1. (MC) Preliminary Plat: Haggard Farm Townhomes – 187 single-family residence attached lots and five common area lots on 18.8 acres located on the northwest corner of Spring Creek Parkway and Windhaven Parkway. Zoned Planned Development-51- Retail/General Office. Project #PP2025-009. Applicant: HEL Land LLC. (Legislative consideration of Subdivision Ordinance variance)

[1. (MC) Preliminary Plat: Haggard Farm Townhomes – 187 single-family residence attached lots and five common area lots on 18.8 acres located on the northwest corner of Spring Creek Parkway and Windhaven Parkway. Zoned Planned Development-51- Retail/General Office. Project #PP2025-009. Applicant: HEL Land LLC. (Legislative consideration of Subdivision Ordinance variance)]

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. 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 IS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. NONPUBLIC HEARING ITEMS PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

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

HAGGARD FARM TOWNHOMES. 187 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED LOTS ON FIVE COMMON AREA LOTS ON 18.8 ACRES LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF SPRING CREEK PARKWAY AND WINDHAVEN PARKWAY. ZONED PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 51 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE.

THE APPLICANT IS HEL LAND, LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE.

GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MOLLY CORREA, LEAD PLANNER FOR THE CITY OF PLANO.

THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY PLAT IS TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

IN SUBSECTION 5.2, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE RESTRICTS RESTRICTS RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS TO BE NO MORE THAN 1200 FEET AND 20 LOTS ON ONE SIDE OF A BLOCK FACE. THIS REQUIREMENT SERVES SEVERAL PURPOSES.

IT ALLOWS FOR ADEQUATE, IT ALLOWS ADEQUATE ACCESS FOR PUBLIC SAFETY TO ALL RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AS WELL AS ACCESS AND EASE OF USE FOR PUBLIC OPEN SPACE AREAS, AND IT ALLOWS RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS TO BE REASONABLY SCALED IN ORDER TO CREATE VISUAL BREAKS IN THE ENVIRONMENT. THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING A VARIANCE TONIGHT FOR BLOCKS A, B, AND F OF THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

THE COMMISSION IS ABLE TO CONSIDER A VARIANCE FOR THIS FOLLOWING THIS CRITERIA, WHICH I'LL GO ON TO EXPLAIN.

THE GRANTING OF THIS VARIANCE WILL NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO PUBLIC HEALTH, SAFETY OR WELFARE, OR INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTIES. BELOW YOU'LL SEE TWO IMAGES WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO ACCESS EASEMENTS IN THE BLOCKS ADJACENT TO BLOCKS A AS WELL AS BLOCK F.

[00:05:03]

THIS IS TO ALLOW ACCESS TO THE ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE AREAS FOR THOSE HAVING RESIDENTIAL LOTS THAT ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF THOSE BLOCKS IN ORDER FOR THEM TO HAVE MORE EASE OF ACCESS TO OPEN SPACE, WHICH IS BENEFICIAL TO HEALTH AND PUBLIC SAFETY.

ADDITIONALLY DUE TO THE IRREGULAR SHAPE OF THIS LOT, AS WELL AS OTHER SURROUNDING GEOGRAPHICAL ELEMENTS SUCH AS BEING AT THE CORNER OF TWO TYPE B THOROUGHFARES, WINDHAVEN SPRING CREEK PARKWAY, LOCATING ADDITIONAL DRIVEWAY ENTRIES THAT WOULD CREATE BREAKS IN THE BLOCKS WOULD BE DIFFICULT CONSIDERING ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

HAVING A ENTRY ON THAT BLUE ARROW ON THE IMAGE TO THE LEFT.

HAVING A DRIVEWAY THERE WOULD CREATE LIMITED DISTANCE BETWEEN PINEHAVEN AND THE MAIN SUBDIVISION ENTRY, WHICH I'VE HIGHLIGHTED ON THE IMAGE TO THE RIGHT.

HAVING A MAIN SUBDIVISION ENTRY WITH MORE OF A LONGER, WITH HAVING THE MAIN SUBDIVISION ENTRY BE A LONGER ENTRANCE IS BETTER FOR RESIDENTS IN ORDER TO ACCESS THE PROPERTY, AND THEN ADDITIONALLY ALONG SPRING CREEK, YOU'LL SEE THAT THERE WOULD IF THERE WERE TO BE A DRIVEWAY THERE FOR THE IMAGE TO THE LEFT, THAT A VISIBILITY EASEMENT WOULD BE NEEDED, AND THAT WOULD SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCE THE OR INCREASE THE REAR SETBACK OF THOSE PROPERTIES AND MAKE IT DIFFICULT TO DEVELOP THAT PROPERTY. SO THOSE ARE THE UNIQUE GEOGRAPHIC AND TOPIC.

THOSE ARE UNIQUE TO THE SITE. ADDITIONALLY, THE VARIANCE DOES NOT VARY ANY OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND AS I MENTIONED, IT IS OF IRREGULAR SHAPE BASED ON THOSE ISSUES.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT WITH A VARIANCE TO THE SUBSECTION 5.2.B.

0.6(A) OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE IN ORDER TO ALLOW BLOCKS A, B, AND F TO HAVE MORE THAN 20 UNITS ON ONE SIDE, AS SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY PLAT. THANK YOU. AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

OKAY, JUST JUST ONE QUESTION FROM ME. I READ IT IN THE REPORT, BUT I JUST WANT TO GET IT OUT VERBALLY AS WELL.

FIRE POLICE EMERGENCY SERVICES HAVE REVIEWED THIS.

THAT IS CORRECT. AND THEY'VE APPROVED THE. THANK YOU.

THE PLANS. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. THAT WAS GOING TO BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS.

THAT'S GOOD TO MAKE SURE THAT'S ON THERE. AND STATED FOR THE RECORD, BUT I NOTICED THAT SOME OF THE OPTIONS THAT WERE GIVEN I KNOW THIS MAY BE TOO CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION OF SPRING CREEK AND WINDHAVEN IS WHAT I HAVE A FEELING.

THAT MIGHT BE WHY THIS WASN'T POSSIBLE. BUT DID THEY EXPLORE EXTENDING THAT WHERE THAT EYEBROW IS AND HAVING IT GO PUNCH OUT TO SPRING CREEK? COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THE EYEBROW TO ME AGAIN? THE THE ANGLE THERE THAT THAT CORNER. RIGHT THERE AT THE MAIN CLOSEST TO THE CORNER OF SPRING CREEK AND WINDHAVEN.

