No kidding. We're trying to write. The story. So. That. I. Can take But I'm not going away. You can't ve it. I'm just going. To. Know. So we can. Make. I just want to. Watch over. All right. I. But. I think. Which is. The most. Which I like. They got me a little wood block to bang on. Sounds better that way. All right. Good. Good evening. Everybody Welcome to the September 16th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting at 7 p.m, and we will start our meeting tonight with the Pledge of Allegiance. Please rise and join me in the pledge. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion, and contains items that are routine and typically noncontroversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff. Thank you. Would anyone like to pull an item from the consent agenda? Seeing none, I would entertain a motion. I move, we approve the consent agenda as submitted. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Bronski, with a second by Commissioner Ali to approve the consent agenda. Please vote. That item carries 8 to 0. Thank you. Items for individual items for individual consideration. Public hearing items unless instructed otherwise by the chair. Speakers will be called in the order. Registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city deveons. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal considerationstrained by legal considerations. Agenda item number one. Public hearing. Preliminary Replat Park Boulevard Estates West school site number two, block a lot onn 89.4 acres. Located on the northeast corner of Independence Parkway and Park Boulevard. Zoned single family residence nine. Applicant Plano Independent School District this item is for administrative consideration. Good evening commissioners. My name is. Pull that down if you like. Okay. There you go. Better. Good evenin All kinds of distractions going on. I'm sorry. We're ruining your evening. Go ahead, go ahead. That's okay. My name is Destiny woods planner with the planning department. And this staff recommends this item for approval. Subject to the any amendments or adjustments to the civil engineering plans. All right. Any questions for staff on this item? Are you done? I'm done. Okay. Just make sure. Questions. Questions Microphone, please. Are they going to build a baseball field in that area. Because the like the reason for their replat is yes, they do have a site plan that is under stf approval. And then this preliminary Replat is going to o allow them to do that in the future. So is there any issues with lighting like if they're going to put some lighting up next to the residential areas, n reviewed by staff at this time, and that might be reviewed when they come in with their later site plan. And will this affect our decision? Like if not for the preliminary replat? The purpose of this replat is to adjust easements, so that shouldn't affect the lighting. Okay. Thank you, thank you. Any other questions for staff? All right I will thank you. I'll open the public hearing. I think we have somebody registered in neutrality. Yes, sir. Derek Sweeney. Okay Mr. Sweeney, you like to address the commission? Commissioner Lally, you could turn off your mic if you'd like. Thank you. Hi, there. I am so I live at two eight, two one park, Park Haven drive, we learned lastrive, we learned last spring that there was a site plan coming for Haggard School. I know th part of that, but we're. I came with some folks that that live, near me, and we just. We do have kin kin, concerns. Not specifically with Not really sure what all this will be yet. But concerns with the school and with the ball fields, with lights and the tent and the tent tent tent and the tennis courts. So I just wanted to kind of voi to kind of voice those kin. I concerns. There's probably about us that t would like to do. Do what we can to, see the site be, made i a way that's good for the, the, the, the, the district and, and us. So thank you very much. Thank you sir. Appreciate your input. Any other speakers on this item? There are none. All right. Thank you. I will close the public hearing. Confine discussion to the commission. So maybe we should reiterate that question since it's been brought up, is the ability to evaluate lights. Should they be installed at a later date? So there's currently this scope of the plan is just for the ball field improvements and the parking lote at a staff level, so it won't come before this commission. However, we are expecting a revised expecting a revised site plan as a phase two, which includes some additions to the school as well as relocation of Haggard Middle School. We have had preliminary discussions, but there are no official plans submitted at this time. So I would encourage we'll have someone from staff reach out to you and give you some more information on those upcoming plans. I would encourage you to engage with the school district as well. Obviously, I'm sure you are. If you bothered to come to this meeting, then I'm sure you're talking to the school district, any other questions? So as this is an administrative item, I move that we approve agenda item one, subject to additions and or alterations to the engineering plans as required by the engineering department. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky with a second by Commissioner Ali to approve. Item one is submitted by staff. Recommended by staff. Please vote. That item carries 8 to 0. Thank you for coming tonight. And go talk to the school district, item two, A and B together. Agenda item number two, a zoning case 2020 4-0 15, request to rezone from corridor commercial to light industrial one on 4.7 acres located on the east side of Maple Shade Lane, 605ft north of State Highway 190, and within the 190 Tollway Plano Parkway overlay district. Petitioners. My Possibilities and Ntfb Perot Family campus. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number two be preliminary site plan warehouse, distribution center and trade school and two lots on 33.1 acres located at the northwest corner of State Highway 190 and Maple Shade Lane. Zoned corridor commercial and locatedTollway Plano Parkway District. Applicant's my possibilities and Ntfb Perot Family Campus. This item is for administrative consideration, pending action on agenda item number two. A Hello again. This item is a re is a request to rem corridor Commercial to light industrial One to expand the North Texas Food Bank. So this zoning exhibit shows the boundaries of the proposed zoning request. And for the site history. Prior to 2000, the area was zoned Light Industrial one,, and then the land around the intersections of Coit and Court Road and State Highway 190 were rezoned to Corridor Commercial as a part of a city initiated rezoning to align the area with the Comprehensive Plan. At the time, the subject property shown in yellow on this map were triaa excluded from the rezoning and remained as light industrial one. And in 2017, the My Possibilities trade school acquired their current lot, which at the time had split zoning between Light Industrial One and Corridor Commercial. ano to remove the split zoning, the western portion of the property, including the subject property, was rezoned from Light Industrial one to corridor Commercial, and this request will rezone a portion of that land back to its prior light industrial one determination. oo the proposed development withint property, is proposed a 2.5 story office building, as wellll as a one story building for food sorting and loading docks. The area of request is currently being used by the My Possibilities trade school as a soccer field, and does not currently have any vertical improvements. The preliminary site plan that was submitted with this request includes both lots, both my possibilities. Trade school as well as the North Texas Food Bank. Since the there is a proposed lot line switch, so there would be a land exchange. Therefore both lots need to be on the preliminary site plan. So this image shows the proposed land exchange with the, lot. The red line showing the proposed new lot line and the yellow showing the existing with the subject property in the middle. And these graphics indicate the before and after zoning. So on the right you can see, where the zoning would extend to if it were zoned light industrial one. And the current zoning is on the left. Conformance to the comprehensive plan. So this request is located within the suburban activity Centers category on the future land use map. And warehouse distribution center is an industrial type use which is not supported in this category and therefore is against the mix of uses, also, the proposed lot coverage and open space do not meet the criteria desired by this category as well. Okay. So this request does not meet three policies and will require findings as shown on this summary, in staff did not receive any responses within the 200 foot buffer or city wide. The proposed expansion is an appropriate request given the surrounding zoning, land uses, and site history. However, the request is not in conformance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan and will require findings. So item two a staff recommends or this request is disfavored under the Comprehensive Plan and require findings. And for item two B it's recommended for approval subject to City Council approval of this zoning case. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions for staff. Commissioner Tong. So could you go back to the map that shows where the new lot line and the old lot line are both right there. So, yeah. And the purple line actually lines up the whole zoning case. Rezoning that if we were going to approve or disapprove, that applies to the entire area. No. That's incorrect. So the middle section that is in between the yellow and red lines is the area of the zoning request. The side to the right of the red line is currently zoned and will remain zoned. Corridor commercial. And the side to the left of the north of the Yellow Line is currently zoned North Texas or excuse me, light indtrial one, so the middle portion is currently zoned Corridor Commercial and is requested to be rezoned to light Industrial One. That's the only part of this request. Okay. Thank you. And further question regarding the light industrial zoning on the, I guess, northwest side off the old lot line that was zoned light industrial many years ago when do you know? So prior to 2000, all of this was zoned light industrial one. And then after 2000, it's a bit unclear, but after 2000, a portion of it was rezoned to Corridor Commercial with other areas as well as zoned corridor commercial and then even more of it later was zoned Corridor commercial. So now they're trying to rescind rescind part of the zoning that was zoned Corridor Commercial. Got it. Thank you. Sure. Mr. Brounoff. Thank you. Mr. Chairma, in preps for our packets on zoning cases, does the staff distinguish between language that says that a particular item may be disfavored under the comprehensive plan and recommendation for denial? And I ask that ask that because in this case, you have pointed out that it is disfavored under the comprehensive plan, use denial r recommendation. Correct. Any time findings are required. Staf findings are required. Staff has made a commitment to the public in respect to the process that the Comprehensive Plan review took, not to ever recommend approval of those cases. And as a default position, we say that it is disfavored strictly using the language of the comprehensive Plan that it's disfavored unless findings are made by the P and Z, and counsel. However, we do reserve and instances where we think that the plan is not appropriate or does not meet some zoning requirements. We do reserve the right to take the next step and recommend denial. Thank you. Commissioner Kerry. Yeah just a couple questions. One of the things that I didn't see in this packet and maybe I missed it, was the surrounding uses, which typically we do call out, if I missed it, would you ne surrounding uses? Sure. I've got a few questions. That's my first one. Okay, so to the south, does this have a pointer? Maybe not, so to the south, under south of Mapleshade Lane. That is a. Oh okay. That is a, independent living fac, there is a, train track there. And so above that is open parking and a recreational field for, a facility even more north of that area. So it's basically just open land land right now. , Mr. Kerry, it's, page 37 of the. Like I said, I may. There it is. My bad I missed that, so Iso I apologize. So my understanding is this was zoned to what the zoning they want. And it went back. Now they're trying to get it back to thethat correct? Yest the parties are different. So before North Texas Food Bank Fok didn't necessarily want it to be or didn't request for it to be zoned corridor commercial, my po it to be corridor commercial. So there's a different applicant at this time. No I under I underst. Okay. I appreciate that. My final thing here is I'm looking at the suburban activity kind of description it applies to areas with large commercial and mixed use developments that serve specialty shopping, dining, service and entertainment needs. Typically 50 to 100 acres anchored by major retailers, supersto, supe, large grocers, theaters, hotels, offices and such. And I'm n of a already. Am I missing it? Because I drive up and down here sometimes, and I don't think that the zoning that's here, it's certainly not. I don't think it's 50 to 100 acres. That's zoning. And I don't see all these uses that we're saying that it needs to be in the surrounding area. So I'm trying to understand that. So that that designation applies to the broader area of everything north of President George Bush Turnpike and the railroad, so that includes the Beacon Square, zoning, the apartments on the east side of Coit as well as the market central market. That larger area is part of the Suburban Activity Center. This is one property that where the zoning is somewhat a remnant, from past decades of zoning. Okay. Great. Thank you very muc, Commissioner Ali, just clarification. Those uses apply to the C designation. Not necessarily corridor commercial. That's right. That's the that's the description of the future land use suburban activity center. And I want to clarify, there is a small allowance for industrial and the mixed uses, it's 0 to 5%. This is currently attly at 6%. So that's why it's a it's above the 0 to 5% recommended by the comprehensive plan. Got it. Sos portion of the property is corridor commercial. The ntfb portion is light industrial and we're trying to expand that 4.7 acres to become light industrial. Do we know why that small sliver that is Ntfb remained light industrial? Do we have anyhat? , owned by North Texas Food Bank at thisat this time. So that's t isn't light industrial. It's owned by, my p to make sure that they didn't have split zoning on their lot after they acquired it.fter they acquired it. So that's why it's zoned. Miss woods, if you would go back to the slide with the triangle, from the 2000 rezoning. So at the time, this was rezoned in in 2000 to comply with the comprehensive plan at that time, this was all undeveloped. So that line of the distinction between light industrial and corridor commercial did not follow propert time. It was, intended to have some distance off of the frontage of the toll road, and that's why the line was established in that location. It still feels weird that that random triangle pizza shape. So the same thing on the west side, you'll see the corridor commercial on the west side of Coit. It was also split. So what is north of Maple Shade largely stayed light industrial one and what was south of Maple Shade, which wasn't there at the time, was corridor commercial for corridor commercial designation? Warehousing uses. Is that a use by right? No. A warehouse distribution center is not an allowed use, but office warehouse is a permitted use, as is light manufacturing. It's the it's the distribution center that's not allowed. Ask question. The there's the language in the packet that feels to me like we are straddling a little bit. It says the contiguous expansion is an appropriate request given the surrounding zoning. Land uses and site history. However the request is not the request is not in conformance with the recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, I'm trying to f. Feels like we're treading a little bit of a needle here. I'm trying to figure out what what I need to put more weight on the site. History surrounding zoning, land uses, or the comprehensive plan or I guess that's my job,ah. Th, nevermind. Are you good, Mr. Ratcliffe? Yeah. Just to summarize what I believe is happening here is we have two existing uses. All we're doing is moving the line that separates the two uses. Is that correct? That's correct. And the zoning needs to reflect the movement of that line. Correct? That's right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ali. So will this change affect any like the zoning regulation on the My Possibilities site. So do they need like more open space or like do they does that affect anything. No. So as part of the preliminary site plan that's attached to this request, we reviewed all that to make sure it's still complied with the zoning ordinance. And it does, thank you. Commissioner Tang, one more question regarding the changes. If we were going to prove do the finding, would they have to would the North Texas bank have to build a building there, or is it part of it parte approval that we're approving or can after we approve it, they can build another different totally different, building or another light industrial type of warehouse there by a third party. Is that part of the approval or not? That is not part of the approval. This is a straight rezoning to Lee one. So it would permit any of the uses allowed under Lee one, should they not move forward with their expansion.ou. Anybody else? Okay. Thank you. I will open the public hearing on this item. And I think we had a speaker right. That would be you. Well, he's already there. It was like magic. Good evening. Go ahead. I got my cue. So David Bond with Sp, 765 Custer Road here in Plano. Here on behalf of North Texas Food Bank. And my possibilities with this request, there's a lot of discussion about the history, and I think it's interesting to o note, originally when this land was undeveloped, it was owned by UT Dallas, it was separated in the late 90s by the highway, obviously, but UT Dallas originally sold to my possibilities. my possibilities. I believe the reason you see this odd looking CC zoning is just a 300 foot commercial depth off the highway. Just saying. Hey, it's vacant. It's owned by the university. Who knows? But this seems to make sense with the comp plan, that was I guess de in 2000 or so, predating my experience. We got involved with the sitehen my possibilities came in and around 2017, at that time, they developed their 20 acre campus and the thought was, they don't need the light industrial. So let's make all 20 acres CC, the food food bank can subsequent to that. Now essentially, my possibilities is going to move that soccer field out seen that, on the site plan there. So the soccer field moves to all aw a little more space for the food bank there, you've got two existing entities, as Mr. Ratliff me, the intent really is just to move that property line over the food bank just deals with a lot of a lot of trucks. There's overflow. If you pull up a Google map image. It was probably taken during Covid when when there's trailers parked out there, and so I think around that time is when the two parties had aou know, hey, can we does it make sense for this land to come from one to the other?one to the othe the space. We have a little more, you know, that sort of thing. You know, to your point, though, Miss Tong, you know, it is a zoning request, as far as what you could fit on that, you know, both both sites are now. o you've already got it's not where you have a buyer and a seller. You've got two owners just saying, hey, let's move our common lot line, you know, it could be used, as Mr. Bell mentioned, as Mr. Bell mentioned, for, for anything allowed under Lee. But it's such a skinny, narrow strip through there that I don't really know what you could do and use it as an industrial user. That's a third party, so the food bank, it makes sense. They've got, some concept plans in here that show additional pavilion facilities, potentially an office, all you'll see day one. I can't remember if that was you, Mr. Kerry, that had the question. All is just my possibilities. Moving the soccer field out along the frontage, so, you kn, you know,h that, we, we think this has a lot of merit, you know, the comp plan is wonderful, but, you of already developed here, right? And so I think, to staff's second staff's second point there, we do think this is a compatible request. We would be happy to discuss all the guys, but I thi, ask maybe to, to zoom out. And I think the, the idea of two property owners agreeing to move the common lot line just makes a lot of sense. And so we would be asking for your support, your finding, findings in the report there. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you all may have from there. Thank you. Thank you, do we have any, do wr speakers on this item? We do no. Okay, then we'll let you stay at the mic for a moment in case there are questions. Mr. Bronsky, I just have one question, sir. The changing that you're looking at here, one of the things that the comprehensive plan recommends is some open space. There and I was wondering, how close do you think? I mean, the comp plan is talking 15 to 20%, and we're looking at basically 0% of active open space. Was there any thought or idea of getting a little closer to some, some open space there to for that? You know, when we get into the rezone, we really did not look d meet that, when I think open space on a comp plan, I think of, you know, big parks or leaving, you know, ten, 12 acres out in a residential type development, you know, in a walkable community, you'd you'd think of, you know, your fountains and gathering spaces and things like that. You know, in an institutional type of users, like this, you know, they I feel like we I didn't mention the staff. I feel like we do have more tha than 0%. Certainl, you know, at the my possibilities campus, you have you know, the whole thing is designed around that centr know, there's quite a bit of, you know, I'll call it usable open space. I'm not surespace. I'm nt meets the definitions in the comp plan, but I think if you go out there, you're, you know, we have a two acre soccer field. You know, I think that's that's a great amenity. It's going to be open to the well, maybe not the public. I'm sorry, but I know there are rec league games that take place out there, the campus itself has a lot of interconnectivity. You've got folks that, you know, a lot of them aren't driving vehicles and get out there and can can be on the site and, and walk around and use it with the greenhouse type of spaces, on the food bank property, you've got, kind of a plaza there off the northwest corner of the building. So I think we've, I think we've got a lot of maybe amenities that don't quite meet that barometer of open space, but do, do touch to that idea of let's provide something for folks that get on site without it just being a, you know, just development. Yeah. And the other watching and looking at the map, the North Texas Food Bank is already, zoned Lee in the SA area already. And so we're simply giving you a little bit more space over, as moving the lot line with some of the green space that you're talking about. And so I appreciate that. Thank you. And, you know, there's so many other folks that come on the property for the food bank. You know, you've got volunteers there all the time, you all the, corporations will come in to do food sorting and that sort of thing, a lot of deliveries. So I think there are, you know, from that side of desire to, to make sure that folks that come on to campus aren't just standing around in the parking lot for a while, and that's part of the reason I actually brought up the open space is I was considering those topics, and I thought that that might be something that you guys would look to make sure meeting the comp plan for those people that are coming out. So thank youank you. You look puzz. She's got her light on. So we're going to go to Commissioner Tom. Oh, okay. Good question. Regarding the, thanks, Mr. Chairman, regarding the ownership that this is not a bur seller case, it's two owners, so my question is this land currently, who owns it? It cannot be two owners, right? Correct Yeah. I can see how that was confusing. It's currently owned by my possibilities under contract for the foodct for theo purchase. I just I say that to mean a lot of times I'm before you guys with the request for some third party. That's not yet owning the property. Okay. Where maybe they come in and the zoning gets approved, but for some contract drops. And so instead of getting, you know, user A, you're left with user B and it it wouldn't, you know, maybe that would have, impacted the request. So I only said that to say it's, it's not. And neither neither of these are unknown folks. They're already here. They've been in the community and they're going to stay. They're just kind of swapping the. Yeah, the purple area that's on the screen there. But it's currently owned by my possibilities. Yes. And it's under contract to be transferred to Narcissus Bank, correct? Yes So this approval. I'm sorry I cut you off on your last contingent upon this approval. Yes, yes, it would be. Yeah. Because they we wouldn't be allowed to do some of the things that the food bank wants to do under CC zoning. So that's why we're here in the first place. Yes. Thank you, Commissioner Al. I have a question for staff, so the two character defining elements that this doesn't meet the lot coverage and open space that Commissioner Bronskyought h active, open space is in that essay designation currently, we don't. It would be property by property. And that analysis has not beedone. Okay. Because, One soccer field One soccer field I don't think equates to 15 to 20. Either for the, for the essay designation, the zoning and the comprehensive plan are two separate things they're allowed to build under the zoning. The zoning does not require that amount of open space. Typically for nonresidential, it's just going to be a lot coverage requiremen. So in the rezoning we look at these as a guide. But the zoning is ultimately going to dictate what's allowed on the property. So for the essentially they don't meet because we would require them to ild a larger structure in order to meet the lot coverage requirement. I would say this is somewhat of a mismatch between the future land use map and the existing conditions on the property. And, even the existing zoning does not require that amount of open space. Gotcha. So yeah, again, you know, the future land use map is one aspect of the comprehensive plan.the comprehensive plan. There are other policies that you can look on, look to for guidance in these kind of situations. So you don't like so this additional space is going to go in like for additional operation for the food bank. That would be the plan. Yes ma'am. Yeah. But it's not going to be like a ty're not going to sell it. You're like they needed this space. So that's why they purchased. Yeah It's an expansion. Yeah. In in the plat the companion item. You see that you have two lots today and you a shift. So it's not being cutt into a third, two and a half acre parcel. That could be, you know, sold to, you know, sold to Joe Schmo Light industrial developer. So it'd be blocked in with the remaining 17 acres of the food bank campus and all one platted property. Yes, ma'am. Okay, so you're like, we're not like, if we approve this, you're like to be added to the food bank. And then it turns out that they sell it to somebody else. So. Well, the only way the like the comprehensive plan adding like, now it's already over the percentages that they wanted. And if we approve additional, you know like owners, you know, if we basically going against the comprehensive plan and I original zoning was the Lee and yeah. Well if and yeah. Well if they were trying to sell it, they'd either they'd have to sell the entire lot, including their existing facilities. Yeah. That's what I'm asking. Yeah. Yes Yeah. Thank you. That's right. Yeah Anyone else we're done. Okay. Thank you. I will cse the public hearing. And so, just to be clear, it's because that it, it's because that it doesn't meet the elements of the of the plan. It does require findings. But as I think my favorite language in the staff's report, let me find it here. The planning and Zoning Commission may occasionally allow proposals that do the plan standards. If the request is found consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan, and sutantially beneficial to the immediate neighbors surrounding community and general public interest, and to me, that kind of checks that box in a big way. So that's just that's where I'm at on it. And I don't know if we need to if we need to have more discussion or not, but I, I concur with you. I like it he'song winded. I'm kidding. Somebody please make a motion I move, we hold on. Let me get it correct. Language I move, we approve zoning case 2020 4-015, subject to obviously our findings. Policy Second, thank you. Yeah, we have to do them separate though. And we have to actually do to-a do our findings and then we can move on. So heard the motion and I heard a second from Mr. Bronsky. So we have a motion by Commissioner Ali with a second by Commissioner Bronsky to approve item to a please vot. And that item carries 8 to 0, we're not officially in recess or taking a break because we still have still have actions to do, and that is to complete our findings, forms. But we won't be bothered if you guys chatter a little bit a doing this. Electronic findings and they're on their online. But I think she brought hard copies for people like myself that it never works for We only have to do we'll do to be after we do two A and we get our findings complete. Then we'll make a motion on those. NoNo pardon. One member I double check for you. What are you pulling up? Hi, how are you? How about you? I'm doing. Oh, yeah. I think he said oh five, but I think we'll be all right. Everyone knows what case we're talking about. Oh five. 15? Yeah. Yeah, yeah.. Are we finished? Yes. We're good. Okay Thank you for your Tr patience. I now need a motion on item two. B I move, we microphone, microphone I move, we approve agenda item to be subjecouncil approval of zoning case 2020 4-015 second. So I have a motion I hay Commissioner Olli with a second by Commissioner Bronsky to approve item two staff. Please vote. That item carries 8 to 0 as well and no findings are requir and no findings are required at this point. For that one. Okay, so we're going to move on to item three A and B right. It's three A and B. Yes sir. Agenda item number three A zoning case 2020 4-0 13 request to rezone from l Industrial one to plan development. Light Industrial one to modify the standards for many warehouse public storage uses on 12.6 acres located on the north side of Mapleshade Lane, 230ft east of Ohio Drive and within the 190 Tollway Plano Paway Overlay District. Tabled on August 19th, 2024. Petitioner Crow Billingsley Pardue Limited this item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item three B Preliminary Site Plan, Concept Plan and revised Conveyance plo. Crow. Billingsley, Pardue, addition block A, lots two and three mini warehouse, public stol general administrative office on two lots on 18.9 acres. Located at the northeast corne the nortf Mapleshade Lane and Ohio Drive. Zoned Light Industrial one and located within the 190 Tollway Plano Parkway overlay district applicant Cora Billingsley Pardue Limited. This item is for administrative consideration, pending action on agenda item three. A okay. Good evening commissioners. My name is John Kim, planner with the planning Department. Here is the subject property in question, on the left you will see the SCP boundary plan development boundary in yellow, and it is at the corner of Mapleshade and Ohio. So there are three different plans associated with this zoning ca with this zoning case as well, this first one on the screen is the revised conveyance plot. So currently property. And the applicant is proposing to subdivide it into two different lots, with the creek running down the middle as the boundary and there is also a preliminary site plan associated with with the zoning case, this is on the eastern lot, this is where the proposal for the tonight's proposal for the car club is car club is being shown. And there are three access points along Mapleshade Lane, and then there's a fire lane around the building. And then here's the concept plan. And this is right at the corner of Ohio and Mapleshade, with two access points off of Ohio. And this is for just a general office concept. So the property is currently zoned Light Industrial one and it is undeveloped. And the property as a whole, including the Western, is also undeveloped. And in 2000, the property was part of a city wide or city initiated zoning and it was a light industrial. Then and it's still light industrial. So today the applicant is proposing a car club business, which is a mix of different uses, our zoning ordinance currently does not have a specific, use listed for a car club. And so in club.r proposal, there are multiple uses that are associated with their proposal, the primary designation with what they are pursuing is the mini warehouse and public storage. And I'll get on to that next. But there's also a professional general office assembly hall and a vehicle repair. And so the general concept is there will be units on site and they will be sold to store vehicles. And they can also have a mezzanine space for lounge area and things like that for any of the owners to enjoy, it will be operated like a condo business, so they will be individual condominiums and the condominium association, and then there will be a vehicle repair to the north in the back side of the building. So here is the current definition of the mini warehouse as public st building containing separate individual self storage units of 500ft■!S r less for rent or lease, the conduct of lease, the conduct of sales business or any activity other than storage shall be prohibited within any individual storage unit. So thee plan development today is this current definition of the mini warehouse is too restrictive for the applicant's, business proposal. And so we need to increase the allowable size of each individual unit. Excuse me. So here is the first proposed proposed treaty stipulation. And so the mini warehouse public storage development may have rented, lease or individually owned units greater than 500ft■, subject to the following standards. And so the first is the this is still remaining from the definition the conduct of sales or business prohibited within any individual unit, but then the accessory use for recreational purposes is allowed within individual units. And that's describing the mezzanine recreationalses that will be accessory, to the mini warehouse use. And then the maximum unit size can be up to 12,000ft■!S. d then the second is there will be a assembly hall event space as mentioned. And so outdoor vehicle display may be provided. And you'll see in the preliminary site preliminary site plan, in the center there's that. The light green shaded. So that's going to be the outdoor event space. And that's going to be turf and tur. Artificial turf isn't necessarily usually typically recommended for parking, just because it's longevity. And it kind of fades out. The typical concrete parking. But there will be screening all around and except for the access drive down the middle. And so staff is comfortable with this proposal. So the subject property isnt ces in the Comprehensive Plan. It is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, on the subject property, we received wd one that one signed letter of support. And within 200ft we received twost to clarify, on tt side, there's the light g green and then the center there's a darker green. So the whole property as a whole is currently not divided. So the one letter covers both of those properties. And so it's still within it's within the subject property and within the 200ft limit. And toe different responses two in support and one in opposition. So in summary the applicant is proposing a car club for storage of vehicles within individual condo units. There will be an event space in the center as well as vehicle repair and the plan development stipulations are proposed to modify the current standards of the mini warehouse and public storage in order to meet their proposal, so recommendations. The zoning case is recommended for approval as submitted. The preliminary site plan is recommended for approval subject to the city Council approval of Zoning Case 2024 013 and the execution of an agreement assuring the perpetual joint use of up to 60 parking spaces required for portions of the development parked at the ratio required for assembly use with other portions of the development parked at the ratio required for mini warehouse public storage, professional general administrative office, and or major vehicle repair. Approved as to form and executed by the city Attorney or designee prior to site plan approval. Then the concept plan and revised conveyance plan are also recommended for move for approval, subject to City Council approval of Zoning Case 2024 013. I'm available for any questions. Thank you very much, s the best to ask this question of, really, the only thing that's kind of making me nervous is vehicle repair. And is there a way for us to limit the square footage that can be utilized for that purpose, so that this doesn't turn into a large vehicle repair shop or vehicle pair is permitted by right on the property today, so they could build that if they wish to. But yes, this is a planned development. So that stipulation could be added if the Commission wishes to do so. That's what I was hoping. Thank you, I got 2 or 3 fingers going on here. We'll start with Mr. Ratliff. I had a similar question to yours about vehicle repair, but more of a follow up question because while vehicle repair is an allowed use, there's a PD stipulation that says private businesses won't be run out of this facility. So does that mean vehicle repair can be done? But they can't be for hire. So that is in relation to the individual units like the individual owned units can't there can't be any businesses running out of them. And so because the vehicle repair is just going to be a separate use, not within the mini warehouse use, it's going to be separate. So that business operation isn't necessarily the vehicle repair. I'm not sure I followed that. So could somebody rent one of the units and put in an automotive repair facility? No, that would be a prohi the s. That's why I'm asking, because the staff report said it was allowed, but then private businesses weren't allowed. So. So you you couldn't rent one of the units and put in an auto body shop or an auto repair shop. Correct. The planned development stipulations as proposed. No. Okay. That was my first question. Second question is the off site parking? There's nothing adjacent to that. So is there any idea where the off site? Up to 60 spaces, is going to be? Because it's across the creek to a future office building across the road to somebody else that's retail. I can answer this. So you remember a couple meetings back? We had a assembly hall use that was sharing parking within the same with an office in the same use. So they're sharing within the same property. In this case, they're going to share the parking required for the assembly hall, which is only going to be on weekends with other aspects of the same property to reduce their overall parking requirement. So this is a shared parking on site, not an off site parking contract, which is why I was confused because one of the stipulations is an agreement that was signed to form. was signed to form. That's a requirement of the zoning ordinance, that it be a perpetual agreement approved by the city attorney. So we're just replicating the zoning ordinance language. Okay. So the way it's conceived is this property will completely park on site. It's just about the mix of uses in the facility, correct? Correct. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Bronsky. So help me understand when, within the cit, if you're parking a vehicle, it's generally required to be o, concrete. And you mentioned in the report on page 11. Talking about, the parking for the assembly hall and the special events. It says, this limitation is because artificial turf, does not have the same durability and may create environmental concerns if there is runoff from vehicles and may create long term maintenance issues. So that's generally whyo that's generally why we don't do that. Right? Right. So I'm a little confused how the environmental concerns are not addressed whenever we talk about why we're proposing to allow that to happen to park used vehicles on turf, it just simply says that because of the screening, we're good with that. So I'm not understanding how the environmental concerns of parking on, on this turf for used vehicles is okay whenever it's built, has walls around it. Can you help me with that? Yeah. So basically, the applicant is also proposing like additional like runoff mitigation as well on the site with the detention pond. And so I think with the assembly hall and the center, they're not going to be typically parking there. It's just that only for the event space days. And so it's not like a it's not like there will be parking there every day and anything like that. Operations include storage of high end vehicles. It's as a club for hih end vehicle owners, and they're going to have weekend car shows. And so the car shows would be located on the turf area in the central part of the development, in which case there's no runoff that's going into nearby creeks. That would create that issue that we would see if it were elsewhere on the property, like on the perimeter next to the creek. We would not be in support in that location. But here it's going to be self-contained and so we don't have the same concern. Okay. I just I wanted to make sure I understood because it wasn't clear enough for me. So thank you, Mr. Ali. To that point then what's the reason for the screening? We are not repairing vehicles on the turf. So artificial turf just wears out over time and becomes a kind of a esthetic issue. Okay. Long term maintenance. And since it's screened, if it does become an issue, it's not an issue for the public. Okay. So if it looks ugly, just block it off kind of deal. Okay other question. The one letter in opposition, talked about we don't need another quote unquote car dealership. I just want to clarify the business operation here is renting out of the space to store. I don't have a classic car, but I used to drive a 97 Honda to store my old car here. That's the business operation. This is not a car dealership. Yes, right. It is not a car dealership. The proposal, the applicant's intent is to store high end vehicles within the units. And so there won't be any selling of the vehicles directly in the units. Made me sound like my nine seven Honda was not a high end vehicle. I'm just. Well, no, I was going to say that a 97 Honda, I mean, I think we hold their vehicles. Were they rare? I don't I don't understand, Mr. Bruno, A couplf issues that I see. First of all, in. First of all, in order to get the cars into each storage space, would the entrance be from the interior courtyard, from the exterior of the building, or both? Let me try to point that out in the plan here, so the applicant does also have a presentation with the floor plan, but let me. All right. Well,er isn't really working, but there are three different access points from Mapleshade. And then on the okay, well, I know I was space. Does he. Yeah. Enter it from the courtyard from the outside or from both. Right. So on the southwest corner, the soe southeast corner and the northeast corner of the building, I just can't get the laser pointer to work. There are, driveway entrances for an indoor drive, so to speak, to get to each unit and then an indoor hallway for the car to drive through and access, like in a like in a service repair at a major dealership where they have the long hallway. Yeah, there's no there's no access facing the exterior of the building. You essentially go through a, a garage door into the hallway and into your unit in the interior. Okay. And it's big enough to accommoda accommoe cars being driven in. Correct Correct. Second of all, with regard to vehicle repair, what each of these storage units potentially be equipped as a full service auto repair garage with things like a hydraulic lift, tire changing machines, you know, wheel balancing machines, all the, the all the equipment that you normally see in a car garage. Would it be storing parts fluids oil transmission fluid, brake fluid, how would they dispose of used oil transmission fluid, brake fluid. ET cetera. ET cetera. Or use tires? In other words, to what extent does the property would the property lend itself to the normal activities of a car repair facility, even if it's not a business? Right. So, again, as part of the proposed stipulation, number one, the intent i accessories for only recreational purposes and not any like vehicle repair or other uses like that. And so I think what you're describing would be, you know, adding another vehicle repair use and that wouldn't be, allowed by the PD. And so really, the only thing they can do is store their vehicle and then have like a lounge space to wait a minute, if an allowed uses vehicle repair, exactly what repairs are being contemplated. Right. So the that would be a zoning violation were they to do that. And that would be a property standards issue where they would go out and inspect if they're if there's reason to believe that they're using them for th purpose, there would not be any signage allowed for those businesses, there would not be. I'm not asking permit a business use. I'm just saying an owner repairing his own expensive sports car. I understand I understand cor understand correct. We imagine there might be somebody polishing their vehicle in there, things like that. But the lifts, the tire mounting and balancing, like you mentioned, those would all be zoning violations. No, we didn't get into that level of detail, but we certainly could in the prohibitions if you wish. How about repairs that would require the engine to be running? And e a provision for ventilation to get the fumes out of there, that's not currently included, but included, but could be, but I'd recommend you hear from the applicant about their operations. Yeah, I think let's hear from them because it may answer some of our questions or give rise to others, but we certainly can chat with them do have one quick question, Mr. Chairman, regarding the size of the unit. It's more of an educational. So I understand that we need to make it greater than 500ft■!S, and we're makingt number coming from? number coming from? Why is it 12,000? So that was what the applicant had proposed. And so they had given us a floor plan. And the largest units were up to 12,0 our stipulations were based around their proposal. Okay. So it's not related to our zoning or regulation or anything. Okay. Thank you. Do you know if the 500ft■!S incdes mezzanine square footage or is it 500ft■!S plus whatever might be in the mezzanine? I believe the original 500, did not include it because it only allowed the use of storage, well, if you think about it, I mean, 500ft■!S is 25 by 20. If you threw in the mezzanine on top of that, it would mean that the space below would be so tiny as to be almos, almost unusable. So, okay. Any other questions? I think we should hear from the applicant. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. I will open the public hearing and we will hear from the applicant. I have Michael Halligan registered to speak and then I have Brian Sitarganj available to answer questions. Do you have a presentation? Yes. No, they don't have it. You don't have it. Oh, I'm from Missouri. I need to. I need to e I don't know. This is okay. So we don't have your presentation. All right. Well, I'm going to use my hands a lot then. Okay. I'm Michael Halligan. 15001 Wynnewood Road, Dallas, Texas, 75254. I'm the owner of Marinello LLC, the one that would be the developer of this, project that we've been discussing. Are you able to find it? No. Okay So give you a backstory, I'm a Ferrari owner.. I bought a garage from one of these garage developments. It was, really great. When they'd have a cars and coffee, everyone would open their garage door, pull their car out. A few hundred people would show up. We'd see each other's cars. We'd talk about cars, talk about business. And then everyone would close their doors at the end of the show, and you wouldn't see anybody for 29 days. And the reason is it's hot. They don't open their doors. No one comes outside, no sense of community whatsoever comes just self storage at that point. So I decided I wanted to do something different and let's make it where you can buy a youa garage, you can put your Ferrari or Lamborghini or Maserati, your Alfa Romeo in your garage, and you have glass garage doors so people can see if you're there and you can leave your garageaud and cooled. Everything's indoors. So this building is a giant rectangle. There's three entries to enter the building, two on the south side off of Maple Shade thathade that go ine building itself, and then one on the back of the northeast corner out of the parking lot that comes into the building. There's drive lding in a U shape coming through there. The drive lanes are 24ft wide, and then on each side there's a three foot, three foot walking lane. And then next to that is the glass garage doors and the glass passage doors going into the units. The units are condos, not a residential condo, but a commercial condo. condo. So the car collector would actually buy their unit and their cars would be stored inside there, and they can come out any time 365 days a year, 24 hours a day, be inside the building, not worried about what the weather is doing. It doesn't matter if it's cold, if it's hot, they can g to other people, look at each other's cars. Everything's wide open in the front. There in thea office and there's a lounge. The lounge is two stories, 13,000ft■!S. And then theplex. . They're connected on the second floor, but on the first floor there's a tunnel that goes into the concourse. So this turf area that we're talking about. So the building surrounds the one acre Concorso. When you pull in the drive lanesdrive lanes, there'sn both sides, the left and the right, the ones that face the Concorso. Besides the doors off the hallways, they also have doors that go out to the Concorso. So let's say the Clubb shows up. They drive into the tunnel between the office and the loungeand the lounge to enter the Concorso area to set up their cars. All of the owners around the perimeter of the Concorso up thl their cars out also and then everyone can visit and go back and forth in the very back. There's 29,000ft■!S on the backf the rectangle that's against age drive lanes. That's a shop to do. Detailing on cars, PPF, which is paint protection, film color correction and parts that business is currently on the north side of the railroad tracks. If you know this building on Mapleshade, it backs up to the railroad tracks. This building is currently in Plano. The people that are moving in here running their business right now, 100 yards north of where this building goes. So they're going to sell their building. They're right next to Stuart Paint. It's called Scuderia Smith. And they're going to move i building. What Scuderia Smith does is they repair Lamborghinis, Maseratis and Ferraris. They sell and Ferraris. They sell parts for Ferraris, Maseratis and Lamborghinis. That's who will be in the 29,000ft■!S. The reason r them is if one of these people are coming to town. Some of our buyers aren't from Dallas Fort Woh. If they fly into Addison Airport and they want their Ferrari ready, they call Scuderia Smith and say, hey, I I want my car ready. They'll make sure that tires are aired up. Battery is good, oil is changed, the car is ready, pick them up at the airport. Bring them here. They get their car. They do their business for however long, drop their car, back off in their own garage. That they own and take them back to the airport. That's quote mechanic n there. The individuals in the units themselves. Yeah, they can work Yeah, they can work on their car. I can tell you a little bit, as a Ferrari owner, there's a three year warranty and there's seven the i in that time period, you don't touch the car. I mean, you actually actually take it to Ferrari if you want to. Hey, there it is. There's our presentation. Look at that. Okay, that's put my name on that on purpose? Yeah we look that up. So should I recuse myself? So if you look at the front there, the part the pn red, there's your tunnel that goes into the Concorso in the middle of it, on your left and above the tunnel is the lounge. On the right is my offices. And then you see the two red rectangles. That's where a garage door is to enter the building and go down the drive lanes. Can you go to the next slide? Okay. Sorry Perfect. Okay. And there you can see the Concorso from an overhead looking towards the north. And to enter the Concorso, you can't just drive in. The public can't drive in. There's a hydraulic bollard fence that raises up there. And the only way to get in is we lower the bollards. So you can't go in there to access the garage units. You have to have a remote to get in. And then there's a fence that goes from the corner of the building out to the outer perimeter, goes down the sides and along the back, for car shows themselves, we've got 100 plus spaces outdoors for visitors. We have 79 condos inside the building. And then when someone's visiting, let's say the Ferrari club or the Porsche club, they would pull their show cars in on the turf. As far as the turf itself, I totally understand why people are asking about the environmental. We're not putting the turf on dirt. We're holding cars that are half 1 million to $5 million. There's going to be six inches of concrete. The turf will be on top of it, so it's no different. If we left the turf off, it's still the same thing. You have concrete. It drains to the storm sewer in the center. We're just putting the turf on for photos and stuff. We all went to Pebble Beach a month ago for the Concorso or to look at the cars and everything else. Same thing. It just photographs better on a golf course. I propose we don't build a golf course in this building, so that's why we got this. And then let's see forward. Oops. Back up. This is kind of the look of the inside of the building. So you see you drive your car into the building again 24 foot drive aisle. 12 foot each direction three foot of walkway on each side and then in fnt of every passage door. We're also putting a steel piece with cable in there, just so someone doesn't accidentally walk out into the drive lane, and you'll see big fans running down the middle, as well as HVAC. There And this is to help out a little bit too. There you can see on the bottom on the south part of the building on the left is the lounge. On the right is my offices. There's the tunnel going into the concourse, so the drive lanes are the gray part. They go up and come back down through the building. The different colors are because of the different size. The units themselves are 25 foot wide. There are different depths 40, 50, 60, 70s and 80s. The reason that we're here is by right we can do many self storage, which is what this type of product goes under in Plano, but it's limited to 500ft■!S. Our minimum unit is 1000ft■!S. The reason we asked for 12,000ft■!S is several of these buyers are going to take more than one unit. Some of them a lot of units. Give you ideas on what goes in here. Probably the average garage will have 5 to $10 million worth of cars being high end sports cars, the starting price on the units is $600 a square foot. So it's much more than the average house is. There are no units for rent. You're not allowed to rent or lease in here. It's only for sale. We haven't really started marketing and we've probably got 20 units that are going under contract right now, there's 35,000 super cars in the metroplex. We have 79 units there. Another way to say it, there's 8 million people in the metroplex. We have 79 units. And I predict that people from all across the country will come to see this, not because of the building itself, but what's in the building. F40, F50, Enzo's, some very high end cars from very wealthy people. Any questions Let's do we have any other speakers on this? We do not. Okay Thank you. Okay. So yeah, we'll, we'll open it up to the commission. I mean, I just look at it and think, you know, this is what Jay Leno would build, maybe for his stuff, I would bet money, any amount you want that Jay shows up here and does a TV show here. So, yeah, I would imagine that. Yes, he will come visit. Okay we'll let ladies first, I guess. Okay. Commissioner. Tom, go ahead. Well, first of all, because you brought up Jay Leno and I am a TV host myself, so maybe we'll do a TV. Wait a second. Let's not land use discussion. Let's keep it. Keep it. My question is regarding thehe exhaust system, because one of the commissioners mentioned that earlier in the, I thought that was a great question because it sounds like there will be some driving inside the building. What is your plan on the exhaust system? Yeah, we're going to work with the fire department for the ventilation system to make sured everything as any other building that you might drive into, whether it be a parking garage below a building or anything else,ilding or anything else, the HVAC people will make sure that it's vented. We do have a large number of doors because these garages. So as well as the three main entries, we've got 34 doors that open that open in the Concorso as well. So just by pure leakage, we're going to have a lot of ventilation th but we're going to have anyway. Okay. Well sounds good. Second question is from one of your, pictures shows that there are multi levels of the building. Is there more than like there are two, three stories are two, three stories or it's, on the exterior it's two stories, two st garage itself, it's a, it's a one story with a mezzanine. So there's a steel mezzanine that you can go up with, up with, aircraft cable as far as railing and everything. Normally they use it for a seating area, bathroom, half kitchen, something like that. Okay. So is it within one unit? They have a mezzanine. They can go up or it's just a each unit is on one level. And then if you go to the mezzanine go in. Each unit is on one level. And each unit has its own mezzanine. Gotcha. Now the units in the ce, they have a secondary garage door that goes out to the Concorso. Their mezzanine also walks out onto an exterior deck, so there's decks on 34 units around the perimeter of the concourse of the concourse so they can sit out there and watch the car shows from their deck instead of being down on the ground. My guess is that's a premium 150,000. Yes. So sounds like a good plan. I have a third question though, regarding the HOA, because I understand that it's going to be shared by the owners, and these are be sounds like a co-ownership of the building. Would the. Are you the owner of the property or. I'm buying the property from Crowe Billingsley and I'm the Billingsley and I'm the developer of the project and there will be a condo association. And at some point the owners dual units wilr the condo association and run it themselves up until it's sold out. I'm going to run. I'm goino association. Okay. So you will be managing the, the con or thef the building. I guess my concern is in the future, when the development is finished, who's going to be responsible of maintaining the common areas and the building and everything? Make sure that it's still decent after all the years. Sure. And we office in the front. I'm buying that 7700ft■!S from our group in the front for our personal offices. I have two garages that are two garages that are attached to my office. I would like to continue doing it, but it's going to be up to the they keep me in that place to do that, or use someone else. I have to walk a th walk a thin l. Everyone who's buying in here either has a law degree or has several several attorneys on retainer. So I have to be very cautious with everything I do on this project. So thank you. Okay, a question real quick, so the owners of these spaces have flexibility on how they develop those mezzanine areas. There's some there will's some there will be an architectural control committee made up of the condo association. So they'll need to get approve changes and of course, come into the city to get a permit. That's what I was wondering about a little bit. Is in this zoning in any this zoning in any way, shape or form, are we either restricting or missing something in regards to you know, what they're allowed to do in those mezzanine areas? Right. So the current definition restricts it restricts individual storage units to no activities other than storage. So the purpose of the stipulations is to broaden that. And what And what is proposed currently is to allow those individual units to include recreational space. That's the language that, was worked through with property standards as a way to allow the mezzanine space without being in violation of the zoning ordinance. And is that broad enough or too broad in terms of what they can do, just hypothetically somebody somebs a party. Obviously there can be alcohol involved, liability for service of alcohol. I mean, I'm just trying to figure out it seems to me like it's kind of open ended and I'm not suggesting that any of your owners are going to do something incorrect. I'm really kind of setting the stage for how are they going to go through a permit process for each of these individual units inside this building, and each one of them is going to have to go through and get permits and submit plan. And so I'm just trying to work through what that process is going to look li, because I don't think I've seen something like this before, where everybody has their own options of what they want to do. I think it'd be similar to like an office condo project. You have a condo association, you you have certain rules by the condo association. But if anybody wants to build anything or change anything in their office condo, they have to come through the city to get a permit to do like in a standard storage unit, if somebody were to come in and pull a permit for two, 240 electrical o electrical or something, that would send up red flags that this is not being used for storage and that would come up that allowed? They may not be able to get their permits for appliances and other types of things that aren't storage. Okay. I justge. Okay. I just think it's clear. I just think we need to be I think that needs to be clear to you so that you can clearly communicate to your buyers so that nobody ts $100,000 on an architect to design a space that then they can't build. So I build. So I je need to make sure whatever we do that we communicate clearly what is and isn't allowed in those individual developments. And I get where you're coming from that a medical office or something, you know, each person goes in, they buy it, they develop it under city codes. I'm just not sure how clear our codes would be in this kind of environment. But, I'll leave that experts, Mr. Bruno, I know you had your had your mn almost first, so I'll go ahead. Thank you, could you describe the ex vehicle repair activity that that would be going on in these units, in the units themselves? The individual owners? I don't really expect much in the way of repair, maybe changing spark plugs or wires or something like that, again, most of these cars, due to the warranties that are on them or the maintenance deals, you're not allowed to actually touch the car interior or work on it. The older cars, the vintage guys, they normally send them out to specialty shops to build those cars for them and maintain those cars, so very wealthy clientele, but they don't do a lot of work. So I don't know how to say that properly. Would there be a need for any like, specialty car repair equipment or machinesits? No. Okay. Yeah . Thank you, Mr. Ratliff. Yeah. So just to clarify, each individual unit, I presume you'll do some sort of core and shell have a private bathroom in each unit. But for those for those big card when the clubs show up, is the two story space in front. I mean, ar to have some common facilities up there or. I'm just worried about, you know, this assembly component? Yeah. Is there any way to enhance the size of the of the projector there? Yeah. Please Okay. On both sides, if you see below unit 701 and below unit 601, there's, men and women's bathrooms on both sides. Each one has three stalls. So there's six on the east side and six on the west side. On the ground floor the elevator or go up the stairs in the lounge, there's another six above or below what would be 601. And then of course, our offices on the other side are the only thing that have access to the second floor above 701. There's another six there. Okay. So you are going to have some common facilities for those gatherings. Exactly. Okay. Yeah All right. And the gatherings will be a little different. Just put in there real quick than than some of the cars and coffees here. There's some where they really market them hard and there's 1520 000 people show up. That's not o up. That's not our clientele and that's not who we're after as an audience. You know, these are the Ferrari club shows up or upe Lambo or McLaren is not. Hey, DFW, we're having a car show this week. It's the club comes to the event. I just heard a hundred cars. Which a hundred cars is 100 drivers. 100 drivers need some restrooms, don't they? Occasionally. Yeah, yeah. All right. Thank you. Thank you, MrI just want to clarify something you had mentioned about the courtyard area where you're going to be using the turf, right? Right. And you said that the if there was a spill or if there was something, it would be drained into the storm shelter or storm drain. Is that what you said? It would be the same as if we were a parking lot. If we're a parking lot and a car drains, that's where it goes. It'd be the same way here. It wouldn't be different. The only difference is the turf itself that's glued on top of the concrete. Okay And do you you don't have any concerns about the chemicals interacting with the turf or having some sort of a problem with that? I don't at this point. But at Scuderia Smith, that's going to be back there. We have glued large pieces of turf 20ft wide and 20 or 40ft deep in their detail. Shop and in their PPF shop, so they're setting cars on top of it every day. They're turning the wheels, they're spilling antifreeze, oils, grease on it, see what happens. We're watching the on the vintage cars. The exhaust are lower. So we're seeing if that heat being close on the exhaust tip melts it or anything like that. So that's what we're watching right now. If it turns out to be a problem, we'll come back and ask to do cobblestone or something like that in there. Okay. Yeah That's my that's my only concern is I want to make sure that we're not creating some sort of impossible environmental hazard by parking on something that's not why the city is concerned about that. And personal greed. Concern is that it doesn't just tear up re fast or melt or or look bad, you know? So yeah. Mr. Alley, one clarification, clarifying question. You mentioned the repair shop that works on high end vehicles or what have you. That's not part of this lot. There's something that exists that you're trying to buy or that they want to come into this space along the top. See that gray space there? That'sle that want to come in there and open in there and open up are currently about 100 yards north of it. Right now, they own a shop Smith, it's jush of the railroad tracks. Those tracks. Those those buildings right in there, those industrial buildings, they're in there right now. Gotcha Okay, Commissioner Lawle. Yeah, you know, like so these spaces in the back, they're going to rent them, you know, for the service. So how are they going to come and what, like how are they going to do their business there? Well, no, the company is moving into that space that company is buying that 29,000ft■!S it's going to a repair shop right. Yeah. It's in the back. Yeah It's the same company that's working right across the railroad tracks doing the same thing they do now, whichh is and it is allowed. Right. It's allowed by zoning. Speaker repair is currently allowed in the zoning. Yes. Okay. But is there going to, you know, like they're going to be one of the renters basically. Well, there are no rentals allowed in this building. No. I mean, you know, like one of the owners, the owners. Yes. Yes Okay. Thank you. Okay Are we good? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to make one quick comment. This is not related to the zoning. However, I hope for your success because I think this is a great project and a great addition to the city. And I just saw I thought it was a great question regarding the bathrooms and the amenities associated with the place. And I hope that you really have a really, really nice bathroom. That's what what the Neiman Marcus has for their clientele. The interior designer is pushing the finish out. What I push the architects work. I want Bucky's with. I want to sit down and reach both directions before I hit a wall. I want I want a Bucky's bathroom. Okay, okay. All right. No more questions. All right. Thank you, thank you. I'll close the public hearing I move, we approve agenda item number three A as recommended by staff. Second, one comment before we vote. By my calculations, this is what the third high end collectible slash dealer Plano must be doing something good for the market to hold these three, it's just a co just be sure I mean, we'll try to wrap up the meeting in time for you to visit with him about your 97 Honda. Okay. I have a motion by Commissioner second br Ratliff to approve item three A as recommended by staff. Please vote that item carries 8 to 0. So looking at looking at agenda item item three B and the recommendations that the staff has there, including the approval of the zoning case by council, I move that we approve agenda item three B as stated by the staff's recommendation. I motion by Commissioner Bronsky second by Commissioner Kerry to approve item three B as recommended by staff. Please vote. That item carries 8 to 0 as well. Yeah good luck guys, might have to come see it when you get it done. All right. Thank you. First quarter of 26. All right. We'll have to throw a party for P and Z. Okay. It is 832. We're going to take a five minute recess. Yes. Unanimouslyy No power. A lot of interest, a lot of comments and questions. But ultimately everybody's excited. Nobody wants nobody wants to be. Quick question who's here for item five? Just you by yourself or the people next to you as well. Who's here for item six? Okay. Thank you. What's that? What are we doing next? Okay, we're waiting on Commissioner Tang. But just for everyone's benefit, we're going to go to item five. Hopefully, that will move fairly quickly. Hopefully everybody listening. Hopefully. And then we'll back to four A, four B since there's no one here for six evidently. So let's wait on Commissioner Tang and then we'll if you want to go ahead and read the non public hearing disclosure piece, item five is an item for individual consideration. Non public hearing items. The presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on thee agenda not posted for a public hearing. The presiding Officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to ensure meeting efficiency, and may include a total time. Go ahead and read item five. Okay. Item five preliminary plat Tinseltown edition. Block Tinseltown edition. Block a lot eight. Restaurant on one. Lot on 2.0 acres. Located on the east side of Dallas Parkway, 250ft south of Windhaven Parkway. Zoned regional commercial and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District. Applicant Watts Limited this item is for legislative consideration of a subdivision ordinance variance. Good evening commissioners. My name is Donna Sepulvado, lead planner with the Planning Department. The applicant is proposing a restaurant on aAnd s request, they are asking for a variance to not provide a direct point of access to theint of acs North Tollway. The Commission may approve the variance if the variance will not be detrimental to the public safety. The conditions of the variance are based unique to the property. If there are unique physical surroundings, shapecal conditioe property and the variance will not in any manner, in any manner vary. The provisions of the zoning ordinance or comprehensive Plan. The purpose of a requiring a direct point of access is to a public street is to ensure the vehicle movements in and out of the property can be achieved without placing additional traffic burdens on adjacent properties. In this case, all traffic in and out of the property must enter to the north or the south, which places additional traffic burden and maintenance needs on adjacent properties. The engineering department has reviewed the plan and determined that a direct point of access can be provided and provided the applicant with two options as shown on the screen. Additionally, this property has no physical conditions that are unique that warrant a variance. Lastly, the requests will not vary the provisions of the zoning ordinance or a comprehensive plan. As this plan fails to meet all of the criteria, staff is not in support of their request and recommends denial, and the applicant is also here and has a presentation. Thank you, before we go to the applicant, just general question from my standpoint is the denial is simply based on the to the letter of to the letter of the plan kind of situation instead of there being something significantly wrong with the use. That's correct. Okay. I think that was clear. And your answer was short and sweet. Thank you. Other questions, Mr. Ratliff, I don't know if there's anybody here from engineering or not, but having worke, I know there are restrictions on how often there can be can be ds on the tollway service road. Is that is there analysis of the possible driveway locations, considering the tollway driveway spacing requirements, do those fit the driveway spacing requirements on the tollway corridor? Yes. My understanding that the options on the screen do meet spacing requirements. Okay, that was my question. Thank you, Mr. Brounoff. Brounoff. Can you tell us why the applicant does o provide direct access from the Dallas Parkway straight into the property? I'll defer that question to the applicant. Okay. Well, I imagine you've had discussions with them and pointed out what the ordinances require. And they they would have said something about why they want to do something different. I mean, my understanding is maybe cost is a factor in it, and they believe that they have sufficient access through the adjacent properties, are the adjacent properties either one or both of them owned by the same owner as this property? I don't believe so. We can confirm that, though. Okay Anyone else? Very good. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. We'll have the applicant come forward. Good evening. . Do you have the spreadsheet or the presentation that we. That's up. Fantastic, my name is Andy Feldberg. I represent SP the new construction of Jay Alexander's, that's the front thing. Let's see here. Just a little bit about SPB, this is going to be our first location in the metroplex, we're really excited to come here. We're doing another one working on a new one as well in Prosper. So we're really excited area, as nd before, our site is on that corner right there. Next to the gas station. And next to a restaurant, let me go back one, as noted before, there are two existing, interests interests, entrances to the space. One is in the restaurant to the south, and one is at the gas station to e north. We have a cross easement agreement with the development where we can use we have all the legal information we have, we have free use of those those entrances. Our planned site plan that we're requesting again, is to leave those two in place. You can see to it, we have a nice, just beautiful site plan with parking in front, there is no cost concern about this. It's more about our our customers and we really don't want to give up. We feel that we'd be putting in the entrances. We're giving up prime parking spots as well as. And that's the cro easement area, but, and I'm just going to move back to this slide back to this slide here, putting in any one of those entrances is one that's going to, I feel is going to be very, impactful to either the North entrance or the south entrance. And it takes away from our entrance you've got with that proximity between the two existing think you're going to have a major traffic issue, and 're concerned that's going to cause accidents, and then I'm going to go back a slide slide which wilw you, if you look at, Ford's garage, does not have a direct access. So it is, theirs is further down south and then they have the one to choose that they would use, but they don't hav rs to not have the entrances and to leave the two existing entrances in place, as are our main entrances. We also on the back of the lot, there's a cross easement that runs to complete a North and south of that development, which gives plenty of access as well to access as a question about the adjoining properties. No, we do not own the adjoining properties. And again, it's just being just it seems that it's going to be very congested there. And we don't think it's necessary. Is that it? Yes, sir. Okay. I didn't know if you had additional slides or not. No, okay. Thank you. Do we have any other speakers on this item? We do not. Okay. Thank you. Then I'll allow questions, Mr. Ratliff? Yeah. Just to be clear, if we can go back to the staff presentation with the site plan that shows overall the overall plan with the driveways on all four sides, it's on page 138 of our packet. Page packet. Page te presentation staff report. Keep going. There it is right there. It's the same picture. Yeah. Just I wanted to zoom out to show just to talk about the driveway in the back. So did I hear you correctly that basically all of these areas that are shaded gray are cross access easements to your benefit, as well as the adjacent properties? Is that that is correct. Yes. And the internal ones are the fire departments or the fire lanes. So yes, those would come okay. But those are platted recorded cross access easements that you have the rights to. Yes. Okay. That's I just want to make sure I heard that correctly. Yes. All right. Thank you all right. Any other questions, Mr. Brounoff? In what way? A little closer to the mic. Thank you. In what way would installing driveway entrances directly onto your property be detrimental to public safety, health or welfare? Caitlin, can I ask you to come up? Can. She's my civil engineer with Kimley-horn. Is it possible for her topeak? Yeah absolutely. Sure, sure. So we haven't done any studies of this area, but I think the point that Andy was trying to make is, it just causes more disruptive disruption along the Dallas North Tollway by adding that extra entrance, we feel like it would run a litt would run a little bit more efficient if we directed traffic to the designated driveways that were provided for our site. To what extent are you saying that conditions unique to this property make a varian? Why? Be. Because the two choices are again, put so many entrances within a short amount of distance, we feel that that's going to be a traffic hazard. You're going to have people pulling out or pulling in within 120ft with the traffic that is moving along the frontage road. It's a concern they would be pulling out or pulling in to the existing entrances on the other properties anyway, right? That's correct. How how would adding an entrance to your in terms of the pulling in and the pulling out? Because again, they're going to be pulling o. And if we have another entrance, somebody's going to be going into the Decel lane to get into our pto our pr, and somebody's going to be pulling out, and that becomes a traffic hazard. That's the way we see it in a second. To what extent would not giving you a variance create a hardship to you as distinguished from a mere inconvenience? I think the hardship, the way we feel is on our customers, because we'd be taking away prime spots in the front of the building that would affect them walking into the building. Now, the standard we have to apply is whether there would be a particular hardship to the owner. To what extent would there be a hardship todshu as the owner if the variance is not granted? We feel that if we put in thatc on the safety on te street could become a hazard, if an accident occurs, we could get sued. That's one reason there's also a certain amount of parking spots the owner is trying to achieve. And by placing that driveway there, we would be removing eight parking spots. Okay Mr. Bell, if they install the two driveways, would they still meet the parking requirements? No, we wouldn't be installing two. There's one drive line. Blue one or red is what's being requested, option one and an option two. Okay. If they install one driveway, would they still meet the parking requirements? I believe so we can verify. Pardon? We'll have to look at the plan and verify. Give us just one moment. Okay. All right. We'll pull that. parking, but we are providing a bioswale on the plan. East side right there to make up for the excess parking per the code. Okay. So you would be making up for the lost spaces in front, correct? Okay. No we're not making up for the lost spaces in the front. I'm sorry. I thought that's what you just said. Well, that's what she said, but again, we don't want to give up those front spaces because we feel they're very important to our customers. And that's not my question that the ordinancefor restaurants require a certain number, a minimum number of parking spaces. And I'm asking if you still have that, that minimum number, if you install the driveway, we would. Yes. Okay. All right. That's all. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. you, Mt to clarifying. Yeah Well, he's he said they wo Meet the number. So I don't think further clarification is necessary. Yeah Mr. Ali, the properties on either side of yo, do you? You said you have legal agreements with them to, essentially allow eg, essentially allow egress. Yes. It's again, it's a development cross easement. on that from I think from, Park or was it all thway down to, the next street? So, yeah. Can that be broken? So for instance, if the ownership on this adjacent properties, thk they have the ro come back and say that, that th want it theirs again, they have that's part of the development's requirements restricted for covenant. So no, the owners can't come back and change it in no way and no mean, Mike, does that sound right? It's recorded. Okay. It's recorded. Absolutely. Yes, sir. Thank you. You're welcome, Mr. Bronsky. So my question actually, I think is for Mr. Bell, right down the road from this is Chewy's and Ford's, restaurant. Correct. And neither of those two neither of those two restaurants have access to 75. Is that correct? You mean the tollway? To the tollway? Yeah, to the tollway? Yes. They do not. Did they have to have exceptions as well? We can see if there was a variance. However, if there's a shared drive that counts as a direct point of access, if the property line is splitting a drive that meets the requirements. But we can look and see if that was a consideration in plans, becausen at both of those restaurants. And, to answer Mr. Brunhoff's concern, frankly, either of the locations where we would bere we looking at this, it would certainly cause me as a consumer to second guess visiting this restaurant for concerns related to safety with either of these two that are available, and to me, it,d to me, it, it does seem to fit along with other restaurants that being handled similarly. So again, if I could clarify, Chewy's does haveify, e direct point of access. It's shared with the property to the north. So the property line splits the drive and then the ty similar, position. So they may have been could I have my, presenta my, presentation back up? I can show you in a diet. We have a map that shows exactly that. Wha ab, please. As you'll see at those red arrows representing the entrances from the frontage road. So you have one that is south of Ford's garage. You have one north of Chewy's. And then Delta Blue is the one that is adjoining our property. So the one adjoining your property doe that not meet those? Those have direct access through shared drive. So they are meeting the ordinance requirements and a variance was not necessary. So basically the driveways splits the property line so that both both sides can claim access. Yeah it's all about splitting hairs splitting driveways. Yeah it it does seem it does seem toe bit difficult for me. On being able to say that the exemption shouldn't apply or the right, that we should not grant this variance. Personally, I think it does provide for public safety, to not have an entrance there. Right? So close to their, the entrance to their, restaurant. Do you have questions? Yeah, I think so. You like just to confirm that you have access? Parking spaces, right? Yes, ma'am. More than more than you needed. And you're providing something on site for, like, detention or something or like. Yeah as well as a bioswale. Just to compensate for the extra parking, correct? Yes. So if you put the drive and you lose, how many parking spots for. Yeah. According to him. Yeah. Well, yeah. But you know, like if you put it somewhere you like, probably like how many parking do you think that. And you still can like, you still can. You have the minimum parking. So why did you want the extra parking. Because our, the front of the parking in front of our building is prime spots. And we think that's very important for our customers to literally come in and park in and walk into the door, plain and simple. That's it, as for the parking, we're going to be so crowded that there's not going to be any parking spots. I understand, yeah, no. And we'd love to have you guys at at the opening, and we will invite you to that. But are you good? Yeah Thank you. Mr. Bell, you have a comment? I just want to reiterate that we have established standards through our street design standards for access and driveway control. The, city's traffic engineering has not identified a public safety issue with the proposed with either of the options in this locations. If they had, they would have provided that information with that information to provide to you in support of the variance. Anyone else have comments once we're done here? Mr. Bruno? Oh, I was going to ask if the traffic department had identified a safety issue and you just answered that for me. So thank you. Okay. No more questions. And these are the options from the engineering department, right? That's correct. Optght? That's correct. Options Yeah. One of one of them, they can use one of them okay. Are we done. All right. Thank you. Thank you I'll close the public hearing, Mr. Kerry. Yeah m maybe, like many f us here, I actually use this area quite a bit because I'm fairly proximate to it, although engineering has said there aren't issues here, I personall. And I don't see the benefit of forcing these guys to create gue another inlet into here when there's others that are adjacent to it. I think that create well, maybe not a safety problem, certainly a congestion problem as people are making decisions there. And so whi I understand the ordinance, and I think probably in most situations, it makes a lot of sense, I'm not sure that there's an advantage here. And so, I personally think that what they're asking for is very reasonable. And I think we should give them the variance. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Tong. I concur. Okay, Mr. Bruno, approaching this, I think from a legal point of view, which is my background, we are given a legal test or a standard that we have to apply, I understand what Commissioner Kerry is saying. I understand what Commissioner Tong is saying, my reading of the test is will the granting of a variance be, in other words, letting them rely on existing driveways on other properties as t be detrimental to public health, safety, or welfare, or be injurious to other property? Not so long as they have the reciprocal easement agreements. Otherwise there would have been a harm to adjaces. But since they have the agreement, I'm satisfied on point one. But on point one. But on point two, I don't find that the conditions on which the variance request is based are unique to the property. I don't think there's anything particularly unique about this property or its circumstances that make it undesirable to have, the required driveway, I don't see a particular hardship to the owner that would result as, as distinguished from a mere inconvenience that would res inconvenience that would result from requiring him to install a driveway other than, of course, the cost of paying, you pay the. But that's just a cost of doing business. I don't think that's a particular hardship that's a particular hardship. So I don't think it meets criteria two and three. And therefore I would bee voting against it. Thank you. But I wish them success either way. Thank you, Mr. Ali. Clarifying question do all criteria have to be met? Or. Yes yes yes okay, okay. Thank you, Mr. Ratliff. Yeah, I'm kind of looking at this maybe a little differently in that in my mind, the whoever the master developer was of this property obviously set it up for cross it up for cd recorded those easements and so while they may of way, there arr very distinct platted access points to this lot that are, that are that have legal access to a public right of way all fi, they're all recorded, according to the testimony. And I don't see I feel like that that that is unique to this p property and does not warrant the requirement that an additional access to the public rigded when those are already effectively four of them. And at least the way least the way I'm reading the plat, or because he's got two accesses immediately to the gott to Windhaven and then another one headed over, where you can rn go by Chewy's and turn back out. And they're all platted, recorded access points. So therefore they are legal access points by definition. And my is would that not meet a legal access point? But if it doesn't, even though it's not technicalls the cross access is counted as a point of access. Yes. Okay That that was my clarifying question. So from that perspective, in my mind they do meet the criteria for having the legal access points that are required by the ordinance without adding additional driveways to the tollway. So I would be supportive of the variance. Mr. Bronsky. So, I completely concur with Commissioner Ratliff as well as Commissioner Kerrey. I think that, this is an ideal circumstance to do exactly, providing the variance. And that's all I'm going to say. Okay I'm looking at it differently. I'm sorry about that, because you're like, although they have the shared access, but each like each lot is, is by its own. It's not like the, those development like shopping center where we have, like, certain access and like, and you can go from one, store to the other one. So I believe, like they do need, although, like, I see that it's too much to add additional access to the to the lot, but I believe, like, they don't meet, the ordinance. Yeah The hardship or. Yeah So for that, like, I'm going to so yeah be against okay. Thanks for all the input, my personal view is that, if our plan and our variance requirements and everything were able to be applied, absolutely, then we wouldn't be making a decision here. But I feel like we're being asked to evaluate it. I feel similarly, you could say that there is potentially no negative impe, but what's the real benefit of adding another access point along a service road where people drive 60 miles an hour? I see this as being a potential issue. I do believe that there is sufficient access, and so I wish that we weren't here having to ask for a variance on this, on this piece of property. With that said, I would I would move that we grant the applicant's request for a variance. Second, second. Okay. Well, I had two quick. So a motion by chair downs with a second by Commissioner Ratliff to approve the applicant's request for a variance. Item five, please vote. 123456. Opposed So the item carries 6 to 2. And they still have to bring this before council, right? No, no no we're good. All right. Congrats. Good luck. And I'll come have a meal once you guys get open. It's on me. No, no no no. Good evening everybody. Thank you. I've not been to one, we were going to move to it move to item 4A4B just to make sure there's no one here from item six. Oh, there is somebody here from item six. I asked earl going to go? We don't know. Okay. We don't know, but we've already moved into the non publicearing items. Right. All right. Sorry We'll go to item six and we'll come back to four a. I'm sorry. Thank you guys for being patient okay. Agenda item number sevised site plan Huntersglen five block A lots three R and seven R retail personal service shop and kennel, indoor pens, commercial pet sitting on two lots on 2.3 acres. Located on the north side of Spring Creek Parkway, 270ft west of Custer Road. Zoned retail applicant London Enterprises, Inc. This is for legislative consideration of a subdivision ordinance variance. Good evening, Mr. Chair. Members of the commission. My name is Rahul Pooladi, lead planner with the planning department. Welcome back. Thank you is a consideratg a replat, a revised site plan as well as a request for a variance from subdivision ordinance requirement for flat flat lot size. This exhibit shows the replat. This exhibit shows the revised site plan. Before going into details, I would like to provide you a little bit of background on this property in 2000. In 1997, a site plan was approved allowing construction of a medical office on lot three R. In 2020, the applicant submitted an application to subdivide lot three R into two lots, as part of that project, and the applicant requested two variances from subdivision ordinance. One variance request was to allow a 142 lot width for lot three, and also to allow the creation of a 1.6 acre flat lot as lot seven R. Sorry, let me go to my notes, both of these requests were approved by sorry both. Both of these requests were approved by the Planning and Zoning Commission, subject to the execution of a unified lot sign agreement that this agreement is yet to be executed. The applicant then submitted plans to allow minor modifications in 2023. Upon review, staff noticed that the provisions of the zoning ordinance, with respect to excess parking did not meet. Therefore, staff provided directions to the applicant. One of the options and one of the actually the first and recommended option was to, abandon the dedication of parking spaces from lot seven R to lot three R. And the other option was to provide a grassy swale to mitigate the stormwater runoff from impervious surface of the parking space. In excess. However, this solution would have caused a lot to lot drainage from lot three R to lot seven R, which is not allowed. In order to remedy this issue, the applicant decided to modify the. Let me put this. The applicant, decided to modify the property line to contain all 331 parking spaces in excess within lot 33 R, eliminating lot to lot drainage. But this presented a new challenge and this modification would reduce the size of lot seven R from 1.6 to 1.3, which was less than what was allowed as part of the variance approved back in 2020. As noted before, the approval of the original plan in 2020 was conditional upon approval of a unified Lot sign agreement and also with respect to the frontage requirement of the subdivision ordinance allows the minimum frontage of any non-coordinated lot to be reduced to 2420 four feet if the lot has one direct access to a public street. And the lot is greater than two acres, which in this case it is not. Here are some criteria, noted in the subsection 1.11 of the subdivision ordinance. When considering a variance based on the details provided in the staff report, this proposal does not meet criteria numbers one through three meeting only criteria number four for these reasons, the staff recommends denial of the variance request. If a variance is supported by the Planning and Zoning Commission. Due to the finding that unreasonable hard hardship or difficulties may result from strict compliance with these regulations and or the purpose of the purposes of these regulations may be served to a greater extent by alternative proposals. Staff recommends that the Commission's approval be granted subject to the approval of a unified lot sign agreement. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Questions for staff. Mr. Brounoff. Hypothetically speaking, if this application were to be denied, what other option would the property owner have in order to come into compliance with the ordinances? Abandon the, parking spaces dedicated from lot seven R to lot three R. In other words, eliminate the parking spaces altogether or simply transfer them to another lot. So currently there are parking, excess parking spaces that are currently on lot seven R, but are dedicated to lot three R if they abandon that by a replat then they won't have any excess parking. So in other words, just allow the parking spaces to remain on lot seven R correct. And that way the fact that they may drain onto lot seven R does not create an issue, right? Well and in that point, based on the proposed use on lot seven R, those parking spaces wouldn't be in excess, would not be in excess. Correct. All right. So.o I'm, I'm wondering why the applicant would not simply do that and not go to the trouble of having a new plat presented to us. The applicant is present here. But one of the reasons that they noted during plan review was that they anticipate the demand for parking spaces for this particular use that they have on lot three R would exceed what zoning ordinances requires for, the current uses. Ok. Okay. Now, did I read correctly in the packet material that an approval was granted for the present situation in error? So not in 2020. However, in 2020, we had a submittal in 2021 that was approved in 2022. It didn't involve any variance request. However, the parking calculaon was not done correctly and we didn't capture that error at that time. Unfortunately So when they came back in 2023, we noticed that and we tried to address it. So is this current application an attempt to undo the error that was committed in 2022, when the applicant submitted their application, that was not the intent. However, they they wanted to change the location of the dumpster enclosure and some other minor modifications. However, when we reviewed it, we noticed that we made an error in approving it back in 2022. Okay, well, if this is approved, will that have the effect of remedying the error? Correct. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ratcliffe, I guess I'm struggling with the whole what we're trying to achieve here, but maybe that's a question for the applicant. But if this is about the excess parking question, which is what it appears to me, could that not be solved with a private agreement between the two lot owners to address this whole issue? And not even require this change as part of the provisions in zoning ordinance, if we have parking in excess of 10% of the required parking, sos 10%, the applicants have have, a couple of solutio solutions to mitigat. One is to use porous material, t challenging based on the soil, the type of soil that we have in Collin County. And usually it's more expensive in terms of infrastructure that needs to put to be placed underneath that porous surface surface. The other option is to drain the, runoff stormwater from those parking, in excess to a grassy swale slash buffer, which can be done here. However, currently with this current lot situation, it will cause lot to lot drainage. So the use that's being proposed is the pet sitting use what is the current e that's requiring the additional parking today I need to clarify that the pet sitting use is on lot seven, and the parking issue is on lot three. The lot three The lot three was currently constructed as a medical office. However, the use is right now I believe retail, it was noted in the caption personal, a personal service shop. Sorry. It slipped my mind. It's a mix of retail and service currently. Yeah. Okay, so the opportunity for the what for the what we did before with the assembly area that could share parking is not really there because the hours of operation are similar. That's correct. Okay. Allat was my questions for now. Thank you. That was your questionour questo more questions for staff I wil t I'm assuming the applicant is here and wishes to speak to us. That is correct. Okay I have Co Costa mesa and Stephen Rocha. So I'm the civil engineer on that project, message group engineering, doctor Stephen Rocha. Yes, my name is Steve Ricard. I'm the owner of London Enterprises, and I'm the operator of the hair salon on the on lot three. So what we're trying to do is we're trying to, really make that, development kind of constructible, especially for lot seven. buildd build these additional parking spots, because Doctor Rocha needs them for his building for his service. So how many, you have, how many salons you have in your. Okay can I just go ahead? Yeah. So first of all, I would like to say that the commission previously, you know, approved this variance request. And so we still have the same amount of area. We still have the two lots just that were approved previously. All we're moving is one of the property lines by about 20ft, or 25ft from one lot to the other. So there's no big change. It's simply moving one of the property lines on the West side a little bit more north. And the reason why we're doing that is we need some more parking on lot three, the issue is that it used to be my medical office. And then because of changes in medicine over the lascine over 0 years, we don't need that space. And it's no longer viable to use it as medical space. So changed it into a hair salon and a pharmacy. And so the city has already approved about 6000ft■!S to be used as a hair salon. And as you know, in the hair salons, we have, stations, many different stations for hair technicians. And so what they d, what we have approved or what you've approved or the city has approved is so far we have 32 approved stations for ladies to or technicians to cut hair and for clients to come in. Well, you can imagine that on a Friday or a Saturday when things are very busy, we have 32 people we assume will be full. We have 32 people, technicians cutting hai. Well, then if you have 32 clients that come in who want their hair cut, well, then you have 64 people that need to be in the building, either to cut hair or to have their hair cut, while 64 people plus you may have a few, people who are waiting. So eventually you may need more than 64. Additionally we have the spaces that we need for the pharmacy, which probably is using about 7 to 10 spaces. So we very quickly realized that on lot three, we're not going to have enough spaces for us to fully function. So that is the reas reason why we're asking for increased increased parking. It's not because I want to spent of money, or I want to cover green sce or have excess concrete. This is not my idea of any fun, but we need the need te or we need the parking simply so we can fully operate without having people you know, surreptitiously parking their cars once or the neighbor's space, or out in the street. Thank you. Thank you, also, we added a little wiggle. Also, if you can see on that, on that lot, is, to comprise these, we have some water, water meters that that belong to building on lot three. So now we're going to be including these water meters in that lot itself, that little wiggle that's a little bit on the top. Questions Yeahissionere owner of lot three. So who is the owner of lot seven, he's a owner of both lots. I'm the owner of both lots or my compan, London Enterprises owns both lots. And you realize that by dividing these two lots, we had to create two variances years before. to create more variances because you're moving the lot line. Why are you separating these two lots, well, because it was very difficu to develop the back area. And so we wanted to sell this as a separate lot. And in fact, about two years ago, we did have a buyer who was interested in purchasing the back lot, which we'd never had before until we divided it into two lots. By adding that drive in the back, it makes that lot seven arehat , sellable. Okay, so that would add more tax revenue to the city too. So think about it. Okay Well, to grant the variance, we have to look for hardship. And what's the other like the can you pull up the. Yeah. So we kind of have to assess the situation and see if you meet the these requirements. So the hardship is that we would have had a challenge to, t challengee stormwater mitigation measures if we had these two lots and the and the, and using the parking lot from lot lot seven are for lot three are would have to add some to get some stormwater mitigation challenges. There So we couldn't get the flow from lot three. To cross across lot seven. And that would be a lot to lot drainage. So that's the reason we moved these parking spaces into lot three. So that we can use them for that lot. Thank you. Thank you Mr. Bernof. I just want to follow up a bit on Mr. Ratcliffe's suggestion here. Could the problem not be remedied by simply enteri a reciprocal parking space, sharing agreement with the owner of lot seven, so thaeven, so thn use parking self pardon, which is himself at the present time. It is. But if he's fixing to sell the lot seven to a third party. Yeah. Could you enter into an agreement with the third party buyer to share the parking spaces on lot seven, without changing the current division of the lots. That way you would not have excess parking spaces. We do have that, an easement to park, get a few parking stalls for lot three are on lots seven, but we still have the challenge of getting the stormwater vacated from a lot three, and that's the stormwater that's resulting from for that's the stormwater that's mitigated as a result of xcess parking spots. Mr. Bell, would a reciprocal parking agreement solve their problem without having to re plat the property, no, it would not. That's not an allowance get credit for off site parking to meet their demands, but that does not apply in an excess parking requirement. If they needed it to meet a deficit and they could get it from off site. But we don't have an allowance for, shared parking in excess. Okay. Well If you're looking for a hardship, I mean, the city approved something they shouldn't have approved. That sounds to me like a hardship. I don't know. Okay, I have vague recollections of the last time this came around, and I believe it was a three just figure out e piece. So I'm really not hot hay to see it back here again with another variance, did anybody bring sleeping? Okay. Are there any other questions for the appli applicant? Okay. Than. Thank you. What do you want to do guys? Yeah I think that's the that's the challenge with it. And it was the same thing last time. One thing I'm somewhat disappointed in is that we spent a long time on this shared sign ordinance last time, and requirement, and it's never even been don't know if that's because simply the lot didn't sell because that wasbect the time, the plan. It's such an odd looking deal and looking back on it, I regret that we probably allowed them to do this because it created exactly the situation we're looking at sir.. I'm sort of thinking that, we made our own bed. We have to lie in it in this case. But subject to getting that joint sign agreementt, is that something that. Yeah. Well, I mean, the joint sign agreement would bessd the lot. Right? But as the owner of both lots, then is it really relevant? The joint sign agreement is because the Replat back in 2020 created a sign that that was too close to the property line. The unified Lot sign agreement allows that three R and seven R to be t for the purposes of the sign ordinance. So it rectifies the sign issue, but th issue, but that's it. That's a minor issue, but it can be solved at some point. That's correct. Yeah So Mr. Bruno, I'll move that. We approve item six, subject to obtaining a joint sign agreement. Okay. That's a motio. Wow. Okay. All right, so we have a motion by Mr. Bruno with a second by Commissioner Lally to approve item six. Please vote. 1234567. I don't understand the whole thing. I'm just being honest. I don't get this at all. I like Commissioner Kerry a great deal, and I appreciate so that that item carries 7 to 0 with one abstention. And we can put the sleeping bags away now. Yes, please put the sleeping bags away. All right. Thank you. I hope you're not back here again because at this point, I don't know what we would do. All right. We're going to move back to our public hearing items. So if you'd read the call out for out for public hearing items and then move to four A and B at one. Yes, sir. Public hearing items, unless instructed otherwise by the chair speakers will be called in the order. Registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal requirements. I'm sorry. Considerations Agenda item number four a zoning case 2024 003 request to rezone from Central Business one to Plan Development. Central Business one to establish uses and development standards for mixed us on 107.0 acres located on the southeast corne r of Legacy Drive and Headquarter Drive. Headquarters drive tabled on August 19, 2024. In September 3rd, 20 2020 2024, petitioner CCI De 6501 Legacy Owners, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item four B is a concept plan and open space plan. Legacy West Edition block E, lots two R, five R through seven R and ten R professional. General administrative. Office. Restaurant. Retail hotel and 750 mid-rise res 750 mid-rise residential units on five lots on 99.0 acres located at the southeast corner of Legacy Drive and headquarters Drive. Zoned Central Business one. Petitioner CCI, ID 6501. Legacy owners, LLC. This item is for administrative consideratn, pending action on Agenda Item four, a this is a request to rezone from Central Business one to Planned Development Central Business one. This site is commonly known as the JCPenney headquarters site. Some of the original JCPenney campus has been subdivided and sold and are not a part of this request, including the single family subdivision to the east, which is part of the Legacy West development. The Bruce Glascock Park, the bank and retail stores at Communications, and Lot eight R, which is approved for a hotel developmen. This site was rezoned from commercial employment to Central Business 1 in 2016, which included an approved concept plan for an entirely nonresidential development. There were previously three attempts to rezone the property for a mixed use development in 2018, 2019 and 2020. These were eventually withdrawn or denied by city council, since that time, the site has been acquired by a new owner who has invested in renovations to the existing site, including significant interior restorations and upgrades to the courtyards located between the existing office building and parking garages. Of the one point 8,000,000ft■!S of leasable space in the building, approximately 560,000ft■!S are currently occupied. Before detailing the proposed changes, it is important to understand the existing central business. One zoning. According to the zoning ordinance, the purpose of the CB1 zoning is to permit a highly concentrated business center similar to traditional downtown areas of major cities. The zoning has exclusively been applied to the legacy area of Plano, including the shops at Legacy, Legacy West, and Granite Park. It allows for high intensity urban form with no maximum height, no maximum lot coverage, no minimum setbacks, and a min and a density of 174 dwelling units per acre, which is theich is the highest y allowed in all of Plano. Note that the CB1 district has a combined cap on multifamily unitsady been met with other developments. Additionally residential approval of a specific use permit or may be approved through a plan. Development. It is important to note that imporh the exception of additional mid-rise residential units, most of the proposed rezoning request is athin the existing zoning. Te applicant is seeking a plan development in order to facilitate a mixed use development. This will include office, hotel, retail and hoteld restaurants. Additionally, the applicant is requesting to allow up to 750 mid-rise or independent living facility units. It contemplates a concept plan and an open space plan accompany the request. The applicant is requesting the Open Space Plan to be a part of the