>> Chair Downs: PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >> COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PE SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON TH CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNING RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND WE MAY HAVE A SPEAKER FOR TONIGHT? >> YES. WE HAVE RAUL CASTELLANOS. HE'S ON ZOOM. NOPE? >> Chair Downs: NO? YES? >> ALL RIGHT. HE'S NOT AVAILABLE. >> YOU ARE M. THE HOST WOULD LIKE YOU TO UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE. YOU CAN PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE. >> APPARENTLY, HE'S NOT ON. >> Chair Downs: HE'S NOT ON. >> WE'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE ON TO CONSENT? >> Chair Downs: LET'S MOVE TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACT UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? M CHAIRN, I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I WILL GIVE THE SECOND TO MS. TONG. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER CARY AND COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WERE UNABLE TO JOIN US TONIGHT. >> PUBLIC HEARING. UNLE INSUCTE Y THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN ORDER OF REGISTRATIONS THAT ARE RECEIVED. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO 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. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION: COMP PLAN AMENDMENT 2022-001 - 1. REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE FOCUS OF THE 2020-2 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AND FOR MINOR UPDATES T APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS EVAN GARCIA, LONG-RANGE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS ITEM IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR ACTIONS OUTSIDE THE FOCUS OF THE 2020-2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLAN PROCESS AND FOR MINOR UPDATES TO MAPS. IN 2020-2021 THE REVIEW PROCESS FOCUSED ON FOUR KEY TOPICS: LAND USE, TRANSPORTATION DENSITY AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. AND OVER THAT PROCESS OVER 18 POLICIES WERE MODIFIED WHILE OVER 24 POLICIES REMAINED STATIC, UNCHANGED, AND SOME ACTIONS HAVE NOT CHANGED SINCE 2015. ON THE RIGHT IS AN IMAGE TAKEN FROM OUR EXECUTIVE SUMMARY THAT HIGHLIGHTS THOSE MODIFIED AND UNMODIFIED POLICIES. THE PLAN IS INTENDED TO BE WEB BASED. WE HAVE 271 ACTIONS, ALL AVAILABLE FOR VIEW ON OUR WEBSITE, PLANOCOMPPLAN.ORG AND EACH ACTION HAS A DETAILED STATUS UPDATE OUTLINING THE ACTIONS PRIORITIES STATUS AND TIMELINE. EACH ACTION IS ASSIGNED A LEAD DEPARTMENT AND WE MEET WITH EA LEA DEPARTMENT ANNLLY TO GAIN FEEDBACK ON THE STATUS OF THEIR ACTIONS AND TO UPDATE THE WEBSITE'S IMPLEMENTATION STATUS. SO AFTER MEETING WITH ALL THE DEPARTMENTS, ALL LEAD DEPARTMENTS AND HEARING THEIR COMMENTS, SOME FEEDBACK HAS LED US TO REVISIT SOME ACTION STATEMENTS AND RECOMMEND AMENDMENTS TO THOSE WHICH MAY BE OUTDATED, REMOVE THOSE THAT ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY OR OBSOLETE, AND CREATE ACTIONS WHERE DEEMED APPROPRIATE. SO FOR LIBRARIES, ACTION 6, THE ACTION DIRECTION WAS TO CREATE A MARKETING PROGRAM THAT PROMOTES THE LIBRARIES. SINCE THIS ACTION WAS CREATED THE MARKETING PROGRAM IS COMPLETE AND NOW WE INTEND TO SHIFT THIS ACTION TO REFLECT THE PROGRAM'S CONTINUED IMPLEMENTATION AND ANNUAL EVALUATION. SO THESE AMENDMENTS WILL IMPROVE THE EFFICIENCY OF THE ANNUAL STATUS REVIEW CYCLE AND AVOID DEPARTMENTS FROM PROVIDING STATUS UPDATES ON OUTDATED ACTIONS. IN ADDITION TO THE ACTION AMENDMENTS, WE ARE ALSO RECOMMENDING SEVERAL MAP AMENDMENTS AS WELL. IN GOING FORWARD, STAFF WILL CONTINUE TO CONDUCT THE ANNUAL STATUS REVIEW CYCLE WITH ALL LEAD DEPARTMENTS, EACH FALL TO BETTER CORRESPOND WITH THE FISCAL YEAR AND ALSO TO PREPARE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANNUAL REPORT. STARTING NEXT YEAR, STAFF WILL BEGIN A REGULAR CYCLE OF REVIEWING POLICIES AND ACTIONS WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. SO THESE ARE THE ACTIONS WE WILL BE DISCUSSING THIS EVENING. THEY ARE FROM THE SOCIAL ENVIRONMENT NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ECONOMIC ENVIRONMENT, AND REGIONALISM PILLARS OF THE PLAN AND I WANT TO AGAIN REITERATE THAT THESE ACTIONS WERE NOT TOUCHED IN THE CPRC PROCESS. WE HAVE DIVIDED THE ACTIONS INTO FOUR CATEGORIES. OUR FIRST GROUP ARE ACTIONS THAT HAD DIRECTION TO CREATE, IMPLEMENT, OR DEVELOP A SPECIFIC PLAN OR STRATEGY AND BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM LEAD DEPARTMENTS, THE DIRECTION OF THESE ACTIONS WERE COMPLETED AND THE ACTION NEEDS NEW DIRECTION TO REFLECT ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION ACTION 5TATES ESTABLISH STANDARDS FOR APPROPRIATE INFILL DEVELOPMENT WITHIN HERITAGE DISTRICT. SO SINCE THIS ACTION WAS INTRODUCED, THESE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN CREATED AND ADOPTED. THE ACTIONS ON THIS SLIDE ARE A CONTINUATION OF GROUP ONE, THE PREVIOUS DIRECTION FOR WASTE MINIMIZATION ACTION 2 WAS TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT THE REGIONAL COMPOST PROGRAM AND SINCE WRITTEN THIS ACTION IS COMPLETE AND THE REGIONAL COMPOST PROGRAM IS WELL UNDERWAY. PROVIDE NEW DIRECTION TOWOU CONTINUE THE PROGRAM'S IMPLEMENTATION. GROUP 2 ARE CHANGES THAT HAVE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES BUT NOT SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN ACTION DIRECTION. PR-4 STATES CREATE A STRATEGIC PLAN TO ENHANCE THE TRAIL NETWORK AND CREATE INTERCONNECTIVITY OF PLACES OF INTEREST WHERE FEASIBLE . THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT WOULD STATE AS PART OF A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN, CRS-1, EXPLORE STRATEGIC CONCTIONS BETWEEN THE CITS TRAIL NETWORK AND OTHER MULTIMODAL FACILITIES TO CREATE INTERCONNECTIVITY OF NEIGHBORHOODS COMMERCIAL AREAS, AND OTHER PLACES OF INTEREST WHERE FEASIBLE. WE RECOMMEND THIS CHANGE IN ORDER TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER ACTIONS OF THE PLAN THAT SPECIFICALLY CALL FOR THE CREATION OF A MULTIMODAL TRANSPORTATION PLAN. SEE BICYCLE AND OTHER MOBILITY ACTION 2 AND PEDESTRIAN ACTION ENVIRONMENT 1. JWD5, JOBS AND WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT 5. THIS AMENDMENT COMES WITH AT THE REQUEST OF THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT. THIS STATES ENHANCE PLANO'S QUALITY O LIFE TO RETAIN AND RECRUIT A HIGHLY-SKILLED WORKFORCE FOR THE COMMUNITY. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT PROVIDES BETTER DIRECTION ON HOW TO DO SO BY DIRECTING STAFF TO CONDUCT A SURVEY. THE AMENDED ACTION WOULD STATE CONDUCT EMPLOYER PREFERENCE SURVEYS TO IDENTIFY AND IMPROVE QUALITY OF LIFE ASPECTS THAT ARE NECESSARY TO RETAIN AND RECRUIT A HIGHLY-SKILLED WORKFORCE FOR THE COMMUNITY. THE THIRD GROUP OF CHANGES ARE NEW ACTIONS TO THE PLAN. THESE ACTIONS ARE PROPOSED BY THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH AND SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT TO REFLECT ONGOING PROJECTS WITHIN THE CITY. SIX SOCIAL SERVICES ACTION 6 WOULD STATE WORK WITH REGIONAL PARTNERS TO IMPLEMENT STRATEGIES THAT ADDRESS FOOD INSECURITY, EQUITY, AND WASTE . THIS NEW ACTION REFLECTS THE DEPARTMENT'S DEVELOPMENT OF A FOOD WASTE REDUCTION PLAN. THIS REQUESTED ACTION STATEMENT HAS BROADER NEEDS OF THE UNDERSERVED OPULATIONS IN PLANO AND IS BEST SUITED UNDER THE PLAN'S SOCIAL SERVICES POLICY. 7, STORMWATER 7 WOULD STATE EDUCATE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESSES ON THE BENEFITS OF SUSTAINABLE BUILDING PRACTICES IN HELPING ABSORB EXCESS RUNOFF. THIS NEW ACTION IS REQUESTED TO INCREASE AWARENESS OF THE ONGOING EDUCATIONAL INITIATIVES BY THE DEPARTMENT. AND WM7, WASTE MINIMIZATION 7, CONTINUE TO IMPLEMENT A MARKETING CAMPAIGN ENCOURAGING VOLUNTEER GROUPS TO HOST SELF-LED CLEAN UP EVENTS, UTILIZE THE COMMUNITY CLEAN UP TRAILER. THIS AMENDMENT WILL EXPAND THE CITY'S FOCUS ON VOLUNTEER PROGRAMS AS WELL AS INCREASING THE AWARENESS AND DIRECTION OF SELF-LED -- [FEEDBACK] >> Chair Downs: SORRY. GO AHEAD. >> AS WELL AS INCREASING THE AWARENESS AND SELF-DIRECTION OF SELF-LED VOLUNTEER GROUPS TO UTILIZE THIS PROGRAM. >> Chair Downs: CAN YOU PAUSE FOR A SECOND? ARE WE HAVING ISSUES? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: SORRY. GO AHEAD. >> THE FOURTH GROUP OF CHANGES ARE ACTIONS RECOMMENDED FOR REMOVAL. PRS9 STATES DEVELOP STRATEGIC PLANS TO INCLUDE THE OUTLINE OF ESSENTIAL PROCESSES REQUIRED FOR MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION OF MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS AND OTHER INNOVATIVE LAND USE IMPROVEMENTS. IT IS PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL BASED ON FEEDBACK FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES DEPARTMENT THAT SPECIALIZE CODE ENFORCEMENT STRATEGIES. TIME HAS SHOWN THAT MIXED-USE LOCATIONS DO NOT PRESENT CHALLENGES UNIQUE FROM OTHER RESIDENTIAL OR COMMERCIAL AREAS ACROSS THE CITY . REGULAR BASIS UNDER THE CITY'S ROUTINE PROCESSES. IDENTIFIED ISSUES ARE CORRECTED IN A SIMILAR MANNER AND A SPECIALIZED STRATEGY FOR THEIR MAINTENANCE AND PRESERVATION IS NOT WARRANTED AT THIS TIME. BBD7 SAYS DETERMINE IF VIABLE OPTIONS EXIST WITHIN THE NORTH TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS AMENDMENTS OF THE INTERNATIONAL GREEN CONSTRUCTION CODE FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION INTO THE DELOPNT PROCESS. BDD7 IS PROPOSED FOR REMOVAL BECAUSE THE REGIONAL APPROACH HAS BEEN TO ADOPT THE INTERNATIONAL ENERGY CONSERVATION CODES AND NOT THE GREEN CONSTRUCTION CODES DUE TO HIGHER CONSTRUCTION COSTS AND INCREASED HOUSING PRICES THAT WOULD RESULT. BUT, HOWEVER, DEVELOPERS MAY CHOOSE TO IMPLEMENT THE GREEN CONSTRUCTION CODES AT THEIR OWN DISCRETION. AND AS THIS VIABILITY ASSESSMENT OF THE CODE IS COMPLETE, IT IS DETERMINED THAT THIS ACTION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PLANO AT THIS TIME. SO THIS SLIDE DETAILS THE AMENDMENT TO THE NEIGHBORHOODS DASHBOARD AND WE NEED TO MAKE A CORRECTION. THE IMAGE ON THE LEFT IS CORRECT AND PLEASE DISREGARD WHERE IT SAYS WHERE TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN IS CROSSED OUT AND REPLACED WITH TRADITIONAL. THE SLIDE ON THE RIGHT IS THE ONE THAT WE ARE PROPOSING TO AMEND FROM TRADITIONAL TO TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN. WE ARE USING THE LANGUAGE TYPICAL NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGN TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE 1986 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAPS SYMBOLOGY. WE PROPOSE A NEW SYMBOL TO SHOW THE TRANSIT LOCATIONS. WE ALSO INCLUDE A NOTE STATING THE LOCATIONS OF PENDING STATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE. THIS NOTE IS INCLUDED BECAUSE WE DID NOT KNOW AT THIS TIME EXACTLY WHEN OR WHERE THOSE TRANSIT STATIONS WILL BE UTILIZED AND THEIR EXACT LOCATION IS NOT CLEARLY IDENTIFIED. AND CORRESPONDING WITH THE LAST SLIDE, THIS SLIDE SHOWS THE FUTURE TRANSIT SYMBOL AND THE TRANSPORTATION TAB OF THE PLAN . THERE ARE FOUR CHANGES TO THE PROPOSED THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP. FIRST COMMUNICATIONS PARKWAY ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE CITY, UPDATE STATUS TO EXISTING. >> THE HOST WOULD LIKE YOU TO UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE. YOU CAN PRESS STAR 6 -- >> Chair Downs: JUST PAUSE THERE FOR A MINUTE UNTIL WE GET THIS FIXED. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: OKAY. RIGHT NOW CAN ANYONE AT HOME SEE US? THEY CAN. AND THEY CAN HEAR US. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: SO THEY CAN SEE BUT THEY CAN'T HEAR. SO ANYBODY AT HOME IS SEEING THEY'RE NOT HEARING A WORD WE'RE SAYING? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: OKAY. VERY GOOD. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: OKAY. UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. ARE WE GOOD TO MOVE FORWARD? I'M SO SORRY. PLEASE CONTINUE. >> THE SECOND PROPOSED CHANGE TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP IN THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE CITY PALISADES DRIVE, UPDATE STATUS TO EXISTING. BOTH OF THOSE CHANGES REPRESENT THE COMPLETION OF THAT ROAD FACILITY. THIRD, BEACON SQUARE DEVELOPMENT FUTURE TYPE F, REMOVE FOR CONSISTENCY WITH THE APPROVED PLAN. THAT IS IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE CITY. AND, FOURTH, ENVISION OAK POINT FUTURE THOROUGHFARES, MODIFY THE ALIGNMENT AND TYPE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ENVION O . AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVE THE AMENDMENTS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS SUBMITTED. AND, WITH THAT, WE'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I APOLOGIZE FOR THE INTERRUPTION. A LOT OF MATERIAL THERE. SOME OF IT KIND OF DENSE. IN A NUTSHELL, THOUGH, WE'RE JUST AMENDING THE PLAN AS WE'LL BE DOING FROM NOW UNTIL WE COMPLETE OUR NEXT PLAN, WHICH WILL IMMEDIATELY NEED TO BE AMENDED, OF COURSE. YOU HAVE A QUESTION, COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: HOPEFULLY THIS IS A QUICK QUESTION. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND -- THERE ARE A FEW ITEMS THAT YOU SAID BECAUSE IT'S BEING COMPLETED SINCE IT WAS CREATED AND NOW WE HAVE TO AMEND THE PLAN TO CHANGE -- I GUESS THE VERBIAGE OR DESCRIPTION. WHY DO WE DO THAT? SINCE WE CREATE THE PLAN, IF ONE OF THE ITEMS GOT COMPLETED, WHY DO WE NEED TO AMEND IT TO SAY WE HAVE TO CHANGE THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ITEM? >> Chair Downs: I THINK BASICALLY WHAT I SAW WAS THEY WERE CHANGING TO REVIEW, INSTEAD OF IMPLEMENT SOMETHING, NOW IT'S CHANGING IT TO REVIEW. TO ANNUALLYPDATAND REVIEW. >> Tong: SO THE PLAN -- I WAS THINKING AS WE GO ALONG, EVERY ITEM WILL BE COMPLETED, RIGHT? ARE WE GOING TO AMEND THE PLAN VERY TIME WHEN WE COMPLETE AN ACTION? >> SO THERE ARE SOME ACTIONS THAT ARE VERY FINITE. THEY'RE COMPLETED AND THEY'RE DONE. WE'LL TAKE THOSE OFF. BUT THERE'S SOME WHERE WE WANT TO KEEP THE IDEA AND CONTINUE THE ONGOING IMPLEMENTATION AND REVIEW OF THOSE. WE LIKE TO KEEP THOSE IN THE PLAN AND KEEP THE STATUS OF RECURRING AND ON TRACK. THAT'S WHAT YOU'LL SEE ON THE WEBSITE. AND THAT WAY EACH YEAR WHEN& WE'RE MEETING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS, THEY'RE NOT CONTINUALLY TELLING US WE HAVE DONE THAT. IT'S COMPLETE. WE WANTED TO HEAR UPDATED INFORMATION HOW THEY'RE CONTINUING TO UPDATE THE PLAN. CLEAR? >> Tong: YEAH. I JUST FEEL LIKE IF THE PLAN IS THERE, IT'S THERE, RIGHT? IF IT'S DONE, MARK IT DONE. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE HAVE TO AMEND THE PLAN TO CHANGE THE DESCRIPTION OF IT. >> Chair Downs: I THINK SOME OF THE ITEMS ARE BEING REMOVED AND THEN OTHER ITEMS ARE CHANGING FROM IMPLEMENT TO MONITOR AND REVIEW. BECAUSE IT'S A PROGRAM WE NT TO BE ONGOING VERSUS SOMETHING THAT'S STATIC. COMPLETE THE SECTION OF STREET. AND NOW REVIEW THAT SECTION OF STREET EVERY TEN YEARS TO SEE IF IT NEEDS TO BE REDONE. >> Tong: GOT IT. THANKS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER STONE. >> Stone: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO COMMEND OUR STAFF ON THIS ITEM. YOU GUYS DID NOT TAKE OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND HANG IT ON THE WALL AND JUST USE IT AS A PIECE OF DECORATION. YOU KEPT YOUR FOOT ON THE GAS. YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT EVEN AFTER IT WAS FINISHED. YOU'RE TO BE COMMENDED FOR AT. IT'S GREAT THAT YOU BRING THIS TO US. HOPE WE SEE YOU MAYBE ONCE A YEAR. IS THIS GOING TO BE AN ANNUAL EVENT TO BRING UPDATES TO US? >> THAT'S CORRECT. YES SIR. >> Stone: GOOD. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MY GUESS IS IT WILL BE MORE THAN ANNUALLY BECAUSE THEY HAVE A LOT OF STUFF TO REVIEW AND KEEP ON TOP OF. DO YOU HAVE A -- >> JUST A QUICK COMMENT. BUILDING ON THAT, WHOEVER PUT THEIR REPORT TOGETHER, REALLY EASY TO FOLLOW. THANK YOU. IT'S A LOT OF INFORMATION IN THEREND VY, VERY EASY TO DIGEST. BUT A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION THERE BUT Y'ALL MADE IT VERY SIMPLE TO FOLLOW. SO THANK YOU. >> >> Horne: THANK YOU. SPRINGBOARDING OFF OF WHAT COMMISSIONER RATLIFF SAID, IT WAS EASY TO FOLLOW AND I COULD FOLLOW THE CHANGES . ONE OF THE THINGS I HAVE HERE -- THIS IS A PUBLIC COMMENT. WE'LL HAVE A PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD IN A SECOND. THE AMOUNT OF ENERGY THAT WENT INTO PUTTING TOGETHER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT THERE MAY BE SOME THAT WERE NOT INVITED TO THIS MEETING THAT WE WERE MAKING CHANGES. OF COURSE THEY'RE UPDATING IT, WHICH WE PLAN TO DO EVERY YEAR, TWICE A YEAR IF IT HAS TO BE. I'M AFRAID THEY MAY SAY YOU MADE CHANGES TO THE PLAN AFTER WE PUT 16 MONTHS OF ENERGY INTO IT AND, YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANY INPUT BECAUSE WE REMOVED TWO ITEMS AND THE NEXT TIME THEY SEE THE PLAN THOSE ITEMS WILL BE REMOVED FROM THE WEBSITE. SO DID WE TAKE ANYTHING INTO ACCOUNT TO HAVHOSE CONCERNED CITIZENS INVITED TO THIS PUBLIC MEETING? >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM BUT I WOULD SAY THE AREAS THAT THEY'RE FOCUSED ON NOW WERE OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE CPRC WERE REVIEW ANYWAY. THIS WAS NOT SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL HAD GIVEN THEM INSTRUCTION TO ADDRESS SO STAFF IS NOW WORKING ON THE ITEMS THAT WERE NOT ADDRESSED THROUGH THE CPRC AND WERE NOT SOMETHING THEY WOULD HAVE ANY INPUT IN TYPICALLY ANYWAY. THEY WERE SEEN AS UNRELATED TO THE FOUR PRIMARY CATEGORIES. THE LAND USE, DENSITY, GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND TRANSPORTATION. SO MOST OF THESE ITEMS ARE OUTSIDE OF THAT AND I THINK THAT'S WHY THERE WASN'T A BIGGER EFFORT MADE TO SAY, HEY, WE NEED TO HAVE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE CPRC, ET CETERA HERE. >> Horne: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST THINK THOUGH IF WE GO IN THE FUTURE, IF WE ARE ADDRESSING ANYTHING BY THE CPRC THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER BY THIS PLAN -- [MULTIPLE VOICES] >> Horne: I DON'T KNOW WHERE WE'RE GOING TO GO IN SIX MONTHS BUT IF THERE'S ANY OPPORTUNITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO THAT BECAUSE WE EITHER COMPLETED THAT TASK OR SOMETHING MADE US CHANGE THAT DIRECTION, THEN WE CERTAINLY HAVE TO LOOK AT IT THAT WAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU. VERY PATIENT. I'LL ECHO WHAT THEY SAID. GREAT JOB. IT LOOKS TO ME WHAT YOU'RE DOING TOO IS WORKING TO MAKE IT EASIER TO MAKE CHANGES SO YOU'RE NOT GETTING BEHIND. YOU'RE STAYING ON TOP OF IT, WHICH IS SMART. CITY OF EXCELLENCE. WITH THAT, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS? >> NO, WE DO NOT >> Cir Downs: IE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. >> DOES THAT INCLUDE THE CORRECTION AS NOTED BY MR. GARCIA FROM TRADITIONAL TO TYPICAL? >> Olley: AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF INCLUDING THE CORRECTION AS ELOQUENTLY PUT BY MR. GARCIA. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S SUFFICIENT? DEFINITELY. VERY WELL STATED. WE HAVE AN EXCELLENT MOTION B COMMISSIONER OLLEY WITH AN EQUALLY EXCELLENT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STONE. THANK YOU, STAFF. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. GARCIA. WELL DONE. AND COMMISSIONER HORNE, TO YOUR POINT, ABSOLUTELY. IF SOMETHING COMES FORWARD THAT TOUCHES ANY OF THOSE FOUR AREAS, THERE WILL BE MORE DIALOGUE. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TEST RUN. EVERYBODY SAY SOMETHING. ONE TWO THREE. >> THE HOST WOULD LIKE YOU TO UNMUTE YOUR MICROPHONE. YOU CAN PRESS STAR 6 TO UNMUTE. >> HELLO, HELLO. >> GO COWBOYS. >> GO COWBOYS. >> SOMETHING. >> SOMETHING. >> SOMETHING. >> Stone: ARE WE DONE? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE ONE PERSON THAT'S TRYING TO HEAR? I THINK RATHER THAN -- HE HAS ANOTHER OPTION AND HE'S BEEN MADE AWARE. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: IS HE REGISTERED TO SPEAK ON SOMETHING? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: OKAY. WHICH ITEM IS THIS? >> THE NEXT ONE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. WE'LL SEE IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THAT ITEM. IF WE DO, WE WILL PAUSE AND DO WHATEVER WE NEED TO DO TO FIX IT. BUT, OTHERWISE, LET'S MOVE FORWARD. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: BOTH AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF WE HAVE THEM. OKAY. SO WE'LL ADDRESS THAT WHEN WE GET THERE. OKAY. WE'RE READY FOR ITEM 2. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT, REVISED SITE PLAN, AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN: WAL-MART ADDITION, BLOCK MIR VEHICLE PAIRN LOT 1R AND AND RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE- THROUGH ON LOT 3 ON 9.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF CUSTER ROAD AND DOLPHIN DRIV ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-79- R APPLICANT: SLINK HOLDINGS, LLC. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. PARKER McDOWELL WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE SUBMITTED ITEMS -- STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ITEMS FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF NEEDED. >> Chair Downs: VERY GOOD. THAT WAS QCK. AL RIGHT. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE, I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WELL, HE CAN'T HEAR US, RIGHT? SORRY. THANK YOU FOR BEING AVAILABLE. COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NO. 2, RECOMMENDED AS SUBMITTED -- >> Chair Downs: EASY FOR YOU TO SAY. >> Tong: SORRY. LET ME DO THIS AGAIN. I MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 FOR APPROVAL. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TONG AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM 2 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 3. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT: NORTH 40 DEALERSHIP ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1R AND 7 - NEW VEHICLE DEALER ON TWO LOTS ON 32.3 ACRE CATE AT E SOUTHWEST CORNER THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND SPRING CREEK PARKWAY. ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS NO.170 FOR NEW VEHICLE DEALER AND NO. 615 FOR NEW CAR DEALER AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: PARK PLACE LX LAND COMPANY NO. 1 LTD. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M RAHA POULADI, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ITEM AS SUBMITTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. VERY WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DO WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE SPEAKING ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT FOR BEING AVAILABLE. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE ANDA ITEM NO. 2 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> Chair Downs: ITEM 3. DO YOU WANT TO RESTATE THAT? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 3 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STONE TO APPROVE ITEM 3 AS PRESENTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. I HAVE A REQUEST THAT COMMISSIONER OLLEY MAKE ALL OF THE REMAINING MOTIONS. [LAUGHTER] SHALL WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 4? >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT, PRELIMINARY REPLAT, AND REVISED SITE PLANS: SUNBELT SELF- STORAGE ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 2R AND RAY HUFFINES CHEVROLET DEALERSHIP, BLOCK A, LOT 2R - NEW AND USED VEHICLE DEALER ON TWO LOTS ON 11.0 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COIT ROAD AND PLANO PARKWAY. ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL-1 AND LOCATED IN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY D APPLICAN HUFNES ANO PROPERTIES LP. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> HELLO, COMMISSIONERS. PARKER McDOWELL, PLANNING DEPARTMENT AGAIN. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLANS FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED AND THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLAN AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S YOUR CLOSING LINE. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. YOU TRAIN THEM ALL JUST THE SAME WAY. THANK YOVERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? OKAY. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF IS GOING TO TAKE A STAB AT IT. >> Ratliff: I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLAN AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF AND WE APPROVE THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY ON ITEM 4. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM 5. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT: NORMANDY ESTATES, BLOCK G, LOTS 6R AND 7R - TWO PATIO HOME LOTS ON 0.4 ACRE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF FRANCESCA LANE AND BOURBON STREET. ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTAED WH SPIFIC USE PERMIT NO. 594 FOR PRIVATE STREET SUBDIVISION. APPLICANT: STEVE HUNDLEY AND ROGER BELL. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU, MS. BRIDGES. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT AS SUBMITTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THIS ITEM. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ITEM 5? COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: I'M NOT CLEAR, WHAT ARE THEY CHANGING? >> THERE IS A PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN THESE TWO LOTS, LOT 6R AND 7R AND THEY ARE MOVING IT SOUTH BY ONE FEET. THEY ARE ADJUSTING THE PROPERTY LINE. >> Tong: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Olley: WHO IS GAINING AND WHO IS LOSING? >> THE SOUTHERN LOT IS GOING TO LOSE A LITTLE BIT. >> Chair Downs: GOOD NEIGHBORS? I GUESS SO. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. I' CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 5 AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. >> Tong: I SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A EXCELLENT MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A EXCELLENT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. ITEM NO. 6. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - REVISED PRELIMINARY REPLAT: WILLOW BEND POLO ESTATES PHASE B, BLOCK B, LOTS 1R-19 AND BLOCK X, LOTS 1-4 - 19 PATIO HOME LOTS AND FOUR COMMON AREA LOTS ON 3.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF TURTLE CREEK DRIVE AND OLD WESTBURY LANE. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-423- APPLINT: SHADDOCK ACQUISITIONS LLC. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPTS THE APPLICANT'S WITHDRAWAL REQUEST. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? I HAVE ONE. WELL, COMMISSIONER HORNE. GO AHEAD. >> Horne: WE REVISITED THIS PLAT SEVERAL TIMES NOW AND I THINK A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. AND NOW HE WANTS TO WITHDRAW THE REQUEST. IS HE UNDER ANY TIMELINE TO REPRESENT THAT TO US? >> NOT A SPECIFIC TIMELINE BECAUSE THEY ALREADY HAVE AN APPROVED SITE PLAN AND AN APPROVED PRELIMINARY REPLAT SO THEY ARE ALLOWED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR CONSTRUCTION PER THEIR APPROVED PLANS. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO MODIFY SOME OF THE SETBACKS, IF POSSIBLE. THEYRE SLL RIEWI IT. IF THEY SEE THAT IN THE FUTURE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT TO PURSUE, THEY MAY COME BACK. AT THIS POINT THE APPLICANT DECIDED THAT THEY WANT TO WITHDRAW THIS REQUEST AS THEY DEEMED IT UNNECESSARY AT THIS POINT. >> Horne: AS A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION -- THANK YOU FOR THAT RESPONSE. AS A FOLLOW-UP QUESTION YOU SAID THEY, QUOTE, HAVE ALREADY BEGUN CONSTRUCTION. ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT THIS COMMISSION HAD WASHE FLOODING, THAT THERE WERE SOME CITIZENS THAT WERE CONCERNED THAT THIS ADDITIONAL WORK WAS GOING TO EXACERBATE THE PROBLEM AND WE WERE GOING TO HAVE ENGINEERING REVIEW THAT BEFORE WE HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO APPROVE ANY FURTHER PLATS OR ANY OTHER SITE PLANS. SO MY CONCERN IS THEY'RE PROGRESSING WITH SOME LEVEL OF CONSRUCTION AND THEN BY THE TIME, IF THERE'S ANY MITIGATION ON OUR PART, THERE MAY BE ADDITIONAL COST ASSOCIATED WITH MITIGATING THOSE FLOOD ISSUES. DO WE HAVE ANY RELIEF THERE? DO WE HAVE ANYTHING THAT STOPS THEM FROM DOING A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION BEFORE ANY OF THIS HAPPENS? >> THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS REVIEWING THE CIVIL PLANS, ASSOCIATED DRAINAG PLANS. THEY HAVE RECEIVED APPROVAL -- OR IN THE PROCESS OF APPROVAL. SO THE PLANS WILL MEET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS AND THOSE PLANS DO NOT COME BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR CONSIDERATION. THEY ARE CONSIDERED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT SO AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE CITY'S REQUIREMENTS, THEY WILL BE APPROVED. IF THEY MAKE CHANGES, THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WILL REVIEW THOSE AS WELL. WE HAVE TALKED EXTENSIVELY TO THE ENGINEER ON THIS. THE ENGINEER HAS MET WITH HOMEOWNER REPRESENTATIVES IN THE AREA. WE BELIEVE THAT EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE. THEY'RE WORKING THROUGH THE ISSUES AND THERE WILL BE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE FOR THE PROJECT. >> ONE MORE THING THAT I NEED TO ADD TO MR. HILL'S COMMENT. EVEN THOUGH THE SITE HAS BEEN WITHDRAWN WITH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ARE ACTIVELY MEETING WITH THE RESIDENTS, THE CORRESPONDENTS . AS OF THIS AFTERNOON WAS MEETING WITH RESIDENTS AGAIN, EVEN THOUGH THE PROJECT IS TECHNICALLY WITHDRAWN. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: IS IT A SAFE ASSUMPTION TO BELIEVE THAT THE ORIGINAL SITE PLAN, WHEN IT WAS APPROVED, HAD THE LANGUAGE THAT WAS PUT SUBJECT TO ALTERATIONS AS DEEMED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, WHICH SHOULD GIVE US ENOUGH COVER, LEGALLY IN THAT ASPECT? >> RIGHT. OUR PRELIMINARY PLAT DOES INCLUDE THAT GENERAL RECOMMENDATION LANGUE BECAUSE IT'S A PRE-CONSTRUCTION PLAT AND TYPICALLY DURING CONSTRUCTION THINGS SHIFT, UTILITIES MAY CHANGE. THAT'S WHY THAT LANGUAGE IS INCLUDED. IT WAS PART OF THE PREVIOUS PLAT SO IF THERE ARE CHANGES THOSE WILL BE NOTED ON THE FINAL PLAT AND THAT WILL COME BEFORE YOU. THE DRAINAGE ISSUE SPECIFICALLY DON'T COME BEFORE THIS BODY UNLESS THERE IS SOMETHING IMPACTING THE SUPERVISION ORDINANCE AND THE EASEMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THAT. BUT GENERALLY THOSE ISSUES ARE HANDLED BY OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND ARE RESOLVED DURING OR AT THE FINAL PART OF CONSTRUCTION PRIOR TO OCCUNCY. >> Chair Downs: I'M GOING TO LET MS. TONG GO. I KNOW SHE WAS TRYING TO GET THE BUTTON TO GO. >> Tong: COMMISSIONER HORNE REMINDED ME I ACTUALLY HAD A QUESTION LAST TIME WHEN A LOT OF THE NEIGHBORS CAME TO ASK QUESTIONS REGARDING THIS PARTICULAR APPLICATION. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANYTHING IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE OR REGULATIONS THAT REGULATE HOW TALL, YOU KNOW, THE BUILDING CAN BE OR THE RETAINING WALL CAN BE. BECAUSE ONE OF THE ISSUES THAT CAME UP WITH THE CONVERSATION LAST TIME WAS NOW THEY REALIZE TO BUILD THESE LOTS THEY HAVE TO HAVE A REALLY HIGH RETAINING WALL -- I DON'T KNOW, SIX FEET, EIGHT FEET. BUT AT THE TIME WHEN THEY APPLIED FOR THE LOTS, NOBODY KNEW. WE WERE JUST LOOKING AT IT FROM A BIRD'S EYE VIEW THINKING THESE LOTS ARE DEFAULT VISION IS THEY'RE ON A FLAT SURFACE, NOT BLOCKING THE VIEW OF THE NEIGHBORS. AND NOW THEY'RE BUILDING -- I DON'T KNOW, SIX FEET, EIGHT FEET ABOVEGROUND. THAT'S COMPLETELY DIFFERENT OM WHAT EVERYBODY WAS THINKING IS THERE ANY ORDINANCE OR ZONING REQUIREMENT THAT WILL REGULATE THAT TYPE OF THING FROM HAPPENING AGAIN? >> SO -- CHAIR DOWNS MENTIONED THIS BEFORE THE MEETING AS WELL. THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION AND WE'VE ACTUALLY BEEN TALKING A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THAT IN REGARDS TO DO OUR CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS HANDLE ADJACENCY IN REGARDS TO ELEVATION APPROPRIATELY. WE DO HAVE LANGUAGE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE ABOUT HEIGHT, AS MEASURED FROM THE AVERAGE GRADE OF THE PROPERTY. SO IF THEY CHANGE THE GRADE, THEN THE HEIGHT NEEDS TO BE ADJUSTED ACCORDINGLY SO IF THEY'RE HAVING TALLER BUILDINGS BUT THEY'RE ALSO RAISING THE GRADE, THOSE TWO MAY NOT BALANCE OUT. THEY MAY NOT BE ABLE TO GET THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING THEY ARE REQUESTING. WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT LOOKING AT LANGUAGE AS IT RELATES TO ADJACENT PROPERTIES. I KNOW THERE'S LANGUAGE ABOUT DRAINAGE AND THOSE SORTS OF ISSUES THAT MAY IMPACT OTHER PROPERTIES. I'M NOT SURE ABOUT HEIGHT LANGUAGE IN REGARDS TO GRADING THE PROPERTIES FOR CONSTRUCTION HEIGHT BUT THAT SOMHING THA CHAIR DOWNS ASKED THAT WE TAKE A LOOK AT AND SO AT Y'ALL'S REQUEST WE CAN ADD THAT TO OUR WORK PROGRAM AND LOOK AT THAT ISSUE FURTHER. >> Chair Downs: YES, IT WAS MY INTENTION UNDER THE FUTURE ITEMS TO BRING THAT UP. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE CAUTIOUS. THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC CIRCUMSTANCES WHERE IT MIGHT CREATE, AGAIN, AN IMBALANCE IN THE COMMUNITY. THIS IS A LITTLE ISLAND WITHIN A DEVELOPED AREA AND IT DOES FEEL A LITTLE WRD - BECAUSE I DROVE OUT THERE -- TO SEE WHAT THIS WILL BE LIKE. AGAIN, SITTING ON THIS COMMISSION, HAVING AN ORDINANCE OR A STANDARD OR SOMETHING THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO ME TO TELL THEM YOU CAN'T ADD SIX FEET IN ELEVATION TO BUILD ON, I WOULD HAVE MADE THAT PART OF IT. BUT -- SO, AGAIN, I THINK WE'LL COVER THAT IN ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA, THAT DISCUSSION FOR A LITTLE BIT. COMMISSIONER STONE. >> Stone: YES, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE BUILDING DEPARTMENT RECEIVED THE APPLICATION FOR BUILDING PERMIT TO PRODUCE THE SITE WORK AND THEY WERE ISSUED A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE SITE WORK. IS THAT RIGHT? >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T GO TOO FAR. THIS IS ABOUT THE PLAT. THEY'RE WITHDRAWING IT. I'M NOT SURE OF THE STATUS OF THEIR BUILDING PLANS. I BELIEVE THEY'RE WORKING WITH BUILDING INSPECTIONS. THEY'RE ALSO WORKING WITH ENGINEERING ON THEIR ENGINEERING CIVIL PLANS. >> Stone: SO IT'S STILL IN PROGRESS. THE CITY REVIEW IS STILL IN PROGRESS? >> THERE IS PORTIONS OF THE CITY'S REVIEW ARE IN PROGRESS. >> Stone: GOOD. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ARE WE GOOD HERE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> Olley: MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE REVISED PRELIMINARY REPLATS 2022-05, AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> SECOND. Cir Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER STONE. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. OKAY. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE SOMEONE A CHANCE TO SPEAK ON IT IF THEY WANT TO ANYWAY. >> NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPO THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NO. 7. DISCUSSION AND ACTION: WORK SESSION AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING - AMEND NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DESIGN AN RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DESIGN ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPROVE ALIGNMENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021. APPLICANT: CITY OF P. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. I'M CHRISTINA SEBASTIAN, LAND AS MS. BRIDGES DESCRIBED, THIS ITEM IS A WORK SESSION AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDING TWO ZONING DISTRICTS TO IMPROVE ALIGNMENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021. SO THE DISTRICTS ARE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DESIGN OR NBD, WHICH ALLOWS FOR SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL. AND RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DESIGN OR RCD, WHICH ALLOWS FOR SMALL-SCALE RESIDENTIAL. FIRST SOME BACKGROUND ON THESE DISTRICTS. THEY WERE FIRST CONSIDERED BY THE COMMISSION BETWEEN MARCH AND JULY OF 2020 AND THEY RECEIVN JULY 20th. THE FOLLOWING MONTH IN AUGUST CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED THE DISTRICTS BUT CHOSE TO TABLE THEM TO ALLOW TIME FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING REVIEW COMMITTEE. THEY TABLED UNTIL JANUARY 2021. AT THAT TIME CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERED BUT AS YOU KNOW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS NOT YET WRAPPED UP. SO COUNCIL APPROVED THESE BUT LIMITED THEM TO THE PLANO EVENT CENTER SITE TO ALLOW THAT PROJECT TO CONTINUE. COUNCIL, AT THE SAME TIME, DIRECTED STAFF TO REVISIT THE DISTRICTS ONCE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLANNING PROCESS WAS COMPLETE TO SEE IF THEY WOULD BE APPROPRIATE FOR OTHER LOCATIONS. SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TONIGHT. SO AT THE TIME THE DISTRICTS WERE CREATED TO HELP IMPLEMENT ENVISION OAK POINT BUT THEY MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR OTHER AREAS OF THE CITY, SO WE WILL DISCUSS MORE. SO WHAT ARE THE DISTRICTS? BOTH HAVE SIMILAR DESIGN FEATURES TO ALLOW A WALKABLE LOW-RISE DEVELOPMENT. THEY INCLUDE TRANSITIONS FROM NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES, A MAXIM, WALKABLE TREE-LINED STREETS, AND REQUIRED OPEN SPACE. THEY ARE COMPANION DISTRICTS SO WHILE THEY CAN BE USED INDIVIDUALLY, THEY CAN ALSO BE USED TOGETHER TO ALLOW FOR A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. THE NBD STANDARDS ARE FOR NEIGHBORHOOD-FRIENDLY COMMERCIAL USES AND THE RCD STANDARDS FOR SMALL-SCALE RESIDENTIAL USES AND IN BETWEEN TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AND LARGE-SCALE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING. SOME OF YOU MAY BE FAMILIAR WITH THE TERM MISSING MIDDLE HOUSING FOR THESE IN-BETWEEN TYPES OF HOUSING. SO THERE'S A LARGE SPECTRUM OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF HOUSING OFTEN CALLED MIDDLE HOUSING HERE BECAUSE WE DO HAVE SOME HOUSING LIKE THIS. IT'S NOT ENTIRELY MISSING BUT THERE MAY BE SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR MORE. SO DURING THE DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT, WE DID HAVE A WEBSITE FOR PUBLISHING THE INFORMATION ABOUT WHAT WE WERE PROPOSING AND THE VARIOUS MEETINGS WE WERE HOLDING. AND THE WEBSITE INCLUDED VARIOUS HANUTS. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THE MAIN HANDOUT IS ALSO AVAILABLE IN YOUR PACKET. THE DRAFT STANDARDS WERE ON THE WEBSITE AS WELL AS AN FAQ. BECAUSE -- WELL, MANY OF YOU -- SOME OF YOU WERE ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME. WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE GIVE A SUMMARY OF THESE DISTRICTS FOR OUR NEWER COMMISSION MEMBERS. SO WHY DID WE FEEL LIKE WE NEEDED THESE DISTRICTS? WE HAVE A NUMBER OF OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS THAT ALLOW FOR MUCH OF THESE THINGS BUT THEY CAN SOMETIMES BE CONSTRAINING. SO MANY O THEM HAVE LIMITED DESIGN STANDARDS SO THEY DON'T PROVIDE THAT WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR. THEY MIGHT ALLOW MORE INTENSE DEVELOPMENT, SO MAYBE ABOVE THREE STORIES, SOMETIMES SIGNIFICANTLY ABOVE THREE STORIES. OR THEY MIGHT ALLOW AN INSUFFICIENT HOUSING MIX. MAYBE IT'S ONLY DUPLEXES OR ONLY SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS OF A CERTAIN SIZE. AND TO AVOID THAT, WE CAN DO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WHICH YOU ARE VERY FAMILIAR WITH, BUT PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS ARE SITE SPECIFIC AND CAN CATE SOM INEFFICIENCIES BECAUSE THE STANDARDS CAN BE JUST FOR THAT LOCATION. TO BE RESPONSIVE TO THAT MARKET NEED WE'RE SEEING WHERE THE MARKET IS ASKING FOR THESE MORE SMALL-SCALE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL AREAS, WE ARE PROPOSING TO EXPAND THESE -- THAT'S WHY WE INITIALLY PROPOSED THEM AND WHY WE'RE LOOKING TO EXPAND THE DISTRICTS. WITH THAT BACKGROUND IN MIND, I'M GOING TO GIVE YOU AN OVERVIEW OF THE ACTUAL REQUIREMEN OFHE DISTRICTS. SO THERE ARE SOME SHARED STANDARDS BETWEEN BOTH DISTRICTS. THEY BOTH REQUIRE A SITE-SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN, A GOVERNANCE ASSOCIATION, LIKE AN HOA, WALKABLE STREETS AND WALKS, MINIMUM USABLE OPEN SPACE, STANDARDS FOR BUILDING PLACEMENT SO THAT WALKABLE ENVIRONMENT IS ENCOURAGED. AND THEN IMPORTANTLY ALLOWANCES FOR P&Z AND COUNCIL TO ADJUST SOME OF THESE STANDARDS AT THE TIME OF DISTRICT ESTABLISHMENT SO WE CAN HAVE THOSE BASE STANDARDS THAT ARE CONSISTENT BETWEEN THE DISTRICTS BUT EACH ONE MAY HAVE VARIOUS UNIQUE FEATURES THAT WOULD BE APPROVED AT THE TIME OF ZONING. ALSO, THE DISTRICTS INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL TRANSITION AREAS. IT'S A 2:1 L1 HEIGHT TO SETBACK RATIO. SO THESE ARE MOVING INTO STANDARDS THAT ARE JUST FOR NBD. NAMELY NBD REQUIRES A MIXTURE OF THREE USES. SO ONE OF THOSE USES COULD BE RESIDENTIAL AND O WHEN THEY ARE PART OF AN NBD THEY MUST FOLLOW THE RBD STANDARDS. ANOTHER UNIQUE THING TO NBD IS THE LIVE-WORK BUSINESS LOFT USE AND THIS IS A STANDARD THAT'S UNIQUE TO NBD. IT'S ONLY PERMITTED THERE BUT IT'S FOR GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL SPACE BUT WITH A SINGLE ATTACHED DWELLING UNIT. SO MOVING INTO RCD. THE MEAT OF RCD IS REALLY ABOUT OUR HOUSING TYPES HERE SO THERE ARE EIGHT HOUSING TYPES IN THREE TIERS. AND THE EXACT ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES ARE NOT MANDATED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCES SO YOU CAN HAVE VARIETY FROM RCD DISTRICT TO RCD DISTRICT OR EVEN FROM BLOCK TO BLOCK. FOR TIER ONE WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY 3, SINGLE 2 AND DUPLEX. SO GENERALLY JUST TRADITIONAL SINGLE-FAMILY BUT ON A SMALLER LOT. FOR TIER TWO WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY 1.5 OR TOWNHOME. MANNER HOME IS UP TO SIX UNITS IN ONE BUILDING BUT THE BUILDING IS TO BE DESIGNED TO LOOK MORE LIKE A SINGLE-FAMILY ME AND HAVE JUST ONE MAIN ENTRANCE. FOR TIER THREE WE HAVE STACKED TOWNHOMES. SO THOSE CAN BE ONE RIGHT NEXT TO EACH OTHER OR ONE ON TOP OF THE OTHER OR KIND OF A COMBINATION OF THE TWO. AND THEN WE HAVE STACKED FLATS AND STACKED FLATS ARE UP TO NINE UNITS PER BUILDING AND, AGAIN, MUCH LIKE MANOR HOMES ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE ONE MAIN ENTRANCE TO LOOK MORE LIKE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME. SO WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT HAVING DIVERSITY OF HOUSING SOE REALLY WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES WITHIN RCD DISTRICTS. SO THERE ARE A NUMBER OF ELEMENTS THAT MAKE THAT HAPPEN. SO WE HAVE 20 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE MAXIMUM AND A MINIMUM OF TEN. ON TOP OF THAT, EACH HOUSING TYPE NEEDS TO BE AT LEAST 10% OF THE OVERALL NUMBER OF UNITS. YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIND JUST ONE DUPLEX BUILDING SURROUNDED BY THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. TIER ONE IS REQUIRED TO BE A MINIMUM OF 50% OF THE UNITS IN THE DISTRICT. AND THEN TIER THREE, THAT STACKED TOWNHOME OR STACKED FLAT IS LIMITED TO 25% OF ALL THE UNITS IN THE DISTRICT AND ONLY PERMITTED WHEN THERE ARE ONLY 100 UNITS OR MORE IN THE DISTRICT. AND THEN THIS SLIDE SHOWS KIND OF A SUMMARY OF HOW THOSE RESTRICTIONS WORK TOGETHER AND THEN ONE ADDITIONAL ONE THAT'S NOT ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE, AS THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE DISTRICT INCREASES, THEN MORE HOUSING TYPES ARE REQUIRED. SO ONE HOUSING TYPE REQUIRED WHEN YOU HAVE 50 OR LESS, TWO FOR 51 TO 100, AND FOR OVER 100, THREE HOUSING TYPES AT MINIMUM ARE REQUIRED. BUT YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE AT LEAST 50% TIER ONE UNITS, MAYBE 100% TIER ONE BUT THAT MEANS AT MOST YOU'LL HAVE AT TIER TWO IS 50% AND THAT IS ONLY ALLOWED WHEN YOU HAVE OVER 100 UNITS AND UP TO 25% OF THE TOTAL NUMBER OF UNITS . OKAY. SO THAT'S A LOT OF BACKGROUND ON THE DISTRICTS THEMSELVES SO NOW WE'LL GET -- IF Y'ALL ARE STILL WITH ME, WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021. THE DISTRICTS WERE ANALYZED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND NAMELY THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PILLAR AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARDS. THEY WERE FOUND TO LARGELY BE IN CONFORMANCE BUT THERE ARE SOME OPPORTUNITIES TO MODIFY THE DISTRICTS TO BE A MORE COMPLETE ALIGNMENT. SO FIRST WE LOOKED AT THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACTION FIVE. ALL OF THESE FOR ACTION FIVE RELATE TO MULTI-USE DEVELOPMENT. SO FOR LETTER A IT'S REALLY NO MORE TN 50% SQUARE FOOTAGE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT THAT IN THE NBD REQUIREMENTS. SO ANY NBD DISTRICT WITH RCD HOUSING TYPES OR LIVE, WORK, BUSINESS LOFT UNITS MUST BE NO MORE THAN 50% RESIDENTIAL IN THEIR SQUARE FOOTAGE. FOR RGM5B, WHICH IS ABOUT PHASING SO RIGHT NOW NBD REQUIRES AT LEAST 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE MUST BE BUILT AS PART OF THE FIRST PHASE IF YOU'RE HAVING MULTIPLE PHASES. BUT WE ARE ALSO GOING TO ADD A REQUIREMENT THAT EVERY TWO SQUARE FOOT OF RESIDENTIAL USE REQUIRES ONE SQUARE FOOT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USAGE. AND FOR RGM5C, THIS IS ABOUT PHASING BUT IT'S ABOUT BRINGING THOSE KEY DESIGN FEATURES IN AT THE BEGINNING AND NOT, YOU KNOW, WAITING AND SAVING THEM ALL FOR THE END, WHICH SOMETIMES NEVER HAPPENS. SO RIGHT NOW STREET ENHANCEMENTS SUCH AS TREESND SIDE TIME OF DEVELOPMENT BUT WE WANT TO REQUIR USABLE OPEN SPACE AND ANY PLANNED TRAILS BE PROVIDED DURING THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. SO NEXT, MOVING ON TO RGM9. THIS ONE IS TO LIMIT SMALL-SCALE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS TO ONES THAT ARE AT LEAST TEN ACRES IN SIZE, HAVE A UNIT MIX OF NO MORE THAN 25% MULTIFAMILY, AND ARE CONTROLLED BY A GOVERNANCE ASSOCIATION. SO THE GOVERNANCE ASSOCIATION, AS WE DISCUSSED, IS ALREADY IN PLACE BUT LOOKING AT LIMITING THE MULTIFAMILY TO5% O THE TOTAL UTS. SO HERE WE'RE LOOKING AT THE ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITION, WHICH IS ANYTHING WITH THREE OR MORE DWELLING UNITS IN THE BUILDING. AND THERE ARE TWO HOUSING TYPES THAT FALL INTO THAT DEFINITION. SO THAT'S THE MANOR HOME AND THE STACKED FLAT. SO SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE THAT 25% LIMITATION FOR TIER THREE, WE'RE PROPOSING TO SIMPLY MAKE EVERYTHING IN TIER THREE BE A MULTIFAMILY TYPE. SO TO DO THAT WE WOULD BASICALLY JUST SWAP MANOR HOMES AND STACKED TOWNHOMES. SO THE NEW CONFIGURATION WOULD BE LIKE YOU SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN. SO OUR NEXT QUESTION IN REGARDS TO THIS 25% MULTIFAMILY QUESTION IS -- HAS TO DO WITH SINGLE-FAMILY 2. SINGLE-FAMILY 2 UNITS CAN BE BUILT ON A SINGLE LOT BUT THEY CAN ALSO BE CLUSTERED TO BE ARRANGED UP TO TEN UNITS PER LOT, ARRANGED AROUND A COURTYARD. NOW THE COMP THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS A DEFINITION FOR MULTIFAMILY TYPES, WHICH IS ANY HOUSING WITH MORE THAN THREE UNITS PER LOT, SO IT'S A SLIGHT DIFFERENCE FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND SO WITH THAT IN MIND, ALSO ON THE SCREEN WE HAVE AN EXAMPLE OF MULTIFAMILY TYPES LISTED AS WELL. SO SMALL SCALE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SETS UP TO TEN UNITS PER LOT. SO QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION TONIGHT IS SHOULD STAFF -- SORRY. SHOULD CLUSTERED SINGLE-FAMILY 2 UNITS BE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY? AND, IF SO, STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE REMOVE THAT CLUSTERED OPTION AND THEN LIMIT SF-2 UNITS TO BE ONE UNIT PER LOT. HOWEVER, IF WE MAKE THAT CHANGE, THAT WOULD LIMIT ADDITIONAL LOW-MAINTENANCE SINGLE-FAMILY OPTIONS IN THE COMMUNITY . THE LAST ONE HERE ON THE RGM ITEMS, IN REGARDS TO THE TEN ACRE LIMITATION. SO IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE ARE PROPOSING THAT ANYTHING WITH MULTIFAMILY AND IF WE'RE MOVING ALL THE MULTIFAMILY INTO TIER THREE, HAVE ALL OF& THOSE REQUIRE AT LEAST TEN ACRES OR MORE. SINC WE ALREADY HAVE THE THRESHOLDS OF 50 UNITS, 51 TO 100 AND OVER 100 AND THAT'S WHERE THE MULTIFAMILY IS ALLOWED, WE'RE JUST PROPOSING TO ADD THAT ON TOP OF THE EXISTING MIX REQUIREMENTS. ALL RIGHT. AND THEN THE LAST THING WE LOOKED AT WAS IN REGARDS TO THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES, NAMELY THE HOUSING MIXES AND THE DESIRABLE CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS. SO THIS SLIDE HERE, THERE'S A LOT ON IT BUT IT'S ALSO AVAILABLE IN YOUR PACKET. THE HIGHLIGHTED ITEMS ARE THE ONES WHERE THESE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES DO NOT ALIGN WELL WITH THE DISTRICTS. SO WE'VE GOT NBD AND THEN THE THREE TIERS OF HOUSING AS PROPOSED FOR AMENDMENT, AS WE'VE DISCUSSED ALREADY. WE DID LOOK AT NEIGHBORHOODS AND EMPLOYMENT CENTERS BUT FELT LIKE THEY REALLY DIDN'T ALIGN WELL, SO LIKELY WOULD NOT BE GOOD CANDIDATES. NEIGHBORHOOD CORNERS, COMMUNITY CORNERS, URBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS, DOWNTOWN CORRIDORS, AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS ALL SEEM TO ALIGN FAIRLY WELL WITH SOME AMENDMENTS THAT ARE OUTLINED -- HIGHLIGHTED HERE AND BOLDED IN THE STAFF REPORT. BUT KEEPING THAT IN MIND, IT'S IMPORTANT TO KNOW THAT ANY TIME AN APPLICANT MAY REQUEST AN NBD OR RCD DISTRICT, THE DASHBOARD REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY WOULD APPLY AND BE CONSIDERED LIKE ANY ZONING CASE AND SO THEREFORE CITY COUNCIL AND P&Z MAY DETERMINE THAT THE DISTRICTS REALLY ARE NOT IN CONFORMANCE AND NOT APPROPRIATE FOR THAT SITE BASED ON THE INDIVIDUAL SITE AND BASED ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MEASUREMENT AREA AND HOW THAT LAND USE MIX ISHAKI OUT AT . BECAUSE WE HAVE THE ABILITY FOR THE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL TO AMEND NBD FOR THE DISTRICT, YOU MAY BE ABLE TO AMEND THE OPEN SPACE. AN EXAMPLE IS THAT SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS CALL FOR 15-20% OPEN SPACE, WHEREAS NBD ONLY REQUIRES 10%. IF SOMEONE WAS PROPOSING AN NBD DISTRICT IN THE SUBURBAN ACTIVI CENTER, IT MAY BE APPROPRIATE FOR THE COMMISSION TO SAY THAT DOES FIT, BUT REQUIRE THAT 15-20% USABLE OPEN SPACE. ALL RIGHT. AND FINALLY, WITH ALL THIS IN MIND, WE'D LIKE TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBILITY OF EXPANDING THESE DISTRICTS TO OTHER LOCATIONS. THERE'S A LOT ON THE SCREEN. I DON'T EXPECT YOU TO READ THIS. IT IS IN THE PACKET. THE SUMMARY IS TO TAKE AWAY THE RESTRICTIONS LIMITING IT TO THE EVENTS CENTER, FOR RCD, BUT MAKING IT APPROPRIATE FOR UNDEVEPED PROPERES AND REDEVELOPMENT OF RETAIL OR COMMERCIAL CORNERS, REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL CORRIDORS WHERE MEETING THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH GUIDELINES AND TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AREAS AND WHEN IMPLEMENTING A SMALL AREA PLAN. AND THEN LOOKING AT SIMILAR CHANGES FROM NBD, WORDING IS A LITTLE BIT MORE BROAD, BUT DEVELOPMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT OF COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE COMMERCIAL USES MAY BE APPROPRIATE. SO WE HAVE THREE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. WE'RE EAGER TO HEAR IF YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. DO THE PROPOSED ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ARE THERE ELEMENTS THAT YOU'D LIKE US TO LOOK AT. TWO CLUSTERED SINGLE-FAMILY 2 HOUSING TYPES BE CONSIDERED AS MULTIFAMILY AND IF SO SHOULD THAT CLUSTERED OPTION BE REMOVED. AND THREE, SHOULD THE PURPOSE STATES FOR THE DISTRICTS BE REVISED AS SHOWN PREVIOUSLY. FINALLY, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS FOR THE COMMISSION TO PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THESE QUESTIONS AND TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE DISTRICTS TO CONFORM WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO, THIS SHOULD BE RECORDED. FOR ANYONE WHO EVER SAYS PLANNING IS SIMPLE, THEY SHOULD LISTEN TO THIS. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: I KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER HORNE, COMMISSIONER STONE AND MYSELF WERE PART OF THE COMMISSION WHEN WE HAD MULTIPLE MEETINGS AND DISCUSSED BOTH OF THESE DISTRICTS. I REMEMBER AT SOME POINT WHEN IT PASSED 8-0 US TALKING ABOUT THE APPLICABILITY OF THESE DESIGN DISTRICTS IN OTHER AREAS IN THE CITY. WE FELT LIKE THEY WERE VALUABLE. SOME OF THE THINGS THEY DID, WHICH AT THAT TIME THE COMMISSION THOUGHT WAS VALUABLE, WAS THE DIVERSITY IN HOUSING TYPES, BECAUSE IT GAVE ALMOST ANYONE WHO WANTED TO LIVE HERE COULD FIND A PLACE TO LIVE THAT THEY COULD FEEL COMFORTABLE NO MATTER WHERE THEY CAME FROM. OUR JOB TONIGHT IS TO ANSWER THOSE THREE QUESTIONS. I KNOW WHAT MY RESPONSES ARE. STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB. THE ONLY ONE YOU ARE ASKING FOR MUCH MORE CLARIFICATION ON IS THE CLUSTERED. AND MY RESPONSE TO THAT IS NO, IT'S NOT MULTIFAMILY, IT'S SOMETHING DIFFERENT. BUT WE CAN HAVE A DIALOGUE AROUND IT. PRIMARILY, WE WANT TO HAVE A CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. AND THEN WE CAN HAVE MORE DIALOGUE AROUND IT IF THAT'S WHAT WE DESIRE. SO, COULD YOU GO BACK TO YOUR THREE QUESTIONS? >> I THINK THEY SHOULD BE ON THE SCREEN. >> Chair Downs: THEY'RE NOT. I'LL SWITCH THE SCREEN. I CHANGED IT ELIER WHEN WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT -- THERE WE GO. DO THE PROPOSED CHANGES GENERALLY ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, ARE THERE OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE DISTRICTS THAT NEED TO BE BETTER ADJUSTED TO ALIGN WITH THE PLAN. AND I THOUGHT IT WAS ACTUALLY CLEAR IN THE PACKET TO ME THAT THE CHANGES YOU MADE SPECIFICALLY WERE DONE TO ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ALMOST SPECIFICALLY. I'LL GET AROUND TO HAVING PUBLIC SPEAKERS, BUT LET'S JUST ATTACK NUER 1 DOES ANYONE FEEL LIKE THESE CHANGES SOMEHOW OR ANOTHER MOVED OUT OF ALIGNMENT OR IN SOME WAY, SHAPE, OR FORM, ARE NOT IN LIMIT WITH THE PLAN? COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WHEN WE LOOKED AT THIS LAST YEAR, FULLY AWARE -- I WAS LOOKING -- I KNEW IT WAS RESTRICTED AT THAT TIME TO VISION OAK POINT PARTICULAR AROUND THE PLANO CENTER AND I THOUGHT IT WAS GREAT FOR UTILIZATION OF THAT PROPERTY. BUT THEN ONE OF THE THINGS WE WERE ALWAYS CHALLENGED WITH WERE UNDERUTILIZED AREAS WITHIN THE CITY AND HOW TO ME IT MORE APPEALING TO PEOPLE TO LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY THERE. AND EXACTLY WHAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR HERE WITH THE NBD AND THE RCD DISTRICTS FITS IN PERFECTLY IF SOMEONE'S GOT THE VISION IS AND THE WHEREWITHAL TO MOVE THAT FORWARD. IT'S GOING TO BE A STRUGGLE, BECAUSE THERE'S EXISTING CONCRETE THERE. BUT IT CERTAINLY FITS INTO WHAT WE THOUGHT OF. AND I WAS HOPING THAT WE'D GET A CHANCE DURING MY TENURE TO ADDRESS THIS, MORE OPEN TO THE CITY OF PLANO. WE'RE SORELY LACKING AREAS WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE AND WALK TO RESTAURANTS, DRY CLEANERS. WE CAN GET TO A DRUG STORE NOW. BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING MORE LOCAL THAT WE COULD WALK TO FROM A MOBILITY PERSPECTIVE. THIS ONLY ENHANCES THAT. SO MS. SEBASTIAN, THANKS FOR PUTTING THIS TOGETHER. IT WAS GREAT. I APPRECIATE IT. >> Chair Downs: SO WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ITEM 1. YOU THINK ITEM 1, WE'RE GOOD? I SEE A THUMBS-UP OVE THERE. COMMISSIONER OLLEY? >> Olley: QUESTION. GENERALLY FEELS LIKE IT ALIGNS. I DO HAVE A QUESTION ON THE STIPULATION AROUND TIER THREE HOUSING BEING NO MORE THAN 25% OF ALL UNITS, BECAUSE IT ALMOST FEELS LIKE THAT DEFEATS THE PURPOSE OF CREATING THAT MIDDLE HOUSING THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHERE WE WILL BE STUCK WITH A PREPONDERANCE OF BUILDINGS IN THIS NEW DISTRICT BEING SINGLE-FAMILY. IT ALMOST DEFEATS THE MIDDLE HOUSE IS THE BEST THAT I CAN THINK OF RIGHT NOW. SO WHAT DROVE THAT CAPPING OF MULTIFAMILY HOUSING TYPE? >> LARGELY, FROM THAT RGM ACTION TO 9 TO LIMIT IT TO 25% MULTIFAMILY FOR SMALL-SCALE SIDENTIA BUT THAT REALLY CAME ABOUT DURING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE'S WORK, PARTICULARLY IN THEIR SUBCOMMITTEE PHASE. THAT ACTION I THINK CAME OUT OF THAT. AS FAR AS WHY THAT EXACTLY -- I THINK THERE WAS SOME, YOU KNOW, KNOWLEDGE THAT RCD HAD THIS 25% THRESHOLD, BUT THEY WEREN'T NECESSARILY LOOKING SPECIFICALLY AT THE REQUIREMENTS AND WHETHER THINGS WERE MULTIFAMILY OR NOT, BUT I DON'T KNOW OTHERWISE WHY THAT NUMBER WAS CHOSEN. >> Olley: I WOULD THINK IF WE WERE TRYING TO ACHIEVE THIS LIVE, WORK, PLAY IN THIS NEW DISTRICT, THIS ALMOST INEVITABLY DRIVES MOST OF THE LAND IN THESE DISTRICTS TOWARDS HOUSING, IF ONLY YOU CAN PUT IN THERE 50% SINGLE-FAMILY AND REDUCES THE WORK-PLAY ASPECTS, IN MY HEAD. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, RIGHT. FIFTH STREET -- IT ALIGNS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT IT AIMS TO ACCOMPLISH IN ESTABLISHING THIS DISTRICT. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? >> Chair Downs: I THINK I KNOW WHEE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT. SO LET'S JUST SAY YOU'VE GOT TEN ACRES YOU CAN HAVE UP TO A HUNDRED -- YOU CAN HAVE MORE THAN A HUNDRED UNITS. YOU COULD HAVE 200 UNITS. IT WOULD ALL BE RESIDENTIAL. THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY COMMERCIAL. YOU COULD HAVE -- IT MUST BE AT LEAST 50% COMMERCIAL. IF IT'S TENCRES IT HAS TO BE AT LEAST 50% COMMERCIAL YOU HAVE RESIDENTIAL. >> THE ONLY CAVEAT TO THAT IS THAT IT'S BASED ON SQUARE FOOTAGE, SO WE'LL WORK WITH THE DEVELOPERS ON EXACTLY WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. >> Chair Downs: IT'S NOT ON THE LAND ACREAGE, IT'S ON THE SQUARE FOOTAGE BEING DEVELOPED. >> [ OFF MIC ] >> MHMM. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S CORRECT. >> [ OFF MIC ] SO THAT'S MY ONLY ISSUE, IS THE CAPPING SEEMS TO DEFEAT WHAT I THINK THE PURPOSE OF THIS DISTRICT SHOULD BE, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, A PART OF EVERYTHING. YOU CAN LIVE AND WALK TO THE, YOU KNOW, THE RESTAURANT OR WHATEVER, DRUG STORE, WHATEVER AND HAVE PLAY SPACE. IT ALMOST DRIVES YOU TOWARDS ONLY LIVE AND ELIMINATES THE OTHER TWO. >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE GOING WITH IT. THE ONLY COMMENT I CAN COME BACK TO WIT I IS THAT EVEN THE LANGUAGE IN THERE ABOUT HOW MANY SQUARE FEET MUST HAVE, 2:1 AND EVERYTHING. HOW MANY HOURS DID WE SPEND TALKING? I DON'T KNOW. ULTIMATELY WHAT WE CAME OUT WITH WAS SOMETHING THAT SEEMED TO WORK IN TERMS OF A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, NOT AN OVER-STAOVERSATURATION, AND WE E ACRES, TEN ACRES, ARBITRARY NUMBERS. WE DON'T KNOW WHAT IT WILL WIND UP. WHAT IF IT'S 32 ACRES THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPING? YOUR OPPORTUNITIES FOR THAT DIVERSE HOUSING TYPE IS GOING TO BE MUCH GREATER. IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHAT WE DID WHERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE WILLOW BEND THING WHERE YOU HAVE THIS ISLAND THAT'S CREATED. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE HAD THIS, SO YOU DIDN'T WIND UP WITH AN ISLAND NECESSARILY. BUT THERE WAS AN INTENTION TO PROVIDE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR MULTIPLE TYPES OF HOUSING, BUT YOU NEEDED A LARGE ENOUGH SPACE FOR THAT TO TAKE PLACE. SO I'M TRYING TO SUMMARIZE WHAT WE DISCUSSED OVER SEVERAL MEETINGS, TRYING TO FIND THAT BALANCE WHERE WE WEREN'T -- BECAUSE THEY'RE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY AND THE WAY THAT FALLS UNDERNEATH THE REST OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THERE'S ALREADY LIMITATIONS ON IT. SO THIS IS REALLY JUST TRYING TO MATCH WHAT'S IN THE PLAN. IF WE TRY TO GO BEYOND THIS, NOW THIS DOESN'T ALIGN WITH WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MENTIONS. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I ADDRESS COMMISSIONER OLLEY'S CONCERN THERE? ONE OF THE AREAS -- AN OPTION WE HAD IS THAT NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DISTRICT. AND THAT IS THE FIRST FLOORS ARE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL COULD BE ABOVE THAT. AND YOU ALSO HAVE MIXED HOUSING WITHIN THE NBD. IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY ALL HAVE TO -- IF A DEVELOPER CAME OUT AND HAD AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER OR NEIGHBORHOOD CORNER, AND WANTED TO DEVELOP THAT, HE COULD CERTAINLY DO ALMOST A MIX USE IN THAT T ACRES. AND THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO, MAKE IT EASY FOR THE DEVELOPER TO ENVISION BRINGING IN COMMERCIAL ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THEN HAVE RESIDENTIAL. >> Olley: IN ORDER TO DRIVE THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING WE TALKED ABOUT, I WOULD PERSONALLY CAP THE TIER ONE UNITS AT 50, RIGHT. PUT TWO TIER UP TO 50 AND TIER THREE AT 25 SO THERE'S NO ROOM THAT TIER ONE TOTALLY ENVELOPS. THE OTHER QUESTION I HAD, WHICH I DIDN'T QUITE UNDERSTAND IS, EACH HOUSING TYPE USED MUST MAKE UP AT LEAST 10% OF THE OVERALL UNITS. ARE WE TALKING ABOUT TIERS OR THE EIGHT DIFFERENT HOUSING TYPES? >> THE EIGHT INDIVIDUAL HOUSING TYPES. >> Olley: SO THAT MAY SOLVE THE DIVERSITY PROBLEM. OKAY. >> Chair Downs: YEAH, I THINK -- VERY GOOD. YOU GOT TO THE END OF IT. THAT WASART OF OUR DISCUSSION, REQUIRE THE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES SO SOMEBODY CAN'T COME IN AND SIMPLY BUILD TIER ONE OVER THE WHOLE THING, WHICH IS WHAT YOU WERE ULTIMATELY GETTING TO WAS THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO REQUIRE THAT DIVERSITY. IT ALLOWS YOU TO ELIMINATE IT. COMMISSIONER HILL. [ LAUGHING ] >> I JUST WANTED TO ADD THESE ARE SIMILAR TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS WHERE YOU CAN MAKE EXCEPTIONS. ASONG AS YOU'RE NOT EXCEEDING THE OVERALL DENSITY REQUIREMENT, THE DEVELOPER COULD MAKE SOME PROPOSALS TO SHIFT THE DENSITY. SO THEY -- IF THEY'RE LOOKING AT A PROPOSAL WITH MORE OF A CERTAIN TYPE, WE COULD LOOK AT IT ON A SITE-SPECIFIC BASES. BASIS. THE CONDITIONS THERE, MARKET CONDITIONS, WHAT THE DEVELOPER IS LOOKING AT THROUGH THEIR PROPOSAL. THEY COULD PROPOSE SOME EXCEPTIONS TO THESE MIXES TO MAKE THEIR PARTICULAR PRODUCT WORK. SO THERE ARE OPTIONS. THERE ARE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE MIX. WE TRY TO ALLY CREATE A GOOD BALANCE HERE. WE'RE HAPPY TO LOOK AT THAT IF THE COMMISSION SEES ISSUES THERE. BUT IT IS SOMEWHAT OF A FLEXIBLE DISTRICT AS WELL, SO THEY COULD PUT IN A MIX WHICH REALLY SUITS THEIR NEEDS TO SOME EXTENT AS LONG AS THEY STAY WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES. >> [ OFF MIC ] >> Chair Downs: MHMM. >> Olley: TO ENSURE THAT WE GET THAT -- >> Chair Downs: MIX. >> Olley: IF YOU WANT TO LIVE IN PLANO, YOU'VE GOT OPTIONS. THAT'S BIG. >> Chairowns: COMMISSIER RATLIFF, I'M SORRY, ALSO, MR. HILL BUT I DEMOTED YOU TO COMMISSIONER STATUS. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. [ LAUGHING ] >> CAN I BE MISTER IN THAT CASE? SO, MY QUESTIONS ARE MORE ABOUT THE NBD DISTRICTS AND HOW WE CAME UP WITH THE 2:1 RATIO OF RESIDENTIAL TO BUSINESS. AND I'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE BACKGROUND. THERE'S A LOT OF PICTURES IN HERE FROM AN AREA I LIVED AND WORKED IN FOR TEN YEARS. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT PRODUCT AND. THAT RATIO DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT T . I'M CURIOUS WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THE 2:1 RESIDENTIAL TO WORK RATIO. >> I'M NOT SURE I REMEMBER CLEARLY. >> THAT CAME SPECIFICALLY OUT OF CPRC DISCUSSIONS. IT WAS NEGOTIATED AT LENGTH. AND THAT WAS THE NUMBER THEY COULD COME TO CONSEN CONSENSUS . >> Ratliff: MY EXPERIENCE AND THE PICTURE THAT YOU HAVE ON THE SCREEN, MY OFFICE BUILDING IS OFF THE RIGHT-HAND SIDE OF THAT PHOTO, WHERE I WAS FOR TEN YEARS. SO I KNOW THOSE BUILDINGS VERY WELL AND I KNOW THAT NEIGHBORHOOD VERY WELL. [ CHUCKLING ] AND I'LL TELL YOU THAT THE RESIDENTIAL NEEDS TO BE HIGHER TO SUPPORT THAT GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL. THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE INTENSITY THERE. >> Chair Downs: MORE DENSITY. >> Ratliff: OR THE BUSINESSES DON'T SURVIVE, OR YOU END UP WITH A LOT OF PROFESSIONAL SERVICES. MY EXPERIENCE IS WE ENVISION COFFEE SHOPS, SANDWICH SHOPS, AND RETAIL. AND THAT'S NOT WHAT GETS BUILT ON A 2:1 RATIO. YOU NEED A MUCH DENSER RATIO TO SUPPORT THOSE GROUND-LEVEL BUSINESSES IF THEY'RE RETAIL-TYPE ESTABLISHMENTS. THAT'S WHY I WAS CURIOUS HOW THEY CAME UP WITH THAT, BECAUSE THE NBD IN MY EXPERIENCE CAN SURVIVE IF IT'S SURROUNDED BY THE RESIDENTIAL, THE HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. BUT FOR ■THAT GROUND FLOOR ONE-OFF MOM AND POP TO SURVIVE IN THAT ENVIRONMENT YOU NEED A LOT MORE ROOFTOPS, OR BEDS AND PEOPLE TO SLEEP IN. >> Chair Downs: SO CAN WE GO BACK TO THE THREE BULLETED POINT ITEMS? THERE WE GO. THANK YOU. I MAY AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND THINK THAT HIGHER DENSITY IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO SUPPORT IT, BUT THE QUESTION REALLY IS ARE THE CHANGES THEY'RE MAKING GENERALLY BRINGING THESE DISTRICTS MORE IN LINE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WITH THOSE KIND OF RATIOS? WE MIGHT HAVE A DISCUSSION AT SOME OTHER POINT ABOUT CHANGING THOSE RATIOS, BUT THAT WOULD BE A SIGNIFICANT CNGE FROM THE PLAN, WHICH WAS AGREED UPON BY CPRC, P&Z, AND COUNCIL. SO TONIGHT, I THINK THE QUESTION IS, ARE THE CHANGES THAT THEY'RE RECOMMENDING TO THOSE DISTRICTS WHICH WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED 8-0 BY P&Z ANDS -- AND THE ONLY REASON THEY WEREN'T PASSED BY COUNCIL IS BECAUSE CPRC WASN'T DONE -- DO WE THINK THE CHANGES ARE BETTER ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? IF THE ANSWER SEEMS TO BE YES EVEN IF YOU DON'T AGREE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OR JUST FEEL LIKE MAYBE IT'S MAYBE THE RATIOS AREN'T GOING TO WORK RIGHT FOR A DEVELOPER -- BUT THIS WOULD BE UP TO THE DEVELOPER TO MAKE THE DECISION ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT HE WANTS TO INVEST IN THAT TYPE OF PRODUCT. >> THAT WOULD BE MY COMMENT, THAT IF SOMEBODY BRINGS ONE FORWARD, JUST A WORD OF EXPERIENCE TO THE STAFF, YOU NEED THOSE RESIDENTIAL AREAS AROUND THAT NBD DISTRICT FOR IT TO SURVIVE. >> Chair Downs: OF COURSE. >> Ratliff: AN ISOLATED HOLE IN THE DONUTS NOT GOING TO MAKE IT. >> Chair Downs: THERE'S EXAMPLES OF THAT AROUND THE CITY ALREADY. CAN WE GIVE STAFF DIRECTION ON ITEM 1 THAT YES, WE THINK THAT THEY GENERALLY ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? ALL RIGHT. ITEM 2, SHOULD CLUSTERED SINGLE-FAMILY 2 HOUSING TYPES BE CONSIDERED AS MULTIFAMILY AND IF SO, SHOULD THAT CLUSTERED OPTION BE REMOVED. I DON'T BELIEVE IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY. I CERTAINLY DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE REMOVED. IT GIVES US ONE LESS OPTION IN HOUSING DIVERSITY. THAT'S MY OPINION. ANYONE ELSE? >> Tong: I AGREE WITH MR. CHAIRMAN. I DON'T THINK IT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS MULTIFAMILY. >> I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. WHY WAS THAT CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY WHEN WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY-2? >> IT GOES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GLOSSARY FOR THE DEFINITION OF MULTIFAMILY IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SAYS THREE UNITS OR MOR PER LOT. OUR ZONING ORDINANCE SAYS THREE UNITS OR MORE IN A BUILDING. BECAUSE THEY'RE ALL PLATTED ON ONE SINGLE LOT, THAT MAKES THAT GRAY AREA WITH THE TWO DIFFERENT DEFINITIONS. >> CAN WE REQUIRE THE CLUSTER, THE SINGLE-FAMILY-2 TYPE TO BE INDIVIDUALLY LOTTED? DO THEY HAVE TO BE ON THE SAME LOT? >> IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT COULD BE DONE ON AN INDIVIDULY PTTED LOT BASIS. THEY COULD CHOOSE TO DESIGN IT AROUND OPEN SPACE. SO THEY COULD STILL DO IT WITH THAT ONE UNIT PER LOT REQUIREMENT. THE CLUSTER JUST ALLOWS IT TO BE ESSENTIALLY THE UNDERLYING LOT TO BE OWNED BY A SINGLE ENTITY. >> Chair Downs: I THINK IT REDUCED THE COST FOR THE DEVELOPER TO DO IT ON A SINGLE LOT VERSUS HAVING TO BREAK IT INTO INDIVIDUAL LOTS, BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO HAVE SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS FOR EACH LOT. >> Tong: OKAY. >> Chair Downs: I HEARD COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I GUESS . . . CAN WE ALIGN THE ZONING ORDINANCE LANGUAGE BETTER WITH THE COMPLYING GLOSSARY DEFINITION? BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE THE ATTENTION HERE IS THREE UNITS PER BUILDING VERSUS THREE UNITS PER LOT. IS THERE, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE JUST DID TODAY WHERE WE ARE UPDATING SOME OF THE LANGUAGE, IS THERE A CASE TO BE MADE THAT WE JUST NEED TO BETTER ALIGN THE DEFINITION? >> Cir Dns: THE QUESN WOULD BE IF WE SAID NO, IT SHOULDN'T BE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY, HOW WOULD YOU -- WHAT CHANGE WOULD YOU MAKE? >> IF IT'S CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY, THEN TO KEEP THAT 25% THRESHOLD OF HAVING EVERYTHING IN TIER THREE, BE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY, WE WOULD GENERALLY PROPOSE -- WE WERE THINKING TO REMOVE THE CLUSTERED OPTION, BUT PERHAPS IT COULD BE THAT OPTION COULD BE MOVED AS A 9TH OPTION IN TIER THREE. >> Chair Downs: THE QUESTION IS, IF WE SAY WE WAN TO KEEP IT BUT NOT CONSIDER IT MULTIFAMILY, NOW IT DOESN'T FIT WITHIN THE GLOSSARY, SO TO SPEAK. HOW WOULD YOU FIX IT SO THAT WE COULD KEEP THIS BUT WOULD YOU HAVE TO ADD ANOTHER DEFINITION TO THE GLOSSARY? WHAT WOULD YOU DO TO -- IF WE WANT TO KEEP THIS BUT NOT AS MULTIFAMILY, WHAT WOULD YOU DO SO THAT WE DON'T HAVE THIS CONFLICT? >> WE'D BE LOOKING OVER TIME AT OPPORTUNITIES TO ALIGN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PN. WE WILL BE WORKING ON A ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE IN THE NEAR FUTURE. THERE WAS A BUDGET ITEM APPROVED FOR THAT. SO WE WANT TO LOOK AT THINGS MORE HOLISTICALLY TO SEE ALL THE OPPORTUNITIES WE HAVE TO ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD LOOK TO ADDRESS IT. I'M NOT ENTIRELY SURE WHAT THE SOLUTION WOULD BE. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S FINE. DO WE WANT TO CONSIDER CLUSTERED SINGLE-FAMILY-2 AS MULTIFAMILY? NO? SHOULD WE KEEP THE CLUSTERED OPTION? >> YES. >> Chair Downs: YES? OKAY. SO, WE'LL ADDRESS THIS WHEN WE REWRITE THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WE'LL FIGURE OUT THIS DICHOTOMY THAT WE HAVE GOING ON HERE. PURPOSE STATEMENTS FOR THE DISTRICTS. I THOUGHT THEY WERE WELL-DONE. THEY CERTAINLY MEET WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR, WHICH WAS THE ABILITY TO USE THESE DISTRICTS IN PLACES ELSEWHERE AROUND THE CITY. SO, ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS AROUND THAT? OKAY. SO DO YOU HAVE YOUR DIRECTION ON THESE THREE ITEMS? SO THEN WNEED A MOTION TO CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE A SPECIFIC DATE ON THAT, OR -- NO? OKAY. SO I JUST NEED A MOTION TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING. I GUESS WHAT LANGUAGE DO YOU WANT TO USE ON THIS, PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- BASICALLY THIS RIGHT HERE? THERE YOU GO. IT'S WRITTEN OUT FOR YOU. WHO WANTS TO DO THE MOTION? >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE NBD AND RCD DISTRICTS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> Chair Downs: PERFECT. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS TO THE RCD AND NBD DISTRICTS TO CONFORM TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY. PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. DID WE HAVE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? >> WE DID NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER 8. WE WILL CONTINUALLY. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8, DISCUSSION AND ACTION WORK SESSION AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPROVE ALIGNMENT WITH SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021 LAND USE POLICIES. APPLICANT, CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M JORDAN, A SENIOR PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS THE LAST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ITEM ON THE AGENDA, I PROMISE. THIS IS A DISCUSSION AND REQUEST TO PROVIDE DIRECTION TO STAFF AND CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPROVE ALIGNMENT WITH SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE POLICIES. SO THIS IS A FOLLOWUP TO THE JOINT MEETING BETWEEN CITY COUNCIL AND THE PLANNING AND STAFF OUTLINED SEVERALOCCURRED. OPPORTUNITIES TO ALIGN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WITH THE RECENTLY ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THIS PRESENTATION ADDRESSES THREE OF THOSE ITEMS AS WELL AS A FOURTH ONE THAT WASN'T IDENTIFIED AT THAT TIME BUT HAS SINCE BEEN IDENTIFIED BY STAFF AS SOMETHING FOR A QUICK ACTION THAT WOULD ALSO FULFILL THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THESE ISSUES ARE RETIREMENT HOUSING IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT ZONING DISTRICT, REDEVELOPMENT OF THE HIGHWAY 75 CORRIDOR, AND SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING IN THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT. THE GENERAL PRESENTATION STRUCTURE WILL BE AN OUTLINE OF EACH ISSUE FOLLOWED BY A SUMMARY AND THE SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT STAFF HAS FOR THE COMMISSION AS WELL AS THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SO, THE FIRST ISSUE CONCERNS RETIREMENT HOUSING IN NONRESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THE ZONING ORDINANCE HAS USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS FOR RETIREMENT HOUSING. RETIMENT HOUSING IS NOT A SINGLE DEFINED USE, BUT IT'S UNDERSTOOD TO INCLUDE A RANGE OF LAND USES. THESE ARE INDEPENDENT LIVING, ASSISTED LIVING, LONG-TERM CARE, AND CONTINUING CARE FACILITIES. OF THE FOUR, INDEPENDENT LIVING IS THE FOCUS OF TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION. ALL FOUR RETIREMENT HOUSING USES ARE CATEGORIZED AS INSTITUTIONAL, BUT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES WITHIN THE RETIREMENT HOUSING CATEGORY AND CATEGORIZES INDEPENDENT LIVING AS A RESIDENTIAL LAND USE BECAUSE INDEPENDENT LIVING BUILDINGS ARE SIMILAR IN FORM AND FUNCTION TO A MULTIFAMILY APARTMENT. FOR THIS REASON AND OTHERS, INDEPENDENT LIVING SHOULD BE TREATED THE SAME AS MULTIFAMILY LAND USES BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO, WHEREVER MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IS NOT RECOMMENDED BY A FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, THAT SAME RESTRICTION SHOULD BE PLACED ON INDEPENDENT LIVING. THIS WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH AGEMENT OF INDEPENDENT LIVINGIR AND MULTIFAMILY LAND USES. THIS WOULD AFFECT FOUR ZONING DISTRICTS -- THE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE, GENERAL OFFICE, RETAIL, AND COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS SPECIFICALLY. SO, STAFF ARE PROPOSING THE FOLLOWING CHANGES TO ALIGN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES WITH OTHER MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. FIRST, PROHIBITING INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES IN ALL DISTRICTS WHERE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS RESTRICTED AND SECOND, ALLOWING INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES BY RIGHTR BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN AREAS WHERE MULTIFAMILY LIVING DEVELOPMENT IS PERMITTED. ALSO, RECLASSIFYING INDEPENDENT LIVING AS A PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL LAND USE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WOULD IMPROVE CLARITY AND CONSISTENCY. IN ADDITION, STAFF WILL BE SEEKING INPUT FROM THE COMMISSION ON HOW TO HANDLE THE CONTINUING CARE FACILITY USE. AND I'LL COME BACK TO THAT AT THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. THE SECOND IDENTIFIED ISSUE IS MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IN THE COMMERCIALMPLOENT ZONG DISTRICT. JUST LIKE WITH RETIREMENT HOUSING, MULTIFAMILY HOUSING IS NOT ONE SINGLE USE, BUT INSTEAD INCLUDES BOTH THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTS AND MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL LAND USES. THE CONFLICT HERE IS BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT ZONING DISTRICT AND THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER'S FUTURE PLAN USE CATEGORY -- LAND USE CATEGORY. THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS CATEGORY APPLIES TO SEVERAL OF OUR COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL-FOCUSED AREAS OF THE CITY, ONE OF THESE BEING THE LEGACY NEIGHBORHOOD. NEW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IS NOT RECOMMENDED IN THIS CEGORY IN ORDERO MAINTAIN AN EMPLOYMENT FOCUS. WITHIN LEGACY, MOST OF THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS CATEGORY OVERLAPS WITH THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT ZONING DISTRICT. IMPORTANTLY, THIS ZONING DISTRICT CAN ONLY BE FOUND IN THE LEGACY NEIGHBORHOOD. THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT CURRENTLY ALLOWS MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT BY A SPECIAL USE PERMIT WHICH CONFLICTS WITH THE DESIRED LAND USE MIX OF THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS CATEGORY. THIS CONFLICT SHOULD BE CORRECTED TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE IS ALSO AN OPPORTUNITY TO CLARIFY THE REGULATIONS IN THE EMPLOYMENT -- COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT AND CENTRAL BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICTS. THE WAY THAT THESE DISTRICTS ARE CURRENTLY WRITTEN ALLOW A LIMITED NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS TO BE CONSTRUCTED BY RIGHT IN A SPECIFIC GEOGRAPHIC