MAY 2, 2022. PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION >> Chair Downs: I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER. 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 MINUTE ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON TH CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE. >> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. FOR THE RECOR NOTE THAT COMMISSION RATLIFF IS OUT ENJOYING HIMSELF AND HAVING A GOOD TIME AND WILL NOT BE HERE THIS EVENING. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. >> APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE-MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED. REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS . AGENDA ITEMS 1A AND 1B WILL BE PRESENTED TOGETHER. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1A. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2022-001 - REQUEST TO AMEND PLANNED DEVE CENTRAL BUSINESS-1 TO MODIFY TH STANDARDS FOR MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL AND THE REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN SPACE ON 137.3 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY. AGENDA ITEM NO. 1B. CONCEPT PLAN: LEGACY WEST ADDITION, BLOCK C, LOT 9R - 177 MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCE UNITS ON ONE LOT ON 2.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF STAT HIGHWAY 121 AND WINDROSE AVENUE ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMT-64 CENTL BUSINESS AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: COLUMBUS REALTY PARTNERS. AGENDA ITEM 1B IS ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. I'M RAHA POULADI, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. PLANO TV, PLEASE GO TO THE SLIDE WITH THE LOCATOR MAP . >> Chair Downs: IT LOOKS LIKE PLANO TV IS HAVING ISSUES. OH, THERE YOU ARE. YOU'RE ON TV. EXCEPT THEY GOT YOUR NAME WRONG. >> I WILL PRESENT THE CASE. THANK YOU. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 64 BUSINESS 1 TO MODIFY THE LOCATION AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL AND REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. TO THE NORTH THERE ARE NEW VEHICLE DEALER USES LOCATED IN THE CITY OF FRISCO. WE HAVE OFFICE, RESTAURANT, HOTEL, AND RETAIL TO THE EAST. TOHE SOUTH WE HAVE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT INCLUDING RESIDENTIAL DETACHED RESIDENCES OFFICE RESTAURANT, AND RETAIL. TO THE WEST THERE ARE PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE AND UNDEVELOPED PROPERTY. THIS REQUEST HAS A COMPANION CONCEPT PLAN FOR LOT 9R FOR THE PROPOSED MID-RISE DEVELOPMENT. PLAN PD 64 CB1 WAS INITIALLY CREATED THE APPLICANT INCLUDED RESTRICTIONS RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT AND PLACEMENT OF MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL USES AS DEPICTED IN THIS EXHIBIT 823 UNITS OF THE ALLOWED 1,000 UNITS HAVE BEEN CONSTRUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THESE RESTRICTIONS. WITH THIS REQUEST THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO PLACE THE REMAINING 177 UNITS TO THE NORTH END OF PD 64-CB1 ON LOT 9R. AS FOR THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED IN THE URBAN ACTIVITY FUTURE LAND UE LAND USE MAP. ALSO THERE WOULD BE NO CHANGE TO THE MIX OF USES FOR THIS AREA. THEIR REQUEST IS LIMITED IN SCOPE PROPOSING CHANGES TO A SINGLE PROPERTY RELATED TO MID-USE RESIDENTIAL USES AND AMENDING THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DISTRICT. THE REQUEST DOES NOT ALTER ANY CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS OF THE EXISTING ZONING RELATED TO MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL USES. AS IT IS SHOWN IN THIS EXHIBIT, THE MAJORITY OF PD 64-CB1 IS WITHIN EHA1 AND EHA2. ACCORDING TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, SENSITIVE LAND USES SUCH AS RESIDENTIAL USES ARE GENERALLY INAPPROPRIATE IN EHA2 BUT MAY BE APPROPRIATE IF SATISFACTORY MITIGATION IS ACHIEVED. THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED AN ANALYSIS AND IS PROPOSING STRATEGIES AS PART OF THE PD STIPULATIONS WHICH ARE DISCUSSED BELOW . IF THESE STIPULATIONS ARE MITIGATE NSE LEVELS THISOPERLY REQUEST WOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH THE EHA HEALTH MAP. ALTHOUGH THIS IS NOT AN IDEAL LOCATION FOR RESIDENCES, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSED STIPULATIONS WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND BELIEVES THEY WILL ADDRESS THE IMPACTS OF THE ADJACENT EXPRESSWAY CONSISTENT WITH THE CITY'S ADOPTED METHODS AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THEIR CONSULTANT. CURRENTLY PD 64 CB1 AND PD 65 CB1 HAVE A JOINT OPEN SPACE PLAN TIED TO BOT DEVELOPMENTS. WITH THIS ZONING CASE AND THE COMPANION CASE, ZONING CASE 2022-008 AGENDA ITEM NO. 2, THE OPEN SPACE PLAN IS PROPOSED TO BE DIVIDED WITH EACH PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HAVING ITS OWN ADOPTED PLAN AND REQUIRED OPEN SPACE CALCULATIONS. THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS THE PROPOSED OPEN SPACE PLAN VERSUS THE CURRENT OPEN SPACE PLAN. AS YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO MAINTAIN A TOTAL OF 2.53 ACRES WHILE THE ON SPACE CURRENTLY PROVIDED IS 5.13 ACRES .& OPEN SPACE LOCATIONS ARE BEING REDUCED DUE TO THE EXISTING AND PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. HOWEVER, OPEN SPACE IS BEING INCREASED FOR PD 65 CB1 AS PROPOSED IN THE COMPANION ZONING CASE. TAKEN TOGETHER THE OVERALL OPEN SPACE BETWEEN THE TWO PDs WILL BE INCREASED BY 0.96 ACRES. THE APPCANT IS PROPOSING PD RESTRICTIONS TO ADDRESS THE NOISE AND POLLUTION MITIGATION AS WELL AS TO CONFORM THE UPDATED OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. THESE ARE POLLUTION MITIGATION MEASURES. THESE ARE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES. AND THESE ARE THE PD STIPULATION REGARDING OPEN SPACE PLAN AS DISCUSSED BEFORE. WE RECEIVED ONE LETTER IN FAVOR AND TWO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION WITHIN 200 FEET. WE ALSO RECEIVED THREE LETTERS IN FAVOR AND NO LETTERS IN OPPOSITION WITHIN THE DISTRICT. ALSO STAFF RECEIVED A TOTAL OF EIGHT LETTERS IN FAVOR AND SEVEN LETTERS IN OPPOSITION. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCI APPROVAL OF 22-008 AND SUBJECT TO THE PD RESTRICTIONS. I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS PRESENT AND CAN ANSWER THE QUESTIONS THAT YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMPLEX. A LOT OF MOVING PIECES THERE. DO WE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: JUST A COUPLE. ONE OF THEM MIGHT BE FOR THE APPLICANT LATER BUT IT WASN'T -- I DIDN'T NOTICE WHERE WE TALKED ABOUT THE HEIGHT OF THIS NEW BUILDING. MAYBE I MISSED IT. OF THE 177 UNITS THAT ARE BEING MOVED, WHAT WILL THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING BE, D WE KNOW? >> THE HEIGHT OF -- I BELIEVE THE HEIGHT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING WILL BE SEVEN-STORY RESIDENTIAL BUILDING. HOWEVER, THE HEIGHT IS NOT GOING TO BE CHANGED FROM THE ORIGINAL PD. >> Cary: OKAY. SO SEVEN STORIES? >> I BELIEVE SO. >> Cary: MAYBE THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT BUT I'M CURIOUS JUST HOW MUCH OF A CHALLENGE IT WILL BE TO ACTUALLY PROVIDE THE COUNTERMEASURES TO KEEP THE NOISE AT 45 DBA. I DON'T KNOW IF MAY THAT'S A ESTION THAT'S BETTER FOR THEM BUT I DO HAVE THAT QUESTION AND HOW SIGNIFICANT OF A CHALLENGE WILL IT BE IN THAT AREA TO ACCOMPLISH THAT? >> Chair Downs: WELL, LET'S WAIT. >> Cary: THAT'S FINE. >> Chair Downs: YEAH, GO AHEAD. >> I THINK, MS. POULADI, THE CURRENT PD HAS LIMITATIONS ON THE HEIGHT STANDARDS. SEVEN STORIES IS ONE OF THOSE. THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL IS 18 STORIES. THE BUILDING THEY'RE PROPOSING IS AT 18 STORIES. WASN'T THAT THE QUESTION YOU WERE ASKING? >> Cary: IT THE QUESTION. >> THERE'S A MINIMUM HEIGHT REQUIREMENT OF SEVEN, EXCUSE ME. LET ME MAKE SURE I EXPRESS THAT. >> Cary: IN THAT 18 STORIES WE'LL HAVE 177 UNITS. IS THAT ACCURATE? >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: YES, THAT'S CORRECT. IS THAT IT, COMMISSIONER CARY? >> Cary: IT IS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY, I THINK YOU WERE NEXT. >> Olley: SO THE PREVIOUS PD THAT WAS APPROVED FOR THIS PROJECT, THE 177 UNITS WOULD ORIGINALLY HAVE BEEN BUILT WITHIN THE SAME EHA? SO THIS DOESN'T -- WE'RE NOT IMPOSING BUILDINGS ON THIS EHA. IF WE DO NOTHING THE APPLICANT HAS THE RIGHT TO BUILD WITHIN THE EHA BASED ON THE PLAN AS OF THAT TIME, CORRECT? >> THE ORIGINAL PD THEY SHOULD UNITS NOT CLOSER THAN 400 FEET- TO BOTH 121 AND DNT. ESSENTIALLY THIS REQUEST ALLOWS THEM TO BUILD THOSE 177 UNITS CLOSER TO THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR. >> Olley: AND FROM AN ENFORCEMENT PERSPECTIVE FOR BUILDING STANDARDS, THAT WOULD BE -- I'M GOING TO GUESS THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE ON THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO ENFORCE THE MITIGATION? HOW DO WE ENFORCE THAT TO MAKE SURE THEY ACTUALLY BUILD THE WAY THEY PROPOSE? >> WE HAVE MULTIPLE MEENGS, BO WITH THE BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AND ALSO A NOISE CONSULTANT THAT WE