Oct 06, 2025 Planning and Zoning

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:02]

WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 6TH CITY OF PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:00 PM.

IF YOU WOULD 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 REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. LET'S SEE. COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

THERE ARE NO COMMENTS. NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS TONIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

[CONSENT AGENDA ]

ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF.

COMMISSIONERS. ANYBODY HAVE AN ITEM THEY WANT TO REMOVE FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER OLLEY IS ABSENT THIS EVENING? 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, OR MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.

ITEM NUMBER ONE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. MUSTANG SQUARE RESIDENTIAL BLOCK G, LOTS 1 THROUGH 14 AND 15X-4.

[1. (DW) Public Hearing – Replat: Mustang Square Residential, Block G, Lots 1-14 & 5X – 14 single-family residence detached lots and one common area lot on 1.0 acre located on the northwest corner of Rasor Boulevard and Shoppers Lane. Zoned Planned Development-32-Regional Commercial and located within the State Highway 121 Overlay District. Project #R2025-023. Applicant: Perfect Dream Homes, LLC. (Administrative consideration) ]

LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF RASOR BOULEVARD AND SHOPPERS LANE.

ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT-32 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THE APPLICANT IS PERFECT DREAM HOMES, LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. DESTINY WOODS, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

CAN YOU ALL HEAR ME OKAY? YES. OKAY, GOOD. SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT IS TO ADJUST THE LOT BOUNDARIES AND DEDICATE EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THESE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS. AND THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMISSIONERS ANY TECHNICAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOBODY. OKAY. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

MR. LINGENFELTER. I RECOMMEND THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

IS THAT A MOTION? A MOTION, YES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ALALI.

I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. ITEM NUMBER TWO.

[2. (DW) Public Hearing – Replat: Mustang Square Residential, Block A – 13 single-family residence detached lots and four common area lots on 0.6 acre located on the southwest corner of Community Court and Dijon Street. Zoned Planned Development-32-Regional Commercial and located within the State Highway 121 and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. Project #R2025-022. Applicant: Perfect Dream Homes, LLC. (Administrative consideration)]

13 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS ON FOUR COMMON AREAS LOTS ON 0.6 ACRE LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF COMMUNITY COURT AND DIJON STREET.

ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 32 REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

THE APPLICANT IS PERFECT DREAM HOMES, LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT IS TO ADJUST LOT BOUNDARIES AND DEDICATE EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

MISS WOODS, JUST IN THE PACKET IT LOOKED LIKE THEY WERE CHANGING THESE FROM ATTACHED TO DETACHED.

IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CITY STAFF? SEEING NONE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS? THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER.

ANYBODY? MR.. TONG. I MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO AS STAFF RECOMMENDED.

COMMISSIONER BENDER. I'LL SECOND, THE MOTION.

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

[00:05:01]

[3. (JK) Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2024-023: Request to rezone from Corridor Commercial to Single-Family Residence Attached on 6.6 acres located on the west side of K Avenue, 2,240 feet south of Spring Creek Parkway. Project #ZC2024-023. Remanded by City Council on April 28, 2025. Petitioner: Rasul Shahid. (Request to withdraw from consideration) ]

THIS ITEM IS A REQUEST TO WITHDRAW FROM CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JOHN KIM, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

HERE IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE COMMISSION ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW.

ZONING CASE 2024-023. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS.

SORRY. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS OF CITY STAFF? NOBODY. OKAY. THIS IS POSTED AS A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY REGISTERED TO SPEAK? THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST TO WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION IN ITEM NUMBER THREE.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. AND I'M SORRY, MS. ALALI, I SAW YOUR LIGHT COME ON.

YOU OKAY? OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER FOUR.

[4. (MZ) Public Hearing – Comprehensive Plan Amendment 2025-001: Request to amend the Built Environment Pillar, Future Land Use Map & Dashboards, Thoroughfare Plan Map, Bicycle Transportation Plan Map, and Parks Master Plan Map of the Comprehensive Plan. Project #CPA2025-001. Applicant: City of Plano. (Legislative consideration)]

THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF PLANO. GOOD EVENING.

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

THIS ITEM PERTAINS TO THE 2025 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAINTENANCE REVIEW.

THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT ACTION 7 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 RGM 7 STAFF HAS ESTABLISHED THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MAINTENANCE REVIEW AS WELL AS THE TEN YEAR SCHEDULE AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. THIS YEAR'S REVIEW INCLUDES THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PILLAR AND ASSOCIATED MAPS.

THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PILLAR INCLUDES THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT, TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT AND THE HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMPONENT.

AND ALSO THE MAPS THAT WE'VE REVIEWED THIS YEAR WERE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARDS, THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP, AND IN COORDINATION WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT, WE ARE ALSO UPDATING THE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP AND PARKS MASTER PLAN MAP. BEFORE I JUMP INTO THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THIS ITEM, I JUST WANTED TO PROVIDE AN OVERVIEW OF THE TIMELINE FOR THIS ITEM.

SO ON JUNE 16TH, THIS COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING AND ALSO REVIEWED THE TRANSPORTATION COMPONENT, WHICH WAS A DISCUSSION ITEM, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THAT ON AUGUST 18TH, THIS COMMISSION REVIEWED THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT AS WELL AS THE HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMPONENT AS WELL AS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARDS, THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP, AND PARKS MASTER PLAN MAP.

IN EARLY SEPTEMBER, STAFF PUBLISHED THE DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WEBSITE.

AND THIS EVENING WE ARE BEFORE YOU FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING IN ANTICIPATION TO TAKE THIS ITEM FORWARD TO CITY COUNCIL.

FIRST OFF, WE HAVE THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT RECOMMENDATIONS AS SHOWN ON THE TABLE ON THE SCREEN.

IN TOTAL, WE ARE RECOMMENDING UPDATES TO FOUR ACTIONS ONE NEW ACTION, AND THE SUBSEQUENT RENUMBERING OF THREE ACTIONS.

THIS INFORMATION IS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT A AND ALSO THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE LAND USE AND COMMUNITY DESIGN COMPONENT WERE PRESENTED TO THIS COMMISSION ON AUGUST 18TH, AND ONE ACTION WAS RECOMMENDED TO BE UPDATED.

AND THAT WAS RGM SIX. AND WE'VE UPDATED THAT TO REFLECT THE ACTION TO STATE, CONDUCT AND UPDATE AN ANNUAL MARKET STUDY, WHICH WAS THE RECOMMENDATION OF THE COMMISSION.

[00:10:02]

SO THERE HAVE BEEN NO CHANGES SINCE THEN. THE HOUSING AND NEIGHBORHOODS COMPONENT WAS REVIEWED ON AUGUST 18TH BY THIS COMMISSION.

THERE IS ONE UPDATE TO THE COMPONENT BACKGROUND TEXT AND ONE ACTION UPDATE.

THE COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND THAT WE UPDATE THE COMPONENT BACKGROUND TEXT TO BE A LITTLE BIT MORE CLEAR AND CONCISE.

