>> Chair Downs: THANK YOU, GUYS FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. WE WILL KICKOFF OUR MEETING AT 7:00. PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME FOR 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 AN 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: DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, W DOOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MOVE ON TO CONSENT. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACT UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO REMOVE ONE OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS? SEEING NONE -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 1. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSID. UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED UPON IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED. REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER . THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLAN: FAIRVIEW FARM MARKETPLACE, BLOCK A, LOT 8R - HOTEL ON ONE LOT ON 2.9 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF U.S. HIGHWAY 75, 975 FEET NORTH OF PARKER ROAD. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NO. 174 FOR ANIMAL EXHIBITION. APPLICANT: PLANO LODGING, LLC. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. PARKER McDOWELL, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ITEM FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> ChairownsTHANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. COMMENTS? >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO APPROVE ITEM 1 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. I'M JUST GOING TO KEEP LOOKING AT YOU UNTIL YOU MAKE A MOTION. ITEM 2 >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY REPLAT: PROMONTORY ON PRESTON, BLOCK A, LOTS 1R AND 2R - 264 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES ON LOT 1R AND VEHICLE PARKING LOT ON LOT 2R ON 15.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY AND OHIO D ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-176- RETAIL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: PROMONTORY, LTD. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M RAHA POULADI, LEAD PLANNER. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PRELIMINARY REPLAT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. OKAY. HERE WE GO. >> Tong: I MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. GREAT MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TONG. I'LL GIVE COMMISSIONER STONE THE SECOND ON ITEM 2. PLEASE VOTE. IT'S NOT A CONTEST. I PROMISE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. YOU'RE KEEPING SCORE? OKAY. >> NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPO THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. DISCUSSION AND ACTION: CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING ━ AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER ADDITION OF A LAND USE CLASSIFICATION RELATED TO COMMERCIAL DRONE DEL APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS GLEN GREER, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS A DISCUSSION AND ACTION AND CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING PERTAINING TO AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO CONSIDER THE ADDITION OF A LAND USE CLASSIFICATION RELATED TO COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY. SO RECENTLY STAFFAS APPROACHED BY A DEVELOPER PROPOSING THE ADDITION OF A THREE-STORY TOWER AT A LOCAL RETAIL STORE TO SUPPORT COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY. STAFF UNDERSTANDS THAT THIS IS AN EMERGENT TECHNOLOGY EXPECTED TO INCREASE WITH THE E-COMMERCE SERVICES AND THERE ARE PLANS IN THESE SERVICES BEING OFFERED ACROSS THE DFW METROPLEX IN THE NEAR FUTURE. SO CURRENTLY UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SYSTEMS, ALSO KNOWN AS DRONES, FALL UNDER FERAL A STATE REGULATIONS. THESE FEDERAL REGULATIONS ARE ADMINISTERED BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION UNDER TITLE 14 PART 107 OF THE CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS. PART 107 REGULATIONS PERTAIN TO OPERATIONS, LICENSING AND REGISTRATION, AIR SPACE, EQUIPMENT, AND TRAINING. THERE ARE ALSO ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS UNDER PART 135, BUT THIS TYPICALLY ONLY PERTAINS TO DRONE DELIVERY SERVICES IF THE SERVICE WILL TAKE PLACE BEYOND A VISUAL LINE OF SIGHT OF THE OPERATOR SO THE STATE OF TEXAS ALSO HAS ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS UNDER GOVERNMENT CODE CHAPTER 423 THAT RELATE TO PRIVACY OPERATIONS AS WELL AS SETTING LIMITS ON LOCAL REGULATION. AND SO BECAUSE OF THE FEDERAL AND STATE PREEMPTION, THE LOCAL AUTHORITY ON REGULATING DRONE USE IS CURRENTLY LIMITED TO TYPICAL LAND USE AND ZONING LAW. SO IN CONSIDERATION OF THIS REQUEST, STATE EXAMINED EXISTING USE CLASSIFICATIONS THAT ARE SIMILAR TO A COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY PORT. THESE ARE HELIPORT, HELISTOP, AS WELL AS WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER USES. EACH OF THESE USES HAS SOME OVERLAP BE COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY PORT BUT THEY ARE BROADER THAN A BUSINESS OPERATION OF A PACKAGE DELIVERY BY DRONE. THE HELIPORT AND HELISTOP USES ARE NOT ALLOWED IN A RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT WHICH IS WHE WE T FREQUENTLY AS THEY ARE OFTEN ATTACHED TO RETAIL STORES. AND THEN THE HELIPORT AND HELISTOP USES HAVE ADDITIONAL USE REGULATIONS THAT MAY NOT BE APPROPRIATE FOR A COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY PORT. THE INCIDENTAL RETAIL AND SERVICE USE REQUIRES THAT THERE IS NO SEPARATE OUTSIDE ENTRANCE OR VISIBLE SIGNAGE, WHICH MAY BE LIMITING FOR THE TYPES OF STRUCTURES THAT AR ANTICIPATED FOR THIS USE. AND THE WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER USE WOULD LIMIT THE LOCATION WHERE THESE COULD LOCATE EVEN MORE THAN HELIPORT OR HELISTOP USES. SO STAFF SURVEYED SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES FOR THEIR USE CLASSIFICATION FOR COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY PORTS. THE CITY OF ALLEN CONSIDERS IT A HELIPORT WITH NO ADDITIONAL REGULATIONS. FRISCO HAS CLASSIFIED IT AS A TEMPORARY USE FOR A PILOT PROGRAM, WHICH REQUIRES SITE PLAN REVIEW. FOR GRANDBURY, TEXAS, IT FELL UNDER KIOSK DEFINITION. THEY CONSIDER IT AN INCIDENTAL USE TO A RETAIL STORE AND RICHARDSON IS UNLISTED USE WHICH WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIAL PERMIT, SIMILAR TO OUR SUP PROCESS. SO OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES FRISCO GRANDBURY, AND LITTLE ELM ALREADY OFFER THIS SERVICE IN THEIR COMMUNITIES. SO STAFF NOTES THAT A POTENTIAL CONCERN FOR THESE USES WOULD BE THE NOISE THAT IT COULD PRODUCE. THIS COULD BE PREEMPTIVELY ADDRESSED THROUGH A SEPARATIO REQUIREMENT OF 1,300 OR 150 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONING USES COMBINED WITH REQUIRED SCREENING. AND SO THE 1,000 FOOT REQUIREMENT, IT MIRRORS THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT OF OUR HELISTOP AND HELIPORT USES , ALTHOUGH WE BELIEVE IT MAY BE TOO PROHIBITIVE FOR THE COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY AS THESE ARE EXPECTED TO FREQUENTLY OPERATE FROM RETAIL STORES, WHICH ARE COMMONLY LOCATED NEAR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND THE OPERATORS OFTEN NEED TO KEEP LINE OF SIGHT OF THE DRONES. AND SO BECAUSE OF THIS, WE BELIEVE THAT A SEPARATION REQUIREMENT OF 300 OR 150 FEET WOULD BE MORE APPROPRIATE. AND ADDITIONALLY THERE IS THE POSSIBILITY OF SETTING SOME SITE LIMITATIONS SIMILAR TO OUR OPEN STORAGE REQUIREMENTS, WHICH ALLOW FOR 5% OF THE TOTAL LOT AREA OR 20% OF THE MAIN BUILDING GROSS FLOOR AREA, WHICHEVER IS MOST RESTRICTIVE. STAFF CREATED A MAP TO ILLUSTRATE THE 150, 300, AND 1,000 FEET BUFFERS. THIS USES THE CORNER OF PARK AND PRESTON. THE 1,000-FOOT BUFFER LINE, IT'S THE BROWN ONE IN THE MIDDLE, WITH THAT IT LIMITS THE USE DOWN TO A VERY SMALL AREA OF THIS RETAIL CORNER AND ADDITIONALLY THIS IS DONE FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONING, NOT RESIDENTIAL USES AND SO KIND OF IN THAT SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE BROWN LINE, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY APARTMENTS SO IF WE WERE COMNING THIS INTO RESIDENTIAL ZONING AND RESIDENTIAL USES, IT WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO BE IN THIS AREA AT ALL. SO STAFF HAS DRAFTED A POTENTIAL DEFINITION AND USE ALLOWANCE FOR A COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY PORT, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN. THIS DEFINITION WAS DRAFTED BASED UPON OUR HELIPORT DEFINITION AND WE HAVE ALSO INCLUDED POTENTIAL USE ALLOWANCES, LIKE ALLOWING IT AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO RETAIL STORES, FOOD AND GROCERY STORES SHOPPINGCENTERS AND SUPERSTORES AND AS A PRIMARY USE WHERE WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION CENTERS ARE ALLOWED. AND SO BASED UPON THOSE ALLOWANCES, WE HAVE THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TABLE TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA OF THE DISTRICT THAT THE USE WOULD BE ALLOWED IN. ADDITIONALLY, THE MAP ON THE SCREEN DEPICTS THE AREA OF THE CITY IN WHICH COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY PORTS WOULD BE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE. AND IT SHOWS WHERE IT WOULD BE ALLOWED AS A PRIMARY USE, BASED UPON THOSE POTENTIAL USE ALLOWANCES. AND SO WHILE CONDUCTING OUR RESEARCH, STAFF FOUND THAT THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS HAS CONSIDERED DRONE TAXI SERVICE AS PART OF ITS TRANSPORTATION PLANS. AT THIS POINT THE CITY HAS NOT BEEN APPROACHED REGARDING UNCREWED AIRCRAFT, HOWEVER IT MAY BE BENEFICIAL TO UPDATE TO INCORPORATE ALLOWANCES FOR UNMANNED AIRCRAFT SCALED SIMILARLY TO HELICOPTERS, AND THOSE PROPOSED CHANGES ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN . SO AT THIS TIME STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSION PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS: ONE, SHOULD COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY PORT BE ADDED AS A USE IN A ZONING ORDINANCE? AND, IF SO, SHOULD THE USE BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO RAIL STORES, FOOD AND GROCERY STORES, SHOPPING CENTERS, AND SUPERSTORES. SHOULD THE USE BE PERMITTED AS A PRIMARY USE IN ZONING DISTRICTS WHERE WAREHOUSING IS ALLOWED? EITHER A 300 OR 150-FOOT SEPARATION IS APPROPRIATE, SHOULD THE USE HAVE SITE LIMITATIONS AND SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS TO LIMIT INITIAL POTENTIAL IMPACT . AND ARE THERE OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS STAFF SHOULD CONSIDER FOR THE USE. AND IF THE COMMISSION DETERMINES THAT THE USE SHOULD NOT BE ADD TO THEONING ORDINANCE, SHOULD WE CONSIDER THE USE AS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR PLANO? AND FOR QUESTION TWO, ARE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE STAFF TO RESEARCH FURTHER? SO AT THIS TIME, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE ADDITION OF COMMERCIAL DRONE DELIVERY PORT AS A USE CLASSIFICATION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND IF APPROPRIATE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS PURPOSE. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HAVE A COUPLE AND THERE MAY BE SOME OTHERS AS WELL. SO DO WE HAVE SOMEONE RIGHT NOW THAT'S WANTING TO SET THIS UP? >> YES. WE'VE RECEIVED A REQUEST FROM A COMPANY THAT WANTS TO ADD THAT THREE-STORY TOWER TO A BUILDING OVER NEAR THE CORNER OF CUSTER AND -- >> Chair Downs: WELL, I GUESS MY QUESTION REALLY IS THE PLACE THAT IT'S BEING REQUESTED RIGHT NOW, IF W ALLOW IT AS SUGGESTED AND AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN RETAIL, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO DO THIS AS AN ACCESSORY USE? >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. IF WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS, CALL A PUBLIC HEARING, ET CETERA, WOULD EXISTING RETAIL LOCATIONS BE REQUIRED TO COME BEFORE COMMISSION TO ASK FOR CHANGES IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO DO IT? OR BY DEFAULT, AS AN ACCESSORY USE, IT WILL BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE STANDARDS. IS THAT TRUE? THERE WOULDN'T BE AN ADDITIONAL NEED FOR THEM TO COME BEFORE US TO REQUEST PERMISSION TO ADD ONE OF THESE LOCATIONS. IT WOULD JUST SIMPLY BE ADDED AS AN ACCESSORY USE BY RIGHT IF THEY'RE IN A RETAIL-ZONED AREA. >> RIGHT. AS LONG AS THEY MEET WHATEVER SITE STIPULATIONS THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL MAY WANT. AND OTHERWISE THEY LIKELY, IN MOST CASES, ARE GOING TO NEED TO DO A SITE PLAN SO THERE WOULD BE SOME DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL THAT WOULD NEED TO OCCUR. BUT THE LEVEL WOULD VARY BASED ON WHAT THEIR NEEDS ARE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA -- I MEAN, I READ ALL OF THIS. HOW BIG A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? HOW LOUD IS IT? I MEAN, ANYTHING LIKE THAT IF I'M PERSONALLY TRYING TO DECIDE SHOULD IT BE 150, 300-FOOT. I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. ARE THEY GOING TO BE OPERATING 24/7? ARE THEY GOING TO BE RESTRICTED TO DAYLIGHT HOURS ONLY? THERE'S A LOT MORE INFORMATION I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE. I'M NOT SAYING WE CAN'T CALL A PUBLIC HEARING OR MY VOTE ISN'T GOING TO BE THAT WE CAN'T CALL ONE UNTIL WE HAVE THAT INFORMATION, I WOULD JUST LIKE TO HAVE MORE INFORMATION BEFORE I WAS REALLY WILLING TO DRAFT OR CREATE A STANDARD OR AN ORDINANCE LANGUAGE WITHOUT MORE INFORMATION. >> RIGHT. AS FAR AS THE NOISE, WE DID GET A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION FROM THE APPLICANT. FROM WHAT THEY PROVIDED, IT SAYS THAT THEY ARE EXPECTING THEIR DRONES TO BE AT ABOUT 78 DECIBELS AT 20 FEET IN THE AIR. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. AND THEY'RE PROPOSING A THREE-STORY DOCKING WHATEVER AREA. ARE WE GOING TO REQUIRE THEM ALL TO BE THREE STORY OR ARE WE GOING TO SET DIFFERENT HEIGHT ELEVATIONS FOR THESE? DO WE HAVE A RECOMMEATIONN THAT? >> AT THIS TIME, WE DO NOT. THE APPLICANT REQUESTED THREE STORIES BUT WE DON'T KNOW THAT ALL BUSINESSES WOULD USE THAT SAME MODEL AND WE DON'T KNOW THAT THEY HAVE EVEN NECESSARILY REQUIRED THAT MODEL, IT'S JUST THEIR PREFERENCE AT THIS LOCATION. AND IT WOULD ALSO BE -- UNLESS, AGAIN, WE DECIDE ON EXCEPTIONS, IT WOULD BE BASED ON THE ZONING HEIGHT LIMITATION FOR THAT ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS TWO, CURRENTLY, FOR RETAIL. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I THINK THAT'S ALSO A CRITICAL PART OF OUR DESIGN ELEMENT AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE WOULD BE WHAT'S REQUIRED. AND IF THIS IS ONE COMPANY THAT HAS THIS BUSINESS COMING IN, WHAT IF ANOTHER COMPANY COMES IN AND THEY USE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PLATFORM? IT REQUIRES A FOUR-STORY TOWER OR REQUIRES NO TOWER. I THINK WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT ALL THE POSSIBLE WAYS THIS COULD GO IF WE'RE GOING TO ALLOW THIS IN THE COMMUNITY. I THINK, COMMISSIONER HORNE, I KNOW COMMISSIONER STONE, BUT COMMISSIONER HORNE, GO AHEAD. >> Horne: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. MR. GREER, GREAT PRESENTATION. ONE THING I'M A LITTLE -- YOU TALKED ABOUT TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF DRONES HERE, ONE FOR DELIVERY. BUT YOU ALSO MENTIONED THE TRANSPORTATION DRONE. I WANT TO BE CLEAR HERE THAT WE'RE TALKING STRICTLY FOR PRODUCT DELIVERY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Horne: BECAUSE IF WE'RE GOING TO GO TO A TAXI SERVICE, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT BALLGAME BECAUSE THAT'S A MUCH LARG ACRAFT. THE SECOND ELEMENT THAT I HAVE CONCERNED WITH OR A QUESTION ABOUT IS YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR REPORT LINE OF SIGHT. BUT IF YOU SEE WHAT AMAZON, WHAT WALMART, UPS, DHL ARE DOING, THERE'S NOT LINE OF SIGHT. IT'S PROGRAMMED IN THERE AND THIS DRONE -- AND YOU CAN SEE INACCURACIES DURING DRONE ARTWORK IN THE SKY AT THE OLYMPICS, ET CETERA. THIS DRONE, LITERALLY ONCE THAT TRIGGER IS PUSHED, IT GOES DIRECTLY UP AND OVER AS THE CROW FLIES TO THE EXODUS POINT FOR THE DRONE WHERE THEY DROP OFF THE PACKAGE. THAT CAN ALSO, TO ADDRESS PRIVACY ISSUES, FOLLOW HIGHWAYS. SO INSTEAD OF GOING STRAIGHT ACROSS AS THE CROW FLIES, IT COULD GO DOWN LEGACY, TAKE A LEFT AND DELIVER MY PACKAGE. IT COULD DO THAT JUST LIKE THAT. AND IT'S PROGRAMMED LIKE THAT. WE HAVE TO SORT OF LOOK INTO THAT. THE OTHER ELEMENT ABOUT THIS HERE IS THAT -- AND IT DOES ADDRESS PRIVACY -- IS THAT THE FAA IS STILL TRYING TO PROMULGATE REGULATIONS UNDER THE CFR, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, AS TO THE USES AND APPLICATION OF DRONES BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE GOT ONE NOW FOR RECREATIONAL PILOTS. THERE'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT SET OF LAWS AND REGULATIONS THAT WE HAVE THERE THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW, VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL ENTITY THAT WANTS TO DO THIS. AS TO YOUR POINT DO WE NEED A THREE-STORY COMPLEX? NOT REALLY. THEY CAN DO THIS IN TIR BACK PARKING LOT AND TAKE OFF, AS LONG AS THEY HAVE THE RESOURCES SECURED THAT THEY CAN MAINTAIN AND CHARGE THESE AIRCRAFT, SIMILAR TO WHAT, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE ANYWHERE ELSE. THEY CAN HAVE IT JUST COME STRAIGHT OUT OF THEIR WAREHOUSE TO DELIVER THAT. IT COULD ALSO BE ON THE ROOF, IF THE ROOF IS STRUCTURALLY SOUND, TO LAUNCH THESE AIRCRAFT. SO OUR ISSUE, WHEN WE LOOK AT IT FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, IS TIED TO NOISE AND REALLY IF WE SORT OF CONSIDER SIMILAR TO A HELISTOP WHAT TYPE OF SETBACKS DO WE HAVE FROM THAT COMMERCIAL ENTITY TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY? BECAUSE THOSE DRONES, LIKE I SAID, ARE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT UP, HIT A CERTAIN ELEVATION, PROBABLY NO MORE THAN 500 FEET AND THEY'RE GOING TO GO STRAIGHT AS PROGRAMMED TO DELIVER THE PACKAGE. I THINK WE HAVE A LOT OF THE SETBACKS ALREADY INCORPORATED INTO OUR LAND USE. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO THINK WE COULD SEE,FHEY WANT TO DO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO SEE SOME TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PLANS -- SAY WALMART WANTS TO USE THAT, THE LOCAL WALMART WANTS TO HAVE LOCAL DELIVERY. JUST LIKE WE SEE THAT THEY WANT TO -- COME BACK TO REVISED SITE PLANS FOR EXTERIOR STORAGE SPACE. WE'LL PROBABLY SEE SOMETHING SIMILAR TO THAT, OKAY? SO WE WON'T REALLY NEED A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR THAT BUT IT IS SOMETHING THAT I THINK WE NEED TO CONSIDER BECAUSE WE HAVE TO BE KEENLY SENSITIVE TO THE NOISE GENETED B, THESE UNMANNED AERIAL SYSTEMS, THAT ARE GOING TO FLY NEAR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. SO I WOULD LIKE TO THINK, AGAIN OUR BUSINESS PARTNERS, BEFORE THEY GO OFF AND DO THIS, THAT THEY COME TO US. IT'S A REQUIREMENT THAT THEY WOULD COME TO US THAT WE HAVE TO AT LEAST APPROVE THOSE PLANS AND GET INPUT FROM THE PUBLIC. THOSE ARE THE ELEMENTS, AS I WENT THROUGH HERE, AND THE QUESTIONS I HAD. MR. GREER, GREAT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER STONE. >> Stone: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. GENTLEMEN AND LADIES, I SEE THIS AS A PERFECT EXAMPLE OF THE CAMEL GETTING HIS NOISE JUST UNDER THE EDGE OF THE TENT. JUST UNDER THE EDGE OF THE TENT. WHATEVER WE DO HERE TONIGHT, I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF PUTTING DRONE LOCATION AND CONSTRUCTION INFORMATION IN AN ACCESSORY USE WHERE IT CAN JUST SHOW UP ANYWHER IT NEE TO BE. I BELIEVE THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO RETAIN CONTROL OF WHERE DRONE LOCATIONS CAN AND CANNOT GO. AND WITH THAT IN MIND, WOULD YOU MIND BACKING UP TO YOUR MAP OF THE SUGGESTED ZONES AND LOCATIONS -- YES. >> Chair Downs: ONE MORE. >> THIS IS THE ACCESSORY USE. >> Stone: YEAH, GO ONE FURTHER OR NO, BACK UP ONE THEN. >> THIS IS THE BUFFER MAP. >> Stone: YOU HAD IT THERE. >> THE PRIMARY OR THE ACCESSORY USE? >> Stone: THE OPAQUE ONE. >> Chair Downs: SO THIS IS THE ONE WHERE IT COULD BE USED AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE RETAIL. >> Stone: I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THAT ONE. >> Chair Downs: THE NEXT ONE SHOWS IT IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. >> Stone: RIGHT THERE. I'M LOOKING AT THAT MAP AND I'M WONDERING -- OKAY. EXPLAIN TO ME AGAIN ARE THESE THREE LOCATIONS IN THE INDUSTRIAL PERMITTED AS PRIMARY USE, IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING? >> YEAH, SO IN THE CENTRAL BUSINESS COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT, AND IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1 AND 2 DISTRICT. >> Stone: IF WE APPROVED IT IN THAT DISTRICT WORDING, THESE ARE THE THREE OR FOUR PLACES THAT IT COULD GO? >> YES. POSSIBLY, AS A PRIMARY USE. >> Stone: OKAY. OKAY. I WAS INTERESTED THAT I DID NOT SEE COLLIN CREEK ON THERE BUT COLLIN CREEK IS NOT A INDURI? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO. >> Stone: OKAY. SO BACK UP TO THE OTHER MAP WITH ALL THE CHICKENPOX ON IT. HERE ARE THE LOCATIONS, WHICH WOULD BE RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL. >> YES. THIS IS IF IT WAS ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE TO THOSE RETAIL STORES. >> Stone: THIS IS THE ONE THAT I WOULD NOT -- COULD NOT SUPPORT BEING ABLE, BY SIMPLE APPLICATION, TO BE ABLE TO PUT A DRONE ANYWHERE THAT THOSE LOCATIONS WOULD ALLOW. I BELIEVE THIS COMMISSION -- >> Chair Downs: WITHOUT REVIEW. >> Stone: THIS COMMISSION NEEDS TO BE ABLE TO REVIEW THAT, JUST LIKE OPEN STORAGE. >> Chair Downs: WE NEED A SPECIFIC-USE PERMIT IS WHAT YOU WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF FOR RETAIL. >> Stone: EXACTLY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: SOME GREAT COMMENTS ALREADY. I GUESS THE FIRST THING I WANT TO SAY IS I'M GLAD WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THIS AND AS HAS BEEN SAID HERE, YOU GUYS ARE TAKING A GOOD FIRST STEP, AND I THINK WE NEED TO DO THAT. THIS IS COMING AT US, AS A SOCIETY AND AS A CITY OF EXCELLENCE, I THINK IT'S WISE THAT WE TRY TO GET OUT IN FRONT OF IT, WHICH IS WHAT I SEE THE TEAM DOING HERE, AND SO I APPLAUD THAT. WITH THAT SAID, I THINK THERE ARE A LOT OF GOOD QUESTIONS YET TO BE ANSWERED AND THERE'S SO MANY THINGS THAT MOST OF US DON'T KNOW ABOUT IT AND AS WE MOVE OUR PLAN AHEAD, WHICH I THINK WE PROBABLY WILL NEED TO DO, ULTIMATELY, I THINK WE NEED TO ANSWER THOSE BUT THERE'S SO MANY DIFFERENT THINGS OUT THERE IN TERMS OF WHAT KIND OF NOISE WILL THESE REALLY MAKE. I'M SURE THAT WILL BE SOMEWHAT DEPENDENT UPON HOW MANY OF THESE DO WE ALLOW? WHEN WE STARTALKI ABOUT DOG IT BY RIGHT, I IMMEDIATELY, LIKE COMMISSIONER STONE, GET A LITTLE NERVOUS UNTIL WE HAVE MORE INFORMATION AND I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE OVERVIEW OF THAT. BECAUSE IF IT'S BY RIGHT, WHO KNOWS HOW MANY OF THESE THINGS COULD BE IN THE AIR ALL OF A SUDDEN. AND THEN WHAT DANGERS THAT MIGHT HAVE. WILL THEY START RUNNING INTO EACH OTHER AND WHAT PATH DO THEY GO DOWN. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO BE ASKED, INCLUDING WHAT ARE THE POTENTIAL RISKS AND WHAT ARE THE MAYBE WORST CASE SCENARIOS. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT PROXIMITY TO NEIGHBORHOODS UNTIL WE REALLY, AGAIN, UNDERSTAND SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS, AND PRIVACY. AND THEN JUST ULTIMATELY HOW MANY OF THESE CAN BE IN THE AIR AND OF WHAT SIZE AND ALL THOSE THINGS. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF QUESTIONS TO ANSWER BUT I APPLAUD YOU GUYS FOR TAKING THIS ON BECAUSE I THINK IT WOULD BE GREAT IF PLANO DEVELOPED A PLAN THAT WAS REALLY A BENEFIT AND THAT MAY BENEFIT THE BUSINESSES AND THE CITIZENS THAT ARE IN THIS CITY AS A CITY OF EXCELLENCE. YOU KNOW, I'M FOR MOVING FORWARD ON THIS AT WHATEVER PACE THIS COMMISSION THINKS AND THE PLANNING TEAM THINKS IS WISE. AND I THINK WE SHOULD BE DELIBERATE IN WHAT WE DO. AGAIN, I APPLAUD THE INITIATIVE HERE. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO I'M HESITANTLY EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE THOUGHT BEHIND THIS. ONE OF MY QUESTIONS -- AND YOU MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ANSWER, MAYBE YOU CAN. WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE NOISE, IS THAT NOISE DEPENDENT ON THE WEIGHT OF WHAT'S BEING TR? >> I'M NOT SURE. I WOULD ASSUME THAT THE NOISE IS GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON THE SIZE OF THE ACTUAL DRONE OR ON THE TYPE. >> Bronsky: OKAY. AND WHEN IT COMES TO THE SIZE AND TYPE, I GUESS THAT'S GOING TO BE DEPENDENT ON WHAT THEY'RE WANTING TO MOVE AS WELL CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> Bronsky: COMMISSIONER CARY BROUGHT UP A POINT THAT I HAD WRITTEN DOWN. TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT. WHEN MORE THAN ONE ORGANIZATION T THE SAME TIME, WHAT PROTECTIONS DO WE HAVE FOR THE CITIZENS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE COLLISIONS AND HOW DO WE -- >> I CAN LOOK INTO THAT AND GET A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT IT AND GET IT BACK TO YOU. AS FAR AS I KNOW, WHEN THEY ARE REGISTERING THESE DRONES WITH THE FAA, THEY HAVE TO ALSO HAVE SOME SORT OF HOMING DEVICE ON THEM, JUST SO THEY CAN TRACK THE LOCATION AS WELL >> Bronsky: BUT THERE ARE OTHER -- THE SECOND COMMERCIAL ENTITY THAT WOULD BE OPERATING ON ANOTHER CORNER, HOW WOULD THEY KNOW WHEN THE OTHER ONE -- IS THERE A PROXIMITY THING? >> SORT OF LIKE -- >> Chair Downs: THEY HAVE SENSORS. I HAVE A DRONE I FLY AND IF I'M TRYING TO GO THIS DIRECTION AND THERE'S OMETHING THERE, IT LITERALLY WILL NOT GO THAT DIRECTION. THAT'S ON A SMALL ONE. I IMAGINE THESE THAT COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS, THEY HAVE BETTER EQUIPMENT THAN I HAVE. I THINK IT'S A REASONABLE QUESTION, THOUGH, AND IT'S HEADED DOWN THAT PATH AGAIN OF WHERE I FEEL LIKE WE JUST DON'T HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION. BUT LET ME LET YOU -- I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. FINISH YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE. >> Bronsky: SO MY NEXT QUESTION -- AND MAYBE I'M MIXED UP OR MAYBE I'M NOT. THE ACTUAL DELIVERY LOCATIONS FOR THESE, ARE THEY SUPPOSED TO BE WITHIN THOSE BOUNDARIES AS WELL OR ARE THEY DELIVERING >> IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT THEY WILL DELIVER TO RESIDENTIAL, MAINLY JUST LIKE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WHERE THEY CAN DELIVER TO A FRONT OR BACKYARD, SO NOT IN, LIKE, A MULTIFAMILY, JUST BECAUSE THERE'S NO YARD TO PLACE THE PACKAGE IN. >> Bronsky: SO THEY WOULD TRANSVERSE THE ENTIRE CITY IN DELIVERY? >> SO MOST OF THESE WILL HAVE TO MAINTAIN LIKE A VISUAL LINE OF SIGHT, SO TY ONLY HAVE A SET DISTANCE THEY COULD TRAVEL TO, DEPENDING ON WHERE THE OPERATOR IS LOCATED. >> Bronsky: YOU KNOW, AGAIN, I THINK THIS IS A GREAT IDEA. I THINK COMING. ARE THERE COMMUNITIES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF EVEN THE ONES WE'VE LOOKED AT DIRECTLY. ARE THERE PLACES THIS IS BEING SUCCESSFUL? >> YES. I KNOW THIS PARTICULAR COMPANY, THEY'VE OPERATED IN A FEW CIES ARKANSAS D I BELIEVALSH CAROLINA. RIGHT NOW THEY'RE PROPOSING TO MOVE ACROSS THE DFW METROPLEX, SO PLANO, RICHARDSON, DALLAS, GARLAND, MESQUITE, AND I BELIEVE MURPHY AS WELL. >> Bronsky: OKAY. YEAH, I WANT TO INVESTIGATE THIS FURTHER. I THINK PART OF BEING A CITY OF EXCELLENCE IS CONTINUING TO BE A CITY THAT LEADS AND THAT IS STAYING ON THE EDGE OF DELIVERING WHAT OUR CITIZENS DESERVE AND NEED TO HAVE. AND SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF INVESTIGATING THIS FURTHER. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: QUICK QUESTION, AND THIS MIGHT BE FOR MICHELLE. YOU HAD A STATEMENT EARLIER THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE CAPS FROM A FEDERAL, STATE, AND LEGAL PERSPECTIVE ON WHAT THE LOCAL CAN DO. OUTSIDE OF THE LAND USE PORTION, WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S EITHER BY RIGHT OR BY SPECIAL USE PERMIT OR WHAT HAVE YOU, BASED ON YOU GATHERING MORE INFORMATION , HOW MUCH LEEWAY DO WE HAVE IN REGULATING FLIGHT PATHS AND SIZE THE TYPE OF PACKAG, SIZE OF PACKAGE THAT CAN BE CARRIED AND ON AND ON AND ON, FLAMMABLE VERSUS NON-FLAMMABLE PACKAGES. >> RIGHT. THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S PREEMPTED A LOT OF OUR REGULATION ON THIS. LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, NOISE. WE CAN'T REGULATE AIRCRAFT NOISE. BUT THEY HAVE LEFT THE ZONING OF WHERE TO PUT THESE LAUNCHING AREAS TO US. THEY HAVE LEFT PRIVACY TO US AND THERE'S A FEW OTHER AREAS LEFT TO US, NOT MUCH. SO AS YOU ALL COME UP WITH QUESTIONS, I'LL BE PREPARED TO LET YOU KNOW IF WE'RE WITHIN THE BOUNDS. >> Olley: YEAH, I THINK WITH THAT IN MIND, IT'S MORE AND MORE LIKELY, TO COMMISSIONER STE'S POINT, THAT EVERY -- WE NEED TO RETAIN AS MUCH CONTROL OVER EVERY APPLICATION AS POSSIBLE SINCE THERE'S NOT MUCH -- OUT OF OUR HANDS ONCE THAT'S APPROVED. >> JUST TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT, I WAS THINKING THE SAME THING. IF THERE'S AN AIRPORT WE HAVE NOISE BOUNDARIES BY WHICH RESIDENTIAL CAN'T BE SO CLOSE WITHIN AN AIRPORT. NOW WE'RE ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THAT. SOMEBODY IS WANTING TO LOCATE AN AIRPORT IN RESIDENTIAL. IT'S A SMALL AIRPORT BUT IT'S AN AIRPORT. CAN WE SET SOUND BOUNDARIES? THAT LEADS TO MY QUESTION OF CAN WE ALSO REGULATE THE NUMBER OF DECIBELS? IF YOU HAVE ONE 75-DECIBEL DRONE, THAT'S ONE THING. IF YOU HAVE 100 75-DECIBEL DRONES, THAT'S A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THING. WE NEED TO UNDERSTAND THE TOTAL MAGNITUDE OF THE SOUND ISSUE, BECAUSE THAT'S DISTURBING THE PEACE FOR THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. SO I MIGHT BE OKAY WITH A COMPANY THAT WANTS TO OPERATE ONE DRONE BEING WITHIN 100 FEET OF A RESIDENCE BUT I'M PROBABLY NOT OKAY WITH MEBO WHO WANTS TO OPERATE 100 DRONES WITHIN 100 FEET OF A RESIDENCE. I MIGHT BE OKAY WITH TENDRONS 8:00 TO 5:00 DURING THE DAY, I MIGHT NOT BE OKAY WITH ONE AT MIDNIGHT . WE HAVE ISSUES TO LOOK AT NOT JUST THE DECIBELS OF A DRONE, BUT THE ENTIRE FLIGHT, HOW CLOSE THEY ARE TO THE RESIDENCE, NOISE STUDY, HOURS OF OPERATION. IF THEY'RE IN AN INDUSTRIAL PARK AND THEY ARE 100-FEET IN THE AIR BEFORE THEY GET TO A RESIDENCE, I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT BUT IF THEY'RE OVER MY BACK FENCE, I'M GOING TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. I WOULD BE CURIOUS TO KNOW ABOUT OUR LEGAL BOUNDARIES OF WHERE WE CAN TALK ABOUT NOISE AND DO NOISE STUDIES OR REQUIRE NOISE STUDIES VERSUS -- AND FLEET SIZE AND THE DECIBELS OF THE FLEET. >> Chair Downs: CAN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR SLIDE WITH THE QUESTIONS? RIGHT HERE. OKAY. SO I'M GOING TO JUST KIND OF RUN THROUGH THESE. I REALIZE THERE'S TWO MICROPHONES STILL TURNED ON BUT LET'S JUST KIND OF RUN THROUGH THIS IN THE INTEREST OF MOVING IT ON. FIRST, I'M GOING TO MAKE JUST A SUMMARY STATEMENT HERE, WHICH IS I DON'T THINK AT THIS TIME WE'RE READY TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING YET. OKAY? AT THIS TIME I FEEL LIKE WE KIND OF FEEL WE NEED TO ADDRESS THIS. WE NEED TO CREATE AN ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THIS. I WOULD ALSO SAY THAT AT THIS TIME IN GENERAL WE PROBABLY FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE AT LEAST AN SUP PROCESS FOR WHEREVER ONE OF THESES GOING TO GO. VERSUS BY RIGHT. SO I THINK THAT'S COVERE ONE, TWO. WE DIDN'T COVER REALLY A SEPARATION DISTANCE. I THINK WE NEED MORE INFORMATION ON THAT AROUND NOISE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. AND SITE LIMITATION, SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. I THINK THAT ALSO REQUIRES SOME MORE STUDY. BECAUSE IF THE INTENTION WITH A THREE-STORY TOWER IS THAT SOMEBODY COULD STAND ON THE TOPF THATND WATCH THAT DRONE GO OUT INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND DROP THE PACKAGE. LET'S BE HONEST, THIS IS PROBABLY WALMART SINCE THEY'RE IN ARKANSAS. THEY'RE THE ONES WHO HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT IT. THEN WE SHOULD BE PLANNING ON LOOKING FOR THREE AND FOUR-STORY TOWERS ALL AROUND IN THESE RETAIL AREAS. THAT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO THINK ABOUT. IS THAT GOOD? IS THAT SOMETHING WE WANT? I THINK IT'S GOOD THAT WE'RE FORWARD LOOKING -- I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'LL HAVE HUNDREDS OF DRONES, BUT JUST AS WE WERE TALKING EARLIER, DISCUSSING, YOU CAN'T SEE THE LIGHT SKY TOO WELL HERE BECAUSE OF LIGHT POLLUTION. NEXT THING YOU KNOW YOU CAN'T HEAR THE SOUNDS OF THE BIRDS BECAUSE OF THE DRONE NOISE. AND THAT'S MAYBE CARRYING THINGS TOO FAR BUT I THINK WE NEED MORE INFORMATION. SO HAVE I BEEN FAIRLY DEAD ON WITH KIND OF WHAT I'VE SAID SO FAR? IS THAT THE FEEDBACK THAT -- DOES THAT GIVE YOU ENOUGH STAFF INFORMATION? I THINK PERSONALLY IT WOULD BE BENEFICIAL TO HAVE WHOEVER IT IS PROPOSING THIS COME TALK TO US ABOUT HOW THESE SYSTEMS WORK. AS A MATTER OF FACT, I WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM TWO OR THREE COMPANIES HOW THESE COMPANIES WORK, HOW THEY EMPLOY THEM. HOW DO THEY SEE THEM USING THEM IN A TOWN OUR SIZE. I THINK HAVING ALL OF THAT IS GOING TO HELP US DESIGN THE BEST POSSIBLE ORDINANCE, NOT JUST SOMETHING THAT WE'VE GOT TO NOW MAKE AN ADDENDUM TO OR MODIFY A YEAR FROM NOW BECAUSE WE DIDN'T