Jul 07, 2026 City Planning Commission Meetings

[00:00:07]

WITH THE QUORUM PRESENT, I WILL NOW CALL THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE RICHARDSON CITY PLAN COMMISSION TO ORDER HERE ON TUESDAY, JULY 7TH, 2026 AT 6 P.M. THE PLAN COMMISSION CONSISTS OF RICHARDSON RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. THERE ARE SEVEN REGULAR MEMBERS AND TWO ALTERNATES ON THE COMMISSION. ONLY SEVEN MEMBERS WILL VOTE ON AN ISSUE, ALTHOUGH ALL MEMBERS WILL PARTICIPATE IN DISCUSSIONS AND DELIBERATIONS. IN THE CASE OF THE ABSENCE OF A REGULAR MEMBER, A DESIGNATED ALTERNATE WILL VOTE ON THE ISSUE. TONIGHT.

WE HAVE SIX COMMISSIONERS IN ATTENDANCE, SO EVERYBODY IS VOTING. THIS MEETING IS A BUSINESS MEETING AND WILL BE CONDUCTED AS SUCH. IN THAT REGARD, AS A COURTESY TO THOSE IN ATTENDANCE, WE REQUEST THAT ALL DEVICES THAT EMIT SOUND BE TURNED OFF OR ADJUSTED SO AS NOT SO AS NOT TO INTERRUPT THE MEETING. OUR PROCEEDINGS ARE RECORDED, SO PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, WHEN ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION, WE HAVE THREE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT. SO EACH PUBLIC HEARING IS PRECEDED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS THEN PERMITTED 15 MINUTES TO MAKE THEIR PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION, AND THEY MAY RESERVE ANY PORTION OF THAT TIME FOR A FINAL REBUTTAL. TIME SPENT IN ANSWERING QUESTIONS ASKED BY THE COMMISSION IS NOT COUNTED AGAINST THE APPLICANT.

ALL SPEAKERS ARE REQUESTED TO COMPLETE A PUBLIC COMMENT CARD, WHICH ARE LOCATED ON THE TABLE THERE IN THE FOYER, AND SUBMIT THOSE TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY BEFORE THE MEETING BEGINS. THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK IN FAVOR OR OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST WILL BE GIVEN THREE MINUTES EACH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, AND WHEN THE TIMER BEEPS, THE SPEAKER SHOULD CONCLUDE THEIR COMMENTS PROMPTLY. SPEAKERS MUST NOT PHYSICALLY APPROACH MEMBERS OF THE PLAN, COMMISSION OR STAFF, AND SHOULD REMAIN AT THE LECTERN DURING THEIR COMMENTS.

SPEAKERS WITH HANDOUTS MUST PROVIDE THEM TO THE RECORDING SECRETARY FOR DISTRIBUTION.

THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE. WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESENT YOUR OBJECTIONS. THE COMMISSION IS INTERESTED IN GATHERING NEW AND RELEVANT INFORMATION. WE'RE NOT INTERESTED IN REPETITION. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. AFTER A BRIEF REBUTTAL BY THE APPLICANT, THE HEARING WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED. SO THOSE ARE THE RULES. AND NOW WE'LL GET ON WITH OUR AGENDA. WELL, FIRST ITEM IS PUBLIC COMMENTS. AND THIS IS A TIME FOR ANYBODY TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION ON REGARDING AN ITEM ON THE AGENDA THAT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING. THE ONLY ITEMS ON THE AGENDA THAT ARE NOT PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE THE MINUTES FROM JUNE 16TH, 2026, AND CITY STAFF COMMENTS. DOES ANYONE LIKE TO SPEAK FOR

[1. Approval of the minutes of the regular business meeting of June 16, 2026.]

SEEING NONE THAT I'D MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE MINUTES OF JUNE 16TH, 2026 AS PRESENTED.

COMMISSIONER PURDY SECONDED. AND WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE MINUTES.

[2. Zoning File 26-11 – German Auto Works: Consider and act on a request to rezone approximately 0.35 acres located at 1352 S. Plano Road, on the west side of Plano Road, north of Buckingham Road, from LR-M(2) Local Retail to PD Planned Development with a base zoning district of LR-M(2) Local Retail District with amended development standards and for approval of a Special Permit for Motor Vehicle Repair Shop, Major. Owner: GSB Estates LLC. Staff: Christine Ross.]

[00:05:03]

HEADLIGHTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SCREENED FROM ADJOINING STREETS AND PUBLIC RIGHTS OF WAY, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THIS IS DUE TO AN EXISTING SITE CONDITION AND THERE WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH ROOM TO ADD THE LANDSCAPING WHILE ALSO MAINTAINING THE APPROPRIATE ACCESS. AISLE WIDTHS 7% OF THE GROSS LAND AREA IS TYPICALLY RESERVED FOR NON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES FOR LANDSCAPING, BUT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 6.2%. THIS IS ANOTHER EXISTING CONDITION AND TEN FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE.

ISLANDS ARE TYPICALLY REQUIRED AT THE END OF EACH PARKING ROW, AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF ON THAT REQUIREMENT. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PLANT A CONTINUOUS HEDGEROW OF EVERGREEN SHRUBS TO CANOPY TREES AND TWO ORNAMENTAL TREES ALONG THE SOUTH PLANO ROAD FRONTAGE, AND THIS IS TWO MORE TREES THAN THE LANDSCAPE POLICY REQUIRES, AND THEY ARE PROVIDING LANGUAGE FOR HOW AND WHERE OUTDOOR STORAGE WILL BE ALLOWED, AND WHERE THOSE VEHICLES SHALL BE LIMITED TO. THIS IS THE PROPOSED ELEVATION PLAN, SO THE EXISTING OVERHEAD SERVICE BAY DOOR IS OUTLINED IN BLUE, AND THE PROPOSED DOOR IS OUTLINED IN GREEN. AND YOU CAN ALSO SEE THE PROPOSED LOCATION OF THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE. AND HERE ARE THE SITE PHOTOS. THE PICTURE ON THE TOP IS THE VIEW OF THE EASTERN ELEVATION FROM SOUTH PLANO ROAD, AND THE PICTURE ON THE BOTTOM IS THE WEST ELEVATION FROM THE ADJACENT PARKING LOT, AND I'VE

[00:10:02]

HELP ME UNDERSTAND THAT BECAUSE TO ME IT LOOKS EXACTLY THE SAME. THE PARKING ISLANDS. YES. YEAH.

SO TYPICALLY THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THERE BE TEN FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE ISLANDS AT THE END OF EACH ROW OF PARKING. AND SO THE APPLICANT IS JUST REQUESTING RELIEF AND ASKING TO NOT PROVIDE THOSE ON SITE AT ALL. LANDSCAPE, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO PUT LANDSCAPING ALONG THE STREET. YES. CORRECT. THANK YOU. MR. VICE CHAIRMAN. CAN YOU GO TO THE ENVISION RICHARDSON SLIDE? SIR, ARE WE ACKNOWLEDGING EFFECTIVELY IN THIS ENVISION RICHARDSON FOR THIS AREA THAT AUTOMOTIVE USE SINCE IT'S SO PREVALENT, IT'S JUST NOT IT'S NOT THE PRAGMATIC REALITY OF THIS SPOT. IT JUST SEEMS LIKE WE'RE TOO ASPIRATIONAL IN OUR IN OUR ENVISION RICHARDSON FOR THIS SPOT. IF WE'RE ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THERE'S A HIGH CONCENTRATION OF AUTOMOTIVE. THEREFORE, THE PROPOSED USE IS APPROPRIATE. SO IS THIS A MISMATCH FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA OF. ENVISION RICHARDSON'S DESIRE FOR SOMETHING THAT'S JUST NOT PRAGMATIC REALITY? I WOULDN'T NECESSARILY SAY THAT THAT WE'RE BEING TOO ASPIRATIONAL. I WILL SAY THAT I THINK THE ENVISION RICHARDSON IS SILENT WHEN IT COMES TO AUTOMOTIVE USES. SO GIVEN THAT THAT AUTOMOTIVE TYPE USES ARE NECESSARY AND THAT MANY OF THEM EXIST IN THE CITY IN VARIOUS LOCATIONS, WE THEN KIND OF HAVE TO FALL BACK ON, YOU KNOW, IS IT APPROPRIATE, GIVEN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT'S CURRENTLY SURROUNDING IT? IS IT APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE THE ROADWAY CLASSIFICATIONS, THAT IT'S ADJACENT TO THOSE SORTS OF THINGS? SO I THINK GIVEN THE LACK OF GUIDANCE WHEN IT COMES TO AUTOMOTIVE USES, YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF HAVE TO RELY UPON SOME OF THOSE OTHER THINGS. GOT IT. THANK YOU. OKAY. MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH THE PARALLEL PARKING ON THE NORTH PROPERTY LINE CURRENTLY TODAY.

IT'S IT'S A DIAGONAL PARKING. I COUNTED ABOUT 12 SPACES THERE. SO THE PROPOSED PLAN IS NOW TO CONVERT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THOSE, OVER HALF OF THEM INTO THAT PARALLEL PARKING, WHICH IS THREE SPACES. SO WHAT WAS THE THINKING BEHIND THAT? WHY WAS THAT NECESSARY? YEAH. SO WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED IN THE 1970S, THE SITE PLAN HAD THOSE THREE PARALLEL PARKING SPACES SOMETIME THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE PROPERTY, THOSE SPACES WERE CONVERTED TO PARALLEL PARKING SPACES WITHOUT SITE PLAN APPROVAL FROM THE CITY, AND THEY DID NOT CONFORM WITH OUR TYPICAL PARKING LOT DESIGN GUIDELINES. SO DURING THIS

[00:15:07]

AND THEN WHAT OUR CURRENT STANDARDS ARE TODAY. AND SO THE, THE STRIPING THERE WAS PART OF THAT 1978 PLAN. THE PARALLEL PARKING STRIPING WAS THE THE BUFFER AREA STRIPING WAS, WAS NOT THAT WAS NOT INCLUDED. NO. OKAY. DO WE HAVE AN ISSUE? I MEAN, DOES STAFF HAVE AN ISSUE IF IT WERE TO REMAIN A IT'S STRIPED TODAY WITH THE DIAGONAL PARKING. YEAH. THAT WOULDN'T FIT THE STANDARD WIDTH FOR A ONE WAY DRIVE AISLE. OKAY. I MEAN IT SEEMS TO BE WORKING TODAY. THAT'S WHY I'M CURIOUS WHY WHY WE'RE KIND OF FORCING THIS CHANGE. WELL, SO WE HAVE OUR PARKING LOT DESIGN MANUAL. SO WE LOOK TO SEE WHAT ARE THE DIMENSIONS THAT ARE BEING PROVIDED. AND SO HENCE WHY BASED UPON THIS LAYOUT WE CAME UP WITH CONSIDERING THE PRIOR APPROVED PLAN, THE PARALLEL PARKING, IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MAINTAIN THE SUFFICIENT DISTANCE TO ALLOW FOR THE CIRCULATION AROUND THE BUILDING, BECAUSE WITH THE ANGLED PARKING THAT EXISTS TODAY, THE DRIVE AISLE WAS DID NOT MEET OUR STANDARDS. SO IT WAS IT WAS TOO NARROW. AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE LOOK AT ALSO IS WHEN WE HAVE PARKING, WHETHER IT'S 90 DEGREE, 45 DEGREE ANGLE, 60 DEGREE ANGLE, MAKING SURE THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT, ADEQUATE DEPTH IN ORDER TO BE ABLE TO MANEUVER IN AND OUT OF THAT PARKING SPACE. ALSO WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S NOT DAMAGE TO THE BUILDING AS WELL. DO YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WIDTH IS? THAT'S TOO NARROW? HOW FAR OFF ARE WE? DO YOU HAVE THAT INFORMATION? NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT I'LL DEFINITELY LOOK INTO THAT. OKAY. AND THE APPLICANT MAY KNOW. WELL, ONE OF THE RELIEFS THAT'S BEING SOUGHT IS TO GO FROM 7 TO 17 SPACES REQUIRED DOWN TO 13 SPACES. EFFECTIVELY, WE'VE WE'VE ELIMINATED PROBABLY THOSE FOUR SPACES OR MORE BECAUSE OF THE CHANGE THAT WE'RE REQUIRING. SO THAT'S WHY I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND WHY WE'RE TRYING TO ENFORCE THAT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER POYNOR SO I WAS CURIOUS ABOUT THIS TOO. DOES THAT CHANGE THE OVERALL APPEARANCE TO SOMEBODY DRIVING BY? COULD YOU TALK ABOUT THAT? YEAH, THE THE INSTALLATION OF THE PARALLEL PARKING SPACES COULD POTENTIALLY CHANGE THE APPEARANCE BECAUSE CURRENTLY IF YOU DRIVE BY, YOU KNOW, YOU'LL SEE A ROW OF PARKING, YOU KNOW, WHEN I WENT BY AND TOOK THE SITE PHOTOS, YOU KNOW, THAT AREA WAS WAS PRETTY FULL. SO YES, THERE WOULD BE A CHANGE VISUALLY. SO WHERE THE PARALLEL PARKING IS BEING ENFORCED IS ONLY IS WOULD BE BACK FROM DRIVE BY VIEW. IS THAT CORRECT? YES. BLACK CAR ON THE RIGHT. OKAY. YES. OKAY. YEAH. AND ANOTHER ISSUE IS, YOU KNOW, WITH THESE PARALLEL PARKING SPACES CURRENTLY, AND EVEN WITH THE FOUR HEAD IN PARKING SPACES, THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS THE VEHICLES FROM HAVING THAT OVERHANG INTO THE, THE JACK IN THE BOX DRIVE DRIVE AISLE, THE ACCESS AISLE. SO THAT DOES CREATE A POTENTIAL FOR SOME CONFLICT WITH THE VEHICLES. SO WE'RE HOPING THAT THIS REDESIGN, AS WELL AS WITH THE STRIPED BUFFERING, PROVIDES SOME RELIEF ON THOSE POTENTIAL ISSUES. IS ANY OF THE CONSIDERATION GIVEN TO PUBLIC SAFETY VEHICLES BEING ABLE TO HAVE ACCESS? IS THAT PART OF A STANDARD CONSIDERATION? YES. THERE THESE AREN'T INTERNALLY, THERE AREN'T ANY FIRE ACCESS LANES, OKAY, WITHIN THE SITE, BUT THERE ARE AROUND THE PERIMETER OF THE SITE. AND THIS REDESIGN WOULD STILL ALLOW FOR ALL OF THOSE STANDARDS, THOSE STANDARD DISTANCING REQUIREMENTS TO BE MET AS IT RELATES TO FIRE TRUCK DISTANCE OR EMERGENCY SERVICES SUCH AS AMBULANCES. OKAY. THANK

[00:20:01]

