storytelling. I love the writing, learning about the people of Plano and letting people know how much we actually do with the community. And this podcast is going to be my way of doing that, which kind of goes into how I kind of want to change the podcast a little bit. I still want to talk about city services, but there's always a story behind it, a person behind that. And I think there's a really good way to feature who's helping the community. Yeah, I'm really excited about it too. Amanda, we started this podcast seven years ago, so almost to the day. So this is a really great time to say seven year itch. It's time to shake things up and take a new approach. And we know that there are a lot of listeners and watchers of the podcast. So I think. Welcome to the November 17th City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I'm calling the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. If you'll all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance the United States of America to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. First item on our agenda is comments of public interest. Comments of public interest. This portion of the meeting is to allow up to three minutes per speaker, with 30 total minutes on items of interest or concern, and not on items that are on the current agenda. The Planning and Zoning Commission may not discuss these items, but may respond with factual or policy information. Planning and Zoning Commission may choose to place the item on a future agenda. Presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. We have two registered speakers. If you call the first speaker, please. Well, call them both actually, and have the other one ready to go. First speaker is John Stephen Scott, and the second speaker is Fernando Vitus via zoom. Please state your name and address for the record. Hello, my name is John Stephen Scott. I live at 2913 Fallingbrook Drive in the Oak Creek Estates subdivision in Plano. I also have several other Oak Creek Estates neighbors in the audience tonight that support the messaging I'm about to share with you. The alley behind my home and a number of the other Oak Creek Estates resident's homes is bordered by seven foot brick wall screening wall that's between us and the Wash Masters Car Wash, located at 6912 Independence Parkway. Basically, this is the corner of Independence and Legacy. Unfortunately, the wall has deteriorated to a point where it now has sections completely collapsing, leaving no screening between the car wash and our neighborhood. Other panels of the wall are bowed out and appear as if they will to soon collapse or fail. The wall is original to the area was probably built in the early 1990s. It is my understanding that the City of Plano Property Management Department has been in discussions and negotiations with the owner of the car wash regarding the condition of the brick screening wall for some time, but the wall has continued to deteriorate, with no actions taken on the wall to date. I recently heard there are HOA board who spoke with a City of Plano representative, that the car wash owner may have contacted the commission with a request to replace the brick wall with a landscaped, i.e. bushes, screen, according to the zoning and standards requirements within the city of Plano that I reviewed online on the City of plano.gov website, it's our understanding that a brick masonry screening wall is mandatory to separate commercial and residential areas up to eight feet tall. The homeowners of Oak Creek Estates and our HOA Association would like to get an affirmation from the city that under no circumstances would anything but a brick screening wall, one like that exists today, would be allowed to be used to separate the commercial business, the car wash, from the residential area, our neighborhood. The car wash is certainly very noisy, has a lot of traffic. Any other type of screening wall would not be acceptable. It would certainly increase the noise. Also open up the neighborhood to additional safety and security issues. Also, any other type of screening wall would also diminish the value of the homes in the neighborhood. Make it less desirable neighborhood within the city of Plano, the homeowners of Oak Creek Estates would urge the city to require the car wash to promptly restore or rebuild the brick screening wall, in the exact same configuration as it is today, including the seven. It's currently at seven feet high, including 20s, including the height, width, quality, color, weight, and thickness of the brick, esthetics, etc. since to date we have not seen any action on the wall, we'd also request there be a defined project plan and a timeline that can be evaluated by the HOA and the city for addressing the issues. It's a major safety and security issue, not to mention the extra noise pollution that we now have. You can wrap it up for me, please. Yeah. At this time, we do not have any official statement from the city on the status of this. It would be great if we could be advised on what that is. Thank you for listening tonight. Thank you very much. Second speaker is not available via zoom. Not available. Okay. Just as a factual piece of information, which we're allowed that we're not aware of any current case on that property. But the staff will reach out to you tomorrow for further discussions. All right. 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. Anyone would like to remove an item from the consent agenda for separate consideration. Nobody. Okay, I think we do have one registered speaker for the consent agenda. Is that correct? We do have one registered speaker, Mr. Alex Stein. Mr. Stein, in the audience, not here. Okay. Commissioners. Commissioner Bronsky I move we approve the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Lingenfelter I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you. Items for individual consideration. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items, unless instructed otherwise by the chair. Speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a Five-Minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Non public hearing items. The Presiding Officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. 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. 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. Zoning case 2020 3-028A request to rezone 215.7 acres out of the Joseph Joseph Russell Survey, Abstract Number 776 and the Jay Salmon Survey, Abstract number 815. Located on the west side of Jupiter Road, 490ft north of Parker Road in the city of Plano, Collin County Texas from agricultural to residential community design petitioners Todd a Moore, Jonathan Moore Family Limited Partnership Limited, and this item is for legislative consideration. Good evening. Commission. My name is Mike Bell, assistant director of planning in the planning department. The case before you is for this project on this property, on the screen to orient you. It's bound by K Avenue on the west, Jupiter Road on the east, Parker Road on the south. The Plano Event Center is located directly to the north. Across Jupiter is Collin College and the Oak Point Recreation Center. To the south is the city of Plano, Shawnee Park, and various single family neighborhoods. The request tonight is to rezone approximately 215 acres of undeveloped land, commonly referred to as Lavon Farms, from agricultural to Residential Community, Design District, or RCD, and this case is special for a number of reasons. Number one, this is one of the largest remaining undeveloped tracts in the city of Plano, and secondly, it is one of the key catalyst sites as part of the Envision Oak Point Small Area Plan. However, of note, although it is rezoning from agricultural that is a bit misleading due to recent legislative changes resulting from Senate Bill 15, the site is allowed to develop a single family homes of lots. Minimum lot size 3000ft■!S. As I mentioned, this project is located within the study area of the Envision Oak Point plan, which covers about 700 acres in Plano. It was adopted in 2018, and to set a vision for the development of this quadrant of Plano. It included significant public outreach, including three public workshops, stakeholder committees, online surveys, and various other forms of public feedback. That that plan resulted in this vision statement, which in short, calls for the area to build on its natural strengths from the natural features and civic spaces to create a unifying social hub in northeast Plano. The plan includes a vision map, which is essentially a micro future land use map for this area, similar to the Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use map, it does include various development types with guidance on land use and character defining elements such as block pattern, building heights, and open space. The vision map also includes recommendations on mobility improvements, including street design, bicycle and pedestrian improvements, and public transit opportunities. I should also mention the subject property is outlined in black on the screen here. The plan also includes a number of goals and policies. There are six elements of this plan. Examples include balanced neighborhoods and diverse housing. Walkable and connected community through great streets, accessible open spaces and green networks, and preserving agrarian character to create vibrant neighborhoods and environmental placemaking. Placemaking strategies. Excuse Me to the right is an example of one of these policies for diverse housing. It reads to provide diverse housing that enables a high quality of life for all ages, household types and income levels. So rather than providing the typical cookie cutter form of single family development to create a unique mix with a variety of housing types. The Envision Oak Point plan has already had several key implementation on other properties. One example is shown here. This is Assembly Park, which included redevelopment of the old Plano Market Square Mall with housing, shopping, dining and office. Another ongoing example is development around the Plano Event Center site. There are currently internal streets that are nearing completion to help facilitate redevelopment of the site. The Plano Event Center would remain as a key as a key feature to this area, and incorporate mixed use development around the outside of the property. Switching gears a little bit, I'll now give an overview of the proposed zoning district, which is Residential community design. This was created in January 2021 specifically for the Envision Oak Point area. However, it was amended in 2023 for compliance with the comprehensive, newly adopted Comprehensive Plan at the time, and was also broadened its applicability beyond the Envision Oak Point area. It does include a companion neighborhood business Design district, which is what the Plano Event Center is zoned. These two districts work together to create a smaller scale mixed use development. The RCD includes the residential standards. The BD includes nonresidential standards. Like other mixed use districts in Plano, it requires adoption of a development plan as part of the zoning, a governance association to maintain amenities and open space, streets, sidewalks and open space have unique standards, and they may also adopt specific exceptions to the base RCD standards as part of the zoning. Also unique to RCD is it includes three housing tiers. Those tiers are shown on the screen. Tier one is a variety of small lot single family housing and duplexes, which can be no less than 50% of the units on the site. Tier two includes other small lot housing and attached single family housing, and then tier three includes small scale multifamily products up to nine units per building, and these may not exceed more than 25% of the total units. And to encourage a variety of housing types, any individual units of those you see on the screen, if you choose one, it must be no less than 10% of the units in the development. So moving on to what specifically requested on this site, I will go through the development plan, which subdivides the property into three subdistricts. Subdistrict A includes the tier one through three housing which I just covered. Tier B includes a unique customized tier four housing product for this site, and subdistrict C is includes a rural preserve and opportunity to develop under single family six standards. The plan also includes creation of a new four lane thoroughfares, a significant amount of open space, and at the end I'll also cover the phasing requirements and some specific exceptions for this district. As I go through each of the districts, I will provide a comparison of how the development plan compares with the Envision Oak Point Vision map. So starting with subdistrict A, which is the western portion of the property, it is entirely housing and open space. It includes the three tiers, including 298 units of tier one shown in red, 232 units of tier two shown in orange, and 66 units of tier three shown in blue, for a total of 596 units. Public open space includes 30.7 acres shown in green. The Envision Oak Point plan in this area calls for four types, including single family mix, which is a variety of small lot single family and townhomes, small lot subdivision, smaller lots, and a greater amount of townhomes. Neighborhood edge, which is intended to be mostly housing that serves as a transition from the major arterials to the single family into the interior and provides attached products as well. Opportunity for certain neighborhood oriented nonresidential, such as banks or cafes, and then lastly, a series of parks and open space that provides, as the name would suggest, areas for playgrounds, pocket parks, and other types of open space and recreational amenities. Comparing subdistrict A and from the Envision Oak Point with the development plan, staff finds that the request is generally consistent with the vision map in this area. Moving on subdistrict B, this includes a 1052 the applicant is referring to as tier four units. These are typical multifamily product. The heights range from 2 to 4 stories shown in the plan. You see the two story buildings in red, three story in orange, and four story in yellow. The stipulations do include some height limits to comply with the recommendations of Envision Oak Point, including a two story max within 100ft of Jupiter Road and 75ft of the east west thoroughfare that runs along the southern part of the subdistrict. It also includes a three story maximum 100 and 200ft of Jupiter Road. The open space is shown in the blue and that includes 2.8 acres. Comparing the development plan to the Envision Oak Point plan, this area is predominantly part of the mixed use activity center, which in the center you see the subdistrict B with the approved development plan for the Plano Event Center site. The Plano Event Center is shown in the star. Those two plans work together to create the mixed use activity center for this district, which is really the core of this mixed use district. Moving on to subdistrict C, this is actually one of the more unique aspects of this proposal is it includes a rural preserve. This includes the allowance for nonresidential in this area. And those are intended to be more of the rustic, agrarian, rural type of businesses, including farmers markets, food trucks, assembly halls, garden centers, restaurants and retail and other uses that will support more of that agrarian style of of retail area. The remainder, shown in yellow, includes on the northwest side, a family preserve where the owners may continue to reside for some time, and then the south side includes areas that may be developed in accordance with Sf6. Ultimately, all the area in yellow could be developed in accordance with SF six standards, and this includes 3.3 acres of open space. Subdistrict C and the exceptions also requires preservation of at least 50% of the existing farmstead structures on site, including preservation of existing stone entrance features and the silo and windmill. Comparing subdistrict C to the Envision Oak Point Vision map, it includes the residential types discussed before, as well as open space, and then on the northern portion of the property is where the Oak Point calls for the rural preserve, which includes the preserving a segment of Lavon Farm as a as a microfarm and allowing supportive educational farmers market and food park type uses as is. As is recommended by the adopted development plan. Comparing the two sites, staff finds that the request generally complies with the Envision Oak Point plan. In general, all three subdistricts are found to be generally consistent with the Envision Oak Point Vision map. Moving on now to streets and connectivity. The plan does include the construction of a new type D thoroughfares, which are four lane median divided roadways shown in the red on the plan. These will include on street parking along one side of the roadway, street trees, as well as a 12 foot side path on the other side of the roadway. In the green are a series of mixed use locals and collectors which follow the city's typical mixed use street pattern of on street parking, street trees, and wider sidewalks, and then in a variety of locations. There are also mews, alleys and paseos to provide to contribute to the variety of housing types. As you can see on the left hand screen, this is the vision map. You see the large dotted line being that thoroughfare proposed in this area, and the alignment generally complies with the Envision Open plan. Envision Oak Point also calls for specific roadway sections. On the bottom, you see the specific design from the Envision Oak Point plan, which is accustomed to this area, and the development plan provides the same section exactly. In total, the development proposes 37 acres of open space shown in the green requirements of the district will require at least two design elements. These design elements are intended to be generally green infrastructure related, providing some type of rainwater stormwater benefit. The development will be constructed in a number of phases. The standards outline two specific phases. Phase one would allow 500 of the tier four units in subdistrict B, following the final plat of one single family phase, construction of the northern and eastern extensions of the type D thoroughfare, a second phase of 552 tier four units will be allowed, following construction of an additional platting of an additional single family phase, as well as a certificate of occupancy for 2000ft■!S of nonresidential development and 5000ft■!S of nonresidential buildings constructed, but not necessarily yet occupied. A further phasing requirement of this district is that any of the single family phases constructed on the west side of the property must include construction of the full western extension of the type D roadway shown on the plan. A few other considerations specific to the RCD district. It does include, as mentioned before, some green infrastructure requirements for stormwater mitigation. It does incorporate some requirements for universal design and model homes. Preservation of historic or heritage structures on the site. There is some architectural review requirements for the multifamily by the Director of Planning, and that is enforced through a development agreement. Accompanying this plan to council that also includes phasing and cost participation requirements. In summary, this is again is a request to rezone from Agricultural to Residential Community Design District. It will include a total of 648 units and 37 acres of open space. Staff finds that it meets the vision map, goals and policies of the Envision Oak Point Plan and Associated Development Agreement. Outline phasing and cost participation will accompany the request to Council. As of noon on November 14th, staff had received no responses from the property owner. I believe we have since received those. Those were distributed to you before the meeting. Within 200ft of the subject property. We've received two responses in opposition shown in the properties in red. Citywide staff has received a total of 26. I'm sorry, 66 total responses, eight in support, two neutral and 66 oppose, and 25 other letters and emails. Staff recommends approval subject to concurrent City Council consideration of a signed development agreement outlining infrastructure phasing and participation for the full 215 acre development. That concludes my presentation. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you, Mr. Bell. Real quick, before I open it to the commissioners for the benefit of the of the citizens here and watching, can you explain the relationship between the Oak Point area plan and the comprehensive master plan as a whole, please? Yes. So the comprehensive plan is the future, future land use guidance for the entire city. It has a specific provision that says if there is a small area plan adopted, like Envision Oak Point, that the envision that the small area plan will control. And that's because there's been a significant level of outreach as well as more detailed guidance in that area. So the Envision Oak Point plan is the superseding document in this case. Okay, great. Thank you. All right. Commissioners, questions for staff. Mr. Bronsky. Just one on top of what you had just said. So if I'm understanding correctly, you said that this entire development conforms to the Envision Oak Point plan. So then by definition, it is then in conformance with the 2021 Comprehensive Plan. That's correct. Thank you, Mr. Ali. Follow up question. So envision Oak Point is a small area master plan. We have a couple others that act as superseding plans. Can you mention those? Yeah, I believe the other is the Silver Line station area plan. Okay. Can you go? I love the way you showed the what the master plan asked for and what the developer is asking for just from a bird's eye view. It actually looks like in some areas we're getting a little bit more from the developer's plan than what am I reading that especially on? Plot C? Do we are we getting more of that preserve land in the developer proposal than we would in envision? So some of that is to be determined. They have not done single family design in that area. The allowance is for the western and southern end to allow for single family six. That would include some open space requirements and there is floodplain on that site. So some that will somewhat be determined. But generally it it meets the same areas as the Envision Oak Point map. Okay. Second question just for just to put in the public record. SB 15 essentially gives a by right for them to develop agricultural land for a minimum lot size of 3000ft■!S. That's correct. And that could cover there's no open space requirement required. If they if that development goes by. Right? I believe that's correct. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bruno. Excuse me. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a quick follow up question on what Commissioner Alley just asked about SB 15. If under SB 15, what degree of participation, if any, would the city be entitled to to join in and guiding the planning efforts of a development under SB 15? So the subdivision ordinance was recently updated in response to SB 15 and SB 840. It removed guaranteed city cost participation requirements and would require entrance into a development agreement for city cost participation that would be done individually, phase by phase, and determined as each of those phases come in. So we would not be in a position to approve or disapprove. That is just what you're saying. It would. It would come in through the planning process. So if the plats meet the requirements and the agreement was in place, that we could guarantee that the infrastructure would be compliant, it would be one of the administrative approvals of a plat. If, for example, there was no development agreement. And participation was needed, or some type of upsizing was required, that the city was not able to contribute to, it could be grounds for denial of that plat. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple questions. The first question is regarding the phases. If you can go back to the slides with phases. Phase one. Phase two, phase three. It looks like phase one is only for the tier four units. That's in kind of the quadrant B area. Is that correct. So this phasing is to show what open space and infrastructure is required with each section. So the multifamily phase one also includes the open space across that four lane roadway. Those need to be built together. The phasing requirements listed in the RCD exceptions requires that they cannot get a Co for that multifamily until there is at least a single family phase of development. So with the first phase of multifamily, they need to construct one phase of single family as well as the roadways, the northern and eastern sections that you see that are the same color as multifamily. Phase one. Okay, but that's all in the kind of a north eastern corner of that roadway, right? That's correct. So. I remember earlier slides, there's a percentage of like how many single family has to be more than 50%, and the multifamily has to be less than 25% or something in that it applies to the entire ABC three areas. That's correct. Right. So if they have after they have developed the the area B with the multifamily and all the buildings, is there any chance that the developer or the owners can say that, okay, now we have A and C left. Can we use the same proportion, you know, 50% of single family and 25% of multifamily again. So this development plan is adopted as part of the zoning and it controls for the entire property regardless of the phasing. So they will be held to the mix of uses that are stipulated in the development plan. Okay. Now they can adjust the numbers slightly as long as they stay within the percentages required. But that's going to apply to the entire district. So it's possible that they could. Some of the phases could build out earlier. But ultimately as the entire property develops, it will comply with the mix of uses required for RCD. Okay. Thank you. That's my question. One I have a second question regarding the commercial use. I can't remember which site. Oh, it's actually here, the 2000 square of a nonresidential, I'm assuming, you know, office or commercial. And that's for the entire area of that phase one and phase two together. So it's like a 500 tier one or tier four units and 552 units of tier four, two phases together, like over a thousand units with only 2000 square foot commercial. Is that normal? That's right. So this is not going to be a large nonresidential area. This is again meant to be still kind of preserving that agrarian character. So it's 2000ft■!S of occupied space, 5000ft■!S of buildings constructed. And I want to clarify, they must be in subdistrict C. Okay, okay. Thank you. You're welcome. I'll get to you in a second, Mr. Alley. But just to clarify, because it's kind of hard to read on the screen, phase one is the lime green area, correct? Correct. And then phase the first single family phase in subdistrict A or C, sorry, B could be any of those three subdivisions. There's not any. Is there a stipulation as to which of those would be first? It's not, however, the open space that's on the west side of that thoroughfare on the northern leg is intended to help facilitate that, as the first phase on the northeast side. I'm sorry, northwest side. And that is what the applicant intends to build as the first phase of development. So that's anticipated as the first phase of residential, which would may or may not be the first phase of construction. Correct? Okay. All right. Commissioner Olli, just one quick question. One of the tenets of Envision Oak Point was transit oriented development. Am I reading this correctly? That a thoroughfare that spills into K Avenue would be just shy of the Dart station on K? So the vision oh point plan shows for three potential areas for Dart locations. Okay, those locations have not been determined, but it sets it up that as if any of those becomes eventual Dart station that that would it would be ready for that type of development. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Lawley. I have a couple of questions. First, about the density. So you like the SP 15? It allows 30 600 square foot for single family. Right? 3000. 3000. Yeah. What about the multi-family because you like the multifamily is going to be denser. So multifamily would not be permitted on this property under SB 15. SB 15 is only for single family homes. Yes, but you like but you like phase. The northeast corner is going to be. Yeah, it's going to be multifamily. So it's not going to be like it's going to be smaller, it's going to be denser, right? Yes I believe density. Yes. Give me one moment. The density of subdistrict be is 32.8 dwelling units per acre. 3230 2.8 okay. And my other question is, do you like any of the areas on this development located in a flood zone? Yes, there is floodplain largely along creeks, like the portion that will be developed. Will it will it be located? No, not currently. That there is process to reclaim some of that floodplain that could be done, but not at this time. So are they going to do like a study for that? Because yes, those will be required as part of the planning process. Yes. Will will we allow them to build on like there are rules for how to go about reclaiming floodplain that they would have to follow to do that? I thought in one of our meetings we said that, you know, like we're trying to preserve those like floodplain or flood areas. Yeah, I don't believe they're intending to develop in those areas. But we do have regulations that if they meet certain criteria, they could do that. Yes. Through our through our city regulations. Okay. And you like in my final question is do you like now they're going to build like the from the circle eastward and then northward. Are these enough to not like cause any traffic jams or anything like that. So they are there was a traffic impact analysis that determined that those roadways will be needed. There will be some impact to traffic in the area. Of course, anytime you take undeveloped land and develop it, there will be an impact, but there will be requirements for turn lanes, median opening realignments and traffic signals to mitigate that impact. Okay. Thank you. You're welcome. One final question from me, Mr. Bell, on the Oak Point master plan. It shows connections to Berrien Elementary and Shawnee Park to the south. I know those are technically off this property, but how would the how will those be accomplished eventually? So there is a proposed trail that follows almost the southern. You can see the little dip in the plan there. There is a large trail in that location. The city owns the park to the south, so it ultimately will be the city's responsibility to construct construct any trail networks across the creek. Okay, but will there be a pedestrian route? Though I was looking at the plan, I had a hard time following the sidewalks. Would there be, as part of this construction, a pedestrian route? Even if you had to go down and come around? Yes. There's a trail following the north side of the creek. Okay. So they could get to the elementary school without going out on a major thoroughfare? Not currently. The plan follows the creek from K over to the east, but the city could. I don't think we've got to that stage yet, but should this be approved, then we could start planning for connections to create a more direct connection without having to go back out to K. Okay, great. Thank you. Commissioner Olli, you just a clarifying point for the commission. The we've had a lot of changes to the ordinance as you know, recently. So the small the single family small lot subdivision section of the ordinance that is essentially SB 15 does require 10% open space, but this zoning district requires 15% open space. So you would be getting a requirement for additional open space with this zoning district compared to the SB 15 allowances. Tha& actually helps my math check my math. Assuming this by right under SB 15. Minimum lot size of 3000 square foot. My math suggests almost 3000 housing units can come online. If you allow for 10% open space. I think requiring the floodplain. And then there would be a significant amount of street infrastructure that would be required. We estimated somewhere around 1600 units that could be built because about 50% of the land goes to streets and right of way, with lots of that 1600, if we're doing the small lot, SB 15, okay, and the proposal is ironically right around 1600 units in total. That's correct. And that's an estimate. It could be more or less, but okay, using a general a general configuration of assuming that it's a certain street type and each street has to have frontage on the street and there's a 10% open space requirement. It gets you somewhere from 12 to 1600 units. Mr. Bender. Thank you. Chairman, we're using SB 15 and 840. We're using SB 15 and 840. That's very common to us sitting here. It may not be. So the people listening in the audience may not really understand what that means. Could we maybe provide a little clarification so they understand the impact of that? And what's changed in the legislation in the 89th legislative session? I think probably the easiest way to explain that is the legislature gave us some guidance on how we could affect development or not affect development, and those were incorporated into our zoning ordinances recently. And so referring back to the original bills is our way of remembering which bill affected which part of it. But SB 15 was specifically related to the ability to develop small lot residential on Unplatted property, with little to no planning and zoning. Requirements as that. I think that's probably a fair enough way to summarize that. So when we say SB 15 for the people in the audience, what we're talking about is that provision, that new provision in our ordinance and in state law, it says you can build a small lot subdivision on Unplatted property with very few planning and zoning restrictions other than what is in our new ordinance. So so that is a baseline by which we could compare this property, because it's one of the few unplatted pieces of property left in the city of Plano that might apply to. So does that help? Very much so. Thank you. All right, Commissioner lolly, last question. Did you study the impact of this development on the Oak Point Center? Because I know that you, like you looked into the sewer water and you like the streets. But what about the recreation centers? I don't believe there was an analysis performed on that impact. However, the director of parks is here, and maybe he could speak to that if he has information to provide. But I don't believe there was a study on that impact. Do you think that is going to impact it? Sure. Good evening. Commissioner Ron Smith, the Parks and Recreation director. I believe the question is, is there going to be an impact on the infrastructure requirements for or impact on the recreation center across the street? No, we don't believe there's any impact with the development that we're considering tonight and how or the operation of the recreation center. But you look at the amount of people with the new housing is 1600 units coming, probably 2 or 3 people in each household. So will it affect, you know, like because it's always busy. The. No, I don't believe there's any impact on the recreation centers operation. Okay. Thank you, thank you. I'll just sit right here. All right. I think that may be all of our technical questions for staff. Do we have an applicant presentation or just the applicant available? Yes, sir. There is a presentation from the applicant. If the applicant wants to come forward and make their presentation, please, if you could introduce yourselves and address for the record as you as you come to the microphone. To advance the slides. Yeah. Can I do that for me. Good evening. Commission chair and commissioners. My name is Todd Moore, 3721 North Jupiter Road in Plano, 75074. I appreciate the opportunity to present this to you tonight. I'm a partner in the Todd Andrew Moore Jonathan Allen Moore Family Limited partnership, and we are the applicant. It's been a long time to get here. It's about 25 years that I've been planning this project, and we are certainly glad to be able to present it to you tonight in 2017. As you know, we participated in the Envision Oak Point project, and we were one of the stakeholders in this, and it went really well. And it was approved in 2018. And then Covid came along. And so the market for real estate, as you know, and in 2020 really wasn't there, but it wasn't until 2022 that I was introduced to Kevin Hickman and the crew at High Street Residential. And they have really done a fantastic job of pulling together one of the greatest planning teams, in my opinion, from architects to engineers. And it was a great collaboration with your professional staff, the engineering parks department, and we're really excited to present this to you tonight. And with that, I'm going to turn it over to Kevin Hickman and Joel Behrens with High Street Residential. Thank you Todd. Joel Behrens with Trammell Crow Company. I'm at 2100 McKinney Avenue, suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75201. Anyway, it's it's a privilege to be here tonight and to present this to you this evening. Thanks. Used to a clicker. I'll try to remember to do this. So anyway, really honored to be here tonight for the reasons Todd mentioned and more. And really for us, it's exciting to work on a project that has so much collaboration with the community and the city before we even get involved. I learned tonight Todd's been working on it for over 20 years. I was going to quote ten since Oak Point, so it takes a long time to get here tonight. Just want to give a little historical context, because Todd probably won't share it. And he didn't. But you know, their family bought this land nearly 90 years ago, 1936. His grandfather made the first purchase of land and operated W Lee Moore Stock Farms. Over the years, their land holdings grew to over 1200 acres. As you can see on the screen there, the Moore family, which many of us know as Lavon, the Moore family farm, which many of us know as Lavon Farms, has a long history of producing many grand champion and All-American dairy cows. While Todd is too humble to tell you this, I think it's important part of their story and how we got here tonight. You might wonder, why is this guy talking to me about dairy cows? Well, yes, I am from Wisconsin and I love cheese. I have to say, in all seriousness, I have first hand experience on this topic. While I've lived in Texas for nearly 18 years and I have three little Texans at home, and I'm jealous of them because I can't call myself one. I grew up on a small dairy farm in Wisconsin that's still in my family. It's been in my family for six generations, like Todd, his family. You know, the decision to sell their farm is one of the hardest decisions he'll face in his life. The memories, the history is rich, you know, today did not come lightly for him. And it's been over 20 years in the making. You can't have the level of success that Todd and his family have had, unless you love what you do and when you love what you do, how do you stop doing it? Simply put, Todd loves his farm, which is why it took so long to be here tonight. There's no better evidence