Mar 02, 2026 Planning and Zoning

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:06]

WELCOME TO THE MARCH 2ND SENATE PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. I'M CALLING MEETING ORDER AT 6 O'CLOCK P.M. ALLEGIANCE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST? COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST? THIS PORTION OF THE MEETING IS TO ALLOW UP TO THREE MINUTES PER SPEAKER, WITH 30 TOTAL MINUTES.

ON ITEMS OF INTEREST OR CONCERN, AND NOT ON ITEMS THAT ARE ON THE CURRENT AGENDA. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY NOT DISCUSS THESE ITEMS, BUT MAY RESPOND WITH FACTUAL OR POLICY INFORMATION. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY CHOOSE TO PLACE THE ITEM ON A FUTURE AGENDA. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS TONIGHT? WE DO NOT. CONSENT AGENDA.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. AS DISCUSSED IN THE PRELIMINARY MEETING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE OF ITEM B, A CORRECTION TO THE PROJECT NUMBER SHOULD BE PSP 2025-025. THANK YOU.

COMMISSION, WOULD YOU LIKE TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE...

CONSENT AGENDA. COMMISSIONER LANGENFELTER. I'M GOING TO JUST MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE REVISED NUMBER THAT STAFF HAD JUST APPOINTED OUT. COMMISSIONER BRONSKI. SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

JUST TO MAKE NOTE, WE DO HAVE COMMISSIONER TONG AND OLLIE ABSENT RIGHT NOW.

COMMISSIONER TONG MAY BE JOINING US LATER. OK, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES SIX TO ZERO. ALL RIGHT, ITEMS

[Items 1A. (DW) & 1B. (DW) (Part 1 of 2)]

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.

NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE 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, THE LENGTH OF THE AGENDA, AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. CAN YOU READ ITEMS 1A AND 1B TOGETHER, PLEASE? AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1A, REQUEST TO REZONE 14.1 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE JOB BUTLER SURVEY, ABSTRACT NUMBER 46, LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD, 115 NORTH MERRIMAN DRIVE. AND THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.

FROM PLAN DEVELOPMENT 173, ESTATE DEVELOPMENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE 7, TABLED NOVEMBER 17, 2025, AND FEBRUARY 2, 2026. APPLICANT IS MEADOWS BAPTIST CHURCH. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM 1B, MEADOWS BROOK EDITION, BLOCKS A-D AND MEADOWS BAPTIST CHURCH EDITION, BLOCK 1, LOT 1R-50, SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE, 7 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. ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, 173 ESTATE DEVELOPMENT, TABLE, NOVEMBER 17, 2025 AND FEBRUARY 2, 2026.

APPLICANT AGAIN IS MEADOWS BAPTIST CHURCH. THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1A.

BEFORE YOU GET STARTED, I JUST WANT TO MAKE NOTE THAT COMMISSIONER TONG HAS JOINED US, SO THANK YOU. PLEASE

[00:05:01]

DESTINY WOODS, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

SO, SHOWN ON THE SCREEN IS THE REQUEST AREA FOR THIS ZONING CASE, AND THE NEXT FEW SLIDES ARE GOING TO SHOW THE ASSOCIATED CONCEPT PLAN. SO, THIS REQUEST WAS INITIALLY BROUGHT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON NOVEMBER 17TH, 2025, BUT THE REQUEST HAS CHANGED A BIT SINCE THEN. SO, THE PREVIOUS ZONING REQUEST WAS TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE 6, AND THE UPDATED ZONING REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY TO SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE.

07, AS SHOWN ON THE CHART ON THE SCREEN. AND THEN, PREVIOUSLY, THE CONCEPT PLAN.

PROPOSED 58 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL LOTS. IT PROPOSED THOSE LOTS RANGING FROM AROUND 6,000 SQUARE FEET TO 13,000 SQUARE FEET. AND THEN IT ALSO HAD 15 RESIDENTIAL LOTS ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. NOW, THAT CONCEPT PLAN IS PROPOSING 50 RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

AND THOSE LOTS RANGE FROM 07,400 SQUARE FEET TO 9,600 SQUARE FEET. AND IT'S GOING TO HAVE A SCREENING WALL AND NO LOTS ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. SO, SINCE THE NOVEMBER 17TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, WHERE THE COMMISSION REQUESTED THAT THE APPLICANT MEET WITH THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS.

THE APPLICANT HAS INDICATED THAT THERE HAS BEEN A SERIES OF IN-PERSON MEETINGS, PHONE CALLS, EMAILS, WITH BOTH THE RANCH ESTATES AND STONY HOLLOW HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATIONS, AS WELL AS THE HOMEOWNERS ALONG THAT WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. SO THE EXISTING PLAN DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS RESTRICT THE LOT SIZE FROM A TWO-ACRE MINIMUM, OR THEY RESTRICT THE LATTES TO A TWO ACRE MINIMUM. AND IT ASSERTS FENCE DESIGN STANDARDS AS THEY CORRESPOND TO THE RANCH ESTATE'S DEED RESTRICTION.

SO, STAFF FINDS THAT THE REQUEST TO REZONE 14.1 ACRES OUT OF THE CURRENT 147 ACRE DISTRICT WILL HAVE NO ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE DISTRICT.

BECAUSE THE REMAINING PROPERTIES WILL REMAIN IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE EXISTING ZONING AND THE FENCE RESTRICTIONS LISTED IN THE PLAN. DEVELOPMENT STIPULATIONS ARE INTENDED TO MAINTAIN THE CHARACTER OF THE RANCHO STATE SUBDIVISION, AND THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS NOT PART OF THAT SUBDIVISION. THE SURROUNDING LAND USES INCLUDE SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE DETACHED LOTS RANGING FROM TWO ACRES TO SIX.

THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT ACRE, OR SIX THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND THEN INCIDENT.

INSTITUTIONAL LAND USES ARE TO THE IMMEDIATE NORTH, SOUTH AND EAST, AND THOSE ARE RELIGIOUS FACILITIES AND A PUBLIC SCHOOL. AND THEN THE SURROUNDING ZONING IS A MIX OF A STATE DEVELOPMENT SF 7, 9 & 6, SO THIS REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED LOTS BEING PROPOSED. SO, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESIGNATED IN OR NEIGHBORHOODS ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MEETS ALL OF THE APPLICABLE POLICIES SET BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO STAFF DID RECEIVE ONE SIGNED LETTER IN SUPPORT FROM WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

AND THAT SAME LETTER WAS COUNTED WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER AS THE ONLY SIGNED LETTER HERE. AND CITYWIDE, WE RECEIVED 72 RESPONSES AS OF FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 27TH. 71 IN SUPPORT AND ONE IN OPPOSITION. WE DID RECEIVE A HANDFUL OF RESPONSES AFTER THE DEADLINE AND THOSE WERE PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION.

SO, TO SUMMARIZE, THE REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FROM PD 173, ESTATE DEVELOPMENT TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SEVEN. AND THE CONCEPT PLAN PROPOSES 50 SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL LOTS.

ITEM 1A IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.

ITEM 1B IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO CITY

[00:10:01]

THANK YOU. A QUICK QUESTION ON THE RESPONSES. HOW DID THE, DID WE SIMPLY UPDATE THE RESPONSES THAT WERE FROM LAST TIME, OR DID WE HAVE RESPONSES THAT WERE IN THE NEGATIVE LAST TIME THAT ARE NO LONGER? SO WE ONLY INCLUDED RESPONSES RECEIVED AFTER THE NEW ZONING CASE WAS POSTED WITH THE NEW SF7 REQUEST. SO THAT START DATE THAT WE STARTED RECEIVING, INCLUDING RESPONSES, IS FEBRUARY 2ND. SO THAT'S WHERE ALL OF THE NOW RELEVANT RESPONSES ARE COUNTED FROM. DO YOU RECALL WHAT THE NUMBERS WERE FROM THE PREVIOUS CASE? BEFORE, I BELIEVE IT WAS AROUND 60, IN THE 60 RANGE. AS NEGATIVE? TOTAL. OH, OKAY. AND THEN THERE WERE A FEW, ACTUALLY, I HAVE IT, ONE SECOND. THERE WILL BE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITIZENS TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC HEARING. IF YOU'RE SCHEDULED TO SPEAK, YOU CAN BRING IT UP THEN. ONE SECOND. OH, IT'S FINE. I APOLOGIZE. I JUST WAS CURIOUS.

OKAY. I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE THAT NUMBER, BUT THERE ARE QUITE A FEW, AND THEN THERE WAS ALSO A PETITION.

THAT WAS SIGNED AS WELL.

OKAY. WE CAN GET THAT INFORMATION FROM YOU. YEAH, IF YOU GET A CHANCE BEFORE WE'RE DONE, I'D LOVE TO HEAR IT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL, MS. WOOD. THANK YOU. ONE QUESTION FOR ME. IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT IN OUR CODE FOR SCREENING BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL, WHEN WE WERE GOING FROM A STATE TO SINGLE FAMILY, SEVEN OR NINE OR WHATEVER, IS THERE ANY REQUIREMENT FOR SCREENING THERE? THERE'S NOT. OR SEPARATION, SETBACKS, ANYTHING OF THAT NATURE? NO, THERE'S NO REQUIREMENT TO SCREEN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS FROM OTHER RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I JUST HAVE THE INFORMATION. THE PRESENTATION FROM THE NOVEMBER MEETING INDICATES FIVE LETTERS IN SUPPORT, 62 IN OPPOSITION, A TOTAL OF 67. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NOBODY? OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I THINK WE HAVE SOME... SPEAKERS, LET ME OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. PUBLIC HEARING. I THINK WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE WITH THE PRESENTATION. IS THAT CORRECT? MR. DOUGLAS, IF YOU'D INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE. GOOD EVENING. JIM DOUGLAS, DOUGLAS PROPERTIES, ADDRESS 2309 K AVENUE, HERE IN PLANO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. I WANT TO FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR PUTTING UP WITH US ON THE TABLINGS BECAUSE WE REALLY HAD JUST A CHANCE TO. TO WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS, I FEEL LIKE WE'VE MADE A LOT OF PROGRESS. UNFORTUNATELY, IT'S HARD TO REACH 100% AGREEMENT, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'VE COME A LONG WAY ON IT. WE'VE GOT THE SLIDE YOU SEE UP THERE NOW. THIS IS OUR LATEST LAYOUT, WHERE IT SHOWS THE SF9 LOTS, MINIMUM 9,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, ALONG THE WEST SIDE AND THE EAST SIDE. WE HAVE THE 7,000 FOOT LOTS IN THE CENTER. YOU ASKED ABOUT THE FENCING AND THE SETBACKS. THERE ARE NO REQUIRED SETBACKS. WITH DISCUSSIONS WITH THE HOMEOWNERS, THIS IS HOW WE ARRIVED AT THIS SEPARATION. WE'VE GOT A 20-FOOT SETBACK ON THE WEST SIDE, PLUS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY OF THE ROAD. THEN YOU'VE GOT SETBACK ON THE OTHER SIDE FOR THE HOUSES. ONE OF THE BIG REASONS, THERE WAS TWO BIG REASONS FOR IT. ONE IS UNDER THEIR ORDINANCE. THEY HAVE TO BE 100 FEET FROM A STRUCTURE BEFORE THEY CAN BUILD A SHED OR A BARN. SO WE'VE GIVEN THEM 85 FEET, PLUS THEY HAVE A 25-FOOT SETBACK, SO THAT GIVES THEM 10 FEET OF WIGGLE ROOM, YOU MIGHT SAY, TO MAKE SURE. SO THAT'S WHY WE HAVE THAT.

THROUGH DISCUSSIONS, THEY ASKED FOR A MASONRY BRICK WALL. WE AGREED TO THAT, AND THAT'S WHAT WAS IN YOUR PACKAGE. SINCE THEN, THE DISCUSSION HAS CHANGED TO WHERE WE WOULD DO AN ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE. AND LINE THE PROPERTY ALONG THE WEST WITH SOME CEDAR TREES. THERE'S A LOT OF EXISTING TREES. SO TO FILL IN THE GAPS AND WHERE THERE AREN'T TREES, WE'LL AGREE TO PLANT CEDAR TREES, WHICH WILL GIVE A SCREEN YEAR-ROUND AND BE MORE ATTRACTIVE THAN A BRICK WALL WILL. PLUS, AS WE TALKED ABOUT IN THE SUMMERTIME, THE HEAT ON THE WALL DOES GET HOT.

THEY'VE GOT ANIMALS. SO, THEREFORE, THAT'S HOW WE REACHED THIS, AND IT WAS UPON THEIR SUGGESTION.

THE HOA WILL MAINTAIN ALL OF THAT AREA. IT GIVES THEM A

[00:15:03]

THIS DOES MATCH THE AREA FOR OUR SERVICES. ALL CITY SERVICES HAVE BEEN VERIFIED.

THERE'S ADEQUATE WATER, SEWER, SCHOOLS. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DISCUSSION ON THE SCHOOLS WITH SCHOOLS CLOSINGS, BUT UNDER THE INFORMATION FROM THE SCHOOL, WHICH I BELIEVE THE LETTER FROM THE SCHOOL IS IN YOUR PACKET, THAT THERE IS SUFFICIENT CAPACITY IN THE SCHOOLS. THIS ZONING IS ALSO IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, AND I FEEL LIKE IT IS SUFFICIENT BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A MIXTURE OF ZONING IN THIS AREA, FROM SF6 ALL THE WAY UP TO STATE DEVELOPMENT. ALSO, I BELIEVE YOU GOT A... LETTER FROM THE STONY HOLLOW HOA.

THAT TALK ABOUT, YOU KNOW, THEY'VE GOT, THEY WANT TO STAY SF9, YOU KNOW, EVERYTHING, THAT SHOULD BE THE MINIMUM. STONY HOLLOW IS NOT ALL 9,000 FOOT LOTS. THERE'S ALMOST HALF, 242 OF THEM ARE ZONED FOR SF7, AND THEY WERE DEVELOPED AS SF7 LOTS. SO THERE'S NOT 100% SF9S.

THAT'S WHY THIS MATCHES WITH STONY HOLLOW. MERRIMAN AND SCORES SF6. ALSO, THIS WILL, ON THE LETTERS, I'VE KNOWN SHEP STAHL FOR QUITE A LONG TIME. I'VE BEEN DOING BUSINESS IN THE CITY A LONG TIME. HE'S ALWAYS BEEN FAIR AND UPFRONT, AND I APPRECIATE THE LETTER THAT HE WROTE. IT INDICATED THAT WE HAVE BEEN WORKING, THAT SEVERAL OF OUR OPTIONS SERVES THE QUEST. THE ONE, EXCUSE ME. THE ONE REQUEST THAT HE HAD IN THERE, AND THAT'S WHY I'VE WRITTEN A LETTER TO THE HOMEOWNERS OF MY COMMITMENT TO HONOR THIS. AS FAR AS, YOU KNOW, 50-LOT MAXIMUM, THE 9,000-FOOT LOTS, THE SF7 LOTS, THE LANDSCAPING, THE ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE, ALL OF THESE ITEMS. I'VE ALSO AGREED NOT TO COME BACK TO TOY WITH IT AT A LATER DATE, YOU KNOW, TRY TO GET ALL SF7S.

IN FACT, THE CONCEPT PLAN, THAT'S THE NEXT ITEM, IF THAT CAN BE PART OF THE ZONING, I'LL AGREE TO THAT. OR WHATEVER AGREEMENT, THAT'S WHY I'LL SAY IT IN A PUBLIC FORUM, SO IT'S ON THE RECORD. I MEAN, THIS IS MY WORD. I'VE DONE A LOT OF BUSINESS IN PLANO.

WE'VE NEVER PLAYED GAMES WITH YOU GUYS. SO THEREFORE, I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT WE'RE NOT COMING BACK TO ASKING FOR MORE. THEY'VE WORKED WITH US, AND WE APPRECIATE IT. AND LIKE I SAID, I DO APPRECIATE PEOPLE RECOGNIZING IT. IF THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE, OR IF I CAN RESERVE SOME TIME AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING TO ADDRESS ANY CONCERNS OR QUESTIONS, I'LL BE GLAD TO.

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. YOU SAID THAT THE COMMON SPACE, WHICH I PRESUME ON THIS DRAWING, IS THE AREA SHOWN IN GREEN. IS THAT CORRECT, BETWEEN THE ROADWAY AND WHATEVER SCREENING IS THAT YOU AGREE WITH? YES, SIR, THAT'S CORRECT. YOU SAID THAT WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. YES, SIR. YOU'RE REFERRING TO AN HOA SPECIFICALLY FOR MEADOWBROOK, NOT THE CURRENT HOA. THAT IS CORRECT. IT WILL HAVE ITS OWN HOA, WHICH WILL ALSO MAINTAIN THE GREEN AREA LAWN WASH REELS, TOO. OKAY, SO THIS WILL BE A SEPARATE HOA OF JUST THESE 50 LOTS. THAT IS CORRECT. TO TAKE CARE OF THAT MAINTENANCE. YES.

OKAY. AND THEN GO THROUGH YOUR MATH AGAIN.

WITH ME ON THE 100-FOOT SETBACK, BECAUSE IT LOOKS LIKE TO ME, YOU'VE GOT A 20-FOOT BUFFER AND 50-FOOT RIGHT-OF-WAY. THAT'S 70 PLUS A 15-FOOT BUILDING LINE. THAT'S 85. YEAH. WHERE'S THE OTHER 15 FEET COME FROM? THE SIDE YARD. HERE'S AN EXAMPLE HERE. YOU'VE GOT THE 20 FEET OF OPEN SPACE, YOU'VE GOT THE RIGHT-OF-WAY, YOU'VE GOT THE PAVEMENT, THE OTHER RIGHT-OF-WAY, AND THE SITE SET BACK 15 FEET FROM THE HOUSES. THIS EXAMPLE SHOWS YOU THE 85 FEET. YEAH, THAT'S STILL SHOWING 85.

THAT'S MY QUESTION. IS THE 15 ON THE CURRENT LANDOWNER'S SIDE, IS THAT THE OTHER 15 FOOT FOR THEIR SETBACK? NO, FOR THEM TO BUILD A SHED OR BARN, THEY HAVE TO BE 100 FEET FROM ANY STRUCTURE. OKAY, SO THAT WOULD BE A 15 FOOT SETBACK ON THEIR SIDE OF THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH WOULD MAKE IT OVER THE 100 FEET? YES, SIR. GOT IT.

OKAY, SO THAT HONORS THEIR SETBACK. THEY CAN BUILD RIGHT TO THEIR SETBACK LINE. THAT IS CORRECT. AND STILL BE 100 FEET FROM YOUR NEAREST STRUCTURE.

[00:20:01]

ALL RIGHT. THOSE ARE MY TWO QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. DO I UNDERSTAND THAT THE ORNAMENTAL FENCE WITH THE CEDAR TREES REPLACES THE WALL? YES, AND IT WILL BE PLACED AT THE EASTERN SIDE OF THE OPEN SPACE. IT SHOWS THAT THERE, THE ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE.

YES, SIR. AND THEREFORE, THERE WILL NOT BE A MASONRY WALL.

WE'LL HAVE THE CEDAR TREES OVER THERE. ASIDE FROM STONY, HOLLOW AND WHATEVER THE OTHER... THE DEVELOPMENT WAS, COULD YOU CHARACTERIZE THE STATUS OF AGREEMENT OR DISAGREEMENT NOW, FROM THE RESIDENTS OF RANCH ESTATES TO THE WEST? THIS IS FROM RANCH ESTATES.

I'VE TALKED TO THE HOA PRESIDENT, ESTONIA HOLLA, IF THEY WOULD LIKE TO MEET. HE HAS MET, HE'S PRIMARILY GONE THROUGH THE RANCH ESTATES.

HE'S MET WITH THEM, AND CUMULATIVELY, THEY'VE GIVEN ME LETTERS AND REQUESTS OF WHAT THEY WOULD LIKE. AND WE'VE COPIED. THE PRESIDENT ON ALL THE PAPERWORK, AND WE VOLUNTEERED TO MEET WITH THEM, BUT THEY CHOSE NOT TO. ARE THEY ON BOARD WITH THIS NEW PROPOSAL OR NOT? I DON'T KNOW. I DO KNOW FROM THEIR LETTER THAT THEY'RE SAYING, YOU KNOW, THEY WANT NOTHING LESS THAN SF-9 BECAUSE THEY WANT TO PRESERVE THE SF-9 ZONING.

WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THEY HAVE SF-7 LOTS ALSO.

