Welcome to the August 18th City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission. I call the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. If you'd all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic of which state? On Jesus God, indivisible, with liberty and. Thank you very much. Comments of public interest. Do we have anybody signed up for comments of public interest tonight? There are no registered speakers. All right. Consent agenda. Sets agenda. The 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 Commission. Would anybody like to remove item for the agenda for separate consideration? Commissioner Lingenfelter, I move that we approve the consent agenda as recommended by staff Commissioner Bronsky. I second have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Items for individual consideration. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items unless instructed otherwise 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. Agenda item number one. Grace community Church block A lot one are a public school on one lot on 10.8 acres, located at the northwest corner of Hedgcoxe Road and Preston Meadow Drive. Zoned planned development for 39 single family residence seven and single family residence six with specific use permit number 193 for a daycare center. This item was tabled on August 4th, 2025. The applicant is Basis Texas Charter Schools Incorporated and this item is for administrative consideration. Good evening commissioners. Destiny woods, planner with the Planning Department. So the purpose of this replat is to abandon easements, dedicate new easements, and dedicate right of way for the public school that's proposed there. And this item is recommended for approval as submitted. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Miss Woods Commission. Any technical questions for the staff? Seeing none, Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you go over which easement they are abandoning? Sure. So all the easements or the lines that are that look to be grayed out, those are the ones that are being abandoned and some of them are a fire lane easements or. Let's see. Drainage easements, fire lane easements and water easements. Okay. No driveway changes because I know there are some driveway issues around that area, so no driveway or shared driveway with the neighbor? No. No, ma'am. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Lolly. I would like I don't know if this is related to the plot, but like, was there any traffic study made? Yes, there was a traffic analysis done and a study that is associated with the site and the applicant and in the, in the traffic engineering department are still working together with that. Oh, so they're still working with them? No, it's been approved. But in light of the recent things that that have taken place, they've been working together to make sure that it still remains to be followed. Okay. So like if we approve the plat and like, can they need additional right of way or like a turning lanes or, you know, like so what happens? I don't know if this is a legal or no. This meets all the technical requirements of our subdivision ordinance based off the traffic study. I think school opened last week and there was some traffic, I think, around this site. Yeah, they were not quite following their pickup and drop off plan from what I understand. So engineering is working with them to make sure they're following that to mitigate any impacts on the surrounding street network. Yeah, because you're likely to get congested in that area sometimes. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Other questions from the commission. This is a public hearing. Do we have anybody signed up to speak? The applicant is registered to answer any questions. But does anybody have any questions for the applicant? Seeing none. All right, I'll close the public hearing. Commission. Mr. Bruno. Mr. Chairman, I move that we approve item number one, as recommended by Staff Commissioner Binder. Second, the motion. We have a motion in a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you. Item number two. Agenda item number two. A request to rezone from regional employment to regional commercial on five acres located on the south side of State Highway 121, 1335ft west of State Road. Located within the State Highway 121 and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. The petitioner is Coyote Marketplace LP. The petitioner is requesting to table this item to the September 15th, 2025 meeting. Good evening. Commission. My name is Molly Coryell, interim lead planner. The applicant is requesting to table this item to the September 15th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission in order to fix an issue with the zoning exhibit, which left a portion of the regional employment zoning district outside of the requested boundaries of the zoning request, so more time was needed to correct the notice and send it out. So that is the purpose of the tabling. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Thanks. Miss Coryell. Any questions for staff, Mr. Lolly? So can you tell us what's the difference between the regional employment and regional commercial and why are they wanting this change? Yes. So as far as area, yard and bulk requirements between the regional commercial and the regional employment zoning districts, there are no differences. The key difference between both of those zoning districts is what uses are allowed, per the sort of, I guess, title of them both. Regional employment is more office driven, uses. More regional employment driven uses, and then regional commercial allows more retail uses and things like that. My understanding is the applicant doesn't have any plans associated with this request, but my understanding is that they hope to have more retail uses allowed within the UCD edition development and those particular parcels than what they can currently develop as. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. Thank you. Do you think that all the necessary changes will be made and that they'll already that they will be ready for us to consider the matter on September 15th? Yes. In fact, they've already updated their zoning exhibit, and it was reviewed and confirmed by our Land Records Division that the zoning exhibit aligns with our zoning district boundaries. So the notice is being prepared and drafted this week, and they will be ready to be mailed out by Friday. So they and that was really the holdup. So set a very achievable PNC meeting date. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? All right. This is a public hearing. So I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any registered speakers on this item? There are none. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. I'd like to make a motion. Commissioner Bronsky, I move we. Table agenda item number two. Zoning case 2020 5-009 to the September 15th, 2025, Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Lingenfelter second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item three A and three B. If we could read those together, please. Of course. Agenda item number three A request to rezone from agricultural to single family residence attached with a specific use permit for a private street subdivision on one lot on 3.2 acres, located on the southwest corner of Lynn Haven Parkway and Red Wolf Lane. Petitioners. Trammell Crow Company, Number 43, et al. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number three B Austin Ranch phase eight addition block a lot 116 single family residence. Attached units on one lot on 2.3 acres. Located on the southwest corner of Lynn Haven Parkway and Red Wolf Lane. Zoned agricultural. The applicant is Trammell Crow Company number 43 at all. This item is for administrative consideration pending agenda item number three A. Thank you. Good evening. Commission. The purpose of this zoning case is to request a zoning change from agricultural to single family attached. However, the applicant has provided a tabling letter requesting that the commission table this item until the October 20th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. The reason for this is that over the weekend, some changes to the concept plan were changed by the applicant. Then what was what was provided in the packet. So therefore staff would like some additional time to review those changes. And yeah, that. Sorry, I blanked for a moment, but if you have any questions for me, I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. Do you have some background on the changes? Is this a result of working with the neighbors or result of staff input or what? Yes. So this was a result from talking with the neighbors, the changes right now, as we can see, involve rerouting the alley to where it does not have any access to Red Wolf Lane, and loops back up to the proposed one way slip road. Additionally, with that comes some some screening from the alleyway as required by our zoning ordinance. And additionally, they have reduced the number of units from 16 to 15. And that will be five units in three buildings apiece, rather than four units in four buildings. So some changes like that. Okay. That's what we're expecting to see on October 20th. Is that the requested date? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Any technical questions of staff about the request to table? Nobody. Okay, I'll open the public hearing. I know we do have some registered speakers on this, so you are more than welcome to come speak tonight. If you've registered to speak. Obviously, there'll be another public hearing on October 20th. You're more than welcome to come back and speak then. Or both, if you prefer. So if we want to call the people that have registered. So the first public speaker, Ervin Vangala, is not available via zoom. So I'm going to start with Kimberly Ashman. And then Kristy Davidson, followed by Shivani Mehta. Here. Would they like to come down and speak? Okay. There's one on the back to. And there one more. So if Kimberly's not here, miss Christy Davidson is available. Look like it. The next one would be Shivani Mehta. That would be the last of our public speakers. Oh, no. We have one more on the back page. I think they registered for opinion only, but that would be Tatiana Ramirez. Okay. All right, so none of our speakers are present. I'll close the public hearing commission. Mr. Bronsky. So I want to just make a public comment as I make this motion, that what we're seeing with this is very encouraging, that our development community and our residents are able to work hand in hand to find solutions that work best for both groups. And I'm I find it encouraging for our developer to be continuously listening and our citizens to be reasonable in what they're asking for, to help us move forward through 2050 as a united city. And so with that said, I move that we table agenda item three a zoning case 2025 006 till the October 20th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, Commissioner Ali seconded the motion and the sentiment. All right. Thank you. We're doing these as two separate motions, three A and three B. So all right, we have a motion for three A to postpone to October 20th 2025. Agenda. Please vote. Passes 8 to 0 okay. Item three B Mr. Bronsky same sentiment I move we table agenda item three B the concept planned to three A till the October 20th October 20th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for 2025. Commissioner Ali. Second, we have a motion in a second on item three. B please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. All right. Non public hearing items. 