This probably sends the signal. The money somewhere. Yeah, it's already kind of warm in here. OK, everybody get R ready for the weak hammer. All right. It is seven o'clock and we will convene into our regularly scheduled Planning and Zoning Commission here Monday. May the sixth if you would please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the fact of the United States of America. The Republic. One. Under God. Consent agenda. Yeah, I'm gonna have to get that closer. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items which are routine and typically non-controversial items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff. Would anyone like to remove an item from the consent agenda? I move. We approve the conrove the con consent agenda as submitted. I have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky with the second by Commissioner Ali to approve the consent agenda. Please vote. And vote. That item c That item car. We want the items for individual Items for individual consideration public hearing items unless unless instructed otherwise by the chair speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total ofutes. Presentation time with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration. Items must be approved if They meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration. Items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal consideration. Agenda item number o one public hearing repa and revised site Plan Willow bin Polo Estates Phase B Block B Lot two, one Patio home Lot on 0.1 Acre, located on the east side of of Shattuck Boulevard, 75 ft. North of Turtle Creek Drive, Zoned Planned Development 423 patio home. Projects are 2024-014 and RSP 2 0 2 4 Dash. 011 Petitioner is Amy Zamata. This is for legislative consideration. Administrative OK administrative consideration. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. My name is Donna Sepulvado Sepulvado, lr with the planning department. These items are recommended for approval estimated and I'm happy to answer any questions. Tions n item one. Thank you. See? No, I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers on this item? We have one registered speaker. It's Eric. Settler. On the next one. Yeah I see no speakers on this. I just wasn't aware of anyone else's. That's correct. I apologize for that. So we have no speakers. We have no speakers, sir. OK thank you. I'll close the public hearing cano the commission. I move. We approve, Uh, item number one as recommended by staff. Second Of a motion by Commissioner Bronsky with a second by Commissioner Tong to provide him one is submitted. Please vote. Raise your hands. That item carries 7 to 0. Item two, please. Item Two public hearing zoning case 2023-007 request a raise on 13.5 acres located at the North. East Corner, a Park Boulevard and Custer Road from planned development to 25 single family resident attached to Plan Development. 225 retail So item was tabled on March 18th 2024. Applicant is Fairview Farm Land Company Limited. Good evening. The applicant is requesting to withdraw the zoning case, and it's recommended that the commission accept the applicant's request to withdraw. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you any questions for staff on this item? As the Mr Ratlif on and then Mr OK, Thank you, Mr Bronsky. Can you elaborate at all? As to anything beyond what we received in our packet? I would defer to what the applicant stated in their letter. OK? All right. Thank you. Any other questions for staff. All right. Thank you. All over the public hearing. Do we have any speakers on this item? OK we have two registered speakersrs, Um one via Zoom, and that's the first speaker there, not a available online at the moment. Second one is Eric Stettler. All right, Mr Stetler. Good evening. Name and address, please. 2312 Brisbane Lane, Plano, Texas. Thank you, my neighbor. This property. I understand that the person requesting has withdrawn it for consideration. I would encourage that. We approve that. Uh, I've Gone through the public comment. Website There are 592 respondents Uh, over 95% are against this development. Or are neutral. There are 29 I've out of 592 who are in favor. So this is a pretty unanimous, uh, rejection by the community in which this is proposed. I also went ahead and looked at, uh, the commercial real estate that's available. At Custer and Park a Custer and 15th Street. And there are over 35 empty commercial real estate properties. We do not need more commercial real estate in the area. I request that you do. do. Approve the withdrawal of consideration. I actually didn't even know if I had to speak tonight. But let's kill this thing. Thank you, Everyone. Thank you. And we don't have any other speakers correct. That's correct. OK I'll close the I'lle public hearing find discussions to the commission. I move. We accept the withdrawa of zoning case 20 23-007 as recommended by staff. Second I have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky with a second by Commissioner Ratliff to, um Approve the request to withdraw from consideration. Please vote. And that item carries 7 to 0. Item three A And be Agenda. Item number three A public hearing zoning case. 2024-009 request to amend Plan Development 64 central business one to modify development standards for mid rise residential on 100 and 37.3 Acres located at the northwest corner of the Dallas North tollway and Headquarter headquarters drive within