[00:00:03] I NOW DECLARE THE PLANO CITY COUNCIL IS RECONVENED IN OPEN SESSION THAT ALL COUNCIL MEMBERS ARE PRESENT. [CALL TO ORDER] WE'LL BEGIN TONIGHT'S REGULAR MEETING WITH THE INVOCATION LED BY PRESIDENT GREG CHRISTIANSEN. PLANO, TEXAS, STAKE OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS AND THE PLEDGES LED BY TROOP 2008. WOULD YOU ALL PLEASE STAND. OUR DEAR FATHER IN HEAVEN, WE ARE GRATEFUL TO BE GATHERED THIS EVENING TOGETHER. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE FREEDOM THAT WE HAVE TO GATHER, AND WE ARE GRATEFUL TO BE MEMBERS OF THIS COMMUNITY. WE ARE GRATEFUL, FATHER, FOR THE ELECTED OFFICIALS WHO SERVE US IN THIS COMMUNITY. WE ARE GRATEFUL FOR THE MAYOR AND FOR THE COUNCIL MEMBERS. WE RECOGNIZE THE WEIGHTY RESPONSIBILITIES THAT THEY TAKE UPON THEMSELVES AS THEY MAKE DECISIONS FOR OTHERS. AND WE PRAY THAT THOU WILT BLESS THEM WITH WISDOM, WITH CLARITY OF THOUGHT. WE PRAY THAT THOU WILT BLESS THEM WITH DISCERNMENT, AND THAT THEY WILL BE ABLE TO LISTEN CLEARLY AND PROCESS THE INFORMATION THAT THEY RECEIVE. IF ANY HAVE COME TONIGHT WITH QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS, WE PRAY THAT THOU WILT BLESS THEM. PLEASE CONTINUALLY REMIND US TO TREAT EACH OTHER WITH RESPECT AND KINDNESS AS WE ARE ALL CHILDREN OF THEE. AGAIN, WE THANK THEE FOR THE BLESSING IT IS TO BE HERE, AND WE ASK THAT THY SPIRIT WILL CONTINUALLY ATTEND US. AND I SAY THESE THINGS IN THE NAME OF JESUS CHRIST. AMEN. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS, ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. HONOR THE TEXAS FLAG. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE TEXAS ONE STATE, UNDER GOD, ONE AND INDIVISIBLE. BE SEATED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU WANT? RED OR BLUE? NO. SHE WANTS A VOTE. YEAH. EVERYBODY GET ONE. OKAY. WOULD YOU GUYS COME TAKE A PICTURE WITH ME, PLEASE? ALL RIGHT. GOOD JOB. RIGHT HERE. ALL RIGHT, GUYS, GOOD JOB. LOOK AT THIS. OKAY. READY? OKAY. READY. ONE. TWO. THREE. THANKS, GUYS. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. OKAY. KIND OF TWINNING. YEAH. THAT'S GREAT. WE'RE DARK GRAY TODAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANKS AGAIN. THANKS. APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. AM I ON? ALL RIGHT. TONIGHT, WE WOULD LIKE TO PRESENT A PROCLAMATION. [Proclamation:  April is National Volunteer Month, and we celebrate and acknowledge the generous contributions of our volunteers.] WE'D LIKE TO RECOGNIZE APRIL AS OUR NATIONAL VOLUNTEER MONTH WITH THE PROCLAMATION. AND WE'D LOVE TO RECOGNIZE NINE STUDENT VOLUNTEERS THAT WILL RECEIVE THE MAYOR'S VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARD FOR VOLUNTEERING OVER 100 HOURS OF SERVICE WITH THE CITY. SO I'D LIKE TO CALL FORWARD CORINA SADLER, VOLUNTEER RESOURCE MANAGER, AND MORGAN GREEN-GRIFFIN, VOLUNTEER RESOURCES COORDINATOR. I NEED YOUR HELP. THANK YOU. SO I'M GOING TO READ THE PROCLAMATION. NATIONAL VOLUNTEER MONTH, APRIL 2026. WHEREAS, VOLUNTEERS IN PLANO ENGAGES VOLUNTEERS REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RICH DIVERSITY OF OUR COMMUNITY, [00:05:06] FROM SCOUTS TO OLDER ADULTS, FROM LIFELONG RESIDENTS TO NEW ARRIVALS, ALL WHO PARTICIPATE IN SERVICE TO BETTER PLANO. WHEREAS, VOLUNTEERS ENHANCE SERVICES PROVIDED TO THE CITY OF PLANO RESIDENTS AND EXTEND CAPACITY OF CITY DEPARTMENTS. AND WHEREAS, VOLUNTEERS GIVE THEIR TIME AND TALENTS TO THE MANY WONDERFUL COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS IN PLANO TO CONTRIBUTE TO A VIBRANT, HEALTHY AND STRONGER COMMUNITY. WHEREAS, 6755 DEDICATED VOLUNTEERS SERVE 95,954 HOURS WITH THE CITY OF PLANO IN 2025. THIS REPRESENTED A TOTAL VALUE OF $3.3 MILLION. AND WHEREAS NATIONAL VOLUNTEER MONTH TAKES PLACE EACH YEAR TO CELEBRATE THE IMPACT OF VOLUNTEER SERVICE AND THE POWER OF VOLUNTEERS TO TACKLE SOCIETY'S GREAT CHALLENGES, TO BUILD STRONGER COMMUNITIES AND BE A FORCE THAT TRANSFORMS THE WORLD. NOW THEREFORE, I, JOHN MUNS, MAYOR OF THE CITY OF PLANO, TEXAS, DO HEREBY PROCLAIM APRIL 2026 AS NATIONAL VOLUNTEER MONTH IN PLANO, AND I DO THEREBY ENCOURAGE CITIZENS TO JOIN ME IN THE PLANO CITY COUNCIL IN HONORING AND THANKING ALL WHO VOLUNTEER IN THE CITY OF EXCELLENCE. CONGRATULATIONS. [APPLAUSE]. OKAY. AND WE HAVE SEVERAL WE HAVE NINE STUDENT VOLUNTEERS TO RECEIVE THE MAYOR'S VOLUNTEER SERVICE AWARD. SO WHEN I CALL YOU YOUR NAME, WOULD YOU PLEASE COME FORWARD? ADITI SHANKAR. HERE, I'LL COME. ADITI SRIVASTAVA. ELIZA KOENEN. DEEPTI AJAM. MILEY CHAKMA. NEIL JACOB. KAAVIYA SHENBAHARAMAN. SAI AKSHARA BONDI. AND SEEMANVI SIRNA. CONGRATULATIONS. LET'S GIVE THEM A HAND. [APPLAUSE]. COME OVER HERE. LET'S TAKE A PICTURE. SO EVERYBODY RIGHT HERE. KEEP MOVING. KEEP MOVING A LITTLE MORE. OKAY, I'M GOING TO SNEAK IN. YEAH, THAT'S CLOSE ENOUGH. OKAY, HERE WE GO. ONE. TWO. THREE. THANK YOU SO MUCH. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU GUYS VERY MUCH. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU FOR ALL YOUR HELP. ALL RIGHT. ANY MORE? OH, HOLD ON. YOU'RE MORE PICTURES. YOU GUYS HAVE TO STAND UP SO I CAN SEE. ALL RIGHT, EVERYBODY LOOK UP. OKAY. THANK YOU GUYS SO MUCH. [00:10:05] OKAY. CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS WHICH ARE ROUTINE AND [CONSENT AGENDA] TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL DISCUSSION BY A COUNCIL MEMBER, THE CITY MANAGER, OR ANY CITIZEN. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS. MR. MAYOR, I MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF ITEMS A, C, AND I. SECOND. THANK YOU, I HAVE A MOTION, A SECOND, TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA WITH THE EXCEPTION OF A, C AND I. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. THANK YOU. ITEM A. ITEM A. APPROVAL OF THE MARCH 9TH [(a)   March 9, 2026 ] MINUTES. AND THE SPEAKER ON THAT ONE IS AMBER CHAFFIN. HI, EVERYONE. NICE TO SEE YOU AGAIN. MY NAME IS AMBER AND I'M A PLANO RESIDENT. I'M REQUESTING THAT THE MARCH 9TH PRELIMINARY OPEN MEETING MINUTES BE PULLED FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA, BECAUSE I BELIEVE THEY DESERVE INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION AND A PUBLIC RECORD OF MY CONCERN. THESE MINUTES DOCUMENT THAT THE COUNCIL CONVENED AN EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR BOTH LEGAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT. 21 MINUTES LATER, THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO MOVE PUBLIC COMMENTS TO ONCE PER MONTH TO THE END OF THE MEETING AND ELIMINATE ZOOM ACCESS FOR COUNCIL AND ALL BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS. A DECISION RESTRICTING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION WAS MADE IN THE SAME BREATH AS AN EXECUTIVE SESSION ABOUT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT'S WHY I PULLED THIS ITEM. I'M NOT HERE TO MAKE ACCUSATIONS. I'M HERE TO MAKE A REQUEST. IF YOU ALL DO TRUST THE DECISION ON RESTRICTING PUBLIC PARTICIPATION, ONE THAT AFFECTS EVERY RESIDENT IN THE CITY OF PLANO, I WOULD PREFER THAT IT BE DISCUSSED MORE OPENLY, MAYBE AT A MEETING THAT MORE PEOPLE ATTEND AND WATCH. NOT BURIED AT THE PALM MEETING AT 5:00 ON A MONDAY. PUT IT ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. SEND AN EMAIL. RUN AN INSTAGRAM AD. DEFEND IT IN FRONT OF THE PUBLIC. I'D ALSO LIKE YOU TO CONSIDER WHO THIS RESTRICTION SILENCE IS SILENCES AN ENTIRE COMMUNITY. OVER THE LAST FEW MONTHS THAT WE ALL TALKED ABOUT PROTECTING RESIDENTS WHO COME TO THIS PODIUM, WHO JOIN VIA ZOOM, SEEK ACCOUNTABILITY ON MATTERS FAR MORE PERSONAL THAN ANYTHING I'VE EVER COME UP HERE FOR. AND THE COUNCIL HAS THE POWER TO HELP. SECTION 3.13 ALLOWS THE CITY TO SUBPOENA POWER, ABILITY TO COMPEL TESTIMONY, AND TO DEMAND ANSWERS. THAT POWER EXISTS FOR A REASON. THIS RESTRICTION DOES NOT ALIGN WITH THE CITY FACING WHAT'S COMING UP SOMETHING LARGE, EXPENSIVE, AND EXTRAORDINARILY TRAFFIC INDUCING THAT'S ALREADY ON OUR DOORSTEP. AND NO, I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT FIFA. IN OUR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WE TALK ABOUT TRANSPARENT IMPLEMENTATION, COMMUNITY INPUT, SUBURBAN CHARACTER. AND I KNOW THAT NOT EVERYONE HERE APPROVED THAT, BUT NOWHERE ON THERE DOES IT SAY NATIONAL SPORTS ARENA. MAYOR MUNS SAID PUBLICLY IN DECEMBER THAT ATTRACTING THE STARS WAS A PRIORITY. YET THERE'S BEEN NO PUBLIC PRESENTATION, NO FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, NO COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS. SO I FILED THE PUBLIC RECORD REQUEST. THE CITY WITHHELD IT, AND THE AG UPHELD THAT, TOO. THIS MAKES SENSE, GIVEN THAT THE LAW FIRM THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY PAYING A LOT OF MONEY TO, THOSE TAXPAYER DOLLARS IS PROBABLY WORKING ON STRUCTURING A DEAL VERY SIMILAR TO AT&T SO THAT WE CAN MOVE MORE CARS 30 MILES NORTH. MEANWHILE, WE CAN'T GET BIKE LANES OR A SPRING CREEK STATION. YOU'RE ASKING THE PEOPLE TO TRUST THE PROCESS AND NOW YOU'RE NOT LETTING US SPEAK. THAT'S WHY I OPPOSE 20 MINUTES OR 20S. I'LL GO. I OPPOSED THE APPROVAL OF THESE MINUTES. A DECISION WITH THIS TYPE OF IMPACT DESERVES TO BE DISCUSSED ON THE IN THE FULL MEETING, BECAUSE YOU GUYS KNOW A PUCK'S NOT GOING TO BE DROPPING WITHOUT US SAYING ANYTHING. THANK YOU. MR. MAYOR A MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A. THANK YOU. SECOND. SO I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM A, CONSENT AGENDA ITEM A. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. THANK YOU. [00:15:06] ITEM C. [(c)   To ratify the purchase of expedited pool repairs for the Parks & Recreation Department in the estimated amount of $156,000 from Sunbelt Pools, Inc. through an existing contract; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents. (BuyBoard Contract No. 701-23) ] ITEM C, TO RATIFY THE PURCHASE OF EXPEDITED POOL REPAIRS FOR THE PARKS AND RECREATION DEPARTMENT IN THE ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF 156,000 FROM SUNBELT POOLS INCORPORATED THROUGH AN EXISTING CONTRACT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. AND WE HAVE ONE SPEAKER ON THIS TOPIC, AND IT'S BILL LYLE. GOOD EVENING, COUNCIL. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADDRESS YOU. THIS ITEM HAS TO DO WITH THE OAK POINT WAVE POOL IN THE BACKGROUND THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE COUNCIL AGENDA MEMO. I WAS SURPRISED THAT IT DIDN'T EXPLAIN TO YOU ALL THAT THIS POOL OPENED IN MAY OF 2023, WHICH MEANS IT'S THREE YEARS OLD. I DID CHECK WITH STAFF AND THEY LET ME KNOW THAT THIS IS NOT UNDER WARRANTY ANY LONGER. IMAGINE BUILDING A POOL THAT DOESN'T HOLD WATER THREE YEARS AFTER YOU GOT DONE BUILDING IT. AND GOING BACK TO THE ENGINEER AND THE CONSTRUCTION COMPANY AND THEM SAYING, WE DIDN'T KNOW YOU WANTED IT TO HOLD WATER. SO WE'RE SPENDING $150,000 TO FIX A BRAND-NEW POOL. THAT IS FAR FROM EXCELLENT. I THINK IT DESERVES QUESTIONS FROM YOU ALL ON HOW THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS IS HAPPENING AND REALLY WHAT WENT WRONG. WHEN YOU HAVE AN ENGINEER, THEY BUILD A POOL, IT SHOULD LAST 30 YEARS. YOU HAVE SOIL TESTS THAT ARE DONE. YOU HAVE A CONTRACTOR THAT HOPEFULLY WAS REPUTABLE IN BUILDING POOLS. BUT TODAY WE HAVE A POOL THAT DOESN'T HOLD WATER. THANK YOU. MAYOR AND COUNCIL, IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, DOCTOR SMITH IS HERE TO BE ABLE TO ADDRESS ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THIS AGENDA ITEM. RON, DO YOU MIND TELLING US WHAT THE CIRCUMSTANCES WERE ON THIS REPAIR? YEAH. THIS WAS A POOL IS, MR. LYLE STATED OPEN IN 2023. THE DESIGNER WAS WESTON SAMPSON, REPUTABLE ARCHITECT AND DESIGN FIRM. THE GENERAL CONTRACTOR, CORE CONSTRUCTION. THEY'VE DONE A LOT OF WORK HERE IN PLANO, NOT JUST FOR THE CITY SITUATION, WHERE THE ORIGINAL POUR WITH THE POOL IS ON PIERS, THE SURROUNDING AREA, WHICH IS ABOUT 1.25 ACRES ON GRADE BEAM. SOME SHIFTING TOOK PLACE BETWEEN THOSE TWO DIFFERENT POURS, AND WE'VE GOT THOSE REPAIRS UNDERWAY RIGHT NOW, AND WE'RE GOING TO BE READY TO GO. MAY 2026 FOR OPENING DAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. GO AHEAD. AS MR. LYLE WAS POINTING OUT FROM A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING PERSPECTIVE, IN OUR, THE ENTITY THAT DESIGNED THE POOL, WE MET THOSE GUYS AND THEY SEEM TO BE COMPETENT. WEREN'T THEY ABLE TO FORESEE THAT WE HAVE A PIER AND BEAM AND THEN WE HAVE SLAB, WHICH I ASSUME WE HAVE GRADE BEAMS UNDER THE SLAB. CORRECT. THEY WEREN'T ABLE TO TIE IT ALL AND UNIFY IT TO KEEP IT FROM CRACKING LIKE IT HAS? YEAH. YOU KNOW, WE THE GEOTECHNICAL REPORTS WERE DONE. WE FOLLOWED THE PROCUREMENT PROCESS, AS WE TYPICALLY DO FOR A PROJECT OF THIS SIZE AND SCOPE. IT IS UNFORTUNATE THAT THAT SHIFTING TOOK PLACE. IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ANTICIPATE THAT THE REPAIRS HAVE A ONE YEAR WARRANTY FOR WORK. THERE'S SOME REPLASTERING THAT'S GOING TO BE DONE THAT'S GOT A SEVEN YEAR PRODUCT WARRANTY. WE HOPE THAT THIS REPAIR IS THE ONE REPAIR THAT WE HAVE TO MAKE IN THIS AREA. OKAY. WELL, AGAIN, I'M JUST KIND OF WE HAVE NEIGHBORS THAT HAVE LARGER CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS BESIDES THIS POOL. AND AGAIN, THIS POOL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT DUAL WAVE POOL. THAT'S CORRECT. WHICH TAKES A LOT OF STRESS IN ITSELF FROM THE LIVE LOAD THAT'S BEING THRUST ON IT WITH THESE WAVES. SO I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT THE DESIGNER WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO COME UP WITH A SOLUTION PRIOR TO THIS HAVING THESE CRACKS, THREE YEARS AFTER WE HAD A RIBBON CUTTING. SO I DO HAVE SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT, BUT WE NEED TO GET THE POOL UP AND RUNNING BEFORE SUMMER GETS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF IS THERE ANY OTHER SOLUTIONS HERE. THE SOLUTION TO GET THE POOL OPEN ON TIME FOR MEMORIAL DAY, WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY WHEN OUR POOL'S OPEN IN PLANO. [00:20:05] THIS IS THE SOLUTION. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY WE'VE MOVED FORWARD WITH IT. AND WE'RE BRINGING THIS AS A RATIFICATION IN ORDER TO MAKE SURE THAT WORKS. AS FAR AS GOING BACK AND LOOKING AT THE ENGINEERING SIDE OF THINGS AND THE PROCESS, WE WILL BE LOOKING AT THAT PROCESS TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE BETTER DESIGN AND BETTER OUTCOMES FOR FUTURE PROJECTS LIKE THIS. IS THERE, I'M NOT SURE THIS IS THE FORUM TO DISCUSS THAT, BUT IS IT POSSIBLE TO HAVE SOME TYPE OF PATH FORWARD ON MAYBE SEEKING RECOVERY? WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS THAT THE WARRANTY PERIOD HAS EXPIRED, BUT IF YOU'RE ASKING US TO MEET WITH LEGAL TO SEE IF THERE'S A POTENTIAL TO GO FORWARD WITH SOME SORT OF LEGAL ACTION, WE CAN EXPLORE THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. DOCTOR THOMAS. MY QUESTION IS WHY SUCH A SMALL WINDOW FOR THE WARRANTY? WELL, I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT IS A SMALL WINDOW. A TWO-YEAR CONSTRUCTION WARRANTY I THINK IS TYPICAL IN THE INDUSTRY. AND THAT TWO-YEAR WINDOW HAS COME AND GONE, IT CLOSED MAY OF 2025. THANK YOU. COUNCIL MEMBER QUINTANILLA. THANK YOU MAYOR. MY COMMENT IS IN REGARDS TO ADDING ON TO WHAT HORNE MENTIONED ABOUT LOOKING AT RECOVERING OF THAT COST OR ARE THERE ANY OTHER AVENUES TO RESEARCH FOR PAYMENT OF THIS OR FILING A CLAIM WITH THEM OR ANY OF THAT ASPECT. WITH NO WARRANTY. COUNCILMAN WE'RE DEALING WITHOUT A CONTRACT FOR THIS, SO IT WOULD BE LEGAL ACTION THAT WE WOULD HAVE TO SEEK. SO LET'S LOOK INTO THE LEGAL ACTION ASPECT BECAUSE AFTER THREE YEARS IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE. MOTION TO APPROVE CONSENT ITEM, CONSENT AGENDA ITEM C. I'D LIKE TO SECOND THAT MOTION WITH THE CAVEAT THAT WE REVIEW ANY OPPORTUNITY FOR RECOVERY OF FUNDS WITH LEGAL. MR. MAYOR. I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE THAT SHOULD GO INTO A FUTURE AGENDA ITEM OR SOMETHING TO BE DISCUSSED FURTHER. WE'RE ACTUALLY MODIFYING THE CONSENT AGENDA. THEN WE NEED TO PULL IT FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA AND IT GETS REJECTED. NO, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. I'VE RECEIVED THE DIRECTION FROM MULTIPLE COUNCIL MEMBERS TO LOOK INTO COST RECOVERY, AND I'VE MENTIONED LOOKING INTO THE LEGAL SIDE. NO FURTHER DIRECTION IS NEEDED BEYOND THAT FOR ME TO BE ABLE TO TAKE ACTION. OKAY, SO THEN. THAT WOULD BE THE CASE THEN WITH YOU HAVING DIRECTION. I WILL SECOND THAT MOTION SO WE CAN GET THE POOL OPEN FOR MEMORIAL DAY. SO I HAVE A MOTION A SECOND TO APPROVE ITEM C, PLEASE VOTE. THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES 6 TO 2. ITEM I. [(i)  To approve an expenditure for engineering professional services for Parkwood Boulevard Pedestrian Bridge, Project No. ENG-S-00029, in the amount of $185,250 from Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. for the Engineering Department; and authorizing the City Manager to execute all necessary documents.] ITEM I, TO APPROVE AN EXPENDITURE FOR ENGINEERING PROFESSIONAL SERVICES FOR PARKWOOD BOULEVARD PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE. PROJECT NO. ENG-S-00029, IN THE AMOUNT OF $185,250 FROM KIMLEY-HORN AND ASSOCIATES INCORPORATED FOR THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS. AND THE SPEAKER ON THAT ITEM IS COREY REINAKER. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS ITEM TO STUDY A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT PARKWOOD AND LEGACY CAUGHT MY ATTENTION. PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IS UNDOUBTEDLY AN ISSUE IN OUR CITY. LAST YEAR'S TRAGIC ACCIDENT AT THIS VERY INTERSECTION MAKES THAT POINT. A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE, HOWEVER, IS NOT PEDESTRIAN INFRASTRUCTURE. A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE IS CAR INFRASTRUCTURE. IS INFRASTRUCTURE THAT REMOVES THE RESPONSIBILITY OF MOTORISTS TO WORRY ABOUT PEDESTRIANS. ACCORDING TO THE INSTITUTE FOR TRANSPORTATION AND DEVELOPMENT POLICY, QUOTE, PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES DO NOT ENCOURAGE WALKABLE, LIVABLE COMMUNITIES, NOR DO THEY IMPROVE ROAD SAFETY FOR DRIVERS OR CYCLISTS. SEPARATING PEOPLE FROM THE STREET REINFORCES PRIORITIZATION OF MOTOR VEHICLES WHILE ENCOURAGING SPEEDING, DRIVER NEGLIGENCE AND TRAFFIC FATALITIES. END QUOTE. STUDYING PEDESTRIAN SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS IS ABSOLUTELY ESSENTIAL. THERE ARE OVER 10,000 JOBS COMING TO THIS AREA IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE. PREVIOUS MOBILITY STUDIES HAVE MADE THE POINT THAT ALTERNATIVE, ACTIVE MODES OF TRANSPORTATION ARE ESSENTIAL TO COUNTERING THE ALREADY BAD ROADWAY [00:25:08] CONGESTION. YOU SHOULD APPROVE THIS ITEM, BUT I'D ASK THAT YOU DIRECT STAFF TO MODIFY THE SCOPE OF THE STUDY TO EXAMINE SOLUTIONS BEYOND PEDESTRIAN BRIDGES THAT HAVE THE ABILITY TO MEANINGFULLY IMPROVE PEDESTRIAN SAFETY AND WALKABILITY IN THIS AREA. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MR. MAYOR, I'M HAPPY TO MAKE THE MOTION, BUT I HEAR THE RESPONSE PRIOR TO DOING SO. LET ME GO AHEAD. SO CALEB THORNHILL, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING AND TO THE CITIZENS POINT EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS LOCATION. WE DO HAVE SEVERAL AREAS WHERE WE'RE LACKING SIDEWALKS ALONG LEGACY IN THIS AREA. WE DO HAVE SEVERAL NEW REDEVELOPMENTS CORPORATE EXPANSIONS. AND SO THIS IS A OPTION THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT. THIS IS A CONCEPT LEVEL STUDY AS WAS MENTIONED. THIS IS NOT THE FINAL SOLUTION. THIS WAS JUST TO EVALUATE A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE AT THIS LOCATION. SO IS THAT, DOES THAT INCLUDE THE WALKABILITY? I MEAN, SPECIFICALLY FOCUSING ON THE PEDESTRIAN RATHER THAN JUST THE MOTORIST OR THE CARS? IT'LL LOOK AT BOTH, BUT THIS WILL BE LOOKING AT THE PEDESTRIANS ACROSS THIS INTERSECTION. I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE. I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY. I HAVE A I HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA I. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 8 TO 0. THANKS, CALEB. [(1)  Public Hearing and consideration of an Ordinance as requested in Zoning Case 2025-003 to amend the Comprehensive Zoning Ordinance of the City, Ordinance No. 2015-5-2, as heretofore amended, so as to expand and amend Urban Mixed-Use-1 on 160.4 acres of land 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; directing a change accordingly in the official zoning map of the City; and providing a penalty clause, a repealer clause, a savings clause, a severability clause, a publication clause, and an effective date.  