Recording in progress. All right. Welcome to the November 4th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I'll now call the meeting to order at 7:01 p.m. If you'd like to rise and join us for the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the It stands one nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion, and contains items that are routine and typically noncontroversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff commissioners. Does anybody have any items they want to pull from the consent agenda? I move, we approve the consent consent agenda as submitted. Second. Motion by Commissioner Bronski. Second by Commissioner Olli. All in favor of approving the consent agenda. Raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion passe. Where are we at? One, two. 7 to 0. Let's see if I can get my math right. Oh, yeah. I do need to mention that Commissioner Tong is not here. This evening was unable to join us But bear with me. I'm new in the chair and the chair today, so it might be a bit of a bumpy ride. That's okay. Items for individual consideration. Yes, sir. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items. Unless instructed otherwise by the chair. Speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constraints. Excuse me, constrained by legal considerations. Agenda item number one, la Davis edition, block three, lot 27 R. This is a religious facility on one lot on 0.2 acre, located on the east side of F Avenue, 150ft south of 11th Street. Zoned regional. Residential. Applicant. Good Faith Baptist Church Of adjustment, approval of zoning ordinance variances. Good evening. Commission. My name is Molly Coryell, senior planner with the planning department. This item is for a preliminary replat and a site plan for an existing development located at 1024 F Avenue. It's a church. The for the preliminary replat. The purpose of the preliminary plat is to combine these two lots into one and dedicate easements for the existing religious facility. And as part of this preliminary replat, the applicant is requesting two variances from the subdivision ordinance. The first one is a variance from the 100 foot minimum for street frontage along type D or lower streets. And then the second variance is for the requirement that nonresidential lots provide two points of access. This lot just has one point of access off of F Avenue for the site plan. The purpose of the site plan is to construct a new surface, new surface parking lot and show related improvements for the lot, and approval of the site plan will require the Board of Adjustment to grant two variances from the zoning ordinance, 5ft to 0ft for the existing conditions for the building of north of the lot, and then a variance to waive the requirement to provide solid waste container enclosures for nonresidential uses. This next slide is just to show the existing conditions of the lot today. As you can see, the lot functions right now as a non residential church use today. And the unimproved lot just south of it is used as a parking lot. So the applicant is proposing to update the parking lot per our standards for surface parking as an improvement to the site for the church. Per the subdivision ordinance, section 5.2 C3A requires that nonresidential lots have a minimum continuous frontage of 100ft. When a building type D or lower streets. As I mentioned, the proposed lot has 80ft of frontage along F Avenue and then for access. The subdivision ordinance requires that lots have a minimum two points of access. And the site is currently As part of this site plan. So to go over the variance approval criteria and analysis. The Commission may approve a variance to the subdivision ordinance upon findings of the evidence presented in each specific case. Given that one for the variance not being detrimental to public health and safety or welfare, or injurious to other property. Plano Fire Rescue and the Engineering Department have reviewed the proposed plans and do not anticipate granting the variance will be detrimental. Public health detrimental to public safety, health or welfare, or injurious to other property. And then the conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the property for which the variance is sought and are not applicable generally to other properties. This property is within the general residential zoning district, which is intended to provide for infill residential development. The long standing existence of this nonresidential building. On lots originally designed for residential use, is likely a condition resulting It's not a condition generally applicable to other properties in the city of Plano. And because of the physical surrounding shape or top or topographical conditions of the specific property involved, a particular hardship to the owner would result as distinguished from a mere inconvenience. If the strict letter of these regulations is carried out. This property is surrounded by existing residential lots to the east and south. And based on the physical surroundings, there's not an opportunity to expand the property to meet this 100 foot street frontage without acquiring additional property. South. So strict enforcement of the regulations would not allow adequate space to provide paved parking to serve the existing structure. And then finally, the variance will not in any manner vary. The provisions of the zoning ordinance or comprehensive Plan, except that except that those document may be amended in the manner prescribed by law, and this request will not vary the provisions of the zoning ordinance or Comprehensive Plan. Oh, I accidentally pressed the wrong button. My mistake. For the variance criteria and Of a lot, only having one point of access if it determines that a second point of access cannot be obtained. And so the secondary point of access cannot be provided along F Avenue, because it would not meet the driveway spacing requirements. And then traffic safety and fire protection are sufficient. The Plano Fire Rescue and Engineering Department have approved the site plan, showing one point of access and a variance to the street design standards has been granted by the engineering department to allow for a nonresidential driveway narrower than typically required. That being said, staff recommends approval for the preliminary replat, subject to additions and alterations to the engineering plans as required by the engineering Department, as well as the Commission finding that unreasonable hardships or difficulties may result for strict compliance with these regulations. And then that the Commission granting variance for the following sections of the subdivision ordinance, the first one being allowing for a single point of access for a nonresidential lot 80ft. And then for the site plan staff is recommending approval subject to the Board of Adjustment granting variances to the following subsections of the zoning ordinance, the first one being reducing the side yard setback from 5ft to 0ft and then waiving the requirement to provide a solid waste enclosure on the site for nonresidential development. Thank you for your time, and I'm available to answer any questions. Commissioners, any technical questions about the staff repor? Just one. Commissioner Bronsky, I think you did a fabulous job on that. Thank you. Oh, thank you. Commissioner Lingenfelter, did you have a question? No. Okay. Commissioner Ali. A couple of quick questions. The zoning district is particular to Douglas. Can you repeat your question for me? Commissioner Ali. The general residential zoning district is a particular zoning district to the Douglas community. It's not found. Yes, that is correct. Across Plano. So if my understanding is right, this church has essentially And why? They even been triggered to apply for variance is because they want to pave the lot. Did we impose on them to pave the lot, or did they come forward? No. This is an improvement of their own choosing. Okay. Last question. Church traffic use to that one point of access so far. Has there been any complaints of any kind regarding that? There's have been no complaints. And yes, and there were a few letters of support from surrounding property owners since this is a preliminary residential preliminary report. Thank you. Commissioners, any other