>> Chair Downs: THANK YOU FOR JOINING US THIS EVENING FOR THE NOVEMBER 6, 2023 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. IT IS NOW 8:00 ACCORDING TO THIS, BUT 7:00. SO WE'LL GET OUR MEETING STARTED. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >> COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PE SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON TH CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DMED CESSARY. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. LET'S MOVE TO CONSENT. >> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE ITEM C FROM THE CONSENT FOR CONSIDERATION. AND DURING THAT TIME, COMMISSIONER LISLE NEEDS TO RECUSE HIMSELF A WELL. ANYONE WANT TO REMOVE ANY OTHER ITEMS FROM THE AGENDA? SEEING NONE -- >> I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH ITEM C REMOVED, AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA MINUS ITEM C. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. COMMISSIONER LISLE, IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO RECUSE YOURSELF. PLEASE READ ITEM C. >> CSENT AGENDA ITEM C, REVISED SITE PLAN. SOUTHSIDE 14th STREET ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 1. RESTAURANT, THREE MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE UNITS, PROFESSIONAL/GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND HEALTH/FITNESS CENTER ON ONE LOT ON .3 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 14th STREET, 125 FEET OF EAST K AVENUE. ZONED DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT. THE APPLICANT IS EASTSIDE 14th STREET LLC. >> I'M PARKER McDOWELL, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. EOMMISSN MAY APPVE THIS ITEM AS SHOWN WITH THE CORRECTIONS DURING THE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING OR THEY MAY TABLE IT TO THE 11-20 MEETING. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. RATLIFF? I DON'T SEE ANY QUESTIONS. OKAY. SO NO QUESTIONS. OKAY. VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE ITEM C AS PRESENTED WITH THE SUBSTITUTION OF THE REVISED SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED TO US IN PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: IAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE ITEM C SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US IN PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE VOTE. MR. OLLEY? THANK YOU. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0 WITH ONE -- >> ABSTENTION. >> Chair Downs: YES. THANK YOU. CONFLICT. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE ON. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSID PUBLIC HEARING ITE. UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL, IF NEEDED REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME, WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIO LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY, EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDE. AGENDA ITEMS NO. 1A AND 1B WILL BE PRESENTED TOGETHER. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE: 2023-006 - REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMITS FOR PRIVATE CLUB AND FOOD TRUCK PAR ON 0.8 ACRE LOCATED 524 FEET NORTH OF PARK BOULEVARD AND 940 FEET EAST OF PRESTON ROAD. ZONED RETAIL. PETITIONER: AMREIT SSPF PRESTON GOLD, LP. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDE. THEY ALSO HAVE A REVISED SITE PLAN. PRESTON TOWNE CROSSING BLOCK 1, LOT 2 - RETAIL, MEDICAL OFFICE, HEALTH/FITNESS CENTER, RESTAURANT, PRIVATE CLUB, AND FOOD TRUCK PARK ON ONE LOT ON 8.0 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF PARK BOULEVARD, 760 FEET EAST OF PRESTON ROAD. ZONED RETAIL WITH SPECIFIC US PE AND LOCATEWITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: AMREIT SSPF. PRESTON GOLD, LP. THIS IS FOR A. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. BEFORE WE GET STARTED, PLANO TV, CAN YOU PLEASE MOVE TO SLIDE 7? TO CLARIFY, AGENDA NO. 1A. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: WE ALSO HAVE -- CAN WE GET RID OF THE UNMUTE? THE HOST WOULD LIKE YOU TO UNMUTE. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S COMING FROM. IT'S THE ZOOM. I DON'T KNOW WHO'S CONTROLLING THE ZOOM. OKAY. GO AHEAD. >> GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE. MY NAME IS KATYA COPELAND AND I'M SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE THIS REQUEST IS FOR TWO SUPs FOR A PRIVATE CLUB AND A FOOD TRUCK IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. HIGHLIGHTED YELLOW IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE TO THE NORTH THE PROPERTY IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE 3. TO THE SOUTH THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RETAIL WITH SPECIFIC-USE PERMITS 92 AND NO. 488 FOR PRIVATE CLUB AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A SHOPPING CENTER WITH RETAIL, PERSONAL SERVICE SHOP, AND RESTAURANT USES. TO THE EAST, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RETAIL AND IS DEVELOPED WITH A PARKING LOT THAT SERVES THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER AND A REGIONAL THEATER. TO THE WEST, THE PROPERTY IS ZONED RETAIL WITH SPECIFIC-USE PERMIT. A REVISED SITE PLAN FOR THE PROPERTY ACCOMPANIES THIS REQUEST AS ITEM NO. 1B. IT IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE DESIGNATION SUPPORTS ENTERTAINMENT USES SUCH AS FOOD TRUCK PARKS AND PRIVATE CLUBS TO CREATE A DESTINATION SHOPPING AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTERS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST FOR A PRIVATE CLUB AND FOOD TRUCK PARK CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE ARE FOUR APPROVED SPECIFIC-USE PERMITS FOR PRIVATE CLUBS WITHIN THE PROXIMITY TO THE PROPERTY SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN. AND THE SUPs ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. TODAY IT DOES NOT APPEAR THAT ANY OF THE FOUR LOCATIONS ARE OPERATING AS A PRIVATE CLUB. AT THE OCTOBER 2 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, STAFF REQUESTED THAT THIS ITEM BE TABLED DUE TO CONTINUING DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT REGARDING OFF-STREET PARKING. THE OUTSTANDING PARKING QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN RESOLVED. IF APPROVED, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUIRED TO ENTER INTO A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST. THIS IS NOTED AS A CONDITION OF APPROVAL ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN. FOOD TRUCK PARKS ARE SUBJECT TO COMPLIANCE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS OF ARTICLE 21 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE PROPOSED FOOD TRUCK PARK IS 1600 SQUARE FEET AND APPROXIMATELY 275 FEET FROM THE ADJACENT MF-3 ZONING TO THE NORTH WHICH EXCEEDS THE 150-FOOT REQUIREMENT PER ARTICLE 21. TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL PROTECTION TO NEARBY RESIDENTS, STAFF RECOMMENDS A 250-FOOT SEPARATION REQUIREMENT AS A STIPULATION. ADDITIONALLY, THIS STIPULATION CONTINUES TO INCLUDE A 50-FOOT SEPARATION FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS TO CONSIDER ANY FUTURE DEVELOPMENT OF THAT PROPERTY. WITH THIS STIPULATION, STAFF SUPPORTS THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES WITHIN 200 FEET. AND WE RECEIVED NINE TOTAL RESPONSES, SIX IN SUPPORT, AND THREE IN OPPOSITION. TO SUMMARIZE, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TWO SPECIFIC-USE PERMITS, ONE FOR A PRIVATE CLUB AND FOR A FOOD TRUCK PARK IN AN EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST FOR PRIVATE CLUB AND FOOD TRUCK PARK CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER CATEGORY. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF EM 1A AND 1B WITH RESTRICTIONS LISTED ON THE SCREEN RELATED TO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK AND TO THE COMPANION REVISED SITE PLAN. THE APPLICANTS ARE HERE TONIGHT WITH A PRESENTATION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I DIDN'T MEAN TO SOUND LIKE ELVIS. [LAUGHTER] ARE THERE ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH RESTRICTIONS FOR A 250-FOOT SETBACK FROM THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT TO THE NORTH. AND A MINIMUM OF 50 FEET FROM THE EASTERN PROPERTY LINE OF THE PRESTON TOWNE CROSSING, BLOCK 1, LOT 2 AND SUBJECT TO ENTERING INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR 47 PARKING SPACES OFF SITE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. 250 FEET TO THE NORTH. 50 FEET FROM THE EAST. AND ENTERING INTO A PARKING AGREEMENT WITH THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST. >> Brounoff: SO OUR MOTION, IF WE DECIDE TO APPROVE IT, SHOULD INCLUDE THOSE CONDITIONS? >> YES. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, THE SEPARATION IS FOR THE SUP. THE CONDITION FOR THE PARKING IS ON THE SITE PLAN. >> Brounoff: OKAY. SO THAT'S 1A VERSUS 1B. >> BUT YOU DID SAY ALL THOSE STIPULATIONS THAT WERE LISTED. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: 50 FEET AREA -- APOLOGIES FOR MY VOICE. ON THE EAST IT'S -- THE DESIGNATION IS FOR RETAIL. DO WE HAVE -- I DON'T THINK WE DO BUT DO WE HAVE ANY SETBACK REQUIREMENTS FOR A FOOD TRUCK OF THIS KIND OF USE FROM A RETAIL? WE ARE JUST IMPOSING A 50-FEET SETBACK OR -- DO WE HAVE ANYTHING IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT REQUIRES A SETBACK FROM A RETAIL DESIGNATION FROM ANOTHER, ESSENTIALLY RETAIL RESTAURANT DESIGNATION? >> FOR THIS CASE THE RAS ONLY APPLIES TO THE NORTH AND SO WITH THE 50-FOOT TO THE EAST THAT WE'RE IMPLEMENTING IS FOR THE FOOD TRUCK PARK TO BE MORE DEFINED ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN. IN ADDITION WE ARE CONSIDERING FUTURE DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT PROPERTY TO HAVE A BUFFER FROM THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. >> Olley: WHAT MECHANISM DO WE HAVE TO ENFORCE THE PARKING AGREEMENT? SO IF THE ENTITY THAT THEY HAVE TO GET INTON AGREEMENT WITH REFUSES TO GET INTO AN AGREEMENT, WHAT'S OUR MECHANISM TO -- DOES THIS BLOW UP ESSENTIALLY? WHAT'S OUR MECHANISM TO ENFORCE THAT? IS THERE AN AGREEMENT IN SPIRIT ALREADY IN PLACE? I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW IF WE VOTE USING THIS STIPULATION AND WE'VE NOT GONE ALONG THE LINES OF ENSURING THAT WE GET THAT, WHAT'S THE MECHANISM THAT THIS BODY HAS TO MAKE THAT HAPPEN? >> SURE. AND I THINK THOSE QUESTIONS ARE EXACTLY WHY IT WAS TABLED ON OCTOBER 2 WAS WE NEEDED TO FIGURE THOSE ITEMS OUT. NOW THE PROPERTY OWNER OWNS A LOT OF PROPERTIES WITHIN THIS NORTHEAST CORNER AND SO THE PROPERTY OWNER FOR THIS LOT WILL BE UNABLE TO OBTAIN THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY UNLESS THAT PARKING AGREEMENT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY. >> JUST TO CLARIFY, THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER IS THE SAME OWNER AS THIS SITE. >> Olley: [OFF MIC] >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: I THINK IT'S WORTH -- THE QUESTION IS VALUABLE IN UNDERSTANDING, THOUGH, IF WE APPROVED AN SUP THAT'S WITH THE PROPERTY AND IF THIS PERSON WASN'T ABLE TO GET THAT PARKING, ANOTHER OWNER COULD EVENTUALLY NEGOTIATE SOMETHING TO MAKE THAT WORK. APPROVING THE SUP SUBJECT TO A PARKING AGREEMENT. IF THAT DOESN'T HAPPEN, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THE SUP GOES AWAY. IT JUST MEANS THEY CAN'T GET THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY. OAY. WE STILL HAVE SEVERAL MORE QUESTIONS. THOSE ARE GOOD TECHNICAL QUESTIONS. LET'S MAKE SURE THEY'RE TECHNICAL BECAUSE WE STILL HAVE A PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT. MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: DOES THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD APPLY TO THE PRIVATE CLUB OR ONLY TO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK? >> FOOD TRUCK PARK. >> Lisle: AND NOT THE PRIVATE CLUB? >> NO. >> Lisle: AND -- >> THERE ARE OTHER REQUIREMENTS FOR HOSPITALS, SCHOOLS AND THIS REQUEST IS MEETING THOSE. >> Lisle: AND THE LANGUAGE IN THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, I BELIEVE IT TALKS ABOUT ASSOCIATED USES. HAS STAFF DETERMINED THAT THE FOOD TRUCK PARK IS NOT AN ASSOCIATED USE TO THE PRIVATE CLUB? >> SO THE RAS DOES NOT APPLY TO PRIVATE CLUBS. THEREFORE WE DID NOT -- THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE SUPs SO WE'RE APPLYING THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD ONLY TO THE SUP FOR THE FOOD TRUCK. >> Lisle: RIGHT. BUT IF YOU READ THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD DOESN'T IT SAY WHERE THERE'S MULTIPLE USES ON A SITE, IT'S TO BE APPLIED TO ASSOCIATED USES? >> I WOULD HAVE TO CLARIFY THAT BUT I THINK THE INTENT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE FOOD TRUCK OPERATIONS COULD BE STANDALONE FROM THE PRIVATE CLUB. AND SO IN THIS CASE WE'RE APPLYING IT ONLY TO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. YEAH, THEY'RE NOT REQUIRED TO BE BUILT TOGETHER, CO'D TOGETHER, PERMITTED TOGETHER. THEY'RE COMPLETELY STANDALONE. >> Lisle: ARE THEY ASSOCIATED, IS THE QUESTION, THOUGH? >> THEY ARE ASSOCIATED ONLY IN THE FACT THAT THEY ARE PRESENTED TOGETHER FOR EASE OF CONSIDERATION BY THE P&Z. BUT THEY COULD BE STANDALONE ON THEIR OWN. >> Lisle: OKAY. JUST TO LET THE COMMISSION BEHE TIME TO EXPLAIN WHEREOT I'M GOING. >> Chair Downs: TECHNICAL STAFF. SO WE CAN MOVE ON. MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION. DO WE ALREADY HAVE AN RAS TO 150 FEET TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT THEY'RE MEETING, WHAT IS THE RATIONALE ABOUT MAKING THAT STRICTER AT 250? OTHER THAN THEY STILL MEET IT. IS THERE A REASON WHY WE'RE WRITING THAT INTO THE PD? >> ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR THOSE RESIDENTS TO THE NORTH. >> Ratliff: OKAY. IT PURELY ABOUT JUST MAKING SURE THAT WE DON'T END UP SLIDING IT FURTHER SOUTH. WOULDN'T THEY HAV TO MODIFY THE SITE PLAN IF THEY WANTED TO DO THAT IN THE FUTURE OR WOULD THEY BE ABLE TO MOVE THAT IF THEY -- IF WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE DISTANCE? >> SURE. SO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK RECOMMENDATION IS TO HAVE THAT DISTANCE. AND THAT'S WITH THE ZONING. >> YES. THE SITE PLAN SHOWS THE DESIGNATED AREA FOR THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. SHOULD THEY ASK TO CHANGE THAT THEY WOULD NEED TO COME BACK TO THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. SO AS LONG AS THEY MEET THOSE SUTHEY CAN MOVE IT SOMEWHEREHE ELSE BUT THEY CAN'T GET ANY CLOSER TO THOSE SETBACKS WITHOUT COMING BACK TO AMEND THE SUP. >> Ratliff: OKAY. SO IF WE DIDN'T CHANGE THE DISTANCE THEN THEY COULD JUST DO A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. IF THEY WANTED TO MOVE IT CLOSER, ONCE WE PUT THIS IN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR AN SUP, WHICH IS BIGGER. I WAS TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE WERE DOING THAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YES. SO I THINK WHAT YOU JUST SAID IS THE 250 FEET IS TO PROVIDE PROTECTION FOR THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTHOR THE FOO TRUCKS RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> Cary: SO IS IT THE STAFF'S POSITION OR BELIEF THAT THAT SAME TYPE OF PROTECTION SHOULDN'T BE REQUIRED FOR THE LARGER FACILITY? I GUESS I'M CURIOUS WHY THE FOOD TRUCKS WOULD NEED MORE PROTECTION THAN THE LARGER FACILITY. I GUESS I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT THINKING. >> SURE. FOOD TRUCK PARKS, YOU CAN ENJOY OUTDOORS. AND THIS REVISED SITE PLAN DOES SHOW A CANOPY AND AN OUTDOOR SEATING AREA. THAT'S TOWARDS THE SOUTH END OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO WITH THE EOSUROF THE FOOD TRUCK PARK HAVING THAT EXTRA PROTECTION, HAS STAFF THINKING ABOUT THE RESIDENTS AND HAVING THAT EXTRA 100 FEET. >> IF I COULD ADD, THE FOOD TRUCK PARK HAS NOISE, RUNNING VEHICLES GENERATORS THINGS LIKE THAT THAT ARE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. ESSENTIALLY THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE LARGELY ABOUT NOISE. THE APPLICANT PROPOSED THIS LOCATION AND JUST TO CEMENT THAT INTO WHAT THEY ASKED FOR IS THE REASON IT'S 250 FEET. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. NO MORE LIGHTS UP? THANK YOU. GREAT JOB. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. WE HAVE NO MORE QUESTIONS OF STAFF, I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> WE HAVE THE APPLICANT, TOMMY MANN. >> TOMMY MANN, 500 WINSTEAD IN DALLAS. HAPPY TO SHARE WITH YOU SOME FURTHER INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROPOSED TENANT FOR PRESTON TOWNE CROSSING. MY CLIENT IS EDENs. They own 50 ACRES. WITH ME TONIGHT IS MICHAEL HALE WHO HAS BEEN IN CHARGE OF THE LEASING FOR THIS PROPERTY SINCE 2007. THEY ARE LONG-TERM HOLDERS OF RETAIL REAL ESTATE ALL OVER THE COUNTRY AND HE CAN OBVIOUSLY ANSWER A LOT OF SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ABOUT HOW WE ENDED UP WHERE WE ARE TODAY. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND AND THEN I'LL TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THE PROPOSED TENANT. OBVIOUSLY YOU KNOW WHERE WE ARE PROPOSING WITHIN THE SITE. THIS CENTER TODAY IS FAR FROM DEAD. THERE ARE PARTS OF IT THAT ARE THRIVING. PRIMARILY ALONG THE PRESTON FRONTAGE WITH REI AND TRADER JOE'S. AS YOU TURN TO THE SOUTH AND EAST IT GETS A LITTLE TOUGHER. WE HAVE HAD TROUBLE LEASING THESE AREAS. THIS ACTUAL BOX WAS ORIGINALLY A TARGET BACK IN THE EARLY 2000s. THEY LEFT AND MOVED. AN ANTIQUE MALL CAME IN FOR A LITTLE BIT. THAT DIDN'T GO GREAT. GOLD'S GYM CAME IN. THEY GOT CRUSHED BY THE HAILSTORM AND VACATED. COWBOY FIT IS STARTING TO GAIN MOMENTUM THERE BUT WE STILL HAVE A LARGE PORTION OF THE BOX THAT HAS REMAINED VACANT. THE CONCEPT WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT IN HERE IS ACTUALLY -- THERE ARE THREE OF THESE LOCATIONS IN HOUSTON CALLED KIRBY ICEHOUSE. THERE'S ONE IN THE WOODLAND'S, MEMORIAL. IT'S A HOUSTON-AREA-BASED FAMILY THAT HAS OPENED THIS CONCEPT. THE IDEA IS A FRONT PORCH FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S A DOG-FRIENDLY VENUE SET UP KIND OF WITH AN INDOOR/OUTDOOR VIBE. GOOD PLACE TO WATCH THE GAME. GOOD PLACE TO HAVE A CORPORATE EVENT AND MEET FRIENDS FOR HAPPY HOUR OR GO AFTER THE MOVIE OR BEFORE THE MOVIE NEXT DOOR. BUT IT'S ALSO FOR -- EDEN IS ABOUT REVITALIZING THIS CENTER. WE'VE GOT TO MAKE IT AN EXPERIENCE THAT IS WORTH COMING TO, OTHERWISE YOU CAN ORDER WHAT YOU NEED RIGHT NOW WHILE YOU'RE LISTENING TO ME TALK AND IT WILL BE ON YOUR PORCH TOMORROW. BU IF YOU CREATE A VENUE WHERE PEOPLE GET TO HANG OUT AND SOCIALIZE AND ENJOY THEIR TIME, THEY'RE MORE LIKELY TO ALSO WALK AROUND THE CENTER AND VISIT THE OTHER TENANTS. THE OTHER TENANTS ARE EXCITED ABOUT THIS CCEPT GOING IN HERE AND WE THINK IT WILL BE A GREAT BOOST FOR THE CENTER OVERALL. THESE ARE JUST PHOTOS OF THE OTHER LOCATIONS IN HOUSTON THAT I MENTIONED. THE FOOD TRUCK PARK ELEMENT, I'LL TALK ABOUT THE PLAN AND HOW THIS ONE IS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S IN HOUSTON. YOU SEE FOLKS WITH THEIR DOGS SITTING OUTSIDE AND INSIDE. AT THE OTHER LOCATIONS IN HOUSTON, THE ONLY FOOD SERVICE IS PROVIDED BY THE FOOD TRUCKS. HERE WE WILL HAVE THE FOOD TRUCKS IN THE AREA YOU SEE IN GREEN. THERE WILL BE TWO MOST OF THE TIME, MAYBE THREE. WE'LL ALSO HAVE A KITCHEN THAT IS PRERING AND SERVING MEALS, INTERNAL TO THE FACILITY IN THE AREA IN BLUE AT THIS LOCATION, WHICH WE& DON'T HAVE IN HOUSTON. THAT'S TO MEET THE REQUIREMENTS OF PLANO FOR FOOD SALES. AND WE THINK IT'S GOING TO WORK WELL HERE. SOME OF THE QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DISTANCE, THERE WASN'T MORE THINKING TO IT OTHER THAN THIS IS WHERE IT IS SO WE WERE HAPPY TO MAKE THAT CONCESSION. AND THEN THE REST OF THE USE, WHAT YOU SEE IN BLUE, IS ENCLOSED. AS FAR AS THE NOISE -- AND THAT'S WITHIN THE EXISTING BUILDING. BUT KIND OF OPEN-AIR IS ON THE SOUTHERN END WHERE THE FOOD TRUCKS ARE. THAT PART IS THE PORTION THAT IS FARTHEST AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL. OVERALL WE'RE PERFECTLY HAPPY WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDED CONDITIONS AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. WE'RE EXCITED ABOUT THIS USE IF YOU MOVE IT FORWARD. THANKS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU, MR. MANN. WOULD YOU HOLD ON ONE SECOND? I SEE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS COMING UP. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> Bronsky: YEAH, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY WHAT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT EARLIER. THE PRIVATE CLUB IN BLUE AND THE FOOD TRUCK IN GREEN ARE IN FACT SEPARATE. THE BLUE IS NOT IN ANY WAY DEPENDENT ON THE GREEN OR VICE VERSA? >> IF YOU'RE THERE HAVING DINNER OR DRINK, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO TELL THE DIFFERENCE. BUT THE FOOD TRUCKS THEMSELVES CAN BE OPERATED BY THIRD-PARTY FOOD TRUCK OWNERS. THE KITCHEN WITHIN THE BLUE AREA WILL BE OWNED AND OPERATED BY KIRBY ITSELF. BUT IF YOU'RE THERE, IT'S ALL AN INTEGRATED EXPERIENCE. IT'S DEFINITELY PART OF A VIBE TO HAVE BOTH. >> Bronsky: I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE. WE WERE TOLD A MINUTE AGO THAT THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY WEREN'T PART OF THE BLUE BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CONNECTED TO THE GREEN. I'M ASKING YOU ARE THEY SEPARATE. >> I THINK THEY'RE LEGALLY SEPARATE. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATELY-CLASSIFIED USES THAT REQUIRE THEIR OWN SUPs. ZONING RUNS WITH THE LAND. TOTALLY AGREE WITH STAFF ON I THINK IT'S UNLIKELY THAT KIRBY WOULD SELL OFF THE FOOD TRUCK OPERATION AND ONLY OPERAT THE CLUB. IT'S LIKELY TO REMAIN INTEGRATED THE WHOLE TIME IT'S IN BUSINESS. LEGALLY, TECHNICALLY THEY COULD BE SEPARATED. >> Bronsky: THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO HEAR. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: I HAPPEN TO HAVE THE SAME QUESTION REGARDING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE BLUE BOX AND THE GREEN BOX. MY UNDERSTANDING RIGHT NOW IS THAT ACTUALLY KIRBY ICEHOUSE WILL BE OPERATING BOTH THE BLUE BOX AND THE GREEN BOX. HOWEVER, LEGALLY THE GREEN BOX CAN BE LEASED OUT TO SOMEBODY ELSE. >> YES. SO THE FOOD TRUCKS MAY COME IN -- MAYBE THE SIMPLEST WAY TO ANSWER IT, KIRBY WILL BE LEASING EVERYTHING YOU SEE HERE FROM EDENS. >> Tong: KIRBY WILL BE RUNNING BOTH PLACES. >> THEY WILL BE MANAGING AND OPERATING IT BUT YOU CAN HAVE A THIRD-PARTY FOOD TRUCK COME IN FROM A DIFFERENT RESTAURANT THAT MAKES AND SERVES THEIR OWN FOOD BUT IT WILL BE MANAGED BY KIRBY. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSINER CARY. >> Cary: THANK YOU. SO ARE THE FOOD TRUCKS NECESSARY FOR THIS WHOLE THING TO WORK? IF YOU DIDN'T GET APPROVAL FOR THE FOOD TRUCK ZONING, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO THE PROJECT? >> I DON'T THINK KIRBY WOULD GO FORWARD IN THEIR LEASE, BECAUSE THAT'S THEIR BUSINESS MODEL. THESE PHOTOS I SHOWED YOU, YOU CAN SEE THAT'S WHAT THEY'VE DONE AT THEIR THREE EXISTING LOCATIONS. IT'S ABOUT THE VIBE, FRANKLY, AND IT'S ABOUT THE SENSE OF COMMUNITY THAT THEY THINK IT FOSTERS AND THEY THINK IT'S COOL TO HAVE THE FOOD TRUCKS, AND IT'S INTEGRAL TO WHAT THEY'RE TRYING TO -- THE EXPERIENCE THEY'RE TRYING TO CREATE FOR CUSTOMERS. SO I DO THINK THEY NEED THEM TO OPERATE. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: IS THE YELLOW -- IT SAYS PROPOSED CANOPY AREA. IS THAT CURRENTLY WHERE THERE'S BUILDING? >> YEAH, THERE'S SOME BUILDING THERE AND THERE'S A COUPLE LITTLE TENANTS. I SHOULD HAVE MENTIONED THAT. THERE'S A LITTLE GYM, A DENTIST, AND A SPORTING GOODS TENANT IN THERE. THEY ARE RELOCATING TO OTHER VACANCIES IN THE CENTER. AND THAT FACADE WILL BE ALTERED TO CREATE KIND OF AN INDOOR/OUTDOOR VIBE AS OPPOSED TO WHAT IT IS TODAY. >> Lisle: I DROVE THE SITE THIS AFTERNOON AND I THOUGHT THIS WAS LIKE ADVENTURE -- ITS RIGHT THERE. THEY'RE GOING TO MOVE TO A DIFFERENT SPOT IN THE CENTER. THERE'S ALSO A LITTLE DENTIST IN THERE. >> Lisle: SO Y'ALL ARE GOING TO TAKE THAT FRONT FACADE AND OPEN IT UP AND MAKE IT FEEL -- GOTCHA. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: [OFF MIC] THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE PRIVATE CLUB, THE BLUE AREA, IN ORDER TO PATRONIZE THAT, I ASSUME YOU HAVE TO BE A MEMBER OF THE CLUB. YOU HAVE TO JOIN AS A MEMBER. >> THAT'S REGULATED BY THE TABC AND THAT'S HOW THEY REGULATE THE ABILITY TO SELL ALCOHOL. YES. >> Brounoff: MY QUESTION IS SINCE THE GREEN AREA IS COOPERATED BY THE SAME PEOPLE OPERATING THE PRIVATE CLUB, DO YOU HAVE TO BE A MEMBER IN ORDER TO PATRONIZE THE FOOD TRUCKS OR IS THAT OPEN TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC? >> I THINK ANYBODY CAN GO IN THERE AND ORDER. I THINK -- MY EXPERIENCE IS PROBABLY THE SAME AS YOURS. IF YOU TRY TO ORDER A BEER YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO JOIN THE PRIVATE CLUB. BUT IF YOU WANT TO GO IN THERE AND BUY A MEAL, I THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO BUY A MEAL. >> Brooff: I DON'T MEAN GO INTO THE BLUE AREA. CAN I, AS A NON-MEMBER OF THE PRIVATE CLUB, BUY A SANDWICH FROM THE FOOD TRUCK, FOR EXAMPLE? >> I THINK YOU CAN. SORRY THAT I DON'T KNOW FOR SURE EXACTLY. I'M NOT SURE THAT KIRBY KNOWS EXACTLY HOW THAT'S GOING TO OPERATE. BUT THEY ARE NOT INTENDING TO KEEP PEOPLE WHO ARE SHOPPING IN THE CENTER FROM COMING OVER AND HAVING LUNCH. >> Brounoff: IN OTHER WORDS, THE FOOD TRUCK IS NOT PART OF THE PRIVATE CLUB. >> RIGHT. IT IS A SEPARATE USE. IT WILL HAVE ITS OWN C.O. AND ITS OWN PARKING REQUIREMENT. YOU WILL FEE LIKE YOU'RIN THE SAME ESTABLISHMENT. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I DON'T SEE ANY MORE QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, SIR. AND WE HAVE NO MORE SPEAKERS, YOU SAID? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. TO ME, IT LOOKS LIKE KIND OF A FUN VIBE THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF -- ACROSS THE STREET IS KATY ICEHOUSE? A LITTLE COMPETITION FOR THEM. IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING FOR THE PRIVATE CLUB IS THAT IF YOU ORDER ALCOHOL YOU HAVE TO JOIN. BUT IF YOU'RE NOT, THEN I DON'T THINK THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR IT. AND WE'VE BEEN BACK AND FORTH ON THAT. COMMISSIONERARY. >> Cary: YEAH. I ECHO YOUR COMMENTS. I LIVE NOT TOO FAR FROM HERE SO I KNOW THIS AREA REALLY WELL AND I HAVE BEEN OVER TO KATY ICEHOUSE NUMEROUS TIMES AND IT'S A GREAT ESTABLISHMENT. I LIKE THIS PROJECT AND I THINK IT'S GOOD FOR THE AREA. AND I WENT AND TALKED TO A NUMBER OF BUSINESS OWNERS INCLUDING THE PEOPLE AT KATY TRAIL TO SEE WHAT THEY THOUGHT, AS THEY'RE ALREADY OPERATING THERE. AND THEY WERE POSITIVE ABOUT THONLY THING THAT CONCERNS ME -- AND IT'S REALLY FOR US, NOT THEM, IS HOW WE'RE MANAGING THESE SEPARATE SUPs. AND IT FEELS CONSTRUCTED TO ME. I GUESS I DON'T LIKE IT. AND IT SEEMS TO ME WE SHOULD BE ABLE TO FIND A MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD WAY. THIS, TO ME, IS ONE BUSINESS AND IT FEELS LIKE WE'RE BIFURCATING IT SOMEHOW AND SOMETHING DOESN'T FEEL RIGHT TO ME. MAYBE IT'S BECAUSE IF WE DON'T DO THAT THEN THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE GOING TO BE VIOLATED. AND I THINK THAT'S OKAY AND MAYBE WE JUST, IN MY OPINION, JUST NEED TO GIVE THEM AN EXEMPTION FOR THAT. BUT I JUST FEEL LIKE THIS IS A BIT CONSTRUCTED AND I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY. AND SO BUT I'M FOR THIS PROJECT. I JUST THINK THE OTHER THING IS MAYBE ON OUR SIDE. I'M CONFUSED BY THAT. THAT'S MY THING. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. I'VE GOT FAMILY DOWN IN HOUSTON AND I HAVE TO ADMIT I MAY HAVE BEEN TO A KIRBY ICEHOUSE MORE THAN ONCE AND IT DOES HAVE A VERY UNIQUE VIBE. WHEN I READ THIS CASE AND SAW IT WAS KIRBY ICEHOUSE, I HAVE TO ADMIT IT WAS A PRETTY EASY SELL BECSE Y'ALL HAVE A GREAT THING GOING DOWN THERE AND IF Y'ALL BRING THAT TO PLANO, I'M EXCITED ABOUT IT. I DO -- I GUESS I UNDERSTAND THAT Y'ALL AGREE TO THE 250-FOOT SETBACK. I DON'T SEE WHY IT'S NECESSARY BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT WORTH LIVING OR DYING OVER. I GUESS I GET WHY THEY'RE SEPARATE USES, BECAUSE THEY WILL BE DIFFERENT C.O.s AND DIFFERENT TENANTS BECAUSE THE FOOD TRUCKS WILL BE A DIFFERENT TENANT, QUOTE, UNQUOTE. >> NOT REALLY. >> Ratliff: YEAH. I'M KIND OF CONFUSED ABOUT I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT EITHER WAY AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THE PROJECT. IF THAT'S THE WAY THE STAFF THINKS IT'S THE CLEANEST TO PRESENT IT, I'D LIKE TO UNDERSTAND IT A LITTLE MORE BUT I'M NOT OPPOSED TO IT BECAUSE IT'S DONE THAT WAY. >> Chair Downs: LET'S HEAR FROM STAFF. >> IF I COULD CLARIFY. IT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY -- NOT ASSOCIATED USES, ASSOCIATED. IN A FOOD TRUCK PARK WOULD BE LIKE THE SEATING AREA WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THE ADJACENCY STANDARDS. BUT IT ALSO APPLIES TO ACCESSORY USES IN IN THIS CASE THE PRIVATE CLUB IS NOT AN ACCESSORY TO THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. THEY WILL FUNCTIONALLY WORK THE SAME BUT THEY ARE TWO STANDALONE USES, COULD BE PERMITTED SEPARATELY, C.O.'D, SEPARATELY. FROM A ZONE PERSPECTIVE, THEY ARE SEPARATE USES. >> Chair Downs: MR. BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I GET THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE SEPARATE USES BUT FROM WHAT IT SOUNDED LIKE TO ME, FROM THE PEOPLE OPERATING IT, THERE'S NOT A WAY FOR THEM TO OPERATE THE BLUE WITHOUT THE GREEN. IS THAT -- I MEAN, THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT I -- I GOT THE IMPRESSION THAT BOTH OF THEM DID NOT COME TOGETHER THEY WOULD NOT BE ABLE -- >> Chair Downs: I THINK THAT'S A DECISION MADE BY THE POTENTIAL TENANT VERSUS THE PROPERTY OWNER. >> Bronsky: BUT THAT WAS THE QUESTION I ASKED THEM. SO I STRUGGLE WITH THE IDEA THAT THEY'RE AS INTRICATELY CONNECTED AS DESCRIBED BY THE GENTLEMAN SPEAKING. SUGGEST WE GET PAST SOME OF THE STRUCTURE AND OPERATION THERE. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING SOMETHING THEY THINK IS THE CLEANEST WAY FOR US TO MAKE A DECISION ON THIS. AND FOR US, FROM A LAND USE STANDPOINT, DO WE LIKE THE IDEA OF THIS BEING HERE? IF SOMEBODY, ANYBODY ELSE CAME AND SAID WE'RE GOING TO OPEN UP THE PRIVATE CLUB, OH, AND BY THE WAY WE'RE GOING TO POTENTIALLY OPEN UP THIS CANOPY AREA, WOULD WE THINK THIS IS A GOOD USE OF THIS LAND. >> Bronsky: NO, I UNDERSTAND THAT. AND I GUESS IT WOULD HAVE BEEN -- IF THEY HAD BEEN ABLE TO -- I GET IT. BUIT JUST SEEMS TO ME THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE INTRICATELY CONNECTED. AND THE WAY THAT IT'S -- WELL, I DON'T KNOW. I'M DONE. SORRY. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. WE GOT LOTS OF COMMENTS HERE. MR. LISLE. >> Lisle: IS THERE ANY WAY AROUND THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, LIKE A VARIANCE? >> Chair Downs: WHY ARE WE ASKING FOR THAT? >> Lisle: I'M ASKING FOR IT BECAUSE THE LANGUAGE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STDARDS INCLUDES ASSOCIATED USES. AND IF I'M HAVING A SANDWICH IN THE GREEN BOX AND I WANT A BEER, I GET IT FRO THE BLUE BOX. AND SO I KNOW STAFF HAS SAID THESE THINGS AREN'T ASSOCIATED THEY'RE DIFFERENT. BUT IN MY MIND THEY'RE VERY ASSOCIATED AND SO I SUPPORT THE PROJECT. I'M FOR THE PROJECT. I JUST WANT TO GET THERE IN A WAY THAT MAKES SENSE. AND SAYING THAT THEY'RE NOT ASSOCIATED DOESN'T MAKE SENSE TO ME. THEY SEEM VERY ASSOCIATED TO ME. AND SO I'M ASKING STAFF CAN WE GET THERE WITH ANOTHER MECHANISM THAT ESSENTIALLY VARIES THE STANDARD INSTEAD OF WAVES OUR WAND AND ACTS LIKE WE MET THE STANDARD. >> THERE IS NO INTENT TO BYPASS RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS IN THIS INSTANCE. THEY ARE TWO SEPARATE USES IN THE USE TABLE. THEY BOTH REQUIRE AN SUP BUT ONLY ONE REQUIRES COMPLIANCE WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. I WOULD SAY YOU ARE MISTAKEN IN SEEING IT'S AN ASSOCIATED USE. IT'S AN ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY WITH THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. >> Lisle: CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND T DIFFENCE IN A USE AND AN ACTIVITY? >> ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY, AGAIN, A FOOD TRUCK PARK WOULD BE THE SEATING THAT GOES WITH THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. WHERE PEOPLE ARE SUPPOSED TO SIT, NOT JUST THE TRUCK ITSELF. THAT'S AN ASSOCIATED ACTIVITY. >> Lisle: IF I'M SITTING IN THE GREEN BOX AND I WANT A BEER, I GO TO THE BLUE BOX. >> THIS IS AN SUP. YOU'RE WELCOME TO APPLY RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. IN THIS INSTANCE, IF YOU WISH. BUT THE WAY THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS CONSTRUCTED IS NOT REQUIRED FOR THE PRIVATE CLUB. >> Lisle: RIGHT. >> THE ASSOCIATION IN THIS CASE IS A BUSINESS MODEL, NOT A ZONING MODEL. >> Chair Downs: I'M GOING TO ASK US AGAIN, AS I SEE ALL THE QUESTIONS HERE. LET'S NOT TEAR APART THE WAY THIS APPLICATION'S DONE AND LOOK INSTEAD AT IS THE USE APPROPRIATE. I THINK HE'S EXPLAINED IT TWICE. THE PRIVATE CLUB ITSELF ISN'T DEALING WITH RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. THIS USE IS. WE'RE OUTSIDE THE REQUIREMENTS OFUR RIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO A 250-FOOT SETBACK, WHICH IS FURTHER THAN IS EVEN REQUIRED. SO I THINK WE'RE TEARING SOMETHING APART HERE. BECAUSE IF WE WERE TRYING TO SAY LET'S FIGURE OUT A DIFFERENT WAY TO DO IT, WE'RE TELLING THEM THEY HAVE TO GO AWAY, COME BACK, DO A NEW APPLICATION. THERE'S GOT TO BE ANOTHER PROCESS DONE. I WANT US TO FOCUS HERE. IS THIS A GOOD USE FOR THIS PROPERTY? WHAT I HAVE HEARD SO FAR IS YES. WE'RE NOT SURE WE UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GOING ABOUT. THAT'S WHY WE HAVE STAFF WHO UNDERSTANDS OUR ORDINANCE BETTER THAN ANY OF US WILL AND THE BEST WAY TO GET TO A PROJECT. AGAIN, IS THIS A GOOD USE OF THE LAND? COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. MY QUESTION IS ACTUALLY RELATED TO THE SITE PLAN. THAT'S THE SECOND PART OF THE APPLICATION. SO THE CHANGE -- CAN YOU POINT OUT THE EXACT CHANGE OF THE SITE PLAN? I KNOW THERE'S A FOOD TRUCK AREA TT'S REHAN IT WAS BEFORE. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE SITE PLAN, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE IT'S STILL THE ORIGINAL LINE, INCLUDING THE PARKING. I DON'T SEE THAT LITTLE FOOD TRUCK AREA THAT'S KIND OF BENT OUT, LIKE THE YELLOW LINE AREA. IS THAT INCLUDED IN THE NEW SITE PLAN? >> RIGHT. SO THIS IS A CHANGE IN USE AS WELL AS ADDING THE FOOD TRUCK PARK LOCATION. WERE IT JUST A PRIVATELUB, WOULD BE -- WE WOULD COME TO THIS SUP PROCESS BUT IT WOULDN'T HAVE ANY CHANGES TO THE BUILDING ITSELF. WE'RE UPDATING FOR THE PARKING REQUIREMENTS, MAKING SURE ALL THAT'S COMPLIED WITH AS WELL AS THE FOOD TRUCK PARK LOCATION. >> Tong: SO THE SHADED SITE PLAN DOES NOT INCLUDE THAT LITTLE 1600 SQUARE FEET FOOD TRUCK AREA, DOES IT? >> IT DOES. IT DOES. IT'S ADJACENT TO THE CANOPY AREA. >> Chair Downs: PROPOSED 1600 SQUARE FOOT FOOD TRUCK PARKING. >> Tong: IT'S OUTSIDE OF THAT ENTIRE AREA. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. >> Tong: OKAY. SO IF WE'RE APPLYING TWO DIFFERENT SUPs OR TWO DIFFERENT AREAS, IS THERE ANY NEED OR IS IT NECESSARY TO SEPARATE THEM BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT SUPs APPLIED TO THEM. >> THAT'S EXACTLY WHY STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THEY BE SEPARATED. WE'RE MAKING ONE RECOMMENDATION FOR THE PRIVATE CLUB AND A SECOND FOR THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. THEY WILL GO DOWN AS TWO SPECIFIC-USE PERMITS IF THEY ARE APPROVED. >> Tong: WOULD THAT BE REFLECTED ON THE SITE PLAN? >> NOT ON THE SITE PLAN, NO. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: NOT A QUESTION. MORE OF A COMMENT. AND IF I GET THIS WRONG, PLEASE JUMP IN. IT'S ACTUALLY LOOKING AT A PIECE OF DIRT AND BY RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S DESIGNATED RETAIL, THEY DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO USE IT AS A PRIVATE CLUB AND/OR FOOD TRUCK, WHICH IS WHY THEY APPLIED FOR THE SUP. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. >> Olley: SO THE LAND USE THAT THEY'RE APPLYING FOR TO ADD A RIGHT THAT IS NOT GIVEN TO THEM BY RIGHT FOR A PRIVATE CLUB, WHICH THEY MET -- THEY'RE IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN. FOR THE FOOD TRUCK THEY MET THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, WHICH IS THE SUP THAT REQUIRES THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD APPLIED TO IT. THE BUSINESS MODEL DOESN'T MATTER. THEY'RE ASKING CAN WE USE THIS LAND WITH THIS RIGHT ATTACHED TO IT. IT SO HAPPENS THAT THIS ALSO ACHIEVES THE PRIORITIES THAT WE HAVE FOR OUR SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS IN TERMS OF CREATING DESTINATION SHOPPING AND ENTERTAINMENT CENTERS. >> Chair Downs: YES. >> Olley: THIS IS, TO ME, A STRAIGHT SHOT AN APPROVAL AS I HAVE SEEN IN A WHILE AND I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEMS 1A AND 1B, PENDING COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. >> Chair Downs: SO WE STILL HAVE SOME MORE COMMENTS THAT SOMEONE WANTS TO MAKE. SINCE WE CAN HAVE COMMENTS AFTER A MOTION. SO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 1A. DO I HAVE A SECOND ON ITEM 1A? >> Brounoff: THE MOTION SHOULD BE CONDITIONED, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S CORRECT. DO YOU WANT TO MAKE THAT MOTION SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS AND THE -- >> Olley: I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM 1A SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONY STF. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO NOW I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. DO WE HAVE MORE DISCUSSION AROUND ITEM 1A? OKAY. VERY GOOD. WITH THAT, PLEASE VOTE ON ITEM 1A. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. CAN I GET A MOTION ON ITEM 1B? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE ITEM 1B WITH THE PROVISION THAT THE APPLICANT ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL OFF-STREET PARKING AS SPECIFIED BY STAFF. DO WE ALSO NEED TO CONDITION THIS -- CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE UNDERLYING ZONING CASE, WHICH I ALSO MOVE. >> Chair Downs: I'LL INCLUDE THAT AS PART OF YOUR MOTION. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF ON ITEM 1B WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE ITEM 1B SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE AND THE PARKING AGREEMENT. SHARED PARKING AGREEMENT. COMMISSIONER LISLE, THERE YOU GO. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU, EVERYONE FOR THEIR PATIENCE. ITEM 2. >> I WILL READ 2A, B, AND C TOGETHER. PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING CASE: 2023-024 - REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR PUBLIC SERVICE YARD ON 5.2 ACRES LOCATED 325 FEET NORTH OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE AND 700 FEET WEST OF SHILOH ROAD. ZONED RESE PETITIONER: DALLAS AREA RAPID T THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDE. PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, 2B IS SHILOH LAYOVER SITE PLAN: SHILOH LAYOVER FACILITY - PUBLIC SERVICE YARD ON 5.2 ACRES LOCATED 325 FEET NORTH OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE AND 250 FEET WEST OF KLEIN ROAD. ZONED APPLICANT: DALLAS AREA RAPID TR THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONS. ITEM 2C IS A REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. HEMATRONIX ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 1R - OFFICE SHOWROOM/ WAREHOUSE ON ONE LOT ON 2.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TECHNOLOGY DRIVE, 1,000 FEET WEST OF KLEIN ROAD. ZONED RESEA APPLICANT: BURLINGTON VENTURES, THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONS. >> THANK YOU, MS. BRIDGES. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M RAHA POULADI, THE PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN SUP FOR A PUBLIC SERVICE YARD WITHIN THE DART RIGHT OF WAY. THE REQUEST WOULD ALLOW DART TO CONSTRUCT A MAINTENANCE BUILDING, A WASH BUILDING, AND AN OPEN-AIR FUELING CANOPY. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY ZONING DISTRICT AND IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. THE BASE ZONING FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH IS LIGHT COMMERCIAL. AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH A VARIETY OF INSTITUTIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USES. THE PROPERTIES TO THE EAST ARE ZONED RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER WITH A SPECIFIC-USE PERMIT FOR TRANSIT STATION AND ELECTRICAL SUBSTATION AND ARE DEVELOPED ACCORDINGLY. THE PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH ARE ZONED RT AND ARE DEVELOPED WITH THE DISTRIBUTION CENTER, WAREHOUSE, PROFESSIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE GENERAL OFFICE AND LIGHT MANUFACTURING. THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST IS ZONED RT AND IS PART OF THE DART SILVER LINE RIGHT OF WAY. THERE ARE TWO COMPANION PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SUP REQUEST. ITEM 2B AS IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE YARD. ADDITIONALLY, THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THE SUP REQUEST IS DEDICATING NECESSARY PARKING AND EASEMENTS TO THE PUBLIC SERVICE YARD. THESE CHANGES ARE REFLECTED ON THE REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN INCLUDED IN ITEM 2C. E SUECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER CATEGORY OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PLAN. THE PRIMARY USES OF EMPLOYMENT CENTERS ARE CORPORATE OFFICE CAMPUSES, MEDICAL CENTERS, EDUCATIONAL FACILITIES, TECHNOLOGY CENTERS, AND RESEARCH FACILITY. LIMITED MANUFACTURING AND WAREHOUSE USES MAY BE ALLOWED TO SUPPORT THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS. STAFF FINDS THE REQUEST FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE YARD CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE RECEIVED NO RESPONSES FOR THIS ZONING CASE. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE SUP REQUEST SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTIONS LISTED ON THE SCREEN AND THE APPROVAL OF THE COMPANION PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SUBJECT TO THE SUP APPROVAL. THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVE WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION WITH A PRESENTATION. AFR THE COMMISSION'S QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IS CONCLUDED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> Chair Downs: I'M LOOKING AT THE BOARD AND I SEE MR. RATLIFF HAS A QUESTION. >> Ratliff: JUST A CLARIFY QUESTION. ONE OF YOUR CONDITIONS IS THAT THE SOUND WALL BE CONSTRUCTED NORTH OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE YARD. >> CORRECT. >> Ratliff: THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. COMMISSIONER CARY . OH, THAT ANSWERED HIS QUESTION AS WELL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, TECHNICAL QUESTIONS? MR. OLLEY. Oey: THE CONDITION OF THE SOUND WALL, WAS THAT CONDITION BROUGHT UP BY STAFF? WAS THAT GIVEN UP BY THE APPLICANT? HOW DID THAT PROCESS GO? >> THE APPLICANT VOLUNTEERED TO INSTALL THAT SUND WALL. >> Olley: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND WE HAVE THE APPLICANT? >> YES. WE HAVE CARL CRAWLEY WHO WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT. AND AMY MATTHEWS IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. >>hair Downs: THAN YOU. GOOD EVENING, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING. CARL CRAWLEY, 2201 MAIN STREET DALLAS TEXAS REPRESENTING DART. I HAVE A LOT OF SLIDES BUT I'M NOT GOING TO GO THROUGH ALL OF THEM, I PROMISE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> UNLESS YOU REALLY LIKE TO LOOK AT SLIDES, IT'S A RAILROAD. [LAUGHTER] IS THAT ENOUGH? IT'S A RAILROAD. >> Chair Downs: ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? >> WE'LL GO A LITTLE FURTHER. THIS IS A MAINTENANCE FACILITY. IT'S ON THE SILVER LINE. AS RAHA MENTIONED, WE'RE RIGHT NEXT TO THE END OF THE LINE. THE STATION IS SORT OF NEXT AT ONE POINT THERE WAS CONSIDERATION OF MOVING THIS MAINTENANCE FACILITY WAY UP THE DCTA LINE, WAY UP NORTH. IT'S LIKE THERE WAS AN AHA MOMENT TO GO, WAIT A MINUTE, WE HAVE A WIDE SPOT IN THE ROAD HERE. WIDE SPOT IN THE RAILROAD ROAD SEEMS TO BE A GOOD PLACE TO PUT IT AND OBVIOUSLY AT THE END OF THE LINE, THE TRAINS USUALLY END UP AT THE END OF THE LINE. YOU HAVE THREE REQUESTS, BASICALLY. SUP, THEN THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND THE REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. THAT BUILDING IS BEING LEASED BY DART AT THIS TIME. THAT'S WHERE THEY'LL END UP HAVING THEIR MAINTENANCE FACILITY. STAFF CAN BE THERE. THE REASON IS TO CODIFY, OF SORTS, WHERE THE FIRE LANES ARE AND THE ACCESS FOR FIRE/EMERGENCY VEHICLES. THEY HAVE AN ACCESS POINT SINCE THERE ARE NOW FACILITIES THERE. IT'S A RAILROAD. OKAY? I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO FURTHER THAN THAT. OBVIOUSLY, THESE ARE THE REASONS WE'RE HERE. A WIDE SPOT IN THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY. THE VEHICLES THAT ARE LEFT THERE AT NIGHT ARE NOT RUNNING -- THEY ARE RUNNING& BUT THEY'RE LITERALLY PLUGGED IN ELECTRICITY SO THEY'RE NOT RUNNING DIESEL. THESE ARE DIESEL TRAINS. IT'S NOT THE LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM. SO THAT WAY THEY'RE NOT PUTTING OUT FUMES AND THEY'RE NOT MAKING THAT DIESEL. THEY'RE JUST PLUGGED IN LIKE YOU'RE PLUGGING IN YOUR CAR. THE QUESTION ABOUT THE WALL CAME UP. AND WHEN I GET TO ANOTHER SLIDE I'LL POINT OUT THERE IS ACALLY IN THAT ZONING ACROSS THE WAY A NURSING HOME. YOU CAN SEE THE NURSING HOME, WHICH IS A RESIDENTIAL USE, WHICH IS NON-CONFORMING, I ASSUME. AND THE SOUND WALL WILL BE PLACED IN THAT AREA TO BUFFER THAT AREA. AND IT WAS ALWAYS IN THE PLAN. IT'S DONE SEPARATELY TO BE DONE WHEN THE RAIL IS APPROVED. WE'LL MOVE ON. YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THAT BUT THAT'S A LONG, SKINNY PIECE OF TRACK. THERE'S A BETTER SLIDE. GO TO THE NEXT ONE, IF YOU DON'T MIND. THAT SHOWS ACTUALLY WHAT WE'RE BUILDING. IT'S A TRAIN WASH. YEAH, YOU PULL YOUR TRAIN IN. MR. RATLIFF AND I WERE TALKING ABOUT WE HOPE THERE'S NOT A GUY SAYING GO LEFT OR RIGHT. YOU BETTER BE ON THAT TRACK BECAUSE YOU'RE PULLING IT IN. THE DOORS ARE CLOSED. THEY