the Dallas north to toe overlay district. Petitioner is Liberty Mutual, Plano LLC. This is for legislative consideration. Item three B. Item. Three B public hearing Revised Concept Plan Legacy West edition Blockition t three R. 177 mid rise residential units on one lot on 4.3 acres located at the northwest corner of the Dallas Columbus Avenue. Plan Development 64 central business one and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay district. Project number RCP 2024-002 petitioners Liberty Mutual, Plano LLC. This is f administrative consideration pending Item three. A. Thank you. Babans requesting Rezone Plan Development 64 central business one to make modifications to the location and height of mid rise residential units. The parcel outlined in Green is where the mid rise units are proposed. The aerial image on the right shows the subject property and surrounding uses, which con, whs several corporate offices and residential developments. Can I ask you to lean into bit or movo you. A revised concept plan has been submitted with the zoning case to show the proposed the p7 mid rise units in the Associated parking garage. PD 64 was first established in 2014, with restrictions for mid rise residential that have been amended over time. The PD currently allows for 1000 units, which have to be set back. 400 ft from the expressways, with the exception that 100 and 77 units may be constructed at the parcel outlined in orange at the top. 400 units of the 1000 units may be constructed at five stories, and the remaining must be constructed at a minimum of seven stories. Today the applicant is requesting to remove the parcel in orange at the top of the screen as a permitted site and allowow for 0 and 77 additional units to be constructed at five stories. The cap of 1000 units will not be changing. The applicant is proposing to develop the remaining 177 units at the northeast corner of Windows Avenue and Columbus Avenue. The location is 400 ft away from the expressways and is permitted by right The PD the units be constructed at seven stories. The seven story minimum was established to require steel and concrete construction methods. However building codes have since changed and the applicant could meet the seven story requirement by constructing a multistory concrete podium with parking a with parking at ground level. However ground level parking would not foster Street activity. In a friendly and environment intended for a mixed use area. It would also limit the protections of the parking garage that would provide from.o way. Therefore staff ground floor units to includ entrances with a stoop or patio. As discussed. Earlier units are prohibited within 400 Ft. Of the ex which is the area shown in blue on the screen. In 2022, the applicant proposed additional noise and mitigation air quality methods for the site outlined in red The applicant is proposing to maintain similar noise and air pollution mitigation methods to those originally approved for the previous location. These mitigation methods include ventilation requirements 13 filters limiting balconies and um, including a parking garage between the units and the expressway. To recap. The applicant is requesting to change building height. Remove the allowance for units to be constructed within 400 Ft. Of the expressway, amending air and noise pollution methods to fit this site proposing street activation requirements in some minor cleanup changes. The applicant is not changing the mid rise acreage the maximum number of units, the maximum density or any of the open space requirements. This request was reviewed against our comprehensive plae plan. The sut property is designated employment centers and urban activity centers on the future land use map. And the request meets the description. It's in priorities of the future landf d use maps and das dashboards, as well as the other maps and policies listed on the screen. This request received responses within the subject property and within the 200 Ft. Pather buffer. First First within the t property. We received four responses in support. And then within the 200 ft buffer, we received one response in support. And then citywide. We received nine responses in support, one neutral one in opposition for a total of 11 responses. And the zoning cases recommended for approval in the concept plan is recommended f fr approval, subject to City Council approval of the zoning case, happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Questions for staff on this item. Mr Ratliff. Um thank youjn where you have the Orange Square and the Yellow Square. Can you you get back to that screen for me? There you go right there. So this This case is in the Yellow w Square, with some residual property left over adjacent to the tollway. So does that mean that they're still reserving the right to build 423 units more than seven stories tall in the Orange Square?re getting rid of the Orange Square as a permitted use for units, so if this waspproved, they could not build any more units at that location, OK, but then they wouldn't have room within the 400 ft to build in the Yellow Square, either. So 423 units just go away. Sorry. The square at the bottom. The Western half is outside of the 400 ft. Yeah, but that's where they're building this unit this correct, correct. So if they build 577, but they're permitted for 1000. What happens to the other 423 out of the 1000. This is the remaining 177 units they could build. They've already