I welcome. I welcome you to the August 6th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I will now call this meeting to order at 6:00 pm. Will you all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance? To the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands? One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. The Planning and Zoning Commission may convene into executive session pursuant to section 55107, one of the Texas Government Code to consult with its attorney regarding posted items in the specially called Meeting Agenda as allowed by law. And so we will be back in a few minutes. It's now 618. Executive session has ended and I call us back into session. Mr. Henry 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 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. Please, Mr. Bill. Lyle. Lyle. Please state your name and address. Bill Lyle, 1724, 15th place. Wanted to respond to, if you will, a rebuttal to the last comments that I made. But before I do that, I want to apologize to you guys. I made comments from the top of the stairs, and I shouldn't have done that. And I won't do that in the future. I'll make my comments here and then when the time is up, I'll be quiet. So I apologize that I did that. Going back to the topic that we were talking about, it's the classification of new and unlisted uses, and there was a question of whether or not you could write a use that was not in the zoning ordinance into existence by way of a PD. And I'm paraphrasing Michelle D'andrea's comments here, because I won't get them exact, but essentially that on an overlay district you can write in a use. And I would agree with that. But the use has to already exist in the ordinance. And the staff report said that the use didn't exist in the ordinance. Chapter or article 14 400 is where you go for the classification of a new and unlisted uses. Is what staff said this was. Dot one says the question concerning any new or unlisted use shall be referred to the Planning and Zoning Commission, requesting an interpretation to the zoning classification into which such use shall be placed. The referral of the use interpretation question shall be accompanied by a statement of facts, listing the nature of the use and whether it involves dwelling, activity, sales. On and on and on, skipping to dot two, the Planning and Zoning Commission shall consider the nature and describe performance of the proposed use and its compatibility with the uses permitted in the various districts, and determine the zoning, district or districts within which such use should be permitted. The point here is that shall is used five different times in this chapter. S h a. Article eight is where we get the interpretation of language in our zoning ordinance, and it tells us at the beginning it says the word shall is mandatory and not discretionary. You don't have a choice is what that's saying. It's mandatory. That's the language. I'm just reading what the ordinance says. Guys, I think this stuff matters. I think our ordinance matters. I think y'all's jobs matter. I think what you do here matters. And the only reason I'm here is because I think our our laws should be followed. I don't think that's unreasonable. I told Miss Day several times, 30s I think reasonable people should be able to read the ordinance and follow it and trust it and believe that you guys are going to follow it. And so can you write one use into another with a PD? Yes. You can take corridor commercial and write multifamily over the top of it with an overlay district. You can do that. But we're talking about an existing use that doesn't exist at all. It's not in the ordinance. That's what staff says. Thank you. There are no more registered speakers. Thank you very much. Public hearing items, items for individual consideration, items for individual consideration. Public hearing items, unless otherwise instructed by the chair speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal considerations. Because we have one agenda item with three points under it. I would like to allow each speaker to have a total of five minutes, instead of breaking it out into three minute segments, please. All right. Would you like me to read all three? Yes, please read all three together. All right. Agenda item number one, a request to amend various sections of the zoning ordinance pertaining to recent state legislative actions and to ensure compliance with state law. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number one b request to amend various sections of the subdivision Ordinance pertaining to recent state legislative actions and to ensure compliance with state law. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number 1CA request to amend various sections of the street design standards pertaining to recent state legislative actions. The applicant for all three items is the City of Plano. This item is for legislative consideration. Sebastian, I'd like to ask you to pause just for a second and have Mr. Andrea speak. Thank you. Chair, I just wanted to put on the record that this hearing is different from so many others because the Commission is asked to make these zoning amendments because of or in reaction to the Texas Legislature's passage of SB 840, SB 15, and other land related bills. The changes required by the legislation are not discretionary. The other amendments are recommended to fulfill comprehensive plan policies. The Texas Constitution requires city regulations to be compliant with state law. Towards the end of this meeting, the Commission is going to be asked to complete findings forms. These are forms that are required by our comprehensive plan for situations where the ordinance is being amended. The zoning ordinance is being amended in ways that don't meet certain aspects of the Comprehensive Plan. However, even though the commissioners are filling out these finding forms, their response to make the zoning ordinance compliant with state law truly isn't discretionary. And you'll find on these finding forms that there is a different box than what's there. Usually that allows simply the checking off of a box saying to comply with state law. Thank you, Miss Sebastian. All right. Good evening, commissioners again, Christina Sebastian, land records planning manager, here again to talk about legislative amendments. So we have had a couple of meetings so far. We are preparing for the public hearings tonight. And then we will have a city council public hearing scheduled for August 25th. All of this is so that the amendments can be adopted in time for the effective date of most of the bills of September 1st, although one of the bills we'll talk about is already in effect. So we're talking about six bills this evening. These three here are new for y'all. And then we'll also talk about the three we've been talking about at our previous meetings. So House Bill 1522 is the biggest impact there is that there is an earlier deadline to post agendas than there is today. House Bill 24 makes changes to the zoning case, noticing and protest procedures, and then House Bill 2464 creates regulations for no impact home based businesses. We'll explain what those are later. And that is the one that is already in effect. And then again, we have the three bills. We've been talking about Senate Bill 15 for small lot single family Senate Bill 840 for multifamily and mixed use residential in most non residential areas, plus the conversion of nonresidential buildings to those uses. And the related companion bill of 2477 for office conversions. These last three bills are bracketed to cities with populations over 150,000 and counties over 300,000, and again discussed previously. Those are also the three that include additional language regarding a providing additional litigants that can sue cities. We would potentially be responsible for their legal fees as well as ours if they were successful. So as we've had these meetings, we've had a couple of goals identified to keep in mind as as we adjust our ordinances to comply with the new laws. So we have tweaked these slightly since the last meeting in response to the Commission and council's comments. So the first one to preserve Plano's ability to foster economic development, particularly in the legacy and the research technology crossroads areas. Second, to preserve neighborhood compatibility and integrity. Three to ensure adequate infrastructure for these uses four to preserve the desirability and attractiveness of Plano as a place where Plano can live and work by requiring well-built multifamily and mixed use developments, and five to diversify the city's housing stock. Again, as we've noted before, there are potential to create non-conformities with these changes, but we have designed the amendments to avoid creating nonconformities. If non-conforming uses were created, we would need to send notice to property owners and tenants. And because we intended to avoid creating nonconforming