ordinance. Adopting the zoning change, which would me the planw the rezoning process, including approval by Planning and Zoning Comm Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council. The concept plan would not be adopted. It could be changed with PNC approval at a to restrf the zoning and the proposed plan. Development stipulations. I will now walk you through the proposed concept plan and open space plan, starting with the concept plan. The area is shown in gy are outside of the proposed plan development and are not a part of this request. Plans include maintaining the existing four story office building and two parking garage, a new office tower at heights of three. Sorry, four new office towers at heights of three stories, 20 stories, and 221 stories in height. Two mid-rise residential towers at 20 and 22 stories in height. There also will be a three story townhome style building containing five units to buffer the existing single family to the east. Six one story restaurant buildings, a ten story hotel building. And 121 story building containing a mix of office, hotel and retail. The PD stipulations and open space plan are tied together with certain areas defined and tied to phasing requirements. First, the in the existing seven acre courtyard located between the existing buildings. Seven acres of open space surrounding the existing buildings. This will include four new recreational game courts, two new dog parks, a plaza with seating for 100 people and a half an acre pocket park with an within an existing medianA four acre pond and a perimeter trail. Two subareas are identified for additional open space where exact locations are not specified on the plan yet. This includes an additional two acres in the area surrounding the pond, and an additional half acre in the most southern block. Lastly, a five mile trail and sidewalk network ranging from 7 to 12ft in width at various locations is also proposed. In total, the proposal includes 21 acres of open space and five miles of trails and sidewalks. The proposed plan development standards for this district are quite extensive and includes the following sections shown on the screen for the sake of time, staff will focus on the areas covered in bold, but is happy to answer any questions about other sections as needed. The Environmental Health Area study section will be covered in a later part. As part of the Comprehensive Plan Analysis. Standards for the residential will include an allowance for up to 750 units, with no minimum lot depth, which is consistent with the standards for nonresidential development in the CB1 district. A minimum height of eight stories for most of the property single family, e will be a maximum height of three stories and a five story building. These must be designed within a townhome style and with individual entrances for each unit. A restriction on residential uses within a 300 by 300 square foot boundary at the intersection of Legacy and Headquarters headquarters, staff encouraged the applicant to further restrict the location of residential uses. As currently written, the concept plan could be modified to allow many more resideial towers than are currently shown. The applicant is proposing a network of internal drives. Staff encouraged the applicant to provide a gridded network of private streets that meet the city's standard mixed use type G cross section that is commonly used in other mixed use textures. Districts of the city. The applicant did not wish to use this throughout, and instead is committing to a system of internal drives in the areas shown in yellow on the plan. On street parking will only be provided in specified locations on the open space plan. It also allows allows the use of perpendicular parking between the restaurant area. This fails to meet the standards for internal street systems that is typical for mixed use developments. Phase one will allow up to 365 units based on the following requirements a minimum 560,000ft■!S of the existing building must receive a certificate of occupancy. This is the amount of sis the amounty occupied in the building. The existing courtyard shall be maintained. The open space shown in green on the image to the right must be provided. This is mostly the front and back yard space surrounding the existing buildings. With the addition of four new game courts, two dog parks and a plaza with seating for 100 people, one and a half miles of trails and sidewalks. A combination of existing and new must be provided. In summary, the applicant is essentially requesting an allowance for up to 365 units based on preservine existing building. These two would allow an additional 385 units based on the following occupancy of an additional 400,000ft■!S of space in the existing building, which is a total of 960,000ft■!S, or roughy half of the building. Installation of the pond with perimeter trail. Of note, there is an existing pond in this location. An additional half ann acre of open space in areas A and area B, an additional one and a half miles of trails and sidewalks for a total of three miles. Ten parking spaces must be dedicated to the Bruce Glascock Park. In summary, the applicant is requesting all the units to be permitted with preservation of open space and undetermined locations and a trail constructed around the pond. Earlier iterations of phasing required creation of a boardwalk area with direct connections to the restaurants and pond. Also, a requirement of another nonresidential building. These were removed over the course of the plan. Review Now for the comprehensive plan analysis. The subject property is within the Employment Center and Open Space Network of the future land use maps and residential uses are not supported in either category. Reviewing the applicant's plan for consistency with the future land use map was challenging due to the mismatch with the existing zoning employment center. Future land use designation. Generally corresponds with the comme corresponds with the commercial employment zoning, as there are intended to promote suburban campus like settings with no property's CB1 zoning generally corresponds with the urban Activity Center. Future land use designation, which are intended to create urban downtown like settings. The applicantas encouraged to fully commit to one or the other, either the suburban office campus or the urban downtown, and in the end, the applicant provided a blend that fails to meet either vision. As a result, the plan feels disconnected. Lacking a street network and development form that connects residential in a meaningful way to the nonresidential and open spaces for example, the residential towers are primarily oriented toward towards headquarters drive. The internal drive along the back side of the residential is mostly parking garages and surface lots, and both sides of the street. A less than ideal place to walk to nearby amenities. In 2023, the subject property was designated as Future Park on the Parks Master Plan, with a corresponding change to the Open Space Network on the future land use map. Designation as a future park signals a property's strategic location and meeting the goals and policies of the Parks Master Pl the Parks Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan. However, a property cannot be required to be used for unless y the city, unless or until the property is purchased by the city. The owner. The owner is po develop the property in accordance with its existing zoning, and to request rezoning for other types of development. A portion of the property is located within the H1 of the expressway Corridor. Environmental Health Map. Sensitive land uses require a study. However, no study was provided with this request. As you can seen the image on the screen, a portion of the residential is located within the H.R. one boundary in blue. To avoid requirement for the study, the applicant was encouraged to shift the building to the west or place the parking garages in these locations. Instead, the applicant is requesting PD stipulations that would allow the study prior to the issuance of a building permit. This is in violation of the ordinance, and there are currently no administrative procedures to review these studies outside of the zoning process. The request does notlyM policies. It is only meeting room five A and five B. The plan meets fails to meet action REM one as the mix of uses and the t support any residential REM five C recommends that key amenities be provided in early phases. Some of the amenities are provided, therefore conformance to this section is left to the discretion of the Commission. Next, a traffic impact analysis is required for this development. The applicant provided a Dia in the early reviews but failed to complete the review with engineering department. As a result, staff could not determine the traffic impact on the property and what mitigation should be ruired with the concept plan. The requirements for left turn lane, traffic signals, etc. would typically be tied to the concept plan approval at this stage. As a result, the request fails to meet the facilities and infrastructure policy of the future. Land use map. I'm sorry, fails to meet the facilities and infrastructure picies of the Comprehensive Plan. And to reca, this slide shows a summary of the comprehensive plan analysis. In mixed use, master planned developments including redevelopments, it is important for zoning to have balanced standards that are both flexible and firm, flexible enough to allow the developer freedom to execute the vision they desire. While firm enough to ensure commitments to the city's development standards are met withlopment standards are met with clarity and precision. Ultimately, staff finds that the request does not meet the level of commitment that is typically that is typical for large mixed use developments in Plano. Through the review process, staff identified areas where what was shown on the concept plan and open space plan wasn't accurately reflected in the written text of the plan. Development standards. When these were pointed out, the applicant applicant's typical typical response was to lessen the written requirement rather than to match the pictures. These includes commitments to a unified street design being exact on the location of residential uses, and establishing clear expectations for the standards and locations of open space. Additionally, earlier commitments to a boardwalk style connection between the restaurants and pond was softened and a commitment for another nonresidential building and phasing was remove. Another key example is the vision for the open space and the development. In January. The originalubmittal included improvements to the pond in additional open space at the south end of the property. By June, the applant had included the front yard of the existing office building and a sizable and boardwalk that staff viewedd positively as an attractive feature of the development. However, when staff pointed out that the amount of green space shown on the plan was significantly larger than the commitment of the planned development standards, the applicant's response was to significantly reduce the green space shown on the plan. According to the applicant, this was an error or misunderstanding of how the open space would be administered. By September, the applicant was no longer committing to open space in defined areas of the plan, except for those around the existing building. Additionally, the applicant retitled the plan as a and Planned Development stipulation as a conceptual open space plan to emphasize that there were no intentions to develop the open space as shown on the plan, the city does not administer open space plans in this way, and has never approved a conceptual open space plan. In summary, much of the proposed plan could be permitted by right under existing zoning. Therefore, this request boils down to an ask to add mid-rise residential uses while continued redevelopment and reinvestment in the campus is supported, there are significant concerns remaining. They include inconsistencies with the Comprehensive plan and incomplete Tia and no EIA analysis as required by the zoning. A lack of commitment to standards typical for mixed use developments in Plano, and a mix of suburban office campus form in aampus form in a downtown urban form that fails to adequately integrate residential uses in a meaningful way. Lastly, I'll go over the responses within the subject property. Property. We received three responses in favor, and within the 200 foot buffer, we received four responses in support one. Neutral and one in opposition for a total of six responses and citywide, we received 18 responses in support, one neutral, two in opposition, for a total of 21 responses. The zoning case and concept plan, as well as the Open Space Plan are recommended for denial. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. And I believe the applicant is here with the presentation as well. You can take a breath now, but don't sit down because there may be questions for you. Oh my questions. Oh look just presenter for this one. She's the presenter. That was a whole lot of information in that presentation, I, I'm not going to start. We'll Okay, who wants to start questions? If nobody's going to ask, I'm going to I'll start. I was looking in here for the same list that she just went through that basically said, these are the 5 or 6 reasons that we're saying don't do this. And I. Yeah, I probably keep scrolling by it. Oh, well, she had him broke. She had him broke out as bullet points. Yeah I think that's just for presentation purposes. Oh okay. So that's what I was looking for up there. But all right. So inconsistencies with the comprehensive plan we deal with that all the time Tia not completed. It's required right. That's correct okay. That gives me a problem H.R. analysis was not submitted required. Okay. The lack of Okay. The lack of commitment to typical standards. I'm kind of. Okay. We sometimes we get commitments,to kind of wave thee bit because of unique circumstances and then a lack of integration for residential uses. I think that's something they could maybe show that they have it staff's interpretations. One thing, but but they could make a case for that. But I struggle with if a Tia is required for us to make a decision and an analysis is required, I'm I struggle with that a little bit. I guess they could make a case of why they didn't have one, but I struggle with that. Mr. Ratliff, I'm going to take that question a step further because said something. Donna said something in her presentation that all the uses except the residential are allowed under the current zoning today. I hea. That's correct. Okay. In that case, would the Tia and H.R. be required for, for example, a new office building on that property? It would, yes. Would it be a zoning case or would it be a staff review? It would be with the concept plan, with the concept plan review at P and Z. . Correct. Okay. For Tia. Correct. But E J is only because of That's correct. Okay. The talking about are roadway're standards that are typical for mixed use is that correct? That's correct. So again back to the residential component. And then lack of integration for residential es. Obviously is related to residential. And the inconsistencies in the comprehensive plan number one is related to residential. So of the five bullet points up there, only the Tia would have been required were it not for the residential component. Is t. Ist fair? That's correct. I mean, they they could have had the same mixed use streets with nout be a requirement. Okay, so what I'm driving at is this is all coming down to a residential question. Is that correct. Yeah I think that's a fair assessment. Yes okay. That that that was just adding on to your discussion points. Is that really this is boiling down to a question about residential use and the corresponding submittal requirements to justify and allow us to make a decision about residential use? I think that's a relatively concise way to put it, I think the decision around whether or not to include residential here is a reasonable request and something to consider, but if wre going to consider it, we need to have one, two, three, four, five. You know, we need to have more information. I think, but again, the applicant has a presentation. We'll let them speak. But so let's, let's rather than debate rather than debate that right now, let's just are there clarification questions for staff similar to what I asked. Do you have to have this. Do you have to have this. But go ahead. One clarification clarifying question. There was a slide that talked about a commitment to either central business. One or commercial employment or what have you. Can you explain a little bit? I'm trying to understand what the, sure. So the existing zoning is very intense. It allows limited height lot coverage. So it's intended to be that very intensopment. We typically see that in the Urban Activity Center. Future land Center. Future land use designation, which this is not. This is in the Employment center designation, which recommends the more of the suburban campus like setting of the offices. So there's a mismatch between the zoning and the and the future land use recommendations. Okay Okay. But you like but all the surrounding areas around this, this PD with, right, properties to the north and to the east are the same CB one zoning. Yeah CB one zoning properties to the west and the south are the commercial employment. Employment right. There's other residential that is around. So it's not like we're. Yeah. No it's not necessarily. Yeah. So that's why again I think it's worth having the discussion. Just not sure we have enough of the stuff that we need to do it justice, Mr. Kerry. Yeah, a couple questions for staff here, I think I understand that there is no commitment to green space here. No, there's a commitment, 21, but it's undefined, right? It's around the existing building is the front yards. The back yards, the interior courtyard is committed. Other locations are not. And other than ter than thg requirements related to, residential, I didn't see any other commitments to any other building beyond the that accuras accurate. That the main commitment on that end is to occupy some of the existing building, which the first phase would be what's currently occupied, and the second phase would be an additional 400,000ft■!S to equal approximately half of the building. Right. So basically, they could immediately begin to build, multifamily because they've already met the first, criteria. Right There are some other there's some game courts, dog park, some, some, some site planning work to do, but largely, yeah. Okay. Thank you. I yes, on the street design, seven foot width, what have you. That's not the phase one is not contingent on them changing the street design to meet our standards. It's not. It would be required with development of the adjacent property per the PD stipulations. Second question, we use the same standard design in the adjoining properties that have the same CB1. Correct. This is not your Street section was originates from the urban mixed use district,mixed t has been applied in most mixed use locations across the city. Okay Commissioner Tom, thank you, Mr. Chairman. A couple questions. One is regarding the green space conceptual plan. Is that that also required, even if they didn't have the residential component or not, it would not be required. Okay. So that's completely because the applicant is proposing that to tie it to the phasing requirements of the PD stipulations. Okay. Gotcha. Second question is because of that residential components there, that is that still part of a conceptual, conceptual plan, or is the actual site plan where the building will be or is just like they can put the building anywhere on the campus. So currently they have this concept plan. If it's approved, then the next step would be preliminary site plans or subdividing the property to do it in pieces. Those would need to comply with thconcept plan, or the concept plan could come back to P and Z, not through a zoning change, but just through a simple consent item to modify to allow them to change the buildings. So they could essentially these, these buildings are, are set as shown in the concept plan, but they could be changed without a zoning change approval. Thank you. All right. Let's hear from let's hear from the applicant. So, okay, I will open the public hearing and we ll have the applicant, Andrew Lawson. Okay Good evening. Good evening, hello, I'm Andrew Lodeizen with Capital Commercial Investments, and we are the proud owner of the Park Legacy, the former JCPenney campus, thank you guys for the lateing our case. And I really want to thank staff. They've put a lot of effort into this project. It's not an easy case by any means whatsoever. And their effort has been noticed. Tonight I'm planning to share with you our acquisition story, our three and a half years of progress and our plan to make the park at legacy a best in class continuation in legacy West. Let's see if I can figure out how to work this. Oh it moves fast when it starts. When it starts moving, it just flies. All right. It's important to know a little bit about us. Capital commercial is a 32 year old real estate investment firm. We havpital preservation first and profit second. Our strategy focuses on acquiring high qu acquiring high quality, vacant office buildings in prime locations that require repositioning. Over the years, we've completed 220 transactions and we're currently the largest private owner of commercial office in the state of Texas. ms, creative ability to reposition and action first approach to al estate ownership, out of our 220 transactions, we've had eight large campuses, back in November, 19th of 2021, we closed on our seventh 6501 Legacy Drive. The former JCPenney headquarters. Now, we are drawn to this project because it perfectly aligneduis. Being in the City of Excellence adjacent to Legacy West and a high quality, arly vacant asset in desperate need of repositioning, during due diligence, we spent months exploring the facility and its surroundings. We carefully learned legacy. West is a close knit community of top tier businesses, and we knew we would need to bring something special to the activation of this prime location, we wanted to show this community who we are, what we do, and how we do things. So we elected to complete one of the previous owners commitments, so going back a little furtherittlk in 2017, the Kintetsu Corporation bought a portion of the site from the previous owner for the development of a luxury Japanese business travel hotel. Due to the previous owner's hardships, the site was left in an incomplete state, during due diligence, we thought about our neighbors, these businesses, their