Sorry. We're running a couple of minutes late. We're waiting on Commissioner Brunhoff to join u. Very quiet room Knock knock. I knew somebody would respond. Young man, say to the others for me. Are we recording this? No. Do you smell carrots? Okay, that's a good one. Okay, here we go. All members are present and accounted for that are here with us. And we have Mr. Ali joining us online. Good evening. Sir. Okay. It is 7:04 p.m. I will call the Planning and Zoning Commission regular meeting into order at seven at the Davis Library. And if you would, please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The next item on the agenda is special recognition. I'll say quickly. This is my final meeting as a member of the Planning and Zoning Commission. It's been my honor to serve, but mainly I want to recognize Mr. Ratliff, who was chosen by the council to be our incoming chair. So starting with November 4th. This is all yours, sir. And. But it's been an honor and a privilege to. To serve. I don't want to go long. We've got things to cover on the agenda. So. But I was told I need to turn the mic over to Mr. Ratliff, so I will do that. So there we go. I'm going to stand up and ask Commissioner Kerry and Commissioner Downs to join me up here also, so we can have everybody on camera. The camera looks right up here, doesn't it? Do you want to give y'all a Our city of Plano, as well as all of the commissioners and elected officials and citizens to thank you for your service for the past four years. We appreciate your involvement and your dedication of your time, talent, and resources for being here and helping us out and sitting through all these long meetings. And it's been an honor to serve with you. Thank you so much. It's been a pleasure to serve you here. Thank you sir. All right. Thank you. And Chairman Downs, in addition to the four years as a member, another year or several years as a member, several years as chair as well. So thank you for leading us through what has been some interesting cases and at least the tenure I have been here and for your patience with the new people as we have come on board and you're again your leadership and your stewardship, the citizens of Plano are grateful for your your role in this commission. And thank you for your service and know that you'll be in some other role again Thank you very much. Thank you. Okay, let's move to consent. Consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items that are routine and typically noncontroversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff. Would anyone like to remove an item from consent? Seeing none, I move. We approve the consent agenda as submitted. Second. I have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky, with a second by Commissioner Tang to approve the consent agenda. Please vote. Mr. Ali, can you please state your vote? Yes. Thank you. That item carries 8 to 0. Item one. Agenda item number one. Preliminary replat for la Davis addition block three, On one lot on 0.2 acre, located on the east side of F Avenue, 150ft south of 11th Street. Zoned general residential. Applicant is good Faith Baptist Church. Okay. Good evening commissioners. My name is John Kim, planner with the planning department. The item is recommended that the commission accept the applicant's request to table the item to the November fourth, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff on this item, Mr. Bronsky? Just for clarity, for the citizens, can you explain a little bit about the why we're tabling it and then your confidence in it being ready to go on November 4th? Yeah. So the applicant just needs a little more time to refine the site plan. So they're requesting it for the November fourth Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I think the applicant That good. Thank you. Okay. Any other questions? I'll open the public hearing, but I'm assuming we don't have any speakers on this item. Are you checking to see if we have speakers on this item? I'm so sorry. I apologize. You were really great. We have no speakers on this item. We have no speakers. Okay. I will close the public hearing. Confine discussion to the commission. I move, we table agenda item number one to the November 4th, 2024 meeting, as recommended by staff. Thank you. I have a motion by Commissioner Bronski with a second by Commissioner Lolly to table item one per staff's recommendation, please vote. Mr. Lolly voice. Yes. That item carries 8 to 0. Please read two A and B together, please. Yes, sir. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items Received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items, or more discretionary except as constrained by legal consideration. Agenda item number two A preliminary Replat for City of Plano, Los Rios Par, block E, lots two and three. Park playground on two lots on 11.5 acres. Located at the south side of Country Club Drive, 155ft east of Vallarta Court. Zoned, single family resident, attached and single family residence seven. Applicant is City of Plano. This item is for administrative consideration. Agenda item to be site plan for City of Plano, Los Rios Park block a lot And three. Park and playground. On four lots on 184.5 acres. Located on the east and west sides of Los Rios Boulevard, 1990ft north of 14th Street. Zoned single family residence. Attached single family residence seven and agricultural with specific use. Permit number nine for Country Club. Applicant is City of Plano. This item is for administrative consideration. Okay. So here is the subject property. So the left is the preliminary plat boundaries. And then on the right is the site plan boundaries. And it also includes the preliminary Replat properties. And then here is the three plat and then here's the site plan. And it's broken up into multiple slides. Here's that. Okay. So The engineering plans as required. As required by the engineering department. The site plan is recommended for approval as submitted. I'm available for any questions and the Parks Department is also here for questions as well. Thank you very much. Technical questions for staff on this item. Mr. Brounoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It looked like there was really nothing on this land at the moment. Driving by is the city's plan to make this into a golf course or not? I could ask Miss Denham to come provide some information about the future plans for this property. Hi. Katie Denham, Plano Parks and Recreation. Again. There you go. Katie Denham, there you go. Plano parks and recreation. Right. Our plan for this project is we are constructing a two mile trail through the property. As as you saw on the Approved site master plan from 2018 that identifies the trail. So this is our first piece of construction within this proposed new park. So what is the purpose for the request for a site plan for a country club? There was a specific use permit I mean for a country club. So there was a country club and a golf course on this property. Previously, before the city purchased the property previous to 2018. Then we went and we did a master plan for future site improvements to be a park. Okay, so that's just a carry over from the previous ownership. That's the old, correct. The old use of the site. Thank you. Reasonable question. Any other questions? Thank you, Miss Dunham. Thank you. Okay, I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers on this item? There are no speakers for this item, but we have a registered opinion in support of two A and two B. Thank you. I will close Okay. I moved that we approve agenda item two A as recommended by staff, subject to the engineering department. And I subject to additions and or alterations to the engineering plan as required by the Engineering Department. I can get that out. Yes you can. You're out of practice. So have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky with a second by Commissioner Bruno to approve item two A, please vote. Mr. Ali. Yes. That item carries 8 to 0. Item two B. I move, we approve. Mr. Lolly, go ahead. Yeah, please. Microphone, please. I move. I move, we approve. Agenda item two B as submitted. Okay. So great ladies in the house here. Motion by Commissioner Yes. That item carries 8 to 0. Thank you. Item three. Agenda item number three. Replat and revised site plan for Willowbend Polo Estates. Phase B, block B, lot 1R1 patio home. Lot of 1.1 acre, located at the northeast corner of Turtle Creek Drive and Shaddock Boulevard. Zoned. Planned development for two three Patio Home. Applicant is Jean Ann Brock. This item is for administrative consideration. Get closer to the mic. I don't think it's okay. It's on you. Good evening commissioners. My name is Donna Sepulvado, lead planner with the planning department. These items are recommended for approval as submitted, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions for staff on this ite. You're off the hook. I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any questions or any speakers? There are none. Thank you. I will close the public hearing. Miss Tom. I Number three as submitted. All right. So I have a motion by Commissioner Tang and a second by Commissioner Lolly to approve item three. Please vote, Mr. Lolly. Yes. That item carries 8 to 0. Thank you. Item four. Agenda item number four. Replat and revised site plan for Willowbend Polo Estates. Phase , block B, lot ten R one patio home lot on 0.2 acre, located at the southwest corner of Castlegate Drive and Old Westbury Lane. Zoned plan development for two three Patio home. Applicant is Gene Ann Brock. This item is for administrative consideration. Thank you. These items are recommended for approval as submitted and I'm happy to answer any questions. Any questions for staff on item four. Thank you. I will open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers? There are none. Thank you. I will close the public hearing. Confine discussion to the commission. Who's next As submitted. Thank you. Okay. We're on a roll. Commissioner Tong moves approval of item four with a second by Commissioner Lolly. Please vote. Mr. Ali. Yes. That item carries 8 to 0. Yes, sir. We now have competition to make these motions. Yeah, we do. I like it. I do. Okay. Moving on. Item five. Agenda item number five. Zoning case 2024. Dash 021 is a request to rezone from planned Development 60 general Office and plan Development 109 retail general office two. Plan development 109. Retail. General office to modify development standards on 19.8 acres located on the southwest corner of Alma Drive and Park Boulevard. Petitioner is Plano Independent School District. Due to a noticing error, this item has been rescheduled for Happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff? Thank you. Okay. Since just for everyone's benefit. Since it was incorrectly noticed, it's actually not part of our agenda. So we can't take speakers on this item. So let's move on to item six. Agenda item six A and B6A and six B. Zoning case 2024003 is a request to rezone from Central Business one to Planned Development Central Business one to establish uses and development standards for mixed use development on 107 acres located on the southeast corner of Legacy Drive and Headquarters Drive. Zoned Central Business one. This item was tabled on August 19, 2020 for September 3rd, 2024 and September 16th, 2024. The petitioner is CC. An agenda item six B concept plan and Open Space Plan for Legacy West addition block E, lots two R and five R through seven R and ten R. Professional general administrative. Office. Restaurant. Retail, hotel and 750 mid-rise residential units on five lots on 99 acres located on the southeast corner of Legacy Drive and Headquarters Drive. Zoned Central Business one. This item was tabled on September 16th, 2024. Applicant is Csci D 6501 Legacy Owners, LLC. This item is for administrative consideration pending consideration of item six. A thank you very much and since it's my last meeting, I will be thankful that in the past, if you guys remember, anytime everything was tabled, the first thing we had to do was have a round of votes on whether to remove something from the table. 