questions for staff? All right. I'll open the public hearing. Do we have an applicant with us tonight that wants to address the commission? Anybody registered? We don't have any registered speakers. No registered speakers on this item? No, sir. All right, I'll close the public hearing. Commission. What's your pleasure? As described for the preliminary replat and the site plan as recommended by staff. Second motion by Bronsky, seconded by Commissioner Lingenfelter. Mr. Chairman. Does that? Yes, sir. Does the motion with respect to the site plan, is that conditioned on approval by the board of the board of adjustments of the two variances as described the recommendations as described by staff? Yes. All right. Any comments on the motion? All in favor please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion carries 7 to 0. All right. Next item. Agenda item number two. Willowbend Polo estates. Phase B, block B, lot four r. This is one patio home lot on 0.1 acre, located on the east side of Shattuck Boulevard, 160ft north of Turtle Creek Drive. Zoned plan development 423 Patio Home. Applicant is Lacey Raymond. This item is for administrative consideration. Good evening, commissioners As submitted, and I'm happy to answer any questions. Commission any questions of the staff. Report. Nobody. All right. Thank you. Open the public hearing. Do we have any registered speakers or an applicant? We do not. All right. Close the public hearing commission. What's your pleasur? I move, we approve agenda item number two, as recommended by staff. Second. All right. Motion by Commissioner Bronsky. Second. By Commissioner Brounoff. All in favor, raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion carries 7 to 0. Agenda item number three. This is a request to amend plan development 71. Regional commercial to modify development standards and the adopted Open Space Plan on 89.1 acres located on the west side of Dallas North Tollway. 305ft north of Park Boulevard. Zoned Plan development 71 regional commercial with specific use permit number 570 for automobile leasing, renting and located within the Dallas North Tollway Overlay District LLC. The Neiman Marcus Group, LLC, Macy's Retail Holdings LLC, and Dillard's Inc. Thank you. I think the caption might be a little bit longer than my presentation tonight. So again, Molly Coriell, senior planner with the Planning department, the petitioner is requesting to table the zoning case to the December 2nd, 2024 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I believe that will be our first meeting back in the renovated chambers. So that's exciting. And this is in order to continue refining the associated revised concept plan. And revised open space plan as part of this request. I'm happy to answer any questions commission any questions of the staff. Yes, sir, Mr. Bronsky. Yeah. So is this part of what we, I guess, reopened a couple of meetings back? That is correct. This was that is what allowed them to come back and apply for this zoning case. Okay. And do we feel pretty confident that this is enough time to complete what it needs to be The outstanding comments in order to help them make that date. So terrific. Look forward to it. Thank you. Thank you. Commission. Any other questions of staff? Seeing none open the public hearing. Anybody registered speakers. We do not okay. Close the public hearing commission. I move, we go ahead please. I, I move that we grant the accept the petitioners request to table the item to the December second hearing. Second motion by Commissioner Lingenfelter. Second by Commissioner Holly. All in favor? Raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion carries seven zero. Item number four. Would you like four A and four B? Four A, four b? Let's read those together, please. Agenda item number four A is a request to rezone from planned Development 60 General Office and Plan Development 109 Retail General Office to Point eight acres located on the southwest corner of Alma Drive and Park Boulevard. Petitioner is Plano Independent School District. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number four be calling Creek Corporate Center. Block a lot one R this is a public school on 15.1 acres, located on the west side of Alma Road, 260ft south of Park Boulevard. Zoned planned development 60 general Office and Planned Development 109 retail General Office. Petitioner is Plano Independent School District and this item is for administrative consideration pending consideration of agenda. Item number four, a. My name is Destiny woods planner with the planning Department. So here you can see we have the aerial view and the location of the request. It's at the corner of Park and Alma, as well as the proposed development, as shown by this graphic. So for the site history, the site in in the 1970s was partially rezoned to Developed a convenience store to PD 59 standards at the corner of Park and Alma in 2001. The land was originally with within the PD 59 retail district, and was rezoned to PD 109 Retail General Office to develop a large office park, shown in the graphic on the right. And the concept plan was attached to the ordinance, and in 2009, PD 109, the concept plan was amended to update the convenience store site plan. The proposed development will expand PD 109 to include the entire subject property, since it is currently split zoned. It will eliminate the associated concept plan to allow for a career and technical education center, and it will introduce development stipulations to protect the adjacent single family neighborhood from the proposed open Teaching classes in fields such as business, marketing, finance, graphic design, information technology robotics radiology welding and paint, and collision repair, and it will draw students from other pisd facilities for specialized learning during the class day. For the operations, student rol, students will report to their main high school campus and then commute either by bus or by personal vehicle for their single class that they attend at the CTE school, and then return to their main campuses after that class is concluded. To accommodate this, the bus schedules will be coordinated with the class schedules of all three high schools, with busses operating throughout the day. To facilitate that, transportation. Busses traveling east or west on Park Boulevard will have the option to turn onto Columbia Place or Park Boulevard, as shown in the graphic in blue. And indicated by the red line on the graphic. I don't know if you can see that. And students driving personal vehicles will enter and exit the site via Alma Drive and the orange toward the bottom of the screen, and a traffic impact analysis will be completed at the site. Plan stage of development, but is not required for the zoning portion of this request. The amended plan development stipulations will remove the concept plan as a stipulation and require a 50 foot landscape buffer, a 150 foot generator setback, and a masonry eight foot masonry screen screening wall. Excuse me. And the image shows the placement of the landscape buffer along Columbia Place. The amended stipulations will also add that the required parking be 1 to 400ft■!S. Of a floor area Public school. The subject property is designated as Suburban Activity Centers on the future land use map and public school is supported as an institutional type. And this request partially meets one and fully meets the other. Policies set by the Comprehensive Plan. We received two responses opposed to the request. Within the 200 foot buffer and we received four responses citywid, with one in support and three opposed, and staff recommends item four A for approval as submitted, and item four B for approval, subject to City Council approval of the zoning case. And I'm available for any questions. We also have a senior traffic engineer for questions that you might have to. All right. Commission questions for staff. Start here. Commissioner Bruno. If they're here is this a situation where students would be coming and going from this facility, you know, making the commute between a base high school and this facility for certain classes and then going back to their base high school. That's correct. Or would they basically be there all, all day? No. They would report to their main high