may not like to hear this, but I would rather be collaborating with the developer and zoning committee that wants to build something. Excuse me. I would like to build something worthwhile instead of just an enclave of 50 upper income people. If we're going to lose historic open land, we should put it to good use. In a previous meeting, the committee had gone out of its way to thank the applicant and the developer for the alleged attempts to work with the neighbors. Why thank them? They stand to make millions from this development when they should be thanking you. What has not been said is thanks to the neighbors trying to work for the benefit of all. Every one of us stands to actually lose money and value from this. Yet we have tried to work in the interest of the development. Despite this loss, we don't want to stop progress, just meaningless development. Countless hours have been spent with the developer and the only accommodation is a few trees and a fence. In the end, this remains all about the money for the applicant, for the developer, millions, and maybe for a few others as well. 20s I'll just go ahead and wrap this up with my own personal perspective. I've grown up in Plano and I hope to live in Plano for a long, long time. I want to be the future of Plano. This to me just seems to be a waste of land. What about the bobcats, the grouse, coyotes, rabbits, etc. that will be displaced or even pushed into neighboring yards to endanger our cherished pets? Please reject this plan. Urge the application to urge the applicants to put the property on the open market, and hopefully this land can be developed in a way that gives the church and the community a larger benefit. East Plano is an awesome place to live. We don't need 50 more expensive homes. You can wrap it up for us. Thank you. Thank you very much. So I presume by that, that is your dad, Phil Langley, is that correct? Yes. Okay. So he won't be here tonight? No. Okay, great. Thank you. Okay. Next we have Rebecca Smith, followed by John Jacobson, followed by Scott Fenton. Hi. So I'm Rebecca Smith and I actually live in Douglas at 1014 G Avenue. And some of his points make sense. The truth is there are a lot of kids like my child who's 30, who want to stay here and affordable housing isn't available now. Yes, the developer is trying to work within making this area look still nice. Make the ranch still adhere to that area of Plano. But I'll be honest, our kids who have graduated would like starter homes. This could end up giving a chance for some of the people to move in and have some starter homes and some of the other areas, Plano, because they also want to raise their kids here and can't move out of their parents house yet, but they don't make minimum wage. I think it's an opportunity. And I just want to say, for the people who are opposing it, I feel like the Coyotes should be less important than the graduates who are now back home and wanting to stay, have a place to be. That's what I wanted to bring up. Thank you. Thank you very much. Mr. Jacobson. We have John Jacobson, followed by Scott Fenton, followed by Ray Parker. Good evening. Once again. My name is John Jacobson. I live at 3916 Ridge Top Lane, part of PD 173. I'm a 40 year Plano resident and I've also lived in this area for more than 20 years, and I've owned the property for almost 35 years. And I'm here to ask you to postpone this approval. I know we've been through this a number of times, but I take issue with the transitional. Lots of this planned development are too small. First, I'd like to show you. The transitional lots that are currently available on PD 173 across from where I live on Ridgetop are one acre transition lots for. Non-separated transitional lots. We have two acre lots along. Merriman okay. And here's the 14 acre tract that we're talking about that butts up against the east end of PD 173 now, city staff told you earlier, these lots are SF nine okay, that's 9000ft■!S. That's point two acres. That is five times less than the transitional lots that are across from me that are separated by a street and ten times less in size than the ones that abut directly to PD 173. What I suggest is, is that each of these transitional lots be a minimum of a half an acre. That's only yet a half of what I experience on ridgetop estates with a street separator. You'll note that these lots also have a street separator, so I'm not trying to be unreasonable here. I'm trying to keep the zoning consistent with my area. The city. When they did Stony Hollow was very considerate with providing those transitional lots. They did the same when Merriman was developed. And in that case they made it two acre lots. What I'm trying to do is establish a similar buffer around our larger lot homes in PD 173 any questions? So so I urge you to to postpone this and give him a chance to increase these lot size to something more appropriate for transition. All right. Thank you very much. Appreciate you coming out. Next we have Scott Fenton followed by Ray Parker, followed by Brian Epley. My name is Doctor Scott Fenton. I reside at 4017 Kite Meadow Drive in Plano. As a public servant, myself as a chaplain for the Plano Police and Fire departments, I want to thank you for your volunteer service. It's part of what makes our city and our state and our nation great. And I know you are not paid for what you're doing tonight, so thank you for your service. I won't repeat the message I delivered to you last month, but I do want to remind you that I've been a resident of East Plano for over 36 years, and I'm an original member of the Stony Hollow residential neighborhood. Tonight, I simply want to reiterate my passion to serve and support the people of East Plano, our neighborhoods, our schools, and our businesses. I believe this recommendation for rezoning will strengthening our East Plano culture and community. I believe we need new families, new neighborhoods and new students for the fueling of the vibrancy of East Plano. An example of the need for reinforced support is the decline of our Plano ISD student enrollment. Over the past 12 consecutive years, with a drop of nearly 8000 students. This decline led to the closure of two of our own Eastside schools in the past year. East Plano has a great heritage, but we also want a great future. That East Plano Pride led our church to partner with Jim Douglas, a local developer located right here in East Plano. Mr. Douglas has validated that trust in his consistent efforts to meet with, listen to and respond to the concerns of our neighbors. His willingness to go back to the drawing board multiple times to work toward compromise and consensus is commendable, and evidence that he is a concerned East Plano resident and neighbor himself. Not just a corporate developer, East Plano has a real need, and Douglas Properties has given us a great plan in this PD proposal for the Meadows Brook addition. I urge you to vote yes tonight for this rezoning proposal. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next we have Ray Parker, followed by Brian Epley, followed by Tim Richards. My name is Ray Parker. I reside at 2101 Los Rios, Plano, Texas. I'm a 35 year resident of the Los Rios neighborhood. I'll try not to go over the things I said at our last meeting, but having seen the many changes in East Plano and take pride in the area that we live in, I see an opportunity available for an unused section of property. Be able to be turned into a vibrant neighborhood. And yes, while it's only 50 houses and we do need more students and those 50 houses can provide, I think, every opportunity to develop unused land to for single family use is something that's in the city's best interest. And, you know, we you know, I commend Mr. Douglas and the changes he's made and coming back with a PD development that planned development, that memorializes all the changes he's made to satisfy some of the concerns the council had on the last time. And I would again urge you to vote yes on this, because I think it's in the best interest of East Plano. And again, Echo, Doctor Finn, I want to thank all of you all for your time as volunteers to sit on these board and listen to these issues. We appreciate that, and thank you for your time. Thank you very much. Next, we have Brian Epley, followed by Tim Richards. Good evening. I'm Brian Epley. I live at 43, 24 Peggy Lane in Plano, Texas. Thank you for allowing me to speak again. Just a reminder, we moved my family here almost five years ago as we looked for a better place to finish raising our family. And East Plano is what we what we chose. We're blessed to be here. We have found fantastic schools, fantastic park district, fantastic church and we're very happy to be here. But in the almost five years we've been here, we have noticed some decline. And while this plan will not address all of those needs, it is a start right now as it sits, that land is doing no good for anybody. With this rezoning, it could start to make a difference. So I ask you to please approve this zoning change. Thank you for your time. Thank you sir. And last we have Tim Richards. Good evening commissioners. My name is Tim Richards. I reside at 4300 Peggy Lane in Plano, which is within the Creekside Estates number two subdivision. I've lived there for 33 years. Our home is in very close proximity to the subject property of the rezoning petition. I would like to say, as a 42 year veteran of the title insurance industry, I am keenly aware and I appreciate property owners trying to protect their property values and esthetics. I get that it's my understanding that the the proposed lot sizes now are commensurate and proportional to the lots. The lot sizes within the stony hollow addition. They are also larger than the lots within the Merriman addition, which is also directly across the street. And I just based on the proposed plat, Douglas property seems to have made numerous concessions to appease the homeowners in Ranch Estates and Stony Hollow, all of which seem to be to his financial detriment, so I would I would like to point that out. There's also. There are no streets connecting this proposed development to the ranch estates or going through the ranch estates, so I'm having difficulty seeing how this rezoning will have any negative impact on ranch estates. I believe the unique character of the Ranch Estates development will be preserved. I also believe in the developer, Douglas Properties. His longevity and his excellent reputation can easily be researched and confirmed, and I urge you to do that. I've heard in previous meetings many concerns about people voicing their concerns with regard to potential problems with traffic, with school, with emergency first responders, with drainage. All these, which matters, have been presented to the city in order to obtain their approval, which they have given. And so, in closing, I believe this, the rezoning, this rezoning application is in the best interest of the entirety of the East Plano. This needs to be viewed in light of the many new families that will provide much needed support, both economic and otherwise, for our community. I thank you for your time, and I would also like to invite the people that are in support of this zoning approval to to stand at this time. Thank you. Thank you for your comments. Any any other registered speakers on this item? No, sir. Okay. We did have two that were it's on one B, but since you got a chance to speak effectively on one A yeah, it was Jim Douglas as the applicant and then Rebecca Smith. Correct. Okay. All right. And I'll close the public hearing reserve comments to the commission commissioners. Mr. Bronsky, I have a question for Miss Woods. Miss woods, thank you very much. During one of the speakers, Mr. Langley's comments, he made a reference to this being historical property. Do we have any record or any kind of data or information suggesting that there's a historical. Aspect to this case? So the subject property is not a heritage resource designation for the city of Plano. And that's the extent of my knowledge for it being a historic. Do you have anything to add, Mr. Bell? Okay. No, we have no indication that it's historic or eligible for historic certification by the city. Okay. Yeah, I just it was brought up and I wanted to make sure I know Plano, we strive to honor our history. And I wanted to be clear that that we were clear of the historical aspects of that. Thank you, Miss Woods. Mr. Brounoff thank you, chairman. Thinking back on the history of this case, it was first proposed to us as an sf6 development with 6000 square foot lots, and we heard opposition to that proposal based on the fact the lots were too small in relation to ranch estates. The applicant has modified the plan. He's now proposing SF seven with 7000 and 9000 foot lots. And we've heard some opposition tonight alleging, depending on the speaker, either that they're too small or they're too big. Which just goes to show that whatever we do with this case, you can't make everybody happy. So I think that leaves us in the position of trying to do what we think is the right thing. I do note the strong support for the project from the members of the church. It is their property, and I think they have a fundamental right to to develop it. I also think that, generally speaking, any development that proposes, you know, reasonably designed single family homes is a good thing. It builds a neighborhood, it creates vibrancy. It brings in people who have pride of ownership in their homes. I don't see any negative impact whatsoever on ranch estates. There is no road communication with Ranch estates. There will be screening on the Western property line of this development to separate it from ranch estates. I think ranch estates will always be there. I don't think it's going anywhere. I don't think it's being harmed in any way. Excuse me. And I don't think there's anything essentially negative or poisonous. You know, about a home on a on a 7000 square foot lot. Now, with regard to the three car garage. Requirement, I mean, I'm not unalterably opposed to it. I don't think it's strictly necessary either. The bottom line is I think it's a minor issue. So with or without a requirement for some three car garage homes, and knowing that he could build a three car garage home on any of these lots, if the buyer requests it, I'll be in favor of this plan. Thank you, Mr. Ali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Echo, a lot of what Commissioner Brunner said just said, and I actually. Like to keep that stipulation under three car garage because it's an example of working together with your neighbors to determine what you want, especially in your backyard. So again, it's does nothing from a legal perspective or what have you, but that that's I like that example. A couple of things, especially in this day and age, any opportunity for us to manage growth and development within the city in a way that is thoughtful in consideration with the neighboring homes, businesses takes into account and what have you, I think it's an opportunity. We do. We almost have an obligation to seize when we have that. I think this plan, as it sets, as it sits right now, allows us to do that. It's an example, like I said, of the execution of a plan in partnership with the larger, larger community. It's been it's a marked difference from where it came from, actually pleasantly surprised at how much ground has been made. You know, we've been in cases where there's almost no give between developer and neighbor. So this movement is, I think, one that needs to be acknowledged. And lastly, from a housing market perspective, as we manage Plano's growth to a more mature city, one of the things that we need to do is essentially unclog the pipeline that allows folks who are sitting in starter homes who could possibly afford. Homes that are more, what's the word at a higher price point, but the availability does not exist. I think is one thing that makes our city less affordable because everybody is kind of like stuck in place and there's no movement in the pipeline, and 50 homes is not going to be the great unlock permanently. But it's a good start to move in folks through the system. And with that, I, I'm in favor of approving. And I would if you are okay with it, I have a couple other speakers before you. So hold that thought. Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to answer to one of the speakers regarding that that we thank the builder last time. I think we need to thank all the participants. Whoever show up today or in last time. We are really appreciate it. And I know how hard it is for everyone to be here for this whole evening, to listening, to listen to everybody's opinion or their where they're coming from. Everybody has their background and their understanding of the issue. And your input is important to us, for us to understand the issue, for us to do the right thing for the city and for the citizens. So we thank you for that. My only concern, I think I, I can see that everyone's trying to do the right thing. And apparently this is a good thing that happening to East Plano. And we do want to revitalize the east side of the city. I do have one small concern that I want to ask Miss Woods regarding the setbacks. I don't remember that we had the side yard setback five feet from last time. And but I do remember last time someone mentioned there's a minimum requirement from the. One of the houses in the ranch estates, like 150ft or something, 180ft. The building has to be the minimum distance between that building to the next building has to be, I can remember 150 or 180. So if we do the side yard setback five feet on the role of houses on the West side, would that put any houses in compliance or sorry, out of compliance? If they build all the way up to the five feet line of the setback? So I'm not exactly sure of that restriction of the 150 or 180 foot setback that was mentioned, I can do some more research, but as far as I can tell, I was not able to find a setback for that unless Miss Woods, if I if I think I can clarify that for you because from from the presentation last meeting and again tonight, my understanding is that there's 100 foot setback from the neighborhood. And that's why the developer is proposing the 15 foot setback on the West Side, because the 15 foot plus the right of way, plus the 20 foot landscape buffer protects that 100 foot setback so that it doesn't infringe on the neighbors any more than it already does, right or right. So I totally understand that. I think that's a great thing for the developer to do that. But since we have the side yard setback five feet for every lot, right? So is it possible that they do build it up to the setback? I think that's that's why I asked the question earlier about about him showing a 15 foot setback. And I would I would suggest that if we are to approve this tonight, that that be part of the motion that we that we put those setbacks that are shown on his site plan in the PD? Okay, that would be my suggestion. Okay. Thank you. All right, Mr. Bell, just to clarify, that setback is for accessory buildings. I just want to clarify that is the 100 foot requirement and estate development. And then if the Commission would like to add a stipulation about an increased setback, staff would recommend language that the minimum side yard setback adjacent to a street be 15ft. That'd be the language consistent with other sections of the ordinance. Okay, so even on Los Rios. Okay. All right Commissioner Lingenfelter. So. We may ask Mr. Douglas here in just a second. Sit tight, Commissioner Lingenfelter. Okay, well, maybe I need to get Mr. Douglas's input first, but I was actually going to make that motion with that. One of the. I know that Commissioner Alley wanted to make the motion, but I. I did want to add that stipulation. I felt, because I knew that 100 foot accessory. I remember that from last time as well. So that's why I kept asking about that was I obviously didn't want to take ten feet from that 100. You know, if we moved it from 15 to 5 now, now we're encroaching, we're going to be causing that issue with 100 foot deal. So I wanted to make a motion with that stipulation of 15 at least on the West Side. And then I do like the idea of having at least ten feet on the Los Rios. But 15 would be even better. But we'll see what Mr. Douglas says if he's able to come up. And let me ask a clarifying question from staff in the base zoning, what would be the setback on Los Rios? The issue is that the applicant is currently proposing a common area lot between the furthest East lot and Los Rios Boulevard, so the side yard setback is the interior lot of five feet on those interior lots. It's not technically a corner lot there being a common area. They're proposing a common area lot for the subdivision wall that's five feet in width. Oh. So it so it's effectively you got a five foot common area and then a ten foot setback. Correct. So effectively it's still the 15ft from the property line of the tract. Is that what you're telling me. It is. That is what they're showing. Yes. If we set a 15 foot yard adjacent to a to a street and they wanted you wanted that effective from Los Rios, then the corner lot would need the HOA. Lot would either need to have a 15 foot setback, or they would need to incorporate that into their lot with an easement for wall maintenance to meet the 15ft. Nice. Got it. Instead of having a dedicated lot, it could be an easement for wall maintenance. Correct. Okay. Is that something that we would have to clarify in a motion, or is that something that could be fixed on final plat? I would advise to ask the applicant if that's something they're they can accommodate in their design. We can we could get more custom than that if needed, but with the language proposed, that would be the effect. Mr. Douglas, would you. I didn't recognize the five foot common area a lot. I guess I didn't catch that on the plan, which is on our site plan just five foot for the ten, and then there's 15ft on the west. So the West is facing the house of 15ft back and actually 15 back on Los Rios in total. Would it work the same to you if it was a five foot wall maintenance easement as opposed to a five foot property line? However you want to do it? I mean, the HOA maintenance, your HOA will maintain that five feet because sometimes homeowners just don't quite take care of that. Oh, that's outside the fence. Yes. Five foot is outside the fence. Yes. Okay. Got it. Okay. All right. Commissioner Bender, state. Stay close. Thank you. Thank you. Chairman. I just wanted to. Pile on, I guess, with Commissioner Alley about his his use of thoughtful and I and I appreciate the resonance coming out tonight because this is an example of everything that happens today is next to something, right, of where we are in Plano. So what we try to focus on is thoughtful development or thoughtful redevelopment. So I think this is a good example of that. So. Thank you sir. Mr. Lawley, I wanted a clarification about the fences. So on Los Rios we have the wood fence. Right. And on the west side we have the metal fence. Before we had the masonry fence. So why is this change? Because I think the like some of the residents on the estates mentioned that they didn't want their pets to go through or like, so can they use the masonry fence and then with some opening for drainage. So the masonry fence is not proposed anymore. So if they were to do masonry fence, it would need to be on a revised concept plan. But as far as the design changing to a metal fence. So the screening for the masonry fence was providing screening. There's now going to be a landscape buffer for screening with the metal fence. But as far as just changing that design, that would need to be something to work out with the applicant. So to understand that like now we have the metal fence with the two foot landscape buffer. And before we like, they can just build the masonry without the landscape. I thought that they did have the landscape last time too. So before it was a masonry fence with no requirement for trees in the 20 foot landscape buffer. Now it's a landscape edge with with the and a metal fence. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Lingenfelter. I don't know if anybody else wants to speak, but I was I was prepared to make a motion if everybody's ready. I was going to wrap it up with a couple of comments, and then I'll be happy to turn it over to you. I do want to thank the residents for coming out, even those that are opposed to it, because I think, at least to me, from where we started to where we are today, even the residents that are opposed to it, I hope, would acknowledge that this is a substantially different project than the one you were first shown. I do commend everybody involved for and against it, for working together to try to find a solution. I was taught early in my career that when you negotiate something, if everybody walks out equally happy and unhappy, then we've accomplished something. And I think we might have an example of that here. So I know it's not perfect. There is no perfect answer for everybody involved, but I do believe that this this project has has seen a significant change from the first one that I had problems with as well, with houses backing up to the neighbors and having back windows that looked over the neighbor's fences. And that was not my first my first choice. It was I wasn't, I didn't like it. I'll be honest, I do believe this answers most of the concerns that that I originally heard in the first meeting where the proposal was presented about lot sizes, about people looking into my yard, about all of those things. And I do believe the developer has accommodated a lot of those concerns. And, and so I do want to commend everybody involved, everybody for and against it and people that might have changed their mind in the process for working together to try to find some common ground. With that said, I had a sidebar here with Mr. Bell to as a consideration that we could the language that could be considered tonight if it was the. If it was the Commission's prerogative was to have a five foot setback from the street right of way on adjacent streets. Is that did that accomplish that? I have to tell me exactly the wording that you think would accomplish the 15 foot on both ends. So it'd be two additional stipulations. One would be a minimum side yard setback adjacent to a street, which would be 15ft. The second would be a minimum setback from Los Rios, which would also be 15, and that with that option, they could do a common area lot, they could do an easement. It doesn't matter. Just the building itself has to be separated from Los Rios by 15ft. Right of way line right of way line. Correct. Okay, okay. So whoever wants to jump in, Commissioner Lingenfelter. Okay, I move that we approve this item as recommended by as recommended by staff, along with the stipulations of a 15 foot side setback on the west side next to a street, and then on a 15 foot setback from the right of way line of Los Rios on the east Side. Is that okay, Commissioner alley, second Commissioner Brounoff. Okay. All right. Any other comments? Seeing none, please vote. Motion approves eight, 8 to 0. Item one B concept plan. Commissioner Bronsky I move we approve agenda item one B as recommended by Staff Commissioner Lolly I second. All right. We have a motion a second any any comments Commissioner Bruno to be conditioned on council approval of one a yeah, that's part of the recommendation. Okay. Yeah. All right. All right. Commission. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you to everybody for being patient with this process. I know we've tabled this a number of times and y'all kept coming. So thank you for participating. Thank you. Item two A and two B, if you please read those together. Agenda item two A request to rezone 7.6 acres of land out of the Henry B Miller Survey. Abstract number 614 located on the east side of Communications Parkway, 700ft north of Spring Creek Parkway in the city of Plano. Collin County, Texas. From commercial employment to plan development 43 commercial employment and established development standards for mid-rise residential. Presently zoned commercial employment and located within the Dallas North Tollway and Expressway Corridor overlay districts, the petitioners are B C family Partner, LP and Chrome Interests Limited. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number two B Spring Creek Addition block one lots one through three 525 mid-rise residential units and professional general administrative office on three lots on 13.3 acres located on the east side of Communications Parkway, 700ft north of Spring Creek Parkway. Zoned commercial employment and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District, the applicants are b c family partners and interests. Apologies. Chrome Interests Limited. This item is for administrative consideration pending agenda item number two. A good evening commission. My name is Molly Correa, lead planner with the planning Department. The boundaries of the zoning case item two A are shown here. It's approximately 7.6 acres. And then the proceeding B item agenda item two B is 13.3 acres and encompasses a larger area of the boundary. So I wanted to point that out at the start. The associated preliminary site plan and concept plan is shown as one document. The preliminary site plan portion is phase one of the development, which is a five story, 60 foot mid-rise residential building shown here on the site. It's the site along communications and then past that going east begins the concept portion concept plan portion of the plan, which is a 120 foot, 20 story mid-rise residential building for phase two. And then this next page, I'm going to show phase three, which is not a part of the zoning case, but is a part of the concept plan document and is for 220 story professional office buildings, but again, is not a part of the zoning request is only shown in the concept plan. Item B, the request tonight from the petitioner is that this item is not yet complete, is not yet finished through review with staff. However, the petitioner is requesting feedback from the commission before committing to further revisions. So tonight, the petitioner is not requesting any sort of approval or anything from the commission. They're just requesting for feedback before continuing for further revisions. Staff is recommending denial, but we'll we'll touch on that later. The request of this item is to establish a new plan, development PD 43 within the Commercial Employment District. To allow mid-rise residential as a permitted use with modified development standards. The first phase is a five story mid-rise residential building and then a 20 story mid-rise residential building will be phase two. And as I mentioned, phase three is for professional office but is not included as part of the zoning request. This is in within the employment centers category of the Future Land Use map, as talked about in the Comprehensive Plan. The Employment Centers category applies to the business centers and the legacy area and those along Plano Parkway and the p g t. The primary uses for employment centers are things such as corporate office campuses educational institutional uses, as well as medical centers and research facilities. And the category explicitly states that residential development or residential uses are not appropriate within these centers. In order to ensure that these cities city has ability to attract and maintain employment generating uses. So this request is inconsistent with the description of the employment centers category. As residential uses are identified as not appropriate within these areas. To ensure this, to ensure that we have this ability to generate employment generating uses. And it's also inconsistent with the employment centers recommended mix of uses, because the recommended mix of uses does not recommend any sort of residential uses. It's purely supposed to be employment. So based on the desirable character defining elements, this project is not meeting about half of them. The ones that are it is meeting would be the building height as well as the passive open space requirement, which is specific to the employment centers generating uses. It doesn't have any sort of residential uses recommended. So passive open space is more consistent with that future land use map category. However, it also doesn't account for any sort of residential being allowed, and the site is providing an ample amount of structured parking. So it's meeting those. But in regards to what it's not meeting, it's not meeting the density because we don't recommend any sort of density here because it's residential. It also isn't meeting the intensity based on the lot coverage, nor is it meeting the block pattern in streetscape, because we would recommend the mixed use context street design. But we'll talk more about street design later in my presentation as well. The request is not meeting the undeveloped land policy, redevelopment and Growth Management one, or the Facilities and infrastructure policy within the Comprehensive Plan. And this is due to the request for residential uses in this area not being consistent with the comprehensive plan, the proposed 20 story multifamily building in phase two means that the request partially complies with Redevelopment Growth Management Policy Action eight, because it promotes a diversification of our housing stock. But otherwise, this project is not meeting any of our policies or studies that are applicable to this and is not meeting a majority of them as well. To talk more about the adequacy, adequacy of public facilities, staff recommended that the petitioner submit a wastewater capacity study to analyze the remaining capacity, but one was not received. One was not required under our previous ordinances. However, under our current ones, one would be. So we requested one and one was not provided based on recent evaluations of the surrounding wastewater system, there may not be adequate sewer capacity to serve the proposed development, and if the Commission is supportive of the development, staff recommends the item be tabled up to 90 days for sewer capacity study to be completed. There are a number of outstanding issues with this request, as I mentioned, starting with access. The first part of this slide shows the first page of the concept plan and preliminary site plan. There are red diamonds labeled numbers one, two, and three. Those are access points that can be utilized using existing future connections from existing sites as well, and are shown on currently plans being currently under review. In the case of the access points shown on the southern side of the property, however, blue diamonds four, five and six are access points that are shown on the plan associated with item two B, but are not shown on the adjacent plans for the property to the south, which has plans actively under review, so staff would need that access to to be. More concrete, no pun intended, in order to have those access points be guaranteed. And you'll see there the blue diamond seven on this side, the connection point is established on the property to the south based on the plans and review and the approved preliminary site plan. However, there is not a driveway alignment with the proposed property and additionally, Blue Diamond eight, red diamond eight. There is an established off site entrance from this property to the one to the south, so they do have access. They're shown along the tollway. For design elements. Although the future land use map does not envision mixed use development in this area, the requested intensity of development, approved plans for nearby properties and recent changes in state law allow residential in these districts and could facilitate an integrated mixed use development with other properties in the general area if appropriately planned to support their request, staff recommended stipulations committing to mixed use elements consistent with the comprehensive plan, standards for mixed use areas and similar PD districts in the city, such as the parks at legacy, it is recommended that mixed use projects provide an internal, quasi public street network separating the development into multiple blocks with internal streets designed in accordance with the street design standards. The requirement for mixed use street network for multifamily projects above five acres was not a requirement until it was codified as part of the September 1st subdivision ordinance updates of last year, the need for shared access with other properties is a primary design driver that should be addressed with creative solutions, such as a walkable streetscape and open space amenities, especially given the density and intensity proposed. The petitioner is open to designing the internal street network so that it is similar to the mixed use street sections, but stated that further design of these roadways is is pending feedback from the Commission and the associated plans show approximately about half an acre of usable open space in the form of courtyards. In phase one, that would be the five story, 60 foot multifamily building mid-rise residential building. However, the stipulations do not provide a minimum amount of usable open space to be provided. So no acreage, no minimum acreage is being shown right now. And the PD stipulations, it's just being shown on the plan. However, it does codify a list of open space amenities that the development in each courtyard shown on the preliminary site plan. This list is generally inconsistent with the level of amenities established in the city's multifamily design guidelines, so modified standards should be expected in this area if the Commission moves to table this item. And additionally, if the Commission votes to table this item and provide feedback, an open space plan will be needed to be provided by the applicant, which will show the minimum open space areas required in the PD stipulations, as well as the street and sidewalk network. That would be consistent with what we ask of a mixed use developments to conform with the street design standards. The PD stipulations have not been fully reviewed to avoid conflicts or inconsistencies. As with typical PD process key deficiencies when the current PD stipulations include the absence of a required open space plan, unsupported exceptions for a lack of direct street access and noncompliance risks for future adjacent office uses in phase three and proposed development standards sometimes reflect but fall short of the city's adopted multifamily and mixed use street design standards, and these unresolved issues would need correction prior to approval consideration. There are some regulatory changes that create outstanding issues, including recent updates under SB 840 now allow mid-rise residential uses by right in the C district, subject to standards of the district. So this property, this proposal is not meeting the minimum height requirement shown in phase one that we now require, which is one of the bigger drivers for this request. And a new application under current regulations would allow for multifamily, but just not at that height. And so updated standards including infrastructure review, design requirements and development agreements would be required. Whereas right now the applicant is is modifying those requirements based on the constraints of our current requirements. Staff would also like to point out that this development is not meeting the purpose of a plan development, as shown in article 12 of our zoning ordinance. The requirements for plan development include things like public health and safety concerns guiding future development in accordance with our comprehensive plan. Accommodating innovation, innovation mitigating development impacts, as well as enhancing esthetic and visual quality. And as shown in the current proposal, the request is not meeting any of those requirements for a plan development. As far as staff can see. We did receive one response in support of this request within the subject property as shown here, we did not receive any official letters within the surrounding property within 200ft. And then citywide, we received one additional response. Aside from that letter, it's in opposition as shown in the red dot on the map. To summarize this request, the request is to establish a plan development within the Commercial Employment District in order to allow mid-rise residential development with modified development standards. Key issues include sewer capacity, access and conflicts with the comprehensive plan. The petitioner is requesting feedback on the item from the commission before continuing the review process and before making further revisions to this item. And again, staff is recommending denial for the reasons mentioned previously. Here's our full recommendation. Staff is not in support of the request. Due to the unusual and extensive number of challenges of this request, as well as the bi right ability to develop the property with the requested use. In a similar manner, staff is recommending denial per 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 and for item two B, we are recommending denial. Thank you for your time tonight. Commission. I'm available to answer any questions and the applicant has a presentation as well. I want to lead off with a couple of questions. First question is if this was a complete proposal and answered all the concerns about open space and sewer capacity and all those, if they had gone ahead and invested all of the resources to have a complete proposal and it got the review. ET cetera. ET cetera. I'm speculating because it doesn't meet the comp plan. It would still require findings and also be disfavored by the staff. Is that a fair statement? Yes. We've we've mentioned to the applicant before that there is no way for staff to recommend approval for this item. And in fact, we would actively be recommending denial for this case even if all the items were addressed and everything like that. Okay. And and you said, but I want to make sure I'm clear that at least the high rise components of the proposed plan are a use by right today. Is that what I heard? That is correct. It's a minimum 120 foot height requirement on today's ordinance. So it's only the the mid-rise five story. That's not a use by right today. So that basically is the reason for the PD request is to allow that use. That is correct. Okay. Regardless of the peripheral issues about open space. ET cetera. ET cetera. That is correct. Okay, great. Thank you, Commissioner Ali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll confess I'm a little bit confused. This might be the first time I can think of an applicant jumped out of the staff review to come get feedback. Or maybe I'm reading that wrong. But since we are essentially being asked to give feedback, I want to get more clarity on the feedback that was given while they were still in the staff review process. So if we kind of if you go back a little bit, it will help me. Went back too far back to your the, the summary summary. Yeah. Yes. Specifically as, as best as you can summarize, what feedback did they get from staff regarding street design integration, active open space, PD stipulation with PD. You know appropriate. Infrastructure and access and to the access was their feedback given that they would need essentially an access agreement with the neighbors as part of the PD. Just give us a summary of what they already know that I think would help us guide what additional we might be able to come up with. Of course. Thank you for that question, Commissioner Ali. So staff has completed three reviews. There's been four submittals for this project. We've completed three reviews. We did let the petitioner know what comments we would have on this item forthcoming prior to the meeting tonight. However, the issues are there have been a kind of a laundry list of issues with this request. The nature of the size and shape of the property and the location is is, is reason for some of these issues in regards to access, especially. However, with the applicant, we addressed issues such as access of. The purpose of a PD was something that we went over consistently with the applicant that was brought up by staff. Additionally, the comments on requiring a minimum open space to be shown to be provided in the PD stipulations, as well as the minimum unit counts per phase, and the innovative nature of a PD were brought up consistently with the applicant. Your question was a bit of a 2 or 3 parter, I want to say. So just before I go on. I think you also asked about as far as what feedback the they're looking for from the commission. You're hoping to define what that feedback is, right? Yeah. I'm trying to understand what more this body is supposed to add to what I know must have been robust feedback given by staff. I don't think the the applicant is willing to do some of the design changes. I think fundamentally what the commission is being asked is, are you okay with a 70 foot multifamily product here? And if so, then go back and add these mixed use design elements that we've been talking about. I think that's ultimately what they're asking. So is essentially a looking for a signal that if they do everything with this body, be okay, then they will go back to come work with staff to do the everything, whatever it is. That's our belief. The applicant can answer for themselves, but I believe that's where we are. I also want to mention we we started this process. The initial plans. There were landlocked parcels. There were significant access issues. The applicant made a significant effort to address those kind of very fundamental issues from our subdivision ordinance. I want to give them credit there, but there are still fall short of what is typical for us in a mixed use environment, including those streets, the open space commitments, the phasing requirements. And we got to a point in the review where there was just disagreement to add those if staff could not support it. And so that's why they wanted to come forward tonight. One last question on the the comprehensive plan. Regardless of how this goes, this is disfavored by the Comprehensive Plan and under the new regulatory environment, they would be required by law to come with infrastructure plan, development agreement. And I forget the third one. Now, am I phrasing that correctly? Yes. Under current regulations, if they wanted to come in and develop, they would be required to provide a sewer capacity study or the fee for it rather, and then comply with our zoning ordinance in full, including the height requirements for mid-rise residential as well as Pei current park fees, things like that. Mr. Bell, did I miss anything? That's correct. And what that's what that wastewater capacity study would determine is what mitigations need to be provided. So if there's offsite improvements, if there's upsizing, it would outline what those need to be and they would be conditioned. It could be conditioned upon approval of the plans. That's the purpose. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bronsky. Yeah. So initially I'd like to raise a point of order. According to our bylaws, section nine under 9.1, where it refers to legislative items, what we're being asked to do is not listed within the purview of this committee to even act upon. So I would like to have this conversation terminated based on the fact that it's outside of the bylaws for our entity. I think you're being asked to approve, deny or table a zoning case. That's not the feedback I received when she's asked. They're asking for our opinion. I feel like that it could create if we're providing feedback to them, as far as whether they should go forward or not. I feel like it could create a situation which could bind the city or potentially put us in litigation by providing them feedback that may help them to feel comfortable in going forward, when in fact, we can't provide them a promise of an outcome whether they go forward or not. I think it's smart to make it clear to them that this is a preliminary review, and any feedback you give is, is, is feedback you're giving. I, I don't see how anybody could reasonably rely on the feedback to be the same thing as an approval or disapproval. It's simply giving some feedback and, and I don't see a legal problem. Okay. I just, I feel like the entire process I've served on this committee five years and I've not seen this occur one time. And for a developer to come to us completely outside of the way the system works and request something, I just don't think it complies with the bylaws. Vice Chair Bronsky if I can clarify, you know, staff approached the developer with this proposal to bring this item forward to the commission before it was ready to be heard. So I just wanted to offer that there is a precedence with some other cases similar, not exact, such as parks at Legacy and Mr. Bell, I forget the name of that development, but that multifamily proposal near near heritage Creekside quite a few years ago, the item was not ready to be heard. There were still outstanding technical issues with the document. However, the applicant wanted to move forward with the commission hearing it before the item was ready, which was a little less, I guess, agreeable between staff and the developer because we still wanted those outstanding issues to be addressed. So that was the precedent that we had had kind of modeled this off of. However, it was more. Not that we aren't amicable with everyone, but I guess amicable would say the word. And Mr. Bell, I don't know if there's anything else you want to add, but this this was our this was more of a collaborative suggestion between us and the developer. So I just wanted to clarify that. So just to clarify, legally, this is an action item that is on our agenda that we can act on if we choose to. Yes. Staff is actively recommending denial of this item, and that is always an option for the commission to consider. Okay. All right. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ali. I was going to go there and maybe this helps the body, how I'm thinking about it. Whatever the three actions we have as a body, approve, deny or table, in essence, ease feedback on on the item, right? By our motion, we give concrete feedback as to what we think is the best use of the land under consideration. Agree, Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I know that this this is me beating the dead horse here. I'm still confused. I don't know what we're asked to do. So the staff is recommending denial. And no matter what we do, we approve or deny or table on what I think we're asking for feedbacks. And can we say that approval, denial or table is a feedback that's not a feedback. What are we approval on? What are we approving? Yeah. What are we approving? Well, I think I think, I think the question is this is a land use question. And so the question in front of us is, is there a land use here that we could support? Which in case, in my personal opinion, it's not ready for support. They know that. Everybody knows that staff knows that if we believe that, that it's in a gray area, that we might support it. But we don't know yet because we don't have enough information. We could choose to table it. If there's a land use here that's being proposed that we cannot support, then we can deny it without having more information, because we do have enough information to know what the proposed land use is without all the details. So we can we can go based on land use and like, like, like has been said and give them feedback as to whether or not we feel like the land use is appropriate, regardless of the technical details, I think is the question. Yes, ma'am. I just want to say, in any event, you're not going to make a separate motion where you're you're approving this land use right now and then moving forward, you can give them some feedback and table, or you can give them some feedback and then deny if you're not comfortable, you don't have to give them a partial answer. You can do what you're comfortable with, but often when before you table, you give a good amount of feedback so that people get an idea, you can do the same thing before you deny. You can give a good amount of feedback before you deny. So don't feel trapped by the question they ask you, I guess is what I'm trying to say. If you're not comfortable, you can abstain or you can just deny at this point and make them bring you back something different. Why don't why don't we move forward and hear the rest of the presentations and then we can come back? And I think we've gotten some guidance from council about our options. So why don't we allow the applicant a chance to make their presentation and ask them questions and and keep the conversation going? And if we want to stop the conversation, then that's certainly up to the commission. So let me open the public hearing first, open the public hearing. And I believe the only registered speaker we have is Griffin Neal, which I presume is you, sir. So if you'll introduce yourself and your address, please, I'd appreciate it. Good evening. Good evening. Commission. My name is Griffin Neal. I live in Dallas, Texas. 6433 Woodland Drive. As Miss Correa said, and staff has been really communicative on this process with us. It's been one we made our first submission and work on in May of 2025. Obviously, that was around the time when SB 840 was introduced from the state. There was a lot of things up in the air with the city. We respectfully waited for that process to come through. And ultimately in working with staff back then, we moved forward with our planned development in efforts to be in partnership with the City of Plano, not move down the path of SB 840, which was put on us by the state. I'm here tonight to introduce myself and my company. Describe briefly our project. I agree entirely. Tonight's conversation is about land use, but I do think it's important to have that context. And then in the appropriateness of the area and what's happening in the immediate adjacency, and then ultimately, since we do not comply with the comprehensive plan. To table the conversation is my request, I understand I'm not ready for approval tonight. I understand denial is on the table. And importantly, I also understand it is not direct feedback that I cannot hold the city to. Tremont Group was a company I founded almost ten years ago now. We were founded for one reason, and that's to make a positive difference in the communities. Well, importantly, and first, ten years ago when I was starting, I was young, it was to make a difference in my life. And then our employees lives, and then the communities in which we invest and work in, we do that through responsible ownership and responsible and collaborative development. I started treatment with my best friend that we grew up together. We envisioned Tremont to be part of our legacy as humans. That's what our ownership method is to be long term quality owners. We have institutional backgrounds, but we're a small company that run lean, and we care deeply about working with municipalities and partnership. As Molly said, we've been through four rounds of submittals now. As Mr. Bell said, resolving major issues in a currently landlocked parcel. What we're working with, we do we did not have direct access to a public right of way, which caused several reviews and design issues. So. Importantly, at the corner of Spring Creek and Communications, this is a greenfield site. It's one of Plano's last remaining large acreages, and especially especially within the legacy area. So I hope you can appreciate our sensitivity to that. I know you guys are sensitive to it. And I, again, will emphasize we're here to have a collaborative conversation. We're directly adjacent to the dart station. That dart station was, as you guys know recently with you guys pulled out of your withdrawal from dart and continued to be in partnership with them. And then we are directly adjacent to the Plaza at Spring Creek, Mr. Duggan's development to our south, which is a mixed use development consisting of hospitality, retail, dining, shopping and what we have here is an opportunity to extend Legacy West vibrancy in an urban corridor. This is just not. And I can appreciate staff's comments tonight throughout the process, and that the fact that they have to stick within the review of the Comprehensive plan. But the fact of the matter is this site does not exist within a traditional single use employment campus. Mr. Duggan's development is not speculative. It's happening and going to break ground this year. And the site that we're looking at, it exists within an evolving class double a mixed use urban environment. So briefly on the project and also importantly, what current ownership in the BD family is willing to do. The BD family has owned this land for, I believe it's five generations. The BD family owns another 40 acres across Communications Parkway. The BD family has partnered with us to carry forward this site, and they're willing to restrict the remaining 5.73 acres in this tract as as Miss Correa pointed out, to employment generation generating uses or non residential uses. But ultimately what our project is going to do and bringing a two phase class double a residential project to this immediate area is create vibrancy for the mixed use environment that this is going to be. And it's important to note that not only is the BD family, but Mr. Duggan. They're working with several other high quality developments on these specific adjacent parcels within this environment, and everybody's watching closely what the commission hopes to see happen to this area and what it can mean for the future of Plano. So. I'll skip through what Miss Correa pointed out. I do want to point out what we're working on with Mr. Duggan, and she's absolutely right. We access is needing to be refined and committed to by both parties. But we're talking about a two boulevard section of connectivity and traffic going east and west on the south side there of our phase one and phase two, and the office campus there. So this is from Communications South. Transit Drive is on the left on the north side there, which is the left side of the screen. We're activating that. It will primarily serve as a secondary and private entrance. We've got a fire lane on the other side, but importantly, that will be activated with streetscape and connectivity with the dart. Some massings here are. Phase one is on the left hand side there with an elevated pool deck. Phase two is the tower on the right and then Mr. Duggan's Plaza at Spring Creek there is modeled on the bottom right hand corner of the screen. To the left of our phase one is the adjacent Mariposa, a 55 plus active adult community. Site plan showing some green space, elevated pool deck. Ultimately, what we're seeking again is a class double, a residential community. I'll hit on why that's important, not only for the area, but for the city of Plano. But what we're seeking is an amenity rich condo living experience that that lives and feels like what the city of Plano deserves and, and what the corporate or not corporate campus is. The employment uses and companies of today and the future are calling for. This is along South Transit Drive. Here again, big windows, a mix of material architecture being broken up. That's our front front entry. Again, this is a, a first draft from the architect that we paused with towards the end of the year as we were working through technical comments. So I have several comments to these, but nonetheless it. And I don't want to distract from the land use conversation. Here's the three green spaces we have met. The open space requirement. Important to note, it just needs to be called out in the. In the submittal. So back to the future land use plan. I do think it's important to call out that we're half a mile from Legacy West on the north side. That's the urban activity centers of Plano, your most intensive mixed use urban corridor. And I'll argue one of the most successful suburban mixed use developments really in the country. This area houses 70% of your office supply. And the tenants that you've attracted. And in a two mile radius of the site here and to our south is expressway corridors, which doesn't explicitly call for residential, but it does in adjacency to commercial centers that need it. It calls for regional access, which we have in Spring Creek. The ultimate findings here and, and the crux of what we're looking for, I think it's really important to, to call out the. Legacy area master plan that the city recently started and recognizing what's transitioned and how markets have evolved. You guys started that with a goal of my understanding is finishing early next year. We're