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. As a reminder, this case includes a request to rezone to planned Development Central business one with standards to facilitate a mixed use development on an existing office campus. The planned development would allow up to 750 units of mid-rise or independent living that would be permitted in two phases. The concept plan shows the 750 units with a mix of office, hotel, retail and restaurants, an open space plan and concept plan accompanies the request. Screen shows the concept plan with the existing office garages, proposed office towers, residential towers, restaurants and hotel. This case was previously presented at the September 16th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The Commission directed the applicant to complete the traffic impact analysis. The site analysis, and make commitments to the location of residential uses. Open space. Vertical And to provide PD standards that reflect the concept plan. This presentation will focus on the changes made in response to that direction. First, the Tia has been completed, which requires additional turn lanes along four adjacent streets and off site improvements. These improvements are not warranted until full build out, and are not needed to accommodate the traffic generated from the minimum phasing requirements. Additional recommendations. Recommendations were for offsite improvements, which will be enforced through the Civil Engineering Plan review process, and will require consistency with the Tia. Second, the Iaha study has been completed which found no additional air filtration standards are required. Noise will exceed the maximum recommended 65 DBA LDN on the 11th floor and above. In response, a planned development stipulation was added, requiring balconies on the 11th floor and above to have a Third, the quantity of open space remains. The same at 21 acres and four miles of trails and sidewalks. The applicant did commit to two locations, as shown on the open Space Plan, and included language that would allow the exact boundaries to be amended, with Planning and Zoning Commission approval. There were also standards requiring these areas to meet most of the city's standard usable open space criteria. Fourth, the applicant has made commitments to the location of residential uses previously, residential was prohibited within a 300 by 300 square foot at the intersection of Legacy and Headquarters, and the plan has since been updated to require a 1000 foot setback from that intersection and an 800 foot setback from legacy Drive, as shown on the image on the right. These setbacks, in combination with the requirements to occupy the existing building and surrounding open space, restricts residential on a large portion of the property. Fifth, the Residential uses. In each phase, the applicant has made no changes to the first phase and is requesting the commission to consider its investment in renovating the existing office building for this purpose. For the second phase, the applicant has added a requirement for vertical construction of a new 225 key hotel, or 250,000ft■!S f nonresidential uses. Otherwise, the phasing remains the same. Lastly, the planning and zoning Commission requested that the PD stipulations more directly reflect the form of the development shown on the concept plan. To this end, the applicant has increased the maximum height for residential buildings from eight stories to 15 stories. This includes an exception for wings of the building that screen parking structures. Additionally, there are three lot coverages. Requirements are now included 65% max for residential, 45% max for area Of note, the highest lot coverage shown on the concept plan is 47%. Next, I will recap the comprehensive plan analysis. This property is designated as Employment Center and Open Space Network on the future Land Use map and residential uses are not supported in either category. In 2023, the subject property was designated as Future Parks on the Parks Master Plan, with a corresponding change to the Open Space Network on the future land use map. Designation as a future park signals the property strategic location and meeting the goals and policies of the Parks Master Plan and Comprehensive Plan. However, property cannot be required to be used for park purposes unless it is owned by the city, unless or until the property is purchased by the city. The owner is permitted to develop the property in accordance with its existing zoning and request rezoning for other types of development. The request does not comply with the mix of Action one. It does meet our GM. Six recommends key designs be provided. In the first phase, the applicant is providing a significant amount of open space in the first phase, but not all. Therefore, compliance with this requirement is left to the discretion of the Planning and Zoning Commission and City Council, with the change to require a minimum 15 stories for residential. The request now meets part of action. GM eight, which supports high rise development. However, it also requires that multifamily should also be supported by the future land use map. Therefore, the request only partially meets our GM eight. And then this screen shows a summary of the comprehensive plan analysis. And then on this slide it shows the changes from the last plan to this plan. Does not meet. To either meets or partially meets. And then improvements have been made to plans. However, staff has continued to have concerns about the level of commitment that is typical for mixed use developments in Plano. The plans are still not to the level of commitment that they were in earlier versions of the summer. The screen shows the June open space submittal versus the October open space submittal. And then, in summary, the applicant has resolved two of five staff's original concerns. Three of the five have improved, but the overall concern still remains. And then we did receive three responses in support within the subject property and then within 200ft. We received four responses in support one neutral and six opposed and Received 19 in support, one neutral, ten in opposition, for a total of 30 responses. And then item four A is disfavored under the standards of the Comprehensive Plan, and findings are required for item four B, it is recommended that the Commission take action consistent with item four. A. Item six A and six B. Yes. Thank you. We understood. I think this is residual from last night. Yes. I apologize, but that does conclude my presentation. And the applicant is here with the presentation as well. Okay. Before we move on to the applicant, are there? Yes. Mr. Ratliff, on the phasing plan, just because I kind of ran the numbers on the for phase two, it's saying a minimum of 250,000ft■!S of non residential construction. Or the hotel. Correct. That's correct. Okay. But to get to the 225, if I add up all of the retail buildings Thousand square feet total, which means if they don't do the hotel, it's going to have to be basically all of the restaurants and retail, plus an office building of some magnitude. Yeah, there will be some combination of the retail and open space or, I'm sorry, an office as shown on the concept plan currently. Now they could revise the concept plan in the future to modify and meet those requirements. Okay. That was meaning they could add more retail and restaurant. Correct. Okay. Okay. But under the current concept plan, it would be basically have to be an office building would have to be some part of that, of that 250,000ft to get to 250. If you didn't do a hotel, I would have to double check those numbers. I can do that for you and get back to you. Second question and it says it in the report, but I just feel like it's worth saying out loud. Under the current zoning that's on the property today, basically everything would not. There's nothing in this plan that would require a zoning change except the residential. Is that correct? Yes. That's correct. Okay. So the Based on the current zoning today, it could be quite a bit more intense than current on the on the site plan. Is that right? That's right. It's central business one zoning, which is the most intense district in the city. It has no maximum lot coverage, no maximum height, no setbacks. It's pretty intense form of development. That's what I read in the report. I just felt like it needed to be said out loud. So thank you. That would also require less open space. That's correct. Okay. Mr. Bruno. Yeah. Mr. Bell, does. Does the proposal commit to providing retail uses and if so, to what extent? It does not explicitly require any retail. No. Okay. Does it does it suggest the provision of some sort of community center activity center similar to what is being built out right now at the old Collin Creek Mall location? I believe there is some aspects of that in the existing office building that they're developing. I would I would ask the applicant A community space that would be required. Okay. To what extent, if at all, would the zoning authorize the future construction of things that are not currently reflected on the concept, plan and site plan? So the applicant has committed to those in the form of lot coverages and through the minor amendments process that is outlined in article 12. So things like building location open, the provision of open space, those can still be amended, but they are a process through the planning and Zoning Commission where there is discretion by P and Z whether to accept those changes or not, accept that would be legislative consideration or administrative legislative. Correct. Legislative. The Commission may approve them. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Kerry. Yeah. I think my questions are fairly simple. One of the questions for staff is Sister, will this applicant incur the expenses for the turn lane changes so the traffic impact analysis assigns a certain percentage that's driven by the development and what's driven by the network as a whole. And so that those allocations are worked out through the engineering process. So for instance, a corner might 95% of the traffic might come from other locations. And this contributes five. So they would be required to contribute a reasonable amount to that number to be worked out and negotiated through the site plan process. Okay, great. Second question is we said we took the minimum height for these residentials from eight stories to a minimum height of 15. I think. Right. Yes. That's correct. And so I'm just curious what the rationale was. The thinking for that was from changing that. So I believe the direction from P and Z was to try to match what was shown in the pictures and in the concept plan, and they are showing 20 story towers. So they committed to 15 rather than the eight that they Foundations for housing diversity, which supports high rise residential, which is ten stories or more, and is there any maximum to this? There is no maximum under the current zoning or proposed so that. Yeah. Okay, cool. And the final thing is just the glass enclosures at six feet. Is that anticipated to or the balconies on the balconies? Is that anticipated to reduce the noise significantly. And is there any evidence that it does? According to the site analysis performed, it should bring it underneath the recommended levels. Okay. Thank you. Mike. Mr. Bronsky. Does the hotel that is mentioned in the phasing is that going to be a new hotel that they're building on theirs, or can it be the other hotel that is coming in? The other hotel is off site. Not within the planned development that would not count. It would have to be a new hotel. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ratliff, one follow up question on the commitment to phasing commitment. The PD or the staff Or start of construction. Is there a reason that's not based on certificate of occupancy for the square footages that are proposed under the phasing plan? I believe the idea is once vertical construction has initiated, there's a firm commitment to complete the building. It certainly we've done certificate of occupancy before in the past, but I believe the vertical construction has represented that commitment adequately in the past. Okay. So you that you've used that standard on previous phasing plans successfully. We've used issuance of building permit. We've used vertical construction. We've used certificate of occupancy. We've we've used a whole range. It's whatever is the most comfortable with by the Commission. And this one specifically says commencement of construction. That's vertical construction in the in the plan development stipulation. Okay. It is vertical construction. Yes. Okay. Great. Thank you. Just I have a question. Commissioner Nadal. If they build the residential with phase one and then they do the hotel in phase two, Without any retail. There are other requirements for open space and trail networks that are an occupancy of the existing building. That would also be required. It would not just be the hotel itself, but that would be one of, I think, five requirements. Yes. Yeah. In addition to those. Correct. They feel like the 560 zero zero zero square foot and then the like the 400,000. But you're like, I'm talking about the development in total is going to be just a residential hotel, might be just residential hotel. And the open space, it would be the only new building required. Yes. So there's no percentage or ratio for retail. There's not. It's the request is for non residential. Yeah. And so it says incidental. So it's like a even less than 10% or something. No. That specific to the classification of retail in an office building. It's retail. It's incidental to the office use. What they're requesting is 250,000 of non residential. That's permitted. Oh. Thank you. Mr. Bronski. So, Mr. Bell, could you just elaborate for a second on page five of the report under the conformance of the comprehensive plan, it says, quote, the applicant is showing flexibility on the development within the open space portion. Appropriate development can occur within the open space designations. If the city does not own the property. Yes. That's correct. So it is designated as Future Park, which corresponds with Open Space Network on the Future Land Use map. However, the city cannot enforce the requirement that it be built as a park unless it owns the property. Therefore, they're leaving that option. They're leaving options open to perhaps build a private park or dedicate