built 100 823. So this is the balance. OK I wasn't picking that up in the report. Thank you. Other questions for staff. OK, thank you. I'll open the public hearing. We have, uh, speakers on the side. We have On three A. We have four registered opinions . All four are in support the same with three B. And we have Applicants. That are available for questions. And I have one speaker that says in sport of is, is that Speak or just Re Mister Evans. Do you have comments? Architects of. Okay. A RE you do You wanna speak or are you here to answer questions? All right. So, um Thank you for stepping up and Mr Bronsky has question. Uh I noticed that the pollution mitigation measures You went from a Merv 16. That's current. To a Merv 13 for the new ones. Can you explain the reason for the change? As honestly I out of my area of expertise that's uh, mechanical. Engineers. Unfortunately, All right now that that was Okay. Any other questions for? Thank you. That was Thank you. So can I. Can I ask staff for if they have any can can you? Do you have any clarification as to the rationale for the change or Uh, Because the way you made it sound like there wasn't much of a change, but From a 16 to a 13 there. That is significant change. Noise mitigation versus pollution. Consultation requirements. Um, since the site is permitted since it's outside of the 400 ft. B. They're not required to do that today. So the 13 is still an improvement from what they could do today. Yeah. All right now, just curious. Just Mr Raleigh just to clarify on that so With the side of themuch closer to The tollway, the 16. Um was required to mitigate the EH a part two if my memory serves me right, but ght, but since they'd further back with a distance setback, We don't hold them to a higher filtration standard. Summarize, OK? Yeah, that's that's reasonable thinking, Uh, this is again not an area that required us to provide mitigation for the EH a standard. So um, again, it's not something that staff negotiated or discussed in our negotiations with the applicant because it was above the minimum requirements. So if there's anyone else from the applicants team who can address that and invite them to speak, But we don't have any more information beyond that. Well there are already so me 13 is required in this location, so they're already OK. Thank you. That's a good clarification point. Anything else, Mr Kerry? Yeah, Just a simple question. I'm looking at page 60 of our packet. And it shows. Um what I'm assuming is an illustrative drawing of this building is that meant to represent the final product. Is. Is that what this building is gonna look like? Do we know That image is IN there because of a stipulationor the building garage? Um, the height. That it needs to comply with that exhibit. Um, from a height perspective, in order to make mn is provided. Do do we know what the ultimate product will look like? Um, Is there any insight t into that yet? Um, it's too. It's too early to get into final architectural plans. So what would be required are the with the stipulations and articulation. Um and, um, ground floor. Materials and balconies. Ok, thank you. Alright I left the public hearing open in case we needed to speak with someone, but I'm gonna close it this time. And if there are no more questions or any questions Very well. I move. We approve Agenda Item three zoning case 20 24-009 as recommended by staff. Item three A Three. A Yes. So I have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky with the second by Commissioner Ali to approve Item three. A. Please vote. That item carries 7 to 0. I move. We approve Agenda Item three. B, uh, as recommended by staff. Mr Chairman. Yes it be conditioned on council approval of three. A. Yes. So the motion is conditional upon counsel. Approval of Item three a correct and that's why I thought this house staff recommended it. Yes, OK, very good. OK so we have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky but the second by Commissioner Adi to approve Item three B, please vote. And that item also carries 70. Thank you for being here this evening. Item four. Nonpublic hearing items, The presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. The presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests length of the agenda and to ensure meeting efficiency may include a total time limit. Agenda item number and action call for a public hearing request a call a public hearing to amend Planned Development 124 neighborhood office on 7.1 Acres locatedcated at the northeast cr of Independence Parkway and Rale Road. Project number CPH 2024-004 applicant is Abby Gate Corporation. This is for legislative consideration. Good evening commissioners. I am Parker McDowell, anner with the Planning department. This call for public hearing is to mend Planned Development 124 neighborhood office to amend the allowed uses to include health and fitness center with the intent to develop this use at the lot located at 1601 Dorchester Drive. The applicant for this request was also the original applica for the most recent zoning case for PD 124 neighborhood office, however, plans to develop the site were abandoned prior to the public hearing being scheduled. Staff continued the zoning case forward to resolve the lock coverage issues uncovered during the initial review of those plans. Which were approved which the zoning case was approved. In January. 