completely out on its own, but we have looked at a number of facilities like this. We'd love something that's already got a big parking lot in place that's got the usable square footage, something like that, to repurpose would be a really a home run for us. If we can find something awesome. Thank you. I love that idea of not having a bunch of empty buildings sitting around in Plano. Sure, Shelby. Thank you, Doctor Smith. Sticking in the category of land acquisitions for the $15 million for Envision Oak Point for Lavon Farms. Are we looking at a specific area of that, or is that just holding $15 million in reserves? In case we know this 15 million is specific, we've already got the appraisal for the different parcels that we've identified in the plan. We don't know exactly when they're all going to be. When the transaction will occur. But that 15 million is based off of the specific plot or locations that we've identified in that plan with an appraisal attached to it. So we know if things develop as the plan is working through the planning process, what we see, we know where we're going to have park land, where we're going to have trail, and that 15 million is pretty much right on the button. Okay, could you all share those maps with me? Yeah, I think I mean, the mark those are going through the planning departments. One of the things we're waiting for is, is the final plans to actually be developed and submitted. So we've actually been working through various iterations of that with with the owner, but we're happy to share with you kind of the, the preliminary aspects. But again, until it's filed it's not final and sure. Right. Yeah. I'd like to see the preliminary please. Sure. Thank you. Oh thank you mayor. Well thank you, Doctor Smith for that excellent presentation as alway. Thank you. And first of all, I appreciate that, especially given the donation, you know, for Madam Park that that we are, you know, making do with maybe less for parks in the bond package than has been the case in the past. But I was wondering specifically about the $5 million for unidentified land acquisitions. I know that, for example, at Los Rios and Jupiter, we were able to acquire some land that could be used for parkland, could be used for something else with a different source of funds. And, you know, we're starting a land banking fund that obviously could buy land. And, you know, we could later decide to use it for parkland if we wanted to. So I was just wondering, and now that I'm making it more global, I don't know if this is a question for you, Ron or for Mark, but do we think we need 5 million for something we haven't identified yet, or are there other, other sources of funds that we might be able to use for an unexpected opportunity, if that were to arise? Well, first of all, answer yes. So we do have sites in the park master plan that demonstrate or that show potential or future acquisition. So if those properties become available, we would want to have the money to buy those. So we may have identified something, but until it comes up for sale, we can't buy it. Until that owner wants to sell it to us. But we want to have the funding available. So when that day comes, if we if we only asked for money for acquisition, when we knew that we had a pending sale, the Montessori school that our city manager mentioned, we were not able to be first in line because we weren't able to move fast enough. So having that money available is really a key part of building out this system. Okay, well, thank you for that response. I really appreciate it. Well, and I guess the second part where I was going to ask the city manager, though, just about the budget and the Treasury more globally, we have you know, I agree we have to have money at the ready, otherwise an opportunity could arise. And we can't say, you know, we'd love to buy that in 2029 after our next bond election. But do we, do we have other sources of funds, you know, in the Treasury or elsewhere in the budget where we might be able to, you know, to purchase that and then go for a bond in 2029 to kind of repay the land banking fund or whatever the case may be. Well, we have cash flow that we could actually pay for, but the issue of waiting for years to be able to backfill and refill that cash flow is going to create a hole somewhere else in the budget. So the issue that we've done with the land bank is the idea that we would hold that property and then whatever the, the, the disposition of that property becomes repays the land bank. So it's always made whole. Right. So the issue I think with, with going into the Treasury and trying to take funds out of the Treasury is a lot of those are CIP dollars, their bond dollars that are dedicated to specific areas. So to try to take that and apply it in this way would create a hole further down the line. So I think you could do that in the short term. Long term, it becomes a much more difficult position. Well, thank you both for those responses. I appreciate it. All right. Thank you Ron. You're welcome. Appreciate it I'm sorry. Additional question along those lines. Not for you, Doctor Smith, but thank you. Thank you very much. You're off the hook. One of the things I'm mindful of and we've we've been in this situation before, will issue bonds and sit on the money in case we are then able to use it. And I know that's not our standard practice, but given that issuing bonds doesn't happen that quickly either, even if the authorization has already been attained, if we were to have authorization for bonds without issuing them, and we could access the capital we already have from the Treasury, in the event that something comes available and we have to move quickly and then issue the bonds for which