THANK YOU. MR. BENDER. THANK YOU. THE SCREENING WALL. UH, THAT YOU REFER TO. IS THERE ANY PLAN FOR IRRIGATION OF THAT AREA? YES, SIR, YEAH, BUT FOR THE GRASS AND FOR THE CEDAR TREES. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. I I EXPECT. I. I KNOW YOU HAD ANSWERED A LOT OF QUESTIONS, BUT IN IN YOUR ANSWERING, YOU SAID THAT THIS, THIS NOW ORNAMENTAL FENCE.

UM, I ASSUME ARE YOU STILL CONTINUING, CONTINUING TO MAKE IT AT EIGHT FOOT? IS THAT THAT IS CORRECT. THE OTHER THING IS, YOU SAID IT WAS GOING TO BE ON THE EASTERN SIDE OF THAT.

20 FOOT. WAS THAT A MISTAKE? NO. DID YOU MEAN WEST? I MEANT THE EAST SIDE OF THE OPEN SPACE. SO IT'S GOING TO GO ALONG THE RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE INSTEAD OF THE PROPERTY LINE? THAT IS CORRECT. SO THE HOA WOULD BE MAINTAINING IT ON THE OUTSIDE OF THE FENCE, NOT ON THE INSIDE OF THE FENCE, ESSENTIALLY? BOTH. AND THAT'S WHY WE'LL HAVE A GATE AT THE SOUTH END FOR THE MAINTENANCE PEOPLE GETTING THERE TO MOW. SO INSTEAD OF RIGHT-OF-WAY LANDSCAPE FENCE, IT'S NOW RIGHT-OF-WAY FENCE LANDSCAPE? IN OPEN SPACE.

WELL, THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING, OPEN SPACE, YEAH. AND THAT WAS A REQUEST OF THE LANDOWNERS THAT'S NEXT TO IT TO MOVE THE ORNAMENTAL FENCE OUT. THEY WANTED IT OVER, AWAY FROM THEM? YES, SIR.

BECAUSE THERE'S EXISTING TREES THERE, TOO. AND WE DIDN'T WANT TO DISTURB ANY OF THE EXISTING TREES. WE WANTED TO LEAVE THEM ALL INTACT. SO WHAT ARE YOU, SINCE IT'S NOT PART OF OUR PACKET, THIS ORNAMENTAL FENCE, YOU SPOKE ABOUT THE LANDSCAPING AND TREES. HOW OFTEN, HOW DO WE KNOW WHERE YOU'RE PUTTING THOSE TREES EVERY 20 FEET? WHAT IS THE PLAN FOR THE SCREENING? GENERALLY, THE CEDAR IS ABOUT 20 FEET APART BECAUSE THEY GROW OUT.

AND THEY'RE REALLY USED FOR THE AREAS THAT DON'T HAVE ANY EXISTING TREES, OR IF THERE'S GAPS BETWEEN THOSE EXISTING TREES.

BECAUSE WE WANT THEM TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH A NICE SCREEN THERE THAT STAYS GREEN YEAR-ROUND AND GIVES THEM SOME BUFFERING. AND THAT'S WHY WE MOVED THE METAL FENCE OUT, WHICH, AGAIN, IT GIVES THEM ANOTHER 20 FEET OF BUFFER, WHICH DON'T KEEP PEOPLE FROM GOING OVER THERE NEXT TO THEIR FENCE OR LOOKING OVER.

IT AIDS THEM IN A SECURITY STANDPOINT.

COMMISSIONER BROMSKI. SO, MR. DOUGLAS, MORE OF A COMMENT THAN A QUESTION. I WANTED TO SAY THAT YOUR FRANKNESS, AS WELL AS YOUR EARNEST DESIRE TO WORK WITH THE HOMEOWNERS THAT ARE HERE, I THINK SPEAKS VOLUMES. YOUR COMMITMENT TO NOT COMING BACK FOR FUTURE SITUATIONS, I THINK A LOT OF OUR CITIZENS FEEL THAT.

PEOPLE GET ZONING AND THEN THEY COME BACK WANTING CHANGES AND CHANGES. AND SO, TO HEAR THE EFFORTS THAT YOU'VE GONE THROUGH, AS WELL AS TO SEE.

THE DIFFERENCE IN THE NUMBERS OF, I THINK, SPEAK VOLUMES. I AM NOT READY TO RENDER MY DECISION YET, BUT I JUST WANTED TO COMMENT THAT. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT AS A DEVELOPER AS WELL AS. A GOOD CITIZEN. OKAY, THANK YOU. TWO MORE FOLLOW-UP QUESTIONS, MR. DOUGLAS. THE FENCE AND

[00:25:01]

OKAY. AND THEN AT OUR LAST MEETING, THERE WAS AT LEAST ONE NEIGHBOR, THERE MAY HAVE BEEN TWO, THAT WERE CONCERNED ABOUT DRAINAGE.

ABOUT YOUR POTENTIAL, YOUR DEVELOPMENT, POTENTIALLY BLOCKING DRAINAGE.

YES. HOW HAVE YOU DEALT WITH THAT ISSUE? WELL, THE DRAINAGE, THERE IS A CITY EASEMENT FOR THE DRAINAGE THAT WE HAVE TO MAINTAIN, IS EXISTING EASEMENT, BECAUSE A CITY A NUMBER OF YEARS AGO WENT IN AND CLEANED THE DITCH BACK OUT TO HANDLE THAT WATER, BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, IT'S BARRED DITCHES IN RANCH ESTATE, SO THE WATER FLOWS IN.

AND AGAIN, WE'RE GOING TO TURN OUR GRADING PLANS INTO THE CITY, AND THEY'RE GOING TO REVIEW IT. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO LET US DUMP WATER. OVER ON THEM. OKAY. AND THAT'S ANOTHER THING THAT GIVES US THAT 20 FEET PLUS THE RIGHT-OF-WAY TO MAKE SURE IT DRAINS AWAY FROM THEM INTO OUR STORM SYSTEM. GOT IT.

OKAY. WHICH, AGAIN, THE QUESTION PROBABLY CAME UP WHEN WE HAD HOMES BACKING UP TO IT. THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN HARDER TO CONTROL. BUT NOW THAT WE'VE OPENED THAT ALL UP, THAT WON'T BE AN ISSUE NOW.

GOOD POINT. OKAY. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER LALLY? IN THE LETTER THAT WE GOT, SOME CITIZENS HAD... SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE EMERGENCY, AND PROBABLY IT'S FOR THE STAFF. HAVE WE CONTACTED THE POLICE IN THE EMERGENCY? DO THEY HAVE THE CAPACITY TO RESPOND? ALL THE PLANS ARE PROVIDED TO POLICE AND FIRE DURING THE PLAN REVIEW, AND THEY HAD NO CONCERN. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? NOBODY? MR. DOUGLAS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

STICK AROUND. WE MAY HAVE MORE FOR YOU LATER. THANK YOU, SIR. ALL RIGHT. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE A NUMBER OF SPEAKERS REGISTERED. IT'S BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION THAT SEVERAL OF Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO COMBINE YOUR TIME, AND SO IF THAT'S YOUR INTENT, PLEASE COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND SAY THAT YOU'RE COMBINING YOUR TIME. SO WE KNOW WHICH PEOPLE ON OUR LIST HAVE COMBINED THEIR TIME TOGETHER SO WE CAN BE RESPECTFUL OF THE PROCESS. SO IF YOU WANT TO CALL SPEAKERS, AND IF YOU ARE ONE OF THE ONES THAT IS CEDING YOUR TIME TO SOMEBODY ELSE, IF YOU'D COME TO THE MICROPHONE AND JUST TELL US THAT, WE'D APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT, WHO'S UP FIRST? OUR FIRST SPEAKER IS SCOTT FENTON, FOLLOWED BY RAY PARKER, AND THEN FOLLOWED BY BRIAN EPLEY.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS DR. SCOTT FENTON. I RESIDE AT 4017 KITE MEADOW DRIVE.

HELLO, COMMISSIONERS, AND THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE. I WASN'T BORN IN EAST PLANO, BUT I GOT HERE JUST AS... SOON AS I COULD. I'M DEEPLY VESTED IN THE EAST PLANO COMMUNITY.

I'VE BEEN AN ENTHUSIASTIC RESIDENT OF EAST PLANO FOR THE PAST 36 YEARS, SERVING AS THE PASTOR OF MEADOWS BAPTIST CHURCH. MY THREE CHILDREN HAVE GONE TO EAST SIDE SCHOOLS FROM GRADE SCHOOL THROUGH MIDDLE SCHOOL TO HIGH SCHOOL, ALL THREE GRADUATING FROM PLANO EAST SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL, AND MY FIVE GRANDCHILDREN ARE FOLLOWING IN THEIR STEPS. MY WIFE IS A RETIRED TEACHER FROM PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT AND WAS A TEACHER OF THE YEAR AT ONE OF OUR EAST SIDE SCHOOLS. WHERE SHE DEVELOPED OUTSTANDING AND AWARD-WINNING SPEECH AND THEATER TEAMS. I'VE SERVED AS THE CHAPLAIN OF THE PLANO EAST FOOTBALL TEAM AND FOR THE PAST 10 YEARS, I'VE SERVED AS A CHAPLAIN FOR THE PLANO. POLICE AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS, ASSISTING OUR FIRST RESPONDERS.

THIS SERVICE HELPS PLANO FAMILIES FROM ALL BACKGROUNDS.

RELIGIONS, AND ETHNICITIES TO DEAL WITH THE MOST TRAUMATIC CRISIS IMAGINABLE, THE UNEXPECTED DEATH OF A LOVED ONE. I'VE BEEN AN EYEWITNESS AND PARTICIPANT IN THE GROWTH OF OUR EAST PLANO COMMUNITY OVER THE PAST QUARTER OF A CENTURY. WHEN WE RELOCATED OUR CHURCH FROM EAST 14TH STREET BACK IN 2000, LOS RIOS DEAD-ENDED AT THE HIGH SCHOOL. I WAS ONE OF THE FIRST HOMEOWNERS.

OF THE STONY HOLLOW NEIGHBORHOOD, AND I'VE LIVED THERE FOR THE PAST 27 YEARS. AS A RESIDENT OF EAST PLANO, I'M PROUD OF OUR BUSINESSES, OUR RESTAURANTS, OUR SCHOOLS, AND THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LANDSCAPE OF OUR PAST. I LOVE OUR EAST SIDE PRIDE AND ESPECIALLY THE CROWN JEWEL OF THE PLANO PARKS AND RECREATION SYSTEM, OUR 800

[00:30:03]

FAMILIES AND CREATE A NEW NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WILL BE OF GREAT BENEFIT TO OUR EAST PLANO COMMUNITY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. FENTON.

OUR NEXT SPEAKER IS RAY PARKER, FOLLOWED BY BRIAN EPLEY, FOLLOWED BY JOHN MARLOWE. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. MY NAME IS RAY PARKER. I LIVE AT 2101 LOS RIOS AND HERE IN PLANO. I HAD THE PLEASURE OF RESIDING IN THE SAME HOUSE FOR 31 YEARS. MY WIFE AND I AND BOTH OF OUR BOYS WERE DOOLEY ELEMENTARY, ARMSTRONG MIDDLE SCHOOL, WILLIAMS HIGH SCHOOL AND PLANO EAST ATTENDEES. VERY PROUD OF THE EAST SIDE. WE MOVED HERE BECAUSE IT WAS A VERY LESS BUSY LOCAL COMMUNITY NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WE MOVED INTO. AS MR. FENTON SPOKE, THERE'S BEEN SOME CHANGES.

THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF GOOD CHANGES, BUT THERE'S BEEN SOME BAD CHANGES. AND I DON'T WANNA MAKE THE POINT AGAIN THAT HE MADE, BUT WE DO NEED MORE SCHOOLS AND WE NEED MORE PEOPLE HERE. RECENTLY, PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT ANNOUNCED THIS SUMMER HAVING TO DEAL WITH A MULTI MILLION DOLLAR SHORTFALL AND.

REVENUE? LOOKING AT MORE SCHOOL CLOSURES. AND I WOULD PUT TO YOU THAT A SCHOOL CLOSURE IS A TERRIBLE BLOW TO A NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE THE SCHOOL IS THE LIFEBLOOD OF A NEIGHBORHOOD. IT'S THE ENTITY THAT PEOPLE CAN CONNECT AROUND. SO, OF THE USE BEFORE YOU. I THINK THAT GOING TO A SINGLE-FAMILY HOME, USE ON THIS PROPERTY MAKES THE MOST SENSE OF PROPERTY THAT'S SITTING VACANT NOW. AND LET'S TURN IT INTO A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS A PRIDE AND CAN BECOME PART OF THE PLANO EAST NEIGHBORHOODS AND PART OF THE PLANO EAST. SENIOR HIGH SUPPORT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. PARKER. NEXT, WE HAVE BRIAN EPLEY, FOLLOWED BY JOHN MARLOW AND THEN JOHN JACOBSON. GOOD EVENING, I'M BRIAN EPLEY. I LIVE AT 4324 PEGGY LANE IN CREEKSIDE ESTATES. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I'VE ONLY LIVED HERE FOR THE LAST FIVE YEARS.

WE MOVED OUR FAMILY HERE FROM ILLINOIS. WE LOOKED FOR HOUSING FROM AS FAR SOUTH AS RICHARDSON, ALL THE WAY UP TO MCKINNEY. WE LOOKED FROM WILEY OVER TO FRISCO AND WE CHOSE PLANO. WE LIKE OUR NEW COMMUNITY. WE HAVE GOOD NEIGHBORS. ARE CHILDREN OF NEW GOOD FRIENDS. WE LIKE THE SCHOOLS, THE PARK DISTRICT, THE CHURCHES, THE BUSINESSES. IT'S ALL FANTASTIC. WE LOVE IT ALL. I LOVE TO BE ABLE TO GO TO THE PARADES FOR THE HIGH SCHOOL AND SEE THE TURNOUT OF THE COMMUNITY. PEOPLE THAT DON'T HAVE THEIR KIDS IN SCHOOL ARE STILL THERE FOR THE PARADES SUPPORTING.

IT'S BEEN HARD TO MOVE, BUT THIS COMMUNITY HAS DONE EVERYTHING IT CAN TO MAKE IT EASY FOR US TO TRANSITION. AND WE'RE VERY HAPPY FOR THEM.

BUT WE DO HAVE ROOM TO GROW. I KNOW THAT PLANO ISD NEEDS STUDENTS. MY YOUNGEST SON, HIS MIDDLE SCHOOL, ARMSTRONG, WAS CLOSED LAST YEAR. HE'S CURRENTLY IN MCMILLAN HIGH SCHOOL, BUT HE WAS SUPPOSED TO BE TRANSFERRED TO WILLIAMS HIGH SCHOOL BECAUSE OF THE REDISTRICTING. WE'VE DONE WHAT WE CAN TO KEEP HIM THERE, BUT IT'S HAD TO BE ON US. WE WOULD LIKE IT SO THAT NO FAMILIES HAVE TO GO THROUGH THAT UPHEAVAL WITH MORE SCHOOL CLOSURES.

BUSINESSES ARE ALWAYS LOOKING FOR MORE CUSTOMERS. THE CITY COULD BENEFIT FROM THE EXPANDED POOL OF TAXPAYERS. I WOULD LIKE TO GIVE MORE FAMILIES THE OPPORTUNITY TO EXPERIENCE WHAT MY FAMILY HAS EXPERIENCED HERE IN EAST PLANO. SO I URGE YOU TO APPROVE THE ZONE CHANGE.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR.

[00:35:02]

OVER THE PAST SEVERAL MONTHS, WE'VE HAD FOUR MAJOR OPEN MEETINGS, THIS BEING ONE OF THE LARGEST TOPICS IN THERE. WE HAVE ALSO LOOKED AT A NUMBER OF THINGS, INCLUDING THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CLOSINGS, DUHL, SPECIFICALLY IN 2024, PISD. ANNOUNCED THAT ANYONE WITHIN TWO MILES NO LONGER WAS ELIGIBLE FOR BUSING. THEREFORE, THAT GREATLY INCREASED OUR TRAFFIC FLOW NEAR HICKEY THROUGHOUT OUR COMMUNITIES. WE'VE HAD SEVERAL CHILDREN ALMOST HIT WITH AUTOMOBILES. WE'VE HAD TO GET THE POLICE INVOLVED BECAUSE AGAIN, THE TRAFFIC INCREASE.

LIKEWISE, WE'VE HAD 80 TO 100 STUDENTS FROM FOREMAN DO THAT CLOSURE, GET DUMPED INTO THE HICKEY ELEMENTARY. SYSTEM, AND THAT'S BASICALLY CLOSED DOWN OUR MAJOR COLDWATER CREEK DURING SCHOOL HOURS BECAUSE OF THE TRAFFIC JAMS. THE PISD HAS FORECASTED ANOTHER 10% DECLINE IN THEIR ENROLLMENT NUMBERS OVER THE NEXT TWO YEARS, AND THEREFORE, THAT FORECASTS MORE SCHOOL CLOSINGS. AND WE ANTICIPATE GREATER TRAFFIC ISSUES. IN RELATIONSHIP TO THE COMMENT MADE THAT STONY HOLLOW HAS SF7 AND SF9, THAT IS ABSOLUTELY TRUE. WE ALSO HAVE SIX PROGRESSIVE PHASES THAT THE DEVELOPERS USED. WE MOVED FROM A DENSER, POPULOUS AREA TO A LITTLE BIT SPREAD OUT INTO SF9. WE FOUND THAT TO BE MORE CONDUCIVE FOR BOTH INDIVIDUALS' PRIVACY AS WELL AS QUALITY OF LIVING AS FAR AS SPACE.

GIVING PEOPLE THE OPPORTUNITY TO LIVE HARMONIOUSLY.

THEREFORE, WE HAVE, OVER THE PAST FOUR YEARS, FOR EACH OF THE THREE DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE TOUCHED.

STONY HOLLOW, MAINTAINED THAT THE LOT SIZE SHOULD BE SF9, AND THAT'S THE MAJOR CONTENTION OF OUR BOARD. THE, UM, EXCUSE ME, A LITTLE HOARSE TODAY. THE FURTHER DEVELOPMENT IN THAT AREA PUTS A TASK ON...

NOT ONLY OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, BUT ALSO EMERGENCY SERVICES.

PARKING, AS AN EXAMPLE. WE HAVE BOTH SIDES OF THE STREETS BEING USED IN THE EVENING AS PARKING.

WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS CASES WHERE EMTS AND FIRE DEPARTMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GET TO EMERGENCY CALLS. THE ONLY REQUIREMENT THAT WE'RE ASKING IS THAT THE LOT SIZE BE CONDUCIVE WITH WHAT WE'VE MAINTAINED FOR THE PAST FOUR YEARS AT SF9. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I APPRECIATE THAT. THANK YOU, MR. MARLOWE. NEXT IS JOHN JACOBSON, FOLLOWED BY PHIL LANGLEY, FOLLOWED BY GABRIELLA NARAHENO. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS JOHN JACOBSON. I LIVE AT 3916 RIDGETOP LANE, ABOUT 200 FEET FROM THE WESTERN BOUNDARY OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. I'M A 40-YEAR PLANO RESIDENT. AND A 34-YEAR OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY ON RIDGETOP ESTATES. SEEN A LOT OF CHANGES. I'VE SEEN WHEN NOTHING TO THE NORTH OF ME EXISTED.

THERE WAS NO HOUSES, JUST HAY FIELDS. I'D ALSO LIKE TO CORRECT MR. DOUGLAS IN SAYING THAT RANCH ESTATES ONLY HAS TWO PLUS ACRE LOTS ON IT. AND I HAVEN'T OWNED A THREE ACRE LOT. WE CAME TO THE AREA BECAUSE WE LIKE THE OPENNESS, THE FACT THAT YOU COULD HAVE HORSES, LARGE ANIMALS, YOU COULD HAVE A WORKSHOP IN YOUR BACKYARD. THE ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM, FOR ME, IS THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS STILL TOO DENSE. IF YOU LOOK AT THE CURRENT ZONING, YOU CAN HAVE ABOUT SIX TWO-ACRE LOTS ON ED73 FOR THOSE 14 ACRES, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO ALLOW SOME... OF THAT SPACE FOR ROADS. NOW, ON THE OTHER HAND, WE STARTED OUT WITH 58 LOTS LAST NOVEMBER. WE MOVED THE NEEDLE EVER SO SLIGHTLY TO 50 LOTS.