school and then go to the proposed school for their class, period that they may or may not have at this school and then return to back to their regular curriculum at their high school. Okay. And the reason I ask that is if all the students are not going to be there all day, there would not be a need for all of the parking that would normally be required for a school, because people are coming and going. You have part attendance all, all day long, so I think the parking is adequate. Okay. Any other questions? Commissioner lolly? Yes I can. What's the ratio of the parking? The regular school parking for this? Pull your microphone down if you would, please. Thank you. So typically, a public Per 1.5 students, and in this case, it would be one parking space per 400ft■!S of floor are. And do we know how many students are going to be enrolled or like roughly? Yes, I do have that information. One second. So thi. Maybe we'll ask that question of the applicant here in just a minute. If we want to hold that, let's we'll ask the applicant. Yes. And you're like in the time of you're like probably thus for the applicant to like the timing is it going to be just like a school time in the morning? No afternoon evening classes? I'm assuming it would be during the regular school day at just different times, but that might be better for the applicant as well. Yes. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Langfelder, I mine wasn't as much on the parking as much as kind of the noise with deliveries Deal with like welding and construction and that type of stuff. You'll have a lot of materials coming in and out for them to practice on and learn on. What did the applicant or do they have an idea of when deliveries would be happening or would they? Can we control. Because obviously you don't want big semis showing up with with materials late at night, you know, for the residents nearby. I know that there's a nice landscape buffer and you did a great job requiring that. But there's sound travel. So just trying to figure out what the thought process is on that. So when asked, the applicant did indicate that there would be no truck deliveries to the site. But I would be happy to let them speak to that as well. Okay. And then my other thing is there's a traffic calming to device there. Currently there's a little turnabout in Columbia. I assume there's a reason behind that. There's probably used to be a speedway and somebody petitioned to do that and have that built. Is that to remain or what's what's. I don't see it on the plans. I didn't know if I think that's a little further down. So it wasn't shown there, but that traffic information might be addressed at the site. Plan step with more detail in that stage. Commissioner Rowley. One question the open storage space. In any reason why the area right by Columbia was chosen? It feels like there could be better sites away from the residential areas. Agreed. We have the masonry wall or whatever to obscure the view, but did you explore any other different sites for the generator and the open storage? They didn't submit any other plans with different locations for open storage or the generator? No. Okay. Thank you. We did have a conversation about potentially making, like, a u shaped I think that would be a great question for the applicant. Okay. Other questions for staff. Nobody. All right. I'll open the public hearing. Sounds like we do have some questions for the applicant. If the applicant is here and can address some questions from the commission. Ken Kessler registered? Yes. Okay. Welcome. You'll give us your name and address first, please. Ken Kessler. I'm an architect with Huckabee. My office address is 5830 Granite Parkway in Plano. Thank you. Do you want him to ask you the questions individually, or did you make notes of the ones that were that you can respond to? I can answer her question on on the student count. So if I add up, my total capacity at one time is going to be about 750 students at the 1.5, I believe that's like 590 spaces. We're not going to have 590 drivers driving the school because majority of the school hours They'll be coming from all three high schools and possibly all three. Well, maybe rephrase tha. Majority of the students will come from all three senior high schools with some options from the other high schools. Exact counts just depends on who's taking what course. But the plan is they'll be bused during those class period times. And those classes are going to be staggered, varying like auto body, maybe a two hour block. So depending on how they stagger their delivery or students coming from the schools will just determine how the bus route is. And I don't think the district has that exact bus route yet. It won't be a typical school where at 8:00 you have all 750 students. They're going to come for those three class periods a day at a two hour block. So the busses are going to be like Do you anticipate you're probably looking at? Depending on how many students are coming from, which high school and who's got and how many are driving. We're planning for a area to deliver busses of having about about eight at a time, like every two hours, eight busses, not every two hours. So it's going to be like consistent during the morning hours, right until 2:00 to 4:00. Well, during school hours it'll be a consistent you're not going to have like an evening classes. They might not that I know of. We haven't planned for evening classes. They might have. They could they could have events. I mean, we have a restaurant. We have a culinary kitchen. There's going to be there's a bank and then there's also Toni and Guy hair salon. But they're supposed to operate during school hours. Thank you. Okay. Commissioner Riley. Oh, no. Sorry. Directly across the street. Isn't that the Robinson Fine Arts Center? Correct. And then? And then one building over. That's already a school, right? It's the achieve Academy is the academy. High school is one building over. It's the office building. I think there's a Harley Davidson or something between it. So the traffic patterns are fairly consistent with school operated busses. And that correct in that area. Thank you. All right, Miss Charlie. I think you started scratching at an answer to the question. So it's open for the three senior high schools and possibly academy. The IB Academy schools could be. Yes. Okay. One question that was put by a respondent in the packet was. And this might be more to the administration. Why the need to build a Is in the high schools that exist. Well, they do. They do have CTE, and they're in each high school. Each high school has some programs available to that school. The reason for building the CTE center is because they're taking some of the most, some of the very expensive class items and making it available to all schools. All three high schools we're currently. They have certain CTE programs at each school, but not at all. So people at Plano East don't have access to auto paint. And body because it's at Plano Senior High School. Right. And they could bus them there. They do. But that they're also limited in space at those high schools. And they're trying to expand their CTE program. So they take and build one central campus for just CTE for their larger, more elaborate programs that they don't either Program, making it bigger scale. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner. Lolly. Yeah. So, like, looking at the site plan, if we can pul, pull up the site plan because you're, like most of the opposition from the residential area on Columbus Street, Columbia Place Street. So you're like. Just like a suggestion. You're like, is there a way? And you like. And when I look at the site plan also the like the entrance, the bus entrance from the from Columbia Place, there's no parking in that area. So is there a way that like, if you could eliminate this entrance and just keep the two from Parker and the students from alma, and that will, you know, like eliminate and keep all the, like the buffer, the landscape buffer with the 100 foot or 150 from the noise Are you like on park? The reason we're the way the busses are set and the reason they drop off on Columbia is because that's where the median break is from. This for the road to cross. So if I have busses come from Plano East, so they come by busses coming from Plano East who are going to be coming. And I got busses coming from Plano senior High that are going to be coming west. I need to be able to turn into a street and I can't turn with I don't have a median cut and we can't do a median cut. It'd be too close to meet within the city parameters on a median, like the. Yeah, I believe there's a median break on the easternmost drive is does that not? Matt Tilki, our senior traffic engineers here. Would you like to come address some of these questions? Good evening, Matt Tilki, senior traffic engineer, City of Plano. So the there Station that they're showing to connect to. So yes, that could be utilized the length of that turn lane. If you have multiple busses that pull in there, you could have queuing issues. Oh oh thank you. Yeah. Thank you. Oka. Other questions for the applicant or the traffic engineer. I did did was my questions that I had brought up. Have you. I'm sure you guys have thought about all these things. There was that traffic calming device at Columbia. I suspect it will be an issue with the busses trying to get in there. We don't have any intention to have busses going that far down Columbia. Okay, so it was far enough down. Okay. It's further down. It's actually almost to the bottom entry. It's kind of okay. Yeah, yeah. Toward the bottom of the street when I, when I drove it the, the other day, I was. Can you tell us where it was closer to. I felt like it was closer to park. Yeah. The traffic circle that he's describing is actually north of the, of the southern driveway. It's at the next street. Is it at And then one of the reasons why we don't use the racetrack turn for the busses, because one will get congestion from the racetrack, and two, it'll make my busses the wrong direction on the site. My door on the bus to exit kids is on, the children is on one side of the bus, and it's only on one side and I. And if I have, if I have to come in opposite, then I bring I bring children into traffic. I need to keep them to where my bus goes through the site in one direction. You still have to go. Microphone. It's not like the same. No, it's coming down and it they stack. Yes. And turn. If my bus could make a U-turn on the road I could eliminate. But but that bus isn't going to make that turn. I need 60ft. And then my other question was was about the deliveries of material and various things. Well, it looks like you've got a Have one shop for auto body repair, which would be small vehicles. We wouldn't really have many big trucks delivering. We have welding, which we could have trucks coming in for supplies on that. We have a building trade shop where they're going to be building little mini houses, and then we have a AC building maintenance where they work on air conditioning systems. I don't anticipate there being a lot of deliveries. If there is a delivery, they'll be maybe one every few months to deliver raw steel for their welding programs, but it would not be something that couldn't be staged during the afternoon. Okay. Besides that, it's going to be dropped in the service yard. Now, remember, my service yard is seven feet below the road. Plus I have a ten foot retaining wall or ten foot screen wall. So my shops are literally 17ft below the top of that wall. So when I bring any kind of Concerned with sound, because it's going to be pretty hard for it to buffer to the neighborhoo. Yeah, it's hard to see that with the contours. I just see the existing contours, not the proposed. The neighborhood, when they if they looked over my over the fence or could see over the. Eight foot fence, they're not even going to see the bay doors. Oh, great. The bay doors are the highest bay. Door is 16ft and it's 17 foot to the top of the wall. Okay, that's that's good then. It's one of the reasons we have it over there. The other reason is there's two main fronts to this building. We have two public entrances. We have one. The entrances on park are cosmetic or Toni and Guy. The bank and their general store. The entrances off of alma is the restaurant and the event center. The hotel restaurant management. Okay. Other questions? None Like they're not going to meet the open space. So my question actually to staff like because on the north side we do have this open space and the our comprehensive plan. So is this going to, you know like satisfy their open space in that area at least. Well we have an open space in the front of the building, which is a large plaza that's in front of the event center or the hotel restaurant management. And the restaurant. And I'm building a 50 foot buffer with trees and everything on the back side, which is a pretty large open space. And then I have open space across the front on park. Do we have a do we have an elevation view that we can show? I'm sorry. No, I have one in my pocket and elevation an elevation. It would be a little bit more descriptive. Yeah, yeah. Do we. If you can put this PDF up, I have a whole presentation that shows Answer this open space question first. Yes, I'm sorry. If you want to submit those for city council, for the city Council meeting, we can you can make a presentation. Okay. So the question though is this do we comply with all the open space requirements with the perimeter. Is this meeting the open space. It is not meeting the comprehensive plans guidance on open space. It is meeting the zoning districts requirements on open space. Okay. Like the like the coverage area coverage. Like the lot coverage and everything. Yes. Yes, ma'am. It is meeting the zoning requirements. It is not meeting the comprehensive plan plan? That's correct. Okay. Thank you. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? Seeing none, we have any other registered speakers. We do not. Okay. All right. Close public hearing commission. Any other comments? Yes, sir. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you I think this is a very nice project with respect to parking, I think the parking needs are diminished because of the staggered, the staggered arrivals of the students throughout the day. And because many of them will be coming on busses and not their own personal cars, and because even some of them will even be from the ninth and 10th grade high schools, and they are probably are not driving yet at that point. So parking doesn't concern me. Noise does not concern me. As the applicant pointed out, anything that is likely producing noise is going to be so buried below ground level that it's probably not going to penetrate. I think the landscaped border along Columbia Place is a nice touch. It makes the lot attractive. It I don't think there's anything about a school that Schools tend to be well visible from the public streets, bordering them on all four sides. Let's face it. I don't think there's anything about this school that needs a lot of screening. With respect to the location and the land use next to the residential area across Columbia Place, it seems to me that it is typical for schools to be located either right in the middle of a residential district or adjacent to a residential district, basically, because that's where their kids come from, you know, public schools operate in districts, and the kids come from within that district, and the school has to be located within the district that it serves. And that's always a residential district. I think the traffic flow has been well thought out by the architect and by the planners at the by the school district. I especially appreciate that they're directing the student entrance and exit off of alma Drive, which is a scheduled, you know, which is designed to avoid And finally, I just want to comment about a couple of the objections we had. The unfavorable inputs from a couple of citizens who are questioning whether it would have been a more cost effective use of tax dollars to convert an existing abandoned building rather than build a new building. I think that's a question for the school board, and I don't think that's within our purview to it's not our purview to reexamine the Plano Independent School District spending decisions. I think our purview is to examine the land use. I think this is an appropriate land use. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner. Hold o. So I move, we approve. Agenda item four A as recommended by staff. I'll. We need to do them as separate motions. Actually. I just wanted to echo a couple of things. And perhaps answer the question on why a new school. I work in four of the first six fields that is mentioned This skill set. And for Plano, that closed ecosystem, if we're trying to attract businesses to the legacy business park, the old Ross Perot building and what have you. By the time most employees go through a four year degree, the technology has moved on. So being able to certify our high school folks in this tangible skill sets will be critical to anchoring future business use in Plano. And I'm glad to see that the school district is actually thinking that far. And miss al-Ali to second the motion because I think it's needed. All right. So I've got a motion by Commissioner Bronsky, a second by Commissioner Ali. Any other comments before we vote? Anyone? All right. All in favor? Raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion carries seven zero. Item four B. I move, we approve. Agenda item four B as recommended by staff. I'll A motion by Commissioner Bronsky. Second by Commissioner Lingenfelter. Any comments? None. All in favor? Raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion carries seven zero. Item number five. Agenda. Item number five. This is a request for a specific use. Permit for trade school on one lot on 0.1 acre, located 190ft west of Coit Road and 650ft south of Rockingham Way. Zoned retail petitioner is Warbow, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration. Thank you. All right. The applicant is requesting a specific use permit for a trade school, for a massage school within an existing lease space. The lease space is highlighted in yellow on the image on the right. On the screen. The trade school will specialize in licensed massage therapists. Trade Training, instruction in trade art or occupation. Of note, licensed massage therapy is a permitted use by right in this location. Staff considers the use to be low intensity based on the number of trips generated. Size of the suite and amount of parking required. No negative impacts to the site or surrounding land uses are anticipated by this business. For this reason. Staff finds the proposed trade school to be complementary with the existing uses. The massage school will also have ten students with two instructors. According to the applicant, and the subject is designated neighborhoods on the Future Land Use Map. And the request for the specific use permit for trade school is consistent with the applicable Comprehensive Plan policies, as shown on the screen. And staff did not receive Next city wide. We did not receive any responses of note. We did receive one online response, but they checked that they were outside of Plano. The use is complementary with the adjacent uses and would not negatively impact the surrounding area. Staff considers the use to be low intensity based on the number of trips generated, size of the suite and amount of parking required. No negative impacts to the site or surrounding land uses are anticipated. The request is in conformance with the policies and recommendations of the Comprehensive Plan, and for these reasons, staff is supportive of the request and I'm happy to answer any questions. All right. Thank you very much. Commissioners, any questions of the staff? Commissioner Bronsky. Yeah. So the response that I was looking at does list a Plano address. So our online response map, you first before you put in the address check if you are within the Plano limits. And they put Presentation, we decided to leave it as outside of Plano since that's what they checked. If this does move on to city council and we hear back from them, we'll update the response before then. Thank you. Commissioner Rowley, a couple of clarifying questions. Retail is permitted by right. Licensed massage therapy will most likely generate more traffic than a school. Is that a fair assumption? Then generate more traffic than what use than the trade school use the current use has been asked for. Yes, that's a fair assumption. For the square footage of the site, are there other retail uses that could generate even more traffic than the trade school? Yes. If a retail use moved in, there, they would require parking at 1 to 200ft■!S of floor area versus te trade school just requires In services currently for the trade school. Yes. Okay. Thank you. All right. Other questions for staff. Anybody? All right. Open the public hearing. Do we have anybody registered to speak? We do not have anyone registered. Registered to speak. But we do have two registered opinions in support of the project. All right. Seeing nobody close, the public hearing commission. All right. So I move that we approve the Sup for the agenda item number five, as recommended by staff. Second. Got a motion by Commissioner Bronsky. Second by Commissioner Brounoff. All in favor, please raise your hand. Any opposed? Motion carries seven zero. Item number six. We're now items for individual consideration. Non public hearing items. The presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items Time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda, and to ensure meeting efficiency, and may include a total time limit. Agenda item number six. This is a request to provide direction and call a public hearing to consider amendments to the zoning ordinance regarding a proposed expressway Corridor overlay district. Applicant is City of Plano and this item is for legislative consideration. Good evening commissioners. My name is Jordan Rokeby, senior planner with the Planning Department. So as mentioned, this is regarding the current HOA policy. Bit of history here. So Plano has had policies limiting residential development close to our expressway corridors. Initially it was a simple setback from a highway 121. And that was gradually expanded to other highways over time. The original intent of that was not only to improve the living conditions and maintain a high quality of life for future residents, but also to So a few years ago, back in 2019, the city amended the policy to what it is today, what you're all familiar with. This was based on a study done by the consultant H. MH. They developed a map using on the ground measurements of noise and guidelines that were added to the comprehensive plan for development. Within that EAA, and mitigation requirements were also added to the zoning ordinance. The guidelines in the Comprehensive Plan apply to all the zoning cases that are reviewed and the mitigation requirements that are in the zoning ordinance apply during any site plan review. So this is the map of the current environmental health area boundaries. So as you can see, they follow our expressways. They are divided into A1 and A2. A2 is the one closer to the expressway, subject to higher Some further background on noise. It varies based on the speed the vehicles are traveling at. The size of the vehicles and their weights, as well as the volume of traffic on those expressways. Noise is most disruptive to people at night during due to its effect on sleep and the policy goal, and the comprehensive plan is to limit the outdoor noise exposure to 65dB. LDN. That decibels LDN is not a point in time measurement. It's a overtime measurement that is a weighted average of how much noise that area is exposed to. So just because there is a noise higher than 65dB, it doesn't mean that the DBA, LDN is going to be higher than 65. If it's just a single point in time measuremen. The updated H.R requirements added some Air quality is a little more difficult to measure in the field because it changes so much based on wind speed, the wind direction and current weather, as well as the type of pollutan. However, many of the noise mitigation strategies are also effective at limiting exposure to airborne pollutants. So several mitigation strategies are referenced in the Comprehensive Plan. There's a total of six of them that are suggested as ways that you can achieve reduced noise and reduced exposure to air pollutants. In addition, three of the mitigation strategies in the Comp plan are included in the zoning ordinance as requirements for certain for certain land uses. This is the buffering requirement with a nonresidential use, such as a parking