Good evening. Welcome to the March 24th City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I call the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. If you'd all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. Pledge allegiance. To the Republic. It stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. First item on our agenda is consent agenda. Consent 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. Commissioners. Anybody would like to remove something from the consent agenda. Commissioner Lingenfelter, I'm just going to move that we approve the consent agenda as recommended by staff. Commissioner Bronsky. Second, we have a motion and a second Commissioner. Commissioner. Lolly. Okay. All right. We have a motion in a second. Please vote. Motion passes 7 to 0. Commissioner Tong is absent this evening. All 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 notify. These may modify these. 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. Non public hearing items. The Presiding Officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda. Not posted for public hearing. Presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to ensure meeting efficiency and may include a total time limit. Item number one. Agenda. Item number one preliminary Replat and site plan. Avenue F Church of Christ. Block a lot two vehicle parking lot on one lot on 0.8 acres located on the west side of F Avenue. 75ft south of 11th Street. Zoned General Residential and located within the Expressway Corridor overlay District. The applicant is Avenue F, Church of Christ. The item is for administrative consideration. Good evening, commissioners. Destiny woods, planner with the Planning Department. So this slide shows the area of the request. This is the plat the preliminary replat that we're looking at today. And this is the site plan. So the proposed development is for a parking lot reconstruction for an existing religious facility. Staff did receive ten official responses. All of those were from the property owner. And they were in favor of the replat. And we did receive one response in opposition to this request as well. So the preliminary report is recommended for approval, subject to additions and alterations by the engineering plans as required by the engineering Department, as is the site plan. I'm available for any questions and the applicant is also here for questions. Commissioners, any questions of staff on this item? Commissioner Brounoff. Yes. Would approval of the site plan be conditioned on approval of the preliminary Replat. Mr. Bell, can you help me with that? We typically we typically approve them as a package. Okay. Not required to conditionally approve them upon each other in a single motion or separate motions. You could do a single motion for this one. Okay. In that case, I'll be happy to make a motion. Well, we've got a couple more comments. We still have a public hearing. Sure. All right. Commissioner lolly, I just wanted to know the number of parking provided. Is it in conformance with the zoning or is it like more or less? So the total number of parking spaces provided is 74 parking spaces. Those are not required spaces. So in addition to the, you know, like the required spaces, how much you like. So on the church lot, they're already meeting their parking requirements. So this lot is just additional overflow. Yes. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Ali, just a curiosity on the the opposed public comment. There was no comment, just a marking of. That's right. There was no there were no specific comments of why they're opposed. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? All right, Mr. Bruno. Oh, hang on, hang on. We still have a public hearing. And, Commissioner Ali, you had your light on as well. Okay. All right, so we do have a public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Do we have speakers registered for this item? Just the applicants. All right. And you're certainly welcome to come speak to us if you'd like to, but it's certainly not required. Okay. Thank you. I'm Courtney, I am with Avenue Church of Christ. We just wanted to be present, right? To do our part. Make sure available. We also want to make sure we're here if there's any questions. But destiny kind of summarized. What I was going to say is just ultimately we're trying to replant some lots. It's a sustainment initiative for us. You know, we're having some positive growth in the church, and we're just looking to get some more pavement for additional parking to grow to from like 34 parking spots right now to a total of 37. So we just, we're here and we, you know, we appreciate the support. All right. Any questions of the applicant? Thank you very much. I live in the area and I have noticed your crowd has been growing. So congratulations. I appreciate that. Thank you. Okay. All right. Any other speakers? No, sir. Not for that item. Okay. Close the public hearing now. I would accept a motion, Commissioner Brounoff. Now. Yes, now. Okay. Mr. chairman, I move that we approve agenda item number one. As to both the preliminary replat and the site plan, as recommended by staff. Commissioner alley second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 7 to 0. Thank you all for being here with us tonight. All right, item number two A and two B. Let's read those together, please. Agenda item. Agenda item number two. A request to amend plan development 189. Retail General Office on 113.9 acres of land out of the Denton Derby. Survey abstract number 260. Located at the southeast corner of Preston Road and Park Boulevard in the city of Plano. Collin County, Texas to add independent living facility as a permitted use with modified development standards for maximum number of units, additional height, reduced setbacks, and increased landscape edges. The additional permit. I apologize, the additional permitted use being limited to a specific 6.3 acre lot at the southwest corner of Park Boulevard and Ohio Drive, presently zoned as planned development. 189 Retail General office with specific use permit number 229 for private club. Number four, 55 for daycare center. Number 601 for public storage. Mini warehouse number 649 for private club and located within the Preston Road Overlay District table. January 20th, 2026. The petitioner is c r I c q Plano. Trust that this item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number two B Preston Park Fitness Center block a lot one independent living facility on one lot on 6.3 acres located on the southwest corner of Park Boulevard Boulevard and Ohio Drive. Zoned planned development 189 retail general office and located within the Preston Road Overlay District table. January 20th, 2026. The applicant is c r I c q Plano Trust. This item is for administrative consideration pending agenda item number two A. Good evening commissioners. My name is John Kim, senior planner with the Planning Department. Within the yellow lines here is the borders of the PD. 189. On this next screen you will see in blue the subject property where this project is being proposed. Currently there is a health and fitness center developed on the property, but it is currently vacant. And here is the concept plan associated with the zoning case. So to recap, this is a request for to amend plan development. 189 Retail General Office to allow independent living facility with modified development standards as an allowed use on the property. The proposed development is limited to that 6.3 acre parcel that you saw in the previous slide. And just to remind you that the project was initiated prior to September 1st, 2025 and is subject to the regulations in effect at that time. So this item was previously heard at the January 20th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. At the meeting, there were some concerns about the impacts about the height of the building on surrounding properties, especially the adjacent neighbors across Ohio Drive. So there there. The items were tabled to this meeting to allow some additional design considerations and other ideas to help mitigate the impacts. Updates to the presentation will be highlighted in yellow throughout the slides. Again, just a brief overview of the history. PD 189 Retail General Office was established in 1981. Throughout the years, there was a series of amendments to allow additional uses and development standards. This PD was kind of established to help protect some of the existing neighborhoods east of Ohio Drive, so there are some additional height requirements and use restrictions. The further east you go towards Ohio Drive in 95, it was amended to allow the health and fitness center to be built, which was built in 96. The fitness center closed in 2025 and remains vacant. For the adjacent zoning to the east and south is all residential, with SF seven, SF six and multifamily two, and to the north and West is retail. The current zoning restrictions for the PD within the subject property, the only certain uses are. Only certain nonresidential uses are allowed. The independent living is not currently allowed on the site. The maximum height for any of the uses is two stories, and there is a 25 foot required landscape edge along Ohio Drive. So for the proposed independent living facility, it is proposed to be a five story, 65ft building. The units are still up to 250ft. But on the fifth story facing Ohio Drive, they will be limited to seven total dwelling units on that top floor, and that will be along the entire facade. And so if you look on the table here, most of the previous proposed setbacks remaining the same. But we did add one more for setback for portions of buildings over two stories to be set back 120ft. And I'll describe that more in the next slide. So for the height, the adjacent properties, residential and nonresidential, are generally 1 or 2 stories, and that is along Ohio Drive, especially. Again, the PD was designed to lessen the intensity along the perimeter, especially along Ohio Drive. Due to that two story height restriction within 600ft of Ohio Drive. We additionally added that 120 foot setback from Ohio Drive to meet the ordinance requirement. And so there is a requirement that states that for a building at this height, it has to be located 150ft away from the residential zoning district line. On the screen, you'll see a orange line depicted that's roughly 166ft, and that is away from the residential zoning district. So they are in compliance with the ordinance requirement for the height from the residential. And then in pink is the 120 foot distance. Although it does meet the height requirements of the ordinance, staff finds the height inappropriate for the site. To limit some of the visibility issues about the independent living facility. Again, they are limiting 7 to 7 dwelling units on the facade of Ohio Drive. Any accessory windows for uses that are such as common rooms that are not dwelling units must be clerestory windows, and you can see an example on the screen. So they're just the windows along the top of the wall. So they really help reduce visibility. And then any outdoor spaces, such as an outdoor patio, they have to provide solid screening. And that must be approved by the director of planning. On the screen. Okay. On the screen are different views at 45ft and 55ft. So they took drone aerial footage from each of these heights. And then here's at 55ft. Okay. And the applicant is also proposing additional landscaping and screening along Ohio Drive. This should help, you know, long term visibility impacts from the nearby properties at the street level. And further away, a shade tree will be provided for every 50ft of landscape edge along Ohio Drive, and then a six foot evergreen living screen with landscape edge along Ohio Drive will also need to be provided. On the screen. You can see two aerials from 2021 or 2 street views and 2025. So during 2021, there was a storm that hit this area and took out a lot of trees and greenery here. And so by adding additional shade trees and evergreen living screen, it would kind of help restore this visual barrier that existed prior to the death of these plants. In addition to the additional landscaping, there are there is a proposed dog park on the site as an amenity for the residents. It will be located behind a retaining wall on the site, and it has to be a minimum of 2000ft■!S. I do want to mention the adjacent daycare center. So last time there was a concern about the construction impacts on the site. They do share an access drive and fire lane, which will be modified to help preserve the access for that business. There are still concerns regarding the impact from debris and noise and dust during the construction process, and the proposed height, because it is an increased height, it does create additional risk due to due to the higher chance of, you know, falling elements from the building to the site. On the screen. This is the part of the previous PD stipulations, a through eight and A through D were not changed. E is regarding the limited visibility along Ohio Drive. And then G and H are for the landscaping and the dog park. As far as the comprehensive plan goes, the staff analysis does not change from the previous summary. It still does not meet the conformance for the density, intensity and open space. But there is a little more passive open space available due to the dog park, but it is due to the due to the density and the mix of uses on the property, it will still require findings to be approved. I do want to touch on the SB 840 again, as a reminder, this property can be built under SB 840 up to 45ft, and that will just require additional items such as multi-family design guidelines, park fees, things like that. But they are choosing to be reviewed under the previous ordinance. Just to note that the because the proposed amendment is mainly for the change of stories, it does not meet the purpose of a planned development. The responses as of Friday, March 20th, is to. Within the subject PD property 11 within 200ft and then 179 total within the citywide. So in summary, they are requesting to allow the independent living facility with modified development standards within PD 189 Retail General Office. They are proposing a height of 65ft and five stories with a limited visibility and units. On the fifth story, the reduced setback and landscape edge along Preston Park Boulevard and then providing additional landscaping and the screening that will help buffer from the neighborhood's. Item. Two A is recommended for denial for the Comprehensive Plan and Findings policy. This request must be found consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan and substantially beneficial to the immediate neighbors surrounding community and general public interest. If the Commission wishes to recommend approval to the City Council, item two B is recommended for action to be taken consistent with item number two A and if approved, subject to City Council approval of zoning case 2025 013. I'm available for questions, and the applicant is also here with the presentation as well. Okay. Thank you. I'll open it up to questions from the commission in just a second. I've got one in particular I want to ask you. Can you go back to slide 25, please? There you go right there. Okay, so what's being proposed under the PD is 120 foot setback from Ohio Drive, which is the pink line. Is that is that going to be written into the PD? Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. That is one of the stipulations. Okay. But what you said on slide 40 was that they were asking for 25ft. I just want to make sure that the 120ft is going to apply to Ohio. Okay. The on slide 40. Slide 40. Right. That one right there. Yeah. You said as proposed was 25 foot setback. Correct. 120ft is for the portions of the building above two stories. The first and second stories will be can be up to 25 or as close as 25ft. Okay. But the way it's proposed on their site plan, all of it is more than 100 is 120ft from the property line. So the portions above two stories is over 120ft. Okay, so go back to slide 25 again if you would please. I just want to clarify, make sure everybody's understanding and I'm understanding, okay, under the new rules that we adopted as a result of Senate Bill 840 by the legislature, that pink line could shrink to 25ft, which is basically the dashed line almost at the right of way, right at the back of the dog park. Correct? Correct. And they could build a four story multifamily building 25ft off the property line, correct. By right, without even coming to us for zoning case. Correct. Okay. Under the new law. Yeah. Okay. As opposed to 120ft that they're proposing under the PD that we're considering tonight. Yes. Okay. I just want to make sure that was that was clear that 120ft is written into the PD. So it's not 25ft on Ohio. And just to clarify, the the small portion of the blue building that sticks out past the one 20ft, that building is 18ft. So that's within the two stories limit right there. And then after that it gets higher. How did you know that was my next question. Thank you. Thank you. Okay. Those are my questions commissioners. Other questions for staff. Commissioner Ali one along those lines. So we are 120 from Ohio. And you said 155 from the residential adjacency property. And the 155 from the residence is within our current regulations and stipulations from an adjacency perspective. Yes. Correct. So they just have to meet the minimum 155 and they're around 166. Gotcha. Can you go back to the drone pictures, for lack of better, the slide that had the bird's eye view picture. Oh, the drone footage. Please. Okay, so this is as currently with half of the trees without leaves and all that good stuff, right? Yes, correct. I believe it was taken some time during the winter. So the leaves are not there. Okay, so that was 45. Then the second set was 55 and the. Residential dwellings that will be facing this are the ones that are set only seven units along that facade with windows. There's a picture you had that had the windows kind of like higher. Oops, there we go. There it is. This will be the dwellings that face the drone pictures that we just. So only the non dwelling units will have these windows. The dwelling units will not be restricted to these windows. But if there are areas such as common areas like a game room or something like that, then they are. They can have these, they can only have these clerestory windows, but if it's a regular apartment dwelling unit, then they can have a full balcony and windows from their property. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to narrow down the issues a little bit here. If this property were to be redeveloped for one of the uses allowed other than independent living facility presently allowed uses, would that probably require demolition and reconstruction? I think generally, unless I can repurpose the existing building. But if they do want to do something else, it is likely okay. Is there anything to show us? What is the maximum height at which there would not be a clear line of sight from this building if built to the neighbor's backyards? I don't think we have that at this time. Perhaps the applicant will have it. Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Bender. Thank you. Chairman. If you go back to those drone pictures where you have 45 and 55, I'm assuming what that's attempting to show is the top floor view out, because the parapet top of the building is about 65ft. Is that correct? Correct. Okay. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. So just to clarify, the v1, v2, v3, and v4, we're just taking a different portions of the proposed building and so reflect different portions of the site. Thank you, Mr. Bronsky. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kim. So I've got two questions. If you could start with slide 39, please. The one before that, I guess. Yeah. They're under the recommended. It says 15 to 20% active open space and we're getting past 20% passive open space. Can you tell, can you tell us the difference between active and passive? And what was it prior to the changes? Just just to make sure when you say prior to the changes, like what is it currently or what is the percentage, what was it before we've had any of these changes from January to now, and then just kind of a general definition for us passive versus active. Okay. Yeah. So the, as far as the, the numbers from before, it's very similar. The park was only 2000ft■!S. So it was a very minimal addition to the open space. I think it was around a percent. And so it didn't change that numbers very much. As far as the active open space goes, it is generally for the open public, open use for the public, such as park space, things like that. Whereas these are just, you know, trails which are more passive in their use. And so yeah, active space is defined in the comprehensive plan. It's things like plazas, playgrounds, things that are actively meant to be used versus just enjoyed as kind of walking by and seeing the nature. Interesting. So it's recommended for this particular area to have active. And what we're getting is passive. Correct. Okay, so my second question, and this one's more of a little me trying to figure this out. So you mentioned on this the. The units that have balconies, I think it was that they were going to be solid screened. Does that mean they're going to be screened on all four sides as a solid. Yeah. So it would be open air, but it would just have to be a solid wall. Towards the street of. Is there a specific height that it has to be? I don't think there is a specific height necessarily, but I would imagine it would have to, you know, meet the typical unit size and the surrounding walls of the apartment. Mr. Kim, just to clarify, that's only for public spaces, right? Not for the individual units. Individual units wouldn't have to have a screen wall. Correct? Correct. Okay. Oh, I'm sorry, I that's why I wanted to make sure we were both hearing the same thing. Yeah. No, I that's what I was because I was just trying to picture a. Okay, good. Then that answers my question. Thank you very much. Okay. Mr. Ali. One more in our packet. We basically we basically say the applicant has proposed additional updates intended to improve privacy, but it does not fully resolve concerns more than anything. Just to spell it out, what concerns are from the planning perspective is not fully resolved. So although this the additional trees and screening does help and some of the, you know, windows, there are still, you know, the full residential view for those seven units. And especially from the residential perspective, you know, the building may still be visible from their sides. So it, it isn't like perfectly screened from view from them. And so I think there are still some visible impacts from the building being developed here and the adjacent buildings, because it will be much taller than, you know, some of the nonresidential buildings as well. There is some visual impact there as well. Okay. Commissioner Lingenfelter, so we're looking at 120ft from is that the center of Ohio or was it from the right of way? Hold on. Let me go back to that. I may have done my math wrong here. Yeah. So the 120ft is from the property line. It is from the property line. Yeah. So that's going to be the outside of the right of way. You got 120 plus 85 for the right of way. Yeah, exactly. And then 20ft or whatever to the, to the home. Yeah. Whatever their setback is. Right. Okay. So, so we're talking about 220ft from the home to the, to the structure. That's five stories plus a parapet. So that that equates to roughly just about 3.5ft per one foot slope. As far as visibility goes. I just did the math for you. How does that compare to typically to a property adjoining single family for for other uses and stuff like this. So, so the height requirements that we do have in the ordinance do apply to all nonresidential across from residential as well. And so because it is meeting that it is in compliance with other properties that are also in compliance with the height limits. So the orange line basically, that is the line that depicts how far away it has to be from residential districts, including single family. And so even at the height where it is located, it is meeting that requirement. Okay. Yeah. You good? Yeah. Okay. Mr. Bell, I just want to add some additional context on two things. The the height concerns what was staff's concern from the beginning. We've recommended that the applicant consider stepping back the fifth floor. So it's additional it's not any units on the front. They all have to be set back additional depth of a unit. The applicant can speak to you why that doesn't work for their design options. But that was the recommendation that we provided regarding the setback. I just wanted to to advise that this it meets the requirements citywide for what is nonresidential to residential. This PD has specific standards that apply to all projects that limit them to two storeys because of the high concerns. And additionally there is the comprehensive plan guidance. This was under previous regulations which do not support the height and intensity in this area. So that's what's leading to staff concerns with height. One follow up question for me, Mr. Kim, can you go back to your slide that has the two hatched areas with the height restriction? That and the PD, please. There you go right there. Just to make sure I'm crystal clear, under Senate Bill 840, which is now being codified, a multifamily could build in these hatched areas and still be above these heights up to 45ft. Correct? Correct. Under our new regulations. Correct. Okay. Just want to make sure. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Mr. Bruno, I'm curious as to how many stories could be fitted in the building if the maximum height were limited to 45ft, the applicant may have more experience with that that you could do for stories. It would require lower ceiling heights to accomplish to accomplish four stories. Okay. Thank you. If we were to adopt the staff's recommendation and require an additional setback for the five story portion, how many stories would be in the forward part closest to Ohio Drive? For. Four. At what height? 45. So I couldn't quite hear the question. Could you lean into your mic at 45ft? If you set back the fifth floor to a greater distance, would the portion that would be left closest to Ohio Drive be like at 45ft? I think it potentially could be if they modified the design somehow. I think it would take some design changes from their part. Yeah. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions from commissioners? I'm going to open the public hearing. And then I believe the applicant may have a presentation and is here to talk to us. So let me open the public hearing. The applicant is here, I understand. So if you call the applicant and I'll come up and introduce yourselves, please. The applicant is Trevor Armstrong and Kenneth Fambro. Can you just give us your name and address for the record, please? Thanks. Trevor Armstrong, 3110 West Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas. Thank you, John, for the presentation. Just getting up to our slides here. Good evening, chair, commissioners and staff. Since our January 20th meeting, our team has worked diligently to address the core concerns we heard regarding height, distance, and privacy along Ohio Drive. The first question that we had to tackle was whether we could remove a floor or step back the building. We reran that analysis, and this is where we started nearly a year ago, when we first met with staff in April, and we ended up at the same conclusion. The project, around 240 units is not feasible nor financeable, and that's not unique to the site, but rather more consistent with broader senior housing trends in town. For example, the newest community is 236 units, and the independent living portion of that community has a five story building across our own portfolio. Our last three projects have averaged less, three projects have averaged between 250 and 300 units. Senior housing is a very sensitive operations based business. So while we understand the central concern in this case is height, we are unable to provide a reduction of a floor or step in the building. If that were to be required, it becomes very unlikely that the site gets redeveloped for senior housing. Instead, we've focused our efforts on how we can mitigate our impact to our neighbors. That was our our task. It was straightforward. What can we do to alleviate the concerns while still providing a design that can actually be built in today's environment? So we worked we have five targeted changes that we worked through. John gave a great overview of most of them. We'll just talk briefly about them and then be able to answer any questions that you may have. The first is trying to lower the building profile. We met with our civil engineer and identified that the controlling constraint for our site is the existing driveway connection on West Park Boulevard. We maxed out the fire slope, which required us to add an additional retaining wall on the northern part of the site, and we were able to drop the highest finished floor elevation by one foot. We also decreased our wall and parapet height and tightened our interior dimensions. Everything we could to bring the building in and down as far as possible. We then increased the distance away from the single family homes. We reoriented the pool and pickleball building to be away from Ohio, which gives us now a setback between 220 and 238ft from the single family homes to our building's edge. Similarly related, we added the setback along Ohio Drive. So now that anything over two stories is set back 120ft, we then looked specifically at the fifth floor, the top floor facing Ohio, and looked at several ways of how we could reduce the the burden that we felt from from the residents over there. In that section, we reduced the unit count by 42%, now allowing just a maximum of seven units. And as John mentioned, committed to installing clear story windows in any non unit areas, elevated windows to prevent direct sight lines from those spaces. And then lastly, we enhanced the landscaping and screening along Ohio as well, committing to install six foot evergreen screen and planting shade trees every 50ft. The effort here is to create a year round visual buffer, both at ground level and eventually at height with time. So overall, we carefully listened to all the concerns we heard and made our best effort to adopt as many as we could, while still preserving a project that is viable in today's market. With that, we'll take any questions. All right. Commissioners, questions of the applicant. Mr. lolly, I just have one question. What's the height of the building now? Is it 55 or 65? We still have a maximum of 65ft, because we're so early in the design process that it's hard for us to commit to a specific elevation. But as we get through more and more of the grading, as we come back from more additional approvals, preliminary and final site plan will be able to narrow that gap. So it might be 65 rather than the maximum allowed. Yes, ma'am. Thank you. Just to clarify, is that to the top of the parapet? What what do you envision the fifth floor floor plate, give or take. You have the answer. 55. 65. Yeah. 65 is to the top of the parapet. I was just clarifying. The top of the floor plate is about 50. Yeah, it's under 60ft. 58ft is I think the highest point that we have. That would be the ceiling of the fifth floor. That's correct. What's the what is the if I'm standing on the fifth floor, what elevation are my feet? Oh, that's follow me. I do. Yeah. I'm six feet tall. Where are my eyes. Yeah, that's closer to 52ft. Okay. So when we're looking at these photos that you all provided, the 55 foot is probably actually a little higher than line of sight for somebody on the fifth floor. That's right. We tried to keep it clean and just do two measurements at 45 and 55ft. Okay. That's why I'm asking the question. Just want to make sure that we're still in the same place. Yes. Okay. Other questions of the applicant. Nobody. Okay. Stay close. I'm sure there'll be some more. All right. I do believe we have some registered speakers. Yes, sir. We do. So the next order of speakers, Amy Guthrie, Andrew Guthrie and then Mary Nelson. Would come forward and give us your name and address, please. Should I? Yeah. Name and address. And then you'll have three minutes. Thank you. Awesome. Amy Guthrie, 4521 Boston Drive. Thank you for allowing me to speak today, I appreciate it. I respectfully oppose the proposed rezoning and construction of a five story retirement community in this neighborhood. While I recognize and support the need for expanded retirement living options in our city, this particular proposal is not compatible with the surrounding area. The scale of the building would make it the tallest structure in the neighborhood, significantly altering or altering the character of the community and creating serious privacy concerns for nearby homeowners. A development of this height would overlook backyards and private living spaces, diminishing residents sense of security and quality of life. Rezoning this parcel from commercial to residential use for such an intense project sets a concerning precedent, precedent and does not reflect the established nature of this neighborhood. Additionally, the impact on local businesses and families, especially the Preston Park Academy that has served this community for 25 years, cannot be overlooked. Construction and ongoing operations would introduce increase in increased traffic, persistent noise and construction dust, all of which could negatively affect both the indoor and outdoor environments for young children, raising legitimate concerns about their health, safety and overall well-being. Increased congestion and disruption in what is currently a relatively calm area would further strain residents and the local infrastructure. We all want to see our community grow and thrive, but it is important that growth happens in a way that protects the people and the places that have long called this neighborhood home. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next is Andrew Guthrie, Mary Nelson, and then Jean Goodwin. Thank you. Good evening. My name is Drew Guthrie. I'm also at 4521 Boston Drive here in Plano. We're all familiar with the saying about trying to fit a square peg into a round hole. And that's precisely what the applicants are trying to do in this case. While I recognize the need for assisted living facilities here in Plano, I am concerned that the applicants have not been fully transparent with either the commission or the residents of the surrounding neighborhood. I personally was unaware of the proposed development until neighbors brought it to my attention. I did not receive any form of communication, such as the community meeting at the fitness building or a mail notification from the applicant. Despite their public assertion in the January meeting that such outreach had taken place after learning about the increased size of the proposed structure, I felt it was important to illustrate how intrusive a building. Of this scale would be when placed adjacent to established residential areas. To that end, I used a drone to capture aerial photographs from a height of 45ft within the last week significantly significantly lower than the height of the proposed building positioned at the corners nearest our neighborhood. As the images show, the view extends directly into the backyards of homes along Atlanta and Boston drives, demonstrating the substantial impact this development would have on resident privacy. Furthermore, I'd like to highlight the broader impact this proposed development would have on surrounding businesses. Preston Park Academy, which is celebrating 25 years of child learning services to the community this year, and Katy Trail Ice House, which is currently completed a significant property renovation, would. Both would both be adversely affected by the project of this size. The disruption caused by construction, as well as the long term changes to the area's character and accessibility could hinder their continued success and the valuable role they play in our community. In addition, this proposed this proposal raises serious concerns regarding property values and traffic safety. The development of this magnitude has the potential to negatively impact nearby home values, with effects that could extend throughout the surrounding neighborhood. Traffic congestion along Ohio and Park Boulevard is already at or near capacity, with peak hour backups stretching nearly half a mile south along Ohio and extending west past Katy Trail and Park. Increased density in this area would only exacerbate these conditions, posing further risk to both drivers and pedestrians. I respectfully urge you to consider the voices of more than 25 residents who have already expressed opposition online 20s, as well as those present today, and consider the very real and lasting impacts this decision will have on on our constituents. Thank you, thank you. Okay. Next we have Mary Nelson, followed by Jean Goodwin, followed by Linda Scott. Good evening. Thanks for allowing us to speak. My name is Mary Nelson. I'm a resident at 4537 Atlanta Drive, which is the first block in the El Dorado El Dorado Park community. Needless to say, getting in and out of the community right now because of traffic is ridiculous. I usually have to go around 2 to 3 blocks to get out, to turn left out of our community. So adding this to that is going to be astronomical. First of all, due diligence. We were never, never, I mean, within a couple hundred feet of this facility, we were never, ever asked to, to participate in their meetings to see what was going on. And John, how did you get a copy or a picture of our community without traffic? I've never seen it like that. So our, the, the people I'm talking on behalf of and not the whole community are opposed to the building height, the congestion it's going to cause, and it's going to get worse before it gets better. And also our property values with this facility, we're adding more and more rental properties rather than homeowners that take care of their properties in our Plano community. So I'm, you know, from a real estate standpoint, I hate to see that figure for the rental properties going up. And I know we need more facilities for seniors. That's that's not a question. And the other problem I have is safety. If a senior citizen is on the fifth floor and there's a an emergency, I don't see them running down five flights of stairs to get out of the building. And I know they're going to have for fire. They're going to have sprinkler systems. That's fine. But several years ago in our community, during the ice storms, six days without electricity. So these senior citizens couldn't be using elevators or anything else to get in and out of that building. The other point that was brought up is excellent location for shopping. There are no. Grocery stores within a block, so a senior citizen would have to cross a minimum of six lanes of traffic to get across Park or Preston. Either one 20s. Thank you. And again, what we're concerned with building height, congestion and our property value. Thank you for your time and thank you for all that you do. Thank you. Next we have Jean Goodwin, followed by Linda Scott and Rodney Scott. Good evening, Council commissioners. I'm not a public speaker so I will do my best. I apologize state your name please. Jean Goodwin, 4513 Fargo Drive. I've been a resident of the El Dorado Park community for 25 years now. I was the HOA president and in the committees back in the 2000 era. And when I left that position, I went off doing foster care and other things with my life, and the HOA collapsed in three years later. But anyway, I have been in the neighborhood and worked through these issues as well with when the Baylor Heart Hospital was being built and working with the other Hoa's along Plano Parkway, we were very successful in being heard, as I believe some of my neighbors have heard me and some of them all have talked to me. Not everybody, because we don't have an HOA forum. So I think that this group has done wonderful jobs with talking with the ones that did get the information of the meetings and addressing the issues, the setback of the property, the floor height. And I know they keep talking about five stories, but with my understanding, the parking garage for seniors is flat. It's going to be at or below Ohio in park grade level, so it's slightly lower. So I believe in my mind it's really four stories, but regardless, it's still there. They've changed the windows and the setback. And no matter what happens, something is going to be built on this property. I do not want more retail gas stations, car wash or apartment complex. Apartment complex would build, bring more traffic, families children's other drivers. This senior citizen complex average age is 81. I don't know of anyone that's 81 that could see 230ft from their balcony and tell you what's happening in anybody's yard. I can barely see the fences outside my fence, in my yard, feeding on the bird feeders. I am in favor of this. And as well as a lot of people I've talked to. The traffic issues we've had has been building over the years, doing Ohio as a secondary street to Preston, and then this last year when they were doing the two turning lanes each direction at Ohio and Park, it was worse. It was a nightmare getting out of the neighborhood. Yes, I had to go around the other ways, etc. but we're also talking about a senior citizen center where the bulk of them do not drive, and if they do, they're probably going to only go out during the middle day. Also, facility will have a bus and other forms of getting people around. It's going to have a full concierge salon, everything that most people would need. I only hope that there's something like this when I get to the age of needing something like that. The Community Impact newsletter, if you could wrap it up for us. Yeah, time's up. If you could wrap it up for us. Summarize, please. I didn't hear you. You could just summarize and wrap it up for us. I'm in favor of this. I think that anything that's being complained about is short term build out. I'm sure there's fencing blockage to help any debris. The driveway to the Montessori school will not be blocked. I believe this will be good for everybody in the long term for senior citizens as well. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have Linda Scott, Rodney Scott and then followed by Kamran Jamal. And I think all of you all registered just okay. You didn't register to speak, but did want to make sure you had the chance if you wanted to. Right. All right. And then do we have somebody on Too-b? Yes, there was someone on two B Joe Wistrich since we're having a combined hearing here, if you'd like to speak. Hello, Joe Westridge, I live at 4544 Boston Drive. That puts me one house in. Off of off of Ohio Drive. And as several of my neighbors have already kind of stole my thunder of most of the notes I had. So I'm not going to regurgitate that information, but I will just say that I have owned my house at on Boston Drive for 30 plus years now. And so I have seen the development of the of the gym next door, the daycare things up and down Ohio Drive. So I'm very familiar with things going from up Ohio drive all the way from the South end at George Bush, all the way up to the north end at 121. And other than three other structures on Ohio Drive, there are no. There are no buildings, commercial or residential that are above two stories other than three other senior centers, and there are. One is. The newest one that was built is up on Parker and Ohio, and it's a three story, a complex called sunrise. And then the other two are up at Spring Creek and Ohio Legacy and Conservatory. Those are four story structures. The difference is none of those structures are adjacent to single family residential homes. They only thing that they have the kind of butt up against them are two story townhomes that are zero lot lines with no yards, and they kind of butt up against the back backsides of those on the sunrise and then up at the at the conservatory up on Spring Creek. The other than that, there are no other tall structures other than the two hospitals, kind of in about a two mile radius. Medical City, Plano and Baylor. And then the two buildings out on Preston Road, the Preston, I think it's called Preston Financial Center. Other than that, everything up and down Ohio is limited to two stories. This building would stick out like a sore thumb. And as my neighbors have said, this would impact resale value of the house. I know in buying a house, you know, if there's something like a water tower right next to your home or a tall building right next to your home, it's going to impact people that are going to walk away from that and move on to something else that has more traditional neighborhood feel to it. So that would be my my main point would be that along with what's also been talked about is the traffic 20s Preston Road has become a basically a freeway. And then therefore the traffic has moved over to Ohio Drive as a thoroughfare from north to south with the building of multifamily units and the south end of Frisco. And it is just a a parking lot out there. If you can summarize and wrap it up for us around the commute time. So just to reiterate, I'm very much opposed to this, and I would hope that the commissioners would put themselves in the place of homeowners if they had a home butting up right up against this proposed structure. Thank you. Thank you very much. All right. Do we have any other registered speakers? No, sir. That was the last. Okay. Okay. I'm Paul Cameron. Jamal. Yes. Okay. You were registered as just opinion, so I didn't know if you wanted to speak. So please go ahead. Good evening. I'm Natasha Jamal, 1900 Preston Park Boulevard. My name is Natasha and I'm the owner of Preston Park Montessori. I'm a licensed child care center that served the community over 25 years, caring for children, thousands of children as young as six weeks old. We would like to reiterate our strong opposition to the proposed development project adjacent to our property. As currently presented, this development would have the most significant and direct impact on our property and ongoing operations and the hundreds of families we support. As previously stated, childcare is highly regulated and safety sensitive. Environment construction of this magnitude, particularly a five story building with an underground parking garage, introduces unavoidable risks. These include prolonged noise, vibration, dust, debris and heavy equipment which all directly interfere with infant sleep, classroom learning, outdoor play, and the overall safety and air quality of our facility. Additionally, extended construction activity, including excavation, pile driving and increased construction traffic creates ongoing safety hazards for children, family and staff. Safe access, visibility and a stable environment are critical to our operations and they can be compromised. There are also significant concerns around child privacy and security during construction, the proximity of workers equipment and open sightlines to our playground creates serious safeguarding risks beyond construction. A multi-story story residential building directly overlooking our outdoor playground raises ongoing concerns about visibility into a space where young children are present daily. Protecting the privacy and security of our children is not optional to fundamental requirement. Operating a childcare facility since the last meeting, we have reviewed the applicant's recent communication in today's plan revision. Unfortunately, our concerns were not meaningfully addressed, nor were any concrete measures presented that would adequately mitigate the impact on our school. The absence of solutions only reinforces the reality that these risks risks cannot be resolved in a way that ensures the safety and well-being of our children. We strongly oppose the project without remediation of the critical concerns impacting our existing business operations. Our school not only employs several dozen staff members, but also serves 150 local families who rely on us every day. Our school is an essential community resource, and we should not be placed in a position where we are forced to absorb impacts that jeopardize our child safety and threaten the viability of a long standing, trusted institution. For these reasons, we respectfully and strongly urge the Commission to deny approval of this project at this location. Project protecting existing community infrastructure, especially one that serves young children, must remain a priority in planning and zoning decisions. This project cannot safely coexist with the school. That is simply not the right project for this location. Cameron Jamal, 1900 Preston Park Boulevard. In addition to what Natasha said, I would just like to reiterate the point that since the last hearing, there has been no communication by the developer to us in in order to mitigate any of our concerns. So that tells us that regardless of them saying that they want to cohesively work with the community, they haven't made any steps, at least with us being closest to the to the project line to work with us, try to figure something out with us. And that hasn't happened since the last hearing. So that tells me that that's not their intention, regardless of what they're saying. Someone earlier said that these are temporary issues. They can be very well permanent for us because these temporary issues can cause us to go out of business and close our doors. Just so you guys know. Thank you, thank you. Do we have any other speakers? No. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Well, I'm not going to close the public hearing. I have a question. A couple questions for the applicant. I have questions about demographics of your residents and staff. I'm not sure who the right person is to answer that. Yes, sir. I know this isn't your first project, so can you kind of give us a snapshot of your average resident and the number of staff that would be at this facility? Absolutely. We have a slide for it as well. Here's a snapshot of our typical resident, 81 years old. On average, 75% of our units are single occupant units. So overall activity in the community is significantly less than traditional multifamily community. On average, we have less than one car per unit. It's 0.7 for our residents here. They stay in the community for over four years on average. So they're very sticky from that standpoint. With multifamily, you have a lot of turnover, so you're going to have a lot of people moving in and out of the community. As people come into our community, they age in place. So they are typically coming from a single family home, which is why we like to be next to a single family community. We complement one another. They're selling their home that they've lived in for, in some cases 25, 30 years. Love the area, love the friendships and social connections they have. They want to stay close. And in a lot of cases, it's also the adult children, the 45 to 55 year olds who are moving mom and dad to be closer to the kids and the grandkids. So they will look for community that's next to where they're going to ultimately relocate themselves for in terms of single family. And how about your staff? How many staff would be at this facility? So on average, we'll have about 20 to 30 full time employees. They'll range from our perspective, most of those are salaries. Some of those are part time or hourly. But on site we'll have everything from a concierge at the entrance. We've got a executive chef that manages our dining. We've got an activities director that runs a social calendar of events every single day of the week. We also have our leasing and management team and then servers, etc. for all the ancillary services we offer on site. Okay. And then last, it's not a land use question, but I wanted to give you an opportunity to talk about construction phase if you'd like to. Sure. I can speak to that. Kenneth Fambro 3110 with South Park Boulevard, Southlake, Texas. For the construction phase. I think it's important to note that we're processing, or at least the owner is processing a demolition permit regardless. So this structure is really closed down and will be will we have an application before the city to start demolition as soon as possible? We're sensitive to construction. We've thought of ways we're going to work with the city in any way that we possibly can to mitigate adjacency. We have outlines we have to adhere to city policy on adjacent construction as well. What we've been doing is kind of thinking through, how can we I mean, we drove by the site afterwards, how can we mitigate trash? Some of the concerns that we've had. It will be a challenge just given the proximity, but we've committed to having an adjacency from a screening standpoint, building something temporary. You don't want to create a hazard when you're building something temporary, that something can fall over. But we've looked at netting. It's very similar to I mean, there's construction done in downtown locations with close proximity than this. So we're looking into those type of efforts, whether it's screening or netting, that helps keep everything in close proximity to our job site itself. Okay. And then just by our rules, you have up to five minutes to answer any other concerns that you'd like to make sure have gotten addressed. If there's anything else you'd like to add. The construction piece is probably the most thing I think we adhere to all of the regulations from notifications I heard heard a little bit, something about that. I think we worked well with the city in terms of making sure notifications were done and out. We've made ourselves available throughout this entire process. I've even had even through this process, someone in the area contact me directly on my mobile phone to tell me that someone had broken into the into the existing structure and there was homeless there and we immediately got on it. Even though we're just under contract with the building that was handled immediately and boarded up, we want to be like truly a part of the community that that is our notice. I know there is a lot of concern. There is is there's no direct data. Most of us, Trevor mentioned most of the communities that we have that have height, we're adjacent to single family communities. So there's no data about lowering property values. It's quite the opposite, especially here because we're we're seen as a benefit to the community. We spur development