWN HOMES, AND INCORPORATING THOSE TOWN HOMES, UTILIZING ALTERNATIVE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS, MODIFYING THE MIX OF USE REQUIREMENTS TO EXCEED THE STANDARD ALLOWANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL AS A PRIMARY USE IN BOTH THE UMU DISTRICT AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO 12% OF THE DISTRICT BASED ON GROSS FLOOR AREA, AND AMENDING VARIOUS SITE DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH SUPPORT WALKABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT FORM CONSISTENT WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT.
STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS THAT WE ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THE GEOGRAPHIC EXPANSION OF THE UMU-1 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE EXPRESSWAY CORD OR OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS FOR BLOCK Z.
PER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FINDINGS POLICY, THE OTHER REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE EXISTING UMU-1 DISTRICT ARE RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL AND MUST BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST IF P&Z WISHES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH, AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION AS WELL FOLLOWING THIS SLIDE.
>> COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. GREAT PRESENTATION.
THANK YOU. LOTS OF INFORMATION, LOTS OF WORDS.
MY QUESTION IS THAT MIX OF USES FOR UMU THE PERCENTAGES, 75% WHATEVER THOSE PERCENTAGES, WHEN WAS THE MIX OF THE USES? WHEN WERE THEY SET IN THE ORDINANCE? WAS IT TOGETHER WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR IT WAS YEARS BEFORE? WHEN WERE THEY REGULATED?
>> THE MIX OF USE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN THE ZONING IN THE UMU-1 DISTRICT, AND THERE ARE A LOT OF SLIDES.
TRYING TO GO BACK. HERE WE ARE.
THE RANGES OF THE PERCENTAGE OF MIX OF USES SET FORTH IN THE UMU-1 DISTRICT WERE ADOPTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
MR. BELL CAN SPEAK ON THE DIFFERENCES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS RECOMMENDATION MIX OF USES, BUT THIS WAS ADOPTED PRIOR TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
>> MISS CORRELL IS CORRECT, THE UMU DISTRICT CITYWIDE, THE ABILITY TO HAVE THIS DISTRICT WAS ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE IN 2012, AND THAT'S WHEN THOSE MIX OF USES WERE ORIGINALLY ESTABLISHED.
>> THANK YOU. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, MORE FOR EDUCATION AND ALSO CLARIFICATION.
CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT SHOWED THE TIMELINE OF THE USES.
IN 2021, ESSENTIALLY, WHAT WE DID WAS WE TEARED DOWN OFFICE AS A PRIMARY USE AND MADE IT A SECONDARY.
ANY RECOLLECTION? MAYBE THIS IS MORE FOR MR. BELL WHY WE DID THAT AT THAT POINT?
>> AT THAT TIME, IN 2021, THE MARKET WAS I GUESS, PRETTY VICIOUS TOWARDS OFFICE USES, AND THE REQUEST WAS MADE BASED ON THE CURRENT ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THAT MUCH OFFICE IN THE DISTRICT.
MR. BELL, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG.
>> I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT COULD PROBABLY SPEAK MORE TO THE SPECIFICS OF THEIR REQUEST, BUT I THINK THAT'S GENERALLY ALONG THE LINE OF WHAT WAS THE REASONING.
>> THIS IS THE MORE FOR EDUCATION PART.
WHY DO WE REQUIRE TEARING IN MIXED USE? WHY DO WE REQUIRE A PRIMARY, SECONDARY, TERTIARY TRAIL OF USES?
>> IT'S TO ENSURE THAT THE DISTRICT HAS A VIABLE MIX OF DIFFERENT USES IN ORDER TO BE TRULY MIXED USE.
THE PURPOSE OF THE UMU DISTRICT IS TO PROVIDE A COMMUNITY WITH ITS OWN INTERNAL ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT THAT IT PROVIDES OFFICE, RETAIL, RESIDENTIAL, AND SO SETTING THOSE PRIMARY USES AND HAVING THOSE PRIMARY USE REQUIREMENTS AND EVERYTHING ENSURES THAT THERE'S A, ACCEPTABLE MIX OF USES WITHIN THE MIXED USE DISTRICT.
[00:20:02]
THAT'S NOT DOMINATED BY ONE PRIMARY USE CATEGORY.>> ADD TO THAT, A MIX OF DAY TIME AND NIGHT TIME ACTIVITIES.
THE OFFICE WILL OFTEN SUPPORT RETAIL AND RESTAURANT DURING THE DAY, AND RESIDENTS WILL SUPPORT IT AT NIGHT, SO TO HELP CREATE A COHESIVE LIVE WORK PLAY 247 TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT.
>> WHICH TIES WE THE URBAN ACTIVITY WE'RE LOOKING FOR THAT PARTICULAR AREA.
THE L ONE ISOLATED ISLAND IN THERE.
I PRESUME WE'RE NOT COUNTING IT TOWARDS WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PERCENTAGE MIX AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
WE'RE NOT THAT DOESN'T FACTOR INTO WHAT IS OFFICE FOR THAT AREA.
WE'RE LOOKING AT THE PARTICULAR UMU.
>> YES, BLOCK C ISN'T COUNTED TOWARDS ANY USE RIGHT NOW IN THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED UMU-1 DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS IT WASN'T A PART OF THE DISTRICT, IF IT WERE TO BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, IT WOULD INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL USES WITHIN THE DISTRICT.
HOWEVER, THE CURRENTLY ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN ONLY HAS 53% GROSS FLOOR AREA OF RESIDENTIAL USES.
STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THAT THE 51 ADDITIONAL TOWN HOME UNITS WOULD INCREASE THE MIX OF USES FOR RESIDENTIAL ABOVE 70%.
IT'S THE 700 MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT REALLY INCREASE THE GROSS FLOOR AREA TO 88%.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR EVERYTHING YOU'RE DOING UP THERE.
I HAVE A ON THE TIMELINE QUESTION OR A TIMELINE SLIDE, I THINK 16.
I GUESS THIS IS GOING TO. THE CONTINUED EROSION OF THE PRIMARY USES.
DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE IS ANY CASE FOR THAT BEING SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL FOR THE VIABILITY OF THIS UMU DISTRICT, SPECIFIC TO THE MIX OF USES AND THE CHANGES OVER TIME?
>> COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, WOULD YOU MIND REPEATING YOUR QUESTION FOR ME? I APOLOGIZE
>> NO, IT'S FINE. MY BRAIN ISN'T ALWAYS FOLLOWING ANYWAY.
THE CONTINUED EROSION OF THE PRIMARY AND SECONDARY USES TO TERTIARY USES THAT WE'RE SEEING PREVIOUSLY AND FORWARD.
WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL.
MY QUESTION, IS THE CONTINUATION OF THAT EROSION BY MOVING THIS ALONG TO ANOTHER EROSION? DOES THAT REMOVE THE VIABILITY OF THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT AS IT WAS INTENDED TO BE?
>> I BELIEVE IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF NOTED THAT THIS REDUCTION IN NON RESIDENTIAL USES IN TANDEM WITH THE INCREASE OF RESIDENTIAL USES IS NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE PURPOSE OF A MIXED USE DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY THE PURPOSE STATEMENT OF THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.
>> THEN I CAN DEDUCE FROM WHAT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE LEVEL TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO APPROVE THIS HAS GOT TO BE A PRETTY HIGH BAR FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN ARGUMENT TO GO AGAINST WHAT THE STAFF IS SUGGESTING THEN, IS THAT CORRECT? I'M NOT ASKING YOU TO MAKE A DECISION.
IT WOULD SEEM TO ME THAT FOR US TO SIT BACK HERE AND SAY THAT SOMETHING IS SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL WHEN THE STAFF IS LOOKING AT US TELLING US THAT THE CONTINUED EROSION CAUSES THIS PARTICULAR DISTRICT TO BE LESS VIABLE FOR THE PURPOSE THAT IT WAS CREATED, SEEMS TO ME TO BE A DIFFICULT TASK.
THAT WAS ALL I WAS TRYING TO GET ACROSS THERE.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DOES THE UMU DISTRICT UNDER CITY ORDINANCES REQUIRE A PHASE DEVELOPMENT OF RESIDENTIAL AND NON RESIDENTIAL USES IN RELATION TO EACH OTHER?
>> THANK YOU FOR THAT QUESTION, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.
YES, THE BASE UMU DISTRICT DOES HAVE REQUIRED PHASING.
THE REQUIRED PHASING IS THAT AT THE FIRST PHASE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON RESIDENTIAL USES IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED.
[00:25:01]
THEY HAVE ALREADY MET THIS REQUIREMENT WITH THE RESTAURANTS ON BLOCK T AND THE OFFICE USES NEXT DOOR, THAT'S THE FLYING FISH AND THE RODEO GOT IN THAT AREA.HOWEVER, STAFF RECOMMENDED TO ADD ADDITIONAL PHASING FOR THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE UMU-1 DISTRICT, AS IT RELATED TO THE REQUEST TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE DISTRICT ABOVE WHAT A PRIMARY USE CATEGORY CAN ALLOW, SO BECAUSE THEY WERE REQUESTING ABOVE 70% OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES, STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT ADDITIONAL PHASING BE PROVIDED FOR THE WESTERN PORTION BEYOND THE BASE UM UMU DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, AND THE APPLICANT OPTED TO NOT INCLUDE THEM.
>> NOW, ALSO I UNDERSTAND THAT, ON THE 4.1 ACRE TRACT THAT THEY'RE ASKING TO REZONE FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AND BRING IT INTO TO THE UMU.
THEY'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED.
NOW, THERE'S ANOTHER UNDEVELOPED PORTION IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT IS THE WESTERN MOST AREA OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, ABUTTING CUSTER ROAD.
CAN YOU TELL ME WHAT THEY'RE PLANNING TO BUILD ON THAT?
>> YES, ALONG THE WESTERN PORTION, AND LET ME PULL UP.
I KNOW IT'S VERY HARD WITH THE SCALE, BUT WE HAVE THE WESTERN PORTION RIGHT HERE.
CLOSEST TO CUSTER ROAD, CLOSEST TO THE PGPT WE HAVE A SIX STORY OFFICE IN THAT CORNER GOING UP TO THE CORNER OF CUSTER AND PLANO PARKWAY.
THERE ARE TWO NON RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE LABELED AS RETAIL AND RESTAURANT, BOTH TOTALING 10,000 GROSS SQUARE FEET.
TWO OF THEM GOING INTO THE DISTRICT ALONG DALHART ROAD, THAT'S THAT MAIN ROAD IN THE CENTER.
YOU HAVE FOUR STORY MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS TO THE NORTH OF DALHART.
TWO OF THOSE ARE ALREADY IN CONSTRUCTION.
BLOCK A TWO, LOT ONE IS A PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY BUILDING.
>> BLOCKS A FOUR AND A FIVE TO THE SOUTH PART OF DALHART ROAD ARE NON RESIDENTIAL RETAIL AND RESTAURANT BUILDINGS WITH A PARKING GARAGE AND SURFACE PARKING.
BLOCK C RIGHT NEXT TO A FIVE IS THE RETAIL RESTAURANT WITH OUTDOOR COURTS CURRENTLY BEING SHOWN.
THEN YOU HAVE BLOCK F, THE EASTERN, WESTERN PORTION, I GUESS, THE EASTERN MOST PORTION OF THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE UMU-1 DISTRICT IS BEING PROPOSED AS A MULTIFAMILY INSTEAD OF SUPPORTIVE RETAIL AND HOTEL.
>> ALL THAT IS UNDER THE CURRENT PROPOSAL? FOR REZONING?
>> YES. AS PART OF THE REZONING REQUEST, THEY ARE ADDING 700 NEW MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
THERE WILL BE 2000 MULTIFAMILY UNITS TOTAL IN THE DISTRICT AS OPPOSED TO 1,300, AND THEN THEY ARE MODIFYING THE NON RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS TO HAVE LESS INTENSE OF A SCALE, LESS DENSE NON RESIDENTIAL USES, LIKE RETAIL RESTAURANT.
>> COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SEEING NONE?
>> A QUICK CORRECTION, MISS CORRELL, IF I'M MISSING SOMETHING PLEASE LET ME KNOW, BUT I BELIEVE THE STANDARD UMU PHASING REQUIREMENT IS 20,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON RESIDENTIAL INSTEAD OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
>> I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT, MR. BROUNOFF.
COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, YOU'RE AWARE OF THE PHASING REQUIREMENT IS 20,000 SQUARE FEET AT THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT, NOT 10,000 SQUARE FEET.
THANK YOU FOR THAT CORRECTION, MR. BELL.
>> I KNOW THE DEVELOPER HAS A PRESENTATION.
LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST, SO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
THEN I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION FOR US AS WELL.
MR. DALTROM YOU KNOW THE DRILL. OKAY.
>> MR. CHAIR, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS BILL DALTROM, 23 23 ROSS AVENUE, THANK STAFF.
WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF FOR, WE'VE BEEN VISITING THEM FOR OVER A YEAR AND A HALF.
WE FILED THIS CASE LAST SPRING.
A LOT OF I THINK WE HAD EIGHT OR NINE ROUNDS OF COMMENTS AND CONCESSIONS THAT WE MADE TO GET TO THIS POINT.
IT'S OBVIOUSLY A VERY DIFFICULT CASE BECAUSE OF THE MARKET, BECAUSE OF WHAT'S GONE ON ON THE SITE.
AND AS MOLLY MENTIONED, THE ISSUES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BUT IT'S BEEN A PRIVILEGE AND AN HONOR FOR ME TO HAVE REPRESENTED ROSEWOOD SINCE 2014 ON THIS PROJECT, AND IT IS A VERY IMPORTANT PROJECT IN THE CITY, AND IT IS A WELL RECOGNIZED PROJECT IN THE REGION, WHEN PEOPLE TELL YOU ABOUT HERITAGE CREEKSIDE, THEY KNOW IT'S IN PLANO.
WITH ME TONIGHT, TIM HARRIS AND K ATKINS WITH ROSEWOOD ARE BOTH HERE AS WELL,
[00:30:06]
AND AS YOU CAN SEE WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TRYING TO TAKE THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION OF HERITAGE CREEKSIDE AND MAKE IT A USABLE TRACT OF LAND, AND INVITING ENTERTAINMENT, RESIDENTIAL EXTENSION OF WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN SUCCESSFULLY COMPLETED OVER ON THE EAST SIDE.I KNOW COMMISSIONER BRONSKY HAD ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF THE DISTRICT, IF THIS IS NOT APPROVED.
THE VIABILITY OF THE DISTRICT IS CRATERED.
YOU CAN'T DEVELOP THE PROJECT BECAUSE WE ARE SUBJECT TO PROVIDING SO MUCH OFFICE SPACE IN ORDER TO CONTINUE TO THE NEXT PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT, AND THERE IS NO MARKET FOR THAT OFFICE.
ROSEWOOD HAS HELD THIS PROPERTY LOOKING FOR OFFICE USES FOR 12 YEARS, AND IT'S NOT THERE, SO WE THOUGHT THAT THE BEST THING TO COME BACK WITH AN EXTENSION OF THE EAST SIDE OF THE HERITAGE CREEKSIDE, WHICH IS AN EXTREMELY BEAUTIFUL, VERY SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE ALL FAMILIAR WITH ROSEWOOD, EXTREMELY HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPER.
THEY ARE VISIONARIES, THEY TOOK A TRACK THE LAND THAT WAS QUITE FRANKLY DESIGNATED FOR WAREHOUSE AND OFFICE SPACES, AND THEY CREATED ONE OF THE MOST SIGNIFICANT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS IN THE REGION.
THEY WANTED TO DEVELOP A LEGACY TO DEVELOPMENT.
THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO AHEAD AND DEVELOP WHAT WAS PERMITTED ON THE ZONING.
BASICALLY, THEY HAD OPPORTUNITIES TO SELL IT AND GET RID OF IT.
BECAUSE OF THEY ARE LONG TERM HOLDERS IN THE CITY.
THEY HAVE BEEN IN THE CITY FOR DECADES, 50, 60, 70 YEARS.
THEY'VE OWNED MUCH OF THE LAND.
THEY INTEND ON CONTINUING TO HOLD THIS.
THEY STILL OWN MUCH OF THE HERITAGE CREEKSIDE, THE RETAIL.
THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO DO THAT.
THEY'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO BE A GOOD CORPORATE CITIZEN AND CITY PARTNER.
>> AGAIN, THESE ARE SOME OF THE HIGHER QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS, I'M SURE YOU'LL FAMILIAR WITH THE MANSION, ROSEWOOD COLOR, THE CRESCENT, ALL HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS THAT ROSEWOOD HAS DEVELOPED.
AGAIN, THIS IS THE BLANK SLATE WE STARTED WITH BACK IN 2014, AND WHAT'S PROMINENT THERE IS THE LITTLE CARVE OUT LITTLE DOUGHUT HOLE IN THE MIDDLE WITH THE LITTLE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
ROSEWOOD MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE CITY AND TO THE NEIGHBORS TO DO A HIGH QUALITY MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
THE EVOLUTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT HAS BEEN FROM EAST TO WEST.
WE MET WITH THE NEIGHBORS BACK IN 2014.
WE HAD SOME REALLY LONG MEETINGS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD BACK THEN WHEN WE CAME IN AND FIRST STARTED THIS PROJECT AND PROPOSED IT.
WE MADE A COMMITMENT TO THEM BACK THEN THAT WE WOULD COME IN WITH RETAIL USES.
WE WOULD COME IN WITH UNIQUE RESTAURANTS.
WE DID OTHER THINGS LIKE PUTTING A SEPARATOR BETWEEN THE SOUTH DEVELOPMENT AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD OVER AT WYNWOOD.
THOSE WERE ALL THINGS THAT WE WENT OVER AND BEYOND.
ALISTE ROSEWOOD OVER BEYOND THAT THEY WERE NOT REQUIRED TO DO AT THAT TIME, BUT THEY WANTED TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR.
QUITE FRANKLY, THE FOLKS WHO LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD ARE GOING TO BE OUR CUSTOMERS, WHO WANTED TO BE GOOD TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THEY DID FOLLOW THROUGH ON SOME OF THOSE COMMITMENTS.
THEY DID PROVIDE A MIX OF USES, A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL TYPES.
WE ARE CONTINUING TO POSE THAT ON THIS WESTERN PORTION. I TAKE EXCEPTION.
THIS IS A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE PROPOSING ENTERTAINMENT AS WELL.
AS MANY OF US HAVE SEEN, THE EVOLUTION OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS OVER THE LAST TEN YEARS HAS INCLUDED AN ENTERTAINMENT COMPONENT.
IF YOU LOOK AT SOME OF THE LARGER, MORE RECENT MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, THEY ALL HAVE AN ENTERTAINMENT COMPONENT.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, AS WELL.
AS YOU CAN SEE IN THE YELLOW PORTION ON THE LOWER PLAN SHOWS OUR UNDEVELOPED LAND, AND THEN YOU CAN SEE THE L-SHAPED FROM THE LI, WHICH WE HAVE ACQUIRED.
IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED LI, AND WE ARE PROPOSING TO BRING IT IN FOR THE FOR SALE TOWN HOMES.
BUT LET'S TALK ABOUT HERITAGE CREEKSIDE.
THIS IS A LANDMARK IN THE CITY IN THE REGION.
PEOPLE KNOW WHERE HERITAGE CREEKSIDE IS.
IT WAS A COMMITMENT TO A QUALITY OF MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT THAT ROSE MADE WAY BACK WHEN, AND THEY HAVE RECEIVED AWARDS FOR THE HERITAGE CREEKSIDE.
THERE HAS BEEN SIGNIFICANT CONNECTIVITY.
I HEARD THAT THIS WASN'T AS MUCH OF A WALKABLE DEVELOPMENT.
WE STARTED WITH THE WALKABLE DEVELOPMENT.
WE ARE GOING TO CONTINUE THAT WALKABILITY THROUGH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.
WE HAVE PROVIDED OBVIOUSLY HIGH QUALITY RESTAURANTS.
[00:35:02]
THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE COMMITTED TO DO BACK IN 2014.WE TOOK A DRAINAGE FEATURE THAT WAS BASICALLY THE CREEK AT THE BACK ROAD, JUST ACTUALLY WAS A CONVEYANCE OF WATER, AND PAINSTAKINGLY, MADE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THAT.
WE'VE CREATED A PLACE AS WELL, BUT GETTING BACK TO THE CREEK.
I LIKE SHOWING THIS BECAUSE THIS IS WHAT ROSEWOOD DOES.
THEY THEY INFUSED QUALITY IN THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
THEY TOOK THE CREEK, AS YOU CAN SEE THE GABION WALLS OVER TO THE LEFT.
THEY COULD HAVE LEFT THE GABION WALLS THERE AND CREATED THE DEVELOPMENT AND LET A BRUSH GROW OVER THE GABION WALLS.
THEY ENGAGED, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ARTIST YOU'D CALL THEM, BUT AN ARTIST WHO CAME IN APPLIED MATERIAL TO THE GABION WALLS, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY CARVED OUT FEATURES THAT LOOK LIKE NATURAL LIMESTONE.
THAT'S WHAT YOU SEE THERE WHEN YOU GO THERE TODAY.
ROSEWOOD DID NOT HAVE TO DO THAT.
WE ARE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE THAT SAME LEVEL OF QUALITY WITH THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, IT'S BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS AN EXPANSION, IF YOU WILL, COMPLETION OF HERITAGE CREEKSIDE.
ABSOLUTELY, IT IS WALKABLE. WE HAVE INSTALLED.
WE ARE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE CREEK SYSTEM.
WE'RE PROVIDING MORE MIXED HOUSING.
THIS IS QUITE FRANKLY RESPONSIVE TO THE MARKET.