here today to go through the findings process, understand what the commission is seeking, and ultimately develop alongside other developers. What we believe can be over $1 billion worth of development on this this plot of land in totality. There's plenty of precedent here in Legacy West. The parks at legacy last month and Heritage at Creek Way, Willow Bend Mall, all of these. The city has signaled and approved residential components and attempt to activate and redevelop areas. Again, the evolving nature of the district and what Mr. Duggan is developing on 20 acres. He's been a great partner in helping us understand the city and the process and design a use that he believes is important and critical to his project success. No adverse impacts. Spring Creek on the West Side according to your 2024 most recent traffic studies, 15 to 18,000 cars per day on your other mixed use districts. Those are upwards of 30 and 35. We did commission a traffic study, and there's ample room for for additional traffic that also fits within the expressway corridors. The demonstrated public benefit. What we have in two phases is $200 million worth of development. Conservatively, this will generate $3.5 million of tax revenue to the city of Plano. And while we wish there would be more students with these will ultimately be high income professionals couples empty nesters that are contributing positively to the community. There will be some students, some that we also imagine going to Plano ISD, but this tax revenue will go to help Plano ISD, which I think last year ran a $26 million deficit, and this year is slated to be projected to be about 40. And then. Again, I think important to note that the ownership is willing to restrict the adjacency of of. Nonresidential uses. Plano has a premium, what we believe to be a premium housing deficit. Your guys's plan calls for a mix of optionality. These are also housing needs that employers and high quality employers look for. Of course they need a range of it, but you guys have what we have believe to be about just shy of 800 units of contained within three apartment complexes, all within. And they're all within the legacy area. This is the Kincaid level 29. And in strata at Legacy West, we quantify truly premium at $2,500 a month or more on average throughout the community. We estimate Plano's rental housing supply to be about 48 49,000 units. This means your premium housing rental housing stock of apartment dwellings is about 2% of your total supply. I think that's important for you all to consider and what will continue to make Plano a global leader and attract the type of businesses you seek. The rest of the points. I think this is mostly a summary slide within a two mile radius. Again, not only is 70% of your office supply here, but you do have 4500 households, 1200 of which we estimate to have 150,000 or more. Median income signaling these renters. There's already within this area a demand for more housing of this type. But importantly, this housing brings people to Plano to live, have the chance to experience it and then move into neighborhoods like we we've seen here earlier tonight. So I would encourage you guys to, to think about that as well. As Miss Curiel said, we're here tonight to work, continue working with staff. We know Denial's potentially on the table. We hope you guys respect the fact that we've been working on this for nearly a year. We've spent six figures in planning the. Comments that Miss Curiel has alluded to tonight. We've worked through, by and large, some have come up in third and fourth round submittals that we did not have a chance to address. They recommended we come here tonight to meet with you all, and we're committed to reaching a mutual goal of furthering the city of Plano. And then just this is, again, it's not my purview to speak on Mr. Duggan's development, but I do think it's important to understand what's happening here. And slated to break ground is the plaza at Spring Creek. Wrap it up. I'm sure we've got some questions for you. Thank you very much. Great. Thank you, Mr. Neal. I'm going to lead off with a couple of questions and observations. You've obviously done your homework and it shows you understand the market. You understand you know what's been achieved at legacy. You understand the employment situation, the demand for housing. I can't disagree with you on any of that. I think I think you absolutely understand the the market and the need for a high quality luxury housing component up there. We've heard a number of proposals for similar projects in legacy JCPenney, you know, a number of a number of places. So so from that perspective, I agree with you. I think what you just made is our case instead of your case. I think you made our case that we need the higher higher , the exactly what already entitled for as opposed to what you're proposing. Just be honest with you. I think you made a very compelling argument for the current zoning as opposed to the PD you're requesting. And. If if, if you had brought us a proposal that had your phasing absolutely reversed, I think my initial reaction would have been much more favorable. And and my observation is I think we've got the tail wagging the dog a little bit in this particular case, that that you're taking the back of the site to develop first and, and telling us what will happen on the front, as opposed to if something had already happened on the front and this was the residual site, I think your case would be much stronger. That's just my personal opinion. So can you say that a different way? How I'm yeah, the phase three was phase one. And and and phase one was phase three. I would respectfully add that those follow a vibrant mixed use. I understand if they were concurrent. I think my concern is that it's a, it's a four story multifamily development with a promise of a future mixed use, as opposed to a mixed use development with a multifamily component. You follow me. I'm following what you're saying. So no offense. I like I said, I think you understand the market completely. I think you have a very firm grasp of, of the need of of a product. My concern is, is about how it happens as not, not whether it happens. And, and the concern about what might happen in the future, as opposed to what's being asked to be done immediately. And so that so those are my initial reactions from a land use perspective. So. With that said, my question for you is, is there any consideration to swapping phase one and phase two, or what you're calling phase build the high rise first. So it's an important designation. And I'll answer a few of your questions, if I may. Yes. Phase three, again, it's not part of the zoning case. I'm not promising it. But what ownership is willing to do is restrict the use to nonresidential employment generating use. They are willing to do that. Phase one is so. So that will happen. And that it's just a matter of when. And our belief is that happens in in these are what current office trends and desires are today and in the future is they need the vibrancy and they need it. They're not going to develop a greenfield site today. Mr. Beatty's been trying to market the land for the better part of pre-COVID eras. In fact, there's pre submittals and site plans for IT office along that entire South Transit drive. It didn't get any traction. Phase one is important to do different than phase two, because they offer a variety of housing options. What we can develop for an average rental rate of $2,500 per unit, which is still very expensive, and especially considering what's in Plano, when you build a high rise in that cost of construction, you have to charge a minimum of $4,000, $5,000 a month to make these economically feasible. That's very hard to do in a greenfield site or with retail. That's and a mixed use environment of shopping that's under development adjacent to us. Further, I'll argue that when you come in from communications to have a tower on that corner driving up and down communications, we looked at it and flipping where it's at, it makes a lot of sense to stair step the project from a approachability and attractiveness to soften the transition of uses and enter into the property. We're also directly adjacent to the Mariposa, the 55 plus community, so there was a lot of thought that went into it. I understand and respect the comments, Mr. Chairman, but Plano does need a premium housing. That's not for $5,000, and it needs a medium ground in there to understand. That's why I wanted your perspective. So thank you. Mr. Bronsky and Mr. Bronsky, if you don't mind, I need to step out for one second. Would you take the gavel, Mr. Neil? Thank you so much. I want to start out by saying it's very heartwarming to hear a developer say, quote, my my development's not ready because it doesn't comply with the comprehensive plan. It's not ready to move forward. So what I want to start off with you is there's a lot of things on here that it says does not meet. Can you tell me how you're going to go about meeting and complying with the comprehensive plan? I'm I'm recommending a findings process, and we're not complying with the current comprehensive plan. Okay. But your comment was, is that it's not ready to move forward because it doesn't comply. So my question to you is, what's going to be your process to bring it into compliance? We will not comply with the comprehensive plan. We're going through a plan development to change the zoning to a residential use. Sorry, I just I guess I misunderstood when you started out. You said this isn't ready to be moved forward because it doesn't comply with the comprehensive plan. So I was just trying to clarify if that was actually your intention was to bring it into compliance. No, to comply with the comprehensive plan and the plan in the future, land use would require largely and employment campus, which frankly isn't feasible with what's happening at the Plaza at Spring Creek. That option is not on the table period for the city of Plano. If Mr. Duggan breaks ground on his project, as he's planned, as he's working with lenders now and as approved by the city adjacent, the site's approximately 350ft in depth. There's 13 acres in total there that the BD family owns, and it really doesn't conform to those uses. Okay. Second question I had was, as you mentioned, that phase three would be restricted for that particular development. What methodology are you expecting to use? Restrictions. Are you talking about deed restrictions or what kind of restriction are you going to be applying to that I'd seek that feedback tonight how ownership can legally do that, knowing that this is not part of our zoning application And it's a concept plan. Are you asking for our opinions or for our advice? I'm not exactly sure. Typically we make decisions on cases rather than being asked to provide individual records. Are you looking for recommendations? No. The legal method to do as such or ownership is willing to commit to. Okay. And the city staff wasn't able to supply you with the proper ways to go about making restrictions. It it the short answer is no, it didn't. It wasn't. Part of the submittal process. And again, we're committed to working through that. And. Okay. Do you think it might have been more typical for you to have thought through and worked through some of this, especially with as much money as you've spent so far? Rather than bringing it to us for a decision tonight. It was staff's recommendation to us after the second round of submittals to come to you guys, we went forth with another two. So while I would love to have all these issues resolved, it is a constantly evolving area. Mr. Duggan's plans have changed. Mr. Beattie and his submittal one and two were largely around solving access submittal. And then we had to have a flag lot going out to the Dallas North Tollway to get to a public right of way. Open space was just commented on in a third review to be incorporated. The concept plan of including phase three of and Deeding or deed restricting whatever we end up ultimately legally doing was brought up in the third submittal to show. So. Yeah, we've spent a lot of money and a lot of time going through it. I wish I would have been here in a more efficient manner, certainly. But ultimately, I was respecting and, and, and going through the process that I was told to go through. And so I think we would all agree that approving this tonight isn't what you're looking for. Is that correct? While I would while I would welcome it, I don't think it's on the on the table tonight due to the technical issues. Well, from what I'm getting from our legal department, we have all three options available to us to go about and to prove it, to table it or to decline it. And so in in this process of coming before us tonight, what is what is your best outcome for what you get from tonight? A acknowledgment of the process that we've been through a table of the to to resolve the technical issues. As the developer before me, I looked like he had 2 or 3 times through the process. And ultimately comments on the land use. So, so you'd like, you'd like us to table this tonight and then provide you our. Opinion on how to go about land use. Not the latter, but to table it. Yes. So you're only seeking for us to table it tonight. You have three options and you guys can choose. Okay. Thank you very much, I appreciate it. Yes, sir. Mr. Lingenfelter, thank you, Commissioner Bronsky, for taking over for me for a second. I do reiterate that we can see that you put a lot into this and and understand the market well. But as as they've mentioned, the the the concept plan is, is for us to deviate from that. It has to be you have to present something very compelling that's going to cause us to actually be put our, our names on the line and everything that to fill out the findings forms and all that stuff. So there's got to be a very, we got to be able to really have a strong argument and why we're deviating from that concept plan. So it does take a lot for us to do that. So that that is one comment. And in this case, I don't think there's any way we can approve this because it's incomplete. We've got an incomplete submittal as it is right now. So I don't even think that's on the table. So it's really denial or tabling. If we were to table, how much time do you need as quickly as staff can review the comments and get us feedback. Our my engineers here, he can comment on what outstanding technical issues there are, the timelines he needs to submit them around, but it's a matter of weeks or a couple months, not years. I want to comment that we were still missing a sewer capacity study, which is recommended, which. If that needs to be completed, the staff is. I'm sorry, the commission is limited to a 90 day tabling without the consent of the property owner. I was going to say I would recommend. I would recommend an indefinite tabling if the. If the applicant is willing and we will notice when it's ready, because there will be time required to complete that. So we can do indefinite. In this case, we don't have to. If they if they consent. Okay. Would you be okay with an indefinite tabling in this case? Is that a minimum of 90 days or is that just 90 days? 90 days is