YOU SEE HOW IT TURNS? AND YOU HAVE ALL THOSE FLAG LOTS? YES. SO IF THEY EXTENDED THAT STREET INSTEAD OF HAVING FLAG LOTS, THEY WOULD THEY WOULD JUST, YOU KNOW, FACE THE STREET ALL THE WAY THROUGH. IS THAT DID THEY EXPLORE THAT IN ANY WAY TO.

I KNOW THAT'S GOING TO PUT THAT DRIVE BASICALLY.

RIGHT. I MEAN, THAT'S CLOSE TO THE INTERSECTION.

THAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM IS THAT THERE'S A SEPARATION DISTANCE BETWEEN STREETS.

AND SO THERE'S NOWHERE YOU CAN FIT AN EXTRA STREET. ALONG SPRING CREEK BECAUSE OF ITS BASED ON SPEED IN THIS LOCATION.

THAT'S WHAT I WAS FIGURING. THAT WAS THE CASE, BUT I WANTED TO AT LEAST POINT THAT OUT. AND AND I THOUGHT MAYBE THERE'S AN EXCEPTION FOR A PRIVATE DRIVE, BUT BUT YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I SUSPECTED.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER ALALI? WELL, LIKE THE ACCELERATION LANE, SOLVE THIS PROBLEM, IF THEY ADD? THE. BECAUSE YOU CAN. FOR. RIGHT. FOR WHICH, FOR THE ONE ALONG SPRING CREEK OR THE ONE.

ALONG SPRING CREEK. HAVING A DECELERATION LANE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

YOU'D LIKE TO ACCESS. I THINK THE ISSUE HERE IS THE WE NEED A BREAK IN THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT ARE CONTINUOUS.

AND SO EVEN IF HAVING A DECELERATION LANE THAT WOULD NOT THAT WOULD NOT ALLOW THEM TO HAVE THE STREET CONNECTION BECAUSE THEY STILL NEED THE SEPARATION BETWEEN.

IT WILL GIVE THEM SOME SOME ROOM TO OPEN UP MORE DRIVES INTO IT RIGHT? IT IS BASED ON POSTED SPEED LIMITS FROM STREET TO STREET.

AND THEN DECELERATION LANES ARE REQUIRED BASED ON THE NUMBER OF VEHICLES GOING IN OR OUT.

[00:10:01]

THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE REQUIREMENTS. OKAY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU, MR. BROUNOFF. THANK YOU. I WAS JUST WONDERING WHAT WAS THE PROCESS BY WHICH SUCH AN UNUSUALLY SHAPED LOT WAS CREATED? SO THE THERE WAS AN INITIAL CONCEPT PLAN APPROVED FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT.

YOU KNOW, I APOLOGIZE. COMMISSIONER. BROUNOFF. YES.

SO THERE IS THIS WAS A LARGE PIECE OF PROPERTY.

THEY HAVE SINCE DEVELOPED ON THE WESTERN PORTION OF THIS.

THERE IS A HOUSEHOLD CARE FACILITY WHICH IS A MIX OF INDEPENDENT LIVING AND ASSISTED LIVING.

THE REMAINDER OF THIS IS AS A CONCEPT PLAN FOR OFFICE THAT WAS APPROVED IN 2021, I BELIEVE.

AND THEY'RE TAKING A PORTION OF THAT OFFICE AND DEVELOPING IT WITH TOWNHOMES ALLOWED BY THE ZONING.

SO THIS KIND OF NORTHERN WING THAT YOU SEE IN THE PICTURE ON THE LEFT IS BASED ON DESIGN CHOICES.

THE PICTURE ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT'S LEFT AFTER WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT FOR THE HOUSEHOLD CARE FACILITY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER OLLEY. JUST ONE. JUST TO MAKE SURE I'M READING THE MAP CORRECTLY.

THAT MAIN SUBDIVISION ENTRY IS THE ONLY CONNECTION TO SPRING CREEK.

AND IT FEEDS THE LACK OF A BETTER WORD. THE HANDLE OF THE AX IS THE WAY I THINK OF IT.

SO YES, THE ONE OFF OF SPRING CREEK IS THE MAIN SUBDIVISION ENTRY.

THERE ARE ENTRIES TO THE SUBDIVISION ALONG PINE HAVEN TO THE NORTH.

THAT WOULD BE A THAT WOULD BE THE MAIN SUBDIVISION ENTRY, BECAUSE THAT IS EXPECTED TO BE UTILIZED LESS, AS OPPOSED TO SPRING CREEK, WHERE A LOT OF CARS ARE DRIVING IN AND OUT.

AND THEN THERE IS ANOTHER SHARED CONNECTION TO THE ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

ON THE EDGE THERE IS OR NO, I APOLOGIZE. BUT YES, THERE'S THERE'S TWO ENTRANCES TO THE SUBDIVISION. SO THE TOP OF THE AX RIGHT THERE IS ONE, AND THAT MAIN IS THE SECOND ONE. YES. THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU. LET ME CLARIFY THAT BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME ON THE SITE PLAN, THERE'S ACTUALLY THREE. THERE'S ONE ON WINDHAVEN, ONE ON SPRING CREEK AND THEN ONE AT THE HANDLE OF THE AX.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT. THANK YOU, CHAIR RATLIFF.

SORRY, I WAS KIND OF SQUINTING. BUT YES, THERE IS THERE IS ANOTHER SUBDIVISION ENTRY ON THE FAR NORTH SIDE, ONE AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND ONE MID MID POINT ALONG SPRING CREEK ALONG SPRING CREEK.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. SO THERE'S THREE POINTS OF ACCESS. THERE'S THREE POINTS OF ACCESS I APOLOGIZE. OKAY. NO PROBLEM. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WASN'T READING THE DRAWINGS.

RIGHT. COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU. QUICK QUESTION ABOUT THE, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE DIFFICULTIES OF SEPARATING THE UNITS.

I UNDERSTAND THE MAIN STREET, AND WE CAN ADD MORE ACCESS TO THE COMMUNITY FROM THE MAIN STREET.