WHAT YOU SEE HERE IS A COMPARISON BETWEEN WHAT'S APPROVED, AND WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING, THERE IS JUST NOT THAT MARKET FOR THE OFFICE.
WE ARE PROPOSING SOMETHING THAT IS AN EXTENSION OF SOMETHING THAT IS HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL IN THIS AREA.
WE WILL INTRODUCE RESTAURANTS AND ENTERTAINMENTS.
WE'RE GOING TO AGAIN, PUT MORE OF A FOCUS ON THAT CREEK FEATURE.
AGAIN, HERE'S ANOTHER COMPARISON.
THE PLAN ON THE TOP IS WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED.
THE PLAN ON THE BOTTOM IS WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
AS YOU CAN SEE, ON THE LOWER SIDE, WE ARE TAKING THAT CREEK, AND WE'RE MAKING IT ONE OF OUR FEATURES FOR THE ENTERTAINMENT AREA AS WELL.
WE ARE MOVING LEFT TO RIGHT, THE RECTANGLES AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF CUSTER AND PLANO PARKWAY.
THOSE ARE PROPOSED RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS.
THE BLUE RECTANGLE AT THE BOTTOM IS A PROPOSED OFFICE.
WE'RE STILL MAINTAINING TO PROVIDE A 250,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE OPPORTUNITY THERE.
WE HAVE MULTI FAMILY IN THE YELLOWISH ORANGE FIGURES.
YOU CAN SEE THE RED ALONG THE SOUTH SIDE OF DALHART, THOSE ARE OUR RESTAURANT AND RETAIL OPPORTUNITIES.
AGAIN, MORE OF A FOCUS ON PLAZA AREAS THAT YOU SEE IN THE BAJE, AS WELL AS THE CREEK SYSTEM.
OVER ON THE RIGHT SIDE, YOU CAN SEE THE 51 PROPOSED TOWN HOME UNITS.
IN BLOCKS L AND M, THIS CAME UP BECAUSE WE'RE NOT PROPOSING ONE LONG 200 FOOT BUILDING THAT WOULD BE THE BUFFER BETWEEN 190 AND BLOCK Z, OUR TOWN HOMES.
WE HAVE A USER WHO WANTS TO COME IN AND PROPOSE CONDOMINIUM OFFICES LIKE THIS.
THEY HAVE DONE THEM IN OTHER PARTS OF THE REGION.
THIS IS WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. THEY ARE READY WILLING AND ABLE TO START THAT VERY QUICKLY, ACTUALLY.
A LOT OF THIS IS BEING DONE BECAUSE WE'VE GOT USERS, AND WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO USERS.
WE ARE GOING TO ACTIVATE THE STREET.
PART OF OUR PLAN IS FOR PLAZAS BETWEEN THE RETAIL BUILDINGS AND DALHART, AND WE'VE GOT REQUIREMENTS TO ACTIVATE THOSE STREETS.
A GUESS I MENTIONED THE THE OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, I GUESS IS THE TECHNICAL TERM FOR THE USE.
THIS SHOWS THE COMPARISON BETWEEN THE OPEN SPACE, BETWEEN WHAT'S APPROVED AND WHAT'S PROPOSED.
THE PLAN ON THE TOP SHOWS WHAT'S APPROVED.
THE PLAN ON THE BOTTOM, IT'S NOTICEABLE THAT WE'RE PROVIDING MORE USABLE OPEN SPACE AND PLAZA AREAS WITH THE PROPOSED PLAN.
AGAIN, TAKING THAT CREEK, TURNING IT IN FROM JUST A CONVEYANCE OF WATER TO AN AMENITY IN ORIENTING BUILDINGS AND OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENTS ALONG THAT CREEK.
AGAIN, THIS IS ANOTHER PERSPECTIVE.
WHAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU IS THE 190, YOU'RE LOOKING INTO THE SITE.
YOU CAN SEE, AGAIN, HOW FROM THIS CONCEPT, WE WOULD TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE CREEK AND USE THE CREEK, LIKE WE DID OVER ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE SAW THE DRAWING EARLIER BASICALLY SHOWS BLOCK Z, THE PROPOSED ADDITIONAL 51 UNITS.
AGAIN, THIS IS BLOCK M. THIS IS THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WE'RE PROPOSING ON BLOCK L AND M, WHICH IS AGAIN, AN OFFICE CONDOMINIUM CONCEPT WHERE YOU PROBABLY HAVE PROFESSIONALS OWNING A SPACE IN THE CONDOMINIUM REGIME.
[00:40:04]
DENTIST, MAYBE LAWYERS, DOCTORS.BUT THAT'S THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WE'RE PROPOSING FOR THIS AREA.
SOME ASPIRATIONAL IMAGES OF THE TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THE RESTAURANTS AND OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT.
THIS IS THE LUDLOW IT'S BUILT.
THIS RECEIVED THE 2023 DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL MULTIFAMILY DEAL OF THE YEAR.
AGAIN, IT SHOWS THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT THAT ROSEWOOD HAS DONE THERE AND WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING.
AN INTERIOR AND EXTERIOR GOLF SIMULATOR DOWN A LOWER LEFT CORNER, CO WORKING SPACE IN LOWER RIGHT CORNER, POOL AMENITIES AND OTHER RECREATIONAL AMENITIES.
THIS IS THE BUCKLEY, WHICH IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, SAME LEVEL OF QUALITY AND AMENITIES FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS AN EXTENSION OF WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE.
WE THINK THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PURPOSE OF THE UMU BY, WE'RE PROMOTING SOCIAL INTERACTION BY PROVIDING THIS MIX OF USES A COMMUNITY IDENTITY.
WE'RE EXPANDING THIS SIGNIFICANT COMMUNITY IDENTITY OF THE HERITAGE CREEKSIDE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.
IT'S AN EFFICIENT USE OF LAND AND RESOURCES.
WE HAVE A VARIETY OF TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS.
WE DO HAVE HIKING BIKE TRAILS THROUGHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT.
WE EXTENDED THE CITY'S BIKE TRAIL HIKING BIKE TRAIL ALONG PLANO PARKWAY AS WELL.
AGAIN, THE UMU STATES THAT ONE OF THE PURPOSES IS THAT HIGH DENSITY RESIDENTIAL IS APPROPRIATE IN THESE AREAS.
AS FAR AS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOES, SOME OF THE CORE PRINCIPLES, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL PROTECT AND PRESERVE THE WELL ESTABLISHED DEVELOPMENT THAT'S ALREADY OCCURRED THERE.
THE EAST SIDE OF HERITAGE CREEKSIDE.
WHAT'S OCCURRED ON THE WEST SIDE ON THE WEST SIDE OF HERITAGE CREEKSIDE.
THE EXISTING MULTI FAMILY, WE'RE GOING TO COMPLEMENT THOSE USES AND PROVIDE MORE RETAIL THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE HIGH QUALITY OF HERITAGE CREEKSIDE.
WITH REGARD TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES, THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE, BOTH IN THE NEAR TERM IN THE LONG-TERM OF CITIZENS.
BY PROVIDING THIS MIX OF USES, BY PROVIDING THE RETAIL, THE OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, AND COMPLEMENTING WHAT'S ALREADY BEEN DONE AND ACTUALLY PROVIDING NEEDS OR ANSWERING NEEDS FOR RESIDENTS THAT ARE ALREADY THERE.
IT PROMOTES A COMMUNITY THAT IS SAFE, ENGAGED, AND RICH AND RECREATIONAL OPPORTUNITIES.
AGAIN, AS FAR AS SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL, IT IS SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES BECAUSE IT DOES PROVIDE THIS MIX OF USES THAT IS IMPORTANT, AND IT DOES PROVIDE THE CONNECTIVITY AMONG ALL THOSE USES.
BUT AGAIN, AS FAR AS THE ADEQUACY OF PUBLIC FACILITIES AS IS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THESE ARE ALL SATISFIED.
THERE ARE NUMEROUS BENEFITS FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT AS WELL.
WE'RE PROVIDING ANOTHER VERY IMPORTANT SPACE, PLACEMAKING, AN EXTENSION OF A VERY SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT.
ROSEWOOD, YOU'VE GOT A DEVELOPER WHO HAS MADE SIGNIFICANT COMMITMENTS TO THE CITY, AND THEY'RE PROPOSING TO CONTINUE THOSE COMMITMENTS TO THE CITY.
THEY FOLLOW THROUGH WITH NEIGHBORHOOD REQUESTS.
WE'VE GOT A PLAN THAT WE ACTUALLY CAN IMPLEMENT WITH THAT MAJOR OFFICE REQUIREMENT.
IT'S JUST NOT IMPLEMENTABLE, AND THE DISTRICT DOES HURT.
WE'RE PROVIDING MORE WALKABLE AND COHESIVE MIXED USE DESIGN.
WE ARE RETAINING AN OFFICE OPPORTUNITY.
THAT IS IMPORTANT IN THE LONG RUN.
WE'RE BRINGING IN MORE MIXED RESIDENTIAL TYPES.
AGAIN WE ARE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT'S GENERATED FROM THE SITE COMPARED TO WHAT'S ALREADY APPROVED.
WE REALLY, AGAIN, WE'D LIKE TO THANK STAFF FOR THEIR ASSISTANCE.
THIS HAS BEEN A VERY LONG PROCESS.
MR. HARRIS IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WITH ME THAT YOU MAY HAVE, BUT AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND YOUR ATTENTION, AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION.
>> COMMISSION, QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION.
I LIKE THE PICTURE, SAY HELLO, LOOK VERY PRETTY.
QUESTION REGARDING THE ONE COMMENT THAT I HEARD FROM THE STAFF IS THAT THE STAFF HAS REQUIRED THE NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING 20,000 SQUARE FEET, I GUESS, NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING TO BE BUILT BEFORE THE RESIDENTIAL.
[00:45:02]
THAT THE REQUIREMENT THAT YOU COULDN'T MEET.>> THE UMU STANDARD, WE ARE A UMU.
THE UMU REQUIRES A 20,000 SQUARE FOOT NON RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH WE EXCEEDED THAT OVER ON THE EAST SIDE WITH.
WHEN WE WENT IN, THEY DID THAT CORNER OF RETAIL ON SPEC.
THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANYBODY TO MOVE IN AT THAT POINT.
THEY HAD TWO RESTAURANTS, WHICH THE FLYING FISH AND THE RODEO GOAT, AND THE MIDDLE SPACE, AS MANY OF YOU KNOW SAT VACANT FOR A LONG TIME.
THEY HAD A LOT OF OPPORTUNITIES.
A LOT OF FOLKS COME IN AND SAY THEY WANTED TO GO IN THERE.
THEY WANTED TO FIND THE RIGHT USE, THE RIGHT RESTAURANT FOR THAT SITE.
IT, FRANKLY, I THINK THEY DID, AND I'LL JUST LOOK AT THAT.
BUT THEY HAVE PROVIDED THE 20,000 SQUARE FEET PURSUANT TO THE UMU.
THEY EXCEED THE 20,000 SQUARE FEET.
NOW ON THE WEST SIDE, THEY ARE LOOKING AT BRINGING IN THE OFFICE CONDO QUICKLY.
I DON'T KNOW HOW BIG THAT WOULD BE, BUT THAT'S INCLUDED.
THE RETAIL, WE ARE CURRENTLY TALKING TO USERS, THE MULTIFAMILY, I THINK WE'RE PRETTY WELL READY TO GET STARTED WITH THAT.
TIM, ANY FURTHER RESPONSES TO THAT?
>> I THINK YOU CAN YIELD ON THE HEAD.
>> IF YOU COULD JUST NAME AND ADDRESS REAL QUICK FOR THE RECORD.
>> TIM HARRIS WITH ROSEWOOD PROPERTY COMPANY AT 2101 CEDAR SPRINGS ROAD.
>> WE HAVE PUT IN ABOUT A LITTLE BIT OVER 24,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL UP AT THE CORNER.
AS BILL MENTIONED, ALMOST ALL OF THAT WAS SPEC.
THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
JUST TO OUR NORTH, WE'VE WORKED WITH FOR YEARS ON OUR PLANS.
WE'VE DONE THAT PORTION OF IT.
>> YOU HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS.
>> IF I COULD CLARIFY. YOU ASKED US TO DO ANOTHER AMOUNT OF THAT FOR THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION.
THAT WAS THE REQUEST, AND OUR RESPONSE WAS, HEY, WE'VE PUT IN 24,000 TO DATE.
>> NO. THANK YOU. I'M LOOKING AT YOUR PROPOSAL FOR THE WESTERN PORTION WITH THE OFFICE CONDOS, THE RETAIL, THE RESTAURANTS, THE LIMITED OFFICE.
I'M THINKING TO MAKE THIS WORTH CONSIDERING.
ALL OF THE NON-RESIDENTIAL PRESENTLY IS CONCENTRATED OVER ON THE EXTREME EASTERN EDGE OF THE PROJECT, AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY COMMUNICATE WELL WITH THAT LONG STRIP OF RESIDENTIAL THAT EXTENDS FROM THERE TO THE WEST BECAUSE IT'S LOCATED AT ONE END.
BUT NOW YOU'RE PROPOSING ADDITIONAL NON-RESIDENTIAL AT THE WESTERN END.
>> WHICH POTENTIALLY MIGHT ADD MORE BALANCE TO THE MIX OF NON-RESIDENTIAL WITH THE RESIDENTIAL, MAKE IT, ACCESSIBLE TO THE WESTERN RESIDENTS.
BUT MY FEELING IS TO MAKE THAT WORTH CONSIDERING, IF YOU'RE GOING TO PROPOSE IT, YOU SHOULD COMMIT TO IT.
THAT WOULD CALL FOR SOME PHASING.
I WOULD BE INTERESTED TO SEE IF YOU COULD WORK WITH STAFF AND COME UP WITH SOME PHASING FOR THE NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL THAT YOU'RE PROPOSING.
>> IS THERE A QUESTION FOR THEM OR THAT?
>> THAT'S A SUGGESTION, PERHAPS.
>> I'LL ACTUALLY PIGGYBACK OF WHAT COMMISSIONER BRUNO SAID.
GIVEN IN YOUR EARLIER PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT, YOU MET AND EXCEEDED.
WE'LL GRANT THAT THE 20,000 NON RESIDENTIAL.
I AM CURIOUS WHY THERE WILL BE HEARTBURN.
IF WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS UNDEVELOPED LAND AS THIS IS A NEW PHASE, SO TO SPEAK, WHY THERE WILL BE HEARTBURN MEETING THE 20,000 NON RESIDENTIAL FIRST BEFORE YOU ACTIVATE THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION,
[00:50:06]
SIMILAR TO WHAT COMMISSIONER BRUNO IS SPEAKING ABOUT.>> TO BE HONEST, WE'RE AT A SENATE BECAUSE WHAT WE HAVE TO DEVELOP A OFFICE, AND WE'RE STUCK IN PUTTING OURSELVES IN THAT POSITION AGAIN, WHERE WE WOULD BE STUCK, INSTALLED AGAIN IS A REAL BIG CONCERN OF OURS.
WE HAVE ACTIVE NEGOTIATIONS GOING ON WITH DIFFERENT RETAIL GROUPS.
THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET EXECUTED, BUT THEY ARE ALL CURIOUS AS TO HOW OUR ZONING CASE IS GOING RIGHT NOW.
BUT THE TRUTH IS WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE DONE A LOT OF RETAIL OUT IN FRONT AND WE DON'T WANT TO GET STUCK BY ANOTHER USE LIKE WE HAVE IN THE PAST, FOR INSTANCE, THE OFFICE.
>> WHAT WHAT DO YOU MEAN STUCK?
>> IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY TOP APPROVED PART RIGHT HERE, WHAT YOU SEE IS WE CAN'T GO FROM WHERE WE HAVE DEVELOPED.
WE CANNOT GO FROM RIGHT TO LEFT BECAUSE OF OFFICE, WE'RE SUPPOSED TO GO FROM RIGHT TO LEFT.
ON THE TOP NORTH WEST CORNER, THAT IS AN OFFICE, THE SOUTHWEST CORNER IS AN OFFICE, THE SOUTHERN PART IS HOTEL AND OFFICE.
THEN WE HAVE HOTEL, TWO STORY RETAIL WITH A MASSIVE GARAGE AND OFFICE.
RIGHT NOW, WE'RE STALLED OUT ON DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE CAN'T MOVE FORWARD ON OFFICE.
I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY DEVELOPERS OR OWNERS GET ZONING AND TRY IT FOR 12 YEARS AND THEN COME BACK AND ASK.
I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY PRETTY RARE.
WE HAVE TRIED WITH THREE OFFICE DEVELOPERS OVER THE LAST YEARS.
WE'VE BEEN THROUGH T-COMP PLANS.
WE'VE HAD THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ENACTED, AND WE'VE BEEN THROUGH A PANDEMIC BEFORE AND AFTER WE ARE TRYING TO GET OFFICE DONE HERE.
COMMITTING TO DOING A PHASING PART IS LEAVING US UP TO GET BURNED AGAIN AND BEING INSTALLING OUT.
WE WOULD LIKE TO DO THE RETAIL FIRST.
I THINK IT BENEFITS THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THAT IS OUR GOAL, BUT BEING OBLIGATED TO DO IT INSTALLING OUT FURTHER IF IT FALLS THROUGH OR WHAT IS OUR MAJOR CONCERN.
>> MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION FOR MIKE.
SINCE THE LANGUAGE IS PHASE IN 20,000 SQUARE FOOT OF NON RESIDENTIAL, WOULD BUILDING OUT RETAIL FIRST MEET THAT REQUIREMENT VERSUS HOLDING IT TO BE AN OFFICE BUILD.
>> YES, THAT WAS STAFF REQUESTS TO PHASE IN THE RETAIL THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING IN ORDER TO UNLOCK THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS.
>> I'M BACK TO THE STOCK COMMENT.
IF WE CAN IF STAFF IS BASICALLY PROPOSING, YOU CAN BUILD OUT THE RETAIL.
HOLD OFF ON THE OFFICE, UNLOCK THE RESIDENTIAL.
WHAT'S THE HEARTBURN ON ACCEPTANCE PHASING.
>> COMMISSIONER ALI, IF I CAN ADD TO MR. BELL'S COMMENT AND MAYBE TO EXPLAIN MR. HARRIS' COMMENT.
THEN THE MU, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT THAT BUILDINGS HAVE TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN A CERTAIN DISTANCE OF AN ALREADY CONSTRUCTED BUILDING, SO YOU CAN'T HOP SCOTCH AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO, MR. HARRIS? CERTAIN BLOCKS CAN'T BE WHAT?
>> THEY CAN'T THEY CAN'T HOP TO A BLOCK.
THAT'S TOO FAR AWAY FROM AN R. CUSTER.
>> THEY CAN'T GO AWAY TO CUSTER THEN COME BACK.
>> YOU GUYS DON'T WANT A BUILDING IN A FIELD BY ITSELF, 150 ACRES. THAT'S IT.
>> GOT YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT.
TWO OTHER QUESTIONS. OPEN SPACE.
YOU GUYS ARE RIGHT NOW AT 9.1 OR 9.4? I CAN REMEMBER MY OWN NOTES.
I GET LARRY ABOUT OPEN SPACE FROM A PERCENTAGE WHERE IT'S NOT USABLE.
IT'S JUST GREEN FIELD, BUT IF I WALK IN THERE, FALL INTO A DITCH DEAL.
HOW YOU'RE ACTIVATING THE OPEN SPACE? THE 9.1 IS CLOSE TO THE 10.
I WOULD LOVE IT TO BE A 10, BUT WE WILL SETTLE FOR NINE.
BUT CAN YOU SPEAK TO WHAT YOU'RE DOING TO ACTUALLY MAKE THE OPEN SPACE SOMETHING THAT IS USABLE FOR THE TRACT OF LAND?
>> ABSOLUTELY. I LOVE THAT S THIS.
AT THE VERY TOP OF THIS IS OUR APPROVED PLAN.
YOU CAN SEE WE HAVE A LOT OF OPEN SPACE AT CUSTER.
REALLY, THIS IS ALMOST USE A SETBACK.
I WOULDN'T SAY THAT PEOPLE ARE OUT HERE WALKING THEIR DOGS ALONG CUSTER
[00:55:01]
OR RIDING BIKES OR DOING MUCH OF ANYTHING THESE WE SETBACKS TO OFFICE PROPERTIES.IN THIS ATTEMPT OF THIS AMENDMENT, WE REALLY WANTED TO TRY TO TAKE THE CREEK AND CAPTURE A LOT OF THAT.
THAT'S WHY YOU SEE ON THE BOTTOM PORTION A LOT OF THE GREEN GROWING ALONG THAT BLOCK.
BLOCK Y, BLOCK G. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS CHART UP HERE ON THE TOP RIGHT, WE HAVE 6.77 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE.
THIS IS JUST FOR THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION.
WE ACTUALLY ARE CREATING MORE OPEN USABLE SPACE WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THE ADDED OVER HALF AN ACRE OF PLAZA SPACE WE'RE INCORPORATING, WHICH IS THE ORANGE PART NEXT TO THE GREEN.
THE IDEA IS THAT WE ARE CREATING THESE RESTAURANTS WITH PATIOS AND PLAZAS IN BETWEEN THE SENSE OF PLACE TO HANG OUT, LET YOUR KIDS RUN AROUND, ALL THAT KIND OF THING ALONG THE CREEK SIDE.
IF YOU LOOK UP TO THE NORTHERN PART OF IT, BLOCK G AND BLOCK Y, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE AS THOUGHTFULLY INCORPORATED.
NEITHER WAS EVERYTHING IN BLOCK A2 OR A3.
I THINK WE ARE REALLY MAKING A VERY LARGE EFFORT TO REALLY INCORPORATE THIS OPEN SPACE TO BE PROGRAMMED AND ACTIVE.
