service establishments in order to catch fats, oils, and grease, which can come from a variety of food contents that go down wastewater systems. So anytime a restaurant sends wastewater down their sinks that contains fats, oils, and grease from their food products, it's being caught in this grease trap, preventing it from traveling further down the wastewater system so that it prevents clogs and subsequent sewer overflows. When the wastewater system is overloaded from these types of products. So in 2018, when we first went into having our ordinance for grease traps, we initially went into the program doing all food service establishments and inspecting every single one of them. And we quickly realized that it wasn't going to be very efficient. So we developed an A program to be able to break those down based on tiers, so that we could spread out the inspection process based on the severity of the facility. So our risk assessment that was created by some of our great employees that we have in our department, enables us to tier these facilities based off a number of factors. Looking at the grease trap makeup, looking at its compliance history, looking at its size, those types of components help us to then give it a tier one, 2 or 3 and enables us to inspect it on the frequency that it needs. So tier one is inspected annually, tier two inspected every two years, and tier threes are inspected every three years, reaching our ultimate goal of. Recording in progress. Welcome to the July 21st, 2025 City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission. I'll call the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. If you'd all rise. And please 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. Thank you very much. It feels like it's been a month since we've been here, so thank you. Anybody that's took a little time off for the summer. So it's kind of nice. All right. The first item is comments of public interest. Do we have any registered speakers for comments of public interest? There are no registered speakers. All right. Let's move on to consent agenda, please. 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. Would anybody like to remove item from the consent agenda for separate consideration? Councilmember Lingenfelter no, I was just going to move that we approve this consent agenda as recommended by staff. All right. Commissioner Bronsky second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Passes 8 to 0 items for individual consideration. Item number one, please. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items, unless otherwise instructed 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. Agenda item number one. El Ranchero County Estates, lot 16 one estate development lot on 4.6 acres, located on the east side of Ranchero Road, 630ft north of Parker Road. Zoned estate development. The applicant is Gregory J. Ren and Alex G. Ren. This item is for administrative consideration. Good evening commissioners. My name is Caroline Stewart, planner with the planning Department. The purpose for the Replat is propose a drainage and floodway easement. Staff recommends approval and I'm available for any questions that you may have. Commissioners. Any questions for staff? Seeing none. This is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any registered speakers on this item? There are no registered speakers. I'll close the public hearing commission. Commissioner Bronsky I move, we approve agenda item number one, as recommended by Staff Commissioner Lolly. I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item number two. Agenda item number two A or would you like me to read two and two together, please? Agenda item number two a request to rezone 19 acres located at the northeast corner of U.S. Highway 75 and State Highway 190, including rezoning 2.2 acres from planned development 58 corridor Commercial to corridor commercial and amending the remaining 16 point acres within planned development. 58 Corridor Commercial to remove mixed use development standards and create a new permitted use of commercial flex warehouse with associated development standard. Located within the 190 Plano Parkway and Expressway corridor. Overlay districts. Petitioners. Own Property Owner LLC. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number two B Fry's Electronics Edition block A lot one are a commercial flex warehouse on one lot on 14.9 acres, located at the southwest corner of Plano Parkway and Executive Drive. Zoned. Planned development 58 corridor. Commercial and located within the 190 Tollway Plano Parkway, an expressway corridor. Overlay districts. The applicant is on the Property Owner, LLC. This item is for administrative consideration pending. Agenda item number two A. Good evening, commissioners. My name is John Kim, senior planner with the Planning Department. On this map you'll see the property in question. It is located approximately at George Bush and Central Expressway, and there are two tracks on the site. Track one is the northern half with the existing superstore building, and then track two is an undeveloped strip. And so with this request, track one will be staying in the PD 58 zoning, while track two will be rezoned to Straight Corridor Commercial. And there is also a preliminary site plan associated with the zoning case, and we'll go over the site improvements later on. So just a brief history of the site. In 1999, it was rezoned to Corridor Commercial, and in 2004 the property was developed. And as a superstore building. And that's what we've been familiar with for a while. And then in 2021, Fry's closed and the building remained vacant. In 2022, there was a effort to rezone the property to develop a mixed use property. And that's when Plan Development 58 Corridor Commercial was established for the area, including both tracks one and two. So as part of this request, it is to amend PD 58 cc and it is three objectives is to remove mixed use development standards. So all of the previous standards they will be replaced. Second is to propose a new use of commercial flex warehouse with associated development standards on track one. And that's in the existing building. And three rezone track two from PD 58 cc to CC. Okay, so here is the proposed commercial flex warehouse. So the business is essentially a shared warehouse space for small businesses and entrepreneurs in the building. There will be some office space available, some leasable warehouse spaces. They'll range from 300ft■!S for smaller operations to up to 20,000ft■!S. And there is approximately 160 units proposed. And I say approximately because I believe that some of the units as needed can be, you know, resized and reworked just to meet the tenants needs. There are some shared common facilities in the building, such as restrooms, conference rooms, the truck docks, parking, all of that can be shared. And there are. There is also some shared equipment. One. One key thing to note is there will be one Co holder for the entire building, and on that there will be some leases for each of the tenants. So here are some photos from some of the existing where space businesses around the country. The top left one is one in North Richland Hills. And so there are some you know, these flex warehouse spaces being developed throughout DFW as they are, you know, starting to become more popular. You can see the office space, you know, it's an enclosed room. Same with the warehouse spaces. They have walls that are about 12ft high. They're separated through, you know, these wall divisions, they are locked and maintained by the. The co holder. And it is climate controlled as well. And so you can kind of see some of the examples of what businesses may go in. And so some of the examples of anticipated uses are distribution distribution center and warehouse service contractors, light manufacturing and moderate manufacturing studios, workshops and print shops. And so I do want to note that the distribution center, warehouse and the moderate manufacturing is limited to 20,000ft■!S per tenant. And thas just to maintain, you know, some of the commercial nature of the building and make sure it doesn't become too industrial of a use. I don't think the slides are working. Oh, there we go. Thank you. Some of the prohibited uses per the PD stipulations is a mini warehouse and public storage, personal service shops, vehicle repair shops restaurants any manufacturing of food products or uses that require food handling permit that might be, you know, like a restaurant as well. But other manufacturing assembly uses as defined by the building code. And that's for things like banquet halls, art galleries, any activity that may have a large gathering as defined by the building code and then car wash. And so for some of these prohibited uses, there were some concerns about, you know, how to manage potential pollutants, whether they are air related or, you know, liquids. Just how do you efficiently manage that? Others were related to fire safety, you know, different uses. They have higher occupant loads and they require more fire safety measures, and they may require additional parking. And so there was a lot of concerns about some of the challenges that these prohibited uses may create. And so it is recommended that these are prohibited just to kind of maintain, you know, more of the uses that would be more easily regulated by the business. And so here are some of the site improvements with this business. And so they are proposing to add up to up to six additional truck docks to the existing two, for a total of eight. There will be some loading areas on the site. Living screen is proposed to be added along the western boundary and along the truck docks as well, and that will be to limit visibility from the adjacent property as well as public right of ways. There will be some designated fleet vehicle storage. You can see on the photo the strips of orange that will be the areas that are the fleet storage, and they are still able to meet the parking requirement even with the fleet vehicle storage and loading areas. The open storage is limited to just existing and then parking in parking is provided for the site and signage will be limited to the CEO holder. Consistent with the zoning ordinance. Parking. It was based on some of the existing workspace sites. We ended with a ratio of 1 to 600. We figured that would be enough to meet the requirements. And just to note, reduced parking would allow potential additional development on the property. And so if they do want to add a future building on the site, we may be able we may be able to accommodate that. There are some operational concerns, you know, due to the compatibility of all the variety of uses here. You know, there may be issues with air quality, fire hazards or excess noise. But we do think that, you know, with the prohibited uses and the self-regulation by the business, there may be, you know, sufficient safeguards in place to kind of prevent some of these concerns. But if there are some additional mitigations required, the applicant will be required to provide that on site and make those improvements. Excuse me. And so Mike, Bill and I, we did do a site visit at the North Richland Hills location. And generally, you know, I think it's been very consistent with what they were proposing. The warehouse spaces were well maintained and the truck docks, fire areas, hallways, they were maintained as well. So we do have a, you know, an issue with code compliance because we haven't had a use like this before. And so our solution was that the business is proposing to have one co holder, and then they would provide a monthly report. And so this is an example. We redacted the ID and business names. But you will get the use the description of what they're doing what how much space they are taking up in the building. And so this will be provided to all of the city staff departments just to make sure that we can maintain and they can stay compliant with all of our code requirements. The individual tenants will be managed by the holder of the CEO, and they will sublease through them as well. And so the CEO holder will be held accountable for any of these potential issues on site. And if there are any, you know, complaints or issues are raised, then it will be investigated by neighborhood services. This proposal is generally consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. For responses. We did receive one official letter from the property to the West. It is a 5.3 acre property and does trigger the 20 over 20% opposition for city Council, and it was the only response we received. And so in summary, they were requested to amend PD 58 cc to remove the mixed use developments, rezone tract two from PD 58 to corridor commercial and establish commercial flex warehouse use associated with development standards. Item two A is recommended for approval as submitted, and item two B is recommended for approval subject to City Council approval of Zoning Case 2025 004. Oh, and I'm available for any questions. And Chief building official is here. As well as the applicants. Thank you. All right. Thank you. One quick question for you. And then I'll hand it off to the commissioners. The new definition of commercial flex warehouse is now only going to apply in PD 58. Correct? Correct. Okay. This is not a city wide change. This is site specific for this definition. Right okay. Great. Commissioners questions for staff. Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What was the basis of the opposition by the owner of the property to the west? We didn't receive a reason in the letter. We just received a letter marked opposed. I think the applicant may have tried to contact them, so they may have more information. But we are unsure at this time. Is the author of that letter here this evening? I don't believe they registered. No. Okay. They've not registered as a speaker. Okay. Second, is the applicant of this case the same as the applicant of the PD 58 that was passed in 2022? No, they're not okay. As far as you know. Would any of the proposed authorized uses involve a fire hazard to the other tenants? So we don't believe so. And I think one of the requirements that we had discussed with the fire department was that, you know, the building was, you know, built for that superstore, which required, you know, it required to be sprinklered and required to have fire exits and entry. And then I think there is also a requirement to have fire mitigation measures for like the highest allowed use or proposed use in the building. And so if there isn't, you know, sufficient fire protection allowed, then they would have to make those improvements. Okay. Would any of the authorized or allowed uses involve the production of noxious fumes? We did try to limit those. And I think that is part of our, you know, prohibited use list. But that is something that, you know, we would definitely try to maintain with, you know, the business owner. Okay. Would any of the uses require, like the installation of running water within the, within the individual unit. So or, or special electrical connections on our site visit? I think they mentioned that they don't really provide like specialized. Water like water units for each, you know, space. But they may be able to clarify that. Okay. Well, just in general, is there anything about the authorized uses that might that might produce a negative impact to the other tenants? I'm not suggesting there is. I just want to know. That's right. I think there are enough safeguards in place that, you know, if there does become that issue, then we can investigate it. But generally there may not be that issue. Okay. All right. Thank you. Commissioner Ali. I just have a question on the flex warehouse and I think Chair Ratcliff pointed to one of them. So that designated use we are creating specifically for PD 58 and nowhere else is this the only site that we have, PD 58 in Plano. Yes. Correct. Okay. And the reason why we're given this new designation is what again, can you expand on why we are creating a new use? So the zoning ordinance currently doesn't have a use that, you know, quite meets this business proposal. And so we kind of based it off of existing development standards in the ordinance to come up with this new use so that it can remain consistent with the zoning ordinance while still, you know, helping accommodate the business proposal. If I could add to that this we have other examples of similar uses in Plano, but they're in light industrial or warehouse distribution centers are permitted by right because this is commercial corridor zoned commercial zoning. Warehouse distribution is not permitted by right. But we felt that this business concept was a little less intense than your typical warehouse distribution center. And so therefore creating this use with custom standards could be appropriate in this instance. Do we have any concern of. Other applicants in corridor commercial encroaching and asking for a similar exception in current CC districts? We don't. I think a lot of the plan development stipulations are customized to this specific building. And like for example, we limited the number of truck docks. The screening. This place has an adequate parking available. Those similar conditions would need to be present for us to consider it in other locations. Thank you. Commissioner Lolly. How much you like control that the city has. If you after you receive the report, the monthly report, let's say about the CEO, how much control you have, saying that you're like, we're not going to allow this use or we're going to allow this use. Does the city have, you know, like, yeah. So, you know, again, we would we would hold the CEO holder accountable for that. And so, you know, they do have to maintain and make sure that their business just like any other is complying. You know, with all of our code requirements. And so I think if absolutely necessary, you know, there could be a Co revocation ultimately maybe. But I think, you know, standard to any other business, you know, they would just have to meet the code requirements. So you know like so you are going to review this report you like monthly or bi monthly or whatever. And then you're like can you comment on whatever you know, like like rented or leased space that they have? Right, right. So if you if you think that it's, you know, like. It's not, you know, like not the appropriate use or, you know, yeah, you impose some like a hazard, like fire hazard or you're going to. Right. Yeah. Yeah. We would, you know, investigate. You know, I think each department I'm sure would do some level of research if, you know, there was a major concern or issue reported. And I know neighborhood services would also look into that as well. Thank you. All right. No other questions for staff, Commissioner Bronsky. So I have one question. I guess it's a multi-part question as it relates to the single Co. Is there or are there other any businesses or any entities that would require some different kind of Co that could fall into this space without having to get that certificate of occupancy, since there's only one. So all the tenants will be subleasing through the main Co. And so I don't know, I don't know that there would be a situation where you know they have they would have to get another Co individually. Well no I guess my question is would they be able to get into this space without having to get a second Co, although we might require it if they were moving into an office building or into some other kind of space. So I think if it's like as part of a sublease, you know, with this business, then I think they can forego that co process. But you know, if they were down the line, you know, reconfigure the building so that they only occupy portions of the building, then that may be a concern down the line. But I think with this proposal there wouldn't be that requirement. Okay. Thank you. All right. No other Commissioner Tong. Thank you. Chairman. Actually, Commissioner Bronsky triggered another question from mine also regarding the building. So in the future, right now, they may have sectioned off for, I don't know, 100 units. And maybe based on the new sub tenants coming in, they may have to re partition or plumbing, electrical and all the things may change. And when that happens, do we need to do new inspections, issue new CEOs. What's the process on that. So I believe that would be self-managed. But that may be something that the building official could address. I don't know if there are requirements for. I also want to add this does not exempt them from from acquiring building permits for interior alterations. They would still need those through the city and we could manage it through that process. Okay. But that's subleasing, right? When they're subleasing, they still have to go through the building permit process. That's correct. Anything that requires a permit is going to need to come through the city's building inspections department. Thank you. All right. One last question from me. Is there a maximum size for any subtenant. So there are. Let me go back. It was for the moderate intensity manufacturing and the and the distribution center and warehouse. They are limited to 20,000ft■!S per tena. Okay. Per tenant. Yeah okay. All right. Thank you. And all kinds of lights jumping. Okay. Commissioner lolly. So are you. Like, I have a question. Like, what's the definition of the moderate intensity like industrial. So what what are the like some of the uses, like welding. What does it involve? So in short, it may just be something that requires assembly. But they would also be fabricating something out of non hazardous materials. And so welding you know it's part of it. It's potentially I think that could be part of the assembly process. You know I think if there was you know they had to let's say manufacture an aluminum part and to put put parts together to make the product. I think that could follow the moderate intensity manufacturing. The reason I'm asking, because now if we have like one whole building and you have different tenants, you have to have a firewall between the tenants, right? But in this case, you're like, you don't have one, right? So it's like everybody is going to be exposed to any hazards that's going to be coming from like anywhere else. Right? Right. And so I think if there are additional concerns or additional mitigation that is required, the applicant would have to meet that to meet our code requirements. Getting into anything that's using transforming raw materials into something that gets into the heavy manufacturing category, which not is not permitted here. Light is purely a symbol moderate. You may have some fabrication and heavy as you're using raw source products to create new chemicals. Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner Bruno. Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your reference to Subtenants raises a question in my mind as to is there a primary tenant who is leasing the whole property from an owner and who and who is in turn then subleasing to individual unit sub tenants? Yeah. So we're space. That's the image I have here. So they're the associated business with this request. And so they would be managing the whole space. And so they manage all the shared facilities such as the truck docks and everything, manage all the sub sub lessees with the business. Wait a minute. You're not understanding my question. You're talking about managing. I'm talking about in order to have a sub tenant, you have to have a primary tenant who does the sub leasing. Right? Where is where space and owner or like a tenant who is leasing from an owner. So they would be the primary tenant for the whole building and then sublease the spaces that are needed. Okay. So some of the issues that the commissioners have raised in their questions come up like an unauthorized use or some condition of the property that needs to be remedied or something, who would be responsible to address it? It would be primary tenant, the owner who it would be the CEO holder. And, you know, they usually also would probably imply the sub lessee as well to work with the co holder, who would be the co holder. That would be where space in this case. Yeah. Who is the primary tenant. I think it would be where space. In that case if they have more subleases than okay I don't know if we have the maybe the building official come down and clarify the process. Yeah okay. Okay. Please state your name and title. My name is Salsa Mata, chief building official. So we will view the entire building as one space that is going to be sectioned out with different leaf spaces. As we understand it, a different building type. So the CEO would be issued to wear space, which will be the building owner as I understand it. They'll also manage the space. What we did was look at a chapter in the building code, which was a point that Commissioner Ali pointed out, where there are different uses and there are different walls that are required between spaces, certain spaces, there are spaces that are allowed. The building code gives different determinations to building spaces than the zoning ordinance of Be is a business, S1 is a storage. There are even F ones which are factory. A lot of those when they align and are next to each other. To my surprise, because I don't see this a lot, but I looked at it and researching don't require a wall between them. That is fire rated. Some do and some don't based on the type of business that's going in. But with the. I guess, the maintenance and requirements that where SpaceX proposes oversight of that will be avoided because spaces will align with what is allowed per the building code. Looking at their business model, they have practiced this before looking at other area cities that have also have them in place. We're we're learning what the use is doing and how it's being how it's being spread out among the entire space. There are many of them. It was a concern of ours that if we were going to see each individual space, it might take. It might have a lot of different spaces that we would look at. And from time to time they may be different. And if there were, if it was something that we could help staff understand, the monthly report was something that we thought would be proactive and helpful to convey all the information of what are all the spaces in there. So looking at it monthly, we thought that we could handle that. Also, working with Neighborhood services, investigating any complaints. As you all know, one of the things that we do, along with development and construction is investigate complaints. We get some of the best information from citizens and business owners who are watching their spaces. So I think knowing that and having experience that, we believe that we and working with where space, we believe that it is possible to manage the spaces so we don't have a situation that would be of any concern, safety concerns from a building code standpoint. Again, as Mr. Kim mentioned, the building before has sprinklers in place, which will be adjusted as necessary because the plans will be required to look at all the sprinkler heads, and there will be some adjustment that is necessary for the sprinkler heads to activate as necessary. And as as the fire department looks at that, the exits will remain in place. And I think it's probably got more exits than it needs, because it's not the same space as it was as an occupancy when it was a Fry's. Now it's different space. The exits will probably still be will probably be accessible. As we look at the plans going forward. So I don't know if I've answered your question as I'm rambling on. I'm sorry, but Mr. Bruno, did that address your concern? The thrust of my question was to make sure that there is an entity that is identifiable, who would be responsible to the city for compliance with all city ordinances. Yes. Space. That is it. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. I guess I should have just said that first. I appreciate your summary, though. That was. That was helpful, Commissioner Tong. Thank you. Chair. Mr. Chairman, my question. I'm not sure if it's to. The building permit or Mr. Kim, this is a simple question regarding the use of the space or the zoning, I guess ordinance, because this is new. I understand this is the first time Plano has some special use for like this in our city. So I see that we're rezoning it to corridor Commercial with a special use permit, I guess. Would it be easier to just rezone it to light commercial or light industrial? Or what's the pros and cons between these two type of changes? So it's already zoned as hello okay. It is already zoned as PD 58 cc. And so I think just modifying the plan development in this location, you know, maybe simpler I think, you know, if it was rezoned to light industrial or other kind of zoning, it may be incompatible with some of the surrounding areas. For example, if it was light industrial, there's an apartment complex right across the street. And, you know, light industrial may be very incompatible with residences. And so I think that would, you know, create some challenges. And so I think through the PD requiring some additional restrictions, that kind of helps us to, you know, make this use as compatible as it could be to the adjacent area. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Returning to light industrial here would allow much more additional uses in this area that are industrial in nature that we're currently prohibiting through this plan development process. Also, the number of truck docks and things that are more industrial in nature to the building are being limited through this plan development. If we went to light industrial, that would not be the case. Commissioner Ali, more of a statement. Tell me if I'm wrong in my understanding. Essentially, again, out of the box. Use. I actually upload planning department for thinking about this. We requiring one co the liabilities on that one co owner to stay within our building code and building permits and what have you. Any violation in those little spaces is on the head of the one co owner to go address in order to maintain their Co correct. Mr. Bender thank you chairman just just a comment. I think this is a great small business incubator and I think with great access to the city. So I like I like the concept comment. Right. Thank you Commissioner. All right. No more comments from the commission. I'm going to open the public hearing. And I do believe we have some registered speakers, one of which is the applicant. If y'all would like to come forward, do y'all have a presentation for us? Get to the presentation. Oh, state your name. And Bill, you know the routine. Here we go. Great. Thank you. Thanks, Mr. Chair. Commission. My name is Bill Dahlstrom, 2323 Ross Avenue. It's privileged to be here tonight on behalf of where? Space and Commissioner Bender, you took some of my thrust. This is an opportunity to create a space for incubating small businesses in the city. They get in, they get a smaller space, and as they grow, we can accommodate where space can accommodate their growth. But as staff said, it's a unique business concept. We don't have it in the zoning ordinance. We spent a lot of time, quite a bit of time crafting this definition, making sure that as again, staff said, we've got a use that somewhat of an industrial character, but is not incompatible with the surrounding surrounding land uses. So we spent an incredible amount of time with me tonight. Are Jason Thornburg and Jeff Jenkins from Ware Space who have been involved with this also from from day one. And to continue our presentation, I'm going to turn it over to Jason. He's got a presentation on other facilities like this, and he can answer your questions as far as the operations go. So, Jason. Commissioners, thank you for your time tonight and having us. And we look forward to being a part of this community and helping small businesses. That's our one goal. So give us your full name and address. Jason Thorberg I'm the vice president, construction with workspace 10632 Little Patuxent Parkway, Columbia, Maryland. So. So where space. We are a real estate company that owns, manages, operates, maintains warehouse buildings throughout the country. We take whether it's a, you know, old generation warehouse building that's doesn't meet modern industrial clear heights or old retail that's gone obsolete office buildings, call centers using the built environments already there to bolster and support small businesses. Our sole purpose is to provide the best warehouse space we can for small businesses. That may be mom and pops who have outgrown their basement or their garage or wherever they may be working, but at the same token, aren't far enough along in the life cycle of their company to go rent a 5 or 10,000 square foot warehouse from your normal channels. Net. By the same token, with all of that, we provide an all in package whereby in a normal, you know, traditional model of small business have to go factor all this in, whether it be industrial racking to store their product on electrical break rooms, restrooms, logistics areas for loading docks, the material handling equipment to handle their their products and that provide that all in so that they can use this area and forms a collaborative environment where all the nice thing we see is a lot of these small businesses help each other out, and it provides a real sense of community, which is great to see everyone helping each other as they in that small business incubator space. So. So as you're aware, this building was the former Fry's Electronics store, which again, older retail that has is no longer no longer functioning as a retail. Our goal is to repurpose this and reactivate this portion of the city and again, bring that activity in there to help small businesses. With the exterior of the building. We plan to keep the facade in that as far as the structure in that the same outside of adding additional drive in doors and some loading dock areas as we've described. We can go into further detail on the site plan. We'll repaint it and then again as as the owner and operator and sole tenant, if you if you will, or lead tenant, primary tenant if that's the right word. And our signage would be the only one there in conjunction with the city's ordinances. So with this facility, as you can see, we've got office areas where tenants can rent their own offices. We have shared amenity spaces for the break rooms, the restrooms, conference rooms the tenants are able to use, and then also the logistics areas. So upon stabilization of this, we would based on other buildings in our portfolio, typically between 120 to 160, roughly small businesses calling this section of Plano home and be able to thrive together with. With that, like I said, we'll be having the existing using the existing loading docks on the rear of the building that are currently screened, and then also adding new loading docks on the side to just given the number of tenants in that to be able to help facilitate getting product in and out and support their businesses. We do we do plan to have on some of the larger units that are all on the perimeter of the building, dedicated private drive in, loading locations, just they can pull product up, up, as opposed to having to go through a common area that would not be loading docks, that would just be an avenue so they can pull up and fight from their cars. I think I skipped the one there, one I missed there. So with this, there was a picture that was on here. I think it was it was on one of the previous slides that the staff had. But we provide the shelving in the units. So we build these partitions walls out. We're using racking a tenant arrives. And again, rather than having to set up and purchase their own shelving, they can start storing their product right on the shelves. And that trying again, as building commissioners alluded to, we keep everything within zoning ordinances, building requirements, building code, fire code, and otherwise to make sure that we're envisioning a safe building for. Touch screens. Give me issues here. So kitchen and lounge and that again those collaborative areas you can see that there as well as the conference rooms. And that again tenants are allowed. You can use and rent, you know, rent use throughout the space reserve for meetings. Typical corridors that we have. Again, we like to keep nice large corridors throughout these one for, you know, passing of products back and forth and for egress and safety, but just again creates a clean environment well lit. Just again, it fosters that collaborative environment with air conditioning. Otherwise, as opposed to working in a traditional warehouse where a tenant would have to install their own air conditioning and a lot of additional upfront costs, that we can provide that all in value. So with with our tenants again falling within the zoning and allowed uses. The vast majority of our tenants are warehousing. You're using this as a storage facility to operate their business out of we again running through logistics third party logistics a little bit on that front. Technology companies use distribute the light assembly of widgets, whatever that may be. Not heavy manufacturing by any stretch of the means. Again, we're trying to create an environment that is absent of loud noises and noxious odors and otherwise one from health and safety, but two, again, it helps us to lease up the building to again, we want that collaborative environment the people want to be in. In addition some of those offices. And that again allows some tenants who will operate out of their warehouses themselves out of their units themselves. Again, as companies, you know, companies that grow throughout their life cycle, they need more space. They decide they don't want to work in. You have their office desk in their warehouse space. They can get a separate office, a separate to bifurcate those two products in that. But again, providing that flexibility for tenants to grow within a space. Nice. So again, with all of this, what we're doing is all inside, confined into the walls of the building. I know there's a small section of open storage that was on the original Fry's plan, which we plan to just leave as is. But beyond that, no plans for outdoor storage beyond the fleet vehicle storage. Again, if a tenant is operating within the business, let's just say a mobile dog grooming, they have that where they're going to. This is their home. This is their main base. They're going to store their their products in that inside their their vans may park out there in the fleet storage overnight. They'll load up and then disperse out to wherever they may be operating across the metroplex. Just going through a couple just ideas, typical tenants that we have throughout there. Again, it varies, but again, all predominantly small businesses. So we're not looking to turn this into a large scale distribution center that, again, would not fit the character of this site. Commissioner Brounoff, just to answer, I apologize if I pronounce your name correctly, but to answer your question, you asked a question about special electric and units and water and units. The vast majority of our tenants will provide just a basic outlets within the units themselves. There are one offs where a tenant may need equipment for equipment connection, or they may need water and sewer for whatever that means. Very, very small percentage. But again, when that comes up, that's part of the leasing process. And again, we make tenants very clear that there's a building permit process. Anything that requires a building permit. We're going through working with the staff to get the respective permits as required. Fortunately, with this building, there is a lot of power. So good thing is we have the power to be able to meet those tenants needs if should it arise. So. I think it's also clarified as well as some other questions. We where space we own operate maintain we are the owner as opposed to we're not entering into a lease. We are we are the entity. So we are fully operating and responsible for that. And then we license lease out the individual spaces to the tenants. Throughout that. So as far as certificates of occupancy, again working with building department in those, what we've seen with other municipalities, especially North Richland Hills, we're providing that monthly report just keeps up, you know, as especially as we're going through the lease up period. Here's the tenants that we have in the building, especially once we reach stabilization. That really doesn't move a whole lot as far as what those tenants are. But again, it's providing we're obviously the first line of defense. We're not leasing this to tenants who aren't allowed to be in here, whether it be by zoning or based on their building code, uses other definitions to make sure that we're in compliance for the safety of everyone within the buildings. So typically, what we are doing, Commissioner Ali, we're meeting the building permit requirements as far as separations. Typically we're designing these buildings as non separated mixed uses. Again the F1's the S ones and that the B's that where they can commingle without having to do required separation walls on them. So one thing we do throughout this also monitor this. We also don't do high pile storage from fire hazard standpoint to reduce that fire load within the building. One reason we do 12 foot high walls across is because that's an easy policing to be able. For our general manager, we have full, full time general managers who operate on the site. It's not an absent operation, which again helps police that and maintain that community as well. But the general manager can walk through the building and see, hey, we've got a tenant who's storing above, above our walls. I can see that they're storing too high. They need to get it down and can help ensure that safety. With that, I appreciate the time. I'm happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have. Thank you very much. Very thorough, Commissioner Bronsky. So I did have a question about I think I saw somewhere that things like 3D printing and things like that are stuff that you support in some of this. So we again, as long as it meets the zoning and the building code, we will allow that. As long as with that, again, we don't provide that machinery or equipment. But again, if a tenant has a 3D printing business and they were to move in and bring their equipment, that's probably something where more than likely it would require a little bit additional power. That was going to be my question was I, I've, I'm familiar with a couple different groups that are doing that, and it seems like they've had to make some very significant power upgrades to their to be able to operate, especially the initial surge of the devices to begin with. And do you anticipate that what you currently have there would be able to meet that kind of a demand? Yes. Fortunately, when this building was built with the retail amount of lighting required, and back then it was metal halide lights, which require significantly additional wattage versus LED fixtures. Today, as we go through this, also, we will refixture this entire building and put new LED fixtures to be more energy efficient. But again, given that and the draw that was the system was originally designed for and the capacity in it, while we're removing that capacity but not having metal halide fixtures, we have the capacity to allow for within the confines of the existing service, additional power. Okay. That's good. Second question. I think you kind of answered it, but I just want to be really clear. You talked about, you know, your tenants growing in the space, right? Which sometimes means they need to take over new space, or they need to knock down walls and make changes. So you're committing that we're going to we're not going to see a wall or two knocked down, but not coming back to the city to make those kind of changes correct. Wherever we needed to get building permits. We will go through that process with the building department as we allow for again, as allowed by the building department, that our corridor walls always remain intact so that we're not affecting passive egress and the emergency exits, as well as our spines, the buildings as we lay them out, those state costs as well. Some of the sub walls going perpendicular to the corridor, again, allowing that flexibility for tenants to remove a small section of racking in the siding that creates that tenant separation, to allow them to grow in place or find a unit that's of larger square footage within the building elsewhere. My final question, and it's more of a comment. I'm really happy to hear about your full time general manager on site, which means that should we have problems with the CEO, we can come directly to that person rather than having to serve somebody in Maryland and go through a long process, and you're committing that. That's going to be something we're going to keep up on a positive way. We have currently 11 facilities across the country, and each one has its own dedicated general manager. We're in the process of an additional eight in various parts of the country as well. Again, with that, that's our M.O. We operate. That's how we find the best way to lease the building, operate it, and get that camaraderie and community amongst developed amongst the tenants. So I really appreciate what you're bringing to the table. I appreciate more than you know what you're doing on this particular property. I think it's a great concept, and I really think it's going to be a big asset to Plano as well as to this particular location. So I'm going to be in favor of this. Thank you, Commissioner Lingenfelter. So I agree with everybody. As far as I do think this is a is a great concept. I come from the office side of things. So you see this same kind of concept in the office world with co-working environments and things like that. My only drawback, my only concern, and it sounds like, you know, code enforcement and everything, they're they're on top of it, you know, in the office room realm, you know, you might have a use that comes in that, you know, maybe they come in with a lab or something and then they get discovered and okay, then we got to evict them and do all that stuff. How how are you? Since these walls are do not go to deck. They're not demised not fully demised. They're not fire rated. How do you control the use for like people storing chemicals, flammable chemicals or or fire, fire, combustible type things that that can really cause a pretty significant issue. How are you policing that? They don't go 12ft high where you don't see it when you're walking the corridor, but they're in the space? What are are we allowing that kind of use? Are we allowing that kind of thing going on where we have something that's highly flammable? So we do not, as a general rule, allow hazardous materials or let's just say woodworking. For instance, if other if other improvements are required to support that use, let's use woodworking as an example. Again, not one we see often, but woodworking produces a lot of fine, highly flammable dust. If we were to have a woodworking use in a building, it would be required to go through again. That'd be something with extra permit process to get the dust collection systems and exhaust and otherwise for that. So as a general rule, hazardous materials are not allowed in there. I do know that obviously from a fire code standpoint, certain household amounts of, let's just say cleaners and otherwise sometimes once you go above those thresholds of household amounts, can constitute more of a hazardous material. We require all the tenants to log any of those hazardous household materials with the general manager, and the general manager keeps a log of those so that they can help police it, so that, again, we're making sure that on an aggregate across the building, we're not exceeding those thresholds from a fire sprinkler standpoint. Typically we're designing to an ordinary hazard to use group. Since we're not we're staying below that 12 foot threshold. We're not dealing with high pile, which again kicks up additional requirements. And that again, part of the reason that we can, like I said, building code, zoning ordinance, fire code. There's all all these boxes we have to check before we allow a tenant to move in. If in the event that we were to again, this is we're all everyone's human here. But again, if we're told that a tenant doesn't do this, doesn't do that, then we find out that they do do that. There's grounds for eviction in our lease for that to again, police that for the betterment of the community. Right. Commissioner Brounoff, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I also have to agree this is a unique and interesting concept and I'm generally in favor of it. I just want to make sure point out one thing to make sure you're aware of it. One of the slides you showed referred to the types of tenants that might, you know, rent space within the facility here and under the heading of like professional services, you had lawyers listed. And I from reading the packet, there was a reference to the fact that the walls subdividing the units may not reach all the way to the roof of the building. Lawyers are required to maintain confidentiality between all their dealings with their clients, which means if you rent to a lawyer, the space will have to be completely enclosed. Correct? Either walls going up to the roof of the building, or a ceiling installed. An absence of windows where someone in an adjacent office or out in the corridor could be able to look in and see confidential documents or something on a computer screen, and enough soundproofing to where conversation could not be overheard from the corridor or an adjacent building. Correct? Make make you aware of that. I'm not saying don't don't lease to lawyers, but but if you do, there is there's that important consideration. Understood. Yeah. Typically when we see a lawyer renting a space, a lot of times it may be in just an office area or otherwise. Again, where we do provide ceilings, we do provide insulation in the walls. And that to help mitigate some of those. Thank you. Commissioner Olli. And I presume it's up to the lawyer to maintain those confidentiality and the liabilities under. But to his point, you showed construction, I think, as one of the possible tenant types and e-commerce, which I presume is not retail in function. It's more of a dropship. Correct. The zoning ordinances tend to protect the environment from the building use, but I don't think we regulate like noise levels inside the building or particulate matter inside the building. Do you have any what's the plan to ensure that this is safe space for the entrepreneurs and the business owners and what have you? It's similar to the household use of chemicals or otherwise, those hazardous materials or pseudo hazardous materials. When combined, the aggregate again, noise, noxious fumes, dust generators, otherwise all grounds within our lease that again it becomes a nuisance. It becomes an issue. They have grounds. We have grounds for eviction of those tenants. Again, our our goal. It behooves us to have a quiet, not odor free zone or otherwise to lease up the entirety of the building. So essentially, the market will force you to keep your space in some regard. And again, I would I will say in the 11 facilities that we have in operation right now, I have not once noticed a noxious fume or excessive noise, continuous excessive noise. Somebody may run a cart into something. You can't prevent that. But again, not the consistent banging or otherwise. When we have construction companies who may lease space from us, typically they're using it to store maybe a, you know, small materials or otherwise, they're they're not actively constructing things within the units. Thank you, Commissioner Lolly. So I have a question about the loading docks. Like you're adding 4 or 6 loading docks now. But you said also in your presentation that you are adding or you have the possibility of, you know, tenants pulling up to their spaces on both sides, on both ends, on some of the, on the perimeter, the larger perimeter units. Yes, yes, yes. So you know, like so from your experience on your other locations, what's the traffic load on this. Like something similar to this facility? I'd say far less than retail in office. That is the one you like. But they're going to be like a like a trucks or like a semi trailers. So we will get semi trailers again. We get them for deliveries during the day. They don't sit overnight. But how are you like how do you rate the traffic. Like is it like how many per hours or I don't know that off the top, I don't have that data off the top of my head, but I will say it's far less than a typical modern industrial class. A new tilt up warehouse building and I it's not constant traffic throughout there. And I believe you like the city, probably looked into this like we did, and we actually toured their North Richland Hills facility. I asked the manager there the exact same question. I think the answer that we got was rarely is it an issue, but there is some times where one truck has to sit and wait for somebody to get done unloading, and then they wait their turn, but that's infrequent. It's not like there's a line running back into the street to wait to load. And that's part of the reason why we want additional. We're showing the number of docks that we're going to build right now to alleviate some of those waiting. Again, we it's very rare that we'd ever have all six of the initial ones that are proposed into existing plus four for additional now very rare that we have trucks at all six of those locations. But again, there are always those one offs where somebody may stack but allows us to prevent that stacking elsewhere so that tenants can access those goods and get like, yeah, my question is not for those like loading docks, but like for the other, you're like, how many units on the perimeter? That's like the people can pull into. So like it's a lot of traffic going in and out or. No, no. So on those private ones again, they're not high positions either. So semi trucks, large large trucks aren't pulling up to if somebody has a pickup truck that they're using for business, they can roll that up and pull stuff off straight into their unit. Again, having a larger unit, we see that as a benefit since they're not having to navigate throughout the corridors to the shared common areas. Again, part of one of the benefits of the selling points of having a larger dedicated unit. And I assume that you have a schedule for people like, do they have to book the loading dock? No, no. Again, typically we typically don't have those kind of issues. But again, part of the reason why we try to have, you know, this runs around our ratio. We look some of the ratios as far as square foot docks per square foot across some of the facilities. And this kind of hits that sweet spot. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bronsky. One last question. We've been talking a lot about track one. What's going on with track two. So right now we have no plans for track two. Again, our our focus solely as a company is warehouses. To serve small businesses. We would probably look to market that and potentially sell that off to someone else developer who may be able to use that for its highest and best use, which, subject to further future proceedings for zoning site plan. Otherwise. So are we making a change to both tracks? So the change to the track that the smaller track against the highway is to remove it from the PD so that it reverts back to just the baseline commercial corridor district. All right. Thank you. All right. Any other questions of the applicant? Seeing none I think we have one more registered speaker. Is that correct? Thank you for your time. Thank you very much for your presentation, Mr. Bill Lyle from Lyle Incorporated. Please state your name and address. Good evening, commissioners. My name is Bill Lyle, 1724, 15th place. I'm just reading from the executive summary here at the bottom of the paragraph, it says, since this use does not fit any listed use allowed in the corridor commercial zoning district, a new use is proposed. Then under that it goes one, two, three. Number three says to create a new use of commercial flex warehouse. A couple paragraphs later, the zoning ordinance could accommodate this as a warehouse distribution center. However. Warehouse distribution center use is much broader than the commercial warehouse use. Proposed warehouse. Distribution center is not allowed in the corridor commercial zoning district. Therefore, the petitioner is requesting to allow a new use called Commercial Flex Warehouse. Through the plan. Development. If you go to chapter 14.400, in our zoning ordinance, it says classification of new and unlisted uses. It is recognized that new types of land uses will develop and form, and forms of land use that are not anticipated may seek to locate in the city of Plano in order to provide for such a change. Changes in contingencies, a determination as to the appropriate classification of any new or unlisted use form of land use shall be made as follows and it goes .1.2.3. There's a process that's spelled out here where you guys make a you consider the use, and then you take your recommendations to council. And then because it would be a text change, I'm assuming they have to give notice to everyone. And then you determine what zoning districts this use would be appropriate in. And then you change the use chart in 1401 and 1402. And then we're all treated equally, which is the point of zoning right here. You're using a PD to go around the zoning ordinance. If I own land in Lee one or Lee two or LC or retail, can I do this or not do this? Well, we don't know because you're not editing the zoning ordinance to make it available to everyone. You're using a PD to go around the zoning ordinance, and that's not allowed. Some other concerns that I have. Just as a matter of practical this. Sheet, the sheet that's got the color on it, it's the site plan. It's just got the color on it. It in the legend it says no parking, open storage, loading or other uses. Well, that's where the diagonal lines are, but the diagonal lines aren't everywhere else on the site. And so there's some argument that since the diagonal lines aren't on the rest of the site, that those things are allowed there. It's not a great argument, because there is one little section on the back of this building that's titled as open as as open storage, but I'm just concerned with this language that it could create confusion for someone down the road. This shouldn't say open storage as not allowed there, because open storage is not allowed anywhere except where it's specifically designated on the site. Plan. Your time is up, sir. Okay. Thank you. Mr. Lyle, would you like to address this? Has nothing to do with this. I. If you don't see me at the top of the stairs, I'm not going to talk on 840 later. Thank you. You want to address that question about assigning a new designation, please? Sure. I will address the first issue raised. And there are two methods that can be used when dealing with a new use. The first is the one that Mr. Lyle described. That's if you want to create a new use that can be allowed in various districts in the city. But there's also language about creating PD and PD district types is described in section 12.500 point one, which is an overlay PD district, which is what we're doing here, and it says a PD overlay may supplement the regulations of a standard zoning district. That's what's going on here. This this new use is a supplement to this particular PD. So this is an appropriate process to use. It's just an alternative to what Mr. Lyle proposed. Thank you very much. Do we have any other district. Do it if it's not allowed, do we have any other registered speakers? There are no other registered speakers. I'll close the public hearing. Commission comments. Anybody prepare to make a motion. So, Commissioner Ali. More of a comment. And which is why we asked the question on if this is specific to PD 58, just to ensure that we were. Not creating some kind of arbitrary uniqueness across the city that, you know, other folks could not take advantage of. With that in mind, I, I move that we approve agenda item number two A and two B as recommended by staff. Okay. Commissioner Binder, I would second the motion. All right. Commissioner Bronsky, you want to make a statement? I just have a question. Yeah. Mr. Lyle brought up the legend and the map. And I just want to clarify that. The legend is in no way. And I guess this is a city question. The legend is in no way allowing, even if a backhanded way for open storage to occur anywhere that is not specifically lined out. That's correct. So one of the stipulations of the PD is that open storage is not permitted, except where shown on the preliminary site plan. That's before you tonight. So those areas are specifically labeled where open storage is allowed. The reasoning why we added in that specific location that it wasn't allowed is because they're taking existing parking spaces and striping them off. Anywhere you have that kind of situation, it's kind of an invitation. If you've got a blank space, people tend to store stuff there as our experience in these areas. And so we just want to be extra clear in this location that open storage would not be permitted in that location. Okay. That's all I wanted to ask. Thank you. All right. Thank you. Commissioner, I do have a couple of comments about the site plan, but let's go ahead and vote on two a. Well, let's take did you make a motion on both or just two? A let's handle those one at a time. If you wouldn't mind amending your motion, please. Oh, sorry. Where are you? There you are. Move that. We approve agenda item number two, as recommended by Staff Commissioner Binder, I would second to a. All right. So we have a motion to approve item two A. And a second please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item 2BI have a question for staff on the site plan. If we can put it up on the screen, one of the things that the applicant said in their presentation is that there were going to be some units that had direct outside access doors, and I don't see those on the site plan anywhere. Can you? Maybe I'm not seeing them, but can you point those out to it was on his floor plan. It was on the applicant's floor plan, but I don't see it on the site plan that's in front of us for approval. Yeah. There you go. So as far as I'm aware, there really aren't any modifications to the entrances and exits that are currently existing. There were those proposed truck door entrances along the west side. You know, if the applicant wants to, you know, clarify whether they want to they wanted to add an entry or exit points. They may clarify, but as far as I'm aware, they weren't adding any. So from a staff perspective, it appears to me that if there were going to be additional outside doors, they should be on the west side of the building in the screened area, as opposed to the east side facing the street. We'd see them from the roadway. Is that a fair statement? So I think if it's, you know, maybe just a simple entry exit point, then I think, you know, that could be open to different locations. But if it is part of the, you know, loading operations or, you know, something related to the business activity, then I think it would be limited. Well, maybe I'll ask a question different. Does this need to be on the site plan? It's currently shown on the site plan. The two proposed future locations. Those are specifically called out on the site plan. They have two existing on the south side of the building proposing for on the west side of the building. And there's two proposed future that are just to the south of where they're proposing, the ones that will be built immediately. In our understanding, those are the eight locations where truck loading would be permitted. Okay, then let me ask the applicant real quick if you wouldn't mind coming back to the microphone in your presentation. You showed us on the floor plan it. You at least implied that basically everybody along the outside wall would have access to their own overhead door. Are you what you're showing on the site plan today? You see, it says private drive in, which implies everybody on that side would have access to an overhead door. Yeah. So there was a conversation with staff at one point about drive in doors, since we're not modifying any of the existing parking and they're not serving a loading dock, the drive up, drive up doors, they're not drive in doors. We're not allowing vehicles in the building that those weren't. Those were separate than loading docks. Loading docks were the primary concern. And that drive up doors were just additional access points on the exterior of the building. I think those need to be shown on the site plan. They're required, so they're proposed. Then we need to modify the site plan accordingly. And the reason the reason I'm bringing this up because typically overhead doors have not been allowed where you can open them up in the interior of the building, be visible from the public thoroughfare. And if I'm reading your site, plan your floor plan here correctly that you've got in front of us on the on the correct plan north side of your floor plan, that's where you're showing the overhead doors, which would be the plan east side of the building, which faces executive drive, which means somebody's driving down executive drive could look into the overhead door and inside your facility and see what was being stored there, which I don't think we've typically allowed. So even with living screening, if we had to put some of that along the drive. Well, I think I don't want to get into redesigning your site plan from the dais. We try to avoid that. It sounds like, at least from my perspective, we might need to let you work a little bit more on this with the staff and bring it back to us. So hang on, hang on, hang on. Let me turn your microphone on. We have a the layout does not reflect the actual site plan, right. Because they have the loading docks in like 90 degree and their layout showing it's 180, right? Yeah. I think that's that's why I'm confused I think so just like a prototype. Is this a prototype? No. This is laid out for the building. Yes. So the loading docks, the existing ones on the right plan on the right and left side on the right and left. You've got to rotate this plan 90 degrees because the front doors on the left. Yeah. Correct. The north side of the building is plan North is left. Yeah. So like I mean you're like on 180 degree. Right. But you're like on the site plan. It's showing like 90 degree. So we have a two loading docks on the south. Yeah. So we have loading docks. You currently show loading docks on the south and west sides of the building. And then on the and that's what their floor plan shows. So I think the question is what's happening on the east side of the building is that that's a that's a blow up they're showing. Correct. Yeah. So loading docks. Yeah. So the loading docks. Yeah. So we have those existing loading docks on the bottom of that, those, those two that are parallel with the street. Is that on the executive executive. Executive executive. And the other one and the other ones are on that side on the west side roughly centered, nearly centered on the west side on the plan that you're showing, it's it looks like it's on both sides. It's the same. It's just rotated 90 degrees. The plan with the colors. Can we go back to. Sure. Be nice if we had them next to each other? Because to me it's like, yeah, on one on this side and one on this side. Yeah. So this if you rotate it 90 degrees, the screen 90 degrees, it's still the same orientation. But it's still. No. You're like on the site plan one on the south side or west side, let's say west and then one on the north side. Right. But on this one it's opposite sides. I don't believe. No. So are you asking about. Yeah. So north and south like on their website on their this one and this one. Yeah. 90 degree. It's not opposite sides. So you're like yeah I have mine. So it's not here and here. Yes. So this isn't the same orientation. You could have the applicant not approach the dais. Please go back to the back to the speaker. Thank you. Sorry, sorry. To me. It's like give me just a second. Let me talk. City attorney okay. Yeah. You know, you're okay. Yeah. Sorry. That's the idea I don't know. Okay. Sorry. So. Yeah. So. Okay. Do you. Yeah. I'm good, I'm good. Yeah. No. I'm good, I'm good. Okay. Okay. Yeah. Because you're like, I thought that it's under 80. All right. Commission, let me kind of lay out what our challenges here. So we've already approved the zoning change. And that's headed on to council on the calendar process. And we have an affiliated site plan that, at least in my opinion, I believe needs to be modified. But we can't table it because it needs to go with the zoning ordinance to council. So what I'm being advised is I think the appropriate process would be assuming that we don't have any other issues with the site plan. If the only issue is these overhead doors that we consider approving the site plan as presented with the understanding that it does not show these grade level doors that you say are in your plan, and then you would be required to come back and amend your site plan, which can be done by the Planning and Zoning Commission. It doesn't have to go to council. Okay. So you would have to amend your site plan immediately whenever you're ready or once council approves it. Otherwise we've got a we don't really have a way to back up and unapproved your zoning ordinance to hold it till next meeting. We don't have a process for that. So we're kind of in a catch 22 here a little bit from a clarification standpoint, especially on the east, the east side of the building facing it, if it were just doors, sets of double doors as opposed to overhead doors, is that no longer subject to? I would probably want to defer that to council just one second. Yeah. But the idea is that. It's just. Like the old doors. And. Let's take a five minute recess if we could, please. And we'll reconvene in five minutes. So. Okay. Michelle. All right. Let's reconvene, Henry, if you would, please. All right. Let's reconvene back into session, please. All right. A lot of discussion and advice and legal and planning input. And it sounds like the appropriate way to move forward. I'm going to make a motion and then we can see if there's a second for it. I would make a motion. We approve the site plan to be as presented with a condition that the applicant work with the staff to make revisions regarding the openings on the east side between now and when it goes to council, and make sure that the staff will validate that it meets all of our requirements for facade and openings on that, for openings on that facade. One quick clarification. Let me get a second. Then we can ask questions. Is there? See if there's a second for that. Commissioner Lingenfelter I'll second that. Okay. And I'm I'm I'm breaking all kinds of rules here. But I will let the let the applicant clarify if he'd like to. A quick clarification. The working with staff on the openings would be on both the East and the west sides, working with staff as far as any openings, not just the east side, because we have the same potential on the west side as well. Okay. Thank you for the clarification. All right. Well then I'll amend my motion to say work with staff regarding openings on east and west facades between now and the council meeting to confirm that they comply with all applicable codes and ordinances. And Commissioner Lingenfelter, I'll second that. Okay. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion on this? All right. Let's vote. Commissioner Bronsky, I don't think your vote is registered yet. There we go. Motion passes 7 to 1. So if you all would please work with staff in this week and try to get those modifications made and have those ready for City Council. Thank you, thank you. Appreciate it. All right. Thank you. I appreciate the incubator that you're bringing to town. I really am excited about the opportunity. I think it's going to be a great addition to that part of town. Thank you. All right. Item three, item number three, zoning case 2020 5-008, A request to amend section 10.130 0RT Research Slash Technology Center district of the Zoning Ordinance to remove section ten dot 13 00.4. D consistent with the implementation of Ordinance Number 2011. Dash 5-7 petitioners, the City of Plano. This item is for legislative consideration. Thank you and good evening. Commission. My name is Jordan Rokeby. I'm the lead planner in the development Services work group of the Planning Department. So this is a proposed text amendment to the district. The r t district was established in. I forget the year it was established, but it was amended in 2011 to remove some sections in response to some economic development concerns. The full text of the zoning ordinance was under review at the time, and when the ordinance was adopted in full in 2015, one section that was removed in 2011 was accidentally retained in that 2015 ordinance. So the proposed amendment is to delete what is now subsection 10,304 D, consistent with the ordinance that was adopted in 2011. The text of that section is currently on screen, and it will be repeated in the recommendation slide as well. This amendment is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan as described on the screen and in your packet. We did receive one response in favor of this amendment and one letter, which was a duplicate of that response received through our Zoning case response tool. And the recommendation is for approval as shown on the screen and in your packet. Happy to answer any questions you all may have. Commission any questions of the staff. Yeah. Commissioner, one comment is I am so thankful that we have the zoning case response tool to allow our citizens that kind of input, and I think it goes a long way to show how intentional the city is about hearing from the citizens and intentionally seeking input. So I just want to put that out there and say thank you, thank you. And I'll give a brief shout out to our GIS team. These text based cases weren't on there for a while, so I think this is one of the first ones where we're actually receiving responses for a text case through that tool. That's good to know, Commissioner. Any other questions? Any other questions of staff? None. All right. I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any registered speakers on this item? The applicant is registered to speak only the applicant. All right. Is that Scott Williams? Is that correct? Is Scott here? No, Mr. Williams, he was the person who wrote the letter in support. He's unable to attend tonight. Okay. He was registered as a speaker as well. So. Okay. Nobody else. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Mr. Bronsky, I move, we approve. Approve agenda item number three, as recommended by staff. Mr. Bruno, I second, I have a motion in a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. All right. Non public hearing items. Item number four and commission if you'll bear with me we'll take a break after item six. Unless somebody needs one before then. Items for individual consideration. Non public hearing items. 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 insure meeting efficiency, and may include a total time limit. Agenda item number four Coit Road Office and mini Warehouse addition block one, lot one are major vehicle repair on one lot on 2.2 acres. Located on the west side of County Road, 320ft south of Plano Parkway. Zoned Light Industrial One and located within the 190 Tollway. Slash Plano Parkway, an expressway corridor. Overlay districts. The applicant is 601 Coy Partners LP. This item is for legislative consideration of parking reduction request. Good evening Commissioner, can y'all. Can y'all hear me now? There you are. Now you're on. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Destiny woods, planner with the planning department. So this graphic shows the submitted preliminary site plan for the major vehicle repair building expansion. And 91 parking spaces are required based on the zoning ordinance for the number of employees and service bays that are proposed. 