STATE YOUR ADDRESS. THE ADDRESS IS 1352 SOUTH PLANO ROAD, RICHARDSON, TEXAS, 75081. JEFF BASS, 7018 CLEAR SPRINGS PARKWAY, GARLAND, TEXAS. I AM HELPING JOE WITH HIS DEVELOPMENT AND THE STAFF DID A GREAT JOB WITH THE PRESENTATION. AND SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE. YOU KNOW, WE DID. WE REACHED OUT TO NEIGHBORING BUSINESSES, ONLY HEARD BACK FROM THE FIESTA. THEY SAID THEY HAD NO OPPOSITION. WE REACHED OUT TO EVERY HOA SURROUNDING AND DID NOT RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM THEM. OTHER THAN THAT STAFF HAS HAS COVERED JUST ABOUT EVERYTHING. BUT LIKE I SAID, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS WE CAN. MAYBE YOU COULD JUST EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE ABOUT WHY THE OVERHEAD DOORS NEEDED IT. THE OUR PACKAGE TALKED ABOUT HAVING TO MANEUVER AROUND THE BAYS, AND I'M NOT EVEN SURE HOW YOU USE IT TODAY WITH WITH HAVING A DOOR THERE. BUT YEAH, SO I MEAN, RIGHT NOW, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO LIFT ONE OF THE CARS UP, KIND OF DRIVE UNDER IT TO GET TO THE BACK BAY. SO HAVING A DOOR BACK THERE WOULD JUST MAKE IT SO MUCH EASIER TO JUST KIND OF COME IN, YOU KNOW, DO THE ACTUAL BAY AREA. YEAH. AND I GUESS, I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU LEAVE THE, THE OVERHEAD DOORS OPEN PRETTY MUCH ALL THE TIME. UNLESS I GUESS IT'S REALLY BAD WEATHER. YES, SIR. YEAH. SO I MEAN, THAT THAT'S, THAT WAS THE ONLY THING KIND OF CONCERNED ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE VIEW FROM THE WEST. LOOKING BACK TO THE EAST, YOU KNOW, ON THE BACKSIDE. I MEAN IT'S YOU GOT A PARKING LOT FOR THE FIESTA THERE AND THERE'S NO SCREENING OR ANYTHING. SO I JUST WANTED TO CHECK AND SEE, YOU KNOW, WOULD THOSE DOORS BE CLOSED OR OPEN MOST OF THE TIME YES. WOULD BE OPEN. YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS, MR. VICE CHAIRMAN? YEAH. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR BEING A PART OF OUR COMMUNITY FOR SO LONG. I'M JUST TRYING TO SUMMARIZE EVERYTHING. IF YOU CAN FLIP BACK TO THE SORT OF THE AS IS AND WHAT WE'RE REQUESTING PAGE, I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH PAGE THAT WAS. IT WAS ALL WORDS. IT WAS A TABLE. THAT ONE RIGHT THERE. ONE MORE FORWARD. OKAY, SO IF I'M UNDERSTANDING THIS CORRECTLY, YOU GUYS WANT A BAY DOOR IN THE BACK. YES. CORRECT. AND THAT'S THEN DRIVING THE ZONING REQUEST. AND THEN AS A PART OF THAT REQUEST, WE ARE TAKING THE OPPORTUNITY TO UPDATE SEVERAL OTHER THINGS. IS THAT THE WAY YOU VIEW IT? YES, SIR. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I NEEDED TO KNOW. THANK YOU. YEAH. WE'RE TRYING TO BRING IT UP AS CLOSE TO COMPLIANCE AS WE CAN. GOT IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I THINK WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, SEE IF THERE'S ANY OTHER SPEAKERS THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, EITHER IN FOR OR AGAINST ANY CARDS. ANYBODY THAT'S SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WANTED TO SPEAK ON THIS MATTER. OKAY. ANY FINAL COMMENTS? I'M JUST THANK YOU FOR EVERYTHING. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, JUST HOPEFULLY GET THIS DONE, YOU KNOW? ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT. APPRECIATE Y'ALL GUYS. APPRECIATE YOUR CONSIDERATION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SO I MOVE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BEACH. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND SECOND, TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL IN FAVOR PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. WELL, IT SEEMS FAIRLY STRAIGHTFORWARD. I CERTAINLY ANSWERED MY QUESTION ABOUT THE DIAGONAL PARKING. I THINK THE LANDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS, YOU KNOW, ADDING FOUR TREES OUT THERE, YOU KNOW, IS IS DEFINITELY AN IMPROVEMENT. THE AS FAR AS THE OVERHEAD BAY,

[00:25:05]

BUT THEN I JUST ALSO WANTED TO STATE, THIS IS WHY WE DO THIS, BECAUSE WE HAD A REQUEST FOR A DOOR THAT MAKES BUSINESS SENSE. AND THEN WE TAKE THE OPPORTUNITY TO THEN MAKE THE BUSINESS BETTER FROM THE PARTNERSHIP PERSPECTIVE, WITH THE EGRESS AND THE SAFETY AND THE PARKING. AND SO THIS IS THE PROCESS OF A ZONING REQUEST WORKING AS INTENDED. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. PURDY, SIMILAR TO YOU, COMMISSIONER MARSH, I WAS KIND OF IN MY HEAD AROUND THE LACK OF SCREENING REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DOOR. BUT THEN I THOUGHT ABOUT, YOU KNOW, IF YOU IF YOU LOOK AT AN AUTOMOTIVE SHOP, WHAT DO YOU EXPECT TO SEE? RIGHT? LIKE A BED OF ROSES OR SOMETHING. SO I THINK THEY ARE WELL WITHIN THE RIGHT TO, TO KIND OF PROCEED AS PRESENTED.

SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT ZONING FILE 6-11 AS PRESENTED. ALL RIGHT. JUST JUST A CLARIFICATION I RECOMMEND APPROVAL RECOMMENDS. WE'RE NOT THE FINAL SAY ON THIS. ARE YOU GOOD WITH THAT. ALL RIGHT. HAVE A MOTION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZONING FILE 2611. I'LL SECOND COMMISSIONER CLERK GIVES A SECOND. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR THAT PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. GOOD

[3. Zoning File 26-12 – Interurban Design District: Consider and act on a request for a Special Development Plan on approximately 2.25 acres located at 500 N. Interurban Street, on the east side of N. Interurban Street and on the north side of Jackson Street, currently zoned PD Planned Development – Main Street/Central Expressway Form Based Code (Interurban Sub-district) in order to accommodate a commercial development with six (6) buildings. Owner: Stephen Graham, Interurban District, LLC. Staff: Christine Ross.]

YES. SO THIS IS ZONING FILE 2612AI REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN ON APPROXIMATELY 2.25 ACRES TO ACCOMMODATE A COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WITH SIX BUILDINGS LOCATED AT 500 NORTH INTERURBAN STREET. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF JACKSON STREET, EAST OF NORTH INTERURBAN STREET, SOUTH OF REFLEX DRIVE AND WEST OF THE DART RAIL LINE AND IS ZONED PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. MAIN STREET CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY FORM BASED CODE IN THE INTERURBAN SUB DISTRICT. THE VISION OF THIS DISTRICT IS TO HAVE AN EDGY, MIXED USE FEEL THAT BUILDS UPON THE EXISTING CHARACTER BY ALLOWING ADAPTIVE REUSE AND TARGETED INFILL DEVELOPMENT. BUILDING MATERIALS SHOULD BE CREATIVE AND PROFESSIONAL. STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE PROVIDED AND ON STREET PARKING SHOULD BE MAXIMIZED. HERE'S THE PROPOSED CONCEPT PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CONSTRUCT SIX ONE STORY BUILDINGS THAT COULD ATTRACT CONTRACTORS, RETAILERS, WHOLESALERS, DISTRIBUTORS OR OFFICE TENANTS. THE BUILDINGS ARE DESIGNED WITH THE OPPORTUNITY FOR TENANTS TO ADD OVERHEAD DOORS AND OUTDOOR STORAGE AREAS, WHICH ARE ALLOWED AS AN ACCESSORY USE IN THE INTERURBAN SUB DISTRICT.

THESE DESIGNS ARE FLEXIBLE AND WILL BE BASED ON TENANT PREFERENCES AND DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY REGULATIONS. THE SITE IS ACCESSED FROM TWO SHARED DRIVE APPROACHES, ONE AT THE NORTH END OF THE PROPERTY AND ONE AT THE SOUTH, AND THERE WILL BE AN INTERNAL 24 FOOT WIDE SHARED ACCESS EASEMENT THAT RUNS ALONG THE ENTIRE INTERIOR OF THE LOT.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE A TOTAL OF 31 PARKING SPACES, WITH TEN BEING ON SITE AND 21 BEING LOCATED ON INTERURBAN STREET. THERE ARE THREE PARTS OF TONIGHT'S SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE FIRST IS THAT EACH ROW OF PARKING SHALL HAVE A TEN FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE ISLAND, BUT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING AN EIGHT FOOT, EIGHT FOOT WIDE

[00:30:03]

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING RELIEF FROM PROVIDING SCREENING WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN EACH OF THE INDIVIDUAL PLATTED LOTS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO, OR PLANNING ON SUBDIVIDING. AND THEN SIMILAR TO ITEM NUMBER TWO, STAFF USES REQUEST AS ONE UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT AND THEREFORE VIEWS AS APPROPRIATE. HERE ARE THE PROPOSED ELEVATION PLANS. AND THERE ARE SIX SEPARATE BUILDINGS. SO I'LL GO THROUGH EACH OF THEM. BUT THIS IS BUILDING NUMBER ONE. AND IT SHOULD BE NOTED THAT ALL SIX BUILDINGS FULLY COMPLY WITH THE ARCHITECTURAL REQUIREMENTS AS OUTLINED IN THE INTERURBAN SUB DISTRICT, AND STAFF WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO GET THESE BUILDINGS TO LOOK AS NICE AS THEY DO. AND THEY ARE VERY ARCHITECTURALLY CONNECTED TO EACH OTHER AND AND HAVE A NICE THEME THROUGHOUT THEM ALL. SO THIS IS BUILDING TWO AND FIVE. BUILDINGS THREE AND FOUR. AND BUILDING SIX. AND HERE ARE SOME SITE PHOTOS. SO THE PHOTO ON THE TOP IS A VIEW OF THE PARCEL LOOKING SOUTH. AND THE PHOTO ON THE BOTTOM IS LOOKING NORTH. AND THIS TOP PHOTO SHOWS A VIEW OF THE PROPERTY LOOKING WEST ACROSS NORTH INTERURBAN STREET. AND I'VE HIGHLIGHTED WHERE SOLO GARAGE IS LOCATED, AND THE PHOTO ON THE BOTTOM SHOWS THE SITE LOOKING EAST TOWARDS THE DART RAIL LINE. ENVISION RICHARDSON DESIGNATES THIS AREA AS PART OF THE INNOVATION INDUSTRY. PLACE TYPE PRIMARY USES INCLUDE INDUSTRIAL, MANUFACTURING, DISTRIBUTION AND OFFICES, SO THEREFORE THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT. TO DATE, STAFF HAS RECEIVED TWO COMMENTS THAT ARE NEUTRAL TO THE REQUEST AND SHOULD THE CITY PLAN COMMISSION APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S OR RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TONIGHT, THERE'S ONE CONDITION THAT RELATES TO THE PROPERTY BEING DEVELOPED IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE CONCEPT PLAN, IN THE ELEVATION PLAN, AND THE ESTABLISHMENT OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. HE HAS PREPARED A PRESENTATION AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. MY QUESTION HAS TO DO WITH PARKING. SO I LOOKED BACK AT THE FORM BASED CODE FOR THE INNER URBAN DISTRICT AND BASICALLY SAID THAT FOR ANY SERVICE OR RETAIL BUILDING, OVER 5000FT■S, PARKING REQUIRES ONE SPACE PER 500FT■!S ABOVE THE FIRST 5000FT■S. IS THAT HOW YOU ARE COMING UP WITH YOUR CALCULATIONS AS FAR AS THE REQUIREMENTS? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND ONE, ONE OF THE THEMES OF THE OF THE FORM BASED CODE IS THAT THERE WOULD BE, HOPEFULLY SOMEDAY, A SHARED PARKING FACILITY, PARKING GARAGE, ACTUALLY IN THE PLAN. IT'S, YOU KNOW, ON THE WEST SIDE OR INNER URBAN OFF OFF OF THIS PROPERTY. SO IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THAT WAS KIND OF A CENTRAL THEME TO THE PARKING STANDARDS THAT HAVE BEEN ADOPTED IS THAT, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY THERE WOULD BE SOME SORT OF SHARED GARAGE OR SHARED LOT. WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT ASSESSMENT? I'LL HELP YOU OUT WITH THAT ONE. SO YES, IN THE IN THE CODE IN VARIOUS OF THE

[00:35:07]

BUILDINGS ONE AND SIX IS JUST AS SHOWN THERE AS IN THE DARK GRAY BOX, RIGHT? YEAH, I DON'T DISAGREE. I MEAN THAT THAT WOULD BE AN AREA, ESPECIALLY IF THEY WERE DOING OFFICE USE IN THAT BUILDING, THEN THAT COULD BE AN AREA, ESPECIALLY IF THEY DIDN'T PROVIDE THE OVERHEAD DOORS THERE WHERE THEY COULD PICK UP SOME PARKING SPACES. THEY ALSO ARE, YOU KNOW, AGAIN, IN THE INNER URBAN SUBDISTRICT, PARKING IS ENCOURAGED ON THE STREET. THEY CAN HAVE PARKING ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET AS WELL. SO I THINK ANYBODY THAT WOULD BE OFFICING IN THAT BUILDING WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ON STREET PARKING THAT THE APPLICANT IS, IS, IS BETTER DELINEATING ON THE EAST SIDE OF INNER URBAN AS WELL AS THERE

[00:40:06]

JACKSON. OKAY. BUT NONE OF THE PARKING ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF INNER URBAN IS DEDICATED TO THIS DEVELOPMENT OR RESERVED IN ANY WAY. CORRECT. AND IT WOULD NOT BE RESERVED FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT EITHER. SO THE PARKING OUT THERE IS NOT SIGNED WHERE I ASSIGNED TO INDIVIDUAL PROPERTIES. AGAIN, IT'S FLEXIBLE AS TO WHERE THE WHERE PEOPLE COULD BE ABLE TO PARK. RIGHT. WHEN I DROVE OUT THERE, THERE WERE ABOUT SEVEN CARS THAT WERE PARKED IN FRONT OF THE, THE LOT HERE TO FOR THE PROPERTIES ON THE WEST SIDE OF INNER URBAN. SO. YOU KNOW, TO ME THAT WAS AN IMMEDIATE CONCERN. WHEN YOU GOT 21 ON STREET PARKING SPACES AND, YOU KNOW, SEVEN OF THEM WERE, YOU KNOW, A THIRD OF THEM WERE GONE JUST FROM OVERFLOW FROM THE BUSINESSES ON THE, ON THE WEST SIDE. SO TO ME, THIS THAT'S THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE HERE. I UNDERSTAND THE CODE, THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, WHAT IT ENCOURAGES, WHAT THE INTENT IS, YOU KNOW, EVENTUALLY THERE'LL BE A HOPEFULLY BE A SHARED LOT THAT WILL PROVIDE SOME RELIEF.

BUT, YOU KNOW, THE REALITY IS THAT, YOU KNOW, WITH HIGHER INTENSITY OFFICE USES AND EVERYTHING, THERE COULD BE A REAL CHALLENGE, PARTICULARLY IF BUILDINGS ONE AND SIX, WHICH EACH ONLY HAVE, YOU KNOW, THE TWO SPACES KIND OF ON THE STREET. AND THEN THEY'VE GOT TWO ON, ON THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING, ONE OF WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, FOR HANDICAPPED PARKING.

