Welcome to the March 2nd City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Meeting to order at 6:00 pm. If you all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of. One. And to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you, thank you. Got a bad echo tonight. Working on it. All right. Comments of public interest. Comments of public interest. This portion of the meeting is to allow up to three minutes per speaker, with 30 total minutes on items of interest or concern, and not on items that are on the current agenda. The Planning and Zoning Commission may not discuss these items, but may respond with factual or policy information. The Planning and Zoning Commission may choose to place the item on a future agenda. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Do we have any registered speakers tonight? We do not. Consent agenda. Consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items that are routine and typically noncontroversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff. Mr. Bell, as discussed in the preliminary meeting, I just want to make note of item B. A correction to the project number should be PSP 2025. Dash 025. Thank you. Commission I would like to remove an item from the consent agenda. Commissioner Lingenfelter. I'm going to just move that. We approve the consent agenda with the revised number that staff had just pointed out. Okay. Commissioner Bronsky second. All right. Just to make note, we do have Commissioner Tong and Ali absent right now. Commissioner Tong may be joining us later. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 6 to 0. Right. Items for individual consideration. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items, unless instructed otherwise by the chair. Speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal considerations. Non public hearing items. The Presiding Officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. The Presiding Officer will establish time limits based 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. Can you read items one A and one B together, please? Agenda item number one A request to rezone 14.1 acres of land out of the job Butler Survey Abstract number 46. Located on the west side of Los Rios Boulevard, 115 North Merriman Drive in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas, from planned development. 173 estate development to single family residence seven tabled November 17th, 2025 and February 2nd, 2026. Applicant is Meadows Baptist Church. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number one. B Meadows Brook addition blocks A through D and Meadows Baptist Church addition block one, lot one R through 50. Single family residence seven lots, two common area lots, and a religious facility on one lot on 27.3 acres. Located at the northwest corner of Los Rios Boulevard and Merriman Drive. Zoned planned development 173 Estate Development Table November 17th, 2025 and February 2nd, 2026. Applicant again is Meadows Baptist Church. This item is for administrative consideration pending. Agenda item number one a before you get started, just want to make note that Commissioner Tong has joined us. So thank you. All right. Please proceed. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Destiny woods, planner with the planning department. So shown on the screen is the request area for this zoning case. And the next few slides are going to show the associated concept plan. So this request was initially brought to the Planning and Zoning Commission on November 17th, 2025. But the request has changed a bit since then. So the previous zoning request was to rezone the subject property to Single Family residence six. And the updated zoning request is to rezone the subject property to Single Family Residence seven as shown on the chart on the screen, and then previously the concept plan proposed 58 single family detached residential lots. It proposed those lots ranging from. Six around 6000ft■!S to 13,000ft■!S, and then it also hd 15 residential lots along the western property line. Now, that concept plan is proposing 50 residential lots, and those lots range from 7400ft■!S to 9600ft■!S. And it's going to hae a screening wall and no lots along the western property line. So since the November 17th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting, where the Commission requested that the applicant meet with the surrounding property owners, the applicant has indicated that there has been a series of in-person meetings, phone calls, emails with both the ranch estates and Stony Hollow homeowners associations, as well as the homeowners along that western property line. So the existing plan development stipulations restrict the lot size from a two acre minimum, or they restrict the lots to a two acre minimum. And it asserts fence design standards as they correspond to the ranch estates deed restriction. So staff finds that the request to rezone 14.1 acres out of the current 147 acre district will have no adverse impact on the district because the remaining properties will remain in conformance with the existing zoning and the fence restrictions listed in the plan. Development stipulations are intended to maintain the character of the Ranch Estate subdivision, and the subject property is not part of that subdivision. The surrounding land uses include single family residence, detached lots ranging from two acres to 6000 square foot acre or 6000 square foot lots. Excuse me. And then institutional institutional land uses are to the immediate north, south and east. And those are religious facilities and a public school. And then the surrounding zoning is a mix of estate development, SF seven, nine and six. So this request is compatible with the residential single single family detached lots being proposed. So the subject property is designated in or neighborhoods on the future land use map and meets all of the applicable policies set by the Comprehensive Plan. So staff did receive one signed letter in support from within the subject property, and that same letter was counted within the 200 foot buffer as the only signed letter here. There. And city wide. We received 72 responses as of Friday, February 27th, 71 in support and one in opposition. We did receive a handful of responses after the deadline, and those were provided to the commission. So to summarize, the request is to rezone the subject property from PD 173 Estate Development to Single Family Residence seven, and the concept plan proposes 50 single family detached residential lots. Item one A is recommended for approval as submitted. Item one B is recommended for approval subject to City Council approval. Approval of this zoning case and I'm available for questions. The applicant is also here with the presentation. Any questions of staff? Commissioner Bronsky Miss Woods, good job today. Again. Thank you. A quick question on the responses. How did the did we simply update the responses that were from last time, or did we have responses that were in the negative last time that are no longer so? We only included responses received after the new zoning case was posted with the new SF seven request. So that start date that we started receiving, including responses is February 2nd. So that's where all of the now relevant responses are counted from. Do you recall what the numbers were from the previous case before? I believe it was around 60 in the 60 range as negative total. And then there were a few. Actually I have it. One 2nd May not break apart. Can I ask a question about numbers because I have them from last time I was here. We there will be an opportunity for the citizens to speak during public hearing if you'd like. If you're if you're scheduled to speak, you can bring it up. Then. One second. Let me. Oh it's fine, I apologize. I just was curious. Okay. Actually, don't have that number, but there are quite a few. And then there was also a petition that was signed as well. Okay. We can get that information from you if you get a chance before we're done. I'd love to hear it. Thank you. That's all, Miss Wood. Thank you. One question from me. Is there any requirement in our code for screening between residential when we were going from estate to single family, 7 or 9 or whatever, is there any requirement for screening there? There's not or separation setbacks anything of that nature? No. There's no requirement to screen residential districts from other residential districts. Okay. All right. Any other questions of staff? Yeah. Mr. Bell, just have the information. The presentation from the November meeting indicates five letters in support. 62 in opposition, total of 67. Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Nobody. Okay. Thank you very much. I think we have some speakers. Let me open the public hearing. Public hearing I think we have the applicant here with the presentation. Is that correct? Mr. Douglas, if you introduce yourself and address for the record, please. Good evening. Jim Douglas Douglas properties address 23 09K Avenue here in Plano. Thank you very much. First of all, thank you for putting up with us on the tabling because we really had us a chance to to work with the homeowners. I feel like we've made a lot of progress. Unfortunately, it's hard to reach 100% agreement, but I feel like we've we've come a long way on it. We've got the slide you see up there. Now, this is our latest layout where it shows the nine lots, minimum 9000 square foot lots along the west side and the east side. We have the 7000 foot lots in the center. You you asked about the the fencing and the setbacks. There are no required setbacks with discussions with the homeowners. This is how we arrived at this, this separation. We've got 20 foot setback. Excuse me. On the west side, plus the right of way of the road. Then you've got setback on the other side for the houses. The one of the big reasons, those two big reasons for it is one is under their ordinance, they have to be 100ft from a structure before they build a shed or a barn. So we've given them 85ft. Plus they have a 25 foot setback. So that gives them ten feet of wiggle room, you might say to make sure. So that's why we have that through discussions. They asked for a masonry brick wall. We agreed to that. And that's what was in your package. Since then the discussion has changed to where we would do an ornamental metal fence and line the property line on the west with some cedar trees. There's a lot of existing trees. So to fill in the gaps and where there aren't trees will agree to plant cedar trees, which will give a screen year round and be more attractive than a brick wall will. Plus, they talked about in the summertime. The heat on the wall does get hot. They've got animals. So therefore that's how we reach this. And it was upon their suggestion, the HOA will maintain all of that area. It gives them a little more security, a little more sense of security. You've got a double fence. The two ends, the north and south end will be fenced and and locked with gates. It'll be gates so we can get in there to maintain the area. The also you can see from the layout, there's no houses that back up to them. And we also have minimum 9000 foot lots along Los Rios. So when you drive by or look at it, it gives it that feeling, but yet gives us a chance to pick up a few more lots there. This does match the area or services. All city services have been verified. There's adequate water, sewer, schools. I know there's been a lot of discussion on on the schools with schools closings, but under the the information from the school, which I believe the letter from the school is in your packet, that there is sufficient capacity in the schools. This zoning is also in compliance with the future land use plan. And I feel like you know it, it is sufficient because you've got a mixture of zoning in this area from SF six all the way up to state development. Also, I believe you got a letter from the Stony Hollow HOA that talk about, you know, they've got they want to stay SF nine. You know everything that should be the minimum. Stony hollow is not all 9000 foot lots. There's almost half. 242 of them are zoned for SF seven and they were developed as SF seven lots. So there's not 100% SF nine. That's why this this matches with Stony Hollow. Merriman escorts SF six. Also this will on the letters I've known for quite a long time. I've been doing business in the city a long time. He's always been fair and upfront and I appreciate the letter that he wrote. It indicated that we have been working, that several our options are serves the request. The one, excuse me, the one request that he had in there. And that's why I've written a letter to the homeowners of my commitment to honor this. As far as you know, 50 lot maximum, the the 9000 foot lots, SF seven lots, the landscaping, the masonry, I mean the ornamental metal fence, all of these items. I've also agreed not to come back to toy with it at a later date. You know, try to get all SF seven. In fact, the concept plan, that's the next item. If that can be part of the zoning, I'll agree to that or or whatever agreement. That's why I'll say it in a public forum. So it's on the record. I mean, this is my word. I've done a lot of business in Plano. We've never played games with you guys. So so therefore, I want to make sure it's clear that we're not coming back to asking for more. They've worked with us and we appreciate it. And like I said, I do appreciate people recognizing it. If there's any other questions that you may have, or if I can reserve some time after the public hearing to address any concerns or questions, I'll be glad to. All right. I have a couple of questions. You said that the common space, which I presume on this drawing is the area shown in green. Is that correct? Between the roadway and the whatever screening is that you agree with? Yes, sir. That's correct. You said that'll be maintained by the HOA? Yes. You're referring to an HOA specifically for Meadowbrook, not the current HOA. That is correct. It will have its own HOA, which will also maintain the green area along Los Rios too. Okay, so this will be a separate HOA of just these 50 lots that take care of that maintenance. Okay. And then go through your math again with me on the 100 foot setback, because it looks like to me you've got a 20 foot buffer and 50 foot right of way. That's 70 plus a 15 foot building line. That's 85. Yeah. Where's the other 15ft? Come from the side yard. Here's an example here. You've got the 20ft of open space. You got the right of way. You've got the pavement the other right of way and the site setback 15ft from for the houses. This example shows you the 85ft. Yeah. That's still showing 85. That's my question. Is the 15 on the current landowner side. Is that the other 15 foot for their setback. No. For them to build a shed or barn, they have to be 100ft from any structure. Okay. So that would that would be a 15 foot setback on their side of the property line, which would make them the 100ft. Yes. Got it. Okay. So that honors their setback. They can build right to their setback line. That is correct. And still be 100ft from your nearest structure. That is correct. Got it. Now I understand okay. Because I didn't I didn't want to restrict them from doing something that they're entitled to do. Got it. Okay. All right. Those are my two questions, Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Do I understand that the ornamental fence with the cedar trees replaces the wall? Yes. And it will be placed at the eastern side of the open space. It shows that there the ornamental metal fence. Yes, sir. And therefore there will not be a masonry wall. We'll have the cedar trees over there. Okay. Aside from Stony Hollow and whatever the other development was, could you characterize the status of agreement or disagreement now from the residents of ranch estates to the west? This is from Rancho Estates. We've, we've I've talked to the HOA president of Stony Hollow. If they would like to meet. He has met. He's primarily gone to the ranch estates. He's met with them and cumulative. They've given me