to the city in the future. But it's not part of this request. But they could also do other development on that as well. That's correct. Except for the residential uses would be prohibited in that location. Okay. Thank you We had talked at the last meeting about specifically restricting the residential to the two lots that were shown on the site plan, but when we came back, it came back with 1000 foot from the intersection of legacy and headquarters and 600ft from Legacy Drive. In looking at it. It looks like it effectively restricted to those two lots. Is there any place else on the site that would be open for vertical construction for residential, with with those restrictions? Other than those two lots, there are some small locations. Yes, there's one lot just to the south of those two towers that I believe is not within the 1000 foot setback. And then the location where the retail buildings are shown is also outside of the outside of that buffer. So there are some locations, but not much. Are they big enough to build anything of any substance? Potentially they could be, yes. Okay. Thank you. Questions? Okay. Can we go back to the slide that has the five points that came out of recommendation from last meeting? Because I understand that there's two Sepulveda. Oh, there we go. Yeah, two of them. Are you referring to the P and Z direction or to the P and Z direction? You just passed it. That slide? No. Okay. Yes. The slide was this slide was staff concerns. There was another slide for P and Z directions. So I'm not sure what you're referring to. Oh sorry. I thought this came out of our directions. There's a different slide for that. If we could go forward. This one is fine. Okay. Yeah, this one's fine. So my understanding is that they have met the two out of five and the number four and five are. Lack of commitment. Lack of integration. How much work would you say if they were going to complete the lack of commitment and lack of integration for these requirements that normally we'll see. Right. So I think with a typical mixed mixed use plan development case, the city standard has Committed to that in part, but not in whole. A more integrated mix of uses. In this case, we find the residential to be somewhat separate from the open space and not we'd see a kind of centralized open space to serving the residents that's not been provided. So there's kind of mismatch between what the zoning allows and what's shown on the plan that we've outlined in the report that I think that's staff is looking for a firmer commitment. That's more typical of other mixed use planned developments in Plano for Project size like this. What's the typical time you think it will take to develop the, you know, to kind of satisfy the commitment requirement and integration requirement? It would be a guess. It many years. Wow. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Ali. Got a couple while I'm still on this slide. Just to orient myself. Inconsistency with a History does that. Am I summarizing that relatively well? That's correct. Okay. And the lack of commitment to the typical standards is borne by that mix of urban suburban, which is unique, for lack of a better word, in Plano. And the integration of residential uses, the street network design. Am I aligned? More or less, yes. Okay. So a couple couple of questions. The buffer, the 1000 foot from legacy and headquarters. Do we have a regulatory requirement? For this kind of zoning or for this kind of development? Or is this more a staff suggested the 300 by 300 or staff suggested the 1000 foot buffer. I'm trying to figure out. No, I believe this was the applicant's suggestion. This is what they were comfortable with in terms of leaving flexibility for the site and they could probably address that more directly. Gotcha. And the Package. What's the main driver with that? Given that we already have a relatively. Lack of appetite from a comprehensive plan perspective for residential in this in this area, is this mainly just to form some kind of transition to the existing townhomes on Communication Drive? Yes, that's that's meant to be a transitional height from the tower to the existing homes. If they didn't put that in aside from it, looking ugly. Would that because that would reduce the amount of residential they put on their plan, would in essence, bringing them quote unquote, closer income from in conformance with the comp plan was the transition townhomes city suggested, or did they give that up? So the first part of your question is no, it would In this location. It is the second part of your question is, is part of the applicant's vision. They have a developer in mind for this project, and I believe they could speak to more of their vision on that's it. How they could speak to their vision. Two other questions my math suggests is about 2021 acres of passive or active open space. Do we have a requirement for CB1 zoning for open space percentage, and if so, how many? How much of this should be active versus passive? Sure. Give me one moment to pull that up so I don't trust my memory. We all get to know a 100 square foot per unit requirement if there is residential. Again, residential is all out there here through specific use permit. So the zoning does have a 100 square foot per unit It's nonresidential. There's no open space requirement. So if they removed residential, they could build as many as many office towers as they can get under the lot coverage requirement. And essentially eat into the open space that exists currently. That's correct. Last question for now. Just because my math is not math and I they have about one point 8,000,000 square foot of leasable space. But the phase in phase one and two requires occupancy for roughly about 1.5 ish of that space. I'm missing 300 K square feet of. Right. There's I believe there's building space, then there's leasable space. And so they're referencing the leasable space. Right. They have That's right in common area. The applicant can speak to the exact building percentages. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Kerry. I just want to comment. And, Mike, you referenced us a couple of times, and I think I agree. You've said a few times that this isn't a typical mixed use development plan, right? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Are we done? I don't know if I'm closer to the mic. Please. Yes. I don't know if I'm allowed to ask this question or not. You're like, is this going to be similar to the development on the North northeast? It is unlike PD 64. I guess so. PD 65 also includes our PD 65. Is the property to the east that includes Legacy West and Legacy Town Center. Yeah, but you know, the one to the north, which is like, you know, like north of, you know, like headquarters. Right? So the north is planned development, 64 KB one. It has the same base Residential. High rise residential, right? It does. It's pretty flexible zoning. So it allows large corporate office as well as very high intense mixed use development. So this one is going to be similar. But the office is going to be like a little bit lower than what they're having there. It's and staff's opinion, it's not typical in the sense that it's kind of a mix of high intensity residential with suburban office campus. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, that's what I'm saying. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Okay. Are we done? Can I get one more? Very quickly? Oh, okay. Sorry. Traffic. If there was no residential on this, would we require a Tia analysis? And if so, would we be talking about the cost split that Commissioner Kerry brought up? Yes. A Tia would be required as part of the concept plan. And again, it would be driven by non residential which could actually be more traffic. I believe Okay. We're good. All right. You have. Oh, okay. All right. I will open the public hearing, and the applicant has a presentation. Hello, everyone. How are you guys tonight? Thank you for being here. So after our last hearing, we got right to work. Obviously, we've made a ton of progress and made a lot of commitments and some big steps forward. So I want to just jump right in, make sure I got this correct. All right. So. First thing we did was the Tia and the H.R. As we just kind of talked about the Tia. The bulk of the traffic is related to filling the existing office and future office. There's only about 11% of the overall traffic is attributed to the residential. So it's pretty low impact. As Donna mentioned, we incorporated all the recommended mitigation into I heard loud and clear to our increase our commitment. So we incorporated the buildings in the open space and committed to our use. As mentioned, we reduce our lot coverage from 100% to 75 in all uses and 65% on the multifamily, 45% on the retail. We did increase the minimum height of residential to 15 stories. This ensures type one construction, bringing the highest quality residential to the city and our site. We increased the residential restrictions from 300ft to 1000ft. Now, after receiving some community feedback, we also added the 600 foot restriction or long legacy. We've been trying to work through this as best we can to make the community as happy as possible. I it was mentioned that the retail felt or the residential felt disconnected, so I wanted to provide a map that shows our committed walking trails as well as walking distances to all the amenities and outdoor spaces. I think the maximum distance is In 4 to 5 minutes to our pickleball courts and our open green spaces. I CCI as an office owner, and I think that's real important to talk about here. We're not a developer. Our focus is to fill this building and maintain this building. This is one of our premier assets. We're not just an office owner. We're the largest owner of office in the state. We know what it takes to reposition a facility, fill a facility and attract top tier businesses to our campus. I wanted to provide some photos of what the facility looked before our ownership. As you can see, everything's overgrown, not maintained, not pressure washed dark. There was a big hole in the middle of the site, an incomplete construction site. When we look at it today, everything's fixed, everything's green, everything's pressure washed. What was a big, open, empty hole at the front of our facility is now prepped and back on track. So that was the Kintetsu site. Our commitment to them wasn't just Designs in their M for permitting I our overall repositioning was about 45 projects just south of $30 million in the facility. There's two big projects I haven't done much talking about, but I think it's important. We have a 10,000 square foot full service gym. It's open to the public. There's currently, I think, 25 community users of the gym. So not tenants in the building. Our neighbors. More importantly, there's a 20 zero zero zero square foot childcare facility. Now, when we took ownership, they were there, but we expanded their size and we extended their duration. We do subsidize this childcare facility and it's primarily used by a JP Morgan Chase employee. So it is open to the public. And our the community is using it. So these are big retail commitments that we kind of reactivated and opened up to the business community. When we took ownership of the facility. There is only 430 employees. Since we've stabilized, fixed everything up, He's across ten companies, and that's at 31% of our occupancy or potential occupancy. Okay. So much of what I said is our business plan. We knew this at acquisition. It's what we set out to do. We always take the approach of execution over promise. We feel very strongly that proving our commitment has a stronger significance over rendering ideas. We stand confident that our investment in this site, the 45 individual CapEx projects, opening a public child care facility, full service gym, six pickleball courts, building 1.5 miles of trails, adding a pocket park, committing to 95.5 acres of general green space, two dog parks and fixing the Kintetsu site. Reinvigorating that project should warrant our ability to proceed with our first phase of residential. Now, not just any residential, it's going to be the nicest residential project in the city. We've made strong commitments and have the best developer here in town to assist us with that. And now for phase two. In addition to Seen in the building is one of the hurdles. Completing the water feature, adding an additional 1.5 miles of trails. Reserving parking spaces for the Bruce Glass car park. Completing all open space. We added the commitment with hearing some community feedback of 250,000ftS of nonresidential, or the 250 key hotel I TCI has and will continue to invest in this site in the city of Plano. I understand the public perception of wood frame multifamily and why should that should be highly scrutinized. But that's not what we're proposing here. I CCI only wants high quality 100 year projects at the front door of our facility. This asset is one of our legacy projects. We are here to stay with this thing. We only want projects that are going to enhance our building. So, you know, last time it was said that the site is very important to the city of Plano. It's also very important Thank you. Turn it over to Greg. Thanks, Andrew. Mr. Chair, members of the