Here we go. Welcome to the June 2nd City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission. Call the meeting to order at 6:00 pm. If everybody please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Before we get started with our official agenda, I do want to recognize our new council, one of our new council liaisons. Councilman Member Downs, thank you for joining us tonight. We'll try not to keep you here too late. All right. I'm sorry. Items of public interest. Comments of public interest. There are none. Consent agenda. Consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items that are routine and typically noncontroversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff commissioners. Anybody want to pull any items off the consent agenda? Commissioner Lingenfelter. I move that we approve all the items on the consent agenda as recommended by Staff Commissioner Holly. Second. We have a motion and a second. Motion passes 5 to 0. Just for the record, we do have three members out on vacation this week, so. But we do still have members present. We do still have a quorum. So items for individual consideration, public hearing items, items for individual consideration. Public hearing items unless instructed otherwise by the chair. Speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. 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 Aldridge place block six, lot 11 R one general residential. Lot 1.1 acre. Located on the west side of G Avenue, 380ft north of 11th Street. Zoned general residential and located within the Expressway Corridor Overlay District. The applicant is Mac James the Third. This item is for administrative consideration. Good evening commissioners. My name is Caroline Stewart, planner with the planning department. The applicant is requesting a replat to reflect the current lot lines as reflected in the property deeds. Staff recommends approval, and I'm available for any questions that you may have. One technical question. We're just replatting the one lot. Yes, sir. Is there any ripple effect to the rest of the lots on that block? Not that I'm aware of. No, sir. Okay. So we're not creating any other problems with the next door neighbors. This is going to clean up a problem. I believe so, yes, sir. Okay. Thank you. Oh, wait. And this was originally platted. When? In 1911. So it's been a day or two? Yes, sir. Okay. All right. Any technical questions for staff members? All right. This is a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Do we have anybody registered to speak? There are none. Okay. Nobody registered. Speak. I'll close the public hearing. Commission Commissioner. Olli. I move, we approve. Agenda item number one for the Replat as recommended by staff. Mr. Binder, I second the motion. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 5 to 0. 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 two Custer GST addition block a lot one. Request to reinstate approval. Approval of a conveyance plat for transportation and utility structure facility on one lot on 2.9 acres located on the north side of State Highway one, 90 300ft west of Custer Road. Zoned Plan development 383 retail, general office and located within the State Highway 190 Plano Parkway, an expressway corridor. Overlay districts. The applicant is the North Texas Municipal Water District. This item is for legislative consideration. Commissioners. My name is John Kim, senior planner with the Planning Department. So the property is located at Custer Road and Highway 190. The Planning Department. The planning Department approved the conveyance plat on October 31st, 2024, and the plat expired on May 1st, 2025. The property is undergoing condemnation proceedings and requires additional time to complete the process. There are no conditions on the plat with the previous approval, and no regulation changes are applicable to this development. Plano Fire Rescue and the Engineering Department have reviewed the conveyance plat and have no issues that would prohibit the conveyance plat approval from being reinstated within 60 calendar days following the lapse of approval. Section 3.4 of the Subdivision Ordinance allows the Commission to reinstate the approval. Staff is important. Staff is in support of the requested reinstatement and recommends approval of the reinstatement request. I'm available for any questions. Commission. Any questions for staff. Commissioner lolly. So I wanted to clarify. So they had 60 days before it lapse to submit an application for an extension of time. And they didn't do that. Why? I think they were just trying to hopefully finish the proceedings before it expired. But after it, after they expire, expiration date, since they had the opportunity to reinstate, they chose it this way. Thank you, Commissioner Ali. So the conveyance plat is essentially for them to transfer ownership. Correct? Okay. And just and split lot boundaries and split lot boundaries. The condemnation proceedings. Do we or does it even matter? Do we have a sense of how long it's going to take? Is this extension enough to cover what they need, or would we have to? I have tried to get an update from the applicant. I don't know exactly at this time how long it's going to take. I think it's kind of up to the county at this point. So thank you, Commissioner. I can give you a little feedback on that. I've been involved in a few of those, and it can take from one day to the rest of our lives. It depends on it depends on how many attorneys get involved. No offense. Commissioner Lally. I have a question. So what happens if you like? If we give them the extension? It's for six months, right? So what happens after that? If they didn't finish their process? I presume they have to come back