BUT TO BE HONEST, SOME OF IT IS REALLY LABELED PLAZA INSTEAD OF OPEN SPACE BECAUSE WE'RE SPENDING MORE MONEY THAN LEAVING IT OPEN SPACE.
BUT THE PLAZA DOESN'T CONTRIBUTE TO OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS.
>> WE AGREED TO INCORPORATE INTO THE UMU STIPULATIONS AMENITIZING THAT THOSE PLAZA SPACES AS WELL.
IT'S NOT LIKE THEY'RE GOING TO BE EMPTY.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE AMENITIES IN THEM, AS WELL.
>> LAST QUESTION, THERE WAS A COMMENT IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT NOT CONTRIBUTING TO THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING STOCK IN THE CITY, AND I MIGHT BE READING INTO THE COMMENT.
IT SOUNDS LIKE STAFF PROPOSED.
DIVERSIFICATION OF THE BUILD TO YOU ALL.
IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY TAKEN UP.
>> NO, REMEMBER. NO, I MEAN, I DON'T RECALL THAT.
I MEAN, WE ARE PROPOSING ADDITIONAL TOWN HOMES, FOR SALE TOWN HOMES.
WE ARE PROPOSING HOUSING, AND I THINK THERE IS A NEED FOR HOUSING, THE TYPE OF HOUSING WE'RE PROPOSING.
BUT WE ARE PROPOSING A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES.
>> I APOLOGIZE, COMMISSIONER ALI.
I'M TRYING TO FIND THE WAS IT IN THE COMP PLAN ANALYSIS THAT YOU SAW THAT?
>> I BELIEVE IT WAS. LET ME HOLD THAT FOR NOW WHILE I FIND MY NOTES, AND THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSIONER BRUNO. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN.
I JUST WANT TO ADD A LITTLE BIT OF PERSPECTIVE.
I WAS ON PLANTING AND ZONING BACK I WAS ON PLANTING AND ZONING BACK IN 2014 WHEN WE DEVELOPED AND APPROVED THIS DEVELOPMENT.
FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, BACK THEN, COLIN CREEK WAS DEAD AND DYING.
THIS WAS A VERY DIFFERENT LOOKING AREA OF THE CITY AT THE TIME.
WE HAD A MEETING MUCH LIKE THIS, AND WE HAD RESIDENTS FROM THE NEIGHBORING COMMUNITY COME TO THE MEETING, AND OVERWHELMING NUMBER OF THEM ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE THEY SAID IT WOULD REVITALIZE THEIR NEIGHBORHOOD.
WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS STARTED, IT WAS A VERY DIFFERENT LOOKING AREA THAN IT LOOKS TODAY, VERY DIFFERENT ATMOSPHERE IN THE CITY.
AGAIN, I THINK, WE'VE HAD COVID, WE'VE HAD SOME COMP PLAN CHANGES.
AS I SEE IT, THIS IS OUR TO WORK WITH THIS DEVELOPER ON SOME OF THESE THINGS THAT MAY NOT FIT EXACTLY, BUT TO GET SOMETHING THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE CITY AND TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
SO, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE DEVELOPER? NO QUESTION. NO QUESTION.
OKAY. JUST A COMMENT BECAUSE I THINK PERSPECTIVE WISE, WE'RE SITTING HERE IN 2026 AND WONDERING HOW WE GOT HERE AND WHY THIS IS NOT COMPLETE, BUT IT STARTED BACK IN 2014 IN A VERY DIFFERENT ENVIRONMENT.
>> THANK YOU. MR. LINGENFELTER.
>> I WAS GOING TO JUST KIND OF REITERATE AND JUST KIND OF ASK A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT THE PHASING THING AGAIN.
I HATE TO HARP ON IT SO MUCH, BUT I KNOW I SHARED SIMILAR CONCERNS THAT COMMISSIONER BRUNO AND COMMISSIONER A BOTH VOICED.
[01:00:01]
NOW THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU CAN'T HOP SCOTCH OVER THINGS, IT MAKES A LITTLE MORE SENSE.HOWEVER, YOU DO HAVE RETAIL ON THAT SOUTH SIDE, QUITE A BIT OF RED BUILDINGS THERE AT THE BOTTOM.
IS THERE CAN YOU RECONSIDER OR LOOK AT BECAUSE ULTIMATELY, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT RETAIL AND THAT THE NON RESIDENTIAL USES DO HAPPEN.
WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE VIABILITY OF IT OVERALL, AND I KNOW YOU GUYS HAVE ALLUDED TO IT, ESPECIALLY THE RETAIL.
I KNOW YOU'VE GOT THE HEART BURN WITH THE OFFICE, BUT WE'RE REALLY SPEAKING MORE ABOUT THE RETAIL ANYWAYS.
IT'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL THERE WITH YOUR HIGH END RESTAURANTS THAT YOU'VE TALKED ABOUT AND EVERYTHING.
AND I THINK CONTINUING THAT RETAIL ON THE SOUTH SIDE AND ALLOWING THAT STREET TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWN TO CUSTER ALSO PROVIDES A NICE ACCESSIBILITY VEHICULAR WISE FOR THE WHOLE SITE OVERALL.
I THINK THAT GIVES YOU OPPORTUNITIES THERE.
AGAIN, WHY DOES IT GIVE YOU HEARTBURN AND TO MAYBE START THERE WITH THAT RETAIL FIRST AND GET THAT STREET ALL THE WAY TO CUSTER? THEN YOU CAN START LOOKING AT THE MULTI FAMILY AND STUFF?
>> WE HAVE BEEN TALKING TO RESTAURANTS.
I THINK THE LAST THING WE WANT, AND I THINK THE LAST THING THE CITY HOPEFULLY WOULD WANT WOULD BE TO BUILD A RETAIL BUILDING JUST FOR THE SAKE OF BUILDING A RETAIL BUILDING AND LETTING IT SIT EMPTY A RETAIL BUILDING SITTING EMPTY IN THE CITY.
THAT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO US.
WE THINK THAT THERE SHOULD BE A CAUSE AND EFFECT THAT WE HAVE SOMEBODY WHO WANTS TO GO IN AND BUILD A BUILDING, AND THAT WOULD ALLOW US TO I MEAN THAT PHASING INHIBITS OUR ABILITY TO DO WHAT'S RIGHT AND TO CONTINUE THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE OTHER USES.
>> WELL, I THINK YOU MENTIONED EARLIER THAT YOU WERE TALKING TO SOME RETAILERS AND THEY WERE INTERESTED, BUT THEY WANTED TO FIND OUT, HEY, HOW IS THE ZONING GOING? HOW IS YOUR ZONING CASE GOING? WELL, I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME FAVORABLE PEOPLE ON BOARD HERE IF WE KNOW THAT THAT RETAIL IS COMING, AND YOU'RE COMMITTED TO IT.
>> I WOULD SAY THAT I WOULD SAY THAT I UNDERSTAND THE CONCERN.
I WOULD BE AMENABLE TO BEFORE WE COULD BUILD THE BLOCK A2 ZONING THAT WE DO THE A2 RETAIL.
BUT I WOULD PROPOSE LEAVING THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE SITE AS IT IS SO THAT WE CAN BUILD OUT.
SOMETHING THAT IS VERY IMPORTANT TO THESE RETAILERS AS HEADS AND BEDS.
I MEAN, I'M HOPING THAT THAT WORKS WITH YOU.
I CAN TELL YOU WHAT WE CAN CONTROL.
BLOCK L&M IS UNDER CONTRACT FOR THAT USE.
I THINK THERE'S ACTUALLY A COMMENT THAT WAS MADE LIKE, HEY, WE'RE NOT SATISFYING THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR PORTION FOR BLOCK Z.
AND I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT IF WE DID A TWO STORY BUILDING HEIGHT THAT WAS CONTIGUOUS ALONG BLOCK IN IN ORDER TO SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT, YOU COULDN'T PARK IT IN THE CITY STANDARDS.
THERE IS NO WAY FOR ME TO ACTUALLY SATISFY THE TOWN HOME EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OUTSIDE OF ASKING FOR SOME RELIEF LIKE WE'VE DONE.
AND I JUST IF WE DID TWO STORIES AND IT WAS AT LEAST 40 FEET WIDE, THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THAT BUILDING WOULD REQUIRE A PARKING COUNT THAT'S PROBABLY BELOW WHAT WE CAN EVEN PROVIDE.
ALSO, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S HURTING US ON BLOCK IN.
IS, WE ACTUALLY GAVE A REALLY LONG, WIDE EASEMENT FOR AS THE CITY OF PLANOS, UTILITIES ALONG THAT.
THAT'S REALLY MADE THAT BLOCK HARD TO DEVELOP BECAUSE WE GOT A FURTHER BACK SETBACK.
BLOCK L&M, I FEEL REALLY PROUD THAT WE HAVE SOMETHING THERE, ACTUALLY, SOME OFFICE USE TO COME IN. RIGHT THERE.
I'LL SAY THAT BLOCK Z THAT WE'RE ASKING TO ADD INTO THE MU IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL, AND THAT WAS FOR SALE FOR OUTDOOR STORAGE.
WE BOUGHT THAT SITE AT A VERY HEFTY PRICE IN ORDER TO PRESERVE THE NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE WE FELT LIKE THAT WAS EXTREMELY DETRIMENTAL.
TO BE HONEST, WE PROBABLY MAKE NO MONEY.
WE PROBABLY LOSE SOME MONEY TURNING INTO TOWN HOMES BECAUSE INDUSTRIAL LAND COSTS MORE THAN OUR TOWN HOME LAND.
I JUST PROVIDING A LITTLE BIT OF COLOR OF SOME OF THE CONTRIBUTIONS THAT WILL HAPPEN BEFORE ANY OF THESE OTHER USES REALLY COME IN.
THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO.
BUT IF DOING THE RETAIL ALONG WITH BLOCK A2, WITH THE MULTIFAMILY BLOCK A TWO GETS EVERYONE COMFORTABLE, I THINK WE CAN WORK ON THAT.
I WOULD REALLY REQUEST THAT THE SOUTHERN PORTION REMAIN AS IT IS.
[01:05:02]
>> COMMISSIONER BRUNO OFF. THANK YOU.
HYPOTHETICAL QUESTION ALONG THE LINES OF CONSIDERING BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE.
IF THE COMMISSION SHOULD CHOOSE TO DENY YOUR PROPOSED AMENDED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, WOULD YOU STILL WANT THE FOUR ACRE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL LOT TO BE REZONED AS PART OF THE UMU?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD ANSWER THAT QUESTION BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE TOTALITY OF THE PROJECT.
I THINK WE WOULD HAVE TO DO IT ANALYSIS.
I COULDN'T ANSWER THAT QUESTION RIGHT NOW.
>> COULD EITHER ONE OF YOU ANSWER THAT?
>> YOUR QUESTION IS, COULD YOU JUST ZONE BLOCK Z IN AND OF ITSELF AND INCORPORATE INTO THE UMU?
>> WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING [OVERLAPPING] WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING ELSE.
>> WITHOUT APPROVING THE REST OF YOUR PROPOSAL?
>> WE'RE LOOKING AT IT IS THE FULL PICTURE.
I DON'T THINK WE EVEN GOT PAST THINKING ABOUT IT MORE THAN THAT.
I DON'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK SO.
>> I JUST WANT TO GO BACK TO WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
IF I'M PUTTING WORDS, LET ME KNOW.
YOU'RE SAYING IF AND AMENABLE PHASING IS FOR BLOCK A2, TO ANCHOR THE BUILDING OF THE RESIDENTIAL PART OF THAT BLOCK TO THE RETAIL FIRST.
>> IT WILL HAVE TO GO AT THE SAME TIME.
THE REASON BEING IS I'M PARKING THAT RETAIL WITHIN THE MULTIFAMILY GARAGE.
WHICH IS WHAT YOU GUYS WANT IN AN UMU DISTRICT THAT WE DON'T HAVE AS MUCH SURFACE PARKING.
THE PARKING FOR THAT RETAIL EXISTS WITHIN THE MULTIFAMILY GARAGE?
>> BUT THERE IS [OVERLAPPING].
>> I NEED TO ZOOM AT THE SAME TIME.
>> AGREED. BUT THERE ARE LEVELS WITHIN THE CITY WHERE WE CAN TIE THE CNO OF THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE COMPLETION OF THE RETAIL.
>> YES. IN A DIFFERENT LESSER CITY, I WOULD SAY, WE HAVE BEFORE SAID THAT YOU HAVE TO GET, THE SHELL CO, THE RETAIL SPACE, BEFORE YOU CAN GET THE CO OF THE MULTIFAMILY SPACE.
WE WOULD BUILD IT AT THE SAME TIME.
>> THAT'S WHAT I WOULD PROPOSE HERE.
WE BUILD THE PARKING FOR THE RETAIL ALONG WITH THE MULTIFAMILY, WE BUILD THE RETAIL AT THE SAME TIME.
WE CANNOT OCCUPY THAT MULTIFAMILY UNTIL WE HAVE THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THAT RETAIL, THE SHELL CO, THE CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.
>> I'M GOING TO JUMP IN HERE REAL QUICK JUST BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE HEADED DOWN A PATH WHERE WE'RE NEGOTIATING FROM THE DAS, AND I DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. NO OFFENSE.
>> JUST AN OBSERVATION AND A QUESTION FOR YOU ALL.
DO YOU ALL FEEL LIKE IF YOU HAD A COUPLE OF MORE WEEKS WE COULD WORK WITH STAFF AND COME UP WITH WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION ACROSS THE BOARD IS A DESIRE FOR SOME PHASING.
IF YOU ALL HAD A COUPLE MORE WEEKS TO GO BACK AND WORK ON THIS WITH STAFF, DO YOU BELIEVE YOU COULD GET TO A COMPROMISED SOLUTION, OR IS IT YOUR DESIRE TO PUSH FORWARD TONIGHT?
>> WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT FOR 18 MONTHS.
I WOULD REALLY LIKE TO PUSH FORWARD.
>> I'LL BE FRANK, I'D RATHER GET A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL.
>> CAN I QUESTION OF STAFF, JUST TO CLARIFY.
>> YEAH, YOU STILL HAVE THE FLOOR, SIR.
>> THE UA DISTRICT, WHICH COMPRISES THIS PROPERTY AND I BELIEVE THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OR WHAT HAVE YOU.
HYPOTHETICALLY, IF WE APPROVE THIS, IS THERE ENOUGH URBAN ACTIVITY IN THE REST OF THAT PORTION THAT KEEPS THIS DISTRICT CLOSE TO UA, OR DOES IT TURN IT INTO SUBURBAN ACTIVITY?
>> THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP, I DON'T BELIEVE STAFF HAS ANY PLANS TO AMEND IN ORDER TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY FROM THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS TO SUBURBAN ACTIVITY DISTRICT.
>> I'M NOT SAYING WE AMENDED IT.
[01:10:03]
I'M SAYING IF WE APPROVED THIS, IF I LOOK AT THE UA AS A WHOLE.HOW CLOSE DOES THIS GO TO VIOLATING THAT LARGER LAND USE?
>> THE NUMBERS THAT WERE PRESENTED IN THE PRESENTATION AND IN THE REPORT ARE BASED ON THE ENTIRE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER.
INCLUDING COLLIN CREEK MALL AND THE CORNER THERE AT PGBT AND 75.
THE CONDO OFFICES, HOW DO WE CATEGORIZE THEM? DO THEY FALL ON THE RETAIL OR OFFICE?
>> GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY? MR. DALTROM, I COUNTED EIGHT TIMES WHERE YOU REFERENCED THE COMMITMENT OF ROSEWOOD AND OVER THE TIME FOR THIS, AND SO I GUESS MY FIRST QUESTION IS, BACK TO WHEN MR. BENDER MENTIONED THIS, YOU HAD OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FROM THE COMMUNITY IN 2014 FOR THE COMMITMENT THAT YOU AGREED TO WITH THE CITY AND ALL OF THE RESIDENTS AT THAT TIME.
DO YOU GUYS FEEL LIKE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING TODAY FULFILLS THAT COMMITMENT THAT YOU MADE IN 2014?
>> I THINK TO AN EXTENT IT DOES.
FOR EXAMPLE, FIRST OF ALL, WE HAVE LESS TRAFFIC GENERATED FROM THIS DEVELOPMENT.
SECOND OF ALL, WE DID FOLLOW THROUGH WITH [INAUDIBLE] TO PROVIDE UNIQUE RESTAURANTS ON THE SITE AND TO PROVIDE THAT RETAIL ON SPEC.
I DON'T KNOW MANY DEVELOPERS WHO WOULD DO THAT.
WE DID DO THE BLOCKING THE WYNWOOD CONNECTION. WE DID DO THAT.
YES, I THINK TO A GREAT EXTENT WE HAVE PURSUED THOSE COMMITMENTS, THE LAND USE MIXES.
I GUESS WHERE YOU'RE GOING. THINGS CHANGE.
>> I'VE GOT A COUPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT NOT JUST THE MIXES, BUT WE CAN CERTAINLY START WITH THE MIXES.
IF I GO BEYOND BLOCK M, WHAT COMMITMENT DIRECTLY, AM I SEEING TO THE FULFILLMENT OF THE OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USE BEYOND BLOCK M?
>> WE'VE GOT A BUILDING AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER ALONG CUSTER.
THAT'S LET'S CALL 250,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE OPPORTUNITY.
WE WANT TO MAINTAIN THAT OPPORTUNITY. YES.
>> I UNDERSTAND THE WORD OPPORTUNITY, BUT WE HAVE 1, 02, 3, 4, 5, 06, OFFICE OPPORTUNITIES NOW.
WE'RE GETTING RID OF FIVE OF THEM.
MY QUESTION IS, WHAT COMMITMENT ARE WE SEEING BEYOND AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USE BEYOND BLOCK M?
>> I DON'T KNOW IF I FOLLOW YOU.
>> MY QUESTION IS, IN 2014, YOU MADE A COMMITMENT TO OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USE FACILITIES ON THIS FOR THE URBAN MIXED USE, RIGHT? THE UMU RIGHT? MY QUESTION IS, AN OPPORTUNITY IS ONE THING, BUT A COMMITMENT IS ANOTHER.
I LOVE THE IDEA THAT YOU'RE USING COMMITMENT BECAUSE COMMITMENT IS IMPORTANT TO ME.
MY QUESTION IS, BEYOND BLOCK M, WHAT COMMITMENT ARE WE SEEING TO AN OFFICE GOING IN OR A PROFESSIONAL USE FACILITY GOING IN.
>> WELL, WE STILL HAVE IT ON THE PLAN.
>> YOU HAD SIX ON THE PLAN PREVIOUSLY WHEN YOU MADE THE FIRST COMMITMENT.
>> IN 2014, AND A LOT HAS HAPPENED SINCE 2014.
>> THERE'S NO OFFICE MARKET TO JUSTIFY THAT NUMBER OF OFFICE BUILDINGS.
>> I'M NOT DISAGREEING WITH YOU.
MY QUESTION THOUGH IS, TO CALL IT AN OPPORTUNITY ONLY MEANS THAT YOU CAN COME BACK AGAIN AND SAY, "HEY, WE'VE DECIDED THAT WE CAN'T FULFILL THAT COMMITMENT THAT WE MADE IN 2016, JUST LIKE WE COULDN'T IN 2014 AND 2021," SO THAT WAS MY QUESTION WAS I WAS DRIVING AT WHAT COMMITMENT DO WE SEE FOR THAT BEYOND CALLING AN OPPORTUNITY?
>> OTHER THAN IT BEING ON THE PLAN, I DON'T KNOW WHO WOULD MAKE THAT KIND OF A COMMITMENT.
>> SURE. WELL, I FRANKLY WOULD LIKE, AND I THINK I WOULD SAY THAT I AGREED WITH SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE HEARING HERE.
THE PHASING OPPORTUNITIES I BELIEVE CAN BE MET, AND I WOULD STRONGLY ENCOURAGE THAT YOU GUYS MIGHT CONSIDER TAKING SOME TIME AND ALLOWING YOURSELF TO WORK WITH THE CITY STAFF TO FIND SOME PHASING REQUIREMENTS, AND IT MIGHT BE MORE AMENABLE TO ME, AT LEAST. THANK YOU.
>> COMMISSION ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?
[01:15:03]
[BACKGROUND] WE'RE STILL IN A PUBLIC HEARING.I BELIEVE WE HAVE ONE OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKER.
GENTLEMEN, THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, WE'LL CALL YOU BACK UP.
THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. WE HAVE ONE OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKER? I DO HAVE ONE REGISTERED SPEAKER, MR. JUSTIN BENNETT.
YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOUR ADDRESS, PLEASE WHEN YOU COME UP?
>> GOOD EVENING. I'M JUSTIN BENNETT, AND I LIVE AT 1504 WEST LAKE DRIVE IN PLANO.
I LIVE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IMMEDIATELY NORTH OF WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS, AND I DO RECALL BACK IN 2014 WHEN WE GOT INVOLVED AND HEARD ABOUT THEIR PLANS AND STUFF.
I KNOW I WAS TALKING WITH ONE OF MY NEIGHBORS, AND ONE OF THE KEY CONCERNS HE HAS IS ONE OF THE CONCESSIONS THAT WE MADE BACK WHEN THE DISCUSSIONS WERE MADE IN 2014, WAS THE BLOCK LI1 THAT'S NOW BEING ZONED FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL USE.
THAT WAS A CONCESSION THAT WAS AGREED UPON THAT, THAT WAS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.
THAT'S A BIG CONCERN TO ME AND MY NEIGHBORS.
I'VE GOT AT LEAST, FIVE NEIGHBORS THAT I'VE TALKED TO TODAY THAT ARE ALL AGAINST IT.
I WOULD APPRECIATE THE BOARD'S CONSIDERATION IN HONORING THE CITIZENS AROUND THERE THAT ARE SAYING THAT WE DON'T WANT MORE MULTIFAMILY USE RIGHT THERE.
