>> Chair Downs: THE CEMBER 19t PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. 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 D THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY INFORMAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NE. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE AY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTRO ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PROVIDED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. LET'S WAIT. THAT'S ALL RIGHT. HANG ON. WE'VE GOT A -- >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: YES. WE'RE HAVING A LITTLE BIT OF A TECHNOLOGY ISSUE. WE'LL GET IT STRAIGHT IN A MINUTE. WHILE SHE'S WORKING ON THAT, LET'S TAKE A HAND VOTE. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. PLEASE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER TONG IS NOT PRESENT. AND FIVE -- WE'RE STILL MISSING A COUPLE OF PEOPLE ON THE LIST HERE. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, YOU'RE WELCOME TO LEAVE. [LAUGHTER] >> Chair Downs: NO. DON'T GO ANYWHERE. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. WHILE SHE'S FIXING THAT, IF YOU GUYS HEAR A STRANGE NOISE IN THE MIDDLE OF THIS, IT'S JUST MY TIE. [TIE PLAYING WE WISH YOU A MERRY CHRISTMAS] OKAY. YOU RECORDED THE CONSENT. >> I DID. THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. >> Chair Downs: NO WORRIES. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSID PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS: UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR, SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL, IF REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME, WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NE 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 ITEM NO. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2022-012 - REQUEST TO REZONE 2.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD, 224 FEET EAST OF FLINTSTONE DRIVE FROM P DEVELOPMENT TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE-9 AND RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NO. 598 FOR DAY CARE CENTER ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOP DEVELOPMENT AND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NO. 598 FOR DAY CARE CEN PETITIONER: 3411 LOS RIOS BLVD., LLC. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDE. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M PARKER McDOWELL, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THIS ITEM IS BEING BROUGHT BEFORE YOU AGAIN DUE TO A CLERICAL ERROR ON THE AGENDA ON NOVEMBER 4 DUE TO THE ACREAGE BEING INCORRECT AND THE ZONING DISTRICT IT WAS CHANGING TO BEING LISTED INCORRECT ON THE ZONING. NOTHING FROM THAT PREVIOUS SUBMITTAL HAS CHANGED. THIS IS STILL THE REQUEST TO ADD SIX NEW SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS, CHANGING FROM PD 320 TO SF-9 AND RESCIND THE SUP FOR DAY CARE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. THIS WAS THE CONCEPT PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH IT LAST TIME. AS WELL AS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR THE DAY CARE CENTER. THE HISTORY ON THIS IS THAT THE ZONING WAS ORIGINALLY CHANGED TO PD 320 BACK IN 1984 AND THE SUP WAS ADDED IN 2008. THIS REQUEST IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THIS REQUEST IS ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAND USE MIXES. STAFF ANALYZED PROPOSAL FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIRABLE CHARACTER-DEFINING ELEMENTS WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD DASHBOARD. THIS PLAN MEETS THOSE DASHBOARD REQUIREMENTS. THIS REQUEST CONFORMS WITH THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY AND REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY ACTIONS 1 AND 8. THIS SCREEN SHOWS THE SUMMARY OF HOW THE REQUEST COMPLIES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE ADJACENT DAY CARE IS GOING TOEMAIN WITH MINIMAL CHGES. HERE'S THE SIDE BY SIDE AGAIN OF WHAT WAS EXISTING AND WHAT WAS PROPOSED. AS FAR AS RESPONSES, STAFF RECEIVED NO ADDITIONAL LETTERS. THE LAST TIME THIS WAS NOTICED WE STILL HAVE THE ONE NEUTRAL RESPONSE. FOR THE CITYWIDE RESPONSES, WE DID RECEIVE ONE ADDITIONAL RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION. NOW THERE'S A TOTAL OF 53. ONE IN SUPPORT, ONE NEUTRAL WITH 55 TOTAL. AS IENTIONEDAST TIME, THERE WERE TWO DUPLICATE RESPONSES SO THERE'S A TOTAL OF 53 UNIQUE RESPONSES. THERE IS THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS ASSOCIATED WITH IT AGAIN AS WELL AS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR THE DAY CARE. JUST TO SUMMARIZE, THIS REQUEST IS STILL THE SAME TO ADD SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DETACHED LOTS ZONED SF-9 AND RESCIND THE SUP FOR THIS PARCEL AND THEIR REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE ZONING CASE AS SUBMITTED. >> Chair Downs: JUST TO CLARIFY, THE NUMBERS OF RESPONSES ARE RELATED TO THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION? THESE AREN'T BRAND NEW? THIS WAS NOTICED AGAIN -- >> CORRECT. THIS WAS NOTICED. >> Chair Downs: THESE RESPONSES PRIMARILY CAME FROM THE ORIGINALLY NOTICE AND THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THERE ABOUT SF-7 OR SF-9. >> CORRECT. AS WELL AS I DID RECEIVE SOME COMMUNICATION THAT SOME OF THOSE ONLINE RESPONSES DID CONFUSE THOSE WITH THE JUPITER CASE . AS OF LAST FRIDAY, WE HAD THE 53 RESPONSES OPPOSED. >> Chair Downs: FROM ALL NOTICES. >> CORRECT. ALL NOTICES. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: REMIND OF OF WHAT'S GOING ON. A LOT OF THE RESPONSES THAT I THINK PROBABLY WERE ABOUT THIS TALKED ABOUT TRAFFIC COMING OUT OF THERE -- SIX HOMES -- AND THE DANGER OF THAT CURVE. WHAT I DON'T REMEMBER IS, ARE WE CUTTING THROUGH THAT MEDIAN ALLOW LEFT TURNS OUT OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS THAT ALREADY DONE BECAUSE, I GUESS, IF WE DIDN'T DO THAT, THAT MIGHT REDUCE THE RISK. I'M JUST TRYING TO REMEMBER IF WE'RE GOING TO CUT THROUGH THAT MEDIAN TO ALLOW A LEFT TURN. >> CORRECT. THERE IS THAT NEW LEFT -- NEW MEDIAN CUT THAT WAS PROPOSED WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED. THIS WAS REVIEWED BY TRAFFIC. THEY DID DO AN ANALYSIS AND THEY ARE FINE WITH THAT LOCATION AS WELL AS THE DRIVEWAY SPACING MEETS OUR THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WITH REGARD TO THE CONCERNS BY SOME OF THE PEOPLE THAT WROTE IN ABOUT SAFETY FOR TRAFFIC ON THE CURVE, AS I LOOK AT THE MAP IT APPEARS THAT THE DAY CARE IS LOCATED ON THE SAME CURVE, IS THAT RIGHT? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Brounoff: ARE YOU AWARE OF ANY INFORMATION CAUGHT AN ACUTE SAFETY PROBLEM WITH TRAFFIC COMING AROUND THE CURVE INTERFERING WITH OR CAUSING ACCIDENTS WITH TRAFFIC COMING IN TO OR OUT OF THE DAY CARE CENTER? >> AS I MENTIED, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS DID REVIEW THIS AND THEY DID LOOK AT THAT DRIVEWAY SPACING JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IT MEETS OUR THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS, WHICH I BELIEVE TAKES THAT INTO CONSIDERATION SAFETY ON THE SPEED LIMIT AND THEN THE SPACING OF THE DRIVEWAYS AND THEY HAVE SIGNED OFF ON THE CONCEPT PLAN AND THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. >> Brounoff: HAVE THERE BEEN ACCIDENTS IN FRONT OF THE DAY CARE CENTER BECAUSE OF TRAFFIC COMING AROUND THE CURVE? >> I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY ACCIDENTS AROUND THE DAY CARE CENTER. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: MR. McDOWELL, McLOOKING AT SOME OF THESE COMMENTS HERE AND IT SEEMS TO BE SOME CONFUSION FROM THE RESIDENTS THAT SUBMITTED. WE'RE SEEING NO NEW APARTMENTS. WE'RE ONLY TALKING ABOUT SIX ADDITIONAL HOUSES. WHAT WAS THE ACREAGE -- AVERAGE ACREAGE PER HOUSE ON THIS FROM A DENSITY PERSPECTIVE? >> I BELIEVE THE AVERAGE ACREAGE WAS -- I BELIEVE THE SMALLEST UNIT WOULD BE 9,000 SQUARE FEET AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ANSWER THAT BUT I BELIEVE THE LARGESTAS - I THINK AROUND 1600 SQUARE FEET -- >> THOUSAND. >> 16,000. THANK YOU. >> Horne: OTHER COMMENTS TALK ABOUT THE R-7 HOUSING. CLEARLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IS SINGLE-FAMILY 9. >> CORRECT. >> Horne: THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME TYPE OF CONFUSION AS TO WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO THE LOCAL RESIDENTS AT ONE TIME WHERE THEY STILL THINK THERE'S APARTMENTS, STILL GOING TO BE MORE DENSE BUT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME ABOUT WHAT THESE SIX HOUSES ON THESE LARGE LOTS, DENSITY IS NOT GOING TO BE AN ISSUE. >> CORRECT. >> Horne: JTROM A COMMON-SENSE PERSPECTIVE. SO I GUESS FROM A PUBLIC STANDPOINT, I WANT TO ASSURE THE CITIZENS THAT WE'RE KEENLY AWARE OF DENSITY AS BEING AN ISSUE IN THE CITY OF PLANO. AND THIS DOES NOT FALL INTO THAT TYPE OF ISSUE HERE. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SIX NICE HOMES ON FAIRLY LARGE LOTS THAT WILL HELP DIVERSIFY OUR HOUSING PORTFOLIO. I DO HAVE A CONCERN ABOUT THE CURVE. GOES TO CITY COUNCIL THEYHIS COUL PUT SOME CAVEATS IN THERE THAT MAYBE WE COULD HAVE SOME CUT-INS FROM THE CURVE FOR DECELERATION LANES COMING OFF THAT SOUTHBOUND ON LOS RIOS SO WE DON'T HAVE THAT BACK UP GOING INTO THAT. MAYBE ACCELERATING CURVE ALSO WHEN YOU COME OUT OF THE SUPERVISION. SUBDIVISION. OUTSIDE OF THAT, THAT'S MY ONLY COMMENTS. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. I WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> YES, WE DO. WE HAVE THE APPLICANT REPRESENTATIVE ROBERT BALDWIN. >> GOOD AFTERNOON, LADIES AND GENTLEMEN. MY NAME IS ROB BALDWIN IN DALLAS. GOOD SEEING YOU AGAIN. I WON'T TAKE UP MUCH TIME. PARKER DID A GREAT JOB AND YOU HAVE SEEN THIS ALL BEFORE. AS WAS BROUGHT UP, WE ARE DOING A LEFT-HAND TURN LANE LEADING INTO THERE SO THERE WILL BE SOME PROTECTION COMING IN THERE. I THINK THE CONFUSION WITH THE R-7, WHEN WE FIRST BROUGHT THIS TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD WE WERE PROPOSING TO DO R-7 UNTIL WE WERE TOLD IT WAS NOT A GOOD IDEA TO PROCEED THAT WAY. WE MOVED IT UP TO SF-9 AND THE AVERAGE LOT IS JUST OVER 3,000 S. WE'RE EVEN GOING ABOVE THE 9,000 SQUARE FEET. SIX LOTS, WE'RE TAKING THE PART OF THE PROPERTY THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE EXPANSION OF THE DAY CARE, WE'RE REMOVING THE SUP FROM THAT PORTION OF IT AND JUST DOING STRAIGHT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. I HAVE A PRESENTATION BUT I DON'T THINK YOU NEED IT SO I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANYOU VERYUCH F YOUR >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU, MR. BALDWIN. ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR MR. BALDWIN? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. QUESTIONS COMMENTS? MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THIS AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE ITEM 1 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARES 7-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. BALDWIN FOR BEING HERE. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLATS: CENTRAL CENTER, BLOCK A, LOT 1R AND CENTRAL CENTER RESIDENTIAL, BLOCK A, LOT 1 - RELIGOUS FACILITY AND DAY CARE CENTER ON LOT 1R AND INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY ON LOT 1 ON 7.7 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PREMIER DRIVE AND ENTERPRISE DRIVE. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMITS NO. 31 FOR DAY CARE CENTER AND NO. 133 FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITY. APPLICANT: UNITED PENTECOSTAL CHURCH OF PLANO TEXAS AND GALA AT PREMIER, LP. ADMINISTRATIVE . >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DONNA SEPULVEDA. THESE TWO REPLATS ARE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I' OPENHE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: NO SPEAKERS. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. STAFF AND COMMISSION? >> I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS AS SUBMITTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF TO APPROVE ITEM 2 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. ITEM 3. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. PUBLIC HEARING - PRELIMINARY REPLAT AND REVISED SITE PLAN: BRAUM'S ADDITION NO. 2, BLOCK A, LOT 1R - BANK ON ONE LOT ON 1.5 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 15TH STREET AND E AVENUE. ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCI APPLICANT: FROST BANK. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE? YES SIR. >> IS THIS AN APPLICATION FOR A DRIVE-THROUGH RESTAURANT OWNED BY A BANK OR IS IT FOR A BANK? >> I BELIEVE IT'S FOR A BANK. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. GOOD? THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. . RAIFF. >> Ratliff: I HAVE TO SAY I'M GLAD TO SEE FROST BANK COMING TO DOWNTOWN PLANO AND I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS AS SUBMITTED SUBJECT TO CONDITIONS AND COMMENTS OF THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE TO APPROVE ITEM 2 SUBJECT TO ENGINEERING REQUIREMENTS. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. ITEM 4. >> 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 UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. DISCUSSION AND ACTION - PLANS: UCD PLANO COIT ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOTS 9-11 SUPERSTORE ON LOT 9, RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE-THROUGH ON LOT 10, AND RETAIL ON LOT 11 ON 15.2 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF COIT ROAD AND RIDGEVIEW DRIVE. ZONED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: COIT MARKETPLACE, LP ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO INCREASING THE PERMITTED PERCENTAGE OF AN ALTERNATIVE BRICK MATERIAL AND CONCRETE UNIT MASONRY AS THE PRIMARY BUILDING MATERIALS ON THREE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL. THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ZONG DISTRICT REQUIRES AT LEAST 80% OF ANY EXTERIOR WALL TO BE GLASS, NATIVE STONE, CLAY-FIRED BRICK, OR A COMBINATION OF THESE MATERIALS. >> Chair Downs: I DON'T WANT TO INTERRUPT YOU. PLANO TV, WHY ARE WE GETTING A SELECT THE MICROPHONE, SELECT THE SPEAKER? >> THERE'S AN ISSUE WITH OUR ZOOM PRESENTATION AND THEY'RE REPAIRING THAT. >> Chair Downs: OH, OKAY. SORRY. I JUST -- I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE SEEING THAT UP THERE TOO? SO IT MAY BE DIFFICULT FOR PEOPLE TO SEE. IS IT IMPACTING OUR VIDEO FEED DON'T KNOW >> I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK IT'S JUST IF THEY'RE VIEWING ONLINE THROUGH THE ZOOM LINK. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT. GO AHEAD. I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE HAD AN ISSUE TO DEAL WITH. >> THE REMAINING 20% MUST CONSIST OF ANY ALTERNATE BUILDING MATERIALS PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE ADOPTED BUILDING CODES. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAS DISCRETION TO ALLOW OTHER FINISHES AND MATERIALS IF PERMITTED BY BUILDING AND FIRE CODES. THE BUILDING MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE RC DISTRICT ARE INTENDED TO ENSURE THE USE OF HIGH-QUALITY DURABLE MATERIALS ALONG THE STATE HIGHW 121 CORRIDOR, TO CREATE WELL-DESIGNED AND ATTRACTIVE ARCHITECTURE. THE FIRST REQUEST IS ON THE SUPERSTORE BUILDING ON LOT 9. THE SCREEN SHOWS IMAGES OF THE NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING. AND THIS IS IMAGES OF THE SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS OF THE SUPERSTORE BUILDING. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE PRIMARY MATERIAL THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RC DISTRICT. INSTEAD OF CLAY-FIRED BRICK THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO USE A CAST STONE AND BRICK ON THE SUPERSTORE BUILDING. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 67% VARIANCE ON THE NORTH ELEVATION, A 75% VARIANCE ON THE WEST ELEVATION AND 80% ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION AND A 76% VARIANCE ON THE EAST ELEVATION. NEXT, LOT 10 CONSISTS OF A RETAIL AND RESTAURANT BUILDING. THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN IS THE PROPOSED ELEVATIONS. AND SIMILAR TO LOT 9 THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO USE A PRIMARY MATERIAL THAT IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE RC ZONING DISTRICT. ON LOT 10, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 73% VARIANCE ON THE NORTH ELEVATION, AN 80% VARIANCE ON THE WEST ELEVATION, A 73% VARIANCE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION, AND A 52% VARIANCE ON THE EAST ELEVATION. AND LASTLY LOT 11 IS THE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT BUILDING ADJACENT TO THE SUPERSTORE BUILDING. THIS LOT IS ALSO REQUESTING TO USE AN ALTERNATIVE PRIMARY BUILDING MATERIAL. THE IMAGE ON THE SCREEN IS THE PROPOSED NORTH AND WES ELEVATIONS. AND THIS IS THE SOUTH AND EAST ELEVATIONS. ON LOT 11, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 50% VARIANCE ON THE NORTH ELEVATION, AN 80% VARIANCE ON THE WEST ELEVATION, A 77% VARIANCE ON THE SOUTH ELEVATION, AND A 51% VARIANCE ON THE EAST ELEVATION. BUILDING MATERIAL PRERENC AND TECHNOLOGIES CHANGE OVER TIME AND THE CITY STRIVES TO BE RESPONSIVE WHERE APPROPRIATE ALLOWING INNOVATION AND ADJUSTMENTS. ALTERNATIVE BUILDING MATERIALS MAY BE APPROPRIATE IN INSTANCES WHERE A SIGNIFICANT ARCHITECTURAL BENEFIT CAN BE CREATED. HOWEVER STAFF DOES NOT BELIEVE THIS REQUEST WILL BE IN THE BEST INTEREST OF ACHIEVING THE DISTRICT'S STATED GOALS. IN 2004 WHEN THE EXISTING CORNER STORING STORE WAS PROPOSED, THE APPLICANT MADE A SIMILAR REQUEST TO PLANNING AND ZONING. HOWEVER, WITH THAT REQUEST THE DEVELOPMENT MET THE CLAY FIRED BRICK REQUIREMENT ON TWO OF THE FACADES AND THE REMAINING TWO FACADES WERE PROPOSED WITH CONCRETE TILT WALL. AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DENIED THE REQUEST AT THAT TIME. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING THESE VARIANCES FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS AS SHOWN ON THE SLIDE. THESE REASONS DO NOT CONSTITUTE ENHANCEMENTS OF INNOVATION OR AESTHETICS. THE BUILDINGS ARE VISIBLE FROM THE ADJACENT THOROUGHFARES FROM THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH OF RIDGEVIEW DRIVE AND THIS IS A MAJOR DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL DEFINE THE APPEARANCE OF THIS CORNER FOR MANY YEARS. THE MATERIALS ARE NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE GOALS OF THE RC ZONING DISTRICT, THEREFORE DEVELOPMENT SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED WITH THE REQUIRED BUILDING MATERIALS. FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THE FACADE PLAN. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE A PRESENTATION. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. WHEN WERE THESE -- WHEN WAS THIS MATERIAL DESIGN CREATED? WHEN WAS THE LAST TIME WE EDITED THIS? SO IS IS A LONG-STANDING COMMUNITY REQUIREMENT. THIS WAS INITIALLY CREATED IN THE LATE '90s. IT WAS DEVELOPED WHEN THE ZONING DISTRICTS, THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT DISTRICTS WERE CREATED AND APPLIED TO THE DALLAS TOLLWAY AND STATE HIGHWAY 121 CORRIDORS. THE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN SLIGHTLY ADJUSTED OVER TIME BUT IN GENERAL THEY HAVE REMAINED AS YOU SEE THEM TODAY. >>hair Dns: OKAY. I THINK THERE CAN BE MORE TO THAT DISCUSSION BUT BASICALLY IT'S SAYING WE HAVEN'T REALLY UPDATED OUR MATERIAL STANDARDS FOR 25-PLUS YEARS. SO AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT I'M IN FAVOR OR OPPOSED TO THIS, I'M JUST WANTING TO SET THE BASIS FOR HOW WE'RE MAKING OUR DECISIONS. ONE THING IN PARTICULAR THAT LOOKED TO ME WAS IT SAYS WALL INSULATION IS NOT NECESSARY. ARE WE BEING MORE EFFICIENT, MORE, YOU KNOW, WITH OUR MATERIAL USAGES? ARE THERE NEWER THINGS OUT THERE WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING? COMMISSIONER HORNE, GO AHEAD. >> Horne: THANK YOU. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE. ONE WITH REGARDS TO THE STRUCTURAL -- MAYBE WE HAVE TO ASK THE PETITIONER THIS. HOW IS IT THAT WITH GRANTING THIS VARIANCE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A MORE STRUCTURALLY MORE SOUD BUILDING? I GUESS THAT'S SOMETHING I HAVE TO ASK THE PETITIONER. BUT FOR YOU, DONNA, THE QUESTION I HAVE IS HAVE WE GRANTED, IN THE PAST COUPLE OF YEARS, ANYARIANCES TO THE RC STANDARDS? HAVE WE GRANTED ANY ON ANY OF THE NEW CONSTRUCTION THAT'S GOING ALONG, SAY THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS OR ANYTHING? >> I DON'T RECALL ANY PROJECTS OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. MR. HILL, DO YOU HAVE ANY TO SHARE? >> THERE'S A FEW NOTABLE ONES. THE EQUINOX GYM AT SHOPS OF WILLOW BEND HAS MORE MODERN METAL FACADE ON IT. CRATE AND BARREL AT THE SAME LOCATION HAS SOME CEDAR AS A PART OF THEIR FACADE. WE LOOKED AT -- THERE'S A MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING IN FRONT OF PEN STACK THAT HAS A UNIQUE METAL DESIGN , AND THE OTHER ONE I CAN THINK OF IS THE BILLINGSLEY OFFICE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS ON INTERNATIONAL PLANO PARKWAY. THEY REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO DO A SIMILAR AESTHETIC. SOME OF THEIR BUILDINGS ARE IN THE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT THAT DOESN'T REQUIRE THESE STANDARDS SO THEY REQUESTED A VARIANCE TO MAKE THEM CONSISTENT. >> Horne: IF I RECALL THE BILLINGSLEY PROJECT, THAT WAS ONE WHERE WE INCREASED THE GLASS AND SOME OF THE METAL SIDING, I THINK IS SOMETHING WE LOOKED AT. >> I THINK IT WAS A CAST -- A CONCRETE WAS THEIR MAIN MATERIAL BUT THEY DO HAVE A LOT OF GLASS AS WELL. IT'S A MORE BALANCED FACADE. A LOT OF GLASS ON THOSE BUILDINGS. >> Horne: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. MICROPHONE PLEASE. >> Brounoff: YES, THANK YOU. MR. HILL, WITH REGARD TO THESE OTHER PROJECTS THAT YOU MENTIONED WHERE VARIANCES HAVE BEEN GRANTED, DO YOU RECALL ROUGHLY THE PERCENTAGE LEVEL OF THE VARIANCE THAT WAS GRTED ON THOSE CASES? >> IT VARIES. I DON'T REMEMBER EXACTLY. I THINK IN BILLINGSLEY IT WAST W SOME OF THEIR FACADES. OTHER BUILDINGS LIKE EQUINOX, THEY HAVE FACADES THAT COMPLIED AND THEN APPLIED A SPECIFIC MATERIAL TO A CERTAIN FACADE TO CREATE A DISTINCTIVE LOOK AT THEIR ENTRANCE. I DON'T REMEMBER A REQUEST OF THIS NATURE THAT REALLY IS THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING. I THINK AROUND 50% IS PROBABLY ABOUT THE MAXIMUM IS MY MEMORY. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: MR. HILL, PART OF THE COMMENT THAT YOU GUYS ARE MAKING IN REQUESTING DENIAL I THINK GOES TO ANSWERING SOME OF THE VARIANCES FOR THE REASONS ABOVE DO NOT CONSTITUTE ENHANCEMENTS IN INNOVATION OR AESTHETICS. WERE THE ONES THAT WE GRANTED VARIANCES FOR BASED ON THOSE? >> RIGHT. WHEN WE CONSIDER THESE -- AND WE DO GET MAYBE ONE A YEAR. WE DO LOOK AT THE REASON FOR THE REQUEST. AS MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT, MS. FALLETTA MENTIONED AS WELL, MS. SEPULVEDA. WE THINK THERE SHOULD BE VARIATIONS IF SOMEONE WANTS AN AESTHETIC OR ENERGY EFFICIENCY OR SOME OTHER REASON WE THINK WOULD BE APPROPIATE. FOR THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TONIGHT WE UNDERSTAND IT'S A DIFFERENT MATERIAL THEY WANT TO USE AND THERE'S SOME ENHANCEMENTS THEY COULD MAKE TO CONSTCTIO SCHEDULES AND STRUCTURAL ITEMS THAT THEY REQUESTED IN THEIR REPORT, BUT WE DIDN'T SEE IT WAS CONSISTENT WITH THE OTHER REQUESTS THAT WE SUPPORTED IN THE PAST. IT WASN'T REALLY FOR AN AESTHETIC REASON, NECESSARILY, IT'S MORE OF A CONSTRUCTION FLEXIBILITY REASON IS WHAT WE SAW. >> Bronsky: ALTHOUGH WE HAVE NOT UPDATED OUR STANDARDS IN QUITE A WHILE, WE HAVE BEEN KEEPING UP BECAUSE WE'VE BEEN LOOKING AND ENSURING THAT INNOVATION AND AESTHETICS ARE BOTH KEYS TO VARIANCES. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: SO THE KEY CRITERIA FOR THE RC DISTRICT IS MORE THE ABILITY OF THE MATERIAL BUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT WE'RE LOOKING AT AESTHETICS JUST BECAUSE IT HAS THAT 121 CORRIDOR? >> SO THESE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS WERE ADOPTED FOR REALLY A HIGHER-QUALITY BUILDING MATERIAL IS WHAT THE INTENT WAS ORIGINALLY. AND THESE DISTRICTS WERE DEVELOPED WITH A CITIZEN COMMITTEE BEING THAT THE PROPERTIES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FRONTAGE ROADS LIKE COMMUNICATIONS AND THOSE AREAS ALONG THE TOLLWAY, BUT RESIDENTIAL HOMES THEY WANTED SOME, YOU KNOW, REQUIREMENTS THAT MET A HIGHER BAR AS FAR AS MATERIALS WERE CONCERNED. AND THEIR WORK ON THAT RESULTED IN THINGS LIKE NATIVE STONE AND CLAY-FIRED BRICK, GLASS WITH A MAXIMUM PERCENTAGE OF REFLECTION AND THINGS LIKE THAT. THOSE ARE MATERIALS THAT AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS DISCUSSED, THOSE WERE THE ONES THAT THEY WANTED TO INCLUDE AS HIGHER-QUALITY MATERIALS. THE OTHER MATERIALS CAN BE HIGH QUALITY AS WELL AND SO WE DO APPLY THOSE THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. BUT THESE DISTRICTS WERE JUST SEEN TO HAVE A HIGHER SET OF REQUIREMENTS. >> Olley: DO WE HAVE A TABLE OR REPORT THAT KIND OF SHOWS SOME BENCHMARKING OF -- I KNOW NOTHING ABOUT CONSTRUCTION. HOW DO I KNOW THAT NATIVE STONE IS HIGHE QUALITY TO -- >> Chair Downs: CAST STONE. >> Olley: CAST STONE OR VICE VERSA. >> WE'RE NOT ARCHITECTS. WE DID HAVE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT. THERE'S SOME TRADE-OFFS, AS MENTIONED IN THE APPLICANT'S REPORT AS WELL. THEY CAN GAIN SOME INSULATION EFFICIENCIES, SOME STRUCTURAL EFFICIENCIES THROUGH THESE MATERIALS. REALLY YOUR BUILDING IS GOING TO BE STRUCTURAL WHICHEVER WAY YOU BUILD IT, JUST THE BUILDING ON THE OUTSIDE. IT GOING TO B INSULATED TO MEET THE ENERGY CODES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. I THINK IT'S WHAT THE COMMUNITY EXPECTS AND ASKS FOR ON THE MATERIALS USED ON THE EXTERNAL BUILDING AND THIS IS WHAT THE COMMUNITY ASKED FOR AND WE HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY APPLYING IT, IN MOST CASES, SINCE THEN. >> Olley: CAN I ASK ONE MORE QUESTION? TO THE POINT YOU BROUGHT UP, THE COMMUNITY'S INPUT WAS 20-SOMETHING YEARS AGO. I HAZARD TO GUESS THE COMMUNITY'S TASTES HAVE CHANGED. IS IT ON US TO GO BACK AND UPDATE ESSENTIALLY WHAT THE COMMUNITY WANTS -- >> Chair Downs: I THINK THAT'S A REASONABLE QUESTION AND MAYBE WE ADD THAT DISCUSSION TO A FUTURE -- REALLY TONIGHT WE'RE MAKING A DECISION BASED ON DO WE GRANT A VARIANCE IN A SINGLE SITUATION THAT DOESN'T COMPLY WITH OUR -- SO I THINK IT'S A VALID QUESTION. IT'S KIND OF WHY I BROUGHT IT UP. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: A COUPLE OF THINGS. DO WE HAVE A SITE PLAN OF HOW THIS BUILDING LAYS ON THE SITE? I THINK DEPENDING ONHE VISIBILITY FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES, I THINK THE FRONT OF THE BUILDING IS TREATED DIFFERENT THAN THE REAR OF THE BUILDING, DEPENDING ON HOW IT'S LAID OUT, AT LEAST IN MY MIND. SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF WE HAD A SITE PLAN THAT IS AVAILABLE THAT WE COULD SEE OR IS THAT SOMETHING THE APPLICANT MIGHT PUT UP ON THE SCREEN. THE OTHER THING IS HAS THE STAFF ACTUALLY LOOKED AT PHYSICAL SAMPLES OF WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING OR IS THIS BASED ON RENDERINGS AND SPECIFICATIONS? >> I THINK THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED BY P&Z A FEW MONTHS BACK AND THE CURRENT SITE PLAN UNDER REVIEW IS STAFF APPROVED AND IT'S STILL UNDER REVIEW. I DON'T HAVE A COPY OF THAT IN FRONT OF ME. I DID SPEAK WITH THE APPLICANT WHO SAID THEY HAVE PHYSICAL MATERIAL SAMPLES TONIGHT. >> Ratliff: THE REASON I ASK ABOUT THE PHYSICAL SAMPLES IS THERE ARE A LOT OF INNOVATIVE MATERIALS THAT ARE HARD TO TELL FROM NATURAL MATERIALS. IT'S HARD FOR ME TO MAKE A JUDGMENT WHEN ALL I SEE A RENDERING AND SPECICATION. I TRUD AT THOSE PHYSICAL SAMPLES. I THINK THAT'S A BIG PART OF THE DECISION IS NOT JUST WHETHER OR NOT IT'S NATIVE STONE OR NOT BUT WHETHER WE HAVE PHYSICALLY LOOKED AT THE MATERIALS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. >> WE HAVEN'T LOOKED AT THE MATERIALS PHYSICALLY. WE DON'T GET MATERIAL BOARDS AS PART OF OUR REVIEWS ANYMORE. WE JUST ENSURE THAT THEY MEET THE REGULATIONS. AGAIN, WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO VARY THOSE BUT WE DO BRING THOSE BEFORE YOU TO CONSIDER ALTERNATIVES FOR THESE DISTRICTS. NO, WE HAVE NOT LOOKED AT T SPECIFIC MATERIALS IN PERSON. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: THANK YOU. COMMENT HAS BEEN MADE THAT THESE APPROACHES ARE A LITTLE BIT DATED, BUT WITH THAT SAID I THINK PROBABLY PRETTY WISE WHEN THEY WERE DONE AND THAT'S WHAT HE COMMUNITY WANTED. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF COMMON SENSE TO THAT. NOW, TO COMMISSIONER RATLIFF'S POINT AND COMMISSIONER OLLEY'S POINT, WHETHER THAT'S THE PREFERRED APPROACH IS WORTH DIGGING INTO. MY QUESTION IS A CURIOSITY COMMUNITIES ON 121 THAT IS APPROXIMATE TO US AS WELL AS THE DALLAS TOLLWAY. DO YOU KNOW HOW THEY'RE APPROACHING THIS AND HAVE THEY TAKEN A DIFFERENT -- OUR ADJACENT COMMUNITIES, HAVE THEY TAKEN A DIFFERENT LOOK AT THIS THAN US, DO WE KNOW? >> I DON'T KNOW THEIR COMMUNITIES ARE HANDLING IT. THERE WAS SOME LEGISLATION PASSED A FEW YEARS AGO THAT LIMITED CITY'S ABILITIES TO REGULATE BUILDING MATERIALS. PLANO IS A UNIQUE COMMUNITY IN THAT WE HAVE A SPECIFIC EXEMPTION UNDER THAT LAW. SO THIS IS ACTLLY US SUPPING THAT EXEMPTION. I DON'T KNOW IF FRISCO OR McKINNEY HAVE SIMILAR EXEMPTIONS. >> Cary: DO YOU KNOW IF WE CAME BACK AND WANTED TO CHANGE THINGS, WOULD WE LOSE THAT EXEMPTION? >> NO, THAT'S A SEPARATE EXEMPTION SO IF WE WANTED TO UPDATE THIS INFORMATION, WE COULD. >> Chair Downs: LET'S DO THIS. WE'RE HAVING BASICALLY A DAIS DISCUSSION AT THIS POINT. LET'S -- DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS SPECIFIC FOR THE YOUNG LADY STANDING AT THE PODIUM? OKAY. THANK YOU. IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING BUT I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS EVIDENTLY HERE. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE BESIDES THE APPLICANT? NO. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MAY HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT SO IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME DOWN, WE CAN -- AND HE BROUGHT A BOARD HERE. >> YES, CLAY CHRISTY IS HERE. >> Chair Downs: I WANT US TO KIND OF SEPARATE THIS INTO WE'RE BEING ASKED TO ACCEPT A VARIANCE FROM OUR EXISTING STANDARDS. AND WE'LL MAKE THAT DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SERATELY FROM THAT THE DECISION AROUND WHETHER OR NOT OUR STANDARDS NEED TO BE UPDATED IS ANOTHER DISCUSSION. REALLY TONIGHT WE JUST WANT TO FOCUS ON IS IT REASONABLE TO MAKE THESE EXCEPTIONS AND YOU HAD A GOOD QUESTION, COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE VISIBLE FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES. I THINK IT'S WORTH ASKING THE QUESTION AROUND THE VARIANCE. THE VARIANCE IN A MATERIAL BY NAME VERSUS THE VARIANCE IN A MATERIAL BY FUNCTION, FORM, ET CETERA IS REASONABLE. WHO WANTS TO START? I'M NOT REALLY LOOKING NECESSARILY FOR A PRESENTATION AS MUCH AS I AM QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: GOOD EVENING, SIR. >> GOOD EVENING AND JUST FOR THE RECORD I'LL TAKE YOUR QUESTION, BUT CLAY CHRISTY, 1903 CENTRAL DRIVE . AGAIN, PARDON ME. WITH US TONIGHT WE HAVE OUR ARCHITECTS WITH US, WE HAVE OUR DEVELOPMENT TEAM, AND WE WE BROUGHT OUR TEAM. I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO BE THE EXPERT HERE, THAT'S WHY I'VE GOT MY SUPPORT BEHIND ME THIS EVENING BUT WE ARE VER CITED TO HOPEFULLY PRESENT TO YOU GUYS OUR CASE BEHIND IT. WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH STAFF FOR A WHILE ON THIS ONE AND SO WE DO WANT TO HAVE THAT DISCUSSION. WE WANT TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. YOU KNOW, PRESENTATION-WISE, I JUST HAVE PROBABLY ONE SLIDE THAT I THINK MIGHT HELP A LITTLE BIT AT THE END OF THAT, BUT LET'S TAKE SOME QUESTIONS AND WE'LL GET THROUGH ALL THAT. [MULTIPLE VOICES] >> NO, IT'S NOT. WE CAN GO THROUGH ABOUT TWO -- AND REALLY WHAT WE HAVE TODAY IS IN WORKING WITH THIS WE UNDERSTAND -- WE GAVE YOU GUYS SOME REASONINGS BEHIND THA AND WE CAN GET THROUGH THE STRUCTURAL AND INSULATION EFFICIENCIES. I KNOW FROM TALKING WITH STAFF AND EVERYTHING ELSE, THERE IS A CONCERN OF THE APPEARANCE OF WHAT THIS IS GOING TO LOOK LIKE, WHAT IT LOOKS LIKE ON A BUILDING, DOES THIS NEW, AS WE CALL IT, THIS MATERIAL THAT MIGHT NOT HAVE BEEN AS AVAILABLE IN THE '90s WHEN THIS WAS PASSED, HOW DOES THIS COMPARE TO WHAT THEY WERE ASKING FOR BACK THEN. IF WE CAN GO -- I THINK PAGE 3 RIGHT HERE. WHAT I HAVE IN FRONT OF YOU RIGHT NOW IS THERE'S THREE BUILDINGS THAT ARE UP ON THESE SLIDES RIGHT HERE, TWO OF WHICH ARE ME WITH THIS MATERIAL THAT WE HAVE WITH YOU TODAY. ONE OF WHICH IS CAST BRICK -- SORRY, TWO ARE THE CAST STONE AND ONE IS THE CLAY-FIRED BRICK. WHENEVER YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT AND WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO PRESENT THAT FROM AN AESTHETICS STANDPOINT, WHICH I KNOW IS A CONCERN AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THEY'RE VERY SIMILAR IN NATURE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. ME TO THE LAYMAN MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO TELL THAT. IF YOU'RE A TRAINED EYE IN THE CONSTRUCTION BUSINESS, MAYBE YOU CAN. WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING, WE'RE NOT TRYING TO DO A VARIANCE FOR WHAT WE WOULD CONSIDER A SUBSTANDARD MATERIAL COMPARED TO A CLAY-FIRED BRICK. WE'RE TRYING TO PRESENT SOMETHING THAT'S EQUIVALENT. THERE'S A COUPLE OF MATERIALS. JST WITH SUPPLY AND DEMAND, WE HAVE A LARGE BUILDING WHICH IS WHY WE HAVE SUCH A LARGE VARIANCE. BEING ABLE TO GET THIS FROM THE SUPPLY CHAIN AND BEING ABLE TO HAVE CONSISTENCY ON THE BRICK, FROM THE ORDERS, GETTING THE COLORS AND SUPPLIES THAT WE NEED, THAT IS A REALLY BIG THING THAT IMPACTS US HERE. AGAIN, MR. BROUNOFF, I DID NOT MEAN TO INTERRUPT ON THE QUESTIONS. I WAS TRYING TO BE SHORT ON THE PRESENTATION BUT THAT WAS REALLY WHAT WE WANTED TO DO. WE WORKED WITH STAFF, WE UNDERSTAND THE POSITION OF WHERE IT IS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. WE UNDERSTAND THAT THE VARIANCES ARE A LARGE PERCENTAGE BUT WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO DO IS TAKE THIS MATERIAL, IT'S AN EQUIVALENT MATERIAL, AND PUTTING THAT ON THE FACE AS THE EQUIVALENT TO THE BRICK. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF, YOUR QUESTION. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. IS THAT A SAMPLE OF THE BRICK THAT YOU LAY DOWN ON THE LITTLE TABLE THERE? >> THIS IS THE ACTUAL SIZE OF THE BRICK, YES. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO USE? >> TS MATERIAL, YES, SIR. THIS IS NOT THE COLOR. THE COLORS ARE DOWN HERE ON THE FRONT. >> Brounoff: I'M TALKING ABOUT THE MATERIAL. THAT'S THE MATERIAL. I NOTICED WHEN YOU LAID IT DOWN I DIDN'T HEAR A THUMP ON A CLUNK. I'M CURIOUS, HOW MUCH DOES THAT WEIGH? >> IT'S HEAVY. I JUST SET IT DOWN HERE. YOU DON'T MIND? >> Brounoff: SURE. YEAH, THAT'S HEAVY. [LAUGHTER] >> Chair Downs: WE'LL ALL TAKE YOUR WORD FOR IT. >> I DIDN'T WANT TO SCRATCH. >> Chair Downs: WE APPRECIATE THAT. >> THERE'S A STRUCTURAL COMPOENT TO IT. WHEN WE START STACKING IT ON THERE, YOU DON'T HAVE TO -- AGAIN, I'LL HAVE TO BRING MY COUNTERPARTS BECAUSE THEY'RE THE EXPERTS. YOU DON'T HAVE TO BUILD YOUR STRUCTURAL WALL AND DO YOUR BRICK TIES AND HAVE THAT ALL TIED TOGETHER. THEY ACTUALLY HAVE AN INTERNAL STRUCTURAL COMPONENT WHERE THEY CAN BE A PART OF THAT STRUCTURE WHICH THEN GOES INTO THE METAL AND THE EFFICIENCY OF THE STEEL FRAMING AND THE FACT THAT WE CAN UTILIZE SOME OF THAT, VERSUS HAVING TO CREATE THE STEEL FRAMING BEHIND IT. >> Brounoff YOU REFERD TO SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES WITH THE OVEN FIRED CLAY BRICK. HAVE YOU CONFIRMED THE EXISTENCE OF SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES IF YOU WERE TO USE THE OVEN FIRED CLAY BRICK OR ARE YOU THINKING HYPOTHETICALLY THERE COULD BE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES? >> WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH OUR SUPPLIERS WHO PROVIDED THIS BRICK AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I WAS ABLE TO GET MY MATERIALS FOR THIS VERSUS EVEN JUST GETTING THE MATERIALS FOR LIKE OUR CLAY FIRED BRICK IN THE SAME SAMPLE COLORS OF WHAT WE WOULD TRY TO DO. WE HAD A HARD TIME GETTING THOSE EVEN HERE FOR OUR PRESENTATION. WHILE I DON'T HAVE -- WE DIDN'T TRY TO PLACE AN ORDER FOR A FULL KROGER FACILITY OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT BUT WE HAVE HAD SOME CHALLENGES GETTING THAT THERE. >> Brounoff: DO YOU HAVE ANY IDEA IF YOU WERE TO PLACE A FULL ORDER FOR THE CLAY FIRED BRICK, HOW LONG WOULD IT TAKE YOU TO GET DELIVERY? >> I DON'T KNOW RIGHT NOW. I DON'T KNOW IF ANY OF MY TEAMMATES HAVE ANY INFORMATION. I DON'T HAVE A TIMELINE ON THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THAT. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: THANK YOU. IS THIS CONSIDERED A CMU CORETE MASONRY UNIT? >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: IF YOU'RE GOING TO SPEAK, I WOULD ASK YOU TO COME DOWN. YOU JUST BECAME THE EXPERT. >> I DON'T WANT TO GIVE YOU THE INCORRECT ANSWER. >> Horne: IT LOOKS LIKE A DUCK AND QUACKS LIKE A DUCK. >> MY NAME IS LANCE LILY. IT'S NOT CONSIDERED CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT. IT'S ACTUALLY CALLED A QUICK BRICK. BUT IT'S ESSENTIALLY A HALF-HEIGHT CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT. IT'S THE SAME HEIGHT IN PLAN BUT IT'S HALF THE HEIGHT. >> Horne: WHEN YOU CAME BACK UNDERSTAND, YOU WOULD USE THIS FOR YOUR STRUCTURAL WALL BUT IT WILL ALSO LOOK LIKE THE ARCHITECTURAL ASPECTS OF THE SAMPLES WE'RE LOOKING AT? >> IT'S THE STRUCTURE AND THE FINISH. >> Horne: DID YOU CONSIDER SPLIT CMU WHERE IT LOOKS LIKE NATIVE ROCK? WAS THAT SOMETHING THAT WAS COST PROHIBITIVE? >> WE CAN GET THIS IN A SPLIT FACE TYPE OF AN APPLICATION. SO IT'S NOT SMOOTH. >> Horne: THAT WOULD JUST LOOKIKE NATIVE ROCK, I GUESS. >> IT WOULD -- YEAH, IT'S REALLY KIND OF A PREFERENCE. YOU CAN GET THAT IN A VARIETY OF COLORS AND A ROCK FACE, A SMOOTH FACE, A POLISHED FACE, A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT FINISHES ON THE FACE OF IT. >> Horne: STRUCTURALLY, THAT'S NOT IF EQUAL OR BETTER THAN A STEEL WALL THAT YOU WOULD PLACE UP WITH THE SIDING AND TIE INS, CORRECT? >> IT'S STRUCTURALLY SOUND. THERE'S A LOT OF SYSTEMS YOU CAN USE. IT CAN BE A LOAD-BEARING SYSTEM SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE THE STEEL COLUMN. >> Horne: PLACEMENT OF THE INSULATION, HOW WOULD YOU DO THAT? >> AS YOU CAN SEE IT'S GOT COARSE SO YOU CAN INFILL THAT WITH BLOWN-IN INSULATION. >> Horne: THAT'S WHERE THE INSULATION IS GOING TO BE. WHAT'S THE R FACTOR OF THAT? >> IT DEPENDS ON WHAT THE ENERGY CODE REQUIRES BUT TYPICALLY AROUND R 15, THE WALL. >> Horne: THANKS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: COMMISSIONER HORNE ASKED THE BETTER CONSTRUCTION QUESTIONS. HELP ME OUT WITH THE STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS. HOW MUCH OF AN IMPROVEMENT ARE WE LOOKING AT, IF WE HAD WHAT THE CODE REQUIRES VERSUS THIS? DOES IT EXPAND YOUR LIFE CYCLE OF THE MATERIAL, YOU KNOW, HOW AM I GAUGING STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS ONE VERSUS THE OTHER? >> I'M SORRY. I MISSED THE FIRST PART OF YOUR QUESTION. >> Olley: HOW DO I GAUGE A STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENTS? IS IT THIS WOULD LAST THREE YEARS LONGER? >> AS FAR AS THE LIFE? >> Olley: IS IT ABLE TO CARRY MORE LOAD THAN THE NATIVE ROCK? >> AGAIN, IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT STRUCTURAL SYSTEM. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE LOAD-BEARING COMPONENT OF THE PERIMETER WALL, INSTEAD OF HAVING STEEL COLUMNS. THIS IS GOING TO BE REINFORCED WITH REBAR AND FILLED WITH CONCRETE GROUT SO IT BECOMES A SOLID WALL. SO IT'S, FROM A STRUCTURAL STANDPOINT, IT'S EQUIVALENT OR BETTER THAN A STRUCTURAL STEEL PERIMETER WALL. >> Olley: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: MR. RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I'M LOOKING AT YOUR ELEVATIONS AND HELP ME OUT, BECAUSE THE ONLY PLACE I'M SEEING THE CMU IS ON THE EAST FACE IN THE COURTYARD BEHIND THE RETAIL. IS THAT WHAT I'M READING? THE BLOCK, THE ACTUAL CMU BLOCK. IS THE REST OF IT THE SMOOTH FACE CAST BRICK? >> YES, SIR. I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT HAVING THE SITE PLAN HERE. I HAVE THE ELEVATIONS. >> Ratliff: WE FOUND IT. >> SO THERE'S THE LITTLE HORSESHOE AREA WHERE WE HAVE THE RETAIL BUILDING THAT IS CUSTOM TO THAT. THE ONLY PLACE WHERE WE HAVE THE CMU BRICK IS ON THAT EASTERN SIDE BACK BEHIND THAT RETAIL. ON THE OTHER FACADES THAT FACE THE PUBLIC OR OF A -- WITHIN THE INTERNAL DEVELOPMENT EVEN VISIBLE. AS YOU DRIVE DOWN THROUGH THE PARKING LOTS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WE DO HAVE THE SMOOTH-FACE BRICK LIKE WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? >> Ratliff: YEAH, JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M PERFECTLY CLEAR. WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS REALLY ON THE FACADES THAT ARE PUBLIC-FACING IS SUBSTITUTINGUTG FIRED BRICK. >> YES. >> Ratliff: OKAY. SO QUESTION FOR YOUR ARCHITECTURE EXPERT. WHAT IS THE MODULE ON THIS VERSUS JUST A JUMBO CAST FIRED BRICK? >> SORRY. BRICK FIRED BRICK WILL -- OR CLAY FIRED BRICK COMES IN A NUMBER OF SIZES ANYWHERE FROM MODULAR TO KING-SIZED BRING. KING-SIZED IS ROUGHLY 10 INCHES LONG OR SO AND THIS IS 16. SO FROM A MODULAR STANDPOINT, THIS IS OBVIOUSLY GOING TO BE MORE EFFICINT, YOU HAVE FEWER UNITS TO STACK. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE FROM THE PANELS, YOU KNOW, FROM AN OVERALL SCALE OF THE BUILDING OR RETAIL BUILDING, WHEN YOU SEE HOW THAT'S STACKED AND THEN IT'S FULLY GROUTED, IT HAS , CERTAINLY FROM A STREET FRONTAGE. BUT YOUR AVERAGE CONSUMER ISN'T GOING TO KNOW -- LOOK AT THAT AND SAY THAT'S CONCRETE. >> Ratliff: I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I WAS GOING. IF IT'S MODULAR IT'S A LITTLE LARGER THAN A JUMBO BUT IF WE WENT WITH A JUMBO CLAY FIRED BRICK IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK MUCH DIFFERENT THAN THAT. IT'S JUST A DIFFERENT PROCESS HOW IT'S CREATED. >> CORRECT. Ratff: I WANTEDO MAKE SURE THAT EVERY PUBLIC-FACING AREA WOULD HAVE THE CAST BRICK. ONLY THE COURTYARD IN THE BACK. >> IT'S ONLY A SMALL AREA. THE RETAIL BUILDING HAS IT WRAPPED AROUND ALL THREE EXPOSED SIDES. >> Ratliff: IT'S THE EAST SIDE THAT FACES THE BACK OF THE RETAIL IS WHERE THE CMU IS. >> IT'S THE SIDE OF THE KROGER THAT FACES THE BACK SIDE OF THE RETAIL, FULL-SIZED CMU BLOCK THAT'S NOT VISIBLE. >> Ratliff: SO ON THAT POINT, IS IT THE INTENT TO BUILD THE RETAIL SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE GROCERY STORE SO WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A PERIOD OF TIME WHERE WE'VE GOT A CMU BLANK WALL FACING THE PUBLIC? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Ratliff: THEY WILL BE BUILT SIMULTANEOUSLY? >> YES. >> MR. RATLIFF, IF YOU GUYS HAVE THE SITE PLAN THERE THAT'S IN FRONT OF YOU, WHAT WE HAVE THREE VARIANCE REQUESTS IS FOR THREE BUILDINGS TO GO WITH THIS PART AND OUR SITE PLAN THAT'S UNDER REVIEW WITH DONNA AND MR. HILL RIGHT NOW ARE FOR THE KROGER FACILITY, THE RETAIL THAT IS ADJOINING IT, AND THEN THERE'S ONE RETAIL AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, WHICH IS KNOWN AS LOT 10. THOSE ARE THE THREE LOTS WE' PROPOSING AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THESE FACADE PLANS COMING. THOSE THREE BUILDINGS IS WHAT WE WOULD BE BUILDING. >> Ratliff: ARE THERE ANY OTHER FACADES THAT ARE CMU OR IS EVERY OTHER FACADE THE CAST BRICK? >> ALL OF THE OTHER ONES ARE THE CAST BRICK. >> Ratliff: THE REASON I ASK IS IT LOOKED LIKE THERE WAS A LOT OF CMU IN YOUR MATERIAL BOARDS BUT YOU'RE REALLY ONLY USING IT IN ONE PLACE. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Ratliff: I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T MISSING IT SOMEPLACE. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO A COUPLE OF THINGS.HINGS.HIN. INSULATE THE INTERIOR OF THAT TO CREATE AN R 15 BUT THEN YOU SAID BECAUSE IT'S STRUCTURE YOU'RE GOING TO FILL IT WITH CONCRETE AND REBAR. WHICH IS IT? >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. NOT EVERY INDIVIDUAL IS GOING TO BE GROUTED SOLID. IT'S BASED ON WHAT THE STRUCTURAL ENGINEER NEEDS. >> Chair Downs: INSTEAD OF THE COLUMNS THERE, YOU'RE GOING TO FILL IT THREE FEET EITHER SIDE. >> CORRECT. IN ADDITION TO THAT, DEPDING ON WHA THE ENERG CODE REQUIRES, THERE STILL MAY BE AN EXTRA LAYER OF CONTINUOUS INSULATION ON THE BACK SIDE OF IT. >> Chair Downs: SPRAY FOAM? >> IT COULD BE. IT'S TYPICALLY JUST A PANEL THAT GOES ON RIGID INSULATION. BUT THE BULK OF INSULATION IS CARRIED INSIDE THE BLOCK. >> Chair Downs: ANY MORE QUESTIONS? THANK YOU. OKAY. NOW IT WASN'T REALLY A PUBLIC HEARING BUT WE HAD SOME INFORMATION THAT WAS BROUGHT TO US. I'M NOT BIASED IN ANY MEANS BUT I WILL SAY IN 1983 I BUILT A KROGER STORE AND BELIEVE IT OR NOT WE WERE ARGUING WITH THE ARCHITECT WITH THE CITY OVER THE MATERIALS BEING USED AND IT WAS BRICK. SO IT'S KIND OF WEIRD TO BE SITTING IN THIS SEAT NOW. WE HAVE A MATERIALS STANDARD THAT WAS PUT TOGETHER AND IT'S BEEN A WHILE AGO BUT DO YOU KNOW WHAT, IT'S SERVED US WELL. THEY HAVE APPLIED FOR BEFORE AND BEEN DENIED THIS. FROM MY STANDPOINT, THOUGH, I'M LOOKING AT THAT AND I'M GOING I DON'T SEE A PROBLEM WITH THE WAY THAT'S GOING TO LOOK. I UNDERSTAND THE STRUCTURE AND USING THE BRICK, IN THIS CASE NOT BRICK, BUT THE QUICK BLOCK, IF YOU WILL, AS STRUCTURAL, AS LONG AS FROM OUR STRUCTURAL ENGINEER'S DEPARTMENT THEY SAY IT IS AS SOUND AS A SEPARATE CMU STEEL STRUCTURE BUILDING, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE WITH IT. TO ME THAT'S EFFICIENT USE OF RESOURCES. I DON'T THINK FROM AN AESTHETICS STANDPOINT ANYONE'S GOING TO DRIVE DOWN 121 OR THE TOLLWAY AND GO, WOW, THEY USED SOMETHING ELSE ON IT. I WOULD CHALLENGE ANY OF US OF THAT VIEW THAT SHOWED THOSE THREE BUILDINGS TO PICK OUT WHICH ONE IS WHICH. IN MY OPINION, I THINK I WOULD LIKE TO GRANT THE VARIANCE. I THINK IT WILL WIND UP LOOKING LIKE, BASED ON THE VISUALS THAT WE HAD THERE, IT LOOKS LIKE IT WILL BE A NICE-LOONG FACILITY AND I DON'T THINK ONCE IT'S BUILT, SIX MONTHS LATER, NO ONE WILL KNOW WHAT IT'S BUILT OUT OF. I TEND TO WANT TO GO THAT DIRECTION. I DO ALSO THINK, THOUGH, THAT WE SHOULD AT LEAST HAVE A DISCUSSION AROUND A REVIEW OF OUR MATERIALS AND WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE APPROPRIATE. I DON'T KNOW, MAYBE WE NEED TO GO BACK THROUGH AN ENTIRE COMMITTEE PROCESS WITH THE CITIZENS, I DON'T KNOW. MR. BRONSKY'S LIKE, PLEASE, GOD NO. I THINK IF IT'S BEEN THAT LONG WE OWE IT TO OURSELV AND DEVELOPERS WHO WANT TO COME IN HERE TO CONSIDER WHAT ELSE IS POSSIBLY OUT THERE THAT'S MORE SUSTAINABLE, MORE FLEXIBLE, MAYBE MORE ENERGY EFFICIENT. WHO KNOWS? THAT'S MY TWO CENTS. COMMISSIONER -- WE'LL START WITH COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. WE ALREADY HAVE THREE BUILDINGS INSIDE THE CITY OF PLANO THAT HAVE THIS QUICK BRICK CONSTRUCTION. ONE OF THEM IS A SHOPPING CENTER, IS A WALMART THAT MY WIFE GOES TO PROBABLY THREE DAYS A WEEK AND I PROBABLY GO TO ONCE A WEEK. AND YOU CANNOT TELLHE DIFFERENCE FROM LOOKING AT IT FROM THE PARKING LOT OR EVEN MAYBE CLOSER INSPECTION. NEXT TIME I GO UP THERE I'LL TAKE A LOOK AT IT A LITTLE CLOSER. BUT YOU CANNOT TELL. I'VE GOT TO BE HONEST WITH YOU, ARCHITECTURALLY THAT WALMART -- SORRY, KROGER -- THAT WALMART IS ARCHITECTURALLY PLEASING. IT'S WELCOMING. IT'S NOT THE OLD BLUE BUILDING THAT YOU SEE THERE. I THINK THAT THIS QUICK BRICK CONSTRUCTION.TERNATIVE TO NEW- NOW AS FAR AS THE STRUCTURAL ASPECT OF THIS, I'M GOING TO GO BACK A COUPLEF YEARS BACK WHEN I WAS GAINFULLY EMPLOYED, WE CONSTRUCTED, HAD A DESIGN-BUILD PROJECT WHERE WE BUILT A 250-MAN CUSTOMS AND BORDER PATROL STATION ALONG WITH A CHECKPOINT ALONG WITH A MAINTENANCE FACILITY AND DOG KENNEL THAT WAS MADE WITH SPLIT-FACE CMU AND THE ONLY DIFFERENCE I'M SEEING NOW IS THAT, LIKE YOU'VE SAID BEFORE, THE FACE OF IT IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE WANTED TO WE COULD GO WITH THAT SPLIT FACE INSTEAD OF HAVING THE BRICK. I CAN TELL YOU FROM THE TESTING THAT THATS STRUCTURALLY SOUND. THE CHECK POINT WAS DESIGNED TO WITHSTAND A 250-POUND BLAST FROM THE ROAD. WITH WHAT THEY'RE SAYING WITH REGARDS TO STRUCTURAL WIDE LOAD AND DEAD LOAD IT'S PROBABLY A GREAT ALTERNATIVE TO THE STEEL WITH THE SHEETING, WITH THE BRICK TIE-INS. I AGREE WITH THE CHAIRMAN THAT IT'S BEEN A WHILE SINCE WE LOOKED AT NEW MATERIALS. THINGS ARE CHANGING. SO WE MAY NEED TO LOOK AT DOWN THE LINE HOW WE WORK WITH CITY CODES AND TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF WE CAN START EXPANDING ON WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. BUT FROM WHAT THEY'RE PRESENTING, ALL THE PLUSES ARE TYPICALLY WHAT YOU SEE IN A DESIGN-BUILD WITH VALUE ENGINEERING TIED INTO IT TO WHERE YOU COULD BUILD A BUILDING THAT'S QUICKER, MORE STRUCTURALLY SOUND, AND MY OPINION IT'S GOING TO BE PLEASING TO THE EYE. AND THAT'S WHERE I'M CONCERNED. 121 AND COIT IS A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE SO IT HAS TO BE PLEASING. YOU COME INTO THE CITY O PLANO, I WANT IT TO BE WELCOMING, I WANT IT TO HAVE SOME PIZAZZ. SO I JUST DON'T WANT TO SEE A CERTAIN RED BRICK COLOR THAT'S THERE THAT'S THE SAME COLOR ACROSS THE WALL. THAT'S BORING. BUT I LIKE TO SEE SOME VARIATIONS IN THAT BRICK AS IT'S BEING DEVELOPED. THAT'S MY OPINION. >> Chair Downs: MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: THANK YOU. WHILE WE'RE TELLING PERSONAL HISTORY STORIES, LET ME ADD MINE. AS YOU ALL KNOW, IN A PAST LIFE, ILSO SERD ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE CITY OF IRVING WHEN I LIVED THERE. WE HAD A CASE INVOLVING A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE WHO BUILT ILLEGAL CARPORTS IN THEIR FRONT YARDS IN VIOLATION OF CITY ORDINANCE. THE REASON THERE WERE HUNDREDS OF THEM IS BECAUSE THE CITY DID NOT ENFORCE THE ORDINANCE UNTIL SOME NEIGHBOR COMPLAINED ABOUT ANOTHER NEIGHBOR'S CARPORT AND THEN ALL YOU KNOW WHAT BROKE LOOSE. AND WHAT THE UPSHOT WAS THE CITY COUNCIL THREW UP ITS HANDS AND PASSED A NEW ORDINANCE GRANDFATHERING IN THE EXISTING CARPORTS AND ADOPTING STANDARDSOR FUTURE-BUILT CARPORTS. THE MORAL OF THE STORY IS IF YOU DON'T ENFORCE AN ORDINANCE YOU LOSE THE ORDINANCE. TO ME THE LEVEL OF VARIANCE THAT IS BEING REQUESTED HERE FROM 50% TO 80% VARIANCE FROM THE REQUIREMENTS OF OUR EXISTING ORDINANCE IS TO MASSIVE THAT IT AMOUNTS TO A DEFACTOR AMENDMENT OF THE ORDINANCE BY A PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION THAT IS NOT THE GOVERNING BODY OF THIS CITY AND DOES NOT HAVE THE UTHORITY TO AMEND ORDINANCES. IFE WE APPROVE THIS VARIANCE, WE WILL BROADCAST TO THE CITY THAT CAST BRICK IS AN APPROVED MATERIAL FOR BUILDING, WHICH HAS THE DE FACTO EFFECT OF AMENDING THE ORDINANCE. WHILE I AGREE THAT THE ORDINANCE IS OLD ENOUGH TO WHERE IT PROBABLY SHOULD BE LOOKED AT AND REEVALUATED FOR MODIFICATIONS, UPDATING, I THINK THAT SHOULD COME FROM THE CITY COUNCIL. THEY CAN DO IT THEMSELVES. THEY CAN EITHER ASK THE PLOPPING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO ASSIST THEM, AND I'D BE A HAPPY TO BE A PART OF THAT EFFORT, BUT I THINK THAT'S THE COUNCIL -- I THINK LEGITIMATELY THAT SHOULD COME FROM THE COUNCIL. I AM UNWILLING TO GRANT A VARIANCE OF THIS MAGNITUDE WITH THE POSSIBLE CONSEQUENCES OF UNDERCUTTING AND AMENDING AN ORDINANCE EFFECTED BY THE COUNCIL. >> Chair Downs: ALL FOUR LIGHTS. I LOOKED BEFORE AND NO ONE WAS WILLING TO SPEAK. WE'LL START ON THE END AND WORK THIS WAY. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S NOT MY TIE. >> IT WAS ME. I TAKE COMMISSIONER BROUNOF'S POINT ON THE MAGNITUDE OF THE VARIANCE. IT IS LARGE, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE ALREADY GIVEN VARIANCES IN THE 40 TO 50% IN THE PAST IN A COUPLE OF CASES. THE ONLY THING THAT STRUCK ME -- WELL, TWO THINGS. ONE, WAS KIND OF THE HISTORICAL CONTEXT BEHIND THE MATERIALS WE HAD IN THE ORDINANCE. AND TWO, NORMALLY INSTALLATION WILL SAVE TIME AND RESOURCES, DOES NOT EQUATE TO STRUCTURAL IMPROVEMENT. BUT TO COMMISSIONER HORNE'S POINT OF VALUE ENGINEERING, THAT SEEMS TO BE THE CASE. THOSE ARE MY ONLY CONCERNS. SPEAKING FOR THE COALITION OF THE UNTRAINED EYE IN CONSTRUCTION, I COULDN'T TELL THE DIFFERENCE. SO AS LONG AS BUILDING AND ENGINEERING STANDARDS ARE MET FROM A STRUCTUL IMPROVENT PERSPECTIVE, I THINK I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. BUT TO SATISFY A WELL BROUGHT UP POINT BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, LIKE YOU SAID, THIS IS SOMETHING WE SHOULD PROBABLY LOOK INTO UPDATING TO BRING IT TO WHAT IS NOW READILY AVAILABLE 20 YEARS LATER. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I WANT TO START OUT BY SAYING NO, I DO NOT WANT TO SERVE ON ANOTHER COMMITTEE. [ LAUGHING ] >> Bronsky: COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO DO IT. IT'S A LOT OF FUN. [ LAUGHING ] SO, A COUPLE THINGS I WANT TO ADD. WE HAVE MADE VARIANCES IN THE PAST. THEY WERE SPECIFIC VARIANCES. THEY FELL WITHIN THE CRITERIA OF BOTH INNOVATIVE AS WELL AS AESTHETIC. I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD GO AS FAR AS COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF HAS, BUT TO ME, WE HAD A GREAT PRESENTATION. I LOVE KROGER. I SHOP THERE ALL THE TIME. HOWEVER, I'M NOT GOING TO TAKE THE PRESENTATION FROM THE APPLICANT AND WEIGH IT GREATER THAN THE PROFESSIONALS THAT WE PAY AT THE CITY TO LOOK AT WHAT WE NEED TO PUT ON HERE AND EVALUATE EVEN WITH THE AGE OF THE ORDINANCE TO BE LOOKING FORWARD-THINKING AND ENSURING THAT PLACES THAT WE DO GO BEYOND THE ORDINANCE IS CREATIVE, INNOVATIVE. THIS ACCORDING TO OUR PAID STAFF IS NOT. AND SO I'M NOT GOING TO VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: SORRY. I'M GOING TO PUT ASIDE THE STRUCTURAL ISSUES, BECAUSE I'M CONFIDENT THAT THEY HAVE ARCHITECTS AND STRUCTURAL ENGINEERS AND PEOPLE THAT CAN WORK ALL THOSE ISSUES OUT. AND THEY'VE GOT TO MEET CODE. I'VE WORKED FOR KROGER BEFORE AND I'M CERTAIN THEY WILL BE BUILT VERY STURDY. SO, I THINK WHAT WE'RE BEING ASKED FOR THE VARIANCE ABOUT IS ABOUT AESTHETICS. AND TO ME, WE'VE GOTTEN CRITERIA OF A CLAY-FIRED BRICK THAT IS IN THE ORDINANCE. BUT NOW WE HAVE A CAST BRICK. AND SO REGARDLESS OF THE IDEA OF WHAT -- THE IDEA IS ABOUT AESTHETICS, NOT ABOUT MANUFACTURING PROCESSES. HAD WE BEEN HERE TALKING ABOUT A JUMBO CLAY BRICK THEY WOULDN'T BE HERE, BUT THE BUILDING WOULD LOOK ALMOST IDENTICAL TO WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING, BUT THEY WOULD NOT NEED A VARIANCE FOR A JUMBO CLAY-FIRED BRICK, WHICH IS ALMOST IMPOSSIBLE TO GET IN TODAY'S MARKET. BUT A COLORED CAST BRICK IS READILY AVAILABLE, EASY TO BUILD, AND COMES OUT WITH BASICALLY THE EXACT SAME LOOK. AND SO I THINK THE CRITERIA FOR ME IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE FORMAT THEY'RE USING, THE 4 x 16 SHAPE VERSUS THE STANDARD CMU8 x 16, IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE A JUMBO BRICK BUILDING TO ME. IT'S AN ALTERNATIVE BUILDING MATERIAL THAT IN MY MIND MEETS THE AESTHETIC REASONS WHY THAT ORDINANCE WAS PASSED, JUST WITH A DIFFERENT MANUFACRING METHOD. AND SO AS A RESULT, I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS. I THINK IT'S A WAY TO ADDRESS THE CURRENT SUPPLY CHAIN CHALLENGES THAT WE'RE HAVING. IT'S AN ALTERNATE MANUFACTURING METHOD FOR THE SAME PRODUCT WE WOULD OTHERWISE APPROVE. I DON'T SEE A REASON WHY WE WOULDN'T EMBRACE IT AS LONG AS THE FORMAT OF THE MATERIALS MATCHES WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CLOSE TO THE FORMAT OF THE MATERIALS THAT ARE IN THE ORDINANCE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: THANK YOU. GOSH, A LOT OF GOOD COMMENTS HERE. THIS IS KIND OF A FUN ONE TONIGHT. >> Chair Downs: YEAH. >> Cary: TO ME, KIND OF SURPRISING. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE. TO COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF'S POINT OF VIEW, IT'S IN PLACE. PART AFTER WHAT WE'RE HERE TO DO IS AT TIMES LOOK AT VARIANCES BASED ON WHAT'S GOING ON. AND SO CERTAINLY I WOULDN'T DISMISS WHAT OUR PLANNING DEPARTMENT DOES, BECAUSE I HAVE THE MOST RESPECT FOR THEM AND I THINK A LOT OF WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS LEANING INTO THE EXISTING ORDINANCE. AS I LOOK AT THIS PROJECT, I DON'T SEE ANY DOWNSIDE BEYOND THE ORDINANCE, PERSONALLY. AND I SEE BENEFIT. AND I SEE BENEFIT TO PEOPLE THAT ARE GOING TO BE BUSINESSES IN OUR CITY. AND SO IT'S ONE OF THE REASONS I ASK WHAT OUR NEIGHBORS ARE DOING, BECAUSE I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS WE NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL AS WE LOOK FORWARD, HOW WE'RE BEING PERCEIVED BY THE BUSINESS COMMUNITY. ARE WE A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN DO BUSINESS OR A PLACE YOU CAN'T. AND DEPENDING ON THE GRAVITY OF THE SITUATION THERE'S TIMES WHERE WE HAVE TO PUT A STAKE IN THE GROUND AND SAY WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO THAT. BUT THERE'S BEEN SO MANY GOOD POINTS IN FAVOR OF THIS FROM STRUCTURE TO AESTHETICS AND EVERYTHING, I DON'T SEE ANY REASON NOT TO DO THIS BEYOND A ORDINANCE THAT IS SOMEWHAT DATED. AND I THINK WE'VE ALSO DISCUSSED THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULD ADDRESS THAT. AND SO FOR ALL THOSE REASONS, THIS SEEMS LIKE A SENSIBLE THING TO ME. AND SO I'D BE IN FAVOR OF IT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I THINK WE KIND OF KNOW WHERE EVERYONE STANDS. A LAST QUESTION I MIGHT HAVE FOR SOMEBODY UP THERE WOULD BE IS THE VARIANCE SO BIG BECAUSE SO MUCH OF THE BUILDING IS ALL OUT OF THIS MATERIAL, VERSUS IF WE WERE DOING SOME GLASS ON THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING OR SOMETHING, INSTEAD WE WLD FIND OURSELVES WITH A SMALLER VARIANCE, RIGHT, BECAUSE THERE WOULD BE ANOTHER MATERIAL THERE. AND THEY COULD GO WITH CMU ON SOME OF THE BACK SIDE, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE EFFICIENT TO USE A SINGLE TYPE IN THE CONSTRUCTION PARTICULARLY BECAUSE OF THE STRUCTURAL ELEMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR MATERIAL. IF WE SWITCH TO CMU IN A BIGGER SECTION OF THE BACK SIDE SO THAT THE VARIANCE IS SMALLER, WE NOW INTRODUCE THE NEED FOR STRUCTURAL STEEL, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THAT STRUCTURELE SUPPORT OF THIS MATERIAL. WE LOSE THAT. SO I THINK THAT'S WHY THE VARIANCE NUMBERS SEEM SO BIG. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: TO WILL W ELABORATN YOUR POINT, IF WE LOOK AT THIS AS A JUMBO BRICK PROJECT, THE ONLY PLACE I SEE A VARIANCE IS ON THE EAST FACADE. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. >> Ratliff: THAT'S THE WAY I'M LOOKING AT THIS. AND SO -- AND I THINK A KEY PART OF THE CASE IS THAT TO ME, IT'S . AND I RESPECT THAT THE STAFF LOOKS AT IT THAT WAY BECAUSE IT'S A CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT BY DEFINITION. AND SO I RESPECT THAT THE STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED ON THAT BASIS, DENIAL. HOWEVER, I THINK THIS IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT SITUATION, BECAUSE IT'S NOT YOUR STANDARD -- WHAT WE ENVISION AS A CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT. I THINK THE KEY IS THE FORMAT OF IT. >> Chair Downs: IS THAT A MOTION? >> Ratliff: WITH THAT SAID, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE VARIANCE WITH THE CONDITION THAT ALL OF THE CAST BRICK IS AS SHOWN IN THE RENDERINGS, THE 8 x 16 FORMAT, INCLUDING THE EAST FACADE. >> I WILL SECOND THAT. >> Chair Downs: HANG ON. THEY'RE LOOKING AT EACH OTHER. YOU SAID 8 x 16? >> Ratliff: I'M SORRY, 4 x 16. EXCUSE ME. >> Chair Downs: I HAD THE SAME THOUGHT. I WENT -- >> Ratliff: I SAID THAT WRONG, I APOLOGIZE. LET ME CLARIFY, RESTATE THAT MOTION, IT IS ALL 4 x 16 FORMAT INCLUDING THE EAST FACADE. >> I WILL SECOND THE MOTION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THAT MIGHT BE CLEAR AS MUD. THE ONLY VARIANCE THEY'VE ASKED US FOR IS FOR THIS PARTICULAR MATERIAL, THE 4 x 16. I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO SPELL THAT OUT, BUT IT'S IN THERE, SO WE'RE GOOD. >> Ratliff: I WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT IT IS NOT EXACTLY WHAT THEY ASKED FOR, BECAUSE THEY ASKED FOR THE 8 x 16 ON THE EAST FACADE. I WOULD LIKE FOR THAT TO BE THE 4 x 16. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. >> ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE KROGERUILDIN WHERE THE RETAIL BUILDING ABUTS IT, OBVIOUSLY THAT PORTION WON'T BE SEEN. AND THE PORTION WITHIN THAT LITTLE ALCOVE, THAT'S THE CMU. ON THE KROGER. >> TO CLARIFY, THE PART THAT'S ATTACHED TO ANOTHER BUILDIN WOULD NOT BE AN EXTERIOR FACADE SO WE'RE TALKING OAK THE PART IN THE -- ABOUT THE PART IN THE COURTYARD. I WOULD LIKE THE ENTIRE EXTERIOR TO BE THE SAME FORMAT. >> HAVE ZERO CMU. >> Ratliff: CORRECT. THAT'S THE ONLY PLACE YOU SAID THERE WAS CMU. >> YEAH, THAT'S FINE. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: OKAY. SO, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY. SO, THEY'RE ASKING FOR A VARIANCE AND NOW WE'RE GIVING THEM A BIGGER VARIANCE, BASICALLY, BECAUSE PART OF THEIR VARIANCE DIDN'T INCLUDE THAT AREA RIGHT? BECAUSE HE WAS USING CMU IN A PORTION OF IT AND BY CHANGING THAT TO NOW BE THIS MATERIAL -- I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE FROM STAFF'S STANDPOINT APPROVING THISN THAT MANNER DOESN'T CREATE SOME OTHER TRIPPING HAZARD OR UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE WE'RE NOT AWARE OF. >> NO. IF THE DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION IS CLEAR, THE MOTION IS CLEAR THAT THERE WON'T BE CMU, THAT WILL BE THE 4 x 16 CAST BRICK THAT WILL BE USED WHEREVER THEY'RE USING THAT. THERE WON'T BE ANY LARGER BRICK. IT WILL ALL BE THAT SIZE. THEN THE APPLICANT WILL, BASED UPON THIS MOTION, GIVE US AN UPDATED PLAN AND WE WILL APPROVE IT ONCE WE -- >> Chair Downs: U GUYS ARE NODDING. OKAY. SO JUST TO BE CLEAR, THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF ELIMINATES THE CMU FROM THE PROJECT. >> I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE MORE COMMENT. WE ALREADY HAVE THE REVIEW OF THESE DISTRICTS. IT'S PART OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE REWRITE REVIEW. SO YOU WILL SEE IT IN THE FUTURE. IT'S CURRENTLY ON THE WORK. >> Chair Downs: THEY'RE ALWAYS ONE STEP AHEAD OF US. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO ELIMINATE CMU AND GRANT THE VARIANCE, WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY. PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM RRIES BY A VOTE OF 5-2. SO, I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CARY. THAT WAS A FUN DISCUSSION. CONSTRUCTION BACKGROUND WILL DO THAT TO YOU. ANYTHING ABOUT MATERIALS AND STRUCTURE AND ALL OF THAT IS GOOD. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING IN. GOOD LUCK. >> THANK YOU ALL. >> Chair Downs: ITEM 5. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5, DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION. SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ZONING DISTRICTS IN RELATION TO ZONING CASE 2022-016, DIS DISCUN AND DIRECTION REGARDING SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ZONING DISTRICTS IN RELATION TO THE ZONING, PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO. >> GOOD EVENING, JORDAN, SENIOR PLANNER IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. AND TODAY I'VE GOT A DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ITEM FOR THE COMMISSION. THIS IS IN RELATION TO A ZONING CASE. THIS ITSELF IS NOT A ON SEPTEMBER 19TH, THENING CASE. COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING FOR AMENDMENTS TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WOULD ALIGN SELECT DISTRICTS WITH THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AMENDMENTS ARE LARGELY FOCUSED ON RESIDENTIAL USES AND NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. TWO OF THE TOPICS THAT HAD BEEN PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED ARE LARGELY COMPLETE WITH A DRAFT AMENDMENT PROVIDED IN THE PACKET AS EXHIBIT B. THOSE ARE ALSO POSTED ONLINE LAST WEEK. WORK IS ONGOING FOR THE AMENDMENTS AND THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND RETAIL ZONING DISTRICTS. AND TODAY STAFF WISH TO DISCUSS SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN CC AND R. IN CC, THE PROPOSAL IS TO ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THERE IS ALSO A PROPOSAL TO ADD NEW STANDARDS FOR WHAT STAFF ARE TERMING SMALL LOT RESIDENCES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE CC DISTRICT COVERS MUCH OF THE HIGHWAY 75 CORRIDOR AND SPANS SERAL CATEGORIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP. AS EXPECTED, MUCH OF THE AREA IS IN THE EXPRESSWAYS CORRIDORS CATEGORY, BUT THERE IS ALSO SOME PROPERTIES IN THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS, URBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS AND DOWNTOWN CORRIDORS. ALL FOUR OF THESE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES SUPPORT SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMET, BUT THEY DO PROVIDE FOR A VARYING RANGE OF DENSITIES DOWN FROM FOUR DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE UP 40 DWELLING UNITS AN ACRE FOR SINGLE-FAMILY. STAFF ARE PROPOSING A RANGE OF HOUSING OPTIONS AS A VARIETY OF DENSITIES AS APPROPRIATE IN THESE DISTRICTS. SO, GENERALLY, LOWER DENSITY FORMS OF HOUSING COULD BE DEVELOPED UNDER THE SFA, PH, AND DUA DISTRICTS. THIS IS THE CURRENT PRACTICE IN RETAIL. AND HIGHER DENSITY FORMS WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THESE PROPOSED NEW STANDARD FOR SMALL LOT SINGLE-FAMILY. MEANWHILE, IN THE RETAIL DISTRICT, THE PROPOSAL IS TO CONTINUE TO ALLOW SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES BUT TO REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN S.U.P. AND INSTEAD ALLOW THEM BY RIGHT. RETAIL PROPERTIES ARE FOUND THROUGHOUT PLANO, IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD CORNERS, COMMUNITY CORNERS, OR SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTER FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES,OSTLY. THESE THREE CATEGORIES ALL SUPPORT SINGLE-FAMILY USES, PROVIDED THAT A TRANSITION BETWEEN NEW DEVELOPMENT AND EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS CAN BE ACHIEVED. CURRENTLY THERE ARE NO SPECIFIC STANDARDS IN THE ORDINANCE FOR WHAT THESE TRANSITIONS LOOK LIKE OTHER THAN THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENT AND THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT FOR BUILDINGS IN THE DISTRICTS THEMSELVES. SO IN SUMMARY, STAFF ARE SEEKING DIRECTION ON THE FOLLOWING PROPOSALS -- ALLOWING SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES IN CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, ALLOWING LOW-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES IN THE RETAIL DISTRIBUTE WITHOUT AN S.U.P., AND ADDING NEW STANDARDS FOR SMALL LOT RESIDENCES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE DRAFT CHANGES FOR INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES AND THE CE ZONING DISTRICT ARE IN THE PACKET AS MENTIONED AND THEY HAVE ALSO BEEN POSTED ONLINE. ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ITEM FOR MULTIFAMILY USES IN CC IS ANTICIPATED IN THE NEW YEAR AND THIS WOULD BE BEFORE THE PUBLIC HEARING WHICH HAS BEEN TABLED TO JANUARY 17TH, 2023. SO THIS CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE, BUT ALSO VERY INTERESTED IN YOUR DIRECTION ON THE QUESTIONS ON THE SCREEN. >> Chair Downs: COULD YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURES THAT SHOW THE DENSITY NUMBERS? IT'S LAID OVER THE TOP OF THEM. >> YES. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT THERE. >> THERE'S ALSO A LOT MORE OF THOSE IN EXHIBIT A IN THE PAET. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. I GUESS I WANTED -- WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCES, BUT IN THE SAME SLIDE WE SHOW A PICTURE OF 42 UNITS PER ACRE. AND I WANT SOMEONE TO EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THAT UNIT ON THE SIDE THAT'S 42 UNITS PER ACRE IS CONSIDERED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WHEN IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE APARTMENTS, YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN? I JUST WANT TO KNOW HOW ARE WE DEFINING WHEN THE PHYSICAL STRUCTURE TO ANYBODY DRIVING DOWN THE STREET IS GOING TO GO, THOSE ARE APARTMENTS, BUT YET WE'RE DEFINING THEM AS SINGLE-FAMILY. >> YES. IN TERMS OF THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING IT IS A SINGLE BUILDING THAT CONTAINS MULTIPLE DWELLING UNITS. EACH OF THOSE IS ON A SEPARATE PLATTED LOT. IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED DWELLINGS. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. >> Chair Downs: SO THEY'RE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED. SO THEY'RE, AGAIN, I SAW SOMEWHERE -- LET ME GO BACK UP HERE. UNDER THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS, MAXIMUM DENSITY 40 DUA, THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT IS 20 STORIES. SO I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A 20-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY BUILDING RIGHT? SO THAT'S WHERE SOME OF THIS TO ME GETS A LITTLE BIT -- WOULD BE CONFUSING TO ANYBODY LOOKING AT IT, IS THAT WE'RE SAYING THAT THAT BUILDING THAT KIND OF LOOKS LIKE AN APARTMENT BUILDING IS ACTUALLY EIGHT HOUSES CONNECTED. THEY'RE ALL THREE STORIES TALL. AND THEY'RE ALL SITTING ON THEIN THOUGH THE BRICK, THE WINDOWS, AND EVERYTHING ELSE CROSS COMPLETELY ACROSS THE FRONT. NOBODY IN THE PUBLIC IS GOING TO LOOK AT THAT AND THINK THAT'S NOT A MULTIFAMILY UNIT, RIGHT? SO I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT AS WE'RE MAKING ANY OF OUR RECOMMENDATIONS, AS WE'RE DEFINING THINGS, AS WE'RE ILLUSTRATING SOMETHING. IF WE ILLUSTRATE SOMETHING AND SAY THIS IS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE, IT'S ALL ON INDIVIDUAL LOTS, BUT THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT LISTED IS 20 STORIES, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO BE ABLE TO MAKE THE CASE THAT THIS IS ANYTHING OTHER THAN AN APARTMENT, RIGHT? SO IF IT'S GOING TO BE SINGLE-FAE GOING TO BUY A FIVE-STORY HOUSE AND CLIMB FIVE STORIES OF STAIRS? I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THEY'RE ALL ON THEIR OWN LOTS, I DON'T THINK YOU CAN STACK HOUSES ON TOP OF EACH OTHER AND CLAIM THEY'RE ON SEPARATE LOTS. >> THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I WAS GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION. HOW DO WE HANDLE, FOR EXAMPLE, A HIGH-RISE CONDO MINIMUM PROJECT, WHICH ARE INDIVIDUALLY OWNED UNITS? IS THAT CONSIDERED SINGLE-FAMILY? SO HOW COULD YOU HAVE MORE THAN A THREE OR FOUR-STORY SINGLE-FAMILY -- >> Chair Downs: FOUR STORIES WITH A GARAGE, THEN THREE STORIES OF LIVING SPACE, NOW YOU'RE AT FOUR. I DON'T SEE GOING ABOVE THAT. I GUESS WE NEED AN EDUCATION -- >> YEAH. >> Chair Downs: OR -- EITHER THE DEFINITIONS OR UNDER, AGAIN, HOW WE SAY SINGLE-FAMILY BUT CAN ALLOW FOR EVEN FIVE STORIES AS A SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. >> WHAT YOU'RE SEEING ON THE SCREEN IS THE STORY -- THE HEIGHTS AND THE DENSITIES FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IN THE COMPHEIVE PLAN, NOT THE ZONING CHANGES THAT ARE PROPOSED IN WE ALLOWED SINGLE-FAMILY USES IN THIS DISTRICT. >> Chair Downs: IS THE MAX HEIGHT SHOWN THERE FOR ANY TYPE? >> COMMERCIAL, NONRESIDENT -- >> Chair Downs: BECAUSE THAT WAS LISTED IN HERE, I'M THINKING IT'S PART OF THIS. >> ME, TOO. >> WOULD THE 40 UNITS BE THE SAME THING, THEN? AS I DO THE MATH, THOSE ARE RELATIVELY SMALL LOTS. IF THERE'S 40 LOTS IN AN ACRE, 1,000 -- >> Chair Downs: 1,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. >> WE HAVE A FEW IN TOWN UP TO THAT DENSITY. 40 DWELLING UNITS PER ACHE SERTHE MAXIMUM RECOMMENDED FOR SINGLE-FAMILY USES INCLUDING TOWNHOMES. IT GOES HIGHER FOR MULTIFAMILY USES. >> Chair Downs: OF COURSE. OKAY. IT HELPS JUST UNDERSTANDING THE STORIES THERE'S NOT RELATED TO THE ACTUAL SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE BUT TO ANY BUILDING IN THAT AREA. >> AS WE LOOK AT THESE STANDARDS, THE HEIGHT WOULD BE PART OF THE STANDARDS THAT WE WOULD BE BRINGING FORWARD. >> Chair Downs: WE'RE GOING TO DIDEFINE A STANDARD FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOUSING. SO, LET'S GO BACK TO YOUR LIST OFUESTIONS COMMSIONER BROUNOFF. I SAW YOU, WE'LL GET YOU THERE IN ONE SECOND. OKAY. NOW, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: OKAY. HOW WOULD A HIGH-RISE CONDO BUILDING WHERE EACH UNIT IS INDIVIDUALLY OWNED BE ZONED? IS IT CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY OR SINGLE-FAMILY IN SOME CATEGORY? >> MY UNDERSTANDING IS A CONDOMINIUM IS A MULTIFAMILY BUILDING AS DEFINED IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND WOULD BE THE SAME IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. >> Brounoff: ARE YOU PROPOSING TO ALLOW SUCH BUILDINGS IN THE TWO AREAS THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? >> SO, AS MENTIONED EARLIER -- >> Brounoff: CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL AND THE RETAIL? >> SO, WE DO INTEND TO BRING A FOLLOWUP ITEM FOCUSED ON MULTIFAMILY USES IN THE NEW YEAR. WE WOULD BE PROPOSING TO ADD MULTIFAMILY USES IN THE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL DISTRICT ONLY. THE FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES THAT THE RETAIL DISTRICT IS FOUND IN GENERALLY DO NOT SUPPORTMULTIFAMILY USES. O PART OF THIS EXERCISE IS REMOVING INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES, WHICH ARE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND REMOVING INDEPENDENT LIVING FACILITIES FROM THE RETAIL DISTRICT. >> Brounoff: WHERE WOULD CONDOS FIT INTO YOUR SCHEME? >> CONDOS WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN APARTMENT, MULTIFAMILY BUILDING. >> Brounoff: ALLOWED OR NOT ALLOWED WITHIN THE TWO DISTRICTS YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? >> ALLOWED IN THE CC DISTRICT. IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED IN THE R DISTRICT. >> Chair Downs: THIS DISCUSSION IS ALL ABOUT SINGLE-FAMILY. >> THAT'S RIGHT. AND ALSO, JUST TO CLARIFY, SEP, WHICH WE'LL DISCUSS AT A LATER DATE. >> Chair Downs: SO THE DEVELOPER WOULD BUILD A SINGLE-FAMILY IN HERE PROVIDED THEY MEET -- YOU'RE HERE TO GET FEEDBACK SO YOU CAN GIVE US A DRAFT OF AN ORDINANCE THAT WE CAN CONSIDER CALLING A PUBLIC HEARING FOR TO CHANGE -- OR BE IN CONFORMANCE WITH, RIGHT? ARE WE GOING TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING? WE HAVE TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING. >> YOU'VE ALREADY CALLED THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> Chair Downs: SORRY. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I WANT TO SAY GREAT PRESENTATION. I REALLY APPRECIATE IT. >> THANK YOU. >> Bronsky: THE MORE THAT WE CONTINUE TO GET OUR ZONING IN ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, I THINK THE HAPPIER WE'RE ALL GOING TO BE. THIS IS STUFF THAT I'VE BEEN LOOKING FORWARD TO. I BELIEVE THAT WE HAVE A GREAT NEED FOR MORE HOUSING IN PLANO. AND I FIND THAT OFFERING MORE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, WHETHER ATTACHED OR DETACHE IN THESE AREAS WILL PROVIDE ADDITIONAL VARIETY OF HOUSING OPTIONS AND HOUSING CHOICES ACROSS PLANO. AND SO I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR ALL OF YOUR EFFORT ON THAT, AND I APPRECIATE THAT WE CONTINUE TO WORK HARD ON THIS AND THAT WE'RE OFFERING THESE NEW OPPORTUNITIES FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING IN PLANO. >> Chair Downs: I WILL PUT IN THERE THAT I THINK FROM A HOUSING STANDPOINT, ANYTHING YOU CAN BUI IN PLANO IS GOOD. IT WILL HELP WITH HOUSING PRICES. IT WILL HELP WITH SATISFYING DEMAND. AND I DO THINK THE S.U.P. REQUIREMENT IN CC IS A GOOD IDEA ONLY BECAUSE I THINK IT NEEDS REVIEW. IF SOMEBODY'S GOING TO PROPOSE IT, IT NEEDS REVIEW. BUT I LOOK WITHIN THE PACKET, I HAD LOOKED ALREADY AND I WANTED TO SEE WHAT YOU PUT ON THE SCREEN SO EVERYBODY ELSE WAS LOOKING AT THE SAME THING. ANYTHING THAT WAS PROPOSED THERE TO ME IS VALUABLE BECAUSE IT'S HOUSING. AND IT'S SINGLE-FAMILY, WHICH IS IMPORTANT. SO I LOVE THE IDEA OF THE CONCEPTS. IT GIVES BUILDERS AN OPTION AND IT GIVES PEOPLE WANTING TO LIVE HERE AN OPTION. THAT'S GOOD. JUST CLARIFYING TO ME THAT WAS THE THING THAT STOOD OUT TO ME, 20 STORIES? I COULDN'T CONNECT THERE THAT THAT WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SINGLE-FAMILY. IT SEEMED LIKE IT WAS RELATED TO THE HOUSING, NOT TO THE OVERALL PLAN. BUT OTHER COMMENTS ON -- WHAT ABOUT THEONCEPTS, ARE YOU GOOD WITH THOSE, NOT GOOD WITH THOSE? THEY'RE LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK. OKAY. I GUESS WE'RE GOOD TO GO. [ LAUGHING ] NOBODY HAS ANY INPUT, SO WE'RE GOOD. S.U.P., EVERYBODY LIKES THE IDEA OF AN S.U.P.? YES. OKAY GOOD. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE RETAIL ZONING. MAYBE CLARIFY, WHAT DOES IT MEAN BY DOES IT MEET THE INTENT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE DASHBOARDS? IS THERE A REASON WHY WE'RE CONCERNED THAT IT ISN'T? IS THERE A SPECIFIC REASON WHY? IS IT BECAUSE THE LAND USE DASHBOARDS VAGUE, OR BECAUSE IT'S LIMITING THESE OPTIONS ALREADY AND WE WANT TO VIOLATE THAT? >> SO, THE LAND USE DASHBOARDS AS WELL AS THE POLICIES IN THE COMP PLAN SPEAK TO A COUPLE ITEMS. ONE IS, AS MENTIONED, PROVIDING THAT TRANSITION BETWEEN NEW DEVELOPMENT TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, MAINTAINING THAT NEIGHBORHOOD FEEL AND THAT SENSITIVITY. THE OTHER IS THAT THE ADDITION OF RESIDENCES TO RETAIL DISTRICTS SHOULD BE DONE AS A MEANS TO REVITALIZE THOSE UNDERPERFORMING RETAIL CENTERS. AND SO WHETHER OR NOT REQUIRING S.U.P. FOR REDEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HELP OR HINDER THAT REVITALIZATION, THAT'S ONE OF THE QUESTIONS THAT WE WANTED TO ASK. >> Chair Downs: THAT'S AN EXCELLENT POINT. IN THE RETAIL AREA FOR SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED I WOULD IMAGINE MOST OF THIS IS GOING TO BE, TO ME IT'S THE PERFECT TYPE OF TRANSITION FROM A NEIGHBORHOOD SUBURBAN-STYLE AREA OUT INTO ONE OF THOSE FOUR RNER AREAS WHERE THEY'RE WANTING AND NEEDING TO REDEVELOP THAT LAND. AND I WOULD ALMOST ENCOURAGE IT THROUGH NOT REQUIRING AN S.U.P. BUT SAYING THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IS A GOOD TRANSITION. IT'S NOT MULTIFAMILY, WHICH EVERYONE WAS WORRIED ABOUT. THEY'RE GOING TO TEAR DOWN THE FOUR CORNERS AND BUILD FIVE-STORY APARTMENTS. GIVE THEM AN OPTION OF A HIGH-DENSITY SINGLE-FAMILY PRODUCT AND SEE IF THAT DOESN'T HELP US IN THE REDEVELOPMENT WITH SOME OF THESE FOUR CORNER AREAS WHERE, FRANKLY, WE HAVE A MAJOR ISSUE. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I THINK THE LE THAT CAUT MY EYE WAS ACCORDING TO THE AVAILABLE RECORDS, NO S.U.P. REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT HAVE BEEN DENIED IN THE RETAIL AREA. SO IT ALMOST SEEMS LIKE -- TO COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF'S POINT, WE SUBCONSCIOUSLY MADE THE DECISION -- >> Chair Downs: TO ALLOW IT. >> Olley: TO ALLOW IT, SO MIGHT AS WELL GO ALL IN. >> Chair Downs: ANYONE ELSE? COMMENTS? WE'RE GOOD? OKAY. SO, CONCEPTS FOR SINGLE-FAMILY IN THE RETAIL ZONING LOOK GOOD. NO S.U.P. REQUIRED. STANDARDS OF THE PATIO HOMES, SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, AND I GUESS THAT'S TWO-FAMILY DUPLEX. >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: DISTRICTS ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE R DISTRICT AND BY SPECIFIC -- PROVIDE COMPATIBLE TRANSITIONS. DO THEY. COMMENTS ANYONE? WHY ARE WE QUESTIONING THOSE STANDARDS? STDARDS MEET OR PROVIDE AR THOSE COMPATIBLE TRANSITION? WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE STANDARDS THAT CAUSE YOU TO QUESTION WHETHER OR NOT THEY'RE A GOOD TRANSITION? >> MORE SO IT'S DUE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE POLICIES IN THE COMP PLAN BEING ADOPTED LAST YEAR AND THE ADDITION OF RESIDENTIAL USES TO RETAIL WAS ADOPTED IN 2004. SO WHAT WAS ADOPTED IN 2004, IS THAT WORKING AND IS IT COMPATIBLE WITH OUR RECENTLY ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> AND I WOULD SAY THAT STAFF GENERALLY FEEL THAT IT IS. WE JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT SOUNDED RIGHT TO THE COMMISSION AS WELL. >> Chair Downs: I THINK THE FACT THAT -- I'M PUZZLED ABOUT WHY WE FEEL LIKE THEY'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, COMPATIBLE TRANSITIONS. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT IT. I THINK THAT THEY'RE GOOD, SO WE JUST CONFIRMED YOUR -- [ LAUGHING ] I WAS GOING, WHY ARE THEY WORRIED? I DIDN'T SEE WHAT WOULD BE PROVINGOU THIS CAUTION. SO YOU WERE JUST LOOKING FOR CONFIRMATION. I WON'T SAY YOUR GUESS IS AS GOOD AS OURS, BUT, MR. BROUNOFF. >> Brounoff: I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S NOT SOME NEED FOR OVERSIGHT, PERHAPS THROUGH AN S.U.P. PROCEDURE, TO MAKE SURE THAT A PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL PROJECT IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RETAIL THAT WILL CONTINUE TO EXIST. IN OTHER WORDS, WHEN WE WERE LOOKING LAST WEEK AT TRANSIT-ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT, WE WERE LOOKING AT A RELATIONSHIP TO A COMMUNITY WITH WALKABLE DISTANCES BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND SHOPS AND DIFFERENT TYPES OF USES, ALL WORKING TOGETHER TO FORM A NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T SEE ANY OF THAT GOING ON HERE, I JUST SEE TRANSITIONING FROM ONE TO THE OTHER. I'M NOT SEEING ANY EMPHASIS ON RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL USES, THE RETAIL USES, AND THE RESIDENTIAL. COULD AN S.U.P. PROCEDURE BE HELPFUL TO SEE THAT THAT HAPPENS? >> CURRENTLY THE S.U.P. IS REQUIRED. AND THE THREE DISTRICTS THAT ARS THAT ARE CURRENTLY SUPPORTED IN THE R DISTRICT ARE FAIRLY LOW-DENSITY FORMS. I THINK THE MOST DENSE IS THE SF-A DISTRICT, WHICH IS ONLY ABOUT 12 DUA AT ITS MOST. BUT IF WE WANTED TO ADD MORE STANDARDS OR MORE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHAT KIND OF COMMUNITIES WE WANT TO SEE CREATED IN THESE FOUR CORNER RETAIL AREAS, THEN REMOVING THE S.U.P. REQUIREMENT WOULD NOT ACHIEVE THAT. >> DO WE WANT TO SITUATION -- A SITUATION WHERE WE PLOP DOWN RESIDENCES IN OUR ENTHUSIASM TO BUILD OUR HOUSING STOCK WITH A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER IN THEIR BACKYARD WITHOUT SOME SORT OF OVERSIGHT? WHETHER IT BE TO TRY TO LINK THE HOUSING TO PARTICULAR TYPES OF RETAIL THAT MIGHT BE COMPLEMENTARY TO THE RESIDENTIAL, OR TO INSIST ON CERTAIN TYPES OF BUFFERING OR SCREENING TO SEPARATE THEM. YOU KNOW, MAYBE AN S.U.P. MIGHT BE BENEFICIAL? THAT'S JUST AN IDLE THOUGHT I'M THROWING OUT. >> I CAN ADDRESS A LITTLE BIT OF THAT. SO, RIGHT NOW, AS IT'S BEING PROPOSED, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I BELIEVE THERE'S AN ACREAGE MINIMUM THAT WE'RE CONSIDERING ADOPTING, EXCUSE ME. AND SO THE PARCEL WOULD HAVE TO BE A CERTAIN SIZE FOR THEM TO PLACE THE HOMES. DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, STAFF WORKS WITH ENGINEERING. WE WORK WITH TRAFFIC. WE WORK WITH OTHER DEPARTMENTS TO ENSURE THAT THE NECESSARY STREETS AND SERVICES CAN BE PROVIDED. SO I THINK FROM A GENERAL PROVISION OF SERVICES AND ACCESS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, WE WOULD ENSURE THAT HAPPENS AS PART OF THE PROCESS. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I CAN SEE MAYBE REMAINING IS WHEN YOU CITE A RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER, THE MAIN CONCERN I CAN SEE IS PROXIMITY TO LOADING DOCKS OR TRASH SERVICE AREAS, TH HAS LIKE THAT. IT MAY BE THAT WE CONSIDER SOME ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE IN OUR DRAFT TO ADDRESS THAT SITUATION SO THAT THEY'RE NOT IMMEDIATELY IMPACTED. HOWEVER, IF YOU ALSO CONSIDER GENERALLY THE RETAIL CORNERS OF THE COMMUNITY, PEOPLE BACK UP TO THE REAR OF SHOPPING CENTERS. SO, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IN THE PAST, IS GETTING SOME ADDITIONAL PROTECTION FOR RESIDENTS FROM PLACEMENT OF DUMPSTERS. AND WE ALREADY HAVE SOME SCREENING REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE FOR LOADING AREAS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. MAYBE WE CAN REVISIT THAT SIATION WITH THIS DRAFT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY SITUATION THAT MIGHT GIVE ME PAUSE ABOUT THIS. >> Chair Downs: YOU BRING A GOOD POINT. WE HAVE REQUIREMENTS. THEY CAN'T JUST COME IN AND DROP DOWN A DEVELOPMENT WITH NO SCREENING WALLS, NO PROTECTION. WE ALREADY HAVE REQUIREMENTS FOR STANDARDS FOR THAT. REVISITING THEM ISN'T A BAD IDEA. I DO APPRECIATE YOUR POINT, THOUGH, ABOUT THE DESIGN SIDE OF IT AND THAT INTEGRATION OF WALKABILITY. WEE TALKED ABOUT THAT FOR A LONG TIMING. TIME. IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF THE CHALLENGE. I KNOW MY NEIGHBOR WHO LIVES LESS THAN A QUARTER OF A MILE FROM THE KROGER AND EVERYTHING IN MY NEIGHBORHOOD, THEY GET IN THEIR CAR AND THEY DRIVE OVER THERE BECAUSE THEY HAVE TO KIND OF WALK IN A WEIRD SPOT AND THERE'S NO SIDEWALK LEADING INTO THE RETAIL CENTER. THEY HAVE TO WALK THROUGH THE DRIVEWAY ALL THE CARS DRIVE IN TO GET INTO THE PARKING LOT. SO IT'S NOT REALLY DESIGNED THAT WAY. SO IT WOULD BE NICE IF THOSE STANDARDS WE DESIGN, EVEN IF BY RIGHT, INCLUDE SOME LANGUAGE ABOUT ENCOURAGING OR REQUIRING IF NEED BE, THAT ACCESS TO THE RETAIL SIDE. BUT WE HAVE TO BE CAREFUL THAT THAT ACCESS ISN'T SIMPLY INTO THE DUMPSTER AREA OF THE GROCERY STORE SO. SOME STANDARDS ALONG THOSE LINES MAKE SENSE, BUT I'M HESITANT TO SAY EVERY DEVELOPER HAS TO GO THROUGH AN S.U.P. PROCESS IN ORDER TO GET A PROJECT DONE. I DON'T KNOW. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, THANK YOU. ALL THESE POINTS ARE VERY VALID. I THINK WHAT WE'RE DISMISSING HERE, WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT THE SHEER ECONOMICS OF THIS. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO PLOP DOWN APARTMENTS THERE WITHOUT HAVING SOME -- >> Chair Downs: ATTACHED. >> SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, EXCUSE ME, PATIO HOMES OR WHATEVER DUPLEXES WITHOUT HAVING SOME CLEAR IDEA ON HOW TO SELL THAT PROPERTY AND TOUCH ON WALKABILITY. THERE'S GOING TO BE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT AROUND THOSE COMMUNITY CORNERS THAT ARE ONLY GOING TO EANCE THE CITY. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE HOPING FOR HERE. YOU'RE HOPING THAT A TWO TH DEVR LOOKS AT A COMMUNITY CORNER AND SEES IT'S NOT MEETING ITS CAPACITY FROM A SALES OR RETAIL OR EVEN TRAFFIC PERSPECTIVE. AND I THINK IF WE HAVE SOME HOUSING THERE THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT, THE SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED, DUPLEXES ON THIS PARTICULAR PART, PARTICULARLY WITH THE COMMUNITY CORNERS AND A TRANSITION UP TO EXISTING NEIGHBORHOODS, THAT'S A NICE TRANSITION AND THEY CAN NOW WK TO THEIR LITTLE GROCERY STORE THAT MAY BE THERE, OR A LITTLE MARKET, DRY CLEANER, CVS, BANK, LITTLE RESTAURANTS AND STUFF. AND THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE HOPING IS DEVELOPED IN THESE COMMUNITY CORNERS THAT ARE TIRED. THAT'S A SOLUTION WE'RE LOOKING AT. SHEER ECONOMICS IS GOING TO DO THAT. I DOUBT IF THIS BODY'S GOING TO DROP PATIO HOMES IN THIS COMMUNITY CORNER WITHOUT TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION, BECAUSE SOMETHING'S GOT TO GIVE. A BUILDING'S GOING TO HAVE TO GO IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO THAT, SO IT'S ALL ABOUT THAT ENTIRE COMMUNITY CORNER DEVELOPMENT, AND I THINK IT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT, SO. >> Chair Downs: CLEAR AS MUD? >> CLEAR AS MUD. >> Chair Downs: I HOPE A LITTLE CLEARER THAN THAT. ALL RIGHT. GENERAL COMMENTS, CONCERNS, WITH DRAFT AMENDMENTS IN EXHIBIT B, WHICH PRIMARILY APPEAR TO BE APPLYING TO THE INDEPENDENT LIVING AS MUCH AS ANYTHING ELSE? ANY THOUGHTS OR COMMENTS AROUND EXHIBIT B? ANYTHING SPECIFIC THAT Y'RE KIND OF QUESTIONING OR CURIOUS ABOUT? NO? NO? >> LOTS OF SHAKING HEADS. >> Chair Downs: LOTS OF SHAKING HEADS. OKAY. IT SOUNDS LIKE WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH EXHIBIT B. SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE. I'LL KIDDING, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS AND WE'LL GET INTO IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: FOR PUTTING UP WITH US. [ CHUCKLING ] >> Chair Downs: I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANYBODY IN HER TT NTS SPEAK ON EXHIBIT B. NO? SHE'S HERE A LOT, SO ARE YOU -- DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING ELSE YOU WANT TO SPEAK ON WHILE YOU'RE HERE? JUST LISTENING, OKAY. VERY GOOD. BECAUSE I THINK -- E. >> WE'RE ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6, Discussion and Direction: Draft Changes for the Neighborhood Business Design and Residential Community Design Zoning Districts, in relation to Zoning Case 2022-017 - Discussion and direction regarding alignment of the Neighborhood Business Design (NBD) and Residential Community Design (RCD) zoning districts with Comprehensive Plan 2021 in relation to ZC2022-017. PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO. >> GOOD EVENING, RECORDS PLANNING MANAGER. THIS ITEM IS TO REVIEW DRAFT CHANGES FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DESIGN AND RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DESIGN ZONING DISTRICTS. THEY ARE BEING EVALUATED FOR ALIGNMENT WITH COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021 UNDER ZONING CASE 2022-017. JUST A VERY QUICK REMINDER, THE NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DESIGN DISTRICT, NBD, IS DESIGNED FOR SMALL-SCALE COMMERCIAL USES, RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DESIGN IS DESIGNED FOR SMALL-SCALE RESIDENTIAL USES. AND THEY ARE INTENDED TO BE USED TOGETHER AS COMPANION DISTRICTS. THEY HAVE COMPATIBLE DESIGNS WITH TRANSITION AND HEIGHT FROM NEARBY NEIGHBORHOODS. THEY ARE LOW-RISE, THREE STORIES MAX, WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOODS, REQUIRE OPEN SPACE. AS COMPANION DISTRICTS, THE NBD DISTRICT CAN BE USED ALONE FOR COMMERCIAL USES. THE RCD DISTRICT CAN BE USED ALONE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES. AND THEN AN NBD DISTRICT CAN INCLUDE RCD HOUSING TYPES SO YOU WOULD HAVE THE MIXED-USE SMALL-SCALE CENTER. FOR BACKGROUND OF THIS, THE DISTRICTS WERE CONSIDERED BACK IN 2020 AND APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IN JANUARY OF 2021. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS STILL BEING EVALUATED AT THAT TIME, AND SO CITY COUNCIL WHILE THEY DID APPROVE THE DISTRICTS, THEY WERE LIMITED TO THE PLANO EVENTS CENTER SITE ONLY. COUNCIL DID DIRECT STAFF TO REVISIT THE DISTRICTS ONCE THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WAS COMPLETE. SO ON SEPTEMBER 19TH, THE COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THE BULK OF THE CHANGES REGARD THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACTIONS 5 AND 9 AND ALSO CHANGES TO THE PURPOSE STATEMENTS TO EXPAND THEIR AVAILABILITY THROUGHOUT THE CITY TO LOCATIONS THAT ARE COMPATIBLE WITH SURROUNDING RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS AND DEVELOPMENTSúE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. QUICKLY THE RGM5 CHANGES ARE TO LIMIT ALL NBD DISTRICTS WITH RESIDENTIAL USES TO NO MORE THAN 50% RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, TO REQUIRE THAT EVERY TWO SQUARE FEET OF RESIDENTIAL USES APPROVED FOR OUPANCY REQUIRE AT LEAST ONE SQUARE FOOT OF NONRESIDENTIAL DURING DEVELOPMENT, AND TO REQUIRE USABLE OPEN SPACE AND PLAN TRAILS BE PROVIDED DURING THE FIRST PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT. TO IMPLEMENT RGM9, THE MAIN CHANGE IS THAT ALL OF THE MULTIFAMILY PRODUCTS THAT ARE STILL SMALL-SCALE, THEY ARE LOCATED NOW IN THE TIER THREE FOR OUR HOUSING MIX REQUIREMENTS. THAT TIER THREE ALREADY HAD A 25% LIMITATION FOR THE TOTAL UNITS IN THE DISTRICT AND WAS LIMITED TO DISTRICTS THAT HAD ER 100 UNITS, BUT NOW THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL REGULATION THAT THOSE UNITS ARE ONLY PERMITTED WHEN THE DISTRICT HAS TEN ACRES OR MORE. AGAIN, THOSE ARE THE MANOR HOME AND THE STACKED FLAT WHICH ALLOW UP TO SIX OR NINE UNITS PER BUILDING. SO ORIGINALLY STAFF WAS EXPECTED TO BRING FORWARD SOME SPECIFIC QUESTIONS FOR THE COMMISSION AT TONIGHT'S MEETING, BUT WE FOUND WE DO NEED MORE TIME TO DISCUSS THOSE QUESTIONS AND ALTERNATIVES INTERNALLY. SO TONIGHT'S PRESENTATION IS TO REEW T DRAFT CHANGES PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET AND AVAILABLE ONLINE AT OUR ZONING PETITIONS WEBSITE. WE DO ANTICIPATE AN ADDITIONAL DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION IN THE NEW YEAR. AND THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS CASE WAS TABLED TO JANUARY 17TH, 2023. AND WE ARE JUST LOOKING FOR FEEDBACK ON ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE ON THE DRAFT CHANGES OR ANY ADDITIONAL ISSUES YOU WOULD LIKE THE STAFF TO CONSIDER AS WE CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS CASE. AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I WANTE TO SAY IN SECTION 7 PART C THE PHASING REQUIREMENT, I'M VERY EXCITED THAT WE ARE BRINGING THAT THAT A AS WELL AS THE 2:1 RATIO FOR RESIDENTIAL AND NONRESIDENTIAL. AS I SAID IN THE LAST ONE, THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH FOR ALL THE EFFORT THAT YOU PUT IN TO MAKE THE WORK THE CITIZENS PUT IN FOR 18 MONTHS ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COME TO FRUITION. I REALLY BELIEVE THAT EACH OF ARE HONORING THE WORK THAT ALLRD THE CITIZENS DID. I WANT TO SAY THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: ON NUMBER 4 LETTER II, YOU'RE CHANGING THE NOMENCLATURE FROM STACKED TOWNHOME TO MANOR CHANGE. WHY? >> WHAT WE ARE DOING THERE IS ACTUALLY SWAPPING STACKED TOWNHOME AND MANOR HOME. SO A STACKED TOWNHOME IS A SINGLE-FAMILY PRODUCT AND A MANOR HOME IS A MULTIFAMILY PRODUCT. SO WE'RE MOVING THE STACKED WNHO TO TIER TWO AND MOVING THE MANOR HOMES TO TIER THREE. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY? MICROPHONE. >> Olley: QUICK QUESTION. REMIND ME THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A STACKED TOWNHOME AND A REGULAR TOWNHOME? >> A STACKED TOWNHOME CAN BE POTENTIALLY ACTUALLY STACKED ON TOP OF ANOTHER ONE, AT LEAST PARTIALLY. IT WOULD BE UP TO THE DESIGNERS. >> Olley: SO YOU HAVE TWO FAMILIES ON TOP OF ONE ANOTHER? >> CORRECT. AND WITH AN ENTRANCE AT THE FRONT ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR FOR EVERYONE. THEIR OWN PRIVATE ENTRANCES. BUT THE OPPORTUNITY FOR A BUILDING AND A HALF, PERHAPS, AND A BUILDING AND A HALF BUT WITH A STAIRWELL INTERNAL. THEY WOULD BE PRETTY UNIQUE FOR PLANO, BUT JUST ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY THAT SOME CITIES OUT THERE HAVE DONE. SO, PUT SOMETHING ON THE TABLE. >> Olley: BUT BECAUSE THEY'RE -- WHEN DOES THAT TRANSITION INTO A MULTIFAMILY HOME? >> ABOVE TWO UNITS. >> Olley: OKAY. >> PER LOT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. GREAT JOB, LOTS OF DETAIL. I'VE HONED IN ON ONE ITEM. 7D UNDER THE NBD DISTRICT IT SAYS FREE-STANDING, NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. I'M ALWAYS INTRIGUED BECAUSE ONE OF THE PICTURES OF THE DEVELOPMENTS YOU USE IS ONE THAT I OFFICED IN FOR TEN YEARS AND BUILT THREE BUILDINGS IN. I'M VERYAMILIAR WH IT. A LOT OF THE NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS WERE LESS THAN 5,000 FEET. THEY WERE OFFICE COTTAGES, CAFES, REAL NICE MIX OF BUILDINGS THAT FIT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT WAS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT AND SURROUNDING. SO I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU COULD WALK ME THROUGH THE LOGIC OF HAVING -- LIMITING NONRESIDENTIAL TO LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. IS THERE A GOAL WE'RE TRYING TO ACHIEVE WITH THAT? >> I BELIEVE THIS LANGUAGE IS OLDERANGUAGE WE'VEAD FOR A WHILE, JOG MY MEMORY. BUT THE MAIN REASON IS TO NOT HAVE MORE OF A PAD SITE ENVIRONMENT WITH PARKING ALL AROUND IT. THERE MAY BE SOME SITUATIONS -- WE COULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT CLOSER AND CONSIDER IF THERE'S A DIFFERENT THRESHOLD OR DIFFERENT LANGUAGE THAT WOULD ACHIEVE THAT. I'LL ALSO RESEARCH AND CONFIRM THAT WE DON'T HAVE ANY NOTES FROM OUR PREVIOUS WORK OF WHERE THAT CAME FROM. SOME OF THIS ALSO WAS PART OF -- WAS VERY SIMILAR TO THE URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT IN ITS STRUCTURE, SO THERE MAY BE SOME HOLDOVER FROM THAT AS WELL. SO WE CAN LOOK INTO THAT ONE AS WELL. >> Ratliff: IF YOU WOULDN'T MIND, I'M LOOKING AT DOWNTOWN PLANO, YOU'VE GOT THE FARMER'S MARKET LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET AND A LOT OF PEOPLE WALK OVER THERE. WE'VE GOT A COFFEE SHOP THAT'S LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. I THINK I RUN INTO A LOT OF CITY PEOPLE THERE ON A PRETTY FREQUENT BASIS. [ CHUCKLING ] SO THERE'S A LOT OF USES THAT ARE LESS THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. SO I THINK IF -- I AGREE WITH YOU. I DON'T WANT TO BE DOING PAD SIES. MAYBE THERE'S SOME DEFINITION WE CAN WORK OUT THERE TO ENCOURAGE THOSE SMALLER SERVICE BUSINESSES WITHOUT CREATING C A PAD SITE ENVIRONMENT, BECAUSE I AGREE, I WOULDN'T WANT TO ENCOURAGE A PAD SITE ENVIRONMENT. >> OKAY. WE'LL BRING INFORMATION BACK. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: ON 4A, THE DESCRIPTION IS A DETACHED BUILDING COMPRISED OF 3-6 DWELLING UNITS WITH ONE COMMON ENTRANCE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET. WILL THESE UNITS HAVE THEIR OWN ENTRANCE OTHER THAN THAT, OR IS THERE JUST ONE ENTRANCE INTO POTENTIALLY SIX UNITS? >> I THINK THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN, IT COULD BE EITHER. IT'S THE VISIBILITY FROM THE STREET. SO SOME OF THESE MIGHT BE ABLE TO HAV HIDDEN ENTRANCES THAT ARE TO THE EXTERIOR FOR EACH UNIT AND THEN SOME MAY HAVE ONE OR MAYBE -- ONE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET AND ONE MAYBE FROM THE SIDE THAT'S ALSO HIDDEN THAT COULD OPEN UP INTO ADDITIONAL UNITS WITHIN THE BUILDING. >> Cary: MY CONCERN WOULD BE, I THINK SOME PEOPLE COULD SAY IF THERE'S ONE ENTRANCE TO SIX DIFFERENT UNITS THAT NO LONGER SEEMS LIKE A TOWNHOME, IT SEEMS LIKE AMALL MULTIFAMILY. AND I GUESS THAT'S A CONCERN I WOULD HAVE. >> YES. AND THIS IS FOR THE MANOR HOME. >> Chair Downs: WHICH IS CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY. >> WHICH WOULD BE MULTIFAMILY, THAT'S RIGHT. >> I BELIEVE THE INTENT IS TO RESEMBLE A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME APPEARANCE FROM THE STREET. THAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THE SINGLE ENTRANCE. >> Chair Downs: SO, I THOUGHT YOU DID A GOOD JOB OF TAKING AWAY OUR PREVIOUS DISCUSSIONS. AND IS -- THERE'S PORTIONS OF THIS THAT I FEEL LIKE I THINK E GOING TO AN APPLICATION EVENTUALLY GOING TO GIVE US ISSUES. YOU BROUGHT UP ONE, WHICH IS THAT FREE-STANDING HAS TO BE MORE THAN 5,000 SQUARE FEET. I THINK THERE'S POTENTIAL THERE FOR, AGAIN, A SMALL COFFEE SHOP OR SOMETHING THAT SOMEBODY MIGHT WANT TO BUILD, SO I THINK, YOU KNOW, DOING THIS IS FINE, I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO EVENTUALLY BE FACED WITH AN INCREDIBLE OPPORTUNITY, DESIGN, ETC., BUT THE RATIO'S NOT GOING TO BE EXACTLY 2:1. IT'S GOING TO BE 2.8:1 OR SOMETHING. I REALIZE THAT WE'VE GOT TO HAVE SOMETHING TO WORK FROM, BUT I'M GOOD WITH WHAT YOU HAVE HERE AND LOOK FORWARD TO CALLING THE HEARING TO HAVE OUR DISCUSSIONS DONE ON IT. >> AND FOR THIS ONE, THE HEARING HAS BEEN CALLED AS WELL, SO. >> Chair Downs: JANUARY 17TH. WE'VE GOT TWO THE SAME NIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE, ANY OTHER FEEDBACK FOR STAFF? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU SO MUCH. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: AND THEN NEXT ITEM ON MY AGENDA IT SAYS ITEM X OR SOMETHING. I DON'T KNOW WHY THEY LABELED IT THAT WAY. >> I'M SORRY. IT'S AGENDA ITEM 7. ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS. >> Chair Downs: RIGHT. WE MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT REVISITING THE STANDARDS, MATERIALS STANDARDS, BUT IT SOUNDS LIKE THAT'S IN THE WORKS, SO IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP? >> MR. CHAIRMAN. >> Chair Downs: YES, SIR. >> IF IT PLEASES THE COMMISSION, IT IS WITH GREAT REGRET AND SORROW THAT I HAVE TO TENDER MY RESIGNATION AS A COMMISSIONER ON THIS AUGUST BODY AND VICE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY. THIS RESIGNATION IS TRIGGERED NOT BECAUSE I WANT TO LEAVE, BECAUSE I KIND OF LIKE HANGING OUT WITH YOU GUYS, BUT TRIGGERED FROM SECTION 3.01-D OF THE CITY CHART. I RESIGN MY APPOINTED OFFICE BECAUSE WITH THE ANNOUNCEMENT TO INTEND TO RUN FOR CITY COUNCIL PLACE 3. IT'S BEEN AN HONOR AND PRIVILEGE TO SERVE ON THIS COMMISSION FOR THE PAST THREE YEARS. IT IS MY HOPE MY SERVICE HAS PROVIDED SOME POSITIVE ITY AND R THE CITY OF EXCELLENCE. MY COMMISSIONERS AND DEMONSTRATED THE UTMOST PROFESSIONAL IBM AND ISM AND BEY TO WORK WITH. THANK YOU FOR THE SUPPORT AND PATIENCE YOU HAVE SHOWN ME. THANK YOU TO THE CITY COUNCIL FOR PUTTING TRUST IN ME WITH THIS APPOINTMENT. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH YOU ALL IN THE FUTURE AND I WISH YOU ALL NOTHING BUT FUTURE SUCCESS AND GLAD TIE TIDINGS FOE UPCOMING SEASON. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. HOW MANY YEARS ON P&Z? >> Horne: THREE. >> Chair Downs: HE'S A GLUTTON FOR PUNISHMENT. >> Horne: I'M RETIRED. MY WIFE TOLD ME I HAVE TO DO SOMETHING. >> Chair Downs: SHE DOESN'T WANT YOU AROUND. I APPRECIATE YOUR SERVICE. THANK YOU FOR BEING MY VICE CHAIR, FILLING IN FOR ME A COUPLE TIMES WHEN I WASN'T ABLE. ANYTHING ELSE? ALL RIGHT. WE ARE ADJOURNED, 8:53.