Welcome to the February 17th meeting of the Plano Planning and Zoning in Progress. Okay. Welcome to the February 17th meeting of the Plano Planning and Zoning Commission. I'll call the meeting to order at 6:00. If you all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you. Good evening everybody. If we move to the consent agenda, please. 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 Commission. Does anybody wish to pull an item from the consent agenda? Commissioner Bronsky. I move we approve the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Lingenfelter and I second. All right. We have a motion in a second. Everybody please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Items for individual consideration. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items unless instructed otherwise by the chair. Speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal considerations. I'll read item number one, please. Agenda item number one Willow Bend Polo Estates. Phase B, block B, lot 16 RA1 patio home lot on 0.2 acre, located on the west side of Old Westbury Lane, 190ft north of Turtle Creek Drive. Zoned planned development for two three patio home. Applicants are Jeffrey and Cynthia Scherbarth. This item is for administrative consideration. Good evening commissioners. My name is John Kim, planner with the planning department. Oh, here's the locator for the site. And here is the replat. And here's the revised site plan. The items are recommended for approval as submitted. I'm available for questions. Have one question. How many of these do we have left? I'm not sure how that is. That would be. That would be four. Four. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for staff? Commissioner binder going to make a motion. Oh let me let me let me get through the public hearing stuff first. Commissioner lolly so you like. So the replat is just to determine the setbacks, right? Correct. And when we went to this, you know, like to the North Texas planning event, they told us that the, you know, like the setbacks, they don't have to be part of the plats. So is that something that you, you know, like you might consider? So I believe there is a special requirement for the patio home district. And so that's why we require the plats to have the building lines set on there. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? All right. Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Thank you. Do we have any speakers on this item? There are none. All right. I'll close the public hearing. All right. Commissioners. Mr. Bender. Commissioner. Yes? Motion to approve, Mr. Bronsky. Second. Second. All right. We have a motion in a second. Please vote. That motion passes 8 to 0. Item number two. Agenda item number two. Request to amend planned development 65, central business Dash one to modify open space and signage development standards on 275.1 acres. Located at the northeast corner of Legacy Drive and Communications Parkway within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District. The petitioner is Legacy West Investors LP. This item is for administrative consideration. Good evening commissioners. My name is Destiny woods, planner with the planning department. The applicant is requesting to table this item until the March 3rd, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. To continue to refine the zoning request. I'm available for any questions. Thank you. If you would just I know we've talked about this in the pre-session, but if you would just for the record, tell us why they're asking to postpone. Yes. So the applicant has also requested a variance from the fire code. And that variance is still under review at this time. So it's linked to this zoning case. All right. Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you. My question for staff is if we assuming that we would postpone this and it is the third postponement, but not at the request of the applicant, would it be appropriate to include in a motion a provision to waive the re notice fee. So there is no in order to table. Are you asking in order for them to table it a notice fee to retail. We just we just changed our procedure a couple of meetings ago that on the third postponement, the applicant would be required to pay to play a, to pay a notice fee because the postponement would be indefinite. Yeah. We just we actually didn't change our policy. What we said is after the second, we would have the option of postponing indefinitely. If we postpone indefinitely then they have to pay any notice fee. So we have the option of postponing indefinitely at the third tabling. But we don't have to. But we can still postpone to a definite yes. It is still in our discretion to postpone to a definite date. All right. Thank you. All right. Commissioner, was Commissioner Bruno okay? Any other questions for staff? All right. Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any speakers registered for this item? The applicant is available to answer questions as well as one registered speaker, Bill Lyle, from Lyle Link. Mr. Lyle here tonight. I don't see him in the audience. All right, well, then I'll close the public hearing. Commission Commissioner Lingenfelter. I move that we grant the tabling to the March 3rd meeting, as requested. Commissioner lolly. I'll second. All right. Any other comments? All right. I have a motion and a second. Please vote. That motion passes 8 to 0. All right. Item three. Item three. Items for individual consideration. Non public hearing items. The presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. The presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to ensure meeting efficiency, and may include a total a total time limit. Agenda item number three ng ranch addition block a lot one. Request to reinstate approval of a site. Plan for vehicle leasing and renting on one lot on 0.9 acre. Located at the southeast corner of US highway 75 and 11th Street. Zoned corridor. Commercial with specific use permit number 389 for used car dealer. The applicant is New Griffin Ranch Limited. This item is for legislative consideration. Thank you. Good evening. Commission Molly Corral, senior planner with the planning department. The purpose of this item is to reinstate approval of a site plan for a vehicle leasing and renting. Use, located here at the corner of 11th Street and Northwest Highway. Per section 3.70 of the zoning ordinance, the applicant is allowed to request to reinstate the plan for an additional two years. The applicant is requesting to reinstate this plan, to finalize the civil drawings, obtained building permits, and begin construction. Here is the originally approved site plan on December 20th, 20, 2022. In determining whether to grant such a request, the Commission should consider the reason for the lapse. In this case, the applicant provided a letter. However, it is due to the obtaining of the building permits and finalizing civil drawings. The second is the property owner's ability to comply with any conditions of the approval, and no conditions were placed on the plan. With the previous approval, and the extent in which newly adopted regulations shall apply to the plan. The site is showing five foot sidewalks. However, under our new street design standards, the site would be required to provide seven foot sidewalks with on street parking. There are no other relevant regulations in which this site plan is not conforming with today. Staff is recommending approval of the reinstatement request and I am available to answer any questions. Thank you. All right. Commission questions for staff, Commissioner Brounoff. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just to clarify this, this property is located on the southeast corner of US highway 75 and 11th Street. Right? Yes. Which highway did I say? You said Northwest Highway. My apologies. Yes, I meant highway 75 and 11th Street. Northwest highway in Dallas. Yes. I was already thinking of my drive home. Yeah. I'm so sorry. Okay. If we approve the request to reinstate, how much time would they have? An additional two years. Is that to complete the project or just to make progress on it? That is to complete the project. Okay. All right. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Ali. Question on the new regulations for our streets with. So the. Would they have to resubmit a site plan that shows that additional street with okay. And the applicant is aware of. Yes. The applicant is aware of the discrepancies with our current street design standards and the previous thoroughfare standards, rules and regulations. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner lolly. So I have two questions. One of them is, you know, like when they going to change the sidewalk, is the site plan going to be, you know, like changed. And they have to, you know, like, are we approving the site plan as is or is it. Yes. We are approving the site plan as is something else I would like to point out to the commission related to this site is there are some existing conditions in which complicate this site. Being that I should have highlighted it, but the northern part of their building is over the right of way line and that's an existing condition. So there were some challenges with originally approving the site plan. Should the site plan go back into review staff and the applicant would need significant time to address some of these existing conditions that are challenges. Okay. Yeah, that was my second question about the encroachment. Yes. Thank you. Of course, one follow up question from me. So if they had to go back through site planning, we wouldn't really require street parking right off of the 75 service road, would we? No. So with the street design standards, there is the mixed use corner option. And that corner option does account for on street parking. However, in the actual design of that, our traffic engineering department would likely work with the applicant. Probably not want to have on street parking right next to US 75, but the typical cross-section for that mixed use corner does account for on street parking. We would have to evaluate the necessity of that in a site plan review if one were to be submitted. So really what we're talking about is probably the difference between a five foot sidewalk and a seven foot sidewalk at the end of the day, because I just can't imagine the engineering department allowing or even wanting on street parking that close to 75. So. Okay. Any other questions for staff? All right. Seeing none this is not a public hearing. And do we have any speakers that are registered on this item. The applicants are available via zoom to answer any questions. Okay. Does anybody have any questions for the applicant? Commissioner Bronsky has a question. Go ahead. Okay. Commissioner Ali. You have a question for the applicant. Yes. Just one on the. The site engineer that you guys lost that essentially is causing this delay. When was that known? I'm just trying to understand why in a two year period, we couldn't get a backup to get this process underway. And. And before you answer, if you'd introduce yourself and who you're with, please. My name is Drew Danowski. I'm with Claymore Engineering and I am that site engineer, although I've been on the project the whole time, it was the architect. They had an issue with the architect. I'm not sure exactly what the extent of that was, but they had to start over with a new architect. When was that known? The issue known. They may be able to answer online. I'm not aware of when they had to start over. Does anybody online? Do we have somebody on zoom? Pardon? Do you mind repeating the question? Do we have anybody on zoom? The applicant is they. Are they available via zoom? Can we? Yes they are. Can we add them to the screen? Okay. We are. Good evening. Rather. Hi, my name is Eric Law. I'm an assistant director for drive time car sales. All right, Commissioner Alley, can you restate your question, please? Just the question on when your original architect that fell through. When was that issue known? I'm trying to understand why the. Request to reinstate is just coming. Sure. So it was the structural engineer that was originally involved. So just to give a little background on the project, this originated in 2020. Prior to the pandemic, it was then kind of postponed and placed on hold because of, you know, the Covid pandemic. We then, you know, kicked off the project again in 2022. And at that point, while we were going through these civil civil submittal, we learned that the structural engineer who was originally involved went out of business. Since then, it did take, from my understanding, a little over a year for the civil plans to originally, I believe, be approved. And so during that time, we, you know, we had to change our architectural consultants and our team of engineers. And while we were in review with, you know, the building department, that's when we discovered that our site plan approval was expiring in December. So that's why we were seeking reinstatement. Also, I will add that our ordinance states that the applicant can apply for a site plan extension request 60 days prior to or after so that we wouldn't accept a site plan extension request before that 60 day mark. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Nobody. Thank you sir. Thank you. All right. Commission. Commissioner Bronsky. I move, we follow the staff's recommendation and approve this two year extension. Commissioner Ali. Second. Commissioner Bruno, would you like turn off your light? All right. We have a motion and a second. Everybody please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you very much. All right. Next item. Comments of public interest. This portion of the meeting is to allow up to three minutes per speaker, with 30 total minutes on items of interest or concern, and not on items that are on the current agenda. The Planning and Zoning Commission may not discuss these items, but may respond with factual or policy information. The Planning and Zoning Commission may choose to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. We do have one registered speaker. All right. We have Bill law registered. Is he on zoom? Yes. He is not. He is not. Okay. Well, then I guess we don't have anybody for public comments. All right. Well, with that, I think that concludes our business for tonight. We'll adjourn our meeting at 618 and 42 seconds. Touchdown. I'm home alone, and I just heard a noise at my back door. Okay. Help is on the way. People think