Council. The And Mike. So you guys can you hear me now? Alright Uh, we'll call our meeting to order. Uh, this evening on April 15th. If you would please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible. Liberty and justice for all. OK? 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. Um I believe we have one speaker Did we confirm it's for public comment? This is correct. Douglas Res. Mr Reser you for public comment or one of the items on the agenda? OK? Yes. Please come forward. Well. We need to get his mic on. Hang on one sec, sir. Thank you. I'm sorry. Go ahead, sir. Doug Reeves. I'm a resident of Plano. I'm at 47. I live at 4725 Portrait Lane. I want to bring up an issue and see if any of you would like to respond to this. Um From a recent published Audio file. I understand that a chairman Was part of a meeting. In September. With With one of the topics of that meeting being the removal of commissioner Ha, we Uh, I have a few questions regarding that. Um We must be Reeves I. I think you're I think you understand. We can't respond to public comments. So I mean, you feel free to read your questions, but we're not going to be able to respond to them, OK? Your mic is I. I think the agenda says we're allowed to respond with factual information. We'll see what the questions a RE. What the chairman referred to in that meeting. Uh, you mister Downs. Why would you be part of a meeting? To remove a commissioner when you're not part of the city, not a member of the City Council. What was the reason that you believed Commissioner Lyle should be removed? Wanna thank you for your for inviting me to speak? Thank you. That I You can respond with facts. So in terms of Wine was I there? I was invited. I was invited to be a part of the meeting. That's factual. In terms of why was it my position? I won't say that. It was my position. I was asked for my input. For them to make a decision. That's about a factual. I think as I can get Thank you. Let's move on to I like to. I'd like to respond to that as well. OK so we can't have a conversation about something that's not on the agenda. And the questions were asked directly to me. He At the beginning, he asked if any of us would like to respond. I just want to respond with factual information. I don't understand how you would have factual information about The questions directed at Mr Downs. It It just sounds like something you would have to be there. In order to answer those questions I'm struggling with with how you could have factual information that responded to those questions because I was told specifically by Councilman Horn that the chairman was there. And again. I was there because I was invited. That's the factual information right? And so there was other information that was shared by Councilman Horn. That I have no idea what information he shared with you right? Which is why I'm asking to share Not responding. I agree. Question so This is not on the agenda. I was just trying to respond with factual information to the public comment. Again. The questions were Addressed to me and I responded with the factual information. Let's move on to, um Our regular agenda, please. Consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items which are routine and typically non controversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff. Does anyone want to move an item remove an item from the consent agenda. No Mr Ratliff make a motion. We approve the consent agenda as presented second. Kay. I have a motion by Commissioner Ratliff for the second by Commissioner Bronsky to approve the consent agenda. All in favor. Raise your hand. That item carries 8 to 0. Public hearing items. Items for individual consideration public hearing items unless instructed otherwise by the chair speakers will be called in the order of registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time with 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 Constrained by legal considerations. Agenda Item number one A Please do one A and one B, please. Yes, sir. Agenda item number one a public hearing zoning case, 2024-007 request to amend Plan Development 489 multifamily residence one to modify development standards on 36.5 acres located on the north side of Legacy, 770 FT west of Chase Oaks Boulevard. This item was tabled on March 18th 2024 petitioner is 701 Legacy Drive. LLC 701 Legacy Drive two LLC seven. One Legacy drive for LLC. This is for legislative consideration. Agenda Item number one B public hearing Revised concept plan Chase Oaks Apartments block a lot one. 416 multifamily residents units on one lot on 34.7 acres located on the north side of Legacy Drive, 770 ft west of Chase Oaks Boulevard. Zoned plan development 489 multifamily residence one Project number. Ours. RCP 2024001. Applicant is 701 Legacy Drive LLC 7001 Legacy Drive two LLC and 701 Legacy drive. Four LLC. This one is for administrative consideration pending item 18. Thank you. Good evening, everyone. My name is Kata Copeland and I'm, the senior planner with the planning department. This request is to amend Plan Development 489 multifamily residence one The property to the North, East and west are zoned single family residence. Nine with specific use permits. 62 for a golf course and 107 for a private club across legacy. Drive to the South is zoned planned development. 273 multifamily residence three and Planned Development 329 Community Center. Shown on the screen is the companion revised concept plan showing a blend of what is existing and proposed. The revised concept plan shows an additional 70 units throughout nine buildings with various arrangements of parking. There will also be an expansion of an existing community center and two proposed dog parks. This case may have started to sound familiar to some back in 2020 2022. The applicant submitted two different requests to the planning department. The Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval of the zoning cases. However, the City Council denied both requests. Tonight's request. Is similar to both the 2020 2022 cases. Most notable changes being presented tonight is the zoning and the reduced unit count. Okay My slides are a little bit out of order, so I'm just gonna flip back and forth. The maximum density in MF. One is 12 units per acre, with a maximum height of three stories and 40 ft. The applicant is proposing to increase the density to maximize the MF one zoning districts. Standards and increase the building height by 5 FT. Beyond the MF one zoning requirement. The revised concept plan shows nine new buildings. Five buildings are proposed to be three stories in 45 ft and four buildings are proposed to be two stories and 35 FT. This table shows the allowed density and height within the SF AM F one and MF two compared to the request. The original zoning for the property was S FA and the 2020 2022 zoning cases requested MF two zoning. The applicants, parking PD ST stipulations and a breakdown of existing and proposed parking types are presented on the screen. The required parking for multifamily residents within MF. One is two parking spaces per each dwelling unit with one or more bedrooms. The previous request asked for parking ratio of one space per bedroom. Tonight the applicant is proposing a 14% parking reduction from this requirement. This would reduce the parking the amount of parking Excuse me for the required by 116 spaces. This reduction is an option listed in article 16 of the Zoning ordinance. It allows the commission to grant parking reduction if it meets the listed criteria. This site is made up of various parking forms. The red equals existing surface parking. The green equals existing parking spaces, garage spaces with available tandem. The pink equals proposed surface parking. The blue equals proposed tucked, parking and the yellow represents potential future tandem spaces. The total parking provided with the existing garage spaces existing and proposed surface parking and tucked parking is 731 spaces. However if the tandem spaces behind the existing garages are counted and the possible future tandem spaces are counted, the available parking could exceed 1030 spaces. Staff is supportive of the 14% parking reduction, as noted in the PD stipulations, as the site has more than enough adequate parking through the surface spaces, enclosed garages and tuck spaces and tandem spaces in front of the garages. The parking reduction will allow more of the site to remain as green space, which is a distinctive characteristic in this complex. These slides blow up that graphic on the right side of the screen. For clear viewing. Shown on the screen is an image of a building on the east side of the property. The purpose of showing this image is to show the existing enclosed garage spaces, plus the available tandem space. The previously approved plan counted the enclosed garages and surface spaces to meet the parking requirement. The image shows the concrete is available for vehicles to use, and guests and residents are parking in this area in front of the garage today. As stated in the applicant's letter that is included in your packet. The PD stipulation requiring 716 spaces meets the sites anticipated parking demand. Staff does not anticipate any new issues for the neighboring properties, given the layout of the site. There are no built residential neighborhoods immediately adjacent to this property. There is no vehicle storage on site or additional site modifications that impact available parking and a single entity owns the site. Additionally the commission may approve the reduction for multifamily properties. No, I'm sorry. Thank you. Let me read that. Oh, Let me sorry. We'll get all this figured out right? The new Council chambers are done. Test test. Can everyone hear me? Ok great. I'm gonna read that sentence again if that's OK. Additionally the commission may approve the reduction for multifamily properties when the area that would be used by the reduced parking spaces is exchanged for an equivalent area of additional usable open space in excess of the minimum requirement for applicable Requirements applicable to the development. And relating to that requirement within 1601 16.100 are the open space numbers. There is an open space plan available for viewing in your packet. However the illustrative concept plan that is provided by the applicant shows the open space in the clearest form. The required open space for this property is 327,000 square feet in the applicant is providing 432,532 feet. And the 116 space parking reduction is equivalent to approximately 18,800 to 20,880 square feet, depending on the parking space size as the city of Plano does have two parking space size available. That equates to 1.1. To 1.3% of the site. A stipulation has been added to the revised concept plan recommendation that at least 20,880 square feet of equivalent to 100 and 16 parking spaces of open space shall be designated on the preliminary site plan, in addition to minimum open space required by the MF one district This requirement is to continue to have park like setting preserved for the property. The proposed clubhouse expansion and dog parks addition are part of the previous request and remains a part of the request tonight. These are noted to be built prior to any new units. Being constructed. These amenities are intended to enhance the quality of life for the residents and balance out the additional density added staff is supportive of the additional amenities. The property includes significant changes in topography, as you can see in the photo on the screen, and I'd like to note a correction, um, on the screen, it notes. Proposed location of 42 story buildings that should be 32 story buildings. There are other areas on the property with significant grade changes, where buildings are also being proposed. Staff has concerns about the grade changes in connection with construction. The applicant is proposing seven plan development stipulations with this request. And five are shown on the screen. The underlying represents the change from the existing plan development stipulation. These strikethrough represents the change and Um no underlying or strike through represents that the stipulation is remaining the same. The two final restrictions. The subject proper is designated as neighborhoods in the future land use map. And shown on the screen is a snapshot of the comprehensive plan policies of this request that meet partially meet or does not meet. Due to inconsistency with the recommended height and mix of uses in the end, dashboard findings are required by the planning and zoning and City Council to approve this request. Staff received one letter within 200 ft. And we received five total responses, two of which were by email and are provided in your packet. This Sony request is recommended for denial under the comprehensive plan. And regarding the revised concept plan, it is recommended The commission take action consistent with the recommendation for zoning case 20 24-007. Alongside the condition regarding the required open space. That concludes my presentation, and I'm happy to answer any questions. The applicant is also here tonight with a presentation. Thank you. Thank you very much, OK? Um Her lights already on, So I'm gonna go with Commissioner Thompson. Thank you. Mr Chairman. I just have one quick question. Um to staff. There was a slide with the strike through and the underlying Can you repeat the differences between those, um, annotations? I can Um yeah, go back more. Yeah, that one. Right? So the zoning that is in place today has multiple restrictions, and some of those restrictions are being used in the request tonight. There are some changes. That are represented with a strikethrough or an underlying strikethrough means there be Changed. So number one maximum number of units tonight. They're requesting to increase that by 70 to 416. So that would be a change in the existing plan development stipulations. Um the second one minimum front yard setback. 