NOW YOU'RE HEARING THAT, OKAY, MAYBE WE WANT A MINIMUM OF SF9 LOTS. I SAY A MINIMUM

[00:40:01]

ADJACENT TO THE MORMON CHURCH IS THE MONTESSORI SCHOOL. THEY WANTED TO PUT SMALLER LOTS ON THAT PROPERTY. THE CITY SAID NO, AND NOW THEY ARE LARGER LOTS.

SO I THINK IT'S ONLY FAIR TO THOSE DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU CONSIDER THAT THIS AREA NEEDS TO BE LARGER LOTS. IT NEEDS TO BE AN OPEN SPACE. IT FITS WITH THE AREA. IT DOESN'T, AND AS FAR AS THE SCHOOLS ARE CONCERNED, THE LEVON FARM DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO HAVE 01,600 UNITS IN IT. AND THAT SHOULD BRING IN MORE STUDENTS FOR PISD. IF YOU CAN, WRAP IT UP FOR US. YEAH, I'M DONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. JACOBSON.

NEXT IS PHIL LANGLEY, FOLLOWED BY GABRIELLA NARANO AND CHRIS MEYER. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, EVERYONE.

APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

APPRECIATE EVERYTHING YOU ALL DO. IT'S A CHANCE FOR ME TO WEAR A SUIT, SO I WAS KIND OF EXCITED ABOUT THAT. I, TOO, LIKE A PREVIOUS SPEAKER, MOVED HERE FROM DOWNSTATE ILLINOIS ALMOST 30 YEARS AGO.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND YOUR ADDRESS. OH, I'M SO SORRY.

PHIL LANGLEY, 3927, RANCH ESTATE CIRCLE IN PLANO. SO I MOVED HERE A LITTLE OVER 30 YEARS AGO. MY FATHER WAS A SMALL-TOWN BANKER. HIS NAME WAS BILLY BOB. I HAVE BROTHERS THAT ARE NAMED BILL AND BOB. SO WHEN I MOVED TO TEXAS, I'D FIT RIGHT IN. I WAS SUPER HAPPY. I LOVE THIS PLACE. REALLY LOVE PLANO.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY A COUPLE THINGS THAT I HEARD HERE. I MADE SOME NOTES. THE SURROUNDING AREA, IN FACT, AS JOHN JUST SAID, THERE'S MORE PROPERTIES THAT ARE MORE THAN TWO ACRES. IN FACT, THE THREE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE PROPOSED PROPERTY THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TODAY ARE ALL OVER THREE ACRES. OKAY, SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

AND AS FAR AS THE SETBACK, THAT WASN'T A VOLUNTARY SETBACK.

THAT'S A SEWER EASEMENT. SO IT IS CONVENIENT TO SAY, HEY, WE TALKED TO THE COMMUNITY, WE DECIDED TO MOVE IT BACK 20 FEET. COULDN'T DO ANYTHING WITH THAT 20 FEET ANYWAY. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT.

AND THEN I LOOKED AT THE REWRITE OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TODAY, AND THERE'S A GUIDING PRINCIPLE 1.6 THAT'S PROACTIVELY SEEKING COMMUNITY INPUT. WELL, THAT'S THE SURVEY THAT WAS ONLINE.

AND SO, AS OF TODAY... THE MAJORITY OF PLANO RESPONDENTS OPPOSE IT, AND EVEN DESPITE THE FLURRY OF RECENT IN FAVORS OF, 84% OF THE RESPONDENTS THAT LIVE IN THE ZIP CODE ARE STILL AGAINST THIS PLAN, AND THAT WAS AS OF ABOUT 1 P.M.

TODAY. SO I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ALL THOSE FACTS FOR EVERYBODY. MY OPINION, WE SHOULDN'T BE HERE FOR THREE REASONS. NUMBER ONE, THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

NUMBER TWO, THIS MASSIVE LEAPFROG OF THREE ZONING DISTRICTS IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE CURRENT ZONING. THAT CALLS FOR SF-20 TO BE TRANSITIONED FROM ESTATE DEVELOPMENT THEN INTO URBAN DISTRICTS.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, IN MY OPINION, THIS PUTS NEIGHBORS AT ODDS.

SEE, BECAUSE SF-7 AND EVEN SF-9 ARE URBAN. ESTATE DEVELOPMENT ISN'T. SO LET ME JUST READ WHAT IT SAYS FOR URBAN. RESIDENTS SHOULD BE, TO QUOTE THE CITY CODE, BE PROTECTED FROM EXCESSIVE NOISE, ILLUMINATION, ODOR, AND VISUAL CLUTTER. WELL, IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN TO A RANCH, I DON'T THINK I'VE EVER SEEN AN ELECTRIC TRACTOR, NEVER SEEN A HORSE USE A TOILET, AND I CAN'T GET MY DOGS TO STOP BARKING UP TO 10 O'CLOCK. THEY JUST DON'T KNOW, RIGHT? SO IMMEDIATELY, YOU HAVE NEIGHBOR AGAINST NEIGHBOR WITH COMPETING ZONING, RIGHT? AND SO THAT'S GONNA PUT US AT ODDS. WHAT'S THE REAL REASON I THINK WE'RE HERE? IT'S ABOUT MONEY. I TALKED TO THE GOOD PASTOR, AWESOME GUY, ASKED HIM WHY HE WAS DOING THIS, AND IT WAS TO RAISE MONEY FOR THE CHURCH.

I THINK THAT'S FANTASTIC. AND BLESS THEIR HEARTS, THEY'RE GONNA MAKE A TON OF MONEY OFF OF THIS. IT WAS A GREAT INVESTMENT. GOOD FOR THEM, AND I HOPE THEY PUT IT TO GOOD USE. BUT THEN I WENT TO THE DEVELOPER, AND I SAID, WHY AREN'T YOU FOLLOWING THE CODE AS IT IS TODAY AND THE TRANSITION? HE SAID, WELL, I CAN'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY.

CAN'T MAKE ENOUGH MONEY. NOW HE WANTS TO GO WITH DIFFERENT ZONING. MONEY SECONDS. RIGHT? I BELIEVE THE NEXT SPEAKER IS GOING TO YIELD HER TIME IF I COULD ASK HER.

SO IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO MONEY IN THIS EVENT. AND,

[00:45:01]

THING HERE, BUT JUST PUTTING NEIGHBORS AT ODDS WITH EACH OTHER BEFORE YOU EVEN BREAK GROUND OR THEY MOVE IN, I JUST DON'T THINK HEALTHY FOR THE COMMUNITY, RIGHT? AND SO- MR. LANGLEY, IF I CAN INTERRUPT YOU JUST ONE MINUTE, IF YOU'LL LET MS. NARANJO COME TO THE MIC AND JUST CEDE HER TIME TO YOU, IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LIKE TO DO. OF COURSE. IF YOU COULD, INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOUR ADDRESS AND THEN TELL US YOUR INTENT. MY NAME IS GABRIELA NARANJO. I RESIDE IN 2524 ELLIS COURT IN WEST PLANO. AND I YIELD MY TIME TO MY HUSBAND, PHILIP LANGLEY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

IF YOU NOTICE, WE ACTUALLY HAVE TWO RESIDENCES IN PLANO, AND NEITHER OF THEM ARE FOR RENT. WE LOVE PLANO. WE LIVE IN THE CENTRAL. WE LIVE IN THE EAST. SO I WANTED TO COMMEND AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, YOU SAID, MR. DOUGLAS WAS FORTHRIGHT AND SEEMED TO BE ACCOMMODATING WITH US. AND I BELIEVE HE HAS TRIED TO BE, BUT EVERYTHING HE SAYS IS LIP SERVICE TO THIS POINT. I DON'T KNOW THE MAN.

I'D LIKE TO TRUST HIM.

BUT WHY DON'T WE JUST PUT HIM TO THE TEST? I ASKED THIS COMMITTEE, REJECT THIS PROPOSAL, ASK HIM TO GO BACK AND DO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

FOR ALL OF THE THINGS HE SAYS HE'S GOING TO DO. AND MORE IN AGREEMENT, PUT IT IN A PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND THEN BRING IT BACK. BECAUSE I THINK THERE'LL BE ACCOMMODATION, BUT TODAY IT'S JUST A PROMISE.

IN FACT, HE ONE TIME TOLD ME, HEY, LET'S JUST HOPE PEOPLE DON'T COMPLAIN ABOUT YOUR DOGS. AND I SAID, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, HOPE IS NOT A PLAN. HAVE THEM PUT IT IN A PLAN, REJECT THIS CURRENT PROPOSAL, AND THEN WE'LL COME BACK AT ANOTHER TIME. AND I'M SURE EVERYTHING WILL BE IMMUTABLE THEN. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING. APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU DO. THANK YOU, MR. LANGLEY. AND THE NEXT SPEAKER IS CHRIS MEYER, FOLLOWED BY KYLE DESHANE. GOOD EVENING.

CHRIS MEYER, 3805, MERRIMAN DRIVE. I'M THE CURRENT PRESIDENT OF THE RANCH ESTATES HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION. EVERYTHING THAT PHIL HAS SAID, WE HAVE TALKED ABOUT MANY TIMES, THE LAST SPEAKER, AND THE RESIDENTS, THE 60 RESIDENTS OF THE RANCH ESTATES ARE IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH EVERYTHING THAT HE HAS SAID.

WE FEEL AS THOUGH THAT IF WE GO FROM ESTATE DEVELOPMENT SIZE LOTS TO SF9, SF7, OR ANY SMALLER, IT'S CERTAINLY NOT WHAT THE RESIDENTS OF EAST PLANO HAS MOVED THERE FOR. WE MOVED THERE BECAUSE WE REALLY ENJOYED... THE OPEN SPACES, THE PARKS, THE LARGER LOTS, THE STANDARD OF LIVING THAT WE HAD, THAT ALL OF THAT PROVIDED. SO I ASK THAT YOU VOTE NO AGAINST THIS CHANGE. AND I THINK THAT A STATE DEVELOPMENT STRUCTURE THERE WOULD BE CONDUCIVE AND WORK RIGHT ALONGSIDE WITH WHAT IS CURRENTLY THERE NOW AND WHAT THE CITY HAD ORIGINALLY PLANNED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. MEYER. THE LAST SPEAKER IS KYLE DESHANE. HELLO, MY NAME IS KYLE DESHANE. I LIVE AT 3924 RIDGETOP LANE AND I SHARE A PROPERTY LINE WITH THE LAND UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR REZONING. AS SOMEONE WHO SPOKE A FEW MONTHS AGO, I WANTED TO START AGAIN BY SAYING, THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE. I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK THE OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY WHO ARE HERE AND WILLING TO EXPRESS THEIR VIEWS. ALL THIS SUPPORT SHOWS WHY OUR SMALL LOS RIOS AREA COMMUNITY IS SO GREAT. MY PROPERTY, IN PARTICULAR, SHARES OVER 500 FEET OF PROPERTY LINE WITH THE AREA PROPOSED FOR REZONING. THERE ARE A FEW POINTS THAT ARE VERY IMPORTANT FOR ME THAT I WOULD LIKE THE BOARD TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION. AS ESTATE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS ARE UNIQUE AND THEIR REMOVAL OF THAT ZONING DESIGNATION COULD HAVE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES.

IN BOTH THEIR SIZE AND THEIR THEIR USE. MY FIRST CONCERN RELATES TO MY PROPERTY RIGHTS REGARDING STRUCTURES WITHIN THE STATE DEVELOPMENT DISTRICTS.

ANY ADDITIONAL BUILDING CONSTRUCTED ON MY PROPERTY MUST BE LOCATED, LIKE MENTIONED BEFORE, AT LEAST 100 FEET FROM ANY DWELLING ON AN ADJOINING PROPERTY. THE DEVELOPERS HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH WITH US TO PROVIDE AN ADEQUATE BUFFER.

HOWEVER, I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND WHAT ADDITIONAL ASSURANCES OR LEGALLY BINDING PROTECTIONS CAN BE PUT IN PLACE TO ENSURE THAT THIS BUFFER WILL NOT BE REDUCED OR OTHERWISE COMPROMISED IN THE FUTURE. MY SECOND CONCERN PERTAINS TO MY PROPERTY RIGHTS WITH RESPECT TO LIVESTOCK.

BASED ON THE ACREAGE OF OUR LOTS, PROPERTY OWNERS ARE PERMITTED TO KEEP LIVESTOCK ANIMALS. HOW CAN WE ENSURE THAT THE NEW RESIDENTS WILL ACKNOWLEDGE AND RESPECT THESE RIGHTS AS WELL? MY LAST CONCERN IS IN LINE WITH MUCH OF THE OTHER COMMUNITY MEMBERS AROUND DENSITY. PLANO'S COMPREHEND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN LISTS AS ITS FIRST PRIORITY

[00:50:01]

WHEN THINKING ABOUT MY ESTATE DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS, HOW DOES THIS INFILL DESIGN PRESERVE OR ENHANCE THEM? AND WHAT WILL THIS DO TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD'S QUALITY OF LIFE, BASED ON SOME OF THE POINTS THAT I HAVE BROUGHT UP? THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. DESHANE. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS? WE DID HAVE SOMEONE THAT REGISTERED.

BUT AS AN ATTENDEE ONLY, AND HE'D LIKE TO KNOW IF HE CAN SPEAK AT THIS MEETING. IF THEY'RE REGISTERED, THEN YES, WE SHOULD LET THEM SPEAK. ALL RIGHT. SO COREY RANNIKER. GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW REMARKS ON THIS REQUEST. NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE, MS. RANNIKER. COREY RANNIKER, 1814 N PLACE, 75074. THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A FEW BRIEF REMARKS ON THIS REQUEST. IT'S CLEAR TO ME THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE A LOT OF OUTREACH AND BUILDING CONSENSUS AROUND SOMETHING LIKE THIS. AND A CHANGE IS OBVIOUSLY A CHALLENGE. I'D LIKE TO SAY THAT I SUPPORT THIS REQUEST, AND I HOPE THAT YOU DO TOO.

REVIEWING THE PRIOR VERSIONS OF THE PLAN, I'M SOMEWHAT DISAPPOINTED THAT IT'S GONE FROM MORE UNITS DOWN TO LESS UNITS. AS YOU KNOW, WE ARE DESPERATELY IN NEED OF... HOUSING IN PLANO AND WE HAVE DECLINING SCHOOL POPULATION AND SCHOOLS CLOSING.

I'M A BIT CONCERNED ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE AREA AND THE PROPOSED SCREENING WALL. IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THIS IS PLACING A BURDEN ON THESE FUTURE HOMEOWNERS WHO ARE NOT EVEN IN THIS ROOM. OF A COST THAT THEY WILL ULTIMATELY HAVE TO BEAR MAINTENANCE AND ALL THOSE ONGOING COSTS IN PERPETUITY THROUGH THEIR HOA. AND IT SEEMS TO ME, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF INEQUITY. SO, ASIDE FROM THAT, I HOPE THAT YOU WILL SUPPORT THE REQUEST AS PRESENTED OR MODIFIED. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. RENEKER.

ANYONE ELSE? NO. OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND RESTRICT COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONERS? HANG ON. I'M SORRY. THAT'S OLD. SECOND.

MR. TIMOTHY RICHARDS IS REGISTERED TO SPEAK FOR ITEM 1A AS AN OPINION ONLY. AS A SUPPORT ONLY, BUT NOT REGISTERED TO SPEAK? CORRECT. OKAY. MR. RICHARDS, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY, LET ME REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, THEN. AND PLEASE COME FORWARD. I'M SORRY FOR THE CONFUSION, BUT I DID RECEIVE A CONFIRMATION EMAIL THAT I REGISTERED TO SPEAK.

SO, GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS TIM RICHARDS. I RESIDE AT 4300 PEGGY LANE IN PLANO, WHICH IS PART OF THE CREEKSIDE ESTATES, NUMBER TWO ADDITION.

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS JUST SOUTH OF PLANO EAST SENIOR HIGH.

IT'S BOUNDED BY LOS RIOS BOULEVARD TO THE WEST, PARK BOULEVARD TO THE SOUTH. SO, WHEN MY FAMILY MOVED HERE IN FEBRUARY OF 1993, THE MERRIMAN FAMILY FARM WAS BETWEEN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND PLANO EAST SENIOR HIGH. AND ALSO THE STONY HOLLOW ADDITION DID NOT EXIST. THERE WERE NO HOUSES NORTH OF PLANO EAST SENIOR HIGH. AND PARK BOULEVARD ENDED AT THE CREEK, AND IT DID NOT TURN INTO BETSY ROAD GOING INTO MURPHY, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO BRIDGE AT THAT TIME. SO TO SAY THAT I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF CHANGES IN EAST PLANO SINCE 1993, IS AN ACCURATE STATEMENT.

FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES, I RECENTLY RETIRED FROM THE TITLE INSURANCE BUSINESS AFTER 42 YEARS IN THAT INDUSTRY. I ALSO HOLD AN ACTIVE TEXAS REAL ESTATE SALES LICENSE, CONTINUAL LICENSE SINCE 1985, JUST FOR BACKGROUND. MY WIFE, CINDY AND I MOVED OUR FAMILY TO EAST PLANO IN 1993 BECAUSE WE LIKED THE SMALL TOWN FEEL OF EAST PLANO AND FOR THE SCHOOL DISTRICT. BOTH OF OUR CHILDREN WENT TO DOOLEY ELEMENTARY, ARMSTRONG MIDDLE SCHOOL, WHICH, AS YOU KNOW, NO LONGER EXISTS.

WILLIAMS HIGH SCHOOL AND GRADUATED FROM PLANO EAST SENIOR HIGH. SO WE'RE DEEPLY ROOTED AND LOVE EAST PLANO.

WHEN THE MERRIMAN FARM, FAMILY FARM WAS SOLD AS A HOMEOWNER IN THE ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOOD,

[00:55:01]

BECAUSE THOSE ARE SMALLER LOTS THAN IN OUR NEIGHBORHOOD.

WELL, THE SAME DEVELOPER THAT HAS PETITIONED FOR THIS ZONING CHANGE, DOUGLAS PROPERTIES, DEVELOPED THAT NEIGHBORHOOD. IT TURNS OUT THEY BUILT EXTREMELY NICE HOMES, AND THEY HAVE, IN MY OPINION, GREATLY ENHANCED THE VALUE OF OUR ADJOINING NEIGHBORHOOD.

CONSIDERING ALL OF THE OTHER ZONING CHANGE CATEGORIES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN REQUESTED, RETAIL OR MULTIFAMILY, ET CETERA, I TRULY FEEL THIS IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF OUR SMALL PART OF PLANO.

AND SO I RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE COMMISSION APPROVE THIS ZONING CHANGE REQUEST. I KNOW THAT SEVERAL OF OUR CONCERNED CITIZENS HAVE COME OUT THIS EVENING TO SHOW THEIR STRONG SUPPORT FOR THE REZONING EFFORT, AND I WOULD JUST LIKE THEM TO STAND TO SHOW THEIR SUPPORT, IF YOU DON'T MIND. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. RICHARDS. NOW I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. RESTRICT COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN, AND I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT THANK YOU ALL SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE. I'M REALLY IMPRESSED HAVING SO MANY PEOPLE LIVING IN PLANO FOR SO LONG.

AND COMING HERE TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS, TO GIVE YOUR OPINIONS AND SHARE YOUR THOUGHTS AND THE LOVE OF THE CITY. AND THEN GIVE US SOME FEEDBACKS AND HELP HELP US DO OUR JOBS, SO WE APPRECIATE THAT, I APPRECIATE THAT. UM, I JUST HAVE A QUESTION TO OUR STAFF, I GUESS, REGARDING THE UM SETBACKS? BECAUSE IF IF WE WERE GOING TO APPROVE THE ZONING CHANGES, IS THERE ANY UM LANGUAGE IN THE ZONING ITSELF TO SAY, HEY, THERE HAS TO BE THIS MUCH SETBACKS? SO THAT THE NEIGHBORS WILL NOT SUFFER ANY MORE RESTRICTIONS.

ABOUT HOW FAR THEY HAVE TO BUILD AWAY FROM THE BUILDING, SO THAT IN THE FUTURE THEY CANNOT BUILD MORE BUILDINGS CLOSER TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SORRY, ARE YOU REFERRING TO A SETBACK FROM THE. RESIDENTIAL, OR FROM THE RANCH ESTATES TO THE NEW PROPERTY. OR JUST ANY SETBACK AT ALL? THAT 85 FEET SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE NEW DEVELOPMENT BUILDING, SO THAT THE NEIGHBOR DOESN'T HAVE TO BUILD 100 FEET FROM THEIR PROPERTY LINE. IF THEY BUILD CLOSER. I'M NOT SURE. MIKE, CAN YOU, MR. BELL, CAN YOU ANSWER THAT QUESTION? SURE. THIS REQUEST IS FOR A STRAIGHT, SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE. 7 ZONING. SO THOSE RESTRICTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED. THEY ARE VOLUNTARY THAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING, BUT THEY WILL NOT BE REQUIRED BY THE ZONING IF APPROVED.

