rushes into storm drains, carrying with it everything we leave on our streets, driveways and gutters. Unlike wastewater from sinks or toilets, storm water isn't cleaned in a treatment plant before it flows into our streams, creeks and lakes. That means everything we pour, dump or let drip ends up in our water sources we rely on for drinking and harms aquatic ecosystems. So before you wash. Welcome to the January 20th Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I'll call to order the meeting to order at 6:01 p.m. If you would all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Welcome, everybody. Do we have any comments of public interest tonight? There are no comments of public interest. All right. Let's move to consent agenda, please. Consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items that are typically routine and noncontroversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff Commission. Does anybody wish to pull an item off the consent agenda? Mr. Lingenfelter, I move that we approve the consent agenda as recommended by staff. Mr. Bronsky. Second, 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. Public hearing items, unless instructed otherwise by the chair speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. Presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal considerations. Nonpublic hearing items presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. Presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to insure meeting efficiency, and may include a total time limit. Agenda item number one request to expand and amend urban mixed use one on 160.4 acres of land out of the William Beverly Survey, abstract number 75, in the Samuel Klepper Survey. Abstract number 216. Located at the southeast corner of Plano Parkway and Custer Road in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas, for the following changes to expand the district by rezoning 4.1 acres from Light Industrial one to urban mixed Use one to modify the required mix of uses to allow outdoor commercial amusement, additional multifamily residence units, and single family attached units on certain blocks of the development plan, and to modify other development standards for the district. Presently zoned Urban Mixed Use one and Light Industrial One, and located within the 190 Tollway, Plano Parkway and Expressway Corridor overlay districts. Petitioners. Rosewood Property Company, RPC Walnut, LLC, and CLP Plano, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration. Before you get started, is there a reason this monitor is not on tonight? Is there a. Some some of us depend on it. Sorry to interrupt you. It helps us if we can follow along. There we go. Thank you very much. All right. Sorry to delay. You. Staff. Staff report. Thank you. Chair. Ratliff. Good evening. Commission. My name is Molly Coryell, lead planner with the planning department. Shown on the screen is the subject property of the zoning case, which is the entire Umu one district standing for urban mixed use. here is the associated development plan. Here is the overall. Here is the western portion of the development plan as well as the eastern portion. Major topics of tonight's request include the expansion of the district by rezoning 4.1 acres of adjacent land from Light Industrial one to Umu one for additional single family attached units, as well as modifying the required mix of uses to exceed the standard maximum allowance of any one. Primary use specifically for residential uses and related is reducing the mix of mix of mix of uses. Requirement for nonresidential uses, as well as modifying other development standards for the district, primarily for non residential development standards, and proposing alternative mitigation standards for single family attached units that are within the Expressway Corridor Overlay District. A little bit of history on this case. The Umu one district was originally established in 2014 with primarily residential office and hotel with with additional supportive restaurant and retail uses. In 2017, the district was admitted twice in order to refine use allocation signage requirements, block after block configuration and street layout, and then in 2021, significant changes were made to the Umu one district to demote office as a supportive use or secondary use, and then, along with a greater than 50% reduction in office building heights. Connection A connection to Custer Road was established and the addition of 31 new single family lots. Tonight's requests include expanding the district to rezone Li one property into the Umu one district for the purposes of developing 51 single family attached units. This proposed land use is appropriate for the Umu one district, and reduction in Li one zoning is consistent with the surrounding zoning, which is a mix of Umu one and then single family to the north. The portion of the request that relates to modifying mixes the mix of uses, however. Is. Pardon me? There is a required mix of uses for all urban mixed use zoning districts, and they must contain three or more land use categories, with each category designated as either primary, secondary and tertiary uses. This mix of uses is determined by the total gross floor area of buildings within the district, and calculating the percentage each use. Each use has from there. The Umu one district currently meets the standard mix of use requirements. However, the petitioners requesting that the mix of uses be modified to allow an increase in the maximum percentage of residential uses from 70% as currently allowed to 88%, making it the sole primary use within the district office. Uses were previously approved as a secondary use for the district, but will be considered a tertiary use under the zoning request, along with office along with retail and service uses. Now, as shown on the development plan, which is adopted as part of the zoning, the reductions in the mix of uses. Show an increase from residential uses from 53% to 88%, reducing office uses from 39% to 9%, and there's no significant change to retail or service usage, which is still around 3%. However, there is also the removal of the hotel use, which used to account for 4.8% of the overall district gross floor area as on the currently adopted development plan. The residential element to modifying the mix of uses includes adding 700 multi-family residence units and 51 single family residence attached units. However, with this, there's no additional phasing of open space or nonresidential uses proposed in order to help balance the request, and additionally, the scale, density and mass of the residential buildings surpasses the nonresidential buildings being proposed. The mix of uses and nonresidential elements. This would mean that nonresidential uses would only account for 12% of the gross floor area within the district building. Square footages have been reduced by approximately 86% since the original request, and buildings have a significantly shorter height as well as reduced lot coverage and building area. Overall. The trend as shown on this chart is that there is a reduction in overall square footage for nonresidential uses, as shown in the box in red on the chart. However, there are increases in residential uses, specifically single family and multi-family, as shown in the green box. The reductions are also related to reductions in lot coverage as well as building heights, and this is indicative of becoming a high density neighborhood rather than a mixed use district. The request is modifying other development standards related to primarily nonresidential buildings decrease in lot coverage from 60% from anywhere from 9 to 40% for certain blocks. Building heights decreased to 1 to 2 stories on nonresidential lots, reductions in freestanding nonresidential building sizes, as well as requested. All of these exceptions are not conducive to a mixed use development. For blocks A5 and C, the applicant is requesting to allow for outdoor commercial amusement as an additional permitted use. This use is typically prohibited in the Umu district. However, our definition in our zoning ordinance is quite expansive. It includes outdoor leisure activities such as go karts, mini golf carnivals, things of that nature. However, the proposed exceptions are limiting the outdoor leisure activities to things like table courts and fields, mini golf, other similar leisure activities that don't have those same noise concerns as something like a go cart or a carnival. So we believe staff believes that the use will be complementary to the district and to the adjacent open space, and additionally, all uses will be required to follow all applicable noise and light ordinances as adopted as part of the Code of Ordinances. I'd like to make an amendment to the slide. The slide refers to the blue, the light blue areas, the RCA that's actually the Seqa, the conditional expressway corridor area. However, within the conditional expressway corridor area, it's required that single family attached units be buffered from type A thoroughfares by either a 100 foot landscape buffer or nonresidential buildings of similar or greater height and length to the homes. So that would be the requirement would be applicable to block M, and it's a currently shown as a nonresidential block. And would have to be developed as such in order for the townhomes to meet the requirements of the Expressway Corridor Overlay District. This chart shows our typical and proposed standards for development within the Expressway Corridor Overlay District for residential uses. As you can see, the applicant is proposing to meet the applicable ventilation and noise requirements. However, when it comes to the required separation that I talked about on the previous slide, you can see that the alternative standard being proposed is non-continuous. Nonresidential buildings of a shorter height to the residential structures located on block C, however, with a trees planted in between the buildings in order to help create that buffer. However, the proposed standard does not provide equal mitigation to the typical standard, so staff is not in support of it. There are potential impacts of recent changes in state law. The application was made prior to September 1st, 2025 and is being reviewed under the ordinances adopted at that time. However, the application for development could authorize construction. An application for development could be submitted and authorized construction of residential uses on the site without the need for a zoning change, and would be reviewed under current development regulations. This property is within the Urban Activities Center's future land use category of the Future Land Use Map. For the Urban Activity Center's mix of uses. The proposal results in the following impacts to the recommended Urban Activity Centers. Mix of uses, which creates an increase in the overall housing acreage as well as multifamily types. Increase in attached single family types, which is recommended for the comprehensive plan as well as. Decreases in office types below the recommended range, and thus the proposal is inconsistent with the mix of uses. The request is inconsistent with the intensity recommendation of the Urban Activity Center's desirable Character Defining Elements dashboard, which is related to the proposed reductions in lot coverage. As part of this request. And finally, the request does not meet the undeveloped land policy or actions one, five A, five B, five C, and eight of the Redevelopment and Growth Management Policy. Because the request does not meet the Urban Activity Center's mix of uses or the redevelopment and growth management policy action, eight findings will be required. Staff received 12 responses total within the subject property, nine being in favor, one neutral and two in opposition, and within the 200 foot buffer. Staff received three responses overall, all in favor of the request. Citywide, there was 28 responses received total, including the online responses. To recap the request. The request tonight is to incorporate an area of land currently zoned Light Industrial One for the purposes of developing townhomes and incorporating those townhomes utilizing alternative Expressway Corridor Overlay district standards, modifying the mix of use requirements to exceed the standard allowance for residential as a primary use in both the district and the Comprehensive Plan. Reducing the requirement for nonresidential uses to 12% of the district based on gross floor area, and amending various site design standards which support walkable urban development form consistent with the integrity of the district. Staff's recommendation is that we are supportive of the geographic expansion of the one district, subject to the provision of a revised development plan consistent with the Expressway Corridor Overlay District standards for block C, and per the Comprehensive Plan and Findings policy. The other requested changes to the existing one district are recommended for denial, and 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 PNC wishes to recommend approval to City Council, thank you very much, and I'm available to answer any questions. And the applicant has a presentation as well following the slide. All right. Commissioners, questions of staff. Commissioner Tom, thank you chairman. Great presentation. Thank you. Lots of information lots of words. My question is that mix of uses for umu like the percentages. Right. 75%. Whatever those percentages, when would they the numbers like the mix of the uses. When were they set in the ordinance like was it together with the comprehensive plan or was years before? Like when were they regulated? So the mix of use requirements set forth in the zoning and the Umu one district and trying there are a lot of slides trying to go back. Here we are. So the. Ranges of the percentage of mix of uses set forth in umu one district were adopted prior to the adoption of this comprehensive plan. Mr. Bell can speak on the differences in the comprehensive plans recommendation mix of uses, but this was adopted prior to the Comprehensive Plan is correct. The Umu district. Citywide. The ability to have this district was added to the ordinance in 2012, and that's when those mix of uses were originally established. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Ali. Thank you. A couple of questions. More for education and also clarification. Can you go back to the slide that showed kind of like the timeline of the uses. So in 2021 essentially what we did was we tiered down office as a primary use and made it a secondary. Any recollection. Maybe this is more for Mr. Bell why we did that at that point. At that time in 2021, the market was. I guess, pretty vicious towards office uses, and the request was made based on the current economic viability of that much office in the district. Mr. Bell, correct me if I'm wrong. I believe the applicant could probably speak more to the specifics of their request, but I think that's generally along the line of what was the reasoning. Okay. This is the more for education part. Why do we require hearing in mixed use? Why do we require primary, secondary and tertiary tray of uses? It's to ensure that the district has a viable mix of different uses in order to be truly mixed use. The purpose of the umu district is to provide a community with its own sort of internal economic environment that provides office retail residential and so setting those primary uses and having those primary use requirements and everything ensures that there's a. Acceptable mix of uses within the mixed use district. So that's not dominated by just one primary use category. Add to that mix of daytime and nighttime activities. So the office will often support retail and restaurant during the day, and residents will support it at night. So to help kind of create a cohesive live work, play 24 over seven type of environment, which ties with the urban activity by we're looking for for that particular area. Other question for the L1 isolated island in there, I presume we're not counting it towards when we're looking at the percentage mix and what have you. We're not that doesn't factor into what is office for that area. We're just looking at the particular umu. Yes. Block C isn't counted towards any use right now in the currently adopted Umu one development plan, as it wasn't a part of the district. If it were to be included as part of this request, it would increase the percentage of residential uses within the district. However, the currently adopted development plan only has 53% gross floor area of residential uses. Staff does not believe that the 51 additional townhome units would increase the mix of uses for residential above 70%. It's the 700 multifamily units that really increase the gross floor area to 88%. Okay, good for now. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bronsky. Thank you. Thank you very much for everything you're doing up there. So I have a on the timeline question or timeline I think 16. The so I guess this is going to. The continued erosion of the primary uses. Do you believe that that would there is any case for that being substantially beneficial for the viability of this umu district, specific to the mix of uses and the changes over time? Commissioner Bronsky I'm I'm not I would could you would you mind repeating your question for me I apologize. No, it's fine. My brain isn't always following. Anyway, the continued erosion of the primary and secondary uses to tertiary uses that we're seeing previously and forward when we're talking about substantially beneficial. So my question is, is the continuation of that erosion by moving this along on to another erosion. Does that. Remove the viability of this particular district as it was intended to be? I believe in the staff report staff noted that this reduction in nonresidential uses, in tandem with the increase of residential uses, is not conducive to the purpose of a mixed use district. Specifically, the purpose statement of the urban mixed use district within the zoning ordinance. So then I can deduce from what you're saying that the level to be substantially beneficial to approve this has got to be a pretty high bar for them to be able to have an argument to go against what the staff is suggesting, then, is that correct? I'm not asking you to make a decision. I'm just it would seem to me that for us to sit back here and say that something is substantially beneficial when the staff is looking at us, telling us that the continued erosion causes this particular district to be less viable for the purpose that it was created, seems to me to be a difficult ask. So that was all I was trying to get across there, I understand, so thank you very much. You're welcome. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Does the umu district under city ordinances require a phased development of residential and nonresidential uses in relation to each other? Thank you for that question, Commissioner Brounoff. So, yes, the base umu district does have required phasing. The required phasing is that at the first phase of the development, 10,000ft■!S of nonresidential uses is required to be constructed. They have already met this requirement with the restaurants on block T and the office uses next door. That's the flying fish and the rodeo goat in that area. However, staff recommended to add additional phasing for the western portion of the Umu one district as it related to the request to increase the amount of residential uses in the district above. What the primary what a primary use category can allow. So because they were requesting above 70% of the residential uses, staff recommended that additional phasing be provided for the western portion beyond the base Umu district requirements. As part of this request, and the applicant opted to not include them. Okay, now I also I understand that on the 4.1 acre tract that they're asking to to rezone from light industrial and bring it into the to the umu, they're proposing to build single family attached. Yes. Okay. Now there's another undeveloped portion in this development, and that is the westernmost area of this development abutting Custer Road. Can you tell me what they're planning to build on that? Yes. So along the western portion and let me just pull up. I know it's very hard with this scale, but we have the western portion right here. So closest to Custer Road closest to the PGT. We have a six story office in that corner going up to the corner of Custer and Plano Parkway. There are two nonresidential buildings that are labeled as retail and restaurant, both totaling 10,000 around square feet. Gross square feet. To them going into the district along Dalhart Road, that's at Main Road in the center, you have four story multifamily, three four story multi-family buildings to the north of Dalhart. Two of those are already in construction block. A two lot one is a proposed multifamily building, blocks A4 and A5 to the south part of Dalhart Road are non residential, retail and restaurant buildings with a parking garage and surface parking. Block C, right next to A5 is the retail restaurant, with outdoor outdoor courts currently being shown. And then you have block F, the eastern western portion, I guess the easternmost portion of the western side of the one district is being proposed as multifamily instead of supportive retail and hotel, and all that is is under the current proposal for rezoning. Yes. So as part of the rezoning request, they are adding 700 new multifamily units. So there will be 2000 multifamily units total in the district as opposed to 1300. And then they are modifying the non residential blocks to have less intense of a scale, less dense nonresidential unit uses like retail restaurant. Okay. Thank you. Commissioners. Any other questions of staff. All right. Seeing none. Just a quick correction, miss Carolyn. If I'm missing something, please let me know. But I believe the standard you phasing requirement is 20,000ft■!S of nonresidential instead of 10,000ft■!S. I apologize for th, Mr. Brounoff. Commissioner Brounoff, just so you're aware, the phasing requirement is 20,000ft■!S at the first phase f development, not 10,000ft■!S. Thank you for that correction, Mr. Bell. All right. So I know the developer has a presentation. Let me open the public hearing first. So we'll open the public hearing. And I believe the applicant has a presentation for us as well. So. This. Mr. Dahlstrom, I think you know the drill. Okay, Mr. chair Commission, my name is Bill Dahlstrom, 2323 Ross Avenue. And thanks, staff. We've been working with staff for, you know, we've been visiting them for over a year and a half. We filed this case last spring. A lot of I think we had 8 or 9 rounds of comments and concessions that we made to get to this point. It's obviously a very difficult case because of the market, because of what's gone on on the site. And as Molly mentioned, the issues with the comprehensive plan, but it's been a privilege and an honor for me to have represented Rosewood since 2014 on this project. And it is a very, you know, important project in the city. And it is a well recognized project in the region. When people tell you about Heritage Creekside, they know it's in Plano. So with me tonight, Tim Harris and Kay Adkins with with Rosewood are both here as well. And as you can see what we're doing is trying to take a the undeveloped portion of Heritage Creekside and make it a usable tract of land, inviting entertainment residential extension of what has already been successfully completed over on the east side. And I know Commissioner Bronsky had asked the question about the viability of the district. If this is not if this is not approved, well, the viability of the district is is cratered. You just can't develop the project because we are subject to providing so much office space in order to continue to the next phase of development, and there is no market for that office. Rosewood has held this property looking for office uses for 12 years and it's just not there. So we thought that the best thing to come back was an extension of the east side of the of the Heritage Creek side, which is an extremely beautiful, very successful development. We're all familiar with Rosewood, extremely high quality developer, extremely high quality developer. They have they are visionaries. They they took a tract of land that was, quite frankly, designated for warehouse and office spaces. And they created one of the most significant mixed use developments in the region. They wanted to develop a legacy development. They didn't want to just go ahead and develop what was permitted on the zoning. Basically, they had opportunities to sell and get rid of it. They decided not to do there because they are long, long term holders in the city. They have been in the city for decades, 50, 60, 70 years. They've owned much of the land. They intend on continuing to hold this. They still own much of the Heritage Creek side, the retail, they're going to continue to do that. They're going to continue to be a good corporate citizen and city partner. Again, these are some of the higher quality developments. I'm sure you all are familiar with the mansion, Rosewood Court, the Crescent, all high quality developments that Rosewood has developed. And again, this is this is the blank slate we started with back in 2014. And what's prominent there is that little carve out the little donut hole in the middle with the little industrial building. You know, Rosewood made a commitment to the city and to the neighbors to do a high quality mixed use development. The evolution of the development has been from east to west. You know, we met with the neighbors back in 2014. We had some really long meetings with the neighborhood back then when we came in and first started this project and proposed it, and we made a commitment to them back then that we would come in with retail uses, we would come in with unique restaurants. We did other things like putting a separator between the our development and the neighborhood over at Wynwood. So there wasn't a cut through that. Those were all things that we went over and beyond. At least the Rosewood went over beyond that. They were not required to do at that time, but they wanted to be a good neighbor. They, you know, quite frankly, the folks who live in the neighborhoods are going to be our customers. We want to be good to the neighborhood. So they did follow through on some of those commitments, and they did provide a mix of uses, a mix of of of residential types. And we are continuing to propose that on this western portion and I take exception, this is a mixed use development. We are proposing residential. We are proposing entertainment as well. And as many of us have seen the evolution of mixed use developments over the last ten years has included an entertainment component. If you look at some of the larger, more recent mixed use developments, they are all they all have a entertainment component. That's what we're trying to do as well. And as you can see in the yellow, the yellow portion on the the lower plan shows our undeveloped land. And then you can see the L-shaped from the Lee, which we are, we have acquired we it's currently zoned Lee. And we are proposing to bring it in for the townhomes. For sale townhomes. But let's talk about Heritage Creekside. This is a landmark in the city in the region. IT people know where Heritage Creekside is. It was a, you know, a commitment to quality, a quality mixed use development that was made way back when. And they have received awards for the Heritage Creekside. You know, there's been significant connectivity. I heard that this wasn't as much of a walkable development. We we started with a walkable development. We are going to continue that walkability through the proposed development. We have provided obviously high quality restaurants. That was one of the things we were committed to do back in 2014. We took a drainage feature that was basically the creek at the back, or just actually was a conveyance of water and painstakingly made some significant changes to that. And I think it's a again, we've created a place as well. But getting back to the creek, this is I like showing this because this is what Rosewood does. They infuse quality in their development. They took the creek, as you can see, the gabion walls over to the left. They could have left the gabion walls there and created the development and let a brush grow over the gabion walls. They engaged. I don't know what kind of artist you'd call them, but an artist who came in applied material to the gabion walls. And as you can see, they carved out features that look like natural limestone. So that's what you see there when you go there today. Rosewood did not have to do that. We are proposing to continue that same level of quality with this new development. And again, it's basically what we're proposing is an expansion, if you will, completion of Heritage Creekside. It is walkable. Absolutely. It is walkable. We have installed we're proposing trails. We are taking advantage of the creek system. We're providing more mixed housing, you know, and this is, quite frankly, responsive to the market. You know, the the what you see here is a comparison between what's approved and what we're proposing. There is just not that market for the for the office. We are proposing something that is an extension of something that is highly successful in this, in this area, you know, we will introduce restaurants and entertainments. We're going to, again, put more of a focus on that Creek feature now and again. Here's a another comparison. The plan on the top is what's been approved. The plan on the bottom is what we're proposing. And as you can see on the lower side, we are taking that creek and we're making it one of our features for the entertainment area as well. We are moving left to right, the red rectangles at the northwest corner of Custer and Park Plano Parkway. Those are proposed retail and restaurants. The blue rectangle at the bottom is a proposed office we're still maintaining to provide a 250,000 square foot office opportunity there. We have multifamily in the orange yellowish orange figures, and you can see the red along the south side of Dalhart. Those are our restaurants and retail opportunities. Again, more of a focus on the plaza areas that you see in the beige as well as the the creek system. Over on the right side, you can see the 51 proposed townhome units, and in blocks L and M. This came up because we're not we're not proposing one long 200 foot building. That would be the buffer between 190 and block Z. Our townhomes. We have a user who wants to come in and propose condominium offices like this. They have done them in other, other parts of the region. This is what they want to do. They are ready, willing and able to start that very quickly actually. So. A lot of this is being done because we've got users and we've been talking to users. You know, we're going to activate the street. Part of our plan is for plazas between the retail buildings and Dalhart. And we've got requirements to activate those streets. And again I mentioned the the outdoor commercial amusement I guess is the technical term for the the use. This shows the the comparison between the open space, between what's approved and what's proposed. The plan on the top shows what's approved, the plan on the bottom. It's noticeable that we're providing more usable open space and plaza areas. With the proposed plan again, taking that creek, turning it in from just a conveyance of water to an amenity and orienting buildings and outdoor commercial amusements along those that creek. Again, this is another perspective. What's in front of you is the 190. You're looking into the site, and you can see again how from this concept, we would take advantage of the creek and use the creek like we did over on the east side of the development. We saw this drawing earlier, basically shows block Z, the proposed additional 51 units. And again this is block M. This is the type of development we're proposing on blocks L and M, which is again a office condominium concept where you probably have professionals owning a space in the in the condominium regime. You know, dentist, maybe lawyers, doctors. But that's the type of development we're proposing for this area. And some aspirational images of the of the type of environment we're proposing with the restaurants and outdoor commercial amusement. This is the Ludlow. It's built this received the 2023 Dallas Business Journal multifamily deal of the year. It's a very nice building. Again, it shows the quality of development that Rosewood has done there and what they're proposing, interior and exterior. On the lower left corner, co-working space in lower right corner. The pool amenities and other recreational amenities. This is the Buckley, which is under construction. Same level of of quality and amenities for this development. And again, what we're proposing is an extension of what's already been done. And we think this is consistent with the the purpose of the Ummu by we're promoting social interaction by providing this mix of uses, a community identity. We're expanding this significant community identity of Heritage Creekside throughout the city. It's an efficient use of land and resources. We have a variety of transportation options. We do have hike and bike trails throughout the development. We extended the city's bike trail, hike and bike trail along Plano Parkway as well. Again, the states that one of the purposes is that high density residential is appropriate in these areas. The. As far as the comprehensive plan goes, the some of the core principles, this development will protect and preserve the well-established development that's already occurred there. The the east side of of Heritage Creekside and what's occurred on the west side of heritage on the west side of Heritage Creekside, the existing multifamily. We're going to compliment those uses and provide more retail. That's consistent with the high quality Heritage Creek site. With regard to the guiding principles, this development does enhance the quality of life, both in the near term and the and the long term of citizens. By providing this mix of uses, by providing the retail, the outdoor, commercial, amusement and complementing what's already been done, and actually providing needs or answering needs for residents that are already there. It promotes a community that is safe, engaged and rich in recreational opportunities. Again, as far as substantially beneficial, it is substantially beneficial to the immediate neighborhood and surrounding communities because it does provide this mix of uses. That is important, and it does provide the connectivity among all those uses. Quickly running out of time. But again, as far as the adequacy of public facilities, you know, as I stated in the staff report, these are all satisfied. You know, there are numerous benefits from this development as well. You know, we're providing another very important space, placemaking, an extension of a very successful development. You know, Rosewood, you've got a developer who has made significant commitments to the city, and they're proposing to continue those commitments to the city. You know, they followed through with neighborhood requests. We've got a plan that we actually can implement with that major office requirement. It's just not implementable. And the district does hurt. We're providing more walkable and cohesive mixed use design. You know, we're we are retaining an office opportunity. We think that is important in the long run. We're bringing in more mixed residential types. And again, we are reducing the amount of traffic that's generated from the site compared