structure. Placing open spaces behind the building away from an expressway, and locating air intakes at the elevation furthest from the source of pollution. Applicants can also You guys have seen upon occasion and the comp plan does recommend that multiple strategies are incorporated to best mitigate exposure to noise and pollutant. Currently, any application that seeks to add a sensitive land use in an area where those uses are restricted is required to include an environmental Health area. Site analysis. This is prepared by a consultant hired by the applicant, and that consultant will go into the field to measure the existing noise exposure to confirm the measurements are accurate to what we have from 2019, and they will also propose mitigation methods for how to meet the policy goal of 65dB LDN and they would project the anticipated future noise exposure on the development, both with and without the mitigation, so that we can gauge whether or not the proposed mitigation methods are actually effective in achieving the policy goal. The site Times. So we rely very heavily on the expertise of that applicant's consultant in relaying accurate information to us. So on to the current application issues and opportunities with the FHA guidelines. So to date, we've had nine zoning cases presented to the Commission that have been subject to these guidelines. Seven have been approved. One was denied and one that JCPenney development is pending council consideration. We do have a 10th zoning case under review right now for single Family Attached, and that will be coming to you later this year. Most if not all, of the nine zoning cases that have come before you have proposed alternative mitigation strategies beyond what is suggested in the Comprehensive Plan and required by the zoning ordinance. These other mitigation strategies have often been very similar but not identical. So there is an opportunity to standardize new mitigation strategies based on our To the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Ordinance should be considered to recenter economic development as a goal of the policy. Currently, a lot of the conversation is around the quality of life for residents. The zoning ordinance could also be updated to simplify the review process for development within the was to strengthen and standardize mitigation requirements and to improve transparency of the review process and the outcomes. So the big proposal is to move the HOA map out of the comprehensive plan into the zoning ordinance as an overlay district. And also renaming our two HOA areas, H.R. One and H.R. Two, to conditional Expressway Corridor area C, e K, and Restricted Expressway Corridor Area are ECA. The conditional Expressway Corridor area development of sensitive uses would be We also suggest adding new mitigation requirements, um, to the zoning ordinance based on zoning cases approved to date and to apply the mitigation requirements to all primary residential uses and institutional dwellings, um, currently the zoning ordinance requirements only apply to multifamily residences and institutional dwellings, so, um. If there's a single family or a duplex, um, proposal, it only gets captured under the comprehensive uh. Plan guidelines, not the zoning ordinance guidelines. And uh finally within that proposed zoning overlay to modify the existing requirement for enhanced landscaping to apply a little bit more broadly. There'd be a couple proposed land use changes first would be to remove non-residential uses from the list of sensitive uses, so currently we require some form of mitigation for uh daycares Uh, only, um, require mitigation for those uses where people are uh living and present. At night, uh, this way we are applying the regulations where they are most impactful and um refocusing the original intent of the policy to include both quality of life and economic development. Um. Uh, the final set of proposed zoning changes is to um move some of the existing standards in the NBD, the Neighborhood Business Design District, um, for parking garages, uh, out of NBD and into the larger zoning ordinance to apply citywide, um, the commission has previously expressed some concern with um encouraging parking structures, um, as buffers. Um, for sensitive uses because of the uh large amount of visual space that they take up and the high visibility of these structures has the potential to negatively impact the quality of development, so we High quality in terms of next steps. The commission you guys already called a public hearing back in May to consider amendments to the comprehensive plan. A separate public hearing would be necessary to consider amendments to the zoning ordinance, and staff would be placing both public hearings on the same commission agenda. So staff are requesting some discussion on two questions before the recommendation. So we're asking, should an overlay district be established as proposed in the report, and should parking garage standards be implemented citywide as proposed? I will note that there was a supplement to your packet that went out. The only change in that supplement is we added the underline to the entirely new section in there. It wasn't underlined in the original version, and we also added the section of the ordinance that's proposed to be removed and migrated to the new section So once we have the discussion, the staff recommendation is for the Planning and Zoning Commission to call a public hearing to consider amendments to the to the zoning ordinance, to amend the overlay districts, use specific regulations and related sections of the ordinance to create the Expressway corridor overlay district. And that's all from me. Thank you. Questions of staff. Commissioner Ali. I'm sorry. Oh. First of all, thank you for listening to us bicker on for so long and actually standardizing. And incorporating air quality into the standards. Very much appreciated. To the air quality question, I had only one question. The proposed standard says an air filtration system capable of accommodating an Merv 13 or higher. I wonder if I think what we're trying to Listen to me. Think. I think of it as a the box which could hold a mere 13, but doesn't require them put in a mere 13 in there. Is there a little tweak of language we can use to enforce that? Is the filter standard that we're actually trying to okay. Yes, we can make that change. Yeah. That's a discussion that that we can have. Okay. Is there a question down here? Commissioner. So with the conditional, if we're looking at an overlay district and stuff, and I know you were talking about the residential side and you said you alluded to a single family attached. I believe you described it as. And I guess it's going to fall on this corridor within the potential overlay districts. So if it's restricted, does that restrict, does that mean that there is no residential use. And conditional means you can have residential with with the buffering system, you know, buffering standards. What what are It is exactly as it sounds. It's restricted. It's not permitted. Conditional is. It's allowed. When you follow the mitigation requirements. That would be in the zoning ordinance. I was just clarifying that's I want to make sure I understood it right. I just had I just had a I'm sorry. Sorry. I just had a quick comment. Just maybe a little historical perspective. This is good clarification on this because I can recall in years past there was lots of discussion about this. So having having it clear and having it defined I think is a good thing moving forward. Mr. Bronsky. Okay, so I I've got a couple questions. First of all, I'm very happy about the Merv 13 piece for particulates. So under the CSA or ECA number two letter A, it talks about the interior noise. And I think Noise, but letter B. I've got a question about it. Says all dwellings. It would seem. Is that Overprescriptive. Because if we're able to verify one, the next one over. Is that is that too much? It is a discussion that we've had with our building inspections team, particularly on how many of the units they would anticipate receiving a report from. If we go with a standard that requires a report for 100% of the units, or if it's a certain percentage of the units, that's certainly something we can explore further to see where that sweet