our max without your consent? Sure. But it does sound like it's going to be at least that if not beyond that, with your engineer to coming up with a capacity study and everything. So an indefinite makes more sense. No problem. So if you consent that that would be something we could consider. Yes. I just want to comment because it's relevant to the land use discussion. Is that all all signs are pointing to that there being capacity issues. Currently the study is just going to confirm that we believe. Which which I'll note we and the Beattie's family were committed to upgrading that, and that will benefit other. And working through that with the city, which we do not intend to enforce that. Right. Commissioner Ali. Okay, so I'm going to go through. What I wrote down as. For lack of a better word, the gaps that exist that would even bring it to the point where I'll speak for myself. I could even consider thinking of. Using the findings policy to go, you know, to justify something, right? One is the sewer capacity and that they that has been addressed from an open space perspective, especially for residential. I think the distinguishing factor is active open space versus the passive open space, which I believe they currently are meeting within, even with, with, with this current stage of the plan. The third would be, well, number 3 or 4 would be. For lack of a better word, a lack of an enforcement mechanism around access within for the plan. Number four would be. A well thought out and articulated street design. Within the. They'll probably be in the preliminary site plan or the concept plan. I don't know which which one this comes in that actually shows how the build out plays well and connects and integrates into what is already around it. And I would say the last, but not the least to what the chairman brought up would be. Flexibility around phasing in the manner that. Gives me comfort that. We are not going to be left. Holding the bag, so to speak, where the residential is built. And there's nothing else that necessarily needs to come after that. So. I think I'm with Commissioner Lingamfelter if. There is consent to continue to work through closing that gap, I would be open to to tabling to see, if nothing else, to see a complete plan submitted. Right. To see something that is tied off and and tied together, even if it's not perfectly in adherence with the comprehensive plan. But at least we can judge something. You know that fair? Yes, sir. All right, Commissioner Bender. Thank you. Chairman. Yeah, it's it's clear that you put a lot of thought and understanding the market and the adjacency to legacy is, is really key. And I know that adds lots of value. It's, you know, I think the phasing that was mentioned for me is really important. A stone's throw from where this proposed development is, is a 20 storey building that's been built for four years. It's still vacant today. I'm sure you're aware of all the empty office space in the surrounding areas. So the you know, based on what's happening, we've seen this before, right? So having that, having the phasing would make a big difference. Access is another issue. The movement of the vehicles and everything through that space along with the other other proposed development that you mentioned, also causes some concern not being able to see that whole concept plan together. So really having that comprehensive plan between those two developments is really key. And having those, having those deals done so that you can, it's not just a discussion with another developer, but having something that's concrete. And, you know, there's no question we need that kind of housing. You know, as you know, we have a lot of other developments and corporate relocations that are coming that would support that kind of housing stock. But again, a lot more work to do here before we could be in a position to consider going against the comprehensive plan. Thank you, Commissioner Tom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the presentation. I think it looks like a nice project to have in Plano. My issue is still with this this feedback session of this whole meeting today. I'm still not clear what we need to do to help you or help the staff. And to me, tabling, tabling it indefinitely really has no difference of denying, right? If we deny it today, can they come back with a different plan with a different application? Right. So this is basically they have to go back and redo everything anyway. Correct? B a new application, a new fee, starting the process over again. Would that be when we added the fire lane and some access changed after submittal to that reset us back as a substantial change to the plans? Is that different than what you're suggesting, Mr. Bell? It is different. It'd be an entirely new application, entirely new set of fees for both the concept plan and the zoning case. If these were tabled, we're starting start from the very beginning. If they're denied, if they're table, we keep working on the plans as they are. And to your comment about feedback, there's been a couple of comments about this. And the applicant has suggested it was staff's recommendation to do this. I want to clarify that that we have a slightly different opinion. The original reviews on this project were in substantially. They were they needed a lot of work, let me put it that way. They had. Landlocked parcels, subdivision issues. Staff felt like the plan was not progressing to a point that they were going to get into the ballpark. We recommended that at that point that we just move forward because the plan is not progressing. The applicant made a from that point forward, made a significant effort to try to meet some of the comments that staff was having issues with in the first couple rounds. That third submittal came back much improved from the fundamentals, but the feedback at that point was you're still missing some of these key mixed use design requirements. And at that point, the applicant felt like. Perhaps it's not worth spending additional time on this until we get feedback from the commission staff. The position along all along has been we don't think it's progressing to a point in order of time and efficiency. Let's just move this forward and let them make a decision. But you can make your case to the Commission as to what feedback you would like to get. That's how we got here tonight, and I want to continue on that. I feel like this is what I feel actually, I feel exactly what Mr. Bell just mentioned, that the staff feels like this plan is not going anywhere. So I'm just going to put it in a harsh way. Do you do you think the plan's not going anywhere after the last three and four? Let's yeah, let's let's not do that. Let's keep the questions between the commission and. Okay. Thank you. So I feel like this is I feel like even if we table it indefinitely and you would spend a lot more money than you have spent already in, it may still end up going nowhere. Right? Maybe denying it is a good thing for you to rethink about the entire concept plan. It doesn't mean that you throw away whatever research you have done, the money you have spent. Maybe you can use that on a different design. It's just that you may have to submit a new application fee. It. I feel like if we tabling tabling, it may not be. Do you doing you a favor. It may just guiding you down to a rabbit hole. That's my personal opinion. That's fair feedback and I I'd. We're extremely excited to develop in the city of Plano. We're extremely excited to be part of this parcel in its entirety. We. The what you just noted, if that's the choice tonight, we'll hear you loud and clear, but I'll circle back to a lot of these comments and issues are design and technical related that we're committed to working through the land use question of premium housing in a mixed use urban environment of what this parcel is going to be a part of is what our whether it's a revised submittal in a a continuance or tabling or a revised submittal is ultimately what will, what will be looking to achieve. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? Nobody. Okay. Stay close when we come back to you. Thank you guys. All right. Are there any other registered speakers on either one of these items? Well, there was a Tyler Thomas who said he was going to be in person, but he was registered as opinion only. I'm not sure if he wanted to speak. Is there Tyler Thomas here? And do you want to speak? You do not want to speak. Okay. Thank you. All right. So seeing no others, I'll close the public hearing. I'm gonna lead off again. Mr. Neal, I think I already said it once, and I'll say it again. I, I, I really believe you made our case, and you did it very compelling. You've done your research. You understand the need for some quality housing in this corridor. You understand the need for a mixed use, quality, mixed use development in this area. And I think, at least in my opinion, all of those things support the current zoning on the property and the current uses by right on the tract, as opposed to deviating from those. I, I personally don't see a compelling public interest to deviate from the current uses by right on the parcel, because I think it lessens the goals that. I believe your own arguments support. And I. I know there's a lot of technical issues. I have complete confidence that you have a team. I don't know your team, but I have complete confidence. You have a team that could work through the technical issues. For me personally, even if all the technical issues were resolved, I. I wouldn't be in support of reducing the requirements of that site below what are currently allowed by. Right, because I believe those are the correct use for that site. I believe your own arguments make that case. So I do appreciate all the research you've done. It's obvious you really, really know the market better than probably any of us do. And so I commend you on that and your passion for doing something here. I believe you're on the mark as to what the need is out there. I just disagree with you as to what that looks like. So with that, I'll hand it off commissioners for additional comments. Commissioner Bruno, thank you chairman. I appreciate the applicant coming to us tonight. I have a strong feeling of his earnestness on behalf of the project, and I acknowledge his good intentions. My bottom line feeling about this is that we are being asked to do too much. We've been presented with a plan that is so incomplete that we really can't move forward with it. And I think the problems and the technical and other issues and land use issues that the staff has identified are so numerous and so fundamental that I don't think tabling this would serve any purpose. I don't think they can all be solved. I would note that. A comprehensive mixed use plan, neighborhood community is not planned piecemeal. You have to have a comprehensive area plan. You don't create it by pointing to property owner A over here who is planning to do one, two and three and property owner across the street. Who who wants to do, you know, 4 or 5 and six. And then and then if if we build here then that that somehow creates a de facto mixed use plan community. It doesn't because he has no control over the other owners or what might happen in the future. And there is no overall plan guiding the future existence and design of the project. So I believe that along with the staff, I think our best option is to deny, and without prejudice to considering any future plan or application, the that the applicant might come forward with. And I would encourage him to think about doing that, but bring us something more complete. I'm not comfortable filling in this many blanks for an applicant. I think that, you know, gets us awfully close to designing his plan for him. And we're not in the designing business. I know I'm not. I mean. It also would tend to create, I think, a sort of a cycle of subtle but nevertheless real psychological pressure on the commission that if we suggested it and he does it, we would feel bad about disapproving it, even if we would have the legal right to disapprove it. So for that reason, I think the best procedure is to deny, without prejudice to submitting a new application. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Bronsky. Well, let everybody speak. So I agree with the chairman that I feel like personally this entire evening for this is lacks a compelling public interest. I think some of the things that you've provided, Mr. Neal, are nice and sound good, but it seems like whenever we dig a little bit at that. There's no there there. You started out by talking about wanting to comply with the comp plan, and then we discovered that that wasn't your intention. You mentioned that you were committed to upgrading the sewer systems. I would be real surprised if that was really your commitment to fully upgrade the sewer systems to what they need to be. You may be willing to do part of it. I think Mr. Bell has brought up very clearly that at best, maybe there was some misunderstanding on your part as it relates to what the staff was actually doing, but to me, these things show to me that this is not someone I feel comfortable with. Approving a case for, let alone signing my name on the bottom of a findings form relative to, as Mr. Bruno made very clear, looking for us to design the plan so that. Then we would feel almost a necessity to approve the plan. And it goes back to my initial argument that I felt like this entire journey this evening on this case was not within the purview of our committee, as it's not our job to design or to, to take an applicant by hand and walk them through the entire process of how we do zoning within the city of Plano. So. I'm going to give Mr. Vice Chair Alley a chance to speak, but it is very clear to me that we need a motion for denial on this and allow Mr. Neal and his team to go back through the process to gather the information that we have provided to them. And then whenever he's ready to provide us something that we can and should be able to provide an up or down vote, rather than having our hands tied to a tabling or a no vote, then we can actually do the job that we're supposed to do and commit to the actions that our bylaws describe us to follow. So, Mr. Ali, I'll turn it over to you. Commissioner Ali, I don't know if I maybe I read this very differently, but I never read this to be a something that ties my hand in any way. I reserve full legislative consideration for the final. If and when that comes to which, then it's my decision. If I use, for lack of a better word, my findings. Power to override or overrule the comprehensive plan. And like everybody has said, for that to happen, it has to be substantially beneficial to the city residents and all of that. My. Only lean towards tabling versus complete denial is respecting the fact that they've been in this process for four years, three years, whatever the the count is, and have invested money and have paid fees and what have you, and somehow sending them back to square one doesn't quite feel like the right, the right decision, ultimately out of denial or tabling, if they so choose, they will bring forward a final plan or a final submission or