conforming uses, we did not send those notices. So just something to keep in mind. All right. So quickly, we well, as quickly as we can, we're going to try to go through these three new bills before we also get to the three we've previously discussed. So House Bill 1522 that one is the one that changes the agenda posting deadlines. So today agendas need to be posted 72 hours before the meeting time. The new. Under the new bill, it will be three business days before the meeting date. So for your commission that typically meets on Monday nights, that means that your agendas are going to need to be posted by Tuesday the week before. But don't get too excited about earlier agendas because due to our current schedules, processes, and the 30 day shot clock that's also in place from the state, packets are going to be continued to be published on Thursdays. So the real impact, while the agenda will be available for people to see sooner, it will also mean that we're going to need to be more strict with applicants on cutoff deadlines to get on those agendas. We don't need to change the ordinances to comply with this bill, but we wanted to you to be aware the bill does include a number of other changes specific to city budgets, but this was the one that really impacts your commission. So House Bill 24, this one is a bit complicated. There's just a largely because there's a number of elements that are included in it. So I'm going to outline them here. But then we'll go over each of them and what we're doing to respond to them in just a moment. So notice of council public hearings for zoning cases needs to be posted on the city website. Under the bill, signs need to be posted on the site for proposed zoning changes. There is a new category of zoning changes created called Proposed Comprehensive Zoning Change and then most notably, the protest thresholds for surrounding property owners. For some, zoning change requests is changing from 20% to 60%. We'll provide some more detail there. And then number five, and I apologize because this was not noted in the staff report, though it is included in your in the proposed amendments in the attachment, the option was removed to require a city Council supermajority. When your commission denies a zoning case. We'll talk a little bit about that in a moment. So for website postings, we currently post notice of City Council public hearings in the newspaper and the Dallas Morning News. But now, because we do have a website, obviously we're going to be posting it as well on this public notices page that already existed for other purposes. So we will just be adding those on there as well. For zoning signs. This is also fairly straightforward because we already do this. So our standards generally align with the bill. We did need to make some changes though. There is a standard in there that allows when the city initiates a zoning case on private land, we have the if we can post signs, we could, but if we can't, if we couldn't get permission, we would have the opportunity to post on a media communications platform as designated by the city manager. But that really won't work under the bill. Under the bill, we are required to post the sign, even on private property. So the bill essentially kind of gives us that permission. That hopefully is not an issue. We don't have to do this very often, but we did have to adjust our standard for that. And if there are multiple properties involved, we actually can post it in the right of way so we don't have to get onto the private property in those cases. So amendments are drafted to better align our standards with this bill. So proposed comprehensive zoning changes is this new category that was created. These are going to be city initiated proposals. So still things that you're going to generally be calling a public hearing for. And perhaps council would. So there's three main types of these changes. You could either change the zoning regulation to allow more residential development than what was allowed before, but it also needs to apply uniformly to each parcel in those zoning districts. You could adopt a new zoning code or zoning map that's going to apply to the entire city. Or if you're adopting an overlay district, that would again allow more residential development than before and is along a major transportation corridor. So with these types of zoning changes, there are some some changes on what's required for noticing and for protest. So that newspaper notice is still going to happen. The new website notice is also going to happen. If there are non-conformities that are created, we would be required to notice for that. Under the Senate Bill 99 from the last legislative session. And then on the occasions that we do joint council and public hearings, we would do our standard notice that that is basically the newspaper and website notice typically, anyway, it is not subject to protests from owners or of surrounding or subject properties. So that is an important distinction to keep in mind for these types of cases. And then the big change on the protest changes is that for certain types, another category of zoning changes, certain types of changes that allow more residential development than existing sounds similar to the previous one, but this is now we're talking about private initiation of these these requests. So if more residential development is permitted and. No more commercial or industrial uses are permitted, unless those uses are limited to the first floor of the development and don't exceed 35% of the overall development. So we're going to have to be very cognizant, as we're identifying which which cases fall under under which this category to make sure it fits. But when those cases come in, if they are protested, their their protest threshold, while they used to have a 20% for surrounding property owners, it's now 60%. And that's going to require a majority at council rather than a supermajority. So that's five votes. And the distinction between a regular majority at a council case and this type of majority for a protest case is that it's based on the number of council members, not the number of members present at that meeting. So that's the main distinction that that this would trigger versus a standard vote that they might take. So to outline the difference between what we do today for land based cases and what's coming under the new bill. We've got the different types of cases in the second column. The third column is for the subject area itself, the land that's subject to change. And then the last column is for area within 200ft. So today for land based cases, 20% of the owners of the 20% of the area, the owners of those, it's not the number, it's the it's the land area that's considered. If that threshold is met, it requires a supermajority for the subject area. And then there's a separate calculation for within 200ft. And it's the same 20% and a supermajority for those additional residential cases we just talked about in the last slide. It stays the same for the subject area. But that's where it's going up to 60% for within 200ft. And that's where it becomes a majority instead of a supermajority. The proposed comprehensive zoning changes as we discussed, there's no protest ability. And then all other land based zoning cases remain as they are today. So 20% for both the subject area and within 200ft and still the supermajority. And then last, as I mentioned, the ordinance is updated to remove the requirement for a city council supermajority. When your commission denies a zoning case. Our charter requires a majority of present members. So without that state allowance that now is no longer going to exist, we can no longer require supermajority. All right. So next and last new bill is House Bill 2464. So this one is about home occupations. That's what we typically call them in Plano. They have defined a new term called no impact home based businesses. So they are in a residential property. They're providing a lawful good or service. They they they have no impact. So the total number of employees and patrons don't exceed the standard occupancy for that dwelling. They don't generate an additional on street parking or substantial increase in traffic. The activities of the business are not visible from the street, and they don't substantially increase the noise in the area. So if these when these types of businesses are operating out of a home, the city is limited in how we can regulate or prohibit them. And again, this bill is already in effect, as I mentioned, we currently have a home occupation use because we don't want to create nonconformities. We are suggesting to add another type of use called home based business. No impact. Just trying to think those up when you alphabetize them so they're close together in the use chart. So under the main differences between these these two uses is that the significant difference is I'll say is that for the home occupations that we currently