IT CHANGES THE VALUE OF OUR HOUSING, AND IT AFFECTS TRAFFIC.I MEAN, YOU CAN'T TELL ME THAT ADDING 2000 FAMILY UNITS IS NOT GOING TO INCREASE TRAFFIC.
BECAUSE IT DOES. THERE'S CARS.
YOU ADD 2000 FAMILY UNITS, THAT'S INCREASING TRAFFIC.
>> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
DO YOU HAVE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS?
>> THERE NO MORE REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
>> I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, RESERVE THE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.
COMMISSIONERS, THOUGHTS? COMMISSIONER ALALI.
>>I STILL SEE IT, I HAVE AN ISSUE.
THIS IS MORE RESIDENTIAL THAN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
NOW, ESPECIALLY WITH THE RETAIL AT THE BACK, VERY LOW DENSITY, ESPECIALLY ON,190, TO ME, I'M HAVING A HARD TIME JUSTIFYING IT AS AN URBAN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
>> THE STICKING POINT HERE IS URBAN, WHICH IMPLIES HIGHER DENSITY, QUITE FRANKLY, WHICH IN SOME FUNNY WAY IS A LITTLE BIT, IF WE PLAY OUT THE FULL IMPACT OF URBAN, THAT IS ACTUALLY MORE MULTIFAMILY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, IT'S HIGH RISE, IT'S MORE DENSITY PER ACRE AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
IN 2021, WHEN MARKET CONDITIONS SHIFTED, THIS BOARD AND THE CITY, I THINK I MIGHT HAVE BEEN ON THE BOARD AT THAT TIME.
MY MEMORY DOESN'T STRETCH THAT FAR.
WE HAVE SHOWN FLEXIBILITY TO ADJUST THE LAND USE TO MEET THE REALITY OF THE SITUATION ON THE GROUND, FROM A MARKET PERSPECTIVE.
AGAIN, BACK TO KEEPING THE FOR LACK OF THE SUBURBAN NATURE OF THE CITY THAT WE'RE IN, I AM STRUGGLING TO SEE HOW THE PROPOSED IS NOT A BETTER VERSION OF THAT GUIDANCE PRINCIPLE THAN WHAT THE APPROVED WAS.
I'LL LEAVE THAT AS MY COMMENTS FOR NOW.
I'M STILL CHEERING ON A COUPLE OF THINGS, BUT THIS LOOKS LIKE IT ACTIVATES THE LAND IN A WAY THAT FITS A LITTLE BETTER WITH THE MARKET CONDITIONS AND QUITE FRANKLY FITS A LITTLE BETTER WITH THE THE CHARACTER OF WHAT WE MAYBE SHOULD BE LOOKING AT FOR THAT TRACT OF LAND,
[01:20:03]
ESPECIALLY WITH THE CONVERSION OF THEM BUYING THAT L1 PORTION FOR SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED, THAT TO ME IT LOOKS LIKE IT GOES ALONG THE PART OF WHAT WE LOOK FOR FROM A CITY PERSPECTIVE OF DEVELOPERS THAT TAKE THE TIME TO WORK HAND IN HAND, ALMOST TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE CITY NEEDS TODAY AND IN THE FUTURE. BUT I'LL LEAVE THAT FOR NOW.>> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF.
>> WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION KIND OF ACROSS THE BOARD IS A REAL CONCERN ABOUT PHASING, WHICH I THINK GOES TO A CONCERN ABOUT, WHAT ORDER THESE THINGS WOULD HAPPEN IN AND IF THERE WOULD BE ADDITIONAL CHANGES IN THE FUTURE.
I KNOW THERE ARE A LOT OF OTHER CONCERNS ABOUT THIS PROJECT AS A WHOLE.
BUT DO YOU ALL BELIEVE THAT IF YOU HAD SOME PHASING IN THERE, IT WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY CHANGE OR EVEN CHANGE AT ALL THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IF THERE WAS PHASING INCLUDED IN THE PLAN.
>> WELL, FINDINGS WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THE CHANGE IN THE MIX OF USES BASED ON INTENSITY FOR THE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS.
I BELIEVE RGM EIGHT WOULD STILL APPLY, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.
HOWEVER, STAFF DID RECOMMEND PHASING REQUIREMENTS TO THE APPLICANT, AND THEY DID NOT WANT TO PURSUE THEM, BUT STAFF DID FAVOR ADDING PHASING REQUIREMENTS TO THE REQUEST AS IT WOULD BENEFIT THE INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE DISTRICT. MR. BELL?
>> I THINK IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT.
I DON'T THINK THE RETAIL THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING TO PHASE IS THE SIGNIFICANT RETAIL.
STAFF STANDARD OPERATING PROCEDURES, ANYTIME THERE'S A REQUEST LIKE THIS TO ASK FOR NON RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE TO BE COMMITTED TO IN THE FIRST PHASES BEFORE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL ALLOWANCES ARE GRANTED.
WHAT DISCUSSIONS WERE WITH STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WAS MORE THAT THE RETAIL AND THE OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT AREA WAS GOING TO BE THE KEY FOCUS, THE KEY SELLING POINT OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WELL, I DON'T THINK IT CHANGES STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
IF THE COMMISSION IS LEANING THAT WAY, THAT'S THE AREA THAT STAFF WOULD EMPHASIZE PHASING RATHER THAN THE CORNER OF CUSTER AND PLANO PARKWAY.
>> I REALIZE IT'S NOT THE APPLICANTS APPLICANT WANTS A FAVORABLE RECOMMENDATION TONIGHT.
I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING FROM THE COMMISSION IS, I FEEL LIKE WE NEED A COUPLE OF WEEKS TO WORK ON A GO BACK AND RECONSIDER A PHASING PLAN, WORK WITH THE STAFF TO SEE IF WE CAN COME UP WITH A PHASING PLAN THAT ADDRESSES SOME OF THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS AS WELL AS THE STAFF CONCERNS.
I KNOW IT'S NOT YOUR FIRST CHOICE, BUT I THINK I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE, IS THAT A TWO WEEK PROCESS OR IS THAT A 30 DAY PROCESS? IF WE WERE TO TABLE THIS FOR A PERIOD OF TIME, HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO DO THAT?
>> I WOULD AT LEAST 30 DAYS SO MARCH 2ND AT MINIMUM.
MISS CORRELL BELIEVES THERE'S MORE TIME, BUT TWO WEEKS WOULD NOT BE ENOUGH TIME.
>> I JUST DIDN'T KNOW WHAT ELSE YOU HAD ON YOUR DESK RIGHT NOW.
THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS RIGHT NOW.
COMMISSIONER ALI. LET ME GET SOME MORE COMMISSION COMMENTS, AND THEN WE MAY ASK YOU TO COME BACK UP AND ANSWER THAT.
IF WE GO AHEAD AND APPROVE WITH THE STIPULATION TO THE MOTION REQUIRING PHASING AS ARTICULATED, THE CORE RESIDENTIAL WITH THE ENTERTAINMENT, WHAT HAVE YOU, AS A STIPULATION TO THE APPROVAL.
DOES THAT, BUY YOU TO 30 DAYS OF YOUR LIFE BACK, ESSENTIALLY, AND GIVE THEM ENOUGH TO GO WORK. IS THAT AN OPTION?
>> I THINK WE WOULD WANT TO TAKE A BREAK TO DETERMINE WHAT THAT NUMBER WOULD BE.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONER ALI IN TERMS OF KIND OF THE DIRECTION AND YOUR COMMENTS ABOUT TABLEING SO THAT WE CAN GET THE RIGHT SEQUENCE.
I THINK I THINK THEY HAVE DONE A LOT.
TO MY COMMENTS EARLIER, THERE'S A LOT THAT HAS CHANGED SINCE THIS DEVELOPMENT STARTED,
[01:25:03]
BOTH WITH THE MARKET AND CHANGES THAT WE'VE MADE FROM THE CITY PERSPECTIVE.I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT BECAUSE I THINK WE CAN GET WE TAKE A BREAK, SO TO SPEAK.
>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, I AGREE WITH YOUR IDEA.
IT'S ALSO WHAT I WAS THINKING AT THE TIME.
I WOULD JUST POINT OUT THAT IF SOMETHING CAN BE WORKED OUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PHASING, I WOULDN'T WANT IT JUST TO BE ATTACHED TO A MOTION OF APPROVAL TONIGHT, I WOULD WANT IT IN WRITING AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, WITH SPECIFIC NUMBERS.
I WOULD ALSO POINT OUT THAT IF THAT HAPPENS, AND THEN THE STAFF WOULD COME BACK TO US WITH ITS RECOMMENDATION.
I HAVE SEEN IN THE PAST A DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE STAFF RECOMMENDING DENIAL OF A PROJECT AND SIMPLY POINTING OUT THAT THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES WITH THE PROPOSAL COMPARED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITHOUT ACTUALLY USING THE D WORD.
THAT IS AN OPTION THAT THE STAFF CAN CONSIDER AT THE TIME.
>> ALTHOUGH THAT SOUNDS GOOD, MR. BRONSKY, THERE ARE SOME VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN OUR CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT REQUIRES OUR STAFF TO PROVIDE THE D WORD WHETHER SOME OF THESE OTHER THINGS ARE ACCOMPLISHED OR NOT.
BUT IN FACT, THERE IS A CLARIFICATION THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT REQUIRE IT.
>> THANK YOU. I WOULD AGREE WITH JUST ABOUT EVERYBODY ELSE.
I GUESS I'LL LET THEM COME BACK UP BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION.
>> FOR THE APPLICANT, IF YOU ALL DON'T MIND, I REALIZE IT'S BEEN 14 YEARS.
I'M HOPING ONE MORE MONTH DOESN'T CHANGE THAT THAT COMMITMENT TO THE CITY OF PLANO?
>> WE'VE OWNED IT SINCE THE 70S, SO WAITING UNTIL MARCH, YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO THAT SUGGESTION WE CAN.
I'M GOING TO MAKE A MOTION. WE TABLE THIS UNTIL THE MARCH 2 MEETING AND ASK THAT THE APPLICANT AND THE STAFF GET TOGETHER AND WORK ON A PHASING PLAN FOR THE NONRESIDENTIAL UNITS TO TRIGGER THE RELEASE OF THE MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND SEE IF WE CAN COME TO A SOLUTION FOR REPRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION. MISS BRONSKY.
>> COMMISSION, ANY COMMENTS ABOUT THE MOTION? WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO POSTPONE CONSIDERATION OF THIS WITH SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT AND STAFF TO THE MARCH 2 MEETING. PLEASE VOTE.
>> MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO ZERO.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU ALL. WE'LL SEE YOU BACK HERE IN MARCH.
[Items 2A. (JK) & 2B. (JK)]
READ 2A AND 2B AT THE SAME TIME, PLEASE.>>REQUEST A AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2A.
THE REQUEST TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 189 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE ON 113.9 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE DENTON DERBY SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 260, LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PRESTON ROAD AND PARK BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, TO ADD INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY AS A PERMITTED USE WITH MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, FOR MAXIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS, ADDITIONAL HEIGHT, REDUCED SETBACKS, AND INCREASED LANDSCAPE EDGES.
THE ADDITIONAL PERMITTED USE BEING LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC 6.3 ACRE LOT AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARK BOULEVARD AND OHIO DRIVE.
PRESENTLY ZONED IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 189 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS NUMBER 229 FOR PRIVATE CLUB, PRESTON PARK LIMITED AND PATRIZIOS RESTAURANT, NUMBER 455 FOR DAYCARE CENTER, NUMBER 601 FOR PUBLIC STORAGE, MINI WAREHOUSE, NUMBER 649 FOR PRIVATE CLUB, AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT.
PETITIONERS CRICQ PLANO TRUST.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.
AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2B, PRESTON PARK FITNESS CENTER BLOCK A LOT ONE AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY ON ONE LOT ON 6.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARK BOULEVARD AND OHIO DRIVE.
ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 189 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE, LOCATED WITHIN THE PRESSON ROAD OLAY DISTRICT, ADDITIONER CRICQ PLANO TRUST.
THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION, PENDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2A.
>> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
MY NAME IS JOHN KIM, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
[01:30:05]
HERE IS THE LOCATOR MAP FOR THIS SITE.SO THIS SITE IS LOCATED AT WEST PARK BOULEVARD, PRESTON ROAD, OHIO DRIVE, AND OLD SHEPHERD PLACE.
THIS IS IN YELLOW, THE WHOLE BOUNDARY OF THE PD, PD 189.
IN THE TOP RIGHT CORNER, YOU WILL SEE IN BLUE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY THAT WE ARE DISCUSSING THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING.
THEN HERE IS THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE SITE.
AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND PD 189, RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE TO ALLOW INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY WITH MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS LIMITED TO THAT 6.3 ACRE AS SHOWN IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PROJECT WAS INITIATED PRIOR TO SEPTEMBER 1, 2025, AND IS SUBJECT TO THE REGULATIONS IN EFFECT AT THAT TIME.
IN 1981, PD 189 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE WAS ESTABLISHED, AND THAT GENERALLY ALLOWED, A LOT OF DIFFERENT OFFICE USES, RETAIL, BUT IT ALSO PROTECTED SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS SURROUNDING THE PD.
THERE WERE SOME HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND OTHER PROTECTIONS FOR THE PROPERTY AROUND IT.
SINCE THAT TIME 1981-2009, THERE HAVE BEEN A SERIES OF AMENDMENTS TO THE USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THEY HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY MODIFIED OVER TIME.
IN 1995, IN REGARD TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THE PD WAS AMENDED TO ALLOW A HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER, AND THAT WAS BUILT IN 1996, AND MOST RECENTLY, THE HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER CLOSED LAST YEAR.
JUST TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE ZONING AS WELL.
AGAIN, IN THE YELLOW BOUNDARY OF THE WHOLE PD, TO THE EAST SIDE IS RESIDENTIAL ZONING, SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN, SAM THE SOUTH, SINGLE FAMILY SIX.
THEN TO THE NORTH AND WEST IS ALL RETAIL.
THEN WITHIN THE PROPERTY IS THE PD 189 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE.
THERE'S CURRENTLY RETAIL DEVELOPMENTS, GENERAL OFFICE, MEDICAL OFFICE.
THERE'S ALSO A MULTI FAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN THE CENTER.
IN THE PD, THERE ARE SOME CURRENT ZONING RESTRICTIONS ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPERTY.
THERE ARE SPECIFIC USES THAT ARE ALLOWED BY THE PROPERTY BY THE PD ON THE PROPERTY, AND INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY IS CURRENTLY NOT ONE OF THEM.
THERE IS AN ADDITIONAL STIPULATION FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF TWO STORIES FOR ALL PROPERTIES WITHIN 700 FEET OF PARK BOULEVARD AND 600 FEET OF OHIO DRIVE, THAT IS SHOWN IN THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IN ORANGE IS THE 600 FEET AND ALONG OHIO.
AND THEN IN PINK IS THE 700 FEET ALONG PARK.
ALSO, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR A 25 FOOT LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG OHIO DRIVE.
THE APPLICANT, AGAIN, IS PROPOSING A INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY.
THEIR PROPOSAL IS GOING TO BE A FIVE STORY, 65 FEET TALL BUILDING.
THERE WILL BE UP TO 250 UNITS.
THEY ARE PROPOSING MODIFIED SETBACKS ON LANDSCAPE EDGE ALONG PRESTON PARK.
YOU CAN KIND OF SEE ON THE TABLE BELOW THAT IN THE EXISTING CONDITION, THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY IS NOT ALLOWED.
THE MINIMUM SETBACK ON PRESTON PARK BOULEVARD WOULD BE 50 FEET.
THE MAX HEIGHT IS TWO STORIES, AND THEN MINIMUM LANDSCAPE EDGE IS TEN FEET.
AND WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING IS, YOU KNOW, TO REDUCE THE SETBACKS THERE, AND THAT ALLOWS THEM TO BUILD A LITTLE BIT CLOSER WEST TO THE PRESTON PARK BOULEVARD FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT.
A HEIGHT IS A MAIN CONCERN FOR THIS PROPERTY.
AS MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, THE ADJACENT NON RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE GENERALLY ONE OR TWO STORIES, ESPECIALLY ALONG OHIO DRIVE.
THERE IS SOME CONCERN ABOUT, HOW DOES IT FIT IN WITH THE REST OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT THERE.
THE PD WAS DESIGNED TO LESSEN THE INTENSITY ALONG THE PERIMETER DUE TO THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL HOMES.
STAFF RECOMMENDED SLOPING THE HEIGHT FROM OHIO DRIVE TO REDUCE IMPACT OF HEIGHT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES.
STAFF FINDS THE ADDITIONAL HEIGHT TO BE INAPPROPRIATE FOR THE SITE AS IT DOES NOT MATCH THE ADJACENT BUILDINGS AND CAN BE OUT OF CHARACTER.
JUST TO MENTION, THERE IS AN ADJACENT DAYCARE CENTER TO THE SOUTH.
[01:35:01]
IT DOES SHARE AN ACCESS DRIVE AND FIRE LANE.IT WILL BE MODIFIED, BUT THE APPLICANT HAS WORKED WITH STAFF TO, PRESERVE THAT DURING THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION SO THAT THE SCHOOL AND DAYCARE WILL HAVE CONTINUED ACCESS ALONG THERE.
THERE ARE SOME CONCERNS REGARDING IMPACT FROM DEBRIS, DUST, NOISE DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS.
AND THE HEIGHT EXACERBATES THAT POTENTIAL RISK.
I MEAN, JUST BECAUSE IT INCREASES THE CHANCE THAT, THINGS MAY FALL OR MORE DEBRIS COMES FROM THE CONSTRUCTION SITE.
AND SO YOU CAN SEE IN THE PHOTO OR IN THE PICTURES OF THE RIGHT AND BLUE IS THE INDEPENDENT LIVING.
AND THEN IN ORANGE IS A DAYCARE CENTER, AND THE GREEN IS THE OUTDOOR PLAY AREA FOR THE DAYCARE.
>> I'VE ONLY INCLUDED THE AMENDMENT PROPOSED FOR STIPULATION NUMBER 8.
THIS IS FOR THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY TO DO THE 250 UNITS, THE FIVE STORIES AND 65 FEET, AND THE MODIFIED SETBACKS ON LANDSCAPE EDGE.
HERE IS THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
THERE ARE SOME MIXED BAG HERE.
AS FAR AS THE BUILDING HEIGHT, PARKING ORIENTATION AND BLOCK PATTERN, IT DOES MEET, BUT THERE WERE CONCERNS REGARDING, ESPECIALLY THE DENSITY AND INTENSITY OF THIS PROPOSAL.
IT IS RECOMMENDED HERE BECAUSE OF THE ADJACENCY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT THERE IS A MAX OF 22 UNIT DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE.
BUT HERE THERE IS CURRENTLY 38.9 AS PROPOSED.
SAME FOR THE INTENSITY AS WELL.
THE LOT COVERAGE IS RECOMMENDED TO BE HIGHER IN THIS AREA, BUT IT IS LOWER AS SHOWN HERE.
THEN AS FAR AS THE POLICIES TO THE CONFERENCE AND PLAN.
THERE'S A MIX OF PARTIALLY MEETS AND DOES NOT MEETS HERE AS WELL.
AS FOR THE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS AND THE PRIORITIES, WE JUST REVIEWED THE CHARACTER ELEMENTS.
PRIORITIES. IT DOES HELP CREATE A SHOPPING DESTINATION, PARTIALLY BECAUSE IT DOES CREATE MORE RESIDENTS FOR LOCAL SHOPPING TO KEEP THE AREA ALIVE.
THERE IS SOME ACTIVATED OPEN SPACE WITH THE WIDENED SIDEWALKS THAT THEY ARE BUILDING ALONG THE STREETS.
BUT THE MIX OF USES DOES NOT MEET HERE.
FOR THE PRESTON PART SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER AREA, THE RECOMMENDED MIX OF USES IS 60% MULTI FAMILY.
CURRENTLY, ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS MULTIFAMILY.
STAFF AND COMPOSITE PLAN IT IS NOT ALIGNED WITH THAT GOAL.
IT DOES NOT MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
THEN IT ALSO PARTIALLY MEETS THE RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER POLICY, AND THEN THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY, BUT IT ALSO DOES NOT MEET AS WELL.
PLEASE NOTE THAT FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST BECAUSE THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE MIX OF USES AND MAXIMUM DENSITY RECOMMENDED FROM THE SA DASHBOARD.
THERE WAS A RECENT LAW CHANGE THAT PLANO ADOPTED INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ON SEPTEMBER 1ST, 2025.
UNDER UNDER THE NEW CURRENT ORDINANCE, THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY IS ALLOWED ON THE SITE, BUT ONLY UP TO THE HEIGHT OF 45 FEET.
I WOULD MATCH THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE EDGE AND THE PROPOSED SETBACK.
BUT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST WOULD INCREASE THE HEIGHT 45-65 FT AND FIVE STORIES.
FOR RESPONSES WITHIN THE PD BOUNDARIES, WE RECEIVED TWO OFFICIAL LETTERS.
FROM ADJACENT PROPERTIES WITHIN 200 FEET, WE RECEIVED 10 LETTERS.
WE RECEIVED A TOTAL OF 175 RESPONSES WITH 16 SUPPORT, UNDER 68 AGAINST, AND THEN 16 OTHER LETTERS AND EMAILS,15, SORRY.
IN SUMMARY, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO AMEND PD 189, RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE TO ALLOW THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY WITH THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF 65 FEET, FIVE STORIES, THE REDUCED SETBACK OF 25 FEET, AND LANDSCAPE EDGE OF 25 FEET ALONG PRESTON PARK BOULEVARD.
