Welcome to the January 5th, 2026 City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Call the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. If y'all would please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance, United States of America to the sins one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. Thank you very much. Comments of public interest. Do I have one registered speaker? 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. 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. Presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. We have Mrs. Crystal Curry registered. Miss Curry. I don't see anybody coming forward, so okay. Next item. Hang on. Is this what we can come forward? No. If you registered ahead of time. Great. Okay, let's all move on to consent agenda, please. Since agenda 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. Any items that anybody wants removed from the consent agenda. Commissioner Lingamfelter, I move that we approve the consent agenda as recommended by Staff Commissioner Olli second. Commissioner Binder, you had your. Okay. Never mind. Okay. We have a motion and a second. 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. 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 is constrained by legal considerations. Nonpublic hearing items presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. Presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to insure meeting efficiency, and may include a total time limit. For agenda. Item number one. Haggard Farm Townhomes 187. Single family residence. Attached lots on five common area lots on 18.8 acres. Located on the northwest corner of Spring Creek Parkway and Windhaven Parkway. Zoned. Planned development 51 retail General Office. The applicant is HL land, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration of a subdivision ordinance variance. Good evening. My name is Molly Correa, lead planner for the City of Plano. The purpose of this preliminary plat is to consider a variance to the subdivision ordinance. In subsection 5.2, the subdivision ordinance restricts restricts residential blocks to be no more than 1200 feet and 20 lots on one side of a block face. This requirement serves several purposes. It allows for adequate. It allows adequate access for public safety to all the residential lots, as well as access and ease of use for public open space areas, and it allows residential blocks to be reasonably scaled in order to create visual breaks in the environment. The applicant is seeking a variance tonight for blocks A, B, and F of the proposed development. The Commission is able to consider a variance for this following this criteria, which I'll go on to explain. The granting of this variance will not be detrimental to public health, safety or welfare, or injurious to other properties. Below you'll see two images within the development the applicant is proposing to access easements in the blocks adjacent to blocks A as well as block F. This is to allow access to the associated open space areas for those having residential lots that are in the middle of those blocks. In order for them to have a more ease of access to open space, which is beneficial to health and public safety. Additionally, due to the irregular shape of this lot, as well as other surrounding geographical elements such as being at the corner of two type B thoroughfares when tavern Spring Creek Parkway, locating additional driveway entries that would create breaks in the blocks would be difficult considering on the north side of the property. Having a entry on that blue arrow on the image to the left. Having a driveway there would create limited distance between Pine Haven and the main subdivision entry, which I've highlighted on the image to the right. Having a main subdivision entry with more of a. With longer, with having the main subdivision entry be a longer entrance is better for residents in order to access the property, and then additionally along Spring Creek, you'll see that there would, if there were to be a driveway there for the image to the left, that a visibility easement would be needed, and that would significantly reduce the or increase the rear setback of those properties and make it difficult to develop that property. So those are the unique geographic and topic. Those are unique to the site. Additionally, the variance does not vary. Any of the provisions of the zoning ordinance or comprehensive plan. And as I mentioned, it is of a regular shape. Based on those issues, staff is recommending approval of this project with a variance to the subsection 5.2. B, point six A of the subdivision ordinance in order to allow blocks A, B, and F to have more than 20 units on one side, as shown on the preliminary plat. Thank you, and I'm available to answer any questions. Okay, just just one question for me. I read it in the report, but I just want to get it out verbally as well. Fire police emergency services have reviewed this. That is correct. And they've approved the thank you. The plans Commissioner Lingenfelter. That was going to be one of my questions. So that's good to make sure that's on there. And stated for the record, but I noticed that some of the options that were given I know this may be too close to the intersection of Spring Creek and Windhaven is what I have a feeling. That might be why this wasn't possible, but did they explore extending that where that eyebrow is and and having it go punch out to Spring Creek? Commissioner Lingenfelter, can you explain the eyebrow to me again? The the angle there that that corner right there at the main closest to the corner of Spring Creek and Windhaven. You see how it turns and you have all those flag lots? Yes. So if they extended that street instead of having flag lots, they would, they would just abut, you know, face the street all the way through. Is that did they explore that in any way to. I know that's going to put that drive basically right now. I mean that's close to the intersection. That would be the problem is that there's a separation distance between streets. And so there's no where you can fit an extra street along Spring Creek because of the it's based on speed. So in this location there's not that's what I was figuring that was the case, but I wanted to at least point that out. And and I thought maybe there's an exception for a private drive, but but yeah, that's what I suspected. All right. Thank you. Commissioners. Any other questions of staff, Commissioner lolly, I feel like the acceleration lane solve this problem. If they add the. Because you can for the for which for the one along Spring Creek or the one along Spring Creek having a deceleration lane you're talking about like to access. I think the issue here is the we need a break in the number of lots that are continuous. And so even if having a deceleration lane that would not that would not allow them to have the street connection because they still need the separation between. But we'll give them some like some room to open up more drives into it. Right. It it is based on posted speed limits from street to street. And then deceleration lanes are required based on the number of vehicles going in or out are two separate requirements. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you. I was just wondering what was the process by which such an unusually shaped lot was created? So the there was an initial concept plan approved for this property that. You know, I apologize, Commissioner Brounoff. Yes. So there is this was a large piece of property. They have since developed on the western portion of this, there is a household care facility which is a mix of independent living and assisted living. The remainder of this is as a concept plan for office that was approved in 2021, I believe, and they're taking a portion of that office and developing it with townhomes allowed by the zoning. So this kind of northern wing that you see in the picture on the left is based on design choices. The picture on the right is what's left after what has been built for the household care facility. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions of staff, Commissioner alley? Just one. Just to make sure I'm reading the map correctly. That main subdivision entry is the only connection to Spring Creek, and it feeds the lack of a better word, the handle of the access, the way I think of it. So yes, the one off of Spring Creek is the main subdivision entry. There are entries to the subdivision along Pinehaven to the north. That would be a that would be the main subdivision entry, because that is expected to be utilized less, as opposed to Spring Creek where a lot of cars are driving in and out. And then there is another shared connection to the on the western side of the property. On the edge there is. Or no, I apologize, but yes, there's there's two entrances to the subdivision. So the top of the access right there is one and that main is the second one. Yes. That's correct. Thank you. Let me clarify that because it looks like to me on the site plan there's actually three. There's one on Windhaven, one on Spring Creek and then one at the handle of the ax. Yes, that is correct. Thank you, chair Ratliff. Sorry, I was kind of squinting, but yes, there is. There is another subdivision entry on the far north side, one at the southwest corner and one mid mid point along Spring Creek along Spring Creek. That is correct. Okay. So there's three points of access. There's three points of access I apologize okay. No problem. I just want to make sure I wasn't reading the drawings. Right. Commissioner Tom thank you. Quick question about the I'm trying to understand the difficulties of separating the units. I understand the, the the main street, and we can add more access to the community from the main street. But what was the difficulties that preventing the units to have smaller chunks and then add maybe a like a pedestrian walkway between them so that it doesn't have 20 units all together in one building? Thank you, Commissioner Tom. So there are two proposed pedestrian pathways in the adjacent blocks to allow access. However, that's not considered a break in the block. There are breaks between buildings that will only so many units can be connected before there has to be a break in the blocks. However, there is now available access easements for proposed pedestrian pathways for the site. However. If you're asking about blocks, breaks along block A and block F and why those could not be provided, that would be a question better suited for the applicant who's available to answer questions. Okay, thank you, Commissioner. One other well, two other questions. One more for education for all of us and people listening. What is the the requirement of 20 lots or 1200 feet? What's the basis of that. What's what are what are we trying to accomplish when we put in that in the ordinance? Thank you, Commissioner Olley. The purpose of this requirement is to allow access, proper access for all the residential lots. So usually when there's more breaks in a block face or blocks are smaller than 1200 feet or have fewer than 20 units, that allows for more access points, more street connections. And then additionally, that's supposed to be able to provide access to neighborhood parks and open space areas. And it does offer visual breaks as well to the environment. So that's the intent of the language. Gotcha. And even if we grant the variance here, we're granting a variance on the lots contiguous lots. But none of the continuous lots violate the 1200 feet block face. That is correct. Okay. Any other questions of staff seeing none I think we do have the applicant here. Does anybody have questions they want to ask the applicant? Nobody. Does the applicant wish to make a presentation. You. State your name and address for the record please. Yes, sir. It's Cole Henley with Stillwater Capital. 2515 McKinney Avenue. I'm don't have a presentation prepared. I'm happy to answer any questions as they come up. Commissioners. Commissioner Lingenfelter, just out of curiosity and just trying to look at the the the plat here. Are you intending like six lots per building? Is that how is that how it's divided so they'll be breaks every every six, six. It's anywhere between 3 and 6. Yes, sir. Okay. Because I was, I was seeing how the lots kind of kind of went one, two, three. There were six of them. And you could see the ends that are a little wider, which would imply that there's, there's a break. So I just wanted to make sure I was correct there. Okay. Okay. Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant? Everybody. All right. Thank you, thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Commissioner, this is not a public hearing because it's a preliminary plat. So but we don't have any other registered speakers either. So. Commissioners Commissioner Alley. Oh, sorry. Bronsky. Commissioner Bronsky I move. We approve this agenda item as recommended by Staff Commissioner alley. I'll second that. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you very much. All right. Item two A and two B. Let's read those together, please. Excellent. Agenda item number two A request to rezone 14.6 acres of land out of the Joab Butler Survey. Abstract number 46, located on the west side of Los Rios Boulevard, 1250ft north of Merriman Drive, the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas, from planned development. 173 estate development to single family residence six Saddam was tabled. November 17th, 2025. Petitioners, Meadows Baptist Church agenda item number two be Meadows Brook Addition and Meadows Baptist Church, Addition block one, lot one are 58 single family residence, six lots, two common area lots, and a religious facility on one lot on 27.3 acres. Located at the northwest corner of Los Rios Boulevard and Merriman Drive. Zoned. Planned development 173 Estate Development. Also tabled November 17th, 2025. The applicant is Meadows Baptist Church. The applicant is requesting to table both to the February 2nd, 2026 Commission meeting. Good evening. Commission. The applicant is, as Mr. Menaces just stated, requesting to petition table the zoning case to February 2nd, 2026, in order to have more time to refine the concept plan associated with the zoning request. After meeting with nearby property owners, I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you. Commission. Any questions of staff? Commissioner lolly, did we get any responses regarding this zoning case from the neighbors, like in your responses, we know that we have, but we don't collect all those and prepare them when there's a request to table. So when it comes back again at the next meeting we'll have that updated information for you okay. Thank you. Any other questions of staff. All right. We do have a public hearing that's been posted. So I'll open the public hearing. And we do have registered speakers. And I will tell anybody who's registered speaker, you are welcome to speak tonight. I know we are. We are having a public hearing, if you would prefer, and