73 parking spaces are provided with the proposal, which is equivalent to the 20% maximum reduction that this commission is authorized to approve, and the applicant has provided a parking analysis regarding the anticipated parking demand based on its operations. And so, per that analysis, the proposed use will demand a maximum of 62 spaces at its busiest time of day. And the memo was reviewed by the engineering department and no issues with the data or methodology were noted. So the conditions for a 20% planning and zoning issued parking reduction have been met. As noted in the staff report, and these are the conditions on the screen. And this item is recommended for approval with the 20% parking reduction as requested. I'm happy to answer any questions. Commissioners, any questions of staff. Commissioner Holly, just one on the methodology. Two issues peak parking for auto service is not a Tuesday at 9 a.m. I would assume that's a weekend. That would be a peak parking to observe. If the 31 and the 62 spaces are appropriate. I'm surprised parking services or what have you did not have issue with that? That's correct. The Engineering or traffic division of engineering did not have an issue with that. I believe the applicant may be here to discuss their methodology, but I'm not sure. Okay, I'll reserve my other question for the applicant. Yeah we can. Yeah, we'll we will we can allow them up here in just a minute. Let's finish questions for the staff and then we can talk to the applicant. Any other questions for staff Commissioner alley okay. Commissioner lolly, I would like to know how do you determine the ratio? The parking ratio. Because we're getting a lot of parking reduction requests. So you're like, how does the city determine the parking ratios? Yes. So it's determined by our zoning ordinance. And article 16 it describes the use which is major vehicle repair. And the proposed use will require parking for the number of employees. So the exact number of employees that are expected at a shift, maximum parking needs to be provided for that number. And then also parking is required for each three parking spaces per service bay. So that's how we calculate that number. And you like. And how do you determine these numbers like per employee or you know like is there like a national standards that you go off. No. So the applicant will provide us with their capacity to what they're proposing in their request. I believe what you're asking is what is the reasoning that it's set at one space. Exactly. There are industry standards. There are groups that take a look at the parking of different kinds of uses and propose those. And then cities modify them to their own needs. I think it's been some time since we've looked at the kind of standard parking ratios in the ordinance, but that's being looked at as one of the modules with the rewrite advisory committee. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Tom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is what's the reason? Do you know why they requested reduction? Are they looking to expand the shop? Yes. So they are expanding the building by about around 15,000ft■!S. So they're using some of the space that was occupied by parking before. We're now a building will be. And in conducting their parking analysis, they realized we actually don't need this much parking. So they're requesting to reduce the required amount. So did we or the staff or the engineer do any analysis on the parking requirements after the addition that's been done, like if after the 15,000ft■!S being added to the building, what would the requirement on the parking be? Yes. So with the 15,000 square foot addition, the parking requirement is let me go back to that slide. 91 spaces that are required. And we conducted this analysis based on their proposed building and not the existing building. So this entire presentation is based on the proposed. Okay. Gotcha. Thank you. I have one question for you, if you wouldn't mind. I know based on your analysis, there's not really a place for parking to overflow. Is that correct? Should there be a problem? Is that right? So overflow is not anticipated since according to this analysis, there over parts by their demand. So we didn't anticipate any overflow or issues to other properties nearby. But if I read the staff report correct, there's not really a place for it to overflow. If that was the case, is that right? Other than down the street or across the street? Right. So to the south there's a train track and you'd you'd have to do a lot to park southern and then yes, that's what the staff report is getting at. Okay. So my follow up question is there's a dedicated fire lane through here is the fire department comfortable. Is this well back up. Has this tenant or or occupant had a good track record with the fire department keeping the fire lanes open? I'm not sure about their track record, but they are. They do have a fire lane that's proposed around the site. And our fire department did review the plan and was satisfied with their coverage. Okay. Commissioner Bronsky, so when they had the site the way it currently sits with 91 parking spaces, did we did we is that the number they were required to have at that operational time when we approved this originally. And so you're speaking of the existing lot how it's currently I don't believe they're required to have a 91 spaces, but it would have been based on the amount of service bays and employees they had at that time as well. So here's my math that's confusing me. We're expanding the operation, but we're actually reducing the number of parking. So the property this was recently city right of way. We had excess right of way on road. So the parking that's there was technically within city right of way. They have purchased that property from the city, thus thereby acquiring additional parking there. With that, they're now expanding their building into that area. So there was adequate parking before then. They've acquired the space, which was previously another building altogether. There was another use there at the time. They're tearing that down because they've acquired it and they want to expand. So there's, in our opinion, adequate parking in the location. Got it. Thank you, Commissioner Lawley. My question is do you like what's the use of the expansion, the addition. Is it going to be an auto repair because there's a mezzanine also it's still a major vehicle repair okay. Thank you. Commissioner Olli, I have questions on the methodology, but I'm actually wondering why I'm asking the applicant rather than the city on how did we get comfortable with the methodology that was proposed? They did a parking count based on the demand of their existing building, and they extrapolate that out based on the square footage expansion. So this is what we have at our peak times in our current facility. We anticipate this will be our peak time based on the square footage increase. And that was their methodology. It came out less than what the 20% requirement or 20% reduction would actually be. It's not a public hearing. Can we talk to the applicant? We'll do that next okay. Yeah. All right. Any other questions for staff? If I could just state one thing just because we have we have two of these tonight. Just a reminder to the commission that we and that the city installed this parking reduction program last year as a relief valve because we understood that our parking requirements may not fit the situation anymore, but there was no relief valve at all without going to Board of Adjustment or some council approved parking reduction programs. And so this was put in as a relief valve, as a temporary patch to get us through the rewrite, when we could evaluate the parking requirements as a whole. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Anybody. All right. I believe we do have an applicant here. And while this isn't a public hearing, I think we may have some questions. So are you representing the applicant tonight? Please state your name and address. My name is Jamie Gallagher. I am with Spires Engineering. We wrote the report and my address is 11468 Dumbarton Drive in Dallas, Texas. 75228. And then we have Liz with the ownership as well. Can you state your name and address to you? My name is Liz Clark at 601 Court Road, Plano, 75075 okay. Questions for the applicant, Commissioner Ali. Three questions. Why are we stating 9 a.m. On a Tuesday as peak? They are not open on the weekends. So typically on your Monday Tuesdays you get people dropping off the cars and they kind of put them in their queue. They'll work on them through the week trying to get them out. By Friday afternoon. Got it. Second question on the 31 spaces for demand is that those are people bringing in their cars. Those are people who cars have been worked on, but they have not picked it up. I'm going to guess they will leave the cars in the know where where the cars are currently. We don't leave any vehicles out at all unless they do not like if they're if they don't run, then they're out in the parking spot. But we pull all of one of our things is we pull all the vehicles inside the building to protect the client's vehicles. So after service is done, everything's inside. The drive by tonight, and they're the only vehicle that would be outside would be something that's that's been done, paid for and needs to be towed out. So it's like, you know, in the back. So last question and this is more nitpicky. You double the space. You had 62 plus 13 employees. That's 75. We are asking for two more spaces less. I'm being nitpicky. I don't know anything about that. I just know we don't. We don't. Yeah, it's just the 20%. It's only three. Essentially. Yeah, 20% made it 73. And that's, I believe, rounding in the favor of the city as well. So it'd be like 72.5. And I rounded up if that's right. And this gives us a little flexibility as they move to final site plan is the design changes a bit. There's a little bit of wiggle room. And we're also looking at I just want to say we're also looking at the site in the most strict circumstance inside the building. They have different uses for different spots. So there could be like a car wash bay inside the building. And we're counting that as a service bay. So three parking spaces for that as well. Yeah. And the explanation that they don't open on the weekends, what's kind of like the missing factor I did not have. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for the applicant? Mr. Bronsky, I move, we approve agenda item number four, as recommended by staff. Mr. Rowley. I'll second Mr. Lolly, did you have a comment or. Okay. All right. We have a motion and a second to approve item number four as presented. Oh, did I miss somebody, Commissioner Bruno? Sorry. Did you like. Come on. No, I just wanted to briefly say that I am pleased that the type of information that has been offered in support of this application relating to the number of demand parking spaces in relation to what they're asking for, is precisely the kind of information that we ought to be getting in order to support a parking reduction. And I'd like to see that that trend continued. Thank you, thank you, thank you, sir. Mr. Bender? Yeah, I just wanted to make a comment. I appreciate you expanding in Plano and staying in Plano. Thank you. Yeah. The owner has been in Plano for 30 years. He's excited to expand, actually, 3035. Thank you. All right, commissioners, we have a motion and a second on the table. Any other comments? Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you all very much. Look forward to your business growing. Thank you. Thank you. Item number five agenda item number five, Spring Creek Golf Center, block one, lot one data center on one lot on 16 acres, located on the north side of Spring Creek Parkway, 1250ft east of Parkwood Boulevard. Zoned commercial employment with specific use Permit number 336 for outdoor commercial amusement. The applicant is site DFW 01C, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration of a parking reduction request. Good evening commissioners. The purpose for the preliminary site plan is to propose an infill data center development, as shown on the next few slides. The required parking for data centers is one space for every thousand square feet of total building area. Based on the use and the size of the building, 363 parking spaces are required. The applicant has provided a parking memo regarding the parking demand of the proposed use, based on its operations. Per the memo, the proposed use will demand a maximum of 48 parking spaces. The memo was reviewed by the engineering department and no issues with the data or methodology were noted. The applicant is requesting a 20% reduction in the required parking from the Planning and Zoning Commission. The applicant is also proposing a stormwater conservation area to reduce the parking by another 10%, which is permitted under the zoning ordinance, which makes the reduction 30% total. The conditions for the 20% planning and zoning issued parking reduction have been met, as noted in the staff report. This item is recommended for approval with a 20% parking reduction as requested, and I'm available for any questions that you may have. Commission any questions of staff? Commissioner Bruno? Yeah. How did the data center get to be called a golf center? I believe it was originally a some golf or putt putt facility in the past, I see okay. So it takes a data center to count the strokes in the golf course is that. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Olli. Just one the stormwater conservation area, the 10% reduction. Does that mean we leave that as native land to ensure more permeable? You know what? Yes. So instead of draining it to an inlet to get piped out, it goes to some form of grassy swale to get filtered before it drains out. Makes sense. Thank you. Commissioner lolly, I, I wanted to ask, in your opinion, with the 30% reduction of parking with the data that you got from the applicant, do you think that it's like it satisfies the parking requirements will be enough? I mean, for the for the data center? Yes, I think we see we've seen several data centers over the last few years, and all of them have said they don't need nearly as much parking. So I think we'll look at that with the rewrite. I think the concern generally is that these buildings may get repurposed over time, and we want to make sure that there is some room for parking as another use. And so 20% seems like an appropriate reduction, even with the 10% and stormwater, still there should be adequate parking for this particular use. Thank you, Commissioner Ali, just to give some context to the commission, I was in this industry for a while. This is still too much parking for data centers security wise and what have you. Data centers restrict access to people. Commissioner Tom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My question is that this is this is existing building and they're just asking for reduction for parking. This is a proposed building a proposed. So there haven't they haven't built anything yet. Thank you. All right. Commission any other questions of staff. All right. Well this is not a public hearing. Do we have any registered speakers for this? There are no registered speakers. All right. Commission, Mr. Bronsky, I move, we approve the parking reduction as recommended by staff for agenda item number five, Commissioner Alley second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Item number six, agenda item number six. Request to waive the two year waiting period for consideration. To amend specific use permit number 56 from a flagpole design to a faux tree design on point one acre, located 220ft north of Democracy Drive at 220ft east of Partnership Road. Zoned commercial employment. The applicant is Sea Bass, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration. Good evening commissioners. The applicant is requesting to waive the two year waiting period to amend specific Use Permit number 56 from a flagpole design to a faux tree design. And in 2024, a 120 foot commercial antenna support structure was approved by Specific Use Permit 56. Approval included a condition that the antenna have a flagpole design for compatibility with the surrounding area. Since that time, no permits for this development have been submitted. The applicant wishes to modify Specific Use Permit 56 to change from a flagpole design to a faux tree design. A faux tree design was initially proposed with the previous zoning case, but the applicant changed the design to be a flagpole. During the review and response to staff comments. So sorry. Do you have more? Yes. Okay. Sorry. Go ahead. Under the zoning ordinance, a two year waiting period is required for approval for a specific use permit at the Planning and Zoning Commission's discretion. The two year waiting period for this property will end on May 13th, 2026. The zoning ordinance allows for a waiver of the two year waiting period if the Commission determines that there are substantive reasons shown on the screen. The only change in condition is the applicant's desire for a different design. There are no errors to correct and no changes to public plans or policies affecting the site. The commission is not limited to the to these criteria, and may consider other reasons to grant request. It is recommended that a waiver of the two year waiting period be granted at the Planning and Zoning Commission find substantive reasons for granting the request. Okay, so just to make sure I understand what we're doing, what we're what we're before us is just to consider waiving the two year request. We're not reviewing the new design. This is just about whether or not we're going to waive the request to allow them to come back, correct? Yes, sir. From the flagpole design to the faux tree. Just want to make sure. All right, Commissioner Ali, just one comment. The applicant wanted the full tree staff provided feedback. At that point, we drove the flagpole. What was that feedback? And is it still in consideration today? Right. So in the original approval, staff was not supportive of the tree design, therefore recommended going to the flagpole design to get staff support. They chose to do that and moved forward with the flagpole design to PNC and Council. Are there any hazards we need to understand tree versus flagpole birds land on them and get electrocuted? No, it was not a safety concern. It's an esthetic concern with the surrounding area. And those concerns the city does not have. The city does not have natural trees of those sizes. Oh, so it'll stand out okay. In my neighborhood. Commissioner Bronsky. So the feedback we provided to them that we didn't really want that. And what changed on our end that now we're okay with this? Clarify. This is just a request to ask the commission to come back for zoning change. This is an indicative of staff support either way for the proposed change that will come before you if you approve it. So currently it doesn't meet any of the criteria for waiving the two year period that was on the screen. Is that correct? There are three criteria listed in the ordinance, but they are not. The commission is not limited to those three reasons. So if you find something else substantive, then the Commission could grant the request. I got it. So I'm just trying to understand that. It doesn't meet the criteria that we have laid out, but we can consider other criteria. But in fact, we actually encourage them that we wanted to go with the design that they currently have. So they're coming back. Looking to go back to something that we've already told them we really didn't want the first time around. Is that correct? Yes. That's the that's the sum of it. Okay. I would encourage the commission to look at what conditions have changed here that's worthy of a reconsideration. So what condition is changed for the reconsideration? The only changes that they state the owner was not aware of the flagpole design and wants to go back to a tree, but the applicant I believe can speak to that. Yeah. I'd love to ask the applicant if they are aware of what they actually agreed to or not. We have the applicant that's supposed to be available via zoom. Okay, let's finish staff questions and then we can get the applicant online. Yeah, that's that's that's I mean, if the applicant went before us and asked for this that they have and yeah, I just it's confusing to me. I guess that's all. Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think I have a similar question regarding the reason behind this. And also I want to clarify again, the process today is just to approve the resubmission of this design, changing the design, allowing the change of the design within the two year period. But that doesn't really mean that they have to change it to a full tree design. That just gives them the option to change the design, right? So they could come back with a totally different design. That's correct. This is just allowing them to submit another application. Gotcha, gotcha. Thank you. Commissioner Ali. I think to build on that, the condition I'm going with that is not listed here is given an applicant what feels like the opportunity to argue their case and not not having them wait two years to have an opportunity to argue their case. We still have the purview to determine if that case meets merit or not, but this is just giving them an opportunity to come before us and argue for tree. Christmas tree, whatever tree. Mr. Brounoff. Yes, I think I agree with Commissioner Ali on this for a substantive reason to allow them the waiver of the two years. I think it's important to allow people the opportunity to come before us and present their case. I think fairness demands that. That doesn't mean that I support or don't support the full tree design. We haven't seen the design. I have no idea what it looks like, so I can't either, you know, express an opinion on it. But I'm in favor of giving the chance to come down here and at least present their case. So Commissioner Bronsky, my comment to both of those last two were the applicant has already gone through this process once and came to us and made a decision whether they knew they were making the decision or not. They came before us once already and asked for what they're getting. And so I'm just looking for some substantive reason from the applicant that has changed beyond I didn't know what I was doing as to why we're coming around again at it. I guess that's my question. It's not it's not a matter of fairness. They've already had an opportunity once before us. Yeah, yeah. Sorry, Commissioner Ali, from what I'm reading for, and I think I remember this case on the flagpole because we had an SCP and what have you. The way I read this is based on feedback from planning department. The applicant made that change and did not argue one change or the other or what have you. So they are reacting in. Basically, I don't think they had the opportunity to argue their case because they already preemptively made the change based on feedback from the city. And I think the fairness, at least in my mind, demands that if they want to not take the feedback from the city and bring the original design forward, they should have a chance to do so. If I can hang on one second, let me interject something. If you read the letter from the applicant, what the letter says is that this is due to landowners preferences of the visual impact of the antenna structure. So what that tells me is that they got a flagpole approved. They went back to the owner to build it, and the owner went, I don't like the look of that. I'd like I'd like a big tree instead. And so they're coming back because of landowner preference? Not necessarily the applicant's preference, because they're obviously leasing the ground from somebody. That's what their letter says. So with that clarification, Commissioner Ali, but do you like my point is, was the point because you know, like they know that they are saying that they're coming back with the old design that the city didn't approve because it wasn't consistent with the surrounding. So why are they like asking to come back again, like after less than two years at least? So like, what's the point? We want to understand what's their point of coming back with the old design that that they know that it was rejected and a good deal? Yeah. Commissioner Brounoff, just a question. Assuming we were to waive the two year period and they come to us on a future meeting and present the faux tree design or some other design, if the Commission were to disapprove that application for an alternate design, would the flagpole design still remain in effect? Yes it would. Okay. Yeah. Okay. We apparently have the applicant available by zoom. Does anybody have questions for the applicant that they want to ask that we need to get the applicant on zoom. Nobody. So the applicant was just there just in case we had questions. Is that correct? Yeah. Okay. See if you can get the applicant on zoom. I think we do have at least one question for the applicant. All right. Just one moment. Okay. Hello? Can you hear us? Yes I can. Okay. If you introduce yourself, give us your name and address if you would, please. Absolutely. My name is Holly Gatti. And I reside at 11710 Tyler, Texas 75709. And the reason that we are coming back with the revision and design is because and you guys may remember this from January, we had to submit for a replat extension because the landowner was. Incapacitated in the hospital for several months and he was unable to sign. So when city staff recommended that we move to a flagless flagpole design. Miss Scotty, if I can interrupt you real quick, our regulations have that we ask you to have your camera on so we can see you. If you wouldn't mind, please? Of course. I'm just not sure how to turn that on. I don't think that option has been given to me yet. Should be a button at the bottom of your screen that has a camera icon where you can turn it on, I would think, no, there's nothing there. Okay. Is that something on our end we can fix? All right. While they work on this, why don't you continue with your comments? Did we mute her? Okay, okay. There she is. Going now. There you are. Thank you. Thank you. As I was saying, the underlying landowner had been in the hospital for a while. We were unable to get his signature on the plat and unable to get that. So when city staff recommended we move forward with the Flagless flagpole during our pre-application meeting, we were more than happy to do that. However, because of his stay in the hospital, we were not able to get his final stamp of approval, so his interim manager stepped in and said, go ahead and move forward with the with the flagpole. Well, once the actual manager got out of the hospital, he said no. I agreed to a faux tree design. And so that's the reason for our request to waive the two year waiting period. We'd like to accommodate all everybody involved and help move this along to, you know, have the landowner be happy with it as well. Okay. Commissioner Bronsky, did you have some questions of the applicant? So I guess that was my first part of my question. Is that was the person that moved forward, the interim manager that you're describing, was he a legal agent acting on behalf of the owner when he signed the application? I believe so I was not in direct communication with him. My who I'm working for is anthem Net, and they're the ones that are going to be owning this tower site. They were in direct communication with them. So as far as his legal representation of the company, I'm not sure. But I, I want to say he was acting as a legal representative. So acting as a legal representative, he signed the application giving approval for what we moved forward with originally. Is that what you're saying then? Yes, sir. Yes, sir. Okay. And so now, after we've gone through that, he now wants to back out of the process that his legal representative approved for us to go forward with. Is that correct? Yes, sir. Okay. And is there anything beyond he just doesn't like the design? No. So you're asking us to go? He just does not want the tower. You're asking us to go back and redo the process that he, his legal authority granted, and that the city moved forward with under the suggestion because he didn't like the decision that his legal authority made for him. That's correct. Okay. I just want to make sure we're all on the same page. That's all I wanted to know. Thank you. Okay. All right. Any other Commissioner Lingenfelter? I wanted to make sure that he was aware also after the fact, after he got healthy and was able to understand what was going on, was he aware of and made aware that the tree, the city was not in favor of a tree that was much larger than what any other tree that's native to this area, in that area is around it. So that that was it would stick out and it was a concern. Is he aware of that? Yes. Yes, sir. He is aware of that. But he kind of stuck to his guns and said that's the only thing he would want on his property. Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? Nobody. Thank you very much for joining us on zoom. Of course. All right. Commission, anybody? Commissioner Olli. I'm still hung on the words in response to staff review. And I just want to make sure that we. Dot all the I's and cross all the T's and cover ourselves from that perspective. So I moved away, grant the waiver and approve agenda item number six, Commissioner Brounoff. I'll second that motion with the comment that if we're looking for a substantive reason to waive the two year period to request an amendment, the fact that the landowner himself was incapacitated at the time we initially considered the case to me as a substantive reason, because it precluded him from making his own personal wishes known at the time. Now, the fact that he had an agent working for him at the time certainly made our initial approval of that of the flagpole design possible and legally supportable. It does not preclude us from reopening it. It does not preclude us from considering waiving the two year period. It is not a it is not any sort of barrier to our considering waiving the two year period for a substantive reason. And as far as I'm concerned, the landowner's incapacity is a substantive reason to waive the two year period and at least give him a chance to come forward and tell us what he wants and why, and then we can make a decision on on the merits at that time. We may or may not approve it, but at least we're giving him the chance. Commissioner lolly. Well, you like I don't mind giving them the waiver, but I'm asking the staff. Do you think that anything changed on your end that you will approve this you like, other than just because they're going to take, like, everybody's time, everybody. Their effort, our effort. You like the city's effort. And if it's determined that this is like, no, you're like, you're not going to approve it. So what what why we're going through this. Yeah. Staff's opinion doesn't meet the three criteria there. But ultimately it's his decision. If they think there are other reasons or if they think that it meets one of these reasons, they could you could certainly do that as well. No, I mean, you like is there anything changed on the city side that you think that you're going to you might be able to approve this design? No, but that we haven't they haven't brought it forward for us to consider the details. So unfair to answer that question. Thanks, Commissioner Bronsky, but they have brought it forward once. Am I not understanding that the first time they brought it through, they brought it through as a flagpole design? What they submitted the first time? Correct. I'm saying I'm not. We're not going to evaluate the zoning case until the petition is actually in our hands. So for the new case, we reserve any judgment until they've actually submitted the documents. So would there would there be any substantive change that could be made for a flagpole design to have approval by the staff relative to what we've already told them? We don't want? The purpose of the regulations is to provide a stealth objective. If there are other things they have that could be stealth, staff would consider those. We'd. Our opinion the first time was that a tree is would have the opposite effect. It would attract attention and not be stealthy. But if they have something else they want to do, we'll consider that. Just a comment before we vote. I tend to agree with Commissioner Brounoff. This is kind of a unique situation where we had a health issue with the landowner. We've already granted them an extension on a plat, and I think it would be inconsistent for us to not likewise grant them the also the extension to reconsider the tower or the reconsideration of the tower. I just think, you know, the landowner was not in a place where he could make his own decisions and had agents doing it for him, and obviously when he got healthy, he finally was around to sign him plats and making decisions. And I, you know, I tend to go with the landowner has the right to make his decisions. And if he wants to have it reconsidered, I show them in a little grace and let him have it reconsidered is kind of my thought. So. Mr. Bronsky so, and I can appreciate that. But at what point do we get to where somebody's opinion changes after they've given a legal? I just think that I'm going to vote no against this, not because I don't think that he deserves the right to come and make his presentation, but because we've already done this and because we've already walked through this process, and because he had somebody legally representing him and we believed had the authority to act on his behalf. And now it sounds like I'm not saying it is, but it sounds to me like that either this person didn't have the legal authority to act on his behalf, or did something else. And now, if that were the case, then I certainly would understand the bringing back and arguing that the person that acted on his behalf did so in a manner that wasn't consistent with what he said. But all we're getting is he changed his his opinion was something different than what his legal representative had for him. I just think that we need to be able to take the people that stand before us and to be able to take them at their word that they're legally representing the best interest of the person that they claim to be representing. And this doesn't appear to be the case, but that's not what they're saying. So that's my problem with it, Mr. Tong. I'm a little torn right now because I feel like I agree with the chairman and commissioner. And Commissioner Ali about giving this person an opportunity to come back and do it again, because this person was sick in the hospital. Whatever reason, he was not able to participate in the decision making. However, I'm also thinking about the comments the lady applicant provided in her presentation that the landowner really just wanted what they had before, so he really wanted what he saw before. And that was the thing that the staff basically denied. They didn't want the design to say they didn't want to because they draw attention. Instead of trying to minimize the attention of the antenna. So my understanding. So I'm thinking that maybe we can table this. I'm just I'm throwing out a suggestion, table it so that it gives the staff and the applicant the opportunity to talk to the landowner. Hey, look, we tried this before. If you just had your heart set on this design, this has already been denied by the city. Why would we want to apply again? Because if the city holds the same standard as last time, literally just last year, it was been just a year. If you hold the same standard, I'm assuming you're going to deny again because that design will draw attention and that's not what we want. Let me answer that real quick, because I believe Mike Chris may be wrong. Just because we grant the waiver doesn't necessarily mean they will bring back another app. They still have to go through staff. And if my guess is if staff says it will go, if it goes forward, it will go without our recommendation or with our request for denial. Then then they can make that decision whether to bring it forward or not. Right. Just because we're granting the waiver does not necessarily mean they will submit. It just means they can submit. Correct? That's correct. Okay. So tabling actually wouldn't change. It's the same thing either way. And we have had a pre-application meeting and that conversation has already happened. And they've decided to move forward with the waiver request. Okay. Commissioner Lolly. And that to me is like we're granting them this waiver just to come back. We don't know exactly what they're going to present. Maybe like it's been over a little bit over a year right now. So maybe they come with a little bit like changed details. So we don't know. So like to me I think that's like like the other commissioners said like we would like to give them this opportunity because we don't know exactly what they're coming back with. They're saying that they're coming with the design, but we're not 100% sure that they're coming with exact design. That's correct. Yeah. All right. Commissioners, we have a motion on the table and a second to grant the waiver of the two year waiting period if everybody would vote, please. Motion passes, 7 to 1 commission. Let's take a let's take a ten minute break before we start our item number seven. Stretch our legs and be back here at 830, please. Where's oh there's Mike okay. Let's reconvene everybody, if you'll take your seats please. No okay. All right. One last quick thing to do. Miss Sebastian. Oh, I'll let Henry read the item. Agenda item number seven. Discussion and direction, Legislative updates, discussion and direction on impacts from the 89th legislative session. The applicant is the city of Plano. Hang on, hang on, hang on. Let's see. Hello. There you go. Good evening, commissioners Christina Sebastian, land records planning manager, here to discuss some significant bills from this year's legislative legislative session and seek some direction from you. So this year, the planning department monitored over 100 bills from the over 9000 bills filed during the session. 29 of those passed and nine impact plannings operations to various degrees. We're going to be discussing three of those tonight. So just I want to note the schedule for implementation of these bills. So of course we're doing this work session this evening. Next week on Monday at 4:00, we're doing a joint work session with City Council in the same space here. And then we are going to have a special called meeting for a public hearing on Wednesday, August 6th at 6 p.m, again located here. And then a City Council public hearing on Monday, August 25th at 7 p.m. Is the planned date. All of this is so that we can have these amendments in place before the bills are effective on September 1st. So we're going to be talking about three significant bills tonight. Senate Bill 15 regards. Small lot single family. Senate Bill 840 regards multifamily and mixed use residential and non residential areas. Senate Bill 2477 is for conversion of office buildings to multifamily. And sorry there's also conversion of nonresidential buildings. On 840. We'll get into details. All three bills are bracketed so they only apply to cities with populations over 150,000 and counties over 300,000 people. All three bills also include language to allow more types of litigants to sue the city, and a successful litigant is entitled to attorney's fees so that if there was a successful suit, the city would be responsible for the litigants attorney's fees and of course, our attorney fees. So here's a map of the cities that are affected by these bills that says just 15 and 840. But 2477 is also part of this will provide some more details on that in a moment. There are 19 total cities in the state that are affected. Ten of those are in the metroplex here. There are two cities who meet the population threshold, but not the county population threshold. So Amarillo and Laredo are not affected by these bills at this time. This is all based off of 2020 census data. So a little summary of each bill before we get into some recommendations. Senate Bill 15 allows requires cities to allow small lot single family on land that is zoned for single family homes, has never been platted and is five acres or more. There are some limited exceptions. Within 3000ft of an airport, and it prescribes various standards including setbacks, height, and parking. 840 allows multifamily or mixed use residential in any areas that allow office, commercial, retail, warehouse or mixed use. For Plano, this means all of our nonresidential zoning districts. There are some limited exceptions in the bill's. The. The bill also regulates what the city can regulate anywhere multifamily is built regarding height, density, setbacks, parking, etc. This this applies both to the nonresidential districts and also the multifamily districts. So anywhere multifamily is permitted is subject to these requirements. Part permits, plots and site plans must be administratively approved per the bill, and then the bill also allows conversion of nonresidential buildings to multifamily or mixed use. With those same exceptions. Senate Bill 2477 is actually specific to office conversions for multifamily or mixed use, but there is language in the bill that recognize that there were two bills going on at once. And so they're supposed to be harmonized between the two bills and the end. But Senate Bill 840, if there are conflicts controls. So as we've looked at these, these bills, we've identified four main goals to keep in mind as ordinances are amended to comply with the laws. So first, to preserve plano's ability to foster economic development, particularly in the business areas of legacy and the research technology crossroads areas to preserve neighborhood compatibility and integrity. Three ensure adequate infrastructure so that we have the capacity where we can for these and then require well built multifamily and mixed use developments. Something else to keep in mind as we look at these bills is non-conforming uses. So there's a potential for financial impacts to businesses or property owners when a use or a site is made non-conforming. Senate Bill 929 from the last legislative session requires notification to owners and tenants when a use is made non-conforming. These proposed solutions are intended to avoid creating non-conforming uses, so no 929 notice has been sent for the associated zoning case. All right. So quickly, we'll go over some details on Senate Bill 15 and some proposed recommendations. I'm going to present a the information that's in the staff report. And then after we've heard from the public, if there are public comments, we can bring up the specific questions in the staff report so we can get your direction on those. So again, Senate Bill 15 allows small lot single family on very specific situations. So go ahead and just get to our map. So the yellow area on this map is areas where single family is allowed by right. And it's never been platted. It is five acres or more perhaps with its neighboring parcel. And it allows single family. The gray parcels are also that, except they are owned by the city. Most of that is parkland. And then we have the blue area just outside the city limits for Air Park Dallas and the associated 3000 foot buffer. We did exclude some major utility easements on this map, as you would not be able to build in them anyway. So the bill regulates a handful of or a number of regulations that the city can cannot regulate or can be no larger or lesser than. And I apologize, this is kind of confusing. Things that are maximums and things that are minimums. So we'll try to explain it as best we can. But basically lot sizes for these subdivisions are 3000ft■!S. They could be bigger. But that's the minimum that we can require. Lot width of 30ft. Same thing there 75ft deep. There are setback regulations as part of the bill for parking. There is limited to one space per home that can be required. And then that cannot be covered or and we cannot require offsite parking. So we might require some visitor parking. For example, there is a restriction on lot coverage and regulating the bulk of the building. There's a regulation regarding height, and we can't require variation in depths of walls to obtain wall articulation. So there are some specific things that are called out in the bill that we are allowed to regulate. So short term rentals is one of those flooding and sewer serving an individual lot. Driveways can be shared with another lot if the city opts to allow that. We can have impact fees for Senate Bill 15 lots. So our recommendations to respond to Senate Bill 15 fit on one slide, we are recommending to create use specific standards for small lot single family. So these standards would align with the bill. And any properties that meet the bill thresholds would have the option to use those standards. Or they could develop under their base zoning district. At the time of their platting. We would also like to amend the zoning ordinance to require open space based on the number of lots, and then also update the subdivision standards to require alleys on these smaller lots. Align our standards with language in the ordinance, and then just require that the plats note that they're using these standards for efficiency and administration over time as homes are built. All right. I'm getting into the major bill. I'd say that many of us are here for. So the bill, Senate Bill 840 includes definitions for multi-family residential and mixed use residential multifamily. These are summarized here. The actual language is a bit more robust than this, but multifamily is a site with three or more dwelling units within one or more buildings. To be considered mixed use, it needs to have both residential and nonresidential uses, and the residential uses need to be at least 65% of the square footage of the development. In this presentation. Sometimes I refer to both multifamily and mixed use residential, but for efficiency, oftentimes I just say multifamily, and I mean both most of the time. So we have to allow these two uses in zoning districts that allow office, commercial retail, warehouse or mixed use. And as I said, that's all the nonresidential zoning districts in Plano. So here is a map of the impacted areas. The light blue is non their nonresidential districts that have a height limit of 45ft or less. The dark blue are nonresidential districts with a height limit over 45ft. I will just note that some of that dark blue does already allow multifamily, but it is considered a nonresidential district under current zoning ordinance. The orange is our or our multifamily district. So MF one, two and three. And then we've identified three heavy industrial uses per the definition in the bill. And there's a 1000 foot buffer around those. There's kind of the brown and pink areas. And then we again have that air park-dallas buffer of 3000ft similar to SB 15. Again, for this bill, there are a number of elements that are limited for the city. And they there's some distinctions that are kind of layered and hard to keep track of between the two bills and between the different standards. So we all can, can learn and get used to these standards together. Density is limited to the greater of the highest density allowed anywhere in the city, or 36 dwelling units per acre for the maximum height and the setbacks. This is based on the maximum height in the setback of the specific site, so it's not the maximum height allowed anywhere in the city. It's based on that one site that that they might be looking to do multifamily. So it's the highest height that would apply to a non residential use on the same site or 45, whichever 45ft, whichever is greater. The setback is a setback that would apply to non residential uses on the same site or 25ft, whichever is smaller. For parking, we're not allowed to require more than one space per dwelling unit, nor are we required or allowed to require a parking structure. There's there are limitations on lot coverage. We cannot restrict it in relation the building floor area in relation to the lot area. So that effectively means open space cannot be required for these uses. There's also language about not being able to require multifamily to contain nonresidential uses when located in an area not zoned for mixed use residential. So that's a lot of words that are a bit hard to unpack. But we'll keeping that in mind as well. And then as I mentioned, approvals must be done administratively. So just quickly to explain a little bit about lot coverage for people who may be watching and are not familiar. You have these two pretend lots. One of them has a maximum 75% lot coverage. So a lot of the lot is covered. It doesn't all need to be. The building doesn't need to be in the center like this. But oftentimes it is. And then this other site has a 50% lot coverage requirement. So both of these have this remaining open space around the building. And we can't do either of those under under the bill. And then just a couple of examples to think about what this means for this is a retail in our retail zoning district today. You could build this building here on the left side of the screen. So you would have a 35 foot tall retail building 50ft away from the Front Street. But under Senate Bill 840 on that same site, you can now build a 45 foot multifamily building with only a 25 foot setback from the street. And then our second example is for a two hour general office zoning district. So today you could build a ten story building. It actually has a unlimited height limit. But for an example. And then you would have a 50 foot setback. And then under the bill you could build a ten story multifamily building or potentially taller with a 25 foot setback from the street. But I will note that O2 does have some additional setbacks based on residential adjacency, but the bill does not permit additional setbacks based on the residential adjacency, the bill does list some specific things that cities are permitted to do, including short term rental regulations, water quality protection, sewer and water access, historic preservation, and some other items here on the slide. And then again, it does have language to allow nonresidential conversions. So in this case it's for office, retail or warehouse buildings. They must have been constructed at least five years prior to the date of conversion, and then at least 65% of the building and at least 65% of each occupied floor must be converted to residential use or mixed use. Converted buildings cannot be required to have a traffic impact analysis, construction of improvements, or payment of a fee for traffic mitigation, additional parking or extension or upgrade of utility except to meet minimum minimum capacity to serve the conversion and then any design requirements more restrictive than the International Building Code. All right. So getting into some recommendations. So as I've mentioned, the bill requires 36 dwelling units per acre or the highest density permitted in the city, whichever is larger. So Plano has a number of areas, as you're aware, with higher densities including downtown legacy mixed use areas, our various urban mixed use districts, as well as a number of planned development districts. So we wanted to talk a little bit about density versus height. So buildings with similar heights, as you can see on the screen can have drastically different densities. So the building on the left is 340ft tall and has eight dwelling units per acre of 45. The building on the right, which is just a block or two away from the other building, is just a little bit taller and has a dwelling units per acre of 156 dwelling units per acre. So they're substantially similar in form, but the densities are drastically different. So we wanted to think more about height and less about the density. And we're going to look at a couple other examples of what these different heights can be, just to kind of not focus just on the tall buildings. So here are a couple apartment examples of 45ft or less. We have Promontory on Preston, fairly new construction, and then the Livingston over on Windhaven. We made a category for 45 between 45 and 75ft. So we've got a four story building at Cityscape at Market Center, and a five story building at Legacy Town Center North. Between 75 and 120, we have our Huntington Apartments, which is actually