allow, there is reasonable on street parking allowed in front of the home that has the business, but there is only one employee allowed besides the occupants of the home under the no impact home based business, they cannot use on street parking at all in connection with the business, and they can potentially have more employees because it's based on the occupancy requirements for the building. So that's it. On the new bills. And if you'd like, I can continue on to talk about the three and where where we are with that with the amendments, please. Okay. All right. So again, as a reminder, only certain cities are subject to these bills. There's 19 in Texas mapped here. Ten of those are in North Texas. Senate Bill 15 allows small lot single family on land that is zoned for single family, has never been platted and is five acres or more. And it does exclude an area within 3000ft of an airport. There's a variety of different standards that are prescribed under the bill, including setbacks, height, and parking. So this is our updated map of parcels that are potentially subject to SB 15. So the areas in yellow meet those those requirements as five acres or more. And single family is allowed by right. And they've never been plotted. There are also a number of areas identified in gray that meet those requirements, but are owned by the city and are generally parkland. So to implement Senate Bill 15, generally we're going to draft we have regulations drafted to comply with the law. So we plan on creating use specific standards. Those are available in attachment A of agenda item one A called single family small lot. And those standards align with the bill. So when properties that meet the bill thresholds come in to develop, they would have the option to plot under those single family small small lot standards. Or they could follow their base zoning district and that would get noted on the plot. Additionally, because there are restrictions on lot coverage and we and these are smaller lots, we are requiring open space based on the size of the subdivision and the number of lots. And really, that's the big impact on the zoning ordinance for SB 15. So Senate Bill 840, as a reminder, allows multifamily and mixed use in any areas that allow office, commercial, retail, warehouse or mixed use. This means all nonresidential zoning districts in the city. We cannot require any discretionary approvals such as zoning in these areas. It limits additionally what the city can regulate anywhere multifamily is built. So including our existing multifamily districts, and there are specific requirements required there and permits, plots and site plans must be administratively approved. Additionally, it does allow conversion of nonresidential buildings to multifamily or mixed use. There are a handful of exceptions the same 3000ft within 3000ft of the airport, just outside our city limit, and then within 1000ft of a defined, heavy industrial use that's defined by the bill. And we've identified three locations that that meet those standards. So this this map shows existing multifamily zoning districts in orange in the dark blue. It's nonresidential zoning districts where the height is above 45ft and the light blue is nonresidential. Zoning districts where the maximum height is 45ft or less. And then again, we also have the Senate Bill 2477 companion bill that was specific to office conversions, but is going to be harmonized with 840 to align. So the Senate bill 840, as I mentioned, has a variety of standards that are required for these these uses when they are developed. So density is the highest density allowed in the city, or 36 dwelling units per acre. Height is based on the maximum height that would apply to nonresidential use on the same site, or 45ft. So if nonresidential is maximum height is 35, that multifamily can go up to 45. Setback or buffer is very similar. It's the smallest it's going to be is 25ft. Can't require more than one parking space per dwelling unit. There's restriction. We can't regulate lot coverage and restrictions regarding nonresidential uses and mixed use. And again the administrative approvals required. So these are the kind of big picture highlights of the zoning ordinance changes we're proposing for implementation of Senate Bill 840. Generally, we're going to bring regulations in compliance with the law. We're going to regulate density through minimum heights, maximum heights and minimum dwelling unit sizes. We're proposing to adopt new design standards for multifamily, for building and site design, landscaping, and building quality and resilience. We're updating the Expressway Corridor overlay district. We're considering allowing single family uses in some nonresidential districts. We will be removing multifamily as an allowed use in the zoning district and then requiring notice and signage for development due to Senate Bill 840, but actually Senate Bill 15 as well, which we will be discussing later. So this map was presented in the joint meeting packet. This is the height minimums and maximums that are proposed throughout the city. So there's a lot to take in on this map. But kind of in the retail corners you're looking at heights between 0 and 45ft. And then as you go along say the US 75, we've got heights between 45ft and 325ft. And then in the more urban areas, minimum of 75 to no maximum, but notably in the PT district, we have a minimum height of 120ft, with a maximum height of 325, and in the Commercial Employment District, generally along the tollways and the North and Dallas North Tollway. We're looking at 120 foot minimum with a with no maximum, and those 120 foot higher. Higher minimums are to align with parts of the comp plan that require ten feet, sorry, ten stories or more for certain types of development. And to help protect these these so that when we do get them, they're higher quality, higher developments. Excuse me. So as these these new heights go in place in the city, we wanted to make sure we looked at what, what protections we could put in place for a single family uses nearby by looking at our height restrictions. So the current zoning ordinance actually has some height restrictions in our yard regulations. So we're adapting those and moving them specifically to our height regulations. And article 13, resulting in a 1 to 2 slope starting at the setback line. So there's a graphic that's part of the proposed amendments, as well as some additional text to help explain this. But we're hopeful that that can help keep from having necessarily a wall right up against that setback line. And this would be required for all development, not just multifamily. We've also talked about efficient building design at both of our meetings, but especially the joint meeting with council. So we have drafted some design standards for multifamily and mixed use residential. That's attachment C to agenda item one. We're kind of looking at the specific topic of efficient building design as a two phased approach for now, we are including Leed certification requirements for multifamily and mixed use. But as for phase two, we're going to look at other options such as the International Green Building Code or the Texas Green code, or some hybrid of all of these things. And we'll be looking at that as part of the rewrite with the rewrite advisory committee. And we'll be we'll need to work with the building official and the Building Standards Commission on any building code amendments. As I mentioned, we have our design standards. So we did have previous previously have in place multifamily guidelines. They're really designed for garden style apartments. They are adopted in 1991 and rescinded in 2022. And for especially for the non garden style apartments, we have had the opportunity because most multifamily recently has required a legislative process. So throughout that through that process, we're able to kind of allow the community to regulate the design of this, this multifamily, oftentimes through a plan development process or sometimes a development plan. There is, meanwhile, a citywide community design plan underway to implement the comprehensive plan. And so with the development process now being administrative, design standards are being normalized. And we have this new there we go document the design standards for multifamily and mixed use residential developments. It's kind of our our first phase of kind of the community design plan that is currently being worked on, but we needed to get something in place for these new developments so that we can get that higher quality development. But there will be more to come on the community design plan over time. A topic that was brought up in regards to parking was compact parking that is currently restricted to certain uses that does not include multifamily. In section six 16.300, an exclusion was added. So because under article six, the BG downtown district is excluded, it does allow compact parking. But we revised BG so that