wait until it comes up for consideration, that is certainly your choice. So we will call each one of you. It is up to you whether you'd like to speak tonight or whether hold your comments for the next meeting. So if you please call the speakers first registered speakers Philip Langley, followed by John Marlow and John Jacobson. Please state your name and address for the record. Philip Langley, 39, 27 Ranch Estate Circle. Good evening. Commission. Apologize for my nervousness. First time ever appearing here. I understand this has been tabled, but I did want to bring a few notes. First and foremost, thank you to the Commission for all that you currently do and to the wisdom of the previous commissions for clearly laying out to what I see as a transition plan from state development to urban zoning all the way down to SF six. For a neophyte like me, finding that on the website was very simple, very easy to go through, and I appreciate the succinctness of that. I did want to state that as of today, there's 99 residents opposed six for this. So I think that might have asked the question about responses. I have the second longest property line adjacent to the acreage that is in consideration here. I recently bought the property, did not receive notice about the change, but I did the pre research again consistent with the website and was pretty comfortable with the planning that the city has put forth to transition from estate development to semi rural to urban use. Okay, I believe the current proposed plan leapfrogs semi-rural and goes straight from estate development to urban use and hopefully we'll see a change in that as it comes forth in February. But I just want to be on record thanking the commission again for what you do. Thank you for the the excuse me succinctness and clarity of what is in the current code today. It makes it very easy for me to to understand and follow. This is my fourth decade living in Plano. I love being here, I love my new property and I want to help facilitate development. But consistent with what you all have in mind and what your predecessors had in mind. So thank you. Thank you, Mr. Langley. Mr. Marlow, is that right? Next speaker is John Marlow, followed by John Jacobson and then David Keith. Good evening. My name is John Marlow. Address 3801 Nutwood Lane, Plano, Texas. I am the HOA president for Stony Hollow Residents Association. We I got drafted into this I apologize. Normally I would come in and coat and tie, but I just came from the ranch and I was asked to speak on behalf of the HOA. I do not speak for all of our 605 homes, just the majority that have contacted us. We have several concerns about this development. First of all, in the fact that a number of our residents on the East side purchased there for the purpose of having more of an estate type environment, and in the current development, reducing down the lot sizes from two acre lots down, continuing down to where you've got maybe zone six to zone seven lots. That goes against our fundamental purpose for being there. In addition to that, we have very serious concerns about recent developments that have shown trends in over loading our schools. Hickey elementary is a good example. We've just had a school shut down about 80 to 100 students put into that overtaxing. Both the facilities and the staff. Likewise, traffic being directly across from Peck High School, adding to the fact that these homes would probably have young families in them. Adding to the elementary issue for our 605 homes trying to get out of our development in a morning and get back in in the evening, that conflicts with school hours and people have very, very serious concerns about that. So they wanted it voiced early on about that, and we felt as though proper consideration hadn't been given to those elements there. Any questions for my association? Good. Thank you very much. Very much for your time. Next up is John Jacobson, followed by David Keith. Good evening. My name is John Jacobson. I live at 3916 Ridgetop Lane, Plano, Texas. On that graphic there, I'm the lot just to the west of the northwest corner of the proposed property. One of my wife and I bought our lot in the early 90s. There was nothing to the north of us. We checked with the city of Plano planning to discover what the plan was for those hay fields, and we were satisfied with what the city had done. And to their credit, they had developed those lots as zoned. Now, in more recent times, if you look at this map, the Mormon church, which is just north of this property adjacent to it, wanted to take part of its property and make it for several small houses, very small lots. The city rightfully said. That's not consistent with this area of development. They declined it. The end result was you have that lot on that cul de sac, which is another transitional lot. If you look further there, the Montessori school has recently been sold and that has been rezoned and that has been zoned for larger lots as well. SF nine, SF ten kind of lots. The reason I bring this up is this SF six that or SF seven that's being proposed does not fit this area, and the city in the past has consistently rejected such efforts. And I would like to see larger lots here, less density. And as the Stony Hollow representative mentioned, the current plan with 58 homes there would mean on average maybe another 116 or more cars in that area. If you look right across that property, you have the Pesh student parking lot, which can handle several hundred cars. Okay. Now, when you look at that intersection of Merriman and Los Rios for a long time, that was a four way stop. And the last couple of years, the city has recognized that there's an increase in traffic in 30s, sir, and have since replaced that with traffic lights. Putting all those houses there is only going to create more of a traffic issue, their traffic issue, not just for the estate development, but Plano residents as well as other users in the area. Any questions? Thank you very much. Thank you. The final speaker is David Keith. I show up mr. Langley on my list as well. Yeah. I'm sorry, I did it twice. Okay, okay. Oh, oh, you are on there twice. Sorry. Okay. I was just reading in consecutive order, so. Hello, I'm David Keith, 39, 35 Ranch Estates, and I'm going to talk next. Next put off talking till next time. We've been talking back and forth with the developer and the church on. Altering their plan. And so I don't have anything other than waiting. Great. Thank you very much. All right. Any other speakers? No, sir. I'll close the public hearing commission. I'd like to ask staff. Commission Commissioner Bronsky. I'd like to ask. I'd like to ask staff a couple questions, just to make sure we're on the right page here. So. I'm pretty certain that we're going to get a letter from the school board telling us the status of Hickey and how that this might impact them as we normally get. That is correct. Okay. And I'm not sure the size of this merits it, but will we see some type of traffic impact study or anything related to that, as was brought up in Mr. Bell? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a To was not required as part of this development. However, there will be a section about traffic impact in the staff report provided. Perfect. Thank you very much. Mr. Olley. Not a question for staff. I don't know if the applicant is here, but I wanted to just get a. When we asked them to go back, we asked them to open up communication with the neighbors. I want to get a status of some kind of effort. What has happened because I'm hearing conflicting. Some neighbors said they didn't get notice or they've not gotten rich out. Some other neighbors seem to have reached out to do we have that answer? Or we do know that they held another neighborhood meeting. We provided them with a list of addresses that would receive the mailed notice from the city, but who only sent the notices? Who sent the invites to. I don't have that information. I won't. I believe if I understood Mr. Langley correctly, he had bought the house recently. So we update our tax rolls, I believe, quarterly. So it could be that our tax roll wasn't updated. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. Is the applicant here by any chance or representative of the applicant? Oh. Briggs. Morgan, I'm a civil engineer for the developer. 660 606 North Central Avenue. I want to follow up on Commissioner Ali's question. I was thinking along the same lines. Have you held meetings with the property owners, and if so, do you believe that you're on the path toward reaching a consensus with the property owners? I know that the developer had a meeting hosted at the church with Ranch Estates. And are you still far apart or are you getting close? No. We're good. Yeah, we we submitted a concept plan already to planning and they were reviewing it right now. Okay. Because I'm still hearing opposition. Yeah. I do not know about Stonebriar. Stonebrook. Okay. Well, I guess we'll just have to deal with it when it comes. Thank you. Yeah. Any other questions of the applicant? As long as he's at the microphone. Yeah. Thank you. Nobody. All right. Thank you very much. All right. Commission, any other questions of staff or. Commissioner Bronsky, I move this item as recommended by staff to the. I had it for a second. I lost it to the February 2nd, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Raleigh second. All right. We have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky. Second, by Commissioner Olley. Yeah. This has two separate motions. So this will be two a. Motion passes 8 to 0. All right. Item two B Commissioner Bronsky I move. I keep hitting your light after you hit it. Sorry, we're having some technical difficulties with my button altogether, so I move. We approve agenda. I'm sorry, I move. We table agenda item two B to the February 2nd, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting as recommended by staff Mr. Binder. Second, the motion. I have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky. Second by Commissioner Binder. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you all for coming out this evening. We look forward to seeing you again next month. All right. Item three. Do you like me to read item 3A3B together? Yes, please. Agenda item number three A is a request to expand and amend specific use permit number 539 for new car dealer on two lots on 29.7 acres. Located at the northwest corner of Parkwood Boulevard and Spring Creek Parkway. Zoned commercial employment with Specific Use Permit number 539 for new car dealer and located within the Dallas North Tollway and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. Petitioners, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number 3BA mayor plan block a lot one are new vehicle dealer and professional general administrative Office on one lot on 6.1 acres, located on the southwest corner of Parkwood Boulevard and Democracy Drive. Zoned commercial employment and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District, the applicant is 5700 Plano Properties, LLC. This item is for administrative consideration pending. Agenda item number three A. Good evening, commissioners. The purpose of this request is to amend and expand an existing SUV as 539, in order to include a additional portion of land to an existing new car dealership. Here is the area. For the purposes of this presentation. Tonight I'll be referring to lot A and lot B. Lot A is the existing new vehicle dealer that's already a part of the boundary. Lot B is the requested expansion to the area, which is where the applicant is requesting to have the incidental accessory use for the major vehicle repair that will serve the new car dealership. The operations proposed have the traditional dealership where you have customers on site looking to buy cars, all hosted on lot A, and then lot B will be where the major vehicle repair and administrative offices for the dealership that serve lot A will be located. So it's all under one new car dealership. So the circulation for the business will be as follows. Where customers will leave vehicles at lot A for any sort of major vehicle repair, the employees will transport the vehicles to lot B in order to have service and repair performed on them. And then associated with this as a revised site plan that shows the proposed driveway connection between lot A and lot B in order to serve these operations. So you'll see here. Here's lot B with the existing office building with roll up doors. The green area at the bottom left portion of the image is where the proposed service drive is. You'll see the lot line showing where lot A and lot B are divided. Here are the proposed stipulations of which I have a summary. On the next slide. There are three stipulations total. The first stipulation is a modification to the existing stipulation for special specific use permit number 539. It's simply modifying the required landscape edge along the northern property line to allow a break in the landscaping. In order to accommodate for the service drive. The second stipulation applies when there is a new vehicle dealer on lot B, and it says that the dealer must be subordinate and related to the existing dealer on lot A, essentially saying that the dealership has to be one dealership as a whole. You can't have multiple dealerships as associated with this specific use permit. It also prohibits vehicle inventory for sale and service bays facing the street, and it requires a landscape screen on the western property line in order to allow screening between those properties. Additionally, the third stipulation applies to both lots, as long as lot B is a new vehicle dealer use, and it limits the accessory major vehicle repair to 2420 4000ft■!S for the entire CP boundary, which is 10% or less of the combined building area for both lots, which is meets our definition for an accessory use that is incidental to the main use. This property is within the Employment Center's future land use category. Ultimately, our comprehensive plan is neutral. However, elements of the proposal do meet the comprehensive plan, namely the mix of uses have the lot B remaining as office based on the amount of office currently operating on that site. And is consistent with the surrounding use pattern along Parkwood Boulevard. However, new car dealerships are not considered an employment generating use, so it does not meet some of the priorities of the employment centers. Land use category, which we say which the Comprehensive Plan remains neutral to. There were no responses received within 200ft of the proposed of the notice area. However, citywide we received two responses online, one in support and one in opposition. Again, the purpose of this zoning case is to expand existing specific use permit number 539 for a new vehicle dealer to include lot B in order to serve an incidental major vehicle repair use to the existing new car dealership on lot. A staff's recommendation is for approval as submitted for. Item three B and then for item three A. We are recommending for