with inside it. We adhere. I mean, we have a letter of support from ice House. So we support local businesses within the area. And we want to do that here. Okay. Thank you, thank you. Don't go far. Commissioner Ali, actually one question. I understand the noticing that you gave to the to your neighbors, but in this particular case, there was a particular neighbor that quite frankly, is a little bit has more standing and they are indicating they didn't get any reach out from you guys. Can you speak to that? They didn't indicate that they didn't get any reach out to us. I want to I want to make that clear. They were the first people that we've called. We've met with them on several occasions earlier on in the process. What they said was they that between the last time and this time, we didn't reach out. Guys, we've had we've been trying to adhere and really figure out what we're doing. I mean, this took a lot of time. This took a lot of effort to even get to where we are in terms of the concessions that we're doing, all of these concessions directly impact what we're doing in the adjacency. So I, I understand the concern. I'm sorry, you've had contact with them. They'll they'll agree. We sat down over coffee, I mean, before we even started the process. Okay. Can I ask a question of staff just to clarify something in my head? Yeah. Why don't you hold on? Let's make sure we have any questions for the applicant. I'll close the public hearing, and then we can ask staff any other questions of the applicant. All right. Nobody. Okay. Thank you all very much. Thank you very much. Close the public hearing now. Commissioner Ali, you have a question for staff. Yes. Under SB 840. I just want to make sure my math is right. Independent living use will be by right for a maximum of 45ft and much closer. Correct. Okay. From a traffic perspective, the things that may become by. Right. Under SB 840, including multifamily, independent living office. And there was something else that I've lost my page right now. I think independent living is the least outside of single family is the least traffic generating use of that site. Yes. Of those listed uses, it is the second lowest next to single family. And the uses listed on that chart that was based on just adjacent uses along Ohio Drive and Park Boulevard. And so that's why they were considered. Okay. Thank you. All right. Commissioners other comments. All right. Commissioner lolly, you like does did the city do any explanation for the neighbors about the SB 840 that's what I like other people like here aware of like the difference between what we're doing here now for, you know, like just negotiating with the city on the, on their PD versus what they, what could be built with the eight SB 840 so when the bill was initially passed, there was effort from the city side to make that information known to the public through, you know, website information, things like that. And so we did make an effort to make it known that the potential impacts of SB 840. But, you know, like, but did the city like explain during those meetings with the, you know, like with the, in the neighborhood or the applicant, you know, like we're meeting. Do you have any more info on that? Yeah. That's right. Those are meetings hosted by the applicant staff. Was attendance in those meetings. You're not the city is not involved not in the neighborhood meetings. No ma'am. We did a general outreach campaign citywide. And there's information still available on the city's website, but there was not a specific outreach related to the specific case. Thank you. Commissioner lolly, you're one step ahead of me because I was about to kind of lob in on that same issue, because I think what might not be clear here tonight, and particularly speaking to the residents, is that the Planning and Zoning Commission is in kind of a interesting position because of legislation passed by the Texas legislature that we're calling it. SB 840. It was a Senate bill. 840 that allows multifamily as a use by right on any land that's currently zoned commercial. And so if if this proposal wasn't here, another developer could come to the city of Plano. And without even having any of these meetings, build a multifamily development on this piece of property, 45ft tall, 25ft from the street by right, with no hearings. And so that's the balance that we've that we're trying to trying to figure out is that we have a proposal in front of us that doesn't meet our current PD regulations and doesn't meet some of our other things. However, because of the legislation that was passed and that we adopted because we had to, the other alternatives are not what was there today. There are additional alternatives, which include four storey multi-family, 25ft from the road that could be built without any notification, without any hearings, without any zoning case today. And so when you hear us talk about Senate Bill 840 and what could be built here versus this proposal, those are the options that we're trying to weigh as to what is the best solution for this parcel and what hopefully creates the least impact on your neighborhood. And so those are the things that we're struggling with up here. Just to make sure you all understand some of the things that we're discussing up here. So that's why I wanted to expand that because if you weren't part of the hearings that we had about Senate Bill 840 and the impacts that it had on our zoning process, I wanted to make sure that was clear about about what we're struggling with and how we're trying to balance those requirements. So I hope that helps. Commissioner Ali, just one more question. I'm going to mess up the term seller's story windows, whatever those were, because those are internal designs. Can we enforce that? So these windows here, yeah, I yes, I believe we can. And I think it will be enforced through the building inspections. Correct. So it is enforceable. It will be part of the zoning stipulations for the property. And we will require facade plan in order to demonstrate that. Thank you. Thank Commissioner lolly, your question on the demolition. I'm sorry, the demolition is there like an environmental impact for the surrounding areas that like any measures that they can take to prevent like environmental no, no noise. So we did consult with the chief building official with the city early on to see if there are additional, you know, things that we can kind of provide for them. But I think primarily, as long as they're meeting the, you know, the standards set by the city and other construction codes, I think that was kind of our limit as to what we could enforce. But is there like per code? Is there like a limit, like environmental impact for adjacent properties from the demolition, like noise dust, you know, like do they have to do certain they have to comply with the city's noise ordinance, which will limit times of the day that they can do construction. And they're also requirements to keep a clean working site that the inspectors will keep an eye on. But in terms of constructing any additional mitigation, there's nothing the city can require no environmental studies to be required either. Thank you. All right. Commission questions or comments. Commissioner Bronsky. So I don't want to go back and beat a dead horse, but I'm going to. Should they not pass tonight and they come back around to do construction on this site under SB 840. They can tear down the building that's going right now, and they can go full forward with four story construction 25ft from the property line tomorrow. Yes, that is correct. So the concerns the citizens have about height as well as the concerns they have about congestion and the concerns they have about the construction, would not change. It could even be worse under 840. Under SB 840. Yes, potentially. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Bruno. Oh boy. Damned if we do and damned if we don't. If this project were proposed at another location, I think we wouldn't even be having this debate if it were proposed for two stories. I don't think we would be having this debate. Multifamily uses, whether for independent living or otherwise. Per se, is not inappropriate. There are some very attractive two story garden style apartments on the other side of Preston Park, down a short way. And I don't think the quality of the development is an issue. I mean, this developer has, you know, we've seen other similar developments in the city and they've all been nice. I've seen nothing to indicate that there would be anything questionable about the quality or the desirability of the of the product or the desirability to the residents. I think this and with regard to construction impacts, they can demolish the present building anyway. So this application does not change that there would be any redevelopment would require some construction impacts, specifically on the on the Montessori school next door. Anyway, although I think a five story development or a four story 45 foot development might require it for a longer time, but it would still be temporary. So what I think this comes down to is. Privacy for the neighbors. I'm looking at the photographs. And first of all, I don't think there's a privacy problem with regard to front yards. And I haven't heard the, the, the the homeowners to the east complain about privacy impacts on the front yards. Anybody can drive down the street and look at look at people's front yards. That's open view to the public at any time. We're talking backyards and there are four houses fronting Ohio Drive. The side of the houses are fronting Ohio Drive with windows that could be looked into from a higher height. This proposal does not comply with our comprehensive plan, and I think the only reason, you know, the Commission is considering approving it is because of the potential of what could happen under SB 840, given. I mean, I think that the neighbor's concerns are legitimate, and I think they're valid with respect to privacy, especially on the four houses fronting Ohio Drive, with their sides facing Ohio Drive. I think that's deserving of protection. So weighing the alternatives. My view is if they want to come in under 840, we can't stop them. If we're going to impose impacts on the neighboring properties, let the state do it. I don't want the city doing it to its residents, so I'll be voting against it. But I understand the conundrum that we face, and I understand the reasons people may want to vote for this. Mr. Ali. Commissioner Bruno touched on a couple of things. Traffic was never really one of my top concerns here. Just because any other use by right generates a lot more than this particular use. The line of sight probably is that the top concern. But again, looking at some of this pictures, if screening is done appropriately, it goes a long way to obscure even from 55ft above ground, the line of sight to into those. Actually count two homes that are probably the most quote unquote vulnerable to line of sight. The last thing that was probably top of my list from a concerned perspective is the daycare. But unfortunately, there is almost nothing we can do to mitigate construction, period and the disruption that that will bring to, to that site once the state legislation passed. What I have been appreciative of is giving the opportunity to, for lack of a better word, take back control to shape our built environment that seemed to have been taken from us. And to me, this is an opportunity to at least take back some control of what is built in that environment, even if it's not, doesn't cleanly meet all of our comprehensive plan guidelines. We have some say, right? And I think it's the burden on this body to represent the city's interests well in being able to have some say in what gets built. So I will I will propose approval of this slightly, grudgingly, but. Yeah. Is that a motion or is that your opinion? I will make a motion to approve agenda item two A and two B, contingent on two A passing a motion just on two A separate motions. Yes. I make a motion to approve agenda item two A and I have two other lights on. So let me see if we have a second and then I'll get to our two other lights. Commissioner Bender, did you have a comment or do you have a second? I need to see if I have a second first before I go to comments. I had a I do have a second. I had a comment if you'd like to second it and then address your comments, that would be great. Yeah, I'd like to second it and then make a comment. As the chairman, I think did a great job of outlining all the different factors that we're having to consider. And unfortunately, the legislature put us in this position. And, you know, under SB 840, as the chairman outlined, you could have a multifamily developer come in and just build a multifamily development, and we'd have really no input. And we do need more senior housing and oh, for sure. And I think, you know, what's been proposed in the motion is, is the right way to the right way to go. So I'll be sending it. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner Lingenfelter. So I may mess up motions a little bit, but I had questions about the landscaping and how that's enforced. Is that is that going to be enforced in the site planning or how? Because I see, you know, they got the six foot and then, you know, the six foot triangular space evergreen, you know, whatever. And then and of course, some trees along to fill in the gaps and stuff that'll go above how, how is that being enforced? How is that? Is that part of the site plan? Is that something that is tied to the zoning? Yes. So it will be tied with the landscape plan once that is drafted and approved, if it is recommended for approval. So what you're seeing here is the general concept of the landscape plan. That's why questioning it because it says it's conceptual. So it's like, okay, what that could mean could change dramatically, you know, down the road. So I'm just trying to understand that a little better. Yeah, it could vary somewhat from here from what's shown, but it would still have to meet the ordinance or the stipulation requirements. So the shade tree would have to be provided every 50ft along Ohio Drive. And then the six foot evergreen living screen would have to be provided. And that will be enforced by our property standards group as well. Was a berm ever considered along with, you know, so that would bring all of those plants up basically by raising the ground level, by putting in was berm landscape berms ever you thought of for this to help with the screening and really eliminate that visibility issue? I think most of our concerns were with additional shrubs and shade trees, just because of the additional height required for the screening at higher heights. Anyways, I believe there are many existing trees and location they're trying to the existing. Yeah, that's I was wondering if because obviously you can't raise it up without killing existing trees. Probably. I was just trying to figure out a way to address some of that because because we are, we're in that that conundrum with with this could be there's a lot of other opportunities for things that are done by right at this point. And, you know, now we got away. What's what's the best. And we're at least negative impact to to the neighbors because we do consider I always put myself in the neighbors. What, what if I lived in that house that we see in the picture? How would I feel? How would I feel with my four kids? And, you know, how does how do I, how would that impact me and what would I want? So yeah, we have that. We have to have that we wrestle with this. So Commissioner Lolly, I just wanted to confirm also it's going to be shade trees which are going to grow to 50 foot and over, right. It's not there's no alternative for like decorative or like shrubs. Correct. Yes. The city does have a list of approved shade trees that can be planted. And so with no alternative, you know, like, like to, to decorative for one shade, it's just going to be shade trees. Yeah, it is going to be shade trees. And if they do additional trees on top of that, that is up to them. Thank you. Commissioner alley, quick question. Do I need to amend the motion to add the stipulation on the. I think that's already in the PD as proposed. Is that correct for the shade trees, the clerestory windows. Oh yes it is. Okay. Let me. So it is e dot two okay. That answer your question. Yes. Okay. So before we call the vote, I'm I'm going to conclude that Commissioner Alley said it very well. And I think we all everybody has. I think one of the dilemmas that we're in is we have a quality developer that's brought a quality project forward that has a track record of, of doing nice work. And there are compromises that we have to consider recognizing sometimes that the alternatives will not may not be that and, and recognize that other projects that could come forward would have equal or potentially greater impact on the neighborhood that we would not have any control over, would not have this opportunity to vet, would not have this opportunity to modify as a as a commission. And so with that said, I believe this is a good proposal. I believe it is a good project for this location, especially given the alternatives available. So with that said, I will call the vote. If everybody would please vote. Motion passes 5 to 2. All right. Item number two B. A five story building findings. Can be amended. Okay let's do we're going to do two B and then we'll take a short break so that we can fill out our findings form. So Commissioner Olli I move to approve item number two B as written by Staff and Commissioner Bender. I would second the motion. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve item two B as presented by the staff, as recommended by staff. Please vote. Motion passes 5 to 2. We're going to take about a five minute break so that we can all fill out our findings forms and and take a little break. And then we'll be back in about five minutes or so. Useless. Yeah. These guys live like all the time. It's hilarious. There's no there's no what do you call it? There's no study that you'll lose value in your house if you put up a five story house next to a five story building. What do we do? For that? But. Appreciate that? Yeah. Just a quick. Story. So you're at four five, two one, right? So. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But I'm not going to you. It should still be. They should have no say in 45 versus 65. I would lower. Yeah, I, I, I need this. My main concern is that. Something. I thought it was interesting, but it might have been. That you know what I mean. Yeah. There might be. Anyway, it's going to be your question. Yeah. Right. Thank you. That's what kicked us out all the time. Something I don't know, but I would rather have things. Actually right here. Yeah. Because everybody turned in their form. Everybody. Everybody turned in their form. All right. Lillian's validating. Make sure she's gotten all of them. The meeting's not showing up in the. We're having technical difficulties with the registration. Oh the voting. We need to get that worked out for me. Move forward, don't we? Yes. Okay. I was going to tap 70 times to get to my thing, so we don't have to waste any time on it. Good. All right. I'll reconvene us back into open session. Turn the broadcast back on. There we go. All right, item number three. I know, Lillian, I'm throwing them at you fast. Item number three. Agenda item number three. Receive a presentation on the 2026 Planning Department annual report. The applicant is the city of Plano and this item is for information only. Good evening commissioners. My name is Justin Cozart with the planning Department. Excuse me. This presentation regards the 2026 Planning Department Annual Report, which covers events in the Planning Department in the calendar year 2025. It includes a department overview, information about zoning development, school demographic, housing data, and a little bit of history. 2025 was the 70th anniversary of planning in Plano. The department has four divisions development review, comprehensive planning, land records, planning and business services. As of January 1st, we had 35 employees. We have 36 employees in our fully staffed. Development Review division, which is the one with which you're most likely familiar, is headed by Assistant Director Mike Bell. They process submittals plans, plats landscape plans, zoning cases, and they present them before you. Comprehensive planning is headed by Drew Bronner and has two teams Heritage and Information and long range planning more about them later in the presentation. Land Records planning is headed by Kristina Sebastian and includes two teams development services and land Records. Development services maintains our zoning ordinance, the zoning rewrite and other zoning policies, user manuals and things of that nature, land records maintains our GIS systems, our maps, and they provide customer service with record drawings to the public. And finally, Business Services is the team that ties everything together. And they sit up here at the dais, help customers at the counter. That last year, over 9000 telephone calls were answered in the planning department, and we had a average customer rating of 4.88 out of five. They also stuff all the envelopes for the notices, which is which is a ton of them. Sometimes boards and commissions planning supports the Planning and Zoning Commission, the Heritage Commission, the Board of Adjustment and the Accommodations Review Board, as well as any ad hoc committees. Last year at the Planning and Zoning Commission, there were 24 regular meetings and there were 148 projects and plans considered. For planning updates just to go through the year. In January, the expressway corridor overlays were approved over the summer. Planning took administrative support of the Board of Adjustment over from building inspections. The legislature did some things and passed some laws that took effect September 1st, which required a lot of late nights and a lot of document processing in the planning department. And then in December, the zoning rewrite module one was accepted as substantially complete. In addition, the planning department won four awards from the APA Texas chapter. That's the American Planning Association, and we won one award from the Cog. For zoning and development numbers. Last year, we had 483 submittals for projects. That's a 30% decline from the previous year. That puts us on par with the same numbers that we had in about 2010 to the 2012 period. These numbers fluctuate annually. The report includes a map of major projects throughout the city, a large projects that may have been approved a while ago but are undergoing continual development, or projects that were approved last year, like Lavon Farms zoning petitions last year, with 17 zoning petitions that were finalized that were either approved or withdrawn or denied, and they covered 696 acres of the city that were zoned out of about 46,000 acres. Speaking of that many acres, on January 1st, we had 1765 acres of undeveloped land remaining. That's down from 2900 acres ten years ago. That's three point excuse me, that's 3.8% of the city's total land area that remains undeveloped. You can see on the map that some development plans and areas that have been planned out, like Lavon Farms, Haggard Farms, Heritage, Creekside, or Beacon Square show us partially undeveloped because development has not yet begun, not yet commenced. In those areas, about 80% of our undeveloped land is non residentially zoned, and of the portion that is residentially zoned, a lot of it's tied up in Lavon Farms. Heritage preservation issued 27 certificates of occupancy in 2020. Five out of 33 submitted, 74% were approved in a day or less. And the city continues to invest in our heritage properties. We issue through the Heritage Commission Heritage Preservation Grants. Last year, the three subcategories were added in addition to major heritage grants, we now have emergency heritage grants, minor heritage grants and grants for downtown events like Asia Fest and the Plano International Festival. The last fiscal year saw 107,000 visitors to our heritage Grant recipients for heritage tax exemptions. 88 properties throughout the city are covered by those exemptions for 2025. For long range and mobility planning. The Silver Line Station areas plan was adopted in January of last year, and in 2025, work began on the Legacy Area Master Plan. For demographics and housing our school districts. We have four school districts. Plano ISD, for example, has 43,000 students. 31,000 of those live within the city of Plano, approximately. School enrollment has been declining. The ISD closed four campuses in 2025. The city works closely with our education partners to give them information about demographics, approvals and different projects. Tomorrow, actually, we're having our city education meeting with our education partners are coming to City Hall, and we'll have a presentation for them about plans and projects, permitting trends. We had 325 permits issued in 2025, 150 permits for single family and 175 permits for multifamily. The multifamily permits are for the Holland apartment building, which is in Legacy West. Active residential projects in 2025. The report contains a map. Of those, there are 35 projects shown, including those in downtown Plano, which are collapsed into a single. A single icon. Also shown are projects that completed in 2025. You may be familiar with some of them. Mariposa Communications Independent Living was completed. Heritage Ridge Estates was completed, the villas at Middleton was completed, so we have had several completed projects for 2025 in that residential space. Finally, our housing estimate 330 acres of residential land remain undeveloped in the city. You can see the current housing breakdown in the city's about 62% single family. With the multifamily, we expect that that will transition to a majority of multifamily residential units by 2050. We realigned our future population projections and housing unit projections due to state legislation, which greatly expanded the amount of land available for multifamily development. So on the low end, with a 50% increase in multifamily permitting from the previous ten years average, we will see about 30,000 units in 368,000 people projected by 2050. If there's 100% increase from previous years, averages in multifamily unit permitting will see up to 385,000 residents in 45,000 new housing units. So we do expect more multifamily, as you can see by the pie charts here. But we are uncertain as to the mix. It's really up in the air at this point. That concludes my presentation about the annual report. I'm happy to answer any questions, mostly about the annual report. I know all the numbers pretty well, so Commissioner questions Commissioner Bender thank you chairman. Just, I guess maybe a comment. Not maybe so much a question. I know this is presented from the city's perspective. Plano ISD, about 30% of Richardson residents attend Plano ISD. Yes. And and I just thought for clarification, it might be worthwhile showing that because we show the other districts that are served. But that's a pretty significant piece. Yeah. So Plano ISD does cover other cities, Dallas and Richardson. So you're saying maybe for future reports, it might be beneficial to show the entire school district boundaries? Yeah. They cover 100mi■!S in ten cities. Thank you. So just a point of clarification. Commissioner Ali. Hypothetical, the multifamily single family mix that you showed. Before is before all of the state legislation, what would that number have been? Under the comp plan, we had 528 multifamily units per year expected on the land that we had allocated for multifamily after the state legislation. What we did is we took an average over the last ten years of multifamily permitting, which is pretty volatile. It changes every year. And we took that average and we said, what if there's 100% increase in that number? So that would be 2200, approximately multifamily units per year at 100% increase. So that's, that's the difference in the numbers. And it mostly ties down. It mostly is tied to the amount of space we have allocated for multifamily has greatly expanded. So roughly, if we had had the average, we would have been 52 ish percent single family to 48 multifamily if legislation hadn't, the previous report was 50% multifamily projected. Okay. Second question. I was looking at the children under ten years trend and. We do significantly worse. Can you tell me which page you're 26? Is the line graph showing city of Plano, Collin County, state of Texas. In the United States, we are significantly worse than the state and the. And the county. Any indication why studies why we don't necessarily look at how we compare to other municipalities in regards to demographics as far as age brackets are concerned. But we do have limited greenfield space for development. So if you're looking at somewhere like Celina with greatly expanded space, you know you're going to see more families because there's more room probably. But right now, Plano is about 1 in 5 people under the age of 20. Yeah. Built out on our residents. And so retiring in place essentially. Yeah, yeah. Aging in place. We do. Our average age is about 40, which is about the national average. And so yeah, those trends are going down for for younger children. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bronsky. So first I want to start out by saying thank you to the planning staff. I think it is the planning staff's forward thinking. It is the hard work and dedication and effort that you guys put in on a regular basis that not only attracts companies like Toyota and Liberty Mutual, but also makes it a safe place for families, for young families, and for even individuals seeking a vibrant lifestyle in a community like Plano's. And so I want to start out by saying that, and I do have one other comment, and it is related to the slide that we have up there right now, and no question, just an observation. So Rentcafe produced a study in November 2025 titled US Cities Building the Most Multi-Family Housing Study. And it's interesting, whenever you look at cities that are both at 38%, where we're at today or thereabouts, and a couple of those cities would be the Chicago area, which is at 40.7%. Current housing cities like Providence, Rhode Island, which is right around 40%, and cities like Seattle, Washington, which is right around 38% where we're at today. I have to ask myself, and I have been had vocal concern for quite a long time that Plano could be in a race of accomplishing what we did in the 1980s and 90s by over retailing our city to a place where we are over multifamily in our city. I came across three other studies, the New York Federal Reserve study that was just recently conducted that said, 72% of all renters are only choosing to rent because they're not able to buy a home. And if they had the chance to buy a home, they would not rent. Lending tree had a study done by pro builders that summarized 767% of renters, if had the opportunity, would not rent, but would buy. And finally, Zillow Research Group in 2024 produced similar numbers at 65%. If we look at these numbers that are, we're heading toward 55% of multifamily within our city. I'm just curious, do you know the only city that, according to this study, is over 50%? You don't have to answer New York City. I was going to say New York City. New York City is at 58.4%. And so when I think about the data that tells me what renters do and what their desires and wants are, I do believe that we are in a place where we don't have enough residential, but I don't feel like we have a place where we don't have enough multifamily residential. We have people that are even within our city today wanting to move into single family homes. And I don't know about you and I don't know about my friends serving around here. I live in Plano because I don't want to live in a city like New York City. That's all. I appreciate your comment. Thank you. We'll take that under advisement. Mr. Bruno. Thank you. I want to add my appreciation to the staff for your hard work, not only in preparing this report, but in the support that you give the Planning and Zoning Commission, you know, year in and year out, and your service to the to the people of Plano. I also note the fact that you you have a habit of bringing home all these rewards, which is highly commendable. And I appreciate that very much. I want to speak to the diminishing enrollment in the schools. And I think that a major factor behind that, perhaps not the only factor, but a major factor, is that housing both single family and multi-family rental, has become unaffordable for a large number of young couples with young children who otherwise could be enrolled in the in the Plano schools. Which creates a need and a you know, there's a shortage of supply to meet the demand for housing. It creates pressure on on the city to increase the supply of housing. And because we are running out of space, the city is getting closer and closer to build out. That means that the pressure is to create higher and higher density housing. So I would fully expect the percentage of multi-family to increase necessarily. I'm not prepared to say that's a bad thing. I think it's a necessary thing. It will have impacts, but it will serve a need. And ultimately, we have to serve the need. I also note on page 26 of the report that The percentage of children under ten years of age in the last 34 years has declined citywide, countywide, statewide and nationally. Yes. And I'm thinking this reflects a decrease in the birth rate, which would also affect school enrollment. I don't know what's causing that. I don't know if there's anything the city can do about it, but it's just something I've noticed. It may be a trend toward lower population of children in general. And so. They can still have kids, you know, anyway. But anyway, thank you for all your work. Thank you. I will pass along your appreciation to the other staff members. We all contributed to this report and worked very hard on it. Speaking to the school reasoning for the school decline, we're speaking with Plano ISD tomorrow, so it will be an interesting discussion to have with them about what maybe they think those reasons are. They have more detailed demographics as well for their schools. Commissioner Ali, just wanted to add one thing. Triggered my memory from Commissioner Bronsky speaking. Which is why I asked the question on the percentage if they would have been without state legislation. But I do like the thought that has been put. If on page 32. A larger distribution of the multifamily stock is more garden style, more Main Street, more small scale, that almost allows us hold that tension of bringing more housing stock, but in a manner that fits the built environment that is Plano, that is more suburban, that is not New York or Chicago, which is to my earlier point with the last case there. I think this body, as we go forward, under whatever regulatory or legislative environment, there is any opportunity that we have to mold that as much as possible to what we think our citizenry requires or desires. I think it would behoove us to seize on that and just to make sure that we are not, quite frankly, just letting life happen to us. We actually are participating in what the city should look like for our kids. Thank you. Just a couple of comments. From my perspective, I'm always, I guess, stunned and proud at the same time of some of the statistics in here. And I'm just going to three or 2 or 3 of them. That stuck out to me. 9000 telephone calls, 1600 walk ins, 483 projects, submittals, 390,000 GIS updates. I mean, kudos to the staff. I mean it, y'all are underappreciated. And and I want to make sure you all understand that we appreciate you all and everybody here for the hard work you all do behind the scenes that a lot of people don't know those numbers. And it's a credit to every one of y'all that that this city runs as well as it does because a lot that's a lot of work, a lot of work. And and we're here twice a month. Y'all are here every day. And we appreciate you. Thank you chairman. Thank you so much. All right. Any other comments? Thank you so much for your time this evening. Thank you very much. Item number four. Agenda item number four. Receive a presentation on the fiscal year 2024 through 25. City of Plano Comprehensive Plan Annual Report. The applicant is the city of Plano. Good evening commissioners. My name is Nasir Long Range planner, part of the Comprehensive Planning team. The purpose of this item is for staff to present the highlights of the Comprehensive Plan annual report for Fiscal year 2425. The Comprehensive Plan Annual report summarizes the progress made by the City of Plano in implementing the plan during the previous fiscal year, and it also serves as a tool for us to communicate the steps to take that we take to implement and implement the plan, as well as to ensure accountability that we are achieving the plans, objectives and the plan. The annual report is structured to into sections to highlight the different aspects of the plan updates as well as implementation progress. So as a background, since 1963, Plano has relied on comprehensive plans to guide the city's development, starting from a small farming community to what it is now is a regional economic center and the current plan, which was approved in 2021, will continue to guide the city into the future. And this comprehensive plan guides us to fill the to fulfill the community's vision of Plano, which is that it's a global leader excelling in exceptional education, abounding with world class businesses and vibrant neighborhoods. And this plan is structured around five pillars, 11 components, 42 policies, and 281 actions. So this slide summarizes how we implement the comprehensive plan through three primary avenues, one being service delivery, which involves the provision of our city services through various various city departments that are guided by these 281 actions. Then we have the CIP and operating budget, which serves as a key financial planning tool for us to align the city's resources with the comprehensive plan. And then the land use and development is also relying on the comprehensive plan as a policy framework for us to evaluate zoning requests. So keeping this in mind, I will be structuring the rest of this presentation around those three avenues of implementing the comprehensive plan. One being starting with the service delivery. So in the service delivery highlight, at the end of each fiscal year, the lead department reviews and updates their implementation progress for each action. And currently, as you can see in the pie chart, together, the in progress and recurring projects make up about 75% of the projects, meaning that those are the ones that are on track. And then we also have 5% that are complete and 5,020% that are pending. So while all the action updates are tracked on our comprehensive plan website, I will only be highlighting a few of them that were new from this past fiscal year. So as you can see, starting with waste minimization action for the Environmental Health and Sustainability department, they held the Texas Recycles Day program, which aligned with this action. In that project, they offered free electronics, recycling and paper shredding, and they were able to collect thousands of electronics and paper and divert it from the landfill. They also launched the Live Green and Plano Buzz Monthly News newscast. As a part of this. Aligning with this action more in waste minimization, the Public Works Department, they hosted the GBC seminar, which is the Green Business Certification Seminar, and they were able to add three research and technology technology businesses as a result of this. And there are more that are in the pipeline, of course. And they're they're also partnering with FIFA to promote these GBC businesses in the upcoming World Cup. Some other highlights. So with public safety action nine Fire Rescue, they initiated the new alerting system to improve their response times and public. The police department also brought in the real time intelligence center into full operation, aligning with the Arts and Culture Action one, the Special Projects Department. They completed the Cultural Arts Plan plan in May 2025, and a key goal of this plan is to create public art programs. As an example. So secondly, CIP and operating budget process is another mode of plan implementation, and the most recent CIP included 307 307 projects that align with one or more of the priorities of the facilities and infrastructure policy. Some of the projects are highlighted here. Chisholm Trail Erosion Control and Oak Point Maintenance Facility. Next, we have the land use and development as a mode of plan implementation. So the comprehensive plan is an important tool that we use to evaluate our zoning cases and their alignment with the city's vision. This chart in particular represents the four types of zoning cases that we have nonresidential, residential, mixed