multifamily cannot use multifamily. Multifamily cannot use compact parking. Also, we've talked a lot about the expressway corridor overlay district and modifications to that that are needed for the bill. So we have drafted amendments for that that removed the standards that cannot no longer be required. It does prohibit residential balconies facing expressways for all dwellings in the overlay requires a 15 foot landscape edge along the property lines for all land uses in the overlay, and then it requires the standards that were in the expressway corridor. Overlay district is actually being moved to apply to all institutional dwellings, multifamily and mixed use buildings in the city. So that's the Merv filters, the location of the intake openings for that one. We did add in a buffer from the expressway because we felt if you're nowhere near an expressway, the location is less important. And then the building design to address interior noise levels would still be applicable to all dwellings, all of these types of dwellings in the city. So another topic is the single family uses in nonresidential districts. And whether we wanted to allow more of those types of uses as an alternative to multifamily multifamily in some districts. So per the Commission's direction, we're looking at tier two housing from the residential community design district. So that's those three types listed here. And. And we have two options for you. So for option one, this is what is included in the draft ordinance. This is districts where some residential uses are allowed by right today. And also locations that are generally adjacent to single family development. So that's our two office districts, the retail district urban mixed use BG for downtown and CB one. We're keeping the expressway corridor overlay for the restricted area. Those these uses would not be permitted 3000 foot from an airport and 1000ft from heavy industrial uses. So for comparison, this is option two. And this one is districts that allow some residential uses, either by right or by Sup today, but they may not necessarily be adjacent to existing single family and may be appropriate for mixed use, but maybe are less appropriate for single family. We wanted to let you look at both so you could kind of consider both. But again we did a draft the amendments to implement option one. We can kind of hop back and forth as needed later in our discussion. We do have a map that kind of shows both overlaid. I will note the legend in the packet was a little bit misleading. The yellow that shows is really just this. The CCRC and re zoning districts and blue are those office districts. Blue is blue is option one. Yellow is a is a subset of option two and includes some of. It makes it hard to identify between option one and option two on this map, but we can look at it if it is helpful to see. So if either of those options are considered by the commission, it would mean that we would be allowing more parcels to be impacted by Senate Bill 15. So we have drafted what, as we said, the RCD tier two housing types would be what was permitted under option one or option two. But anything that meets the thresholds for Senate Bill 15, be that it's not plotted, it's five acres or more. And then if we make this change would therefore allow single family would be there would be more impacted. So this one here shows the parcels in a dark navy. It kind of looks close in color to the airport color. So not the airport but those those couple of dark blue locations would be added to that previous map for Senate Bill 15. So for option one it's just a handful of locations. Under option two, you get a few more larger areas that would be subject to Senate Bill 15 if we were to make this change. As we've discussed, we're proposing to require noticing for Senate Bill 15 and Senate Bill 840 projects. So signage would be required through the planning and engineering project release process. The signs would be slightly similar, but different in style from the zoning case signs, and then similarly, we would require we would as the city mail notice to properties within property owners within 500ft and registered neighborhood groups within 1500 feet. And we would be presenting an additional fee to City Council for consideration to. Essentially make up for the cost of doing this. There are also non zoning ordinance changes that need to happen. So we do have the companion items one B and one C tonight. So one B is for the subdivision ordinance and one C is for the street design standards. This slide here is largely in response to Senate Bill 15. So for both of these they needed the subdivision ordinance and the street design standards needed some changes to make this happen. All residential lots in the city that are 50 foot in width or less would need to have rear access from an alley, and that alley would be slightly wider than a standard alley. For a standard lot, it would require a 600 foot maximum block length and would use mixed street design. A street design with on street parking, street trees, wider sidewalks. Also, we wanted to make sure to clarify that a vacated plat is still considered a plat of record. In response to Senate Bill 15. So additional changes that we wanted to implement are to require an internal street network for multifamily projects over five acres. So there here would be very similar standards, with a 600 foot maximum block length, same mixed use street design, and then the streets would be privately maintained, but may be accepted as public streets in very specific conditions. We're also looking to require an infrastructure analysis earlier in the development process. So at concept plan and preliminary site plan now and also start requiring a water and sewer study so that capacity would be analyzed and the capacity would actually be kind of vested with the project. So it's not just everybody gets access to the same. And whoever comes like we could have people having capacity that kind of overlaps each other. That's not the intent. Each each project gets, gets its own capacity and kind of locks into that. They wouldn't be able to transfer it to another project, but they could voluntarily forfeit it if the project was no longer moving forward. Or also making changes to the subdivision ordinance regarding city cost participation. So there were references in there to facilities eligible for city participation. Those have been removed that city participation is not obligated, and any city participation that might occur in regards to infrastructure would require approval of a development agreement. There were a couple other changes because we wanted to tie the noticing for Senate Bill 15 and 840 projects to the plot that that is noted in the subdivision ordinance. There were some administrative definitions added. And then, of course, exemptions for any nonresidential conversions that might occur. There's a couple things that were not included in the changes. Right now. The stormwater mitigation is going to be addressed as part of the rewrite project. And then we'll administratively handle making sure that plot notes are are as they should be to note, whether it's a Senate Bill 15 project or not. So in regards to the zoning case and its conformance with the comprehensive plan, we always look at the guiding principles. We did find that there were a number of actions and policies that that these changes do conform with the land use action. One community Design policy and action one and the Redevelopment and growth Management Action three. But as miss D'Andrea mentioned earlier, findings are required due to the redevelopment and growth management policy and the requirements for findings. When a case does not align with the mix of uses, density or height in the future. Land use dashboards. We've noted there's been a variety of outreach done some email newsletters, the city's website and social media. They put out a Plano City news video. Of course, we have the zoning case response map available for public comments, and we keep information posted on our active zoning petitions page as well. We did get one response on our zoning case response map in opposition to the zoning case, as well as five additional other letters and emails that were included in the packet. As I mentioned, for the zoning case specifically, while the zoning case is disfavored, it is recommended that the Prns strongly consider approval to ensure compliance of the city's ordinance with state law. Findings will be required if you vote to approve, and changes are noted in attachment A of agenda item one A and I will note the changes. As you know, we didn't have a lot of time. The style might be a little harder to read than usual. We will be cleaning that up in the actual ordinance that would be presented at council, as we have more time for the subdivision ordinance amendments a bit more straightforward, we recommend you approve the changes as shown in attachment A for agenda item