approval as submitted subject or sorry, we're recommending approval subject as submitted. And then for item three B the revised site plan were recommended for approval subject to City Council approval of the associated zoning case. Thank you very much. And I'm available to answer any questions. And the applicant is here as well. Just a clarification because I know you said this, but I just want to repeat it for clarity. So lot two or lot B can only be used for this purpose. As long as it's associated with lot A, it could not be sold off separately and repurposed. That is correct okay. And lot B cannot be used for any kind of sales display out front. It's purely as an auxiliary use to lot A. That is correct. Okay. I just wanted to make sure that was clear. All right. Any other questions of staff. Commissioner Olli. Just want to continue down the path of Commissioner Ratliff. There are administrative offices in lot B. But those administrative offices are not pertinent to this dealer sales? No. So those the applicant might be able to be more descriptive, but those offices will not be used in order to have customers over there to discuss any sort of purchase of the vehicle. That will also be done on lot. A lot B has other ancillary uses, and additionally there are some office uses on that lot that are not related to the dealership still operating there today. Okay. Second question. The the lots are under common ownership. I presume they are under common ownership. Okay. Or Mr. Bell, they're not the same owners according to the tax roll, but they are subsidiaries of the same organization. When you roll it up, you'll find one owner. Gotcha. Thank you. Commissioner Lolly. So I have a couple questions. My first question is you said there are some offices that does not relate to the dealership, right? Yes. And we are giving the sup for the whole lot. Or are we giving the sup for only the portion that the dealership is going to be operating of? Mr. Bell? The Sup will be for the entirety of both lots. However, they can actually operate a dealership in a traditional sense because they can't have cars for sale. They can't have vehicle inventory stored there. Yes, but you like. But the building itself is not going to be up, you know, like it's not going to be occupied completely for the because we give like sup for portion of the building. Right, right. It wouldn't we're not doing that in this case. Staff wasn't concerned with the remainder of it remaining offices. The applicant can speak to this, but I believe they're planning to use what they occupy in the remainder for training purposes and things like that. So it's going to be like related to the dealership, right? I'm sorry. It currently is planned to be that way. It's not required for the Sup that the office be like somebody else occupied that the vehicle repair portion be associated with the dealership on lot A okay okay. But you're like but we're giving the sup for the whole building for the whole lot. Yes. Thank you. And you like my other question is you like the requirement for the landscape because like you, one of the stipulations for the previous Sup was like enhance the landscaping. And is it going to do they have to enhance the landscape for the for lot B? Do they have to do any changes for lot B yes. So for lot B, a six foot tall solid landscape screen must be provided along the western property line, excluding driveway connections. So that would be a living screen essentially. Okay. And it's not going to be affecting the drives. The building like setbacks or anything like that. And this and the there's also additional landscaping requirements already for portions along the right of way and everything. So there's already landscaping requirements along streets and everything like that as well. It's not landscaping. But you'll also notice on the site plan that there is a screening wall for their vehicle storage on site, which is a requirement of the ordinance regardless of the CP. So there will be additional screening. Yeah. My concern is like if they're going to comply with all these landscape requirements, is it going to affect the driveways, the setbacks, the like the size of the building? It shouldn't it should. Thank you. Commissioner Brounoff. Yeah thank you chairman. Are there any residentially zoned properties adjacent to lot B? No thank you. Yeah. All right. Any other questions of staff? None. Okay. This is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. I believe we do have the applicant here if we have questions of the applicant. Does anybody have questions for the applicant? Nobody. All right. If the applicant wishes to speak, you're welcome to, but we don't. Doesn't look like we have any questions for you. Good evening everyone I'm Sri Ravi, CFM engineering, 3501 Olympus Boulevard, Dallas, Texas. I'm representative of the applicant. So thank you for the opportunity and the presentation, Molly. So if you all have any questions, feel free to ask questions of the applicant. Nobody. All right. Looks like you're off the hook. All right. Thank you very much for being here. Do we have any other registered speakers? No, sir. All right. I'll close the public hearing commission item three a which I move, we approve it. Oh, sorry, Mr. Bronsky, I move, we approve. Agenda item three a as recommended by staff Commissioner Langfelder. I'll second. Right. We have a motion in a second. Please vote. Approved. 8 to 0. Item three B. Commission Commissioner Lingenfelter I'll move that. We approve. Item three B, as recommended by staff Commissioner Lawley I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. All right. Item number four. Thank you for being with us tonight. Any short break? Okay, before we get into our lengthy presentation, why don't we take a five minute break and come right back? Right. Yes. All right. I think we're ready to get started again. All right, I'll call us back into session. All right. Item number four. Last but not least, agenda item number four, zoning and subdivision ordinance rewrite. Module two presentation, discussion and consideration of module two administrative and zoning procedures of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance. Rewrite, project and update on project progress. The applicant is the City of Plano. Items for legislative consideration. All right. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Christina Sebastian, land records planning manager, and I am really here just to reintroduce our consultants from Freese and Nichols working on this project. So Dan Stefko and Daniel Harrison are here. I will turn it over to Daniel Harrison. Okay. Good evening. Good evening. Thank you. We're happy to be here tonight to present to you module two and giving an update of where we are. So we'll give you a little quick process reminder where we are in the overall project. Then of course we'll talk about module two. We'll talk about next steps and then move on to if there's any questions that you have and any any discussion items. So phase one was the diagnostic report which we've completed. That was when we did our stakeholder interviews asking people questions about development regulations, their their involvement in the process. Then we moved into our code drafting. We've done module one. We're getting close here on module two. Start about to start module three. And then once we finish module four as well, we'll move into the final adoption phase later this year. So what is included in module two. We talk a lot about provisions and procedures. So we're