THINK ABOUT THAT. I WOULD RATHER DO A GOOD JOB ON THE FRONT END OF THIS THAN HAVE TO MAKE UP LATER AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO, OOPS, NOW WE GOT A PROBLEM. OKAY. IS THAT ENOUGH FEEDBACK FOR THEM? COMMISSIONER HORNE, YOUR MIC IS STILL ON. GO AHEAD. >> Horne: FIRST OF ALL, A COUPLE OF THINGS. THEY'RE USING DRONE DELIVERY AT COLLEG BRYAN-COLLEGE STATION. I WANT TO ADDRESS COMMISSIONER BRONSKY'S POINT. THESE DRONES WON'T BE STARTING WEST SIDE OF PLANO AND DELIVERING TO THE EAST SIDE OF PLANO. THAT'S JUST TOO FAR. THESE DRONES ARE LIMITED BY BATTERY SIZE AS TO HOW FAR THEY CAN FLY. ADD ON TO THAT THE WEIGHT OF THE PACKAGE. YOU WOULD BE SURPRISED HOW FAR THEY CAN'T GO. I MEAN, WE'RE PROBABLY TALKING, ON AN AVERAGE USE, A MILE FOR DELIVERY OF A PRODUCT, FROM A RADIAL PERSPECTIVE. SO WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT NOISE LEVEL ON THAT, THAT'S THE ELEMENT WE'RE LOOKING AT. THEY'RE GOING TO BE USING THESE DRONES FOR A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF WEIGHT. IT WON'T BE FLAMMABLE. THERE ARE NO FLAMMABLE PRODUCTS GOING UP IN THE AIR. IT'S GOING TO BE YOUR WIFE'S MAKEUP. IT'S GOING TO BE PIZZA DELIVERY. IT'S GOING TO BE WHATEVER. BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE A WEIGHT LIMIT TO IT AND SO THEREFORE THAT COMBINED WITH THE WEIGHT OF THE BATTERY WILL TELL YOU HOW FAR THESE UAVs ARE GOING TO GO. THEY'RE GOING TO BE VERTICAL TAKEOFF AND LANDING. THESE ARE ELEMENTS WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. THEY'RE ESTATIN BY 2026 THAT OVER A MILLION DELIVERIES WILL BE DROPPED OFF BY DRONES. A MILLION. NOW, THAT'S OF COURSE ACROSS THE UNITED STATES. SO FOLLOWING EVERYBODY'S COMMENTS HERE, WE ARE DOING WHAT THE CITY EXPECTS US TO DO. WE'RE LOOKING AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2050. THESE ARE DIRECT ELEMENTS THAT TIE TO THAT. AND THIS CHANGES EVERY YEAR AS TO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN. BATTERIES ARE GOING TO CHANGE AND THEY'RE GOING TO BECOME QUIETER, MAYBE LARGER PACKAGES WILL BE DELIVERED BUT THAS WHAT WE'RE FACED WITH. SO I THINK WHAT MY CONCERN IS -- AND I'M ECHOING COMMISSIONER STONE AND THE CHAIRMAN -- WE DEFINITELY NEED TO HAVE SOME CONTROLS WITHIN THIS AUGUST BODY TO ALLOW PEOPLE TO, IF THEY WANT TO USE DRONES FOR DELIVERY, IT HAS TO COME THROUGH US FIRST SO WE CAN SAFEGUARD THE CITIZENS FOR NOISE AND SECURITY. OKAY. SO I THINK IF THE SUP PROCESS IS THE WAY TO GO, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO DO. >> Chair Downs:KAY. SOMETHING TO ADD? >> Bronsky: I JUST WANTED TO SAY I DO THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT DIRECTION TO GO. I THINK WE'RE GOING TO GET THERE BEFORE 2050. MY ONLY CONCERN WAS IF WE'RE BUILDING A THREE OR FOUR-STORY TOWER -- AND YOU TALKED ABOUT LINE OF SIGHT, YOU CAN SEE QUITE A DISTANCE USING LINE OF SIGHT FROM THE TOP OF A THREE-STORY TOWER. AND SO THAT WAS MY CONCERN. SORRY? >> [OFF MIC] >> Bronsky: I THOUGHT THAT'S WHAT WE HAD TALKED ABOUT. >> Horne: THAT'S JUST ON ONE APPLICATION. THEY'LL PROBABLY PROGRAM IT IN THROUGH COMPUTERS. >> Chair Downs: AGAIN, A QUESTION TO BE ANSWERED. NEXT PAGE. MAYBE IT WAS THE NEXT ONE. YOU TALKED ABOUT THE ADDITION OF LANGUAGE TO THE HELIPORT AND HELISTOP. SO IN THE CITY OF PLANO, HOW MANY OF THESE DO WE HAVE OUTSIDE OF THE HOSPITAL WHERE THE HELICOPTERS GO IN AND OUT ALL THE TIME? >> I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION AT THIS MOMENT BUT I CAN LOOK INTO THAT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THIS IS SOMETHING I THINK WE SHOULD DO -- AND THIS IS A REAL SHORT, QUICK -- WE ALREADY KNOW THAT HELIPORT AND HELISTOPS ARE RESTRICTIVE. WHAT CAN GO IN THERE AND WHEN IS PRETTY WELL IDENTIFIED. I DO THINK THIS IS A GOOD IDEA TO GO AHEAD AND ADD THIS IN BECAUSE IT AT LEAST GIVES US THE FIRST STEP TOWARD ALLOWING THAT, WHICH IS ALSO COMING. AND MAYBE BY 2050, BUT IT'S COMING, SO AT LEAST WE'RE PUTTING IT OUT THERE THAT THIS IS TYPE OF USE THAT WE'RE GETTING PREPARED FOR. ANYONE HAVE AN OPPOSITION TO THAT? >> Cary: I DON'T KNOW THAT I HAVE OPPOSITION, BUT A QUICK QUESTION. HAVE YOU LOOKED AT OTHER CITIES MOVING THIS DIRECTION? HERE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A TAXI SERVICE SO THE LANGUAGE YOU GUYS HAVE CRAFTED, IS IT BASED ON ANYTHING YOU HAVE SEEN ELSEWHERE? HAVE WE LOOKED FOR THE BEST PRACTICE OUT THERE? THAT'S MY SIMPLE QUESTION. >> NO, THIS IS JUST BASED UPON SOME OF THE LANGUAGE FROM THE NORTH TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS, FROM THEIR REPORTS. >> Chair Downs: IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, I THINK THEY ARE KIND OF OVERSEEING, OR AT LEAST THE TRANSPORTATION GROUP OF THE NORTH TEXAS COUNCIL, KIND OF OVERSEEING THAT ORIGINAL PROPOSAL FROM DALLAS OUT TO FRISCO. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: ALONG THOSE LINES, ESPECIALLY IF WE DON'T ALREADY HAVE HELIPORTS AROUND THE CITY, JUST READING THE UNDERLINED INCLUDE AIRCRAFT OF SIMILAR SCALE. ARE WE LEAVING OURSELVES OPEN IF WE APPROVE SOMETHING FOR A DRONE? BECAUSE A DRONE IS ESSENTIALLY AN UNCREWED AIRCRAFT ON A SMALL SCALE. ARE WE LEAVING OURSELVES OPEN TO WHERE SOMEBODY CAN ARGUE THAT -- I DON'T THINK WE ARE YET AT THE POINT OF UNMANNED HELICOPTER BUT SOON WITH AN UNCREWED AIR, YOU USE THE SAME DRONE ORDINANCE, OKAY, IT'S ALLOWED IN RETAIL OR WHAT HAVE YOU AND, BM -- Chair Downs: I THINK YOUR CONCERN WOULD BE IS THERE A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN UNCREWED AIRCRAFT THAT COULD LAND AT A HELIPORT OR UNCREWED AIRCRAFT FOR DRONE USAGE. A HELIPORT IS MUCH MORE TIGHTLY CONTROLLED FROM THE STANDPOINT OF FAA REQUIREMENTS AND THE AIRCRAFT BEING USED WOULD HAVE TO BE THE SAME WAY. SO I'M NOT OPPOSED, IF YOU WANT TO FIGURE OUT DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. BUT MY BOTTOM LINE WAS I THINK WE DO NEED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS INFORMATION. OKAY. I THINKE'VE GIVEN YOU PROBABLY MORE -- AT LEAST WHAT YOU ASKED FOR AND THEN SOME. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC THAT WANTS TO ADDRESS US ON THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC? >> NO, WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE ON TO ITEM 4. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION: INTERRELATIONSHIP BETWEEN ZONIN CASE 2020-014 AND THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE. APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MELISSA KLEINIC -- THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM IS TO GO OVER THE HISTORY OF ZONING CASE 2020-14, INTRODUCE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE AS IT RELATES TO THE ZONING CASE, AND SEEK DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE OPPORTUNITY TO ALIGN BOTH PROJECTS. ZONING CASE 2020-14 IS AN AMENDMENT RELATED TO THE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT, BG, AND URBAN MIXED-USE, UMU ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO THE SETBACKS AND STREET SIGN ELEMENTS OF THOSE DISTRICTS. THE AMENDMENT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER 2020 BUT WAS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION FOR STAFF TO REEVALUATE THE PROPOSED MODIFICATIONS, BASED ON CONCERNS FROM STAKEHOLDERS IN THE BG DISTRICT. THE ISSUE IN EARLY 022 OF FOLLOWING DELAYS DUE TO STAFF SHORTAGES. HOWEVER, AROUND THIS TIME WORK BEGAN ON A PROJECT TO UPDATE THE CITY'S THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS RULES AND REGULATIONS. THEY HAVE INCREASINGLY OVERLAPPED CREATING POTENTIAL FOR AN ALTERNATE STRATEGY THROUGH NEW RIGHT OF WAY STANDARDS AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF SHY ZONES WHICH WILL BE DISCUSSED IN MORE DETAIL LATER IN THIS PRESENTATION . FIRST, I WILL PROVIDE MORE DETAIL ON THE HISTORY OF ZONING CASE 2020-14. ON FEBRUARY 3, 2020 THE COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER VARIOUS CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ONE OF THESE CHANGES BEING THE SETBACKS IN THE BG AND UMU ZONING DISTRICTS. THIS WAS INITIATED UNDER THE PLANO TOMORROW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS THE ACTIVE PLAN AT THAT TIME. ON FEBRUARY 17, 2020, THE COMMISSION CONSIDERED AN APPEAL OF THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION REGARDING HOW& TO MEASURE SETBACKS IN THE BG DISTRICT. THE COMMISSION UPHELD THE RECOENDATION. ON OCTOBER 5, 2020 THE COMMISSION HELD A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ZONING CASE 2020-14 WITH PROPOSED AMENDMENTS INCLUDING REVISING HOW SETBACKS ARE MEASURED WITHIN THE BG AND UMU DISTRICTS, CHANGING FROM USING THE CURB TO THE PROPERTY LINE. THE AMENDMENT ALSO INCLUDED THE ADDITION OF A STANDARD SIDEWALK REQUIREMENT AND MORE CONSISTENT LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL USES IN THE BG DISTRICT. THE COMMISSION APPROVED THE PROPOSED CHANGES. FOLLOWING THAT OCTOBER MEETING, STAFF RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM DOWNTOWN PRERTY OWNERS EXPRESSING CONCERN ABOUT MEASURING THE SETBACKS FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AND POTENTAL NON-CONFORMITIES. THE CHANGES PROPOSED TO THE UMU DISTRICT WERE NOT IN QUESTION. ON NOVEMBER 9, 2020 AT THE CITY COUNCIL PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CASE, STAFF RECOMMENDED THAT THE ITEM BE RETURNED TO THE COMMISSION FOR FURTHER CONSIDERATION TO ENSURE ANY NEW INFORMATION CAN BE ADDRESSED IN THE COMMISSION'S RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. COUNCIL VOTED TO RETURN THE CASE TO THE COMMISSION. SINCE THEN, STAFF HAS CONDUCTED ADDITIONAL RESEARCH OF URBAN STREET DESIGN STANDARDS A HAS COMMUNICATED WITH STAKEHOLDERS IN BG REGARDING THE PROPOSED CHANGES. THE PROPOSED CHANGES IN BG WERE DRIVEN BY THE NEED FOR A CLEAR AND CONSISTENT SETBACK AND SUFFICIENT PEDESTRIAN REALM. THE BG DISTRICT DOES NOT CURRENTLY HAVE THE NEEDED DESIGN CONTROLS FOR ALL TYPES OF PERMITTED DEVELOPMENT TO ENSURE THAT AN ADEQUATE PEDESTRIAN REALM IS MAINTAINED. THIS CAN BE SEEN THROUGH SEVERAL ISSUES. FIRST, THE SETBACK IS MEASURED FROM THE OUTSIDE OF THE CURB. THIS CREATES TWO MAIN CHALLENGES. ONE IS THAT THE OUTSIDE OF CURB IS NOT DEFINED. SECONDLY CURBS ARE NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT THROUGHOUT THE LENGTH OF THE STREET, ESPECIALLY IN THE DOWNTOWN. SO IT CREATES VARIATIONS IN SETBACKS AND INHIBITS A CONSISTENT BUILDING LINE ALONG THE STREET FRONTAGE. ON THE SLIDE IS AN IMAGE FROM THE DIRECTOR'S INTERPRETATION FROM FEBRUARY OF 2020 SHOWING TWO DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OPTIONS OF OUTSIDE OF CURB. THE ONE ON THE RIGHT TO BEING THE INTERPRETATION, WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE COMMISSION. ANOTHER ISSUE IS THE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS ARE INCONSISTENT. AS LANDSCAPE BUFFERS ARE REQUIRED FOR PARKING LOTS ONLY AND STREET TREES ARE ONLY REQUIRED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED USES. THIS LACK OF TREE COVER CAN CREATE AN UNCOMFORTABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR PEDESTRIANS IN THE WARM WEATHER MONTHS. PATIOS, BAY WINDOWS, PLANTING BEDS, AND OTHER FEATURES ARE PERMITTED TO EXTENT INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY. ENCROACHMENTS