WASH IT. THEY BRING IT ON DOWN THE LINE. PAST THAT IS THE LARGER BUILDING IS THE ACTUAL MAINTENANCE FACILITY BUILDING. AGAIN, ALL INDOORS. THEY'RE CLOSED. THEY DO THE MAINTENANCE WORK ON IT AND MOVE IT OUT. AND THE LAST STRUCTURE IS A FUELING CANOPY. THE STORAGE TANKS ARE UNDERGROUND TO FUEL VEHICLES. AGAIN, THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SORT OF SEE THIS HATCHED AREA NEXT TO THE RAIL LINE. THOSE ARE PARKING SPACES THAT WERE REMOVED. WE HAVE THE PARKING IN PLACE TO COVER OUR NEEDS. BUT THOSE WERE REMOVED TO BASICALLY DESIGNATE AREAS SO THE EMERGENCY COULD HAVE ACCESS TO THE BUILDINGS AND EVERYTHING. AREA IS THE MORTALIZING OR CODIFYING THE ACTUAL FIRE LANES FOR THAT USE. OH, THERE YOU GO . THERE'S YOUR CLASSIC SPOKE NURSING HOME USE SHOWS THE SOUND WALL. YOU CAN SEE THE WASH, THE CANOPY, AND THE MAINTENANCE BUILDINGS. THESE ARE ACTUALLY THE ORIGINAL FACILITY THAT WE PLANNED TO HAVE WAS AN OPEN FACILITY. WORKING WITH STAFF AND USE WAS -- YOU CAN SEE NOW, AND I'LLT TO -- AGAIN, AS YOU CAN SEE THAT WAS A CANOPY OPEN FACILITY. AND NOW WE'RE INTO THE NEW FACILITY, WHICH HAS -- I LIKE THIS SLIDE BETTER. THERE. THAT SHOWS ACTUALLY THE TWO ACCESS POINTS FROM THE REVISED -- YOU CAN SEE ONE ACCESS POINT. YOU CAN SEE THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING IN THE BACK. THAT'S SOMEBODY BRINGING SOME FUEL TO THE UNDERGROUND FUEL. BUT THAT'S THE -- WE'RE SITTING IN THE ACTUAL BUILDING THAT'S BEING REVISED. AND THEN THERE'S A SORT OF A CLOSE UP. YOU REALLY CAN'T SEE THE TRACKS THERE BUT THERE ARE TRACKS THERE. THERE'S A DOOR FOR THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY. YOU CAN SEE THE TRAINS WILL ALL BE FULLY ENCLOSED. THAT'S JUST A PIECE OF EQUIPMENT AND THE NEXT THING PAST IT IS THE CANOPY FOR WHERE THE FUELING IS DONE UNDERNEATH THE CANOPY. THERE'S THE END OF IT. YOU CAN SEE THE TWO TRACKS COMING IN AND OUT. THERE'S A DOOR IN THE MIDDLE FOR EQUIPMENT AND PEOPLE TO COME IN AND OUT AND THEN THE TRAINS WILL COME OUT THE TWO LARGER DOORS. YOU CAN SEE THE DOORS ARE CLOSED. IF THERE'S ANYBODY WORKING INSIDE. AN AERIAL VIEW OF THE SAME SITUATION. YOU CAN SEE THEN -- STILL SEE THE NURSING HOME USE IN THE BACKGROUND AND THE SOUND WALL. AND, AGAIN, I'M GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE QUICKLY BUT LOTS OF RENDERINGS. THAT BUILDING I GUESS ON THE RIGHT THERE IS ACTUALLY -- I WAS GOING TO CALL IT A CAR WASH. THE TRAIN WASH FACILITY. TRACK GOING IN, TRAIN PULLS IN, THE CAR DOES. THEY WASH IT, MOVE IT ON DOWN YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THERE IN BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS AS THE TRAIN WOULD GO FURTHER DOWN THE LINE BETWEEN THE TWO BUILDINGS. THE TRAINS ARE WASHED HERE, CLEANED HERE OVERNIGHT. AS COMMISSIONER RATLIFF SAID, THAT MEANS EVERY TRAIN THAT LEAVES PLANO WILL BE A CLEAN TRAIN. I DON'T THINK CAROLLTON CAN SAY THAT OR RICHARDSON OR IRVING? YES. I DON'T THINK -- ACTUALLY, IT'S IN DALLAS. THERE'S A COUPLE OF STATIONS IN DALLAS. I'M JUST GOING TO GO THROUGH THESE, IF YOU WANT ME TO STOP, LET ME KNOW. THERE'S A LOT OF COMPUTER GRAPHICS AND STUFF. WE ASKED FOR APPROVAL OF THE SUP IN THE TWO SITE PLANS, THE REGULAR SITE PLAN AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN. IT'S A MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND A FUELING FACILITY AND A WASHING FACILITY FOR THE SILVER LINE. AS I MENTIONED, IT'S AN IDEAL LOCATION. IT'S A WIDE SPOT IN THE ROAD. IT'S AT THE END OF THE LINE. THE TRAINS WERE GOING TO STOP THERE AT THE END OF THE LINE ANYWAY. IT SEEMS TO MAKE IT A LOGICAL PLACE TO HAVE A MAINTENANCE FACILITY THERE THAN SOME PLACE THAT'S NOT ON THE END OF THE LINE. TWO BUILDINGS AND CANOPY. THAT'S IT. ALL THE NOISE-RELATED STUFF OR THE WORK-RELATED STUFF IS INDOORS, EITHER THE WASH OR THE MAINTENANCE. THE FUELING IS OUTSIDE, JUST BECAUSE IT OBVIOUSLY NEEDS TO BE OUTSIDE. AND THEN AS I JUST MENTIONED, EVERYTHING ELSE WILL BE INSIDE. SO I GUESS THAT'S THE LAST SLIDE. THERE WE GO. I DID GO THROUGH THEM ALL. I'M SORRY. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE HAVE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ENGINEERS AND DART AND A WHOLE LOT OF PEOPLE THAT KNOW AOT MORE ABOUT TRAINS THAN I DO, ALTHOUGH I'VE WORKED FOR DART AS A CONSULTANT FOR 25 YEARS, SO I KNOW A GOOD BIT. >> Chair Downs: I WAS GOING TO SAY, ARE YOU SAYING THEY PUT YOU UP THERE AS A PRETTY FACE? >> NO. IF THEY DID, THEY MADE A BIG MISTAKE, DIDN'T THEY? MAYBE I'M THE TARGET. THAT'S IT. I'LL BE THE TARGET. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL MOVE ON. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS, CORRECT? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: THANK YOU. YOU ANSWERED MY QUESTION IN YOUR LAST STATEMENTS BUT THIS IS GOING TO BE THE END OF THE LINE ANYWAY. SO THE NOISE STUDY WAS GOING TO HAPPEN ANYWAY. IT'S NOT A CAUSALITY OF THIS PARTICULAR SUP, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. ACTUALLY, THAT'S SORT OF MISLEADING. THE END OF THE LINE IS JUST A LITTLE BIT FURTHER DOWN THE TRACKS WITH A STATION -- YOU CAN SEE ON THE RIGHT SIDE. IT'S A LITTLE FURTHER DOWN THE TRACKS. BUT FOR PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THAT STATION IS THE END. >> Olley: THANK YOU. >> Cha Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratli: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY, HOW MANY JOBS IS DART BRINGING TO PLANO AS PART OF THIS, DO YOU KNOW? >> 65, A VOICE JUST PUT IN MY EAR. 65 JOBS. >> Ratliff: I'M GOING TO GUESS THESE ARE NOT SHORT-TERM JOBS. PEOPLE MIGHT BE HERE AWHEEL? >> RAILROAD WORKERS USUALLY STAY A WHILE. >> Rtliff: THAT WAS MY QUESTION. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING THEM TO PLANO. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: MY QUESTION IS RELATED TO THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING. I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE A COUPLE OTHER BUILDINGS IN DALLAS. HAVE YOU DONE A SIMILAR NOISE ANALYSIS ON THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING ITSELF TO -- BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE THIS NURSING HOME IS VERY, VERY CLOSE TO THE MAINTENANCE BUILDING. IS THE NOISE INSIDE THE BUILDING -- >> CONTAINED INSIDE THE BUILDING? >> Tong: RIGHT, RIGHT. YOU READ MY MIND. >> YES. IT >> YES, IT IS. IF WE'RE DOING ANY HEAVY LIFTING IN THERE, ALL THAT NOISE STAYS INSIDE THE BUILDING, YES. >> Tong: GOOD ANSWER. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS KNOW THAT I USED TO LIVE IN IRVING, ONCE UPON A TIME. >> BUT YOU FOUND THE RIGHT PLACE TO GO. >> Brounoff: I HAD THE HONOR TO BE PART OF A SUCCESSFUL CAMPAIGN IN 1996 WHERE IRVIN VOTED TO STAY IN D.A.R.T. THERE WAS A CAMPAIGN TO GET IT OUT. WE KEPT IT IN. >> WANTED THE MONEY FIRST. >> Brounoff: I SERVED AT THE REPRESENTATIVE TO THE MAJOR INVESTMENT STUDY THAT RESULTED IN THE ROUTING OF THE GREEN AND ORANGE LINE AND I AM MORE THAN HONORED TO BE A PART OF A MAJOR EVENT IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF D.A.R.T.'S MISSION TO PROVIDE REGIONAL TRANSPORTATION. >> THANK YOU. >> Brounoff: MY QUESTION IS, THERE IS REFERENCE IN THE MATERIALS TO ACCESS TO THE SITE MORE EMERGENCY VEHICLES AND PARKING FOR THE EMPLOYEES AND STAFF. DOES THAT RUN ALONG THE ABANDONED RAILROAD TRACK THAT CURVES INTO THE AREA? IT'S OVER OVERGROWN WITH WEEDS. THAT WOULD SEEM TO BE A NATURAL POINT OF INGRESS. >> THE EGRESS -- I MAY HAVE GONE TOO FAR. BACK. SORRY. THAT ONE MIGHT WORK. THAT ONE, ACTUALLY. EITHER ONE. THE EMPLOYEES WILL BE IN THIS BUILDING THAT IS PART OF THE AND THE EGRESS POINT WHERE IT CONNECTS TO FROM THAT BUILDING TO THE RAIL LINE. SO THAT'S THE EMPLOYEE CONNECTION IN THAT SITUATION. THEY WOULD PARK THERE AND THEY'D PROBABLY HAVE SOME WORK INSIDE THE BUILDING. BUT ANY WORK INSIDE THE TRACK FACILITIES, THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND THE WASH, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO WALK FROM THAT BUILDING TO THE TRACKS. >> Brounoff: HOW WOULD EMERGENCY VEHICLES GET IN? >> THE SAME WAY. YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN THERE THERE'S ACTUALLY A TRUCK THAT'S PULLED THROUGH. BUT THOSE ARE THOSE TWO SORT OF PORTALS OUT OF THERE WHERE THE FIRE LANE -- THE RED LINE YOU CAN SEE. BUT THEN IT'S PAVED ALL THE WAY TO THE PLATFORM AREA. NOT A GOOD TERM, THE PLATFORM IS AT A STATION. BUT THE PAVED AREA AROUND THE MAINTENANCE FACILITY. THAT'S HOW THOSE VEHICLES WOULD GET TO THERE. THEY WOULD NOT HAVE TO COME DOWN THE TRACKS OR ANYTHING. >> Brounoff: THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL WITH THREE CONDITIONS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU'RE GOOD WITH THE THREE CONDITIONS. TWO OF THEM YOU'VE REFERRED TO. ONE IS THE FULLY ENCLOSED BUILDING. THE OTHER ONE WAS THE SUNDAY SOD WALL. THE THIRD ONE WAS NECESSARY PARKING FOR THE PUBLIC SERVICE YARD PROVIDED AT THE TIME OF SITE PLAN REVIEW. >> RIGHT. WE'RE REARRANGING THE PARKING IN THAT REVISED SITE PLAN PORTION. THE PARKING WILL NOT BE IN THE RAIL LINE ITSELF. >> Brounoff: OKAY. I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE SILVER LINE. IT'S A BIG BOON FOR THE CITY OF PLANO. I LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING IT IN OPERATION. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER. >> THIS IS THE END OF THE LINE JUST FOR D.A.R.T., THE TRACKS KEEP GOING. THIS IS A SHARED TRACK? THE FREIGHT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO RUN. >> YEAH. >> OKAY. >> THEY'RE NOT ALLOWED IN THIS PART THOUGH. >> THIS IS A D.A.R.T. FACILITY. THEY'RE GOING TO KEEP GOING BY. WHOOSH. I UNDERSTAND. AND LASTLY, IN THESE SLIDES, THERE'S THE SIDEWALK WITH PEOPLE. IS THERE ANY -- MAYBE THIS IS A STAFF QUESTION. >> THERE IS A TRAIL ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LINE, NOT PART OF THIS. >> ARE Y'ALL BUILDING THAT, OR IS THAT A FUTURE PLAN TRAIL? >> THAT'S PART OF THE TRAIL SYSTEM. >> THAT'S BEING BUILT, A HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. >> Lisle: VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. >> NOT MASTERPLAN, BUT TWO WORDS, MASTER PLAN. >> Olley: ONE CLARIFYING QUESTION. THE TRAIN WASH -- INTERNAL, EXTERNAL, THE BODY OF THE TRAIN? >> THEY WILL CLEAN THE OUTSIDE OF THE TRAIN AND THEY'LL BE CLEANING THE INSIDE, VACUUMING, INSIDE THE TRAIN. >> Olley: IT WILL BE A CLEAN TRAIN. >> CLEAN TRAINING WILL BE LEAVING PLANO. MAY NOT ARRIVE CLEAN, BUT THEY'LL LEAVE CLEAN. >> Chair Downs: I DON'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME HERE. D.A.R.T. AS GOOD COMMUNITY PARTNER FOR PLANO, WE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. NO OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: CLOSE THE PUBLIC, CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. SPEAKER MICROPHONE. >> I'M RDY T MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 2A ON CONDITION THAT -- >> Chair Downs: SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. >> THREE RECOMMENDATIONS, YES. >> I'LL SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. WE'LL GO OVER THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM 2A, SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 2B. >> I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE ITEM 2B SUBJE TO THE APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023-024. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 2B. PLEASE VOTE. COMMISSIONER TONG? THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 2C. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM 2C SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2023-024. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO APPROVE ITEM 2C SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PARTNERSHIP. HAVE A GREAT EVENING. ITEM 3. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 IS A REPLAT. WILLIAMS HIGH SCHOOL, BLOCK 1, LOT 1R - PUBLIC SCHOOL ON ONE LOT ON 25.2 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 18TH STREET AND P AVENUE ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE-7. APPLICANT: PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. ITHIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. JOHN, PL PLANNER WITH THE PLANNG DEPARTMENT. THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 3. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY TO APPROVE ITEM 3 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 4. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, PRELIMINARY REPLAT: LEGACY TOWN CENTER NO. 2, BLOCK A, LOTS 3R & 4R - HOTEL ON LOT 3R AND PROFESSIONAL/GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON LOT 4R ON 3.6 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND HEADQUARTERS DRIVE. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-65-CENTRAL BUSINESS-1 AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: PLANO CABOSPARKLES HQ3, LLC AND SUPREME BRIGHT PLANO II, LLC. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> IN THE DESCRIPTION, THERE WAS . IT SHOULD READ, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER. STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS PLAN FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS OR ALTERATIONS AS REQUIRED WITH THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE PROVE ITEM 4 SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE ITEM 4 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 5. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 IS A PRELIMINARY REPLAT. PLANO MEDICAL PLAZA, BLOCK 1, LOT 1R - HOSPITAL AND MEDICAL OFFICE ON ONE T ON1.0 RES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF COIT ROAD AND 15TH STREET. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-129-GENERAL OFFICE. APPLICANT: COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER OF PLANO SUBSIDIARY, LP THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THE ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> Olley: MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM 5 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6 IS A PRELIMINARY REPLAT. SOUTHWEST 121 & OHIO ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 6R - RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH ON ONE LOT ON 0.5 ACRE LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF OHIO DRIVE, 270 FEET NORTH OF MCDERMOTT ROAD. ZONED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL. APPLICANT: PIZZA HUT OF AMERIC INC. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS PLAN FOR AROL SUBJECT TO ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLAN. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? THANK YOU. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPA SPEAKERS? >> NO. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I MOVE REAPPROVE THIS SUBJECT TO ALTERATIONS BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM 6 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU. >> NONPUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7 IS DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION REGARDING ARTICLE 21 (RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION WORK PROGRAM. APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> I'M JORDAN, SENIOR PLANNER WITH DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. SO, THE COMMISSION REQUESTED A DISCUSSION ITEM TO BE BROUGHT FORWARD FOCUSED ON THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AND THEIR PLACE WITHIN THE WORK PROGRAM AT THE SEPTEMBER 5TH MEETING. THE WORK PROGRAM SERVES AS A GUIDE FOR FUTURE PROJECTS AND IS MODIFIED BASED ON THE DIRECTION RECEIVED FROM THE COMMISSION. PRIORITIES MAY ALSO CHANGE BASED ON DIRECTION FROM CITY COUNCIL OR AS REQUIRED BY MARKET DEMANDS. THERE ARE SEVERAL ZONING ORDINANCE PROJECTS ON THE WORK PLAN WHICH ARE IN PROGRESS, INCLUDING A COMPLETE REWRITE OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES. REVIEW OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS HAS BEEN ON THE WORK PROGRAM SCE 24ND WORK WAS STARTED IN 2019, BUT IT WAS PAUSED DUE TO THE PANDEMIC AND PRIORITIZATION OF OTHER PROJECTS ON THE WORK PROGRAM. REVIEW WAS FOLDED INTO THE SCOPE OF THE LARGER REWRITE CONSISTENT WITH LAND USE ACTION FIVE IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TO UNDERTAKE A HOLISTIC REVIEW OF ADJACENCY STANDARDS FOUND THROUGHOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS WERE ADDED TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN 1999. THE PURPOSE WAS AND CONTINUES TO BE TO PRESERVE AND PRESENT THE INTEITY ENJOYMENT AND PROPERTY VALUES OF RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS. THE STANDARDS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY THE SAME TODAY AS THEY WERE WHEN WRITTEN IN 1999, WITH ONLY A HANDFUL OF MINOR AMENDMENTS, WHICH ARE IN THE PACKET YOU RECEIVED. THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE CODIFIED IN ARTICLE 21 AND SECTION 14.200 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND CAN GENERALLY BE THOUGHT OF IN THREE BASIC PARTS -- THE LAND USE TABLES, REVIEW PROCESS, AND THE APPLIED STANDARDS. THE LAND USE TABLES ARE PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY. THERE ARE 27 LAND USES IN THE ORDINANCE THAT ARE MARKED WITH AN R IN THE NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TABLE. THIS R MEANS IS THAT THE USE IS PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE PROCEDURES AND STANDARDS FOUND IN ARTICLE 21. THE EXAMPLE ON-SCREEN, THE FOOD TRUCK PARK LAND USE REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND RAS REVIEW IN THE MARKED DISTRICTS. ARTICLE 21 INCLUDES THE CRITERIA FOR TRIGGERING THIS RAS REVIEW. FIRST THE LAND USE MUST BE MARKED WITH AN R. IT MUST BE ON A PROPERTY WITHIN 150 FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL OR 1,000 FEET OF A PUBLIC ADDRESS ESTIMATE IS INCLUDED IN THE PROPOSAL. THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS SUCH AS IF THE PROPERTY IS SEPARATED BY A TYPE D OR LARGER THOROUGHFARE, OR IF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED WITH NONRESIDENTIAL USES WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. IF THE PROPOSAL MEETS THESE CRITERIA, THEN THE RES RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE APPLIED DURING STAFF REVIEW OF THE SITE PLAN. >> Chair Downs: I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU, BUT CAN YOU GO BACK ONE? >> YES. >> Chair Downs: YOU SAID CERTAIN USES ON PROPERTIES WITHIN 150 FEET OR 1,000 FEET AND THEN I COULDN'T UNDERSTAND -- >> SORRY. IF THERE WAS A PUBLIC ADDRESS. SO A PA SYSTEM. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. KEEP GOING. >> SO AS HAS BEEN MENTIONED, THE RAS ARE FOCUSED ON NOISE, SO IT WOULD BE OUTDOOR SPEAKERS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I DIDN'T CATCH THAT. >> NO WORRIES. >> Chair >> I'M MOVING QUICK. >> Chair Downs: I UNDERSTAND. >> THE LAST PCEF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE THE ACTUAL APPLIED STANDARDS. THESE STANDARDS APPLY TO SPECIFIC LAND USES AND STRUCTURES THAT MAY POSE A NUISANCE TO NEIGHBORING RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. NOT EVERY LAND USE MARKED WITH AN R ON THE TABLE HAS AN EXPLICIT ACCOMPANYING STANDARD. AS AN ASIDE, THERE ARE MANY OTHER LAND USES IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WHICH HAVE SIMILAR ADJACENCY STANDARDS WHICH ARE NOT FOUND IN ARTICLE 21, PREDOMINANTLY IN 15. THE KEY DIFFERENCE IS IN THE NAME. USE SPECIFIC STANDARDS APPLY ONLY TO THE NAMED LAND USE, WHEREAS THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS APPLY TO ANY USE MARKED WITH AN "R." THERE'S SEVERAL KNOWN ISSUES WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS THAT SHOULD BE ADDRESSED THROUGH THE FUTURE REVIEW. FOREMOST IS THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDADS ONLY APPLY TO LAND USES MARKED WITH AN R IN THOSE LAND USE TABLES AND THE MEASUREMENT IS BASED ON DISTANCE FROM A RESIDENAL DISTRICT. THIS IS DIFFICULT TO ADMINISTER AS THE COMPLEXITY OF THE ORDINANCE HAS CHANGED SINCE 1999 AND DEVELOPMENT NO LONGER REFLECTSES BINARY RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT STRUCTURE. INTERPRETATION OF THE STANDARDS CAN BE DIFFICULT WHEN A USE IS MARKED WITH AN R BUT DOES NOT HAVE A CLEARLY APPLIED STANDARD. AND FINALLY, UNDEFINED OR IMPRECISE LANGUAGE BECOMES A POINT OF ARGUMENT IN HOW THESE SHOULD BE APPLIED. TO SUMMARIZE, THE RESIDTIAL JACENCY STANDARDS ARE INTENDED TO PROTECT NEIGHBORHOODS FROM CERTAIN OFFENSIVE OR NUISANCE LAND USES. THERE ARE KNOWN ISSUES WITH THE INTERPRETATION AND APPLICATION OF THESE STANDARDS, BUT THESE ISSUES ARE NEITHER CRITICAL NOR EASILY ISOLATED FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE. REVIEW AND UPDATES TO THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE PLANNED AS PART OF THE LARGER REWRITE. STAFF SEE VALUE IN THIS HOLISTIC APPROACH WITHIN THE REWRITE PROJECT AND DO NOT SEE A NEED TO SEPARATE THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS BACK OUT AS A STANDALONE PROJECT. STAFF IS SEEKING THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION ON THESE TWO QUESTIONS, WHICH ARE ALSO FOUND IN YOUR PACKET AND RECOMMEND THAT THE COMMISSION PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AND THEIR PRIORITY WITHIN THE COMMISSION. THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE ARE SEVERAL COMMENTS. I'M GOING TO ASK ONE FIRST. I LOOKED ON HERE. MAYBE I'M MISSING IT. LET'S SEE. I WAS LOOKING FOR OUR WORK PROGRAM IN TERMS OF THAT PRIORITIZATION LIST. FOR EXAMPLE, DO WE HAVE SOMETHING THAT LISTS WHAT ARE WE WORKING ON RIGHT NOW, WHAT ARE WE TARGETED TO WORK ON NEXT MONTH AND THE MONTH AFTER THAT? AND IF IT'S IN HERE, I MISSED IT. IT'S RIGHT THERE? MAYBE THAT'S WHERE I NEEDED TO BE. THIS IS JUST ME FROM A STANDPOINT OF UNDERSTANDING A LITT BIT. I'M LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW EXHIBIT A, COMMUNITY DESIGN PLAN IN PROGRESS PRIORITY IS HIGH. AND THEN SHORT-TERM RENTALS IS HIGH, SILVER LINE, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. THOSE ARE MEDIUM. BUT THEY'RE CURRENTLY IN PROGRESS RIGHT? OKAY. >> SHORT-TERM RENTAL, SILVER LINE, ALL MARKED AS HIGH PRIORITY. >> Chair Downs: AND ALSO PART OF THE IN-PROGRESS SECTION, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. AS ARE NUMBER 5 AND 6 ON THE LIST, THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISI ORDINANCE REWRITE AND PRIORITY POLICY DOCUMENTS. >> Chair Downs: PENDING, ON HOLD, WE'VE GOT UPDATE OF COMMISSION ORDINANCE AND THEN FUTURE ITEMS WE'VE GOT HIGH AND THEN MEDIUM AND LOW AND THEN WE HAVE ACTIVE CASES THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING ON. I GUESS THE THING THAT I'M LOOKING AT ON HERE IS THAT IT TELLS US IT'S A HIGH-PRIORITY ITEM. CAN I SEE SOMEWHERE, ANYWHERE ON HERE THAT SAYS HERE'S OUR TARGET FOR ADDRESSING THIS? HERE'S OUR TARGET DATE FOR BRINGING THIS TO TH COMMISSION, OR OUR TARGET DATE FOR ASKING FOR INPUT? OR IS THAT NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO SEE ON HERE, IT'S JUST SOMETHING YOU GUYS HAVE INTERNAL SOMEWHERE? >> THAT'S SOMETHING THAT STAFF MANAGES -- >> Chair Downs: AS THE SITUATION CHANGES. >> EXACTLY. THIS IS THE COMMISSION'S PRIORITIES. WE BRING THEM FORWARD AS SOON AS WE CAN, BALANCED WITH OTHER PRIORITIES. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> AND OTHER ACTIONS OUTSIDE -- THIS IS THE COMMISSION'S WORK, THERE ARE OTHER PRIORITIES FOR THE DEPARTMENT BEYOND THESE THAT ARE ALSO BEING WORKED ON. Cha Downs: UNDERSTOOD. THESE WERE DEVELOPED FROM THE SUBCOMMITTEES THAT WE PULLED OUT AND IDENTIFIED IN THOSE WHICH ONES WERE HIGH-PRIORITY, WHICH ONES WERE MEDIUM, CORRECT? >> THIS WORK PLAN HAS BEEN -- I DON'T KNOW WHEN IT WAS CREATED, BUT IT'S BEEN IN EFFECT FOR A WHILE. THE SUBCOMMITTEE WORK WAS SPECIFIC TO THOSE OBSOLETE PLANS TO REMOVE THOSE, WHICH LISTED IN HERE AS A LINE ITEM. BUT THE WORK PLAN AS A WHOLE, STAFF BRINGS BACK PERIODICALLY FOR THE COMMISSION TO COMMENT, DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE PRIORITIES AND THINGS TO ADD OR REMOVE. >> Chair Downs: BUT SOME OF THESE ITEMS CAME ABOUT, OR SOME OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE ON OUR SUBCOMMITTEE LISTS KIND OF GOT ROLLED INTO SOME OF THESE ITEMS, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: BECAUSE WE WERE SUNSETTING SOMETHING BUT WE FELT LIKE THERE WERE TWO OR THREE PIECES OF IT THAT STILL NEEDED TO BE ADDED TO THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR UPDATED. >> CORRECT. AN EXAMPLE WOULD BE THE PRIVATE STREET SUBDIVISION GUIDANCE WERE REVIEWED. IT WAS TACKED ONTO THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE. AND THAT WORK ITEM -- >> Chair Downs: WE'VE DONE OUR JOB THERE. >> WK PROGR ITEM. IT WAS LISTED THERE. IT'S BEEN COMPLETED. IT'S TUCKED IN UNDER THE COMPLETED ITEMS. >> Chair Downs: ULTIMATELY THE STAFF HAS LOOKED AT RESIDENTIL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AND SAID YES, IT'S PART OF WHAT WE'RE REWORKING AS PART OF GETTING ALL OF OUR ORDINANCE ALIGNED WITH THE OVERALL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. BUT THERE'S NOTHING CURRENTLY DRIVING A NEED TO PULL THAT OUT AS A SEPARATE HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECT IN STAFF'S OPINION? >> SEBASTIAN CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I BELIEVE IT USED TO BE A SEPARATE ITEM. IT'S BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE. SEVERAL LINE ITEMS HAVE BEEN CONSOLIDATED INTO THAT ONE LINE ITEM. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. YOU'RE NODDING. YOU WERE LEANING FORWARD. I WAS WAITING ON YOU TO SPEAK. >> THAT'S CORRECT. MANY OF THEM USED TO BE THEIR OWN LINE ITEMS, BUT AS WE GOT CLOSER TO GETTING THE REWRITE GOING, WE REALIZED WE JUST WOULD APPROACH THEM MORE HOLISTICALLY AND ADDRESS THEM ALL TOGETHER AS PART OF THE REWRITE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. SO WE HAVE THE QUESTIONS IN FRONT OF US. FIRST OFF,'M GOING TO GO TO MR. RATLIFF AND WE'LL JUST WORK OUR WAY THROUGH. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. JUST IN LOOKING AT -- READING THE MEMO, IT OCCURRED TO ME THAT YOU'RE GOING TO BE LOOKING AT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AS PART OF THE ORDINANCE REWRITE, OBVIOUSLY, RIGHT? >> CORRECT. >> Ratliff: IS IT FAIR TO ASSUME THAT -- OR IF WE ACCELERATED JUST RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, YOU WOULD EFFECTIVELY BE DOING THAT WORK TWICE, BECAUSE WE'D HAVE TO COORDINATET WITH TODAY'S ORDINANCE, FOLLOWED BY COORDINATING IT AGAIN WITH THE NEW ONE? >> THAT WOULD BE A REASONABLE ASSUMPTION. THAT WE WOULD NEED TO FIRST FIT IT INTO OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE TODAY AND THEN ONCE WE START ON THE REWRITE WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT NOT ONLY EVERYTHING THAT IS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE AT THAT TIME, BUT THEN HOW THAT INTERACTS WITH WHERE WE'RE GOING WITH THE NEW ONE. AS MENTIONED, THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS IN ARTICLE 21 AREN'T THE ONLY ADJACENCY STAFF FEEL ITS BEST LOOKING AT ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS HOLISTICALLY, SEEING HOW THEY WORK WITH EACH OTHER. AND THAT'S STARTING TO GET A VERY LARGE SCOPE AS OPPOSED TO JUST ZEROING IN ON ARTICLE 21. >> Ratliff: THE QUESTION IN MY MIND IS NOT DO WE ASK YOU TO BREAK OUT THIS PART OF THE PROJECT AND DO IT FASTER. IT'S A QUESTION OF DO WE ASK YOU TO DO IT TWICE. AM I OVERSIMPLIFYING IT? >> I THINK UNTIL WE ENGAGE WITH THE FUTURE CONSULTANT AND WORK THROUGH HOW DRASTIC OF A CHANGE OUR REWRITE IS GOING TO BE, WE WON'T KNOW THE SCOPE OF HOW MUCH IS GOING TO CHANGE IN THE REWRITE. IT'S DIFFICULT TO ANSWER IF WE'LL BE DOING THE EXACT SAME WORK TWICE, BUT IT IS A POTENTIAL DANGER THAT WE WOULD BE DUPLICATING WORK. >> Ratliff: THAT'S THE WAY I WAS READING IT. THANK YOU FOR CONFIRMING THAT FOR ME. THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO I'VE GOT A TECHNICAL QUESTN. PAGES FOUR AND FIVE OF THE DOCUMENT WHERE IT TALKS ABOUT OTHER RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS AND GIVES YOU THAT LITTLE BOX THAT GOES ON TWO PAGES. AND THIS MAY BE ME NITPICKING, BUT I'M CURIOUS. SO FOR HELIPORTS, WE USE THE WORD SCHOOL. THEN PRIVATE CLUBS, THERE'S A 300-FOOT SETBACK FOR PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, BUT NOT PRIVATE SCHOOLS? >> SO THIS IS ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'RE GOING DOWN THIS REWRITE PATH. THE ORDINANCE DATES BACK TO THE '80s AND HAS BEEN PATCHED UP MANY TIMES. THE LANGUAGE IS NOT ALWAYS CONSISTENT. >> Bronsky: IT SEEMED CONFUSING TO HAVE THE 300-FOOT SETBACK FOR PUBLIC AND PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS AND 1,000 FOR PRIVATE SCHOOLS. THAT STRUCK ME AS ODD. I MEAN -- GOING DOWN TO THE TATTOO PARLOR I THOUGHT WE CLEANED THAT UO ITID INCLUDE. BUT NONETHELESS, THAT'S MY ONLY THING. I'D LIKE US TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL-ENCOMPASSING WHEN IT COMES TO EACH OF THESE SCHOOLS AND TREATING EVERYBODY EQUALLY AND FAIRLY AND THE VERBIAGE FOR THE HELIPORT MAKES MORE SENSE THAN WHAT'S IN THE OTHER PLACES. MY ONLY COMMENT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: WHOOPS, SORRY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: YOUR MIC IS OFF. THERE YOU GO. >> Brounoff: OKAY. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: THE CLOCK SAYS IT'S 9:25. I KNOW IT'S ONLY 8:25. >> Brounoff: CONDITIONED TO THINKING THE RED LIGHT MEANS NO. [ LAUGHING ] >> Brounoff: IN THE YEAR THAT I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION, I'VE HAD TO DEAL WITH ONLY ONE CASE INVOLVING A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARD. TWO, BECAUSE TONIGHT THERE WAS ONE. BEFORE TONIGHT, THERE WAS ONLY ONE THAT I REMEMBER. AND THAT WAS THE TATTOO PARLOR IN RUSSO VILLAGE. IN THAT CASE, THE COMMISSION HAD THE AUTHORITY TO SHOEN THE REREQUIRED SEPARATION DISTANCE F WE THOUGHT A SHORTER DISTANCE WOULD BE ADEQUATE TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES. IT STRIKES ME THAT AS LONG AS WE HAVE THAT AUTHORITY TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION IF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WARRANT IT, THAT THERE WOULD BE NOTHING IN THE WAY OF URGENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO WANT TO ADDRESS A REWRITE OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS IMMEDIATELY AS A SEPARATE ITEM, BECAUSE WE CAN ALWAYS CONTROL THE IMPACT OF WHAT WE DO ON THE ADJACENT RESIDENCES BY UTILIZING THE AUTHORITY WE HAVE TO VARY THE DISTANCE IF WE HAVE TO, OKAY? NOW, DO YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT? ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY SORT OF URGENT CIRCUMSTANCES THAT WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING RIGHT NOW WITH THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY, OR IS THE STAFF OF THE OPINION THAT THE MOST EFFICIENT WAY TO HANDLE IT IS AS PART OF THE LARGER REWRITE? >> COMMISSIONER, THERE'S TWO PIECES OF AN ANSWER. THE FIRST REGARDING TATTOO UDIO OSE AREN'T PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. THAT'S THE USE-SPECIFIC STANDARDS. >> Brounoff: OKAY. >> THEY DON'T FALL UNDER THE RAS. UNDER THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, THERE'S A COUPLE USES THAT ARE CALLED OUT. IT SHALL NOT BE LOCATED WITHIN X FEET OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. . IT'S AN ABSOLUTE. THERE'S OTHERS WHERE IT'S THIS IS PERMITTED WITH SUFFICIENT SCREENING AS DETERMINED BY THE COMMISSION. SO THOSE ONES YOU DO STILL CONTINUEO HAVE SOME DISCRETION ON. IN TERMS OF THE SECOND HALF OF THE QUESTION OF DO STAFF FEEL THAT IT'S AN URGENT ISSUE, I WOULD SAY NO, THIS IS NOT ONE OF OUR DAILY PAIN POINTS. WE DON'T HAVE TO ARGUE THESE EVERY DAY. IT'S NOT CAUSING HOLDUPS IN ANY OF OUR APPLICATION REVIEWS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE PULLED OUT FROM THE REWRITE. >> Brounoff: DO YOU THINK THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES ARE SUFFICIENTLY PROTECTED IN THE INTERIM UNDER THE CURRENT STATE OF THE OINANCES WHILE YOU WORK ON THE LARGER REWRITE? >> IN THE INTERIM, THE RAS PROTECT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS WHERE IT BECOMES DIFFICULT IS THE INTERPRETATION OF HOW THAT APPLIES TO OUR MIXED-USE DISTRICTS. SO CB1 AND WHETHER OR NOT THOSE RESIDENCES ARE EQUALLY PROTECTED. >> Brounoff: I'M NOT SURE YOU ANSWERED THAT QUESTION. ARE YOU C CONTENT TO GO WITH THE PRESENT STRUCTURE WHILE YOU WORK ON THE LARGER REWRITE, RATHER THAN HAVE TO PULL OUT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS FOR AN IMMEDIATE REVISION? >> I THINK, AS THEY ARE NOW, AS MR. ROCKERBY SAID, IT'S NOT A MAJOR PAIN POINT FOR US. AND THE WAY THAT THEY'VE BEEN INTERPRETED SINCE '99, THE INTENT IS TO PROTECT RESIDENCES. AND WE FEEL THAT THAT IS HAPPENING WITH THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THESE. >> Brounoff: BASED ON THAT, I THINK THAT IT SHOULD BE HANDLED AS PART OF THE LARGER REWRITE PROGRAM AND NOT HANDLED SEPARATELY. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: JUST HAVE A QUESTION. 2014-2019 WAS THIS HIGH PRIORITY, LOW PRIORITY, MEDIUM PRIORITY? IT JUST STRIKES ME AS ODD THAT THIS IS ON THE WORK PROGRAM FOR FIVE YEARS AND -- WHAT MOVEMENT HAPPENED IN THAT TIME? >> I THINK -- LAWSUITS, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEES, COVID. SHORT-TERM RENTALS. [ LAUGHING ] [ MULTIPLE VOICES ] >> YEAH. STAFF IS VERY MUCH LOOKING FORWARD TO THE REWRITE HAPPENING. I THINK IT'S ON THE VERY NEAR HORIZON PERHAPS AS SOON AS NEXT QUARTER THAT WE INITIATE THIS PROCESS. WE'RE VERY EXCITED TO GET STARTED. >> Olley: OKAY. JUST CURIOUS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER LISLE. >> Lisle: MAYBE I'M REMEMBERING THIS INCORRECTLY, BUT I BELIEVE IT WAS MY COMMENTS AT THE SEPTEMBER 5TH MEETING THAT SPARKED THIS. AND I JUST WANT TO LET THE COMMISSION KNOW, MY COMMENTS WERE RELATED VERY SPECIFICALLY TO THE SITE PLAN AT THE HOME DEPOT. IT GOT RECORDED AS BRINGING THIS BACK AS PART OF THE WORK PROGRAM, WHICH WAS NOT MY INTENT. MY INTENT WAS TO LOOK AT HOW THIS WAS APPLIED AT A VERY SPECIFIC LOCATION. AND SO I, TOO, THINK THAT THE QUESTION TO ANSWER, NUMBER 1, IS WE DON'T NEED TO SEPARATE IT OUT. THAT WAS ERIC'S RECOMMENDATION TO US. NOT WHAT I WAS ACTUALLY REQUESTING. NOW, WE HAVE BEEN EDUCATED ON HOW MY CONCERNS CAN OR CANNOT GO FORWARD AND THAT'S A DIFFERENT ISSUE. BUT I DON'T HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. I HAD CONCERNS ABOUT HOW THEY WERE APPLIED IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION. AND THAT'S NOW A SEPARATE ISSUE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I THINK THAT MY QUESTION IS SPECIFICALLY RELATED TO WHAT MRE THIS SHOULD HELP ME UNDERSTAND HOW THIS WORK, BECAUSE I REALIE THAT THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ARE BEING APPLIED TO CERTAIN TES OF PROPERTIES, AND CERTAIN TYPES OF ZONING CATEGORIES. AND THOSE ARE ALREADY IDENTIFIED BY THE LETTER "R," BUT HOW ARE THESE IDENTIFIED -- HOW WERE THEY IDENTIFIED, AND WHEN WERE