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)

[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. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS, UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR.

SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.

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

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

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. 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 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 REPORT IS TO 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, MISS WOODS.

COMMISSION. ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF? SEEING NONE. 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 SOME OF THEM ARE FIRE LANE EASEMENTS OR LET'S SEE.

DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, FIRE LANE EASEMENTS. AND WATER EASEMENTS.

OKAY. NO DRIVEWAY CHANGES BECAUSE I KNOW THERE ARE SOME DRIVEWAY ISSUES AROUND THAT AREA, SO NO DRIVEWAY OR SHARED DRIVEWAY WITH THE NEIGHBOR? NO. NO, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ALALI.

ARE YOU LIKE, I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS, LIKE, RELATED TO THE PLAT, BUT YOU LIKE, WAS THERE ANY TRAFFIC STUDY MADE? YES, THERE WAS A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS DONE AND A STUDY THAT IS ASSOCIATED WITH THE SITE AND THE APPLICANT AND THE THE TRAFFIC ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ARE SO WORKING TOGETHER WITH THAT.

OH, SO YOU ARE STILL WORKING WITH THEM? NO, IT'S BEEN APPROVED BUT IN LIGHT OF THE RECENT THINGS THAT THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE, THEY'VE BEEN WORKING TOGETHER TO MAKE SURE THAT IT STILL REMAINS TO BE FOLLOWED.

OKAY. SO, LIKE, IF WE APPROVE THE PLAT AND, LIKE, IF THEY NEED ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY OR LIKE A TURNING LANES OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE, SO WHAT HAPPENS? I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS ILLEGAL OR.

NO. THIS MEETS ALL THE TECHNICAL REQUIREMENTS OF OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BASED OFF THE TRAFFIC STUDY.

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

YEAH. 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. YEAH, BECAUSE YOU LIKE IT GET CONGESTED IN THAT

[00:05:01]

AREA SOMETIMES. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. OTHER 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.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? SEEING NONE. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

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

COMMISSIONER BENDER. SECOND THE MOTION. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. THANK YOU. ITEM NUMBER TWO. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, A REQUEST TO REZONE FROM REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT TO REGIONAL COMMERCIAL ON FIVE ACRES LOCATED

[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)]

ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF STATE HIGHWAY 121, 1335FT WEST OF COIT ROAD LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS. THE PETITIONER IS COIT MARKETPLACE, L.P.

THE PETITIONER IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 P&Z MEETING.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER. MY NAME IS MOLLY CORYELL, INTERIM LEAD PLANNER.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN ORDER TO FIX AN ISSUE WITH THE ZONING EXHIBIT, WHICH LEFT A PORTION OF THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT ZONING DISTRICT OUTSIDE OF THE REQUESTED BOUNDARIES OF THE ZONING REQUEST SO MORE TIME WAS NEEDED TO 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 MISS CORYELL. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? COMMISSIONER ALALI. AS YOU LIKE. CAN YOU TELL US WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE REGIONAL EMPLOYMENT AND REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND WHY ARE THEY WANTING THIS CHANGE? YES. SO 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.

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 MORE RETAIL USES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE APPLICANT DOESN'T HAVE ANY PLANS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REQUEST, BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THEY HOPE TO HAVE MORE RETAIL USES ALLOWED WITHIN THE UCD COIT ADDITION DEVELOPMENT AND THOSE PARTICULAR PARCELS THAN WHAT THEY CAN CURRENTLY DEVELOP AS. THANK YOU, MR. BROUNOFF.

THANK YOU. DO YOU THINK THAT ALL THE NECESSARY CHANGES WILL BE MADE IN THAT 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 THE NOTICE IS BEING PREPARED AND DRAFTED THIS WEEK, AND THEY WILL BE READY TO BE MAILED OUT BY FRIDAY.

SO THEY, AND THAT WAS REALLY THE HOLD UP, SO SEPTEMBER 15TH IS A VERY ACHIEVABLE P&Z MEETING DATE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

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

OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION, MR. BRONSKY. I MOVE WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

ZONING CASE 2025-009 TO THE SEPTEMBER 15TH, 2025, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.

ALL RIGHT. ITEMS 3.A AND 3.B. IF WE COULD READ THOSE TOGETHER, PLEASE.

[Items 3A & 3B]

OF COURSE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE. 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 PETITIONERS, TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY, NUMBER 43, ET AL.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE.

BEE AUSTIN RANCH. PHASE EIGHT ADDITIONS. BLOCK A LOT.

[00:10:01]

116 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. ATTACHED UNITS ON ONE LOT ON 2.3 ACRES.

LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WINN HAVEN PARKWAY AND RED WOLF LANE.

ZONED AGRICULTURAL. THE APPLICANT IS TRAMMELL CROW COMPANY NUMBER 43, ET AL.

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 A ZONING CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED. HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT HAS PROVIDED A TABLING LETTER REQUESTING THAT THE COMMISSION TABLED THIS ITEM UNTIL THE OCTOBER 20TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

THE REASON FOR THIS IS THAT OVER THE WEEKEND SOME CHANGES TO THE CONCEPT PLAN WERE CHANGED BY THE APPLICANT THAN WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN THE PACKET. SO THEREFORE OUR STAFF WOULD LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL TIME TO REVIEW THOSE CHANGES.

AND YEAH, THAT. SORRY, I BLANKED 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 RESOLVED WITH STAFF INPUT OR WHAT? YES. SO 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. ADDITIONALLY, WITH THAT COMES SOME SCREENING FROM THE ALLEYWAY AS REQUIRED BY OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

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

AND THAT WILL BE FIVE UNITS IN THREE BUILDINGS APIECE, RATHER THAN FOUR UNITS AND FOUR BUILDINGS.

SO SOME CHANGES LIKE THAT. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT WE'RE EXPECTING TO SEE ON OCTOBER 20TH.

IS THAT THE REQUESTED DATE? YES, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS OF STAFF ABOUT THE REQUEST TO TABLE? NOBODY. OKAY. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. 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.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING ON OCTOBER 20TH.

YOU'RE MORE THAN WELCOME TO COME BACK AND SPEAK THEN. OR BOTH, IF YOU PREFER. SO IF WE WANT TO CALL THE PEOPLE THAT HAVE REGISTERED.

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

SO I'M GOING TO START WITH KIMBERLY ASHMAN AND THEN CHRISTIE DAVIDSON, FOLLOWED BY SHIVANI MEHTA.

HERE. WOULD THEY LIKE TO COME DOWN AND SPEAK? OKAY. THERE'S ONE ON THE BACK, TOO. NO. ONE MORE.

SO IF KIMBERLY'S NOT HERE. MISS CHRISTIE DAVIDSON IS AVAILABLE.

DOESN'T LOOK LIKE IT. THE NEXT ONE WOULD BE SHIVANI MEHTA.

AND THAT WOULD BE THE LAST OF OUR PUBLIC SPEAKERS.

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

THEY'RE REGISTERED FOR OPINION ONLY. BUT THAT WOULD BE TATIANA RAMIREZ.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. NONE OF OUR SPEAKERS ARE PRESENT.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION. MR. BRONSKY, I WANT TO JUST MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT AS I MAKE THIS MOTION, THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING WITH THIS IS 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 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 A UNITED CITY.

AND SO WITH THAT SAID, I MOVE THAT WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM THREE A ZONING CASE 2025-006 TILL THE OCTOBER 20TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY. SECOND PUT THE MOTION AND THE SENTIMENT.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'RE DOING THESE AS TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS, THREE A AND THREE B.

SO ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THREE A TO POSTPONE TO THE OCTOBER 20TH, 2025 AGENDA.

PLEASE VOTE. PASSES 8 TO 0. OKAY. ITEM 3.B MR. BRONSKY SAME SENTIMENT. I MOVE WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM THREE BE THE CONCEPT PLANNED TO THREE A TILL THE OCTOBER 20TH.

OCTOBER 20TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING FOR 2025.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM THREE.

B, PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. ALL RIGHT.

[00:15:06]

NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

[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)]

NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR TCC INDEPENDENCE BLOCK A LOTS ONE AND TWO FOR OFFICE SHOW, 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.

THE APPLICANT IS 121 GILLESPIE LLC AND INDE121LEBANON 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 FOR THE PURPOSES OF DEVELOPING TWO BUILDINGS FOR THE OFFICE, SHOWROOM, WAREHOUSE LIGHT LIGHT MANUFACTURING AND RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT CENTER.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A WAIVER TO THE REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH IN SECTION 20.100 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, TYPICALLY, A SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY SCREENING WALL WOULD BE REQUIRED ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE, SEPARATING THE NONRESIDENTIAL USE WITH THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH.

HOWEVER, IN INSTANCES WHERE THE COMMISSION FINDS THE REQUIREMENT TO BE IMPRACTICAL, THEY MAY ISSUE 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 AND FLOODPLAIN THAT SEPARATES THE PROPERTY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS TO THE SOUTH.