70 the applicant is proposing to maintain that stipulation and therefore no change. As well as the number three. Number four maximum building height. The current PD stipulation is two story 35 ft And Tonight they're requesting to increase that to three story 45 ft with the additional stipulation that three story buildings will be set back a minimum of 150 ft from legacy and any single family residential zoning. Number five minimum side yard and rear yard that is remaining unchanged at 50 Ft. And number six and seven are new stipulations regarding amenities, the clubhouse and the dog parks. And finally the parking the 14% parking reduction from the required two spaces per dwelling unit equals 716 spaces on the property. Was there. Any changes on the parking or there's just no cha, Uh, they didn't have anything before. This is just additional. There was no modification in the previous zoning and so with the proposal tonight, they need 832 spaces. And they're requesting a 14% parking reduction from the required two spaces per dwelling unit. OK, Got it. Thank you. Mr Ratliff. Uh, thank you. Just a quick question on the PD. Number six. It says they'll be constructing concurrent or prior to increasing The number of multifamily units. Does that mean they're going to have to have The final inspections and CEO on the clubhouse before they can lease any of the new ones. Or what can you help me? Define concurrent? The applicant is here tonight to answer some questions regarding their phasing plan, but this stipulation concurrent or prior prior obviously means Before and concurrent at the same time, so It is likely they would need to have a CERT certificate of occupancy with the clubhouse. OK, thank you. Mr Bronski. I just have one question on and I would say you're trying to figure out how to word it correctly. So, um, as far as the hype The Is the three story Um He requirement 40 FT. Is that what you're saying? And they're looking to go to 45. That's correct. The MF one base zoning allows three story 40 FT. However the existing plan development stipulation that is enacted today limits two story 35 FT And Tonight they're requesting three story 45 FT. So my question is the three story 40 Ft, um, that we've that we're working with. For the MF. One district is, uh Is that taking into consideration? Um flat roofs or is The construction of the direction and I think from The, um Development. Uh, the developer. They're looking to go to 45 ft because they want to have vaulted ceilings. Is that kind of a new direction? We've seen it all. And Mister Bell. Is there any way you could pull up the definition of height? Yes Um , I could certainly do that. Um to answer your question. Yes, there, it's to. It's to differentiate Roo fetch allow taller roofs. The African can speak more to that. But Um, the idea is to get Higher ceilings for these units. OK? Yeah. And so that was my I guess. My See, That's why I was worried about my rewarding of my question is the I don't even know how to say this. And the higher roofs or the higher ceilings in the units. Is that something that we're seeing more often? Or is this just unique to this situation? I guess. I think, generally units. Of all types are getting taller Ceilings. Um Preferences in housing changes. That's what I was looking to get. Sorry. Thank you. Mr Hawley. Question on the open space. I was gonna lost a little bit there does the applicant Currently meet the open space requirements. Um for the zoning. Gonna wait till the slide. So the provision of 432,000 roughly square feet of usable open space that is After all, if, if the new buildings are approved, would that be what is left after the builders are approved, or that's what's currently on ground, and they will use up some of that. Place this new buildings. The first thing you said, with the nine new proposed buildings and the addition of the clubhouse, they'll have 432,000 approximately And they're required 327,000. So they have an excess. They bet And the reason why we put the stipulation on the revised concept plan is to maintain that Park like setting that MF one strives to achieve OK, so they they don't violate that, Um On the challenging grading topography of the Um Of the land before anything is built or signed off on They will have to go to engineering that says Yeah, or nay. That's how guardrail for that that's correct. You'll have to have with our engineering and architectural plans. I need to provide that. Engineering study, as required by codes. OK? Accessible parking. Um this is literally just something that jumped into my head. Is there a threshold in our parking ordinance like if you have 500 Parking spaces. You need X percentage to be accessible. For There is It's in the zoning ordinance, so they do meet the requirement for accessible part. I saw 10 spots which feel very I felt a little bit low, but they'll be required to meet the accessible parking Um Last question for now. I was looking at the when they brought it in 2022 versus now, am I correct in reading that essentially have to The number of two story and the number of three story That they submitted from 2022 to now or did I? Count all my glasses. Their previous request was 470 units. No, no, I'm not talking about units. I'm talking about buildings that they were throwing. On the ground. I think the applicant can probably give us the details there. OK, I'll I'll reserve 20 buildings to nine. Yeah. Yeah That's what that's what it felt like it felt like a half. OK? Thank you. Mr Bell. Did you have something else You wanted to add. Just on the open space Come. I just wanna clarify that there's no there's no PD stipulation proposed to require them to provide that excess open space. As written. That's just what they're proposing. So the stipulation on the concept plan for the additional 20,000. That's an that's an excess of the 300,000 Plus the change required by the base district. So they're providing even beyond that, in their in their concept plan. I just want to clarify Uh, where that applies. Thank you. I just have a quick comment about that. Quite also a question. Maybe for Mister Bell about that excess. You're gonna have to get closer about that access. Um Park space could they turn into parking space if it's necessary? Would that be allowed? Or is that be something that we can keep in mind? Yeah as currently proposed, they could certainly come back and add more parkings or Or enlarge the buildings. If they wanted more more sizable buildings. They could certainly do that, as it's currently written. OK, thank you. Yeah, Just one quick question. I. I wanna make sure I understand the buildings. There are nine buildings. Three of them are two story. Four of them are two story and the image that was shown in the topography side, I wrote, there were the image was showing where the four buildings were going to be constructed. That image wouldn't show that fourth building, and, um, those buildings do not include the expansion of the clubhouse, correct. But not number nine. No these will be the four buildings that will have residential units on them. Thank you, Kat. And Mr Law. This is for Mike. What if this was to be developed today, what zoning most closely aligns with it, MF So MF. One is the Lowest density, multifamily zoning, and this is less density than than that. MF one, So if they were to build this under MF one today, which is our lowest density multifamily With this be out. If this were straight MF one zoning? Yes. The number of units would be allowed. With the other restrictions about heights . Um the height would not be allowed and the parking reduction would not be allowed by the base district. But the number of units would With the parking reduction be allowed by something else in order something that you could approve. For the for the commission's actions, But for the base district, it's higher number. And so am I correct in understanding that there's one difference if this was to be developed today under MF one The one Well, we would have to approve a parking variance, and then we'd have to prove a building height variance. That's correct. OK, thank you. One more question. One more Sorry. Have we seen any other buildings that we have? I just don't remember off the top of my head that was a building height increase based on the, uh, recent, uh, residential design requirements or design desires. I know we've seen several from he I. I cannot recall and it To feel free to jump in, if you know of others, But for the for these districts, MF 12 and three that have been in place for several decades. I can't think of any off the top of my head. I know we've had some he Reggie changes for, um Think a BG case that was recently done, but those are more recently approved developed zoning districts. Then the MF 12 and three. I think they've been the same height for quite some time. Thank you. And I'd like to add the single family attached case. 2023 021 had a height increase as well to 45 ft and that required findings as well. Right? OK? Well, you know, for the longest time and at the DAAs. They had the thing there and they would pop up that they had a question and I, for the longest time ignored it. And now I don't have it. And all I wanna do is look for it. Uh, All right. Is everybody done? We're good, all right. Um Thank you. I will now open the public hearing and we have a presentation from the applicant. Logistical challenge first, uh I believe Michael far is available by Zoom to begin the presentation. If you got him active, he is available by Zoom. It'll be one moment. And I know he was having difficulty hearing Presentation. Well and you're gonna have to lean right into that mic because so let's see first off if he's connected. If you can pull Michael in It's being done remotely. Um It's being done remotely. So somebody else is doing it from somewhere else. So we we'll give him a minute. Hello, Chairman. Can you hear me ? I can. Can we see you? That would be the most important part . There we go. I'm I'm trying. All right. There we go. We can see you so feel free to begin at any time. Thank you. Thank you, Chairman Downs for always welcoming us to your meetings. And thank you. Uh uh, All the other commissioners for your time and consideration. I appreciate it. I I've been there many times. I did not feel great . This morning. When I woke up. I was flying in and I didn't want to get the whole world sick. So I decided to stay here. So I do apologize for not being able to be there in person. Um thank you for taking the time to. Uh uh. Here our case just to give you a quick update, as far as Star Point, uh, we've been in business since 1993 on one of the principles of Star Point Properties. We are in the business of multifamily, uh, as well as office as well as, uh uh , retail and warehousing. Um we own about 3000 multifamily units and about 7 million square feet of office and retail throughout the United States. Obviously, one of our F That we have is our is our Plano facility, which we love tremendously and, uh, we've we've owned since 2019. We do a lot of work as far as add value is concerned as far as repositioning of assets are concerned, and right now we are very busy. There is a lot of items that we're trying to reposition, having made a few Updated purchases as far as our portfolio is concerned, So thank God we are doing well and we are very busy, and we want to get even busier as far as uh, Plano's concerned once we can move to the next stage. Um next next, uh, slide, please. Um We love our property legend. Legend of Chase Oak. When we, uh Bought this property in 2019. What attracted us to the property was the unique setting that it has. It's got a lot of open setting. It's got town homes about 65% of the units have town homes, which make it very similar. As far as a condo process is concerned, which is very, very attractive to that, uh, to the tenant base that were going after, Uh, we love to Chase Oak neighborhood. It's uh, it's great. Uh, you know, we've had the approval from the Chase HOHO. City of Allen and everyone around for the last three times that we've been to, uh, the, uh, the PNZ. And we have it again as far as everything is concerned, and Frank will go more into our last meeting that we tried to hold. Um, as far as the H A was concerned, Uh, our our property is very close to employment. And obviously with with the take economy it's doing very well. We're running about 95 96% occupancy and, uh, We're very happy with with where we are and the property. Next slide, please. Um we have come before PNZ a couple of times. Uh, we have Changed courses at this point looking to not do as many units which was 120. Prior We have made a decision to just go after 100 and 20 units as far as our our units are concerned, which is 10 to 12 per acre. Uh, we have a diversified unit mix so we've gone after our two and three bedroom units at this point, which is more family oriented, and we made that decision to make sure that we can pick up more families since a lot of twos and threes are not being As far as the area is concerned, so that's one of the things that we that we were after, and that's what we've achieved. Um we have kept all the four story units in the back of the property and all the, uh, two stories in the front. So there's so that, uh, all the greenery that we have the lush green that we have hides a lot of the three story buildings in the back, and the question was asked earlier as far as vaulted ceilings. Yes a lot of units, everything that we are doing right now as far as two and three Are concerned. We're vaulted ceilings because that's what the tenant base is looking for, and that's why we had asked for the 45 height in the back to make sure that we can meet the tenant's needs as far as the vaulted ceilings are concerned, Um our properties is a fantastic property. It was it was built in 1997. It's an older stock, so we need to start upgrading a lot of the units that we've got at this point. Um we've, uh, one of the things that we're going to be doing is upgrading. Uh, all of our units once we can get And there to be built These 70 units, So you know we are. We're able to compete with the rest of the market at this point, but our our our great is getting a little old. So we we're gonna have to upgrade. The existing units are concerned and that's going to be a big undertaking and a big big capital budget for us as well, but we're willing to do it. That's not a problem. We love the area and we love love the property. Um as was mentioned before we're adding a dog park we're adding a. We're adding onto our clubhouse. Um which is, uh, which is adding more amenities? As far as the tenants are concerned, Um As a whole. We are very excited about this project. Um, initially, when we When we asked for 120 units, we were not able to find any contractors that were going to do that. Were that were going to do the 120 for us. We've been able to find one that can do the 70 or costs are going to go up a lot more as far as the seven is concerned for the economies of scale, but it still is going to make sense for us and it's going to be created for us to add the seven units to the property. And even at the end of the day after we add the 70 units, we're gonna have a trem. Amount of life landscaping, and that's what we wanted to make sure that we do as far as the property is concerned, Um, on the next, uh, Frank is gonna continue on on the next slide. I would like to reserve time at the end of the public hearing for additional remarks if possible, please, Mr Chairman. OK? Thank you. Very good. Mr Turn, Frank. You can go ahead and continue, please. All right. I guess it's your life. You're hearing me. Yeah, I'll try it. Uh, This is, uh, unusual being in this room. I'm so used to the council chamber. But uh, sort of joking before the meeting. I said this is kind of like reminds me of old firehouse days when we used to have meetings for council and, uh, planning Commission. Uh, is miss Fern said, Um I'm looking a T the slide up there, it says. The host would like you to We have something going on with our virtual meeting Zoom. Yeah, we need to See if we can fix that. They're working on it here. Like you, said Chairman Downs. Just about the time you get this down, you'll be moving. We'll be moving back. Yeah and learning another technology. I remember using transparencies and slides and all those fun days well, anyway. Uh, to describe the plan very briefly. Um Uh, this is Very much like the plans you've seen previously except very much on a diet. Uh, we went from 100 and 24 units and 20 buildings. To nine buildings. And uh, 70 units, so it's substantially reduced, it conforms to MF one with two exceptions. And those have been noted parking. Which is normally two spaces. Per unit. And then the height. Which is limited to it provides for three stories. In there about one, but we're restricted to two by the PD conditions. The 45 FT. Is the height permitted by right in MF three. For some reason, it's 5 FT. Lower in MF one. They have the same type of setback relationship to single family zone. Both are required by general standards. To be 100 and 50 ft, away from a single family zoning district. Um, but other than that, they're the same. Uh, so again, as you can see, the plan has very generous allotment of open space. In effect, it's about 30% more usable open space than is required by your zoning ordinance. We are expanding amenities, particularly the dog parks because they're very popular today. Um and As I said, there is At least 10 acres of usable open space provided in this plan. Which is about 30% of the entire site is in open space. We have worked closely with the Chase Oaks HO, a Uh, throughout this process. And do you have a letter of their support that's included in your packet. I'm gonna come back to that in a Moment later, about, uh Our efforts. I wanna talk about The Legends property in comparison to other properties in the area. As you can see on the slide. There are eight Carbon complexes in the immediate Chase Oaks area. Um Only legends has the restriction. And dwelling units break or an MF one designation. The remaining properties are combination of MF, two and MF three. And four of the eight units are complexes have three story buildings already on site. Jason We're over near the C Mar theater. There are additional multifamily buildings that are actually age restricted. Senior housing And they're even taller. They, of course outside of the neighborhood classification. There's some more comparisons to surrounding areas as you can see. Um Most of the setbacks for The other apartment complexes in this area. Uh, are the standard provisions of Typically anywhere from 25 to 15 ft. Only legends has the 70 FT setback. Long legacy. And a 50 ft. Sit back. Uh, Green Belt if you will. It is adjacent to the golf course. Um Also is our previously mentioned four of the eight complexes actually