>> Downs: IT'S 7:00. WE WILL BRING THE MEETING TO ORDER AND IF YOU WOULD PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >> WE DO NOT HAVE ANYONE REGISTERED FOR COMMENTS OF PUBLICNTEREST SO WE'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACT UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Downs: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? OKAY. >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Downs: I HAVE A MION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSID PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: APPLICANT ARE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL, IF NEEDED. REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMON TIME, WITH THREE MINUTES SIGNED PER SPEAKER. TH PRESING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIO LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY, EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDE. I WILL BE READING ITEMS 1A AND 2B TOGETHER. AGENDA ITEM NO 1A. PUBLIC HEAR ZONING CASE 2021-031. REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR INPENDT LING FACILITY ON 10.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAPLESHADE LANE, 1,450 FEET WEST OF COIT ROAD. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY D APPLICANT: DAL-TEX MAPLESHADE, INC. AND GHALAMBOR PROPERTIES II LLC. LEGISLATION CONSIDERATION. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1B. NCEPT PLAN DALTEX-MAPLESHADE ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1 AND 2 INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY LOCATED ON TWO LOTS ON 10.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAPLESHADE LANE, 1,450 FEET WEST OF COIT ROAD. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY D APPLICANT: DAL-TEX MAPLESHADE, INC. AND GHALAMBOR PROPERTIES II LLC. THIS IS ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >>OOD ENING EVERYONE. MY NAME IS KOTCHE COPELAND AND I'M THE SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS FOR A SPECIFIC-USE PERMIT TO ALLOW FOR AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY. THE ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINES AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY AS A DEVELOPMENT PROVIDING DWELLING UNITS SPECIFICALLY DESIGNED FOR THE NEEDS OF AN ELDERLY PERSON. THE AERIAL SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE REQUEST WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANO. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS ZONED URBAN MIXED-USE THE AND IS UNDEVELOPED. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND IS DEVELOPED WITH HOTEL AND GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE USES . THE PROPERTY TO THE EAST IS ALSO ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND IS DEVELOPED WITH LOADING DOCKS AND A SERVICE AREA FOR A SUPER STORE. THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS ZONED URBAN MIXED USE 2 AND IS UNDEVELOPED AND CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPED WITH A HOSPITAL. THIS REQUEST HAS TWO COMPANION CONCEPT PLANS AND THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLANS FOR THE EASTERN LOT CLOSEST TO COIT ROAD. THIS LOT IS THE SMALLER LOT OF THE TWO PARCELS AND HAS 152 UNITS PROPOSED. ON THE OTHER SIDE IS LOT 2 AND THIS IS ON THE WEST SIDE FARTHEST FROM COIT ROAD AND IS THE LARGEST LOT OF TWO AND HAS 124 UNITS BEING PROPOSED. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY APPLIES TO AREAS WITH LARGE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CLASSIFIED AS UNDEVELOPED IN THE LAND USE AND HOUSING INVENTORY TOOL. STAFF HAS EVALUATED THIS REQUEST WITH THE CONFORMANCE OF THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER DASHBOARDS AS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT. THE REQUEST DOES NOT CONFORM TO THE MIX OF USES SECTION IN THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY DASHBOARD AND DOES REQUIRE FINDINGS. IF APPROVED, THIS AREA WOULD BE RECLASSIFIED TO MULTIFAMILY TYPES AND RESULT IN CHANGES TO THE MIX OF USES WITHIN THE AREA. THE HOUSING MIX IS CURRENTLY WELL OUTSIDE THE RECOMMENDED MIX OF A MAXIMUM OF0% MULTIFAMILY UNITS WITH 100% MULTIFAMILY UNITS IN THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER. THERE IS CURRENTLY NO DETACHED OR ATTACHED SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS IN THIS AREA. AND, AGAIN, IF APPROVED THIS CASE WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS. AS SHOWN IN THIS TABLE AND IN YOUR PACKETS THERE ARE CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT DO NOT ALIGN WITH THIS REQUEST. REQUESTS THAT DO NOT CONFORM TO THE MIX OF USES DENSITY AND BUILDING HGHTS DESCRIBED IN THE DASHBOARD ARE DISFAVORED. APPROVAL SHOULD BE CAREFULLY DELIBERATED AND JUSTIFIED BY FINDINGS AND BECAUSE OF ALL THE PREVIOUS SLIDES IN THIS REQUEST, THIS REQUEST IS DISFAVORED. THE CITY'S AGING POPULATION HAS DIFFICULTY FINDING A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING INVENTORY TO SUIT THEIR NEEDS AND REMAIN WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANO. THIS PROPOSAL DOES OFFER A LOW-MAINTENANCE LIVING SITUATION AND COULD BE AFFORDABLE AND WALKABLE. HOWEVER, STAFF HAS AITIOL CONCERNS ABOUT THESE THREE ITEMS. FIRST IS INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY USE. INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES ARE A PART OF THE INSTITUTIONAL USE CATEGORY WITHIN ARTICLE 14 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE CITY SHOULD CONSIDER THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AS WELL AS THE COMMERCIAL NATURE OF THESE USES WHEN DETERMINING WHETHER A LOCATION IS APPROPRIATE FOR A SPECIFIC SITE. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING FOUR SUP RESTRICTIONS. FROM STAFF'S POINT OF VIEW THE SUP RESTRICIONS COULD BE PANDED TO INCLUDE BUILDING HEIGHT LIMITATION, ADDITIONAL SCREENING, AND COHESIVENESS WITH THE BEACON SQUARE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH . TO THE EAST OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A LOADING DOCK AND SERVICE AREA FOR A WALMART GROCERY STORE. ARTICLE 16 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE STATES SPECIFIC REQUIREMENTS FOR LOADING DOCKS ARE PERMITTED AND TO BE PLACED IN PROXIMITY WITH RESIDENTIAL USES. HOWEVER, SINCE AN INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY IS AN INSTITUTIONAL USE, THE STANDARDS WOULD NOT APPLY. THE SCREENING ON THE SITE IS LOCATED AROUND THE LOADING DOCK, TRASH AND RECYCLING CONTAINERS ONLY. STAFF DISCUSSED THE LOADING DOCK OPERATIONS WITH A REPRESENTATIVE OF THE SUPER STORE WHO STATED THE STORE RECEIVES GOODS EVERY DAY ALL DAY AND INCLUDING OVERNIGHT DELIVERIES AND THE BUSIEST DAYS FOR DELIVERIES ARE MONDAYS WEDNESDAYS AND FRIDAYS. TO SUPPORT RESIDENTS THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING BY SUP STIPULATION A 15-FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE EDGE WITH EVERGREEN TREES, SHRUBS WHICH MUSTE AT LEAST TEN FEET TALL IN ADDITION TO A SIX-FOOT MASONRY SCREENING WALL . AND AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR LOT 1 WHERE THE DESIRED SCREENING AND SETBACKS ARE ON THAT EASTERN SIDE. TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPOSAL IS THE BEACON SQUARE DEVELOPMENT. THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN SHOWS WHERE FUTURE MULTIFAMILY IS ADJACENT TO E SUPERSTORE. THE DESIGN OF THE MULTIFAMILY WAS ORIENTED TO THE SIDE OF THE SUPERSTORE AND NOT THE LOADING AREA. STAFF RECOMMENDS THEY INCORPORATE IMPROVED SCREENING . 11 PROPERTIES WERE NOTIFIED FOR THIS REQUEST. WE RECEIVED SIX LETTERS IN FAVOR AND ONE IN OPPOSITION AND DUE TO THE SIZE OF THE OPPOSITION LETTER, SUPERMAJORITY IS TRIGGERED. STAFF RECEIVED SEVEN TOTAL LETTERSN FAVOR AND TWO IN OPPOSITION. STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT SENIOR HOUSING IS NEEDED N THE COMMUNITY. HOWEVER, THIS REQUEST IS DISFAVORED FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. THE PROPOSAL LACKS CONFORMITY WITH THE MIX OF USES HEIGHT SECTION IN THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER DASHBOARDS WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT FAILS TO PROVIDE A DESIGN THAT INCORPORATES OTHER DESIRABLE CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS. THE LOCATION IS ADJACENT TO LOADING AND SERVICE AREA OF A SUPERSTORE AND THE ZONING REQUEST IS NOT DEFINED ADEQUATE SCREENING AND SETBACKS TO PROTECT THOSE FUTURE RESIDENTS. FINALLY, THE REQUEST MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE STANDARDS THAT WOULD INTEGRATE THIS DEVELOPMENT WITH THE ADJACENT MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH. STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL TO THE REQUEST AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE WITH A PRESENTATION. >> Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MY GUESS IS THERE'S SEVERAL QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TO TOUCH ON A COUPLE OF THINGS REAL QUICK FOR THOSE WATCHING AT HOME AS WELL AS ANYTHING ELSE. YOU MENTIONED THIS REQUIRES A SUPERMAJORITY AND IFOMEBY AT HOME IS LOOKING IT SAYS, WELL, THERE ARE SIX PEOPLE IN FAVOR AND ONE PERSON OPPOSED. WHY WOULD IT BE A SUPERMAJORITY? BUT IT'S BASED ON LAND AREA, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> Downs: OKAY. SO EVERYONE ELSE UNDERSTAND THAT ON THE COMMISSION? >> JUST TO CLARIFY, THAT'S A VOTE AT CITY COUNCIL. IT COULD BE SIMPLE MAJORITY WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BUT SUPERMAJORITY WOULD BE REQUIRED AT COUNCIL. >> Downs: UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. I HAVE A COUPLE BUT MY GUESS IS THEY'RE GOING TO GET ASKED BY PRETTY MUCH EVERYONE ELSE, POTENTIALLY, SO COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Hor: THANK YOU. A TERRIFIC PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. I WAS LOOKING AT THIS AND THIS PROPERTY IS LITERALLY JUST DOWN THE STREET FROM EXRESSWAY CORRIDOR, OKAY. AND THAT BEING SAID, HAVE WE PERFORMED OR HAS THERE BEEN AN ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASSESSMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR AREA HERE? IT SEEMS LIKE WHEN I LOOKED AT THE MAP IT'S RIGHT THERE ON THE BORDER WHERE AN EH-1. EHA-1 WOULD BE REQUIRED. HAS THAT BEEN DONE OR IS IT FURTHER AWAY FROM THAT REQUIREMENT? >> IT'S JUST OUTSIDE OF THAT BOUNDARY. >> Horne: BY HOW FAR? IS IT -- >> IT'S VERY CLOSE BUT IT IS OUTSIDE SO WE DID NOT INCLUDE THAT. THAT WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED. >> Horne: OKAY. THEN THE SECOND ONE WAS WHEN WE DEFINE WALKABILITY, I LOOKED AT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY AND I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY IS IT WALKABILITY. CAN I WALK TO A RESTAURANT? I MEASURED THAT THE NEAREST RESTAURANT WAS ROSA'S CAFE ACROSS COIT, WHICH MEASURES, AS THE CROW FLIES ABOUT 1800 FEET. AND THEN WE HAVE 570 FEET TO THE FRONT ENTRY OF WALMART IF THEY WANT TO GO IN THERE. AND THEN WHEN BEACON HILL IS REDEVELOPED, IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE URBAN MIXED USE, THAT'S 1150 FEET AS THE CROW FLIES, AND THIS IS REALLY FROM THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY. SO I KIND OF QUESTION WHEN WE SAY WALKABILITY BECAUSE TO GO TO ROSA'S YOU HAVE TO CROSS COIT. WELL, ALL OF A SUDDEN TO DO THAT YOU HAVE TO CROSS AT A LIGHT AND EVERYONE KNOWS HOW MUCH TRAFFIC IS THERE SO I'M LOOKING FOR, AS AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, THAT WOULD SEEM LIKE IT WOULD NOT BE DEFINED AS WALKABILITY. CAN YOU PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO THAT DEFINITION? >> YEAH, THE DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE REQUIRED TO CONSTRUCT THE SIDEWALKS ADJACENT TO MAPLESHADE, WHICH WOULD ALLOW RESIDENTS AND GUESTS TO WALK ALONG THOSE SIDEWALKS. IN ADDITION, WE ARE HOPEFUL THAT THE BEACON SQUARE& DEVELOPMENT PROVIDES WALKABILITY FOR THE RESIDENTS WANTING TO EXPLORE THE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH. >> Horne: THANK YOU. >> YOU MENTIONED ASSISTED -- SORRY. YOU MENTIONED ASSISTED LIVING. THIS IS INDEPENDENT LIVING. IT'S NOT ASSISTED LIVING, CORRECT? >> IT'S INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: QUICK QUESTION. THIS IS UNDEVELOPED LAND. HOW MUCH UNDEVELOPED LAND STILL EXISTS WITHIN PLANO? >> TOTAL? LESS THAN 5%. >> Olley: ON THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER IT SAYS THIS PARTICULARLY APPLIES TO AREAS WITH LARGE COMMERCIAL AND MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENTS THAT SERVE THE SPECIALTY SHOPPING AND DINING SERVICE AND ENTERTAINMENT NEEDS AT THIS INTERSECTION. THIS IS FOR MY -- BEACON HILL DEVELOPMENT DOESN'T FALL WITHIN THAT CURRENTLY? >> THE BEACON SQUARE OF THIS SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER IS LARGER THAN THIS PROPERTY. IT COVERS BASICALLY ALL THE AREA BETWEEN THE RAILROAD AND PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE OO THAT BEACON SQUARE DEVELOPMENT IS ONE QUADRANT OF THIS SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> Olley: YEP. >> Downs: OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THIS MAY NOT BE RELEVANT TO THIS CASE BUT AREN'T THERE SEVERAL OTHER INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF COIT? >> THERE IS ON THE NORTHST SIDE FARTHER TO THE NORTH. >> Ratliff: DIDN'T THEY JUST OPEN ONE RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE FOOD BANK? TWO OR THREE ON MAPLESHADE. >> TWO OR THREE ON THE OTHER SIDE. I THINK THERE'S TWO THAT HAVE SPECIFIC-USE PERMITS AND THERE'S ONE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF MAPLESHADE REALLY ACROSS THE STREET FROM BEACON SQUARE SO I THINK THERE'S THREE IN THE GENERAL AREA, CURRENTLY. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Downs: OTHER QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER CARY. COISSIER HORNE.E WITH I THINK YOU GUYS DID A JOB JOB WITH THIS PRESENTATION. THERE'S A LOT OF ELEMENTS TO IT. ONE OF THE THINGS YOU DISCUSSED IS THE FACT THAT THE HOUSING USE IS ALREADY 100% MULTIFAMILY AND THIS WOULD JUST INCREASE THE UNITS THERE. IT WOULDN'T CHANGE THE PERCENTAGE. I GUESS MY QUESTION IS DO WE BELIEVE THAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO CHANGE. IS THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY -- DO WE BELIEVE BECOME A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME PIECE OF PROPERTY WHICH IS WHAT WOULD BE KIND OF NEEDED TO CHANGE THAT RATIO ANYWAY, RIGHT? I'M CURIOUS AS WHAT THE DEEPER THINKING OF THAT WAS. >> SURE. WELL, AGAIN, THERE ARE MULTIPLE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS ACROSS THE CITY SO IN THIS PARTICULAR CENTER THERE MAY NOT BE ADEQUATE SPACE TO ADD ANY SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED OR DETACHED BUT IN OTHER AREAS THERE MIGHT BE AND THAT WAS THE INTENT TO HAVE A MIX OF AT LEAST 10% DETACHED AND 10% ATTACHED AND NO MORE THAN 60% MULTIFAMILY. AS A GENERAL AGGREGATE IN THESE AREAS. BUT THIS PARTICULAR SITE, IT'S 100% MULTIFAMILY. THERE'S NOT A LOT OF ROOM FOR ANY SINGLE-FAMILY TO GO IN HERE. >> [OFF MIC] >> WITH THIS PROPOSAL THERE WOULD BE A FEW SMALL WEDGES OF UNDEVELOPED LAND BUT THIS AND BEACON SQUARE ARE REALLY THE LAST TWO PIECES. >> Downs: OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE LIGHTS ON. I REALLY KIND OF ZONED IN ON THE SUMMARY IT SAYS FINALLY THE REQUEST MISSES AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE STANDARDS THAT WOULD INTEGRATE THIS DEVELOPMENT WITH THE TOHE NORTH.X-USE DEVELOPNT REALLY, WHAT I'M INTERESTED IN HERE IS WHETHER THOSE STANDARDS, IF THE APPLICANT WAS TO ADOPT THOSE STANDARDS, IT STILL WOULD NOT BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PLAN, RIGHT? PRIMARILY BECAUSE OF THE RESIDENTIAL SITUATION. >> IT WOULD NOT MEET THE MIX OF USES. CORRECT. THAT SECTION WOULD STILL BE 100% MULTIFAMILY. THAT'S RIGHT. >> Downs: OKAY. BUT THE STANDARDS, IF THEY ADOPTED THEM, WOULD AT LEAST MAKE IT A LITTLE MORE INTEGRATED INTO THE COMING DEVELOPMENT THAT'S BEACON SQUARE. OKAY. THANK YOU. OH. YES SIR. >> SO IT WOULD NOT ONLY THE HOUSING BUT ALSO THE BUILDING HEIGHTS, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT'S RIGHT. AS CURRENTLY PROPOSED IN THE ZONING NOW THEY ARE ALLOWED UP TO 20 STORIES. SO THAT EXCEEDS THE FIVE-STORY RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> THANK YOU. >> Downs: OKAY. YOU'RE OFF THE HOT SEAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. HEY SAID, WELL DONE ON THE PRESENTATION. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. >> WE HAVE BILL DALSTROM AND JASON NOTEWITH. >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JASON AND I REPRESENT McDOW PROPERTIES. JUST NEED TO UNDERSTAND HOW TO DO THIS. THIS IS MAPLESHADE VETERAN HOUSING, SENIOR HOUSING AND THE REASON THAT IT'S BEING CALLED THE VETERAN HOUSING, THE REASON WHY McDOWELL PROPERTIES ZEROED IN ON THIS SPECIFIC SITE IS BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE VA CLINIC. I'M A VETERAN OF THE UNITED STATES AIR FORCE 21 YEARS, RETIRED AND ONE OF MY PASSIONS IS TO PROVIDE HOUSING TO VETERANS. INITIALLY WE WERE THINKING OF DOING AN AFFORDABLE HOUSING PROPERTY BUT THEN WHEN WE MET WITH ADJACENT LANDOWNERS THEY THOUGHT IT WOULD BE MORE FITTING TO COMPLEMENT OR AT LEAST NOT BE ADVERSE TO BEACON SQUARE SO WE DECIDED TO MOVE FORWARD WITH A MARKET-RATE PRODUCT. TO TELL YOU A LITTLE BIT ABOUT McDOWELL PROPERTIES, THEY ACQUIRED THEIR FIRST PROPERTY IN 2004 AND CURRENTLY HAVE $4 BILLION OF ASSETS UNDER MANAGEMENT. THIS IS OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM. I WANT TO POINT OUT THIS MAP SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE THIS IS THE CRUX OF THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT. YOU'VE GOT BAYLOR SCOTT, THE VA CLINIC, AND YOU'VE GOT TEXAS ONCOLOGY. THE AVERAGE AGE OF THE RESIDENT OF A OF THE DEVELOPMENTS THAT I'VE DONE WITH SENIORS AND INDEPENDENT LIVING HAVE AVERAGED AROUND 70 TO 74. SO THESE FACILITIES ARE PERFECT -- PERFECTLY SITUATED AND WITHIN PROXIMITY OF OUR DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, VA CLINIC, TEXAS ONCOLOGY, MEDICAL CITY PLANO, BAYLOR SCOTT, AND QUEST CARE. SO WE HAVE TWO VISIONS, ONE FOR EACH SITE, AND WE'RE CALL THEM DAL-TEX SITE ONE AND IT'S BASED OFF THE NAME THAT'S WITHIN THE SURVEY. THE TRIANGULAR SITE TO THE WEST, WE'RE OFFERING APPROXIMATELY 120 UNITS OF MARKET RATE LUXURY, 55 AGE RESTRICTED. TOTAL INVESTMENT IS $35 MILLION AND OUR ANTICIPATED PROPERTY TAX REVENUE IS ABOUT 700K ANNUALLY. OUR SECOND SITE IS TO THE EAST AND IT'S -- WE'RE OFFERING ABOUT 150 UNITS, APPROXIMATELY. SAME TYPE PRODUCT. SLIGHTLY LARGER INVESTMENT. AND THEN HERE'S OUR OVERALL CONCEPT PLAN. WE'VE CONSIDERED SEVERAL THINGS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. ONE BEING THAT CENTER AISLE THAT DIVIDES THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS AND HOW IT CAN CONNECT TO BEACON SQUARE. WE THOUGHT ABOUT HOW WE CAN MAKE THAT A PUBLIC EASEMENT AND MR. DAHLSTROM WILL GO INTO MORE DETAIL ON THAT. THESE ARE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLOSER ZOOMED IN. TH ARE GOING TO OFFER OUTDOOR AMENITIES, POOLS, STATE OF THE ART FACILITIES. MANY SENIORS ENJOY HAVING A GATED COMMUNITY. OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT WE'RE GOING TO DISCUSS TONIGHT BUT IT DOES PROVIDE SOME SAFETY FOR THEM. AND THEN HERE ARE SOME POTENTIAL ELEVATIONS. THIS IS THE CONCEPT WE WERE THINKING ABOUT GOING WITH. AND I JUST WANTED TO SHOW AN EXAMPLE OF A DEVELOPMENT THAT I FINISHED ABOUT A YEAR AGO. THESE ARE NOT RENDERINGS. THESE ARE ACTUAL PICTURES FROM THE FINISHED DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS FOR EDGESTONE UP OFF OF STONEBROOK AND LEGACY. THIS IS THE QUALITY OF DEVELOPMENT WE'RE PLANNING ON BUILDING HERE. HERE ARE SOME OF THE AMENITY SPACES. AGAIN, THESE ARE ACTUAL PHOTOS. HERE ARE THE UNITS. I'M GOING TO TURN THIS OVER TO BILL DAHLSTROM NOW. >> MR. CHAIR, COMMISSION, MY NAME IS BILL DAHLSTROM, 2323 ROSS AVENUE. IT'S GREAT TO BE HERE TONIGHT AGAIN REPRESENTING THIS APPLICANT, WHO IS TRYING TO PROVIDE A VERY WORTHWHILE PROJECT IN THE CITY OF PLANO. WHAT I PUT ON THE BOARD QUITE SIMPLY IS OUR DILEMMA. LOOKING AT THE BASIC NUMBERS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THERE IS THIS MIX ISSUE THAT RESIDENTIAL'S ALREADY ACCOUNTED FOR AND DOESN'T ALLOW ANY ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL, NO MATTER HOW QUALIFIED OR HOW WARRANTED A PROJECT IS. SO WE'VE GOT TO TAKE A LOOK AT THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND SOME OTHER ISSUES IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'M GOING TO CALL THEM AUDIBLE BECAUSE AS FAR AS MY PRESENTATION GOES THE DESIRABLE CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS -- I'M GOING TO TRY TO FAST FORWARD, IF I MAY, HERE. MR. HILL, I BORROWED ONE OF YOUR EXHIBITS AND MODIFIED IT. AND THIS IS THE EXHIBIT THAT IS ACTUALLY IN YOUR STAFF REPORT BUT I ADDED ANOTHER COLUMN. AND THESE ARE THE DESIRABLE CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS AND IT WAS BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION WE WANTED -- WE NEEDED TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES AND WE ARE AGREEABLE TO MAKE MODIFICATIONS TO OUR STANDARDS IN ORDER TO BRING IT MORE INTO COMPLIANCE WITH WHAT'S HAPPENING IN THE AREA. THE FIRST ONE IS BUILDING HEIGHTS. NOW, 20 STORIES IS PERMITTED IN CC. THERS NO WAY IN THE WORLD WE WOULD EVER DO 20 STORIES OF INDEPENDENT LIVING. OUR PROPOSAL IS AT FOUR. WE ARE AGREEABLE TO LIMIT OUR HEIGHT IN THE SUPs, PROVIDE A STIPULATION THAT LIMITS THE HEIGHT TO FIVE STORIES. THE NEXT ONE, OBVIOUSLY WE COMPLY WITH. THE NEXT ONE ON INTENSITY OF USE SPEAKS TO THE LOT COVERAGE BEING, I BELIEVE, 50 TO 75%. THAT'S ONE THAT WE WILL NEVER GET THERE BECAUSE OF THE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT WE'RE DOING. WE'VE GOTWO BUILDINGS THAT TAKE UP ABOUT 18, 19% OF THE TOTAL LOT. THE NEXT STANDARD IS OPEN SPACE AND THE STAFF REPORT SAYS WE MEET THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. THE THIRD ONE IS PARKING AND, AGAIN, THE RECOMMENDATION THERE IS TO DO STRUCTURED PARKING. ITS HARD TO DO THIS TYPE OF A PARKING COMPONENT SO WE WANTD- TO RETAIN THE SURFACE PARKING. THE NEXT ITEM, AS FAR AS THE LOT PATTERN, THIS IS THE ONE HE WAS TALKING ABOUT. WE'VE GOT A DRIVEWAY BETWEEN OUR TWO BUILDINGS. WE WOULD BE AGREEABLE IN OUR STIPULATIONS TO STATE THAT THAT DRIVE NEEDS TO BE A PUBLIC WAY AND CREATE THAT ADDITIONAL BLOCK FACE. SO HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S BLOCK FACE REQUIREMENTS. SO WE WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE. THE NEXT ONE, AGAIN WE COMPLY WITH. AS FAR AS TRANSIT GOES, AS IS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WE HAVE A TRANSIT STOP 0.4 OF A MILE AWAY. OUR FACILITY WILL HAVE VANS FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RESIDENTS. MULTIPLE VANS THAT WOULD ALLOW THEM TO GET WHEREVER THEY NEED TO BE. SO WE'VE GOT TRANSIT BUILT INTO OUR SYSTEM AND THEY CAN TAKE OUR RESIDENTS TO THE BUS STATION. THEY CAN TAKE THEM TO THE RAIL STATION. THEY CAN TAKE THEM TO ANY OF THE SHOPPING. THEY CAN TAKE THEM TO ROSA'S OR ANY OTHER RETAIL IN THE AREA. WE BELIEVE WE ARE PROVIDING THE IENT OF WHAT THE PUBLIC TRANSIT WOULD PROVIDE BY HAVING OUR OWN TRANSIT SYSTEM WITHIN OUR FACILITY. AND WE'RE AGREEABLE TO INCLUDE THAT IN ANY STIPULATION, IF WE CAN. A FEW OTHER ITEMS SUGGESTED BY THE CITY STAFF. THE SCREENING AND SETBACK. WE ARE AGREEABLE TO PROVIDE AN EIGHT-FOOT WALL ON THE EASTERN BOUNDARY. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GOOD SUGGESTION. WE ARE AGREEABLE TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF TREES ON THE EAST SIDE AS WELL TO PROVIDE MORE OF A VEGETATIVE SCREEN, IF YOU WILL. AS FAR AS THE SETBACK GOES, OUR CONCEPT PLAN SHOWS A SETBACK SHOWS THE BUILDINGS BEING SET BACK I WOULD SAY 60 TO 70 FEET FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY. WE WOULD BE AGREEABLE TO WRITE THAT IN THE SUP STIPULATIONS THAT THE SETBACK BOUNDARY HAS TO BE 60 FEET AWAY. THAT'S A SUBSTANTIAL SETBACK. AS FAR AS THE ADJACENT OWNERS ACCESS, OF COURSE WE'RE AGREEABLE TO DO THAT. GATED COMMUNITY, THE STAFF REPORT SAY GAT COMNITIES ARE NOT PREFERRED. WE WOULD LIKE IT BUT WE UNDERSTAND AND WE ARE AGREEABLE TO STIPULATE, PUT IN THE STIPULATIONS, THAT THIS WILL NOT BE GATED. SO WE ARE AGREEABLE TO DO THAT. HAVING LOOKED AT THE -- ALL THESE ISSUES I THINK THERE ARE ONLY TWO THAT WE REALLY CAN'T LIVE WITH AND THAT'S THE LOT COVERAGE AND THE STRUCTURED PARKING. ALL THE OTHERS WE ARE AGREEABLE TO ADD STIPULATIONS TO OUR PROJECT. I'M GOING TO GO BACK NOW TO -- THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE WITH THIS. SO, COMMISSIONER HORNE, YOU TALKED ABOUT THE EHA. THIS IS THE CITY'S INTERACTVE MAP AND SHOWS THAT THE CONTOURS ARE OUTSIDE -- OUR PROPERTY IS OUTSIDE OF THOSE CONTOURS. SO GETTING BACK TO THE ANALYSIS UNDER THE COMP PLAN. WE MUST DECIDE THAT WE MEET THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE COMP PLAN. WE PROVIDED A THREE OR FOUR-PAGE LETTER ADDRESSING EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THOSE GUIDING PRINCIPLES AND I AM QUICKLY RUNNING OUT OF TIME. I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH EACH AND EVERY ONE OF THEM BUT I SUBMIT TO YOU THAT WE DO COMPLY WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES AS SET FORTH IN THE COMP PLAN. AND JUST THE FIRST ONE. THIS PLAN ENHANCES THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE NEAR TERM, CONTINUING TO STRIVE TO MEET THE NEEDS AND PRIORITIES OF CURRENT RESIDENTS, BUSINESSES, AND INSTITUTIONS OF PLANO. WE ARE PROVIDING A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY AND, YES, WE ARE WANTING TO CATER SPECIFICALLYO VETERAN ABSOLUTELY. YOU KNOW, THE PLAN PROMOTES THE EDUCATIONAL AND RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL CENTERS OF THE COMMUNITY PROVIDING AN ENVIRONMENT FOR WORLD-CLASS FACILITIES. ONCE AGAIN, WE ARE PROPOSING A SENIOR LIVING FACILITY THAT SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES ONE OF THE OTHER POLICIES IN TERMS OF SPECIALIZED HOUSING. SO WE BELIEVE WE ARE SATISFYING THAT PRINCIPLE AS WELL. THE PLAN RESPECTS THE SUBURBAN CHARACTER. ABSOLUTELY. AGAIN, THESE ARE ALL IN A REPORT THAT WE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY WITH OUR APPLICATION. THE PLAN ACKNOWLEDGES THAT PLANO WAS MOSTLY DEVELOPED AND DOES NOT ANTICIPATE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES IN POPULATION OR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. I WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT WE ARE ONLY PROPOSING 276 UNITS OF INDEPENDENT LIVING IN TWO SEPARATE BUILDINGS. IT'S NOT A SIGNIFICANTLY-LARGE MONSTROUS DEVELOPMENT. IT IS A SMALL-SCALE DEVELOPMENT AS FAR AS INDEPENDENT LIVING OR AS CATEGORIZED UNDER THIS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, A MULTIFAMILY TYPE. IT'S MODERATELY SIZED, ACTUALLY. BUT, AGAIN, CONTINUING ON TO THE PLAN SUCCESSFULLY MANAGES PLANO'S TRANSITION TO A MATURE CITY. WE'RE PROVIDING ANOTHER SENIOR LIVING FACILITY. YOU KNOW, GUIDING PRINCIPLE NO. 2, THE PLAN BUILDS ON PLANO'S STRONG HISTORY GUIDING REDEVELOPMENT WHERE IT IS SAFE. WE THINK IT IS SAFE, ATACTIVE AND APPPRIATE AT THIS LOCATION AND, AGAIN, WE'RE AGREEABLE TO ENHANCE AND CHANGE OUR STANDARDS TO FURTHER ENHANCE THE APPROPRIATENESS AND CONVENIENCE AS WAS SUGGESTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE PLAN SERVES PEOPLE OF ALL BACKGROUNDS, STRIVING TO MEET THE NEEDS OF AN INCLUSIVE AND VIBRANT COMMUNITY THAT CALLS PLANO HOME. OF COURSE, THAT'S WHAT THIS FACILITY IS ALL ABOUT. THE PLAN EMBRACES PLANO'S POSITION AS A LEADER IN THE REGION. ABSOTELY. E PLA MANAGES GROWTH AND REDEVELOPMENT IN A GRADUAL MANNER. AGAIN, THIS IS SATISFYING CERTAIN POLICIES UNDER THE COMP PLAN, SPECIFICALLY THE SPECIALIZED HOUSING. GO BACK TO IMPLEMENT. THE PLAN WILL BE DONE IN PARTNERSHIP WITH THE COMMUNITY AND EDUCATIONAL NONPROFITS. MR. NOTWITZ HAS GONE TO EXTENSIVE LOW-D LENGTHS TO GET THE VETERAN'S COMMUNITY INVOLVED AS WELL. AS FAR AS BEING CONSISTENT WITH OTHER POLICIES, THIS SPECIFICALLY SATISFIES THE SPECIAL HOUSING NEEDS POLICY. IT MEETS THE POLICY BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL SENIOR HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES. IT MEETS THE HOUSING TRENDS ANALYSIS IN THE STRATEGIC PLAN. MEETS THIS POLICY BY PROVIDING HOUSING FOR SENIORS THAT IS LOW MAINTENANCE AND IT DOES PROVIDE FOR FUTURE WALKABLE CONNECTIONS TO BEACON SQUARE AND WE WILL BE PROVIDING THE TRAIL AND THE SIDEWALK. IT SATISFIES THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY BY CONFORMIN WIT THE HOUSING TRENDS ANALYSIS STRATEGIC PLAN, PROVIDING ADEQUATE PUBLIC FACILITIES ARE AVAILABLE TO ACCOMMODATE THIS. AS IN ANY DEVELOPMENT WE WILL BE WORKING WITH THE CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT INFRASTRUCTURE AND OTHER NEEDS OF THE CITY ARE PROVIDED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. AS IS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT ALSO, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL HAVE A LESSER IMPACT THAN A POTENTIAL OFFICE USE AT THIS LOCATION. AGAIN, SUFFICIENT FIRE EMERGENCY RESPONSES TIME IS PROVIDED AT THIS LOCATION. AND, AGAIN, THE REGIONAL MANAGEMENT ACTION OCCASIONALLY ALLOWS PROPOSALS THAT DO NOT STRICTLY CONFORM TO THE CRITERIA. HOWEVER WE NEED TO SHOW THAT THE REQUEST IS BENEFICIAL TO IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS AND WE SUBMIT THAT THE PEOPLE WHO WILL LIVE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL FREQUENT AND BE PATRONS OF SURROUNDING RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL USES -- >> MR. DAHLSTROM -- >> TWO MORE POINTS. IT IS BENEFICIAL TO THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND THE GENERAL PUBLIC'S INTEREST. SO I'M GOING TO STOP THERE AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. MR. NODWITZ AND I ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. I BELIEVE WE HAVE ANOTHER SPEAKER AS WELL. >> WE DO. WE HAVE HENRY BILLINGSLEY. >> Downs: SOMETIMES WE'LL ASK QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT FIRST BUT I THINK WE'LL LET MR. BILLINGSLEY SPEAK AND THE APPLICANT HAS A REBUTTAL PERIOD AND WE CAN ASK OUR QUESTIONS AT THAT TIME. >> MY NAME IS HENRY BILLINGSLEY. I'M WITH BILLINGSLEY COMPANY AND WE OWN 90 ACRES THAT'S ADJACENT TO THIS PROPERTY. THERE'S A HANDOUT COMING AROUND RIGHT NOW THAT I THINK WILL BE BENEFICIAL JUST TO LOOK AT THE AREA. ABOUT TWO YEARS AGO WE SPENT ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF WORKING WITH THE CITY TO LAY OUT A PLAN ON THE 90 ACRES THAT WE HAVE THAT GOES FROM COIT ROAD AND COMES AND WRAPS AROUND AND COMES DOWN TO MAPLESHADE. THAT'S A MIXED USE PRODUCT. THERE'S 1200 UNITS OF APARTMENTS, ABOUT 135,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, AND 800,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE BUILDINGS IN THAT PLAN. WE'RE CURRENTLY UNDER DEVELOPMENT WITH THE FIRST PHASE OF MULTIFAMILY AND THE RETAIL ON COIT ROAD AND I THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE HANDOUT THAT WE HAVE THERE, WHICH WE WORKED WITH THE CITY, LIKE I SAY, FOR OVER A YEAR TO DEVELOP. THE RETAIL IS ON COIT ROAD, PRIMARILY. YOU GO INTO THE MULTIFAMILY AND THEN THE 800,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE IS NORTH OF MAPLESHADE. IT'S IN THE BACK PAT OF THE PROPERTY SO IT REALLY FACES MAPLESHADE AND GEORGE BUSH. NOW, THIS IS A 800,000 SQUARE FEET IS A LOT OF OFFICE SPACE AND THIS IS NOT AS ROBUST AN AREA AS, SAY, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS PARK OVER ON THE TOLL RO IN PLANO WHERE WE BUILT SEVERAL OFFICE BUILDINGS ALREADY. THIS PROPERTY IS DIVIDED IN TWO PIECES, THE EASTERN FIVE ACRES AND THE WESTERN FIVE ACRES. THE EASTERN FIVE ACRES WERE PURCHASED BY A DOCTOR WHO WAS GOING TO DO HIS OWN OFFICE BUILDING. WE HAD NO PROBLEM WITH THAT BEING A NEIGHBOR BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE AN OFFICE BUILDING IN FRONT OF ADDITIONAL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND IT WOULD BE -- IT WOULD BLEND TOGETHER AND WOULD BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE HAVE PLANNED BEHIND IT. THEN FOR WHATEVER THE REASON HE DECIDED TO PUT THE PROPERTY BACK ON THE MARKET AND NOW YOU HAVE THAT PROPERTY WITH THE OTHER FIVE ACRES AND THEY'RE PROPOSING MULTIFAMILY. MAPLESHADE, FOR OUR 800,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE, IS THE FRONT DOOR. AND IF YOU HAVE MULTIFAMILY AS A FRONT DOOR TO AN OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, I CAN TELL YOU IT'S GOING TO BE VERY, VERY, VERY DIFFICULT. WE'RE IN BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY AND WE BUILD BUILDINGS HOPING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO TURN A PROFIT BUT IF YOU PUT A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT AT THE FRONT OF THIS PROJECT I CAN TELL YOU IT WILL BE VERY, VERY DIFFICULT TO DO THE OFFICE BUILDINGS AND IT COULD BE A LONG, LONG TIME BEFORE ANYTHING GETS DONE BECAUSE IT JUST WON'T BE COMPETITIVE WITH OTHER AREAS -- OTHER PROPERTIES IN THE AREA. I THINK ALSO THE FACT THAT THIS IS CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, IF YOU LOOK FROM COIT ROAD TO OHIO THROUGH THIS ENTIRE AREA YOU DON'T SEE RESIDENTIAL. YOU DON'T SEE HOUSES, TOWN HOUSES, OR APARTMENTS. YOU SEE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS. I THINK HAVING THAT CONSISTENCY IN THIS AREA WITH THE VISIBILITY FROM GEORGE BUSH IS VERY IMPORTANT. >> MR. BILLINGSLEY, YOUR THREE MINUTES ARE UP. >> ANYWAY, I AGREE WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO TURN THIS DOWN. IT'S NOT COMPATIBLE WITH THE AREA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Downs: THANK YOU. MR. DAHLSTROM, WHOEVER WOULD LIKE. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RESPOND TO THAT AND I'LL ASK THE COMMISSION IF THEY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU AT THIS TIME. >> YES, SIR. ONE SPEAKER IN OPPOSITION ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. INCIDENTALLY I DID PASS OUT ANOTR LETTER OF SUPPORT. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU RECEIVED THAT EARLIER BUT IT IS FROM THE HOSPITAL NEXT TO US. THEY ARE VERY EXCITED AND IN SUPPORT OF THIS PROJECT. BUT I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE OF HAVING RESIDENTIAL NEXT TO OFFICES. I THINK WE SEE IT EVERYWHERE. I THINK ON THAT SAME PROPERTY TO THE NORTH OF US YOU HAVE 1200 UNITS NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL. I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY IT'S INCOMPATIBLE AND I THINK IF YOU LOOK AT OUR PLAN -- IF I CAN GET BACK THERE. THERE IS A -- THERE WE GO. SUBSTANTIAL GREEN SPACE, AS YOU CAN SEE, OFF TO THE LEFT SIDE OF OUR PROPERTY WHERE THE STREET WILL COME IN. WE HAVE OUR DETENTION POND AND A LARGE GREEN OPEN SPACE AS AN ENTRY INTO THE OFFICE SO IT'S NOT AS IF THE PROPOSED INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY WILL HAVE -- WILL BE A VISUAL BLOCK TO THE OFFICES AT THE BACK. BUT, AGAIN, IT'S VERY COMMON TO HAVE A MIXTURE OF USESN CLOSE PROXIMITY. RETAIL OFFICE RESTAURANTS AND RESIDENTIAL. IT'S BASIC TENET OF MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS THE CONNECTIVITY. AS A MATTER OF FACT, WE ARE REQUIRED TO, ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY YOU CAN SEE THAT DRIVEWAY IS CONNECTED WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE NORTH. SO, AGAIN, I SUBMIT TO YOU AGAIN THAT TRUE MIXED USE WELCOMES RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT TO OFFICE. AND AS FAR AS THE USES, THAT WHOLE STREET OF MAPLESHADE IS A HODGEPODGE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES, AS MENTIONED BY STAFF EARLIER BUT I THINK THE KEY ISSUE HERE IS THE RESIDENTIAL DOES MAKE SENSE. IT IS CONSISTENT AND IT DOES PLAY OFF OF WHAT'S HAPPENING ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BEACON SQUARE. AGAIN, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND WE APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. >> Downs: THANK YOU. HANG ON A SECOND. LET ME ASK COMMISSION. DOES ANYONE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: OKAY. I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS. SO FIRST I HEARD VETERANS REFERENCED OVER AND OVER AND OVER. WHAT SPECIFICALLY ARE YOU DOING TO DRAW VETERANS AND TO CREATE SPECIFIC HOUSING FOR VETERANS BEING VERY CAREFUL NOT TO VIOLATE THE FAIR HOUSING ACT? >> THANK YOU, SIR. I WOULD LIKE TO DEFER THAT QUESTION TO MR. NODWITZ BUT, AGAIN, YOUR POINT IS WELL TAKEN. WE CAN'T SAY THAT ONLY VETERANS ARE GOING TO GO THERE BUT WE CAN SURE PREFER VETERANS AS OUR MARKET. I'LL DEFER TO JASON. >> WE'RE GOING TO SPECIFICALLY GEAR OUR MARKETING TOWARDS VETERANS. WE REACHED OUT TO THE AMERICAN LEGIONS OF VETERANS OF FOREIGN WARS, THE VA. I FREQUENT THE VA CLINIC OVER THERE IN PLANO ALL THE TIME. WE'RE GOING TO GEAR ALL OF OUR MARKETING TOWARDS VETERANS. NOW, OBVIOUSLY, FAIR HOUSING DOESN'T ALLOW US TO PROHIBIT PEOPLE WHO AREN'T VETERANS BUT WE CAN GIVE PREFERENCE. SO THE GOAL IS TO GET AS MUCH MARKETING STEERED TOWARDS VETERANS AND SENIOR VETERANS AS POSSIBLE BUT WE CAN'TLOSE IT OUT TO PEOPLE WHO AREN'T VETERANS. >> Bronsky: MICHELLE, ARE WE ALLOWED TO GIVE PREFERENCE TO A VETERAN STATUS? >> I HONESTLY DON'T KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. DOES ANYBODY ELSE HERE HAPPEN TO KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION? I'M SORRY. I CAN SEE WHAT I CAN FIND IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MINUTES.UTES. BUT WHEN I LOOK AT YOUR CONCEPT PLAN, WHEN I'VE LOOKED AT THE PROPERTY AND ALL OF THAT, I DON'T SEE A WHOLE LOT GEARED TOWARDS VETERANS OTHER THAN YOUR PROMOTIONAL STUFF AND I WORRY THAT IT MAY BE A VIOLATION OF THE FAIR HOUSING ACT TO EVEN GIVE PREFERENTIAL TREATMENT, ALTHOUGH I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT -- I THINK WE HAVE A SERIOUS PROBLEM IN AMERICA WITH VETERANS BEING HOMELESS, FOR THAT MATTER, AND I BELIEVE THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED. BUT I'MOT SURE, OTHER THAN MARKETING, THAT I SEE VETERANS BEING INTEGRATED INTO HERE. MY NEXT QUESTION IS ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF YOUR PROPERTY -- I LOVE THE MAP. SO I'M LOOKING AT THE MAP AND HOW MANY UNITS ARE ON THAT WESTERN SIDE THERE? >> ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE CENR CORRIDOR? >> YES. >> THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 120 UNITS. >> Bronsky: OKAY. THOSE 120 UNITS, ARE THEY GOING TO BE -- SO IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A RING ON THE INSIDE THAT ARE FACING INWARD AND A RING ON THE OUTSIDE FACING OUTWARD. THAT RING ON THE OUTSIDE THAT'S FACING OUTWARD, HOW MANY PEOPLE DO YOU THINK ARE GOING TO BE INTERESTED IN LOOKING AT THE BACK OF A SUPERSTORE SHIPPING AREA AND A STRUCTURED PARKING GARAGE? >> I CANELL YOU IN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT I HAVE DONE WITH SENIORS WHERE YOU THINK THAT THE VIEWS WOULD BE PROHIBITIVE OR EVEN NOT GENERATE A VIEW FEE -- FOR EXAMPLE, THE EDGESTONE PROJECT THAT I SPOKE OF FACES A GREEN, YOU KNOW, A LARGE GREEN SPACE THAT IT'S JUST KIND OF ERODING AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING SOME WORK ON IT DOWN THE ROAD TO MAKE IT INTO A PARK. BUT WE WOULD ASSUME THAT ALL OF THE UNITS FACING THE POOL WOULD HAVE GENERATED LARGER REVENUES AND IT ACTUALLY TURNED OUT THE ONES FACING AWAY FROM THE POOL. SO I'M NOT A SENIOR. I CAN TELL YOU THAT I LOOK FOR QUIETER AREAS AND I CAN IMAGINE THAT IF YOU'RE FACING A PARKING STRUCTURE IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE A LITTLE BIT QUIETER, UNLESS ALARMS ARE GOING OFF, OBVIOUSLY. BUT YOU'VE GOT A SHIELD FROM THE MULTIFAMILY AND IT WILL BE A -- >> Bronsky: IT'S RIGHT THERE. OKAY. SO MY NEXT QUESTION IS I REALLY APPRECIATE THE -- WHEN TO THE EXTRA COLUMN THAT YOU ADDED IN? BY THE WAY, BEAUTIFUL. YOU GUYS HAVE DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB ON EVERYTHING THAT YOU HAVE PUT IN IN ALL THE OTHER SLIDES. YES. SO THIS QUESTION'S A LITTLE TO BOTH STAFF AND YOU GUYS. WHY WASN'T THIS ABLE TO BE BROUGHT TO STAFFO BE ABLE TO BE BROUGHT TO US SO THAT IT'S IN COMPLIANCE AS OPPOSED TO DOING IT NOW? >> WELL SOME OF THESE ISSUES WERE JUST BROUGHT TO OUR ATTENTION. I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S A STAFF ISSUE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT, AGAIN, QUITE FRANKLY WE JUST FOCUSED ON THE PAST SEVERAL DAYS AFTER WE TALKED TO STAFF. >> Bronsky: SO YOU WEREN'T AWARE OF THE AREAS THAT DID NOT CONFORM TO THE PLAN PRIOR TO THE LAST COUPLE OF DAYS? >> WE THOUGHT THAT THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WE WERE SUBMITTING WOULD HAVE TRANSLATED INTO THE STIPULATIONS BUT THEY DIDN'T. WE NEEDED TO MODIFY THE STIPULATIONS TO CONFORM TO THE CONCEPT PLAN. >> Bronsky: SO MIGHT IT MAKE MORE SENSE TO GIVE YOU GUYS A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO WORK WITH STAFF TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ALL INTEGRATED AND ALSO GIVE US SOME TIME TO LOOK INTO THE VETERANS ISSUE? I'M DONE. THANK YOU. >> SO THERE'S NO PROTECTED STATUS FOR VETERANS BUT MARKETING IN FAVOR OF VETERANS SHOULD NOT CAUSE ANY DISCRIMINATION AGAINST OTHER PROTECTED CLASSES. I SUPPOSE I COULD IMAGINE SOME INSTANCE, IF YOU'RE COMBINING, SAY, VETERANS WITH PREFERENCE FOR MALE VETERANS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT WHERE YOU MAY HAVE A PROBLEM BUT AS LONG AS YOU'RE JUST LOOKING TO HELP VETERANS, IT SHOULD NOT BE A PROBLEM UNDER THE FAIR HOUSING ACT. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. >> Olley: I TNK IT WOULD BE SIMIT YOU SEE AT A CAR DEALERSHIP. IF YOU'RE A VETERAN, MAYBE THERE'S A DISCOUNT OF SOME TYPE. >> Downs: I HEARD A CLICK OVER HERE. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT A FOUR-STORY PRODUCT ON THE ENTIRE SITE, EAST AND WEST? >> YES, SIR. >> Ratliff: SO THE EAST -- I'M GOING TO FOLLOW UP WITH COMMISSIONER BRONSKY'S QUESTIONS. ON THE EAST SIDE WE HAVE A FOUR-STORY COMPLEX BACKING UP TO THE WALMART. WHAT MEASURES DO Y'ALL PROPOSE WALMART?ATE THE NOISE FROM YOU'RE TALNG ABOUT TRUCKS AT 3:00 IN THE MORNING, 10:00 AT NIGHT BACKING UP INTO THE LOADING DOCK. TALKING ABOUT A LOT OF NOISE AND IT'S GOING TO BE 65 FEET FROM THE BALCONIES, BASED ON YOUR PLAN. SO WHAT MITIGATION MEASURES? YOU'VE GOT A TEN-FOOT VEGETATIVE SCREEN FOR A FOUR-FOOT BUILDING. WHAT ELSE ARE YOU GOING TO DO? >> THE BUILDINGS WILL BE SOUNDPROOF SO THEY DO MEET THE MINIMUM HUD STANDARDS FOR SOUND ON THE INTERIOR. >> Ratliff: MINIMUM HUD STANDARDS BASED ON A NOISE STUDY DONE AT THE LOADING DOCK DURING ACTIVE HOURS OR MINIMUM HUD STANDARDS BASED ON MINIMUM HUD STANDARDS. >> BASED ON THE NOISE STUDY. >> Ratliff: HAVE YOU DONE A NOISE STUDY? >> NOT YET. >> Ratliff: THAT WILL BE A CHALLENGE. THAT WILL BE A CHALLENGE. KIND OF BACK TO FOLLOW UP ON THE QUESTION. IS THAT GOING TO BE A DISCOUNTED SIDE OF THE BUILDING THEN? BECAUSE IT SEEMS TO ME YOU HAVE VISUAL IMPACT, YOU HAVE A SOUND IMPACT, YOU HAVE AN ODOR IMPACT. THERE'S A LOT OF IMPACTS ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING T THAT WOULD CONCERN M >> OBVIOUSLY WE'LL DO OUR MARKETING AND MARKET ANALYSIS AND AS IT GOES ON, WE'LL SEE HOW MARKETABLE THOSE UNITS ARE BUT IF THERE NEEDS TO BE A DISCOUNT THERE WILL BE. >> Ratliff: HAVE YOU EXPLORED VARIATIONS OF THE SITE PLAN TO MOVE AWAY FROM THAT LOADING DOCK AREA? >> AT THIS TIME WE HAVE NOT YET. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Downs: COMMISSIONER STONE. >> Stone: YES, THANK YOU. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE SITE LAYOUT. THIS AREA THAT YOU LAID OUT FOR THE HOLDING POND, IS THAT PRETTY ACCURATE TO SCALE AS WE SEE IT HERE? AND IS SECOND QUESTION, WHAT'S THIS DASHED AREA BETWEEN THE HOLDING POND AND THE WEST WALL OF THAT WEST BUILDING? WHAT IS THAT TEN-FOOT DASHED AREA? >> I'LL BRING THE CIVIL ENGINEER UP TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION. >> Stone: THE HOLDING POND THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN ONOUR HANDOUT IS DIFFERENT SHAPED THAN THE ONE YOU'VE GOT ON YOUR PRESENTATION AND I JUST WONDERED WHICH ONE IS CLOSER TO BEING RIGHT. >> YES, I'M ROB LEWIS WITH KIMLEY-HORN, 13455 NOEL ROAD, DALLAS TEXAS. AS YOU STATED, THE CONCEPT PLAN AND THE RENDERING IMAGE YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. THE ONE ON THE CONCEPT PLAN IS ACCURATELY SIZED AND THE DASHED LINE YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS AN OPEN SPACE AREA. >> Stone: OKAY. MY POINT WITH ALL OF THAT WAS THAT THIS WHOLE CORNER OF YOUR SITE HERE IS GOING TO BE LANDSCAPED. IT'S GOING TO HAVE A POND AND IT'S GOING TO EXTEND TO THE EAST WELL PAST THE SOUTHERN CORNER OF MR. BILLINGSLEY'S BUILDING THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT ON HIS DRAWING. AND I THINK THAT'S GOOD. MR. BILLINGSLEY, I THINK -- I DON'T THINK THIS IS GOING TO IMPACT YOUR ENTRANCE AND VISUAL ENTRANCE INTO YOUR PROJECT AS MUCH AS YOU MIGHT HAVE THOUGHT BECAUSE IT'S ALL GREEN SPACE. I WOULD JUST OFFER THAT AS MY COMMENT. SECONDLY, CAN YOU TELL ME ABOUT ACCESS POINTS INTO YOUR BUILDINGS TO GET TO THE UPPER FLOORS? YOU DON'T SHOW ANY LITTLE ARROW HEADS AROUND THE EDGE. HOW MANY SPOTS ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE FOR PEOPLE TO PARK THEIR CAR AND GET THEIR ELEVATOR? >> EACH BUILDING WILL HAVE FOUR ENTRANCES AND EACH BUILDING WILL HAVE TWO ELEVATORS AT A MINIMUM. TOTALLY ACCESSIBLE. >> Stone: FOUR ENTRANCES? >> YES. IF YOU WANT TO ENTER FROM THE WEST AND GO LOOK AT THE GREEN SPACE, YOU CAN WALK OUT AND EXPLORE. IF YOU WANT TO COME IN FROM PARKING FROM THE SOUTH, YOU WOULD BE ABLE TO COME IN FROM THE SOUTH. >> Stone: WELL, THAT BUILDING IS AT LEAST 600 FEET LONG, NORTH TO SOUTH, MAYBE MORE. DO YOU THINK FOUR IS ENOUGH, WALKING IN THE RAIN WITH YOUR UMBRELLA? >> I WOULD SAY THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO ENTER FRO THF THOSE ENTRANCES, IF NOT FOUR. AND ALSO THERE WILL BE INTERIOR CORRIDORS. THEY HAVE TO MAKE IT TO ONE OF THE DOORS -- >> Stone: THE CLOSEST ONE. >> AND THERE'S AN INTERIOR CORRIDOR THAT BISECTS THE BUILDING. >> Stone: ONE LAST QUESTION AND I THINK I KNOW THE ANSWER. BASED ON YOUR LAYOUT WITH LOW INTENSITY COVERAGE, YOU'RE NOT EVER GOING TO BE ABLE TO MEET THE MODERATE INTENSITY OF 50% TO 75% COVERAGE, ARE YOU? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Stone: AND BASED ON YOUR LAYOUT, YOU'LL NEVER HAVE THE SHORT TOEDIUM BLOCK GRID. YOU'RE ALWAYS GOING TO HAVE A WIDE BLOCK GRID WITH NO INTERNAL STREETS. >> CORRECT. >> Stone: SO THERE'S TWO OF THE TEN ITEMS HERE THAT YOU COULDN'T MEET EVEN IF YOU WANTED TO. >> WE ARE PROPOSING, COMMISSIONER, THE DRIVEWAY GOES NORTH TO SOUTH, TO TURN THAT INTO A PUBLIC WAY TO TRY TO MEET THE BLOCK STANDARD. >> Stone: MAKE THAT A DEDICATED STREET? >> SOME KIND OF A PUBLIC WAY, YES SIR. THAT'S THE INTENT. >> Stone: THAT'S THE DRIVE BETWEEN THE WALMART AND THE PARKING LOT? >> NO, SIR. BETWEEN THE TWO -- >> LET ME SEE IF I CAN SHOW THIS. >> Stone: BETWEEN THE EAST AND THE WEST PROJECTS? >> YES, SIR. >> Stone: OKAY. >> IS IT CURRENTLY WIDE ENOUGH, INCLUDING THAT PARKING THAT'S THERE TO DO THAT? I'M SORRY. >> Stone: IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. IT'S MORE LIKE A DRIVEWAY RIGHT NOW. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE A LITTLE BIT WIDER. >> IT WILL NEED TO BE WIDER, CORRECT. >> Stone: BUT THAT'S YOUR PLAN TO MAKE THAT A PUBLIC WAY, TO CONNECT UP TO BEACON SQUARE? >> TO SISFY THE BLOCK PLAN, YES SIR. >> Stone: OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> Downs: COMMISSIONER O LEE. OLLEY. >> Olley: GIVEN THE CHALLENGES THAT EVERYONE HAS HIGHLIGHTED, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE ONLY REASON WHY -- THE MAJOR REASON WHY YOU CHOSE THIS SITE IS THE PROXIMITY TO MEDICAL FACILITIES. >> ALL OF THE FACILITIES, CORRECT. >> Olley: THERE WAS NOTHING ELSE? >> RIGHT. >> Olley: I'M TRYING TO PUT MYSELF IN YOUR SHOES. I'M PUTTING ON A BUSINESS HAT. IF YOU PUT A MAN THOROUGHWAY THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY, THAT INCREASES THE SAFETY ISSUES, IN MY HEAD, AT LEAST. NOW I'M WALKING THROUGH -- RUNNING THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY. IF YOU CANNOT HAVE A GATED COMMUNITY, FOR INSTANCE, THAT DECREASES SAFETY ISSUES. WE TALKED ABOUT THE NOISE IMPACT AND WHAT HAVE YOU. OUTSIDE OF THE LOCATION, WHAT ELSE MAKES THI VIABLE? THAT'S LITERALLY WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH, OUTSIDE OF THE PROXIMITY. BECAUSE IF YOU SHIFT THIS -- I KNOW PLANO DOESN'T HAVE A LOT OF LAND LEFT -- >> RIGHT. >> Olley: BUT OUTSIDE OF THE LOCATION, THIS IS A VERY CHALLENGED CONCEPT. >> BECAUSE IT'S NEXT TO BEACON SQUARE AND THE AMOUNT OF MULTIFAMILY THAT ARE GOING TO BE THERE AND AFTER WE MET WITH SOME COUNCIL MEMBERS AND WE'VE HEARD THAT THERE ARE GOING TO BE A LOT OF LOCATIONS. THERE'S A LOT OF CORPORATE RELOCATIONS, THERE'S A LOT OF MULTIFAMILY GOING UP AND IN MY EXPERIENCE WITH SENIOR DEVELOPMENT, AOT OF THE TIMES PEOPLE MY AGE MOVE HERE TO TAKE A JOB, BRING OUR KIDS, AND OUR PARENTS WANT TO COME AND THIS IS A MULTIGENERATION DEVELOPMENT. WE LOOKED AT BEACON SQUARE AND HOW MUCH MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL IS GOING IN THERE AND WE LOOKED AT THE PROXIMITY TO ALL THE MEDICAL FACILITIES AND IT WILL HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE SCHOOLS. WE DIDN'T THINK THIS WAS GOING TO BE A CONTENTIOUS CASE, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU. IT'S A GREAT LOCATION. ALL OF THE OTHER INDEPENDENT LIVING DEVELOPMENTS THAT I'VE WORKED ON AND HONESTLY ALL THE COMPS, COMPARABLE PROPERTIES THEY'RE ALL 95% LEASE. I CAN TELL YOU BASED ON THE MARKET THIS WON'T TAKE LONG TO LEASE UP SO IT'S A VIABLE PRODUCT AND IT'S SITTING RIGHT NEXT TO MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS AT A HOLISTIC WITH THE OFFICE, SOMEBODY COULD SAY I LIVE IN MULTIFAMILY. I'M WORKING IN THE OFFICE. I CAN WALK OVER THERE. SOMEBODY DOWN IN OUR DEVELOPMENT CAN SAY I WANT TO VISIT MY GRANDKIDS. I'M GOING TO WALK UP TO BEACON SQUARE UP TO BEACON SQUARE'S MULTIFAMILY. MAYBE TAKE MY SON OR DAUGHTER& TO LUNCH