of this than the fact that over a period of ownership, Plano has seen probably around 40,000 acres. That's just simple. Back of the napkin math to base off of 72mi■!S. But 40,000 acres of development. Meanwhile, the Moore's waited. Today, Lavon Farms represents the largest greenfield site in the city. Clearly, Todd and his family did not rush into this decision. However, the success and growth of Plano made tonight inevitable, and that's no, it's just no longer practical or economical to farm in a city that has grown from 1500 people in 1936 to nearly 300,000 people today. As you can see on the screen, over their 90 year ownership, they have preserved over 50% of their land for park space. And I'd be remiss to say that Oak Point Park Point Park is one of the most beautiful parks I've visited in DFW. We had the opportunity to hold three different community meetings there, and it's really a beautiful property, so real quick, while Todd and his family have a long and rich history, I did just want to mention very briefly because it's not about us, but we have a long history in Plano as well. Trammell Crow Company has been an active development partner in the city of Plano for years. Just looking back in our system over the past 20 years, we developed nearly 4,000,000ft■!S, largely of office hospitals, and the first multifamily high rise in legacy. And so, you know, for those that don't know, we're found in Dallas in 1948 by the man on the screen who's since passed. But in 2006, we acquired by CBRE, which today is the largest real estate services company in the world. And as the wholly owned subsidiary of CBRE, TCC and High Street Residential, that is our multifamily residential brand, we're the largest development firm in the country. With that, I'll pass it off to Kevin. Thank you. Thanks, Joel. My name is Kevin Hickman, 2100 McKinney Avenue, suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75201. On the screen. You know, we have really taken a collaborative approach as we've gone through this zoning process, even before we submitted our zoning application, we held two community meetings. And, you know, those those were great. They helped inform and shape some early feedback for our plan. It's been over two years since we did submit our our zoning application. I think we're the only ones on the agenda that has 2023 date on it. And we've had a wonderful time working with staff. It's hard to stand up here without giving a shout out to Christina, to Mike, to Ron, Michelle, Caleb, Steven, you know, even Jack jumping in, it's been really wonderful to work with them. And I'm very thankful of the process because they've made, you know, this plan so much better. It's really become this wonderful master plan community. And it's not only made our project better, it's made the project better for the city as a whole. So, so grateful to be in front of you today. As we've all mentioned, we held three community meetings. I just note not to be repetitive. We did have it at the Oak Point Park and Preserve. The last one we held. The plan is largely unchanged from what we presented, and we did mail out 450 invitations to everybody in the notice area. And so, you know, we think we tried covering the responses and addressing the community meetings. That last meeting was over 12 months ago. Again, the plan hasn't really changed. We've been really focusing on the development agreement over the time. I think this is our only zoning case that we've been a part of that we've had, I don't know, I swagged it at 45 city meetings, Christina and Mike probably call me a liar because it's probably a whole lot more than that. So it has been a lengthy process. We've talked a lot about Envision Oak Point. Mike did a great job giving you a review. From our perspective, we really used the vision from Envision Oak Point, along with the zoning tool, which is the RCD district, to really shape and form our plans. You know, we certainly, as Mike alluded, as Mike stated, you know, we think we think we comply with all the key elements of the envision point. We're so grateful that RCD was passed in 2021 and amended in 2023. But, you know, it really set up the vision that was really driven by community stakeholders and really gave the decision makers, which is this commission, a clear direction to make a decision from. So I am grateful for both those tools. So here's a site. Mike showed it. What may be surprising to everyone is the current assessed value is is less than $900,000 today at full build out. I mean, this has the potential to being over $600 million. And so certainly going back to, you know, one of the key elements of the economy and the community, I mean, this has a significant impact at full build out of over $600 million. I don't know what else I can say about our master site plan that Mike didn't already address. From our perspective, we really view this in four key elements that Mike hit on, right. The single family zoning, which is RCD district, the farm reserve, the parkland and open space, and the multifamily zone. And just maybe on the multifamily zone, it is bifurcated in two different segments. From our perspective. And I only say this because there is a diversity of housing within what we're delivering in that segment. There's going to be 815 multifamily units, an additional 237 for rent townhomes, which is categorized as multifamily. But those are going to be two and three story offerings. And so we really have like a broad spectrum of what the multifamily square footage is in are, and as well as the offerings that we're delivering in this project. Phasing. Mike covered it. I just want to stand up here and say this was we were welcomed to provide a phasing plan. We did not want to come up here and just obtain zoning for multifamily and only build multifamily. We wanted to make a commitment to deliver single family homes with each of our multifamily phases. Certainly the first phase multifamily, we are delivering a large amount of units that's really helping us build out the infrastructure needed for that entire segment of that first and second phase. Area. 250 acres is not small, and there is a lot of infrastructure that's going in to make this project happen. Here you'll get a glimpse of the multifamily design, you know, not everybody's an architect. Everybody thinks they want to be an architect. Everybody has their own opinions. I will say we've done our best job of of trying to create and preserve that agrarian character here. You know, Christina had some concerns, you know, about the direction. Totally get it. We haven't developed fully developed the facades for all these. And so we've agreed to give the director of planning an architectural review to make sure that we, you know, comply with the the character that is shown in the envision point. But we think the diversity of housing that I've just spoken to, as well as how we've situated the outdoor space, really is going to help create this communal bond in the sense of place and community. On the single family side of things. You know, a common theme since the community, right? Timeless architecture, the right sized homes with a different tier, lots. You have homes facing pocket parks and open space. There's one thing certain Tod has had a vision for the single family from day one. He wanted to ensure that these single family homes had front yards where families and kids and people can gather, and not in no offense. If you live in one of these homes and not a garage in the front yard, when a drive really separating the front yard, he wants he wants to see that activity. And so all the homes have access to the alleys where the garage is going to be based in the in the rear of the house. Mike covered this, so I'm going to skip it. Parks and open space I know Mike cover this as well, but it's just so important. I mean, we're almost preserving 50% of this land for right of way. Parkland and open space. And I think this does a good job of visualizing the connectivity between the Shawnee Park with our trail system all the way to Oak Point Park. And that's one of the key goals of of Envision Oak Point is connecting all these wonderful open spaces and parks that the City of Plano has. With that, I will leave it. I'll turn it back to Joel for closing. Thank you. All right, I'll make it quick. I got 90s all I'll say is, like I said, it's a privilege. And we have an opportunity tonight to do something that's amazing. And it's something that we, our family, tried to do. We have a 60 acre farm. We put together 400 acres right before the Great Recession, with all the neighboring farm owners to do exactly what Todd is wanting to do, albeit different, but similar in the sense of how do you create a legacy? How do you do what's right for the land? Because that's really what we're talking about tonight. You have people that love the land more than you could ever imagine, and we have an opportunity tonight to do it in a way that I think is world class, and a way that's made possible by the patience of a family that's been here 90 years. And all I have to say is, thank you for that opportunity, Todd. Thank you, staff and the city for working with us for two years to be here. And thank you for the community for engaging over a two year period of time with us in 20 years with Todd. So for that, thank you. I'm done. And we will, I guess, conclude our remarks. All right. Don't go far. I'm sure there's going to be a question or two for you. So thank you for the presentation. Very thorough commission. Do we have questions for the applicant? No, really. Okay. Well, obviously you covered it very well. All right. So. Oh no I take that back. Commissioner Lingamfelter. I was trying to I was trying to flip there for my I had technical issues earlier, but it's moving well now. You you alluded to the development agreement and I know we really don't have a lot of say there. It's going to go to council for, for that city council. But there is some responsibility on our part with the infrastructure and making sure that the infrastructure isn't taxed and that it's, it's it has enough capacity and can handle a development such as this. Where are we on on that approval process with you guys and getting that agreement? Michelle, correct me if I'm wrong, but I feel like we are down to and Todd, feel free to jump in, but I feel like we're down to four business points. The bulk of your concerns have been addressed. I think that's well stated. Okay, because that's definitely something that's going to be very important to. Totally agree. And we have committed to making business decisions. Todd has committed to making business decisions. And having that agreement signed by November 24th, is that correct? Yeah. Right. So that we can have it in the packet for the council. Right. All right. That's that was the main thing. Right. Commissioner Tom, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And a quick question actually. Well, first of all, thank you for doing this project because I feel like the in Plano, this is such a valuable asset to the city thanks to owner and picking a very reputable developer for the community. Quick question is that I had the same question for Mike is about the faces. There's a slide in your presentation that says phase one with about 800 some units. And then there's a yeah, there's a little thing says pink and orange for single families. Where are the pink and orange on this thing? I, I don't know if it's just my screen. It's not showing. Yeah. You're asking a guy that's colorblind. Sorry. So can you walk us through one, two, three, four in your mind? Absolutely, absolutely. So the one is the first phase of multifamily, which can be no more than 500 multifamily units. To the west of the north south arterial is the what could be the first phase of single family. It would be great if I had a pointer. So all that, as well as the open space below the single family phase that's in green, that will all deliver, as well as the north south and east west to the roundabout roads that will all be developed within the first phase. Okay. Thank you. My colleague pointed out to me those should be orange and green. Sorry, orange and pink. Thank you. All right, Commissioner Olli, just one question, and I. I confess I'm cheating using Google Earth. Just trying to orient myself. So the multifamily is going to abut. The event center? That's correct. Right. And from an architectural design, I believe that's probably where Michelle will have input so that there's a seamless transition as to what looks, what fits in with the event center. Am I correct in stating that there will actually be a new right of way road that will go behind the event center to really create a buffer zone with landscaping on both sides? Agreed. But what I am asking is you don't want to see you have the event center. It's in a particular style, facade, color, blah blah blah, and a jarring shift to something that looks very different. Are we is the plan to try and tie in? Esthetically, the Director of planning has the ability for architectural review and control, and so if the city feels like they need to tie in esthetically for that piece of it, I think that the director of planning has that ability to. Okay, okay, from an infrastructure perspective, obviously you multifamily comes on and the single family phase one comes on. And this might be more of a question for staff. Is the requirement to have the infrastructure laid out for the whole site, or is it enough to just have, you know, the water, the pipe and the electricity, electricals and what have you for that phase one, in order to green light the movement into phase two, three and whatnot. So the initial question are we going to. Yeah. So the initial infrastructure that's going to go in with the initial phase is what you see in as noted as one, one and two, excluding the stuff on the south side. So everything on the north side of the family reserve, all that infrastructure will go in day one. Okay. Does that answer your question? Yes it does. Thank you, Commissioner Bruno. Thank you chairman. Thank you for your presentation. And also thank you for working so diligently with the staff for so long. I think it's been two years since you started getting together with the staff on this thing, which I think shows a high degree of devotion to the project. My question is, can you give us some idea of the overall timeline for the whole project? Probably not the whole project, but our goal is if we're successful here tonight, that we will move on to City Council December 8th. From there, we would like to close and break ground by the end of next year for the first phase. Do you have a timeline in mind for subsequent phases? 18 to 24 months for phase two, and from there, that's I'm not sure I can answer that. All right. I think the reason we're we're not answering is we don't have the entirety of the site under contract. Okay. Got it. We plan on pursuing it as fast as possible, but we do have in the development agreement that east West road west of the roundabout is about a three year process, if I remember right. And so the whole project I would say take seven years to be realistic. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Bender. Thank you. Chairman, just really along the timeline. And this is maybe a statement that we have an overall plan here, right? As we all know, we go through sometimes unanticipated economic changes, right? So based on current economic conditions, that's what you're basing your timeline on. Right. And I think the key is there's a well thought out plan for the overall development, which is important to me. That takes us through various economic ups and downs that sometimes occur. That's a good clarity. Clarification. Yes. Thank you. All right. Commissioners, any other questions of the applicant not seeing any? Let me open the public hearing. I believe we have a couple registered speakers. There are two registered speakers. The first is Jennifer Grossman. The second is Corey Reneker. Here. There we go. Please state your name and address for the record. All right, I'm short Jennifer Grossman, Brookhollow drive in Plano. The last thing Plano needs is more apartments. The market for apartments is so oversaturated that banks are not financing them. The owner of Willowbend had to come back to this body to reduce the number of apartments and get approval for single family houses. For that very reason, Plano needs an affordable over 55 single family owner occupied community. This is a picture of Frisco Lakes. All the homes in this community are single story. To quote my friend who moved there from Plano so our walkers don't have to go up the stairs. More like this are being built in neighboring cities like Celina and McKinney right now. This brand new development is in McKinney, and it's currently under development. And the red dots are home sites that have already been sold. This is a home that is for sale. It is priced for $354,000, $990, about $300,000 1270 four square feet, two bedrooms, two baths perfect for empty nesters. Here are some pictures of the inside. And here is the floor plan. The great things about this community and these communities is people who live there would never have to leave if doctors made house calls. They have lots of amenities and activities for people to do. And yes, they have their own rec centers. Lavon farms is the perfect place for this type of community. With the school district just closing schools in East Plano. The great thing about this kind of development is seniors won't need them. I have so many friends who are empty nesters. They are still in their big family homes. They can't find a home they can downsize to in Plano that is affordable. One is sitting on this board. I would move to these places myself, but I am not old enough and my adult daughters still live with me. Help me Mike. If we had a development like this one I have shown you, my friends could sell their large house to a family with young children. I am asking you to table this zoning case and send the applicant back to redo the plans and design the retirement community. Plano is in desperate need of a development with all single family, one story owner occupied houses. They can be attached, detached, mix of both 2500ft■!S and under, with a starting price of about $300,000 and maxing out at $500,000. If it can be done in Frisco and McKinney, Plano can do it too. And if the developer says no, it can't be done. I understand that Dallas Stars is looking for a new home. Thank you ma'am, thank you very much. Next speaker is Corey Rennaker. Good evening, staff and commissioners. My name is Corey Riniker. I live at 1814 N place, Plano, Texas. I support this proposed development, but I'm opposed to the request on the grounds that I feel that this could be improved. I'd like to commend staff and the applicant for their work on the project. It largely aligns with the vision set out in the Envision Oak Point plan. The plan open space and the nods to its past use for farming are admirable. However, the proposal could be could do more to deliver on the full potential of the site. I see several major opportunities for improvement in this plan. One the number of dwelling units is too low. This is the. This is one of the last significant greenfield sites in Plano. Yet we're willing to settle for a measly 7 to 8 units per gross acre. We could do so much better. The regional population is expected to continue growing in the coming years, and this site presents a significant opportunity for more families to call Plano home. The mixed use component called for in Envision Oak Point is largely absent. While I understand that Plano is over retailed, we miss a real opportunity by failing to provide space for neighborhood scale