again if they've not finished by that point. Yeah, I think they can apply for another reinstatement or extension and PNC can deliberate on at that time. And they they cannot do the conveyance without having them finish their process of condemnation. Right. That's my understanding. Yes. Yeah. Because I think right now the in order to file the conveyance plat, the county needs to finish this process. And so they're just waiting on it. Okay. Correct me if I'm wrong. The seller would have to sign the plat. Right. I think the current property owner would have to sign the plat, and they're not going to sign it unless the process is over. So. Okay. Did that answer your question? Yes. Okay. Any other questions of staff? Nobody. Okay. This is not a public hearing item, but I didn't see anybody registered. All right. Commission, what's your pleasure? Thank you. Commissioner Lingenfelter. I'll move to approve this reinstatement as recommended by Staff Commissioner Bender. Second the motion. All right. We have a motion and a second. Anybody? Please vote. Motion passes 5 to 0. Item number three. Agenda. Item number three. Hold a discussion and provide direction regarding the potential rezoning of 7.8 acres of city owned property located at the northeast corner of Jupiter Road and Los Rios Boulevard. The applicant is the City of Plano. Oh, that was fast. Okay, so here's the property located at Jupiter Road and Los Rios Boulevard. The purpose of this item is to receive direction regarding the zoning of a 7.8 acre property. The subject property is located within the neighborhood. Neighborhood. Future land use category of the future land use map. It is currently zoned PD 12 multifamily one, and it is surrounded by agricultural zoning, and some adjacent properties are developed with single family residences, and then to the north and east are some single family seven zoned districts. Just a few miles up, the property was acquired by the City of Plano in 2023, and there are no imminent plans to use the site for city purposes. In 2016, a zoning case was approved, rezoning the property from agricultural to PD 12 SF seven to allow the development of 22 single family detached homes with modified standards, but they were never built. In 2022, the property was rezone from PD 12 SF seven to PD 12 Mf1 80. Multifamily residents with modified development standards were proposed, but these were ultimately never built as well. And here are some options for the subject property. They aren't limited to this list here. So the first one is maintaining the current zoning of PD 12 Mf1. And this would allow the property to be developed per the PD 12 Mf1 stipulations. A second option would be to rezone back to PD 12 SF seven. So this would entail repealing ordinance number 2020 2-9 15 to restore the previous PD 12 SF seven stipulations. So the modified standards would apply for that designation. Another option is to rezone the street SF seven with no PD stipulations. So all the lot dimensions standard size, all would apply. A fourth option is to rezone to agricultural. I do want to note agricultural, according to the zoning ordinance, is intended to provide for farming, dairying, pasturage horticulture animal husbandry and the necessary accessory uses for the packing, treating or storing of produce. It is anticipated that all agricultural districts will be changed to other zoning classifications as the city proceeds towards full development. So that does need to be considered. Another option is delay of consideration of rezoning for the zoning and subdivision ordinance for the rewrite, and then any other options that is considered by the Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm available for any questions. Okay. I have some questions, but one of them I'm going to direct to Miss Day. We had a conversation earlier today, and I asked you to run a little research on if you'll put back up the screenshot with the PD, one of your first, one of your first slides, that the orange PD boundary on it. There you go. The city also owns the two lots north of Los Rios that are immediately south of the PD 12, and so I asked Christina to do a little research for us. And can you share with the commission what you learned? Hang on. Where are you? Okay, I there you are. I'm on. All right. The city does own, actually, four different parcels on the northeast side of Los Rios Boulevard. They are currently. Intended, I want to say, to be parkland at some point, but are not actually required to be parkland. They're not currently used as parkland and so could be utilized for some other purpose. So I talked to the Parks Department, the Special Projects Department, and the Deputy City manager, Jack Carr, about the potential for using those for development in order to provide funding for parkland and other areas where there are greater needs, according to the parks master plan. So that may be an opportunity for the city if we wish to proceed forward with some single family residential related zoning on the property. Consistent with the comprehensive plan. So, Commission, one of the reasons I asked that question is because if we're going to entertain a city initiated zoning in this area, I would like part of this discussion to be to ask the staff to finish doing a little more due diligence and see if we want to include some of those, some or all of those other parcels in this action while we're at it, because there's no reason to do this piecemeal. And so this orange square may get bigger or may not, but I think it's worth at least the staff having an opportunity between now and whatever public hearing we have for the zoning case to explore that a little further. So that's just a little feedback for you all. The other thing, because we