SO ESSENTIALLY THEY'VE GOT THREE SPACES FOR THE TWO LARGEST BUILDINGS. AND THAT'S AND THESE ARE SEPARATELY PLATTED. SO THERE'S NOTHING, YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF IF THEY WERE TO SELL THAT BUILDING, LET'S SAY TO, YOU KNOW, A USER OR SOMEONE ELSE, THEN THERE'S NO AGREEMENT THAT THEY CAN HAVE, YOU KNOW, UTILIZE THE PARKING BEHIND BUILDINGS TWO THROUGH FIVE. YEAH. YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE OF THOSE WHERE YOU'RE, I THINK IT'S SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT OR THE PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO HAVE TO MANAGE IN TERMS OF HIS TENANT MIX IN HOW THE AREA IS BEING UTILIZED. RIGHT? BECAUSE I WOULD ANTICIPATE, AND MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK BETTER TO, BUT I THINK ANY TIME WE HAVE ANY BUSINESSES THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN AN AREA, YOU KNOW, OUR OUR GOAL IS FOR THEM TO ALL BE SUCCESSFUL. BUT AT SOME POINT IN TIME, THEY START TO MANAGE THEMSELVES ALSO IN TERMS OF WHERE THEIR EMPLOYEES MAY PARK, ESPECIALLY WITH A MASTER DEVELOPER MANAGING THE TENANT MIX THAT THEY MAY HAVE. IT'S NO DIFFERENT THAN LIKE A MULTI-TENANT RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER, RIGHT? SO IF I START PUTTING MORE RESTAURANTS IN THERE AND MORE OF MY RESTAURANTS ARE UTILIZING THE PARKING THAT'S AVAILABLE, OR I INCORPORATE SOME OFFICE USES, THEN THAT'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY FROM SOME OF THE OTHER RETAIL USES. SO THE PROPERTY MANAGER IS GOING TO HAVE A RESPONSIBILITY AS WELL TO, IF THEY'RE WANTING THEIR BUSINESS TO BE SUCCESSFUL, BEING ABLE TO, TO MANAGE THAT. OTHERWISE, IF THEIR CUSTOMERS DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO PARK OR EVEN THEIR EMPLOYEES, THEN THEY MAY RUN INTO SOME DIFFICULTY WITH LEASING TO CERTAIN USES. SO THEY MAY, THEY MAY FIND THEMSELVES TARGETING OTHER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN THE CODE. IT'S IT'S ONE OF THOSE WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S SOME COMMUNITIES ARE MOVING AWAY TOWARDS HAVING PARKING REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE PRESCRIBED FOR IN ORDINANCES AND LETTING MORE OF THE MARKET BE ABLE TO DICTATE THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE NECESSARILY THERE YET IN OUR COMMUNITY, BUT I THINK THERE IS A RESPONSIBILITY AMONGST THE PROPERTY OWNERS AS WELL TO BE ABLE TO MANAGE THEIR CONDITIONS, HAVING PLACES FOR THEIR EMPLOYEES TO PARK AND, AND ALSO NOT ABUSE THE AREA WITH, WITH BUSINESS OPERATIONS. SO I, I WON'T DISAGREE. WE DO HAVE SOME PARKING CHALLENGES, PARTICULARLY IN THE INNER URBAN DISTRICT, PARTICULARLY ALONG BISHOP, WITH THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE THERE AND HOW THEY'RE UTILIZING OUR PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY AND OUR, OUR PARKING ON THEIR OWN PROPERTIES. BUT AGAIN, I THINK IT COMES DOWN TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND HOW THEY MANAGE THEIR SITE. AND IF THEY'RE TRYING TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR FOR THE AREA, IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA WHERE WE DO ENCOURAGE THE ON STREET PARKING, THEN THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE, THE PROPERTY OWNER IS GOING TO BE HAVE TO BE ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN. AND I AGREE WITH THOSE COMMENTS, BUT MY FEAR IS THAT, AGAIN, THAT THESE ARE SEPARATELY PLATTED LOTS THAT COULD END UP WITH SIX DIFFERENT OWNERS, THAT NOT A COMMON PROPERTY MANAGER THAT'S LEASING, YOU KNOW, AND MANAGING THAT PARKING BETWEEN ALL THE BUILDINGS, RIGHT? THEY BECOME SEPARATE OWNERSHIP AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE, AND YOU LOSE THAT ABILITY TO EFFECTIVELY MANAGE, YOU KNOW, YOUR TENANT MIX AND, YOU KNOW, SHARING OF PARKING AND THINGS LIKE THAT. YEAH, I UNDERSTAND, I HEAR YOU, I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN ON THAT. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER POINTER OKAY, I HAVE SEVERAL QUESTIONS SINCE THIS IS A ONE OWNER. WHAT'S THE SITUATION FOR SIGNAGE FOR EACH BUILDING OR IS IT A UNIFIED SIGNAGE. YEAH. SO I THINK THAT WOULD BE A GREAT

[00:45:04]

YEAH. SO STAFF HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT REGARDING SPECIFICALLY TREES. AND ESSENTIALLY IT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE EVERY DESIRE TO INCORPORATE INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND OUR THEY ARE GOING TO WORK THAT OUT FURTHER ALONG IN THE SITE PLANNING AND LANDSCAPE PLANNING APPROVAL PROCESS. BUT THEY HAVE EVERY INTENTION TO PROVIDE STREET TREES WHERE FEASIBLE IN THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS IT LOOKS LIKE THEY ARE PROPOSING TWO TREES KIND OF ALONG THE ENTRANCES ALONG THE NORTHERN AND THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, AND LANDSCAPING HEDGEROWS IN BETWEEN BUILDINGS TWO AND THREE, THREE AND FOUR AND FOUR AND FIVE. SO A TOTAL OF FOUR TREES FOR THE ENTIRE PROPERTY THERE. THERE MAY BE MORE. IT'S I'LL ASK AGAIN WHEN THE REPRESENTATIVE COMES UP.

AND THEN I ALSO WANTED TO ASK ABOUT USE LIKE A TRAINING CENTER OR A UNIVERSITY OR ANY OF THOSE THINGS AVAILABLE TO THIS PROPERTY. AND AFTER FIVE USAGE. A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY OR A PRIVATE, NOT A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY, A PRIVATE SCHOOL REQUIRES A SPECIAL PERMIT IN THIS SUBDISTRICT. PRIVATE UNIVERSITY IS NOT SPECIFIED, SO IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IT WOULD BE ALLOWED. IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. IT WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED. OKAY. SO ANY KIND OF ANY KIND OF INSTITUTE, ANY KIND OF A TECHNICAL PARTY PLACE? YEAH. A TECHNICAL TRAINING SCHOOL IS PERMITTED BY. RIGHT. BUT NOT A PRIVATE UNIVERSITY. OKAY. AND THEN WHAT ABOUT AFTER OUR PARTY PLACE TYPE THING OR POOL HALL? A EVENT CENTER IS NOT ALLOWED IN THIS SUBDISTRICT, BUT RETAIL RESTAURANT USES WOULD BE ALLOWED. OKAY. WOULD YOU MIND JUST READING OUT THE LIST OF THINGS THAT ARE ALLOWED? YEAH. SO. ANTENNAS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT ART GALLERIES, BAKERIES, BANK OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, BARBER, BEAUTY SALON, BEER AND WINE PACKAGE SALES LESS THAN 75%. REVENUE FROM SALES, CATERING SERVICE. CHURCH, COMMUNITY GARDEN, CONSTRUCTION. FIELD OFFICE CONTRACTING OPERATION. DRUGSTORE PHARMACY, FINE ARTS STUDIO, FRATERNAL ORGANIZATION, HEALTH CLUB, HOME OCCUPATION. WELL, THAT WOULDN'T APPLY HERE BECAUSE RESIDENTIAL, FULL SERVICE HOTEL, LAUNDRY OR DRY CLEANING SERVICE, LAUNDRY, PICKUP STATION, LIVE WORK UNIT, MAILING SERVICE, MANUFACTURING FACILITY. MARTIAL ARTS SCHOOL MICROBREWERY, MOTOR VEHICLE PARTS AND ACCESSORY SALES, MOTOR VEHICLE RENTAL. MOTOR

[00:50:04]

PUBLIC BUILDING, RADIO RECORDING OR TELEVISION STUDIO. HOUSEHOLD ITEMS. REPAIR SHOP, PERSONAL ITEMS, REPAIR SHOP, RESEARCH AND LAB FACILITIES. RESTAURANT WITHOUT DRIVE THRU OR CURB SERVICE, RETAIL SALES, PAROCHIAL SCHOOL LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT AS RELIGIOUS INSTITUTION. A TAILOR SHOP, TECHNICAL TRAINING SCHOOL, VETERINARY OFFICE, WHOLESALE ESTABLISHMENT WINERY, DISTILLERY. AND THEN THERE'S SEVERAL OTHER USES THAT ARE ALLOWED WITH A SPECIAL PERMIT, BUT ONLY THOSE USES THAT ARE SPECIFIED IN THE PERMITTED USE TABLE. AND THEN ALSO MULTIFAMILY, SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED TOWNHOMES. BUT THAT'S NOT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE. OKAY. THANK YOU. I'M SORRY TO BRING UP PARKING AGAIN, BUT I JUST GOT ADDITIONAL THOUGHTS HERE. SO IF YOU WERE TO LOOK AT EACH ONE OF THESE BUILDINGS INDIVIDUALLY AND APPLY THE PARKING STANDARDS, LET'S TAKE BUILDING ONE, FOR EXAMPLE. YOU KNOW, IT'S 10,000FT■S. YOU DON'T COUNT THE FIRST 5000FT■S. SO YOU HAVE 5000, THE SECOND 5000FT■S.

YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE ONE SPACE PER 500FT■!S. SO THAT'S TEN SPACES, RIGHT? SO IN THIS CASE, THEY'VE GOT TWO SPACES ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF BUILDING ONE. AND THEN SO EFFECTIVELY THEY'RE TEN OTHER THEY'RE EIGHT OTHER SPACES THAT THEY HAVE TO HAVE FOR THAT ONE BUILDING. ARE ALL OF THE, THE SPACES ON THE STREET THAT EFFECTIVELY GO UP TO ABOUT BUILDING. FOUR. CORRECT? CORRECT. AND THEN AND SO WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU BE LOOKING AT, IF YOU WERE TAKING ONE BUILDING, ONE BY ITSELF AS SIMPLY CAME FORWARD TO US SAYS, THIS IS WHAT I WANT TO DO? OR WOULD YOU ALLOW THE PARKING SPACES IN FRONT OF PROPERTY THAT'S NOT AFFILIATED WITH BUILDING ONE TO, TO, TO COUNT? SO THE ANSWER TO THAT IS NO, RIGHT? RIGHT. SO IT WORKS TODAY WHEN YOU'RE TAKING IT AS A WHOLE. BUT ONCE YOU SUBDIVIDE SELL THOSE OFF, THEN IT'S A DIFFERENT SITUATION BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE ENOUGH STREET FRONTAGE FOR THAT ONE BUILDING TO ACCOMMODATE THE OFF STREET. YOU KNOW, THE TOTAL PARKING REQUIREMENT. I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M THINKING THAT. COMMISSIONER POINTER. OH, SORRY. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

I'M SURE WE GOT LOTS OF QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. SO WHY DON'T WE BRING THEM FORWARD NOW. YEAH. NO I'M JUST GOING TO SET THIS. OKAY. STEPHEN GRAHAM 9459. HOBART DALLAS, TEXAS.

GOOD. GOOD EVENING CHAIRMAN, COMMISSIONERS AND STAFF. MY NAME IS STEPHEN GRAHAM WITH SIMPLE DEVELOPMENT PARTNERS. AND THANK YOU FOR TAKING THE TIME TO LISTEN TO OUR SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THIS PROJECT IS PERSONAL TO OUR PARTNERSHIP. I GREW UP IN LAKE HIGHLANDS AND MY PARTNERS GRADUATED FROM RICHARDSON BERKNER PIERCE IN LAKE HIGHLANDS. MOST OF US HAVE RAISED OUR FAMILIES HERE. WE ARE NOT OUT OF TOWN DEVELOPERS. WE'RE LOCAL OWNERS MAKING A LONG TERM INVESTMENT IN THE COMMUNITY. BEFORE I BEGIN, I WANT I WANT TO THANK THE STAFF, TINA AND HER TEAM. DEREK AND ANDREW AND KRISTI. THANKS FOR HELP. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR, YOU KNOW, ALMOST SIX MONTHS. SO WHAT YOU TODAY IS NOT JUST A BACK OF THE

[00:55:04]

WE'RE NOT SOLVING FOR ONE APPROVAL TONIGHT. WE'RE SHOWING YOU THE ARC OF THE WHOLE CORRIDOR. SEE? GOT IT. THIS IS THE HEART OF OF WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. SO LET ME WALK. WALK YOU THROUGH IT. SIX NEW BUILDINGS, INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED, LINED UP ALONG INNER URBAN BUILDING. ONE RIGHT HERE. THAT AND THEN BUILDINGS TWO, THREE, FOUR AND FIVE ARE ALL THE SAME SQUARE FOOTAGE. AND THEN ANOTHER LARGER BUILDING HERE, 8300FT■!S THAT THAT WE MENTIONED IN THE PREVIOUS PRESENTATION. ALL OF IT SITS INSIDE THE BUILD TO ZONE ALONG THE STREET WITH PARKING AND ACCESS, WORKED AROUND THE CONSTRAINTS WE JUST TALKED ABOUT WITHIN THE FORM BASED CODE DART THE EASEMENTS AND THE EXISTING CONDITIONS. ROUGHLY 4100 ZERO SQUARE FEET OF NEW, MODERN, FULLY SPRINKLED BUILDINGS WHERE THERE IS NONE TODAY. SO THE REASON WE NEED A SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN IS BECAUSE THIS IS THE REAL QUESTION IN FRONT OF YOU. THE SITE IS HEMMED IN BY DART AND DART LOCKS. THE. THE EASTERN EDGE. THEY'RE USUALLY THE.

THEIR UTILITY CONFLICTS AND EASEMENTS THAT DICTATE WHERE NEW CONSTRUCTION CAN PHYSICALLY GO WITHIN THE FORM BASED CODE. SO WHEN PEOPLE ASK, WHY IS THIS CORRIDOR HAS SEEN SO LITTLE NEW DEVELOPMENT DURING THE STRONGEST BUILDING CYCLE IN DFW? THIS IS MUCH OF THE ANSWER. IT ISN'T A LACK OF DEMAND, IT'S. THE REDEVELOPMENT HERE IS GENUINELY HARD. CONSTRAINED SITES, FRAGMENTED OWNERSHIP, HIGH CONSTRUCTION COSTS, AND ELEVATED INTEREST RATES. THE FLEXIBILITY IN THIS PLAN ISN'T US CUTTING CORNERS. IT'S THE ONLY WAY. ROUGHLY 4100 ZERO SQUARE FEET OF NEW SPACE BECOMES FEASIBLE. THIS IS A RENDERING WE SHOWED BEFORE, AND I WANT TO BE CAREFUL ABOUT THE WORD TRANSFORMATION, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO OVER PROMISE. THE TRANSFORMATION OF THIS CORRIDOR HAS ALREADY BEGUN. WE HAVE STARTED TO RECEIVE INCOME ON EMPTY SPACE. WE HAVE REDUCED AUTOMOTIVE SQUARE FOOTAGE BY 80%, PRESERVE THE QUALITY LOCAL BUSINESS, AND DEMONSTRATED THAT PROGRESS CAN HAPPEN THROUGH PARTNERSHIP RATHER THAN DISPLACEMENT. WHAT YOU'RE CONSIDERING TONIGHT IS THE NEXT STEP IN THAT PROCESS. THIS

[01:00:05]

SO THIS IS THE SITE AERIAL AS IT SITS TODAY. THIS IS AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. IF WE WERE HAD A LITTLE DRONE ON TOP OF CLAY COULEE, THIS THIS IS THE SITE RIGHT HERE. IT GOES ALL THE WAY UP TO KIND OF THAT LITTLE TREE RIGHT THERE, WHICH IS RIGHT BELOW THE COMMUNICATION TOWER FOR DART. AND THIS IS THE PROPOSED KIND OF ENTRY TO THE INNER URBAN DISTRICT AT JACKSON. SO IT WOULD BE BUILDING ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE AND THEN SIX.

