Aug 18, 2025 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:03]

WELCOME TO

[CALL TO ORDER]

I CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:00 PM IF YOU'D ALL PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLICATIONS.

MY GOD.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

UM, COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST? DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP FOR COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST TONIGHT? THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ALRIGHT, UM, CONSENT

[CONSENT AGENDA]

WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO REMOVE ITEM FOR THE AGENDA FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION? COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF COMMISSIONER BRONSKI.

I SECOND.

ALRIGHT, HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA, PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES.

EIGHT TO ZERO.

ALL RIGHT.

[1. (DW) Public Hearing – Replat: Grace Community Church, Block A, Lot 1R – Public school on one lot on 10.8 acres located at the northwest corner of Hedgcoxe Road and Preston Meadow Drive. Zoned Planned Development-439-Single-Family Residence-7 and Single-Family Residence-6 with Specific Use Permit No. 193 for Day Care Center. Tabled August 4, 2025. Project #R2025-019. Applicant: Basis Texas Charter Schools, Inc. (Administrative consideration)]

ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED AND THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.

APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED.

REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER.

PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE, GRACE COMMUNITY CHURCH BLOCK A LOT.

ONE RA PUBLIC SCHOOL ON ONE LOT ON 10.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF HEDGE OAKS ROAD AND PRESTON MEADOW DRIVE ZONED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 4 3 9.

SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SEVEN AND SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SIX WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 193 FOR A DAYCARE CENTER.

THIS ITEM WAS TABLED ON AUGUST 4TH, 2025.

THE APPLICANT IS BASIS TEXAS CHARTER SCHOOLS INCORPORATED AND THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS.

DESTINY WOODS PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPL IS TO, UM, ABANDON EASEMENTS, DEDICATE NEW EASEMENTS AND DEDICATE RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE PUBLIC SCHOOL THAT'S PROPOSED THERE.

AND THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU MS. WOODS.

COMMISSION.

ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? SEEING NONE.

OH, UH, COMMISSIONER TONG.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN YOU GO OVER WHICH EASEMENT THEY ARE ABANDONING? SURE.

SO ALL OF THE EASEMENTS OR THE LINES THAT ARE, THAT LOOK TO BE GRAYED OUT, THOSE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE BEING ABANDONED.

AND UM, SOME OF THEM ARE FIRE LANE EASEMENTS OR, UM, LET'S SEE, DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, FIRE LANE EASEMENTS, UM, AND WATER EASEMENTS.

OKAY.

NO DRIVEWAY CHANGES.

'CAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE SOME DRIVEWAY ISSUES AROUND THE AREA.

SO NO DRIVEWAY OR SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH THE NEIGHBOR? NO, NO MA'AM.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER LOLLY? UH, LIKE, UH, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE RELATED TO THE PLA BUT YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, WAS THERE ANY TRAFFIC STUDY MADE? YES, THERE WAS A TRAFFIC, UM, ANALYSIS DONE AND A STUDY THAT IS, UM, ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE.

UM, AND THE APPLICANT AND THE ENG THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ARE, UM, APPROVED, STILL WORKING TOGETHER WITH THAT.

OH, SO YOU ONLY, SO THEY'RE STILL WORKING WITH THEM OR? NO, IT'S BEEN APPROVED.

UM, BUT IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT THINGS THAT TAKE THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, UM, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STILL REMAINS TO BE FOLLOWED.

OKAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF WE APPROVE THE PLA AND YOU KNOW, LIKE, AND THEY NEED ADDITIONAL RIGHT AWAY OR LIKE A TURNING LANES OR YOU KNOW, LIKE SO WHAT HAPPENS? I, I DUNNO IF THIS IS ILLEGAL OR NO, THIS MEETS ALL THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BASED OFF THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

I THINK, UM, THE SCHOOL OPENED LAST WEEK AND THERE WAS SOME TRAFFIC I THINK AROUND THIS SITE.

YEAH.

UM, THEY WERE NOT QUITE FOLLOWING THEIR PICKUP AND DROP OFF PLAN FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND.

SO ENGINEERING IS WORKING WITH THEM TO MAKING SURE THEY'RE FOLLOWING THAT TO MITIGATE ANY IMPACTS ON THE SURROUNDING STREET NETWORK? UH, YEAH, BECAUSE YOU'RE LUCKY TO GET CONGESTED

[00:05:01]

YES, SOMETIMES.

THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, THE QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? THE APPLICANT IS REGISTERED TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, BUT DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE.

ALRIGHT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER RUNOFF, UM, MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM NUMBER ONE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF COMMISSIONER BENDER.

SECOND THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES.

EIGHT TO ZERO.

THANK YOU.

ITEM

[2. (MC) Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2025-009: Request to rezone from Regional Employment to Regional Commercial on 5.0 acres located on the south side of State Highway 121, 1,335 feet west of Coit Road. Located within the State Highway 121 and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. Project #ZC2025-009. Petitioner: Coit Marketplace LP. (Request to table to September 15, 2025)]

GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS MOLLY COEL.

INTERIM LEAD PLANNER.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE SEP SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO, UM, FIX AN ISSUE WITH THE ZONING EXHIBIT, WHICH, UH, LEFT A PORTION OF THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT ZONING DISTRICT OUTSIDE OF THE REQUESTED BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING REQUEST.

SO, UH, MORE TIME WAS NEEDED TO, UH, CORRECT THE NOTICE AND SEND IT OUT.

SO THAT IS THE PURPOSE OF THE TABLING.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU.

THANKS MS. CORDELL.

UM, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? MR. LOLLY? UH, SO YOU'D LIKE, UH, CAN YOU TELL US WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND REGIONAL COMMERCIAL? YES.

AND WHY ARE THEY WANTING THIS CHANGE? YES.

SO, UM, AS FAR AS AREA, YARD AND BULK REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN THE REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT ZONING DISTRICTS, THERE ARE NO DIFFERENCES.

THE KEY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN BOTH OF THOSE ZONING DISTRICTS IS WHAT USES ARE ALLOWED, UM, PER THE SORT OF, I GUESS, TITLE OF THEM BOTH.

REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT IS MORE OFFICE DRIVEN, USES MORE REGIONAL LIKE EMPLOYMENT DRIVEN USES AND THEN REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ALLOWS, UM, MORE RETAIL USES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

UM, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE ANY, UH, PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY HOPE TO HAVE MORE RETAIL USES ALLOWED WITHIN THE UCD CO ADDITION DEVELOPMENT, UH, AND THOSE PARTICULAR PARCELS THAN WHAT THEY, UH, CONCURRENTLY DEVELOP AS.