to what's already approved. So we really again, we'd like to thank staff for their assistance. This has been a very long process. It's a difficult case. Mr. Harris is here to answer any questions with me that you may have. But again, thank you for your time and your attention. And we respectfully request approval of this application. Commission questions of the applicant. Mr. Tong. Thank you, chairman. Thank you for the presentation. I'd like to pictures. They look very pretty. Question. Regarding the one comment that I heard from the staff is that the staff has required the nonresidential building 20,000ft■!S I guess non residential building to be built before the residential. Is that the requirement that you couldn't meet? What was the reason of the phasing? Yeah, yeah. The standard we are a you we are the first umu. The, the umu requires a 20,000 square foot nonresidential component with residential development, which we exceeded that over on the east side with, you know, when we went in, they did that corner of retail on spec. So they, they didn't have anybody to move in at that point. They had two restaurants, which, you know, the flying fish and the rodeo goat and the middle space, as many of you know, sat vacant for a long, long time. And they had a lot of opportunities. A lot of folks come in and say they wanted to go in there. They wanted to find the right, use the right restaurant for that site. Not quite frankly. I think they did. And I'll just leave it at that. But they have provided the, you know, the 20,000ft■!S pursuant to the umu. They it's they exceed the 20,000ft■!S now on the west sid, you know, they are looking at bringing in the office condo quickly so that I don't know how big that would be, but that's that's included the retail. We are currently talking to users, the multifamily. I think we're pretty well ready to get started with that. Tim, do you have any other further responses to that? Thank you. Nail on the head. But we we did we did we Tim, if you could if you could just name and address real quick. For the record, Tim Harris with Rosewood Property Company at 2101 Cedar Springs Road. Thank you. We we have put in about a little bit over 24,000ft■!S of retail up at the corner. And as Bill mentioned, almost all of that was spec that was really important in the neighborhood. You know, just to our north, we've worked with for years on our plans. So yeah, that's the we've done that portion of it. Okay. So you have met the requirements. Yes. Thank you. If I can clarify, asked us to do another amount of that for the undeveloped portion. That was the request. And our response was, hey, we put in 24,000 to date. We think that's sufficient. We're coming to do more. That's why we're here. So. Thank you. Commissioner Brounoff. Yeah. Thank you. Yeah. I'm looking at your proposal for the western portion with the the office condos, the retail, the restaurants, the limited office. And I'm thinking. That, you know, to make this worth considering. I mean, all of the nonresidential presently is concentrated over on the extreme eastern edge of the project. And does not necessarily communicate well with that long strip of residential that extends from there to the west, because it's located at one end. But now you're proposing additional nonresidential at the western end, which potentially might add more balance to the mix of nonresidential with the residential, make it, you know, accessible to the Western residents. But my feeling is to make that, you know, worth considering. If you're going to propose it, you should commit to it. And that would call for some phasing. So I would be interested to see if you could, like, work with staff and come up with some phasing for the the new nonresidential that you're proposing. Is there a question for them or is that. Yeah, that's a suggestion okay. Yeah. All right. All right. Commissioner Olli. I'll actually piggyback of what Commissioner Bruno said. Given in your earlier phase of development, you met and exceeded. We'll grant that the 20,000 nonresidential. I am. Curious why there will be heartburn if we are looking at this undeveloped land, as this is a new phase, so to speak. Why would there be heartburn mid in the 20,000 nonresidential first to before you activate the the residential portion similar to what Commissioner Brounoff is speaking about. To be honest, we're at a stalemate because what we have to develop is office, and we're stuck in putting ourselves in that position again where we would be stuck. Installed again is a real big concern of ours, and we have active negotiations going on with different retail groups that we're trying to get executed. But they are all curious as to how our zoning case is going right now. But the the truth is, we feel like we've done a lot of retail out in front, and we don't want to get stuck by another use like we have in the past. For instance, the office. What do you mean, stuck? So if you look at the very top approved part right here, what you see is we can't go from where we have developed. We cannot go from right to left because of office. We're supposed to go from right to left. On the top, north west corner. That is an office. The southwest corner is an office. The southern part is hotel and office. Then we have hotel, two story retail with a massive garage and an office. So right now we're stalled out on development because we can't move forward on office. We've tried for 12 years. I don't know how many developers or owners get zoning and try it for 12 years and then come back and ask. I think that's probably pretty rare. We have tried with three office developers over the last years. We've been through two comp plans. We've had the expressway corridor enacted, and we've been through a pandemic before and after we were trying to get office done here. So committing to doing a phasing part is kind of leaving us up to get burned again and being in stalling out. We would like to do the retail first. I think it benefits the neighborhood. That is our goal. But being obligated to do it and stalling out further if it falls through or whatnot is our major concern. Maybe this is a question for Mike. Would, since the language is phasing 20,000ft■!S of non residential with building out retail first meet that requirement versus holding it to be an office build. Yes that was that was staff's request is to phase in the retail that they were proposing in order to unlock the multifamily units. Okay. So I'm back to the stock comment if we can if staff is basically proposing, you can build out the retail, hold off on the office, lock up, unlock the residential. What's the heartburn on accepting phasing? Commissioner Olli, if I can add to Mr. Bell's comment and maybe to explain Mr. Harris's comment, then the umu, there's a requirement that buildings have to be constructed within a certain distance of an already constructed building, so you can't hopscotch around the development. Is that what you're referring to, Mr. Harris? Yeah. So certain blocks can't be. What? That's the sticking point. That's the. That's. Yeah. They can't they can't hop to a block that's too far away from an already developed area. They can't go all the way to Costa then come back. And you guys don't want a building in a field by itself. Right. And 150 acres. That's. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you for that. Retail along with two other questions. Open space. You guys are right now at 9.1 or 9.4. I can remember my own notes. Can you speak to. I get leery about open space from a percentage where it's not usable. Right. It's just greenfield. But if I walk in there, I fall into a ditch kind of deal. What can you speak to? What? How you're activating the open space. The 9.1 is close to the ten. I would love it to be at ten, but we'll we'll settle for nine. But can you speak to what you're doing to actually make the open space something that is usable for the tract of land? Yeah, absolutely. I love that you asked this. Okay. So at the very top of this is our approved plan, you can see we have a lot of open space at Custer. Really. This was almost used as setback. I wouldn't say that people are out here walking their dogs along Custer or riding bikes or doing much of anything. These were setbacks to office properties, and in this attempt, this amendment, we really wanted to try to take up the creek and capture a lot of that. So that's why you see on the bottom portion a lot of the green growing along that block, block Y, block G. And you can see in this chart up here on the top right, we have 6.77 acres of open space. This is just for the undeveloped portion. We actually are creating more open usable space. When you take into account the added over half an acre of plaza space we're incorporating, which is the orange part next to the green. So the idea is that we are creating these restaurants with patios and plazas in between, the sense of place to hang out, let your kids run around, all that kind of thing along the creek side. And that is more programable if you look up to the northern part of it, you know, block G and block Y, we're not going to be as thoughtfully incorporated. Neither were was everything in block eight or A2 or A3. So I think we are really making a very large effort to really incorporate this open space to be programed and and active. But some of, to be honest, some of it is really labeled plaza instead of open space because we're spending more money than just leaving it open space. But the plaza doesn't contribute to open space calculations. And we're we agreed to incorporate into the stipulations, monetizing that plaza spaces as well. So it's not like they're going to be empty. They're going to they're going to have amenities in them as well. Okay. Last question. There's a comment in the staff report about. Not this development, not contributing to the diversity of housing stock in in the city. And I, I might be reading into the comment, it sounds like staff proposed some diversification of the build to you all, and it was not necessarily taken up. Not I mean, I don't recall that. I mean, we are we are proposing additional townhomes for sale. Townhomes. We are proposing housing. And I think there is a need for housing, the type of housing we're proposing. But we are proposing a a diversity of housing types. Did I read that wrong? I apologize, Commissioner Olli, I'm trying to find in the comp is was it in the comp plan analysis that you saw that I believe it was. Okay, let me hold that for now while I find my notes and thank you. All right, Commissioner Bender. Thank you. Chairman, I just want to add a little bit of perspective. I was on planning and zoning back in. I was on planning and zoning back in 2014 when we developed and approved this development. And from our perspective, back then, Collin Creek was dead and dying. So this was a very different looking area of the city at the time. And we had a meeting much like this, and we had residents from the neighboring community come to the meeting, and overwhelming number of them were in support of the development because they said it would revitalize their neighborhood. So when this development was started, it was a very different looking area than it looks today. Very different atmosphere in the city. And again, I think, you know, we've had Covid, we've had some comp plan changes and. You know, as I see it, this is our opportunity to work with this developer on some of these things that may not fit exactly, but to get something that is beneficial to the city and to the neighborhood. So those are my comments. So do you have a question for the developer? No. No question, no question. Just a comment. Because I think perspective wise, we're sitting here in 2026 and wondering how we got here and why this is not complete. But it started back in 2014, in a very different environment. Thank you. Commissioner Lingenfelter. I was going to just kind of reiterate and just kind of ask a little bit more about the phasing thing. Again, I hate to harp on it so much, but I know I shared a similar concerns that Commissioner Bronsky and and Commissioner Alley both voiced and and now that I understand that you can't hopscotch over things, it makes a little more sense. However, you do have retail on that south side, quite a bit of red buildings there at the bottom. Is there a can you reconsider or look at? Because ultimately we want to make sure that that retail and that the non residential uses do happen. We think it's important for the viability of it overall. And I know you guys have alluded to it especially the retail. I know you're you got the heartburn with the office. But we're really speaking more about the retail. Anyways. It's been very successful there with your high end restaurants that you've talked about and everything. And I think continuing that retail on the South Side and allowing that street to go all the way down to Custer also provides a nice accessibility vehicular wise for the whole site overall. So, you know, I think that gives you opportunities there. So, you know, again, why does it give you heartburn and maybe start there with that retail first and get that street all the way to Custer. And then you can start looking at the multifamily and stuff. Yeah. We have been talking to to restaurants. Nothing's in concrete yet. And I think the last thing we want, and I think the last thing the city would hopefully would want, would be to build a retail building just for the sake of building a retail building and letting it sit empty, a retail building sitting, sitting empty in the city. That doesn't make sense to us. We think there should be a cause and effect, that we have somebody who wants to go in and build a building, and that would allow us to I mean, you know, that kind of phasing inhibits our ability to to do what's right and to continue the, the residential and the other uses. Well, I think you mentioned earlier that you were talking to some retailers and they were interested, but they wanted to find out, hey, how is the zoning going? How is your zoning case going? Well, I think there's going to be some favorable people on board here. If we know that that retail is coming and you're committed to it. Yeah, I would say that. I would say that I'm I understand the concern. And, you know, I would be amenable to before we could build the block A2 zoning that we do the A2 retail. But I would I would propose leaving the southern side of the site as it is so that we can we can build out something that is very important to these retailers is heads in beds. They need the critical mass. So I mean, I'm hoping that that works with you. I can tell you what we can control blocks L and M is under contract for that use. I think there's actually a comment that was made like, hey, we're not satisfying the expressway corridor portion for block Z. And I just want to point out if we did a two story building height that was contiguous along block N in order to satisfy that requirement, you couldn't park it in the city standards. So there is no way for me to actually satisfy the townhome expressway corridor outside of asking for some relief like we've done. And I just if we did two stories and it was a it was at least 40ft wide, the the square footage of that building would require a parking count. That's probably below what we can even provide. Also, that's something that's hurting us on block M is, you know, we actually gave a really long, wide easement for y'all's. The City of Plano's utilities along that. And that's really made that that block hard to develop because we got a further back setback. So block block L and M I feel really proud that we have something there actually some office use to come in right there. And and I'll say that that block Z that we're asking to add into the umu is light industrial. And that was for sale for outdoor storage. And we bought that site at a very hefty price in order to preserve the neighborhood, because we felt like that was extremely detrimental. And to be honest, we probably make no money. We probably lose some money turning into townhomes because industrial land costs more than our townhome land. So I just providing a little bit of color of some of the contributions that will happen before any of these other uses really come in. That's that's what we're trying to do. So but if, if, if doing the the retail along with block A2 with the multifamily block A2 gets everyone comfortable I think we can we can work on that. I would really request that the southern portion remain as is. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner Brounoff? Thank you. Hypothetical question along the lines of considering both sides of this issue. Okay. If the Commission should choose. To deny your proposed amended development standards, would you still want the the four acre light industrial lot to be rezoned as part of the Umu? I don't know if we could answer that question, because we're looking at it at the totality of the project. I think we would have to do an analysis. I couldn't answer that question right now. Yeah. Could either one of you answer that? So your question is, could you just could you just zone block Z in and of itself and incorporate that into the umu? Yeah. Without doing anything, without doing anything else. Yeah. Sorry. Without doing anything, without approving the rest of your proposal. We're looking at it as the full picture. I don't I don't think we even got past thinking about it more than that. I don't know. I don't think so. Other questions? No, no more questions. Okay, Commissioner. Olli, I just want to go back to what you just said. So. And if I'm putting words in your mouth, let me know. You're saying if. An amenable phasing is for block A eight A2. To anchor the building of the residential part of that block to the retail, first, it will have to go at the same time. The reason being is I'm parking that retail within the multifamily garage, which is what you guys want, and district that we don't have as much surface parking. So the parking for that retail exists within the multifamily garage. Correct. But there is to do them at the same time. Agreed. But there is there are levels within the city where we can tie the seal of the residential to the completion of the retail. Yes. So in a, in a different, lesser city, I would say I have we have before said you have to get the CEO, the shell CEO of the retail space, before you can get the CEO of the multifamily space, if that makes sense. So we would build it at the same time. That's what I would propose here. So we build the parking for the retail along with the multifamily. We build the retail. At the same time, I we cannot occupy that multifamily until we have their certificate of occupancy for that retail. The Shell Co, the certificate. I'm going to jump in here real quick just because I think we're headed down a path where we're negotiating from the dais, and I don't want to do that. No offense, Commissioner. And so just an observation and a question for you all. Do you all feel like if you had a couple of more weeks, we could work with staff and come up with what I'm hearing from the commission across the board is a desire for some phasing. Do y'all? If y'all had a couple more weeks to go back and work on this with staff, do you believe you could get to a compromise solution? Or is it your desire to push forward tonight? We've been working on it for 18 months. I would really like to push forward, but. Yeah, I mean. I'll be frank. I'd rather get a recommendation of approval, so I understand, I get that. Okay. Commissioner Bronsky. Sorry, Commissioner. Alli, can I ask a question of staff? Just to clarify? Yeah, you still have the. You still have the floor. So the U district, which comprises this property and I believe the property to the north or what have you. Hypothetically, if we approved this, is there enough? Urban activity in the rest of that portion that keeps this district close to you, or does it turn it into suburban activity? So the comprehensive future, the comprehensive plan, future land use map, I don't believe staff has any plans to amend in order to change the future land use category from the urban activity centers to Suburban Activity District. I'm not I'm not saying we amending it. I'm saying if we approved this, if I look at the UA as a whole, how close does this go to violating the that larger land use? The numbers that were presented in the presentation and in the report are based on the entire urban activity center, including Collin Creek Mall and the corner there at PG and 75. Gotcha. One, one last question. The condo offices, how do we categorize them? Do they fall under retail or office? They fall under office. Office. Okay. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Bronsky, gentlemen, thank you so much for your presentation today, Mr. Dahlstrom. I counted eight times where you referenced the commitment of Rosewood and over the time for this. And so I guess my first question is back to when Mr. Bender mentioned this. You had overwhelming support from the community in 2014 for the commitment that you agreed to with the city and all of the residents at that time. Do you guys feel like what you're proposing today fulfills that commitment that you made in 2014? I think to an extent it does. For example, first of all, we're we have less traffic generated from this development. Second of all, we did we did follow through with the commitment to provide unique restaurants on the site and to provide that retail on spec. I don't know many developers who would do that. We did do the blocking, the Inwood connection. We did do that. So yes, I think to a great extent we have pursued those commitments. The land use mixes, I guess where you're going, things change. I've got a couple questions about that, not just the mixes, but we can certainly start with the mixes. If I go beyond block M. What commitment am I seeing? Commitment directly? Am I seeing to the fulfillment of the office and professional use beyond block M? We've got a building at the southwest corner along Custer. That's let's call 250,000 square foot office opportunity. We we want to maintain that opportunity. Yes, I understand the word opportunity, but we have one, two three four five six office opportunities now. And we're getting rid of five of them. So my question is what commitment are we seeing beyond an opportunity for that office and professional use beyond block M? I don't know if I follow you, I mean where are we looking? So my question is, in 2014, you made a commitment to office and professional use facilities on this for the urban mixed use. Right. The umu right. So my question is an opportunity is one thing, but a commitment is another. And I love the idea that you're using commitment because commitment is important to me. So my question is beyond block M what commitment are we seeing to an office going in. Or a professional use facility going in? Well, we still have it on the plan. I mean, well, you had six on the plan previously when you made the first commitment in 2014, and a lot has happened since 2014. I'm not disagreeing. There's no no office market to justify that number of office buildings. I'm not disagreeing with you. My question, though, is to call it an opportunity only means that you can come back again and say, hey, we've decided that we can't fulfill that commitment that we made in 2016, just like we couldn't in 2014 and 2021. So that was my question, was I was driving at what commitment do we see for that beyond calling it opportunity other than it being on the plan, I don't know who who would make that kind of commitment. Well, period. Sure. My next question was, as it related to. Well, I frankly would like and I think I would say that I agreed with some of the things that we're hearing here. The phasing opportunities, I believe, I believe can be met. And I would strongly encourage that. You guys might consider taking some time and allowing yourself to work with the city staff to find some phasing requirements, and it might be more amenable to me at least. Thank you. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? All right. We are still in a public hearing. I believe we have one other registered speaker. Gentlemen, thank you very much. If we have any other questions, we'll call you back up. Thank you for being here. We have one other registered speaker. I do have one registered speaker, Mr. Justin Bennett. Mr. Bennett, if you're here. You introduce yourself and your address, please, when you come up. Good evening. I'm Justin Bennett. I live at 1504 West Lake Drive in Plano, so I live in the neighborhood immediately north of where this development is. And I do recall back in 2014 when we got involved and heard about their plans and stuff, I know I was talking with one of my neighbors, and one of the key concerns he has is one of the concessions that we made back when the discussions were made in 2014 was the the block Li one that's now being zoned for multi-family residential use. That was a concession that was agreed upon that that was not going to happen. So that's a that's a big concern to me and my neighbors. I've got at least, you know, five neighbors that I've talked to today that are all against it. So I appreciate the board's consideration and honoring the citizens around there that are saying that we don't want more multi-family use right there. It changes the demographics. It changes the value of our housing and it and it affects traffic. I mean, you can't tell me that adding 2000 family units is not going to increase traffic because it does. There's cars. There's no way around it. You add 2000 family units. That's increasing traffic. All right. Thank you for your time. Thank you very much for being here. Right. Do we have any other registered speakers? There are no more registered speakers. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Reserve the comments to the commission. Commissioners. Thoughts? Commissioner al-Ali, seem like I still see. It's, you know, like I have an issue with the. This is more residential than mixed use development. And now especially with the retail at the back, very low density, especially on like 190. To me it's still like it's I'm having a hard time justifying it. As a, as a mixed use development and urban mixed use development. Okay. Commissioner Ali. The sticking point here is. Urban, which implies higher density. Quite frankly, which in some funny way is a little bit if we play out the full impact of urban that is actually more multifamily, if I'm not mistaken, it's more high rise, it's more density per acre and what have you. And I'm also. In 2014 or 2021, rather sorry, when market conditions shifted. This board and the city. I think I might have been on the board at that time. My memory doesn't stretch that far. We. We have shown flexibility to adjust the land use to meet the reality of the situation on the ground. From a market market perspective. The other thing that again, back to keeping the, for lack of a better word, the suburban nature of the city that we're in. I am struggling to see how the proposed is not a better version of that guiding principle than what the approved was. I'll leave that as my comments for now. I'm still chewing on a couple of things, but this looks like it activates the land in a way that fits a little better with the market conditions and quite frankly, fits a little better with the. The character of what we're we should maybe should be looking at for that tract of land especially. And I with the conversion of them buying the that L1 portion for single family attached. That to me is a. It looks like it goes along the part of what we look for from a city perspective of developers that work take their time to work hand in hand, almost to understand what the city needs today and in the future. But I'll leave that for now. Okay, I have a kind of a question for the staff. What I'm what I'm hearing from the commission, kind of across the board is, is a real concern about phasing, which I think goes to a concern about, you know, what order these things would happen in and if there would be additional changes in the future. I know there are a lot of other concerns about this project as a whole, but if do you all believe that if you had some phasing in there, it would substantially change or even change at all the staff recommendation if there was phasing included in the plan? Well, findings would still be required as part of the change in the mix of uses based on intensity for the character defining elements. And I believe GM eight would still apply if I'm not mistaken. However, staff did recommend phasing requirements to the applicant and they did not want to pursue them. But staff did favor adding phasing requirements to the request as it would benefit the increase in residential uses in the district. I think it's an improvement. I don't think the retail that they're proposing to phase is the significant retail staff. Standard operating procedure is anytime there's a request like this to ask for nonresidential, an open space to be committed to in the first phases before additional residential allowances are granted. What discussions were with staff and the applicant was more that the the retail and the outdoor commercial amusement area was going to be the key focus, the key selling point of this development. And so while I don't think it changes staff's recommendation, if the commission is leaning that way, that's the area that staff would emphasize phasing rather than the corner of Custer and Plano Parkway. Okay. I realize it's not the applicant's. The applicant wants a favorable recommendation tonight. I, I, I think my what I'm hearing from the commission is I feel like we need a couple of weeks to work on a phasing to go back and reconsider a phasing plan, work with the staff to see if we can come up with a plan that addresses some of the Commission's concerns, as well as the staff concerns. I know it's not your first choice, but I think I guess my question would be, is that a two week process or is that a 30 day process? If we were to table this for a period of time, how much time do you think we might need to do that? I would at least 30 days. So March 2nd at minimum. I believe there's more time, but two weeks would not be enough time. Yeah, I agree with Mr. Bell. I just didn't know what else you had on your desk right now. So it sounds like a few things. Okay. All right. Those are. Those are my thoughts right now, Commissioner. Olli, let me let me get some more commission comments. And then we may ask you to come back up and answer that more of a question, maybe more for staff. If we go ahead and approve with the stipulation to the motion requiring phasing as articulated, the the core residential with the entertainment, what have you as a stipulation to the approval does that, you know, buy you 30 days of your life back essentially and give them enough to go work with? Is that an option? I think we would want to take a break to determine what that number would be. Okay. Commissioner Bender, thank you. Chairman. I agree with a lot of the comments from Commissioner Alley in terms of kind of the direction and your comments about tabling so that we can get the right sequence. I think it's I think they have done a lot. And to my comments earlier, there's a lot that has changed since this development started, both with the market and changes that we've made from the city perspective. So I would encourage that because I think we can I think we can get there if we take a break, so to speak. Mr. Bruno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. chairman, I agree with your with your idea. It's also what I was thinking at the time. I would just point out that. If something can be worked out from the standpoint of phasing, I wouldn't want it just to be attached to a motion of approval tonight. I would want it in writing as part of the development plan. Okay. With specific numbers, I would also point out that if that happens and the staff would come back to us with its recommendation, I have seen in the past a a distinction between the staff recommending denial of a project and simply pointing out that it that there are inconsistencies of the with the proposal compared to the comprehensive plan without actually using the the D word. Okay. And that is an option that the staff can consider at the time. Okay. Yes, sir. Yeah. Commissioner Bronsky. So although that sounds good, Mr. Bruno, there are some very specific language in our current comprehensive plan that requires our staff to provide the D word, whether some of these other things are accomplished or not. But in fact, there is a clarification that there are certain things that require it. Right. Thank you. So I would I would agree with just about everybody else. I guess I'll let them come back up before we make a motion. But I've got a couple ready. Okay. So for the applicant, if y'all don't mind, I realize it's been 14 years. I'm hoping one more month doesn't change that. That commitment to the city of Plano. I think we've owned it since the 70s. So. So waiting until March, you would be open to that suggestion if we can. Okay, then I'm going to make a motion. We table this until the March 2nd meeting and ask that the applicant and the staff get together and work on a phasing plan for the non residential units to trigger the release of the multifamily units and see if we can come to a solution for representation to the to the Commission. Mr. Bronsky second. All right. Commission, any comments about the motion? All right. We have a motion and a second to postpone consideration of this with specific direction to the applicant and staff to the March 2nd meeting. Please vote. Second spring break visit. I'll be here now. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you very much. Thank you all. We'll see you back here in March very much. All right. Agenda item two A or read two A and two B at the same time. Please request to amend agenda item number two a request to amend plan development. 189 Retail General Office on 113.9 acres of land out of the Denton Derby survey. Abstract number 260. Located at the southeast corner of Preston Road and Park Boulevard in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas. To add independent living facility as a permitted use with modified development standards for maximum number of units, additional height, reduced setbacks, and increased landscape edges. Additional permitted use being limited to a specific 6.3 acre lot at the southwest corner of Park Boulevard and Ohio Drive, presently zoned, is planned development 189 retail general office with specific use permits number 229 for private club Preston Park Limited and Patricio's restaurant number 455 for Daycare center. Number 601 for public storage. Mini warehouse number 649 for private club and located within the Preston Road Overlay District. Petitioners Creek Plano Trust this item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number two B Preston Park Fitness Center block A lot one an independent living facility on one lot on 6.3 acres, located at the southwest corner of Park Boulevard and Ohio Drive. Zoned planned development 189 retail general office located within the Preston Road Overlay District. Petitioners Creek, Plano Trust This item is for administrative consideration pending. Agenda item number two A all right. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. My name is John Kim, senior planner with the planning department. Here is the locator map for this site. So this site is located at the West Park Boulevard, Preston Road, Ohio Drive and old Shepherd place. This is the in yellow the whole boundary of the PD. PD 189. In the top right corner you will see in blue the subject property that we are discussing that the applicant is proposing. And then here is the concept plan for the site. So as part of this request the applicant is requesting to amend PD 189 Retail General Office to allow independent living facility with modified development standards. The proposed development is limited to that 6.3 acre as shown in the previous slide. And please note that the project was initiated prior to September 1st, 2025 and is subject to the regulations in effect at that time. So a quick overview of the site. In 1981, PD 189 Retail General Office was established. And that generally allowed, you know, a lot of different office uses, retail, but it also protected some of the residential areas surrounding the PD. So there were some height requirements and other protections for the property around it. Since that time, from 1981 to 2009, there have been a series of amendments to the uses and development standards, so they have been slightly modified over time. In 1995, in regard to the subject property, the PD was amended to allow a health and fitness center, and that was built in 1996, and most recently the health and fitness center closed last year. And so, just to give you an overview of the zoning as well, again, in the yellow boundary, the PD for the east side is residential zoning. Single family seven same to the south, single family six. And then to the north and west is all retail. And then within the property is the PD 189 retail general office. And there's currently retail developments general office, medical office. There's also a multifamily development in the center. Okay. So in the PD there are some current zoning restrictions associated with the property. There are specific uses that are allowed by the property or by the PD on the property. And independent living facility is currently not one of them. There is an additional stipulation for a maximum height of two stories for all properties within 700ft of Park Boulevard and 600ft of Ohio Drive that is shown in the picture. On the right in orange is the 600ft. And along Ohio and then in pink is the 700ft. Along park also, there is a requirement for a 25 foot landscape area along Ohio Drive. So the applicant again is proposing an independent living facility. Their proposal is going to be a five story, 65 foot tall building. There will be up to 250 units. They are proposing modified setbacks and landscape edge along Preston Park. And so you can kind of see on the table below that in the existing condition, the independent living facility is not allowed. The minimum setback on Preston Park Boulevard would be 50ft. The max height is two stories and then minimum landscape edge is ten feet. And what they're proposing is, you know, to reduce the setbacks there. And that allows them to build a little bit closer west to the Preston Park Boulevard for their development. So a height is a main concern for this property. So as mentioned, you know, the adjacent nonresidential and residential properties are generally 1 or 2 stories, especially along Ohio Drive. So there is some concern about, you know, how how does it fit in with the rest of the built environment there? The PD was designed to lessen the intensity along the perimeter due to the adjacent residential homes. And so that was designed that way. Staff recommended sloping the height from Ohio Drive to reduce impact of height from the residential properties, and staff finds the additional height to be inappropriate for the site as it does not match the adjacent buildings and can be out of character. Just to mention, there is an adjacent daycare center to the south. It does share an access drive and fire lane. It will be modified, but the applicant has worked with staff to, you know, preserve that during the time of construction so that the school and daycare will have continued access along there. There are some concerns regarding impact from debris, dust, noise during the construction process, and the height exacerbates that potential risk. You know, just just because it increases the chance that, you know, things may fall or more debris comes from the construction site. So there are concerns there. And so you can see in the photo or in the picture to the right in blue is independent living. And then in orange is a daycare center and the green is the outdoor play area for the daycare. So I've only included the amendment proposed for stipulation number eight. And so this is for the independent living facility to do the 250 units, the five stories and 65ft, and the modified setbacks and landscape edge. So here is the conformance of the comprehensive plan. So there are, you know, some mixed bag here. And so as far as the the building height, parking orientation and block pattern, you know, there are it does meet, but there were concerns regarding especially the density and intensity of this proposal. And so it is recommended here because of the adjacency to the neighborhood, that there is a max of 22 unit dwelling units per acre. But here there is currently 38.9 as proposed. And same for the intensity as well. The lot coverage is recommended to be higher in this area, but it is lower as shown here. And then as far as the policies to the comprehensive plan, again, there are there's a mix of partially meets and does not meets here as well as for the character defining elements and the priorities we just reviewed, the character elements and priorities. It does help create a shopping destination, you know, partially because it does create more residents for local shopping to keep the area alive. There is some activated open space with the widened sidewalks that they are building along the streets, but the mix of uses does not meet here. For the Preston Park Suburban Activity Center area, the recommended mix of uses is 60% multifamily, and currently all of the residential development is multifamily. So staff and comprehensive plan does not. It does not align with that goal, so it does not meet that requirement. And then it also partially meets the retail shopping center policy and then the redevelopment and growth management policy. But it also does not need as well. Please note that findings are required to approve the request, because the request does not conform to the mix of uses and maximum density recommended from the dashboard. One thing I do want to note. So there was a recent law change that Plano adopted into the zoning zoning ordinance on September 1st, 2025. Under this, under the new current ordinance, the independent living facility is allowed on the site, but only up to a height of 45ft. It it would match the proposed landscape edge and the proposed setback, but the applicant's request would increase the height from 45 to 65ft and five stories. Okay, and for responses within the PD boundaries, we received two official letters. From adjacent properties. Within 200ft, we received ten letters, and we received a total of 175 responses with 16 support, 168 against, and then 16 other letters and emails, or 15 sorry. So in summary, they are requesting to amend PD 189 Retail General Office to allow the independent living facility with the proposed height of 65ft five stories, the setback of 25ft and landscape edge of 25ft along Preston Park Boulevard. For item two, a staff recommends for denial for the Comprehensive Plan and Findings policy. This request must be found consistent with the guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan and substantially beneficial to the immediate neighbors, surrounding community and general public interest. If the Commission wishes to recommend approval to the City Council, I do want to make one note about item two. B staff is recommending action be taken that is consistent with item two A and subject to the following conditions. City Council approval of Zoning Case 2025 013 and revising the front yard setback on Park Boulevard and Ohio Drive to 50ft, and that is if approved. I'm available for any questions and the applicant is also here as well. Commission questions of staff. Mr. Ali, can you go back to the table that had. Proposed versus what is approved? So there's this one and then there's do you want the early one? The early one. Yes. Thank you. Miss Slide. Yes. So the the setback. Is from the asking for reduction of setback from Preston Park so that they can, in essence, pull the building further away from the residential on Ohio. Correct. Okay. But if I'm reading this and I'm going to mix this with the SB 840 table, they're essentially asking for exceptions or variances or approval of a use independent living facility is not permitted. They're asking for permission. They're asking for exception approval for height, which is not approved even under SB, SB 840. From a state law perspective. And they're asking for approval for. Setback. And well, setback landscape always helps us when it's better. So those 3 or 4 that am I reading that correctly. Yes, that is correct okay. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. Thank you. Has the staff by any chance. Attempted to identify which of the private homes on the other side of Park Boulevard might be within line of sight from a 60 to 65 foot tall building? So staff has not looked into across Park Boulevard what properties the line of vision might be. I mean, I asked that because we've looking at some of the written comments we received from the neighbors. They were the the primary concern was, was invasion of privacy from having someone peer down into their backyards. Yeah, I wanted to comment. Staff's recommendation to the applicant was to stair step the height away from the homes. We didn't perform an eye view study, but that was the general idea to have the height transition up to avoid those same concerns. Thank you. Yes, thank you, Commissioner Rowley. I forgot one, but I think Mr. Bell might have answered. So the stair step in height is essentially the comment you made on sloping the height. Okay. Thank you. So I have a question on that. That is not currently part of the request though is to stair step the height. Correct. Could you repeat that for the current request. Does not include a stair stepping of the height. Correct. Okay. All right. Commission other questions. Commissioner lolly, do you have a question like I thought that I saw something in the report for the step. I think the staff had requested it but is not it's not currently part of the applicant's request, am I correct? Correct. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Bronsky, can you go back to the slide for the SB 840? Yeah. I couldn't find that in the presentation in the staff report. Is it in there? So it was something that we added into the table just for, to make it a little more clear for the presentation. Thank you. I know I'm terrible. I can't see. All right. That was my only question. Thank you. Okay. Okay. Any other questions of staff, Commissioner Lolly. So how are they going to mitigate the traffic? Because the traffic in this area is like it's always busy on Park and Preston. So how are they going to mitigate? Are they going to like the acts of the main access to the building, the approaches. So we did look into the traffic, the traffic generation rates with our traffic traffic engineering team. And so based on the IT manual, we found that for the proposed use of independent living, it's generally going to be less than other uses that are common along Ohio Road or Park Boulevard, which can be retail, or the health and fitness center or general office. It is higher than additional single family, but I think it was lower than all the other uses. And so our thought is that, you know, it is lower than the existing health and fitness center. And so so it is it's it's within the like the approved limits. Yeah. The impact may be minimal. Thanks, Commissioner Ali. Sorry, just remembered one. The coffee has worn off. The daycare and the concerns which are legitimate about building and the impact to the daycare. I assume even if they were building a two story, there will still be some concerns about safety of the daycare. Is there are there levels the city can enforce to mitigate that? So city staff did meet with the chief building official as well, internally to see if we have any additional mitigation measures. But I think a lot of that just falls to the property owners to kind of negotiate any mitigation during construction. Thanks. All right. Other questions of staff. All right. We do have a public hearing. I know we do have the applicant here. So let me open the public hearing okay. Thank you. Is the applicant have a presentation? Introduce yourself. And. Good evening. Chair, Commissioner staff Trevor Armstrong, 3110 West Southlake Boulevard, suite 120, in Southlake, Texas. Thank you again, John, for the detailed presentation and all your assistance. I help lead our development team here at Integrated Real Estate Group tonight with me as well. We have our Chief Operating Officer, Kenneth Fambro, Chief Investment Officer Paul Milosevich and president of our Senior Housing Division, Andrew Chapin. I plan to spend just a few minutes giving a brief background on our company, our history with the site so far, and the landscape of senior housing in Plano. Integrated Real Estate Group has been in business for 23 years. We're a vertically integrated, privately owned and operated full service real estate company based in Southlake, Texas. We specialize in senior housing. That's really what we love. It's what we're passionate about. We've had great experience in the state, in particular in DFW, Houston, in the Austin Metros. We do everything in-house from land development general construction and property management. So you're always dealing with us as one team and we're local. Within senior housing in particular, our core product is independent living communities. We have ten of these in DFW. They're branded as water mirror. We operate across the spectrum of senior housing. But the focus for us and the use that's presented before you tonight is independent living. And we can explain the distinctness of that and even our product, how it differs from existing communities within the city of Plano. We're a top 40 national firm in terms of ownership and operations of senior housing communities. But we're pretty small, we're nimble, we're very entrepreneurial in nature. And so we fly under the radar a lot as it relates to how we got to this site. The same entity has owned this site since the late 1990s, and as we learned through our extensive community outreach, there's a lot of Plano residents that have used this gym over the years. First is the Q club and then later on is 24 Hour Fitness. And then when they went bankrupt during Covid, the landowner personally stepped in, took over the gym and operated it, rebranded it under the Plano Athletic Club, and they ran it for as long as they could until increased competition from new gyms in the area. Aside, along with aging and obsolescent building, just made it financially impossible to do so. So last year in February, they contacted us after exhausting their options with retail and commercial users. They no viable interest because the site is somewhat of a tweener. It's too small for a lot of users and too large for the other users. And knowing you have significant demolition costs with the building, it just became not an option for a lot of groups. We started our analysis and really gets into what we do from a senior housing perspective. We identified a need early on for additional independent living housing in Plano. We have a pretty extensive portfolio in DFW, and we learned from our own internal analysis that upwards of 20% of our residents at our Frisco location came from Plano. And what we know about Plano is people love here, they love to live here, and they want to stay here. And it's unfortunate when they have to leave the city to go elsewhere. These this need was also expressed from the City Commissioned Housing study that was released over the summer. We've got some data points here that you can read through. Hopefully you've all had a chance to go through this. Some great points, but what I wanted to quickly just give you was some real data points as to the demographics and the existing senior product inventory you have in the city. So by 2030, the percentage of 65 plus residents in Plano is going to total 54,000. Residents grow by 15% during that time frame. And the 75 plus population, which is really the key demographic for our product type, is expected to grow 22% over that same time frame. And these are from ESRI demographics of January of this year. Meanwhile, the city currently only has seven independent living communities that comprise just over 1000 units. If you equate that to the projected population 2030, that's only 1.9% of the population that has housing units. Within those seven communities, six of the seven are 18 years or older. There's only one community that's been built in the last couple of years. And across those seven communities, the average occupancy right now is 94%. So as of today, there's only 61 available units for senior residents in Plano, not to mention anyone else who wants to move to this great city. Even the new community that was built in started housing residents in 2024. It's a completely different business model than ours. It's a CCRC, so you have a large entrance fee. You have to pay 400 plus thousand dollars to get into the community and then pay rents on top of it. We're structured very differently, and we can let the team speak to how that is beneficial to the residents. That's really all I have to say from just an intro standpoint. We'd love to answer any questions. We have the whole team here available as well. Thank you. I have a couple of questions. First of all, I wouldn't anticipate you're going to get any argument about the need for senior housing in Plano. I think we all recognize that, that some of us are getting older and might need that sooner than others. I