FOR ITEM 2A, STAFF RECOMMENDS FOR DENIAL FOR THE CONFERENCE OF PLAN AND FINDINGS POLICY.
THIS REQUEST MUST BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE CONFERENCE OF
[01:40:03]
PLAN AND SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST, IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO THE CITY COUNCIL, I DO WANT TO MAKE ONE NOTE ABOUT ITEM 2B.STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ACTION BE TAKEN THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH ITEM 2A AND SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS, CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2025-013, AND REVISING THE FRONT YARD SETBACK ON PARK BOULEVARD AND OHIO DRIVE TO 50 FEET, AND THAT IS IF APPROVED.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS, AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE AS WELL.
>> COMMISSION. QUESTIONS OF STAFF. MR. ALI.
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE TABLE THAT HAD PROPOSED VERSUS WHAT IS APPROVED.
>> THERE'S THIS ONE, AND THEN YOU WANT THE EARLY ONE?
>> THE EARLY ONE, YES. THANK YOU.
>> YES. THE SETBACK IS FROM THE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION OF THE SETBACK FROM PRESTON PARK SO THAT THEY CAN IN ESSENCE, PULL THE BUILDING FURTHER AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ON OHIO?
>> BUT IF I'M READING THIS, AND I'M GOING TO MIX THIS WITH THE SB 840 TABLE.
THEY'RE ESSENTIALLY ASKING FOR EXCEPTIONS OR VARIANCES OR APPROVAL OF A USE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY IS NOT PERMITTED.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR PERMISSION.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR EXCEPTION AND APPROVAL FOR HEIGHT, WHICH IS NOT APPROVED UNDER SB 840 FROM A STATE LAW PERSPECTIVE.
THEY'RE ASKING FOR APPROVAL FOR SETBACK LANDSCAPE ALWAYS HELPS US WHEN IT'S BETTER.
THOSE THREE OR FOUR, MY READING THAT CORRECTLY?
>> THANK YOU. HAS THE STAFF, BY ANY CHANCE, ATTEMPTED TO IDENTIFY WHICH OF THE PRIVATE HOMES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF PARK BOULEVARD MIGHT BE WITHIN LINE OF SIGHT FROM A 65' TALL? BUILDING.
>> STAFF HAS NOT LOOKED INTO ACROSS PARK BOULEVARD, WHAT PROPERTIES THE LINE OF VISION MIGHT BE.
>> I ASKED THAT BECAUSE WE LOOKING AT SOME OF THE WRITTEN COMMENTS WE RECEIVED FROM THE NEIGHBORS, THEY WERE THE PRIMARY CONCERN WAS WAS INVASION OF PRIVACY FROM HAVING SOMEONE PEER DOWN INTO THEIR BACKYARDS.
>> I WANT TO COMMENT. STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE APPLICANT WAS TO STAIR STEP THE HEIGHT AWAY FROM THE HOMES.
WE DIDN'T PERFORM AN EYE VIEW STUDY, BUT THAT WAS THE GENERAL IDEA.
TO HAVE THE HEIGHT TRANSITION UP TO AVOID THOSE SAME CONCERNS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
>> I FORGOT ONE, BUT I THINK MR. BENNETT MAY HAVE ANSWERED.
THE STAIR STEP IN THE HEIGHT IS ESSENTIALLY THE COMMENT YOU MADE ON SLOPING. THE HEIGHT.
>> I HAVE A QUESTION ON THAT. THAT IS NOT CURRENTLY PART OF THE REQUEST, THOUGH, IS TO STAIR STEP THE HEIGHT, CORRECT?
>> THE CURRENT REQUEST DOES NOT INCLUDE A STAIR STEPPING OF THE HEIGHT?
>> COMMISSION. OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER ALALI, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION?
>> LIKE, I THOUGHT THAT I SAW SOMETHING IN THE REPORT FOR THE STEP.
>> I THINK THE STAFF HAD REQUESTED IT, BUT IT'S NOT.
>> NOT CURRENTLY PART OF THE APPLICANT'S REPORT.
>> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE FOR THE SB 840? I COULDN'T FIND THAT IN THE PRESENTATION.
IN THE STAFF REPORT, IS IT IN THERE?
>> IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WE EDITED INTO THE TABLE JUST FOR TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE CLEAR FOR THE PRESENTATION.
>> TERRIBLE. I CAN'T SEE. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. THANK YOU.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER ALALI.
>> HOW ARE THEY GOING TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC? BECAUSE THE TRAFFIC IN THIS AREA LIKE IT'S ALWAYS BUSY ON PARK AND PRESTON.
HOW ARE THEY GOING TO MITIGATE? ARE THEY GOING TO LIKE THEY AX THE MAIN ACCESS TO THE BUILDING.
>> YES. WE DID LOOK INTO THE TRAFFIC GENERATIONS RATES WITH OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERING TEAM.
[01:45:08]
BASED ON THE ITE MANUAL, WE FOUND THAT FOR THE PROPOSED USE OF INDEPENDENT LIVING, IT'S GENERALLY GOING TO BE LESS THAN OTHER USES THAT ARE COMMON ALONG OHIO ROAD OR PARK BOULEVARD, WHICH IS GOING TO BE RETAIL OR THE HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER OR GENERAL OFFICE.IT IS HIGHER, THAN ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY, BUT I THINK IT WAS LOWER THAN ALL THE OTHER USES.
OUR THOUGHT IS THAT, IT IS LOWER THAN THE EXISTING HEALTH AND FITNESS CENTER.
>> IT'S WITHIN LIKE THE APPROVED LIMITS.
>> SORRY, REMEMBER, ONE, THE COFFEE HAS ONE OF THE DAYCARE AND THE CONCERNS WHICH ARE LEGITIMATE ABOUT BUILDING AND THE IMPACT TO THE DAYCARE.
I ASSUME EVEN IF THEY WERE BUILDING A TWO STORY, THERE WILL STILL BE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT SAFETY OF THE DAYCARE.
IS THERE ARE THERE LEVELS THE CITY CAN ENFORCE TO MITIGATE THAT.
>> CITY STAFF DID MEET WITH THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL AS WELL INTERNALLY TO SEE, IF WE HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL MITIGATION MEASURES, BUT I THINK A LOT OF THAT JUST FALLS TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS TO NEGOTIATE ANY MITIGATION DURING CONSTRUCTION.
>> ALL THE QUESTIONS OF STAFF.
I KNOW WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, SO LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> IS THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION? YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF.
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIR. COMMISSIONER STAFF, TREVOR ARMSTRONG, 3110 WEST SOUTH LAKE BOULEVARD, SUITE 120 IN SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS.
THANK YOU AGAIN, JOHN FOR THE DETAILED PRESENTATION AND ALL YOUR ASSISTANTS.
I HELP LEAD OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM HERE AT INTEGRATED REAL ESTATE GROUP.
TONIGHT, WITH ME AS WELL, WE HAVE OUR CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, KENNETH FAMBRO, CHIEF INVESTMENT OFFICER, PAUL MILOSEVIC, AND PRESIDENT OF OUR SENIOR HOUSING DIVISION ANDREW CHAPIN.
I PLAN TO SPEND JUST A FEW MINUTES GIVEN A BRIEF BACKGROUND ON OUR COMPANY, OUR HISTORY WITH THE SITE SO FAR, AND THE LANDSCAPE OF SENIOR HOUSING IN PLANO.
INTEGRATED REAL ESTATE GROUP HAS BEEN A BUSINESS FOR 23 YEARS.
WE'RE A VERTICALLY INTEGRATED, PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED, FULL SERVICE REAL ESTATE COMPANY BASED IN SOUTH LAKE, TEXAS.
WE SPECIALIZE IN SENIOR HOUSING.
IT'S WHAT WE'RE PASSIONATE ABOUT.
WE'VE HAD GREAT EXPERIENCE IN THE STATE, IN PARTICULAR IN DFW, HOUSTON, AND THE AUSTIN METROS.
WE DO EVERYTHING IN HOUSE FROM LAND DEVELOPMENT, GENERAL CONSTRUCTION, AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT.
SO YOU'RE ALWAYS DEALING WITH US AS ONE TEAM, AND WE'RE LOCAL.
WITHIN SENIOR HOUSING IN PARTICULAR.
OUR CORE PRODUCT IS INDEPENDENT LIVING COMMUNITIES.
WE HAVE TEN OF THESE IN DFW, THEY'RE BRANDED AS WATER MERE.
WE OPERATE ACROSS THE SPECTRUM OF SENIOR HOUSING, BUT THE FOCUS FOR US AND THE USE THAT'S PRESENTED BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS INDEPENDENT LIVING.
WE CAN EXPLAIN THE DISTINCTNESS OF THAT AND EVEN OUR PRODUCT, HOW IT DIFFERS FROM EXISTING COMMUNITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANO.
WE'RE A TOP 40 NATIONAL FIRM IN TERMS OF OWNERSHIP AND OPERATIONS OF SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITIES, BUT WE'RE PRETTY SMALL, WE'RE NIMBLE, WE'RE VERY ENTREPRENEURIAL IN NATURE.
AS IT RELATES TO HOW WE GOT TO THE SITE.
THE SAME ENTITY HAS OWNED THIS SITE SINCE THE LATE 1990S.
AS WE LEARNED THROUGH OUR EXTENSIVE COMMUNITY OUTREACH, THERE'S A LOT OF PLANO RESIDENTS THAT HAVE USED THIS GYM OVER THE YEARS.
FIRST IS THE Q CLUB, AND LATER ON IS 24 HOUR FITNESS.
THEN WHEN THEY WENT BANKRUPT DURING COVID, THE LAND OWNER PERSONALLY STEPPED IN, TOOK OVER THE GYM, AND OPERATED IT REBRANDED IT UNDER THE NEW PLANO ATHLETIC CLUB.
THEY RAN IT FOR AS LONG AS THEY COULD UNTIL INCREASED COMPETITION FROM NEW GYMS IN THE AREA, ASIDE, ALONG WITH A AGING AND OBSOLESCENT BUILDING, JUST MADE IT FINANCIALLY IMPOSSIBLE TO DO SO.
LAST YEAR IN FEBRUARY, THEY CONTACTED US AFTER EXHAUSTING THEIR OPTIONS WITH RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL USERS.
THEY HAD NO VIABLE INTEREST BECAUSE THE SITE IS SOMEWHAT OF A TWEENER.
IT'S TOO SMALL FOR A LOT OF USERS AND TOO LARGE FOR THE OTHER USERS.
KNOWING YOU HAVE SIGNIFICANT DEMOLITION COSTS WITH THE BUILDING, IT JUST BECAME NOT AN OPTION FOR A LOT OF GROUPS.
WE STARTED OUR ANALYSIS AND REALLY GETS INTO WHAT WE DO FROM A SENIOR HOUSING PERSPECTIVE.
WE IDENTIFIED A NEED EARLY ON FOR ADDITIONAL INDEPENDENT LIVING HOUSING IN PLANO.
WE HAVE A PRETTY EXTENSIVE PORTFOLIO IN DFW, AND WE LEARNED FROM OUR OWN INTERNAL ANALYSIS THAT
[01:50:03]
UPWARDS OF 20% OF OUR RESIDENTS AT OUR FRISCO LOCATION CAME FROM PLANO.WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT PLANO IS PEOPLE LOVE HERE.
THEY LOVE TO LIVE HERE, AND THEY WANT TO STAY HERE, AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE WHEN THEY HAVE TO LEAVE THE CITY TO GO ELSEWHERE.
THIS NEED WAS ALSO EXPRESSED FROM THE CITY COMMISSIONED HOUSING STUDY THAT WAS RELEASED OVER THE SUMMER.
WE'VE GOT SOME DATA POINTS HERE THAT YOU CAN READ THROUGH.
HOPEFULLY, YOU HAVE ALL HAD A CHANCE TO GO THROUGH THIS.
SOME GREAT POINTS, BUT WHAT I WANTED TO QUICKLY JUST GIVE YOU WAS SOME REAL DATA POINTS AS TO THE DEMOGRAPHICS AND THE EXISTING SENIOR PRODUCT INVENTORY YOU HAVE IN THE CITY.
BY 2030, THE PERCENTAGE OF 65 PLUS RESIDENTS IN PLANO IS GOING TO TOTAL 54,000 RESIDENTS, GROW BY 15% DURING THAT TIME FRAME, AND THE 75 PLUS POPULATION, WHICH IS REALLY THE KEY DEMOGRAPHIC FOR OUR PRODUCT TYPE, IS EXPECTED TO GROW 22% OVER THAT SAME TIME FRAME.
THESE ARE FROM ESRI DEMOGRAPHICS OF JANUARY OF THIS YEAR.
MEANWHILE, THE CITY CURRENTLY ONLY HAS SEVEN INDEPENDENT LIVING COMMUNITIES THAT COMPRISE JUST OVER 1,000 UNITS.
IF YOU EQUATE THAT TO THE PROJECTED POPULATION 2030, THAT'S ONLY 1.9% OF THE POPULATION THAT HAS HOUSING UNITS.
WITHIN THOSE SEVEN COMMUNITIES, SIX OF THE SEVEN ARE 18 YEARS OR OLDER.
THERE'S ONLY ONE COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN BUILT IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS.
ACROSS THOSE SEVEN COMMUNITIES, THE AVERAGE OCCUPANCY RIGHT NOW IS 94%.
AS OF TODAY, THERE'S ONLY 61 AVAILABLE UNITS FOR SENIOR RESIDENTS IN PLANO, NOT TO MENTION ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO MOVE TO THIS GREAT CITY.
>> EVEN THE NEW COMMUNITY THAT WAS BUILT AND STARTED HOUSING RESIDENTS IN 2024.
IT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BUSINESS MODEL THAN OURS.
YOU HAVE A LARGE ENTRANCE FEE.
YOU HAVE TO PAY 400 PLUS A THOUSAND DOLLARS TO GET INTO THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN PAY RENT ON TOP OF IT.
WE'RE STRUCTURED VERY DIFFERENTLY, AND WE CAN LET THE TEAM SPEAK TO HOW THAT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE RESIDENTS.
THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAVE TO SAY FROM JUST AN INTERESTING STANDPOINT.
WE LOVE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
WE HAVE THE WHOLE TEAM HERE AVAILABLE AS WELL.
>> THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
FIRST OF ALL, I WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE YOU'RE GOING TO GET ANY ARGUMENT ABOUT THE NEED FOR SENIOR HOUSING IN PLANO.
I THINK WE ALL RECOGNIZE THAT SOME OF US ARE GETTING OLDER AND MIGHT NEED THAT SOONER THAN OTHERS.
I THINK THE QUESTION, AT LEAST IN MY MIND, ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE, IS THE HEIGHT.
WHAT DID YOU ALL LOOK AT AS FAR AS THE STAFF'S COMMENTS ABOUT A STAIR-STEPPED APPROACH OR ANY OTHER? I REALIZE IT'S NOT TYPICAL OF YOUR OTHER PROJECTS, BUT DID YOU ALL CONSIDER THOSE ISSUES, AND WHAT WAS YOUR CONCLUSION ABOUT THOSE?
TYPICALLY, IN DFW, MOST OF OUR COMMUNITIES ARE IN THE SUBURBS.
WE'RE IN SURROUNDING AREAS, JUST RECENTLY FINISHED A COMMUNITY IN MCKINNEY LAST NOVEMBER, AND IT'S BEEN LEASING WELL.
WE TYPICALLY BUILD FOUR STORY PRODUCT, BUT WHAT DIFFERENTIATES US FROM MOST SENIOR HOUSING DEVELOPERS IS THAT WE LIKE TO HAVE A PORTION OF STRUCTURED PARKING BECAUSE SENIORS REALLY LIKE COVERED, SAFE, SECURE PARKING.
WE TYPICALLY BUILD A PARTIAL PODIUM GARAGE, WHICH IS A FIRST FLOOR, SOMETIMES PARTIALLY SUBTERRANEAN, IN THE GARAGE, AND BUILD ON TOP OF THAT.
WE HAVE A SIMILAR COMMUNITY IN FRISCO THAT'S ON SIX ACRES.
WE DID THREE STORIES OVER THE PODIUM ON THAT ONE, BUT IT IS A MORE ELONGATED SITE THAT ALLOWS US TO DO THAT.
WE EXHAUSTED EVERY OPTION HERE.
THE ONLY WAY TO GET THE NUMBER OF MINIMUM UNITS WE NEED IS TO DO FOUR STORIES OVER ONE PODIUM.
BUT THE REQUEST FOR 65', OUR ACTUAL BUILDING PLATE ON THE FIFTH FLOOR IS 55', SO EVERYTHING BEYOND THAT IS TRULY ARCHITECTURAL PARAPET FEATURES.
THERE ARE NO INTERIOR BUILDING RESIDENCES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ABOVE THE 55' MARK.
EVERYTHING ABOVE THAT IS JUST FOR ARCHITECTURAL DIFFERENTIATION.
IT'S JUST THESE BUSINESS MODELS ARE DIFFERENT.
WE'VE GOT ALMOST 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF AMENITY SPACE INSIDE THIS BUILDING, SO THAT TAKES UP A LOT OF THE SPACE, AND THEN THE UNITS THEMSELVES ARE VERY LARGE.
ON AVERAGE, THEY'RE ALMOST 1,100 SQUARE FEET, AND OUR LARGEST UNIT IN THIS BUILDING, AS CURRENTLY PROPOSE IS 1,800 SQUARE FEET.
SENIORS THAT ARE SELLING THEIR HOMES AND WANTING TO MOVE INTO THESE COMMUNITIES ARE ACCUSTOMED TO A NICE STYLE OF LIVING, AND THEY WANT TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THAT EVEN INSIDE AN AMENITY-RICH COMMUNITY LIKE OURS.
>> JUST TO MAKE CLEAR, I HEARD YOU CORRECTLY.
THE TOP PLATE OF YOUR TOP FLOOR IS 55'?
AS FAR AS A WINDOW ON THE TOP FLOOR, YOU'D BE AT 50'.
>> THAT'S RIGHT. JUST TO MENTION THE HEIGHT AS WELL, OUR SITE CURRENTLY DOES SIT ABOUT 7-8 FEET BELOW WEST PARK AND PARTS OF OHIO DRIVE,
[01:55:04]
AND WE WILL BE DIGGING UNDER.I DO HAVE A RENDERING HERE TO SHOW YOU AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF OUR SITE.
AT PRESTON PARK IN OHIO, EARLY GRADING BECAUSE WE'RE VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS, BUT WE PLAN TO HAVE A 7' RETAINING WALL.
FROM TODAY, THE PARKING LOT IS EQUAL TO OHIO.
PART OF THE ISSUE, I THINK, WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE TO THE COMMUNITY IS, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE A 65' BUILDING THAT'S FLAT AT THE STREET.
THE SITE ALREADY SITS LOW; WE'LL BE DIGGING LOWER, AND WE'RE NOT BUILDING UNITS UP TO THAT HEIGHT LIMIT.
>> I'M TRYING TO DO THE MATH IN MY HEAD, WHAT YOU JUST SAID.
YOU'RE GOING DOWN 7', THEN YOU'RE 55' TO THE TOP PLATE.
IF WE LOOK AT HEIGHT ABOVE THE CURB, YOU'RE AT 48.
I DO THAT MATH RIGHT. DID I HEAR YOU CORRECTLY? [OVERLAPPING] I HAVE AN ENGINEERING DEGREE.
>> WE DO HAVE A LINE-OF-SIGHT RENDERING THAT WE PREPARED.
IT'S NOT VERY EASY TO READ, SO EXCUSE THAT.
BUT IT DOES STUDY THE HOMES ON OHIO DRIVE TO THE EDGE OF OUR BUILDING.
IT'S A 200' PLUS OR MINUS A FEW FEET AS THE BUILDING MOVES SOUTH FROM THE HOME.
YOU HAVE A PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL BUFFER THERE.
WE UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THAT THEY WANT AS MUCH BUFFER AS THEY CAN GET.
BUT WE TRIED TO MOVE THE BUILDING AS CLOSE TO KATIE TRAIL IN PRESTON PARK AS WE COULD TO ALLEVIATE THAT.
THEN, AS I MENTIONED, JUST WITH THE ELEVATION AND WHAT WE PLAN TO DO FROM A GRADING PERSPECTIVE, THAT WOULD DROP IT LOWER AS WELL.
>> I MAY COME BACK TO YOU A SECOND, BUT THOSE ARE MY QUESTIONS FOR NOW. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION, AND AS MY WIFE AND I CONTINUE TO LOOK FOR HOUSING FOR MY FATHER-IN-LAW AND MOTHER-IN-LAW, AS WELL AS JUST LIKE CHAIR RATLIFF, MY WIFE AND I CONTINUE TO GET OLDER AS WELL.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU HAVE NOTICED THE RESPONSES THAT YOU'VE RECEIVED.
WHAT COMMUNITY OUTREACH, AND CAN YOU DESCRIBE TO ME THE EFFORTS THAT YOU'VE MADE IN LISTENING TO WHAT THE COMMUNITY IS SAYING AND HOW YOU'RE WORKING TOGETHER TO BRING SOMETHING TO PLANO THAT NOT ONLY THE PEOPLE AROUND YOU, BUT THE PEOPLE IN ALL OF OUR COMMUNITY WANT? THE REASON I ASK, AS YOU'VE HEARD, IN ORDER FOR US, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FILL OUR FINDINGS FOR HIM, WHICH MEANS IT HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL.
WHAT'S THAT LOOK LIKE FOR YOU AS FAR AS MAKING SURE THAT IF YOU WANT OUR SUPPORT, THAT WE CAN AGREE WITH YOU THAT IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL, INCLUDING ALL OF THE NEIGHBORS?
>> ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER.