THEY IDENTIFIED? ARE WE SUPPOSED TO REVIEW THOSE BEFORE WE REVIEW THE STANDARDS THEMSELVES? >> SO, EVERYTHING THAT'S CURRENTLY MARKED WITH AN R WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FOOD TRUCK COURTS, ALL OF THOSE WERE MARKED WITH AN R BACK IN 1999. THEY CONTINUE TO BE MARKED WITH AN R TODAY. THE ONLY TWO CHANGES WERE DRIVE-IN RESTAURANTS WERE ADDED IN 2001 AND THEN THE FOOD TRUCKS WERE ADDED WHENEVER THAT WAS, IN 2013. BUT OTHER THAN THAT, ALL OF THE OTHER 25 LAND USES WERE MARKED WITH AN R IN 1999. >> Tong: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR IDENTIFYING THE TIME. DO WE EVEN KNOW HOW WERE THEY IDENTIFIED? ARE WE JUST IDENTIFYING THEM ONE AT A TIME WHEN THEY HAPPEN, OR HOW WERE THEY IDENTIFIED? HOW WOULD I KNOW THAT THIS IS A SPECIFIC USE THAT I HAVE TO APPLY RAS ON IT? >> Chair Downs: SO I THINK YOU'RE ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTION, IT'S JUST IT WOULD BE A QUESTION THAT WOULD BE ASKED WHEN WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS. AND TONIGHT WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DETERMINE DO WE WANT THAT TO BE A HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECT OR NOT. BUT AS PART OF THAT REWRITE WE'LL HAVE THIS OPPORTUNITYO E, GET A LITTLE HISTORY ON HOW WERE THEY DEVELOPED, HOW WERE THEY APPLIED. AND NOW HOW DO WE INCORPORATE THESE USE-SPECIFIC SETBACKS -- STANDARDS WITH A GENERAL OVERALL RESIDENTIAL ADJACENT STANDARD IN THE ORDINANCE. SO I THINK THE QUESTION TONIGHT IS, IS IT A HIGH-PRIORITY PROJECT OR JUST PART OF OUR STANDARD WORK PROGRAM. THAT'S ALL WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO DETERMINE TONIGHT. >> Tong: I -- THAT'S WHY I ASKED THE QUESTIO I THINK IT'S AE REWRITE. IT CAN NOT BE SEPARATED FROM THE OTHER PARTS OF THE STANDARDS OR THE ORDINANCE. > Chair Downs: OKAY. COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: I LOOKED THROUGH THE DOCUMENTS. THERE'S CLEARLY SOME NEED FOR SOME WORK. THERE'S DIFFERENT MEASURES THAT NEED CONSISTENCY AND DEVELOPERS INTERPRETING THEM DIFFERENTLY. WITH THAT SAID, I THINK THIS PROJECT HAS ALREADY BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ZONING REWRITE, CORRECT? I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE SAID? >> THAT'S CORCT. >> Cha Downs: YES. >> Cary: THERE IS MOTION THAT WAY. AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THAT IS CONTINGENT ON US HIRING A SUBCONTRACTOR TO WORK THIS THROUGH WITH US? >> YEAH. OUR -- CURRENTLY, WE ARE STILL IN THE SELECTION PROCESS FOR OUR CONSULTANT. AS MR. BELL MENTIONED, WE COULD BE LOOKING AT A KICKOFF SOMETIME IN FIRST QUARTER OF NEXT YEAR. WE'RE CURRENTLY STILL SELECTING. >> Cary: SO SINCE THE TASK HERE IS TO GIVE YOU GUYS DIRECTION, I'LL GIVE YOU MINE. I THINKHAT, YOU KNOW, AS MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE SAID, THIS DOESN'T SEEM TO BE SUPER URGENT. THE IMPORTANT THING IS, AS COMMISSIONER TONG SAID, IS TO GET THIS RIGHT. SO IT PROBABLY ALL SHOULD BE DOVETAILED IN THERE. THE ONE THING THAT CAUSED ME JUST A LITTLE BIT OF PAUSE IS THE COMMENT IN THE DOCUMENTS THAT SAID IF IN FACT WE WANTED TO LOOK AT THIS MORE URGENTLY IT WOULD CAUSE US POTENTIALLY TO DELAY AND OTHER PROJECTS MAY SUFFER I THINK WERE THE WORDS THAT WERE USED. AND SO I JUST WONDER, GOSH. DOE NEED TO -- MAYBE THIS IS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF THIS COMMISSION AND MORE FOR CITY COUNCIL. DOES THIS TEAM NEED SOME HELP OUT THERE? [ LAUGHING ] >> Cary: THAT'S REALLY THE ISSUE I WANT TO TALK ABOUT. DO WE NEED TO FIND A WAY TO GIVE THE TEAM MORE HELP? IF WE DO THIS, OTHER THINGS WILL SUFFER. FOR A CITY THAT'S GOT AS MANY THINGS GOING ON AS WE DO I FEEL LIKE MAYBE YOU GUYS ARE UNDER THE GUN. AND I THINK RECENTLY I HEARD A COMMENT THAT MAYBE THE TEAM IS SHORT-STAFFED? SO I GUESS MY PLEA IS YES, I THINK YOU GUYS, DO THIS THE WAY YOU'RE DOING IT. BUT HOWO WE TAKE A LOOK AT HOW WE CAN MAYBE GET THIS TEAM SOME MORE HELP? SO, WITH THAT. >> Chair Downs: JUST FOR STAFF'S NOTICE, MR. CARY LOVES CHEWIE'S. GIFT CARDS ARE ACCEPTABLE. >> Cary: I'VE ALREADY GOT THEM. >> Chair Downs: UNDERSTOOD. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I THINK THE RESPONSE TO ALL OF THIS IS DO NOT SEPARATE IT. EVEN AS MR. LISLE SAID, THAT WASN'T HIS INTENT ORIGINALLY, BUT THAT'S WHERE IT WOUND UP. THANK YOU FOR BRINGING IT TONIGHT. WE'LL ROLL IT INTO THE REWRITE OF THE ENTIRE ORDINANCE. AND THEN AS FAR AS UPDATES TO THE WORK PROGRAM, UNLESS YOU CAN HIRE A BUNCH MORE PEOPLE REAL QUICKLY, WE'LL JUST CONTINUE ON THE PATH WE'RE ON. SO, THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I DON'T THINK THERE'S -- ANY OF YOU GUYS WANT TO ADDRESS US ON THIS ISSUE? IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT SHE'LL YELL AT ME IF I DON'T AT LEAST OFFER IT. >> I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE ONE COMMENT. I THINK THE COMMISSION'S GOALS AND STAFF GOALS ARE PERFECTLY ALIGNED. IT'S OUR GOALS TO PROVIDE PROTECTIONS FOR RESIDENTS. WE DO THAT EVERY DAY EVEN IF THERE ARE NOT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS APPLIED. YOU CAN HEAR THE CONVERSATIONS WE HAVE ABOUT MOVING DUMPSTERS AWAY AND THINGS THAT AREN'T REQUIRED. IT HAPPENS ON A DAILY BASIS. TO SOME DEGREE WE'RE ASKED TO EXPLAIN AN ORDINANCE THAT WE DIDN'T WRITE. AND WE WELCOME THE OPPORTUNITY TO GET THE CHANCE TO WORK THROUGH THOSE WITH YOU IN THE REWRITE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. OKAY. MICROPHONE. >> TONIGHT IN OUR CONVERSATION ABOUT RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS ON ITEM AND 2, YOU MADE A DISTINCTION BETWEEN A BUSINESS ASSOCIATION AND A LAND USE ASSOCIATION. AND SO IF WE WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT MORE, OR IF I DO, WHAT IS THE BEST -- I DON'T WANT TO MAKE IT A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM. DO I COME TO YOU PRIVATELY AND ASK? IF I WANT THE WHOLE COMMISSION TO KNOW, IS THAT YOUR JOB TO TAKE TO THEM? WHAT'S THE BEST WAY TO . . .? >> THERE'S A NUMBER OF WAYS WE COULD DO IT. A MEMO AS A STARTING PLACE TO EXPLAIN IT, IF THAT'S HELPFUL. EXPLAINING THOSE. I THINK THERE'S SOME TERMS THROROUND THAT HAVE VERY SPECIFIC MEANING FROM THE ZONING. USE IS ONE. USE HAS A DISTINCT MEANING. ACTIVITY IS NOT DEFINED. WE KNOW WHAT USE MEANS. THERE ARE EXAMPLES OF THAT WHERE MAYBE HELPING EXPLAIN THE WAY STAFF LOOKS AT CERTAIN WORDS WOULD HELP YOU UNDERSTAND THE WAY IT'S BEING INTERPRETED IN THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS. >> Lisle: I WOULD ASK YOU THE QUESTION. IF YOU THINK IT'S WORTHY YOU WOULD SEND A MEMO TO OTHER FOLKS? >> WE'RE HAPPY TO WRITE THE MEMO TO EVERYONE SO THEY HAVE THE SAME INFORMATION. >> Lisle: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ARE WE DONE WITH ITEM 7? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OKAY. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8 IS DISCUSSION AND ACTION: ELECTION OF 1ST AND 2ND VICE CHAIRS >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: WELL, YOU'RE -- >> YEAH. >> Chair Downs: GIVE ME ONE SECOND HERE. FIRST, I WANTED TO SAY I WAS HONODO BE SELECTED AGAIN TO CHAIR. I APPRECIATE THE PASSION THAT EVERY SINGLE ONE OF YOU BRING TO THIS DAIS. AND IN EVERY CASE WHAT I HEAR FIRST AND FOREMOST IS HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR CITIZENS, HOW DO WE PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS, RIGHT? SECOND TO THAT IS, HOW DO WE CREATE A GOOD BUSINESS ATMOSPHERE. SO I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU FOR THAT. AND I APPRECIATE THE LIAISONS POINTING I ME TO THIS POSITION AGAIN. THE ITEM IS PRETTY CLEAR. WE'RE GOING TO DO OUR ELECTIONS. I THINK LAST YEAR WE HAD DISCUSSIONS AROUND THAT, THE PROCESS EVEN, CLARIFIED THAT A LITTLE BIT. WITH THAT BEING SAID, I WILL NOW TURN TO MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: I SECOND YOUR COMMENTS. IT'S AN HONOR TO SERVE ON THE COMMISSION. I WOULD LIKE TO SAY I BELIEVE OUR FIRST AND SECOND VICE CHAIRS OVER THE PAST YEAR HAVE PERFORMEDDED WELL, AND I WOULD E TO SEE THEM CONTINUE. I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE COISSIONER CARY AND COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO CONTINUE AS FIRST AND SECOND VICE CHAIR. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO UNDER THE RULES WE DON'T HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ANYMORE. WE'RE JUST GOING TO OPEN THE FLOOR UP FOR NOMINATIONS. RIGHT NOW WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER CARY AS VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER RATLIFF AS SECOND VICE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: MIGHT BE MESSING UP THE PROCESS A LITTLE BIT. I'LL ECHO COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF'S COMMENTS ON BEING HAPPY THAT YOUOT RE-APPOINTED TO CHAIR. WOULD WANT TO MOVE TWO DIFFERENT NOMINATIONS COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO FIRST VICE CHAIR AND GOING BACK TO THE NOMINATIONS LAST YEAR, I ACTUALLY WANT TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO SECOND VICE CHAIR, AS I BELIEVE HIS GUARDIAN AND FIDELITY TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS SOMETHING THAT HAS SERVED THIS BODY WELL. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. COMMISSIONER LISLE. >> Lisle: I WOULD ECHO MR. BROUNOFF'S SENTIMENT THAT FIRST VICE CHAIR AND SECOND VICE CHAIR, THAT ARE CURRENTLY IN THEIR ROLES ARE DOING A GOOD JOB. IF IT WAS UP TO ME I WOULD LEAVE IT ALONE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO RIGHT NOW WE HAVE TWO. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS, DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO MAKE A NOMINATION? NOPE? OKAY. SO, WHY DON'T WE START MAYBE WITH THE FIRST VICE CHAIR. SO WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER CARY AND WE HAVE A NOMINATION FOR COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. DO EITHER OF YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING? >> I DON'T CARE TO SPEAK. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THIS IS NOT -- WE'LL JUST DO A HAND VOTE HERE. MY PERSONAL OPINION IS HAVING SERVED ON THE COMMISSION BEFORE, THERE'S ALWAYS BEEN THIS ROTATIOO GIVE EVERYBODY CHANCES TO SERVE. I'VE BEEN IN THAT POSITION WHERE I WAS FIRST ON THE P&Z, VICE CHAIR ONE YEAR, NEXT YEAR I WAS A NOBODY. IT WAS OKAY. THAT'S JUST THE WAY IT WORKED. ANYWAY. ALL RIGHT. SO LET'S VOTE ON THAT, I GUESS. FOR VICE CHAIR IF YOU'RE IN FAVOR OF COMMISSIONER CARY CONTINUING TO SERVE IN THAT ROLE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. ONE TWO THREE FOUR FIVE. OKAY. THAT'S THE MAJORITY OF THE BODY, SO IN THIS CASE, CONGRATULATIONS, MR. CARY, YOU WILL NOW SERVE AS THE FIRST VICE CHAIR. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: FOR SECOND VICE CHAIR WE HAVE COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. THOSE IN FAVOR OF COMISSIONER RATLIFF CONTINUING TO SERVE AS THE SECOND VICE CHAIR, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES -- YOU'RE NOT VOTING FOR YOURSELF. HE'S ABSTAINING. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6-2. CONGRATULATIONS, MR. RATLIFF, YOU ARE THE SECOND VICE CHAIR AGAIN. WELL, HE ABSTAINED. OH, YOU ABSTAINED AS WELL. SO WE HAD SIX IN FAVOR AND TWO ABSTENTIONS. THERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. LAST ITEM WOULD BE NEW BUSINESS. >> FOR THE RECORD, I WAS ABSTAINING. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THERE WE GO. NOT AN AGAINST. ALL RIGHT. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5 IS ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS. >> Chair Downs: AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 9. ANYTNG? OKAY. WERE ADJOURNED AT 8:45. ♪