Have three story buildings. And I don't know whether or not there are 45 ft, but, uh some of them may be cause they would have been built. Under MF three, which allows for 45 ft. So the key PD stipulations. Would be to go to allowing for Uh, 416 units for 70. Unit increase. It's really not even necessary to be in the PD. Because if you went to straight MF one, you'd come to the exact same number. It's 12 dwelling units breaker. We maintain all the front and rear setbacks and the Green Belt along Legacy drive. We expand to have one additional dog park. We probably relocate the existing one. So there'll be Effectively. Two new ones. And then there is a 2000 square foot addition to the clubhouse that will be done. The question was what is concurrent or prior to Well, it's possible that the, uh Expansion to the clubhouse will happen in advance. But worst case scenario, they be concurrently. Um And then, uh, the 14% reduction in parking, which is already provided for in the zoning ordinance for your consideration, you could have done that have been a str But we have placed it in the PD as well. Now, While that sounds like a huge reduction in parking , and it is, and it saves over an acre, uh of open space by not requiring that There's over 200 tandem parking spaces on site needing a space in front of a garage. There is so there is ample parking. Nothing to be concerned about in terms of supply of park. Whoa! Support As I said, we've maintained contact with the officers of the Chase Oaks. HO, a All through these years. And Uh, As a Extra step in this process. We invited neighborhood residents, you can see the notification map on the screen to 1100 single family. Uh, Homeowners or residents within the area. They're all to the north of our development. It's Parkland and additional apartments to the South. This was to be held on March 21st. No one attended. Now. There are lots of explanations for that. Quite honestly, if I'd been invited, I wouldnt at it. Is it either A lot of family activities and other things that need to be Our priority. But the president of the HOA said that they Had, uh somewhere around 15 contacts. That day or just immediately before the meeting. And none of those 15 contacts reported any concerns, and obviously they've had opportunity to do so through responding to city notifications or getting on to the website. We feel like we have good support. City of Allen. Uh, Certainly is very appreciative of any reinvestment that takes place in properties adjacent to the golf course. And while they certainly can't, uh, support or Uh, a zoning case per SE. They indicated that they had no objection to it. So again, they support the reinvestment. So I'm gonna turn it back to Michael. And then of course, if you have any questions Oh, we're let me ask if you have those now and then my wrap up any questions concerning this Let's let you finish. I'll see if there's anyone else that wants to speak, and then we'll get we'll come back to the applicants. One minute remaining. OK? I will let him wrap it up Summary Mr Chairman. Thank you. Can you hear me? Absolutely Yes. OK thank you again again. We would love to support of yourself and the and the PNZ, Uh, to take this. Ah. Process to the next level and to help us invest Another 25 to $30 million in on this property. Uh, we love this property. We love the area and we like to be more involved. Thank you for your time, sir. Thank you. OK let's see if we have any other speakers. I know earlier. I don't think that we did. But just in case do we have any other speakers on this item? There are no other speakers, but just wanted for the record to let you know there's Three registered opinions in support of one A and five and support of one B. Thank you. OK, since we have no other speakers, then, um If we have questions for the applicant, and I have one, and then we'll see what What else I may have. Um, the parking So would you say that there are Extra spaces. Now that you have a lot of empty spaces, not in front of apartments. But open spaces that are not used in the development. Yes. OK um, A and part of the reason that I'm a little concerned about it only is because You're talking about? As was mentioned. The 70 units are more two and three bedroom, which is more likely to have two occupants and need two cars versus some of the others mailing you want. So that's my only concern because it looks like we're adding in terms of additional parking We're only adding like 39 spaces to the total. But we're adding 70 units , and more than likely most of those will have it. Two vehicles. Spaces would be close to 1000 spaces on site. So there's a again ample parking being provided here. Yeah. That that wasn't really my only concern was that based on the type of units being developed And just the Further if explained on this for a bit. Um Typically parking requirements or not just written to satisfy the internal demand. It's also to protect adjacent property owners. Right. There are no connecting streets to anything out of this development that all access is on to legacy. So the chances of people poaching parking on adjacent property or or zero so management is gonna be very sensitive to Internal demand and making sure it's satisfied. And I think I remember this discussion from our last. Uh, the tuck under parking isn't Those aren't enclosed garages. So in the case of a tandem there, they're one of two whites. You're either kind of the space out in front of the garage. Typically, we count the garage and not the space in front. In the case of, uh We call Tuck parking Truck parking. Towns. Because it's Clearly visible. It's open. It can't be used as storage. So there are a number of 10 or excuse me talk spaces that are included in the new supply. Um If it is got a parking space in front of it. It doesn't count. I mean, that part doesn't count. OK, it's only surface spaces and The New spaces that a RE garage or tucked OK, thank you. Uh, Mr Brunhoff. Thank you. Mr Chairman . Can you hear me? Yes. OK, um Is a tucked space essentially a garage without a door. Uh no, I mean, it's an open air parking space where the building is above it. Yes a door in other words, without a door, but they're not necessarily petitioned such that there's You . You might have several spaces in a row. I see one talk. It's not one space per per unit again . They have not been designed other than we know that they're under the building in those locations. OK, um What does The renovation. And the upgrading of the existing units have to do with building new buildings with 70 new units, actually, intr related because Obviously, there is a lot of money being spent on new units and You would want I. I won't say indistinct, but, uh, distinguishable. But you need to upgrade the entire complex to be market viable, so the new units effectively place Force. If you will. Upgrading of the existing units to be competitive internally to the development. Thank you. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have, uh, two questions to the applicants. One is actually related to what? Uh Mr Chairman just mentioned about the parking spaces. I'm also concerned about the new new build units. Uh, where the parkings are. I understand that with the total number of units there under utilized that maybe was for reduction. 14% reduction that kind of satisfy the overall requirements, But with the new buildings, the ex I'm assuming they existing residents have their parkings right underneath their building or right tenant Parking is right in front of their parking garages, so the new units they may not be able to use the ones that are 10 them to the other units. So are you going to build? Let me address? OK I see. See that you're nodding. Maybe you're already have an answer. If you could see from the slide, that's up right now. The new units are scattered throughout the entire development. And so, uh, a lot of Sharing of parking From new parking and old parking is anticipated. In fact, some of the buildings So on existing parking today, there'll be removed but replaced within the plan. Ah The distribution of the parking is regulated by ordinance, You have to have spaces within a certain distance of a dwelling unit. And so that review will take place as we go through preliminary site plan. But there may be some refinement and movement of parking spaces from this plan to the preliminary site plan. Those a RE the things that you While you go through those iterative processes. OK Thank you. Uh, the second question I had was regarding the height of the buildings. Um, I know that they, uh May not interfere with the setbacks in the front from the main street or from the golf course. But with it, um, cost us any shuttle to the adjacent buildings, so there might be buildings right next to them if they're higher than Um, the adjacent buildings with a block any, uh, maybe sunlight or maybe any views of the, uh, the current existing buildings. So if you look to the southeast corner of the Plan. All of those buildings are two stories. As you run down in that section so effectively, they're no different than the buildings that are around them. The Um Buildings that are three stories on the Western edge and Um Being that they're the inside properties. They would not block the afternoon sun. They might have some marginal impact on the morning sun, which most people would appreciate, you know, but I. I don't think that that's gonna be a significant issue. 45 FT again is there to primarily accommodate four to ceiling? Uh, distance so that you have a great like this room. You know you you feel more comfortable with the higher ceilings. And then still be able to have a decent pitch to the roof and avoid flat roofs. But That building height is common throughout the city. There are MF three is a lot more popular zoning district than MF one and The course a three story apartments throughout the community. OK, thank you. Mr Ratliff. Thank you, Chairman. Um Mr Turner. Obviously we had a plan that was here Previously. Can you summarize the differences between the one we're looking at tonight and the one that you presented to us two years ago. You know, the main difference is that earlier was that there were 20 buildings that were on the old plan. And I wish I'd brought a copy of it. But 20 new buildings on the old plan, there were 20 buildings proposed, and it's now being reduced to dime buildings. The reason why you see such a dramatic drop in number of buildings is most of those buildings were fairly small. Um and Were more tightly located within the site. Um This. Goes back to being basically all larger building types. But This is a much more comfortable fit to the site. I mean, truthfully compared to the other planet. Yeah. Thank you. That was my only question. Appreciate it. Mr Bronski. I have one question. I was looking at the staff report on page 17. They talk about the, uh, special housing need action Item number six in the comprehensive plan. That says, uh, identifying the methods. To incorporating universal design practices and encouraging their implementation in the new housing projects and home renovations. So am I to understand you're not incorporating universal design in the construction. Fortunately there isn't a universal design code. There are different universities and people who have Um Written about Univ. Uh Universal design and given some indication of the types of considerations But that's never been promulgated into a national building code or something that you could say. Oh, let's adopt that. In fact, there's disagreement among the architects and designers as to what constitutes Good universal design. It's a concept. It's a laudable concept. And you know It's something that all people look at in the design of their properties. Uh, obviously you have to be AD a requirements on access and design all the lower level units. So I. I can only tell you there's not a code that you could readily adopt to say. Oh Universal design will be done here and know what that meant. So I was just simply talking in relation to, uh What we're currently asking for in that. Can you? Can you help it all, Mr Bell? Sure so. Mr Turner is correct. There's not a code, but we're typically looking for, um Interior unit design site design that it's not specifically for ADA compliance, but it's all needs all ages. So things like countertop Heights locating where you're, um accessory or your appliances are to make them more accessible. It's more of an interior work, but there is not a specific code that we can say. Do XY and Z and you are meeting Universal design. It's a laudable goal, and I hope the cities within the region will work on. Something formulating something that would give Meaning to the term. Who would know how to respond and incorporate it into their Local ordinances. OK I do Wanna make one brief final comment of a campus chin that is about Housing type. Uh, we talked about in the comprehensive plan, Special housing needs and so on. All those things are very important. Um, but I don't want to point out the importance of getting More two and three story units in our Two and three bedroom. You mean apartments are one stories that are one unit one bedroom and efficiency and There's tremendous demand for Type of housing. 80% of the new units. Mr Rawleigh. You actually started answering. Out of my question. You talked about diversifying mix. So Yeah, I don't know if you have the ratio IN your, um What is currently on that property in terms of the ratio of three unit three bedroom to 2 to 1 to town home. And what's the change? That is new? Yeah. So currently the property. Is roughly 5050 on The smaller units and larger units. This will move it closer to being, uh, got R 54. Overall but of this new section. 80% or two and three bedroom. Okay? Uh, in terms of You don't count total is, you know it's 70 units. It's being Question. And that is a 20% increase in the amount of units on site. Counting bedrooms but 40% units. Only a little over 6. Of the usable al Open spaces being lost. How we doing that by using three story buildings and by reducing parking That's making a more efficient. Development that still provides more than 30. Additional usable open space center as required by ordinance. 11 More question. Um and again, you alluded to it with the open space. When looking back at the when this was last approved by both council and PNZ in 1995. Um It feels like the intent was to provide. A different kind of environment within Um Within that development. What's your reaction to If we can do this Almost maintaining an open space. Restriction. That essentially ensures that that park like set in Is kept on that development by maintaining that 400. 