WE STARTED OUR COMMUNITY OUTREACH LAST APRIL, IMMEDIATELY CONTACTING THE TWO BUSINESSES THAT ARE DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO US IN THE MASTER COMMUNITY, AND THEN STARTED REACHING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS WELL.
WE GOT THE CITY-PROVIDED CONTACT LIST AND MAILED OUT PHYSICAL MAILINGS TO OVER 100 ADDRESSES, AND CONTACTED VIA EMAIL AND PHONE, ALL THE HOA DIRECTORS IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS.
WE REALIZED THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACROSS TO US DOES NOT HAVE A STRUCTURED HOA.
ONCE WE GOT IN CONTACT WITH THE PEOPLE THERE, WAS TRYING TO GET AS MUCH INFORMATION OUT AS WE COULD.
WE HAD OUR FIRST COMMUNITY MEETING IN THE GYM IN MAY.
OUR SECOND WAS 16 MONTHS LATER IN THE GYM IN NOVEMBER, AND THOSE WERE TWO MEETINGS WITH GREAT JUXTAPOSITION BECAUSE THE FIRST ONE, THE GYM WAS STILL OPEN. IT WAS ACTIVE.
PEOPLE WERE INTERESTED IN COMING TO OUR MEETING.
WE HAD A GREAT TURNOUT OF OVER 20 RESIDENTS, AND BROADLY SPEAKING, EVEN THEN, THE SUPPORT FOR THE USE WAS EVIDENT.
THE HEIGHT WAS A CONCERN, AND THIS WAS ALL PRE-LEGISLATIVE CHANGES THAT HAPPENED OVER THE SUMMER.
WE HAD A FULL UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT THAT A REZONE WAS GOING TO BE REQUIRED.
WE WANTED TO START THAT PROCESS REALLY EARLY WITH THE COMMUNITY, BUT WE FELT THERE WAS A GREAT RECEPTION, WHICH IS WHY WE CONTINUED FROM THAT POINT.
THE SECOND MEETING WE HAD IN NOVEMBER HAD A LOT MORE PEOPLE ON THE NOTIFICATION LIST, A LOT MORE EMAILS THAT WERE ADDED FROM NEXT DOOR POSTS AND ELSEWHERE, BECAUSE THERE HAS BEEN A LOT OF INTEREST OUT THERE.
AT THAT POINT, THE GYM WAS CLOSED, AND THE EQUIPMENT WAS MOVED OUT.
LEGISLATIVE CHANGES HAPPENED OVER THE SUMMER, BUT WE REMAINED COMMITTED TO WHAT WE ORIGINALLY PRESENTED IN BRINGING THE HIGHEST QUALITY SENIOR HOUSING COMMUNITY THAT WE COULD.
SOME OF THE OTHER FEEDBACK WE HAVE GOT FROM RESIDENTS IS LOOKING AT OPTIONS TO ENSURE SAFETY DURING STORMS OR FREEZES.
LOOKING AT HOW WE ADD GENERATORS TO OUR BUILDING, THAT'S BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION.
AS FAR AS OTHER COMMENTS FROM THE COMMUNITY, THE USE HAS BROADLY BEEN SUPPORTED.
THE HEIGHT HAS BEEN THE CONCERN.
[02:00:01]
WE'VE DONE OUR BEST TO MITIGATE THAT FROM MOVING THE BUILDING AWAY FROM THE NEIGHBORS AND OUR MONASTERY SCHOOL TO THE SOUTH, BUT THERE'S NOT A WHOLE LOT MORE WE CAN DO THERE.>> I'M GOING TO SOUND LIKE A BROKEN RECORD.
I KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT WHY NOT? IF WE LOP OFF ONE STORY THAT WE MEET THE HEIGHT.
>> I'M TRYING TO GET THERE, BUT HOW ARE YOU?
>> IF YOU CAN INTRODUCE YOURSELF AS WELL, PLEASE?
>> YES, KENNETH FAMBRO, CHIEF OPERATING OFFICER, 3110 SOUTH LAKE BOULEVARD.
NOT QUITE THAT SIMPLE, PARTIALLY BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING.
WE'RE GOING QUASI-SUBTERRANEAN FROM A PARKING STANDPOINT, AND YOUR MATH IS CORRECT.
WE SHOULD BE AT A 48 FROM A TRUE HEIGHT STANDPOINT, WITH THE WINDOW BEING, CALL IT, 2' BELOW.
YOU SHOULD BE AT 45-46, BUT YOU SHOULD BE AT 48 IF WE'RE DROPPING BELOW, 7' FROM THE GRADE.
THE SITE ITSELF, THE GRADE, YOU CAN SEE IT HERE.
YOU'RE FALLING DOWN FROM A GRADING STANDPOINT.
THE CURRENT SITE ALMOST SITS IN A HOLE.
WE HAVE A 7' RETAINER WALL, SO WE'RE GOING LOWER ON THE SITE ITSELF, AND THEN WE'RE GOING ABOVE THERE.
PART OF WHICH IS OUR BUSINESS MODEL AND WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THE NUMBER OF UNITS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET HERE.
WE HAVE A FULLY ELEVATED SERVICE.
TO FIT EVERYTHING INSIDE TO GET TO YOUR POINT, THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF INDEPENDENT LIVING THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THAT WE'VE DONE IN MCKINNEY, WE HAVE A FIVE-STOREY BUILDING IN MCKINNEY, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF SQUARE FOOTAGE FROM AN AMENITY STANDPOINT AND A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS IN ORDER TO OPERATE IT.
WHEN YOU DO THAT MATH, TRULY, WE ALMOST HAVE A FLOOR OF AMENITY SPACE FOR THIS PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT.
YOU HAVE A FLOOR OF PARKING AND 30,000 SQUARE FEET OF AMENITY SPACE.
YOU'RE JUST TRYING TO FIT EVERYTHING IN IN ORDER TO MAKE IT WORK FROM THAT STANDPOINT.
>> I GET IT. THE REASON WHY I KNOW IT HAS BEEN A LITTLE BIT TONGUE-IN-CHEEK, BUT HERE'S THE WAY I SAY.
THERE ARE A COUPLE OF HURDLES.
FIRST HURDLE, IT'S NOT A PERMITTED USE.
WELL, IT'S NOT A PRIMARY USE FOR THAT PARTICULAR SITE.
IF WE ADDRESS THE FIRST HURDLE, WHICH IS LARGELY DUE TO THE COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, BECAUSE THERE IS A NEED FOR THIS HOUSING IN PLANO.
WE GET PAST THAT FIRST HURDLE.
IT HAS TO BE BENEFICIAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND THAT IS, YOU CAN SOLVE FOR SOMETHING MICRO AND HURT THE MACRO, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.
THEN YOU COME NOW WITH A THIRD HURDLE, WHICH IN MY VIEW, WE'RE ALMOST GOING WOULD HAVE TO GET OVER STATE LAW AND/OR OUR COMPLAINT IN TERMS OF ACTIVATED OPEN SPACES, THE TRANSITIONS, AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
THERE ARE THREE VERY HIGH HURDLES THAT YOU ALL NEED TO JUMP OVER.
NOW, WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS VIEW WITH THE DROPPING OF THE GRADING AND WHAT HAVE YOU, WHICH BRINGS A DIFFERENT ELEMENT TO IT.
ACTUALLY, THAT'S WHY MY TONGUE-IN-CHEEK ASK OF YOU IS TO LOP OFF ONE HURDLE BY CONSIDERING, AND I DON'T KNOW HOW THAT WORKS MECHANICALLY.
I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ECONOMICS OF THE IN AND WHAT HAVE YOU.
BUT THERE ARE THREE SIGNIFICANT HURDLES.
I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THOUGHT WAS BROUGHT TO, LET'S TAKE ONE OF THESE CHIPS OFF THE TABLE AND OFFER SOMETHING THAT AT LEAST MAKES THIS EASIER TO SWALLOW.
>> IT'S AN ELOQUENT WAY OF LOOKING AT IT.
IF I COULD, REMEMBER TO ADDRESS EACH ONE.
I THINK WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE HURDLE OF HEIGHT WHEN YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND HOW WE'RE CONSTRUCTING THE BUILDING AND PLATE HEIGHTS, AND WE CAN SHOW THAT AND WORK WITH STAFF IN ORDER TO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, I THINK, 3' FROM A DIFFERENT STANDPOINT, WHAT THE MAJOR CONCERN IS.
I WAS A HURDLER. YOU CAN SKIM OVER THAT HURDLE PRETTY CLOSE THERE.
[02:05:07]
I MIGHT GO A DIFFERENT WAY FROM THE BENEFICIAL STANDPOINT.WE STARTED AND STARTED GOING AFTER THIS SITE.
WE WERE JUST GOING TO COME IN PRE-SB 840 AND WORK ON A REZONE.
SB 840 CAME IN, AND THAT'S CREATED A LOT OF CONFUSION WITHIN.
WE'RE TRYING TO PAUSE IN AND PUT ON A GAS AND BRAKE ON WHEN TO SUBMIT, WHICH OPENS UP A MULTIFAMILY COMPONENT THAT SOMEONE CAN COME IN AND DO BY RIGHT IF THEY CHECK THE BOXES THAT YOU HAVE THERE.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE CAN COMPARE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO HAVING AN OFFSET OF MULTIFAMILY, AND NOT DETERMINE THAT WE ARE A BETTER USE FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD STANDPOINT, VERSUS PUTTING IN A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.
I MIGHT ANSWER ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD BENEFICIAL QUESTIONS BY SAYING WE'RE A BETTER USE THAN THE CURRENT ALLOWED USE THROUGH USING SB 840, IT'S HOW I MIGHT PUT THAT.
>> THANK YOU. I'M GOING TO REDIRECT YOU JUST A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE CASE IN FRONT OF US.
WE REALIZE THERE ARE SOME OTHER OPTIONS THERE, BUT WE CAN ONLY LOOK AT THE CASE WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US, NOT WHAT MIGHT HAPPEN.
>> BUT I APPRECIATE YOUR PERCEPTION. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.
>> THANK YOU. FROM THE STANDPOINT OF PROTECTING THE NEIGHBORS' INTEREST IN PRIVACY IN THEIR HOMES, WHAT MITIGATIONS ARE YOU OFFERING, IF ANY, BESIDES SINKING THE BUILDING 7'?
>> SOMETHING WE'VE DISCUSSED WITH STAFF, AND WE'RE AMENABLE TO, IS INCREASING THE LANDSCAPING ALONG OHIO DRIVE.
WE'LL ACTUALLY HAVE TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE PD, HAVE TO BURN THE GRASS AREA THAT'S THERE TODAY, WHICH WAS NOT DONE ORIGINALLY.
THAT'S ONE ELEMENT TO IT, IN ADDITION TO NEW PLANTINGS THAT WE'LL HAVE THROUGHOUT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY ON ALL SIDES OF THE SITE.
THEN, FROM A VISIBILITY STANDPOINT, WE HOPE THIS EXHIBIT, AND WE CAN PROVIDE A MORE DETAILED VERSION TO SHOW WHERE THE UNITS ACTUALLY ALIGN OVER OHIO DRIVE, BUT YOU'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT A WHOLE LOT OF ACTUAL ROOMS. WHAT WE KNOW FROM OUR SENIOR POPULATION OUR AVERAGE AGE IN THESE COMMUNITIES AS THEY ENTER IS IN THEIR LATE '70S AND THEN THEY AGE IN PLACE.
THE AVERAGE AGE ACROSS OUR PORTFOLIO IS 82.7.
SENIORS, TYPICALLY, GO TO BED EARLY.
THEY'RE NOT OUT AND ABOUT A WHOLE LOT AND PEEPING ON OTHER PEOPLE.
WE DO REALLY WELL RIGHT ADJACENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY BECAUSE THEY'RE COMING FROM SINGLE-FAMILY, AND THEY STILL WANT TO BE CLOSE TO THE COMMUNITY.
THEY HAVE FRIENDS THAT WILL BE IN THE COMMUNITY.
THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS MAY LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.
IT'S WHAT SUITS OUR PRODUCT TYPE THE BEST.
>> I'M A SENIOR, AND I'VE BEEN KNOWN TO STAY UP LATE STILL.
>> LIKE TONIGHT. HOW TALL A TREE WOULD IT TAKE PLANTED ON TOP OF THOSE BERMS LIKE A ROW OF TREES TO PROVIDE EFFECTIVE SIGHTLINE SCREENING?
>> I DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER BEFORE ME TONIGHT.
YOU DO HAVE SOME EXISTING TREES THERE THAT ARE REALLY MATURE AND THAT PROVIDE GREAT CANOPY COVERAGE DURING THE SPRING, SUMMER AND FALL.
WE COULD LOOK TO MATCH THOSE AND PUT QUALITY TREES ALONG OHIO.
>> ANOTHER QUESTION FOUNDED IN IGNORANCE OF ANYTHING HAVING TO DO WITH ENGINEERING, AND, MR. CHAIRMAN, YOU CAN CORRECT ME IF THIS IS TOTALLY OFF THE WALL.
COULD YOU SINK THE BUILDING NINE FEET INSTEAD OF SEVEN? [LAUGHTER]I REALIZE THAT THIS PROBABLY CREATES A DRAINAGE ISSUE, BUT SPEAK TO THAT.
>> YES. I DON'T HAVE THE DATA TO 100% ANSWER THAT QUESTION, BUT YOU DO HAVE CONSTRAINTS WITH SANITARY SEWER AND WATER EXISTING WATER LINES JUST GIVEN IF YOU'RE IN AN INFIELD LOCATION RIGHT HERE.
THAT WOULD PROBABLY CREATE SOME COMPLEXITY, BUT SOMETHING THAT I WOULD SPEAK WITH OUR CIVIL ENGINEERING ABOUT.
BUT RIGHT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, WE HAVE CONSTRUCTABILITY CONSTRAINTS WITH THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE THERE THAT PROBABLY WOULD PRESENT SOME PROBLEM WITH THAT.
I DO WANT TO POINT TO YOUR EARLIER QUESTION.
WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF, AND EVEN SOME OF OUR EARLIER VARIANCES THAT WE'VE REQUESTED WAS TO KEEP AS MUCH OF THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE IN PLACE GIVEN THE MATURITY OF THE TREES THAT WE HAVE THERE SO THAT WE COULD HAVE THAT AND NOT HAVE A REPLACEMENT WITH SMALLER TREES OR OKAY.
>> TO BEAR IN MIND, I THINK THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS NOT THE QUALITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
IT'S NOT THE NEED FOR SENIOR LIVING, WHICH IS BEYOND DISPUTE AT THIS POINT.
THE SOLE ISSUE IN THIS CASE IS IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
[02:10:03]
THAT'S WHAT YOU SHOULD FOCUS ON.>> HELLO. I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION IN IGNORANCE.
YOU MENTIONED THE AVERAGE AGE OF WHO'S LIVING HERE.
WHAT ARE THE CONSTRAINTS ON OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS LIVING THERE OR IS IT JUST A ONE PERSON LIVING CENTER, ONE PER PERSON ROOM, OR CAN THEY HAVE A SPOUSE? HOW DOES THAT WORK?
>> YES, YOU CAN BE MARRIED, YOU CAN HAVE A SPOUSE.
THE COMMUNITY IS A ONE AND TWO BEDROOM COMMUNITY, WHAT WE SEE THOUGH IS PEOPLE THAT HAVE TWO BEDROOMS EITHER LIVE IN ONE BEDROOM OR IF IT'S A HUSBAND OR WIFE, THEY LIVE IN SEPARATE ROOMS AT THAT POINT.
THE AVERAGE PROFILE OF OUR RESIDENT, LIKE I SAID, IS IN THEIR 80S, IT'S A SINGLE WIDOWED WOMAN, TYPICALLY, BUT YOU DO HAVE MARRIED COUPLES THAT LIVE IN THE COMMUNITY.
IT'S AN AGE RESTRICTED COMMUNITY, SO YOU HAVE TO BE OVER 55 PLUS, BUT AS EVIDENCE FROM OUR.
>> IF YOU WERE A GRANDPARENT WHO HAPPENED TO BE LIVING THERE, WHO NEEDED TO TAKE CUSTODY OF THEIR CHILD, THEY COULDN'T DO SO?
>> THAT'S A UNIQUE CASE. I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT INSTANCE, BUT IN OUR COMMUNITIES, WE DON'T HAVE MINOR CHILDREN.
>> WE CAN SPEAK TO THE CURRENT POLICY THAT WE HAVE.
>> I JUST SAID, I DON'T KNOW, SO I WAS CURIOUS.
>> ANDREW JAB IN 3110 WEST SOUTHLAKE BOULEVARD.
IT'S A GREAT QUESTION. WE OFTEN GET ASKED WHAT'S GOING TO BE THE IMPACT ON THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.
WE DID A FULL DIVE OF OUR 4,300 RESIDENTS ACROSS ALL OF OUR WALMART PROPERTIES.
WE HAD IT WAS 12 THAT WERE BETWEEN THE AGES OF 45 AND 55-YEARS-OLD THAT WE LOWER THAN THE 55.
THOSE PRETTY MUCH 100% OF THOSE CASES WERE SPECIAL NEEDS, CHILDREN THAT WERE LIVING WITH THEIR PARENTS.
>> YOU DO HAVE CASES WHERE YOU DO HAVE CHILDREN, I GUESS, IN YOUR TERM LIVING WITH THEIR PARENTS?
>> CORRECT. THE ACTUAL POLICY WOULD BE 80% OF OUR RESIDENTS HAVE TO BE ABOVE THE AGE OF 55 AND OLDER.
IN OUR CASE, IT'S 99 PLUS PERCENT.
>> I WAS JUST TRYING TO PROCESS IT IN MY HEAD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE CLARIFICATION. COMMISSIONER LENFELD.
>> I WAS ACTUALLY JUST GOING TO REITERATE WHAT COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF WAS ALLUDING TO, WITH CAN YOU DROP IT LOWER? CAN YOU DO THINGS LIKE THAT? YOU SAID THE FIRST FLOOR IS JUST PARKING.
WOULD THERE BE UTILITIES UNTIL YOU GET TO THE SECOND FLOOR? LIKE WATER SEWER STORM THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT, REALLY SANITARY.
YOU'RE AT SANITARY STARTS ON THE SECOND FLOOR, NOT THE FIRST, RIGHT?
>> YEAH, BECAUSE YOU'RE COMING UP, SO OUR DEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT WE'RE DEALING WITH LIFT STATIONS AND ON AN RA [INAUDIBLE].
>> YOU WOULDN'T NEED ONE IF YOU'RE COMING FROM THE SECOND FLOOR, IF ALL THE SANITARY IS COMING FROM THE SECOND, NOT FROM THE FIRST.
>> AGAIN, I THINK IT'S WORTH[OVERLAPPING]
>> OBVIOUSLY, IF YOU FIGURED THE CONSENSUS, THE HEIGHT IS OUR BIGGEST.
>> THAT WAS ONE THING. I DO THINK IT WOULD BE GOOD TO EXPLORE THAT.
HOW MUCH MORE COULD YOU DROP IT, ESPECIALLY SINCE ALL YOUR SANITARY WOULD BE STARTING FROM THE SECOND FLOOR, IF THE FIRST FLOOR IS TRULY JUST PARKING.
THEN THE TREES, I DO THINK IF WE HAD A NICE, SOLID TREE LINE, THAT MAY BE EVERGREEN TYPE THING THAT WOULD ACTUALLY KEEP THAT BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTS OVER OHIO.
I THINK THAT WOULD BE ON TOP OF THAT BERM WOULD HELP A LOT WITH THAT HEIGHT ISSUE. THAT'S IT.
>> I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS.
THERE'S A LINE ON YOUR DRAWING THERE, A DIAGONAL LINE THAT SAYS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY SOMETHING.
IT'S TOO SMALL FOR ME TO READ ON MY SCREEN?
>> ON YOUR EXHIBIT RIGHT HERE, THERE'S A KIND OF A SLOPED LINE THAT SAYS SOMETHING ABOUT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY SOMETHING.
MY EYES AREN'T GOOD ENOUGH TO READ IT.
>> RESIDENTIAL PROXIMITY SLOPE, IT'S A 1:3 RATIO.
>> WHERE DID THAT LINE COME FROM? IS THAT FROM OUR CODE? IS THAT SOMETHING YOUR ARCHITECTS CAME UP WITH? WHERE DOES THAT COME FROM?
>> CORRECT. IT'S A LINE OF SITE EXHIBIT THAT WE PUT TOGETHER FOR TO ILLUSTRATE ADJACENCY TO SINGLE FAMILY IN MOST INSTANCES.
>> BUT IT'S NOT BASED ON SOMETHING IN OUR CODE AT THIS POINT?
>> NO, SIR. THIS IS THE TYPICAL, I THINK, RATIO THAT A LOT OF CITIES USE THAT YOU WANT TO HAVE AS A MINIMUM FOR SINGLE FAMILY ADJACENCY.
WHERE DID MR. KIM GO? ANYWAY, STAFF.
>> THERE IS. QUESTION FOR STAFF.
[02:15:03]
I THINK WE GOTTEN SOME INFORMATION THAT WE DIDN'T SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT THE SEVEN FOOT RETAINING WALL, THE EXCAVATION, THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY SLOPE.OBVIOUSLY, YOU DIDN'T MAY NOT HAVE HAD THIS INFORMATION.
IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT INFLUENCE THE STAFF REPORT? I KNOW WE TYPICALLY MEASURE FROM FINISHED GRADE AT THE BUILDING, BUT IN THIS CASE, BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING DOWN FROM THE STREET, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT MAY OR MAY NOT AFFECT THE STAFF OPINION?
>> IN OUR ORDINANCE, WE DO HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR SLOPING.
IT'S FROM THE STREET, AND IT'S AT A RATE OF ONE TO 1:2.