one b and similarly for the street design standards. The amendments are shown in attachment A of agenda item one C, and we recommend approval of that. And that's it. And I'm available for any questions. Thank you Miss Sebastian. Does the commission have any technical questions for staff? Mr. Ali? Just a clarification for HB 24. Given that is in effect and it essentially precedes eight, 40 and 15, the language about. Signage saying noticing requires this is a proposed comprehensive zoning. I forget the last part given that we are trying to implement signage changes to specifically signal when something is due to SB 840, would we be required to have that text? You know, this is a proposed zoning. Whatever that language was. So to two notes on that. One is the bill that is in effect already is House Bill 2464, the home based business. One. So 24 is not yet in effect in regards to signs, but then those signs that are required are specific to zoning changes. And our new signs that we're proposing are specific to development. So they be regulated differently. Okay. On 2464, the only. Guardrail that I see there is noise. If I have a home based business and I am making organic manure, which smells, we can't restrict that, am I correct in thinking that way? As long as it doesn't take off street parking and it doesn't violate occupancy, that would normally come with that building, I can essentially have a manure heap and sell out of my backyard. Technically, I think, and if anyone, any other colleagues have more information, but I think that is explicitly not a odor is not included as a as a consideration. It is specific to noise. I'm going to keep skimming to confirm. That's what I thought. I didn't see odor. Yeah. If I can add I have the bill up right now and I'll just read the relevant section of it. So the municipality is still able to require that a home based business be in compliance with federal, state and local law, including one municipal fire and building code and two, a municipal regulation related to health and sanitation, transportation or traffic control, solid or hazardous waste or pollution and noise control. And we may also require that the business be compatible with the residential use of the property where the business is located. That's going to be interesting. Okay, one other thing. Just more voluntary forfeiture of capacity. Can you explain that a little bit more in depth? Said like for instance, if a development a development can forfeit capacity based on city architecture, can you elaborate on that a little bit? Sure. So the study will determine anticipated demand of capacity based on the development. That amount of capacity will be preserved for as long as the project is going through. The process should, for whatever reason, they no longer want to continue with that project. They can give that capacity back and it will no longer be reserved. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you, chairman. With respect to the no impact home business, the language that you put up on the screen mentioned that there was a requirement that the number of employees and patrons not exceed the occupancy limit for the property. Does that mean employees and patrons who are actually physically present on the property, because a home business could have employees working off site, they could have clients located all over? Is. Does this purport to limit the number of clients a business can have? I'm going to look at the actual bill text. Okay. Yes, it's based on what's happening on the property where the business is located. Yes. Has at any time on the property where the business is operated, a total number of employees or clients or patrons of the business that does not exceed the municipal occupancy limit. So it's only regulating the ones that are on the property at one time. I'm just wondering how a business operator prevents somebody from showing up on the front porch and ringing the doorbell. I mean, anyway. I guess that's a problem we can't solve today, but okay, I just wanted that clarification. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. Commissioner Tong, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so much for the presentation. All the staff members, I think that this is a tremendous changes in such a short time frame. So a lot of hard work put into it. So I really appreciate it. I do have a question regarding a comment you made that based on what we have right now. It's actually I can't remember which slide. You said we actually have more areas than the bill has impact on or something like that. You know, those office areas that non residential areas that that can change into multifamily or mixed use. There are two maps that you're merging them together. And you said these are actually more areas than the bill allows. I just didn't understand the how that happened. Can you explain that again? Sure. So we are looking at potentially allowing more single family uses in nonresidential districts where they're not currently permitted as an alternative to consider for a developer, perhaps in, in perhaps an alternative to multifamily or mixed use. So we have two different sets of non residential districts that we're looking at. So option one these would be allowing single family uses in this the blue or the yellow color. It would just be specific to single family. And here specific to single family. For option two on the yellow. And then because we would be doing that. The impacts of Senate Bill 15 would grow slightly. So on these maps this is for option one. We would have additional parcels that would be subject to those smaller lot single family. So they would be able to develop under the tier two housing that would be expanded, as well as the small lot single family bill under Senate Bill 15. So these these couple of dark blue parcels on this on this map for option one. And if it was option two there would be a few more bigger parcels. And are you looking for directions tonight to pick between option one and two. We would like to know again it's drafted for option one. So if you were to prefer that you could just adopt it as proposed. But if you preferred option two then you would need to recommend with an amendment. Or if you prefer some other combination, let us know that too. Okay. Thank you. Vice chair. Last one I promise. Remind me how we calculate allowed occupancy for residential. Is it by gross floor area by bedrooms? There is a standard under the property maintenance code, I believe, and it is based on each bedroom. It needs to have a certain amount of square footage based on the number of people that would be in there. So if you have X size square square footage, it would say that's how many. There's a calculation to determine how many people can can occupy that bedroom. But that is under a different code than the zoning and subdivision ordinances. So rough math, 3000 square foot home with five bedrooms. Could easily have a cap of at least 20 to 25 people as employees in that home, if my math is right. Because I think it's like a four to a bedroom was. Yes, that is right. It is a large number of people under the property maintenance code. Thank you. Commissioner Ali. Seem like I have a question. So these maps does not show the PDS areas, right? PDS are included based on their base zoning category. So they aren't included in these like so like so if they elect to come back to us to change any of their zoning, they they can do that, right? They could request to change their their zoning. It slightly depends on what the PD is regulating. But if, say, multifamily is not permitted today under they have one zoning as their base zoning, multifamily is now an allowed use for that PD. They would not have to come back to us to amend that PD to build the multifamily. If they meet all the other standards that are being adopted, so they don't have to come back to us because they are included in these maps where you're showing like all these changes might happen. That's right. Only if they want to request some sort of amendment to the standards that y'all are considering tonight. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just one more question. My understanding is these are all for non residential zoning areas. And I know that Plano will probably build out. But if we had large areas of land zoned commercial, can they use that to build residential for by right. Or is this law only applies to existing buildings. It is both land and undeveloped land. Existing buildings that could be converted or existing development that could be redeveloped as a brand new building. Okay, it doesn't matter if there's any structure on it or not. That's right. Thank you. Any further questions for staff? Okay. I will call the public hearing. Open up. We do have registered speakers okay. If you could call them in order, please remember with we're going to take all three and put them together. So a total of 30 minutes we're going to give each speaker a total of five minutes to speak on this. This one item as a whole, sir, the first speaker is Mr. Frank Turner, and then the next speaker will be William Pierce Cravens via zoom. Mr. Turner. Okay. Mr. Turner is not speaking. So the next speaker will be William Pierce Cravens via zoom. Mr. Cravens, are you available? I am, yes, if you could turn on his video, you please turn on your video. Okay. All right. You may begin. Good evening. Thank you, commissioners, and thank you, staff, for the work that you've done to put into this presentation. These are some really substantial changes with every iteration of substantial changes that the city of Plano has made to their subdivision ordinance or comprehensive plan, or any other major planning and zoning changes. The city has always conducted a wide range of public outreach to ensure that property owners within the city are able to voice their opinions and concerns, and have a seat at the table. And I feel that this process breaks with that tradition. A lot of the bills that were mentioned as B40, SB 15, etc. Will help to repurpose fallow developments within the city, as well as some vacant property that is presently Undevelopable state. But many of the items within these baked into these changes this evening actually add more cost burden to the development and therefore would have to pass on those higher development costs, or at least try to pass on those development costs to the end user, whether that's a multifamily rental unit or a single family house for sale or rent. These these changes feel very reactive, and I'm hopeful that the commissioners will. Will pass items. I, I guess I don't understand why these two items are not being split. Those that are required to be addressed by these new state laws and the amendments on the other hand. So I feel like those two should be separate because the amendments are discretionary. I feel like they should go through the same process that the other changes have gone through in the past. You know, the SB 40 will will offer a lot of development opportunities within specifically East Plano, where there are a lot of small lot properties with outdated zoning. And due to their small size, the project otherwise wouldn't justify for a substantial cost of rezoning. You just can't amortize that. That extreme cost over a small project. Like I said, it would open up many vacant and unusable properties to viable commercial developments. And but I feel that the increased development standards that are kind of baked into this proposal this evening, such as eliminating compact parking spaces and compelling buildings to be Leed certified, increased landscaping standards, etc, continue to add costs and make housing further unaffordable. Though not necessarily within this plan. I just wanted to also express my disappointment about the massive increase in the park fee that are that are put on new developments, both multifamily and single family. It's a over 200% increase with no regard to location and certainly developing a park and acquiring land to do so in East Plano is substantially less expensive than that of West Plano, but there was no consideration made for that. It's just not equitable. And there again. It it it forces it forces workforce housing to try to absorb that large cost. And as a result, as a developer, it makes it less attractive for us to develop newer housing in areas that cannot absorb cost just because of the price of the workforce housing that we try to develop, and it just makes it more expensive on the end user. So anyway, I hope you I hope you take the points that I've mentioned under consideration this evening, specifically separating these two issues, issues that need to be updated by law in one case, and secondarily go through a process to get public feedback from stakeholders within the city for the discretionary amendments that are contained here in. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Cravens. Apologies. Will you state your name and address for the record, William Pierce Cravens, 1028 17th Street, Plano, Texas, 75074. Thank you. Thank you sir. Next speaker is Mr. Bill Lyle. Again, commissioners Bill Lyle, 17 2415 Plano, Texas. 75074. Just wanted to go back on a couple of things. I'll start with a comment that Bob Kerr, our new city councilman, made, I think, is that y'all just joint meeting, but he used the word opportunity. Mr. Cravens just did the same thing. And there's a feeling on as I listen that that from staff and from commission. It doesn't see any opportunity here. It's like it's like everything is designed to take away the opportunity and to make what the state's trying to do more difficult. It's just a feeling that I get from my observations. The park fee being doubled like was already spoken of. And so one opportunity that I've long seen is that we have these 3000 parking spots, and we just added a couple hundred more at the South couplet, but there's like 1200 and something at under George Bush. And then there's another 1000 or more. I think between the two there's around 3000 parking spots. And then you just add what got added at the south couplet. We have two trains now running through downtown Plano. Why have a parking standard at all? Why can't if people can park here and go to a job in Dallas when they come home to East Plano, why couldn't they park there and have a five minute train ride home? You could shut down 15th Street when we had the fire station on the other side of 75, because Fire Station one doesn't need to get to 75 via our brick road anymore, and you could make it a plaza, like, there's so much opportunity if we can think beyond, oh my gosh, you know what the state's done to us? Like, let's dream. By the way, I learned this week that I'm an INTp, which is a big dreamer and someone that's prone to debate. I laughed too. Now we talk about this. This stuff. Commissioner Ali, you spoke to this at the meeting before the joint meeting, and the first thing you said was, we got to keep all of this. We can. And I was really expecting to hear about the importance of air quality and how this can affect people. But your comment was this was really expensive. We spent a lot of money on this. That was your comment, sir. You can go. I'll bring you the transcript. This was really expensive. There was not one meritous defense given for this thing. If you actually go read it, which I have, and you look at all the articles that are cited in the original report, the EHA is based on traffic, on roadways. Well, if you look at the grid that exists in the city of Plano, we have major roadways, quite Preston going north and south. Now we'll just say east and west. Custer, alma, independence, all of these meet the standard of a major roadway based on their traffic counts. And if you look next to the roadways, it's all these residential homes with patios and balconies. If you really apply the EHA to Plano, the whole city is an HOA because it talks about being 2000ft from the source of the air pollution. And so if you take 2000ft and go from, say, legacy north to Spring Creek and from Spring Creek south, the whole area is covered. All of Plano is in Naha. Then we hear all these about these Merv filters on on apartments. Where do y'all think these filters are happening? I've been doing landscape construction work for multifamily apartments for the last 20 years of my life. The parking garages have no filtered air. It comes. The air comes from the outside. All of the apartment units. If you look on the roofs, they all have individual units like are on your side yard of a residential home, and the filter is changed in a closet inside the apartment unit. Nobody is holding anybody to anything other than the cheapest air filter that you can buy and put in there. There's no Merv filter being happening at any multifamily apartments, I can assure you. If we take away balconies, should we also take away sidewalks? Should we say there's no dogs allowed? Should we have warning labels on the windows? Because God forbid that they open the window if they're in the seconds, because this bad air could come in. We're going to require more landscaping. But then we talk about Leed. Well, one of the Leed points things that you get is for having water conservative landscaping, which means rocks. But our current landscape ordinance requires full irrigation. So I just think that y'all are trying really hard, and I know it's difficult and I appreciate your efforts, but I think there's some stuff getting missed here. Thanks for your time. Thank you sir. The next speaker is William L Cravens. Followed by Corey Renegar. Please state your name and address. My name is William Cravens. I reside at 4241 Bordeaux in Dallas, Texas. I know some of you from past speaking with you and whatnot. One of the things that I'm concerned about is the speed at which we have decided to push this thing. Sir, could you step closer to the mic? I'm concerned about the speed at which