SO THE CREEK ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE DOES PREVENT THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX FOOT TALL MASONRY SCREENING WALL THAT WE USUALLY WOULD REQUIRE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE.

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

AND 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 WILL BE APPROXIMATELY 170FT.

THE CLOSEST POINT OF THAT TO THE RESIDENT TO ANY RESIDENTIAL LOT.

HERE IS A PICTURE PROVIDED THE APPLICANT SHOWING THE BOTH WINTER AND SPRING GROWTH OF THE TREE LINE ALONG THE CREEK, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE SOUTH.

ADDITIONALLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING AN IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN OF EIGHT FOOT TALL EASTERN RED CEDARS ALONG THE LOADING AREA ALONG THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY. SO ALONG THOSE PORTIONS, AND THIS IS RELATED TO A RETAINING WALL OF VARIABLE HEIGHT BEING NECESSARY FOR ABOUT 1000 LINEAR FEET. ALONG THAT BACK SIDE, THE RETAINING WALL CAN BE UPWARDS OF NINE FEET IN SOME INSTANCES.

SO THE APPLICANT 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 NONE OF THE SHRUBS OR ANYTHING OR BARELY ANY OF THE SHRUBS.

THIS ILLUSTRATION DEMONSTRATES A TYPICAL CROSS-SECTION OF WHAT YOU MIGHT SEE WITH THE SCREENING WALL WHEN IT IS AT FOUR HEIGHT, A FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT, OR A SMALLER. HERE'S A DEPICTION OF WHERE THE LIVING SCREENING WALL WILL BE GENERALLY LOCATED.

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

THE GREEN LINES ARE ACTUALLY SHIFTED QUITE A BIT DOWN.

IMAGINE THEM LIKE HIKED AN INCH UP, I GUESS CLOSER TO THE, I SUPPOSE TO BE RIGHT BEHIND THE PAVING.

YES. I APOLOGIZE ABOUT THAT. SO

[00:20:07]

ESSENTIALLY WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THAT DUE TO THE PRESENCE OF THE FLOODPLAIN WITH THE HEAVILY FORESTED CREEK AREA, WITH THE ADDITIONAL RETAINING WALL, WITH THE IRRIGATED LIVING SCREEN ALONG THE PORTIONS OF THE LOADING AREA ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE. THIS PROPERTY IS ACTUALLY QUITE NATURALLY SCREENED IN A WAY THAT IT'S MORE SO SCREENED THAN WHAT OUR TYPICAL SCREENING REQUIREMENTS WOULD HAVE.

SO 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? SO HOW FAR IS IT FROM THE CREEK TO THE BACK OF THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES? BECAUSE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE CREEK IS THE PROPERTY OF THE GILLESPIE LLC, THE APPLICANT, BUT THAT WHOLE AREA RIGHT NOW IS TREES. IF WE APPROVE TODAY SAYING THAT THEY DON'T NEED SCREENING WALLS, DOES IT PREVENT THEM FROM CUTTING THE TREES OR REMOVING ANYTHING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE? SO IF THE APPLICANT WERE TO SUBMIT A. WELL, SO A FLOOD STUDY HAS TO BE DONE FOR THE FLOODPLAIN AREA. AND 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 OUT OF 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.

THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO SPEAK MORE ON THEIR DEVELOPMENT AND PLANS, BUT ALSO MIGHT THEN HAVE TO COME BACK FOR DIFFERENT SITE PLAN TO DO THAT, IN WHICH CASE THE RECOMMENDATION MIGHT BE DIFFERENT IN THAT CASE.

YES. THANK YOU. GOTCHA. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE PICTURE WITH THE NATURAL GREEN AND WHAT HAVE YOU? I JUST WANT TO KNOW. THAT ONE. OH, YEAH. AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY? WE ARE. THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD ANOTHER LAYER OF TREES.

IT SOUNDS LIKE RIGHT AROUND THE EDGE OF WHERE THE FOREST IS.

SO WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED, AND I REALLY AM EMBARRASSED THAT MY GRAPHIC MESSED UP.

BUT YOU'LL SEE WHERE THOSE GREEN LINES ARE. IMAGINE THEM A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE PAVEMENT.

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

WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A LANDSCAPE, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO ACCEPT A LANDSCAPE PLAN YET FOR A REVIEW.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO ANTICIPATE FOR THEIR LANDSCAPING ALONG THAT SOUTHERN EDGE, BUT IT IS FLOODPLAIN, 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. IT'S HARDER TO BUILD IRRIGATION THAT WILL WITHSTAND THE POTENTIAL FLOOD.

AGREED. SO. BUT N STATES EVERYTHING IS BUILT OUT.