I BELIEVE MR. BELL, DO YOU REMEMBER WHERE IT STARTS? I BELIEVE IT'S AT 45 FEET IS THE MINIMUM HEIGHT AT.
>> IT'S CHANGED WITH REGULATIONS, BUT I LEAVE THE PREVIOUS REGULATIONS.
THERE'S A FORMULA, ESSENTIALLY, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW BASED ON SETBACKS.
WHAT'S THE SETBACK, THEN A CERTAIN ANGLE FROM THERE.
WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO VERIFY THAT.
THE FIRST TIME SEEING THIS DRAWING.
WE'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE PLAN AND COMPARE IT TO THE OLD ORDINANCE AND PROVIDE YOU FEEDBACK.
WE'RE NOT PREPARED TO DO THAT AT THIS MOMENT.
>> THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING THE QUESTION BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT INFORMATION IN FRONT OF US RIGHT NOW THAT THE STAFF HAS NOT HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THAT MAY AFFECT THE RECOMMENDATION OR CERTAINLY THE ANALYSIS. IS THAT FAIR?
>> I BELIEVE THE HEIGHT ISSUE WOULD STILL BE A CONCERN FOR STAFF, REGARDLESS OF THE PROXIMITY SLOPE.
A STAIR STEPPED APPROACH WOULD BE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, IN THIS CASE TO PUSH THE HEIGHT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL LINE.
I BELIEVE WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING IS LOOKS LIKE MAYBE THE FRONT SETBACK OR THE FRONT YARD.
I DON'T BELIEVE THE SLOPE IN OUR ORDINANCE IS MEASURED FROM THAT POINT.
JUST EYEBALLING IT HERE, I DON'T THINK THAT HAVING THAT SLOPE MEASURED IN OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE WOULD PROBABLY SOLVE THE ISSUE.
>> WELL THAT'S WHY BECAUSE THAT DIAGONAL LINE WAS CONFUSING ME FOR LACK OF A BETTER TERM.
A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, IF I COULD, PLEASE.
THANK YOU, MR. KIM. JUST LOOKING AT THE DRAWING YOU HAVE IN FRONT OF US, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S JUST A HANDFUL OF UNITS, I THINK WAS YOUR WERE YOUR WORDS THAT WOULD HAVE A VIEW OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD.
ARE ALL OF YOUR AMENITIES ON THE FIRST FLOOR, ARE THERE SOME UP ON THE TOP FLOOR, OR IS THERE ANY WAY TO MITIGATE THAT OVERVIEW CONCERN OF THE NEIGHBORS?
>> WE TRY TO CENTRALIZE OUR AMENITIES.
LET ME GO BACK REAL QUICK. I'M SORRY.
WE DID PROVIDE THIS PRESENTATION TO STAFF LAST WEEK, SO IF IT WASN'T IN YOUR PACKET THAT'S ON US FOR NOT COMMUNICATING THAT WELL IN ADVANCE, BUT INTENDED TO GET THIS WELL BEFORE YOUR PRESENTATION.
WE TRY TO CENTRALIZE OUR AMENITIES.
THE BIGGEST AMENITY IN THE BUILDING IS THE DINING ROOM WITH OUR COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, OUR LOUNGE AREA, OR BAR AREA, THAT TYPICALLY LIKES TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE BUILDING.
WE TRY TO CENTRALIZE EVERYTHING JUST SO IT'S EASIER FOR THE RESIDENTS TO GET TO.
IN THIS CASE, MOST OF THE AMENITIES ARE FACING WEST PARK ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING, AND SIDE ALONG OHIO IS THE SKINNIEST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
IT WOULD BE CHALLENGING TO INCORPORATE THE AMENITY SPACE THERE.
>> GOT YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSION FOR THE APPLICANT, COMMISSIONER LENFELD?
>> MAY I POINT OUT ONE OTHER THING JUST FOR YOUR CLARIFICATION? THAT'S PROBABLY A GOOD ONE TO SHOW, BUT SHOW THEM THIS PICTURE.
I DO WANT TO MENTION THAT THE BUILDING WILL HAVE AN INTERIOR, BASICALLY A COURTYARD THAT SITS ON TOP OF THE PODIUM STRUCTURE.
MOST OF OUR INTERIOR FUNCTIONS AND FUNCTIONS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF, WALKING, IT'S A VERY MINUTIZE AREA ON THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING, NOT ON THE EXTERIOR OF THE BUILDING.
I JUST WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT TO YOU AS WELL.
>> GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.
>> I JUST HAD ONE MORE QUESTION THAT I MEANT TO BRING UP.
ALONG WITH THE HEIGHT ISSUE, AND I KNOW A LOT OF IT IS LIKE PEOPLE LOOKING DOWN INTO PEOPLE'S YARDS, THAT KIND OF THING.
BUT ANOTHER THING TO DEAL WITH THE HEIGHT IS HVAC.
I SUSPECT IT'S ALL GOING TO BE SITTING ON THE ROOF TOPS.
THEY'RE GOING TO BE ROOFTOP UNITS, COOLING TOWERS.
[02:20:01]
>> SPEAK TO THE EXACT TYPE. ROOFTOP UNITS.
EXACTLY LIKE WHAT YOU SEE ROOFTOP UNITS.
>> IT'S HARD TO TELL IN THE PICTURE OF THIS.
INDIVIDUAL ROOFTOP UNITS PER UNIT.
>> EVEN ALL OF OUR AMENITY SPACES, EVERYTHING WILL BE.
>> THAT'S THE POINT OF THE PER THE[OVERLAPPING].
>> OF THE PARALLEL WALL, CORRECT.
>> YOU WON'T HAVE THESE G UNITS THAT YOU'RE LOOKING?
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. MY QUESTION IS THAT I UNDERSTAND THAT YOU HAVE YOUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ON A NUMBER OF BEDS TO MAKE IT FINANCIAL SENSE.
IF YOU CONSIDERED DOING ONLY PARTIAL KIND OF A STEP UP.
LIKE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO REMOVE THE ENTIRE FLOOR, MAYBE JUST ON THE OHIO SIDE, SINCE YOU SAID, IT'S A SKINNIER SIDE, OR MAYBE JUST ON THIS SIDE TO REMOVE A FEW UNITS SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE THE TOP FLOOR TO OVERLOOKING TO THE NEIGHBORS.
THAT REDUCED THE CONCERNS OF THE PRIVACY.
HAVE YOU CONSIDERED THAT SOLUTION OR THAT I GUESS.
I'M JUST LOOKING AT THE ELEVATION.
WE STILL HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE A CONSTRUCTIBLE BUILDING THAT MEETS FIRE CODE AND SOME OF THE OTHER CODES THAT NO DEAD END CORRIDORS, WHICH IS A REALLY BIG KEY.
OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, THAT'S MY BIGGEST CONCERN.
JUST KIND OF TALKING ALL OUT IS A DEAD END CORRIDOR.
WE LIKE TO HAVE OR FROM A SENIOR HOUSING PERSPECTIVE, YOU EVEN DO IT ON MOST OF THE BUILDINGS THAT YOU BUILT THIS WAY.
YOU WOULD WANT TO PREFER AND PREFER TO HAVE A CORRIDOR THAT'S CONTINUOUS.
OUR RESIDENTS ACTUALLY WALK INSIDE THE CORRIDOR.
THEY USE THEM FOR EXERCISE AS WELL.
BUT IT'S A LIFE SAFETY ISSUE TO HAVE NINE CONTINUOUS CORRIDOR, SO WE'D HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK INTO THAT.
>> SURE. MY NEXT QUESTION IS, IF YOU WERE GIVEN MORE TIME, WOULD YOU CONSIDER MAYBE TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF THE PRIVACY ISSUE OR RISK OF BEING DENIED BY THIS BODY?
>> I WOULD PROBABLY ASK MAYBE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS TO GET SOME GUIDANCE FROM THIS BODY PRIOR TO ANSWERING THAT QUESTION.
IF WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT THE UTILITY STANDPOINT AND THE COST OF LOWERING THE BUILDING VERSUS I DON'T THINK WE WANT A CLOSED CORRIDOR SYSTEM.
I THINK THAT WILL CREATE MORE PROBLEMS, AND FROM A LIFE SAFETY STANDPOINT, YOU START DEALING WITH THINGS LIKE FIRES SYSTEMS, AND I DON'T THINK THAT'S A VIABLE OPTION, POTENTIALLY.
BUT LOWERING THE BUILDING IN ORDER TO MEET IF OUR DIFFERENCES SAY THREE FEET OR SOMETHING OF THAT NATURE, THAT IS PROBABLY SOMETHING THAT WE CAN TAKE A LOOK AT FROM A OVERALL STANDPOINT, AND WE'D HAVE TO REVIEW UTILITIES AND COSTS, AND FROM A PODIUM BUILDING STANDPOINT, AS WELL, YOU HAVE SO MUCH SPACE THAT YOU NEED TO KEEP OPEN FROM A VENTILATION.
THERE'S SOME ENGINEERING THAT GOES INTO IT THAT'S WORTH TAKING A LOOK AT.
BUT NOT AS FAR AS IF THAT WASN'T A VIABLE OPTION TO THIS GROUP, I WOULD SAY IT'S NOT A VIABLE OPTION FOR US TO CHOP OFF A FLOOR.
>> GREAT. WE'RE LOOKING FOR SOLUTIONS. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. I'M NOT SEEING ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.
THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PRESENTATION.
THERE MAY BE MORE QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
DO WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER REGISTERED? I REQUESTED A BREAK.
WE'RE GOING TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN AND WE'RE GOING TO TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK FOR EVERYBODY, AND THEN WE'LL BE RIGHT BACK.
>> I'LL CALL US BACK AFTER OUR BRIEF RECESS.
AND I THINK WE STILL HAVE AN OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
I BELIEVE WE HAVE THREE SPEAKERS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING, IS THAT CORRECT?
[02:25:02]
>> THE FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER IS PAUL MILOSEVIC, FOLLOWED BY CHRISTIAN MACKEY, AND THEN JUSTIN BENNETT.
>> MR. MILOSEVIC, IF YOU'D INTRODUCE YOURSELF?
>> YES. HI, PAUL MILOSEVIC, 3110, WEST SOUTH LAKE BOULEVARD, SOUTHLAKE, TEXAS.
I DIDN'T REALLY PLAN TO SPEAK ORIGINALLY.
OUR TEAM HERE SIGNED ME UP, BUT I'M HAPPY TO DO SO TO TRY TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED EARLIER REGARDING THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING.
I KNOW THAT'S WHAT'S AT ISSUE HERE, AND WE UNDERSTAND THAT WE KNEW IT WAS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.
THE REASON IT'S FIVE STORIES IS, AS YOU SAW IN ONE OF THE EXHIBITS, THE WHOLE FIRST FLOOR IS PARKING.
WE PUT FOUR STORIES ABOVE PARKING.
PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE NEED A MINIMUM NUMBER OF UNITS TO MAKE THE COMMUNITY WORK ECONOMICALLY.
PART OF THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE HAVE BASICALLY A RESTAURANT AND AN ACTIVITY CENTER WITHIN THE BUILDING.
WE SERVE BREAKFAST AND LUNCH EVERY DAY.
EVENTUALLY, WHEN THE BUILDING IS FULL, WE WILL START SERVING DINNER.
WE'LL HAVE A STAFF OF 25-35 OVER TIME, SO WE'VE GOT PARKING FOR THE STAFF.
WE'VE GOT THIS FULL RESTAURANT, COMMERCIAL KITCHEN, SERVERS, KITCHEN STAFF.
WE'VE GOT ACTIVITY STAFF MEMBERS.
WE HAVE ALL THESE ACTIVITY ROOMS. WE WOULD HAVE LOWERED THE BUILDING, TRUST ME, IF WE COULD TO MAKE IT WORK, BUT THERE WAS JUST NO WAY ECONOMICALLY AND PHYSICALLY TO DO IT.
WE LOWERED IT AS MUCH AS WE COULD, AND I THINK OUR TEAM IS WE'RE GOING TO GO BACK AND CHECK WITH OUR CIVIL ENGINEER HOW MUCH LOWER WE CAN ACTUALLY DO IT.
I THINK THAT THE SECOND POINT OF YOUR ORIGINAL QUESTION ABOUT YOU WILL NEED JUSTIFICATION, FINDINGS, IF YOU WILL, I THINK IS THE TECHNICAL TERM.
I THINK WE'RE GOING TO WORK ON ADDRESSING THE HEIGHT ISSUE.
ON THE BENEFIT TO THE COMMUNITY AND THE CITY AND THE CITIZENS AS A WHOLE, WE LOOK AT IT, AND WE'VE GOT EXPERIENCE IN ALL THESE OTHER SUBURBAN COMMUNITIES HERE.
IF WE HAVE 240 UNITS, THAT THEORETICALLY WILL OPEN UP 240 HOMEOWNERS IN PLANO WILL SELL THEIR HOME, MOVE TO OUR COMMUNITY, AND IT WILL BRING IN 240 NEW FAMILIES TO PLANO, THE RETAIL SUPPORT, THE SUPPORT FOR THE SCHOOL SYSTEM.
YOU GET TO KEEP 250 OF YOUR BEST SENIOR RESIDENTS HERE IN TOWN WHERE THEY WANT TO STAY AND BRING IN 250 NEW FAMILIES TO SUPPORT THE ECONOMICS OF THE COMMUNITY.
I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT FOR MY COMMENTS.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> SIR, WERE YOU SPEAKING AS ONE OF THE APPLICANTS? WHAT WAS YOUR RELATIONSHIP TO THIS?
>> YEAH, I'M PART OF THE APPLICANT.
>> ARE YOU ASKING US TO GIVE YOU MORE TIME TO LOOK INTO THIS AS OPPOSED TO MOVING FORWARD TODAY?
>> I THINK WE'RE PREPARED TO DO THAT, YES.
>> I GUESS, THEN I'D ASK STAFF, IS THAT HOW MUCH TIME DO YOU THINK THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO CONTINUE TO WORK?
>> LET'S FINISH THE PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE I HAVE A SIMILAR QUESTION.
>> THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT QUESTION.
>> NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRISTIAN MACKEY, FOLLOWED BY JUSTIN BENNETT AND FINALLY CAMERON JAMAL.
>> I'M CHRIS MACKEY. I LIVE AT 4549 BOSTON DRIVE.
NUMBER OF ISSUES ARE THE HEIGHT'S RIDICULOUS.
IT'S THE DRAWINGS THEY'VE GOT SHOW TREES WHERE THERE ARE POWER LINES, AND THERE'S NO TREES THERE, AND THERE'S NO GREEN, PARTICULARLY RIGHT NOW.
THERE'S NO LEAVES. IT'S RIGHT INTO MY POOL. THERE'S NO WAY AROUND IT.
SOME OF THE SOCIAL MEDIA STUFF I'VE POSTED PICTURES FROM MY POOL.
YOU CAN SEE DEEP INTO THE LOT.
THE THE LIGHTS THEY PUT IN THEIR PARKING LOT.
I CAN SEE THEM FROM MY BEDROOM.
A LITTLE WORRIED ABOUT THE PROPERTY VALUE.
THIS BUILDING LOOKS VERY MUCH LIKE A BUILDING A MILE AWAY FROM MY OLD HOUSE THAT HAD FIRE TRUCKS AND AMBULANCES THROUGHOUT THE NIGHT.
[02:30:02]
IT'D TAKE A MIDNIGHT WALK, I WOULD SEE A LOT OF TRAFFIC THERE. SEE IT DURING THE DAY.I'M WORRIED ABOUT MY POT PROPERTY VALUE, THAT I'M GOING TO EAT A LOT OF.
I'M GOING TO TAKE A NICE HAIRCUT IF THIS BUILDING GETS PUT UP.
I TALKED ABOUT THE RENDERING OF THE TREES, NOT EVEN CLOSE TO WHAT'S ACTUALLY HAPPENING THERE.
I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.
THERE ARE OTHER SENIOR FACILITIES THERE THAT ARE TWO OR THREE STORIES, NOT FIVE STORIES, AND THEY WORK REALLY WELL.
TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY NEW PEOPLE RIGHT THERE OR DOORS, YOU'RE GOING TO ADD THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE MORE TRAFFIC.
ISN'T THERE LIKE 50,000 ON PARK AVENUE RIGHT NOW? IT'S GOING TO GO A LITTLE HIGHER.
THE SEVEN FOOT RETAINAGE IS CORRECT.
THAT IS AT THE EXTREME AREAS OF THE PROPERTY.
THE OHIO ENTRANCE HAS ROUGHLY A ZERO SLOPE TO THE PARKING LOT.
IT COVERED THE TREES. I'M SO CLOSE.
THAT HOUSE THEY HAD ON THE PICTURE.
ANYWAY, MY HOUSE IS WHERE THOSE TREES ARE.
I SWIM THREE TIMES A DAY WHEN THE WEATHER'S GOOD, AND I DON'T KNOW.
>> NEXT SPEAKER IS JUSTIN BENNETT.
DID HE LEFT? THE FINAL SPEAKER IS CAMERON JAMAL.
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS NATASHA JAMAL, 1900 PRESTON PARK, BOULEVARD.
WE ARE THE OWNERS OF PRESTON PARK MONTESSORI, WHICH IS THE DAY CARE YOU GUYS DISCUSSED.
WE'RE A LICENSED CHILDCARE FACILITY THAT HAS BEEN A STAPLE OF THE COMMUNITY FOR THE LAST 20 YEARS, HAVING SERVED THOUSANDS OF FAMILIES IN THE AREA FOR CHILDREN AS YOUNG AS SIX WEEKS OLD.
WE'RE OPPOSED TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE BEING BUILT ADJACENT TO OUR SCHOOL.
ANY DEVELOPMENT AT THIS LOCATION WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT OUR ABILITY TO SAFELY OPERATE.
CHILDCARE IS A HIGHLY REGULATED SAFETY SENSITIVE USE.
CONSTRUCTION TOY CREATES UNAVOIDABLE ISSUES LIKE CONSTANT NOISE, VIBRATION, DUST AND DEBRIS, AND WITH HEAVY EQUIPMENT.
THAT DIRECTLY INTERFERES WITH INFANT SLEEP, CLASSROOM LEARNING, AND OUTDOOR PLAY, AND THE OVERALL SAFETY AND AIR QUALITY OF OUR SCHOOL.
THESE IMPACTS CANNOT BE MITIGATED IN A CHILD CARE ENVIRONMENT.
A FIVE STORY BUILDING, ESPECIALLY WITH AN UNDERGROUND PARKING GARAGE SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASES THESE CONCERNS.
EXCAVATION, PILE DRIVING, CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC, AND STAGING AREAS WILL EXTEND DISRUPTION OVER A LONG PERIOD OF TIME AND CREATE ONGOING SAFETY RISK FOR CHILDREN, FAMILY, AND STAFF.
OUR CENTER DEPENDS ON SAFE, CONSISTENT ACCESS, AND VISIBILITY.
CONSTRUCTION BARRIERS, TRAFFIC CONGESTION, AND BLOCKED SIGHTLINES WILL REDUCE ENROLLMENT AND THREATEN THE LONG TERM VIABILITY OF A SCHOOL, AND THAT HAS SERVED THE COMMUNITY FOR TWO DECADES.
OUR CHILDCARE CENTER IS AN ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY RESOURCE TO SEVERAL HUNDRED PLANO FAMILIES.
WE SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN A POSITION WHERE ARE FORCED TO ABSORB IMPACTS THAT JEOPARDIZE CHILD SAFETY AND OUR ABILITY TO OPERATE.
FOR THESE REASONS, WE RESPECTFULLY URGE THE COMMISSION TO DENY APPROVAL FOR ANY CONSTRUCTION OF THIS MAGNITUDE AT THIS LOCATION AND PROTECT THE CHILDREN AND FAMILIES WHO RELY ON OUR SCHOOL EVERY DAY.
PROTECTING EXISTING ESSENTIAL COMMUNITY SERVICES SHOULD BE A PRIORITY TO ZONING AND PLANNING DECISIONS. THANK YOU.
>> CAMERON JAMAL, 1900 PRESTON PARK, BOULEVARD.
I ALSO DISAGREE THAT THAT SENIOR LIVING FACILITY WOULD BE BETTER THAN A SINGLE FAMILY USE.
TALKING TO SEVERAL OTHER BUSINESSES LOCALLY, FEEL THAT SENIOR LIVING FACILITY OF THIS KIND IS MEANT TO KEEP RESIDENTS IN WITH EVERYTHING THEY PROVIDE, THEY DO A GREAT JOB, BUT DOESN'T ALLOW RESIDENTS TO GO OUT AND SUPPORT LOCAL BUSINESSES AS OPPOSED TO A SINGLE FAMILY.
WE CAN'T DENY THAT A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY IS CRITICAL TO PLANO.
HOWEVER, WE DON'T FEEL LIKE THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE SITE FOR IT.
>> THANK YOU. [APPLAUSE] YOU HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS?
>> THERE ARE NO MORE REGISTERED SPEAKERS.
>> LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
[NOISE] I RESERVE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.
>> SOME OF THE CONVERSATION WE'VE BEEN HAVING LED ME TO THINK THAT THEY WERE GOING SEVEN FEET DOWN.
[02:35:02]
BUT WHEN WE LOOKED AT THE SITE ITSELF ON OHIO, THERE'S NOT A SEVEN FOOT DOWN UNLESS THEY'RE DIGGING SEVEN FOOT BELOW THE GRADIENT, THERE'S VERY LITTLE THERE ON OHIO.I'M REALLY CURIOUS TO HEAR FROM STAFF ABOUT THIS SEVEN FOOT CHANGE THAT THEY WERE ALREADY EXPECTING TO BE AT AS OPPOSED TO WHERE IT IS ON OHIO. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE?