AREA OR TRANSFERRED FROM THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT TO THE CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT. THIS LIMIT OF UNITS HAS BEEN REACHED. ALL OF THE BY RIGHT UNITS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED OR PERMITTED, BUT ADDITIONAL UNITS COULD BE CONSTRUCTED THROUGH S.U.P. WE'RE PROPOSING TO UNTANGLE THESE DISTRICTS TO REMOVE THE ALLOWANCE FOR NEW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENTS IN THE C.E. ZONE WHILE MAINTAINING AN S.U.P. IN THE CB-1 ZONE. I WAS AHEAD OF MYSELF ON MY SLIDES. THE THIRD ISSUE IS REGARDING THE POTENTIAL FOR REDEVELOPMENT OF THE U.S. HIGAY 75 CORRIDOR. THIS HIGHWAY CORRIDOR IS A MAJOR TRANSPORTATION ROUTE BETWEEN DALLAS AND THE CANADIAN BORDER. THIS IS ONE OF THE OLDEST HIGHWAYS IN PLANO, IMPORTANT FOR TRANSPORTATION WITHIN THE CITY AND AS A GATEWAY FROM THE NORTH AND SOUTH. THE MAJORITY OF THIS CORRIDOR IS LOCATED WITHIN THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, THOUGH PARTS OF IT ARE ALSO WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN CORRIDOR, SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS, URBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS AND NEIGHBORHOOD FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. THE FOCUS OF THIS DISCUSSION IS ON THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS LARGELY LIMITED BUT NOT ENTIRELY TO THIS CATEGORY AND CAN BE FOUND IN ALL FIVE OF THE REFERENCED FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. AS ONE OF THE OLDEST ROUTES THROUGH PLANO, THE CORRIDOR IS ALREADY LARGELY DEVELOPED. THE MAJORITY OF PROPERTIES IN THIS CORRIDOR ARE ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, WHICH IS WHY IT'S THE FOCUS OF TONIGHT'S DISCUSSION. LAND USES ARE CAR-ORIENTED AND RESIDENTIAL USES ARE NOT PERMITTED IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THEY CAN BE CONSTRUCTED THROUGH THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT REVIEW PROCESS. THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY SUGGESTS UP TO 12% RESIDENTIAL LAND USES DUE TO THE RELATIVE AGE AND CONDITIONS OF EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. THE FOUR OTHER FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES ALSO INCLUDE RESIDENTIAL LAND USES AND THEIR DESIRED LAND USE MIX. REDEVELOPMENT OF THIS CORRIDOR IS SEEN AS A MEANS TO PROVIDE EMPLOYMENT AND HOUSING OPTIONS AND IMPROVE THE GENERAL ASCETICS AESTTICS OF THIS IMPORTANT ROUTE THROUGH PLANO. STAFF ARE PROPOSING TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BOTH SINGLE-FAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY TYPES IN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT WITH A SPECIAL USE PERMIT. THIS DISTRICT ALREADY PERMITS INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES AND OTHER RETIREMENT HOUSING OPTIONS WITH AN S.U.P., SO THIS WOULD ALIGN WITH THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS FOR MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES. FOURTH AND LAST ISSUE, THIS IS THE ONE THAT WAS NOT DISCUSSED AT THE JOINT MEETING BUT THAT STAFF HAVE IDENTIFIED. IT CONCERNS SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT. CURRENTLY, THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT ALLOWS SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING USES. THESE ARE LIMITED TO TOWNHOUSES, PATIO HOMES AND DUPLEXES. EACH ONE OF THOSE HOUSING TYPES WOULD BE REGULATED BY THE CORRESPONDING ZONING ORDINANCE. TO CONSTRUCT TOWNHOUSES IN THE R DISTRICT, THE REGULATIONS REFERENCE THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED ZONING DISTRICT. THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT OVERLAPS WITH THE COMMUNITY CORNERS AND NEIGHBORHOOD CORNERS FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES. BOTH ENCOURAGE LAND USES TO REVITALIZE CENTERS. LOCATION CONTROLS ARE BUILT INTO THE R DISTRICT. THESE INCLUDE THE SIZE OF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SITE AND ANY REMAINDER PARCEL AND ALSO RESTRICTS NEW RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO PORTIONS OF THE DEVELOPMENT SITE ABUTTING OTHER RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES. STAFF PROPOSED TO ALLOW THE SINGLE-FAMILY USES BY RIGHT AND REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN S.U.P. IN THE R DISTRICT. THE INTENT IS TO FURTHER INCENTIVIZE REDEVELOPMENT OF UNDERUTILIZED RETAIL SITES. BECAUSE THIS WAS NOT COVERED IN THE JOINT DISCUSSION, STAFF ARE SEEKING FEEDBACK ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF THIS PROPOSAL BEFORE MOVING FORWARD WITH DRAFTING ANY AMENDMENTS. SO, YOU'VE HAD A LOT OF INFORMATION TONIGHT, A LOT OF COMPHENSE PL TALK. WE'RE ALMOST DONE. QUICK SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES. NUMBER 1, REMOVE INDEPENDENT LIVING IN THE AFFECTED ZONING DISTRICTS. NUMBER 2, REMOVING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE, MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL AND INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY IN THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT ZONING DISTRICT. NUMBER 4, ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL USES BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT IN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT. AND NUMBER 4, ALLOWING SINGLE-FAMILY USES BY RIGHT IN E RETAIL ZING DISTRICT. THERE WOULD BE VARIOUS OTHER AMENDMENTS REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THESE CHANGES. FOR EXAMPLE, CHANGES TO THE TABLE FOR ORGANIZATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. STAFF HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. THERE'S TWO SPECIFIC QUESTIONS THAT STAFF WOULD LIKE FEEDBACK ON. THESE ARE HOW TO APPROACH CONTINUING CARE FACILITIES. BY DEFINITION A CONTINUING CARE FACILITY CAN INCLUDE ANY TWO OR MORE OF THE OTHER RETIREMENT HOUSING USES. SO INDEPENDENT LIVING, ASSISTED LIVING, AND LONG-TERM CARE. BECAUSE OF THIS THEY COULD POTENTIALLY INCLUDE A MIX OF INSTITUTIONAL AND PRIMARY RESIDENTIAL USES. THE SECOND SPECIFIC QUESTION THAT STAFF HAD IS WHETHER TOWNHOMES, PATIO HOMES AND DUPLEXES SHOULD BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT. PRIDING DIRECTION AND CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO IMPROVE ALIGNMENT WITH SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LAND USE POLICIES. THANK YOU. THAT CONCLUDES THE PRESENTATION AND HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: LET'S GO BACK TO THE LIST OF -- ONE MORE SLIDE, THERE YOU GO. DIRECTION. WE'LL TAKE THEM ONE AT A TIME. I THINK THE AMENDMENTS -- WE HAD, I THINK, A VERY EFFECTIVE BR PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING ON SOME OF THE CHALLENGES WE HAVE. IN GENERAL, THE AMENDMENTS THAT WERE PROPOSED THAT WE AGREE THEY'RE GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THAT'S BASICALLY ALL FOUR. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL FOUR INCLUDING THE NEW ONE, RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> CAN WE GO BACK UP ONE SLIDE, PLEASE? >> Chair Downs: THERE YOU GO. BASED ON OUR EDUCATION WE RECEIVED EARLIER, I THINK NUMBEY STRAIGHTFORWARD BECAUSE OF THE NON-ALLOWANCE OF MULTIFAMILY IN THOSE AREAS. WE PRETTY MUCH HAVE TO DO THIS. AND THEN REMOVING THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE AND MID-RISE PERMITTED IN THE COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT ZONING DISTRICT, ANY QUESTIONS AROUND TH PIECE? >> CAN I BACK UP TO ISSUE NUMBE? I'D LIKE TO GET SOME MORE INFORMATION BEFORE WE VOTE ON ANYTHING OWN THE CONTINUE -- ABOUT THE CONTINUING CARE FACILITIES THAT WOULD HAVE SOME PORTION OF INDEPENDENT LIVING IN THEM AND WHERE THE BOUNDARIES ARE BASED ON THE TRAINING WE JUST GOT. YOU KNOW, WHAT WE NEED TO CONSIDER. >> Chair Downs: I AGREE WITH THAT. AND WE'LL GET TO THAT AS QUESTION NUMBER 3 UNDER THE DIRECTIONS, I GUESS. THIS PIECE RIGHT HERE, REMOVING INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY AS A PERMITTED USE DOESN'T IMPACT WHETHER WE WANT TO SAY CONTINUING CARE IS A PART OF THAT. >> THIS WOULD BE LIMITED TO JUST 100% STANDALONE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S WHAT WE'RE DOING. >> THEN I AGREE WITH THAT. >> Chair Downs: ANYONE HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT? ISSUE TWO, REMOVING MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE AND MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL AS PERMITTED USES. ANY ISSUES? THTHAT AGNS. ALLOW MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE AND TWO-FAMILY RE RESIDENCES BY SPEL USE IN THE CORRIDOR DISTRICT. THAT WAS A LOT. BUT IT'S CLEANING UP THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ALONG 75 AND WHAT WE CAN AND CAN'T DO IN THERE RIGHT? >> YEAH, SO CURRENTLY THE CC ZONING DISTRICT ONLY ALLOWS EMPLOYMENT USES, SO COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL USES. THERE ARE SOME PDs THAT PERMIT MULTIFAMILY WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF ARE SUGSTING WE ALLOW MULTIFAMILY AND SINGLE-FAMILY USES THROUGH A PROCESS. >> Chair Downs: ANY QUESTIONS ON THAT? >> ONE QUESTION. SO, I GUESS BASED ON THE EDUCATION WE HAVE, WE HAD BEFORE THIS, THAT'S WHY WE WOULD NEED TO HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED AS PART OF THE OVERALL ALLOWANCE INHE S.U.P. >> Chair Downs: WE'RE TREATING EVERYTHING THE SAME. >> OKAY. >> JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION. AS PART OF THE S.U.P. PROCESS, I PRESUME WE WOULD LOOK AT THE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT, NOISE BOUNDARIES OF THE CORRIDOR AS PART OF THAT PROCESS? >> Chair Downs: YES. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ISSUE FOUR IS THE NEW ONE. AND I THINK I HAVE ONE QUESTION THERE. AND IT SAYS BY RIGHT IN THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT, BUT WHAT WAS REALLY TALKE AUT WAS THE FOUR CORNER RETAIL, RIGHT? BUT WE HAVE OTHER AREAS THAT ARE CONSIDERED RETAIL THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY FOUR CORNER. SO IS THIS MEANT TO BE MO MORE . . . OKAY. >> THIS IS A MAP SHOWING ALL OF OUR RETAIL-ZONED PARCELS IN THE CITY. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS MOSTLY ON THOSE FOUR CORNERS. >> Chair Downs: THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OVER THERE ON THE WESTERN BORDER, BUT . . . OKAY. THAT'SUFFICIENT FOR WHAT I NEED. SO, I THINK THE KEY FACTOR HERE IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALLOWING RESIDENTIAL ON THOSE FOUR CORNERS. WE KNOW THAT THE BIGGEST PUSHBACK WAS THIS IDEA THAT WE WERE GOING TO BUILD 2,000 APARTMENT UNITS ON EVERY CORNER OF EACH FOUR CORNER, BUT WHAT THIS IS DOING IS SAYING LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW A RESIDENTIAL PRODUCT THERE BUT IT'S GOING TO BE -- WHAT WAS THE WORD THAT WAS USED? NOT LOW DENSITY. IT BLENDS IN NICE WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHD. IT'S NOT MEANT TO BE A FIVE-STORY APARTMENT BUILDING NEXT TO A BUNCH OF SINGLEFAMILY HOMES. >> TRANSITIONAL. >> Chair Downs: BASICALLY. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. I THINK IT GIVES US POSSIBLY SOME OPPORTUNITIES FOR SOME OF THOSE FOUR CORNERS WHERE A DEVELOPER MIGHT SAY NOW, I CAN DESIGN A PRODUCT THAT WILL WORK THERE THAT HAS A BLENDED USE AND CAN DO BOTH, SO. >> THIS ALMOST FITS IN WITH YOUR RCD THAT WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER. IT FITS IN WITH THAT AND THE NCB CB AT THE SAME TIME. >> Chair Downs: NOW LET'S GO BACK TO THE LIST OF DIRECTIONS THAT YOU NEEDED. RIGHT THERE. SO, THE AMENDMENTS AS PROPOSED, ITEM 1 WE'RE GOOD. ITEM 2, CONTINUING CARE FACILITIES MAY INCLUDE ANY COMBINATION OF INDEPENDENT LIVING, ASSISTED LIVING AND LONG-TERM CARE FACILITIES. IF INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES ARE PROHIBITED, THEY ARE REGULATED THE SAME AT MULTIFAMILY, SHOULD CONTINUING CARE FACILITIES CONTINUE TO BE PERMITTED BUT WITH A LIMITED RATIO OF INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES. IF IT'S A CONTINUING CARE FACILITY, NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE RESIDENTS COULD BE INDEPENDENT LIVING, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> CORRECT. THAT IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT WE'RE SUGGESTING. >> Chair Downs: KAY. SO, I'LL LET COMMISSIONER TONG GO. THIS IS OBVIOUSLY A LITTLE BIT OF -- WE EITHER NEED CLARIFICATION OR WE WANT TO NAIL THIS DOWN A LITTLE BIT FROM OUR EARLIER EDUCATION. SO, COMMISSINER TONG, WHAT DO YOU HAVE? >> Tong: I JUST WANT TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT OF EXPERIENCE WITH OTHER CITIES, OR OTHER ASSISTED LIVING OR CONTINUING CARE FACILITIES THAT I HAVE WORKED WITH. USUALLY THE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES ARE NOT CONSIDERED ANY TYPE OF FORM OF ASSISTED LIVING OR CONTINUING CARE OF INSTITUTIONAL CARE FACILITIES. THEY'RE NOT EVEN PART OF THE REALM, BECAUSE ALL THE OTHER ASSISTED LIVING, MEMORY CARE, WHATEVER, THEY HAVE TO APPLY FOR A SPECIAL LICENSE TO DO THAT. JUST MULTIFAMILY.IVING ISEALL IT'S JUST AGE-RESTRICTED MULTIFAMILY. SO