PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION >> Chair Downs: GOT TO REMEMBER THE TALK BUTTON. IT'S 7:02 P.M., OR A COUPLE OF MINUTES LATE. WE HAD A BRIEFING IN OUR PRELIMINARY THAT RAN A LITTLE LONG. SO, IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >> COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PE SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON TH CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Cir Downs: THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE TO CONSENT. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACT UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> I.D. LIKE TO MOVE WE PULL ITEM D. >> Chair Downs: I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION, BUT YOU WANT TO PULL ITEM D. ANYONE WANT TO PULL ANY ITEM FROM THE CONSENT? VERY WELL. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED WITH ITEM D PULLED. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. HANG ON. WE HAVE THE CITY COUNCIL'S LISTING UP ON OUR -- YEAH. WE'LL GIVE HER A MOMENT TO TRY TO GET THAT STRAIGHT. BECAUSE IT SIMPLIFIES EVERYTHING IF IT'S WORKING THERE VERSUS... THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CARY FOR POINTING THAT OUT. I LOOKED UP AND I SAID MY NAME'S NOT TU. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE ALMOST THERE. ALMOST THERE. OKAY. SHALL WE TRY THIS AGAIN? WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITHOUT ITEM D. PLEASE VOTE. IS MINE WORKING? THERE IT GOES. AND THAT CARRIES 8-0. ITEM D. IS IT WORKING FOR YOU? OKAY. YOU WANT TO READ ITEM D? >> CONSENT AGENDA ITEM D IS HIGH POINT -- SORRY. IT'S A REVISED SITE PLAN. HIGH POINT NORTH ATHLETIC COMPLEX, BLOCK A, LOT 1R. PARK/PLAYGROUND AND PUBLIC SERVICE YARD ON ONE LOT ON 23.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ALMA DRIVE, 1430 FEET NORTH OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY. IT'S ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-329 COMMUNITY CENTER. APPLICANT IS CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONERS. PARKER McDOWELL, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE JANUARY 2, 2024 MEETING. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, IF THERE ARE ANY. VE MUCH. Downs: THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I'D LIKE, SINCE THIS DOESN'T REQUIRE US TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING, I'D LIKE TO TABLE ITEM D TO JANUARY 2, 2024'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO TABLE ITEM D TO THE JANUARY 2, 2024 MEETING. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO TO IMSOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. >> PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL, IF NEEDED REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME, WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIO LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY, EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BLEGA CONSIDERAT AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-020 - REQUEST TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 124- NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS ON 7.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY, 810 FEET NORTH OF 15TH STREET. PETITIONER: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDE. >> THIS IS A REQUEST TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 124 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE TO MODIFY THE LOT COVERAGE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. ON THIS SLIDE IS THE SUBJECT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. TO THE NORTH, A SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED NEIGHBORHOOD. TO THE EAST IS SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED NEIGHBORHOOD ZONED RESIDENCE-9. TO THE NORTH THERE'S A SHOPPING CENTER ZONED RETAIL -- EXCUSE ME. TO THE SOUTH THERE'S A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER ZONED RETAIL. TO THE WEST THERE ARE SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED NEIGHBORHOOD ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE-9, COMMERCIAL RETAIL ZONED RETAIL. ON AUGUST 7, 2023, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 124 NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE. AT THE REQUEST OF A PROPERTY OWNER IN THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THE ORIGINAL APPLICANT INTENDED TO REQUEST MODIFICATIONS TO ALLOW A HEALTH/FITNESS CENTER USE ON THIS PROPERTY BUT IS NO LONGER PURSUING THE DEVELOPMENT AND ASSOCIATED ZONING. HOWEVER, DURING THE REVIEW OF THE ASSOCIATED SITE PLAN, IT WAS DISCOVERED THAT MANY OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE PD EXCEED THE 30% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE OF THE BASE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICE ZONING. THE ZONING ALLOWS FOR A 30% MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE WHICH IS CALCULATED BASED ON THE BUILDING FOOTPRINT AND LOT SIZE. AT THE TIME OF APPROVAL ALL BUT ONE WITHIN THE TEN-LOT DEVELOPMENT EXCEEDED THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AS SHOWN IN THE 1977 SITE PLAN OF THE ROYALENTER ADDITION AND TABLE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE. THIS CHANGED THE MAXIMUM COVERAGE WILL ALLOW THE CURRENT BUILDING TO BE BROUGHT INTO COMPLIANCE. NO NEW USES ARE BEING PROPOSED IN THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT IN THIS REQUEST TONIGHT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY CORNERS OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP . AS THE REQUEST DOES NOT IMPACT THE PREVIOUS EXISTING LAND USE TYPE, MIX OF USES AND OTHER POLICY, STAFF FINDS PROPOSED AMENDMENTS CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AS YOU SEE ON THE TABLE ON THE SLIDE, THEY ALL MEET OR THERE ARE NO CHANGES. WE RECEIVED TWO OFFICIAL LETTERS WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS CASE. ONE LETTER IN SUPPORT AND ONE NEUTRAL TO THE REQUEST. WE RECEIVED THREE TOTAL RESPONSES CITYWIDE, ONE IN SUPPORT, ONE NEUTRAL, AND ONE OPPOSED. THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE AND BRING PROPERTIES INTO COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING STANDARDS AND TO AVOID UNEXPECTED COMPLICATIONS FOR AFFECTED PROPERTY OWNERS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE GRID THAT SHOWED THE AMOUNT, THE SIZE OF EACH BUILDING IN RELATION TO THE LOT SIZE. I MEAN, THEY'RE ALL LIKE 33%, 31%. A COUPLE OF OUTLIERS THERE BUT IS THERE ANYTHING THAT WOULD HAVE CHANGED, EITHER IN THE LOT DESIGNATIONS OR SOMETHING THAT WOULD PUT THEM ALL SO CLOSE IN TERMS -- IT'S LIKE THEY WERE ALL TRYING TO BE RIGHT AT THAT. SO IS THERE SOMETHING THAT CHANGED? OR WHAT WOULD HAVE CAUSED US -- I JUST FIND IT HARD TO BELIEVE THAT THEY PURPOSELY ALL TRIED TO EXCEED THEIR BUILDING SIZE BY 3%. >> YES. IN OUR RESEARCH OF THIS,T LOOKS LIKE THE ORIGINAL DEVELOPMENT, THEY CALCULATED ALL THE LOT COVERAGE FOR THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT, NOT FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL LOT AS THEY SHOULD HAVE DONE WITH THE ZONING. THAT'S HOW WE THINK THEY GOT THOSE NUMBERS. >> Chair Downs: THAT MAKES SENSE. IT WAS TOO CONSISTENT FOR IT TO BE SOMETHING, AN INDIVIDUAL DECISION FOR EACH BUILDING. AND SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REALLY IS JUST TO LET THESE SIT AND NOW THEY'RE IN CONFORMANCE BECAUSE OF THE ONE. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? OH, UP HERE. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO, I GUESS MY QUESTION IS WHAT DO WE HAVE IN PLACE OR DO WE THINK WE MIGHT NEED TO HAVE IN PLACE IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT WE DON'T HAVE DISCOVERIES LIKE THIS COMING UP AT OTHER POINTS IN TIMES RELATED TO LOT COVERAGE OR ANYTHING RELATED TO THAT? >> AS FAR AS A SITUATION LIKE THIS, IT REALLY IS A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS AS IT COMES UP. AS OF RIGHT NOW, I'M NOT AWARE OF ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO SEEK OUT THESE ISSUES, O ITHER THAN AS THEY COME TO US. >> Bronsky: YEAH. I GUESS MY ONLY CONCERN IS ONCE THINGS PASS AND LEAVE US AND THEN THEY GET OUT INTO THE REAL WORLD AND GET ACTIVE AND THINGS CHANGE BEYOND WHAT WE WERE EXPECTING THEM TO SEE, THAT WE HAVE SOME KIND OF SAFEGUARDS TO ENSURE THAT WHAT THIS BODY ACTUALLY PASSES IS WHAT WE ACTUALLY PROVIDE TO OUR CITIZENS, I GUESS IS MY CONCERN. >> OKAY. MR. BELL, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT ONE? >> YEAH. IN MOST CASES WE'RE HAVING A SURVEYED LOT, ENGINEER DRAWINGS AND THAT'S WHAT GETS INSPECTED. THE FINAL DESIGN. THESE PLATS ARE RECORDED AT THE END TO VERIFY WHAT WAS BUILT WAS ACTUALLY WHAT WAS APPROVED. IN THIS CASE WE'VE GOT DECADES OF DEVELOPMENT WHERE RULES HAVE CHANGED, THE WAY PEOPLE INTERPRET ORDINANCES HAVE CHANGED. ZONING HAS CHANGED. I DON'T THINK THIS WAS AN INTENTIONAL GOING OVER THE LOT COVERAGE. JUST A MATTER OF SEVERAL DECADES SINCE THIS WAS APPROVED AND TIMES HAVE CHANGED SLIGHTLY. THAT'S WHY ANY TIME WE LOOK AT CHANNG ZING REQUIREMENTS, WE WANT TO SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS FOR SITUATIONS SUCH AS THIS SO WE DON'T CREATE NON-CONFORMITIES UNINTENTIONALLY. >> Bronsky: THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS HOPING. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: QUICK QUESTION. SO THE CAP OF THE 30% WILL EFFECTIVELY ONLY CAP BLOCK A, LOT 1 IF THEY EVER DECIDE TO BREAK DOWN THE BUILDING AND BUILD SOMETHING ELSE THEY CAN GO ABOVE 30%. AND YOU'RE SAYING WE'LL CAP LOT 3. >> THAT IS CORRECT . IF THEY CAN MEET THE 30%, WHICH AS YOU MENTION WOULD BE BLOCK 1, LOT A. OR IT WOULD BE WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED HISTORICALLY. SO FOR INSTANCE FOR THIS ONE, BLOCK C LOT 3, THERE'S NO LONGER A BUILDING ON SITE BUT IT WILL ALLOWED TO BE BUILT DURING THE HISTORICAL FOOTPRINT. >> Olley: SECOND QUESTION. THE USE OF A CHURCH, THAT IS GOING TO BE PERMITTED ON LOT 2, BLOCK C. WOULD THAT BE ANCCESRY USE ACROSS THE PD FOR RELIGIOUS FACILITIES? ARE WE ABLE TO KEEP IT TO JUST THAT PARTICULAR LOT? >> THIS REQUEST IS NOT CHANGING ANY OF THE ALLOWED USES FOR THE PD. SO THAT USE WILL REMAIN JUST FOR THAT LOT, AS WELL AS THE OTHER LIMITED USES AS SHOWN IN BULLET 5. >> LET ME CLARIFY. THAT RESTRICTION IN NO. 5 WAS WRITTEN IN THE '90s, PRIOR TO THE RELIGIOUS LAND USE INSTITUTIONALIZE PERSON ACT WHICH ALLOWS CHURCHES MORE AUTHORITY IN LIEUS. IN LAND USE. WE WOULD BE PREEMPTED ON THIS FEDERAL LAW. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THIS PD IS BASICALLY GOING TO MEMORIALIZE WHAT'S THERE TODAY SO WHEN SOMEBODY GOES TO SELL WE DON'T HAVE A TITLE EXCEPTION. >> THAT IS CORRECT. AS I MENTIONED, THE PREVIOUS REQUEST, WE WERE LOOKING THROUGH IT. WE NOTICED THAT NOT ONLY WAS THE LOT 3 HAVE ISSUES WITH THAT, IT'S THE ENTIRE PD. THILL AVOID SITUATIONS WHERE IF THEY DECIDE TO COME TO A BUILDING PERMIT FOR SOMETHING ELSE AND IT TRIPS UP, IF THEY'RE OVER 30%, THEY CAN PROCEED WITH PERMITS FOR INTERNAL STUFF THEY ARE CURRENTLY DOING TODAY WITHOUT AFFECTING THE FOOTPRINT. >> Ratliff: THAT LEADS TO MY NEXT QUESTION, WHICH IS SHOULD ONE OF THOSE BUSINESSES WANT TO EXPAND THEIR BUILDING BY 100 SQUARE FEET OR COVER A PATIO OR ENCLOSE SOMETHING, THERE'S STILL A MECHANISM FOR THEM TO COME IN AND GET A VARIANCE FROM THAT REQUIREMENT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THE PLANNING AND ZONING PROCESS, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO ZONINGND REQUEST AN AMEND TO THE PD FOR THAT PARTICULAR USE. >> Ratliff: IF WE DON'T DO THIS OR IF THEY HAD COME IN A MONTH AGO BEFORE THIS WAS BROUGHT FORWARD, THEY WOULD HAVE HAD TO GO BACK THROUGH P&Z ANYWAY, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> Ratliff: THIS ISN'T CHANGING WHAT ONE OF THOSE BUSINESS OWNERS WOULD HAVE TO DO BY DOING THIS VERSUS WHAT THEY HAD TO DO SIX MONTHS AGO HAD THEY COME FORWARD. >> CORRECT. IT WILL HELP PROTECT THEM FOR THEIR CURRENT OPERATIONS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED IN GETTING ADDITIONAL -- CHANGING THEIR FACADE OR GETTING ADDIONAL. >> Ratliff: I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T CREATING A HURDLE FOR SOME OF THE OWNERS THAT WASN'T THERE ALREADY. SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE HURDLES THAT THEY WOULD HAVE HAD. IT'S JUST WE'RE REMEMORIALIZING WHAT'S THERE TODAY TO HELP CLEAN UP THE RECORDS FOR EVERYBODY. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: I JUST WANT TO BRING UP A POINT OF SUBTLE DRAFTING. I KNOW WHAT THE INTENT IS HERE. I'M READING THE LANGUAGE OF YOUR PROPOSED STIPULATION NO. 6. IT SAYS MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE, 30% OR AS THE BUILDING SIZE WAS CONSTRUCTED PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION DATE OF THIS PROVISION, WHICHEVER IS GREATER. I'M NOT SURE THAT THAT LANGUAGE WOULD STOP, HYPOTHETICALLY, SOMEBODY FROM TEARING DOWN AN EXISTING BUILDING AND ARGUIN THAT A NEW BUILDING WILL BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE SAME BUILDING SIZE AS PREVIOUSLY CONSTRUCTED. 31 32 33 38%. I WOULD RECOMMEND THERE BE AN INSERTION IN THAT LANGUAGE THAT SAYS WH REECT TO EXISTING BUILDINGS ONLY. AND THEN THE REST OF IT CAN BE FINE. >> Chair Downs: I THINK THE INTENT WAS THAT IF A BUILDING BURNED DOWN, THEY COULD REBUILD ON THE SAME SLAB TO THE SAME SIZE THAT'S THERE. >> Brounoff: I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS LANGUAGE WOULD PROHIBIT THAT. >> Chair Downs: WE DON'T WANT TO PROHIBIT IT. >> I AGREE WITH YOUR INTERPRETATION. I THINK THE INTENT MAY BE THAT THEY WANTED TO LET THEM RECONSTRUCT THE LARGER. >> Brounoff: THEY WANT TO LET THEM RECONSTRUCT? >> THAT'S WHAT DROVE THIS PD TO BEGIN WITH. THERE WAS AN EXISTING BUILDING PAD AT 31% AND THEY WANTED TO REUSE IT BUT THEY COULDN'T BASED ON THE 30% ZONING IN PLACE. THIS IS ALLOWING THEM TO GET WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONSTRUCTED AND REUSE THAT PAD SITE. >> Brounoff: OKAY. IF THAT'S THE INTENT, OKAY. I UNDERSTOOD THE INTENT TO BE THAT WE'RE GIVING THEM AN EXCEPTION FOR EXISTING BUILDINGS BUT AFTER THAT YOU HAVE TO COMPLY. APPARENTLY NOT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. >> Chair Downs: ANYTHING NEW BUILT WOULD HAVE TO BE 30% OR LESS. EXISTING BUILDINGS, THOUGH, THOSE SITES YOU COULD REBUILD ON THE PAD SITE TO THE SAME SIZE THAT WAS THERE. SO THERE'S AN EXEMPTION FOR THOSE THAT ARE OVER 30%. CLEAR AS MUD? ALL RIGHT. NO MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TTHEOMMISSION. THOUGHTS? ANYONE? >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> Chair Downs: MOTION TO APPROVE BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY, ITEM 1 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU. ITEM 2. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2.UBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-021 - REQUEST TO REZONE 5.0 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF ENTERPRISE DRIVE, 175 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD FROM CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL TO PLANNED RESIDENCE ATTACHED. PETITIONER: FAIRVIEW FARM LAND COMPANY LTD. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS KATYA COPELAND, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM TO BE TABLED TO THE JANUARY 2, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? >> CAN YOU TELL US WHY IT'S BEING TABLED? >> STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE STILL WORKING ON THE SITE DESIGN OF THE LOT AND WANT TO CONTINUE THOSE DISCUSSIONS BEFORE BRINGING THE ITEM FORWARD. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? >> Olley: AND CONSIDERING THE HOLIDAYS, JANUARY 2 IS ENOUGH TIME? >> YES. >> Chair Downs: STAFF, MAN, THEY WOR 24/7 TO GET IT DONE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEM 2? >> THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OKAY. I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MOVE WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM NO. 2 TO THE JANUARY 2, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO TABLE ITEM 2 TO THE JANUARY 2 MEETING. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 3. >> ITEMS 3A AND 3B WILL BE READ TOGETHER. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-026 - REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR NEW VEHICLE DEALER ON 5.4 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TENNYSON PARKWAY AND DALLAS ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. PETITIONER: SRHC PLATINUM PARK PHASE II, LP. THIS IS FOR LEGIS. THE ACCOMPANYING IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, TENNYSON PARKWAY OFFICE CENTER, BLOCK 1, LOT 4 - NEW VEHICLE DEALER ON ONE LOT ON 5.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TENNYSON PARKWAY AND DALLAS PARKWAY. ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: SRHC PLATINUM PARK PHASE II, LP. THIS IS FOR ADMIN. >> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN. AS MS. BRIDGES STATED, THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN SUP, SPECIFIC-USE PERMIT FOR A NEW VEHICLE DEALER ON AN UNDEVELOPED PIECE OF LAND. HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. TO THE NORTH ACROSS TENNYSON PARKWAY IS ZONED CENTRAL BUSINESS 1 AND IS UNDEVELOPED. TO THE EAST IS ZONED CB1 AND IS DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE. THERE ARE TWO PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ZONED CE, COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT. THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY SOUTH IS DEVELOPED WITH A HOTEL. THE PROPERTY WITH THE SOUTHWEST IS DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH TRANSIT CENTER/STATION AND TO THE WEST IS ZONED CE AND IT IS DEVELOPED WITH AN OFFICE. A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY ACCOMPANIES THIS REQUEST AS AGENDA ITEM NO. 3B. THIS PLAN SHOWS THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES AND SITE DESIGN OF THE PROPOSED USE. ON THE SCREEN IS THE PROPOSED BUILDING DESIGN FOR THE NEW VEHICLE DEALERSHIP. ANEAST ELEVATIONS. THE NORTH THE FOLLOWING PAGE WILL SHOW THE SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS ADDING THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT WITH A PRESENTATION TO DISCUSS IN GREATER DETAIL THE LAYOUT OF THE BUILDING. THE IMAGE SHOWS A TWO TO FIVE STORY, APPROXIMATELY 250,000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING. THE BUILDING WILL INCLUDE TWO-STORY SHOWROOM, SERVICE AREA BELOW, A THREE-STORY PARKING GARAGE. THE GARAGE WILL BE ABLE TO ACCOMMODATE 454 GARAGE SPACES AND 235 SURFACE STALLFOR A TOTAL OF 689 PARKING SPACES. CONSTRUCTION IS AN EFFECTIVE WAY TO USE WHAT LIMITED SPACE MAY BE AVAILABLE ON A SITE AND THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THIS APPLICANT IS DOING WITH THIS 5.4-ACRE PROPERTY. THE VERTICALITY IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT DISTINGUISHING THIS FROM OTHER DEALERSHIPS. TWO STIPULATIONS HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION REGARDING THE BUILDING HEIGHT. IF APPROVED, EXECUTING THIS VERTICAL DESIGN IS AN IMPORTANT PART OF THE REQUEST. THERE ARE ALSO SEVEN ROLL-UP STYLE DOORS PROPOSED ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING TENNYSON AND DALLAS. THIS WILL BE DISCUSSED IN A LATER SLIDE. THE IMAGE SHOWIN THE SOUTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS NOW. THESE TWO SIDES FOCUS ON THE PARKING GARAGE AND THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, ADDING A MAJORITY OF THE SURFACE PARKING, SOLID WASTE CONTAINERS, AND THE OPEN STORAGE ELEMENTS ARE LOCATED ON THIS AREA OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THERE ARE SIX ROLL-UP DOORS FACING THE WEST AND SOUTH. THE ENTRANCE WILL BE ON THE WEST SIDE. A STIPULATION HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE RECOMMENDATION THAT AT LEAST 65% OF THE PARKING SPACES SHALL BE LOCATED INTERIOR TO THE PARKING STRUCTURE. THIS ENSURES THAT THE PROPOSEDúY ELEMENT TO THE VERTICAL DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED EMPLOYMENT CENTER ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE PRIMARY USES ARE CORPORATE OFFICE CAMPUSES, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES TECHNOLOGY CENTERS, AND RESEARCH FACILITIES. LIMITED MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE SYSTEMS MAY BE ALLOWED TO SUPPORT THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. WHILE THE REQUEST IS FOR A COMMERCIAL USE THAT WILL REQUESTED USE IS NOT PART OF THE DESIRED LAND USES WITHIN THE EM DASHBOARD. THIS SITE REQUIRES AN ANALYSIS REGARDING THE UNDERDEVELOPED LAND USE POLICY. SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY AS POSTED ON THE PLANO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WEBSITE. THIS POLICY RECOMMENDS THAT THE CITY RESERVE ITS LIMITED UNDEVELOPED LAND FOR DIINCTIVE CHARACTERPMENT WITH PRIORITIZING BUSINESSES OFFERING SKILLED EMPLOYMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A UNIQUE NON-TRADITIONAL FORM OF A DEALERSHIP THAT RESEMBLES AN OFFICE PARK CHARACTER THAT THE AREA SEES TODAY. IT DOES NOT MAXIMIZE THE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES THAT MAY BE PROVIDED IF THE SITE WAS RESERVED FOR ALTERNATIVE USES. FOR THIS REASON STAFF FINDS IT ONLY PARTIALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY. ADDING A CONCENTRATION OF NEW VEHICLE DEALERSHIPS HAVE BEEN APPROVED ALONG THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY NORTH OF WINDHAVEN PARAY SINCE 2004. ALL OF THE PREVIOUSLY-APPROVED SUPS. LAND ALONG THIS CORRIDOR PROVIDES CONVENINT ACCESS AND VISIBILITY FOR HIGHER DENSITY EMPLOYMENT USES. VEHICLE DEALERSHIP SITES CAN BE DIFFICULT TO REUSE AND REDEVELOP LONG TERM. WITH ONLY 1900 OF UNDEVELOPED LAND REMAINING IN PLANO, THIS REQUEST SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. WITH THAT SAID, STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. A NEW VEHICLE DEALER DOES NOT MEET THE GENERAL DESCRIPTIONS AND PRIORITIES OF THE EM DASHBOARD BUT THE DESIGN SUPPORTS THE GENERAL CAMPUS-LIKE SETTING INTENDED FOR THE CE SINK DISTRICT. THE ADJACENT USES COMBINED WITH THIS PARCEL AND ACCESS MAY PROVIDE A DESIRABLE LOCATION FOR A FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF ANOTHER USE THAT SUPPORTS THE ADJACENCIES AND COMPLETELY ALIGNS WITH THIS POLICY. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, THE VERTICALITY IS A CRITICAL ELEMENT OF THE DESIGN OF THIS BUILDING. IF RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, PLEASE CONSIDER THESE TWO STIPULATIONS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN RELATED TO BUILDING HEIGHT. A LARGE COMPONENT OF THE VEHICLE DEALERSHIP IS THE SERVICE ASPECT. SEVEN ROLL-UP STYLE DOORS ARE PROPOSED ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING TENNYSON PARKWAY AND THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY. STAFF IS MORE FOCUSED ON THE NORTH AND EAST DOORS AS THEY DO FACE THE RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S WORTH MENTIONING THAT NONE OF THESE DOORS SERVE AS A DE SERVICE AREAS. ON THE NORTH SIDE CIRCLED IN RED AND MARKED WITH THE LETTER A WILL BE THE VEHICLE SHOWROOM. MARKED WITH THE LETTER C WILL BE THE PHOTO BOOTH AREA WHERE 360-DEGREE PHOTOS WILL BE TAKEN OF VEHICLES. ON THE EAST SIDE, LETTER B INDICATES THE SERVICE LANE ENTRY. CUSTOMERS WILL DRIVE UP, PARK THEIR VEHICLE, AND A TEAM MEMBER WILL TAKE THEIR CAR AND DRIVE IT INTO THE SERVICING AREA. THE VEHICLES SERVICED WILL OCCUR WITHIN THE BUILDING, NOT OUTSIDE. STAFF RECOMMENDS A STIPULATION THAT THE VEHICLE SERVICE BASE SHOULD NOT BE ORIENTED TOWARDS DALLAS PARKWAY OR TENNYSON EXCEPT AS NOTED. TRANSPARENCY REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN ADDED TO THE STIPULATION TO MAINTAIN BUILDING AESTHETICS. TO CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN A HIGH-QUALITY AESTHETIC AND CHARACTER OF THE CE DISTRICT, THERE ARE TWO STIPULATIONS ON THE SCREEN REGARDING CANOPIES AND PARKING. WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES WITHIN 200 FEET OF THIS REQUEST. ALSO DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES CITYWIDE. SPECIFIC-USE PERMIT FOR A NEW- VEHICLE DEALER. THE REQUEST IS GENERALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER DASHBOARD. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF 3A AND 3B DUE TO THE UNIQUE DESIGN OF THE PROPERTY AND WITH THE RESTRICTIONS LISTED ON THE SCREEN. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT AND HAS A PRESENTATION TO SHARE. WITH THAT, I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. >> Chair DownsTHANYOU MUCH. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DOES THE DESIGN OF THE BUILDING, AS IT IS PRESENTLY PRESENTED, AND THE SITE PLAN THAT ACCOMPANIES THIS ZONING REQUEST, DO THEY PRESENTLY COMPLY WITH THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDED STIPULATIONS, NO. 1 THROUGH 5? >> YES. >> Brounoff: IT DOES. SO YOUR STIPULATIONS, IF ADOPTED, WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY CHANGES TO THEIR PLANS AS THEY HAVE SUBMITTED THEM AT THIS TIME CORRECT? >> CAN YOU SAY THAT ONE MORE TIME PLEASE? >> Brounoff: YEAH. ARE YOU SAYING THAT THE STIPULATIONS, IF WE ADOPT THEM, WOULD NOT REQUIRE THE APPLICANT TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THEIR PROPOSAL? >> NO, I DON'T BELIEVE SO. NOW BETWEEN PSP AND SP THERE CAN BE MINOR MODIFICATIONS BUT THESE STIPULATIONS WOULD NEED TO BE ADHERED TO IN THE SITE PLAN STAGE. >> Brounoff: THE APPLICANT IS ON BOARD WITH THESE STIPULATIONS? THEY'RE NODDING THEIR HEADS IN THE AUDIENCE. I GUESS THEY ARE. >> YES. >> Chair Downs: SHE CAN'T SPEAK FO THE APPLICA BUT, YES. >> Brounoff: I SAW TWO HEADS GOING UP AND DOWN. I GUESS THAT'S AN INDICATION. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YEAH. SOME INTERESTING POINTS ON THIS. JUST ONE I WANT TO ASK ABOUT, MAYBE JUST A LITTLE BIT MORE& EDUCATION. ONE OF THE THINGS IN YOUR PACKET YOU TALK ABOUT IS THE CHALLENGE TO REDEVELOP LAND FOR VEHICLE DEALERSHIPS, IF IN FACT SOMEBODY WANTED TO REDEVELOP THAT LAND. COULD YOU GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE TEXTURE ON WHY THAT MIGHT BE CHALLENGING? THIS PARTICULAR SITE, I CAN SEE WHERE IT MIGHT BE BECAUSE IT'S DIFFERENT. MY AWARENESS OF VEHICLE DEALERSHIPS IS TYPICALLY IT'S A BUILDING WITH A LOT OF PARKING SPACES FOR CARS. AND SO I'M CURIOUS WHY WE THINK IT'S DIFFICULT TO POSSIBLY REDEVELOP SOME OF THAT. >> SURE. A SEA OF PARKING LOT AND A BUILDING WITH NEW VEHICLE OR USED VEHICLE DEALERSHIP TAKES OUT A LOT OF THE POTENTIAL LANDSCAPING THAT THEY WILL POTENTIALLY HAVE TO TEAR UP. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IF MR. BELL WANTED TO ADD ANYTHING TO THAT. >> I THINK THE CHALLENGE IS WE'RE USING THE EXISTING BUILDING LONG TERM IS THE CHALLENGE. AND TYPICALLY WHERE YOU HAVE A NEW VEHICLE DEALER, IT ENDS UP BECOMING A USED VEHICLE DEALER AT SOME POINT BECAUSE THERE'S NOT MUCH OTHER USE FOR THE BUILDING OTHER THAN VEHICLE DISPLAY. >> Cary: GREAT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: SO READING THIS IT FEELS LIKE THIS RUNS INTO [INDISCERNIBLE]. FOR THE GRANTING OF AN SUP, AN SUP IS AUTHORIZED A USE NOT NORMALLY PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT, WHICH COULD BENEFIT THE GENERAL WELFARE OF THAT DISTRICT. THIS DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT MEETS THAT BAR. ON DEVELOPED LAND IN PLANO IT'S SUPPOSED TO PRIORITIZE EMPLOYMENT. AGAIN, IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT MEETS THAT BAR FOR EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT MEETS THAT BAR. THE ONLY THING THAT WE SEEM TO MEET IS AESTHETICS. I'M CURIOUS WHY STAFF IS BACKING THIS. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHY WE HAVE THOSE STIPUTIONS THAT ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS BECAUSE THE VERTICALITY OF THE DESIGN AND THE HEIGHT STARTS TO SOMEWHAT FIT WITHIN CE. SO WE WANT TO ENSURE THAT THAT DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS PUT IN PLAN IF YOU AS THE COMMISSION AND COUNCIL APPROVE THIS SUP REQUEST. AS THAT HEIGHT REQUIREMENT, THAT HEIGHT THAT THEY'RE SHOWING, IS MORE ALIGNED WITH CE ZONING RATHER THAN ZONING DISTRICTS THAT HAVE A ONE OR TWO-STORY HEIGHT LIMIT. >> IF I MAY ADD, STAFF STRUGGLED WITH THOSE POINTS THAT YOU BROUGHT UP. WHAT WE REALLY CAME DOWN TO IS THE DISTRICT PROMOTES A CAMPUS-LIKE SETTING. THE BUILDING DOES RESEMBLE A CAMPUS SETTING. AND THEN THE OTHER USES THAT ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT WITHIN THIS DISTRICT, SUCH AS VEHICLE REPAIR. THIS WAS SUPERIOR TO THE OTHER USES THAT MIGHT GO IN HERE. LASTLY, THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY SPEAKS TO NOT ONLY HIGH-QUALITY BUT HIGH-SKILLED EMPLOYMENT. A DEFINITION OF WHAT HIGHLY-SKILLED MEANT, YOU KNOW, MASTER TECHNICIANS FOR PORSCHES HAVE HIGHLY SKILLED. ABSENT THAT DEFINITION, WE FELT THAT WE COULDN'T HANG OUR HAT ON THAT TERM ALONE WHEN THE UNIQUENESS OF THE DEALERSHIP GENERALLY MEANT THE LOOK AND FEEL OF WHAT THE DISTRICT WAS GOING FOR. >> Olley: TO THE POINT YOU MADE EARLIER, THE ONLY ABILITY REUSE A NEW CAR DEVELOPMENT IS A USED CAR DEVELOPMENT, WHICH FROM A SKILLED EMPLOYMENT PERSPECTIVE -- >> YEAH, IF THIS DID NOT HAVE THE PAR PARKING STRUCTURE AND IT WAS SURFACE PARKING ALONE, I'M SURE THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE DIFFERENT. THE FACT THAT IT HAS A PARKING STRUCTURE ALLOWS THAT BUILDING TO BE POSSIBLY USED FOR OTHER USES. WITH THE PARKING STRUCTURE WE FELT IT WAS MORE LIKELY TO BE REUSED FOR OFFICE OR OTHER EMPLOYMENT USES THAN A STRICT SURFACE LOT COULD BE. >> Olley: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY AGAIN. I KIND OF HEARD A LITTLE BIT -- NOT VERY CLEAR, LIKE CLARITY BETWEEN THE QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF AND YOUR ANSWERS TO THE DESIGN -- THE CURRENT DESIGN FROM THE APPLICANTS. SO READING YOUR RECOMMENDATION HERE, ESPECIALLY NUMBER 3, THOSE ARE RELATING TO THE ROLL-UP DOORS, I GUESS. THE ROLL-UP DOORS ON THE SIDE, WHICH FACES EAST DALLAS TOLLWAY. AND NORTH IS THE TENNYSON PARKWAY. THE NORTH ELEVATION HAS TWO ROLL-UP DOORS AS CURRENT DESIGN THAT'S PRESENTING TODAY. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THOSE DOORS Y B USED FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY -- SORRY. THOSE DOORS NEED TO BE TRANSPARENT AND MAY BE USED FOR VEHICLE DISPLAY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> CORRECT. >> Tong: OKAY. THOSE TWO DOORS. ONE OF THEM MAY BE USED FOR DRIVING ACCESS TO THE PHOTO SHOWROOM THAT'S ON THE NORTH SIDE. NORTH ELEVATION. AND THE EAST ELEVATION HAS THREE ROLL-UP DOORS RIGHT NOW, ACCORDING TO THE ELEVATION DESIGN. AND THOSE NEED TO BE MINIMAL OF 50% GLAZING. IS THAT PART OF THE -- KIND OF OUR OVERALL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE FACADE ON THE SIDE OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY? >> NO. THIS IS NOT A STANDARD REQUIREMENT THAT WE HAVE FOR ROLL-UP DOORS. WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE REQUIREMENTS THAT PREVENT ROLL-UP DOORS FACING THE RIGHT OF WAY. AND SO REGARDING THIS REQUEST, WITH THESE ROLL-UP DOORS BEING A LITTLE BIT UNIQUE AS THE SERVICING IS NOT GOING TO OCCUR RIGHT NEXT TO THOSE DOORS, WE WANTED TO ENHANCE THE AESTHETICS. SO WHEN DRIVERS AND PEDESTRIANS ARE DRIVING PAST OR WALKING PAST A SITE, THEY WON'T SEE THOSE MORE STANDARD SURFACE BAY DOORS THAT YOU MAY SEE THROUGHOUT THE CITY OR THROUGHOUT THE STATE. THIS IS MORE OF AN AESTHETIC BECAUSE THE SERVICING IS GOING TO BE HAPPENING INSIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO THE ROLL-UP DOORS ARE AN IMPORTANT COMPONENT FOR THE VEHICLES TO TRAVEL IN AND OUT. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO DISCUSS MORE OF THE FACADE REQUIREMENT, THEIR FACADE CHOICES FOR THE ROLL-UP DOORS. BUT THIS IS WHAT STAFF'S GOING TO RECOMMEND TO HAVE A HIGH-QUALITY DEVELOPMENT ON THIS CORNER. >> Tong: OKAY. I GUESS MY UNDERSTANDING -- I'M TRYING TO GET IS THE MINIMAL OF 50% GLAZING. THAT MEANS IT WILL MAKE THE DOORS LOOK MORE LIKE THE WALLS? WHAT'S THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING THAT MINIMUM PERCENT -- MINIMUM OF 50% GLAZING. >> THE INTENT HERE IS NOT TO HAVE A METAL ROLL-UP DOOR. SO THE GLAZING IS MEANT TO BE A SHOWROOM SO THEY CAN DISPLAY THE CARS INSIDE AND THEY WILL BE VISIBLE FROM THE OUTSIDE. I THINK THE APPLICANT'S PRESENTATION WILL SHED SOME LIGHT ON THE DOORS. STAFF WAS ORIGINALLY CONCERNED ABOUT MANY OF THESE BUT THEY TALKED US THROUGH HOW THE OPERATIONS WORK AND HOW THAT WORKS. IT IS MUCH MORE CLEAR IF THEY PRESENT THAT. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I THINK MOST OF MY QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN ANSWERED EXCEPT -- I'LL HOLD THEM FOR THE APPLICANT. EXCEPT FOR ONE. 3C ON THE ROLL-UP DOOR FOR THE DRIVE-IN ACCESS. ON THE FIRST TWO YOU TALK ABOUT HOW MUCH WAS GLAZING. ON THE ONE FOR THE PHOTO BOOTH, IT DOESN'T MENTION GLAZING. ON THE ELEVATIONS IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S A SOLID DOOR, WHICH BASED ON MY EXPERIENCE, IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE. AND SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE NEEDED TO SOMEHOW MAKE SURE THAT THAT WAS ALSO CLARIFIED AND STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. >> SURE. IF YOU AND THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE THAT BE ADDED TO LETTER C, CAN DEFINITELY ADD THAT. >> THE REASON THAT STAFF DID NOT WAS BECAUSE OF THE MATERIALS. IN THIS CASE THEY CAN EXPLAIN TO YOU THAT THIS IS -- WHAT THAT DOOR LEADS INTO IS A SINGLE SPACE. THAT'S THE 360 SHOWROOM SO THEY'RE NOT INTENDING TO HAVE THE GLASS THERE. BUT BECAUSE WE'RE PREEMPTED ON BUILDING MATERIALS, STAFF DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT SAME RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT SINGLE DOOR. >> Ratliff: I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT THEN. THANK YOU. >> Chair Dns: YEAH. TECHNICAL, JUSTOR STAFF? >> ON THE UNDEVELOPMENT LAND USE POLICY, IT SAYS IN YOUR REPORT, ALTHOUGH THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A UNIQUE NON-TRADITIONAL FORM OF DEALERSHIP THAT RESEMBLES AN OFFICE PARK CHARACTER OF THIS AREA, IT DOESN'T MAXIMIZE THE EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY THAT MAY BE PROVIDED IF THE SITE WERE RESERVED FOR AN ALTERNATIVE USE. WHAT SORT OF ALTERNATIVE USE WOULD MAXIMIZE EMPLOYMENT IN THIS AREA? >> I THINK GOING WITH THE EM DASHBOARD, NOTING MEDICAL CENTERS, CORPORATE OFFICES, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY CENTERS, AND RESEARCH FACILITIES. >> Bronsky: OKAY. AND THE ONE -- SO IN TWO PARTS IT'S NOT COMPLETELY ALIGNING WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SECOND ONE IS THE CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS, WHICH IS THE INTENSITY. WHICH IS THE 27% AS OPPOSED TO 50%. >> CORRECT. >> Bronsky: AND YOU GUYS FEEL PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH THAT DISTANCE FROM THERE SAYING THAT I MAKES SENSE? >> YES. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR A LITTLE BIT OF GRILLING THERE. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I KNOW THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE. >> YES. MR. BILL DAHLSTROM. >> MR. CHAIR -- >> Chair Downs: I DON'T THINK YOU OWN THE PORSCHE DEALERSHIP. >> NO, I DO NOT. I LOVE THEM. BILL DAHLSTROM, 2323 ROSS AVENUE. HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT. IT'S A PRIVILEGEO BE HERE FOR THIS APPLICANT ON THIS REALLY EXCITING INNOVATIVE PROJECT. WE HAVE A FULL TEAM OF AVAILABLE. DAVID SARAH, WHO IS WITH AUTO NATION IS ONLINE. JOHN PENNY, OR ARCHITECT IS ONLINE. DAVID NORRIS, OUR CIVIL ENGINEER IS IN THE AUDIENCE. KIRK WILLIAMS, REPRESENTATIVE OF THE DEVELOPER IS ALSO HERE. MY COLLEAGUE IS HERE SO WE'VE GOT A FULL TEAM HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE. I'M GOING TO TRY TO ANSWER AS MANY OF THOSE QUESTIONS AS I úCA. I KNOW THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OPERATIONAL QUESTIONS I WILL DEFER TO MR. SARAH. THIS IS AN EXCITING PROJECT. I WOULD LIKE TO THANK MIKE AND KATIA FOR THEIR HELP BECAUSE THEY COACHED US ALONG ON WHAT TO DO TO MAKE SURE WE CONFORM TO THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS MUCH AS WE CAN. I THINK WE'VE REACHED THERE. BUT THIS WHOLE DESTINATION PORSCHE IS A NEW CONCEPT FOR PORSCHE BEING DONE ALL OVER THE WORLD. AND THERE ARE A FEW OF THEM ALREADY BUILT. THIS WILL BE ONE OF THE FIRST IN THE UNITED STATES. THEY'RE REALLY FOCUSING ON CREATING AN ENVIRONMENT THAT'S A NEW EXPERIENCE FOR THE PORSCHE ENTHUSIAST. AND MOST PORSCHE ENTHUSIASTS AREN'T WEEKEND ENTHUSIASTS. THEY'RE FULL-TIME ENTHUSIASTS. THIS IS A PLACE WHERE THEY CAN COME, LEARN ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENING IN PORSCHE, NEW PRODUCTS. VERY DIGITAL-ORIENTED. PUT THEMSELVES INTO THE ENVIRONMENT. THIS IS QUITE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY. WE ARE RELOCATING FROM THE LOCATION DOWN ON PLANO PARKWAY. I'M SURE Y'ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH IT. THE AUDI DEALER NEXT DOOR NEEDS TO EXPAND SO WE NEEDED A PLACE TO PUT PORSCHE. WE WANTED TO STAY IN PLANO SO THEY FOUND THIS SITE. AND AS REPORTED IN THE STAFF, IT'S A VERTICAL DEALERSHIP DESIGN, I THINK IS THE TERM THE STAFF USED. I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH SOME SLIDES HERE. AND THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. I CHARACTERIZED IT MORE AS A IT LOOKS LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING BUT BECAUSE OF THE GLASS ON THE FRONT, THE CORNER, AND THE SIDE, IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A JEWEL BOX -- I'M SURE Y'ALL HAVE HEARD OF THOSE TERMS. YOU SEE WHAT'S GOING ON INSIDE THE FACILITY WITH THE OPERATIONS, THE VEHICLES, THE BEAUTIFUL VEHICLES. AND THAT'S ALL PART OF THE DESIGN, THEIR NEW CORPORATE ARCHITECTURE. AND THE PARKING GARAGE AT THE BACK. YOU STILL SEE A DISPLAY IN THE PARKING GARAGE. PROVIDING MUCH VISIBILITY. THIS IS THE EAST SIDE FACING THE TOLL ROAD AND THOSE THREE DOORS YOU SEE OVER TO THE LEFT. THEY AREN'T BY THEMSELVES. THE SPACE BEHIND THOSE DOORS IS NOT BY ITSELF. IT'S ACTUALLY INTEGRATED TO THE ENTIRE OFFICE SHOWROOM AREA. SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE COME IN, DRIVE IN, THEY GO THROUGH THOSE DOORS FOR REGISTRATION. IT'S A FULLY AIR CONDITIONED SPACE, SO THEY LEAVE THEIR CAR SERVICE ON THE INSIDE BUT FROM THE SHOWROOM SIDE ON THE OFFICE SIDE, IT'S ALL GLASS. SO YOU SEE WHAT'S GOING ON IN THERE. IT'S A TOTAL EXPERIENTIAL, TOTAL ACTIVITY AT ALL TIMES AS PART OF THIS WHOLE DEALERSHIP. PRETTY EXCITING. THIS IS, AGAIN, SHOWING YOU ON THE NORTH SIDE THE TWO GLASS DOORS THAT ARE FOR THE SHOWROOM ARE THERE. THE ONE DOOR, IT'S BEHIND THIS INSET, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, IS THE DOOR FOR THE 360 PHOTO. SO IT'S GOT TO BE SOLID. IT'S THE SAME MATERIAL AS THE BUILDING ITSELF. CARS GO IN THERE AND THEY'RE PHOTOGRAPHED FOR 360. I'M SURE YOU HAVE SEEN THOSE ON TV OR EVEN ONLINE. BUT THAT'S WHERE THAT IS DONE. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'LL HAVE A BIG LINE OF CARS. JUST ONE AT A TIME. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE CARS THAT WILL BE DISPLAYED ABOVE. THIS IS THAT INDOOR REGISTRATION AREA. THIS PARTICULAR PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS TWO LANES -- WE'LL HAVE THREE LANES, OBVIOUSLY,N OUR FACILITY. AND YOU CAN SEE WHAT'S HAPPENING ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS. IT'S TOTALLY INTERACTIVE. PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT OTHER VEHICLES WHILE THEIR VEHICLE IS BEING SERVICED OR THEY'RE WALKING AROUND AND LOOKING AT NEW VEHICLES AND HOPEFULLY PURCHASING NEW VEHICLES. AND THE SERVICE AREA, WHICH IS TOTALLY INSIDE, THERE'S NO DIRECT ACCESS FROM THE OUTSIDE. IT'S AS CLEAN AS CAN BE. VERY UPSCALE. AND, AGAIN, MORE OF THE INSIDE OF THE SHOWROOM AND RENDERINGS. THIS IS A SMALL -- I THINK WE'RE DOING A GREAT JOB OF REALLY MAKING A GOOD USE OF A SMALL SITE. WE THINK WE ARE SATISFYING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SECTION WITH REGARD TO EMPLOYMENT. WE ARE PROVIDING 80 JOBS. AVERAGE SALARY A LITTLE LESS THAN $100,000. THEY'RE PRETTY GOOD JOBS HERE. A LOT OF THE USES THAT WERE ALSO MENTIONED COULD PROVIDE FEWER JOBS WITH LESS AVERAGE SALARIES. SO I THINK WE'RE SATISFYING THAT. BUT, AGAIN, YOU COULD SEE THE QUALITY OF MATERIALS AND ARCHITECTURE INTERIOR INSIDE THE FACILITY. THIS IS THE FOOTPRINT OF THE INSIDE FIRST FLOOR AND THE TOLL ROAD IS OVER TO THE RIGHT. YOU CAN SEE THE LITTLE CIRCLE ON THE TOP. THAT'S THE 360-DEGREE PHOTO BOOTH. OFF TO THE RIGHT YOU CAN SEE THE OFFICE AND SHOWROOM OPERATIONS. AND THE LARGE SPACE -- I GUESS I CAN SHOW IT HERE. WELL, THE LARGE SPACE, THE LOWER RIGHT SIDE. THAT'S THE REGISTRATION AREA WHERE CARS COME IN OFF THE TOLL ROAD TO THE SEMI GLASS, 50% GLAZING DOORS. THEY PARK THERE. THEY REGISTER THEIR CAR FOR SERVICE. AGAIN, THERE'S GLASS ON BOTH SIDES. YOU CAN SEE OVER TO THE LEFT OF THAT INSIDE SPACE ANOTHER SET OF DOORS. SO THERE'S NO ACCESS DIRECTLY TO THE SERVICE AREA. THIS IS ALL DONE, AGAIN, THE REGISTRATION IS DONE INSIDE IN THAT AIR CONDITIONED SPA. AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE H IT'S ALL CONNECTED. THIS WHOLE INTENTION OR WHOLE STRATEGY IS TO PROVIDE A NEW EXPERIENCE FOR THE PORSCHE ENTHUSIAST. WE REALLY APPRECIATE THE CITY STAFF'S POSITION ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE AGREE. WE WORKED REALLY HARD WITH THEM ON THAT. AND WE THINK WE ARE BRINGING SOMETHING AND ACTUALLY LEAVING SOMETHING. WE TALKED ABOUT DESTINATION PORSCHE. DESTINATION PORSCHE ALSO RELATES TO PEOPLE ARE COMING HERE FROM OUT OF THE REGION, OUT OF THE CITY. SO THIS IS A PLACE FOR PORSCHE ENTHUSIASTS ALL OVER THE REGION ARE COMING TO LEARN ABOUT PORSCHE AND HAVE THEIR VEHICLE SERVICED, MAYBE EVEN SHOP FOR VEHICLES, HOPEFULLY. DESTINATION PORSCHE, I THINK, HAS SEVERAL DIFFERENT MEANINGS. AS FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION GOES, THEY ARE TRYING TO BE AS TECHNOLOGICALLY SAVVY AS POSSIBLE. THIS WILL BE A MINIMUM LEAD SILVER CONSTRUCTION. THEY ARE VERY ADVANCED INTO NEW TECHNOLY SU AS ELECTRIFICATION OF CARS AND CARBON-NEUTRAL STRATEGIES . ALL THIS FITS INTO TOGETHER WITH THE NEW EXPERIENCE THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE FOR THE PORSCHE ENTHUSIAST. THAT BEING SAID, I THINK I'M GOING TO FINISH IN -- SLIDE FORWARD. AND RESPECFULLY REQUEST YOUR RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL. AGAIN, OUR WHOLE TEAM IS HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. I THINK I ADDRESSED SEVERAL OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WERE ASKED. AGAIN, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAV THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. BEFORE WE GET INTO QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, I DON'T HAVE A RECORD OF ANYONE OTHER THAN THE APPLICANT SPEAKING TONIGHT, IS THAT CORRECT? VERY GOOD. IF WE HAD OTHER SPEAKERS I WAS GOING TO TRY TO GET THEM AND WE COULD ASK THE APPLICANT AND THEY WOULD HAVE A CHANCE TO RESPOND, IF THERE WERE OTHER COMMENTS. SO VIRTUALLY EVERYBODY HAS A QUESTION. SO WE'LL SEE HOW THIS GOES. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. A COUPLE OF THINGS. YOU TALKED ABOUT AN EMPLOYEE COUNT. 80 FULL-TIME EMPLOYEES. IS THAT SALES, SERVICE, PARTS, EVERYBODY? >> EVERYBODY. YES. >> Ratliff: JUST A RANDOM QUESTION. YOU MAY NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS. MY EXPERIENCE HAS BEEN THAT PORSCHE TECHNICIANS ARE PRETTY SPECIALIZED AND TEND TO STICK AROUND A LITTLE WHILE. DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA WHAT THE AVERAGE TENURE IS? >> I DO NOT BUT MY EXPERIENCE WITH VEHICLES SUCH AS PORSCHE AND OTHERS, THEY TEND TO STAY FOR A LONG TIME. YES, THEY TEND TO BE HIGHLY TECHNICAL, HIGHLY EDUCATED AS FAR AS THOSE DIFFERENT AREAS OF MECHANICS GO. THEY'RE ALL SPECIALIZED. >> Ratliff: THAT'S BEEN MY EXPERIENCE AS WELL. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THE BUILDING. THE ROLL-UP DOORS FOR THE SERVICE ENTRANCE LANE ARE 50% GLAZING WHERE SOME OF THE OTHER ONES ARE MORE. IS THAT BECAUSE THEY'RE THE HIGH-SPEED DOORS? >> YES. >> Ratliff: THEY ARE THE FULL GLASS BUT THEY'RE HIGH-SPEED. >> UP AND DOWN IN LITERALLY SECONDS. >> Ratliff: JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS THE INTENT. IT LOOKED LIKE THAT'S WHAT IT WAS ON THE PLAN. JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. THE OTHER ONES ON THE SIDE FOR THE DELIVERY AREAS, THAT'S JUST THE TYPICAL OVERHEAD DOORS THAT ARE ACTUALLY MORE GLASS. >> YES, SIR. >> Ratliff: AND THEN THIS MIGHT BE A LEADING QUESTION BUT ONE OF THE THINGS THAT I THINK THIS PART OF TOWN, WE FOCUSED ON IS TECHNOLOGY OR RESEARCH FACILITIES. WITH 80 EMPLOYEES, I REALIZE THAT MIGHT NOT BE AS MANY AS WE MIGHT OTHERWISE. BUT TECHNOLOGY-WISE YOU TALKED A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE CARS. HOW MUCH DO YOU KNOW ABOUT THE NEW ELECTRIC PORSCHES THAT ARE COMING OUT, HOW TECHNICALLY ADVANCED THEY ARE AND HOW MUCH WORK GOES INTO THOSE. ARE YOU UP TO SPEED ON ALL OF THAT, SO TO SPEAK? >> JUST FROM A CASUAL PERSPECTIVE, I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THEM FOR YEARS. BUT I KNOW THERE ARE GOING TO BE TECHNICIANS THERE. WE MIGHT ASK, I GUESS DAVID SARAH, WHO IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> Ratliff: I GUESS THE POINT I WANT TO BRING OUT IS IF WE REALLY DO WANT TECHNOLOGY EMPHASIS IN THIS HOSTLY, BASED ON MY CAN'T ANYTHING THAT'S MORE TECHNOLOGICALLY ADVANCED THAN AN ELECTRIC PORSCHE. >> THAT'S TRUE. >> Ratliff: THAT WAS MORE OF A STATEMENT THAN A QUESTION. THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN AND THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN FOR COMING HERE. I THINK THIS IS A REALLY EXCITING PROJECT. I APPRECIATE THAT. I THINK A LOT OF US ALREADY AGREE TO THAT. AS YOU HAVE HEARD ALREADY EARLIER I THINK WE ALL HAD A CONCERN ABOUT THE ROLL-UP DOORS AND THE LOOKS OF THOSE DOORS, HOW TO MAKE IT CONSISTENT WITH THE REST OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY BUILDING IN THE BUSINESS DISTRICT. ALSO IT'S VERY CLOSE TO LEGACY WEST, WHICH IS A REALLY HIGH-PROFILE SHOPPING AREA. SO I WANT TO ASK A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS REGARDING YOUR OPERATIONS. SO WILL THOSE DOORS BE OPENED MOST OF THE TIME WHEN YOU'RE OPERATING? >> THE THREE DOORS ON THE EAST WILL BE CLOSED, FOR THE MOST PART. THEY WILL OPEN TO ALLOW CARS IN BUT THEY ARE, AS COMMISSIONER RATLIFF SAID, THEY'RE HIGH SPEED. THEY GO UP AND DOWN. THE GLASS DOORS ON THE NORTH SIDE -- AND I'LL DEFER TO DAVID SARAH, FOR THE MOST PART SHOULD BE CLOSED. AND THE PHOTO DOORS SHOULD BE CLOSED. THEY'RE GOING TO BE TAKING PHOTOS OF THE AUTOMOBILES. THERE'S NO REASON FOR THOSE TO BE OPEN. DAVID, IF YOU'RE ONLINE, IF YOU CAN CONFIRM THAT. >> Chair Downs: I DON'T SEE ANYBODY ONLINE. I THINK YOU MENTIONED ALL OF THOSE SPACES ARE AIR CONDITIONED SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THE WOULD LEAVE THE DOORS OPEN. >> THAT'S A GOOD POINT. THE REGISTRATION AREA IS AIR CONDITIONED. >> Tong: OKAY. THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION. THEN I DON'T HAVE A SECOND QUESTION. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YEAH. INTERESTING PROJECT. JUST ONE QUESTION. HOW BIG OF A MARKET AREA DO YOU EXPECT THIS TO SERVICE? >> THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. I'LL ASK MR. WILLIAMS IF HE HAS ANY IDEA OF THE MARKET AREA. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Dns: YES, E COME DOWN TO THE MICROPHONE, PLEASE. >> Cary: I GUESS JUST PIGGYBACKING ON IT -- >> I THINK THERE ARE ONLY FOUR OR FIVE PORSCHE DEALERSHIPS. >> Cary: THAT'S MY NEXT QUESTION. ARE THERE ANY COMPETING DEALERSHIPS -- THIS OBVIOUSLY IS GOING TO BE DIFFERENT. >> IT WILL BE REPLACING ONE THAT'S ALREADY HERE. >> THAT'S WHAT I WAS GOING TO SPEAK TO. IT'S REPLACING THE EXISTING PLANO DEALERSHIP. AND THIS IS FOR THE NORTH DALLAS. NOW, THEIR MARKET AREA WILL EXTEND, YOU KNOW, WELL UP TO THE RED RIVER AND COMING DOWN INTO DALLAS. BUT THEN IT GETS CONCENTRATED IN DALLAS. BUT FOR THE MOST PART THIS DISTRICT, THIS AREA IS PRETTY MUCH THREE OR FOUR-COUNTY AREA THAT THEY'RE CONCENTRATED IN. >> Cary: GREAT. THAT WOULD BE MY GUESS. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO WE DO HAVE HIM ONLINE NOW. SO MAYBE WE CAN COME BACK TO HIM IF WE HAVE A QUESTION. I HAVE A CLIENT WHO LIVES IN EAST TEXAS AND THIS IS HIS HOME DEALERSHIP IS RIGHT HERE IN PLANO. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: YES, IT IS. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: JUMPING OFF OF THAT POINT. SO ALL ARE OWNED BY THE SAME COMPANY, OWNED BY VOLKSWAGEN. FOR THEM TO BE EXPANDING THE AUDI BUSINESS, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHAT IS KICKING YOU OFF OF PLANO PARKWAY AND LOOKING FOR A NEW SITE, DOESN'T THAT SUGGEST THAT THE PORSCHE IN DALLAS IS ENOUGH TO SERVICE THE DEMAND -- I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHY WE GIVE UP THAT PLOT OF LAND, WHICH IS VERY DESIRABLE, FOR WHAT SEEMS TO BE A SHRINKING MARKET FOR PORSCHE. >> I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S A SHRINKING MARKET FOR PORSCHE, IF THAT'S THE QUESTION. I MEAN, WE'RE TAKING THE SITE -- A SITE THAT'S FIVE ACRES ON THE CORNER. I DON'T THINK IT'S GOT GREAT VISIBILITY. ACCESS IS OKAY. BUT IT'S WELL BELOW THE TOLL ROAD AT THAT LOCATION. I THINK THIS IS A GREAT DESTINATION USE FOR THAT PROPERTY. BUT AS FAR AS THE -- WHAT'S HAPPENING TO PORSCHE, I DON'T THINK THEIR MARKET'S DIMINISHING. ESPECIALLY IN TERMS OF THE THEY'RE FOCUSING A LOT OF THEIR ATTENTION ON ELECTRIC VEHICLES. >> Olley: SO YOU HAVE A PARTIAL SITE IN DALLAS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. >> THERE IS ONE, YES, CORRECT. >> Olley: OKAY. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST A LITTLE TEC TECHNICAL QUESTION. THIS IS ENCLOSED INDOORS. IS IT GOING TO BE EQUIPPED WITH A VENTILATION SYSTEM TO REMOVE CAR FUMES FROM THE BUILDING? >> YES. AGAIN, OUR ARCHITECT IS ON THE LINE. THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION FOR HIM, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. JOHN PENNY, CAN YOU HEAR US? >> I'M NOT SURE IF JOHN CAN HEAR US, BUT THIS IS DAVID. >> OKAY, DAVID. THE QUESTION WAS, WILL SINCE THE BUILDING IS GOING TO BE COMPLETELY CONTAINED, ALL THE SERVICE, IS THERE GOING TO BE A VENTILATION SYSTEM FOR THE BUILDING TO ADDRESS -- >> YES. ABSOLUTELY. THE SERVICE AREA WILL BE COMPLETELY VENTILATED. SO THERE WON'T BE THE RELEASE OF FUMES IN THE OCCUPIED SPACE. >> DOES THAT ALSO APPLY TO THE REGISTRATION AREA, FOR EXAMPLE? >> OH, YES. >> YES, SIR. >> CORRECT, YES. >> OKAY. GENERALLY, THIS IMPRESSES ME AS A HIGH-EN DESIGN BEFITTING HIGH-END AUTOMOBILES. ITEM EI'M EXCITED BY IT. I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO YOU MENTIONED THIS IS GOING TO BE THE FIRST DEALERSHIP IN THE UNITED STATES? >> ONE OF THE FIRST. >> Bronsky: SO, I HAPPENED TO NOTICE THE SUCCESSES THEY WERE HAVING IN THE UK AND AUSTRALIA AS WELL. CAN YOU ELABORATE A LITTLE BIT AS FAR AS THE TRANSITION FROM THE DEALERSHIP THEY HAVE NOW DO THIS DESTINATION DEALERSHIP? WHAT HAVE THEY SEEN IN OTHER PLACES? >> I'LL DEFER TO DAVID CERA. DAVID? >> ABSOLUTELY. SO, THIS IS ACTUALLY OUR FIRST PORCHE DESTINATION DESIGN IN THE COUNTRY. WE'RE PROJECTING AMAZING GROWTH. WE'RE DOUBLING OUR CAPACITY FOR SERVICE AND WE'RE DOUBLING OUR CAPACITY FOR SALES. SO WE ARE EXTREMELY EXCITED FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE ABLE TO GROW OUR BUSINESS WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANO. >> Bronsky: GREAT. TERRIFIC. FOR ME, AS I LOOK AT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND A COUPLE THINGS, THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY -- WE TALK ABOUT MAXIMIZING EMPLOYMENT. WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK AT SOMETHING THAT IS UNIQUE IN THE UNITED STATES AND DWING REVIEWS IN AUSTRALIA AND THE UK TO ACTUALLY RATHER THAN BEING REVENUE-NEUTRAL, IT LOOKS TO ME IT'S GOING TO BE NOT ONLY A SIGNIFICANT INVESTMENT INTO THE PLANO COMMUNITY, BUT IT'S ALSO GOING TO DRAW PEOPLE FROM OTHER AREAS AND POSSIBLY EVEN OUTSIDE OF THE GEOGRAPHIC AREA THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR PORSCHE ENTHUSIASTS TO ARRIVE HERE FROM AS F AWAY AS POSSIBLY LOS ANGELES OR NEW YORK, BECAUSE THIS IS THE FIRST ONE IN THE UNITED STATES. >> THE DESTINATIONS ARE GOING TO BE AN AREA WHERE ENTHUSIASTS CAN GET TOGETHER. >> Bronsky: MY ONLY CONCERN, CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE INTENSITY THAT WE TALK ABOUT IN A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BETWEEN 50 AND 75%? AT 26.9, WE'RE LEAVING QUITE A BIT OF SPACE AVAILABLE THAT IS GREEN SPACE AS WELL. IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT' CORRECT. IT'S ALL OPEN SPACE. >> I MIGHT ADD, THE ACTUAL ZONING, THE MAXIMUM FOR THE EXISTING ZONING IS 40% FOR NON-RETAIL USES, SO THEY COULDN'T ACHIEVE THE 50% FOR THE EXISTING ZONING. >> Bronsky: MY POINT WAS I THINK IT'S BETTER FOR THE CITY TO HAVE MORE GREEN SPACE RATHER THAN HAVING A MORE CROWDED INTENSITY THAT COULD BE THERE. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES, SIR. THANK YOU. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE LIGHTS LIT FOR MYSELF.ESERVED A QUESTION IT WAS MENTIONED ABOUT HOW HARD IT IS TO REUTILIZE OLD CAR DEALERSHIPS. PARKWAY, THAT USED TO BE CAR SALES CENTRAL. I BOUGHT VEHICLES THERE. THE OLD FORD DEALERSHIP, I HELPED BUILD. I'M OLD. SO, I REMEMBER WHEN BUILDING A STRUCTURED PARKING, THE LAND WASN'T WORTH IT. NOW IT'S ALMOST A REQUIREMENT BECAUSE THE LAND'S SO VALUABLE. AUTO NATION, I DON'T KNOW WHO'S BEST TO SPEAK TO THIS, BUT WHEN YOU BUILD SOMETHING LIKE THIS, WHAT'S YOUR TIME H HORIZON? ARE YOU THINKING IN TEN YEARS WE'RE GOING TO MOVE OUT? OR WE'RE GOING TO OPERATE HERE FOR THE NEXT THREE DECADES? WHAT'S YOUR MINDSET WHEN YOU'RE MAKING THAT? WHEN WE MAKE A LAND USE DECISION, WE HAVE SOME COMFORT THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE VALUABLE TO THE CITY FOR THE NEXT 30 YEARS. IS THAT -- GIVE ME SOME IDEAS. >> DAVID CERA, DID YOU HEAR THE QUESTION? >> YES, SIR. YOU'RE RIGHT ON WITH THE LEVEL OF INVESTMENT THAT AUTO NATION IS MAKING IN A PARTICULAR SITE. IT'S NOT A SHORT-TERM PLAY FOR US. THIS IS AND WILL BE OUR HOME FOR THE NEXT 30-40 YEARS WITH THIS LEVEL OF INVESTMENT IN A DEALERSHIP. IT'S NOT -- WE'RE NOT LOOKING TO GET IN TODAY AND BE OUT IN FIVE OR TEN YEARS. THIS IS DEFINITELY A LONG-TERM PLAY FOR US, ESPECIALLY WITH THIS BRAND. >> I'D LIKE TO NOTE OUR REQUEST IS AN S.U.P.OR NEW VEHICLE DEALER. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. >> THERE WOULD NEED TO BE A ZONING CHANGE TO GO TO A USED OR PREOWNED DEALERSHIP. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. COMMISSIONER TONG? >> Tong: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I HAD A QUESTION EARLIER REGARDING YOUR CURRENT DEALERSHIP, HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN OPERATING IN THAT LOCATION AND WHAT YOUR PLANS ARE ABOUT THAT LOCATION. >> AGAIN, THE CUR CURRENT DEALEP WILL BE CONVERTED TO AUDI. DI WILL EXPAND. >> Tong: O HOW LONG HAD YOU BEEN THERE? HAVE YOU BEEN OPERATING IN THAT LOCATION? >> IT'S BEEN A WHILE. I DON'T KNOW, DAVID, IF YOU KNOW THE ANSWER TO THAT QUESTION. >> I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD WHEN THE ORIGINAL FACILITY WAS BUILT, BUT WE ACQUIRED IT OVER TEN YEARS AGO. >> I' THINKING IT'S OVER 20-25 YEARS. IF MEMORY SERVES ME RIGHT. I GO UP THERE QUITE OFTEN, ACTUALLY. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLANT? THK YOU. I'M GOING TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> THE S.U.P.s THAT WE HAVE FOR TESLA AND LEGACY WEST, AND LUCID MOTOS, IS THAT STRICT STATUS, OR CAN THEY SERVICE WITHIN THOSE LOCATIONS? >> HAVE TO LOOK INTO WHETHER REPAIR IS PERMITTEDN THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF-HAND. I'D BE SURPRISED IF IT WAS. BUT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS SO RESTRICTED THAT I THINK THAT'S ALMOST IN EFFECT LIMITED TO SHOWROOM PURPOSES. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THIS IMPRESSES ME AS A SHOWCASE DESIGN. AS I SAID BEFORE, BEFITTING THE CALIBER OF CARS THEY WILL BE SELLING. I DON'T THINK THEY WOULD WANTO BE SELLING PORSCHES ON A DIRTY LOT SOMEWHERE. WE'RE PROBABLY ALL AWARE THAT ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FREEWAY, A SHORT DISTANCE AWAY AT SPRING CREEK THERE'S A BMW DEALER. IF IT'S ACCEPTABLE TO SELL BMWs ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE FREEWAY, I DON'T SEE WHY IT'S NOT ACCEPTABLE TO SELL PORSCHES ON THE WELL SIDE. THE SUBARU DEALER IS ON THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE OF THE FREEWAY FURTHER SOUTH, ALSO. WITH RESPECT TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WANTING US TO PRIORITIZE BUSINESSES OFFERING HIGHLY SKILLED EMPLOYMENT, AS YOU ALL MAY KNOW, I HAVE A BACKGROUND, HAVING SPENT 15 YEARS ADJUDICATING DISABILITY CLAIMS FROM THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. IN THAT PROCESS, WE HAD TO EVALUATE THE PAST WORK HISTORY OF THE CLAIMANTS WHO APPEARED BEFORE US. AND I'M TALKING THOUSANDS OF CLAIMANTS OVER THE COURSE OF MY CAREER. AND ONE OF THE THINGS WE HAD TO EVALUATE WAS THE SKILL LEVEL OF AND WE D THA ACCORDING TO A SCALE PROMULGATED BY THE LABOR DEPARTMENT CALLED SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION. SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION IS MEASURED ON NINE LEVELS, ONE BEING HIGHLY UNSKILLED AND NINE BEING THE MOST HIGHLY SKILLED YOU CAN HAVE. LEVELS ONE AND TWO WERE UNSKILLED. LEVELS THREE AND FOUR ARE SEMISKILLED. FIVE AND UP ARE SKILLED EMPLOYMENT. [ CLEARING THROAT ] SO I LOOKED UP THE SKILL LEVEL OF THE TYPES OF EMPLOYEES IN A CAR DEALERSHIP WHOSE WORK WOULD HAVE THE GREATEST AMOUNT OF CONTACT DIRECTLY WITH THE CUSTOMERS OF THE DEALERSHIP, NAMELY CAR SALESPEOPLE AND AUTO MECHANICS. CAR SALESPEOPLE -- AND THIS APPLIES TO BOTH NEW AND USED CAR SALESPEOPLE -- HAVE A SKILL LEVEL OF SPECIFIC VOCATIONAL PREPARATION OF 6. THAT IS SKILLED. IT MEANS IT TAKES THEM MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND UP TO TWO YEARS TO ACQUIRE THE KNOWLEDGE NECESSARY FOR AVERAGE PERFORMANCE OF THE JOB. AND THAT DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN PORSCHE SALESPEOPLE AND PEOPLE SELLING CHEVYS OR FORDS, OR 20-YEAR-OLD USED CHEVYS OR FORDS. THIS IS JUST GENERIC CAR SALESMAN. I WOULD IMAGINE THE SPECIALIZED KNOWLEDGE THAT THE SALESFORCE OF A PORSCHE DEALER WOULD HAVE TO HAVE WOULD PROBABLY BE HIGHER. AUTOMOBILE MECHANIC, SAME THING. IT'S NOT DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN DIFFERENT TYPES OR MAKES OR CARS, IT COULD APPLY EQUALLY TO SOMEONE WORKING AT A PEP BOYS AS IT WOULD TO A PORSCHE DEALER, BUT THE SKILL LEVEL OF A CAR MECHANIC IS 7, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MORE THAN TWO YEARS AND UP TO FOUR YEARS TO ACQUIRE THE NECESSARY KNOWLEDGE FOR ADEQUATE PERFORMANCE. JUST TO GIVE YOU AN IDEA, I LOOKED UP URBAN AND REGIONAL PLANNER, IT'S 8.0 AND UP. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. YEAH. [ LAUGHING ] >> AND THE SKILL LEVEL REQUIRED FOR AN ATTORNEY IS ALSO 8.0 AND UP. [ LAUGHING ] >> DEPENDING ON THE JOB. SO I FIND THAT THE DEALERS, WHAT THEY'RE OFFERING HERE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE PRIORITIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO OFFER HIGHLY SKILLED EMPLOYMENT. >> Chair Downs: I ALMOST THOUGHT THAT WAS GOING INTO A MOTION. COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: THANKS, SOME GREAT POINTS THERE. YOU DIDN'T ANALYZE WHAT A COMMISSIONER IS. MAYBE THAT'S GOOD. [ LAUGHING ] >> Cary: WE'LL LEAVE THAT ALONE. SO -- >> Chair Downs: SLIGHTLY HIGHER THAN THAT OF THE CHAIR. SO, GO AHEAD. >> Cary: I LIKE THIS PROJECT. YOU KNOW, THIS ISN'T A HUGE PIECE OF LAND. WE LOOKED AT HOW BEST IT CAN BE USED. IT'S MY SENSE THESE GUYS ARE GOING TO USE IT REALLY WELL FOR A LOT OF THE REASONS THAT HAVE BEEN SAID. I LIKE THE GREEN SPACE. I LIKE THAT THIS IS GOING TO BE ICONIC FOR PLANO. I LIKE THE MARKET SIZE IT WILL SERVE. AND SO I BELIEVE IT WILL BRING BUSINESS AND PEOPLE TO PLANO. AND I THINK IT WILL BE ICONIC. THIS IS A GOOD SITE FOR IT. I UNDERSTAND WHY YOU'RE MOVING FROM PLANO PARKWAY, WHICH, YOU KNOW -- SO. I LIKE IT A LOT. SO, I'M FOR IT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. WHAT YOU PROBABLY DON'T KNOW ABOUT ME IS I BUILD CAR DEALERSHIPS FOR A LIVING. I'VE DONE 250 OF THEM. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS PROGRAM. I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THIS OWNER. NOT A CLIEN NO CONFLICT THERE. BUT I WILL TELL YOU, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, THAT THE AVERAGE TECHNICIAN IN A PORSCHE DEALERSHIP IS HIGHLY, HIGHLY SKILLED. THEY ARE VERY COMPLICATED VEHICLES. AND I HAVE HUGE RESPECT FOR THOSE GUYS, BECAUSE IT AMAZES ME WHAT THEY DO IN THE SHOP SOMETIMES. IT'S MORE OF A SURGICAL SUITE THAN A MECHANIC SHOP. AND IN MY OPINION, THERE'S NO QUESTION THAT THAT MEETS THE TECHNOLO RESEARCH COMPONENT OF THIS PART OF TOWN, BECAUSE THERE IS VERY FEW F THINGS ON THE PLT THAT ARE MORE COMPLICATED THAN A PORSCHE. AND I ALSO KNOW, JUST BY RECENT EXPERIENCE, HOW EXPENSIVE THESE BUILDINGS ARE. I KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPER, THE OWNER IS MAKING A SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT IN OUR COMMUNITY AND EXPANDING THEIR OPERATIONS. AND THAT DEVELOPMENT, THAT COMMITMENT ISN'T TAKEN LIGHTLY. AND I ANTICIPATE YOUR PAYBACK -- YOU'RE ANTICIPATING A GOOD PAYBACK OR YOU WOULDN'T BE DOING IT. AND SO I'M ENTHUSIASTIC ABOUT WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE BRINGING TO TOWN AND THE INVESTMENT THAT YOU'RE MAKING IN OUR COMMUNITY AND CREATING THOSE VERY HIGH-SKILL JOBS. SO -- MORE COMMENTS. I WILL RESERVE MY MOTION. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: YOU COULD MAKE A MOTION. >> Brounoff: I WILL MOTION TO APPROVE THIS AS PRESENTED WITH THE QUALIFICATIONS AS LISTED BY THE CITY STAFF. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO I HAVE A MOTIONS AND A SECOND T WE STILL HAVE SOME COMMENTS. MR. OLLEY, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT TO MAKE? >> Olley: I'M GOING TO LAND, FROM A LAND PERSPECTIVE, BEAUTIFUL. FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE, THIS IN MY MIND RUNS INTO A MATRIX OF HIGH BARS IN TERMS OF THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY IN PLANO 250, HOW DO WE -- THE VIABILITY OF THIS BEING REUSED FOR SOMETHING ELSE OTHER THAN A CAR DEALERSHIP IN 30 YEARS. THE FACT THAT IT'S IN LEGACY WEST AND I DON'T SEE HOW THIS ATTRACTS BUSINESSES OR SHARES THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THE BUSINESSES AND CORPORATE CAMPUSES, IN LEGACY WEST. YEAH. IT RUNS INTO -- FOR ME, TOO MAN. BUT WE ARE HERE TO ADJUDICATE LAND USE. AND I DON'T THINK IT CROSSES -- IT CHECKS OFF ENOUGH OF THE BOXES. >> Chair Dns: AY ANY OTHER COMME? OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY TO APPROVE ITEM 3A SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-1. WE NEED A MOTION ON 3B. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM 3B. >> Chair Downs: SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL? >> YES, COUNCIL APPROVAL O ITEM. >> Chair Downs: VERY GOOD. THAT WAS A MOTION BY MR. RATLIFF BY A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM ALSO PASSES 7-1. CONGRATULATIONS. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THE PROJECT WHEN IT'S DONE. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2023-027 - REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 16 (PARKING AND THZONING ORDINANCE T MODIFY OF OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE PETITIONER IS THE CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS CONNOR, A PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. I'M HERE TONIGHT TO REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 16, THE PARKING AND LOADING REQUIREMENTS AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO MONITOR OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS. SO, JUST SOME QUICK BACKGROUND ON THE CURRENT CASE OF THE ANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE ON OCTOBER 16TH AND THE CASE -- THE ITEM WAS TABLED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON DECEMBER 4TH. TO THIS MEETING. SO THE REASON STAFF ARE BRINGING AMENDMENTS TO THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IS WE ARE FACING A NUMBER OF CHALLENGES WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THANK YOU. THE EXISTING REGULATIONS REQUIRE THAT MINIMUMS -- THAT PARKING MINIMUMS MUST BE MET UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WE DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY FLEXIBILITY WITH THOSE MINIMUMS. AND A DEVELOPER WHEN THEY'VE DEVELOPED A SITE CAN GO ABOVE THOSE MINIMUMS BUT THEY HAVE TO MEET THAT MINIMUM FOR WHATEVER PROPOSED USE THAT IS. THE REQUIREMENT -- THE OTHER CHALLENGE THAT WE'RE FACING IS THAT THE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE DO HAVE FOR OFF-STREET PARKING ARE GEARED TOWARDS NEW CONSTRUCTION. SO MANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS COME FROM THE 1986 ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WE SEE IN TODAY'S ZONING ORDINANCE. A TIME OF HIGH GROWTH IN PLANO. AND OTHERS DATE BACK AS FAR AS THE 1960s, SOME OF THOSE BASE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT DESIGNED TO ACCOUNT FOR A CHANGE OF USE OR REDEVELOPMENT OF EXISTING SITES OR SMALL INFILL SITES THAT WE SEE TODAY IN PLANO. WE HAVE S SEEN CHANGES IN TECHNOLOGY THAT REDUCE THE NEED FOR PARKING, SUCH AS RIDE SHARING APPS, DELIVERY SERVICES. WE ARE -- HAVE ALSO SEEN THAT SITES THAT ARE BEING REPURPOSED FOR -- ARE BEING REDEVELOPED FOR DIFFERENT USES. THERE'S NOT THE APPETITE IN THE COMMERCIAL REAL ESTATE MARKET TO PROVIDE, KIND OF, THESE HIGH PARKING REQUIREMENTS. INCREASINGLY PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS ARE BEING UTILIZED TO REDUCE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND MORE IMPORTANTLY WE KNOW THAT TYPICALLY THE EXISTING PARKING MEETS A LOT OF OUR OPERATIONAL DEMANDS THAT WE SEE ON OUR COMMERCIAL SITES. AND SO -- FINALLY, ONE LAST POINT IS THAT PROACTIVE CODE ENFORCEMENT HAS UNCOVERED RECENTLY DISCREPANCY BETWEEN PROVIDED PARKING AND WHAT WAS ACTUALLY REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO WE'RE SEEING WHAT WAS ACTUALLY PROVIDED WAS LESS THAN WHAT WAS REQUIRED. SO, REALLY WHAT STAFF ARE SEEING IS THERE'S TWO ISSUES WITH THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE FIRST OCCURS WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE OF USE ON A SITE. THERE ARE A LOT OF NONRESIDENTIAL SITES THAT ARE NO LONGER BEING USED FOR THE USE THAT THEY WERE ORIGINALLY PROPOSED FOR, BUT THAT USE IS STILL PERMITTED IN THAT ZONING DISTRICT. THE NEW USES TYPICALLY HAVE A HIGHER PARKING REQUIREMENT AS CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY COME IN. AND BECAUSE THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE PARKING MINIMUM STILL BE MET, STAFF ARE HAVING TO HOLD BACK CERTIFICATE OFCCUPANCY PERMITS SOME OF THE MOST COMMON ISSUES WE SEE, WE SEE RESTAURANTS COMING IN TO INLINE RETAIL SITES. THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS FOR RETAIL IS ONLY 1 TO 200, MAYBE 250 IF IT'S GREATER THAN 2,000 SQUARE FEET. RESTAURANT USE REQUIRES A 1:100 PARKING RATIO. ANOTHER ONE THAT WE'VE SEEN IS WE'RE SEEING OLD BANK SITES BEING CONVERTED FROM BANKS, WHICH HAVE A PARKING RATIO OF 1:300 BEING CONVERTED TO NEW RETAIL STORES, 1:200. SO REALLY, WHAT DEVELOPERS TYPICALLY HAVE CREATED SOME ACCESS PARKING WHEN WE'RE GIVEN SITE PLANS FOR CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, BUT WE GET INTO A SITUATION WHERE THE USE IS JUST HIGH ENOUGH THAT WE'RE SHORT A COUPLE OF PARKING SPOTS. AND SO WE'RE HAVING TO -- BECAUSE WE HAVE TO MAKE THE MINIMUMS, T DUE TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WE HAVE TO HOLD BACK THE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY OR WE WIND UP PUTTING BURDENSOME REQUIREMENTS ON SOME OF OUR APPLICANTS. THE REDUCTION PROGRAMS THAT EXIST IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE CURRENTLY FOR PARKING REQUIREMENTS ARE REALLY GEARED TOWARDS NEW CONSTRUCTION. A PROPERTY OWNER CAN SEEK TO GET A PARKING AGREEMENT FROM A NEIGHBORING PARKING -- NEIGHBORING LOT THROUGH EASEMENTS. THOSE ARE NOT NECESSARILY EASY TO OBTAIN. YOU'VE GOT WHETHER OR NOT YOU CAN GET AHOLD OF THAT PROPERTY OWNER, IF THE OWNER IS OPEN TO THAT SORT OF AGREEMENT. THEY MAY NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING THEMSELVES. THERE MAY NOT BE A NEIGHBORING LOT. AND REALLY THE FINAL OPTIONS FOR AN APPLICANT TO GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND TO SEEK A VARIANCE FROM THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. THE SECOND ISSUE THAT WE'RE SEEING IS FOR SMALLER IN-FILL SITES REDEVELOPMENTS OR EXPANSIONS. THEY ARE NOT ABLE TO MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WHILE ALSO MEETING OTHER DESIGN REQUIREMENTS ON THE SITE. SO SITE DESIGN REQUIREMENTS LIKE LANDSCAPING DRIVE-OUTS EASEMENTS ARE EATING INTO THE SPACE ON SOME OF THESE REALLY SMALL SITES WHERE THEY COULD POTENTIALLY MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENT WITHOUT THOSE, BUT BECAUSE THERE'S A COMBINATION OF ALL THESE FACTORS GOING IN, THEY CAN'T MEET THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND SO STAFF LOOKED AT ZONING ORDINANCES ACROSS THE COUNTRY TO SEE WHAT FLEXIBILITY OTHER CITIES HAVE WHEN TRYING TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION TO THIS ISSUE. WE FOUND A DIVERSE MIX OF CITIES, SUBURBAN CENTERS SIMILAR TO PLANO AS WELL AS CITIES THAT ARE WELL-SUITED FOR DEVELOPMENT THAT HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY WHEN IT COMES TO CHAES OF USE SPECIFICALLY. AND BASED ON THAT REVIEW OF THE CITIES, YOU CAN SEE IN THE STAFF REPORT KIND OF A BETTER BREAKDOWN. WE'RE JUSTIFIED IN MAKING SOME OF OUR PARKING REQUIREMENTS A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBLE FOR THESE CHAGES OF USE AND INFILL DEVELOPMENT. STAFF DOES PLAN TO DO A FULL REVIEW OF THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS WITH THE ZONING REWRITE. THAT'S ONE OF OUR TOP PRIORITIES AS STAFF. IT'S A PROBLEM THAT WE FACE EVERY DAY WHEN TRYING TO PROVE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY. BUT WITH THE BURDEN THAT PROPERTY OWNERS AND BUSINESSES ARE FACG GHT N WE NEED AN IMMEDIATE FIX. DOING THAT COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW IS GOING TO TAKE SOME TIME. THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WE HAVE ARE A RESEARCH-BASED SOLUTION TO PROVIDE THAT IMMEDIATE RELIEF THAT SOME OF THESE BUSINESS OWNERS ARE SEEKING HERE IN PLANO. AND SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS, WE'VE GOT TWO SETS OF CHANGES. ONE TO ADDRESS THE CHANGES OF USE. THE AMENDMENT WILL REQUIRE NO NEW PARKING WHEN A PROPERT OWNER SUBMITS A SIGNED LETTER TO THE CITY. THE OWNER MUST AGREE TO MANAGE PARKING ON THE SITE. AND THE LETTER MUST BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY AS PART OF THE COUNTY LAND RECORDS. THE AMENDMENT GIVES THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING THE DISCRETION TO REQUIRE A PARKING STUDY AT ANY TIME TO ENSURE THAT PARKING NEEDS ARE BEING ACCURATELY MET ON THE SITE. WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THAT THIS AMENDMENT IS REALLY GOING TO GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY TO MANAGE THE CHANGES OF USE THAT WE'RE SEEING ON SOME OF OUR SITES HERE IN PLANO AND ALLOW PROPERTY MANAGERS THE ABILITY TO E SAME TIME ALSO GIVING THE CITY THE TOOLS TO MAKE SURE PARKING NEEDS ARE MET AND MANAGING THAT BALANCE BETWEEN THE TWO. ONE THING TO NOTE IS THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT DISTRICT IS EXCLUDED FROM THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AS THE ZONING DISTRICT ALREADY HAS A NUMBER OF ALLOWANCES FOR PARKING ALREADY. AND THEN FOR THE PROPOSED CHANGES FOR INFILL, DEVELOPMENT, AND EXPANSIONS, THE REDUCTIS ARE -- MAY BE GRANTED UP TO 10% OF THE REQUIREMENTS BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND ZONING AND A REDUCTION OF 20% SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THESE WERE -- REDUCTIONS WILL BE ALLOWED IN INSTANCES WHERE PARKING WILL NOT CREATE ISSUES ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES OR POTENTIALLY CREATE PARKING TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. EXCLUSIONS FROM THESE REDUCTIONS INCLUDE VEHICLE STORAGE OR OTHER MODIFICATIONS ON A SITE THAT ARE PREVENTING THEM FROM -- THAT EAT UP SPACEHAT Y ALREADY CHALLENGE THEM FROM MEETING THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. AND WE'VE ALSO PUT IN AN EXCLUSION FOR B B CONDOMINIUM OWNERSHIP. REDUCTIONS ARE GRANTED THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND ARE NOT GUARANTEED ON A FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT. FINALLY, THERE IS AN EXISTING REDUCTION FOR EASEMENTS AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DEDICATIONS THAT IS INCLUDED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND WE PLAN FOR BEST ORDINANCE PRACTICES TO MOVE THAT TO WHERE ALL THESE REDTIONS WOU EXIST IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THIS PLAN -- THESE AMENDMENTS -- THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND WE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY RESPONSES FOR THIS ZONING CASE. STAFF RECOMMEND THE PROPOSED CHANGES BE ADOPTED AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I WANT TO UNDERSTAND SOMETHING, BECAUSE WE USE THE WORD REDUCTION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCTION IN REQUIREMENTS, NOT REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF SPACES. >> YES. SO IT WOULD BE A REDUCTION OF WHATEVER THE TOTAL PERCENTAGE. >> Chair Downs: BECAUSE IT TALKS ABOUT AN EXPANSION OF UP TO 4500 FEET DOESN'T REQUIRE ADDITIONAL PARKING. I THINK THAT'S WHAT I SAW IN HERE SOMEWHERE. BUT IF THE -- LET'S SEE. I'LL HAVE TO COME BACK TO IT. LET'S GO THE OTHER DIRECTION. THE AMENDMENT WOULD NOT BE AVAILABLE, SIMPLIFIED EXAMPLES INCLUDE ALLOWS EXPANSIONS UP TO 4500 SQUARE FEET FOR HERITAGE RESOURCE PROPERTIES WITH NO ADDITIONAL PARKING REQUIREMENT. I'M NOT SURE I'M READING THIS PROPERLY. >> THOSE ARE EXEMPTIONS IN THE BUSINESS GOVERNMENT DISTRICT. THOSE ARE ALREADY EXISTING. >> Chair Downs: THEY'RE EXISTING. >> YEAH. >> Chair Downs: AND THEY'RE ONLY THE IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT. SO WE'RE NO PROPOSING, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT IN AN EXISTIN TE -- LET'S TAKE A BANK BUILDING. THEY EXPAND IT BY 4500 FEET TO TURN IT INTO WHATEVER IT IS. AND THAT ELIMINATES PARKING ON-SITE. AND THEN THEY WANT TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING AVAILABLE. SO THEY'VE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF PARKING SITES AVAILABLE AND THEN THEY'RE ASKING FOR A REDUCTION. IS THAT HOW THIS IS GOING TO WORK? YOU SEE WHAT I'M SAYING? IF THEY HADN'T EXPANDED THEY'D MEET THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENTS. BUT BECAUSE THEY EXPANDED NOW THEY DON'T. SO HOW DOES THAT PROSS WORK? IS THAT MAKING SENSE? >> SO WHEN THERE IS AN EXPANSION, THEY WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR THE SECOND OPTION THAT MR. CAMPBELL PRESENTED. THE EXPANSION WOULD BE IF THEY DID 4500 SQUARE FEET OF THEIR BUILDING, AND THAT ATE UP ALL OF THEIR PARKING THEY WOULD STILL HAVE A MINIMUM REQUIREMENT OF PARKING. BASED ON THAT NEW SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND IT COULD BE REDUCED BY STAFF ADMINISTRATIVELY UP TO 10%F WHATEVER THAT NEW REQUIRED PARKING AMOUNT IS, OR BY THE COMMISSION BY 20% THROUGH A SITE PLAN PROCESS IN BOTH CASES. AND SO THEY WOULD STILL BE REQUIRED TO HAVE SOME PARKING, JUST THAT REQUIREMENT WOULD BE REDUCED IF YOU OR STAFF APPROVED IT. BUT NO MORE THAN 20%. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. AS USUAL, I PROBABLY SHOULDN'T HAVE STARTED OFF ASKING THE QUESTIONS. THEY'RE GOING TO ASK IT BETTER THAN I WOULD ANYWAY. SO WE'LL MOVE THROUGH ALL OF THAT AND IF I'M STILL UNCLEAR -- I HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS. BUT, MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: JUST TO BE CLEAR, OR ATTEMPT TO BE CLEAR. COULD YOU HELP WALK ME THROUGH THE PROCESS? IF SOMEONE IS GOING TO MOVE INTO A STRIP CENTER. >> MHMM. >> Lisle: AND THE SPACE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO OCCUPY HAS A LARGER PARKING REQUIREMENT THAN THE TENANT THAT PREVIOUSLY EXISTED THERE. >> MHMM. THIS. >> Lisle: AND THERE'S NOT EXCESS SPACES ON-SITE, THE EXAMPLE YOU GAVE WAS A RESTAURANT OWNER. THEY COME IN AND SAY, WE NEED TWO MORE SPOTS. >> UH-HUH. >> Lisle: THEN WHAT SEBASTIAN SAID WAS THIS IS GOING TO HAPPEN THROUGH A SITE PLAN PROCESS. >> SO WITH THE CHANGE OF USE, THAT'S THE SIGNED LETTER PROCESS. SO THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD HAVE TO SEND A SIGNED LETTER TO US SAYING THAT THEY'RE GOING TO AGREE TO MANAGE PARKING ON THE SITE SUFFICIENTLY THAT THERE'S NOT GOING TO BE PARKING ISSUES. THE DIRECTOR CAN REQUIRE A PARKING STUDY TO ENSURE THAT. AN THEN IT HAS TO BE FILED WITH THE COUNTY LAND RECORD. SO THAT'S FOR THE CHANGE OF USE SPECIFICALLY. IF SOMEONE -- A RESTAURANT IS MOVING IN AND WE SEE THAT HEY, THEY'RE SHORT TWO PARKING SPOTS OR UP TO THAT 10%, WE CAN GRANT THEM AN ADMINISTRATIVE WAIVER AND SAY YOU'RE GOOD TO GO. LET'S SAY IT'S 30 AND THEY'RE SHORT TWO. THAT WOULD BE IN THE 10%. THE PROPERTY OWNER WOULD SEND US A LETTER. WE WOULD SIGN OFF ON IT. ITOULD GO WITH THE COUY LAND RECORDS. >> Lisle: DOES THE LETTER COME FROM THE GUY WITH THE RESTAURANT OR THE STRIP CENTER? >> THE PERSON WHO OWNS THE STRIP CENTER. >> Lisle: HE'S GOING TO SUBMIT THE LETTER TO THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THEN THEY'RE GOING TO FILE IT WITH THE COUNTY. AND THEN WHEN CAN Y'ALL REQUIRE A STUDY? >> WE CAN REQUIRE IT AT ANY TIME. IF WE START GETTING COMPLAINS ABOUT POTENTIAL PARKING ISSUES, THE DIRECTOR HAS THE DISCRETION TO ASK FOR A PARKING STUDY. WE CAN DO IT BEFEHAN IF STAFF BELIEVES -- IT'S AT THE DISCRETION. >> Lisle: I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THE GUY -- THE PROPERTY OWNER WRITES THE LETTER. THE GUY PUTS A SANDWICH SHOP IN. THERE'S PARKING ISSUES ON-SITE. THEN Y'ALL SAY WE WANT A PARKING STUDY. WELL, THEN WHAT? ARE YOU GOING TO RETROACTIVELY SAY YOUR PARKING STUDY PROVES YOU NEED THOSE TWO SPOTS AND MAKE THEM BUILD THEM? >> I THINK THE -- IT MAY DEPEND. BUT THE WAY THIS IS WRITTEN, IF THEY ARE VIOLATING THE LETTER AGREEMENT BECAUSE THERE ARE ISSUES ON-SITE OR AT NEIGHBORING SITES IN THE VICINITY, THAT WOULD BE A VIOLATION OF THE LETTER. AND THEN THAT'S CONSIDERED -- IN THE DRAFT -- IT'S CONSIDERED AN OFFENSE FOR THE OWNER TO FAIL TO ADHERE TO THAT. SO WE WOULD PURSUE IT AS A VIOLATION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. >> Lisle: WHAT IS THE LETTER GOING TO SAY? >> THEY MUST AGREE THAT THEY WILL MANAGE PARKING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE REMAINDER OF THE PARKING STANDARDS. AND THEN ALSO THAT NOT AD VERSE EFFECTS WILL OCCUR TO THE SIDE OR ANY PUBLIC OR PRIVATE PROPERTY IN THE VICINITY. >> Lisle: OKAY. BUT MAYBE THEY WRITE THAT LETTER. AND MAYBE A NEIGHBORING BUSINESS BECOMES WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. AND THERE WAS NO WAY FOR THEM TO PREDICT THAT THAT PLACE WAS GOING TO BECOME WILDLY SUCCESSFUL. AND THAT'S THE ISSUE THAT THE PARKING -- THAT'S WHAT IS DRIVING THE PARKING PROBLEM, IS THAT THE TENANT THAT MET THEIR PARKING REQUIREMENT IS ACTUALLY USING MORE THAN . . . AND THEN HOW DOES THAT WORK? BECAUSE IF THE PROPERTY OWNER WRITES THE LETTER, HE'S WRITING IT FOR THE WHOLE THING. SO HE'S WRITING IT FOR THE WHOLE PROPERTY THAT HE OWNS. IT'S NOT SPECIFIC TO THE SANDWICH SHOP THAT CAME IN, IN MY EXAMPLE. SO I GUESS THE PROPERTY OWNER'S MANAGING IT. >> THE PROPERTY OWNER IS TAKING ON THE BURDEN FOR THEIR FULL PROPERTY. IF THAT MORE POPULAR SITE THAT COMES IN LATER IS THEIR PROPERTY, THEN THAT'S STILL THEIR RESPONSIBILITY. IT WILL APPLY TO ALL THE USES ON THE SITE. IF IT'S A NEIGHBORING SITE THAT BECOMES POPULAR, THE INTENT IS FOR IT TO BE -- NO ADVERSE EFFECT AS A RESULT OF THERE NOT BEING ADDITIONAL PARKING FOR THIS CHANGE OF USE. IT'S NOT JUST BECAUSE -- >> Lisle: I WANTED TO HONE IN ON THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. IF HYPOTHETICALLY ALL OF THESE DEVELOPMENTS ALREADY HAVE A SITE PLAN AND THEY HAVE A PARKING REQUIREMENT ON THERE, AND SO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS -- DOES THIS MEAN THEY CAN LINE -- LET'S SAY THERE'S 92 SPOTS REQUIRED AND THERE'S GOING TO BE A REDUCTION OF LESS THAN 10% IN FIVE SPOTS. ARE THEY GOING TO BE -- LET'S SAY THEY DON'T HAVE A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE BUT NOW -- YOU'RE GOING THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. AND THERE'S -- SO THEY GO THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. NOW THEY HAVE TO BUILD THE DUMPSTERS RIGHT? BECAUSE THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BRING THE WHOLE SITE UP TO CONFORMANCE RIGHT? AND REDRAW THE WHOLE THING. WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT JUST CHANGING THE PARKING REQUIREMENT ON THE SITE PLAN. >> IF THEY'RE DOING DEVELOPMENT OR EXPANSION ON THE SITE, THEY'LL BE NEEDING TO BRING MOST ELEMENTS OF THE SITE -- >> YOU SAID DEVELOPMENT OR EXPANSION. THE HYPOTHETICAL IS SOMEONE IS JUST REOCCUPYING SPACE. >> THERE'S NO SITE PLAN REQUIREMENT IF THEY'RE JUST CHANGING USES. >> LisleI'M ST FLESHING ALL THIS -- >> SURE. >> Lisle: IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD SOMETHING, THEN -- IF YOU'RE JUST CHANGING THE USE YOU WRITE A LETTER. IF YOU'RE EXPANDINGING SOMETHIN, YOU BRING EVERYTHING UP TO CURRENT CODE. >> CORRECT. >> Lisle: AND JUST SO YOU KNOW, MAYBE IT'S DISGUISED BY MY QUESTIONS, I'M ALL FOR THIS. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IT BE THE SIMPLEST REDUCTION OF PARKING POSSIBLEWHICH IS WHY I WANTED TO UNDERSTAND THE PROCESS. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WITH THIS LETTER PROCESS THAT HANDLES THE EASY ONES. AND THEN THE MORE DIFFICULT ONED MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE, THAT'S WHEN YOU HAVE TO DO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS? >> Chair Downs: YES. >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: CHAIRMAN. FIRST OF ALL, MR. LISLE, I'M ALL FOR THE CONCEPT. I JUST HAVE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DETAILS. ON THE CHANGE OF USE, TO USE YOUR EXAMPLE, I'VE GOT A VACANT BANK. SOMEBODY COMES IN AND WANTS TO PUT A RETAIL FI FACILITY IN. THEY GO THROUGH THE LETTER PROCESS. THEY COME BACK FIVE YEARS LATER AND SAY NOW IT'S A GREAT CORNER, WE WANT TO MAKE A COFFEE SHOP. DOES THE COFFEE SHOP HAVE TO JUSTIFY THE INCREASE IN PARKING FROM RETAIL TO COFFEE SHOP, OR FROM THE ORIGINAL BANK? YOU FOLLOW MY QUESTION? NOW WE'RE GOING TO 100. IT'S THE BOILING WATER. AT WHAT POINT TO WE LOOK AT IT AGAIN? DO WE FILE ANOTHER LETTER. DOES THAT LETTER STILL APPLY? WHAT HAPPENS IN THE SECOND ITERATION? >> THE IDEA IS THAT THE LETTER WOULD RUN WITH THE LAND AND THE PROPERTY OWNER. I BELIEVE WE WOULD LET IT BE REVOCABLE IF THE PROPERTY OWNER CHANGES THEIR MIND. THE CITY -- WE TALKED ABOUT THE OLATIONS. BUT ALSO THE OTHER GOAL OF THIS IS THAT THIS IS AN IMMEDIATE FIX. SO IN THE LONG-TERM WE HOPE TO HAVE A MORE COMPREHENSIVE EVALUATION OF OUR STANDARDS, BUT ALSO POTENTIALLY EVEN OTHER TOOLS IN THE TOOLBOX TO ADDRESS ISSUES YEARS DOWN THE ROAD. BUT THE IDEA IS THAT THAT LETTER STANDS FOR THE PROPERTY AND FUTURE CHANGES OF USES AS WELL. >> Ratliff: SO THE SECOND TENANT, THE APPLICATION FOR THE T TRIGGER THIS PROCESS AGAIN. THE LAND OWNER WOULD STILL BE ON THE HOOK TO MANAGE THEIR PARKING ON THEIR SITE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Ratliff: AND IF THEY BRING A NEW TENANT THAT'S MORE PARKING-INTENSIVE, IT'S BACK TO MR. LISLE'S QUESTION, IT'S STILL THEIR PROBLEM TO MANAGE. GREAT. I'VE GOT THAT. SECOND QUESTION. ON THE NEW DEVELOPMENT, ONE OF MY CONCERNS ALL ALONG HAS BEEN WHEN WE'RE DOING MORE AND MORE MIXED USE, AND ENCOURAGING AND EMPHASIZING TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT WALKABILITY ALTERNATE TRANSPORTATION, BICYCLE, ETC., I'LL BE HONEST. 20% DOSN'T SEEM LIKE ENOUGH. I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT DEVELOPMENTS WHERE PEOPLE LIVE UPSTAIRS, WORK DOWNSTAIRS, SHOP DOWNSTAIRS, AND RIGHT NOW IF I UNDERSTAND THE CODE CORRECTLY, IF I'VE GOT A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT I'VE GOT TO PARK THE MULTIFAMILY, PARK THE OFFICE AND PARK THE RETAIL. >> YEP. >> WHERE IT'S THE SAME PERSON GOING ALL THREE PLACES. >> A LOT OF TIMES OUR MIX-USE DEVELOPMENTS ARE BLAND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND WE SEE THAT BUILT IN. >> I HAVEN'T NOTICED THAT. Y'ALL ARE ALREADY DOING THAT, FACTORING IN THAT THAT'S ONE PERSON GOING THREE PLACES, NOT THREE PEOPLE. >> RIGHT. >> OKAY. BECAUSE THAT -- SO DOES THAT NEED TO BE PART OF THIS, OR IS THAT ALREADY BAKED INTO THE PD PROCESS? >> IT'S NOT BAKED IN. I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE ALWAYS CONSIDER ON A SITE-BY-SITE BASIS. BUT THOSE VERY PRINCIPLES OF TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT AND MIXED USE ARE SOMETHING WE WANT TO LOOK AT COMPREHENSILY BECAUSE IT REQUIRES MORE STUDY THAN JUST A QUICK FIX. BUT IT'S DEFINITELY ON OUR RADAR. >> AND LAST BUT NOT LEAST, PUBLIC STREET PARKING, NOT JUST IN THE BG DISTRICT, BUT COLLIN CREEK LEGACY. HOW IS THAT FACTORED IN TO T THE 10 AND 20%, OR IS IT? THERE'S A GROWING AMOUNT OF PUBLIC STREET PARKING THROUGHOUT THE CITY. >> LEGACY WEST AND COLLIN CREEK HAVE THEIR OWN. >> IN THEIR PD? >> YEAH. >> RIGHT? >> OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. GENERALLY WHEN WE'RE LOOKING AT ADDING -- IN THE PAST, THOSE URBAN STREET SECTIONS HAD TO BE DONE THROUGH PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS. WE ONLY RECENTLY ADDED IT AS A STANDARD OPTION TO THE STREET DESIGN. CREDIT FOR ON-STREET PARKING IS OFTEN BUT NOT ALWAYS BUILT INTO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS. >> OKAY. SO I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN AREA OUTSIDE OF BG WHERE WE HAVE NEW CROSS-SECTIONS THAT ARE GOING TO HAVE SUBSTANTIAL STREET PARKING. THAT ACCURATE? >> THERE'S THE DOWNTOWN AREAS, THEN URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER, SUBURBAN, CAN USE THOSE STANDARDS AS WELL AS IF THEY'RE IN A COMMUNITY CORNER AND DEVELOPING WITH A MIXED USE APPROACH. THERE'S A FEW MORE OPTIONS THAN JU DOWNTOWN BG. ANYWHERE YOU'RE DOING A MIXED USE APPROACH. >> I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE COUNTING THAT IN THIS 10-20% CONSIDERATION, THERE IS MORE STREET PARKING AVAILABLE, WHICH IS GREAT, BUT THERE'S NO REASON TO BUILD ADDITIONAL PARKING SPACES IF THERE'S A SPACE ON THE STREET IN FRONT OF MY BUSINESS. >> THERE ARE URBAN MIXED USE, THAT ALLOWS FOR ON-STREET PARKING TO BE COUNTED AND SO THAT WOULD BE THE RATIO WE'D BE STARTING WITH TO TAKE THAT REDUCTION, WOULD INCLUDE THE ON-STREET PARKING AS ALLOWED PER THE PD OR THE UMU DISTRICT. >> I TRUST Y'ALL WILL FIGURE OUT SOME WAY TO KEEP UP WITH WHO CLAIMED WHICH SPACES SO THEY DON'T GET DOUBLE AND TRIPLE COUNTED. I'LL LEAVE THAT TO Y'ALL, BECAUSE I'M ALL FOR THE PLAN. SO THAT'S MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. >> A LOT OF TIMES THOSE ARE PRIVATE STREETS. SO THEY'RE FACTORED INTO THE OVERALL PARKING CALCULATIONS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I WAS GOING TO SUGGEST PUT IN CHAIRS TO CLAIM YOUR PARKING SPACE LIKE WE DID IN DOWNTOWN CHICAGO. [ LAUGHING ] >> Olley: I'M STUCK ON THE LETTER. TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW -- IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE IT HAS TEETH BEHIND IT. IT'S ON MY HONOR, I PROMISE I WILL MANAGE THE PARKING AND THE CITY IS LEFT TO REACT TO THE ENFORCEMENT PROCEDURES AROUND THAT. DID WE LOOK AT ANY OTHER MECHANISM TO HOLD THE PROPERTY OWNER ACCOUNTABLE? MITIGATE WHAT COULD BE SPILLOVER? >> WE DID CONSIDER A PARKING OBLIGATION DEED AT ONE POINT. THIS JUST SEEMED -- >> Olley: WHAT? >> A PARKING OBLIGATION DEED WAS AN IDEA THAT WAS FLOATED. WE HAD ALSO ORIGINALLY CONSIDERED EVEN FOR ALL ADMINISTRATIVE REDUCTIONS THAT THEY MUST BE NOTED ON THE SITE PLAN. WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO, WHEN WE WERE THINKING ABOUT THIS WITH THE CHANGES OF USE, WE SEE THIS IN SMALL BUSINESS OWNS. WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THESE REQUIREMENTS AS EASY TO ACHIEVE AS POSSIBLE IN THE CHEAPEST WAY POSSIBLE. SEBASTIAN, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO THAT? >> I THINK YOU GENERALLY COVERED IT. >> WHAT WE'RE SEEING A LOT IS EXISTING CENTERS WHERE THERE'S CLEARLY WAY TOO MUCH PARKING, BUT ON PAPER THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH. AND WE HAVE NO FLEXIBILITY TO ALLOW THAT. AND THAT'S THE MOST COMMON CASE THATE SEE IS THEY HAVE ENOUGH PARKING ON-SITE BUT NOT ENOUGH ON PAPER. >> Olley: SO THIS -- YOU MENTIONED A QUICK FIX AS WE GO FOR THE MORE PERMANENT SOLUTION. TIMELINE PERSPECTIVE? HOW LONG DO YOU THINK THIS WILL BE? REMEMBER WHAT THE TIMELINE FOR THE ORDINANCE REWRITE IS? >> I THINK WE'RE ANTICIPATING THAT TO KICK OFF EARLY NEXT YEAR. HOW LONG THAT TAKES, COD BE A YEAR OR TWO. >> Olley: THE OTHER SUGGESTION, NOT NECESSARILY A QUESTION. THIS IS STUPID TAX FOR ME. IF COMES FROM INFILL WHERE IT REQUIRES A THRESHOLD OF 20% FOR PLANNING AND ZONING, CAN WE REQUIRE A PARKING STUDY IF IT'S GOING TO COME BEFORE THIS BODY? I ALWAYS LIKE TO LEAN IN VIEW OF MORE INFORMATION SINCE THAT'S A HIGHER VARIANCE THEY ARE LOOKING FOR. I WOULD SUGGEST WE WRITE IN. ITIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT OF AN EXTRA BAR FOR THEM TO HURDLE, BUT IT HELPS US MAKE A MORE ENLIGHTENED DECISION. >> Chair Downs: ALONG THOSE LINES, ANY IDEA WHAT A PARKING STUDY COSTS, KEEPING IN MIND WE'RE TALKING PRIMARILY ABOUT SMALL BUSINESS IN AN UNDERUTILIZED CENTER? OKAY. NO CLEAR ANSWER. THAT'S FINE. ARE YOU DONE, MR. OLLEY? OKAY. MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO, CONNOR, GOOD JOB. THANK YOU FOR THIS. [ LAUGHING ] >> Bronsky: I DO THINK THAT THIS IS IMPORTANT AND SOMETHING THAT WE REALLY NEED TO LOOK AT. AND FRANKLY, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER RATLIFF ABOUT THE PERCENTAGES. BUT I'VE GOT A COUPLE CONCERNS. YOU MENTIONED IN YOUR PRESENTATION THAT PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT HAD FOUND WHAT? >> THAT -- SO PRIOR TO 2014, COMMERCIAL PROPERTY CODE ENFORCEMENT WAS COMPLAINT DRIVEN FOR THE MOST PART. AROUND 2014, THERE WAS MORE OF A PROACTIVE APPROACH TAKEN FROM PROPERTY STANDARDS TO KIND OF SEE WHAT VIOLATIONS WERE GOING ON, SPECIFICALLY START DOING THE DOWNTOWN SWEEP. THEY FOUND ILLEGAL USES. THEY FOUND A WIDE VARIETY OF THINGS, INCLUDING THE FACT THAT PARKING THAT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THERE WAS NOT. >> Bronsky: OKAY. >> SO THE DIRECTION THAT WAS GIVEN IN 2018 FROM CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME WAS TO CONTINUE THAT PROACTIVE ENFORCEMENT AND FOR PROPERTY STANDARDS TO ENFORCE AND BE MORE STRINGENT WITH THEIR REQUIREMENTS WHEN IT COMES TO THE SITE PLAN. >> Bronsky: SO THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE BEEN VIOLATING THIS, AS YOU DESCRIBED, RIGHT, THEY ALREADY CAME AT SOME POINT TO GET A C.O. PROMISING TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF SPOTS, CRECT? >> YES. >> Bronsky: OKAY. SO NOW WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM SEND A LETTER PROMISING THAT THE PEOPLE -- THE PROPERTY MANAGERS, MANY OF WHOM MAY BE ALREADY VIOLATING IT, ARE GOING TO PROMISE US DOUBLE THAT THEY'RE GOING TO FOLLOW WHAT THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO DO? PINKY PROMISE? [ LAUGHING ] >> FROM MY UNDERSTANDING, WHEN THE SWEEPS WERE CONDUCTED IN THIS PROACTIVE APPROACH WAS FIRST TAKEN, OUR PROPERTY STANDARDS STAFF, THEY WORKED TO . SO A LOT OF THE VIOLATORS WERE BROUGHT IN. THEY NEEDED TO REDO THEIR SITE PLANS. THEY NEEDED TO UPDATE THEIR REQUIREMENTS. SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTOOD FROM THE REPORT FROM NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES IS THAT THEY WERE ACTIVELY WORKING TO ADDRESS THOSE VIOLATIONS ALREADY. >> Bronsky: I CAN APPRECIATE IT. BUT MY STRUGGLE IS YOU'RE PUTTING PEOPLE IN CHARGE OF SOMETHING WHO HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN NOT FOLLOWING WHATHT THEIRROMISE IS AND HAVE HISTORY OF NOT FOLLOWING THROUGH WITH THAT. AND THE SECOND PART IS WITH THE ZONING REWRITE COMING, I THINK A MORE COMPREHENSIVE APPROACH RATHER THAN A BAND-AID MIGHT BE A BETTER SOLUTION FOR US. AND SO THAT'S MY CONCERN. WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING. BUT AM I 100% SURE THAT THIS IS THE SOLUTION? I'LL GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE. AT THE CORNER OF PARKER AND CUSTER ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER, THERE'S THREE PROPERTY OWNERS THAT MAKE UP THAT ENTIRE COMPLEX OF BUILDINGS. IF SOMEBODY DRIVES IN THERE AND IS GOING TO THE O'RILEY'S BUT THEY'RE PARKING ON A DIFFERENT SPOT OR A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY, AND OVERUSING THAT PROPERTY OWNER'S PROPERTY, HOW DO WE KNOW THAT IT'S THE O'REILLY'S THAT'S PRODUCING THE PROBLEM AS OPPOSED TO THE PROPERTY OWNER WHO DOESN'T HAVE ANY RELATIONSHIP TO THE O'REILLY'S? >> YEAH. I THINK WE DEAL WITH THESE CHALLENGES EVERY DAY. AND THEY'RE VERY DIFFICULT TO WORK THROUGH. I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN 100%. I WOUL D JUST TELL YOU IN OUR EXPERIENCE, IT'S MUCH MORE -- ACCESS PARKING. AND WE'RE HANDCUFFED IN WHAT WE CAN ALLOW THEM. THAT IS THE BIGGEST ISSUE THAT WE HAVE AND WHY WE'RE TRYING TO BRING THIS FORWARD IS TO RELIEVE THAT BURDEN THAT WE'RE SEEING EVERY DAY. THAT'S REALLY AND TRULY THE INTENTS A QUICK FIX TODAY. YOUR POINTS ARE VERY WELL-TAKEN. I THINK WE WOULD ASK THAT WE COULD ADDRESS THAT IN THE COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE RATHER THAN PUTTING THIS OFF, BECAUSE WE HAVE PROPERTY OWNERS GETTING HELD UP. THEY'RE NOT BEING ALLOWED TO OPEN FOR BUSINESS. IT'S NOT THE TENANT'S ISSUE. IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER, MANAGEMENT ISSUE. A LOT OF TIMES IT'S NOT THAT THEY DIDN'T OBEY THE RULES, NOT THAT THEY DIDN'T KNOW. SOME OF THESE SITES ARE DECADES OLD, THIG THINGS HAVE CHANGED OR TIME. OUR STRINGENCY HAS BEEN UP AND DOWN. I DON'T WANT TO PUT IT ALL ON THE PROPERTY OWNER. WE'RE LOOKING TO STOP THE BLEEDING. >> I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. I THINK THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS A PROBLEM. I COULD POINT TO AREAS WHERE THIS IS WHAT YOU'VE DESCRIBED. MY HESITATION IS A QUICK FIX BAND-AID ON THIS ONE ISSUE WHEN WE'VE TALKED ABOUT NOT HAVING QUICK FIX ISSUES ON OTHER ISSUES THAT I THINK WEOULD HAVE SOLVED MUCH SIMPLER THAN THIS ONE. AND I REALLY DON'T WANT TO TALK ABOUT AN ENCLOSURE, BUT I'LL JUST LEAVE THAT WHERE IT'S AT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. AND WE DO HAVE I THINK A PUBLIC SPEAKER ON THIS, TOO. SO KEEP THAT IN MIND. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, WHETHER MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO APPLAUD THE EFFORT. GREAT. I LOVE THE IDEA. BECAUSE I PERSONALLY WORK WITH TENANTS. I WORK WITH A LOT OF SHOPPING CENTER OWNERS, ESPECIALLY IN PLANO, MULTIPLE SHOPPING CENTER OWNERS. THEY HAVE SUFFERED THE SAME ISSUE THAT YOU JUST BROUGHT UP. I WAS LIKE, GREAT. FINALLY, WE ARE ADDRESSING THIS, BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY OLD SPACES, RETAIL ONLY, GIFT SHOPS, LITTLE CLOTHING STORES, JEWELRY STORES. THEY ALL CLOSED DURING COVID. THEY TURNED THEM INTO DRINK SHOPS OR COFFEE SHOPS OR RESTAURANTS. THEY CAN THRIVE OR SURVIVE. BUT THEY CAN'T BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING DESIGNATED TO THAT SPECIFIC USE WHEN THEY'RE BUILDING THE SHOPPING CENTER. BUT THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF SPACE AVAILABLE. THEY CAN PARK THAT MANY CARS. IT'S JUST ON PAPER, LIKE WHAT MR. BELL SAID. SO I TOTALLY AGREE WITH YOUR SOLUTION AND I AM NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE OWNER SIGNING A LETTER SAYING THAT WE WILL MANAGE THE ISSUES AND THEN THEY LIE ABOUT IT. [ CHUCKLING ] I THINK THE OWNERS, THEY WORK FOR THEIR OWN INTEREST. IF THERE'S AN ISSUE TO THE PARKING THEY KNOW ABOUT IT. IT WILL BE AN ISSUE TO THEMSELVES AND THERE WILL BE AN ISSUE TO THE BUSINESS IN THE OPPING CENTERS. D TH WIL BE DETRIMENTAL TO THEIR OWN POCKET. SO THEY WILL NOT WANT TO SEE PARKING ISSUES. THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THE BUSINESS, IMPACT THE CUSTOMER EXPERIENCE. THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT THEIR BOTTOM LINES. SO I THINK THEY WILL SEE TO IT. I FIRMLY BELIEVE THE BUSINESS OWNERS, OR PROPERTY OWNERS, OR PROPERTY MANAGERS, THEY WILL WELCOME THE SOLUTION AND THEY WILL BE HONESTLY, YOU KNOW, SEE TO THE ISSUES. IF THERE IS AN ISSUE THEY WIL ADDRESS IT MORE DILIGENTLY THAN US, I BELIEVE, TO MAKE SURE THEIR BUSINESS ARE SURVIVING AND THRIVING. BUT I DO HAVE TWO CONCERNS. ONE IS KIND OF SIMILAR TO WHAT COMMISSIONER RATLIFF MENTIONED EARLIER. HOW DO YOU DETERMINE 10% OR 20% IS ENOUGH? BECAUSE IF WE JUST LOOK AT YOUR EXAMPLE, OR CONVERTING A BANK TO A RETAIL STORE FROM A 100 TO 200, TO 300 RATIO, THAT'S FROM TEN SPOTS TO -- THAT'S MORE THAN 20% ALREADY. THAT'S JUST A SIMPLE EXAMPLE. IF WE CONVERT A RETAIL TO A RESTAURANT, THAT MAY BE ANOTHER 30% INCREASE ON THE PARKING SPOT REQUIREMENT. SO I WASN'T SURE HOW WE DETERMINED THE 10% OR 20%. EVEN IF IT WOULD JUST TURN ONE SPOT IN LINE, 2,000 OR MAYBE EVEN 1800 SQUARE FEET SPOT TO CHANGE THE USE FROM A REGULAR GIFT SHOP TO A RESTAURANT. I THINK THAT WILL BE MORE THAN 20%. DO WE HAVE TO BRING THOSE CASES TO THE COMMISSION TO GET APPROVAL EVERY TIME? >> SO WITH THE CHANGE OF USE IT'S JUST THE LETTER. SO THERE'S NO -- WE DON'T HAVE THE PERCENTAGE RESTRICTIONS ON THOSE. >> Tong: OH. >> SO THEY WOULD JUST COME TO US. STAFF WOULD EVALUATE IT. WE WOULDEQUEST THE PARKING STUDY, OBVIOUSLY, IF WE'RE SEEING THESE KIND OF MASSIVE CHANGES. BUT JUST TO KIND OF SPEAK TO THAT TOO. SO, WE DID AN ANALYSIS OF ROUGHLY NINE SITES ACROSS THE CITY WHERE WE HAVE, KIND OF, THESE PARKING CHALLENGES. AND OF THE -- OF THOSE NINE THE AVERAGE REDUCTION THAT WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT [ INDISCERNIBLE ]. >> Tong: OKAY, GREAT. SO YOU DID A STUDY. I WAS JUST DOING IT IN MY HEAD. >> A LOT OF THEM ARE PROVIDING PARKING IN EXCESS ALREADY. IT'S WHERE WE WI UP ITHESE SITUATIONS WHERE MAYBE THEY PROVIDED A 1:150 OR SOMETHING RATIO IS WHAT IT WAS. >> Tong: YEAH. OKAY. SO THERE'S NO LIMIT? THERE'S NO PERCENTAGE REDUCTION, WHATEVER IF THEY JUST WRITE A LETTER? I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT. I'M NOT SAYING WR RIGHT OR WRON, GOOD OR BAD. >> THAT'S RIGHT. WE'RE LETTING THE PROPERTY OWNER TAKE -- AGREE TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY TO MANAGE THE PARKING. >> Tong: OKAY. >> WITH NO SET LIMIT. Tg: ALREADY. GREAT. THAT ANSWERS MY SECD QUESTION, TOO. SO, THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. I UNDERSTAND THE NEED AND I UNDERSTAND THE CONCEPT. BUT I THINK THE DEVIL'S IN THE DETAILS. OKAY. LOOKING AT THE TWO SIDES OF THIS, THE CHANGE OF USE SIDE AND THE INFILL REDEVELOPMENT EXPANSION SIDE, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE LATTER, THE INFILL, REDEVELOPMENT, AND EXPANSION IS MORE SPECIFICALLY SPELLED OUT THAN THE CHANGE OF USE SIDE. THE INFILL, ETC. SIDE SPECIFIES AVAILABILITY CRITERIA. IT SPECIFIES A PROCEDURE, NAMELY A SITE PLAN PROCEDURE WHICH INVOLVES AN APPLICATION, PERHAPS A HEARING OR SOME SORT OF CONSIDERATION AND FORMAL DETERMINATION. AND STANDARDS, 10% OR 20%. AND THOSE ARE NUMBERS THAT CAN BE WORKED WITH. AND IT GIVES THE APPCANT NOTICE OF WHAT IS GOING ON AND WHAT THE FINAL DECISION IS GOING TO BE AND WHAT IF ANYTHING IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED OF THE APPLICANT. ON THE OTHER HAND, ON THE CHANGE OF USE SIDE, LET'S SAY YOU HAVE A PROPERTY OWNER WHO BUYS A BANK BUILDING AND TURNS IT INTO A COFFEE SHOP, WHICH IS A LEGAL USE. HE DOESN'T NEED TO HE SENDS A LETTER TO THE CITY. HE AGREES TO MANAGE THE PARKING. HE AGREES NO ADVERSE EFFECTS WI OCCUR. HE RECORDS THE LETTER WITH THE COUNTY. OKAY? NOW. HOW IS THE OWNER SUPPOSED TO MANAGE PARKING? HE CAN'T STOP PEOPLE FROM PARKING ON THE PUBLIC STREET BECAUSE IT'S A PUBLICSTREET. HE CAN'T -- HOW IS HE SUPPOSED TO STOP HIS CUSTOMERS FROM PARKING ON THE PARKING LOT OF THE WALMART NEXT DOOR? THEY SHOULDN'T BE DOING THAT BUT HOW, FROM A REALISTIC STANDPOINT, HOW IS THE OWNER OF THIS COFFEE SHOP SUPPOSED TO MONITOR WHERE ALL OF HIS CUSTOMERS ARE PARKING AND WHAT IS HE SUPPOSED TO DO TO THEM IF THEY DO PARK AT THE WALMART NEXT DOOR? THIS SAYS THAT A PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY MAY BE OBTAINED OR REQUIRED. IT DOESN'T SPECIFICALLY SAY WHO IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE STUDY DONE. WHO IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR IT. WHAT IS THE TIME-FRAME WITHIN WHICH THE PROPERTY OWNER MAY BE VULNERABLE TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR A PARKING STUDY. THIS SAYS A PARKING UTILIZATN SDY MAY BE REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY AT ANY TIME. ARE YOU SAYING THAT FIVE YEARS AFTER THE COFFEE SHOP OPENED AND HAS SUDDENLY BECOME VERY POPULAR, HE COULD GET A LETTER FROM THE CITY SAYING YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A PARKING STUDY DONE? IT SEEMS TO ME UNFAIR. IT SEEMS TO ME, AT THE VERY LEAST, THE CITY SHOULD BE UNDER SOME SORT OF REASONABLE TIME-FRAME IN WHICH IT IS REQUIRED TO CONSIDER THE LETTER THAT HAS BEEN FILED AND NOTIFY THE OWNER WHETHER SOMETHING ME NEEDS TO BE DONE. THE OWNER SHOULD BE HOME FREE IF THE CITY DETERMINES AT THAT POINT THAT NOTHING NEEDS TO BE DONE. I DON'T SEE HOW HOLDING THE OWNER VULNERABLE TO HAVING TO DO A STUDY TWO, THREE, FIVE, TEN YEARS OUT WHENEVER THE CITY DECIDES YOU NEED MORE PARKING SPACES. THERE'S NO PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. THERE IS NO PROCEDURE PROVIDED FOR A SPECIFICALLY WHAT IS THE PROPERTY OWNER EXPECTED TO DO ONCE THIS PROPERTY STUDY COMES IN. HE CAN'T PUT MORE PARKING SPACES ON THE PROPERTY, BECAUSE THE WHOLE PREMISE IS THAT HE DIDN'T HAVE TO INCLUDE. HE COULD GO WITH HIS LEGAL OTHER USE WITH THE PARKING SPACES THAT ARE THERE. THERE MAY NOT BE AND PROBABLY WON'T BE PHYSICAL ROOM ON THE PROPERTY TO PAINT IN MORE PARKING STRIPES. SO I THINK YOU'RE PUTTING, UNDER THE CHANGE OF USE, YOU'RE PUTTING THE OWNER INTO A POTENTIAL BOX FROM WHICH HE CAN'T ESCAPE BECAUSE THE LACK OF SPECIFICITY, THE LACK OF PROCEDURE, THE LACKF STANDARDS. WHAT -- HOW IS THE DIRECTOR OR DESIGNEE SUPPOSED TO DETERMINE THE NEEDS OF THE PROPERTY? WHAT CONSTITUTES A NEED? HOW DO YOU QUANTIFY IT? HOW DO YOU DETERMINE THAT THE PROPERTY NEEDS SEVEN PARKING SPACES? I'M FINDING THAT THE CHANGE OF USE IS SOMEWHAT -- NOT SOMEWHAT, VERY VAGUE AT THIS POINT. I THINK IT NEEDS MORE WORK. I'M HAPPIER WITH THE INFILL AND REDEVELOPMENT EXPANSIONS PORTION. >> Chair Downs: I THINK WE ARE ALL FINDING SOME OF THE SAME CONCERNS. I THINK WE'RE COMING FROM IT FROM THAT PROCESS DRIVEN, WE REVIEW SITE PLANS AND ZONING REQUESTS AND SUPs, ALL OF THAT STUFF. STAFF IS COMING AT IT FROM A REAL-WORLDRACTICAL HERE'S WHAT COMES BEFORE US EVERY DAY. AND IT CREATES HEARTBURN FOR THE SMALL BUSINESS OWNER AND US BECAUSE THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF IT. I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE WORRYING ABOUT HOW IS A PROPERTY OWNER GOING TO MANAGE THIS AND HOW IS HE GOING TO DEAL WITH THIS COFFEE SHOP THAT HE'S GOT ON HIS PROPERTY THAT IS NEXT DOOR TO THE MAKEUP STORE OR WHATEVER. AND THE TRUTH IS THAT EXISTS ALL OVER THIS CITY RIGHT NOW BECAUSE ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS HAVE TO DESIGNATE TWO SPACES FOR THE FEDEX STORE AND THREE SPACES. THEY CAN'T GUARANTEE WHO IS GOG TO PARK IN THOSE. IF THERE IS SOMEONE WHO IS ROUTINELY VIOLATING IT, THEY PROBABLY HAVE TOWING ENFORCEMENT AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT I THINK WE'RE LOOKING TO REMOVE SOME OF THAT FROM WHAT WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH AND THEY HAVE TO DEAL WITH ON A DAILY BASIS AND MAKE THE PROPERTY OWNERS RESPONSIBLE FOR IT. THEY OWN AND MANAGE THE PROPERTY. I THINK TO COMMISSIONER TONG'S POINT, THERE ARE HOW MANY RETAIL STORES AND PLACES ALL OVER THIS CITY WHERE THE OWNER IS MANAGING THE PARKING ALREADY UNDER THE GUIDELINES THAT WERE SET UP 30 YEARS AGO OR 40 YEARS AGO, HOWEVER LONG AGO IT WAS. AND WE KEEP ADDRESSING LITTLE PIECES OF IT. BUT WE DO NEED AN OVERHAUL ON IT BECAUSE WE'VE ALL SEEN THESE ACRES AND ACRES OF EMPTY PARKING IN UNDERUTILIZED SPACES. I THINK WHAT STAFF'S REALLY ASKING US FOR HERE, AND I APPRECIATE, MR. BROUNOFF, ABOUT THERE'S NOT ENOUGH CLARITY THERE. THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS I WAS GOING TO SAY I WAS CONCERNED ABOUT AT THE BEGINNING TOO. BUT I'M ALSO -- I DON'T WANT TO MAKE A MOUNTAIN OUT OF A MOLE HILL IF WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE A LITTLE BIT OF RELIEF TO SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS. MAYBE THE SOLUTION THAT WOULD MAKE MOST OF US MORE HAPPY, EVEN THOUGH IT MIGHT CREATE MORE WORK FOR US AND PROBABLY NOT ALLEVIATE AS MUCH WORK FOR STAFF AS THEY WOULD LIKE, IS JUST WE GET A CHANCE TO LOOK AT IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S HELPFUL OR NOT TO YOU GUYS BUT -- I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHAT I'M THINKING. MR. LISLE, I THINK YOU SPOKE ONCE ALREADY. THEN COMMISSIONER CARY. WE DO HAVE SOMEONE TO SPEAK ON THE ITEM TOO. >> Lisle: I WAS JUST GOING TO -- I GOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF. ONE IS THAT IS PARKING A PART OF ZONING? AND ONCE WE'VE EXTENDED IT, CAN WE TAKE IT BACK? >> THAT'S THE PROBLEM AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THIS WHOLE LETTER IDEA IN HERE AND THE CONVERSION OF AN AGREEMENT INTO A MISDEMEANOR. BECAUSE NO. ONCE WE GIVE IT WE CAN'T TAKE IT AWAY. SO IF YOU GUYS AREN'T CRAZY ABOUT THIS WHOLE LETTER IDEA, ONE OF THE THINGS WE COULD DO IS JUST ALLOW IT TO HAPPEN. AND THEN IF IT CAUSES PROBLEMS, WELL, TOO BAD. IT WAS ALLOWED. THIS WAS A WAY WE WERE THINKING TO TRY TO KIND OF HEDGE IN CASE IT REALLY DID CAUSE SERIOUS PROBLEMS FOR THE NEIGHBORS. BUT IT CERTAINLY WOULDN'T BE A LEGAL PROBLEM IF YOU DECIDED YOU DON'T LIKE THE AGREEMENTS AND JUST ALLOW THESE AND JUST RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY ONCE IN A WHILE IT MAY CAUSE SOME PROBLEMS THAT WE CAN'T SOLVE. >> Lisle: I'LL RESERVE MY COMMENTS FOR AFTER THE SPEAKER. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: WITH RESPECT TO EVERYTHING THAT'S BEEN SAID, WHEN WE LOOK AT JUST A COUPLE OF SIMPLE THINGS, WE KNOW WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THIS. AND THEN WE HAVE THE OBVIOUS ISSUES OF PEOPLE WANTING TO CHANGE THOSE USES. AND SO, YOU KNOW, TO ME WHEN I LOOK AT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE, I THINK IN THIS INSTANCE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD IS THE PERFECT. I DON'T THINK THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET IT PERFECT HERE AND I DON'T THINK WE SHOULD TRY BECAUSE I THINK WHAT THEY'RE DOING HERE IS A GREAT STEP FORWARD IN MOVING FORWARD. DO YOU KNOW WHAT? WE'RE GOING TO COME BACK AND FIX THIS. WE COULD SIT HERE ALL NIGHT AND DO THIS. WE'RE RESPONSIBLE FOR LITERALLY THOUSANDS OF RETAIL SITES AND AT TIMES THIS IS A PROBLEM. BUT IT'S NOT A BIG PROBLEM. AND IT GETS SOLVED BY LANDLORDS WHEN IT IS A PROBLEM, ALMOST ALWAYS, TO COMMISSIONER TONG'S POINT. AND ALSO IN THE ENVIRONMENT WE'RE IN TODAY, GOD BLESS SOME PEOPLE IF WE HAD TOO MUCH TRAFFIC IN A CENTER. I MEAN, THAT WOULD BE A PROBLEM EVERY RETAILER WOULD LOVE TO HAVE. SO I JUST THINK THAT THIS IS A GREAT STEP FORWARD. A LOT OF GREAT COMMENTS. IT'S NOT PERFECT. IT'S REALLY GOOD AND IT FREES OUR BUSINESSES AND OUR CITY UP TO DO GOOD THINGS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE TO SAY. >> Chair Downs ALL RIGHT NO MORE LIGHTS UP. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: REAL QUICKLY. I THINK MOST OF MY PROBLEMS WOULD BE SOLVED, OR AT LEAST MADE BETTER, IF YOU JUST ELIMINATE LITTLE -- PARAGRAPH TRIPLE I UNDER B. THAT'S THE PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY. TAKE IT OUT. LEAVE THE PROCEDURE IN, TAKE OUT THE PARKING UTILIZATION POTENTIAL. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. I BELIEVE WE'RE -- I THINK WE'RE DONE. SO YOU CAN GO REST YOURSELF AFTER HAVING STOOD THERE FOR A WHILE. AND I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE A SPEAKER? I DON'T HAVE ONE ON MY SHEET. >> I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ONE THAT DID NOT REGISTER YET THAT WANTS TO SPEAK. >> Chair Downs: MAKE SURE. GIVE US YOUR NAME, ADDRESS AND GET WITH HER TO GET A CARD BEFORE YOU LEAVE. >> JOSEPH AND I'M WITH THE EUREKA BUSINESS GROUP. A COMMERCIAL BROKER AND AY. COMMERCIAL PROPERTY MANAGER. AND I THINK WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE -- AND THE REASON I'M HERE IS BECAUSE IN THE LAST THREE MONTHS I'VE BEEN WORKING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM TO TRY TO GET APPROVAL FOR A TENANT IN A BUILDING THAT WAS BUILT IN 1980. THERE IS NO WAY TO MANUFACTURE MORE PARKING SPOTS IN AN OLD BUILDING. AND WE CAN'T JUST IGNORE THE FACT THAT WE HIRE A DIRECTOR IN THE CITY AND GIVE HER ZERO LEEWAY FOR COMMON SENSE. IF THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM COMES OUT TO SEE THE SITE, THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING SPOTS, THERE'S NO REASON FOR ME TO SIT WITH -- ALL THE WAY UP TO THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER AND EVERYBODY TELLS ME NOT EVEN THE MAYOR CAN GIVE YOU PERMISSION TO DO THIS. THEN YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT CO, EVEN THOUGH YOU HAVE PLENTY OF PARKING SPACES. THE ORDINANCE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IS NOT GIVING ANY LEEWAY TO THE DEPARTMENT OR PROPERTY OWNER. IT'S RIDICULOUS TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE A NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. WE HAVE A CONTRACT. THEY AGREED TO GIVE US PARKING SPOTS BUT THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES AN IRREVOCABLE ATTORNEY AND REAL ESTATE HERE CAN TESTIFY. AN IRREVOCABLE PERMANENT EASEMENT ON THE PROPERTY. THERE'S NO SINGLE REAL ESTATE OWNER IN THE WORLD THAT WOULD DO THAT JUST SO THEY CAN LEASE YOU A FEW PARKING SPOTS. THE TENANT THAT ACTUALLY IS TAKING THAT SPACE HAS A DIFFERENT LOCATION 350 FEET AWAY BUT, NO, THE ORDINANCE SAYS UP TO 300 FEET. AND EVEN THAT 50 FEET IS NOT IN THE LEEWAY OF THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING OR THE CITY MANAGER. SO WE'RE ASKING FOR COMMON SENSE, NOT FOR ANYTHING ELSE. I UNDERSTAND THERE'S RED TAPE. I'M NOT A BIG FAN OF THE WHOLE LETTER IDEA. I WOULD PROBABLY DO IT SOME OTHER WAY OR YOU CAN DO AN ANNUAL CERTIFICATION OR WHATEVER. BUT GIVE SOME TRUST TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. BECAUSE THIS IS NOT AUTOMATICALLY I SENT THE LETTER, IT'S AROVED. THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE AT HER DISCRETION. AND THE 20% IS AT YOUR DISCRETION. SO GIVE YOURSELF THE CREDIT THAT YOU CAN MAKE THE DECISION WITHOUT A LOT OF RED TAPE AND A LOT OF LEGAL LIMITATIONS THAT YOU CAN MAKE A GOOD DECISION AND SHE CAN MAKE A GOOD DECISION. OTHERWISE, FIND SOMEBODY ELSE YOU DO TRUST TO MAKE THE DECISIONS. SAME THING WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS. I'M A COMMERCIAL PROPERTY OWNER MYSELF, NOT IN THE CITY OF PLANO, AND I HAVE HAD THAT CONVERSATION WITH THE DEPUTY CITY MANAGER. I MOVED TO PLANO IN 2007. IN THE LT 15 YEARS I HAVE SEEN PLANO GO FROM A NICE GIRL TO THE PRETTY GIRL TO THE PRETTIEST GIRL TO A MEAN GIRL. TO THE POINT WHERE WE HAVE COMMERCIAL CLIENTS THAT REFUSE TO COME LEASE IN THE CITY BECAUSE THEY TELL ME THERE'S TOO MUCH RED TAPE. I DON'T WANT TO DEAL WITH THE CITY OF PLANO. THERE'S NO WAY THEY'RE GOING TO GIVE ME A CO OR A PERMIT. WE'RE HURTING THE CITY. >> SIR, YOU HAVE REACHED YOUR THREE-MINUTE LIMIT. >> THE PROBLEM WE'RE GETTING TO IS >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. MAKE SURE YOU GET HER YOUR INFORMATION. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND NOW COMMISSIONER LISLE? COMMISSIONER LISLE. >> Lisle: YES. >> Chair Downs: YOU'RE FIRST. >> Lisle: I'M READY. I WAS JUST -- I'D LIKE -- THE COMMENTS THAT I WITHHELD EARLIER THAT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE NOW IS THAT WE HEARD ABOUT AN O'RILEY AND A WALMART BUT IN THO SCENARIOS THE GUY IS PARKED AND WALKS SOMEWHERE. THE SCENARIO THAT MATTERS IS IF THERE'S NO PARKING AT ALL. I THINK THE SCENARIO THAT Y'ALL PAINTED IN MY MIND, THERE WAS THE SEA OF PARKING, WHICH IS WHAT I SEE ALL OVER PLANO ALL THE TIME. IT DOESN'T MATTER IF SOMEONE PARKED TO THE WRONG SPOT AND WALKED TO THIS BUSINESS. THE ISSUE THAT CREATES THE PROBLEM IS WHEN THERE'S NO PARKING THERE. AND SO I JUST WANT TO BRING Y'ALL BACK TO THAT. AND THEN I WOULD RATHER SEE A BLANKET. I MEAN, IF MOST OF THE PROBLEMS CAN BE SOLVED UNDER 11%, I WOULD RATHER SEE US GET OUT OF THE LETTER BUSINESS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I THINK THIS GENTLEMAN MADE SOME VALID POINTS. WE HAVE A DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. WE HAVE A PLANNING STAFF. WE'VE DONE NINE DIFFERENT PROPERTY EVALUATIONS. WE KNOW THE NUMBER IS 11%. WE CAN SEE WITH OUR EYES THAT WE'RE WAY OVER PARKED. LET'S CHANGE THE ZONING ORDINANCE BY 11, 12, 15%. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT EVERYWHERE. I KNOW BG IS OUT. I KNOW MULTIFAMILY IS OUT BUT ON THESE RETAIL CORNERS THAT ARE OVER PARKED, WHY DON'T WE DO A REDUCTION TO THE PARKING AND DOES THAT NOT GET US WHERE WE NEED TO GET TO? DO WE NEED THE SECURITY BLANKET OF A LETTER AND FILING SOMETHING AND KEEPING UP WITH IT AND GOING BACK AND NOW WE'RE GOING TO REVOKE IT. MY SUPPORT WOULD BE A BLANKET REDUCTION IN PARKING UP TO 15% IN THESE RETAIL AREAS THAT WE'RE RUNNING INTO THESE ISSUES. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: I'M GOING TO TRY AND GROUND US BACK. THIS IS A QUICK STITCH FOR ISSUES LIKE THAT UNTIL WE GET TO THE MORE PERMANENT SURGERY, YOU KNOW, TO MAKE IT MUCH MORE SO MAYBE WE BECOME THE PRETTY GIRL, MAYBE THE MEAN PRETTY GIRL, AS WEO ALONG. THAT IN MIND, AND I THINK SOMETHING COUNCIL SAID, THAT THE LETTER GIVES US A WAY TO ENFORCE THAT YOU VIOLATED AN AGREEMENT IF YOU DIDN'T DO -- WITHOUT THAT THERE'S NO METHOD OF ENFORCEMENT. I ACTUALLY WOULD BE FULLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS IF WE DO REDUCE THE ONUS ON THE PROPERTY OWNER, IF IT'S JUST A CHANGE OF USE. AND REMOVE T REQUIREMENT FOR A STUDY AND LEAVE IT AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING DIRECTOR FOR A CHANGE OF USE. I'M VERY FINE WITH UPPING THE BAR IF IT'S A REDEVELOPMENT AND INFILL, A STUDY COSTS MONEY. BAKE THAT INTO THE COST OF DEVELOPING OR WHAT HAVE YOU. BUT IF WE CAN, FOR THE BAND-AID, STRIKE OUT, REMOVE THAT REQUIREMENT. IT SUFFICES FOR NOW. AND WHEN THE MORE PERMANENT SOLUTION COMES BEFORE US, I'M SURE WE'LL GET INTO A LOT MORE MEAT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IN THE MANNER THAT -- >> Chair Downs: I HOPE WE HAVE THAT DISCUSSION TONIGHT. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: LET ME MAKE THIS FORMAL. I FEAR MY PREVIOUS COMMENTS MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE MISCONSTRUED. MY EMPHASIS THAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE WAS FAIRNESS TO THE PROPERTY OWNER. I THOUGHT THE LACK OF SPECIFICITY COULD, IN THE LONG RUN, IMPOSE UNMANAGEABLE OWNER.S ON THE PROPERTY I WASN'T TRYING TO MAKE THINGS DIFFICULT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER. WHAT I WOULD LIKE TO PROPOSE IS NOW MAKE THIS A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 4 EXCEPT THAT WE REMOVE PARAGRAPH B, ROMAN NUMERAL LOWER CASE 3 RELATED TO PARKING UTILIZATION STUDY. WE KEEP THE REST OF IT. WE KEEP THE LETTER PROCEDURE FOR THE CHANGE OF USE PROPERTIES. AND WE KEEP SECTION C RELATING TO INFILL REDEVELOPMENT AND EXPANSION OF BUILDING SPACE, AS WRITTEN. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION. AND WE HAVE A SECOND. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I WAS VERY CLOSE TO THAT EXACT SAME THING AND LET ME EXPRESS MY CONCERN. I DON'T DISAGREE WITH YOUR MOTION. MY CONCERN, TO THE SPEAKER THAT SPOKE TONIGHT. PROPERTY OWNERS -- I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE LETTER BUT I THINK IT'S REALLY ACADEMIC BECAUSE AT THE END OF THE DAY THE PROPERTY MANAGERS ARE SELF-POLICING. IF YOU HAVE A PROPERTY THAT'S UNDER PARKED. YOUR TENANTS ARE GOING TO COMPLAIN TO YOU OR THEY'RE GOING TO LEAVE. AND AS A PROPERTY OWNER, YOU'RE GOING TO FIX THE PROBLEM OR YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE A TENANT OR MULTIPLE TENANTS. AND THAT IS THE ULTIMATE ENFORCEMENT MECHANISM. GETTING A TICKET FROM CODE ENFORCEMENT IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIOR. LOSING A LEASE IS GOIN TO CHANGE THEIR BEHAVIO AND SO I DON'T KNOW THAT THE LETTER IS REALLY NECESSARY. I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S A WAY TO MEMORIALIZE THE PROPERTY OWNER'S UNDERSTANDING THAT THEY DON'T HAVE THE PARKING AND SO FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY HARM IN IT. I THINK THE ENFORCEMENT IS NOT REALLY NECESSARILY THE CITY IS NOT THE HAMMER THAT IT NEEDS. MY BIGGER CONCERN IS WE HAD A RECENT CASE -- I WON'T CALL THEM OUT BY NAME -- WHERE IT WAS PRETTY OBVIOUS THAT THEY HAD CALCULATED THEIR PARKING BASED ON WHAT WAS AVAILABLE, THIS MANY SQUARE FEET OF RESTAURANT AND RETAIL AND THEY ARE NOW IN WITH A SITE PLAN THAT HAS 60% RESTAURANT, 40% RETAIL. IF DAY AFTER TOMORROW IT BECOMES 100% RESTAURANT, EVEN THOUGH WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IS EXISTING PROPERTY OUT THERE, IF WE ADOPT THIS, IS THIS SAYING PROPERTY THAT'S EXISTING TODAY OR THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED PRIOR TO TODAY IS ALLOWED TO OPERATE UND THIS RULE? BECAUSE OTHERWISE I THINK YOU'RE GOING TO GET AN AWFUL LOT OF SITE PLANS THAT SAY I'M 100% BANKING BECAUSE IT'S ONE TO 300. THEN THEY PUT A RESTAURANT IN AND SIGN A LETTER. MY CONCERN IS THAT IT'S A SHORTCUT TO UNDER PARKING SITES MOVING FORWARD IF THIS ISN'T SOMEHOW GRANDFATHERING EXERCISE. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU WOULD BE OPEN TO ANMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION. >> Chair Downs: LET'S DO THIS. BEFORE WE -- COUNCIL WANTS TO WEIGH IN ON -- GO AHEAD. >> SO COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, SOME OF THE THINGS YOU WERE JUST SAYING THERE MADE ME THINK I SHOULD BRING UP. IF WE HAVE THESE LETTERS, THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE. WE'RE GOING TO GET CALLS FROM PEOPLE WHENEVER THE PROPERTY IS CONVEYED,ING THE IF THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE. IT'S GOING TO CREATE A FRLY LARGE ADMINISTRATIVE BURDEN. IF THIS COMMISSION IS REALLY NOT VERY CONCERNED ABOUT TRYING TO HOLD THE LANDLORDS ACCOUNTABLE THROUGH A& MISDEMEANOR PROCESS, THEN I MIGHT SUGGEST THAT WE SKIP REQUIRING THE LETTER AND, YOU KNOW, AND THE UTILIZATION STUDY. BECAUSE WE'RE PUTTING A PRETTY BIG BURDEN ON OURSELVES ADMINISTRATIVELY TO POLICE THIS. IF YOU THINK THAT, AS A COMMISSION, TT T LANDLORDS WILL SELF-POLICE, THEN RELIEVE US OF THAT BURDEN AND ALL THE CALLS THAT WE GET ABOUT COMPLIANCE AND THAT SORT OF THING. >> Chair Downs: WE CAN STILL HAVE DIALOGUE. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE FLOOR. AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT -- BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE A VOTE ON THAT UNLESS MR. BROUNOFF DECIDES TO REMOVE HIS MOTION. SO I WANT TO ASK A QUESTION OF HER REAL QUICK THOUGH. AND THIS IS STAFF TOO. SO IF THERE'S NO LETTER. IF THERE'S NO REAL DOCUMENTATION AND SOMEBODY SIMPLY COMES IN AND SPEAKS WITH THE PLANNING DIRECTOR AND THEY SAY, YEAH, OKAY. WE'LL LET YOU CUT FOUR SPACES OUT. YOU'RE GOOD BECAUSE YOU'RE AT 10% OR UNDER 10%. AND THEN THE USE CHANGES AGAIN. ARE WE GOING TO GO BACK AND COMPARE? I FEEL LIKE WE NEED SOME FORM OF DOCUMENTATION ABOUT A DECISION BEING MADE BY OUR PLANNING DIRECTOR OR STAFF OR SOMEBODY SAYINGHAT WE EVALUATED THIS. AND WHETHER IT'S A LETTER FROM THE CLIENT OR WE HAVE TO MEMORIALIZE THESE TYPES OF DECISIONS. I DON'T THINK WE CAN JUST SIMPLY GIVE THEM A THUMBS UP AND THEY GO DO IT. IT NEEDS TO BE DOCUMENTED. I'M NOT SURE WE NEED THE LETTER BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE FALLBACK IS IF WE AGREED TO REMOVE THE LETTER, WHAT'S THE FALLBACK TO MAKE SURE THIS IS IN THE RECORD FOR THE NEXT USE OR THE NEXT USE? >> IN TERMS OF CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY, THOSE ARE APPLICATIONS THAT COME INTO THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT. THERE'S A REVIEW PROCESS WHERE STAFF WERE ABLE TO LEAVE COMMENTS. WHEN PLANNING APPROVES A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WE DO HAVE A FIELD IN THAT PROJECT MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE TO ADD COMMENTS TO WHERE WE CAN SAY IT WAS REVIEWED BY DIRECTOR OF PLANNING ON THIS DATE AND AGREED TO XY. YES, WE CAN MEMORIALIZE ANY DECISION THAT WAY. >> Chair Downs: SINCE WE KNOW THIS IS SHORT TERM, IT'S NOT LIKE SOMETNG WRE GOING TO BE DEALING WITH FOR THE NEXT FIVE YEARS. VERY GOOD. MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: MAYBE I'M WRONG HERE BUT BASED ON MICHELLE'S COMMENTS, I THINK THAT PUTS US BACK TO JUST A BLANKET REDUCTION. BUT THEN CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMENTS YOU JUST MADE, I JUST WANT TO REITERATE HERE THAT THE LETTER PROCESS THAT'S NOW NOT THE LETTER PROCESS. IT'S JUST FOR A CHANGE OF USE IN AN EXISTING CENTER. NO PARKING SPACE THAT'S THERE TOO AWAY. >> Chair Downs: NO. NOT THE PHYSICAL SPACES. >> Lisle: RIGHT. THE PHYSICAL SPACES ARE GOING TO BE THERE. THE REQUIREMENT IS JUST BEING REDUCED. AND SO THE MEMORIALIZATION I THINK IS MORE IMPORTANT. BUT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN WHEN THERE'S NEW CONSTRUCTION AND A SITE PLAN AND IT'S GOING TO BE MEMORIALIZED ON THAT SITE PLAN. >> Chair Downs: IF THERE'S RENOVATION AND THINGS LIKE THAT GOING ON OR A NEW DEVELOPMENT. THAT WOULD BE IN THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. BUT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AGAIN THAT CONVERSION OF USE, SIMPLE CONVERSIONF USE. >> Lle: AND THE CONVERSION OF USE IS WHERE I HAVE THE LEAST ANGST BECAUSE OF THE BUILT-IN MECHANISM THAT MR. CARY AND MR. RATLIFF HAVE TALKED ABOUT. I OWN A SALON ON 18th STREET. I PROMISE YOU WHEN THERE'S NOT PARKING, I HEAR ABOUT IT. LIKE IT HAPPENS. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE AN EXISTING MOTION, WHICH IS TO SIMPLY REMOVE ITEM 3 -- EXCUSE ME. B 3. WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY. NO? COMMISSIONER O LEE. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Cary: CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION? >> Chair Downs: THE LIGHTS ARE ALL LIT BACK UP AGAIN. IF WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD -- MR. BROUNOFF, DO YOU WANT TO HAVE A VOTE ON YOUR MOTION? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: HIS MOTION WOULD STILL REQUIRE A LETTER? >> Chair Downs: YES, IT WOULD. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: FOR ME, THE CHANGE OF USE, I'M LESS CONCERNED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER POLICING THEMSELVES. I'M MORE CONCERNED WITH THE ADVERSE EFFECT TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND WHAT CAN WE USE AS A CITY TO IMPEDE THAT PROPERTY OWNER OR PUNISH THE PROPERTY OWNER OR BRING SOME POLICING ACTION. I STILL THINK THE LETTER IS PROBABLY THE LOWEST BAR WE CAN THROW OUT THERE TO ENFORCE THAT. >> Chair Downs: VERY GOOD. COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: MY QUESTION IS -- EITHER THE LETTER OR NOT THE LETTER IS GOOD. WE NEED TO HAVE SOMETHING THERE FOR THEM TO MOVE FORWARD. BUT MY CONCERN IS ABOUT NO LIMIT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS EITHER WAY, EITHER WE GO WITH THE LETTER OR WITHOUT A LETTER& WHEN IT'S CHANGE OF USE IT'S A FLEXIBILITY PLAN OR SOMETHING, FLEXIBILITY ON CHANGE OF USE. WHEN WE GO THAT ROUTE, THE'S NO LIMIT. DID YOU SAY THAT -- I THINK MY UNDERSTANDING EARLIER, WHEN YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION WAS THAT IT'S NOT 10%. IT'S NOT 20%. THERE'S NO LIMIT. SO I HAVE A SMALL CONCERN ABOUT THAT. MAYBE WE SHOULD PUT A LIMIT THERE. THERE SHOULD -- I THINK THERE OUGHT TO BE A GUIDELINE. I KNOW THE BUSINESS OWNERS WILL MANAGE THAT. BUT SOMETIMES, AS A GOVERNI BODY, I THI WE SHOULD GIVE A GUIDELINE. >> Chair Downs: TO BE CLEAR, IF IT'S A CHA CHANGE OF USE THEY COULD ASK FOR A 50% REDUCTION AND IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO MAKE THAT DECISION. >> DEPENDS ON WHICH VARIATION WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. WITH A LETTER? >> Chair Downs: WITH THE LETTER. EVEN WITHOUT THE LETTER. IF IT'S A SIMPLE CHANGE OF USE, NO CHANGE IN THE BUILDING PLATFORM. IT'S JUST A CHANGE OF USE. YOU'RE GOING FROM A BANK TO A RESTAURANT. THEY COULD ASK FOR A 50% REDUCTION AND IT'S UP TO THE PLANNING DIRECTOR TO DECIDE YES OR NO OR TO SET WHATEVER THE LIMIT IS. >> SHE DOESN'T EVEN HAVE DISCRETION. IF THEY SIGN THE LETTER, IT'S IN. IF Y'ALL DON'T LIKE THAT, YOU COULD TREAT CHANGES OF USE MORE LIKE THE OTHER PROVISION IN C. WE TRIED SO MANY ITERATIONS OF THIS TRYING TO FIND THE RIGHT BALANCE. I'M NOT SURPRISED AT ALL THAT Y'ALL'S CONVERSATION IS GOING LIKE THIS. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. OKAY. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: BACK TO MY OTHER CONCERN. LEGAL QUESTION. THE PHRASE IN B, ROMAN NUMERAL I, WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE OF USE ON AN EXISTING SITE, IS THAT DETERMINED ON THE DATE OF ADOPTION OR APPLICATION FOR A CHANGE OF USE? MY CONCERN IS WE'RE OPENING UP THE PANDORA'S BOX, EVERYBODY TO COME IN WITH ONE TO 300 AND CHANGE IT THREE DAYS LATER. DO WE NEED TO ADD LEGALLY -- >> Chair Downs: A DEFINITION OF THAT. >> Ratliff: A DEFINITION OF "EXISTING"? >> I THINK EXISTING WAS MEANT JUST -- THERE'S NO REDEVELOPMENT OCCURRING. HOWEVER, I THINK YOU BRING UP A GOOD POINT AND SO I THINK WE COULD REVERT IT SLIGHTLY AND SAY WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE OF USE ON A SITE EXISTING PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THIS ORDINANCE. IF WE WANTED TO GO THAT ROUTE. THAT'S SOMETHING WE DO WITH A LOT OF -- >>atliff: MR. BROUNF, WOULD YOU ACCEPT THAT AS AN AMENDMENT TO YOUR MOTION? >> Brounoff: YES. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S A PRETTY SIMPLE ADJUSTMENT TO YOUR MOTION. MR. LISLE. AND THEN I'M GOING TO CALL FOR& A VOTE ON THIS AND WE'LL SEE WHERE WE WANT TO GO. ALL RIGHT. SO THE MOTION, TO BE CLEAR, BY MR. BROUNOFF, IS TO SIMPLY REMOVE B 3, WHICH IS THE PARKING STUDY. AND MODIFY THE -- OR MORE CLEARLY DEFINE EXISTING AS PROPERTY IN PLACE PRIOR TO THE ADOPTION OF THIS ORDINANCE. IS THAT CLEAR? AND IS THAT YOUR MOTION? IS THAT A SECOND? THAT'S THE MOTION. YOU READY FOR A VOTE? I HAD TO WAKE HER UP. YEAH, THIS IS THE MOST RIVETTING TOPIC THAT WE COULD BE TALKING ABOUT. PARKING. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION WITH A SECOND. LET'S VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. ONE CONFLICT? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: IS THAT A NO? THAT WAS A NO. SO THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-1. THANK YOU, STAFF FOR YOUR PATIENCE AND TH THANK YOU, COUNSEL, FOR MAKING US REALIZE THIS IS WHAT YOU EXPECTED. IT'S 9:30. WE ARE GOING T TAKE A QUICK FIVE-MINUTE RECESS FOR BIOLOGICAL ISSUES, I GUESS. [SHORT RECESS] >> Chair Downs: WELCOME BACK TO OUR SESSION. COMMISSIONER CARY WILL JOIN US SHORTLY BUT WE'RE REALLY LOOKING AT ADMINISTRATIVE ITEMS. IN THE FUTURE, WE' LOOKING AT MOVIN THESE THINGS TO THE FRONT OF THE AGENDA. THANK YOU FOR THOSE THAT ARE PATIENTLY SITTING THROUGH OUR DISCUSSIONS AGAIN AROUND THINGS THAT MAY NOT BE THAT IMPORTANT TO YOU TODAY. SO LET'S HIT IT. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT: K AVENUE LOFTS ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 1 - 226 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE UNITS ON ONE LOT ON 4.5 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF K AVENUE, 150 FEET NORTH OF PARK ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT- 47-CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL. APPLICANT: PLANO HOUSING AUTHOR THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONS. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. ON KIM. PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED . I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: I LOVE THAT STYLE. JUST RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. BY THE WAY, IS THIS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS THAT, BASED ON OUR PREVIOUS CONVERSATION, WOULD THEN IN THE FUTURE NOT COME TO US? >> I THINK SO. YES. WE'RE WORKING ON IMPROVING EVERY DAY. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.úCONFINE DISE COMMISSION. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 5 AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM 5 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 6. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT AGENDA CONVEYAN PLA FRITO-LAY NATIONAL HEADQUARTERS, BLOCK 1, LOTS 1R, 2, AGENDA 3 PROFESSIONAL/ GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON LOT 1R AND TWO CONVEYANCE LOTS ON LOTS 2 AND 3 LOTS ON 273.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LEGACY DRIVE AND HEADQUARTER ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT. APPLICANT: FRITO-LAY, INC. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONS. >> REPLAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 6 AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. IF YOU DIDN'T KNOW, MR. BRONSKY IS PURSUING THE >> [OFF MIC]IO. [ LAUGHTER ] >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 7. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT AGENDA REVISED SITE PLAN: FLEXTRONICS CAMPUS ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOTS 4R AGENDA 6 - OFFICE SHOWROOM/ WAREHOUSE ON TWO LOTS ON 22.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PLANO PARKWAY, 550 FEET EAST OF SHILOH ROAD. ZONED RESEARCH/TECHNOLOGY CENTE APPLICANT: PLANO PROPERTY OWNER THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONS. >> THE REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLAN ARE RECOMNDED FOR APPRAL AS SUBMITTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. HE'S GOT IT DOWN TOO. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU, SIR. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 7 AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. RUNNING NECK IN NECK OVER HERE. MR. BRONSKY MADE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 7, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ANK YOU F YOU PATIENCE, SIR. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 8. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY REPLAT: BOB WOODRUFF PARK ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOTS 1R AGENDA 2 - PARK/PLAYGROUND ON TWO LOTS ON 187.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARK BOULEVARD AND SPRING CREEK PARK ZONED AGRICULTURAL, ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE-9, AND SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PARKWAY ORLAYDISTRIC APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE >> STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT TO THE JANUARY 2, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> CAN YOU GIVE US THE REASON FOR THE DELAY AND IF JANUARY 2 WILL BE SUFFICIENT? >> YES. IT IS FOR THE APPLICANT TO ADDRESS VITAL COMMENTS ON THE ENGINEERG PLS AND THE CIVIL PLANS. I DO BELIEVE THEY WILL BE ABLE TO ADDRESS THOSE BY THEN. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. 