INTO THE RIGHT OF WAY REDUCE THE SIDEWALK SPACE AVAILABLE TO PEDESTRIANS POTENTIALLY CREATING UNSAFE WALKING CONDITIONS. PEDESTRIANS MUST WALK TOO CLOSE TO THE STREET. SIDEWALK REQUIREMENTS ARE INCONSISTENT AND NARROW. A FIVE FT SIDEWAL IS REQUIRED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED USES, HOWEVER COMMERCIAL AND MULTIFAMILY USES ONLY REQUIRE THE STANDARD FOUR-FOOT SIDEWALK PER THE CITY'S CURRENT THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS. THIS IS NOT A TYPICAL STANDARD FOR DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT. NARROW AND INCONSISTENT SIDEWALKS ARE A SAFETY CONCERN IN DOWNTOWN AS THERE IS NO ADEQUATE SPACE FOR MULTIPLE PEDESTRIANS TO WALK WHICH CAN LEAD TO PEDESTRIANS WALKING IN THE STREET. THESE INCONSISTENCIES AND REQUIREMENTS CAN BE SEEN IN THIS IMAGE WHICH SHOWS COMMERCIAL ON ONE SIDE AND SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED ON THE OTHER. THIS IS NOT A PARTICULAR STREET DOWNTOWN, IT IS SIMPLY AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE CURRENT STANDARDS BG RESULT IN ON A MAJOR -- THESE ARE THE MINIMUM STANDARDS . YOU CAN SEE THE SMALLER SIDEWALK ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE WITH THE PATIO ENCROACHING INTO THAT SIDEWALK SPACE. THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED SIDE HAS THE [INDISCERNIBLE] WHICH HELP TO SEPARATE THE STREET FROM THE SIDEWALK WHILE THE COMMERCIAL SIDE IS MUCH MORE OPEN TO THE STREET . AND NOT OVER TO JASON TO DISCUSS THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE. HOW IT OVERLAPS WITH ZONING CASE 2020-14 AND THE OPPORTUNITY WE HAVE TO ALIGN THE PROJECT AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES IN A MORE COMPREHENSIVE WAY. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JASON APRIL. I'M SENIOR MOBILITY PLANNER WITH THE CITY OF PLANO. THE PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS ARE WORKING TO UPDATE THE CITY'S THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS RULES AND REGULATIONS KNOWN MORE SIMPLY AS THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS. THIS DOCUMENT WAS LAST UPTED IN 2009 AND IT INCLUDES THE TECHNICAL SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF CITY STREETS. THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS ARE USED IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO OUTLINE THE STANDARD REQUIREMENTS FOR STREET CONSTRUCTION. MUCH OF THE STREET NETWORK THAT WE SEE TODAY IN PLANO IS SIMILAR TO A FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM THAT WAS ESTABLISHED IN THE CITY'S 1959 THOROUGHFARE PLAN. TODAY'S SYSM RANGES FROM TYPE A FREEWAY DOWN TO TYPE G LOCAL RESIDENTIAL STREETS. THIS APPROACH HAS BEEN BENEFICIAL IN CREATING A UNIFORM AND EFFICIENT STREET NETWORK ACROSS THE CITY. HOWEVER, STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED TWO MAJOR EXCEPTIONS. IN DOWNTOWN PLANO AND IN MIXED-USE AREAS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. FIRST, FOR DOWNTOWN PLANO, THE DOWNTOWN PLANO STREET GRID WAS DEVELOPED IN THE LATE 19th AND EARLY 20TH CENTURIES. DOWNTOWN INCLUDES STREETS THAT ARE MORE NARROW AND IT HAS SMALLER BLOCKS THAN IN NEWER PARTS OF THE CITY. THIS COMPACT STREET GRID DOES HELP PROMOTE A PEDESTRIAN-FRIENDLY LAND USE PATTERN BUT IT ALSO CREATES CHALLENGES FOR INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT PROJECTS IN THE DOWNTOWN THAT ARE SUBJECT TO THE SAME DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS USED ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY. AS WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE, STAFF NOTED THAT THE 1963 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INCLUDED A SPECIAL SECTION FOR THE DOWNTOWN AA THAT ALLOWED THE DOWNTOWN TO NOT FOLLOW THE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION STANDARDS THAT WERE USED ELSEWHERE IN THE CITY. IT ESTABLISHED SPECIFIC RIGHT OF WAY WIDTHS AND BUILDING SETBACKS THAT WERE UNIQUE AND REFLECTIVE OF THE CHARACTER IN DOWNTOWN. THIS APPROACH WAS USED FOR OVER 20 YEARS BUT IN 1986 THE CITY SHIFTED AGAIN TO A CITYWIDE FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM. ANOTHER EXCEPTION TO OUR CURRENT STREET NETWORK OCCURS IN MIXED-USE AREAS ACROSS THE CITY. THE CUENT THOUGHFAR STANDARDS DON'T SPECIFY STREET FEATURES THAT ARE MOST COMMON IN MIXED-USE AREAS. FEATURES SUCH AS ON-STREET PARKING, WIDER SIDEWALKS, MULTIMODAL FACILITIES, PASEOS, NEW STREETS, AND OTHER PEDESTRIAN ENHANCEMENTS. TODAY FOR GUIDANCE THE CITY RELIES UPON MIXED-USE STREET -- URBAN STREET STANDARDS THAT RESIDE IN VARIOUS ZONING DISTRICTS, SPECIFICALLY IN THE URBAN MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICT, THE BG DISTRICT, THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DESIGN, ALSO KWN AS NBD, AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DISTRICT, OR RCD. USING THE ZONING DISTRICT PROCESS TO MANDATE STREET CHARACTERISTICS HAS NOT BEEN IDEAL AS THERE ARE INCONSISTENCY BETWEEN THE VARIOUS DISTRICTS THAT LIMIT THE EFFICIENCY OF CODE ENFORCEMENT AND INFRASTRUCTURE MAINTENANCE. EACH ZONING DISTRICT HAS SUBTLE DIFFERENCES IN THEIR STANDARDS AND THAT CAN LACK UNIFORMITY ACROSS THE BOARD. TO REMEDY THIS, THROUGH THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN UPDATE PROCESS, STAFF AIMS TO INCORPORATE UMU STREETS AS A CITYWIDE STANDARD FOR THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS AND TO REMOVE THE STREET STANDARDS FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE SETBACKS IN BG AND UMU ARE BASED ON DISTANCE FROM THE CURB. SOMETIMES THE CURB LINE MAY VARY TO ACCOMMODATE TURN LANES, ON-STREET PARKING AND CHANGES TO STREET DESIGN OVER TIME, SO THIS IS PROBLEMATIC. STAFF PROPOSES A TWO-PART SOLUTION TO THE SETBACKS IN THE BG DISTRICT -- THE FIRST I DOWNTOWN-SPECIFIC STANDARDS AND THE SECOND IS INCORPORATION OF ZONES TO SITE DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE BG DISTRICT. UPDATES TO THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS WOULD INCLUDE A RETURN TO STREET DESIGN STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO THE DOWNTOWN AREA. SO THIS WOULD BE KIND OF A RETURN TO THE TAILORED APPROACH I PRESENTED ON THE CITY SAW BETWEEN 1963 AND 1986. AND FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES, THIS IS 15TH STRT BETWEEN G AND K. THE RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS ARE SHOWN AND YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A HUGE VARIATION ALONG THE STREET DOWN TO 58 FEET WIDTH OF RIGHT-OF-WAY UP TO 77 FEET WIDE IN FRONT OF HAGGARD PARK. BUT YOU CAN SEE IN THE IMAGE HOW IMPACTFUL A PLANNED RIGHT-OF-WAY OF 65 FEET, FOR EXAMPLE, WOULD BE AT ADDING CONTINUITY ALONG THE STREET WHEN THERE'S SUCH A WIDE VARIETY OF RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTHS. THIS MORE STREAMLINED APPROACH WOULD ALLOW THE CITY THE OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE NEW CONCEPTS T T DOWNTOWN CORE, SUCH AS THE CONCEPT CALLED SHY ZONES. SHY ZONES, SOMETIMES CALLED FRONTAGE ZONES, ARE AREAS LOCATED BETWEEN THE EDGE OF THE RIGHT-OF-WAY AND THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING WHERE ENCLOSED FLOOR AREA WOULD NOT ENCROACH. YOU CAN THINK OF THEM AS THE ZONE WHERE DOORS TO BUSINESSES OPEN AND CLOSE, WITH PLANNERS, BUSINESS SIGNS, ETC., MIGHT BE LOCATED AGAINST THE BUILDING. IT'S PART OF THE SIDEWALK, BUT IT'S NOT A DESIGNATEDLACE FOR PEDESTRIANS TO TRAVERSE. IN THE IMAGES ON THE POWERPOINT, THE AREA CIRCLED IS A GOOD EXAMPLE OF A SHY ZONE. YOU CAN SEE DOORS, AWNINGS AND PLANTERS ARE IN THE ZONE, BUT PEDESTRIANS ARE USING A DEDICATED PEDESTRIAN CLEAR ZONE FOR WHERE PEDESTRIANS WOULD TRAVERSE. AND THE BOTTOM IMAGE HIGHLIGHTS THE FEATURES THAT CAN BE FOUND WITHIN THE SHY ZONE IN A DENSER ENVIRONMENT. YOU CAN SEE IN THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHTED AREA OUTSIDE OF THE SIDEWALK IN THAT SHY ZONE IS LANDSCAPING, STOOPS TO THE BUILDING. THERCOUL BE IN MANY OR FUNCTIONS RIGHT OUTSIDE THE DEDICATED SIDEWALK AREA. AND THIS IMAGE IS A LITTLE LARGER. AND IT SHOWS FEATURES WITHIN THE SHY ZONE IN A MIXED-USE URBAN SETTING. AND IN THIS IMAGE YOU CAN SEE THE YELLOW HIGHLIGHT IS NOT JUST ON THE GROUND LEVEL, BUT YOU CAN SEE HIGHER UP ON THE BALCONIES AND THE AWNING, THAT AREA WOULD BE INCLUDED IN THE SHY ZONE AS WELL. ADDITIONALLY, THE SHY ZONE CONCEPT IS NOT COMPLETELY FOREIGN TO STANDARDS WE ALREADY SEE IN PLANO. COMPONENTS CAN BE FOUND IN SPIRIT IN TODAY'S BG AND UMU DISTRICTS. FOR EXAMPLE, IN PORTIONS OF THE BG DISTRICT, THERE ARE STANDARDS FOR EXTENSIONS INTO RIGHT-OF-WAY OR ACCESS EASEMENTS. OUTDOOR SEATING AREAS, BALCONIES, AWNINGS CAN EXTEND INTO THE RIGHTS OF WAY OR THE EASEMENT OR STREETS IF A MINIMUM SIDEWALK CLEARANCE TO THE CURB AND IN THE U, TREES, LANDSCAPING, STREET FURNITURE CAN BE PLACED WITHIN THE SIDEWALK, BUT THERE'S A CLEAR DEMARCATION THAT THEY MAY NOT REDUCE THE CLEAR PATH WIDTH FOR PEDESTRIANS. STAFF PROPOSES TO USE A COMBINATION OF PUBLIC SIDEWALKS AND SHY ZONES TO MORE EFFECTIVELY MAINTAIN SEPARATION FROM THE BACK OF CURB AND THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING THAT'S EFFECTIVELY REQUIRED UNDER EXISTING ZONING STANDARDS AND TO CREATE A MORE UNIFORM SETBACK ALONG DOWNTOWN BLOCKS. FINALLY, FOR MY LAST SLIDE, THESE IMAGES SHOW THE CHANGES THAT CAN OCCUR IN CONJUNCTION WITH DOWNTOWN-SPECIFIC STREET STANDARDS THROUGH THE THOROUGHFARE UPDATE. THE IMAGE ON THE LEFT SHOWS EXISTING CONDITIONS WITH MEASUREMENTS OF 20 FEET FROM THE CURB LINE AND 10 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. THE CURB LINE IS SHOWN IN THE SEA FOAM GREEN COMING ACROSS IN THE POWERPOINT, AND THE PROPERTY LINE IS SHOWN IN PINK. AND THEN THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT WE SEE A STANDARDIZED PLANNED RIGHT-OF-WAY WIDTH AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE TWO-FOOT SHY ZONE. AND I'LLURN IT BACK OVER TO MELISSA. >> AT THIS TIME, WE'D LIKE TO RECEIVE DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION ON HOW STAFF SHOULD PROCEED WITH THE ZONING CASE 20-2014. WE HAVE PROPOSED TH THREE OPTIO. OPTION A, WITHDRAW THE ZONING CASE AND INCLUDE THE NEEDED CHANGES AS PART OF A NEW ZONING CASE FOR ALL AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE STANDARDS UPDATE. POTENTIAL BENEFITS ARE THE UPDATES TO BG, UMU, AND OTHER DISTRICTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE BASED ON THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE WILL BE CONSIDERED COLLECTIVELY UNDER A SINGLE ZONING CASE, WHICH IS EASIER TO ADMINISTER. ALSO, AS ZONING CASE 20-2014 WAS INITIATED UNDER THE PLANO TOMORROW PLAN, IF REINITIATED, ALL CHANGES WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021 INSTEAD OF PLANO TOMORROW. POTENTIAL DISADVANTAGES COULD BE THAT IT MAY NOT BE CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC THAT THE WORK ON BG AND UMU SETBACKS IS CONTINUING THROUGH A SEPARATE PROCESS AND THE UPDATES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE RELATED TO THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS WILL LIKELY INVOLVE IN ADDITIONAL CHANGES UNRELATED TO BG AND UMU, WHICH COULD CAUSE CONFUSION REGARDING THE CASE. OPTION B WOULD BE TO WITHDRAW ZONING CASE 20-2014 AND CREATE A NEW ZONING CASE FOR BG