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 and may include a total time limit. Agenda item number four TCC Independence block A lots one and two for office show, showroom, warehouse. Light intensity manufacturing and research and development center on two lots on 33.3 acres. Located at the southeast corner of State Highway 121 and Gillespie Drive. Zoned regional employment and Regional commercial and located within the State Highway 121 and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. The applicant is 121 Gillespie LLC and 121 Lebanon, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration of a screening waiver. Thank you. Good evening once again Commission. This item is for a preliminary site plan for the purposes of developing two buildings for the office showroom, warehouse light. Light manufacturing and research and development center. The applicant is in sectiontall masonry screening wl would be reqlong with the etancr permanent wairplicant if the red screening wallue to theek and ft separate f a s tall masonry screeperty line. Howevel vegetative buffer betwe development and the single family neighborhood to the south, and this picture illustrates it. But as you can see, the nearest point or what you could see on the plan rather, is that the nearest point of the proposed building is approximately 300ft from a residential property line. And that's just really the closest point. The distances do quite vary based on the existing property line configuration and the proposed driveway around the southern side of the property will be approximately 170ft. Closest point of that to the resident to any residential lot. Here is a picture provided the applicant showing the both winter and spring growth of the tree line along the creek. From the perspective of the adjacent neighborhood to the south. Additionally, the applicant is providing an irrigated living screen of eight foot tall eastern red cedars along the loading area along the southern driveway. So along those portions, and this is related to a retaining wall of variable height, being necessary for about 1000 linear feet along that backside. The retaining wall can be upwards of nine feet in some instances, so the applicant has provided that in areas where the screening wall is five feet or taller, that the screening irrigated living screen will be above in front of that retaining wall, so that the it's not just that you have a retaining wall. And then you see like none of the shrubs or anything or barely any of the shrubs, this illustration demonstrates a typical cross-section of what you might see with the screening wall. When it is at for height, a four feet in height or smaller. Here's a depiction of where the living screening wall will be generally located. Actually, sorry, I didn't notice when we were going over the slides. The green lines are actually shifted quite a bit down. Imagine them like hiked an inch up I guess closer to the. I really be right behind the paving, is that correct? I apologize about that. So essentially what I'm getting at is that due to the presence of the floodplain with the heavily forested creek area, with the additional retaining wall, with the irrigated living screen along the portions of the loading area along the southern property line. This this property is actually quite naturally screened in a way that it's more so screened than what our typical screening requirements would have. So staff's recommendation is approval subject to the requirement for an irrigated living screen consisting of eastern red cedars at least eight feet in height be provided along the retaining wall to screen the loading areas, and in locations where the retaining wall is five feet or taller, the living screening wall needs to be on top of the retaining wall. For effective screening. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you very much, Mr. Tong. Question. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is that so the property line is along the creek, right. So how far is it from the creek to the back of the residential properties? Because on the north side of the creek is the property of the. Gillespie LLC, the applicant. But that whole area right now is treed. If we approve today saying that they don't need screening walls, does it prevent them from cutting the trees and removing anything on north side of the property line? So if the applicant were to submit a. Well, so a flood study has to be done for the floodplain area. And I don't have someone here that can talk more in detail about flood studies. But typically we wouldn't anticipate that someone would remove trees out of the floodplain because they can't develop in them anyway, and then they'd also have to mitigate for them through tree payments, which can be quite hefty. The applicant might be able to speak more on their development and plans, but also might mad they'd have to come back for a different site plan to do that, in which case the recommendation would might be different. In that case, yes. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you, Commissioner Ali, can you go back to. The picture with the natural green and what have you? I just want to. That one. Oh, yeah. Am I understanding correctly. We are. They're going to build another layer of trees it sounds like right around the edge of where the forest is. So what is being proposed? And I really am embarrassed that my graphic is messed up. But you'll see where those green lines are. Imagine them a little closer to the pavement. That's where there will be a row of those eastern red cedars as acting as an irrigated living screen. We have not received a landscape. We have not been able to accept a landscape plan yet for review. So I don't I don't know what else to anticipate further landscaping along that southern edge, but it is floodplain, so we can anticipate that it would be difficult to irrigate a lot of landscaping along that southern property line. The closer you get to that floodplain, it's harder to build irrigation that will withstand the sort of potential flood. Agreed. So but end state, everything is built out. I should expect to see the forest line living screen and sounds like two walls by the docking area. So there. So you. It's actually quite close to living screen, but that's where the retaining wall is being built did I I'm sorry, Commissioner Ali, can you repeat your question for me? If I'm looking at that picture from right to left, we have the forest and the creek, then I should expect to see this. The eight foot centers? Yes. Then on the corners, bottom left and top right, it looks like there's an additional eight foot wall to. Yes, there are the docking. Yes. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. Yes. Thank you. Commissioner Ali. I'm going to jump in line in front of you. Just a second if you don't mind. So following up on that question, is the living screen a requirement? It seems like the eastern red cedars are really not doing anything. Yes. The screening of the dock area is required by article 16.1 thousand 400, which requires screening of dock or loading areas from residential residential properties or uses. In this case, there is no waiver for that requirement that the Commission is able to grant, such as what's available in article 20, so that screening is required for the loading areas. So that's not something we can waive for the same reasons. Yes, sir. That's correct. Okay. That answers my question, Commissioner Lolly. So my question is like so they are building some retaining walls in some areas right? Yes. For about 1000 linear feet along the edge of their development. So what we're waiving is just this portion between the corner and to the like to the where they're building their screen wall. Right. Yes. So the but in addition to this retaining wall, they're adding the living screen. Right. Yes. The retaining wall is required as part of the flood study. It's anticipated that to mitigate developing that close to the retaining wall retaining wall, it's a retaining wall okay. So it's not a screen wall. It's not a screening wall. Yeah okay. Thank you. Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you. I'm hoping you or somebody here can educate me on the landscaping aspect of this, specifically how effective a screen do eastern red cedars provide? Eastern red cedars can grow upwards of 15ft. They tend to they're evergreen. So they they're winter. Spring summer growth is pretty much the same. Since they're evergreen. They. We and actually a previous case for what is block two of this development along like the north eastern side, that there was a preliminary site plan proposed for that and they were requesting a similar waiver, except with the addition of eight foot tall eastern red cedars as an irrigated living screen. So staff's direction to the applicant was to provide similar irrigated living screening for the purposes of the loading areas as a portion of their property that they're developed had a preliminary site plan that proposed similar a similar living screen of that same variety. Do they grow together side to side in order to provide a solid visual barrier and not just some? Yes, yes they do. Actually, the city has a recommended plant list that the city's Urban Forester reviews, and this is one of the recommended screening plants from that from that plant list. And would the irrigated living screen be on the north side of the retaining wall or on the south side of the retaining wall? So in instances where the retaining wall can be upwards of nine feet in height of some parts just based on the floodplain. So in instances where it's five feet or taller, the irrigated living screen will be on top, or I guess in front of the retaining wall north. And then in instances where the retaining wall is five feet or shorter, the irrigated living screen as shown in this, will be behind or south of the retaining wall. So some of them will be north and some will be south. Exactly. Depending on the height of the retaining wall that they're abutting. Okay. I mean, it would make a difference in terms of whether the trees are screening the wall from being seen by residential properties to the south, or whether it is simply screening the loading dock area and leaving the wall itself bare. So the topography of the site leaves this site to be at a higher elevation, typically than the property to the south. So, as shown in the pictures here, it is not anticipated that there will really be a clear view of the building or anything just based on the height at which the topography. I guess from the standpoint of the residents of the South, it would make much difference anyway because of the forested area. So. Okay. All right. Thanks. Commissioner Bronsky, two questions. My first one goes back to something that Chair Ratliff was talking about and the idea of having a living screen in front of a forested area does seem a little unusual. Is this do you? And you might not know the answer to this, but do we have many cases in which situations like this could occur that it seems a little counterintuitive to be screening forestry, forested areas like this? There are no sections in our ordinance that really address this, and I cannot think of an instance where we've had a similar issue such as this one. But so I just wonder if maybe this is something we ought to consider looking at alternative compliance in the Rack committee to be able to. Make sensible ordinances and sensible plans to allow for things like this. So I guess that was my bigger question. Does that make sense? No it does. I my old my old boss used to say there's code sense and there's common sense. And I guess this is kind of one of those instances that that adage would be applicable to, applicable to. So it certainly is something that aene My co qun