looking at our zoning regulations procedures some subdivision regulations procedures. But you could sort of see here on the screen those general topics that we're talking about here in module two. So some of the things that we just wanted to highlight to, to make you aware, talking about pre-application meetings. So when a applicant comes in there's two types. There's that consultation meeting which is an optional exploratory meeting where of course we're trying to be transparent and communicate with the applicant what's required in any type of development so they can understand. So that is going to be that optional meeting when someone comes in for a development permit or application. That's when we have the development assessment meeting that's going to be required can be waived by the director. They're valid for six months and not required for successive application. So if we have a a continuous project going on, they're not having to come back in for for more of these types of meetings, the first one will will work. But of course we know they're continuing to coordinate with staff. One thing I also wanted to highlight was when we're talking about the Unified Development Code, UDC, the amendment process. How do we update that? In our first section of the UDC we have the amendment process. How do we amend anything here in this document. And so that's a general universal procedure that we have. But we also wanted to highlight that we have zoning map amendment procedures that really follows state law that really only apply to zoning map cases. So when you sort of see that circle, we just wanted to show that, yes, we have our whole realm of UDC amendments changing the amendment or the zoning map, but we also do have a subset of regulations in there that are specifically just for the zoning map. So those live in the in the zoning zoning section. Talking about certificates of occupancy can only be issued when a property has an approved site plan or a final plat. Of course, one of the things from the comprehensive plan we're we're, we're really striving for is to encourage redevelopment in areas. But we also talked about through the through the process, potential barriers in our older areas of town where maybe we don't have a site plan to to go back to. So we do have a waiver provision in there for the original donation. Reid Portman additions or if a property was lawfully developed that at the time when we didn't have a site plan requirement that that could be waived in the process. So talk about site plan and approval procedures, because once again, module two is really all about our provisions and procedures. So concept plans those will be still with PDS phase developments developments over 100 acres. Otherwise they're optional. Of course an applicant can still do those and meet with staff about those. But really listing or living in that realm preliminary site plan that's really being required for developments over five acres except for agricultural. And then when we get to the site plan, that's really all developments except for the agriculture CIP projects and sort of those antenna placements. One of the things that we talked a lot about in procedures was when we have a modified site plan or something along those lines. So when we have active plans, which are plans that have either been approved by maybe PNC before the CEO is issued, there's there's minor amendments that can be made to that plan, which are minor, just like building placement, changes to parking, layout landscaping screening those type of elements. If it's a major amendment, such as an increase in height, increase in proximity to adjacent residential uses, something that the PNC really needs to take a look at, it would come to the PNC for our approved plans. That's after the CEO has been issued. We have our substantially conforming site plans. Some some modifications can be made to those, our revised site plans. So if we're having changes once again, that's coming to PNC for this level of approval on the substantially conforming site plans. That's at the staff level. And then we have a new, new, new element in there for an addendum to a site plan. Also, this is a PNC approval. Changes are limited to areas of over ten acres in size. So if it's something that's bigger project coming for the PNC for that, that type of amendment to the plan. Talking about PDS, one of the conversations that we had about PDS, of course we would we would prefer to just go ahead and go with straight zoning, finding elements to avoid the PD process. We think we have a lot of good options that include a lot of developments that developers and applicants can use, but the PD still have their place. There's going to be unique developments that come in. So we've retained the five acre minimum. Council can reduce that to to to two acres when trying to fulfill an element that we have in the comprehensive plan, once again trying to reinforce our connection to the comprehensive plan, we did add that new PDS must demonstrate a clear public benefit aligned with the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. That's one of the things that we're wanting to see. And then adding criteria for the establishment that no PD may be established with another zoning district or an SCP could adequately accommodate that proposed developed. Because once again, we're trying to limit the PDS. We think we have a lot of good tools and avenues for developers in the UDC and the zoning subdivision themselves. So these PDS really should be unique development. So hopefully trying to curb down the applications for PDS, our community design districts. These are a codification of what's what's already existing. It's similar to the PD process where they're it's going to be reviewed by course PNC and Council. And then selecting one of our CD based districts, whether it's the neighborhood residential, the mixed use community or the neighborhood business design and then modifying those established standards in those districts to get approved by PNC and and Council. So once again, we updated that section. And then that's another option that developers can choose. But it's once again already in the code, something that that we've seen in the comprehensive plan. These are the developments we want to see. And of course you can make some modifications to those. But that sets it up for for success using those districts community or the committee review. So our rewrite advisory committee been working with them of course, to to develop these regulations. Of course, we work between the two staffs to develop the regulations before taking them to the rewrite advisory committee. So working with them, amending different sections, we just want to highlight different minor amendments running that by them. But one of the things I also wanted to let you know, when we go through this process, we have an online tool. So what people can do on our on our rewrite advisory committee is everyone can see everyone's comments on this online platform and we answer questions. And then what we do is different staffs is we go and we review all those comments and have replies. So all the RAC members can see the original questions, see our reply to that and how we address that comment. So and like I said, the RAC can see all the other members comments. And then what we do at our RAC meetings, we we show those they have those in their agenda packet and then we can go through those. We take the highlights so we don't go through. Typically we don't go through all of them, but we open