AND SO WE'VE GONE BACK AND REVISE THAT AND IT SAYS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN.

SO STAFF HAS SINCE REVISED THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO SIMPLIFY AND CLARIFY HOW THE UNDEVELOPED LAND WAS CALCULATED, BOTH IN 2021 AND UNDER RECENT LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

AS NOTED IN THE CHANGES. SO THAT CONCLUDES THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PILLAR.

AND I'LL MOVE THROUGH THE MAPS NOW. ON AUGUST 18TH, THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP, AND NO CHANGES WERE REQUESTED TO THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

AND THAT INCLUDED ALSO THE DASHBOARD UPDATES.

THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARD UPDATES INCLUDE RECOMMENDATIONS TO ALIGN WITH SMALL AREA PLANS, WHICH INCLUDE ENVISION OAK POINT AND THE SILVER LINE STATION AREAS PLAN ALSO TO ALIGN WITH THE PARKS MASTER PLAN UPDATE, WHICH IS INCLUDED WITH THIS ITEM, AND THERE WAS ALSO A MINOR UPDATE TO THE HOW TO READ THE DASHBOARDS SECTION OF THE PLAN, AND IT JUST CLARIFIED KIND OF WHEN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS ARE APPLICABLE.

ON JUNE 16TH AND AUGUST 18TH, THE COMMISSION REVIEWED THE PROPOSED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP, AND NO CHANGES WERE REQUESTED ON EITHER DATE.

THE UPDATES RECOMMENDED ARE TO ALIGN THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP WITH THE SILVER LINE STATION AREAS PLAN, IMPROVE OVERALL MAP ACCURACY AND ALSO REFERENCE REQUIREMENTS OF RESOLUTION 98-2-23.

THE REFERENCE REQUIREMENTS OF RESOLUTION 98-2-23 WERE REVIEWED WITH THE COMMISSION ON AUGUST 18TH.

HOWEVER, TO DOCUMENT THE FULL HISTORY OF THE RESOLUTION, WE HAVE INCLUDED A MEMO WITH THIS ITEM TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL CONTEXT REGARDING THE PROPOSED UPDATE, AND THAT INFORMATION IS DETAILED IN ATTACHMENT C.

AND THEN IN ADDITION TO THE UPDATES THAT YOU GUYS REVIEWED ON JUNE 16TH AND AUGUST 18TH, THERE IS ONE ADDITIONAL UPDATE THAT WE'RE INCLUDING THIS EVENING, AND THAT IS TO REMOVE EXISTING TYPE F STREETS FROM THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP.

SO TYPE F STREETS FUNCTION AS MINOR COLLECTOR STREETS THAT PROVIDE LOCAL ACCESS AND CIRCULATION.

AND THESE STREETS ARE GENERALLY IMPLEMENTED THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS RATHER THAN PRE-PLANNED AT THE CITYWIDE LEVEL.

AND SO THIS RECOMMENDATION IMPROVES THE FUNCTIONALITY, USE AND MAINTENANCE OF THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP AND ATTACHMENT D OUTLINES THE RECOMMENDATIONS FOR THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP.

THE DOWNTOWN STREETS PLAN MAP WAS ALSO REVIEWED BY THE COMMISSION ON AUGUST 18TH, AND NO CHANGES WERE REQUESTED.

THE RECOMMENDATIONS TO THIS MAP ENSURE ALIGNMENT WITH THE SILVER LINE STATION AREAS PLAN AND ALSO IMPROVE MAP ACCURACY AND THE, THIS INFORMATION IS INCLUDED IN ATTACHMENT E OR, I'M SORRY, I APOLOGIZE.

ATTACHMENT D. AND THEN AS MENTIONED, WE HAVE WORKED WITH THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT TO ALSO UPDATE THE BICYCLE TRANSPORTATION PLAN MAP. AND THIS THESE UPDATES ALIGN WITH PLANO STREET DESIGN STANDARDS AND REFLECT CURRENT CONDITIONS AND PRIORITIES.

THIS COMMISSION REVIEWED THIS MAP ON JUNE 16TH AND NO CHANGES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED.

NO ADDITIONAL CHANGES HAVE BEEN PROPOSED SINCE THEN.

THE PARKS MASTER PLAN MAP WAS ALSO REVIEWED ON AUGUST 18TH BY THE COMMISSION, AND THE RECOMMENDATIONS ENSURE ALIGNMENT WITH THE SILVER LINE STATION AREAS PLAN.

THEY REFLECT CURRENT CONDITIONS AND PRIORITIES OF THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT AND IMPROVE MAP ACCURACY,

[00:15:06]

KIND OF SHIFTING FROM KIND OF MAPS AND MAP RELATED UPDATES.

WE ALSO HAVE AN UPDATE THAT'S RELATED TO STATE LEGISLATIVE ACTION.

SO WITH THE PASSAGE OF SEVERAL STATE BILLS THAT IMPACT THE REGULATION OF DEVELOPMENT, THE CITY IS LIMITED IN FULLY IMPLEMENTING KEY POLICIES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND ON AUGUST 18TH, THE COMMISSION REVIEWED AND CONSIDERED TWO OPTIONS FOR THE, FOR A PLAN AUTHORITY AND PRECEDENT STATEMENT TO AID TRANSPARENCY ON THE PLAN'S RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER LAWS.

THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT ON THE SCREEN WAS THE COMMISSION'S PREFERENCE, AS IT HONORS THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND CLARIFIES ITS PURPOSE AND FUNCTION IN ALIGNMENT WITH STATE LAW. SO THE PLAN, AUTHORITY AND PRECEDENT STATEMENT WILL BE ADDED TO THE PLAN STRUCTURE PAGE AS SHOWN ON THE LEFT AND ON THE WEBSITE FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT WILL BE ADDED TO THE ABOUT THE PLAN WEB PAGE.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. Y'ALL PUT A TON OF WORK INTO THIS, AND IT LOOKS LIKE YOU'VE IMPLEMENTED EVERYTHING THAT I RECALL US ASKING YOU TO DO.

SO VERY THOROUGH PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. THANK YOU SO MUCH. YOU GUYS REALLY HAVE ACCOMPLISHED A GREAT DEAL ON THIS.

AND SO I JUST HAVE I DON'T KNOW, I MUST HAVE MISSED SOMETHING ON THE UNDEVELOPED LAND.

LU2. WE CHANGED THE LANGUAGE FROM CREATE AN INTERACTIVE, UNDEVELOPED LAND MAP UPDATING IT ON A QUARTERLY BASIS AND POSTING IT ON THE CITY'S WEBSITE TO UPDATING IT ANNUALLY.

AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, WE HAVE, YOU KNOW, WE JUST WON AN AWARD ABOUT OUR IMPLEMENTATION TOOL RELATED TO OUR FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND THE ABILITY FOR OUR CITIZENS BOTH BUSINESS AS WELL AS RESIDENTIAL TO HAVE ACCESS TO CURRENT INFORMATION.

AND SO I'M CURIOUS ABOUT THE CHANGE FROM GOING FROM QUARTERLY TO ANNUALLY.

