Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Welcome to the September 8th City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I now call the meeting to order at 6.01 PM. If you'd all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance.

Thank you very much.

Consent agenda.

Consent agenda. The consent agenda will be acted upon in one motion and contains items that are routine and typically non-controversial. Items may be removed from this agenda for individual consideration by commissioners or staff.

Mr. Lingenfelter. I move that we pull item number C, letter C off. Okay. And then recommend that we approve the rest of it as recommended by staff.

All right, Commissioner Lally.

I'll second.

All right, so we have a motion to approve everything except for item C. Please vote.

Motion passes eight to zero.

All right, item C. Staff report.

Consent agenda item C. Berkeley Square Edition, block 1, lots 1R and 436, shopping center and 356 multifamily residences on four lots on 15.2 acres located on the north side of Preston Road, 275 feet west of Ohio Drive. Zoned retail with specific use permits, number 92 for private club, number 148 for daycare center, number 169 for massage establishment, number 488 for private club, and number 652 for theater regional and located within the Preston Road overlay district. The applicant is Berkeley Square Edens LLC. This item is for administrative consideration.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is John Kim, senior planner with the planning department. This is the preliminary site plan 2026016. It is at Ohio Drive and Park Boulevard, and staff is recommending that the commission table the item. Available for questions.

All right. Commission, any questions of the staff? Seeing none, I'm prepared to make a motion. Commissioner Lally.

I'll make a motion to table agenda item C as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Bender.

I'll second the motion.

All right, we have a motion and a second to table item C. Please vote. Motion passes eight to zero. Items for individual consideration.

items for individual consideration. Public hearing items. Unless instructed otherwise by the chair, speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time with three minutes assigned per speaker. Residing 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, length of the agenda, and to ensure meeting efficiency. It may include a total time limit. All right.

Item one.

Agenda item number one, 1897 townhomes addition, block B, lots 1R through 15R, 16X, and 17X. 15 single family residence attached lots and two common area lots on 0.6 acre located at the southeast corner of 15th Street and Great Salt Lake Street. I'm sorry, Great Salt Street. Zone plan development 133, downtown business government. The applicant is Fenway Development Incorporated. This item is for administrative consideration.

So on the screen, you will see the locator map. It is located off 15th Street and Great Salt Street. And so as you can see, there are currently 15 residential lots, and the applicant is requesting to subdivide the lots at the very ends of the street into two residential lots and two common area lots. Staff is recommending for approval as submitted. I'm available for any questions.

Commissioners, any questions of staff? Commissioner Brunoff.

Where is Great Salt Street? I drove all around there. I never saw it.

So it is going to be the curved street along the south from the west side to the east.

Oh, I see. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions of staff? All right. Seeing none, we do have a public hearing. I'll open the public hearing. Do we have any registered speakers on this item? We do not. All right. I'll close the public hearing. Any comments? Commission? Prepare to make a motion. Commissioner Brunoff.

I move that we approve item one as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Lingenfelter.

I'll second.

All right. We have a motion and a second. We vote. Motion passes eight to zero. Number two.

Agenda item number two, 1897, townhomes edition, block C, lots 3R and 17X. One single family residence attached lot and one common area lot on 0.1 acre located at the southwest corner of Great Salt Street and North Avenue. Zoned plan development 133, downtown business government. The applicant is Fenway Development Incorporated. This item is for administrative consideration.

So this is also in the same area as the previous item. This is the southwest corner of Salt, Great Salt and N Avenue. As you can see highlighted, it is currently a residential lot requesting a subdivide into residential and common area lot. The staff approves recommendation. Staff recommends approval as submitted. I'm available for any questions.

Commissioner, any questions of the staff? Commissioner Oliver.

Just one the common area lot will be available to Love the other planet lots in that area or is it going to be dedicated to one or two of the lots around it?

Yeah, it will be its own separate lot maintained by the HOA Maintained by the HOA.

Yes Any other questions of staff Okay, we have a public hearing on the open public hearing No, sir, we do not close the public hearing Commissioner Brunoff.

I move that we approve item number two as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Alali. Oh, Commissioner, sorry. Commissioner Ali. Second. Sorry, I got my, got y'all mixed up for a second, sorry. All right, we have a motion and a second. The motion passes eight to zero.

Item number three. Agenda item number three, Aldrich Place addition, block 6, lot 9R, one general residential lot on 0.2 acre located on the west side of G Avenue, 345 feet south of 12th Street, zone general residential and located within the expressway corridor overlay district. The applicant is Ali Recycling, LLC. This item is for administrative consideration.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Anna Suter, a planner for Development Review. The purpose of this replat is to reestablish the lot boundaries to reflect a five-foot right-of-way. Recommended for approval as submitted. Thank you, Commissioners, and I am available for any questions if you have any.

Commission, any questions for the staff? Commissioner Alali.

I just have one question. So you're like, will the expressway corridor overlay affect the plat in any way?

No, it will not because this is a residential replat.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you.

Any other questions of staff? Commissioner Alali.

The five-foot right-of-way is requested by what, the city? The applicant?

What's driving that? Thank you. The five-foot right-of-way was dedicated in the 70s by a separate instrument or by a deed. So it was dedicated already to the city, but it wasn't replanted back then.

So this replant essentially reaffirms or writes it into the deed. Okay. Okay.

All right, any other questions of staff? None? Okay, this is a public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Do we have any registered speakers on this item? No, sir. All right, I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Langenfelter.