Petitioner: Rosewood Property Company] ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION. PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO 15 MINUTES 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 AMEND THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY. NONPUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY AND MAY INCLUDE A CUMULATIVE TIME LIMIT. SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER THE REQUESTS ARE RECEIVED UNTIL THE CUMULATIVE TIME IS EXHAUSTED. ITEM NUMBER 1, PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE AS REQUESTED IN ZONING CASE 2025-003 TO AMEND THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING ORDINANCE OF THE CITY ORDINANCE NO. 2015-5-2, AS HERETOFORE AMENDED, SO AS TO EXPAND AND AMEND URBAN MIXED-USE-1 ON 160.4 ACRES OF LAND 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 USE OF MIXES; TO ALLOW FOR 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 AT THE WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY AND PLANO PARKWAY AND EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS; DIRECTING A CHANGE ACCORDINGLY IN THE OFFICIAL ZONING MAP OF THE CITY; PROVIDING A PENALTY CLAUSE, A REPEALER CLAUSE, A SAVINGS CLAUSE, A SEVERABILITY CLAUSE, A PUBLICATION CLAUSE, AND AN EFFECTIVE DATE. GOOD EVENING, MAYOR, COUNCIL AND EXECUTIVES. I AM CHRISTINA DAY, THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING HERE TO PRESENT ZONING CASE 2025-003 TO YOU THIS EVENING. SO THIS IS THE URBAN MIXED-USE-1 DISTRICT. IT IS A LARGE PROPERTY THAT IS HAS BEEN DEVELOPED OVER A NUMBER OF YEARS STILL CONTAINING VACANT LAND THAT IS YET TO BE DEVELOPED. AND IT IS SOUTH OF PLANO PARKWAY, NORTH OF PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE, BETWEEN ALMA AND CUSTER. AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, THERE IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ZONING TO THE NORTH AND TO THE WEST, [00:30:06] MULTIFAMILY ZONING TO THE EAST AND THE CITY OF RICHARDSON TO THE SOUTH. THIS IS THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED THIS EVENING. THE URBAN MIXED USE ZONING DISTRICT IS REQUIRED TO HAVE A DEVELOPMENT PLAN ASSOCIATED WITH IT. THIS IS A MODIFICATION TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT EXISTS TODAY AND IS THE PROPOSAL FOR MOVING FORWARD WITH THE DEVELOPMENT. SO ZOOMING IN, YOU CAN SEE WE'RE GOING TO FOCUS ON AREAS THAT ARE UNDEVELOPED TODAY. SO THE PROPERTIES ON AGAIN, THE WESTERN PORTION BLOCK A2 IS PROPOSED FOR MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT, RETAIL AND RESTAURANT. AND THEN THE KIND OF SOUTHERN PORTION ON THE SCREEN IS FULLY UNDEVELOPED. STARTING AT BLOCK A3 ALL THE WAY THROUGH BLOCK F IS A MIX OF OFFICE, RETAIL, RESTAURANT AND MULTIFAMILY USES, INCLUDING OPEN SPACE. THEN AS WE CONTINUE MOVING EAST PAST THE ROUNDABOUT, THERE IS SOME VACANT LAND IN BLOCKS L AND M, WHICH ARE PROPOSED FOR OFFICE USES, AS WELL AS SOME ADDITIONAL LAND THAT IS PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THIS ZONING DISTRICT BLOCK Z CURRENTLY IT'S LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ONE ZONING. AND YOU MAY RECOLLECT, IN FACT, I MAY JUST KIND OF REVERSE HERE FOR A MOMENT, TO SHOW YOU THAT KIND OF NOTCH OUT OF THE PROPERTY THAT IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING. AND YOU SEE THAT'S PROPOSED TO BE ADDED TO THE DISTRICT. SO THE REQUEST DOES A NUMBER OF THINGS. IT'S A RATHER COMPLEX ZONING REQUEST. IT'S EXPANDING THE ZONING DISTRICT BY OVER FOUR ACRES, INCORPORATING WHAT'S CURRENTLY LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING ADJACENT A PORTION OF THAT PROPERTY. MODIFYING THE MIX OF USES ON THE PROPERTY. IT WOULD THEN EXCEED THE STANDARD MINIMUM ALLOWANCE WITHIN THE ZONING DISTRICT BY ADDING MORE RESIDENTIAL THAN WOULD TYPICALLY BE ALLOWED IN URBAN MIXED USE ZONING. IT ALSO REDUCES THE REQUIREMENT FOR NON RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS OVERALL, KIND OF MODIFYING THE INTENSITY OF THE DISTRICT. PROVIDING ALTERNATE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY, DISTRICT MITIGATION STANDARDS. AND THEN MODIFYING SOME OTHER STANDARDS WITHIN THE DISTRICT THAT I'LL DETAIL. SO YOU CAN SEE THIS PROPERTY STARTED OUT IN 2014 WITH A VERY INTENSE DEVELOPMENT PLAN THAT CONTINUED THROUGH 2017 WITH A LOT OF OFFICE USES. THE MARKET CHANGED AND YOU SEE THEN THAT BEING REFLECTED THROUGH REQUESTS IN 2021, AND NOW THE 2025 ZONING REQUEST, WITH THE AMOUNT OF OFFICE BEING REQUESTED, THAT REALLY REFLECTING THE OFFICE MARKET THAT IS BEING FELT IN THIS LOCATION. SO THE ANTICIPATED GROSS SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFFICE DROPPING SUBSTANTIALLY WITH TIME. AND RESIDENTIAL USES INCREASING OVER TIME WITH HOTEL ALSO DIMINISHING AND RETAIL REMAINING RELATIVELY FLAT. SO THE DISTRICT EXPANSION, THIS IS A CLOSE UP VIEW OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. YOU CAN SEE THEY'RE BASICALLY TAKING WHAT'S A LARGELY UNUTILIZED OR SUBSTANTIALLY UNDERUTILIZED PARKING LOT FOR THIS PROPERTY AND CARVING IT OUT TO CREATE SOME ADDITIONAL TOWNHOMES. SO THAT WOULD BE ADDED TO THE DISTRICT. SO WITH REGARD TO MODIFYING THE USES, YOU CAN SEE THESE TWO COMPARISONS. THE ZONING CURRENTLY HAS CERTAIN SET STANDARDS FOR PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY USES WITHIN THE DISTRICT. AND THIS SORT OF GETS OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF WHAT'S NORMAL WITHIN A UMU DISTRICT. THEY ARE REQUESTING AND THE P&Z HAS RECOMMENDED THESE STANDARDS. SO TO ALLOW PRIMARY USES TO GO UP TO 88% FOR RESIDENTIAL. RETAIL TO RETAIN ITS TERTIARY USE STATUS AT ABOUT UNDER 20%. AND THEN OFFICE AND PROFESSIONAL USES TO MOVE FROM A SECONDARY STATUS TO A TERTIARY STATUS. AND THEN YOU SEE HOW THAT'S REFLECTED ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN WITH A GROSS FLOOR AREA AND HOW THOSE ARE SHOWN AS PERCENTAGES, AND THEN ELIMINATION OF HOTEL USE ON THE SITE. [00:35:07] SO THE, THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. IT WAS PRESENTED IN JANUARY. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MADE SOME REQUESTS OF THE APPLICANT. THEY TABLED IN JANUARY AND CAME BACK, WORKED WITH STAFF, PRESENTED SOME CHANGES TO THE REQUEST. AND ONE OF THOSE CHANGES, AND ONE OF THE MORE SIGNIFICANT CHANGES WAS THE ADDITION OF A PHASING REQUEST. SO THAT PHASING REQUEST INCLUDED A REQUIREMENT TO ADD NON-RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AS A REQUIREMENT TO BUILD THE ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY UNITS. SO THAT PHASING INCLUDES 12,000FT² OF NON-RESIDENTIAL USES IN THE BLUE AREAS. THOSE BLOCKS IN ORDER TO ACCOMPLISH CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY FOR BOTH BLOCK F AND BLOCK A2 THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED IN THE PINK-PURPLE COLOR. OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT IS ANOTHER ADDITIONAL USE THAT. THIS IS A CHANGE REQUESTED ON. THESE WOULD ONLY BE ALLOWED IN THESE TWO BLOCKS, A5 AND C, WHICH ARE SORT OF CENTRALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTH PART OF THE PROJECT AND THIS WOULD ALLOW GAME COURTS, TABLE GAMES, MINIATURE GOLF AND SIMILAR TYPE LEISURE ACTIVITIES THAT ARE INTENDED TO ACTIVATE THESE RETAIL AND RESTAURANT SPACES ALONG THE OPEN SPACE IN BLOCK Y. THEY WILL STILL BE REQUIRED TO FOLLOW THE CITY'S NOISE AND LIGHTING ORDINANCES, AND INTENDED TO BE COMPLEMENTARY TO THE DISTRICT, ESPECIALLY ACTIVATING THE SPACE ALONG DALHART, WHICH IS INTENDED TO BE THE ACTIVITY CENTER OF THE DISTRICT. SO ALL THE ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS ARE WITHIN THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT. THIS WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THE ORDINANCE PRIOR TO SB 840, SO IS JUDGED LARGELY IN THAT CAPACITY AND WAS SUBMITTED UNDER THAT. SO EACH OF THE NEW RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS AGAIN IS UNDER THE ECA OR THE EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICT. SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID LOOK AT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND CONSIDERED MITIGATION FOR EACH OF THESE BLOCKS GIVEN THE SIZE AND SHAPE OF THESE BLOCKS. SO THEY WOULD TYPICALLY REQUIRE BLOCK C 100-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AT LEAST TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT. P&Z DID REQUEST OR DID SUPPORT EITHER A 100-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN BLOCK M OR NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS. ONE-STORY IN HEIGHT ON BLOCK M AS ALTERNATIVE MITIGATION STANDARDS IN THIS AREA. WITH REGARD TO BLOCK F, THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE 100-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER OR NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS, AND P&Z SUPPORTED EITHER EXISTING OPEN, THE EXISTING OPEN SPACE WITH A MATURE TREE LINE AND A MINOR STREET. SO THE COMBINATION OF THOSE TWO THINGS AS THE ALTERNATIVE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. THEN IN A2, WHICH IS THE ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY BLOCK, THEY REQUIRED THE EAST, THE C-ECA AREA REQUIRES THAT MULTIFAMILY UNITS BE BUFFERED BY A 15-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE FROM A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE. BUT GIVEN THE DESIGN OF THE STREET, THAT WAS IMPRACTICAL BECAUSE OF THE STREET FRONTAGE OF THE BUILDING. SO P AND Z SUPPORTED WAIVING THIS REQUEST AS NOT CONSISTENT WITH THE URBAN FORM. SO OTHER ECA STANDARDS RELATE TO VENTILATION AND THAT THE C-ECA PRIOR TO 840 REQUIRES THAT ALL AIR INTAKE FOR MULTIFAMILY BE LOCATED ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT'S OPPOSITE OF A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE SUCH AS THE PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH TURNPIKE. SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE AIR INTAKES BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT THIS AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION INCLUDED A RECOMMENDATION TO ADD THE INTERIOR COURTYARDS. SO EITHER THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING OR THE INTERIOR COURTYARDS WERE RECOMMENDED AS ALLOWABLE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. OTHER MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS INCLUDE LOT COVERAGE DECREASED, BUILDING HEIGHTS BEING DECREASED, AND A REDUCTION IN FREE STANDING NONRESIDENTIAL BUILDING SIZES. TYPICALLY, THOSE ARE REQUIRED TO BE 10,000FT², AND