1004 32 or whatever the number is. I think you get there in effect by the design by limiting it again to 12 units per acre. There's little chance that you're going to see significant diminution of the open space. I mean, it's there's not really an effective way to gobble up if you will more land. Out of the open space. It's capped at the 12 years that Between the building heights restriction. And the density. It would be very difficult for them to Come back and say that more unless they did it with parking spaces, which none of us want them to do. Well. I do want to clarify that there is no requirement for three bedrooms in the stipulation, So the arguments made about housing diversification is not a requirement. They certainly do those as one bedrooms if you know There's nothing tying them down to the open space, either. So if those are things that you feel are important to the character without the PD restrictions, they can come in and revise the concept plan later and add additional buildings and the feasibility of that. Sure there's some arguments to be made. Um, but they could certainly try. What What do we have any Proactively. Regarding that. Well, your a PD stipulations is the is the would be the best way to clarify that. Yes Let me make a couple of comments on this one. Is that it is best to try to keep Zoning consistent if you will, among areas of town and not have Very unique requirements for HPD that Makes it harder to administer harder to interpret. Invariably requires amendments later down the pike. Sport. Clearly those Provisions in a PD that are necessary critical to the design of the plan. Um That's perfectly legitimate. But When you start putting in lots of extra Versions. It does complicate things. It's better to use standardized zoning districts where possible. I know staff Has their difficulties with P DS as I do through a career of dealing with them. Mm. Uh and II. I agree, Um But the original intent also when This parcel was built essentially in 95 in conjunction with his ax or what have you Was to arrive at a If I wasn't here, 95 but different housing vibe was originally single family attached. Zoning and part of the discussion was to keep the same density and what type of the PD language is our tool to keep to that. In part of that negotiation many years ago. I could just tell you that Bill Parsons with Cambridge Development was looking to turn the property. Quickly and that was the way that he decided to proceed was to try to keep things at the same density as S FA. Yeah, of course. The owner But The topography, vegetation and so on at this site. Is not significantly different than the Thornberry Development or Avalon next door. Uh all of it is has 20 to 30 Ft of froth and is heavily vegetated. A part of the Russell Creek. Very soon. And uh, so it's can I ask one more question. One more question. Um, you had a note on The 1100 Millers that went out to The adjacent property owners. I remember from the last time we were here watching the City Council meeting that was a bit particular sore point. Um That the property owners were not contacted, and the H a was not quite representative of property owners. Did you try again? But it since you didn't get any response did you do Something extra. We provided the 1100 mailers. Of course, that's on top of the notice of the city provided Uh, I think the truth is out of sight. Out of mind. There's nearly 500 Ft. Of golf course in between. This development and any adjacent Single family properties. And for that reason, I don't think it just draws a lot of attention on it. To the homeowners. Mind is to put taking place. But they were certainly made aware of it. And You can see by the Responses that came in through all the different avenues. It is a supported project. Sure. Thank you. What else? All right. Thank you. Thank you Close the public hearing on this. Um. I. I it. Here's what I remember from the first time and then the second time and now the third time First time we said we don't like XY and Z. And they went away. And they changed all of that. And they brought it back. And we still didn't like stuff for whatever reason, but it did pass PNZ the second time around went to council. I didn't get past counsel and I don't recall the reasons why But Uh, for the same reasons I supported it last time I I'll be in favor of it. This time. We need to redevelop the property. They're limiting it. Um Based on what I know about the developer, Mr Turner. It's my belief they want to build what they're proposing, which is two and three story apartments. Maintain the feel the open space . And um, I think based on what I know about the developer, they'll do a good job of it, too. So it's a reinvestment in an existing property. It's still one of the lowest density multifamily development in the city. Um I I'm not sure why we wouldn't approve it, but that's that's where I stand on it so I will start with Mister Brun and we'll go around the horn. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I also voted for it. The last time the 2022 case I was not on the commission for the first one back in 2020. And this impresses me as an even Better project. Than the one I voted for before. The density is less it is it's still the density is within, uh, MF one standards, which is the lowest density within the city. It provides a generous amount of open space usable open space. And I think substantial park like setting would be preserved within The property. In addition to the fact that it is still surrounded on three sides by a golf course, which is more park like setting There is a city of Plano, Enfield Public park across the street with ball fields. Um I'm not concerned about park like setting. I think it's there. Um The staff is in has informed us that the parking that they wanna provide is adequate and the tandem Park the tandem parking and the What? Tucked parking. Yeah. Um Expand those numbers even more. Tellingly there is no substantial opposition from anybody in the neighborhood. All of the surrounding apartment complexes seem to be in favor of it. Property owners. Basically didn't bother to respond to the notice of what they were trying to do. Um I think the height is justified. The extra 5 FT of height in order to maintain Architectural uniformity within The complex so I'm still in favor. I'm in favor, and I think , uh, Mister burn off was, um said it said it all and said it well, and it's hard to follow. So I'm just saying, I'm in favor. Thank you, Mr Kerry. Thank you, Chairman. Um Just a couple of thoughts. You know, Originally, this was not zone multifamily and, uh, they got it zone multifamily with some provisions and some PD stipulations. Um, it's a unique setting. It's a very desirable setting. Um And, uh, you know, but in this area by the documents we had there been 1386 new apartments built in the area already. And that doesn't take into account thousands of apartments that this commission has approved in Plano. Over the last several years, I've been sitting here that many of them still unbuilt. Um you know, uh, a case is made here. Um, I think effectively by the owners in some regards. That that they want to upgrade this property, and they will, because that's the nature of these kind of properties as they age, especially an asset like this, and so they'll upgrade it. Whether these new buildings are put in or not. And um, and they'll probably be able to get premium rents for it, which I think is the beauty of this property The way it sits today. Um you know, it's been turned down by council before this commission continues to approve it, Um But I don't see the benefit to the community of adding these 70 units personally , So, um, you know, I think staff has this right? And um, I'd I'd like to see this get upgraded. I think it'd be a benefit to the property. That's certainly the property owners. Um business, but, um, you know, I I've got problems with the height and I've got problems with the proximity to some of the other buildings and while they're still is plenty of space here and open space this does Tremendously changed the nature of this this project and this property So II, I will vote against it again for the same reasons I did before because I think we're changing it in a way that's that's not good for the property. I think it's a very unique property. So those are my opinions. Thank you. Mr Rais. Thank you, Chairman. Um I'm gonna echo Commission Brunhoff. I think you summarized it very well, but I'm gonna add on top of that something Commissioner Lyle pointed out, which is if this was MF one. We'd only be talking about parking and height and, um, with that, said I, the market is evolving and the higher buildings are in demand with more ceiling heights. And so I don't have a problem with the height and, um, I think because of the unique location of this property, the parking is going to be a much bigger concern for the Owner. Than by us because If they have a problem, it's gonna be their problem to deal with internally. Um a lot faster than it's gonna be our problem to deal with externally. So uh, with that said, um, I voted for it before, and I like it even better now, So thank you, Mr Bronsky. So I, uh, I have to agree that I like this proposal a lot better than the last one that I voted against. Um Part of my concern, then, as is my concern today. Uh, Is the additional multifamily units that are going to be added to this. Uh I don't have a problem with the height. I think the height makes sense. I think it's logical, um When I went over and sat after I met with Mr Turner, uh, sat through this property. Um What I'll say is, uh, this property does have a lot of potential. And I've I hear the confidence, uh, that those in this commission have about, um, the long term upkeep and, uh how well this developer has done. But in me sitting there and traveling through there, Uh, I think the city uh, has an argument when it talks about the long term maintenance and upkeep of the multifamily units. Uh, I don't feel like I don't feel confident that, uh, this developer is going to continue to do that when they've got garage doors right now painted three different colors, Uh, buildings that are struggling some of their, um Parking, Uh, covers are dented in and This product could this place could be a lot better? Today. Without adding anything additional Uh And I think Maintaining the MF one. I appreciate you guys doing that. I think that, uh, the MF. One is unique within the city of Plano. I don't think, um, adding additional units. Uh, as I did last time, I still don't think adding additional units to this, uh, is an overall enhancement. I believe that Our job here is to consider land use, and I think the appropriate land use. Uh we met whenever we put it together, and I think maintaining what we have today. Uh is the best thing for the citizens. I just wish that the, uh the owners would invest As much money into currently upkeeping their facility as everybody is hoping that they're going to do in the future, So all that said, uh I've weighed this back and forth. Uh, I still will vote No. A second time. Commissioner. Trying to I. I don't think I ever considered upkeep necessarily as any reason because it doesn't feel like it's a land use. Um A viable land use characteristic. Uh, A couple of things that have Stuck with me with this case, even in the past was one How Its judged differently from the adjacent properties. Right, and I understand there's history as to why the city went a certain way. Um and two even within the Base MF one zoning, which is our least Um, apartment multifamily zoning in the city. Um the PD stipulations essentially. Cut them off at the knees and again, I understand what was needed in 1995 to pass that, um Mix of uses. This doesn't increase the mix of uses in the neighborhood categorization. By what 0.1% If my memory serves me, right, so it really doesn't change much. Um, it takes a slightly in the Direction. We don't want to go, but It's when finance we call that flat. Um the character defining character. Um characteristics. The three story buildings are essentially tucked in To the core. And when I think of character defining characteristics, I'm looking at two things. Um, what does it look like from the outside? I don't think anybody can see them. Um, And how much does it Really changed the vibe. Of what is within the property, which brings me back to the open space. Um I moved that we approved it the last time and I'll probably do so again. The one Question I have is if we can almost embed that open space requirement a little bit more firmly. Um within the PD stipulations that would make me even more Um, confident that we are Meeting the spirit of what the 1995 Border Commission and city was trying to accomplish in order to maintain that park like sedan. Don, I'd like Commissioner Can I just make a quick statement about what he just said So on page 10 of the staff report, it, says quote, Furthermore, long term maintenance and upkeep of existing multifamily developments is emphasized in the description of the N category and Priority to which is recommended upkeep of existing housing stock. So in fact, it does. So. So what are essentially saying is I don't. I didn't make my decision then. That I need to build. What 100 and 20 more buildings in order to get the money to upgrade stuff. That argument Never F. With me. What Always I came back to was Are we treating this substantially different? For the MF one category and for the surrounding multi family units. And does that, um, fly? With Plano today. Plano 2050, Plano. Get that we are handcuffing. Essentially a development to Plano 20 years ago or whatever 1995 was Hard to believe it's 30 years ago. Yes, we're all getting older. Quickly, Mr Lau. I, uh I will come at this like I try to think about Each of the cases but first I wanna ask Mister Bell a question. In line with Commissioner Always Y'all wanna talk with all of us? In line with Mr Ali's Concerns about open space I. I don't share those concerns because if we were to approve nine buildings As is represented on this in Front of us. How do you eat up any more open space? Again they could redevelop the site. You're approving a number of units, not a number of buildings. So they could come back and tear all of them down and rebuild new buildings that they at the unicat you're proposing so it could be done a number of ways. Is it? Is it feasible? Is it practical? I don't know, but it's possible. And I don't I don't share that concern. I, I unders. I appreciate the 2022 look like that's all. So Uh, as I started just thinking through As I try to think of everything who deserves protection by the ordinance here. Is, is what I kind of what I start with and We have apartments really on an island surrounded by a golf course. So I don't I don't see the protection factor. That that I think is important to consider . What the law was written to do is to is To give everyone an understanding of what's happening. But we have apartments on an island essentially surrounded by A golf course We have 70 ft Setbacks of legacy. We have 50 ft setbacks and the setbacks to a golf course. We have 10 acres of open space. And so I mean, a few more apartments in here on once we've met the protection of the people that deserve being protected by the ordinance. II. I defer to Someone. Making an investment in Plano. And so that's what I see this as someone coming in improving the property. I'm OK with them, making some more money. That's why people develop property. And, um Uh, From everything I've heard. I, I I'm I'm in supportive of what the what they've done here. Thank you. Thank you, Uh, Um, Mr Bell? To answer question all these question with the amount of open space proposed roughly comes out to about 28% 28.5% open space. So if that was something you wanted to recommend, that would be the number somewhere in there that would That would lock that into that a mount of open space, so a motion to approve the PD as stated with a minimum of 28% open space. Correct. Unless your plans are to do something different than what you've stated That shouldn't be a problem. Right Guess who there is. I mean, first off, we're a concept plan. We're not a the preliminary site plan. We don't have exact measurements that might be I agree. Maybe it's 27. Maybe it's a different number. Also, I ask you to think about Why this property? And that restriction that doesn't apply anywhere else in Plano. Why would you set a different open space standard? You have one that's in MF, one, which we are exceeding by nearly 30. Why would you make a different standard for this property? You didn't apply to anybody else in Plano. I. I think my thought on that is because we're not really agreeing to just change the zoning to MF one. What we're doing is creating a planned development, which might have variable requirements. So you know, all right. If it's not 28% it's 27% The bottom line is being is looking for a way to make sure it maintains the character of the existing developments. I would add. I think when we when we're writing PD stipulations, we're working with applicants. We typically not to get so specific as a 28% We would probably around 2025 somewhere in there. So um, I just I'm just offering that up. As if that's something you because that was a question. You asked, How would we get that in the in Cemented into the PD. Requiring a minimum open space of some percentage would be the way to do that. Microphone. A minimum open space requirement higher than the MF one which again I think what the PD was meant to do. Is to give us a lever to Almost an act exceptions to create a particular environment so If I would go with your guidance if it's 25. I was saying, you know, to give you guys some leeway to play with it or what have you, but I feel like they just needs to be a lever to Keep the original intent. Of what we were trying to do in 1995. Not to, uh Through the harmony of the overall area of Chase Oaks out of balance. Understood, Mr Carey. Yeah. I mean, I guess my answer to Mr Turner would be the reason we're dealing with it differently is it was built differently to begin with. I mean, so it's already different. And so that would be my answer