There you go. Good evening. Welcome to the May 5th, 2025 City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission. I call the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. If you would all rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag. United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice. For. All. Right. Comments of public interest. There are none. No comments of public interest. All right. Consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items that are routine and typically noncontroversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff commissioners. Does anybody want to remove anything off the consent agenda tonight? Nobody. Commissioner Bronsky I move? We approve the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Lingenfelter, I'll second that. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda as presented. Please vote. Motion passes. 8 to 0 items for individual consideration. Items for individual consideration. Non public hearing items. Presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. The Presiding Officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to insure meeting efficiency, and may include a total time limit. Agenda item number one is a discussion and action for preliminary site plan. Preston Park Business Center Edition block a lot for medical office on one lot 1.8 acre. Located at the northeast corner of old Shepherd Place and Preston Park Court. Zoned planned development 189 Retail General Office. The applicant is a development Group, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration of a parking reduction. Good evening commissioners. My name is Destiny woods, planner with the Planning department. Go through some of these. So this item is for a preliminary site plan for a proposed medical office. The lot was created in 2004, and a site plan for an office building was approved in 2006. And that site plan proposed an underground parking garage. The entrance and exit of that underground garage is indicated by the yellow arrows on the screen, and this proposal was never developed. Today, the applicant is requesting a 16% parking reduction due to the limited size of the site and based on the use and size of the building, 31 spaces are required by our zoning ordinance. A 16% reduction will relieve the applicant of five of those spaces and will create a new requirement of 26 spaces. This request meets the criteria for parking reduction based on our zoning ordinance, and staff recommends this item for approval with a 16% reduction as requested. I'm here for any questions. Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for staff? Commissioner lolly. So I have a question. Is it Dawn in? I have a question. So is there like a limit for us to give a reduction like percentage? Yes. There's a 20% limit okay. Thank you. Commissioner Ali. Just one based on the use of the proposed development medical office is 26 parking spots. Is that is that enough? From our analysis, it does look like it would be enough parking spaces. And the traffic department did not have any additional issues with this site. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Has the staff received any information from the applicant as to a projected number of doctors and medical staff and patients that would be expected to be on the property at any given time? We have not received that information. Thank you, thank you. Any other questions of staff? All right. This is not a public hearing, but do we have anybody signed up to speak? Oh, I'm sorry, Commissioner Bronsky. No. Go ahead. Okay. Do we have anybody anybody signed up to speak? None. All right, Commissioner Bronsky, I move. We approve. Agenda item one as recommended by staff to provide the 16% parking reduction as requested. Mr. Brounoff, where are we going to hear from the applicant or is he here? Not there. We don't have anybody registered to speak. Okay. So we have a motion on the floor. You want to understand that I have a concern about this case. I'd like to give it a second or no second. I need a second before, and then we'll have some discussion if we need to. I'm not seconding. Okay, Commissioner Ali. I'll second. Okay. Now, Commissioner Bruno. Okay. Thank you. We're being asked to approve a parking reduction based solely on the criterion. As I understand it, that the lot is too small to accommodate the building they want to build and the number of parking spaces required by the ordinance. So they're reducing the number of parking spaces. It is not based on any consideration of the likely parking demand that this this use will generate. And I'm thinking about requirement number A here that the reduction must not be anticipated to create parking issues for any public or private property in the vicinity, which to me means we have to, you know, we should be considering at some point here the number of parking spaces that would be required to meet a reasonably anticipated demand for parking use on the property. Otherwise, cars will spill over onto the street or onto neighboring property. Looking back at the history of other cases, we have decided earlier this year we had a case involving an electronic data center where they were required to provide three figures worth of parking spaces for a huge building that was filled with very large machinery, but that could be run by a handful of staff, and they didn't need anything. Approaching three figures with parking spaces, and the public would not come onto the property. It wasn't that type of business. And of course, we easily granted that exceptio. At our last meeting two weeks ago, we granted an exception where the only change being made was to shift a lot line, you know, to one side, which moves some parking spaces from one lot to another, but did not eliminate any of those parking spaces. And the people were still were still free to park wherever they wanted to. So in both of those cases, we considered that the