OH, THANK YOU MR. RUNOFF.

THANK YOU.

UM, DO YOU THINK THAT, UH, ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES WILL BE MADE AND THAT, UH, THEY'LL ALREADY, THAT THEY WILL BE READY FOR US TO CONSIDER THE MATTER ON SEPTEMBER 15TH? YES, IN FACT, THEY'VE ALREADY UPDATED THEIR ZONING EXHIBIT AND IT WAS REVIEWED AND CONFIRMED BY OUR LAND RECORDS DIVISION THAT THE ZONING EXHIBIT ALIGNS WITH OUR ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARIES.

SO, UM, THE NOTICE IS BEING PREPARED AND DRAFTED THIS WEEK, UM, AND THEY WILL BE READY TO BE MAILED OUT, UM, BY FRIDAY.

SO THEY, AND THAT WAS REALLY THE HOLDUP.

SO SEPTEMBER 15TH IS A VERY ACHIEVABLE P AND MEETING DATE.

THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALRIGHT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NONE.

OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, IF YOU MIGHT LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. BRONSKI, I MOVE WE AT WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, ZONING CASE 2025 DASH 0 0 9 TO THE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

COMMISSIONER LINCOLNFELTER, I'LL SECOND.

ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO ZERO.

ALL ITEMS THREE

[Items 3A & 3B]

IF WE COULD READ THOSE TOGETHER PLEASE.

OF COURSE.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE A, A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE STREET SUBDIVISION ON ONE LOT ON 3.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WINDHAVEN PARKWAY AND RED WOLF LANE, THE TRAMELL CROW COMPANY NUMBER 43 ET AL.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE B AUSTIN RANCH, PHASE EIGHT EDITION BLOCK A

[00:10:01]

THE APPLICANT IS TRAMMELL CROW.

COMPANY NUMBER 43 AT ALL.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE A.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS ZONING CASE IS TO REQUEST, UM, A ZONING CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A TABLING LETTER REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSION TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE OCTOBER 20TH, UH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT OVER THE WEEKEND SOME CHANGES TO THE CONCEPT PLAN, UM, WERE, UH, CHANGED BY THE APPLICANT.

UM, THEN WHAT WAS A AVAIL, WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET.

SO THEREFORE STAFF WOULD LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO REVIEW THOSE CHANGES.

UM, AND YEAH, THAT, SORRY I BLINKED FOR A MOMENT, BUT IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM.

THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE SOME BACKGROUND ON THE CHANGES? IS THIS A RESULT OF WORKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS OR RESULT OF STAFF INPUT OR WHAT? YES, SO, UM, THIS WAS A RESULT FROM TALKING WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

THE CHANGES RIGHT NOW AS WE CAN SEE INVOLVE REROUTING THE ALLEY TO WHERE IT DOES NOT HAVE ANY ACCESS TO RED WOLF LANE AND LOOPS BACK UP TO THE PROPOSED ONE WAY SLIP ROAD.

UH, ADDITIONALLY WITH THAT COMES SOME, SOME SCREENING, UH, FROM THE ALLEYWAY, UH, AS REQUIRED BY OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

AND ADDITIONALLY THEY HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF LAW, UH, UNITS FROM 16 TO 15.

UH, AND THAT WILL BE FIVE UNITS AND THREE BUILDINGS A PIECE RATHER THAN FOUR UNITS AND FOUR BUILDINGS.

SO SOME CHANGES LIKE THAT.

OKAY.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO SEE, SEE, UM, ON OCTOBER 20TH.

IS THAT THE REQUESTED DATE? YES SIR.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF STAFF ABOUT THE REQUEST TO TABLE? NOBODY.

OKAY.

UM, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

UM, I KNOW WE DO HAVE SOME REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON THIS, SO YOU ARE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME SPEAK TONIGHT.

IF YOU'VE REGISTERED TO SPEAK.

UM, OBVIOUSLY THERE'LL BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 20TH.

YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME BACK AND SPEAK THEN, OR BOTH IF YOU PREFER.

SO, UM, IF WE WANNA CALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE REGISTERED.

SO THE FIRST PUBLIC SPEAKER, VIN VAN GALA IS NOT AVAILABLE VIA ZOOM.

SO I'M GONNA START WITH, UH, KIMBERLY ASHMAN AND THEN CHRISTIE DAVIDSON FOLLOWED BY SHIVANI.

METTA.

IS IT HERE? WOULD THEY LIKE TO COME DOWN AND SPEAK? OKAY, I THINK THERE'S ONE ON THE BACK TOO.

THERE.

ONE MORE.

UH, SO IF KIMBERLY'S NOT HERE, IF, UH, MS. CHRISTIE DAVIDSON IS AVAILABLE WOULDN'T LOOK LIKE IT.

THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE, UH, SHIVANI AND THAT WOULD BE THE LAST OF OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

OH NO, WE HAVE ONE MORE ON THE BACK PAGE.

I THINK, UH, THEY'RE REGISTERED FOR OPINION ONLY, BUT THAT WOULD BE, UH, TATIANA RAMIREZ.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT.

SO NONE OF OUR SPEAKERS ARE PRESENT.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION, MR. BRONSKI.

SO I WANT TO JUST MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT AS I, UH, MAKE THIS MOTION THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THIS IS, UH, VERY ENCOURAGING THAT OUR DEVELOPMENT COMMUNITY AND OUR RESIDENTS ARE ABLE TO WORK HAND IN HAND TO FIND SOLUTIONS THAT WORK BEST FOR BOTH GROUPS.

AND, UH, I'M, I FIND IT ENCOURAGING FOR OUR DEVELOPER TO BE CONTINUOUSLY LISTENING AND OUR CITIZENS TO BE REASONABLE IN WHAT THEY'RE ASKING FOR TO HELP US MOVE FORWARD THROUGH 2050 AS, UH, A UNITED CITY.

AND SO WITH THAT SAID, I MOVE THAT WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM THREE, A ZONING CASE 20 25 0 0 6 TILL THE OCTOBER 20TH, 2025.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

COMMISSIONER ALI.

UH, SECOND BUT THE MOTION AND THE SENTIMENT.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

WE'RE DOING THESE AS TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS.

THREE A AND THREE B, SO, ALRIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THREE A TO POSTPONE TWO.

OCTOBER 20TH, 2025 AGENDA EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE.

MASS PASSES EIGHT TO ZERO.

