FEBRUARY 5, 2024 >> Chair Downs: THANKS FOR JOINING US TONIGHT. IT IS NOW 7:00 ON FEBRUARY 5th AND I'M CALLING IN TO ORDER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >> COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PE SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON TH CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THES ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY INFORMATION. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE TO CONSENT AGENDA. >> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTE UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I SEE WE HAVE A PERSON ON ITEM C BUT THEY'RE JUST AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: GREAT. WOULD ANYONE ELSE LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? SEEING NONE, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> [OFF MIC] >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WAS UNABLE TO JOIN US THIS EVENING. MOVE TO ITEM 1. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDE. 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 MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIO. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY, EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDE. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. PUBLIC HEARING ━ REPLAT: PRESTO MEADOW OFFICE PARK ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 3R ━ PROFESSIONAL/ GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE O ONE LOT ON 0.9 ACRE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COIT ROAD, 920 FEET SOUTH OF LEGACY DRIVE. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-429- NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE. APPLICANT: REDDING-MCHARGUE PAR. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JOHN KIM, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ITEM 1? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE OUR AGENDA ITEM NO. 1 AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM 1 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. ITEM 2. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING ━ PRELIMINARY REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLAN: COIT CROSSINGS ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 1R ━ SUPERSTORE AND CONVENIENCE STORE ON ONE LOT ON 22.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COIT ROAD AND MAPLESHADE LANE. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY D. APPLICANT: WAL-MART ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS KATYA COPELAND, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? MR. LISLE. MICROPHONE PLEASE. >> Lisle: IS THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT TO ADD SPACE FOR THE CONVENIENCE STORE? >> THE PURPOSE OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT IS TO PROPOSE EASEMENTS RELATED TO THE ADDITION OF THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND FUELING PUMPS. ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, CLOSER TO COIT. IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO CURB CUTS. >> Lisle: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. OTHER THAN THE APPLICNT TO ANSWER QUESTIONS, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2, PRELIMINARY REPLAT, SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY TO APPROVE ITEM 2 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. WE'LL GO TO ITEM 3. YOU CAN READ 3A AND B TOGETHER. >> I WILL DO THAT. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3A. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-021 ━ REQUEST TO REZONE 5. ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE, 175 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVAR FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHE. TABLED ON JANUARY 2, 2024. PETITIONER: FAIRVIEW FARM LAND COMPANY LTD. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3B. PUBLIC HEARING ━ CONCEPT PLAN: VILLAS AT PARK ADDITION, BLOCKS A-C - 25 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED LOTS AND 5 COMMON AREA LOTS ON 4.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE, 175 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD. TABLED ON JANUARY 2, 2024. APPLICANT: FAIRVIEW FARM LAND COMPANY, LTD. BOTH ARE LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN. THIS REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED WITH BUILDING HEIGHT, FENCING, AND SCREENING . THE REQUEST IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE A 25-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. ON THE SCREEN HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THIS ZONING CASE WAS HEARD BY THE COMMISSION ON JANUARY 2, 2024. THE COMMISSION TABLED THE CASE TO TONIGHT TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RELATED TO THE CONCEPT PLAN AND PD STIPULATIONS. THAT WILL BE SHOWN AND DISCUSSED IN LATER SLIDES. HOWEVER, EVEN WITH THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE, FINDINGS STILL REMAIN AS A REQUIREMENT WITH THE APPROVAL OF THIS ZONING CASE. SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE ORIGINAL CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE SAW JANUARY 2. AND THE UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN. THIS IS A COLOR RENDERING OF THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS PROVIDED BY THE APPLICANT. WITH THE UPDATED CONCEPT PLAN THERE ARE A NUMBER OF CHANGES THAT WERE MADE. THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN HIGHLIGHTS THOSE CHANGES. STARTING WITH THE REDUCTION IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS FROM 26 TO 25 UNITS. WITH THE LOT REDUCTION, THE MAXIMUM BUILDING LENGTH WAS ABLE TO COMPLY WITH THE SF- 8 ZONING. A ZONING. THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT REMAINS THE SAME. HOWEVER THE PD STIPULATION WORDING HAS BEEN EXPANDED TO INCLUDE THAT OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS, PATIOS AND ROOF DECKS ARE ALLOWED ABOVE THE THIRD STORY. THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE SETBACK PROVISION WAS EXTENDED BY TWO FEET TO 35 FEET INSTEAD OF 33 FEET. THIS WAS ABLE TO BE EXTENDED DUE TO THE REDUCTION IN THE LOT UNIT COUNT. A STIPULATION REQUIRING A METAL FENCE TO BE BUILT ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE STIPULATIONS FOR SAFETY MEASURES, AS MENTIONED BY THE COMMISSION AT THE LAST MEETING. FINALLY, THE SIDEWALK ALONG THE MU STREET LABELED STREET B WAS INCREASED BILL TWO FEET TO PROPOSE A SIX-FOOT SIDE SIDEWALK INSTEAD OF A FOUR-FOOT SIDEWALK. SHOWN ARE ADDITIONS, SUBTRACTIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT. THE STRIKE THROUGH INDICATES THE REMOVAL OF A STIPULATION . STIPULATIONS WITH NEITHER OF THOSE INDICATES NO CHANGE WAS MADE FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING TO TONIGHT ON THE STIPULATION. AND HERE ARE THE REMAINING STIPULATIONS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK CATEGORIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AND THE REQUEST REMAINS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WITH THE REDUCTION OF THE SINGLE LOT, THE DEVELOPMENT NOW COMPLIES WITH THE ALLOWED MAXIMUM DENSITY. FINDINGS AGAIN ARE STILL REQUIRED FOR THIS CASE DUE TO THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHT. WE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS WITHIN 200 FEET FOR THE ZONING CASE. AND 17 CITYWIDE. TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED FOR 25-UNIT INFILL DEVELOPMENT PROJECT. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OPEN SPACE NETWORK DASHBOARD AND GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS DASHBOARD WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE PROPOSED BUILDING HEIGHTS DO NOT ALIGN WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR THAT REASON THE REQUEST WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS. SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE ZONING CASE AND THE CONCEPT PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT WITH A PRESENTATION. AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ARE THE MU STREETS BEING DEDICATED TO THE CITY OR ARE THEY GOING TO REMAIN PRIVATE? >> DEDICATED TO THE CITY. >> Brounoff: SO MY CONCERN IS IF MAINTENANCE IS REQUIRED TO THE STREETS, THERE'S AN ENTITY ESTABLISHED TO HAVE THE RESPONSIBILITY TO TAKE CARE OF IT. >> CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME? >> Brounoff: MY CONCERN WAS IF, FOR EXAMPLE, THE STREETS SHOULD NEED REPAIR, LIKE TO REPAIR A POTHOLE, FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT'S DEDICATED TO THE CITY THEN THE CITY IS RESPONSIBLE TO TAKE CARE OF THAT ISSUE. OTHERWISE THERE WOULD NEED TO BE AN ENTITY ON THE PROPERTY AUTHORIZED TO DO THAT. LIKE AN HOA. >> THAT'S CORRECT. WITH ANY PRIVATE STREETS WE REQUIRE THAT THAT BE IN PLACE FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES. >> Brounoff: OKAY. >> Chair Downs: MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: JUST A QUICK QUESTION. SO THIS PROPERTY IS GOING TO GOING TO BE FENCED IN, I PRESUME. RIGHT NOW THE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING SEEMS TO CROSS ACROSS THE PROPERTY TO ACCESS CHISHOLM TRAIL. IS THERE GOING TO BE AN ACCESS PATH, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, THAT WOULD BE MAINTAINED TO ALLOW EASY ACCESS TO THE TRAIL FOR THESE PROPERTIES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE IT. THE NEIGHBORHOODS TO THE NORTH? >> THE MULTIFAMILY HAVING ACCESS TO THE CHISHOLM TRAIL? >> Olley: UH-HUH. >> I'M NOT 100% SURE ABOUT THAT BUT I DO KNOW THAT THIS PROPERTY IS PREPARING TO HAVE DIRECT ACCESS TO THE CHISHOLM TRAIL. >> Olley: BUT ALL THE ACCESS FROM THE PROPERTY? >> WILL THE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE BE ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS? >> Olley: RIGHT. >> LIKELY NOT BECAUSE THERE IS A STIPULATION THAT THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME LANDSCAPING ON THE NORTH SIDE IN ADDITION TO A FENCE. >> Olley: OKAY. LAST QUESTION. ON THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY ACTION 3, IF I'M READING IT CORRECTLY, THIS CHECKS EVERYTHING EXCEPT FOR THE BUILDING HEIGHT. >> CORRECT. >> Olley: THAT'S A FAIR ASSESSMENT? >> CORRECT. >> Olley: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. JUST ONE QUICK CLARIFICATION. BECAUSE I READ WE'VE ADDED THREE STORIES PLUS THE ROOFTOP DECK. AND I READ THE LANGUAGE A COUPLE DIFFERENT TIMES. AND I'M CONFIDENT WE'VE GOT IT COVERED. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE, FOR THE RECORD, THAT WE HAVE THE FOURTH FLOOR IS NOT CONSIDERED A STORY BECAUSE WE NOW DEFINED IT AS AN OUTDOOR LIVING AREA. DOES THAT PROVIDE ADEQUATE PROTECTION IN THE FUTURE SO THAT SOME AMBITIOUS HOMEOWNER DECIDES THEY WANT TO CLOSE THAT IN, THAT THAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS PD. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. I BELIEVE WE HAVE THAT PROTECTION. >> Ratliff: OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. THANKS TO STAFF. REGARDING THE HEIGHT. IT SAYS IT'S INCONSISTENT WITH THE RGM-1. I DIDN'T SEE ANYWHERE -- MAYBE I MISSED EXACTLY HOW INCONSISTENT IS IT? TOO HIGH? TOO LOW? MAYBE I MISSED IT LAST TIME BECAUSE I WASN'T HERE LAST TIME. >> SURE. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS ONE TO TWO STORIES IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS CATEGORY AND WITH THIS REQUEST PROPOSING THREE STORIES, THAT IS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND THEREFORE WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS. >> Tong: BUT THIS WAS A COMMERCIAL SITE CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL ATTACHED, BUT IT HAS TO GO WITH THE RESIDENTIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR TWO STORIES? >> IT'S STILL IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS CATEGORY. AND WITH THAT IT'S SUBJECT TO THOSE BUILDING HEIGHTS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD -- THE SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. >> Tong: GOTCHA. THANK YOU. >> MIKE BELL? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. YWE APPEAR TO BE OUT OF QUESTIONS FOR YOU, MS. COPELAND. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'M ASSUMING THE APPLICANT -- >> YES, IF WE COULD HAVE PHYLLIS GERALDO AND WARREN PACKER COME TO THE PODIUM. >> LADIES AND GENTLEMEN OF THE P&Z. MY NAME IS WARREN PACKER. MY COMPAN IS P. CUSTOM HOMES. I USED TO BUILD LOTS IN PLANO BUT THERE HAVEN'T BEEN LOTS HERE FOR A LONG TIME. WE'VE BEEN BUILDING HERE SINCE 1985 AND IN TEXAS SINCE 1977. JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS. WE ARE DOING THE SAME PRODUCT, SAME FLOOR PLAN, SAME EXTERIOR IN THE COLONY OVERLOOKING THE LAKE. THE ROOFTOP DECKS ARE VERY, VERY POPULAR. PEOPLE REALLY LIKE THEM. YOU KNOW, THEY'RE ENTERTAINMENT AREAS. YOU CAN HEAR YOUR NEIGHBOR BUT YOU CAN'T SEE THEM BECAUSE THERE'S A MINIMUM SIX-FOOT WALL IN BETWEEN. BUT EVERYBODY THAT LIVES IN THESE -- WE HAVE ANOTHER PROJECT THAT WE'VE DONE IN FARMERS BRANCH. THAT'S THE SAME PRODUCT AND IT'S DONE VERY WELL EVEN THOUGH THERE'S NO VIEW. SO WE'VE CLOSED DURING COVID AND UP TO NOW, PRE-COVID, WE'VE CLOSED OVER 50 UNITS RANGING FROM 700 TO $1.3 MILLION ON THIS PROJECT. SO IT'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL. WE ARE EXCITED ABOUT COMING TO PLANO. WE FEEL LIKE THERE'S A NEED FOR HIGHER-END LIFESTYLE HOME IN THIS AREA. THERE'S PLENTY OF DEMAND FOR IT. THIS PROPERTY THAT'S BEEN SITTING HERE UNDEVELOPED FOR 100 YEARS. JUST ON THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, THESE ARE 3,000 SQUARE FEET UNITS AND YOU CAN'T PUT A 3,000 SQUARE FOOT UNIT ON A 2500 SQUARE FOOT LOT AND THREE BEDROOMS, IT JUST DOESN'T WORK. OUR FIRST FLOOR IS AN OVERSIDES TWO-CAR GARAGE BIG ENOUGH FOR AN F-150 WITH A TRAILER HITCH. AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER BEDROOM DOWNSTAIRS THAT'S 11x15 WITH A BIG CLOSET. AND THEN YOUR NEXT FLOOR UP YOU HAVE A MASTER OF 15x16, MASTER BEDROOM AREA. ANOTHER BEDROOM THAT'S 11x15, ALL WITH THEIR OWN BATHS. AND THEN THE NEXT FLOOR YOU HAVE THIS 50x25 KITCHEN/BREAKFAST/FAMILY ROOM, ALL OPEN. WINDOWS ON BOTH SIDES SO IT CREATES THE SAME FEEL THAT YOU WOULD HAVE IN A MUCH LARGER HOME. SO PEOPLE REALLY LIKE THAT. THE NEXT FLOOR IS 1,000 SQUARE FOOT OF UNAIR-CONDITIONED OPEN ROOFTOP. THERE'S A GRILL UP THERE, A BATH UP THERE WITH A CLOSET, GRILL FRIDGE. EVERYTHING THAT YOU NEED TO HANG OUT. AND YOU CAN SIT ON YOUR COUCH WITH YOUR PHONE AND LET SOMEBODY IN THE FRONT DOOR. THEY CAN GET IN THE ELEVATOR AND COME ALL THE WAY TO THE ROOF. WE PUT ELEVATORS IN EVERY UNIT SO FAR. WITHOUT THAT EXTRA HEIGHT AND THAT EXTRA STORY ON TOP, YOU KNOW, WE CAN'T BUILD A UNIT THAT HAS BIG LIVING AREAS AND BIG BEDROOMS, CLOSETS. AND THE ROOFTOP, REALLY IT'S ONLY 10 FEET ON THE STAIR COPY STAIRCASE AND THE ELEVATOR. THE ELEVATOR MEZZANINE THAT COMES UP TO THE TOP FLOOR. THAT'S REALLY ALL I HAD. PHYLLIS HAS A PRESENTATION. IT WON'T TAKE LONG. IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU, SIR. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING. I'M PHYLLIS GERALD, CITY CENTRIC PLANNING, REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTS TONIGHT. MS. COPELAND HAD REVIEWED THE CHANGES THAT WE HAD MADE TO OUR PLAN. SO I WON'T GO THROUGH ALL OF THOSE AGAIN. I DID WANT TO POINT OUT THAT THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT ROOF DECKS AND SO I PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL PHOTOS OF WHAT THOSE WILL LOOK LIKE. YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY ARE CONSTRUCTED ON THIS PROPERTY. AS YOU CAN SEE, AS MR. PACKER NOTED, THE ONLY ENCLOSED AREAS WHERE THE STAIRWELL COMES UP OR THE ELEVATOR. THE REST OF THE ROOF WOULD BE OPEN FOR THE VARIOUS AMENITIES THAT ARE ON TOP OF THE ROOF. THERE WAS CONCERN AT THE LAST MEETING ABOUT PRIVACY FOR ADJACENT PROPERTIES. WE ARE ABOUT 220 FEET FROM THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL TO THE APARTMENTS TO THE WEST. WE'RE ABOUT 325 FEET FROM THE NEAREST SINGLE-FAMILY BACKYARDS. TO THE NORTH WE DO HAVE APARTMENT DEVELOPMENT. THE MAJORITY OF THAT ADJACENCY IS PARKING LOT AND OPEN SPACE, ALTHOUGH THERE ARE A COUPLE OF APARTMENT BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALONG THAT BORDER. IT'S CERTAINLY NOT OUR INTENT TO INVADE ANYONE'S PRIVACY WITH THE ROOF DECKS. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS ONE TO TWO STORIES FOR NEIGHBORHOOD DESIGNATIONS. BUT THE PLAN ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT THE VARIETY OF BUILDING HEIGHTS, BUILDING TYPES AND LOT SIZES BE CONSIDERED. AND WE ARE, WITH THIS PROJECT, BRINGING A HOUSING TYPE THAT IS NOT ELSEWHERE IN THIS GENERAL AREA. IT'S AN AREA THAT HASN'T SEEN ANY NEW HOUSING DEVELOPMENT IN A COUPLE OF DECADES AND WE DO BELIEVE IT WILL HELP REVITALIZE THE U.S. 75 CORRIDOR. AND THERE WAS A QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT MAINTENANCE. THERE WILL BE A HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION THAT WILL MAINTAIN THE COMMON AREAS AND THE VISITOR PARKING SPACES, MAILBOX, EXTERIORS, THAT TYPE OF THING. BUT THE STREETS WILL BE DEDICATED AND MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. AND I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT Y'ALL HAVE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES THAT ARE AVAILABLE FOR GUESTS, ET CETERA. IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS AND THERE WAS A SPECIFICANCE- AMOUNT? AND OF THAT AMOUNT -- IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE ONE HANDICAPPED PARKING AND IT'S RIGHT BY THE MAILBOX. IS THAT ALL THAT'S REQUIRED? WE HAVE TO HAVE ONE HANDICAPPED PARKING SPACE IN THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT. >> THERE IS A MINIMUM VISITOR PARKING REQUIREMENT IN THE SF-A ZONING DISTRICT. WE DO MEET THAT. WE ALSO HAVE THE TWO DRIVEWAY PARKING SPACES FOR EACH UNIT. SO WE ARE IN COMPLIANCE. I CAN'T SPEAK TO THE NUMBER OF HANDICAP SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED. >> Chair Downs: I'M ASSUMING IT'S HANDICAPPED BECAUSE IT'S HASH MARKED ON HERE. >> YES. >> Chair Downs: THIS IS NOT A GATED COMMUNITY? >> NO, SIR, IT'S NOT. >> Chair Downs: VERY GOOD. LET'S MOVE ON TO COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YEAH. THE FACT YOU HAVE AN HOA IS GOING TO BE HELPFUL TO MY QUESTION. YOU SAID YOU BUILT THESE IN OTHER PLACES. AND THESE TOP FLOORS WILL BE USED SIGNIFICANTLY FOR ENTERTAINMENT. AND I'M CURIOUS. HOW MUCH PROBLEM YOU HAVE WITH NOISE AS PEOPLE ARE PARTYING UP THERE AND WHAT KIND OF REMEDIES WOULD BE AVAILABLE TO MAKE SURE THAT THIS NEW NEIGHBORHOOD YOU'RE CREATING IS SOMEWHAT UNDER CONTROL? >> AT BOTH COMMUNITIES WE INSTITUTED A WAY [INAUDIBLE]. WE DON'T ALLOW THAT. [OFF MIC] WE HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING. [INAUDIBLE] ONE MUSIC OVER HERE AND ANOTHER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WALL. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. THANK YOU. >> Ratliff: MS. JARRELL, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE YOU HAVE, THE AERIAL SHOT OF THE FOURTH-FLOOR DECKS. BACK ONE MORE, I THINK. YEAH, THERE YOU GO. SO YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SIX-FOOT WALLS. AND I SEE IN THIS RENDERING THAT THAT'S TRUE BETWEEN THE UNITS BUT I CAN'T TELL ON THE END UNIT, IS THAT ALSO A SIX-FOOT WALL LOOKING OUT OR IS THAT A SHORTER WALL LOOKING OVER THE NEXT-DOOR PROPERTY? IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S SHORTER BUT I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. >> ON THE END UNITS, WE HAVE WALLS DOWN SO THEY HAVE MORE OF A PANORAMA VIEW OF THE SKYLINE. IN BETWEEN THE UNITS WHERE THE FIREPLACE IS, THOSE ARE SIX FOOT. >> Ratliff: OKAY. THAT WAS -- MY CONCERN, I WAS THE ONE THAT WAS WORRIED ABOUT THE PRIVACY OF THE NEIGHBORS. IT'S THE VIEW OFF THE SIDES WHERE YOU'RE OVERLOOKING THE NEIGHBORS, NOT THE VIEW OUT THE BACK. >> THERE'S ONE PLACE WHERE THAT OCCURS, ONE OF THE BUILDINGS [INAUDIBLE]. IT OPENS UP THE WHOLE PANORAMA BECAUSE THEY CAN SEE STRAIGHT AHEAD. ONE BUILDING THAT'S A LITTLE BIT LOW. IF YOU'RE WALKING DOWN THE STREET ON THE SIDEWALK IN FRONT OF THOSE APARTMENTS -- >> Ratliff: I'M TRYING TO GET A LOT NUMBER. IT'S LOT NUMBER -- BLOCK A LOT 9, I THINK IS THE ONE I'M WORRIED ABOUT. LOWER LEFT-HAND CORNER RIGHT THERE. THAT'S THE ONLY ONE THAT REALLY LOOKS LIKE IT MIGHT HAVE A PRIVACY ISSUE. >> YES. WE'RE WILLING TO CHANGE THAT. WE WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE THE OTHER ONES BECAUSE YOU GET UP HIGH LIKE THAT [INAUDIBLE]. JUST THE SKY AND TREES IS SOMETHING TO LOOK AT. >> Ratliff: SURE. OKAY. I'M NOT TRYING TO NEGOTIATE IT FROM THE DAIS, I JUST WANT TO EXPRESS MY CONCERN ABOUT THAT ONE UNIT. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: I KNOW IT LOOKS LIKE, AND ASSUMING IT WILL STAY THERE, THERE'S SOME VERY LARGE TREES THAT WILL PROBABLY SHIELD PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING GOING ON ON THE GROUND FROM THAT TOP FLOOR. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE PICTURE YOU SHOWED OF THE ROOFTOP VIEW, THERE APPEARS TO BE AN OVERHEAD COVERING BETWEEN THE TOWERS OVER PART OF THE OUTDOOR DECK. IS THAT A PERGOLA AS DISTINGUISHED FROM A SOLID ROOF? >> IT'S A PERGOLA. A LOT OF PEOPLE DO WANT TO PUT A METAL ROOF UP THERE FOR THE RAIN AND THE HEAT. IT'S OPEN ON BOTH ENDS BUT A LOT OF PEOPLE DO ADD A [INAUDIBLE]. >> Brounoff: SO IT COULD BECOME A ROOF IF THE INDIVIDUAL HOMEOWNER WANTS IT THAT WAY? >> A LOT OF THEM HAVE ADDED ROOFS. PROBABLY 30% OF THAT. >> Brounoff: BUT IT REMAINS OPEN FROM THE FRONT AND THE BACK? >> OPEN BACK AND FRONT AND COVERED ON THE TOP. YOU'LL SEE THE PERGOLA UNDERNEATH IT BUT IT'S ON TOP. >> Brounoff: MR. BELL, IF THEY PUT OVER THE SOLID ROOF, WOULD THAT MAKE THIS A FOURTH FLOOR OR NOT? >> IT WOULD NOT. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK COMMISSIONER RATLIFF ABOUT -- I GUESS THAT SHOULD BE WHEN WE CONFINE THE COMMENTS. SORRY. >> Chair Downs: IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. >> Lisle: I DON'T. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S ALL OF OUR QUESTIONS. OH, DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. WE HAVE SOMEONE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON -- NO, I'M SORRY. IT'S THE NEXT AGENDA ITEM. MY APOLOGIES. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. YOU WANTED TO ASK A QUESTION? MICROPHONE. THANK YOU. IT'S ON. >> Lisle: THE PRIVACY ISSUE. I DON'T FEEL LIKE IF SOMEONE CHOSE TO WALK TO THAT WALL AND LOOK OVER THERE, SOMEONE WOULD BE IN THE PARKING LOT OF THE APARTMENTS. IT'S NOT LOOKING IN A BACKYARD. ARE YOU SEEING SOMETHING I'M NOT SEEING? >> Ratliff: THAT WAS MY ONLY CONCERN BUT CHAIRMAN DOWNS MAKES A POINT. THERE'S A BIG TREE THERE. IT LOOKS LIKE PROBABLY WILL REMAIN ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. I'M NOT SURE WHO OWNS THE TRUNK OF IT BUT IF THAT TREE REMAINS, IT'S PROBABLY NOT AN ISSUE. THAT WAS MY CONCERN LAST MEETING AND I THINK THAT CHAIRMAN DOWNS MAKES A LEGITIMATE POINT ABOUT THE TREE. >> Lisle: I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW ABOUT RIGHT TO PRIVACY WHEN YOU'RE WALKING TO THE PARKING LOT. >> Ratliff: I'M WORRIED ABOUT SOMEBODY LOOKING DOWN INTO SOMEBODY ELSE'S WINDOW. TWO STORIES ABOVE. THAT'S MY CONCERN. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? EVERYBODY -- COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION REGARDING THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS ON THE HEIGHT. MAYBE THIS IS FOR STAFF AGAIN. SO IF WE WERE HAVING A PROJECT HERE THAT'S JUST CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, WOULD THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENT STILL APPLY? THEY CANNOT GO UP TO MORE THAN TWO STORIES? >> BY RIGHT TODAY THEY CAN GO MORE THAN TWO STORIES. I BELIEVE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL IS UP TO 20 BUT IT WOULD BE SIGNIFICANTLY LIMITED BY RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. THEY WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GET NEARLY THAT TALL. BUT IT WOULD BE MORE THAN TWO. >> Tong: MORE THAN TWO. RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: I'M GOING TO JUST SAY THAT I'M GLAD -- IT LOOKS LIKE THEY MET JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING WE TALKED ABOUT FROM THE LAST TIME. AND THAT WAS THEIR CHOICE WHETHER THEY SPLIT THAT BUILDING OR REDUCED IT. HONESTLY I'M GLAD THEY SPLIT IT RATHER THAN REDUCED IT. IT SIMPLIFIES THINGS FOR THEM, OBVIOUSLY. BUT, YOU KNOW, LAST TIME I WAS IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT AND NOW I'M MORE SO IN FAVOR OF THE PROJECT. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: MAYBE A QUESTION/COMMENT. IF THIS WAS THE SAME KIND OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS THAT NEIGHBORS BROUGHT INTO THIS PARTICULAR LOT, I WALKED THE LOT TODAY. THE APARTMENT ON THE EDGE IS ON ELEVATED GROUND. 45 FEET -- AND JUST DOING ROUGH MATH -- GIVEN THAT THIS PARTICULAR LOT IS SLIGHTLY DEPRESSED, DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT WILL STAND OUT SIGNIFICANTLY ACROSS THAT SKYLINE. IS THAT ASSUMPTION FAIR OR AM I DOING SOME BOGUS ARCHITECTURAL MATH HERE? >> I LIKE YOUR MATH. >> Chair Downs: ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT THE BASE LEVEL FOR THE NEW DEVELOPMENT IS LOWER? >> Olley: IT'S LOWER. >> Chair Downs: IT'S NOT GOING TO BE 45 FEET COMPARED TO THE APARTMENTS ABOVE. IT MAY FEEL LIKE 30 FEET. >> Olley: WHICH THE CONCERN IN BUILDING HEIGHT FEELS LIKE IT'S THAT TRANSITION IS WHAT WE'RE MOST WORRIED ABOUT. >> Ratliff: EXCEPT, IF YOU LOOK AT THEIR PLAN, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO RAISE IT UP OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. THEY'RE GOING TO PROBABLY END UP PRETTY CLOSE TO THAT FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION, I WOULD GUESS. TO BE OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. >> Olley: GOTCHA. >> Chair Downs: I DID THINK OF ANOTHER QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. JUST FROM A CLARIFICATION STANDPOINT, BECAUSE I'M THE ONE THAT BROUGHT UP THE FENCE LAST TIME. IT SAYS A METAL FENCE. I'M ASSUMING THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING OTHER THAN CHAIN LINK. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: OKAY. FOR THE RECORD, THE APPLICANT REPLIED WROUGHT IRON. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: I AGREE. THE APPLICANT DID PRETTY MUCH WHAT WE ASKED THEM TO GO DO. I THINK THE GAS STATION HAS A FENCE ALONG THEIR RETAINING WALL. SO SOME CONTINUITY, JUST FROM AN AESTHETIC LEVEL. THAT WORKS OUT. I STILL DON'T UNDERSTAND THE VIEW THEY WILL BE SEEING BUT THAT'S NOT A LAND USE ISSUE HERE. SO, WITH THAT, I'M IN FAVOR. THE ONLY THING I CAN THINK OF THAT COULD PERHAPS GO THERE IS IF WE DEDICATED IT INTO SOME KIND OF PARKLAND GREEN SPACE BUT, AGAIN, THE CITY WOULD HAVE TO PURCHASE THAT FOR THAT TO HAPPEN. I'LL PUT A MOTION THERE AND MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 3A AS SUBMITTED. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF TO APPROVE ITEM 3A. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. BEFORE WE CAN MOVE TO ITEM 3B, SHOULD WE DO OUR FINDINGS FORMS OR CAN WE DO 3B FIRST? WE'LL GO AHEAD AND DO 3B FIRST AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE A SHORT BREAK TO DO OUR FINDINGS FORMS. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 3B, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023-021. AND THE ABANDONMENT OF EASEMENT NO. 2 VOLUME 4536, PRIOR TO OR WITH APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY PLAT FOR SITE DEVELOPMENT. >> Chair Downs: VERY WELL DONE. SO MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF TO APPROVE ITEM 3B. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0 AS WELL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR LISTENING TO US. I THINK IT WILL BE A NICE PROJECT. OKAY. FOR THOSE THAT ARE STILL HERE, WE NOW HAVE A PROCESS TO COMPLETE OUR FINDING FORMS ON THIS CASE. SO WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THAT FOR A MINUTE. [FILLING OUT FORMS] >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 4A. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-029 ━ REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON ONE LO ON 3.4 ACRES LOCATED 1,440 FEET WEST OF NORTH STAR ROAD AND 940 FEET SOUTH OF PLANO PAR. ZONED RESEARCH/TECHNOLOGY CENTE. TABLED ON JANUARY 2, 2024. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4B. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN: FLEXTRONICS CAMPUS ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 5 ━ DATA CENTER AND ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ON ONE LO ON 44.3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF NORTH STAR ROAD, 615 FEET SOUTH OF PLANO PARKWAY ZONED RESEARCH/TECHNOLOGY CENTE. PETITIONER AND APPLICANT IS PLANO PROPERTY OWNER, LP. BOTH ARE FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I AM PARKER McDOWELL, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIFIC-USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATELY OWNED ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION ASSOCIATED WITH THE PROPOSED DATA CENTER. ON THIS SLIDE YOU CAN SEE THE AERIAL WITH THE PROPERTY OR SUBSTATION, AREA OF REQUEST HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. ON THIS SCREEN IS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY FOR THE PROPOSED DATA CENTER HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE. AND A SUBSTATION BOUNDARY HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. THIS SUBSTATION IS ASSOCIATED WITH A 463,000 SQUARE FOOT DATA CENTER THAT IS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE RESEARCH/TECHNOLOGY DISTRICT. THERE ARE EXISTING TRANSMISSION LINES THAT RUN ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY BOUNDARY WITHIN A 150-FOOT EASEMENT THAT IS EXISTING TODAY. THAT WILL REDUCE THE POTENTIAL VISUAL IMPACT BY HAVING EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE ALREADY ON SITE. THE PROPOSED SUBSTATION IS LOCATED ADJACENT TO EXISTING AND PROPOSED DRAINAGE AND FLOODWAY EASEMENTS. ENGINEERING HAS DONE A PRELIMINARY REVIEW AND NOTED THE SITE WILL NOT BE IN THE FLOODPLAIN BUT IT NEEDS TO BE NOTED THAT THE CURRENT LIMIT OF THE FLOOD STUDY SPLITS THE PROPERTY, AS SHOWN ON SCREEN. THE ENTIRE IMPACT OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE DATA CENTER WILL NEED A NEW FLOOD STUDY TO DETERMINE WHAT IMPACT AND MITIGATION WILL BE REQUIRED FOR THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AT THE SITE PLAN STEP, WHICH WILL BE THE NEXT STEP AFTER THE ZONING. THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED FROM THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER CATEGORY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. STAFF FINDS THIS REQUEST CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS PROPERTY. STAFF DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES CITYWIDE. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ZONING CASE FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. AND FOR THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TAKE ACTION CONSISTENT WITH ZONING CASE 2023-029. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THE APPLICANT DOES NOT HAVE A PRESENTATION BUT IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IT LOOKS LIKE WE HAVE THREE. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. JUST KIND OF A GLOBAL QUESTION. WHY WE NEED AN SUP FOR THIS. IT FEELS LIKE AN ACCESSORY USE TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT. I GUESS I'M JUST CURIOUS AS TO WHY THAT'S EVEN NECESSARY. >> YES. BECAUSE SUBSTATIONS IN THE RT DISTRICT ARE NOT ALLOWED BY RIGHT. EVEN THOUGH IT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE DATA CENTER, IT STILL NEEDS THE SUP TO BE OPERATED. >> Ratliff: SO IS IT A PRIVATELY-OWNED SUBSTATION? >> CORRECT. THIS ONE WILL BE OWNED BY THE PROPERTY. >> Ratliff: SO IT'S NOT A SEPARATE LOT. >> CORRECT. >> Ratliff: I UNDERSTAND YOUR LOGIC. IT JUST FEELS LIKE AN ACCESSORY USE TO ME, LIKE AN OUTDOOR SWITCH GEAR OR SOMETHING. STAND-BY GENERATOR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> Chair Downs: GREAT QUESTION AND MR. BELL, MAYBE A NOTE FOR FUTURE CONSIDERATION OF HOW THIS IS INCLUDED IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. >> YEAH. SO WE HAVE A SPECIFIC DEFINITION FOR SUBSTATION SO IF IT HAD BEEN A MECHANICAL YARD THAT COULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY BUT BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEFINITION, THAT TRIGGERED IT. >> Ratliff: I UNDERSTAND THAT IF IT IS THE PRIMARY USE OF THE TRACT. IF IT'S ONLY A SUBSTATION, I GET THAT. BUT THIS FEELS LIKE A -- >> Chair Downs: ACCESSORY USE. >> Ratliff: ACCESSORY USE, LIKE A GENERATOR. >> WE VIEW THIS AS TWO PRIMARY USES ON THIS SITE AND FOR THAT REASON IT REQUIRES -- >> Ratliff: IT'S JUST A NUANCE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. I WANTED THE EDUCATION. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: I WAS JUST LOOKING AT THE PAR PARKING REQUIREMENTS ON SITE AND WHAT'S REQUIRED IS 455 SPOTS BUT THEY'RE PROVIDING ACTUALLY ADDITIONAL 465. DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY EMPLOYEES ARE INTENDED TO BE ON SITE OF A PROPERTY LIKE THIS? >> I AM UNSURE BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO HELP ANSWER THAT. BUT I WOULD ALSO LIKE TO NOTE THAT IN THE RT DISTRICT, WE DO REQUIRE ADDITIONAL SPACES FOR PARKING FOR 75%, IF THIS BUILDING WOULD BE USED AS OFFICE. THEY DON'T HAVE TO BUILD IT TODAY BUT THEY WILL HAVE TO SHOW THEY HAVE ENOUGH ROOM TO DO THAT ON SITE. SO THAT MAY BE WHY THEY PROVIDED SOME ADDITIONAL PARKING AS WELL AS SOME PARKING THAT I BELIEVE WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS AN ALTERNATIVE PARKING EXHIBIT. THIS IS REQUIRED FOR THE RT DISTRICT FOR THE DATA CENTER. >> THE NEXT CASE IS K NOT LOCATED IN THE RT DISTRICT. WHAT MR. McDOWELL IS REFERRING TO IS ON THIS. WHICH IS WHY YOU DON'T SEE IT ON THE OTHER ITEM. >> Lisle: I GUESS WHAT I'M GETTING AT, DO THEY NEED ALL THIS PARKING TODAY? >> THEY JUST NEED TO BUILD TODAY ENOUGH SPACES TO MATCH THE 1 TO 1,000 RATIO SHOW THEY HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO PROVIDE UP TO 75%. SO TODAY THEY ONLY NEED TO PROVIDE THAT FIRST 400 NUMBER YOU MENTIONED, WHICH IS THE ONE SPACE FOR EVERY 1,000 SQUARE FEET. >> THERE WAS NOT A PARKING STUDY PERFORMED. THE APPLICANT PROVIDED THE REQUIRED PARKING. THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THAT FOR YOU. >> Lisle: OKAY. >> Chair Downs: MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF GOT ONE OF MY QUESTIONS, WHICH WAS THE SUBSTATION. FLOODPLAIN. ELECTRICITY AND WATER OBVIOUSLY DON'T MIX. SO IF I'M READING THIS CORRECTLY, WHEN THE DATA CENTER IS BUILT, THEN IT WILL TRIGGER ANOTHER FLOOD STUDY TO SEE THE PERM ABILITY IMPACT OF PAVING OVER THE LAND, HOW IT CHANGES THE FLOODPLAIN AND WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S NOT ENOUGH SPACE TO BUILD THE SUBSTATION . WHAT'S THE -- IF WE APPROVE THIS, DO WE HAVE SOME KIND OF CLAWBACK MECHANISM? >> BASED ON MY CONVERSATION I HAVE HAD WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, WHOEVER REVIEWED THOSE, WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN CIVIL SETS YET BECAUSE THAT COMES IN THE NEXT STEP. FROM THE DATA THEY DO HAVE THEY BELIEVE THERE WILL BE NO ISSUE WITH