IN ORDER TO DO THOSE KIND OF STANDARDS, YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE IT AS PART OF A PLAN DEVELOPMENT. THIS HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED FOR A PLAN DEVELOPMENT CASE, AND SO THERE'S NOT A WAY TO PUT THOSE STANDARDS ON THIS CURRENT REQUEST TONIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. MR. BRUNOFF.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. FIRST OF ALL, I WANT TO THANK EVERYBODY FOR COMING OUT TONIGHT AND SPEAKING TO US. I WAS IMPRESSED WITH THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATIONS ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE. I SEE A BUNCH OF PEOPLE ON BOTH SIDES OF THIS ISSUE, COMMITTED TO THEIR NEIGHBORHOODS, TO THEIR HOMES, TO EAST PLANO AND THE CITY OF PLANO. I'M ALSO IMPRESSED WITH THE APPLICANT WHO HAS, I BELIEVE, MADE A SIGNIFICANT EFFORT TO REACH OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS. AND TO MODIFY HIS PROPOSAL TO ADDRESS AS MANY OF THE CONCERNS AS WAS HUMANLY POSSIBLE. HE HAS REDUCED THE NUMBER OF LOTS THAT HE WAS PROPOSING TO BUILD BY 16 PERCENT, FROM 58 DOWN TO 50. WELL, AS A PERCENTAGE OF 58 IS PROBABLY A LITTLE LESS, I'M SORRY.

BUT ANYWAY. IT'S IN DOUBLE DIGITS. HE'S MADE A SIGNIFICANT CONCESSION THERE.

HE HAS RECONFIGURED THE DRIVE LANES IN THE DEVELOPMENT SO THAT THERE IS, NOT ONLY IS THERE NO DIRECT...

STREET CONNECTION BETWEEN THIS PROPERTY AND RANCH ESTATES, BUT THE WESTERNMOST DRIVE LANE PROVIDES PART OF THE SETBACK.

FROM HOMES BUILT IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, SEPARATING THEM

[01:00:01]

PRIDE IN EAST PLANO, AND THESE ARE GOOD THINGS. I DON'T KNOW OF ANY WAY IN WHICH. A HOME ON A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT IS INHERENTLY DAMAGING, POISONOUS, OR CONTAMINATING TO LARGER LOTS THAT MAY BE IN THE ADJACENT DEVELOPMENT.

PROVIDED THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT IS SUFFICIENT SIZE, AND THIS ONE IS, THIS IS NOT A SPOT ZONING SITUATION. WE'RE NOT TALKING ONE OR TWO LOTS.

WE'RE TALKING A WHOLE DEVELOPMENT. I KNOW MY OWN HOME IS ON AN SF7 LOT. IT'S ABOUT A 7,800 SQUARE FOOT LOT.

I THINK MY HOME IS ATTRACTIVE.

I THINK MY NEIGHBORHOOD IS ATTRACTIVE. I THINK THE HOMES ARE DESIRABLE. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION KNOW THAT IN A PAST LIFE... MY FAMILY AND I USED TO LIVE IN THE CITY OF IRVING, AND I SERVED ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IN IRVING WHEN I WAS THERE.

AND I REMEMBER WELL THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AT THAT TIME, A GENTLEMAN BY THE NAME OF JACK SPURLOCK, WHO WAS A REAL ESTATE BROKER, REMARKING THAT EVEN A HOME IN A 6,000 SQUARE FOOT ZONED LOT CAN BE A DESIRABLE HOME.

06,000 SQUARE FOOT HOME CAN BE DESIRABLE, CERTAINLY A HOME ON A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. A BIGGER HOME CAN BE DESIRABLE.

AND HOMES TODAY, THE MARKET BEING WHAT IT IS, ON A 7,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT, CAN ALSO BE VERY DESIRABLE, VERY ATTRACTIVE, AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY AND AN ASSET TO THE CITY. CONSIDERING CAREFULLY THE ARGUMENTS ON BOTH SIDES, I'M INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT THIS APPLICATION IS ON BALANCE A GOOD THING, AND I'M PREPARED TO VOTE TO APPROVE IT. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BRUNSKY. MS. WOOD. A COUPLE QUESTIONS BASED ON SOME OF THE FEEDBACK WE'VE BEEN GETTING. FIRST, THE HOA BEARING THE COST FOR THE...

SCREENING WALL, THAT'S FAIRLY STANDARD FOR THE WAY THAT WE GO ABOUT THESE THINGS, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. AND CITIZENS KNOW WHEN THEY'RE LOOKING AT AND PURCHASING THESE HOMES THAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS ARE BUILT IN, RIGHT? THAT THE HOA HAS FEES, THEY'RE TOLD ABOUT THAT BEFORE THEY PURCHASE. THEY MAY BE TOLD, PERHAPS. OKAY. SO THE SECOND QUESTION I HAD... AND I DON'T KNOW IF YOU KEPT TRACK, MR. DISDAIN BROUGHT UP A COUPLE PROPERTY RIGHTS ISSUES THAT I JUST WANT TO KIND OF TALK ABOUT FOR A SECOND. AS IT RELATES TO LIVESTOCK, WOULD THERE BE ANY, COULD THERE BE ANY CONFLICT BETWEEN THIS PARTICULAR ZONING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT AND HIS PROPERTY AS FAR AS HIS ABILITY TO MAINTAIN? WHATEVER LIVESTOCK HE HAS ON THAT PROPERTY? I THINK THAT WOULD BE ADDRESSED WITH THE PROPERTY STANDARDS AND BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENTS IF THEY MIGHT HAVE SOME, OR WITH THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. IF THERE IS AN ORDINANCE REGARDING SMELL AND HOW FAR AWAY IT NEEDS TO BE. SO I WOULD DEFER TO THOSE DOCUMENTS. SO ARE YOU THEN SAYING THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT THERE COULD BE A PROBLEM FOR... SOMEONE LIVING IN THESE AND MR. DISDAIN'S LIVESTOCK ABILITY. I HAVEN'T REVIEWED THE IMPACT OF, I DON'T BELIEVE, SMELL OF ANY LIVESTOCK, SO I CAN'T ANSWER. VERY DIRECTLY ON THAT QUESTION.

BUT UM, YOU KNOW, THE COURT, THE CODE OF ORDINANCES DOES HAVE REQUIREMENTS. AND REGARDING SMELL, OR ANY OF THOSE EXTRAORDINARY THINGS THAT YOU MENTIONED, MR. BELL, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING TO ADD? NO, UM.

[01:05:01]

COMMISSIONER LANGEFELTER. I'M GOING TO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF AND FOR THE APPLICANT. SO THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T MIND COMING UP. FIRST QUESTION IS JUST TO KIND OF CLARIFY FOR EVERYBODY HERE, AS WELL AS US. THIS IS A STRAIGHT ZONING REQUEST.

SO... THEY PROVIDED A SITE PLAN, THEY PROVIDED ALL THIS.

ARE THEY STUCK TO THAT SITE PLAN, OR CAN THEY ADJUST IT BASED ON THE STRAIGHT ZONING? THEY CAN ADJUST THEIR CONCEPT PLAN IF THEY'D LIKE TO. THE ZONING DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO BUILD WHAT'S PRESENTED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN. SO ULTIMATELY, WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS THEY PRESENTED A NICE PLAN FOR US ALL, BUT...

ULTIMATELY, THE REQUEST IS STRAIGHT ZONING. THEY CAN ADJUST THAT, WHICH MEANS THE WHOLE BUFFER THING THAT WE'VE GONE ALL THIS TIME FOR TALKING ABOUT, THE DISPENSE THAT WE'VE BEEN TALKING ABOUT, ALL THIS STUFF, TECHNICALLY, THEY CAN GET OUT OF IT BASED ON AS LONG AS THEY MEET THE STRAIGHT ZONING. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY, SO NOW THE APPLICANT. YES, SIR. SO YOU GET WHAT I'M GETTING AT? YES, SIR.

WE HAVE NO ABILITY TO HOLD YOU TO THAT, BUT A PD WOULD. DID YOU DISCUSS THIS? A PD OPTION WHERE IT WOULD HOLD YOU TO A SITE PLAN LIKE THIS AND HOLD YOU TO THE LANDSCAPE BUFFERS AND HOLD YOU TO ALL THOSE THINGS? SO IT'D BE ACTUALLY WRITTEN INTO THE ZONING? WHEN WE FIRST STARTED, WE TALKED ABOUT THAT WITH STAFF. BUT THEY DETERMINED THE SITE WAS SO SMALL THAT IT REALLY WON. OF COURSE, IT WAS BEFORE WE KNEW WE WAS GOING TO RUN INTO ALL THESE ISSUES ALSO. SO THEY SUGGESTED NOT TO DO A PD JUST BECAUSE IT WAS SMALL. AND I KNOW, I MEAN, WE'VE GOT THE LETTER. WE'VE GOT ANYTHING THAT YOU WANT FROM US TO ASSURE YOU THAT WE'LL DEVELOP PER THE CONCEPT PLAN.

THE OTHER ITEM THAT WAS BROUGHT UP ABOUT THE ODOR, THE NOISE.

WE'VE ALSO COMMITTED IN THE LETTER TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE HOA DOCUMENTS THAT PROHIBIT THE HOMEOWNERS FROM COMPLAINING ABOUT NOISE, ODORS, AND ALSO. IT CAN BE IN THE BYLAWS. SO, I MEAN, WE'VE TRIED TO ADDRESS EVERYTHING THAT WE CAN WITH THEM. SO, I MEAN, AS FAR AS EVEN THAT. SO, AGAIN, IF YOU CAN COME UP WITH SOME IDEAS OF MAYBE TURNING OR SOMETHING OF WHAT IS, CAN WE INCLUDE A DOCUMENT OR WHATEVER, I MEAN, WE'LL DO IT.

BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S NOT A LARGE SUBDIVISION. I MEAN, IT'S GOING TO BE DONE IN OBVIOUSLY ONE PHASE. IT'LL BUILD OUT IN PROBABLY FOUR YEARS.

AT TODAY'S RATES, 10, 12 LOTS A YEAR IS TYPICALLY. IT TAKES US, RIGHT NOW, STARTING TODAY, WE'RE PROBABLY 20, 22 MONTHS BEFORE THE FIRST LOT WILL BE READY FOR A HOUSE. AND THEN THEY GOT TO BUILD A HOUSE, SO WE'RE TWO YEARS AWAY RIGHT NOW.

AND IT'LL PROBABLY TAKE 30 MONTHS FOR SOLDIERS.

TO SELL OUT. AND SO IT'S JUST A VERY SHORT PROCESS.

BUT AGAIN, I MEAN, WE ARE GOING TO DEVELOP, I MEAN, PER THE CONCEPT PLAN, I MEAN, WE'LL BE COMING RIGHT BACK IN WITH A PLAN. AND WHATEVER COMMITMENT WE HAVE TO DO, WE'LL DO. BECAUSE, BELIEVE ME, I'VE DONE TOO MUCH BUSINESS IN PLANO, AN OFFICE RIGHT DOWN THE STREET. THESE 50 LOTS AREN'T WORTH MESSING WITH MY REPUTATION. I MEAN, I WOULD NEVER DO THAT. I'VE BEEN DOING THIS BUSINESS FOR 44 YEARS. AND THEN YOU SEE, I GO INTO, THAT'S MY GOAL, IS TO DO WHAT I SAY I'LL DO.

YEAH, I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF PEOPLE THAT DON'T KNOW YOU OR HAVEN'T HAD THAT EXPERIENCE IN THE RESIDENCE IN YOUR NEIGHBORHOOD. AND I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND. SO I GUESS MY NEXT QUESTION, AND IT MAY HAVE TO GO INTO CLOSED SESSION,

[01:10:01]

COMMISSIONER BENDER. ANYONE ELSE? STAY CLOSE. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, SIR. THANK YOU.

JUST A BRIEF QUESTION TO STAFF. A SCREENING WALL, WHETHER IT'S CONCRETE OR IRON, OR STEEL, WHATEVER, AFTER CONSTRUCTED, THE CITY MAINTAINS THAT, CORRECT? NO, THE SCREENING WALL THAT'S BEING PROPOSED WOULD NOT BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY. IT WOULD BE MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. THAT'S CORRECT.

THANK YOU. OKAY, I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. BACK TO THE QUESTION ABOUT THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS' RIGHTS.

WITH THIS 100-FOOT SEPARATION, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S AN ISSUE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF AN ADDITIONAL STRUCTURE ON THE EXISTING NEIGHBOR'S PROPERTY.

WITH THAT DEALT WITH, HOPEFULLY, AS FAR AS LIVESTOCK, OTHER USES OF THAT PROPERTY, IS ANYTHING GOING TO CHANGE FOR THE CURRENT ESTATE OWNERS AS FAR AS... THEIR PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO USE THEIR PROPERTY FOR, HOW THEY'RE ALLOWED TO USE IT, ETC. NO.

FROM OUR ANALYSIS OF REVIEWING THE EXISTING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT, AS WELL AS JUST ESTATE DEVELOPMENT IN GENERAL, WE DO NOT FIND THAT ANY OF THEIR CURRENT ALLOWANCES THROUGH THEIR ZONING WOULD BE AFFECTED BY THIS PROPOSAL.

THERE'S NO ADJACENCY QUESTIONS ABOUT ADJACENT LAND USES, ANYTHING LIKE THAT? THAT'S CORRECT. IT WOULD END UP RICOCHETING BACK. OKAY. OKAY.

THAT'S MY ONLY QUESTION FOR STAFF. JUST MY COMMENTS, AND IT SOUNDS LIKE WE MAY NEED TO GO INTO EXECUTIVE, HAVE SOME QUESTIONS FOR LEGAL COUNSEL. I'LL RESERVE MY COMMENTS UNTIL AFTER WE DO THAT. SO, COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. JUST ANOTHER QUESTION POPPED IN MY HEAD ABOUT THE ANIMALS. IF THE NEIGHBORS... HAVE LIVESTOCK, HORSES, CATTLE CROSSED THE PROPERTY LINE, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THERE'S NO FENCE, RIGHT? THEY'RE ALL LIVE SCREEN LIKE TREES, AND THE TREES ARE 20 FEET APART. IF THE LIVESTOCK CROSSED THE PROPERTY LINE AND GOING INTO THE OPEN SPACE, WHERE THEY'RE ASSUMING THERE'LL BE GRASS GROWING AND GRAZE ON THOSE AND THE... HOMEOWNERS ON THE OTHER SIDE WILL HAVE TO BEAR THE BURDEN TO MAINTAIN THAT GRASS. WOULD THAT BE SOMETHING THAT CITY CAN STEP IN AND MITIGATE THAT? SO I DON'T KNOW EXACTLY IF ANIMALS CROSSING ONTO A DIFFERENT LOT IS A VIOLATION OF OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES. I IMAGINE THAT IT WOULD BE, BUT I CAN PROVIDE MORE INFORMATION IF NOT. BUT IN THAT EVENT, IT WOULD BE A CIVIL DISPUTE, AND THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER AFFECTED WOULD NEED TO REPORT THAT TO OUR PROPERTY STANDARDS DEPARTMENT AND MAKE US AWARE OF THAT ISSUE. THANK YOU. OKAY, WE HAVE HAD A

[Additional Item]

MR. BELL, WE HAD A QUESTION

[Items 1A. (DW) & 1B. (DW) (Part 2 of 2)]

CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT FOR US? I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT THERE'S ALREADY AN EXISTING FENCE ALONG THAT PROPERTY LINE. SO THAT WOULD CONTROL THE LIVESTOCK QUESTION? CORRECT.

ALL RIGHT. I HAD PRESERVED MY COMMENTS UNTIL AFTER OUR EXECUTIVE SESSION. I WANT TO APPLAUD MR. DOUGLAS. HE WAS SITTING ON THE FRONT ROW.

THERE HE IS. NO, IT'S OKAY.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO COME DOWN. I JUST WANTED TO, I DIDN'T KNOW WHERE YOU WERE. I WANTED TO LOOK AT YOU WHEN I SAID THIS. I APPLAUD YOU FOR REACHING OUT TO THE COMMUNITY. I THINK YOU FOUND SOME CREATIVE ANSWERS TO SOME OF THEIR CONCERNS ABOUT SETBACKS, ABOUT, YOU KNOW, TURNING THE SIDES OF THE HOUSES TO THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS, SO YOU'RE NOT LOOKING DIRECTLY INTO THEIR YARDS. SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD AT THE FIRST MEETING, YOU FOUND A BLEND OF SF7 AND SF9. AND MY PERSONAL OPINION, I BELIEVE THAT ALL OF THAT EFFORT HAS GONE A LONG WAY TOWARDS PRESERVING THE ESTATE.

FEEL THAT YOUR NEIGHBORS HAVE TODAY, WITH THE SCREENING AND

[01:15:01]

AND SO I JUST WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR EFFORTS ON THEIR BEHALF. I THINK YOU LISTENED, AND IT SHOWS YOUR COMMITMENT TO TRYING TO FIND A SOLUTION. I ALSO RESPECT THE NEIGHBORS THAT LIVE THERE. I KNOW Y'ALL HAVE.

GOT SOME BEAUTIFUL PLACES OUT THERE, LARGE TRACTS, YOU KNOW, RURAL FEEL, WHICH IS FANTASTIC. AND I BELIEVE THAT, MR. DOUGLAS HAS TRIED TO WORK TO FIND A COMPROMISE, RECOGNIZING THAT YOU'RE ALREADY SURROUNDED ON TWO SIDES BY HIGHER DENSITY RESIDENTIAL SF-9S AND SF-7S, AND THERE ARE SF- SEVENS AND EVEN SIXES ACROSS THE STREET, ALONG WITH THE SCHOOL. AND SO I DON'T FIND THE REQUEST INCONSISTENT WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD, WITH THE CHANGES. I'LL BE HONEST, I DID NOT FEEL THAT WAY AT THE LAST MEETING. AND I FEEL LIKE HE'S GONE A LONG WAY TOWARDS ACCOMPLISHING THAT GOAL. TO PRESERVE WHAT YOU HAVE AND YET BE ABLE TO DEVELOP A PIECE OF PROPERTY. WITH HOUSING STOCK THAT WE DO NEED IN THE CITY OF PLANO. WITH THAT SAID, I DO AGREE WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT'S IN FRONT OF US. I KNOW WE HAVE SOME OTHER CONCERNS UP HERE, AND SO I'LL SEE IF ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO WEIGH IN ON ANY OF THE OTHER CONCERNS THAT HAVE BEEN EXPRESSED. COMMISSION? ANYBODY? NO? COMMISSIONER BRONSKI. I'LL START OFF. MR. DOUGLAS, AS I SAID WHEN I FIRST STARTED TALKING, THAT. I REALLY APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU'RE WORKING HARD TO MAKE AN EFFORT, THAT YOU HAVE SHOWN YOURSELF TO BE A PERSON OF GREAT INTEGRITY. THAT HAS BEEN IN OUR CITY FOR A LONG TIME. I HAVE FELT A LOT MORE COMFORTABLE ABOUT... THE DESIGN AS TO HOW IT SITS. TODAY, I DO HEAR THE CONCERNS OF THE CITIZENS THAT ARE YOUR NEIGHBORS. AND I DO BELIEVE, AS ONE OF YOUR NEIGHBORS MENTIONED, THAT SHOULD THIS COMMITTEE SUGGEST THAT THE BEST OPTION IS TO COME BACK WITH A PD. I BELIEVE THAT WE WOULD COME BACK WITH A PD THAT LOOKS JUST LIKE WHAT YOU'RE OFFERING, AND YOU WOULD BE A PERSON TO KEEP YOUR WORD AT THAT.

WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO RESERVE THE BALANCE OF MY COMMENT UNTIL EVERYBODY ELSE SPEAKS.

MR. TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. AGAIN, I AGREE WITH THE PREVIOUS COMMISSIONERS THAT WE REALLY APPRECIATE YOUR EFFORT. MR. DOUGLAS AND THE DEVELOPER, AND ALL THE NEIGHBORS WHO CAME IN TO SUPPORT THIS DESIGN. AND WE ALL FEEL LIKE, OR SORRY, ME, I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A GREAT DESIGN.

AND YOU HAVE LISTENED, YOU HAVE CHANGED, YOU HAVE MADE ALL THE CHANGES.