OKAY, ITEM THREE B.

MR. BROSKY, SAME SENTIMENT.

I MOVE WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM THREE B, THE CONCEPT PLANNED TO THREE A TILL THE OCTOBER 20 OCTOBER 20TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR 2025.

COMMISSIONER ALI SECOND.

ALRIGHT, WE HAVE MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM THREE B, PLEASE VOTE.

[00:15:02]

ALRIGHT, NON-PUBLIC

[4. (MC) Discussion and Action – Preliminary Site Plan: TCC Independence, Block A, Lots 1 & 2 – Office showroom/warehouse, light-intensity manufacturing, and research and development center on two lots on 33.3 acres located at the southeast corner of State Highway 121 and Gillespie Drive. Zoned Regional Employment and Regional Commercial and located within the State Highway 121 and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. Project #PSP2025-017. Applicant: 121 Gillespie LLC & Inde121Lebanon LLC. (Legislative consideration of screening waiver)]

THE APPLICANT IS 1 21 GILLESPIE, LLC AND END 1 21 LEBANON, LLC.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF A SCREENING WAIVER.

THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING.

ONCE AGAIN, COMMISSION.

THIS ITEM IS FOR A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, UM, FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING, UH, TWO BUILDINGS FOR THE OFFICE.

SHOWROOM WAREHOUSE, UH, LIGHT, UM, LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER TERM, THE APPLICANT, UM, IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 20.1 HUNDRED OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

TYPICALLY A SIX FOOT TALL MASON RESCREENING WALL WOULD BE REQUIRED ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, SEPARATING THE, UH, NON-RESIDENTIAL USE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH.

HOWEVER, IN INSTANCES WHERE THE COMMISSION FINDS THE REQUIREMENT TO BE IMPRACTICAL, THEY MAY, UH, ISSUE, UH, OR GRANT A TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT WAIVER TO THE REQUIREMENT.

TONIGHT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PERMANENT WAIVER OF THE REQUIRED SCREENING WALL DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF A HEAVILY FORESTED CREEK AREA, UH, AND FLOODPLAIN THAT SEPARATES THE PROPERTY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO THE SOUTH.

UM, SO THE CREEK ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE DOES PREVENT, UH, THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX FOOT TALL MASON RESCREENING WALL THAT WE USUALLY WOULD REQUIRE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE.

UM, HOWEVER, THE CREEK IS HEAVILY FORESTED SO IT CREATES A SORT OF NATURAL VEGETATIVE BUFFER BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENT AND THE SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH.

AND, UM, THIS PICTURE ILLUSTRATES IT, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, THE NEAREST POINT OR WHAT YOU COULD SEE ON THE PLAN RATHER, IS THAT THE NEAREST POINT OF THE PROPOSED BUILDING, UM, IS APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET FROM A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY LINE.

AND UH, THAT'S JUST REALLY THE CLOSEST POINT.

THE DISTANCES DO QUITE VARY BASED ON THE EXISTING PROPERTY LINE CONFIGURATION AND THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY AROUND THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY, UM, WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 170 FEET.

CLOSEST POINT OF THAT TO THE, UH, RESIDENT TO ANY RESIDENTIAL LOT HERE IS A PICTURE PROVIDED THE APPLICANT SHOWING, UM, THE BOTH WINTER AND SPRING GROWTH OF THE TREE LINE, UH, ALONG THE CREEK FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH.

ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING AN IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN, UM, OF EIGHT FOOT TALL, UH, EASTERN RED CEDARS ALONG THE LOADING AREA ALONG THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY.

SO ALONG THOSE PORTIONS AND, UM, THIS IS RELATED TO A RETAINING WALL OF VARIABLE HEIGHT BEING NECESSARY FOR ABOUT A THOUSAND LINEAR FEET ALONG THAT BACKSIDE, THE RETAINING WALL CAN BE UPWARDS OF NINE FEET IN SOME INSTANCES.

SO THE APPLICANT, UM, HAS PROVIDED THAT IN AREAS WHERE THE SCREENING WALL IS FIVE FEET OR TALLER, THAT THE SCREENING IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN WILL BE ABOVE IN FRONT OF THAT RETAINING WALL SO THAT THE, IT'S NOT JUST THAT YOU HAVE A RETAINING WALL AND THEN YOU SEE LIKE, UH, NONE OF THE SHRUBS OR ANYTHING, OR BARELY ANY OF THE SHRUBS.

THIS, UH, ILLUSTRATION DEMONSTRATES A TYPICAL CROSS SECTION OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE WITH THE SCREENING WALL WHEN IT AT IS AT FOUR HEIGHT, UH, FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT OR, UH, SMALLER.

UM, HERE'S A DEPICTION OF WHERE THE LIVING SCREENING WALL WILL BE GENERALLY LOCATED.

UM, ACTUALLY SORRY, I DIDN'T NOTICE WHEN WE WERE GOING OVER THE SLIDES.

THE GREEN LINES ARE ACTUALLY SHIFTED QUITE A BIT DOWN.

UM, IMAGINE THEM LIKE HIKED AN INCH UP, I GUESS CLOSER TO THE, I REALLY DO SUPPOSED TO BE RIGHT BEHIND THE PAVING, IS THAT CORRECT? YES, I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT.

UM,

[00:20:05]

SO, UM, STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE REQUIREMENT FOR AN IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN CONSISTING OF EASTERN RED CEDARS AT LEAST EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT, BE PROVIDED ALONG THE RETAINING WALL TO SCREEN THE LOADING AREAS.

AND IN LOCATIONS WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS FIVE FEET OR TALLER, THE LIVING SCREENING WALL NEEDS TO BE ON TOP OF THE RETAINING WALL FOR EFFECTIVE SCREENING.

I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER TONG QUESTION.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIRMAN.

MY QUESTION IS THAT, SO THE PROPERTY LINE IS ALONG THE CREEK, RIGHT? YES.

SO, UM, HOW FAR IS IT FROM THE CREEK TO THE BACK OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES? 'CAUSE UH, ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CREEK IS THE PROPERTY OF THE, UM, G , LOC, THE APPLICANT MM-HMM .

BUT THAT WHOLE AREA RIGHT NOW IS TREE.