AND THIS IS FROM THE NORTHWEST CORNER, ALMOST KIND OF HORTON'S BUILDING SUPPLY. THERE'S THE TOWER. THIS IS THE TWO AND A HALF ACRES. IT'S REALLY TWO THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED. AND HERE'S THE BUILDINGS ON THE PROPERTY. SO YOU CAN TELL THE THE FEEL THE KIND OF ARCHITECTURAL RHYTHM. RIGHT NOW WE I KNOW I'M GOING TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING CONCERNS HERE. WE HAVE KIND OF THIS GREEN SPACE. ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO DO WAS ENHANCE THE GREEN SPACE, BUT WE WANTED TO DO IT. THE FORM BASED CODE, QUITE HONESTLY, IS REALLY I'M GOING TO ASK YOU, I'M SORRY, MR. GRAHAM, JUST IF YOU COU, BECAUSE WE'RE THIS IS A LIVE VIDEO FOR OUR AUDIENCE OUT THAT'S NOT HERE IN ATTENDANCE. IF YOU COULD PLEASE COME UP TO THE MICROPHONE SO WE CAN HEAR YOU. YEAH. THE FORM BASED CODE IS. YOU KNOW, WE'RE PLAYING WITHIN THE RULES OF THE FORM BASED CODE, ALMOST 100%. WE'RE ASKING FOR THREE, THREE ITEMS, BUT WE'D LIKE TO ADDRESS SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING THINGS DURING THE PERMITTING PROCESS WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY GET THE CONSULTANTS AROUND A TABLE AND ACTUALLY HAVE ALL THE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE KNOW ABOUT AFTER WE HAVE ALL THE CIVIL DRAWINGS DONE AND HAVE ENCORE AND HAVE ALL THE WATER UTILITIES IDENTIFIED, I JUST DIDN'T WANT TO COMMIT TO

[01:05:05]

BUT THIS, THIS DEVELOPMENT RIGHT HERE FITS WITHIN. AND WE SPENT, AS I MENTIONED, SIX MONTHS KIND OF GETTING TO THIS POINT. WE TALKED PAINSTAKINGLY ABOUT THE PARKING. WE OWN THIS PARKING LOT HERE. WE OWN THESE BUILDINGS THAT STOP. WE OWN THIS LITTLE PARKING LOT HERE IN THIS PARKING HERE. AND THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS WE'VE DISCUSSED IS, YOU KNOW, AS A AS A SOMEONE WHO OWNS THIS, YOU KNOW, MOST OF THIS BLOCK IN HERE, THESE CARS ALONG HERE, THEY NEVER MOVE. SO THESE CARS ARE WE DON'T HAVE ANY TENANTS ON. BISHOP. SO I PERSONALLY BELIEVE THAT THESE CARS THAT EVERYONE IS COMPLAINING ABOUT ON BISHOP MAINLY ME, YOU KNOW, ARE NOT ARE NOT CUSTOMERS. THEIR INVENTORY OF EITHER USED CAR LOTS OR, YOU KNOW, CERTAIN RENTAL CAR COMPANIES OR CERTAIN TRUCK COMPANIES AND THEY PARK, I MEAN, AT TIMES THEY'LL PARK HERE AND ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN HERE. BUT BISHOP, THIS THERE'S NEVER AN EMPTY SPACE HERE CURRENTLY. AND IT'S NOT BECAUSE OF CUSTOMERS. IT'S JUST IT'S AN INVENTORY OF DIFFERENT BUSINESSES. AND I'VE TALKED TO I'VE TALKED TO, YOU KNOW, THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM ABOUT IT. AND THE FIRST THING WE WANTED TO ADDRESS WAS THIS. AND THEN MAYBE TRY TO ADDRESS THIS.

WE'VE ALREADY THIS, THIS PHOTO HERE SHOWS SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S GOING IN RIGHT NOW AND LANDSCAPING THAT WE'RE INSTALLING ALONG INTERURBAN CURRENTLY IN JACKSON.

WE ALSO THOUGHT HARD ABOUT WHAT HAPPENS AT THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE THE DISTRICT. PEOPLE ONLY DRIVE PAST ISN'T REALLY A DISTRICT. THE PLANNING PALETTE IS INTENTIONALLY. TEXAS DROUGHT TOLERANT, CODE APPROVED, CHOSEN TO LOOK LIKE IT BELONGS HERE. CEDAR. ELM REDBUDS. DESERT.

WILLOW, TEXAS SAGE MUHLY. GRASS AND RED YUCCA. WALKABILITY IS EASY TO TO PROMISE AND HARD TO SEQUENCE. IT ONLY PAYS OFF ONCE PARKING IS ENFORCED AND STREETS ACTUALLY FUNCTION. OUR FRONTAGE.

OUR FRONTAGES ARE ALREADY DESIGNED FOR WALKABILITY AND LANDSCAPED. WHAT WE ASK IS THAT THE. THIS PROJECT NOT BE MADE TO CARRY THE NEIGHBORING PARKING PROBLEM TO DELIVER A WALKABLE STREET. IF WE CAN GET THE SEQUENCING RIGHT, THE WALKABILITY FOLLOWS. I FULLY SUPPORT RICHARDSON'S GOAL OF WALKABILITY. MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'VE STARTED MEASURING WALKABILITY BY THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AND HOW THEY'RE ORIENTED, RATHER THAN HOW THEY'RE ACTUALLY USED. CUSTOMER PARKING CREATES A WALKABLE DISTRICT BY SUPPORTING VISITORS AND STOREFRONT ACTIVITY. INVENTORY. PARKING CREATES A STORAGE YARD. THOSE ARE TWO VERY DIFFERENT OUTCOMES. CURRENTLY, BISHOP IS 100% INVENTORY PARKING WITH TRUCKS AND CARS THAT DON'T MOVE WEEKS ON END. EVERY DISTRICT YOU AND I ADMIRE STARTED THE SAME WAY WITH ONE PROJECT THAT PROVED IT COULD WORK AND GAVE EVERYONE ELSE CONFIDENCE TO FOLLOW.

BISHOP ARTS, LOWER GREENVILLE, KNOX, HENDERSON, DEEP ELLUM, THE CEDARS. NONE WERE BUILT IN A SINGLE PHASE, AND NONE WERE CREATED BY REGULATION ALONE. THEY WERE CREATED BY INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIP, AND SOMEBODY'S WILLING TO GO FIRST. I'M WILLING TO GO FIRST. WE'RE ALREADY UNDERWAY. ROOFS, LANDSCAPING, LIGHTING, SCREENING, PAINT, TENANT IMPROVEMENTS. REAL CAPITAL SPENT WEEKS AFTER CLOSING, AND WE'RE MARKETING THIS AS THE INNER URBAN DISTRICT DESIGN DISTRICT BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BLENDING BUILDING TRADES LIKE NATIONAL WINDOW AND GOLD STAR APPLIANCE WITH DESTINATIONS LIKE FOUR BULLETS BREWERY. WE WANT TO PARTNER WITH THE CITY TO BE THE PROOF OF THE CONCEPT. LET ME SET AN HONEST EXPECTATION ABOUT WHAT THIS DISTRICT IS AND ISN'T. NOT EVERY SPACE WILL BE RETAIL. NOT EVERY SPACE WILL BE A RESTAURANT. SOME WILL BE SHOWROOMS, SOME FLEX COMMERCIAL, SOME TRADERS AND MAKERS BY DESIGN. BECAUSE WHAT PULLS INVESTMENT INTO A CORRIDOR ISN'T ONE USE. IT'S THE MIX. DESIGNERS NEXT TO SUPPLIERS, MAKERS NEXT TO BREWERY DINING

[01:10:04]

A REAL CHOICE IS THIS PLAN VERSUS ANOTHER DECADE, ANOTHER DECADE OF VACANCY AND AUTO USE WHILE WE WAIT FOR SOMETHING FLAWLESS THAT NEVER PENCILS APPROVE IT AND YOU GET A NEW PRODUCT, A CRITICAL MASS OF TENANCY THAT DILUTES THE AUTO CHARACTER REINVESTMENT ALREADY BEGUN, AND A FIRST STEP THE REST OF THE CORRIDOR CAN BUILD ON. I BELIEVE IN THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I THINK THIS DISTRICT CAN BECOME SOMETHING RICHARDSON IS PROUD OF, AND I WANT TO BE A GOOD OWNER AND A GOOD NEIGHBOR. WHILE WE GET THERE, I RESPECTFULLY ASK THE COMMISSION TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT PLAN. ZF2612. THIS PROJECT WON'T SOLVE. THIS PROJECT WILL NOT SOLVE EVERY CHALLENGE IN THE CORRIDOR TODAY, BUT IT CREATES A REAL FUNDED PATH TOWARD THE TRANSFORMATION WE ALL WANT. THANK YOU, AND I'M GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER PURDY. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT PRESENTATION. JUST HAVE SOME COUPLE FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS. NUMBER ONE, ON YOUR SLIDE WITH THE KIND OF AWARENESS AROUND THE TENANT MIX, CAN YOU MAYBE GO A LEVEL DEEPER LIKE WHO'S IN BUILDING ONE, TWO, THREE, SIX, IDEALLY, JUST LIKE SUPER TENANT MIX IN YOUR MIND TO BE HONEST, TO BE HONEST, WE DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, THESE BUILDINGS WERE THESE BUILDINGS RIGHT HERE.

THEY, THEY WERE LIKE SWISS CHEESE ON THE, ON THE ROOF. SO WE COULDN'T EVEN SHOW THE TENANTS DURING THE, THE RAINY SEASON. THIS IS REALLY WE COMPLETED THE ROOF PROBABLY THREE WEEKS AGO. AND IT'S THE FIRST TIME THAT WE'VE REALLY KIND OF TAKEN TOURS, FOR EXAMPLE, WE'VE HAD KIND OF A CHEESECAKE OPERATOR. WE'VE HAD A GENERAL CONTRACTOR LOOK IN HERE. WE'VE HAD A RESTAURANT. TOUR THIS. NOW WHEN I SAY TOUR, I WANT TO BE CLEAR. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY'RE GOING TO OCCUPY THIS, BUT THESE ARE THE KIND OF TENANTS. WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF OTHER RESTAURANT GROUPS THAT HAVE LOOKED AT THIS. WE'VE HAD A. A HOUSING, I WOULD CALL IT THE PEOPLE WHO PUT FURNITURE IN APARTMENTS AND HOUSES IN ORDER TO BE SOLD.

LOOK AT THIS. I'M TRYING TO THINK WHAT ELSE OFF THE TOP OF MY MIND, THAT'S THOSE ARE THE TOURS THAT WE'VE HAD. GOT IT. AND THEN SECOND QUESTION, ARE YOU PLANNING TO DO ANYTHING EXPLICIT TO MARKET TO THE DARK RIDERS AROUND WHAT IS IN THOSE BUILDINGS? ONE THROUGH SIX WE WE'VE ACTUALLY DISCUSSED ONE OF THE RESTAURATEURS ASKED US IF THE CITY WOULD EVER CONSIDER A DART KIND OF KISS AND RIDE HERE, AND WE SAID, WE DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, WE'RE KIND OF. YOU KNOW, WE WE, I GUESS, SHOWED THEM WHERE THE DART STATION IS AND KIND OF TOLD THEM IT'S NOT A LONG WALK, BUT IT'S A LONG WALK WHEN IT'S 100. THANK YOU. YOU BET. MR. VICE CHAIRMAN YEAH.

[01:15:03]

AND YOU'RE PITCHING THIS AS A GROUP TO US. AND I THINK SOME OF THE CONCERNS ARE A GREAT IT'S A GROUP. WE'RE THINKING ABOUT IT. IT'S A GROUP, BUT THEN YOU SELL IT OFF IN INDIVIDUAL PIECES. CORRECT. I UNDERSTAND THAT CONCERN. SO THIS IS KIND OF THIS IS AGAIN, YOU GOT TO GET BY THE MIC. I SORRY I'M TERRIBLE AT THIS. YEAH. SO THIS RIGHT HERE IS DAVIS. WE THIS IS KIND OF THE NORTHERN END OF THE BLOCK BETWEEN BISHOP AND INTERURBANS RIGHT HERE. SO YOU CAN SEE THE CHALLENGES OF THE DISTRICT. AND YOU KNOW, I FEEL LIKE A LOT IS PUT ON US BECAUSE WE ARE HERE AND WE'RE THE ONLY VACANCY. SO THIS IS MY OPINION. THIS IS THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE. I MEAN YOU CAN'T. AND THESE CARS HERE, THEY DON'T MOVE THESE THESE TRUCKS HERE, THEY MIGHT MOVE, BUT THEY'RE FILLED UP WITH TRUCKS CONSTANTLY. SO ALL THE PARKING THAT WE HAVE, WE PROBABLY HAVE AS A GROUP, AS MUCH PARKING AS THIS WHOLE BLOCK, BECAUSE NONE OF THESE SPACES, EXCEPT FOR THIS ENTERPRISE LOT HERE HAVE HAVE PARKING. AND THIS ENTERPRISE LOT IS FULL WITH ALL THE RENTAL CARS. THESE ARE ALL USED CARS.

REPAIR SHOPS. I MEAN, THESE CARS, ONCE THEY GET HERE THEY DON'T MOVE. SO THAT'S MY OPINION. THE BIGGEST CHALLENGE TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION ABOUT THE FINANCING AND HOW WE'RE GOING TO GET THIS DONE, WE'RE GOING TO LEASE UP THE EXISTING BUILDINGS. AND THAT FROM THAT CASH FLOW, WE'LL BE ABLE TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE MORE MONEY TO REINVEST. AND AT THAT POINT, ONCE WE'RE KIND OF CASH FLOW POSITIVE, WE CAN GO TO OUR BANK AND GET MONEY FOR THE TWO, TWO AND A QUARTER ACRES TO DEVELOP. BUT I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE A PHASED PROJECT. WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO GET AHEAD OF THE BALL GAME SO WE CAN EVEN MARKET THE TWO ACRES. OUT IN THE PUBLIC, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE YOU DON'T KNOW YOU KNOW, THE PROBLEM WITH THIS SIZE BUILDING IS IT'S NOT LIKE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD. CAN YOU GET I CAN'T GET THAT. IT'S NOT LIKE BLUE CROSS BLUE SHIELD OR SOMETHING WHERE THEY'RE LOOKING THREE YEARS OUT IN THE FUTURE.

MOST OF THESE TENANTS THAT ARE 5000 TO 10,000FT■!S, THEY'RE THERE FOR MONTHS OUT, SIX MONTHS OUT. AND THEY'RE LIKE, WE NEED SPACE AND WE NEED IT NOW. WE THINK THAT HAVING THIS SPACE REPOSITIONED WILL, WILL HELP THE CORRIDOR BECAUSE IT WILL RAISE, IT'LL JUST KIND OF RAISE ALL BOATS AT THAT POINT WHEN WE START TO GET SOME OCCUPANCY HERE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, WE HOPE WE MIGHT BE ABLE TO GET A BUILD TO SUIT FOR A LITTLE, YOU KNOW, A GOOD BUSINESS WANTING TO BE IN RICHARDSON, WHICH IS REALLY HARD TO FIND. THAT'S WHY WE WE REALLY LIKE THIS PROJECT. WELL, LET ME JUST FOLLOW UP MORE SPECIFICALLY. SO YOU'RE

[01:20:08]

THAT'S THAT'S THE IDEA. I'M GOING TO FOLLOW. I'D LIKE TO FOLLOW UP THE VICE CHAIRMAN, BECAUSE HE WAS HITTING ON THE EXACT POINTS THAT. AND I DON'T THINK I HEARD THE ANSWER. I THINK I THINK HE WAS LOOKING FOR. AND I WAS LOOKING FOR. SO LET ME START WITH THIS. DO YOU PLAN TO BUILD ALL SIX BUILDINGS AT ONCE? THAT THAT IS PROBABLY GOING TO BE THE ONLY WAY WE GET THIS THING DONE. I MEAN, THE EXCEPTION, THE HONEST ANSWER IS I DON'T KNOW. BUT JUST TALKING WITH THE DEVELOPMENT TEAM, THE RESTRICTIONS AND EVERYTHING ON SCREENING, IF WE DON'T JUST BUILD IT ALL AT ONCE, WOULD ALMOST NOT BE FEASIBLE. ALSO, I THINK OUR BANK FROM A FROM A DEBT STANDPOINT IS GOING TO WANT THE ENTIRE THING COMPLETED. QUITE HONESTLY. OKAY. AND I KNOW YOU CAN'T SAY THIS EITHER, BUT YOU KNOW, YOU, YOU ULTIMATELY YOU WOULD, YOU'RE GOING TO WANT TO SELL RIGHT AFTER YOU COMPLETE THEM AND LEASE THEM UP. THAT'S WHAT EVERY REAL ESTATE DEVELOPER WANTS TO DO. SO I MY CONCERN IS STILL THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS BECAUSE I'M JUST LOOK, I THINK THE PLAN IS GREAT, I REALLY DO. I THINK ARCHITECTURALLY WHAT YOU'VE PROPOSED IS FABULOUS AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, MEETING, YOU KNOW, ALL OF THE STANDARDS

[01:25:04]

[01:30:01]