Commission, thank you for the opportunity to present to you this evening. My name is Greg Coutant with street Lights Residential. We're a design driven development company based here in DFW. I recognize that countless developers have stood in front of you and preached about quality developments, high end developments, and ultimately have offered the exact same product that already exists in the city of Plano. I've got a few of our projects here at Street Lights Residential, and I want you to see the level of quality that we've already committed to already designed and already built and delivered here in the metroplex. These are high rise projects that lead their respective submarkets as far as quality and the overall level of the offering. Most discerning demographic people who are drawn to a lock and leave lifestyle and quality of life that you can only find with the concierge and valet. These are renters who can choose to live anywhere but live in these buildings to simplify their lives. Traditionally, these buildings appeal to established professionals and empty nesters who have already raised their families and are looking to simplify their lives. Today, this product does not exist in the city of Plano. We do not believe there's anything that has been built of this quality. With this commitment to design and detail that has been built in the city, and we want to offer the residents of Plano a new housing option that does not exist today. Plano has thousands of apartments. We recognize that these these apartments. And here's a map to help, help, help bring this point home. Thousands of apartments You can see the amount of high rise construction that has been built in the city of Plano through its history. So again, I want to make the point. We've committed to a 15 story minimum. We've committed to the high rise construction. Please allow us to develop a new standard of residential. Again, that does not exist in Plano. Thank you. I'm aware we're here for questions. If. Okay. Do we have any other speakers on the item? Yes, sir. We have four additional registered speakers. Okay. As part of the applicant or separate? Separate? Separate. Okay. And there were eight registered opinions for two a in support. There were five in opposition, three for six B there were five registered opinions in support of. And there are three. There's two there's two applicants that are registered to On applicant speakers and we'll go through them. And then we'll get back to answer questions. Thank you. Jake Crawford. Hi, I'm Jackie Crawford, and I was on the review plan committee that met for almost two years to come up with this plan. We spent a lot of time and a lot of effort, and I want to I really want to acknowledge that the I think that the planning staff has done an excellent job in detailing all the specific areas in which this proposal does not comply with the comprehensive plan. Our committee spent a lot of time, and on this particular area, we determined that the vacant use of this property was was the most appropriate, was going to be an employment center and open space. And what I hear now, the two phases are residential first phase. And I believe that there's And the second phase is another residential phase two. I hear, I hear hotels. I hear other things, but there is nothing that is holding this property. This proposal to complete anything. And this does not comply at all with the comprehensive plan. And for that, I urge you, please reject this proposal. Thank you so much. Thank you. Next speaker, Doug Shockey. Doug Shockey, 7504 Avalon Drive. Like Jackie. I was, as you all know, I was chairman of the Comprehensive Plan Review Committee. If you can think back to that time, there was a lot of divisiveness going on, and the CCRC A consensus building. And so we had 16 people who have diverse backgrounds who got together and, you know, like she said, 20 months. But I have to emphasize also the thousands of hours put together, literally thousands of hours of not just meeting as a committee, but meeting with stakeholders citizens corporations, school districts. It just you know, developers as well. And although at times it looked like we may not even be able to get a consensus on our committee, we stuck through it and we persevered, and we came up with a plan that had that consensus and was approved unanimously. We brought it to P and Z, P and Z approved it. The city council approved it all unanimously. And then we made a commitment The consistency that people can look at. The whole purpose was with all this. They can come and they can look at it and they can say, okay, Plano has has drawn the line. This is where this is the future that they want. No plan is perfect. There's, you know, things can happen. We made, you know, arrangements a lot was the, the, the idea that. There would be exceptions and what would we do. What would we do with that. And a lot was thrown about and we came up with the concept of the findings that y'all are going to be faced with tonight. And the findings again, were if you decide that there's going to be an exception, that you need to follow the guiding principles Consistency over time. The guiding principles. And then on top of that also that there would have to be the beneficial factor. Again for not just for one party here or there, but for all stakeholders. The local, you know, neighbors and then the city as a whole. And we put in there in those guiding principles that it's just make sure I get the right word here. Sorry, substantially beneficial. And then the guiding principles state that we expect a high standard, a high standard for these. If there's going to be exceptions. Not just because, you know, you see a potential benefit or you see this. It needs to And I have read through those principles over and over again just in the last over the weekend. And today. And if you consider the needs of the current residents and the impact of these exceptions on the stakeholders, I to me it's impossible to find that this project is substantially beneficial and that that high standard has been met. I, I ask you to deny the request. Thank you. Thank you. Do we have other non applicant speakers? We have one additional speaker via zoom Jennifer Grossman. Is she on zoom? Maybe. Miss Grossman, please turn your mic and camera on Okay, wait a minute. Okay. Can you hear me? We can hear you. We need to see you as well. Okay. Oh, there you are. Okay. You can see me. Okay. So, Jennifer Greisman Brookhollow drive. This zoning change goes against the comprehensive plan. A plan that was put together with blood and sweat by a committee of Plano residents and passed by this body. The plan brought our residents together after a very divisive time under its predecessor. Our comprehensive plan is not just a plan. It is a promise. A promise that says that this property is to be for businesses, not residential. According and I'd like to correct one of the applicant's slides. So according to the slide, I saw the developer says that apartment This is false. The rent, the person renting the apartment pays the property taxes through their rent. Unless the developer wants to eat the very high property tax bill. The office buildings will come back. The fact that the developer wants to build more high rise office buildings on this property tells me that they will come back without residential, right on top of them. The city staff does not support this development as it was presented. And listen to your staff and follow the plan and vote no on this change. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Do we have any other speakers? No other speakers remaining. Okay. So. You have a question? Oh, sorry. The public hearing. Then at this time and there's probably I'm sensing there's a question or two for the applicant, perhaps Mr. Ratliff in particular seems to be anxious. So we'll, we'll let you start it off. Thanks. My mind actually pretty straightforward. Just two questions. At the last meeting we talked about. And on your site plan, you still show the residential? Only on lots seven and seven are. And ten are. But the new restrictions, the way you've written them would also allow residential on lot six, which is a fairly substantial piece of real estate. Is there a reason why you left that whole. It makes me nervous that you didn't restrict lot six R, even though it doesn't match your site plan. When we put together the restrictions, we were expanding the footprint, so we went from 300 to 1000ft was the metric Other requests came up. So the thought is, is who knows what the future brings? We're only planning for the two sites we feel we're planning on five acres of residential across the 107 acres we feel we're reserving plenty for future office, but the future may times may change, and there may be a need in the future. And there is another site available. It's not our appetite to do that, but I don't think there's a sense of restricting it here today. Well, so that may answer my question. Are y'all not willing to restrict site six? Are we could yes. You would be willing to restrict site CSR okay. The other question is and I asked this to staff earlier, the way the PD is currently written is about building permit and vertical construction. That to me I would much rather see certificate of occupancy or final inspection that the additional the additional residential would not receive Co until there was 250,000ft or the or the hotel that Something you would. Yeah, that gets a little difficult because it ties into design durations and finance ability on their end. I you get to a point where, you know, we're eight years down the road before they could even start their design, they can't commission $1 million worth of design work until they have the financing in place. And that's hard to do when we're talking the build duration with the ground up construction. And when you get into the build out of an office interior that's in the tenant's control. So tenants are usually given a T allowance where interior build outs can take six months, or they can take six years. It depends on the nimbleness of the tenant. So that's why I was asking if it was just either core and shell or final inspection. I understand tenants, you can't control the lease up. As opposed to vertical construction because we all know once vertical construction starts it can stop. I would much rather have a completed building before the residential is occupied. It does add a great Can start spending those dollars. It's pretty significant amount of money they put into the design of these facilities. And I'm speaking for you a little bit, but I'm assuming you can't start your design process until funding is in place. Well, the key difference would be if during phase two, if there was a desire for there to be an office and a multifamily project happening concurrently, the multifamily would essentially face another multi year delay. You wouldn't be able to do those concurrently due to the risk of something happening with that other use. So that would that would be kind of the key difference that would impact the deal structure. Well, don't you have the same restriction on a vertical construction requirement as well, because you still wouldn't be able to occupy yours until you as vertical on the other one. So you're tied together either way. Until he. Yeah. Until he went vertical, which would be, you know, the same groundbreaking. So again it it would allow the multifamily and the office to really go forward from a design perspective, target the same groundbreaking. And then again, because there's very rarely the same investor Have the risk of building 150 $180 million building and not being able to get their CEO because something happened to the office. So it just creates a delay in the multifamily. They wouldn't happen concurrently based on that revision. Okay. That answers my question. Thank you. Commissioner Bruno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You've currently leased out 560,000ft■S in the old JCPenney headquarters. It's correct. How long have you had the property and been involved in leasing that out? For three years. Okay. Was all of that 560,000ft■!S? Tt area that you were responsible for leasing out, or did you inherit some tenants when you acquired the property? Well, we did inherit NTT data, which is, I think 247 247,000ft■!S. So you've Is 313,000ft■!S. It's a little north of that. Okay. It was 3000 330,000 for JCPenney. We added, I believe it was 12,000ft■!S to the child care facility and the 10,000 square foot gym. Okay. And a cafe is the child. The child care facility is that like a leasing tenant? Who who who runs that? It's Bright Horizons and we subsidize it. Okay. How how about the gym? Is that also a tenant? That's a tenant. But we also subsidize it. All right. In general, how would you describe the market right now for building and filling office space? It's extremely difficult in a post-Covid environment. I when you look at the submarket and we also own the building across the street, 6400 legacy and 5000 headquarters, a little further down the way, just in legacy, I believe there's north of two point 8,000,000ft■!S of vacancy, just in that little micro market alone. I an average tenant is about 100,000ft■!S. Te ones we're looking Three buildings. Now the average is 12 buildings