8th 2024 The commission has been asked to initiate the zoning request when multiple ownerships are involved. The commission approval allows the applicant to move forward and submit the zoning petition, which will follow the normal schedule and processes for the zoning case, but does not imply the commission's support or lack of support for the zoning request change. And was stabbed. With that The staff recommends the co the commission call the public hearing to amend planned development 124 neighborhood office and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much. Questio this item. Mr Rawley. Just one logistical clarification. The applicant abandoned the zoning case Staff continue the zone in case to remediate the lot coverage issues. Um Who's bringing this forward for public hearing. The applicant or staff is the appli the applicant. Thee revised their design and I believe the applicant is here. Do you have any questions for them? OK, but yeah, but they're l right. Thank you, Mr Bernoff. Yes, it Who is the applicant? Is it the pro? The developer of the Of the shopping center or or or is it the city? It's the, um the owner of lot 1601 Dorchester Drive. That's the If you look at the, uh, locator, it is that piece of property that's on the corner of Oh, I know where. Dorchester Yeah. Um I'm kind of curious. I'm I don't fully understand why he Abandon the first attempt to get this approved. Now he's coming back and trying again. Why is that? Do the review process. Um the applicant decided to not move forward with that current design , and the back with a new design that is potentially different from the initial request. No. I read something in the packet about there's a requirement that it It's a if you're amending a plan development and there are multiple property owners, and they all have to sign on to the application. Is that correct? Or call the public hearing and that's what they've elected for the correct so the public hearing replaces the requirement of all of the property owners being on board. Correct. I'm trying to. I'm sorry. It is on. You just have to get right up. I can clarify the zoning ordinance requires all property owners to sub to sign the petition. The only way around that is to request the Planning and zoning Commission call a public hearing to open it that allows the applicant to then submit the petition without all the owners. All the other owners in joining in Is this a case where some owners have opposed the, or they they just couldn't get a hold of some of them just couldn't get a hold of my understanding. OK? Allrstanding, thanks. And recall. This is one where all of the lots we had. They were slightly over what was allowed and we had to go in and clean up all of that. And I think all of that Those issues probably prompted the applicant to take a step back until that could be straightened out, and in the meantime, they've gone from their original design to now, a different design. And this is at least from my experience, not uncommon where you have mu have multiple lots n area that, um Uh, You have absentee owners and people that just they don't care. And so this is a an avenue for someone who's a business owner to be able to make changes and Create something so Um OK. Any other questions. And this isn't a public hearing. But is there anyone else that wants to speak on this island? There are two applicants. That are available for questions. Does anyone have A question for the applicant. No, OK. Um we have a recommendation to call a public hearing. I move we call a public hearing to amend PD 1 24 01 has recommended by staff. Thank you. All right. I have a motion by Commissioner Bronski to call a public hearing when the second by Commissioner Kerry please vote. And that item carries 7 to 0. Public comments. Comments of public interest. This portion of the meeting is to allow up to three minutes per speaker with 30 total minutes on items of interest or concern and not on items that are on the current. g Commission may not discuss these items, but may respond with factual or policy information. The planning and zoning commission may choose to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. And we have one speaker, right? Yes, Mister Lyle. It's good, Good evening commissioners. It was kind of short. You may have to lean into to lean into it, but I'll do my best. Good evening commissioners . As you all know, I'm not one to shy away from conflict. And while it's a little awkward to be here on this side tonight, I wanted to at least come and look at all in the eye and tell you that I enjoyed serving with you that I disagree with my removal from this commission. I want to give you a few of the facts, uh, from my side that go with my removal. Um it's my understanding. You all received an email about that. That said that I hope this includes all the facts, but it actually include None of the facts. Um the city's communication with you was conith you was consistent with their communication with me on the very same topic. There was a work session, uh, posted on a Friday before a Monday meeting. Uh, with zero accusations of wrongdoing. I was told that I could get five minutes to address the council. The first thing the mayor did was open the meeting and say, Go ahead, Bill. You got five minutes. To which I said What am I to speak on? I have no idea why I'm here. Uh, At that point, Shelby Williams spoke up and said, Don't you think he should be able to listen to our deliberations before he responds to us? At that point, they closed. That item went into