AND UMU THAT WOULD RUN SEPARATE BUT PARALLEL TO A NEW ZONING CASE FOR AMENDMENTS SPECIFICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE. BENEFITS OF THIS WOULD BE A SEPARATE ZONING CASES, IT MAY BE EASIER FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND THE PURPOSE OF THE NEW ZONING CASES AND COMMENT ON CHANGES SPECIFIC TO THE BG AND UMU SETBACKS. AND AS WITH OPTION ONE, ALL CHANGES WOULD BE CONSIDERED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021. THE DISADVANTAGES ARE CONSIDERING TWO SEPARATE ZONING CASES THAT AMEND THE SAME SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ON THE SAME TIMELINE CAN BE COMPLICATED TO ADMINISTER AND MAY BE CONFUSING FOR THE PUBLIC AND CITY OFFICIALS AS THEY REVIEW THE TWO CASES. ALSO, THERE IS AN EXISTING RECORD OF PUBLIC FEEDBACK ON ZONING CASE 20-2014 AND STAFF IS CAUTIOUS OF CREATING THE PERSESSION THAT THE -- PERCEPTION THAT THE NEW CASE WILL DISREGARD EXISTING FEEDBACK. OPTION C, KEEP SKAS 2020-014 AND RUN IT PARALLEL TO AMENDMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH THE UPDATE. BENEFIT, UPDATES TO BG AND UMU WOULD CONTINUE WITHOUT APPEARING TO LOSE THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN COMPLETED TO DATE. THE DISADVANTAGES ARE AGAIN THAT CONSIDERING TWO SEPARATE ZONING CASES AT THE SAME TIME, AMENDING THE SAME SECTIONS, CAN BE COMPLICATED TO ADMINISTER AND MAY BE CONFUSING. ALSO, WITH ZONING CASE 2020-014 BEING INITIATED WHEN PLANO TOMORROW WAS IN EFFECT, IT WOULD BE ANALYZED FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THAT PLAN. IT MAY NOT BE CLEAR WHY THE CASE IS BEING REVIEWED UNDER PLANO TOMORROW. AND OUR SECOND QUESTION FOR DIRECTION IS IF THERE ARE ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE STAFF TO CONSIDER, AS BOTH PROJECTS MOVE FORWARD. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PROVIDE DIRECTION PERTAINING TO THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CASE 2020-014 AND THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE. AND WE ARE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. LET ME START BY ASKING THE COMMISSION, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT THINKS IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO TRY TO KEEP A ZONING CASE AND EVALUATE IT UNDER THE PLANO TOMORROW PLAN? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO, OPTION C IS OUT. SO, THEN -- I HAVE SPEAKERS? I HAVE A SPEAKER, I GUESS. SHE ASKED IF WE HAD FEEDBACK AND NEEDED ADVICE. DOES THE SPEAKER NEED TO SPEAK FIRST? [ CHUCKLING ] I REALIZE WHO OUR SPEAKER IS. I WOULD ASK THIS. WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME ADDRESS THIS, OR WOULD YOU LIKE TO HEAR US TALK THROUGH SOME OF THESE ISSUES FIRST? >> [ OFF MIC ] >> Chair Downs: PLEASE. >> GOOD EVENING, PHYLLIS GERALD WITH CITY CENTRIC PLANNING, REPRESENTING GRECO PLANNERS, THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM THAT IS REDEVELOPING THE FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH PROPERTY. INTOWN HOMES OWNS THREE OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA THAT WOULD BE IMPACTED BY THE CHANGES BEING DISCUSSED TONIGHT. AND WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST TWO THINGS -- ONE IS TIME, AND ONE IS INFORMATION. WE NEED SPECIFICS ON THE SHY ZONE PROPOSED SIDEWALK, THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARD CHANGES BEING PROPOSED, AND THE TIME TO CONSIDER THE IMPACT ON PROPERTIES THAT MY CLIENTS ON. WE WANT TO AVOID CREATING NONCONFORMING BUILDINGS, WHICH IS A POTENTIAL WITH THE CHANGES. THESE BEING A NONCONFORMITY DOES CAUSE PROBLEMS WITH FINANCING, LENDING INSANCE DUE DILIGENCE, AND OTHER PARTS OF PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND TRANSFER. I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR LETTING US KNOW THAT THIS DISCUSSION WAS GOING TO BE REACTIVATED, BECAUSE WE'RE INTERESTED IN BEING PART OF THE CONTINUED DISCUSSION. THE PROPOSED CHANGES HAVE THE IMPACT TO -- HAVE THE POTENTIAL TO IMPACT MANY PROPERTIES WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN PLANO AREA. WE ALL WANT TO GIVE THEM CAREFUL CONSIDERATN. SO HE THAT HELPS YOU WITH YOUR DISCUSSION TONIGHT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO WE'LL CIRCLE BACK. AND I THINK JUST TO BE CLEAR, STAFF ISN'T ASKING US TO MAKE ANY DECISIONS ON THE ACTUAL THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS, THEY'RE JUST LOOKING FOR DIRECTION ON HOW TO PROCEED WITH AN OLD ZONING CASE AND THE CURRENT PLAN REVIEW OF OUR EXISTING THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS. IS THAT CORRECT? OKAY. SO, HERE'S MY QUESTION FOR AFF THEN. IT SOUNDS TO ME LIKE OPTION A MAKES IT EASIER FOR ALMOST EVERYONE MOVING FORWARD BECAUSE WE HAVE A UNIFIED SET OF DESIGN THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS THAT WOULD APPLY TO ALMOST ANY DISTRICT, WHEREVER IT'S AT, WITH THE POSSIBLE EXCEPTION OF DOWNTOWN, WHICH HAS ITS OWN UNIQUE ENVIRONMENT. BUT THE NEGATIVES HAVE TO DO ABOUT POTENTIAL FOR PEOPLE NOT TO UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON, WHICH IS A COMMUNICATION ISSUE. SO WE CAN DEAL WITH A COMMUNICATION ISSUE. WHAT I DON'T WANT TO DO IS TO AVOID SOME CONFUSION IN THE SHORT RUN DESIGN SOMETHING THAT MAKES IT MORE DIFFICULT FOR DEVELOPERS COMMUNITY STAFF TO DEAL OR ADMINISTER IN THE FUTURE. SO THAT'S MY IMPRESSION ON THIS IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A SHORT-TERM COMMUNICATION CHALLENGE, WHICH WE CAN DEAL WITH. WE CAN MANAGE THAT. BUT IN THE END, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT IS MUCH MORE FUNCTIONAL FOR THE CITY AND THE STAFF AS A WHOLE. SO, UNDER THAT SCENARIO, I BELIEVE IT WOULD BE OPTION A AND YOU WOULD ELIMINATE 2020-014 AND WE WOULD HAVE ONE ZONING CASE WHICH DEALT WITH OUR THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS, NOT TWO THAT DEALT WITH DIFFERENT PARTS BUT OVERLAPPED QUITE A LOT. IS THAT FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD WHAT'S GOING ON? SO COMMENTS FEEDBACK? COMMISSIONER STONE. >> Stone: YES, THANK YOU. GOOD PRESENTATION FROM BOTH OF YOU ON A VERY COMPLICATED ISSUE. LET ME ASK YOU TONIGHT, DO YOU HAVE AN INITIAL -- OBVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO CHAE, DYOU HAVE AN INITIAL OPINION WHICH ONE OF THESE THREE OPTIONS WOULD GENERATE THE MOST AMOUNT OF WORK IN YOUR SHOP? >> SO, ON TOP OF HAVING TWO POTENTIAL ZONING CASES, EXCUSE ME, WE'RE ALSO GOING TO HAVE CHANGES TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, A COMP PLAN AMENDMENT, A CODE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. THERE'S SEVERAL LAYERS TO THIS. >> Stone: EXACTLY. >> SO OPTION A OR B ARE PROBABLY BOTH PREFERABLE TO US WITH OPTION A BEING SLIGHTLY MORE PREFERABLE BECAUSE IT'S ONE LESS ING TO HAVE TO TRY TO INTERCONNECT ALL THE DOTS. >> Stone: OKAY. AND WHEN WE'RE DONE, WHICH ONE OF OPTION A OR B WILL BE THE BEST GOING FORWARD TO MINIMIZE OR HOPEFULLY MINIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT YOU AND THIS COMMISSION HAVE TO DEAL WITH IN THE FUTURE, A OR B? >> I WOULD SAY OPTION A. >> Stone: OKAY. GOOD. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: ACTUALLY, A QUESTION ON THAT. SO, I UNDERSTAND OPTION B'S DISADVANTAGE IS DBLING THE WORK, CREATING TWO SEPARATE ZONING CASES. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS THERE ENOUGH OVERLAP BETWEEN THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT FOR US TO DO THE DUE DILIGENCE NEEDED TO COVER EVERYTHING IN ONE ZONING CASE? CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, IT FEELS LIKE WHILE THERE MIGHT BE OVERLAP, THIS IS IMPACTFUL ENOUGH THAT PERHAPS THERE IS A BENEFIT TO LOOKING AT THE TWO ISSUES SEPARATELY ON THEIR OWN MERIT. BUT IF YOU SAY THERE'S -- HOW MUCH OVERLAP IS THERE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY ATTACK THIS IN ONE ZONING CASE? >> SO, I THINK THE CONCERN IS THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ARE GOING TO BE PART OF THIS. IT'S TOUCHING TRAFFIC AND IMPACT ANALYSIS. WE'RE TAKING THE URBAN STREET SECTIONS OUT AND PUTTING THEM IN THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS. SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF -- IF YOU HAD A STRIKE-THROUGH UNDERLINED VERSION THAT'S CHANGING, WE HAD THE SPECIFIC SETBACK ISSUE MIGHT GET LOST IN ALL OF THAT. WE COULD DO THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS, IF THE COMMISSION DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE THE APPROACH OF THE SHY ZONES AND WANTED TO KEEP WHAT WE HAD WE COULD DO THAT INDEPENDENT THROUGH ITS OWN ZONING CASE. WE COULD MAKE OUR OWN DOWNTOWN PLAN AND NOT TOUCH THE BG SETBACKS AT ALL. SO, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION, BUT THAT'S ONE OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE WERE THINKING ABOUT. >> Olley: ALL RIGHT. SECOND QUESTION, TO THE COMMUNICATION ISSUE, HOW WOULD WE ADDRESS THAT? WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCESS TO ENSURE THAT THE PUBLIC IS NOT LEFT IN THE DARK? >> I WOULD SAY SPECIFIC TO THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS, WE'RE PLANNING SIGNIFICANT OUTREACH ON THAT. THE DOWNTOWN PLAN ITSELF NEEDS SIGNIFICANT COMMENT AND FEEDBACK FROM THE DOWNTOWN OWNERS, SO WE HAVE THAT, KIND OF, PREPROGRAMMED INTO OUR SCHEDULE MOVING FORWARD. AND AS PART OF THAT, IF WE CHOSE R THE DOWNTOWN STREETS AND SETBACKS MUCH LIKE WE DID TONIGHT AND HAVE AN OUTREACH MEETING SPECIFIC TO THAT ONE DOWNTOWN-SPECIFIC TOPIC. >> Olley: OKAY. >> JUST TO ADD ON TO THAT FOR SPECIFICALLY ZONING CASE 2020-014, WE HAVE A LIST OF STAKEHOLDERS WHO WE HAVE BEEN IN CONTACT WITH AND PLAN TO, BASED OFF OF ANYTHING WE DECIDE TONIGHT, CONTINUE KEEPING THEM IN THE LOOP ON ALL OF THE PUBLIC MEETINGS AND PROPOSED CHANGES. >> Chair Downs: I THINK IT WOULD BE VALUABLE TO GET THEIR INPUT AGAIN, BECAUSE THINGS HAVE CHANGED IN TWO YEARS, SO. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I'M KIND OF WITH YOU THAT OPTION A -- I UNDERSTAND THE BENEFITS. I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THE STAFF. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE A COHESIVE PLAN. I GET THAT. I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BODY BEING ABLE TO UNDERSTAND THE ONE BIG ORDINANCE UNDER OPTION A. I AM A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT OPTION B, THE OVERLAPS AND HOLES. I'M MORE WORRIED ABOUT THE GAPS THAN THE OVERLAPS. BUT -- I GUESS I'M WITH THE CHAIRMAN ON OPTION A. MY ONE INDULGENCE I WOULD ASK OF THE STAFF IS WHEN YOU WRITE THE STAFF REPORT TO PLEASE BREAK OUT THE SECTION ON BG AND UMU FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS COMMUNITY THAT'S BEEN FOLLOWING THAT AS A SEPARATE ISSUE SO THAT WHEN THEY READ THE STAFF REPORT IT DOESN'T GET BOGGED DOWN INTO THE REST OF THE DISCUSSION SO THAT THEY CAN FOCUS ON THE PART THAT REALLY AFFECTS THEM AND WE CAN KEEP AT LEAST THE DISCUSSION AND REPORT PART OF IT ISOLATED EVEN THOUGH WE'RE GOING TO DEAL WITH THE ORDINANCES AS A WHOLE, IF THAT'S POSSIBLE. >> Chair Downs: GOOD SUGGESTION. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OTHER COMMENTS? OPTION A, IT SOUNDS LIKE. AND, OF COURSE, WE'LL GET INTO THE MEAT OF IT LATER ON, BUT AS WAS POINTED OUT, GREAT JOB. HISTORY WAS GOOD. PERSONALLY I THINK I'LL GO BACK AND READ SOME OF THOSE COMMENTS THAT CAME OUT OF 2014 ANYWAY, JUST TO SEE WHAT THE CONCERNS WERE. I DID HAVE A LITTLE BIT -- I THINK WITH, FOR EXAMPLE, YOU PUT UP THE DEAL THAT SHOWED THE RIGHT-OF-WAYS, THE STREET WIDTHS AND STUFF THROUGH DOWNTOWN. THERE'S ONE SECTION THAT'S 58 FEET WIDE AND YOU SAID THAT IT WOULD BE NICE IF WE HAD A 65-FOOT-WIDE CORRIDOR THROUGH THERE. YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT CHOPPING SEVEN FEET DOWN OFF OF THE FRONT OF GEORGIA'S AND THE BAKE SHOP AND EVERYTHING ELSE. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO DO THAT, EMINENT DOMAIN, OR WHAT'S THE PLAN RIGHT? SO I THINK THOSE KINDS OF QUESTIONS ARE GOING TO COME UP. AND THOSE WILL BE THE TOUGH CONVERSATIONS AND DECISIONS THAT WE'LL HAVE TO DEAL WITH -- WELL, THAT WILL BE COUNSEL'S ROLE, PROBABLY. BUT I AGREE WITH YOU IT WOULD BE NICE. IT'S BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE, THE PARKING DOWNTOWN -- ELIMINATING MORE OF THAT, MAKING WIDER SIDEWALKS WITH OUTDOOR -- WE HAVE ONE RESTAURANT DOWNTOWN THAT HAS THE BENEFIT OF AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA AND EVERYONE ELSE IS VERY Y JEALOUSF THAT. THEY DIDN'T COME BY THAT THROUGH ANY -- IT DOESN'T MATTER. OKAY. ANY ADDITIONAL GUIDANCE? OKAY. YES. >> JUST ONE NOTE. IT LOOKS LIKE WE'RE WITHDRAWING ZONING CASE 20-014. WE WILL BRI THAT BACK TO THE COMMISSION AS AN OFFICIAL WITHDRAWAL REQUEST. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. >> AFTER WE NOTICE PEOPLE AGAIN. >> Chair Downs: GREAT. ANYTHING ELSE? THANK YOU. OKAY. WE ARE MOVING ON TO ITEM 5. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 IS DISCUSSION AND ACTION: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION EAST PLANO SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING THE DOUGLASS AREA STUDY (1989), DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN (1991), 0 BIG IDEAS FOR EASTERN PLANO (1997), AND CITY CENTER IN EASTSIDE PLANO (2001). THIS IS LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION, I'M DREW, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS A CONTINUATION OF ITEMS RELATED TO THE REVIEW OF LONG-STANDING PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS. AS A BACKGROUND ON APRIL 18TH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED A PROCESS TO REVIEW THESE LONG-STANDING PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS IN GROUPS BASEDNRIORITY, EASE OF REVIEW AND POTENTIAL NEED FOR DOCUMENT UPDATES. THAT SET OF GROUPS ARE OUTLINED IN THIS TABLE WITH GROUP ONE BEING DOCUMENTS RECOMMENDED FOR RETIREMENT OR APPEAL. THAT RE REVIEW IS COMPLETELY. GROUP TWO, POLICY DOCUMENTS TO BE ADDRESSED DURING FUTURE UPDATES, WILL BE BROUGHT AT A FUTURE DATE. GROUP THREE, TO BE REVIEWED BY A SUBCOMMITTEE, THE ITEMS TONIGHT. GROUP FOUR, DOCUMENTS THAT ARE NOT OFFICIALLY ADOPTED AND WILL BE MAINTAINED ASEFEREN ITS. OUP THREE ARE THE POLICY DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED BY A COMMISSION SUBCOMMITTEE. THEY ARE DOCUMENTS THAT APPARENR MAY NOT BE RELEVANT FOR DECISION-MAKING AND THE DEPARTMENT NEEDS DIRECTION. POTENTIAL DIRECTION MAY INCLUDE RETAIN THE DOCUMENTS, RETIRE, UPDATE, OR INCORPORATE AS PART OF ANOTHER DOCUMENT. THE GROUP THREE DOCUMENTS WERE DIVIDED INTO SUBGROUPS. ON JULY 21ST, 2022, A SUBCOMMITTEE MET TO REVIEW DOCUMENTS RELATED TO EAST PLANO. THE SUBCOMMITTEE MEMBERSS AND INCLUDED COMMISSIONER CARY, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, AND COMMISSIONER DOWNS. THE FIRST OF THESE DOCUMENTS INCLUDED THE DOUGLASS STUDY, DEVELOPED TO GUIDE NEIGHBORHOOD IMPROVEMENTS. RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSED LAND USE TRANSPORTATION INFRASTRUCTURE HOUSING AND PUBLIC FACILITIES. THE PURPOSE OF THE DOCUMENT WAS TO REVITALIZE THE AREA FOR THE LONG-TERM USE AS A RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND MORE RECENT DOCUMENTS HAVE ADDRESSED THIS T TOPIC, REMENDIG CONTINUING EFFORT TO ENHANCE THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THE SECOND DOCUMENT IS THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN FROM 1991. THIS WAS DEVELOPED BY THE DOWNTOWN PLANO COMMITTEE TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE FOR THE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF DOWNTOWN PLANO. IT PROVIDED DIRECTION ON A VARIETY OF TOPICS INCLUDING LAND USE, PUBLIC INVESTMENT, HISTORIC PRESERVATION, AND THE GENERAL ENHANCEMENT OF DOWNTOWN. IN OF THESE PLAN OBJECTIVES HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED, ARE OUTDATED, OR ADDRESSED BY OTHER PLANS, INCLUDING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE DOWNTOWN VISION AND STRATEGY UPDATE. THE THIRD DOCUMENT WAS THE 10 BIG IDEAS FOR EASTERN PLANO FROM 1997, DEVELOPED BY THE EAST PLANO DEVELOPMENT TASK FORCE. THEY WERE TASKED WITH DEVELOPING A STRATEGY FOR BUILDING AND MAINTAINING STRONG, VIABLE NEIGHBORHOODS AND BUSINESS CENTERS IN EAST PLANO. THEY REVIEWED OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS FOR THE GENERAL EAST PLANO AREA AND DEVELOPED TEN BIG IDEAS. IMANY INITIATIVES ARE COMPLETE, RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE STILL BEING WORKED ON TODAY. AND THE FINAL DOCUMENT WAS THE CITY CENTER IN EASTSIDE PLANO, 2001. IT EXPANDED ON BIG IDEA NUMBER 5 TO CREATE A CITY CENTER. IT WAS INTENDED TO PRIORITIZE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM PREVIOUS PLANS AND STUDIES AND IS UTILIZED TO GUIDE PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS PRIVATE INVESTMENT, AND CODE AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS WITHIN THE AREA. THAT CONCLUDES THE OVERVIEW OF THE FOUR DOCUMENTS REVIEWED. AND THIS TABLE SUMMARIZES THE SUOMMITTEE.IONS FROM THE I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR, CARY, TO PRESENT THE RECOMMENDATIONS. AND STAFF IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Cary: FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO SAY YOU REALLY GUIDED US THROUGH THIS PROCESS WELL. I THOUGHT CHAIRMAN DOWNS AND COMMISSIONER RATLIFF AND I HAD GOOD DISCUSSION. I THINK WE CAME TO GOOD RESOLUTIONS. IF WE GO THROUGH THIS, FEEL FREE TO DIVE IN, DREW, IF YOU THINK I'M MISSING SOMETHING. LET'S START WITH THE DOUGLASS AREA STUDY. WE RECOMMEND RETIRING THIS, BUT TO MAINTAIN IT AS A REFERENCE DOCUMENT, ESPECIALLY WITH KNOWING THAT THERE'S STILL COMMITMENT TO THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. AND SO WE LOOKED THROUGH IT AND FELT THAT THAT WAS THE RIGHT APPROACH TO THIS PARTICULAR DOCUMENT. I GUESS WE CAN GO THROUGH AND SEE IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS AS WE GO ONE BY ONE, BUT WE HAD A ROBUST DISCUSSION ON ALL OF THESE THINGS AND CAME TO GOOD CONCLUSIONS. SO THAT WAS THE CONSIDERATION FOR THE DOUGLASS AREA STUDY. AS WE MOVE ON TO THE DOWNTOWN DEVELOPMENT PLAN, AGAIN, MANY F THE GOALS HAVE BEEN ACHIEVED, BUT THERE WERE SOME THINGS TO MAINTAIN AS A REFERENCE DOCUMENT, OR IN MANY OF THEM, THEY HAD BEEN ACHIEVED OR WERE LEFT INTO THE COMP PLAN. THE THINGS THAT HADN'T BEEN ACHIEVED WERE BEING ADDRESSED BY THE COMP PLAN. SO WE FELT COMFORTABLE IN RETIRING THIS DOCUMENT. AS WE GET TO THE 10 BIG IDEAS, THE MAJOR THINGS WE FELT WERE DONE. WE RECOMMEND RETIRING IT. BUT WE DID THINK THE FRONT DOOR INITIATIVE STILL IS VERY IMPORTANT AND WE NEED TO KEEP FOCUSED ON THAT, AS WELL AS REFINING AND UPDATING OUR CITY CENTER PLAN. SO THOSE WERE A COUPLE OF THINGS WE FELT STILL NEEDED FOCUS COMING OUT OF THIS DOCUMENT. THE FINAL THING WAS THE CITY CENTER IN EASTSIDE PLANO. WE THOUGHT IT NEEDED TO BE RETIRED, AS IT WAS OUTDATED. BUT WE NEEDED TO UPDATE THE CITY CENTER AND THE DOWNTOWN VISION PLAN AND WE WANT TO RECOMMEND THAT A COMMITTEE BE FORMED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE THINGS AS WE LOOK TO THE FUTURE, NOT THAT IT EMINENT, BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO LEAVE THAT ON THE SIDELINES AND THERE ARE ELEMENTS IN THE PLAN WE THOUGHT STILL NEEDED TO BE CONSIDERED AND THERE'S WORK TO BE DONE. SO COMMISSIONER RATLIFF OR CHAIRMAN DOWNS, MAYBE YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL THINGS TO ADD? >> Ratliff: GREAT SUMMARY. ONE THING I WANTED TO EMPHASIZE IS THE COMMITMENT TO THE DOUGLASS NEIGHBORHOOD CONTINUING. THE STAFF IS COMMITTED. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT A LOT OF THOSE THINGS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED BUT THERE'S STILL WORK TO B DONE. ANOTHER THING THAT WAS MAYBE MY INITIATIVE WAS UPDATING THE CITY CENTER PLAN. THE ORIGINAL CITY CENTER PLAN WAS FROM CENTRAL TO K AND 15TH, BUT IT DIDN'T INCLUDE WHAT'S NOW THE COLIN CREEK AREA, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT PART -- OR GOING TO BE A VERY IMPORTANT PART OF THE CITY CENTER AREA AND CONNECTIVITY IS GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I'M KEEN ON MAKING SURE WE KEEP A FOCUS ON THAT TO MAKE SURE AS THE CITY CENTER GROWS TO THE OTHER SIDE OF 75 THAT WE INCORPORATE THAT AND HAVE A TH THAT IS INCORPORATED AND COMES TOGETHER COHESIVELY OVER THE NEXT 20 OR 30 YEARS. WITH THAT SAID, GREAT SUMMARY AND THANK YOU FOR THE EFFORT AT THE STAFF LEVEL. IT WAS VERY EDUCATIONAL FOR ME. >> Chair Downs: I CONCUR. GOOD COMMENTS. AND I'M QUITE CERTAIN WHAT WE'RE DOING BY RE-P REPEALING THESE IS CLEANING UP OUR LIBRARY A LITTLE BIT, BUT NOT GETTING RID OF THE BOOKS IS WHAT WE'RE DOING. [ LAH] >> YEAH. DREW, I'LL TOSS IT BACK TO YOU IN A SECOND, BUT ALSO WHAT WE'RE DOING IS REALLY TIGHTENING THINGS UP AND ALLOWING ALL OF US TO OPERATE A LITTLE BIT MORE EFFICIENTLY WITH MORE FOCUS, NOT HAVING SOME OF THESE THINGS STILL OUT THERE. SO, ANY OTHER COMMENTS, THINGS I MIGHT HAVE MISSED? >> NO, THAT WAS A GOOD OVERVIEW OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS. >> Cary: YOU MADE IT EASY. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: THE PROCESS WILL BE TO BRING BACK THESE AS AGENDA ITEMS ON A FUTURE AGENDA FOR US TO REPEAL THESE RESOLUTIONS RIGHT? >> WE'RE LOOKING FOR A IT SCHEDULED FOR AN ACTION ITEM. >> Chair Downs: DO WE WANT THEM INDIVIDUALLY OR AS A GROUP? WHAT'S BEST? >> I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH DOING THEM AS A GROUP AS LONG AS YOU WANT TO REPEAL ALL OF THEM. THE CAPTION READ EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM, SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I MOVE WE REPEAL THE RESOLUTIONS LAID OUT IN THE EAST PLANO SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> I'LL SECOND. >> Chair Downs: SO, I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMSSIONER DOWNS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6, DISCUSSION AND ACTION: PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MIXED-USE SUBCOMMITTEE RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING PLANNING POLICY DOCUMENTS, INCLUDING PLANO'S LAND USE & TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR THE DART PARKER ROAD STATION (1997), PLANO AT MATURITY (2003), URBAN CENTERS STUDY (2006), AND FUTURE DIMENSIONS (2008). THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> COMMISSIONERS, THIS ITEM IS IN REGARDS TO THE THIRD SUBCOMMITTEE FOR GROUP THREE DOCUMENTS. ON JULY 12TH AND SEPTEMBER 7TH, THE MIXED USE SUBCOMMITTEE MET VIA VIDEOCONFERENCE TO DISCUSS E DOCUMENTS MEMBERS, VICE CHAIR HORNE, COMMISSIONER OLLEY, AND COMMISSIONER STONE. THE FIRST OF THESE DOCUMENTS WAS PLANO'S LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR THE D.A.R.T. STATION FROM 1997. THIS STUDY WAS INITIATED TO PROVIDE GUIDANCE BASED ON TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT PRINCIPLES AHEAD OF THE STATION OPENING IN 2002. RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSED DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY AND CONNECTIVITY, AND CONDITIONS AROUND THE STATION HAVE DEVIATED FROM THE ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE STUDY. AND THE FOLLOWING THREE DOCUMENTS ALL COME FROM THE TRANSITION AND REVITALIZATION COMMISSION. THIS COMMISSION WAS CREATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL IN 2000 AND WAS TASKED WITH ADDRESSING ISSUES REGARDING REVITALIZATION AND ENHANCEMENT. MAJOR PLANS INCLUDED PLANO AT MATURITY AND FUTURE DIMENSIONS. MANY RECOMMENDATIONS INCLUDED UPDATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, INCLUDING MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND APPROPRIATE INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT AREAS. AND THESE APPROACHED WERE FURTHER REVIEWED AND UPDATED AS PART OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021. THE FIRST OF THESE THREE DOCUMENTS INCLUDE PLANO AT MATURITY FROM 2003. THEY IDENTIFIED AND PRIORITIZED CHALLENGES FACING PLANO AS IT TRANSITIONS TO A DEVELOPED CITY, COVERING A RANGE OF TOPICS, INCLUDING AGING INFRASTRUCTURE, CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS, REDEVELOPMENT AND REVITALIZATION AND AESTHETICS. THE URBAN CENTER STUDY DESCRIBED THE FUTURE ROLE OF URBAN CENTERS AND POTENTIAL LOCATIONS. URBANNURBACENTERSERE A FORM OF DEVELOPMENT THAT AIMED TO INTEGRATE HOUSING, WORKPLACE, SHOPPING, AND RECREATION INTO MIXED-USE NEIGHBORHOODS AND THREE SITES WERE IDENTIFIED AS BEST SUITED, LOCATED AT PRESTON ROAD AND PARK BOULEVARD, PARKER ROAD STATION, AND THE COLIN COLN CREEK CORRIDOR. AND FINALLY, FUTURE DIMENSIONS PROVIDED A FRESH LOOK SINCE THE PLANO AT MATURITY PLAN, AND RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESSED ECONOMICIABILITY CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS, FIRST-TIER SUBURB CHALLENGES, AND REGIONAL GROWTH. AND THIS SLIDE SUMMARIZES THE RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THIS SUBCOMMITTEE. AND I WILL TURN IT OVER TO THE SUBCOMMITTEE CHAIR HORNE TO PRESENT THESE RECOMMENDATIONS. >> Horne: THANK YOU. AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR HELP ON THIS. WE MET SEVERAL TIMES VIA TELECONFERENCE TO ADDRESS SEVERAL ELEMENTS IN THIS. MR. BELL JOINED US AND MS. DAY JOINED US ON ONE OF THE MEETINGS. WE HAD SOME REALLY GOOD DISCUSSIONS. WE DOVE DEEP INTOHESE ELEMENTS HERE. FIRST, LET ME START OFF WITH THE PLANO LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR THE D.A.R.T. PARKER ROAD STATION. AS WE REVIEWED THAT, WE NOTICED PARTICULARLY FROM THE PLANS, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL BUILT OUT ALL AROUND THAT AREA. AND IT'S FURTHER COMPLICATED THAT THE CITY OWNS SOME OF THE PROPERTY, THE COUNTY OWNS PART OF THE PROPERTY. SO WE DON'T SEE MUCH HAPPENING THERE AT THIS CURRENT TIME, THOUGH WE DO BELIEVE IN THE FUTURE THERE'S THE POTENTIAL THAT THE D.A.R.T. WILL PROCEED THROUGH ALLEN AND UP TO MCKINNEY. THOSE ARE SOME OF THE -- I THINK FROM THE NORTH TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS THAT THEY'REIN DISCUSSIONS WITH D.A.R.T. ON DOING JUST THAT. BUT THAT BEING SAID, FOR THIS PARTICULAR LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY, IT'S TIME TO RETIRE IT. AND THAT'S WHAT WE CAME FROM OUR DISCUSSION ON THAT. SO, IT WAS GREAT TO SEE THAT. NOW, PLANO AT MATURITY, AGAIN, THIS WAS IN 2003. WE WENT THROUGH THAT AT LENGTH, AND THERE WERE SEVEN ACTION ITEMS OUT OF THAT DOCUMENT THAT WERE NOT COVERED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND DREW BROUGHT SOME ELEMENTS HERE THAT THEY'RE BEING COVERED BY OTHER DEPARTMENTS, OTHER ACTIONS, PARKS AND REC, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD, THE CITY TAKES CARE OF SOME OF THE MAINTENANCE OPERATIONS THAT WE MANAGER'S OFFICE.HROUGH THE CITY WE RECOGNIZE THE CHANGING DEMOGRAPHICS. WE ARE AN INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY, A DIVERSE COMMUNITY. WE STILL MAINTAIN OUR HIGH LEVEL OF SECURITY. THAT'S BEING MAINTAINED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT ALSO WITH HELP FROM THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. SO MAINTAINNG A STRONG EDUCATION SYSTEM -- AGAIN, THAT'S PART OF THE PURVIEW OF PISD AND COLLIN COLLEGE. WE FELT LIKE WITH THESE SEVEN ELEMENTS BEING COVERED BY VARIS DEPARTMENTS AND ENTITIES WITHIN THE CITY, IT WAS TIME TO RETIRE THIS DOCUMENT, BUT KEEP THOSE SEVEN ELEMENTS ON THE FOREFRONT OF THOSE ENTITIES SO THE CITY CAN MAINTAIN THE CITY OF EXCELLENCE, SO TO SPEAK. SO, THAT'S HOW WE MOVED FORWARD WITH THAT ONE. THE URBAN CENTER STUDY WAS LOOKING AT PRESTON ROAD, PARK BOULEVARD, PARKER ROAD STATION, COLLIN CREEK CORRIDOR. THOSE WERELL IN 2006. WHO WOULD ENVISION BACK THEN WE WOULD HAVE HAD LEGACY WEST, SHOPS AT LEGACY. WE WOULDN'T HAVE ENVISIONED THAT, BUT THEY FOLLOWED PRETTY MUCH THE MODEL. AND I THINK ALL THE ELEMENTS THAT WE SEE IN THE URBAN CENTER STUDY ARE CERTAINLY COVERED IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WE FELT THAT WE CAN KEEP THIS, ARCHIVE THIS, AND USE IT AS A RESOURCE IF WE HAD TO, BUT L THE ELEMENTS WERE ALREADY COVERED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OF 2021, OKAY? AND FUTURE DIMENSIONS . . . WELL, THEY TALK ABOUT THE FOUR ELEMENTS, FLATTENING REVENUES, ONGOING ECONOMIC VIABILITY, CHANGE IN DEMOGRAPHICS, WHICH WE ARE SEEING THAT AS OF TODAY, CHALLENGE ASSOCIATED WITH BEING A FIRST-TIER SUBURB, I SHOULD SAY, AND REGIONAL GROWTH. THOSE ARE CURRENT ELEMENTS THAT WE'RE FACED WITH. WE ARE STILL FACED WITH THOSE ELEMENTS. BUT, I THINK OUR CITY PLANNERS, OUR MANAGER, OUR CITY COUNCIL, OUR CITY MANAGERS, PISD -- THEY'RE COVERING ALL THESE ELEMENTS OKAY? THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT BOARD IS CERTAINLY HELPING, TRYING TO HELP WITH REGIONAL GROWTH. REGIONAL GROWTH IS COMING. THAT SEEMS TO BE ONE OF OUR BIGGEST PROBLEMS WE HAVE NOW, THE CITYF PLANO, IT'S REGIONAL GROWTH. PEOPLE ARE COMING HERE. THEY WANT TO BE HERE. SO WE FELT LIKE WE CAN GO AHEAD AND RETIRE THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL THE ELEMENTS ARE PRETTY MUCH COVEREDRE BY OTHER ENTITIES WITN THE CITY. SO, THAT'S OUR RECOMMENDATION TO THIS COMMISSION, OKAY? ANY QUESTIONS? >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> JUST A QUICK COMMENT. AS WE WENT THROUGH THIS, IT BECAME REALLY APPARENT THAT YOU GUYS THAT WORKED SO HARD ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN -- THE PLANO IN MATURITY DOCUMENT HAD 81 RECOMMENDATIONS AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COVERED ALL BUT 7 OF THOSE. SO, YOU GUYS PICKED UP A DOCUMENT THAT WAS 20 YEARS OLD WITHOUT REALIZING IT, MAYBE, AND COVERED THE BASES. ONCE AGAIN, THE WORK THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE HAS DONE THEIR JOB. AND IT KEEPS PAYING DIVIDENDS MONTH AFT MONTH, YR AFTER YEAR. >> Olley: JUST TO ECHO THAT SENTIMENT, I THINK YOU HAD A LINE THAT SHOWED HOW VARIOUS ITERATIONS OF THE COMP PLAN, YOU COULD SEE THAT INFLUENCE RUNNING THROUGH. SO, FROM A BUSINESS PROCESS IMPROVEMENT PERSPECTIVE, IT'S HEARTENING TO SEE THAT STAFF AND THE CITY DOESN'T WHIPLASH FROM STRATEGY TO STRATEGY. THERE'S A RECURRING THEME RUNNING TOWARDS A PARTICULAR DIRECTION THAT JUST MAKES ME FEEL COMFORTABLE AND CONFIDENT THAT THERE'S A NORTH STAR WE'RE EBBING TOWARDS, AND THERE'S A COMMON THREAD THROUGH IT. AND LIKE COMMISSIONER HORNE SAID, THE SEVEN WE DECIDED TO ESSENTIALLY RENEW FOCUS ON, I THINK WERE SEVEN THAT PARTICULARLY STOOD OUT THAT TO ME AT LEAST EMBODIED PLANO TOGETHER, PLANO 2050, AND KIND OF RENEWED A BIT OF THAT FOCUS AS WEONTINUE TO GO TOWARDS THAT NORTH STAR AND INCLUSIVE COMMUNITY, AND ONE THAT SETS THE ENVIRONMENT WHERE THE COMMERCIAL VIABILITY AND THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR OUR CITIZENS, THAT WE ALL AIM FOR, IS ENCAPSULATED. AND TO WHAT COMMISSIONER STONE SAID, YOUR DISAGGREGATION OF PLANO AT MATURITY -- NOT JUST BREAKING IT DOWN TO THOSE 81 OR SO ACTION ITEMS, BUT, YOU KNOW, THE COLUMNS THAT THE STAFF PUT THAT SHOWED US WHAT THE ACTION ITEMWE ARE DRIVING TOWARDS HELPED ME UNDERSTAND IT A LOT BETTER AND MADE IT EASIER FOR US TO GO, OKAY, THAT MAKES SENSE, COMP PLAN '21 WH21 HAS COVERED . THAT DOESN'T MAKE SEA SENSE OR S REDUNDANT. YOU DID ALL THE WORK AND MADE US LOOK LIKE WE KNEW WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT. >> DREW, DO YOU HAVE THAT SPREADSHEET ON YOUR COMPUTER YOU GAVE US? DO YOU HAVE THAT SO WE CAN SHOW THEM JUST A COUPLE OF PAGES OF THAT? DO YOU HAVE IT WITH YOU RIGHT NOW? >> RIGHTOW? MAYBE WE'RE ABLE TO PULL THAT UP. >> Chair Downs: CAN YOU EMAIL IT TO US? >> WE'D LIKE TO. IT WAS A GREAT DOCUMENT THAT DREW AND HIS TEAM SUMMARIZED THE 81 ELEMENTS THAT WERE IN THIS DOCUMENT AND SHOWED THAT IT WASN'T INCLUDED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IF IT WASN'T, WHICH DEPARTMENT TOOK CARE OF IT. AND IT WAS A GREAT WAY TO CULL THROUGH ALL THAT INFORMATION TO SEE HOW TO -- HOW IT'S BEING ADDRESSED, BECAUSE EVERY ONE OF THOSE 81 ELEMENTS ARE BEING ADDRESSED. IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE SEVEN OF THEM WEREN'T IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SHAME ON YOU. [ LAUGHING ] >> BUT THEY WERE -- A GREAT DEAL OF IT WAS COVERED, SO THAT'S WHT THOSE ON THE FOREFRONT BEING ADDRESSED BY SOME DEPARTMENTS, WE WERE ABLE TO RETIRE THAT DOCUMENT. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER COMMENTS? I'M ASSUMING YOU WANT THE SAME ACTION? DO YOU WANT TO HANDLE T HONORS, OR DO YOU WANT ME TO MANAGE IT? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE TAKE THE MIXED-USE SUBCOMMITTEE'S RECOMMENDATION SUMMARY FOR THE PLANO LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION STUDY FOR THE D.A.R.T. PARKER ROAD STATION, 1997, PLANO AT MATURITY (2003), URBAN CENTERS STUDY (2006), AND FUTURE DIMENSIONS (2008). AND REPEAL ALL THE RESOLUTIONS AS NOTED IN THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITH THE RAINA OF THE SEVEN ACON ITEMS FOR REVIEW FOR ADDITION TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S FUTURE UPDATES. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I THINK THAT WAS THE MOST COMPLETE MOTION I'VE EVER HEARD. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: GOOD JOB. AND YOU SAID IT WITHOUT BREATHING. WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY, SO PLEASE VOTE. ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEMS CARRIES 8-0. I WANT TO THANK ALL OF YOU. THIS WAS ADDITIONAL WORK ABOVE AND BEYOND YOUR TYPICAL DUTIES, SO THANK YOU FOR THE TIME AND ENERGY YOU PUT INTO THAT. THANK YOU, STAFF. HOPELLY WE'VE CANED THE LIBRARY UP WITHOUT THROWING AWAY THE BOOKS. ITEM 7, ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA. I THINK WE'VE GIVEN STAFF A LOT OF ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS LATER BUT OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 8:41. ♪