letters and requests to what they would like. And we've copied the chairman, the president on all the paperwork, and we volunteered to meet with them. But they chose not to. Well, are they on board with this new proposal or not? I don't I don't know. I do know from their letter that they're saying, you know, they want nothing less than sf9 because they want to preserve the sf9 zoning. Well, unfortunately, they have seven lots also. Yeah. Okay. All right. Thank you, Mr. Bender. Thank you. The screening wall that you referred to, is there any plan for irrigation of that area? Yes, sir. Yeah. But for the grass and for the cedar trees. Thank you, Commissioner Lingenfelter. I expect I, I know you had answered a lot of questions, but in in your answering you said that this this now ornamental fence I assume are you still continuing continuing to make it an eight foot. Is that that is correct. The other thing is you you said it was going to be on the eastern side of that 20 foot. Was that a mistake or did you mean west? I meant the east east side of the open space. So it's going to go along the the right of way line instead of the property line. That is correct. So the HOA would be maintaining it on, on the outside of the fence, not on the inside of the fence essentially. And that's why we'll have a gate at the south end for the for the maintenance people to get in there to mow. So instead of instead of right away, a landscape fence or it's now right of way fence landscape and open space. Well, that's what I'm saying. Open space. Yeah. Okay. And that was a request of the landowners that's next to it to move the ornamental. They wanted it over away from them. Yes, sir. Because there's existing trees there too. And we didn't want to disturb any existing trees. We wanted to leave them all intact. So what are you. How. Since. Since it's not part of our packet. This this ornamental fence. You spoke about the landscaping and trees. How how often? How do we know where you're putting those trees? Every 20ft. Every what? What what is the plan for the screening of the Cedars? About 20ft apart. Because they grow out. Okay. And they're really used for the areas that don't have any existing trees or if there's gaps between those existing trees because we don't want them to have them be comfortable with a nice, you know, screen there that stays green year round and gives them some buffering. And that's why we moved the the wrought iron, I mean the metal fence out which again it gives them another 20ft of buffer which keep people from going over there next to their fence or looking over them in security standpoint. Okay. Commissioner Bronsky. So Mr. Douglas, I more of a comment than a question. I wanted to say that your frankness, as well as your earnest desire to work with the homeowners that are here, I think, speaks volumes. Your commitment to not coming back for future situations. I think a lot of our citizens feel that people get zoning, and then they come back wanting changes and changes. And so to hear the efforts that you've gone through, as well as to see the difference in the numbers of, I think, speak volumes, I have not ready to render my decision yet, but I just wanted to comment that. Thank you. I appreciate your effort as a developer as well as a good citizen. Okay. Thank you. Two more follow up questions, Mr. Douglas. The fence and landscape. As you heard when I asked staff, we as the Planning and Zoning Commission cannot require that you've committed to that. How is that being memorialized? Well, I've got a wrote a letter to the homeowners that if that needs to be, I can send that to you if they want to add that to the package or my verbal commitment right here of record. Well, I think the point is we can't require that. I know, so I just want volunteering. I wanted to make sure that you had were working something out with the neighbors to memorialize that. Yes, this is voluntarily. And they do have a letter itemizing. I think it's ten points that we went through. Okay. And then last, at our last meeting, there was at least one neighbor. There may have been two that were concerned about drainage, about your potential, your development potentially blocking drainage. Yes. How have you dealt with that issue? Well, the drainage there is a city easement for the drainage that we have to maintain is existing easement, because the city, a number of years ago went in and cleaned the ditch back out to handle that water because our ditches and ranch estate. So the water flows in and again, we're going to turn our grading plans into the city, and they're going to review it. They're not going to let us dump water over on them. And that's that's another thing that gives us that 20ft plus the right of way to make sure it drains away from them into our storm system. Got it. Okay. Which which again, the question came up when we had homes backing up to it that that would have been harder to control. But now that we've opened that all up, that won't be an issue now. Good point. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Lolly. And the letter that we got, some citizens had some concerns about the emergency, and probably it's for the staff. Have we contacted the police and emergency? Do they have the capacity to respond? All the plans are provided to police and fire during the plan review, and they had no concern. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? Nobody. Mr. Douglas, thank you very much. Stick around. We may have more for you later. Thank you sir. All right. I do believe we have a number of speakers registered. It's been brought to my attention that several of y'all would like to combine your time. And so if that's your intent, please come to the microphone and say that you're that you're combining your time. So we know which people on our list have combined their time together so we can be respectful of of the process. So if you want to call speakers and if you are one of the ones that are exceeding your time to somebody else, if you'd come to the microphone and just tell us that we appreciate it. All right. Who's up first? Our first speaker is Scott Fenton, followed by Ray Parker, and then followed by Brian Epley. Please state your name and address. For the record, my name is Doctor Scott Fenton. I reside at 4017 Kite Meadow Drive. Hello, commissioners, and thank you for your service. I wasn't born in East Plano, but I got here just as soon as I could. I'm deeply vested in the East Plano community. I've been an enthusiastic resident of East Plano for the past 36 years, serving as the pastor of Meadows Baptist Church. My three children have gone to East Side schools from grade school through middle school to high school, all three graduating from Plano East Senior High School. And my five grandchildren are following in their steps. My wife is a retired teacher from Plano Independent School District and was a teacher of the year at one of our East side schools, where she developed outstanding and award winning speech and theater teams. I've served as the chaplain of the Plano East football team, and for the past ten years, I've served as a chaplain for the Plano Police and Fire departments, assisting our first responders. This service helps Plano families from all backgrounds, religions, and ethnicities to deal with the most traumatic crisis imaginable. The unexpected death of a loved one. I've been an eyewitness and participant in the growth of our East Plano community over the past quarter of a century, when we relocated our church from East 14th Street back in 2000, Los Rios dead ended at the high school. I was one of the first homeowners of the Stony Hollow neighborhood, and I've lived there for the past 27 years. As a resident of East Plano, I'm proud of our businesses, our restaurants, our schools, and the neighborhoods that have been developed out of the agricultural landscape of our past. I love our East Side pride, and especially the crown jewel of Plano Parks and Recreation system. Our 800 acre Point Oak Point Nature Preserve. Recent years in East Plano, however, have seen the closing of major chains like Tom thumb and school closures due to declining enrollment. The reality is we need more families, more homes, more children, more neighborhoods to keep our East Plano schools and businesses vibrant and strong. As a devoted East Plano citizen and original member of Stony Hollow, I urge you to vote yes for this rezoning, which I believe will attract families and create a new neighborhood that will be of great benefit to our East Plano community. Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Fenton. Our next speaker is Ray Parker, followed by Brian Epley, followed by John Marlow. Please state your name and address for the record. My name is Ray Parker. I live at 2101 Los Rios and here in Plano, I had the pleasure of residing in the same house for 31 years. My wife and I and both of our boys were duly elementary. Armstrong Middle School, Williams High School, and Plano East attendees. Very proud of the East side. We moved here because of the the. It was a very less busy local community neighbor neighborhood that we we moved into. As Mr. Fenton spoke. There's been some changes. There's been a lot of good changes, but there's been some bad changes, you know, and I don't want to make the point again that he made. But we do need more schools and we need more people here. Recently, Plano Independent School District announced this summer having to deal with a multi-million dollar shortfall in revenue, looking at more school closures. And I would put to you that a school closure is a terrible blow to a neighborhood, because a school is the lifeblood of a neighborhood. It's the entity that people can connect around. So of the use before you, I think that going to single family home use on this property makes the most sense of property that's sitting vacant now, and let's turn it into a neighborhood that has a pride and can become part of the Plano East neighborhoods and part of the Plano East Senior High support. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Parker. Next we have Brian Epley, followed by John Marlow and then John Jacobsen. Good evening. I'm Brian Epley. I live at 4324 Peggy Lane in Creekside Estates. Good evening commissioners. I've only lived here for the last five years. We moved my family here from from Illinois. We looked for housing from as far south as Richardson, all the way up to McKinney. We looked from Wylie over to Frisco and we chose Plano. We like our new community. We have good neighbors, our children of new good friends. We like the schools, the park district, the churches, the businesses. It's it's all fantastic. We love it all. I love to be able to go to the parades for the high school and see the turnout of the community. People that don't have their kids in school are still there for the parade supporting us. It's been hard to move, but this community has done everything it can to make it easy for us to transition, and we're very we're very happy for them. But we do have room to grow. I know that Plano ISD needs students. My youngest son, his middle school, Armstrong, was closed last year. He's currently at McMillen High School, but he was supposed to be transferred to Williams High School because of the redistricting. We've done what we can to keep him there, but it's it's had to be on us. We would like it so that no families have to go through that upheaval. With more school closures. Businesses are always looking for more customers. The city could benefit from the expanded pool of taxpayers. I would like to give more families the opportunity to experience what my family has experienced here in in East Plano, so I urge you to approve the zone change. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Eppley. Next is John Marlow, followed by John Jacobson, followed by Phil Langley. Good evening. My name is John Marlow. I live at 3801 Atwood Lane, Plano, Texas. I am the president of the Stony Hollow HOA. We represent 605 homes. Over the past several months, we've had four major open meetings, this being one of the largest topics in there. We have also looked at a number of things, including the elementary school closings, Duley specifically in 2020 for Pisd announced that anyone within two miles no longer was eligible for bussing. Therefore, that greatly increased our traffic flow near Hickey throughout our communities. We've had several children almost hit with automobiles. We've had to get the police involved because, again, the traffic increase. Likewise, we've had 80 to 100 students from Forman due to that closure, get dumped into the Hickey Elementary system. And that's basically closed down our major Coldwater Creek during school hours because of the traffic jams. The Pisd has has forecasted another 10% decline in their enrollment numbers over the next two years, and therefore, that forecast more school closings. And we anticipate greater traffic issues in relationship to the comment made that Stony Hollow has SF seven and SF nine. That is absolutely true. We also have six progressive phases that the developers used. We moved from a denser population populous area to a little bit spread out into SF nine. We found that to be more conducive for both individuals privacy as well as quality of living. As far as space, giving people the opportunity to live harmoniously. Therefore, we have over the past four years for each of the three developments that have touched Stony Hollow, maintain that the lot size should be SF nine, and that's the major contention of our board. The excuse me, little little horse today, the further development in that area puts a task on not only our police department, but also emergency services parking. As an example, we have both sides of the streets being used in the evening as parking. We've had numerous cases where EMTs and fire departments have not been able to get to emergency calls. The only requirement that we're asking is that the lot size be conducive with what we've maintained for the past four years at SF nine. Thank you for your time, I appreciate that. Thank you, Mr. Marlowe. Next is John Jacobson, followed by Phil Langley, followed by Gabriella Piano. Good evening. My name is John Jacobson. I live at 3916 Ridgetop Lane, about 200ft from the western boundary of this development. I'm a 40 year Plano resident and a 34 year owner of this property on Ridgetop Estates. Seen a lot of changes I've seen when nothing to the north of me existed. There was no houses, no hay, just hay fields. I also like to correct Mr. Douglas in saying that Ranch Estates only has two plus acre lots on it, and I haven't owned a three acre lot. We came to the area because we like the openness, the fact that you could have horses, large animals, you could have a workshop in your backyard. The elephant in the room for me is this. This proposed development is still too dense. If you look at the current zoning, you can have about six two acre lots on 73 for those 14 acres, and then you'd have to allow some of that space for roads. Now on the other hand, we started out with 58 lots. Last November. We moved the needle ever so slightly to 50 lots. Now you're hearing that, okay, maybe we want a minimum of sf9 lots. I say a minimum of sf9 lots and a maximum of 30 lots. You're adjacent to editor zoning. That transition, if you look, has been done very well on the north side of ridgetop, as well as Merriman to the south of Ranch Estates. The other thing to consider is there's been two recent zoning cases that the city worked against high density residential. One was the adjacent property to the. This property under consideration, which is the Mormon church. They wanted to build six or so houses on a on a lot that they were going to sell. The city said no, now it's a one acre lot, and you couldn't tell that it wasn't part of that original zoning. Adjacent to the Mormon church is a montessori school. They wanted to put smaller lots on that property. The city said no, and now they are larger lots. So I think it's only fair to those developments that you consider that this area needs to be larger lots. It needs to be an open space. It fits with the area, it doesn't. And as far as the schools are concerned, the Lavon Farm development is going to have 1600 units in it, and that should bring in more students for Pisd. If you can wrap it up for us. Yeah. I'm done. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much, Mr. Jacobson. Next is Phil Langley, followed by Gabriella Naranjo and Chris Meyer. Thank you, thank you. Good evening everyone. Appreciate your time. Appreciate everything you all do. It's a chance for me to wear a suit. So I was kind of excited about that. I too, like a previous speaker, moved here from downstate Illinois almost 30 years. Name and your address? Oh, I'm so sorry. Phil Langley, 39, 27 Ranch Estate Circle, Plano. So I moved here a little over 30 years ago. My father was a small town banker. His name was Billy Bob. I have brothers that are named Bill and Bob. So when I moved to Texas, I fit right in. I was super happy. I love this place. Really love Plano. I'm. I just want to clarify a couple things that I heard here. I made some notes, the surrounding area. In fact, as John just said, there's more properties that are more than two acres. In fact, the three adjacent properties to the proposed property that we're talking about today are all over three acres. Okay. So I just want to clarify that. And as far as the setback, that wasn't a voluntary setback. That's a sewer easement. So it is convenient to say, hey, we talked to the community. We decided to move it back 20ft. Couldn't do anything with that 20ft anyway. So I just want to clarify that. And then I looked at the the rewrite of the comprehensive plan today. And there's a guiding principle 1.6 is proactively seeking community input. Well that's the survey that was online. And so as of today, the majority of Plano respondents oppose it. And even despite the flurry of recent in favor of 84% of the respondents that live in the ZIP code are still against this plan. And that was as of about 1 p.m. today. So I just want to clarify those facts for everybody. My opinion we shouldn't be here for three reasons. Number one, this is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Number two, this massive leapfrog of three zoning districts is inconsistent with the current zoning that calls for SF 20 to be transitioned from estate development than into urban districts. But more importantly, in my opinion, this puts neighbors at odds. C because SF seven and even SF nine are urban estate development isn't. So let me just read what it says for urban residents should be, to quote the city code, be protected from excessive noise, illumination, odor, and visual clutter. Well, if you've ever been to a ranch, I don't think I've ever seen an electric tractor. I've never seen a horse use a toilet, and I can't get my dogs to stop barking after 10:00. They just don't know, right? So immediately you have neighbor against neighbor with competing zoning, right? And so that's going to put us at odds. What's the real reason I think we're here? It's about money. I talked to the good pastor. Awesome guy, asked him why he was doing this and it was to raise money for the church. I think that's fantastic. And bless their hearts, are going to make a ton of money off of this. It was great investment. Good for them and I hope they put it to good use. But then I went to the developer and I said, why aren't you following the code as it is today and the transition? He said, well, I can't make enough money, can't make enough money. Now he wants to go a different zoning, right? I believe the next speaker is going to yield her time. If I could ask her. So it really comes down to money in this event. And, you know, look, I know everyone wants to do the right thing here, but just put putting neighbors at odds with each other before you even break ground or they move in is I just don't think, healthy for the community. Right. And so if I can interrupt you just one minute, if you'll let Miss Naranjo come to the mic and just cede her time to you, if that's what she'd like to do, if you could introduce yourself and your address and then tell us your intention. My name is Gabriela Naranjo. I reside in 2524 Ellis Court in West Plano, and I yield my time to my husband, Philip Langley. Thank you very much. If you notice, we actually have two residents of Plano. Neither of them are for rent. We love Plano. We live in the central. We live in the East. So I wanted to commend as well, you know, Commissioner Bronsky, you said Mr. Douglas was forthright and was seemed to be accommodating with us, and I believe he has tried to be. But everything he says is lip service to this point. I don't know the man. I'd like to trust him, but why don't we just put him to the test? I asked this committee to reject this proposal, ask him to go back and do a planned development for all of the things he says he's going to do, and more an agreement, put it in a planned development and then bring it back, because I think there'll be accommodation. But today it's just a promise. In fact, he one time told me, hey, let's just hope people don't complain about your dogs. And I said, with all due respect, hope is not a plan. Have them put it in a plan. Reject this current proposal and then we'll come back at another time and I'm sure everything will be amenable then. So thank you for your time. Thank you for listening. Appreciate what you do. Thank you, Mr. Langley. And the next speaker is Chris Meyer, followed by Kyle Duchaine. Good evening, Chris Meyer. 3805 Merriman Drive. I'm the current president of the Rancho Estates Homeowners Association. Everything that Phil has said, we have talked about many times, the last speaker and the residents of 60 residents of the Rancho estates are in complete agreement with everything that he has said. We feel as though that if the if we go from estate development size lots to SF nine, SF seven or any, any smaller is certainly not what the residents of East Plano has moved there for. We moved there because we really enjoyed the open spaces, the parks, the larger lots, the standard of living that we had that all of that provided. So I ask that you vote no against this, this change. And I think that a estate development structure there would be would be conducive and go work right alongside with what is currently there now and what the the city had originally planned. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Meyer. The last speaker is Carl Duchaine. Hello, my name is Kyle Duchaine. I live at 3924 Ridge Top Lane, and I share a property line with the landowner. Consideration for rezoning. As someone who spoke a few months ago, I wanted to start again by saying thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective. I'd also like to thank the other members of the community who are here and willing to express their views. All this support shows why our small Los Rios area community is so great. My property in particular shares over 500ft of property line with the area proposed for rezoning. There are a few points that are very important for me that I would like the board to take into consideration, as estate development districts are unique and their removal of that zoning designation could have unintended consequences in both their size and their their use. My first concern relates to my property rights regarding structures within estate development districts. Any additional building constructed on my property must be located, like mentioned before, at least 100ft from any dwelling on an adjoining property the developers have been working with. With us to provide an adequate buffer. However, I would like to understand what additional assurances or legally binding protections can be put in place to ensure that this buffer will not be reduced or otherwise compromised in the future. My second concern pertains to my property rights with respect to livestock. Based on the acreage of our lots, property owners are permitted to keep livestock animals. How can we ensure that the new residents will acknowledge and respect these rights as well? My last concern is in line with much of the other community members around density. Plano's Comprehensive Comprehensive Plan lists as its first priority for neighborhoods the goal to preserve neighborhood character and quality of life, and that it is the intention to preserve and enhance these uses and to regulate the design of new residential infill products to be within the context of the surrounding environment. When thinking about my estate development rights, how does this infill design preserve or enhance them, and what will this do to the neighborhood's quality of life? Based on some of the points that I have brought up, thank you. Thank you. Mr. Duchaine. Do you have any other speakers? Okay, we did have someone that registered, but as an attendee only, he liked to know if he can speak at this meeting. If they're registered, then yes, we should let them speak. All right, so, Cory Rennaker. Good evening, commissioners. I just want to make a few remarks on this request. Name and address, please, Mr. Riker. ■Cory Riker, 1814. And place 75074. Thank you. I just want to make a few brief remarks on this request. It's clear to me that the the applicant has done a lot of outreach and building consensus around something like this, and a change is obviously a challenge. I'd like to say that I support this request, and I hope that you you do too. Reviewing the prior versions of the plan, somewhat disappointed that it's gone from from more units down to less units. As you know, we are desperately in need of of housing in Plano, and we have declining school population and schools closing. I'm a bit concerned about the open space area and the proposed screening wall. It appears to me that this is placing a burden on these future homeowners, who are not even in this room of a cost that they will ultimately have to bear maintenance and all those ongoing costs in perpetuity through their HOA. And it seems to me it's just a matter of of inequity. So aside from that, I hope that you will support the request as presented or modified. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Riker. Anyone else? No. Okay. I'll close the public hearing and restrict comments to the commission commissioners. To speak. And I was on the agenda. Timothy Richards. Well, hang on, I'm sorry. That's that's old. Just a second. Mr. Timothy Richards is registered to speak for item one. A as an opinion only. As a support only, but not registered to speak. Okay. Mr. Richards, would you like to speak? Okay, let me reopen the public hearing then. And please, please come forward. I'm sorry for the confusion, but I did receive a confirmation email that I registered to speak, so. Good evening. My name is Tim Richards. I reside at 4300 Peggy Lane in Plano, which is part of the Creekside Estates Number two addition. Our neighborhood is just south Plano East Senior High. It's bounded by Los Rios Boulevard to the west, Park Boulevard to the south. So when my family moved here in February of 1993, the Merriman family farm was between our neighborhood and Plano East Senior High and also the Stony Hollow addition did not exist. There were no houses north of Plano East Senior High and Park Boulevard ended at the creek, and it did not turn into Betsy Road going into Murphy because there was no bridge at that time. So to say that I have seen a lot of changes in these Plano since 1993 is an accurate statement. For reference purposes. I recently retired from the title insurance business after 42 years in that industry. I also hold a active Texas real estate sales license. Continual license since 1985. Just for background, my wife Cindy and I moved our family to East Plano in 1993 because we like the small town feel of Plano and for the school district, both of our children went to Dooley Elementary, Armstrong Middle School, which, as you know, no longer exists. Williams High School and graduated from Plano East Senior High. So we're deeply rooted and love East Plano. When the Merriman Farm family farm was sold as a homeowner in the adjoining neighborhood, I was very concerned about what would be what would be done with the land and what kind of houses would be constructed on that property. The zoning petition at that time was SF six, which also concerned me, because those are smaller lots. And in our neighborhood, well, the same developer that has petitioned for this zoning change, Douglas Properties, developed that neighborhood. And it turns out they built extremely nice homes. And they have, in my opinion, greatly enhanced the value of our adjoining neighborhood. Considering all of the other zoning change categories that could have been requested, retail or multifamily, etc. I truly feel this is in the best interest of of our small of Plano. And so I respectfully request that the Commission approve this zoning change request. I know that several of our concerned citizens have come out this evening to show their strong support for the rezoning effort, and I would just like them to stand to show their support, if you don't mind. Thank you for your time. Thank you, Mr. Richards. Okay, now I'll close the public hearing and restrict comments to the commission. Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just want to say that thank you all so much for being here. I'm really impressed having so many people living in Plano for so long and coming here to participate in this, to give your opinions and share your thoughts and love of the city and give us some feedback and help us do our jobs. So we appreciate that. I appreciate that, I just have a question to our staff, I guess, regarding the setbacks, because if if we were going to approve the zoning changes, is there any language in the zoning itself to say, hey, there has to be this much setbacks so that the neighbors will not suffer any like, more restrictions about how how far they have to build away from the building so that in the future they cannot build more buildings closer to the property line. Are you sorry? Are you referring to a setback from the residential or from the ranch estates to the new property, or just any setback at all? That 85ft setback from the property line to the new development building, so that the neighbor will doesn't have to build 100ft from their property line if they built closer. I'm not sure. Mike, can you. Mr. Bell, can you answer that question? Sure. This request is for a straight single family residence, seven zoning. So those restrictions are not required. They are voluntary that the the applicant is proposing, but they're not will not be required by the zoning if approved. In order to do those kind of standards, you would need to have it as part of a planned development. And this has not been noticed for a planned development case. And so there's not a way to put those standards on this current request tonight. Thank you, thank you, Mr. Bruno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First of all, I want to thank everybody for coming out tonight and speaking to us. I was impressed with the quality of the of the of the presentations on both sides of this issue. I, I see a bunch of people on both sides of this issue committed to their neighborhoods, to their homes, to to East Plano and the city of Plano. I'm also impressed with the applicant, who has, I believe, made a significant effort to reach out to the neighbors and to modify his proposal to address as many of the concerns as was humanly possible. He has reduced the number of lots that he was proposing to build by 16%, from 58 down to 50. Well. And well as a percentage of 58 is probably a little less. I'm sorry, but anyway, it's in double digits. He's made a significant concession there. He has reconfigured the drive lanes in the development so that there is not only is there no direct street connection between this property and ranch estates, but the the westernmost drive lane provides part of the setback from homes built in the subject property, separating them from ranch estates to the west. He has proposed an attractive ornamental