we already have authorization after the fact. So we're not just paying interest on the bonds after issuing them, hoping that something comes available that would still require that we put out those bonds for authorization, but would give us time. Not without having to wait for the next bond cycle to be able to issue those bonds and then start backfilling that. The voters would have already approved. So I think part of what you're getting into is a little bit of our cash financing and our laddering of our, our maturities, and so that becomes part of the challenge as well. As you all know, we actually invest those dollars. So it's not just cash sitting out there. There is a number of securities that we have in our treasury at any given time. So we're always happy to look at those elements. But I think it also becomes an issue again of the timing side of things, of when we do our issuances, which is we have on a regularly scheduled program. But to your point, Councilman, we try to we work very hard operationally that if we've issued bonds, we try to spend that money within three years. And that's a best practice that we have from Gfoa that our our finance and our budget department try to hold us to. And we work very hard to do that, but we try to do that in order to avoid things like arbitrage and other elements of interest earnings. But the other thing that I think we have is we try not to issue debt until we know we're going to spend that money. So to your point, if it if we're in a four year cycle, we're not issuing all of that debt in year one. We're issuing it on an annual basis. So projects that are in year four, we will issue that debt for it in year four. So we're a little bit more just in time along those lines. Of course. Okay. Next item discussion and direction on political signs at city facilities. Salsameda. You got he's got he's got he's got visuals. He got all sorts of good stuff. Okay. Leave us waiting. Let's see. Good evening. Council LaMotta building inspections here to look at our political sign ordinance. Maybe some review and direction and possible updates. So the first portion of our ordinance gives us the private property at 36ft■!S. Second portion, what we're really here to really look at is any updates. The first part we have stricken out, it was the five signs per candidate we stopped enforcing that early February. Number two is of course four square feet in size per sign and then eight foot setback from the property line where the signs can be located. Number four is the timing of when the signs can be placed and when they must be removed. And of course, the last part is our signs are prohibited and right of ways. So some elements to consider are of course the size. The was the number stacking, and the overall height. And just for a visual on schematic sizes, you can see comparisons for square feet. Largest 36. And then now moving to our visuals, this is actually the typical 18 by 24. This isn't two by two but rather 18 by 24. And as you see, stacking would be what we have seen where you put one sign on top of the other, they fit neatly inside the corrugated portion of it. And this is something that we've seen sometimes we've seen three on top of each other so that it kind of grows. But if you did the two foot by two foot vertical stack, you would have a eight square foot total. This would be representational of a eight square foot total, two foot by two foot. So this is a two foot by two foot sign put together. You can see the 18 by 24 visual. So how high do we go with signs is a question. Do we go with the stack. Thank you. And so yeah we've if it goes into the ground of course then and you put it all the way down at the stake here. You get it all the way down to the ground. Is it going to be five foot. Is it going to be, you know, four foot six. So that's that's something that we measure or could and then if you're looking at of course, the 24 inch by 24 inch, it's going to be a little bit if these were together, it's going to be a little bit taller. You can see that. So this is actually what we have in place. In my left hand is the four square foot. This would be two signs stacked. We see this a lot. As you can see on the visual. And that's the sign we usually see one foot I think it's eight inches by two foot. So that is what we have. And open for your input. What are you suggesting? Well, I think if you let me ask you this though, sir, what are what are other. Comparable cities around us. What what do they do? Because I feel like we're we're the wild, wild west here in Plano. And I it's not just I don't see that that sign just mass of signs all on polling places in other cities, like like I do here. I and I guess the question for Michelle would be what's enforceable? Sure. Yeah. It's a mixed bag of what we can do and where we, we end up with situations. So I think all the signs you see there in the, in the picture and what we've got here are what everyone's using. You do see signs that are larger and on the close to the last few days of the election, we did. And we then patrolled and we removed those signs. So we did that all day, every day for the last week or so. And it that's why you saw so many different signs. It was an attempt of course, to, to get the word out and many people know they're in violation. But it's are they going to come get it or not. And we, we do. But it's just, you know, enforcement and so that's why you see so many different signs. And I think, I don't think we're any different than any other city as far as signs are concerned. And the amount of them perhaps we do see more in Plano, but I think I think that's just because this is where I frequent and look and observe. So it's hard to say so, so, so I think