IF WE APPROVE TODAY SAYING THAT THEY DON'T NEED SCREENING WALLS, DOES IT PREVENT THEM FROM CUTTING THE TREES AND REMOVING ANYTHING ON NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE? SO, UM, IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO SUBMIT A, WELL, SO A FLOOD STUDY HAS TO BE DONE FOR THE FLOOD PLAIN AREA AND UM, I DON'T HAVE SOMEONE HERE THAT CAN TALK MORE IN DETAIL ABOUT FLOOD STUDIES, BUT TYPICALLY WE WOULDN'T ANTICIPATE THAT SOMEONE WOULD REMOVE TREES OUTTA THE FLOODPLAIN BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DEVELOP IN THEM ANYWAY.

AND THEN THEY'D ALSO HAVE TO MITIGATE FOR THEM THROUGH TREE PAYMENTS, WHICH CAN BE QUITE HEFTY.

UM, THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND PLANS, BUT ALSO MIGHT MAD THEY'D HAVE TO COME BACK FOR A DIFFERENT SITE PLAN TO DO THAT.

MM-HMM .

IN WHICH CASE THE RECOMMENDATION WOULD, MIGHT BE DIFFERENT IN THAT CASE? YES.

OKAY, GOT YOU.

THANK YOU.

MM-HMM .

COMMISSIONER LEY, UM, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE WITH THE, THE NATURAL GREEN AND WHAT HAVE YOU? I JUST WANT TO THAT ONE.

OH, YEP.

AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY? WE ARE, THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD ANOTHER LAYER OF TREES IT SOUNDS LIKE, UM, RIGHT AROUND THE EDGE OF WHERE THE FOREST IS.

SO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AND I I REALLY AM EMBARRASSED THAT MY GRAPHIC NO, NO, YOU'RE GOOD.

IS A LITTLE MESSED UP, BUT YOU'LL SEE WHERE THOSE GREEN LINES ARE.

IMAGINE 'EM A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE PAVEMENT.

THAT'S WHERE THERE'LL BE A ROW OF THOSE EASTERN RED CEDARS AS ACTING AS AN IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN.

UM, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LANDSCAPE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT A LANDSCAPE PLAN YET FOR REVIEW, SO I DON'T, I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO ANTICIPATE FOR THEIR LANDSCAPING ALONG THAT SOUTHERN EDGE, BUT, UM, IT IS FLOOD PLAIN SO WE CAN ANTICIPATE THAT IT WOULD BE DIFFICULT TO IRRIGATE A LOT OF LANDSCAPING ALONG THAT SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE.

THE CLOSER YOU GET TO THAT FLOODPLAIN, UM, IT'S HARDER TO BUILD IRRIGATION THAT WILL WITHSTAND THE, ANY SORT OF POTENTIAL FLOOD.

AGREED.

SO, BUT END STATE EVERYTHING'S BUILT OUT.

I, I SHOULD EXPECT TO SEE THE FOREST LINE LEAVING SCREEN AND SOUNDS LIKE TWO WALLS BY THE DOCKING AREA.

SO THERE, SO YOU, IT'S ACTUALLY QUITE CLOSE LIVING SCREEN, BUT THAT'S WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS BEING BUILT.

DID I, I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER OLLIE, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION FOR ME? SO IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT, WE HAVE THE FOREST IN THE CREEK MM-HMM .

THEN I SHOULD EXPECT TO SEE THIS, UM, THE EIGHT FOOT SETTERS.

YES.

THEN ON THE CORNERS, BOTTOM LEFT AND TOP RIGHT, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT FOOT WALL TO YES, THERE ARE WING WALLS, THE DOCKING.

YES.

OKAY.

THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

YES, THANK YOU COMMISSIONER OLLIE, I'M GONNA JUMP IN LINE IN FRONT OF YOU JUST A SECOND IF YOU DON'T MIND.

UM, SO FOLLOWING UP ON THAT QUESTION, IS THE LIVING SCREEN A REQUIREMENT? IT SEEMS LIKE THE EASTERN RED CEDARS ARE REALLY NOT DOING ANYTHING.

YES, THE, UH, THE SCREENING

[00:25:01]

IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO WAIVER FOR THAT REQUIREMENT THAT THE COMMISSION IS ABLE TO GRANT SUCH AS WHAT'S AVAILABLE IN ARTICLE 20.

SO THAT SCREENING IS REQUIRED FOR THE LOADING AREAS.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S NOT SOMETHING WE CAN WAIVE FOR THE SAME REASONS? YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY.

THAT ANSWERS MY QUESTION, COMMISSIONER LOLLY.

SO MY QUESTION IS, YOU LIKE, SO THEY ARE BUILDING SOME RETAINING WALLS IN SOME AREAS, RIGHT? YES, FOR ABOUT A THOUSAND LINEAR FEET ALONG THE EDGE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHAT WE'RE WAVING IS JUST THIS PORTION BETWEEN THE CORNER AND TO THE, LIKE TO THE WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THEIR, UH, SCREEN WALL, RIGHT? YES.

SO, UH, THE BUT IN ADDITION TO THIS, YOU LIKE RETAINING WALL, THEY'RE ADDING THE LIVING SCREEN, RIGHT? YES.

THE RETAINING WALL IS REQUIRED AS PART OF THE FLOOD STUDY.

IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT TO MITIGATE DEVELOPING THAT CLOSE TO THE BLOOD.

A RETAINING WALL? YES.

RETAINING WALL.

OKAY.

IT'S A RETAINING WALL.

OKAY.

SO IT'S NOT A SCREEN WALL, IT'S NOT A SCREENING WALL, IT'S NOT A SCREEN WALL.

YEAH, YEAH, YEAH.

OKAY.

THANK YOU.

UH, COMMISSIONER BRUNO? YEAH, THANK YOU.

UM, I'M HOPING YOU OR SOMEBODY HERE CAN EDUCATE ME ON, UM, THE, UM, THE LANDSCAPING ASPECT OF THIS.

SPECIFICALLY HOW EFFECTIVE A SCREEN DO EASTERN RED CEDARS PROVIDE EASTERN RED, UH, CEDARS CAN GROW UPWARDS OF 15 FEET.

UM, THEY TEND TO, THEY'RE EVERGREEN, SO THEY, THEIR WINTER SPRING SUMMER GROWTH IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME SINCE THEY'RE EVERGREEN.

UM, THEY, WE'VE, AND ACTUALLY A PREVIOUS, UH, CASE FOR, UH, WHAT IS BLOCK TWO OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ALONG LIKE THE NORTHEASTERN SIDE, THAT THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PROPOSED FOR THAT AND THEY WERE REQUESTING A SIMILAR WAIVER EXCEPT WITH THE ADDITION OF EIGHT FOOT TALL EASTERN RED CEDARS AS AN IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN.