we talk aut the. The living hat we're putting in here and thens o anticipate thef it to impactod ith rticular areae addressed with the floodng teams s light some additional of this in thahawere be theyetno S en wwo take titemhad to be altee screening requirentsrodo any sort of issues with the floodplain impacting the ability to have an irrigated living screen, so does that then, I mean, would it make sense for us to wait until we have a little bit additional data on that before we move forward, just in terms of the flood study itself and the potential impact of coming back? Well, the issue is, is that we can't. So we with the preliminary site plan step, we it would be a lot to ask someone to develop a flood study with the purpose of submitting a preliminary site plan. So, you know, in this case, with there being challenges, typically with developing a floodplain, I think it's appropriate to. Bring the preliminary site plan forward. And then if there's issues with the site plan that we would be able to bring that item back again for the Commission's consideration. And, Mr. Bell, if you have anything you'd like to add. Yeah, all the detailed engineering is done at the next step. So it'd be a very expensive step to do that here. So this is really, just as its name implies, be preliminary. And then as always, it's putting the results of the final engineering plans with the site plan. And if tweaks are needed, tweaks are needed to any of the waving or anything that's approved by tonight. We would certainly need to bring that back for consideration. I appreciate your hard work on this. I think there's a lot going on here, and I think there's a lot of positive. And hopefully when we do the flood study and everything gets worked out, we don't have to bring it back. But thank you very much for your input tonight. Thank you. Commissioner Bronsky. Commissioner Lingenfelter, I'm glad you pointed out that people have already touched on the double screening that we're creating here. They made a very good case for the existing conditions, screening very well. And with the topography at, at such a height, I think there's going to be a lot of visibility that they're just not going to. You don't have to worry about so much screening wise. So I'm glad that you brought that up. The other thing I was considering, and I was kind of picturing where these trees were going to be below and up above the wall at certain heights, five feet. It's above. Have they considered or has there any been even thought about what the root systems might do to and possibly compromising these retaining walls? That has not been anticipated yet. We would have to check about the. Root radius. I actually just the term fell on just got lost on me. But I've seen it a lot. I've seen those roots really do some damage, especially on retaining walls. So and you're talking about some significant ones to keep this site out above the floodplain. I know that's why they're putting them in. So and with you putting on top, you know, that'll be something that'll be considered for sure. So. Commissioner Lolly, I just wanted to confirm. So they're not proposing any development in the floodplain right now? No, no. So you're like. So everything is off of the floodplain? Yes, but you like. And the screening wall is just to screen the loading docks, right? Yes. That's correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other technical questions for staff? I believe we do have the applicant here. Does anybody have questions for the applicant? No. If the applicant wants to make any comments you're welcome to okay. All right. Thank you. So Commissioner Bronsky so based on everything that we've talked about I move that we approve agenda item number four as recommended by Staff Commissioner Ali. I actually like this case. It's a bit of a unique one. Worst case scenario, we get more trees in Plano. I will second an editorial comment for me. I'm only sorry we can't waive the eastern red cedar. So we'll we'll work on that for the next guy and I so with that said we have a motion and a second on the table. Yeah. About one comment before we go. I would love to have some feedback from the staff at some point related to Commissioner Felder's question about the root impact on the. The retaining wall, but that was all. Just comment. Okay everybody please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you very much and appreciate your continued interest in the city of Plano. All right. Item number five, agenda item number five 2025 Comprehensive Plan Maintenance review, discussion and direction of recommended updates to the Land use and community design and housing and neighborhoods. Components of the Built Environment pillar. The future land use map and dashboards. Parks. Master plan map, thoroughfare plan map and downtown streets plan map. The applicant is the City of Plano. Good evening. Commission. My name is Mariam Zahir, senior planner with the planning department. This item is related to the 2025 Comprehensive Plan Maintenance Review, the Redevelopment and Growth Management Action seven provides guidance to review the comprehensive plan every two years to ensure consistency with city wide goals and respond to development trends and changing conditions. In response to that, staff has established the Comprehensive Plan review process and developed a ten year schedule to annually review various components of the plan in manageable sections. This year's review of the Built Environment pillar includes the Land Use and Community Design component transportation component, housing and Neighborhoods component, as well as the maps shown on the screen. I just wanted to mention that you guys reviewed the recommendations for the transportation component, as well as the thoroughfare plan Map and Bicycle Transportation Plan map in June of this year, and we are bringing forward