THOSE WERE REDUCED IN THE DISTRICT, AND YOU CAN SEE THAT ON THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AS WELL. SO AS YOU'RE AWARE, THERE HAVE BEEN SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES IN STATE LAW. [00:40:06] AND SO JUST FOR DISCLOSURE THE APPLICANT COULD SUBMIT A DEVELOPMENT APPLICATION THAT WOULD AUTHORIZE CONSTRUCTION OF RESIDENTIAL USES ON THE SITE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A ZONING CHANGE, AND IT WOULD BE REVIEWED UNDER THE CURRENT DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. REGARDING CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE, THIS IS IN THE URBAN ACTIVITY CENTER. ALSO, OPEN SPACE THAT'S EXISTING IS ACKNOWLEDGED ON THE SITE. THIS DOES INCREASE THE OVERALL HOUSING ACREAGE ABOVE THE RECOMMENDED RANGE, THE MULTIFAMILY TYPES ABOVE THE RECOMMENDED RANGE, RETAIL TYPES AND OFFICE. IT, SO THOSE ARE INCREASED, IT, INCREASES SINGLE FAMILY TYPES WITHIN THE RECOMMENDED RANGE AND DECREASES THE OFFICE TYPES BELOW THE RECOMMENDED RANGE. SO IT LARGELY MEETS THE DESIRABLE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE DECREASE IN INTENSITY. AND THEN IT MEETS THE DESCRIPTION AND PRIORITIES IN PART, AND THE CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS FALLS OUTSIDE THE MIX OF USES AND A LOT OF THE REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICIES, BUT DOES MEET OUR TRANSPORTATION AND PARKS PLANNING MAPS AS WELL AS FACILITY AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY. SO WITH THAT, IT DOES REQUIRE, UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FINDINGS, THE FINDINGS FORMS FOR THE CITY COUNCIL WERE INADVERTENTLY LEFT OUT OF THE COUNCIL PACKET BUT ARE POSTED IN THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PACKET FOR TOMORROW NIGHT'S MEETING. SO YOU CAN FIND THOSE PEOPLE ARE INTERESTED IN SEEING THEM ONLINE. I ALSO HAVE A COPY HERE. IF ANYONE IS INTERESTED IN SEEING THOSE OR DISCUSSING THOSE. I CAN, I'M GLAD TO SHOW THEM ON THE OVERHEAD CAMERA. THEY'RE PART OF THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING AND ARE AGAIN POSTED FOR TOMORROW'S PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. SO RESPONSES WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC ON THIS ITEM. WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, WE HAVE SIGNED LETTERS OF SUPPORT, 25 LETTERS OF SUPPORT, THREE NEUTRAL LETTERS AND TWO IN OPPOSITION. AND YOU SEE THE ACREAGE TOTALS THERE. WE HAVE FOUR LETTERS IN SUPPORT FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. SO IN TOTAL THE RESPONSES CITYWIDE 34 LETTERS OR ONLINE RESPONSES IN SUPPORT THREE NEUTRAL AND 14 IN OPPOSITION FOR 51 TOTAL RESPONSES. WE HAVE TWO OTHER LETTERS AND EMAILS. SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0, INCLUDING CHANGES TO PHASING AND AIR INTAKE REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE SUMMARIZED BELOW. AND, SO THE ZONING STANDARD WOULD REQUIRE. THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING TO HAVE AIR INTAKE STANDARDS. THE 1200 FEET IS UNDER THE CURRENT ORDINANCE, THE PRE SEPTEMBER 1ST ORDINANCE DOES NOT HAVE A DISTANCE REQUIREMENT. SO IT JUST REQUIRES AIR INTAKES TO BE ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THE APPLICANTS REQUEST AND I BELIEVE YOU'LL SEE THIS IN THEIR SLIDE DECK IS TO ALLOW NORTH EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE BUILDING, WITH INTERIOR COURTYARDS. P&Z RECOMMENDED THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING WITH INTERIOR COURTYARDS. THEY DID, THEIR MOTION WAS FOR 500FT. WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS NOT THEIR INTENT. THE CHAIR WROTE A LETTER TO THE MAYOR THAT WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET AS WELL, AND WE BELIEVE THAT THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE 1200 FEET. NOT TO MODIFY THE STANDARD THAT'S IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE OR TO REDUCE THE INTENT. AND I BELIEVE I'LL LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK FOR THEMSELVES, BUT THEY ALSO ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT BASED ON THEIR PROPOSAL CONSISTENT AT 1200 FEET. SO WITH THAT, I AM CONCLUDING MY PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT IS HERE AND HAS A PRESENTATION, AND I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE ON THIS ITEM. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM? COUNCIL MEMBER KEHR. YES. THANK YOU., CHRISTINA. I DO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. I'M JUST TRYING TO GET MY HEAD AROUND EXACTLY WHAT THE REQUEST IS. AND SO FOR THIS AREA, WE'RE DOING A FEW THINGS. WE'RE ADDING TO RESIDENTIAL ABOVE WHAT HAD BEEN ZONED BEFORE FOR UMU OR REDUCING THE OFFICE SPACE. [00:45:04] WE ARE ADDING, WE'RE EXTENDING THE DISTANCE OF IT, I GUESS THE ENCLOSURE, IT'S ADDING MORE SPACE ON THERE. IS THAT CORRECT? LIKE WHERE THE TOWNHOMES ARE AND WHERE THE BLOCKED OFF AREA IS? THAT'S CORRECT. THEY'RE ADDING LAND INTO THE DISTRICT THAT'S CURRENTLY A, THE PARKING LOT YOU SAW FOR THAT LIGHT INDUSTRIAL PROPERTY. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER UMU AREAS THAT HAVE LIGHT INDUSTRIAL? ADJACENCY, I'D HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. THERE PROBABLY IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL ZONING, ALTHOUGH IT COULD BE CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL, AT LEAST IN THE VICINITY OF BEACON SQUARE, THE UMU DISTRICT THERE IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. I DON'T KNOW WHETHER IT'S IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT, BUT IT IS IN THE VICINITY. OKAY. WHEN YOU MENTION AN URBAN ACTIVITY ZONE AND THAT, IN THIS CASE, THEY'RE ADDING RESIDENTIAL OR EXCEEDING THEIR NORMAL AMOUNT OF RESIDENTIAL, THIS URBAN ACTIVITY ZONE, WHERE IS THAT? IS THAT JUST THAT AREA WHERE WE'RE LOOKING, WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING TO REZONE, OR IS IT EXTEND BEYOND THAT? IT'S JUST THIS ZONING DISTRICT. SO THE AREA THAT'S DESIGNATED AS MU ONE. SO THE AREA THAT'S ESSENTIALLY BOUNDED BY THE HATCH, THE HATCHED AREA THAT YOU SEE HERE, THE ZONING DISTRICT ITSELF IS THE AREA THAT WE'RE JUDGING UNDER THOSE STANDARDS OF ZONING BOUNDARIES. AND THAT'S FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? THAT'S IN THE ZONING DISTRICT ITSELF. IT HAS PRIMARY, SECONDARY AND TERTIARY USES, AND EACH OF THOSE FALL INTO A CATEGORY OF 40 TO 70% FOR PRIMARY USE, 40 TO 20% FOR SECONDARY USE, AND 20% OR LESS FOR A TERTIARY USE. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER UMU AREAS THAT HAVE NO SECONDARY BUT ONLY TWO TERTIARY? OH, YOU'RE REALLY TESTING MY KNOWLEDGE. I KNOW THAT, THIS ISN'T A TEST. WE HAVE TWO OTHER UMU ZONING DISTRICTS. THE COLLIN CREEK MALL IS ONE AND BEACON SQUARE, AND BOY, WOULD I. I WOULD, I WOULD HAVE TO LOOK AT THOSE TO REALLY. I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND IF THERE'S ANY PRECEDENCE. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE IS A PRECEDENT, BUT I WOULD WANT TO DOUBLE CHECK BEFORE I SAID DEFINITIVELY. PERHAPS, MOLLY CORYELL, PLANNER, LEAD PLANNER HERE WITH ME COULD, WE COULD LOOK THAT UP AND GET BACK TO YOU AFTER THE PRESENTATION. OKAY. THE OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL. DO WE KNOW WHAT THAT USE IS, OR IS THAT SOMETHING I SHOULD ASK THE APPLICANT? YES, I BELIEVE THEY HAVE SOME USERS THAT THEY'VE BEEN WORKING WITH AND THAT THEY MAY BE ABLE TO TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THAT. WOULD YOU MIND SHARING THE FINDINGS WITH US AND HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHAT THAT IS? ABSOLUTELY, I'D BE GLAD TO DO THAT. SO, YOU CAN SEE THAT. OKAY. THAT IS THE CHAIRS. I'LL LEAVE THAT UP THERE FOR A MOMENT. YOU KNOW WHAT, CRISTINA? JUST BRING THEM OVER HERE AND JUST. WE'LL JUST PASS THEM DOWN. THEY'RE TOO SMALL. DO YOU WANT THE PUBLIC? THE CHAIR COMMENTED THAT IT PROVIDES A MIX OF HOUSING, THE HOUSING TRENDS ANALYSIS AND CONTINUES THE DEVELOPMENT OF A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT IN A KEY CORRIDOR. MAYBE THAT'S FASTER UNLESS YOU. NO, YOU'RE FINE. OKAY. COMMISSIONER TONG. IT'S CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES. THE USE IS CONSISTENT WITH THE BIGGER ENVIRONMENT OF THE SURROUNDINGS. IT'S SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL BECAUSE THE DEVELOPER BUILDER IS A REPUTABLE, LONG TERM PARTNER OF THE CITY OF PLANO. THE PRODUCTS THAT THEY HAVE BUILT HAVE DEVELOPED HAVE HELPED THE COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORS. I BELIEVE THEY WOULD DO THE SAME THING WITH THIS ONE, SUPPORTED BY FACILITIES AND INFRASTRUCTURE POLICY. FUTURE LAND USE MAPS AND DASHBOARD, CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND DASHBOARDS, DESCRIPTION AND POLICIES. IF WE DIDN'T APPROVE THIS PLAN, THE APPLICANT COULD USE THE NEW STATE LAW AND BUILD MORE APARTMENT BUILDINGS WITHOUT GOING THROUGH P&Z. I BELIEVE THIS CURRENT PLAN IS THE BEST WE CAN GET FOR THIS LAND. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER SAID, SB 840 OVERRIDES THE COMP PLAN AND THIS IS THE BEST COMPROMISE. STATED THAT REPEATEDLY. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. ALTHOUGH I HAVE CONCERNS THAT THE AIR FILTRATION THAT THE DEVELOPER'S REQUESTING FOR A TWO IS AS ROBUST AND PROTECTIVE OF OUR CITIZENS, CURRENT AND FUTURE SHOULD EXPECT. I BELIEVE WE HAVE FOUND A COMPROMISE THAT WILL ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT TO PROCEED. [00:50:05] I BELIEVE THAT WE NEED TO HOLD THE DEVELOPER TO THE HIGHEST STANDARDS OF BREATHABLE AIR FOR FUTURE PARENTS AND CHILDREN'S THAT WILL LIVE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT. FINALLY, ALTHOUGH THIS DEVELOPMENT FURTHER DEGRADES FROM THE PURPOSES OF THE UMU DISTRICT, IT'S MY HOPE THAT THE DEVELOPER WILL NOT COME BACK AGAIN AND BE FAITHFUL TO THE COMMITMENT THEY HAVE MADE WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, AS IT CURRENTLY EXISTS FOR MANY FUTURE GENERATIONS. MICHAEL BRUNO VOTED IN OPPOSITION. THE APPLICATION DOES NOT MEET THE CRITERIA OF AN URBAN MIXED USE DISTRICT. THE PROPOSED MIX OF USES DOES NOT COMPLY WITH THE NEW DISTRICT REQUIREMENTS. THE PROPOSAL DOES NOT PROVIDE A COMPACT, WALKABLE AREA FOR LIVING, WORKING, ENTERTAINING, RECREATING, SHOPPING, EATING, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OR ATTRACTION OF LARGE CORPORATIONS. IT IS INCOMPATIBLE WITH THE CHARACTER OF AN URBAN MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD AND IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE MIX OF USES, DESCRIPTION AND PRIORITIES OF FUTURE LAND USE. MAP AND DASHBOARD'S REDEVELOPMENT AND GROWTH MANAGEMENT POLICY ACTIONS 1, 05, AND 8. AND THEN FINALLY TWO MORE COMMISSIONER ALALI STATED WITH THE STIPULATION PUT ON THE ZONING REQUEST, I BELIEVE IT WILL KEEP THE URBAN MIX FEEL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AND RESPECT THE CHARACTER AND INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. AND COMMISSIONER BENDER STATES THAT THE REQUEST IS CONSISTENT WITH THE OVERALL GUIDING PRINCIPLES BECAUSE OF SB 840. THE REQUEST IS SUBSTANTIALLY BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORHOOD SURROUNDING COMMUNITY AND GENERAL PUBLIC, BECAUSE SB 840 WOULD ALLOW THE DEVELOPER TO COME BACK AND MAKE AN APPLICATION AND BUILD DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO INFLUENCE. AND SB 840 WILL CONTINUE, THIS WILL CONTINUE TO REVITALIZE THE AREA UNDER THE MODIFIED NEW ONE THAT WAS CREATED IN 2014. THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. AND THE APPLICANT CHOOSES. WHEN GOING TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND COMING BEFORE US, THEY CHOOSE WHAT ZONING TYPE, IS THAT CORRECT? IT'S UP TO THEM TO DECIDE IF THEY WANT TO USE UMU OR CHOOSE ANOTHER ZONING TYPE? THE ZONING IS SET WITH THE PROPERTY AND CAN ONLY BE CHANGED BY ORDINANCE APPROVED BY THIS BODY AND THIS HERITAGE CREEK SIDE. THERE'S ALREADY RETAIL THERE, THERE'S RESTAURANTS THERE, THERE'S APARTMENTS THERE. THIS IS ESSENTIALLY AN EXTENSION OF ALL THAT WORK UP TO THE WEST, DOES THAT SOUND RIGHT? RIGHT, THEY'RE MODIFYING THEIR DEVELOPMENT PLAN. THE UMU DISTRICT IS TIED TO A DEVELOPMENT PLAN. AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING IS MODIFYING WHAT THEY CAN DO WITH THE AVAILABLE LAND THAT IS UNDEVELOPED. OKAY. OKAY, THANK YOU. CERTAINLY. OKAY. OKAY. THANK YOU. THANKS, CHRISTINA. SURE. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. WE DO HAVE SPEAKERS. THE FIRST ARE THE APPLICANT AND THEIR REPRESENTATIVES. I'M TIM HARRIS WITH ROSEWOOD PROPERTY COMPANY. MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF. THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME THIS EVENING. TONIGHT, I'M JOINED BY BILL DAHLSTROM OF JACKSON WALKER, AND RICK PERDUE OUR PRESIDENT OF ROSEWOOD PROPERTY COMPANY. TONIGHT, I'M PRESENTING ON A DYNAMIC MIXED USE OPPORTUNITY FOR HERITAGE CREEKSIDE. THIS PROPOSAL IS A WONDERFUL PLACE MAKING OPPORTUNITY FOR DESTINATION DRIVEN ENTERTAINMENT, RESTAURANT AND RETAIL CONCEPTS. I BELIEVE YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR AFTER THE STAFF'S REVIEW OF THIS, BUT WE'RE LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF 75 AND GEORGE BUSH, JUST SOUTH OF PLANO PARKWAY AND BETWEEN ALMA AND CUSTER ROAD. THIS LAND HAS BEEN OWNED BY ROSEWOOD SINCE THE 1970S. AND ROSEWOOD WAS ACTUALLY FOUNDED IN THE 1970S. WE'RE BEST KNOWN FOR THE CRESCENT DEVELOPMENT AND THE ROSEWOOD HOTELS IN THIS LAND HAS BEEN OWNED BY THE FAMILY THAT OWNS ROSEWOOD SINCE THAT TIME. ROSEWOOD ACTUALLY JOINED THE PLANO CHAMBER OF COMMERCE IN 1983 AND HAS CONTINUED TO TRANSFORM THIS EAST SIDE PLANO SINCE THAT TIME. IN 2014, ROSEWOOD WORKED ON, WITH THE CITY OF PLANO TO REZONE THE 156 ACRE PROPERTY INTO THE FIRST UMU ZONING, HENCE THE NAME UMU-1. THIS WAS FOLLOWING ON THE HEELS OF RICHARDSON'S NEARBY STATE FARM CAMPUS IN 2021. WE CAME BACK AND AMENDED THE UMU-1 TO RIGHT SIZE THE OFFICE DENSITY AND THE SURROUNDING RETAIL AND ADD FOR SALE TOWNHOMES. FROM EAST TO WEST APPROXIMATELY 70% OF HERITAGE CREEK SIDES LAND HAS BEEN DEVELOPED. [00:55:06] THE DRIVER FOR THIS AMENDMENT IS THAT THE OFFICE DEMAND HAS NOT MATERIALIZED. ROSEWOOD HAS MARKETED THIS LAND FOR OFFICE FOR OVER 12 YEARS, WITH TOP OFFICE BROKERS AND DEVELOPERS WITHOUT BARELY ANY TRACTION AT ALL. NO SIGNIFICANT NEW OFFICE HAS ACTUALLY BEEN BUILT DOWN THIS PRESIDENT GEORGE BUSH CORRIDOR SINCE KDC'S CITY LINE DEVELOPMENT. AND KDC RECENTLY REZONE THEIR MASTER PLAN FOR ADDITIONAL PHASES OF RESIDENTIAL DUE TO THE LACK OF OFFICE INTERESTS AND ALSO THE NEED TO SUPPORT ALL THE EXISTING RETAIL. THE PROBLEMS IN THE OFFICE MARKET ARE OBVIOUSLY EXACERBATED BY COVID 19 AND ALL THE NEW SUPPLY. IT'S VERY TOUGH FOR US TO COMPETE WITH SO MUCH AVAILABLE OFFICE SPACE, BOTH NEARBY AND OTHER PARTS OF PLANO. I THINK THIS WAS REALLY WELL CLARIFIED BY CRISTINA, BUT YOU KNOW, WE SUBMITTED, WE SUBMITTED OUR AMENDMENT IN MARCH OF 24, 2025, ACTUALLY 364 DAYS AGO. THIS IS ACTUALLY THE SAME PLAN THAT WE SUBMITTED IN LARGE PART, BUT WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS PLAN FOR OVER A YEAR. SB 840 CAME INTO LAW IN JUNE AND WENT INTO EFFECT IN SEPTEMBER, AS YOU ALL KNOW STAFF ASKED CAME BACK AND ASKED US WHETHER WE WANTED TO KEEP OUR PROPOSAL PRE SB 840 AND UNDER THE ORDINANCES BEFORE SB 840 OR TO GO INTO A POST SB 840 ZONING ORDINANCE. WE'VE, I'VE ALWAYS VIEWED HERITAGE CREEKSIDE AS A 50 YEAR PARTNERSHIP WITH THE CITY OF PLANO. AND WE DECIDED TO REQUEST THESE CHANGES TO YOU ALL THE RIGHT WAY AND KEEP IT UNDERNEATH THE PRIOR ZONING ORDINANCES. THIS IS A REVIEW OF THE APPROVED AND PROPOSED PLANS. THIS IS A CLOSE UP OF THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE HERITAGE CREEK SIDE, WHICH IS THE UNDEVELOPED PORTION WHICH WE WERE ASKING TO AMEND. THE TOP IS CURRENTLY APPROVED AND THE BOTTOM IS PROPOSED STARTING ON THE RIGHT AND WORKING LEFT. THE BLOCK Z IS THE PORTION THAT WE'RE ASKING TO BE ADDED INTO THE UMU. THIS IS LIGHT INDUSTRIAL THAT WE'RE ASKING TO BE TURNED INTO TOWNHOME LAND. BLOCKS L AND M ARE FOR LARGE PART KEEPING THEIR EXISTING USE. WE ARE JUST ASKING FOR SOME CHANGES SO THAT WE CAN WORK THROUGH A LIVE DEAL THAT WE HAVE ON THAT OFFICE PORTION RIGHT THERE. BLOCK F IS NEW MULTIFAMILY THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. WE'RE REMOVING HOTEL AND OFFICE ON THAT BLOCK. WE ARE INCREASING THE USABLE OPEN SPACE IN BLOCK Y TO THE LEFT OF THAT. AND THEN TO THE LEFT OF THAT IS BLOCK C, A5, AND A4, WHICH IS ADDING MORE DYNAMIC RETAIL AND ENTERTAINMENT. WHAT WAS HERE BEFORE? AS YOU CAN SEE WAS OFFICE, HOTEL, RETAIL AND PARKING GARAGES. WE'VE RETAINED THE OFFICE ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER. WE BELIEVE IF WE CAN EXECUTE ON THIS RETAIL PLAY THAT WE CAN POTENTIALLY ATTRACT AN OFFICE USER. AND THEN AT THE TOP LEFT WE'RE ADDING A RESIDENTIAL USE THAT IS FALLS INTO THE FABRIC OF THE REST OF THE USES ALONG THE NORTHERN SIDE AGAINST PLANO PARKWAY, AS WELL AS ADDING RETAIL ON THAT CORNER TO ACTIVATE IT. THIS IS A SHOWING OF KIND OF THE MASSING. YOU CAN REALLY SEE THE OPEN SPACE IN THE RETAIL AND HOW THAT CHANGES THE LANDSCAPE AND THE DESIRABILITY HERE. GOING FROM THE FAR RIGHT WHERE BLOCK Z WAS, THIS WAS, WE'VE SOUGHT TO ACQUIRE THIS. WE CALL THIS THE DONUT HOLE, THE MISSING PIECE. AND WE TRIED TO INCORPORATE THIS WITHIN HERITAGE CREEKSIDE SINCE THE VERY BEGINNING. IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED LIGHT INDUSTRIAL. AND THE SELLER WAS ACTUALLY PURSUING A LIGHT INDUSTRIAL SALE. SO THINK BOATS AND CONTAINERS AND OUTDOOR STORAGE. WE WERE ACTUALLY ABLE TO GET THIS PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT, AND WE WERE HOPEFUL TO REZONE IT BEFORE OUR CONTRACT TIME CAME UP. BUT THIS ZONING CASE HAS TAKEN SO LONG, WE JUST DECIDED TO BUY IT ANYWAYS, HOPING THAT WE GET THIS ZONING BECAUSE WE REALLY WANTED TO PROTECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD. AND WE REALLY THOUGHT DEVELOPING FOR SALE TOWNHOMES ON THIS BLOCK WOULD REALLY CREATE A GREAT BLEND AND SHIELD AROUND THE EXISTING PROPERTY. WE'LL LIKELY LOSE MONEY ON THIS BLOCK, BUT WE THINK IT'S IMPORTANT FOR THE NEIGHBORHOOD. BLOCKS L AND M. THIS IS JUST A LIVE ACTIVE DEAL. WE ASKED FOR A FEW CHANGES ON LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING. THE LAND USE IS COMPLIANT WITH THE ZONING, BUT IT'S A DIFFERENT CONFIGURATION PROPOSED BY SOMEONE WHO WANTS TO DEVELOP THIS PROPERTY. WE'VE BEEN TRYING TO SELL THIS PROPERTY FOR 12 YEARS. AND WE FINALLY FOUND A PURCHASER. 18 MONTHS AGO WE CANVASED ALL THE REAL ESTATE SECTORS, THE EXPERTS IN THE WHO'S AN OFFICE, HOTEL, RETAIL, MULTIFAMILY. AND WE REALLY ASKED FOR THEIR INPUT TO HELP US RE REDEVELOP THE REST OF THE REMAINING PARCELS. THERE IS AN EXTREME LACK OF INTEREST FROM RETAIL, HOTEL AND OFFICE USE IN THIS BLOCK F ZONE. [01:00:02] WE HAVE A REALLY INTENSE TREE LINE AND CREEK KIND OF RUNNING THROUGH THERE. AND IT'S ACTUALLY WHAT MAKES HERITAGE CREEKSIDE SPECIAL IS THE NATURAL AMENITY, BUT IS ACTUALLY DUE TO THE LACK OF VISIBILITY. VERY HARD PARTIAL TO SELL. SO WE ARE PROPOSING TO DO MULTIFAMILY THERE. ROSEWOOD HAS BUILT TWO MULTIFAMILY RESIDENCES OUT AT HERITAGE CREEKSIDE. THE LUDLOW WON THE BEST MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITY OF THE YEAR IN THE DALLAS BUSINESS JOURNAL, AND THE BUCKLEY IS THE SECOND ONE, WHICH JUST OPENED THIS MONTH. AND IT'S ACTUALLY A FINALIST FOR THAT SAME AWARD FOR BEST MULTIFAMILY COMMUNITY. BLOCKS F AND A2, WHERE WE'RE SHOWING MULTIFAMILY. WE'D LIKE TO CONTINUE THAT TREND AND BUILD SOME OF THE BEST MULTIFAMILY IN THE CITY. HOWEVER, ON THE OTHER SIDE OF OUR TREE LINE IN BLOCK A5, A4, AND C, WE GOT A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF INTEREST AND OPPORTUNITY FOR PLACEMAKING. EVERYONE LOVED THE ACCESS AND THE VISIBILITY. AND THIS IS REALLY WHERE THE RETAIL GROUPS THOUGHT THAT WE HAD SOMETHING SPECIAL FOR RETAIL HERE. WE'RE REALLY PIGGYBACKING OFF OF THE SUCCESS OF THE ROSEWOOD RETAIL THAT'S AT THE CORNER OF ALMA AND PLANO PARKWAY, WHERE RODEO GOAT, FLYING FISH, TACO JOINT, ORANGETHEORY, CROSSROADS DINER ARE ALL THERE, AND WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING BEST IN CLASS RESTAURANTS, ENTERTAINMENT. THAT WOULD BE STUFF LIKE PUTT PUTT AND FAMILY FRIENDLY OUTDOOR ACTIVITIES THAT PEOPLE COULD DO TOGETHER. ICE HOUSES, BEER GARDENS, BREWERIES, BUT ALL TO ACTIVATE THAT REALLY GREAT GREEN SPACE THAT WE DO HAVE. WE DID MAINTAIN A BLOCK FOR OFFICE. THE FEEDBACK FROM THE OFFICE GROUPS WAS WE NEEDED SOMETHING TO ATTRACT PEOPLE TO HERITAGE CREEKSIDE. AND THAT'S REALLY WHERE THE RETAIL COMES IN. AND WE THINK IF WE CAN GET, YOU KNOW, THE OTHER PORTIONS OF THIS TO ALL COME TOGETHER, THEN THIS PROMINENT NORTHEAST CORNER OF EASTER 190 COULD ACTUALLY ATTRACT SOMETHING LIKE A MASS TIMBER OFFICE