MET. ESSENTIALLY THEY ARE GOING TO ADDRESS ALL THE PROPOSED MITIGATION MEASURES DURING THE CONSTRUCTION AND THEY ARE OBLIGATED TO PROVIDE INTERIOR NOISE READING OF EACH AND EVERY UNIT PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF THE CO FOR THE BUILDING. >> Olley: PERFECT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: REGARDING THE OPEN SPACE AND TIED TO THE 40-FOOT SETBACK THEY'RE PROPOSING, THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REMOVE THAT .2 ACRES THAT IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE LOT AS ELIMINATING THE -- THAT PART OF THE OPEN SPACE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME THEY WANT TO HAVE A 40-FOOT SETBACK. DOES THAT MEAN THAT THE APARTMENTS ARE GOING TO BE INFRINGING ON, MOVING CLOSER TO THAT? I DON'T KNOW THE DIMENSIONS. IT'S HARD TO TELL THE DIMENSIONS OF THIS .2 ACRES HERE. HAVE YOU TAKEN ANY MEASUREMENTS ON THAT TO SEE AS TO WHERE THE START OF THE BUILDING PROPER WILL BE AS RELATIONSHIP TO 121 TO THE NORTH? >> SURE. THE OPEN SPACE AREA THAT WAS SHOWN IN THE APPROVED OPEN SPACE PLAN, THE BUILDING IS NOT GOING TO ENCROACH THAT. IN FACT, THE BUILDING NOW IS PLACED FURTHER AWAY FROM THAT OPEN SPACE PLAN AS IT'S SHOWN IN THE CONCEPT PLAN. > >> Horne: SO THE ONLY REASON THAT .2 ACRES WOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF THE OPEN SPACE, YOU SAID THEY'RE MOVING THE BUILDING SOUTH OF THAT IS BECAUSE IT LIES WITHIN THE EH2 AREA THERE, CORRECT? >> EXACTLY. >> Horne: AN OPEN SPACE THAT WE HAVE ON THAT CORNER, I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR I HAVE THIS, WHERE WE HAVE THE UTILITIES OVER THERE ON LOT 11, THAT ALSO LIES WITHIN THE EH2 BOUNDARY. THEREFORE, DUE TO PUBLIC HEALTH, WE CAN'T CONSIDER THAT OPEN SPACE EVEN FORASS OF WALKING PARK BECAUSE OF THAT EH REQUIREMENT, CORRECT? >> CORRECT. EVEN IF IT IS GOING TO BE OPEN SPACE WE ARE NOT GOING TO UTILIZE IT AS A USABLE OPEN SPACE AND THEREFORE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS PART OF THE APPROVED OPEN SPACE PLAN. >> Vi. >> Horne: THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: COUPLE QUESTIONS. THIS PROPOSAL THAT'S COME BEFORE US, IN CONTEXT OF THE NEW COMPREHENSIVELAN, HOW DOES THIS -- HOW DO THESE PROPOSALS THAT ARE BEFORE US BRING US CLOSER TO THE NEW PLAN? >> SURE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS IN THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER AND IT DOESN'T USE -- IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE MIX OF USES ACCORDING TO COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE ONLY THING THAT THE FIRST COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS THE PERCENTAGE OF OPEN SPACE, WHICH E PLAN REQUIRES BETWEEN 10 TO 15% OF OPEN SPACE. HOWEVER, THIS PD, WHEN IT WAS APPROVED, IT ALLOWED FOR 5% OF OPEN SPACE. AND ALSO THIS PD HAS A UNIQUE NATURE, WHICH IS MORE URBAN AND THEREFORE T THE TIME OF APPROVAL OF THIS PD, THE OPEN SPACE WAS SET AT THAT PERCENTAGE. THE REASON THAT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DSN'T CONDER THIS AS NON-CONFORMING IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT CURRENTLY ONLY 5% OF THE OPEN SPACE PLAN IS ALLOWED. OVERALL THE OPEN SPACE PLAN IS NOT GOING TO BE REDUCED WHEN YOU CONSIDER PD 65 IN ASSOCIATION WITH THIS ZONING CASE. >> Bronsky: OKAY. SO QUESTIN BACK TO THE NOISE STANDARDS. FROM YOUR PROFESSIONAL BACKGROUND, IS 40 FEET AWAY FROM PROBABLY ONE OTHE BUSIEST INTERSECTIONS IN THE ENTIRE UNITED STATES, IS THAT A FEASIBLE EXPECTATION FOR US TO HAVE THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO MITIGATE TO THE POINT OF BEING ABLE TO MEET OUR STANDARDS? >> CURRENTLY THE CONCEPT PLAN IS SHOWING THE STRUCTURE, THE ACTUAL BUILDING IS OVER 70 FEET AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. HOWEVER, THE REASON THAT WE ARE BEING CONSERVATIVE -- KIND OF -- WITH THE 40-FOOT SETBACK IS TO ALLOW MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE PLACED IN THAT AREA. IT'S NOT BECAUSE THEY WANT TO HAVE THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE CLOSER TO THE EXPRESSWAY. AND TO ADDRESS YOUR CONCERN REGARDING THE NOISE AND POLLUTION YES. THAT WAS A CONCERN. THAT WAS A STAFF CONCERN. THAT'S WHY WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE US A STUDY AND PROVIDE US WITH VERY RESTRICTIVE PD STIPULATION FOR NOISE AND POLLUTION MITIGATION TO SHOW US NOISE AND POLLUTION MITIGATION MEASURES, ESSENTIALLY. >> Bronsky: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> Chair Downs: CAN YOU VERIFY -- IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHAT'S ACTUALLY BEING REQUIRED NOW FROM A MITIGATION STANDPOINT IS MORE ROBUST THAN WHAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BEFORE. BECAUSE I THINK WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED WE DIDN'T HAVE OUR EHA ZONES. WE WERE WALKING OFF A STRAIGHT 700-FOOT SETBACK. AIN, THIS IS BRINGING US MORE IN LINE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BECAUSE WE'RE NOW OPERATING, BECAUSE OF THIS CHANGE , WE ARE NOW HAVING TO OPERATE UNDER THE EHA ZONES THAT WE PUT IN PLACE. >> CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> ONE MORE TIME. AS I'M LOOKING AT THIS PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AND IT DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS, MAYBE IT DOES. SPECIFICALLY LOT 9R. I'M LOOKING AT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED AS 72 ACRES AND I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE IT'S RIGHT NORTH OF LOT 7 AND NORTH OF LOT 3. AND WHEN I LOOK AT YOUR EH2 DIAGRAM, IT APPEARS THAT THOSE OPEN LOTS HIGH IN THAT AREA AND SO WE'RE GRANTING THEM OPEN SPACE IN AN EH2 AREA. IS THAT CORRECT? AM I INTERPRETING THAT RIGHT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. IT WAS PART OF THE APPROVED PLAN. HOWEVER, WE NEED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THAT ONCE THAT LOT -- I NEED TO REMEMBER THE LOT NAME. SORRY. LOT 1R BLOCK C, WHEN THAT LOT IS DEVELOPED AND DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE THAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON THAT LOT, THE EHA WILL BE THE EHA MAP WILL BE MODIFIED. SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE OVERALL EHA MAP IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, YOU WILL SEE THAT SOME OF THE AREAS ARE NARROWER AND SOME OF THE AREAS ARE WIDER AND THAT IS DUE TO THE EXISTING STRUCTURES THAT BASICALLY MITIGATES THE NOISE FOR THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE LOCATED TOWARDS THE BACK. >> Chair Downs: DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? ESSENTIALLY THE STRUCTURES ARE CREATING THE MITIGATING REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT AREA. >> Horne: I COULD APPRECIATE THE NOISE MITIGATION, THE OTHER PART I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT, PARTICULARLY EMISSIONS COMING FROM AUTOMOBILES MUCH MORE SO THAN NOISE. THAT'S PROBABLY WHERE I HAD THE BIGGEST CONCERN, PARTICULARLY WHERE WE HAVE OPEN SPACE AND ACTIVITY SUCH AS WALKING, RUNNING,HATER THAT'S OCCURRING IN THAT OPEN SPACE. AND A BUILDING DOESN'T MITIGATE THAT. OKAY. SO I CAN APPRECIATE THE CHAIRMAN'S POINT ABOUT A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE BEING ABLE TO MITIGATE THE NOISE. THAT'S A SOUND PRACTICE, NO PUN INTENDED, BUT I AM MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE AIR EMISSIONS, PARTICULARLY AT THIS INTERSECTION, AS COMMISSIONER BRONSKY POINTED OUT IS A VERY BUSY INTERSECTION. SO WHERE WE WERE SAYING THAT THOUGH WE'RE NOT ALLOWING OPEN SPACE NORTH OVER THERE OF LOT 9, IT APPEARS THAT WE'RE CONTRADICTING OURSELVES BY ALLOWING OPEN SPACE FURTHER SOUTH. I GUESS THAT'S WHERE I'M HAVING AN ISSUE. OKAY. >> Chair Downs: BOY, I THOUGHT WE WERE DONE AND NOW I GOT MORE LIGHTS. >> JUST A QUESTION OF CLARIFICATION. BEFORE THIS NEW PLAN, THE SETBACKS, AM I RIGHT THAT THEY WERE 400 FEET? >> CORRECT. >> NOW THE SETBACK'S GOING TO BE -- >> 40 FEET. >> OKAY. AND MY OTHER QUESTION IS THIS: IF BY SOME CHANCE THIS ISN'T APPROVED, IS THE ORIGINAL PLOT OF LAND THAT THEY PLAN TO PUT THESE 177 UNITS ON, IS IT STILL AVAILABLE FOR BUILDING? >> I WOULD ALLOW THE APPLICANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: CAN'T GET AWAY FROM IT. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: OUTSIDE OF LOT 9, RIGHT BELOW LOT 1R THERE IS THE .72 GREEN SPACE ON THE CURRENT PLAN. IS THAT WITHIN THE EA2 AS WELL? >> YES. >> Bronsky: SO, IN FACT, MAKING SOME OF THESE CHANGES ACTUALLY BRINGS THAT MORE INTO COMPLIANT AS WELL BECAUSE THAT WOULD NOT BE, UNDER THE NEW PLAN,ERMIIB TO VE AS EEN SPACE, CORRECT? >> I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY. >> Bronsky: SO IN ADDITION TO THE TWO LOTS NEAR LOTS 9 AND 10 AT THE TOP -- >> SURE. >> Bronsky: UNDER THE NEW PLAN THOSE WITH THE EA2 DESIGNATION WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE PARKS AND GREEN SPACE, RIGHT? >> THEY CAN BE GREEN SPACE. THEY CANNOT BE PARKS. >> Bronsky: IN ADDITION TO THAT THE SAME THING APPLIES TO BOTH OF THE 1.44 ACRES GREEN SPACE BELOW THAT, RIGHT ABOVE LOT 3R. >> ARE YOU REFERRING TO THOSE TWO OPEN SPACES THAT EACH HAVE 0.72? >> Bronsky: YES. THOSE BOTH FALL WITHIN THE EA2 AS WELL? >> IF THE EHA MAP IS NOT MODIFIED DUE TO THE NEW CONSTRUCTION OF LOT 1R, THEY'RE NOT ABLE TO PUT ANY PLAYGROUND IN THERE. >> BnskyTHANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: TO COMMISSIONER HORNE'S POINT, YES, THE BUILDINGS WILL ACT AS MITIGATING BUT EVEN IF WE DON'T APPROVE THIS, THOSE SPACES ARE STILL CONSIDERED OPEN SPACE AND THE EMISSION ISSUE IS STILL THERE. THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO ABOUT THAT. IT'S OPEN SPACE THEN AND IT'S OPEN SPACE NOW. WE'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THAT EMISSION PROBLEM. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: SORRY, CHAIRMAN. JUST FOR CLARITY HERE, YOU KNOW, WITH THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OVER THE LAST YEAR WE FREQUENTLY TALKED ABOUT WHAT PLAN WE'RE ACTUALLY MAKING DECISIONS ON AND SO WHILE THERE'S A LOT OF TALK OF THE NEW PLAN HERE AND BRINGING THIS INTO COMPLIANCE, JUST FOR MY OWN SAKE, THAT'S NOT HOW WE'RE JUDGING THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY. IT IS GRANDFATHERED IN. AM I CORRECT ON THAT OR -- I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHICH DIRECTION TO GO THERE BECAUSE THERE HAVE BEEN TIMES IN THE PAST THINGS WOULDN'T ALIGN WITH THE NEW PLAN BUT WE WERE SAYING, OKAY, WE'RE NOT UNDER THAT PLAN SO I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT ON THIS ONE BECAUSE THERE'S CONVERSATION ALL AROUND A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT PLANS. >> THIS ZONING CASE WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SO THAT IS THE PLAN THAT IT'S JUDGED UNDER. >> Cary: THE CURRENT? >> THE CURRENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. >> Cary: THE NEW ONE? THANK YOU. >> CAN I ADJUST A CLARIFYING. SO IN THE EHA POLICIES, WHAT IT STATES FOR PARKS AND PLAYGROUNDS IS THAT SITE DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THESE USES SHOULD BE CONSISTENT WITH STANDARDS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE ZONING ORDINANCE BASICALLY PROVIDES INFORMATION ABOUT TREES AND OTHER SORTS OF ALIGNMENT THAT RECOMMENDS HOW THESE AREAS ARE DEVELOPED. SO IT'S NOT THAT THEY'RE PROHIBITED IN THOSE AREAS BUT IF THEY ARE PLACED IN THOSE AREAS IT'S NOT NECESSARILY RECOMMENDED BUT SITE DESIGN SHOULD BE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED. LANDSCAPING SHOULD BE INCREASED. THOSE SORTS OF MITIGATING FACTORS SHOULD BE PUT IN PLACE SO THAT THESE ARE SUPPORTED AREAS. >> I GUESS FOR CLARIFICATION AND I GUESS THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF OPEN SPACE, OKAY. I WOULD PROPOSE THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD NOT WANT TO PUT A PARK OR PLAYGROUND IN ANY OF THESE AREAS RIGHT HERE JUST BECAUSE OF WHERE IT LIES WITHIN EHA2 AND EHA1. BUT THAT DOESN'T KEEP THEM FROM PUTTING, YOU KNOW, A SIDEWALK THROUGH THERE FOR PEOPLE TO WALK THROUGH. SO WE'RE TRYING TO -- I GUESS ARE THEY GOING TO GET CREDIT -- I MEAN, FROM WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING THEY'RE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE BUT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO BUILD ANYTHING THERE OKAY? SO, I MEAN, IT'S UP FOR THE APPLICANT WHEN HE COMES UP TO ASK HIM WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PUT THERE, LANDSCAPE, A SIDEWALK WHATEVER. THEY'RE ASKING FOR US TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE THERE WHEREAS NOTHING'S GOING TO BE BUILT THERE. SO I GUESS THAT'S THE POINT I'M GETTINGT. BY DEFINITION, THEY WOULD NOT GET -- THEY'RE PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE AND COMBINE IT WITH THE OTHER ZONING CASE THAT'S GOING TO BE BEFORE US. THEREFORE INCREASING THE OVERALL OPEN SPACE BY THE TWO PDs. SO I GUESS I'M JUST TRYING TO FIGURE OUT HOW THIS ALL FITS IN. >> I THINK STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WORKED ON THIS. WE WERE TRYING TO RECOGNIZE WHAT WERE REALLY GOOD, QUALITY OPEN SPACES WHERE WE COULD GET THEM. THIS AREA IS MAJORITY DEVELOPED AT THIS POINT IN TIME. THAT HAPPENED VERY QUILY AND SO E DEVELOPMENT PATTERNS, WHAT'S REMAINING, WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, WE WERE REALLY TRYING TO FIGURE OUT, OKAY, WHAT ARE THE BEST SPACES. THE EDGES ALONG THE TOLLWAYS, NO ONE AGREES THAT'S A GREAT SPACE TO PUT OPEN SPACE SO WE TRIED TO PEEL THOSE BACK AND AS WE PEELED THOSE BACK, OKAY, WHAT'S THE BEST PLACE FOR OPEN SPACE TO BE. BEING THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, THEY NEED OPEN SPACE TO SERVE THEM. THERE ARE PRIVATE OPEN SPACES, SUCH AS LOT 5. I THINK WE SHOWED THAT ON OUR MAP IN THE STAFF REPORT. THAT'S A PRIVATE PARK. THERE ARE AMENITY AREAS WITHIN THE BUILDINGS TO SERVE THE RESIDENTS BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE ANY SORT OF OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE, WHAT WE SAW IS THOSE PARCELS THAT ARE WITHIN LOTS -- MS. POULADI, IF YOU CAN MOVE THE SLIDE BACK TO WHAT SHOWS THE LOT NUMBERS. YEAH. WITHIN LOTS 3R AND 7R -- I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S BOTH OF THOSE BUT THOSE CENTRAL SPACES I THINK ARE THE ONES THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT WAS A GOOD CONCENTRATION OF OPEN SPACE THAT WE FOUND AND THE DEVELOPER HAD PROPOSED WITHIN KIND OF THE CORE OF THE DISTRICT AND SO WE THOUGHT, YOU KNOW, AS MS. POULADI MENTIONED THAT WILL LIKELY BE SOMEWHAT PROTECTED BY BUILDINGS AND DEVELOPMENT IN THE FUTURE. YES, IT'S STILL CURRENTLY WITHIN THE EHA AREAS, PROBABLY WILL ALWAYS BE IN THE EHA AREAS BUT HOPEFULLY WITH SOME DEVELOPMENT THAT COMES UP THAT WILL BE ABLE TO BE USABLE SPACE. IS IT PERFECT? NO, I DON'T THINK ANYONE IS SAYING IT IS BUT I THINK IT'S A GOOD SPACE TO SERVE THESE RESIDENTS FOR THE FUTURE AND THAT'S WHAT WE TRI TO GET. ALSO PEELING OFF THE EDGES AND THE PIECES THAT REALLY WERE NOT SUPPORTABLE. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: LAST QUESTION. WE'RE GOING TO COMBINE PD 64 AND 65 ALMOST TO MEET THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT IN THAT AREA. AM I READING THAT RIGHT? >> SO THEY'RE COMBINED NOW. THEY ARE PROPOSED TO BE SEPARATED. WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO SHOW IS THE OPEN SPACE IS BEING REDUCED HERE BUT WITH PD 65 IT'S BEING INCREASED AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT THOSE TOGETHER AS THEY'RE REALLY ADJACENT PROPERTIES, THE OVERALL AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE IS BEING INCREASED. >> Olley: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. NO ONE ELSE? JUST BEING CLEAR. ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. NO GUARANTEES YOU WON'T HAVE TO SPEAK AGAIN BUT THANK YOU. >> MAY I ASK THE APPLICANT? >> Chair Downs: I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I THINK THE APPLICANT WAS ORIGINALLY AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS AND I THINK WE HAVE AT LEAST ONE OR TWO. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD YOU PLEASE COME DOWN? >> ROBERT EVANS. >> HI. I'M ROBERT EVANS WITH O'BRIEN ARCHITECTS. I LIVE IN PLANO AT 4425 RIPTIDE LANE. I'LL TAKE YOUR QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. QUESTIONS? OKAY. I WAS GOING TO SAY SOMEBODY'S GOT TO HAVE A QUESTION. >> SEVERAL. I THINK I FINALLY GOT A GRASP OF WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO PROPOSE HERE. I CAN UNDERSTAND THE MITIGATION EFFORTS, THE 9R. I CAN UNDERSTAND THAT AND SEE THAT. I'M STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE. WHAT ARE YOU GOING TO PUT THERE? JUST TREES? ARE YOU GOING TO PUT ANY SIDEWALKS? I MEAN, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AN OPEN SPACE, CAN YOU LEND US SOME INFORMATION AS TO WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO DO WITH THAT? >> I CAN TELL YOU THAT THE PLAN THAT'S PART OF THIS PACKAGE SHOWS A PROPOSED SIDEWALK ALONG THAT AREA THAT YOU'RE REFERRING TO. AND IT WILL BE LANDSCAPED, I CAN TELL YOU THAT. THAT'S PART OF OUR DESIGN CONCEPT FOR THIS. I DON'T KNOW IF IT WILL BE ACTIVATED. MY GUESS IS NO. IT WON'T HAVE BENCHES OR FOUNTAINS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE BUT IT DEFINITELY WILL RECEIVE SOME LANDSCAPE TREATMENT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: THANK YOU. SO MY EARLIER QUESTION WAS JUST HOW CHALLENGING IN THAT SPACE IT WILL BE TO ACHIEVE 45 DBA. I GUESS IF YOU COULD JUST GIVE US A HIGH-LEVEL VIEW OF THAT, I WOULD APPRECIATE IT. >> I DON'T BELIEVE IT WILL BE ANY MORE DIFFICULT THAN ANY OTHER LOCATION. THE BUILDING CODE HAS VERY SPECIFIC LIMITS FOR SOUND AND NOISE, TRANSMITTING NOT JUST FROM UNIT TO UNIT BUT FROM THE EXTERIOR TO THE INTERIOR. SO JUST MEETING THAT STANDARD IS THAT 45-DECIBEL NUMBER THAT'S IN THIS DOCUMENT THAT YOU PRESENTED HERE. THAT IS TO BE TESTED FOR THE TIME. THAT'S NOT EVEN UP FOR DISCUSSION. IT HAS TO BE DONE TO BUILD THIS. >> Cary: SO YOU STRONGLY BELIEVE IT'S ACHIEVABLE? THOSE ARE MY WORDS. >> YES, IT IS. >> Cary: JUST A COUPLE OTHER QUICK THINGS. I SEE HERE LOT 5 IS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE, WHICH I GUESS WE'RE INCLUDING IN OUR OPEN SPACE, IS THAT ACCURATE? >> Chair Downs: NO. >> Cary: IS THAT INTENDED TO CONTINUE TBE OPEN SPACE? >> I'M NOT SURE WHAT YOUR QUESTION IS. >> Cary: SO YOU HAVE LOT 5 THAT SAYS PRIVATE OPEN SPACE. I GUESS IT'S NOT BEING INCLUDED IN THE OPEN SPACE CALCULATION. >> IT'S A PRIVATELY-OWNED PARCEL. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WAS PURCHASED FOR THOSE ADJACENT BUILDINGS, LOT 4R AND 6R SO THEIR VIEWS WERE NOT IMPACTED AND TO SERVE THOSE RESIDENTS. >> Cary: OKAY. BUT IT'S NOT PART OF -- >> CORRECT. >> Cary: THANK YOU. MY FINAL QUESTION WAS ASKED EARLIER. ORIGINALLY YOU PLANN TO PUT THIS BUILDING ELSEWHERE, CORRECT? >> NOT TO MY KNOWLEDGE, NO. >> Cary: I THINK THAT IS -- YEAH OKAY. AM I WRONG? >> THE INITIAL DISCUSSIONS WERE FOR I BELIEVE THAT LOT 1R. >> Cary: OKAY. YEAH. THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT. OKAY. MY QUESTION IS THIS THEN. IF YOU DON'T PUT THESE 177 UNITS, WHICH YOU ARE ALLOWED TO DO AT THIS POINT, IS THAT OTHER SPACE AVAILABLE STILL IF BY CHANCE THIS DIDN'T GET APPROVED? OR IS THAT LAND ALREADY SPOKEN FOR? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT. >> Cary: SOMEBODY BACK HERE IS SAYING YES. >> THAT LAND IS SPOKEN FOR. HAS BEEN PURCHASED BY AN OFFICE DEVELOPER, THE CURRENT OWNER OF [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. YOU GOT YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED BUT I WOULD PREFER IT TO BE HERE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK EVERYONE ELSE COULD HAVE HEARD THAT ANSWER AND HE'S NOT THE APPLICANT, I DON'T BELIEVE, RIGHT? PART OF IT. YOU GOT YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED WHICH IS, YES, THAT OTHER LOT IS SPOKEN FOR. >> Cary: I DID GET MY QUESTION ANSWERED. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: QUESTION ON MITIGATION. I CAN'T FIND IT NOW BUT I BELIEVE I READ SOMEWHERE THAT PART OF THE MITIGATION IS THAT LIVABLE SPACE WITHIN THE APARTMENTS WILL NOT BE ADJOINING THE WALL DIRECTLY, YOU KNOW, FACING THE TOLLWAY. IS THAT CORRECT? >> I'M NOT SURE I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. >> Olley: THE BEDROOMS. ARE THE BEDROOMS GOING TO BE LOOKING OVER THE TOLLWAY? >> OKAY. SO THE STRUCTURE OF THE BUILDING IS A PODIUM OF PARKING AND THEN APARTMENTS ABOVE THE PARKING. SO THE PARKING GARAGE PORTION OF THE PROJECT IS FIVE STORIES, WHICH MY UNDERSTANDING IS AT OR ABOVE THE LEVELS OF THE OVERPASSES. SO ALL THE LIVING SPACE WILL BE UP ABOVE THAT. THEY WON'T BE LOOKING INTO TRAFFIC, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE THINKING. >> Olley: AND FROM A -- I GUESS I SHOULD HAVE AEDHIS QUESTION TO STAFF. FROM A AIR POLLUTION PERSPECTIVE, IS THERE A DIFFERENT AIR FILTRATION UNIT, MECHANISM THAT HAS TO BE A PART OF THE BUILDING IN ORDER FOR THIS TO MEET THE MITIGATION? >> AS WAS NOTED IN THE DOCUMENT, YEAH, THERE ARE FILTRATION SYSTEMS TO BE APPLIED TO THIS BUILDING. WHETHER OR NOT THEY ARE COMMT ON THAT.FERENT, I CAN'T I'M NOT A MECHANICAL ENGINEER BUT AS IT IS STIPULATED IN THE DOCUMENT THERE WILL BE A SYSTEM TO TREAT THE AIR THAT'S COMING IN. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY SOMETHING AND I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THE NOISE. YOUR STATEMENT A MINUTE AGO ABOUT THE 177, YOU WEREN'T SURE THAT THAT WAS ORIGINALLY PART OF THE PLAN. WE'RE NOT ADDING ANYTHING NEW HERE, IS THAT CORRECT? THIS IS ALREADY DESIGNED TO HAVE 177 UNITS IN IT. WITHOUT MOVING IT INTO WHERE YOU'RE WANTING TO PUT IT? >> I DON'T HAVE ANY KNOWLEDGE OF THAT. THE PREVIOUS APPLICATION, THE PREVIOUS STANDARD? >> PD 64 CB1 ALLOWS FOR A TOTAL OF 1,000 UNITS IN THIS DISTRICT. 323 UNITS HAVE ALREADY BEEN BUILT. THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BUILD 177 MORE UNITS IN THE ENTIRE PD DISTRICT. >> Bronsky: SO IN FACT THIS NUMBER WOULD NOT- IF IS WERE APPROVED, IT WOULD NOT INCREASE BUT IN FACT PD 64 WAS ALREADY PLANNED SOMEWHERE ON THE MAP TO HAVE THE 177 -- OR AT LEAST TO ALLOW FOR THAT NUMBER TO BE BUILT. >> CORRECT. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. ON THE SOUND MITIGATION -- AND I'M SORRY TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE, ARE YOU GOING TO ENSURE US THAT SHOULD THIS BE BUILT THAT WE'RE GOING TO MEET THESE NUMBERS? >> YEAH, THAT'S THE INTENT OF THIS AND THAT IS THE STANDARD THAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO MEET. >> Bronsky: AND SO IF THERE'S SOME PROBLEM LATER, YOU GUYS WILL FOLLOW BEHIND AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ADJUSTED. >> WE ARE REQUIRED TO. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER STONE. >> Stone: YES, ONE MORE QUESTION ABOUT THE MITIGATION. LOOKING BACK AT YOUR HISTORY AND YOUR OFFICE, HOW MANY PROJECTS HAVE YOU GUYS, YOU AND YOUR STAFF COMPLETED THAT WERE ADJACENT TO FREEWAYS HERE AND ACROSS THE COUNTRY, WOULD YOU GUESS? >> I HONESTL DON'T THINK I COULD HAZARD A NUMBER. >> Stone: A DOZEN, 50? >> IT'S GOT TO BE IN THE DOZENS. >> Stone: THIS IS NOT YOUR FIRST? >> NO. >> Stone: YOU KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. >> YES. >> Stone: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE. OKAY. ON THIS ITEM?Y OTHER SPEAKERS- >> YES, WE DO. ROBERT WIRTS. >> Chair Downs: GOOD EVENING, MR. WIRTS. >> GOOD EVENING. I LIKE THE WAY PEOPLE COME UP HERE AND SAY THEY ARE PART OF PLANO. I OWN TWO HOMES IN PLANO. I CAN SAY THAT. I'M EXCITED ABOUT PLANO. I REPRESENT RYAN. WE OWN THE LOT RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET, 9R I THINK IT IS ON YOUR DIAGRAM. WE PROBABLY WOULDN'T HAVE BOUGHT IT IF WE WOULD KNOW THERE WAS GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL UNITS ACROSS THE STREET TO THE EAST. WE WERE A BIT SHOCKED BY THIS. NOBODY CALLED US TO SAY ANYTHING ABOUT IT, NEITHER HERE NOR THERE. WE'RE NOT A FAN. AT THE SAME TIME WE EXPECTED A COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING ACROSS THE STREET, THAT'S WHAT WE WERE TOLD WOULD BE DEVELOPED. IT IS WHAT IT IS. I'VE NOT SEEN ANY DIAGRAMS OF THIS OTHER THAN ONE SKETCH SO HOPEFULLY IT'S GOING TO BE FIRST CLASS. SO I DON'T THINK I CAN STAND HERE AND MAKE A CASE THAT YOU CAN'T DO THIS AND LAST THING I WOULD DO IS ANGER THESE GUYS AS WELL SINCE WE'LL PROBABLY BE NEIGHBORS. BUT I DO WANT TO DO IS THERE SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO MAKE SURE THIS IS A FIRST-CLASS BUILDING? THERE ARE APARTMENTS TO OUR SOUTH THAT I DON'T KNOW WHY ANYBODY PUT THOSE THERE AND WE DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT AGAIN. WE WANT TO SEE SOMETHING NEXT TO US ON OUR EAST THAT WELL REPRESENTS NOT ONLY THE CITY OF PLANO BUT LEGACY WEST AND THAT ENTIRE REGION. WE INTEND FOR OUR BUILDING TO BE DOUBLE CLASS A. IT'S GOING TO BE THE BEST BUILDING IN THAT AREA, I THINK. AND SO WE JUST, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PRETTY CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE ACROSS THE STREET. >> Chair Downs: UNDERSTOOD. >> THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. NOT TO ANGER THESE GUYS. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, THERE ARE NOT. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLO THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. MY THOUGHT IS THIS IS A VERY TIGHT SPACE AND PEOPLE ARE LOOKING TO MAXIMIZE THE USAGE OF IT BECAUSE IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST EXPENSIVE LAND IN THE CITY OF PLANO. I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT BUILDING A BUILDING THAT CLOSE TO THE FREEWAY. I HAVE DRIVEN THROUGH ENOUGH BIG CITIES TO SEE LOTS OF HIGH-RISE APARTMENTS, CONDOMINIUMS, ET CETERA PARKED NEXT TO A FREEWAY AND AS HE KIND OF STATED VERY CONFIDENTLY MEETING 45 DECIBELS IS SOMETHING THEY DO EVERY DAY. I APPRECIATED COMMISSIONER STONE'S QUESTION AROUND HAVE YOU DONE THIS BEFORE. YES, THEY HAVE DONE THIS BEFORE. I APPRECIATE THE GENTLEMAN'S CONCERN ABOUT WHAT'S GOING TO BE BUILT NEXT TO HIM. I WOULD HAZARD A GUESS, IF YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD AN 18-STORY, 177-UNIT BUILDING THAT YOU'LL PROBABLY INVEST SOME DOLLARS INTO THAT AND IT WILL BE A NICE BUILDING. WE DON'T ALWAYS GET TO PICK WHO OUR NEIGHBORS WILL BE BUT I APPRECIATE HIS APPROACH IS I DON'T WANT TO MAKE YOU MAD, JUST DO IT RIGHT. HEY, THERE YOU GO. THE OPEN SPACE IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE A CHALLENGE FOR US AND MAYBE THE TERMINOLOGY HERE NEEDS TO BE VERY WELL DEFINED BETWEEN OPEN SPACE VERSUS AN ACTIVE PARK. JOGGERS RUN ROUND AND ROUND AND ROUND NEW YORK CITY EVERY DAY ON THE SIDEWALKS AND THAT HEALTH SITUATION PROBABLY ISN'T AS GOOD AS WHAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE HERE. I SEE IT AS HELPING OUT SOME DEVELOPERS THAT ARE WORKING TO MAKE ONE OF THE CORNERS OF OUR CITY REALLY, REALLY NICE. THE STAFF HAS WORKED VERY HARD TO TRY TO LOOK FOR A WAY TO ADOPT OUR OPEN SPACE PLAN TO FIT SOME OF THE DECISIONS THAT WERE MADE AROUND OPEN SPACE EARLY ON. WE'RE PROBABLY NOT BEST IN TERMS OF PIECING TOGETHER A LOT OF TINY PIECES TO TRY TO MEET A REQUIREMENT. AND THAT WAS BEFORE WE LEARNED ABOUT BRUCE GLASSCOCK PARK WHICH SUDDENLY OPENED UP A LOT OF OPEN SPACE. THAT'S A FIVE-MINUTE WALK FOR THESE PEOPLE TO GET TO A NICE PARK SPACE SO I'M NOT WORRIED THAT THEY'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH SPACE TO ENJOY THEMSELVES FROM A LEISURE ACTIVITY STANDPOINT. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. I THINK IT BENEFITS THE CITY TO ADOPT THIS. I CAN GUARANTEE YOU THAT ALL 177 OF THOSE UNITS WILL BE FULL FAIRLY QUICKLY, DESPITE THE FACT THAT IT'S LOCATED 70 FEET FROM HIGHWAY 121. SO I'M IN SPORT. COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: MR. CHAIRMAN, ON A COUPLE OF POINTS HERE. BEING AN OLD PARKS AND REC GUY, I WAS ON PARKS AND REC FOR SIX YEARS, CHAIRMAN FOR THREE. BOY, I HATE GIVING UP OPEN SPACE, I DO. BUT AT THE SAME TIME I'M CONFLICTED BECAUSE OF WHERE THIS IS LYING WITHIN THE EHA1 AND 2 AREAS. SO I CAN GET WHAT YOU'RE GETTING AT AND ALSO COMBINING IT WITH THE OTHER PD THAT WE'RE GOING TO INCREASE THE OPEN SPACE WITH THE ADDITION BRUCE GLASSCOCK PARK. I THINK THAT'S A WAY TO SOLVE THE ISSUE AS LONG AS WE DON'T TURN THOSE SPACES INTO PLAYGROUNDS OR SUCH. I THINK THE AREA WHERE YOU'RE CONSTRUCTING, THAT PRICE OF REAL ESTATE IS EXPENSIVE SO I WOULD LIKE TO THINK, TO YOUR POINT, THAT THAT WILL BE A CLASS A APARTMENT. THESE WILL NOT BE AFFORDABLE HOUSING, IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN. ADDRESSING CHAIRMAN BROKY'S POINT ABOUT ASSURANCES. I DO NOT THINK IT WILL GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OF THESE BUILDINGS UNLESS YOU MEET THE 45 DBA AND THE AIR HANDLING UNIT REQUIREMENTS SYSTEMS. YOU WILL NOT GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY UNLESS YOU MEET THAT. I'M SURE O'BRIEN ENGINEERING HAS THE STAFF FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL ASPECT OF IT, THE MECHANICAL, THE PLUMBING, THE FIRE SUPPRESSION, THE STRUCTURAL EVERYTHING ASSOCIATED WITH GOING WITH THIS BUILDING. SO WITH WHAT THEARE PROPOSING, I'M IN FAVOR OF MOVING THIS FORWARD. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I THINK SIMILAR TO COMMISSIONER HORNE, MY CONFIDENCE IS IN THE STAFF POLICING AND ENFORCING THE MITIGATION STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN PLACED HERE. I'M A FATHER OF A DAUGHTER WITH SEVERE ALLERGIES SO I AM VERY PARTICULAR TO AIR QUALITY. MY CONFIDENCE IS IN THE STAFF TO ENSURE THAT WHAT IS PUT THERE ACTUALLY MEETS THE STANDARDS AND WITH THAT CONFIDENCE I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: SURE. THANK YOU. YOU KNOW, IT'S AN INTERESTING PROJECT. SO, YOU KNOW, AS PER THE STAFF'S OWN WORDS, THIS ISN'T AN IDEAL LOCATION FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. IT'S IN OUR REPORT. YOU KNOW, WE SAY IT'S COMING INTO ALIGNMENT WITH OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CALLS FOR 1 TO 15% OPEN SPACE AND THIS ONE REDUCES THAT. AND CANDIDLY, MY OPINION, I SEE IT DIFFERENTLY. I THINK THE ADDITION OF THE PARK IS A BIT OF A STRETCH IN TERMS OF OPEN SPACE FOR THIS PARTICULAR SITE. YOU KNOW, WE'VE MOVED FROM 400 FEET SETBACK TO 40 FEET AND SO, YOU KNOW, THOSE THINGS ARE PROBLEMATIC TO ME. IF THIS HADN'T PREVIOUSLY BEEN APPROVED FOR APARTMENTS, I'M POSITIVE I WOULD VOTE AGAINST . IN FAVOR OF IT IS THE STAFF HAS WORKED HARD ON THIS AND I THINK, YOU KNOW, PROBABLY WITH YOU GUYS AND I THINK YOU WILL PUT A QUALITY PROJECT IN HERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE WOULD& GO IN THERE. FRANKLY, I'M A BIT BOTHERED BY THE FACT THIS WAS SLATED SOMEWHERE ELSE AND THAT LAND GOT RE-PURPOSED AND YOU HAVE A NEIGHBOR HERE WHO WASN'T EXPECTING RESIDENTIAL THERE AND NOW IT'S GOING TO BE THERE. SO, AGAIN, THAT'S PROBLEMATIC TO ME A BIT. IN PAST TIMES WE'VE SPENT A LOT OF TIME ON THIS COUIL TALKING ABOUT HOW IT AFFECTS OTHER PEOPLE. YOU KNOW, JUST TWO WEEKS AGO WE HAD A BIG DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT AND, YOU KNOW, WE HAD BIG DISCUSSIONS ABOUT NOISE AND SOME THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT THE THING IN ITS FAVOR TO ME IS I THINK YOU GUYS HAVE PROBABLY BUILT A QUALITY PROJECT THAT WILL BE QUICKLY FILLED. I MEAN, WE COULD BUILD APARTMENTS JUST ABOUT ANYWHERE IN PLANO AND THEY WOULD BE QUICKLY FILLED. AND THE FACT THAT THE STAFF, I THINK THE BIGGEST THING IS THE STAFF WORKING HARD ON THIS. I THINK IT IS A VERY FAVORABLE THING. THOSE ARE JUST MY COMMENTS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: YEAH, SO I'VE GOT TO CONCUR WITH EACH OF THE GENTLEMEN WHO HAS SPOKEN PREVIOUSLY. I HAD SEVERAL CONCERNS AND SEVERAL ISSUES THAT I STRUGGLED WITH AS I HAD GONE THROUGH THINKING ABOUT CONSIDERING VISITING THE SITE AND MAKING SURE THAT WE DO THIS RIGHT. THE CITIZENS OF PLANO HAVE APPOINTED EACH OF US TO MAKE THE RIGHT DECISION FOR OUR CITY'S FURE AND I DO FEEL THAT I CAN SUPPORT THIS. ONE OF THE BIGGEST PIECES IS I BELIEVE THAT WE ARE IN TOTALITY COMING TO BETTER ADDRESS THE EHC1 AND 2 AREAS AND OVERALL THIS WILL BRING THIS PARTICULAR AREA MORE INTO CONFORMITY WITH THE NEW PLAN THAN WE MIGHT HAVE HAD PREVIOUSLY. I DO HAVE CONFIDENCE THAT YOU GUYS WILL BE ABLE TO MEET THIS AND I'M VERY CERTAIN THAT SHOULD WE HAVE CALLS FROM RESIDENTS IN THE MIDDLE OF RUSH HOUR WANTING TO FIND OUT ABOUT THE SOUND THAT OUR CITY STAFF, WHETHER IT BE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO IS VISITING AND MAKING SURE IT IS ALL WORKED OUT, THAT YOU GUYS WILL MAKE THE RIGHT CHOICE HERE AND BRING THIS -- ENSURING THAT IT STAYS IN COMPLIANCE. EVEN WITH EXPERIENCE SOMETIMES THINGS DON'T ALWAYS WORK WELL BUT I HAV FULL CONFIDENCE IN EACH OF YOU AND THE STAFF FOR MAKING THAT DECISION. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: YES, I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE, MR. CHAIRMAN, THAT WE APPROVE 1A -- AGENDA ITEM 1A SUBJECT TO THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2022-008. AND AS RECOMMENDED IN THE RESTRICTIONS SHOWN IN THE APPLICATION. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. VERY WELL STATED MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WIT A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1A. PLEASE VOTE. MR. CARY AND MR. BRONSKY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. ITEM 1B. COMPANION. WE'LL NEED A -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1B AS RECOMMENDED -- AS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL OF ZONING CASE 2022-001. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM 1B. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEM 2. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2022-008 - REQUEST TO AMEND PLANNED DEVE CENTRAL BUSINESS-1 TO MODIFY TH REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE FOR TRACTS C AND D IN PLANNED DEVEL BUSINESS-1 ON 275.1 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND TENNYSON PARKWAY AN LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> THANK YOU, MS. BRIDGES. THIS IS A CITY-INITIATED REQUEST TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS FOR OPEN SPACE IN TRACTS C AND D OF PLANNE DEVELOPMENT 65. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW. TO THE NORTH THERE ARE MID-RISE RESIDENTIAL AND PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE USES, SHOPS OF LEGACY MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT IS THE EAST. TO THE WEST AND SOUTH THERE ARE PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL, ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE USES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER AND EMPLOYMENT CENTER ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND FINDINGS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO APPROVE THIS REQUEST PD 64 CB1 AND PD 65 CB1 HAVE A JOINT OPEN SPACE TIED TO BOTH DEVELOPMENTS. WITH THE ZONING CASE AND THE COMPANION ZONING CASE 22-001, AGENDA ITEM 1A, THE OPEN SPACE PLAN IS PROPOSED TO BE DIVIDED WITH EACH PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT HAVING ITS OWN ADOPTED PLAN AND REQUIRED OPEN SPACE CALCULATION. WITH THE INCLUSION OF BRUCE GLASSCOCK PARK THE OVERALL PDs WILL BE INCREASED BYWO 0.96 ACRES. THE OPEN SPACE CURRENTLY PROVIDED IN TRACT C AND D OF PD 65 IS 5.14 ACRES. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE AREAS WITHIN THE TRACT TO 1.6 ACRES DUE TO ENSURE THAT OPEN SPACES IS IN AREAS WHICH ARE CONSISTENT WITH CITY POLICIES . DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH DEVELOPMENT AND WHICH WILL BEST SUPPORT RESIDENTS. TO OFFSET THE REDUCTION THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO UTILIZE THE 7.1 ACRES OF BRUCE GLASSCOCK PARK IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE CITY-PURCHASED PARKLAND FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA AND THE ZONING ORDINANCE ALLOWS PROPERTIES TO REQUEST OPEN SPACE CREDIT FOR ADJACENT PARKLAND BASED UPON CERTAIN CRITERIA. THIS REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE CRITERIA AND THE PROPOSED CHANGES WILL RESERVE HIGH-QUALITY OPENPACE AREAS FOR RESIDENTS. AS FOR THE PD RESTRICTIONS, THE OPEN SPACE PLAN SHOULD BE ADOPTED AS PART OF THE ZONING CASE AND THE APPLICANT MUST PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF 1.6 ACRES OF USABLE OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT AND 7.1 ACRES OF BRUCE GLASSCOCK PARK TO ENSURED THE REQUIRED 8.7 ACRES USABLE OPEN SPACE. WE RECEIVED NO LETTERS WITHIN 200 FEET. IN FAVOR, THREE LETTERS INERS OPPOSITION, AND ONE NEUTRAL LETTER WITHIN THE DISTRICT. STAFF RECEIVED A TOTAL OF SEVEN LETTERS IN FAVOR, THREE IN OPPOSITION, AND TWO NEUTRAL LETTERS. THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2022-001 AND SUBJECT TO THE PD RESTRICTIONS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: YES, THANK YOU, MS. POULADI FOR THE PRESENTATION. JUST FOR CLARIFICATION FOR ACCEPTING THE FUTURE PARK, BRUCE GLASSCOCK PARK, THERE IS A PRECEDENCE WHERE WE HAVE ALLOWED DEVELOPERS TO ACCESS THOSE PARKS IN THE PAST AS PART OF THEIR OPEN SPACE PLAN, CORRECT? >> I WOULD ASK MR. HILL TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG BUT THERE'S A SECTION IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT ALLOWS A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF CITY-OWNEDD PARKLAND TO BE UTILIZED AS CREDIT FOR OPEN SPACE USES. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT AND WE HAVE USED THAT ON OTHER DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PAST. >> AND THEY HAVE TO BE -- I GUESS ACCORDING TO ORDINANCE, SOMEWHAT ADJACENT TO THE PARK? >> THERE'S CRITERIA IN THE ORDINANCE FOR US TO CONSIDER THAT. >> AND THIS PROPOSAL MEETS THAT CRITERIA? >> IT DOES. >> THANK YOU. >> SURE. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: YOU JUST MENTIONED WE'RE ALLOWED TO USE A CTAIN AMOUNT OF PUBLIC SPACE. DO YOU, OFF THE TOP OF YOUR HEAD, OF THE CITY'S CURRENT PUBLIC SPACE, HOW MUCH HAVE WE USED TO MEET SOME KIND OF CREDIT REQUIREMENT? >> I WOULD NOT BE ABLE >> I WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO TELL YOU. WE CAN DO RESEARCH AND LOOK THROUGH THE FILES AND SEE WHERE THAT WAS ACCOMMODATED. IT'S NOT BEEN USED VERY OFTEN. AND MOST DEVELOPMENTS THAT REQUIRE OPEN SPACE DO PROVIDE A CERTAIN AMOUNT, IT'S JUST THAT IF THEY'RE ADJACENT TO A PARK, THEY CAN REQUEST CREDIT DUE TO THAT ADJACENCY. >> Chair Downs: I THINK IT'S A REFERENCE TO SOME PORTION, MEANING THAT THEY CAN'T RELY SOLELY ON THE CITY PART, BUT THEY ARE ALLOWED TO USE A PORTION OF ADJACENT LAND TO MEET THEIR NEED. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO, I'VE GOT ONE SMALL QUESTION AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE IF I'M ADDRESSING ERIC OR WHO. UNDER THE CURRENT SIGN NOTIFICATION, WE PUT A SIGN OUT FOR THIS, CORRECT, FOR THE REZONING CASE? >> YES. WE HAVE SIX ZONING SIGNS ON THE AREA. >> Bronsky: OKAY. AND SO HERE'S WHERE I'M NOT SURE. UNDER WHAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT RELATED TO SIGNAGE FOR CITY-INITIATED ZONING, WOULD THERE STILL BE A SIGN ON THIS OPERTY IF WE ADOPTED WHAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT? >> SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S -- THOSE ISSUES ARE STILL IN DISCUSSION. I BELIEVE THAT CASE IS COMING BEFORE YOU ON THE NEXT AGENDA. AND MS. SEBASTIEN, FEEL FREE TO WEIGH IN. I BELIEVE THE WAY WE HAD STRUCTURED IT IS THERE WOULD NOT BE A REQUIRED SIGN. HOWEVER, THERE WOULD BE COMMUNICATION NOTICE PROVIDED BASED UPON A STRATEGY -- YOU ALL ARE MUCH MORE IN THE KNOW AS FAR ASHAT ORDINANCE LANGUAGE GOES. SO I WOULD SAY FOR THIS PROPERTY, SINCE WE'RE ON THIS AGENDA ITEM, WE DID TALK TO THE DEVELOPER, THE PROPERTY OWNER, AND REQUESTED THAT THEY ASSIST US IN PLACING A SIGN, BECAUSE IT'S A CITY-INITIATED CASE BUT IT IS A JOINT EFFORT WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER, BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO SEE THIS DONE AS WELL. THEY COMPLIED AND THEY PLACED THE SIGNS, THAT PROVIDED THOSE AT OUR DIRECTION. BUT IF YOU HAVE INFORMATION ON THE OTHER QUESTION? >> NOTHING ADDITIONAL. THAT'S THE CURRENTROPOL THAT THE CITY MANAGER DESIGNATED METHOD WOULD BE THE ALTERNATIVE. AND IF IT'S THE CITY-INITIATED LIKE THIS CASE IS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THERE WOULDN'T BE A REQUIREMENT FOR A SIGN. >> Bronsky: THERE COULD BE A SIGN PUT OUT, BUT SPECIFICALLY THERE WOULDN'T BE THE FORCE TO MAKE IT HAPPEN. BUT IN FACT, THIS CONCEIVABLY WOULDN'T HAVE A SIGN UNDER WHAT WE ADOPTED. I APOLOGIZE. I WASN'T SURE. >> Chair Downs: WE'RE NOT ON THE AGENDA FOR SIGN DISCUSSION, SO. >> Bronsky: SORRY. >> Chair Downs: IT'S A VALID DIUSSION A WE'LL TALK ABOUT THAT. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: THANK YOU. JUST ON THE OPEN SPACE HERE, IF I'VE BEEN DOING THE MATH RIGHT, THE PARK WILL BE THE LION'S SHARE OF THE OPEN SPACE GOING FORWARD IF THIS IS APPROVED, CORRECT? AND THERE WILL BE VERY LITTLE OPEN SPACE OTHER THAN THAT, RIGHT? >> I'M NOT SURE IF I UNDERSTAND YOUR QUESTION. >> Cary: OKAY. SO, I THINK YOU ALREADY ANSWERED. THE LION'S SHARE OF THE OPEN SPACE AFTER WE APPROVE THIS WILL BE THE PARK. AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE EXHIBIT RIGHT HERE. MOST OF THE OTHER OPEN SPACE SEEMS TO BE GOING AWAY AND THE OPEN SPACE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NOW IS THE PARK. >> CORRECT. >> Cary: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANYONE ELSE? OKAY. SO -- ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYBODY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON THIS ITEM? >> WE DO NOT HAVE ANY SPEAKERS. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SEEING NONE, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: SO, BASED ON OUR PRIOR DISCUSSION, I UNDERSTAND WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE. I SAID IT BEFORE, I THINK USING THE PARK AS MOST OF THE OPEN SPACE IS A BIT OF A STRETCH IN TERMS OF SAYING WE'VE ADDED OPEN SPACE BECAUSE THE PARK IS ALREADY THERE. THAT'S MY OPINION ON THAT. WHILE THAT SPACE THAT'S GOING AWAY MIGHT NOT BE VERY -- I THINK THERE COULD BE AESTHETIC BENEFITS TO THAT FOR THE CITY. AND I THINK PROBABLY MOST PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN PLANO DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN L.A., DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY. AND SO AS WE TAKE AWAY SOME OF THIS OPEN SPACE, I THINK WE TAKE AWAY SOME OF THE AESTHETIC BENEFIT OF THAT OPEN SPACE, THAT WHILE IT MIGHT NOT BE VERY UTILE FOR CITIZENS OTHER THAN FROM AN AESTHETIC POINT OF VIEW. SO I WANT TO MAKE THAT COMMENT, MAYBE NOT SO MUCH FOR THIS. BUT AS WE'RE GOING FORWARD, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING WE NEED TO MAKE SURE WE'RE CONSIDERING, BECAUSE IT'S BEYOND JUST THE UTILITY OF IT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: IT'S A FAIR COMMENT, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED OR HAVE LANGUAGE THAT REQUIRES THAT A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF THAT CREDIT BE -- THE OPEN SPACE BE PROVIDED BY THE PRIVATE DEVELOPER VERSUS THE PUBLIC. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT LANGUAGE EXISTS, BUTIVENHAT WE DO HAVE SOME PRECEDENT TO THIS AND IT -- WE ARE NOT IN THE HABIT OF FREELY USING OUR PUBLIC PARKS AS CREDIT TO PRIVATE DEVELOPERS, I DON'T THINK IT SENDS US DOWN A BAD ROAD. YOUR POINT TO AESTHETIC, I BELIEVE THE DEVELOPER -- THE PARK SHOULD HELP THAT A LITTLE BIT WHERE WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE IN L.A. OR CHICAGO. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: AS WE LOOK AT THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE PRESENTED ABOUT COMPARISON OF THE PROPOSED VERSUS THE EXISTING OPEN SPACES, ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE THEY DIDN'T GIVE US WHERE THE EHA1 AND 2 LIE. BUT CLEARLY A LARGE PORTION OF THIS LIES ALONG THE NORTH DALLAS TOLLWAY. SO, CLEARLY THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE CONSIDERED OPEN SPACE, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT GOING T RE RECREATE THERE. IF YOU LOOK NOW, THERE'S NOTHING THERE BUT TREES. THE OTHER PART, A GREATER PORTION OF THAT ALSO LIES ALONG COMMUNICATIONS. WITHOUT HAVING THE MAP IN FRONT OF ME, I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY EHA 1, MAYBE. I CAN'T TEST BECAUSE I DO NOTOTT ME. BUT WITH THE INCORPORATION OF THE BRUCE GLASSCOCK PARK, WHICHS US TO THE TOTAL, 8.7 ACRES WITH THE PARK MAKING 7.1 ACRES, THEREFORE, THEY'RE CONTRIBUTING ONLY 1.6 ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, THAT SORT OF IS THE WAY THAT THEY GET AROUND IT, OKAY. WOULD I LIKE TO SEE A LARGER PORTION PROVIDED? YES. BUT I'M AFRAID IT IS WHERE WE'RE AT AT THIS DAY. SO, THAT'S MY POSITION RIGHT HERE. >> Chair Downs: I THINK IF YOU , COMMISSIONER. >> SO, SPEAKING TO THE AESTHETIC PIECE OF IT, I WILL SAY THAT SOME OF THESE GREEN AREAS BEING TURNED INTO PARKING LOTS RATHER THAN SOME SORT OF GREENERY -- I'M DISAPPOINTED WITH LOSING SOME OF THAT. AND I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF PLANO IN HAVING MORE GREEN, BECAUSE I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PEOPLE OF PLANO DO NOT WANT TO LIVE IN NEW YORK CITY, OR DALLAS. THAT BEING SAID, I'M VERY EXCITED THAT GOING FORWARD, THAT THE NEW COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DOES HAVE HIGHER NUMBERS AND THAT WE WILL BE CONFORMING TO THE PLAN. AND SO I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THIS EVEN THOUGH I'M NOT A FAN OF TAKING GREEN AREAS AND TURNING THEM INTO PARKING LOTS. >> Chair Downs: SO, I MEAN, I THINK BACK TO EARLIER ZONING MEETINGS. I'M TALKING ABOUT BEFORE I WAS EVEN ON THE COUNCIL. AAND I LOOK AT THIS OPEN SPACE PLAN THE WAY IT EXISTS, AND I LOOK AT THESE LITTLE BITTY SPLOTCHES OF GREEN THAT WERE SOMEHOW COBBLED TOGETHER, SOME OF THEM LESS THAN 600 SQUARE FEET, TO TRY TO MEET SOME RANDOM GUIDELINE RIGHT. ALL THEY HAD