and it's a very, very competitive process where it's at the city level. So what used to be a 2 to 3 tour process is now months and months of negotiation. Working with the city, working through incentives. So it's becoming more and more challenging to fill buildings. How would you describe the availability of financing for an office project? It's a little difficult, a little difficult. Is it even possible? Yes. We have closed on three acquisitions this year so far. Okay. The reason I ask is I attended a meeting of the of APA Texas. Their annual conference last week, and in one of the sessions we were told that there is no financing available for office space with an advantage for class A over class B and C, but I know it's very hard to achieve financing, but we've been able to do it three times this year. So there are lenders I'm sure there has in the Dallas Fort Worth area. Yes, there have been. There have been. Which ones? There's Goldman Sachs downtown. Uptown. Downtown. Where? In downtown. Fort worth. Yeah. Dallas or Fort Worth. Dallas. Dallas. Okay. Okay. But let's focus on Plano. Land use and what? We're. Well, I'm. I'm getting. There is a tie in, but I'm. Okay, let's get there. Does your does your proposal include any sort of a community center? As of right now, we have opened up our kind of. I call it our park Plaza at the rear of the building. It's almost like an Italian villa back there. There's the fountain back here. There's seating for 100. There's two pickleball courts. This area is open to the public and being utilized by the public today. Okay. I was thinking of, like, an activity center. Is it suitable for any sort of community activities for the residents that might be living in the A pocket park. There's this seating for 100 around our fountain. There's currently two pickleball courts. We're building four more. These are open to the public and being utilized by the public today. Okay. When do you project that it might be feasible to undertake the construction of the office buildings? With there being about, given the current market? Yeah. Given the current market, with my best crystal ball, I would hope 3 to 4 years. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Just a quick question. I see the multifamily you're proposing to build here. Where will those units lease out at what kind of rates will they be? What's your projection? Yeah, we have consistently performed at the top of every submarket we've ever developed. And today the top competitors are all located in Frisco to the north. The buildings in Plano are leasing at about a 20% discount to the buildings in in Frisco. And again, part of Market pricing for high rise across the metroplex is in the $4 range per square foot. What does that relate to in terms of a monthly lease for one of these apartments? You could get leases anywhere from 4000 to $4500 a month to $15,000 a month. Great. Thank you. Mr. Bronsky. One question. So on September 16th, you guys were before us and your architect, Don Powell. Yes. He made this statement. Only one building type in the United States that can go forward in this economy that we're building right now is high rise multifamily. So I'm curious how that works together with your statement about being able to build office. I think it will be a few years before we can build office, was my response. Okay. Thank you Okay. I have. Oh, Mr. Holly. Sorry. Yeah. No worries. A couple of follow up questions. One to Commissioner Bronsky's statement. I heard that statement as. Specific to building type for multi-family. More the class of building type for multi-family that would go forward in this market. I just want to get clarification. If I was listening, I was hearing that right versus any building type period. The comment that he made was, quote, only one building type in the US that can go forward in this economy is the one that we're building high rise multifamily, end quote. Okay. To the applicants for the class of building that you are proposing on the residential side What do you project will be? The clientele that will, would, would take advantage of this kind of offering. Yeah. Great question. We primarily see. People like me. Yeah. Two major just retiring from planning and zoning. I'm not. Go ahead. Sorry. Two major demographics. One is the established professional. We get a lot of folks that are very job oriented. Obviously, the site is proximity to the jobs around people want convenience. They want to be able to walk to work. They don't want to endure a commute of any distance and two, an empty nester, I mean, the you know, who who renters are has been changing over the last ten years. We've got properties where the average age is 60 years old. Okay. And so these folks have owned homes. They've raised families, they've been members of the community for decades. And at the end of the day, they're looking for higher quality of life that lock and leave lifestyle and not having to Thank you. Second question. You've owned this property for three years. If my memory serves me right. That's correct. Previous owners. How long did they own? Would we would you know that? How long they owned the property for? I cannot recall. I'm sorry. I don't have an answer to that. All right, that's fair. The plaza and the active open space. We're saying it's open to the public. Is there any. Restriction of any kind where? I don't know, I'm just thinking of some way to control flow. If that seating is capped at 100 people or what, have you. And, you know, the public on a Friday night shows up at 200 people, right? Is there some way to gate flow? The intent for open to the public is for the local community. The residents behind us. Hopefully the potential new I. There's been requests of some of our neighbors to not make it a destination and make it more of a spot for the local community. Last question. One of the concerns the staff has is the inconsistency to design standards. I in my head, one of the big ones is the strict design parameters. Can you speak to and why? What? What is the blocker in essentially adopting the design packet that the staff has taken? You know, a long time to develop? And applying it to this property. Yeah. So last time we met on the 16th, I Boca Paul had put this exhibit together. The design standards tied to a grid system, kind of like a city block. Our site is pretty amoeba shaped, let's call it. So the actual grid system and streetscapes really don't To clarify staff's position was not to implement a grid. It was to use the standard Street cross section throughout the development. Okay. So if that staff's position, what's what's the answer to that? Yeah. So there's a lot of existing drives there. There's two components. We with the street sections would require removing the streets and restoring them all, which is a lot of infrastructure in place. We want to utilize. And as well as there's on street parking throughout the whole deal. Class A office users users do not want to look out of their office space and see on street parking. It just doesn't comply with kind of the low rise nature of the existing facility. We do not think it provides a good entry experience to what will be the front door of a class A office. Okay. Thank you. Okay. Is the existing building Somebody came to you today says, I want 500,000ft■!S. Is it finished yet? Well, not build a suit, but finish the suit. Let's say they will need to do interior improvements, so there would be a permitting process for sure. But essentially, they could pick any part of the building they wanted to and go in and finish it out. It's good to go. Absolutely. Okay. Well, I hope you go find a 500,000 square foot. We are working on it. Okay. That would be great. How long would it take to build a residential tower? It takes approximately two years of construction to build and deliver first units. And for the site itself to be complete. That follows roughly a year of design work that would need to take place. So first tower might open in three and a half years. Yes. That best case, which is when you think maybe we'll start building office again. Hopefully there's a lot of vacancy to fill here as well as in the area. Understood. Understood. Okay. Thank you Question. How's the hotel market? What do you think the prospects are for the 225 Key Hotel? I think there's. Folks. There's definitely a desire here. I've got a lot of information from Visit Plano. There's a pretty substantial lost business report. This area needs some hotels. We did make a very, very strong commitment to Kintetsu. We've committed to them coming out of the ground first and stabilizing. And, you know, I think they're a I can't fully speak for them, but I'm assuming a 2 to 3 year process before they're out of the ground. And stabilized. So you think the prospects of getting the 225 key hotel better or worse than the office building before phase two? It will be a challenge. There's a lot of flags and there's perimeters. So in the hotel business there's certain brands and they have certain flags, and there's typically a five mile radius associated with it. I with some of the flags that have planted up north in Frisco, they're getting ten mile radius around it. So there is a little bit of limitations on Okay. Thanks. Okay. Thank you guys. So. Kick us off. Just general thoughts. This isn't quite the same as Collin Creek in my opinion, but similar in that we have an old building and instead of it being mostly torn down, they've come in and committed to revitalizing it, which I think is great because the design of that, that building is awesome. I remember watching it being built so I've been inside when it was being constructed, shortly after it was constructed. Over the years, a few times, and again toured it to just see what it looked like. Now I'm impressed with the way they are looking to turn it into more of a When I think about how would you utilize this land space in that area? Density is a positive, whether it's office space or residential. I personally like the idea that we're bringing in a higher level residential, something that's that we don't really have a lot of, and it's actually a minimum amount of residential in a similar space, in a different city. You might find the originally proposed 1000 or 1200 units. So I think they're they're minimum there. But I think that's to their benefit. If they're doing a high end. I think it speaks to a certain demographic and not just the retirees, but you have large, large corporations there with extremely high paid individuals. And if you were a young couple with one of the spouses, a senior exec with JP Morgan, Than right there. If we want to add a whole lot of jobs in that area, we have to add some residential as well. And I think most of the corporate clients would also appreciate that. Certainly, their senior executives would like to live right where they're working. I like the fact they've already invested a lot of money into the property, and that they own other properties in the area. So they're a commitment. They're committed to us, to the city. I understand the discussion around the comprehensive Plan Review Committee. The work that was done there and in particular the inclusion of which went through this body, the use of findings for unique situations that did provide a benefit to the community. And we've seen that legacy has been very successful, very successful when it was originally planned. There was no residential designed Legacy is so successful that it is a destination for people from the North and the South is because of what's grown up. That includes residential, retail, dining, all of those things that were not really originally planned for this area. So I think the inclusion of this mix of uses, unique design standards is a way to make this kind of a unique area for a corporate office to relocate for someone to live. So I'm in favor of this this development, I think it's an appropriate use of land. I think we've placed some restrictions on the on the developer. I in particular love. They've partnered with Street Lights, which is known for extremely high residential, extremely high quality, delivering on their promises. That to me really checked 3 or 4 boxes right off the bat in terms of adding residential to this area. So I am And I think in the end they're going to create something here that, you know, it may take 10 or 15 years, but we'll look back and go, that was a good decision at the time. Anyone else? Mr. Ratliff? Thank you. Chairman. You said a lot of what I was going to say. I want to add a couple of points to it. Commissioner Tong brought up the fact that this is adjacent to PDD 64, which is something that I agree with as well. At least the part that is currently designated for the multifamily is adjacent to PDD 64, which is why I asked the question about restricting it to the lots that are adjacent to PDD 64, where that use is already allowed. And with that restriction, I believe it is effectively a continuation of PDD 64. And I see the northern part of this tract as, for lack of a better term, an The west side, an extension of the west side of legacy. And from that perspective, I don't have a problem with residential in that location. I am concerned about not about about the restriction on lot six or and so I want to make sure we get that in