the direction we're asking is do we allow stacking or do we not allow stacking of signs. Is that the is that the bottom line. And is there a maximum height. Right now we're at this this is where we are right now. This is where we are right now. But what you see is this size, this is the popular size. Obviously, there's probably cost involved. And if you look at that picture, you can tell they're all this size. But everyone could do this. They don't. But but they could. And this is what we have in our ordinance. Thank you. I so here's here's my comments. I have no idea. You know what is possible and what is not. But I would like to see less stacking and a, you know, a restriction on heights as to the signs at the polling places, anything that would help to be fair for all the candidates who are running. So we don't have a monopoly of one candidate, you know, because they get there at 3:00 in the morning and take over the entire field. I don't know whether or not that could be done, but I would like to see that every all candidates get a chance to be able to put their signs out there. As for heights, I don't know how you can enforce because I've seen people who would have one sign that's not attached to the second sign, but the first sign would be all the way down to the dirt, and then the second sign would, you know, they would just raise it a little bit. So it looks like a stacking. But there are actually two different signs. So that that's stacking together. See this one fitting inside this one it the wire harness didn't go all the way down. This one's taller. That's what was what you're talking about. I will say there's variation on on different signs. So anyway you can see it on my statement. So that's what I would like to see if we could work on to help. Sort of, you know, even the, the, the playing field for all people who are running for an office or elected position in Plano, that's that's how I would like to see it. I'm sorry. Yes. What I'm having a problem right here is really tied to safety. If you see what's on the screen here, right next to the driveway, a vehicle coming out, it's going to be blocked by the further their vision is going to be blocked either way here. And that's due to height but also tying them together. I now have a wall where if a person is coming out of that driveway, their vision is going to be impaired. And heaven forbid if you know, we have an accident because we have political signs up. But that's that's an issue I have. So I think it's something about height, but also ganging them together where I have this wall of signs. I think there should be distinct, separate signage with a certain height limit, particularly around the driveways, that people who are in their vehicles can readily see oncoming traffic. That is my outside of that. If they stack them, as long as it's not near a driveway, I'm probably okay with that. Shelby. That's good. I just want to better understand the problem is the problem you're having is your team doesn't really know how to enforce because it feels like these signs right here could technically fall under our ordinance because they're smaller than these. But the problem is, it's actually two signs. So you're not sure. Is that what we're really trying to solve tonight? The stacking is new. That's really the only thing that we were looking at. And when you look at the two signs on top of each other like this is called, it's within the four square feet. We're not having an issue with it. The only problem which was alleviated in early February was the five. Right. And we already know about that. So that was the only thing the signs that started getting produced, mass produced basically the last few days of the election were large. And so the signs were, well, they exceeded the size. And that was the issue, but we removed them. So that that was probably the only thing that was a problem. That's enforcement. It's not allowed. So if we want to set a certain if we want to allow stacking, that's not in the ordinance right now. We don't have this as an as an allowance. Okay. So it's just really for you guys to know if you want to let people stack. And if we want to make it smaller. Yes, that's that's probably it. Do we want to allow people to stack and if so, how many? I wouldn't go more than two. Personal. Yeah okay. Shelby I'll say that like a lot of people, I find dozens or hundreds of political signs at a polling place tacky. But the only real issue I see to echo Councilman Horn's concern is obstruction of visibility, where it matters not all places, not all parts of a polling location is it going to present an issue, but where it does, that matters now, actual, you know, stacking of signs and connecting them like you're holding Doctor Smit. They're never going to actually be that tall with two standard sized yard signs together, because those wires are going to be in the ground and nobody's going to stack a sign like that with a tall wire like that, because the wind's just going to blow it. And it's going to be with a short wire going all the way to the ground. So like if you turn that upside down, Doctor Smith and then pretend the wires aren't at the top, that's the. Yeah. And then on the floor, that's the white part is as high as it's actually going to go, because they're going to be using short wires. I speak from some experience here, and even that's going to present a challenge with the wind, where you'll see it more often is with a single sign with short wires stuck all the way to the ground, and then one immediately behind it with the taller wires so it looks stacked. And I don't know that there's a way around that, or if you would even want a way around that, other than where there are actual