didn't have our briefing on the on the rewrite committee tonight, I do have the privilege to chair that one as well. And I will share with you that one of the primary goals of the rewrite committee is to get away from PD's anywhere we possibly can, to try to get back to straight zoning, if at all possible. And so it would be, in my opinion, a counterintuitive for us to either leave in place or go back to another PD. When in next week you're going to hear a briefing about how hard we've been working to rewrite the zoning ordinance so that we don't have to hopefully have PD moving forward. So I in my opinion, I would if we do anything, I would like to see us go to a straight zoning of some kind, not go back to a previous PD and not leave the current PD in place. I do have some comments from Commissioner Bruno that I'll share with you all as well in just a minute, but I wanted to kind of put that out there, at least from my perspective with the rec committee, and also based on the fact that we have other parcels that are adjacent that we may want to consider in a global, more of a global effort than just a singular tract. With that said, I'm going to I'm going to put on my Commissioner Bronsky hat just for a minute. I cut my hair this morning just to make sure it fit. Don't repeat that to him. I know he would be very focused on. He and I talked briefly about it. He would be very focused on honoring, obviously honoring the comprehensive plan. So the comprehensive plan zones, this all as neighborhood, which is generally single family focused. And so it I, I don't want to put words in his mouth, but I feel certain that he would want us to lean towards a single family zoning of some level, just because that is consistent with the overall comprehensive plan. And I also believe that that is what the comprehensive plan intended is that this would be a single family area. The question is, what is the appropriate single family? And it seems like SF seven is what is nearby. And so at least to me, that feels right. But I certainly want to hear your thoughts on that. And then I'll also share Commissioner Bruno's thoughts about it as well. So, Commissioner Ali. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You actually answered one of my questions, which would be what does the rewrite have? What's the impact possibly it will have with this. So that takes that off. More of a history setting. It was initially SF seven owner bought owner could not deliver. Do we have history on why they didn't implement the single family zoning in 2016? Why that wasn't taken advantage of and actually built through so that I'm not exactly sure. Do you possibly know? I believe there were financial challenges with just penciling the deal because of the challenges associated with the property, including the amount of floodplain and need to extend infrastructure across the floodplain. And if I'm not mistaken, those challenges where some factor in why the 2022 owner could not deliver on the build here because it was not financially viable. That is my understanding as well. And those conditions are still there. Correct. I look at this as if you can go back to the options that you had in for us to consider. I'm actually of the opinion. That we don't. Obviously, we're going to call for a public hearing that we don't necessarily declare a base zoning, that this might be one of the few chances we get to white space, a large tract of land in Plano. I don't know if, as part of Envision Oak Point, if this tract of land is considered in the Oak Point planning. But I would like to see when this comes back, a broader white space. Wipe everything off the board. We're looking at, well, not everything, but in consideration with what the comp plan has forward, envision Oak Point has forward what the parks master plan has forward. We get to do it well one time. Rather than try and shoehorn stuff in. I would be I would lean heavily in favor of. At minimum, we delay consideration until the zoning ordinance and subdivision ordinance is in place so that we can look at the full palette of what we're trying to draw. I think, and correct me if I'm wrong, I think we've been requested by the council to consider a rezoning of this. Primarily. My understanding is because we don't want to leave the current zoning in place. We'd like to get it back to something that is not multifamily. And so I think as a very least, we need to consider something other than delay. My I'm not I'm not trying to put words in the council's mouth, but that's certainly the feel that I get. Is that correct? I think and I, I don't want to discourage you from taking this action that the way it was agendized at the preliminary meeting for council, we had a single council member request this a second council member confirmed. So I don't think we're clear. Staff is clear on what the direction. If that's those two individuals or if it's the council, there's a majority of council that's looking to rezone at this time. That's why we brought you this option, because they can always remand it back if they're unhappy with that. But we did want to leave that on the table because it wasn't a majority vote. When would we think this would come back? Would it be next meeting or at some point after our briefing from the Rec, it would be at some point after the briefing for the rack, I believe, because we'd need to notice it. Okay. So we'll at least have our briefing on the rewrite before this comes back to us for consideration, at which time we could postpone again if we if we wanted to. Run that back. So if we give direction tonight as to where we think we want to go. And then after our briefing, next meeting about the rewrite that changes our opinion about where we think we want