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 TO LIVING SCREEN, BUT THAT'S WHERE THE RETAINING WALL IS BEING BUILT, DID I? I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER OLLEY, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION FOR ME? IF I'M LOOKING AT THAT PICTURE FROM RIGHT TO LEFT, WE HAVE THE FOREST AND THE CREEK.

THEN I SHOULD EXPECT TO SEE THIS, THE EIGHT FOOT CENTERS? YES. THEN ON THE CORNERS, BOTTOM LEFT AND TOP RIGHT.

IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S AN ADDITIONAL EIGHT FOOT WALL TOO.

YES, THERE ARE TWO DOORS. YES. THAT'S CORRECT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ALALI, I'M GOING TO JUMP IN LINE IN FRONT OF YOU.

JUST A SECOND, IF YOU DON'T MIND. 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 SCREENING OF THE DOCK AREA IS REQUIRED BY ARTICLE 16.1400, WHICH

[00:25:08]

REQUIRES SCREENING OF DOCK OR LOADING AREAS FROM RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OR USES.

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 ALALI.

SO MY QUESTION IS DO YOU LIKE, SO THEY ARE BUILDING SOME RETAINING WALLS IN SOME AREAS RIGHT.

YES. FOR ABOUT 1000 LINEAR FEET ALONG THE EDGE OF THEIR DEVELOPMENT.

SO WHAT WE'RE WAIVING IS JUST THIS PORTION BETWEEN THE CORNER AND TO THE LIKE TO THE WHERE THEY'RE BUILDING THEIR SCREEN WALL.

RIGHT. YES. SO THE IN ADDITION TO THIS, LIKE RETAINING WALL, THEY'RE ADDING THE LIVING SCREEN, RIGHT. YES. RETAINING WALL IS REQUIRED AS PART OF THE FLOOD STUDY.

IT'S ANTICIPATED THAT TO MITIGATE DEVELOPING THAT CLOSE TO THE RETAINING WALL.

YES. RETAINING WALL. IT'S A RETAINING WALL OKAY.

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

YEAH. YEAH OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

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

HOW EFFECTIVE A SCREEN DO EASTERN RED CEDARS PROVIDE? EASTERN RED CEDARS CAN GROW UPWARDS OF 15FT. THEY TEND TO THEIR EVERGREENS, SO THEY THEIR WINTER SPRING SUMMER GROWTH IS PRETTY MUCH THE SAME SINCE THEY'RE EVERGREEN.

THEY, WE'VE AND ACTUALLY A PREVIOUS CASE FOR WHAT IS BLOCK TWO OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE NORTH EASTERN 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 STAFF'S DIRECTION TO THE APPLICANT WAS TO 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 NOT JUST SOME? YES, YES THEY DO. 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 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 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 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. DEPENDING ON THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL THAT THEY'RE ABUTTING.

OKAY. 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 THIS SITE TO BE AT A HIGHER ELEVATION, TYPICALLY THAN THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH.

SO AS SHOWN IN THE PICTURES HERE IT IS NOT ANTICIPATED THAT THERE WILL REALLY BE A CLEAR VIEW OF THE BUILDING OR ANYTHING JUST BASED ON THE HEIGHT AT WHICH THE TOPOGRAPHY.

I GUESS FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE RESIDENTS OF THE SOUTH, IT WOULD MAKE MUCH DIFFERENCE ANYWAY BECAUSE OF THE FORESTED AREA. SO. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. ALL RIGHT.

TWO QUESTIONS. MY FIRST ONE GOES BACK TO SOMETHING THAT CHAIR RATLIFF WAS TALKING ABOUT.

AND THE IDEA OF 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 COUNTERINTUITIVE TO BE SCREENING FORESTRY, FORESTED AREAS LIKE THIS.

[00:30:06]

THERE ARE NO SECTIONS IN OUR ORDINANCE THAT REALLY ADDRESS THIS.

AND I CANNOT THINK OF AN INSTANCE WHERE WE'VE HAD A SIMILAR ISSUE SUCH AS THIS ONE.

BUT. SO I JUST WONDER IF MAYBE THIS IS SOMETHING WE OUGHT TO CONSIDER LOOKING AT.

ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE. IN THE RAC COMMITTEE TO BE ABLE TO.

MAKE SENSIBLE ORDINANCES AND SENSIBLE PLANS TO ALLOW FOR THINGS LIKE THIS.

SO I GUESS THAT WAS MY BIGGER QUESTION. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? NO. IT DOES. 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 A DODGE WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO.

SO IT CERTAINLY IS SOMETHING THAT A CODE REWRITE KIND OF.