SO SOMEBODY WHO HAS STORAGE IN HERE WITH MAYBE 2 OR 3 OFFICES. SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHAT'S CONFIGURED HERE. IF SOMETHING ELSE HAPPENS, YES, WE WOULD, WE HAVE THIS PARKING LOT HERE. WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, ADDITIONAL PARKING THAT WE COULD FOR LENDER. I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM, BUT WE HAVE ADDITIONAL OPTIONS. THAT'S THAT'S WHY I BELIEVE WE CAN DO THIS. WELL. AND I'D LOVE TO SEE THAT. I MEAN, I REALLY AM LOOKING FOR A WAY TO TRY TO APPROVE THIS, BUT I DON'T WANT TO GET PUT. YOU KNOW, YOU WANT TO SEE THE PARKING LOT. WELL, IT I SHOW YOU OBVIOUSLY THERE'S NO IT'S LIKE 40 SOMETHING SPACES, WHICH WE COULD HAVE A PARKING AGREEMENT FOR THIS PARKING LOT. WELL, WE DON'T TONIGHT. WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY ADDITIONAL PARKING OTHER THAN WHAT YOU'VE SHOWN US. AND YOU'VE AND YOU SAID THESE ARE GOING TO BE ALL INDIVIDUAL LOTS. THAT'S ALL WE CAN GO ON. I GET I UNDERSTAND YOU OWN THE PROPERTY IN THE DISTRICT. YOU CAN CREATE MORE SHARED PARKING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE THAT ASSURANCE THAT THAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN TONIGHT. SO WE'VE GOT TO LOOK OUT FOR FUTURE OWNERS OF THESE LOTS THAT ARE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE IN CONFORMANCE, NOT FOR BUILDING ONE, I CAN ASSURE YOU. WITH THAT NOW, MAYBE FOR TWO THROUGH FIVE. SO BECAUSE BECAUSE THE FORM BASED CODE DOESN'T COUNT THE FIRST 5000FT■, THOSE BUILDINGS ARE ONLY 5800FT■!S OR SO. SO THEY ONLY NEED, YOU KNOW, MAYBE 1 OR 2 SPACES, WHICH THEY DO HAVE ON THE STREET. AND POTENTIALLY THEY COULD PUT PARKING BEHIND THE BUILDINGS IN THE OUTSIDE STORAGE. BUT BUILDINGS ONE AND SIX ARE AT RISK OF NOT BEING ABLE TO MEET THE PARKING UNDER THE CURRENT CODE TODAY, IF THEY'RE SEPARATELY OWNED. SO THAT'S BUT NOW, IF YOU WERE TO COME AND SAY, I'VE GOT A SOLUTION FOR THAT, I'M NOT GOING TO. I'M NOT GOING TO SUBDIVIDE IT INTO SIX LOTS. I'LL KEEP IT AS ONE. THAT WOULD BE ONE SOLUTION BECAUSE YOU CAN MEET IT AS AS A, AS A SINGLE PROPERTY. IF YOU CAME AND SAID, I'VE GOT ANOTHER SOLUTION, WHICH IS I OWN PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, I'M WILLING TO DEDICATE A SHARED LOT TO, YOU KNOW, ACCOMMODATE THAT. THAT COULD BE A SOLUTION. BUT WHAT'S PRESENTED WITH US RIGHT NOW, I SEE AS A PROBLEM. I DON'T SEE IT AS A PROBLEM. I SEE IT AS AN OPPORTUNITY BECAUSE IT SAYS ON STREET. SO THIS IS OUR PROPOSAL ON STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS SHALL BE SATISFIED, SATISFIED ACROSS THE ENTIRE DEVELOPMENT FRONTAGE WITH ON STREET PARKING IN THE RIGHT OF WAY. WE ARE OVER PARKED BY TEN. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE OVER PARKED BY TWO. WE'RE OVER PARKED BY TEN. SO AT SOME POINT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO TRUST THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS. WHEN WE GET TO PERMITTING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A TENANT, WE'RE NOT JUST GOING TO GO PUT. I MEAN, IT WOULD BE A DISASTER FOR OUR WHOLE DEVELOPMENT. AGAIN, I THINK THE ONLY WAY IT MEETS THE

[01:35:05]

AND VICE CHAIRMAN, I THINK IT'S RAISED SO. I THINK IT WAS COMMISSIONER PURDY SET NEXT.

YES. OH. QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE THE THE THE THE DEPENDENCY OF DART IN RICHARDSON? I DEFINITELY WANT TO HEAR YOUR THOUGHTS ON THIS AND HOW SUCCESSFUL, YOU KNOW, THAT DART IN RICHARDSON IS TIED TO THE SUCCESS OF THIS DISTRICT. IS THERE A DEPENDENCY THERE? I DON'T KNOW YET, QUITE HONESTLY. I MEAN, I I'VE SEEN I'VE SEEN DART IN LAKE HIGHLANDS, I'VE SEEN DART IN PLANO, I'VE SEEN DART DO SOME GOOD THINGS AND I'VE SEEN DART DO SOME NOT GREAT THINGS AT TIMES. SO IT'S JUST HARD. I CAN'T I DON'T KNOW THAT ANSWER QUITE HONESTLY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALSO SAY MIGHT NOT BE ABLE TO ASSIST ON TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION IF IT'S ALL RIGHT WITH CHAIR MARCIA. OKAY. WITH RESPECT TO DART BEING AND HOW THIS RELATES TO THAT, I THINK THE CHALLENGE WE HAVE HERE IS WE DON'T HAVE A DART STATION IMMEDIATELY IN THE INNER URBAN AREA. SO IT'S GOING TO BE VERY DIFFICULT FOR ABSENT THAT DART STATION FOR THESE BUSINESSES TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT. YOU KNOW, THERE IS A DART STATION TO THE NORTH AND ONE TO THE SOUTH. THE CHALLENGE SOMETIMES IS THAT WHOLE LAST MILE CONNECTIVITY, SOME WOULD COULD, YOU KNOW, WALK FURTHER NORTH UP GREENVILLE TO EVENTUALLY GET TO ARAPAHO STATION. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S WITHIN A IF THAT'S WITHIN A QUARTER MILE OR HALF MILE, THAT'S USUALLY KIND OF THE TEST FOR SUPPORTING TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT IS QUARTER MILE AND HALF MILE. SO IT'S, YOU KNOW, TO TIE THIS TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS SUPPORTS DART OR NOT, I THINK WOULD BE A, A VERY DIFFICULT ASSUMPTION OR ANALYSIS TO BE ABLE TO MAKE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT HELPS ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, BUT JUST

[01:40:04]

[01:45:05]

THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ARGUE, THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO GO. WE'RE GOING TO MARKET TO THE BUILDINGS THEMSELVES. AND I REALLY DO FEEL LIKE THE MARKET IS SMARTER THAN ALL OF US IN THIS ROOM, BECAUSE THE MARKET WILL COME TO THE BROKERS, THEY'LL COME TO US AND THEY WILL TELL THIS IS WHAT WE WANT. WE'RE GOING TO TRY AND GIVE THEM WHAT WE WANT. IF THEY WANT MORE PARKING, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO COME BACK TO TINA AND MAKE THE BUILDING SMALLER AND FIGURE OUT A WAY TO GET MORE PARKING. IT'S SO HARD TO DEVELOP A SPECULATIVE BUILDING THROUGH FORM BASED CODE, BECAUSE YOU'RE TRYING TO GET IT PERFECT. AND AS A COUPLE OF PEOPLE HAVE SAID, IT'S JUST REALLY HARD TO GET THE PERFECT DEVELOPMENT ON THE FRONT END WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THE WE DON'T KNOW. WE KNOW 85%, PROBABLY OF THE CIVIL WE KNOW ABOUT ENCORE. WE HAVE A GEOTECH. WE KNOW A LOT ABOUT THIS PROPERTY. BUT ONCE WE START COORDINATING WITH THE LANDSCAPE DESIGNER, THE ARCHITECT, THE CIVIL, ALL THE UTILITIES WITH THE CITY, THAT IS REALLY WHEN WE CAN KIND OF GET IN THERE. AND I WOULD ARGUE WE'RE PLAYING

[01:50:03]

[01:55:04]

IF IT WAS PLATTED AS ONE LOT WHERE HE COULD CONTROL THE TENANT, MIX, THE PARKING, ALL OF THAT, THEN IT WOULD WORK. BUT AGAIN, IT'S JUST IN MY VIEW AS AN INDIVIDUAL, EACH BUILDING IS INDIVIDUAL LOTS. THE ONLY ONES THAT POTENTIALLY COULD SATISFY IT ARE THOSE TWO THROUGH FIVE AND BUILDINGS ONE AND SIX COULD NOT. BASED ON THE WAY THE CODE IS WRITTEN TODAY.

SO WITHOUT ANOTHER SOLUTION, I'M I'M NOT LOOKING TO GET, YOU KNOW, PUT US IN A POSITION WHERE, YOU KNOW, FUTURE OWNERS OF THESE LOTS ARE NOT IN COMPLIANCE. SO THAT'S MY VIEW.

MR. VICE CHAIRMAN, YOU AND I THINK ALIKE. SO WE, WE WENT ROUND AND ROUND HERE AND WE DETERMINED NOT ONLY IS THE VISION OF THIS WHOLE MASTER PLAN AREA. WELL THOUGHT THROUGH.

I LOVE THE ESTHETIC OF CONFORMITY WITH NEWER, NICER BUILDINGS ALONG THE DART LINE THAT SORT OF BUTTRESSES A HODGEPODGE VIEW ACROSS A GRASS FIELD TODAY, BUT STILL A VERY DISJOINTED VIEW WHEN YOU'RE GOING DOWN GREENVILLE EVEN, OR ON THE DART RAIL. AND SO I LOVE THE BARRIER THAT THIS NICE DEVELOPMENT LOOKS LIKE, BUT THE, THE WAY THE APPLICANT HAS PRESENTED THIS IS, IS, IS THAT NOT ONLY DOES HE NOT WANT TO DO IT, HE CAN'T GET A BANK LOAN WITHOUT ALL SIX PROPERTIES BEING CONSIDERED, YET WANTS TO BE ABLE TO SPLIT THEM APART. I FULLY UNDERSTAND THE SPLIT APART, BUT WHENEVER THE DEPENDENCY IN THIS CASE PARKING IS ON THE WHOLE AND I AND I HAVE TO BUILD THEM ALL TOGETHER BECAUSE OF A LENDER REQUIREMENT OR A LIKELY LENDER REQUIREMENT, THEN I HAVE TO LOOK AT THEM AS A WHOLE. AND IF I IN STILL WANT TO RETAIN THE ABILITY TO SPLIT THEM APART, THEN THEN I GET STUCK. I GET STUCK FOR THE SAME REASON THE CHAIRMAN STUCK. AND SO THAT'S, THAT'S WHERE I'M AT TOO, IS I LOVE THE IDEA. I KNOW THIS CAN'T BE PERFECT, BUT I GET STUCK ON RETAINING THE ABILITY TO SLICE THIS UP WHENEVER I CAN'T ACTUALLY SLICE THIS UP AND BUILD IT ONE AT A TIME. I HAVE TO BUILD IT ALL AT ONCE. THAT'S WHERE I STAND. COMMISSIONER BEACH. WELL, I DON'T DO THIS FOR A LIVING. BUT I HAVE A DIFFERENT PERSPECTIVE. I MEAN, WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT. THERE'S ROOM FOR ADDITIONAL PARKING WHERE THE STORAGE EXISTS, AND HE'S ALREADY MENTIONED THAT HE'D BE WILLING TO DO THAT. THERE'S AN ALTERNATIVE AS IT GOES THROUGH, PERMITTING THAT IF THERE'S A NOMINAL CHANGE IN THE BUILDINGS, BUT IT STAYS WITHIN THE GOAL AND VISION THAT WE CAN DO THAT.

LIKE WE SAID, THERE'S NO PERFECT PLAN. BUT I THINK SOMETHING LIKE THIS THAT IS

[02:00:02]

THAT'S ALL I NEEDED THAT SO THAT THE DOOR IS OPEN FOR A BROADER DISCUSSION. OKAY. YES, MA'AM. SO I'VE SECONDED THE MOTION. COMMISSIONER QUIRK? YEAH. AT THE RISK OF REITERATING WHAT I JUST SAID EARLIER. I THINK WE NEED TO GET THE BALL ROLLING, I THINK. I MEAN, I'M LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE THAT'S UP AERIAL THAT'S UP ON THE SCREEN RIGHT NOW.

THERE'S PARKING ALL OVER THE PLACE THERE. I'M STRUGGLING WITH THE CONCEPT OF HAVING AN EDGY, MIXED USE, WALKABLE DEVELOPMENT. AND WE'RE WORRIED ABOUT HOW MANY PARKING SPACES WE HAVE RIGHT IN FRONT OF A BUILDING. BUT I, I THINK WE NEED TO GET THE BALL ROLLING HERE. AND WHAT I THINK WHAT HAS TO HAPPEN FOR THESE SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT AREAS THAT WE HAVE.

IT'S BEEN SCREAMING FOR ONE DEVELOPER TO, TO GATHER UP A BUNCH OF THESE, ENOUGH OF THESE PROPERTIES TO ACTUALLY MOVE THE BALL FORWARD. AND IF WE KEEP LOOKING FOR THESE LITTLE THINGS TO, TO KEEP FROM MOVING FORWARD, WE'RE NEVER GOING TO GET THERE. AND LIKE, LIKE THE APPLICANT SAID, IT WILL BE ANOTHER DECADE OF VACANT LAND AND WHO KNOWS WHAT IN THERE. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. COMMISSIONER PURDY? YES. I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE THAT THAT PARKING IS A BIG PICKLE WITHOUT EVEN TALKING ABOUT BIKE PARKING. RIGHT. LIKE THAT. THAT WOULD HELP THIS BE A LOT WALKABLE. AND AS I LOOK INTO THE FUTURE, I'M FAVORABLE INTO THE FUTURE AROUND AVENUES OF REMEDIATION. LIKE, YOU KNOW, MAYBE ROBOTAXIS OR DROPPING PEOPLE OFF HERE. MAYBE IT'S AERIAL DRONES. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU'RE PHYSICALLY DRIVING YOUR CAR HERE EVERY DAY. SO I THINK THIS IS A GOOD MOVE. ALL RIGHT. I DID HAVE ONE LAST QUESTION. THE. THERE'S ISLANDS THAT ARE PROPOSED TO BE CONSTRUCTED IN THE CITY. RIGHT OF WAY. IS THAT AS PART OF THIS PLAN? IS THAT WHAT I'M SEEING HERE? YES. IN THE PLAN WE ASKED THE APPLICANT TO ADD THE ISLANDS BASICALLY IN THE LOCATIONS. EXTEND, EXTEND THE RADIUS, RETURN, IF YOU WILL. AND CHRISTINE, CAN I ASK YOU TO MAYBE FLIP TO THE CONCEPT PLAN? THIS WILL HELP, BUT WE ASKED THEM TO EXTEND THE RADIUS RETURNS, PARTICULARLY AT THE INTERSECTION OF JACKSON AND INTERURBAN TO PROVIDE BETTER PROTECTION OF THE PARKING, AS WELL AS ALSO WHERE THE DRIVE APPROACHES CONNECT TO INTERURBAN TO DISCOURAGE PARKING RIGHT THERE AT THE DRIVE APPROACHES SO WE CAN MAINTAIN LINES OF SIGHT AND VISIBILITY. SO THE THE APPLICANT EXPRESSED CONCERNS REGARDING HAVING TO DO THOSE IMPROVEMENTS, BUT HE UNDERSTOOD OUR CONCERNS REGARDING TRYING TO NOT HAVE PEOPLE PARK RIGHT UP TO THE INTERSECTION OR POTENTIALLY BLOCKING HIS DRIVE APPROACHES. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THEM IN WORKING WITH THEM STRATEGICALLY LOCATED. I BELIEVE HE HAS A COUPLE OF OTHERS THAT HE'S ADDED DUE TO ENCORE UTILITY POLES THAT EXIST IN THE AREA. IF MEMORY SERVES ME CORRECTLY. IS THAT RIGHT? SO, YES. AND THE LOCATION OF FIRE HYDRANTS? YES. AND FIRE HYDRANTS. I KNEW THERE WAS ONE OTHER. SO BUT SO YES, WE ARE ASKING TO MAKE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS WITHIN OUR RIGHT OF WAY. THAT'S NOT UNCOMMON. IF YOU GO FURTHER SOUTH DOWN INTERURBAN, YOU'LL SEE EVERY NOW AND THEN THERE'S SOME BULB OUT. SO THAT'S THAT WOULD BE AN APPROPRIATE FEATURE WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. AGAIN, TRYING TO ALSO HELP BETTER MANAGE AND ACTUALLY HAVE BETTER DELINEATED PARKING AREAS, PARTICULARLY ON

[02:05:03]

[4. Zoning File 26-13 - Main Street/Central Expressway Form Based Code amendments: Consider and act on a request for a City-initiated amendment to the PD Planned Development – Main Street/Central Expressway Form Based Code regarding amending Section II. Sub-districts, Subsection D. Main Street related to building placement for accessory structures on properties adjacent to an alley, amending Section III. Signage, Subsection E. Permitted Signs related to “Flag, Corporate and Logo” signage, amending Section IV. Administration, Subsection H. Non-conformities related to correcting ordinance exhibit references and adding Appendix D, amending Section V. Definitions related to adding terms for flag, corporate flag, and flagpole, and amending and restating in its entirety the zoning and development regulations; approximately 540 acres generally located on the west and east sides of U.S. 75/Central Expressway, from Arapaho Road on the north and extending to the southern city limit line. Staff: Andrew Bogda]

IS THE MAIN STREET SUBDISTRICT EXPERIENCES REINVESTMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT. AND THEN ALSO WE NOTICED THAT WE NEEDED TO CORRECT EXHIBIT REFERENCES, ESPECIALLY SINCE WE ARE AMENDING AND RESTATING IN ITS ENTIRETY THE REGULATIONS. SO FIRST, DEALING WITH THE ACCESSORY BUILDING PLACEMENT ON PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY AND THE MAIN STREET SUBDISTRICT. SO AS I MENTIONED, AS THIS SUBDISTRICT EXPERIENCES REINVESTMENT AND REDEVELOPMENT, WE'VE RECEIVED REQUESTS FROM MULTIPLE PROPERTY OWNERS FOR RELIEF TO BUILDING PLACEMENT REQUIREMENTS, ESPECIALLY FOR RESTAURANT BUSINESSES. AND OFTENTIMES THESE BUSINESSES ARE DESIRING TO HAVE PATIO COVERS, WALK IN COOLERS, DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES, THINGS LIKE THAT.