>> YEAH, IT DOES. THAT WAS ONE TO BE MY FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS AS WELL, IS I FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOTTEN NEW INFORMATION TONIGHT, AND THERE MAY BE STILL SOME ADDITIONAL WORK THAT CAN BE DONE TO REFINE THE GRADE QUESTION.
I HEARD IT FROM THE APPLICANT'S TEAM.
I BELIEVE THAT WE HAD SOME CONCERNS THAT WE EXPRESSED.
AND SO I GUESS A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND THE APPLICANT.
I FEEL LIKE THIS NEEDS A LITTLE MORE CLARIFICATION.
I'M NOT GOING TO SAY WORK BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW IF IT NEEDS WORK OR NOT.
I FEEL LIKE IT NEEDS MORE CLARIFICATION FOR US TO REALLY UNDERSTAND THE HEIGHT RELATED TO THE NEIGHBORS AND THE STREET VERSUS WHAT'S THERE TODAY.
I DON'T FEEL LIKE WE HAVE INFORMATION.
>> I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. MY CONCERN THOUGH IS I DON'T WANT TO TABLE EVERYTHING TO APRIL OR MARCH 2.
>> I'M GOING TO BE ABSENT THAT DAY, NO.
>> WOW. REALLY? NO, BUT I DON'T THINK TWO WEEKS IS ENOUGH.
BUT MARCH 2 DOES SEEM MORE REASONABLE, BUT I WANT TO GIVE THE APPLICANT, AS WELL AS STAFF.
I DON'T WANT TO OVERBURDEN THEM WITH THE MARCH 2 DEADLINE.
>> I AGREE. I KNOW THE STAFF HAS GOT A LOT ON THEIR PLATE.
APPLICANT TO WHOEVER WANTS TO SPEAK TO IT.
I THINK Y'ALL NEED SOME MORE TIME TO BRING SOME MORE INFORMATION TO THE STAFF FOR REVIEW.
MARCH 2 WOULD BE THE ABSOLUTE EARLIEST, WHICH MEANS THAT GIVE YOU ABOUT TWO WEEKS TO GET BACK TO STAFF, OR WOULD YOU NEED MORE TIME THAN THAT TO WORK WITH YOUR DESIGN TEAM AND TARGET THE MIDDLE OF THE MARCH MEETING? Y'ALL'S COMMITMENTS ARE AND HOW FAST ALL CAN RESPOND?
>> YEAH, WE'RE GOING THROUGH GRADING RIGHT NOW.
TWO WEEKS IS ENOUGH TIME TO ANSWER THESE QUESTIONS.
>> TO GET INFORMATION BACK TO STAFF?
WAS THAT MARCH 2? I KNOW YOU HAVE GOT A LOT OF CASES IN THE HOPPER.
>> OR IF IT NEEDS TO MOVE, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHICHEVER ONE?
>> NO, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MARCH 2 MEETING BEING THE FIRST ONE THAT'S AVAILABLE.
>> STAFF WILL BE UNAVAILABLE THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH DUE TO SOME COMMITMENTS TO SOFTWARE IMPLEMENTATION, SO WE'RE UNAVAILABLE THAT FIRST WEEK, SO MARCH 2 IS PROBABLY THE EARLIEST THAT WE COULD GET IT BACK. MISS CORRELL, YOU'RE GOING TO ANSWER?
>> YOU SAID THAT WE WERE UNAVAILABLE THE FIRST WEEK OF MARCH, BUT IT'S THE FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY.
>> YES. WE WERE UNAVAILABLE THE FIRST WEEK OF FEBRUARY DUE TO OTHER COMMITMENTS.
THAT'S A WEEK THAT WE DON'T HAVE TO EVALUATE THIS.
MARCH 2 WOULD BE THE EARLIEST.
I THINK IT DEPENDS ON IF THE APPLICANT CAN GET THAT INFORMATION TO US IN A TIMELY MANNER TO MAKE THAT DATE WORK.
I KNOW THERE'S YOU KNOW ENGINEERING AND THINGS TO BE CONSIDERED WITH.
>> WHAT'S THE OTHER DATE AFTER MARCH 2?
>> TO ME, THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE IN MARCH 2.
>> I'M JUST JOKING. [LAUGHTER] YOU MESS MY SKIING.
I HAVE NO KIDS IN THERE, YEAH.
>> IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT. I AGREE WITH YOU.
YOU GOT A LOT OF STUFF PRESSING ON MARCH.
>> WE HAVE A COUPLE OF OTHER CASES IN THE HOPPER THAT NOT THAT THAT'S YOUR PROBLEM, BUT WE'RE TRYING TO NOT OVERBURDEN OUR STAFF ON A SHORT TURN AROUND.
>> I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE A MOTION YET. I JUST WANTED TO GET YOUR RESPONSE TO THAT IN THE STAFFS. COMMISSIONER ALI.
>> NOT MAKING A MOTION AND I'M OPEN TO TABLING.
HOWEVER, I WILL STILL STATE THAT THE THREE HURDLES, AND I MIGHT ADD HALF A HURDLE IN TERMS OF CONSIDERING THE BENEFICIAL TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BRINGING THE BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBOR THE DAYCARE AS A HALF A HURDLE FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD.
TO ME, I DON'T SEE ENOUGH THAT THEY COULD COME BACK WITH THAT WOULD SUCCESSFULLY FOR ME JUMP THOSE THREE HURDLES.
[02:40:01]
OPEN THE TABLE IN, BUT.>> I WAS JUST GOING TO GO BACK TO THE APPLICANT REAL QUICK IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND. COME BACK.
HE'S BROUGHT UP SEVERAL HURDLES, AND I'M ALWAYS TRYING TO HELP THE DEVELOPER COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS ON WHAT THEY COULD DO BASED ON WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT.
I KNOW YOU'RE WILLING TO GO BACK AND LOOK AT CAN WE LOWER IT A LITTLE BIT MORE, WITH THE IDEA THAT SPECIFICALLY SANITARY.
OBVIOUSLY, YOU DON'T WANT ANY FORCE MEAN LIKE A SUMP PUMP OR THAT TYPE OF STUFF GOING ON.
BUT IF YOU COULD LOWER IT, YES, YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT.
BUT THEN THE OTHER THING IS THE STAFF HAD ASKED ABOUT STEP BACK.
CAN WE JUST CHOP OFF THE TOP LAYER LEVEL AND STUFF? I UNDERSTAND YOU GOT TO HAVE A UNIT, AND THERE'S A MINIMAL AMOUNT.
BUT COULD YOU STEP IT BACK TO A POINT WHERE YOU RETAIN A CORRIDOR ON THAT OHIO SIDE? THAT'S JUST A CORRIDOR.
THERE'S NO UNITS THERE THAT WOULD ALLOW IT TO PULL IT BACK.
THEN IT LOOKS DOWN INTO THE COURTYARD OR WHATEVER.
BUT THEN IT PULLS THAT BACK AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTS.
>> I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M GETTING WHAT YOU'RE SAYING [OVERLAPPING] ON THE FOURTH FLOOR, ALMOST CUTTING IT BACK TO 8-10 FOOT WIDE CORRIDOR ON THE INSIDE OF THE BUILDING.
>> GOING WITH A FOUR STORY, IF YOU WILL, ON THE OHIO SIDE, AND YOU WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SEE, I GET WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.
>> YES, YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING.
YOU STILL HAVE A C. YOU STILL HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A LOOP OF UNITS, BUT THEN YOU JUST LOSE THOSE ONES.
BUT THAT'S SOMETHING I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT YOU AT LEAST LOOK INTO AND SEE IF THAT'S VIABLE, THAT YOU CAN STILL MAKE THAT WORK FINANCIALLY.
>> THEN ALSO, AGAIN, JUST TO REITERATE, I DO THINK IT'S GOING TO BE IMPORTANT TO GET A LIVE SCREENING ALONG THAT AS WELL, THAT WOULD GO A LONG WAY THAT MAYBE EVERGREEN TYPE SCREENING.
I THINK THOSE THREE ITEMS WOULD HELP A TON.
THEN I DID NOT REALIZE THE IMPACT THAT WAS BROUGHT UP.
HE SAID AS A HALF HURDLE WITH YOUR NEIGHBOR BUSINESS WITH THE DAYCARE.
I WOULD LIKE TO SEE SOMETHING THAT YOU COULD DO TO HELP THEM TO MITIGATE A LOT OF THEIR CONCERNS.
IT'S GOING TO BE TOUGH. I KNOW CONSTRUCTION IS LOUD.
>> CONSTRUCTION IS CONSTRUCTION.
>> IT IS WHAT IT IS. BUT THERE ARE THINGS YOU COULD DO.
>> THEN UPFRONT JUST SAY, WE'RE COMMITTED TO BE DONE IN A YEAR, WHATEVER IT IS, THAT THERE'S A TIMELINE.
>> WE'VE HAD THOSE CONVERSATIONS.
>> I THINK YOU ASKED FOR A LIST OF OUR CONCERNS, SO WE'RE TRYING TO HELP YOU WITH THAT. COMMISSIONER BENDER.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER'S COMMENTS.
I ALSO HAVE ONE AND WE REFER TO IT AS LAND USE.
QUESTION IN MY MIND IS IF THE RIGHT LAND USE FOR THAT LOCATION.
AGAIN, I THINK A SCREENING WALL SOMETHING SIGNIFICANT TO ADDRESS THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE EAST IS CRITICAL AS WELL. THANK YOU.
>> I'M GOING TO ADD JUST A COUPLE OF OTHER QUESTIONS THAT I'D LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO AT LEAST LOOK INTO.
I THINK THE ISSUE AT LEAST FOR ME, IS NOT NECESSARILY THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, IT'S THE WINDOWS AT THE TOP OF THE BUILDING.
IF YOU CAN MAKE THOSE UNITS INWARD FACING, IF YOU CAN.
I'M NOT TRYING TO DESIGN YOUR PROJECT FOR YOU.
I THINK THE CONCERN FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PEOPLE FOUR STORIES UP, LOOKING ACROSS THE STREET AND INTO THEIR BACKYARDS.
IF WE CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS, IT'S NOT AS MUCH ABOUT THE ACTUAL HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING AS IT IS THE VISIBILITY FROM THE HIGH BUILDING.
THAT'S WHAT I'D LIKE FOR YOU ALL TO LOOK INTO IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE.
AS FAR AS THE LAND USE ITSELF, I LIKE THE USE.
I BELIEVE IT'S A PERFECT USE FOR THAT INTERSECTION, FOR THAT QUADRANT.
IT'LL BE VERY WALKABLE AS FAR AS YOUR RESIDENTS WALKING DOWN THE STREET TO DINNER, WALKING OVER TO THE MOVIES.
THERE'S A LOT OF PLACES FOR YOUR CUSTOMERS, RESIDENTS, TO BENEFIT FROM.
IT'S A VERY WALKABLE FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD WITHOUT EVEN HAVING TO GET IN A CAR, MUCH LESS EVEN IF YOU'RE 80, IT'S NOT FAR OR TO GET TO A NICE RESTAURANT NEXT DOOR OR GO HANG OUT AT THE ICE HOUSE.
I LIKE THAT USE AS FAR AS THE AMENITY.
I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT FOR THE COMMUNITY THERE AS WELL.
[02:45:02]
I THINK THE CONCERNS THAT I HAVE ARE THE CONCERNS OF THE NEIGHBORS, AND I THINK WE JUST NEED TO FIGURE OUT IF WE CAN FIND A WAY TO ADDRESS THOSE CONCERNS ABOUT VISIBILITY AND OVERLOOKING INTO THEM AND THAT'S THE ORIGINAL REASON FOR THE TWO STORY MAXIMUM AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.>> I REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE IN ALL OF THIS.
I THINK I CAN SPEAK FOR A LOT OF THE OTHERS ON THIS COMMISSION THAT WE REALLY WANT TO DRIVE GOOD BUSINESSES TO PLANO.
WE WANT PLACES FOR OUR SENIORS TO AGE AND AGE IN OUR COMMUNITY.
I SINCERELY APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE IN YOUR WILLINGNESS TO RECONSIDER AND TO REVIVE AND REVAMP.
TO HEAR WHAT YOUR NEIGHBORS ARE SAYING, TO BE ABLE TO RESPECTFULLY CO-EXIST.
WITH ALL THAT, I'M GOING TO MOVE THAT WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM 2A TO THE MARCH 24TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR 2026.
WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE TO THE MARCH 24TH MEETING.
PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8-0.
I MOVE WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM 2B TO THE MARCH 24TH, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO TABLE ITEM 2B TO THE MARCH 24TH MEETING. EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE.
MOTION PASSES 8-0. AS YOU'VE HEARD ALREADY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR PATIENCE.
WE APPRECIATE YOU WORKING WITH US TO TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY.
WE'LL LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU BACK HERE IN MARCH.
[3. (DW) Preliminary Plat: Oncor Cloudcrest Substation, Block A, Lot 1 – Electrical substation on one lot on 1.9 acres located on the west side of Parker Road, 1,130 feet south of Los Rios Boulevard. Zoned Agricultural. Project #PP2025-011. Applicant: Oncor Electric Delivery Company LLC. (Legislative consideration of a subdivision ordinance variance)]
ONCOR, CLOUD CREST SUBSTATION, BLOCK A LOT 1.
AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON ONE LOT ON 1.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PARKER ROAD, 01,130 FEET SOUTH OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD, ZONED AGRICULTURAL.
THE APPLICANT IS ONCOR ELECTRIC DELIVERY COMPANY LLC.
THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS, DESTINY WOODS, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.
THIS PHOTO SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE SITE AND THE ASSOCIATED PRELIMINARY PLAT IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN HERE.
THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON A LOT THAT IS CURRENTLY UNPLATTED.
THE PURPOSE OF THAT PLOT IS TO CREATE A FLAG LOT THAT HAS 20 OR EXCUSE ME, 65 FEET OF FRONTAGE.
IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH THIS PROPOSAL, VARIANCES ARE NEEDED.
THOSE ASSOCIATED VARIANCES, TWO WERE GRANTED AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT LATE LAST YEAR.
ONE TO DECREASE THE LOT SIZE AND ONE TO ALLOW NO DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE ON THE SITE.
THEN TWO ARE NEEDED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TONIGHT; ONE TO ALLOW THE FLAG LOT UNDER TWO ACRES TO BE CREATED, AND ONE TO ALLOW ONE POINT OF ACCESS INSTEAD OF TWO.
I WILL ADD THAT THE VARIANCES THAT WENT TO BOA WERE APPROVED ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THAT WAS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED AT THIS COMMISSION IN NOVEMBER.
THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE LISTS THE REQUIREMENTS FOR FRONTAGE ALONG PARKER ROAD AS 150 FEET OF FRONTAGE FOR A NON-CORNER LOT AND THAT'S BECAUSE PARKER ROAD IS A TYPE C THOROUGHFARE, AND THERE'S DIFFERENT CRITERIA FOR DIFFERENT ROAD TYPES.
THE SUBJECT PROPERTY CANNOT MEET THIS REQUIREMENT, SO THE ORDINANCE ALLOWS FOR THE FRONTAGE TO BE REDUCED TO 24 FEET INSTEAD.
IF THE LOT IS GREATER THAN TWO ACRES AND IF THE LOT HAS ONE DIRECT ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET, THE LOT DOES NOT HAVE TWO ACRES,
[02:50:02]
SO A VARIANCE TO THIS SPECIFIC CRITERIA IS NEEDED.THEN THE ORDINANCE ALSO LISTS THAT A MINIMUM OF TWO ACCESS POINTS IS REQUIRED.
THE LOT ONLY HAS ONE POINT OF ACCESS, SO A VARIANCE TO THAT CRITERIA IS ALSO NEEDED.
WHEN CONSIDERING A VARIANCE TO FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THIS COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THE FOUR CRITERIA THAT'S LISTED ON THE SCREEN.
JUST TO SUMMARIZE THE ANALYSIS OF THIS CRITERIA, CITY STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST MEETS THE CRITERIA BECAUSE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED ON ALL SIDES BY CITY OF PLANO OWNED PROPERTY, WHICH CONSTRAINS THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE PROPERTY.
WHEN CONSIDERING A VARIANCE TO ACCESS TO THE ACCESS REQUIREMENTS SET BY THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, THE COMMISSION SHOULD CONSIDER THESE TWO CRITERIA ON THE SCREEN.
SIMILARLY, STAFF FINDS THAT THIS CRITERIA IS ALSO MET BECAUSE OF THE LACK OF AVAILABLE CROSS ACCESS POINTS DUE TO THE LOT BEING SURROUNDED BY CITY OWNED PROPERTY.
THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED THAT FINDINGS ARE MET AND APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED WITH THE FOLLOWING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCES.
THE FIRST TWO SUBSECTION 5.2.C.3(A) OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW A FLAG LOT OF LESS THAN TWO ACRES IN SIZE.
THE SECOND TO SECTION 5.2.C.4(A) OF ARTICLE 5 OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR A SITE TO HAVE ONLY ONE POINT OF ACCESS.
I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE APPLICANT'S HERE. OH, HERE WE GO.
>> IT'S GOT TO BE HIM, RIGHT THERE [LAUGHTER].
>> QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.
>> MAYBE I MISUNDERSTOOD WHAT YOU SAID, YOU SAID FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED?
>> YES. THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY THE CRITERIA THAT YOU WOULD FIND YOUR FINDINGS.
>> YOU DON'T MEAN A FINDINGS FORM IS REQUIRED?
>> I WAS GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION.
THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.
>> YES. IS THIS THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WOULD SEE A LOT OF PUBLIC INGRESS AND EGRESS?
>> HOW MANY PEOPLE AT ONE TIME, DO YOU THINK WOULD BE ON THE PROPERTY?
>> THE APPLICANT AND THEY CAN SPEAK TO THIS AS WELL, BUT THE APPLICANT ANTICIPATES THAT ANY TRAFFIC WOULD ONLY BE DUE TO MAINTENANCE OR SOMETHING THAT MIGHT HAPPEN THERE.
IT WOULD JUST BE THE ONE OFF CHANCE THAT SOMEONE IS GOING TO FIX SOMETHING ON THE SITE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.
>> THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS ALREADY GRANTED THE VARIANCE TO THE TWO ACRE MINIMUM LOT SIZE, IS THAT RIGHT?
THEY GRANTED THE VARIANCE TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED AMOUNT FROM 85,000 SQUARE FEET AS REQUIRED BY THE AGRICULTURAL ZONING DISTRICT TO 81,000 SQUARE FEET, DIFFERENT LANGUAGE, BUT SIMILAR REQUEST.
>> THE 1.9 ACRE SIZE HAS BEEN APPROVED IN EFFECT, RIGHT?
>> IN TERMS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT, BUT NOT IN TERMS OF THE IN ORDER TO HAVE A FLAG LOT BE THAT SIZE.
THE LOT IS ALLOWED TO BE THAT SIZE, BUT IT'S NOT ALLOWED TO BE THAT SIZE IF YOU WANT TO DO A FLAG LOT AND DECREASE YOUR FRONTAGE.
>> UNLESS WE GRANT THE VARIANCE.
>> I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.
MY FIRST ONE, IS THERE A HAZARDOUS SITUATION THAT WILL REQUIRE FIRE ACCESS, AND IS THE FIRE DEPARTMENT OKAY WITH HAVING ONE ACCESS?
>> THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HAS APPROVED THE PRELIMINARY AND REVISED SITE PLAN.
THERE'S NOT A REQUIRED FIRE LANE [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT'S NEEDED FOR THE SITE.
>> DID THEY TRY TO GET AN EASEMENT, LIKE AN ACCESS EASEMENT FROM THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES?
>> NO BECAUSE IT'S SURROUNDED BY CITY PROPERTY, AND THERE'S NO OPPORTUNITIES TO CONNECT ACCESS POINTS.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I'M JUST CURIOUS.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT HAPPENED LAST TIME REGARDING HOW THIS LOT ENDED UP TO BE A FLAG LOT AND SMALLER THAN TWO ACRES.
[02:55:04]
BECAUSE IT'S SURROUNDED BY CITY PROPERTIES, SO DID THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY PURCHASE THIS LOT AND ACTUALLY DRAW THE SHAPE OF THE LOT WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT FROM THE CITY? HOW DID IT END UP LIKE THIS?>> THE APPLICANT ACTUALLY FROM WHAT I CAN TELL FROM THE TAX RECORDS, DID NOT PURCHASE THE PROPERTY FROM THE CITY.
IT WAS PURCHASED FROM A CITIZEN.
SO IT WASN'T CITY OWNED PROPERTY PREVIOUS TO THIS REQUEST.
>> BEST GUESS IS THIS LOT HAS BEEN IN THIS CONFIGURATION SINCE BEFORE WE HAD SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS.
IT'S JUST A EXISTING CONDITION.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR STAFF? SEEING ANY? I KNOW WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, AND THAT'S GOT TO BE HIM UP THERE.
MR. MYERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOBODY? MR. MYERS, DO YOU HAVE A 10 SLIDE PRESENTATION OR ANYTHING? [LAUGHTER] THANK YOU FOR HANGING OUT WITH US TONIGHT.
>> MOTION TO TABLE TO MARCH 2ND [LAUGHTER].
>> CONTRARY TO MR. BELL'S DESIRE.
WELL, YOU KNOW WHAT? LET ME GO ON FOR A COUPLE OF MINUTES ABOUT WHAT I THINK RELATED TO NO. WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT.
I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE DIRECTION OF THE STAFF AND APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 3A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THREE.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.
WE DO HAVE ONE THAT DIDN'T GET TABLED TONIGHT, SO THAT'S GOOD.
[LAUGHTER] DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER BUSINESS FOR THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING?
>> AT THAT POINT, WE STAND ADJOURNED AT 9:06 PM.
SOMEBODY MUST HAVE MONEY ON IT.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.