parking demand would be adequately met by the parking spaces being proposed. That's not being presented here. All we're being asked to look at is the fact this is a small lot. Okay. If it's a small lot, it seems to me that the considerations the applicant might entertain would be either build a smaller building, shrink the footprint of the building, and put another story on top of the building, or better yet, find a bigger lot. Today. As it happens, I took my wife to a doctor's appointment. The eye doctor. Okay, I counted the number of people that we saw other than the doctor. There were seven people on that medical staff that we interacted with before the doctor ever came into the room. That's a total of eight people, and that's eight parking spaces, because the staff and the doctors have to park. And depending on the type of practice, you may not even be seeing the doctor. You may be seeing a physician's assistant or a nurse practitioner. But at that rate, you know, if assuming that with your your ordinary doctor's visit, you're going to be seeing three, four, maybe five staff people in addition to the doctor who will be, it could include a technician. It could include a receptionist, a scheduler, a nurse, somebody to operate some kind of machinery or another, somebody to come and put drops in your eyes or whatever, somebody to take X-rays. With that kind of staff load that the doctors carry. I mean, 4 or 5 doctors in this, you know, in this building they want to build, you're running out of parking spaces. And therefore, I have doubts that the parking demand will be met by the reduced number of 26 parking spaces. I'm not even sure about 31, but at least the 31 complies with the ordinance and we could not question that. I wish the applicant were here and I could ask the applicant whether they had, you know, looked into the question of, you know, how did they determine that 26 was going to be an adequate number of parking spaces to avoid spillover, but they aren't here, it seems to me also that from the in a medical practice, you know, potentially forcing patients to park at some distance from the front door of the building, let alone on the street or in a neighboring property, is a bad idea because you are dealing with people who are sick, people who are injured, people who may be an elderly population. They may be needing to use wheelchairs, walkers, crutches, canes. So I don't think we've been given the right type of information that would support the exception in a case like this. So that's my comment. Whoever's running the screen, can you all put the aerial back up here for us, please? There's a slide that had the aerial photo on it. There you go. Right there. Mr. Bruno, you made some good points. Let me ask some questions of the staff. If I could, please. Miss woods, could you come back up? Is there a street parking on old Shepherd place? There's not. Is there street parking on Preston? No there's not. Okay. And is the property to the immediately to the north of this one. What is that building? That is not a medical office. One second. I believe if I remember your report, there's a there's a screening wall to the east between this property and the multifamily. I don't have that information right now, but I can find it on my on the site plan. It's an office type. Yes, it's an ophthalmologist medical office. Okay. Thank you. Okay. So really, the only place that parking could spill over would be to the into the ophthalmologist office, probably because they're not going to park on. They can't park on the street. Right. And they have that connecting access easement there. So okay. The connecting access easement. All right okay. Thank you. Commissioner Alley, I think you covered essentially agree with Commissioner Brounoff. The only reason why that intrigue our concern is it feels like it's ring fenced, essentially. And the market will determine if that is a successful medical office. If I have to walk across old Shepherd to get to my appointment and dodge traffic or what have you. But given the ring fenced nature and it's not going to be a burden to its neighbors, that's the major reason why I'm open to approving. Commissioner Bronsky. Miss, would, could you go over the process at which the staff looks at the reasons for approval of this and walk me through the what you did to determine the suggestion for approval? Yes. So I'll go to the slide. Miss woods, if I may. I believe you go to the previous site plan. The issue with this is no matter what they build, they need a drive aisle and they need to provide dumpsters. You go to the proposed site plan. They need to provide these basics that any site will need, which squeezes the site down even further. So just to get a productive building out of this site, considering it's, you know, single use single user, we thought that they could self-manage their own parking. So that was really the thought behind the support in this particular instance and that in the site history being that the reason this site worked as such a small lot in the past plans was because it was a subterranean parking garage. We didn't think that was feasible, probably for this site and to today's market. So those two reasons staff was supportive of the request. But if the commission wants that information, we could certainly table and request it from the applicant. So in looking at the four reasons for the analysis, for the approval. Yeah. Beyond what Mr. Bell said, how how do we address these four issues on this site. So I think the biggest one is number two, which is the spillover into any neighborhoods. So the neighborhood to the south is guarded off by a wall in an alley. So you wouldn't be able to just drive across, and you'd have to do a lot of work to go into the neighborhood, walk out of the neighborhood and back to the medical office. So we didn't see any reason why that would be an issue. Number three, they don't have any vehicle storage on the site that's proposed or existing. So that is not applicable. And the site is not under condominium ownership. So that's also not applicable in the first one. Anticipated. It is not in our analysis. It wasn't anticipated to create any parking issues for the surrounding sites because those sites have adequate parking. And you had mentioned that this had gone through the traffic department already. The traffic department does do a review over preliminary site plans. And they felt good about this, right. It's approved by them. All right. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. Yes. In response to the argument about the market, in order for the market to reveal that there's a problem with the project, you'd have to first spend a couple million dollars and build it and then use it for a few months before it's finally apparent that, oops, this isn't working. And then where are you? You are stuck with with a building that's not working. I'd rather use a little foresight and encourage the applicant to either. You know, we could table it and encourage the applicant to come forward with additional information along the lines that I suggested, or deny it, and wait for some more appropriate use to come along for this small lot. So I'm going to. Commissioners. Other comments. Nobody. Okay. We do have a motion and a second on the on the floor for a vote to approve made by Commissioner Bronsky and seconded by Commissioner Ali. So the vote is to support the staff's recommendation and approve the variance. Everybody please vote. Motion passes 7 to 1. Item two. Agenda. Agenda. Item number two is a discussion and action call for public hearing. Request to call a public hearing to consider amendments to the zoning ordinance. To provide procedures for the denial and revocation of certificates of occupancy by the city's building official. The applicant is the City of Plano. This item is for legislative consideration. Good evening commissioners. My name is Jason Gillis with planner with the planning department. This request is to call a public hearing to consider amendments to the zoning ordinance. City Council directed staff to provide procedures for denial and revocation of certificate of occupancy by the building official, and amendments to the Building Code is also anticipated and will be considered separately by City Council staff. Recommends the commission call public hearing for this proposal, and I'd be happy to answer any questions. Is this something that's happening imminent, or is this a month or two out in the future? Do we have an idea of when we'll be having this public hearing? It should. We are currently working through that, but it should be pretty imminent from my understanding. Okay. All right. Any questions for staff on this? Seeing none. Commissioner Bronsky I move we call a public hearing for this particular direction from city Council and have our hearing Commissioner alley second. All right. We have a motion in a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. All right. Any other business before the commission tonight? No, sir. All right, Mr. Bell. No. All right. We stand adjourned at 618. And so you're saving tax dollars, both on the city side and on the school side. Park planners went exploring. They found land for the city's larger parks and some very unlikely places. We had park sites that were ten miles out of town, but they were within the projected city limits of the city of Plano, and they were just out there. They were cornfield or cotton field, no streets near them or anything else. Former parks director Don Wendel remembers an impromptu country drive with his predecessor, Bob Woodruff, behind the wheel. He finally stopped and climbed over a barbed wire fence, walked a few hundred yards to a creek, and Bob said, look around, and said, okay, I'm looking around and said, this is going to be a future park. There was nothing there but trees and the creek and grass, and that park is Hoblitzelle Park today. It's kind of like putting a canoe in the water in a in a river going downstream. If you don't paddle, you don't wind up capsized sideways. Something's going to go wrong down there. So you had to put your oar in the water and paddle. And that's what we did. With guidelines from Springer's comprehensive plan firmly in place, Plano's big boom began. The message was build, build, build, get those fields built. We had, I don't remember, probably 10 or 12 inspectors, and they may have had 30, 40, 50 jobs apiece because we had so much construction going on at the time. My first year as building official, we approved and inspected about around $1.5 billion worth of new construction. But not everyone welcomed that explosive growth. As former city planner Dan Stefko discovered when he put up metal signs announcing proposed zoning changes, all the ones that we put out in West Plano came back with multiple bullet holes. But the comprehensive plan accomplished what it set out to do as scores of new neighborhoods were built, Plano's population grew fast and steady. By 1987, the population soared to 200,000. City leaders continued to embrace the plan with minor changes. We didn't always like each other. There were people that didn't like me and I didn't. They weren't my best friends either. But at the same time, we worked toward the same common goal. So business plan is great. A comprehensive plan is great, but unless you follow it and execute it, then it's really it's just really words and a piece of paper. The comprehensive plan called for many more neighborhoods to be built on the west side of town, but that would change dramatically when Electronic Data Systems founder and CEO Ross Perot approached the city with a game changing vision, Perot sought to create a corporate campus for editors. He would entice two other corporate giants to make the move as well JCPenney and Frito Lay. That would help pay for his company's new headquarters. Ross Perot believed that if we cou