SO, UH, STAFF'S DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT WAS TO, UH, PROVIDE SIMILAR IRRIGATED LIVING SCREENING FOR THE PURPOSES OF THE LOADING AREAS AS A PORTION OF THEIR PROPERTY THAT THEY'RE DEVELOPED.

HAD A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THAT PROPOSED SIMILAR, A SIMILAR LIVING SCREEN OF THAT SAME VARIETY.

I MEAN, DO THEY GROW TOGETHER SIDE TO SIDE IN ORDER TO PROVIDE A SOLID VISUAL BARRIER AND, AND NOT JUST SOME YES, THEY, YES THEY DO.

UM, ACTUALLY THE CITY HAS A RECOMMENDED PLANT LIST THAT THE CITY'S URBAN FORESTER REVIEWS AND THIS IS ONE OF THE RECOMMENDED SCREENING PLANTS FROM THAT, FROM THAT PLANT LIST.

AND, UH, WOULD THE IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL OR ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE RETAINING WALL? SO IN INSTANCES WHERE, UH, THE, THE RETAINING WALL CAN BE UPWARDS OF NINE FEET IN HEIGHT OF SOME PARTS JUST BASED ON THE FLOODPLAIN.

SO IN INSTANCES WHERE IT'S FIVE FEET OR TALLER, THE IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN WILL BE ON TOP OR I GUESS IN FRONT OF THE RETAINING WALL NORTH.

AND THEN IN INSTANCES WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS FIVE FEET OR SHORTER, THE UH, IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN AS SHOWN IN THIS WILL BE BEHIND OR SOUTH OF THE RETAINING WALL.

SO SOME OF THEM WILL BE NORTH AND SOME WILL BE SOUTH? EXACTLY.

OKAY.

DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL THAT THEY'RE ABUTTING.

OKAY.

WELL, I MEAN, IT WOULD MAKE A DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF WHETHER THE TREES ARE SCREENING THE WALL FROM BEING SEEN BY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES TO THE SOUTH, OR WHETHER IT IS SIMPLY SCREENING THE LOADING DOCK AREA AND LEAVING THE WALL ITSELF BARE SO THE TOPOGRAPHY OF THE SITE LEAVES THE SITE TO BE AT A HIGHER ELEVATION TYPICALLY THAN THE PROPERTY OF THE SOUTH.

SO, UM, AS SHOWN IN THE PICTURES HERE, UM, IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WILL REALLY BE A CLEAR VIEW OF THE BUILDING OR, OR ANYTHING JUST BASED ON THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THE TOPOGRAPHY, I GUESS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE RESIDENCE OF THE SOUTH, IT WOULD MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE ANYWAY BECAUSE OF THE FORESTED AREA, SO.

OKAY.

ALRIGHT, THANKS COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, I TWO QUESTIONS.

UM, MY FIRST ONE GOES BACK TO SOMETHING THAT CHAIR RATLIFF WAS TALKING ABOUT AND THE IDEA OF, UH, HAVING A LIVING SCREEN IN FRONT OF A FORESTED AREA DOES SEEM A LITTLE UNUSUAL.

IS THIS, DO YOU, AND YOU MIGHT NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO THIS, BUT DO WE HAVE MANY CASES IN WHICH SITUATIONS LIKE THIS COULD OCCUR THAT IT SEEMS A LITTLE

[00:30:01]

SO I GUESS THAT WAS MY BIGGER QUESTION.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? NO, IT DOES.

I, I, MY OLD, MY OLD BOSS USED TO SAY THERE'S CODE SENSE AND THERE'S COMMON SENSE, AND I GUESS THIS IS KIND OF ONE OF THOSE INSTANCES THAT, THAT A DODGE WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO, APPLICABLE TO.

SO IT, IT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT A CODE REWRITE COULD ADDRESS.

OKAY.

SO THAT'S ONE THOUGHT.

SO MY, MY SECOND QUESTION, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT THE, UM, THE LIVING SCREEN THAT WE'RE PUTTING IN HERE AND THE LOCATIONS OF IT, DO WE ANTICIPATE THE LIVING SCREEN ITSELF AND THE IMPLEMENTATION OF IT TO IMPACT THE WATER FLOW AND THE FLOOD PLANE IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, UH, IN ANY SIGNIFICANT WAY THAT COULD BE ADDRESSED WITH THE FLOOD STUDY? OUR ENGINEERING TEAM HAS INDICATED THAT A FLOOD STUDY BEING SUBMITTED WITH THE NEXT SUBMITTAL STEP MIGHT BRING LIGHT SOME ADDITIONAL THINGS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS SITE THAT WE DON'T YET KNOW.

SO IN THAT IF THAT WERE TO BE THE CASE, THEN WE WOULD TAKE THIS ITEM BACK TO THE COMMISSION IF THERE HAD TO BE ALTERNATIVE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS PROPOSED FOR THE LOADING AREA DUE TO ANY SORT OF ISSUES WITH THE FLOODPLAIN IMPACTING THE ABILITY TO HAVE AN IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN.

SO DOES THAT THEN, I MEAN, WOULD IT MAKE SENSE FOR US TO WAIT UNTIL WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT ADDITIONAL DATA ON THAT BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD, JUST IN TERMS OF THE FLOOD STUDIES ITSELF AND THE POTENTIAL IMPACT OF COMING BACK? WELL, THE ISSUE IS, IS THAT WE CAN'T, SO WE, WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN STEP, WE, IT WOULD BE A LOT TO ASK SOMEONE TO DEVELOP A FLOOD STUDY WITH THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

SO, UM, YOU KNOW, IN THIS CASE WITH THERE BEING CHALLENGES TYPICALLY WITH DEVELOPING IN A FLOODPLAIN, I THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO BRING THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FORWARD AND THEN IF THERE'S ISSUES WITH THE SITE PLAN THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO BRING THE ITEM BACK AGAIN FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION.

AND MR. BELL, IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU'D LIKE TO ADD? YEAH, UM, ALL THE DETAILED ENGINEERING IS DONE AT THE NEXT STEP, SO IT'D BE A VERY EXPENSIVE STEP TO DO THAT HERE.

SO THIS IS REALLY JUST AN, AS ITS NAME IMPLIES BE PRELIMINARY.

UM, AND THEN AS ALWAYS IT'S PITTING THE RESULTS OF THE FINAL ENGINEERING PLANS WITH THE SITE PLAN.

AND IF TWEAKS ARE NEED, TWEAKS ARE NEEDED TO ANY OF THE WAVING OR ANYTHING THAT'S APPROVED, THAT'S BY TONIGHT, WE WOULD CERTAINLY NEED TO BRING THAT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION.