YES. SO WE DO UPDATE IT INTERNALLY ON A QUARTERLY BASIS.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT IT'S NOT SIGNIFICANT ENOUGH CHANGES TO WARRANT PUBLISHING IT.

AND SO IT'S DONE ON AN ANNUAL BASIS. AND DREW, I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD TO THAT.

YES. THE UPDATE IS BASICALLY ALIGNED WITH THE UPDATE TO THE GIS DASHBOARD THAT'S THAT'S PUBLISHED.

SO WE JUST REFLECTED THAT IN THE ACTION TEXT TO REFLECT THAT.

EVEN THOUGH WE MAINTAIN THE DATA INTERNALLY ON A REGULAR BASIS, IT'S PUBLISHED ON A LESS FREQUENT BASIS ONLINE.

SO IS IT JUST A MATTER OF COST OR IS IT A, WHAT'S THE RIGHT THE REASON THAT WE WOULD NOT WANT TO UPDATE IT MORE FREQUENTLY? MAY I ASK, NICK, DO YOU KNOW? YEAH. SO WHEN. SORRY, SORRY.

SO IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT WHEN THE DASHBOARD WAS PUT TOGETHER ORIGINALLY, I GUESS IN 2021, THE DISPLAY WAS VERY CLUTTERED WHEN IT INCLUDED QUARTERLY DATA.

YOU KNOW, BECAUSE IT GOES BACK TO 2010, I BELIEVE.

SO JUST THE AMOUNT OF DATA WAS KIND OF OVERWHELMING AND UNWIELDY.

SO WE CHANGED IT TO ANNUAL CHARTS AND AND MAP.

SO WE'RE ALREADY DOING IT ANNUALLY? YES. OKAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I HAD ONE OTHER QUESTION, BUT I.

OH, THE STATEMENT THAT WE'RE ADDING WITH THE PLAN AUTHORITY, WILL THAT, I DON'T KNOW HOW TO PHRASE THIS. WHEN WE ADDED THE 14 PAGES AT THE FRONT OF THE PLAN TO EXPLAIN WHAT WE WERE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH IN ALL OF THAT, WE MADE IT CLEAR THAT THAT WAS SIMPLY A STATEMENT OF GUIDANCE RATHER THAN A STATEMENT OF.

HOW DID I, DID WE WORK? YOU REMEMBER THE THE INTRO, THE 14 PAGE INTRODUCTION? SO DOES THIS DOES THE LANGUAGE AT THE BOTTOM THERE, WILL THAT ACTUALLY BE PART OF THE PLAN OR WILL THAT BE OUTSIDE OF THE PLAN ITSELF BUT

[00:20:04]

I DON'T HAVE IT IN FRONT OF ME. THE 14 PAGE INTRODUCTION, THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

YEAH. THE EXECUTIVE. IS IT GOING TO BE TREATED LIKE THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY OR WILL IT BE INCLUSIVE OF THE PLAN? IT WILL BE ON PAGE ONE OF THE PLAN. SO IT WILL BE THE PLAN STRUCTURE IS LIKE THE FIRST PAGE OF THE PLAN ITSELF.

OKAY OKAY GREAT. OUTSIDE OF THE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.

THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

MY QUESTION I GUESS KIND OF PIGGYBACKS WHAT COMMISSIONER BRONSKY WAS TALKING ABOUT IS HOW OFTEN WE GET IT UPDATED.

SPECIFICALLY ABOUT ALL THE ALL THE RECENT HAPPENINGS THAT HAVE BEEN HAPPENING WITH DALLAS OR WITH PLANO AND STUFF WITH YOU KNOW, PISD ALL THE LAND THAT THEY'VE PURCHASED AND, AND THEN, OF COURSE THE STATE LAWS THAT HAVE COME ABOUT WHERE WE'RE HAVING TO MAKE ADJUSTMENTS THERE. ARE WE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THOSE IN THESE MAPS AND THINGS WHERE WE'RE, WE'RE ADDING NEW PARKLAND OR WE'RE ADDING DIFFERENT THINGS? YEAH. SO I THINK THAT'S PART OF OUR TEN YEAR SCHEDULE.

AND SO SORRY, IT'S A FEW SLIDES BACK, BUT I CAN TRY TO SHIFT THERE.

BUT THE GOAL OF THIS IS TO REVIEW ANNUALLY. AND SO WE'RE ABLE TO REVIEW DIFFERENT SECTIONS OF THE PLAN AND KIND OF INCORPORATE THOSE UPDATES ACCORDINGLY. I MEAN, WE'VE DEFINITELY INCORPORATED UPDATES OUTSIDE THAT HAVE BEEN NECESSARY.

SO, YOU KNOW, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PLAN, AUTHORITY AND PRECEDENT STATEMENT DIDN'T REALLY FIT THE BUILT ENVIRONMENT PILLAR, BUT THAT WAS A NECESSARY CHANGE. CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE? YEAH. THE TEN YEAR SCHEDULE. YEAH. SORRY. JUST TRYING TO GET THAT LITTLE HOUSE SYMBOL THERE.

IT'S EVERY TWO YEARS WE'RE ABLE TO LOOK AT THE MAPS TO INCORPORATE THINGS JUST LIKE THAT.

ALL THOSE. THINGS THAT HAVE HAPPENED RECENTLY.

SO I WAS WORRIED ABOUT US. WE'RE ALREADY PUBLISHING MAPS THAT ARE A LITTLE BEHIND ALREADY.

SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE PARKS MASTER PLAN UPDATE THIS YEAR REFLECTS THOSE SCHOOL CLOSURES, SCHOOL CLOSING SITES.

SO THAT'S BEEN INCORPORATED. SO WHERE THERE'S OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO WE DO IN ALIGNMENT WITH THIS MAP.

GOOD. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. MR. CHAIRMAN, IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE TIME TO MAKE A MOTION? NO, WE HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. WE STILL HAVE TO GO. I SEE OKAY. WELL, I WAS JUST STARING AT ALL THE EMPTY SEATS OUT THERE. YEAH, WE STILL HAVE TO. WE STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE OFFICIAL PUBLIC HEARING. SO, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NOBODY. OKAY. WE DO. THIS IS POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY REGISTERED TO SPEAK? NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. OKAY. COMMISSION. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

MR. CHAIRMAN. NOW IS A GOOD TIME. WE HAVE NOW HAD THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YES, SIR. WE HAVE. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO ADD MY COMPLIMENTS TO THE STAFF FOR ALL THE HARD WORK THEY PUT IN AND PUTTING THIS TOGETHER.

THIS WAS QUITE A PROJECT, AND THEY'VE CARRIED IT OFF WITH APLOMB.

I WOULD SAY THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY HAD A CHANCE IN PREVIOUS HEARINGS TO REVIEW THE PROPOSED CONTENT PROVIDED BY THE STAFF, AND THEY HAVE INCORPORATED ALL OF THE ADDITIONS AND CHANGES THAT WE RECOMMENDED IN THE PAST.