five stories, and then we don't have as many multifamily buildings. So we're looking at some office buildings, but as we noted, they can be converted. So wanted to talk about them as well. This is City View Tower over on West 15th Street, and it is 110 stories tall. Feet, not stories. And then we lastly we have the 120ft. We already saw the other two examples, but again we have office buildings at Preston Park Towers, which are just a little bit taller than 120ft. And then Kincaid at Legacy on Dallas Parkway. So I wanted to look at what our existing height maximums are for our various districts. These are our four residential districts that allow multifamily today. They have a variation in maximum building height. And the first three would either remain the same or have to go up to 45ft for multifamily. Under the bill for Rtxdi, we're proposing to remove multifamily as an allowed use, and we'll talk about that more in a moment. And then we'll move to our nonresidential districts. So we have divided them into low rise and high rise, just for kind of ease of thinking about them and the impacts of the bill. So we have our one office district, retail district, light commercial neighborhood business design and downtown business government. Again, they have some variation in heights that are permitted, but the first three would need to allow increased height under the bill for multifamily uses, but the other two could remain as they're as they are today. And then looking at our more high rise residential districts, where our maximum start at 15 story, we have our urban mixed use district corridor, commercial regional commercial, regional employment, research technology, our general office oh two commercial business. I feel like I'm missing messing up the name on that commercial employment. And then our light industrial districts one and two. You can see the ones on the right side. They actually have no maximum at this time. And the other ones are either again 15 story for umu or 325. So we're actually proposing that we require minimum, minimum heights for multifamily in these districts. This will provide the benefit of generally providing higher quality multifamily per the building code. And then we have these particularly high minimums in research, technology and commercial employment, because those are the areas we noted that we wanted to kind of focus on and try to protect for economic development. So if there is going to be an apartment complex in in these districts, we want it to be high quality. So these are the current proposals for your consideration. Along with the minimum and maximum height changes. We'd like to propose controlling density using the building code requirements for dwellings, but also minimum unit sizes which are currently in the zoning ordinance. We have them in the multifamily districts, and we're proposing to apply them citywide, except in the districts where they're noted otherwise. I think downtown and you have slightly revised versions of these minimum floor areas. And then we have a number of potential design standards. I'll try to summarize them fairly quickly. They're all listed in your staff report. But just know and this kind of goes for all of our proposed amendments. We still need to draft many of them. And as we do that we may find we need to revise them very slightly, especially, I think, for the design standards to make sure that the they can be administered efficiently. So we're going to do our best to meet the spirit of, of what's discussed here. So pedestrian circulation and surface parking. We're looking to really reduce the visual impact of surface parking and encourage pedestrian circulation within the site. So put the parking at the rear or side of the building have that internal pedestrian network. If parking structures are provided, we want them to be screened or wrapped with non parking uses and kind of minimize the appearance appearance of the garage or the parking structure. We're also looking at having some site amenity requirements, so developments would need to select a minimum number of amenities from a city approved list that would be in the ordinance. There are ideas for building, massing and articulation where we would have facade articulation to kind of break up any flat lines where we can ground floor entry design so that residential units along the ground floor would have porches or recessed entries to promote a more active street. So it's not fully broken up or not broken up, and then have a main building entry for the buildings as well, with secondary access along pedestrian routes. Also consideration is requiring sustainability and site efficiency under the Leed green US Green Building Council standards. And then for any developments that might propose individual unit garages having those entries be from the rear side or behind the primary structure, where there's horizontal mixed use kind of looking at things we do today with a lot of sites already is where where the loading docks, where is the trash? Do we need screening? Just between the nonresidential uses and residential uses for vertical mixed use? Again, we're wanting to enhance that pedestrian experience. So having the buildings front the sidewalk, have some awnings and canopies and have some ground floor transparency so people can kind of see what's happening inside the buildings as they walk by. Okay. And then moving on to some landscaping standards, as we noted the setback the most it could be for these multi-family uses is 25ft. So but there are some areas where the required setback for nonresidential uses is greater than 25ft. So in those areas we would recommend that the setback be 25ft, but also the landscape. The required landscape edge is 25ft with some enhanced requirements aligning with our current overlay standards. And then where the required setback is for the nonresidential use is 25ft or less, we would we would have the same standard for multifamily, both for the setback and the landscape edge. And then just a quick note that our overlay landscaping requirements are generally 30ft for landscape edge. So we'll have to reduce that to 25 for multifamily for parking. Again, we can't require more more than one parking space and we can't require a parking structure. So some possible ideas for the commission to consider is if some or all surface parking for multifamily should have a be covered via carports, and then should the landscaping requirements for serving surface parking lots be enhanced for new developments and redevelopments for multifamily? For the expressway corridor overlay that many of you remember from earlier this year, actually, when it was adopted, many of the stipulations in that for multifamily uses are preempted by the bill. So we can no longer require 100 foot landscape, edge or nonresidential building to be between the multifamily use and the expressway. And we can no longer no longer prohibit multifamily dwellings in the restricted expressway corridor area. There are some that are still permitted, though we can still require Merv 13 or higher filtration systems. We can require the air intake openings be on the far side of the expressway. Building design for interior noise could still be required on a 15 foot landscape edge would still be appropriate, as well as prohibiting single family uses in that restricted area. So the Commission could consider if the overlay should perhaps be removed completely, including the standards. Overlay could be removed completely, but we could require standards one through four for all institutional dwellings and multifamily citywide, and we would have to change item number four to be a more appropriate as a citywide standard, or if the Commission would like the overlay to remain, we could of course, adjust it as needed to comply with the bill and then have them apply to all dwellings in the overlay. And we could also consider prohibit sorry balconies from facing the expressways for all dwellings in the overlay. All right. The RKD district I talked about this briefly earlier but RKD permits some small scale multifamily under the bill. We can't restrict that multifamily that's built in rkd be small scale. So for now we're proposing that we remove multifamily as an allowed use in RKD. It's not in use. The multifamily components anyway of this of RKD are not in use today on the zoning map, but we would bring back options for small scale multifamily later, perhaps as part of the rewrite. There are some changes proposed for the subdivision standards, so street and block requirements requiring internal street networks with on street parking, shorter block length elements like that infrastructure analysis for developments to analyze capacity so that these analyzes come in earlier in the design process. Cost participation to require some proportionality assessments on developer participation versus city participation. And then stormwater mitigation where we have some allowances or incentives in the zoning ordinance today, but perhaps moving some of those to be required rather than incentives, because some of the incentives relate to things like parking that we can't restrict or regulate like we used to be able to. And then getting close to the end for single family uses. We recognize that the comprehensive plan generally recommends more single family homes across the city, not necessarily a nonresidential zoning districts, but in general they are single family homes are supported. So the question is if we would be if we have to allow multifamily in these areas, would we perhaps want to allow single family uses as well so that developers have an option on what they can build? So if the commission is interested in that approach, we have a couple options laid out here where we would allow rtxdi single family housing types in our nonresidential zoning districts, or allow patio, home duplex and single family attached in the districts. Those are kind of our standard zoning districts that we use for districts like retail, where we do allow single family uses today. And then, of course, there's an option of allowing all of both the types and one and number two. So just quickly want to look at what those rtxdi housing types generally are. We have a single family three that's actually 3000 square foot minimum lot size single family, two for 2000 duplexes, but at a slightly smaller scale than our standard duplex district single family, 1.5 1500 square feet homes. Townhomes. Again, slightly smaller than our standard townhomes under single family attached district and then stacked townhomes where there can have them potentially slightly on top of each other, but still with a ground floor entrance for both units. And then just a quick example of our standard housing types you see around the city patio, home duplexes and single family attached. However, if we were to allow this, that would mean that the impacts of Senate Bill 15 would be more broad, as this is the same map we saw earlier, but we've added in these blue areas and these are nonresidential districts, parcels that are zoned for nonresidential that allow or meet the standards of Senate Bill 15. So there are five acres or more and they've never been platted. So that's just a consideration to keep in mind if you are interested in allowing single family in more locations. There are a couple other efforts that we're looking at, changes to the street design standards to require wider alleys for small, smaller lots. The Parks and Recreation Department is recommending increases to park fees. This will be considered by the Parks Board and City Council, and then to comply with the nonresidential conversions part of the bill, we would need to change our traffic impact analysis standards to comply with it. Just a couple other ideas. One is to potentially require developments or conversions that are happening due to Senate Bill 840 to post a sign on the property during construction, just briefly explaining why the development is occurring. And then another option is to charge an additional fee for developments or conversions that are due to Senate Bill 840, and that fee would support sending notices to surrounding properties, including some information about the relevant bills and even contact information for state officials if we'd like. There was some outreach done last week where this information, or a very short version of it, was sent. In some city newsletters, it's posted on the city website, and there were a number of social media posts as well. There is an associated zoning case for this. I want to make sure I give the correct number. We have zoning case 2020 5-007. It is a zoning ordinance amendment. We also have a subdivision Ordinance Amendment 2020 5-001. But for the zoning case, residents can provide their response through the zoning case response map. As we talked about earlier, and they can find more information on the proposals as we once we get them drafted, we will post them to the active Zoning petitions page at Plano Zoning. And of course, we'll post them in your packets for your August 6th meeting. Again. Work session next Monday, public hearings on August 6th and August 25th. And then I can pause there in case there is any public comment. And then we can get into specific questions. Thank you. You covered a lot of material real fast. All right. While this is not a public hearing, we do want to provide the opportunity for public input. I don't believe we have any. Mr. Lyle said he if he left, there was one registered speaker. He said if he wasn't here, that he wasn't speaking. All right. So I guess we don't have any registered speakers. So. Per what we discussed earlier, you and I, I think what I'd like to do just to keep things kind of orderly for the commission is kind of go through the questions or recommendations one at a time. For those that want to follow along. It's on page 99, in your package, in the Adobe file that was downloaded off the internet. It's also sheet 16 of 17. In the staff report, there is a heading called Staff Report request for direction. And these are the 12 questions that they would like some direction on. And then we can open it up for additional comments or questions after that. Beyond these 12, is that okay with you just to keep things kind of orderly? So. Question number one. The proposed height maximums and minimums appropriately address 840 in the community's expectations. And I think I want to make sure that we talk about height maximums and minimums, because you are proposing to put in some minimums in certain districts to encourage higher quality development, because it's got to be a minimum height, correct? That's correct. Okay. So commission thoughts, pros cons of the maximums and minimums as presented in the report. Oh, let me get my deal, Mr. Bruno. Do your recommendations go beyond what SB 840 requires? Let's see. So in in this in the for the residential districts, it's what SB 840 requires for the maximums for these districts. It's the same for O1R and LC, but for NBD and BG where multifamily is permitted. NBD is a little different because it uses the RCD standards, but. BG allows multifamily, and these are the existing heights that are allowed under under those districts. So it's more permissive for multifamily than the bill necessarily requires. But it has to be at least what is allowed on the site. So these are the nonresidential maximum heights as well, which we need to align with. So in reality it actually I guess I really said that not quite accurately because under the bill, these maximums are what we have to allow for multifamily. Unless we were to change those maximums. Okay. As long as the maximums are what we're required to do, I'll support it. I may hold my nose, but I'll support it. The addition of the minimum heights on certain types of construction, I think are fine to ensure quality. I was going to ask a general question. If you want me to do it now or later, let's hold the general questions for the end. And let's kind of you're talking about for the bills in specific. Yeah. Okay. Go ahead. Let's just know the general question. I'm wondering how much time did the staff spend reviewing these bills and crafting these recommendations. A lot a lot more than you are spending on them tonight. And how many people in the staff were involved in that process? I mean, on a regular basis, five. But oftentimes many, many, many more. Okay. Now you understand we have to review these individually. We can't have group meetings because of the Open Meetings Act. We've had four days okay. Yes. And I'm glad that you took the time that you did because it was probably necessary. But I mean, you're asking an awful lot of us to digest all this and come up with recommendations with, you know, reactions to your 12 proposals on a subject. This mammoth on four days notice and without any outside input. But so I sort of feel like I'm I'm target shooting blindfolded. But having said that. Yeah. Number one, okay. With the comments I made. Yeah, yeah. Thank you. Commissioner. Commissioner Tong, I have a quick question about the minimum. I understand the maximum. There were kind of just going by the new law, but the minimums that we're setting, are there actual numbers or it's going to be case by case. Do you have a minimum set already right now. So our current proposal is charted on the screen here. So for two of the districts for urban mixed use and corridor Commercial, it's proposed at 45ft minimum for a number of the districts. It's 75ft proposed minimum. And then for research, technology and commercial employment proposed at 120ft, as those are the business districts that we identified as goals to, to look at as we craft these bills. What are the bases for? I understand that you want to ensure the quality of the buildings, and that's why we set a minimum. But what what kind of analysis that you have done to determine, based on the type of business, I guess, to say this is 75 or 45, how do you come up with the numbers? So 45 is the as we've talked about the number required by the bill. So that's the minimum. But for 75 we came up with that as a group. As we looked at kind of other height regulations and current developments, I don't know if anyone remembers specifics of why we picked these exact numbers, but they they seem to align with our analysis as, as we were crafting these recommendations. Well, the reason why I'm asking is because I feel like 45ft is pretty standard already. If we require it to be 75ft, is it really necessary? Have we already kind of looked into that? Really minimum of 75ft will increase? What kind of quality of the product is it? Because I don't want to set too much restrictions on the citizens and the developers. If they were going to follow the law and do something right, do we have to require them to be have to be this tall? Well. Like me to respond to that? Initially we looked at what is the comprehensive plan require in these areas. There's those design guidelines in the comprehensive plan. So we mapped out what is the comprehensive plan look for in the general areas and tried to relate that back to the zoning districts. Six stories in height is a standard at which you start getting concrete construction. So that is a different building standard. And so that's one of the reasons we use 75ft, because we thought that's roughly equivalent with a six story building. And then 120ft was intended to be roughly equivalent with a ten story building. And that is related directly to a comp plan. Policies that support additional diversity, housing, diversity in the community. So I think what we're really looking at is how do we get diverse housing products that are higher quality in certain areas, but it also in other areas allow things so that we're not prohibitive. We don't want to be prohibitive. We want to still allow a diversity of housing product. So that's those are the kind of things we try to layer and stack together and come up with this plan for you. I can add to that in some of these districts, the only permitted multifamily today is mid-rise residential, which by definition has to be at least five stories. So it's that was the basis. Gotcha. Okay. Thank you, thank you, Commissioner Ali. Thank you for the explanation. That was actually a question I had in mind. It seems like you guys have done a good job of boxing. Between the comp plan and state regulation and coming up with a not so ugly middle, the. I think question, question number one is fine as long as it's tied to question six. If we don't align to the removal of multifamily in DRC district, then my opinion of one changes drastically. So that's more a it's a hanging Chad a little bit. I think that's fair. Commissioner lolly, I like I do have a question. So these recommendations are, you know, like the analysis is for new construction, right. Like for the which is, you know, like. So new construction would definitely be subject to this redevelopment of a site, be it an existing multifamily complex or a. A, you know, a retail area that decides to tear down and rebuild and rebuild would also. Okay, so you like so the existing multifamily, they have the option to raise these like to add some stories. But you know like what if they are you know like their structure and it's not. They have the option to like to add more stories. But you know, like if their structure and you're like in all the utilities are not designed for this addition will be non-conforming use. So if for the for the multifamily districts, they would be allowed to go up to 45ft. And if they are not now, if now they're not. So they can. But like if they don't have the option, like structurally, if they don't have the capacity for it and they don't want to build the capacity per the subdivision ordinance, then they wouldn't be non-conforming. Because for multifamily districts, there would be no minimum. They could stay where they are and be be just fine. There's a couple districts where we are proposing minimums that we've done a quick analysis of, of current multifamily. And so we do need to look at that a little closer before we propose the amendment, so that we make sure that we're we're avoiding those non-conforming situations. Commissioner Bender, thank you. Chairman. On SB 840, I would be in favor of supporting, you know, minimum and maximum. Standards. And I think you've talked about how you came to some of the numbers, and I think that's a great job, right, of taking the comp plan and taking the new law and trying to find out what, what works best. But definitely I think that's the way to go. All right, Commissioner Tang, thank you. I have another question regarding the maximum or minimum because I'm trying to understand the 45ft. If we're just looking at the law, the new law, the SB 40, it says the multifamily. So for all these commercial or current use as office, whatever we can, if we cannot regulate, if they want to convert it to multifamily, the is it the does the law says the maximum is 45ft or is a minimum 45ft, or we cannot regulate regulate it. And I'm not sure if I can say it correctly. So can you help me? What what is that, 45ft? Yes. So the law talks to a limit on building height that is more restrictive than either the 45ft or what's permitted on the site. So we've that is looking at the maximum height. So the bill is silent regarding minimum heights. So that's it's the limit on the building height that, that the bill requires. So the law actually says if we were going to convert this building to a multifamily, the maximum is 45ft. Is that right? It's the greater of 45ft or whatever is permitted. Permitted. Okay. Gotcha. So they don't have to be 45ft. They could be two story multifamily under the law. That's correct. With our proposals in these districts, we are saying that they would need to be 45ft. But in our standard multifamily districts, they could stay as they are. So we're putting more stringent requirements than the law because we want it to be higher quality. That's correct. My question is that if I have a use case, like we have some small office buildings that are pretty vacant for a long time, there may be two stories, or maybe part of it is two stories. The other part is restored if they want to convert it to multifamily, they have to bring it up to three stories or 45ft. Is that the intent? The intent is that this would be for new new development or redevelopment, but conversions can just remain as they are today. So if they were to convert an existing office building, we would write it so that they're not subject to these minimums. Gotcha. Thank you, Mr. Ali. Not a clarifying statement, but more to Requote. I don't think we are building more stringent requirements that the law requires, where essentially compliant to the law. But bringing in our compliant objectives in a way to make sure that as we are meeting the law, we're not violating the spirit of the compliant. That's kind of like the dance we're trying to do right here. One question. There was something about limited exceptions for SB 840, and I will confess, I didn't have time to go find what those are. Are they pertinent to this? Is that something we should have in the back of our mind? The only exceptions, there's four. There are four locations. I can pull up the map, if you'd like. Take me a minute to get there. But it's the Airpark airport. And then the three heavy industrial uses under the bill's definition for that. All right. So I'm hearing consensus around the table that we like the minimums and maximums the staff's presented. Yeah we'll get and we'll get to number six because I think it makes a good point. But as far as number one is concerned I think we have consensus. All right. Number two. The many the three different slides of design standards I guess maybe the question is are they appropriate. But also are there any that are concerning. Might be a way to look at