THE LOCATION OF THE SUBSTATION WHERE PROPOSED. BUT THAT FOR THE DATA CENTER ITSELF, THERE MAY NEED ADDITIONAL MITIGATION DEPENDING ON THE IMPACT FROM THE FOOTPRINT OF THE BUILDING. WE ARE CONFIDENT THAT ENGINEERING, WITH THE LOCATION OF THE SUBSTATION. >> IF FOUND NOT SUITABLE, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND THE SPECIFIC USE BOUNDARIES TO GET IT OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: I THINK, COMMISSIONER LISLE, TO YOUR QUESTION HOW MANY EMPLOYEES. I BELIEVE IT'S 30 IN THREE SHIFTS IS WHAT WAS IN THE PACKET. AND YOUR MICROPHONE IS ON. SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT I READ IN THE PACKET. SO MY QUESTION IS THIS: LET'S ASSUME THAT THEY WERE ALLOWED TO BUILD THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON WHAT THEY NEED TODAY. AND THEN THE USE CHANGES. DO WE NOT HAVE A MECHANISM THAT COULD THEN CAUSE THEM TO FIX THAT AT THAT TIME? BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE WE HAVE CHALLENGES IN A LOT OF CITIES WITH HEAT ISLANDS. COMING FROM ARIZONA, PAVING ALL THE LAND OVER IS EXACERBATING THAT. AND SO WHERE IT'S POSSIBLE THAT WE DON'T NEED TO DO THAT, IS THERE A MECHANISM TO DEAL WITH THAT AS WELL AS THE ADDITIONAL COST OF, AGAIN PROBABLY FROM A FLOODING PERSPECTIVE, PAVING OVER THIS PARKING LOT CREATES ADDITIONAL CHALLENGES. SO MY QUESTION IS THIS: IS THERE A MECHANISM TO ALLOW THEM TO BUILD THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS BASED ON THEIR NEEDS TODAY. AND IF IN FACT THE USE CHANGES FOR US TO COME BACK AND DEAL WITH IT AT THAT POINT? >> AS MR. BELL MENTIONED EARLIER, THIS SITE HAS MET THE MINIMUM PARKING REQUIREMENT, AS REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE SO WE HAVE NOT HAD O REQUEST A PARKING STUY FROM THIS APPLICANT TO SEE WHAT THEIR ACTUAL DEMAND IS VERSUS WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO WE HAVE NOT REALLY DOVE INTO THAT QUESTION. >> Cary: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THERE IS ANOTHER OPTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IT'S CALLED THE PARKING REDUCTION PROGRAM. THAT'S WHAT I PROVIDED INFORMATION ON EARLIER TODAY. IT REQUIRES A PARKING STUDY, MITIGATION PLAN, PERFORMANCE AGREEMENTS SO THAT SHOULD THE USE CHANGE, SHOULD SOMETHING HAPPEN WHERE THEY ARE IN VIOLATION OF THAT OR BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT, THEY HAVE TO COME IN AND PROVIDE THE PARKING AT THAT TIME. THAT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE EXTENSIVE PROCESS AND REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. THAT IS AN OPTION AVAILABLE TO THEM BUT THEY HAVE CHOSEN TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS. >> Cary: [OFF MIC] >> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE. PARKER, DO YOU KNOW? >> I BELIEVE FROM THE FIRST ITERATION THEY SUBMITTED, THEY MET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT. SO THAT WASN'T A CONVERSATION WE HAD. >> Cary: SO THEY MAY OR MAY NOT EVEN BE AWARE OF THAT? >> MAYBE. >> Cary: THEY'RE PROBABLY AWARE NOW, RIGHT? >> IT IS -- I THINK WE'VE ONLY DONE A HANDFUL SINCE IT'S EXISTED. IT'S AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MISSION ACCOMPLISHED BASICALLY. OKAY. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUESTIONS ON THE BOARD. THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. THERE'S NOT A PRESENTATION, JUST AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS, RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. WE DO HAVE ONE CITIZEN THAT WOULD LIKE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. WE'LL LET THE CITIZEN ADDRESS THE COMMISSION AND THEN WE WILL ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> CAN I HAVE LINDA ZIMMERMAN? OKAY. >> Chair Downs: SHE LEFT. OKAY. >> WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. >> Chair Downs: WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? >> YES. >> Chair Downs: YES. OKAY. WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE QUESTION FOR YOU, IF YOU WOULD COME DOWN AND GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. ADDRESS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. LUKE FRANS, 2323 ROSS AVENUE. JACKSON WALKER REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT, ALIGN DATA. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: IT'S MORE OF AN OPERATION QUESTION, DOESN'T IMPACT LAND USE. OUR CONCERNS WITH DATA CENTERS, WATER UTILITY -- [INDISCERNIBLE] SO I KNOW THIS. DO YOU HAVE SOME KIND OF MITIGATING FACTORS AS YOU BUILD THIS PARTICULAR BLOCK IN SUCH A WAY THAT IT DOESN'T DRAIN THE CRAP OUT OF OUR RESOURCES FROM A POWER AND WATER PERSPECTIVE? >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONER, COUNCIL. CARDELL ANDREWS, 2800 SUMMIT AVENUE, ALIGN DATA CENTERS. I'M THE SENIOR DIRECTOR -- I'M ACTUALLY A CIVIL ENGINEER SO I'M GOING TO ANSWER YOUR FLOOD QUESTION ALSO. WE HAVE A PATENTED PRODUCT THAT WE USE FOR OUR WATER COOLING SO BASICALLY ALL YOU'RE LOOKING AT IS POTABLE WATER COMING IN A LOOP SYSTEM. WE'RE ONLY USING ABOUT 3500 GPM, WHICH IS VERY SMALL IN EQUIVALENT TO LESS IF YOU DEVELOPED THIS AS A RESIDENTIAL. WE'RE ABOUT FOUR TIMES LESS. IF YOU TOOK THE SAME PROPERTY AND DEVELOP IT AS RESIDENTIAL, YOU WOULD BE USING MORE WATER AND SEWER THAN YOU WOULD BE USING FOR OUR DATA CENTER. BACK TO YOUR QUESTION ON THE FLOODING, TYPICALLY WHAT WE DO IS WE GRADE OUT THE SITE. WE CAN RAISE UP THE SITE WITH EARTH OR WE CAN RAISE UP THE SITE WITH THE BUILDING TO GET IT OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. BUT BASED ON OUR PRELIMINARY NUMBERS, THIS SITE DOESN'T HAVE TO BE RAISED THAT MUCH. YOU'RE ONLY LOOKING AT LESS THAN A FOOT TO GET OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. IT WOULD BE VERY LIMITED ON THE RAISING OF FLOORS TO GET IT OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. >> Olley: THANK YOU. I SET YOU UP FOR MORE QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: HERE THEY COME. MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: YOU SAID 3500 GALLONS A MINUTE? >> 3500 GALLONS PER DAY. >> Lisle: I WAS GOING TO SAY, 3500 PER MINUTE IS A LOT OF WATER. A LOT OF SHOWERS. >> PER DAY. >> Lisle: AND YOU SAID IT'S A LOOP SYSTEM. >> THE WATER GOES IN, STAYS IN THE LOOP SYSTEM, NEVER COMES OUT. >> Lisle: HOW DOES IT COOL AND STAY EFFECTIVE ONCE IT'S HOT? >> ONCE IT'S HOT IT'S GOING THROUGH THE CYCLE AND IT'S GOING THROUGH AND COOLING DOWN IN THAT SAME LOOP SYSTEM. A TYPICAL DATA CENTER IS GOING TO BLOW THAT WATER OUT AND BRING IT BACK IN. THAT'S WHAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONER WAS TALKING ABOUT, AS MOST DATA CENTERS USE A LOT OF WATER. WE DON'T. WE HAVE A PATENTED TECHNIQUE THAT WE USE ON OUR DATA CENTERS THAT DIFFERENTIATES US FROM OTHER DATA CENTERS. >> Lisle: 3500 A DAY IS DIFFERENT THAN 3500 A MINUTE. I'M IN THE IRRIGATION BUSINESS SO WE'RE TALKING MINUTES. THE PARKING. >> YES. >> Lisle: I MEAN, MY CONCERN IS THAT WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT IS EXCESSIVE AND YOU'RE GOING TO SPEND ALL THE MONEY TO BUILD THIS. WE'RE GOING T HAVE HEAT CONCERNS, AS COMMISSIONER CARY MENTIONED. AND AT ONE POINT, IF THIS WAS TO EVER CONVERT TO SOMETHING OTHER THAN A DATA CENTER, YOUR PARKING IS GOING TO BE 30 YEARS OLD AND PROBABLY GOING TO HAVE TO BE REBUILT ANYWAY. SO I JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND DO YOU NEED ALL THIS PARKING OR DO YOU NOT? >> SO I TOO AM FROM PHOENIX. THAT'S WHERE I FLEW OUT FROM. THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT IS HUGE. WE DO NOT LIKE TO OVERBUILD PARKING BECAUSE OF THE HEAT ISLAND EFFECT. 75 SPACES IS ALL WE USE FOR THIS BUILDING. IF WE COULD DO LESS THAN WHAT IS SHOWN ON THIS PLAN, WE WOULD LOVE IT. WE'RE DOING THE SITE PARKING BASED ON THE ZONING CODE, WHICH IS ONE PER 1,000. WE HAVE TRAFFIC STUDIES. WE BUILT THIS SAME BUILDING PROTOTYPE ALL OVER THE U.S. WE CAN SHOW THAT. WE CAN SUBMIT A TRAFFIC STUDY TO SHOW WE DON'T NEED THAT MANY PARKING SPACES AND IF THE COUNCIL AND CITY WOULD AGREE TO IT, WE WOULD LOVE TO >> Chair Downs: MR. CARRY. CARY. MICROPHONE. >> Cary: MY FIRST QUESTION, HOW DO I TURN ON THE MICROPHONE. SECOND, NOW THAT YOU'RE AWARE THERE MAY BE AN OPPORTUNITY TO REDUCE PARKING, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU WILL PURSUE? >> YES. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> THE REASON WE SHOW THE PLAN THE WAY IT IS NOW IS TO SHOW THAT WE MEET THE ZONING. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. IF IT WAS UP TO ME, WE WOULDN'T BUILD ANOTHER PARKING SPACE IN THE CITY UNLESS WE ABSOLUTELY HAD TO. OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. IT DOESN'T APPEAR WE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: DO YOU WANT TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS? >> Olley: QUESTION. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. THAT CAME UP -- YOU PUSHED YOUR BUTTON AND THEN THAT POPPED UP. MR. LISLE, YOU HAVE A COMMENT, QUESTION? >> Lisle: MY QUESTION IS FOR MIKE BELL ON THE PARKING ISSUE. R EARLIER COMMENTS THAT IT WAS AN EXTENSIVE PROCESS FOR THE APPLICANT TO GO THROUGH AND PROVE THAT THEY DON'T NEED ALL THIS PARKING. IS THERE ANY WAY TO SHOW THIS PARKING AS GREEN SPACE AND HAVE A NOTE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT SAYS IF THE USE CHANGES DOWN THE ROAD, MORE PARKING -- THE PARKING WOULD HAVE TO BE RECALCULATED TO THE NEW USE? AND I JUST -- IT SEEMED LIKE FROM YOUR OWN COMMENTS THAT IT WAS A VERY BURDENSOME PROCESS JUST TO PROVE WHAT I THINK WE ALL BELIEVE TODAY. AND SO CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND MORE ABOUT THAT PROCESS AND WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO? >> SO, YOU REMEMBER WE DID -- THE COUNCIL DID APPROVE A 20% REDUCTION. THAT IS THE ONLY OTHER FLEXIBILITY BUILT INTO THE ORDINANCE AT THIS TIME. SO, YOU COULD REDUCE THE PARKING BY 20%. THAT IS THE MAX. OVER THAT WOULD REQUIRE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL. THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO MECHANISMS, THE PARKING REDUCTION PROGRAM. AGAIN, THAT REQUIRES STUDY AND MITIGATION PLAN, THEY HAVE TO DESIGN THE SITE TO PROVIDE THAT, BECAUSE THE PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT REQUIRES THEM TO SHOW HOW THEY WILL PROVIDE PARKING. >> Lisle: WE'VE GOT THAT NOW. >> CORRECT. IT REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. IT SOUNDS OVERSIMPLIFIED, BUT THERE'S SIGNIFICANT REQUIREMENTS IN A ZONING ORDINANCE THEY WOULD NEED TO MEET. THEY'RE WELCOME TO DO IT. WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO WALK THEM THROUGH THAT PROCESS. BUT THE QUICKER PROCESS IS THE 20% REDUCTION THAT Y'ALL HAVE ABSOLUTE FREEDOM TO GRANT. >> Lisle: BASED ON WHAT WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT, I THINK WE'RE OVER-PARKED BY 375. REDUCING -- IF THEY NEED 75 AND WE'RE AT 450, THAT GETS US 375. REDUCE THAT BY 20%, THAT'S ANOTHER 20-60 SPOTS. WE'RE STILL OVER-PARKED BY 250 SPACES. >> RIGHT. THAT'S THE LIMITATIONS THE ORDINANCE HAS SET ON US. THAT'S ALL WE CAN GRANT. THEY CAN DO THAT PARKING REDUCTION PROGRAM, BUT THEY WILL NEED TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS TO DO THAT. >> Lisle: I WOULD NOTE THIS WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT LED ME TO VOTE AGAINST THE PARKING REDUCTION REQUIREMENT BECAUSE I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WENT FAR ENOUGH. IF Y'ALL RECALL, THAT VOTE WAS 7-1. AND I FEEL LIKE INSTEAD OF PUTTING A BAND-AID ON SOMETHING WE HAD A REAL OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE SOME REAL RELIEF. AND THIS IS A SITUATION A FEW WEEKS LATER WHERE WE FIND OURSELVES FORCING SOMEONE TO OVER-PARK BY 250 SPACES. AND SO I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE SHOULD REVISIT. AND I THINK THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DO THIS. AND I THINK WE'RE SUPPOSED TO BE ADVOCATES FOR SMART CITY, AND SMART DEVELOPMENT. AND THIS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT MEETS THAT TO ME. SO. >> Chair Downs: NOTED. AND HONESTLY, I AM HAPPY FOR US TO TAKE THAT UP UPON DIRECTION FROM COUNCIL TO DO SO. SO, MAYBE THIS CASE COULD GO TO COUNCIL, SEEING EXACTLY THIS, WILL CAUSE THEM TO SAY WE NEED TO ACCELERATE AN OPTION HERE. >> Lisle: AND I WOULD -- I APPRECIATE THAT WE'RE ON THE SAME PAGE. I THINK COUNCIL RELIES ON US AS A LAND USE BODY TO MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THEM. SO, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE DOING OUR JOB. >> Chair Downs: UNDERSTOOD. MR. CARY? >> Cary: I WOULD LIKE TO CHANGE MY VOTE ON THAT PARKING THING FROM ABOUT THREE MONTHS AGO. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: TOO LATE. >> Cary: YEAH. SO, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. THIS SEEMS TO MAKE SENSE. BUT I REALLY AM BOTHERED BY THE FACT THAT IT FEELS LIKE THIS COMMISSION'D HANDS ARE TIED BEHIND THEIR BACK, UNLESS THE APPLICANT REALLY WANTS TO TAKE THIS ON. AND SO, YOU KNOW, IT'S A CURIOUS POSITION TO BE IN BECAUSE I THINK WE RECOGNIZE WHAT THE RIGHT THING TO DO IS. AND HERE WE ARE NOT ABLE TO DO IT SOMEHOW WITHOUT GOING THROUGH WHAT APPEARS TO BE A BURDENSOME PROCESS. AND SO I JUST DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE TO GO WITH THAT. IT'S BOTHERSOME TO ME. >> Chair Downs: MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: QUESTION AND COMMENT. SO, THE PARKING SPACES ARE 400 OR WHATEVR. DO THEY HAVE TO, IN THE SITE PLAN, PAVE ALL 400? >> I'M GOING TO REMIND THE COMMISSION THERE IS A SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT FOR ANY USE THAT'S NOT OFFICE IN RT TO PROVIDE THAT OFFICE PARKING. SO THERE'S A VARIANCE FROM THAT REQUIRED AS WELL. >> Olley: AGREED. SO THIS IS MORE FOR MY KNOWLEDGE. LIKE, IF YOU HAVE TO PAVE -- ARE YOU REQUIRED TO PAVE ALL PARKING SPACES THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN TO MAKE IT READILY AVAILABLE, OR ARE YOU JUST REQUIRED TO SHOW YOU ARE ABLE TO BUILD THE PARKING? WHAT'S THE . . . >> UNDER THE TYPICAL PROCESS, ALL THE PARKING NEEDS TO BE PROVIDED IN ORDER TO GET YOUR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. >> Olley: GOT YOU. AND THE COMMENT -- I'M FINE WITH THE HANDCUFF OF THE 20%, BECAUSE THIS -- LESS PARKING IS SPECIFIC TO A DATA CENTER USE. IF THIS WAS AN OFFICE OR WAREHOUSE AND ALL THAT STUFF, THEN WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO HAVE THE 1:1,000 REQUIREMENT FOR THAT KIND OF USE. SINCE WE'RE NOT BUILDING DATA CENTERS EVERY SINGLE DAY, THIS ONE-OFF, THE CITY COUNCIL, LIKE CHAIRMAN DOWNS JUST SAID, WOULD GUIDE US ON HOW WE CAN DEAL WITH THE ONE-OFFS. I DON'T THINK WE NECESSARILY NEED TO REWRITE THE ORDINANCE FOR A VERY UNIQUE USE. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE, BACK TO MR. CARY. AND LET'S DO THIS, TOO. WE HAVE LIMITATIONS ON WHAT WE CAN DO. AND WE NEED TO DECIDE, IS THIS A GOOD USE OF THE LAND OR NOT? WE CAN ARGUE PARKING. >> I'VE SAID MY PIECE. I'D LIKE TO ASK ONE MORE QUESTION AND I'LL LET THIS GO. A PD ALLOWS YOU TO ALTER THE ORDINANCE. WHY NOT CALL IT A PD AND THEN WRITE INTO THE ORDINANCE A REDUCED PARKING REQUIREMENT? >> THAT'S ANOTHER OPTION FOR THE DATA CENTER. IT'S PERMITTED BY USE. THEY COULD DO THE PD. BUT THE PURPOSE OF A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IS NOT TO GRANT VARIANCES, IT'S TO DO AN ALTERNATIVE DEVELOPMENT FORM. I WOULDN'T SAY IT MEETS THE INTENT OF A PD, BUT IT'S CERTAINLY AN OPTION THEY COULD PURSUE. >> Lisle: I'M TRYING TO COME UP WITH A WAY TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> Cary: AT THIS POINT, I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THIS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023-09, WHICH I THINK IS -- THAT'S THE SECOND ONE. I'M SORRY. I RECOMMEND THIS FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED WITH A CALL-OUT TO THE APPLICANTS THAT IF THEY SO DESIRE THAT THEY SHOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. BECAUSE EVEN AFTER WE APPROVE THIS, I UNDERSTAND, THEY DO HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT IF THEY SO DESIRE. SO I GUESS, YOU KNOW, WE'RE LIMITED BY WHAT WE CAN DO. THEY MAY NOT BE. AND SO I SUGGEST WE MOVE THIS FORWARD AND THEN ALLOW THEM TO DO WHAT THEY DESIRE TO DO. >> I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT, IS THAT A MOTION ON 4A? >> Cary: 4A. >> SECONDED. >> Chair Downs: FOR ITEM 4A WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. LET'S TALK ABOUT WHAT WE CAN DO ON 4B. THE MOST WE COULD DO WOULD BE A 20% FROM OUR STANDPOINT. >> YOU COULD GRANT A 20% REDUCTION AND WE COULD ALLOW THAT IN THE FINAL SITE PLAN. >> Chair Downs: IT'S UP TO THEM IF THEY WANT TO PURSUE FURTHER. >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: IS THAT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY? OKAY. >> I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE RECOMMEND THIS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023-09 WITH A 20% REDUCTION IN PARKING AS ALLOWED TO US BY ORDINANCE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CARY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO APPROVE 4B. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0 AS WELL. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. HOPEFULLY WE CAN GET YOU DOWN TO 100 SPOTS SOMEHOW. AND AT LEAST NOT BUILD THEM NOW. LEAVE IT ALL GREEN, BUILD WHAT YOU NEED, AND THE SPACE IS THERE LATER. OKAY. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5A, PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023-003 ━ REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATED TO HB 3699, INCLUDING EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF AS PERMITTED UNDER THE BILL. TABLED ON JANUARY 2, 2024. THE PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. I'M ROBIN KIRK, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION OF THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO, ITEMS 5A AND B BOTH STEM FROM UPDATES REQUIRED BY STATE LEGISLATIVE AND CODE CHANGES. ITEM 5A INCLUDES OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE UPDATES AND ITEM 5B WILL BE ZONING. THESE ITEMS WILL BE HEARD SEPARATELY. ITEM 5A IS A REQUEST TO AMEND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE SECTIONS RELATED TO HOUSE BILL 3699, INCLUDING EXTENSION OF CERTAIN PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF. YOU CAN SEE HERE THE FOUR BACKGROUND ITEMS THAT ARE INCLUDED. THE BILL WAS PASSED LAST YEAR DURING THE 88TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE. THE COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING IN AUGUST TO CONSIDER AMENDMENTS, INCLUDING EXTENDING ADDITIONAL PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF. IN TWO SUBSEQUENT MEETINGS THE COMMISSION DID DIRECT STAFF TO MOVE AHEAD WITH PROPOSING THESE CHANGES. HOUSE BILL 3699 INCLUDES SEVERAL CHANGES AS SHOWN HERE ON THIS SLIDE. THE CHANGE BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT ALLOWS PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO BE DELEGATED TO CITY STAFF. SO THIS TABLE REPRODUCED FROM YOUR STAFF REPORT SHOWS THE PREVIOUS DIRECTION WE RECEIVED ON APPROVAL AUTHORITY. THIS IS SPLIT OUT BY PROJECT TYPE. YOU CAN SEE THE PLAT TYPE, THE NUMBER THAT WE HAD USING AN EXAMPLE OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR. CURRENTLY, WE WOULD SEE 128 OF THESE GO THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. UNDER THE PROPOSED CHANGES, IF YOU LOOK IN THE LOWER RIGHT-HAND CORNER, THE STAFF-APPROVED NUMBER WOULD HAVE BEEN 1 111, AD P&Z WOULD HAVE HEARD 17 OF THESE. THESE PLATS RECEIVE ONLY AN ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. THIS WOULD REPRESENT A LARGE TIME SAVINGS FOR DEVELOPERS AND FOR THE COMMISSION. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION, JUST TO REVIEW THIS, IT INDICATES THAT ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY COMPLY WITH ALL CITY REGULATIONS. THIS IS AS OPPOSED TO LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION, WHICH CONSIDERS FACTORS OTHER THAN JUST REGULATORY COMPLIANCE WHEN MAKING DECISIONS. SHOWN SHE HERE IS A TIMELINE OFW THIS WOULD AFFECT THE PLAT EFFICIENCY PARTICULARLY RELEVANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND TO DEVELOPERS IN THE CITY. CURRENTLY, STAFF REVIEW OFTEN CONCLUDES DAYS PRIOR TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVAL. DEVELOPERS WAIT FOR THE NEXT COMMISSION MEETING AND FOR THE PREPARATION BY STAFF OF RELATED DOCUMENTS FOR THAT MEETING, SLOWING DOWN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. WE DID SURVEY 23 PEER COMMUNITIES AND FOUND THAT OF THE 18 RESPONSES WE RECEIVED, ABOUT HALF HAVE EITHER ALREADY ADOPTED REGULATIONS DELEGATING PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF OR ARE IN THE PROCESS OF DISCUSSING THAT OPTION. PLANO IS TYPICALLY AHEAD OF OTHER COMMUNITIES IN RESPONDING TO THESE LEGISLATIVE CHANGES YEAR OVER YEAR DURING THESE SESSIONS, SO WE DO EXPECT SOME COMMUNITIES TO BE SLOWER IN CONSIDERING THESE CHANGES THAN US. FOR TRANSPARENCY, AS A CONCERN, THE PUBLIC HAS ACCESS TO PLAT REVIEW INFORMATION THROUGH THIS GIS-BASED MAP. OUR ZONING AND RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MAP IS PUBLIC-FACING. AND OUR NEW SUBMITTAL AND DEVELOPMENT REVIEW LISTS ARE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE AS WELL. SO WE'LL CONTINUE OUR PRACTICE OF TRANSPARENCY AROUND ALL CURRENT DEVELOPMENT WORK, INCLUDING PLATS. THE COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED OPTIONS FOR REPORTING ON STAFF APPROVAL OF PLATS. ONE OPTION DISCUSSED WAS A MONTHLY STAFF APPROVAL REPORT WHICH WOULD CONTAIN A LIST AND COPIES -- DRAWING COPIES OF ALL PLATS APPROVED BY STAFF DURING THAT PERIOD. WE DID NOTE THAT STAFF DOES CURRENTLY APPROVAL MULTIPLE PROJECT TYPES WITHOUT PROVIDING ANY TYPE OF SEPARATE REPORT, SO THIS WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL TREATMENT OF PLATS AS DIFFERENT PROJECT TYPES. WE CURRENTLY DO THINGS LIKE LANDSCAPE PLAN, CONFORMING SITE PLANS. OVER 400 ITEMS WERE APPROVED BY STAFF WITHOUT ANY REPORT PROVIDED. ALTERNATIVELY, THE NEW SUBMITTAL LIST CAN BE SENT TO ALL COMMISSION MEMBERS, PROVIDING AN EARLY OPPORTUNITY TO CONTACT STAFF ABOUT ANY ITEMS OF INTEREST, INCLUDING PLATS. THIS SLIDE SHOWS ADDITIONAL PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE ORDINANCE THAT YOU CAN FIND IN THAT UNDERLINED SECTION, RELATED TO THE PLATTING PROCESS OR CLERICAL CLEANED UP ITEMS. SINGLE-FAMILY AND TWO-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL REPLATS, PLATS THAT REQUIRE VARIANCES AND PLAT VACATIONS WILL CONTINUE TO BE APPROVED BY THE COMMISSION UNDER THIS PROPOSAL. NO CHANGES. BENEFITS OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS -- DELEGATING ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL AUTHORITY PROVIDES BENEFITS TO DEVELOPERS AND THE PUBLIC. DEVELOPERS CAN MOVE PROJECTS FORWARD WITH A MORE RAPID APPROVAL PROCESS AND COMMISSION MEETINGS CAN PROVIDE THE PUBLIC WITH GREATER FOCUS ON LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS AND STREAMLINE THE PACKET PREPARATION PROCESS FOR STAFF BY REMOVING THE NEED TO REPAIR FOR THOSE ADMINISTRATIVELY APPROVED ITEMS. ITEM 54A IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A IN THE STAFF REPORT PACKET. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: A COUPLE REAL QUICK FROM ME BEFORE WE MOVE ON. THERE ARE EIGHT MUNICIPALITIES THAT ARE NOT CONSIDERING ANY CHANGES AT THIS TIME. DO WE KNOW WHY THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERING IT? IS IT WE DON'T HAVE TIME TO LOOK AT IT, OR WE'VE LOOKED AT IT AND DETERMINED IT'S NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST, OR DO WE KNOW? >> I'M NOT SURE IF WE KNOW FOR SURE FOR EVERY MUNICIPALITY. I KNOW A COUPLE THAT WE TALKED TO MAY HAVE RECENTLY UPDATED THEIR ZONING ORDINANCE. UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND SO THEY DIDN'T WANT TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS OF MAKING A NEW AMENDMENT IMMEDIATELY AFTERWARDS. BUT THAT'S JUST A COUPLE THAT WE HEARD FROM. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE OTHER QUESTION WAS JUST CONFIRMING. THERE WAS SOME TALK ABOUT EFFICIENCY. BUT WE BEFORE PUSHED FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF GETTING THE AGENDA OUT A LITTLE EARLIER. OR THE PACKET OUT EARLIER. IS IT LIKELY THAT THIS CHANGE WILL RESULT IN AN EARLIER RELEASE OF THE PACKET IN YOUR OPINION? >> THIS IS ONE OF OUR TOP PRIORITIES. I CAN'T GUARANTEE IT, BUT WE'RE WORKING TOWARDS THAT. >> Chair Downs: THIS CERTAINLY WOULDN'T HURT. >> IT WOULD HELP. >> Chair Downs: IT WOULDN'T HURT FOR SURE. THANK YOU. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. YOU REPORTED ABOUT CREATING A NEW REPORT FOR JUST PLATS AND I RESPECT THAT THAT WOULD CREATE WORK FOR YOU. BUT YOU KIND OF PROVIDED AN ALTERNATE, A SUBMITTAL LOG FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES. ARE YOU SUGGESTING THAT WOULD BE EVERYTHING THAT IS SUBMITTED, INCLUDING THE 3 OR 400 ITEMS THAT Y'ALL APPROVED LAST YEAR THAT WE DIDN'T SEE A REPORT ON, OR ARE YOU JUST TALKING ABOUT PLATS AND THINGS THAT WE WOULD HAVE OTHERWISE SEEN? >> SO THE PREVIOUS DISCUSSION PERTAINED TO A PLAT REPORT. WE DID NOTE THAT WE WEREN'T AWARE OF A REASON WHY PLATS WOULD GET SPECIAL TREATMENT. SO IT WOULD BE THE REPORT AS THE COMMISSION ORDERED. >> YEAH, SO CURRENTLY, INTERNALLY AMONG STAFF, AFTER EVERY SUBMITTAL, WE GENERATE A REPORT OF EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SUBMITTED FOR THAT SUBMITTAL DAY, WHETHER IT'S A PLAT, A ZONE CASE, A SITE PLAN. AND WE ALSO RUN A LIST OF EVERYTHING THAT IS ACTIVE. THOSE REPORTS ARE CIRCULATED AMONG THE PLANNING, ENGINEERING, AND BUILDING INSPECTION DEPARTMENTS. SO WE'D BE ADDING THE COMMISSION TO THE ROUTING FOR THOSE REPORTS. >> Ratliff: Y'ALL HAVE A REPORT YOU'RE ALREADY DOING THAT YOU WOULD PUT US ON THE DISTRIBUTION LIST. WE WOULDN'T BE ASKING Y'ALL TO DO ANY ADDITIONAL WORK, JUST CC US. >> A COUPLE MORE EMAILS, YEAH. >> Ratliff: PERFECT. I LIKE THAT ANSWER, BECAUSE THAT WAY WE'RE NOT CREATING NEW WORK, WE'RE JUST ASKING TO HAVE A LITTLE TRANSPARENCY SO WE SEE WHAT YOU'RE WORKING ON. THANK YOU. THAT ANSWERS MY CONCERN. JUS >> THE NEW SUBMITTAL LIST IS CURRENTLY POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. SO THEY'RE CIRCULATED INTERNALLY AND POSTED ONLINE. WE'RE JUST NOT DIRECTLY PROVIDING THEM TO THE COMMISSION AT THIS TIME, BUT WE COULD. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. MR. CARY. >> Cary: THANK YOU. I THINK AS WE KNOW, THE PLATS MOVE THROUGH ADMINISTRATIVELY. AND UNLESS THERE'S SOME PERCEIVED MISTAKE OR A MISTAKE, THEN TYPICALLY THEY MOVE THROUGH. SO MY QUESTION IS THIS. IN 2023, HOW MANY PROTESTS OR CHALLENGES DID WE HAVE IN TERMS OF THE PLATS THAT WERE DONE? DO YOU GUYS KNOW? >> ZERO, I BELIEVE. >> Cary: TO THAT END, IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE GIVING UP A CHANCE TO REVIEW THINGS AND MAKE SURE EVERYTHING IS DONE. THE WAY YOU GUYS ARE DOING IT SEEMS TO REALLY BE STREAMLINED AND EFFECTIVE. AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE REALLY LOSING ANYTHING HERE. THANKS. >> Chair Downs: MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: JUST A QUESTION. THE STAFF APPROVED PLATS REPORT, IS THERE A WAY TO ADD -- IN THE REPORT AS GENERATED, IF IT'S NOT ADDITIONAL WORK, WHERE WE SEE WHAT WAS THE REASON FOR THE REPLAT? IS IT AN EASEMENT TO ADD ON AN EASEMENT OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE? DOES THAT ALREADY GET GENERATED BY YOUR REPORT? >> IT DOES NOT. AND IT CAN BE PRETTY COMPLICATED ON CERTAIN SITES. IF IT'S ONE SMALL SITE, THAT'S EASY TO SHOW. BUT IF THEY'RE CHANGING UTILITY WORK, PARKING ACCESS, ALMOST EVERYTHING IN THERE IS A CHANGE. >> Olley: A ZONING PACKET. >> EXACTLY. >> Chair Downs: I THINK AT THE CORE OF THAT IS REGARDLESS OF HOW SIMPLE OR COMPLICATED IT IS, BECAUSE IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION, WE WOULDN'T HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO -- ANYWAY. COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN, STAFF. AND MY QUESTION IS REGARDING REPLATS. I ACTUALLY HAD A SIMILAR QUESTION AS COMMISSIONER CARY REGARDING, YOU KNOW, OUR DATA FROM THE PAST, HOW BIG OF IMPACT THIS WOULD CREATE TO THE PUBLIC, TO US, AND TO THE STAFF. ON THE OTHER SIDE IS THAT DO YOU SEE ANY CONTROVERSIAL -- LIKE, REPLATIG CASES? HAVE WE EVER HAD ANY CONTROVERSIAL CASES? MAYBE SOME REPLATING CASES WILL INVOLVE SOME KIND OF ISSUES AMONG THE COMMUNITIES. MAYBE IT REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANY CHANCE THAT WE CAN HAVE, KIND OF, AN EXCEPTION? YOU KNOW. >> SO, THERE ARE A COUPLE I CAN THINK OF. RESIDENTIAL REPLATS WILL STILL COME THROUGH THE COMMISSION. >> Tong: IS THERE MULTIFAMILY, LIKE APARTMENT? I KNOW THOSE ARE LIKE REALLY HOT TOPICS AMONG THE COMMUNITIES. >> RIGHT. THOSE . . . I'M GOING TO ASK THE STAFF TO HELP ME OUT HERE, BUT I BELIEVE THOSE, BY STATE STATUTE, DO NOT REQUIRE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BECAUSE IT'S TECHNICALLY WHERE IT'S DUPLEX OR LESS REQUIRES PUBLIC HEARING NOTICE. I BELIEVE WE DO THAT ANYWAY AS A CONTINGENCY, BUT STAFF, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. SO, THE ISSUE IS WITH THOSE, WE'VE HAD SEVERAL IN THE PAST WHERE WE'VE HAD FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE WHO HAVE PROTESTED THE PLAT, BUT THE COMMISSION'S HANDS ARE TIED. THEY HAVE TO APPROVE IT IF IT MEETS THE REQUIREMENT. AT BEST, IT GIVES THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO FIND THE ERRORS ON THEIR OWN, WHICH THEY'VE TRIED TO DO. AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE PROCESS. >> Chair Downs: SO, ALONG THOSE LINES, ONE OF THE ITEMS THERE WAS THAT A PLAT COULD BE APPEALED AND THEN THE COMMISSION WOULD HEAR IT. SO IT DOES HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO COME BEFORE US IF SOMEBODY APPEALS IT. BUT THEN -- IS ALL IT TAKES FOR AN APPEAL IS SOMEONE TO SIMPLY SAY I APPEAL THIS, OR ARE THERE CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO BE ABLE TO APPEAL IT? IN OTHER WORDS, DO THEY HAVE TO HAVE STANDING? DO THEY HAVE TO BE WITHIN 200 FEET? WHATEVER THE REQUIREMENTS FOR SOMEONE TO BE ABLE TO APPEAL A PLAT DECISION? >> I BELIEVE THERE NEEDS TO BE A VARIANCE REQUIREMENT. ANDREW, DO YOU KNOW EXACTLY WHES ANY APPEAL PROCESS FOR A STANDARD PLAT REQUIREMENT. I DON'T KNOW. >> Chair Downs: CAN YOU GO BACK TWO OR THREE SLIDES TO WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT -- >> CERTAINLY. WE ADDED IN -- >> Chair Downs: RIGHT THERE. PLATS APPROVED OR DENIED BY STAFF CAN BE APPEALED TO THE COMMISSION. >> THAT'S THE APPLICANT APPEALING IT. >> Chair Downs: OH. THAT'S THE APPLICANT. THAT'S NOT SOMEBODY ELSE. >> THAT'S THE APPLICANT APPEALING. THERE ARE SOME INSTANCES WHERE AGGRIEVED PERSONS HAVE RIGHTS TO APPEAL, BUT THERE'S NOT AGGRIEVED PERSONS IN PLATS. SO IN THIS SITUATION, IT'S ONLY THE APPLICANT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I'M ASSUMING IF IT WAS A BIG ENOUGH DEAL THEY'D STILL COME HERE AND SPEAK BEFORE US IN THE PUBLIC HEARING, IN THE PUBLIC COMMENTS SECTION AND THEN WE CAN HAVE A DISCUSSION, SO. >> WE ALSO INCLUDED LANGUAGE THAT ALLOWS THE DIRECTOR TO SEND IT STRAIGHT TO YOU ALL IF SHE'S NOT COMFORTABLE, WHICH I EXPECT MIGHT HAPPEN IF THERE'S A REAL PROBLEM. >> Chair Downs: VERY GOOD. >> AND IF I MAY, THE APPEAL ALSO ALLOWS FOR TWO MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION TO REQUEST THAT IT BE APPEALED OR TWO MEMBERS OF COUNCIL, SO THERE ARE MECHANISMS. >> Chair Downs: GOOD. SO WE HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY. MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: GOING BACK TO ISSUES I'VE HEARD, ONE IS TRANSPARENCY. THAT'S NO LONGER AN ISSUE FOR ME. THESE THINGS ARE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE PUBLICIZED. AND THEN IF THERE'S AN ERROR ON A PLAT THERE'S NO REAL ADVANTAGE. IF SOMEONE -- THE WATER LINE EASEMENT IN THE WRONG SPOT, THEY ALMOST HAVE TO CORRECT IT, RIGHT? >> YEAH. A LOT OF THAT STUFF GETS SORTED OUT THROUGH THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS AND A LOT OF TIMES, FINAL PLAT, THAT WILL GET FIXED IN THE FINAL PLAT. WHERE THAT'S GOING TO BE A CONCERN IS IF THERE'S AN ERROR IN STREET FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OR LOT SIZE OR THINGS LIKE THAT THAT GET WORKED THROUGH IN THE PLAT. WE'RE PRETTY DILIGENT ABOUT THAT BUT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY WHERE IT COULD NOT MEET A ZONING REQUIREMENT, FOR INSTANCE. >> Lisle: THE CHANCES OF ONE OF US CATCHING IT -- >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: ZERO. >> I WANT TO ADD BEFORE WE MOVE ON -- >> Chair Downs: PLEASE MOVE ON. >> Lisle: CLARIFICATION FROM STAFF. THANK YOU. WE ONLY SEND THE NOTICES ON SINGLE-FAMILY AND DUPLEX PLATS? SO MULTIFAMILY WOULD NOT GET THE NOTICE. JUST A CLARIFICATION. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. ARE WE DONE WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. THIS IS 5A. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. >> MR. CHAIR. >> Chair Downs: PARDON? OH, MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. GO AHEAD. >> Brounoff: I WON'T BELABOR THIS. I'VE MADE MY POSITION KNOWN IN PAST MEETINGS. JUST BY WAY OF SUMMARY, I THINK THERE IS NOTHING AS TRANSPARENT AS A PUBLIC BODY CONSIDERING A MATTER IN A PUBLIC HEARING. IT GIVES THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO ATTEND. GIVES THE PUBLIC A CHANCE TO SEE WHAT GOVERNMENT IS DOING RATHER THAN WHAT GOVERNMENT ALREADY DID. IT GIVES THEM A CHANCE TO PROTEST. IT GIVES US THE OPPORTUNITY TO PULL AN ITEM OFF OF THE CONSENT AGENDA AND PUT IT ON THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA FOR A DISCUSSION. I THINK THAT HAVING THE COMMISSION EXERCISE PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY IS AN EXTRA INCENTIVE TO THE STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT EVERYTHING DOES COMPLY WITH THE CITY ORDINANCES BEFORE IT COMES TO US SO THAT IT CAN QUALIFY FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION RATHER THAN LEGISLATIVE. IN SHORT, I THINK THE SYSTEM AS IT HAS EXISTED FOR DECADES IS NOT BROKEN. I DON'T SEE WHY WE NEED TO FIX IT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU FOR YOUR WORDS. ALWAYS WELL-SPOKEN. OKAY. ANYONE ELSE? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM 5A. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-1. ITEM 5B. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5B, PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-019 ━ REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO RECENT STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SB 929. TABLED ON JANUARY 2, 2024. PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> 5B INCLUDES ZONING ORDINANCE UPDATES RELATED TO STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS THAT CHANGED IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE CODE. ITEM 5B IS A REQUEST TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING AMENDMENT RELATED TO SENATE BILL 19. THE NEXT TWO SLIDES SHOW THE BACKGROUND FOR THIS ITEM. THE 88TH TEXAS LEGISLATURE PASSED THREE BILLS THAT REQUIRE ORDINANCE UPDATES. THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE WAS ALSO UPDATED REQUIRING ONE ORDINANCE CHANGE. IN ADDITION, A BILL FROM THE 2019 LEGISLATIVE SESSION HAS BEEN REVISITED AND ADDITIONAL CHANGES ARE BEING PROPOSED. TWO PREVIOUS COMMISSION MEETINGS ADDRESSED CERTAIN LEGISLATIVE REQUIREMENTS REGARDING NONCONFORMING USES. ON JANUARY 2ND THIS ITEM WAS TABLED TO ALLOW FURTHER STAFF WORK ON THESE UPDATES. HOUSE BILL 1750 AND 2308 ADDRESS GENERAL FR PRACTICES. THORDINANCE CHANGES PROPOSED PERMIT THESE USES BY RIGHT IN ALL DISTRICTS WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH AGRICULTURAL USES. SENATE BILL 929 PROVIDES PROCEDURES FOR DETERMINATION, NOTICING, AND AMORTIZATION. THE CHANGES DEAL WITH BUYOUTS SINCE PREVIOUS ZONING CASES ADDRESSED THE OTHER TOPICS. THIS FLOW CHART ILLUSTRATES THE PROCESS OF STOPPING A NONCONFORMING USE. ONCE A DECISION IS MADE THAT A NONCONFORMING USE MUST STOP, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS NOTIFIED AND CHOOSES BETWEEN A BUYOUT OR AN AMORTIZATION PERIOD. THE CITY WOULD APPOINT AN EXPERT TO DETERMINE THE CORRECT PAYMENT OR THE CORRECT TIME PERIOD. PROPERTY OWNERS CAN APPEAL THE DECISION FOR EITHER OF THESE OPTIONS. THE UPDATE TO THE TEXAS ADMINISTRATIVE CODE REQUIRES THAT SCHOOL FENCING BE A MINIMUM OF SIX FEET HIGH IF IT INCLUDES FEATURES TO PREVENT SCALING OR EIGHT FEET HIGH OTHERWISE. THE PROPOSED UPDATE REPLACES THE CURRENT MAXIMUM FEET OF 60 INCHES WITH EIGHT FEET FOR SCHOOLS AND DAYCARES TO COMPLY WITH THIS CHANGE. HOUSE BILL 2439 FROM THE 2019 STATE LEGISLATIVE SESSION PROHIBITED SOME TYPES OF REGULATION OF BUILDING MATERIALS. SO AFTER ADDITIONAL REVIEW, STAFF IS PROPOSING FURTHER CHANGES TO COMPLY WITH THESE REGULATIONS, INCLUDING LANGUAGE CLARIFYING THE STATUS OF THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY AS CULTURALLY SIGNIFICANT AND CHANGES TO INDIVIDUAL REGULATIONS REGARDING MATERIAL STANDARDS. LAND USE ACTION ONE FROM THE COMCOMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS MAKE APPROPRIATE AMENDMENTS BASED ON GUIDANCE. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WILL ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW. THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE. WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES RELATED TO THIS ITEM. ITEM 5B IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SHOWN IN EXHIBIT A IN THE STAFF REPORT PACKET. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: I WANTED TO SEE IF MICHELLE COULD ADD SOME INFORMATION AROUND THE AMORRIZATION OF THE USE AND THE BUYOUT. DO WE KNOW -- I CAN'T IMAGINE RUNNING -- FIRST OF ALL, CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT'S COMING FROM THE LEGISLATURE THAT'S PROMPTING THIS CHANGE? >> YOU KNOW, I'M NOT CERTAIN. I'M SPECULATING A LITTLE BIT. I WONDERED IF IT WASN'T TIED TO SOME OF THE THINGS THEY WERE CONSIDERING WITH SHORT-TERM RENTALS. JUST BECAUSE THE LEGISLATURE WAS LOOKING AT SHORT-TERM RENTALS AND THERE WERE A LOT OF CITIES THAT WERE TOYING WITH BANNING THEM ALTOGETHER AND NOT GRANDFATHERING THEM. SO, THAT'S JUST A BIT OF SPECK POLSPECULATION FROM ME. BUT IT DEFINITELY GIVES MORE WARNING TO PEOPLE NOW THAN IN THE PAST. IN THE PAST, YOU COULD MAKE SOMEBODY'S PROPERTY NONCONFORMING WITHOUT GIVING THEM ANY KIND OF PERSONAL NOTICE. AND NOW WE DO GIVE PERSONAL NOTICE. AND THEN THEY'VE MADE IT REALLY CLEAR WHAT A PRACTICE NEEDS TO BE. IT WAS ALWAYS THE CASE THAT WE HAD TO AMORTIZE. BUT THEY WEREN'T GIVEN THE OPTION OF JUST GETTING STRAIGHT PAYMENT IN THE PAST. SO MANY CITIES WOULD LOOK AT HOW LONG A PROPERTY HAS BEEN OWNED AND SAY WE'RE GOING TO TERMINATE THE USE AND GIVE, SAY, 10-12 MONTHS FOR THEM TO WRAP UP THE BUSINESS AND SAY THAT'S ENOUGH TIME, YOU KNOW, FOR YOU TO BE AMORTIZED AND GET YOUR MONEY BACK OUT OF YOUR PROJECT. AND NOW THE COURT'S SETTING IT UP SO THAT AN APPRAISER IS GOING TO BE INVOLVED. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE THIRD-PARTY EXPERTS, THAT SORT OF THING. SO THERE'S JUST A LOT MORE PROCESS. IS THAT WHAT YOU WERE ASKING? >> YES. CAN YOU THINK OF ANY SITUATION -- WITH YOUR TIME WITH PLANO -- I'VE BEEN PAYING ATTENTION FOR A DECADE OR SO. HAVE YOU EVER SEEN US GO IN AND TELL SOMEONE YOU CAN'T DO THIS ANYMORE AND YOU'VE GOT FIVE YEARS AND YOU NEED TO MOVE? >> PLANO HAS NOT DONE THIS. >> Lisle: WE'VE NEVER DONE IT, RIGHT? >> WHEN I TALKED TO MS. DAY ABOUT IT SHE WAS NOT AWARE OF ANY THAT HAD HAPPENED. WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE GOOD PROCEDURE IN OUR ORDINANCE. SO I'D BE SURPRISED IF WE'VE EVER DONE IT. >> I'M JUST WONDERING. IT SEEMS, WITH THE NUMBER OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS, IF THAT'S WHERE THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING, THEY'RE GOING TO GET THERE AND DETERMINE SOME AMOUNT OF TIME AND IT'S GOING TO BE A FAIRLY STANDARD PRACTICE. I'M WONDERING HOW SOMETHING LIKE THIS CAN AFFECT -- WE'LL SAY LIVING EARTH. THEY'VE GOT PILES OF MULCH 30 FEET IN THE AIR. AND OTHER THINGS THAT -- I THINK THEY'RE A PRIME SUSPECT TO BE AMORTIZED AND TOLD TO MOVE ON OUT OF THE CITY WITH THE DUST AND THE SMELL AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO I'M JUST WONDERING HOW SOMETHING LIKE THIS IS GOING TO AFFECT OTHER USES OUTSIDE OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS. IF WE FOLLOW THE FLOWCHART, THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTS A RESOLUTION AND WOULD HAVE TO SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO LET YOU DO THAT ANYMORE. AND THEN TEN DAYS LATER WE'RE GOING TO NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNER. AND THEN THEY'RE GOING TO CHOOSE A REMEDY WITHIN 30 DAYS. AND THOSE REMEDIES ARE EITHER, WE HIRE AN APPRAISER AND THEN WE NOTIFY AND PAY YOU, OR WE HIRE ANOTHER EXPERT TO DETERMINE HOW MUCH LONGER THEY CAN STAY THERE. THAT'S THE TWO CAMPS. >> I THINK APPRAISERS DO BOTH THINGS. IN THE END, IT'S TIME OR MONEY UP FRONT. YOU KNOW. I'VE HEARD ABOUT THESE SINCE I'VE BEEN LIVING BACK IN TEXAS SINCE 2016 MOSTLY IN THE CONTEXT OF WHEN THEY'RE TRYING TO CHANGE A CORRIDOR. AT A CERTAIN POINT, THERE WAS A LOT OF TALK ABOUT ROSS AVENUE AND GETTING RID OF THE AUTOMOTIVE USES IN DALLAS. THAT'S THE MOST RECENT ONE THAT WAS WELL-PUBLICIZED. >> Lisle: AND SO NOW FOR STAFF, OR FOR MICHELLE, WHAT THE LEGISLATURE IS PUTTING IN PLACE THAT WE'RE ADOPTING, IS IT JUST THE NOTICE REQUIREMENTS? THE NONCONFORMING USE -- WE'VE NEVER DONE IT IN PLANO BUT IT'S IN THE ORDINANCE. >> WE DIDN'T HAVE IT ALL SPELLED OUT EXACTLY HOW OUR PROCESS WORKED. THERE WAS MAYBE A SENTENCE OR TWO ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT THAT LED YOU TO BELIEVE THAT THEY WERE PROBABLY THE ONES. AND THERE WAS SOME STATUTES -- THERE'S A STATUTE THAT TALKS ABOUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DOING THAT, BUT NOW BECAUSE OF THIS BILL, WE'VE GOT A MORE ROBUST PROCESS THAT MIMICS WHAT THE STATUTE REQUIRES US TO DO. SO THAT'S REALLY THE CHANGE WE MADE. >> Lisle: SO THIS FLOW CHART, IT WAS LAID OUT BY THE LEGISLATURE. WE'RE JUST ADOPTING WHAT THEY'VE TOLD US TO DO, STATE LAW? >> YEAH, THAT'S RIGHT. AND THEN EAR EARLIER YOU ADOPTEA WHOLE PROCESS ABOUT WHAT IS A NONCONFORMING USE, HOW TO DETERMINE IF YOUR PROPERTY IS NONCONFORMING OR CONFORMING. WE'RE NOT DOING THAT NOW. THAT WAS A NEW PLANO ADD-ON BECAUSE THAT HAD ALWAYS BEEN DONE VERY INFORMALLY. AND WHEN WE SAW THIS COMING FROM THE LEGISLATURE, THAT PLUS WE KNEW SHORT-TERM RENTALS, IT COULD BECOME A HOT TOPIC. WE CREATED THAT OTHER POLICY TO GIVE PEOPLE AN APPEALS PROCESS AND A FORMAL OPINION TO APPEAL AND THAT SORT OF THING. AND THAT, YOU KNOW, KIND OF LEADS INTO THIS BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHETHER YOU'RE CONSIDERED CONFORMING OR NONCONFORMING BEFORE ANY OF THIS REALLY HAPPENS. >> Lisle: DO RESIDENTS HAVE ANY RIGHT TO FORCE THE ISSUE TO MAKE A NEIGHBOR NONCONFORMING? THERE'S A NEIGHBORHOOD. THEY'RE ALL INVOLVED. THEY DON'T LIKE THE SHORT-TERM RENTALS. HOW DOES THE PROCESS HAPPEN TO TELL SOMEONE YOU'RE NONCONFORMING? I'M JUST THINKING SHORT-TERM RENTALS. WE HAVE 700 IN THE CITY. THEY MAKE THIS A POSSIBILITY. AND WHO'S GOING TO -- LET'S SAY THAT THE APPRAISER SAYS THAT THE VALUE OF RENTING THAT PROPERTY OUT IS, YOU KNOW, 100% OF 80% OF THE VALUE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS. THE PEOPLE -- LET'S SAY WE OWE THEM 30 GRAND. IT SEEMS LIKE A BUNCH OF MONEY IF THEY CHOOSE TO TAKE THEIR MONEY NOW OPTION. WHERE DOES THAT MONEY COME FROM? >> SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE BUDGETED. THE THING, THERE'S A TWO-STEP PROCESS THAT YOU DON'T WANT TO CONFUSE. ALL WE HAVE TO DO TO MAKE SOMEBODY NONCONFORMING IS GIVE NOTICE. SO WE CAN SAY THIS USE WAS ALLOWED. NOW IT'S NOT. BUT YOU GET TO CONTINUE ON. SO YOU'RE NONCONFORMING. JUST GIVE NOTICE. IT'S ONLY IF WE WANT TO TELL THEM NOPE, YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE, YOU'VE GOT TO STOP THAT USE. THEN WE GIVE ANOTHER NOTICE AND WE HAVE TO PAY. AND THAT WOULD BE COUNCIL DECISIONS TO EVEN GO DOWN THAT PROCESS. WHEREAS MAKING SOMEBODY A NONCONFORMING USE, THAT'S GOING TO ALWAYS START WITH P&Z THROUGH ZONING ARCHITECT TEXT AMENDMENTE NORMAL PROCESS. I DON'T WANT TO TALK TOO MUCH SPECIFIC TO SHORT-TERM RENTAL BECAUSE WE'RE NOT POSTED FOR THAT. I KNOW I MENTIONED IT, BUT LET'S NOT GO TOO FAR DOWN THAT ROAD. >> Lisle: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I ASKED A QUESTION IN THE PRELIMINARY SESSION BUT I WANT TO ASK IT AGAIN HERE FOR THE RECORD AND IN CASE ANYBODY'S WATCHING. ON PAGE 5, EXHIBIT A, WE ARE -- THERE'S A SENTENCE I WANT TO READ THAT SAYS THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY IS A UNIQUE LOCATION OF ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY. AND WE'RE CHANGING THEIR DESIGNATION TO BE AN ARCHITECTURAL AND CULTURAL IMPORTANCE AREA. BUT I WANT TO ASK THE QUESTION, I KNOW WHAT THE ANSWER IS. THIS IS NOT IMPOSING ANY NEW REGULATION ON THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY, WE'RE JUST RECOGNIZING THEIR IMPORTANCE AND CHANGING IT TO MATCH STATE LAW, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> I JUST WANT THE DOUGLAS COMMUNITY, FOR ANYBODY THAT'S LISTENING, TO RECOGNIZE WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE RULES. WE'RE JUST MORE UNIQUELY RECOGNIZING THEIR CULTURAL AND ARCHITECTURAL IMPORTANCE TO THE COMMUNITY. SO, THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THAT NONCONFORMING USE PROCEDURE APPLIES IF SOME ACTION BY THE CITY RENDERS A PREVIOUSLY CONFORMING USE NONCONFORMING, SUCH AS AN ORDINANCE ADOPTION IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SAYS YOU CAN'T DO THAT ANYMORE. WOULD IT ALSO APPLY TO SOMEONE WHO ATTEMPTS OEST TO ESTABLISH A BUSINESS THAT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE ZONING FOR THAT PROPERTY? >> NO. IT WOULD NOT, BECAUSE THE ESSENCE OF BEING A NONCONFORMING USE IS AT ONE TIME YOU WERE LEGAL, IN OTHER WORDS. >> VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> I JUST WANT TO COME BACK TO COMMISSIONER LISLE'S QUESTION AND MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. WHO CAN ACTUALLY TRIGGER THE PROCESS WHERE NOW WE'RE COMING TO WHERE THEY HAVE TO MAKE A DECISION IN THE SECOND STEP OF THE PROCESS WHETHER TO AMORTIZE OR -- WHO CAN ACTUALLY FORCE THAT ISSUE THERE? BACK TO COMMISSIONER OLLEY'S CS QUESTION ABOUT WHO CAN GET THIS ROLLING VERSUS NEIGHBORS THAT ARE IN PROXIMITY. IS THIS COMPLETELY UNDER THE CITY'S CONTROL IN TERMS OF TRIGGERING A NONCONFORMING BUYOUT OR WHATEVER, OR ARE THERE OTHER ORGANIZATIONS THAT COULD DO IT? DO WE KNOW? >> YES, UNDER THE DRAFT STANDARDS, THE CITY COUNCIL IS THE ONES USING THEIR STANDARD PROCESS. THEY NEED TO ADD SOMETHING TO THE AGENDA AND THEN AGREE TO SPEAK ON IT AND HAVE IT AT A LATER MEETING. AND IF THEY AGREE TO, THEY WOULD ADOPT A RESOLUTION THAT WOULD START THAT FLOWCHART THAT WE SAW IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE. SO IT'S ALL WITHIN CITY COUNCIL'S DOMAIN. >> BASED ON THE STANDARDS WE HAVE, IF SOMETHING WAS CLEARLY NONCONFORMING, CAN WE IGNORE IT AS A CITY? >> CAN WE CHOOSE TO -- >> DO NOTHING. >> NOT STOP IT? WE CAN. AND THAT'S GENERALLY WHAT WE DO. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. NO MORE QUESTIONS. YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 1B -- >> Chair Downs: 5B. >> Brounoff: 5B, ZONING CASE 2023-019 AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY TO APPROVE ITEM 5B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. VERY GOOD. ITEM 6. >> NONPUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -- THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6, DISCUSSION AND ACTION ━ PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN: WPLC PARKWOOD-DOMINION ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 2 ━ DATA CENTER ON ONE LOT ON 16.0 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF DOMINION PARKWAY AND PARKWOOD BOULEVARD. ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT. APPLICANT: DB DATA CENTER PLANO. >> THIS REQUEST IS TO PROPOSE AN EXPANSION TO AN EXISTING DATA CENTER IN ADDITION TO REQUESTING A 20% PARKING REDUCTION FROM THE COMMISSION. SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. THE EXISTING DATA CENTER IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND FROM 145,000 SQUARE FEET TO 412146 SQUARE FEET, A 267 SQUARE FOOT ADDITION. THIS SITE IS PROPOSING TO ADD 185 PARKING STALLS TO THE EXISTING 145 STALLS THEY HAVE ON-SITE TODAY. HOWEVER, THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES DATA CENTERS TO BE PARKED AT 1:1,412 SPACES ARE REQUIR1,000 AND 412 SPACES ARE REQUIRED. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CAN REVIEW THESE WITH A REQUESTED PARKING REDUCTION OF UP TO 20%. THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A LETTER AND IT HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKETS. AND SHOWN ON THE SCREEN ARE THE PROVISIONS FOR EXPANSIONS OF A BUILDING SPACE AS NOTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE 2 330 PARKING SPACES EXCEED THE DEMAND OF 90 SPACES AS NOTED IN THE APPLICANT'S LETTER. STAFF DOES NOT ANTICIPATE ANY PARKING ISSUES FOR THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES WITH THE 82 PARKING SPACE REDUCTION. THERE ARE NO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. THERE IS NO VEHICLE STORAGE ON-SITE OR OTHER SITE MODIFICATIONS THAT IMPACT THE AVAILABLE PARKING. AND A SINGLE ENTITY OWNS THIS SITE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AS SUBMITTED AND THE 20% PARKING REDUCTION. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: I THINK I KNOW HOW THIS IS GOING TO GO. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: I DON'T EVEN SEE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU. THANK YOU. THIS IS A NONPUBLIC HEARING ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WANTS TO TALK? SURE YOU DON'T WANT TO TALK AGAINST PARKING? YOU'RE HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSION? MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: JUST FOR EDUCATION, I ASSUME THE BOTTOM ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE PROCESS IS APPLICABLE TO THESE FOLKS IF THEY WANT TO REDUCE IT EVEN FURTHER. THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. I USED TO WORK FOR A DATA CENTER COMPANY THAT WAS 12,000 FOLKS. OF THOSE 12,000, MAYBE ONLY 300 IN THE COMPANY HAD ACCESS TO THE DATA CENTER BECAUSE THE SECURITY MEASURES AROUND WHAT THEY HOLD IN THAT BUILDING, IT'S LIKE GOING THROUGH THE PENTAGON. IT'S RIDICULOUS. PROBABLY WILL NEVER NEED MORE THAN 50. THEY HAVE THIS OPERATION ALSO. HOPEFULLY THEY ARE LISTENING. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE PROCESS IS APPLICABLE. >> I WANT TO CAUTION THAT IS NOT A GIVEN. THEY HAVE CRITERIA FOR HARDSHIP THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET. THEY HAVE THE OPTION TO PURSUE IT, BUT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS THEIR OWN RESPONSIBILITIES AND CRITERIA THEY MUST MEET. >> Olley: ABSOLUTELY. >> Chair Downs: SO THAT WASN'T A MOTION. NO. IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE. MR. LISLE WANTS TO TALK ABOUT PARKING AGAIN. >> Lisle: YOU GOT ME RILED UP. I DON'T KNOW WHY WE CAN'T GO IN LIKE WE'VE DONE WITH OTHER USES AND JUST SAY THAT A DATA CENTER USE -- >> Chair Downs: OKAY. IS THIS -- YOU'RE WANTING US TO CHANGE OUR ORDINANCE MOVING FORWARD? [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT TONIGHT. >> 60 W >> Lisle: SIX WEEKS AGO. >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND, BUT THAT CONVERSATION TONIGHT IS POINTLESS. >> Lisle: MOST OF MY CONVERSATIONS FROM THIS DAIS FEEL POINTLESS BUT I'M HERE TO TRY TO DO WHAT'S BEST FOR THE PEOPLE I'VE TAKEN AN OATH TO SERVE. >> Chair Downs: ALL OF US HERE UNDERSTAND. T. >> Lisle: MR. BELL, I APPRECIATE YOU CHIMING IN BECAUSE THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT HAS VERY SPECIFIC STANDARDS. >> Chair Downs: THEY DO. >> Lisle: THIS DOESN'T MEET IT. >> Chair Downs: IT DOES NOT. >> Lisle: THEY WOULD HAVE TO BY LAW SAY WE CAN'T HELP YOU EITHER. >> Chair Downs: YES. >> Lisle: IT'S THIS BURDENSOME GOVERNMENT THAT ISN'T PASSING LAWS THAT MAKE SENSE FOR EVERY DIFFERET SITUATION. AND I GET IT. BUT WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO LOOK AT THESE THINGS AND FIX IT, OR MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE BETTER THAN WE HAVE. I'LL BE QUIET. >> Chair Downs: AGAIN, IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO FIX TONIGHT. SO, MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: WE'LL THROW THAT OUT AS A POSSIBLE IFER. NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THAT MEANS. I MOVE REAPPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. >> Tong: I SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM 6 AS SUBMIT BTED BY STAFF. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. NOW WE DO GET TO HEAR ABOUT SHORT-TERM RENTALS. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7 -- >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. >> IS DISCUSSION -- SHORT-TERM RENTAL STUDY UPDATE ━ PRESENTATION OF THE SHRT-TERM RENTAL STUDY PROGRESS TO DATE. APP APPLICANT IS CITY OF PLANO. >> JORDAN, SENIOR PL PLANNER WIH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS A QUICK UPDATE ON THE PROGRESS OF PHASE TWO OF THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL STUDY TO DATE. IF YOU REMEMBER, WE KICKED THINGS OFF IN NOVEMBER OF 2022, INITIATING THIS STUDY. INTERIM MEASURES WERE ADOPTED IN MAY OF LAST YEAR AND WE ARE IN THE THICK OF THE OUTREACH AND DATA COLLECTION DAYS. PHASE ONE ALREADY WRAPPED UP. WE PRESENTED THOSE FINDINGS TO THE COMMISSION IN OCTOBER OF LAST YEAR. SINCE THEN, WE HAVE ENTERED PHASE TWO OF THIS TIMELINE. WE ARE NEARING THE END OF THAT. WE'VE HAD TWO ADDITIONAL MEETINGS WITH THE TASK FORCE. WE WILL HAVE A FINAL MEETING AT THE END OF THIS MONTH. BETWEEN THEN AND NOW WE HAVE A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE SCHEDULED. PHASE TWO HAS BEEN FOCUSED ON EXPLORING POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS TO THE ISSUES IDENTIFIED IN THE PHASE ONE FINDINGS. THE TASK FORCE CAME UP WITH APPROXIMATELY 40 IDEAS TO DISCUSS. THEY NARROWED THOSE DOWN TO 32 AND THOSE ARE THE SUBJECT OF THE OPEN HOUSE. AS MENTIONED, THAT LAST TASK FORCE MEETING WILL BE AT THE END OF THE MONTH. THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE GOING TO SOLIDIFY THEIR RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE PACKAGE OF THEIR SUGGESTED SOLUTIONS TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AND TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR ANYTHING INVOLVING THE REGISTRATION OF SHORT-TERM RENTALS. OUR NEXT STEP IS A PUBLIC OPEN HOUSE ON THOSE 32 POTENTIAL SOLUTIONS. THE ONLINE OPEN HOUSE STARTED THIS MORNING. IT WILL RUN THROUGH THE REST OF THE WEEK UNTIL FEBRUARY 11TH. THERE IS IS AN IN-PERSON EVENT THAT STAFF AND THE CONSULTANT WILL BE ATTENDING. THAT'S DOWNTOWN AT 1013. THAT WILL BE ON WEDNESDAY EVENING THIS WEEK. AND THAT CONCLUDES THE UPDATE. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? I'VE BEEN LOOKING AT STR OPEN HOUSE ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE LAST MONTH GOING, WHAT IS THAT? I DIDN'T PUT IN ENOUGH DETAIL. BUT NOW I KNOW. THANK YOU. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME. NO QUESTIONS? OKAY. I THINK WE'RE ALL JUST WAITING ON THE RESULTS. SEE WHAT WE NEED TO DO. >> THAT'S A FIRST FOR ME. >> Chair Downs: YES, IT IS. SINCE IT DOESN'T INVOLVE PARKING, THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS. I WONDER IF THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING AT EVENT 1013. OKAY. WE'RE OBVIOUSLY GETTING LATE. SO, AGENDA ITEM 8. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS. IFA. MR. LISLE? WE HAVE A PROCESS THAT WE'RE GOING TO GO THROUGH. >> Lisle: PURSUANT TO THE COMMENTS THAT WERE MADE IN THE PRELIMINARY, I THINK CLOSED MEETING -- IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN OPEN MEETING. BUT NONETHELESS, THERE IS A NEW RESOLUTION THAT WE'RE TO FOLLOW IN ORDER TO PUT ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA. WE'VE NAMED IT IFA, WHICH STANDS FOR ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA. AND I AM CURIOUS, OR I WOULD LIKE TO PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. AND I'D LIKE FOR IT TO BE OUT HERE SO THAT OTHER PEOPLE CAN UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS AS WELL. BUT ONE OF MY QUESTIONS IS, IS THERE A FORM? ARE WE GOING TO GET A LIST OF CRITERIA WHEN WE SUBMIT THIS SORT OF THING? IS THERE A FORM OR IS THERE JUST A LIST OF CRITERIA? TO WE TYPE UP A LETTER AND HAVE TWO PEOPLE SIGN? I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO KNOW HOW IT AFFECTS POWERS THAT ARE EXPRESSLY GRANTED TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT ARE ALREADY WITHIN THE ORDINANCE. >> Chair Downs: THAT SOUNDS LIKE A QUESTION TO STAFF VERSUS AN AGENDA ITEM, ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS. >> Lisle: I ASKED IN THE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING AND IT WAS SUGGESTED WE PUT IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THAT'S WHAT I'M TRYING TO DO, PUT A DISCUSSION AROUND THAT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. >> Chair Downs: LET ME SUGGEST IF A QUESTION IS ASKED TO HAVE , THEY COULD PROVIDE A WRITTEN RESPONSE FOR CLARIFICATION, IN PARTICULAR AROUND IS THERE A FORM WE'RE SUPPOSED TO USE OR WHAT. >> SO, ARE WE WANTING A DISCUSSION ABOUT IFA THAT'S BROADER, OR ARE WE WANTING JUST A STAFF ANSWER TO THESE COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT IS THERE A FORM. AND FOR THE -- YOU KNOW, THE SPECIFIC POWERS THAT YOU ALREADY HAVE, IF THE PROCESS APPLIES? >> Chair Downs: SO, IF WE HAVE IMPLIED POWERS BUT COUNCIL TELLS US THIS IS THE PROCESS YOU'RE GOING TO USE NOW THAT MODIFIS THOSE POWERS. >> YEAH. I'M -- I DON'T WANT TO START THE DISCUSSION, BECAUSE I THINK SOME OF THAT ACTUALLY WAS COVERED IN THE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING BEFORE BOTH OF THOSE. >> Chair Downs: YES. >> BUT -- SO I TEND TO THINK WE COULD JUST WRITE AN EMAIL TO REMIND YOU OF THE ANSWERS IF THOSE ARE THE ONLY TWO QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: I WOULD APPRECIATE THAT. >> OKAY. >> Lisle: THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS I HAVE TODAY. IF I GET ANSWERS ON THOSE THAT WOULD HELP ME. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> Lisle: IF I MISSED THEM, IF THERE'S A WAY I CAN RE-LISTEN TO THE PRELIMINARY OPEN -- ARE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETINGS RECORDED? >> Chair Downs: P&Z? >> I'M HAPPY TO ASK FOR THAT AND LISTEN TO IT. >> Chair Downs: YOU CAN FIND IT ONLINE. >> Lisle: PRELIMINARY OPEN? >> THEY'RE JUST RECORDED IN-HOUSE, BUT WE CAN -- >> Chair Downs: I THOUGHT THEY WERE STORED ONLINE, TOO. NO? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. IF THERE'S NO OTHER ITEMS, WE ARE ADJOURND AT 8:55. ♪