SO I THINK THIS IS READY TO GO. SO THEREFORE I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 2025-001 AS CONTAINED IN ITEM FOUR OF OUR AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER ALALI. AND AGAIN, ALSO THANK YOU FOR THE STAFF FOR THE HARD WORK AND LIKE IT IS, IT'S A GREAT DEAL OF, YOU KNOW, WORK. AND I'LL SECOND THE MOTION.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. THANK YOU ALL, AS USUAL, FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK. I KNOW THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK THAT GOES INTO IT THAN THAN SOMETIMES WE SEE FROM UP HERE.

AND WE APPRECIATE ALL Y'ALL DO AND KEEPING IT CONCISE FOR US AS WELL.

SO THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS.

[5. (DW) Discussion and Action – Preliminary Site Plan: State Highway 121 & Rasor Addition, Block A, Lot 2 – Car wash, convenience store with fuel pumps, and restaurant with drive through on one lot on 5.1 acres located on the southeast corner of State Highway 121 and Rasor Boulevard. Zoned Regional Commercial and located within the State Highway 121 and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. Project #PSP2025-018. Applicant: GCHD Land Acquisitions LLC. (Legislative consideration of car wash screening) ]

THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND TO INSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 5. STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND RACER ADDITION.

BLOCK A LOT TWO A CAR WASH CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL PUMPS AND RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU ON ONE LOT ON 5.1 ACRES.

LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND RACER BOULEVARD.

ZONED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

[00:25:06]

THANK YOU. SO THE PURPOSE FOR THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS TO SHOW THE PROPOSED CAR WASH CONVENIENCE STORE WITH FUEL PUMPS AND DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT ON THIS CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED LOT.

THE CAR WASH AND FUEL DISPENSING FACILITIES ARE WITHIN 300FT OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY REQUIRE SCREENING TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THOSE FACILITIES.

THE SITE IS SEPARATED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL HOMES BY A CREEK AND A HEAVILY VEGETATED BUFFER.

AND SO THERE'S AROUND 750, EXCUSE ME, 775FT OF SEPARATION BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE NEAREST RESIDENTIAL OR SINGLE FAMILY HOME. AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SIX FOOT SCREENING WALL TO SCREEN THE SITE FROM THAT SUBDIVISION. AND I'LL GO BACK TO EXPLAIN THIS GRAPHIC.

SO THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE PROPERTY LINE AND THE NEAREST SINGLE FAMILY LOT LINE.

AS FOR NOISE, SO THE SPEAKER FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT IS APPROXIMATELY 125FT FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT, SO SCREENING WOULD BE REQUIRED SINCE THAT MAXIMUM IS 150FT.

AND THEN STAFF FINDS THE PROPOSED SCREENING WALL, NATURAL BUFFER, AND THE LARGE SEPARATION FROM THE HOMES TO BE ADEQUATE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE PROPOSED CAR WASH AND THE NOISE CREATED BY THE DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT SPEAKER.

AND THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. I'M GOING TO LEAD OFF WITH ONE.

CAN YOU GO BACK TO YOUR LAST SLIDE, PLEASE? SO I'M I GUESS I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE THIS SAYS FACILITIES WITHIN 150FT OF A RESIDENTIAL LOT LINE WHERE YOUR GRAPHIC BEFORE LOOKED LIKE WE'RE 600FT FROM A LOT LINE.

SO IS IT WITHIN 150FT OF A RESIDENTIAL LOT LINE OR RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT? SO IT'S 100FT FROM A RESIDENTIAL LOT LINE, BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU CAN'T SEE IT ON THIS DRAWING OR THIS GRAPHIC, BUT NEAR WHERE THE ACTUALLY, IT'S ON THE FIRST SLIDE I CAN SHOW YOU.

SO THE BLACK LINE THAT GOES THROUGH WHERE THE CREEK IS ESSENTIALLY IS THE IS THE ZONING DISTRICT BOUNDARY.

BUT THE LOT LINE OF THE FIRST RESIDENTIAL USE IS SHARING A PROPERTY LINE WITH THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? OH, OKAY. THE ZONING REQUIREMENT IS 150FT TO A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

THE DISTRICT LINE. IT SHARES. IT SHARES A BOUNDARY WITH A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

THE NEAREST LOT, THOUGH, IS ACTUAL DEVELOPED, THE HOME IS OVER 600FT AWAY.

OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I HEARD YOU SAY. BUT THEN YOUR SLIDE SAID LOT LINE.

SO THAT'S WHY I WANTED CLARIFICATION. SO IT'S 150FT FROM RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

THE LOT SEPARATING THEM IS ACTUALLY PART OF THE RESIDENTIAL SUBDIVISION.

IT'S THEIR HOA COMMON SPACE LOT. SO YES OKAY.

SO IT IS ACTUALLY RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LOT.

IT'S JUST AN HOA COMMON AREA. CORRECT. OKAY. THAT HELPS ME.

ALL RIGHT. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. COMMISSIONER ALALI.

SO YOU LIKE IT DOESN'T MATTER. IF THIS LIKE, IS THIS A FLOOD ZONE? THIS AREA, LIKE, BY THE CREEK, AND THEN, LIKE, NOBODY CAN, LIKE, DEVELOP IT? IT IS, I DON'T BELIEVE IT'S IN A FLOOD ZONE OR FLOOD WAY.

NO IT'S NOT. THERE'S NO FLOODWAY EASEMENT OVER THE CREEK AREA.

BUT THIS DOESN'T MATTER BECAUSE YOU'RE LIKE, YOU JUST LIKE IT'S FOR THE LINE UP FROM RESIDENTIAL, RIGHT? THE 150 IS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT.

IT'S NOT LIKE IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE BUILDING THEMSELVES.

SO EVEN IF IT'S LIKE 700. THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. BENDER. THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. I HAD KIND OF THE SAME COMMENT YOU DID WHEN LOOKING AT THE GRAPH.

OR LOOKING AT THE, THE LAYOUT. AND JUST FROM A PERSPECTIVE, IT'S LIKE TWO FOOTBALL FIELDS IS THE DISTANCE.

SO IT'S QUITE A DISTANCE. AND I JUST WANTED TO REINFORCE THIS IS THE TYPE OF REVIEW AND THE TYPE OF

[00:30:06]

AND, AND THIS IS REALLY WELL DONE AND I THINK LAID OUT AND THOUGHTFUL.

AND I THINK WHAT WE NEED TO BE DOING AS WE MOVE FORWARD WITH THESE TYPE OF DEVELOPMENTS, MAKING SURE THAT WE HAVE RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, DEVELOPMENTS IN THE ADJACENCY, I THINK THIS IS WELL DONE.

THANK YOU. YEAH. JUST A QUICK CORRECTION. FOR THE RECORD.

THERE IS FLOODPLAIN. IT'S ON THE HOA LOT. THERE IS NO FLOODPLAIN ON THE CAR WASH LOT.

BUT TO THE EAST THE CREEK ISN'T FLOWING. [INAUDIBLE] NATURAL.

LIKE A NATURAL BUFFER BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NOT SEEING ANY.

THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT DO WE HAVE ANYBODY REGISTERED TO SPEAK? NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. I SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. ITEM NUMBER SIX. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX. HOLD A DISCUSSION AND PROVIDE DIRECTION REGARDING THE POTENTIAL

[6. (JK) Discussion and Direction – Potential City-Initiated Rezoning: Hold a discussion and provide direction regarding the potential rezoning of 7.8 acres of city-owned property located at the northeast corner of Jupiter Road and Los Rios Boulevard. Project #DI2025-007. Applicant: City of Plano. (No action required)]

THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF PLANO. HELLO AGAIN.

SO JUST TO REMIND YOU, THIS ITEM WAS BROUGHT TO YOU IN JUNE 2ND, 2025 AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING AND THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ON THE SCREEN. SO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS ZONED PD-12-MF-1 AND IT'S LOCATED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S FUTURE USE CATEGORY AND IS ACQUIRED BY THE CITY OF PLANO IN 2023. IN THE PREVIOUS COMMISSION MEETING, THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT SOME OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES, INCLUDING CITY OWNED PROPERTIES, WHICH CAN BE SEEN OUTLINED IN BLACK IN THE MIDDLE.

AND THEN THERE IS A BLUE OUTLINE THAT KIND OF SHOWS THE MIX OF PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTIES THAT TOTAL ROUGHLY 80 OR 70 ACRES.

AND SO THERE WERE SOME QUESTIONS SURROUNDING PARCELS BEING INCLUDED IN A FUTURE REZONINGS.

THERE WAS A REQUEST TO PROVIDE A WIDER VIEW OF THE NEARBY ZONES.

JUST A HOLISTIC PRESENTATION OF THE WHOLE QUADRANT AT LOS RIOS AND JUPITER AND THEN COMP PLAN INFO FOR THE PARCEL.

SO ON THIS SCREEN YOU CAN SEE THE CURRENT USES AND DEVELOPMENT ON THE PROPERTIES THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, ALONG WITH A FEW OTHERS, THE CITY OWNED PROPERTIES AND THEN ONE TO THE NORTHEAST ARE CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED.

THOSE ARE THE PROPERTIES IN GREEN. IN YELLOW ARE CURRENTLY DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED HOMES.

AND THEN IN THE BROWNISH ORANGE SHADE, THOSE ARE HORSE STABLES ON THOSE PROPERTIES.

AND THEN THERE IS A ORANGE HATCHED LINE, AND THOSE ARE OVERHEAD UTILITY LINES.

AND THEY'RE QUITE MAJOR LINES. AND ON THIS SCREEN IS THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. SO YOU CAN SEE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY OUTLINED IN YELLOW.

IT IS DESIGNATED AS NEIGHBORHOOD ALONG WITH MANY OF THE OTHER PRIVATELY OWNED PROPERTIES.

THE THE ADDITIONAL CITY OWNED PROPERTIES, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ALONG LOS RIOS, ARE THE GREEN SPACES, AND SO THOSE ARE CURRENTLY EXISTING AS PARKS AS PART OF THE OAK PARK, OAK POINT PARK AND TRAIL SYSTEM.

AND ACROSS TO THE SOUTH YOU'LL SEE THE PARK AND THEN TO THE WEST THERE'S ADDITIONAL TRAIL AS WELL.

AND THEN HERE IS THE CURRENT PARK'S MASTER PLAN MAP.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE IN THE DARK GREEN IS THE ADDITIONAL CITY PROPERTIES THAT ARE EXISTING PARKS.

AND THEN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ALONG WITH THE REST OF THE REQUESTED AREA, THERE IS NO DEFINED USE PLAN FOR THE SITE.

JUST TO NOTE SPEAKING WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT, THERE'S CURRENTLY NO INTENTION TO DIVEST THE PROPERTIES ALONG LOS RIOS.

SO IT IS UNDETERMINED AT THIS TIME. SO HERE ARE THE

[00:35:02]

BASED ON THE COMMISSION'S DISCUSSION ON JUNE 2ND, STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE OPTIONS TO REZONE TO MAINTAIN THE PD-12-MF-1 AND THE PD-12-SF-7 ZONING, SO THE OPTION ONE, THERE ARE TWO POSSIBLE OPTIONS HERE, REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SEVEN, AND THERE ARE SOME ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENT SEVEN DISTRICTS TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST.

AND SO IT WOULD MATCH THOSE, BUT THERE WOULD STILL BE A GAP.

AND THEN THE OTHER OPTION IS TO ZONE IT AS AGRICULTURAL.

THIS WOULD BE NEUTRAL TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THIS WOULD JUST BE MORE OF A PLACEHOLDER FOR THE TIME BEING.

OPTION TWO IS REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ADJACENT CITY OWNED PROPERTIES TO SF-7.

AND SO AGAIN, THE ADDITIONAL CITY OWNED PROPERTIES ARE EXISTING PARKS AND THE CURRENT SUBJECT PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, IT'D JUST BE SF-7. NUMBER THREE, REZONE THE NORTHEASTERN QUADRANT OF JUPITER ROAD AND LOS RIOS BOULEVARD TO SF-7.

SO THIS WOULD HELP CONNECT AND UNITE THE BUSINESS ZONING DISTRICT WITH THE REST OF THE EXISTING SF-7 DISTRICTS TO THE NORTH AND EAST.

SO THIS WOULD WHOLE AREA WOULD BECOME SF-7 IF THIS OPTION IS CHOSEN.

IF THIS OPTION IS CHOSEN, YOU KNOW, STAFF WOULD REACH OUT TO THE OWNERS PRIOR TO ANY CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS.

AND THEN OPTION FOUR IS THE CONSIDERATION OF REZONING FOR THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REWRITE.

AND SO WE WOULD JUST MAINTAIN THE CURRENT PD-12-MF-1 ZONING UNTIL THE REWRITE IS COMPLETED.

AND THERE'S ADDITIONAL DIRECTION. IF OPTIONS ONE AND TWO ARE PREFERRED BY THE COMMISSION, STAFF WILL RETURN WITH A CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE PROPERTIES. AND THEN SAME FOR OPTION THREE AS WELL.

WE'LL REACH OUT TO THE OWNERS AND THEN BRING THAT BACK FOR DISCUSSION.

AND THEN FOR OPTION FOUR WE WILL RECOMMEND THE DECISION BACK TO CITY COUNCIL.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THE COMMISSION PROVIDE FEEDBACK ON THE APPROPRIATENESS OF REZONING THE SUBJECT, PROPERTY OR THE LARGER AREA. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. COMMISSION A LITTLE MORE HISTORY FOR YOU.

IF YOU RECALL, THE LAST TIME THIS CAME BEFORE US WAS BEFORE THE LEGISLATURE HAD ADJOURNED AND GIVEN OUR STAFF AND OUR COMMISSION A LOT OF NEW HOMEWORK. AND WE HAD ANTICIPATED THE REC COMMITTEE WOULD HAVE SOME RECOMMENDATIONS TO US BEFORE NOW.

