Welcome to the April 6th City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Call the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. If you'd all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Consent. Agenda. 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 the agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff members. Would anybody like to remove an item from the consent agenda for separate consideration? Commissioner Bronsky. I move we approve the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Lingenfelter, I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve the consent agenda as presented. Please vote. I apologize, who was the first motion? Oh. Vice chair Bronsky. Motion passes 8 to 0. Items for individual consideration. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items unless instructed otherwise by the chair. Speakers will be called in the order. Registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal considerations. Non public hearing items the Presiding Officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. The Presiding Officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to ensure meeting efficiency and may include a total time limit. To read items one A and one B together, please. Agenda item number one A request to rezone 14.1 acres of land out of the Joe Butler Survey. Abstract number 46. Located on the west side of Los Rios Boulevard, 1115ft north of Merriman Drive in the city of Plano. Collin County, Texas. From planned development. 173 estate development to plan development 44 single family residence seven tabled November 17th, 2025. February 20th February 2nd, 2026 and March 2nd, 2026. The petitioner is Meadows Baptist Church. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number one B meadow Brook addition blocks A through D and Meadows Baptist Church. Addition block one, lot one R 50 single family residence seven lots two common area lots and a religious facility on two lots on 27.3 acres. Located at the northwest corner of Los Rios Boulevard and Merriman Drive. Zoned. Planned development 173 Estate Development tabled on November 17th, 2025, February 2nd, 2026 and March 2nd, 2026. The applicant is Meadows Baptist Church. This item is for administrative consideration pending agenda item number one A. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Destiny wood, planner with the Planning Department. So this image shows the area of the request. And the next few slides will show the concept plan associated with the request. So this request has been updated from March the March 2nd, 2026 meeting. So the left column is showing what was proposed at the March 2nd meeting, and the right column is showing what's being proposed today. So the zoning is being updated from a request to SF7 to a request to plan development 44 SF seven. So the front yard is changing to the excuse me, the lot count is not changing. Previously was requested as 50 detached lots and it's still being requested that way. The front yard setback is being updated from 30ft to 20ft. The side yard is being updated from 6.5ft, or 10% of the lot with to now five feet of a setback. And with this request, three car garages are required for homes at the ends of each block, and the proposed lot sizes are not being updated with this request. So the. Also, for the Western property line, it's being updated from having a 20 foot buffer with a masonry screening wall to having a 20 foot landscape edge with a ornamental fence. So also at the March 2nd meeting, the Commission did request that the applicant commit the proposed design with a planned development. So that's what this slide is showing. Those proposed stipulations. The stipulations are going to limit the number of lots to 50. They set the minimum front yard to 20ft. The minimum side yard to five feet. And the maximum lot coverage is 50%. They also regulate lot sizes to be a minimum of 9000ft■!S at the end of each block, with the required three car garage for those lots, and propose a 20 foot landscape edge along the western property line. I will note that staff does not support the mandatory three car garages for the 9000 square foot lots, because it will increase the price of homes and limit the design choice of home buyers for this with the housing study. But the garage. The garage does not change the recommendation because the housing study is focused mainly on density. So a few standards proposed with this request do deviate from the typical requirements of single family residence. Seven that zoning district as it currently is today. But where those deviations occur, the request is still consistent with the Unified Development Code, specifically the residential detached neighborhood two district standards. So module one of the Unified Development Code has been accepted as substantially complete by City Council, but but has not been adopted as ordinance yet. So the D in two or residential detached neighborhood two district. That district will replace single family residence six and single family residence seven and the zoning ordinance rewrite. So this table on the screen is showing the key aspects of SF seven, D and two, and the proposed plan development district that the applicant is requesting. So with that, the maximum lot coverage is 30% for single family residence. Seven, it's 50% for D and two. And the applicant is proposing 50% consistent with D and two. Front yard setback is 30ft for SF, seven 20ft for Rd and two. And the applicant is proposing to remain consistent with DN2 at 20ft. The side yard is 6.5ft, or 10% of the lot width for SF, seven five feet for D and two and five feet for the proposed plan. Development and the minimum lot area is 7000ft■!S fr SF, seven, 6000ft■!S for Rd and two. And the applicant is proposing 7000ft■!S and 9000ft■S at the end. At the block ends of each lot or at the ends of each block, which is going to be consistent with SF seven. So the existing plan development stipulations restrict the lot size to two acres at a minimum, and they assert fence design standards as they correspond to the Ranch Estates deed restriction. And staff finds that this request to rezone the 14.6 acres out of the current 147 acre district, will have no adverse impact on the existing estate development zoning because the remaining properties will remain in conformance with their existing zoning, and the fence restrictions are intended to maintain the character of the Ranch Estates Zoning District, which. This. Which the subject property is not part of. So the surrounding land uses include single family detached uses with lot sizes ranging from two acres to 6000 square foot lots, and then the surrounding zoning or excuse me. And there's also institutional institutional uses to the immediate north, south and east. The surrounding zoning is mix of estate development, single family residence seven, nine and six, which are all residential districts. So this request is compatible with the residential single family detached lots being proposed. So the comprehensive plan does designate this site as neighborhoods on the future land use map. And the request meets all of the applicable policies by the comprehensive plan. So staff did receive one sign letter in support from within the subject property, and that same signed letter was counted within the 200 foot buffer as well. And so that's the only signed letter there. And since the reposting of the zoning case on March 9th, 2026, we received two responses citywide, one in support and one in opposition. As of Friday, April 3rd, responses received after April 3rd have been provided to the Commission for review, and staff has received other responses for this case, but those responses were provided before the case was reposted and noticed, so staff cannot assume that the respondents have stayed opposed or supportive of the case since the changes. To summarize, the request to is to rezone the subject property from plan development. 