fence with cedar trees to provide an additional visual and attractive visual screening barrier separating the neighborhoods. But I think this application creates the opportunity for people to buy homes. This is an application for single family detached homes. It provides application for or opportunity for new home ownership so that people can develop pride and pride in owning a home, which is part of the American dream. Pride in a neighborhood and a brand new neighborhood of which they can be a part. Pride in East Plano. And these are good things. I don't know of any any way in which a home on a 7000 square foot lot is inherently damaging, poisonous, or contaminating to larger lots that may be in the adjacent development, provided that this development is sufficient size. And this one is. This is not a spot zoning situation. We're not talking 1 or 2 lots. We're talking a whole development. I know my own home is on an sf7 lot. It's about a 7800 square foot lot. I think my home is attractive. I think my neighborhood is attractive. I think the homes are desirable. The members of the commission know that in a past life, my family and I used to live in the city of Irving, and I served on the planning and Zoning Commission in Irving when I was there, and I remember well that the chairman of the Planning and Zoning Commission at that time, a gentleman by the name of Jack Spurlock, who was a real estate broker, remarking that even a home in a 6000 square foot zoned lot can be a desirable home. 6000 square foot home can be desirable, certainly a home on a 7000 square foot lot. A bigger home can be desirable. And homes today, the market being what it is on a 7000 square foot lot, can also be very desirable, very attractive, an asset to the community and an asset to the city. So. Considering carefully the arguments on both sides, I'm inclined to believe that this application is, on balance, a good thing and I'm prepared to vote to approve it. Thank you. Commissioner Bronsky. Miss would. A couple couple questions based on some of the feedback we've been getting? First? The HOA bearing, the cost for the screening wall, that's fairly standard for the way that we go about these things. Is that correct? That's correct. And citizens know when they're looking at and purchasing these homes that those requirements are built in. Right. The the HOA has fees. They're told about that before they purchase, am I right? They may be told perhaps. Okay. So the second question I had and I don't know if you kept track, Mr. Disdain brought up a couple property rights issues that I just want to kind of talk about for a second as it relates to livestock, would there be any could there be any conflict between this particular zoning that we're talking about and his property, as far as his ability to maintain whatever livestock he has on that property? I think that would be addressed with the property standards and building inspections departments, if they might have some or with the code of ordinances, if there is an ordinance regarding smell and how far away it needs to be. So I would defer to those documents. So are you then saying there is a possibility that there could be a problem for someone living in these and Mr. Disdains livestock ability? I haven't reviewed the impact of I don't believe smell of you know any livestock. So I can't answer very directly on that question but. You know, the the code of ordinances does have requirements. And regarding smell or any of those extenuating things that you mentioned, Mr. Bell, do you have anything to add? No. Those that are administered as miss would suggest, not through the zoning ordinance. They're administered through other ordinances of the city and other departments. So that's not something that is on our expertise to answer directly. But I can only surmise by the fact that there are single family residences abutting to the north that if if those are not creating the same issues, then there would not be the same issues for these lots as well. Okay. From a legal. And legal questions for staff. Yeah. Do we need an executive session or is it something you can ask in open session? I prefer to ask it. Okay. Well then let's let's finish questions from the commission and see if there's anything else that comes up. And we may need to take a quick thank you, Miss Wood. Okay. Commissioner Langfelder, I'm going to have a question for staff and for the applicant if the applicant wouldn't mind coming up. First question is just to kind of clarify for for everybody here as well as us. This is this is a zoning request. So they've provided a site plan. They provided all this. Is that are they stuck to that site plan or can they adjust it based on the zoning. They can adjust their concept plan if they'd like to. The zoning does not require them to build what's presented on the concept plan. So ultimately what I'm getting at is they they presented a nice plan for us all, but ultimately the request is straight zoning. They can adjust that, which means the whole buffer thing that we've gone all this time for talking about this fence, that we've been talking about, all this stuff. Technically, they can get out of it. And based on as long as they meet the zoning. That's correct. Okay. So now the applicant. Yes, sir. So you get what I'm getting at? Yes, sir. We have no ability to hold you to that. But a PD would. Did you discuss this, a PD option where it would hold you to a site plan like this and hold you to the the landscape buffers and hold you to all those things. So it'd be actually written into the zoning. When we first started, we talked about that with staff, but they determined the site was so small that it really wasn't. Of course it was before we knew we was going to run into all these issues also. So they suggested not to do a PD just because it was it was small and I know I mean, we've got the letter, we've got all the anything that you that you want from us to, to assure you that we'll develop per the concept plan. The other item that was brought up about the odor, the noise we've also committed in the letter to include that in the HOA documents that prohibit the homeowners from complaining about noise, odors. And also it can be in the bylaws. So, I mean, we've tried to address everything that they that we can with them. So I mean, as far as even that. So again encompass some ideas of maybe attorney or something of what is can we include a document or whatever? I mean, we'll do it because again, it's not a large subdivision. I mean, it's going to be done in obviously one phase. It'll build out in probably four years at today's rates. You know, ten, 12 lots a year is typically, you know, it takes us right now, starting today, we're probably 20, 22 months for the first lot will be ready for a house. And then they got to build a house. So we're two years away right now and they'll probably take, you know, 30 months or so to, to sell out. And so it's just a very short process. But again, I mean we are we are going to develop I mean per the concept plan, I mean we'll be coming right back in for with a plat and whatever, whatever commitment we have to do will do. Because believe me, I've done too much business in Plano office right down the street. These 50 lots aren't worth messing with my reputation. I mean, I would never do. I've been doing this business for 44 years. And you see, I go into. That's my that's my goal is to do what I say I'll do. Yeah. I'm just I'm trying to think of I understand people that don't know you or don't haven't had that experience in the residents in your neighborhood. And I totally understand, I totally understand. So I guess my next question and may have to go into closed session is what can we do on our end so we can talk about that later? Yeah, we can talk about that in a minute. Commissioner Bender. Anyone else? Stay close. Thank you. All right, sir, thank you. Just a brief question. Staff, a screening wall, whether it's concrete or iron or steel, whatever. After constructed, the city maintains that. Correct? No. The screening wall that's being proposed would not be maintained by the city. It would be maintained by the HOA. That's correct. Thank you. Okay, I've got a couple of questions. Back to the question about the adjacent landowners rights with with this 100 foot separation, I understand that's an issue for construction of an additional structure on the on the neighbors, the existing neighbors property with that dealt with hopefully as far as livestock, other uses of that property. Is anything going to change for the current estate owners as far as their their property rights, what they're allowed to use their property for, how they're allowed to use it, etc. No, from our analysis of reviewing the existing planned development district as well as just estate development in general, we do not find that any of their current allowances through their zoning would be affected by this proposal. There's no adjacency. Questions about adjacent land uses anything like that that that's correct. That would end up ricocheting back. Okay. Okay. That that's my only question for staff. Just my comments. And it sounds like we may need to go into executive, have some questions for legal counsel. I'll reserve my comments after we do that. So Commissioner Tong thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just another question pop in my head about the animals. If the neighbors have livestock, horses, cattle. Crossed property line because right now there's no fence, right? They're all live screen like trees. And the trees are 20ft apart. If the livestock crossed the property line. Property line. And going into the open space where they're assuming there will be grass growing and graze on those, and the homeowners on the other side will have to bear the burden to maintain that grass. Would that be something that city can step in and mitigate that? So. I don't know exactly if animals crossing onto a different lot is a violation of our code of ordinances. It I imagine that it would be, but I can provide more information if not. But in that event it would be a civil dispute and then the property owner affected would need to report that to our property standards department and make us aware of that issue. Thank you. Okay. We have had a request by commission to have a couple of questions for legal counsel and executive session. So I will adjourn us into executive session under chapter 551 .071. And we'll be back with you all in a few minutes. All right. Reconvene us back into open session at 7:24 p.m. Mr. Bell, we had a question come up earlier about the fencing along the common property line. Can you clarify that for us? I just wanted to clarify that there's already an existing fence along that property line. So that would control the livestock question. Correct. Okay. All right. I had reserve my comments till after our executive session. I want to applaud Mr. Douglas. And where'd he go? He was sitting on the front row. There he is. No, it's okay. You don't have to come down. I just wanted to. I didn't know where you were. I wanted to to look at you. And I said this. I applaud you for reaching out to the community. I think you found some creative answers to some of their concerns about setbacks, about, you know, turning the sides of the houses to the adjacent neighbors so you're not looking directly into their yards. Some of the concerns that we heard at the first meeting, you found a blend of SF and SF nine, and in my personal opinion, I believe that all of that effort has gone a long way towards preserving the estate. Feel that your neighbors have today with the screening and the setbacks and and all of that. And so I just wanted to thank you for all your efforts on their behalf. I think you listened, and it shows your commitment to trying to find a solution. I also respect the neighbors that live there. I know y'all got some beautiful places out there, large tracts, you know, rural feel, which is fantastic. With and I, I believe that Mr. Douglas has tried to work to find a compromise, recognizing that you're already surrounded on two sides by higher density residential SF nine and SF seven. And there are SF sevens and even sixes across the street and along with along with the school. And so I don't find the request inconsistent with the neighborhood with the changes. I'll be honest, I did not feel that way at the last meeting, and I and I feel like he's gone a long way towards accomplishing that goal to preserve what you have and yet be able to develop a piece of property with housing stock that that we do need in the city of Plano. With that said, I, I do agree with the proposal that's in front of us. I know we have some other concerns up here, and so I'll see if any of the other commissioners would like to weigh in on any of the other concerns that that have been expressed. Commission anybody? Know? Commissioner Bronsky, I'll start off, Mr. Douglas, as I said, when I first started talking, that I really appreciate the fact that you're working hard to make an effort that you have. Shown yourself to be a person of great integrity that has been in our city for a long time. I have felt a lot more comfortable about. The design. As to how it sits today. I do hear the concerns of the citizens that are your neighbors and. I do believe, as one of your neighbors mentioned, that. Should this committee suggest that the best option is to come back with a PD, I believe that we would come back with the PD. That looks just like what you're offering, and you would be a person to keep your word at that. With that, I'm going to reserve the balance of my comment until everybody else speaks. Mr. Tong, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, I agree with the previous commissioners that we really appreciate your effort, Mr. Douglas, and the developer and all the neighbors who came in to support this design, and we all feel like or sorry, me, I feel like this is a great design and you have listened. You have changed. You have made all the changes that according to last meeting, that all the requests that we have submitted and the only concern that I had was that because the case right now is a straight zoning case, once we change the zoning, there's no way that we can hold either you or the developer or the developer. After that, do any changes to the plan, because once the zoning changes, there's no way the city can do anything about the, the, the plan itself. So I think I, I solution. I'd like to seek a solution. And I kind of learned that the, the solution could be a PD. So I guess I agree with Commissioner Bronsky. If there's a way that we can turn into PD, I would on that side. Thank you, Mr. Bender. Thank you chairman. You know, when we tabled this case recently, I think what we wanted to see was exactly what happened here is that the community was working together with the developer to find a better solution, because there are limits to what we what we can do. And our primary case reason for business here is to look at land use. And I also believe that all landowners have rights, right? They all have rights. And so, you know, I think you've made a lot of progress. And we also want to make sure that all landowners rights are protected. So I think some of the comments, Commissioner Bronsky, those kind of comments, were leaning that direction to making sure that we can protect everyone's rights and include those things that are been discussed and so forth, memorialize those so they're, you know, they're enforceable. Thank you. Mr. Douglas. I do have a question for you. If you would come forward. While you're coming forward. I do concur with the other commissioners who said that that I do believe that regardless if we move forward with some sort of a PD or something, that the plan as presented, I believe is a solution that has found the compromise that we were looking for, at least in my opinion. And so the question I have for you, and it's kind of a yes or no, would you be willing to work on this and turn this into a PD so we can memorialize the commitments that you've made to the neighbors so that they can be