>> Chair Downs: THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT. APPRECIATE YOU JOINING US THIS EVENING FOR THE REGULARLY-SCHEDULED PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >> COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITS THAT ARE ON THE CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THES ITEMS BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY INFORMATION. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> YES, WE DO. WE HAVE PAUL CROCKER. >> Chair Downs: MR. CROCKER. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, SIR. PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> PAUL CROCKER, 4305 SPRING HURST PLANO. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE TO EITHER BUILD BACK BETTER OR MAKE PLANO EAST GREAT AGAIN. >> Chair Downs: SORRY? >> MY ISSUE RIGHT NOW IS MORE LIQUOR STORES, MASSAGE PARLORS DISPENSARIES. THEN WE HAVE SCHOOL TEACHERS, WHICH IS SAD. EVERY CORNER HAS TURNED INTO SOMETHING THAT I'M NOT PROUD OF AND I GRADUATED FROM PLANO EAST HIGH SCHOOL AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT BE GREAT AGAIN. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> THAT'S IT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR COMING. CONSENT? >> THAT'S ALL FOR PUBLIC COMMENT. >> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONNTROVERSIAL. ITEMMAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM CONSENT? >> [OFF MIC] >> WRONG BUTTON AGAIN. I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: SO WE HAVE A AGEN BY MR. LISLE WITH NT SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES BY A VOTE -- WAIT A MINUTE. >> SOMEBODY IS MISSING. >> Chair Downs: WE'RE MIS MISSING -- YEAH. WE'RE SHORT ONE HERE. OKAY. HAND VOTE, PLEASE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WAS UNAVAILABLE TO JOIN US THIS EVENING. AND WE CAN MOVE ON. BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO ITEM 1A AND B, IS THERE ANYONE HERE SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO ITEMS 2 AND 3? ANYBODY? 2 AND 3? OKAY. THEN WE WILL START WITH 1A AND 1B. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL, IF NEEDED. REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME, WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIO LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY, EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDE. AGENDA ITEMS NO. 1A AND 1B WILL BE READ TOGETHER. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1A. ZONING CASE 2022-009 - REQUEST TO REZONE 19.1 ACRES LOCATED AT TH SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PLANO PARKWAY AND EXECUTIVE DRIVE FRO CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY D PETITIONER(S): ONALP PROPERTY OWNER LLC. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING CONCEPT PLAN IS 1B. FRY'S ELECTRONIC ADDITION, BLO A, LOTS 1-37 AND 1X-8X AND BLOCK B, LOT 1 - 501 MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS, 33 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHE UNITS, PROFESSIONAL/GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, AND HOTE ON 46 LOTS ON 16.5 ACRES LOCATE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PLAN PARKWAY AND EXECUTIVE DRIVE. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY D APPLICANT: ONALP PROPERTY OWNER THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DONNA SEPULVEDA, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS A REQUEST TO REZONE TO CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO ALLOW MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL AS PERMITTED USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. A CONCEPT PLAN WAS SUBMITTED WITH THIS ZONING CASE. THE CONCEPT PLAN CONSISTS OF TWO PHASES. THE FIRST PHASE SHOWS THE PROPOSED MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTS ATTACHED IN THE MIDDLE, AS WELL AS A LANDSCAPE BERM ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THE SECOND PHASE SHOWS THE ADDITION OF AN OFFICE, HOTEL, AND PARKING GARAGE WITH THE REMAINING MID RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. ONLY A MINIMUM OF 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT NEEDS TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITH PHASE 2. THIS ZONING CASE WAS PREVIOUSLY HEARD BY THE COMMISSION ON MARCH 1, 2023. THE COMMISSION TABLED THE CASE TO ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS CONCERNS RELATED TO PHASING AND NOISE MITIGATION STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT HAS UPDATED THE PROPOSED PD STIPULATIONS AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH A STRIKE-THROUGH OF THE CHANGES. THE MAIN CHANGES INCLUDE A SETBACK FROM THE EXPRESS WAY, UPDATED PHASING REQUIREMENTS AND USE RESTRICTIONS WITHIN PHASE 1 . THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THE REQUEST MEETS SOME OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES BUT NOT ALL OF THEM. THE ONLY CHANGE FROM THE LAST MEETING WAS THE REQUEST NOW COMPLIES WITH THE TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT POLICY. SINCE THE COMMISSION AND THE CITY COUNCIL PROVIDED DIRECTION THAT TRANSIT STATIONS LOCATED OUTSIDE OF PLANO MEET THIS POLICY. AND THIS REQUEST IS STILL INCONSISTENT WITH THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY AND THIS REQUEST WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS BY THE COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. AS MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 501 MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THERE ARE SOME SIGNIFICANT CHALLENGES POSED BY THE MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. THE SURROUNDING ZONING MAY BE INCOMPATIBLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES AND THE PROPERTY SHOULD BE RETAINED FOR FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. LASTLY, THERE ARE 2,638 MULTIFAMILY UNI IN THE GENERA AREA YET TO BE DEVELOPED. DUE TO THESE ISSUES, MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE LAND USE FOR THIS SITE. NEXT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 33 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED UNITS. THE ADDITION OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED UNITS IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S MIX OF USES. AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, THE PROPOSED UNITS ARE SITUATED BETWEEN TWO LARGE MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS, A PARKING GARAGE, AND AN OFFICE BUILDING. AFF STILL HAS CONCERNS REGARDING THE PLACEMENT AND DESIGN OF THE UNITS AND THE USE IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH SEVERAL SIGNIFICANT RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE CLOSEST DART STATION IS THE BUSH STATION ACROSS FROM HIGHWAY 190. THERE ARE EXISTING PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS AND THE APPLICANT WILL BE PROPOSING A SIDEWALK ON THEIR PROPERTY. ONE OF THE MAIN ISSUES WE DISCUSSED AT THE LAST MEETING WAS THE RESIDENTIAL USES IN PROXIMITY TO TH EXPRESSWA AND RE. THE APPLICANT HAS UPDATED THEIR ANALYSIS BASED ON DIRECTION FROM STAFF AND THE COMMISSION. THE IMAGE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS PHASE 1 WHICH INCLUDES THE 33 SFA UNITS AND THE 260 MID-RISE UNITS. BASED UPON THE UPDATED ANALYSIS FROM THE APPLICANT, THE MOST EFFECTIVE NOISE MITIGATION IS A MINIMUM SETBACK OF 300 FEET FROM STATE HIGHWAY 190. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A RED ON THE ATTACHED SLIDE FROM STATE HIGHWAY 190. HOWEVER, THERE ARE STILL LOCATIONS THAT EXCEED 65 DBA LDN. THE ANALYSIS RECOMMENDS PLAYING A 500-FOOT LANDSCAPE BERM WITHIN THE FIRST PHASE AS SHOWN ON GREEN. ALTHOUGH AS SHOWN IN THE ANALYSIS THE BERM DOES NOT PROVIDE ANY NOISE REDUCTION FROM THE ELEVATED EXPRESSWAY. FOR ADDITIONAL NOISE MITIGATION, THE PROPOSED ZONING STIPULATIONS INCLUDE REQUEMENTS, WHICH WOULD VERIFY THE INTERNAL NOISE STANDARDS ARE MET. NEXT, THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN SHOWS PHASE 2 WHICH CONSISTS OF AN OFFICE BUILDING, HOTEL, AND PARKING GARAGE, AS SHOWN IN ORANGE, ALONG WITH THE MAIMING MID-RISE UNITS IN PHASE 2. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ONLY 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSTRUCTED WITHIN PHASE 2. THE EHA ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT NOISE LEVELS DO NOT CHANGE WITH THE ADDITION OF THE BUILDINGS. OVERALL, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS BUT THE ZONING REQUEST IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH MAP BECAUSE THE OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS ARE NOT MITIGATED BELOW 65 DBA LDN. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING PD STIPULATIONS TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL USES. THE FIRST STIPULATION IS REGARDING TRACTS WHICH REMAIN UNCHANGED FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING. TRACT 1 IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF EXECUTIVE DRIVE AND INCLUDES THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND THE SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED UNITS. TRACT 2 IS SOUTH OF EXECUTIVE DRIVE AND INCLUDES STANDARDS TO ACCOMMODATE A FUTURE HOTEL. THE APPLICANT HAS UPDATED THEIR PHASING REQUIREMENTS. THE FIRST PHASE REMAINS UNCHANGED WHICH CONSISTS OF 260 MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. THE REQUIRED OPEN SPACE AND 33 SINGLEAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED UNITS. PHASE 2 CONSISTS OF A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR A 70,000 SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL UNITS WITH THE REMAINING MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL UNITS. PREVIOUSLY ONLY A BUILDING PERMIT FOR THE NON-RESIDENTIAL WAS REQUIRED. THE NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT COULD OCCUR WITHIN TRACT 1 OR TRACT 2. IF THE DEVELOPMENT IS CONSTRUCTED WITHIN TRACT 2, A LARGE PORTION OF TRACT 1 WOULD REMAIN VACANT AND ANY USE WITHIN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL ZONING DISTRICT COULD BE& DEVELOPE SO T APPLICANT HAS ADDED RESTRICTIONS WITHIN TRACT 1 TO ENSURE DEVELOPMENT WILL NOT IMPACT THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR FUTURE RESIDENTS. THE APPLICANT IS ALSO PROPOSING STANDARDS RELATING TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING NOISE LEVELS, MODIFY SETBACKS, HEIGHT LIMITATIONS, AND ADDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS SUCH AS FLOOR AREA RATIO UNIT SIZES SCREENING PARKING AND OUTDOOR LIVING AREAS. LASTLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING PD ADJUSTMENTS RELATEDO SETBACKS, LANDSCAPE EDGES, AND DESIGN STANDARDS. AND WE HAVE RECEIVED THREE RESPONSES WITHIN THE 200-FOOT BOUNDARY. ALL WITHIN SUPPORT. AND WE DID RECEIVE ONE DUPLICATE RESPONSE FOR A TOTAL OF FOUR RESPONES. AND THEN TOTAL CITYWIDE, WE RECEIVED 25 RESPONSES, NINE IN SUPPORT, 16 IN OPPOSITION. WE DID RECEIVE FOUR DUPLICATE RESPONSES AND ONE RESPONSE OUTSIDE OF THE CITY OF PLANO FOR A TOTAL OF 29 RESPONSES. AND TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICANT HAS MADE IMPROVEMENTS ON MITIGATION AND PHASING BASED UPON THE COMMISSION'S COMMENTS. THE REQUEST WILL AID IN THE CITY'S GOAL OF REDEVELOPMENT IN THE U.S. 75 CORRIDOR AND MEETS OTHER STANDARDS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SUCH AS MIX OF USES. HOWEVER, OTHER POLICIES FOCUSED ON REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ARE MORE CHALLENGED BY THIS PROPOSAL. AS A RESULT, THE CURRENT ZONING SHOULD REMAIN UNCHANGED TO ALLOW FOR FUTURE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY THAT ARE BETTER ALIGNEDITH THE LONG-TE COMMUNITY. FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF IS NOT IN SUPPORT OF THIS ZONING REQUEST. APPROVAL WILL REQUIRE FINDINGS DUE TO CONFLICTS WITH THE COMPREHNSIVE PLAN'S GUIDANCE FOR REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT. AND THE ZONING CASE AND THE CONCEPT PLAN ARE BOTH RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL. AND THAT DOES CONCLUDE MY PRESENTATION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, QUESTION FOR STAFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DOES THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL GIVE US AN IDEA OF THE TIME-FRAME WHEN WE MIGHT EXPECT PHASE 2 TO BE BUILT? >> NOT WITHIN THE PD STIPULATIONS. THERE IS NO TIME-FRAME. >> Brounoff: IS THERE ANYTHING EITHER IN THEIR PRESENTATION OR IN OUR ORDINANCES THAT WOULD REQUIRE PHASE 2 TO BE BUILT? >> WE DON'T HAVE ANY REQUIREMENTS AT THE MOMENT BUT THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO WHEN THEY PLAN ON COMING IN WITH PHASE 2. >> Brooff: WHAT WOULD BE THE RESULT IF PHASE 1 WERE BUILT BUT PHASE 2 WERE NEVER BUILT? >> PHASE 1 WOULD JUST CONSISTENT OF THE 260 UNITS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER AND THE 33 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS AND THE LANDSCAPE BERMS. >> Brounoff: OKAY. WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO BRING UP THE EHA SITE ANALYSIS AS PART OF THE PACKET -- WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE FOR YOU TO BRING UP PAGE 75? >> I DON'T THINK -- >> Brounoff: IF YOU CAN'T FIND IT, I UNDERSTAND. I CAN DESCRIBE IT. PAGE 75 IS A PICTORIAL DRAWING ATTEMPTING TO CONVEY THE RESULTS OF A NOISE ANALYSIS BY REPRESENTING THE PROJECTED NOISE LEVELS ON THE EXTERIOR OF ALL SIDES OF THE PHASE 1 BUILDINGS, THAT WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL APARTMENT BUILDG INHE NTHEASTORNEOF THE PROPERTY AND ALL OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS. ALL THE WAY AROUND REPRESENTED BY COLORED DOTS, OKAY? AND IT ALSO SHOWS THE TEMPORARY BERMS IN PLACE TO THE SOUTH. IT DOES NOT SHOW ANY PROJECTED NOISE MEASUREMENTS IN THE 1.4-ACRE SO-CALLED USABLE OPEN SPACE AREA, WHICH IS SORT OF BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND THE EAST BY THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS. ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY PROJECTED NOISE LEVEL CALCULATIONS OR MEASUREMENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE 1.4-ACRE USABLE OPEN SPACE AREA? >> I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAVE NOISE LEVELS FOR THAT AREA. ROCKERBIE, DO YOU KNOW OF ANY NOISE LEVELS FOR THAT AREA? >> NO. SO OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PROJECTIONS IS JUST TO PROVIDE A MEASUREMENT AT THE FACE OF THE BUILDINGS. BUT DUE TO THE LOCATION OF THAT OUTDOOR AMENITY AREA, IT WOULD BE ASSUMED THAT IT WOULD BE EQUAL TO OR MORE IMPACTED THAN THE BUILDING SPACES ADJACENT TO IT. >> Bunoff: OKAY. COULD WE LEGITIMATELY CONCLUDE THAT THE NOISE LEVEL IN THE OPEN SPACE WOULD BE APPROXIMATELY THE SAME AS THAT ON THE SIDES OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED BUILDINGS THAT ARE DIRECTLY FACING THE OPEN SPACE AREA? >> I'M NOT AN ACOUSTIC ENGINEER BUT THAT DOES SOUND LIKE A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION TO ME. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: JUST A COUPLE QUICK THINGS. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I THINK YOUR REPORT SHOWS THAT THE SIX-FOOT BERM AND THE BUILDINGS TO BE BLT LAT, NO OF THOSE REALLY AFFECT THE NOISE LEVEL CONCERNS HERE. AM I CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> Cary: THE SECOND THING IS I THINK ONE OF THE CHALLENGES FROM STAFF HERE IS THAT IN THE LAND USE CATEGORY THAT THIS WAS NORTH OF 50% OF THE LAND WOULD BE USED FOR RESIDENTIAL. I THINK THAT VIOLATED OUR CODE IN THAT REGARD, RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. FIRST ONE I REGARDING THEIR IMPROVEMENTS ABOUT THE NOISE, THE EHA AREA. I UNDERSTAND THEY MADE IMPROVEMENT BUT THE IMPROVEMENT STILL DOES NOT MITIGATE THE NOISE LEVEL. DID YOU HAVE A CHANCE -- DID THE APPLICANT HAVE A CHANCE TO WORK WITH THE STAFF TO, YOU KNOW, DISCUSS THE IMPROVEMENTS WHETHER IT WOULD IMPACT THE NOISE LEVEL? >> THEY DID SUBMIT AN UPDATED ANALYSIS AND THERE ARE AREAS THAT ARE STILL ABOVE5 DBA. WE WOD QUESTIONS AND I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE OPTIONS TO GET IT BELOW 65 DBA IS WHAT THEIR ACOUSTICAL ENGINEER WAS SAYING. >> Tong: GOTCHA. THE SECOND QUESTION IS REGARDING THE NUMBER OF UNITS IN THE SURROUNDING AREA, THERE ARE 2,000 SOMETHING. I VAGUELY REMEMBER WE MENTIONED THAT LAST TIME. ARE THEY ALL FROM THE COLLIN CREEK MALL DEVELOPMENT? DO YOU KNOW THE TIME-FRAME OF THAT DEVELOPMENT? WHEN WILL THOSE UNITS BE BUILT? >> YES. I BELIEVE IT INCLUDES COLLIN CREEK, HERITAGE CREEKSIDE -- >> THERE'S DIFFERENT UNIT CALCULATIONS. THERE'S A STUDY THAT SHOWS UNIT CALCULATIONS FOR A BROADER AREA, INCLUDING COLLIN CREEK. I THINK THE SINGLE-FAMILY UNITS AT COLLIN CREEK ARE ABOUT TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. THE MULTIFAMILY, WE DON'T HAVE A TIME-FRAME ON THOSE AT THE MOMENT. >> Tong: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY. YOU DID A GREAT JOB. SO MY FIRST QUESTION IS THE SOUND AND -- HOLD ON A SECOND. SORRY. THE STUDY THAT WAS INVOLVING SOUND AND THE EHA. THAT WAS DONE BY THE SAME COMPANY THAT PROVIDED OUR 2019 STUDY, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> Bronsky: OKAY. SECONDLY, WE RECENTLY HAD A CONVERSATION ABOUT HEIGHT. AND SO I SAW THE BERM IS SIX FEET TALL, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> Bronsky: IS THAT SIGNIFICANTLY SHORTER THAN THE HEIGHT OF A HIGHWAY THERE? >> YES. THEY STATED THAT THE BERM DOES NOT PROTECT FROM THE OVERHEAD NOISE LEVELS FROM THE HIGHWAY. >> Bronsky: I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH THE PARTICULATES. WOULD THAT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON THE PARTICULATES THAT ARE PUT O FROM A HIGHWAY THAT HIGH? >> THAT WAS NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WITHIN THE EHA ANALYSIS. >> Chair Downs: I THINK BASED ON OUR LAST DISCUSSION, THOUGH, T THEY ARE 400 FEET -- >> Bronsky: 435. >> Chair Downs: BEYOND 450 THE PARTICULATE LEVEL IS LESS IMPACTFUL. >> Bronsky: I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT BECAUSE I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE HMMH STUDY THAT WE HAD PROVIDED TO US IN -- THERE IT IS. IN 2019. ON PAGE 6 OF THAT STUDY, ERIC OR WHOMEVER, WE REFERENCE THE -- PRODUCED BY THE SAME COMPANY. WE REFERENCE THE CHILDREN'S HEALTH AND AM I RIGHT IN UNDERSTANDING THAT SAYS THAT THEY SUGGESTED 1,000EET? STRONGEST REDUCTION AFTER 300 BUT COULD HAVE IMPACT UP TO 1,000? >> YES. THAT INFORMATION IS REFERENCED IN THE STUDY. >> Bronsky: OKAY. SECOND ONE IS THE SAN DIEGO STUDY, WHICH SAYS THE STUDY FOUND AN INCREASED MEDICAL VISIT OF CHILDREN LIVING WITHIN 550 FEET OF HEAVILY-TRAFFICKED AREAS. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. THAT IS WITHIN THE STUDY AS WELL. >> Bronsky: AND ONE MORE. TALKING ABOUT ASTHMA. IT SAYS INCREASED CHILDREN'S ASTHMA HOSPITALIZATIONS ARE ASSOCIATED WITH LIVING WITHIN 650 FEET OF HEAVILY-TRAFFICKED AND TRUCK VOLUME. >> YES. THAT'S ACCURATE. >> Bronsky: WOULD WE SAY THAT THE GEORGE BUSH ROAD IS A HEAVILY-TRAFFICKED AREA? >> YES. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE FOR RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THAT SOUNDED LIKE A COURT DEPOSITION OR SOTHING. I THINK MR. OLLEY WAS NEXT. >> Olley: JUST TWO QUESTIONS. ON THE PARAGRAPH THAT SUGGESTED STAFF MADE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE SOUND MITIGATION AND THE APPLICANT WAS NOT WILLING. CAN YOU RECALL WHERE, HOW SIGNIFICANT THE MITIGATION WOULD HAVE BEENF THEY HAD TAKEN THAT UP AND WHAT THE OBJECTIONS WERE. >> WE RECOMMENDED INCREASING THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ON THE SOUTH SIDE TO BLOCK THE RESIDENTIAL USES OR REPOSITION THEIR PARKING GARAGES FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USES. AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT SAID THAT INCLUDING THESE BUILDINGS WOULD HAVE NO IMPACT ON THE NOISE LEVELS. >> Olley: SO IT'S THE APPLICANT'S ASSERTION THAT IT WON'T HAVE ANY IMPACT BUT STAFF'S ASSERTION IS THAT WOULD BRING THEM WITHIN THE 65 DBA? >> I DON'T THINK THEY CONSIDERED THAT AS A PART OF THEIR NOISE STUDY. WE DID DISCUSS THAT WITH THEM, JUST LOOKING AT THE VARIOUS SITE DESIGN OPTIONS THAT MAY MITIGATE THE IMPACTS, AND I THINK THAT IS SOMETHING THEY WEREN'T WILLING TO CONSIDER OR MAYBE THEY DID CONSIDER AND COULD NOT ACCOMMODATE IT. BUT THAT WOULD BE A GOOD QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. >> Olley: THAT'S FAIR. ONE OTHER QUESTION. ON THE WASTEWATER, THE INCREASE IN SEWER DEMAND WITH THE PROPOSED LAND WILL PROMPT ADTION WASTE IMPROVEMENTS AS THE PROPERTY DEVELOPS. WILL THAT BE A BURDEN ON THE CITY OR THE APPLICANT? >> IT REALLY DEPENDS ON THE IMPROVEMENTS. WE'LL NEED FURTHER STUDY AND DISCUSSION OF THE IMPACTS ONCE WE RECEIVE SOME UTILITY PLANS AND SOME ANALYSIS. >> Olley: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: I JUST WANTED TO POINT OUT FROM THE EHA STUDY THAT WE WERE PRESENTED ON PAGE 6, WHERE MR. BRONSKY WAS, AT THE BOTTOM OF THE SECOND PARAGRAPH -- FROM THE BOTTOM. THERE'S LANGUAGE THAT SAYS DUE TO THE LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDIES AND THE DIFFICULTIES WITH STUDYING LONG-TERM AIR POLLUTION EXPOSURE, THEY COULD NOT FULLY CONCLUDE THAT TRAFFIC-BASED AIR POLLUTION CAUSES ANY OF THE AFOREMENTIONED HEALTH OUTCOMES. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. GO AHEAD. SORRY. >> Lisle: I WOULD LIKE TO ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF. I NOTICED ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DID NOT MEET WAS THE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR, REDEVELED REGIONA TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR. I SEE THIS AS A TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO THE SILVER LINE AND THE RED LINE AND ITS PROXIMITIES TO 75 AND GEORGE BUSH. AND SO HOW DOES THIS NOT MEET THE REDEVELOPMENT OF REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS? >> I BELIEVE BECAUSE OF THE LAYOUT IN THAT IT DOES NOT PROVIDE ADEQUATE MITIGATION AND IT'S NOT SUITABLE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. MR. HILL, PLEASE FEEL FREE TO ADD INFORMATION. >> YES THAT'S CORCT. I HAD TO REFRESH MY MEMORY BUT, YES, THE REPORT DOES STATE THAT ALTHOUGH THERE IS NEEDED REINVESTMENT INTO THE PROPERTY, WE ARE CONCERNED ABOUT THE LAYOUT AND THE MITIGATION REQUIREMENTS TO THE HEALTH IMPACTS. ALSO THERE'S OTHER ELEMENTS OF THE MIXED-USE RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IT DOESN'T MEET. >> Lisle: SO WE'RE BACK TO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ASPECT? THAT'S WHY IT DOESN'T MEET? THE REDEVELOPMT AN GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES THAT ARE REFERENCED IN OTHER PORTIONS AND ALSO THE ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH. THERE'S TWO ASPECTS. >> Lisle: HOW DOES IT NOT MEET THE FIRST OF THE TWO? >> Chair Downs: RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, I BELIEVE. >> SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> Chair Downs: SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> Lisle: ONE MORE QUESTION FOR STAFF. HOW WAS THE 2200 FEET MEASURED FOR THE TOD? >> IT WAS A MEAREMENT ALONG THE STREET. SO WE MEASURED IT FROM A POINT ON EXECUTIVE ALONG THE STREET ACROSS THE FRONTAGE ROAD TO THE CLOSEST POINT OF THE STATION. >> Lisle: SO YOU DIDN'T TAKE A DIRECT LINE FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE STATION? >> NO. >> Lisle: YOU MADE A ZIGZAG? >> IT WAS A TRANSIT DISTANCE. AS SOMEONE WALKS ALONG THE STREET, THAT WAS THE DISTANCE THAT WE MEASURED. >> Lisle: IS THAT LAID OUT SOMEWHERE WITHIN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT THAT'S THE WAY WE TAKE THE MEASUREMENT? >> NO. THAT'S -- AGAIN, THAT'S A POLICY THAT WE'RE REVIEWING THERE, SO THAT'S THE WAY THAT WE'VE TAKEN THOSE MEASUREMENTS FOR THOSE POLICY SITUATIONS. >> Lisle: ARE THERE ANY OTHER THINGS IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE OR CODE OF ORDINANCES THAT REQUIRE US TO TAKE A MEASUREMENT TO RESTRICT THE USE? >> THERE ARE VARIOUS THINGS IN OUR ORDINANCES THAT REQUIRE MEASUREMENTS. >> Lisle: HOW DO WE TAKE THOSE MEASUREMENTS? >> IT VARIES. SOME OF THEM ARE ALONG THE STREET AND SOME OF THEM ARE IN A STRAIGHT LINE. >> Lisle: I'M FAMILIAR WITH THE ONE THAT'S IN A STRAIGHT LINE BUT I'M NAMILIAR WITH ONE THAT FOLLOWS A STREET. CAN YOU GIVE ME AN EXAMPLE? >> I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK IN THE ORDINANCE BUT I COULD TAKE A LOOK FOR YOU. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE SEEN IT FROM A POLICY ADMINISTRATION STANDPOINT BEFORE IS WHAT IS THE MOST LIKELY PATH THAT A PEDESTRIAN WOULD TAKE TO REACH AN OBJECTIVE. IT'S BEEN USED BEFORE IN LOOKING AT DISTANCES FROM SCHOOLS, HOW FAR WILL CHILDREN HAVE TO WALK IN ORDER TO GET TO A SCHOOL, FOR EXAMPLE. WELL, THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW THE SIDEWALKS AVAILABLE. THAT'S THE ANTICIPATION. >> SORRY TO INTERRUPT YOU, CHAIR. THERE'S AN ALCOHOL DISTANCE THAT'S MEASURED ALONG STREETS AS WELL IN A WALKING PATH. >> Lisle: I JUST FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD BE CONSISTENT IN THE WAY THAT WE MEASURE, IF WE'RE CREATING A RESTRICTION OR CREATING AN ALLOWANCE, I FEEL LIKE IT OUGHT TO BE CONSISTENT AND NOT HAVE ONE METHOD FOR ONE AND ONE METHOD FOR ANOTHER. ERIC, WHEN IT COMES TO TODs, IS THERE A TYPICAL RECOMMENDATION FOR DISTANCE FROM A RAIL STATION THAT IS TYPICALLY CONSIDERED TOD? >> Chair Downs: IT'S DEFINED IN THE -- GO AHEAD. >> YES. I BELIEVE IT'S IN THE POLICY. IT'S A HALF MILE OR QUARTER MILE. >> Chair Downs: IT'S A HALF. >> THANK YOU. >> Lisle: THIS IS WITHIN A HALF MILE, IT'S JUST NOT WITHIN THE QUARTER MILE, BASED ON FOLLOWING THE SIDEWALKS? >> CORRECT. >> Lisle: DO WE HAVE INFORMATION -- THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION -- >> Chair Downs: FOR THE APPLICANT. >> JUST TO CORRECT, IT DOES SAY IT IS LOCATED WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OF THE STATION, IN OUR REPORT. >> Chair Downs: BUT THIS ITAYS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE BUT IT DOESN'T SAY WITHIN A QUARTER MILE BY WALKING THROUGH THE SIDEWALKS OR WHATEVER. IT JUST SAYS WITHIN A QUARTER MILE. >> Lisle: TYPICALLY, WHEN WE SEE THOSE MAPS, IT'S FROM A CENTRAL POINT IN A CIRCLE. >> THERE IS A RADIUS THAT WE USE IN SOME INSTANCES AND WE HAD MEASURED THESE IN THE PAST IN OTHER SITUATIONS BY A WALKING PATH. I THINK AS WE NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE TOD POLICY, SO THAT IS SOMETHING THAT SUPPORTS THE REQUEST. >> Lisle: NO FURTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO I HAVE ONE QUESTION BUT I'D LIKE TO -- I APPRECIATE MR. LISLE'S COMMENT ABOUT CONSISTENCY. IT'S INTERESTING HE LEFT OUT THE SENTENCE IN THE HMMH STUDY JUST BEFORE THAT THAT SAYS THE PANEL HAS CONCLUDED THAT LENGTHS EXIST BETWEEN EXPOSURE TO TRAFFIC-BASED POLLUTION AND THE ONSET OF CHILDHOOD ASTHMA. NON-ASTHMA RESPIRATORY SYMPTOMS IMPAIRED LUNG FUNCTION CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE, AND RELATED -- SORRY. IS THAT FACULTIES? SO I APPRECIATE THE CONSISTENCY OF LET'S WRAP IN THE ENTIRE PARAGRAPH. >> Chair Downs: THAT DOESN'T SAY -- NO ONE HERE IS GOING TO ARGUE THAT THAT TYPE OF PARTICULATE MATTER CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO A CHILD. BUT THEY'VE GOT TO BE PAST 1,000 FEET FOR IT NOT TO IMPACT THEM. I THINK THAT'S THE PROBLEM WITH SOME OF THESE THINGS. THERE IS NO CLEAR ANSWER AND EVERY SITUATION IS GOING TO BE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. >> Olley: CAUSALITY VERSUS CORRELATION. >> Bronsky: SHOULD WE APPROVE THIS, ONCE WE HAVE APPROVED IT, AS IT GETS APPROVED, IS THERE ANY VERIFICATION THAT THE PARTICULATES OR THE SOUND IS ACTUALLY MITIGATED AFTER WE HAVE FINISHEOUROB? >> THE PD STIPULATIONS TO REQUIRE A EHA ANALYSIS TO BE SUBMITTED AGAIN WITH APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. AND THEN THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT ALSO COMPLETES A REVIEW OF ANY PROPOSED MATERIALS. >> Bronsky: SO THEY WOULD CHECK THE PARTICULATES AS WELL AS THE SOUND? >> Chair Downs: THERE'S NOT A PARTICULATE. ONLY SOUND. WE DON'T HAVE A PARTICULATE REQUIREMENT. >> THE APPLICANT ALSO DID ADD SOME STANDARDS THAT REQUIRE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS HAVE TO BE SEALED BY AN ARCHITECT AND THEN THE ENGINEER OF RECORD WOULD BE RESPONSIB FOR TESTING THE UNITS. >> Bronsky: THAT'S WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ARE WE DONE WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YOU HAVE ONE MORE? OKAY. >> Lisle: JUST RESPONDING NOW TO MR. BRONSKY'S COMMENTS. IF YOU GO TO THE BEGINNING OF THE SAME PARAGRAPH THAT YOU WENT TO THE MIDDLE OF THAT I WENT TO THE END OF, IT SAYS A PANEL OF EXPERTS CRITICALLY REVIEWED THE LATEST RELEVANT STUDIES. BUT THE ONLY STUDIES I FOUND IN HERE ARE FROM SAN FRANCISCO MARYLAND AND SOMEWHERE ELSE FOR ONE. AND SO I HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE TO REVIEW THOSE STUDIES TO LOOK AT THEM CRITICALLY, BUT THE OTHER THING I WOULD SAY IS I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO REACH OUT TO CHEVROLET, FORD, AND TOYOTA AND UNLESS YOU PUT YOUR VEHICLE ON RECIRCULATION, THE AIR THAT COMES INTO YOUR CAR COMES IN FROM THE ROADWAY. THAT'S THE AIR THAT YOU'RE BREATHING. AND SO IT'S HARD FOR ME TO PUT A RESTRICTION ON LAND USE BECAUSE OF ITS PROXIMITY TO HIGHWAYS WHEN WE'RE ALL DRIVING DOWN ROADWAYS IN VEHICLES THAT ARE PULLING IN AIR. WE ROLL DOWN OUR WDOWS, WE RIDE IN CONVERTIBLES. >> Chair Downs: GUYS, I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND COMMISSIONER BRONSKY YOU MAY WANT TO RESPOND, BUT THAT'S NOT ASKING QUESTIONS OF STAFF. THAT'S US HAVING A DISCUSSION. LET'S TABLE THAT UNTIL LATER. I'M SURE THE APPLICANT WOULD LOVE TO COME BACK A PRESENTATION. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. VERY PATIENT. I WILL NOW OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILLET THE APPLICANT ADDRESS US FIRST. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY AFTER THE APPLICANT? >> WE HAVE BILL DAHLSTROM AND BRIAN WOLFF. WE ALSO HAVE TWO APPLICANTS THAT ARE READY TO ANSWER ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. ONE IS ONLINE. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY NON-APPLICANT SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. IT'S NICE TO SEE YOU ALL AGAIN. AS A REMINDER, MY NAME IS BRIAN WOLFF. MY ADDRESS IS 4403 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY. I'M A PARTNER A BAY WEST DEVELOPMENT AND HEAD OF OUR DALLAS OFFICE. I'M EXCITED TO BE BACK HERE TONIGHT TO SHOW YOU GUYS THE UPDATES WE HAVE MADE SINCE OUR LAST HEARING AND THE UPDATED PD STIPULATIONS WE HAVE INCLUDED. HOPEFULLY I'LL BE BETTER ABLE TO ANSWER THE QUESTIONS YOU HAD FROM THE LAST HEARING THAT I DIDN'T HAVE THE MATERIAL TO BEST ANSWER BEFORE. AGAIN, WE, ALONG WITH ALL OF OUR NEIGHBORS, ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS PROJECT AND WHAT IT CAN DO TO REVITALIZE THIS UNDERPERFORMING COMMERCIAL AREA. AS A QUICK REMINDER, HERE'S A LOOK AT OUR NEIGHBORING USES TO OUR PROPERTY. WE ARE SURROUNDED BY LARGE OFCE BUILDINGS, FLEX SPACE, RETAIL, AND AN APARTMENT COMPLEX. WHAT WE ARE TRYING TO DO IS SIMPLY FILL IN THE GAP IN THE CENTER OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD. GIVEN THE UNDERPERFORMING COMMERCIAL NATURE OF THIS AREA, WE NEED TO CREATE DEMAND IN THIS LOCATION. HOW DO WE DO THAT? BY BUILDING VIBRANCY THROUGH ONE EXCEPTIONAL DESIGN. WE HAVE VOLUNTARILY IMPLEMENTED THE HIGHEST DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE CITY. TWO, A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE. THREE, A UNIQUE AMENITY SUCH AS OUR PLAZA GREEN. SO AS A REMINDER, HERE IS OUR FULL SITE PLAN. AN OFFICE BUILDING AND HOTEL ON THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE SITE, 1.4-ACRE PLAZA GREEN AT THE CENTER. TOWNHOMES SITUATED ALONG THE MAIN STREET AND TWO MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS CLOSEST TO PLANO PARKWAY AND FURTHEST FROM THE EXPRESSWAY. AS COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF SAID, THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM WAS COMMERCIAL PHASING. WE HAD PREVIOUSLY TIED THE SECOND PHASE OF RESIDENTIAL TO PULLING PERMITS ON ONE OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS, WHICHEVER DEMAND RETURNS FIRST. THERE WAS CONCERN THAT WE WOULD SPEND THE MONEY TO DEVELOP ALL OF THE CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTATION, ENGINEERING PLANS, PULL THE PERMITS, AND NOT ACTUALLY BUILD THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF HAD ASKED IF THERE WAS A COMPROMISE IN THERE SOMEWHERE TO TIE THE COMPONENTS TO CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY INSTEAD OF BUILDING PERMITS. WE HAVE DECIDED TO INCREASE THE RESTRICTION ON THAT SECOND PHASE OF RESIDENTIAL TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CO ON EITHER OF THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS. WITH THE NEW PHASING LANGUAGE, E REALLY SEE THIS AA THREE-PHASE PROJECT SIMILAR TO WHAT CHAIR DOWNS HAD SUGGESTED MAY BE THE CASE. I KNOW STAFF AND OTHERS HAVE MENTIONED THE POTENTIAL FOR OTHER ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS SITE. SO I THOUGHT I WOULD LAY OUT THE STATE OF THIS PARTICULAR LOCATION IN EAST PLANO AND THE OVERALL COMMERCIAL MARKET. CAN WE BUILD A LARGE-SCALE OFFICE PROJECT? VACANCY IN DFW IS AT ITS HIGHEST LEVEL SINCE THE 1980s. WE HAVE HAD THREE STRAIGHT YEARS OF NEGATIVE NET ABSORPTION IN THE OFFICE MARKET. ONCE DEMAND DOES COME BACK, JUST ACROSS THE HIGHWAY CITY LINE HAS 1.8 MILLION SQURE FEET OF OFFICE YET TO BE BUILT. DEMAND FOR THIS SUBMARKET WILL GO THERE FIRST WHERE THEY HAVE BUILT OUT THE VIBRANCY AND AMENITIES. STATE FARM RECENTLY ANNOUNCED MASSIVE JOB CUTS AND PUT 400,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE AT CITY LINE ON THE SUBEASE MARKET. THAT SUBLEASE SPACE IS ADDITIONAL SUPPLY THAT WILL NEED TO BE FILLED FIRST PRIOR TO ANY OFFICE-ONLY DEVELOPMENT. SO HOW DO WE COMPETE WITH OUR PROPOSED OFFICE? LIKE I MENTIONED IN OUR LAST MEETING, ALLOW US TO CREATE SOMETHING SO UNIQUE THAT A TENANT CAN'T FIND IT ANYWHERE ELSE. AGAIN, WE DO THI B BUILDING VIBRANCY WITH EXCEPTIONAL DESIGN, A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE, AND A UNIQUE AMENITY. BUT THIS DOESN'T ALLOW US JUST TO BUILD ECONOMIC DEMAND FOR OUR COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS. I KNOW THE FOCUS HAS MOSTLY BEEN ON THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES OF OUR SITE BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITIES OF OUR SURROUNDING NEIGHBORS WHO ALREADY HAVE BUILT COMMERCIAL SPACE AND HAVE BEEN UNABLE TO DRIVE DEMAND AND ECONOMIC GROWTH? COMMISSIONER TONG, YOU HAD MENTIONED IN OUR LAST HEARING THAT ONCE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL COD BE GOOD PLACE FOR O SITE RETAIL. WE ACTUALLY HAVE A TON OF RETAIL AROUND OUR PROPERTY TODAY. IT'S JUST MOSTLY VACANT. HERE'S A PROPERTY RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET FROM US AT 701 EAST PLANO PARKWAY. IT'S A FLEX PROPERTY BUT HAS HISTORICALLY BEEN OPERATED WITH RETAIL-TYPE USES. UNFORTUNATELY ONE COMPANY AFTER ANOTHER KEEPS GOING OUT OF BUSINESS BECAUSE DEMAND IS JUST NOT THERE IN THIS AREA TODAY. HERE'S THE SAME PROPERTY JUST A DIFFERENT LOCATION. AGAIN, THERE ARE SOME RETAIL WITH A SMALL ELECTRONIC OUTLET STORE AND A TON OF VACANCY WAITING TO BE FILLED. WHAT'S GREAT IS THERE ARE SOME REALLY COOL SPACES THAT YOU CAN EASILY SEE ENVISION BECOMING AMAZING RETAIL USES. THIS WOULD MAKE AN UNBELIEVABLE RESTAURANT SPILLING OUT INTO A TREE-SHADED PATIO. THERE'S NO DEMAND TODAY. IT NEEDS A CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE TO BE SUCCESSFUL. HERE'S THE TEXAS RESTAURANT ACROSS PLANO PARKWAY. THE PREVIOUS OPERATOR OF THE RESTAURANT HAD TO GIVE UP THE BUSINESS AT THE END OF THE YEAR BECAUSE THERE WAS NOT ENOUGH DEMAND IN THE AREA TO BE SUCCESSFUL. THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS FOUND A NEW OWNER TO TAKE OVER THE RESTAURANT. FINALLY, HERE IS THE RETAIL ANNEX OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTY. IT'S A BEAUTIFUL PROPERTY AND GREAT SPACE BUT THERE ISN'T ANY DEMAND WITHOUT A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF PEOPLE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, SO MANY OF THE STORES ARE VACANT. COMPARE THIS TO THE RETAIL AT CITY LINE. THEY SURROUNDED IT WITH RESIDENTIAL, BOTH APARTMENTS AND TOWNHOMES AND IT'S FULL AND THRIVING, BRINGING AN ECONOMIC BASE TO RICHARDSON. YOU CAN SEE IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD PLAN IN THE CORNER HOW MUCH RESIDENTIAL THEY HAD TO ADD IN ORDER TO MAKE THAT RETAIL VIABLE. THOUNDS OF UNITS. SO WHAT WE ARE ASKING YOU TO DO IS JUST HELP GIVE OUR NEIGHBORHOOD A FIGHTING CHANCE. AGAIN, IT'S NOT JUST ME SAYING THIS, IT'S OUR WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD. THE RETAIL OWNER TO THE NORTH OF US ACROSS PLANO PARKWAY SAID OF OUR PROJECT, QUOTE, MOST IMPORTANTLY IT WILL ADD FOOT TRAFFIC AND VIBRANCY FOR OUR EXISTING AND FUTURE BUSINESSES AND RETAIL TENANTS. THE OWNER OF THE CENTRAL 500 OFFICE BUILDING SAID, QUOTE, THIS PLAZA GREEN WILL BE A GREAT AMENITY IT IS OUR TENANTS AND DRIVE ADDITIONAL DEMAND TO THIS AREA. FINALLY, THE ONE ADJACENTO US SAID RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT ON THIS PROPERTY WOULD CREATE A MORE ATTRACTIVE, LIVELY ENVIRONMENT WHICH WOULD BENEFIT THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD AS OPPOSED TO, YET AGAIN, MORE OFFICE SPACE. SO, AGAIN, WE ARE ENCOURAGING YOU TO LOOK AT THE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OPPORTUNITY, NOT JUST OF OUR SITE BUT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE WHEN YOU MAKE THIS DECISION. THE NEXT THING I WANTED TO ADDRESS WAS COMMISSIONER OLLEY'S QUESTION ABOUT A SUN STUDY TO ENSURE THE TOWNHOMES WEREN'T DARK ALL DAY. COMMISSIONER TONG, HOPEFULLY THIS ALSO HELPS ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN THAT THE TOWNHOMES MAY FEEL TRAPPED BETWEEN LARGE BUILDINGS. LOOKING AT THE SITE PLAN IN PLAN VIEW DOESN'T GIVE A VERY GOOD JOB GIVING PERSPECTIVE OF DISTANCES BETWEEN BUILDINGS, ESPECIALLY FOR A SITE THIS LARGE. SO HERE'S A SITE SECTION BETWEEN THE OFFICE PARKING GARAGE AND THE TOWNHOMES. WHILE IT MAY LOOK SMALL ON THE SITE PLAN, THERE ARE 71 FEET BETWEEN THOSE STRUCTURES. AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE SUN STUDY, EVEN IN THE DEAD OF WINTER, THE TOWNHOMES HAVE FULL DAYLIGHT. ADDITIONALLY, THE TWO APARTMENT COMPONENTS ARE 187 FEET APART AT THEIR NEAREST LOCATION. ANOTHER THING WE DID NOT DO A GOOD JOB DESCRIBING THE LAST HEARING WAS WHAT THE EXTERIOR CONDITION OF THAT OFFICE PARKING GARAGE WOULD LOOK LIKE. WE HAVE VERY SPECIFIC PD STIPULATIONS ADDRESSING THIS PARKING GARAGE FACADE THAT WE DIDN'T DISCUSS. STUFF LIKE SCREENING, CORNER ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS, VERTICAL AND HORIZONTAL FACADE RHYTHMS, AND ARTICULATION. WE TOOK THE BEST DESIGNS IN THE CITY FOR PARKING GARAGES AND INCLUDED THEM HERE. THESE ARE SOME IMAGES FOR THE GARAGE AND SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE DOING ON OTHER PROJECTS. ANOTHER THING I WANTED TO TALK OUT WAS OUR EHA NOISE AND AIR QUALITY MITIGATIONS. WE CLEANED UP SOME OF THE PD STIPULATIONS. WE CLARIFIED LANGUAGE REGARDING BALCONY RESTRICTIONS FOR ANY UNITS THAT HAVE EXTERIOR NOISE OF 65 DBA OR HIGHER. COMMISSIONER OLLEY, I KNOW AIR QUALITY IS OF PARTICULAR INTEREST TO YOU. PER THE CITY STUDY, EXPOSURE TO HIGHLY APPLIANCE IS GREATLY REDUCED AT 300 FEET FROM THE EXPRESSWAY. WE ARE PROVIDING A 435 MINIMUM SETBACK FOR THE RESIDENTIAL, SO WE'RE WELL BEYOND THAT . ADDITIONALLY, OUR PLAZA GREEN OVER 300 FEET FROM THE EXPRESSWAY. BUT WE ASKED HMMH IF THERE WAS SOMETHING FURTHER WE COULD DO. THEY SUGGESTED SOME ADDITIONAL MITIGATION WE COULD ADD THROUGH VENTILATION. WITH ALL OF THESE MITIGATION, OUR RESIDENTS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO EXPERIENCE GREATER CONCENTRATIONS OF HIGHWAY APPLIANCE. WE ALSO UPDATED OUR NOISE STUDY TO INCLUDE THE PHASE 1 WITHOUT THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS AS WELL AS THE FULL BUILDOUT. IN DOING THAT WITH AND WITHOUT COMPARISON WE LEARNED THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES DO NOT PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT NOISE PROTECTION FROM THE GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE DUE TO THE ELEVATED NATURE OF THE HIGHWAY. BUT THEY DO PROVIDE SOME NOISE PROTECTION FROM AT-GRADE ROADWAYS, ESPECIALLY THE 190 FRONTAGE ROAD. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, YOU HAD ASKED IN THE LAST MEETING IF WE WOULD BE WILLING TO CONSIDER ANY TEMPORARY MITIGATION FOR PHASE 1, TO WHICH I SAID YES SO WE ASKED HMMH WHAT THE BEST WAY TO PROVIDE MITIGATION WAS. THEY SUGGESTED A SIX-FOOT LANDSCAPE BERM AND ADD A SOFT ABSORBENT GROUND. HERE IS SOME IMAGERY OF WHAT A BERM LIKE THAT COULD LOOK LIKE. AND HERE'S A SITE PLAN FOR PHASE 1 WITH THAT LANDSCAPE BERM. AS THE CITY'S EHA STUDY STATES, ELEVATED NOISE LEVELS HAVE THE MOST NEGATIVE HEALTH CONSEQUENCES WHEN IT IMPACTS SLEEP. AGAIN, WE HAVE INCLUDED THE MITIGATIONS OF NOISE LEVEL BEING BELOW 45 DBA. OUR EHA ANALYSIS CONCLUDES THAT PROLONGED EXPOSURE CAN BE MIGATED WITH OUR PD STIPULATIONS AND THEY ARE CONSISTENT WITH MITIGATION METHODS 1, 2, 3, 5, AND 6 RECOMMENDED IN THE EHA POLICY. BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO ADDRESS THE IDEA THAT NO ONE WOULD WANT TO USE THE PLAZA GREEN DUE TO THOSE NOISE LEVELS. THOSE NOISE LEVELS ARE SIMILAR TO THE TOWNHOME UNITS AT 68 TO 70 DBA. THE FIRST THING THAT CAME TO MIND WAS CLYDE WARREN PARK IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS BUILT ON TOP OF THE WILL ROGERS FREEWAY. IT WASAMED THE TOP FIVE BEST CITY PARK IN AMERICA. THEY HAVE A CHILDREN'S PLAYGROUND AT THE SOUTHERN EDGE CLOSEST TO THE FREEWAY OPENING. IF YOU HAVE BEEN THERE YOU KNOW YOU CAN HEAR THE FREEWAY. NOISE READINGS THERE BUT WE WERE ABLE TO FIND NOISE DATA FROM A SIMILAR PARK. FREEWAY PARK IS BUILT ON TOP OF INTERSTATE 5 IN DOWNTOWN SEATTLE. NOISE READINGS AVERAGE 78.3 DBA, JUST TO GIVE YOU A SENSE. BUT WE ALSO WANTED TO SHOW SOME EXAMPLES FROM OUR OWN EXPERIENCE BUILDING VACANT T EXPRESSWAYS OR ERSUBSTANTIAL NOISE SOURCES. THIS PROJECT IS IN SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA. THE PROPERTY IS ADJACENT TO A TRAIN STATION THAT GOES TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE. THE TRACKS INCLUDE A SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAIL LINE AND SOUTHWEST EXPRESSWAY, A MAIN ARTERY TO DOWNTOWN SAN JOSE. NOT ONLY DOES IT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL, WE ALSO INCLUDED A ONE-ACRE PLAZA GREEN JUST OFF THE TRAIN PLATFORM. NOISE LEVELS OF 71.5 DBA, SIMILAR TO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING HERE IN PLA, WE HAD TO IMPROVE THE BUILDING MATERIALS TO ACHIEVE AN INTERIOR NOISE LEVEL OF 45 DBA OR LESS. BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY RESTRICTIONS TO THE BALCONIES >> SIR, YOU HAVE THREE MINUTES. >> THANKS. AND HERE ARE SOME CLOSER UP SHOTS OF THAT PLAZA GREEN AS WELL AS THE SITE SECTION. WHILE NOT REQUIRED, YOU CAN SEE WHERE WE UTILIZED A BERM TO PROVIDE FURTHER NOISE PROTECTION. HERE'S ANOTHER PROJECT IN CALIFORNIA JUST GIVEN IT'S THE MOST ENVIRONMENTALLY-REGULATED STATE IN THE COUNTRY. THIS PROJECT IS IN SAN DIEGO, JUST OFF INTERSTATE 