OBVIOUSLY, THE REC COMMITTEE HAS BEEN WAITING FOR ALL THE DUST TO SETTLE ON ALL THE ADDITIONAL HOMEWORK WE WERE GIVEN AFTER THE LEGISLATIVE SESSION.

SO THE REC COMMITTEE HAS NOT MET. AND SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY MORE INFORMATION FROM THE REC COMMITTEE.

AND LIKEWISE, I KNOW THE STAFF HAS A LOT ON THEIR PLATE RIGHT NOW.

AND I FEEL LIKE THIS IS MY PERSONAL OPINION. I'LL LEAVE IT UP TO THE COMMISSION, BUT I FEEL LIKE THAT WE PROBABLY NEED A LITTLE MORE TIME ON THIS TO LET THE REC COMMITTEE CONTINUE DOING THEIR WORK OR RESTART THEIR WORK, AND ALSO RECOGNIZE THAT THE STAFF HAS A LOT ON THEIR PLATES RIGHT NOW.

ALSO RESPONDING TO A LOT OF THE LEGISLATIVE STUFF THAT CAME FORWARD.

SO WITH THAT, I'LL OPEN IT UP TO YOU ALL FOR ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS THAT YOU HAVE.

I JUST WANTED TO PUT THE HISTORY OUT THERE SO THAT YOU ALL KNEW HOW WE GOT HERE AND REMIND YOU OF THE KIND OF THE SEQUENCE OF EVENTS THAT LED US TO HERE.

AND WITH THAT UNLESS MR. BELL CORRECTS ME, I DON'T BELIEVE THE COUNCIL GAVE US ANY KIND OF A IMPERATIVE DEADLINE TO DO ANYTHING WITH THIS. I THINK IT WAS JUST SOMETHING THEY WANTED US TO LOOK AT.

SO I DON'T THINK THAT THE COUNCIL, I CERTAINLY HAVEN'T GOTTEN A CALL FROM THE MAYOR ASKING WHY WE HAVEN'T DONE ANYTHING.

AND I DON'T EXPECT ONE. BUT I THINK WE HAVE PLENTY OF TIME TO STUDY IT AND GET IT RIGHT.

UNLESS YOU CORRECT ME AND KNOW SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. OKAY.

SO WITH THAT SAID, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. YES.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THERE ARE NO DEVELOPMENT PLANS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED FOR THIS LAND AT THIS TIME.

IS THAT CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. I'M KIND OF CURIOUS.

IF IT WERE, THE ZONING WERE TO BE CHANGED TO AGRICULTURAL AS A PLACEHOLDER, WOULD IT BE POSSIBLE TO HAVE IT PLATTED AT THAT POINT? YES, IT COULD BE. IT WOULD MEET THE MINIMUM LOT SIZE FOR AN ACRE.

FOR AN AGRICULTURAL LOT? YES. AND BY PLATTING IT, WOULD THAT TAKE IT OUT OF SB15 AND 840? WHAT'S CURRENTLY CITY OWNED, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT WE COULD WE COULD POTENTIALLY SELL THE PROPERTY WITH A DEED RESTRICTION THAT WOULD LIMIT SB15 FROM BEING IMPLEMENTED ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?

[00:40:06]

AND THAT IS ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING A LOT OF THE LEGISLATION AND ALSO WHAT WE HAVE HEARD FOR A LONG TIME WITH OUR CITIZENS. I HAVE A HESITANCY IN LEAVING IT AS AND THE MF-1 DISTRICT, ALTHOUGH I DO UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE THE CHAIRMAN'S POSITION ABOUT OVER WORKING OUR STAFF, AS WELL AS WAITING FOR THE REC COMMITTEE TO DO THINGS, I THINK WE WOULD BE BETTER SERVED BY EITHER GOING TO THE AGRICULTURAL OR PICKING ONE OF THESE OPTIONS. I JUST DON'T THINK OUR CITIZENRY WOULD NECESSARILY BE THRILLED WITH THIS BEING LEFT AS AN MF-1 DESIGNATION.

SO THAT'S MY OPINION. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SORT OF DEVELOPMENT PLAN, YOU KNOW, THAT'S COMING FORWARD AT THIS TIME.

I THINK THE THE URGENCY IS TO GET IT OUT OF THE MF-1 ZONING, GIVEN THE PUBLIC OPPOSITION THAT DEVELOPED AT THE TIME, THAT THIS CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION AS AN MF-1 AND PUT IT IN AGRICULTURAL AS A PLACEHOLDER, AND AT SUCH TIME AS A DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMES FORWARD, IT CAN THEN BE REZONED TO WHATEVER BEST SUITS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AT THAT POINT.

SO I'M LEANING TOWARD OPTION ONE B, WHICH IS AGRICULTURAL ZONING.

OKAY. COMMISSION. ANYBODY ELSE? HOW ABOUT THIS AS A COMPROMISE POSITION? I HEAR WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. I THINK THOSE ARE VALID POINTS AND WELL TAKEN.

CAN WE GIVE THE STAFF DIRECTION TO GIVE US AN IDEA AND COME BACK TO US WITH KIND OF A TIMELINE OR OR WHEN THEY THINK WE COULD BE READY TO CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON A REZONING CASE RATHER THAN TELL YOU WE WANT YOU TO COME BACK NEXT MEETING.

IS THAT AN UNREASONABLE THING FOR YOU ALL TO COME BACK NEXT MEETING OR MEETING AFTER AND SAY, YOU KNOW, WE'D LIKE TO SCHEDULE IT IN NOVEMBER OR WHENEVER YOU THINK YOU WOULD WORK INTO YOUR CURRENT WORK PLAN.

WE CAN CERTAINLY DO THAT. YES. IS THAT AN ACCEPTABLE SOLUTION TO THE COUNCIL? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. SO THEY COULD COME BACK AND TELL US THEY WANTED TO DO IT IN FEBRUARY OR MARCH? I JUST I THINK THE IDEA OF MOVING IT FROM ONE TO THE OTHER IS ALL THAT.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT I THINK THAT THAT'S IN THE BEST INTEREST OF WHAT WE'RE DOING.

AND SINCE IT IS CITY OWNED, THERE IS NO URGENCY OF SOMEBODY COMING IN AND DOING SOMETHING WITH IT.

SO I'M COMPLETELY, I'M COMPLETELY FINE WITH IT SO LONG AS WE'RE ALWAYS WALKING IN THE SAME DIRECTION.

SO YES. YEAH, MR. BELL, AND NOTE ANOTHER OPTION FOR THE COMMISSION IS TO NOTE, IF THE AGREEMENT IS TO TAKE IT TO AG AS A PLACEHOLDER, TO ADD IT TO THE COMMISSION'S WORK PLAN.

THAT WOULD LEAVE IT ON THE RECORD AS A TO DO ITEM, AND WE COULD BRING IT BACK WHEN IT'S READY.

COULD WE ALSO INCLUDE IT IN A DIRECTION TO THE REC TO PUT IT INTO THEIR WORK PLAN? SINCE THAT WILL BE, THERE WILL BE SOME MAP MODIFICATIONS AS A RESULT OF THE REC.