enforceable by the city, if that's what it takes? Yes, sir. Okay. In fact, those like I said, that was one of our first thoughts, but it was just so small. But but no, if that's what you want us to go, we'll be more than happy to. Okay, that was my question. Thank you very much, Commissioner Bronsky. So, Mr. Douglas, thank you very much for your commitment here. So on that I would move that in order to allow this to continue the process of Mr. Douglas and the community working together, that we table this item one a to an indefinite time period. No. Yeah. We need to pick a date. Well, we have to re notice anyway so that a date certain isn't necessary in this case because we're going to send out new notices okay. Never mind, never mind okay. All right. So we have a motion to Commissioner Bruno. Have a second I'll second it with a comment that. I wish that this request had been a part of our first tabling of the case. We're now putting him to a second tabling of the case. I hope this is the last one. It's inconvenient and unfair. I think ultimately to the applicant to keep postponing the case as we think of new things time after time, since he is agreeable to it, I see no problem, you know, with going with, with with the PD format. So I'll go ahead and second the motion. Thank you. I concur with your comments. I would add to that respect for the people that showed up tonight, because I know this is the second time y'all been here for many of you and some of you the third and some of you maybe even a fourth, because I think we've tabled twice. So thank you all for your commitment. I know that these are your homes, and we ask you to come out at night and meet with us. We're we're not doing it intentionally. We do want to get to a good answer that works for everybody. So with that said, we have a motion and a second. Any other comments or questions by the commission? No. Please vote. Motion passes 7 to 0. Mr. Douglas and your neighbors. We look forward to seeing you all again. Thank you. Thank you all very much for coming out this evening. Yeah. So we need to we need to read one B so that we can table that as well please. That was that was for one A I'm sorry. That was that motion was for 1AI read them. So Mr. Commissioner Bronsky I move we table agenda item one b to the indefinite time period as well. Commissioner Lingenfelter I'll second. All right. A motion and a second to also table item one B consistent with one A please vote. Item one B passes seven zero to table as well. All right. Item number two. Agenda item number two request to expand and amend urban mixed use one on 160.4 acres of land out of the William Beverly Survey, abstract number 75 and 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 mixed uses to allow outdoor commercial amusement, additional multifamily residence units, and single family detached 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 table January 20th, 2026 applicant Rosewood Property Company. This item is for legislative consideration. Good evening commissioners. My name is Molly Coryell, lead planner with the planning Department. The same as the January 20th meeting. This is the subject property boundaries shown here on the screen. And additionally, here is the development plan showing the property in question with the proposed development. I wanted to include this slide to brief everyone on the previous tabling of this item, and to discuss the changes that will be shared in this presentation since that last meeting. So as a reminder, the Planning and Zoning Commission tabled this item at the January 20th, 2026 meeting to the March 2nd meeting. This meeting today asking the applicant to incorporate phasing of nonresidential uses, with the additional multi-family being requested. The phasing requirements have been incorporated for your consideration tonight, and additional modifications to the Conditional Environmental Corridor Area requirements have also been added for blocks A2, lot one, F and Z staff and the applicant had identified some additional changes needed for for that requirements since that meeting, which are incorporated. And then to make it clear, I've updated the presentation related to these changes. Related to these changes will be called out using yellow highlights where there's new slides. I've just highlighted the title block in yellow. So with that I'll go ahead and start. So to go over the request again in full, the request has five elements. Expanding the district by rezoning 4.1 acres from L one to U one for the additional single family attached units being requested. That's the 51 townhomes on block Z, modifying the required mix of uses to exceed the standard maximum allowance of any one. Primary use for residential uses, which is going from 53% to 88% on the development plan, or a maximum of over the maximum required 70% for any one primary use. I'll go over in more detail again on that later, reducing the requirement for non residential uses. So having a smaller percentage of nonresidential uses. Related. Complementary to the increase in residential uses as part of this request, modifying other development standards for the district which has been updated for phasing, which we will go over, as well as alternative expressway corridor overlay district mitigation standards. The history of this project is that it was established in 2014. In 2017, it was amended twice in order to refine use allocations signage requirements, the street layout and block configurations, and then in 2021, the request significantly modified the Ummu one a district, the Ummu one district, to demote office as a supportive use, have a 50% reduction in office building heights. There was a connection to Custer Road established, and there was an additional 31 new single family detached lots. The district expansion is 4.1 acres that's currently zoned Lee. It's the creation of block Z for the 51 single family attached units. Staff finds that the proposed land use is appropriate for the Ummu one district, and furthermore, the reduction in the Li one zoning is consistent with the surrounding zoning of this property today. I talked about the modifying mix of uses in my previous presentation, so this is something required for all ummu districts. It establishes a range of percentage based on the gross square footage of what use. Currently, the maximum allowance for any one primary use is 70%. Today the applicant is requesting 88% in. In addition to that, the amount of retail and service uses, as well as office and professional uses will have a minimum requirement of three and 5%. Respectfully. This is the information shown as on the development plan. As you can see, they're showing a maximum 88% of residential, 3% retail, 9% office, and there's no commitment to a hotel. The request for residential has not changed. They're adding 700 multifamily units and 51 single family residence attached units. Additionally for nonresidential, this is not changing. It only account for 12% of the gross floor area. The phasing being proposed tonight is as follows. So the provided ummu one exceptions would allow such that block F, the multifamily building closer to the could be begin construction or have a certificate of occupancy issued as long as building permits for at least 12,000ft■!S of new nonresidential development is developed within blocks A2, lot two, block A3, A4, A5, C, L, or M, and then additionally for block A2 lot one, the multifamily closer to the corner of West Plano Parkway and Custer Road. The construction of 12,000ft■!S of new nonresidential development must be ready for occupancy. The city of Plano doesn't do shell certificate of occupancy, however, we can final out construction of a nonresidential building, basically saying it's ready for occupancy. So that is the language available in the proposed one. Exceptions, the total amount of nonresidential square footage required prior to the 700 additional multifamily units is a minimum of 12,000ft■!S. The building permit, issued for 12,000ft■!S, can be the same 12,000ft■!S that is finaled out for occupancy. This analysis was provided in my previous presentation, but just to show there has been an increase in single family or residential uses throughout the request made from 2014 to today, as well as a reduction in overall amount of office, retail and hotel use throughout the history of the zoning cases for this property. There are some other modified development standards which are not changing as part of this request. Since it's been tabled, they're still decreasing the lot coverages for non residential lots as well as decreasing building heights. There are reductions in freestanding nonresidential building sizes, and the requested exceptions are not conducive to a mixed use development. As we discussed in the previous meeting, there is a request for an outdoor commercial amusement use both for blocks A5 and C. The proposed exceptions for this outdoor commercial amusement will limit operation types to include game courts, table games, mini golf, other similar leisure activities. It won't allow things like go carts, circuses, more noise producing items, outdoor commercial amusement that's not conducive to the one district, and additionally, any property is required to follow any sort of noise or lighting ordinances, so these properties would be subject to those same issues or code requirements. Going into the Expressway Corridor Overlay District specifically for block C. As you can see, the Conditional Environmental Corridor area requires SFA units be buffered from a type A thoroughfare by either a 100 foot landscape buffer or nonresidential buildings of similar or greater height and length to the homes. Block M is not meeting this requirement for the purpose of developing block townhomes on block C, and the applicant is providing alternative requirements. These have been changed since the last meeting, so as you can see, under ventilation, specialized ventilation requirements to mitigate outdoor air for SFA units within 500ft of a type A thoroughfare, I will get into more detail about the specifics of that in a moment, but the proposed standard does not provide equal mitigation to the typical standard. Same for the separation requirement at the bottom of the table. The applicant is now proposing non-continuous nonresidential buildings of shorter height, 22ft and length of the residential structures, or temporary 100 foot wide landscape edge. However, they have removed the requirement to have trees in between the buildings, a ornamental and a shade tree between those buildings, so that is no longer a part of their request. Block F is the multifamily building closest to the President George Bush Turnpike. As a part of tonight's request, I'd like to point out that typically in the SCA, this property would be required to be buffered from that turnpike by either a 100 foot landscape buffer or a nonresidential building of similar or greater height and length to the homes, or in this case, the multifamily structure. Stipulations for block F have been modified to consider the existing open space and minor street as alternative separation requirements. There is a really great thriving landscape buffer with that open space located on lot 13 and 15, which provides a lot of noise mitigation and separation from those structures, as well as the minor street adds an additional setback. And then there are street tree and parking requirements as well that will need to be followed. So there will be a significant buffer between that block 15 multifamily building and the turnpike. So staff is in support of the modified separation requirements between block F and the Turnpike. For blocks block A2, lot one, the CSC requires that multifamily units not within 500ft of that turnpike, but still within the CSC to simply provide a 15 foot landscape edge from type A thoroughfares for the separation requirement. Specifically, stipulations for block A2 lot one have been modified to remove this specific separation requirement. As it's not consistent with the Umu form, we have a maximum setback for structures within the umu district, so in a 15 foot landscape, edge is really not conducive to bringing that building closer to the street, allowing more of an urban form as that structure is pushed up against the street. So staff is also in support of this modified separation requirement between block A2, lot one and the turnpike. Going back to the modified ventilation standards the applicant had provided this proposed modification to the Umu one requirements. Staff did not catch it when modifying the formatting prior to publishing this packet. However, the applicant included a stipulation or a modification to the ventilation requirements, stating that intake openings for outdoor air as identified in the adopted International Mechanical Code, as amended, must be located on sides of the building other than the side of the building facing a type A thoroughfare, where located within 500ft of a type A thoroughfare right of way. Typically, we require those outdoor air ventilation on the opposite on the side of the building. That's opposite to the type A thoroughfare. And currently, as currently adopted, our ordinance requires it within 1200 feet of a type A thoroughfare. Previously, our ordinance was silent under for distance requirements. However, this request is not in conformance with either our previously adopted ordinance or our current one, and additionally block A2. Lot one is not within 500ft of a type A thoroughfare from staff's analysis. So this would essentially make that requirement null and void for that particular multifamily lot. This was discussed in our previous meeting. But there are potential impacts of recent changes in state law. As of September 1st, state law has mandated the city to allow multifamily development, and portions of the city for any new projects initiated after the date of the legislation. This project has been active since before that date, and the applicant has chosen to be considered under the previous requirements. However, a new application for development could authorize 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 located within the Urban Activity Center's future land use category, as shown here. It does create increases in the overall housing acreage above the recommended range, as well as multifamily types above the recommended range. However, the increased attached single family types within is within the recommended range, which is a positive. However, there are increases in retail types above the recommended range, as well as decreases in office office types. Looking here at the desirable character defining elements, this property, this project is still meeting a lot of the character defining elements, required or not required, but provided underneath the Urban Activity Centers future land use category, including being within the recommended range for building heights, density, as well as parking orientation and the block pattern and streetscape. So the applicant is meeting those character defining elements for the Urban Activity Center. With this current proposal, however, it is not meeting the intensity requirements. We would like a high intensity typically in this future land use category, and they are only providing a moderate intensity. Ultimately, the project does not meet. Many aspects of the mix of uses, nor the undeveloped, undeveloped land policy, and many of the actions required as part of the Regrowth and Redevelopment and Growth Management policy. So findings is required. As part of this request and findings, forms have been provided to the Commission. As of noon last Thursday, the staff has received 25 letters in support within the subject property, three neutral responses and two responses in opposition. And then outside of the subject property within 200ft. We have received three signed letters in support of this item, and that number has not changed since the last meeting. And then overall, we've received 47 responses, which you can see the table here. To reiterate, this request is still to incorporate an area of land zoned Li