YES. SO THAT'S ONE THOUGHT. SO MY SECOND QUESTION, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT 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 PLAIN IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA? 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 TO 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 OF 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 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. 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 AS ITS NAME IMPLIES, BE PRELIMINARY.

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

AND IF TWEAKS ARE NEEDED, TWEAKS ARE NEEDED TO ANY OF THE WAIVING OR ANYTHING THAT'S APPROVED BY THIS BODY TONIGHT. WE WOULD CERTAINLY NEED TO BRING THAT BACK FOR CONSIDERATION. I APPRECIATE YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS.

I THINK THERE IS 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, WE DON'T HAVE TO BRING IT BACK.

BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR INPUT TONIGHT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

FILTER. I'M GLAD YOU POINTED OUT THAT 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 AND WITH THE TOPOGRAPHY AT SUCH A HEIGHT I THINK THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF VISIBILITY THAT THEY'RE JUST NOT GOING TO YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT SO MUCH SCREENING WISE.

SO I'M GLAD THAT YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. THE OTHER THING I WAS CONSIDERING, AND I WAS KIND OF PICTURING WHERE THESE TREES WERE GOING TO BE BELOW AND UP ABOVE THE WALL AT CERTAIN HEIGHTS, FIVE FEET. IT'S ABOVE. HAVE THEY CONSIDERED OR HAS THERE ANY BEEN EVEN THOUGHT ABOUT WHAT THE ROOT SYSTEMS MIGHT DO IN POSSIBLY COMPROMISING THESE RETAINING WALLS? THAT HAS NOT BEEN ANTICIPATED YET.

WE WOULD HAVE TO CHECK ABOUT THE ROOT RADIUS.

I 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 AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SOME SIGNIFICANT ONES TO KEEP THIS SITE UP ABOVE THE FLOODPLAIN.

I KNOW THAT'S WHY THEY'RE PUTTING THEM IN. SO YEAH.

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

SO. COMMISSIONER ALALI, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM.

SO THEY'RE NOT, LIKE, PROPOSING ANY DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOODPLAIN RIGHT NOW? NO, NO. SO, YEAH, LIKE, SO EVERYTHING IS OFF OF THE FLOODPLAIN, BUT YOU LIKE.

AND THE SCREENING WALL IS JUST TO SCREEN THE LOADING DOCKS, RIGHT? YES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

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

DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?

[00:35:02]

NO. IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS, YOU'RE WELCOME TO.

OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. SO, COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

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

I ACTUALLY LIKE THIS BECAUSE IT'S A BIT OF A UNIQUE ONE.

WORST CASE SCENARIO, WE HAVE MORE TREES IN PLANO.

I WILL SECOND AND EDITORIAL COMMENT FOR ME. I'M ONLY SORRY WE CAN'T WAIVE THE EASTERN RED CEDARS, SO 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 FOR WE WOULD LOVE TO HAVE SOME FEEDBACK FROM THE STAFF AT SOME POINT RELATED TO COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER'S QUESTION ABOUT THE ROOT IMPACT ON THE THE RETAINING WALL, BUT THAT WAS ALL.

JUST COMMENT. OKAY, EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.

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

ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAINTENANCE REVIEW,

[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)]

DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION OF RECOMMENDED UPDATES TO THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN AND HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS.

COMPONENTS OF THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PILLAR, THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARDS, PARKS MASTER PLAN MAP, THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP AND DOWNTOWN STREETS PLAN MAP.

THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF PLANO. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONER.

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

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 TEN YEAR SCHEDULE TO ANNUALLY REVIEW VARIOUS COMPONENTS OF THE PLAN IN 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.

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 PLAN MAP IN JUNE OF THIS YEAR, AND WE ARE BRINGING FORWARD SOME ADDITIONAL THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP UPDATES THIS EVENING.

BEFORE I JUMP INTO THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PLAN COMMENDATIONS, 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 THE IMPACTS OF STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTIONS AND MAKE APPROPRIATE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR UPDATES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. 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 PRECEDENCE STATEMENT FOR TRANSPARENCY PURPOSES RELATED TO THE PLAN'S RELATIONSHIP WITH STATE LAWS. SO WE'VE PROPOSED TWO DIFFERENT OPTIONS WHICH ARE SHOWN ON THE SLIDE.

THE FIRST STATEMENT IS RELATED TO SO THE FIRST STATEMENTS OF BOTH OPTIONS RELATES TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLANS AUTHORITY UNDER CHAPTER 211 AND 213 OF THE TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE.

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