businesses, shops, cafes, third places where people can meet and build community. The roadways. Number three. The roadways are too wide. The class D thoroughfare running through the site is out of scale for this project, and just because the right of way includes a 12 foot sidewalk that doesn't make it walkable, walkability requires somewhere worth walking to. And as mentioned previously, walkable destinations have been left out of this project. I'd invite anyone here to walk down Shiloh Road or Los Rios after Los Rios on a warm afternoon with traffic buzzing by. It's not. It's not pleasant. One other thing that occurred to me as I was listening to the discussion earlier is I was hanging out, sort of, unfortunately, with some planners last week, and somebody mentioned the, the what they called the popsicle test. And it's a test of whether or not you would allow your young child to walk down to a corner store to buy a popsicle and walk back on their own. I don't see anywhere in this development where a family could do that. Lastly, I'm concerned that the scale of development relative to the amount of infrastructure presents long term issues of sustainability. Will this development generate sufficient property tax revenue to pay for ongoing maintenance and eventual replacement of its supporting infrastructure? Reminder, as Mike said, 50% or so of the land is rights of way. That stuff doesn't generate tax, it costs money. It costs money to maintain. I hope you'll consider these points and allow staff and the applicant an opportunity, an opportunity to make this a truly excellent project for East Plano. Thank you. Thank you very much. Any other registered speakers? There are no further registered speakers. I'll close the public hearing, preserve the comments to the commission. I'm going to lead off and just tell you, Mr. Moore. Thank you. Apparently this is your passion project. I understand that being in your family so long, it is an appropriate endeavor for you and I, and you've obviously worked very hard on it and it shows. Thank you for your work with the staff to achieve the vision that I know you were part and parcel in creating with the Envision Oak Point Master plan as well. So this obviously has been a project of yours for a long, long time. And I and obviously you've got family and and supporters as well. So kudos to your family team and your, your the folks that have owned the property for for having this vision and, and seeing it through the next step and hopefully on to completion. So I did want to compliment you on that because it appears to me just in the staff report, did a very good job of it, that we've achieved 90 plus percent of what was envisioned on the on the Oak Point plan that I know that you were part of creating. So thank you for that effort in doing that. And I look forward to to working with you on the additional steps as we move forward. So with that, I'll open it up to other commissioners. Commissioner Olli, I want to ask for Grace to ask a question of either staff. I know you've closed. Oh, that's fine, you can ask questions. Universal design was referenced by staff and by the applicant, but I don't think we fleshed that out. I can somebody flesh out what universal design principles in developing this particular site we're thinking of. Yes. So the the requirement is that if there are model homes constructed, that they be built with universal design to showcase those so that, you know, if home purchasers want to incorporate that into their design of their homes, they can do that. Okay. So the purchasers will have a tool kit as a part of the model that they can incorporate, which would apply to like the young lady referenced, the 55 plus who probably does not want, you know, massive stairs and things like that. They can incorporate some tweaks to their particular home. That's right. And again, incorporating the model homes not a requirement for all the homes, just more of a showcase of the of the benefits of universal design. Okay. Thank you. If I can clarify, just because I know some of us know what universal design is for those in the audience who may not know, universal design is a is a concept that houses are more accessible, wider doors, flatter floors, lower countertops to provide more accessibility for for people with with accessibility challenges or for all of us as we age. So that's just it's a it's a concept that we're embracing. So Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you, chairman. Thank you to all the speakers who spoke to us today. I don't know if you all have had a chance to see this. This is the Envision Oak Point area study that was approved in 2018 and was brought forward as a part of our comprehensive plan when the plan was adopted in 2021. It is a part of our comprehensive plan. It overrules anything in the comprehensive plan. To the contrary, it controls the Envision Oak Park plan includes a broader area than just the property that is before us, in this case, the property before us in this case is a part of the Envision Oak Point plan. So when the Envision Oak Point plan talks about concepts such as walkability, mix of uses, it is not confined to just the land we're talking about here. The redevelopment of Market Square Mall on the north side of Spring Creek Parkway was guided by this plan. The Plano Event Center was guided by this plan. The adoption of the residential Community Design zoning district was specifically guided by this plan. And now we have an application before us that is guided by this plan. There are still areas that this, that, that have not yet been subject to redevelopment under the plan, but they're there. The area between Split Trail Drive and K and K Avenue is an example that remains for future development. It includes provision for future transit stations if necessary. But I want everybody to understand that just because what you see here is not everything that you're either going to get or have already gotten, or will get in the future. A comment was made about the necessity for smaller type homes on smaller type lots, thinking about retirees and so forth. I want you to be assured that this plan includes a lot of that. This plan includes a variety of housing styles and has housing stocks, including small lot homes, even patio style homes. Our commission saw a couple of weeks ago a housing study which documented citywide a serious deficiency in the supply of available homes that people can buy in relation to the demand across all styles and types of housing stock and across all types of of all types of lifestyles that people might, you know, where people might want or need to live. This application, to me addresses that problem directly. It provides a range of housing styles and housing stocks that will serve a variety of lifestyles. I think that is precisely what the city needs. I recall a couple of years ago, former Commissioner Kerry, who was on the commission at the time, made the comment that the enemy of the good is the perfect. I can think of a couple of tweaks that if I had my druthers, I might want to throw in and add to this plan. I can give you an example a monument style gateway, openings at the the major entrances into the into the development off of the off the major city streets, off of K Avenue, off of Jupiter Road, off of Spring Creek. Perhaps some more employment opportunities within this particular tract of land. But overall, this project is good and I'm not willing to sacrifice it to make it perfect. I understand, and from the comments we get, we get a long list of printouts of people who have registered either for or against various projects. I've got several pages here, people who have registered in opposition to this project. I suspect they were not aware of the impact of SB 15 on what could happen. If we don't approve this project. You could get something that that we can't plan and you can't stop it and we can't stop it. It is better for us to have a project that the applicant is willing to do, that the city is willing to cooperate with and guide the planning process, and most importantly, that Mr. Moore himself wants to do. And Mr. Moore and his family have been residents of this city for a long, long time, and I can't think of anybody in a better position. To to envision what the future of the city might require in the terms of future development. And he owns the property that can make it happen. There is a tendency, I think, in in people who especially who've been here a long time, I've been here 16 years. There are people who've been here twice and three times as long as that. But there's a tendency among some people to remember fondly the Plano they knew when perhaps they first moved here, when they grew up here, even when they were born here. And to wish that it could be that way always. Unfortunately, Plano is not like the character Han Solo in the Star Wars movie who got frozen in Kryptonite. Okay, you can't freeze Plano so that it stays the same forever. Plano started out as an agrarian little small community. It grew into a suburban community. One highways, US 75 became four highways surrounding the city. Our population grew and now is closing in on 300,000. The development of the city spread westward from US 75, all the way over to the Dallas North Toll Road and and beyond. Corporate employers came into the city. They have built campus headquarters. They employ people. Twice as many people now commute into Plano to work as commute out of Plano to go to work. We have people in this city more than we can house. Mr. Bruno. Yes. Can we talk specifically about this project? I appreciate I appreciate the history, but I'm just saying one of the challenges we face as a growing city that has become important is to vision the future. I think that is what this plan is doing. Thank you. Thank you sir. Mr. Bronsky. So I do have a question, but I want to make a clarification just for Mr. Bruno. It was carbonite. It was. It wasn't Kryptonite. Kryptonite. Mr. Bell, I have a question for you on page eight of the staff report under the section under the. Yeah, my head's under the table, under the area that says primary residential on the very bottom there you talk about independent living facilities. Would that be could that possibly be something along the lines of one of the things that one of the people that spoke about tonight could develop into? Yes. So the requirement there's an allowance for independent living. None is proposed, but they could be converted to age restricted housing. And then in the tier three housing, which they're showing as three units per lot, could also be independent living and could provide that kind of smaller footprint for senior housing. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Rowley. I'm not going to to build on some of the things Commissioner Brounoff said. When SB 15 came down, one of my fears was we've lost the ability to shape our city and the fact that the property owner has found partners who are, you know, I know of High Street. Trammell Crow built the office I sit in. So I I'm familiar with the with the quality. But the fact that the property owner found. Great partners and allows us to help shape our city. I think it's something that should not be discounted. And like Commissioner Brounoff said, you know, if I had my little etch-a-sketch and some AI behind me, maybe I would come up with something a little bit different or tweaks around the edges. But I am for what is. Presented because I think it's a thoughtful way to develop the land. Mr. Bender, thank you Commissioner. I also wanted to expand a little bit on Commissioner Bruno's comments, maybe a little bit more concisely, but, you know, city, the law, cities as they grow and they decline. And in Plano, you know, we want to remain vibrant and relevant, and we want to create places that people desire to live, work and play in close proximity. And I think this development and Commissioner Bruno stated it perfectly, that getting something exactly perfect is, is very difficult, and I don't want to have that keep us from moving forward with what I think is a terrific plan. Timing and opportunity have a lot to do with things they've been working at. This sounds like 25 years and, you know, now is is good timing and opportunity. And we have a great development partner. And that's one of the things that I've been trying to reinforce is that, you know, when the city works with a strong development partner and a strong owner, good things happen. So I'm in favor in favor of this plan. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner. Looks like those are all the comments I want to kind of wrap up and again, just say I think you've built a great team. Thank you for bringing this project forward and and for your your family's passion to see Plano into the future. And with that, I would like to make a motion that we approve this project, subject to the concurrent City Council consideration of signed development agreement outlining infrastructure phasing and participation for the full development Commissioner Brounoff I second the motion Commissioner. Okay. All right. Do we have any other comments before we vote? Nobody. Okay. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. Congratulations. And we look forward to the next steps. Item two A would you like me to read item two A and two B, two and two together please? Agenda item number two A zoning case 2020 5-010. Request to rezone 14.6 acres of land out of the Joe Butler Survey. Abstract number 46. Located on the west side of Los Rios Boulevard, 1250ft north of Merriman Drive in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas, from planned development. 173 estate development to single family residence six the petitioner's Meadows Baptist Church. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number two be Meadows Brook Addition and Meadows Baptist Church, addition block one, lot one are 58 single family residence six lots, two common area lots, and a religious facility on one lot on 27.3 acres. Located on the northwest corner of Los Rios Boulevard and Merriman Drive. Zoned. Planned development 173 estate development. The applicant is Meadows Baptist Church. This item is for administrative consideration pending. Agenda item number two A. Thank you. Good evening, commissioners. Destiny woods, planner with the planning department shown on the screen, is the requested area of rezoning and the next couple of slides will show the associated concept plan. So this is a request to rezone the subject property from planned development 173 Estate Development to single family residence six and with the requested zoning, the applicant proposes to create 58 single family detached residential lots, with those lot sizes ranging from 6300ft■!S to 13,90. The existing plan development stipulations restrict lot sizes to a two acre minimum, and it also asserts a fence design standards that correspond with the rants excuse me, ranch estates, deed restriction. And those stipulations are on the screen for your review. Staff finds that the request to rezone the 14.6 acres out of the current 147 acre district has no adverse impact on said district because the remaining properties within PD 173 will remain in conformance with their existing zoning, and the restrictions are intended to maintain the character of the Ranch Estates subdivision to the west, which the subject property is not part of that subdivision. So the surrounding land uses include single family detached uses with lot sizes ranging from two acres to 6000 square foot lots, and then there's also institutional uses to the immediate north. There is a religious facility, south also a religious facility, and east a public school. And the surrounding zoning is a mix of estate development, single family resident six or excuse me, seven, nine and six. And those are all residential districts. So this request is compatible with the residential single family detached lots that are being proposed. The comprehensive plan suggests that this that the subject property is designated designated neighborhoods on the future Land Use map. And this. Excuse me. This proposes to meet all of the applicable policies set by the Comprehensive Plan. So staff did receive one signed letter in support from within the subject property. And we also have the same letter that's going to be from within 200ft of the subject property. And for the city wide responses, we received a total of 67 responses as of Friday, November 14th, five were in support and 62 in opposition. However, as of today, 26 additional responses were received in opposition and 123 responses in support in the form of a signed petition. To summarize, this request is to rezone the subject property from PD 173 Estate Development to Single Family Residence six. The concept plan does propose 58 single family detached residential lots, and item two A is recommended for approval as submitted, which is the zoning case, and item two B the concept plan is recommended for approval subject to City Council approval of this zoning case. I'm available for any questions, and the applicant has also prepared a presentation Commission. Questions for staff. Commissioner Holly, just one more of a curiosity. When did we start accounting for outside of Plano? Responses to Plano zoning cases. So people can respond on our online response tool. But those responses will not be mapped. They'll just be included in the count. Okay. Thank you. Sure. Any other questions for staff, Commissioner Tom? Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Quick question regarding the deed restrictions from the old PD stipulation right after this rezoning. So all the deed restrictions will be gone or it will be changed or stayed there? No. So the rezoning, the deed restriction applies to ranch estates and the area that is being rezoned is not part of that subdivision. And so none of ranches, none of ranch estates is being rezoned with this request. So the deed restriction won't be affected at all. Maybe I didn't understand. So the subject property was zoned Ranch Estates. Was it? The subject property is zoned Planned development 173 Estate Development. Within that zoning district there is ranch estates. That subdivision, as well as Meadowbrook or excuse me, Meadows Baptist Church. The subject property is being subdivided from Meadows Baptist Church, not Ranch Estates. Oh, okay. Gotcha. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for staff? All right. You say the applicant is here and has a presentation. The applicant didn't register to speak, but the applicant's here and would like to. If they have a presentation, then now's the time. Please state your name and address for the record. Thank you. Jim Douglas Douglas properties were 2309 Avenue K, Plano 75074. I appreciate it. We have a short conversation on this. It won't be like your last one. This is approximately a 13 acre tract on the zoning it shows is 14 acres. Because your zoning requires us to go to middle of the thoroughfare, but 13 acres, as you can see, there is no connectivity with ranch estates. This track becomes basically a buffer between the ranch and Las Vegas Boulevard, the high school. We have two churches. This is a relatively isolated parcel. It it meets all of your requirements of your of your plan, of your of your overall planning. When go down the list, but you've got it in your packet. It meets every every one of the terms we have visited with staff. They've been extremely helpful in guiding us on this. When we first had the conversation with with Doctor Fenton and the church, which we have them here. But their number one objective was to have a quality development here, a quality neighborhood that they can be proud of because they own this land. Whatever goes there, people are going to look at the church. Okay, what did you sell this for? So we had to be very careful on that. The SF six does give a variety of what you don't have out there. In fact, I developed the Merriman subdivision a few years ago. It's the exact zone. Same zoning SF six. You do have other SF six, so it is a blending of the neighborhoods. It's not something monotonous, it is something different. And again, if you have any questions, we'll be glad to answer them because this one I consider is pretty basic. It fits everything, so I won't keep you any longer. So if you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. Anybody have questions of the applicant? Nobody. All right. Thank you very much. Thank you very much. All right. This is a public hearing. So we open the public hearing. And then I believe we do have some registered speakers. I have registered speakers. The first is Jacqueline Pearl, followed by John Jacobson and then Kyle Deschene. You just give us your name and address for the record, please? Sure. My name is Jacqueline Pearl. I live at 3601 Trail Walker Drive, Plano. Good evening. I live within the 500 foot buffer and the land in question. My grandparents moved our family to the Los Rios area back in the 80s. I was born and raised here and just last year I bought my own home in the same neighborhood. Because I love the openness of this area. We bought this house because of the style of the neighborhood. We were searching for a decent sized lot and it was actually disappointing how few options we had in Plano. The proposal to change this land from a state development to single family six would completely alter the character of this part of East Plano, the larger estate lots and open space are part of what makes this area so special. They provide breathing room, quiet, and a sense of space that originally drew families like mine here decades ago. With so much of North Dallas filling up with dense subdivisions and high traffic streets, estate style areas have become very rare. They're a part of what gives this part of Plano its balance between growth and livability, and between urban and open. Once we upzone this type of land, we cannot get it back. As all the suburbs around us explode with crowded living where you basically feel like you're sharing walls with your neighbor with little to no privacy. The estate style neighborhoods of East Plano would be an absolute gem, attracting people who care about upholding the character we've built here. I understand Plano needs to evolve, but progress should respect the neighborhoods that built this city's foundation. The proposed SF six zoning does not fit the longstanding character of this pocket of East Plano, and it risks setting a precedent that erodes what makes this side of town unique. If you look at the map of responses to this zoning case, it is filled with opposition. Approving this request to rezone would go against what the overwhelming majority of neighbors want. I urge you to deny zoning case 2025 010 and preserve the estate style vision that generations of families, including mine, have cherished and invested in for over 40 years. Thank you. Thank you very much. Next up is John Jacobson, followed by Kyle Deschene and then Sheps to heal with Ranch Estates Area Homeowners Association. Good evening. My name is John Jacobson. I live at 3916 Ridge Top Estates, and I'd like to make one correction. The south side of Ridge Top is also included in the development district, not just Ranch Estates. So I'm here tonight to strongly urge planning and zoning to deny changing the existing zoning from estate development I believe that the proposed zoning change safety concern for children due to increase in traffic in the area, most of these children would be those attending Plano East and perhaps younger children seeking to use a student parking lot or football practice field for various activities. I witnessed many times children playing a live version of the classic video game Frogger while attempting to cross Los Rios in front of the Plano East campus. You'll note that this subdivision is directly across from the one of the student parking lots for Plano East. As you may know, teenagers have a sense of increased invincibility and think nothing of crossing busy, busy streets such as the stretch of Los Rios in front of the 14 acres in question, Plano East. And so you ask me, well, how do I know this? I've raised three Plano East graduates. If the 14 acres were to be zoned for the 58 SF six lots, this will add at least 116 cars to the traffic in the area. Assuming two cars per household. Of course, that number could be even higher if there are additional drivers in each household. The result is easy to see an increase, a significant increase in area traffic would mean a likewise increase in the chance that someone is going to hit a person, most likely a child. Crossing the street in front of Plano East. And let's be honest, SF six zoning for these 14 acres is not appropriate for this estate development area. As and as in the past, I witnessed the city of Plano successfully resist efforts to change zoning of this area, which is inappropriate for the area, let alone to the smallest possible lot size for home construction. As you know, zoning decisions such as this one being considered are rather permanent. Putting 58 houses on those 14 acres will forever create a risk for our children, for which there is no solution. Let's make this area safer for our children. If you if you were to ask me what I would do with this property, I'd recommend one of the following. Maybe the city should buy the land and make a park after all, at a homeowners meeting years ago, a church representative told us that the. Wrap it up for us. Please, sir, for that property was going to be athletic fields, so why not make it a park? Alternatively, zone the property for larger lot sizes such as the two acre lots or at least larger lot sizes, which would be in keeping with the estate development of the area and following existing precedents that the city has maintained for the area for decades. If you can wind it up for us, I'd appreciate it, sir. Large lots mean fewer homes and less cars. Either of these solutions will significantly decrease additional traffic in the area and make it safer for our city's children. Thank you very much. Thank you. Next up is Kyle Deschene, followed by Shep Stahl. Hello, my name is Kyle Deschene. I live at 3924 Ridgetop Lane. I just want to start by saying thank you for the opportunity to share my perspective. I would also like to thank the other members of the community who are here to hear and willing to express their views. Like I said, my name is Kyle Deschene. I live on Ridgetop Lane and share a property line with the land under consideration for rezoning. I'm within the 200ft and I voted opposed to clearly state my position. I'm opposed to the to the proposed single family residence. Six zoning. I believe this zoning should be consistent with that of the neighborhoods to which this property is directly connected. Plano's comprehensive plan lists as its first priority for neighborhoods the goal to preserve neighborhood character and quality of life, the character of ranch estates and the adjacent portions of Ridgetop Lane. Merriman Drive, known as Planned Development 173, of which the rezoning request is part of, that character comes from its open pasture land and its horse and livestock friendly environment. The Comprehensive Plan further states the use for residential areas. It is the intention to preserve and enhance these uses, and to regulate the design of new residential infill products to be within the context of the surrounding environment. The proposed zoning would be of the highest density in the ranch estates and the surrounding community. My property in particular shares over 500ft of property line, with the area proposed for rezoning. Currently, like many single family homes in Plano, I share a property line with three neighbors, one on each side and one behind my home. Under the proposed concept plan, that number would increase to nine properties directly adjoining mine. This is a significant change and a major concern. Much of this area also has a zero or negative grade slope, causing many properties in our area to hold water, sometimes for days after heavy rains. The existing open pasture plays a substantial role in mitigating and allowing the soil to absorb much of the rainwater. With such a large shared property line, I am particularly concerned about the drainage impacts that heightened density could introduce onto my property. Another part of this neighborhood's character is the wildlife sanctuary, and that the open space provides area is surrounded by Oak Point Nature Preserve, Bob Woodruff Park, Los Rios Park, Stony Hollow Park, and Cottonwood Creek. Our properties regularly serve as corridors for local wildlife. Over the past year, the trees and brush between my property and the rezoning property have become nesting grounds to a family of roadrunners and the daily home to a family of red shouldered hawks. Each spring, we see diverse species of frogs, toads, turtles and snakes, and occasionally see owls, bobcats and coyotes. While some may view these animals as nuisances, I believe they reflect a healthy ecosystem, the preservation of nature, and most importantly, part of the character of our neighborhood something that will continue to be challenged as open space has become smaller and smaller in Plano and will be directly impacted by the density proposed in this rezoning. In closing, I want to reiterate that my position is that any development like stated in the comprehensive plan should simply match and preserve the established character and quality of life of our neighborhood. Thank you. Thank you very much. The next speaker is Shep Stahl, followed by Patrick Johnson. I am 3840 Ranch Estates Drive, Plano, a resident of 47 years. The Baptist church has been a great neighbor for more than 20 years, and I believe the nearby residents have been good neighbors to the church. We enjoy watching their athletic fields, particularly at night with the lights. It's been a good relationship. The Ranch Estates area is 56 lots, and it's a unique place where residents can keep horses, Park, an RV or a trailer, have a backyard workshop or a barn while still being in the City of Excellence. This is a rare and valuable contribution. My personal preference would be for the church to market the property as two acre lots, and see if demand is sufficient to earn more money for ministry and avoid neighborhood friction. Another alternative would be to develop the subdivision, but to have a row of larger lots next to the pastures to avoid conflict with horses make it similar to the large lots on the north side of Ridgetop Lane, where there's some room for the houses to be further away from pasture fences and large animals. My request is simple. Table this for a couple of weeks. Allow time. If the church team wants to pursue the concept of large lots, or if the church team wants to meet with the nearby residents and explore common ground to improve their proposal. Thank you. Thank you sir. The final speaker is Patrick Johnson. My name is Patrick Johnson, 3705 Cloud Crest Drive. We moved to the estates, Stony Hollow Estates in 99 due to the Uncongested area and the larger lots. My perception, which could be wrong, is that the city of Plano is moving more towards high density housing, and it seems to be more in the eastern area than in the western area. I don't think that the high density area in this high density housing in this area is compatible with what we have there now. I would hope that you would consider this and approve the changes to this type of lots. Thank you. Thank you sir. Any other speakers registered? There are no more registered speakers. All right. Let me close the public hearing and restrict comments to the commission commissioners comments. Commissioner Olli, can I get a question for Miss Woods? The proposal by the applicant, was it always SF six or did we look at SF seven, SF nine, you know, slightly larger lot footprints that don't necessarily quite get to an estate. The proposal since it's been submitted has been single family residence six. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner lolly, I have a question. Is there any requirement for fencing between the estates and this development? Is it going to be fenced out? There is no requirement for fencing. Single family abuts single family. So they can like the back of one property like can be abutting the like the low fence of another property. Right. It could, it could. There's no requirement. I think the applicant could probably speak to what they're intending to build in that area. But in terms of zoning code, there's no requirement for the wall. Okay. And my other question is, you know, like do we have like for. Streets open on Los Rios? So the applicant is proposing or cuts like for median openings. Yes. So there are there are two alignments for a median that the proposed driveways will connect to a median opening. It doesn't allow align right now. But the median the medians are being. Revised through a CIP project with our engineering department. So it's going to be two or it's going to be four. I'll have to verify on the concept plan if you allow me one second. Okay. Thank you very much. Okay Mr. Tong, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I want to ask a related question to Commissioner Lawley regarding the fences. Is there are there any requirements on communities? So for a community with a size of actually to staff. Sorry, this question is for for community with this size about, you know, 5060 houses. It forms a little community. Right. So who's responsible for the the community boundary or the, the roads maintenance? Or is the HOA or the city have any saying or requirements on how to, you know, kind of set the boundaries of the community? The boundaries are set by the property they're seeking to purchase. We work with the zoning and the subdivision ordinance inside the bounds that the the owner brings to us. If there are open spaces or common amenities, then those are required to be regulated by homeowner's association and maintained by homeowners association. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Bronsky. Miss, what did you want to clarify? To answer your question, Commissioner Lolly, there are two proposed drives that will intersect with the median opening that's planned. So, Miss Wood, my question was, we had a rainwater drainage issue brought up this evening. Has there been anything that we have seen in the process that we need to mitigate, or can you give us a little more detail on the the possible drainage issue, if there is one? Yes. So with this request, there is a proposed detention pond. It's going to be located on the church lot. It's kind of outlined in the graphic on the screen. But. That is that detention pond is proposed to handle the drainage for the development. So that should resolve the drainage issues that they're discussing. Yes. Our engineering department verified that this proposed drainage or detention pond should be sufficient. And if if it's not sufficient, we have any other ways of ensuring that we can resolve any other drainage issues that they're having by what this might create. Let me clarify the drainage plans in the full engineering plans will be evaluated at the time of plat, so the detention pond may need to be deeper or shallower depending on what the drainage requirements are, but the city will mitigate those. At the time of civil engineering, civil engineering plans and plat. Perfect. Thank you very much, Mr. Bruno. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to say I drove through the Ranch Estates neighborhood and I found it to be very attractive neighborhood with large houses on large lots, with lots of open space, three rail horizontal fencing, room for animals and so forth. It's a large development and it impressed me as a an attractive but mature and stable neighborhood. And I don't see any I don't see it going anywhere. I think it's it's here to stay. I have a hard time seeing that this development would negatively impact Ranch Estates, considering that it the access to the zoned tract is solely off of Los Rios Boulevard, and there is no road connection into ranch estates at all. I when I lived in Irving and served on the Planning and Zoning Commission in Irving, I recall a statement by the then chairman in Irving. Irving at the time also had a zoning district for 6000 square foot residential lots, and his comment was that those are desirable homes. There is nothing inherently undesirable about a home on a 6000 square foot lot. You don't have to have a 7 or 9000 square foot lot to have an attractive home. Now, if somebody wants to put up fencing of some kind along the western property line, as Commissioner Lolly suggested, I would have no problem with that. But I don't see any significant conflict between this development and ranch estates. Thank you, Commissioner Olli. My question for for the applicant. Again, back to my question for staff. Was there any thoughts, sir? Almost transitioning into the SF six. So right now the way the concept plan is laid out. Quite frankly, the smaller lots are in neighborhood to the the larger lots. Was there any thought to. Create almost like a downgrade transition. So you have the slightly bigger lots. Then you go into the SF six. If this was a 50 acre tract, yes. But 13 acres I mean there's no room. I mean, it's a very small without losing some. It doesn't it doesn't work. And to answer your question too, about the fencing, yes. There'll be we'll have fencing back there that will not share the existing fence. We will put up a new one. Okay. Anything else? No. Okay. Thank you sir. All right Commissioner Tom. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think my main concern is also regarding the fencing. And I, as a real estate professional. Professional? I've seen so many houses sharing fences, it will become a major issue for all the neighbors. Especially when a fence has more than three families sharing one fence. That's just impossible with maintenance and the issues and properties moving forward and I will. It will definitely devalue the property. Also, you can't even sell the house when you have more than three neighbors on one side of the fence. That's just true. Unfortunately, we cannot use that as a excuse or a reason to deny the the land use because this is part of the land use. It's allowed for them to change. However, I would like to see more design. I guess consideration about how to fence around the community between this new development and the ranch style homes on the west side to minimize the impact. So I personally I would propose a tabling so that the developer or the owner can have time to think more about how to do that, and maybe the staff can help them or the developer, whoever's doing that can help them. But as is now, I feel like it's hard to accept. Commissioner Lawley, I have a question to staff. Also, like, were there any studies done for the impact on water, sewer and those utilities for the development? Is it going to be a burden? Those impacts are reviewed in detail at the time of engineering plans. But engineering department has has made no objection to this. Based on demand, they anticipate adequate water and sewer capacity. So we think that we do have enough water and sewer on that. And like what is the SF six? So is it the 6000 square foot lots? Right. Because like I see the proposal is all 72, 98. So these are like good sized lots, right? Am I mistaken? That's correct. Six and SF six stands for 6000. Yeah but these are like these are more they're not going to come back. And like if we approve this one they're not going to come back and make them smaller. So they could amend the concept plan. And once the zoning is approved. But the concept would need to comply with the SF six standards, they would still need to provide the same number of streets and infrastructure to serve those lots. So I mean, you like it instead of the maybe like those six is going to be like 7 or 8 lots. So more lots is to make it smaller. 