visibility concerns, you just say no higher than two feet. And whether that's one sign or 20, I don't care as long as it's not higher than two feet. So there are matters of practicality, but I think the only real thing I care about is visibility, where it's needed. We do have as a reminder, eight foot eight feet back from the property line and that is the setback that we have. So you can't go any farther than that. So in that picture, your visual, it looks like it's right in the driveway. It is. But when you pull up to the driveway, you've still got eight foot out in front. So but that's near the road. There are certain areas of the parking lot depending on the polling location, where that visibility can matter as well. Yeah. So anyway, those are the only things I really care about. Yeah, I had a couple questions or comments. When we're talking about stacking, are we only talking about the same sign one on top of the other or could it be two different signs for two different candidates? We don't get into content, so it could be two different signs. Yeah okay. So I don't know if that is something that needs to be clarified. No. Because we don't actually look at what we don't really read the sign per se in our enforcement. The height. Okay. And then the other comment, I just want to bring up, because it was it was brought to me. So I, I want to bring it up publicly even though I think I know the answer someone had recommended or suggested that candidates agree when they fill out their city paperwork for local municipal elections to limit the number of signs. Because we, as a council, agreed in 2021 that we wanted to keep the signs to a limit of five, and so asking that candidates agree to that when they filed their paperwork. I know what the answer is going to be as to, but I want to put it on the record that that I'm asking that question if, if even if they are not agreeing to there being properly informed that this is what the city requests, would you like to take that? Michelle? Sure. Thank you. I think we'd have a problem with First Amendment concerns. I don't think people can agree to waive their rights, or that we as government can force them to waive their rights. Okay, but could we have them sign something saying this is the preference of the city? I believe we have a similar optional form that is signed by candidates to comply. I can't remember what the term is. They they could acknowledge the ordinance and they could. You could express a preference and ask them to please, as a courtesy to the city, comply. Okay, I think that thank you. Yes. Just just acknowledging the limit of five. Rick, did you have a question or comment? Sorry, just a quick comment. First, I think on Maria's point there, I see your thing about trying to be equitable for everybody, but in my perspective, it's when you're campaigning, as we've all done, you work hard as you can and it's, hey, like the early bird gets the worm, the first person there at 1201 puts the sign up there. They get prime real estate. So I don't have a problem with trying to make allowances for that. It's let's let the market, you know, dictate or the hard work of the candidate dictate as far as the stacking. Yeah, I agree came from over here somewhere that that I think that the two signed is should be Max and as Shelby said, you know just the two signs measured that that shouldn't be the height. Because again, sometimes you know, the stakes they may have the full stake or they may have a, you know, partial stake. So you know, I think we need to make an allowance for that. So it may maybe it is a, you know, 4 foot or 5 foot or something, you know. But I think stacking no more than two should, you know, should be the rule. No more. I've been guilty of this pyramids and, you know, all these kind of things people use their imagination. But I think just two, you know, flat facing out signs would be fine. And then the last thing kind of on, on Councilman Williams point is, I know we have some like in our fence ordinance and things. We have some setbacks that you can't obstruct. You know, visio. So we might want to add something in there that if it's deemed to be an obstruction for traffic somehow that the signs could be, could be picked up, you know, just from a safety standpoint. So like, even though you're eight foot setback, is there because Councilman Williams was concerned about you might still have a little blockage of view at some, you know, at some point, because traffic does move rather quickly through some of these major intersections here. And I'd hate to see, you know, anything happen for that. So I think that that would be left to the person on the ground or your staff is if it's deemed to be a safety hazard, they can be they can be moved. I don't know how we say that, Michelle, because that's kind of a loosey goosey way. But just, you know, people know use common sense. If it's blocking vision, don't put your sign there. We do have a visibility triangle that is used when we install fences and have a permit for that at alleys, and we could use the same thing at a driveway at each of the libraries, and had that triangular area off limits on the left. And the right for signage. And that could be something that we could include. Yeah. That's it. And if I might add, I think something key that you said there is that we could market in advance of that midnight deadline where they can go up, that this area is off limits because folks don't want to put their sign there. You know, those cost money and then get it removed. You know, it's better to mark out the area and say no signs here for safety, you know, Councilman. Sorry. Can I ask one point of clarification, Councilman, you mentioned two signs and you said with