THAT ACCORDING TO LAST MEETING, THAT ALL THE REQUESTS THAT WE HAVE SUBMITTED. AND THE ONLY CONCERN THAT I HAD WAS THAT. BECAUSE THE CASE RIGHT NOW IS A STRAIGHT ZONING CASE, ONCE WE CHANGE THE ZONING, THERE'S NO WAY THAT WE CAN HOLD. EITHER YOU OR THE NEXT DEVELOPER, OR THE DEVELOPER AFTER THAT, DO ANY CHANGES TO THE PLAN. BECAUSE ONCE THE ZONING CHANGES, THERE'S NO WAY THE CITY CAN DO ANYTHING ABOUT THE PLAN ITSELF. SO I THINK, AS A SOLUTION SEEKER, I LIKE TO SEEK A SOLUTION. AND I KIND OF LEARNED THAT THE SOLUTION COULD BE A PD. SO I GUESS I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BRONSKI. IF THERE'S A WAY THAT WE CAN TURN INTO A PD, I WOULD ERR ON THAT SIDE. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BENDER. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. YOU KNOW, WHEN WE TABLED THIS CASE RECENTLY, I THINK WHAT WE WANTED TO SEE WAS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED HERE.

IS THAT THE COMMUNITY WAS WORKING TOGETHER WITH THE DEVELOPER TO FIND A BETTER SOLUTION.

BECAUSE THERE ARE LIMITS TO WHAT WE CAN DO. AND OUR PRIMARY REASON FOR BUSINESS HERE IS TO LOOK AT LAND USE. AND I ALSO BELIEVE THAT ALL LANDOWNERS HAVE

[01:20:02]

MR. DOUGLAS, I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR YOU IF YOU WOULD COME FORWARD. WHILE YOU'RE COMING FORWARD, I DO CONCUR WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WHO'VE SAID THAT. I DO BELIEVE THAT IF WE MOVE FORWARD WITH SOME SORT OF A PD OR SOMETHING, THAT THE PLAN, AS PRESENTED, I BELIEVE, IS A SOLUTION THAT HAS FOUND THE COMPROMISE THAT WE WERE LOOKING FOR, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION. AND SO THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR YOU, AND IT'S KIND OF A YES OR NO, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO WORK ON THIS AND TURN THIS INTO A PD? SO WE CAN MEMORIALIZE THE COMMITMENTS THAT YOU'VE MADE TO THE NEIGHBORS SO THAT THEY CAN BE ENFORCEABLE BY THE CITY? IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES, YES, SIR. IN FACT, I SAID THAT WAS ONE OF OUR FIRST THOUGHTS, BUT IT WAS JUST SO SMALL.

BUT NO, IF THAT'S THE WAY HE WANTS TO GO, WE'LL BE MORE THAN HAPPY TO.

OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTION.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKI. SO, MR. DOUGLAS, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR COMMITMENT HERE. SO ON THAT, I WOULD MOVE THAT IN ORDER TO ALLOW THIS TO CONTINUE THE PROCESS OF MR. DOUGLAS AND THE COMMUNITY WORKING TOGETHER, THAT WE TABLE THIS ITEM 1A TO AN INDEFINITE TIME PERIOD.

NO. YEAH, WE NEED TO PICK A DATE. WELL, WE HAVE TO RE-NOTICE ANYWAY, SO A DATE CERTAIN ISN'T NECESSARY IN THIS CASE BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO SEND OUT NEW NOTICES. OKAY. NEVER MIND. NEVER MIND. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO. WE HAVE A MOTION TO COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF. I'LL SECOND IT WITH A COMMENT THAT I WISH THAT THIS REQUEST HAD BEEN A PART OF OUR FIRST TABLING OF THE CASE. WE'RE NOW PUTTING HIM TO A SECOND TABLING OF THE CASE. I HOPE THIS IS THE LAST ONE. IT'S INCONVENIENT AND UNFAIR, I THINK, ULTIMATELY TO THE APPLICANT TO KEEP POSTPONING THE CASE.

AS WE THINK OF NEW THINGS TIME AFTER TIME.

SINCE HE IS AGREEABLE TO IT, I SEE NO PROBLEM, YOU KNOW, WITH GOING WITH THE PD FORMAT. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND SECOND THE MOTION.

THANK YOU. I CONCUR WITH YOUR COMMENTS. I WOULD ADD TO THAT RESPECT FOR THE PEOPLE THAT SHOWED UP TONIGHT, BECAUSE I KNOW THIS IS THE SECOND TIME Y'ALL HAVE BEEN HERE, FIRST, MANY OF YOU, AND SOME OF YOU THE THIRD, AND SOME OF YOU MAYBE EVEN A FOURTH, BECAUSE I THINK WE'VE TABLED TWICE. SO THANK Y'ALL FOR YOUR COMMITMENT. I KNOW THAT THESE ARE YOUR HOMES. WE ASK YOU TO COME OUT AT NIGHT AND MEET WITH US. WE'RE NOT DOING IT INTENTIONALLY. WE DO WANT TO GET TO A GOOD ANSWER THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY. SO, WITH THAT SAID, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS BY THE COMMISSION? NO? PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7-0. MR. DOUGLAS AND YOUR NEIGHBORS, WE LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING YOU ALL AGAIN. THANK YOU ALL VERY MUCH FOR COMING OUT THIS EVENING. YEAH, SO WE NEED TO READ 1B SO THAT WE CAN TABLE THAT AS WELL, PLEASE.

THAT WAS FOR 1A. I'M SORRY, THAT MOTION WAS FOR 1A. I ALREADY READ THEM, SO COMMISSIONER BRONSKI. I MOVE WE TABLE AGENDA ITEM 1B TO THIS INDEFINITE TIME PERIOD AS WELL.

COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO ALSO TABLE ITEM 1B, CONSISTENT WITH 1A. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM 1B PASSES 7-0 TO TABLE AS WELL. ALL RIGHT.

[2. (MC) Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2025-003: Request to expand and amend Urban Mixed Use-1 on 160.4 acres of land out of the William Beverly Survey, Abstract No. 75, and the Samuel Klepper Survey, Abstract No. 216, located at the southeast corner of Plano Parkway and Custer Road in the City of Plano, Collin County, Texas, for the following changes: to expand the district by rezoning 4.1 acres from Light Industrial-1 to Urban Mixed-Use-1; to modify the required mix of uses; to allow outdoor commercial amusement, additional multifamily residence units, and single-family attached units on certain blocks of the development plan; and to modify other development standards for the district; presently zoned Urban Mixed-Use-1 and Light Industrial-1 and located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway and Expressway Corridor Overlay Districts. Tabled January 20, 2026. Projects #ZC2025-003 and #DP2025-001. Applicant: Rosewood Property Company. (Legislative consideration)]

FROM LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE

[01:25:02]

PRESENTLY ZONED URBAN MIXED USE ONE AND LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY, PLANO, PARKWAY AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR. OVERLAY DISTRICTS TABLE JANUARY 20TH, 2026. APPLICANT, ROSEWOOD PROPERTY COMPANY. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

MY NAME IS MOLLY CORIEL, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE SAME AS THE JANUARY 20TH MEETING, THIS IS THE SUBJECT PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, SHOWN HERE ON THE SCREEN. AND ADDITIONALLY, HERE IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN SHOWING THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WITH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT. I WANTED TO INCLUDE THIS SLIDE TO BRIEF EVERYONE ON THE PREVIOUS TABLING OF THIS ITEM AND TO DISCUSS THE CHANGES THAT WILL BE SHARED IN THIS PRESENTATION.

SINCE THAT LAST MEETING. SO, AS A REMINDER, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TABLED THIS ITEM AT THE JANUARY 20TH, 2026 MEETING. TO THE MARCH 2ND MEETING, THIS MEETING TODAY, ASKING THE APPLICANT TO INCORPORATE PHASING OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES WITH THE ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY BEING REQUESTED. THE PHASING REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT.

AND ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS TO THE CONDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR AREA REQUIREMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN ADDED FOR BLOCKS A2, LOT 1, F AND Z. STAFF AND THE APPLICANT HAD IDENTIFIED SOME ADDITIONAL CHANGES NEEDED FOR FOR THAT EHA REQUIREMENTS SINCE THAT MEETING, WHICH ARE INCORPORATED. AND THEN, TO MAKE IT CLEAR, I'VE UPDATES. THE PRESENTATION RELATED TO THESE CHANGES RELATED TO THESE CHANGES WILL BE CALLED OUT. USING YELLOW HIGHLIGHTS WHERE THERE'S NEW SLIDES. I'VE JUST HIGHLIGHTED THE TITLE BLOCK IN YELLOW, SO WITH THAT I'LL GO AHEAD AND START. SO TO GO OVER THE REQUEST AGAIN IN FULL, THE REQUEST HAS FIVE ELEMENTS, EXPANDING THE DISTRICT BY REZONING 4.1 ACRES FROM LI1 TO UMU1 FOR THE ADDITIONAL SINGLE FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS BEING REQUESTED. THAT'S THE 51 TOWNHOMES ON BLOCK Z.

MODIFYING THE REQUIRED MIX OF USES TO EXCEED THE STANDARD MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE OF ANY ONE PRIMARY USE FOR RESIDENTIAL USES, WHICH IS GOING FROM... 53%, 88% OF THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN, OR A MAXIMUM OF, OVER THE MAXIMUM REQUIRED 70% FOR ANY ONE PRIMARY USE. I'LL GO OVER IN MORE DETAIL AGAIN ON THAT LATER. REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, SO HAVING A SMALLER PERCENTAGE OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES RELATED, COMPLEMENTARY TO THE INCREASE IN RESIDENTIAL USES AS PART OF THIS REQUEST. MODIFYING OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE DISTRICT, WHICH HAS BEEN UPDATED FOR PHASING, WHICH WE'LL GO OVER, AS WELL AS ALTERNATIVE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY, DISTRICT MITIGATION STANDARDS.

THE HISTORY OF THIS PROJECT IS THAT IT WAS ESTABLISHED IN 2014. IN 2017, IT WAS AMENDED TWICE IN ORDER TO REFINE USE ALLOCATIONS, SIGNAGE REQUIREMENTS, THE STREET LAYOUT AND BLOCK CONFIGURATIONS. AND THEN, IN 2021, THE REQUEST SIGNIFICANTLY MODIFIED THE UMU-1 DISTRICT TO DEMOTE OFFICE AS A SUPPORTIVE USE, HAVE A 50% REDUCTION IN OFFICE BUILDING HEIGHTS.

THERE WAS A CONNECTION TO CUSTER ROAD ESTABLISHED, AND THERE WAS AN ADDITIONAL 31 NEW SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED LOTS. THE DISTRICT EXPANSION IS 4.1 ACRES. THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED LI. IT'S THE CREATION OF BLOCK Z FOR THE 51 SINGLE-FAMILY ATTACHED UNITS.

STAFF FINDS THAT THE PROPOSED LAND USE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE UMU 1 DISTRICT. AND FURTHERMORE, THE REDUCTION IN THE LI1 ZONING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE SURROUNDING ZONING OF THIS PROPERTY TODAY. I TALKED ABOUT THE MODIFYING MIX OF USES IN MY PREVIOUS PRESENTATION, SO THIS IS SOMETHING REQUIRED FOR ALL UMU DISTRICTS. THAT ESTABLISHES A RANGE OF PERCENTAGE BASED ON THE GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF WHAT USE? CURRENTLY, THE MAXIMUM ALLOWANCE FOR ANY ONE PRIMARY USE IS 70% TODAY, THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING 88% AND A.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE AMOUNT

[01:30:02]

THIS IS THE INFORMATION SHOWN AS ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE SHOWING A MAXIMUM 88% OF RESIDENTIAL, 3% RETAIL, 9% OFFICE, AND THERE'S NO COMMITMENT TO A HOTEL. THE REQUEST FOR RESIDENTIAL HAS NOT CHANGED.

THEY'RE ADDING 700 MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND 51 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE ATTACHED UNITS.

ADDITIONALLY, FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL, THIS IS NOT CHANGING. IT WILL ONLY ACCOUNT FOR 12% OF THE GROSS FLOOR AREA. THE PHASING BEING PROPOSED TONIGHT IS AS FOLLOWS. SO THE PROVIDED UMU1 EXCEPTIONS. WOULD ALLOW SUCH THAT BLOCK F, THE MULTIFAMILY BUILDING CLOSER TO THE PGBT, COULD BEGIN CONSTRUCTION OR HAVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY ISSUED. AS LONG AS BUILDING PERMITS FOR AT LEAST 12,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT IS DEVELOPED WITHIN BLOCKS A2, LOT 2, BLOCK A3, A4, A5, C, L, OR M. AND THEN ADDITIONALLY, FOR BLOCK A2, LOT 1, THE MULTIFAMILY CLOSER TO THE CORNER OF WEST PLANO, PARKWAY AND CUSTER ROAD, THE CONSTRUCTION OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET OF NEW NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT MUST BE READY FOR OCCUPANCY. THE CITY OF PLANO DOESN'T DO SHELL CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCIES.

HOWEVER, WE CAN FINAL OUT CONSTRUCTION OF A NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING, BASICALLY SAYING IT'S READY FOR OCCUPANCY. THAT IS THE LANGUAGE AVAILABLE IN THE PROPOSED UMU1 EXCEPTIONS. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE 700 ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY UNITS IS A MINIMUM OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET. THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUED FOR 12,000 SQUARE FEET CAN BE THE SAME 12,000 SQUARE FEET THAT IS FINALED OUT FOR OCCUPANCY.

THIS ANALYSIS WAS PROVIDED IN MY PREVIOUS...

PRESENTATION, BUT JUST TO SHOW. THERE HAS BEEN AN INCREASE IN SINGLE FAMILY OR RESIDENTIAL USES THROUGHOUT THE REQUESTS MADE FROM 2014 TO TODAY, AS WELL AS A REDUCTION IN OVERALL AMOUNT OF OFFICE, RETAIL, AND HOTEL USE THROUGHOUT THE HISTORY OF THE ZONING CASES FOR THIS PROPERTY. THERE ARE SOME OTHER MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WHICH ARE NOT CHANGING AS PART OF THIS REQUEST SINCE IT'S BEEN TABLED.

THEY'RE STILL DECREASING THE LOT COVERAGES FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL LOTS, AS WELL AS DECREASING BUILDING HEIGHTS. THERE ARE REDUCTIONS IN FREESTANDING NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING SIZES, AND THE REQUESTED EXCEPTIONS ARE NOT CONDUCIVE TO A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. AS WE DISCUSSED IN THE PREVIOUS... MEETING THERE IS A REQUEST FOR AN OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT USE BOTH FOR BLOCKS A, 5 AND C. THE PROPOSED EXCEPTIONS FOR THIS OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT WILL LIMIT OPERATION TYPES TO INCLUDE GAME COURTS, TABLE GAMES, MINI GOLF, OTHER SIMILAR LEISURE ACTIVITIES. IT WON'T ALLOW THINGS LIKE GO-KARTS, CIRCUSES, MORE NOISE PRODUCING ITEM OF OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT THAT'S NOT CONDUCIVE TO THE UMU1 DISTRICT. AND ADDITIONALLY, ANY PROPERTY IS REQUIRED TO FOLLOW ANY SORT OF NOISE OR LIGHTING ORDINANCES, SO THESE PROPERTIES WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THOSE SAME ISSUES OR CODE REQUIREMENTS. GOING INTO THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT, SPECIFICALLY FOR BLOCK C, AS YOU CAN SEE, THE CONDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR AREA REQUIRES SFA UNITS BE BUFFERED FROM A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE. BY EITHER A 100 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS OF SIMILAR OR GREATER HEIGHT AND LENGTH TO THE HOMES. BLOCK M IS NOT MEETING THIS REQUIREMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING TOWNHOMES ON BLOCK Z, AND THE APPLICANT IS PROVIDING ALTERNATIVE REQUIREMENTS. THESE HAVE BEEN CHANGED SINCE THE LAST MEETING, SO, AS YOU CAN SEE, UNDER VENTILATION, SPECIALIZED VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS TO MITIGATE OUTDOOR AIR FOR SFA UNITS WITHIN 500 FEET OF A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE. I WILL GET INTO MORE DETAIL ABOUT THE SPECIFICS OF THAT IN A MOMENT, BUT THE PROPOSED STANDARD DOES NOT PROVIDE EQUAL MITIGATION TO THE TYPICAL STANDARD. SAME FOR THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT AT THE BOTTOM OF THE TABLE.

THE APPLICANT IS NOW PROPOSING

[01:35:01]

STIPULATIONS FOR BLOCK F HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO CONSIDER THE EXISTING OPEN SPACE AND MINOR STREET AS ALTERNATIVE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. THERE IS A REALLY GREAT THRIVING LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH THAT OPEN SPACE LOCATED ON LOT 13X AND 15, WHICH PROVIDES A LOT OF NOISE MITIGATION. AND SEPARATION FROM THOSE STRUCTURES, AS WELL AS THE MINOR STREET, ADDS AN ADDITIONAL SETBACK, AND THEN THERE ARE STREET TREE AND PARKING REQUIREMENTS AS WELL THAT WILL NEED TO BE FOLLOWED. SO THERE WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT BUFFER BETWEEN THAT BLOCK 15 MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING AND THE TURNPIKE. SO, STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THE MODIFIED SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN BLOCK F AND THE TURNPIKE FOR BLOCK BLOCK A2, BLOCK 1. THE CECA REQUIRES THAT MULTIFAMILY UNITS NOT WITHIN 500 FEET OF THAT TURNPIKE, BUT STILL WITHIN THE CECA TO SIMPLY PROVIDE A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE. FROM TYPE A THOROUGHFARES FOR THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENT SPECIFICALLY. STIPULATIONS FOR BLOCK A TO LOT 1 HAVE BEEN MODIFIED TO REMOVE THIS SPECIFIC SEPARATION REQUIREMENT, AS IT'S NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE UMU FORM. WE HAVE A MAXIMUM SETBACK BACK FOR STRUCTURES WITHIN. THE UMU DISTRICT, SO IN A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE, IS REALLY NOT CONDUCIVE TO BRINGING THAT BUILDING CLOSER TO THE STREET, ALLOWING MORE OF AN URBAN FORM AS THAT STRUCTURE IS PUSHED UP AGAINST THE STREET. SO STAFF IS ALSO IN SUPPORT OF THIS MODIFIED SEPARATION REQUIREMENT BETWEEN BLOCK A2, LOT 1, AND THE TURNPIKE. GOING BACK TO THE MODIFIED VENTILATION STANDARDS.

THE APPLICANT HAD PROVIDED THIS PROPOSED MODIFICATION TO THE UMU1 REQUIREMENTS.

STAFF DID NOT CATCH IT WHEN MODIFYING THE FORMATTING PRIOR TO PUBLISHING THIS PACKET.

HOWEVER, THE APPLICANT INCLUDED A STIPULATION OR A MODIFICATION TO THE VENTILATION REQUIREMENTS, STATING THAT INTAKE OPENINGS FOR OUTDOOR AIR AS IDENTIFIED IN THE ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, AS AMENDED.

MUST BE LOCATED ON SIDES OF THE BUILDING OTHER THAN THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING FACING A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE. WE'RE LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE RIGHT-OF-WAY.

TYPICALLY, WE REQUIRE THOSE OUTDOOR AIR VENTILATION ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THAT'S OPPOSITE TO THE TYPE A THOROUGHFARE.

AND CURRENTLY, AS CURRENTLY ADOPTED, OUR ORDINANCE REQUIRES IT WITHIN 1,200 FEET OF A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE. PREVIOUSLY, OUR ORDINANCE WAS SILENT UNDER FOR DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

HOWEVER, THIS REQUEST IS NOT IN CONFORMANCE WITH EITHER OUR PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED ORDINANCE OR OUR CURRENT ONE. AND ADDITIONALLY, BLOCK A2, LOT 1 IS NOT WITHIN 500 FEET OF A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE FROM STAFF'S ANALYSIS. SO THIS WOULD ESSENTIALLY MAKE THAT REQUIREMENT NULL AND VOID FOR THAT PARTICULAR MULTIFAMILY LOT. THIS WAS DISCUSSED IN OUR PREVIOUS MEETING, BUT THERE ARE POTENTIAL IMPACTS OF RECENT CHANGES IN STATE LAW. AS OF SEPTEMBER 1ST, STATE LAW HAS MANDATED THE CITY TO ALLOW MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT IN PORTIONS OF THE CITY FOR ANY NEW PROJECTS INITIATED.