it. And I can pull up the standards as well. So we could look at them. I'm going to answer that with a question that came up in. Has come up in other conversations as to whether we can explore an additional standard. For step backs with where there's residential adjacency. I know we can't step back below 45ft, but can we explore the options in the bill to have step backs above 45ft? Where there's residential adjacency? We can look into that okay. Commission. Any other questions or issues with the potential design standards that the staff presented? I thought they did a pretty good job of giving us a lot of really good ideas. I mean, I'm going to have one more comment. I do have some concerns about the Leed rating system. Just having worked in Leed. It can be a difficult system to work in depending on your product, and it's also an outside third party entity. And over the years their standards have evolved. And so what was certified at the beginning of that process is no longer would no longer be considered certified. And so I'm concerned about tying our standards to a third party's standard. And I'm not sure if we can develop our own standards or reference some sort of an international building code standard for energy efficiency or something. That's. The green building, international green building codes you like. They did develop their own, but they are basing their code green code on it. Yeah. The green gold. The Dallas green gold standard. Yeah. So there's the international green. And it is comprehensive. It's you know like it has good points. So maybe look at something like that instead of Leed I can add some things to for the commission on this. So we looked at that. The building code requires an extra 30 days of approval. So we can't get that to you by September 1st. So it's if you want us to do that, we can do that as a next step. But we can't have it ready by the September 1st deadline. Yeah. I'm not I'm not opposed to having some environmental sustainability component. I'm not sure how to put that in the ordinance, but I'm just concerned about us codifying a private third entity as the standard. Would you be interested? Lead. That's why we actually thought it was a potentially good solution for us because it was outside. It was it was something that wouldn't cost the city money, frankly, because it would be a third party certification. We could look at this now as a kind of gap measure. While we look at adopting the building code standards. Or we could just not do it, but know that we wouldn't have that kind of side. Efficiency and sustainability standard adopted during the period it takes us to adopt the building codes. I'm fine with it either way. Frankly, I just wanted to raise the concern. So understood. We can start. We can work with the building official on adopting the green codes. We just I know the City of Irving, I think is going that route, but we just didn't have time for a real short fuze. Yeah. Exactly that. Okay. Any other comments about the design standards? Like I had a comment on the building massing the like you mentioned the setback. Like the vertical setback. Can we include it with the building massing and architecture because it's like it looks like we can just include it in that design standard, like a vertical articulation rather than like an addition to the. Right. Yeah. I mean, rather than just like being an item by itself, it can be included with the building, massing and articulation. So it's for vertical and horizontal articulation. We could look at kind of both together how they would work. Simultaneously. Yeah. Commissioner Ali, did you have a comment? I was just going to say options. Miss de proposed. I'll probably go lean more in favor and at worst, using the lead as a stopgap until we get to something we have more concrete about, rather than having no coverage. Yeah, I'm fine with that. All right. Am I hearing, Commissioner Bender? Sorry. Didn't see your light. Come on. Thank you. Commissioner, I agree with Commissioner Ali. I think having weed as a stopgap until we get something else in place is a good idea. Okay, Commissioner Langfelder and I like how we do with the minimums. It is kind of forcing their hand to. To utilize better construction because of the heights. Structurally, they have to do that just because, you know, you can't go so high. You can only go so high with certain building structures. So that's a good thing. But then what about if we can you go further with that in the design standards, as far as what kind of facades and what kind of things could be utilized there as well, so that we kind of restrict and we can kind of control the look as well, and how much masonry they use and how much percent and stuff like that. There was another state law passed 6 or 8 years ago that basically ties our hands on that issue. So of course we've already had our that we've already had that power restricted. But appreciate the effort. Okay. So I think we have some consensus on design standards. You got direction on the Leed standard building articulation issue covered on that one. Yes. Okay. Number three, I think we kind of need to look number three and four together. Perfect. You already disappointed me. Yes. Okay. So surface parking lots should all or part of them be covered and or should they have additional landscaping required for surface parking lots? Obviously the exception is non residential conversions. But because they have they will have existing parking lots correct. Correct. Okay. So for any new multifamily surface parking projects is what we're talking about. That's right. Whether they be redevelopment or new development. Correct. Okay. I personally would like to see enhanced landscaping. I, I for me it's a step too far to require carports. I think that's a market based question. I think they're going to do some anyway if they do surface parking. And so I think for me anyway, I think that's an overreach for us to require carports. But I certainly let the commission weigh in. Commissioner Ali. Ditto. Thank you, Commissioner Binder. Ditto on the carports. But, you know, on the landscaping, I would agree, I think with the reduced setbacks, I think we need to go the extra mile to make make it look as attractive as possible. So I would agree with your comment about the enhanced landscaping. So you're talking about enhanced landscaping not only in the parking lots but in the landscape setbacks around the buildings. That's correct, that's correct. That kind of goes back to design standards, but that that's I don't think we talked about that. So thank you. Okay. Commissioner Bronsky, I, I agree with Commissioner Bender I on both okay. All right. We have consensus on that one. All right. We're knocking these out. All right. Expressway corridor overlay I'm going to go out on a limb and say Mr. Ali might have an opinion on this. Expressway corridor. Should it be removed or enhanced for all dwellings, or should we talk about balconies? So. Hang on. There you go. Sorry. I know they want to take my baby away. I actually have an option three. And tell me if this makes sense. Keep the overlay. So basically combine option two with option one b. Is that something. What page are you on? Oh I went just I went back to the recommendation. So recommendation one is to remove the overlay completely and eliminate the standards completely or require standards one through four listed for all institutional dwellings. Multifamily mixed use buildings in the city, with item four adopted as a citywide standard. I like. Option one B, but I would love it to be added almost as a bullet point C in option two. Okay, so you want to move one B down and duplicate it under option two. So it has a, b, c, and then you would support option two. With the overlay remaining. Remove the standards that can't be required. Keep the rest. Then have them apply to all dwelling units in the overlay and prohibit balconies and require the standards for all institutional dwellings. Multifamily and mixed use in the city, with item four adapted to a citywide standard. Correct? Correct. Yes. Okay. All right. This is why we're here, Commissioner Bronsky. Commissioner Ali had actually the exact same thing that I was going to suggest as well. So I completely agree with what Commissioner Ali has mentioned, and I think it is very important that we do maintain this overlay. Okay. Anybody else? Kind of Commissioner Ali's baby. So if he's I can't disagree with him Commissioner Ali. Well like I actually like in favor of removing the overlay but keeping the standards and make it like a citywide. So I'm sorry. No that's fine. Okay. I'm not sure we have consensus, but I think you have some direction, some ideas. I'm sorry, Commissioner Brounoff. I didn't see your light. Come on. Sorry. No, I would say that keeping the overlay is a good idea because, you know, expressways have impacts on adjacent properties that are not citywide. They are only applicable to those that happen to be located next to expressways. So, no, I favor keeping the overlay to the extent that it's not prohibited by SB 840. And Commissioner Ali's proposal is fine. Commissioner Bender, I also concur. With Commissioner Ali. Commissioner Ali, and to give more context to maybe Commissioner Ali to my side, we've put in a lot of work into the overlay and the a lot of work, a lot of money. And to abandon that just doesn't feel prudent. You know, let's SBA 840 allows us to keep it. Let's take advantage of the work you like, modify it. Right. Because the 500 foot is not allowed anymore. So there are there are a lot of restrictions built into it because of the bills. Right. So we are like we have to change it anyways. Yeah we, we will change it. We will be forced to modify it. Yes. That's why my point. Why not just take the, the, you know like the good points of it, which is, you know, like the energy intakes, you know, like even the balcony, but just, you know, like in general and apply it to everywhere or all the multifamily districts. Right. Which is why I put brought B1B down to take as much as I can. Go ahead. Sorry, I was just going to say try to summarize. Your recommendation is the main difference between one B and your recommendation is that single family uses would be continued, would continue to be prohibited in the restricted area and the balconies facing the expressway would be prohibited for dwellings in the overlay, but otherwise essentially two A is saying one through four are applied to all dwellings in the overlay, and one B is saying it's applied to all dwellings, essentially citywide institutional multifamily. I would actually say the one part of one B that made me want to bring it down is bullet point four becoming a citywide standard. Okay. That's the part that was particularly particularly I wanted to bring down. Okay. Okay. Commissioner Langfelder. Oh, I pushed it again. Sorry. I was just simply going to say that I do think we do. We should maintain the overlay district. It's just to modify it so that, you know, whether that it complies. And I'm fine with what, what has been presented. So. I'm going to go with ditto. All right. Next question. Back to six six. Should multifamily be removed as an allowed use in the RCD zoning district. Is there any objection to that. We all we all we all good with that. All right. We have consensus on that one. Should the subdivision ordinance be revised to ensure adequate infrastructure capacity and enhance the city's ability to choose when and how to allocate funding? Yeah. So let me let me make sure that for the people in the audience, we do actually have people in the audience, which is nice. What we're talking about is that if somebody shows up and wants to redevelop a piece of land and just correct me if I'm wrong here and wants to redevelop a piece of land, there may not be an impact fee. But if we find out that we don't have adequate water utilities in the area to serve that parcel, then we would be in in a in one of two responses, which is, I'm sorry, we can't build there because we can't bring you adequate service or you can pay to upgrade the service if you want to still build there. But we're not going to commit the taxpayers to upgrading the water lines in the area so that you can redevelop this if it's not already in a bond program somewhere. Is that fair? That's one of the components in the suggested changes for the subdivision ordinance. Yes. Okay. So does that is that an example of what would be in number seven is that I know there's other examples, but that's a fairly significant one. Yes okay. All right. So does anybody have any issues with number seven. No okay. We're good on number seven. Number eight sorry. Should single family uses be permitted in more nonresidential districts such as the RC tier one and tier two housing types patio homes two family single family attached should they be included in all residential all residential districts in A and B be allowed? I think that's several questions in there, but let's take them one at a time. Should single family uses be permitted in nonresidential? If we're going to allow multifamily in nonresidential, should we also allow single family in nonresidential to encourage more single family development? Commissioner Brounoff I would say no, except for multi use districts in which they may be appropriate, but generally, I mean we separate residential from nonresidential in order because they're viewed as inherently incompatible with each other. And neighborhoods require, you know, quiet peace and not the hustle and bustle and adverse impacts that nonresidential uses can impose upon them. I, you know. These particular types of housing might be appropriate as transitional districts between, let's say, a single family district and multi-family district or single family and a commercial type district. But no, except for multi use plan developments, I do not see residential uses in nonresidential districts. Okay, Commissioner Lolly, I completely agree. But also like we got some zoning cases that we looked at and they proposed some like single family with the multifamily with a mixed use actually the one for the Willowbend. Right. So like yeah. But I mean, you know, like it's probably it's an option for them if they want to. I don't know. I'm not I'm not so sure about that. But I know that you like usually the single family needs more quiet, but I think it's giving them the option. Okay, Commissioner Langfelder. Typically with a single family, it it also affects the adjoining properties around it as it, as it is today. Now, I don't know what I'm not I need to really study this a little bit more. But. For what? For the time I had. I have to, you know, Mr. Bernoff had made a at the start of this kind of pointed out we've only had four days, but what I've been able to kind of digest. And what I know from the past, if there's a single family in there, it affects other property around it. You know that it requires the adjoining properties to have bigger setbacks and different things. And I know setbacks is in this now. So how does that work? But. And it's because they just don't conform. As we've kind of talked about that there is a reason we kind of put buffers and we and we, we put single family and separate them from industrial. And we you know, we don't want to not not to be pick on a city, but we don't want to be like Houston where you have no zoning and everything's just mishmashed around. There is some conformity and. Structure, I guess, that that should be always utilized here, or it's just you got a Bumble mess. So I don't know. I think no right now is what I'm leaning towards on this one. So. Okay. Commissioner Ali. I think if we think of the purpose of the of 840 to let me give grace primarily diversified housing stock to allow for multifamily options, then my reaction to that bullet point is no, we. It feels more like a bit of a back door way to. Mute the purpose of the bill, with a caveat that if we do do that from more of a esthetic and keeping with the spirit of diversifying housing stock, we should probably limit those single family types to things that are more multifamily in feel like the stack townhome, the manor house, those kind of buildings where again, we achieve the purpose of diversity, diversifying housing stock while still satisfying, it feels like SB 840 purpose of bringing. Or rather, we're kind of achieving the compliance and SB 840 at the same time. So first, whatever is no. But if we do do that, it's not the classic SF three SF two duplex. It's more multifamily style single family, if that makes sense. If I can interject one thing in there, and then I'll get to the rest of the people asking Rtxdi tier one and tier two, at least in my mind, are kind of small scale multifamily. They're single family products. They're designed to fit in with small scale multifamily, but the I think that the tier one are closer to the kind of our traditional housing type so that they are small, small lots. Tier two starts to be, especially with the stacked townhome, as Commissioner Ali said, starts to kind of look a little bit more like multifamily in this example. That's what I was thinking. Kind of stacked townhome feels like multifamily, kind of looks like multifamily, even though it's technically owned by single family, kind of kind of almost condo. Kind of. That's right. Okay. Just want to make sure I was on the same page. Okay. Commissioner Tong. I have a different opinion from, I guess, everyone else. I personally feel like Plano needs more housing, but from very beginning, our comp plan is that we don't want apartment buildings basically. But since now we have a new law that kind of allows all the non residential uses, land that can be used for multifamily, why not allow them to be single family, especially the single family uses we're considering are all small lots like 3000ft■!S, 2000ft■!S, duplexes and, you kn, 1500 square feet and stacked townhomes. Townhomes. These are very good. I personally think these are very good uses for those currently nonresidential properties that if someone or, you know, if we should allow them to be converted to residential uses, I think we should allow single family uses. Okay. Commissioner Bender, thank you. Chairman. I think, you know, we're talking in very general terms right now, right? Not about any specific areas or adjacency. And, you know, just out of respect for existing homeowners, right? Their their values that can be affected by allowing adjacent development that may not be compatible. So I just think that we have to be careful because we're talking very general. We're not talking about a specific area or adjacency. So I think as we as we move forward, you know, you know, I think the citizens would want us to, you know, be mindful to the extent that we can based on what the law says, that we're just, you know, we make decisions that try to preserve existing home values, where that where they sit today with development that may become adjacent, if that makes sense. I think that's fair. Yeah. Good. Good statement, Commissioner Bronsky. So. In general, I'm not in favor of this one, but I do have. I guess I'm trying to think through the process of. And it's not directly to single family homes as much as it is the conversion piece of properties that can be converted from commercial into multifamily. After five years of being vacant, and whether the flexibility of giving somebody the option of scraping the property and. Redoing it as a single family attached, detached, or some combination thereof. But. I've got to agree with Mr. Bruno. I guess I feel like I'm just not having an original opinion at all, but not having enough time to really process enough of this. My initial take has got to be it doesn't make sense right now for this particular putting single family homes in the midst of that mix of possibility, as Commissioner Bender points out, and to the point of what is that single family property now going to cause on these other properties as it as those other properties might redevelop? Now they're bound by some of the adjacency requirements that single family homes bring that they may not have otherwise been bound to otherwise. So I guess that's that's my thought. I'm going to tell you we have consensus, except I'm going to be the contrarian on this one. I have a hard time distinguishing between the tier two rcds and single family attached, and a lot of the multifamily product that's out there right now. And so and when you look at a lot of multifamily product that's out there right now, it's three story with a ground level entrance and it's for lease versus three story with a ground level entrance that's for sale. It's really the only difference. So that's why I guess from my perspective, I don't have a problem with stacked townhomes. Townhomes, single family attached RCD two and single family attached being allowed in the same as the Multi-families. Because it's visually I don't know whether you're renting or owning. I can't tell by looking at your front door. And so and I don't know, it could have been originally owned and now it's owned by an investor and now it's rented and it's the same product. So that's why I don't have a problem with that. I do respect y'all's opinion about the single family house, the patio home, even even the two family residents. I was told recently that I'll call twin homes or anyway. But anyway, they're duplexes to me. But I get that, and I don't think those are appropriate, but I think we should take a hard look at townhomes and stuff because they look like multifamily product that might be built there anyway. So okay, so do I have do I have a nod? Sorry. Yeah. Just just just to add something Commissioner Bronsky brought up. If multifamily goes there, they adjacency effect on the neighboring communities kicks in anyway. So if there's a neighboring commercial property, whether we put multifamily in that re scrubbed piece of land and or we put a single family in that, I think we still have similar effects to the neighboring commercial properties. Is that a fair reading, Mike, or am I off? Yeah, I think I think at least in my mind, the question is if I put a three story townhome for rent next to single family versus a three story townhome for sale, isn't the effect on the residential adjacent residential exactly the same? The same? So I think for what I agree. Option one no. Option two if we do, we restrict it to. Tier two style homes, which and actually gives a different housing stock for the kind of families or for the families that are moving into Plano, which are multi-generational, needing that kind of living together but feeling separate or independent and what have you. So if we go single family, I would want a restriction to tier two types. Okay. Commissioner Brounoff, I don't want to see single. I don't want to see residential homes of any kind next to a warehouse. That's a non residential district I mean. Yeah. And unfortunately we could get apartments there under 840. So hold on, hold on. Let me turn your mic on okay. Sorry but there is a restriction right on heavy industrial. Like there's a distance zone like for, for heavy industrial uses but the not warehouses right. Warehouses would not be subject to adjacency buffers or anything. That's correct. Okay. So I'm going to put this out there and see if I get heads nodding. The short answer is no. We don't want to expand single family uses with the exception of. RCD tier two types. Can we all agree? Hold on. John, I do have a question. If we were to go to tier two types, how does that if this is my question or Christine can. Can we prevent the restrictions that come with single family type stuff that affect the properties surrounding it? You know, how would they have additional buffers, they have additional screening, or they have to whatever that might that comes along with single family adjoint adjacency. You know, multifamily is different. It is different. It doesn't require a lot of the same stuff a single family does. So if we went to a single family use, does that come all all come along with it that then I think currently the ordinance treats multifamily and single family as residential and the and they apply to residential. There may be some some specific instances where it's different, but generally that's the case. We'll need to look at this a little bit closer in regards to multifamily as well as single family. But for example, when we expanded the single family allowances for retail, there's language in there that like the screening wall that would be required for the retail use is now the responsibility of the single family developer to build that in. And we can look at that as an example. But also any buffers we can look at possibly writing it so that it's clear kind of kind of based on who comes first. Or second. Okay. I think we have some consensus on that. All right. Number nine, should signage be required for developments that receive land use permissions due to SB 840? I'm going to lead off on this one and say, I see that as more of a political question for the Council than a land use question for planning and zoning. That's just my personal opinion, but I will certainly defer to the commission if you feel otherwise. Mr. Ali. Yes, it does have political considerations, but I think from a. We govern noticing requirements and we govern notice requirements where there are multiple owners, you know, on a lot, you need to give notice to multiple owners. Otherwise call a public hearing. We have language that almost gives us the power to make sure. And I'm going to steal something. Mike said a long time ago that the public is well informed, right. I think this falls under our responsibility to make sure the public is well informed and city council can chew on the political part. Fair statement. Commissioner Bruno. Yes, I agree, we need to see the public is