BUT WHAT WAS THE DIFFICULTIES THAT PREVENTING THE UNITS TO HAVE SMALLER CHUNKS AND THEN ADD MAYBE A, LIKE A PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY BETWEEN THEM SO THAT IT DOESN'T HAVE 20 UNITS ALL TOGETHER IN ONE BUILDING? THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG. SO THERE ARE TWO PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS IN THE ADJACENT BLOCKS TO ALLOW ACCESS. HOWEVER, THAT'S NOT CONSIDERED A BREAK IN THE BLOCK.

THERE ARE BREAKS BETWEEN BUILDINGS THAT WILL ONLY SO MANY UNITS CAN BE CONNECTED BEFORE THERE HAS TO BE A BREAK IN THE BLOCKS.

HOWEVER, THERE IS NOW AVAILABLE ACCESS EASEMENTS FOR PROPOSED PEDESTRIAN PATHWAYS FOR THE SITE.

HOWEVER IF YOU'RE ASKING ABOUT BLOCKS, BREAKS ALONG BLOCK A AND BLOCK F AND WHY THOSE COULD NOT BE PROVIDED THAT WOULD BE A QUESTION BETTER SUITED FOR THE APPLICANT WHO'S AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. OLLEY. ONE OTHER WELL, TWO OTHER QUESTIONS.

ONE MORE FOR EDUCATION FOR ALL OF US AND PEOPLE LISTENING.

WHAT IS THE THE REQUIREMENT OF 20 LOTS OR 1200 FEET.

WHAT'S THE BASIS OF THAT? WHAT'S WHAT ARE WHAT ARE WE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH WHEN WE PUT IN THAT IN THE ORDINANCE? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER OLLEY. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUIREMENT IS TO ALLOW ACCESS, PROPER ACCESS FOR ALL THE RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

SO USUALLY WHEN THERE'S MORE BREAKS IN A BLOCK FACE OR BLOCKS ARE SMALLER THAN 1200 FEET OR HAVE FEWER THAN 20 UNITS,

[00:15:02]

THAT ALLOWS FOR MORE ACCESS POINTS, MORE STREET CONNECTIONS.

AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, THAT'S SUPPOSED TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS AND OPEN SPACE AREAS.

AND IT DOES OFFER VISUAL BREAKS AS WELL TO THE ENVIRONMENT.

SO THAT'S THE INTENT OF THE LANGUAGE. GOTCHA.

AND EVEN IF WE GRANT THE VARIANCE HERE, WE'RE GRANTING A VARIANCE ON THE LOTS, CONTINUOUS LOTS.

BUT NONE OF THE CONTINUOUS LOTS VIOLATE THE 1200 FEET BLOCK FACE.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? SEEING NONE, I THINK WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS THEY WANT TO ASK THE APPLICANT? NOBODY. DOES THE APPLICANT WISH TO MAKE A PRESENTATION? YOU STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. YES, SIR. IT'S COLE HENLEY WITH STILLWATER CAPITAL.

2515 MCKINNEY AVENUE. I DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION PREPARED.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS AS THEY COME UP. COMMISSIONERS.

COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. JUST OUT OF CURIOSITY AND JUST TRYING TO LOOK AT THE THE THE PLAT HERE.

ARE YOU INTENDING, LIKE, SIX LOTS PER BUILDING? IS THAT HOW IS THAT HOW IT'S DIVIDED. SO THERE'LL BE BREAKS EVERY EVERY SIX, SIX.

IT'S ANYWHERE BETWEEN 3 AND 6. YES, SIR. OKAY.

BECAUSE I WAS, I WAS SEEING HOW THE LOTS KIND OF IT KIND OF WENT ONE, TWO, THREE. THERE WAS SIX OF THEM.

AND YOU COULD SEE THE ENDS THAT ARE A LITTLE WIDER, WHICH WOULD IMPLY THAT THERE'S THERE'S A BREAK. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE I WAS CORRECT THERE. OKAY. OKAY. COMMISSIONERS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ANYBODY? ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPRECIATE IT.

ALL RIGHT. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING BECAUSE IT'S A PRELIMINARY PLAT.

SO BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS EITHER.

SO COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER. OLLEY. OH, SORRY.

BRONSKY. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY I MOVE, WE APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY. I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

[Items 2A & 2B]

ITEM 2.A AND 2.B. LET'S READ THOSE TOGETHER, PLEASE.

EXCELLENT. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. A REQUEST TO REZONE 14.6 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE JOAB BUTLER SURVEY.

ABSTRACT NUMBER 46, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD, 1250FT NORTH OF MERRIMAN DRIVE, THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS, FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. 173 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 6.

THIS ITEM WAS TABLED NOVEMBER 17TH, 2025. PETITIONERS MEADOWS BAPTIST CHURCH, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO, B MEADOWS, BROOK ADDITION AND MEADOWS BAPTIST CHURCH, ADDITION BLOCK ONE, LOT ONE ARE 58 SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, SIX LOTS, TWO COMMON AREA LOTS, AND A RELIGIOUS FACILITY ON ONE LOT ON 27.3 ACRES.

LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD AND MERRIMAN DRIVE.

ZONED. PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 173. ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ALSO.

TABLE NOVEMBER 17TH, 2025. THE APPLICANT IS MEADOWS BAPTIST CHURCH.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO TABLE BOTH TO THE FEBRUARY 2ND, 2026 COMMISSION MEETING.

GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION. THE APPLICANT IS, AS MR. MENESSES JUST STATED, REQUESTING TO PETITION TABLE THE ZONING CASE TO FEBRUARY 2ND, 2026, IN ORDER TO HAVE MORE TIME TO REFINE THE CONCEPT PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE ZONING REQUEST.

AFTER MEETING WITH NEARBY PROPERTY OWNERS, I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. COMMISSION.

ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER ALALI. DID WE GET ANY RESPONSES REGARDING THIS ZONING CASE FROM THE NEIGHBORS, LIKE IN YOUR RESPONSES? WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE, BUT WE DON'T COLLECT ALL THOSE AND PREPARE THEM WHEN THERE'S A REQUEST TO TABLE.

WHEN IT COMES BACK AGAIN AT THE NEXT MEETING, WE'LL HAVE THAT UPDATED INFORMATION FOR YOU.

OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING THAT'S BEEN POSTED, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND WE DO HAVE REGISTERED SPEAKERS, AND I WILL TELL ANYBODY WHO'S REGISTERED.

SPEAKER, YOU ARE WELCOME TO SPEAK TONIGHT. I KNOW WE ARE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING, IF YOU WOULD PREFER, AND WAIT UNTIL IT COMES UP FOR CONSIDERATION.

THAT IS CERTAINLY YOUR CHOICE. SO WE WILL CALL EACH ONE OF YOU.

IT IS UP TO YOU WHETHER YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK TONIGHT OR WHETHER HOLD YOUR COMMENTS FOR THE NEXT MEETING. SO IF YOU PLEASE, CALL THE SPEAKERS. FIRST REGISTERED SPEAKER IS PHILIP LANGLEY, FOLLOWED BY JOHN MARLOWE AND JOHN JACOBSON.

[00:20:05]

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. PHILIP LANGLEY, 3927 RANCH ESTATE CIRCLE.

GOOD EVENING. COMMISSION. I APOLOGIZE FOR MY POTENTIAL NERVOUSNESS. FIRST TIME EVER APPEARING HERE.

I UNDERSTAND THIS HAS BEEN TABLED, BUT I DID WANT TO BRING A FEW NOTES.

FIRST AND FOREMOST, THANK YOU TO THE COMMISSION FOR ALL THAT YOU CURRENTLY DO AND TO THE WISDOM OF THE THE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS FOR CLEARLY LAYING OUT TO WHAT I SEE AS A TRANSITION PLAN FROM STATE DEVELOPMENT TO URBAN ZONING, ALL THE WAY DOWN TO SF SIX.

FOR A NEOPHYTE LIKE ME, FINDING THAT ON THE WEBSITE WAS VERY SIMPLE, VERY EASY TO GO THROUGH, AND I APPRECIATE THE SUCCINCTNESS OF THAT. I DID WANT TO STATE THAT AS OF TODAY, THERE'S 99 RESIDENTS OPPOSED, SIX FOR THIS. SO I THINK THAT MIGHT HAVE ASKED THE QUESTION ABOUT RESPONSES.

I HAVE THE SECOND LONGEST PROPERTY LINE ADJACENT TO THE ACREAGE THAT IS IN CONSIDERATION HERE.

I RECENTLY BOUGHT THE PROPERTY, DID NOT RECEIVE NOTICE ABOUT THE CHANGE, BUT I DID THE RESEARCH AGAIN CONSISTENT WITH THE WEBSITE AND WAS PRETTY COMFORTABLE WITH THE PLANNING THAT THE CITY HAS PUT FORTH TO TRANSITION FROM ESTATE DEVELOPMENT TO SEMI RURAL TO URBAN USE.

OKAY. I BELIEVE THE CURRENT PROPOSED PLAN LEAPFROGS SEMI-RURAL AND GOES STRAIGHT FROM ESTATE DEVELOPMENT TO URBAN USE.

AND HOPEFULLY WE'LL SEE A CHANGE IN THAT AS IT COMES FORTH IN FEBRUARY, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE ON RECORD OF THANKING THE COMMISSION AGAIN FOR WHAT YOU DO.

THANK YOU FOR THE THE EXCUSE ME SUCCINCTNESS AND CLARITY OF WHAT IS IN THE CURRENT CODE TODAY.

IT MAKES IT VERY EASY FOR ME TO UNDERSTAND AND FOLLOW.

THIS IS MY FOURTH DECADE LIVING IN PLANO. I LOVE BEING HERE, I LOVE MY NEW PROPERTY AND I WANT TO HELP FACILITATE DEVELOPMENT.

BUT CONSISTENT WITH WHAT YOU ALL HAVE IN MIND AND WHAT YOUR PREDECESSORS HAD IN MIND.

SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. LANGLEY. MR. MARLOW, IS THAT RIGHT? NEXT SPEAKER IS JOHN MARLOW, FOLLOWED BY JOHN JACOBSON AND THEN DAVID KEITH.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN MARLOW. ADDRESS 3801 NUTWOOD LANE, PLANO, TEXAS.

I AM THE HOA PRESIDENT FOR STONY HOLLOW RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION.

WE I GOT DRAFTED INTO THIS, I APOLOGIZE. NORMALLY I WOULD COME IN AND COAT AND TIE, BUT I JUST CAME FROM THE RANCH AND I WAS ASKED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF THE HOA. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR ALL OF OUR 605 HOMES, JUST THE MAJORITY THAT HAVE CONTACTED US.

WE HAVE SEVERAL CONCERNS ABOUT THIS DEVELOPMENT.

FIRST OF ALL, IN THE FACT THAT A NUMBER OF OUR RESIDENTS ON THE EAST SIDE PURCHASED THERE FOR THE PURPOSE OF HAVING MORE OF AN ESTATE TYPE ENVIRONMENT, AND IN THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT, REDUCING DOWN THE LOT SIZES FROM TWO ACRE LOTS DOWN, CONTINUING DOWN TO WHERE YOU'VE GOT MAYBE ZONE SIX TO ZONE SEVEN LOTS.

THAT GOES AGAINST OUR FUNDAMENTAL PURPOSE FOR BEING THERE.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, WE HAVE VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT RECENT DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE SHOWN TRENDS IN OVER LOADING OUR SCHOOLS.

HICKEY ELEMENTARY IS A GOOD EXAMPLE. WE'VE JUST HAD A SCHOOL SHUT DOWN ABOUT 80 TO 100 STUDENTS PUT INTO THAT OVERTAXING BOTH THE FACILITIES AND THE STAFF. LIKEWISE, TRAFFIC BEING DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM PECK HIGH SCHOOL, ADDING TO THE FACT THAT THESE HOMES WOULD PROBABLY HAVE YOUNG FAMILIES IN THEM. ADDING TO THE ELEMENTARY ISSUE FOR OUR 605 HOMES, TRYING TO GET OUT OF OUR DEVELOPMENT IN A MORNING AND GET BACK IN IN THE EVENING.

THAT CONFLICTS WITH SCHOOL HOURS AND PEOPLE HAVE VERY, VERY SERIOUS CONCERNS ABOUT THAT.