BUILDING. BUT WE NEED THE NEARBY AMENITIES TO DO THAT. AND LASTLY, YOU KNOW, OUR OPEN SPACE IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT WE HAD IN OUR PRIOR PLAN. WE WORKED REALLY HARD. AS YOU CAN TELL, WE WERE ACTUALLY PUTTING SOME GARAGES IN A PRIOR VERSION UP AGAINST SOME OF OUR BEST OPEN SPACE, AND NOW WE'RE CONNECTING IT ALL. WE'RE ACTIVATING IT. WE'RE PUTTING PLAZA AREAS. WE'RE ACTUALLY CREATING A STRETCH FROM RIGHT TO LEFT TO CONNECT ALL THE ACTIVATED SPACE TOGETHER AND ACTUALLY CREATE MORE OF A DISTRICT. A FEW OTHER CONSIDERATIONS I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT. THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN 12 YEARS THAT WE'VE ACTUALLY REQUESTED ADDITIONAL MULTIFAMILY AFTER TRYING FOR OFFICE THROUGHOUT THAT ENTIRE TIME FRAME. THE NEIGHBORHOOD SUPPORT FOR OUR PROPOSAL IS OUTSTANDING. IT'S, FOR THOSE THAT LIVE IN AND AROUND CREEKSIDE, IT'S 28 IN FAVOR VERSUS TWO OPPOSED. THIS IS AN IMMENSE OPPORTUNITY TO INCREASE THE CITY TAX REVENUE FROM AG LAND TO DEVELOPMENT. AND OUR HOTEL INTEREST HAS BEEN REALLY LIMITED SERVICE HOTELS. WE INITIALLY SHOWED HOTELS ON OUR PLAN BECAUSE WE THOUGHT THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT FOR OFFICE USERS. WITHOUT THE OFFICE, THE ONLY HOTEL INTEREST WE'VE RECEIVED IS REALLY LIMITED SERVICE HOTELS, WHICH WOULD NOT BE INDICATIVE OF THE REST OF THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE'VE CREATED OUT THERE. SO IN SUMMARY, WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLACE MAKING OPPORTUNITY FOR DESTINATION DRIVEN ENTERTAINMENT, RETAIL AND RESTAURANT CONCEPTS. IT'S AN ACTIONABLE PLAN BASED ON ALL SORTS OF EXPERTS WITHIN THE DFW MARKET AND THEIR FEEDBACK. IT'S A MORE WALKABLE AND COHESIVE MIXED USE DESIGN. IT'S BETTER OPEN SPACES. WE'RE BRINGING IN FOR SALE TOWNHOMES IN LIEU OF DOING AN OUTDOOR STORAGE OPPORTUNITY. IT RETAINS THE OFFICE BUILDING ON A HARD CORNER, ALIGNS WITH THE OBJECTIVES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING A MIX OF USES. IT DECREASES TRAFFIC, TRAFFIC, AND INFRASTRUCTURE BURDEN. IT STIMULATES LOCAL ECONOMIC JOB GROWTH, AND IT'S REALLY AN OPPORTUNITY TO DRIVE NEW REDEVELOPMENT IN THIS ENTIRE CORRIDOR OF PLANO. CRISTINA DID A REALLY AWESOME JOB OF EXPLAINING THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WHAT P&Z RECOMMENDED AND WHAT WE WOULD LIKE TO DO FOR THE PHASING. THE SHORTENED VERSION OF IT IS THAT P&Z WANTED US TO DO RETAIL AND JUST BLOCK C, A5, AND A4. WE WENT TO P&Z THE FIRST TIME WE DIDN'T HAVE A PHASING PLAN. THEY ASKED US TO GO BACK. WE WENT BACK WITH STAFF. WE ACTUALLY ACCEPTED. WE MET THE NEXT DAY, I THINK IT WAS WITH STAFF. WE ACTUALLY ACCEPTED WHAT THEY PLANNED AND PROPOSED AND WHICH IS THAT WE WOULD GET CREDIT FOR ANY COMMERCIAL USE THAT WAS DONE ON THE REMAINING UNDEVELOPED LAND. AND SO THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. AND BILL IS GOING TO CLARIFY THAT RECOMMENDATION. THE REASON WE DON'T WANT TO DO BLOCK C, A5, AND A4 FIRST OR AS A REQUIREMENT TO DO THE MULTIFAMILY IS THAT WE REALLY WANT TO DO BUILD TO SUIT IN CUSTOM [01:05:02] RETAIL. WE WANT TO MAINTAIN FLEXIBILITY TO MEET THE DEMAND, AND IF WE WENT IN WITH SPEC RETAIL SPACES WE HAD TO FIT LATER, THAT WOULD BE A MUCH HARDER PROPOSAL. THE OUTSIDE AIR REALLY THIS IS A VERY WELL-INTENTIONED ORDINANCE. BECAUSE WE'RE GOING IN PRE-SB 840. WE, WE ARE ASKING FOR THIS. IF IT WAS POST SB 840, WE WOULDN'T BE WHAT REALLY THE BIGGEST CHANGES WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING IN OUTSIDE AIR FROM THE EAST AND WEST SIDES OF THE BUILDING. AS WELL AS THE CORRIDOR IN THE NORTHERN SIDES. IF WE WERE LEFT WITH JUST VENTING OR PULLING IN AIR FROM THE NORTHERN SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THE DUCT RUNS FOR OUTSIDE AIR WOULD GET TOO LONG OVER 200FT AND IT WOULD MAKE IT BASICALLY OBSOLETE. WE WOULDN'T BE ACTUALLY PULLING IN OUTSIDE AIR. SO I THINK THIS IS REALLY WE'RE PROVIDING BETTER OUTSIDE AIR FOR OUR RESIDENTS IF WE'RE PULLING FROM BOTH THE SIDES AND THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY AND NOT THE FRONT. AND WE WILL HAVE A MOTION AS WELL THAT WILL CLARIFY THAT. SO WITH THAT, I THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME. I THINK BILL'S GOING TO DO THAT CLARIFICATION FOR YOU GUYS. TOO. MR. KEHR. AND THEN TO SECRETARY. MR. MAYOR. COUNCIL. MY NAME IS BILL DAHLSTROM, 2323 ROSS AVENUE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS OPPORTUNITY. I JUST WANTED TO COVER TWO POINTS, AND THOSE ARE THE TWO POINTS TIM MENTIONED. AND THEY WERE ESSENTIALLY IN KRISTINA'S PRESENTATION AS WELL. WHAT WE WOULD WHAT OUR PREFERENCE WOULD BE ON THOSE LAST TWO POINTS ON PHASING. AND I'M GOING TO REPEAT WHAT YOU'VE ALREADY HEARD, BUT WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THERE'S A SECTION 1.0 WITH REGARD TO THE BUILDING PERMITS, ASKING THAT BUILDING PERMITS FOR NO LESS THAN 10 THOUSAND SQUARE FEET OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE IN THE AGGREGATE MUST BE ISSUED FOR BLOCKS A2, LOT 2 OR BLOCKS A3, A4, A5, C, L OR M BEFORE ANY CO IS ISSUED FOR A MULTIFAMILY USE IN BLOCK F. SO WE'RE ASKING THAT AS OPPOSED TO JUST FOCUSING ON A3, A4, C THAT THE NON-RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS WOULD FALL INTO THAT. SO AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE SCREEN, IT WOULD BE A2 UPPER LEFT SIDE. THE RED THE COMMERCIAL OR BLOCKS L AND M OFF TO THE RIGHT. SO A 12,000FT² OF BUILDING PERMITS MUST BE ISSUED FOR THOSE SPACES. PRIOR TO A CO FOR MULTIFAMILY, CO AND BLOCK F, WHICH IS THE ONE IN THE CENTER. GOING ON A COMMERCIAL SHELL BUILDING PERMIT FOR NO LESS THAN 12,000FT² OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE IN THE AGGREGATE MUST BE FILED, MUST BE FILED IN BLOCKS A2, LOT 2 OR BLOCKS A3, A4, A5, C, OR L OR M BEFORE A SEAL IS ISSUED FOR MULTI-FAMILY USE AND BLOCK A2, LOT 1, WHICH IS IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE UPPER LEFT SIDE. SO THE FIRST IS WE NEED TO GET BUILDING PERMITS FOR 12,000. AND THEN THE SECOND IS WE HAVE TO GET THE PERMITS MUST BE FILED FOR 12,000FT² BEFORE WE CAN GET A SEAL IN BLOCK A2, LOT 1. AND THEN AS IT RELATES TO THE AIR INTAKE, IT'S EXACTLY WHAT TIM WAS SAYING EARLIER. I'VE ACTUALLY HANDED THIS OUT THAT WE ARE REQUESTING THAT THE INTAKE OPENINGS FOR OUTDOOR AIR, AS DEFINED BY 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. LOCATED WITHIN 1200 SQUARE FEET OF A TYPE A THOROUGHFARE, A RIGHT OF WAY. SO AS TIM WAS SAYING, HERE'S A GREAT EXHIBIT, WE COULDN'T PUT THE AIR INTAKES FACING 190, BUT THEY COULD BE ON THE SIDES OR ON THE BACK OR WITHIN THE COURTYARD. SO THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR AND WHAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED IS THE ABILITY TO PUT THE AIR INTAKES ON THE SIDES OF THE BUILDING, IN ADDITION TO THE COURTYARD AND ON THE NORTH SIDE. AND AGAIN, I THINK THIS WAS REFLECTIVE OF WHAT WAS PRESENTED IN BOTH THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL AS TIM'S PRESENTATION. WE WOULD ASK THAT THESE BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE RECOMMEND OR THE APPROVAL OF OUR ZONING CASE TONIGHT. AND WE ARE HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. OUR ENGINEERS ARE HERE. MR. PURDUE, THE PRESIDENT OF ROSEWOOD PROPERTY COMPANY IS HERE AS WELL. IF YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR TIME. THANKS. OKAY. LET ME FINISH THE SPEAKERS. OKAY. LET'S FINISH THE SPEAKERS. ALL RIGHT, THE NEXT SPEAKER IS ALEX STEIN AND BILL [01:10:08] LYLE. GOOD EVENING AGAIN COUNCIL. AS A RESIDENT AND A LANDOWNER IN EAST PLANO, THERE'S NOBODY THAT WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS BE SUCCESSFUL AS MUCH AS ME. I DO THINK THERE'S A FEW COMMENTS WORTH MAKING, THOUGH. I AM PRO REASONABLE LAND USE. YOU ALL KNOW THAT IF I DISAGREE WITH STAFF I WILL MAKE THAT KNOWN. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT THAT EACH OF YOU ALL KNOW THAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WAS DENIAL. THEY USE DIFFERENT LANGUAGE. SOMETIMES THEY'LL SAY THIS IS INCONSISTENT WITH POLICY. SOMETIMES THEY'LL SAY SOMETHING AS STRONG AS RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL. AND THAT'S WHAT THEY SAID IN THIS CASE. THIS AFTERNOON, I DID HAVE A CHANCE TO REVIEW THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION'S FINDINGS FORMS, AND ODDLY, MANY OF THEM REFERENCE SB 840, WHICH IS AN IMPORTANT POINT I WANT TO MAKE TO YOU GUYS. THE APPLICANT HAS CHOSEN NOT TO DEVELOP UNDER 840, SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHOULDN'T CONSIDER 840 IN THE CONSIDERATION OF THIS CASE. I THINK IT IS. I LET ME SAY THIS WE SHOULD NOT ERODE ESTABLISHED UMU DISTRICTS UNDER THE POSTURING OF DEVELOPMENT UNDER 840. IT SETS A BAD PRECEDENT. I AGREE THAT THEY COULD COME BACK WITH A DIFFERENT ZONING CASE UNDER 840 AND DEVELOP SOME OF WHAT THEY WANT TO DO HERE, BUT THIS COUNCIL ADOPTED MANY PROVISIONS BEFORE SB 840 WAS PASSED TO PROTECT THE CITY AND TO GET DIFFERENT THINGS OUT OF IT. LIKE, WELL, YOU ALL DID IT. SO THERE WERE A LOT OF THINGS THAT Y'ALL WROTE INTO THE LAW TO MITIGATE THE EFFECTS OF 840. THEY'VE CHOSEN NOT TO COME IN UNDER 840 AND SO DON'T CONSIDER IT UNDER 840. THE DONUT HOLE WITH IT BEING LI-1. THEY TALK ABOUT THIS BEING A SCREEN AGAINST THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, BUT THEY'RE JUST PUTTING RESIDENTIAL AGAIN RIGHT NEXT TO THE LI-1. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WOULD MAKE THIS A MORE BENEFICIAL SITUATION IS IF THEY ACQUIRED THE ENTIRE DONUT HOLE AND WERE ABLE TO INCORPORATE THE ENTIRE THING, BUT THEY HAVEN'T DONE THAT. THEY JUST THEY'RE JUST PUTTING MORE RESIDENTIAL NEXT TO THE LI-1 USE THAT HAS THE CHANCE OF BEING SOMETHING ELSE IN THE FUTURE. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY STATE IN THE PACKET THAT WENT TO P&Z WAS THE ECONOMIC VIABILITY OF THEIR UMU DISTRICT. WELL, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO THAT AS A BUSINESS OWNER, BUT I CAN'T COME IN HERE AND SAY, WELL, THIS LAND USE NO LONGER MAKES ME MONEY. I WANT TO CHANGE IT. THEY DEVELOPED THIS UMU DISTRICT. AND SO AGAIN, I THINK IT'S POOR POLICY TO HAVE SOMEONE POSTURE UNDER 840 AND SAY, WE CAN DO THIS AND THEN COME IN AND JUST GET YOU TO REWRITE IT. ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S IMPORTANT, I THINK, IS THAT WE KNOW THE EFFECT THAT 840 ACTUALLY HAS ON THE CITY OF PLANO GOING FORWARD. AND IF WE JUST KEEP REWRITING OUR ORDINANCES, WE DON'T EVER KNOW WHAT THAT EFFECT WAS BECAUSE NO ONE'S GOING TO DEVELOP UNDER IT. THANKS FOR YOUR LISTENING. IS THAT IT? I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. CONFINE THE COMMENTS TO THE COUNCIL. MAYOR PRO TEM, I NEED SOME ANSWERS FROM CHRISTINA, I'M A LITTLE BIT CONFUSED. SHE'S THERE. ACTUALLY, I'M VERY CONFUSED. SO AT THIS POINT, I'M GOING TO SIMPLIFY. AND YOU TELL ME WHETHER OR NOT I'M OVERSIMPLIFYING. SO BASICALLY THIS IS A AREA THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR ZONING, FOR UMU? THAT'S CORRECT. IT EXISTS AS UMU-1. OKAY. AND AT THIS POINT, THE APPLICANT IS COMING BACK BECAUSE THEY WANT TO CHANGE SOME OF THE PROPOSAL THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED UNDER THE PREVIOUS UMU. THAT'S CORRECT. AND THE REASON WHY THEY'RE ASKING FOR THE I MEAN WE'RE NOT TALKING ABOUT HAVING DIFFERENT PLOTS THAT ARE BEING ADDED TO THIS AM I. WE'RE JUST EXPANDING A LITTLE BIT, RIGHT? THEY'RE CHANGING THE USES. THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED ON THE PROPERTY. OKAY, SO THE PROPERTY IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, RIGHT? I MEAN, EXCEPT FOR THE ADDITION OF THAT ONE AREA WHERE THEY'RE ADDING THE TOWNHOUSES. THE DONUT. IN THE PARKING. THE DONUT HOLE, CORRECT. SO AT THIS POINT, WHAT THEY'RE, WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS OKAY. ORIGINALLY, SOME OF THE AREAS THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING IS SUPPOSED TO BE OFFICE BUILDINGS OR INDUSTRIAL. OFFICE IS NOT DOING VERY WELL. HOWEVER, THERE SEEMS TO BE A NEED FOR ADDITIONAL HOUSING AND MULTIFAMILY. [01:15:06] IS THAT, AM I GETTING THAT? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY, SO THE APPLICANT'S NOW IS COMING BACK AND SAYING, LOOK, WE CAN'T MAKE MONEY AND WE CAN'T REALLY MAKE OFFICE BUILDING TO WORK FINANCIALLY OR PROFITABLY. SO WE'RE ASKING IF WE COULD AS A WHOLE MAKE THIS INTO WHERE THE DONUT HOLE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE, AT THE TOWNHOUSE RESIDENTIAL. THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE, WE'RE GOING TO ADD I THINK THE MULTIFAMILY ALREADY EXISTS, RIGHT? IS THAT? THEY'RE ADDING MORE MULTIFAMILY. MORE MULTIFAMILY, IN THE MIDDLE WHERE IT'S SUPPOSED TO BE FOR OFFICE. WE'RE GOING TO MAKE IT INTO CUSTOMIZED OFFICE BUILDING AND THEN POSSIBLY SOME RECREATIONAL CENTER AND MORE HOSPITALITY TYPE PROJECTS. AM I RIGHT ABOUT THAT? RIGHT. THEY'RE REMOVING A NUMBER OF OFFICE BUILDINGS AND PUTTING SOME LOW DENSITY RETAIL RESTAURANT DEVELOPMENT IN ITS PLACE. SO SOMETHING LIKE MINI CAR, MINI GOLF OR POSSIBLY SOME OUTDOOR EVENT CENTER TYPE. MORE GREEN. RIGHT, SOME ACTIVE USES. OKAY. LIKE YOU HEARD. SO, ALL RIGHT, I THINK I UNDERSTAND NOW AND, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE SECOND THING, WHICH IS WHAT IS THIS PROPOSAL THAT THEY'RE COMING BACK WITH? I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING. SO DID THE P&Z APPROVE OR DID THE P&Z NOT APPROVE? I MEAN, ARE WE MODIFYING. ARE WE WHAT ARE WE MODIFYING? THEY DID NOT DISTRIBUTE COPIES TO STAFF. SO I DON'T PARTICULARLY KNOW WHAT EXACTLY YOU WERE GIVEN. EXCUSE ME. I DID SEND THAT TO STAFF THIS AFTERNOON. OKAY. AND THIS IS NOT A NEW PROPOSAL. THESE ARE ACTUALLY WHAT WE PREFERRED. THAT WAS ACTUALLY ALREADY PRESENTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE STAFF PRESENTATION. RIGHT, BUT MY QUESTION IS, DID P&Z APPROVE THIS? THIS IS NOT WHAT THE PLANNING IS. SO I APOLOGIZE, BILL. I HAVE BEEN IN MEETINGS UP TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, BUT THE. SO THIS IS. SO I HAVE NOT LOOKED AT THIS SPECIFICALLY. I HAVE NOT COMPARED THIS TO WHAT WAS IN. BUT THE STAFF REPORT DID INCLUDE ADDITIONAL BLOCKS LIKE WHAT IS PROPOSED HERE. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ELIMINATED BLOCKS AND SAID THEY WANTED LIKE SOME OF THESE BLOCKS. I BELIEVE YOU'LL SEE LIKE BLOCKS L AND M. IF WE COULD SEE THE IF WE COULD GO BACK TO THE. WE CAN'T REALLY TOGGLE BETWEEN THIS, BUT LOOKING AT THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN BLOCKS, L AND M ARE THE KIND OF NARROW STRIPS THAT INCLUDE THE SMALL OFFICE DEVELOPMENT. THOSE PIECES OF PROPERTY WOULD BE INCLUDED SO THEY COULD UTILIZE THOSE TO MEET THEIR 12,000FT OF SPACE. I THINK THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION REALLY WANTED TO LIMIT IT TO THE ACTIVE SPACES. SO THEY INCLUDED ONLY BLOCK C, A4 AND 5. SO THOSE AREAS THAT YOU SAW IN MY PRESENTATION THAT WERE HIGHLIGHTED. THEY SAID, WE WANT TO SEE THE ACTIVE SPACES, THE 12,000FT² AND THE ACTIVE SPACES. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE PROPOSAL THAT WAS MADE BY THE APPLICANT IN THEIR PRESENTATION, THEY OFFERED. WHEN THEY CAME BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING TO DO BASICALLY 12,000FT² IN THE REMAINING COMMERCIAL BLOCKS. THAT, IF I MAY. CHRISTINA. THAT'S CORRECT. WHAT WE, WHAT WAS IN ON THE VERY TOP SECTION IS WHAT WE CAME BACK WITH AFTER OUR MEETING WITH THE PLAN, WITH THE PLANNING STAFF VERBATIM. THAT BEFORE WE COULD GET A CO FOR BLOCK F, WE WOULD NEED BUILDING PERMITS FOR, FOR MORE NO LESS THAN 12,000FT² OF. THERE YOU GO. 12,000FT² OF NON-RESIDENTIAL SPACE IN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS. OKAY. AND THEN BEFORE WE COULD GET A CO FOR THE OTHER APARTMENT BUILDING, WE WOULD HAVE TO GET A COMMERCIAL BUILDING PERMIT FINALIZED FOR 12,000FT² IN THE NON-RESIDENTIAL BLOCKS. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY WHAT WE CAME BACK WITH AFTER THE FIRST P&Z IN JANUARY. WE WERE ASKED TO TAKE A STEP BACK AND GET WITH STAFF AND COME UP WITH A PLAN. THIS IS WHAT WE CAME UP WITH AND THIS IS WHAT THE TO THE P&Z. P&Z MODIFIED IT BY TAKING OUT BLOCKS A TO L AND M. [01:20:07] SO THE. THE OFFICE BLOCK. SO YOU'RE ASKING THE COUNCIL TO BASICALLY MODIFY WHAT THE P&Z HAS APPROVED. AND GO BACK TO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. WELL, I WOULD SAY. I'M SORRY, I WOULD SAY THAT WE ASK YOU WHAT IS IT THAT YOU WANT TO BRING BACK TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION? THIS IS WHAT THEY WERE WILLING TO OFFER THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. SO THAT WAS WHAT WAS PROPOSED IN OUR STAFF REPORT. SO THIS WAS ROSEWOOD'S INITIAL OFFER TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION RECOMMENDED A LIMITED NUMBER OF BLOCKS. SO WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THEY WOULD LIKE YOU TO GO BACK TO THEIR ORIGINAL OFFER. WHICH WE CAME UP WITH AFTER THE P7Z, THE FIRST P&Z HEARING IN JANUARY. YES, THEY'RE. YES, THEIR ORIGINAL PHASING OFFER. YEAH, I DON'T KNOW. THANK YOU MAYOR. GOING BACK TO THAT ISSUE FOR THE, FOR QUALITY RETAIL IN THOSE, IN THAT RESTAURANT AND ENTERTAINING ENTERTAINMENT SECTION, YOU NEED SOME DENSITY OF PEOPLE ON THE PROPERTY AND BEFORE THIS, SOMETHING NEEDS TO HAPPEN BEFORE YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD THE MULTIFAMILY IN ORDER TO DO THE PHASING. SO WHAT YOU'RE ASKING BASICALLY IS TO ADD BACK IN THE OFFICE CONDOMINIUMS, WHICH WOULD ADD AT LEAST A FEW MORE FOLKS WHO MIGHT BE THERE FOR BREAKFAST, LUNCH. AND WITH SOME LUCK, MAYBE THE OFFICE BUILDING ON THE CORNER, IN THE EVENT THAT THAT COULD HAPPEN BEFORE THE MULTIFAMILY, BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR REQUEST TO, TO HAVE SOME PEOPLE OCCUPYING THE LAND YOU KNOW, SO THAT YOU CAN ATTRACT QUALITY RESTAURANTS, ENTERTAINMENT, ETCETERA. SO THAT'S ONE ISSUE. AND TO THE EXTENT THAT WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THE. YOU'VE SPENT A DECADE TRYING TO GET THE ORIGINAL ZONING TO WORK. YOU'VE TRIED TO GET MORE RETAIL, EXCUSE ME, OFFICE AND HOTEL AND SUCH IN THERE UNSUCCESSFULLY, IS THAT THAT CORRECT? YES, SIR. OKAY. AND AS WE'VE SAID, YOU COULD COME BACK UNDER 840 AND BUILD THE MULTI-FAMILY REGARDLESS OF THE PHASING AND SUCH, THAT MIGHT COME AT A LATER DATE. THAT IS A POSSIBILITY. WE HAVE NEVER POSTURED THIS CASE ON THAT PREMISE. WE CAME IN WANTING TO CONTINUE THE SUCCESS WE'VE CREATED FROM THE VERY BEGINNING. IT WASN'T UNTIL STAFF ASKED US IF WE WANTED TO COME BACK UNDER 840. DID WE, THAT THAT EVEN COME UP. OKAY. AND, I'M GOING TO SWITCH NOW TO THE INTAKE OPENINGS. THE P&Z SUGGESTED INTERIOR INTAKES FROM INSIDE THE COURTYARD. YOU'VE INDICATED THAT THE JUST DOING THIS ON THE FAR NORTH SIDE WOULD BE A PROBLEM BECAUSE THE LENGTH OF TIME OR EXCUSE ME, NOT TIME, THE LENGTH OF THE RUNS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO HAVE IS A, AN ENGINEERING PROBLEM. WHAT ABOUT JUST COMBINING THAT WITH THE COURTYARD? WHY DO YOU NEED IT ON THE, THE EXTERIOR SIDES? YEAH, WE RAN THAT DOWN. YOU ACTUALLY CANNOT GO THROUGH A FIRE. IT'S A FIRE CODE ISSUE TO TAKE FROM THE OUTSIDE AND GO TO THE CORRIDORS, WHICH I PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT WE COULD MAYBE DO THAT UNTIL WE LEARN FROM OUR ARCHITECT ENGINEERS CANNOT. SO YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN'T DO IT FROM THE. YOU CAN'T GO THROUGH THE FIREWALL. THE FIREWALL ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE CORRIDOR TO PULL IN AIR. OTHERWISE, IF THERE WAS A FIRE, THEN YOU'D ACTUALLY BE PULLING IN FIRE FROM ONE SIDE OF THE CORRIDOR. SO YOU CAN'T DO. CODE DOESN'T ALLOW IT. YOU CAN'T DO IT FROM THE CORRIDORS. SO YOU. YEAH, WE CAN'T GO THROUGH A CORRIDOR TO PULL OUTSIDE AIR. RIGHT, SO THE OPTION THAT P&Z, THE P&Z SUGGESTED IS NOT ONE. WE CAN FOR THE UNITS THAT FACE THE. I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN GO BACK UP, BUT WE CAN FOR THE UNITS THAT FACE THE CORRIDORS OR I MEAN, [01:25:06] SORRY, THE COURTYARDS, THAT'S NO PROBLEM. IT'S JUST THAT FROM THE UNITS THAT ARE ON THE OUTSIDE OF THEM, WE CAN'T GO THROUGH THOSE UNITS THAT ARE FACING THE COURTYARD, IF THAT MAKES SENSE, SIR. THANK YOU. CHRISTINA. I JUST WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT THAT THIS IS THE CITY'S STANDARD. AND WE HAVE WE HAVE APPROVED OTHER, OTHER PROPERTIES THAT HAVE GONE THROUGH BUILDING, PERMITTING. SO WE HAVE VERIFIED THIS THROUGH OUR BUILDING OFFICIAL THAT THERE ARE MEANS TO DO THIS. IT IS MORE EXPENSIVE, BUT THERE ARE MEANS TO ACCOMPLISH THE OUTDOOR AIR BECAUSE OTHERWISE OTHER BUILDINGS WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO MEET THE BUILDING CODE. THESE ARE POSSIBLE BY JUST COMING FROM THE NORTH SIDE? YES, BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE COULD NOT HAVE THIS IN OUR CODE AND