employees, and all the customers of those businesses, and we identified this eyesore as something we wanted to complete. So during our acquisitions, we included the necessary funds to complete the project. The project since been completed. And recently the hotel announced, 2027 opening, the Kintetsu Corporation has written a letter in support of our development, and the our development, and they've been great collaborators. Collaborators, we're very excited for the future success of this hotel. And the strong sends to the international community. Plano is in Texas is resilient, and we're always open for business. And we're happy to have contributed to that. Now, in addition to our successes with Kintetsu, we've spent the past three and a half years doing everything possible to make this facility marketable in today's post-Covid environment, we've added amenities. We have pickleball courts, we have game rooms, we have golf simulators full service gyms, grab and go markets, coffee bars, conferencing centers, cafes, a childcare facility. We have made the park and legacy the most highly amenitized building in the metroplex. We have completed all the deferred maintenance and repairs, from the mechanical rooms, eddy current testing on chillers and filters to removing I think it was 46 trees damaged in the Great Freeze, we spent about $22 million repositioning this campus and very importantly, we moved the JC Penny Corporation back into their former headquarters. Now, all these efforts combined allowed us to win the 2024 Co Star Redevelopment of the year, impact award, in our peers in the metroplex are starting to pay us great attention. Now what's very important to understand is we are an office owner. Our primary objective is to fill this building with top tier businesses. Achieving this in a post-Covid environment is a significant challenge where the national office market experienced a net negative absorption of 21 point 3,000,000ft■!S. Now, despite the challenge, we're beginning to see a little bit of an uptick in activity with a flight to quality and a growing preference for class A office and mixed use settings underscoring the need for a high quality development with an abundance of on site and offsite amenities, local successes have proven this with the offices at legacy, Friscogao Station, Hall Park, the Star, their office component components range from 80% to 100% occupied. Now, after we added every possible on site amenity in the building, we partnered with Boka Architecture to assist with the off site, the perimeter and surrounding lands. We landed on a suburban mixed use development now, multifamily is a necessary component to the success of the mixed us mixed use development, and it's a growing requirement for class A office users who on average, it's 54% of employees want to be in a live work play community. Now, with multifamily being the only use not approved under the current zoning, we knew we needed to bring something unique and special, so I evaluated 168 multifamily projects in the city. I quickly learned there is only two type one class A projects level 29, in the Kincaid. Now, both of these projects are at the top of the list of property tax generation on a per acre basis. After this identification, I wanted to find the best local developer that could push the limits of qualite to our site, it took me about six months to identify streetlights. streetlights. Residential, arguably the best in quality, located here in the metroplex is a pretty simple choice. Our after learning about their design driven approach to vertical development and their desire to join us in deploying capital in Plano and bringing something truly unique to the ci So I'd like to turn the mic over to my counterpart at Street Lights, Greg, not. Thank you, Andrew Gregg, Curtin Street Lights Residential, 2300 North Field Street, Dallas, Texas, as I just mentioned, my name is Greg Coutant with street lights, residential street lights is a DFW based design driven developer. We believe in crafting beautiful places, homes, and neighborhoods that lift the human spirit. We understand that We understand that a home is a testament to who these individuals are as people, and we utilize true design build operations, including in-house,, in-house construction, and branding to craft an experience that's unique in the market. Since our company's inception in 2011, the demographics of Who, renters are has been changing. Since that time. We've seen renters move from renter by necessity to a growing contingent of renters by choice. I forgot the controls here. Sorry about that, we've included a fewcluded a few of our, perspective or featured properties here that speak to the quality that our design, in-house design and construction teams build included for representative high rises here in the DFW metroplex. The first is McKenzie. You'll notice the traditional architecture here adjacent to SMU's campus that draws a lot of inspiration from from that existing red brick, we've been able to attract a very discerning demographic at this property. These are people that choose to rent because of the convenience and quality of life aspect that they're able to get from this, this housing option. Most of these residents have lived in the surrounding neighborhoods forst of them have kids that have grown up, have left home, and at this point, they're either winding down their career or staying close to their grandkids. It's a great opportunity for them to stay active in their existing communities and simplify life. We also have another property here that speaks to the traditional nature of our projects that really adhere to this, this demographic I'm describing. This is the Gallatin. It's a 20 story building in Dallas Knox neighborhood again, large outdoor spaces, a traditional architecture that has rhythm, it's balance, it has symmetry, and it evokes the emotion and the experience of your favorite boutique hotel. Another project here in the DFW metroplex, a little bit more contemporary, styled as the Oliver at the central, this project is adjacent to a large green space we find these residents really crave that outdoor experience, that outdoor amenity. They get from being able to walk out their doorstep straight into an urban park. And finally, the Christopher. This project is in Dallas's Uptown neighborhood. This is a use project with a grocery store, 40,000ft■!S of other f-and-b retail space, a 400,000 square foot office building immediately adjacent to Goldman Sachs proposed new regional headquarters. And again, what we've seen from this project is a huge demand from from from empty nesters and their ability to really, add a new demographic to this for rent pool. Traditionally, we've seen a lot of discerning professionals, which we still get in our marketplace, but these residents that have again raised their families and are looking for quality life above all else, is really who's street lights has has designed to cater to. With that in mind, we've we've got a rendering here of our proposed project. This is looking west with the rental townhomes in the foreground here on the left side. It's imperative for us to craft a very high end front door experience. And as we pull in off headquarters, our first view is of the existing garage. This is just five units that are really intended to create a visual barrier from that garage in the background. We've got a beautiful plaza area that leads into our front door with the tower beyond. We've taken great care to try and locate that density. 240ft from the existing single family lots so that we've got appropriate setback, and again, these townhomes are intended to create some use there in in that residential transition zone. Another 3D massing here as we look at leadership, the intersection of leadership and headquarters. Phase one on the far left, they're pulling that residential activity from the existing residential zones with the single family and the rest of legacy West on the eastern side of this site. And then that second future phase there again at the hard corner of the leadership intersection and headquarters drive. And with that, I'll turn it over to the rest of my team. Mr. chair, Commission bill Dahlstrom, 2323 Ross Avenue. And I also want to thank you all for the time tonight. What I complex and very complicated case. I mean, it's a very important case to the city. It's a very important case to this part of the city as well. But it's a it's a very important case for a lot of reasons, as was stated in the staff report three times before the application came forward to put multifamily on the property and was, you know, a couple of times it was more units at one more u. The last time was fewer units, I guess they were either withdrawn or denied. But PNC did recommend approval in all three of those, and we're proposing, again, fewer units on two of the two oa higher quality development in terms of sticks and brick, about 20 story buildings that are intended to be 100 year buildings, high quality and I would echo what what Andrew said, Street lights. I consider them to be the highest quality multifamily developer in the in the region, if not the country. I mean, they are outstanding and I was really excited when we wee bringing street lights to this project. They are they are superb and looking at the staff report, which I did several times, it seemed like, you know, our lists were consistent with the five issues that were outstanding. And I'd like to address those. One is the location design of the open space. The other is the street design standards. The third was the The third was the study and the fourth was the Tia. And I'm going to go through those, but I just want to reiterate something that Andrew said, you know, we're at a very sensitive time in the success of of this campus. It is a campus redevelopment. We're looking at a campus that was built with three, four stories, three stories, maybe two point 2,000,000ft■!S, but there is a need to reactivate it to bring in residential uses, to help it become a true, you know, reactivated center. And, you know, the uses for multifamily are consistent with literally what some of us, maybe a five, five iron away or maybe a drive away. They're fairly close to existing residential and legacy west, so it's not that far from an existing residential pattern. Obviously we've got s right nexs is a turning point for the success of this campus. And I applaupus. And I applaud the chair said about there is a good argument. There could be a good argument for residential in this property. We think there is, you know, the class A commercial, the class A residential that we're proposing all want the same thing live, work, play, all connectivity, walking and engaging community. But with regard to the location of and design of open space, we've got 21 acres we're proposing. Much of it is around the existing campus. There is a half acre in what we're calling, the area around the pond that will be determined that we ask to be determined at the time of site planning, in looking at the totality of this project, anytime from a planning point of view, you have to do boots on the ground and go out and take a look at the site. You don't just look at a two dimensional drawing and say, this is where things are going to go. What matters? Existing trees. And were there some significant existing trees out there? We don't want to lose you have to look at topography and there's some difficult topography you have to consider when looking at a developable site, what's also not necessarily apparent, but you've got to look at it a title report and see what easements are traversing the property. So you take a look at all these different layers in doing true site design and determining where the developable sites are. And for that reason, we know that the existing open space is given the proposed open space in areas B, A and, we need to do that level of design, that level of investigation. When we do our preliminary site design to determine where the optimal building site would be in order to locate our our to locate our our open space. But yes, Commissioner Kerry, we are committed to providing additional open space as well as the numerous trails and 4 to 5 miles of trails throughout the property that are required of us in the PD, Mr. Dahlstrom, you have two minutes left. I have two minutes. Okay I would like to speak a little bit about the street sections. Yeah, okay, let's let's do that, we'll defer to Don Powell on the street location of the multifamily. I think we're at a point where ate can agree where those can go, the t e as was stated, we were asking for that to be deferred. And then the t, I think there we've, our original Tia was based on 1400 units, we were proposing 750 far fewer units. And the residential units that will be there will take awayom e trips that would have been created by a more intensive retail development that's permitted by. permitted by. Right. Today, Don Powell spoke. Powell Thank you. I have 35 minutes of notes here and two minutes, I just want to challenge some conventional wisdom here. I'm Don Powell Boca Powell architects. I designed Granite Park. I did the master plan. Has seen the execution of two point 2,000,000ft■!S and a lot more to come. I'm here tonight to talk about what I think we need to be thinking about with regard to this master plan. CB one zoning conjures up city grid, straight line streets. Show me a straight line street around this site. Show me a straight line road on the site. Sometimes we let formulaic decisions drive our thought process. Parking on streets well, this redeveloping the front yard of the JCPenney headquarters. That's what we're reallylly doi. We're subdividing that yard. It's poetry. It's something that you is pastoral. And everything that I see we're talking about tonight is trying to integrate, if you will, a grid on top of it. Can we go to a slide that we've got in the deck here that I'd? I ask one of my designers just to superimpose a street grid on this master plan. The idea is that over 60% of this site is already developed, and I would love to say that we could take the 40% and make it feel at home with the 60%. The idea is that we really need to think about the streetscape, the sidewalks, the walkability. Where do we get the Katy Trail atmosphere established in this open space? Where do we get meaningful, programed, activated public spaces? We want to develop those as we go, but right now I will tell you there is only one building type in the Unit States that can go forward in this economy. Are we are we are in and that's high rise and thae multifamily at the highest quality. I am so excited to have street lights on this team. They can bring two residential towers here that can go and be prosperous and feed the momentum to get this project up and running. We also have a hotel, a 300 hotel. been mentioned tonight. We also have 125 key integrated mixed use tower. We've been thinking about wa to activate this, but what I keep running into is our walls. We can't do this for this reason. We can't do that for this reason. I'm asking you folks just to let us have this is a PD that we're going for. We want to use that unlimited height, that unlimited area. But we also know we have a responsibilityve a responsibility to be good citizens. And we want to put the green space where it matters to people on the perimeter, as well as people who exist on site. I believe that with our partner with street ligh make this residential component a game changer for repopulating this office for repopulating this office building. When I did Granite Park, until we built the hotel, they restaurants came on, it took off the hotel and the restaurants totally transformed Granite Park. Bu transformed Granite Park. But what I'm telling you is granite wants residential. Now to everybody wants to add high end it's not subject to the to the way the wind is blowing. People who are empty nesters like myself, my wife and I moved out of a two acre lot in Parker seven years s ago. We experimented with living in a high rise. We haven't left in seven years. We love living in a high rise on the Katy Trail and Uptown, and walk four blocks to the best restaurant selection we could have. People who live in these street lights projects will have great access to those restaurants, and Legacy West. I just hope that you'll folks, let us have a moment to really show you what can happen with this site and unleash us from the square peg in the round hole. There aren't any straight streets here today. I don't believe that a grid is going to make this place more mixed use, friendly. Thank you, thank you. Do we have anyone other than the applicant registered to speak? , let's do this. I'm going to close the public hearing, but we may have some questions for you. Okay, so I'll close the public hearing and. I think we're. Just a little history, maybe to start with. When they were building this before they even started the foundation of this place, I wandered this property, and then, as it was being built, I may have snuck on site more than once to see it construction at the time, so very familiar with the, the property and, and everything that wen everything that went on around it. Editors. When it was getting started and looking at what's out there now, I can say that I think that it met the vision of the developers in some part, but the developers also weren't. Maybe at the time aware of how life would change. And so it's created a unique ite situation out there, I could see this being a business park, but I do think there's room for the residential and just the fact that the areas to the west of it or it, excuse me, have shown great success by integrating residential with the business, this feels a little more unique. There's not a lot of discussion around retail, but there's already retail nearby, I think a couple of things that were brought up. One is lookings property and the way the layout has been, you know, you don't necessarily have to recreate the boardwalk, but that idea of restaurants right e water looksa winner. But it doesn't look like that's what's committed to now. I can't tell that in here. It seems more flexible, like you've asked for flexibleI'm not asking a question yet, so. Okay, so I guess that's the questions. Looking at some of this, it sounds like tharea be is kind of vague, like we don't know what's going to happen there. And that leads me to a point I want to make, which is I think I served on council at the time when the Haggards tried to bring r there, the Haggard area, and they kind of came in and they asked for kind of alst a blank check, not quite. They said, here's a vision that we have kind of for the area, and it didn't pass anywhere. I think it it failed PNC and then it was appealed to council and it failed council. And then they came back with a more developed plan that had met the criteria, traffic impact analysis that included residential, that included, restaurants and all of that kind of stuff. that kind of stuff. And everybody was really excited about it, including the neighbors, in the in the residential next door, who frankly, at the very beginning of all of our complaints around high density, they're the ones that kind of sparked the whole thing. And in the end, they came to support it because there wass going to happen. And so that's a little bit of the challenge here. And I'm just stating my opinion. This is just the rest of the commission may have, difI absolutely believe that high end residential will do very well on this. On this space. I believe that roads shouldn't be square. There's a lot of things about this from a development standpoint I look at and like, and I would love nothing mor enk exactly like that fancy three dimensional view with all of it built up. I don't hear in here something that says we're going to start the hotel tomorrow. I've heard. Well, it's supposed to open in 27, but I don't hear hear anything that says it's part of the plan. It's required before we can do something else. And I agree with you. A hotel on there changes the feeling of what's going to happen on this site. An apartment building and no other building, because the requirements are you just build out the space you got. Doesn't feel like something's happened. When I worked in construction, we would do tilt up wall panels and we'd spend months on site and everybody would say, when are they ever going to do anything? And then one day we'd still stand panels and suddenly they said, oh my God, there's something going on there. Your architect's looking at me and says, okay, this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. So the same thing here is the thinn is we're going to fill up a building that's already there and throw up an apartment tower. I don't care how high, howat tof nothing else is happening, it's going to feel like, oh, we approved we approved a multifamily development. That's all. It's going to feel like. Doesn't even matter how high the quality is. So piece of this, you know, staff makes some, some good points on their deal. But to me, it all comes back to we need to check off a couple of more boxes that are requirements. And then I feel like, okay, now we can we can say, does this development look like a complete project for us? That's properly phased and does show something besides filling an existing building? I understand how important that is. I do understand how important that is, Mike is 21 acres is in green space. Does that meet the requirements of the of the development? In what? In what way does it meet the requirement? I'm not sure. The number of acres it's 21 acres would be the requirement overall in the end, yes. As part of the developmen Yes. Okay And the reason I ask that is because, for example, at Collin Creek Mall, we approd the total green space and it included like the six foot strips around the edges of the apartment. So I'm not going to split too many hairs there if they're meeting the requirement, it is important that the residential have connectivity to all of that green space. And so I wasn't clear that this showed how that was happening in this particular space, that it said there's a whole bunch of trails. I would say, show me exactly how residents are going to very easily move from the residential into the other spaces. That to me, didn't stand out as something, your concept is beautiful, that three dimensional kind ofnal kind of n airplane or a drone view or whatever. I would love to see that there. We just got to get there, and I think it's going to require a little more work. But all right, I've talked for quite a while, it's late. I'm happy to listen to Mr. Ali. You've got your start with you. I will add on to what you said. to what you said. Not so handc it's a questn for the applicant. It's been four years of coming back and coming back