some degree I think it's easier to have a total number so that when they're out there with their tape measure, they're looking and it sounds like if you wanted two signs like that to be able to go, that's, that's 40 to that size, because I wouldn't want to have two, four by fours. Correct. Stuck on top of it. But knowing knowing that there may be a that would be this size right here actually this is this is the actual larger allowance we have for square feet. That's what we see most of the time. They're cheaper. It's what you see up there. But when faced with what can I get, what can I get and what's allowed? This is on the ground. These would be two signs. This would be allowed. This is what we have right now. Nobody's doing it. But this is what we have. So my question is, Councilman, is that what you want or would you rather have two of the other signs and then just two? Yeah. Personally, I mean, I that's all I ever use. Was the one that Doctor Smith is holding was two stacked on top of each other. And it worked two times for me. So I mean, I think that would be I think that would be okay. At what size though? I think it would be. You want to be specific about the size or I think the size. What is that standard size right there. That's I think that's the 18 inch by 24, which is the second line. Okay. You can see up there the graphic schematic 18 by 24. And then the 24 by 24, which is this one. Oh yeah. So 24 is by far I think always been the most popular sign. And from a cost standpoint, as a candidate that's you can order bulk. It's pretty efficient. So if you're if you're doing that to that point, Councilman, that's 36in. If you wanted to give a grace amount because there may be some error between those. Do you want to just say 40in? Yeah, 40in maximum regardless of stacking 40in. I would even say maybe four feet just because, you know, they might not be quite on the ground, you know, because there could be some wires. There's got to be some. The four feet is what Celso has. Yeah we have well yeah we have four foot. We have four square foot maximum on right now. But that's 24 by 24 which is this. Yeah. But what Celso is holding up is four feet high. Yeah. Right. So yeah which is four foot high I was just saying there would be some wire coming out of the ground and then some wire between. That's that's where I got the five foot max. Yeah. I think five. That's where I have no more than an 18 by 24 sign. Okay. Done. There you go. So 18 by 24. Then five feet is pretty tall. Yeah. That's. Yeah. I wasn't wanting to go taller than my wife, so. But well if you're going with that then this goes away. This goes away. And we're going with that, which is that's what we're the consensus is. But what I'm saying is five feet is a very tall. Yeah. I mean four feet I think I could stand up okay. Douglas Adams prescribed the ultimate answer here. I'm 42 here. So I would I would still be more interested in four feet than five feet. So no five feet for the four foot would be if you turn that around, that would be exactly. So that'll be the issue. It's it'll be when we measure exactly four foot. If you're if you if you hit a rock when you were putting it in and you were putting it in the ground, it's a little bit over. I mean, that's why we had the five foot. It would. But why do we even want to go that high since we originally wanted to? That's just to give a little play, you know, if it's. Exactly. But those aren't two feet tall. Those are 18in tall. Okay. So combined that's less than 40in. That one isn't. That's correct. Let's see if we can wrap this up real quick. So we have we have. Let me make sure I understand this council. We have two of the 18 by 24 signs. So that's it's kind of an an or 218 by 24 signs up to four feet. I would keep it even simpler and just say no sign shall extend higher than 40in, in 40in or 42. If you want to give two extra inches of grace. And that covers two signs stacked together. Together, it covers a bunch of little six inch signs, and we'll see how creative people can get. Just no sign shall extend higher than 40 or 42in. I really don't care which I do want to go on record saying that political signs at polling places do not win or lose elections. Yeah, but people get really passionate about them. So let us let us work on bringing back the 42in as the maximum height we will bring back. Also drafting that we're that that's 48. So it would be lower than that. This is this is 48 right here. This is this is four foot tall. This is four foot tall. Right here. So we're lowering it. It will be 42 is what we're saying. So 42in and we will be striking the section that we were not enforcing on the number and striking that section or it's going to be to fit the height of two stacks, whatever you fit the height. Because if you do a if you do a 12 inch sign, it's up to 42in, regardless of the number, 42in is the max. I think we're there. Okay. For all future discussions, we all need to bring tape measures. There we go. Okay, thanks. Thank you. Council. Thanks. So thank you Council. Our next item is item for consent and regular agendas. Is there an item Council member would like to remove? Mr. Mayor, I'd like to pull item K okay. All right. Council items for discussion or action on future agendas. All right. We will take a recess and return at 7:00. Thank you. Questions. That's the best way to be done. That's when. Yeah, that's a good time to look. Look at cycling I did was I every year already during summer. Yeah we're ready. Who would take her to Thailand to sink or swim? Yeah, yeah. I now declare the Plano city Council is reconvened in open session. That all members are present. We'll begin tonight's meeting with the invocation led by Josh Allen, lead