I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CAN MODIFY THE DEFINITION OF CONTINUING CARE FACILITIES SO THAT IT DOES NOT INCLUDE INDEPENDENT LIVING SO THAT WE CAN HAVE INDEPENDENT LIVING TO HAVE THE SAME POLICY AND RESTRICTIONS AS MULTIFAMILY. SO THAT WE DON'T TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY FROM MULTIFAMILY. >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND. THAT'S KIND OF THE CRUX OF OUR ISSUE. THE CHALLENGE FOR US IS GOING TO BE THIS. I WOULD LOVE, FOR EXAMPLE, MY MOM -- SHE'S SOMEWHAT INDEPENDENT. WOULD LOVE FOR HER TO BE IN A PLACE WHERE SHE DIDN'T HAVE TO MOVE. WE COULD PUT HER INTO SOMEPLACE WHERE SHE COULD BE IN INDEPENDENT LIVING IF THAT'S WHERE SHE NEEDS TO BE FOR THE NEXT FOUR YEARS. THEN SHE NEEDS SOMEONE TO MAKE SURE SHE'S TAKING MEDICATION AND NOT HAVE TO PLUCK HER UP AND MOVE HER. I THINK HERE'S A QUESTION I HAVE FOR STAFF. HOCOMMON ARE CONTINUING CARE FACILITIES? IS THAT THE MAJORITY OF WHAT WE HAVE IN THE CITY OR NO, WE HAVE MORE INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES AND THEN WE HAVE FULL ASSISTED CARE FACILITIES? BECAUSE WE MAY BE TRYING TO DO A WHOLE LOT OF REGULATION AND VERBIAGE AND LANGUAGE AND EVERYTHING ELSE AROUND TWO FACILITIES WE HAVE IN THE ENTIRE CITY THAT ACTUALLY OFFER THIS TYPE OF SERVICE. >> GO AHEAD. >> WE DID SOME RESEARCH ON THIS, AND WE HAVE NOT FOUND VERY MANY THIS TIME. THREE FOR SURE, BUT WE DO HAVE -- I FORGET THE EXACT NUMBER, BUT A LIST OF 30 INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES. SO IT'S A SMALL PERCENTAGE, THOUGH IT MAY BE SOMETHING -- AT LEAST ONE OF THOSE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. ARE WE GOING TO SEE MORE OF THEM, WE'RE NOT SURE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. COMMISSIONER OLLEY? >> Olley: IT'S MORE OF -- I THINK AS THE SUM OF IT, JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION O CONNUING CARE. SO ANY COMBINATION OF EITHER INDEPENDENT ASSISTED, ASSISTED LONG-TERM -- I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE WROTE THAT DEFINITION INTO OUR ORDINANCES, BECAUSE I'M TRYING TO SEE WHAT THE USE WAS IN THE FIRST PLACE. >> FOR SURE. SO, THE CURRENT DEFINITIONS OF RETIREMENT HOUSING, THOSE FOUR IN OUR ORDINANCE TODAY, THOSE CA. ORIGINALLY THE CITY ONLY HAD ONE DEFINITION. IT WAS CALLED RETIREMENT HOUSING. IT HAD A SPECIAL DISTRICT CALLED THE RETIREMENT HOUSING ZONING DISTRICT AND YOU COULD ONLY BUILD RETIREMENT HOUSING IN THAT ONE DISTRICT. AROUND THAT TIME, COUNCIL DIRECTED STAFF TO LOOK INTO FUTURE NEEDS FOR RETIREMENT HOUSING. AND THROUGH THAT PROCESS, STAFF LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES, TALKED TO RETIREMENT HOUSING PROVIDERS AND THEY SUGGESTED THOSE CHANGES IN 2000 TO HAVE MORE DEFINITIONS, ADD THE CONTINUING CARE AND OPEN UP RETIREMENT HOUSING TO OTHER DISTRICTS AND GET RID OF THE RETIREMENT HOUSING DISTRICT ENTIRELY, BASED ON THE NUMBER 1, THE ANTICIPATED NEED FOR THESE IN THE CITY OF PLANO, AS WELL AS CHANGING PRODUCTS THAT WERE COMING TO MARKET. >> Olley: OKAY. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, THIS MAY BE A LEGAL QUESTION AS MUCH AS ANYTHING. CAN WE EXPAND THE DEFINITION OF CONTINUING CAREO REFLECT THAT CONTINUUM OF SERVICES WITH SOME EXPANDED DEFINITION THAT SAYS IT MUST BE COMMON OWNERSHIP ON ONE SINGLE LOT? I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT DEFINITION WOULD BE, BUT SOMEHOW IDENTIFY THAT THERE IS A NEED FOR THOSE FACILITIES LIKE YOU TALKED ABOUT AND THERE ARE PEOPLE BUILDING THEM, BUT HOW DO WE ALLOW IT. AND THEN IF WE CAN FIND THAT DEFINITION, DOES THAT BECOME A MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT? I DON'T KNOW THE LEGAL BOUNDARIES THERE. THAT'S SOME OF THE QUESTIONS I ASKE EARLIER TONIGHT. I'D LIKE SOME LEGAL GUIDANCE ON THAT, BECAUSE I THINK WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE FACT THAT THAT IS A PRODUCT THAT IS OUT THERE IN THE MARKET AND THAT WE PROBABLY WILL HAVE MORE OF, PROBABLY NEED MORE OF. SO HOW DO WE BOOKEND IT OR DO WE HAVE TO DESIGNATE IT AS MULTIFAMILY? >> Chair Downs: THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I'M GLAD YOU BROUGHT IT UP THE WAY YOU DID, BECAUSE IT MADE ME THINK OF SOMETHING ELSE. AREN'T THERE, BY RIGHT, SOMEONE COULD HAVE A HOME. AND COULD TY, AS LONG AS THERE WERE LESS THAN EIGHT RESIDENTS, HAVE ESSENTIALLY A CONTINUING CARE TYPE FACILITY INCLUDING HOSPICE AND EVERYTHING ELSE? IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. SO, IF WE HAVE A CONTINUING CARE FACILITY THAT HAS A COUPLE PEOPLE IN IT THAT ARE INDEPENDENT LIVING, SOME THAT NEED A LITTLE BIT OF CARE, SOME THAT ESSENTIALLY HAVE A FULL-TIME NURSE COMING TO THE HOUSE EVERY DAY, BUT IT'S LESS THAN EIGHT IT FALLS UNDER A DFFERENT DEFINITION, RIGHT? SO IT'S ONLY IF YOU GET BEYOND. WE HAVE POTENTIALLY CONTINUING CARE FACILITIES OPERATING POTENTIALLY ANYWHERE IN THE CITY IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREAS. SO WE'RE REALLY TALKING MORE ABOUT LARGER OPERATIONS. AND IF WE THROW INDEPENDENT LIVING IN WITH MULTIFAMILY AND THAT'S ALL IT IS IS INDEPENDENT LIVING AND WE PUT THAT IN WITH MULTIFAMILY, AS LONG AS WE'RE TREATING THEM EQUALLY WITH MULTIFAMILY, THEN WE'RE IND OF COVERING OURSELVES. SO, THE LEGALUESTN THEN. IF YOU HAVE A CONTINUING CARE FACILITY AND OUR ORDINANCE SAYS IT'S ALLOWED -- I'M GOING TO PUT IT BY RIGHT IN WHATEVER DISTRICT, AS LONG AS NO MORE THAN 25% OF THE RESIDENTS ARE CONSIDERED INDEPENDENT, OKAY. THE QUESTION BECOMES HOW DO YOU MONITOR THAT, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MONITORING IT AND MAKING SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT VIOLATING THAT? SO ANYTIME WE START MAKING OUR ORDINANCES REAL COMPLEX AND REAN TRBLEHERE SOMEBODY'S GOT TO MAKE A COMPLAINT, YOU HAVE A LOT OF OTHER STUFF GOING ON. I WOULD ASK FOR STAFF'S DIRECTION AND WHAT DO OTHER CITIES DO IN THESE TYPES OF SITUATIONS SO WE HAVE A LITTLE MORE INFORMATION TO CHEW ON BEFORE WE TRY TO GIVE YOU ANY GUIDANCE ON IT. THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM HERE, BECAUSE I THINK IT'S A LITTLE TRICKY. I THINK THE FIRST PART, PUTTING INDEPENDENT LIVING WITH MULTIFAMILY IS GREAT. BUT ADDRESSING THIS CONTINUING CARE IS SOMETHING WE NEED TO SPEND MORE TIME ON. ARE U GUY GOO WITH THAT? >> YES. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. IS THAT GOOD DIRECTION FOR YOU? >> I BELIEVE THAT'S GOOD DIRECTION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO THREE TOWNHOMES DUPLEXES SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, ETC., ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT. YES? YES ALL AROUND. ANY OTHER ISSUES WE SHOULD CONSIDER WHEN DRAFTING THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS? YES. >> Tong: I THINK THAT BRINGS BACK THE VERY FIRST QUESTION COMMISSIONER RATLIFF RAISED, THAT ARE THERE OTHER AREAS IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT MENTION THE INDEPENDENT LIVING AS A SPECIAL PERMIT WITHIN THE MULTIFAMILY BIGGER UMBRELLA. SHOULD WE ALSO RECONSIDER THOSE, BECAUSE WE REALLY DON'T WANT TO TREAT THEM DIFFERENTLY FROM MULTIFAMILY CORRECT? >> Chair Downs: I THINK YOU'RE ADDRESSING IT THROUGHOUT. THAT WAS THE INTENTION OF ALL OF THIS, WAS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TREATING INDEPENDENT LIVING THE SAME AS MULTIFALY NO MATTER WHERE IN THE ORDINANCE IT FALLS. >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: YES. RIGHT HERE. >> SO THIS IS A MODIFIED VERSION OF THE TABLE THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET. THIS SHOWS THE MARKUPS OF WHAT STAFF ARE PROPOSING. AS YOU CAN SEE, INDEPENDENT LIVING ON THE TOP ROW, MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL AND MULTIFAMILY BELOW IT. SO WE WOULD BE ALIGNING INDEPENDENT LIVING WITH THOSE TWO MULTIFAMILY CATEGORIES. >> Chair Downs: SO IEPENNT LIVING FACITYO ACROSS TO CE WHERE IT SAYS P. AND THEN IF YOU DROP DOWN TO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE IT SAYS 3. >> THE NEXT SLIDE SHOWS IT POST-CHANGE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I WAS LOOKING AT IT -- >> ONE STEP AHEAD OF YOU. >> I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND THAT. >> Chair Downs: VERY GOOD. IN ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION, STAFF IS SPECIFICALLY DOING WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE TREATING EVERYTHING EQUALLY THROUGHOUT THE ORDINANCE. OKAY. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OUTSIDE OF THAT, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF? >> Ratliff: JUST NOTICING, GO BACK TO THAT CHART. HANG ON, THE NEW ONE. >> Chair Downs: THE NEW ONE. >> Ratliff: THAT ONE. UNDER BG DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT DISTRICT THERE IS A DIFFERENT BETWEEN INDEPENDENT LIVING AND MULTIFAMILY. WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE P AND THE 2? >> SO THE 2 IS REFERRING TO ADDITIONAL STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO THE BG DISTRICT, BUT THAT ALONG WITH -- YOU'LL ALSO SEE FOR RC AND RE THEY ALLOW INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY BY S.U.P. BUT ONLY ALLOW MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL BY S.U.P. SO BOTH OF THOSE ARE THINGS WHERE WE'RE GOING TO LOOK FOR OPPORTUNITIES FOR ALIGNMENT IF THERE ARE ANY REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE BEING APPLIED TO THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE, THAT THEY WOULD ALSO APPLY TO THE INDEPENDENT LIVING. SO WE HAVEN'T GONE DOWN THAT PATH TOO SPECIFICALLY YET TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE WOULD PROPOSE THERE. >> Chair Downs: THIS IS STEP ONE. >> BUT WE'D BE LOOKING AT THOSE Y FORM REQUIREMENTS OR HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS AND SUCH SO THEY'RE CONSISTENT BETWEEN INDEPENDENT LIVING AND WHICHEVER MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT IS ALLOWED IN THAT DISTRICT. >> Ratliff: WHY WOULD WE LIST IT AS 252 INSTEAD OF P52 NOW UNDER INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY? >> WE PROBABLY WOULD. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF HASN'T LOOKED AT YES. WE MISSED THAT AS WE WERE LOOKING AT THIS PROPOSEDHART. WEE BRING IT BACK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> Ratliff: OKAY. IF WE'RE GOING TO TREAT THEM EQUAL, IT SEEMS LIKE THE CHART OUGHT TO BE IDENTICAL. >> I AGREE. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. SO THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS -- MULTIFAMILY -- I DON'T THINK WE'VE HAD AN INDEPENDENT LIVING PROPOSED THERE SO YOU MAY NOT THINK ABOUT IT, BUT YOU DO HAVE SPECIFIC GUIDELINES INSIDE THE BG DISTRICT THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE FOR MULTIFAMILY. SO IT MAKES SENSE. OKAY. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO YOU HAVE THE DIRECTION THAT YOU NEED? SO LET'S GO TO TT SLIDE RIGHT THERE. SO, WE'RE ONTO THE LAST ITEM ON THE DASH THERE. WHO WANTS TO DO THAT? >> JUST A QUESTION. DO WE HAVE ANY MORE WORK WE HAVE TO DO BEFORE WE CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> Chair Downs: NO, I THINK WE CAN MANAGE THE REMAINING WORK AT THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> OKAY. WELL, THEN MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 AND CALL A PUBLIC MEETING TO HEAR THO APPROVE ALIGNMENT WITH SPECIFIC COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021 LAND USE POLICIES. >> I SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG. AND PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-0. SEEMS LIKE IT GOT DARKER IN HERE. THEY TURNED THE LIGHTS OUT SOMEWHERE, I DON'T KNOW. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON ITEM NUMBER 8? >> NO, THERE WAS NOT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. VERY GOOD. SO ITEM 9, ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS. I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST STAFF DO A LITTLE RESEARCH. AND I'M JUST THROWING IT OUT THERE. IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE BUILDING A FORTRESS ON AN ISLAND IN A NEIGHBORHOOD AT THE WILLOW BEND DEAL AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT TOOLS ARE AVAILABLE TO US TO ADDRESS THAT POTENTIAL SITUATION AGAIN IN THE FUTURE, AND AT LEAST GIVE THE CITY SOME ABILITY TO CONTROL WHAT HAPPENS THERE. IF IT'S REQUIRED -- IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S REQUIRED FOR DRS REQUIRED FOR OTHER SPECIFIC ENGINEERING-STYLE REASONS, SO BE IT. BUT IF IT'S PURELY FOR AESTHETICS FOR THAT PARTICULAR BUILDER, I FEEL LIKE IT'S A DISSERVICE TO THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD TO HAVE THEM LOOKING UP AT FORTRESSES ACROSS THE STREET FROM THEM. SO, I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S AVAILABLE. IS ANYONE ELSE INTERESTED IN STAFF EXPLORING THAT? YEAH, SEVERAL NODS, SO WE'LL LET YOU DO YOUR HOMEWORK AND DO WHAT YOU DO BEST, WHICH IS COME BACK AND SAY YOU CAN'T GET THERE FROM HERE OR HERE'S A POSSIBLE SOLUTION. SO, ANY OTHER ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA? OKAY. THANK YOU, EVERYONE, FOR YOUR PATIENCE. AT 8:57, WE ARE ADJOURNED. >> GOOD-BYE. ♪