to go, we can post. We can always postpone at that point. Gotcha. Okay. So based on that, I have one further question. If we rezone back to its original, which was agriculture, if I'm not mistaken, does that restrict us in our ability to maneuver going forward? And if we eventually decide that this is supposed to be this is better applicable to single family and what have you, are we restricted in any way or we still have the flexibility to rezone, to rezone? I don't want to get too far out ahead of the of the rewrite committee, but but I'll share with you the discussions that we've been having at the rewrite committee, the intent of the rewrite of part of the rewrite is to streamline the processes. So if you have a let's just say, for argument's sake, a piece of land zoned SF seven, and there's no other zoning that you need, no variances or nothing that you need or that you don't want to change the zoning. There would be a process to actually move very quickly through the site planning and approval process for development. So you would you would skip a step if other than if you wanted. If it was AG, you would have to go through zoning first. So it would actually if we put zoning in place that somebody could live with, it will actually speed up the opportunity for that to be rezoned for that to be redeveloped. Last question. Given the insight from the rewrite that we're trying to essentially eliminate PDS, shouldn't the option be essentially to rezone to just SF seven and remove the PD stipulation from that bullet point? Yeah, that is a potential option. Okay. That that would be my preference, but I wanted to let you all talk through it, Mr. Bender. Thank you. Chairman, you actually just touched on what I was considering was take it back to SF seven and with the, you know, potential in the rewrite and some of the development changes, maybe some flexibility in lot sizes and reduced, you know, the trend tends to be smaller lot sizes. Maybe, maybe if Future Developer looked at that, that might make some of the development costs. Might reduce some of the development costs to make it a go project. So that was my thought is take it back to SF seven. Commissioner Lingenfelter. So I've been kind of going back and forth with this when we got this and. At considering all of what's been said and, and I can't agree more with, I noticed that the city did own some of the property around it, the neighboring property, and that was a thought was because obviously a PD was was put in place because the developer could not make the lot sizes work for the tract of land as it stands now, which Commissioner Hawley kind of went to, we got the same conditions still. So if we were to go back to SF seven, SF seven alone, at least in 2016, based on that straight zoning made it difficult for them to make it work, which is why they added the PD stipulations. So. Going straight SF seven as is effectively going back to AG two, because they're probably going to have to do something, ask for some some variances of some kind to make it work because the they can't get the lot size along with the floodplain and everything else that's on this tract to, to make it feasible that they can actually make money on it when they develop it. So. But I do like the idea of is there an opportunity to, to combine the tracts and if the tract track size changes by, by re plats and everything being the same SF seven across the board, now you might have the opportunity to make lot sizes that SF seven stipulates fit without needing variances. So making an action today may be a mistake to you know but but we could still give guidance and say let's postpone with the idea of SS seven. But let's seven across all the tracks and explore what that might look like. So let me answer a couple of concerns. And then Commissioner Lolly, I promise I'll get to you. I think what you're going to hear in our next agenda item, in our briefing, in the next meeting, is that some of those lot size decisions may have been taken away from us by the legislature. And in addition to that, the rewrite committee is providing additional flexibility for lot sizes and alternate compliance methods. That would probably negate, if I remember correctly, the PD stipulations that were necessary for the single family PD. Is that correct? The single family PD really was looking at there's dimensional standards. I want to say on this property you see the cul de sac. If you John, I don't know if you have a graphic of the single family approval, but it was in the packet. You look at the I do have the oh perfect. That's exactly what I'm talking about. So you look at the cul de sac there that it's at the end between the floodplain and the property line. There's only so much space. The city requires a certain amount of space for that cul de sac. So we couldn't fit standard lots to the west of the cul de sac. So it was things like that that we were that really drove the PD to. I mean, they could, you could just not build those lots, but it was really trying to maximize the, the value of the property in a reasonable way. But but I guess my question is some of the things we're putting in the rewrite would allow those shape lots. We are looking at more flexibility, even merging zoning districts like single family six, single family seven. There are smaller lot sizes. If the commission thinks that's appropriate to consider. Single family attached patio home, single family six or some options that you could consider and then to throw into the mix if the property immediately south of there was rolled into this development, the cul de sac becomes unnecessary, which eliminates that problem. Yeah. So there's lots of variables there. So I'm sorry. So, Commissioner lolly, I'm sorry. You've