one for the purpose of developing townhomes and allowing for alternative EA overlay mitigation standards for both the townhomes and now the multifamily as well modifying the mix of use requirements to exceed. Exceed. Exceed the standard allowance for residential as a primary use in both the Umu district and the Comprehensive Plan, reducing the requirement for nonresidential uses to 12% of the district, as well as incorporating phasing of nonresidential uses for a minimum of 12,000ft■!S on block A2 lot two or blocks A3, A4, A5, C, L, or M, those are the remaining nonresidential blocks that are undeveloped, and the request to amend various site design standards, which support walkable urban development forms consistent with the integrity of the district. Staff supports the geographic expansion of the one district, subject to the provision of a revised development plan consistent with the standards for block C. And then, per the Comprehensive Plan and Findings Policy, the other requested changes to the existing Umu one 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 so much, and I'm available to answer any questions. Oh, and the applicant has a presentation as well. All right, commissioners, questions of staff. Mr. Bronsky, great job. Thanks. So just a couple general questions. Why do we have umu districts? The purpose of umu district is to establish a sort of master plan district that has an urban form, invites a mix of uses, and can create a street network that is maintained as part of the umu district. Mr. Bell, did I miss anything? Terrific job. My second question is why do we have the functional roles and why do we rank them? The functional roles are broken out into primary, secondary and tertiary, and their purpose is to provide a range of percentages that are determined by the amount of gross square footage, a single use type has throughout the Umu one district. The purpose of having those bands of ranges between those three different tiers is to make sure that not one single use occupies too much of the ground. Gross square footage of those uses, so that it can be a mixed use district. So the the intention is to keep them balanced, right? Yes. Within. Within confines. Right. So when this was originally created I think you're said 2014. Yes. What were the what were the functional role. The ratings for the functional roles for the use categories. Great question. Let me I'm going to cheat and I'm going to go back to that slide where I talked about that. Okay. Here we are I'm sorry. Back a little bit more. I actually don't have the original ones. But if I can just speak from the top of my head and we can get those, those numbers more concretely to you, if you give me some moment to research, I believe it was primarily office and hotel with some supportive retail, and I believe residential was also a secondary use. But that's the part I'm nervous about you quoting me on. It might have been primary as well. No, that's okay. So I guess my last question is with the changes that we've seen to this district and the changes in the functional roles to making everything except the residential use as primary and everything else to tertiary, what kind of an impact does that have on a umu district and its general purpose for existing staff, provided in our report that we believe the changes being recommended by the applicant do not meet the purpose of the Umu district and point to the original district language as. And. I'm sorry, Commissioner Bronsky, can you repeat your question? No. You were you were going right down the path. I was what the impact of shifting everything around to one primary and everything else tertiary they have. It has a significant negative impact on the district as it was originally intended for the umu. Is that fair in saying yes? I think staff's report pointed to that. Mr. Bell, do you have something you want to say? Yeah, just in summary, we think it becomes mostly a residential district and not a mixed use district. Thank you. Thank you much. All right, Mr. Bruno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Miss Correll. Because the staff has told us in their packet materials that this proposal is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan and that if we approve this application, we would have to make findings in order to bring it within the comprehensive plan. And in making findings, we would have to find that the application promoted or served some guiding principle within the comprehensive plan. Could you identify for us any one or more guiding principles of the Comprehensive Plan that would be served by approving this application? Thank you for your question, Commissioner Brounoff. Mr. Andrea, can you help me with this question? Let me clarify a little bit. Apart from the possible effect of the recent change in state law. Okay. Yeah. Mr. Bell. I believe that questions are probably better directed at the applicant. It's their position to make a case as to why they think that their request is beyond. Is meeting the goals of the guiding principles. Fair enough. Thank you. Commissioner. Any other questions of staff? Nobody. Mr. Bronsky. So, Miss Corral, I just want to be very clear about the changes. Page 44 on your report. I think in the screen you talked about the. What used to be the iaha. And the letter that the note that we received prior to our preliminary open meeting was a was not part of what's being discussed here. Is that correct? Vice chair Bronsky I'm sorry. I feel like I asked you to repeat your question every single time. I swear I'm listening. But can you can you clarify what you're asking one more time for me? You passed out prior to the. So what I'm seeing on the screen is that what this is or is this something in addition to those changes? No. So this table is is kind of meant to provide a little bit more of a general explanation of the changes. This table here on slide number 47, much states much more explicitly the changes. As you can see, the typical standard as identified in the previously adopted zoning ordinance that this case is being reviewed under, requires intake openings for outdoor. For outdoor air to be located on the opposite side of the building from the expressway, and the proposed requirement would allow that intake opening for outdoor air to be located on the side of the building, other than the side that's parallel to the type A thoroughfare where located within 500ft of the type A thoroughfare right of way. So this slide much more explicitly states the modifications. So now. The. The standards as we adopted them prior, prior the standards, why do we have them in place? What are they? What are some of their intentions to help mitigate the noise and pollution effects of living adjacent to a railroad or type a thoroughfare? Okay. And so they're designed to protect the tenants that are living living in them. Yes. It's for public health and safety. Yeah. Would so part having the air intakes be opposite the thoroughfare. The design, the purpose for that is so that they're not getting air sucked in to the vents or, or at least alleviating as much as possible that air intake from you would that you would get from the road. Is that correct? That is correct. So in not doing that, we are then creating a the possibility of having that air intake come in has. Have they suggested any mitigation such as higher filter air filtration or anything like that, to guard the the purpose of the sorry, to guard the purpose for why we have these standards in place that has not been discussed between staff and the applicant. However, I will say again, in the applicant's defense, I as staff did not notice that these were modified stipulations whenever we were talking about them. So I did not give the opportunity to talk this out and talk about additional modifications that could help supplement the modified request. So so then if we approve the the modified request, we are then allowing air filtration to come in. In a way different than the way we originally intended. The stipulation the zoning ordinance is written in a way that would help mitigate that chance. And although I can't say for sure looking at these sites, that that would be the case. They are requesting to modify the zoning, the requirements of the zoning district. So, Mr. Bell, did you have anything you want to add to that? I just wanted to note that they are maintaining the standard of a Merv Merv 13 filtration system, which is standard for the areas. And if I recall correctly, I believe there being some discussion of this on previous cases that going above 13 has minimal improvement, like 13 is is about where you get the most efficiency infiltration. But my understanding is the 13 was designed for the air intakes coming opposite the expressways. Correct. That's how it was written. Yes. Okay. That's what I thought, miss. Thank you. I appreciate your patience with me. Of course. Thank you. Vice chair. Bronsky. Commissioner Bender. Thank you. Chairman. You had mentioned earlier the development originally started back in 2014, right. The I, I remember I was on the on the commission at the time. Do we have other use across the city that have been that are similar, that have taken 12 years. So the one district is the oldest district, it's the first, it's the one Beacon Square. You two was established in 2019. Sorry, Mr. Bell, what was that 20 14, 20, 2014. And then Collin Creek was established in 2019. Correct? Okay. So Beacon Square is still under development. They still have a significant portion of their Ummu district undeveloped. So I would say that that's probably also 12 years. Right. So the economic changes that can occur over 12 years is are pretty substantial. Would you agree. And that could that could impact the the weighting of the, you know, the different products that are used that are, that are initially set up for that? You could be a fair statement. Okay. Thank you. All right. No other questions of staff. All right. We do have a public hearing I know the applicant has a presentation. So I'll open the public hearing. And if the applicant would like to come forward. Okay. Introduce yourself. I know you know the drill. Mr. Chair. Commission. My name is Bill Dahlstrom, 2323 Ross Avenue here on behalf of the Rosewood Company. And yeah, we do have a presentation, but I think we're going to not go into it. We a lot of the questions that have been asked, we went into in pretty much detail at the last public hearing with regard to conformance with the comp plan, and that's always going to be debatable. A lot of the things we are proposing are a better development for this property. There's just not a market for that much office. The market does change, the economy does change. And that, that that in fact is what has happened. We are proposing a development that is an extension of a very highly successful mixed use development heritage, Creekside. And I'll tell you out there in the market, people know Heritage Creekside, they say Heritage Creekside, it's like that is a there there. I hate to use that phrase, but that is a that is a place. So we have created a place and we are looking at expanding it. And yes, it is residential, but I frequent New York City. I've got a son there and I've got a brother there. There are neighborhoods that are highly residential like this, that have a significant amount of multifamily and have residential, retail and restaurants in it as well. So first of all, I'd like to thank Molly. She's done a great job working with us. I mean, our task at the last public hearing was to work with staff and come up with a a phasing plan, and we hit the ground running like a day later. And, you know, we've gone we took our staff's lead, came up with this. We went back and forth with with several different standards. But she worked very hard. So we appreciate that. But again, what we're proposing is, is an extension of of that Heritage Creek site. And I you know, there are plenty of benefits with this development. We have a development that we think we can actually get out there and build. With all that office out there, that's not going to be built for who knows how long. We do have an office component that we are maintaining. We are proposing unique retail restaurants that have an orientation to the creek. So we're taking into consideration more of the natural environment there and orienting our retail, restaurants and entertainment uses to that. And, you know, in this day and age of mixed use, one of the magnets for those who who work in that area is an entertainment component. And we didn't have that, you know, 2014, right? I mean, that wasn't part of it. I wasn't even thought of back then. But nowadays it's a major component. You think about the more modern mixed use developments, you know, a diversity of housing type two. We're bringing in more for sale townhomes. That is, I think, very important. And I think staff staff supports that as well. So we are complying with various aspects of the city's comprehensive plan. You know, it's a development that's going to be a high quality development. We're talking about Rosewood. Rosewood started this in 2014. They've owned this land for 40, 50 years. Tim Harris from Rosewood is here. They've known it for 40, 50 years, maybe even longer than that. And they continue to maintain ownership of a lot of the existing heritage creekside over on the East side. And they will continue to own much of the heritage Creekside on the west side as well. They aren't here to develop it and leave. They had that opportunity. They haven't done it not. And I remember I worked on the first Heritage Creekside, the first umu. When we came in, we had an exhibit that I had prepared to show you last time, but it was, it was we had an architectural firm do a massing study of what we could do on that property at that point, and it was full of office and warehousing and, and different kinds of nonresidential uses. And Rosewood decided they didn't want to do that kind of development for the city of Plano. They wanted to come in and do a mixed use development, one that would that, quite frankly, was going to be a legacy development for them. And it has been and a legacy development for the city. And that's what we want to continue. They could have done. The numbers that stick in my mind, Mike might know eight, nine, 10,000,000ft■!S of industrial warehouse office uses that they decided not to pursue. They decided to go ahead and come in with the first you. So you're going to have an extremely good quality, competent corporate partner in this development for an indefinite amount of time. Again, it's an opportunity to provide more retail, an opportunity to provide, to take advantage of, of the natural environment. Also. And this is economic development also. This is something we can get out there and we can build right away. So I would submit that yes, we do further a lot of the guiding principles in the city's comprehensive plan. We do further the mixed mixed units, additional residential units, the mixed uses as well. I understand the issue extremely well about the percentages of the uses, but the fact of the matter is, in today's world, those just don't work and they're not going to work. Otherwise the land is going to stay vacant indefinitely. Getting back to our our charge again, we think we came up with a a phasing plan that that works for us all. And we respectfully request a recommendation of approval with the additional language that Molly read into the record. Again, Tim and I are here to answer any questions you may have, but this is a very exciting time for all of us, and we are really excited about moving forward with this development. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dahlstrom. I'll lead off. I got a couple of concerns I guess is the best way to put it. I understand the challenges. I like the new site plan, I'll be honest, I think you've adapted to the market, I think, and I don't have a big problem with with lots A to Z and F as the way you've presented them. My concern is with the rest of it. And and phasing was one of our concerns at the last meeting. I believe we've addressed that. My concern is and Rosewood's done a great job in a long term player, but we always have to look at the land use, not necessarily the current owner, the current tenant, the current use, but to look at the future, what could be done as far as the land use is concerned? Have you all considered any kind of permanent restriction on that land, other than the zoning, to make sure that it doesn't? My concern is that we've had mission creep with more and more residential in this development, which unless, in my opinion, I think we're kind of bumping our heads now as to how much residential was appropriate for that piece of property. And I don't put words in anybody's mouth, but I don't think I'm alone in that assessment. And so are there any assurances that you could provide to the city of Plano? Not just verbal, but how could we memorialize the commitment that, that none of the rest of that property would be residential in the future? We had the opportunity to come back with a Senate bill 840 development. We decided not to do that. We wanted to continue with what we set out to do in 2014, an extension of that mixed use heritage Creekside. Yeah, staff. We met with staff several times, and we had that opportunity to come back and just do all residential if we wanted to. We didn't want to do that. The commitment is to continue with the plan that we started in 2014 and actually came back in the spring. It seems like long time ago. But yeah, I mean, our our proposal is to continue with the plan that we have that's in the development plan and in the zoning. And yeah, we're ready to move forward with it right now. One of the tools we have in our toolbox, and I know you have in your toolbox to is to deed restrict the property in addition to the zoning. Is that something you all would consider on the non residential lots as currently proposed deed restricted? Who would be the beneficiary be restricted for nonresidential be that. Well it start I mean that starts raising some questions. I mean I can't answer that as a as a business question. Yes sir. I can raise some legal issues with that kind of approach, but I have to defer to I'm looking for, I guess, what I'm looking for. Maybe that's maybe I'm asking the question wrong. Is there some binding other than zoning case, some permanent binding place, something we could put in place just on the outside chance that Rosewood sells it. Somebody else doesn't come in and and want to put more residential on those other parcels. How can we how can we memorialize that? I mean, we you know, we've owned the land since before the 1970s. I'm sorry. Can you state your name? I'm Tim Harris, I'm with Rosewood Property Company. Sorry about that. You know, we've owned the land since before the 1970s. If we've ever changed our plan, we've always come back here in the City Council to get your approval. Even today, there's some things that we want to do that you know, we don't necessarily need to ask for approval. We've we've always indicated that's not the right thing to do. And that's why we're here today. I would say as a rule of practice, we rarely ever have ever done deed restrictions because unwinding is a very difficult process. And, you know, we want to do what we're proposing here. I know there's been a lot of changes since 2014. You know, it's 12 years later. A lot in the world has changed. We talked about that last time, but also we we doubled since that time the amount of single family for ownership as well. So I know some of that appears like more apartments. We've only asked for maybe since the beginning of 40 something percent increase. Don't count 48, maybe 51, something like that. But we've more than doubled the single family to. So we've always brought that into the case. So. I mean we've been we've been grinding away at Heritage Creekside for years to create something really special. We always call it the donut hole, that light industrial area that we've acquired. We went and bought that. Just hoping that you guys would give us, you know, this approval to go do townhomes on it because we know that's the right thing to do. We want to prevent something like more light industrial being done there. And and to go back to what Bill said earlier, you know, about what we could have done years ago. You know, we really actually talked to the neighborhood and they didn't want that. And I know we had a, you know, a bunch of votes in support and against. And if you just look on the map of who's against, they're not nearby. If you look at everyone nearby, they're in support of what we're doing here. And we held multiple meetings with both folks inside of Heritage Creekside and immediately adjacent, and those are the ones you see approval for. So, okay, one other question. Is there a completely change in topics? The air quality question. Yeah. Why the request for the variance? And I'm going to preface that with the commission has been very consistent since I've been on the Commission about protecting residential uses in the environmental zone. And, and have been I believe our commission has been very consistent about not deviating from those standards. Is is there a particular hardship? And maybe that's not the right word, because that would be a Board of Adjustments question. But is there a particular driving force that's asking why you're asking for that exception that other than it's just easier? Yeah. Yes there is. Yes. We we actually have hired a really great mechanical electrical plumbing engineer. We ran the requirements by them. They do an I don't know what the percentage is, but they do a ton of work within the city of Plano. They have run across this requirement before. And, you know, the best way I can describe it is we have the highway here, our buildings here, and the corridor. The corridor goes beyond our building. So no matter where we're pulling air from, we're pulling air from within this corridor. And really our goal is to take the units that face the highway, like it said, and to go out into our interior courtyards, but also in the ones that are hard to reach, to go through the corridors. There's just so much traffic up in the ceiling. He is like, it's almost infeasible to do this. And so it's just for those units to go out to the sides. And that's what that's really the reason why. So we still do have these all the other requirements that you know we're trying to satisfy. So make sure I'm understanding what you're saying. So on the units that are on the sides of the you would be drawing air out of the courtyard or the interior courtyard, hundred and 100, roughly 100ft away on the opposite side of the building. Okay. So not not necessarily on the outside face. You'd be in the interior courtyard. Shortest path to get on the opposite side of the building. So it's really these corner units that we're really struggling with to go out to the side. Okay. That that clarifies the request a little bit because that's that's not what the request allows. And that's why I wanted to make sure that we were crystal clear on what your concern was. So if that if that request was to be clarified, that it would be on the face opposite the thoroughfare or an interior courtyard, would that still accomplish what you're trying to accomplish, as opposed to just allowing it on a face, on any face that it's not facing the freeway? Yes, yes. Yeah. You see my question? There's a significant difference in my mind about where you're drawing the air from. Yes, sir. Okay. All right. That's what I've got for now. Commissioner Lingenfelter. So our chair, Commissioner Ratliff, had kind of already has alluded to this already, but I think the thing that's really I'm struggling with is kind of similar to what we just the previous case, just we just talked about where, you know, how do we hold somebody accountable and enforceable. Like how do how do we make sure that what they're saying they're going to do, they do. And and I think that's where we're struggling here as well. And and you brought it up the the state, the state law that's been passed. How do we keep you your intent. You promise this is what you want? What you said. How do we make sure that that that is documented in a way that it's enforceable and it's it's maintained. Okay. Just a second, please. Yeah. What you're saying. If we want to work on. This. And. And this is this. Is. I just wanted to make sure. Yeah, yeah. I mean, the intent of going back and working with the staff on the phasing was, was to prevent your concern. That was the request last time we came. And that's, you know, I think like Bill said, we met with Molly and Christina. I think the next day actually, it's, you know, Christina proposed this language and we said, you know what? That's a little bit harder path. Let's do it. Let's settle it right there is everyone feel good about it. And so that's that's really where we ended up. That's what we were coming back to be willing to do. Yeah. I mean, I get the question, I really do. But you know, we're working with zoning and we're working with a developer who's who's actually delivered an extremely high quality development deed. Restrictions are pretty harsh. Yeah. And it's I think it's highly irregular in the state of Texas for that to come up in a zoning hearing. It does. I'll admit it does. But it's just a tough, tough question to answer. So again, like the last one and this one, I you know, I I'll be out front. I think both developments are nice. I like what you're doing here. Just like the last one. I like what they were doing. I like what they accomplished. But again I get stuck on, you know, things happen, things get sold, land gets sold, the equation changes at a point, you know, 12 years down the line, something changes again. So we're just trying to I'm trying to figure out a solution there to hold that in. And I think that was the intent of the phasing. When we suggested the phasing was was, I think we thought we'd come back with something that that would, would keep you in that area and would you be committed to that, like that 12,000, that 12,000 building, that 12,000 square foot shell, essentially. I know it's not really a shell, but I'm going to use it that way right now. Could you restrict, say like, say we're going to move it to we're going to commit to block A5 for say, or block C or something where you say, I'm going to we're going to commit to, to at least those areas where the entertainment district is those that's going to really commit and really add value to this property, this, this project overall. So maybe that's an alternative to a deed restriction. Maybe it's like, okay, instead of, you know, saying, well, what are you going to do? Block em for say and meet that same restriction? Let's say? Well, we'd rather have a more desirable section and, and move it to block a five or C. So so is the question then doing the the 12,000ft■!S in the internal part into an internal part. Yeah. Yeah. Where it's so 12,000 being here just trying to help find an alternative. I mean that's, that's our that's our intent. But to I mean I like your intent, I like it I love the intent. That's why we want to keep it there. I don't know what to say except for, like, you know. We're we're here to ask this specific plan. Because of canvasing the market, you know, for the last year spending or last 18 months, it's been the last year with staff. And I mean, this is what we want to do. I know that you probably see a lot of other developers say one thing and do another. To date, we have never done anything we haven't said we weren't going to do, and that the retail on the corner of Plano and Alma is there because the neighborhood wanted it, and we said we'd build it first, and we did. And so yeah, that's that's the you know, that's really our commitment. We're so committed to Plano. I mean, that's the that's the truth. We're not here to bait and switch. I think if that for some reason, if we just could not get this retail up off the ground, we'd come ask you guys about doing something different. We'd come back here. So that's that's our intent. Okay. Commissioner Brounoff, thank you. Let me ask you the question. I first asked Miss Coryell, and they suggested I ask you if we approve this, we have to make findings under our comprehensive plan. And those findings have to identify one or more guiding principles of our comprehensive plan that are served by by your application. Can you identify one or more of those guiding principles for us? I think for the. The guiding principles talk about a lot of of items such as the mixed use, such as the betterment of the development for the current population and the future population. This is a development. This zoning would, would allow us to move forward for the betterment of the city doing a development that is consistent with the existing community over there, an extension of the existing community, and it's also an economic development engine that would provide economic benefits to the city as well. I'll mention the mixed use. I mentioned the mixed residential. We're bringing in mixed residential also, which which is a, you know, a principle in the city's comprehensive plan as well. As you propose it. Would this. Additional these additions to the development provide high intensity activity centers? Yes. If so, how? We're proposing a high intensity residential development, bringing in more residential, bringing in more of an active mixed use development in that corridor where we have retail along the creek. So it is I mean, it is more intensive than what could be done there. Does does your proposal attract large corporations? I'm reading from the description of the Urban Activity Center in the Comprehensive Plan on the future land use map. It's on page 67 of our packet. Yeah. I, I think 100% the if we create a really great retail restaurant entertainment district, this is where people want to come after work, before work, get their breakfast, get their coffee. I think this really does support it. I think that's why we've we've left office on our plan on the corner because I think if we can get this going, we can get more office done. I think it supports some of the great employment that's in the area, both in every direction. We're we're tied right into a major thoroughfare. And so I think getting to our, our master plan is going to be easy. I think we've done a really thorough job on the parking to make sure that it's efficient, that people can come here, spend time, get out, be safe. We're actually reducing traffic count and the traffic impact in this development from the prior plan. So I think we're we're creating some vibrancy here for employment nodes to continue up and down our our corridor here in Plano. I think the residential is important also for attracting large corporations. And I think this center also provides can provide specialty shopping as we I don't know if and I, I will submit to ask the staff the urban activity Center if each one of those points needs to be hit. But I do believe we hit many of those, if not all, of the principles. We do provide a variety of housing types, which is going to be attractive to many folks, especially specialty shopping, dining and entertainment. That's exactly what we're asking for today and a high density residential development. I think all of those principles we hit with this proposed development. Does your proposal include mid to high rise buildings? And I think we define mid rise as like 5 to 9 stories. And high rise would be ten stories. And up. There's we've we've retained the block A3 for for an office mid-rise office development. How many stories. Well I believe we're sorry this is so fine print. Really. It's our floor plate that we're most concerned with. It's six stories labeled on the development plan. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Mine's eligible. And we are creating a highly walkable urban form with this development. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Bronsky. So I appreciate you guys coming back again. So I have two things that I'd like to talk about. I'm going to come back to the Eca's second. So as I look at the map and I consider the phasing and the retail that you're talking about, that's really important. When I think about the phasing of the 12,000ft■!S, as you talkd about in the last meeting, and as a matter of fact, I've actually I've talked to three residents that are in Rosewood in that complex, completely by accident in my daily life. And one of the things they mentioned was the retail. So I guess my question is, is it? Is it within how the language currently is structured? Are we talking about the phasing being the the retail in A4, A5, or is there a possibility that that 12,000ft■!S could be in L and M. It could be in either. I mean we took the the priority being that we get either more office there or more retail there is our understanding that Heritage Creek side to do. We got to go do that before. So you could build and if I'm remembering correctly, L and M, what are those units. Those that's office, office and residential. It's just office. So they're straight office. Now our proposal is office correct. Yeah. They're the two skinny lots along the office or retail. I thought they were going to be condos or something that were office condos. Yeah. The, the for the for the most part the, the tenant will be the owner of the building as well. So like engineering firms, dentist offices, things of that nature, there'll be two stories in height, which is the same height as the townhomes behind them, plus or minus. To be clear, that's an office use only, not an office, not a live work. It's pure office. It's just sold as a condo for owners. Yeah. Yes, sir. It's not a live work situation. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. So I would feel more comfortable with a commitment to the A4, A5 retail, because I believe that was kind of what you all talked about, being one of the driving factors that you were looking for. So that's one thing that that I'm struggling with as I consider my vote on this. And the second thing. I will not vote for this unless we are very clear in the delineation of this. These intakes. And I do not believe the way that the language is currently written today, that it prevents only what you're describing happening. And so I have serious reservations, not about you, but about the fact that the language isn't crystal clear as far as what we're expecting out of this as it relates to these intakes. And I believe that it is of utmost importance to every resident that is going to live in any of these, that we, as a commission, hold strong to the line that we want to protect their safety in the air that they're breathing. And so I believe very strongly that this language needs to be changed and not be so wide open as it relates to this language on the acres that can be from the courtyard, as chair said. Okay. Any other questions of the applicant for that? Okay. Yeah. I mean, yeah, we have a public right. Mr. Bronsky would be agreeable to the language that the chair had suggested, as far as that goes, which clarifies it more so. Sorry, is that clarifying that it's only, as you mentioned, the corner units. Yeah. Is that what you said? Yes, sir. Let me ask. I think the reduction is two things. It's the location of the vents, but it's also a reduction in the separation from 1200 to 500. So the exception removes the requirement for, for the location of the air filtration from the built from the multifamily up closer to Plano Parkway. So make sure that's clear. That building being more than 500ft away from the expressway. Yeah. Oh okay. It's 500ft away from what did you say? Any more clarification? I'll come back to that. Okay. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? Clarification. All right. This is a public hearing. Y'all stay close. Have a feeling you'll be back. Do we have any other registered speakers? Yes we do. Oh, Corey Reinecker. Mr. Reinecker, you know the drill. Corey Reinecker 1814 and place Plano repeat offender. Sorry I didn't sign up correctly. I want to just for the record, I think you're down on every item, so just didn't speak. I didn't pull anything off consent. Appreciate that I support this zoning request. As I mentioned earlier, Plano needs housing. According to the recently completed housing study, the city is thousands of housing units short of expected demand. Some of the projects in the development pipeline cited in the study, such as the Fry's site, are no longer even in the works, so we are falling even further behind. If we wish to remain a city of excellence, we must add sufficient housing to complement the substantial growth in expected employment. It is clear from the presentations I've seen that this proposal meets the market demand for both housing and nonresidential use. The proposed commercial amusement area uses and copious outdoor open space and plazas present an attractive development. As a resident, I am concerned by the insistence on phasing requirements. From what I have heard, these requirements put the cart before the horse. This sort of forced backwards development pattern has the potential to doom the project before it even begins, as appears to have been the case on several other recent projects. In my experience, Heritage Creekside has been a successful development. The design is first rate, the restaurant tenants are excellent, and the housing component appears to offer a reasonable diversity of housing types. I would encourage you to not let the perfect be the enemy of the good, and allow this applicant to see this quality development through to completion. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Riker. Do you have any other speakers for the public hearing? No, not at this time. All right. I'll close the public hearing, restrict comments to the commission commissioners. None. I'm going to take a well, I have a question. Staff first, can you miss can you put back up your slide that said request on it? It was their request. It's your was your slide. It was before recommendations. It summarizes the request. Yeah. Let me just tap the screen like 20 times or so okay. Oh am I at the start of the presentation I sure am. Oh, you're the staff meeting. Can someone help me, like, get to like I don't I think it's like about there you go. Okay. It was probably 20 slides in I know. There it is. Oh back back. Oh there you go. That's the one I'm looking for. Okay. I need to understand better the request. Not only the side of the building for the intake. It's not on the slide. There was a different slide I'm sorry. Okay. Versus the distance. I'm not sure. I'm completely understanding that request. Yeah. Let me. So I think actually let me just talk I'll start I'll go to the the culprit block A2 lot one. It's my understanding that there's a question about the distance from a type A thoroughfare within the CC. Now the CEC is a conditional environmental corridor or corridor area. I'm not so good with the abbreviations of things, but the CEC ranges quite a distance from the restricted area out to that distance, and it's generally about 1200 feet, give or take. Now block A2, lot one is more than 500ft away from a type A thoroughfare, but it's still within the CSA boundaries. So our zoning ordinance in that was previously adopted makes a distinction in this regard for certain requirements, namely, the option to provide a 100 foot landscape buffer or a building, a nonresidential building of equal height and length. The area that's more than 500ft away. In the case this building, they're typically only required to provide a 15 foot landscape buffer on the side of the building that runs parallel with the type A thoroughfare. So based on that, the building is more than 500ft from a type A thoroughfare, and their request is modified to remove that landscape buffer requirement. I believe he's speaking about the filtration, the new request that we got that we missed. Yeah, that's what I was talking about. That's what I'm saying. The landscaping is important, but the but that's I was more talking about the filtration. The filtration requirements are required regardless of the distance that the building has within the CSK. Now, our updated requirements clarifies that it's measured 1200 feet. However, whether the building is within 500ft or 1200 feet of the type A thoroughfare, our current standards require this air filtration to be required. With the applicant's proposal to only be within 500ft of a type A thoroughfare. This is effectively getting rid of that filtration requirement for this specific multifamily development on block A2, lot one, because it is further than 500ft from a type A thoroughfare. Okay, so the original requirement would still apply on block F and block Z as well, and block Z the townhomes. We're just talking about A2. Then lot one okay. And so on A2 under that filtration requirement all of the intakes would have to be on the north side of the building, correct. That is under our current standard as adopted in this ordinance. Yes. Okay. And then and so they're asking for it to be on any side, as long as it's not on the south side. That's correct. Although our discussion a minute ago would be any side. This interior courtyard or the north side. Yes. I actually kind of. I'm just trying to I'm trying to craft a motion in my head and kind of started the work for you. But so looking at the sheet I provided for you, Chair Ratliff, I believe the motion could read motion to approve ZC 2025 003, with an additional exception under section 20 of the one exceptions, including that intake openings for outdoor air as defined in the adopted International Mechanical Code, as amended, must be located on the side of the building opposite of the type A thoroughfare, or on a side of the building within an interior courtyard, where located within 500ft of a type A thoroughfare or right of way. Or you could say 1200 feet or whatever distance you want. But I believe that would address the applicant's desire to have those ventilations provided in interior courtyards, as well as on the opposite side of the building. Thank you. That's exactly what I was looking for. That's what I was. I was just mulling around in my brain, but I wasn't getting quite the where you got, so thank you. Okay. Commissioner, with your indulgence, I'm. I'm going to take a shot at a motion because this is a complicated case. And, Commissioner Bruno, did you have a question or comment real quick? Yes, sir. Between this application and the applicant proceeding under SB 840, I have the feeling that we're sort of finding ourselves between a rock and a hard place. Okay. Obviously proceeding under 840 is, you know, unfavorable to the extent that all we get are apartments and that destroys the mixed use dilutes, I should say, the mixed use character of this development. But proceeding under the application as we see it now, I think continues also continues a process of diluting the urban mixed use character of this development by degrees, which has happened over the past 12 years. This application would dilute it to the point where I don't think it even qualifies as an urban mixed use development anymore. It's a mixed use development there. There's a mix of housing types. There is some retail on the eastern edge, some some restaurants on the eastern edge of the property. But I think the concept of an urban mixed use development presupposes or describes a compact, walkable area where people can live and work and be entertained and recreate and eat and shop, all within a sort of a self-contained community. Okay, that to me is what makes it an urban mixed use. Area. The applicant is proposing to build more residential units of various types, but when it comes to the nonresidential uses, they're only proposing to build unoccupied shell buildings. People cannot work in a shell building, okay? They can't eat or entertain or shop in a shell building. I the comprehensive plan in defining the Urban activity Center Future Land Use, talks about economic development attracting large corporations. We've heard nothing about how many residents of this development are actually working, or would be projected to work within the development. The retail that exists is very small. It cannot support any significant number of employees, and I don't know that the employees, they have come from this neighborhood or not, we just haven't been told. So, you know, from my standpoint, a better example of an urban mixed use area is like the Collin Creek development, for example. Okay. Which has, you know, robust elements of both residential of various types and nonresidential business commercial. I understand the market for office buildings has been depressed lately. We found that out with the those of us who are on the commission at the time, remember the fry electronics case in which, you know, we were promised office buildings and a hotel and that disappeared because of the poor market. But markets have a way of rebounding over time. And I would hope that by waiting the, you know, a little longer, the market would recover as people go back to working in the office place and less working at home as we recover from the pandemic. So in order for me to be satisfied that we still have an urban mixed use development in more than name only, I would want to see some kind of commitment to the nonresidential uses. Something more than a shell building. That's where I'm standing. Yeah, and otherwise, as a planning and zoning commissioner, I feel that my duty is to uphold our ordinances and our comprehensive plan. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Bruno. With that, all valid comments. I understand the challenge that Rosewood is facing. Also understand the challenges they've already overcome on this property and have been good corporate partners with us. And I do believe that the plan they have is the plan that they intend to build. However, I think that the plan that you originally had was the plan you intended to build as well. And I and I respect that the market changed and that y'all been slogging away at this for a long time. And I know you're going to stay with it, because I know that's how you all are. So. With that said, I'm going to take a shot at emotion and try to play a little Solomon here and see if we can find a middle ground that we can all agree to. I'd like to make a motion to approve zoning case 2020 503, with an additional exception under section 20 of the one exceptions for lot A to only, including intake openings for outdoor air as defined in the adopted International Mechanical Code, as amended, must be located on sides of the building, opposite a type A thoroughfare or an interior courtyard, where located within 500ft of a type A thoroughfare right away, and that the 12,000 foot commercial phasing requirement require that that 12,000 foot, 12,000ft■!S of commercial shell be constructed on lots A4, A5 and or lot C, so you can pick part of one all on one half on each to allow for you to adjust to market, but that it needs to be built in that center core of the project. I hope that addressed the concerns of the Commission while trying to give the applicant flexibility to have a development that they can move forward with. So that's the motion. Commissioner Tom, I second all right. We have a motion and a second commissioner's conversation. No conversation. Please vote. Mr. Bronsky. Motion passes 6 to 1. Thank you. Gentlemen, I hope we've found a reasonable solution that we can all move forward with. Thank you very much. Appreciate it. Commissioner, to fill out their findings forms. Yes. We need to fill out our findings. Forms. Can we can we adjourn before we do that or we have to do it before we adjourn, stay in open session and fill out an open session. Okay, then. We can we can certainly turn the microphones off. We can adjourn until we fill up, fill out findings forms and then we can adjourn. Yeah. And we can certainly take stretch your legs if you need to. Yeah. All right folks, we all we all got our findings. Forms filled out. No. Hang on. Okay. We'll give you another minute. Chair. We're all complete. Work up. Everybody done? Okay. Meeting is adjourned at 906. He was there for over an hour