SOMETIMES THEY'RE NEEDING TO HAVE THESE THINGS SUCH AS THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURES. AND SO THEY ARE REQUESTING SOME RELIEF TO SOME OF THE THE SETBACK REQUIREMENTS IN ORDER TO HAVE THIS. AND THIS IS BECAUSE MANY OF THE PROPERTIES IN THE SUBDISTRICT ARE SMALLER AND CONSTRAINED DUE TO PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS TAKING UP THE MAJORITY OF EACH LOT, AND THE BUILDINGS LOCATED ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER WITH COMMON WALLS, LEAVING LITTLE ROOM FOR ACCESSORY IMPROVEMENTS. SO THIS IS A MAP SHOWING THE. THE MAIN STREET SUBDISTRICT IS OUTLINED IN BLUE, AND THIS GIVES YOU A BETTER PICTURE FOR. YOU KNOW HOW THE PROPERTIES ARE

[02:10:02]

THE PROPERTIES IN PURPLE ON THE MAP ARE THE PROPERTIES THAT WOULD BENEFIT FROM FROM THIS PROVISION, AND THEN THE YELLOW INDICATES THE LOCATION OF THE ALLEYS. SO AS YOU SEE, THE VAST MAJORITY OF THESE PROPERTIES ARE THE, YOU KNOW, THE OLDER BUILDINGS THAT ARE LOCATED IN DOWNTOWN NORTH OF POLK STREET ALONG BOTH SIDES OF MAIN STREET AND THEN GENERALLY WEST OF GREENVILLE. AND THEN THERE'S A COUPLE OUTLYING PROPERTIES AS WELL. SO THE BUILDING PLACEMENT SUBSECTION OF THE MAIN STREET SUBDISTRICT REGULATIONS IS PROPOSED TO BE AMENDED BY ADDING THE FOLLOWING PROVISION TO THE BOTTOM OF THE LIST. SO FOR PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO AN ALLEY, THE SETBACK OF AN ACCESSORY BUILDING LOCATED ADJACENT TO AN ALLEY MAY BE REDUCED TO ZERO FEET FROM THE ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY. AGAIN, THIS IS APPROPRIATE FOR TWO REASONS.

ONE, BECAUSE THE PROPERTIES ARE CONSTRAINED. AND THEN SECONDLY, BECAUSE AN ALLEY PROVIDES A SEPARATION FROM BUILDINGS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE AND BECAUSE THIS PROVISION ONLY APPLIES TO ACCESSORY BUILDINGS ON THE SIDES ADJACENT TO THE ALLEY, THIS PROVISION IS APPROPRIATE. NEXT, WE'LL MOVE ON TO FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES AND ASSOCIATED DEFINITIONS. SO THE REGULATIONS FOR FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES ARE OUTLINED IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AS PART OF THE CITY SIGN REGULATIONS. AS I MENTIONED, COUNCIL APPROVED AMENDMENTS TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES RELATED TO FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES BACK IN APRIL, INCLUDING PROVIDING AND REVISING DEFINITIONS FOR FLAG, FLAGPOLE AND CORPORATE FLAG, ESTABLISHING MAXIMUM QUANTITIES OF FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES FOR PLATTED LOT, WHICH WE DID NOT PREVIOUSLY HAVE BEFORE. SAME THING WITH MAXIMUM FLAG SIZES AND FLAGPOLE HEIGHTS, AS WELL AS SETBACK AND PERMITTING AND SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS. THE REQUIREMENTS VARY DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY AND WHAT EACH PROPERTY IS OWNED AND DEVELOPED FOR. AND I'LL I'LL LINE THAT FOR YOU BECAUSE THE CODE PROVIDES SEPARATE SIGN REGULATIONS, INCLUDING FOR FLAGS. THE CODES FLAG REGULATIONS NEED TO BE AMENDED TO ALIGN WITH THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AMENDMENTS. SO WHAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS LARGELY IN ALIGNMENT WITH WHAT IS WHAT CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED WITH THE CODE OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS BACK IN APRIL. SO TO GO THROUGH WHAT THE CURRENT REGULATIONS ARE FOR THE DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS AS IT RELATES TO FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES.

AND THEN WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING WITH THESE CODE CHANGES. SO CURRENTLY THERE ARE ONLY ALLOWED FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES ARE ONLY ALLOWED IN MULTIFAMILY MIXED USE AND NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES AS PROPOSED. HOWEVER, WE WOULD ADD SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOMES, BUT PROVIDING SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS FOR FOR THOSE TYPES OF PROPERTIES. AND THEN AS FAR AS QUANTITY, CURRENTLY WE HAVE NO LIMITATION OTHER THAN A MAXIMUM OF ONE CORPORATE FLAG WHEN ACCOMPANIED BY A U.S. AND OR STATE FLAG OF EQUAL SIZE OR LARGER AS PROPOSED, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS. SO FOR FOR LOTS WHICH ARE OVER TEN ACRES WITH TWO OR MORE STREET FRONTAGES AND NONRESIDENTIAL OR MIXED USE IN NATURE. SO GENERALLY THESE ARE GOING TO BE YOUR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS, WHICH WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY PROPERTIES THAT MEET THIS CRITERIA IN THE DISTRICT. BUT THESE PROPERTIES THAT HAVE THAT MEET THIS CRITERIA WOULD BE ALLOWED TO HAVE UP TO SIX FLAGPOLES AND A MAXIMUM OF SIX FLAGS PER PLATTED LOT. ALL OTHER LOTS WOULD BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF THREE FLAGPOLES AND THREE FLAGS PER LOT FOR FLAGPOLE HEIGHT. CURRENTLY, THERE IS NO REGULATION AS PROPOSED. HOWEVER, WE WOULD SET A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 25FT ON SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOME PROPERTIES AND A MAXIMUM OF 40FT ON MULTIFAMILY, NON RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE PROPERTIES. AND BASED ON THE RESEARCH THAT STAFF DID PRIOR TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS, THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE SEEN IN A LOT OF OTHER OTHER CITIES THAT HAVE ADOPTED FLAG AND FLAGPOLE REGULATIONS FOR FLAG SIZE. CURRENTLY, THIS ONLY APPLIES TO CORPORATE FLAGS AND IT'S BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE PROPERTY. HOWEVER, WE'RE PROPOSING TO ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM FLAG SIZE OF 25FT■S FOR SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOME PROPERTIES AND UP TO 40FT■!S FOR MULTIFAMILY NON RESIDENTIAL MIXED USE PROPERTIES. AND THEN AS IT RELATES TO CORPORATE FLAGS. SO WE'RE PROPOSING TO ESTABLISH A MAXIMUM OF TWO FLAGPOLES PER PLATTED LOT MAY BE FLYING CORPORATE FLAGS ON THOSE LARGER PROPERTIES THAT ALLOW UP TO SIX FLAGPOLES. AND THEN FOR ALL OTHER LOTS WITH NON RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED USE ZONING THAT DO NOT MEET THE OVER TEN ACRE TWO PLUS STREET FRONTAGE REEMENT, LIMITING IT TO ONE FLAGPOLE PER PLATTED LOT MAY BE FLYING A CORPORATE FLAG. AND THEN FOR EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS, RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS, PUBLIC BUILDINGS AND MULTIFAMILY MAXIMUM OF ONE FLAGPOLE PER PER PLAT MAY BE

[02:15:06]

AND THEN WE'LL HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BEACH, THIS QUESTION IS REALLY JUST MORE FOR MY OWN EDIFICATION. I'M CURIOUS WHY AT LEAST THE PART ABOUT THE FLAGS, SINCE IT'S ALIGNING WITH WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL DID ON ORDINANCES. WHY WASN'T THIS JUST ON A CONSENT AGENDA? SO YEAH, SO THIS IS BECAUSE THIS IS PART OF A FORM BASED CODE.

AND WE'RE NEEDING TO AMEND THE FORM BASED CODE ZONING REGULATIONS. AND SO BECAUSE OF THAT, WE NEED TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING IN ORDER TO CONSIDER ANY AMENDMENTS TO THAT CODE, BECAUSE IT AFFECTS CERTAIN PROPERTIES WITHIN THAT DISTRICT. THANK YOU. MR. POINTER. I NOTED THAT THE CORPORATE FLAG IN THE EXISTING WAS ALLOWED TO FLY IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE STATE AND NATIONAL FLAG, BUT I DIDN'T SEE THAT IN THE NEW PROPOSED RULES.

IS THAT STILL THE CASE? SO THAT IS NOT THE CASE. YEAH. SO THEY THEY CAN HAVE A A CORPORATE FLAG WITHOUT A NATIONAL. YEAH. SO MAXIMUM OF ONE FLAT, ONE FLAGPOLE PER PLATTED LOT MAY BE FLYING A CORPORATE FLAG. SO IF THEY JUST WANT TO PUT THEIR CORPORATE FLAG UP THERE, THEY'RE THEY'RE ALLOWED TO DO THAT. OKAY. I WOULD JUST STATE THAT I WOULD INDIVIDUALLY OBJECT TO THAT. AND THE SECOND IS IF A FLAG IS IN DISREPAIR, SINCE WE'RE ALLOWING, IS THERE A WAY THAT YOU WOULD TELL SOMEONE YOUR FLAG, CORPORATE OR OTHERWISE, WAS IN DISREPAIR AND

[02:20:04]

AND I KNOW THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER THAT WERE KIND OF SEVERAL OTHERS THAT WERE KIND OF IN THAT BALLPARK. SO BUT YEAH, WE DID DO A, A, YOU KNOW, PRETTY GOOD RESEARCH ANALYSIS OF, YOU KNOW, DIFFERENT CITIES IN THE AREA. WHEN WE CAME UP WITH THESE REGULATIONS, ONE LAST QUESTION DOES, DOES IS THE CORPORATE LOGO OR AS BEING DESCRIBED, COULD I PUT MY CORPORATE LOGO ON THERE? OR COULD I PUT ANY KIND OF MESSAGE THAT I WANTED ON THAT FLAG? SO THE DEFINITION AS PROPOSED IS A FOR CORPORATE FLAG IS A FLAG BEARING THE EMBLEM OR INSIGNIA.

IT'S A IT'S AN INSIGNIA. YEAH. OKAY. SO IT WOULD NEED TO BE AN ACTUAL ON PREMISE BUSINESS OR ORGANIZATION. OTHERWISE IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED OFF PREMISE SIGNAGE IF IT WAS SOME OTHER BUSINESS OR SOMETHING, OR IF IT WAS A MESSAGE, YOU KNOW, THAT WAS NOT THE EMBLEM OR THE INSIGNIA OF THE BUSINESS, THEN THAT WOULD NOT BE IN KEEPING WITH WHAT CONSTITUTES A CORPORATE FLAG. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING THE VARIETY OF QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER COURT.

SO WHEN THE WHEN THIS GETS PUT IN PLACE, ARE THERE ANY PROPERTIES THAT ARE BECOME NONCONFORMING? AND THEN WHAT HAPPENS? THERE COULD BE, YOU KNOW, AND AT THAT POINT IN TIME, THEY DO BECOME LEGAL NONCONFORMING BECAUSE THEY THEY PUT IN SOMETHING UNDER THE OLD CODE BEFORE WE AMENDED THE CODE. AND SO BUT IF THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, IF THEY WERE, THEY WERE, THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED TO, TO REMAIN IN, IN THE FORM THAT THEY ARE. BUT THEY COULD NOT GO HIGHER, YOU KNOW, IN HEIGHT. THEY COULD NOT MOVE IT CLOSER TO THE ROAD. THEY COULD NOT MAKE ANY CHANGES WITHOUT GOING THROUGH SITE PLAN AND PERMITTING PROCESSES, ALL OF THAT. SO, I MEAN, THOSE ARE THE THOSE ARE THE AREAS WHERE WE WOULD, YOU KNOW, CATCH THESE THINGS AND, YOU KNOW, AND DETERMINE THAT WELL, YOU'RE NOT CONFORMING. SO YOUR OPTIONS ARE TO REMAIN AS IS OR, YOU KNOW, OR YOU NEED TO COME INTO COMPLIANCE. COMMISSIONER PURDY,

[02:25:11]

WITH A 96 FOOT FLAG ON IT AND TOOK IT BACK AT FIVE. I'M STILL GOOD HERE WITH WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING BECAUSE IT'S NOT PERMANENT. YEAH. SO, I MEAN, WE WE HAD A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TEMPORARY FLAGS. SO I MEAN, IF SOMEBODY WERE TO PUT, YOU KNOW, TEMPORARY FLAGS OUT, YOU KNOW, FOR AS PART OF HOLIDAY DECORATIONS OR SOMETHING, LIKE THEY COULD DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, OR SOMETHING LIKE YOU'RE LIKE YOU'RE DESCRIBING. BUT IF IT, IF IT BECOMES SOMETHING THAT IS PERMANENTLY THERE, THEN THEN I THINK THEY START TO GET IN MORE OF A GRAY AREA WHERE THEY'RE, IT'S MORE OF A PERMANENT FIXTURE, EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT ACTUALLY AFFIXED TO THE GROUND.

BUT THEN WE'RE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE PROBABLY GOING TO RUN INTO CODE COMPLIANCE ISSUES. THANK YOU.