SO THEY WANTED IT VOICED EARLY ON ABOUT THAT, AND WE FELT AS THOUGH PROPER CONSIDERATION HADN'T BEEN GIVEN TO THOSE ELEMENTS. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR MY ASSOCIATION? GOOD. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME.

NEXT UP IS JOHN JACOBSON, FOLLOWED BY DAVID KEITH.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN JACOBSON. I LIVE AT 3916 RIDGETOP LANE, PLANO, TEXAS.

ON THAT GRAPHIC THERE, I'M THE LAW JUST TO THE WEST OF THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPOSED PROPERTY.

ONE OF MY WIFE AND I BOUGHT OUR LOT IN THE EARLY 90S.

THERE WAS NOTHING TO THE NORTH OF US. WE CHECKED WITH THE CITY OF PLANO, PLANNING TO DISCOVER WHAT THE PLAN WAS FOR THOSE HAY FIELDS, AND WE WERE SATISFIED WITH WHAT THE CITY HAD DONE.

[00:25:04]

AND TO THEIR CREDIT, THEY HAD DEVELOPED THOSE LOTS AS ZONED.

NOW IN MORE RECENT TIMES, IF YOU LOOK AT THIS MAP, THE MORMON CHURCH, WHICH IS JUST NORTH OF THIS PROPERTY ADJACENT TO IT, WANTED TO TAKE PART OF ITS PROPERTY AND MAKE IT FOR SEVERAL SMALL HOUSES, VERY SMALL LOTS.

THE CITY RIGHTFULLY SAID THAT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THIS AREA OF DEVELOPMENT.

THEY DECLINED IT. THE END RESULT WAS YOU HAVE THAT LOT ON THAT CUL DE SAC, WHICH IS ANOTHER TRANSITIONAL LOT.

IF YOU LOOK FURTHER THERE, THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL HAS RECENTLY BEEN SOLD AND THAT HAS BEEN REZONED AND THAT HAS BEEN REZONED FOR LARGER LOTS AS WELL. SF NINE, SF TEN KIND OF LOTS.

THE REASON I BRING THIS UP IS THIS SF SIX, THAT OR SF SEVEN THAT'S BEING PROPOSED DOES NOT FIT THIS AREA.

AND THE CITY IN THE PAST HAS CONSISTENTLY REJECTED SUCH EFFORTS AND I WOULD LIKE TO SEE LARGER LOTS HERE.

LESS DENSITY. AND AS THE STONY HOLLOW REPRESENTATIVE MENTIONED, THE CURRENT PLAN WITH 58 HOMES THERE WOULD MEAN ON AVERAGE MAYBE ANOTHER 116 OR MORE CARS IN THAT AREA.

IF YOU LOOK RIGHT ACROSS THAT PROPERTY, YOU HAVE THE PESH STUDENT PARKING LOT, WHICH CAN HANDLE SEVERAL HUNDRED CARS. OKAY. NOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT INTERSECTION OF MERRIMAN AND LOS RIOS FOR A LONG TIME, THAT WAS A FOUR WAY STOP. IN THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THE CITY HAS RECOGNIZED THAT THERE'S AN INCREASE IN TRAFFIC IN.

30S, SIR. AND HAVE SINCE REPLACED THAT WITH TRAFFIC LIGHTS.

PUTTING ALL THOSE HOUSES THERE IS ONLY GOING TO CREATE MORE OF A TRAFFIC ISSUE THERE.

TRAFFIC ISSUE NOT JUST FOR THE STATE DEVELOPMENT, BUT PLANO RESIDENTS AS WELL AS OTHER USERS IN THE AREA.

ANY QUESTIONS? THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

THE FINAL SPEAKER IS DAVID KEITH. I SHOW MR. LANGLEY ON MY LIST AS WELL.

I'M SORRY. I DID IT TWICE. OKAY. OKAY. OH, OH, YOU ARE ON THERE TWICE.

SORRY. OKAY. I WAS JUST READING IN CONSECUTIVE ORDERS, SO.

HELLO. I'M DAVID KEITH, 39, 35 RANCH ESTATES, AND I'M GOING TO TALK NEXT.

NEXT. PUT OFF TALKING TILL NEXT TIME. WE'VE BEEN TALKING BACK AND FORTH WITH THE DEVELOPER AND THE CHURCH ON ALTERING THEIR PLAN. AND SO I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING OTHER THAN WAITING.

OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? NO, SIR. OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMISSION.

I'D LIKE TO ASK COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I'D LIKE TO ASK.

I'D LIKE TO ASK STAFF A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS, JUST TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ON THE RIGHT PAGE HERE.

SO I'M PRETTY CERTAIN THAT WE'RE GOING TO GET A LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL BOARD TELLING US THE STATUS OF HICKEY AND HOW THAT THIS MIGHT IMPACT THEM AS WE NORMALLY GET.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND I'M NOT SURE THE SIZE OF THIS MERITS IT, BUT WILL WE SEE SOME TYPE OF TRAFFIC IMPACT STUDY OR ANYTHING RELATED TO THAT, AS WAS BROUGHT UP IN MR. BELL? CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT A TI WAS NOT REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

HOWEVER, THERE WILL BE A SECTION ABOUT TRAFFIC IMPACT IN THE STAFF REPORT PROVIDED.

PERFECT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. OLLEY. NOT A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

I DON'T KNOW IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, BUT I WANTED TO JUST GET A.

WHEN WE ASKED THEM TO GO BACK, WE ASKED THEM TO OPEN UP COMMUNICATION WITH THE NEIGHBORS.

I WANT TO GET A STATUS OF SOME KIND OF EFFORT.

WHAT HAS HAPPENED? BECAUSE I'M HEARING CONFLICTING.

SOME NEIGHBORS SAID THEY DIDN'T GET NOTICE OR THEY'VE NOT GOTTEN RICH OUT.

SOME OTHER NEIGHBORS SEEM TO HAVE REACHED OUT TO.

DO WE HAVE THAT ANSWER OR? WE DO KNOW THAT THEY HELD ANOTHER NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING, WE PROVIDED THEM WITH A LIST OF ADDRESSES THAT WOULD RECEIVE THE MAILED NOTICE FROM THE CITY. BUT WHO ELSE SENT THE NOTICES? WHO ELSE SEND THE INVITES TO? I DON'T HAVE THAT INFORMATION. I WON'T, I BELIEVE IF I UNDERSTOOD MR..