some additional Thoroughfare Plan map updates this evening. Before I jump into the Built Environment Plan recommendations, I'll be covering the state legislative action impacts and the related comprehensive plan updates that are proposed. The Commission has been working with the planning Department to review impacts of state legislative actions, and make appropriate recommendations for updates to the zoning ordinance. Staff recognizes that those impacts also limit the city's ability to fully implement aspects of the Comprehensive Plan guidance and the Comprehensive Plan, which was recently updated in 2021, is representative of the community's vision, and much of the policy and action direction remains relevant and useful for decision making. Therefore, a major update is not recommended at this time. However, staff is recommending adding a plan, authority and precedent statement for transparency purposes related to the plan's relationship with state laws. So we've proposed two different options which are shown on the slide. The first statement is related to. So the first statements of both options relates to the Comprehensive Plans Authority under chapter 211 and 213 of the Texas Local Government Code. So really, it's the second statement highlighted in blue that varies between the two options. And at the end of this discussion, item will be asking for the Commission's direction. And really both of these options have the same underlying message. One is a presents a more technical tone, while option two is a little bit more descriptive in nature. But we'll be returning to this kind of these two options at the end of the discussion. Do you want us to take these as you go, or do you want to wait till the end? We're going to wait until the end, okay. Yeah, if that's okay. So now moving towards the land use and community design and housing and Neighborhoods component recommendations. Those updates that we are proposing are shown on the screen. We are recommending one new action which subsequently renumbers three actions. We're proposing five action updates to existing actions and then also recommending one update to background text. As part of this year's review, staff assessed zone change request to expand retail zoning and their alignment with the Comprehensive Plan policies and actions of the plan and the city's retail studies do not support the expansion of retail zoning. The Mix of Uses dashboard for the employment centers, neighborhoods, and expressway corridors. Future land use dashboards include capacity for additional retail types. Acreage. However, that capacity is intended to account for existing retail supportive zoning and is not meant to support new retail zoning. Since the adoption of the plan in 2021, five zoning petitions to expand retail zoning have been received, all of which were disfavored by staff due to the lack of conformance with the policies and actions of the Comprehensive Plan and the city's retail studies. Staff is proposing a new action to provide clearer policy direction to reinforce the city's position. Disfavoring the expansion of retail zoning. The proposal is to add a new action, which would be lieu five. So it would be in the land use Policy action number five, and the new action is shown on the screen. It would read review request to expand retail zoning for consistency with city policies and studies discouraging an overabundance of retail zoned land. Emphasize reinvestment in existing retail centers as the preferred strategy consistent with the revitalization of retail shopping centers. Policy. The retail study of underperforming and vacant retail areas, and the City of Plano Shopping Center review. Land Use Policy Action six is being proposed to be updated, and it's going to be renumbered to Land Use Policy Action seven. And the intent is to clarify, or the intent of the action is to identify and prioritize locations for special area plans. And this update provides clear direction for staff to implement this action. As we're not really developing locations, it's really the key is to identify and prioritize those locations. Continuing on with the land use and community design component, we are proposing an update to Community Design Action four, and this update is proposed to reflect the completed work to develop and implement the initial wayfinding signage project. And it really reflects future implementation implementation that is needed to maintain citywide branding guidelines and signage. A very minor update is also proposed to the Redevelopment and Growth Management Action six, as the annual market study is no longer a consideration and is currently being conducted and updated on an annual basis. We're now shifting to the Housing and Neighborhoods component. There is some background text that is being proposed to be updated. So there's two statements towards the bottom of the slide that are being proposed to be updated. The first update is a correction to the phrasing of the 2021 statement, to clarify that 1% of the total land area remained undeveloped and zoned for future residential development. The second update reflects the impacts of state legislation. Sorry state legislative actions on the amount of undeveloped land zoned for future residential development. So that proposed update kind of reflects in 2021 what the conditions were and how those have kind of evolved as of 2025. This slide, I just want to point out, looks a little different as it's not shown in tracked changes. The at the top of the page you'll find the existing Neighborhood Conservation Action four. And at the bottom you'll see the proposed action four. And really the update is proposed to reflect the work that neighborhood services, the efforts that they've put forward in developing a housing study and how the study will be applied. Additionally, it removes the housing trends analysis and