spot is. What's presented to you is it's a draft of where where we're looking. And that's but yeah, just it seemed to me that every unit seemed to be maybe a little too much. But, you know, I'm going to leave I've got a couple questions about the vehicle parking and storage standards. What is fenestration? The windows. So the window openings of the parking garage. Okay. On letter B, garages must be screened so that no vehicle headlights or light fixtures from within the structure are visible from the surrounding properties or streets. So we're going to make sure that we can't see not only headlights, but every light fixture in the facility. I'm going to address that. Christine is going to address that. I have some specific background on tha. When the property was built at Legacy Central, the parking garage, if any of you all have driven down US 75 at night. It's pretty distracting. I want to say, because the lights are all very visible for as as you're driving down 75 and it's because you can see up into the garage and see all the interior lighting and so because of that Because we think it's a it can be a distraction to traffic. Okay. Yeah, I get that. And then letter D, the parking garages must not exceed the height of the surrounding buildings. And must not be visually dominant. So how do we put a parking garage out there in front of the building and then make it not visually dominant? Yeah, you'll you'll always have one, at least one facade of the building being visually dominant when it is screening a building. So that might be something that needs further work if it's being moved out of the where it currently is in NBD, which doesn't have the same EAA or ECA constraints where moving it large into the larger ordinance, that might be something that we. I just want to be careful because, you know, I am one of the people that I talk about how the garages I think look. But I also want to make sure that we're reasonable with Information in different places that we can't make something visually dominant. But there's no other way to put it into the. So those are my comments, but thank you very much. I think you guys were very responsive to our calls and interest in addressing this study. You know, I did want to can I one other question, I had some I had somebody call me and ask. So in the original study that is in the comprehensive plan, the language that the study used talked about high volume streets, I think was the terminology it used. What what was our was it what just what we've already done. And that's why we stick with the overlay district being the for type A roads as opposed to considering a type B road as well. And the pollution or sound and particulates that it might produce. I would defer to Christina Day on that question. This because I think this policy is What's our land use along these corridors? Is it going to remain commercial because of the limitations we have on the availability of land, and particularly the demand for housing in the community? It would be very easy to utilize all the vacant land in these corridors for residential, were we to allow it. So it's both to protect future economic development and preserve what we believe is the very good quality of life of Plano residents, who are generally in a neighborhood or mixed use setting. So that's the purpose behind keeping this to the expressway corridors. We could look at expanding it to other places if we want to, but I think there's not so much vacant land on our other corridors. So it might not be as impactful. Yeah, it could be if we were in the process of redevelopment things. But no, I totally understand the rationale behind it. I just wanted to clarify that the language in the original study versus what our intentions were for the economic development piece here for this. So thank you very much. Good job. And regarding the parking, I know that you like. I wasn't involved in the all the previous studies and everything, but you like. So now we're wanting the parking and if it's going to be like a dominant structure, it's to be between the residential and the thoroughfare. So you're like, in my opinion, you like, we can just like push the parking to the back. And because you're like driving down the tollway, you see the building, the high rise buildings is closer to the, to the highway. And it feels more, you know, like more humane, you know, like, but when you drive through the 75 with all these parking areas, I know that it's not parking garages, but you like parking lots. And it feels like. So you know, like so distance you're like even any development is going to be around the thoroughfare is going to be, you know, like you don't feel like If we want to do any parking or parking garages, we would push it behind the like the residential areas that that's just my thoughts and suggestion on that. All right. Can I answer that? I can say I think this becomes challenging because it's what use do you put that's tall enough to protect the residential buildings, that that buffer becomes a challenge in a market where we could support taller buildings like basically office buildings. Generally speaking, that you could have office buildings and then parking garages and then residential sort of toward the interior. That would be an ideal situation, right? I just don't know. We're in the market that supports that today. So if we want to encourage redevelopment of some of these pieces, we have to figure out some creative solutions. So it's that is true. Yeah. But you're like but with the mitigation, mitigation that we're proposing, we can still have the like the residential tower closer. And like with the And I think for people, if they have the chance to do that. Absolutely. And, you know, like in my other notes on like Paige, which Paige, it's 103. And C dash e CA point number two b for the decibel for the interior noise level. So, you know, like it says, maximum level of 45 decibel. Is that for the interior because you're like per code it says not less than 45. So we should be like we can be over 45 but not maximum 45. So I don't know if I'm mistaken or because per code like per IBC, it says not less for any interior noise level. It says like on chapter 12 it says not less than 45. That's for the for the housing and IBC Oh, yeah, I was. I have it here. Pulled up. So it says not less than 45. So 45 is like minimum. And then you can be like 65 right. Like visible for interior. Oh. So it's like a maximum 45. So it's the opposite. Yeah it would be the opposite. It says like there it's not less than 45 or probably it's a different unit. I think it's a different use. It's a different use right. Yeah. Residential interior of a surprisingly high. Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. So it's a maximum of. I just wanted to check. Yeah. All right. Well, we'll double check on that. 45 is the HUD standard. So when you do a HUD environmental you have to use the 45 decibel standard. Commissioner Brounoff. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Excuse me. On whether or not we should call a public hearing. I think definitely we should. I think this is an important matter on which we should solicit public input. I think Because of the proximity to major highways, creates special conditions that do not apply to the city as a whole. And so an overlay district would provide criteria and standards applicable to those special conditions. Do I assume, correctly, that existing developments would be grandfathered in? That is correct. Okay. And would we be preserving the 65 and 75 decibel cutoff levels for the conditional and the restrictive zones? Or threshold levels? I should say, Sebastian, I do not believe that's part of the ordinance the way it's written, but I'll defer to you write those specific thresholds are not in the current draft the in your packet. However, the contours that are in the current map in the comprehensive plan are based on those numbers and those are not those contours are not proposed to change. They would be be the contours Which brings me to my next question. We've had some discussion and I know there may not be current funding to do this, but we've had discussion about updating the contours every so often to make sure that they reflect actual noise conditions as they may be changing over time. I