use and text amendments and their status at the end of fiscal year 2425. So the total number of cases that were reviewed were 21. This table summarizes the number and type of zoning cases submitted in the prior fiscal year that either required or did not require findings. So findings are determined by the conformity of the project with the applicable future land use category, and more specifically, the mixed use mix of uses, density and height requirements of that future land use category. So in this past fiscal year, staff reviewed 14 pre-application meetings that would be subject to findings and then reviewed for zoning cases that were submitted. That's the four that you see on this chart. And that would require findings. And of the cases that were considered by city council, three of them required findings, two were approved and one was denied. And I would direct you to page 14 of the annual report for more detail on this. So here are some more of the land use and development highlights from the fiscal year. Plano adopted several amendments and new policies in response to legislation such as SB 840 and SB 15 comp plan. Policies in support of these updates are listed here. For example, there were several amendments made to residential zoning standards in our zoning ordinance and some of the policies that supported these amendments were the land use policies and redevelopment and growth management policies. Also, we adopted the new design standards for multi-family and mixed use residential developments policies in support of this. Some of them are redevelopment, growth management as well as the community development policy. Additionally, we also added the Comprehensive Plan, authority and precedent statement to clarify the relationship between the Comprehensive plan and state legislation. Also, the City of Plano Housing Study was completed in August 2025. It was supported by the Neighborhood Conservation, Special Housing Need and Population Growth policies. This study assessed the needs and gaps in the rental market and the For Sale Housing market. So as a part of the annual Comprehensive Plan Maintenance Review, we reviewed the built environment, pillar, and all plan maps this past fiscal year. They were reviewed and updated. And to conclude, a number of projects are ongoing and upcoming to further implement the comprehensive plan. Some of them include the Community Design Plan, the Zoning Rewrite, annual market study, Downtown Vision and Facility Master Plan, as well as the Legacy Business Area Master Plan. And that concludes my presentation. I'm free for questions. Thank you. Good job. Very, very comprehensive. Have can you go back to slide 110 for me? Want to make sure I heard you right? There you go. I think you said that there were 14 projects submitted that would have required findings, but yet only four moved forward. Is that is that what I heard you say? So one part of this, what I stated is not on. It's another chart that was not on here. 14 pre-applications were submitted and they were reviewed as requiring that they would require findings. So and that is out of a total of 51 applications. And then the four that you're referring to are those submitted zoning cases that required findings. Okay. So of the 14 Pre-applications, only four of them actually moved forward. Is that is that is that a fair assessment or is there something I'm missing? There are possibilities that the 14 that are requiring findings are not the exact. Four. But you can make a correlation that the pre-applications are required findings, the number that we have there now, reducing to the amount of zoning cases that are submitted, which are. Four. There could be a number of reasons why that number decreases, one of them being that maybe they're not. They're completely different cases. And the pre-applications for those zoning cases happened in the previous fiscal year. But otherwise, it can also be understood that the findings that we that we address in the pre-application meetings are then being resolved. That could be one thing and then submitted as a zoning case, which is why it's reduced. The other reasons could be that they decide not to submit and they're. That's why they're reduced zoning cases. I think. I would love to see that added to this chart. And the reason is, I think one of the one of the major tools of the comp plan is the findings policy. And I think it's, it's, it's obviously serving its purpose. If we have 14 pre-applications and then even if it's not the exact same, we end up with four that come forward to us regardless of the which ones are. 14, which ones are the 14 and how they get resolved. So I just I think that's an important communication item with the public, because I think that that's important to note that that the comp plan is doing its job. I mean, it's, it's filtering out a lot of things that would require findings. So that was my comment. Thank you. I'm sure Mr. Bronsky can clarify what I got wrong there. Mister Commissioner Bronsky. So. As far as your comments related to the findings forms, I can very clearly and unequivocally say that that is exactly what our intention was relative to that form. It was never designed to to cause problems or to produce negative, but it was to allow the city staff to be able to bring forward those that they felt that commission members, as well as council members, were willing to put their name on the line for. I want to say, one, I continue to be very proud of the way the planning Department implements the comprehensive plan. I believe the very clear fidelity that every member of the staff has toward the guiding principles and toward the commitments that the staff at that time and the city made to the residents, as we had numerous. Votes that had no opposition in adopting the 2021 Comprehensive Plan, it was very clear that all parts of the city came together in agreement with that. And as I look forward and think about Plano today and going forward into Plano 2050, I believe that we're very clearly staying on that path and within those rails of the comprehensive plan. And I really think you guys are doing a tremendous job in implementing that. I would like to make one comment on, I think it was the housing study. I continue to look forward to the time that we are able to fully implement the residents preference into that study, as we dreamed about it in the Comprehensive Plan committees that we were having. But other than that, you continue to do a tremendous job. And thank you very much for your hard work. And I really could tell you got into the numbers. And as somebody who helped craft quite a bit of the comprehensive plan, I appreciate the numbers and the detail that I can tell that you and the rest of the staff is putting into maintaining the plan that so many of us worked so hard to create. So thank you, Commissioner Ali. Second. Sorry sounds alike. Don't worry. Second, everything the Chair and Commissioner Bronsky said, my eyes always go back, go to the numbers. Anytime I see this thing. I love the proof of where the city is putting its money, where its mouth is right and given an increased portion of the budget to maintain and repair and or replace in. And the fact that I think it was in 23, 24, we had a significant major replacement part of our budget goal, and that has declined, which is allowing us put more money into new improvements and additions. It shows thoughtfulness in how we are disbursing with the public's funds. The other thing that gladdens my heart is that most of our funding seems to be tied to secured funding sources. Not, you know. Punitive debt obligations, short term debt revenue bond being those two. The only thing I would ask, I was a little bit sad to see our investment in technology improvements dropped year over year from 15% to 8%. In this day and age, we need to keep up with the Joneses and everything is all technology, technology, technology. So I would love to see that kind of come back up. Now, I don't know where we take the money from, but I would love to see that come back up. Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner. Lolly. Lolly. Yeah. So you do a great job. Of course you like. I commend you for all the hard work. I do have a question. So like so with all these zoning cases that we get and like we sometimes we like go with the comp plan and sometimes we go against them, right? Like we either like oppose. So how do these incorporated in the comprehensive plan? Do you review them case by case or do you like how do you I know, I understand that you like, you review the comp plan policies you like periodically, right? But you like. So these cases, how are they going to affect eventually affect the comp plan? To clarify your question, you're asking how zoning cases in turn impact our review of the or update of the comprehensive plan. Yes, exactly. I think that is definitely happening with our comprehensive plan maintenance review process that we do. So, for example, when each pillar is reviewed this past year we did the build environment. Next this fiscal year we'll do social and natural environment. There are policies that are specific to the comprehensive planning team and zoning cases that apply. We take into account how the action itself is impacted by the updates that we provide. Is, is the updates that we provide sufficiently achieving those actions. And for example, one of the things that we do see on the horizon is our comprehensive plan dashboard. Some of the things are definitely impacted by SB, SB 840 legislation. You can't require open space and things like that. Of course, there were amendments made because of SB 840. That brought a lot of ease to that process so that it wouldn't have to be reviewed against the comprehensive plan. But in those cases, those are notes that were definitely taken to be for changes to be made with each maintenance round. Will that will that change the comprehensive plan, like say, in four years or five years? Because like, I understand that, you know, like you spend a lot of time and effort to create this. And a lot of people worked on it. So now with these changes will, it's like change it before its due date, let's say, because like it should be, it's for like ten years, you know, like for a long term, right? The comp plan. I would say there are the annual updates that I was referring to. And that's really we present the information to this commission and see if there are minor updates that need to be made. A more comprehensive update to the plan, more robust changes need to happen, really in a more committee form. That's what the comp plan calls for, is when you need to make some major changes to not necessarily do that through the annual review process, but do it through a more holistic effort. And so I think that's information that we will bring back when that time comes and say, based on what these findings have been approved, is there something that needs to be adjusted in the comprehensive plan? And we'll seek that direction from you all in the council. Thank you. Mr. Lingenfelter. I'm not going to. I think everybody has given. I'll just say ditto with all the praise you. The city does do a fantastic job. I did have a question, though, and I. It may not really be for us, this board. It may be more for City Council or something. But has there ever been a study done on the. The benefit of the recycle program and the regular trash and and the fiscal responsibilities and how much the city spends recycle versus the, you know, to utilize recycle system or whatever we do. And because I know like when I'm doing recycle just from a personal standpoint, I'm just throwing and I get, I get negative notes on my thing all the time because I didn't put the right, I didn't put the right box in or something. So it seems like a very, very narrow thing that they can use. And I'm just curious, are we spending our money wisely as a whole there in this recycle program? Because it seems pretty stringent as far as what they can recycle, what they can't. And, and, and if it's that way, are we spending money wisely there? Could that be money be used for electronics or whatever? You know, so. I don't, I don't, I'm not sure of a study personally that has been done on the general benefit of recycling or the investment that we're making in those type of programs. I was able to just kind of note it through this presentation. One of the benefits that we saw through Texas Recycles Day and the tons of recycling and paper shredding that they did collect at that time. But as a whole, as right now, I don't have that information unless somebody else would like to expand. That is something we could provide some additional information on if it's available, if it's something that the commission wants to discuss more robustly, then there's a process to do that. The if a process, if you remember that. Yeah. Sorry. Yeah, I'd be curious about it. I don't know about the rest of everybody, but I'm just curious where that those numbers fall because, you know, as many times as I've got those, I start wondering, you know, are we really spending our money wisely there? I would love to be part of this, though. I have lots of paper to shred in electronics I could trash. I didn't realize there was this. This day I need to find out when this day is, because I have a lot I can take to that. Take advantage of that one. But but as a whole, you know, it just seems like I've questioned is is Plano spending the money wisely there? So. All right. Any other questions of staff? I'm not seeing any. Thank you very much. Appreciate you being here. Thank you. All right. Any other any other anything else for the commission this evening? No, sir. All right. And we stand adjourned at 8:28 p.m.