to that. The other thing I think is concerning here is we don't know how much green space this is going to end up with. And so possibly, although I'm not for this change to begin with, But, um, I, I do And the reason is because I believe this is a very unique place. And while uh, Commissioner Lyle is saying, who are we protecting? Um part of who we're protecting is all the residents that live there already, who shouldn't be an afterthought. By the way, that's part of who we're protecting. But with that, said, I, I do believe that some kind of governor if this is going to get approved, which it appears it is some kind of governor on protecting the green space, I think should be Important to this commission. Okay to you looking at the numbers. Um, actually We're we're not on our thing. Thank you. Mr Ratliff. Well III. I respect Mr Turner's position, but I think we probably do need to set some sort of a boundary. If we look at MF one that works out to about 21% is what would be required under MF one. I don't think it's unreasonable that we've set that higher and 28 being what he's proposing today, But it seems like to me if we want to give them a little bit of flexibility. We might do a 25 or 26. That way that gives them some room to work with staff and still have some wiggle room. Once they start their architecture. That's just my thought that, um it's 21. I. I agree completely. I think going to the bare minimum MF. One is not enough given the unique character of this property, but I think If we went straight to 28.5, we might tie their hands pretty tight. U understood that So it sounds like one of you guys a RE gonna make a motion here. IN a second. I can go ahead and make a motion. Um Keep the trend going. Um, before you make a motion. Yes, sir. Can I ask a question of the developer? I know you said we're here. But can I Ask him what His comments are. Um is it relevant to what's relevant to the motion? That's about to happen? I mean, he Okay? Mr Turner. You said you had a suggestion. You've done some math. I'm just curious. What? What you'd come up with Part of my concern is that We're dealing with some details that a RE actually more relevant than to the concept plan, and not necessarily so I understand the desire to give a definition. We can round it out. Two different ways. One is Today, the requirement would be 327,000. Make it 350,000. Of open space. Or Took 25. What reluctant God only because we haven't gone to the next level of playing and engineering to say, Gosh, I know exactly what that measurement is so to just summarize that you were saying go to 300. We're we're at almost 10 acres right now at 423 or 432. Yeah, This wouldn't actually enlarge what it is. It's a question of defining what it is. So the We hope to stay with the plan just as strong. We are not that level that I could say comfortably. Gosh this is exactly why the segment is going to take place. That level of engineering and planning has not taken place yet. So you you wanna be very cautious about Put it in number that like Lead to a subsequent request. Uh, so For you. 150,000 This. Work out or Probably 25. But it's just Kind of a roll of the dice if it's exactly that number Well, well, we got here because there was a specific number listed. And that leads us to believe that the maths been done. So Um, let's Fly back. Did he answer your question? All right. Mr. I think, um, so a couple of address a couple of things. Uh, For us to Go against the comprehensive, Well not go against to, uh. Approved this. We have to find a couple of things. Um, is it consistent with the guiding, um, principles I think it is with it Takes play , not 2050 housing trends plan all together. Maintains that park light set in play, not today. Um it doesn't bother the neighbors. They don't care to, uh, come to an 1100. Million HOA. What have you, um, General public doesn't sound like, um it cares and To what Commissioner Bronsky said. Um, if this gives The ability to Upgrade the quality of housing stock and bring in some entry level housing. And that is badly needed in the city. I think this is the right thing to do. With all of that being said, I move that we approve this. Um agenda item number one a With the stipulation additional PD stipulation of A minimum threshold of 25% of open space added. I'll. I'll second that, but I think we don't need the word added I think added means you're gonna be an addition to what's already there. With that clarification. I'll second that That clarification of it. OK, so the motion is to approve Item one, a subject to the additional requirement that the minimum open space is 25% that was seconded by Mr Ratliff all in favor. All opposed. That item carries 6 to 2. We need a separate motion on item one B. I move. We approve Agenda Adam, number one B. We need the same restriction on that. It's a concept plan. Um we do not. The concept plan will have to comply with the PD stipulation. I do want to clarify staff had a Had a recommended stipulation for additional open space equivalent to 20,000 square feet for the offset of parking that's no longer needed with the additional 25% because that's higher than what we were recommending. So just disregard this. This staff recommendation on that, OK, OK. So Item one B would be Can you I move with provide them one be Um, disregarding the staff. Um, additional recommendation of the 20,000 What makes it subject to council's approval of Zoning council's approval of Item one. Second Okay. A RE You comfortable with that? We got it. All right, so All in favor on one B. And opposed. And that item also carries 62. All right. Thank you. All right. Yeah. So Um, what I'm gonna do is suggest that, um, we've still got we've got some work to do on our findings. So if you guys want to take a break, it's gonna take us a few minutes here to get this done, and we may even take a five minute recess when that's done before we move on. So Everybody get into your findings forms if you can. She has hard copies If you're having difficulty getting into. Sounds really loud to me up here. I apologize. It's 838. We're gonna take a five minute break, and then we'll we'll circle back. Hopefully the rest of these will move quick. Sorry you guys are sitting here. I can't go anywhere else. Alright it's 843. We'll reconvene into our regular meeting and start with Item two A and two B. Agenda. Item Number two A Public hearing zoning case . 224-001 request for a specific use permit for a 120 ft. Commercial antenna support structure on 0.1 Acre located 225 Ft. North of Democracy Drive and 220 FT. East of Partnership Road Zoned Commercial Employment beside was tabled on March 4th 2024 Petitioner is Democracy partners. Limited. This is legislative consideration. Agenda Item number two B public hearing revised site plan. Marta Business Systems Inc edition Block a lot one R Professional General Administrative Office in commercial Antenna support structure on one lot on 4.8 acres located at the northeast corner of Democracy, Drive and Partnership, Road zoned commercial employment. Applicant is Democracy partners limited administrative consideration. Pending item two A Thank you. Good evening. I'm Melissa Knick lead planner with the planning department. So the applicant is requesting a specific use permit for 100 20 ft. Commercial antennas support structure located at 5560 Tennison Parkway. An SU is required in Non-residential districts for commercial antenna support structures that are greater than 60. Ft. In height. The boundaries of the SU are located within a larger 4.8 acre lot, which is zoned commercial employment and developed with a professional general administrative office. The purpose of the tower is to provide increased wireless capacity and coverage in the area. Three wireless providers will have antennas on the proposed tower, and there are sufficient space for 1/4 set of antennas without increasing the height of the structure. The structure is in conformance with the regulations of section 15.200 of the zoning ordinance regarding antennas and support structures. And a rendering is shown here. And shown on this slide is The Associated revised site plan. The applicant is proposing to restrict the design of the commercial antennas support structure to a flagless flagpole with the antennas concealed by internal placement. The proposed SUP stipulations include requirements that the pole must be uniform in color. Accommodate internal placement for all antennas and equipment and allow for colation. The subject site is located within the employment centers, category of the future land use map. The request results in no change to the future land use map and dashboards and is in conformance with a comprehensive plan. No responses were received within 200 ft of the request. In one response in opposition was received citywide. So Zon in case 20 24-001 is recommended for approval, subject to the SEP stipulations. And the Associated revised site plan 20 24-002 is recommended for approval, subject to City Council approval of the zoning case, and I can answer any questions. Thank you. Any questions for staff on the side. Mr Ali. My curiosity. The response in opposition. What did it say? There was not a comment associated with it. It was just selected in opposition. Yeah. Any other questions. Mr Carey. Do. Do we know how proximate is this to others? And my real question? I guess is this um Is there an issue with having too many of these too close in terms of interference with each other? It's a It's an ignorant question , because I don't know, but I'm curious as we approve these things. What if any, um, challenges that might present if they're clustered too close together, I? I honestly don't know. So I'm just interested. OK? So I cannot speak to the interference question. I'm sure the applicant might be able to respond to that. Um but as far as distance from other antennas, it is, um, located I believe the closest one is over. 2000 ft. From this tower. Um the zoning ordinance does have requirements for separation. They don't apply to a, um, stealth design. So this is considered a stealth design so they don't apply. But this does happen to meet those OK, No more questions for staff. I'll open the well. I have one. So if someone else wanted to do a non stealth design, this one is as if it's not, uh, this one is Treated as if it's not even there. In other words, another non stealth design could be less than 2000 ft. From this one. So Yes. So the Separation distance in the ordinance. It's based on the type of in of Tower that's there. Um and the stealth designs. They are exempt from it , because they don't they? They're not categorized as one of those types of towers, so there's certain fee like 700 ft. Say from like certain types of monopoles, or if there's the lattice or the guy wired, there's different separation distances based on those types, so if it does not qualify as one of those types if it's like incorporated into a building And that's one of the stealth designs or this flagless flagpole type. It doesn't have to meet those requirements because it's not one of those specific types the intent being to encourage stealth types for community aesthetics. Thank you. Just checking, all right? Now we will open the public hearing and as the applicant Here to address Yes. Thank you for your patience this evening. Uh, you're used to, but I'm used to it. Uh my name is Bill Bowman. I represent , uh, anthem Net. Who is the applicant on this particular case? Uh, constructing the tower. Uh this is going to hold up to four carriers. We have one carrier signed. We have other carriers, very interested. So I believe this is gonna be well utilized. AMI speaking through this. I don't hear amplification at all. You're not. It's it. I can hear you just slightly, but I think there you Yeah, It's unfortunately get like this. I see what she's talking about. Um To answer one of your questions about the distance. Um Like, For example, when they built the star in Frisco, the carriers had to put in multiple sites to cover the traffic. So For example, I was a planner in Arlington in the nineties. Uh before, while when my list was taking off. Our thinking at the time was that we would space these thing things out like a hexagon, and they would eventually cover everything Well , then demand with the ipads and the watches and you know the personal devices. All that data started coming through which made us had to split. We had to just divide these things up into very small units. I was thinking about when you made that comment at the Galleria. Uh the carers have five sites within eyesight of each other just to cover the demand That was at the Galleria 15 years ago, so it's kind of it started out that way. Where we thought, you know, there was gonna be a kind of like a grid and you do the city and it was covered. We read ordinance back then. Thinking that we needed that spacing to kind of separate these things out, but demand just Just went through, so it's driven more by bandwidth than just coverage. Uh huh. In the data and the everything you got on an iPad I mean, it used to be voice. Now it's mainly data video. You're good. Yeah. There you go. Um, was there other questions? With the applicant on this. OK, You're good. Thank you. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. I will close the public hearing find discussions with the commission. I move. We approve this item as recommended by staff. So I have a motion by Commissioner Bronsky with the second by Commissioner Carry to approve Item two. A. Please vote. That item carries 8 to 0. Mr Chairman, I. I do have a comment, and I wanna, um Um, I call What? Um Commissioner, Carey said about the distance required because I understand the Uh, demand of having those towers. But I also am concerned about having too many, uh, insight in the city because we're getting more and more so I don't know if there's any ordinance in our city that will prevent that eventually happening. Well, uh, I don't know. We don't have an ordinance written that that way, and I think to some degree, it's driven by the Uh, FC. Yeah, they control it's outside our control. Mm, ok. Thanks OK, thank you. All right, Adam. Mr Ali, can I ask a question? Yes. The It's outside of our control as to transmission and what have you but Similar to how we have buffer requirements for non stealth. It's within our control if we wanted to put Even if it's minimal or reduce buffer requirements for even if it's a stealth design, just to Guard against packing. In areas just more of a question than anything . It could be an item for future agenda. Yeah II. I would suggest that we focus on this item, and then we can consider whether or not that needs to be addressed again. I think we're gonna find ourselves very limited. Um Based on the demand right if we because of our city and the density, uh in certain economic areas or employment areas have a demand for 12 towers in the carriers need those towers in order to meet the demand? It's not in our best interest to limit the number of towers. Right? So Mr Bronski, I move that we approve Agenda Item two B, as recommended by staff, subject to council's approval of Item two. A As recommended by staff. Yes. All right. Motion by Commissioner Bronsky second by Commissioner Carry to prove Item two B, please vote. And that item carries 80 OK. Item three. Agenda Item number three public hearing zoning case 2024-005 request a rezone 0.9 acres located at the northeast corner of to F and drive and national drive from region employment to regional commercial. Own regional employment and located within the state highway 121 overlay district. Project number ZC 2024-005 petitioner tall to LLC this items for legislative consideration. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. I am Parker McDowell, planner with the Planning Department. This request is a rezone from regional employment to regional commercial. The subject areas highlighted in yellow on the screen the property to the north across state highway. 