15. IT'S A MULTI-PHASE RESIDENTIAL PROJECT OVERLOOKING THE FREEWAY. WE HAVE AN EDGE PARK AND CORNER CLOSER TO THE FREEWAY. HERE'S A GRAPHIC OF THE NOISE CONTOUR LINES. THE BLUE IN THE BACK IS 65 DBA. THE GREEN THROUGH THE CENTER IS 70 AND THE PURPLE CLOSEST TO THE FREEWAY, WHERE EDGE PARK IS LOCATED, IS 75. AGAIN, WE ARE MITIGATING INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS TO BELOW 45 DBA TO PROTECT AGAINST IMPACTS TO SLEEP AND WE HAVE NO BALCONY ORDGE PARK RESTRICTIONS. WE HAVE A LONG HISTORY OF DEVELOPING THESE PROJECTS WITH NOISE CONSIDERATIONS. WE KNOW HOW TO UTILIZE BUILDING MATERIAL TO PROTECT RESIDENTS AND WE KNOW HOW TO PROGRAM OUTDOOR SPACE TO MINIMIZE NOISE AND MAKE IT ENJOYABLE FOR PEOPLE TO USE. FINALLY, THERE'S ONE LAST THING I WANTED TO TOUCH ON. AS YOU ALL KNOW, THERE'S TWO-THIRDS OF A SINGLE POLICY ACTION IN THE COMP PLAN RELATED TO A MIXED-USE PROJECT THAT WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, I KNOW YOU SPENT A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TIME ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING FOR IS A PROJECT THAT I 100% IN COMPLIANCE. I WANTED TO MENTION AN ALTERNATIVE ROUTE. WE COULD HAVE SEPARATED OUT THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND ONLY SUBMITTED FOR A ZONE CHANGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL. THAT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN A MIXED-USE PROJECT AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THAT POLICY ACTION. WE COULD HAVE SAID THAT WE HAD NO IDEA WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO WITH THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY, GIVEN THE CURRENT STATE OF THE COMMERCIAL MARKET, AND WE WERE GOING TO KEEP THAT CC BUT WE NEED TO BRING SOME LIFE TO THIS AREA. IF WE HAD DONE THAT, WE WOULD HAVE BEEN 100% IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN. WE WOULD HAVE MET ALL THE FUTURE LAND USE NUMBERS, THE EMPLOYMENT MIX, THE HOUSING MIX, THE LAND USE MIX, EVEN BRINGING SOME OF THOSE IN COMPLIANCE FROM OUT OF COMPLIANCE TODAY. BUT WE THOUGHT IT WAS MORE IMPORTANT TO SHOW YOU A REALISTIC PLAN FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND WE WANTED TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF THE COMP PLAN. WE ADDED THE HIGHEST DESIGN STANDARDS IN THE CITY. WE INCREASED THE LANDSCAPE EDGES. WE INCLUDED THE 1.4-ACRE PLAZA GREEN. WE ADDED THE DETAILED FACADE GARAGE REQUIREMENTS. WE ARE RESTRICTING THE SECOND PHASE OF RESIDENTIAL. WE ARE APPLYING THE USE RESTRICTIONS IN THE COMMERCIA SO THAT THEY WILL BE COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL. SO, YES, IT DOESN'T MEET THE TWO-THIRDS OF THE SINGLE POLICY ACTION SUBMITTED AS AN ENTIRE PROJECT BUT WE DO THINK IT MEETS THE INTENTION, GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE BELIEVE IT MEETS THE NEEDS OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND WE BELIEVE IT GOES ABOVE AND BEYOND FROM A DESIGN, GREEN SPACE, AND QUALITY PERSPECTIVE COMPARED TO ANYTHING IN PLANO. I WOULD ASK YOU TONIGHT TO LOOK AT IT FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE NO OTHER SPEAKERS, RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? AND MR. BROUNOFF WAS FIRST IN LINE FOLLOWED BY COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Brounoff: MR. WOLFF, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TONIGHT AND COMING BACK TO SPEAK TO US AGAIN. I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THE TWO STUDIES BY HMMH. THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR. THE FIRST ONE IS ENTITLED NOISE ANALYSIS REPORT. THAT'S THE ONE WE GOT BACK ON MARCH 1st AT OUR MEETING. THEN THERE'S THE ONE WE GOT FOR THIS MEETING ENTITLED EHA SITE ANALYSIS. IT'S BY THE SAME FIRM, THE SAME THREE AUTHORS. >> YEP. >> Brounoff: I HAVE COPIES HERE THAT I PRINTED OFF FROM PORTIONS. THE EARLIER STUDY ON PAGE 19 OF THAT STUDY, IT'S PARAGRAPH -- SECTION NO. 6 ENTITLED OUTDOOR SITE MITIGATION. IT SAYS IN PART, QUOTE, THE MOST EFFECTIVE OUTDOOR NOISE MITIGATION HAS BEEN INTEGRATED INTO THE SITE DESIGN. THE SITE CONFIGURATION UTILIZES A SIX-STORY GARAGE AND A 64-FOOT TALL OFFICE BUILDING LOCATED ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT AREA TO SCREEN NOISE COMING FROM THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE AND U.S. 75. THIS SITE PLAN REDUCES NOISE CONDITIONS ON MOST OF THE SITE TO BE BELOW 65 DBA EXTERIOR NOISE. THRESHOLD OF THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR ENVIRONMENTAL GUIDELINES. HOWEVER THERE ARE SOME THA EXCEED THE 65 DBA THRESHOLD AND SO FORTH. BY CONTRAST, THE RECENT REPORT ON MAJOR ROMAN NUMERAL III, 67 OF OUR PACKET FOR THIS MEETING. IT SAYS BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATED NATURE OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE, THE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT DO NOT PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT PROTECTION TO THE BUILDINGS, PLAN FOR LAND USE TO THE NORTH AS ORINALLY EXPECTED. THIS IS DUE TO SOUND TRAVELING OVER THE TOP OF THOSE BUILDINGS. BUT THERE IS SOME BENEFIT PROVIDED TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES FROM THE AT-GRADE ROADWAYS. AND THEN THEY RECOMMEND THAT SHOULD NO COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES BE BUILT AS PART OF THE FIRST PHASE. A MINIMUM 500-FOOT TEMPORARY LANDSCAPE BERM AND SO FORTH BE CONSTRUCTED. THE BERM WOULD NOT MITIGATE THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE BUT WOULD PROVIDE SHIELDS IN THE HIGHWAY 190 FRONTAGE ROAD. THESE TWO STUDIES REACH OPPOSING SOLUTIONS AS TO WHETHER THE BUILDINGS HAVE A MITIGATING EFFECT TO NOISE. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THEY WOULD REACH OPPOSED CONCLUSIONS ON SUBSTANTIAL SIMILAR DATA? >> WE HAD KNOWN AT THE EHA POLICY FROM THE BEGINNING. OUR EARLY DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF WERE LET'S FIGURE OUT WAYS TO MITIGATE THIS THE BEST& WE CAN. WHICH IS WHY WE ASKED STAFF, WHO WROTE THE REPORT, LIKE WHO IS THE MOST QUALIFIED PERSON TO DO THIS. WE HIRED HMMH THREE YEARS AGO TO START WORKING O THIS WITH US. SO FROM THE VERY BEGINNING WE HAVE BEEN PLANNING ON PUTTING COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES IN THAT COMPONENT OF THE PROJECT. WE HAD NEVER DONE A STUDY WITH AND WITHOUT THOSE COMMERCIAL STRUCTURES BECAUSE WE HAD NEVER PLANNED ON NOT USING THEM. WE HAVE HMMH ON THE PHONE, WHO COULD DESCRIBE FURTHER, BUT THEY WERE GOING BY INTUITION THAT IF YOU HAVE A STRUCTURE BETWEEN THE HIGHWAY AND YOUR RESIDENTIAL USES, IT'S GOING TO PROVIDE PROTECTION. IN THE MOST RECENT UPDATE TO THAT PLAN, WHEN WE DID FOR THE FIRST TIME TAKE AWAY THOSE STRUCTURES TO SEE WHAT IMPACT THAT HAD ON OUR PHASE 1, WE WERE GETTING THE SAME NUMBERS. WE SAID HOW CAN THAT BE? WE REALIZED AND WENT OUT TO THE SITE AND MEASURED HOW TALL THOSE ELEVATED HIGHWAYS ARE FROM 190 FROM GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE. THEY ARE THE HIGHEST POINT IN THAT INTERSECTION. AS EVERYTHING CROSSES THROUGH, THOSE ARE THE HIGHEST POINTS. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER IN OUR COMMERCIAL COMPONENT WHICH, AGAIN, THERE'S NO DEMAND FOR. YES, THAT WAS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. IT'S NOT FEASIBLE TO -- AIN, WE'T SOMETHING THAT WE THINK CAN GET BUILT AND KNOW CAN GET BUILT. AND SO THAT'S WHY THE CONCLUSION ORIGINALLY WAS, YES, OF COURSE IF YOU PUT A COMMERCIAL STRUCTURE BETWEEN A SENSITIVE LAND USE IT'S GOING TO HAVE PROTECTION. WE WEREN'T -- AND THEN SO HMMH WENT BACK, LOOKED AT THE SOUND PLAN, HOW IS IT SET UP TO FIGURE OUT THAT THAT ELEVATED HIGHWAY, THE NOISE JUST TRAVELS RIGHT OVER THE PROJECT. >> Brounoff: IF THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS DON'T PROVIDE SIGNIFICANT NOISE MITIGATION, WHAT IS IT THAT IS MITIGATING THEOISE O THE PLAZA GREEN? >> NOT A LOT. SO PLAZA GREEN, NOT A LOT. THE BIGGEST NOISE PROTECTION IS THE DISTANCE FROM THE HIGHWAY. THAT'S THE BEST THAT WE COULD DO FROM THAT. THERE IS NOISE FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD. MOST PROLIFICALLY FROM THE FRONTAGE ROAD. WE SAID THERE IS NOISE COMING FROM THERE, CAN WE PROTECT THAT BY ADDING THAT LANDSCAPE BERM. SO THAT LANDSCAPE BERM IS PROVIDING NOISE PROTECTION AGAINST AT-GRADE ROADWAYS BUT ESN'T PROVIDE PROTECTION AGAINST THE VERTICAL NATURE OF THAT EXPRESSWAY. THE BEST WE COULD DO WAS A DISTANCE, WHICH IS OVER 300 FEET FROM THE HIGHWAY, WHICH I REALIZE PROTECTS AGAINST THE NOISE -- THE AIR POLLUTANTS, NOT AS MUCH THE NOISE POLLUTANTS, WHICH IS WHY WE LOOKED AT WHAT ARE WE DOING ON OTHER PROJECTS. WE DO STUFF ALL ACROSS THE COUNTRY FROM SEATTLE, GOVERNED UNDER THE STATE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT, CALIFORNIA, THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT. THESE NOISE STUES A NOTEW TO US, SO WE SAID, OKAY, YOU KNOW, WHAT ARE WE DOING ELSEWHERE AND HOW DOES THIS COMPARE AND WHY DOES IT FEEL LIKE WE'RE SO FAR OFF HERE WHEN WE FEEL LIKE WE'RE DOING WHAT WE CAN. >> REFERRING TO FIGURE 3 IN THEIR LATEST ANALYSIS, WHICH I DESCRIBED BEFORE, A FEW MINUTES AGO, THIS IS ENTITLED PROJECT, DAY/NIGHT LEVEL ROADWAY EXTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURE FOR FIRST FLOOR PHASE ONE WITH -- IT SHOWS THE BERMS IN PLA. >> MHMM. >> OKAY. THE AREA OF THE PLAZA GREEN IS BOUNDED ON THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST BY SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS. THIS DRAWING DRAWS LITTLE COLORED CIRCLES TO INDICATE THE NOISE LEVEL ON THE FRONT FACADES OF THOSE DWELLINGS. FACING THE PLAZA GREEN. THOSE CIRCLES ARE COLORED YELLOW AND ORANGE. YELLOW CIRCLE MEANS NOISE LEVEL BETWEEN 60 AND 65 DECIBELS, RANGE BETWEEN 65 AND 70 DECIBELS, WHICH IS THE ONLY DATA I SEE HERE THAT AT ALL IMPACTS ON THE NOISE LEVEL IN THE PLAZA GREEN WITH THE BERMS IN PLACE. SO, IS THERE -- >> YEAH. TO BE CLEAR, IT'S OVER 65 DBA IN THE PLAZA GREEN EVEN WITH THE BERM. >> OKAY. >> YES, THAT IS -- WE RECOGNIZE THAT. THAT IS A FACT. AND WE'RE SAYING THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T PROVIDE SOMETHING LIKE WE HAVE IN MANY OTHER PLACES THAT'S ENJOYABLE FOR PEOPLE TO USE. WE AVOID THE AIR POLLUTANTS AND GET TO AN OUTDOOR SPACE THAT IS SOMETHING THAT OUR RESIDENTS COULD ENJOY AND USE. >> NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE COMMERCIAL BUILDINGS, THIS IS A CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL SITE. YOU'RE PROPOSING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT WITH CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL USES. [ CLEARING THROAT ] THE CONCEPT BEHIND THE CITY'S ORDINANCE FOR THIS TYPE OF DISTRICT IS FOR A WALKABLE, INTEGRATED MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, A MIXED-U DEVELOPMENT THAT TAKES ON THE CHARACTER OF A COMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE MIX OF USES AND THE WALKABILITY AND THE USES BEING COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER, OKAY? YOU'VE JUST GIVEN A DISSERTATION ON WHY THE MARKET RIGHT NOW IS NOT WELL-ALIGNED FOR BUILDING ANOTHER OFFICE BUILDING. SO, IT MAKES ME DOUBT WHETHER YOU'RE GOING TO FEASIBLY BE ABLE TO DO IT. I'M NOT QUESTIONING YOUR INTENT, BUT IF YOU CAN'T GET FINANCING, YOU DON'T THINK YOU CAN GET TENANTS, IT'S NOT GOING TO WORK OUT ECONOMICALLY, I DON'T SEE IF YOU DON'T DO IT, WHAT HAPPENS TO THE MIXED USE COMMUNITY OUR ORDINANCE CONTEMPLATES? >> I THINK THERE'S A MIXED-USE COMMUNITY HERE. >> TWO TYPES OF DWELLINGS, THAT'S IT. >> IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, DIRECTLY ADJACENT TO SUSS USIS A FIVE-STORY OFFICE BUILDI, AND ADJACENT TO THAT ANOTHER OFFICE BUILDING THAT HAS A RETAL ANNEX. ACROSS THE STREET WE HAVE THIS FLEX RETAIL OFFICE INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF SPACE AND DIRECTLY ON THE OTHER SIDE OF US IS RESIDENTIAL. SO WE THINK IT'S STILL BRINGING THIS COMMUNITY CLOSER TO -- NOT TO MENTION IN THE FIRST PHASE, WE'RE REQUIRED AND WANT TO BUILD THAT PLAZA GREEN SPACE. WE THINK THAT PLAZA GREEN SPACE IS INCREDIBLY IMPORTANT NOT ONLY FOR THIS NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT FOR THE SUCCESS OF OUR FUTURE OFFICE COMPONENT. >> WOULD YOU PROCEED WITH PHASE TWO? >> WE CAN'T. >> YOU CAN'T. >> RIGHT. BUT WE THINK OVER TIME THAT BY CREATING A PLACE HERE -- AGA, TH IS ALL PART OF THE PLACE-MAKING OF THIS AREA. BRING MORE PEOPLE HERE. LIKE, THE PROGRAMMING OF THIS PARK IS GOING TO BE INCREDIBLE. WE'VE SHARED IT WITH OUR NEIGHBORS WHO SAY OUR TENANTS WOULD LOVE AN AMENITY LIKE THIS. IF WE CAN DELIVER SOMETHING THAT THERE'S NOTHING LIKE THIS IN THE PLANO SUBMARKET ANYWHERE WHERE THEY HAVE A 1.4-ACRE PLAZA GREEN DIRECTLY OUTSIDE WHERE THEIR EMPLOYEES CAN GO OUT FOR LUNCH AND HAVE THEIR LUNCH OUTSIDE AND GE TOND FROM THEIR JOB.A.R.T. TO ONCE THE SILVER LINE GOES DIRECTLY TO DFW, WE THINK THERE IS VIABLE DEMAND FOR THAT. IT'S NOT THERE TODAY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE RESTRICTING THE NEXT PHASE OF RESIDENTIAL, BUT WE HAVE TO BE ABLE TO DO SOMETHING TO BRING THIS AREA OUT OF WHAT IT IS EXISTING TODAY. AND IT'S JUST AN UNDERPERFORMING COMMERCIAL AREA THAT AGAIN, I THINK THE COMP PLAN, THAT'S WHAT IT'S SAYING. THE NUMBER 1 APP ONE PRIORITY IO ADDRESS THESE UNDERPERFORMING RESIDENTIAL USES BY ALLOWINGOF THAT TO ADD VIBRANCY TO IT. SO I THINK WHAT WE THINK WILL HAPPEN IS THAT BY BUILDING OUT BOTH THAT PLAZA GREEN AND BRINGING MORE PEOPLE TO THAT SPACE, HOPEFULLY MORE PEOPLE HELP FILL UP THE VACANT RETAIL THAT'S AROUND THE AREA TODAY. THAT ALL OF THAT CREATES MOMENTUM FOR THIS AREA TO BE SUCCESSFUL ON THE COMMERCIAL END. >> Chair Downs: I THINK A KEY FACTOR THERE, THOUGH -- AND I APPRECIATE THE CHANGE THAT YOU MADE IN TERMS OF CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY VERSUS A PERMIT -- THEY CAN'T BUILD THE REST OF THE RESIDENTIAL UNLESS THEY BUILD THAT. SO THERE IS AN INCENTIVE THERE FOR THEM TO OBVIOUSLY DO SOMETHING WITH IT. >> BUT THE LACK OF ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF AN OFFICE BUILDING WOULD BE A DISINCENTIVE TO BUILD THE REST OF THE RESIDENTIAL. >> Chair Downs: IT WOULD FORCE THEM TO DESIG DESIGN AND BUILD E OFFICE SPACE THAT MIGHT BE MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN SUBLETTING SQUARE FOOTAGE IN STATE FARM'S BUILDING. I'M NOT SURE THAT A DISCUSSION IS BENEFICIAL AROUND HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD THE OFFICE DOWN THE ROA SO WE'RE GOING TO ABANDON THE LOT. THAT'S WHERE IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S GOING. I'M NOT SAYING IT TO QUASH YOUR -- THE POSSIBILITY OF THAT OR WHETHER IT SHOULD BE SOMETHING THAT'S CONSIDERED, I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LAND USE AND GO IF THEY DON'T BUILD IT, MAYBE SOMEBODY ELSE WILL, BECAUSE THE ZONING GOES WITH THE PROPERTY, SO. >> CAN I JUST GIVE AN EXAMPLE OF HOW WE'VE DEALT WITH THIS IN THE PAST? WE BROKE GROUND ON THAT PROJECT I SHOWED YOU IN SAN JOSE, A 200,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING, 509 APARTMENT UNITS WITH A PLAZA GREEN, VERY SIMILAR TO THIS. WE HAD SIMILAR TO OUR PREVIOUS RECOMMENDATION, WE HAD THE TWO USES TIED TO BUILDING PERMITS, SO NOT CFO. WE WERE ABLE -- THAT WAS -- SAN JOSE WAS THE HEART OF SILICON SN VALLEY. WE PLANNED IT FOR A TECH OFFICE BUILDING. WE GOT CREATIVE. WE FOUND A MEDICAL OFFICE USER. WE WERE WITHIN SPITTING DISTANCE FROM A REGIONAL HOSPITAL. AND WE GOT A MEDICAL OFFICE USE TO GO IN. ANOTHER EXAMPLE COULD BE A LIFE SCIENCE TYPE OF USE OR OTHER SEMICONDUCTOR TYPE OF LIGHT MANUFACTURING TYPE OF USES. THERE ARE OTHER USES THAN JUST AN OFFICE BUILDING. AND SO IT PROPOSES AN OFFICE BUILDING, BUT THAT COULD BE A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING AS A TRADITIONAL OFFICE BUILDING, WHICH MAY BE A MEDICAL OFFICE USE COULDN'T GO INTO STATE FARM'S OLD SPACE BECAUSE IT'S NOT DESIGNED CORRECTLY FOR THAT. SO, IT'S IMPORTANT ESPECIALLY IN THESE LAND USE DISCUSSIONS, I THINK, TO LOOK AT THE BROAD RANGE. YES, IT DOES REQUIRE US TO BE CREATIVE AND TO CHAIR DOWNS' POINT, WE HAVE TO GET CREATIVE TO BE ABLE TO BUILD THANEXT PHASE OF RESIDENTIAL THAT WE KNOW THAT THERE'S DEMAND FOR, THAT WE CAN EARN MONEY ON. AND SO I HATE TO SAY OH, JUST BECAUSE OF EVERYTHING I JUST DESCRIBED ABOUT THE OFFICE MARKET THAT THIS WILL NEVER BE A SUCCESSFUL COMMERCIAL PROJECT. WE ACTUALLY THINK THE OPPOSITE, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE SHOWING YOU A WHOLE PLAN AND DIDN'T GO THAT OTHER ROUTE THAT I TALKED ABOUT, JUST LET US BUILD SOME RESIDENTIAL AND HOPEFULLY IT WILL MAKE THE AREA BETTER. WE WANTED TO PUT A CONCRETE PLAN TOGETHER THAT WE BELIEVE WILL CREATE DEMAND FOR THIS AREA. AGAIN, NOT JUST FOR OUR SITE, BUT FOR THE ENTIRE AREA AS A WHOLE. SO IT DOES TAKE CREATIVE THINKING. >> Chair Downs: DO YOU HAVE MORE QUESTIONS? OKAY. HIT YOUR SPEAK BUTTON. GO TO NEXT IS COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: AGAIN, I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION. AND I REALLY APPRECIATE THAT YOU ADDRESSED EVERY QUESTION WE HAD LAST TIME, ADDRESSED EVERY CONCERN WE HAD. SORRY, I JUST CAN'T TURN IT OFF. [ LAUGHING ] I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. FIRST OF ALL, THAT I APPRECIATE THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO REVITALIZE THE AREA. AND I PERSONALLY, I THINK THIS IS A BIG QUESTION -- A BIG PROBLEM IN PLANO IN GENERAL AS A WHOLE THAT WE HAVE NOT ENOUGH PEOPLE, BUT TOO MUCH RETAIL OR OFFICES. AND WE NEED TO BRING MORE PEOPLE. AND THIS PLAN SEEMS TO BE ACHIEVING THAT GOAL. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH POLICY IN PLACE. I APPRECIATE THAT YOU POINT OUT THERE ARE RETAILS AROUND. AND I UNDERSTAND THE INTENTION OF THE POLICY TO DEVELOP CERTAIN PROPERTY TO HAVE 50% MIXED USE, AND 50% RESIDENCE USES. BUT WE CAN BE CREATIVE. AND YOU ARE BEING CREATIVE HERE. SO HAVE YOU DONE ANY RESEARCH OR ANY STATS, NUMBERS, THAT CAN PROVIDE TO THE STAFF MEMBER AND TO THE COMMISSION TO SHOW THE PERCENTAGE OF RESIDENTIAL USES VERSUS RETAIL OF THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD INSTEAD OF JUST YOUR PROPERTY? HAVE YOU DONE THAT RESEARCH AND GIVE US A NUMBER? >> WE DID. AND WE PRESENTED IT IN THE LAST HEARING. SO JUST AS A REMINDER, THERE ARE TWO COMPONENTS TO THE RGM5. I THINK IT'S AN A AND B. ONE IS 33% INDIVIDUAL PHASE AND THE SECOND IS 50% AS A WHOLE FOR A PROJECT. IF YOU LOOK AT THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE INSTEAD OF JUST OUR SITE SPECIFICALLY, WE MEET THE 33% COMPONENT OF IT. SO THEN IT'S THE 50% THAT IS THE QUESTION OF TOTAL BUILDOUT. SO WE MEET 33% IN ANY INDIVIDUAL PHASE BECAUSE THERE'S EXISTING OFFICE AND RETAIL AND FLEX USES THERE TODAY. SO WE MEET THAT PIECE OF THAT. AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE, WE GET TO 51% COMMERCIAL. SORRY, 51% RESIDENTIAL, 49% COMMERCIAL. SO WE'RE JUST SHY OF THAT GOAL FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE. >> Tong: BUT DOES THAT INCLUDE THE OFFICE SPACE ALREADY IN YOUR PROJECT, OR DOES IT -- >> THAT INCLUDES THE 70,000 SQUARE FEET REQUIRED TO BUILD OUR SECOND PHASE OF RESENTI. IT DOESN'T INCLUDE THE ADDITIONAL 125,000 SQUARE FEET. >> Tong: OKAY. AND THAT'S THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> NO. SO WE HAVE TWO COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS. WE HAVE A 123,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING AND A 70,000 SQUARE FOOT HUNDRED-KEY HOTEL. SO WHAT WE SAID IS WE DON'T KNOH OF THOSE TWO COMMERCIAL COMPONENTS IS GOING TO COME BACK TO LIFE FIRST, ALLOW US TO THE BUILD THE SECOND PHASE OF RESIDENTIAL WHEN THE SOONER OF THOSE TWO COME CK TO LIFE. SO IT COULD BE THE HOTEL USE COMES FIRST. WE BUILD THE HOTEL ON THAT PORTION OF THE SITE. THE LANDSCAPE BERM STAYS THE SAME. THERE'S VERY SPECIFIC LANGUAGE IN OUR PHASING ABOUT WHEN WE COULD REMOVE THAT LANDSCAPE BERM. SO IT'S NOT LIKE YOU JUST HAVE AN EMPTY SITE SITTING THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PROJECT. WE WOULD STILL HAVE THAT DESIGN ELEMENT OF IT. AND THEN WE'D BUILD THAT COMMERCIAL AS SOON AS WE COULD AS WELL. >> Tong: OKAY. HYPOTHETICALLY, IF YOU DIDN'T BUILD ALL OF -- ANY OF THE OFFICE SPACE, JUST THE RESINTIALU CONSIDERED THAT INCLUDING ALL THE SURROUNDING RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL, WHAT'S THE PERCENT PERCENTAGE OF THAT? >> I DIDN'T LOOK AT THAT SPECIFICALLY. I COULD PROBABLY DO THE MATH REAL QUICK. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE KIND OF IN THAT SAME RANGE, BECAUSE WE'RE ADDING -- WE ARE ADDING THE SECOND PHASE, WHICH IS THE RESIDENTIAL AND THE COMMERCIAL. THE RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IS GREATER THAN THE COMMERCIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. SO IT WOULD BE LESS THAN THAT TOTAL. >> Tong: OKAY. SO IF I UNDERSTAND YOU CORRECTLY, IF WITH THE C.O. ISSUED ON THE COMMERCIAL, YOU WOULD BE MEETING THE 50%? >> WE'D GET TO 51%. SO WE'D JUST MISS IT. >> THAT'S NOT CORRECT. I THINK THAT THE POLICY FIRST OF ALL IS NOT ON A GENERALIZED BASIS. IT'S ON A SITE-SPECIFIC BASIS. SO IT DOESN'T EXTEND TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> OH, I THOUGHT HER QUESTION WAS THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> Tong: MY QUESTION WAS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. >> BUT THAT DOESN'T MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ANALYSIS, TH'SUST FOR INFORMATION PURPOSES. >> Tong: OKAY. BUT FOR THE SITE WITH THE C.O. ISSUED ON THE COMMERCIAL, DOES THAT MAKE THEM MEET 50%? >> NO. IT WOULD BE 90% RESIDENTIAL AND 10% COMMERCIAL WITH THE 70,000 SQUARE FEET THAT THEY'RE COMMITTING TO. >> Tong: GOTCHA. >> THE SITE WILL NEVER GET THERE ON OUR SITE SPECIFICALLY. >> Chair Downs: BUT I THINK YOUR POINT'S VALID. I'LL SPEAK TO IT LATER. GO AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. >> Tong: THE SECOND QUESTION IS REGARDING THE EHA, THE NOISE MITIGATION, I GUESS. YOU WERE TRYING TO SAY THAT IN HER PROJECTS YOU HAVE DONE CERTAIN THINGS. WE CANNOT COMPARE PLANO TO SAN JOSE, BUT WITH BUILDING MATERIALS, YOU THINK WITH YOUR BUILDING MATERIALS YOU CAN REDUCE -- BECAUSE THERE'S NOTHING ELSE YOU COULD DO EXCEPT FOR THE DISTANCE, RIGHT? >> YEP. >> Tong: BUT WITH THE BUILDING MATERIALS THAT YOU PROVIDE, YOU -- AT LEAST YOU'RE CO CONFI- >> 100% CONFIDENT. >> Tong: YOU CAN REDUCE THE NOISE LEVEL TO 45? >> YES. THAT SAN JOSE PROJECT THAT WAS ON THE TRAIN LINE, THAT HAD AN AT-GRADE CROSSING INHAT PROJECT. SO A TRAIN HORN SOUNDED AT TIMES. IF YOU'VE -- SOMEBODY HAS READ THE NOISE STUDY, IT'S DISRUPTION TO SLEEP THAT IS THE BIGGEST HEALTH CONSEQUENCE. AND SO FOR THAT PROJECT SPECIFICALLY, WE HAD TO MITIGATE AGAINST THE 91 DBA BY INCREASING THE STC RATING ON OUR WINDOWS, DOORS, EXTERIOR WALLS THAT FACED THAT UNIT AND WERE ABLE TO ACHIEVE IT THERE. SO I'M VERY CONFIDENT THAT FROM A BUILDING MATERIAL PERSPECTIVE, THE INTERIOR UNITS WILL BE SAFE. >> Tong: DO YOU HAV A STUDY TO PROVIDE THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH BUILDING MATERIAL THAT WILL IMPROVE THE NOISE? >> SO THAT IS ACTUALLY IN THE PLANO'S 2019 STUDY. IT GOES INTO DETAIL ON DIFFERENT BUILDING MATERIAL YOU CAN USE, WHAT THE DROP IN DBA NOISE BASED ON CERTAIN BUILDING MATERIAL, DOUBLE PANE WINDOWS FOR EXAMPLE. EVERY BUILDING MATERIAL HAS AN STC RATING RELATED TO NOISE. AND SO THAT GOES INTO DETAIL ON IF CERTAIN BUILDING MATERIALS CAN ACHIEVE CERTAIN NOISE REDUCTIONS. >> Tong: CAN WE REQUIRE BUILDING MATERIALS BASED ON THAT FOR MITIGATION PURPOSES? >> WE HAVE REVIEWED THIS ISSUE WITH OUR BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND THEY'RE CONFIDENT THAT YOU CAN CONSTRUCT A BUILDING THAT ACHIEVES THESE LEVELS. AND AS PART OF THE PD, THEY'LL HAVE TO TEST THE NOISE LEVELS WITHIN THE UNITS TO ENSURE THAT THE MATERIALS DO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS. >> Tong: OKAY. THAT'S MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER >> Cary: A CPLEHINGS. SO, JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE C.O. OR THE PERMIT TO START THE SECOND PHASE OF THE RESIDENTIAL, YOU HAVE TO BUILD ONE OR THE OTHER, EITHER THE HOTEL OR SOME KIND OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING FIRST RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> Cary: OKAY. DO YOU KNOW -- THIS IS FOR MY OWN KNOWLEDGE. SO YOU'RE MOVING 300 FEET BACK. HOW MUCH DOES THAT REDUCE THE NOISE BY MOVING THAT FAR BACK? AS A PERCENTAGE. >> I DON'T KNOW. >> Cary: DOES IT MATTER? >> IT DOES MATTER, BUT IT ACTUALLY MATTERS LESS ON THIS BECAUSE IT'S ELEVATED. SO ACTUALLY, IF YOU'RE UNDER THE HIGHWAY, THE HIGHWAY ITSELF PROTECTS AGAINST NOISE. SO WE'RE AT THIS UNIQUE KIND OF AREA WHERE THE FURTHER AWAY HELPS AND HURTS. SO IT'S JUST A UNIQUE SCENARIO HERE. >> Cary: I GET IT. SO YOU CITED THE CITY LINE HAS 1.8 MILLION SQUARE FEET TO BE BUILT STILL AND THAT THEY BROUGHT IN THOUSANDS OF UNITS TO MAKE THEIR AREA VIBRANT. 1,900 UNITS SINCE CityLine HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. >> Cary: THIS IS A WEIRD QUESTION. WHAT DOES VIBE PLANO DO? I APOLOGIZE, I DON'T KNOW. >> IT'S A BRANDED OFFICE BUILDING AND RETAIL COMPLEX. SO IT'S NOT A BUSINESS. IT'S THE OWNERSHIP OF THE BUILDING. >> Cary: OKAY. AND BY THE WAY, FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, I WAS TALKING TO BRITTANY THE OTHER DAY. AFTER THE FIRE THEY REBUILT, THEY'RE DOING PRETTY WELL NOW. SO, WHO KNOWS WHAT BUSINESS WILL DO WELL IN THE FUTURE, BUT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ACTUALLY DOING PRETTY WELL. AND I I'M NOT AS PSIMISTIC ABOUT THE FUTURE OF COMMERCIAL BUILDING IN PLANO, ESPECIALLY AT THIS SITE. I THINK THAT WE SEE COMPANIES STILL WANTING TO COME TO TEXAS, NORTH TEXAS. THEY WANT TO COME TO PLANO. AND WHILE I KNOW TODAY THAT THAT'S CHALLENGING, I THINK WITH THE THINGS OUR CITY HAS TO OFFER, WE'RE IN A GOOD POSITION TO ATTRACT COMMERCIAL. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THE HOTEL, BUT CERTAINLY THE COMMERCIAL WITH WHAT I SEE EVERY DAY WITH COMPANIES WANTING TO LEAVE OTHER PLACES, I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT OUR COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE ISN'T GOING TO REALLY NOT VALUABLE FOR A WHILE. I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I ACTUALLY CONCUR WITH COMMISSIONER CARY. I'M NOT PESSIMISTIC ABOUT THE VIABILITY OF COMMERCIAL. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. HOW MUCH FURTHER WOULD ONE NEED TO BUILD OUT THE GARAGE STRUCTURE OR WHATEVER TO HAVE ANY EFFECT, GIVEN THE HEIGHT, HOW MANY MORE STORIES? >> SO THE GARAGE STRUCTURE IS CUENTLY 43 FEET TALL. WE THINK THAT THAT OVERPASS ON THE HIGHWAY IS SOMEWHERE AROUND 90 FEET, SO IT WOULD HAVE TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY TALLER, WHICH IS WHAT MAKES IT NOT MAKE SENSE. >> Olley: STRUCTURALLY SOUND. MAYBE I'M READING THIS WRONG. WAS THERE A CHANGE FOR THE AIR CONDITIONING UNITS ON TOP OF THE STRUCTURE VERSUS WHAT WAS IT BEFORE, INDIVIDUAL UNITS TO INDIVIDUAL . . . >> THEY'RE STILL IIVIDL UNITS. IT'S THAT THEY HAVE TO BE OUTDOOR AIR SOURCED, WHICH IS BETTER. AND THE VENTILATION HAS TO BE FACING AWAY FROM THE EXPRESSWAY SO THAT THE INTAKE IS COMING FROM AWAY FROM THE EXPRESSWAY. AGAIN, THESE ARE JUST ADDITIONAL ADDS THAT WE ASKED H.M.M.H. IF THERE WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS REASONABLE FOR US TO DO TO KIND OF MITIGATE THE CONCERN. EVEN WITHOUT THAT, THOUGH, BEING AS FAR AWAY FROM THE EXPRESSWAY AS OUR UNITS ARE, THERE WAS NO AIR POLLUTANT CONCERN. >> Olley: I THOUGHT I SAW SOME WORDING REGARDING EITHER THE OUTLET OF THE UNITS BEING ON TOP OF THE BUILDING . . . >> THEY WOULD BE ON TOP ANYWAY, SO, YES, THEY'RE ON TOP FACING AWAY. BUT YES, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN ON TOP ANYWAYS. >> Olley: THE WASTEWATER QUESTION, WHO BEARS THAT BURDEN, YOU GUYS? >> SO THAT'S, LIKE, STAFF MENTIONED, THAT WOULD BE DONE DURING PERMIT PROCESS TO DETERMINE WHAT THE CAPACITY IS LEFT IN IT AND THEN WHERE THE NEW COMPONENTS WOULD COME FROM. UNTIL YOU ACTUALLY DESIGN THE BUILDINGS YOU DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE. >> Olley: OKAY. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION. AND THAT'S IN YOUR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS AROUND THE COUNTRY, DO YOU FACE SIMILAR COMMISSIONS >> SO, THIS IS SETHI I W GOING TO MENTION. IT'S TYPICALLY -- ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS ESPECIALLY RELATED TO NOISE IS TYPICALLY ON OBJECTIVE CRITERIA OR DECISION WHEREAS WE'RE HAVING A LOT OF CONFUSION HERE ABOUT WHAT MARK WE NEED TO HIT. JUST TO GIVE YOU KIND OF ONE EXAMPLE OF THAT, THERE WAS A CASE THAT CAME BEFORE THIS COMMISSION LAST YEAR THAT WAS GOVERNED BY THE EXACT SAME SAME EHA POLICY.AN, THE EXACT IT WAS ZONING CASE 2022-001. IT WAS A HIGH-RISE RESIDENTIAL BUILDING IN LEGACY WEST AT THE INTERSECTION OF 121 AND THE TOLLWAY. THAT PROJECT WAS LOCATED IN EHA 2. THE BUILDING HAD ONLY A 40-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE HIGHWAY. THE BUILDING HAD EXTERIOR NOISE LEVELS MUCH HIGHER THAN OURS, 75 DBA. ACCORDING TO THEIR EHA ANALYSIS. THEIR ONLY TWO NOISE MITIGATIONS WERE ONE, INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS OF 45 DBA OR LOWER AND TWO, MINIMUM BALCONY AND PL RAILING HEIGHTS, MIND YOU, NOT BALCONY RESTRICTIONS JUST RAILING HEIGHTS. STAFF DETERMINED AND STATED IN THEIR REPORTS TO BOTH P&Z AND CITY COUNCIL THAT STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE STIPULATIONS AND BELIEVE THEY WILL ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF THE ADJACENT EXPRESSWAYS CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S ADOPTED METHODS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FROM THEIR CONSULTANTS. MEANWHILE, OUR PROJECT IS IN EHA ONE. WE DON'T HAVE A 40-FOOT SETBACK, WE HAVE A 435-FOOT SETBACK. WE'RE NOT INCREASING BALCONY RAILING HEIGHTS, WE'RE REMOVING BALCONIES. WE'RE IMPLEMENTING THE SAME INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS. WE'RE INCLUDING THAT 500-FOOT BERM. SO SOMEHOW THAT PROJECT, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT RESIDENTS WOULD BE SAFE FROM THE IMPACTS OF THE ADJACENT HIGHWAY AND IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE POLICY. AND OURS IS NOT. YOU KNOW, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ATTEMPTS TO TAKE THE SUBJECTIVITY OUT OF IT BY REQUIRING THE EHA ANALYSIS, DONE BY A RECOGNIZED EXPERT IN THE FIELD. BUT DESPITE HAVING OUR EXPERT CONCLUDE THAT OUR MITIGATIONS ARE SUFFICITORHE HEAH O OUR RESIDENCES, RESIDENTS, AND CONSISTENT WITH THE MITIGATIONS IN THE POLICY, SOMEHOW, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE? NOW THE STAFF REPORT SAYS THAT IT'S BECAUSE OUR OUTDOOR NOISE LEVELS ARE ABOVE 65 DBA, BUT SO WAS THAT OTHER PROJECT. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, ONE OF THETHE RECOMMENDED MITIGATIONS N THE EHA POLICY ITSELF IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ENHANCING BUILDING MATERIALS SUCH AS WINDOWS AND DOORS. AND THOSE DON'T DO ANYTHING TO KEEP THEXTERIO NOISE LEVELS BELOW 65 DBA, SO HOW CAN THEY BE RECOMMENDED MITIGATION WHEN ISSU CAN'T USE THEM? >> Chair Downs: I SENSED YOUR FRUSTRATION. I ASKED A QUESTION WHICH OPENED THE DOOR TO TWO MORE COMMISSIONERS NOW HAVE QUESTIONS FOR YOU. I REALLY -- WHAT I WAS TRYING TO GET TO WITH THE QUESTION WAS JUST -- YOU GUYS HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE DEALING WITH THIS ISSUE. >> YUP. >> Chair Downs: IN OTHER CITIES. ALL RIGHT. I THINK I'M GOING TO STOP. M GOING TO MOVE ON. MR. LISLE. AND LET'S DO THIS. LET'S JUST MAKE IT A SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR THE -- LET'S NOT HAVE A BACK AND FORTH DIALOGUE. IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION, GET AN ANSWER AND THEN WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE'LL HAVE OUR OWN DEBATE. >> [ OFF MIC ] >> Chair Downs: OKAY. MR. BRONSKY, DO YOU HAVE A SPECIFIC QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? >> Bronsky: TO THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE TODAY AND FOR YOUR CONTINUED INTEREST IN PLANO. YOU MADE A STATEMENT SAYING THAT IT WAS NINE AND ONE-THIRD COMPLIANT. WHEN I LOOK AT THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE STAFF, THEY SHOW RGM1, RGM5, AND RGM8. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> WE PROVIDED IN OUR APPLICANT LETTER DURING THE LAST ROUND A DETAILED ANALYSIS OF EVERY POLIC THAT WE THOUGHT WAS APPLICABLE TO OUR PROJECT SO I POINT YOU TO THAT TO LOOK AT IT. AGAIN, ONE OF THE OTHER CONFUSIONS -- AND I DON'T KNOW IF COMMISSIONER LISLE, THIS WAS YOUR QUESTION, BUT RGM8, WE CONTINUE TO BE CONFUSED AS WHY WE DON'T MEET THAT POLICY. WE'RE TOD. WE MEET ALL OF THE FUTURE LAND USE NUMBERS AND SO I DON'T KNOW WHY WE MISSED THAT. SO THAT TO ME, ALONG WITH THE EHA ANALYSIS ARE THE TWO BIGGEST QUESTIONS FOR US. OTHER THAN THAT, LIKE WE'VE SAID FROM THE BEGINNING, WE KNOW THAT THE MIXED USE PHASING REQUIREMENTS WE DO NOT MEET, WHICH IS WHY WE'VE REQUESTED THAT YOU GUYS LOOK AT IT AS A NEIGHBORHOOD AS A WHOLE. >> Lisle: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO, WE'VE HAD MULTIPLE DISCSIONS ABOUT THIS PROPERTY AND OTHER PROPERTIES. AND WE REALLY ARE FOCUSED ON HEALTH. APPROPRIATELY SO, BECAUSE WE'RE IN THIS EHA ONE/TWO AREA. AND THAT'S CHALLENGING, BUT I AGREE TO SOME DEGREE WITH THE APPLICANT THAT IT SEEMS TO BE VERY SUBJECTIVE IN WHAT WE'RE DOING VERSUS OBJECTIVE. I RECENTLY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEND A FAIR AMOUNT OF TIME IN DOWNTOWN DALLAS WITH A GROUP OF PEOPLE. AND THERE WERE SOME ABSOLUTELY BEAUTIFUL PLACES THERE THAT I GUARANTEE YOU HAD NOISE LEVELS THAT ARE GOING TO BE AS HIGH AS IN THIS CENTRAL PARK AREA, THIS LITTLE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK THAT THEY'RE BUILDING. IT DIDN'T SEEM TO IMPACT ANYONE TOO MUCH. THEY ALL SEEMED TO BE HAVING A GOOD TIME. úSO I'M GOING TO BE AE MORE, MAYBE OBJECTIVE AND SAY THAT WE'RE MEETING THE REQUIREMENTS FROM AN ENVIRONMENTAL STANDPOINT INSIDE THE BUILDINGS. OUTSIDE THE BUILDING, WE'RE GOING TO GET EXPOSURE TO ALL OF THAT NOISE AND PARTICULATE AND STUFF A IN THE EVERYDAY THINGS E DO, TRAVELING TO AND FROM WORK OR TO VISIT WITH SOMEBODY. SO I'M A LITTLE LESS CONCERNED WITH IT. WE'VE OBVIOUSLY GOT SOME PRETTY GOOD DISTANCE FROM THE HIGHWAYS. THE OTHER THING I'M GOING TO SAY IS THAT I WHOLEHEARTEDLY THINK THIS IS A VERY UNIQUE PROJECT. AND BECAUSE OF THE WAY IT'S SITUATED WITH KIND OF THESE APARTMENTS THAT ARE ISOLATED SOMEWHAT BEHIND IT, AND THEN AN EXISTING COMMERCIAL BUILDING OR TWO, ACTUALLY, WITH RETAIL, THAT THIS IS REALLY MORE OF A IGHBHOOD. WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS ENTIRE CORNER INSTEAD OF THIS ONE LITTLE PIECE OF LAND WHEN WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE DOES THIS WORK. I THINK THAT THE SURROUNDING OFFICE AND RETAIL NEED EXACTLY WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, WHICH IS MORE RESIDENTS. THEY NEED MORE PEOPLE THERE. I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY WAY WE'RE GOING TO REVITALIZE THIS. I THINK IF WE SAY NO, THIS ISN'T GOING TO WORK BECAUSE OF RESIDENTIAL, I THINK WE'RE SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR A LONG TIME OF SITTING HERE WITH AN EMPN ISOLATED GROUP OF APARTMENTS, AND DYING RETAIL. SO WHEN I LOOK FOR SOLUTIONS -- AND I'VE SEEN THIS NOW -- I THINK THIS IS ITS THIRD ITERATION. I WAS ON THE COMMISSION WHEN WE VOTED DOWN THE INITIAL ONE, BECAUSE I DIDN'T THINK IT WAS UNIQUE ENOUGH. I DIDN'T THINK IT BROUGHT CHARACTER. AND IT WAS TOO FOCUSED ON JUST THIS LITTLE PIECE OF PROPERTY INSTEAD OF LOOKING AT THAT ENTIRE CORNER THERE. HOW DOES IT FUNCTION TOGETHER. IT'S ALSO BORE WE KNEW CHEVRON WAS COMING, HERE'S THE STATION, HERE'S HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK. I'M HEARTENED THAT THEY'RE WILLING TO GO TO A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. I WISH IT WAS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ON THE 124,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE INSTEAD OF THE HOTEL, BUT I THINK THE OFFICE IS GOING TO COME, TOO. I THINK IT'S IN THEIR BENEFIT TO BUILD IT, NOT TO LEAVE IT EMPTY. AND I'M ENCOURAGED BY THE FACT THAT THEY WORK IN SO MANY OTHER CITIES, IN PARTICULAR SOME THAT MIGHT WANT TO MOVE TO PLANO AND FIND A TENANT FOR THAT OFFICE TOWER AND BUILD IT TO SUIT ON A LOCATION AND THEY CAN SELL THE FACT THAT IT'S GOT HOUSING WITH IT, OWN AND RENT. SO I SEE LOTS OF GOOD OPPORTUNITIES FOR THIS PERSONALLY. THAT'S WHERE I'M AT. THERE'S MORE I COULD SAY, BUT I SEE THIS AS A GOOD FIT FOR THAT ENTIRE CORNER AND I'M REALLY LOOKING AT THIS HOLISTICALLY AND AT IT BRINGS TO THE CITY AS A WHOLE IN THAT AREA, VERSUS WHAT DOES IT BRING TO THIS DEVELOPER ON THAT CORNER. THAT'S MY PIECE. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS OUR VISION FOR THE CITY OF PLANO, NOT SAN JOSE, NOT DOWNTOWN DALLAS, NOT ATLANTA, GEORGIA. IT IS OUR VISION FOR THE CITY OF PLANO. THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS ADOPTED AFTER A TORTUOUS PROCESS WHICH MR. BROKYAN SPEAK TO, BECAUSE HE WAS PART OF IT. BUT I'VE PICKED UP WHAT A CHALLENGE IT WAS TO GET THAT THING THROUGH. IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN, DIDN'T THERE HAVE TO BE AN ELECTION TO ADOPT IT? >> Chair Downs: NO. >> Brounoff: NO, JUST THE CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED IT AFTER A LONG STUDY PROCESS. THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WAS FIRST PUT IN PLACE THAT HAD TO BE REPEALED AND REPLACED WITH OUR PRESENT PLAN. OKAY. THAT PLAN HAS A VISION FOR CORRIDOR COMRCIA REDEVELOPMENT OR EXPRESS WAY CORRIDOR FUTURE LAND USE. AND THAT IS FOR PROJECTS OF MIXED USE AROUND THE CONCEPT OF COMMUNITY. YOU KNOW, PLACE, WHICH IS THE WORD USED IN THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. USES THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH EACH OTHER THAT ARE WALKABLE INTERNALLY OR WITH BICYCLES. USES THAT REFLECT THE NEEDS OF THE PEOPLE WHO CAN LIVE THERE AND POSSIBLY WORK THERE AND POSSIBLY HAVE VARIOUS RETAIL PLACES THEY CAN GO TO CONVENIENTLY. THE SURROUNDING RETAIL AREA WAS NOT BUILT TO FORM A COMMUNITY WITH THIS TRACT BECAUSE WHEN THOSE PROPERTIES CAME INTO BEING THERE WAS FRY'S ELECTRONICS HERE, NOT ANYBODY'S APARTMENTS. WHEN THE SURROUNDING AREA WAS BUILT, THERE WAS NOT EVEN AN AURA 190. WHEN THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES WERE BUILT, COLIN CREEK MALL WAS A MALL AND IT WAS NOT ABOUT TO BE DEVELOPED INTO SOMETHING ELSE. THE CHARACTER OF THOSE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES DO NOT FORM A COMMUNITY WITH WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE. THEY WERE -- BECAUSE WHAT WAS PROPOSED HERE WASN'T PROPOSED AND THERE WAS NO CONFLUENCE OF CONCEPTS THERE. SO, WHAT WE HAVE HERE IN THE WAY OF A MIXED USE IS PRIMARILY TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS, 33 -- I THINK IT'S 33 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS. [ CLEARING THROAT ] AND SOME POSSIBILITY OF GETTING AN OFFICE BUILDING. THAT'S THE WAY I S IT. I ASKED MR. WOLFE IF THE MARKET FORCES AND THE FINANCING DON'T LINE UP FOR YOU TO BUILD THE OFFICE BUILDING AND SINCE IT'S TIED TO PHASE TWO OF THIS PROJECT, WOULD YOU PROCEED WITH PHASE TWO AND HE IMMEDIATELY SAID NO. AND THEN HE STARTED COMING ON AFTER THAT AND TALKING ABOUT BEING CREATIVE AND VIBRANCY AND SO FORTH AND TRYING TO SALVAGE A CONCEPT HERE. THE NET CONCLUSION I DRAW FROM THAT IS GETTING THAT OFFICE BUILDING IS VERY MUCH A QUESTION RKND IT'S VERY MUCH UP IN THE AIR. IT MAY OR MAY NOT HAPPEN. IF IT DOESN'T HAPPEN, IF IT CAN'T HAPPEN WE WON'T GET PHASE TWO. WE WILL NOT GET A VIBRANT CONCEPT. WE WILL NOT GET ANYTHING CLOSE TO WHAT'S IN SAN DIEGO, ATLANTA, OR DOWNTOWN DALLAS. WE'RE GOING TO GET AN APARTMENT BUILDING AND 33 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS AND THAT'S ALL. [ CLEARING THROAT ] I GRANT YOU THAT THE PLAN DOES CALL FOR EFFECTIVE NOISE MITIGATION OF THE INTERIOR OF THE DWELLINGS. I'M NOT ARGUING THAT IT DOESN'T. BUT OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REQUIRES, PROVIDES THAT AREAS WITHIN AN EHA ONE AREA GENERALLY IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT UNLESS THE NOISE LEVELS ARE MITIGATED. THE NOISE LEVEL OUTSIDE IS NOT MITIGATED. HE ADMITTED IT'S NOT MITIGATED EVEN WITH THOSE TEMPORARY BERMS. THE PLAZA GREEN, THE 1.4-ACRE AREA IS A FAR CRY FROM THE MINIMAL OUTDOOR AREAS WE LOOKED ATP AT AT THE J PLACE, WHICH WEE NOT ACTIVITY CENTERS. THE PLAZA GREEN IS AN ACTIVITY CENTER, DESCRIBED IN HIS APPLICATION AS USABLE OPEN SPACE. WE SAW A DRAWING WITH, YOU KNOW, ALL KINDS OF LANDSCAPE PLANTINGS AND TRAILS TO WALK ON. I ASSUME THERE WOULD BE PLACES FOR PEOPLE TO SIT AND CARRY ON VARIOUS ACTIVITIES. [ CLEARING THROAT ] IT IS NOT MITIGATED BELOW 65 DECIBELS. HE SAID SO. THERE ARE DRAWINGS SHOWING THE LITTLE ORANGE AND YELLOW CIRCLES ON THE BUILDINGS THAT FACE THAT PLAZA GREEN ARE ABOVE 65 DECIBELS. IT IS NOT MITIGATED. I WAS DISTURBED BY THE FACT THAT TWO STUDIES BY THE SAME AUTHORS WORKING FOR THE SAME COMPANY REACHED DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE CONCLUSIONS AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THE OFFICE BUILDING AND THE PARKING GARAGE WOULD PROVIDE NOISE MITIGATION FROM THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH FREEWAY. HIS ANSWER IS, OH, THIS TIME WE ACTUALLY MEASURED THE HEIGHT OF THE FREEWAY. I CAN'T BELIEVE THEY DIDT TE THE HEIGH OF THE FREEWAY INTO ACCOUNT FROM THE GET-GO IN THE FIRST STUDY. IT WAS AN OBVIOUS THING TO DO. I CAN'T SEE HOW THEY MISSED IT. IN ANY EVENT, THE OPPOSED NATURE OF THOSE CONCLUSIONS CAUSES ME TO FIND THAT THE CREDIBILITY OF BOTH STUDIES IS SOMEWHAT DIMINISHED AND I DON'T THINK I CAN RELY ON THEM. SO I THINK SOMETHING BETTER CAN COME ALONG. [ CLEARING THROAT ] EXCUSE ME. WE MAY HAVE TO WAIT FOR IT. THERE MAY BE OTHER COMMERCIAL USES THAT MIGHT BE VIABLE HERE THATIGHT COME ALONG IN THE FUTURE. SOME OTHER BETTER DESIGN COULD COME ALONG. BUT AS THINGS STAND NOW, MY VOTE IS NO. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANYONE ELSE? >> CHAIR. I'D START OFF BY SAYING THAT THESE GUYS HAVE PROVEN TO BE ABLE TO BUILD WHAT THEY'RE PROMISING. SO -- AND I'M SURE THEY CAN. I HAVE SEVERAL MINOR CERTAINS, AND ONE MAJOR CONCERN. MY MINOR CONCERNS ARE WITH ALL THE APARTMES THAT A GOING TO BE BUILT IN THIS AREA, INCLUDING 2638 THAT AREN'T BUILT, KNOWING WHAT I KNOW ABOUT EAST PLANO I HAVE SOME CONCERNS WITH SEWAGE AND WATER TREATMENT. I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. WE KNOW THAT'S A PROBLEM IN OUR CITY. HOPEFULLY THAT GETS FIXED, ESPECIALLY FOR THE FOLKS THAT ARE OUT THAT WAY. I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS IS GOING TO IMPROVE THE QUALITY OF LIFE FOR THE CURRENT RESIDENTS OF THAT AREA. I'M NOT CONVINCED OF THAT. I SEE OTHER BENEFITS, BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING I'M CONVINCED OF. YOU KNOW, I THINK IT GETS CHALLENGING SOMETIMES WHETHER WE INCLUDE SURROUNDING AREAS OR NOT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ZONING FOR A PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND I THINK YOU COULD ARGUE IT A LOT OF DIFFERENT WAYS, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH WE SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO ACCOUNT WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ONE ZONING ISSUE. SO I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. I THINK THAT THE COMMERCIAL MARKET HERE ULTIMATELY WILL BE OKAY. AND I CITED THAT EARLIER. ONE OF THE THINGS I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IS THAT. AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT THIS AND TODAY I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF THAT RIGHT NOW THIS IS LARGELY A MULTIFAMILY PLAY WITH SOME OTHER THINGS MAYBE. AND AS I LOOK AT THE PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT SITS AT TWO MAJOR FREEWAYS WITH THE D.A.R.T. PROXIMATE TO IT AND CLOSE TO DOWNTOWN, I GUESS I'M OPTIMISTIC THAT AT SOME POINT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOMEBODY COME IN HERE THAT WANTS TO BUILD ANOTHER CORPORATE HEADQUARTERS. 