been waiting a long time. No. So. So I have the same question because you're like, if we're going to go back to the seven and we already did all these changes in the PD, so why are we going to seven and we're going to have the same problems. But I think that with the rewrite you like your you thought about this and you're like and you're going to take care of it. Hopefully we're trying. Yeah we're trying. Yeah. Thanks. Commissioner alley. One other question. So to the left of that is AG to the immediate bottom. Do we know what the zoning is? Just it's ag, but it's park. It's AG again. Park. Yeah. So it's essentially ag all around it except that top right hand corner that is SF seven. Yeah. If you go north along Jupiter there's additional SF seven that isn't shown on the screen. But but in between that it is AG zag. Yeah. Which brings up the my question again is why don't we just what's the. Angst in just rezoning what would essentially be a very large parcel of land homogeneously as AG. Yeah, my concern about that is that if you look at the master plan and you look at the zoning, you look at the zoning map all the way around it, basically everything around it is already zoned SF seven, except for about four estate lots that immediately touch this. The ones that aren't developed as SF seven are all park. That's why they're AG. So across the road to the west is open space AG. Across the road to the south is open space AG. So it's I'm not sure it's a fair comparison to say it's completely surrounded by AG because it's surrounded by floodplain. That's parkland. And then the only outliers really are the estate homes that border it on the north and east. But beyond those estate homes it gets, it goes to SF seven, virtually that whole quadrant of the city. So I my first reaction was to put it back to AG. But but I think the concern is that AG is really a placeholder, not a zoning. And I agree, I'm just trying to. Think to the 2022 conversation, one of the things that we had issue with was essentially almost how isolated that zoning would be right there. And if we have a chance to. Put all the pieces of the puzzle back together in a way that flows, I don't know if that's something we should be looking at a little bit more intently versus, you know, almost isolating and marooning this plot of land, a little bit of a one of these things does not belong here. Kind of why but yeah. And on the multifamily, I agree with you 100%. The single family doesn't feel as out of place to me because it's we have neighbors across the road and behind it, with the exception of the estate homes. So what's the zoning on the estate homes? It's ag ag ag. Okay, okay. Thank you. Okay. Yes, ma'am. Just to Commissioner Ollie's points, we could look at this more broadly as a city initiated rezoning in the area. Look at the privately held agricultural land. But I think that's a bigger process that we're talking about because we're talking about, you know, contacting the property owners, bringing them in for a discussion. And so I think that's something we'd want to probably look at adding to the work plan and then just trying to prioritize that with other demands. So that is something we could do. If that's the direction of P and Z, we could actually take that back to the council as an alternative. Yeah. Okay. Expand on that. So. Because it's privately owned, AG would have to notice the change, bring them in and what have you. But we wouldn't have to do that for SF seven. Why? I guess my understanding was I thought you were looking at let's look at all the property in the area that's zoned AG and what should it be in the future, looking at that more broadly to look at, do we want to rezone the estate development lots out there as well, where their acreages, does it make sense to zone those to some future? State that's maybe allows more development on those lots. If that's not your intent, then I misunderstood. No. So my the reason why I'm looking at AG is just essentially if we're looking at the zoning of the city and that piece of land that homogeneity and flow through kind of makes sense. But if we're going to have to go through a lot more processing, what I'm lost is we would have to do the same for SF seven because we are revoking a zoning, right to put it back or to put it into a new zoning category. We still have to notice the private neighbors and go through the same process. And the different the difference would be if we proactively try call a case to rezone private property versus the city owned property. That's the difference. If we if we restrict ourselves just to the tracts owned by the city, that's not really the holistic approach, I think is what I'm is. I think what I'm trying to communicate, if we if we look holistically, you'd look at that whole quadrant and say, what should it be? But that would involve a zoning case of people's private property, which is a different animal than a zoning case for just the city owned property, because then the effectively, the owner has requested a zoning case for their property. It just happens. It's the city, right? And the city owned properties that we own are currently AG no, they're currently PD 12 and AG R one stuff. That's why I asked to expand the case to all of the city owned property there, to have the staff look at that more holistically and see if we wanted to take a little bigger bite at the apple. Okay, maybe we ought to do this then, because I think, number one, we're missing two commissioners tonight. I know I won't read Mr. Rudolph's entire email, but I know he was back and forth between SF seven and AG as well. I think he he had some of the same concerns that you do and but didn't want to necessarily wait. He believed we needed to do something. So