AFTER THE DATE OF THE LEGISLATION, THIS PROJECT HAS BEEN ACTIVE SINCE BEFORE THAT DATE, AND THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN TO BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE PREVIOUS REQUIREMENTS.

HOWEVER, A NEW APPLICATION FOR DEVELOPMENT COULD AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE SITE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A ZONING CHANGE, AND WOULD BE REVIEWED UNDER CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER'S FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, AS SHOWN HERE.

IT DOES CREATE INCREASES IN THE OVERALL HOUSING ACREAGE ABOVE THE RECOMMENDED RANGE, AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY TYPES ABOVE THE RECOMMENDED RANGE.

[01:40:02]

HOWEVER, IT IS NOT MEETING THE INTENSITY REQUIREMENTS. WE WOULD LIKE A HIGH INTENSITY TYPICALLY IN THIS FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY, AND THEY ARE ONLY PROVIDING A MODERATE INTENSITY.

ULTIMATELY, THE PROJECT DOES NOT MEET MANY ASPECTS OF THE MIX OF USES, NOR THE UNDEVELOPED LAND POLICY AND MANY OF THE ACTIONS. REQUIRED AS PART OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY.

SO, FINDINGS IS REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS REQUEST, AND FINDINGS FORMS HAVE BEEN PROVIDED TO THE COMMISSION. AS OF NOON LAST THURSDAY, THE STAFF HAS RECEIVED 25 LETTERS IN SUPPORT WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.

THREE NEUTRAL RESPONSES AND TWO RESPONSES IN OPPOSITION. AND THEN OUTSIDE OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, BUT WITHIN 200 FEET, WE HAVE RECEIVED THREE SIGNED LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS ITEM, AND THAT NUMBER HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THE LAST MEETING. AND THEN OVERALL, WE'VE RECEIVED 47 RESPONSES, WHICH YOU CAN SEE THE TABLE HERE. TO REITERATE, THIS REQUEST IS STILL TO INCORPORATE AN AREA OF LAND ZONED L.I.1.

FOR THE PURPOSE OF DEVELOPING TOWNHOMES. AND ALLOWING FOR ALTERNATIVE EHA OVERLAY MITIGATION STANDARDS FOR BOTH THE TOWNHOMES AND NOW THE MULTIFAMILY AS WELL, MODIFYING THE MIX OF USE REQUIREMENTS TO EXCEED THE STANDARD ALLOWANCE FOR RESIDENTIAL AS A PRIMARY USE IN BOTH THE UMU DISTRICT AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, REDUCING THE REQUIREMENT FOR NON-RESIDENTIAL USES TO 12% OF THE DISTRICT, AS WELL AS INCORPORATING PHASING OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES.

FOR A MINIMUM OF 12,000 SQUARE FEET ON BLOCK A2, LOT 2, OR BLOCKS A3, A4, A5, C, L, OR M. THOSE ARE THE REMAINING NON-RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED. AND THE REQUEST TO AMEND VARIOUS SITE DESIGN STANDARDS WHICH SUPPORT WALKABLE URBAN DEVELOPMENT.

FORMS CONSISTENT WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE DISTRICT. STAFF SUPPORTS THE GEOGRAPHIC EXPANSION OF THE UMU 1 DISTRICT, SUBJECT TO THE PROVISION OF A REVISED DEVELOPMENT PLAN CONSISTENT WITH THE EHA STANDARDS FOR BLOCK Z. AND THEN, PER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FINDINGS POLICY, THE OTHER REQUESTED CHANGES TO THE EXISTING UMU. 1 ARE RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL AND MUST BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. AND SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, SURROUNDING COMMUNITY, AND GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST IF P&Z WISHES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL TO CITY COUNCIL. THANK YOU SO MUCH, AND I'M AVAILABLE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. OH, AND THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS OF STAFF. MR. BRONSKI. IT'S CORYELL. GREAT JOB. THANKS.

SO, JUST A COUPLE GENERAL QUESTIONS. WHY DO WE HAVE UMU DISTRICTS? THE PURPOSE OF UMU DISTRICT IS TO ESTABLISH A SORT OF MASTER PLAN DISTRICT THAT HAS AN URBAN FORM, INVITES A MIX OF USES, AND CAN CREATE A STREET NETWORK THAT IS MAINTAINED AS PART OF THE UMU DISTRICT. MR. BELL, DID I MISS ANYTHING? TERRIFIC JOB. MY SECOND QUESTION IS, WHY DO WE HAVE THE FUNCTIONAL ROLES AND WHY DO WE RANK THEM? THE FUNCTIONAL ROLES ARE BROKEN OUT INTO PRIMARY, SECONDARY, AND TERTIARY, AND THEIR PURPOSE IS TO PROVIDE A RANGE OF PERCENTAGES THAT ARE DETERMINED BY THE AMOUNT OF GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE A SINGLE-USE TYPE HAS THROUGHOUT THE UMU1 DISTRICT.

THE PURPOSE

[01:45:01]

SO WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED, I THINK YOU'RE... YOU SAID 2014? YES. WHAT WERE THE RATINGS FOR THE FUNCTIONAL ROLES FOR THE USE CATEGORIES? GREAT QUESTION. I'M GOING TO CHEAT. I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THAT SLIDE WHERE I TALKED ABOUT THAT. OKAY, HERE WE ARE.

SORRY, BACK A LITTLE BIT MORE.

I ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE THE ORIGINAL ONES, BUT IF I CAN JUST SPEAK FROM THE TOP OF MY HEAD. AND WE CAN GET THOSE NUMBERS MORE CONCRETELY TO YOU, IF YOU GIVE ME SOME MOMENT TO RESEARCH. I BELIEVE IT WAS PRIMARILY OFFICE AND HOTEL, WITH SOME SUPPORTIVE RETAIL, AND I BELIEVE RESIDENTIAL WAS ALSO A SECONDARY USE, BUT THAT'S THE PART I'M NERVOUS ABOUT YOU QUOTING ME ON. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN PRIMARY AS WELL. NO, THAT'S OKAY. SO I GUESS MY LAST QUESTION IS...

WITH THE CHANGES THAT WE'VE SEEN TO THIS DISTRICT AND THE CHANGES IN THE FUNCTIONAL ROLES, TO MAKING EVERYTHING EXCEPT THE RESIDENTIAL USE AS PRIMARY AND EVERYTHING ELSE TO TERTIARY, WHAT KIND OF AN IMPACT DOES THAT HAVE ON A UMU DISTRICT AND ITS GENERAL PURPOSE FOR EXISTING? STAFF PROVIDED IN OUR REPORT THAT WE BELIEVE THE CHANGES BEING RECOMMENDED BY THE APPLICANT.

DO NOT MEET THE PURPOSE OF THE UMU DISTRICT AND POINT TO THE ORIGINAL DISTRICT LANGUAGE AS, AND I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER BRONSKI, CAN YOU REPEAT YOUR QUESTION? NO, YOU WERE GOING RIGHT DOWN THE PATH. THE IMPACT OF SHIFTING EVERYTHING AROUND TO ONE PRIMARY AND EVERYTHING ELSE TERTIARY, IT HAS A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT. A NEGATIVE IMPACT ON THE DISTRICT, AS IT WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED FOR THE UMU. IS THAT FAIR IN SAYING? YES, I THINK STAFF'S REPORT POINTED TO THAT. MR. BELL, DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT TO SAY? YEAH, JUST IN SUMMARY, WE THINK IT BECOMES MOSTLY A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AND NOT A MIXED-USE DISTRICT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU MUCH. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. MS. COYLE. BECAUSE THE STAFF...

HAS TOLD US IN THEIR PACKET MATERIALS THAT THIS PROPOSAL IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND THAT IF WE APPROVE THIS APPLICATION, WE WOULD HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS IN ORDER TO BRING IT WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AND IN MAKING FINDINGS, WE WOULD HAVE TO FIND THAT THE APPLICATION PROMOTED OR SERVED SOME... GUIDING PRINCIPLE WITHIN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

COULD YOU IDENTIFY FOR US ANY ONE OR MORE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WOULD BE SERVED BY APPROVING THIS APPLICATION? THANK YOU FOR YOUR QUESTION, COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF. MS. D'ANDREA, CAN YOU HELP ME WITH THIS QUESTION? LET ME CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT. APART FROM THE POSSIBLE EFFECT OF THE RECENT CHANGE IN STATE LAW. MR. BELL. I BELIEVE THAT QUESTION IS PROBABLY BETTER DIRECTED AT THE APPLICANT. IT'S THEIR POSITION TO MAKE A CASE AS TO WHY THEY THINK THAT THEIR REQUEST IS BEYOND MEETING THE GOALS OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES.

FAIR ENOUGH. THANK YOU.

COMMISSION, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? MR. BRUNSKY. SO, MS. CORREALE, I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THE CHANGES. PAGE 44 ON YOUR REPORT, I THINK, ON THE SCREEN, YOU TALKED ABOUT WHAT USED TO BE THE EHA. AND THE NOTE THAT WE RECEIVED PRIOR TO OUR PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING WAS NOT... PART OF WHAT'S BEING DISCUSSED HERE.

[01:50:01]

ZONING ORDINANCE THAT THIS CASE IS BEING REVIEWED UNDER REQUIRES INTAKE OPENINGS FOR OUTDOOR FOR OUTDOOR AIR TO BE LOCATED ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BUILDING FROM THE EXPRESSWAY. AND THE PROPOSED REQUIREMENT WOULD ALLOW THAT INTAKE OPENING FOR OUTDOOR AIR TO BE LOCATED ON A SIDE OF THE BUILDING OTHER THAN THE SIDE THAT'S PARALLEL TO THE TYPE A THOROUGHFARE WHERE LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF THE TYPE A THOROUGHFARE RIGHT-OF-WAY. SO THIS SLIDE MUCH MORE EXPLICITLY STATES THE MODIFICATIONS. SO NOW THE ECA STANDARDS, AS WE ADOPTED THEM PRIOR TO THE EHA STANDARDS, WHY DO WE HAVE THEM IN PLACE? WHAT ARE SOME OF THEIR INTENTIONS? TO HELP MITIGATE THE NOISE AND POLLUTION EFFECTS OF LIVING ADJACENT TO A RAILROAD OR TYPE A THOROUGHFARE. AND SO THEY'RE DESIGNED TO PROTECT THE TENANTS THAT ARE LIVING IN THEM? YES, IT'S FOR PUBLIC HEALTH AND SAFETY.

YEAH. WOULD, SO PART... HAVING THE AIR INTAKES BE OPPOSITE THE THOROUGHFARE. THE DESIGN, THE PURPOSE FOR THAT IS SO THAT THEY'RE NOT GETTING AIR SUCKED IN TO THE VENTS, OR AT LEAST ALLEVIATING AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE THAT AIR INTAKE. FROM YOU WOULD THAT YOU WOULD GET FROM THE ROAD, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. SO IN NOT DOING THAT, WE ARE THEN CREATING A THE POSSIBILITY OF HAVING THAT AIR INTAKE COME IN, HAVE THEY SUGGESTED ANY MITIGATION, SUCH AS HIGHER FILTRATION OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT, TO GUARD? THE PURPOSE FOR WHY WE HAVE THESE STANDARDS IN PLACE? THAT HAS NOT BEEN DISCUSSED. BETWEEN STAFF AND THE APPLICANT, HOWEVER, I WILL SAY AGAIN IN THE APPLICANT'S DEFENSE, I, AS STAFF, DID NOT NOTICE THAT. THESE WERE MODIFIED STIPULATIONS WHENEVER WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THEM, SO I DID NOT GIVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO TALK THIS OUT AND TALK ABOUT ADDITIONAL MODIFICATIONS THAT COULD HELP SUPPLEMENT THE MODIFIED REQUEST. SO THEN, IF WE APPROVE THE MODIFIED REQUEST, WE ARE THEN ALLOWING AIR FILTRATION TO COME IN. A WAY DIFFERENT THAN THE WAY WE ORIGINALLY INTENDED. THE ZONING ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT WOULD HELP MITIGATE THAT CHANCE. AND ALTHOUGH I CAN'T SAY FOR SURE, LOOKING AT THESE SITES, THAT THAT WOULD BE THE CASE, THEY ARE REQUESTING TO MODIFY THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING DISTRICT. SO, MR. BELL, DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANTED TO ADD TO THAT? I JUST WANTED TO NOTE THAT THEY ARE MAINTAINING THE STANDARD OF A MERV 13 FILTRATION SYSTEM, WHICH IS STANDARD FOR THE EHA AREAS. AND IF I RECALL CORRECTLY, I BELIEVE THERE BEING SOME DISCUSSION OF THIS ON PREVIOUS CASES THAT GOING ABOVE 13 HAS MINIMAL IMPROVEMENT. THE 13 IS ABOUT WHERE YOU GET THE MOST EFFICIENCY AND FILTRATION.

BUT MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE 13 WAS DESIGNED FOR THE AIR INTAKES COMING OPPOSITE THE EXPRESSWAYS, CORRECT? THAT'S HOW IT WAS WRITTEN, YES.

OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

MS. CORREALE, THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE YOUR PATIENCE WITH ME. OF COURSE. THANK YOU, VICE CHAIR BRONSKI.

COMMISSIONER BENDER. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER, THE DEVELOPMENT ORIGINALLY STARTED BACK IN 2014, RIGHT, THE UMU. I REMEMBER I WAS

[01:55:02]

OKAY. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. NO OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT. WE DO HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. I KNOW THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION, SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD, INTRODUCE YOURSELF. I KNOW, YOU KNOW THE DRILL. MR. CHAIR, COMMISSION, MY NAME IS BILL DAHLSTROM, 2323 ROSS AVENUE, HERE ON BEHALF OF THE ROSEWOOD COMPANY. AND, YEAH, WE DO HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT I THINK WE'RE GOING TO NOT GO INTO IT. A LOT OF THE QUESTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN ASKED, WE WENT INTO IN PRETTY MUCH DETAIL AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING.

WITH REGARD TO CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN, AND THAT'S ALWAYS GOING TO BE DEBATABLE. A LOT OF THE THINGS WE ARE PROPOSING ARE A BETTER DEVELOPMENT FOR THIS PROPERTY. THERE'S JUST NOT A MARKET FOR THAT MUCH OFFICE. THE MARKET DOES CHANGE, THE ECONOMY DOES CHANGE, AND THAT, IN FACT, IS WHAT HAS HAPPENED. WE ARE PROPOSING A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS AN EXTENSION OF A VERY HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, HERITAGE CREEKSIDE. AND I'LL TELL YOU, OUT THERE IN THE MARKET, PEOPLE KNOW HERITAGE CREEKSIDE. YOU SAY HERITAGE CREEKSIDE, IT'S LIKE, THAT IS A THERE, THERE, I HATE TO USE THAT PHRASE. THAT IS A PLACE. SO WE HAVE CREATED A PLACE, AND WE ARE LOOKING AT EXPANDING IT. AND, YES, IT IS RESIDENTIAL, BUT I FREQUENT NEW YORK CITY.

I'VE GOT A SON THERE, AND I'VE GOT A BROTHER THERE.

THERE ARE NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ARE HIGHLY RESIDENTIAL LIKE THIS, THAT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF MULTIFAMILY AND HAVE RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS IN IT AS WELL. SO, FIRST OF ALL, I'D LIKE TO THANK MOLLY. SHE'S DONE A GREAT JOB.

WORKING WITH US. I MEAN, OUR TASK AT THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING WAS TO WORK WITH STAFF AND COME UP WITH A PHASING PLAN. AND WE HIT THE GROUND RUNNING LIKE A DAY LATER. AND, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GONE, WE TOOK STAFF'S LEAD, CAME UP WITH THIS. WE WENT BACK AND FORTH WITH SEVERAL DIFFERENT STANDARDS.

BUT SHE WORKED VERY HARD. SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. BUT AGAIN, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS AN EXTENSION OF THAT. HERITAGE CREEK SITE AND I THERE. THERE ARE PLENTY OF BENEFITS WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT WE THINK WE CAN ACTUALLY GET OUT THERE AND BUILD.

WITH ALL THAT OFFICE OUT THERE THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE BUILT FOR WHO KNOWS HOW LONG, WE DO HAVE AN OFFICE COMPONENT THAT WE ARE MAINTAINING. WE ARE PROPOSING UNIQUE RETAIL RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE AN ORIENTATION TO THE CREEK. SO WE'RE TAKING THE CONSIDERATION MORE OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT THERE AND ORIENTING OUR RETAIL RESTAURANTS AND ENTERTAINMENT USES TO THAT. AND IN THIS DAY AND AGE OF MIXED USE, ONE OF THE MAGNETS FOR THOSE WHO WORK IN THAT AREA IS AN ENTERTAINMENT COMPONENT.

WE DIDN'T HAVE THAT IN 2014, RIGHT? I MEAN, THAT WASN'T PART OF IT. IT WASN'T EVEN THOUGHT OF BACK THEN. BUT NOWADAYS, IT'S A MAJOR COMPONENT. YOU THINK ABOUT THE MORE MODERN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS. A DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPE TWO, WE'RE BRINGING IN MORE FOR SALE TOWNHOMES. THAT IS, I THINK, VERY IMPORTANT AND I THINK STAFF. STAFF SUPPORTS THAT AS WELL. SO WE ARE COMPLYING WITH VARIOUS ASPECTS OF THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT'S A DEVELOPMENT THAT'S GOING TO BE A HIGH-QUALITY DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ROSEWOOD. ROSEWOOD STARTED THIS IN 2014. THEY'VE OWNED THIS LAND FOR 40, 50 YEARS. TIM HARRIS FROM ROSEWOOD IS HERE. THEY'VE OWNED IT FOR 40, 50 YEARS, MAYBE EVEN LONGER THAN THAT.

AND THEY CONTINUE TO MAINTAIN OWNERSHIP OF A LOT OF... THE EXISTING HERITAGE CREEK SITE OVER ON THE EAST SIDE, AND THEY WILL CONTINUE

[02:00:02]

WHEN WE CAME IN, WE HAD AN EXHIBIT THAT I HAD PREPARED TO SHOW YOU LAST TIME, BUT WE HAD AN ARCHITECTURAL FIRM. DO A MASSING STUDY OF WHAT WE COULD DO ON THAT PROPERTY AT THAT POINT. AND IT WAS FULL OF OFFICE AND WAREHOUSING AND DIFFERENT KINDS OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES. AND ROSEWOOD DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT KIND OF DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY OF PLANO. THEY WANTED TO COME IN AND DO A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT, ONE THAT WOULD, QUITE FRANKLY, WAS GOING TO BE A LEGACY DEVELOPMENT FOR THEM, AND IT HAS BEEN, AND A LEGACY DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CITY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE. THEY COULD HAVE DONE. THE NUMBERS THAT STICK IN MY MIND, MIKE MIGHT KNOW, 8, 9, 10 MILLION SQUARE FEET OF INDUSTRIAL WAREHOUSE OFFICE USES THAT THEY DECIDED NOT TO PURSUE. THEY DECIDED TO GO AHEAD AND COME IN WITH THE FIRST UMU. SO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EXTREMELY GOOD, QUALITY, COMPETENT CORPORATE PARTNER IN THIS DEVELOPMENT FOR AN INDEFINITE AMOUNT OF TIME. AGAIN, IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO PROVIDE MORE RETAIL. AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT ALSO. AND THIS IS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ALSO. THIS IS SOMETHING WE CAN GET OUT THERE AND WE CAN BUILD RIGHT AWAY.

SO I WOULD SUBMIT THAT, YES, WE DO FURTHER A LOT OF THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

WE DO FURTHER THE MIXED UNITS, ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL UNITS, THE MIXED USES AS WELL. I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE EXTREMELY WELL ABOUT THE PERCENTAGES OF THE USES. BUT THE FACT OF THE MATTER IS, IN TODAY'S WORLD, THOSE JUST DON'T WORK. THEY'RE NOT GOING TO WORK. OTHERWISE, THE LAND'S GOING TO STAY VACANT INDEFINITELY.

GETTING BACK TO OUR CHARGE, AGAIN, WE THINK WE CAME UP WITH A PHASING PLAN THAT WORKS FOR US ALL. AND WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE THAT MOLLY READ INTO THE RECORD. AGAIN, TIM AND I ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE, BUT THIS IS A VERY EXCITING TIME FOR ALL OF US, AND WE ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. DAHLSTROM.