up the end of the meeting to go through any of the comments that any of the RAC members had on that convey list. So that's one way that we really get through all the comments and have have discussion at our meetings, and people have had time to look at those comments before, before the meeting. So some of the outreach highlights draft drafts were posted online. We also have that feature for the public to take a look at to to see comments. Also advertising in the in the Plano news. Different social media engage Plano project updates the project website too, so people can have opportunities to find out what's going on and read all the text, every word that the RAC sees. They're seeing it as well in the public. So what will be asking really for tonight at the end, here is a recommendation to accept this draft module two as substantially complete. Of course we've talked with the RAC. There's we can go back and revisit things as we work through modules three and four. If there's something that comes up of course we can go back. But really as we go through these modules and there's a lot of information in both, both the zoning realm and the subdivision realm to sort of go through. So this module process is a really good way to go ahead and, you know, hit that checkpoint to say, okay, we've talked about this. Of course we can go back, but we want to make sure that we're making progress to the to the end end result. Next steps coming up. We'll do a briefing where we'll be doing the same presentation and ask them if they're accepting a substantially complete later here this month or in the beginning of February, whatever, whatever works best for their schedule. And then our next meeting is probably going to be in May as we go ahead and move into module three and drafting that with staff and then presenting it to the rack and going through that review process with them before we come back and show you guys what we what we've established in module three. So with that I'll be happy to answer any questions or discuss anything we'd like to about the module two. All right. Thank you. You answered my first question, which was how long is this presentation going to be. So thank you. But I do have to tell you that I you know, I missed the last meeting, but I did read the packet before that meeting and it and the packet tonight, obviously. And it looks like you did pick up the vast majority of the comments, if not all of the comments that even some I didn't see before. So thank you for that. I do believe that one of the really significant positive changes is the consulting meeting prior to the Development Review Committee. I think that's a significant step because I, having been through a number of those in different in different jurisdictions, I think that's a great process to have formalized. So with that, said Commissioner Bronsky. Yeah. So I was wondering if you could give us some ideas as it relates to other cities that have gone the route of having a UDC and how is this process going for us, and are we finding opportunities for creative and innovation while still maintaining the the, the overarching great value that we see cities like Grand Prairie valuing for the last 30 years? Yeah. So first part about the UDC with looking at development as a whole, because when someone's coming in trying to redevelop a piece of property, it's going to touch zoning, it's going to touch subdivision regulations. So we really want all these documents thought about at one time sharing the same set of definitions being linked together. So we do see that as a big highlight as when someone's coming through. It's a really unified process to come through. And so with definitions really being one of the key features in there. So when we talk about what is height, well we're not talking height differently between zoning and subdivision. We're talking about what height is and how we're measuring that. So I think what this is really setting us up for is, you know, what best features can we use moving forward? Going back to the comprehensive plan, seeing the vision that we have there, we see that whether it's in our community design districts or our different elements that we want to see about this is a vision that we have. Is the code being able to produce those type of of developments on the ground, and then what's like where we are right now with this procedures part, you know, are we getting our procedures accurate now when we move into module three, the subdivision regulations and when we get to module four are actual zoning standards or landscaping standards and our parking standards and all those will have more opportunities to get into even more of those developments that implement. I think our highlights from the comprehensive plan. But looking at that, I think we're moving in the right direction, and I think the UDC is the right way to go and what a lot of people are moving towards. And so during the last meeting, we had some conversation about some things that we felt like might be things that aren't necessarily seen in a lot of other udcs, but that we were kind of looking at at this and felt like there may be some movement beyond Plano. Once those kind of things are accomplished. Do you can you go into any of that or do you want to highlight any of that? Yeah. So once again we're looking for some of the most flexible but still producing that high level of quality that that we want to see here in the city and that people expect to see here. So when we go back and we look at whether it's our different procedures or our processes, we're having that in mind. So whether we're talking about build two lines or setback lines, thinking about our different zoning districts, where those would be would be appropriate, those are some of the key elements. But but if there's something specific that that you remember from one of our meetings that, that we really want, that's okay. I was just trying to give you an opportunity to kind of brag. I as I've said more than once, I continue to be very thankful that we chose you guys to be as part of this journey because you were so much an integral part of the journey of the comprehensive plan. And I feel this as a fulfillment of all of the time and hours that the citizenry, the elected officials, appointed officials, and the rest of the city went through on that journey. So I just wanted to give you plenty of opportunities. I believe that the when we're done with this rewrite and we have a unified code, that it's going to be something that there are going to be other cities look to. As they do so many things look to Plano seeing, oh, wow, okay, that's what they're doing. And we'll continue to be on the leading edge of of that. And for a city of excellence, I think it's important that we stay out front. And so I just want to say thank you. And just to add to some of that, because there's so much dynamic things going on in the city, because if we look to Legacy West or the far west Side, we we see all that stuff going on and all the quality development. But, you know, as we've seen tonight with with that, with the people from the State Ranch Road, you know, having those we're going to have a lot of different types of development in the city. And how do once again, with redevelopment, how do we address some of those things where there's some traditional neighborhoods that, you know, from the comprehensive plan? We're we're, we're, we're protecting and we want that, but also we have all this great quality development. The other planning that you've done with with