BECAUSE I'M RETIRED AND I DON'T HAVE ANY MEDICAL APPOINTMENTS. THIS IS PERFECT FOD USE. >> Olley: THANK YOU. >> Downs: MR. BRONSKY, SEE IF WE HAVE ANYONE ELSE. >> [OFF MIC] >> Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: HOPEFULLY I'LL BE AWAKE. JUST KIDDING. HOW MANY EMPLOYEES DO YOU ANTICIPATE THIS FACILITY HAVING? >> EMPLOYEES? TYPICALLY THERE WILL BE THREE TO FOUR PROPERTY MANAGER STAFF PER BUILDING. WE COULD PROBABLY DO -- MANAGE THEM BOTH THE SAME TIME. >> Cary: TOTAL HEAD COUNT, GUESS? >> PROBABLY EIGHT. >> Cary: NOT GOING TO ADD A LOT TO EMPLOYEE BASE OF PLANO, RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> Cary: WHAT IS YOUR EXPERIENCE WITH THE NUMBER OF THESE INDEPENDENT LIVING RESIDENTS THAT WILL OWN THEIR OWN CARS? WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT WALKABILITY AND IT CERTAINLY MAKES SOME SENSE. AND, BY THE WAY ON WALKABILITY, I THINK THAT YOU DO HAVE SOME -- GOING FORWARD SOME GOOD ASSETS THERE. BEACON TO THE NORTH WILL BE. AND I WOULD ALSO PROPOSE THAT THE WALMART ADJACENT TO IT FOR THESE PEOPLE WOULD BE A GOOD RESOURCE, QUITE FRANKLY, WHICH IS EASY TO WALK TO. TO ME, THAT SEEMS TO BE A POSITIVE. BUT DO YOU KNOW HISTORICALLY WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THESE KIND OF RESIDENTS WILL OWN CARS? >> I CAN'T GIVE YOU A PERCENTAGE OFF THE TOP OF MY INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES I HAVE DONE, YOU CAN DRIVE THROUGH THEM AND THERE AREN'T MANY CARS. USUALLY THERE ARE A COUPLE THAT WILL KEEP THEIR PRIZED POSSESSION IN A DETACHED GARAGE BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF PARKING -- THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING, THERE'S JUST NOT A LOT OF CARS. EDGESTONE IS FULLY LEASED UP AND WHEN I DRIVE THROUGH THERE TO VISIT, I SEE CARS SPARSELY PARKED. IT'S NOT PACKED LIKE A MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT. >> Cary: TO THAT POINT, THE PARKING YOU HAVE ALLOCATED TO THAT, IS THAT BY CODE OR BY YOUR DESIGN? >> WE WERE DOING IT BY CODE. >> Cary: YOU'RE TELLING US I THINK YOU DON'T NEED ALL THAT PARKING PROBABLY. >> WE PROBABLY DON'T. >> Cary: I THINK AS WE GO FORWARD AS A SOCIETY WE'RE GOING TO NEED LESS AND LESS PARKING. >> NOT THE INTERRUPT YOU, ALL MY VISITS TO ALL OF MY PREVIOUS DEVELOPMENTS, THE MAJORITY OF TENANTS ARE OVER THE AGE O70. I HAVE SURVEYED ALL OF THEM. THIS ISN'T SOMETHING THAT WE JUST DO AND SAY THIS WOULD BE A GREAT PLACE TO ANSWER A QUESTION, THIS IS A GREAT MARKET BUT I SPEAK TO THEM, EVEN TO THE POINT THAT HOW DO YOU LIKE THE ORIENTATION OF YOUR UNIT? BECAUSE WE WANT TO MAKE BETTER PRODUCTS. I HAVE PARENTS THAT ARE IN THIS AGE GROUP. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY ARE TAKEN CARE OF. IF I CAN CONVINCE MY DAD TO MOVE HERE, HE WOULD. HE DOESN'T WANT HE DOESN'T WANT TO LEAVE UPSTATE NEW YORK. THAT'S FINE. WE TAKE EVERY ASPECT, EVEN THE PARKING DOWN TOS THIS WHAT THEY WANT. AND I'VE SURVEYED ALL OF MY PREVIOUS PROPERTIES. AND WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUALLY IMPROVE WHAT TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS WE OFFER SENIORS, BUT I CAN TELL YOU HAVING A TRANSIT VAN ON-SITE, BEING ABLE TO JUMP IN THAT VAN, DISABLED VETERANS OF AMERICA PROVIDE TRANSIT FOR VETERANS. AND ALL OF THIS IS CENTRALIZED TO WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS. I KNOW THAT IT SOUNDED LIKE WHEN I FIRST CAME OFF, THIS IS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE MEDICAL FACILITIES ARE THE. THAT'S WHAT'S MOST IMPORTANT THAT I'VE HEARD FROM PREVIOUS RESIDENTS. I WANT TO BE CLOSE TO MY DOCTOR SO IF SOMETHING GOES WRONG I CAN GET THERE, BUT I WANT TO BE CLOSE TO MY GRANDKIDS. BEACON SQUARE IS PERFECT. YOU HAVE GRANDPARENTS, GRANDKIDS RETAIL HOSPITALS. IT'S ALL RIGHT THERE. >> JUST A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS. WILL THERE BE AGE RESTRICTIONS? >> 55 AND UP. >> WE'VE TALKED ABOUT -- WE ALL KNOW THEEED FOR AFFORDABLE SENIOR HOUSING IN THIS TOWN. THIS COMMISSION TALKS ABOUT IT ALL THE TIME. HOW AFFORDABLE DO YOU ANTICIPATE THIS BEING IN THIS MARKETPLACE? >> WE WERE HOPING TO DO A DEVELOPMENT ON THE WESTERN LOT. AFTER SPEAKING WITH MR. BILLINGSLEY, HE THOUGHT THAT WOULD BE DELETERIOUS. THE 9% SENIOR AFFORDABLE, COMPLEMENTED WITH THE MARKET RATE, SO YOU CAN SERVE ALL LEVELS OF INCOME. BUT WE DIDN'T WANT TO CREATE AN ISE FOR THE GATEWAY TO BEACON SQUARE. WE TOOK THAT INTO CONSIDERATION WHEN WE SAT DOWN AND SAID MAYBE WE SHOULD REMOVE THIS. THERE IS OPPORTUNITY TO WORK WITH PLANO'S HOUSING AUTHORITY TO SEE IF WE CAN DO SOMETHING TO LOWER SOME OF THE RENT. AND A LOT OF THE TIMES VETERANS MAY HAVE VOUCHERS AND IT ALLOWS THEM TO SKIP THAT INCOME REQUIREMENT. >> OKAY. JUST A COUPLE COMMENTS. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STONE. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE WESTERN PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE AN IMPEDIMENT TO THE OFFICES THAT MR. BILLINGSLEY IS TALKING TO. I'M LOST BY WHY THESE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING PROJECTS WOULD BE MUCH DIFFERENT THAN BEACON'S. SO I REALLY AM LOST ON THAT, QUITE FRANKLY. IT SEEMS MAYBE IT WOULD BE ADDITIONAL. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT 276 UNITS. IT'S NOT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF UNITS WHEN WE LOOK AT WHAT ELSE IS GOING ON. >> DISTINGUISH -- >> PARDON? THE AGE RESTRICTION, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE AN IMPACT ON THE SCHOOLS. >> YOU GUYS MENTIONED THAT. THERE'S A LOT OF POSITIVES HERE. WITH THAT SAID -- THIS ISN'T A MOTION, BUT I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THINGS THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HAS CHALLENGED YOU GUYS WITH. AND WHAT I WOULD SEE AS WE LOOK FORWARD IS THERE' SOME WORK TO BE DONE BEFORE WE MOVE THIS FORWARD, OR EVEN DENY IT, IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE THERE'S SOME OPTIONS THERE. BUT THAT'S JUST ME. >> Chair Downs: LET'S STICK TO QUESTIONS. WE'LL GET AROUND TO OUR DEBATE IN A LITTLE BIT. SO, ANY MORE QUESTIONS FROM THIS SIDE? OKAY. I THINK -- >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OH. >> I STILL HAD A COUPLE. >> Chair Downs: SPECIFICALLY A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? >> YES. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> THE TRANSITION FROM THAT BEING PARKING IN THE MIDDLE TO IT BEING A ROAD, WILL THAT BE A PROBLEM WITH ELIMINATING ALL OF THAT PARKING AND STILL MEETING THE CODING REQUIREMENTS? BECAUSE IT'S OBVIOUSLY NOT WIDE ENOUGH OTHERWISE. >> THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE A LOOK AT. WE HAVEN'T STUDIED THAT. HOPELLWE ADDED PARKING AND PROVIDE A PUBLIC WAY. THAT'S SOMETHING WE'LL HAVE TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. WE HAVEN'T DESIGNED IT YET. >> YOU'RE NOT SURE WHETHER THAT WOULD BE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF THE PARKING CODE, THE NUMBER OF PARKING -- >> WE STILL WILL NEED -- WE WILL MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. >> HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT, IF THAT ELIMINATES THAT ABILITY? >> I THINK -- I SEE YOUR POINT. WE'LL HAVE TO -- >> YOU'LL PROBABLY NEED SOME MORE TIME ON THAT. MY SECOND QUESTION, AND MY LAST ONE, I PROMISE, THE AGE RESTRICTIONS -- IS THAT ON EVERY RESIDENT HAS TO BE ABOVE 55, OR IS IT JUST THE PRIMARY RESIDENT? >> I THINK FAIR HOUSING REQUIRES THAT IT'S THE HEAD OF HOUSEHOLD. >> SO IN FACT, SOMEBODY COULD HAVE -- >> THEY COULD. >> ONE PERSON WHO'S 55 AND CHILDREN THERE, THEY'RE RAISING THEIR GRANDCHILDREN? >> I BELIEVE THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S DEFINITION OF INDEPENDENT LIVING. I RECALL IT BEING THE SAME. >> THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THERE'S A LOT OF POSITIVES IN IT. OBVIOUSLY I'VE GOT A FEW AREAS THAT I THINK STILL NEED TO BE WORKED OUT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. YOUR MIC IS ON, COMMISSIONER CARY, BUT YOU'RE DONE, RIGHT? OKAY. NO WORRIES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE, GENTLEMEN. NO MORE QUESTIONS FOR ANYBODY? CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND CONFINE DISCUSSIO TO THE DAIS. THOUGHTS COMMENTS? >> THERE'S STILL A LOT OF WORK TO BE DONE. I THINK HAVING A VOTE ON THIS TONIGHT IS PROBABLY PREMATURE. WE'VE GOT STAFF CONCERNS TO ADDRESS. WE HAVE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONCERNS THAT HAVEN'T BEEN ADDRESSED. WE'VE GOT OFFERS FROM THE DEVELOPER TO MODIFY AT THE PODIUM, WHICH ALWAYS BOTHERS ME. I THINK IN MY OPINION, WE NEED TO -- THEY NEED THE OPPORTUNITY TO WORK THIS OUT A LITTLE BIT MORE BEFORE WE CONSIDER. >> I AGREE. I STILL HAVE A LOT OF STRUGGLES WITH THE WAY IT'S LAID OUT. IT LOOKS LIKE -- SPEAKING FOR YOU -- MIGHT BE SOME OPPORTUNITY BETWEEN NEIGHBORS TO HAVE SOME THINGS ADDRESSED, THE STAFF CONCERNS. AGAIN, STILL STRUGGLING. AND THIS IS JUST ME PERSONALLY, TO SEE HOW IT FITS INTO THE COMMERCIALORRIDOR AND THE DEFINITION OF THE S.A. DASHBOARD AND HOW IT FITS INTO THE SPIRIT OF THAT CONCEPT. BUT I WILL BE OPEN TO, YOU KNOW, GIVING THEM SOME MORE TIME. >> Chair Downs: SO, LET'S ALL THINK ABOUT IT IN TERMS OF -- AS YOU SAID, YOU KNOW, MODIFICATIONS AT THE PODIUM, SO TO SPEAK. LET'S LOOK AT THE UNDERLYING SITUATION HERE AND JUST PURELY FROM A LAND USE, NOT WE'RE GOING TO BUILD A TALLER WAL TO BLOCK OFF THIS, PLANT MORE TREES, MAKE IT A PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY. IT MEETS SOME OF THAT CRITERIA, BUT WE'RE STILL IN VIOLATION OF RESIDENTIAL NUMBERS, RIGHT? SO, I GUESS I'M OF THE OPINION HERE THAT IF YOU THINK THAT SOME OF THE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING OFFERED WILL MAKE IT EASIER FOR YOU TO THEN VOTE IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING THAT DOESN'T MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GUIDELINES AND ARE WILLING TO DO A FINDINGS THAT YOU THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL INFORMATION THAT MAKES YOU THINK YES, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT DOESN'T CHECK ALL THE BOXES, IT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE S.U CITY OF PLANO TO DO - IF YOU THINK THAT'S POSSIBLE THEN IT MAKES SENSE FOR US TO CONSIDER A DELAY, A TABLING, AND GIVE THEM TIME TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON IT. IF YOU FEEL LIKE I'M JUST GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME APPROVING THIS DESPITE A TALL WALL AND BIG TREES AND EVERYTHING ELSE, WHY WOULD WE JT KICKHE C CAN DOWN THE ROAD? I WANT YOU TO THINK ABOUT IT IN THOSE TERMS WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE OUR DECISION ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO. IF YOU THINK YES, WITH SOME WORK HERE WE CAN PROBABLY GET A PROJECT, I'LL BE HONEST. WE NEED MORE HOUSING IN THE CITY FOR EVERY AGE, BUT IN PARTICULAR FOR SENIORS. AND IF THEY'RE 55 AND THEY'VE GOT A YOUNGER WIFE OR HUSBAND, SO BE IT, THEY'RE MEETING THE CODE THAT WE'VE GOT. AS A CITY WE HAVE AN ISSUE. AND IT WAS IN THEIR FIRST SLIDE WHER THE SAID WE HAVE ISSUES. INDEPENDENT LIVING IS CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY. AND IF WE SAY WE DON'T WANT MORE MULTIFAMILY, THEN YOU DON'T WANT MORE INDEPENDENT LIVING. OR DO WE NEED TO SEPARATE THOSE OUT IN OUR CODE AND FIGURE OUT A DIFFERENT WAY TO DO THAT? THAT'S A DISCUSSION FOR ANOTHER TIME. BUT I WOULD PREFER US TO HAVE A DISCUSSION RIGHT NOW AROUND YES, THERE'S STILL WORK THEY CAN DO THAT WOULD MAKE ME, AND EACH OF YOU AS INDIVIDUAL COMMISSIONERS COMFORTABLE VOTING FOR THE PROJECT, EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T CHECK THE BOXES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO WITH THAT TYPE OF CRITERIA, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, WOULD YOU STILL SUGGEST THAT WE TABLE THIS AND GIVE THEM A LITTLE MORE TIME? >> Ratliff: I THINK THEY HAVE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES. I'M NOT OPTIMISTIC THEY CAN ADDRESS ALL OF MY CONCERNS, BUT I THINK THAT'S UP TO THEIR PROFESSIONAL TEAM TO DECIDE AND LET THEM DECIDE AS THEIR INVESTORS AND LANDOWNERS AND PROFESSIONAL TEAM IF THEY CAN MEET THOSE CHALLENGES. I'M NOT OPTIMISTIC THEY CAN MEET MY CHALLENGES THAT I'M LOOKING TE THEM NO TONIGHT.EPARED TO >> Chair Downs: OKAY. COMMISSIONER HORNE? >> Horne: YES, I THINK THERE'S A GREAT NEED FOR THIS TYPE OF INDEPENDENT LIVING THAT'S SITUATED ALMOST WITHIN A HOSPITAL CORRIDOR, YOU KNOW, CLOSE TO BAYLOR SCOTT AND WHITE, MID-CITY, THE V.A. WE TALKED ABOUT OPPORTUNITIES TO WALK TO WALMART, TO SAM'S CLUB, EVEN GO ACROSS THE STREET TO CENTRAL MARKET. THERE'S TOO MANY PLUSES HERE FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING. BUT WE'RE RESTRICTED AND BOUND BY THIS, YOU KNOW, THIS DENSITY ISSUE, THIS HOUSING MIX. BUT I THINK WE CAN GET BY WITH THAT IF THEY HELP LOOK AT SOME OF THESE OTHER ITEMS AND SEE IF YOU CAN DESIGN ELEMENTS TO HELP US, THOSE ELEMENTS THAT DO NOT MEET, CAN YOU JUST KIND OF SAY HEY, CAN YOU MEET THAT. IF THEY DON'T MEET JUST ONE OR TWO, BUT STILL SERVE THE VETERANS, AND IT'S STILL AESTHETICALLY PLEASING AND DOESN'T HINDER WHAT THE BILLINGSLEY COMPANY IS TRYING TO E SOMETHING WE CAN APPROVE. WE HAVE THAT ABILITY TO APPROVE, SO WE'LL HAVE TO TRUST FINDINGS, BUT TO THE POINT, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG COMMENT? >> Tong: I AGREE THIS PROJECT PROVIDES A LOT OF PLUSES REGARDING PROVIDING MORE SENIOR HOUSING, WHICH THE CITY REALLY NEEDS. PERSONALLY, I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE LOCATION FOR THE SENIOR CITIZENS. IT'S A VERY, VERY BUSY AREA. WE DO NEED SENIOR HOUSING, BUT IN THE CORRECT LOCATION FOR THEM. TO ME, I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE MY CHOICE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ANYONE? COMMISSIONER CARY? >> Cary: I LARGELY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HORNE. I THINK I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE HERE FROM THESE GUYS. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THIS SITE PERSONALLY. I THINK PLANNING HAS GIVEN THEM A LOT OF THINGS TO THINK ABOUT, AND THE GROUP SEEMS WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON IT. I THINK ONE OF MY MAJOR IMPETUSES HERE -- AND IT'S NOT FOR OR AGAINST MULTIMI HOUSING, BECAUSE I THINK WE ALL KNOW WE CAN'T PUT A STAKE IN THE GROUND AND SAY NO MORE MULTIFAMILY HOUSING. THAT'S NOT REALISTIC. I THINK WE HAVE TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT -- AS WE DO IT. BUT IN THIS INSTANCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SOMETHING WE KNOW WE NEED, AND THAT IS HOUSING FOR SENIORS. AND WHEN I LOOK AT THIS LOCATION, WHILE THERE ARE SOME DETRIMENTS TO IT I PERSONALLY SEE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE POSITIVES TO FAR OUTWEIGH THAT, ESPECIALLY BECAUSE OF THE CATEGORY OF HOUSING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. SO AT THE VERY LEAST I'D LIKE TO GIVE THESE GUYS THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK ANDAY WE' WORKED MORE CLOSELY WITH THE CITY. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WAS ASKING ABOUT IT, BUT IT'S REGRETFUL THAT A LOT OF THIS DIDN'T HAPPEN BEFORE AND I WOULD CHALLENGE ALL OF US TO SAY IS THERE SOMETHING THAT GOT IN OUR WAY THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE MORE PRODUCTIVE DISCUSSIONS BEFORE THIS CAME IN HERE, BECAUSE MAYBE WE COULD HAVE USED ALL OF OUR TIME BETTER IN THAT REGARD. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE WHAT THEY CAN DO IN THIS REGARD. THAT'S MY OPINION. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: SIMILAR. I KEEP BUTTING AGAINST THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY IN MY HEAD. IT'S A RARE RESOURCE IN PLANO, UNDEVELOPED LAND. AND YES, WE HAVE A NEED AND THIS IS PROVIDING FOR THE NEED. BUT IS IT THE BEST USE OF WHAT LITTLE PRECIOUS LAND WE HAVE LEFT IN THAT PARTICULAR SITE? AND THAT'S MY STRUGGLE WITH IT. AGAIN, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF, TOGETHER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND THE NEIGHBORS, THEY CAN SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, TWIST THE PRETZEL INTO A BOX KIND OF DEAL TO MAKE THIS WORK. [ LAUGHING ] >> Olley: BUT I HAVE A HIGH BAR IN MY HEADOR THE UNDEVELPED LAND. >> Chair DOWNS: UNDERSTANDABLE. AND AGAIN, I THINK RESETTING THIS INTO -- IT'S NOT JUST ABOUT BUILDING HIGHER WALLS OR SOMETHING, IT IS THE LAND USE. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: YEAH, SO AS I'VE SAID PREVIOUSLY, I DO BELIEVE THIS HAS GOT SIGNIFICANT WORK THAT STILL NEEDS TO BE DONE. I REALIZE THAT THE DASHBOARD IS VERY CLEAR. AND TO VICE CHAIR CA RY'S POINT, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOESN'T SAY NO MORE MULTIFAMILY, BUT THE HOUSING MIX FOR CERTAIN AREAS ACROSS THE CITY DO LIMIT THAT BASED ON WHAT'S ALREADY GOING ON. IN THIS AREA WE HAVE -- WE'RE AT THE LIMIT OF WHERE THE MULTIFAMILY BELONGS AND WHERE THE CITIZENS HAVE ASKED IT TO BE. AND SO I WILL PERSONALLY STRUGGLE A GREAT DEAL, BUT I DO SEE SOME POSITIVE BENEFITS TO THIS. AND I COULD BE MOVED TO LOOK AT THAT AND SAY YES, 276 COULD BE ACCEPTABLE IN THIS AREA, BUT AS OF RIGHT NOW, WHERE IT STANDS, I THINK THERE'S TOO MANY IMPEDIMENTS, WHETHER IT'S LOCATION, WHETHER IT'S PARKING, WHETHER IT'S CONNECTIVITY, OR HONESTLY LOOKING AT OUR GM1 WHETHER IT'S "SUBSTANTIALLY BEEN BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS." AND WE'VE HEARD FROM SOMEBODY REPRESENTING A LARGE SWATH OF THAT THAT WE'RE STRUGGLING TO MEET THAT BAR. AND SO RIGHT NOW, HOW IT STANDS, I CANNOT SUPPORT IT. BUT SHOULD THERE BE ENOUGH CHANGE TO BRING IN THE SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL, MEETING ALL OF THE CONCERNS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, I THINK IT'S POSSIBLE THAT I CAN BE SWAYED. SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THEM HAVE MORE TIME. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I MAKE A MOTION WE TABLE THIS FOR 30 DAYS? I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE A SHOT CLOCK ISSUE. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? >> Chair Downs: APRIL 18TH. >> Ratliff: CAN WE TABLE THIS UNTIL THE APRIL 18TH AGENDA? I MAKE THAT MOTION. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO TABLE ITEM 1A UNTIL THE APRIL 18TH MEETING WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. . THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. NOW, WE HAVE ITEM 1B. WE'LL NEED A SIMILAR MOTION FOR ITEM 1B. >> I MAKE A MOTION WE TABLE ITE. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO TABLE ITEM 1B TO THE APRIL 18TH MEETING WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY. PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. OKAY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING CASE, REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR ARCADE ON .1-ACRE LOCATED 390 FEET EAST OF CUSTER ROAD, SOUTH OF PARKER ROAD, ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, 90 RETAIL. APPLICANT IS BETH REYNOLDS, VIRTUAL REALITY ARCADE, LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING AGAIN. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ARCADE WITHIN AN EXISTING MULTI-TENANT SHOPPING CENTER. THE SELECTED SUITE IS APPROXIMATELY 3300 SQUARE FEET AND LOCATED WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 90 RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT. THE AERIAL SHOWS A LOCATION OF THE REQUEST WITHIN THE BUILDING. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT IS AN EXISTING SITE WITH EXISTING COMMERCIAL USES SURROUNDING THE AREA OF THE REQUEST. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED COMMUNITY CORNERS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS HIGHLIGHTED ON THE SCREEN. THIS CATEGORY APPLIES TO RETAIL SITES ON THE CORNERS OF MAJOR ARTERIAL ROADWAYS. SUBJECT PROPERTY IS RETAIL IN THE LAND USE AND HOUSING INVENTORY TOOL AND THIS REQUEST WOULD NOT ALTER THE EXISTING RETAIL CONTEXT. THE REQUEST WILL NOT REQUIRE FINDINGS. THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES SEPARATION FROM SPECIFIC USES WITH S.U.P.EQUESTS F ARCAS. THE REQST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RELIGIOUS FACILITY AND SCHOOL SEPARATION, BUT IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING SEPARATION OF 300 FEET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DISTANCED FROM THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD BY APPROXIMATELY 136 FEET. HOWEVER, WITHIN THAT 136 FEET IS AN EXISTING SERVICE AREA FIRE LANE, MASONRY WALL AND RESIDENTIAL ALLEY. THE REQUESTED ARCADE USE IS COMPLEMENTARY TO THE MIX OF USES WITHIN THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE WAIVE TO THE RESIDENTIAL DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT. WE RECEIVED ZERO RESPONSES WITHIN THE 200-FOOT BUFFER. AND WE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN FAVOR OF THE REQUEST. STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST, AND I WOULD BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS HERE WITH A SHORT PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DOES ANYONE HAVE -- COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: DO YOU KNOW THE DISTANCE -- NOT AS THE CROW FLIES, BUT THE WALKING DISTANCE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL TO THE FRONT DOOR OF THE FACILITY? IS IT MORE THAN 300 FEET? >> FROM DOOR TO THE FIRST HOUSE? >> Ratliff: IF I WAS GOING TO WALK OUT THE FRONT DOOR ACROSS THE SHOPPING CENTER, TAKE A LEFT AT THE STREET. >> KY >> I CAN MEASURE THAT. >> Ratliff: I WAS JUST CURIOUS HOW CLOSE WE GOT TO THE 300-FOOT DISTANCE. >> IT IS -- WE WILL BE DRAWING THE LINE FROM PROPERTY LINE SOUTH AND THAT'S HOW WE GOT THAT 136 FEET. >> Ratliff: I UNDERSTAND. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER STONE. >> Stone: TO CONTINUE ON THAT THOUGHT, THE FRONT ENTRANCE WILL BE FACING NORTH, IS THAT CORRECT, ONTO THE EXISTING PARKING LOT? >> CORRECT. >> Stone: AND THE REAR ENTRANCE OF ALL OF THESE STORES OUT HERE IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE WHETHER WE PUT THE ARCADE IN THERE OR NOT. THEY'RE STILL GOING TO BE REAR ENTRANCES TO EVERY ONE OF THESE SHOPS. >> REAR ENTRANCES TO THE SHOPS BEHIND THE HOUSES? >> Ratliff: YES. >> I'M SURE THERE IS -- RatliffNO O WIL B GOING THROUGH THAT NO-MAN'S LAND TRYING TO CLIMB THE SIX-FOOT-WALL TO GET INTO SOMEBODY'S BACKYARD. >> I'M NOT GOING TO SAY NO. [ LAUGHING ] >> SMART ANSWER. >> Chair Downs: SMART WOMAN. COMMISSIONER OLLEY, YOU HAVE YOUR LIGHT ON. >> Olley: TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST WE ALREADY HAVE AN S.U.P. FOR ARCADE ON THOSE PROPERTIES. >> YES. AND THE ARCADE TO THE WEST IS NOT AN ARCADE ANYMORE. IT IS CURRENTLY OPERATING AS RETAIL. HOWEVER, THEY DID ALSO RECEIVE A WAIVER FROM THE 300-FOOT BUFFER BACK IN 1995. >> Olley: GOT YOU. OKAY. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I LIVE IN THIS AREA AND HAVE DRIVEN BACK ON THE BACK SIDE OF THIS. AND NO, NOBODY IS GOING TO BE CLIMBING WALLS. AS A MATTER OF FACT, MOST OF THE EMPLOYEES DON'T EVEN PARK IN THE BACK AREA. >> Chair Downs: DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? >> Bronsky: NO, I'M SORRY. I WAS ANSWERING HIS QUESTION. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY MORE? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. LET'S SEE. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO ADDRESS? >> YES, WE HAVE BETH AND SEAN REYNOLDS. >> GOOD EVENING. WE ARE THE CTRL V VIRTUAL REALITY ARCADE FRANCHISEES. BECAUSE THE ARCADE IS A NEWER CONCEPT, WE WANTED TO PROVIDE YOU WITH INFORMATION ABOUT US SO YOU WOULD HAVE A BETTER IDEA OF WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING. CTRL V WAS FOUNDED IN 2016 IN CANADA AND ITS SOLE PURPOSE IS TO ACCELERATE THE ADOPTION OF AND PROVIDE PUBLIC ACCESS TO EMERGING IMMERSIVE TECHNOLOGIES AT AN AFFORDABLE PRICE WITH UN-SURPASSED CUSTOMER SERVICE. SO, HOW DOES IT WORK? EACH USER IS PROVIDED WITH A HEADSET WITH GOGGLES, HEADPHONES AND A MICROPHONE TO COMMUNICATE WITH OTHER PLAYERS ALONG WITH TWO HAND-HELD CONTROLLERS. THIS ALLOWS THE USER TO BE IMMERSED IN A COMPUTER-SIMULATED 3D ENVIRONMENT AND INTERACT WITH IT IN A SEEMINGLY REAL WAY. EACH USER WILL HAVE ACCESS TO OUR EXTENSIVE GAME LIBRARY, WHERE THEY CAN CHOOSE AMONG A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF EXPERIENCES. FOR INSTANCE, YOU COULD COOK FOR A RESTAURANT, CREATE YOUR OWN WORLDS AND UNIVERSE, DEFEND YOUR VILLAGE USING A BOW AND ARROW FROM AN INVASION, DISSECT A FROG IN SCIENCE CLASS, DANCE LIKE A SUPERSTAR ON A MOVING PLATFORM, OR EVEN ROAM THE EARTH WITH DINOSAURS. THESE ARE JUST A FEW EXAMPLES OF THE MANY GAMES AND EXPLORATORY ENVIRONMENTS THAT WE OFFER. THIS LOCATION WOULD BE NEAR THE INTERSECTION OF CUSTER ROAD AND WEST PARKER ROAD. OUR FACILITY WOULD BE 3700 SQUARE FEET AND IT WOULD HAVE 13 VIRTUAL REALITY STATIONS, A PARTY ROOM, AND TWO WASH ROOMS. WE DO NOT SERVE FOOD OR DRINKS, HOWEVER, ANY PATRON THAT WINNERS WISHESTO RENT THE PARTY ROOM IS WELCOME TO BRING THEIR OWN FOOD OR DRINKS. OUR HOURS OF OPERATION ARE 3:30 TO 9:30, SATURDAYS 11:00 A.M. O 11:00 A.M. TO10:30 P.M. THIS INDUSTRY IS PROJECTED TO EXPERIENCE CONTINUED GROWTH. RIGHT NOW THERE IS A VIRTUAL REALITY ARCADE IN ALLEN AND ANOTHER ONE IN FRISCO, TEXAS. THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST VIRTUAL REALITY ARCADE LOCATED IN PLANO, AND THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST CTRL V FRANCHISE IN THE STATE OF TEXAS. GIVING BACK TO THE COMMUNITY IS VERY IMPORTANT TO US. WE TAKE ON MANY PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO PARTICIPATE IN COMMUNITY INITIATIVES. FOR EXAMPLE, EVERY YEAR WE TEAM UP WITH A CHARITY CALLED EXTRA LIFE AND HAVE A GAMING MARATHON. 100% OF THOSE PROCEEDS ARE DONATED TO THE CHILDREN'S MIRACLE NETWORK HOSPITALS. WE LOOK FORWARD TO BEING ABLE TO BRING THIS WONDERFUL AND UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE CITY OF PLANO AND THANK EACH AND EVERY ONE OF YOU FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DID THE DINOSAURS EAT YOU IF YOU ROAM? >> NO. YOU CAN VIEW THEM. THE ONLY ONE YOU CAN'T GET CLOSE TO IS THE T-REX. HE'S BEHIND A WALL. YOU CAN GET SOMEWHAT CLOSE. YOU JUST GLIDE PAST THEM. >> Chair Downs: UNDERSTOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER OLLEY? >> Olley: I WAS GOING TO ASK IF YOU DIE IN THE GAME, DO YOU DIE IN REAL LIFE? [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: THAT WAS A FUNNIER QUESTION. >> Olley: SO THE EXPERIENCE IS ENCLOSED, HEADSETS, SO THERE'S LITTLE OR NO DANGER FOR AMBIENT NOISE. >> NO. ACTUALLY, WE HAVE THREE FOAM-PADDED WALLS AND THE FLOOR IS FOAM-PADDED AS WELL. AND THE EQUIPMENT HAS A CORD THAT GOES UP TO A TRACK ABOVE THEM. AND THERE'S ALSO A GRID WITHIN THE GAME. SO IF YOU COME CLOSE TO A WALL, THE GRID APPEARS AND YOU KNOW TO TAKE A STEP BACK. >> Olley: GOTCHA. IT'S A COOL CONCEPT. MY SON IS A GAME HEAD, SO I CAN DEFINITELY SEE . . . >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO, ON THE NORTHWEST SHOPPING CENTER THERE WAS ACTUALLY A VIRTUAL REALITY SEVERAL YEARS BACK. IT DIDN'T DO VERY WELL. THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO MARKET OR ADVERTISE. I LIVE IN THIS AREA. I SHOP AT THE WALMART IN YOUR COMPLEX. I SHOP AT THE KROGER ACROSS THE STREET. I LOOKED ONLINE. TRIP ADVISER, YOU HAVE 37 REVIEWS FOR YOUR WATERLOO LOCATION. FIVE STARS, ALL OF THE 37 REVIEWS. FOR ME, THIS IS ONE OF THE SHOPPING CENTERS THAT I HAVE TALKED ABOUT AND I HAVE BEEN CONCERNED ABOUT DEVELOPMENT OF GOOD QUALITY. I THINK THIS WOULD WORK VERY WELL WITH THE RETAIL RIGHT NEXT-DOOR TO IT. I THINK IT'S A CONCEPT THAT IS VERY ATTRACTIVE, THAT IS CERTAINLY ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF A LOT OF THINGS GOING ON. I THINK IT IS GOING TO BE A VERY LARGE POSITIVE IN THIS AREA, AND ESPECIALLY IN THAT BOTTOM PART THATAS JUST RECENTLY BEEN VERY VACANT. AND SO I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THAT OPPORTUNITY. WHAT WAS I GOING TO ASK? WHAT WOULD YOU SEE AS ANY IMPEDIMENT TO . . . >> Chair Downs: WOW. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY IS AT A LOSS FOR WORDS. WOULD YOU LIKE FOR ME TO CIRCLE BACK TO YOU? >> Bronsky: ALL I'D LIKE TO SAY IS I LIKE IT A LOT. I'MERY HOPEFUL FOR IT, AND I JUST HOPE IT INTEGRATES WELL. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: JUST A COUPLE QUESTIONS. YOU'RE A FRENCH IC. IS THERE YOUR ONLY UNIT? >> YES. >> Cary: HOW BIG IS THE COMPANY CURRENTLY? >> THERE ARE SEVEN LOCATIONS IN CANADA. THERE IS ONE IN DELAWARE AND ONE IN FLORIDA THAT IS TEMPORARILY CLOSED BECAUSE THEY ARE LOOKING TO MOVE FROM THEIR CURRENT LOCATION TO ANOTHER LOCATION, BUT I DON'T HAVE THE EXACT REOPEN DATE YET, SO THIS WOULD BE THE 10TH LOCATION WHEN IT OPENS. >> YOU CAUGHT MY ATTENTION WITH THE ABILITY TO CREATE YOUR OWN UNIVERSE AND I'M REALLY LOOKING FORWARD TO THAT. >> THAT ONE IS CALLED UNIVERSE SANDBOX. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE ASKED THIS QUESTION TO STAFF. FOR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6. >> so this request came in under the current ordinance regulations, so number 6 is a discussion item right now. IT MAY LEAD TO FUTURE ORDINANCE CHANGES, BUT WE'RE FINE AS IT IS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: ARE THE GAMES AGE-RESTRICTED? >> SO THEY CAN HAVE ACCESS TO THE GAME LIBRARY. HOWEVER, WHEN THE PARENT SIGNS THE WAIVER FORM THEY CAN REQUEST THAT WE RESTRICT THE GAMES FOR 14 AND UNDER ONLY. AND IF THAT'S WHAT THEY REQUEST, THAT'S WHAT WE'LL DO. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: YOU SORT OF ANSWERED MY QUESTION. YOU SAID YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE IS 8-35 BUT I'M LOOKING AT YOUR HOURS. ARE YOU -- IS THIS -- WHAT IS YOUR TARGET AUDIENCE, THE TRUE DEMOGRAPHIC? >> 40% OF OUR CUSTOMERS ARE BETWEEN THE AGE OF 10-17 AND THE NEXT CATEGORIES THAT FALL BENEATH IT ARE SIMILAR, 14%, 15%, THE NEXT AGE BRACKET -- I HAVE IT RIGHT HERE. 15% IS AGES 25-34 AND 14% IS AGES 0-9. WE TYPICALLY TRY TO ENCOURAGE THE AGE TO BE 8 OR OLDER BECAUSE THAT WAY THEY HAVE A BETTER FIT WITH THE HEADSET. IT WOULD BE UNCOMFORTABLE BECAUSE IT WOULD SHIFT AROUND. >> I'M NOT PLANNING TO COME IN AND DISSECT A FROG, BUT IT DOES LOOK LIKE A GREAT CONCEPT. I JUST WANTED TO SEE WHAT YOUR TARGET MARKET WAS. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: YOU MENTIONED CLIENTS COULD BRING IN THEIR OWN FOOD AND DRINK. I'M ASSUMING THAT MEANS NON-ALCOHOLIC? >> YES, TYPICALLY PIZZA, CAKE, AND SOFT DRINKS. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ONE QUESTION. >> ONE QUESTION, I PROMISE. AND IT ONLY CAME UP -- I'LL BLAME COMMISSIONER RATLIFF FOR THIS, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO BLAME COMMISSIONER TONG. SO, MY QUESTION THAT CAME UP BECAUSE OFHAT, ARE THERE GAMES THAT ARE STRICTLY ADULT-ORIENTED GAMES? >> ONLY IN TERMS OF VIOLENCE. THERE'S NOTHING OUTSIDE OF VIOLENCE. THERE ARE SOME WHERE WHEN YOU SHOOT SOMEONE, THERE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE GORINESS. >> ZOMBIE GUTS. THE ONLY REASON I ASK IS BECAUSE COMMISSIONER CARY MENTIONED ABOUT DESIGNING YOUR OWN UNIVERSE. AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT INTRODUCING SOMETHING THAT'S ADULT-ORIENTED. >> NO, IT'S ONLY BECAUSE OF THE VIOLENCE BECAUSE YOU'RE SHOOTING A PERSON OR A MYTHICAL CREATURE OF SOME SORT. >> THAT WAS MY ONLY PART. I JUST WANTED TO CHECK ON THE ADULT-ORIENTEDNESS. >> Tong: ONE MORE QUESTION. SORRY. I HAVE TO ASK THIS BECAUSE I'VE PLAYED OCULAR BEFORE. IT'S SIMILAR. HAVE YOU, AS THE OWNER, PLAYED ALL THE GAMES YOURSELF? >> THE GAME LIBRARY HAS OVER 200 GAMES IN IT. THEY PUT 50 ON THE MENU. WE'VE BEEN WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THE GAMES. WE HAV'T PLAYEALL OF THEM. WE'VE BOTH PLAYED ELVENN ASSASSIN, I PLAYED NATURE TREKS WITH THE S DINOSAUR. I DID WATCH SOMEONE PLAY CLASS OF CHEFS, BUT I HAVEN'T SEEN THAT ONE FOR MYSELF. BUT THERE'S AN EXTENSIVE LIBRARY. >> YEAH, SO IN ORDER TO PROVIDE THE CUSTOMER SERVICE YOUR WE WEO PROVIDE, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE GAME MASTERY BY THE TIME WE OPEN. >> WE'RE WORKING ON IT. Ton SOVERYAME DS HAVE A RATING OR A DESCRIPTION OF WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO PRESENT? >> THERE ARE GAMES RATED 14+ AND IT WOULD GIVE A DESCRIPTION WHY. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I'M NOT GOING TO LOOK THIS WAY. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> Horne: I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2, S.U.P. AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH MY DAUGHTER, MY GRANDCHILDREN, ALL BEING VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. >> I WOULD LIKE TO SECOND VICE CHAIR HORNE'S MOTION. >> Chair Downs: LET'S CLARIFY THE MOTION AND LOOK AT WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS ARE THERE. >> THE MOTION IS APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL WAIVING THE 300-FOOT DISTANE AND APPROVE THE S.U.P. AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> I SECOND THAT, YES, SIR. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPRO ITEM 2 SUBJECT TO COUNCIL WAIVER OF THE 300-FOOT BARRIER. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ALL RIGHT.RIGHT.RIGHT.RIGHT.RIGH PACE. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3, PUBLIC HEARING -REPLAT: ROSEBRIAR SPRING CREEK L.P. PLAZA ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOTS 3R & 5R ━ HEALTH/FITNESS CENTER, RETAIL, RESTAURANT, AND MEDICAL OFFICE ON TWO LOTS ON 10.