I'LL LEAD OFF. I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF CONCERNS, I GUESS, IS THE BEST WAY TO PUT IT. I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES. I LIKE THE NEW SITE PLAN, I'LL BE HONEST. I THINK YOU'VE ADAPTED TO THE MARKET. AND I DON'T HAVE A BIG PROBLEM WITH LOTS A, 2, Z, AND F AS THE WAY YOU'VE PRESENTED THEM. MY CONCERN IS WITH THE REST OF IT, AND PHASING WAS ONE OF OUR CONCERNS AT THE LAST MEETING. I BELIEVE WE'VE ADDRESSED THAT. MY CONCERN IS, AND ROSEWOOD'S DONE A GREAT JOB, BEEN A LONG-TERM PLAYER, BUT WE ALWAYS HAVE TO LOOK AT THE LAND USE, NOT NECESSARILY THE CURRENT OWNER, THE CURRENT TENANT, THE CURRENT USE. BUT TO LOOK AT THE FUTURE, WHAT COULD BE DONE AS FAR AS THE LAND USE IS CONCERNED. HAVE YOU ALL CONSIDERED ANY KIND OF PERMANENT RESTRICTION ON THAT LAND OTHER THAN THE ZONING TO MAKE SURE THAT IT DOESN'T? MY CONCERN IS THAT WE'VE HAD MISSION CREEP.

WITH MORE AND MORE RESIDENTIAL IN THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH, IN MY OPINION, I THINK WE'RE KIND OF BUMPING OUR HEADS NOW AS TO HOW MUCH RESIDENTIAL IS APPROPRIATE FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY. AND I DON'T WANT TO PUT WORDS IN ANYBODY'S MOUTH, BUT I DON'T THINK I'M ALONE IN THAT ASSESSMENT. AND SO, ARE THERE ANY ASSURANCES THAT YOU COULD PROVIDE TO THE CITY OF PLANO, NOT JUST VERBAL, BUT HOW COULD WE MEMORIALIZE THE COMMITMENT THAT NONE OF THE REST OF THAT PROPERTY WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL IN THE FUTURE? WE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITH A SENATE BILL 840 DEVELOPMENT. WE DECIDED NOT TO DO THAT. WE WANTED TO CONTINUE WITH WHAT WE SET OUT TO DO IN 2014, AN EXTENSION OF THAT MIXED-USE HERITAGE CREEKSIDE. YEAH, WE MET WITH STAFF SEVERAL TIMES, AND WE HAD THAT OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK AND JUST DO ALL RESIDENTIAL IF WE WANTED TO.

WE DIDN'T WANT TO DO THAT. THE COMMITMENT IS TO CONTINUE WITH THE PLAN THAT WE STARTED IN 2014 AND ACTUALLY CAME BACK IN THE SPRING. IT SEEMS LIKE A LONG TIME AGO.

BUT YEAH, I MEAN, OUR PROPOSAL IS TO CONTINUE WITH THE PLAN THAT WE HAVE.

THAT'S IN THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND IN THE ZONING. AND YEAH, WE'RE READY TO MOVE FORWARD WITH IT RIGHT NOW. ONE OF THE TOOLS WE HAVE IN OUR TOOLBOX, AND I KNOW YOU HAVE IN YOUR TOOLBOX TOO, IS

[02:05:02]

SORRY ABOUT THAT. YOU KNOW, WE'VE OWNED THE LAND SINCE BEFORE THE 1970S. IF WE'VE EVER CHANGED OUR PLAN, WE'VE ALWAYS COME BACK HERE IN THE CITY COUNCIL TO GET YOUR APPROVAL. EVEN TODAY, THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT WE WANT TO DO THAT WE DON'T NECESSARILY NEED TO ASK FOR APPROVAL. WE'VE ALWAYS INDICATED THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT THING TO DO, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TODAY. I WOULD SAY, AS A RULE OF PRACTICE, WE RARELY HAVE EVER DONE DEED RESTRICTIONS. BECAUSE UNWINDING IS A VERY DIFFICULT PROCESS, AND WE WANT TO DO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF CHANGES SINCE 2014, YOU KNOW, IT'S 12 YEARS LATER. A LOT IN THE WORLD HAS CHANGED. WE TALKED ABOUT THAT LAST TIME.

BUT ALSO, WE DOUBLED SINCE THAT TIME THE AMOUNT OF SINGLE FAMILY FOR OWNERSHIP AS WELL. SO I KNOW SOME OF THAT APPEARS LIKE MORE APARTMENTS. WE'VE ONLY ASKED FOR, MAYBE SINCE THE BEGINNING, A 40-SOMETHING PERCENT INCREASE.

I DON'T COUNT, IT'S 48, MAYBE 51, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT WE'VE MORE THAN DOUBLED THE SINGLE FAMILY TOO, SO WE'VE ALWAYS BROUGHT THAT INTO THE CASE. SO, I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN GRINDING AWAY AT HERITAGE CREEKSIDE FOR YEARS TO CREATE SOMETHING REALLY SPECIAL. WE ALWAYS CALL IT THE DONUT HOLE, THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL AREA THAT WE'VE ACQUIRED. WE WENT AND BOUGHT THAT, JUST HOPING THAT YOU GUYS WOULD GIVE US, YOU KNOW, THIS APPROVAL TO GO DO TOWNHOMES ON IT.

BECAUSE WE KNOW THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO. WE WANT TO PREVENT SOMETHING LIKE MORE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL BEING DONE THERE. AND TO GO BACK TO WHAT BILL SAID EARLIER, YOU KNOW, ABOUT WHAT WE COULD HAVE DONE YEARS AGO, YOU KNOW, WE REALLY ACTUALLY TALKED TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT. AND I KNOW WE HAD A, YOU KNOW, A BUNCH OF VOTES IN SUPPORT AND AGAINST. AND IF YOU JUST LOOK ON THE MAP OF WHO'S AGAINST, THEY'RE NOT NEARBY. IF YOU LOOK AT EVERYONE NEARBY, THEY'RE IN SUPPORT OF WHAT WE'RE DOING HERE. AND WE HELD MULTIPLE MEETINGS WITH BOTH FOLKS INSIDE OF HERITAGE CREEKSIDE AND IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT. AND THOSE ARE THE ONES YOU SEE APPROVAL FOR. OKAY, ONE OTHER QUESTION.

IS THERE A COMPLETELY CHANGING TOPICS? THE AIR QUALITY QUESTION. WHY THE REQUEST FOR THE VARIANCE? AND I'M GOING TO PREFACE THAT WITH. THE COMMISSION HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT SINCE I'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION ABOUT PROTECTING RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE ENVIRONMENTAL ZONE AND HAVE BEEN, I BELIEVE OUR COMMISSION HAS BEEN VERY CONSISTENT ABOUT NOT DEVIATING FROM THOSE STANDARDS. IS THERE A PARTICULAR HARDSHIP, AND MAYBE THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT WORD, BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS QUESTION, BUT IS THERE A PARTICULAR DRIVING FORCE THAT'S ASKING, WHILE YOU'RE ASKING FOR THAT EXCEPTION, THAT OTHER THAN IT'S JUST EASIER? YES, THERE IS, YES. WE ACTUALLY HAVE HIRED A REALLY GREAT MECHANICAL, ELECTRICAL, PLUMBING ENGINEER. WE RAN THE REQUIREMENTS BY THEM. AND THEY DO. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE PERCENTAGE IS, BUT THEY DO A TON OF WORK WITHIN THE CITY OF PLANO. THEY HAVE RUN ACROSS THIS REQUIREMENT BEFORE.

AND, YOU KNOW, THE BEST WAY I CAN DESCRIBE IT IS. WE HAVE THE HIGHWAY HERE, OUR BUILDINGS HERE, AND THE CORRIDOR GOES BEYOND OUR BUILDING. SO NO MATTER WHERE WE'RE PULLING AIR FROM, WE'RE PULLING AIR FROM WITHIN THIS CORRIDOR. AND REALLY, OUR GOAL IS TO TAKE THE UNITS THAT FACE THE HIGHWAY, LIKE IT SAID, AND TO GO OUT INTO OUR INTERIOR COURTYARDS, BUT ALSO IN THE ONES THAT ARE HARD TO REACH, TO GO THROUGH THE CORRIDORS. THERE'S JUST SO MUCH TRAFFIC UP IN THE CEILING. HE WAS LIKE, IT'S ALMOST INFEASIBLE TO DO THIS. AND SO IT'S JUST FOR THOSE UNITS TO GO OUT TO THE SIDES, AND THAT'S REALLY THE REASON WHY. BUT WE STILL DO HAVE ALL THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT WE'RE TRYING TO SATISFY.

[02:10:02]

ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. OKAY, SO NOT NECESSARILY ON THE OUTSIDE FACE. YOU'D BE IN THE INTERIOR COURTYARD.

YEAH, IT'S THE SHORTEST PATH TO GET ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO IT'S REALLY THESE CORNER UNITS THAT WE'RE REALLY STRUGGLING WITH TO GIVE OUT TO THE SIDE. OKAY, THAT CLARIFIES THE REQUEST A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE THAT'S NOT WHAT THE REQUEST ALLOWS, AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WERE CRYSTAL CLEAR ON WHAT YOUR CONCERN WAS. SO IF THAT REQUEST WAS TO BE CLARIFIED, THAT IT WOULD BE ON THE FACE OPPOSITE. THE THOROUGHFARE OR AN INTERIOR COURTYARD, WOULD THAT STILL ACCOMPLISH WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH? AS OPPOSED TO JUST ALLOWING IT ON ANY FACE THAT IT'S NOT FACING THE FREEWAY? YES, YES. YOU SEE MY QUESTION? THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN MY MIND ABOUT WHERE YOU'RE DRAWING THE AIR FROM. YES, SIR. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S WHAT I'VE GOT FOR NOW. COMMISSIONER LANGENFELTER. SO, OUR CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER RATLIFF HAS ALLUDED TO THIS ALREADY, BUT I THINK THE THING I'M STRUGGLING WITH IS KIND OF SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS CASE WE JUST TALKED ABOUT, WHERE. HOW DO WE HOLD SOMEBODY ACCOUNTABLE AND ENFORCEABLE? HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT WHAT THEY'RE SAYING, THEY'RE GOING TO DO, THEY DO? AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE'RE STRUGGLING HERE AS WELL. AND YOU BROUGHT IT UP. THE STATE LAW THAT'S BEEN PASSED. HOW DO WE KEEP YOU, YOUR INTENT, YOU PROMISE THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT, WHAT YOU'VE SAID, HOW DO WE MAKE SURE THAT THAT IS DOCUMENTED IN A WAY THAT IT'S ENFORCEABLE AND IT'S MAINTAINED? I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE. YEAH, I MEAN, THE INTENT OF GOING BACK AND WORKING WITH THE STAFF ON THE PHASING WAS TO PREVENT YOUR CONCERN. THAT WAS THE REQUEST LAST TIME WE CAME, AND THAT'S, YOU KNOW, I THINK, LIKE BILL SAID, WE MET WITH MOLLY AND CHRISTINA, I THINK, THE NEXT DAY.

ACTUALLY, IT'S, YOU KNOW, CHRISTINA PROPOSED THIS LANGUAGE, AND WE SAID, YOU KNOW WHAT, THAT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A HARD PATH, LET'S DO IT, LET'S SETTLE IT RIGHT THERE.

DOES EVERYONE FEEL GOOD ABOUT IT? AND SO THAT'S.

THAT'S REALLY WHERE WE ENDED UP. THAT'S WHAT WE WERE COMING BACK TO BE WILLING TO DO. I GET THE QUESTION. I REALLY DO.

WE'RE WORKING WITH ZONING AND WE'RE WORKING WITH A DEVELOPER WHO'S ACTUALLY DELIVERED EXTREMELY HIGH QUALITY DEVELOPMENT. DEED RESTRICTIONS ARE PRETTY HARSH. I THINK IT'S HIGHLY IRREGULAR. IN THE STATE OF TEXAS, FOR THAT TO COME UP IN A ZONING HEARING? IT DOES? I'LL ADMIT IT DOES.

BUT IT'S JUST A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER. SO, AGAIN, LIKE THE LAST ONE AND THIS ONE, I'LL BE OUT FRONT. I THINK BOTH DEVELOPMENTS ARE NICE. I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE DOING HERE, JUST LIKE THE LAST ONE. I LIKE WHAT THEY WERE DOING. I LIKE WHAT THEY ACCOMPLISHED.

BUT, AGAIN, I GET STUCK ON, YOU KNOW, THINGS HAPPEN.

THINGS GET SOLD. LAND GETS SOLD. THE EQUATION CHANGES AT A POINT, YOU KNOW, 12 YEARS DOWN THE LINE, WHERE SOMETHING CHANGES AGAIN.

SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION THERE TO HOLD THAT IN. AND I THINK THAT WAS THE INTENT OF THE PHASING. WHEN WE SUGGESTED THE PHASING WAS, I THINK WE THOUGHT WE'D COME BACK WITH SOMETHING THAT WOULD KEEP YOU INTO THAT AREA. AND WOULD YOU BE COMMITTED TO THAT, LIKE THAT 12,000 BUILDING, THAT 12,000 SQUARE FOOT SHELL, ESSENTIALLY. I KNOW THAT IT'S NOT REALLY A SHELL, BUT I'M GOING TO USE IT THAT WAY RIGHT NOW.

COULD YOU RESTRICT, SAY, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT TO, WE'RE GOING TO COMMIT TO BLOCK A5, OR BLOCK C, OR SOMETHING, WHERE YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO COMMIT TO. AT LEAST THOSE AREAS WHERE THE ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT IS, THOSE THAT'S GOING TO REALLY COMMIT AND REALLY ADD VALUE TO THIS PROJECT OVERALL? MAYBE

[02:15:11]

YEAH, I LIKE YOUR INTENT. I LIKE IT. I LOVE THE INTENT.

THAT'S WHY WE WANT TO KEEP IT THERE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO SAY, EXCEPT FOR, LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE TO ASK THIS SPECIFIC PLAN BECAUSE OF CANVASSING THE MARKET. YOU KNOW, FOR THE LAST YEAR, SPENDING, OR LAST 18 MONTHS, AND SPENDING THE LAST YEAR WITH STAFF. AND, I MEAN, THIS IS WHAT WE WANT TO DO. I KNOW THAT YOU PROBABLY SEE A LOT OF OTHER DEVELOPERS SAY ONE THING AND DO ANOTHER.

TO DATE, WE HAVE NEVER DONE ANYTHING WE HAVEN'T SAID WE WEREN'T GOING TO DO. AND THAT RETAIL IN THE CORNER OF PLANO AND ALMA IS THERE. BECAUSE THE NEIGHBORHOOD WANTED IT, AND WE SAID WE'D BUILD IT FIRST, AND WE DID. AND, SO, YEAH, THAT'S... THAT'S REALLY OUR COMMITMENT. WE'RE SO COMMITTED TO PLANO. I MEAN, THAT'S THE TRUTH. WE'RE NOT HERE TO BAIT AND SWITCH. I THINK IF, FOR SOME REASON, IF WE JUST COULD NOT GET THIS RETAIL UP OFF THE GROUND, WE'D COME ASK YOU GUYS ABOUT DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT.

WE'D COME BACK HERE. SO THAT'S OUR INTENT. THAT'S ALL? OKAY.

COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF. THANK YOU. LET ME ASK YOU THE QUESTION I FIRST ASKED, MS. CORREALE, AND THEY SUGGESTED, I ASK YOU. IF WE APPROVE THIS, WE HAVE TO MAKE FINDINGS UNDER OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND THOSE FINDINGS HAVE TO IDENTIFY ONE OR MORE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THAT ARE SERVED BY YOUR APPLICATION. CAN YOU IDENTIFY ONE OR MORE OF THOSE GUIDING PRINCIPLES FOR US? I THINK THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES TALK ABOUT A LOT OF ITEMS, SUCH AS THE MIXED USE. SUCH AS THE BETTERMENT OF THE DEVELOPMENT FOR THE CURRENT POPULATION AND THE FUTURE POPULATION. THIS IS A DEVELOPMENT, THIS ZONING WOULD ALLOW US TO MOVE FORWARD FOR THE BETTERMENT OF THE CITY, DOING A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH THE EXISTING COMMUNITY OVER THERE, AN EXTENSION OF THE EXISTING COMMUNITY. AND IT'S ALSO AN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ENGINE THAT WOULD PROVIDE ECONOMIC BENEFITS TO THE CITY AS WELL. I MENTIONED THE MIXED USE. I MENTIONED THE MIXED RESIDENTIAL. WE'RE BRINGING IN MIXED RESIDENTIAL ALSO, WHICH IS A PRINCIPLE IN THE CITY'S COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AS WELL. AS YOU PROPOSE IT, WOULD THESE ADDITIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT PROVIDE HIGH-INTENSITY ACTIVITY CENTERS? YES. IF SO, HOW? WE'RE PROPOSING A HIGH-INTENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT, BRINGING IN MORE RESIDENTIAL, BRINGING IN MORE OF AN ACTIVE MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT. IN THAT CORRIDOR WHERE WE HAVE RETAIL ALONG THE CREEK. SO IT IS, I MEAN, IT IS MORE INTENSIVE THAN WHAT COULD BE DONE THERE. DOES YOUR PROPOSAL ATTRACT LARGE CORPORATIONS? I'M READING FROM THE DESCRIPTION OF THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER IN THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ON THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP.

IT'S ON PAGE 67 OF OUR PACKET. I THINK 100%.

IF WE CREATE A REALLY GREAT RETAIL, RESTAURANT, ENTERTAINMENT DISTRICT, THIS IS WHERE PEOPLE WANT TO COME AFTER WORK. FOR WORK, GET THEIR BREAKFAST, GET THEIR COFFEE. I THINK THIS REALLY DOES SUPPORT IT. I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'VE LEFT OFFICE ON OUR PLAN ON THE CORNER, BECAUSE I THINK IF WE CAN GET THIS GOING, WE CAN GET MORE OFFICE DONE. I THINK IT SUPPORTS SOME OF THE GREAT EMPLOYMENT THAT'S IN THE AREA, BOTH IN EVERY DIRECTION. WE'RE TIED RIGHT INTO A MAJOR AFFAIR AND SO I THINK GETTING TO OUR MASTER PLAN IS GOING TO

[02:20:01]

WE'RE ACTUALLY REDUCING TRAFFIC COUNT AND THE TRAFFIC IMPACT IN THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM THE PRIOR PLAN. SO I THINK WE'RE CREATING SOME VIBRANCY HERE FOR EMPLOYMENT NODES TO CONTINUE UP AND DOWN OUR CORRIDOR HERE IN PLANO. I THINK THE RESIDENTIAL IS IMPORTANT ALSO FOR ATTRACTING LARGE CORPORATIONS.

AND I THINK THIS CENTER ALSO PROVIDES, CAN PROVIDE SPECIALTY SHOPPING AS WE, I DON'T KNOW IF, AND I WILL SUBMIT TO ASK THE STAFF, THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER, IF EACH ONE OF THOSE POINTS NEEDS TO BE HIT.

BUT I DO BELIEVE WE HIT MANY OF THOSE, IF NOT ALL OF THE PRINCIPLES. WE DO PROVIDE A VARIETY OF HOUSING TYPES, WHICH IS GOING TO BE ATTRACTIVE TO MANY FOLKS, ESPECIALLY SPECIALTY SHOPPING, DINING AND ENTERTAINMENT.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR TODAY. AND A HIGH-DENSITY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. I THINK ALL THOSE PRINCIPLES WE HIT WITH THIS PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT.

DOES YOUR PROPOSAL INCLUDE MID- TO HIGH-RISE BUILDINGS? AND I THINK WE DEFINE MID-RISE AS LIKE FIVE TO NINE STORIES, AND HIGH-RISE WOULD BE TEN STORIES AND UP. WE'VE RETAINED THE BLOCK A3 FOR AN OFFICE, MID-RISE OFFICE DEVELOPMENT.

OF HOW MANY STORIES? WELL, I BELIEVE WE'RE—SORRY, THIS IS SO FINE PRINT.

REALLY, IT'S OUR FLOOR PLATE THAT WE'RE MOST CONCERNED WITH.