strategic plan from the action as it is being replaced by the Housing Study. The slide shows the those changes and kind of track format. And moving forward, we'll be looking at the proposed map updates. There are four sets of map updates that we've kind of organized. And so there are updates that align with approved small area plans. There are updates to the Parks Master Plan map and corresponding future land use map updates. There are also updates to the Thoroughfare Plan map for consistency with resolution 92 Dash 23. And then there is one future land use dashboard update proposed. For the future Land Use map updates to align with approved small area plans. Staff is recommending a new symbology be added to the legend, which would reflect the small area plan review areas and that is shown on the map in kind of the crosshatch yellow. And those are to reflect the approved Envision Oak Point plan and the Silver Line station areas plan. Both the 12th Street and Shiloh Road stations. We also have Thoroughfare Plan map updates to align with approved small area plans. There are two updates proposed and this includes updating the functional class of an avenue from a type F to a type E, and this is consistent with the 12th Street Transportation recommendations of the Silver Line Station Areas Plan. Additionally, the northwest corner of 14th Street and Shiloh Road is being updated to a mixed use context, and that is consistent with the Shiloh Road land use recommendations of the Silver Line Station Areas Plan. And then the Downtown Streets Plan. Map updates. That is a part of the Thoroughfare Plan map, and there are some updates proposed consistent with the 12th Street Transportation recommendations of the Silver Line Station Areas Plan, and that includes an avenue south of 14th Street be updated to a type E mixed use, and then the full closure of 10th Street east of L Avenue was removed. I just want to point out change number three that's shown on the map. We did update some symbol line symbology for the shared use path to show a more complete shared use path. So those kind of green dots shown on the screen. Additionally, we've worked with the Parks and Recreation Department to include the Parks Master Plan map updates. These map updates. So there's one legend update to reflect existing and proposed proposed shared use path. And then there are also changes for new and revised proposed park sites and boundaries. And those are shown on the screen. In response to the Parks Master Plan map updates, we've added a hatched symbology for proposed park sites, and so consistent with the Parks Master plan map, existing parks and proposed park sites are shown differently. We've added a hatched symbology with an underlying future land use category, and then we also updated Park, which is a funded future park, and added that to the Open Space Network because that's no longer being considered as a proposed park site. And then for the thoroughfare plan map, there is an additional recommended change, so an asterisk and note were added to reference resolution number 98 two dash 23. You can see the note on the screen, as well as the asterisk next to the type D shown as change number three. The resolution was a community driven resolution that guides the development of this particular section of the thoroughfare. In the past, the note was left off. However, this remains an active resolution and this update is not related to any proposed upgrades to the street, but really reflects the resolution that is still in place. And, you know, the dashboards are related to the future land use map. And we are proposing one minor update consistent with the zoning ordinance, oftentimes 50 or fewer lots do not require or not subject to open space requirements. And so we are just further defining there's language that says conversely, not all properties are appropriate for open space requirements, such as very small single family housing developments. Just clarifying how we define what those very small single family housing developments are. That concludes the proposed recommendations for the legislative actions, the background text and policy action updates related to the land use and community Design component, and Housing and Neighborhoods component, as well as the maps and dashboard updates that I've presented. We have some questions on the screen, and staff is seeking direction from the Commission at this time, and so I can either read the question one by one or Mr. Ratliff, if you would like to, kind of if you'd like to go back to that slide with the state legislative actions language. Yes. Sorry, I was whispering up here with our legal counsel to see if there was an opinion either way. So. Okay, there we are. Mr. Andrew, if you'd like to weigh in and share with the commission. What we just whispered about back there. Sure. So we were looking at option one and option two to determine what we thought would be legally more effective. And I think in the end, I prefer option two because it, it only makes the plan our plan to the extent that it's consistent with law. I think that helps us so that we don't have to do findings, policies and those sorts of things when in actuality the law preempts. Thank you. Okay, so other discussion about this item, Mr. Bronsky. Yeah. So I actually like the verbiage, and I agree with the way that Michelle has put it for option two. So I'm very much in support of option two. Commissioner Ali. Same option. One feels a little passive like oh our hands are tied kind of deal versus option two. Acknowledging what we spent a long time discussing in the previous couple of meetings where we are trying to hold attention of honoring our comp plan and also aligning to state law. So option two gets a second. All right, Commissioner Bender. Thank you chairman I concur. Option two I prefer Commissioner Bruno. Yes, I also