121 is an undeveloped property located within the city of Frisco. The property to the east is zoned RE and developed with medical office. The property to the south across Dalo drive our zone single family residence, six. And developed with single family residences. The property to the west across to drive is zoned RC and developed with medical office. So some history on this project, The R and RC zoning was first established in October, 2000 In 2017, the property to the south was rezoned from RENRC to the single family residence six, creating the current zoning boundary that will be shown on the next screen. Also in 2017, This property requested to rezone from RE to RC to allow for additional retail. City Council denied that case in 8 to 0 vote. On the screen. You'll see that Historical maps of zoning. The map to the left shows the original zoning boundary for RE and RC in 2001 and the boundary after 2007 8 2017 Change in alignment with Tok on drive showing yellow on a map on the right. R and RC districts are identical in area yard and bulk requirements as well as other developmental standards, but with key differences in allowed uses. The RC district is intended to provide retail and service uses at appropriate nodes, while the already district is intended primarily for office and limited manufacturing uses along corridors the already district would allow for retail and restaurant uses by ride. Whereas the existing RE district or Excuse me, the RC district would allow for retail and re use by right, whereas the existing RE district plays a square foot limitations on retail and restaurant uses in order to provide a focus on employment based uses. Moving the RC boundary farther east would promote ship retail along the expressway furni and not create the desired retail and service node. Which already exist in close proximity. Although the request could be seen as a minor adjustment, the zoning district boundaries to remove the split zoning staff believes the token drive would be a more appropriate boundary between the two districts. On this screen. Shown in Blue are the existing proposed shopping centers at the state highway 121 in Kuwait road intersections. The one to the Southwest Intersection is U CD Plano COIT Edition, which is proposed or currently under construction. And then the one in the Southeast is the signature plaza, which is existing The subject. Property is the one shown in yellow. These shopping centers are zoned RC and form an adequate node for retail and service uses that are cons consistent with the purpose of the RC. Zoning category. Oh, and then the proposed change would not create or contribute to the existing node and be more Create the, uh The frontage retail. In 2003, the City Council adopted the retail study of underperform and vacant retail areas indicated Excuse me , initiated by the cities of Carrollton, Richardson and Plato. The study, examined the retail market conditions of the three cities and offered alternative to addresses. Under performing and vacant retail properties. The study identified Plano as having an overabundance of zoning, resulting in commercial decline. The subject. Property is designated as expressway corridor of the future land use map. Shown on the screen is a snapshot of the comprehensive plan policies. This request meets partially meets or does not meet. This proposal does not meet the redevelopment or regional transportation corridor policy. The revitalization of retail shopping centers, policy and the land use policy action for of the comprehensive plan. Staff received one letter in support within the 200 FT buffer. Staff received a total of five responses citywide one in support, one neutral and three opposed. So this area has adequate retail development and the request is not in conformance with the recommendations and policies of the comprehensive plan. For this reason, staff is not in support of this request. Staff recommends this item for denial. I'm happy to answer any questions, and I believe the applicant also has a presentation. Can you go back? This The slide that shows where you're proposing that a better demarcation line is This the, uh, street whatever the name of the street was there. Yeah. So uh, let me I'm just trying to understand how staff wrote this. So To the right of the Red Square. Is Are C. Right. It's a split this property a split zoning, so part of the of the square is regional, commercial and regional employment, with most of it being regional employment and a small sliver. See this might be better to the west of Tokelo is all our RE there Employment, So this is all . Uh, excuse me all regional employment to the right. Correct. And then the little yellow Triangle. Is RC. No, that is the regional employment. OK? So what part of this right here is RC any of it the corner outside of the yellow, Um, triangle that's within that property. So between toke Law and the Yellow Triangle. That's the small portion that is currently regional commercial. This feels exactly like spot zoning to me. Well, everything also to the to the West or, yeah , to the west of Tokelo Drive is currently RC as well. So that boundary that those two buildings right there on the left. Those are our RC currently , yes, OK, and then connected to those two buildings is where you have the two big shopping centers, commercial retail shopping centers, So it's a matter of do we move the RC further down the road to the West or East. Or do we stop it and say no. To be on that, OK? Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr Chairman. I have a question. Um do do you know if did they provide what kind of retail they're planning to do if we approve the changes? The current request generally just from our retail uses, But the applicant is here so they can maybe provide more information of what tennis they possibly seeking. OK, thank you. And the second question I have is so the two buildings To the west of this yellow spot. They're all medical offices. Is that correct? It's the buildings of the east that are medical offices. Let me go back to this. My staff report. So what are the ones to the West? Yeah. What are the ones to the West? I thought I heard I thought you said once in the West were medical office. Yes So, actually, that is correct. So it is medical office. But they could also do more retail, or, um, service uses if they so desired, So there they zoned RC, But what's in there are medical offices. Correct OK, OK, thank you. I think that's where I had some confusion, too, because it was employment Use, even though it's zoned are OK? Yeah. Thank you, Mr Aleigh. There was a statement in the packet that said, uh, A and RC zone in where intending to work in conjunction Um, I presume. Yes. If we had a nice straight Clean line between both and Where essentially They're working in conjunction, but the only issue here is that Awareness of the angle that designates the split. Yeah, So if you go back to this slide with the historical Well, um What kind of created that split was that placement of Pokemon drive. When that came in through the, um Single family. When that was developed, they needed the access to the frontage road and the way they did that made the rest of the lots. Not exactly line up with the zoning district. So that's why you have that small split there. Correct whenever those original line was drawn. That was all pastures. Um so the line was drawn straight up and down and continued all the way further South. Um and then, in 20 in two thousands. It was rezoned for the single family in 2017. They they essentially created the split on that property by putting Tok on where it is today. So second question. And the city. Or is it within the city's purview to Draw that boundary. T to alone and make All of what is to the right are mixing up my hours. But RR Not as part of this decision tonight, but it it's an action that could be taken by the city. Yes, OK. Mr Ratliff. So just look just looking at the land use out there if you can go back to you the slide that had all the properties East and West They got a zoomed in version of that, but but the everything west of Tokelo is actually connected to the big shopping center with internal access, Correct. Yeah There we go. That that one that one right there as well. Everything to the West to has basically cross access easements with the big shopping center around the corner. So they don't actually get out into a public street. To go to those buildings. There they can wander through the shopping center. It's effectively an extension of the shopping center. That is correct those I believe it's six buildings that are to the west of this. Do you have access? To it to the existing shopping center. The existing one, which is the synergy. One that I mentioned. Yeah. So I guess the point I'm curious about so if the dividing line was on to line , it would make sense because basically you have to cross a public street. The use changes, um from retail to employment. Mm uh, because it's not really a retail environment. The retail environment is west of Tokelo. That's correct, where all the traffic and circulate without getting out on the street backing up in the neighborhood, etcetera. Yes, that's correct. That's why it's staff. If we That would be the better line for the toke Law for the RC and already so OK, so right now, just out of curiosity, explain. We're gonna have a We still need the applicant to speak. So just questions for staff. Let's circle back to just to. So I have a usage question on that building. There's some retail uses in it today. What What person and you covered that, But I wouldn't really follow it. Yeah, there is, um The regional employment district does allow some retail uses. If it's I believe 10% of a building or a lot that's in the R. They can use up to 10% of that building as retail uses, which this Property already has maxed out. For that, so they already do have some retail there, but they've already met met their allowable. So for the purposes of this, a bank isn't considered retail. No bank is a separate use for retail. OK, all right. That was my question. Thank you. Mr Lyle. What is Perhaps Mister Bell. You might be the right response. Respondent here. But what is it about the district that they're requesting? That What? What use could happen there that Can't happen in the other one. So the retail family I'm I'm say retail is a specific use, but a broader retail family of things You may think of hardware stores, etcetera. Um those are permit. There are more permissions for those in the regional commercial, which is what's to the West. Here The regional employment is more of your medical office office. Employment. Specific uses. They have the districts have the exact same. Dimensional requirements. Lot size setbacks, everything else that defining difference is One allows retail uses. One is mostly employment uses. And At the expense of sounding dumb. The triangle is what Is currently regional employment. The Yellow triangle is RE today and they wanna make it RC they want that would make the entire lot RC if that was rezoned, yes. Uh, if we Put ours. OK so the triangle that exists outside of the Yellow line is already what they want. Correct. Which is why it's split zone. Correct. And If we were To deny what they're requesting. Today They're going to be left with a split zone property correct, correct. I want to direct you. I apologize for not having it in the in the presentation, but, um, slide 90 or page 93 of your packet has the zoning map if that helps clarify. What the existing How the RE and RC breaks down on this property. And I, I guess again for staff. What is I in in my thinking the tie goes to the runner and They're on base. I just got a little corner of it, but they're on base. And so what is it? That could happen? That That would be detrimental. If we gave them the tie. So again, This has been zoned this way. 95% of the building is in our art is currently an RE The employment zone. They built a building that is a retail shaped building and now they can't occupy it because of that. Because of that limitation, But the zoning has been there in place. They could have built a building that was more conducive to employment. And they have. No they wouldn't have the occupancy issues that they're claiming. Today Um, the issue historically has been that we allow more retail that cannibalizes existing retail across the city. And in this case, it's creating strip retail instead of node retail, which is the intent of the district. This would create strip retail along the frontage if the line moves to the line. We're to move here, then it can move to the next property and the next property and then we get a strip of retail along 121, which is not the intent of the district. Thank you. Any other questions for staff. OK Thank you. Thank you. I'll open the public hearing. The applicant is here. Yes, sir. Uh, if you have a presentation or yes, Thank you for your time. Um I'm Nelson Lo. I own the building actually developed the building Two lots down. Also So were you talking about the buildings to your left? I developed the building two lots down, which is, um, the same as this. Basically, it's retail. So little history about what happened was we bought the land in 2016 before they put in Toke on drive. And if you if you look at the zoning of the next screen later on, it goes right through the middle of our property. And so Uh, at that point, we didn't know if it was regional, commercial or regional employment. And so we hired a civil engineer to come in and actually try to do a zoning proposal to you guys, and unfortunately, I couldn't be here And obviously it failed. At that point, it was 8 to 0. Um And so we said, Let's just try regional employment for a couple of years and see what happens. And if we can fill the building and be happy, then we're all good. I don't need to worry about it. Uh unfortunately, um, we finished the building in 2018. It's still was doing regional employment as you guys know, Uh we still have 2400 square feet of vacant space since the building was built, and so it's kind of ugly that the fact that there's a vacant spot for six years almost Um, so it's I just thought that maybe I can try it again and come out to you guys and kind of basic plead our our our our case. Um On the next screen. Let me see. So this was how it was split. Uh, Before Toon drive was actually put in a long time ago. Uh, it would go right through the middle of the property. So we didn't really know which side it was on. Um, but obviously, as you guys know, half of its We're Ba a building. I didn't know that they put our building as what the line was actually gonna be. So that's why they based our building off of the R zoning. Which he only gave us 1000 square feet of, uh of a regional commercial space. So when I did the pre application meeting just to see what how it was, Um they actually said it would not result in the request of being, uh, disfavored or required findings. So I thought that it was positive. So let's go ahead and pay for the, uh, zoning change and just go ahead and try to go for it. So This. This is the This is one of the questions you guys had earlier. The list of potential tenants that we actually had to reject was one of them was an AT&T store. Domino's pizza, jewelry stores, liquor stores, and, uh, what we envision was actually having mom and pop restaurants and cafes there. Uh, which we had to deny, because we can only put in 1000 square feet of retail space. And actually, what's what's funny is, um We? We had these complaints that that said that it was opposed to our our building, turning to regional commercial. If you read them, it's actually a complaint about the tenants and not really a complaint about the zoning. So the tenants, we would have had more Like Supply of good tenants and quality tenants if we were zone commercial And we can pick from AT&T and restaurants instead of Basically leasing it out to You know the complaints of our of our com It's a community community centers there, But then they're having Ramadan right now or or just passed and they had a lot of people come through and they they parked a lot of cars there and, and that's why they were complaining about If we had an opportunity actually their lease is up. So if we had the opportunity to put a jewelry store there or an ATT store there, we would obviously love to put them in there versus a community center that has a lot of cars being parked there. We don't have that opportunity we have to. We have to abide by these rules. So I mean, just consider. Basically you know us having the vacant spot for six years. 