OKAY, SO JUST SO IT'S CLEAR TO ME, THE FLAG AMENDMENTS ARE IN MORE OR LESS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ALREADY PASSED. THAT'S CORRECT. YES. I MEAN, WE HAD TO MAKE A FEW TWEAKS TO SOME OF THE WORDING JUST BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT I THINK WE USE TERMINOLOGY OF ZONING DISTRICT, WHEREAS BECAUSE THIS IS A FORM BASED CODE THAT HAS A LOT OF MIXED USE GOING ON, WE HAD TO, YOU KNOW, KIND OF REFINE IT TO A NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY OR TOWNHOME PROPERTY RATHER THAN TOWNHOME DISTRICT OR SINGLE FAMILY DISTRICT. BUT AS FAR AS THE HEIGHTS, YEAH, ALL OF THAT STUFF IS PLACEMENT THE ALL THAT THAT'S ALL THE SAME. THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT. AND I WAS JUST CURIOUS WHY YOU, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A, IT'S ALLOWED TO GO UP TO 40FT ON MULTIFAMILY OR NONRESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, BUT YET IF IT'S OVER 25FT, YOU GOT TO GET A PERMIT. YEAH. SO THE REASON FOR THAT, AND WE DISCUSSED THIS SEEMS LIKE ONCE BY. RIGHT. AND THEN IT'S RIGHT, RIGHT. AND, AND THAT'S ESSENTIALLY TO BE CONSISTENT WITH HOW WE'VE TREATED THINGS PREVIOUSLY. AND SO IN TALKING TO BUILDING INSPECTIONS, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE HISTORICALLY NOT REQUIRED A PERMIT FOR SOMEONE WANTING TO DO THIS ON A SINGLE FAMILY OR TOWNHOME TYPE OF PROPERTY. AND SO SINCE WE LIMIT SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOME PROPERTIES TO 25FT, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, MORE APPROPRIATE GIVEN THE THE HEIGHTS OF THE BUILDINGS IN THOSE DISTRICTS, YOU KNOW, WE FELT THAT THIS WAS, YOU KNOW, THE RIGHT PATH TO GO GO DOWN. AND THEN IF THEY WANT TO GO TALLER THAN 25FT, THEN THAT'S WHERE IT WOULD KICK IN THE PERMIT REQUIREMENT. AND THEY STILL HAVE TO GET A SITE PLAN AMENDMENT. EITHER WAY, IF IT'S A NON RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, OKAY. BUT THAT'S THE WAY THE LANGUAGE READS IN THE CODE THAT THE COUNCIL PASSED. THAT'S CORRECT. IS THAT ANYTHING OVER 25 WOULD HAVE TO GET A PERMIT ON THOSE NON RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY MIXED USE PROPERTIES. THAT'S CORRECT.

RIGHT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I WANT TO GO BACK TO THAT ALLEYS ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. NOBODY'S REALLY ASKING QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT. AND I SUSPECT SOME OF OUR SPEAKERS IN THE AUDIENCE ARE HERE FOR THAT THAT ISSUE. SO WHAT WHAT IS WHAT IS ALLOWED TODAY AS FAR AS ACCESSORY.

ACCESSORY. UNITS. SO AS FAR AS ACCESSORY ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. YEAH. SO, SO FROM THE REAR PROPERTY LINE, THEY'RE REQUIRED. FEEL FREE TO CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I BELIEVE IT'S TEN FEET.

SO IT'S, IT'S TEN FEET OFF OF THE REAR. AND SO REALLY WHAT THIS PROVISION DOES IS FOR IT'S MOSTLY BENEFITS, THOSE PROPERTIES THAT BACK UP TO AN ALLEY THAT HAS AN ALLEY ALONG THE REAR OF THE PROPERTY. AND SO FOR A, FOR ALONG THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE, THERE IS NO SETBACK REQUIREMENT CURRENTLY FOR ANY SORT OF BUILDING. AND SO, SO THOSE, THOSE PROPERTIES ARE ALREADY ESSENTIALLY ALLOWED TO GO UP TO THE ALLEY RIGHT OF WAY AS IT STANDS TODAY. BUT REALLY THIS IS BENEFITING THOSE PROPERTIES THAT BACK UPO THE ALLEY. OKAY. SO JUST CURRENTLY TODAY, IF IT'S A SIDE YARD, THEN THERE'S NO SETBACK FOR ANY BUILDING. CORRECT. SO IF, IF, IF THEY WERE LOOKING TO ADD AN ACCESSORY BUILDING ON, ON THE SIDE, THAT'S, THAT'S REALLY THERE TODAY, RIGHT? YES. WHETHER IT'S AN ALLEY OR A STREET OR IF IT'S ANOTHER ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT THERE'S REALLY NO CHANGE THERE. RIGHT? YEAH. BUT

[02:30:05]

I'VE GOT IT. LET ME SEE IF IT'S HERE. I'M IN THE A'S. SO THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINES AN ACCESSORY BUILDING OR STRUCTURE MEANS A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE DETACHED FROM THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING LOCATED ON THE SAME LOT THEREWITH, THE USE OF WHICH IS CUSTOMARILY INCIDENTAL AND SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. SO THE KEY THINGS ARE IT'S SUBORDINATE TO THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING. IT'S LOCATED ON THE SAME PROPERTY AS THE PRINCIPAL BUILDING.

TYPICALLY, WHEN WE'RE DEALING WITH ACCESSORY, IT'S DETACHED AND TYPICALLY IT CAN BE DETACHED. THERE ARE SCENARIOS WHERE YOU CAN HAVE ATTACHED ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. THERE ARE DIFFERENT BUILDING CODE REQUIREMENTS THAT COME INTO PLAY. BUT I HAVE SEEN THAT. SO LIKE, FOR EXAMPLE, SOMEBODY COULD HAVE LIKE A PATIO STRUCTURE THAT THEY DID THAT LOOKS TO BE FREESTANDING, BUT MAYBE THEY ATTACHED IT AT THE ROOF IF THE BUILDING CODE ALOUD FOR IT. SO THEN TECHNICALLY IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED ATTACHED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I THINK THE IN THE LAST ITEM, ADMINISTRATION IS PRETTY SELF-EXPLANATORY. THIS IS JUST CLEANING UP EXHIBIT NAMES AND THAT'S IT. MR. VICE CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU. ANDREW. IT JUST OCCURS TO ME THAT THERE MUST HAVE BEEN SOME SORT OF HARDSHIP THAT THAT SOMEONE WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT AS IT PERTAINS TO THESE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS, BECAUSE THIS AREA HAS BEEN THERE FOR 100 YEARS. AND SO NOW IT'S COMING UP AND I'M GUESSING IT WAS CONVENIENT BECAUSE WE HAD TO, WE HAD TO BASICALLY DO THE FLAG THING. AND SO, HEY, LET'S THROW THIS IN. BUT I'M ALSO GUESSING THAT THERE HAD TO BE SOME, PROBABLY ONE OF THOSE PURPLE PEOPLE THERE THAT WAS COMPLAINING ABOUT A HARDSHIP OR MAYBE NOT COMPLAINING, JUST BRINGING THAT UP. CAN YOU GIVE US A LITTLE CONTEXT THERE? YEAH, WE'VE ACTUALLY RECEIVED A AT LEAST A COUPLE OF REQUESTS, HANDFUL OF REQUESTS. AND, AND GIVEN THAT, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SEEING A LOT OF ACTIVITY IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, PARTICULARLY FROM RESTAURANT DEVELOPERS OR PEOPLE WANTING TO, YOU KNOW, DEVELOP OR REDEVELOP PROPERTIES TO ACCOMMODATE RESTAURANT USERS AND ALL OF THAT. AND SO GIVEN SOME OF THE REQUESTS THAT WE'VE ALREADY RECEIVED, AND WE KNOW THAT THERE'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE MORE THAT ARE COMING AND OR IF THERE'S NOT ONES THAT ARE COMING, WE WANT TO PROVIDE THIS AS A, AS A WAY TO PROVIDE RELIEF SO THAT SOMEBODY CAN MAKE BETTER USE OF THE PROPERTY AND PROVIDE THE PATIO COVER THAT THEY WANT OR PROVIDE THE WALK IN COOLER THAT THEY WANT. THERE'S, YOU KNOW, WE KNOW THAT THESE TYPES OF, OF BUSINESSES HAVE, YOU KNOW, HEAVY TRASH SERVICE REQUIREMENTS. AND SO THEY'RE, THEY'RE NEEDING DUMPSTERS WHERE PREVIOUSLY THEY COULD GET BY WITH A SHARED DUMPSTER OR THEY TRASH CART OR THEY DIDN'T NEED ONE BEFORE. AND SO, SO SINCE WE'RE GETTING A LOT OF THESE MORE INTENSIVE TYPE USES DOWN HERE, YOU KNOW, WE THOUGHT IT WAS IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE. AND GIVEN THAT WE'RE GETTING SOME PEOPLE WITH HARDSHIP, YOU KNOW, ALREADY THAT IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE TO,

[02:35:01]

THE CONCERN THAT WE'RE REALLY EXPRESSING HERE IS, I THINK WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALLEYS, WHEN I THINK ABOUT AN ALLEY, I THINK OF A PAVED DRIVE SPACE THAT GOES BEHIND OR THROUGH BUSINESSES, MAYBE BEHIND HOMES IN A RESIDENTIAL AREA, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING THAT WAS SPECIFICALLY PUT THERE AND IS IN SERVICE AND IS IN USE AS AN ALLEYWAY. IF IT WOULD BE POSSIBLE TO GO BACK TO THE OVERVIEW SCREEN. SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE ASKED YOU ABOUT THAT. THANKS, ANDREW. SO IN THE THE SOUTHWEST CORNER IS THE BLOCK THAT I'M, I'M SPEAKING ABOUT AND I KNOW IT'S HARD TO SEE HERE. THERE IS A REMNANT TECHNICALLY DEFINED AS AN ALLEY THAT THE CITY OF RICHARDSON STILL OWNS THE PROPERTY FOR THIS ALLEYWAY. AND IT'S IT'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF OUR RESIDENCE AT 114 EAST KAUFMAN STREET. IT'S IMMEDIATELY TO THE TO THE EAST OF THE TEXAS STREET PROPERTIES THAT THE CITY OF RICHARDSON RECENTLY PURCHASED. SO IF I GO BACK TO WITHIN THE LAST YEAR, WHEN THE NEST WAS HERE AND WAS PROPOSING TO DO DEVELOPMENT ON THE TEXAS STREET PROPERTIES, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING WAS THAT THEY WERE PROPOSING TO PUT A DUMPSTER BASICALLY RIGHT WHERE THAT ALLEY IS, AND WE SPENT A LOT OF TIME DISCUSSING HOW THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO WHERE MY SISTER, SHE IS AN AUTHOR. SHE WRITES FROM HOME RIGHT OUTSIDE HER WINDOW. YOU'VE GOT THIS ENTIRE SPACE ON THE TEXAS STREET LOTS AND THE COMMISSION AND THEN THE CITY COUNCIL ULTIMATELY AGREED. YEAH, THERE REALLY IS NO REASON TO PUT ANY KIND OF DUMPSTER OR TO ALLOW THAT THERE. LET'S PUT IT ON THE OTHER PART OF THE PROPERTY. OUR CONCERN IS THAT THIS ALLEY IS NOT A PAVED PIECE OF PROPERTY. THIS IS A PIECE OF

[02:40:05]

ADDITIONALLY, MR. BOGDAN AND I WERE SPEAKING EARLIER TODAY AND YESTERDAY. THIS WOULD ALLOW A CLOSER SETBACK FOR THE TEXAS STREET PROPERTIES BECAUSE WHILE IT IS A SIDE PROPERTY SIDE ANGLE FOR THE, I'M SORRY, A SIDE YARD FOR THE 114 EAST KAUFMAN STREET. IT'S A REAR SIDE FOR THE TEXAS STREET PROPERTIES. SO IF WE WERE ABLE TO EXEMPT SPECIFICALLY THAT ALLEYWAY FROM THIS FORM BASED CODE AMENDMENT, THAT WOULD SATISFY OUR CONCERNS. AND I DON'T THINK IT WOULD PROVIDE ANY KIND OF HARDSHIP TO ANY OF THE BUSINESSES THAT ARE SEEKING ANY KIND OF RELIEF BASED ON THIS AMENDMENT. IT WOULD SIMPLY PREVENT THE FUTURE THERE BEING A DUMPSTER OR SOME OTHER ACCESSORY BUILDING BEING IMMEDIATELY ALLOWED IN THIS AREA. AND I HEARD FROM MR. BOGDAN'S PRESENTATION AND OTHERS, PROBABLY 5 OR 6 TIMES THE WORDS TRASH SERVICE DUMPSTERS, SPECIFICALLY THE THINGS THAT WE'RE MOST CONCERNED ABOUT HERE. SO THAT IS OUR ASK, IS THAT WE WOULD SIMPLY EXEMPT THIS ALLEY FROM THIS AMENDMENT AND REVISIT THAT IN THE FUTURE IF AND WHEN IT BECAME RELEVANT, AS OPPOSED TO APPROVING IT CARTE BLANCHE WITH THE REST OF THE PROPOSED AMENDMENT AND SETTING OURSELVES UP FOR A CHALLENGE IN THE FUTURE. SO I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? SCOTT. EXCUSE ME. SCOTT. RICK AMOUR 923 BLUE LAKE CIRCLE. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIRMAN AND MEMBERS. I SENT A PROPOSAL IN ADVANCE OF TONIGHT'S MEETING ASKING YOU TO RECOMMEND AN ADDITIONAL AMENDMENT TO THE PD. STRIKING SPECIFIC AUTOMOTIVE AND INDUSTRIAL USES FROM THE URBAN SUBDISTRICT. WHILE STAFF TELLS ME THAT YOU CANNOT TAKE THAT ACTION TONIGHT, I AM HERE TO URGE YOU AND CITY STAFF TO BRING THIS FOR CONSIDERATION AT A FUTURE A MEETING AT YOUR MAY 19TH MEETING, CHAIRMAN MARSH SAID SOMETHING THAT REALLY STAYED WITH ME. IF WE ARE GOING TO CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE DISTRICT, WE HAVE GOT TO START AT SOME POINT. I AGREE, AND THERE'S NO TIME LIKE THE PRESENT WHEN THE CODE SAYS WALKABLE, MIXED USE DISTRICT IN ITS VISION AND LEAVES THE DOOR OPEN TO STORAGE LOTS AND BODY SHOPS AND INDUSTRIAL USES, IT SENDS A MIXED SIGNAL AND ANY ELIGIBLE USE IS AN INVITATION, EVEN IF IT REQUIRES A SPECIAL PERMIT. LEAVING IT IN THE CODE TELLS THE MARKET. BRING AN APPLICATION, MAKE YOUR CASE AND MAYBE IT WORKS AND YOU KNOW HOW THOSE NIGHTS GO. A SYMPATHETIC OWNER STANDS AT THIS PODIUM WITH A REAL STORY. A DEVELOPER ARRIVES WITH A HUGE VISION AND A NICE RENDERING. CASE BY CASE KNOWS THE HARDEST CALL TO MAKE. THAT'S WHY IT WOULD BE FAR BETTER TO SAY IT ONCE TO THE ENTIRE CATEGORY OF USES AS A MATTER OF POLICY. SO TONIGHT I AM SIMPLY ASKING THAT THIS ISSUE NOT DISAPPEAR BECAUSE IT FALLS OUTSIDE THE NOTICE FOR THIS CASE. SO TO STAFF, PLEASE BRING IT FORWARD. LET'S DEBATE IT PUBLICLY AND LET'S ALIGN THE ALLOWED USES WITH THE FUTURE. THE CITY HAS ALREADY SAID IT WANTS. THANKS SO MUCH. THANK YOU. HI. I WASN'T SURE. I'M ACTUALLY VERY PLEASANTLY SURPRISED TO FIND OUT. I GOT THIS LETTER IN MY IN MY. DID YOU JUST GIVE US YOUR NAME AND. OH, I AM SORRY. I'M JAMIE ELSE, AND I LIVE AT 405 RUSTIC CIRCLE. THANK YOU, AND I THIS IS KIND OF JARGON TO ME, SO I'M LIKE, I HAVE NO CLUE WHAT THIS WAS ABOUT, SO I'M NOT GOING TO COME AND FIND OUT WHAT THE ZONE CHANGE WAS AND ALL THAT. VERY PLEASANTLY. THAT WAS VERY PLEASANT TO FIND OUT THAT IT WAS NOT A HUGE THING. BUT I DID WANT TO SAY, I WALK OUT MY DOOR EVERY DAY AND LOOK OVER AND SEE THE BEAUTIFUL AMERICAN FLAG IN TEXAS FLAG THAT'S FLYING RIGHT THERE AT THE FRONT ON ON 75.

