NOVEMBER 7, 2022. PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE THIS EVENING. AS WE COME TO ORDER IT'S 7:00 P.M. WOULD YOU PLEASE JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE? [PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE] >> COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PE SPEAKER WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON TH CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIF THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MOVE ON TO CONSENT. >> CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO PULL AN ITEM FROM CONSENT? >> PULL ITEM A,LEASE. >> Chair Downs: WE'LL PULL ITEM A. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO PULL ITEM D FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> Chair Downs: AND WE WILL PULL ITEM D FROM CONSENT. WITH THAT -- >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE AGENDA -- CONSENT AGENDA MINUS ITEM A AND ITEM D AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT MINUS ITEM A AND D WITH A SECOND BY -- BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. I WANT TO WELCOME OUR NEWEST COMMISSIONER TO THE FOLD, MICHAEL -- I WANT TO PRONOUNCE IT BROWNOFF. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE YOUR EXPERIENCE HERE AT THE DAIS AND LOOKING FORWARD TO YOUR CONTRIBUTIONS. >> [OFF MIC] >> Chair Downs: OKAY. ITEM A FROM CONSENT. >> [OFF MIC] OCTOBER 17, 2022 P&Z MEETING. >> Chair Downs: IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE WAS JUST A VERY MINOR CHANGE TO THOSE THAT WERE PRESENT OR HOW THEY WERE COUNTED AS PRESENT. OUTSIDE OF THAT EVERYTHING ELSE WAS THERE SO WE'RE GOING TO HAVE THE MINUTES REPRINTED FOR SIGNATURE BUT WE COULD TAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THEM WITH THE EDIT THAT WAS MADE. >> I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE NOTING THA I WAS NOT PRESENT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM -- CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A, NOTING THAT HE WAS NOT PRESENT, WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. CONSENT AGENDA ITEM D NEXT. >> CONSENT AGENDA ITEM D, SITE PLAN. COLLIN CREEK SINGLE-FAMILY, BLOCKS A-L. 104 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DETACHED LOTS, 298 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED LOTS, AND 25 COMMON AREA LOTS ON 35.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ALMA DRIVE, 558 FEET NORTH OF PLANO PARKWAY. ZONED URBAN MIXED-USE 3. PHILANTHROPIC MM CCM48M, LLC. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. MR. HORNE. >> Horne: MR. CHAIRMAN, IF YOU PLEASE. JUST FROM THE FACT THAT THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX PROJECT AND BOTH WE HAVE MULTIFAMILY, WE HAVE SINGLE-FAMILY AND A LOT OF EAST PLANO IS GOING TO BE -- A LOT OF DEVELOPMENT ON EAST PLANO IS GOING TO SPRINGBOARD FROM THIS PARTICUL PROCT. I FELT IT IMPORTANT THAT WE DIDN'T JUST APPROVE IT THROUGH A CONSENT AGENDA BUT BRING IT TO THE ATTENTION IN A PUBLIC FORUM THAT THEY KNOW THAT WE ARE ON IT AND THAT -- WELL, WE'RE CERTAINLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS MOVING FORWARD BUT OUTSIDE OF THAT WE HAVE A COMPLEX PLAN HERE AND I WAS HOPING THAT WE COULD MAYBE GET SOME CLARIFICATION AS TO WE SEE IT COLOR CODED SO MAYBE MR. HILL CAN TALK TO THAT IN A PUBLIC FORUM. >> YEAH, I WOULD B GLAO. THIS IS A VERY COMPLEX PLAN. THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF HAS A VARIETY OF UNIT TYPES AND STREET TYPES. THE PLAN BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS REALLY FOCUSED ON THE SINGLE-FAMILY DEVELOPMENTS. THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL PHASE OF DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROJECT. IN THIS SITE PLAN THAT'S POSTED ON THE WEBSITE IN THE PACKET YOU'LL SEE SOME COLOR, WHICH IS THE FIRST SITE PLAN I BELIEVE WE HAVE USED COLOR FOR. SO THE RED OUTLINES ARE ACTUALLY THE HOME BUILDING OUTLINES. WE USE THAT JT DUE TO THE LINE COMPLEXITY ON THE PLAN. BUT WE ALSO HIGHLIGHTED THE DUPLEX OR DETACHED LOTS, AND THOSE HAVE YELLOW STARS. NO GREEN CLOVERS BUT WE DO HAVE YELLOW STARS. YOU'LL SEE SOME DELINEATION JUST TO PROVIDE SOME MORE JUST INFORMATION AND SOME KIND OF EASILY-ACCESSIBLE INFORMATION AS YOU REVIEW THE PLAN. THIS HAS GONE THROUGH A VERY LENGTHY PROCESS. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND CAN SPEAK TO THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WE WELCOME YOUR RECOMMENDATION THERE ARE TWO ITES THAT WILL NEED VARIANCES BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. THAT INFORMATION IS IN THE STAFF REPORT BUT, AGAIN, AS THE COMMISSION KNOWS THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL WOULD REVIEW IT AND IT WOULD GO TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IN THE FUTURE. SO THE APPLICANT WILL MAKE A SUBMISSION TO THEM. TONIGHT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE BOARD'S APPROVAL OF THOSE VARIANCES. IT IS A COMPLEX PLAN TO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THAT TO EVERYONE'S ATTENTION AND I'M GLAD TO ANSWER ANY MORE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE. >> Horne: THIS IS A SITE PLAN AND WE STILL HAVE ONE MORE FINAL SITE PLAN, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THIS IS THE FINAL SITE PLAN. >> Horne: THIS IS THE FINAL. SO WITH APPROVAL OF THIS AND WHEN DO WE EXPECT THE DEVELOPER TO BEGIN CONSTRUCTION ON THE FAMILY HOMES? >> THEY WOULD LIKE TO BEGIN IMMEDIATELY. >> Horne: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: VERY GOOD. YOU'RE CORRECT. A VERY COMPLEX PLAN AND WE WERE DISCUSSING THAT IT MIGHT BE ONE OF THE MOST COMPLEX THINGS THAT'S EVER BEEN DEVELOPED IN PLANO. BUT IT'S GOING TO BE SUCH A TREMENDOUS BENEFIT TO THE CITY. SO, WE NEED A MOTION. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM D UNDER THE CONSENT AGENDA, THE SITE PLAN FOR THE COLLIN CREEK SINGLE-FAMILY. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA D -- >> THAT'S SUBJECT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT GRANTIG THE VARIANCES. >> Horne: THANK YOU FOR THE CLARIFICATION. SUBJECT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. >> Chair Downs: I DON'T WANT TO SPLIT STRAWS HERE BUT THAT'S NOT ALL OF THEM. IT'S TWO. IT'S NOT THE ENTIRE -- WE DO HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL ON TWO LOTS WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 1. >> ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSID. PUBLIC HEANG ITEMS. UNLESS STRUCTURED 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 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 LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY, EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDE AGENDA ITEM NO. 1. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2020-014 - REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 10.700 (UMU, URBAN MIXED-USE DI SECTION 10.800 (BG, DOWNTOWN BU DISTRICT), AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE PERTAINING TO NECESSARY CLARIFICATIONS AND IMPROVEMENTS IN REGULATIONS. APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'M CHRISTINA SEBASTIAN WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. ZONING CASE 2020-014 RELATES TO DESIGN STANDARDS FOR THE DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT AND URBAN MIXED-USE ZONING DISTRICTS. THE CASE ORIGINATED IN 2020 AND WAS REMANDED TO THE COMMISSION BY CITY COUNCIL IN NOVEMBER OF THAT YEAR. SINCE THEN, WORK HAS BEGUN ON UPDATING THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND STAFF HAS FOUND INCREASING OVERLAP WITH THE ZONING CASE. AT T OCTOBER 3 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING THE COMMISSION DIRECTED STAFF TO WITHDRAW ZONING CASE 2020-014 AND TO COMBINE THE PROPOSED CHANGES WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES RELATED TO THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS UPDATE. AS DISCUSSED AT THAT MEETING, WITHDRAWAL WILL RESULT IN A SINGLE CASE FOR ALL AMENDMENTS. BUT AS PART OF THE NEW SINGLE ZONING CASE STAFF WILL CONDUCT PUBLIC OUTREACH, INCLUDING DOWNTOWN-FOCUSED OUTREACH FOR THOSE CHANGES SPECIFIC TO THE WNTOWN SETCKS AND STREET DESIGN. SO, WITH THAT, STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE WITHDRAW REQUEST FOR ZONING CASE 2020-014 WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PURPOSE OF THE CHANGES WILL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE CASE FOR THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS RULES AND REGULATIONS. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. I HEARD A CLICK. MR. HORNE. >> Horne: THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, MS. SEBASTIAN. ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I HAD RE WASEALL TIE TO THE STAKEHOLDERS AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUTREACH TO THEM. AS WE KNOW PARTICULARLY, THE 15th WE HAVE SEEN IN PREVIOUS MEETINGS THAT THE WIDTH OF THE STREET VARIES AS YOU MOVE DOWNTOWN. HOW ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE THAT? HOW ARE YOU GOING TO CONDUCT THAT PUBLIC OUTREACH? ARE YOU GOING TO DO A TYPICAL E-MAIL WITH COMMENTS BACK OR WILL YOU HAVE A PUBLIC FORUM WITH THE STAKEHOLDERS TO ANSWER ANY OF THEIR CONCERNS? >> THE EXACT FORMAFOR THE MEETINGS HAVE NOT BEEN DISCUSSED BUT I THINK WE DO INTEND TO MEETINGS IN-PERSON BUT MAYBE WITH A VIRTUAL OPTION. WE TYPICALLY IN THE PAST HAVE WORKED WITH THE DOWNTOWN ARTS BOARD AND EXECUTIVE ADMINISTRATOR SO IF THEY ARE ACTIVELY MEETING, WE CAN REACH OUT TO THEM TO BE SURE THAT WE'RE INCORPORATING AS MANY PEOPLE AND MAYBE HAVE IT IN CONJUNCTION WITH ONE OF THEIR MEETINGS IF THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WE STILL, AS THE CONTINUES, WE'RE STILL WORKING T TO OUTLINE WHAT PUBLIC OUTREACH WOULD BE BUT WE WOULD BE LOOKING TO GET AS MANY PEOPLE IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA TO PARTICIPATE THAT ARE INTERESTED. >> Horne: THANK YOU. I WOULD THINK A PUBLIC MEETING PE PERSON TO PERSON AND ZOOM OTHERS IN IF THEY CA SO YOU CAN HAVE DIRECT PARTICIPATION WITH QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS BACK WITH STAFF, ALL THE STAFF AS THEY COME UP WITH A SOLUTION WOULD BE IDEAL . I WOULD ENCOURAGE THAT. THANK YOU, AGAIN. >> Chair Downs: A QUESTION I WOULD HAVE AND TO SOME DEGREE SIMILAR TO HIS CONCERN ABOUT HOW WE'RE GOING TO MANAGE THIS, PARTICULARLY, YOU KNOW, UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE SOMETHING THAT IS STANDARDIZED AND WE ALL KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF NON-STANDARD SITUATIONS THAT COME UP. AND SO UNDERSTANDING HOW THAT WOULD APPLY, AS COMMISSIONER HORNE HAD MENTIED EVEN JUST USING 15, THIS VARIANCE AND SAYING WE'RE EITHER GOING TO GRANDFATHER IT AND SOMEHOW THAT'S GOING TO BE WRITTEN IN THE STANDARDS OR, NO, OUR INTENTION IS TO TRY TO GET SOME KIND OF STANDARD APPLICATION. IT COULD HAVE SIGNIFICANT IMPACT ON CURRENT PROPERTY THAT'S BEING USED OR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GIVE EVERYONE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPRESS THEIR THOUGHTS ON THISHS THINK HAVE TO BE EXTRAORDINARILY THOUGHTFUL ABOUT WHAT WE'RE DOING AND THE IMPACT IT WILL HAVE. I THINK IT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO DO THIS BUT WE SHOULD DO IT IN A VERY CAREFUL, THOUGHTFUL MANNER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: HAVE WE HAD ANY FEEDBACK -- THERE HAVE BEEN A LOT OF PEOPLE WHO HAVE BEEN INTERESTED IN THIS IN THE PAST. HAVE WE HAD ANY FEEDBACK ABOUT PEOPLE BEING CONCERNED ABOUT THIS BEING WITHDRAWN? >> I BELIEVE WHAT WE HAVE HEARD IS MOSTLY IN REGARDS TO DISCUSD., AS THE COMSSION'S >> Ratli: JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. >> MAKING SURE THEY'RE INCLUDED AS THE PROJECT MOVES FORWARD. >> Ratliff: SO THE PEOPLE THAT ARE FOLLOWING IT ARE STILL FOLLOWING IT. >> IT SEEMS TO BE, YES. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU, MS. SEBASTIAN. IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL OPEN IT. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THE ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE THE WITHDRAWAL OF ZONING CASE 2020-14 WITH TE UNDERSTANDING THAT THE PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED THROUGH ORDINANE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE THOROUGHFARE STANDARDS RULES AND REGULATIONS UPDATE . >> I'LL SECOND THAT. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. EXCELLENT MOTION, SECONDED BY MR. CARY. SO WE WILL VOTE ON AGENDA ITEM 1. A VOTE YES IS TO WITHDRAW THE ZONING CASE 2020-014 AND THAT PASSES 8-0. THANK YOU. ITEM 2. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 2. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2022-019 - REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR INDOOR GUN RANGE ON ONE LOT ON 3.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF K AVENUE, 542 FEET NORTH OF SPRING CREEK ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL. APPLICANT: ROSEBRIAR SPRING CREEK LP. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> STAFF RECOMMENDS THE PLANNING AND ZONING ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: WE GOT TWO. WHO WAS FIRST? >> GO AHEAD, MICHAEL. YOU'RE NEW. >> THANK YOU. IS THIS A WITHDRAW WITH THEúINTE APPLICATION LATER OR IS THE WITHDRAWAL PERMANENT? >> THE APPLICANT HAS NOT COMMUNICATED AT THIS TIME IF THEY PLAN ON RESUBMITTING IN THE FUTURE SO AT THIS POINT I CANNOT SAY IF THEY'RE GOING TO RESUBMIT IT. >> THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs OKAY. VERY GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE WITHDRAWAL AS SUBMITTED AND PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> Tong: I SECOND. >> Chair Downs: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO WITHDRAW THE CASE. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU. MOVING ON TO ITEM 3. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 3. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2022-016 - REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 10 ( DISTRICTS), ARTICLE 14 (ALLOWED USES AND USE CLASSIFICATIONS), ARTICLE 15 (USE-SPECIFIC REGULATIONS), AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANC TO ALIGN WITH SPECIFIC LAND USE POLICIES IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN 2021. APPLICANT: CITY OF P. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. STAFF IS WORKING TO FINALIZE THE RECOMMENDATION FOR CONSIDERATION FOR THIS CASE AND IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THE REQUEST TO THE DECEMBER 5, 2022 P&Z COMMISSION MEETING. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT STAFF'S REQUEST TO TABLE ZONING CASE 2022-016 TO DECEMBER 5, 2022. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANYOU VERY MUCH. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> I MOVE WE TABLE ZONING CASE 2022-016 UNTIL THE DECEMBER 5th, 2022 MEETING. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY TO TABLE ITEM 3 TO THE DECEMBER 5th MEETING. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 4. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 4. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2022-017 - REQUEST TO AMEND SECTION 9.1700 (RCD, RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY DESIGN DISTRICT), SECTION 10.1600 (NBD, NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS DESIGN DISTRICT), AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANC TO IMPROVE THE ALIGNMENT OF THE DISTRICTS WITH COMPHENSE PLAN 2021. APPLICANT: CITY OF PLANO. THIS IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS, AS WITH THE PREVIOUS ITEM, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THE COMMISSION ACCEPT STAFF'S REQUEST TO TABLE ZONING CASE 2022-017 TO THE DECEMBER 5, 2022 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? BLESS YOU. SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. >> I MOVE WE TABLE THE ZONING CASE TO THE DECEMBER 5 P&Z COMMISSION MEETING. >> SECOND . >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A MOTION AND COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WITH A SECOND TO TABLE ITEM 4 TO DECEMBER 5. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 5. >> AGENDA ITEM NO. 5. PUBLIC HEARING - REPLAT: ROBINSON ADDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 3R - PUBLIC SCHOOL AND COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE ON ONE LOT ON 49.4 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF ARCHGATE DRIVE, 817 FEET SOUTH OF LEGACY DRIVE. ZONED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE-7. APPLICANT: PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THIS ITEM FOR THE NOVEMBER 21, 2022 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO STAFF COMMENTS. TO ADDSS STAFF RECOMMENDS WE ACCEPT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACCEPTS THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> IS THIS SUBJECT TO A DEADLINE FOR ACTION? >> THEY DID SELECT PRE-SUBMITTAL BUT IT WAS NOTICED FOR THE -- THIS MEETING, THE 7th. STAFF BELIEVES WE CAN ADDRESS COMMENTS BY THE 21st. >> OKAY. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE DISCUSSION. COMMISSIONER TONG. >> Tong: I MOVE THE COMMISSION TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO TABLE THE REPLAT TO THE NOVEMBER 21st, 2022 P&Z MEETING. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER TONG, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER HORNE TO TABLE ITEM 5 TO THE NOVEMBER 21st PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. AND WE WILL HEAR 6A AND 6B TOGETHER. >> YES, I WILL BE READING 6A, 6B, AND 6C. >> Chair Downs: YES. PUBLIC HEARING: ZONING CASE 2022-012 - REQUEST TO REZONE 2. ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD, 224 FEET EAST OF FLINTSTONE DRIVE FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-320- ESTATE DEVELOPMENT AND RESCIND SPECIFI USE PERMIT 598 FOR A DAY CARE CENTER TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDEN APPLICANT: HBMA, LLC. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6B. CONCEPT PLAN: HINCKLEY ADDITION, BLOCK B, LOTS 1-6 - SIX SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE-9 LOTS ON 2.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD, 224 FEET EAST OF FLINTSTONE DRIVE. ZONED PLANNED ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WITH SPECIFI USE PERMIT NO. 598 FOR DAY CARE. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. AGENDA ITEM NO. 6C. REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN: HINCKLEY ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 2R - DAY CARE CENTER ON ONE LOT ON 1.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD, 224 FEET EAST OF FLINTSTONE DRIVE. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-320- ESTATE DELOPNT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NO. 598 FOR DAY CARE. AGAIN, THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO ADD SIX NEW SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS CHANGING THE ZONING F TO 320. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS HIGHLIGHTED IN YELLOW ON YOUR SCREEN . THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE SINGLE-FAMILY REESTND AS YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE PROVIDING ACCESS OFF OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD. THIS IS THE REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE EXISTING DAY CARE. THE DAY CARE IS TO REMAIN INTACT WITH ONLY MINOR CHANGES. THE LARGER ZONING REQUEST FOR PD 320 WAS APPROVED BACK IN 1984 WITH THE SUP FOR DAY CARE BEING ESTABLISHED IN 2008 AND EXPANDED IN 2009. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. THIS REQUEST IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THIS REQUEST WILL RESULT IN MINIMAL CHANGES TO THE LAND USE AND EMPLOYMENT MIXTURES. THE HOUSING MIX WOULD INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED TYPES BY 0.002%. THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE LAND USE MIX. STAFF ANALYZED THE PROPOSAL FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE DESIRABLE CHARACTERISTICS DEFINING ELEMENTS FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S DASHBOARD. THIS PLAN MEETS THE DASHBOARD REQUIREMENTS. THIS REQUEST ALSO MEETS THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS DUE TO ITS CLOSE PROXIMITY TO STONY HOLLOW PARK. THIS REQUEST CONFORMS WITH THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY AND THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY ACTION ITEMS 1 AND 8. THIS SCREEN SHOWS A SUMMARY OF HOW THE REQUEST COMPLIES WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE ADJACENT DAY CARE IS TO REMAIN AS ONLY WITH MINOR CHANGES TO THE SITE SUCH AS REDUCING THE PLAY AREA AND REMOVING A PORTION OF THE FIRE LANE. ON THIS SLIDE YOU CAN SEE THE SIDE TO SIDE -- THE EXISTING APPROVED LAYOUT AND WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED. YOU CAN SEE THE PLAY AREA IS SHRINKING AND THE FIRE LANE IS BEING AMENDED. WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE NEUTRAL RESPONSE WITHIN THE 200-FOOT BUFFER. AND CITYWIDE WE HAVE RECEIVED ONE RESPONSE IN SUPPORT, ONE NEUTRAL RESPONSE, AND 52 RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION CITYWIDE. WE RECEIVED TWO DUPLICATE FOR A TOTAL OF 52 UNIQUE RESPONSES ONLINE. THIS IS THE CONCEPT PLAN FOR ITEM B. AND THEN THIS IS THE REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR ITEM 6C. AND TO SUMMARIZE, THIS IS A REQUEST TO ADD SIX SINGLE-FAMILY LOTS WITH THE SF-9 STANDARDS AND THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE CASE AS SUBMITTED AND THE CONCEPT PLAN AND T REVISED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING FOR 2022-012. AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT AS WELL TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: SO WHAT IS THE LARGEST SINGLE-FAMILY CLASSIFICATION THAT WE HAVE? SF-9? >> I BELIEVE IT'S ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. IS THAT CORRECT, MR. HILL? >> YES. THERE IS AN SF-20 AND THERE'S ALSO ESTATE DEVELOPMENT WHICH I BELIEVE IS AN ACRE LOT. >> Chair Downs: IN GENERAL, IF YOU LOOK AT THE MAJORITY OF THE HOUSING, SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED HOUSING LOTS IN THE CITY, SF-9 IS CONSIDERED A PRETTY LARGE LOT. I THOUGHT SO AND WHEN READING THESE OPPOSITIONS IT SAYS THERE'S TOO MANY HOUSES ON THIS SMALL OF LAND. AND I'M THINKING THAT'S AS BIG AS MOST OF THE HOUSES IN THE CITY. >> THE APPLICANT INITIALLY DID SUBMIT IT AS SF-7 BUT THEY DECIDED TO GO WITH SF-9. IT WAS BRIEFLY POSTED AS SF-7 BUT THEY'RE REQUESTING SF-9. >> Chair Downs: EVEN AN SF-7 LOT YOU CAN BUILD A NICE HOUSE ON IT. THAT'S MY QUESTION. COMMISSIONER TONG, WE'LL GO WITH LADIES