I DON'T KNOW, I CAN LOOK INTO THAT AND SEE IF THAT'S AN OPTION.

OKAY. JUST PUT IT SO YOU'RE THINKING JUST PUT IT INTO YOUR WORK PLAN.

I WILL CONSULT WITH THE TEAM LEADING REC TO SEE IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THEY CAN PUT IN THEIR PURVIEW. BUT I KNOW FOR THE COMMISSION, THE COMMISSION'S WORK PLAN HAS THESE PLACEHOLDERS FOR, WE'VE MADE A DIRECTION TO DO X, Y, OR Z. AND THEN THOSE FIT INTO A CERTAIN TIMELINE FOR THE WORK PLAN.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER ALALI. SO, IS THIS THE LOT PLATTED? RIGHT NOW. SO I BELIEVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS.

BUT THEN THE CITY. THE CITY OWNED PROPERTIES ARE NOT.

AND THEN THE, THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE DEVELOPED WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, THEY ARE PLATTED.

BUT THEN THE HORSE STABLES AND THE UNDEVELOPED LANDS ARE NOT AS WELL AS LIKE THIS PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

RIGHT? I BELIEVE IF WE TAKE IT TO AGRICULTURE.

WHAT IS YOUR QUESTION? WAS THIS PARTICULAR LOT THAT'S ZONED MF, IS IT CURRENTLY PLATTED? YES. YEAH. IS THERE CURRENTLY A PLAT ON THE ONE THAT'S ZONED MULTIFAMILY? ARE YOU SAYING NO. RIGHT. THERE IS. BUT IT'S MULTIFAMILY PLAT, RIGHT? I BELIEVE SO, BUT I'D HAVE TO DOUBLE CHECK IF IT WAS PLATTED AS PART OF THAT PREVIOUS ZONING.

OKAY, SO THAT MAKES A DIFFERENCE. IF WE, LIKE, MOVE IT BACK TO AGRICULTURAL.

DO THEY HAVE TO, LIKE, REPLAT OR WHAT DO THEY DO WITH IT?

[00:45:03]

WOULD YOU? SO IT'S JUST A [INAUDIBLE]? YEAH. IT'S NOT.

YEAH. IT COULD STAY. WHETHER PLATTED OR UNPLATTED IT COULD STAY IN ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION.

EVEN WITH THE ZONING CHANGE. IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ZONING CHANGE? YES. OKAY. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. SO I LIKED YOUR IDEA ABOUT GOING AND HAVING THE REC PICK THIS UP, AND I'M NOT SURE WE HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO TELL THEM TO DO THAT, BUT I CERTAINLY THINK THAT IF WE CAN ASK WHATEVER THE PROCESS IS TO GET THAT STARTED FOR REC TO CONSIDER THIS, I THINK THAT THAT'S VERY APPROPRIATE. ALL RIGHT.

I'M GOING TO JUMP IN JUST A SECOND BEFORE I GET TO YOU, MR. BROUNOFF. I THINK WHAT I'M LEANING TOWARDS AND AND WHAT MR. BELL SAID IS THAT IF WE PUT IT ON THE WORK PLAN, ON OUR FUTURE WORK PLAN AND STATE OUR INTENT THAT ON THE FUTURE WORK PLAN, WE WANT TO REZONE IT BACK TO AGRICULTURAL, THEN WE'VE GIVEN THEM DIRECTION.

WE'VE STATED OUR INTENT. IT'LL COME BACK TO US ON OUR WORK PLAN.

AND AND THAT PROBABLY SOLVES OUR PROBLEM WITHOUT HAVING TO ACTUALLY CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING AND KEEP THE PROCESS MOVING.

SO WITH THAT SAID, COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF, I'M SORRY I JUMPED IN FRONT OF YOU.

WELL, THAT RAISES A QUESTION. IF IT, IF WE PUT IT ON THE COMMISSION'S WORK PLAN, AS I RECALL, THE WORK PLAN HAD DIFFERENT LEVELS OF PRIORITY.

CORRECT. WHAT LEVEL WOULD YOU PROPOSE TO GIVE IT? I DON'T REMEMBER THE LEVELS. WE HAD. KIND OF GREEN, YELLOW, RED AS I RECALL.

IS THAT RIGHT? I BELIEVE IT'S HIGH MEDIUM LOW.

HIGH MEDIUM LOW. I WOULD THINK THIS WOULD BE A MEDIUM.

I'D RATHER HAVE IT A HIGH. I'D HAVE TO LOOK AND SEE WHAT WE HAVE ON HIGH.

SPECIFICALLY, I MEAN, I'M TRYING TO GET IT OUT OF NF-1.

I UNDERSTAND, I KNOW THAT'S THE REASON. OR RATHER THAN PUT IT ON THE COMMISSION'S WORK PLAN AT ANY LEVEL, WHY CAN'T WE JUST RECOMMEND A CHANGE TO AGRICULTURAL AND JUST ASK THE STAFF TO BRING IT BACK AS SOON AS THE STAFF CAN CONVENIENTLY WORK IT INTO THEIR WORKLOAD. YOU KNOW, I MEAN, THAT'S EFFECTIVELY THE SAME THING.

SO YEAH, I'M OKAY WITH THAT. YEAH, YEAH. COMMISSION Y'ALL OKAY WITH THAT? COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER? SO WHAT'S THE BENEFIT OF GOING TO AG VERSUS SF-7? HANG ON, MR. BROUNOFF. I'LL TURN YOUR MIC BACK ON.

OKAY. I THINK THE I THINK THE KEY TO A LOT OF THAT IS DO WE WANT TO JUST DEAL WITH JUST THIS ONE PARCEL AND KIND OF GET IT OUT OF, OF MULTIFAMILY OF MF ZONING, OR DO WE WANT TO DEAL WITH A BROADER SWATH OF THIS PROPERTY OUT THERE? BECAUSE IF WE GO TO SF-7, THEN THEN WE'RE IN ISOLATED SF-7 WITH AG AROUND US.

SO IF YOU'RE GOING TO DO SF-7, AT LEAST TO ME, THAT MEANS WE REALLY NEED TO DEAL WITH THIS WHOLE QUADRANT AS OPPOSED TO IF WE JUST RETURN THIS TO AG, THEN IT'S GOT AG AROUND IT AND IT'S A PLACEHOLDER FOR SOMETHING IN THE FUTURE, AND WE CAN DO THAT WITH JUST THE CITY OWNED PROPERTY.

DOES THAT MAKE SENSE? YEAH. TURN YOUR MICROPHONE BACK.

SO I AGREE THAT THAT WAS MY CONCERN IS I WAS KIND OF LEANING TOWARDS I THINK IT WAS NUMBER THREE OR WHATEVER WHERE WE WOULD LOOK AT, LOOK AT THE BROADER THING. AND BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY THE DEVELOPER WHEN, WHEN THEY BECAUSE THIS, THIS WAS THE ONE WHERE IF I REMEMBER CORRECTLY, THEY DID HAVE AN SF-7, THEY STRUGGLED WITH THAT.

THEY, THEY THEN CAME IN WITH A PDSF-7 AND THAT STILL DIDN'T WORK.