another item. That really dealt with some conflict that was between them from from my observation, and then they went into about an hour and a half executive session brought me back in and one of me to address a couple different things. The things they wanted me to address. There are different than the list of things that page Mims sent me when I reached out to her and said, Hey, just so y'all know, I haven't received any written communication that I've been removed. I know I've been removed through the grapevine, but no one's told me that and no one's ever told me why I've been removed. And so I'm gonna go with the list that Certainly betrayal of trust by recording staff and counsel without disclosing it to the person being recorded. What's really interesting about this is I did record some conversations with staff and council members after I called for the review of the Home Depot site on September 5th. Um once the city found out that I had those recordings, they said, those are were done in your official capacity and they belong to us. They're public and you need to give them to us. But then they don't the fact that I actually released them to the public. It's like they're public. Give them to us, but then don't release them to anyone else I explained to council member two that transparency is not just when you like the message that you're putting o it actually goes both ways. And we also have a freedom of press here in the country. Um, number two was disrespecting staff. Uh just like you saw in the last meeting . Sometimes I get my tone wrong. Um I try to try to own it quicI certainly can't think of a time that I've been disrespectful to staff. Um Potential conflictsf interest. I'll come back to that one unauthorized release of city records again. They're either public or ty're not public. I released them after the 10 Day period. Uh from the P the open meetings request. The statute says that if you don't go to the attorney general, uh, within 10 days, there's a presumption that it's public information. And so I waited for the 10 Day period and then I released them defamatory comments about the city and staff. I was given examples of this, but the context was completely opposite of the actual context of the Failure to follow. Follow the if a process that's really interesting failure to follow the effort, a processfort, a prd new effort a process I'm being accused of failing to follow it. And the only thing I did after the if pro process came out was ask a few questions of Christina Day about the Um, about the have you granted me a little more time. I thank you. Thank you, Chairman. Um The only thing that I ask after the SR conversation was aboutut 1.400 in our zoning ordinance, which actually spells out what the effective date is, Um, because I asked that question in legal gave me a response. I won't I. I don't know if it's protected, but you guys can ask legal counsel what does the effective date of our ordinances? They'll tell you. It's contrary to what's actually listed as the effective date and 1400 of our zoning ordinance. I think Michelle's comments were something to the effect that conveniently it's not defined in Article eight and so There it is , but y'all can get that email from her. So that's the only ing I remember reaching out to staff about after the if a process came in into consideration, But one thing I think you guys need to know is that there's other things in the zoning ordinance like interpretations that grant'all the right to ask for definitions from staff. And as a body. I think you all need the a need ty to go to staff and ask questions, But it seems like to hear that by asking those questions. They've listed it asl right. I could go on and on, but wrap it up. Um Lastly, I would just say I would highly encourage you guys as a body to get a Legal brief from Michelle D'Andrea on the board of Adjustment, the parking lot that had 300 parking spots. Too many that we all agreed was not good went to the board of adjustment after multiple executive sessions. They withdrew it because they knew it wasn't going to pass. And so I think it would be really important for you guys to understand, because sometimes when you're sitting in those chairs, the idea is, Oh, well. They can. They can go to d of adjustment. It doesn't work. It's not productive, a lot of the times and so I think if Y'all knew everything that the board of adjustments, hands are tied by. It would be effective. So I stop We come back next week. Yeah seconds. Just I'll just say thank you for the time. All right. Thank you. Good to see you. And he needed response. Factual. It's not necessary, but it's up to you, I. I think that I would like to say that that the information That page provided came from the city secretary's notes from the evening where the Council was properly agenda to discuss Mister Lyle's appointment to the commission. There was a public session that people could have attended and all of the items that were listed were discussed. And also I want you all to know that the, um The email about the zoning ordinance and the effective date. I'm happy to talk to you all if you wanna hear it, and I believe that the statements that were made about it, and the fact that it is incorrect is not correct. And I would be happy to talk to you about that more. Okay? And another time. All right. Thank you. B no other No. Not not now. OK, um No weather items on the agenda. There are none. Thank you was that we are adjourned at 733.