FIRST. >> Tong: THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER DOWNS. MY QUESTION IS REGARDING THE TRAFFIC. I DON'T KNOW IF THE STAFF MEMBERS HAVE ALREADY WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO DO AN ANALYSIS OF THAT LITTLE CURVE THERE, SO I UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN YOU TURN INTO A RESIDENTIAL AREA, TRAFFIC WILL HAVE TO SLOW DOWN AND TURN. IS THERE ANY CONSIDERATION TO ADD MAYBE TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR LANES OR HAS THAT BEEN DISCUSSED? >> THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY DISCUSSION ON TRAFFIC LIGHTS OR THE LANES BUT WE DID DO AN ANALYSIS AND THESE SIX FAMILYYYY FIVE ADDITIONAL TRIPS IN THE MORNING AND S IN THE AFTERNOON DY PERIODS. >> Tong: THAT MEANS YOU DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING? >> I KNOW THAT THEY WORKED WITH TRANSPORTATION TO PUT IN THE MEDIAN CUT AND I WOULD HAVE TO GET BACK WITH YOU TO SEE WHAT ELSE. BUT ON THE CONCEPT PLAN THEY'RE NOT SHOWING ANY -- I DO NOT BELIEVE THEY'RE SHOWING IT ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. >> I WOULD ADD THIS IS A VERY SMALL NUMBER OF LOTS, AS MR. McDOWELL REFERENCED. FIVE ADDITIONAL TRIPS IN THE MORNING AND SIX IN THE EVENING IS A VERY FEW NUMBER OF TRIPS. THIS NUMBER OF HOMES WOULD NOT INITIATE A DESELL LANE OR TRAFFIC LIGHT. WE COMPARED IT TO THE EXPANSION OF THE DAY CARE CENTER AND THE TRAFFIC WAS FIVE TO SIX TIMES WHAT IT WOULD BE IF THESE HOMES WERE EXPANDED. >> Tong: IS THERE ALREADY A LIGHT -- ACTUALLY ON THIS SLIDE HERE THERE'S A TRAIL. IS THERE A LIGHT ALREADY THERE? NO? OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER HORNE? >> Horne: THE QUESTION I HAVE IS A CONSEQUENCE. IF WE DID NOT APPROVE THE ZONING REQUEST AND IT STAYED AS A PD 320 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, HOW MANY HOMES COULD BE BUILT ON THAT? >> I BELIEVE THIS AREA WOULD BE THE ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SO I THINK IT WOULD NEED TO MAINTAIN THAT ACRE MINIMUM SIZE. I THINK AT MOST TWO HOMES COULD BE BUILT HERE. >> Horne: SO THE DIFFERENCE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS FOUR HOMES. >> CORRECT. >> Horne: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: BOY, EVERY LIGHT'S LIT. WE'RE GOING TO START ON THE END. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: THANK YOU. ONE OF MY QUESTIONS WAS ANSWERED. DAY CARE CENTER, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONTEXT BEHIND THAT, WHY WAS AN SUP NEEDED FOR DAY CARE CENTER AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT? I WOULD THINK OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD IS POSSIBLY BY RIGHT. >> YES, SO THE DAY CARE USE DOES REQUIRE AN SUP, AND THAT'S WHAT WAS GRANTED IN 2008. AND THEN THEY DEVELOPED IT -- LET ME PULL UP THAT PLAN. YEAH, SO THE FOOTPRINT OF THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE FENCE LINE BEING MOVED IN TO ACCOMMODATE THE NEW HOMES. BUT IT WAS GIVEN IN 2008 AND THEN EXPANDED THE WHOLE LOT IN 2009. AND WE RECEIVED THAT CONCEPT PLAN THAT SHOWED IT IN THIS BOTTOM HALF BUT NEVER RECEIVED A FINAL SITE PLAN TO EXPAND IT TO THE WHOLE LOT. BUT THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND MIGHT BE BETTER ABLE TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. >> Olley: AGREED. I GUESS THE QUESTION IS WHY DOES THAT ZONING CLASSIFICATION, PD 320 ED, WHY DOES IT REQUIRE AN SUP FOR A DAY CARE CENTER? WHAT IN PARTICULAR? >> SUP FOR A DAY CARE IS CITYWIDE. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. >> CORRECT. IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS IT'S ALLOWED CITYWIDE BY SUP SO WE WW WHERE IT WOULD IMPACT RESIDENTIAL USES WHERE THE ACCESS IS APPROPRIATE. REVIEWING THE SITE INDIVIDUALLY TO SEE IF THE USE IS APPROPRIATE IS WHY THE SUP IS REQUIRED IN THIS DISTRICT AND OTHERS. >> Olley: SO IN THIS CASE WAS IT ESTATE, THE ED CLASSIFICATION THAT MADE THIS PARTICULAR ZONE MORE RESIDENTIAL THAN -- AGAIN, I'M GOING BACK TO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SIDE WHICH FEELS LIKE IT'S MORE OF A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL AND POSSIBLY COMMERCIAL, WHICH A DAY CARE CENTER PROBABLY FALLS? >> THE ZONING, WHEN IT WAS PASSED, IT WAS ALL RESIDENTIAL BUT IT WAS A MIX OF RESIDENTIAL. IT WAS LARGER LOTS, SMALLER LOTS. THERE'S ACTUALLY SOME SINGLE-FAMILY 7 AND SINGLE-FAMILY 9 IN THE PD 320. AT THE TIME IT WAS APPROVED WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE THOSE DISTRICTS. THEY WERE TITLED DIFFERENTLY SO THIS WAS UPDATED WHEN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE WAS DERNIZED. SO IT WASN'T REALLY RELATED TO COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL, IT WAS ALL RESIDENTIAL AT ONE TIME. THIS WAS ACTUALLY PLANNED FOR A RELIGIOUS FACILIT AT ONE TIME. IT WAS NEVER BUILT, SO THEN IN 2008 THE DAY CARE BEGAN ITS REQUEST. >> Olley: OKAY. ONE LAST QUESTION. I KNOW FROM A HOUSING STOCK PERSPECTIVE THIS DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE, NECESSARILY, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE COMMENT THAN ANYTHING. BEING ABLE TO BUILD SIX HOMES VERSUS AN ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE WOULD REQUIRE MUCH BIGGER HOMES, IS PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT BETTER FOR THE CITY OF PLANO AS WE BUMP AGAINST LACK OF HOUSING IN OUR CITY. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. >> Bronsky: SO CAN YOU GO BACK TO NO. 34, I THINK? PAGE 34. SO I WAS LOOKING AT THIS AND I HAD A QUESTION. I NOTICED WHEN I W READING THROUGH THE RESPONSES, THERE WERE NEGATIVE RESPONSES FROM 3925 RIDGE TOP, WHICH IS SITTING AT THE -- INSIDE THE BLUE CIRCLE AT THE VERY BOTTOM OF THAT. AND THEN 3508 FLAG TOP? WHICH IS SITTING NEAR THE TOP OF THAT ONE. IS THERE A REASON THOSE WEREN'T INCLUDED? >> YES, FOR THOSE RESPONSES WE ONLY RECEIVED THEM AS ONLINE IT FOR THEFFICIAL LETTERSE THAT WE RECEIVED IN THAT 200-FOOT BUFFER. AS OF NOVEMBER 4 I HAVE ONLY RECEIVED ONE OFFICIAL LETTER FROM THAT LOT THAT'S SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IN BLUE. >> Bronsky: OKAY. THAT WORKS. MY SECOND QUESTION IS JUST A CLARITY QUESTION. WE'VE NEVER TALKED ABOUT APARTMENTS BEING ON THIS PROPERTY CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> Bronsky: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER BROWNOFF. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE DAY CARE CENTER IS LOCATED ON THE SAME CURB OF LOS RS AS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? JUST NEXT DOOR. >> THAT IS CORRECT. YES, IT IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD. >> HOW DOES THE TRAFFIC FLOW INTO AND OUT OF THE DAY CARE CENTER IN TERMS OF NUMBER OF CARS COMING IN AND OUT COMPARE WITH THE PROJECTED TRAFFIC FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WITH THE SIX HOUSES? >> SO THE FLOW OF TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF THE DAY CARE, THEY HAVE THE TWO ENTRANCES TT YOU CAN S ON THE SCREEN. I BELIEVE THEY HAVE A FLOW OF PICK UP AND DROPOFF. THAT WON'T BE AFFECTED WITH THIS REQUEST AS THE DAY CARE IS NOT EXPANDING, SO THEY'RE STILL GOING TO HAVE THE SAME NUMBER OF TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF THAT. >> MY QUESTION GOES TO WHETHER OR NOT THE DAY CARE GENERATES MORE TRAFFIC THAN THE -- MORE TRAFFIC, LESS TRAFFIC, OR THE SAME AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC AS THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. >> THE DAY CARE WOULD GENERATE MORE TRAFFIC. IF THE DAY CARE EXPANDED TO THE ENTIRE LOT, LIKE MR. HILL MENTIONED EARLIER, IT WOULD BE FIVE TIMES MORE THAN THE SINGLE-FAMILY IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP OR GENERATE. >> HAS THERE BEEN ANY DOCUMENTED ISSUE OF A TRAFFIC SAFETY PROBLEM AROUND THE DAY CARE? >> NOT THAT I'M AWARE OF AT THIS TIME. >> IF THERE IS NO DOCUMENTED SAFETY ISSUE REGARDING TRAFFIC IN AND OUT OF THE DAY CARE, WHICH WOULD BE BUSIER FROM A TRAFFIC STANDPOINT, WHY WOULD WE BE CONCERNED ABOUT TRAFFIC COMING IN AND OUT OF SIX HOUSES? >> I BELIEVE THE CONCERN IS -- THEY ARE PROPOSING A NEW MEDIAN CUT BUT TRAFFIC HAS REVIEWED THESE PLANS AND THEY DO MEET THE SPACING REQUIREMENTS. I BELIEVE IF THERE WAS CONCERNS IT WOULD BE BECAUSE OF THE NEW MEDIAN CUT IN LOS RIOS BOULEVARD. >> DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE MEDIAN CUT? >> AS I MENTIONED, OUR TRAFFIC ENGINEERS HAVE REVIEWED IT AND THEY'VE APPROVED IT AND AS LONG AS THEY'RE OKAY WITH IT, PLANNING IS OKAY WITH IT. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: A COUPLE OF COMMENTS AND MAYBE A COUPLE OF QUICK QUESTIONS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THESE LOT SIZES THEY ARE SMALLER THAN THE LOT SIZES PROXIMATE TO IT, ESPECIALLY TO THE SOUTH. WITH THAT SAID, TO THE CHAIRMAN'S COMMENT, I THINK THEY STILL ARE PRETTY AMPLE LOT SIZES. TO THE COMMISSIONER'S POINT, I THINK ALSO WE NEED HOUSING IN THE CITY SO I THINK ALL THOSE THINGS ARE POSITIVE. I DO HAVE SOME SMALL CONCERNS ABOUT THE TRAFFIC BECAUSE HAVING DRIVEN OUT THERE I THINK SOMETIMES THERE'S PEOPLE GOING PRETTY FAST THROUGH THERE. WHILE IT MAY NOT YET BE A RECORDED ISSUE, I THINK THIS NOT ENOUGH TO WORRY ABOUT IT. YOU KNOW, I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT BUT WITH A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. THERE'S SOME CONCERNS WITH RUNOFF. HAS THAT BEEN LOOKED AT, THE DRAINAGE AND RUNOFF ISSUE AND IS THERE ANY NEED FOR CONCERN? >> AT THIS STAGE DURING THE CONCEPT PLAN, ENGINEERING DOES NOT REVIEW ANY KIND OF CIVIL WORK OR DRAINAGE DOCUMENTS BUT I HAVE SPOKEN WITH ENGINEERING AND THEY'LL LOOK AT IT WHEN THIS COMES IN FOR THE FINAL PLATS AND THEY SUBMIT THEIR CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS. THEY'LL LOOK AT IT AND ENSURE NO DRAINAGE ISSUES ARE CREATED WITH THAT AND THEY WON'T APPROVE THEIR CIVIL PLANS UNTIL DRAINAGE ISSUE IS SOLVED. >> Cary: PERFECT. SO THE CITIZENS THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT THAT, WE'LL MAKE SURE THAT'S NOT A CONCERN. >> THAT'S CORRECT. THEY WILL HAVE TO MEET ALL OF OUR STANDARDS. >> Cary: THEY CAN REST EASY ON THAT. AND MY FINAL QUESTION IS ARE THERE PLANS FOR ANY WALLS AROUND THIS NEW DEVELOPMENT, ESPECIALLY ADJACENT TO THE DAY CARE? AND, IF NOT, SHOULD THERE BE TO MAKE SURE THERE'S SECURITY APPROXIMATE TO THE DAY CARE? >> THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A FENCE SO THERE WILL BE THE FENCE THAT RUNS AROUND THE PLAYGROUND AREA SO THERE WILL BE THAT FENCE AND THEN I BELIEVE ADJACENT TO THE REST OF THE PROPERTY -- I CANNOT REMEMBER IF THEY ARE PROPOSING A FENCE OR NOT. THIS IS TOO SMALL FOR ME TO SEE RIGHT NOW. BUT I KNOW FOR THE DAY CARE, TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THAT ONE, THEY ARE PROPOSING. THE PLAYGROUND AREAILL BE FENC IN. >> Cary: IS IT A CHAIN LINK FENCE, DO WE KNOW? IS THAT A BETTER QUESTION FOR THEM? >> YES, THE APPLICANT IS HERE. THEY HAVE IT AS A 6 OR 7-FOOT METAL FENCE. >> Cary: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: IF YOU HAVE A QUESTION YOU THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD BE BETTER TO ANSWER, WE'RE GOING TO HEAR FROM THEM IN A MOMENT. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I THINK MOST OF MINE HAVE BEEN ANSWERED BUT JUST TO RESTATE THE OBVIOUS. THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER -- THERE'S ONLY ONE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER THAT RESPONDED AND THEY WERE NEUTRAL. THEIR ONLY CONCERN WAS ABOUT THE DRAINAGE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> Ratliff: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: YES, OBSERVATION. I KNOW LOS RIOS BOULEVARD. THE SPEED LIMIT ALONG THAT CURVE IS 35 MILES PER HOUR. THE ONLY STOPLIGHT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE IS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT, IF YOU WILL, WHERE IT'S PARKER AND LOS RIOS. AND THEN IT GOES ALL THE WAY AROUND PAST PLANO EAST, WHICH BY THE WAY HAS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE TRAFFIC THAN THE DAY CARE AND THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THERE, IS A STOP SIG IT'S A FOUR-WAY STOP. THERE'S NO TRAFFIC LIGHT BETWEEN PARKER AND THAT -- I THINK IT'S PARK RIGHT THERE. NO, IT'S NOT PARK BUT I DON'T KNOW THE NAME OF THAT ROAD. BUT 35 MILES PER HOUR AND THERE'S ALWAYS A POLICE PRESENCE THERE. JUST TO GET TO YOUR CONCERN ABOUT TRAFFIC GOING AROUND THERE, I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD PUT ANOTHER TRAFFIC LIGHT IN THERE BUT THAT'S WHERE THE EXISTING CONDITIONS ARE, JUST A NOTE. >> Olley: JUST A QUICK FOLLOW-UP THE RUNOFF QUESTION. IF WE DON'T APPROVE AND THIS STAYS WITH THE EXPANSION OF THE DAY CARE CENTER, I'M GOING TO IMAGINE THAT WOULD REQUIRE US PAVING FOR PARKING FOR THE DAY CARE, WHICH EXACERBATES ANY TYPE OF ISSUES THAT SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES WOULD POTENTIALLY CAUSE IN THAT AREA. IS THAT A FAIR ASSUMPTION? >> YES, ANY NEW PAVEMENT THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADD, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME IN THROUGH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS. IF THIS WASN'T APPROVED AND THE DAY CARE STILL DID EXPAND, THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH OUR PROCESS AND GET ENGINEERING APPROVAL FOR THE STORMWATER. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY. EVERYBODY'S HAPPY NOW. THANK YOU. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT IS HERE TO ADDRESS? >> YES, WE HAVE ROBERT BALDWIN AND SCOTT RENFREE. >> Chair Downs: WELCOME. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN -- >> GOOD EVENING. MYAMES ROB BALDWIN, 3904 ELM SUITE B IN DALLAS, REPRESENTING THE PROPERTY OWNER ON THIS. I DO HAVE A VERY BRIEF PRESENTATION. PARKER DID A GREAT JOB GOING OVER EVERYTHING AND HE'S ACTUALLY BEEN VERY PLEASANT TO WORK WITH. HE'S DONE A VERY GOOD JOB IN SHEPHERDING US THROUGH THIS. WHEN WE FIRST CAME IN, WE ASKED FOR AN R-7 DISTRICT. WE MET WITH SEVERAL OF OUR NEIGHBORS AND QUICKLY FOUND OUT THAT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE SO WE BROUGHT TT U TO AN R-9. WE WORKED WITH JOHN AND THE HOA. THAT'S WHY YOU SEE BEFORE YOU TODAY A REQUEST FOR AN R-9. THERE'S THREE APPLICATIONS ALL NESTLED TOGETHER. WE HAVE A REZONING FOR 2.1-ACRE SITE, WHICH IS THE VACANT AREA. IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE THE EXPANSION FOR THE DAY CARE CENTER. IT'S VACANT. MY CLIENT PURCHASED THE PROPERTY AND THE NEW OPERATORS DID NOT NEED THE AREA SO WE'RE REZONING FOR SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL. AND THIS IS A BLOW UP OF THE SITE RIGHT THERE. IT'S VACANT. IMMEDIATELY ABUTTING THE DAY CARE CENTER. THE DAY CARE CENTER OR MONTESSORI SCHOOL DOES HAVE A FENCE AROUND IT. IT WILL BE A DECORATIVE IRON FENCE, NOT A CHAIN LINK FENCE. IT'S A NICE-LOOKING FENCE. WE'VE SPOKEN WITH OUR NEIGHBORS AS WELL AND WE WILL PUT UP FENCES BETWEENS, EITHER DR WOODEN, WHATEVER THEY PREFER. WE SHARE THE BOUNDARY WITH MANUEL. WE'LL MAKE SURE HE'S HAPPY WITH THAT. EITHER WOOD OR DECORATIVE IRON. WE GOT AN SUP FOR THE DAY CARE CENTER THAT OVERRIDES THE