THEY STILL COULDN'T GET THE COST THEIR, THEIR PROFIT MARGINS TO WORK.

SO THAT THAT'S WHEN THEY FINALLY WENT TO THE MULTIFAMILY.

AND THEN THAT STILL DIDN'T WORK. SO COMBINING THIS TRACT AS A FORMER DEVELOPER MADE SENSE AS THEN WE CAN'T OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE THEY'RE STRUGGLING TO DEVELOP THIS LAND AS IS BECAUSE OF THE, THE THE FLOODPLAIN AND VARIOUS THINGS THAT ARE, THAT ARE PART OF THIS. SO TO SO COMBINING IT WITH OTHER SURROUNDING TRACTS IS NECESSARY IF WE'RE GOING TO EVER DEVELOP IT.

SO THAT'S WHY I WAS KIND OF LEANING TOWARDS THE THREE, BECAUSE IT JUST KIND OF MADE SENSE.

AND I HATE TO JUST LIKE, LET'S PUT IT ON PAUSE.

COULD WE CONCURRENTLY PAUSE IT AND EVEN START APPROACHING AND FILLING OUT THE NEIGHBORS SO THAT YOU CAN KIND OF DO THREE AND MAYBE WE CHANGE IT TO AG, BUT BUT GO AHEAD AND GET AHEAD OF IT A LITTLE BIT SO THAT WE CAN SEE HOW THE NEIGHBORS FEEL ABOUT AN OVERALL ZONING AT SOME POINT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION ALSO FOR STAFF, BECAUSE SOMEBODY'S GOT TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS AND GET THEM AT THE TABLE AND NEGOTIATE AND AND THEN WE'RE PILING MORE ON THE STAFF'S PLATE TO BE REAL ESTATE NEGOTIATORS AS WELL.

[00:50:06]

YEAH, I'M WITH YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

YES. NO. THERE'S SIGNIFICANT FLOODPLAIN AND DRAINAGE ISSUES AFFECTING THE EASTERN LARGE EASTERN PORTION OF THIS, OF THIS SUBJECT PROPERTY. I REMEMBER THAT WAS DISCUSSED WHEN IT CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION FOR THE MF.

I WAS NOT ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME, BUT I HAPPENED TO BE SITTING IN THE AUDIENCE AS AN OBSERVER, AND I WITNESSED THAT PARTICULAR MEETING.

AND THERE WAS A LOT OF DISCUSSION ABOUT THAT IN THE MF-1.

DEVELOPERS PURPORTED TO HAVE A PLAN TO DEAL WITH IT.

ULTIMATELY, THEY DIDN'T. AND I THINK IT WOULD BE A HUGE PRACTICAL OBSTACLE TO SF-7 DEVELOPMENT, AND I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT IT IN SF-7 UNLESS SOMEBODY CAME FORWARD AND SAYS, AND, YOU KNOW, WITH A PLAN THAT THAT TOOK THAT INTO ACCOUNT AND DEALT WITH IT IN SOME CONSTRUCTIVE MANNER.

SO I THINK SF-7 IS NOT PRACTICAL. I'D RATHER GO WITH AGRICULTURAL.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I DO LIKE THE IDEA OF DEALING WITH THIS AS A, AS A WHOLE QUADRANT, LOOKING AT IT AS AN ENTIRE AREA.

BUT I HAVE TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

AND, AND THE CHAIR, I THINK THE AG CLASSIFICATION DESIGNATION AND THE THOUGHTFULNESS OF ALLOWING THE REC TO CONTINUE TO, TO DO ITS THING MEETS BOTH OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING TO ACCOMPLISH HERE IN GETTING IT LONG TERM OUT OF THE MF DESIGNATION.

AND LOOKING HOLISTICALLY AT THIS PARTICULAR AREA AND WHAT OUR CITIZENS WANT AND NEED AS WELL AS WHAT THE COMMUNITY AS A WHOLE IS LOOKING FOR.

SO THAT'S MY KIND OF THOUGHT. COMMISSIONER ALALI.

ALSO, YOU LIKE MY QUESTION IS, YOU LIKE. THAT'S WHY I ASKED ABOUT THE PLATTED OR NOT.

DOESN'T IT FALL, LIKE, UNDER THE OVER FIVE ACRES? SO IF WE PUT IT UNDER AGRICULTURAL AND IT'S PLATTED, SO IT'S LIKE NOBODY'S GOING TO BUY IT AND DO IT MULTI-FAMILY, OR AM I MISTAKEN? YES. I THINK IF THE INTENT IS TO GET IT PLATTED, TO AVOID IT BECOMING DEVELOPED UNDER SP-15, THEN CITY PLANNING, IT WOULD ACCOMPLISH THAT.

BUT I THINK BECAUSE WE OWN IT AND WE CONTROL IT WE CAN DICTATE THE TERMS UNDER WHICH WE SELL IT.

AND SO THAT EXERCISE MAY NOT EVEN BE NECESSARY BECAUSE THAT'D BE DONE THROUGH THE CONTRACT NEGOTIATION.

OKAY. OKAY. THANKS. YEAH, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD QUESTION BECAUSE HAD IT, WAS IT IF IT WAS PRIVATELY OWNED YOU'D BE COMPLETELY ACCURATE.

BUT SINCE THE CITY OWNS IT, THEN OBVIOUSLY THEY'RE NOT GOING TO SELL IT FOR SOMEBODY TO DO SOMETHING WE DON'T WANT THEM TO DO. SO YEAH.

AT LEAST I WOULDN'T THINK SO. SO ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

AND I DO THINK THIS COMMISSION ASKING FOR IT TO BE MOVED INTO AGRICULTURAL IS MAKING THE STATEMENT THAT THE ZONING IS NOT WHERE WE WANT IT. SO I THINK THE COUNCIL AS WELL AS THE, THE CITY STAFF CAN IF SOMETHING COMES UP FOR NEGOTIATIONS RELATED TO THIS OUR PROCESS TODAY OF DISCUSSING AND WANTING TO MOVE IT INTO AGRICULTURAL MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE ZONING IS NOT WHAT WE WANT FOR THIS PARTICULAR AREA. PARCEL.

ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? I'LL TRY TO SUMMARIZE.

OTHERWISE, I THINK WHAT THE COMMISSION HAS SAID IS WE DEFINITELY DO NOT WANT TO LEAVE IT AS THE PD, MF, PD ZONING. IT IS OUR INTENT THAT IT SHOULD BE MOVED INTO AGRICULTURAL AS A PLACEHOLDER AND PUT ON THE WORK PLAN FOR THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. TO DO THAT AS STAFF RESOURCES ALLOW.

IS THAT FAIR? I GOT A LOT TO NODDING UP AND DOWN.

OKAY. AND I DON'T THINK WE NEED A MOTION OR ANYTHING FOR THAT, DO WE? IT'S JUST IT'S DISCUSSION AND DIRECTION ITEM. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING? NO, SIR. ALL RIGHT, WELL, THEN WE STAND ADJOURNED AT 6:54 P.M..

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.