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 TABLE AGENDA ITEM NO. 8 TO THE JANUARY 2, 2024 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO TABLE ITEM 8 TO JANUARY 2. PLEASE VOTE. 8-0. THAT CRIES 8-0. THESE GUYS UP THERE ARE GETTING EXCITED. WE'RE ACTUALLY MOVING ALONG NOW. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 9. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY REPLAT: PARADISE HEIGHTS, BLOCKS A-C - 42 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE-9 LOTS AND TWO COMMON AREA LOTS ON 14.0 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY AND FIELDLARK DRI ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE-9 AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: FIRST UNITED METHODIST CHURCH. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONS. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS ITEM FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE. IS THIS A DIFFERENT -- IS THIS NUMBER -- >> LOOKING AT THE STAFF PRELIMARY REPLAT, IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS. BUT THE STAFF REPORT SAYS APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. SOMEBODY ASKED THE QUESTION EARLIER ABOUT THE LOT SIZES AND YOU WERE GOING TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH. DID YOU FIND ANYTHING OUT ON THAT? >> YES. WE WERE ABLE TO CONFIRM PER THE ORDINANCE THERE IS A STORMWATER INCENTIVE 2 OPTION THAT ALLOWS THEM TO REDUCE THEIR LOT SIZE WITH A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE. THEY ARE UTILIZING THE STORMWATER INCENTIVE. >> JUST TO ADD TO THAT, IT IS STORMWATER INCENTIVE 2, WHICH REQUIRES AT LEAST 10% OPEN SPACE FOR THE STORMWATER CONSERVATION AND THE CONCEPT PLAN WAS APPROVED THIS YEAR PROVIDING 13%. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S SUFFICIENT, MR. BROUNOFF. THANK YOU. AND SO THIS IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE ENGINEERING AND -- >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION. >> Chair Downs: DOES ANYONE HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. ALL RIGHT. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NO. 9 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM 9 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 10. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPO THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NO. 10. DISCUSSION AND ACTION ━ CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING: REQUEST TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-60- GENERAL OFFICE ON 46.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF ALMA DRIVE AND 15TH STREET. APPLICANT: FRED GANS. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATIO. >> THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A CAR CLUB BUSINESS WITH AUTOMOTIVE STORAGE ON SITE WHICH IS CURRENTLY NOT AN ALLOWED USE. THIS REQUEST WOULD INCORPORATE THE PROPERTY INTO THE SURROUNDING PD 60 GENERAL OFFICE ZONING AND MODIFY THE STANDARDS TO INCORPORATE MINI WAREHOUSE AND PUBLIC STORAGE USE. ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS A HARRINGTON ESTATE HOUSE AND THE APPLICANT PLANS ON INCORPORATING IT INTO THEIR DEVELOPMENT. WE MET WITH THE APPLICANT IN EARLY NOVEMBER AND THEY HAVE MADE ATTEMPTS TO REACH OUT TO ALL THE OWNERS IN THE PD 60. BUT THEY WERE NOT ABLE TO GET A RESNSEROM ALL OWNERS. SO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE MERITS OF THE PROPOSED REZONING IS RECOMMENDED AND TO BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE ZONING CASE. I AM AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: TO BE CLEAR, IF THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO GET THE SIGNATURES, THEY WOULD HAVE SIMPLY HAVE BEEN ABLE TO JUST BRING THE ZONING CASE FORWARD. THEY NEED US TO BASICALLYS,- APPROVE THEM MOVING FORWARD WITH THE ZONING REQUEST. AND THEN THE ZONING REQUEST WILL HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EVALUATE THE PROJECT AND WHETHER OR NOT REZONING IS THE RIGHT MOVE? >> YES. THAT IS CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: THIS ONE, JUST TO UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING. THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL. DOES THAT COUNT AS SPOT ZONING SINCE -- >> IT WOULD BE MORE IF WE CHANGED IT JUST TO ALLOW THIS ONE USE IN THIS PARTICULAR SPOT. AND SO -- >> WHEN A PROPERTY IS NNEXED. >> Chair Downs: THERE IS NO ZONING. >> Olley: THAT DOESN'T COUNT AS SPOT. >> Chair Downs: GOOD QUESTION. MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: IF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE A SPOT ZONING WITHOUT AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, HOW DOES AMENDING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MAKE IT ANY LESS OF A SPOT ZONING? >> BECAUSE IT WOULD BE INCORPORATED INTO THE REST OF THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE ADJACENT TO THAT SITE. SO THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES, IF YOU CAN SEE ON THE LOCATOR HERE, ALL THE STRIPED HATCHED PORTION IS ALL WITHIN THE PD 60 GENERAL OFFICE ZONING. SO BASICALLY IT WOULD JUST AMEND THE BOUNDARY OF THE PD TO INCLUDE THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. >> Brounoff: OKAY. WHICH PART OF THIS DRAWING IS THE APPLICANT SPECIFICALLY CONCERNED WITH? JUST A? >> YEAH. >> Brounoff: ALL RIGHT. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. I >> Lisle: IN REFERENCE TO WHAT YOU JUST ASKED, SPOT ZONING, CAN YOU GIVE US A DEFINITION OF SPOT ZONING, MIKE? >> ESSENTIALLY IT'S YOU'RE APPLYING A UNIQUE ZONING THAT'S NOT COMMON TO OTHER SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SO IN THIS CASE TO ALLOW THE USE THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO DO ON THIS PROPERTY, BY RIGHT THEY WOULD NEED TO GO TO SOMETHING LIKE LIGHT COMMERCIAL. ANYWHERELSE IN THE AREA,ERCIAL THAT WLD B A SPOT ZONING. >> Lisle: I DID A LITTLE RESEARCH ON THIS. THE ONLY OTHER ZONING DISTRICT THAT TOUCHES THIS PROPERTY IS ACROSS THE STREET IN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT. IF YOU GO UP THERE TO THE TOP OF THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT, YOU SEE PD 195. AND THERE IS A MINI WAREHOUSE USE THERE. BUT BUILT INTO THAT PD, THE FIRST THREE PD STIPULATIONS ARE NO AUTOMOTIVE, NO AUTOMOTIVE, NO AUTOMOTIVE. AND SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT IF WE GO RIGHT INTO THAT A A INCLUD THEM IN PART OF THAT BIGGER PD, WE'RE JUST MANIPULATING THE SYSTEM TO CREATE SPOT ZONING. IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE IT'S A GOOD IDEA TO ME. >> Chair Downs: SO FOR TONIGHT -- >> Lisle: I UNDERSTAND WHAT TONIGHT IS. >> Chair Downs: AND THEN WE'LL HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WHEN THEY COME BACK. >> Lisle: AND THE QUESTION TONIGHT IS SHOULD WE EVEN GO FORWARD WITH -- THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO BRING THIS TO US AND THEY DIDN'T. NOW THEY WANT US TO DO WHAT THEY COULDN'T DO. >> Chair Downs: NO. >> Lisle: THEY COULD HAVE GOTTEN THE SIGNATURES OF THE PEOPLE IN THE PD AND BROUGHT THIS TO AMEND THE PD. >> Chair Downs: MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY REACHED OUT TO THE PEOPLE AND DID NOT GET A RESPONSE. >> RIGHT. THEY DID REACH OUT TO ALL OF THE OWNERS AND THEY DID MAKE MULTIPLE ATTEMPTS TO GET IN CONTACT WITH THEM. SOME OF THE OWNERS ARE IN SUPPORT. SOME OF THEM, THEY HAVE THEIR OWN LEGAL PROCESSES AND SOME WERE NOT RESPONSIVE. >> Lisle: LIKE I SAID, THEY HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO GO THROUGH THAT PROCESS ANDRING IT TO US A THEY DIDN'T. >> Chair Downs: BUT, AGAIN, THIS IS PART OF THE WAY OUR SYSTEM WORKS. >> Lisle: RIGHT. >> Chair Downs: IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE. THEY STILL HAVE TO MAKE THEIR CASE. IT MAY WORK, IT MAY NOT. >> Lisle: WHAT ARE THE ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR US TO PASS THIS OR NOT PASS IT? >> Chair Downs: IT'S FOR US TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING. >> Lisle: DO WE HAVE TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING? THE ANSWER IS WE DON'T. >> Chair Downs: I STRUGGLE WITH SAYING, HEY, WE'RE NOT GOING TO GIVE ANYBODY A CHANCE TO PRESENT THEIR CASE BEFORE E COMMISSION. AND SO, TO YOUR POINT, YEAH WE DON'T HAVE TO CALL IT BUT TO ME THAT'S PREEMPTIVE IN TERMS OF -- >> Lisle: WHAT I WOULD SAY IS OUR STAFF JUST SAID THE AREA THAT YOU WOULD REALLY HAVE TO GO TO DO THIS AND IT'S NOT THERE. THAT WAS FROM MIKE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. YOU HAVE ADDITIONAL POINTS? MR. BROUNOFF, YOU WERE NEXT. >> Brounoff: MR. CHAIRN, I AGREE WITH YOU. I THINK JUST OUT OF COMMON FAIRNESS WE OWE THE APPLICANT THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME HERE AND BE HEARD. I DON'T GO BEYOND THAT AT THIS POINT. I'M NOT JUDGING THE MERITS OF THE CASE BUT I THINK OUT OF FAIRNESS WE SHOULD GIVE HIM THE OPPORTUNITY TO BE HEARD. THAT'S ALL. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO YOU STILL HAVE YOUR QUESTION BUTTON? OKAY. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO YOU SAID TT THE APPLICANT DID CONTACT ALL OF THE OWNERS AND THAT SOME WERE UNAVAILABLE TO BE ACCESSED. YOU ALSO SAID SOME WERE AGAINST IT? >> I DON'T KNOW THAT THEY WERE AGAINST IT BUT THEY WERE UNRESPONSIVE OR I BELIEVE ONE OF THE PROPERTY OWNERS IS THE CATHOLIC CHURCH AND I GUESS THEY HAVE A MORE COMPLICATED LEGAL PROCESS THAT THEY HAVE TO REACH OUT TO THE CATHOLIC DIOCESE ABOUT ANY PROPERTY ISSUES. AND SO THEY WERE UNABLE TO GET IN CONTACT WITH THEM EITHER. >> Bronsky: SO THEN WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS NONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT WERE CONTACTED WERE OPPOSED, CORRECT? >> I BELIEVE SO. I WOULD HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK. >> Bronsky: I JUST -- WHEN I HEARD YOU SAY IT THE FIRST TIME I THOUGHT YOU SAID SOMETHING DIFFERENT, SO I APOLOGIZE. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: WE ALL HAVE OUR OPINIONS HERE BUT IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AND SO DO WE HAVE MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> Bronsky: I MOVE WE CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ISSUE. >> Chair Downs: I NEED TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. OH, I THOUGHT THIS WAS STILL ON OUR PUBLIC AGENDA. SORRY. ALL RIGHT. SO HERE WE GO. IT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. WE'RE GOING TO CALL ONE, EVIDENTLY. THANK YOU. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING AS REQUESTED FOR ITEM 10. PLEASE VOTE. THAT'S 7-1 APPROVED. AND WORK WITH STAFF TO GET ON THE CALENDAR FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 11. DISCUSSION AND ACTION - EXTENSION OF APPROVAL REQUEST - PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN: PLANO GATEWAY EAST, BLOCK B, LOTS 1-91 AGENDA 1X-10X - 91 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED LOTS AND TEN COMMON AREA LOTS ON 6.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SHILOH ROAD AND WYNVIEW DRIVE. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-207- RETAIL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: SKORBURG COMPANY. THIS IS FOR A. >> GOOD EVENING, AGAIN. THIS IS AN EXTENSION OF APPROVAL REQUEST. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ON JANUARY 18, 2022. APPROVALS FOR PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS ARE VALID FOR TWO YEARS AND AS SH THIS PLAN WILL EXPIRE JANUARY 18, 2024. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION ON THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. THIS IS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ON THE SCREEN. IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE IT DISCUSSES EXTENSION CRITERIA AND SO WE HAVE THE REASON FOR THE LAPSE. THE PROPERTY IS BEING SOLD AND THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER IS REQUESTING AN EXTENSION. THE PROPERTY OWNER'S -- THERE WERE NO CONDITIONS PLACED ON THIS PSP BACK IN 2022. AND THE EXTENT TO WHICH THE NEWLY-ADOPTED REGULATION SHALL APPLY TO THE PLAN. IN SEPTEMBER OF 2023 THE STREET DESIGN STANDARDS WERE ADOPTED AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WAS UPDATED AS WELL. AND THE DESIGN OF THIS PLAN COULD NOT BE IMPLEMENTED TODAY WITH THE 2023 STANDARDS THAT WERE ADOPTED. HOWEVER, WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST HAS A SIMILAR DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND WITH APPROVAL FROM 2021. TODAY IT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND, WITH THAT, DUE TO THE COHESIVE DESIGN WITHIN THE TURNPIKE COMMONS DEVELOPMENT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS TO& BE APPROVED AS SUBMITTD. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: WHILE PROCESS DRIVEN, YOU HAVE TWO YEARS FOR APPROVAL TO EXPIRE. AN EXISTING OWNER CAN COME BACK F AN EXTENSION. YOU DON'T HAVE TO WAIT FOR THE PROPERTY TO BE SOLD TO TRIGGER THAT EXCEPTION FOR AN EXTENSION. AM I READING THAT RIGHT? >> CORRECT. SO THIS SITE PLAN OR PSP WILL EXPIRE IN 59 DAYS. AND SO THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER IS REQUESTING AN EXTENSION REQUEST SO THEY CAN WORK TOGETHER TO GET THIS PLAN SUBMITTED TO US WITH THE SITE PLAN SUBMITTAL PACKAGE, INCLUDING THEIR SITE PLAN, CIVIL SETS, AND THEY CAN GET UNDER CONSTRUCTN. THAT DOES TAKE TIME SO 59 DAYS, THEY MAY NOT BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. AND SO THE PLAN WOULD EXPIRE. >> Olley: I GET THAT AND THE PROSPECTIVE BUYER, IT'S A VALID REASON TO GIVE THEM TIME TO ESSENTIALLY IMPLEMENT THEIR VISION. MORE FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE, LET'S ASSUME THIS HAS BEEN SOLD. IS THERE ANY REASON THAT THE ORIGINAL OWNER COULD COME FORWARD FOR AN EXTENSION FROM A PROCESS PERSPECTIVE? THE BUILD TRIGGERS AN EXCEPTION FOR AN EXTENSION. SAY I DEVELOPED THE SITE PLAN FOR TWO YEARS AND I WANTED ANOTHER YEAR. DO WE HAVE THAT LEEWAY? >> YES, WE DO. ANYBODY CAN COME ASK FOR APPROVAL . >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANKS FOR THE PRESENTATION. AND I HAVE A QUESTION REGARDING THE PROCESS. IS THIS EXTENSION GOING TO EXTEND THEM FOR ANOTHER TWO YEARS OR IS THERE A TIME LIMIT FOR THE EXTENSION? >> IN THEIR LETTER THAT IS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKETS, THEY NOTE THAT THEY WANT A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION. >> Tong: ONE-YEAR EXTENSION. AND HOW MANY TIMES ASK THEY EXTEND AFTER THAT? A LOT OF BUILDERS, I HAVE SEEN SO MANY, OH, WE'LL BREAK GROUND IN TWO MONTHS. 12 MONTHS LATER THEY HAVEN'T DONE IT. SO AFTER THIS ONE-TIME EXTENSION NOW -- SORRY. EXTENSION, WILL THEY BE ABLE TO EXTEND AGAIN AFTER A YEAR? DO WE HAVE A LIMIT OF HOW MANY TIMES THEY CAN EXTEND? >> I DON'T BELIEVE SO BUT WHAT WE DO SEE IS MORE TYPICAL ABOUT TWO-YEAR EXTENSION REQUESTS. BUT THIS WAS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO HAVE A ONE-YEAR EXTENSION. IF THE COMMISSION BELIEVES WE NEED TO EXTEND THAT TO A SECOND YEAR, THAT IS Y'ALL'S CHOICE. >> Tong: I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE GIVING THEM MORE TIME, I'M JUST ASKING A QUESTION ABOUT OUR PROCESS. DO -- >> THERE'S NO LIMIT. THEY CAN ASK AS MANY TIMES AS THEY WANT. >> Tong: WHEN THEY GET TO THE END OF NEXT YEAR, IFHEY NEED TO EXTEND THEY CAN APPLY AGAIN. >> YOU CAN. YOU DON'T HAVE TO APPROVE IT BUT THEY CAN ASK AGAIN. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: SO THAT WAS ONE OF MY QUESTIONS. MY SECOND QUESTION IS WHAT TRIGGERS, IS IT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL THAT BASICALLY MAKES THIS PERMANENT OR IS IT ACTUALLY BREAKING GROUND FOR CONSTRUCTION THAT ENDS THE TIME? >> IT'S THE NEXT STEP IN THE PROCESS. IF THEY COME IN AND GET A SITE PLAN, THAT SITE PLAN IS GOOD FOR TWO YEARS. IF THE SITE PLAN EXPIRES THEN THEY HAVE TO START OVER. >> Ratliff: IT'S FULLY ENGINEERED DRAWINGS BASICALLY READY TO GO TO CONSTRUCTION. >> THAT'S RIGHT. >> Ratliff: THE REASON I ASK IS I THINK WE PUT A LOT OF WORK INTO THE NEW STANDARDS AND I DON'T WANT TO CHANGE THE RULES IN THE MIDDLE OF THE GAME. BUT I DON'T THINK THIS OUGHT TO BE OPEN ENDED. I'LL SAVE THAT FOR LATER. THANKS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THIS IS A QUESTION FOR STAFF. I'M WONDERING WHAT WERE THE POLICY CONSIDERATIONS UNDERLYING THE 25-LOT LIMIT WITH SOLE ACCESS FROM A MU STREET. >> I BELIEVE THE IDEA THAT MU STREETS SHOULD BE LIMITED TO LOTS ON A PUBLIC SPACE. IT'S MORE OF A DESIGN FEATURE THAT THE ENTIRE SUBDIVISION TAKES ACCESS FROM THE USE. THERE'S JUST FIRE AND CONSIDERATIONS WHEN YOU GET THAT MANY LOTS DOWN A SMALL STREET NETWORK. >> Brounoff: I WAS WONDERING IF CONSIDERATION HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH A MU STREET MIGHT ENCOURAGE SPEEDING VEHICLES. >> THERE'S ANOTHER REQUIRENT ABOUT THE MAXIMUM LENGTH OF A MU STREET THAT WAS CHANGED. BUT I DON'T THINK THAT APPLIES IN THIS CASE. >> Brounoff: I'M WONDERING IT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTIVE TO ASK THEM TO INSTALL SPEED CONTROLS ON THE MU STREETS TO KEEP THAT FROM HAPPENING. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S UNRELATED TO OUR EXTENSION REQUEST RIGHT? >> I BELIEVE YOU CAN PLACE CONDITIONS ON THE EXTENSION. BUT THAT'S NOT SOMETHING OUR ENGINEERING HAS EVALUATED SO THEY MIGHT WANT TO COMMENT ON THAT FIRST. YOU CERTAINLY CAN. >> Chair Downs: ON THE SITE PLAN. >> I JUST WANT TO NOTE AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THIS THE PLANO FIRE RESCUE AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENTS BOTH HAVE REVIEWED IT AND HAVE NO ISSUES AS IT RELATES TO THE FIRE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? SO IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. SO WE CAN -- >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE EXTENSION FOR AGENDA ITEM NO. 11. >> Ratliff: I'LL SECOND BUT I DO WANT TO MAKE THE COMMENT THAT AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THIS IS A ONE AND DONE. THEY NEED TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION OR WE'LL NEED TO REEVALUATE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE IT REEVALUATED UNDER THE NEW STANDARDS IF THERE'S ANOTHER EXTENSION REQUESTED. >> Chair Downs: I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A NEED. WE APPROVE THE YEAR AND THEY'LL EITHER COME BACK TO US FOR AN EXTENSION AND GO YOU HAD YOUR SHOT OR WHATEVER. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE THE EXTENSION REQUEST ON ITEM 11. PLEASE VOTE. AT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. I THINK THAT'S THE END OF OUR AGENDA RIGHT? OTHER THAN ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA. BILL? SCREEN STILL SHOWS THE VOTE. EVIDENTLY HE'S NOT WANTING TO SPEAK. THAT'S GOOD. ALL MY BUTTONS. [LAUGHTER] MERRY CHRISTMAS TO EVERYONE. THAT'S ALL I GOT. >> Chair Downs: I WAS GOING TO WRAP UP WITH A MERRY CHRISTMAS, HAPPY HOLAYS, AND THANK YOU TO STAFF. I REALLY APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT YOU'VE DONE FOR US THIS YEAR. ANYWAY, YOU GUYS HAVE A GREAT HOLIDAY BREAK AND WE'LL SEE YOU ALL ON JANUARY 2. WE ARE ADJOURNED.