SUPER.

WELL, I, I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.

UH, I THINK THERE'S A LOT GOING ON HERE AND I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF POSITIVE AND HOPEFULLY WHEN WE DO THE FLOOD STUDY AND EVERYTHING GETS WORKED OUT, UH, WE DON'T HAVE TO BRING IT BACK.

BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR, UH, INPUT TONIGHT.

THANK YOU COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, COMMISSIONER LEE, AND FELT, I'M GLAD YOU POINTED OUT THAT IT, PEOPLE HAVE ALREADY TOUCHED ON THE DOUBLE SCREENING THAT WE'RE CREATING HERE.

THEY MADE A VERY GOOD CASE FOR THE EXISTING CONDITIONS SCREENING VERY WELL MM-HMM AND WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY AT, AT SUCH A HEIGHT, UM, I THINK THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF VISIBILITY, UH, THAT THEY'RE, THEY'RE JUST NOT GONNA, YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SO MUCH SCREENING WISE, SO I'M GLAD THAT WE'RE GONNA, YOU BROUGHT THAT UP.

UH, THE OTHER THING I WAS CONSIDERING, AND AS I WAS KIND OF PICTURING WHERE THESE TREES WERE GONNA BE, UH, BELOW AND UP ABOVE THE WALL AT CERTAIN HEIGHTS, FIVE FEET, IT'S ABOVE.

UM, HAVE THEY CONSIDERED OR HAS THERE ANYBODY EVEN THOUGHT, UH, ABOUT WHAT THE ROOT SYSTEMS MIGHT DO IN POSSIBLY COMPROMISING THESE UH, UH, RETAINING WALLS THAT HAS NOT BEEN ANTICIPATED YET? UH, WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ABOUT THE ROOT RADIUS ACTUALLY, JUST THE TERM FELL ON JUST GOT LOST ON ME, BUT I'VE SEEN IT A LOT.

I'VE SEEN THOSE ROOTS REALLY DO SOME DAMAGES, ESPECIALLY ON RETAINING WALLS.

SO, UH, AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME SIGNIFICANT ONES TO KEEP THIS SITE OUT, OUT ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN.

I KNOW THAT'S WHY THEY'RE PUTTING 'EM IN.

UM, SO, AND WITH YOU PUTTING IT ON TOP, YOU KNOW, THAT'LL BE SOMETHING THAT'LL BE CONSIDERED FOR SURE.

SO COMMISSIONER LOLLY, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM.

SO THEY'RE NOT, YOU ARE LIKE PROPOSING ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN RIGHT NOW? NO.

NO.

SO YOU'RE LIKE, SO EVERYTHING IS OFF OF THE UH, FLOODPLAIN.

YES.

BUT YOU'RE LIKE, AND THE SCREENING WALL IS JUST TO SCREEN THE, UH, LOADING DOCKS, RIGHT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY, THANK YOU.

ALRIGHT, ANY OTHER TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

[00:35:02]

UM, IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO.

OKAY, WE'RE GOOD.

ALRIGHT, THANK YOU.

SO COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, SO, UH, BASED ON EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT, UH, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, UH, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF COMMISSIONER ALI.

UM, I ACTUALLY LIKE THIS CASE.

IT'S A A BIT OF A UNIQUE ONE.

UM, WORST CASE SCENARIO, WE GET MORE TREES IN PLANO.

UH, I WILL SECOND, UM, AN EDITORIAL COMMENT FROM ME.

I'M ONLY SORRY WE CAN'T WAVE THE EASTERN RED CEDARS, SO WE'LL, WE'LL WORK ON THAT FOR THE NEXT GUY AND I .

SO WITH THAT SAID, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON THE TABLE.

YEAH, THAT ONE COMMENT BEFORE WE NO, JUST, UH, WOULD LOVE TO HAVE, UH, SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE STAFF AT SOME POINT RELATED TO, UH, COMMISSIONER LINGERER FELDER'S, UH, QUESTION ABOUT THE ROOT IMPACT ON THE, UM, RETAINING WALL, THE RETAINING WALL, BUT THAT WAS ALL JUST COMMENT.

OKAY, EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES EIGHT TO ZERO.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH AND APPRECIATE YOUR CONTINUED INTEREST IN THE CITY OF PLANO.

ALRIGHT, ITEM NUMBER

[5. (MZ) Discussion and Direction – 2025 Comprehensive Plan Maintenance Review – Discussion and direction of recommended updates to the Land Use & Community Design and Housing & Neighborhoods Components of the Built Environment Pillar, the Future Land Use Map & Dashboards, Parks Master Plan Map, Thoroughfare Plan Map, and Downtown Streets Plan Map. Project #DI2025-012. Applicant: City of Plano. (No action required)]

THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF PLANO.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS MARIAM ZAHIR, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THIS ITEM IS RELATED TO THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PLAN, MAINTENANCE, REVIEW THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACTION SEVEN PROVIDES GUIDANCE TO REVIEW THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN EVERY TWO YEARS TO ENSURE CONSISTENCY WITH CITYWIDE GOALS AND RESPOND TO DEVELOPMENT TRENDS AND CHANGING CONDITIONS.

IN RESPONSE TO THAT, STAFF HAS ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW PROCESS AND DEVELOPED A 10 YEAR SCHEDULE TO ANNUALLY REVIEW VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN AND MANAGEABLE SECTIONS.

THIS YEAR'S REVIEW OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PILLAR INCLUDES THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT, TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMPONENT, AS WELL AS THE MAPS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

UM, I JUST WANTED TO MENTION THAT YOU GUYS REVIEWED THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT AS WELL AS THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP AND BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLA PLAN MAP IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR.

AND WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD SOME ADDITIONAL THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP UPDATES.

UM, THIS EVENING.

BEFORE I JUMP INTO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PLAN RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, I'LL BE COVERING THE STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION IMPACTS AND THE RELATED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATES THAT ARE PROPOSED.

THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO REVIEW IMPACTS OF STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS AND MAKE APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

UM, STAFF RECOGNIZES THAT THOSE IMPACTS ALSO LIMIT THE CITY'S ABILITY TO FULLY IMPLEMENT ASPECTS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN'S GUIDANCE.

AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHICH WAS RECENTLY UPDATED IN 2021, IS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE COMMUNITY'S VISION AND MUCH OF THE POLICY AND ACTION DIRECTION REMAINS RELEVANT AND USEFUL FOR DECISION MAKING.