don't see that this proposal for an overlay district would, in any way obviate the need for periodic update of our contours. Correct. It is still our intention when funding is available to update the contours. Right. Okay. And. Finally, it seems to me that when you're dealing with residential developments, what you are talking about is quality of life. Okay. So when you talk about preserving economic development, I interpret that to mean that the non residential districts would, you know, developments would have more freedom to develop Developments. Is that an accurate statement of what? That is accurate? Yes. All right. Thank you. Yeah. All right, I have. Okay, one more question. I've got one, two. So don't make a motion yet. No I wasn't. So and this may be your question how does this proposal work together hand in hand with the rewrite committee for the zoning ordinance process that's already in place. Does this belong more in that bucket as opposed to us and then come to us after that or. I just want to make sure that we're not mixing things up, I guess. No. So this would this is a separate from that rewrite process. I'd say a long process, as you know, and this matter, the commission has expressed a sense of urgency with this matter. So this is handled separately and would come as an amendment to the existing zoning ordinance and would be Needed to make tweaks to it through that rewriting phase. So is the. Is Freese and Nichols? Of the understanding of the process that we're going to be inserting some new things into the zoning ordinance so that whenever the rewrite committee starts looking at it, that it's all together for them. Correct. There's a couple zoning amendments that are in process. This is one the sign section of the ordinance is another. And the consultant is aware that those are happening outside of the larger rewrite process. Okay. Thank you. I have one question of my own on the testing for interior noise. Much like Commissioner Brounoff, I think this is about quality of life inside the units, which I appreciate. That's really kind of how we've refocused this. This revision. But I want to make sure that we're not going to do a just a point in time check of the noise that they're not going to walk in at 3:00 on a weekday afternoon and say, Just because noise at 3 a.m. Is very different than noise at 3 p.m. And vice versa. And if this is about quality of life for families that live nearby. We're talking about, you know, little ones that take naps during the day or people that are trying to work at home. It's not just about nighttime noise. So I just want to make sure there's something in the ordinance that that documents that they've achieved that below the level over a 24 hour period, but that we test it over a week, day, weekend, you know, figure out how to write that in. If y'all could work with building department to figure out how they're going to test that, because that may be a challenge. Certainly. All right. Any other comments? Anybody care to make a motion? I move we call a public hearing for the zoning ordinance amendment for the express corridor overlay district, as recommended by staff. Second motion by In favor, say, raise your hand. Any opposed? All right. Passes seven zero. Agenda item number seven. This is a discussion and action item for the nomination and election of first and second vice chairs for the Planning and Zoning Commission. All right. Commission, I've. Christina and I have met on this a couple times. And at my encouragement, we've we've changed the process a little bit. So let me tell you how we're going to do things a little different this go around. What what I'd like to do is to let the let the commissioners make nominations. We're not in the form of motions. Just if somebody wants to be nominated, wants to nominate themselves to make nominations once the nominations are closed, we feel like we've got all the nominations. Then we're actually going to do a written ballot that's counted. And if we have more than two nominees and one person doesn't get in today's since there's seven of us, four Going to do a little more democracy, maybe, than we had in the past. No offense to previous chairmen. So that's the new process. You'll find in front of you. There are some ballots on the desk in front of you. There should be. They're printed in red, white and blue. Yes. In honor of what's going on this week and great United States of America. So, so with that, I would like to open the floor for nominations. Commissioner Ali. Quick question. Are we nominating first for first? There you go. That's for first vice chair. And just so you know, the duties of the first vice chair to serve in the place of the chair in my absence and assist as necessary. The term is one year. So. A little bit of comments to I was reminded the other day that this was my third year Rick Hawn and Stone. Then when Arthur rolled off, Gary, Kerry came in its place, then went, oh no, it wasn't Gary. Gary was here already. No, no, I mean to vice chair. Then once Rick move, then Commissioner Ratliff filled in the second vice chair. Basically what I'm trying to pick at there has been a combination of, in my view, at least, pragmatic, deep community knowledge and for lack of a better word, voice of the people that kind of sits in those three Blessed Trinity kind of vibe. That seemed to have worked very well. Now, with that, I can't think of anybody else on this commission who has that deep community And Mike Bronski, and he obviously knows the comprehensive plan better than 90% of us in this room. Outside of Christina, you're not counted in that. And I would love for him to get the chance to lend his vast experience in that chair as vice chair. One so that's a nomination. That's a nomination. All right. So we have Commissioner Bronski nominated. Any other nomination? I would second that nomination. Well, I appreciate that. It's not our process, but thank you. All right. Any other nominations? All right. Well, then I'll close the nominating process. I don't know that we need a ballot, but given that we have, we have one nominee. Why don't we just do a hand vote on this one, then? So, all in favor of Commissioner Bronski being first vice chair? Please raise your hand. Any opposed? Congratulations Commissioner. All right, second vice chair. So yeah I On everything he said. And I think when I look across the board at everybody that we've got on the commission, I've been very fortunate to be able to sit next to him and learn and ask questions, and for he and I to grow together and I really think when I look at the duties of the second vice chair and some of the things that we've even talked about for the potentials for the second vice chair to do in the future, I think I'd like to nominate Tosin Ali. All righ. Any other nominations for second vice chair? I was in a second, but it's not a process. You're welcome to vote here in just a second. All right. Any other any other nominations for second vice chair. Did you want to nominate nobody or. I would like to nominate Mr. Bruno for second chair. I think he's like he's knowledgeable. He has the All right. So we have Commissioner Holly and Commissioner Brunov. Anybody else? No. Okay. Well, let's close the nominations and then in front of you, there should b. A ballot for second vice chair. That's the first vice chair. The red ones? Yeah, the red ones. All right, so if you'll fill out your ballot, fold it in half. We'll have the staff pick them up. You don't need any hanging chads. For Wednesday. Night. Yeah I'll just give them all to you, I guess, because. Congratulations Commissioner Ollie. So thank you, Commissioner Bruno, for being willing to serve. All right, so new first vice chair, Commissioner Bronsky. New second vice chair, Commissioner Ollie. All right, all right. Comments of public interest. Public interest. Yeah. Thank you. You're welcome. Congratulations. 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 discuss these items, but may respond with factual or policy information. The Planning and Zoning Commission may choose to place the item on a We do not have any registered speakers. Registered speakers. All right. Is there anybody in the audience that wishes to speak? Nobody. All right. Well, if there are none, then I'll adjourn this meeting at