I think we have a lot of questions here. And maybe what we ought to do is ask the staff to come back to us again with a briefing before we call for public hearing and have that briefing focus on if we can make this bigger. And that, I know, may take some other people's involvement from the staff about which parcels may be included. Also, zoom out a little bit on your presentation and show us the comp plan, the surrounding zoning, a little, a little from a little broader perspective so we can understand the whole picture of the neighborhood. And I think if we can have more of a holistic presentation of that quadrant and also a evaluation of is it just this tract or is it multiple tracks, then maybe we revisit this again before we decide what, if any, public hearing we want to hold. Is that fair? We'd be glad to do that. Okay. Does that work for everybody? Okay. All right. We don't need a motion or anything. That's that's your direction is precise as it can be. Got it. Noted. All right. Thank you. Item number four. Agenda item number four. Request to call a public hearing to consider amendments to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance and subdivision Ordinance pertaining to state legislative actions and to ensure compliance with state law. The applicant is the City of Plano. This item is for legislative consideration. Good evening commissioners. My name is Jace Gillis, planner with the Planning Department. And this request is to call a public hearing to consider amendments to various sections of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance pertaining to state law, Legislative actions to ensure compliance with state law. The 89th Legislative Legislature session is scheduled to conclude today on June 2nd. During this session, staff has tracked around 107 bills. Based on those 107 bills, staff is currently analyzing 24 bills that have been passed by. Both chambers. We're also monitoring several other bills that possibly could be moving forward as well. The governor has until June 22nd, 2025 to take action on these bills. Unless vetoed. Most will take effect on September 1st, 2025. However, some may become effective immediately if they receive a two thirds vote in each chamber. Given the volume and complexity of the legislation, staff may bring forward amendments in two phases one set set to meet the September 1st deadline and a second to follow if needed. Tonight's request would initiate the first set of amendments, and staff recommends that the Planning Zoning Commission call a public hearing to consider these amendments to various sections of the Zoning Ordinance and Subdivision Ordinance for paying the state legislative actions, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. So help me again, how are you breaking them into different pieces? Yes. So the consideration is due to the first deadline being September 1st and there being already quite a few bills, this being 24 and compared to two years ago, there was only about 12 bills and we're already at 24. Now that we need to look into this and possibly with the first to meet the deadline. But after assessing, especially with the RAC going on, we might need to make some changes and amendments to that. All right. Some of those are pretty complicated. So you've got a little work to do right. Any questions for staff Commissioner Olli. Just one. Do you have do we have a sense of what that first tranche of amendments that you'll be bringing forward if we're coming into sets? How many? Yeah, the first amendments we could look at possibly around July, but we're still not 100% sure about those dates yet. But we don't have a sense of the number. We have ■24. Yeah, currently right now. But since it's ending today, there will be some still decisions happening. And so it could go a little bit higher, but it could go lower if anything gets vetoed. Fair enough. Thank you. All right. Any other questions of staff? All right. Do we need a motion to do this or just sorry on that? I think that some of the we have some of these bills that are incredibly impactful to the way we do business. And so I don't know that we're really necessarily looking at numbers as far as it may be, that we bring a relatively small number forward to you initially, but they're the most impactful. They're the heaviest lift. I think there's quite a few bills that have may require very small amendments, and that's kind of what we're talking about that just don't aren't things that we would normally deal with. But we need to clean up our ordinances to make them compliant. So those are the type of things we'd bring back. And the second set is things we don't think are having a significant immediate impact. So we can spend the majority of our energy on the few things that we think have a really significant impact. Mr. Ali, I can make a motion if you are ready for it. Okay. Go ahead, I move. We accept staff's recommendation and call a public hearing to consider amendments to various sections of the zoning Ordinance and subdivision Ordinance pertaining to state legislative actions. Commissioner Lingenfelter I'll second. Commissioner Bender, you had your light on. Do you have another comment? Okay. All right, all right. We have a motion and a second. Any other comments? Nobody. Okay. Please vote. Motion passes 5 to 0. All right. Any other any other business before the commission tonight? No, sir. Our liaison. You're actually officially on the agenda. Do you have any comments you need to make this evening? All right, all right, then we stand adjourned at 643. On Muns. Mayor of the city of Plano, Texas, do hereby proclaim Thursday, May 15th, 2025, as Peace Officers Memorial Day and May 12th through 18th as Law Enforcement Appreciation Week in Plan