pastor with Parkway Hills Baptist Church. And please join the council reciting the Pledge of Allegiance and Texas Pledge. Would you please stand if you can? Thank you. It's an honor to be here. Would you pray with me? Father, we are so grateful that we can gather tonight, in this week, that we will celebrate with one another. A week that reminds us to be thankful for so much that we are blessed with father. So much that you have given us so much as it relates to this nation, as it relates to our state, and as it relates to our city in this community. And so, father, we are grateful to you for the blessings that you give. And Lord, tonight we especially ask that you would give such wisdom, such care to this council. Father, as they serve faithfully this city. God, would you give them wisdom to make decisions that would not only honor you father, but would lead to the flourishing of this city and father, that you would continue to allow this community to be a place that not only flourishes for the residents that are here, but God for those who are coming in. Father, that we would be a place that is welcoming, that is loving, and God that we would look to honor you in those things. And so, father, tonight, once again, we ask for that blessing and we ask God for this wisdom and care for this body, this governing body. Lord, as you would give them all that they need to lead. Well. And so, father, we are grateful to you. And it's in Jesus name that we pray. Amen. Amen. Thank you. Stay right there. So we have one proclamation, and I'd like to read it. Salvation Army Red kettle Christmas campaign. Whereas the organization works throughout the year to help those in need and is well known for Christmas campaign that includes the Red kettle and Angel tree drives. And whereas the Red kettle Christmas campaign, established in 1891, collects donations that stay local and provides assistance as well as Christmas gifts and provisions during the holidays to those lacking adequate resources. The Angel tree was created by the Salvation Army in 1979 and got its name because of Charles and Shirley. White identified the wishes of local children by writing their gift needs on greeting cards that featured pictures of angels. Whereas in 2023, the Salvation Army Corps raised 92,000 in Plano and nearly 102 million nationwide. This year, through the Angel tree program, the Plano location will help 350 families provide gifts for their 850 children and 56 senior and special needs adults during the holiday season. And Whereas, in addition to the holiday assistance, the Plano location serves as a warming station when needed. Serves youth ages five through 14 with after school care and provides summer day camp for elementary and middle school age students. And they also serve over 120 families each week from their food pantry. Now, therefore, I, John Muns, mayor of the City of Plano, Texas, do hereby proclaim. Monday, November 25th, 2024, as Salvation Army Red Kettle Christmas Campaign Day in Plano and do thereby encourage all citizens to join me in the Plano City Council in supporting this annual campaign so that all of our families can experience a wonderful and memorial holiday season in the City of Excellence. Thank you. Moving on to the consent agenda. The 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 discussion by a council member, the city manager, or any citizen. The presiding officer will establish time limit time limits based upon the number of speaker requests. Mr. Mayor, I move. We approve the consent agenda with the exception of item K to be pulled for individual consideration. Second. Thank you. Have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda with the exception of item K which we will do after the consent agenda minus item k. All in favor, please raise your han. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item K, item K. Approval of an expenditure for engineering Professional Services. Agreement for shady Brook Trail at Riverside Drive. Erosion control project number p k RD00009. In the amount of $307,000 from Teague National Perkins Incorporated for the Parks and Recreation Department and authorizing the city Manager to execute all necessary documents. Happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Doctor Smith. Well, thank you, mister Mayor. I pulled this item off of the consent agenda because of the archeological survey. That's part of the scope of work and checking with the staff. There's nothing at this site to indicate that there would be an archeological find. And staff does not anticipate any culturally significant findings as a result of the archeological survey. I did, however, find out during the break after I pulled this from the consent agenda that there is a state law requirement in the Texas Antiquities Act, that any time we are disturbing a Creek bed, we have to do an archeological survey, which apparently is going to cost us $20,700, which is the price of a car. So I guess we have to comply with state law, but in all likelihood, we're going to spend $20,000 digging just to make sure there's nothing there. And then there will be nothing there. And then that's money that, you know, could have been used for heritage preservation in more fruitful ways, like we heard at the last meeting, $11,000 to maintain a cemetery that actually is a heritage asset rather than $20,000 to dig and probably find nothing. And so anyway, I will ask that we have an item at a future meeting to add an amendment to the Texas Antiquities Act, to our legislative program, because I'm sure this is costing cities across the state millions of dollars every year in probably unnecessary digs, where there is really nothing on the surface to indicate that there might be anything there that could be used for more fruitful heritage preservation projects. But since we are bound by current state law, I will move that we approve item K as is. I'll second both of those things. All right. So I have a motion and a second to approve item K on the consent agenda. All in favor raise your hand. Thank you. All right. Next item. I hope we find something. Anthony. I know I'm going to look like a. If we do, I think we should pay the city the $27,000. I know I've got a lot riding on it. So I'm going to go to the place. I think we're gonna have. We're gonna have a special ceremony just for you, Anthony. If we find something. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items. Applicants are limited to 15 minutes 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 amend these times as deemed necessary. Non public hearing items. The Presiding Officer will permit 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 cumulative time limit. Speakers will be called in the order the requests are received until the cumulative time is exhausted. Item number one public hearing on the proposed General Obligation Bond referendum scheduled for May 3rd, 2025. Additional public hearings are planned for December 9th December 9th, 2024 and January 13th, 2025. In your packet tonight, I do have the revised listing of the projects. Two weeks ago when I spoke before y'all, we had, as I mentioned at the earlier meeting, we did have $23 million in land acquisitions that we do not need anymore. So we have taken that funding. We have added it down to the police training center rebuild. So that project now is 51 million. The total package is seven. $700.7 million. This is the first public hearing. We do have three. As she mentioned, December 9th and January 13th. Thank you. Karen. I'll open the public hearing. Are there any speakers? There are no speakers on this item. I'll close the public hearing. Moving on. Item number two. Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance as requested in Zoning Case 2024. Dash 21 to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the city. Ordinance number 2015. Dash five, dash two. As heretofore amended, rezoning 19.8 acres of land located on the southwest corner of Alma Drive and Park Boulevard in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas, from planned development, 60 general office and planned development 109 retail, general Office to plan development 109. Retail, general office and modifying development standards. Directing a change accordingly in the official zoning map of the city, providing a penalty clause, a repealer clause, a savings clause, a severability clause, a publication clause, and an effective date. Good evening Mayor council executives, I'm Christina Day, the director of planning. And so we have a couple of zoning cases for you this evening. First is case 21. This is a really a case that focuses on amending the existing zoning due to design that is attached to the specific plan development district. You'll see the property in question is actually part of two different plan development districts. Right now and is undeveloped. The plan development area is undeveloped with the exception of a gas station and convenience store on the corner, which is not part of the development that this contemplates. So this is the development in question that's led to this zoning case. It is a career and technical education center for Plano Independent School District that would consolidate some operations onto this site that are currently at various senior high schools. So the site's history is sort of key in understanding what it is we're doing here tonight. You can see from the early old aerial, where there's not much development out there. This was has been part of two planned development districts for a long time. It was partially rezoned in the 1970s. The convenience store developed and then we actually rezoned in 2001 to establish PD 109, which a site plan was actually tied to, so that there's a very specific design. The graphic on the right shows you the kind of ■layout of several office buildings that were originally part of the PD request. So the proposed development here is to expand the PD to include the entire subject property. So again, it's not split into two different zoning districts. It would eliminate the concept plan which would allow the CTE center to work because their current design doesn't work with the concept plan. That's adopted by ordinance today. And then it would allow us also to introduce stipulations that project the adjacent adjacent neighborhood from some open storage and service areas that are part of the proposed design. So this is the first few plan development stipulations, which are focused on that buffer between the adjacent neighborhood across Columbia Place and the proposed CTE center. There are going to be things like auto mechanics and welding and things that may create noise. They're also proposing the district's proposing some open storage, but they've put in a substantial buffer, a eight foot screening wall and then an extended and extensive landscaping edge that you can see along Columbia Place to provide protection. There's also slope of the property that will help mitigate concerns. Then finally, they are asking to reduce parking to their anticipated need for this site. So this is in conformance with the comprehensive plan. The public school is supported as a use type as well as it meeting the land use descriptions, land use policy and undeveloped land policy. We have had two responses within the 200 foot buffer, both from residential lots to the west and in opposition, and in total we have had four online letters and official letters in