TO DO WAS SAY, OKAYH TOGETHER THIS SECTION OF FLOWER GARDEN HERE THAT'S TEN SQUARE FEET. WE'RE GOING TO MEET OUR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS. IS THAT REALLY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS SPACES THAT PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY ENJOY. SO, I THINK THERE'S AN HONESTY TO THIS NEW LOOK HERE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. THE OTHER ASPECT OF IT IS, YOU SAID THE PEOPLE OF PLANO DON'T WANT TO LIVE IN THIS KIND OF ENVIRONMENT. WELL, FOR WHATEVER REASON, THEY RENT AND SELL EVERY UNIT THAT'S THERE, SO SOMEBODY I PLANO WANTS TO LIV IN THAT ENVIRONMENT. SO, I'M ALWAYS QUESTIONING WHETHER WE SHOULD BE DICTATING LIVING ENVIRONMENTS FOR PEOPLE, BECAUSE PEOPLE WANT TO LIVE WHERE THEY WANT TO LIVE. AND WE PROVIDE A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT LOCATIONS. SOME PEOPLE LOVE THIS TYPE OF ENVIRONMENT. STRICT, HARDCORE URBAN -- THEY'RE NOT LOOKING FOR PARK SPACE. THEY'RE LOOKING FOR A DOORMAN THAT MEETS THEM WHEN THEY PULL UP, THE HIGH VIEW FROM UP TOP, AND THEY ARE WILLING TO WALK 17 BLOCKS TO GET TO A PARK TO WALK THEIR DOG IFHAT'S WHAT THEY WANT TOO. SO I THINK WE OFFER THAT IN HERE. AND AS I SAID, I APPRECIATE THE HONESTY IN SAYING, WHAT WE HAVE IS USABLE OPEN SPACE VERSUS WHICH LITTLE FLOWER BED DID WE THROW IN HERE TO MEET A 5% OR 10% RULE. SO OBVIOUSLY I'M IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I THINK IT ADJUSTS THINGS TO A MORE REALISTIC REPRESENTATION OF WHAT IT'S LIKE IN THAT AREA. AND THE BRUCE PARK, IT WAS PURCHASED SPECIFICALLY AS AN OPEN SPACE FOR USE WITH THE RESIE DEVELOPMENT. WHY NOT COUNT IT AS PART OF THE OPEN SPACE IF THE REASON THE CITY BOUGHT IT WAS TO PROVIDE AN OPEN SPACE AND PARK AREA FOR THESE RESIDENTS IN THIS AREA? SO, ANYWAY, ALL THAT BEING SAID, COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YEAH, AT THE RISK OF BEING OVER-ARGUMENTATIVE, AS I LOOK AT THE CURRENT PLAN, NOT THE NEW PLAN, AND THERE'S A COMMENT ABOUT SMALL SPACES COBBLED TOGETHER. BUT, YOU KNOW, AS A DOG OWNER, IF I LIVED IN THESE APARTMENTS -- AND I AGREE WITH CS I THINK PEOPLE CHOOSE WHERE THEY WANT TO LIVE. SO WITHIN SOME LIMITS, I THINK THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK ALSO THOSE OF US ON THIS COMMISSION, I THINK HAVE A DUTY TO LIVE UP TO OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE'RE TRYING TO DO THAT. SOME OF THESE SMALL SPACES CAN HAVE VALUE. PEOPLE IN THIS COUNTRY HAVE DOGS. IF I HAVE TO WALK 17 BLOCKS TO TAKE MY DOG OUT, THAT'S A LONG WAY. SOME OF THESE PLACES CAN HAVE IT. I'M NOT BRINGING IT UP BECAUSE OF THIS PROJECT. IHINKHIS A DONE DEAL AT THIS POINT. BUT I THINK THAT WE NEED TO BE THOUGHTFUL ABOUT THAT BECAUSE I DON'T SEE THESE SPACES AS COMPLETELY INCONSEQUENTIAL AND I SEE VALUE TO THEM. I MIGHT BE THE ONLY GUY SITTING ON THIS COMMISSION THAT FEELS THAT WAY, BUT I DO WANT TO EXPRESS THAT. SO, THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: AND I APPRECIATE THAT. AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT STAFF THROUGH THE EXERCISE, BUT NOT EVERY GREEN SPACE THAT'S ON HERE IS GOING AWAY. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> Chair Downs: SO THE ONLY THING THAT'S GOING AWAY IS WE'RE NOT COUNTING IT ANY LONGER. SOME OF IT IS GOING TO HAVE PARKING SPACES, BUT NOT ALL OF IT IS GOING AWAY. I DON'T WANT TO PUT STAFF THROUGH THE EFFORT OF TRYING TO IDENTIFY WHAT'S STAYING AND WHAT'S GOING. SOME WILL STILL BE THERE, WE'RE JUST NOT GOING TO COUNT IT UNDER THE TERMS OF THE EHA REQUIREMENTS. AND AGAIN, EFFECTIVE USE. SO, COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: YEAH, I THINK, AGAIN, IT'S WHAT WE'RE DEFINING AS OPEN SPACE. AND BECAUSE OF THE EHA RESTRICTIONS WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO RECREATE ALONG THE TOLLWAY OKAY? THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. CAN YOU WALK YOUR DOG ALONG THAT? PROBABLY. DOT KNOW IF I WANT TO CROSS THE FRONTAGE ROAD TO GET THERE, BUT CERTAINLY YOU'D LIKE TO THINK ALONG COMMUNICATIONS. AND IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE THE LAYOUT IS, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BE WALKING 17 BLOCKS TO WALK YOUR DOG. YOU'RE GOING TO CROSS THE STREET ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION TO BRUCE, CROSS COMMUNICATIONS AND IF YOU'RE IN THE ICON AREA, MOVE TO THAT LITTLE TRIANGLE IN THE INTERIOR SPACE. SO, IT'S NOT LIKE A LONG DISTANCE. AGAIN, FROM PARKS AND REC'S PLAN THEY WERE ALWAYS PROPOSING TO HAVE A PUBLIC PARK WITHIN A 15-MINE WALK OF YOUR RESIDENCE THROUGHOUT PLANO, WHETHER IT'S NORTHEAST PLANO TO OVER HERE TO THE WESTERN PORTION. SO THAT'S THEIR GOAL AND I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE IS ACHIEVABLE. AND THE OPEN SPACE IS A BONUS. WITH EVERY NEW DEVELOPMENT THEY'RE ADDING OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS OKAY? CLEARLY WHEN THIS PD WAS PUT TOGETHER, THE EHA WAS NOT THERE. AND SO THEREFORE, WE RUN INTO A CONFLICT. AND WE ALWAYS HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THE HEALTH AND WELL-BEING OF THE CITIZENS, SO, THEREFORE, N SPACE DUE TO THE EHA REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. SO, WITH THAT, MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 2, RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL, ZONING CASE WITH THE RESTRICTIONS PROVIDED IN THIS ATTACHMENT. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE ANOTHER VERY WELL-STATED MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSI COMMISSIONER STONE E AGENDA ITEM 2. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR PATIENCE THAT WAS HERE FOR THE NEXT ITEMS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 3. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3, PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING CASE 2021 HEARING, ZONING CASE 2021 ZONING CASE 22 ZONING CASE 22 ZONING CASE 2022, REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 14 (ALLOWED USES AND USE CLASSIFICATIONS), ARTICLE 15 (USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS) AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO TATTOOING AND PERMANENT (OR INTRADERMAL) COSMETICS AND RELATEDLAND USES IN THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS/GOVERNMENT (BG) ZONING DISTRICT. >> GOOD EVENING. THE PURPOSE IS TO AMEND SECTIONS RELATED TO TATTOOING IN THE BUSINESS GOVERNMENT ZONING DISTRICT, ALSO REFERRED TO AS THE BG DISTRICT. A PUB WA PUBLIC HEARING WAS CALO CONSIDER AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO ALLOW FOR TATTOOING, PERMANENT COSMETICS AND RELATED LAND USES AS A PRIMARY USE IN THE BG DISTRICT. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REVIEWED DRAFT STANDARDS AT THE APRIL 18TH, 2022 MEETING. AS YOU MAY RECALL, TATTOOING, PERMANENT COSMETICS AND BODY PIERCING ARE PERMITTED AS AN ACCESSORY USE, BUT NOT PRIMARY USES IN THE BG DISTRICT. STAFF PERFORMED AN ANALYSIS IN WHICH THE EXISTING DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS FOR TATTOO, PERMANENT COSMETICS, AND BODY PIERCING WERE PERMITTED AS PRIMARY USES BY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN OTHER ZONING DISTRICTS, WERE APPLIED TO THE BG DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THESE DISTANCE SEPARATIONS ARE ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLICATED FOR SEVERAL REASONS. THERE IS POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENTS AND LAND USE RIGHTS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO EITHER PREDATE THE ZONING REGULATIONS, OR RELATE TO OUTDATED ORDINANCES. EACH FACILITY MUST BE VERIFIED BY AN IN-PERSON INSPECTION. AN CERFICAS OF OCCUPANCY ARE NOT REQUIRED FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, SO NOT ALL RESIDENTIAL USES MAY BE KNOWN. USING KNOWN RELIGIOUS FACILITIES, PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, A 300-FOOT BUFFER WAS APPLIED AND RESULTED TO THE AREA SHOWN HERE. THIS AREA INCLUDES HERITAGE DISTRICT 26, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED ON THIS SLIDE. DUE TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE DIFFICULTY IN TRACKING LAND USES AND BECAUSE HD26 IS A DEFINED BOUNDARY, STAFF PROPOSES USING HD26 TO ALLOW FOR A LIMITED NUMBER OF TATTOOING, PERMANENT COSMETICS, AND G BODY PIERCING N THAT DISTRICT. OUTSIDE OF HB26, STAFF PROPOSES ALLOWING FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. STAFF REVIEWED THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS AGAINST THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PLAN. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS REQUEST FOR APPROVAL PERHE ZONING ORDINANCE ANDMENTS AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. IT SHOULD BE NOTED STAFF RECEIVED ONE LETTER IN OPPOSITION TO THE QUESTION. I CAN ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I KNOW WE HAD SOME DISCUSSIONS AROUND THIS WITH THE DRAFT. GO AHEAD, MR. OLLEY. >> Olley: CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE MAP? I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M READING THIS RIGHT. SO, THE THICK BROWN LINES, BE USED BECAUSE IT'S WITHINNOT 300 FEET OF RESIDENTIAL FACILITIES RELIGIOUS FACILITIES? >> SO, THE BROWN YELLOW LINE, THAT REPRESENTS 300 FEET FROM RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS. THE PURPLE LINE IS 300 FEET FROM SCHOOLS. AND THE GREEN LINE IS 300 FEET FROM RELIGIOUS FACILITIES. >> Olley: SO WHATEVER IS ENCLOSED IN THOSE BUBBLES CAN TECHNICALLY BE -- NOT TECHNICALLY, IS ALLOWABLE BY S.U.P. AT THIS POINT? >> SO, NOT WITHIN THE BG DISTRICT. LET ME GO BACK. TATTOOING, PERMANENT COSMETICS, AND BODY PIERCING ARE ALLOWED BY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN FIVE OF OUR FIFTEEN NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, NOT INCLUDING BG. BUT THESE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS HAVE THESE ADDITIONAL DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS. SO, TO FIGURE OUT THE BEST LOCATIONS WITHIN BG TO PLACE THESE USES, WE DID AN ANALYSIS OF THE REQUIREMENTS THAT EXIST FOR THE OTHER DISTRICTS. USING THOSE DISTANCES, THIS WAS THE AREA WE GOT. THE 1,000-FOOT BUFFER, THAT COMPLETELY PROHIBITS THE USE WITHIN BG BECAUSE OF THE NUMBER OF RELIGIOUS FACILITIES, SCHOOLS, AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. BUT THE 300-FOOT BUFFER TOOK US DOWN TO THIS CENTRALLIZED AREA WHERE HD26 IS LOCATED. >> Olley: GOTCHA. >> I HAVE A QUESTION. IT LOOKS LIKE IT JUST HAPPENED TO BE THE HD26 AREA IS OUTSIDE OF ALL THE OTHER BOUNDARIES. SO, WHAT HAPPENS IF THERE'S A NEW CHURCH BUILT RIGHT OUTSIDE THAT HD26 BOUNDARY AND IT EXTENDS THAT 300 FEET FROM RELIGIOUS FACILITY, WOULD THAT CONTRADICT WHAT'S ALREADY PERMITTED IN THE HD26 DISTRICT? >> NO. SO, WE'RE NOT PROPOSING THE DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS TO APPLY WITH THIS AMENDMENT, BECAUSE OF THE LIMITATIONS WE GET WHEN YOU RELIGIOUS FACILITIES ANDEW SCHOOLS. SO, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS TO LIMIT IT TO THIS EXISTING DISTRICT THAT IS CURRENTLY OUTSIDE OF THOSE USES AS OUR MAIN DISTRICT FOR WHERE THEY'RE PERMITTED BY RIGHT. BUT WE WOULD NOT HAVE THOSE DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS APPLY THROUGHOUT BG. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: THANK YOU. ON PAGE 6 OF 6, NUMBER 3, LETTER A, IT TALKS ABOUT PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, BUT DOES NOT SAY PRIVATE SCHOOLS. AND IS THERE A REASON THAT'S NOT INCLUDED AND SHOULD WE INCLUDE IT? >> SO, STAFF DID LOOK INTO THAT HISTORY AND WE COULD NOT FIND ANY MENTION OF WHY PRIVATE SCHOOLS WERE NOT INCLUDED WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THE BEST WE CAN TELL IS IT IS VERY SIMILAR TO OTHER DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS FOR OTHER USES WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. SO IT IS CONSISTENT WITH DISTANCING THAT WE HAVE THROUGHOUT THE ZONING ORDINANCE, NOT INCLUDING PRIVATE SCHOOLS. BUT WE COULDN'T FIND ANY REASON AS TO SPECIFICALLY W IT WASN'T INCLUDED. >> Cary: I GUESS MY ONE COMMENT ON THIS WOULD BE I WOULD SUGGEST WE CONSIDER INCLUDING IT. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: MY QUESTION IS FOR MICHELLE. SHOULD . . . WITHIN THESE BUFFERS, IF PRIVATE SCHOOLS ARE NOT INCLUDED, THEN THE BUFFER DOESN'T APPLY TO THE PRIVATE SCHOOL. IS THAT CORRECT? >> YES. >> Bronsky: SO I HAVE TO COMPLETELY AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CARY THAT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS THE FORUM TO DO IT, BUT I DO BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO ENSURE THAT WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCHOOLS THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ALL SCHOOLS. AND WE NEED TO BE INCLUSIVE OF NOT JUST PUBLIC SCHOOLS AND NOT JUST PAROCHIAL SCHOOLS, BUT PLANO HAS A VIBRANT COMMUNITY OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS THAT I BELIEVE ARE NOT BEING CARED FOR HERE. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. LET'S NARROW IT DOWN TO THE PROPOSAL WHICH LOOKS AT HD26 AND THE ORIGINAL OPTIONS THERE WERE TO ALLOW BY RIGHT, ANY MORE THAN THAT REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, WE HAD PUBLIC COMMENT. WE ADDRESSED THIS WITH STAFF TWO WEEKS AGO. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR THE PAST SIX WEEKS, IF I RECALL. AND EVERYTHING THAT SFF HAS PRESENTED US TODAY HAS BEEN COMPLIANT WITH WHAT WE'VE ASKED THEM OKAY? GRANTED I THINK WE DO NEED TO CONSIDER PRIVATE SCHOOLS IN THIS DISCUSSION, BUT THAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED AS A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM THAT WE WOULD NEED TO BRING FORTH AS AN ORDINANCE CHANGE THAT WE WOULD RECOMMEND TO GIVE TO CITY COUNCIL. BUT ADHERING TO THIS RIGHT NOW, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE -- I WOULD LIKE TOOVE OH. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE -- [ LAUGHING ] >> SORRY, PUBLIC. I DIDN'T MEAN TO LEAVE YOU OUT. OKAY. >> Chair Downs: YEAH, WE NEED -- ARE WE DONE WITH QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. I WAS EXCITED, MAN. WE'RE MOVING RIGHT ALONG HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I THINK WE HAVE SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO TALK. >> WELL, THE APPLICANT, JENNIFER BAILEY, IS AVAILABLE IF THERE ARE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. OKAY. WE HAVE ANDREW SMITH WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK. >> HI, I LIVE AT 3717 ATRIUM DRIVE. I WOULD SUGGEST VOTING IN SUPPORT OF THIS. I THINK THAT TATTOO SHOPS WOULD ENHANCE THE CULTURE OF PLANO'S DOWNTOWN. SINCE WE ALREADY HAVE LOCATIONS THAT HAVE TATTOO SHOPS OR PIERCING SHOPS ADJACENT TO OTHER RETAIL SPACE, I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE WITH THIS BECOMING MUCH MORE CENTRALIZED FOCUS OF THESE RETAIL SHOPS. THANK YOU. >> Chairowns: THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO HAVE SOMEONE WHO HAS REGISTERED IN SUPPORT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. HORNE, YOU WERE SAYING? >> Horne: MR. CHAIRMAN, MY APOLOGIES TO THE PUBLIC. [ CHUCKLING ] I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH THE CHANGES TO THE SECTION 14.0 AND AMEND SECTION . >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'M EXCITED ABOUT THIS. I AGREE WITH THE SPEAKER THAT IT WILL ENHANCE DOWNTOWN PLANO. AND I WHOLEHEARTEDLY SECOND THIS MOTION. >> Chair Downs: GREAT. WE HAVE -- NEVER MIND. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. CONGRATULATIONS. STILL GOT ANOTHER STEP OR TWO, BUT YOU'RE GETTING THERE. NEXT. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 4, PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT: TRADITION TRAIL INDUSTRIAL PARK ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 2R - WAREHOUSE, MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR, AND USED VEHICLE DEALER ON ONE LOT ON 3.9 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF TRADITION TRAIL AND FULGHAM ROAD. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-131-LIGHT INDUSTRIAL-1 ANDOCAT WITN THE 190 TOLLWAY/PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. APPLICANT: TRADITION BUSINESS PARK LLC. ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION >> GOOD EVENING, I'M A PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS THIS REPLAT FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, AND I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF THERE ARE ANY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS? SEEING NONE, ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. VERY GOOD. AND IS THIS ONE A PUBLIC HEARING? IT IS. >> ASK EVERYBODY -- >> Chair Downs: BUT THIS IS ACTUALLY A PUBLIC HEARING. I THOUGHT WE HAD THIS DISCUSSION LAST TIME. SEE IF ANYONE WANTS TO TALK. THAT'S RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> WE DO NOT, BUT WE HAVE ONE REGISTERED POSITIVE OPINION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. POSITIVE OPINIONS. >> THEY'RE GREAT. THEY'RE VERY SUPPORTIVE. >> Chair Downs: WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS AS SUBMITTED. >> I SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM 4 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 7-0. SO, ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDA. I WOULD LIKE STAFF TO DO A LITTLE RESEARCH INTO THE INCLUSION OF PRIVATE SCHOOLS ANYWHERE WE'RE REFERENCING PUBLIC OR PAROCHIAL, SEE WHAT OUR NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES DO, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE A PRIVATE SCHOOL -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE HAVE A REALLY GOOD DEFINITION. A PVATE SCHOOL COULD BE CONSIDERED FOUR KIDS, POTENTIALLY. AND THAT COULD BE LOCATED ALMOST ANYWHERE IN THE CITY. YOU MIGHT FIND -- I DON'T KNOW IF WE NEED TO CREATE A BETTER DEFINITION OF A PRIVATE SCHOOL. I'M NOT GOING TO DIALOGUE WITH IT UNLESS SOMEBODY WANTS TO SECOND MY REQUEST FOR THIS. >> I DO. I WANT TO SECOND YOUR REQUEST. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE POINT THAT THE CITY OF PLANO REQUIRES A SPECIAL USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE SCHOOL. SO WE HAVE A FAIRLY GOOD DEFINITION OF IT. I DO SECOND YOUR MOTION. >> Chair Downs: WE'LL ADD THAT TO A FUTURE AGENDA. ANYTHING ELSE THAT SOMEONE WOULD LIKE TO ADD? OKAY. WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 8:28. THANK YOU. >> GOOD-BYE. ♪