think the question on this, at least in my mind on this particular case, is are is the heights? What did you all look at as far as the staff's comments about a stair step approach or any other? I realize it's not typical of your other projects, but did y'all consider those issues? And what was your conclusion about those? Absolutely, yes, we did. So typically in DFW and most of our communities are in the suburbs, so we're in surrounding areas. Just recently finished a community in in McKinney last November and it's been leasing. Well, we typically build four story product, but what differentiates us from most senior housing developers is we like to have a portion of structured parking, because seniors really like covered, safe, secure parking. So we typically build a partial podium garage, which is a first floor, sometimes partially subterranean garage, and build on top of that. This is a very tight site. It's six acres. We have a similar community in Frisco that's on six acres. We did three stories over podium on that one, but it is a more elongated site that allows us to do that. We exhausted every option here. The only way to get the number of units we need is to do four stories over one podium. That's where you get the 55ft. But the request for 65ft, our actual building plate at the fifth floor is 55ft. So everything beyond that is truly architectural parapet features. There's no interior building residences or anything like that above the 55 foot mark. Everything above that is just for architectural differentiation. But we've looked at options. It's just these business models are different. We've got almost 30,000ft■!S of amenity space inside this building, so that takes up a lot of the space. And then the units themselves are very large. On average, they're almost 1100 square feet. And our largest unit in this building as currently proposed is 1800 square feet. So seniors that are selling their homes and wanting to move into these communities are accustomed to a nice style of living, and they want to be able to have that even inside an amenity rich community like ours. So just to make clear, I heard you correctly. So the top plate of your top floor is at 55ft. Yes, sir. Okay, so the ceiling line. So as far as a window on the top floor, you'd be at 50ft. That's right. Okay. And just to to mention to the height as well, our site currently does sit about 7 to 8ft below West Park and parts of Ohio Drive. And we will be digging under. So I do have a rendering here to show you. At the north east corner of our site. So as Preston Park in Ohio will early grading because we're very early in the process still, but we plan to have a seven foot retaining wall. So from today the parking lot is equal to Ohio. It will be dropped down seven feet. So part of the issue I think we're trying to get give to the community is we're not going to be a 65 foot building that's flat at the street. The site already sits low. We'll be digging lower. And we're not building units up to that height limit. So I'm trying to do the math in my head what you just said. So you're going down seven feet and you're 55ft to the top plate. So if we look at height above the curb, you're at 48. Yeah, I do that math right. Did I hear you correctly? Yeah. And we have a and I have an engineering degree so. We do have a line of sight rendering that we prepared. There you go. It's not not very easy to read so excuse that but it does study the homes on Ohio drive to the edge of our building. It's a 200 foot plus or minus a few feet. As the building moves south from the homes. So you have a pretty substantial buffer there. We understand and appreciate that they want as much buffer as they can get, but we tried to move the building as close to Katy Trail on Preston Park as we could to alleviate that. And then, as I mentioned, just with the elevation of what we plan to do from a grading perspective, that would drop it lower as well. Okay. I may come back to you in a second, but those are my questions for now. Commissioner Bronsky, one quick question here. Thank you very much for your presentation. And as my wife and I continue to look for housing for my father in law and mother in law, as well as just like Chair Ratliff, my wife and I continue to get older as well. So obviously you have noticed the responses that you've received. What kind of community outreach and can you describe to me the efforts that you've made in listening to what the community is saying and how you're working together to bring something to Plano that not only the people around you, but the people in all of our community want. The reason I ask, as you've heard, in order for us, we're going to have to fill a findings form out, which means it has to be substantially beneficial. And so what's that look like for you as far as making sure that if you want our support, that we can we can agree with you that it's substantially beneficial, including all of the neighbors? Absolutely. Thank you for your question, Commissioner. We started our community outreach last April, immediately contacting the two businesses that are directly adjacent to us in the master plan community, and then started reaching out to the neighborhood as well. We got the city provided contact list and mailed out mailings to over 100 addresses and contact via email and phone. All the HOA directors in the neighborhoods. We realize that the neighborhood across to us does not have a structured HOA, so once we got in contact with the people, there was try to get as much information out as we could. We had our first community meeting in the gym in May, and our second one six months later in the gym in November. And those were two meetings with great juxtaposition, because the first one, the gym, was still open. It was active. People were interested in coming into our meeting. We had a great turnout of over 20 residents. And broadly speaking, even then, the support for the use was evident. The height was a concern and this was all pre legislative changes that happened over the summer. We had a full understanding and intent that a rezone was going to be required, so we wanted to start that process really early with the community. But we felt there was great reception, which is why we continued from that point. The second meeting we had in November had a lot more people on the notification list, a lot more emails that were added from next door posts and elsewhere, because there has been a lot of interest out there. At that point, the gym was closed, the equipment was moved out. It was a vacant building. Legislative changes happened over the summer, but we remain committed to what we originally presented and bringing the highest quality senior housing community that we could. Some of the other feedback we have got from residents is looking at options to ensure safety during storms or freezes. So looking at how do we add generators to our building, that's been taken into consideration. But as far as other comments from the community, the use has broadly been supported. The height has been the concern. We've done our best to mitigate that from moving the building away from the neighbors and our Montessori school to the south, but there's not a whole lot more we can do there. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Olli, I want to sound like a broken record. The height is the concern, right? I know the answer to this, but why not? If we lop off one story that are we meet the height. I'm trying to get there, but. How are you? If you can introduce yourself as well, please? Yes. Kenneth Fambro Chief Operating Officer 3110 South Lake Boulevard. It's not quite that simple. Partially because of the structure of the building. I mean, you know, we're going quasi subterranean from a parking standpoint, you know, and your math is correct. So we should be at a 48 from a a true height standpoint, with the window being call it two feet below, you should be at 45 to 46, but you should be at 48. If we're dropping below, you know, seven feet from the grade. So the site itself, the grade, you can see it here. You're falling down from a grading standpoint. You know, this current site almost sits in a hole. We have a seven foot retaining wall. So we're going lower on the site itself. And then we're going above there, part of which is our business model and what we're doing with the number of units that we're trying to to get here. We have a fully elevated service. So to fit everything inside of to get to your point, the highest, best use of independent living that we're trying to get that we've done in McKinney, we have a five story building in McKinney, for example. You have to have certain amount of square footage from an amenity standpoint and a certain number of units in order to operate it when you do that math, truly, we almost have a floor of amenity space for this particular development. So you have a floor of parking and 30,000ft■!S of amenity space. You're just trying to fit everything in in order to make it. Yeah. From that standpoint, I get it. And the reason why, and I know it's been a little bit tongue in cheek. But here's the way I see it a couple of hurdles. First hurdle. It's not a permitted use right. Or it's not a primary use for that particular site. So we have to if we address the first hurdle, which largely to the comments that have been made, because there is a need for this kind of housing in Plano, okay, we get past that first hurdle. There's now a second hurdle. It has to be beneficial to the neighborhood. Right. And that is. You can solve for something micro and hurt the macro if that makes sense. Right? Then you come now with a third hurdle, which in my view we're almost going would have to get over state law and or our compliant in terms of activated open spaces, the transitions and things of that nature. So they like three very high hurdles that you all need to jump jump over. And I know now I didn't we didn't have this view with the dropping of the grading and what have you, which brings a different element to it. I'm actually. That's why my tongue in cheek ask of. You lop off one hurdle by considering, and I don't know how that works mechanically, and understand the economics of the thing and what have you. But there are three significant hurdles, and I'm trying to understand if thought was brought to let's take one of those chips off the table and offer something that at least makes this easier to swallow. Yeah, I might, I think you it's an eloquent way of looking at it. If I could address remember to address each one, I, I think we're pretty close to the hurdle of height when you take into account what we're doing and how we're constructing the building and plate heights, and we can show that and work with staff in order to I mean, we're we're talking about, I think, three feet from a different standpoint with what the major concern is. So we're pretty close to the to that. I ran track at Alabama. I was a hurdler. You you can skim over that hurdle pretty pretty pretty close there okay. The benefit I might go a different way from the beneficial standpoint. We started and started going after this, this site. We were just going to come in pre SB 840 and work on a rezone. SB 840 came in. And that's kind of created a lot of confusion within. You know we're trying to pausing and put on the gas and brake on when to submit. Which opens up a multifamily component that someone can come in and do by. Right. If they check kind of the the boxes that you have there. I don't think anyone can compare what we're proposing to having an offset of multifamily and not determine that we are a better use from the neighborhood standpoint versus putting in a multifamily development. So I might ask, I might answer one of your neighborhood beneficial questions by saying we're a better use than a current allowed use through using SB 840 is how I might put that. Okay. Thank you. I'm going to I'm going to redirect you just a little bit because we have to look at the case in front of us. We realize there's some other options there, but we can only look at the case we have in front of us, not what might happen. But I appreciate your perception Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you. From the standpoint of protecting the neighbor's interest in privacy in their homes, what mitigations are you offering, if any, besides sinking the building seven feet? Something we've discussed with staff and were amenable to is increasing the landscaping along Ohio Drive. So we'll actually, to come into compliance with the PD have to berm the the grass area that's there today was not done originally. So that's one element to it. In addition to new plantings that will have throughout the entire property. So on all sides of the site. And then from a visibility standpoint, we hope this exhibit and we can provide a more detailed version to show where the units actually align over Ohio Drive. But you're not talking about a whole lot of actual rooms. And what we know from our senior population, our average age in these communities as they enter is in their late 70s and then age in place. So the average age across our portfolio is 82.7. Seniors typically go to bed early. They're not out and about a whole lot and peeping on other people. So we we do really well right adjacent to single family because they're coming from single family and they still want to be close to the community. They have friends that will be in the community. Their family members may live in the community. So it's what suits our product type the best. I mean, I'm a senior and I've been known to stay up late still. No. Like tonight? Like tonight. How tall a tree would it take? A plant on top of those berms? Like a row of trees to provide effective sight line screening? I don't have that number before me tonight. I'm happy to provide it. You do have some existing trees there that are really mature and that provide great canopy cover coverage during the spring, summer and fall so we could look to match those and and put quality trees along. Ohio. And another question founded in ignorance of anything having to do with engineering. And Mr. Chairman, you can correct me if this is totally off, off the wall. Could you sink the building nine feet instead of seven? I mean, I realize that that that's probably creates a drainage issue, but speak to that. Yes, I. I don't have the data to 100% answer that question. But you do have constraints with sanitary sewer and water, existing water lines just given you're in an infill location right here. So that would probably create some complexity, but something that I would speak with our civil engineering about. But right off the top of my head, you know, we have constructability constraints with the existing infrastructure there that probably would present some problem with that. And I do want to point to your earlier question. We have been working with staff and even some of our earlier variances that we've requested was to keep as much of the existing landscape in place, given the maturity of the trees that we have there, so that we could have that and not have replacement with smaller trees or. Okay, no, no, just bear in mind, I think the issue in this case is not the quality of the development. It's not the need for senior living, which is beyond dispute at this point. The sole issue in this case is impacts on neighboring properties, and that's what you should focus on, I understand. Commissioner Bronsky, hello, I have another question in ignorance. So you mentioned the average age of who's living here. What are the constraints on other family members living there, or what's the is it just a one person living center, one per person room, or is it can they have a spouse? How does that work? Yes you can. You can be married. You can have a spouse. The community is a one and two bedroom community. What we see though is people that have two bedrooms either live in one bedroom or if it's a husband and wife, they live in separate rooms. At that point, the average profile of our resident is, like I said, is in their 80s. It's a single widowed woman, typically. But you do have married couples that that live in the community. It's an age restricted community, so you have to be over 55 plus. But as is evidenced from our so if you were a grandparent who happened to be living there, who needing to take custody of their child, they couldn't do so. That's a unique case. I'm not aware of that instance. But in our communities we don't have minor children. We can speak to the to the current policy that we have in place. Yeah, I just I said I don't know. So I was curious. Andrew Chapman, 3110 West Lake Boulevard. It's a great question. We often get asked what's going to be the impact on the school system. So we did a full dive of our 4300 residents across all of our properties we had. It was 12 that were between the ages of 45 and 55 years old, that were lower than the 55. And those pretty much 100% of those cases were special needs children that were living with their with their parents. Okay. So you do have cases where you do have a children, I guess in your term. Yeah. Living with their parents. Correct. The the actual policy would be 80% of our residents have to be above the age of 55 and older. In our case, it's 99 plus percent. Okay. All right. Yeah. I was just trying to trying to process it in my head. So thank you very much for the clarification Commissioner Lingenfelter. So I was I was actually just going to reiterate what Commissioner Brounoff was kind of alluding to with the with, can you drop it lower? Can you do things like that? And so you said the first floor is just parking, so would there be utilities until you get to the second floor. So like water sewer storm that you were talking about really sanitary that you're at sanitary starts on the second floor, not the first. Right. Yeah. Because you're coming up. So you have to our deal is whether or not we're dealing with lift stations. And on an already tight. You would need one if you're coming from the second floor, if all the sanitary is coming from the second, not from the first. Yeah. I again I think it's worth. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I was just saying because obviously the if you've figured the consensus, the height is our biggest concern. Yes. So so that was one thing I do think it would be good to explore that. How much more could you drop it? Especially since all your sanitary would be starting from the second floor, not the first. If the first floor is truly just parking and then the the trees. I do think if we had a nice solid tree line that that maybe evergreen type thing that would actually keep that that buffer between the residents all over Ohio, I think that would be a on top of that berm would would help a lot with with that height issue. So that's it. I've got a couple of follow up questions. There's a line on your drawing there, a diagonal line that says residential adjacency something. It's too small for me to read on my screen. I can't I can't hear you on your exhibit right here. There's a kind of a sloped line that says something about residential adjacency, something I my eyes aren't good enough to read it, but residential proximity slope. It's a 1 to 3 ratio. Okay. And is where did that line come from. Is that from our code? Is that something your architects came up with? What. Where does that come from? Correct. It's a line of sight exhibit that we put together for to to illustrate adjacency to single family in most instances. But it's not based on something in our code at this point. No, sir. So that's, this is the typical I think, ratio that a lot of cities use that you want to have as a minimum, okay, for single family adjacency. So question for staff. Mr. Kim. Anyway. Staff he's over there. He is. Question for staff I think we've gotten some information that we didn't see in the staff report about the seven foot retaining wall, the excavation, the residential adjacency slope. Obviously y'all didn't may not have had this information. Is that something that may or may not influence the staff report? I know we typically measure from finished grade at the building, but in this case, because they're going down from the street, is that something that may or may not affect the staff opinion? So so in our ordinance, we do have a requirement for sloping. It's from the street and it's at a rate of one to 1 to 2. So I believe, Mr. Bill, do you remember where it starts? I believe it's at 45ft is the minimum height at. So it's changed with the regulations. But I believe the previous regulations, there's a formula essentially we have to follow based on setbacks. What's the setback then a certain angle from there. So we have not been able to verify that this first time seeing this drawing. So we'd have to take a look at the at the plan and compare it to the old ordinance and provide you feedback. We're not prepared to do that at this moment. That's why I'm asking the question, because I feel like we've got information in front of us right now that we that the staff has not had a chance to review, that may affect the recommendation or certainly the analysis. Is that fair? Mr. Gill? I believe the height issue would still be a concern for staff, regardless of the proximity slope. A stair stepped approach would be staff's recommendation in this case to the height further away from the residential line. I believe what they're showing is from looks like the maybe the front setback or the front yard. And I don't believe the slope in our ordinance is measured from that point. Okay. So just eyeballing it here, I don't think that having that slope measured in our current ordinance would probably solve the issue. Okay. That's that's why because that that diagonal line was confusing me for lack of a better term. Okay. So a couple of questions for the applicant, if I could, please. Thank you, Mr. Kim. The just looking at the drawing you have in front of us, it looks like there's just a handful of units, I think was your were your words that would have a a view of the adjacent neighborhood. Are all of your amenities on the first floor, or are there some up on the top floor, or is there any way to to mitigate that? Overview concern of the neighbors. So we try to centralize our amenities. Let me go back real quick. I'm sorry we did provide this presentation to staff last week. So if it wasn't in your packet, you know that's on us for not communicating that well in advance, but intended to get this well before your presentation. We try to centralize our amenities. So the biggest amenity in the building is the dining room with our commercial kitchen, our lounge area, our bar area that typically likes to be in the middle of the building. We try to centralize everything just so it's easier for the residents to get to. So in this case, most of the amenities are facing West Park on that side of the building, and the site along Ohio is the skinniest side of the building, so it would be challenging to incorporate amenity space there. Gotcha. Okay. Any other questions from commission for the applicant? Commissioner Lingenfelter, may I point out one one other thing? Just for clarification, this that's probably a good one to show, but. Show them this picture. Yes. So I do want to mention that. The building will have an interior, basically a courtyard that sits on top of the podium structure. So most of our interior functions and functions for the development itself. Walking. It's a very amenitized area on the inside of the building, not on the exterior of the building. So I just wanted to point that out to you as well. Great. Thank you. Commissioner Langfelder, I just had one more question that I meant to bring up, along with the the height issue. And I know a lot of it is like people looking down into people's yards, that kind of thing. But another thing to deal with the height is, is HVAC. I suspect there's it's all going to be sitting on the roof tops. They're going to be rooftop units, cooling towers. What are we talking about? Speak to the exact type. Rooftop units. Exactly like what you see right there. Rooftop units. Yes. It's kind of hard to tell in the picture, but yes, I was suspecting. So. Individual rooftop units per unit, as even all of our amenity spaces, everything will be. That's the point of the of the parapet wall. Correct. That'll help screen all that. Yes. Okay. So you won't have these ugly units that you're looking at. That is correct. All right. All right, Commissioner Tom. Thank you. Chairman. My question is that I understand that the you have your minimum requirements on the number of beds to make it financial sense. Have you considered doing only partial kind of a step up, like, not entire floor? Like you don't have to remove the entire floor. Maybe just on the Ohio side since you said it's a skinnier side, or maybe just this on side to remove a few units so that it doesn't have the top floor to overlooking to the neighbors, that will reduce the the concerns of the privacy. Have you considered that solution or that I guess short answer is no. I'm just looking at the elevation. You know, we still have to make sure that we have a constructible building that meets fire code and some of the other codes that that, you know, no dead end corridors, which is a really big key. So that's off the top of my head. That's my biggest concern. Just kind of talking out loud is a dead end corridor. You know, we like to have or from a senior housing perspective, you even do it on most of the buildings that you build. This way, you would want to prefer and prefer to have a corridor that's continuous. Sure, our residents actually walk inside the corridor. They use them for exercise as well, but it's a life safety issue for to have noncontiguous corridors. So we'd have to take take a look into that. Sure. So my next question is, if you were given more time, would you consider and maybe to mitigate the risk of the privacy issue or risk of being denied by this body? I would probably ask. Maybe a couple of questions to get some guidance from this body prior to answering that question. If we can take a look at the utility standpoint and the cost of of of lowering the building versus I don't I don't think you I don't think we want a closed corridor system. I don't I don't think that's I think that will create more problems. And from a safety standpoint, you start dealing with things like forest systems. And you know, we had I don't think that's a a viable option potentially. But lowering the building in order to meet, you know, if our differences say three feet or something of that nature, that is probably. Something that we can take a look at from an overall standpoint. And we'd have to review utilities and cost. And, you know, from a podium building standpoint as well, you have so much space that you need to keep open from a ventilation. So there's a some engineering that goes into it that's worth taking a look at, but not as far as if if that wasn't a viable option to this group, I would say it's not a viable option for us to chop off a floor. Okay, great. We're looking for solutions. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner. All right. I'm not seeing any other questions from the commission. So we do have a public hearing. Thank you all very much for your presentation. We don't go far. There may be more questions for you. I do. We have a couple of other registered. Yeah, I requested a break. So we're going to leave the public hearing open. And we're going to take a five minute break for everybody. And then we'll be right back. All right. All right. I'll call us back after our after our brief recess. And I think we still have an open public hearing. And I believe we have three speakers for the public hearing. Is that correct? For for. Sorry. Yep. The first public speaker is Paul Milosevic, followed by Christian Mackie and then Justin Bennett. Mr. Milosevic, if you'd introduce yourself. Yes. Hi. Paul Milosevic, 31, ten West Southlake Boulevard, Southlake, Texas. I didn't really plan to speak originally. Our team here signed me up, but I'm happy to do so to try to address a couple of the questions that were asked earlier regarding the height of the building. I know that's what's at issue here, and we understand that we knew it was going to be an issue. The reason it's five storeys is, as you saw in one of the exhibits, the whole first floor is parking. And so we put four storeys above parking. And and part of the reason for that is we need a minimum number of units to make the community work economically. And part of the reason for that is we have basically a restaurant and an activity center within the building. So we have a commercial kitchen. We serve breakfast and lunch every day. Eventually when the building is full, we will start serving dinner. We'll have a staff of 25 to 35 over time. So we've got parking for the staff. We've got this full restaurant, commercial kitchen servers, kitchen staff, we've got activity staff members, we have all these activity rooms. So we we would have lowered the building, trust me if we could to make it work. But but there was just no way economically and physically to do it. We lowered it as much as we could. And I think our team is going to we're going to go back and check with our civil engineer how much lower we can can actually do it. I think that the second point of your original question about you will need justification findings, if you will, I think is the technical term. So so we're going to work. I think we're going to work on addressing the height issue, on the benefit to the community and the city and the citizens as a whole. We look at it and we've got experience in all these other suburban communities here. We're going to have if we have 240 units that theoretically will open up 240 homeowners in Plano will sell their home, move to our community, and it will bring in 240 new families to Plano. The retail support, the support for the school system. So we see it as a win win, right. You get to keep 250 of your best senior residents here in town, where they want to stay, and bring in 250 new families to support the economics of the community. So I I'll leave it at that for my comments. Happy to answer any other questions, Commissioner Bronsky sir, were you speaking as one of the applicants? What was your relationship to the. Yeah, I'm part of the applicant. Okay. So are you asking us to give you more time to look into this as opposed to moving forward today? I think we're prepared to do that. Yes. Okay. I guess then I'd ask staff, is that how much time do you think that they would need? Why do we continue to work? I just yeah, let's finish the public hearing. And then I think because I have I have a similar question. All right. So thank you I appreciate the question. Thank you, Mr. Milosevic. Okay. Next speaker next speaker is Christian Mackie, followed by Justin Bennett and finally Cameron Jamal. I'm Chris Mackie. I live at four, 549 Boston Drive. Number of issues are the heights ridiculous. It's it's the drawings they've got show trees where there are power lines and there's no trees there and there's no green. Particularly right now. There's no leaves. So it's right into my pool. There's no way around it. Some of the social media stuff I've posted pictures from my pool, and you can see deep into the lot that I can see the, the, the lot, the lights they put in their parking lot. I can see them from my bedroom. So. A little word about the property value. I just moved in from Phoenix. This building looks very much like a building a mile away from my old house that had fire trucks and ambulances throughout the night. If I take a midnight walk, I would see a lot of traffic there, see it during the day. So I'm worried about my property value that I'm going to eat. I'm going to eat a lot of I'm taking a nice haircut. If this building gets put up. Yeah, I told I talked about the rendering of the trees, not even close to what's actually happening there. Oh, and there is no HOA, by the way. I don't know what we're talking about. I mean. There are other senior facilities there that are 2 or 3 stories, not five stories, and they work really well. 250 new people right there. Or doors you're going to have, you're going to add that there's going to be more traffic, isn't there like 50,000 on Park Avenue right now? It's going to go a little higher. And. Yeah. Oh yes. The seven foot retainage is correct. That is at the extreme areas of the property. The Ohio entrance has roughly a zero slope to the parking lot. Yeah, I covered the trees. I am so close. That house that had on that earlier picture. Anyway, my house is where those trees are. And so I swim three times a day when the weather's good and I don't care. So just be aware. Thank you. Next speaker is Justin Bennett. The final speaker is Cameron Jamal. Good evening. My name is Natasha Jamal, 1900 Preston Park Boulevard. We are the owners of Preston Park Montessori, which is the daycare you guys discussed. We're a licensed child care facility that has been a staple of the community for the last 20 years, having served thousands of families in the area for children as young as six weeks old. We're opposed to any construction of this magnitude being built adjacent to our school. Any development at this location would negatively impact our ability to safely operate. Child care is a highly regulated, safety sensitive use. Construction next door creates unavoidable issues like constant noise, vibration, dust and debris, and with heavy equipment that directly interferes with infant sleep, classroom learning, and outdoor play, and the overall safety and air quality of our school, these impacts cannot be mitigated in a childcare environment. A five story building, especially with an underground parking garage, significantly increases these concerns. Excavation, pile driving construction traffic and staging areas will extend disruption over a long period of time and create ongoing safety risks for children, family and staff. Our center depends on safe, consistent access and visibility, construction barriers, traffic congestion and blocked sightlines will reduce enrollment and threaten the long term viability of a school, and that has served the community for two decades. Our child care center is an essential community resource to several several hundred families. We should not be placed in a position where forced to absorb impacts that jeopardize child safety and our ability to operate. For these reasons, we respectfully urge the Commission to deny approval for any construction of this magnitude at this location and protect the children and families who rely on our school every day. Protecting existing essential community services should be a priority to zoning and planning decisions. Thank you. Thank you very much. Cameron Jamal, 1900 Preston Park Boulevard. I also disagree that that senior living facility would be better than a single family. Use talking to several other businesses locally, we feel that senior living facility of of this kind is meant to keep residents in with everything they provide. They do a great job, but doesn't allow residents to go out and support local businesses as opposed to a single family. We can't deny that a single family senior living facility is critical to Plano. However, we don't feel like this is the appropriate site for it. Thank you. Have any other speakers? There are no more registered speakers. All right, let me close the public hearing and reserve comments to the Commission commissioners. Commissioner Bronsky. Oh. Some of the conversation we've been having. LED me to think that they were going seven feet down. But when we looked at the site itself on Ohio. That there's not a seven foot down unless they're digging seven foot below that, the gradient, there's very little