concur for the additional reason that option two, specifically the language that says that the comprehensive plan serves as the City of Plano's long range policy guide for growth, redevelopment and land use decisions, actually provides a statement of the purpose and the function of the comprehensive plan that option one does not provide. Right. I had it circled in my notes. So with all of you, I think all all comments well made and legal counsel is on board with us. So I think I think we're saying option two. So thank you. Okay. What's the next question. The next is related to the proposed background text and policy action updates. We're just looking for direction from the commission. If the recommended updates are appropriate to clarify direction, reflect progress on implementation, and maybe if you have any other feedback regarding the updates that we are proposing. Okay. Commission, you heard the presentation. Do you have feedback on any specific items? Commissioner Ali, the only one that kind of tongue twisted me a bit was the housing and neighborhoods. Component background. Just reading it out loud in my head, it feels it doesn't feel like it clarifies. What we're actually trying to point to is, you know, in 2021, this are the changes that we have right now in 2021, less than 1% of Plano's total land area remained undeveloped and zoned for future residential development. However, changes to state law in 25 required that multifamily or mixed use residential development be permitted in any nonresidential zoning district, effectively increasing the amount of undeveloped land zoned for future residential development to 3.9% of the total undeveloped land area. Of the total Plano land area, it's already like 3 or 4 times, and I could almost interpret it 3 or 4 different ways. And that was one of the critical parts of the update, was clarifying that it's the percentage of the total land area. Previously, it said percentage of undeveloped land, which would actually be a very small amount of land, when actually when you're looking at the entire land acreage of the city, it's 1% of the total land in 2021 now increased to 3.9 with the legislative changes. So we're consistent with the language we had before. It's just the number went from 1 to 3.9. Is that what I'm hearing correct. The language that was there before was also tweaked. It used to say 1% of undeveloped land. So we're making that adjustment to say 1% of total land. And so now both statements mirror each other in that 1% of undeveloped land is about ten square feet. Correct. Okay. All right. So, Commissioner Olli. Good. It's still tripping me up. I'll leave it to you. Okay. All right, Commissioner Brounoff, just one observation. I think, by and large, I think everything is fine. The only question I have is on the thoroughfare plan map. The legend lists our street types from A through F, and then the map shows streets, you know, labeled with the letters A through E. I don't see any streets labeled with an F. Minor collector. That's because we have so many minor collectors that are types we don't individually label those. We labeled basically everything that's in E or above. There's not as many of those, but the thin gray lines on the map, those are all type F's. It sounds like a Civil War commentary, but okay, I got it. Commissioner Bronsky, I just have one small question, and it was related to the definition of very small. When we defined very small as 50, how did we go about coming up with that? Yeah, the patio home. And Mike, correct me if I'm wrong. The single family attached zoning districts, we've applied those standards and not required open space based on the 50 lot or fewer, 50 lots or fewer requirement kind of standard that's built into the zoning ordinance. And since we've applied it that way for those zoning districts, we thought it was appropriate to define small in that sense. Very small, you mean? Yes. Very small. Yes. Thank you. That's all I wanted. Commissioner Ali, follow up is a submission. Maybe this will help me in 2021. The total undeveloped land zoned for future residential development in Plano represented less than 1% of the total land area, blah blah, blah, blah, blah. Zoned for future. After all, the state law that has increased now to 3.9, it just makes the brain, I don't know, might be ADHD today, but it makes it feel like I can track what I'm pointing to and without getting lost in the text. But again, just a submission. Okay, I had one comment. The language in GM six. Based upon the presentation we had in preliminary open session. Wonder if we shouldn't say, conduct or update an annual market study, because I think the market study was conducted already. And so now we're in a mode of doing updates, am I correct? I think the proposed change is just meant to reflect that the action is to conduct the study. And it's, by its nature, sort of recurring and updated annually. Okay. That's why I was saying we ought to conduct and conduct or update or conduct and update or conduct slash update, because at this point, we're really kind of updating it as we go because it's been done. Is that right? Yes, sir. Okay. That was the only comment I had. So thank you. Okay. Any other comments. All right. Any other questions for us. Yeah, just the proposed updates. I think some of you already asked the questions about maps, but I just want to clarify that if there are any other questions or comments related to the recommended updates to the plan map and dashboard. Comments or dashboards? No, I think we've asked everything that we've got. All right. Do we need any action on this item or is that you just need to feedback. This is simply a discussion item. So all right. Thank you. Any other items before the commission this evening. No sir. All right. So with that said we'll stand adjourned at 6:01 p.m. Comprehensive plan called for many more