173 Estate development to plan Development. 44 single family residence seven. And the concept plan proposes 50 single family detached residential lots. Item one A is recommended for approval as submitted in item one. B is recommended for approval subject to City Council approval of this zoning case. I'm available for any questions and the applicant also has a presentation. Thank you very much. Commissioners questions Commissioner Langfelder. Yeah, I just had one simple one. I think it's just you were talking about the side setbacks and different things for the corner lots. That's still 15ft for the side setback. Correct. And that's still pretty consistent with the other zoning and what they had before. So the side yard setbacks are going to be regulated or by the plan development district. So they'll be five feet. I'm talking about on the corner lots. Normally the corner lots it's it's wider because it's on the street. So. Right. The oh no, the request is to make them five feet for all. Oh even on those. Okay, okay. Commissioner Brounoff thank you chairman. Is there anything in our ordinances that would prohibit a prospective buyer who wants to buy a home to be built from contracting with the builder for a home with a three car garage that is not required by the zoning. So just to rephrase, you're asking that if they want to have a three car garage on a 1000 square foot lot, could they do that? Yeah. Can they have it? I think they would need to work with the with the developer, but there's no restriction in the zoning saying that they can't. Okay. So what would be the point of our requiring a three car garage? So if if, if they can have it any way, if they want it, I mean. Excuse me. Sorry about that. So it would, it would be up to the developer or the home buyer if they want a three car garage. But as far as it being mandated, it is going to be mandated on all of the block ends. That might be a better question suited for the applicant. If they can provide more context on, you know, what, what houses are going to have three car garages or not? Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ali. I'm going to go with similar laces. Commissioner Brown, I think I actually missed the last meeting. So the stipulations for the three car garage, the fence, ornamental fence and what have you were those stipulations we drove or that was a conversation between the applicant and the neighbors. So the stipulations for the three car garage and the ornamental fence were presented by the applicant. Okay. All right. So that will be a question for the applicant then. Thank you. So just refresh my memory because at the last meeting when we tabled, our direction was to memorialize all of the the promises that were being made by the developer to the neighborhood in a PD. Is that correct? That's correct. Okay, so to Mr. Ali's question, I don't recall a three car garage being part of any of those discussions. Did I miss that? Okay, that's a new item that was added after the fact. Okay, great. Thank you, Mr. Bronsky. To continue to beat a dead horse. The. Is what you're talking about relative to the three car garage on the ends. Is that a design function more than a land use function? Yes. So typically we see houses with garages, although there's not a requirement in the zoning to have a garage, there's just a requirement to have parking by zoning ordinance that can fit two cars, whether that's tandem or a carport or something of that nature. So it's not out of the scope for the developer to add in three car garages as part of their as part of their design, but it's not required by zoning typically. So my second question, then by putting three car garages on the ends, is this an effort by the developer to better conform to what the surrounding neighbors already look like? I'm not sure we might need to speak with the developer to. Thank you very much, Miss Woods. Any other questions? Commissioner Langfelder, I have one more question. So this site plan that we have, I guess, on on one B is that tied into the zoning as well? Is that so. Is that they're set to that. So for example, the 15 foot side yard setbacks. They do actually have it in that plat in their in their site plans here is that kind of memorializes that. Are they stuck to that or could they actually shrink that to five feet? And now the house could be shoved up to the front corner, five feet away from the street on each side? Yeah. So the concept plan is not being adopted as part of the ordinance. So they would just need to design their they could redesign their lots to meet exactly what the plan development stipulations say, or they can keep their current design. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Nobody. Thank you. All right. I think the applicant is here. Let me open the public hearing and. Mr. Douglas, if you'd come forward and state your name and address for us. Jim Douglas Douglas Properties, 2309 Avenue K in Plano. Let me start, first of all, on the side yard setbacks, you're required along Los Rios to have a minimum of ten foot side yard on the thoroughfare. We've also added 15ft along the west side next to Ranch Estates, because we had the 15ft plus the right of way, plus, the 20ft of open space gives the distance for them to where it doesn't encumber them on their regulation about they did any building. They have to be distance from any structure. So next Ranch Estates is 15ft next to Los Rios, a minimum of ten on the three car garage. We. We volunteered because we felt like it would give a better look to the neighborhood. We're trying to do everything we can to try to assure the residents around there that this is a quality development. If you feel more comfortable not requiring it. I have no problems with that. It's just I felt like requiring it so we would have bigger homes, nicer homes, particularly on the corners. As far as the the setbacks since dwelt on those a lot. We updated the set, the setbacks to conform with the new residential to the to the UDC code that you've got coming. So again, as we go in the future, there's no confusion. Everything. So we update it for that. And again, we have minimum, you know, 7000 foot lots in the center, the minimum 9000 on the perimeter. I guess you first of all should start off. We appreciate everybody's patience, you know, from staff, from your time, residents time, everyone here that's that keeps coming to these meetings. We appreciate their time. And we can go through the whole thing. But like I said, do we want to beat the dead horse? So I think everybody's familiar with it. Maybe I should just answer any questions that you've got. Okay. Mr. Douglas, just to clarify, because I think Mr. Langfelder brought this up, but your site plan shows a ten foot building line on the east end of every block. Correct. And a 15 foot building line on the west end of every block. Correct. You would have no problem if that was part of the PD. Okay. Just want to make sure that we're all clear on that, right? Absolutely. I just wanted to clear that up. Right. Okay. Great. Great. Thank you. All right. Commission questions of the applicant. Anybody. A