JANUARY 2, 2024 IS PLANNING AND ZONING >> Chair Downs: I WILL CALL TO O2 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 THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> YES. FIRST WE HAVE LORI SIMON. >> Chair Downs: PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: NO WORRIES. JUST STEP UP T MIC. GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND HAPPY TO HEAR WHAT YOU HAVE TO SAY. >> LORI SIMON. 1812 DANBY DRIVE, PLANO, TEXAS. I'M HERE SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE LUBY'S AT THE VENTURA AND PARK INTERSECTION. THE REDEVELOPMENT IS FOR A CHICK-FIL-A. AND OUR NEIGHBORHOOD, THE HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATION, HAS RECENTLY FOUND OUT ABOUT IT JUST LAST WEEK A WE'VE BEEN VERY ACTIVE IN TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SITUATION IS. SOME OF OUR HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS HAD A VERY GOOD MEETING THIS MORNING AT THAT LUBY'S WITH PEOPLE FROM THE ZONING COMMISSION. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S CLEAR UNDERSTANDING HERE. AND THAT IS THE TRAFFIC AT AN ALREADY VERY DANGEROUS INTERSECTION IS GOING TO CREATE FURTHER NUISANCE AND PERHAPS WORSE. I MYSELF, MY FAMILY HAS BEEN INVA THAT INTERSECTION. BOTH TOTALING CARS. MY FAMILY WAS NOT AT CAUSE. I HAVE PERSONALLY WITNESSED AN ACCIDENT AT AN INTERSECTION WHERE I HAD TO LOAD A TEENAGER INTO AN AMBULANCE. AND I ESCAPED AN ACCIDENT AT THAT INTERSECTION WITH A CAR RUNNING THE RED LIGHT AT PARK. IT'S EXTREMELY DANGEROUS. IT'S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE WITH INCREASED TRAFFIC FROM CHICK-FIL-A. WE NEED A DETAILED STUDY DONE AT THAT INTERSECTION TO ENSURE THERE'S NO LOSS OF LIFE OR FURTR DAMAGE. THE OTHER THING I UNDERSTAND IS THAT PLANO REQUIRES TWO ENTRANCES AND EXITS FOR EVERY BUILDING OR LOCATION. THIS IS NOT THE CASE WHERE THIS CHICK-FIL-A WILL BE. THIS CHICK-FIL-A HAS ONE ENTRANCE GOING EAST ON PARK AND WILL HAVE ONE ENTRANCE GOING NORTH ON VENTURA. THAT IN AND OF ITSELF DOES NOT ALIGN TO PLANO'S CURRENT STANDARDS. ONCE AGAIN, WE NEED AN ASSESSMENT DONE AT THAT INTERSECTION TO ENSURE WE CAN MANAGE TRAFFIC AND THERE IS NO DANGER TO ANY INDIVIDUALS, ESPECIALLY CHILDREN. THIRD, BUT CERTAINLY -- AND IT IS LEAST BUT IMPORTANT. THE HOMEOWNERS IN THAT INTERSECTION DOES NOT WANT THEIR PROPERTY VALUES DIMINISHED -- AND I'M SURE EVERYBODY HERE WOULD SAY THE SAME THING. NOISE TRASH INCREAS TRAFFIC AT THAT INTERSECTION WOULD ALL DIMINISH OUR PROPERTY VALUES. SO I ASK THIS BOARD HERE WHAT CAN I EXPECT OF YOU ALL TO ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS? >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. THANK YOU. JUST SO YOU KNOW UNDER LAW WE'RE NOT ALLOWED TO RESPOND. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. CONSENT PLEASE. >> CONSENT ENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL ANYTHING FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE? >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. LET THE RECORD REFLECT THAT COMMISSIONER TONG WAS UNABLE TO JOIN US THIS EVENING. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSID PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE 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 PRESIDG OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSY. 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 - PRELIMINARY REPLAT: BOB WOODRUFF PARK ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOTS 1R & 2 - PARK/PLAYGROUND ON TWO LOTS ON 187.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARK BOULEVARD AND SPRING CREEK PARKWAY. ZONED AGRICULTURAL, ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE-9, AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M PARKER McPOWELL, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE PRELIMINARY úREPLAT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff:RIEFLY, WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THE WITHDRAW? >> TO HAVE TIME TO ADDRESS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU, MR. McDOWELL. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR WITHDRAW OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT FOR AGENDA ITEM 1. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON ITEM 1. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - EXTENSION OF APPROVAL REQUEST - PRELIMINARY REPLAT: CITY OF PLANO LOS RIOS PARK, BLOCK E, LOTS 2R AND 3R - EXTENSION OF APPROVAL FOR A PRELIMINARY REPLAT FOR A PARK/ PLAYGROUND ON TWO LOTS ON 11.5 ACRES LOCATED AT TE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF COUNTRY CLUB DRIVE AN SAN MIGUEL DRIVE. ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED AND SINGLEFAMILY RESID APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS KATYA COPELAND. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO WITHDRAW THIS PRELIMINARY REPLAT IN ORDER TO FURTHER ADDRESS STAFF'S COMMENTS . AND STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE REQUEST TO WITHDRAW. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU, MS. COPELAND. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> I MOVE WE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF AND ACCEPT THE WITHDRAW OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT FOR AGENDA ITEM 2. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION ON AGENDA ITEM 2. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. >> I WILL READ BOTH 3A AND 3B TOGETHER. >> Chair Downs: PLEASE. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-021 - REQUEST TO REZONE 5. ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE, 175 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED RESIDENCE ATTACHED. TABLED ON DECEMBER 18, 2023. PETITIONER: FAIRVIEW FARM LAND COMPANY, LTD THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDE PUBLIC HEARING - CONCEPT PLAN: AGENDA ITEM NO. 3B. VILLAS AT PARK ADDITION, BLOCKS A-C - 26 RESIDENCE ATTACHED LOTS AND 4 COMMON AREA LOTS ON 4.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE, 175 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL. APPLICANT: FAIRVIEW FARM LAND COMPANY, LTD. THIS IS FOR ADMIN. >> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN. THIS REQUEST IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED WITH STANDARDS NOT INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMED TO SETBAS, BUILDING HEIGHT, AND SCREENING . THIS REQUEST IS INTENDED TO FACILITATE A 26-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. ON THE SCREEN HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TO THE NORTH AND WEST IS ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 67 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE-2 AND IS DEVELOPED BE A MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE DEVELOPMENT AND THE CITY OF PLANO CHISHOLM TRAIL. DEVELOPED WITH A VEHICLE FUELING STATION THAT IS NOT IN OPERATION TODAY . TO THE SOUTH IS ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A CONVENIENCE STORE AND VEHICLE FUELING STATION. A CONCEPT PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY ACCOMPANIES THIS REQUEST AS AGENDA ITEM 3B. THIS PLAN SHOWS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND SITE DESIGN OF THE 26-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOODS AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK CATEGORIES OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE OPEN SPACE NETWORK DESIGNATION AND PARTIALLY MEETS THE NEIGHBORHOODS DESIGNATION DESCRIPTION AND PRIORITIES OF THE NEIGHBORHOODS CATEGORY. THIS REQUEST WILL ALLOW FOR BUILDING HEIGHTS THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE RECOMMENDED HEIGHT OF ONE TO TWO STORIES IN THE DESIRABLE CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS AND RGM-1. REQUESTS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO BUILDING HEIGHTS AS DESCRIBED IN THE DASHBOARD ARE DISFAVORED AND DO REQUIRE FINDINGS. COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT HAS NOT OO SEVERAL CHALLENGES, INCLUDING ITS UNIQUE SHAPE, LACK OF VISIBILITY, SIZE -- SIZE OF THE DRAINAGE AND FLOODWAY EASEMENT. REZONING THIS PROPERTY TO ALLOW FOR INFILL RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD PROVIDE ADJACENCY BENEFITS WHILE PROVIDING ACCESS TO THE CITY OF PLANO CHISHOLM TRAIL. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT DON'T FULLY ALIGN WITH THE ZONING. THESE STANDARDS ARE LISTED IN THE PD STIPULATIONS. THE SFA DISTRICT ALLOWS FOR A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF TWO STORIES FOR BUILDINGS. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO ALLOW A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF THREE STORIES WITH THE ALLOWANCE OF ROOFTOP DECKS ABOVE THE THIRD STORY. ADJACENT PROPERTIES INCLUDE A ONE-STORY CONVENIENCE STORE AND A TWO-STORY MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THE HEIGHT IS INCONSISTENT WITH HEIGHTS OF THE NEARBY BUILDINGS. FURTHER, THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM SIDE YARD SETBACK FROM 10 FEET TO 7.5 FEET AS WELL AS INCREASE THE MAXIMUM BUILDING LENGTH FROM 200 FEET TO 250 FEET. THE BUILDING LENGTH FROM THE CONCEPT PLAN SHOWN ON THE SCREEN MEASURES 225 FEET. 7.5 SIDE YARD BUILDING SETBACK . STAFF FINDS THESE MODIFICATIONS AVOIDABLE AS THE SIDE YARD SETBACK AND BUILDING LENGTH COULD BE MET BY ELIMINATING ONE LOT. THE ELIMINATION OF THE LOT WOULD PROPOSE THE MU STREET TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL SIDEWALK ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE STREET. THE COMPANION CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS TWO DRIVEWAYS OFF OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE. THIS SLIDE WILL FOCUS ON THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY. SHARED ACCESS WAS NEGOTIATED IN 2000. TO CREATE A SECOND ACCESS POINT OFF OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE IN AN EFFORT TO MITIGATE ANY TRAFFIC CONCERNS. TO MAINTAIN THE CONDITION, THE SOUTHERN ACCESS POINT WILL BE SHARED WITH THE CONVENIENCE STORE. THIS DRIVEWAY CONNECTION DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM SEPARATION REQUIREMENT OF THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS. THE ENGINEERINGEPARTMENT HAS& ACCEPTED THE DESIGN TO THE LOW VOLUME OF ANTICIPATED TRAFFIC. SHOWN ON THE SCREEN ARE FIVE OUT OF THE NINE PROPOSED PD STIPULATIONS. STAFF IS GENERALLY SUPPORTIVE OF THE STIPULATIONS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FIRST THREE THAT ARE UNDERLINED ON THE SCREEN THAT WERE TALKED ABOUT IN A PREVIOUS SLIDE. STIPULATION 4 AND 5 ARE INTENDED TO PROVIDE A BUFFER TO RESTRICT BUILDINGS FROM BEING LOCATED ANY CLOSER TO EXISTING BUILDINGS. FOSED ON PROVIDING LANDSCAPE BUFFERS. THE FINAL TWO STIPULATIONS ARE FOCUSED ON TRAILS AND OPEN SPACE. WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE WITHIN 200 FEET FOR THIS CASE WITHIN THE ALLOCATED TIME-FRAME. WE DID RECEIVE AN ADDITIONAL RESPONSE LATE THIS AFTERNOON FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH, WHICH IS THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND FUELING STATION AND THEY WERE IN FAVOR. WE RECEIVED 17 RESPONSES FOR THIS CASE CITYWIDE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED FOR 26-UNIT TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT. THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OPEN SPACE NETWORK DASHBOARD AND IS 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 FIND THIS REQUEST IS DISFAVORED AND FINDINGS WILL BE REQUIRED. THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES TO BETTER ALIGN THIS DEVELOPMENT WITH THE SFA ZONING, WHICH WOULD BETTER SUPPORT THE GOALS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT WITH A PRESENTATION AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU SO MUCH. SO DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: YEAH. THANK YOU. YOU DID A GREAT JOB. SO I HAVE A QUESTION ON RGM-8. IN YOUR REPORT, YOU REPORT NEUTRAL. WHAT PARAMETERS DO YOU USE TO DECIDE WHETHER YOU DISFAVOR -- YOU FAVOR OR YOU TAKE A NEUTRAL STANCE ON RGM-8. >> I'M GOING TO ASK MR. BELL. >> RGM-8 TALKS ABOUT WHEN NEW HOUSING SHOULD BE SUPPORTED. IT SHOULD MEET ONE OF THE CITY'S ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT SPECIAL NEEDS HOUSING, ONE OF THOSE GOALS. AND ALSO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. IT'S A TWO-PART TEST. IN THIS CASE THEY MEET ONE AND PARTIALLY MEET SOME OF THE OTHER TEST BUT NOT ALL OF THE OTHER TEST. IN THAT CASE THE RECOMMENDATION WAS -- IT'S NOT TOTALLY IN ITS FAVOR BUT IT'S NOT TOTALLY AGAINST IT. THEREFORE WE INTERPRETED IT AS NEUTRAL. >> Bronsky: OKAY. DO YOU BELIEVE THAT THERE ARE CHANGES THAT CAN BE MADE TO MAKE THIS FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR -- >> YES AND NO. THE BUILDING HEIGHTS ARE THE BIGGEST ISSUE WITH PLANNING IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. REDUCE THE BUILDING HEIGHT TO ONE OR TWO STORIES FOR US TO BE MORE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST. BUT ALSO WITH OTHER ITEMS REGARDING THE STIPULATIONS THAT WE SHOWED ON THE SCREEN, THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS REQUEST TO BETTER ALIGN WITH SFA AND NOT NEED NINE STIPULATIONS. BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT YOU SEE TODAY. >> Bronsky: SO IS THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT FAMILIAR WITH ANY OF THE THREE-STORY RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITIES IN THE AREA? >> IN YOUR PACKET THERE ISN EXAMPLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CURRENTLY IN THE COLONY. AND THAT IS THE DEVELOPMENT TYPE THAT THEY WOULD BE PRODUCING ON THIS LOT. >> Bronsky: OKAY. WOULD YOU DESCRIBE THIS AS INNOVATIVE OR CREATIVE AS FAR AS THE TYPES OF HOUSING AND THE WAY THAT WE'RE PROVIDING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN A LOT THAT MAY NOT NECESSARILY WORK FOR TRADITIONAL HOMES? >> SURE. SO I THINK TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENT IS GREAT AND I THINK WE HAVEOOM FOR MORE. AS YOU CAN SEE IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS, WE HAVE ALLOCATED ADDITIONAL PERCENTAGES TO DEDICATE TO TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS. AND DUE TO THE CHALLENGES OF THIS LOT AND I THINK TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT COULD BE EFFECTIVE HERE. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> MIKE -- >> I CAN ELABORATE. THE REMAINING UNDEVELOPED LAND IN PLANO A LOT OF TIMES IS CHALLENGING, ESPECIALLY IN THESE INFILL SITES AND ESPECIALLY DUE TO THE PRICE OF THE LAND, TO MAKE THE RETURN SQUARE FOOTAGE AND THEY GET THAT THROUGH HEIGHT. WE'RE SEEING THAT NOW TO PROVIDE THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOME OWNERSHIP OPTION THEY HAVE TO GO A LITTLE TALLER TO MAKE IT WORK ON THE SITE. >> Bronsky: I HAVE A FRIEND THAT OWNS A THREE-STORY HOME IN FARMERS BRANCH AND IT'S A BEAUTIFUL COMMUNITY. IT WOULDN'T WORK FOR ME BEING OLD WITH A BAD BACK BUT I CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, YOU GUYS HAVE HEARD ME SAY THIS A THOUSAND TIMES, BUT WHEN I SERVED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE I WAS VERY HOPEF THAT WE WOULD FIND CREATIVE AND INNOVATIVE WAYS TO PROVIDE DIFFERENT HOUSING AND MEET SOME OF THE HOUSING DEMANDS. AND THIS SOUNDS VERY INTERESTING. AND SO I'M EXCITED ABOUT HEARING MORE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. ARE THESE MU STREETS WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED? >> YES. >> Brounoff: WHERE WOULD THE RESIDENTS PARK THEIR VEHICLES? >> THE RESIDENTS WILL PARK IN THEIR DRIVEWAY, IN THEIR GARAGE. AND THERE ARE GUEST PARKING SPOTS AVAILABLE ON THE PROPERTY AS WELL. >> Brounoff: YOU MEAN ON THE PROPERTY, YOU MEAN ON THE STREETS OR ON EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT? >> ON THE PROPERTY. I CAN GO BACK TO THE CONCEPT PLAN TO SHOW. >> Brounoff: LET ME PUT IT THIS WAY. ARE THE STREETS AS PROPOSED WIDE ENOUGH TO ALLOW FOR, LET'S SAY VISITORS TO PARK ON THE STREET AND STILL ALLOW TRUCKS TO GET THROUGH? >> SO THE MU REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE STRIPED AS FIRE LANES. THEY CANNOT PARK WITHIN THE FIRE LANES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> Brounoff: HOW WOULD A VISITOR PARK? >> AGAIN, THERE ARE OFF-STREET PARKING SPACES PROVIDED IN SEVERAL LOCATIONS ON THE SITE. >> Brounoff: I SEE THAT. THE STAFF'S THREE MAJOR RESERVATIONS WITH THIS, AS I UNDERSTAND THEM, ARE NUMBER ONE, BUILDING HEIGHT. NUMBER TWO, UNBROKEN LENGTH OF ONE BLOCK OF NINE UNITS. AND CORNER SIDE YARD SETBACK WIDTH RIGHT? 7.5 FEET INSTEAD OF 10? >> THAT'S CORRECT.& >> Brounoff: CAN YOU PLEASE TAKE EACH ONE OF THOSE FACTORS AND EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THE PROPOSAL FOR THREE STORIES, NINE UNBROKEN UNITS, AND 7.5-FOOT CORNER SETBACKS WOULD IMPOSE ANY KIND OF HARDSHIP OR DISADVANTAGE OR NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCE ON SURROUNDING PROPERTIES? >> IF I COULD ANSWER THAT ONE. SO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHOULD NOT BE USED AS A WAIVER PROCESS. THAT THEY SHOULD BE PROVIDING SOME ENHANCED LEVEL OF DEVELOPMENT. SO GENERALLY WE TRY TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF STIPULATIONS THAT WE CAN, UNLESS THEY'RE PROVIDING SOME ADDITIONAL ENHANCEMENT TO THE SITE, AS WAS DONE WITH THE OPEN SPACE AND THE TRAIL CONNECTION. AND SO THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY HERE TO JUST MINIMIZE THE NUMBER OF PD STIPULATIONS AND GET CLOSER TO THE BASE SINGLEAMIL ATTHED RESIDENCE ZONING. THAT'S THE REASON STAFF IS UNSUPPORTIVE OF THOSE STIPULATIONS. >> Brounoff: OKAY. BUT DOES THE THREE-STORY PROPOSED HEIGHT, FOR EXAMPLE, DO ANYTHING CONCRETE THAT'S BAD? >> IT'S HARD TO SAY IF IT'S BAD. IT'S A LITTLE INCONSISTENT WITH THE PROPERTIES AROUND THEM. THERE ARE ONE STORY AND TWO STORY THAT MAY OR MAY NOT BE BAD. STAFF'S CONCERN WITH THE THREE-STORY HEIGHT IS MOSTLY RELATED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIREMENTS FOR ONE TO TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT. >> Brounoff: AND THE UNBROKEN LENGTH? WHAT IS THE RATIONALE BEHIND LIMITING THE UNBROKEN LENGTH? >> THAT GOES BACK TO THE SFA BASE DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ARE THAT THEY HAVE NO MORE THAN 200 FEET IN LENGTH. THE IDEA IS BREAK UP THE MASSING OF THOSE BUILDIGS AND IT ALSO PROVIDES ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE END CAP UNITS, WHICH ARE TYPICALLY AT A HIGHER PREMIUM. THEY HAVE A LITTLE MORE LIGHT AND VISIBILITY. IT'S AN AESTHETIC AND LIVABILITY ISSUE. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: JUST O QUESTION. I THOUGHT COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF WAS GOING DOWN THAT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, THE TWO-STORY CAP. I UNDERSTAND EVERYTHING AROUND THAT AREA IS ZONED FOR TWO. JUST FOR MY EDIFICATION, WHAT'S THE LOGIC, THE BASE, THE DATA BEHIND REQUIRING A TWO-STORY CAP? I'M SURPRISED THAT A MULTIFAMILY IS AT A TWO-STORY CAP BECAUSE YOU WOULD THINK THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE YOU TAKE JUST TODUCA ON HOW WE CAME UP -- >> YEAH, THE THREE-STORY HEIGHT WAS ONLY ALLOWED IN CERTAIN MULTIFAMILY DISTRICTS FOR DECADES. THAT'S THE HIGHEST RESIDENTIAL HEIGHT ALLOWED. AGAIN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS ALONG THE FREEWAYS -- BUT GENERALLY THREE STORIES HAS BEEN THE HIGHEST. WHEN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS BEING PREPARED, IT WAS DISCUSSED THAT THERE ARE THREE-STORY MULTIFAMILY UNITS OUT THERE THAT ARE WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOODS CATEGORY. BUT THE COMMITTEE FELT THAT ONE TOWO STORI WAS THE DESIRABLE SETTING AND THAT GOING TO THREE STORIES SHOULD BE THE TRIGGER FOR THE FINDINGS PROCESS. >> Olley: GIVEN THAT HARD CAP -- I KNOW THIS IS A TOUGH QUESTION BUT WHAT ELSE COULD BE BUILT HERE THAT WOULD -- BECAUSE ALL OF THE STIPULATIONS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS COME MORE IN COMPLIANCE IS A RETURN ON INVESTMENT ARGUMENT. YOU LOSE ONE LOT, YOUR ROI GOES DOWN. YOU LOSE HEIGHT, YOUR ROI GOES DOWN. WHAT ELSE CAN WE BUILD HERE? >> UNDER THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING? >> Chair Downs: YES. >> Olley: YES. THAT'S PRETTY MUCH IT. >> IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE BECAUSE YOUR FRONT YARD SETBACK REQUIRES 50 FEET AND YOU'RE ALSO ADJACENT TO MULTIFAMILY. SO YOUR HEIGHT'S RESTRICTED. AND YOU HAVE THAT LARGE FLOODWAY AND DRAINAGE EASEMENT ON THE WEST OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO IT WOULD BE A CHALLENGE TO DEVELOP THIS AS A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WITH ALL OF THE RESTRICTIONS THAT CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL HAS, IN ADDITION TO ADJACENCY CONCERNS AND THE DRAINAGE AND FLOODWAY EASEMENT. >> Olley: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. CARY. >> Cary: QUESTION. COULD YOU BRING BACK UP THE MAP OF OPPOSITION OF THE ONES THAT AREN'T CLOSE. YOU WENT THROUGH IT VERY QUICKLY. I JUST WANTED TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT AGAIN. THAT ONE THERE. YEAH. OKAY. I APPRECIATE THAT. IF YOU WOULD JUST LEAVE IT UP. MY SECOND QUESTION IS, SO WE'RE RECOMMENDING MOVING FROM A NINE-BUILDING UNIT TO TWO FOUR BUILDING UNITS, DO I HAVE THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> Cary: DOES THAT GET US FROM 250 TO 200? I MEAN, MAYBE I'M MISSING THE MATH HERE BUT THAT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT WOULD GO FROM 250 TO 200, BUT MAYBE IT WILL. >> SURE. THE -- I'D LIKE TO FIRST ADDRESS THE RESPONSES RECEIVED. THE INITIAL REQUEST FOR THIS CASE WAS CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WITH DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT WERE RELATED TO THE REQUEST THAT WE HAVE TODAY, WHICH IS FOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED. THAT REQUEST CHANGED IN THE MIDDLE BEFORE WE CAME TO THIS BODY. AND SO SOME OF THAT OPPOSITION CAME FROM THE FIRST ZONING, WHICH HAD THE BASE ZONING AS CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND THE CHANGE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, WHICH POTENTIALLY COULD LEAD RESIDENTS TO BELIEVING THAT THIS IS FOR A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT. WHICH IN THE STIPULATIONS WAS NOT TRUE. IT WAS BEING PROPOSED AS SFA DEVELOPMENT. D SO WE REQUESTED TT THE APPLICANT CHANGE THAT LANGUAGE TO REQUEST PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SFA INSTEAD OF CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL. >> Cary: I APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I READ ALL THE OPPOSITION AND A LOT OF THEM DON'T APPLY. THAT CLARIFICATION IS GREAT. >> YES. AND REGARDING THE BUILDING LENGTH -- >> Chair Downs: YOU WIND UP WITH 200-FOOT BUILDINGS. >> THERE'S A BUFFER. 250 FEET IS WHAT THE STIPULATION -- >> Cary: NEVER MIND. I WITHDRAW THAT. THAT WAS BAD MATH ON MY PART. THANK YOU. AND MY FAL TNG IS -- AND IT'S SOMEWHAT OBSCURE, MAYBE. BUT THERE ARE REFUELING STATIONS NEAR HERE. AND IS THERE ANY POSSIBILITY THAT THERE'S ANY KIND OF LEAKAGE, GROUND TANKS, ANYTHING THAT MIGHT AFFECT THIS COMMUNITY, WHICH IS GOING TO BE ADJACENT TO IT, DO WE KNOW? >> I DON'T KNOW. MR. BELL. >> WE HAVE NO INFORMATION TO SUGGEST THAT. >> Cary: IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WE DO AS A CITY TO ENSURE THAT, ON A PROPERTY THAT'S ADJACENT LIKE THAT? >> I THINK IF THEY WERE BUILDING RESIDENTIAL ON WHAT WAS A GAS STATION, THAT IS SOMETHING WE WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT BUT SINCE THE SITE HAS NOT BEEN HISTORICALLY USED IN THAT MANNER, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. QUESTION OF DEFINITION FOR THE STAFF. I'M LOOKING AT THE PICTURES OF THE TOWNHOMES IN THE COLONY AND IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THE FOURTH-FLOOR BALCONY, THERE'S ACTUALLY CONDITION SPACE UP THERE. WHY IS THAT NOT CONSIDERED A FLOOR IF THERE'S CONDITION SPACE AT THE FOURTH LEVEL? >> BECAUSE IT'S NOT ENCLOSED. >>N THE PICTURES, THERE IS QUITE A BIT, PROBABLY AT LEAST A THIRD OF IT THAT IS ENCLOSED WITH WINDOWS AND DOORS. IT LOOKS LIKE IT MUST BE AIR CONDITIONED. >> SURE. SO THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION TONIGHT WITH A PRESENTATION AND MAYBE THIS DESIGN IS GOING TO BE SLIGHTLY ALTERED FROM WHAT WE SEE IN THE COLONY AND THEY COULD POTENTIALLY ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> Ratliff: WHAT IS THE DEFINITION? IF IT DOES HAVE CONDITION SPACE IS IT CONSIDERED A FLOOR? >> MR. BELL, CAN I GET ASSISTANCE WITH THAT DEFINITION? >> LET'S FIND THAT DEFINITION FOR YOUEAL QUICK. >>atliff: THE RSON I ASK IS BECAUSE I KEEP HEARING THREE STORIES AND I KEEP LOOKING AT THESE PICTURES AND LOOKING AT FOUR-STORY BUILDINGS AND THEY CLEARLY HAVE FOUR WINDOWS AND FOUR-STORY TALL WALLS AND THEY SURE LOOK LIKE FOUR-STORY BUILDINGS WITH HALF OF THE TOP FLOOR BEING OUTDOORS. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TALK ABOUT -- I CAN ASK THE APPLICANT BUT I WOULD APPRECIATE A DEFINITION OF WHAT A STORY INCLUDES. >> Chair Downs: I THINK THAT'S A VALID QUESTION. IT WAS ONE THAT I HAD AS WELL. I'M AUMING THAT YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO THAT DECK. SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A STAIRWELL, AT THE VERY LEAST, THAT COMES UP AND LEADS OUT ON TO THAT DECK. NOW, THE QUESTION IS IF YOU GO OVER TO LEGACY WEST, THEY HAVE THESE ROOFTOP BEAUTIFUL PATIOS AND STUFF. AND YOU COME UP TO THE STAIRS AND THERE'S AN AREA THERE. AND IN A LOT OF THEM THERE'S A KITCHENETTE WITH A FRIDGE AND A BAR. KIND OF A PLACE TO STAGE FOOD SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY DOWNSTAIRS. QUESTION TO STAFF WOULD BE WOULD THAT TYPE OF AREA, EVEN THOU 80% OF THE FOURTH FLOOR IS OPEN PATIO, WOULD 20% OF THAT AREA BEING AIR CONDITIONED AND FINISHED OUT BE CONSIDERED A STORY? >> I THINK THE PD STIPULATION THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IS BASED ON THE DESIGN THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE APPLICANT. THE THREE STORY ALLOWANCE WITH THE DECK WAS BASED ON THOSE DISCUSSIONS -- [MULTIPLE VOICES] >> Chair Downs: WE'LL SEE THAT. MR. RATLIFF, GO AHEAD. >> Ratliff: THAT WAS THE ONLY QUESTION I HAD THAT HADN'T ALREADY BEEN AED. THAT WAS IT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. NO MORE QUESTIONS. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I UNDERSTAND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT. >> YES. WE HAVE PHYLLIS JARRELL. >> Chair Downs: ARE YOU DOING THE PRESENTATION? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M PHYLLIS JARRELL, CITY CENTRIC PLANNING. I'M REPRESENTING THE APPLICANTS TONIGHT. ARE REQUESTING REZONING TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT OF A 26-LOT NEIGHBORHOOD. THE HOUSES WILL BE THREE STORIES IN HEIGHT WITH ROOF DECKS FOR OUTDOOR LIVING . IT WILL ALSO FEATURE PRIVATE BACKYARDS. UNITS WILL RANGE IN SIZE FROM 2800 TO 3,000 SQUARE FEET WITH TWO-CAR GARAGES. P CUSTOM HOMES HAS BUILT SIMILAR TOWNHOUSE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THEY HAVE PROVEN TO BE VERY POPULAR WITH HOME BUYERS. AND HERE'S JUST A FEW INTERIOR SHOTS TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE QUALITY OF THE INTERIOR DEVELOPMENT. AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED EARLIER, PART OF THE PROPERTY DOES LIE WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN OF SPRING CREEK AND FLOODPLAIN RECLAMATION WILL BE NECESSARY. WE'VE ALREADY STARTED THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. ADJACENCY TO THE CREEK PROVIDES AN OPPORTUNITY FOR A CONNECTION FOR THE HOMEOWNERS TO CHISHOLM TRAIL. WE WILL BE ADDING A PAVED TRAIL CONNECTION DIRECTLY FROM THE DEVELOPMENT. WE ALSO PLAN TO PRESERVE AS MANY TREES AS POSSIBLE AS DEVELOPMENT PROGRESSES. ADDITIONAL VISITOR PARKING SPACES WILL ALSO BE PROVIDED ALONG WITH AN ON-SITE DOG PARK FOR THE RESIDENTS. THIS SLIDE IS A COLOR RENDERING OF THE PROPOSED LOT AND STREET LAYOUT TO HELP YOU VISUALIZE HOW THE LOTS WILL BE DEVELOPED. AND THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN, WHICH IS ITEM 3B ON YOUR AGENDA TONIGHT. WE ARE REQUESTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING TO FACILITATE THE DEVELOPMENT, AS HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN STAFF'S PRESENTATION. THE PD STIPULATIONS WILL ADDRESS THE THREE-STORY HEIGHT LIMIT. WE TRIED TO RESPECT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS THAT ARE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY SETTING MINIMUM SETBACKS FROM THE APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH AND THE CONVENIENCE STORE TO THE SOUTH AND WE'LL INSTALL FENCES WITH LIVING SCREENS ALONG THE SAME PROPERTIES. WHILE THERE IS NO OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT FOR TOWNHOUSE DEVELOPMENTS WITH LESS THAN 50 LOTS, WE ARE COMMITTING TO PROVIDE AT LEAST A HALF ACRE OF OPEN SPACE THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN. AND THE PHOTOGRAPH ON THIS SLIDE SHOWS ONE OF THE ROOF DECKS. AND YOU'RE CORRECT. THERE IS A PORTION WHERE THE STAIRWAY OR ELEVATOR -- THESE UNITS COULD HAVE ELEVATORS IF THE HOMEOWNER CHOOSES. THEY WOULD COME UP TO THE ROOF DECK. SO THERE IS SOME ENCLOSED SPACE ON THAT TOP FLOOR. THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO ROOF DECKS THAT HAVE BEEN APPROVED IN DOWNTOWN PLANO FOR BOTH SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES AS WELL AS THREE-STORY TOWNHOUSES SO I THINK THIS DESIGN IS PRETTY TYPICALLY FOR ROOF DECKS. THERE ARE AMENITIES ON THE ROOF DECK INCLUDING GRILLS, OUTDOOR FIREPLACE, SEATING AREAS, AS SHOWN IN THIS SLIDE. THERE ARENFIL DEVOPMENT CHALLENGES WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THE TRACT HAVE DICTATED THE LOT LAYOUT. WHILE NOT IDEAL, WE DO HAVE THE EXISTING CROSS ACCESS EASEMENT WITH THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND THE SHARED DRIVEWAY. THE SECOND ACCESS IS NEEDED TO ENTERPRISE DRIVE BUT IT WILL BE REDESIGNED TO LIMIT THE IMPACT ON THE TOWNHOUSES YET STILL PROVIDE ACCESS TO BOTH PROPERTIES. WE DID PROVIDE INFORMATI TO FIVE NEIGHRHOOD ASSOCIATIONS IN THE GENERAL AREA. SEVERAL FOLKS HAVE COMMENTED ON DENSITY AND CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC. OUR PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT DOES PROVIDE ONLY 26 ADDITIONAL LOTS. THE TRAFFIC GENERATED WILL BE LESS THAN MANY COMMERCIAL AND RESTAURANT USES THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED UNDER THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE PROPERTY. I WANTED TO ADDRESS A COUPLE OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE STAFF REPORT. WHILE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDATION FOR NEIGHBORHOODS IS ONE TO TWO STORIES, THE PLAN ALSO RECOMMENDS THAT A VARIETY OF BUILDING HEIGHTS, HOUSING TYPES, AND LOT SIZES WILL BE CONSIDERED. OUR REQUEST IS FOR TEE STORIES OR 45 FEET. THE PROPERTY IS ON THE EDGE OF THE DEVELOPED NEIGHBORHOOD AND ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL USES. THE THREE-STORY HEIGHT ALLOWS US TO PROVIDE THE SQUARE FOOTAGE AND AMENITIES THAT TODAY'S HOME BUYERS ARE SEEKING. JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME CONTEXT, THE HEIGHT LIMITS FOR RICE FIELD AND THE TOWNHOUSES IN DOWNTOWN PLANO ARE THREE STORIES OR 50 FEET. THERE IS A SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT CALLED COMMODORE ON PRESTON THAT'S ON RAZOR BOULEVARD. THE HEIGHT LIMIT IS THREE STORIES OR 45 FEET. SO WE ARE IN KEEPING WITH OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE CITY IN TERMS OF THE REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL HEIGHT. THE STAFF REPORT ALSO REFERENCES LOSING ONE LOT TO ELIMINATE SOME OF THE PD STIPULATIONS. NOW, EVERY DEVELOPER IS GOING TO STAND UP HERE AND TELL YOU WE CAN'T LOSE LOTS. AND IT'S TRUE, USUALLY. THE LOT COUNT DOES MATTER IN TERMS OF HAVING A SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT. WE WORKED WITH STAFF ON SEVERAL LOT LAYOUTS FOR THE SUBDIVISION AND THE RESULT IS A BETTER AND MORE EFFICIENT DESIGN. AND WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S WORKING WITH US TO COME UP WITH THESE IMPROVEMENTS. WE DID ALREADY LOSE AT LEAST ONE LOT IN THAT PROCESS, HOWEVER. TO SUMMARIZE, WE BELIEVE THAT THREE-STORY TOWNHOUSES ARE AN APPROPRIATE USE ON THE EDGE OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BRING NEW HOUSING OPTIONS FOR HOME BUYERS AND WILL CONTRIBUTE TO THE REVITALIZATION OF THE U.S. 75 CORRIDOR. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. WE DO HAVE REPRESENTATIVES FROM FAIRVIEW FARMLAND COMPANY AS WELL AS MARIA BONILLA, WHO IS THE HYDROLOGIST DESIGNING THE FLOODPLAIN RECLAMATION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL -- QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT ON THIS PROJECT. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: I UNDERSTAND THE NEED FOR THE EXTRA HEIGHT. I UNDERSTAND THE RELUCTANCE TO LOSE THE ADDITIONAL L. THANKS FOR THE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT THAT YOU ALREADY LOST ONE LOT. I SEE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE BUILT IN THE COLONY. IT STILL FEELS LIKE A VERY WEIRD SPOT FOR LUXURY TOWNHOMES, GIVEN THE CHALLENGES OF THE AREA. GIVEN WHAT IS AROUND. WHY CHOOSE THIS SPOT, IS ESSENTIALLY THE QUESTION? >> I THINK CERTAINLY P. CUSTOM HOMES SEES AN OPPORTUNITY TO SELL HOUSES IN THIS LOCATN. I THINK WARREN PACKER, WHO IS THE HOME BUILDER, WAS ATTRACTED BY THE LOCATION IN TERMS OF ITS ACCESS TO U.S. 75. THE COLONY DEVELOPMENT IS VERY SIMILAR IN TERMS OF IT'S ADJACENT TO AUTOMOTIVE USES AS WELL. HE'S BEEN VERY SUCCESSFUL NO SELLING THE TOWNHOUSES IN THAT DEVELOPMENT. HE JUST SEES OPPORTUNITY FOR A SUCCESSFUL NEIGHBORHOOD. HE THINKS BUYERS WILL PURCHASE HOUSES IN THIS LOCATION. >> Olley: LAST QUESTION. WHICH ONE OF THE TWO IS A DEAL BREAKER? LOSING AN EXTRA LOT OR RESTRICTING THE HEIGHT. IF STAFF IS UNSHAKEN ON ONE OF THE TWO. >> WE CERTAINLY WOULD HOPE YOU COULD WORK WITH US ON BOTH OF THOSE THINGS BECAUSE WE DO THINK IT GIVES US A MORE SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT. AND IF I HAD TO CHOOSE, I THINK THE HEIT IS MORE IMPORTANT IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL SUCCESS AND BEING ABLE TO SELL A UNIT THAT IS ATTRACTIVE TO TODAY'S HOME BUYERS. THEY WANT THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. THEY WANT TO HAVE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACES. SO THAT WOULD BE THE PRIORITY. >> Olley: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: I'M GLAD TO HEAR YOU SAY THAT BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S OPPORTUNITY THERE. I REALIZE THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHER PEOPLE WITH QUESTIONS& BUT, YOU KNOW, LOSING A LOT ON THAT LONG STRCH I TNK RTAINLY BREAKS THIS UP. IT MAKES IT FEEL A LITTLE LESS OVERWHELMING. BUT YOU HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO SELL LAND BACK WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANY KIND OF IMPROVEMENT. CERTAINLY THE TWO NEIGHBORS THAT BACK UP TO WHERE THAT LOT WAS AT, YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE A LITTLE BIT BECAUSE YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO TRY TO GET TO THE TEN-FOOT SETBACKS. BUT YOU COULD SELL THAT STRIP SIDE YARD. THOSE UNITS WILL HAVE MORE WINDOWS IN THEM. THEY COULD CERTAINLY GO FOR A PREMIUM SO I COULD SEE THAT. THE HEIGHT IS -- I THINK IT'S PART OF THE INNOVATION OF THE PROJECT. ALL RIGHT. I GOT OFF COURSE. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. PHYLLIS, YOU KNOW I LIVED IN RICE FIELDS FOR FOUR YEARS. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIRD-FLOOR ROOF DECKS. BEEN ON THEM MANY, MANY EVENINGS. WHERE I'M STRUGGLING IS YOU ENCAPSULATED MY ARGUMENT EXACTLY OR MY STRUGGLE EXACTLY, WHICH IS THE HEIGHT LIMITS ARE THE SAME AND THEY'RE BOTH CALLED LEGAL STORIES. BUT AT RICE FIELDS, THE THIRD FLOOR IS THE BALCONY. THE FOURTH FLOOR THE BALCONY. I KNOW WHAT THE VISTAS LOOK LIKE ON THE THIRD FLOOR OF RICE FIELDS. YOU'RE UP THERE A LONG WAY AND I CAN ONLY IMAGINE ANOTHER FLOOR ABOVE THAT. THE DEFINITION IS WHAT I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH. THESE LOOK LIKE, FEEL LIKE, ACT LIKE A FOUR-STORY TOWNHOME AND RICE FIELDS LOOKS LIKE, ACTS LIKE, LIVES LIKE A THREE-STORY TOWNHOME. AND SO I'M HAVING TROUBLE MAKING THESE EQUIVALENT TO RICE FIELDS BECAUSE RICE FIELDS ARE THREE FLOORS. TWO SETS OF STAIRS,HREE FLOORS. THESE ARE THREEETS OF STAIRS, FOUR FLOORS. AND SO CONVINCE ME OTHERWISE. >> WELL, AND I CAN'T QUOTE YOU THE DEFINITION OF A STORY OR WHAT CONSTITUTES A STORY FROM BUILDING CODE STANDPOINT BECAUSE THAT ALSO COMES INTO PLAY WITH THESE TOWNHOUSES THAT ARE THESE HEIGHTS. I DO KNOW THAT INTOWN HOMES HAS HAD HOUSES APPROVED IN DOWNTOWN PLANO. THEY HAVE NOT BEEN BUILT YET TOTALLY BUT THERE ARE PROVISIONS FOR VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. THE STORIES AND THEN THE UPPER FLOOR, THERE'S A ROOF DECK ON TOP OF THE THIRD STORY. SO IT HAS BEEN APPROVED IN THE CITY. YOU KNOW, AND HAS BEEN THROUGH BUILDING CODE ISSUES AND THAT TYPE OF THING. SO, YOU KNOW, AGAIN WE THINK THAT IT CERTAINLY ADDS THE OUTDOOR LIVING SPACE THAT TODAY'S HOME BUYERS ARE LOOKING FOR. AND IT'S NOT A TOTALLY ENCLOSED FOURTH FLOOR. ONLY THE STAIRWAY THAT COMES UP IS WHAT IS ENCLOSED AND CONDITIONED. >> Ratliff: UNDERSTAND FROM A MARKETING PERSPECTIVE THE VALUE OF THE ROOFTOP PATIO. SPENT MANY EVENINGS ON ONE. THE STRUGGLE I HAVE IS THAT IN MY MIND WE'RE BEING ASKED TO APPROVE A FOUR-STORY DEVELOPMENT IN A DISTRICT THAT'S A TWO-STORY DISTRICT. WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR A 50% VARIANCE. WE'RE ASKING FOR A 100% VARIANCE TO THE HEIGHT. AND THAT'S -- I'LL BE HONEST. I'M STRUGGLING WITH THAT BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THAT IS A MUCH, MUCH LARGER VARIANCE THAN THREE STORIES. I FEEL LIKE THIS - THIS FEELS LIKE A FOUR-STORY BUILDING TO ME. YOU GOT THE YARDS. IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL, DON'T GET ME WRONG. I THINK IT'S A VERY INNOVATIVE PRODUCT. I'M JUST STRUGGLING WITH A FOUR-STORY BUILDING ADJACENT TO TWO-STORY RESIDENTIAL. >> I UNDERSTAND THAT. I WOULD ASK IF THERE ARE ADDITIONAL STIPULATIONS THAT WE COULD PLACE THAT COULD CONTROL THE ROOF DECK DESN. CERTAINLY IF YOU HAVE A ROOF DECK, PEOPLE ARE GOING TO USE IT. THEY'RE GOING TO ADD FURNITURE AND GRILLS AND ALL OF THAT. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT IN PRACTICALITY WE COULD LIMIT THE USE. BUT IF THERE ARE CERTAIN DESIGN ASPECTS THAT ARE TROUBLESOME THAT WE COULD ADDRESS, CERTAINLY WILLING TO DO THAT. >> Ratliff: MY CONCERN IS BEING ABLE TO LOOK OFF THE DECK INTO THE NEIGHBOR'S YARD. THAT'S MY CONCERN. FROM 40-SOMETHING FEET IN THE AIR YOU CAN SEE INTO A LOT OF THAT'S MY CONCE. I DON'T KNOW THAT A DESIGN ELEMENT SOLVES THAT BECAUSE I THINK THE WHOLE REASON YOU'RE BUILDING IT IS FOR THE VIEW. AND IF I ASKED YOU TO PUT EIGHT-FOOT WALLS ALL AROUND IT, THAT KIND OF DESTROYS THE CONCEPT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT. >> Ratliff: AND SO I DON'T THERE. I KNOW MOST OF THE RESIDENTIAL IS TO THE NORTH SIDE AND MAYBE THERE'S -- I'M NOT GOING TO SIT UP HERE AND TRY TO REDESIGN YOUR PROJECT. THAT'S NOT APPROPRIATE. >> SURE. >> Ratliff: B THAT'S MY CONCERN. I JUST WANTED YOU TO UNDERSTAND MY RESERVATION AS A FOUR-STORY BUILDING. THAT'S MY RESERVATION. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I'VE BEEN THINKING A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THIS AND THE FIRST THING I NOTICED WAS THAT THIS IS SORT OF AN ODDLY-SHAPED LOT THAT'S SORT OF SITTING THERE BY ITSELF. IT'S KIND OF AN ORPHAN LOT. AND THE STAFF HAS ALRDY TOLD US THAT COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT REALLY ISN'T PRACTICAL THERE FOR THE REASONS THEY STATED. WHICH LEAVES US WITH SOME FORM OF RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO GIVEN THE -- AND YOU HAVE A DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE TO ADDRESS, WHICH IS A MAJOR CONSIDERATION FOR YOUR PEOPLE. THE THING THAT GAVE ME THE GREATEST PAUSE WITH THIS WASN'T SO MUCH THE HEIGHT, BECAUSE I WAS THINKING THAT GIVEN THAT THIS IS AN ORPHAN LOT, YOU KNOW, SOME CONSIDERATION OF VARIANCES IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE HERE THAT MIGHT NOT BE APPROPRIATE ON ANOTHER LOT AT ANOTHER LOCATION. BUT WHAT WAS GIVING ME PAUSE WAS THAT UNBROKEN BUILDING WITH NINE UNITS IN THE MIDDLE. AND THE REASON IS THERE'S ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THE CITY -- AND I'M NOT GOING TO USE ANY NAMES OR LOCATIONS. BUT THERE IS ANOTHER UNIT THAT I HAVE IN MIND THAT I DRIVE BY FREQUENTLY THAT HAS SOME AWFULL LON BUILDINGS FACING THE STREET. AND AS A RESULT OF THAT, IN MY OPINION, THAT PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT IS, LET'S SAY NOT AS ATTRACTIVE AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN AND NOT AS GREAT OF AN ASSET TO THE CITY AS IT COULD HAVE BEEN, FOR THAT REASON. I WOULD FEEL BETTER IF THAT LONG BLOCK OF NINE UNITS WAS BROKEN UP INTO TWO, BY REMOVING ONE UNIT. AND MOVING THEM A LITTLE CLOSER TOGETHER TO INCREASE THE SIDE YARD SETBACKS ON THE ENDS,S STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. SO THE QUESTION I WANT TO PUT TO YOU IS THIS -- AND I HAVE NOT POLLED THE COMMISSION. I DON'T KNOW HOW THE OTHERS ARE THINKING PARTICULARLY. BUT IF, HYPOTHETICALLY, WE WERE WILLING TO CUT YOU SOME SLACK ON THE HEIGHT, COULD YOU LIVE WITH -- NOT SAYING WOULD IT BE YOUR FIRST CHOICE -- BUT COULD YOU LIVE WITH REMOVING A UNIT OUT OF THE MIDDLE OF THAT LONG BLOCK AND GIVING US BACK THT WE HAVE, FOR EXAMPLE, TWO BUILDINGS OF FOUR UNITS INSTEAD OF A LONG BUILDING OF NINE? >> Chair Downs: LET'S HOLD THAT QUESTION, SPECIFIC QUESTION RIGHT NOW, AND LET'S -- LET ME LET OTHER QUESTIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC VERSUS A DESIGN ELEMENT, SPECIFIC TO IT. WE'RE THINKING ABOUT THE USE OF THE LAND, PRIMARILY. OKAY? AND WE CAN REQUIRE -- IT'S LEGISLATIVE -- WE CAN REQUIRE SOME DISCRETION ON THIS. AND I THINK WE'LL GET THERE. >> Brounoff: I ONLY ASKED ITER BECAUSE THE STAFF POINTED IT OUT. >> Chair Downs: AND IT'S ALREADY BEEN ASKED ONCE AND THEIR PREFERENCE WOULD BE HEIGHT AND NUMBER OF BUILDINGS. BUT LET'S GET TO A POINT OF WHERE WE KIND OF DECIDE IS THE LAND USE APPROPRIATE. AND THEN WE CAN GO FROM THERE. DO YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION? >> Brounoff: NO. THAT WAS IT. >> Chair Downs: AND IT'S NOT AN INVALID POINT. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: WELL, FIRST I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU FOR CONSIDERING PLANO. I DO THINK THAT DEVELOPMES OF THIS KIND ARE INNOVATIVE AND CREATIVE. I DO STRUGGLE WITH THE IDEA OF THE FOURTH FLOOR. BUT I WANT TO START WITH MY FIRST QUESTION. YOU MENTIONED WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND I THINK YOU SAID FIVE DIFFERENT. CAN YOU GIVE ME THE SENSE OF FEEDBACK YOU RECEIVED FROM THE COMMUNITY? AND THEN WHAT YOU GUYS DID WITH IT. >> WELL, WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK DIRECTLY FROM THE NEIGHBORHOODS. I SENT OUT INFORMATION. THE PLAN, PICTURES OF THE COLONY SO THAT THEY WOULD HAVE A GOOD UNDERSTANDING OF EXACTLY WHAT THE TOWNHOUSES WOULD LOOK LIKE. HAD SENT THOSE OUT. AND THEN WHEN THE CASE WAS TABLED ON DECEMBER 18th, IN ADVANCE OF THAT MEETING I HAD SENT OUT INFORMATION, JUST SO THAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD GROUPS WOULD KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING WITH THE CASE. BUT I DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK, NO REQUEST TO MEET WITH GROUPS. ALTHOUGH CERTALY HPY TO DO THAT. BUT SO THAT WAS -- >> Bronsky: YOU DIDN'T ACTUALLY GO OUT AND MEET WITH& HOMEOWNERS' ASSOCIATIONS? >> NO. WE CERTAINLY WOULD HAVE DONE THAT HAD WE BEEN ASKED TO DO SO. >> Bronsky: MY SECOND QUESTION -- AND I DO HAVE TO SAY I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF ABOUT A PARTICULAR DEVELOPMENT. MY QUESTION IS, AS I'M LOOKING AT THE COLONY BUILDING ITSELF, THE FACADE AND THE -- IT LOOKS VERY INDUSTRIAL. DOES THAT REALLY FIT WITHIN THE FULL CONCEPT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT IT'S GOING INTO? >> WELL, I THINK, FIRST OF ALL, MORE MODERN HOUSE DESIGNS ARE POPULAR NOW WITH HOME BUYERS. THIS IS A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIALLY DATES FROM THE '70s, '80s, AND '90s. SO I THINK ANYTHING THAT WILL BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY, IN RESIDENTIALERMS IS GOING TO LOOK DIFFERENT. PRETTY MUCH ANY PLACE IN THE CITY NOW. BECAUSE HOME BUYER TASTES HAVE CHANGED. AND CERTAINLY MORE MODERN DESIGNS IN THE LAST FEW YEARS HAVE REALLY GAINED IN POPULARITY. THE BUILDER IS TRYING TO MEET THOSE DEMANDS AND DESIRES AND CAN SELL.PRODUCT HE KNOWS HE- >> Bronsky: OKAY. AND YOU MENTIONED THE SCREENING WALL. WHAT WAS THE HEIGHT OF THE SCREENING WALL? >> WE'RE PROPOSING TO INSTALL SIX-FOOT TALL METAL FENCES ALONG THE APARTMENT PROPERTY LINE. AND THE CONVENIENCE STORE PROPERTY LINE. AND SUPPLEMENT THAT WITH LIVING SCREEN. SO THERE'S NO WALLS BUT CERTAINLY FENCES AND LIVING SCREEN WOULD BE BUILT. >> Bronsky: ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: SO HYPOTHETICALLY 1,000 SQUARE FEET PER FLOOR -- THEY SAID 3,000 SQUARE FEET WAS THE UPPER END. SO WE GET 1,000 SQUARE FEET PER FLOOR. THE FOURTH FLOOR, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THAT 1,000 FEET WOULD BE CONSIDERED CONDITIONED? >> THE DEVELOPMENT IN THE COLONY, THOSE UNITS, THE CONDITIONED SPACE IS ABOUT 72 SQUARE FEET. >> Chair Downs: 6x12, NOT VERY BIG. JUST ENOUGH FOR A LANDING. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: IT'S NOT REALLY LIVING SPACE. >> IT'S NOT CONDITIONED SPACE. THAT'S CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ANY IDEA WHAT THE PROPOSED HEIGHT OF THAT RETENTION WALL IS ON THE BACK SIDE TO ALLEVIATE THE FLOODPLAIN ISSUE? >> I DON'T KNOW BUT WE CAN ASK OUR HYDROLOGIST, WHO IS HERE. >> Chair Downs: DO YOU KNOW THE ANSWER? >> EIGHT FEET? EIGHT FEET. >> Chair Downs: DO YOU WANT ME TO HAVE HER COME DOWN OR IS IT GOOD? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: NOPE. I JUST WONDERED WHAT THAT HEIGHT IS. SO AND BASED ON THE PLAN, GO BACK TO THIS. THAT EIGHT-FEET RETENTION WALL IS NOT AT THE BACKYARDS OF THE UNITS. THERE'S ACTUALLY SPACE BETWEEN THE BACKYARDS AND THAT RETENTION WALL. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Chair Downs:S THERE ANY PROTECTION OR ANYTHING TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM FALLING OFF THAT EIGHT-FOOT RETENTION WALL? >> WE HAVEN'T GOTTEN THAT FAR YET IN THE DESIGN. WE ARE AT THE CONCEPT PLAN STAGE. BUT CERTAINLY IF THAT'S A CONCERN, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. >> Chair Downs: IT WOULD CERTAINLY BE A CONCERN OF MINE THAT SOMEBODY WOULD WANDER ALONG THE SIDE IN THE OPEN SPACE IN THE DARK AND FALL OFF AN EIGHT-FOOT HIGH RETENTION WALL. >> OKAY. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUEIONS THERE SO LET'S -- >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE CAN HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS. MR. CARY. >> Cary: I THINK THERE'S BEEN SOME GOOD QUESTIONS ASKED HERE. A LOT OF GOOD VETTING OF THIS PROJECT. I THINK COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF OVER HERE REALLY OUTLINED MY THOUGHTS IN TERMS OF THE UNIQUENESS OF THIS PROPERTY. I THINK COMMISSIONER OLLEY WAS TALKING ABOUT WHAT ELSE MIGHT GO IN HERE. I PERSONALLY LIKE THIS PROJECT. NOTWITHSTANDING COMMISSIONER RATLIFF'S CONCERNS ABOUT THE FOUR LEVELS. BUT, PERSONALLY, I LIKE THE FOUR LEVELS. I THINK THEY'RE UNIQUE. I THINK IT DOES SOMETHING INTERESTING. I'VE REALLY BEEN LOOKING AT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T THINK IT'S EGREGIOUS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BACKYARDS WERE MENTIONED. AS I SURVEY THE AREA, I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY BACKYARDS COULD BE LOOKED INTO BECAUSE I DON'T SEE A LOT OF THEM. YOU KNOW, THERE'S APARTMENTS AROUND HERE, MULTIFAMILY. BUT MAYBE SOME. AND SO I PERSONALLY LIKE THIS PROJECT. I THINK IT IS CREATIVE. IT'S UNIQUE. IT'S IN AN AREA. WE NEED HOUSING IN THIS TOW THE PRICING HERE IS MAYBE ON THE FRINGE OF MAYBE AFFORDABILITY IN THE WORLD WE LIVE IN. MAYBE. YOU KNOW, IN THE WORLD WE LIVE IN TODAY. BUT I DO SHARE THE CONCERN ABOUT THE 200 FEET AND THE LONG BUILDING. AND I WOULD LOBBY TO SEE IF THEY COULD IN FACT GIVE UP ONE MORE UNIT, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN UP ONE ALREADY. I LIKE THE HEIGHT, PERSONALLY, FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT. I THINK IT'S VERY UNIQUE AND I THINK THEY WON'T HAVE ANY TROUBLE SELLING THESE. OTR THINGS HERE.TY TO A LOT OF I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS EXCEPT FOR THE ONE CAVEAT THAT WAS LAID OUT BY STAFF. AND SO I GUESS THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY ABOUT THAT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. LISLE. >> Lisle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hair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. OVERALL, I THINK IT'S AN INNOVATIVE USE OF THE PROPERTY. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LAYOUT. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE CONCEPT OF THE TOWNHOMES. I DON'T HAVE -- FRANKLY, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LONG BUILDING. I UNDERSTAND THE PERSPECTIVE THAT IT'S BETTER BROKEN UP. AND I THINK, PERSONALLY, I THINK IT IS BETTER. BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT AFFECTS MY OPINION OF THE LAND USE. WHERE I DO HAVE A PROBLEM IS WITH FOUR STORIES. AND NOW, ESPECIALLY HEARING THAT THE RETAINING WALL AT THE BACK IS GOING TO BE EIGHT-FEET TALL, YOU'RE GOING DOWN THE CHISHOLM TRAIL, YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A 45-TALL BUILDING ON TOP OF AN EIGHT-FOOT WALL. THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL VERTICAL -- YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THE SUNRISE ON THE CHISHOLM TRAIL EVER AGAIN. AND THAT CONCERNS ME, FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, THAT THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT DEVIATION FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I'M NOT SURE I CAN SUPPORT THAT FOR THAT REASON. I DO LIKE THE PRODUCT, I DO LIKE THE CONCEPT, I LIKE THIS USE FOR THE PIECE OF LAND, BUT I HAVE TROUBLE WITH THE HEIGHT. >> COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> I ECHO WHAT WAS SAID. I'M TORN BECAUSE TO THE QUESTION I ASKED STAFF, I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT ELSE COULD GO IN THERE. IT'S A CHALLENGING PIECE OF PROPERTY TO SAY THE LEAST. I HAVE NO DOUBT IT WILL SELL BECAUSE HOUSING SUPPLY IS W. I LIKE MODERN, I WILL BUY THAT IN A HEARTBEAT, THAT'S THE STYLE OF THE AGE, BUT -- I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT WORKING WITH STAFF CAN DO THAT ACTUALLY HELPS, YOU KNOW. YOU CAN'T REMOVE THE FLOODPLAIN. IT IS THERE. YOU'RE GOING TO NEED THE RETAINING WALL BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN. THE FOLKS THAT ARE OVERSEEING THE FLOODPLAIN WILL HAVE THE BEST VW, HAVING A FOUR FOOT VIEW INTO THE GAS STATION AREA. I'M TORN. IT'S CHALLENGING, BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE ANSWER TO THE QUESTION IS -- REMAINS AS IS. CONCERNING THE PREMIUM OF THE LAND IS WITHIN PLANO AND THE DIRE NEED FOR HOUSING IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE A GOOD ENOUGH ANSWER TO ME. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. >> BROUNOFF: TAKING INTO ACCOUNT YOUR SUGGESTION, MR. CHAIRMAN AND SOME OF THE OTHER COMMENTS, AND OPERATING FROM A PREMISE THAT WE CAN LIVE WITH THE HEIGHT AS PROPOSED, AND I KNOW MAYBE SOME COMMISSIONERS CAN'T, BUT I CAN. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT AN OVERALL STRUCTURE OF WHAT WE CAN DO HERE IS TO APPROVE THE ITEM WITH THE STIPULATN THAT NO BUILDING SHALL EXCEED 200 FEET IN LENGTH, AND HOW THEY CAN DO THAT WITH A UNIT TO TAKE OUT. I'M NOT GOING TO SPECIFY A NUMBER, BUT NO BUILDING WOULD EXCEED MORE THAN 200 FEET IN LENGTH. SIDE YARD SETBACKS ON THE END BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ORDINANCES AND THAT A FENCE BE CONSTRUCTED ATOP THE RETAINING WALL TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM FALLING OFF. >> Chair Downs: IT'S NOT A MOTION, BUT YOU'RE PUTTING OUT THERE THE STIPULATIONS THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE WITHIN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S WHAT WE WOULD DO. AND ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS WAS WE WOULD ACCEPT THE BUILDING, WE COULD SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO ACCEPT THAT STIPULATION. THEY'RE STILL HELD TO THE 200-FOOT LIMIT. THEY GET TO DECIDE HOW THEY WANT TO LAY THAT PIECE OUT. AND KEEP IN MIND ANY CHANGES WE'RE MAKING HERE IS GOING TO FLOW THROUGH TO THE CONCEPT PLAN, WHICH ALSO REQUIRES APPROVAL. MR. BRONSKY. >> BRONSKY: AS I'VE SAID MORE THAN ONCE, I REALLY DO THINK THIS IS INNOVATIVE AND CREATIVE, BUT I'M REALLY HAVING A PROBLEM AS WE CONTINUE TO TRY TO DECONSTRUCT AND THEN RECONSTRUCT THIS PLAN. ABOVE AND BEYOND WHAT THE STAFF HAVE SAID AND WHAT THE DEVELOPERS ARE TALKING ABOUT, IT WOULD BE MY -- I WOULD FEEL A LOT MORE& COMFORTABLE GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO BACK WITH THE FEEDBACK WE'VE HAD AND TABLE IT TO LET THEM WORK WITH STAFF AND SEE IF THEY CAN ADDRESS OUR CONCERNS RATHER THAN HAVING US CONTINUE TO ENGINEER IT OURSELVES. WHY DON'T WE LET OUR EXPERTS TAKE CARE OF THAT AND GO FROM THERE? I'M NOT GOING TO MAKE THAT AS A MOTION, BUT THAT'S MY OPINION. >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK THAT -- I SEE THERE'S SOME OTHER -- MY ONLY COMMENT THERE IS THAT THEY MAY HAVE A PLAN B BECAUSE OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, AND RATHER THAN DELAY THE PROCESS THAT WE SIMPLY SAID LOOK, WE'RE GOING TO HOLD YOU TO THE 200-FOOT LIMIT, THEY'RE ABLE TO DO THAT. THE ONLY THING THAT I REALLY SEE HERE IS -- THAT BOTHE ME BEYOND THAT IS THAT RETENTION WALL WITH NO PROTECTION OFF THE BACK OF IT, BECAUSE IT'S A GREENBELT, IT'S A GREEN AREA SPACE RIGHT THERE ON THAT. THAT JUST BOTHERS ME A LITTLE BIT. ALL RIGHT, MR. RATLIFF? >> RATLIFF: I CAN ANSWER YOUR FIRST QUESTION FOR YOU BECAUSE CODE IS GOING TO REQUIRE THEM TO HAVE A PROTECTIVE FENCE AT THE TOP OF THAT WALL. IT'S OVER 30 INCHES SO REQUIRED BY LAW. THEY WILL HAVE TO HAVE A FENCE THERE. WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE IS UP TO THEM, BUT CODE WILL REQUIRE IT. >> Chair Downs: I WOULD RATHER IT BE WROUGHT IRON OR SOMETHING ELSE WHICH MAKES A 16-FOOT WALL. >> I DON'T DISAGREE. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. IN ALL DEBATE HAS ANYBODY BEEN ABLE TO DECIPHER THE DEFINITION OF FLOOR? >> YES, THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF DEFINITION OF STO. THE HEIGHT BETWEEN THE SUCCESSIVE RIGHTS OF A BUILDING OR FROM THE TOP FLOOR TO THE ROOF. THE HEIGHT BETWEEN THE SUCCESSIVE FLOORS OF A BUILDING FROM THE TOP FLOOR TO T. >> RATLIFF: SO WLD THE FOURTH DECK PATIO BE CALLED THE TOP FLOOR BECAUSE THAT'S A FLOOR, YOU CAN STAND ON IT? >> MAY ALSO BE THE ROOF. >> RATLIFF: BUT THERE'S A ROOF ABOVE THAT BECAUSE YOU HAVE THAT ENCLOSED AREA. >> I THINK WE'RE COMFORTABLE WITH THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW, BUT IF WE WANT TO MAKE IT MORE CLEAR WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. IF THAT'S THE DIRECTION THE COMMISSION IS GOING WE CAN MODIFY THE LANGUAGE TO MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE CLEAR THAT IT INCLUDES THE LANDING SPACE AND THE ELEVATOR. ORTAIRLL. RATLIFF: OKAY. I'M GOING TO PUT YOU ON THE STOP. BASED ON THE PICTURE THEY PROVIDED US, IS THAT A THREE-STORY OR FOUR-STORY STRUCTURE, BASED ON THAT DEFINITION? MAYBE THAT'S A LEGAL QUESTION. IT'S IMPORTANT TO ME. >> IF YOU CAN STAND ON TOP OF THE 45 FEET IT'S DIFFERENT THAN IF THE ROOF IS 45 FEET. THAT'S WHY I'M CONCERNED. >> STAND ON TOP OF ANITE FOOT FENCE IT DOESN'T MAKE IT 16 FEET UT. >> RATLIFF: BUT G MY EXPERIENCE AT RICE FIELDS WHERE THE 45 FEET IS TO THE TOP OF THE RIDGE OF THE ROOF ABOVE THE TOP FLOOR WHEREAS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE AT 45 FEET YOU COULD BE STANDING AT 45 FEET AND THAT'S MY CONCERN. >> IS THE 45-FOOT HEIGHT TO THE TOP OF THE STAIRWELLS AND STUFF OR IS THAT 45 FEET TO THE DECK OF THE PATIO? >> ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINES HEIGHT AS TO THE TALLEST ELEMENT ON THE BUILDING, AND THAT WOULD BE THE TOP OF THE ACCESS. >> SO IT'S NOT 45 FEET TO THE PATIO, IT'S 45 FEET TO THEOPL ACCESS. >> THAT HELPS ME, THAT'S THE CLARITY I'M LOOKING FOR. >> YOU'RE NOT STANDING ON TOP OF THAT. >> YOU COULD. >> IT SEEMS TO ME THAT SOME OF THE US ARE GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE DEFINITION OF THIS AND IS IT SOME OF US ARE NOT. THAT SEEMS TO BE WHAT IS HAPPENING IN THE DISCUSSION. >> Chair Downs: SO LET'S CALL IT 45 FEET. THREE STORIES, TWO STORIES, FOUR STORIES. 45 FEET. THAT'S THE TOP OF THOSE TALLEST PARTS OF THE BUILDING. OKAY. MR. LISLE? >> COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, I WAS THINKING ABOUT YOUR EARLIER CONCERNS ABOUT THE HEIGHT THAT WERE STILL ON THAT TOPIC AND THEN THE AUTO FOOT WALL. AND I WAS LOOKING AT THE ZONING EXHIBIT THAT'S EARLIER IN THE PACKET -- AND I HAVE A QUESTION FOR PHYLLIS, IF I MAY. >> WHO? >> PHYLLIS. >> Chair Downs: HANG ON A SECOND. UNDERSTOOD. SO YOU WOULD LIKE TO ASK -- >> I WAS TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHERE ON THIS ZONING EXHIBIT -- >> Chair Downs: I AM GOING TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING SO WE CAN CONTINUE DIALOGUE WITH THE APPLICANT. >> ON THE ZONING EXHIBIT, THERE'S ELEVATION ZONE, 605, 606 607. IS THE TRAIL JUST OFF THAT BACK PROPERTY OR THAT WESTERN PROPERTY LINE? >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE EXISTING TRAIL? >> THE EXISTING TRAIL. >> THE EXISTING TRAIL IS FURTHER IN CLOSER TO THE CREEK THAN WHERE OUR RETAINING WALL WILL BE. YOU CAN SEE IT ON THIS AERIAL. IT'S ON THE SCREEN. AND OUR RETAINING WALL WOULD BE PROBABLY ABOUT WHERE TT TREE LINE IS. SO THAT THERE'S STILL QUITE A BIT OF PROPERTY WITHIN THE FLOODPLAIN EVEN AFTER RECLAMATION. >> RIGHT. SO YOU WOULD BE ON THE TRAIL AND THEN THERE WOULD BE THIS GENTLE RISE AND THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE A WALL AND THEN THERE'S GOING TO BE THE BUILDING. BECAUSE OF THE SETBACK THAT'S CREATED BY THE FLOODPLAIN, THE HEIGHT FROM THAT TRAIL PERSPECTIVE DOESN'T MATTER TO ME AS MUCH EITHER. THE TRAIL IS LOW THERE BECAUSE IT'S COMING UNDER PARKER. I WALKED THIS THING A MONTH AGO. BUT THE BUILDING HEIGHT AGAIN DOESN'T BOTHER ME. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK I'M THROUGH WITH THIS RIGHT NOW. SO I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AGAIN, THANK YOU. I SUGGES CAN WE HAVE STAFF TAKE THIS BACK TO THE STIPULATIONS? THESE ARE THE STIPULATIONS -- I'M GOING TO SET THE STAGE A LITTLE BIT HERE. FIRST OFF, IT IS A FINANCIAL DECISION FOR THE DEVELOPER. THEY HAVE TO MAKE MONEY ON THIS OR THEY'RE NOT GOING TO DO IT. IT'S A UNIQUE PIECE OF PROPERTY. I THINK WE ALL SEEM TO BE OKAY WITH THE IDEA OF RESIDENTIAL USE, I'M NOT HEARING ANYBODY SAY OH, NO, THIS IS A TERRIBLE PLACE FOR RESIDENTIAL. THEN IT BECOMES AATR OF AY, GREAT, WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT THAT THIS LAND USE FOR RESIDENTIAL IS WORTHWHILE. THEN IF THEY WERE BUILDING SOMETHING THAT WAS COMPLETELY WITHIN THE PLAN AND WE JUST ALL AGREED IT WAS FINE FOR RESIDENTIAL, WE APPROVE IT, THERE'S NO STIPULATIONS, BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE WANTING TO DO THINGS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT AND RATHER THAN GO THROUGH THIS WAIVER PROCESS THAT MR. BELL WAS TALKING ABOUT, THEY'VE ASKED FOR THESE STIPULATIONS IN HERE. WE CAN SAY WE'RE OKAY WITH ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE X, SEVEN, EIGHT, NINE OF THEM. OR SAY NOPE, WE'RE ONLY GOING TO APPROVE IT WITH AND WHATEVER WE DON'T INCLUDE AS A STIPULATION THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A DESIGN THAT FITS WITHIN THAT. SOUNDS TO ME LIKE WE MAY HAVE SOME ISSUES WITH THE HEIGHTS, SOME FOLKS MAYBE. I WOULD PREFER THAT THEY STILL HAD THE SIDE YARD SETBACK OF 10-FOOT INSTEAD OF SEVEN AND A HALF, AND I PREFER THEY DIDN'T HAVE A BUILDING THAT WAS OVER 250 FEET IN LENGTH. SO FROM MY STANDPOINT WHERE I'M AT I AM SUGGESTING THAT I'M E WILL ELIMINATING STIPULATIONS 2 AND 3, WHICH MEANT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY WITH THAT CENTER ROW OF NINE BUILDINGS TO BREAK THAT UP. I DON'T WANT TO PICK WHICH LOT, I DON'T WANT TO DO ANY OF THAT. I JUST WANT TO SAY HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE YOU THIS STIPULATION. YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO DO THAT. AND THEN COME BACK WITH A PLAN THAT CAN WORK FOR US. SO THAT'S MY PREFERRED METHOD OF APPROACHING THIS. IF YOU GUYS WANT TO DO SOMETHINDIFFERENT FEEL FREE TO SPEAK UP, BUT I'M -- MR. CARY? >> CARY: I'M IN LOCK STEP WITH YOU SPEAK EXCEPT ON ONE THING. IT'S NOT CLEAR TO ME THAT NOT ALLOWING THEM STIPULATION 2 WOULD WORK, ESPECIALLY IN LIGHT OF US NOT ALLOWING STIPULATION 3. SO I WOULD BE IN LOCK STEP WITH YOU IF WE SAID HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE THEM STIPULATION 3, BUT WE'RE GIVING THEM THE REST OF IT. AND TO ME I THINK -- THAT WOULD GIVE THEM A SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGE TO BEGIN WITH AND I WOULD HOPE THEY COULD FIGURE IT OUT. >> MR. LISLE? >> THE STIPULATION 2 [INDISCERNIBLE]. >> Chair Downs: AND IF WE LEFT THEM WITH THE SEVEN AND A HALF FEET IT GIVES THEM SOME SPACE IN THERE SOMEWHERE FOR GREEN SPACE FOR PUBLIC ACCESS OR WHATEVER IT IS. TO YOUR POINT OR SOMEBODY WAS ASKING IS IT BAD THAT THERE'S SEVEN AND A HALF FEET VERSUS 10? WHAT'S THE DAMAGE DONE IF THEY'RE AT SEVEN AND A HALF VERSUS 10? AND IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE MAYBE NOT MUCH. >> JUST ONE LAST THOUGHT. I PROMISE IT'S MY LAST ONE. THERE'S A LOT OF HISTORY. THIS SITE'S NEVER BEEN DEVELOPED SO WE'RE NOT DEALING WITH A NEXT OPTION. LIKE, THIS IS A GOOD PROPOSAL. IT'S A GOOD LAND USE. IT'S NEXT TO A TRAIL. I THINK WE'VE JUST GOT TO HAVE A PERSPECTIVE THAT THIS HAS BEEN SITTING EMPTY SINCE PLANO WAS DEVELOPED. AND SO I THINK THIS IS A POSITIVE OVERALL. I THINK WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN PERSPECTIVE. >> Chair Downs: AGREED. MR. OLLEY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING? YOUR MIC WAS ON FOR A SECOND. MR. BROUNOFF, SORRY. >> BROUNOFF: IF EVERYONE IS FINISHED WITH DISCUSSION I'M PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION, BUT IF SOMEONE ELSE HAS DISCUSSION -- LET'S HEAR EVERYBODY. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. MY BRAIN IS SHUTTING DOWN A LITTLE BIT. SO IF WE REMOVE STIPULATION 3 WHAT DOES THAT TO TO THE WHOLE LOSING ONE LOT? >> I WANT TO KNOW IF THE COMMISSION MAKES THAT CHANGE WE NEED TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CONCEPT PLAN WHICH CANNOT BE APPROVED WITH THE STIPULATIONS TONIGHT. >> AGREED. SO REMOVING THE STIPULATION 3, DOES THAT IN FACT SOLVE THE MAKING THEM GIVE UP A LOT TO MEET THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW STIPULATION 3 FACTORS IN HERE. >> IT MAKES THEM GIVE UP A LOT. >> THEY WOULD HAVE TO KEEP THE SAME BLDIN SAME NUMBER OF UNITS SO THEY WOULD BE COMING BACK WITH A DIFFERENT REQUEST. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. WELL, YOU HAD YOUR BUTTON ALREADY ON. MR. BRONSKY, YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> YES, I DO FOR STAFF. IF WE TINKER AROUND WITH THE STIPULATIONS AND MAKE CHANGES, WILL -- WHAT WILL THAT DO TO ITEM 3B? >> THEY WOULD NEED TO REVISE 3B AND BRING IT BACK TO BE CONSIDERED WITH THOSE CHANGES. >> BRONSKY: SO AGAIN, I STILL FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE TO ALLOW THEM TO FULLY TAKE THE ENTIRE THING BACK SINCE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TAKE IT BACK TO DO 3B ANYWAY. >> TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S WHAT I'M SUGGESTING HERE. >> BRONSKY: I'M SAYING, I'VE SAID THAT FROM THE BEGINNING. I THINK WE'VE ALREADY -- ONE OF THE THINGS THE CHAIRMAN HAS SAID TO ME SEVERAL TIMES IS WE SHOULDN'T ENGINEER FROM THE DAIS. AND I FEEL LIKE WE'VE REALLY WORKED AT ENGINEERING THIS ONE FROM THE DAIS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS BE SUCCESSFUL. AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK FOR 3B ANYWAY, SO I'M WITH STAFF ON THIS TO SEND THIS BACK WITHOUT VOTING AGAINST IT, WHICH I MIGHT FEEL LIKE I HAVE TO DO AT THIS POINT, EVEN THOUGH I LIKE IT. ANYWAY, THAT'S MY FEEDBACK IS WE CAN KEEP CHANGING STIPULATIONS, BUT IT'S STILL NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE TONIGHT. >> Chair Downs: DR. RATLIFF? >> RATLIFF: TOOK THE WORDS RIGHT OUT OF MY MOUTH. IF WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND REDO 3B WHY DON'T WE COME BACK WITH A CLEAN PACKAGE, REDO 3A AND B, COME BACK AND LET THEM DIDE DO THEY WANT WIDER UNITS AND LESS OF THEM WITH A SMALLER GAP OR DO THEY WANT -- BECAUSE THERE'S OTHER VARIABLES OTHER THAN JUST LOSING A LOT. THEY COULD DECIDE THEY WANTED TO MAKE ALL THE LOTS A LITTLE WIDER AND ALL THE UNITS A LITTLE BIGGER AND NOT LOSE AN ENTIRE LOT AND THAT'S UP TO THEM, NOT US. >> Chair Downs: AND THAT SEEMS LIKE OUR NUMBER ONE ISSUE IS THE BUILDING LENGTH, FOR MOST OF US. ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE SOME ACTION HERE. SO MISTER -- ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS, NOT MOTION YET, BUT QUESTION. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A MOTION? >> MOTION. >> MR. LISLE, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR A MOTION? >> [INAUDIBLE]. >> Chair Downs: GO AHEAD. >> IF THEY HAVE TO TAKE OUT -- IF THEY HAVE TO CREATE A BREAK IN THE BUILDINGS, IS THERE A SIDE YARD SETBACK FOR THOSE TWO BUILDINGS THAT WOULD THEN BE FTHERE. >> THERE'S A BUILDING SEPARATION REQUIREMENT AT 10 FEET. >> I DO HAVE A QUESTION. CAN WE REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? IT LOOKS LIKE PHYLLIS WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK TO US ONE MORE TIME AND WITH EVERYTHING THAT'S GONE ON I'D BE INTERESTED IN HEARING WHAT SHE HAS TO SAY TONIGHT. IT MIGHT CLEAR UP SOME THINGS. >> Chair Downs: DOES IT MATTER? WOULD IT MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE TO YOU IF THEY INSTEAD GREAT, WE'LL GIVE UP A LOT, WOULD YOU GUYS BE WILLING TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS? >> WE ARE NOT -- >> THERE'SOAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL WITH 3B TONIGHT PERIOD. UNLESS WE APPROVE IT AS IT IS. >> Chair Downs: I'LL REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. YES MA'AM. >> WE ARE WILLING TO TABLE BOTH ITEMS TONIGHT BECAUSE THERE'S A LOT OF DISCUSSION. THIS HAS BEEN GOOD FEEDBACK TO HEAR, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL FOR US TO GO BACK, TAKE A LOOK AT THE IMPACT OF THE CHANGE IN THE BUILDING LENGTH AND WHAT THAT DOES TO SETBACKS AND THE LOT LAYT AND EVERYTHING SO CERTAINLY WILLING O TABLE IF THAT'S THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY, THANK YOU. OKAY. >> BASED ON WHAT YOU'VE HEARD FROM US AND THE COMMUNICATION WITH THE STAFF, DO YOU THINK -- HOW LONG -- BECAUSE WE HAVE TO TABLE IT TO A TIME. SO WHAT KIND OF TIME FRAME WOULD YOU PREFER? >> WE'RE FINE WITH TABLING IT TO FEBRUARY 5TH, WHICH I THINK IS YOUR FIRST MEETING IN FEBRUARY. AND THAT WILL GIVE US TIME TO LOOK AT OUR PLANS, MAKE THE PLAN REVISIONS MADE, GET EVERYTHING BACK TO STAFF AND GET BACK ON AN AGENDA. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. BROUNOFF? >> BROUNOFF: WELL, BASED ON THE STATEMENT THAT WE'VE JUST HEARD, AND IN THAT CASE I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE MEETING OF FEBRUARY 5TH. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: WE'LL DO THEM SEPARATE. FOR ITEM 3A I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF COMMISSIONRONS TO TABLE ITEM 3A TO FEBRUARY 5TH. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. >> I MOVE THAT WE TABLE ITEM 3B TO THE FEBRUARY 5TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO TABLE TO FEBRUARY 5TH. THAT ITEM CARRIES ALSO. NUMBER 4. >> PUBLIC HEARING CASE ZONING CASE 2023-029, REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR ELECTRICAL SUBTATION ON ONE LOT ON 3.4 ACRES LOCATED 1440 FEET WEST OF NORTH STAR ROAD, AND 940 FEET SOUTH OF PLANO PARKWAY. ZONED RESEARCH/TECHNOLOGY CENTER. PETITIONER IS PLANO PROPERTY OWNER LP. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THIS REQUEST IS FOR A TABLED OF ZONING CASE TO THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO REFINE THE REQUEST. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE REQUEST TO TABLE IT TO THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 MEETING. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? NONE? THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MOVE WE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF AND TABLE IT TO FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO TABLE ITEM 4 TO FEBRUARY 5TH. PLEASE VOTE. 7-0, THAT ITEM CARRIES. FIVE. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5, PUBLIC HEARING: SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMOUNT 2023-003, REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RELATED TO TO HB3699 INCLUDINGXTENSION OF CERTAIN PLAT APPROVAL AUTHORITY TO STAFF AS PERMITTED UNDER THE BILL. PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, I'M WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. STAFF REPRESENTS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT A REQUEST TO TABLE ZONING SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AMENDMENT 2023-003 TO THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOE HE ANY SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MOVE WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM 5 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO THE FEBRUARY 5, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO TABLE ITEM 5 TO FEBRUARY 5TH. AND YOU ABSTAINED? SO WE HAVE A 6-0 WITH ONE ABSTENTION. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CASE 2023-019, REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO RECENT STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS AND TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, INCLUDING AMENDMENTS RELATED TO SB929. PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE REQUEST TO TABLE THIS ZONING CASE 2023-019 TO FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON ITEM 6? ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY DISCUSSION OF THE COMMISSION? >> I MOVE THAT WE FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE STAFF AND TABLE ZONING CASE 2023-019 T THE FEBRUARY 5TH, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A WELL WORDED MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER LISLE TO TABLE ITEM 6 PER STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. I BELIEVE THE LAST ITEM IS -- >> ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS. >> Chair Downs: IS THERE ANYBODY TO HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO A FUTURE AGENDA? ARE WE GOING TO TABLE THAT ITEM TO FEBRUARY 57TH? [LAUGHTER]. OKAY, SEEING NONE, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 8:25.