whatever that looks like. And then it's at that point, this body's prerogative to determine if they use finance powers or what have you to override the comprehensive plan. If it's not in conformance to the comprehensive plan. So. You know, again, I, I don't know, I never read this as I was obligated to do something definitive today versus point out where the gaps were. And if they so choose to go back and work on it and bring it back again, so be it. Commissioner Tom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to add one more thing is that thank you for coming here. And I, I want to say it again. I still think this this place, this parcel is a very, very nice location located. So you got a good parcel there. I want to say some encouragement to you. Even though today we may deny we may table and even if tabling, you may have to, you know, do a lot of changes to it. It's, it's not something that you can just go with what you have right now. So maybe in the future you can bring a better design for this parcel. It's a great location. It has great proximity to all the big developments around you. And I think personally, I think the biggest problem of this parcel is access. So I'm just going to give you my feedback. If you're looking for feedbacks, if you can address the access to this parcel, maybe from there you can get a better design. So don't take it. As a doesn't matter if it's denied or, or tabling, don't take it as a. We don't like the project. I think I like the project. We just can't do anything with it right now. So even lots of projects have to go back to square one. Lots of owners in the land, owners in Plano that have to redo their design over and over again. I'm pretty sure the landowner of the Windhaven Parkway there, they had to redesign that whole area not less than 50 times. So it's not a defeat. I hope you don't feel that way, that we're really giving you honest feedback. Mr. Bronsky, I move we deny agenda item that not only follows the recommendation of the staff, but also takes into account the staff has made it very clear this process that we've gone through this evening is not even something that they encouraged the gentleman to go through, but it was something that he made a choice to go through. I can appreciate the fact that he would like a whole lot of different things, but I just I don't find a using the chair's word, a compelling public interest for this entire process. So I moved for denial of item two eight correctly. Correct. Item two A correct. Yes. Okay. And we have a tie on the next. So I'm going to I'm going to I'm going to go. I'm going to go with Commissioner Bender because he's been relatively quiet today. I would second the motion. Perfect. And Commissioner Brounoff, would you like to would you like to second that as well? Okay. Since you all tied. All right. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Any other discussion? All right. We have a motion in a second. Please vote. And the motion is to deny. So voting in favor would be to deny voting. Yes is to deny. Motion passes 6 to 1 with one abstention. All right. Thank you very much. Item two B do we need to take action on two B since two A was denied because it was conditional on two A. Yeah. Let's just do it. Okay. Item two B Commissioner Bronsky I, I move we follow the recommendation of the staff and deny agenda item two B and Commissioner Brounoff second. Mr. Bender, would you have any comment on this one? Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second. And motion passes six to 1 to 1. Right. Thank you, Mr. Neil. I appreciate you all being interested in being part of the city planning. We look forward to seeing you again in the future. We hope you find a project that brings you back here. Thank you guys. Want to let you know that I respect your process and I look forward to working with you guys in the future. Great. Thank you. Yeah. Why don't we take a five minute recess and come back here at what is that, 835? Sorry. Staring at you. I'm sorry. Yes. I. All right, are we ready? All right. We'll reconvene back into open session at 835. Right on time. Good job guys. Thanks. All right, let's get us back up on the screen here. There we are. All right. Item number three. Agenda item number three. Discussion and direction on the update of the city sign regulations. Hello commissioners. I'm Robin Kirk. I'm senior planner for the Development Services division of the Planning Department. Joined tonight by Christina Sebastian Linn, records planning manager and Salsameda chief building official. So this discussion and direction item covers specific changes proposed as part of the Sign regulations Update project. A brief background on this project. I know you've seen this before. The updates have been in the work program for several years, with some long interruptions due to pending court cases. At the federal level. Our goal is to increase the usability of these regulations and ensure that they comply with all laws and court decisions. Commissioners did provide direction on certain sign regulation questions last September 2025, along with a request for some additional information on digital or electronic message board signs. I'll begin this discussion just by offering some clarification of terms here. These are not the official definitions from the zoning ordinance, but they're here to facilitate our discussion and direction tonight. This slide shows the parts of a pole sign which in their most simple form, include a sign structure, the pole or poles, and a sign cabinet, which is the actual display piece that is supported by the poles. Sign cabinet displays the sign face or faces on one or both sides. The faces do contain the copy, which is the actual text or message on the sign. So when we refer to removal of a sign, we're talking about this entire object you see bracketed as a sign. We're not just talking about changing out the face or even the cabinet. It's kind of a similar drawing that shows the monument style freestanding sign. These do include that sign frame or cabinet, and they may include a structure or base. Some monument signs have a cabinet completely flush with the ground and no visible base. And as you saw in the last slide, the cabinet displays the sign faces on one or both sides. The faces contain the signed copy. So at this September 2025 meeting, the Commission did provide feedback supporting monument sign height regulation based on adjacent thoroughfare type. The thoroughfare sizes range from a type G, which are the small residential streets to type a. More detailed descriptions are found in attachment B in your packet tonight. Since these are rough proxies for vehicle speed, the larger signs are more appropriate for the higher grade functional classes and moderated by the land use context where appropriate as well. So this map of existing monument sign height regulations is reproduced in your packet. Standard maximum height in most of the city right now is ten feet, and certain overlays and specific zoning district regulations include some smaller and larger maximum heights as low as six feet or as high as 15. In some overlays, the ordinance does also allow freestanding signs to be up to 40ft tall along I 75, and that's for both pole and monument signs currently. And this is the Thoroughfare Plan map, also reproduced in your packet, along with the functional classes represented by the line weights and shading. The land use context are visible on the map. So to put it together, this table shows staff recommendations in the last. The third column there. For maximum heights for monument signs by thoroughfare type. The goal of these recommendations was to minimize nonconformities throughout the city while maintaining appropriate size signs. So under this proposal, most areas would maintain that ten foot height maximum. The higher grade thoroughfares would go up slightly to a 12 foot maximum height and then along type A thoroughfares. A monument sign up to 20ft tall could be allowed. While those numbers do eliminate any nonconformity concerns, there are potential nonconformities particularly in the overlay areas that currently permit signs to be up to 15ft in height. That's largely because these overlays include multiple thoroughfare types. They aren't just along a single thoroughfare type, so this map is in your packet as attachment C. It does show some potential areas of nonconformity, particularly in those areas that are shaded in green. You can see on the south and along SH 121 up there, the art center zoning district and the two overlay districts along 121 and Plano Parkway are the main areas of concern. There's also some potential non-conformities in lower grade thoroughfare types that are within that overlay district. You see shaded in blue to the west side. In site visits, though, staff has seen typically lower profile monument signs that don't reach those heights. So we're not sure how or whether any signs would actually be affected by those proposed regulations at this time. So to ensure that our freestanding sign definitions clearly delineate between pole signs given the previous direction, to not allow new pole signs, we did consider several design elements that we see in freestanding signs. The goal of this was to allow some design flexibility and beautiful signs without creating nonconformities, or dealing with questions about whether bases or poles or monuments. The following slide shows some staff recommendations on what monument design elements we believe would be appropriate for this. So the five designs shown here lettered A through E are all recommended for classification as monument signs. A is that simplest style sign cabinet flush with the ground B also has a sign cabinet flush with the ground, but is taller than it is wide, which is permitted up to that maximum allowed height. C has the separate base wider than the cabinet sign. D also has a separate base, but it is narrower than the sign. Cabinet staff did. Look at this and determined that it's okay for the base to be narrower than the cabinet or the frame, as long as the base is also shorter in height than the cabinet or frame height sign. E also illustrates this. The two small base pieces there are narrow, but they are shorter than the cabinet. That's going to be our primary distinction from a pole sign. So here this sign, which we've labeled F, is not recommended due to its proximity to the definition of a pole sign. While this does not look like a typical pole sign, the sign base is narrower than the sign cabinet, but also taller than the sign cabinet. This sign would be permissible if the base were the same width or wider, like sign C previously, or if the cabinet were taller like signs D or E that we saw previously here. But as shown, the sign is too characteristic of a pole sign, despite the base being much wider than a pole, and staff recommends that it not be allowed as a monument sign. And this be the point of distinction. We were asked to give information on how digital or electronic signs are regulated and any proposed changes to regulation at that September meeting, so no changes to current regulations on these sign types are currently proposed. The draft regulations do include some updated limits on the elimination of signs that face residential uses, and these would affect both the digital and non-digital signs in the city. This slide does summarize the current regulations on digital or electronic signs. This text is all reproduced in the packet, but we're looking at limits on the change frequency and movement. Digital signs have to have automatic dimming based on the surrounding light conditions, same size restrictions as non-digital signs, and these are all proposed to remain the same in the regulation update. So staff recommends that the Commission provide any additional direction at this time regarding changes to the city's sign regulations. Next steps for the project are listed briefly here include completing the draft regulations, which are currently being reviewed by multiple departmental staff, will continue to receive public input, will request that the Commission call a public hearing or provide additional direction as needed in the future, so the final ordinance draft will be scheduled for public hearings before the Commission and City Council, and staff is happy to answer any questions at this time. Thank you. Thank you. One quick question on the sign height by thoroughfare type table that you had. You can go back to that. I'm not sure what slide that was there. There it is right there. Can you help me define the difference between secondary arterials, neighborhood context and secondary arterials? Other land use contexts. Are we talking about the difference between the commercial corners versus mid-block in a subdivision, or how is that going to be defined? So we would be looking at. The land use context shown here. If you look on this map, there's under the legend, there's an entirely separate section for the land use context. Neighborhood context is going to be shown in gray. So we'd be talking about arterials that are within those shaded sections. Just going for the thoroughfare plan map versus the ones that are in the sections that are all the other context. So so that that was what I wasn't following. Okay, so the gray areas are the what would be. So you're truly talking about the four corners and any other mixed use commercial would be the taller signs would be allowed. The plan, as I understand it, is to completely follow this map. Okay, except for things like PD's. I wasn't making the connection there, so. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is about the pole signs. Does can a person have multiple poles where it has to be one pole? There has to be only one pole. So the direction we received from the commission in September was to not allow new pole signs. So it wouldn't matter. Matter? Yeah, there wouldn't be distinguished, but pole signs currently are accepted with either one pole or two poles. Thank you. Commissioner Olli Similar on that. Can you go to where you had a different monument signs? I'm trying to think of a little layman's explanation in my head of what makes a monument a monument and what makes a pole a pole. Is it essentially. If the base of the monument is. Skinnier than the cabinet, it cannot be taller than the cabinet. How would I if I wanted? Yes. So it's going to be kind of a two prong test. The base has to be both skinnier than the cabinet or frame, and taller on its own. Just the base than is the cabinet or frame on its own. Wef peer cities, and it's very difficult to find a good definition. Okay, let me go back to what you said. So if the base is skinnier than the cabinet and shorter than the cabinet frame, it's a monument. Yes, that would be like Plano sign D that you see here. Okay. Or even E but if the base is skinnier than the cabinet and taller or longer than the cabinet, it's a pole. Yes, it's a fat pole. That's what we're seeking feedback on. Okay. I think the the more defined one for me is E. At what point do the two poles under E become a pole sign? What we're proposing is that that point is when the two poles, I think either one of the poles, as measured from the ground to the bottom of the cabinet, is taller than the bottom of the cabinet to the top of the cabinet. I don't think they have a cumulative effect. That wouldn't really make sense. Okay, I know I've jumped in line in front of a couple of speakers, but I have a suggestion for you is that the base of the sign needs to be some percentage of the width of the cabinet, so you don't end up with that two really short poles situation. It's a 75 or 80% or whatever as a minimum. So you end up with at most a sign type D that's got a brick base with a cabinet on top of it, but you don't ever end up with an E because there's no way you could get there. I don't, I personally don't like the option of E, but anyway, I'll defer to some other commissioners. Commissioner Bronsky. Miss Clarke, I appreciate all the effort you and the staff are going through and sorting all this out and going. Going around town and seeing what others are doing. So I guess my question and maybe I'm confused at so is there no point at which you can have a signed B with a base? So you could have a sign that looked like sign D, but the base was the same width as the cabinet and it was as tall as sign. B yeah, if if I put a dividing line across sign B and said the top was the cabinet and the bottom was the base, that would still be permissible, I guess my question more is if I wanted a sign B with a base like either C or D, would that be permissible? Yes, as long as it met the height requirements. Okay, so. Are. I guess I'm confused now. So do we need to add a an additional sign or to reflect the fact that there could be a potential? Or is this just kind of this is just illustrating different cases that might come up if I had made sign c b significantly taller, it would still be on here. Okay. That's that's what I was trying to understand is if yeah, we just, we didn't want to show every permutation of every option. Just wanted. I totally understand the question. Anyway, thank you very much for that, Mr. Bruno. Yeah. Thank you. It looks to me like sign B is really just a subset of sign A. Yeah. Okay. Your drawing show sign B as being taller than the other monument signs, even though they're all subject to the same maximum height restriction depending on location. Right? So if you have a sign A and a sign B or sign C compared to A, B or a D compared to a B, there would be the same height. There would be less space on the face of the sign. Face of sign B for text, because it wouldn't be. It would be as tall as the others, but not as wide. Yeah that's correct. That would be a design decision. What isn't included here is that these signs are regulated by both height and a maximum area of the sign face. So if you were designing B, you would be under the same area restrictions as any of the other ones. Can I see if I can clarify that? So the sign cabinet could only be pick a number 100ft■!S. Yeah. The sign face. The sign face. Yeah. How we configure that cabinet and the base is up to the designer. As long as it doesn't exceed the maximum height. You have a short fat sign on a tall pedestal. You could have a great big tall sign on a short pedestal, but it's about square footage of the sign, not the square footage of the base, correct? Yeah. That's correct. I will clarify, we're mostly looking at square footage of the sign face or sign cabinet. Just the range of things that people use as a base. And the functionality of those are so wide within the city that we're looking at separate sides, regulations for those that are, that are much more lenient, I know. Yeah, two variables, their sign size and sign base. Yes. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Let me just add, I don't have a particular problem with sign E as long as the the base is shorter than the the sign cabinet. Yeah. Fair. Okay. Commissioner. Olli. I think given that one of the things we asked to do here is give feedback. I like the, I think it was chairman that threw out a nugget of having some kind of percentage criteria. I'm going to be very arbitrary and say something like it becomes a monument. If the the base is at least 50% of the cabinet with, you know, no matter how tall it is, like, you know, make it a very, very, very fat bowl for it to become a monument. And so the two, the 2 or 3 legs or whatever in sign E the cumulative width of the legs it's standing on has to be at least X percent or 50% of the cabinet with. And that is your distinguishing between what is a pole versus what is. A monument. Otherwise it's. We will get very many computations that are basically skinny three legged poles holding up a white base or something. Make sense? Commissioner Tong? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is that I understand that this is an illustration, you know, kind of a samples, but does this imply this collection of all the rectangle shaped designs? Does it imply that we do not allow any other shapes, or would it would it be allowed if they have a round sign or they have a sign in a different shape? Yes, that would be allowed unless we specifically wrote into the definition that it had to be a rectangle, it would be allowed. And we've seen a large number of pretty creative signs. It just needs to meet the size requirements. So if they're round, how do we how do they meet the sign? So it's just on top and bottom. So it's the same measurements at the rectangle ones. Yeah. So it's pretty easy. We just go from the highest point to the ground. As far as the area we did, I think t's a new measurement tool at the September meeting. And that's what we would use would be the eight lines around the cabinet to measure that. For a like circle or oval, it would probably get measured with a rectangle at this point. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner lolly, just to confirm, like so we do have a like a height factor, the base plus the cabinet, right? That's correct. Okay. Yeah. So it's not just so the percentage of the base is going to be included because we do have the area of the cabinet. And then we do determine the height of the whole sign, right? Yes. And the width or you know, like or no, just the height. Yeah. The, the height is from the ground to the top to the top of the cabinet and the base. Yeah. There can even be sine frames that actually go over a sine face as well. So we are looking at in the drafting how to really clarify what we want to measure. But we wouldn't be looking at something where the base was used to elevate the sign past the maximum height. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Bender. Thank you chairman. Again, thank you to the team for for looking at this because, you know, this really can have an impact on the look and feel in the community, right? As you drive around and you see something that's well done versus something that's not so well done. My question is about existing signage. And as you know, brands and companies are very proud of their of their brand and their sign. And they're very particular. Would we be changing anything that would be retroactive? I know you know that if it's an existing sign, it would be grandfathered, I'm assuming. Would that be correct? Yeah. That's correct. Existing signs that didn't meet the ordinance would be non-conforming. Right. And and then I know there's some regulations about moving forward. If that sign was damaged or became a disrepair or the property was vacated, something like that, then we would have some regulations around how that was managed and so forth, I assume. Right. So if there was a non-conforming sign and the property was abandoned, say for 2 or 3 years. And say it was redeveloped, they'd have to comply with the new ordinance, would that be correct? I'm sorry. Can you repeat the last part of that sentence? Yeah. If if, say, you had a site that was abandoned for three years and had a monument sign, and then that site was redeveloped and the site was vacant for three years, would they have to comply with the new. They would have to comply with the new regulations, correct? Yeah. If there was a non-conforming sign that was abandoned and not used for three years, the city would be able to require its removal. At that mark, depending on what type of tenancy was there previously. Are we going to regulate the font and the type of are we going to regulate any of that? I know there are some cities around that do that. Is that the is that our intention here? The copy I think is your term. Oh, like the copy size, like the font size, font size or the font type. We don't have any drafts on that. Now, I have seen some samples on regulations that do that. If that's something the commission would like us to look into, we can look into that. Just curious. You know, I have seen some communities, Kapell being one, right. And it's very consistent, but it's also boring. So those would be my comments. I lived in Copperhill for a long time, and it's also a battle with a lot of national brands because their font is different. Exactly. And it, it's a real problem for people's branding and I agree. I agree with you. I would not recommend that. I would agree, yeah, yeah. Commissioner Lingenfelter, I would just say that I think all five of the signs are fine, I think, and I agree with what you said as far as what is not a monument sign, it does resemble more of a pole sign the way that's that's depicted. So I, I just as a comment I that would be I that's, I agree with what you've done so far. Looks good. One final question for me. I, I, is it a fair assumption that if I was to build a large masonry wall and pin mount backlit letters on it, would that be measured the same as a current building sign with the smallest rectangle around it, as opposed to the cabinet. So if you were to build this under the new regulations, and my monument sign was just a big stone wall with pin mounted letters, not a cabinet. Okay. I think we would review that as a wall sign. So be measured like a wall sign is currently with the smallest rectangle that fits around it. Okay, that's what I was assuming because we already have a policy for how that's measured. Correct. Okay, so we'd be consistent with that. That's how it's currently measured. We are proposing the eight eight line measuring tool, which would give a little bit more leeway, but it would still be measured the same as any other wall. And so as opposed to the cabinet, you use that measuring tool for the monument sign calculation about height and area. For freestanding signs, we would measure the cabinet, and for wall signs we would measure around the copy. Yeah. But my I guess my question is if I've got a freestanding sign with pin mounted letters on it, we'll use the same tool as we use for a wall sign to measure the letters on the freestanding. So if the wall constitutes a freestanding sign, it would need to meet the requirements for the sign phase. If the wall had a structural reason for existing, it would be a wall, not a sign. Okay, I think we're saying the same thing. Okay. And just to clarify, so the the drawings, I can't seem to get back up on the screen for some reason, but if those, if those were just letters as, as you're describing with the pin mounted, we would, there's no cabinet. So we would not be measuring. There's no cabinet to measure. So yes, I think we would just use the eight lines around like the smallest area of that, of that copy, the same way we calculate a current building sign. It's on a building. Exactly. Okay. That's what I was assuming. I just wanted to clarify. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner lolly, I just wanted to confirm that we're just reviewing the monument sign, not the wall sign. Right. This presentation is about the monument signs. Yeah, yeah, yeah, it's in light of the direction we were given on pulse signs at the previous d d. Thank you. Okay, Commissioner. Olli. Dumb question alert. Something said about Brandon triggered. Triggered me. So if a company, for lack of a better word, a sign, is a sculptural logo of some kind. Does that mean because it doesn't have cabinet, cabinet and copy and face and all the other requirements that we we need to determine what a sign is? Does that mean I can build as high, make it as tall as I want? Because it's not technically a sign. So if it contains copy, it's going to be a sign. If it's public art, it would be regulated differently. So immediately I put copy on it, even if it's a sculpture of some kind. Can you speak to that, Mr. Muda? I'm not sure. I've seen this in San Francisco before. That's why I kind of if I build a sculpture and I put copy on it, maybe electronic electronic copy on it, it doesn't have a face. It doesn't have a base, a sculpture, and you put on it, then it's on it. It's a sign. Yeah. Okay. Yeah. So the same you would go back to the sign definition would be an ordinance to govern that. I think if the I have haven't seen it yet, but I've seen it in Kelly. I think if the sculpture was like clearly a, a logo that we would also consider that a sign, but those would have to be evaluated case by case because it gets very confusing. So for example, two big golden arches are considered a sign, not an M. Okay. And just as a random example. Okay, any other questions of staff? No. As we provided you adequate input, do y'all need any action from us tonight or is that what you were looking for? Kristina, do we want like an up or down on the E? Yeah. Do we want do you want a you want a poll of the group about sign type E? Yeah. If the the recommendation of considering it based on a percentage, maybe 50% of the, of the cabinet area as a consideration or just allowing it without a percentage measurement. Okay. Let me do this two ways. Just as a show of hands, who likes E the way it's who would agree with E the way it's currently drawn? Okay, so we got three that say, okay, who would like to have a minimum, let's say 50% case under any of those signs or E, D or E that that B a minimum 50% just as a random number. Okay. I'm just picking 50 as a as a, as a number. It could be more, it could be less. We're looking for. Yeah, some, we can do some actual drafting of this language and then make a recommendation based on that. Yeah, some proportional size sounds good. Okay. Mr. Bronsky, I do have a question on Mr. Ali's. The when you drive down 15th, there are there is art that has the city of Plano on it. Is that art or is that a sign? It's a sign. Okay. But it's great art. I think so too. I just wanted to I was when he mentioned it, I was thinking it in my head. Go by it every day. Thank you. All right. Okay. We good? Thank you all very much. Thank you. Very thorough. We appreciate your work. All right. Last but not least, comments of public interest. Do we have registered speaker 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 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 future agendas. The Presiding Officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Right. Somebody registered. We did have one registered speaker by the name of Krystal Currie, but she is not present. That is not okay. All right. You never know when somebody outside, you know. So I just want to make sure. All right. So any other business before the commission this evening. All right then we'll stand adjourned at 9:05 p.m. That means