THEREFORE, A MAJOR UPDATE IS NOT RECOMMENDED AT THIS TIME.

HOWEVER, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING ADDING A PLAN AUTHORITY AND PRECEDENT STATEMENT FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES.

UM, RELATED TO THE PLAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH STATE LAWS.

SO WE'VE PROPOSED TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS, WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE SLIDE.

UM, THE FIRST STATEMENT IS RELATED TO, UM, SO THE FIRST STATEMENTS OF BOTH, UM, OPTIONS RELATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AUTHORITY UNDER CHAPTER TWO 11 AND TWO 13 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

SO REALLY IT'S UM, THE SECOND STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTED IN BLUE THAT VARIES BETWEEN THE TWO OPTIONS.

UM, AND AT THE END OF THIS DISCUSSION ITEM, UM, WE'LL BE, UM, ASKING FOR THE COMMISSION'S DIRECTION.

UM, AND REALLY BOTH OF THESE OPTIONS HAVE, UM, THE SAME UNDERLYING MESSAGE.

ONE IS A PRESENCE, A MORE TECHNICAL TONE, UM, WHILE OPTION TWO IS A LITTLE BIT MORE DESCRIPTIVE IN NATURE.

UM, BUT WE'LL BE RETURNING TO THIS KIND OF OPTION, THESE TWO OPTIONS AT THE END OF THE DISCUSSION.

DO YOU WANT US TO TAKE THESE AS YOU GO

[00:40:01]

OKAY.

YEAH, IF THAT'S OKAY.

UM, SO NOW MOVING TOWARDS THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN AND HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMPONENT RECOMMENDATIONS, UM, THOSE UPDATES THAT WE ARE PROPOSING ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

WE ARE RECOMMENDING ONE NEW ACTION, UM, WHICH SUBSEQUENTLY RENUMBER THREE ACTIONS WE'RE PROPOSING FIVE ACTION UPDATES TO EXISTING ACTIONS AND THEN ALSO RECOMMENDING ONE UPDATE TO BACKGROUND TEXT AS PART OF THIS YEAR'S REVIEW.

STAFF ASSESSED ZONE CHANGE REQUEST TO EXPAND RETAIL ZONING AND THEIR ALIGNMENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES AND ACTIONS OF THE PLAN.

AND THE CITY'S RETAIL STUDIES DO NOT SUPPORT THE EXPANSION OF RETAIL ZONING.

THE MIX OF USES DASHBOARD FOR THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS, NEIGHBORHOODS AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDORS.

FUTURE LAND USE DASHBOARDS INCLUDE CAPACITY FOR ADDITIONAL RETAIL TYPES ACREAGE, HOWEVER, THAT CAPACITY IS INTENDED TO ACCOUNT FOR EXISTING RETAIL SUPPORTIVE ZONING AND IS NOT MEANT TO SUPPORT NEW RETAIL ZONING.

SINCE THE ADOPTION OF THE PLAN IN 20 21, 5 ZONING PETITIONS TO EXPAND RETAIL ZONING HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ALL OF WHICH WERE DISFAVORED BY STAFF DUE TO THE LACK OF CONFORMANCE WITH THE POLICIES AND ACTIONS OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND THE CITY'S RETAIL STUDIES STAFF IS PROPOSING A NEW ACTION TO PROVIDE CLEAR POLICY DIRECTION TO REINFORCE THE CITY'S POSITION DISFAVOR THE EXPANSION OF RETAIL ZONING.

THE PROPOSAL IS TO ADD A NEW ACTION, UM, WHICH WOULD BE LU FIVE, SO IT WOULD BE IN THE LAND USE POLICY.

UM, ACTION NUMBER FIVE AND THE NEW ACTION IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

UM, IT WOULD READ RE REVIEW REQUESTS TO EXPAND RETAIL ZONING FOR CONSISTENCY WITH CITY POLICIES AND STUDIES.

DISCOURAGING AND OVERABUNDANCE OF RETAIL ZONED LAND EMPHASIZE REINVESTMENT IN EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS AS THE PREFERRED STRATEGY CONSISTENT WITH THE REVITALIZATION OF RETAIL SHOPPING CENTERS POLICY, THE RETAIL STUDY OF UNDERPERFORMING AND VACANT RETAIL AREAS AND THE CITY OF PLANO SHOPPING CENTER REVIEW LAND USE POLICY ACTION SIX IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE UPDATED, UM, AND IT'S GOING TO BE RENUMBERED TO LAND USE POLICY ACTION SEVEN.

UM, AND THE INTENT IS TO CLARIFY OR THE INTENT OF THE ACTION IS TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE LOCATIONS FOR SPECIAL AREA PLANS.

AND THIS UPDATE PROVIDES CLEAR DIRECTION FOR STAFF TO IMPLEMENT THIS ACTION.

AS WE'RE NOT REALLY DEVELOPING LOCATIONS, IT'S REALLY THE KEY IS TO IDENTIFY AND PRIORITIZE, UM, THOSE LOCATIONS.

CONTINUING ON WITH THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT, WE ARE PROPOSING AN UPDATE TO COMMUNITY DESIGN, UM, ACTION FOUR.

AND THIS UPDATE IS PROPOSED TO REFLECT THE COMPLETED WORK TO DEVELOP AND IMPLEMENT THE INITIAL WAY FINDING SIGNAGE PROJECT.

AND IT REALLY REFLECTS FUTURE IMPLEMENT IMPLEMENTATION THAT IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN CITYWIDE BRANDING GUIDELINES AND SIGNAGE.

UM, A VERY MINOR UPDATE IS ALSO PROPOSED TO THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACTION.

SIX.

UM, AS THE, UH, ANNUAL MARKET STUDY IS NO LONGER A CONSIDERATION AND IS CURRENTLY BEING CONDUCTED, UM, AND UPDATED ON A ANNUAL BASIS, UM, WE'RE NOW SHIFTING TO THE HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMPONENT.

THERE IS SOME BACKGROUND TEXT, UM, THAT IS BEING PROPOSED TO BE UPDATED.

SO THERE'S TWO STATEMENTS, UM, TOWARDS THE BOTTOM OF THE SLIDE THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED TO BE UPDATED.

UM, THE FIRST UPDATE IS A CORRECTION TO THE PHRASING OF THE 2021 STATEMENT TO CLARIFY THAT 1% OF THE TOTAL LAND AREA, UM, REMAINED UNDEVELOPED AND ZONED FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

THE SECOND UPDATE REFLECTS THE IMPACTS OF STATE LEGISLATION, UM, SORRY, STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDEVELOPED LAND ZONE FOR FUTURE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT PROPOSED UPDATE UM, KIND OF REFLECTS IN 2021 WHAT THE CONDITIONS WERE AND HOW THOSE HAVE KIND OF EVOLVED AS OF 2025.