the ■different area plans, we want to see those type of opportunities to continue to be the the to have that level of excellence in both of those realms. And it's not mutually exclusive by any means. We can have both of those in the city, and the code should be able to help produce that, not be completely a suburban residential code. But yes, we have that, of course, but we also have our legacy West or taller, taller, more dense districts for that lifestyle activity center and those type of things that people really, really want to see. And so we think having that many choice is really helpful for the city. Commissioner. Olli, I just want to echo what the commissioner said. It's voluminous. It seems relatively comprehensive. The one question I had, you made a mention of the process of dealing with comments from the public. There are two public comments at the end of the packet. I presume those were just examples of the process versus the only comments we got. Those are actually the only comments we have received. All our comments really have been from from the wreck as we've gone through that, because what we've done on that conveyor is we have an option for the public to comment and leave their comments. So so those are all pristine public comments, and we do have one password protected for the RAC to have all their internal comments. And that's the I mean, we show them the public, the two public comments that we have as well. But on our RAC side, we have all those comments. But but with that slide I was showing you earlier, we've had the opportunities for people to come out and to see that because we want to be fully transparent, where everyone can see every every word of the UDC and what what we're thinking. So people can can leave those comments and it's there and we have opportunities for people to submit those questions. That is a surprise. Plano is not shy of comments. To see only two is a bit of a. To be fair, previous modules have had more comments. Yeah. Gotcha. Okay. Right. Yeah. ActionScript. Got you. Okay. Thank you. No. It's okay, Commissioner Bruno. Thank you. Let me add my thanks to those of my fellow commissioners. You've worked long and hard on a very large and involved project with a profound and long term implications for the city. We appreciate everything you're doing. My comment addresses the what your proposal for new. Eligibility requirements for a PD district, a planned development. You read some of those earlier in your presentation a few minutes ago, but I'm noticing there's an additional eligibility requirement, which I think is important, and I'm reading from the top of page 31 of your attachment A to the text, which says PD districts must demonstrate a clear public benefit that advances the goals of the Comprehensive Plan. And here comes the new part reflects innovation in design, land use or community impact that exceeds the minimum requirements of the base zoning district. And I think that's key to what was probably intended to be the function of a PD district all along. Yes. And it has sort of gotten lost in the the wash, so to speak. And I'm glad you put that in there. I'm wondering if in the development review process, the staff would have an opportunity to perhaps screen applications for PD districts for their compliance with with these new requirements. In other words, make a determination whether the eligibility requirements for PD district are met either through a determination or at least through a recommendation to the applicant and to the P and Z. Yeah. And that going back to those pre-application meetings, that's really why we want them to come in for that optional one so they can have that conversation with staff. So because maybe they're used to working with a different city who just really loves just to do PD zoning. And but what we really want to see here in Plano is, is what's unique about that. How is it fulfilling the comprehensive plan? We have these wonderful zoning districts and these these different opportunities that you can do a lot of things if we're doing the PD route. What's really unique about that? How is that implementing the comprehensive plan? And you can have that discussion early on with the applicant so they know, okay, if I'm really going to go to PD route, I need to do something really special here with this. Or if I want to do my my regular development, let's just call it. Well then I definitely have lots of options in here that that I can do. But if I go the PD route, what's really unique, I have to look at the comprehensive plan and tell staff and ultimately PNC and Council, what I'm pulling out of the comprehensive plan to say this is how I'm helping fulfill that, that requirement. Thank you. Okay, just to add on to that, because one part that we still have to work on in the future is the alternative compliance. Yes portion, which will also give our developers an alternate route to accomplish some of their goals without using the PD. Correct? That. That is correct. Yes. So it's not that we're eliminating, you know, some flexibility. We're just eliminating the need for PD to have flexibility. Yes, yes. Because in module four what what what we're talking about is we'll have that alternative compliance to allow people to we want to encourage development in downtown other parts of town. So so there's going to be some flexibility that's already going to be incorporated in our later section. So once again going back to the PD, that's why we can say and tighten it up some to really be that innovative type development. Because we'll have that flexibility because once again, clear from the comprehensive plan that we want redevelopment, we want to be developer friendly in the fact that we can lay it out. They can clearly understand we're flexible, but still having a high, high standard that everyone's come to expect. Okay, commissioners, any other comments? I want to add one more just because I hadn't caught it in the packet, but removing some of the planning requirements in the old original donation area, being a property owner in that part of town. Thank you. Let's just say it's not a place surveyors enjoy working because there's where fences and property lines and buildings are may or may not line up with the record, and the records don't line up with the records. And so we have a lot of challenges in that part of town figuring out where property corners are. And it's kind of become where the fences are effectively in a lot of, in a lot of cases. So, so thank you for adding that little nugget for me and my neighbors. I didn't even catch that. So all right, Commissioner Bronsky, I move that we accept module two of the Unified Development Code as substantially complete. Commissioner Lingenfelter I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second to accept module two. Please vote. Thank you. Passes 8 to 0 and to repeat the comment. Thank you. We're not done yet, but we're getting there halfway. About halfway. Yeah. All right. Mr. Bill, did you have an announcement? Yes. Just before we adjourn, I want to just make one quick announcement. We have a new staff member in the audience tonight. Miss Tiara Clark has joined us as a planner. She joins us from the city of Mesquite. Welcome to our. Welcome to the team. We'll be easy on you on your first one. Maybe. All right. Any other business before the commission this evening? No, sir. All right. We stand adjourned at 7:15 p.m. Jumpstart their spring garden with seed packets or a gift card to their favorite nursery. Green your gift wrap to make