6000. Can we go with like a seven because it's like I can see there, there are no lots that are like few of those. There's like the 69 and 65. Most of them are over the 7000. Most most of them may be, but every lot has to be over 7000ftS in that. SF six development. Okay I'm sorry seven development SF seven. That's what I'm saying. So you like because does it make it more appealing to the neighbors if it's larger lots. I mean because they have they do have the larger lot, right? Or am I mistaken? The 6000 is like it's 6000, right? If the commission's belief is that they should be larger lots, then it should be a different zoning. It should not be SF six. Okay. If seven would be the next largest lots at 7000ft■!S.F nine 9000ft■!S. Yeah, yeah. Because you'll make the most of the lots are 72, 98,000. Like, I think it'd be a question for the applicant as to whether they can make the development work at 7000 square foot lots, but as shown on the concept plan, it would not comply with SF seven zoning. Okay, okay. Thanks. Mr. Bronsky. Miss, would could you tell us has has the applicant done significant outreach and speaking with the community? Like we see a lot of developments that are brought forward to us from my knowledge. And when I asked the applicant, they did not do community outreach. Okay, thank you. But they might be able to speak more if they have since I've spoken with them. No, no. Commissioner Lingenfelter. Just kind of along do are they required to have an HOA or are you intending to have HOA? They are only required to have an HOA if there is some common space or amenities, such as a screening wall that has to be maintained. So in this case there are open spaces. So there would be an HOA for the open space for the detention. All that or I mean yes, it's the design continues. We may try to get to a point where HOA is is not needed just to avoid the need to create and maintain that for such a small subdivision. But as currently shown, it would be required because I know Commissioner Tong had talked about the a common fence and and if every owner has to maintain their fence, that does become cumbersome. But if like it was, if that one line at least a fence along along the west side was was a common fence maintained by an HOA, that would be something that would be more feasible in that regard, and that would address her concerns that she she brought up. So I was just going to address that. If you were considering an HOA and having a common fence, that would that would also be maintained and very it would be continuous along that drive, that line for for the residents on the west side too. So they wouldn't have, you know, a cedar fence and a some other fence and all staying different. You know, it would just look just calico effect or something. It would be a continuous nice fence for, for all neighbors and then maintained so that there wouldn't ever be a somebody that just didn't maintain their fence and it'd be running down and leaning or whatever. Another issue that I that was brought up was the drainage. And I just wanted to reiterate, you know, from an engineering standpoint, you know, you can't have legally have lots of drainage. It has to drain. It's going to drain towards the right of way. It's going to be picked up in inlets. It's going to go to a detention pond and then released at the same rate into the storm system that that it is right now. So that will actually mitigate your, your drainage and water issues that you were concerned about. So. All right, Mr. Alley, last question maybe. Since this is on SB 15 apply here. SB 15 does not apply here since it's previously been plot because it's plotted as part of the church previously been plotted, it won't apply. Okay. Thank you. All right. From my perspective, I am a little concerned that you've not reached out to the neighbors to talk through your proposal and their concerns. I do believe the neighborhood has some legitimate concerns, especially the three neighbors immediately over the shared common lot common property line. I. There's a it is a significant change in the land use adjacent to them, even though it's still technically residential. Which would sure like for you to have reached out and worked with them to address some of their see if you can address their concerns and and be a good neighbor. Like apparently the church has been for a number of years. I think that's a not an unreasonable request. Anyway, those are my thoughts for right now. Commissioner Holly. I will second that. And also it's a jarring transition from. What it is right now. Just you know, I would also look at perhaps and I don't want to make this necessarily a forcing an sf7 or an sf9, but a way to and I know it's going to be less houses, but to transition from an estate development to a larger lot size on the perimeter before you go into the into the smaller lot sizes, kind of like in the center of the development would be something that I would find a bit more appealing from our case to be made to change the zoning on this. Commissioner Bender. Thank you. Chairman. I understand the economics that you're looking at with the SF six, but. My thoughts are in alignment with the chairman's that this is, you know, a major change. And and these are state lots people. They chose to move there for a very specific reason. And this is really changing in my view. The character. So not interacting, not reaching out, talking to the neighbors to me is the whole point. And we still we haven't closed the hearing yet, but my recommendation would be to table we've closed the public hearing. So yeah, we're. Commissioner Bronsky. So this is going to be general to the staff as a whole. You've heard some of our concerns as it relates to the. The SF six that this property is currently proposed to go to, to make the changes like we're describing. Does tabling it provide enough time or would it need to be tabled for an extended period of time in order to accomplish any of the things that we've described? It would depend on how long you want to table. I don't think we could table to the next meeting, considering there's Thanksgiving between now and then. I don't think the first meeting and the second meeting in December would leave enough time to redesign the concept plan to meet those requirements. So then we're pushing probably into the new year, and that I would defer to the applicant if that makes if that is a timeline they're acceptable with. I'd like to make an additional point of the transitions and so forth that have been discussed. Just we can't enforce that using standard zoning districts that we have. So we're really looking at creating a plan development district. If you want some of the things that you're talking about. So I think we could really use some feedback from this commission that as to whether or not if you are looking, if you want us to go the route of a planned development district, that's going to take a lot more time. But if you want straight zoning, that's a simpler ask. So to me, having having guidance as to whether you're looking at we would prefer straight zoning or we really think this is so nuanced, it requires a planned development district that that would be useful guidance. So procedural question on that because it's already a PD. Would this be amending the PD or would it need to be a separate PD. It would be we could look at going back and re noticing to amend the PD rather than create a straight zoning district. But it would be it would be amending it would be re noticing. That's really the issue. We have to re notice it to create PD. We would have to re notice to amend the existing PD to add stipulations for this piece of property. But if we went from straight zoning to PD would that require re notice as well? It would. So either way it would have to be re noticed. Anything other than straight zoning would have to be re noticed. Yes because it's well we could talk about that with miss de Andrea, but it may be that if it's getting less dense and it remains single family, that there are options there. So. Right. And the in the past if you've gone to less dense we've, we've thought that that would be okay without re noticing. But but if you're really doing substantial changes it it may be in the public's best interest to re notice so that people know whether they're opposed or not and know if they should come to the meeting. That's fair, Mr. Bronson. Hang on, hang on one second. I'm sorry. Mr. Bronsky still has the mic. So? So it's it's my concern that in order to address the concerns that we see and to allow the community to have the input that I believe it very well deserves and has not been given, I'm not sure tabling this is going to be necessarily in the best interest of the citizens, the church or any other organization. I'm going to hold back my motion on that just right now so that everybody else can have some input, but it's I'm leaning towards saying that we need to deny this for now, and then give them a chance to redo this process the way that we typically see it done and brought before us, seeking community input and trying to make it a lot more similar to the area that it encompasses. Commissioner alley, you're up next. Yeah. Given it sounds like tabling basically extends this for another 2 or 3 months. At that point, it might make sense to deny, basically start again what we would I think what you're hearing from us is what we would like to see, if it does come back is the community input and. Proof that a good faith effort has been made to reach out to the community. Also, working with the applicant to either come up with a PD, PD amendment, maybe a zoning of Sf9 that forces that lot size transition without necessarily making it a PD. I don't know what the right answer is, but something that shows that, you know, we've chewed on this a little bit, a little bit more so that we because right now it's. It's stands out and doesn't feel like it's smoothly integrates into that space. I would advise the commission, if the concern is the wall to hear from the applicant or the fencing. I'm sorry that that be maintained, hear from the applicant and whether they're willing to address that through plan development and take the time to do that rather than deny. Or if this is this is the plan and that's what they've determined that is financially feasible to take action on it as it is. The concern for me is not the wall. The concern is more the transition from. Very large lots. Both of those, both of those concerns offense and potentially creating larger lots. Again, I would recommend hearing from the applicant on this to see what's feasible in their mind. But if it is feasible, then the item could be tabled indefinitely and we bring it back at a time that it's ready. And that outreach has been done to the neighborhood. If I can offer one just input, I think it's better for the applicant if we continue the zoning case. Two reasons. One, they're already in and have paid their fees. And if you recall, we just heard a presentation about how much our fees have gone up. I wouldn't think it would be fair to them to ask them to to deny them and have them have to pay the fee again, especially when it's a much higher fee. So. Oh, sorry. Let me turn on your microphone. I'm sorry. There you go. Like, can we continue with the zoning case that's presented to us. But would putting some conditions, like if the applicant is like is okay with adding the fence or not, we could not condition a straight rezoning. Okay. We can we can table it and provide them feedback and have them bring it back when they believe they're ready to present it again. But do they have to pay another? No. As long as it's continued, then they're already in the queue. They've already paid their fees. Okay. So okay. Thanks, Commissioner Bender. Thank you. Chairman. Again my thoughts align with Commissioner Bronsky and and his comments. But. I'm in alignment with what's being discussed. Okay, I'll be brief. All right, Commissioner Brounoff, I just want to echo your concern about the fees. I was wondering what the what the impact would, would be in terms of the applicant having to pay fees on a just amending the current application versus a denial and a refiling. Right. Yeah. And, Commissioner Bronsky, your light still on? Yeah. So I'd like to since we've talked about giving the applicant a chance to be heard, my issue is not the fence by itself, but is it possible that we could ask the applicant any of his input as it relates to this? My my gut feel says we've got enough issues that I think we deserve. The applicant deserves time to, rather than think on his feet, to go back and study this a little bit with his team and the ownership, and then bring us back a more comprehensive proposal to address our concerns. I think maybe the what I would recommend is that if we can give them that feedback of our concerns, which I think we've already done, and then ask them to work with the staff to bring back a and the neighborhood, to bring back a modified proposal to address those concerns, as well as the neighbor's concerns, and see if we can come to a a common ground somewhere. So then I would move that we table item 22A. Until the January 5th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Okay, Commissioner Lolly I'll second. All right. So we have a motion and a second. I'm going to offer one comment in there before we vote, because I haven't said this yet. One thing that I'm not as hung up on the lot sizes, but I would sure like to see deeper lots adjacent to the neighbors, primarily because I think crowding the property line adjacent to the neighbors, even fence or no fence, having a lot with very little or no backyard is is a disservice to the neighbors next door. I would like to see those lots be a lot deeper so that so that you're not right on top of their property line is one of my concerns. So okay. With that said, any other comments before we vote? Nobody. Okay. We have a motion in a second to oppose to table this to the January 5th, 2026 meeting. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. We look forward to seeing you back here in the New year. Yes. Thank you. The second. Yeah. So we'll need to table agenda item two B. Oops sorry. Hang on. Let me turn the microphone. Try that move we table agenda item two B to the 20 to the January 5th, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. As we did two a. Commissioner lolly and I'll second. All right. So motion in a second also table item two B to the January meeting. Please vote. Motion passes 8 to 0. So thank you all. And I presume we'll see a lot of you back here after the New Year. I hope that's going to be item three. Agenda item number three zoning case 2020 5-016. Request to amend specific use permit number 56 for commercial antenna support structure on point one acre of land out of the Maria C Vela survey. Abstract number 935. Located 220ft north of Democracy Drive and 220ft east of Partnership Road in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas. Presently zoned commercial employment petitioners, Democracy Partners Partners Limited. This item is for legislative consideration. Thank you. Commission. Unlike what the slide says, I'm not Jordan Rockaby. He unfortunately fell ill today and was unable to be here. He is also our cell tower expert. So please, please take it easy on terms of the technical questions. We will do our best to address them. The request is for the property shown here between Tennyson and Democracy Drive. The site is zoned Commercial employment as well as all surrounding properties in the area are also commercial employment. The request is specifically to amend specific Use Permit number 56 for commercial antenna support. Structure. The request includes reducing the permitted height from 120ft to 95ft, and changing the design from a stealth monopole to what the zoning ordinance refers to as a human initiated tree design. There will be no change to the base zoning of commercial employment. There are some history on this site. The original zoning was approved in 2020 for the original, they included originally a design for a again a human initiated tree. After discussions with staff, the applicant revised that design to a flagpole design that you see in the bottom right side of the screen, and that was ultimately was approved as part of the SP in 2024, the applicant came back to staff in 20. In July of this year, the PNC approved a waiver of the two year waiting period. The reasons given at that time were that the owner at the time was unaware and not supportive of the flagpole design, and wanted to move forward with the tree design instead. The commission did approve that waiver, and so the zoning case was submitted, and it has since been revised, as mentioned, to have the tree design and lowered height. Just some background on commercial antenna support structures or cell towers. And SP is required if they are over 60ft in height. There are incentives for stealth design, including they're not required to provide co-locations, and they are exempt from setbacks to towers and other properties. If stealth design is provided. Stealth design can typically included the tree design. However. The tower. The proposed tower does not mimic a native tree species. Tree species in form or in height required for stealth design. So in short, although it's designed to be a tree, it's not fitting in in nature where the tree would would essentially be stealth. It would essentially stand out in staff's opinion. This is the rendering of the proposed tree design. It is again 95ft and intended to replicate a eucalyptus tree and hold spaces for three carriers, and include a existing building. And the existing building height is 27ft on the property, and it would also include an eight foot masonry screening around the ground. Equipment. As this request does not include a change of land use, there is not a detailed future land use analysis with this request. However, Community Design Action three or CD three of the Comprehensive Plan does seek to minimize visual impact of overhead utilities and wireless communication facilities through through techniques such as stealth design. As of noon on November 14th, we had received no responses within the subject property. We received no responses within 200ft. And we have received one response in favor citywide. To summarize, the request is again to amend the SP for the height and design, and staff recommends denial. I'm happy to answer any questions you may have, Commissioner. Any questions for staff Commissioner. Tom. Sorry, Mister Chairman, I don't understand the why. Still, I actually have seen structures like this in other states or cities that have a tree structure. I know it looks like it's different from the other trees around the nature trees, but they look fine. I think they look prettier than just a flagpole with all the antennas antennas on it. So I don't I don't understand why the staff members would not approve. Yeah, we have examples of trees that maybe not as nice as the ones I mean. It can be done. Well, it can be done in a in a thoughtful way, for sure. A tree design has its place, however, in this specific location staff's opinion is that it would attract attention because it's not necessarily in a tree stand or in an area that has trees of this height or these species. So in those regards it attracts attention rather than being camouflaged. What a flagpole would not a flagpole attract attention with all the antennas because the antennas are totally interior to the pole. It's just essentially a large pole design with a flag that could hang off of it. I don't think the flag is actually required, but all the all the antenna equipment is actually located inside of a shell, so you can't see them. So they wouldn't see the tree design. They're on the outside, but they have the branches. Masking the cell equipment. Is that normal to all the other? Antenna pole poles? Because I've seen those exterior antenna all over the city. We have a variety of some that are not stealth because they weren't required to be. We have some that are tree design. We've seen some that are the pole design. We've also seen some that are like on religious facilities that are designed to look like a steeple or resemble a steeple. And so they're camouflaged in that way. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Holly, you had me googling if eucalyptus trees are native to Texas, which I should know. That they're not. Can you remind us of? So in May 2024, when staff worked with the initial proposal and proposed the flagpole, can you give us some reminder of kind of like what was the back and forth there and to why it took a year for the applicant to come back for a waiver? Can you just give some context? So staff's discussion were similar to to gain support for staff's for the request of the specific use permit. Staff was not going to support the tree design. So but we would support a stealth design, a flagpole design, which is what they ultimately they chose to do with to gain staff support. My, I don't know, the total timing of why it took a year to come back for the design, but I believe at that meeting they spoke that the property owner was ill and was maybe unaware at the time that you. If they came back with a more native tree design, which would be, I presume, shorter in height and I don't know what is native to Texas, would that then be in compliance with, you know, staff's objective of making this more stealth? It would certainly help. I'm not going to commit that. It would change our recommendation, but it would certainly be an improvement. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner lolly, I have a question about the height. So did they reduce the height because of the change of design, or is it. I believe the applicant can speak to this, but I believe they're reducing the height in order to again, help with the fitting in of the general area, hundred and 20ft would be taller and obviously more visible. Okay, so you like they are reducing just for the the tree design? I believe so, but I would defer to the applicant to confirm. Yeah thank you, Commissioner Bender. Oh sorry. Commissioner Tong your lights back on. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm just trying to find a solution. Right. So I was wondering if you were going to do a tree. Would there be a tree designed that from the staff point of view that would fit that area? Stay. I think, in the staff report on page nine, we talked about there's cedar elms are set grow to 70ft and bald cypress grow to 100ft. So those are a couple of opportunities we thought I mean generally in Texas taller trees tend to branch out. And so it is really hard to find trees that are going to be tall and narrow, like you want this to be. But those are a couple of opportunities that are in kind of the height range of cell towers that we thought could be opportunities. So the do we at recommend the applicant to use the ones that maybe that'll fit our staff member's requirement? These are we have not we have typically worked with people to do the flagless flagpole. That's been our go to for a long time, because we've had challenges. One, we've had negative community reactions to the trees. And we've I've just had a lot of negative feedback is really and we've had even code enforcement issues on the trees where the tree that's presented in the public hearing is not what's actually constructed. So we've really just overall tried to avoid the trees. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bender. Thank you. Chairman. I know Commissioner Holly was not proposing a 90 foot cactus. So when he was asking about what are the alternative trees? You know, this this is a very commercial office area, right? And I agree that something that a flagpole design, you wouldn't see it, right? Anything other than that, you're going to wonder what is that? And it doesn't really fit. So those are my, my thoughts would would be to agree with the staff recommendation. Just keep in mind we still have questions for the applicant. And then and actually a public hearing as well. So. So Commissioner Bronsky did you have comments pass for now okay. Any other questions for staff at this point. None. Okay. We do have the applicant here. Do we have does the applicant have a presentation or just available for questions. Have a presentation okay. If you'd come forward give us your name and address please. Okay. Perfect. Good evening. My name is Mason Griffin and I reside at 4908 Spyglass Drive. And yes, I'm here representing the applicant. First, I just want to thank the commission for being willing to to rehear this revised proposal. I know that's not how we typically do it, but I just appreciate the opportunity to make this this presentation. Yes, we've we've kind of heard the kind of the history on this site. And really our argument comes down to I'm sorry. Okay. We just have one quick question to clarify something with you, if you wouldn't mind, with you, sir, you mentioned that you're here representing the applicant. Yes. So in a prior, a prior circumstance, my understanding was we received bringing this about because we had somebody representing the applicant, that the applicant wasn't really happy that he was being represented by. So my question is, are you sure you're here to represent this gentleman's case as he desires? Legitimate question. Yes, absolutely. And actually, to be to be abundantly clear, I'm here representing the the cell tower company that that has an agreement with the property owner to install a tower at the location. And so that's that's who I'm here representing. Obviously, the the owner of the property signs the application and but but yes, it everything that that we're proposing has been approved by the property owner. Okay. Sorry. I just wanted to make sure. Yes. Legitimately. Yep. We don't want any any more confusion. Right. So back to you. Back to your presentation. Sure, sure sure. Not a problem. Yes, really. Our argument comes down to two things. Really esthetics and performance. In terms of esthetics. We we've we've heard the concerns about the height. And so yes, we've gone back to the the three major carriers, Verizon, AT&T and T-Mobile, who will all be on this tower. And and really, it's a balancing act when you when you work with these guys because they're looking for as high a structure as they can to to provide as much coverage and as good a quality coverage as they can, or what we call capacity to the area that's impacted. And so we work with them and say, how low can you go? How low can you go? Because there's obviously concern around height. And so we were able to lower it more than 20% to get a 95ft. Now that only works because with this tree design the antennas are installed on the exterior of the central structure. They're again, again camouflaged by the branches. The faux branches are human initiated branches. I like that term that surround the tree, but the antennas are can be larger antennas and more antennas installed on the exterior of the central pole. And what that does is it provides allows the structure, the antennas to provide at least as good, if not better coverage than the monopole design. The slick pole design that goes to 120ft. And so that's why we were able to reduce the height. We also think, and I've got some photos simulations to show the comparison of the two designs from different areas around the building. We think it actually does blend in better with the surrounding area. And then lastly, the building owner has insisted on this change and believes it blends into his development more seamlessly. It's also been approved by the Property Owners Association. Of all the building owners in the area, they have no problem with the design. Yes, staff has raised concerns about the the faux tree design and the fact that the 120 foot pole, they would argue, blends better into the viewscape. And while we would agree that certainly with 120 foot design, the antennas are mounted into the interior, the pole, and so they're not visible at all. The ordinance calls for for the antenna and support structure to camouflage or conceal the presence of antennas or support structure. And what we think is, is that our design both camouflages the antennas and in fact camouflages the support structure. It's not as visible of 120 foot pole sticking out of the ground. This is just a layout showing where pictures were taken from and the site location, so that you can have a frame of reference. This first is looking southeast, and what you can see on the left is the 120 foot monopole design. And it's kind of helpful that the cloud is there, because the cloud shows you, if you look on the right, how much shorter the tree design is in the area. I also want to point something out. You know, the desire is is to use a more native tree to blend more seamlessly into the area. And this picture and a couple of others really show part of the problem with that in North Texas. I'll go to the next slide and you can see North Texas has trees that are very wide in terms of their canopy. I'm a native Texan native Dallasite born at Baylor Hospital downtown. And so we all know that that that the trees in the area aren't particularly tall but are very wide. We've got to remember that this tree is not organic. It's an inorganic structure. Steel plastics other materials that don't have the flex that an organic tree actually does. And so if you do require a much broader, wider tree like a bald cypress, it's just not feasible from a structural standpoint. And from a wind load standpoint, it becomes a major safety issue. Here's a good example. I just googled why we were here this evening. A picture of a bald cypress. Just to give you context here, I don't know if we can. Is it possible to is it possible to switch to this screen and I apologize, it's right there. But that's what a bald cypress looks like. And if you can imagine that being mimicked with steel and plastic that doesn't have flex. I just googled 100 foot bald cypress and looked at images and scrolled down a little bit. That presents a there's just I have not analyzed this and I'm not an engineer, but I've got to believe that presents wind loading safety structural issues that that would be a challenge to overcome if they could at all. This is the reason when we see these faux trees, they always have that very narrow profile because they have to their inorganic material. Again, this is a second photo simulation from the from looking west. And you can see the 120 foot monopole on the left. And you can see the tree as it would be, blending in at 95ft on the right. And then lastly looking northwest again, both designs, I think it is helpful. While many of the trees in this area are shorter trees, I think that it is helpful that this is a commercial area with lots of three, four, five, six story buildings in the area. And so we're not talking about putting this in the middle of a park where it stands twice the height of any surrounding tree or any surrounding structure. There's other structures of comparable height in the vicinity. Performance. First of all, I just want to say this is a home run. I've been doing cell tower presentations for a long time, and and what I hear consistently is we need all the carriers on one tower. We need all the carriers on one tower because we want to limit the proliferation of these, of these, these tower structures around cities. And I get it, in this case, all three carriers are already signed up, ready to go and installing this. And in fact, there's a fourth. There's there's capacity for a fourth spot, either one of the other carriers taking a second location at a lower point, or if a dish is kind of out of the game now. But if they're a fourth carrier that were to come along, there would be capacity for a fourth carrier to go on this, this tower as well. Again, you've likely seen these these shows how the performance improves in this area. This is T-Mobile's existing and their proposed coverage. AT&T is existing and proposed coverage, and Verizon's existing and proposed coverage. It's just a yes sir. No. Again, as we talked discussed earlier, the tree design allows for larger antennas to be installed outside of the structure and more antennas. And what that does is it improves the performance of the tower and allows for better coverage over a broader area for the customers. The what I've been told is that to cover a similar area with comparable signal strength, using a flagpole would require three times as many towers. And so the goal is to limit the proliferation of these towers, these these faux tree designs or other stealth designs are absolutely a home run. Steve Nees from Verizon is an RF engineer and he's with with us this evening. I'd like to invite him up to kind of share address these technical concerns a bit, and he might be able to answer later on, answer any questions you have on a technical standpoint that I'm not equipped to handle. Good evening everyone. I see why you all wear jackets in here now. Goodness gracious, give us your name and address for the record, please. Sure. My name is Steve Knees. I live at 604 North Josephine in Royse City, Texas. 75189 actually did live in Plano for a couple months when my wife and I first moved here five years ago. Enjoyed it very much. We were right next to Oak Point Park. Loved it. Beautiful park. I guess. Does anyone have any questions for me? I don't know, I've got one quick one and then I'll entertain the commissioners. The existing pole, as approved, was originally designed for four carriers. Is that is it is something changed or is that because we were talking about having four carriers? It makes it unique, but I think it's already approved for four carriers. Is there is there something that's changed that we're not aware of for the existing monopole? No. No, nothing. Nothing has changed. The existing monopole would also be able to hold four carriers. So that's not really a distinction between the two designs. I'm just making the point that this is this is a it's a great project to begin with because all all three carriers can get on there and there's capacity for a fourth. Okay. Just want to make sure nothing had changed. All right, Commissioner Bender. Thank you. Chairman. Having lived in legacy for six and a half years, I can attest that this additional cell phone tower is really needed. What's the effective range of this tower? Just curious, which tower are you asking about, Commissioner? The the stealth one or the the tree one? Okay, so with a typical site, that's, let's say the original 120 foot monopole design, the flagpole design. There's a lot of compromises that are built into those flagpole type designs. And with those compromises comes a big compromise in coverage. The flagpole stealth designs typically only cover about a third of what a standard macro site would cover. So a typical monopole design or a self-support structure where you have like a a girded structure, those would cover about three times as as large of an area as the typical stealth flagpole site would. And most of that is because the radios that transmit the signal have to be placed on the ground for a stealth site versus for a typical site, those radios are up on the tower. So because you have to transmit your signal all the way up the tower and then out, you have a lot of losses in those lines. Those lines have to be diplexed. Basically, you take two lines and you make them into one, and you run it up the tower and then you split them again at the top. And we have to do that for several different bands. And so for a stealth site, you end up with a lot more equipment jammed up inside that tower. You have a lot more losses. And the power we we have to use lower power for stealth site. And so because of all those limitations, you know, the the end product that we're after, the, the actual coverage to serve our customers is about a third of what it would be for a typical macro site. The height doesn't matter as much as the fact that we have to make a lot of technical compromises in those stealth sites. And actually, I'm fighting against stealth sites in a lot of areas, and I understand why a lot of jurisdictions want them. You know, a, a simple flagpole site is much more esthetically pleasing than a pole with a bunch of antennas and equipment bolted to the top of it. The the big issue is it just comes with so many compromises that it's, you know, it's not feasible to cover larger areas. There's having lived there, there's significant issue. I had a follow up question. So I think you made the comment that the Legacy Association has has approved the tree design. Is that an accurate statement? Yes, sir. That's correct. And as a matter of fact, we reconfirmed that on November 4th. So just two weeks ago, just to make sure in anticipation of this meeting, they have no issues and in fact support the tree design. So thank you, Commissioner Lolly. So you like just to confirm. So the reduction in the height from 120 to 95 is not going to jeopardize the technical performance of those. Any reduction in height is going to is going to reduce your coverage area and versus you know, like if you put them inside the monopole. Right. So what's the you know, like what's the. So a reduction is height is going to reduce your coverage area. And also doing a stealth style pole is going to reduce your footprint even more. So. So both of them are like so either way you're going to compromise something like compromises coverage. And then going to a stealth pole reduces coverage even further. Both of them. Because, you know, like with the tree design, you also like proposing to reduce the height. So which is also is going to technically reduce the the range. Right. And like and I have another question also on the tree design. You know you said it's plastic. It's like a combination of metal and plastic. Is there like any maintenance concern. Are they going to lose you know like portion of it like with high winds. And so 15 or 20 years ago when they first came out with these stealth trees, they started with palm trees like in Florida. And the first few years they were pretty bad. And actually for the first 5 or 10 years, they were pretty bad. They weren't very robust. They would tend to get tattered in the wind. Over time, pieces of them would start flying off into the breeze. We do have high winds, but in the last 5 or 10 years they've actually gotten a lot more robust. They're a lot more realistic looking than they used to be. It used to be you would drive by one and it would stick out like a sore thumb and you'd be like, you know, looking at it like, what is that thing over there? But lately, you know, I've driven right by sites in other cities and I've had engineers be like, we just passed the stealth tree. And I'd be like, really? That one? Like, sometimes you couldn't even tell. So there's been a lot of improvement in the quality of how they look. And also, you know, the robustness and the quality of them and how they do over time. Do you have a survey of how many, like, survive those high winds? And they're actually or, you know, like, like sunlight and you know, like the UV and yeah, I don't know what they're rated at as far as like wind speed, but I know that they're, they're much more robust than they used to be. And they'll, I mean, they, they, I know they have them up in Chicago and it's pretty windy there. So. Okay. Thanks, Commissioner Raleigh, I'm sorry if I may just also address the maintenance question. Just just to be clear. So anthem, that the applicant does have a third party maintenance agreement and as well as in the contract, an obligation to maintain it. And this is going to be kind of unique because we're in an office park setting. There's going to be lots of people that will be, you know, let's say, holding us accountable if if it does, if it does, if we neglect maintenance, they're going to be talking to the to the property owner, or the property owner is going to be calling us. And so I would say more than most sites, because there's so many tenants coming in and out of that space, they're going to we're going to hear about it. So thank you, Commissioner, I just want to clarify. So apples to apples, 120 foot flagpole versus a 90 foot tree design. What's the loss of coverage between both. Is it. Right. So the stealth flagpole is always going to be considerably less coverage area. Even if they're, you know, even if the the stealth flagpole was 150ft and, you know, the tree was 75ft, you know, half the height, it would still propagate almost twice as far. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you. Chairman, could you clarify for me exactly what type of communications you're talking about mounting on this pole? I mean, is it like cell phone communications for the general public? Is it a closed communication system like a police radio? And is it is it television signals? What is it? I mean, yes, sir. It's a cellular transmission tower. So cellular transmission. So for cell phones, for cell phone service, for the general public. Sorry. For the general public. Yes. Okay. Yes, sir. All right. Thank you. It would have it would have us on it Verizon Wireless, most likely T-Mobile AT&T. Thank you, Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again I have an engineer in mind. So I want to provide a solution. So you have heard all the staff recommendations and you know the history and you're still here bringing this up. I don't want this to happen again because this happened two years ago. You brought us design in a tree and the staff said, no, we cannot do tree. So you changed the flagpole and now the owner says, you want a tree. You brought back the tree and the the staff said, no, we cannot have a tree. What is your solution now? Because if we deny it today, what are you going to do? You're going to bring back in a year again? I don't want this to happen again. So I want your solution knowing that the staff members are not supporting this. Do you have an alternative? Sure. No, as I understand it, if, if, if we. Well, I'd have to discuss my client. What a recommended denial here. What the impact of that would be if we would move forward to city Council and try to make our case. But if we're ultimately denied, I would imagine that they would go with 120 foot pole that's already been approved. The impact of that, of course, is that is that while we won't be back, in all likelihood for for this will likely be back for other towers in the area. Because again, I heard it said earlier, don't let the great be the enemy of the good. Well, I think in this case we've got an opportunity. Well, I would say don't let the great be the enemy of the great again. I hear all the time. Perfect, perfect. Sorry. Perfect. Don't let perfect be the enemy of the of the, the good I hear all the time. Can we make it shorter? Can we hide the tower? And can we have fewer towers? I hear that from communities all over North Texas. And in this case, we've got an opportunity to reduce the height from 120ft to 95ft. We've got an opportunity to, I think, have a camouflage design that that hides not just the antennas but the but the structure itself. And we've got an opportunity to provide a tower antenna instead of antennas that would reduce the need for other proliferation of other towers and structures throughout this area to address the need in the area. But but I hear your concern, and I think that's where we would be, is we would likely stick with 120 foot tower and there would just be more tower applications. And a further question is that since you have talked to the neighbors, you have talked to the owners. That's correct. Everybody around you support your solution. They don't think it's problem visually. And but that is the concern that our staff members have. So have you communicated with the staff saying that, hey, this is what we got. Is there any wiggle room from that? Because this our staff also receive feedback from the public, from the community saying that there were problems before. There were reports that people didn't like it. And we don't want to create another thing that caused all the communities to come back to us saying, hey, we didn't want this years ago, why did you put this here again? So where did you get the feedback? Do you have anything that you can work with the staff member to get this resolved? Yes. The applicant, the Anthem Net has worked with the staff over the past year, and while we understand we've got a disagreement about the esthetics, we've done what we could to listen to their concerns as they can. We make it lower. Any lower tree is going to be less visible to the surrounding area. And so yeah, we've tried to listen to the concerns and provide the best proposal that we can that addresses the needs of the carriers and the need in the area in a way that we think meets the intent of the ordinance to camouflage the antennas in the structure. Thank you. Sure. I'm going to jump in here, just I didn't my light stays on. Do y'all have anything in writing? Have you presented to the staff that you have from the legacy owners showing that they support this? I, I think there's been email conversations. I frankly, I need to check and see is staff have y'all is Mr. Bell are we aware of any communications with the. I'm not aware. I have to check with the planner to see if he has that, but I'm not aware of it at this time. Okay. All right. I'm glad to share. I've got an email from the the Property Owners Association on my phone. I'm glad to share that with anyone that would like to see it and verify. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. Sure. Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you. I meant to make this point earlier and I forgot. Point one, I think you have established that a shorter faux tree provides broader coverage than a taller monopole. Correct? Correct. Then a taller stealth flagpole? Yes. Stealth flagpole. Thank you. Okay, point number two, your comment that in the last 5 or 10 years, these trees have been made much more durable and much more resistant to damage. Coupled with your comment that you have agreements with the relevant associations requiring you to to have maintenance, continuing maintenance sort of knocks the pins out from under any objection you might have to a wider native tree, as opposed to a narrower non-native tree. So my question is what's wrong with a wider native tree? It could be a cedar elm. It could be a bald cypress. It could be another native tree. But considering that there are now durable, as you say, and you have to maintain it, why not a native tree? Yeah, I think and I don't want to speak for Mr. Neece, but the but but the more durable designs are the narrow designs. I'm not aware of, of a faux tree design that's out there in the market. That is the the as wide as what I just showed. That's a bald cypress. What has become more durable is the designs that are that are common. The narrow design that similar to what we're proposing. So the the these other proposed types of trees, if there were in a perfect world I would totally agree. But but it's just not a product that's out there because it doesn't work from a structural and a wind loading standpoint. Is that it's not out there. How do you know they don't work from a wind loading standpoint? Well, again, I think the challenge is, is that they are made of of inorganic materials that doesn't have the flex of a, of a tree. And so when the wind blows through where, where we're, we're used to the limbs moving with the wind and absorbing some of that. In this case it would the wind would just, just I'm not going to say push it over, but you know, it wouldn't be able to resist the wind. And, and so it that that's the, that's the challenge. And again I would encourage anyone to just to Google foe tree design and see if there's any anything out there that that that would have the, that would, that would be a bald cypress. It's just not a, it's, it's, it's, it's not feasible mechanically because of the problems it presents from a wind loading structural standpoint. I think for them to build a faux tree that would look like a large microphone, please. Yes. Sorry. I think if if the companies that make the faux tree, you know, cell towers for them to make a a full natural looking tree, I think it would be extremely expensive like these. These faux tree sites are more expensive to start with. But if you if to build something that large and to make it look realistic, I think the cost would be so prohibitive that they they would never be able to sell any. None of the cell phone companies would buy them or build them. Steve. Just and I hate to turn this into an interview, but in your experience and he again, he moved down here from the Ohio market. Have you seen a tree, a faux tree. That's, that's that's has that design the more full. Yeah, they're they're always narrower like you described. Yeah. They're always narrower. Narrower type. Like I said, they started in Florida as palm trees. And they've kind of evolved into different evergreens and pines and things like that mostly. So I guess the bottom line is we're choosing between a prominent 120 foot monopole flagpole of a stealth pole, stealth flagpole versus an equally prominent bald cypress or eucalyptus. Yeah, okay. It's going to be prominent either way. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Lolly. And you like my question was about the, like, different shape of trees. And you confirm that it's only one. What about the color? Is it the color is going to be like matching the surrounding or like, are there different colors, color trees or. Well, they typically make them, you know. So what is what are they made of? What are they like? I still have the concern of the staff of having like maintenance and like a lot of people complain about them. Yeah. So what are they made of? Plastic, mostly silicone, rubber, plastic. And then they usually have some sort of metal, you know, in the, in the center of them if you, if you've ever had like a fake Christmas tree, it's pretty much very similar but on a larger scale. Okay. Yeah. Thank you. All right. Any other questions for the applicant. All right. We do have a public hearing. So let me open the public hearing. Do we have anybody registered to speak for the public hearing that we haven't already heard from Mason Griffin. Mason Griffin. Okay, I think we already heard from him. So. Okay. So no other speakers. I'll close the public hearing. All right. Restrict comments to commission. Commissioners. Mr. Bronsky, I'm ready to make a motion that we follow the recommendation of the staff and that we decline this item. Okay. Commissioner, Olli and I will second it in. While I would love to, I would take into account the operation of the tower. That's not necessarily. You know what what we're here for. The question is. And the slides the applicant showed, I think, actually made the case against you a little bit. It does stand out versus the monopole, the flagpole. So I would second that motion to deny. All right. We have a motion in a second I'm going to add a comment. Just my own personal perspective. While I'm not crazy about the tree, I'm probably less crazy about three times as many monopoles is kind of. And I don't get me wrong, I don't like the tree. I've got one near my house and it's I guess it's better than a monopole, but. It's I don't know. I'm trying to weigh from a land use perspective. Are we better to have three times as many monopoles or one tree that we don't like? And. That's and that's what I'm trying to figure out. Commissioner lolly, I agree, I agree. You like the number of the towers and also the coverage. We have better coverage for our we have a quality versus quantity question is what we have. Yeah. So I would yeah. All right. So we have a motion and a second to deny the application consistent with city staff recommendation. Please vote. Motion fails 4 to 4. Well so so motion fails on a tie vote. So we could we could. I'm I'm I'm going to make a motion. We we approve the revised tower design. Despite the recommendation from city staff. Anybody willing to second that okay. Second that okay. So we have a motion in a second on the floor, Commissioner Bronsky. Yeah. So we've been told that there's a maintenance agreement for this, but I was curious, does the staff have some how does the staff feel about the maintenance contract that that they say they have to make sure this doesn't become a nuisance or a problem, as the staff has already expressed in previous. I think we would need to review that maintenance agreement in order to comment. So then passing this without having you having the full access to that, we could end up in the same place we have been in the past with enforcement issues. I believe the question is if we have an opinion on the maintenance, we don't. At this point, we would need to see the we need to see the agreement. Correct. Thank you, Commissioner Binder. Thank you. Chairman. I believe that in this case, the Legacy Association is is the group that governs this and would govern the maintenance rather than the city. City has to approve it. But I believe the Legacy Association manages the streets, the roads and all those. I may be incorrect, but. I I'm not sure that in this location they I know there's some like sidewalk maintenance and certain locations, but in this location I'm not sure it extends to this location. There are architectural oversight and things like that though, in this location where they would have design controls. Absolutely. That that that was the basis that I was making the assumption I could be correct. But I know they have architectural oversight, repair of some of the roads and streets and so forth. So, Commissioner Tong, thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think before we vote on the second. Second motion, motion. Thank you. Sorry. I realized that one the staff member needs to see the service agreement. And two, there are lots of issues that the applicant has not been able to communicate with the staff member thoroughly, including the choices of trees or the feedbacks from the neighbors or feedback from the community. Can we table it? Can we give them more time to talk about it? We obviously we can. We have a or got a motion on the floor. So let's let's see how that turns out. Commissioner Brounoff, I just assumed dispose of this tonight. I don't want to see it a third time if we don't have to. Commissioner. Olli. I'll second that. And again, where? I'm landing on is. I agree, you know, having three times the flagpoles in order to cause the coverage. But I can't get past the fact that. This was okay with the applicant originally until for some reason, he does some miscommunication, which is not our fault between the applicant and representation. Basically is forcing this back in and the flagpole while not the best coverage. And what have you will achieve and achieve a measurable coverage uplift within the area. So, you know, am I willing to, you know, fall on the sword for the tree design? Not necessarily, but I don't. I'm also not willing to expend a lot of capital to fight for the tree, the flagpole. Maybe this might be a question for Commissioner Bender or staff. So this part of legacy has an architectural review requirement by the Legacy Association. So regardless of whether or not to cast out because we haven't seen the letter, we're assuming you have one. But regardless of whether he has one or not, they're going to have to get one correct. Legacy association I believe the Legacy Association provided a letter in support of the original monopole design. Okay. But I'm just saying if if, if they go back, they would have to go back to the legacy association with the tree if they haven't already, to get that approved as well. Yes. Okay. So either way, there is a second level of scrutiny from the neighbors. If they haven't already. Yeah. Hang on, hang on. We got let me get the microphones on so we can get all this done. Mr. Bronsky was that. No. My comment was is, well, they may or may not have some kind of say on what the architectural design of this thing looks like. They are not going to be the ones that are going to ultimately end up enforcing these. And the city's made it very clear that enforcement is one of the problems they've had. And so I don't think it's going to achieve anything to have somebody say, wow, I like the way that looks when they're ultimately not going to be the ones to take care of it. Yeah. Fair statement. Yeah. Commissioner lolly, you had I think so I. There you go. Yeah. My question was like if we approve the design, approved the design and the legacy corporation or like they don't approve it, so do they have to come back to us? Well, he says he already has it, so I guess oh has it but has it for this location. Yeah, that's what he says. So. And I don't have any reason not to believe him. But I just know that, you know, like they approved the tree design for you. Okay, Commissioner Lingenfelter, thank you. Can we amend the motion? Where? Where it includes a maintenance agreement of some kind. That that they that that the cell tower owners or whatever that are, that are responsible parties agree to assure that it's maintained in some fashion. Can we I'm not sure if we can legally do that. I'm just going to be so it just doesn't seem like land use. That's that's where I'm going. I think. That's not land use. That's I'm not sure we can do that. I think the council may be able to, but I'm not sure we can. So. Okay. I think we have a motion. You can put conditions on the sup. Yes. You can certainly put conditions on an Sup. But you usually don't put conditions on an Sup that don't have to do with land use. Oh sorry. Okay. So we have a motion and a second to approve the design as requested by the applicant. If everybody would please vote. That ties 4 to 4 as well. Well, so so it looks like you're going forward to council without a recommendation from the planning and Zoning Commission is what is what's happening. So unless there's another motion. I think so procedurally if we table them they've got to come back to us. If we leave it where it is, then they move forward to council without a recommendation. Correct? That's right. So at this point tabling doesn't really achieve anything. So I think if yes please. Yeah. No, I appreciate the time and discussion and I think I see where we are. I can read the room and but I can assure you that the concerns that have been raised, especially in this discussion, will be things that I'll be talking to staff about and doing my best to address to their satisfaction before we go to council. So yeah. Yeah. All right. Well, thank you for being here tonight. Hey. All right. Any other business before the commission this evening? No, sir. All right, then, we will stand adjourned at. 9:10 p.m.