ESTATE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. WHAT WE'RE ASKING TO DO IS CARE CENTER JUST ON THEAY RESIDENTIAL PORTION THAT WE'RE PROPOSING AND KEEP IT ON THE EXISTING SCHOOL AND THEN REZONE THE REST FOR SF-9 FOR SIX SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. AND THE REMAINING 1.75-ACRE SITE WOULD BE KEPT AS THE SUP FOR THE SCHOOL. THAT'S THE SITE. THIS IS THE SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE HOW THEY SEPARATED IT OUT. ONE THING I WILL HAVE YOU KNOW -- I THINK WE'VE HAD EIGHT VARIATIONS OF THIS SITE PLAN GOING BACK AND FORTH TO THE FIRE DEPARTMT AND THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT ABOUT HOW THESE DRIVEWAYS WORK TOGETHER. ULTIMATELY THE LOCATION OF THE DRIVEWAY FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY AND THE LOCATION OF THE TWO DRIVES FOR THE SCHOOL HAD BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT. WE DID SIGHT-LINE ANALYSIS AND EVERYBODY SEEMS TO BE HAPPY WITH THAT. THIS IS JUST A BLOW UP OF THE SITE PLAN. AS PARKER SAID, WE'RE SURROUNDED BY RESIDENTIAL INSTITUTIONAL USES, A CHURCH, DAY CARE, AND PLANO SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL. WHAT WE' ASKING FOR IS AN SF-9 -- THE AREA TO THE NORTH AND EAST IS SF-7 AND SF-9. WE HAVE THE ESTATE TO THE WEST. IT'S A BIT DIFFERENT SITUATION WHERE THEY'RE ON RURAL-TYPE ROADS AND WE'RE ON THE CORNER OF LOS RIOS. WE DO NOT BELIEVE THAT ESTATE LOTS MAKE SENSE OFF OF A BUSY STREET. THAT'S WHY WE'RE ASKING FOR THE SF- 9. ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, EVEN THOUGH WE'RE ASKING FOR SF- 9, WE ONLY HAVE ONE 900 SQUA. THE REST OF THEM ARE 10, 11, AND WE ACTUALLY HAVE ONE THAT'S 15, 16,000, ALMOST 17,000 SQUARE FEET. THESE ARE LARGE LOTS AND MUCH LARGER THAN THE SF- 9. I'M HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. WE HAVE SCOTT RENFREE HERE, WHO IS THE OWNER, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. WE ALSO HAVE ONLINE CRAIG CARNEY, OUR ENGINEER, IF YOU HAVE DRAINAGE QUESTIONS. WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE AND HOPE YOU CAN SUPPORT THESE REQUESTS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. COMMISSIONER TONG, DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION? >> Tong: YES, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION. DO YOULSO OWN THE LAND FOR THE DAY CARE? >> PARDON ME? I'M SORRY? >> Tong: THE DAY CARE. >> WE OWN -- YEAH. SO SCOTT BOUGHT THE ENTIRE PROPERTY. HE'S GROUND LEASING THE DAY CARE CENTER, THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL, AND HE HAS THAT EXTRA PROPERTY. THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL DOES NOT NEED IT AT THIS POINT SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING TO PUT INTO SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES. >> Tong: SO THE QUESTION IS REGARDING THAT, I NOTICED THERE IS A TRAFFIC CIRCLE THAT WILL BE REMOVED AFTER THIS IS IS TT CORRECT? >> THERE WAS A CUL-DE-SAC THERE TODAY AND THAT WILL BE REMOVED AND TURNED INTO BASICALLY A CIRCULAR DRIVE. ONE THING I FORGOT TO MENTION IS WITH GUIDEPOST MONTESSORI, IT'S NOT A DROPOFF CAR LINE. BRING THE CHILDREN IN, AND THEY GET BACK IN THEIR CARS AND GO. ANOTHER THING IS THAT PARENTS CAN DROP THEIR KIDS OFF ANY TIME BETWEEN 7:00 AND 10:00 IN THE MORNING AND THEY HAVE TWO PICK UPS. ONE BETWEEN2:00 AND 12:30 AND ONE BETWEEN 3:00 AND 5:00. IT'S NOT LIKE A PUBLIC SCHOOL WHERE EVERYBODY -- OR DAY CARE WHERE EVERYBODY HAS TO SHOW UP AT THE SAME TIME AND LEAVE AT THE SAME TIME. SO THE TRAFFIC COMES AND GOES PRETTY MUCH ALL DAY SO IT'S NOT A BIG GANG ALL SHOWING UP AT ONE TIME. IF THAT HELPS. >> Tong: MY QUESTION IS DID YOU GET TO TALK TO THE OWNERS ABOUT REMOVING THAT TRAFFIC CIRCLE AND YOUR ANSWER WOULD BE IT DOESN'T IMPACT THE BUSINESS OF THE DAY CARE AFTER YOU REMOVE THAT TRAFFIC CIRCLE, IS THAT CORRECT? >> WE CAN GO BACK. OKAY. MAYBE. SO THE LITTLE CIRCLE THERE, IS THAT THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT? >> Tong: YES. >> THAT'S GOING TO BE REMOVED AND IT'S GOING TO BE REPLACED WITH -- SEE THE AREA KIND OF STIPPLED AND GRAY? SO THE CUL-DE-SAC COMES OUT AND THE NEW DRIVEWAY FOR THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL IS COMING IN AND THERE WILL BE A NEW CUL-DE-SAC BUILT FOR THE SINGLE-FAMILY. IT WILL BE TOTALLY SEPARATE. THEY WILL NOT SHARE A DRIVEWAY. AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT SAID THEY'RE FAR ENOUGH AWAY THAT IT'S NOT A PROBLEM. >> Tong: AND YOU'RE CONFIDENT IT'S NOT GOING TO IMPACT THE BUSINESS OR THE TRAFFIC OF THE DAY CARE BY REMOVING THAT CIRCLE THERE? >> RIGHT. THAT WAS PART OF ONE OUR EIGHT ITERATIONS OF THE SITE PLAN. WE FINALLY GOT IT RIGHT. >> Tong: THANK YOU.& >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER CARY? >> Cary: JUST A COMMENT. SEVERAL OF THE COMMENTS FROM THE ADJACENT CITIZENS TALK ABOUT MOVING FROM R-7 TO R-9, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'VE DONE. I'M SURE THAT'S A PROVIDED BENEFIT. AND THE STONYPOINT HOA SAID THEY WOULD RECONSIDER IF YOU WENT TO R-9. I DIDN'T SEE ANY COMMENTS FROM THEM IN HERE. CAN YOU GIVE US ANY INSIGHT INTO THEIR FEELINGS NOW THAT YOU HAVE MOVED TO R-9? >> I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR JOHN BUT WE HAVE BEEN VERY ACTIVE SPEAKING TO THEM A LOT. I DID RECEIVE AN E-MAIL FROM THEM SAYING IF WE WENT TO R-9 HE WOULD NOT BE OPPOSING IT BUT I WAS HOPING HE WOULD SEND IN AN UPDATED OPINION, BUT IT DIDN'T HAPPEN. I SUSPECT THAT MOST OF THE OPPOSITION YOU GOT WAS WHEN WE FIRST FILED IT AND WE WERE DOING THE SF- 7 INSTEAD OF THE 9. >> Cary: OKAY. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> Chair Downs: DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> YES, WE HAVE ROBERT COX. >> Chair Downs: PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> YEAH. ROBERT COX, 3609 FLINTSTONE DRIVE. I'VE BEEN IN PLANO SINCE '94, RIGHT AFTER I GOT OUT OF THE MILITARY. LOVE PLANO, LOVE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT. THEY'RE THE GREATEST. NEVER HAD ANY PROBLEMS IN PLANO EXCEPT WITH -- OH, WHAT IS IT? GOLDEN LEAF VILLAGE WHERE I USED TO LIVE. THAT AREA, STONY PARK. BOUGHT A HOUSE OVER THERE IN '94 AFTER I GOT OUTF THE MILITARY AND NOT SAYING AND NOT COMPARING THAT IN ANY FORM OR FASHION TO STONY HOLLOW, OKAY? BUT IT SEEMS LIKE THE BIGGER PLANO GETS THE MORE PROBLEMS OCCUR. AND I'M SURE THE POLICE DEPARTMENT COULD BACK THAT UP. THEY HANDLE IT GREAT, YOU KNOW? I HAD A LOT OF PROBLEMS IN GOLDEN LEAF VILLAGE BECAUSE I LIVED TWO STREETS FROM IT. THAT'S WHY I LOV TO STONY HOLLOW OKAY? AND I MOVED TO STONY HOLLOW IN 2015. AND SPEAKING WITH JOHN MARLOW -- HE'S A VET AND HIM AND I ARE VERY GOOD FRIENDS. HE'S NOT REAL KEEN ON IT. HE IS SO MUCH WITH THEY WERE GOING TO -- I GUESS Y'ALL GO BY THE SIZE OF THE LOTS, THE R-7 THROUGH THE R-9s OR WHATEVER Y'ALL CALL THEM. I'M NOT THAT FAMILIAR WITH IT. I'M NOT IN THAT PROFESSION. THEYF HOUSES, IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND, WHICH JOHN SAID WAS BETTER. IN TALKING -- AND I'M ABOUT 225 FEET FROM THAT DEVELOPMENT. I CAN SEE IT FROM MY FRONT PORCH. AND ADDRESSING MR. OLLEY'S QUESTION ABOUT TRAFFIC AND ABOUT THE SPEED OF CARS. THERE'S PEOPLE THAT FLY UP AND& I SEE IT EVERY DAY. POLICE PRESENCE? USED TO BE GOOD WHEN WE MOVED THERE IN 2015-2016. THEY USED TO SIT RIGHT ACROSS LOS RIOS. I'M ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. BUT THEY WOULD HAVE MOTORCYCLE COPS SIT THERE AND THEY WOULD -- >> SIR, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS. >> THEY POP THEM RIGHT AND LEFT OKAY? BUT THERE'S KIDS THAT FLY UP AND DOWN THE STREET OF LOS RIOS -- I'M JUST SAYING. HOW MANY MORE HOUSES DO WE NEED? WE HAVE 605 IN THE DEVELOPMENT AND A LOT OF THE PEOPLE THAT WE LIVE THERE ARE ON KITE LANDING AND FLINTSTONE THAT I TALKED TO AREN'T IN AGREEMENT WITH IT. THAT'S JUST ME. A LOT OF OTHER PEOPLE DIDN'T MAKE IT. THANK Y'ALL. I APPRECIATE THE TIME. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: I WILL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WE WILL CONFINE THE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE THREE ITEMS, 6A, 6B, 6C AND WE'LL NEED TO MOTION, DISCUSSION ON EACH ITEM. IT WON'T BE ALL AT ONCE. MR. BROWNOFF. >> THANK YOU. MY COMMENTS PERTAIN TO ALL THREE ITEMS. >> Chair Downs: GO AHEAD. WE CAN HAVE DISCUSSION ON ALL THREE BUT AT THE POINT OF THE MOTION WE NEED TO BREAK THEM UP. >> I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS. I'VE CONSIDERED THE COMMENTS THIS EVENING. THE STAFF PRESENTATION. I THINK THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD BE A GREAT BENEFIT TO THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION, TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, AND TO THE CITY OF PLANO. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ADDING SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES IN A SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. THIS DEVELOPMENT IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOOD AND I WOULD DESCRIBE THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AS CONSISTING OF LOVELY HOMES. I DROVE THROUGH THERE OVER THE WEEKEND. I WAS IMPRESSED BY THE ATTRACTIVENESS OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD. I SEE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT PROPOSING LARGE HOMES ON LARGE LOTS WOULD NOT IN ANY WAY DETRACT FROM THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK THAT ANY TRAFFIC GENERATED BY SIX HOMES WOULD PROBABLY BE NEGLIGIBLE. IT IS NOT A NEGATIVE FACTOR. I DON'T THINK WE'VE BEEN PRESENTED WITH ANY INFORMATION TONIGHT THAT WOULD INDICATE A NEGATIVE IMPACT THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT WOULD HAVE ON ANY OF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES, AT LEAST AFTER THE FINAL PLAT IS REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE STAFF, THE ENGINEERING STAFF, AND THE PLANNING STAFF. I THINK THIS IS A DANDY DEVELOPMENT AND I PLAN TO VOTE IN FAVOR. THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: A DANDY DEVELOPMENT? I DON'T THINK I'VE HEARD THAT ONE BEFORE. [LAUGHTER] OKAY. YOU HAVE A NEW NAME. MICHAEL "DANDY" BROWNOFF. COMMISSIONER HORNE. >> Horne: YES, MR. CHAIRMAN, WE WENT THROUGH STAFF PRESENTATION AND PRESENTATION BY THE DEVELOPER AND ALSO MR. BALDWIN, WE HEAR YOUR COMMENTS. THIS PROPOSED CHANGE IS COMPLIANT WITH THE COMPREHENSE PL THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PLAN. AND WHAT WE'RE ADDING HERE ARE ONLY SIX HOMES. WE'RE NOT PULLING SOMETHING FROM OUR NEIGHBORS THAT ARE ADDING 380 HOMES AND COMPLICATING THAT CONGESTION. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SIX HOMES. IF WE DIDN'T CHANGE IT, DIDN'T CHANGE IT IT WOULD BE TWO HOMES. WE'RE ONLY ADDING FOUR MORE HOMES HERE. AND SAY WHAT YOU WILL, I KNOW MR. BALDWIN, I'M CONCERNED. I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, HOW BIG ISIG. WE NEED THE HOUSING. WE SIMPLY -- PLANO NEEDS THE HOUSING. OUR EMPLOYERS ARE DEMANDING IT AND ONCE THE HOUSES ARE BUILT, THEY'LL BE SOLD WITHIN A WEEK. SIMPLE AS THAT. AND PERFECT PLACES. I LOVE WHERE YOU'RE LIVING. THOSE ESTATE HOMES ARE GREAT, WISH I KNEW ABOUT THEM BACK WHEN I COULD AFFORD IT. BUT THAT BEING SAID, I'VE SEEN THIS, COMPLYING WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. I'M GOING TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I ECHO SIMILAR COMMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE. THE SPEED OF THE TRAFFIC, I HEAR. BUT LIKE COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF JUST SAID, I DON'T THINK THIS CHANGES THAT ISSUE. WE HAVE TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO ADDRESS THIS ISSUE ALMOST SEPARATE AND APART FROM THIS. I WAS DOING A QUICK -- FROM THE THE PERSPECTIVE, DOING A QUICK LOOK AT THE LOT SIZE SIZE OF THE SURROUNDING HOUSES, AND THESE COME IN SLIGHTLY BIGGER THAN THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WHICH SHOULD ONLY DO WONDERS FOR MARKET VALUE IN THE AREA, WHICH DOESN'T AFFECT OUR SITUATION HERE. BUT GIVEN THE FACT THAT THIS IS IN COMPLIANCE -- CONFORMANCE WITH THE PLAN, AND DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONTRIBUTE TO EXISTING ISSUES THAT SIT IN THAT AREA -- INACT, PROBABLY ALLEVIATES SOME OF IT, VERSUS IF WE EXPANDED THE DAYCARE CENTER, I WOULD VOTE IN FAVOR OF THIS CHANGE. >> Chair Downs: COMMISSIONER CARY. >> Cary: YEAH, JUST A SIMPLE COMMENT. AS I LOOK AT THIS AND HEAR ALL THE COMMENTS, I CAN'T ACTUALLY IMAGINE A BETTER USE FOR THIS PROPERTY. YOU KNOW, AT THIS POINT, LOOKING AT OUR CITY. WITH THAT SAID, I DO HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT TRAFFIC HERE. AND I DO KNOW PEOPLE FLY DOWN THIS ROAD. AND IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE COULD DO TO MITIGATE THAT RISK, THOUGH IT'S ONLY SIX PEOPLE, IF ONE OF THEM GET CRITICALLY INJURED, THAT'S A CONCERN TO ME. IF THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO MITIGATE THAT RISK, SOME KIND OF TURN LANE THERE OR SOMETHING, AND LEAVE THAT TO OUR PLANNING AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT TO LOOK AT THAT. BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT. AND I CAN'T IMAGINE WHAT'S GOING TO COME THROUGH HERE THAT'S GOING TO BE A BETTER USE FOR THIS LAND, QUITE FRANKLY. >> Chair Downs: IT SOUNDS LIKE WE HAVE A LOT OF POSITIVES. DOES SOMEONE WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? WHERE DO WE WANT TO GO WITH THIS? COMMISSIONER TONG? >> Tong: I'M IN FAVOR. I JUST WANT TO SAY, LIKE COMMISSIONER OLLEY MENTIONED, I WANT TO APPLAUD THE EFFORT FROM THE STAFF MEMBERS AND THE APPLICANT TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM SF7 TO SF9, WHICH IS VERY GENEROUS. IN PLANO, WE SEE A LOT OF LARGER LOTS THAN OTHER SURROUNDING CITIES. IF I PUT IN A SEARCH FOR ANY LOTS BIGGER THAN 10,000 SQUARE FEET YOU CAN'T FIND THAT MANY. AND THIS COMMUNITY AS ONLY ONE LOT THAT'S 9,000. ALL THE OTHER LOTS ARE LARGER THAN 11,000, WHICH IS REALLY GENEROUS. I THINK THIS WILL BE A GREAT ADDITION TO OUR CITY. IT WILL BE A GOOD HOME TO HAVE, FOR GOOD CITIZENS TO LIVE IN PLANO. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THAT. HOWEVER, JUST A CAVEAT, LIKE COMMISSIONER CARY SAID FROM THE VERY BEGINNING, I AM STILL CONCERNED ABOUT THE TRAFFIC. IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF SPEED LIMIT OR THE STREET ITSELF, IT'S ABOUT THE CURVE. I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT PEOPLE TURNING INTO THE CUL-DE-SAC, PEOPLE COMING FROM BEHIND, THEY DON'T SEE IT. MAYBE 35 IS NOT TOO FAST, BUT YOU DON'T SEE IT. THERE COULD BE SOME PROBLEMS. IT COULD BE AS SIMPLE AS PUTTING UP A SIGN SAYING WATCH OUT FOR STOPPING TRAFFIC. THAT WILL MAYBE MITIGATE A LITTLE BIT OF THAT RISK. BUT THAT'S JUST MY OPINION. HOWEVER, THAT DOESN'T STOP ME FROM APPROVING THE APPLICATION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: JUST TO DITTO EVERYTHING ELSE EVERYBODY SAID, ALSO WHAT COMMISSIONER CARY SAID. I CAN'T IMAGINE A BETTER USE FOR THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. I MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CASE. >> Tong: I SECOND. >> Chair Downs: ITEM 6A. >> Ratliff: ITEM 6A. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM 6A. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 6B. >> I MOVE WE APPROVE ITEM 6B, THE PLAN FOR THE HINCKLEY ADDITION, ON CASE 2022-012. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE ITEM 6B. PLEASE VOTE. [ CLEARING THROAT ] THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. ITEM 6C. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 6C, AS PRESENTED BY THE -- SUBJECT TO APPROVAL BY CITY COUNCIL, ZONING CASE 2022-012. >> SECOND. >> Chair Downs: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPROVE 6C, SUBJECT TO COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CHANGE. PLEASE VOTE. [ CLEARING THROAT ] THAT T ITEM CARRIES 8-0. CONGRATULATIONS. IT WILL BE A BEAUTIFUL PROJECT. ITEM 7. Public Hearing - Replat, Revised Site Plan, & Concept Plan: Alcatel USA Addition, Block A, Lots 2R & 9 - Government facility on Lot 2R and professional/general administrative office Lot 9 on 20.2 acres located at the northeast corner of Lotus Drive and Data Drive. Zoned Planned Development-381-Retail/General Office and Light Industrial-1 and located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway Overlay District. Projects >> APPLICANT IS THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE >> GOOD EVENING. STAFF RECOMMENDS THESE ITEMS FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? >> Olley: JUST ONE CURIOSITY. DO WE HAVE ANY IDEA -- >> RIGHT NOW IT'S JUST FOR THIS LOT THAT'S GOING TO BE CREATED WITH THE REPLAT. THE CONCEPT PLAN IS FOR A GENERAL OFFICE USE. >> Olley: OKAY. >> Chair Downs: ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THANK YOU. WE WILL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? >> NO, WE DO NOT >> Chair Downs: CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER OLLEY. >> Olley: I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 7 AS SUBMITTED. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU. >> Tong: I SECOND. >> Chair Downs: MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER OLLEY, SE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM 7 AS SUBMITTED. PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU. ITEM 8. >> AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 8, Public Hearing - Preliminary Replat & Revised Site Plan: HQD Addition, Block A, Lot 1 - Profel administrative office on one lot on 27.0 acres located at the southeast corner of Headquarters Drive and Parkwood Boulevard. Zoned Commercial Employment. AAPPLICANT IS 5600 HQD ACQUISITIONS LLC. THIS IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. STAFF RECOMMENDS -- I'M THE LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE PRELIMINARY REPLAT SUBJECT TO ADDITION AND/OR ALTERATIONS TO ENGINEERING PLANS REQUIRED BY THE DEPARTMENT. AS FOR THE REVISED SITE PLAN, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVE AS SUBMITTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE, THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. ANY SPEAKERS ON ITEM 8? >> WE DO NOT. >> Chair Downs: WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE DISCUSSION TO THE COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER RATLIFF. >> Ratliff: I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE THE REPLAT SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS, AND THE REVISED SITE PLAN. >> Chair Downs: MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF TO APPROVE ITEM 8 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF WITH -- SUBJECT TO ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS AND A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY. PLEASE VOTE ON ITEM 8. THAT ITEM CARRIES 8-0. THANK YOU. >> 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 NUMBER 9, Discussion and Action: Election of 1st and 2nd Vice Chairs - Nomination and Election of 1st and 2nd Vice Chairs for the Planning & Zoning COMMISSION. >> Chair Downs: OKAY. IT'S THAT TIME OF YEAR, AS WE GO THROUGH OUR REAPPOINTMENTS AND NEW APPOINTMENTS IN THE COMMISSION. I HAVE BEEN FORTUNATE, I GUESS, TO HAVE BEEN RE-APPOINTED CHAIR BY COUNCIL, BUT WE NEED A FIRST AND A SECOND VICE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER HORNE HAS SERVED WELL AS OUR FIRST VICE CHAIR AND COMMISSIONER CARY HAS DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB AS SECOND VICE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER CARY? >> Cary: I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER HORNE FOR VICE CHAIR. HE'S DONE A GREAT JOB. IF HE'S WILLING TO CONTINUE TO SERVE, THAT WOULD BENEFIT US ALL. >> Chair Downs: ARE YOU WILLING TO CONTINUE TO SERVE? >>orne: IT DEPENDS. >> Chair Downs: NO PASSION IN THAT. >> Horne: YEAH! >> Chair Downs: BETTER. WOULD ANYONE SECOND THAT NOMINATION? >> Olley: I'LL SECOND. >> Chair Downs: WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPOINT COMMISSIONER HORNE AS FIRST VICE CHAIR. WE WILL VOTE ON THIS ITEM, PLEASE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 7 WITH ONE ABSTENTION. MR.MR. HORNE IS EVIDENTLY NOT CONFIDENT IN HIS ABILITIES AND HAS CHOS CHOSEN TO ATAIN. YOU WERE TRYING TO BE MAGNANIMOUS. GREAT. >> MR. CHAIRMAN, I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE COMMISSIONER CARY AS OUR SECOND VICE CARE. HE HAS DONE A FANTASTIC JOB. AND HE'S GOT INSIGHTFUL COMMENTS AND I THINK HE'LL SERVE WELL AS SECOND VICE CHAIR. >> Chair Downs: SO WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I GUESS I SHOULD ASK COMMISSIONER CARY, ARE YOU WILLING TO SERVE? >> [ OFF MIC ] >> Chair Downs: I GREW, SOME IN- -- AGREE, SOME INSIGHTFUL COMMENTARY. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER HORNE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY TO APPOINT COMMIIONER CARY AS OUR SECOND VICE CHAIR. PLEASE VOTE. AND THAT ITEM CARRIES 7 WITH ONE ABSTENTION, COMMISSIONER CARY. CUT FROM THE SAME CLOTH. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: ITEM NUMBER 10. >> ITEM NUMBER 10 IS ITEMS FOR FUTURE AGENDAS. >> Chair Downs: ALL RIGHT. >> MR. CHAIR, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION, YOU ALL GOT NOTEBOOKS AT THE BEGINNING OF THE PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING. THEY ARE TRAINING MERIALS FM LEGAL. IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THEM, LET ME KNOW. WE CAN ALWAYS SET AN EXEC SESSION TO TALK THEM OVER. THANKS. >> Chair Downs: IS THIS SOME KIND OF INDICATION THAT WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE DOING? [ LAUGHING ] >> THAT IS SO NOT TRUE. SO NO. BACK IN JANUARY, I MET WITH ALL THE COMMISSIONERS AND JUST TALKED ABOUT HOW WE COULD BE MORE SUPPORTIVE. AS A RESULT, THESE MEMOS ARE THERE, ESPECIALLY FOR NEW COMMISSIONERS SO THAT IF THEY HAVE QUESTIONS AND JUST WANT A LITTLE BRIEFING, THEY CAN FIND IT. >> Chair Downs: WELL, I WL SAY THIS, THAT WE ARE FORTUNATE TO HAVE THE STAFF WE HAVE, BECAUSE I'M QUITE CERTAIN THIS JOB IS MUCH MORE DIFFICULT IN OTHER MUNICIPALITIES. AND JUST, YOU KNOW, TO SOME DEGREE, UNSOLICITED, MAYBE THIS WILL HELP YOU -- THAT'S FANTASTIC. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. DOES ANYONE ELSE WANT TO ADD AN ITEM TO A FUTURE AGENDA? >> NO, BUT I WANTED TO SPECIFICALLY SAY THANK YOU TO MICHELLE FOR PROVIDING THIS, BECAUSE THIS IS REALLY NEEDED FOR ME. [ LAUGHING ] >> Chair Downs: OKAY. >> Tong: THANK YOU. >> Chair Downs: THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. IF THERE IS NO FURTHER BUSINESS, WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 8:12 P.M. THANK YOU, EVERYBODY, FOR YOUR TIME. CONGRATULATIONS, MR. BROUNOFF, ON YOUR FIRST -- >> GOOD-BYE. ♪