and coming back. Or maybe this is a different applicant. The base requirement for the Tia and the Iaha. What's the rush to? Why not complete that and at least check. So some of those boxes those boxes appld not require a Tia or the. So there's a limit. So with regards to the EAA we incorporated mitigation measures as part of the PD. So we're planning to mitigate that. And we're going to do the study. Once the zoning was approved to confirm what's in the PD's horse before the cart or cart before the horse. However you get it, it's study then mitigation. Rightght. Right. So when you look at the e existing residential that is in the EAA zone. We incorporated the same mitigating measures into our PD that's seen throughout these other projects. So you're saying that you're using the other properties for studies as your guideline for your mitigation? Well, let me clarify that the PD stipulation does not require those mitigations. It requires a study at the time of permit with mitigations such as does not require those mitigation measur mitigation measures. Okay. And that would be okay. So the study is the threshold requirement, not the mitigation, am I putting that correctly? I think as staff reads it, the mitigation strategies are are possibilities of mitigation but not requirements. Okay And, traffic impact analysis study. That's a benchmark requirement. That is required. Yes. And we did lower our Tia threshold last year with the new street design standards significantly. So that's why the previous request did not require a did not require a Tia. And this one does. So we did create a Tia and it was on y development. We had a lot more office and multifamily at that time, and we r time, and we received some comments, which Kimley-horn is here to address today that they require a revised iteration.ould But, you know, with that same concept as this development evol evolves, there will be continue kind of scooches and reconfigurations of the plan as users come along for office space or hotel uses. Roads may tweak a little to the left, and we want to comply. And there'll be a kind of a remodification and resubmission of the Tia. So what we'vehown that in the region, the multifamily is a contradictory use to the office, which we could do as much as we want to. Right now. I and it actually helps the minimal trips per day, as opposed to what the current zoning is. I think here's what a plan to be fully approved, regardless of what business function finance technology what have you, specificity and threshold and triggers and guardrails that neednd guardrails that need to be met for something to be approved, with the understanding that things might change. But a there's a reason why we call it a concept plan right? plan, right? Yeah. You know, you know, and it feels like the answer here is. Things might change. The concept might change. So we don't think that requirement threshold needs to be submitted and that I'm struggling with that. No, what I'm saying is what we generated and provided to the city was a worst case scenario of traffic. So as we the development evolved, the actual density has reduced. So the traffic counts will reduce. Right. So we've already provided the worst case scenario. You provided that engineering hadmments. Right. Ao the engineering department, t ee state of that Tia, there was a lot of corrections done. So there was no actual analysis of proposed. So that that analysis hasn't occurred because the Tia was not submitted in the condition corrected form. So why not submit a corrected form? So he's with Kimley-horn and he can address some the back and forth with the city. So maybe I'll save us some time. Just in general general, t having a properly submitted Tia for this level concept plan for generally. How many of you would that be? Kind of a game you're not going to move forward with this. That's a gateway. So you can talk to it all you want, but yo but you're not going to move forward tonight. So I'm just you can talk as much as you want I d of at this point where we're like, we need we need the ante, you know, to stay in the game. So I just don't want us to spend a lot of time talking through stuff that isn't beneficial to us moving forward. Right. We all want to look at this pr look atd say, yeah, let's consider this because it's an important project for the city. project, t to be able to check off some of these boxes and say, we've we've dotted our I's, crossed our T's. Now let's make a decision. Even if it flies in the face of what the comprehensive plan, you know, re comprehensive plan, you know, recommends. We've done that before. Absolutely. Right. Yeah We just feel like there's a couple of understand coming from your point of view that says, look, we've already submitted a Tia. That was for a lot more traffic than what we're going to generate now. So it's really meaningless. It's not for us to do our job properly based on staff's recommendation we need. We need the Tia, the HRA. I think the language can be changed. Perhaps that says,d. P, look, we're we're held to a mitigation standard based on the results of our study, which will be provided by X date, something like this. Right. So again, we can continue with the conversation. But I just want you to know up front you're probably not going to go anywhere tonight. Okay not we're not going to vote yet or anything. There's been no motions or anything. I think I want to see. Do you want to continue with a presentation, or do you guys want to take a minute and just talk for a second about what? How you want to move forward? Because I, you know, I want us to make smart decisions. Bottom line in the meantime, can we have some other comments up here, we absolutely can. So I don't know where you want to start, Michael Hess okay, Mr. Bruno, Mr. Chairman, I agree with everything you said. Okay a project of this magnitude I think needs to be nailed down for us to evaluate it properly. When you're going to have that many tower built, high rise buildings, whether they're residentia, whether they're residential or business, of 20 stories or more, plus the hotel, plus the existing JCPenney building, plus the restaurants, I think that traffic analysis is a big deal. Okay, you know, and so is the EIA. And I would like to know specificalbuildings aree located. There was so much so-called flexibility built into the PD standards that I don't know that the concept plan is going to be whate're going to wind up with in the end. So we're going to be approving guesswork. Yeah, I understand that. I understand, yeah. Mr. Kerry yeah, I think I share most the comments made up here. With that said, you know, these guys have done some good work, some great work, I've been inside their office and they're doing some wonderful things there, my challenge there, my challenge is our comprehensive plan, prohibits multifamily here. So I just star. After several years of working on a comprehensive plan. Okay. So I'll start there, I hear that the multifamily is necessary to continue to fill out the office. I'm a little lost on that. Frankly you know, I hear that there's only that te kind of building that's viable. At this point. And that is a, you know, luxury high rise that very well may be true. What I don't know is what'sviable in 2s or 15 years, because today Plano is struggling with the number of things that we thought was true then. And so, you know, I think that's something to consider. I wonder what the occupancy rate on all of the other multifamily that's proximate to this. And then how viable the multifamily here will be. And then, you know, I have to lean into all the comments that have been made, just about the uncertainty about the project. Not that I think that I think te gentlemen won't build a fabulous project, but our charter here is to make sure that we're we're voting on it in a more defined manner, I think. ■And so, it's e that they'll deliver, but those things are concerns to me, as well as the things other things that have been expressed. So, I guess that's all I have to say. Thank you. Anyone else? Mr. Ratliff? Yeah, I'm kind of where you are, Mr. Chairman. I like the concept of the project. I think if we can take what's on the screen memorialize it in sufficient detail in the PD, I like what you're presenting, I, I learned, I learned a phrase many years ago that said back the jockey, not the horse. Unfortunately, in planning and zoning, we got to look at the horse, not the jockey. And so this is about land use. It's not about who's at the microphone, because the land use survives. When you all leave, and so as much as I like your team and I think y'all are bringing the right talents to aside to some degree. And make sure that what's documented in the PD, the devil is in the details. And so some things just so when you get a chance to go work on this s work on this some more, I think we've got to nail down, you kno, resi to be on lot seven and ten. If that's not true, we need to know that if it is true, if it is true, we need it memorialized. We've got to know what the traffic is, what the environmental health study issues are with the residential because the resident, the FHA study for a three story residential product is different than an FHA study for a 25 story residential product. It's a different study and has different results in different issues, and we need to know what those are based on the experts doing those analyzes. And, and then I really would like more specificity on your phasing plan. I think you've heard some of the concerns that that phase one, basically we can build today. Phase two, you could really build with very I don't want to call it minimal, but but no other vertical construction o forward. And I, I personally am not comfortable with that. I think there think there needs to be some other vertical construction before phase two of the residential could go forward, but again, the devil's i. We wad specificity about how that's going to be accomplished and in what order it's going to be accomplished. I do think there's a place for this project here. g ideas nailed down, and youdown,y have your arms around it, but what we've been presented doesn't document those things. And so for me to get me to yes, I need. So thank you, Mr. Bronsky. Well, II mean, we can tick off our GM one. I really think that we're beingmely generous in ascribing our GM five B and the phasing to something that's already existing versus something that, when we wrote that originally were looking at construction as a process rather than filling in what you've already got. If I'm going to sign my name to a findings form, you're going to have to come with a lot more than what you've got. The city has put a lot of effort into our comprehensive plan, and it's very meaningful. It's meaningful for the residents. It's meaningful for the businesses that are here. And frankly, it's meaningful for us. And not coming with an appropriate EAA, not coming with a traffic impact, wanting uso look at pictures that staff says don't really match or line up with some of the text of what you're providing. The open space issues I mean, you've got a good idea, but you are a mile short right nowrom finding success and I think it's possible. it'st for me right now, no. Absolutely no. Okay. They're hearing kind of the same thing over and over again. But Mr. Ali just to wrap it it up, I've approved multi-million dollar intangible asset investment, so am I. I am very comfortable with approving something with a quote unquote vague concept plan. But even with those things, for it to go down my approval chain, they are guardrails and what you're hearing is table stakes are for Tia. They're guardrails that we need to even be comfortable enough to dig into the meat of what looks like it's a good looking plan. So I'm almost begging you guys to meet those guardrails for us so that we are comfortable that we are comfortable actually having a much more meaningful discussion. Do you want to add anything like I agree with everything because everybody is repeating the same thing. I like the project. I think it's like the there's a room for multifamily in my opinion. I like the idea of multifamily, like mixed use with retail, with offices and yeah, but we need like more, concrete, plan to look at. Okay. So it sounds like that, I don't know, we've kind of had a debate without having any kind of motion or anything else goin or, but I think we've we've sent a message that will help, come bag that at least warrants reasonable dialog. And we my guess is you're not going to get a unanimous vote out of this, but you need something that allows you to move forward, feeling comfortable before you even go to council. And so that's kind of where we sit. So, you know. Well, so I guess my question would be this. My preference would be to table this. I don't want to say no because I no because I don't think we're at a point where we can say no or ye, so the feeling more is more of a hey, how do we, you know, we table this and I guess the question becomes is, you know, how much time do you need? So, yeah. Okay. Hang on one second. Well, I know we've got multiple options b options, but I want to see what they say before I say, okay. Here are our options. And because we can accept a motion and a second on any number of things, can I add to that? How much time does staff need. Yeah. Assuming there's timely submittals of these other items. Yeah Yeah. And they may not. They may say no, take a vote so we can turn around the reports in a week or two. I the last mission we didn't get full comments on the Tia. So as long as we get a, you know, we can be within a month, as long as we get the full comments and time to work through it. Okay. So that's your you're you're pretty quick. It sounds like staff might, I think the wild card here is the HOA analysis. I'm not sure how much time that requires to complete that study. And then we'll need time to analyze it. And, obviously make sure that the stipulations or concept plans are, incorporated. Honestly, I think October 17th wn always table again if they're not rea ready. May I have a quen regarding the plans? Because I like the comments that Commissioner Ratliff mentioned that we wanted the details of the where things are on the lots. I think within a week I can understand the Tia may be done, but would that be sufficient time to create all the yeah, well, I think I think that's, that's to me the phasing is a different question because we're almost not willing to even consider it. Right. The phasing is a question. Once we've got our guardrails in place, then we can have a dialog around phasing and decide we want to accept it or not based on what they're presenting, so that's kind of where I'm at with that. To me, them making a decision about their phasing is something they would have to do separate. I'm not asking them to come back with something that's guaranteed to get our approval or denial. It's more a case of we've got an incomplete proposal in my opinion, because we're missing some information. We need to make a decision. So, Mr. Chairman, I just. I'd like to point out this is we've already tabled this issue twice. Yep. And as a matter of fact, I specifically asked the question at the last meeting, were we going to be able to get this done? And I was assured that everything was in place. They brought it forward, it sounds to me the staff had several issues and problems, and so I frankly, I'm ready to vote, and it seems to me that, if they time, they probably should have thought about that and gotten some things submitted, timely, I hear you. And so we can go through that process, I guess,e, I would, if this group is going to table this, I would like it to do it with the expectation that we're going to get we're ge fully developed plan. And so guardrails are nice, but then we're going t So I would like te the fully formed plan if I'm going to look at this again. And so that would be my vote as opposed to tabling it and it and getting a next step, because I'm not sure that's in anybody's best interest. I understand to me that the deal to come back wh something less developed and understanding that that's already something we've asked for, and that runs the risk of them getting a you know, a no vote. So, Mr. Brounoff, yeah, I thin there are two possible paths to getting a more fully fleshed out pro out proposal, ws what we want plan A, which would be my preference is to table suf time to enable them to accomplish that. Have thethe stf review it and get it to us in a form acceptable to be voted on if for any reason that is not feasible B and I'm I'm not advocating this as not advocating this as as my first choice, but I'm saying it is a plan B, it is not as harsh as it sounds. Plan B would be for them to withdraw the application, work on it, and get it in shape, and then refile when it's, you know, in finished form. That would be and I would leave that choice up to them. At this point I'm not going to. Well, and that's where I'm at with this is that I'm just I'm trying to get them to a point to where they can make that decision. If we table this for until October 17th meeting, well, they've got four weeks roughly going to rust our Tia and H.R. and everything else we need to do, or they're going to come back and say, well, we want to actually take another look at how we can phase this. Yeah, and I'm not wanting to dictate it. I'm just wanting to give them sufficient time to make a decision that is an option for them to make it. Yes. They want to. Yes. So here's what we're goi what we're going to do. We're going to, be the 21st. Okay So I'll accept motions for anything at this point because now we're going to go through our. Well, I'm not trying to be funny about it. What I'm if somebody wants to make a motion to just simply deny the case and it gets a second, we're going to have a vote. I mean, we'll go that direction. If somebody wants to move to approve it, we'l Or we a motion to table. So we're going to go through our steps the way we're supposed to get to a decision. So Mr. Bronsky, you have the floor. So I move that we decline this, for agenda item number four, a, as staff has suggested. Okay, I've got a motion. I've got a motion. Do I have a second? I guess microphonekay, so we have a motion and a second to, to to deny, deny the applicant's request and for a mr. Ali quick denied, is there any barrier or cap for them to bring this back or resubmit? They could simply appealy wante. That's correct. They could appeal to council, but denial of the case starts the two year waiting period. So they would have to come back and request a waiver unless they have significant change. T significant change. That's right. They would have to make the request based on making a significant change. As a and frankly, I would argue that half of the things that we've asked for would be significant changes. Who determines significant change Commission's discretion. Yeah. So I mean I would submit to my part of my motion is that if they half of , it would be very significant to produce an e H.R to produce a Tia. I mean, those things thosee all admitted that those are significant things holding us back right now. So we've defined them as significant. All right, all right, all right. Made your point. You made your motion. We have a second. Let me let me guys, we have a motion and a second. All rightll right. Thosn favor of saying of denying. And that's three those opposed okay. So that that does not carry that motion does not carry Mr. Ratliff make a motion. We table this meeting. For further consideration. Okay. I have ahaa motion. So I have a motion by Commissioner Ratliff with a second by item four a to the Ocr 21st meeting. So can we have discussion, I don't know discussion, I don't know what discussion we're going to have that's going to we're making a we're making a motion to table without even knowing if that's something they're looking for or even going to be able to meet. They have they have they have o. Once we've tabled it, they can decide what they want to do. They can come back to staff even before October 21st and say, we want to withdraw our applicatio, but let's. Mr. Ratliff, you want to amend your motion or not? No. I have a question. Mr. Whether it's legal or for Mike. They tiy could choose to withdraw. Is that correct? They could. Yes. ay. I just want to make they could they could choose. They can make a lot of choices between noand October 21st. They have lots of options. The procedurally what will happen is the notice will be preserved wio this will be on the schedule for October 21st with a request to withdraw. That will be the like. Would it be enough time? Do they have enough time to if they want to do like a full conceptual so we can understand, you, like in addition to the. Well all right. So they. Would you all right clarify I misspoke earlier. The denial of the not e two year waiting period, just approval. My apologies. Okay. So but I don't want to circle back. I'm trying to move us through this one step at a time. And we can ask that the applicant, if they they want to delay to a later date. Here's my understanding and my guess. One is they get a Tia and H.R done in four weeks? Potentially in four weeks? Potentially they can get it done. Potentially staff could do their analysis right. I don't think in four weeks they're going to be able to come back and tell us, hey, we've got a new the hotel has decided they're going to break ground and we can commit to that. I don't know that they're going to be able to do that. So I just think they need more time. Right. But I don't necessarily want to table next year or Decer November. We they need a short time frame to take some action and whatever that action is up to them. We're not we don't want to dictate it up to that point. Mr. Dahlstrom approached. He did. maybe before we vote, it would be interesting to hear what he has to say. It would be to me. Yeah that's fine. Okay I approached because we did not want to recommendation of denial. I, yoe coming from. October 21st. We will shoot for that. We will work real hard to meet that. Thank you. Thank you. And if you can't, you may have other options. So let's go ba So let'e have a motion to table till October 22nd, 21st and a second. So those in favor of tabling till October 21st 123456. Those opposed two okay. Item four A is tabled until October 21st by a vote of 6 to 2. I need a motion on item four be moved to tablees well. Okay, motion by Commissioner Ratliff with a second by Commissioner Lolly to table item four B to October 21st. Please vote, that seven opposed one, so that item carries 7 to 1. Thank you. Thank you guys I, I hope we can figure out a way. This is one of th imI think, in the city from a redevelopment standpoint. It's a huge deal. So let's just get itt right. Okay Do we have any public speaker items? Anybody speaking? No no. Okay. We are