2400 square feet. That's just sitting there. We would have better tenants for the neighborhood. Um I mean, just something to think about where there's no, there's no vacancies, actually, if you if you look at that corner of kit and 121, and you drive by there, there's no vacancies at all. So I don't think that my 2400 square feet Would change that much in the grand scape of the grand scheme of Itself. It's a very small spot. But thank thank you for your time. Hopefully you guys can consider that if you have any questions Any questions for the applicant. Yeah, II. I do. OK, we don't have any other speakers, right? There are a Thank you, Mr Carry. OK so it's 2400 square feet and you've had challenge leasing this since you built the building in 2018. It's still it's still in its shell station in that 2400 square feet , and when you purchase the land or built the building, it wasn't clear to you. What the actual zoning was, Is that is that true with that? It looks like this line goes through your building, which is amazing. Really It goes right through the middle of our property. We bought the land and developed it ourselves, So we really didn't know which way we could put a building at the at the time and it was half and half. And at that time when we called the city it was funny because we called the city and it went per first person we called it said Oh, it's regional commercial. We called again. It's a It's regional employment, so we didn't know so we just said Let's have our civil engineer go out there. And Speak to the council and make sure that we can actually get regional commercial. And then it failed. At that point, You mentioned two buildings down. You have another building. You're not having trouble leasing that one? No, we actually pre lease that building 100% before we actually develop that building. OK? Yeah I mean to me. This looks like a series of unfortunate events. That uh, that you're you're paying the price for OK. Thank you, sir. Mr Rawley. Sorry When did you buy the property? 2016? OK OK. Sorry I was trying to get my date straight and the developing came in in 2017, the Residential labor behind. This didn't come until after that, OK? You have something, Mister Bell. Any other questions. Yes, Mr Bernoff. Uh, Did you research the zoning on the property before you bought it? Well it it was. The line was right through the middle. So that's when I say we called the city. We called the city twice, two different answers. So we had our civil engineer come out and try to figure it out for us. Was that before you bought it or after you bought it? This is This is after we bought it. OK Did you research the zoning on the property before you bought it? How would I say that? I mean, We Our broker. Well getting the correct information is the key, right? So the brokers that sold it to us? Said. We can do retail and which It's our fault that we probably didn't look into it that way. But the brokers who sold it to us So we can do retail. Did you research the zoning on the property before you built the building? No. Not not. I did it. That's all I have. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant. OK, Thank you, sir. OK? Close. The public hearing can find discussions with the commission. Mr Brun. This is weird. No. The one little sliver of that building that is zoned RC has a non RC use in it. A bank And the rest of the building that was built for RC uses. Is it an RE zone? That he didn't research before he built it. Um I'm having a hard time escaping the fact that a little research timely performed could have avoided the problem. Uh I'm also influenced by the fact that the city has a great overabundance of retail space and adding more retail space. Even in this little building doesn't help that It would you know it would put them in the market of attracting You know of having an oversupply of retail space in relation to the demand for retail space, which is citywide. And that would, uh Bounce back and Uh, distract away tenants. Who could have been looking at properties that are properly zoned for commercial uses elsewhere in the city. To try to come here. In other words, the more recent the more commercial property we zone, the more we're hurting existing Uh, commercial properties that that that can't fill the space that they have. So Mr Bell, just just one for clarification that a bank is permitted in both districts. Yes OK, I thought I thought I heard you say before that it that it was a It was not a commercial property. It's retail. Little R is not permitted here. But a bank specifically is permitted in both districts. OK, All right, that's fine. Um But I think because of the overabundance of Retail property in the city. Um I can't go along with this. I'm sorry. No worries anyone else. Mister Ratliff. Question for staff. Really, Um In the preve meeting. Wouldn't this map On the table normally. Yes, it's provided in every pre application meeting. Um, we indicated in the pre application meeting that staff would not support the request. So in the pre No, no, I'm talking about when he brought in the plans the initial site to build the building to build the building. Um wouldn't you all have done a zoning review? That's standard process. That's what I thought. So, yeah, this discussion would have been held. Prior to the building being constructed more than likely. More than likely. Yes, OK, That's what I That's what I thought. Thank you. Mr Rawley. Uh, this might be a question for council. If we essentially Don't approve this and Sometime later, the city actually moves the line. That way and makes everything To the right RE and RC at Toon. For lack of a better word, are we Or from an attack of some kind. No Um if the line gets moved through a zoning case, then um, only if there we were making somebody non conforming, would we have to deal with an issue like that? Bye bye. Thank you. Chair Yes, sir. Um gosh, this This is unfortunate. We've got a guy here who has split zoning on a lot. And um, we've got 2400 ft of retail and I just I. I don't believe that This is going to change the retail landscape and the 2400. Ft Here is gonna be Going to be an issue. Uh but I I'm confused by something and for you, Commissioner Brunhoff. We just had a case where the people knew the zoning. But you wanted to change the zoning and they knew it. And so I'm I'm struck by the inconsistency of that. Quite frankly, we got 2400 ft here and the last one. Everybody knew the zoning when they had it, And this guy didn't know it, And we've got a split lot. And so, you know, not necessarily looking for a response because it doesn't matter, But but I'm just struck by the by the inconsistency there. You can certainly respond if you want. But I, I just I. I think we're we're fighting over. Not much. I'm not worried about the domino effect of this particular property. This this poor guy is trying to run a business and by that, I mean We're going to keep moving this line. If we give this guy retail, then we're gonna keep moving it. I'm I'm not worried about that at all. And um, you know, this guy's got split zoning. It's um I I'm all for small business. Um, we just changed zoning. For a guy with thousands of apartment units and I. I just I. I feel we're making a mistake if we don't let this guy run his business. Mr Law. I. I made my comments early earlier before his presentation, and I I'm I, as a small businessman and Inclined to go with Mr Kerry . I don't think this amount of retail changes our city. I have been Um, a small business owner that Have come a long way in my understanding of Z, Uh, but it is confusing and it when you're trying to buy something, and there's a mix, you kind of think. Oh, well, it's gonna work out to say you know it, it's it. Surely this is gonna make sense in the you know, like it's gonna work and Our zoning ordinance. I don't I don't know how many pages there are but hundreds of them of regulations and to think that Someone's gonna figure that out is a lot to ask. I go back to what I was talking about earlier like, who does this protect? I. I don't I don't think it I don't think it hurts anybody to draw this line. If you look at district boundaries, which is under Article two In our zoning ordinance, Boundaries indicated as approximately following center lines of streets, highways, alleys shall be construed as construed as the center lines. I think when that Neighborhood came in and the road went in there. It clearly didn't make sense to leave the zoning and I think there should have been It should have been cleaned up at the time. But there was ambiguity created by By that lack of Following the procedures in the district boundary. 0.1223 I'm looking at 2.300 0.1. And so Again with their not being anyone hurt and The guy having vacant space and being a small business owner. II I think the tie goes to the runner here. He's got a section of it. I think we redraw the line to put him on base. And I Often have The same. I don't of always have them here. But often I leave here and I go. How do we How do we end up here when we were just here? Like this commission. Makes adjustments all the time. For people. And then we're going to come in here and act like This 2400 square feet matters. And makes a difference. Because it makes a huge difference to their small business owner. But I don't think it changes our city one little bit. So I'm going to vote to support the small businessman, redraw the line and hope that he gets a tenant, Mr Bronski. So Uh, I'm concerned about The fact that I believe the staff, uh, went through this. When the building was constructed. Um And I believe, uh, that Staff. Explained. Um, where this was going at the time. I agree that it certainly needs to be cleaned up. But I do not, uh, I, I can't I can't support the idea that the way that we're going to be redrawing this line. Um Makes the best sense for this particular property. I think it does make sense to Make it along the Tok long line and make an adjustment that that be, um The RE district , uh, that entire side there, But I just don't believe splitting that, um Group of buildings together. Uh, makes logical sense to do it right down the middle. So I'm not in favor of it. Can I ask a question of, uh I I've heard this said a couple of times. That the request to change this zoning Was made once before and was denied by counsel 8 to 0. That's correct. OK? Mr Ali. Can you put the map back up? Uh, I'm Trying to understand what they as if this request is approved. What would be the new shape do we? Go from the top of the Triangle straight down the line between the two buildings. That that yellow line between the two buildings would be the new dividing line between R and RC. So that the center line of Fern Right? Entire 1.1 Acre lot where that building is located, would become RC. So the those two other buildings to the top right will still remain RE correct. But those two other buildings are not owned by the applicant so that so the split In some way. Um I think he does. I believe you said he did, but so he will still be split. You'll have. You'll have one lot. It's three different lots. Oh, Three lights on a lot line correct. The other option, right, so he's asking for it to be drawn on the lot line to the right. The city is like it's probably better to be drawn on the lot line to the left. Right, right, OK. Um Oh, yeah, It's a mess. It's it. I. I think we There are multiple opportunities. Um It sounds like for the applicant to catch it. Pre development and what have you Something fell through the cracks. Um, I think the city had opportunities. To catch and clean it and something fell through the cracks and I think my question is, regardless of what we do. Well, actually, if we don't approve this, what's our action to clean it? Right, Um And I don't think this is the same as the previous case. You know, we didn't change base zone in there. That's just PD amendment. But what is our action to clean it? So that the applicant doesn't councils job right to. So the commission can call public hearing to initiate a zoning change. Um That's 11 Avenue or City Council can do that if they choose. Um That? Yeah. So you'll see on the next case is the city initiated version. Right. My only concern with this body calling. For public hearing on a zoning change on this Is that we're we might run exactly contrary to what counsel was wanting to do anyway. The reason counsel deny it. 80 The same reasons listed in the report about retail I believe that was the major concern, and I would say, also it it's not something the city commonly does is Rezone. Private property happens Typically when we're creating a new category or doing an entire strip It's rarely done on this. This Yeah. Surgical level. OK? Anyone else? Mr Ratliff. Yeah, it's kind of one, follow up comment. I was thinking what Commissioner Lyle said. About it should be construed as down the center lines and I. I think that's probably accurate. But I think What would be implied by the land Use map is that that should be the divider between RE and RC is down the center line of Poke on Because right now The vast majority of the develop. Part of that lot is RE. And if you were gonna Go down to a micro level and redraw that line. The intersection is in the middle of the intersection, and it should be along the center of Tokelo. The other reason in my mind is what I said earlier is that everything west of Tokelo is connected by internal circulation to other retail. Everything. East of Tokelo is not. It's connected by internal circulation to other employment centers. And so those are the dividing line between those Primary uses should be a public road. Which would be Tokelo. So I mean, uh, It makes all the sense in the world that that to me that it should be RE on the East Side and RC on the West Side and I. I think that's the way it's been interpreted, and I don't disagree with that interpretation. I think that's correct. Chairman may may respond If you go from 0.1 in district boundaries to 0.2. Boundaries indicated as approximately following platter Lot line shall be construed as following such lines. So we draw them in the center lines of roads. And we draw them on the property lines. And I don't know what difference it makes to that parking lot. If someone is there To go to a job or To buy a cell phone charger. There are internal I mean, what he was trying to make it. There. He was talking about the access, though the access doesn't look any different to me from that property out to national drive and toke on as as the property on the West side of to on. The access is the same. Well, except you're crossing the public street of the people going in and out of that subdivision, where it's employment on one side and commercial on the other commercial generates more traffic. There's residential To the south of both districts, no matter where you draw the line. Yeah. So Let's let's let's It's a mess and All right. I think where where we need to go with this is we need to make a decision. Right? So we need I need a motion one more comment. Please comment. Mr Ali I. I take issue With you drawing a distinction. Between a base zoning. And a PD. PD language. Is the base zoning once you approve it? Zoning. Well I It's not. It's not based Zoning, but it's the zoning of the property. It's the regulations that are specific to that property. That's correct, and they go with the property and they go with the property. Right? OK, but it is the zoning and so The idea that that's a bigger deal to change a base than a PD. I disagree with I would like to entertain a motion from somebody. This is not gonna be an easy decision, guys. Oh, yes, all right. We have one more comment from staff just because it's relevant to some of the comments that have been made, um, back to the original site plan from 2018 2017. Excuse me. The site was actually called out for office building. It listed RE and RC as the zoning in the table, so just For your contextual information of when this was originally designed. It was designed for office. That's all I wanna add. Thank you. Mr Bronski. So I, I make a motion that we follow the staff recommendation and deny this Second Okay, so we'll have a vote and we'll see how it goes. So we have a motion to deny. Based on staff's recommendation. Item three. Wanna make sure we're on track here by Mr Bronsky with the second by Commissioner Ratliff, those in favor of the denial. Five. Those opposed. Three. So most the applicant is denied by a vote of 5 to 3. And my understanding is the applicant could appeal this to counsel and then they would need a supermajority approval by counsel to move forward. Um I would suggest, though. And I will lean on legal for this A little bit, too, is. Would