well informed and it's no different than what we're doing with zoning cases. Now. We put a sign up. If we don't inform the public, I mean, we'll be opening ourselves up to having the public come down here and express opinions that are based on inadequate information that could be avoided. You know, controversy could be avoided by making sure they're well informed and collaterally should they form a, you know, opinions about the land use and should they be moved to communicate with their elected representatives about it? That's fine with me. But I think we need to, you know, inform the public. Okay. Commissioner Bender, chairman, I agree with your comment. That's probably a question for City Council. I do also agree that. You know, we require signage for zoning, right? We're changing zoning. And I think that when a resident sees something that's being developed or built that's inconsistent with what they thought was going to occur, I think we owe them, you know, communication. So I think communicating is important. And I think also whether we agree or disagree with the law, we're obligated to comply with it. So you know which which we which we are. But I believe there there is a political component of that. But I think we also are obligated to keep them informed. Okay. Commissioner Bronsky, I'm not going to rehash. I believe that this is more than a political question because we had. A lot of turmoil and trouble within the city of Plano that a lot of citizens and staff put years of time in to create a comprehensive plan that was able to. Be unanimously approved at multiple different levels. And to me. I think it's important that we address and implement this law as it's given to us. But for us not to tell in very plain language, the citizens as well as the businesses that we made agreements with when we created our comprehensive plan, that these changes are not necessarily because this body or our council and certainly not our staff, are making these on their own, but that we're being put into a position that the comprehensive plan that we put forward and put the time and effort we did into it is being overridden by state law. I think it is absolutely, 100% the responsibility of this body to communicate to those citizens and those businesses why we are allowing some of these things that this bill requires to have happen. And communicating that in as many ways possible. And so to me, both of these, we should find the best ways possible to continually put this at the forefront of every citizen that's in Plano, that when things like SB 840 are out there and creating something different than the citizens want, and the businesses expect that, we are able to clearly tell them that we're complying with state law as opposed to overriding their wishes. Commissioner Lingenfelter, I'll start with a ditto. I couldn't agree more. I do I do have a question, though, now that this law is coming to pass. Now that they have by right to put multifamily in, does that mean it really isn't a zoning case? They didn't even have to put any. They can just go in now without having to put signage up at all and just they can develop it how they want with multifamily because it's now by. Right. That's correct. Okay. So this is now just we're we're now basically saying. We know you have it by right due to the state law. But we're going to now still require you to put up signage. And, and then I think not I actually say yes on both. Not what is it nine and ten. So also send out notices like it was a zoning case even though it's not. They have it by right already. So obviously I don't know. You know we'll have to cross that path. You know how that works with with other things to consider. But. I just wanted to check to make sure that that is the case, that technically, you know, they have it by. Right, so they don't even have to notice it. All right. That's right. So but I, I do think we should I do think it is it is our responsibility to inform the public. Commissioner lolly, I agree I agree that we have to send those notices. My question is, you know, like because this law is going to change the texture of the city, it's not going to be the same after this. Like not the city that we like. Always familiar with and like, or how we used to look at the city. But my question is like, will this be a burden to the city to send all these notices? That will be additional work for you guys to do that? There would be additional work, though. We are suggesting that there would potentially be a fee. I think it's not worded in this question, but that's part of that. To essentially accommodate that or account for that staff time. That's good. Yeah. That's good. Yeah. Yeah I think we should. Yeah. Thanks. Commissioner Tong. Also I want to start with ditto to all the above, but I want to go a little bit further on the specifics about the notices. I'm not sure if you're discussing only number nine or number ten and nine and ten together. I personally think number nine is something we should do, but we should limit it to only the projects that are that would have been considered a zoning change at before SB 840. And now because of the A40, it's not a zoning change anymore. So any project that's kind of in that category, I'm not sure if there's any case in following the SBA 40, but it wasn't a zoning change before. I mean, I just don't know if there's any sets of projects that that but if anything, that would have been a zoning change that the citizens are expecting if they see this corner retail center is being changed into a multifamily, they would be expecting a zoning change sign. That's where I think we should put a sign there saying, wait a minute, this is not a zoning change. This is following the SB, A40 law. Just to kind of provide that information to the citizens. Also, I'm not sure if we should put a time frame on this type of notices. When should we stop? You know what? When would the citizens already know, oh, this is what's happening. We don't have to. Because I think we as a city, we have our. Ordinances to say that the sign A notice is required for zoning changes and moving forward when everybody already know that within this law, this is not a zoning change. It is by right. Maybe they don't expect the sign to be there, and putting a sign there may be confusing everyone. So I think that's a question for staff, maybe for the entire body of the commission to discuss. Should we put a time limit there, or should we say this is outside of the comp plan? Or maybe there's a limit on how long the comp plan can govern? We discussed that a little bit internally, and we're thinking that perhaps we'll kind of know when those signs might not be necessary anymore. And we could consider an amendment to no longer require those signs at that time, just as an option. Right. So just something to consider. And personally, I don't think ten number ten is necessary. As long as we have a sign there, it's good enough because this is not a zoning change. That's just my opinion okay. Thank you, Commissioner Ali. I was going to add I agree with your point. The reason why I actually want nine and ten is if we were going to do zoning changes, city, according to the city's regulations, we would require notice. And this is almost like a state driven zoning change. Right. So in the same framework, we should require notices of a state driven zoning change, which includes. Number ten. And to the question, that's actually a very great point. I think we have to revise the comp plan anyway. I believe in a couple of years that's a natural insertion point, because we will have to adjust our comp plan to match state regulations where we can now remove that requirement, because now it's the city's regulations. I'm going to I'm going to jump in and take a turn real quick, and I'll come back to you, Sean. Number one, apparently I'm out of step with my commission, which is fine, but question for staff. We're not going to be noticing for zoning cases on 840. I'm going to call them 840 tracks. Right. But we are going to have site plan that comes forward to us, even if it's allowed under 840, we're still going to have a site plan that comes forward to us. So if that's the case, can we add in the in the ordinance a requirement for the notice requirements for site plan approval on 840 cases? I think that could be a good trigger, because that way they'll be here to listen to the presentation. They can see what's being proposed. They can provide their input. We still have an administrative approval requirement, but it is does provide the normal mechanism that people are used to seeing for notices. Zoning cases, which is a site plan case in this case, I think an assistant Director Bill can correct me if I'm wrong, but I think some of the site plans will be approved administratively sorry through the consent agenda. So there might not be a presentation. So that might be something to think about if that's correct. That's correct. And then also administratively we don't often know the P and Z meeting until the week before. That's actually going to make the agenda. So it'd be hard to notice for a date. But I think I hear the intent. We could look at options for that. Yeah. I think the you know and maybe they don't maybe 840 don't go on the consent agenda. Maybe we have to have a separate item for them. Let's look at options for that because I'm, I'm hearing a broad consensus from the commission here. So Commissioner Langfelder yeah I like that idea. It but I do think maybe, maybe that is the in there. The go around is that it's not on the consent. They just they have to go before us, even if it is simply a straight on, you know, approval. But, you know, rubber stamp kind of thing. But it's at least presented. And people understand the reason I thought that the notices were important beyond just the signage, because at first my first thought was no. But then the more I thought about it, if you saw the sign and you automatically see zoning change, you may not even read it very well. You might be driving by and you can't read it because you're driving by 40 miles an hour. But you saw the zoning sign, the traditional zoning sign. So you're thinking there's a zoning change. But having that notice would explain to the to you have something that they can read and understand. Okay. What is 840? I mean, does does anybody in the crowd truly know what 840 is? Until we brought it up here. The average citizen has no idea. But those those written notices would explain what's going on and why it's going on and give them a better understanding so that they're not just notified. They're also educated. Mr. Tom. I the reason why I just want to explain the reason why I don't think ten was necessary was because traditionally, the notices to the citizens, like within the 200ft or, you know, 500ft is for the citizens to respond to the notices, has a page for the notice to respond to, say, I support, I oppose, blah, blah, blah. But I think if we were going to send notices, I'm fine with sending notices, but we need to make it different because we need to tell them you do not have a voice in this because I have been to. I don't know if all of you are here many, many sessions that we have half of the room people coming to say we're against this apartment, but it was built by. Right. There's nothing we could do. I think that's a waste of time for the citizens, and that's misleading to the people and waste the time of ours to a waste of effort of all the staff member to send the notices or receive it, you know, combine them and do the data analysis. Because this is built by. Right. No matter how many people show up here to against it, to talk for three hours, we cannot do anything about it. So if we were going to send notices out, we have to be so clear that this is not a discussion. This is just informative, that you know this is happening, but you do not have a voice. And also I think. Commissioner Lingenfelter reminded me that I wanted to say that earlier. I forgot that the signs for this. I wouldn't call it a zoning change at all. It's a by right. It has to be different. I highly recommend that we make a sign that totally different look and feel different from our traditional zoning change request signs so that people can know it's different. Don't mistake. Don't make it the same sign. Just the words are different. Then everybody will like, you know, old habits will think, oh, this zoning change, but it's not a zoning change. Make sure that big, bold letters saying this is not a zoning change. My $0.02. That's fair. All right. I think we have a consensus. Are you getting a consensus? I think so okay. That's for both nine and ten. Correct? I believe so, Commissioner lolly, you had another. Yeah. Just just a comment. So you like so this zoning change or you like this law change? Let's say it's you like, it's not like the apartment buildings that the community rejects. Right. Because the apartment you like, they pick a site and it's just going to be like an apartment. But this one is going to be within a retail, within a commercial setting, just like those the, you know, like they're popping out everywhere in Dallas and, you know, like in Allen and Plano, like just like the feel of the legacy West thing. I know it's on a like a smaller scale, but you're like just incorporating the multifamily with the commercial, right? It's not just like a no. Oh, you don't like it? I mean, you like it is. It's a part of the change. Maybe you like, why was it implemented? Because probably a lot of the developers are thinking that way. Like you don't just build apartment building or a residential, but you like, you also supply it with all the commercial support like environments, you know, like, so you can work, you can go to you like, go home and work and eat and the same setting. So maybe it is a little bit different. Maybe the like the public will accept it, you know. Yeah. That's just my comment okay. Thank you Mr. Bronsky. So well let me, let me, let me preface just a second, because I, I think we're starting to no offense, starting to wander off into general comments about this. So let's let's stay on the items and then we'll get to the end and we can offer general comments if we want. No, I was just going to answer her statement that the four corner for the 47, I think, or 41 or whatever the number is, the 41 locations across the city that now have access to put in multifamily were big topics during the process of a lot of our citizenry having concerns with multifamily showing up in those. Now we have to comply with that. But the people in Plano were not looking forward to multifamily, in your words, popping up all across our city. In the commercial sector, that's what I said. Well, but I'm saying the commercial settings, he's the one by I understand. Yeah I understand yeah. The JCPenney well and Toyota approved that. They weren't really interested in that popping up up there either. But to say there were a lot of citizens all across the spectrum that finally came to an agreement at the comprehensive plan, that of where we wanted multifamily and where we didn't want multifamily. And I think it's important to make sure that all of Plano knows where we're deviating from what we said we were going to do, to make sure we let them know, to go back to numbers nine, go back to numbers nine and ten. Yes. All right. Thank you for closing the loop. All right. I think you got direction on nine and ten. Number 11, our proposed changes to landscape standards and minimum unit sizes appropriate for mixed use and multifamily. I think we've already talked about the landscaping, so we'll set that aside. We've already addressed that question. So minimum unit sizes. And I know you showed us. But refresh my memory, the minimum unit sizes that you were talking about in the presentation are are those in ordinance today or is this be an addition to the ordinance today? They're in the ordinance today under our three multifamily residence districts, one, two and three. Okay. So how would this how is this different than what we already have? It would just expand it and apply to all all multifamily in the city except in I think it's you and BG where there are slightly smaller restrictions on unit sizes. Okay. So we're basically taking the standards we've already had and just expanding them to cover any potential zoning category where multifamily could now be built. Correct? Okay. So it's not a change, it's just an expansion to make everything uniform essentially. Okay. Any questions on that from anybody? We all good with continuing our standards. All right. Now here's the free for all. Any other issues we want to talk about I have two. So let me get mine out of the way first in the small lot subdivision under SB 15, one of the staff comments was looking at wider alleys in SB 15 for anything that's built under 15. But I caught something in your presentation that I hadn't caught before, which was that under SB 15, they're only required to have one off street parking place per residence, which concerns me greatly because is not our standard residential street. Width 33ft. I'm not sure the exact width, so we don't require alleys currently so they can be front loaded, and the current residential street is 26 foot 26, even worse. So now we're going to have under this law, if we stay with the standard 26 foot, you're going to have a nine foot car on one side and a nine foot car on the other side, because there's only one space in the driveway, and the space in between is not enough for a fire truck. So I think we need to look at some sort of a option for the developer to say, if you give us two off street parking spaces, you can stay with the standard street width. If you only give us one off street parking space, you got to go to a 35 foot street because otherwise I can't. I can't put emergency vehicles down the road because we've got to have emergency access. What we're looking at is if the lots are beneath a certain width, 50ft, then they have to provide an alley. That way all the parking out front is available for curbside parking. That's not currently the requirement. Another thing that is requiring our street design that has the on street parking in these in these types of subdivisions, so that there's essentially visitor parking in the public street. Okay, I'm not worried about visitor parking. I'm worried about a spouse's car, a teenager's car, a grandma's car. If there's only one off street parking space. I know very few houses that only have one car. Everybody's got at least two. Some three, 4 or 5. And so where are they going to park? And so I want to make sure that we have adequate parking whether it's adequate or not. I want to make sure that knowing they're going to park on the street, that we've got adequate emergency vehicle access or make one side of the street, no parking or something. I want to I want us to really think hard about making sure that street is adequate for emergency vehicles. Okay, I'll take a look. So that's item one that I had. And other one is just just a general question in the districts where our current height is less than 45, but we're required to allow 45 for multifamily. Are we going to raise our heights to 45 for everything else, or is commercial still going to be limited to 35, even though the multifamily can go to 45? Our current proposal, we would leave the nonresidential minimums as they are, but open to discussion on that. Okay, I think I don't I don't know that I have an answer. I was just a question. So and I'm not suggesting we can solve that tonight, but I just wanted clarification on that. So okay. Those were my questions, Commissioner Lingenfelter, it's funny you you brought up the same thing with 15 that I was going to ask questions about, because I keep thinking, okay, 3000ft■!S. You got you can do a0 foot wide lot by 100. You know, it. And it looked like the 30 foot wide was your minimum too. So you could go that small, which now you're, you're you're really packing them in and I don't know if you alluded to that, Mike. With the, with the alley, you know, if anything less than 50 they have a have to have alley. Is that what you were saying or what. Yes that's right that the driveway would be in the back. So, so if they go to 30 foot or if they go to or anything less than 50, maybe even 60, you have to have an alley. I do think that's a good idea. I also think if. You know, there may be some street. Might need to look at this a wider street for sure, because I didn't realize it was 26ft. I feel like mine is bigger than that. But that's that's that's tight. You definitely can't get a fire truck through there. And I've got I've got four kids and three of them are driving. So I'm one of those that have I'm struggling to get all the cars around my house in front of my house. So I'm not making neighbors mad. So yeah, that's that's definitely an issue. So. All right, Commissioner Bender, I would just to know your comments about the fire truck. We've had previous cases and circumstances, and I've lived in a development where you couldn't get a fire truck down the alley and couldn't get it down the street either. So I think those are those are very legitimate concerns that we should take a look at. Okay. Commissioner Tong. I was going to say that regarding SB 15, I have lived in a community in Washington, DC area. They're all like 30 years ago. They already have communities that are built with single car garage houses, rows, rows of single car garage houses. They're fine, no problem. It's not that terrible. So don't worry. First of all, second of all, I think I would recommend to examine the building line. You know, from the their needs. I'm not sure if that's called a setback or just maybe the building setback from where your property line is. Basically, you want to allow enough driveway because it's a single car garage. That driveway is very, very important. You do not want people to have cars parked sticking out to the road, especially when the roads are narrow. So you have to have that requirement to make sure the driveway is long enough for the car to park on the driveway without going into the garage. So that's the only thing that I can think of that we should probably make sure that we have that in our standards. Hopefully that's not any violation of that new law. Correct me if I'm wrong from your memo, the law requires a maximum 15 or minimum 15 foot front yard setback, right? I believe that's correct. And a one parking space per home that cannot be required to be covered. So they can have one driveway to the front wall of their house that they can park in with. One car under this law is that am I reading that right? They don't have to have a garage. They do not have to have a garage. I think we're requiring them to be rear entry though. Correct? Well, what I'm reading this is you could require rear entry, but you but you can't require a garage. So you're you're talking about a one car parking pad. Correct. And the rear yard setback is only ten feet, correct? Yes. I think because we are allowed to require one parking space, we would be able to use our standard parking space dimensions that we require for most driveways. Okay. That's 20ft. Okay. We can do that. You think let's, let's let's look at that. Let's look at that. Because I think you're hearing the concern of the commission about off street parking versus on street parking. So yeah, we've got reduced setbacks in some districts. And we still require 20ft to the garage, even if the setback for the house itself is something less than 20ft. So we've got standards for that that I think will accommodate your concerns. Okay. Great. All right, Commissioner Bender, sorry, I interjected. Thank you. Chairman. Commissioner Tong, I just wanted to follow up on your comment about Washington, DC. We have mass transit here, but we don't have mass transit. And in Washington, DC, people take mass transit. And you're right, it's not an issue in Washington DC, but it's an issue in Plano, Texas. So I would just remind everybody that we don't have a mass transit system like some of these other cities have, that's accessible to citizens to be able to walk, to get to a transit station in most cases. So that's why I think parking is very critical. So we need to figure out how to navigate that the best we can under the law. I agree, Commissioner Olli, absolutely no value to this comment. I just thought of an F-150 in some of the spaces and made me chuckle a little bit. So no value. All right, who else has notes in the margins that we need to communicate to the staff? They got a lot of work to do in a short time to do it, and we want to give them as much ammunition as we can to know what we're thinking. Anybody else have any comments, Commissioner Bronsky one comment. For all of the time, energy and effort that Miss Day and your staff, that Miss Sebastian and even Mister Bell. We I want to say I sincerely appreciate all of the time and effort that you all put in, in tracking all of this, the way that you have kept us, as well as council updated on it. I feel like you guys did an admirable job, and all of your recommendations and all of the thought, energy and effort that have been put into what you've presented tonight. I think you've done Plano proud again, so thank you. Well thank you. We appreciate all of your time. And you will get a chance in a week to talk about all of this some more. Yay! Okay, so I'm going to ask one loaded question. If anybody has one of those moments at 3:00 in the morning, do you want us to email you or want us to hold the comments till next week? I think happy to have you email us so that we can be chewing on it in the meantime. Okay. Yeah. All right, all right. Any other business we have tonight, there's no further business. All right? No other further business will stand adjourned at 1020. 10:28 p.m. I said p p m p m.