[00:30:05]

LANGLEY CORRECTLY, HE HAD BOUGHT THE HOUSE RECENTLY.

SO WE UPDATE OUR TAX ROLLS, I BELIEVE QUARTERLY.

SO IT COULD BE THAT OUR TAX ROLL WASN'T UPDATED.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. BROUNOFF. IS THE APPLICANT HERE BY ANY CHANCE OR REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT? BRIGGS MORGAN. I'M A CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE DEVELOPER.

660 606 NORTH CENTRAL AVENUE. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON COMMISSIONER ALALI'S QUESTION.

I WAS THINKING ALONG THE SAME LINES. HAVE YOU HELD MEETINGS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS, AND IF SO, DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU'RE ON THE PATH TOWARD REACHING A CONSENSUS WITH THE PROPERTY OWNERS? I KNOW THAT THE DEVELOPER HAD A MEETING HOSTED AT THE CHURCH WITH RANCH ESTATES.

AND ARE YOU STILL FAR APART OR ARE YOU GETTING CLOSER? NO. WE'RE GOOD. YEAH. WE WE SUBMITTED A CONCEPT PLAN ALREADY TO PLANNING AND THEY WERE REVIEWING IT RIGHT NOW.

OKAY. BECAUSE I'M STILL HEARING OPPOSITION. YEAH.

I DO NOT KNOW ABOUT STONEBRIAR. STONEBROOK. OKAY, WELL, I GUESS WE'LL JUST HAVE TO DEAL WITH IT WHEN IT COMES.

THANK YOU. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? AS LONG AS HE'S AT THE MICROPHONE. YEAH. THANK YOU.

NOBODY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSION. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF OR. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

I MOVE ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO THE. I HAD IT FOR A SECOND.

I LOST IT. TO THE FEBRUARY 2ND, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY. YEAH, THIS WE HAVE TWO SEPARATE MOTIONS.

SO THIS WILL BE 2.A. RIGHT. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0.

RIGHT. ITEM 2.B. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I MOVE, I KEEP HITTING YOUR LIGHT AFTER YOU HIT IT.

SORRY. WE'RE HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES WITH MY BUTTON ALTOGETHER, SO I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA.

I'M SORRY, I MOVE, WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM 2.B TO THE FEBRUARY 2ND, 2026 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MR. BENDER. SECOND THE MOTION. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BRONSKY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BENDER.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING OUT THIS EVENING.

WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU AGAIN NEXT MONTH. ALL RIGHT.

[Items 3A & 3B]

ITEM THREE. DO YOU LIKE ME TO READ ITEM 3.A AND 3.B TOGETHER? YES, PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3.A IS A REQUEST TO EXPAND AND AMEND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 539 FOR NEW CAR DEALER ON TWO LOTS ON 29.7 ACRES. LOCATED AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PARKWOOD BOULEVARD AND SPRING CREEK PARKWAY, ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 539 FOR NEW CAR DEALER AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS.

PETITIONERS, VHC LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3B, AMERIPLAN BLOCK A LOT 1R NEW VEHICLE DEALER AND PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON ONE LOT ON 6.1 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARKWOOD BOULEVARD AND DEMOCRACY DRIVE.

ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT AND LOCATED WITHIN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT.

THE APPLICANT IS 5700 DEMOCRACY PLANO PROPERTIES, LLC.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 3.A.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND AND EXPAND AN EXISTING SUP S539, IN ORDER TO INCLUDE A ADDITIONAL PORTION OF LAND TO AN EXISTING NEW CAR DEALERSHIP. HERE IS THE AREA. FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS PRESENTATION TONIGHT, I'LL BE REFERRING TO LOT A AND LOT B. LOT A IS THE EXISTING NEW VEHICLE DEALER THAT'S ALREADY A PART OF THE SCP BOUNDARY.

LOT B IS THE REQUESTED EXPANSION TO THE AREA, WHICH IS WHERE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO HAVE THE INCIDENTAL ACCESSORY USE FOR THE MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR THAT WILL SERVE THE NEW CAR DEALERSHIP.

THE OPERATIONS PROPOSED HAVE THE TRADITIONAL DEALERSHIP WHERE YOU HAVE CUSTOMERS ON SITE LOOKING TO BUY CARS, ALL HOSTED ON LOT A, AND THEN LOT B WILL BE WHERE THE MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR AND ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES FOR THE DEALERSHIP THAT SERVE LOT A

[00:35:06]

WILL BE LOCATED. SO IT'S ALL UNDER ONE NEW CAR DEALERSHIP.

SO THE CIRCULATION FOR THE BUSINESS WILL BE AS FOLLOWS.

WHERE CUSTOMERS WILL LEAVE VEHICLES AT LOT A FOR ANY SORT OF MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR.

THE EMPLOYEES WILL TRANSPORT THE VEHICLES TO LOT B IN ORDER TO HAVE SERVICE AND REPAIR PERFORMED ON THEM.

AND THEN ASSOCIATED WITH THIS IS A REVISED SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS THE PROPOSED DRIVEWAY CONNECTION BETWEEN LOT A AND LOT B IN ORDER TO SERVE THESE OPERATIONS. SO YOU'LL SEE HERE HERE'S LOT B WITH THE EXISTING OFFICE BUILDING WITH ROLL UP DOORS.

THE GREEN AREA AT THE BOTTOM LEFT PORTION OF THE IMAGE IS WHERE THE PROPOSED SERVICE DRIVE IS.

YOU'LL SEE THE LOT LINE SHOWING WHERE LOT A AND LOT B ARE DIVIDED.

HERE ARE THE PROPOSED STIPULATIONS, OF WHICH I HAVE A SUMMARY ON THE NEXT SLIDE.

THERE ARE THREE STIPULATIONS. TOTAL. THE FIRST STIPULATION IS A MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING STIPULATION FOR SPECIAL SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 539. IT'S SIMPLY MODIFYING THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE EDGE ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE TO ALLOW A BREAK IN THE LANDSCAPING IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE FOR THE SERVICE DRIVE.

THE SECOND STIPULATION APPLIES WHEN THERE IS A NEW VEHICLE DEALER ON LOT B, AND IT SAYS THAT THE DEALER MUST BE SUBORDINATE AND RELATED TO THE EXISTING DEALER ON LOT A, ESSENTIALLY SAYING THAT THE DEALERSHIP HAS TO BE ONE DEALERSHIP AS A WHOLE.