it be appropriate for this commission to make a recommendation to call a public hearing on moving that or resetting this zoning line at this time? Um The problem with that is, is our whole new, um If, uh Correct, OK? And so, I. I think we need to follow that process. I agree. I agree with that. OK I just I know there was a question about doing it. So, um Thank you for that. OK? Item four. I'm sorry. Just one. The other thing I've had is there is a there isn't a pill period, so I'd recommend that the appeal period expire before the commission entertain. A motion that that's a great recommendation. What's the appeal period? I believe it's 30 days. So sorry. You have 30 days to appeal to counsel. Thank you. Item four. Agenda Item number four public hearing zoning case 2024-006 request a red Zone 7.1 acres located at the southwest corner of Independence Parkway and Lotus Drive from planned Development 381. Retail general office to light industrial one and to rezone 8.1 acres situated on President George Bush Turnpike, 600 FT West of Independence Parkway from agricultural to Light Industrial one. Both properties are located within the 190 Tollway Plano Parkway Overlay district. Petitioner city of Plano. This is for legislative consideration. Thank you, Ms Olvera. Uh, good evening, Mr Chair. Members of the Commission. I'm Rahul Polari, the planner with the planning department. This is a city initiated zoning request to rezone two tracts of land from, uh PD plan development 381 Retail General office and Agricultural, uh, district to light industrial. The primary purpose of the zoning requests is to remove split zoning from three lots. It's laughable. And why are you a Because I think it's funny. You know, Mr Chair, I really would like to say I think these, uh, calling each other out, I don't think is effective or uh productive and Uh, I would like at least some kind of direction that you encourage us not to do so. So noted. Continue, Please. The subject. Property is outlined here in yellow for the purpose of this presentation. We are referring to the Northern lot as tract one. And we're referring to the Southern law as, uh, Track two And the property surrounding tract One are generally zoned, um, plan development, retail, Regional or general office, Um and light industrial Those properties are developed with retail office, uh, electrical substation, Government facilities independent living facility. Um And The properties around, uh, on the south and east side of track, too, are within the boundaries of city of Richardson. In the properties to the north and west of track two are, um Zone, light industrial and are developed with Office. To give you a little bit of background. T One is approximately 7.1 acres and it don plan development 3 381 Retail General office and was zoned in, uh, 1987. Uh, the property at the time of zoning change was zoning change was vacant and was not developed until early 2000 and, um The split zoning was caused by the construction and dedication of Lotus Drive. As for Track to this track is, uh, approximately 8.1 acres currently zone agricultural The tract was annexed in in 1985 with default zoning of agricultural district and was never rezoned. The proposed, uh, request is with an employment centers in its, uh, is in conformance with the comprehensive plan policies. We received only one signed letter, uh, within. That signed letter was the only response that we have received for this stoning case. And that concludes my presentation and staff recommends approval of this zoning case. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Thank you. Mr. Burn off. Do you have a question? Okay. Question for staff, Mr Law. Hmm The triangle in the middle of President George Bush has agriculture. That the real obvious clean up to me. Coming off the last case, um, working at this one a little bit differently than I had. How does the comprehensive plan Find this to be conforming, and it found that one to be nonconforming when l I one is the second most Permissible. Zoning. In our zoning chart. You have l I want an l I two and those were the most permissible things you can possibly have. And so The reasoning on the last case was going from R C to R E And the threat was 2400 square feet of retail, but we're talking about 7.1 acres of l i one which is It allows open storage on gravel. Um Lots of very permissible uses its my favorite land to own and operate because you can park trucks and trailers on gravel. And so how help me understand how we're going to l I one here. Sure again. It's an economic development. I one is consistent with the zoning in the area specifically along the lotus drive further in the West. So the other one is complementary and consistent with other properties in the area. And can is conducive to the type of economic development that City Council wanted to see here. And I want to add that in the case of zoning case, please correct me if I'm wrong, but in case of zone case 2024 005. The proposed use was not in conformance with the policies recommended by comprehensive plan, However, the use he here the proposed use will be a service use. Which is not, um In, um In a position of any comprehensive plan requirements. What what uses contemplated to go here in this economic development? I can't speak to that. That's really curious. I mean, I understand why you can't speak to it. But Mr Ratliffe. Um just a clarifying question. I'm willing to bet that what's driving this whole thing is the far West end. Of this and that sliver along Lotus and the little turnout at Independence is really just auxiliary 12 we're trying to achieve here. It's really this Corner of what looks like a parking lot. Um down there at the West End. Is that correct? That is correct. George piece on George Bush. You know, While we're here, let's clean that up. So that doesn't make any objection. That okay? I just want to clarify that. Thank you, Mr Bronski. So your microphone apologize. No worries. Anyone else? Okay? Will open the public hearing. Thank you. That's the cities the applicants, so I guess Do you have a presentation to make? No Okay. That's what the question Yeah. So the city brothers up as the applicant, um Just for my memory. What triggered as bringing this to public hearing and On February 26. 26 Says on February 26. We call the public hearing to initiate resulting City Council council called the council was a triggering. Okay requested the rezone, but they required us to have a public hearing that purpose. Okay. I will close the public hearing. I have one more question for my I know you gave me an answer, but I just want to understand the answer More So my concern was that You have a P d in your going taking this land out of the PD and making it l I one And what was your response? So l I one versus retail 02 are very different categories and different, very different standards and uses. So with everything south of Lotus drive and further to the West being l I one Making all three of these Properties that are south of between Lotus and George Bush. L I one would be consistent with the area. Right, And the stuff that's north of Lotus is gonna stay that big PD that's correct. Mr Bronski, So I think this makes complete sense and it being on the lines with Lotus, Uh, and the cleanup of The agricultural piece. I think it's a no brainer. So I move that we approve as recommended by staff. But before we voted, Okay, so we have we have them. We have a motion and a second Commissioner Kerrey. Yeah I have a question for Mike, who owns this land currently. Oh let you have that information. I know. One is encore since the city requested this zoning change, who owns it? Well, she's go ahead. While she was looking at. I'll make my other comment and you know, Commissioner Bronski down there made a comment that I guess we shouldn't call each other out. But I think I think debate sitting on on this diocese important to get to the right answer, and I certainly would hate to see that squashed where we get the ability to disagree on here, even passionately, as long as we're not aggressive or hostile. I am I just think we need to be careful with that. So Mike, I respect what you're saying. But I think we need to be careful in terms of how we're managing it so anyway. I think there's a there's a difference between I disagree with Mr Ali or I disagree with the position that So Yeah. I would like to publicly acknowledged that In that scenario, I did something wrong. I looked at you and said, Why are you laughing in understand that that went too far. And so I think I can appreciate your comments and I can appreciate your comments and I can own that in that scenario. I got it wrong We get passionate about our cause is, uh Sometimes, but Um I don't doubt for a second that everyone here is making decisions based on what they think is best for the city. And so we get passionate about that. That's why we're sitting here. At 947 on Monday night, Right and I, frankly, I did not want to end disagreement , but I just I understood what you were talking about. So Okay. Did we find out the owners? So With the kids. Use the pointer. Yes. So This one is owned by Encore. This piece. The owner for this one is called Apex Building. Owner L. L. C. This one. Which Yes, which owns this section as well. At the little, the little piece the rest. The rest of that is owned by NTT, a part of George Bush. Right away. Yes. There is there is one other there's more. Dell tell it Electronics on the Owns this piece. So 123 and entity A for these owners are are in this change. That is true. Yes. Okay? Mr Bruun off. I just wanted to point out I think this is a also a no brainer. I agree with that comment. Uh I'd also like to observe that What the city is doing here is Resolving a split zoning situation by moving the boundary line between zoning districts to the to a street. Which is exactly the same thing that the city is recommending happen at some point in some way as to Tokyo on driving. Very good. Anyone else? I would just say consistent with my comments earlier. There are lot lines can also serve as right. So They can. All right. We have a lot of ways you can draw the lines per the ordinance. We have a motion in a second there anymore. Comments related specifically to the motion of the second I'd call for a vote in favor. All opposed. Alright. This item carries 8 to 0. Item five. Non public hearing items. The presiding officer will permit limited Public content. Comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. The presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker request length of the agenda and to ensure meeting efficiency may include a total time limit. Agenda item number five discussion and action. Revised preliminary site Plan. Flextronics campus edition Block a lot five Data center and electrical substation on one lot on 44.3 acres located on the west Side of North Star Road. 615 ft South of Plano Parkway Zone Research Technology Center with a specific use permit number 63 for electrical substation. Applicant is aligned Data centers. Plano Prop Co. L L C. This item is for administrative consideration. The applicant is requesting a variant for the required parking and required off street looting from the board of Adjustments with this revised plan, which is why it's before you today. On this screen is the new layout of the revised preliminary site plan. Here is a zoom in of the West. I think the east dropped off. Make sure it's not Okay? I apologize for that. But the portion where the parking is now changing as you can see. Is on the east side of this plan. To give you a little history of this project on February 5th 2024, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved a preliminary site plan PSP 2023 deaths here to six for the Associated Data Center and Associated Electrical substation and granted at 20% parking reduction with that approval. The applicant is now requesting to reduce the parking beyond the 20% allowed by the commission, which requires a variance from the board of Adjustment. A second variance is being requested, introduced the requirement for the minimum of striped offsite off street loading. For service uses. On this screen shows the parking breakdown of the request. 426 bases would be required without any reductions. 298 would be required for the 20% reduction granted by the planning his own commission back in February, plus an additional 10. From an allowable reduction due to storm water conservation, which is allowed by writing zoning ordinance. The applicant is seeking to provide 90 spaces in total, with the zoning Board of Adjustment. Quest which would be a 79% reduction in parking. The commission lacks jurisdiction to approve or deny the requested variances. Approval of the revised primary site plan will allow the applicant application to proceed to the submittal of the variance request to the board of adjustments and will follow the normal part of adjustment procedures. If the Board of Adjustment denies the requested variants. The applicant Must provide the required minimum off street parking and loading spaces requirements for the previously approved preliminary site plan. PSP 2023 deaths You're 26. With that staff recommends the plan for approval subject to the following conditions. That the border adjustment grant the approval of the variants to the minimum required off street parking for data centers and minimum off street loading requirements for the service uses as shown on the plan, as well as both variances are approved by the Board of Adjustment. Then this new RP SP 2024 deaths year 02 shall supersede PSP 2023 deaths 0 to 6. And I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Questions for staff. I see None. Okay Thank you. So this is not a public hearing. But I'm assuming you're here if we have questions Ah! Yes, sir. My name is Jonathan Vincent 2323 Cross Avenue. Representing Aligned data centers. Um happy to give you a very brief explanation if you care to hear it. Um, well, I think you You want less parking spaces because you don't need them? Well, that's that's that's really it. I mean, that's kind of the nub of it. You know, 198 60 individuals on site is I'm not trying to be glib. Trust me. We're all in, you know, understand where you're coming from on here. I'm happy to explain how this meets the goals of the comprehensive plan and the sustainability policy. Well that will be making those arguments to the border adjustment as well. So I'm sure you will respectfully ask for your approval. I understand. Thank you that, um hang tight. Just a second. So um, again, not a public hearing, so it's really kind of more open, Mr Bruno. No, I think the applicant is kind of preaching to the choir. Here. Um I think we're all in agreement that the requirements of the zoning ordinance with respect to parking and loading areas are in excess of what the use Of the property. Current use needs of the proposals really needs, and he's looking for some relief. Which is beyond our authority to grant apparently within the sole authority of the board of adjustments. So what I'd like to do is make a motion that we approve Item five conditioned that the Board of Adjustment grant approval of variances to the minimum required off street parking for data centers and the minimum off street loading requirements for service uses as shown on the plan. And if both variances also condition that if both variances are approved by the Board of Adjustment RPS P. 20 24-2 shall supersede PSP 2023 Dash double o double. Excuse me. 20 23-0 to 6. Okay Very good. Well said. All right, I have emotion by Commissioner Bruno off. I have a second by Commissioner OLLI any discussion? All in favor. I raise your hand. That carries 8 to 0. Yeah it was. It was your presentation hours late for all of a sudden, and I did neglect to mention that Mr Eric Benson with the line is here in case you have any questions for him? So I didn't want to. I apologize that you had to sit here this long. I considered earlier that maybe we would get through quicker and then quickly realized that was a mistake. But you all do a great job. Thank you so much. What you want? All right. Good luck, guys, Mr Chairman. Yes sir. I just want to formally ask Mr Bronski Forgiveness I was I was out of line. I was out of line. Okay It was by tone and the fact that I pointed and so I just want to publicly acknowledge that I got it wrong and I can't completely always accept. Thank you. Thank you,