whatever if whatever motion is put for consideration. With that I'm, I'm also a little concerned about the phasing. I would prefer to see the Co on phase two of residential tied to Co of the hotel. If we're talking about three years on the first building, another three years on the second building. I would I would, I would hope that in that six year window or whatever that is, that we could get 250,000ft■!S of something ee or a hotel built before they need a Co on the second residential. I also believe for Plano The commitment to the mixed use as opposed to just the beginning of construction of the mixed us. It documents the actual completion of the mixed use and but the kind of the deciding factor for me is that under the current zoning on that property and I'm not discounting the master plan, but under the current zoning on the property, this use could be much, much more intense. It could have zero open space with full of office buildings with with no green space at all. And I believe that by incorporating the residential components and working with the developer, we've actually improved the long term vision of this property by the commitment to the green space and the commitment to the mix of uses that will make this a much more vibrant property long term than what it potentially could be under its existing zoning The fallback position would be the current zoning that's in place. So with all those things said, if we can tweak a few of the PD stipulations, I am in support of this proposal. Commissioner Kerry. I mean, some interesting points made by these guys. I guess I'm not seeing all of it the same. You know, we spent a couple of years working on a comprehensive plan, specifically targeting this. And while, of course, there's the ability to make some changes, I think the changes here are significant. You know, this property was purchased. It was rezoned with no residential specifically to have more density on here because of the potential to develop a really vibrant business community with more jobs. And so I think that if we do approve this residential, I think that that will really get I listened to Andrew here and he said, who knows what the future holds? And I think that's the best comment possible right now. I'll tell you what I think the future holds. I think the future holds very little mixed retail getting done, and I don't see a lot of it here. To begin with. And we know there's not a lot of office space opportunity. Now there's financing challenges. There are challenges with other flags of hotels and which might prohibit any any great hotels being built here. And so we don't know what the future holds. I'll tell you what I think the future holds. I think the future holds five years from now, these guys coming back in here and asking to build more multifamily, because this multifamily has done so well and it would be it would be, you know, to give these guys some kudos for what they've done with the existing site, I think is exemplary. They did a nice job. What what they would do with the multifamily, I think would be fantastic. But I feel like this site especially really ignores Them. And so I, and I think I think that staff has it right to recommend denial on this one. And I see the short term gains. And, you know, I'm sure there's demand for this type of housing, but I don't I don't think demand should necessarily guide what we do, because there could be demands for all kinds of things that might not be in the best interest of the city and the citizens. So, you know, I also look and there's a lot of space left to lease in the existing building. So I'm lost by a lot of where this is really going beyond these two towers that will get built for multi-family, and I think it will be done and they'll be great, but I don't I don't think it emanates from there. I don't think it develops from there. So I wish I felt differently in some regards. But but I don't. So thank you. Commissioner lolly I actually like I agree with Mr. Ratliff. You know, like we have to restrict the construction Northern area or in some specific lots. And because you're like eventually they're going to come back and they want to build and we don't want we want a continuation of Legacy West, but we don't we don't want to see like a high rise, you know, like park. Eventually they're just going to be like high rise residential everywhere there. And you know, like in surrounding this low rise office building. So in my opinion, like if we want to approve this one, which I think you like, the residential will bring something to this area. Honestly, but I think that we have to restrict it to like certain areas with not, you know, like with no option to add more to it. Okay. Can. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Commissioner Bronsky. So I first off, I want to say I think that Andrew and his team in picking street lights, they could Like, and I've wrestled with this back and forth. I've been in contact with them. I've visited. I do want to address a couple points that I've heard a couple of people bring up. It was mentioned that the corporations in the area might appreciate the multifamily. I can assure you from conversations as late as this afternoon, one large corporation in the area made it very clear to me that it would be their personal preference that there be no multifamily on this site whatsoever. And Mr. Ratliff makes a great point about intensity. And truthfully, when we look at what could be their employment centers, the intensity, I think was an intentional thing. So the intent, the intensity when it comes to the multifamily may be a problem, but the intensity as far as what a business park is expected to have We love to have a greater intensity in the in the corporations, but ultimately, for me, the quality of the multifamily is not a question. When I look at and I read, when the staff talks about not meeting the typical design standards that plan developments for mixed use projects. So that's a problem. I think that we're putting we're putting what we're being sold is a mixed use development. But staff is telling us it doesn't really meet the standards of what mixed use developments look like or operate as. And I'm not sure that the that the retail that's being built around there, the commercial that's being put in. Yeah, it is going to support the residential. Office park for the M category is designed for employment. So it comes down to this, and I think the chairman of the Comprehensive plan made it clear as well as I've been contacted, I've reached out to every comprehensive plan member and every one that I have spoken to made it very clear to me. The comprehensive plan, as everybody around this dais knows, is a guideline. I get that, but the definition of a guideline is a line by which one is guided. An indication or an outline of policy or conduct. Residents and corporations are watching us. They have made investments. Some of them billion dollar investments based on their expectations of us following our guidelines. I And as I told Andrew last time, to sign my name on a findings form is very serious to me. This is an incredible development. I told them last time I thought it was a great looking development. I frankly wish it was somewhere where multifamily was expected by the citizens, was expected by the corporate partners that we have. I would love the street lights development to be in any other place that the citizens and the corporate citizens that we have would want it would expect it because we told them that's where it was going to be. This needs to be an employment center, and I'm really sorry. I have worked very hard to try to get my arms around a way to say yes to this. This development. It doesn't meet the comprehensive plan. It doesn't live up to the commitment that the The staff is standing for in saying no. This development, as it sits with the multifamily is not within the guidelines of the comprehensive plan, doesn't meet the mix of use and isn't what the citizens or the businesses in our community expected. And so unfortunately, I'm going to vote no on this. Thank you. Mr. Bernoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Some great points have been made on both sides and I appreciate every one of them. You can make a case for either voting yes or no on this. You can. Okay. I just want to add some things that I heard at the conference last week. The APA Texas Conference. I attended a session on the future of office space. The presenter was Doug McDonald, who was the director of economic development for the City of Plano and Of current businesses and their employees in the Western Legacy Drive area. Regarding their preferences for a for redevelopment of large portions of. That area. He the three central points were made. The first one was that whereas the future land use map defines an. Employment center to include a number of uses, prominent among which are. Corporate. Campus style corporate headquarters a significant number of those campus style corporate headquarters have become vacant. As did the JCPenney headquarters in this case, and most of those are in the process of being redeveloped into something else. In a couple of cases, even involving demolition of the original headquarters building and reconstruction of something else under I. In light of that, I asked Mr. McDonald directly. Do you think that the campus style corporate headquarters remains a viable land use concept for that part of the city? He said no, because of the high cost of land. You cannot devote that. You know, just have a building surrounded by acres and acres of green space that's that's so valuable that it would probably be best suited for something else. So I take that to mean that one of the underlying assumptions of the of the Employment Center district on our future land use map may no longer be as valid as it was when the comprehensive plan was adopted. All right. The second major point he made was that, as we have seen tonight, the market for development of office type uses has been depressed ever since the pandemic and has led to a very high vacancy rate higher in class B and C office space than in class A. Class A has started to show some improvement Say here. So he said that the market would recover to where people could construct office space as soon as the vacant the vacant space can be absorbed. Until then, he he said there is no financing. The applicant is holds out some hope to find financing, but basically it's difficult and it's a challenge. So if we approve this, we know we're going to have to wait on the office buildings, which means what are we going to get instead? Probably a hotel. The point he made was there is a decent market in this area for hotel construction. Because of business activity that is more than maxing out the hotels that are already present in this general area, including business activity from Frisco, which is bleeding over and filling up Plano hotels. So a hotel could succeed. I believe. Finally, the Freese and Nichols people pointed out that in their survey of the corporate employers and Walkable integrated development which necessarily includes residential retail dining work. You can walk, just walk back and forth with the addition of some last mile public transit to get people, you know from the park and ride over to the general business area as necessary. Now, the comprehensive plan designates this as employment center, which does not include residential. So there is this fundamental disconnect between the comprehensive plan and this project. This project in its general terms. I think complies with the picture that was painted at the presentation that I attended last week. The issue is, how do you justify this in relation to the comprehensive? The comprehensive plan, of course, provides for the possibility of making findings if you are going to I appreciate the amount of citywide effort and consensus building that went into creating the comprehensive plan. As it currently stands. If we approve this project now, I think we'd be opening the door for future projects that are also not supported by the comprehensive plan that may reflect current development trends, which the comprehensive Plan no longer reflects. Therefore, I think it is probably behooves the city to take a look at the comprehensive plan, or at least the future land use map for this area. Determine whether it's still relevant and needs to be revised or tweaked in any way. Until that happens, we would be in a position of having to make decisions on development plans without the underlying guidance provided by the fundamental planning documents of the city. Okay. I think this development could potentially work or something very If it is approved. I think that the zoning code rewrite committee. Mr. Ratliff, I understand you are involved in that should take a look at the future land use map as and how it would impact a revised zoning ordinance. So. What we have is a conflict between the desires of the working community in that area and the residential community of Plano, which potentially could result in hostility. I would just as soon take a pause on a project like this, get our planning documents the way we want, make sure they're the way we want them, revise them if we need to, and then entertain projects like this. So I would just as soon