BE ABLE TO PERMIT BUILDINGS. IT IS POSSIBLE. IT IS A MORE EXPENSIVE PROCESS. ALL RIGHT. COUNCIL MEMBER KEHR. YES, SO I WANT TO CHECK ON A COUPLE OF THINGS. SO IN YOUR PROPOSAL YOU HAVE A COUPLE OF IT'S REALLY A TIMING ISSUE, RIGHT. WHERE YOU, WHERE THE CITY WANTS YOU TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF RETAIL. PERMITTED, OR PERHAPS EVEN LIKE THE SHELL BILL BEFORE YOU GET YOUR CEO ON THE MULTIFAMILY. AND YOU'RE SUGGESTING A DIFFERENT SET OF PHASING REQUIREMENTS THAN WHAT P&Z APPROVED. ESSENTIALLY, YOU'RE ASKING TO ADD MORE BLOCKS TO IT TO DISTRIBUTE IT. YOU'RE NOT. YOU'RE NOT SUGGESTING YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD MORE THAN 12,000 BEFORE WE GET THE CO. YOU JUST WANT TO DISTRIBUTE IT OVER MORE BLOCKS. THAT'S RIGHT. WE JUST WANT TO DISTRIBUTE OVER MORE BLOCKS. P&Z EXCLUDED BLOCK A3 OR OUR OFFICE IS CURRENTLY SITUATED AS WELL AS THE BLOCK A2, LOT 2, WHERE THAT RETAIL. AND P&Z EXCLUDED BLOCKS L AND M ARE THE OFFICES. AND ALL OUR REQUESTS IS JUST TO ADD THAT BACK INTO THE PHASING. CAN SOMEONE SPEAK TO WHY PLANNING AND ZONING REMOVE SOME OF THE BLOCKS? THEY THOUGHT. WELL, I'M SPEAKING FOR THEM, BUT MY INTERPRETATION IS THEY THOUGHT IT WAS SO IMPORTANT TO GET THE RETAIL ON A5 AND C AND A4 GOING FIRST, BESIDES THE OTHER PARTS OF THE DEVELOPMENT. OKAY, THE OTHER QUESTION I'D HAVE REALLY RELATED TO THIS NORTH SIDE AIR AND YOU KNOW, I STRUGGLE TO VEER AWAY FROM WHAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAS COME BACK TO US, PARTICULARLY SINCE THERE ARE QUITE A LOT OF CHANGES IN ORDER TO ACCOMMODATE THIS. SO I AM STRUGGLING A LITTLE BIT WITH THE WHOLE AIR INTAKE THING. CAN YOU SPEAK A LITTLE BIT TO ANY MITIGATIONS IN TERMS OF THE AIR POLLUTANTS AND THINGS LIKE THAT? IF YOU'RE TAKING FROM THE OUTSIDE ON THE EAST AND WEST, HOW THAT IS MITIGATED IN A WAY THAT WOULD BE SAFE FOR RESIDENTS? YEAH. HONESTLY, P&Z WAS CONFUSED. I WAS CONFUSED AT P&Z. IT WAS VERY CLUNKY, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IT. REALLY, THE INTENT IS THAT WE'RE NOT TRYING TO SKIRT THROUGH ANYTHING BUT STILL PROVIDE GREAT OUTDOOR AIR FOR OUR RESIDENTS. THE ONLY ARROW THAT P&Z IS NOT ALLOWING US TO DO BASED ON THIS PRESENTATION IS THE ONES THAT GO EAST AND WEST TO THE OUTSIDE. WE'RE ASKING TO ADD THOSE BACK IN. AND THE REASON BEING IS THAT OUR DUCTWORK GOES REALLY LONG DISTANCE, AND OUR ENGINEER HAS SAID, YOU KNOW, YOU'RE REALLY STRUGGLING TO PULL OUT ANY OUTDOOR OUTSIDE AIR WHEN YOU DO THAT. AS CHRISTINA SAID, IT'S PROBABLY POSSIBLE. IT'S VERY EXPENSIVE. IT PROBABLY DOESN'T CHANGE A THING TO JUST PULL IT FROM THE OUTSIDE. I THINK IT'S A WELL INTENTIONED ZONING ORDINANCE. WE'RE HAPPY TO TRY TO COMPLY WITH IT AS BEST WE CAN. BUT THIS IS A HEALTH STANDARD THING, CORRECT? YOU KNOW, IN TERMS OF MAKING SURE THE QUALITY OF AIR THAT'S COMING IN IS GOING TO BE FINE FOR THE RESIDENTS. YES, IT'S A NEW ONE. OKAY. THANK YOU. MAYOR PRO TEM. YEAH, I'M STRUGGLING. SO I GUESS I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHY THE CHANGES. I MEAN, IF, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT YOU'RE CIRCUMVENTING P&ZS APPROVAL. WHATEVER THEY APPROVE IN ORDER TO COME TO US AND SAY, LOOK, I KNOW WHAT P&Z APPROVED, BUT WE STILL WANT WHAT WE WANT. AND SO CAN YOU PLEASE MODIFY IT BACK TO WHAT WE HAVE REQUESTED? AND I'M VERY I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THAT BECAUSE WE HAVE P&Z FOR A REASON. [01:30:06] WE ASKED THEM TO ANALYZE AND TO MAKE RECOMMENDATION TO THE COUNCIL WITH REGARD TO WHAT THEY BELIEVE IS THE BEST USE OF A PROPERTY. AND AT THIS POINT, I, YOU KNOW, I'M FINE WITH WHATEVER PLANNING AND ZONING IS RECOMMENDING. I DO HAVE PROBLEMS WITH MAKING MODIFICATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN I GUESS BLESSED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING. SO IF YOU GUYS WANT TO MAKE THESE MODIFICATIONS, I MEAN, CAN YOU, DO YOU WANT TO GO BACK AND TALK TO PLANNING AND ZONING AND, AND SEE IF THEY ARE WILLING TO AGREE WITH YOUR REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION? ARE YOU? DO YOU WANT US TO JUST AGREE? LIKE I SAID, I'M HAPPY TO GO WITH WHAT PLANNING AND ZONING IS RECOMMENDING. AND, YOU KNOW, WITH THE NORTH SIDE AREA, WITH THE, YOU KNOW, THE, YOU KNOW, THE PHASING IN AS THE WAY THAT P&Z HAS RECOMMENDED. COUNCIL MEMBER TU, WE ARE NOT TRYING TO CIRCUMVENT THE P&Z. WE THINK THAT THIS IS A BETTER WAY OF DEVELOPING THE PROPERTY TO ALLOW THE 12,000FT² TO COME FROM ANYWHERE WITHIN THE PROPERTY. OTHERWISE, WE'RE FORCING A RETAIL OR RESTAURANT PRODUCT ON A TRACK TO LAND, AND WHOEVER GOES IN THERE, IT'S GOING TO BE ALL SPECK. WHOEVER GOES IN THERE WILL PROBABLY CHANGE IT. AND WE'RE READY, WILLING AND ABLE TO GET STARTED ON BLOCK L AND M AND BEGIN SOME OF THE MULTIFAMILY. WE, WE'VE BEEN AT THIS AS, AS YOU HEARD OVER A YEAR NOW AND WE WANT TO MOVE FORWARD. WE THINK IT'S IN EVERYBODY'S BEST INTEREST. LET'S MOVE FORWARD. BUT WE ARE COMING BACK TO YOU APPEALING WHAT P&Z RECOMMENDED. WE THINK IT'S MORE REASONABLE TO ALLOW US TO DO THE 12,000FT² IN A BROADER AREA, SO THAT WE AREN'T FORCED INTO DOING SOMETHING THAT IT'S NOT GOING TO, NOT GOING TO WORK. ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE? THANK YOU, MR. MAYOR. FIRST OF ALL, LET ME SAY THANK YOU GUYS FOR TAKING ON A HERCULEAN TASK. I THANK THE MAYOR, AND I HAVE BEEN LOOKING AT THIS FOR OVER SIX YEARS. MAYBE EVEN MAYOR PRO TEM TU HAS LOOKED AT IT FOR SIX YEARS, AND WE'VE BOTH GOTTEN A LITTLE GRAYER, I THINK, BILL, OVER THIS. SO THANK YOU AGAIN FOR YOUR PATIENCE. AND WE KNOW ROSEWOOD, THEY ALWAYS PUT TOGETHER A QUALITY PRODUCT AND HERITAGE CREEKSIDE IS NO EXCEPTION TO THAT. I LIKE YOUR PHASING APPROACH. I'LL BE HONEST WITH THAT. AND I CERTAINLY LIKE WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT FOR BLOCKS L AND M WITH REGARDS TO THE SINGLE OFFICES THERE, THAT SEEMS TO BE A GOOD USE OF THAT. WE'RE SEEING THAT ALONG THE 121 CORRIDOR THERE. AND I THINK WE MODEL SOMETHING LIKE THAT. THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST USE FOR THAT PIECE OF PROPERTY, BECAUSE THOSE INDIVIDUAL BUILDINGS CAN BE SOLD TO INDIVIDUAL INVESTORS WHO DO OPTOMETRY OR WHATEVER THE CASE THEY WANT TO DO THERE. AND I LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING WITH THAT, THOSE TOWNHOMES OVER THERE. I THINK THAT'S A GREAT IDEA. THE ONLY ISSUE I HAVE REALLY WITH ALL THESE QUESTIONS AND I KNOW YOUR RETAILERS YOU'RE LOOKING AT HERE, THOSE ARE ALL GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED TO THE USER. CORRECT. WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT THE RESTAURANTS OR BARS OR MIXED USE, WHATEVER WE'RE GOING TO USE FOR THOSE FACILITIES. I HAVE ONE QUESTION WITH REGARDS TO THAT MIDDLE APARTMENT COMPLEX. THE REASON WE WHERE I HAVE MY ISSUES HERE IS WITH REGARDS TO TWO ELEMENTS. NOISE IS ONE. AND THE SECOND IS THE AIR, PM 2.5 IN PARTICULAR, AND PM 10, WHICH ARE GENERATED THROUGH ROAD TRAFFIC, HIGH DENSITY TRAFFIC, PARTICULARLY ALONG THE BUSH THERE. I DON'T REALLY HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH ANY OF THE INTAKE ALONG CUSTER ROAD. I DON'T SEE FROM A MODELING PERSPECTIVE THAT APARTMENT THAT'S OVER THERE ON BLOCK A, LOT 1, I DON'T SEE WHERE THAT WOULD BE ANY HICCUP THERE, BUT I CERTAINLY SEE WHERE THERE WOULD BE SOME ISSUES WITH AIR COMING IN FROM THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT BLOCK F, I GUESS, WHICH IS THAT MIDDLE UNIT THERE, AND POSSIBLY FROM THE SIDES. BUT FROM WHAT YOU'RE SHOWING HERE, FROM A SCHEMATIC, IT LOOKS LIKE ANY AIR INTAKE FROM THE NORTH SIDE AND FROM THE COURTYARDS WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT YOU WITH SUPPLYING FRESH AIR ON THAT MIDDLE UNIT. SO THOSE ARE JUST MY OBSERVATIONS LOOKING AT WHAT WE HAVE HERE. [01:35:02] OKAY, AGAIN, MY PERSONAL OPINION THERE, I LIKE WHAT YOU'RE TRYING TO DO AND HOW TO TRY TO COMPLETE THAT IN TODAY'S ECONOMY. IT'S A CHALLENGE THERE, BUT I THINK WE HAVE A GOOD MIX OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS AND RETAIL AND SINGLE OFFICES. I THINK THAT'S JUST A KIND OF A GOOD COMPLEMENT TO FINISH OUT THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY. THANK YOU. I'LL TAKE THAT. COUNCIL MEMBER KEHR. YEAH. I'M SORRY. I JUST KIND OF WANT TO GO BACK TO PARTICULARLY THE AIR. I MEAN, I'M, I THINK I'M LEANING TO, YOU KNOW, THE PHASING BEING OKAY BECAUSE I THINK WE WANT TO GET THE RIGHT ITEMS IN THERE FOR RETAIL AND GIVING YOU A LITTLE MORE SPACE TO DO THAT, MORE OPTIONS. I THINK THAT COULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL, BUT I'M REALLY STRUGGLING WITH THE PART THAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAS HAD TO SAY ABOUT THE AIR INTAKE ON THE APARTMENT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY ELSE HERE ON COUNCIL HAS ANY OTHER THOUGHTS ABOUT THAT. ANY WAY TO DEAL WITH THAT? WELL, I, I THINK I THINK YOU GUYS ON, ON LOT, LOT A. OBVIOUSLY IN, IF THAT ENDS UP BEING YOUR PLAT AND YOU KNOW, IT MAKES SENSE, YOU COULD, YOU COULD GO FROM THE EAST AND THE NORTH. THERE'S NO REASON TO GO FROM THE WEST ON THAT ONE. BUT DOWN AT THE BOTTOM, LIKE DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SAID THE NORTH ON THE ONE THAT'S PRIMARILY EAST AND WEST AND THE OTHER SMALLER ONE THAT WOULD, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. SO I MEAN, IT, THEY'RE BOTH. POSITIONED IN DIFFERENT WAYS THAT IT MAKES SENSE TO USE EAST AND NORTH AND JUST NORTH ON THE BOTTOM PART, AND THEN ON THE LOT A, YOU CAN UTILIZE THE EAST SIDE AND, AND THE NORTH LIKE YOU WERE TALKING ABOUT. SO I, AGAIN, I DON'T WANT TO COMPLICATE THINGS, BUT IT SEEMS AS THOUGH THAT THAT MAKES THE MOST SENSE OF, OF GETTING THE CLEANEST AIR AND NOT RUNNING YOUR DUCKS IN A, YOU KNOW, UNSUITABLE WAY. AS FAR AS THE THE PHASING GOES, I WANT YOU GUYS TO BE ABLE TO CREATE AN OPPORTUNITY IN THE RETAIL, BUT I ALSO WANT TO GIVE YOU THE FLEXIBILITY THAT, THAT YOU NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET NONRESIDENTIAL PRODUCTS ON THE GROUND AND GOING. SO THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS. COUNCIL MEMBER LAVINE. THANK YOU. MAYOR. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE A ZONING CASE 2025-0003 WITH THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS REGARDING PHASING. WE WOULD MOVE FORWARD WITH THEIR REQUESTED 1200FT²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his transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.