we're trying to push things along. This this state has come along and thrown something at us. They've thrown it at all of us. And for us to for the city to come along and revamp the entire subdivision plan and so forth. My experience over the last 45 years of developing here is just like my son said, where's the public input? Where are the people here tonight? I don't think anybody really knows what all this means. Are there any of you that are puzzled? I certainly am, after reading all that I've read about this, a lot of it's not going to come out until it's poured through, over by the courts. And let's hope it not doesn't get there. But I would hope that rather than rush into massive changes in city policies and city programs, that we would take some time, give this thing 90 days to just state itself. In the meantime, our good friends at planning can certainly deal with the projects that come up from time to time, and you folks can deal with them the way you see fit. But to revamp everything. After the law was passed, the governor signed it on the 22nd or third day of July. Here we are, not even in the middle of August, three weeks later, and we're talking about changing an entire subdivision ordinance. This should take some time to gestate itself, and for everybody to be able to react to it properly. I hope you will take that into consideration. Thank you. Thank you sir, thank you sir. Good evening commissioners. My name is Corey Riniker. I reside at 1814 and Place Plano, Texas 75074. I want to start by thanking all of you, all for your time and effort spent in evaluating tonight's proposals. I believe it is appropriate to update our ordinances to comply with new state laws, and staff has done commendable work in analyzing the laws and proposing these updates. However, I remain concerned that any additional measures that go beyond simple compliance will unnecessarily add costs and discourage development of needed housing. This legislative session was my first time joining my professional organization, the Texas Society of Architects in Austin. We met with lawmakers and advocated for issues important to our profession. We supported many of the adopted pro housing bills. The Texas Architects Position statement on Housing Attainability reads, quote, we are committed to supporting efforts to improve housing affordability and availability and to increase housing options for all Texans. Architects are uniquely qualified to advise on land development policy and address housing attainability through intentional design. Bills like SB 840 are a recognition by our state leaders that housing is a serious concern across the state. Here in Plano, we're fortunate to have a recently completed analysis of our own housing and job situation. I strongly encourage you all to read this report. The key finding states Plano and the region at large are not are not currently producing enough housing to meet the projected demand, and this deficit will have a detrimental impact on Plano's economic future as housing costs outstrip household incomes. And Plano will have greater difficulty attracting new residents with moderate incomes. It goes on to state in Plano, 50% of all occupant occupations offer wages below $50,000 per year, while 2% of occupations offer wages above $150,000. This disparity creates affordability gap, challenging Plano's reputation as a city. As a city accommodating to all household types and threatening plano's affordability and attractiveness. Many Plano residents are housing cost burdened, limiting their ability to fully participate in our vibrant economy and last for sale. Housing is inaccessible to all but the most affluent households. This locks out young working class families, resulting in an aging population. As you consider tonight's agenda, I strongly encourage you to dispense with any measures that go beyond simple compliance with the law. This includes the minimum height requirements, mandatory site amenities, and Leed certification, and any other requirements that are not equally applied to all uses. Such measures should be given more time for review and would be more appropriately considered through the zoning rewrite process or the Building Standards Commission. Thank you, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank thank you sir. There are no further registered speakers. Okay. With that, I will close the public hearing and confine comments to commission and staff. Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I do feel the time pressure that we've been put on, we've been put under as a result of the timetable that the legislature has pretty much imposed on us. The bulk of these statutes become effective September 1st. The city could not be in a position of being out of compliance with state law. Our state constitution requires that we comply with state law. Therefore, we had to do something by September 1st or we were in violation of the law if we didn't. Okay, now we had to consider not only coming into compliance with state law, but also the consequences that the new ordinances that we would have to adopt would have on the quality of the development itself, the impact on neighbors, the appropriateness of placing placing development in areas that traditionally have been viewed as incompatible placements and therefore having to mitigate some of the undesirable effects and consequences of juxtaposition between these new housing locations and areas where they were not traditionally allowed. Okay. And we have had to do that in a short time. This is not the city's fault. It's not the staff's fault. The staff were only doing what they had to do. It's not our fault. The ordinances that we've been, the proposed ordinances that we are considering this evening. Were drafted by teams of people in the planning department reviewed, you know, over several layers of approval, I assume, reviewed by the legal department. These people in the planning department are certified professionals. They are experienced. They know what they're doing. The people in the legal department are licensed to practice law by the state of Texas. They are experienced and they know what they're doing. I don't think we can possibly sit here tonight and start trying to pers through, you know, provision by provision, clause by clause, subclause by Subclause 300 pages of material and try to accomplish anything. Things may pop up that may require adjustment. We may need to tweak these ordinances down the road. It's inevitable circumstances change or new interpretations may be brought to our attention that may need to be dealt with down the road. But I recall a couple of years ago, former Commissioner Kerry on this commission made a comment in a public hearing that the enemy of the good is the perfect, and I've taken that to heart. And I think that the material we have been presented with is good. I'm not prepared to say whether it is or is not perfect, but it's good and it's what we have to work with. I think the thing for us to do is pass it now, because we have to tweak it later if we must. Thank you. Thank you, sir. Vice Chair Ali. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Acting chair. Oh. I concur with everything Commissioner Brounoff said. And also again, applaud the slight window the staff has had to thread to ensure that our first obligation is to be in compliance to state law, a very close second obligation is to ensure that the sweat, tears, effort and currency that the city as a whole put into the comprehensive plan where they made their voice very well known as to what kind of city we we're looking to bring together over the next 50 years or so, is honored as much as possible. I actually agree, and I think I agree with Councilman Kerr. That SB 840 actually, in some ways does something that anybody who knows me, I've been a proponent of, which is diversity of housing stock. And I also have to sit in this seat and ensure that when we bring in that diversity of housing stock, it is held to a standard that any single family occupant or any other residential or any other resident of Plano should expect from the City of Excellence. Which ties back to my statement the last time we were here, where we have spent a lot of effort money on things like the EHR, other studies, other policies, a lot of work it would be. Silly to throw that all away. Like Commissioner Brounoff hinted at, I have led multibillion dollar planning projects. The one thing that. We hate is no clear roadmap, and the legislative calendar at September 1st gave us, essentially, and this is the way I read it, two choices. We either give developers, residents some clarity on how we will implement and stay in compliance to the state law, or we don't. And then it becomes a bit of a void and a vacuum, which in any planning or regulatory framework does not serve anybody well. I think the way the staff has written most of the amendments, all of the amendments they've put before us. Supports very largely the guiding principle to for Plano 2050 and the one that kind of jumped out to me, which I take to heart, is that the plan? And I think this body will build on Plano's strong history of thoughtful planning, guiding future development, redevelopment where it is safe, attractive appropriate convenient and contributes to a variety of housing, employment and social opportunities and respects the natural environment. We have to do that and be in compliance to state law. And I think like again, Commissioner Bruno said, did we thread that needle perfectly? No. But it's good. It's good enough to work on. And as regulatory environment changes and as the city's needs changes, I believe Plano has shown the ability and the flexibility to adapt to make sure we are hitting both targets. Not precisely, but accurately. Thank you sir. Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to put a few comments in that. Yes, we're under the gun. We have to get this out by September 1st. Nobody wanted this. We. We have to follow the state law. And I totally agree with the other commissioners that we wish we had more time. We wish we could do it. Maybe even better job. But I think what the staff has done is already tremendous, is very good, and we really appreciate that and doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. But we will, I guess, get them out like improve later on or hopefully they're still like 2 or 3 weeks before September 1st that we can make improve on improvement on. But I do know that unfortunately we cannot address the affordability issue here. I wish we could. I am a real estate professional myself. I face affordability issues every single day. This is not just Plano. This is just not just Texas. This is a national issue. Everybody is facing affordability problems. Is the increase. The land values increase inflation increased interest rates, increased labor and material costs compared to all these values requiring a few environmental filters or house requirements are very insignificant. We wish we could build. I mean, we wish our city can have a lot more affordable housing for, you know, all our, you know, maybe neighbors who live close by, maybe, you know, some low income families who move in. But we do not dictate the prices the market does. Unfortunately, the market, if there's a demand, the prices will go up. So if we think Plano is attractive place, people are still moving in. People want have more housing in Plano. They want to move in. The demand will actually cause the price to go up. It's not even like how much the city is requiring to build. So that that is really insignificant compared to other costs of the development. So I hear you all, and thank you so much for coming here and providing the comments and the we try our best. I guess the staff members, the city and our commission really try to accommodate and try to make sure that we want our citizens to live here and be happy with what we provide. And we, you know, we want our city to be attractive. We want our city to be livable and get more people. I guess it's like a catch 22. The more people moving in, the more expensive our land or housing will become. Right now, the issue we're addressing is to comply with the new state law. So that's what we're doing here. Thank you. Thank you ma'am. Commissioner Bender, thank you chairman. Just wanted to start off. I thought Commissioner Brounoff did a great job of summarizing some of the some of the issues that we face. And, you know, we need to comply with the state law, and that's something that we can't do anything about. But I see this as opportunity and a call to action by the city. You know, my thought is rather than sitting back and waiting for something unfortunate to happen or development occur that maybe doesn't comply with the comprehensive plan that the citizens have laid out and that we work very hard to comply with. I think we have an opportunity like never before to work with landowners and developers so that we can, you know, collaboratively work together on developments that comply with the comprehensive plan. And that takes a different strategy and a different approach than I think we have taken previously. Not that we don't always try to do that, but I think because of, you know, what the state has done with some of these new laws, it really requires us to change gears. And I think if we do that in a proactive way, whether it's hiring some real estate consultants, you know, appointing some project managers within the city to specifically work on that, you know, you know, in in my experience in business, if you have conversations with people, good things happen. And I think if we work proactively, good things will happen to the city. And I think we, you know, we've done a really good job as a team working with the staff and the commission. As commissioner always stated, I think, you know, we have something that we can adopt and that we can tweak as necessary as we go down the road. But those are my comments. Thank you, sir. Commissioner Langfelder. Thank you, Commissioner or acting commissioner. Just to kind of reiterate and summarize, everybody's kind of touched on pretty much what I was going to say. But ultimately I feel like. I know we've met a lot in the past few few weeks and really put in a lot of effort in from the commission, from the staff. And this isn't just something we're flying by the seat of our pants on. There's a lot of work has been put into it. A lot of thought has gone into it. We do see this as an opportunity. I know that was a question I even brought up that we should embrace the law and embrace it, and find a way to make it a very positive thing, not not be scared of what what the state has passed. However, if we just stuck our head in the sand and chose to do nothing, that would be an injustice to the community, to development community, to the residents that we must do something. We have to put something out there, put a roadmap in place that instead of this ambiguous, you know that that does not really comply any longer. So then the development community and the residents have no idea what could happen and what is to come. So by putting this into place, this at least something an initial roadmap for say allows us to define. You know, what, an ordinance that can at least be compliant with state and with an attempt to still comply with our comprehensive plan. So ultimately that that's the expectation. And we all we all know that very likely there will be tweaks as everybody's kind of talked about. We do expect that this there will be some adjustments that will have to be made, because this was put together so quickly. But we couldn't just do nothing. So that's really the main thing I wanted to do. But but I do also want to reiterate again, we're looking at this as an opportunity. We are embracing it. I know that we're going to be working with I know City council and everybody are are some of the some of them are looking at working with economic development that you can talk about tifs and other things that might be coming into play at some point so that there's some incentives. So, you know, it is quick, but there are there are ways that we are trying to make it so we can, again, continue to be a partner with our development community and make continue to make Plano great. So. Thank you, sir. Vice Chair Ali, I was just going to offer up a motion. If you're closed, please. I move we. Approve zoning case 20 2025. 01I move, we approve. Agenda item one a zoning case 2025 007. Are we going to make all three motions at the same time? We'll have three separate, please. Three separate. Okay. Mr. Mr. Bruno, I second the motion. Okay. We have a motion made by Commissioner Ali, a second by Commissioner Bruno. Is there any further discussion? Okay. Please vote. The vote is 7 to 0. Commissioner chair Ratliff is unable to be here tonight. I move, we approve. Agenda item one B the subdivision Ordinance Amendment 2020 5-001. Commissioner Bruno I second the motion. We have a motion made by Commissioner Ali, a second by Commissioner Bruno. Any further discussion? Please vote. The vote is 7 to 0. I move, we approve. Agenda item one C Street design standards amendment to amend sections of the Street design standards pertaining to recent state legislative actions. Commissioner Lingamfelter. Second, we have a motion and a second. Any further discussion, any further discussion? Please vote. The vote on that is 7 to 0. Do we have any further business? Just the findings forms? Oh yes. We will take a pause and complete the findings forms before we gavel out. One one case one. It's one case so one please. So for this. Portion how are you. Oh a lot of. Right here. Oh cool. I have a wrap. So. All right. All. That's good. So. Well first off. Thank you for. Having. Thank you, commissioners, for completing your findings, forms and your patience with me this evening, with no further business before us, I will adjourn us at 7:58 p.m.