IT'S SIX STORIES LABELED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH. MINE'S ELIGIBLE. AND WE ARE CREATING A HIGHLY WALKABLE URBAN FORM WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRONSKI. SO I APPRECIATE YOU GUYS COMING BACK AGAIN. SO I HAVE TWO THINGS THAT I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT. I'M GOING TO COME BACK TO THE ECA'S SECOND. SO AS I LOOK AT THE MAP AND I CONSIDER THE PHASING AND THE RETAIL THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. WHEN I THINK ABOUT THE PHASING OF THE 12,000 SQUARE FEET, AS YOU TALKED ABOUT IN THE LAST MEETING. AND AS A MATTER OF FACT, I'VE ACTUALLY. I TALKED TO THREE RESIDENTS THAT ARE IN ROSEWOOD, IN THAT COMPLEX, COMPLETELY BY ACCIDENT IN MY DAILY LIFE. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THEY MENTIONED WAS THE RETAIL. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION IS, IS IT WITHIN HOW THE LANGUAGE CURRENTLY IS STRUCTURED? ARE WE TALKING ABOUT THE PHASING BEING THE RETAIL IN A4, A5, OR IS THERE A POSSIBILITY THAT THAT 12,000 SQUARE FEET COULD BE IN L AND M? IT COULD BE IN EITHER. I MEAN, WE TOOK THE PRIORITY BEING THAT WE GET EITHER MORE OFFICE THERE OR MORE RETAIL THERE, IS OUR UNDERSTANDING, AT HERITAGE CREEKSIDE. TO DO, WE GOT TO GO DO THAT BEFORE. SO YOU COULD BUILD, AND IF I'M REMEMBERING CORRECTLY, L&M, WHAT ARE THOSE UNITS? THAT'S OFFICE. OFFICE AND RESIDENTIAL? IT'S JUST OFFICE. SO THEY'RE STRAIGHT OFFICE NOW. OUR PROPOSAL IS OFFICE, CORRECT.

YEAH, THEY'RE THE TWO SKINNY LOCKS ALONG THE PGPT. WE HAVE TO DO OFFICE OR RETAIL. I THOUGHT THEY WERE GOING TO BE CONDOS OR SOMETHING.

OFFICE CONDOS. YEAH, FOR THE MOST PART, THE TENANT WILL BE THE OWNER OF THE BUILDING AS WELL. IT'S LIKE ENGINEERING FIRMS, DENTIST OFFICES, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THEY'LL BE TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT, WHICH IS THE SAME HEIGHT AS THE TOWNHOMES BEHIND THEM. TO BE CLEAR, THAT'S AN OFFICE USE ONLY, NOT A LIVE WORK. IT'S PURE OFFICE. PURE OFFICE. IT'S JUST SOLD AS A CONDO FOR OWNERS.

YEAH, YES, SIR. JUST TO MAKE SURE. IT'S NOT A LIVE WORK SITUATION. OKAY. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. SO I WOULD FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH A COMMITMENT TO THE A4, A5 RETAIL, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT YOU ALL TALKED ABOUT BEING. ONE OF THE DRIVING FACTORS THAT YOU WERE LOOKING FOR. SO THAT'S ONE THING THAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH AS I CONSIDER MY VOTE ON THIS. AND THE SECOND THING, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR THIS UNLESS WE ARE VERY CLEAR IN THE DELINEATION

[02:25:02]

THAT BUILDING BEING MORE THAN 500 FEET AWAY FROM THE EXPRESSWAY. OH, OKAY.

IT'S 500 FEET AWAY. OKAY, ALL RIGHT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? ALL RIGHT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. Y'ALL STAY CLOSE. I HAVE A FEELING YOU'LL BE BACK. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS? YES, WE DO. COREY REINECKER.

MR. REINECKER, YOU KNOW THE DRILL. COREY REINECKER, 1814 AND PLACE, PLANO. REPEAT OFFENDER. SORRY, I DIDN'T SIGN UP CORRECTLY. TO BE FOR THE RECORD, I THINK YOU'RE DOWN ON EVERY ITEM. SO JUST DIDN'T SPEAK ON IT. I DIDN'T PULL ANYTHING OFF CONSENT. APPRECIATE THAT. I SUPPORT THIS ZONING REQUEST.

AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, PLANO NEEDS HOUSING. ACCORDING TO THE RECENTLY COMPLETED HOUSING STUDY, THE CITY IS THOUSANDS OF HOUSING UNITS SHORT OF EXPECTED DEMAND. SOME OF THE PROJECTS IN THE DEVELOPMENT PIPELINE CITED IN THE STUDY, SUCH AS THE FRY'S SITE, ARE NO LONGER EVEN IN THE WORKS, SO WE ARE FALLING EVEN FURTHER BEHIND. IF WE WISH TO REMAIN A CITY OF EXCELLENCE, WE MUST ADD SUFFICIENT HOUSING TO COMPLEMENT THE SUBSTANTIAL GROWTH IN EXPECTED EMPLOYMENT. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE PRESENTATIONS I'VE SEEN THAT THIS PROPOSAL MEETS THE MARKET DEMAND FOR BOTH HOUSING AND NON-RESIDENTIAL USE. THE PROPOSED COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT USES AND COPIOUS OUTDOOR OPEN SPACE AND PLAZAS PRESENT AN ATTRACTIVE DEVELOPMENT. AS A RESIDENT, I AM CONCERNED BY THE INSISTENCE ON PHASING REQUIREMENTS.

FROM WHAT I HAVE HEARD, THESE REQUIREMENTS PUT THE CART BEFORE THE HORSE. THIS SORT OF FORCED, BACKWARDS DEVELOPMENT PATTERN HAS THE POTENTIAL TO DOOM THE PROJECT BEFORE IT EVEN BEGINS, AS APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN THE CASE ON SEVERAL OTHER RECENT PROJECTS.

IN MY EXPERIENCE, HERITAGE CREEKSIDE HAS BEEN A SUCCESSFUL DEVELOPMENT. THE DESIGN IS FIRST RATE, THE RESTAURANT TENANTS ARE EXCELLENT, AND THE HOUSING OPPONENT APPEARS TO OFFER... A REASONABLE DIVERSITY OF HOUSING TYPES. I WOULD ENCOURAGE YOU TO NOT LET THE PERFECT BE THE ENEMY OF THE GOOD. ALLOW THIS APPLICANT TO SEE THIS QUALITY DEVELOPMENT THROUGH TO COMPLETION. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. REINECKER. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARING? NO, NOT AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

RESTRICT COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.

COMMISSIONERS? NONE. I'M GOING TO TAKE A WELL, I HAVE A QUESTION TO STAFF FIRST. CAN YOU, MS. CORREALE, CAN YOU PUT BACK UP YOUR SLIDE? THAT SAID? REQUEST ON IT? IT WAS THEIR REQUEST, IT'S YOUR. IT WAS YOUR SLIDE.

IT WAS BEFORE RECOMMENDATIONS, IT SUMMARIZED THE REQUEST.

YEAH, LET ME JUST TAP THE SCREEN, LIKE 20 TIMES OR SO.

OKAY, OH, AM I AT THE START

[02:30:02]

OH, YOU'RE AT THE START OF OUR MEETING. CAN SOMEONE HELP ME, LIKE, GET TO? LIKE? I DON'T. I THINK IT'S LIKE, ABOUT THERE YOU GO, OKAY, IT WAS PROBABLY 20 SLIDES IN.

THERE IT IS. OH, BACK, BACK.

THERE YOU GO. THAT'S THE ONE I'M LOOKING FOR. OKAY. I NEED TO UNDERSTAND BETTER THE EAC REQUEST, NOT ONLY THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING FOR THE INTAKE, IT'S NOT ON THIS SLIDE. THERE WAS A DIFFERENT SLIDE. I'M SORRY.

OH, OKAY. VERSUS THE DISTANCE.

I'M NOT SURE I'M COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING THAT REQUEST.

SURE. YEAH. LET ME... SO I THINK, ACTUALLY, LET ME JUST TALK. I'LL START, I'LL GO TO THE CULPRIT. BLOCK A2, LOT 1. TO RALPH, IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE'S A QUESTION ABOUT THE DISTANCE FROM A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE WITHIN THE CECA. NOW, THE CECA IS A CONDITIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL CORRIDOR, OUR CORRIDOR AREA.

I'M NOT SO GOOD WITH THE ABBREVIATIONS OF THINGS, BUT THE CECA RANGES QUITE A DISTANCE FROM THE RESTRICTED AREA OUT TO THAT DISTANCE, AND IT'S GENERALLY ABOUT 1,200 FEET, GIVE OR TAKE. NOW, BLOCK A2, LOT 1 IS MORE THAN 500 FEET AWAY.

FROM A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE, BUT IT'S STILL WITHIN THE CECA BOUNDARIES.

SO, OUR ZONING ORDINANCE THAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED MAKES A DISTINCTION IN THIS REGARD.

FOR CERTAIN REQUIREMENTS, NAMELY, THE OPTION TO PROVIDE A 100-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR A BUILDING, A NON-RESIDENTIAL BUILDING OF EQUAL HEIGHT AND LENGTH.

THE AREA. THAT'S MORE THAN 500 FEET AWAY, IN THE CASE, THIS BUILDING. THEY'RE TYPICALLY ONLY REQUIRED TO PROVIDE A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT RUNS PARALLEL WITH THE TYPE A THOROUGHFARE.

SO, BASED ON THAT, THE BUILDING IS MORE THAN 500 FEET FROM A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE, AND THEIR REQUEST IS...

MODIFIED TO REMOVE THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER REQUIREMENT.

MS. CORREALE, I BELIEVE HE'S SPEAKING ABOUT THE FILTRATION, THE NEW REQUEST THAT WE MISSED.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. THE LANDSCAPING IS IMPORTANT, BUT I WAS MORE TALKING ABOUT THE FILTRATION REQUEST.

THE FILTRATION REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED REGARDLESS OF THE DISTANCE THAT THE BUILDING HAS WITHIN THE CECA. NOW, OUR UPDATED REQUIREMENTS CLARIFIES THAT IT'S MEASURED 1,200 FEET.

HOWEVER, WHETHER THE BUILDING IS WITHIN 500 FEET OR 1,200 FEET OF THE TYPE A THOROUGHFARE, OUR CURRENT STANDARDS REQUIRE THIS AIR FILTRATION TO BE REQUIRED.

WITH THE APPLICANT'S PROPOSAL TO ONLY BE WITHIN 500 FEET OF A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE, THIS IS EFFECTIVELY... GETTING RID OF THAT FILTRATION REQUIREMENT FOR THIS SPECIFIC MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT ON BLOCK A2, LOT 01, BECAUSE IT IS FURTHER THAN 500 FEET FROM A TAIPEI THOROUGHFARE. OKAY, SO THE ORIGINAL REQUIREMENT WOULD STILL APPLY ON BLOCK F. AND BLOCK Z AS WELL. AND BLOCK Z.

THE TOWNHOUSE. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT A2, THEN. LOT 1.

OKAY, AND SO ON A2, UNDER THAT... FILTRATION REQUIREMENT, ALL OF THE INTAKES WOULD HAVE TO BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING, CORRECT? THAT IS UNDER OUR CURRENT STANDARD, AS ADOPTED IN THIS ORDINANCE, YES. OKAY, AND SO THEY'RE ASKING FOR IT TO BE ON ANY SIDE, AS LONG AS IT'S NOT ON THE SOUTH SIDE? THAT'S CORRECT. ALTHOUGH OUR DISCUSSION A MINUTE AGO WOULD BE ANY SIDE, THIS INTERIOR COURTYARD OR THE NORTH SIDE.

YES, I ACTUALLY KIND OF... I'M JUST TRYING TO CRAFT A MOTION IN MY HEAD. SO, LOOKING AT THE SHEET I PROVIDED FOR YOU, CHAIR RATLIFF, I BELIEVE THE MOTION COULD READ.

MOTION TO APPROVE Z.C. 2025-003 WITH AN ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION UNDER SECTION 20

[02:35:02]

OPENINGS FOR OUTDOOR AIR, AS DEFINED IN THE ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, AS AMENDED, MUST BE LOCATED ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING OPPOSITE OF THE TAIPEI THOROUGHFARE. OR ON A SIDE OF THE BUILDING, WITHIN AN INTERIOR COURTYARD, WHERE LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE RIGHT-OF-WAY, OR YOU COULD SAY, 01,200 FEET, OR WHATEVER DISTANCE YOU WANT.

BUT I BELIEVE THAT WOULD ADDRESS THE APPLICANT'S DESIRE TO HAVE THOSE VENTILATIONS PROVIDED IN INTERIOR COURTYARDS, AS WELL AS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THANK YOU.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS LOOKING FOR. THAT'S WHAT I WAS MULLING AROUND IN MY BRAIN, BUT I WASN'T GETTING QUITE TO WHERE YOU GOT, SO THANK YOU. OKAY.

COMMISSIONER, WITH YOUR INDULGENCE, I'M GOING TO TAKE A SHOT AT A MOTION BECAUSE THIS IS A COMPLICATED CASE. AND COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF, DID YOU HAVE A QUESTION OR COMMENT REAL QUICK? YES, SIR.

BETWEEN THIS APPLICATION. AND THE APPLICANT PROCEEDING UNDER S.B. 840, I HAVE THE FEELING THAT WE'RE SORT OF FINDING OURSELVES BETWEEN A ROCK AND A HARD PLACE, OKAY? OBVIOUSLY, PROCEEDING UNDER 840 IS, YOU KNOW, UNFAVORABLE TO THE EXTENT THAT ALL WE GET ARE APARTMENTS, AND THAT DESTROYS THE MIXED-USE, DILUTES, I SHOULD SAY, THE MIXED-USE CHARACTER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT.

BUT PROCEEDING UNDER THE APPLICATION, AS WE SEE IT NOW, I THINK, CONTINUES. ALSO, CONTINUES A PROCESS OF DILUTING THE URBAN MIXED-USE CHARACTER OF THIS DEVELOPMENT BY DEGREES, WHICH HAS HAPPENED OVER THE PAST 12 YEARS. THIS APPLICATION WOULD DILUTE IT TO THE POINT WHERE I DON'T THINK IT EVEN QUALIFIES AS AN URBAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT ANYMORE.

IT'S A MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT.

THERE'S A MIX OF HOUSING TYPES. THERE IS SOME RETAIL ON THE EASTERN EDGE, SOME RESTAURANTS ON THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, BUT I THINK THE CONCEPT OF AN URBAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT PRESUPPOSES OR DESCRIBES A COMPACT, WALKABLE AREA WHERE PEOPLE CAN LIVE AND WORK AND BE ENTERTAINED AND RECREATE AND EAT AND SHOP. ALL WITHIN A SORT OF A SELF-CONTAINED COMMUNITY.

THAT, TO ME, IS WHAT MAKES IT AN URBAN MIXED-USE AREA. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD MORE RESIDENTIAL UNITS OF VARIOUS TYPES, BUT WHEN IT COMES TO THE NON-RESIDENTIAL USES, THEY'RE ONLY PROPOSING TO BUILD UNOCCUPIED SHELL BUILDINGS.

PEOPLE CANNOT WORK IN A SHELL BUILDING. THEY CAN'T EAT OR ENTERTAIN, OR SHOP IN A SHELL BUILDING. THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IN DEFINING THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER FUTURE LAND USE TALKS ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, ATTRACTING LARGE CORPORATIONS.

WE'VE HEARD NOTHING ABOUT HOW MANY RESIDENTS OF THIS DEVELOPMENT ARE ACTUALLY WORKING OR WOULD BE PROJECTED TO WORK WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT. THE RETAIL THAT EXISTS IS VERY SMALL. IT CANNOT SUPPORT ANY SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF EMPLOYEES, AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THE EMPLOYEES THEY HAVE COME FROM THIS NEIGHBORHOOD OR NOT.

WE JUST HAVEN'T BEEN TOLD.

SO, YOU KNOW, FROM MY STANDPOINT, A BETTER EXAMPLE OF AN URBAN MIXED-USE AREA IS LIKE THE COLLIN CREEK DEVELOPMENT, FOR EXAMPLE, WHICH HAS, YOU KNOW, ROBUST ELEMENTS OF BOTH.

RESIDENTIAL OF VARIOUS TYPES AND NON-RESIDENTIAL BUSINESS COMMERCIAL. I UNDERSTAND THAT THE MARKET FOR OFFICE BUILDINGS HAS BEEN DEPRESSED LATELY. WE FOUND THAT OUT WITH THE, THOSE OF US WHO WERE ON THE COMMISSION AT THE TIME, REMEMBER THE FRY ELECTRONICS CASE IN WHICH, YOU KNOW, WE WERE PROMISED OFFICE BUILDINGS AND A HOTEL? AND THAT DISAPPEARED BECAUSE OF THE POOR MARKET.

BUT MARKETS HAVE A WAY OF REBOUNDING OVER TIME, AND I WOULD HOPE THAT BY WAITING, YOU KNOW, A LITTLE LONGER, THE MARKET WOULD RECOVER. AS PEOPLE GO BACK TO WORKING IN THE OFFICE PLACE AND LESS WORKING AT HOME AS WE RECOVER FROM THE PANDEMIC. SO, IN ORDER FOR ME TO BE SATISFIED THAT WE STILL HAVE AN URBAN MIXED-USE DEVELOPMENT.

IN MORE THAN NAME ONLY, I WOULD WANT TO SEE SOME KIND

[02:40:02]

WITH THAT, ALL VALID COMMENTS.

I UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGE THAT ROSEWOOD IS FACING. I ALSO UNDERSTAND THE CHALLENGES THEY'VE ALREADY OVERCOME ON THIS PROPERTY AND HAVE BEEN GOOD CORPORATE PARTNERS WITH US. I DO BELIEVE THAT THE PLAN THEY HAVE IS THE PLAN THAT THEY INTEND TO BUILD. HOWEVER, I THINK THAT THE PLAN THAT YOU ALL ORIGINALLY HAD WAS THE PLAN YOU INTENDED TO BUILD AS WELL. AND I RESPECT THAT THE MARKET CHANGED AND THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN SLOGGING AWAY AT THIS FOR A LONG TIME, AND I KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO STAY WITH IT BECAUSE I KNOW THAT'S HOW YOU ALL ARE.

WITH THAT SAID, I'M GOING TO TAKE A SHOT AT A MOTION AND TRY TO PLAY A LITTLE SOLOMON HERE.

AND FIGURE, SEE IF WE CAN FIND A MIDDLE GROUND THAT WE CAN ALL AGREE TO. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ZONING CASE 2025-003 WITH AN ADDITIONAL EXCEPTION UNDER SECTION 20 OF THE UMU-1. EXCEPTIONS FOR LOT A2 ONLY, INCLUDING INTAKE OPENINGS FOR OUTDOOR AIR AS DEFINED IN THE ADOPTED INTERNATIONAL MECHANICAL CODE, AS AMENDED.

MUST BE LOCATED ON SIDES OF THE BUILDING, OPPOSITE A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE OR AN INTERIOR COURTYARD. WE'RE LOCATED WITHIN 500 FEET OF A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE RIGHT AWAY.

AND THAT THE 12,000 FOOT COMMERCIAL PHASING REQUIREMENT REQUIRE THAT THAT 12,000 SQUARE FOOT OF COMMERCIAL SHELL BE CONSTRUCTED ON. LOTS A4, A5, AND OR LOTS C. SO YOU CAN PICK PART OF ONE, ALL IN ONE, HALF ONE EACH, TO ALLOW FOR YOU TO ADJUST TO MARKET, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE BUILT IN THAT CENTER CORE OF THE PROJECT. I HOPE THAT ADDRESSED THE CONCERNS OF THE COMMISSION WHILE TRYING TO GIVE THE APPLICANT FLEXIBILITY TO...

HAVE A DEVELOPMENT THAT THEY CAN MOVE FORWARD WITH. SO THAT'S THE MOTION.

COMMISSIONER TONG. I SECOND.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. COMMISSIONERS, CONVERSATION? NO CONVERSATION? PLEASE VOTE. MR. VRONSKY, MOTION PASSES 6-1. THANK YOU, GENTLEMEN. I HOPE WE'VE FOUND A REASONABLE SOLUTION THAT WE CAN ALL MOVE FORWARD WITH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.

COMMISSION, WE NEED TO FILL OUT THEIR FINDINGS FORMS. YES, WE NEED TO FILL OUT OUR FINDINGS FORMS. CAN WE ADJOURN BEFORE WE DO THAT, OR DO WE HAVE TO DO IT BEFORE WE ADJOURN? YOU CAN STAY IN OPEN SESSION AND FILL OUT THE FINDINGS FORMS. STAY IN OPEN SESSION? OKAY. THEN WE CAN CERTAINLY TURN THE MICROPHONES OFF. WE CAN'T ADJOURN UNTIL WE FILL OUT FINDINGS, FORMS, AND THEN WE CAN ADJOURN.

YEAH, AND WE CAN CERTAINLY STRETCH YOUR LEGS IF YOU NEED TO. EVERYBODY DONE? OKAY.

MEETING IS ADJOURNED AT 9.06.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.