[00:45:02]

UM, THE, AT THE TOP OF THE PAGE, YOU'LL FIND THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD CONSERVATION ACTION FOUR, AND AT THE BOTTOM YOU'LL SEE THE PROPOSED ACTION FOUR.

UM, AND REALLY THE UPDATE, UM, IS PROPOSED TO REFLECT, UM, THE WORK THAT NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES, THE EFFORTS THAT THEY PUT FORWARD IN DEVELOPING A HOUSING STUDY AND HOW THE STUDY WILL BE APPLIED.

UM, ADDITIONALLY IT REMOVES THE HOUSING TRENDS ANALYSIS AND STRATEGIC PLAN FROM THE ACTION AS IT IS BEING REPLACED BY THE HOUSING STUDY.

THE SLIDE SHOWS THE, THAT THOSE CHANGES, UM, AND KIND OF TRACK FORMAT.

UM, UM, AND MOVING FORWARD WE'LL BE LOOKING AT THE PROPOSED MAP UPDATES.

UM, THERE ARE FOUR SETS OF MAP UPDATES, UM, THAT WE'VE KIND OF, UM, ORGANIZED.

AND SO THERE ARE UPDATES THAT ALIGN WITH APPROVED SMALL AREA PLANS.

UM, THERE ARE UPDATES TO THE PARK'S MASTER PLAN MAP AND CORRESPONDING FUTURE LAND USE MAP UPDATES.

THERE ARE ALSO UPDATES TO THE THOROUGH FAIR PLAN MAP FOR CONSISTENCY WITH RESOLUTION 98 DASH TWO DASH 23.

AND THEN THERE IS ONE FUTURE LAND USE DASHBOARD UPDATE PROPOSED FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP UPDATES TO ALIGN WITH APPROVED SMALL AREA PLANS.

UM, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A NEW SYMBOLOGY BE ADDED TO THE LEGEND, UM, WHICH WOULD REFLECT THE SMALL AREA PLAN REVIEW AREAS.

UM, AND THAT IS SHOWN ON THE MAP IN KIND OF THE, UM, CROSS HATCH YELLOW AND THOSE ARE TO REFLECT THE APPROVED ENVISION OAK POINT PLAN AND THE SILVER LINE STATION AREAS PLAN BOTH THE 12TH STREET AND SHILOH ROAD STATIONS.

WE ALSO HAVE THOROUGH FAIR PLAN MAP UPDATES TO ALIGN WITH APPROVED SMALL AREA PLANS.

UM, THERE ARE TWO UPDATES PROPOSED, UM, AND THIS INCLUDES UPDATING THE FUNCTIONAL CLASS OF N AVENUE, UM, FROM A TYPE F TO A TYPE E.

AND THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH THE 12TH STREET TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SILVER LINE STATION AREAS.

PLAN.

ADDITIONALLY, THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 14TH STREET AND SHILOH ROAD IS BEING UPDATED TO A MIXED USE CONTEXT AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SHILOH ROAD LAND USE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SILVER LINE STATION AREAS PLAN.

AND THEN, UM, THE DOWNTOWN STREETS PLAN MAP UPDATES, UM, THAT IS A PART OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP AND THERE ARE SOME, UM, UPDATES PROPOSED CONSISTENT WITH THE UM, 12TH STREET TRANSPORTATION RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE SILVER LINE STATION AREAS PLAN.

AND THAT INCLUDES AN AVENUE SOUTH OF 14TH STREET, UM, BE UPDATED FOR, UM, TO A TYPE E MIXED USE.

AND THEN THE FULL CLOSURE OF 10TH STREET EAST OF EL AVENUE WAS REMOVED.

UM, I JUST WANNA POINT OUT CHANGE NUMBER THREE THAT'S SHOWN ON THE MAP.

WE DID UPDATE SOME SYMBOL LINE SYMBOLOGY FOR THE SHARED USE PATH TO SHOW A MORE COMPLETE, UM, SHARED USE PATH.

SO THOSE KIND OF GREEN DOTS SHOWN, UM, ON SCREEN.

UM, ADDITIONALLY WE'VE WORKED WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO INCLUDE UM, THE PARKS MASTER PLAN MAP UPDATES, UM, THESE MAP UPDATES.

UM, SO THERE'S ONE LEGEND UPDATE TO REFLECT EXISTING AND PROPO PROPOSED SHARED USE PATH.

AND THEN THERE ARE ALSO CHANGES FOR NEW AND REVISED PROPOSED PARK SITES AND BOUNDARIES.

UM, AND THOSE ARE SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

UM, IN RESPONSE TO THE PARKS MASTER PLAN MAP UPDATES, UM, WE'VE ADDED A HATCHED SYMBOLOGY FOR PROPOSED PARK SITES AND SO CONSISTENT WITH THE PARKS MASTER PLAN MAP, UM, EXISTING PARKS AND PROPOSED PARK SITES ARE SHOWN, UM, DIFFERENTLY.

WE'VE ADDED A, UM, HATCHED SYMBOLOGY WITH AN UNDERLYING FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

AND THEN, UM, WE ALSO, UM, UPDATED MEN PARK, WHICH IS A FUNDED FUTURE PARK, UM, AND ADDED THAT TO THE OPEN SPACE NETWORK BECAUSE THAT'S NO LONGER BEING CONSIDERED AS A PROPOSED PARK SITE.

[00:50:04]

SO IN ASTERISK AND NOTE WERE ADDED TO REFERENCE RESOLUTION NUMBER 98 DASH TWO DASH 23.

UM, YOU CAN SEE THE, UH, NOTE ON THE SCREEN AS WELL AS THE ASTERISK NEXT TO THE TYPE D, UM, SHOWN AS CHANGE NUMBER THREE.

UM, THE RESOLUTION WAS A COMMUNITY DRIVEN RESOLUTION, UM, THAT GUIDES THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PARTICULAR SECTION OF THE THOROUGHFARE.

UM, IN THE PAST THE NOTE WAS LEFT OFF.

HOWEVER, THIS REMAINS AN ACTIVE RESOLUTION AND THIS UPDATE IS NOT RELATED TO ANY PROPOSED UPGRADES TO THE STREET, BUT REALLY REFLECTS, UM, THE RESOLUTION THAT IS STILL IN PLACE.