YOU CAN'T HAVE MULTIPLE DEALERSHIPS AS ASSOCIATED WITH THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

IT ALSO PROHIBITS VEHICLE INVENTORY FOR SALE AND SERVICE BAYS FACING THE STREET, AND IT REQUIRES A LANDSCAPE SCREEN ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE IN ORDER TO ALLOW SCREENING BETWEEN THOSE PROPERTIES. ADDITIONALLY, THE THIRD STIPULATION APPLIES TO BOTH LOTS AS LONG AS LOT B IS A NEW VEHICLE DEALER USE, AND IT LIMITS THE ACCESSORY MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR TO 24000FT² FOR THE ENTIRE SUP BOUNDARY, WHICH IS 10% OR LESS OF THE COMBINED BUILDING AREA FOR BOTH LOTS, WHICH IS MEETS OUR DEFINITION FOR AN ACCESSORY USE THAT IS INCIDENTAL TO THE MAIN USE.

THIS PROPERTY IS WITHIN THE EMPLOYMENT CENTER'S FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY.

ULTIMATELY, OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS NEUTRAL.

HOWEVER, ELEMENTS OF THE PROPOSAL DO MEET THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, NAMELY THE MIX OF USES HAVE THE LOT BE REMAINING AS OFFICE BASED ON THE AMOUNT OF OFFICE CURRENTLY OPERATING ON THAT SITE. AND IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING USE PATTERN ALONG PARKWOOD BOULEVARD.

HOWEVER, NEW CAR DEALERSHIPS ARE NOT CONSIDERED AN EMPLOYMENT GENERATING USE, SO IT DOES NOT MEET SOME OF THE PRIORITIES OF THE EMPLOYMENT CENTERS LAND USE CATEGORY, WHICH WE SAY, WHICH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REMAINS NEUTRAL TO.

THERE WERE NO RESPONSES RECEIVED WITHIN 200FT OF THE PROPOSED OF THE NOTICE AREA.

HOWEVER, CITYWIDE, WE RECEIVED TWO RESPONSES ONLINE, ONE IN SUPPORT AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.

AGAIN, THE PURPOSE OF THIS ZONING CASE IS TO EXPAND EXISTING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 539 FOR A NEW VEHICLE DEALER TO INCLUDE LOT B IN ORDER TO SERVE AN INCIDENTAL MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR USE TO THE EXISTING NEW CAR DEALERSHIP ON LOT A.

STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED FOR ITEM 3.B AND THEN FOR ITEM 3.A, WE ARE RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED SUBJECT OR SORRY, WE'RE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL SUBJECT AS SUBMITTED.

AND THEN FOR ITEM 3.B, THE REVISED SITE PLAN WE'RE RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE ASSOCIATED ZONING CASE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE AS WELL. JUST A CLARIFICATION BECAUSE I KNOW YOU SAID THIS, BUT I JUST WANT TO REPEAT IT FOR CLARITY. SO LOT TWO OR LOT B CAN ONLY BE USED FOR THIS PURPOSE AS LONG AS IT'S ASSOCIATED WITH LOT A, IT COULD NOT BE SOLD OFF SEPARATELY AND REPURPOSED.

THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND LOT B CANNOT BE USED FOR ANY KIND OF SALES DISPLAY OUT FRONT.

IT'S PURELY AS AN AUXILIARY USE TO LOT A. THAT IS CORRECT.

OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? COMMISSIONER OLLEY. JUST WANT TO CONTINUE DOWN THE PATH OF COMMISSIONER RATLIFF.

THEY ARE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES IN LOT B. BUT THOSE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICES ARE NOT PERTINENT TO

[00:40:10]

THIS DEALER SALES. NO. SO THOSE THE APPLICANT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BE MORE DESCRIPTIVE, BUT THOSE OFFICES WILL NOT BE USED IN ORDER TO HAVE CUSTOMERS OVER THERE TO DISCUSS ANY SORT OF PURCHASE OF THE VEHICLE.

THAT WILL ALSO BE DONE ON LOT A, LOT B HAS OTHER ANCILLARY USES, AND ADDITIONALLY THERE ARE SOME OFFICE USES ON THAT LOT THAT ARE NOT RELATED TO THE DEALERSHIP STILL OPERATING THERE TODAY. OKAY.

SECOND QUESTION. THE LOTS ARE UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP.

I PRESUME. THEY ARE UNDER COMMON OWNERSHIP. OKAY.

OR MR. BELL. THEY'RE NOT THE SAME OWNERS ACCORDING TO THE TAX ROLL, BUT THEY ARE SUBSIDIARIES OF THE SAME ORGANIZATION.

WHEN YOU ROLL IT UP, YOU'LL FIND ONE OWNER. GOTCHA.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ALALI. SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS.

MY FIRST QUESTION IS YOU SAID THERE ARE LIKE SOME OFFICES THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE DEALERSHIP, RIGHT? AND WE ARE GIVING THE SUP FOR THE WHOLE LOT.

OR ARE WE GIVING THE SOUP FOR ONLY THE PORTION THAT THE DEALERSHIP IS GOING TO BE OPERATING OF? MR. BELL. THE SUP WILL BE FOR THE ENTIRETY OF BOTH LOTS.

HOWEVER, THEY CAN'T ACTUALLY OPERATE A DEALERSHIP IN A TRADITIONAL SENSE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T HAVE CARS FOR SALE.

THEY CAN'T HAVE VEHICLE INVENTORY STORED THERE. YES, BUT YOU LIKE, BUT THE BUILDING ITSELF IS NOT GOING TO BE UP, YOU KNOW, LIKE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE OCCUPIED COMPLETELY FOR THE, BECAUSE WE GIVE LIKE SUP FOR PORTION OF THE BUILDING.

RIGHT, RIGHT. IT WOULDN'T, WE'RE NOT DOING THAT IN THIS CASE.

STAFF WASN'T CONCERNED WITH THE REMAINDER OF IT REMAINING OFFICES.

THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO THIS, BUT I BELIEVE THEY'RE PLANNING TO USE WHAT THEY OCCUPY IN THE REMAINDER OF TRAINING PURPOSES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

SO IT'S GOING TO BE LIKE RELATED TO THE DEALERSHIP, RIGHT? I'M SORRY. IT CURRENTLY IS PLANNED TO BE THAT WAY.

IT'S NOT REQUIRED FOR THE SUP THAT THE OFFICE BE.

LIKE SOMEBODY ELSE OCCUPIED THAT THE VEHICLE REPAIR PORTION BE ASSOCIATED WITH THE DEALERSHIP ON LOT A? OH OKAY. BUT BUT WE'RE GIVING THE SUP FOR THE WHOLE BUILDING, FOR THE WHOLE LOT.

YES. THANK YOU. AND YOU LIKE MY OTHER QUESTION IS, DO YOU LIKE THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE LANDSCAPE BECAUSE LIKE YOU, ONE OF THE STIPULATION FOR THE PREVIOUS SUP WAS LIKE ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPING.

AND IS IT GOING TO DO THEY HAVE TO ENHANCE THE LANDSCAPE FOR THE FOR LOT B? DO THEY HAVE TO DO ANY CHANGES FOR LOT B? YES.

SO FOR LOT B, A SIX FOOT TALL SOLID LANDSCAPE SCREEN MUST BE PROVIDED ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE, EXCLUDING DRIVEWAY CONNECTIONS. SO THAT WOULD BE A LIVING SCREEN, ESSENTIALLY.

OKAY. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AFFECTING THE DRIVES, THE BUILDING, YOU KNOW, LIKE SETBACKS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.

AND THIS AND THE THERE'S ALSO ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ALREADY FOR PORTIONS ALONG THE RIGHT OF WAY AND EVERYTHING.

SO THERE'S ALREADY LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS ALONG STREETS AND EVERYTHING LIKE THAT AS WELL.

AND IT'S NOT LANDSCAPING. BUT YOU'LL ALSO NOTICE ON THE SITE PLAN THAT THERE IS A SCREENING WALL FOR THEIR VEHICLE STORAGE ON SITE, WHICH IS A REQUIREMENT OF THE ORDINANCE REGARDLESS OF THE SUP. SO THERE WILL BE ADDITIONAL SCREENING. YEAH. MY CONCERN IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF THEY'RE GOING TO COMPLY WITH ALL THESE LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS, IS IT GOING TO AFFECT THE DRIVEWAYS, THE SETBACKS, THE LIKE THE SIZE OF THE BUILDING.

IT SHOULDN'T. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

YEAH. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. ARE THERE ANY RESIDENTIALLY ZONED PROPERTIES ADJACENT TO LOT B.

NO. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NONE. OKAY. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT.

DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOBODY. ALL RIGHT. IF THE APPLICANT WISHES TO SPEAK, YOU'RE WELCOME TO.

BUT WE DON'T. DOESN'T LOOK LIKE WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

GOOD EVENING EVERYONE. I'M SRI RAVI, KFM ENGINEERING, 3501 OLYMPUS BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS.

I'M REPRESENTATIVE OF THE APPLICANT, SO THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY AND THE PRESENTATION.

MOLLY. SO IF YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, FEEL FREE TO ASK.

QUESTIONS TO THE APPLICANT. NOBODY? ALL RIGHT.

LOOKS LIKE YOU'RE OFF THE HOOK. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR BEING HERE. ALL RIGHT.

DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS? NO, SIR.

ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSION ITEM 3.A WHAT'S YOUR.

[00:45:06]

I MOVE WE APPROVE IT. SORRY, MR. BRONSKY, I MOVE WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 3.A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. APPROVED.

8 TO 0. ITEM 3.B. COMMISSION. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

I'LL MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 3.B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

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

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

ITEM NUMBER FOUR. THANK YOU FOR BEING WITH US TONIGHT. SHORT BREAK.

OKAY. BEFORE WE GET INTO OUR LENGTHY PRESENTATION, WHY DON'T WE TAKE A FIVE MINUTE BREAK AND COME RIGHT BACK? RIGHT. ALL RIGHT, I'LL CALL US BACK INTO SESSION.

[4. (JR) Discussion and Action: Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Rewrite Module 2 – Presentation, discussion, and consideration of Module 2 (Administrative and Zoning Procedures) of the Zoning and Subdivision Ordinance Rewrite project and update on project progress. Project #DI2025-017. Applicant: City of Plano. (Legislative consideration)]

ALL RIGHT, ITEM NUMBER FOUR. LAST BUT NOT LEAST.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR, ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REWRITE.

MODULE TWO PRESENTATION, DISCUSSION, AND CONSIDERATION OF MODULE TWO ADMINISTRATIVE AND ZONING PROCEDURES OF THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.

REWRITE, PROJECT AND UPDATE ON PROJECT PROGRESS.

THE APPLICANT IS THE CITY OF PLANO. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

ALL RIGHT. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS CHRISTINA SEBASTIAN, LAND RECORDS PLANNING MANAGER, AND I AM REALLY HERE JUST TO REINTRODUCE OUR CONSULTANTS FROM FREESE AND NICHOLS WORKING ON THIS PROJECT.

SO DAN SEFKO AND DANIEL HARRISON ARE HERE. I WILL TURN IT OVER TO DANIEL HARRISON.

OKAY. GOOD EVENING. GOOD EVENING. THANK YOU. WE'RE HAPPY TO BE HERE TONIGHT TO PRESENT TO YOU MODULE TWO AND GIVE YOU AN UPDATE OF WHERE WE ARE.

SO WE'LL GIVE YOU A LITTLE QUICK PROCESS REMINDER WHERE WE ARE IN THE OVERALL PROJECT.

THEN OF COURSE WE'LL TALK ABOUT MODULE TWO. WE'LL TALK ABOUT NEXT STEPS AND THEN MOVE ON TO IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE AND ANY ANY DISCUSSION ITEMS. SO PHASE ONE WAS THE DIAGNOSTIC REPORT WHICH WE'VE COMPLETED.

THAT WAS WHEN WE DID OUR STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS ASKING PEOPLE QUESTIONS ABOUT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, THEIR INVOLVEMENT IN THE PROCESS. THEN WE MOVED INTO OUR CODE DRAFTING.

WE'VE DONE MODULE ONE. WE'RE GETTING CLOSE HERE ON MODULE TWO.