there on Ohio. And so I'm really curious to hear from staff about this seven foot change that they were already expecting to be at, as opposed to where the where that where it is on Ohio. Does that make sense. Yeah it does. And I that was kind of want to be my follow up questions as well is I think that I feel like we've gotten new information tonight, and there may be still some additional work that can be done to refine the grade question. I heard it from the applicant team. I believe that that we had some concerns that we expressed. And so I guess a question for staff and the applicant. I feel like this needs a little more clarification. I'm not going to say work because I don't know if it needs work or not. I feel like it needs more clarification for us to really understand the height related to the neighbors and the street versus what's there today. I don't feel like we have the information. I would agree with you. And my concern though is I don't want to table everything to April. On March 2nd. I'm going to be absent that day. No. Wow. Really? No. But I do think I don't think we should I don't think two weeks is enough. But I mean, March 2nd does seem more reasonable, but I want to give the applicant as well as staff. I don't want to overburden them with the March 2nd deadline. I agree, and I know the staff's got a lot on their plate. So let me let me do this. Applicant, whoever wants to speak to it. I think y'all need some more time to bring some more information to the staff for review. March 2nd would be the absolute earliest, which means I'd give you about two weeks to get back to staff. Or would you need more time than that to work with your design team and target the middle of the March meeting? What is your I mean, I don't know what your, your y'all's commitments are and how fast y'all can respond. Yeah, I mean, we're going through grading right now. So answering these questions two weeks is enough time to answer these questions to get information back to staff. Yes okay. And question for staff was that March 2nd or is is I know y'all got a lot of cases in the hopper or if it needs to move if like it doesn't matter whichever one second. What. No. Well no we're talking about the March 2nd meeting being the first one kind of that's available February 15th. So staff will be unavailable the first week of March due to some commitments to software implementation. So we're unavailable that first week. So March 2nd is probably the earliest that we could get it back. Are you going to add something? You said that we were unavailable the first week of March, but it's the first week of February. Yes, we're unavailable the first week of February due to other commitments. So that's a week that we don't have to evaluate this. So March 2nd would be the earliest. I think it depends on if the applicant can get that information to us in a timely manner to make that date work. I know there's, you know, engineering and things to be considered with. What's the other date after March 2nd, March 16th? Okay. Let's just go to me. There's no difference in March 2nd March 20th 4th March, spring break. Spring break. March 24th. Okay, I'm just joking. You mess with my scheme and your residents are no kids in there. Yeah. Okay, so March 24th. Yeah. That that that. I mean, it sounds like that I agree with you. You got a lot of stuff pressing on, Mark. So yeah, we have a couple other cases in the hopper that. So not not that that's your problem. But we're trying to not overburden our staff on a short turnaround. Totally understand okay. So yeah I'm not going to make a motion yet. I just wanted to get your response to that in the staff's. So. Okay. Commissioner Olli. Not not making a motion. And I'm open to tabling. However I will. Still state that the three hurdles that no matter how to have a hurdle in terms of considering the the beneficial to the neighborhood, are bringing the beneficial to the immediate neighbor, the daycare as a half a hurdle, for lack of a better word to me I. Don't see enough that they could come back with that would successfully for me, jump those three hurdles. Those are very high hurdles, so open to tabling. But. That's it. Appreciate it. Commissioner Langfelder, I was just going to go back to the applicant real quick, if you wouldn't mind. Come back. So he's brought up several hurdles and I was trying to I'm always trying to help help the developer come up with some ideas on on what they could do based on what we've talked about. So I know you're you're willing to go back and look at can we lower it a little bit more, you know, with with the idea that, you know, specifically sanitary, obviously you don't want a, a force, any kind of force main like a sump pump or any that type of stuff going on. But if you could lower it, yes, you're looking at that. But then the other thing is the staff had asked about step back and I know that was a concern. Can we just chop off the top layer and level and stuff? I understand you got to have a units and there's a minimal amount, but but could you step it back to a point where you retain a corridor on that Ohio side? That's just a corridor. There's no units there that would allow it to pull it back. And then it looks down into the into the courtyard or whatever, but then it pulls that back away from the residents. It would pull the I just want to make sure I'm getting what you're saying. So like pulling the fourth floor, almost cutting it back to a ten, eight, ten foot wide corridor on the inside of the building to allow for your going with a four story, if you will, on the Ohio side. And you would necessarily see a I get what you're saying. Yes. You see what I'm saying? So so you don't lose that entire you still have kind of a C, you still have a little bit more of a loop of units, but then you just lose those ones. Now I know, but that's something I would like to request that you at least look into that, see if that's viable, that you you can still make that that work financially. And then also, again, just to reiterate, I do think it's it's going to be important to get a very strong screening, live screening along along that as well. That would go a long way that, that that may be evergreen type type screening. I think those three items would help a ton. And then I did not realize the impact that was kind of brought up, he said. As a half hurdle with with your neighbor business, with the daycare, I would like to see something that that you could do to help them to mitigate a lot of their concerns. So it's going to be tough. It's going to be tough. I know construction is loud. It is what it is. But there but there are some things you could do. And then and then up front just say, oh, you know, in it we'll we're committed to be done in a year. You know, whatever it is that there's a time we've had those conversations. But yes, I can we can outline. I think you asked for a list of our concerns. So we're trying to help you with that, Commissioner Bender. Thank you, chairman. And I agree with Commissioner Felter's comments. I also have one and we refer to it as land use. So question in my mind is that the right land use for that location. So again I think a screening wall, something significant to address the neighborhood to the east is is critical as well. Thank you. All right. I'm going to add just a couple other questions that I'd like for you all to at least look into. I think the the issue, at least for me, is not necessarily the height of the building. It's the windows at the top of the building. If you can make those units inward facing if you can and I don't. I'm not trying to design your project for you. I think the the concern for the neighborhood is people four stories up, looking across the street and into their backyards. And so if, if we can figure out how to address those concerns, it's not as much about the actual height of the building as it is. The visibility from the high building. Okay. And and that's and that's what I'd like for you all to look into, if you would, please, as far as the land use itself, I like the use. I believe it's a perfect use for that intersection. For that quadrant, it would be very walkable as far as your residents walking down the street to dinner, walking over to the movies. I mean, there's a lot of places for your customers residents to benefit from that's very walkable from that neighborhood without even having to get in a car, much less, you know, even if you're 80, it's not far to get to a nice restaurant next door or go hang out at the at the ice house. So I like that use. As far as the amenity, I think it would be great for the community there as well. I think the concerns that I have are the concerns of the neighbors, and I think we just need to figure out if we can find a way to address those, those concerns about visibility and, and, and overlooking into the, into the. And that's the original reason for the two story maximum. And so that's that's what we're trying to address okay. All right. Commissioner Bronsky, I really appreciate your patience and all this. I think I can speak for a lot of the others on this commission that we really want to drive good businesses to Plano. We want. Places for our seniors to age and age in our community. And I sincerely appreciate your patience in your willingness to reconsider and to revive and revamp and to hear what your neighbors are saying, to be able to respectfully coexist. With all that. I'm going to move, that we table agenda item two A to the March 24th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting for 2026. Commissioner Olli second. All right. Thank you. Thank you all very much. All right. We have a motion and a second to table to the March 20th 24th meeting. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item two B. Hang on. All right, now you're back up I move we table agenda item two B to the March 24th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Rowley second. All right. We have a motion in a second to table item two B to the March the 24th meeting. Everybody please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. As you've heard already. Thank you very much for your patience. We appreciate you working with us to try to find a solution that works for everybody. So we'll look forward to seeing you back here in March. Thank you all. All right. Item number three, agenda item number three on Core Cloud Crest substation block A lot one, an electrical substation on one lot and 1.9 acres located on the west side of Parker Road, 1130ft south of Los Rios Boulevard. Zoned agricultural. The applicant is Encore Electric Delivery Company, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration of a subdivision ordinance variance. Good evening, commissioners. Destiny woods, planner with the Planning Department. Okay, so this photo shows the location of the site and the associated preliminary plat is shown on the screen here. So the proposed development, the applicant is proposing an electrical substation on a lot that is currently unplatted. The purpose of that plat is to create a flag lot that is that has 20 or, excuse me, 65ft of frontage. And in order to accomplish this proposal, variances are needed. So those associated variances two were granted at the Board of Adjustment. Late last year, one for the to decrease the lot size and one to allow no dumpster enclosure on the site. And then two are needed by the Planning and Zoning Commission tonight one to allow the flag lot under two acres to be created and one to allow one point of access instead of two. And I will add that the variances that went to Boa were approved on the preliminary site plan that was conditionally approved at this commission in November. Alrighty. So the subdivision ordinance lists the requirements for frontage along Parker Road as 150ft of frontage for a non corner lot, and that's because Parker Road is a type C thoroughfare. And there's different criteria for different road types. So the subject property cannot meet this requirement. So the ordinance allows for the frontage to be reduced to 24ft. Instead. If the lot is greater than two acres, and if the lot has one direct access to a public street, the lot does not have two acres, so a variance to this specific criteria is needed. And then the ordinance also lists that a minimum of two access points is required. The lot only has one point of access, so a variance to that criteria is also needed. So when considering a variance to frontage requirements set by the subdivision ordinance, this commission should consider the four criteria that's listed on the screen. And just to kind of summarize the analysis of this criteria, city staff finds that the request meets the criteria because the subject property is surrounded on all sides by City of Plano owned property, which constrains constrains the size and shape of the property. And when considering a variance to access to the access requirements set by the subdivision ordinance, the Commission should consider these two criteria on the screen, and similarly, staff finds that this criteria is also met because of the lack of available available cross access points due to the lot being surrounded by city owned property. So. This item is recommended that findings are met and approval as submitted with the following subdivision ordinance variances. The first two, subsection 52C3A of article five two of the subdivision ordinance to allow a flag lot of less than two acres in size, and the second to section 52C4A of article five of the subdivision ordinance to allow for a site to have only one point of access. I'm available for any questions, and I don't believe the applicant is here to speak. It's got to be him right there. All right, questions for staff, Commissioner Bronsky. Did you say did I? Maybe I misunderstood what you said. Do you said findings are required. Yes. So the these are essentially the criteria that you would find your. So you don't mean a findings form is required. Okay. I'm sorry. That's okay. Yeah. I was going to ask the same question. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner Brounoff. Yes. Is this the type of building that would that would type of development that would see a lot of public ingress and egress? No, it is not. I didn't think so. How many people at one time do you think would be on the property. So the applicant and, and they can speak to this as well. But the applicant anticipates that any traffic would only be due to maintenance or, or something that might happen there. So it would just be the one off chance that someone is going to, you know, fix something on the side or something like that. Okay. And the Board of Adjustment is already granted the variance to the two, the two lot, the two acre minimum lot size, is that right? It's a different lot size. They granted the variance to reduce the required amount from 85,000ft■!S, as required by the agricultural zoning district, to 81,000ft■!S. So different language but similar request. So the the 1.9 acre size has been approved in effect. Right. In terms of the zoning ordinance requirement, but not in terms of the in order to have a flag lot be that size. So the lot is allowed to be that size, but it's not allowed to be that size. If you want to do a flag lot and decrease your frontage, unless we grant the variance. That's right. Okay, okay. Commissioner lolly, I have a couple questions. My first one is there like a hazardous situation that will require a fire access? And is the fire department okay with having one access? So the fire department has approved the preliminary and revised site plan. There's not a required fire lane on through the property that's needed for the site. Okay. And did they try to get an easement like an access easement from the neighboring properties? No, because it's surrounded by city property and there's no opportunities to connect access points. Okay. Thank you. No problem, Commissioner Tong. Thank you. Chairman, I'm just curious. Please refresh my memory. I can't remember what happened last time regarding how this lot ended up to be a flag lot and smaller than two acres because it's surrounded by city properties, right? So did the applicant actually purchase this lot and actually draw the side, you know, the shape of the lot when they bought it from the city. So how did we how did it get end up like this. So the applicant actually from what I can tell from the tax records, did not purchase the property from the city. It was purchased from a residential from a citizen. So it wasn't city owned property. Previous to this request. Best guess is this lot has been in this configuration since before we had subdivision regulations. So it's just a existing condition. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions or staff seeing any I know we have the applicant here and that's got to be him up there. So Mr. Myers, do we have any questions for the applicant? Nobody. Mr. Myers, do you have a ten slide presentation or anything that you okay? Thank you for hanging out with us tonight. Motion to table to March 2nd. Commissioner Bronsky, contrary to Mr. Bell's desire. Well, you know what? Let me go on for a couple minutes about what I think related. No, we're not going to do that. I would I'd like to move that. We accept the direction of the staff and approve agenda item three A as recommended by staff. Three three. Commissioner Lingenfelter. I'll second that. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve. Please vote. That passes 8 to 0. We do have one that didn't get tabled tonight, so that's good. All right. Do we have any other business before the commission this evening? No, sir. All right. At that point, we stand adjourned at 8:06 p.m. 9:06 p.m. 906. Somebody must have money on it. Yes. We have some exciting things coming that we're going to be presenting. I don't know if you want to share about that. You want to share? Sure. We're going to be presenting at