19.1 ACRES HERE IS REALLY WELL-SUITED FOR THAT. THE ACCES IS GOOD. WE'VE HAD SOME TALK ABOUT ACCESS BEFORE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I JUST ULTIMATELY FOR ME, THE MAJOR CONCERN HERE IS THE USE FOR THIS PROPERTY FOR PLANO. AND YOU KNOW WHAT, PROBABLY IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN TOMORROW. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A PLAN THAT LOOKS 30, 40 YEARS AHEAD. AND I THINK WE NEED TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK I'M GOING TO HAVE A HARD TIME SUPPORTING THIS AS IT'S PRESENTED FOR THOSE REASONS. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMISSIONERS BROUNOFF AND CAR CARRY. THIS LOOKS LIKE IT'S JUST GOING TO BE MULTIFAMILY PROJECT. NOT EVEN COUNTING ON THE RETAIL OR OFFICE COMPONENT TO BE BUILT, OR COMMERCIAL COMPONENT TO BE BUILT AT ALL. FROM A REAL ESTATE POINT OF VIEW, LOOKING AT THAT CORNER, LOOKING AT THE ACCESS, LOOKING AT THE WHOLE STRUCTURE OF THE AREA, I THINK THE BEST USE OF THAT PROPERTY IS RESIDENTIAL. I KNOW THERE MIGHT BE A CHANCE THAT IN THE FUTURE SOMETIME THERE'S A HUGE HEADQUARTER WILL MOVE INTO PLANO, BUT AS IT TURNED OUT AFTOVID, AS EVERYONE HAVE SEEN THAT EVEN THE LARGE COMPANIES ARE REDUCING THEIR OFFICE SPACES. AND THE OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE SUFFERING THE ABSORBENCY RATES GOING DOWN EVERYWHERE. IT'S NOT JUST PLANO, IT'S OVERALL IN THE COUNTRY OR IN THE WORLD. SO, I'M NOT SURE IF THAT LOCATION IS A GREAT PLACE FOR A HEADQUARTER BUILDING OR ANY COMMERCIAL OR OFFICE BUILDING. AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT HEIGHT DENSITY. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC. WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT SEWAGE. BUT FROM A ZONING AND LAND USE PURPOSES OR POINT OF VIEW, I STILL THINK THAT LAND IS BEST USED AT THIS POINT FOR RESIDENTIAL. EVEN IF -- I'M JUST SAYING EVEN IF THEY BUILD ONLY THOSE TWO APARTMENT BUILDINGS AND LEAVE THE REST OF THE PROPERTY PARKS FOJUST GREENERY, I THINK THAT WILL STILL BE A GOOD ADDITION TO THE CITY. JUST PERSONAL OPINION. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. LISLE, I SAW YOU REACHING FOR YOUR . . . >> Lisle: AS I LOOK AT THIS PROJECT AS SOMEONE WHO LIVES HERE IN EAST PLANO, I LOOK AT THE ADJACENT LAND USES. AND I LOOK TO THE EAST AND IT'S MULTIFAMILY. I LOOK TO THE EAST OF THAT SITE AND IT JUST GOT APPROVED FOR MULTIFAMILY. BETWEEN THOSE TWO MULTIFAMILY SITES IS A BIKE TRAIL THAT LEADS YOU EITHER DIRECTLY INTO CityLine OR NORTH TO OUR DOWNTOWN AREA. I LOOK TO THE SOUTH AND IT'S MULTIFAMILY IN CityLine. I LOOK JUST TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE HIGHWAY AND THERE'S A DOG PARK LITERALLY UNDERNEATH THE HIGHWAY. SO AS FAR AS THE PARTICULATE MATTER, I DON'T SHARE A CONCERN. I THINK WE CAN GIVE THEM AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD THAT THEY CAN MEET ON THE INSIDE OF THEIR APARTMENT THAT PROTECTS AGAINST THE NOISE. IF YOU KEEP GOING TO THE WEST, IF YOU GO FROM THE EAST SIDE OF 75 TO THE WEST SIDE THERE'S SOME COMMERCIAL. THERE'S A CHICK-FIL-A, BEYOND THAT'S IT'S MORE MULTIFAMILY, THEN SINGLE-FAMILY, THEN SINGLE-FAMILY, THEN UMU WITH MULTIFAMILY SINGLE-FAMILY AND OFFICE. SO WHEN I LOOK AT SIMILARLY SITUATED PROPERTIES, I HAVE TO GIVE THE BI BENEFIT OF THE DOUBO THE DEVELOPER. RED LINE AND THE SILVER LINE. WITHOUT REZONING, THERE'S NOT A CLOSER PROPERTY TO A TRAIN STATION AVAILABLE IN EAST PLANO. MR. BROUNOFF, YOU BROUGH UP PART OF THE CONVERSATION THAT YOU HAD WITH MR. WOLFE AND THAT HE IMMEDIATELY SAID "TO NEVERNO" HE SAID THAT BECAUSE THERE'S A STIPULATION WITHIN THE PD THAT HE HAD TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. THE ANSWER HAD TO BE NOT WAY THAT THE QUESTION WAS PHRASED. THE ANSWER WAS NO BECAUSE HE'S ALREADY RESTRICTED HIMSELF TO BUILDING THE OTHER COMPONENT BEFORE HE CAN BUILD PHASE TWO. THAT WAS THE REASON FOR HIS IMMEDIATE "NO." I SH SHARE THE DEVELOPER'S FURTR CONVERSATION. I'M LABELING HIM AS THAT. WHEN WE LOOK AT LEGACY WEST WE HAVE ALL SORTS OF OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL USES RIGHT AT THE CORNER OF 121 AND THE TOLL ROAD. A LOTF THE LANGUAGE THAT CAME OUT OF THIS PD CAME FROM PD NUMBER WHAT, ERIC, 69? 64. WHICH IS MUCH CLOSER TO 121 AND THE TOLL ROAD THAN THIS SITE IS. AND SO I JUST THINK IT'S REALLY IMPORTANT AS A COMMISSION THAT WE'RE TREATING PEOPLE ON AN EQUAL STANDARD. AND IT IS FRUSTRATING TO ME WHEN I PUT MY DEVELOPER T HAT ON THAT IT CAN HAVE THE APPEARANCE -- I'M NOT LABELING STAFF AS BEING UNFAIR, BUT THERE'S CERTAINLY THE APPEARANCE TO ME THAT A SITE ON THE WEST SIDE GOT APPROVAL OR A RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF AND THIS ONE DOES NOT. AND I UNDERSTAND THERE'S DIFFERENCES. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE COMP PLAN, THERE'S DIFFERENCES. I WANT TO ADDRESS THE COMP PLAN. THE COMP PLAN IS A PLAN. IT WAS A HARD-WORKED-ON PLAN. IT'S A PLAN THAT DESERVES RESPECT. BUT IT WAS ONLY A PLAN. IT'S NOT THE COMP LAW. THE PLAN ALWAYS LOOKED FORWARD TO A BY SUCH AS THIS THAT WOULD BE ABLE TO CONTEMPLATE THE DIFFERENT ISSUES AND MAKE A DECISION. AND SO THAT'S OUR JOB HERE. IT'S NOT OUR JOB TO LOOK BACK AND GO THAT'S WHAT THEY WROTE DOWN. IT'S OUR JOB TO SAY THIS IS WHAT THEY WROTE DOWN BUT WHAT'S THE BEST THING FOR THE FUTURE OF EAST PLANO. AND I THINK THE GUYS HAVE BUILT SOME FABULOUS THINGS ACROSS THE COUNTRY. THIS IS GOING TO BE A GOOD USE FOR THE SITE. AS FAR AS QUALITY OF LIFE, I KNOW THAT WAS BROUGHT UP. I DRIVE BY THIS SITE AND MY QUALITY OF LIFE IS GOING TO IMPROVE WHEN I SEE A VIBRANT PARK AND PEOPLE VERSUS 18-WHEELERS SLEEPING THERE BECAUSE IT'S AN ABANDONED AREA OF TOWN. IT'S HOMELESS, IT'S TRASH. AND SO WITH ALL THE ADJACENT LAND USES, WITH THE PROXIMITY TO CityLine, IF YOU GO TO THE UMU DISTRICT THAT'S OVER BETWEEN ALLEN A A ANDCUSTER, THEY'RE 5,000 FEET TO HAVE A HAMBURGER. FROM THIS SITE THEY WOULD MAKE TO TO WHOLE FOO, PASS 18 DIFFERENT RESTAURANT OPTIONS BY THE TIME THEY WENT THE SAME DISTANCE. AND SO WE HAVE ONE STANDARD FOR A UMU DISTRICT BUT WHEN ALL OF THE MIXED USE IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED, SOMEHOW THAT STANDARD DOESN'T APPLY. THIS IS ALREADY A MIXED-USE DISTRICT BECAUSE ALL OF THOSE OTHER USES, THERE'S NOT THREE, THERE'S TONS THAT THESE PEOPLE HAVE THE ACCESS TO. AND SO I WOULD KINDLY ASK THE COMMISSION TO CONSIDER MY THOUGHTS AND CONSIDER SUPPORTING THIS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I GUESS COMMISSIONER OLLEY WAS NEXT. >> Olley: ALL GOOD THOUGHTS. I AGREE, IT'S A COMP PLAN, IT'S NOT COMP LAW. I TRY TO ANCHOR MYSELF TO THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES WHEN LOOKING AT THINGS LIKE THIS AND DOES THIS MEET, IN MY EYES, DOES IT ENHANCE THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN THE NEAR TERM. I THINK WHAT WE ARE GETTING CAUGHT UP IN IS WHAT IS THERE PRESENTLY RIGHT. IT'S AWFUL. [ LAUGHING ] >> Olley: IT'S AS SIMPLE AS THAT. AND ANYTHING IS GOING TO BE BETTER THAN WHAT IS THERE PRESENTLY, BUT IS THAT -- IF WE HANDCUFF THE USE OF THAT LAND JUST BECAUSE WE ARE TRYING TO SOLVE A PRESENT EYESORE, IS THAT THE RIGHT WAY TO GO? RIGHT. I AGREE WITH THE APPLINT. US NOTE STANDARD FOR MITIGATION FOR INTERNAL PARTICULATE MATTER IS OUR BAD, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT PERHAPS ADDRESSING THAT AND PUTTING IT IN MORE CONCRETE LANGUAGE TO GIVE YOU A STEP TO GO. I WANT SOMETHING IN THAT CURRENT PIECE OF LAND. THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES DON'T SEEM TO IN MY EYES SUPPORT THIS AS MUCH AS I WOULD LIKE SOMETHING IN THERE. BUT I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT WOULD BE A PERFECT MIX OF USES THAT ADDRESSES ALL OF THESE ISSUES. I'M A BIT ON THE FENCE, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE, IN MY EYES, DID NOT GIVE A STANDARD FOR THEM TO REACH THAT THEY COULD ADDRESS. AND LEAVING A LOT OF THINGS VERY SUBJECTIVE IN THIS AREA. JUST MY THOUGHTS FOR NOW. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. SO, AS I HAVE WORKED ON AND LOOKED THROUGH THIS, I'VE GOT SEVEN OR EIGHT ISSUES THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH. NUMBER ONE IS THE EHA. ON ONE SIDE, A AS I HAVE SAID, I DON'T THINK WE'VE DONE WELL ENOU WH THE SOU BECAUSE WE RE DEALING WITH INTERIOR SOUND AS OPPOSED TO EXTERIOR. I DO NOT BELIEVE THAT A SIX-FOOT BERM IS GOING TO PROVIDE THE NEEDED BLOCKAGE FOR FOR PARTICUS COMING OFF OF RAISED HIGHWAYS. NUMBER 2, STAFF HAS MADE IT CLEAR THEY DON'T SUPPORT -- THIS ISN'T FULLY IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, NOT ON ONE ISSUE, BUT ON THREE DIFFERENT ISSUES. RGM1 RGM5 RGM8. THE STAFF IS CLEAR THAT THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT INCLUDE ADEQUATE ZONING STANDARDS TO ADDRESS THE POLICIES AND DESIGN ISSUES. NUMBER 5, THE STAFF REPORT MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE DOWNTOWN VISION AND STRATEGY UPDATE IS NOT MET. I THINK THE STAFF HAS LAID OUT REASONING WHY IT IS NOT FULLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE NEIGHBORHOODS, INCLUDING THE BLOCK DESIGN. AND FINALLY, WHEN IT COMES TO LOOKING AT THE COMMERCIAL MARKET, I TEND TO SIDE WITH MR. CARY AND MR. OLLEY WHEN IT COMES TO BELIEVING THAT PLANO IS A VERY DIFFERENT COMMUNITY. AND I WILL BET MY MONEY ON THE CITY OF PLANO AND PLANO RESIDENTS OVER THE NEED TO ADD 260-ODD MULTIFAMILY HOMES IN AN AREA THAT THOUGH WE MAY HAVE APPROVED A ZONING REQUEST RECENTLY THAT PERMITTED CERTAIN HOUSING TO HAPPEN NEAR THIS, THE ECONOMIC BENEFIT FOR ME IN THE FULL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT -- I DON'T BELIEVE THAT ADDING 265 MORE HOMES THAT ARE MULTIFAMILY AND 33 THAT ARE SINGLE-FAMILY, 435 FEET, SOME OF THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, AWAY FROM THE ROADWAY . . . I THINK THERE ARE PLENTY OF REASONS THAT THIS DOES NOT FIT FOR THE CITY OF PLANO AND DOES NOT, IN MY VIEW, EXACTLY AS THE STAFF HAS PUT IT, LOOK AT THE LONG-TERM VISION FOR OUR COMMUNITY. AND I THINK THE LONG-TERM VISION FOR THE CITY OF PLANO IS STRONG AND SOUND. AND WE WILL FIND SOMETHING OF HHIGHER QUALITY TO GO INTO THIS. SO I TEND TO VOTE NO. >> Chair Downs: SO, A COUPLE OF TIMES IT'S BEEN POINTED OUT ABOUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDED DENIAL. STAFF'S HANDS ARE SOMEWHAT TIED. OURS ARE NOT. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS A GUIDE. IT HAS ALWAYS BEEN A GUIDE, WHETHER I SAT ON P&Z TO BEGIN WITH, SAT ON COUNCIL, OR SIT HERE THIS TIME AROUND. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICHEVER ONE WE WERE OPERATING UNDER, WAS A GUIDE. SO WHEN WE SAY WE'RE NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THESE THREE PARTS OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES, THAT'S ALSO SUBJECT TO A BIT OF INTERPRETATION, BECAUSE IT'S NOT BLACK AND WHITE. SO, THE DEVELOPER SAYS HEY, WE'RE MEETING ALL BUT ONE OR TWO. THAT'S THEIR INTERPRETATION. STAFF'S GOING TO USE PROBABL A LITTLE MORE BLACK AND WHITE INTERPRETATION. THAT'S THEIR ROLE. THAT'S TO HELP US, RIGHT. THEY'RE GOING TO KNOW IT BETTER THAN WE DO. SET ETY F A LONG TIME O LAND WAITING ON THE RIGHT DEVELOPMENT. WE DON'T KNOW IN FIVE YEARS FROM NOW WHETHER OR NOT TRAFFIC ON THE EXPRESSWAYS WILL BE LESS OR WILL BE QUIETER BECAUSE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES VERSUS MOTOR-DRIVEN PARTICULATE MATTER, EXHAUST FUMES, MAY BE LESS. WE DON'T KNOW ANY OF THAT STUFF. WHAT I KNOW IS THERE IS A BIG DEMAND FOR HOUSING IN THIS MMUNY, OR DEVELOPERS WOULDN'T WANT TO BE BUILDING MORE RESIDENTIAL HERE. WHAT I BELIEVE IS THAT NEIGHBORING COMMERCIAL SPACES WILL BENEFIT FROM ADDITIONAL PEOPLE LIVING IN THIS AREA VERSUS AN OFFICE. SO I BELIEVE THAT THIS DOES OPERATE AS A BIT OF A LIFELINE TO SOME OF THEM -- NOT ALL OF THEM. IT HAS TO BE A GOOD, VIABLE BUSINESS. I DO THINK, COMMISSIONER OLLEY, THAT WE NEED TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO BE MORE OBJECTIVE IN THE INFORMATION OR THE CRITERIA THAT WE GIVE OUR DEVELOPERS SO IT'S NOT QUITE AS SUBJECTIVE, RIGHT. BUT I THINK WE HAVE TO BE PRETTY LENIENT WITH THAT, BECAUSE TO COMMISSIONER LISLE'S POINT, IN ONE AREA OF THE CITY WE'RE FINE WITH THIS NOISE AND IN ANOTHER AREA, SUN SUDDENLY, WAIT A SECO. SO I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A BALANCE, OR AT LEAST A MORE EVEN-HANDED APPROACH TO THAT. EVERY SITUATION IS SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT. YOU THIS. AND SEWER I WIL TELL THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN SOMETHING THAT WAS BROUGHT UP ALMOST ANYWHERE. AND IF YOU HAVE AN OFFICE BUILDING, THE DE- DEMANDS ON THT SYSTEM WILL BE JUST AS GREAT. SO. ANYWAY. COMMISSIONER HILL, I'M PROMOTING YOU. CHAIR HILL. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE COMMENT. WE KEEP REFERENCING A SEPARATE PROPERTY. THAT'S NOT RELATED TO THE REQUEST TONIGHT. HOWEVER, THAT REQUEST -- THOSE UNITS WERE ALLOWEDITHI EHA TWO ALREADY. SO THE APPLICANT WAS MOVING THEM WITHIN THE PROPERTY. WHEN THOSE WERE INITIALLY APPROVED THROUGH A LARGER ZONING REQUEST, THAT WAS EVEN BEFORE WE HAD THESE POLICIES IN PLACE WITH THE EHA MAPS AND REQUIREMENTS. SO ONCE THEY CAME BACK LATER ON AND WANTED TO MOVE THOSE UNITS, THEY MOVED THEM SEVERAL HUNDRED FEET TO THE NORTH. WE THEN HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO PROGRAM IN SOME RESTRICTIONS THAT WE DID NOT HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO DO PREVIOUSLY. SO THEY WERE ALREADY WITHIN THOSE EHA DISTRICTS. AND MOVING THEM JUST GAVE US THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL MITIGATION. >> Chair Downs: I RECALL THAT. BUT THE FOCUS ON THE MITIGATION IS INTERIOR, NOT EXTERIOR. RIGHT? ISN'T THAT -- ALL ALONG -- >> THE GOAL IS EXTERIOR. SO THAT IS WHAT THE POLICY SAYS, IS TO ACHIEVE THAT 65 DBA EXTERIOR. HOWEVER, AS THE APPLICANT MENTIONED, THERE'S MULTIPLE EXTERIOR MITIGATION METHODS, BUT YOU COULD ADD TO THAT INTERIOR MITIGATION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. WE'RE GOING AROUND. COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YEAH, JUST A COUPLE THINGS. ONE, I WANTED TO MENTION WHAT MR. HILL SAID ABOUT -- TO COMMISSIONER LISLE'S POINT. THESE HAPPENED UNDER DIFFERENT PLANS AND DIFFERENT TIMES, SO WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. THE SECOND THING I WOULD SAY IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS JUST A PLAN, AND, OF COURSE, IT IS, BUT IT'S A GOOD PLAN. AND I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE, THAT WHAT STAFF RECOMMENDED WAS I THINK THEY RECOMMENDED THE RIGHT THING. OTHER PEOPLE DON'T AGREE HERE BUT I THINK THEY RECOMMENDED GOOD THINGS BASED ON WHAT THE PLAN SAYS. AND I DON'T SEE THAT THEIR HANDS WERE NECESSARILY TIED AND THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING AGAINST THEIR WILL HERE. I'M NOT SUGGESTING ANYBODY SAID THAT. I'M SAYING WHAT I SAY. I'M SAYING THAT FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH. THE FINAL THING I GUESS -- I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYBODY WANTS TO TALK ABOUT THIS. I'M CURIOUS, ULTIMATELY HOW MANY MULTIFAMILY APARTMENTS WE WANT TO BUILD IN THIS TOWN. BECAUSE WE TALK ABOUT THE NEED FOR HOUSING CONSTANTLY AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING -- DEPENDING ON YOUR DEFINITION OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING. THESE ARE NOT GOING TO BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING. BY THE WAY, PROBABLY NOTHING NEW THAT GETS BUILT IN PLANO WILL QUALIFY AS AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE NEED TO KEEP THAT IN MIND AS WE TALK ABOUT WORKFORCE HOUSING, AFFORDABLE HOUSING. WE NEED TO BE HONEST ABOUT THAT OR AT LEAST OBJECTIVE. FINALLY, I GUESS THAT'S MY POINT. HOW MANY APARTMENTS DO WE WANT AND WHAT EFFECT WILL IT HAVE ON OUR CITY. I DON'T KNOW. BY THE WAY, THAT IS NOTHING TO DO WITH MY VOTE ON THIS. MINE HAS COMPLETELY TO DO WITH ST U. BUT THERE ARE COMMENTS CONSTANTLY ABOUT WE NEED MORE HOUSING. AND I KNOW PEOPLE WANT TO MOVE HERE. WHAT IS PLANO'S OBLIGATION TO CREATE MORE HOUSING? IS IT UNLIMITED? I DON'T KNOW. ANYWAY, THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER LISLE. >> Olley: I AGREE. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER LISLE. SHE SAID IT DID TOO. GUESS WHAT, COMMISSIONER OLLEY? YOU'RE NEXT. I'M KIDDING. GO AHEAD. >> Lisle: ERIC, YOU MENTIONED THE SITE THAT ULTIFAMILY HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, THE UNITS WERE APPROVED, BUT THEY MOVED CLOSER TO THE HIGHWAY AND THAT GAVE STAFF AN OPPORTUNITY TO ADD STIPULATIONS FOR SAFETY, RIGHT? >> YES. THAT'S CORRECT. >> Lisle: AND ALL THE SAME STIPULATIONS THAT WERE ADDED ON THAT SITE HAVE BEN ADDED ON THIS SITE OR AT LEAST MOST OF THEM? >> SOME OF THEM, YES. >> Lisle: ARE THERE MORE WE COULD RECOMMEND? >> I THINK THERE'S SOME -- I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK IT UP. THERE WAS SOME OTHER LANGUAGE, I THINK RELATED TO AIR QUALITY. >> Chair Downs: AIR QUALITY VERSUS NOISE. >> CORRECT. I BELIEVE THE NOISE STANDARDS ARE REPLICATED IN THIS REQUEST. >> Lisle: OKAY. FROM OUR EARLIER CONVERSATION I DID BELIEVE THAT THOSE STANDARDS -- A LOT OF THAT LANGUAGE GOT BROUGHT TO THIS PD. >> A LOT OF IT DID, NOT THE ENTIRETY OF IT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: THE GUIDELINES -- THE PLAN WILL MANAGE GROWTH AND REDEVELOPMENT IN A GRADUAL MANNER ENSURING CHANGES ARE BENEFICIAL TO NEIGHBORS AND THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY BASED ON REAL CITY-LEVEL DEMAND. DOES PLANO NEED MORE HOUSING? YES. ARE THERE PLANS TO ADDRESS THAT ALREADY IN PLACE? YOU KNOW, MORE UNITS ARE COMING, COLLIN CREEK IS COMING AND WHAT HAVE YOU IS COMING. YES. I THINK WE'RE MEETING THOSE GUIDELINES. I'M STUCK ON IS THIS THE BEST USE OF THAT LAND. IF WE HAD THE OBJECTIVE THRESHOLDS IN PLACE, THIS WOULD BE AN AUTOMATIC NO IF YOU DIDN'T MEET THOSE MITIGATION STANDARDS. I'M GOING BETWEEN IS THIS THE BEST USE OF THE LAND. DO WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO HURRY AND GET SOMETHING QUOTE, UNQUOTE BETTER IN THAT SPOT JUST TO REMOVE WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE OR DO WE, AS A BODY, RESERVE THE JUDGMENT TO WAIT. I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG THAT WAIT IS FOR REAL CITY-LEVEL DEMAND TO DRAW WHAT WOULD BE A MUCH BETTER USE FOR THAT SPOT. AND THAT'S MY BALANCE. I LEAN TOWARDS THE LATTER. DON'T KNOW WHAT OUR TIMELINE IS. IS THAT A YEAR, TWO YEARS, THREE YEARS, TEN YEARS? I HAVE NO IDEA. AS GUARDIAN, SO TO SPEAK, OF THE PLAN, I THINK WE HAVE AN OBLIGATION TO RESIST THE URGE TO GRAB THE FIRST THING OFF THE SHELF JUST BECAUSE WHAT IS THERE RIGHT NOW IS NOT A GOOD USE OF THE LAND. >> Chair Downs: AND I THINK THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION BUT I WOULD SAY, AGAIN, THIS IS THE THIRD PRESENTATION I HAVE SEEN ON THIS SITE AND I VOTED NO ON THE FIRST ONE. THIS ISN'T A RUSH. THIS WAS FIRST PRESENTATIO-- ANTHATAS T AND A HALF, THREE YEARS AGO. IT WAS NO. AND IT CONTAINED MULTIFAMILY. DIDN'T HAVE THE OPEN SPACE LIKE THIS DOES. IT DIDN'T HAVE THIS CONNECTIVITY AND THE AREA AROUND IT HAS CHANGED AS WELL. SO, AGAIN, HOW LONG SHOULD WE WAIT? I DON'T KNOW. BUT I WOULD CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE RUSHING TO FILL SOMETHING HERE. IT'S MORE OF A I FOUND SOMETHING -- FOR M PERSONALLY, I FOUND SOMETHING THAT I THINK COMPLEMENTS WHAT IS THERE. TO MR. LISLE'S POINT EARLIER, I MEAN ALL UP AND DOWN 90 WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL OF DIFFERENT TYPES AND WE HAVE SOME MIXED-USE. TO ME, THIS ISN'T UNIQUE IN THAT REGARD, IT'S JUST HOW DO WE -- IS THIS SOMETHING THAT DOES ADD TO THAT AREA. TO COMMISSIONER CARY'S POINT, NO, WE'RE NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR HOUSING EVERYBODY WHO WANTS TO LIVE IN PLANO. WE CAN'T. THERE'S JUST NO WAY TO DO IT. RIGHT? YEAH. BUT IF WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN CONJUNCTION WITH WHAT I THINK EVENTUALLY WILL BE PROBABLY A VERY NICE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT FROM A VERY REPUTABLE DEVELOPER WITH A STRONG HISTORY OF BUILDING PROJECTS LIKE THIS NEAR, AGAIN, THESE TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTS OR IN THESE TYPES OF ENVIRONMENTS, I JUST DON'T SEE A LOT OF DOWNSIDE TO IT. AND SO -- AND YOUR QUESTION EARLIER. I WRESTLE WITH THIS OFTEN. IF WE DON'T BUILD THIS, WHAT DOES GET BUILT HERE? WHO KNOWS. IT COULD BE THAT TEN YEARS FROM NOW SOMETHING JUST LIKE THIS GETS BUILT HERE BECAUSE YOU HAVE A DIFFERENT COMMISSION SITTING HERE AND A DIFFERENT COUNCIL. WHO KNOWS. IS THIS A GOOD USE OF THAT LAND TODAY? EVEN FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS? I THINK IT IS. COMMISSIONER LISLE, ARE YOU DONE? YOU'RE DONE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I BELIEVE WE PUT FORTH A LOT OF GREAT DISCUSSION ON THIS. I WOULD BE THE VERY FIRST PERSON TO AGREE THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SIMPLY THAT PLAN AND I DO BELIEVE THAT THE STAFF HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO HONOR THE WORK PUT FORTH BY ALL OF THE CITIZENS. I DO BELIEVE THAT IT PRESENTS A VISION, A HOPEFUL VISION FOR OUR CITY'S FUTURE. AS I HAVE LAID OUT, THERE ARE SEVERAL REASONS I THINK THIS PROPERTY SHOULD BE DECLINED. AND SO I MAKE A MOTION WE TURN THIS DOWN AND SAY NO. >> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ANY FURTHER DISCUSSION? ON THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY TO DENY AGENDA ITEM 1A. SO A VOTE YES IS TO DENY. YOU'RE AGAINST THIS MOTION. IT DOESN'T MEAN YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING IT, IT JUST MEANS YOU'RE AGAINST THAT PARTICULAR MOTION. YES MEANS YOU'RE GOING TO DENY. NO MEANS YOU'RE NOT READY TO MAKE THAT CALL YET. AND THAT MOTION TO DENY CARRIES BY A VOTE OF 4-3. OKAY. WE NEED A MOTION ON ITEM 1B. >> I MOVE THAT WE DECLINE MOTION 1B AS WELL. SO A VOTE YES WOULD BE TO DECLINE IT. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF TO DENY ITEM 1B. AND THAT ITEM IS ALSO CARRIED BY A VOTE OF 4-3. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I GUESS WE'RE MOVING ON TO ITEM 2. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT: PLANO TECH CENTER II, BLOCK 1, LOT 2R- DATA CENTER ON ONE LOT ON 14.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PLANO PARKWAY AND SHILOH ROAD. ZONED RESEARCH/TECHNOLOGY CENTER AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY D APPLICANT: LI PLANO, LLC. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERA. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: YOUR MIC WAS OFF. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYONE ELSE COULD HEAR YOU. TRY THAT AGAIN. >> THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. >> Chair Downs: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION. >> I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY MMISONER CARY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE ITEM 2 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. ITEM 3. >> AGENDA ITEM 3. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT: SIDNEY ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 1R - USE VEHICLE DEALER ON ONE LOT ON 9. ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PLANO PARKWAY, 755 FEET EAST OF FULGHAM ROAD. ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL-1 AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PA OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: ASBURY TX AUCTION, LLC. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERA. >> THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. YOUR MIC, PLEASE. >> Brounoff: I'M JUST CURIOUS. THIS IS TO COMBINE TWO CAR LOTS INTO A SINGLE LOT, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Brounoff: I'M JUST CURIOUS. INVOLVED HE?RMER CAR LOTS WERE DO YOU HAPPEN TO KNOW? IS ONE THE OLD MERCEDES DEALERSHIP? >> I'M NOT SURE OF THE SPECIFIC -- >> I DON'T REMEMBER THE COMPANIES AT THIS TIME, THE BRANDS AT THIS TIME. APOLOGIZE. >> Brounoff: I'M JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF TO APPROVE ITEM 3 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 4 IS ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO BRING BACK THE EHA TOPIC BEFORE WE LET STAFF GO FORWARD AND SPEND MONEY ON ANOTHER REPORT. TO MEETINGS AGO WE BROUGHT IT UP. I SPECIFICALLY ASKED STAFF TO GIVE ME THE INFORMATION TO I COULD EDUCATE MYSELF AND STAFF DID EXACTLY THAT. BUT THERE WERE FOUR OR FIVE LINKS TO VIDEOS AND THERE WAS 70 PAGES OF A REPORT. AND I HAVE JUST NOW GOTTEN THROUGH ALL OF IT. AND SO BEFORE WE HAVE OUR CITY GO SPEND MORE MONEY ON ANOTHER REPORT, WHEN WE HAVE A REPORT THAT'S FROM 2019, I WOULD LIKE TO HAVE MOREONVEATIO AROUND THIS DAIS BEFORE WE SPEND THAT MONEY. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANOTHER REPORT FROM THE SAME CONSULTANT OR A DIFFERENT CONSULTANT CHANGES ANYTHING. IN OTHER WORDS, IF THE INFORMATION FROM 2019 -- I GUESS ANOTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS -- I APOLOGIZE TO YOU ALL. I DIDN'T GET THROUGH ALL THE INFORMATION BEFORE MONDAY'S MEETING AND SO NOW HAVING GONE THROUGH A LOT OF IT, I JUST THINK THERE'S A LOT MORE CONVERSATION TO BE HAD BEFORE WE GO SPEND MORE MONEY ON A REPORT. >> Olley: ON 2019? >> Lisle: ON THE 2019 REPORT. I REALIZE THAT THE COMP PLAN SAYS TO LOOK AT THIS EVERY FIVE YEARS BUT I THINK LOOKING AT IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN, OKAY, GO SPEND MORE MONEY AND GET US ANOTHER REPORT ON SOMETHING. >> Chair Downs: WAS THE INTENTION FOR GETTING THE REHIRING A CONSULTANT OR WHATEVER WAS TO BRING MORE FOCUS ON THE PARTICULATES? >> IT WAS TO EXPLORE IF WE COULD HAVE AN OBJECTIVE THRESHOLD FOR INTERNAL MITIGATION FROM AIR QUALITY, WHICH THE 2019 STUDY DOES NOT ADDRESS. >> Lisle: IN READING THE REPORT, THERE'S JUST NOT A METHOD TO DO THAT BECAUSE OF A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED AT THAT MEETING. THE AIR, THE WIND DIRECTION, WHETHER THERE'S RAIN. THERE'S SO MANY VARIABLES THAT -- >> Chair Downs: THAT DEALS WITH EXTERIOR. >> Olley: THAT DEALS WITH EXTERIOR. I'M TALKING ABOUT INTERIOR. WE HAVE TWO THRESHOLDS FOR NOISE. YOU HAVE 65 FOR EXTERIOR AND 45 FOR INTERIOR AND THE BUILDING MATERIALS, WHAT HAVE YOU, ARE MITIGATION TOWARDS THE INTERIOR. SIMILARLY, IS THERE SOME MITIGATING FACTOR, EITHER AIR FILTER MERV QUALITY -- I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT THRESHOLD IS. IF EXTERIOR IS CONSISTENTLY OVER A THOUSAND PPM, DOES A MERV FILTER CUT THAT BY HALF? IS THAT THE THRESHOLD YOU'LL BE LOOKING FOR, RIGHT? I THINK IT WOULD BE MORE OF A PERCENTAGE KIND OF REDUCTION. SO IF IT'S 2,000 PPM AND IT CUTS IT DOWN TO 1,000, IT MEETS THE 50% THRESHOLD. WHAT IS THAT OBJECTIVE TARGET THAT IT CAN GO AIM FOR SO THAT WHEN THE GENTLEMAN IS IN FRONT OF US AND SAYS HE USES A MERV8, FROM WHAT I KNOW -- I USE A MERV15 IN MY HOUSE BUT I HAVE PARTICULAR HEALTH ISSUES IN MY HOME. IS A MERV8 OKAY? I HAVE NO IDEA. THAT WAS THE MAIN TARGET IS GIVE THEM AN OBJECTIVE TARGET TO GO SOLVE FOR. AN OBJECTIVE TARGET THAT DOES NOT HONOR US. PUTTING MERV13s IN A 300 UNIT WILL PROBABLY COST A BEJESUS AMOUNT OF MONEY. THAT WAS MY MAIN PUSH FOR THAT. >> Cary: I JUST WANT TO CIRCLE BACK. IHINK IT WAS LAST MEETING OR THE MEETING BEFORE, THOUGH, COMMISSIONER LISLE WAS TALKING ABOUT -- MAYBE IT BLENDS INTO THIS CONVERSATION. HOW MUCH OF THIS ARE WE TRYING TO LEGISLATE AND WHAT IS OUR ROLE? I'M INTERESTED IN HAVING THAT CONVERSATION. ABSOLUTELY. >> SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE STARTING TO HAVE THE CONVERSATION SO LET'S REIN THIS IN AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT -- >> Chair Downs: WE WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AROUND THE ENVIRONMENT -- WELL, WE HAVE ALREADY ASKED STAFF TO HIRE SOMEBODY. DO WE WANT TO HAVE A DISCUSSION AT ONE OF OUR NEXT MEETINGS TO TELL STAFF TO HOLD UP. DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO HAVE THAT CONVERSATION? I HAVE ONE PERSON. I NEED ANOTHER. >> Cary: I WILL. MAYBE JUST PUT IT ON PAUSE UNTIL WE DIG A LITTLE BIT DEEPER. >> Chair Downs: PLEASE ADD TO A FUTURE AGENDA OR REVISIT THE REQUEST FOR AN UPDATED ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY FOR THE CITY. THANK YOU. ANYTHING ELSE? OKAY. 9:15 WE'RE ADJOURNED. [MEETING ADJOURNED]