AND I JUST I HOPE THAT DOESN'T CHANGE BECAUSE THAT TO ME STARTS MY DAY WITH A SMILE. AND SO I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IF THERE'S ANY CHANGES TO THAT OR IF THAT WAS EVEN PART OF WHY THIS WAS CONSIDERED AND CHANGED. BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY I'M VERY PROUD OF RICHARDSON FOR HAVING THAT THERE, AND I HOPE THAT DOESN'T CHANGE. SO ANYWAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. OH, AND I WAS

[02:45:06]

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE SECOND COMMENT WE HAD WAS ABOUT THE AUTOMOTIVE USE PROHIBITING THAT IN THE INNER URBAN SUBDISTRICT. WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADDRESS THAT? YEAH. SO THIS THIS PUBLIC HEARING WAS WAS STRICTLY NOTICED, NOTICED FOR THE THREE TOPICS THAT ARE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, THE FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES, ACCESSORY BUILDINGS AND THE ADMINISTRATION SECTION. SO WITH THE WAY THAT THE NOTICE WAS WRITTEN, IT ONLY DEALT WITH THOSE THREE AREAS. AND SO EVEN THOUGH WE'RE AMENDING AND RESTATING THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS IN THEIR ENTIRETY, IT'S AN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION. WE CAN ONLY DEAL WITH THOSE THREE TOPICS TONIGHT. AND SO THAT'S WHY WE WE CONSULTED WITH OUR CITY ATTORNEY ON THAT AS WELL TO COME TO THAT. SO IT'S MORE ABOUT NOTICE AND AGENDA. AND WHAT'S BEFORE US TONIGHT THAT WE'RE ALLOWED TO CONSIDER. AND AND THAT'S CORRECT. RIGHT. I WOULD AGREE. AND I WOULD ADD ONE OTHER THING. WHEN WE START CONSIDERING REQUESTS TO REMOVE USES THAT ARE ALLOWED WITHIN THE DISTRICT, ONE OF THE THINGS THAT ALSO HAS TO BE FACTORED INTO IS WHETHER OR NOT WE WOULD BE MAKING ANYONE ADDITIONALLY NONCONFORMING. IF SO, THERE IS A HIGHER LEVEL OF SCRUTINY OF NOTICE THAT ALSO HAS TO BE SENT TO THOSE PROPERTY OWNERS. AND THAT WAS NOT DONE, NOR WAS THAT ANALYSIS COMPLETED. SO ANDREW IS CORRECT. WE DID CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY, AND HE DID ADVISE US TO STAY WITHIN THE NOTICE AS WE HAD PRESENTED IT, SINCE WE SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT WHAT SECTIONS THAT WE WERE AMENDING IN THE IN THE FUTURE. YOU KNOW, IF WE WERE CONSIDERING AMENDING USES THAT ARE ALLOWED IN CERTAIN SUBDISTRICTS, WE WOULD SPECIFY THAT IN THE NOTICE TO MAKE SURE WE GIVE PROPER NOTICE TO PROPERTY OWNERS. I ALSO WANTED TO MENTION, TOO, THAT THE CITY COUNCIL, AS PART OF THEIR GOALS AND TACTICS THAT THEY'VE ADOPTED EARLIER THIS YEAR. ONE OF THE GOALS AND TACTICS IS TO KIND OF RECONCILE UNDERSTANDING OF THE EXISTING FORM BASED CODES IN THE CITY AND RECONCILE DIFFERENCES IN UNDERSTANDING.

AND SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT STAFF IS PLANNING TO DO THIS FALL IS TO, TO KIND OF WALK THROUGH EACH CODE WITH THE COUNCIL AND, AND KIND OF, YOU KNOW, ARE WE STILL ON BOARD WITH THIS VISION? ARE WE STILL ON BOARD WITH THESE USES AND EACH SUBDISTRICT, ALL OF THAT.

SO THERE'S, THERE'S DEFINITELY MORE TO COME ON ALL OF THAT. AND SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE DEFINITELY GOING TO ADDRESS THAT IN THE FUTURE. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. MR. CHAIRMAN, I WAS JUST GOING TO ASK, SO GIVEN WHAT YOU JUST SAID, WHAT'S THE PROCESS FOR A CITIZEN TO BRING THAT UP AND TRY TO GET IT ON A FUTURE AGENDA. SO THEY'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME TO COUNCIL AND FILL OUT A CARD TO SPEAK AND ADDRESS COUNCIL AND MAKE THAT REQUEST DIRECTLY TO THEM DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT PORTION. OKAY. AND LASTLY, START WITH MR. KINDER. CONCERNS ABOUT THE ALLEYWAY NEXT TO 114 EAST KAUFMAN. I BELIEVE IT IS. I DO REMEMBER THE CASE FOR THE NEXT WHEN WE DISCUSSED THAT ISSUE OF THE POTENTIALLY THE DUMPSTER BEING LOCATED NEXT TO THAT RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. AND I THINK WE DID AGREE TO SOME SORT OF A MODIFICATION TO, TO MOVE IT. AND BUT AS FAR AS THAT PARTICULAR LOT AT THE CORNER OF, I THINK IT'S THE SOUTH EAST CORNER OF, OF KAUFMAN AND TEXAS STREET THAT'S NOW UNDER CITY OWNERSHIP. THAT THAT'S THE OLD STAYCATION COFFEE PROPERTY. I THINK MOST PEOPLE WILL RECOGNIZE THAT. THAT'S NOT THAT IT'S NOT THAT PROPERTY. WAS ON THE ACROSS. OH THAT'S RIGHT.

[02:50:12]

THEN THE ALLEY IN QUESTION IS CONSIDERED A SIDE LOT. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT THAT PROPERTY HAS TWO. SIDE LOTS. THAT'S CORRECT. HAS TWO FRONT. LOT TWO FRONT FRONT LOT LOT LOT LINES AND TWO SIDE LOT LINES. IT DOES NOT HAVE A REAR SIGHT LINE. THAT'S CORRECT. IS THAT RIGHT. THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. AND SO AS A RESULT, BECAUSE THERE IS NO SETBACK ALONG AN INTERIOR SIDE PROPERTY LINE, THEY SOMEONE COULD ALREADY GO UP TO THE SIDE PROPERTY LINE OR THE ALLEY, IF YOU WILL, WITH THE BUILDING. RIGHT. SO THAT'S AND THAT IS A, I MEAN, THAT'S, THAT'S A LEGAL INTERPRETATION OR. YEAH, THAT'S THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THAT, RIGHT. THAT DETERMINATION. SO THE. THE FACT THAT CURRENTLY THE CODE ALLOWS NO SETBACK FOR ANY BUILDING REQUIREMENT ON ANY SIDE LOT LINE, CORRECT. SO THERE'S NO CHANGE BY VIRTUE OF THIS PROPOSAL FOR THE ACCESSORY BUILDINGS TO HAVE A ZERO FOOT SETBACK FOR AN ALLEYWAY. ON THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO REALLY THIS PROVISION ONLY ONLY PROVIDES RELIEF FOR THOSE ACCESSORY STRUCTURES THAT ARE TO BE PLACED ALONG THE REAR OF PROPERTIES, BACKING UP TO AN ALLEY. WHAT? MR. CHAIR? YEAH. COMMISSIONER CLARK SO, SO WHAT DEFINES THE THE FRONT OF THAT LOT? I WOULD THINK IT WOULD BE HOW IT'S ADDRESSED. AND I WOULD GUESS THAT PROPERTY IS ADDRESSED ON TEXAS STREET. RIGHT. SO THE REAR WOULD BE THE.

YEAH. BUT BECAUSE IT'S A CORNER LOT, IT HAS TWO FRONTAGES. AND SO CORNER LOTS. WE TREAT BOTH FRONTAGES AS FRONTS. AND THEN THE CORRESPONDING INTERIOR PROPERTY LINES ARE THEN SIDE PROPERTY LINES. SO THERE'S NO REAR. ANDREWS. CORRECT. IN IN ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT, WHEN YOU HAVE FRONTAGE ON A STREET THAT IS TYPICALLY A FRONT LOT LINE. WHEN YOU HAVE A CORNER LOT, THIS IS WHERE IT GETS A LITTLE CONFUSING SOMETIMES. BUT WHEN YOU HAVE A CORNER LOT, THEN YOU HAVE TWO STREET FRONTAGES, SO TWO FRONT LINES. THEN WHEN YOU START APPLYING THE SIDE PROPERTY LINES, THEY'RE TYPICALLY CONNECT TO A FRONT PROPERTY LINE. SO WHEN IT COMES TO CORNER LOTS, IF YOU HAVE A, A SQUARE CORNER LOT, RIGHT, THAT HAS TWO FRONT LOT LINES, THEN TECHNICALLY FROM A ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDPOINT, IT HAS TWO SIDE LOT LINES. SO BASICALLY IT HAS NO REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND THAT'S THAT'S COMMON AMONGST ZONING AND DEVELOPMENT. I'VE WORKED IN MANY CITIES THAT WHERE THAT'S A COMMON THREAD IN ZONING APPLICATION. THERE'S THERE'S A PROPERTY. FURTHER TO THIS, JUST TO THE SOUTH, IF YOU WANT TO POINT OUT THE SECOND LOT TO THE SOUTH OF KAUFMAN AT TEXAS. SO THAT ONE THERE THAT HAS FRONTAGE ON TEXAS STREET. SO THAT'S A FRONT PROPERTY LINE. IT HAS TWO SIDE LOT LINES. NOW IN THAT ONE, IT DOES HAVE A REAR PROPERTY LINE. AND RIGHT NOW IN THE MAIN STREET CENTRAL CODE, A PERSON COULD BUILD A BUILDING UP TO THAT REAR PROPERTY LINE THREE STORIES TALL. SO THE ACCESSORY STRUCTURE AMENDMENT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, THE ACCESSORY BUILDING COULD BE BUILT THERE TODAY. THEY COULD BUILD IT ONE STORY, TWO STORY, THREE STORY.

RIGHT. MOST OF THE TIME, ACCESSORY STRUCTURES ARE LIMITED TO ONE STORY. BUT NONETHELESS, YOU COULD EVEN HAVE A PRINCIPAL BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD TAKE UP THAT FULL LOT. SO ORIGINALLY, I KNOW WE HAD ANDREW HAD SPOKEN WITH MR. KINDER EARLIER TODAY TO SEE IF WE CONSIDERED WHETHER OR NOT TO EVEN REFER TO IT AS A PAVED ALLEY. BUT WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THE ANALYSIS, AGAIN, THERE'S NO THERE'S NO DIFFERENCE FROM THAT

[02:55:03]

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION OR EMOTION? MR. BEACH? WELL, FOLLOWING ALL THIS DISCUSSION, I'VE MOVED THAT WE RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF ZONING FILE 2613 WITH THE VERBIAGE AS A AS PRESENTED. MR. VICE CHAIRMAN. SECOND, I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE ZONING FILE. 2613 AS PRESENTED. ALL IN FAVOR. PASSES

[5. Staff report on pending development, zoning permits, and planning matters.]

YES. PLANNING MATTERS. CORRECT. SO THE THERE HAVE BEEN NO CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS SINCE YOU LAST MET ON THE 16TH. HOWEVER, CITY COUNCIL IS GOING TO RECONSIDER ZONING FILE DASH 26-09 AS IT RELATES TO THE AMENDMENTS RELATED TO ZONING PROTEST PROCEDURES AND THE DEFINITION OF FAMILY THAT WAS TABLED FROM THEIR MEETING ON JUNE 15TH. SO THEY WILL RECONSIDER THAT MATTER. THEY RECEIVED CORRESPONDENCE FROM A RESIDENT, AND THEY HAD THE RESIDENT HAD INDICATED IN THEIR COMMENTS THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY WANTED THE CITY TO CONSIDER SOME ADDITIONAL REFINEMENTS TO THE THAT LANGUAGE. AND AND SO THE CITY CITY STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON, ON GETTING SOME ADDITIONAL REVIEW DONE AS IT RELATES TO

[03:00:03]

AND I JUST WANTED TO SAY THAT I'VE APPRECIATED WORKING WITH ALL OF YOU AND AS WELL AS THE CITY COUNCIL, THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, ALL THE STAFF HERE, ALL THE RESIDENTS AND BUSINESS OWNERS IN TOWN. SO YEAH, I'LL MISS WORKING WITH EVERYONE HERE. AND BUT YEAH, THIS IS A, YOU KNOW, AN OPPORTUNITY THAT, YOU KNOW, I COULDN'T PASS UP. SO MOST DEFINITELY. SO MIDLOTHIAN IS VERY LUCKY TO GET YOU. SO BEST, BEST OF LUCK TO YOU AND THANK YOU FOR ALL YOU DID FOR US. WE'LL MISS YOU. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A QUESTION, MR. BEACH.

YEAH. I MEAN, WE DID WHAT NEEDED TO BE DONE WITH THIS ZONING FILE, BUT WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING TO HELP THE GENTLEMAN WITH WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A GHOST ALLEY. THAT DOESN'T DOESN'T GO ANYWHERE. IS THERE ANYTHING THAT CAN BE DONE? IS THAT SOMETHING THAT THE COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL WOULD HAVE TO ADDRESS TO GET HIM SOME RELIEF? BECAUSE THAT'S I MEAN, WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, IT DOESN'T TIE TO ANY STREE EXCEPT, YOU KNOW, TURN IN THERE YOU ARE. YOU'RE AT THE END OF IT. SO IT SEEMS LIKE THERE SHOULD BE SOME WAY TO GET SOME RELIEF TO TAKE CARE OF THAT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY EVEN USES IT, HE SAID. IT'S A GRASSY PATH, SO I'M JUST CURIOUS. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S SOMETHING WE COULD DO FOR A CITIZEN. WELL, LET'S JUST SAY RIGHT NOW, WITH RESPECT TO THE ALLEY, THERE'S NO PLANS FOR IT. SO COULD IT POTENTIALLY BE ABANDONED AT SOME POINT IN TIME? YES, TYPICALLY ON ALLEY ABANDONMENTS THEN ONE HALF GOES TO THE THE ADJOINING PROPERTY OWNER. SO HE COULD POTENTIALLY BENEFIT FROM THAT. BUT BUT IT'S THE CITY HASN'T TO MY KNOWLEDGE, THE CITY IS NOT INTERESTED IN ABANDONING THE ALLEY OR THERE'S NO TIMELINE ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THAT MIGHT CHANGE. SO IT'S IN IN THAT PARTICULAR PROPERTY OWNER'S REQUEST OR IN THEIR PARTICULAR CASE, THAT THEY HAVE MORE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS RIGHT NOW UNDER THE EXISTING ZONING WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT THAT THEY COULD PUT A THREE STORY BUILDING RIGHT UP ON THEIR PROPERTY LINE, I UNDERSTAND.

OKAY, SO BUT YEAH, BUT BUT OTHERWISE THERE'S NO PLANS FOR THAT ALLEY. AT LEAST NOTHING IN THE IMMEDIATE FUTURE THAT I'M AWARE OF. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER QUIRK. YEAH, I AGREE WITH THAT. IT'S KIND OF A GENERATIONAL PROPERTY THERE. I WOULD HOPE THERE'S SOMETHING WE CAN DO TO TO LOOK AT THAT. BUT BUT I HAD TWO OTHER THINGS. CONGRATULATIONS, ANDREW ENJOYED WORKING WITH YOU. BUT I DID HAVE A QUESTION. WHAT'S THE STATUS OF 26-07 THE ONE WE INDEFINITELY POSTPONED? YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE HAVE AN UPDATE AT THIS TIME, BUT WE'LL DEFINITELY REACH OUT TO THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE. YEAH, I GUESS IT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER SLASH APPLICANT AND FIND OUT WHAT'S WHAT THE STATUS IS OF THAT. AND, AND IF THERE'S, THERE'S NO MOVEMENT, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE MIGHT CONSIDER ASKING THEM TO WITHDRAW THE CASE. SO IF WE DON'T SEE ANY, ANY YOU MEAN CHRISTINE MAY LOOK. WHAT'S THAT? YOU MEAN CHRISTINE MAY LOOK INTO IT. YES. YES. WHAT WHAT PROPERTY IS THAT. IT WAS IT WAS ANOTHER AUTOMOTIVE USE IN THE INNER URBAN DISTRICT. IT WAS AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF BISHOP AND DAVIS. JACKSON. I'M SORRY. BISHOP AND JACKSON. YEAH. THE BUSINESS. ALL RIGHT, THEN WE

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.