tell this applicant you have a great idea. It's a little premature. Come back in a year or two. That's my Thank you. I'm torn. Like everyone else. I want to say the same thing that Commissioner Bruno said. Everyone had good points on both sides. I'm generally. Usually. I generally support projects that redevelop our land. That's underutilized, especially like big office spaces right now. After Covid, everybody knows that office space is kind of dying and all the offices are struggling to fill. And I can see and I appreciate developers like these to come in and take the hit and try to revitalize the community, revitalize the office space, campuses. It's a challenge for everyone. It's a challenge for the Also for the entire city as a whole. I think we I really appreciate I see everyone is trying to work as a, as a team to try to make this work. And I also appreciate all the people who support the comprehensive plan and me, myself. I'm also supporting the comprehensive plan and I try not to fill out this findings form every time I fill out that form, I'm nervous about it. So the best scenario is to work on some project that will align with all our you know, comprehensive plans and the ideal situation that we want the city to go to. Unfortunately, I feel like the world, the market took a turn unexpected turn from what we are vision was a few years ago. I totally agree with the commissioner. Brounoff said And plan. I don't know the process or the procedures that that we need to follow to do that. But tonight is not going to happen. We're not going to revise the comprehensive plan tonight. And to make sure that we still want to make something happen. I'm a doer. I want to make things happen and move forward. I kind of want to align with Commissioner al-Ali that if we were going to approve this plan, my personal opinions, I would like to see three things happen. One is that we want to restrict where the residential towers are, and we need to know exactly where they are and they are committed to the location. Yet just like a commission. Commissioner Ratliff also said the same thing. We don't want it to be uncommitted. We want it committed. Plan It needs to be closer to where legacy West is, where the current residential area is. It becomes a part of kind of an extension of the current residential area. Second one, in my opinion, I think for these residents, for the new residents in the new powers, which should be very beautiful and fantastic and beautiful life there, they need to be close enough and easy enough to walk to these shopping areas and retail areas. And there are some big streets between, so I'd like to see some connections between the buildings on this side of the street and the buildings on the other side of the street, or the connection or the Legacy West shopping center. Some pedestrian connections that that's safe for the residents to walk over to enable that walkability, to protect that walkability. The No. Must not have been a deal breaker. Why don't we move to Commissioner Olli, if you can think about it, we'll come back. Yes, please. Thank you. Commissioner Olli. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think one of the best descriptions in the packet was this is not typical. Mainly because inherent in the design, based on what was already built there, there is a conflict naturally between the suburban and urban vibe. That I think we've been able to hold that tension in the rest of the legacy business district. So I am not as swayed by that. This guys have, I think everyone agrees, have done a great job of revitalizing what was a dying asset in if legacy Of the crowning achievement of Plano. It will be similar to having a crown, and one of the stones is dull and tarnished and needed a significant amount of polishing. And I want to give them credit for putting in the work. The other thing, having been part of location strategies for two fortune 500 companies, I will cosign what everyone has said here. The concept of office has blown up after Covid right now. What most offices or corporations are looking for is a way to, quote, have a home away from home for them and the employees, which in my mind at least leads or lends to an office that is a bit of a mixed use. You can eat, play, work, quote unquote, all in the same. Maybe not sleep Of my shackles on residential in this area. To be very open was the already built residential on communication, which when I first moved to Plano and I saw that my first inclination was one of these things does not belong here. But it's already there. Which I think shows a willingness at least in the design of the legacy business district, to bend, but not break to accommodate anchoring uses that could perhaps pump life back into a dying, dying asset. The residential buildings that are being proposed here in my in from my from in my opinion, will serve to almost move the housing pipeline within the city a little bit. Because I think the folks who would go rent or buy in this particular development will be folks who already have 5 or $600,000 homes in Plano, who perhaps are now empty nesters, can move on into without sacrificing the quality of life they are used to and kind of like bring that pipeline back in the city housing stock that we quite frankly, have not seen. Moving all that to say is. I think the corporate stakeholders will benefit more. From a revitalized asset with anchoring uses than a stagnant, dead asset that it was before this, folks took on this project. I think the residential community of Plano will benefit from a different type of housing stock. I don't know if we can actually stipulate that they build the concrete, not the wood frame. Highest class stock in this area, but I'm sure the market would will force their hand on that and hold them to their promises. And I also think right now, yes, this is an employment center. But this asset is not generating or was not generating as much employment until these folks came over. And again kick started life back into the asset. So it's not perfect. If it was perfect, I don't think it would be before this commission. It would be, you know, likely a very administrative vibe to it. But I think with my crystal bal, which does not exist, I cannot think of a better use with a caveat of restricting or capping the residential in some way, restricting it to certain areas within the development. And. Tying them as much as possible to the standards that the planning department has done from a design street design connection of the residential area to the rest of the district writ large. If we can accomplish that, I am open to supporting this. Okay, so what we know is that the applicants already said that he's willing to restrict the location of the residential towers to the lots that are currently shown, right. Did we hear that? Right? Okay. In terms of phasing. So. Before they can build the second tower, we're wanting the hotel complete or started. Maybe you should clarify. Commissioner Ratcliff, because you were the one that was kind of describing that my request suggestion is that before you could get Co on the residential tower, the second one, you would have Co on the hotel or the non residential construction. So they could be under construction simultaneously. But you couldn't open the residential tower until the other part of the phasing requirements had been met. And code or at least final inspection of its core and shell for an office. Is that something? According to your core and shell on the office? Okay, then it's not tied to them. Finding tenants for it. Commissioner Tang, I was thinking about what you said with the in regards to the walkability and the access, and it looks to me like the only. And I've walked over there, I have friends that live in that area. Based on where they're going to build at, you really only have the crossing at headquarters, which is a really narrow a small spot, and then you're in that same neighborhood there with all the other townhomes. So I don't think there would be really a connection issue from a walking standpoint. So would it connect to and she was talking about connecting to Legacy West. Yeah. Legacy West. Well that's what I'm saying. Chairman, there's a trail that goes on the trail network on the north side of headquarters is, I think, either an 8 or 10 foot trail that goes all the way. Right? All the way to legacy. Oh, okay. So there's a trail. That was my third. Third question is regarding the phasing or timing about building the amenities of the trails along in there are a few open. I think those start in phase one, right? So they're going to be done in this first as the residential tower. Yeah. The one and a half miles is the requirement for phase one. And then an additional if I'm here with this additional one and a half in phase two. So three miles is the requirement. Three of the four miles. That's three of the four. They're choosing. But three of the four miles are required prior to the to the residential. Is there a map? I can tell which map that has all the trails on it? Yes. And as part of the amenities also include outdoor dining, seating areas and park and pedestrian scale. Looking for your listing? Are those all included or they're all right. They have to get a certificate of occupancy for the additional 400,000 of the existing building. Okay. Complete the open space and amenities, including the want the pond water feature, which is four acre pond and the retaining wall. An additional one and a half miles of existing and new trails, including the Waterfront Trail around the pond. The area, one of the general green space, which is one and a half acres, is required, and then a ten parking spaces for Bruce Glass car park so they can develop out the park. Okay, can you show me where the trails would be required? I believe it's a combination of the blue and purple lines. I'm navigating around the interior street network. Again, those are which they build first. Is up to them. As long as it's the three at least three miles. But the residential towers are actually on the north east corner. So the trails are cut on the southwest corner. The trails are. The seven foot trails are throughout. There is a larger trail along Legacy Drive along the southern end of the property. Okay. Got you. And those will be required to be done at the same time as the residential tower. Did you say the first? The first tower is one and a half miles. The second tower is an additional one and a half miles for a total of three. Three miles. Let's see. Of the four shown in the plan. And the two lots that the buildings are going on. I see lots seven or block seven. It's lot seven are and ten are. Seven are and ten are. Right. Almost the very north center north of the property. Okay. It's the one. So it's the ones adjacent to PD 64. Yeah. The ones adjacent to what you pointed out. Okay. I do have a question. So you're like, so is this senior or independent living is different from senior living because like I understand that there's the assisted living and you know, like an independent independent living are just apartments for those ages 55 or older. Yeah. But still like so we're not going to restrict it. I would like if it was me like I would like to see a separation between those two, like the multifamily and the independent living. So if you like separation, how you like in the, in the ordinance, not just you like under one because you're like they can build you like for 55 and you know like or 50 and older or whatever. But we would like, like for me, I would like to see this like for all ages because, you know, like you would like to have families living in like investing in these trails and as currently written, they could do a combination of midrise and independent living. It's just by by the number of units. Is that is that what you're asking? If or would you prefer that they not have any independent living? Yes. You know, like I prefer to be like open to all ages. So but they're not restricting it right now, right. It is open to all ages, you know, like it's in one category. One category like the fitness, the way that it was written, like in our packet, it says you're like independent living or multifamily. So it's in one line. So if it's two and maybe we can, you know, like put a restriction or something, I'm not understanding. Are you saying you want to exclude independent living. We're not I don't want to exclude it. But I don't want you like the whole development to be for, you know, like a senior living. I prefer to have you like multifamily, you know, like all ages included. Anybody can rent. I think that wouldn't be your intention. That would certainly restrict your clientele if you tried to go all independent living independent much earlier on in the project, would. Receive units and had four towers. So independent living was going to be slated for one of the four towers. But it's something that's going to leave over. So we're okay omitting it and keeping it just straight residential. Okay. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Okay. May I ask just one question? The 250,000 non residential. We keep talking about it as it's going to be office. It's not required to be office. Am I correct. It could be all. It could be all retail. It could be all restaurant. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Okay I'm going to try to create a motion out of all of this stuff that we've said. I need to ask a question first. So I think what we're discussing here with this Co precisely what has to be done before this second tower gets started. Exactly. Is it a shell of a building we're talking started or receive a certificate of occupancy? Either way? I mean it could behoove them to build any shell of a building. And then, I mean, that would not make a huge assumption on our part that they're going to invest the money to build a tall, some type of office building in order to get another residential tower. Yeah, yeah, maybe. I mean, maybe that's the assumption I'm making. Yeah. You're right. Yes. Please. Mr. Chairman, are you ready for a motion? Please? I would move approval of item six, a with the following changes to the stipulations. Residential will be restricted to only lot seven R and ten R as shown on the on the conceptual site plan. And the residential phasing will be such that prior to certificate of occupancy of the phase two residential, they will be required to get a certificate of occupancy on either a 225 key hotel or IT or the At least the core and shell of 250,000ft■!S f non residential buildings or building. But I think I said that right. I think you have it right. Can I ask a quick question? Yes. He said 225 key. They're currently asking for 250 key. Yeah it's in the PD on page 66. I was on page 31 of the staff report says 250 I don't know I was reading out of the PD so okay. So let's go with the stipulations in the in the PD language of 225. Yeah. So yeah I'm going to I'm reading out of the PD. So that's where my change was. So all right so your motion is to approve subject to the restrictions on the location of the residential. And phase two having a Co on the hotel or office space prior to prior to Co of the phase two. No. Prior to prior to Co. Prior to Co. Yeah. You don't want to have them wait until then. They could be under construction concurrently, but they can't open the residential until the other 250,000ft■!S is complete d has a Co okay. And hundred and 25 or more key. Right. Like it reads in the Stip just to correct. Correct 225 plus plus correct. And Commissioner Mulally, did you say you seconded. Okay. So. All right. So we have a motion. We have a second, Mr. Bronsky. So you made the comment, David, that it was 250,000 square foot office, but it's actually non nonresidential. Sorry. Yes. I just want to be clear. Yeah. That's why I'm glad he made the motion because it was clear that way non residential. It's important. The details are important. I have a quick question. So that's for the CEO of the second. The second tower. So if they finished the first residential tower that's like 380 some units. And they don't have to do anything. They can just leave it like that for years. Or is there any time I'm clarifying that all the other stipulations remain as written in the staff report? Right. I'm just modifying those two. Yes. So they could build one of the towers. Right. They don't have to build the second tower and they don't have to build any non residential. I don't have they don't have to build anything else. Right. Again. Yes. Yeah. But they can start building it now because they already are. We giving them the credit for the 560 square thousand square foot that they are renting now? Yes, yes. So they can start building in the first tower. Okay. Are you apologize. I just need to get one clarification. Standard certificate of occupancy for the hotel. What is core and shell? Certificate of occupancy for the 250,000 square foot for non residential. Okay. Open the hotel before the residential or have space available. Space finished and available for tenant. Finish out in any of the other 250,000ft of non residential okay and you seem concerned you you think that they're going to build the one tower and then quit. Possible. Well there's no requirements right. Can we put a requirement on that. No you couldn't do tha. But why would they go through all of this to build one tower. Right. And the thing is too is they own other properties in the area. Depends on how fast they can lease up. If they don't lease up, they can take years. Well, the same thing could be true with an office tower, right? We could choose to take no action. You said earlier, right? Or we can move it forward and moving it forward is more likely to result in more development. Does that make sense? Well, I was envisioning that there are some amenities that will go with the first tower. There are amenities that are being built. Which ones are required to be built. Page 66 of your packet. If you'll look at page 66 on your iPad, there packets didn't come through on their iPad, so they're having to look on paper. Yeah. Are you upset it's not working? I can I can I can read them to you. There's a the courtyard. Well it counts. The courtyard pocket park has to be built. The general green space, including the four new pickleball courts and a minimum of a mile and a half of new trails. Yeah. How did it come up on your iPad? I gave it a mine. Oh, okay. It's. If I may, they're similar to other phased development that we have approved. We are essentially putting faith in the fact that one, the market will force the hand. Right. And two, if you I don't know how much they paid for this development, but if they think they will get their return on investment on just one residential tower, then they have masses. Is off. So I don't know if that helps you, Commissioner Tang, but I think financing will force their hand. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Commissioner Tong, do you have another question? No. I'm good, thank you. Okay, okay. So we have a motion and a second. As stated by Mr. Ratliff. Those in favor, raise your hand. Yes. She's thinking. All right. Are you still thinking or. No. Okay. That's five. Those opposed. That's three. So the item six A carries 5 to 3. We need a motion on item six B move approval of item six B with. Hang on one second. We have to do our findings first. Sorry. Okay everybody we're going to have to take a few minutes to do our findings. And then we will come back for item six B. Okay okay. Any. Miss Sebastian, can you check your zoom chat? Okay. It's 927. We're going to take a five minute recess. We already have a couple of commissioners stepped away, but we couldn't recess until we had submitted our forms. So we're going to take a five minute recess. It's 931. Mr. Ratliff, item six. B, make a motion. We approve. Item six B with the clarification that residential will be restricted to lot seven R and ten R, and appropriate changes will be made to eliminate the Radiuses and et cetera on the site. Plan before it moves forward. We'll have a motion on six B from Commissioner Ratliff with a second by Commissioner Lolly. Chairman. Yes. A quick comment because this is an item for administrative consideration. I'm aware that we have no discretion to deny it, so I will be voting in favor. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second. Those in favor? Mr. Ali? Yes. Okay. That's six opposed. I'm. I'm abstaining. We have one opposition and one abstention. So that item carries six one and one. Okay. Item seven. Thank you guys. Agenda item number seven will be items for individual consideration. Non public hearing items. The presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for public hearing. The presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to insure meeting efficiency may include a total time limit. Agenda item number seven. Preliminary site plan for Plano West Senior High School. Block A lot one public school, one lot on 42.8 acres located at the northwest corner of Willow Bend Drive and Parker Road. Zone. Single family residence nine and agricultural applicant is Plano Independent School District. This item is for administrative consideration pending. Board of Adjustment approval of a zoning ordinance. Variance. Okay. Hello again. Try to keep it under an hour. So this is for Plano West senior High. And so here is the preliminary site plan. So just as an overview they're planning to expand a couple of the buildings on the site. I'm including like the main building. And then their gymnasium. And they are also proposing a automotive training learning facility that also has an open source component and that will be storing like vehicles for the educational purposes. They are also relocating the tennis fields location to be determined at a later date, and proposing some parking changes on the site. So as far as the open storage goes in, highlighted in yellow is the open storage lot where they will have some of the vehicles and some of the equipment for the auto training. As you can see, they are also the property owners to the north, and there's 880ft. I'm forgetting the road. I think it's Parker. And then also to the west is 1200 feet. So there is adequate distance away from the open storage screening. So they are asking for a waiver for the open storage requirement. And P and Z is able to make that determination. And then they are also asking for a reduction in 20% for parking. Generally a school enrollment has trended down. You know, they're confident that they don't need it at this time. And so we are proposing a recommendation for approval with the requested waiver for open source screening and a 20% reduction to the required parking, subject to a variance. Of approval of a variance and subsection 16.700 point one of the Zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum required parking for 11th and 12th grade schools and Plano Fire Rescue. Approval of a variance to the 150 foot hose lay requirement. I'm available for questions. Thank you. Questions for staff I have one. Yes, sir. I'm trying to remember what our ability to reduce parking is. And is it 20%? Yes, 20 is the limit. Okay. Thank yo. Any other questions okay. It's a non public hearing item. There's no one left here to speak so I move I move that we approve the request waiver for open storage screening and 20% reduction in the parking. Subject to the board of adjustment. Approval of the variance to subsection 116 point 700.1 of the zoning Ordinance to reduce the minimum parking for 11th and 12th grade schools and the Plano Fire Rescue. Approval of the variance to the 150 foot hose lay requirement. Second, I second that that was no. I'm going to second it as my very final act as a planning and zoning commissioner. So sorry, Towson, but yeah, but I will second it. It was it was very well, beautifully stated, worthy of your that was in honor of David's last day. I have a motion from Commissioner Bronsky with a very well spoken second by Commissioner Kerry. All in favor? Yes. That item carries 8 to 0. Okay. That does not give them the variances back. So that's right. They've got to come back. Yeah. Yeah. It's okay. So we have we're not done yet. So we actually still have. Let's let's keep going here. Do we have items. Yes sir. We do comments of public interest. This portion of the meeting is to allow up to three minutes per speaker with 30 total minutes on items of interest or concern, and not on items that are on the current agenda. The Planning and Zoning Commission may not discuss these items, but may respond with factual or policy information. The Planning and Zoning Commission may choose to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. We have one registered speaker for public comments. It's Bill Lisle, and he's on via zoom. Okay. Mr. Lisle. I've just been informed he is no longer on zoom. Okay. He's no longer on zoom. Okay. Before I gavel us out of session, Mr. Kerry. Yeah, I just want to say I appreciate the opportunity to serve on this commission. It's been an honor. Our planning department and all of them are fantastic. Mike, and your whole team enjoyed working with it. David enjoyed working with all of you guys. I wish you all good luck. Keep doing good work for Plano. I feel like I've made some really good acquaintances, if not friends, and you know, I wish you all Godspeed in this very, very challenging work at times. But but it's really it's really been an honor. So good luck to everybody. And thank you for letting me serve. Thank you, Mr. Kerry. Okay. And I'll just wrap up saying, you know, I guess a lot of you are the most recent appointee everyone else I've served with for quite a while. It's the thing that I've loved about being on planning and zoning, is that every person that I look at, I know that every decision you make is because you're doing what you think is in the best interest of this city. There is no games. There's no it's pure that I'm getting goosebumps. It's service and that's what I think this is all about. So thank you all of you, for your hearts, for your service, your time and I'm going to miss this a little bit. I think a little very small. I'll be happy to recognize I can be your your comments of public interest at the end. Just to drag the meetings out a little longer. Mr. Ratliff has committed to shortening the meetings by half. I'm not sure how he's going to do that, but. Oh, Mr. Bronsky, what does he pay you or something? No. In all seriousness and all seriousness, thank you. All of you. So much for being a great commission, being orderly. It's been fun. So with that, we are adjourned at 940.