response. Again, the two that you saw on the last slide and two additional one in support and one in opposition that were through our website. These are the mapped responses for your consideration and the planning and zoning Commission did recommend approval by a vote of 7 to 0. There is no presentation as far as slides from the applicant, but I'm available for questions you might have. Thank you. Christina. Any questions for staff? Thanks. I'll open the public hearing. There are no speakers on this item. I'll close the public hearing. Confine the comments to the council. Mr. Mayor. I make a motion. We approve item number two as presented by staff. Okay. Second. Thank you. I have a motion and a second to approve. Item number two. All in favor, raise your hand. Motion passes. Thank you. Item three. Item number three. Public hearing and consideration of an ordinance as requested in Zoning Case 2024. Dash 22 to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City Ordinance Number 2015. Dash five, Dash two, as heretofore amended, granting specific use Permit number 81 for trade school on 0.1 acre of land located 190ft west of Kuwait Road and 650ft south of Rockingham Way in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas. President. Presently zoned retail, directing a change accordingly in the official zoning map of the city, providing a penalty clause, a repealer clause, a savings clause, a severability clause, a publication clause, and an effective date right. Zoning case 22 is a request for a specific permit for a trade school. This is in a lease space that is located off Coit Road, north of Park Boulevard. You can see the notice area as well as the aerial showing the various office condominium type arrangement with small office buildings there on Coit Road. The business is defined classified as a trade school. They're looking to teach licensed massage therapy that use the licensed massage therapy use is permitted by right in this zoning district, which is the retail district. But to establish a trade school where you're actually teaching is a different land use and therefore requires a specific use permit. This is not limited to massage therapy. It could be any trade school, barber, beauty or other, you know, art school, any type of trade. So the proposed business is in a 2571 square foot suite within the building. So with regard to the comprehensive plan, it's in the neighborhood future land use category. It meets the description, priorities and infrastructure policy of the city does not change the mix of uses. Therefore no findings are required. We've had no responses within 200ft. And there's some detail I'll get into on this in just a moment. But we did have one letter in opposition on this and one outside Plano. We had two other letters and emails. So if you noticed in the council responses that were sent to you, there was a response with an address located in Plano, but we could not verify that individual had also marked that they did not reside in Plano and did not have a business in Plano. So or own property in Plano. So we believe they may be affiliated with a business that's in the park, but we couldn't confirm that. We tried to reach out to them and just couldn't get more information so that is the information I have for you on public responses. And so you'll notice there's nothing on the map because all the responses either didn't have an address or had that one point that was unverified. So the Planning and Zoning Commission did recommend approval by a vote of 7 to 0. And I'm available for questions you might have on this property. Thanks, Christina. Any any questions for staff? All right. I'll open the public hearing. We do have one speaker. It is the applicant. Jingmiao. On behalf of the applicant, I'm here to answer any questions. Questions for me. Can I ask you one? Is. Is isn't there another massage school in that same location? I'm not so sure. Yeah. Probably. Yes. So I mean, is that a conflict for your business? Yeah. Kind of. Not that a big scale. Our students like only ten students per class. So. Yeah. Okay. All right. Any questions for the applicant? I have a question for staff. Okay. Thank you. Thank you. Go ahead. So can you tell us a little bit more about the other businesses that are around it? I know I've been to this area. I do know there's some one. One that I'm familiar with near here is a there's a I know there's a child life therapist in here. So there's lots of children coming in here to get to get counseling in this area. I don't know if there are other types of businesses like that that are, you know, right, in this small area. Can you speak to any others? That's the only one that I'm for sure familiar with, right in that area. Sure. We looked at this individual building pretty closely, and there's, I believe, a dentist office in the building and a attorney was also there. So I think it's typical of many kind of small office buildings. You're going to find a lot of those type of professional services, medical offices, professional counselors, that type of thing. So that's the general mix of uses that you're going to see, but specifically in the same building. Dentist and attorney. I'll close the public hearing and confine the comments to the council. Mr. Mayor. I also noted to the point that council Member Prince was raising, you know, there were some concerns that others in the office Plaza wrote in about foot traffic and the quiet office plaza environment. In any event, I will move to deny this case. Second. Second. Okay, so I have a motion and a second to deny. Item number three. Any comments? All in favor of denial? Raise your hand. Motion passes. 8 to 0. We have no comments of public interest. No comments of public in