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF K AVENUE, 510 FEET NORTH OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL. APPLICANT: P&A OBASI FAMILY, LP ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REPLAT AS SUBMITTED AND I'D BE PLEASED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: WELL, IT'S JUST YOUR SHOW TONIGHT, ISN'T IT? >> YES. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >>E DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. COSTA OF THE ENGINEERING GROUP IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE. >> Horne: I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: GOING TO HAVE ALL KINDS OF LIGHTS ON OVER HERE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE, SECOND BY -- I'M GOING TO GIVE IT TO COMMISSIONER STONE. HE WAS RAISING HIS HAND AND FLAGGING ME DOWN. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4. >> NONPUBLIC HEARING ITEMS -- THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, L,LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, ALL FOR PUBLIC ARIN PLANN DEVELOPMENT-65-CENTRAL BUSINESS-1 -REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR OPEN SPACE FOR TRACTS C AND D IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-65-CENTRAL BUSINESS-1 ON 275.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND TENNYSON PARKWAY. APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO >> Chair Downs: MR. HILL. >> GOOD EVENING. I WILL PRESENT TONIGHT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A CALL FOR ITOR THE LEGACY WEST DEVELOPMENT, A PORTION WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 65 BETWEEN DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND HEADQUARTERS. SO, WHAT STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING ON WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER IS REVISIONS TO THE OPEN SPACE COMPARED WITH THE REQUEST THAT'S ALSO COMING BEFORE YOU IN THE FUTURE FOR PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 64, WHICH IS THE REMAINDER OF LEGACY WEST TO THE NORTH. SO WE'D LIKE TO WORK TO, KIND OF, ESTABLISH A BETTER FORMULA FOR OPEN SPACE, KEEPING IT CONSISTENT AS IT WAS PREVIOUSLY APPROVED, B PROPOSING SOME CHANGES. SO THAT'S THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING. WE DID NOT -- WERE NOT ABLE TO GET SIGNATURES FROM ALL 542 LOTS WITHIN THIS PORTION OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, SO WE ASK THAT YOU CALL A PUBLIC HEARING. BE GLAD TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO? >> YES. WHAT'S THE END GAME? WHERE ARE WE GOING WITH THIS? >> SO THE OPEN SPACE THAT WAS INITIALLY ADOPTED WITH THIS PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE PORTI WES OF THE TOLLWAY AS WELL AS NORTH OF THE CORE LEGACY WEST HAD SOME OPEN SPACE STANDARDS. THOSE JUST NEED SOME REVISIONS. THERE'S SOME AREAS WHICH JUST NEED TO BE REFINED. WE'VE LOOKED AT ADDING IN THE BRUCE PARK, WHICH IS ON THE WEST SIDE OF COMMUNICATIONS. JUST AS SOME ADDITIONAL SPACE TO COUNT TOWARDS OPEN SPACE. AND JUST REALLY CLARIFY THE LANGUAGE AND RECORD THE SPACES THAT ARE OUT THERE. DEVELOPMENT HAS OCCURRED VY SWIF, AND SOME SPACES NEED TO BE ADJUSTED, SO WE WANT TO CLARIFY THE STANDARDS, CLARIFY THE SPACE THAT'S AVAILABLE, JUST CLEAN UP THE OPEN SPACE. >> IS THERE ANY VACANT PROPERTY STILL AVAILABLE IN THIS AREA THAT YOU'VE GOT CROSS-HATCHED? I DON'T THINK THERE IS. >> I THINK EVERYTHING IS UNDER DEVELOPMENT OR IS DEVELOPED RIGHT NOW. THAT'S MY MEMORY. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> JUST REAL QUICK, YOU MENTIONED THE OPEN SPACE ON LEGACY WEST, BUT YOU ALSO INCORPORATE THE SHOPS OF LEGACY IN THIS. THIS IS FOR ALL OF IT. >> SO THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, 65, DOES COVER THE SHOPS AT LEGACY AS WELL, BUT WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS THIS REQUEST TO TRACTS C AND D, WHICH IS THE LEGACY WEST PORTION. BUT BECAUSE PD65 ENCOMPASSES ALL THOSE PROPERTIES, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO INITIATE THE ZONING FOR THAT ENTIRE PORTION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. I TELL YOU WHAT, I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR OPEN SPACE FOR TRACTS C AND D IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 65 ON 275 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND TENNYSON PARKWAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER DOWNS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 5. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 IS DISCUSSION, DIRECTION, & CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING: TATTOOING AND PERMANENT (OR INTRADERMAL) COSMETICS IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS/GOVERNMENT (BG) ZONING DISTRICT -REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION PERTAINING TO LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND RESTRICTIONS FOR TATTOOING AND PERMANENT (OR INTRADERMAL) COSMETICS IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS/GOVERNMENT ZONING DISTRICT. I'M A PLANNER WITH THEF PLANO PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO, THIS REQUEST IS FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION AND A CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT ZONING DISTRICT, ALSO KNOWN AS THE BG DISTRIT. SO AT THE FEBRUARY 7TH PLAQUE AND ZONING -- PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, A BUSINESS OWNER REQUESTED THAT THE COMMISSION CONSIDER A CHANGE TO THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS AS A PRIMARY USE IN THE BG DISTRICT. AT THE FEBRUARY 21ST MEETING THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO PLACE THE TOPIC AS A PRIORITY ITEM ON THE WORK PROGRAM. SO AS THIS ITEM RESPONDS TO A SPECIFIC CITIZEN REQUEST, THE REVIEW OF THIS USE IS LIMITED ONLY TO THE BG DISTRICT. AND SO WE HAVE A MAP ON HERE THAT HIGHLIGHTS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE BG DISTRICT. SO THIS IS THE SPECIFIC AREA THAT WE ARE REQUESTING DIRECTION FOR. SO, PLANO'S REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS DATE BACK TO 2001. CURRENTLY, TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS IS PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE, OR PRIMARY USE BY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN THE RETAIL CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, LIGHT COMMERCIAL, LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL TWO DISTRICTS. AND SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITION OF TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS CAN BE SEEN ON THE SCREEN AND IT'S ALSO SUBJECT TO OTHER RESTRICTIONS SUCH AS WHEN IT'S PERMITTED AS A PRIMARY USE BY S.U.P., IT'S PROHIBITED BEEN A THOUSAND FEET OF ANY RELIGIOUS FACILITY, RESIDENTIALLY ZONED DISTRICT OR PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOL. AND THAT DISTANCE IS MEASURED FROM THE FRONT DOOR OF THE FACILITY TO THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE OR TO THE CLOSEST RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY LINE. AND CITY COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO REDUCE THAT DISTANCE TO 300 FEET. SO, STAFF SURVEYED SIX SURROUNDED CITIES AND FOUND THAT THREE ALLOW TATTOOING AS A PRIMARY USE IN ALL OR PART OF THEIR DOWNTOWN AREAS WITH AN S. S.U.P. SO, GARLAND AND GRAND PRAIRIE ALSO HAVE ADDITIONAL DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS FROM CERTAIN USES AND OTHER TATTOOING ESTABLISHMENTS. AND GRAND PRAIRIE LIMITS THE TOTAL NUMBER OF TATTOOING STUDIOS IN THEIR DOWNTOWN IT TWO. RICHARDSON DOES NOT HAVE ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS BESIDES THE S.U.P. THE OTHER CITIES SURVEYED, THEY GENERALLY ONLY ALLOW TATTOOING IN THEIR MANUFACTURING AND INDUSTRIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. SO AT THIS TIME, STAFF IS REQUESTING THE COMMISSION PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE FOLLOWING QUESTIONS. SHOULD TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS BE ALLOWED AS A PRIMARY USE IN THE BG ZONING DISTRICT? IF SO, SHOULD THE USE REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, OR SHOULD IT BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT? OR SHOULD THE USE BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT WITH RESTRICTIONS SUCH AS THE EXAMPLES LISTED ON THE SCREEN? AND SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION CALLS A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE LATED TO TATTOOING AND PERMANENT COSMETICS IN THE BG DISTRICT BASED UPON THE DIRECTION PROVIDED AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO, JUST SO THAT WE'RE KIND OF CLEAR ON WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE TONIGHT, HOW MUCH FEEDBACK ARE YOU LOOKING FOR US IN TRYING TO NAIL DOWN -- LET'S SAY WE DECIDED WE WANT A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND THEN GOING INTO ALL THE REQUIREMENTS, ARE YOU WANTING THAT TONIGHT, OR ARE YOU WANTING US TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN YOU WILL BRING TO US SOME LANGUAGE THAT WE WOULD THEN AT THAT PUBLIC HEING GO THROUGH? >> WE'RE WILLING TO ACCEPT ANY FEEDBACK YOU'D LIKE TO PROVIDE, SO I THINK THE FIRST QUESTION IS WHETHER YOU SEE THIS AS A USE THAT'S PERMITTED BY RIGHT OR ONE THAT REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. AND THEN, ADDITIONALLY, ARE THERE RESTRICTIONS THAT YOU WOULD LIKE US TO CONSIDER. WE DON'T EXPECT YOU'LL HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS TONIGHT. WE DON'T HAVE LANGUAGE DRAFTED FOR YOU. SO WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING THIS BACK FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION AND/OR CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'D LIKE TO MAKE THE CALL AND ASK US FOR ANOTHER DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE ZONING CASE, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. WE'RE OPEN. WE'D JUST LIKE TO GET YOUR FEEDBACK ON THESE QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT CLARIFICATION. SO, ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK FIRST OFF, I THINK WE PROBABLY ALL WANT TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING REGARDLESS. SO WE CAN DO THAT EASY. I WOULD SAY THAT RIGHT NOW I WOULD TELL US TO FOCUS ON THIS SLIDE RIGHT HERE AND TRY TO ANSWER WHICH OF THAT DIRECTION WE WANT TO GO IN AND THEN I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ENOUGH INFORMATION TOET REAL SPECIFIC UNLESS YOU'VE GOT SOME GENERAL GUIDELINES YOU WANT TO GIVE STAFF SO THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A DIRECTION. NOW THAT I'VE SAID ALL THAT, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: QUESTION FOR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: MICROPHONE, PLEASE. >> Ratliff: I TURNED IT OFF INSTEAD OF ON. MY QUESTION IS FOR STAFF. SOME OF THESE RESTRICTIONS -- WOULD IT EVEN BE POSSIBLE TO PUT THESE IN AS A USE BY RIGHT, OR DO WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO HAVE AN S.U.P. TO LIMIT THE NUMBER AND DISTANCE? WHAT ARE THE LEGAL GUIDELINES THERE? >> I'M NOT SURE THAT THERE'S ANY LEGAL RESTRICTIONS ON THIS. WE WILL JUST HAVE TO CREATE A PROCESS TO TRACK THIS WHEN CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES ARE APPLIED FOR, BUT I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'D BE ABLE TO DO. >> Ratliff: HOW IS IT BEST IMPLEMENTED BY STAFF, THROUGH AN S.U.P. PROCESS OR A USE BY RIGHT WITH A LOT OF RESTRICTIONS IN THERE THAT YOU HAVE TO NAVIGATE? >> I THINK THAT'S DIFFICULT TO ANSWER. A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT COMES WITH ITS OWN HURDLES AS WELL. >> Ratliff: RIGHT. >> BUT I THINK WE CAN DO WHATEVER DIRECTION THE COMMISSION PREFERS. >> Ratliff: I THINK I'M THE ONE THAT LIVES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. DO YOU MIND IF I KEEP THE FLOOR? I'VE DONE INFORMAL FEEDBACK FROM A LOT OF MY NEIGHBORS, SOME NEW, SOME LONGTIME RESIDENTS. AND AS A GENERAL RULE, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE IN THE ARTS DISM WITH A TATTOO PARLOR. A LOT OF THEM SEE IT AS ANOTHER FORM OF ART. AS AN OVERRIDING CON CONCEPT, I HAVEN'T SEEN OPPOSITION FROM THE PEOPLE IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, ALTHOUGH PEOPLE THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE BOUNDARIES AND I DO, TOO. I KIND OF LIKE -- I FORGET WHICH CITY LIMITED IT TO ONE OR TWO. THAT SEEMS REASONABLE TO ME. I THINK ONE IS PROBABLY INFRINGEMENT ON SOME SORT OF COMPETITION, SO TWO SEEMS LIKE THE RIGHT NUMBER TO ME. I DO THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE SOME SETBACKS FROM RESIDENTIAL, TRUE RESIDENTIAL USES, NOT MULTIFAMILY, BUT TRUE RESIDENTIAL USES. AND I THINK AT LEAST WHAT THE NEIGHBORHOOD SEEMS TO FEEL LIKE BASED ON PEOPLE I'VE TALKED TO IS IF IT'S ON 15TH AS A GENERAL RULE IN THAT VICINITY OF WHAT WE CONSIDER THE DOWNTOWN AREA, NOBODY SEEMS TO HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. BUT I THINK WE'VE GOT TO FIGURE OUT HOW TO WRITE THE -- I THINK IT SHOULD BE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. I THINK WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT HO TO WRITE THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT LANGUAGE SUCH THAT THERE ARE SOME FAIRLY TIGHT GUIDELINES ABOUT WHERE IT CAN BE LOCATED AND HOW MANY WE CAN HAVE. AND I THINK THAT WILL BE MY OPINION AND BASED ON THE NEIGHBORS THAT I'VE SPOKEN TO THAT LIVE IN THE ARTS DISTRICT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER -- HILL, SORRY. >> I APPRECIATE THAT. WE CAN CRAFT THE STANDARDS SO IT'S SPECIFIC TO A BLOCK. SO IF IT'S THE DOWNTOWN BLOCK BETWEEN K AVENUE AND G AVENUE OR CRAFT THAT.IKE THAT, WE COULD THERE ARE STANDARDS WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAT LOOK AT BLOCK LIMITATIONS AND LOCATION LIMITATIONS BASED UPON THE EXISTING STREETS. SO IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO PURSUE AN S.U.P. THAT DOES THAT YOU HAVE TO LOOK AT IT INDIVIDUALLY BASED UPON THAT PROPERTY. BUT IF YOU'D LIKE TO CRAFT YOUR STANDARDS SUCH THAT IT'S LIMITED TO A CERTAIN PORTION OF THE DISTRICT THAT IS SOMETHING THAT STAFF CAN PREPARE AND BRING THAT LANGUAGE BACK BEFORE YOU. WE COULD ALSO DO -- MAY HAVE ALREADY STARTED THIS -- AN ANALYSIS OF THE RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTIES VERSUS MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES AND CREATE SOME BUFFERS, SOME ZONES WHERE YOU CAN SEE HOW CERTAIN RESTRICTIONS WOULD HIT THE PROPERTIES AND WHAT SETBACKS MAY BE APPROPRIATE BASED UPON THOSE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. >> THAT SOUNDS VERY REASONABLE, ALMOST LIKE YOUR 500-FOOT DRAWINGS THAT WE GET EVERY MEETING TO SEE WHERE THE BUBBLE FALLS, WHERE THE SWEET SPOT IS THAT AVOIDS CONFLICTS WITH RESIDENCES. AND ALSO THERE ARE A COUPLE OF RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS DOWN THERE. WE NEED TO RESPECT THEIR BOUNDARIES AS WELL. I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT AND I THINK IF WE CAN CRAFT THE LANGUAGE -- I'M NOT SUGGESTING IT HAS TO BE ON 15TH BETWEEN THE D.A.R.T. STATION AND K. I DON'T THINK -- IT CAN BE BROADER THAN THAT AREA. BUT I THINK THAT IS THE GENERAL VICINITY THAT PEOPLE BELIEVE IS AN ACCEPTABLE AREA. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: A QUICK CLARIFICATION QUESTION. A PERSONAL SERVICE SHOP IS A BARBER SHOP, WHAT HAVE YOU, RIGHT? SO RIGHT NOW A PERSONAL SHE WASE SHOP IN THE DOWNTOWN ZONING DISTRICT COULD OFFER THIS AS AN ACCESSORY SERVICE WITHOUT ANY ISSUES. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> Olley: OKAY. I THINK I FALL SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. I PROBABLY WILL FALL MORE ON THE BY RIGHT WITH THOSE RESTRICTIONS ON -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S BETTER, GEOGRAPHY OR TOTAL NUMBER TO PRESERVE THE CHARACTER OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. BUT AGAIN, DEFINITELY OPEN TO . . . >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER STONE. >> Stone: YES, I SEE THIS AS BASICALLY A TWIN SISTER TO THE ARCADE ISSUE. I THINK THE CITY IS TRYING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF S.U.P. REQUESTS THAT FLOAT ACROSS THEIR DESK EVERY DAY, EVERY WEEK AND JUST AS WE ARE DEALING WITH THE ARCADES AND GETTING THAT, I THINK WE NEED TO DO THE SAME THING WITH THE TATTOO PARLOR. I DON'T HAVE A TATTOO, BUT MY GRANDDAUGHTER DOES HAVE ONE ON HER SHOULDER. SHE'S THE STRAIGHTEST ARROW PERSON YOU'VE EVER KNOWN. TATTOO PARLORS ARE NOT A BAD NEIGHBOR, BUT THEY DO NEED TO BE SLIGHTLY CONTROLLED. YOU DON'T WANT THREE IN A ROW OR IN THE SAME BLOCK, AND I'M SURE THE CITY HAS SOME IDEAS ABOUT HOW THEY WANT THAT TO GO. >> I HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS. ONE IS THAT IN THE CITY STUDIES FOR THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES, THERE'S SIX CITIES WE STUDIED. I DIDN'T SEE DALLAS IN THERE. I THINK DALLAS HAS A LOT OF TATTOO BUSINESS THERE. I WONDER HOW THEY RESTRICTED -- ANY RESTRICTIONS THEY HAVE. MAYBE THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN STUDY AND SEE WHETHER IT WILL APPLY TO US. THE SECOND QUESTION IS I THINK ACTUALLY PART OF COMMISSIONER STONE'S QUESTION ANSWERED THAT IS WHETHER WE HAVE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. BECAUSE I SEE THE ONE,WO, THREE OPTIONS, RIGHT. ARE WE CHOOSING ONE OF THE THREE OR CAN WE COMBINE TWO OF THE THREE? OR HOW WOULD THAT WORK? >> I THINK ANY COMBINATION THAT THE COMMISSION DEEMS APPROPRIATE COULD WORK, AND PERHAPS ONE THING WE COULD DO IS BASED ON DIRECTION TONIGHT, BRING BACK SOME MAPS OF WHAT THIS MIGHT LOOK LIKE, AS MR. HILL SUGGESTED, IF WE PUTN LIMITATIONS, HOW WOULD THAT WORK AND GIVE SOME OPTIONS TO THINK THROUGH. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: A LOT OF GOOD POINTS MADE BY THE COMMISSIONERS HERE. I THINK THAT MY OPINION IS IF WE GET THE LANGUAGE RIGHT, TO COMMICOMMISSIONER RATLIFF'S POIF VIEW, THEN I SIDE WITH COMMISSIONER STONE HERE. BUT ALSO I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER OLLEY, I AGREE WITH HIS POINT. I WOULD LEAN TO DOING THIS BY RIGHT. IF WE GET THE LANGUAGE RIGHT. AND I THINK THEN IT ALLOWS IT TO MANAGE ITSELF. THAT'S WHERE I WOULD L LEAN AFTR LISTENING TO THE COMMENTS HERE. >> Chair Downs: AGAIN, IN THE ESSENCE OF MOVING THINGS ALONG, IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE LEANING TOWARD -- BASED ON EVERYTHING I'VE HEARD -- DOING THIS BY RIGHT WITH RESTRITIONS. AND I AGREE WITH LIMITING THE NUMBER OF S.U.P.S AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT GETTING THE LANGUAGE CORRECT IS KIND OF KEY. AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TRY TO GET INTO THAT TONIGHT, THE LANGUAGE PIECE. SO LET'S FOCUS ON THIS IN DIRECTION TO STAFF. AND WE CAN DO KIND OF A HAND VOTE. WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE A DEAL HERE, IT'S JUST DIRECTION TO STAFF. IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN ALLOWING THIS BY RIGHT WITH RESTRICTIONS IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT, RAISE YOUR HAND AND LET'S SEE IF WE'VE GOT ANYBODY THAT'S -- OKAY. ALL RIGHT. AND YOU'VE GOT SOME DISCOMFORT THINGS. WE'LL DEAL WITH THAT IN OUR DISCUSSIONS NEXT. OKAY. THE ME NEXT IS TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL NEED A VOTE ON THAT, OR DO YOU WANT TO BRING US INFORMATION FIRST AND THEN -- WHAT DO YOU PREFER? >> IT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION. IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO CALL THE HEARING, WE'RE HAPPY TO BRING THIS BACK AS A ZONING CASE WITH SOME LANGUAGE. >> Chair Downs: HOW LONG DO YOU NEED TO PREPARE FOR THAT? >> WELL, THE NOTICE -- THERE'S A CERTAIN NOTICE REQUIREMENT, SO I THINK IT'S ABOUT FOUR WEEKS FROG TONIGHT IT WILL BE BACK BEFORE YOU FOR 4-6 WEEKS. I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER THE TIMEFRAME. WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. IF YOU'D LIKE TO CALL THE HEARING WE COULD HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION PRIOR TO THE ACTUAL HEARING, IF YOU'D LIKE US TO DO THAT. >> Chair Downs: I THINK BECAUSE WE KNOW WE HAVE AN APPLICANT AND, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT WANTING TO RUSH A DECISION THROUGH BECAUSE OF THAT, BUT WE WANT TO BE AS EFFICIENT AS POSSIBLE. I THINK WE SHOULD CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WORK WITHIN THOSE GUIDELINES. SO, COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: YEAH, I THINK BECAUSE WE HAVE AN APPLICANT, THAT'S CERTAINLY WANTING TO GET TO BUSINESSHERE, AND IT'S A VACANT SPOT. BUT IT'S MORE IMPORTANT, GIVE THEM SIX WEEKS, WE CALL THE PUBLIC MEETING FOR SIX WEEKS, BUT I LIKE TO THINK THAT WE CAN GET SOMETHING WITHIN FOUR WEEKS THAT WE CAN REFINE THE LANGUAGE, BECAUSE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NUMBER, ABOUT GEE GEOGRAPHIC AR. WE'RE TRYING TO ALLOW SOME COMPETITION, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DON'T SEE WHERE WE WOULD HAVE MORE THAN FOUR ALONG AVENUE K, YOU KNOW. [ LAUGHING ] >> Horne: BUT YOU KNOW WHAT I'M GETTING AT. WE'VE GOT TO BE N THAT LANGUAGE. >> Chair Downs: IF WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING FOR SIX WEEKENDS WEEKSFROM NOW ON THIS WE CAN HAE LANGUAGE READY TO GO AND ABLE TO HAVE THAT. >> IF YOU CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING TONIGHT THE EARLIEST WE COULD COME BEFORE YOU WITH A ZONING CASE IS MAY 2ND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> WE COULD POSSIBLY HAVE ANOTHER DISCUSSION IN TWO WEEKS OR A MONTH BUT IT DEPENDS ON THE OTHER PRIORITIES OF SEBASTIAN'S TEAM. WE WOULD HOPE TO COME BACK BEFORE YOU. WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO BACK IT BEFORE THE 2ND. THAT'S THE EARLIEST WE COULD MAKE IT. >> ARE YOU READY FOR A MOTION? >> Chair Downs: I AM IF YOU'RE READY TO MAKE ONE. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE DIRECT THE STAFF TO PREPARE FOR AND CALL A PUBLIC HEARING. I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE OFFICIAL TOPIC, TO ADDRESS TATTOO PARLORS IN THE BG DISTRICT. >> Chair Downs: IT DOESN'T HAVE TO BE SPECIFIC? I'M SORRY. WHEN THEY'RE READY. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A SECOND. I HAVE A MOTN BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 5. PLEASE VOTE. 8-0. AND STAFF IS AWARE THERE'S A BIT OF URGENCY, BUT AGAIN, FIT IT WITHIN THE WORK SCHEDULE SO THAT WE DON'T CREATE CHALLENGES SOMEWHERE ELSE. OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 6. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 IS DISCUSSION, DIRECTION, & CALL CI-ITIATED HEARING: ARCADES AND ZONING NOTICE REQUIREMENTS -REQUEST FOR DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION PERTAINING TO LAND USE CLASSIFICATION AND RESTRICTIONS FOR ARCADES AND NOTICING REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY-INITIATED ZONING CHANGES. APPLICANT IS CITY OF >> I'M A PLANNER WITH THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS THE SECOND DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ITEM PERTAINING TO THE ARCADE LAND USE AND THE SIGNED POSTING REQUIREMENTS PETIONS.-INITIATED ZONING AS BEFORE THE PRESENTATION WE'LL FIRST DISCUSS ARCADES AND THE NOTICING REQUIREMENTS. THE STAFF REPORT CONTAINS INFORMATION TO FOLLOW UP ON QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION RECEIVED AT THE MARCH 1st MEETING AND TO PRESENT POTENTIAL ORDINANCE CHANGES BASED ON DISCUSSION AT THAT PRIOR MEETING. THE FIRST QUESTION THAT WE RESEARCHED FROM THE COMMISSION WAS WHAT WAS THE INITIAL REASONING FOR RESTRICTING THE ARCADE LAND USE. SO THE ARCADE LAND USE WAS ACTUALLY ADDED IN 1981, NOT TO RESTRICT ARCADES BUT TO PERMIT ARCADES IN SHOPPING CENTERS WHERE INDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT USES WERE NOT PERMITTED AT THE TIME. ARCADES WERE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN MOST NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IN THE CITY BUT IN 1982, THE FOLLOWING YEAR, AFTER A CONTENTIOUS CASE, THE LAND USE BECAME HEAVILY RESTRICTED AND THE SUP REQUIREMENT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN EVERY DISTRICT THAT PREVIOUSLY PERMITTED ARCADES BY RIGHT. THE MAIN CONCERN CITED AT THAT TIME WERE POTENTIAL TEEN LOITERING AND DISRUPTIVE BEHAVIOR STEMMING FROM TEENS GATHERING AT ARCADES. STAFF ALSO OBSERVED IN THE HISTORY A TREND TOWARD EASING RESTRICTIONS ON ARCADES AFTER 1982. IN 1993 WE HAD A ZONING CASE WHERE SOME REQUIREMENTS WERE LOOSENED OR REMOVED ENTIRELY, ALTHOUGH THE SUP REQUIREMENT REMAINED. THE SECOND HISTORY QUESTION THAT WE RESEARCHED CONCERNED SOME LANGUAGE IN THE CURRENT DISTANCING REQUIREMENT. WHYERE THE PUBLIC AND PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS INCLUDED BUT NOT PRIVATE SCHOOLS? AFTER REVIEWING ALL THE RELATED STAFF REPORTS AND MEETING MINUTES SINCE 1981, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO FIND ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE OMISSION. THE WORD SCHOOLS IS MENTIONED OFTEN IN THE STAFF REPORTS AND USED INTERCHANGEABLY WITH PUBLIC AND PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, ALTHOUGH PRIVATE SCHOOLS EXISTED AT THE TIME AS A LAND USE. YOU CAN SEE THAT IN OTHER LAND USES AS WELL. THIRD QUESTION STAFF RESEARCHED FROM THE QUESTION WAS CONCERNING SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING WE HAD SG COMMUNITIES JUST INCLUDE ARCADES AND WHATEVER THEIR VERSION OF THE INDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT LAND USE IS. A COMMISSIONER HAD ASKED IF THESE COMMUNITIES EXPERIENCED ANY NEGATIVE IMPACTS FROM THESE INDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT VENUES BEING LOCATED NEAR SCHOOLS OR NEAR RESIDENTIAL AREAS. STAFF CONTACTED SIX SURROUNDING COMMUNITIES. FIVE, ACTUALLY, THIS IS FOUR BUT WE HAVE GOTTEN ONE MORE RESPONSE. RESPONDED THEY HAVE NO KNOWN ISSUES WITH THE PROXIMITY OR ANY OTHER ISSUES WITH THESE VENUES. THE FOURTH QUESTION STAFF RESEARCHED WAS WOULD REMOVING THE ARCADE LAND USE CAUSE ANY NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON THE EXISTING ARCADE BUSINESSES AND ANY EFFECTS ON THE SITES THAT HAVE SUPs WHERE THEIR BUSINESSES ARE OPERATING THERE. STAFF FOUND NO NONCONFORMITIES WOULD BE CREATED BY THIS ACTION. ALL THE SUPs, EXCEPT FOR ONE, ARE LOCATED IN DISTRICTS THAT PERMIT INDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT BY RIGHT. ONE CURRENT ARCADE THAT IS OPERATING IS LOCATED WITHIN THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICT THAT DOES REQUIRE AN SUP FOR INDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT AS WELL. BUT THIS ARCADE IS ACTUALLY AN ACCESSORY USE WITHIN AN EXISTING BOWLING ALLEY THAT ALREADY HAS THE NECESSARY SUP FOR INDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT AS WELL AS ARCADE. ANY BUSINESS OWNERS WHO HAVE OBTAINED THE NECESSARY SUP FOR ARCADE BUT HAVEN'T YET OPENED WOULD NOT BE AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE THEY'RE ALREADY IN DISTRICTS THAT PERMIT INDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT BY RIGHT. BASED ON THE COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION AT THE MARCH 1 MEETIN STAFF UNDERSTOOD THE FOLLOWING DRAFT STANDARDS: REMOVE ARCADE AS A LAND USE, INCLUDING THE DEFINITION AND USE SPECIFIC REGULATIONS. AND RETAIN THE INDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT DEFINITION SINCE IT ALREADY INCLUDES ARCADES IN THE LIST OF TYPICAL USES. THIS CONCLUDES THE RESEARCH ON ARCADES. WE CAN ANSWER ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS SPECIFIC TO ARCADES AT THIS TIME OR MOVE ON TO THE SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS. >> Downs: SO FIRST OFF, THANKS TO AUDIO. YOU'RE MUCH EASIER TO UNDERSTAND TONIGHT THAN LAST TIME. >> WONDERFUL. >> Downs: THANK BOTH YOU. OKAY. I THINK WE KIND OF ALREADY DECIDED WHERE WE WERE HEADED FOR THIS BUT ANY COMMENTS? I THINK WE HAVE PRETTY MUCH DECIDED IT MADE SENSE TO STREAMLINE EVERYTHING AND MOVE IT. SO INSTRUCTIONS TO STAFF AT THIS POINT WOULD BE TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS, REMOVE ARCADE AS A LAND USE INSIDE THE ORDINANCE AND BRING THAT BACK TO US. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: YEAH, SO I'M ABSOLUTELY IN AGREEMENT WITH WHAT YOU SAID. THESE TWO AREN'T INTERCONNECTED THOUGH, ARE THEY? INIATED ZONING NOTICES,CITY -- THOSE ARE SEPARATE ENTITIES, CORRECT? I JUST WANT TO BE CLARIFIED ON THAT BECAUSE THEY WERE ALL TOGETHER IN ONE AGENDA ITEM. >> Downs: YES, THAT'S SEPARATE. CLEAR ON ARCADES? MOVING RIGHT ALONG. >> WONDERFUL. SO TO SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY-INITIATED ZONING ACTIONS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY. THE STAFF REPORT CONTAINS INFORMATION TO FOLLOW UP ON QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION AT THAT MARCH 1st MEETING TO PRESENT POTENTIAL ORDINANCE CHANGES BASED ON DISCUSSION AT THE PRIOR MEETING. THE PREVIOUS STAFF REPORT DID INCLUDE THE POSSIBILITY OF CREATING CUSTOMIZED COMMUNICATION PLANS ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS BUT WE HAVE SINCE BEEN ADVISED BY THE LEGAL TEAM THAT THIS IS NOT RECOMMENDED DUE TO THE NEED FOR EQUAL TREATMENT OF SIMILARLY-SITUATED CASES. THE FIRST QUESTION FROM THE COMMISSION THAT WE RESEARCHED IS WHAT OPTIONS DO WE HAVE TO PROVIDE NOTICE FOR CITY-INITIATED ZONING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT IS AS TRANSPARENT AS POSSIBLE. AS STAFF FOUND THAT THE SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS WERE ADDED IN 2015, PRIOR TO THE ADDITION OF MANY OF THE CURRENT NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC COMMENT TOOLS AVAILABLE TODAY. THE STAFF REPORT INCLUDES A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INFORMATION ON THOSE TOOLS. THERE'S MORE IN THIS PRESENTATION AS WELL. WE HAVE ALSO PREPARED A PROPOSAL FOR AN ADDITIONAL NOTICING REQUIREMENT THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN PLACE OF SIGN POSTING TO AVOID ANY APPEARANCE THAT THE CITY'S PROCESS LACKS TRANSPARENCY. THE SECOND QUESTION WE RESEARCHED WAS ON THE COST ASSOCIATED WITH THE CURRENT SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS. THE MAIN COST IS STAFF TIME SPENT OBTAINING THE LEGAL PERMISSIONS TO ACCESS THE PRIVATE PROPERTY. THIS CAN TAKE MONTHS OF REPEATED STAFF INQUIRY AND LEGAL WORK DEPENDING ON THE RESPONSIVENESS OF THE PROPERTY OWNER. THE LOWEST BID COST THAT WE FOUND FOR TWO SIGNS ON ONE PROPERTY WAS AROUND $1,000, NOT INCLUDING ANY STAFF TIME. AND THIS ALSO DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY POTENTIAL COMPENSATION ALLOWING THE CITY ON TO THEIR PROPERTY. THIS SLIDE SHOWS SOME OF THE UPDATED NOTIFICATION OPTIONS THAT HAVE BECOME AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC SINCE THE SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENT WAS ADDED IN 2015. SO ON THE LEFT-HAND COLUMN IS THE METHOD AND ON THE RIGHT HAND IS ANY ADDITIONS SINCE 2015. SEVERAL WELL-USED TO WEB TOOLS HAVE LAUNCHED AND NO PRIOR OPTIONS HAVE BEEN REMOVED. THE MOST RECENT NOTIFICATION OPTION, WHICH IS USER CUSTOMIZED ZONING CASE E-MAIL ALERTS WAS JUST LAUNCHED THIS YEAR IN 2022. THIS IMAGE IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE PLAIN LANAGE MLED ZONING NOTICES AND MATERIALS THAT THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT IS NOW USING TO NOTIFY SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS OF POTENTIAL CHANGES. THE NOTICE FORMAT WAS UPDATED IN 2021 TO BE MORE USABLE FOR THE PUBLIC. AND MORE LEGIBLE. THIS IS AN EXAMPLE FROM THE ACTIVE ZONING PETITION'S WEB PAGE THAT MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC CAN ACCESS TO SEE THE MOST RECENT UPDATES ON ZONING CASES, INCLUDING DRAFTS. THIS WAS ADDED IN 2015 AND UPDATED IN 2021 AND IN 2022 WITH ADDITIONAL IMPROVEMENTS TO THE FORMAT. THIS IS A SCREENSHOT OF THE ZONING CASE RESPONSE MAP WHICH LAUNCHED IN 2017 TO EASILY COLLECT PUBLIC INPUT ON ZONING CASES AND SHOWCASE INFORMATION COMBINED WITH GIS TECHNOLOGY. THIS IS A SCREENSHOT OF THE ZONING AND RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY MAP WHICH WAS LAUNCHED IN 2016. THIS MAP SHOWS ALL RECENT DEVELOPMENT ACTIVITY INCLUDING ZONING CASES, OVERLAID ON AERIAL IMAGES OF THE CITY. SO SHOWN HERE IS THE BASE PAGE FOR THE ZONING CASE ALERT E-MAIL SYSTEM THAT JUST LAUNCHED IN 2022, THIS YEAR. THIS TOOL ALLOWS USERS TO CUSTOMIZE ALERT E-MAILS BY ZIP CODE SO THAT THEY WILL RECEIVE A NOTICE WHENEVER A ZONING PETITION IS FILED AFFECTING REAL PROPERTY WITHIN THE ZIP CODES THEY SELECTED. ALL OF THE CURRENT NOTIFICATION AND PUBLIC INPUT TOOLS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, INCLUDING THE NEWER ONES JUST DISCUSSED, ARE CURRENTLY IN USE FOR EVERY CITY-INITIATED ZONING PETITION. TO MAINTAIN THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF TRANSPARENCY, STAFF HAS PROPOSED THIS ADDITIONAL NOTIFICATION STANDARD THAT COULD BE ADDED TO THE ORDINANCE. AND THE TEXT IS IN BOLD IN THIS SLIDE. ALL CITY-INITIATED ZONING REQUESTS CONCERNING REAL PROPERTY WILL BE POSTED ON A MEDIA OR COMMUNICATIONS PLATFORM AS RECOMMENDED BY THE CITY MANAGER OR THEIR DESIGNEE IN LIEU OF SIGN POSTING. THIS LANGUAGE WAS CHOSEN TO ALLOW FOR SHIFTS IN POPULARITY OF SOCIAL MEDIA AND OTHER MEDIA CHANNELS AND THE INTENT IS FOR ONE PLATFORM TO BE RECOMMENDED AT A TIME FOR ALL CASES RECEIVED. AT THIS TIME STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSION PROVIDE DIRECTION ON THE TWO POTENTIAL ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS REGARDING THESE ISSUES. ONE, AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ELIMINATING THE SEPARATE LAND USE DEFINITION AND SPECIFIC LAND USE FOR ARCADE. TWO, AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REPLACING THE SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY-INITIATED WITH ANOTHER MORE PRACTICAL METHOD AND CONSIDER CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THESE AMENDMENTS . I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Downs: OKAY. SO I THINK WE'VE ALL COVERED 1. ITEM 2. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: JUST A GENERAL QUESTION. WHY IS -- WHY ARE WE ONLY TALKING ABOUT SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY-INITIATED CASES? WHY WOULDN'T IT BE FOR ALL ZONING CASES? >> THE CITY HAS THE ADDITIONAL RESPONSIBILITY FOR PRIVATE PROPERTY TO GET LEGAL PERMISSION TO POST SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR CASES THAT ARE BENEFICIAL CITYWIDE. THERE'S NO CASE WHERE A PRIVATE CITIZEN HAS TO POST A SIGN ON SOMEONE ELSE'S PRIVATE PROPERTY. >> Ratliff: YEAH, AND I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT, I'M JUST LOOKING AT A LOT OF THE COSTS AND STUFF. I MEAN, THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, WHEN THEY GO THROUGH A ZONING CASE, HAVE THOSE SAME COSTS AND CHALLENGES OF POSTING SIGNS AND IF WE HAVE ALL THESE COMMUNICATION METHODS, THEY'RE THE SAME FOR ALL CASES, AREN'T THEY? SO IF THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER REQUESTS A ZONING CHANGE, ALL THESE SAME NOTIFICATION PLATFORMS ARE USED FOR THEIR CASE AS WELL, CORRECT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Ratliff: ARE WE NOT SETTING UP A TWO-TIER SYSTEM WHERE A CITY-INITIATED CASE HAS A LITTLE LESS REQUIREMENT THAN A PRIVATELYNIATED SE AND SHOULDN'T THEY BE CONSISTENT? >> DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT? >> YEAH, I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS US GAINING PERMISSION TO POST A SIGN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHICH MAY TAKE A LONG PERIOD OF TIME. IT MAY TAKE ADDITIONAL COMPENSATION FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. SO IN ORDER TO MOVE MORE SWIFTLY TO BRING A ZONING CASE FORWARD, WE'RE OFFERING ANOTHER OPTION. USUALLY WHEN PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS REQUEST REZONING OR A REPRESENTATIVE ON THEIR BEHALF, THEY HAVE THE AUTHORTY TO POST A SIG BECAUSE THEY'RE REQUESTING REZONING. THEY HAVE A SIGNATURE AND THEY'LL POST THE SIGN, NO PROBLEM. BUT IF THE CITY IS REQUESTING IT SUCH AS LAST TIME WE TALKED ABOUT REZONING A CORRIDOR IN ORDER TO GAIN PERMISSION TO POST SIGNS WE WOULD HAVE TO GO TO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTY OWNERS AND TAKE TIME TO DO SO. WE WOULD CONTINUE TO DO THAT IF THAT'S THE COMMISSION'S DESIRE, WE MAY NOT BE ABLE TO MOVE AS QUICKLY OR AS COST-EFFECTIVELY AS WE WOULD OTHERWISE. >> Ratliff: MAYBE I'M MISSTATING MY QUESTION. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH ANY OF THAT. I THINK YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT IN ALL COUNTS. MY POINT WOULD B TT IF WE HAVE ADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTICE OF COMMUNICATION TO NOT POST A SIGN FOR A CITY CASE, DON'T WE HAVE ADEQUATE PUBLIC NOTICE AND COMMUNICATION TO NOT POST A SIGN FOR A PRIVATE CASE? I CAN'T TELL YOU HOW MANY ZONING SIGNS I HAVE PUT UP IN MY CAREER ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I'VE DONE. AND IT'S A WASTE OF TIME AND MONEY ON THE PRIVATE SECTOR AS WELL BECAUSE NOBODY SEES THEM, NOBODY READS THEM AND NOBODY CALLS ABOUT THEM. IF WE HADDEQUE NOTICE TO PROVIDE TRANSPARENCY IT SEEMS LIKE THE ADEQUATE NOTICE WOULD BE WHAT'S GOOD FOR THE GOOSE IS GOOD FOR THE GANDER TO ME. >> Downs: WELL, I WOULD -- I THINK WE HAVE A DIFFERENT DUTY IN THAT REGARD TO THE CITIZENS. I MEAN ONE OF THE BIGGEST ISSUES WE'VE HAD SINCE I HAVE BEEN INVOLVED WITH PUBLIC SERVICE HAS BEEN THE LACK OF A SIGN ON A PROPERTY AS BEING POSTED. AND SO I THINK PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS, THEY DON'T HAVE THIS BARRIER WE HAVE, WHICH AS A CITY, AS A GOVERNMENT ENTITY TRYING TO POST A SIGN THAT THEY MAY NOT EVEN WANT THERE. THAT GIVES US, I THINK, A REASONABLE SITUATION TO SAY WE'RE GOING TO GIVE US AN OUT BECAUSE OF THAT BUT WE'RE GOING TO USE EVERY OTHER AVENUE AVAILABLE TO US TO NOTIFY THE PUBLIC WHAT'S GOING ON. BUT REMOVING THE SIGN REQUIREMENTS FOR A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER WHO IS CHANGING THE NATURE OF WHAT COULD BE GOING ON ON THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, IT'S KIND OF LIKE IF YOU HAVE 20 PEOPLE IN A ROOM AND YOU SEND OUT E-MAILS TO 20 PEOPLE, EIGHT OF THEM WILL GET IT, 12 WON'T. THEY DON'T LOOK AT IT. IT GOES INTO THEIR JUNK OR WHATEVER ELSE. NOW YOU ADD FACEBOOK POSTS. NOW YOU GET 10 OUT OF THE 20. THEN YOU ADD A TWITTER POST AND YOU GET TO NEXTDOOR. EVENTUALLY YOU GOT TO DO ALL OF THIS STUFF BUT THERE WILL BE THAT ONE PERSON -- I HAD A PERSON IN MY OFFICE THE OTHER DAY, FINANCIAL PLANNING. SHE DOESN'T HAVE AN E-MAIL ADDRESS. DOESN'T USE HER COMPUTER BUT DRIVES AROUND HER NEIGHBORHOOD AND WOULD SEE THE SIGN AND SAY, OH, I NEED TO GO DOWN TO THE CITY. PROBABLY WOULDN'T GET ONLINE CO DN HERE AND SAY WHATE WLD ARE YOU DOING NEXT TO MY HOUSE? I THINK WE HAVE TO RETAIN THAT TYPE OF APPROACH CITYWIDE FOR ANY PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT'S BEING REDEVELOPED. BUT AS A CITY, AS A GOVERNMENT ORGANIZATION TAKING THE STEP OR THE RIGHT TO POST A SIGN ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ACCESS TO AND HAVE TO GO THROUGH LEGAL HURDLES TO GET PERMISSION TO TRY TO DO IT, IN PARTICULARLY WITH THE COST ASSOCIATED FOR A CITY GOVERNMENT BODY, I DON'T THINK IT MAKES SENSE. WE DO EVERYTHING IN OUR POWER BUT THAT'S AN AREA WHERE WE PROBABLY CAN GIVE OURSELVES A PASS. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOU IN GENERAL ABOUT THE VALUE OF THE SIGNS. I WOULD BE MUCH MORE INTERESTED IN THIS ORDINANCE ALSO ADJUSTING THE FACT THAT THEY'VE GOT TO TAKE THEM DOWN ONCE THEY GET ZONING APPROVAL. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL, RIGHT? BUT I THINK TONIGHT WHAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO IS JUST FOCUS ON CAN WE GIVE STAFF DIRECTION TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO ELIMINATE THAT SIGN POSTING ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BY THE CITY SO WE CAN REMOVE THAT AS AN ISSUE FOR US. WE CAN STILL GIVE THEM DIRECTION, IF WE WANT TO CONTINUE TO REVIEW THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR OTHER ISSUES LIKE REMOVAL, BUT I THINK TONIGHT WE REALLY NEED TO FOCUS ON ARE WE GOING TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO CHANGE THE ORDINANCE TO ALLOW THE CITY TO NOT POST SIGNS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY FOR ZONING CASES. THAT'S ALL WE'RE REALLY GOING TO DO HERE, GUYS. WE'RE JUST GOING TO SAY CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO REMOVE THAT OPTION. AND I GOT THREE LIGHTS OVER RE SO COMMISSIONER STONE, WE'LL SRT WITH YOU. >> Stone: I AGREE 100% WITH EVERYTHING YOU JUST SAID. AND TO GO A STEP FURTHER, I THINK WE CAN REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF INFORMATION THAT HAS TO BE ON A SIGN SO PEOPLE DRIVING AT 40 MILES PER HOUR HAVE A CHANCE TO KNOW WHAT'S HAPPENING. PERHAPS WE JUST SAID PROPOSED ZONING CHANGE, GO TO PLANO.GOV. THAT'S ALL WE NEED TO SAY BECAUSE WE'VE GOT SEVEN OTHER VENUES UNDER PLANO.GOV WHERE THEY CAN GET ALL THE INFO THEY NEED. >> Downs: SO THAT'S GOOD FEEDBACK. >> Stone: AND YOU C REUSE IT THAT WAY. IT'S NOT CUSTOMIZED FOR A PARTICULAR TRACT OR A PARTICULAR ZONING CASE. >> Downs: SO THAT'S A DISCUSSION AGAIN TO HAVE. >> Stone: YES. WE NEED TO WORK THAT IN THERE TOO. >> Downs: SO THE IDEA OF MODIFYING THE SIGNS THAT ARE GOING TO BE POSTED ON PRIVATE PROPERTY BY PRIVATE OWNERS, THAT'S A WHOLE DIFFERENT DISCUSSION AND SOMETHING AGAIN THAT WE CAN DIRECT STAFF TO WE WANT TO REVISIT OUR SIGN ORDINANCE IN RELATION TO THOSE AREAS. THAT'S NOT WHAT WE WANT TO DO TONIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: MINE IS A QUESTION, A LEGAL QUESTION. WOULD MAKING A CHANGE LIKE THIS WHERE WE ARE ALLOWING OURSELVES TO BE TREATED ONE WAY AND THEN EXPECTING A PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO BE TREATED A DIFFERENT WAY. IS THAT A VIOLATION OF EQUAL TREATMENT UNDER THE LAW? >> I DON'T THINK SO BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE'RE SIMILARLY SITUATED TO A PRIVATE PERSON. WE ARE A GOVERNMENT. WE HAVE THIS WHOLE PROCESS OF EVEN CALLING A HEARING. PEOPLE CAN PARTICIPATE, HAVE AMPLE OPPORTUNITY TO UNDERSTAND WHAT THE GOVERNMENT'S DOING, REMOVE PEOPLE THAT THEY DON'T LIKE AND VOTE A CERTAIN WAY. SO, NO, I DON'T THINK IT'S A PROBLEM. >> Bronsky: MY QUESTION WAS MORE OF THE PROPERTY OWNER -- THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER SAYING YOU GUYS ARE BEING TREATED DIFFERENTLY THAN THE EXTRA COST AND EFFORT THAT I'M BEING FORCED TO DO. >> YEAH, I UNDERSTOOD THAT. >> Bronsky: SORRY. >> SAME ANSWER BECAUSE WE WEREN'T SIMILARLY SITUATED TO THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER. >> Bronsky: SO MY LAST COMMENT ON THIS IS WE JUST ADDED THIS REQUIREMENT IN 2015, AS MENTIONED IN THE SLIDE SHOW. AND I'M VERY HESITANT TO REMOVE THIS REQUIREMENT, ALTHOUGH I DO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER STONE AS IT RELATES TO INFORMATION ON IT AND SIMPLIFYING IT. >> Downs: OKAY. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I THINK IN SOME WAYS WE'VE IMPOSED A FALSE BARRIER ON OURSELVES AS A CITY. WE HAVE IMPOSED A -- THAT TWO-TIER SYSTEM THAT YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT WHERE THE CITY HAS AN EXTRA BARRIER TO OVERCOME IN ORDER TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SIGN POSTING AND IF I'M READING WHAT WAS IN BOLD, IF YOU COULD GO BACK, MY TRANSLATION IS THE CITY MANAGER OR THEIR DESIGNEE COULD IN THE FUTURE DECIDE THAT THE PHYSICAL SIGN POSTING IS THE CORRECT MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS PLATFORM, IF THERE IS THAT FLEXIBILITY IN THE LANGUAGE. AM I READING THATIGHT? >>owns BASICALLY YOU'RE GIVING THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO DO WHATEVER THEY FEEL THEY CAN DO. >> Olley: EXACTLY. SO YOU'RE BASICALY EXPANDING THEIR OUTLETS TO COMMUNICATE AND BY STATE LAW THERE ARE SOME THINGS THAT WE CANNOT GO BACK ON WHERE YOU HAVE TO NOTIFY THE PROPERTY OWNERS BY MAIL AND WHAT HAVE YOU. SO TO THE PERSON THAT YOU JUST TALKED ABOUT WHO DOESN'T HAVE E-MAIL, THERE'S STILL AVENUES IF IT'S DIRECTLY IMPACTED THEM. IN FAVOR OF CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS, BECSE I THINK IT REMOVES A SELF-IMPOSED BURDEN ON THE CITY, DOES NOT DETRACT FROM THE TRANSPARENCY. >> I THINK COMMISSIONER OLLEY HAS STATED IT WELL AND I CONCUR WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS ON THE TABLE. I THINK TO COMMISSIONER RATLIFF'S POINT OF VIEW, IF WE LOOK DOWN THE ROAD JUST A LITTLE BIT -- AND I WOULD ASK THAT WE DO ADDRESS SOME OF THE THINGS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, NOT TO BELABOR THEM TONIGHT WITH REMOVAL AND THINGS. IF WE DO, WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, I THI WE CLD GIVE OURSELVES A WINDOW INTO THE POSSIBILITY DOWN THE ROAD OF SAYING MAYBE WE CAN ELIMINATE IT BEYOND WHERE WE'RE AT AFTER FIRST LOOKING AT THIS TO SEE HOW WELL DOES THIS WORK, WE MAY NEED TO AMEND THIS. THOSE ARE MY COMMENTS. >> Downs: THANK YOU. I THINK WE'LL HAVE LOTS OF OTHER DISCUSSIONS BUT RIGHT NOW WHAT WE NEED TO DO IS BASICALLY DO YOU WANT TO CALL ONE PUBLIC HEARING TO ADDRESS BOTH ISSUES, BASICALLY? OR DO WE NEED SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THESE ITEMS? BECAUSE THEY A TECHNICALLY -- >> I THINK AS LONG AS YOUR MOTION IS CLEAR THAT IT COVERS BOTH ISSUES, WE CAN BRING IT BACK EITHER TOGETHER AS ONE ITEM OR SEPARATELY. >> Downs: PROBABLY FOR SIMPLICITY SAKE AND FOR CLARITY BY THE CITIZENS AND EVERYBODY ELSE, THEY SHOULD PROBABLY BE TWO DIFFERENT ITEMS, TWO DIFFERENT PUBLIC HEARINGS. I THINK EVERYBODY -- I DON'T THINK THE ARCADE ONE'S GOING TO BE A BIG DEAL. THEY CAN BE THE SAME DAY AND BACK-TO-BACK, HOWEVER YOU WANT TO DO IT. SO CAN I GET A MOTION TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO ADDRESS ARCADES, AN ORDINANCE? YOU CAN READ IT ON THE PAGE THERE. >> DID WE DO THE ARCADE ALREADY? NO? >> Downs: WE DIDN'T DO A MOTION. WE DIDN'T DO A VOTE. WE JUST KIND OF AGREED THAT YES. >> I MOVE THAT WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ELIMINATING THE SEPARATE LAND USE DEFINITION, SPECIFIC REGULATIONS FOR ARCADE AS PRESENTED IN AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. >> Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF FOR A DIRECTION DISCUSSION DIRECTION ON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NO. 1 HERE, PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 2. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT REPLACING SIGN POSTING REQUIREMENTS FOR CITY-INITIATED ZONING CASES ON PRIVATE PROPERTY WITH ANOTHER PRACTICAL METHOD AS PRESENTED BY STAFF ON AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. >> SECOND. >> CAN I ASK A QUESTION, MAYBE FOR MS. SEBASTIAN? IT'S POSSIBLE TO EXPAND THAT TO LOOK AT THE REMOVAL INFORMATION IN THE ORDINANCE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU ALL WANT -- >> Downs: DO YOU WANT TO ADDRESS SEVERAL OF THESE ISSUES AT THE SAME TIME? >> WE COULD POSSIBLY DO THAT IF MS. SEBASTIAN FEELS IT'S APPROPRIATE. I THINK THE CONTENT OF THE SIGN IS ACTUALLY ON OUR APPLICATION, SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF CAN BRING BACK OPTIONS WITHOUT IT BEING ORDINANCE INFORMATION. HOWEVER, THE REMOVAL INFORMATION I BELIEVE IS IN THE ORDINANCE BUT I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR YOU BUT WE MAY BE ABLE TO BRING THAT BACK AS WELL IF THE COMMISSION DESIRES US TO LOOK AT THAT ISSUE. >> Downs: DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? >> THERE'S A CASE THAT JUST CAME OUT OUT OF AUSTIN THAT COULD REQUIRE US TO LOOK AT ADOPTING A BROADER ORDINANCE ON NOTICE FOR TEXT AMENDMENTS. AND I THINK THAT'S GOING TO BE COMING IN THE FAIRLY NEAR FUTURE SO IF YOU'RE INTERESTED IN A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF NOTICE ORDINANCES, YOU MAY WANT TO JUST GIVE US ANOTHER MONTH OR TWO BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING SOMETHING MUCH BROADER TO YOU ANYWAY. >> Downs: WOULD THAT BE STAFF'S PREFERENCE TO ADDRESS THIS AS A BROADER ISSUE RATHER THAN A ONE-OFF ON CITY POSTING? >> I THINK THAT'S THE DIRECTION SO, YES. >> Downs: OKAY. SO IN THAT CASE I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE DO NOT CALL A PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND LET'S GET A LITTLE BIT OF A TIMELINE ON WHEN. IF WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN THIS GETS DELAYED AND WE DECIDE WE WANT TO WAIT SIX MORE MONTHS WE'RE JUST GOING TO HAVE TO. SO WE'LL LET YOU LET US KNOW AT THE NEXT MEETING OR THE ONE AFTER THAT WHAT THE APPROPRIATE TIMELINE IS FOR A DISCUSSION AROUND OUR BROADER SIGN ORDINANCE RELATED TO ZONING CASES. >> I JUST WANT TO CHECK IN. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S URGENT REASONS FOR NOT WANTING TO -- FOR WANTING TO DEAL WITH THIS SIGN POSTING ISSUE. BECAUSE I KNOW WE HAVE TO GO AS FAR AS EMINENT DOMAIN IN ORDER TO POST A SIGN SO I DON'T WANT TO CAUSE IMMEDIATE PROBLEMS BY THAT DELAY. >> I THINK YOU'RE GETTING INTO THE SAUSAGE MAKIN TONIGHT. I THINK WE CAN CALL THE HEARING FOR THIS LIMITED ISSUE AND IF WE NEED TO BROADEN THE CALL BEFORE WE BRING BACK A CASE BEFORE YOU, WE COULD DO THAT. OR IF WE'RE READY TO MOVE MORE QUICKLY ON THIS ISSUE WE CAN DO THAT. >> CHAIR DOWNS, WE DID HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THIS SO BUT I WAS GOING TO GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO WITHDRAW IT BUT AS YOU SAID WE'RE GETTING INTO THE SAUSAGE MAKING A LITTLE BIT HERE. LET'S HAVE THE HEARING. LET'S HAVE THE HEARING ON THIS ISSUE, CLEAR IT UP, AND I KNOW IT MIGHT MEAN BITING INTO THE APPLE TWICE HERE BECAU WE' GOING TO HAVE TO PROBABLY READDRESS IT. BUT LET'S GO THAT DIRECTION. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG, EXCUSE ME, NOT OLLEY, FOR ITEM 6, NO. 2. OKAY? LET'S VOTE ON THAT. ALL RIGHT. AND THAT CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PRESENTATION AND YOUR PATIENCE WITH US. ALL RIGHT. SO WE'RE GOING TO HANDLE THIS ISSUE QUICKLY, JUST BECAUSE WE'RE UNCERTAIN ABOUT THE TIMING ON THE OTHER. IT COULD BE QUICK OR IT COULD GET DELAYED. SO ANYTHING FOR FUTURE AGENDAS? OKAY. SEEING NONE, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 9:26 P.M. [MEETING ADJOURNED]