I move that we approve this item as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Lally. I'll second. All right, we have a motion and a second. Who's vote? Motion passes eight to zero. Number four.

Agenda item number four, Swaminarian Gurukul Addition, Block A, Lot 1R, religious facility on one lot on 28.3 acres located on the west side of Park Vista Road, 1,420 feet south of 14th Street. Zone agricultural and located within the expressway corridor overlay district. The applicant is Swaminarayan Gurukul. This item is for administrative consideration.

Good evening, Commissioners. My name is Tiara Clark. I'm a planner with the Planning Department. The subject property is located on the west side of Park Vista Road and is an existing religious facility. The purpose of the replat is to abandon and dedicate easements for site improvements. And the purpose of the revised site plan is to add two accessory structures, a perimeter fence and related site improvements as shown on the next few slides. Staff recommends approval of the preliminary plat subject to approval of a hold harmless agreement for a fence encroachment into the drainage and flowway easement and the sanitary sewer easement as required by our engineering department and any additions or alterations to the engineering plans that may also be required by the engineering department. Staff also recommends approval of the revised site plan subject to any additions or alterations to the engineering plans as required by the engineering department. Thank you, and I'm available for any questions.

Commission, any questions of staff? Commissioner Lally.

So do we have what kind of fencing that they're going to be putting there? Excuse me? What kind of fence?

I think it is a chain link fence, if I'm correct.

So does it have like a retaining wall or something? It's not going to affect the...

Easement the drainage or well the the fence will need a hold a hold harmless agreement And so that's currently in the works with our legal department and it ultimately has to get approved by the engineering department There's no fencing currently in place There is an existing fence on the site. Yes, and I think they are relocating a portion of the fence and so therefore that hold harmless agreement has to get approved and

But the type of fencing is not necessarily changing.

No, it's the location of the location Any other questions of staff Public hearing do we have any registered speakers on the side? No, sir. What was the public hearing? Commissioner

I move we approve agenda item number four as recommended by staff based on the approvals, additions, alterations required by the engineering department.

Commissioner Alali.

I'll second.

I have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes eight to zero. Number five.

Agenda item number five, Plano East Church of Christ edition, block A, lots one R and two, religious facility and vacant land on two lots on five acres located at the northwest corner of Merriman Drive and Ranch Estates Drive. Zone plan development 173 is state development. The applicant is Plano East Church of Christ. This item is for legislative consideration of subdivision ordinance variance.

Again, good evening, commissioners. My name is Anna Suter. This slide shows the subject property along the northwest corner of Merriman Drive and Ranch Estate Drive. The purpose for the replat is to subdivide an existing lot into two lots. An existing religious facility will remain on the southern lot, and the northern lot is intended to be sold. With this replat, the applicant is requesting a variance from a sidewalk construction. The purpose for the revised site plan is to show the new lot boundaries updated by site information. The property has an existing sidewalk along Merriman Drive and a partial sidewalk along Ranch Estate Drive. Properties to the north along Ranch Estates Drive do not have sidewalks. The applicant is requesting a variance from constructing the remaining 280 feet of sidewalk along Ranch Estates Drive as shown on the screen. Picture one shows the existing sidewalk ends before the driveway of lot one R and does not continue further north. Picture two shows the existing suburban character along Ranch S.H. Drive where sidewalks are generally not present. The variance criteria focus on ensuring there is no public harm, the conditions are unique to the property, a hardship exists, and the request remains consistent with the zoning ordinance and comprehensive plan. The sidewalk requirement would provide limited connectivity due to the lack of continuous sidewalk system along with existing site constraint and no current engineering plans for sidewalk construction. The site for the replant site recommends approval subject to the required the findings being met to allow an exception from the sidewalk construction requirement along the northern frontage of lot 1r and frontage of lot 2 on ranch estate tribe For a vice site plan that staff recommends for approval as submitted I'm available for any questions. I

Thank you. I have one real quick. The revised lot two that's going to meet all of the requirements of the current zoning in that neighborhood, because I know that neighborhood has a unique zoning.

Correct.

All right. Commissioner Ali.

Can you go back to the picture one and two? There we go. So this current sidewalk that is in place leads to the, it cuts through what would be where the religious facility is currently.

Correct, so that sidewalk that ends on the right of way or the entrance is only for the religious facility. So that part on the north is vacant right now and there's no sidewalk there.

Okay, and we required, did we require a sidewalk for the religious facility?

Yes.

Okay.

When it was constructed, yes.

When it was constructed. So the assumption here, and tell me if I'm putting words in your mouth, is if the second lot that is going to be sold is sold for anything other than residential, we would require sidewalk construction. Let's assume there's a second religious facility.

I believe that this lot is going to be used for residential as well. As a matter of fact, the owner is here. They are here, the people who's going to buy the other lot, and they're planning to construct a residential house.

I understand that, but let's assume they didn't. We approve the variance and they come and put something that is not residential. Do we have the ability to now mandate a sidewalk on the new lot?

Not unless there's a need to replat again for easements or other purposes like that. Once it's platted and then there's no reason to require a replat, then the variance will hold.

Okay.

Typically with a residential home, however, the sidewalks are constructed at the time of permit. not at the time of plat. And so if the variance is not granted with this replat, then the homeowner would have to come in on their own and request a variance with the building permit, which is not typical. So the intent here was to help them out by doing it with this replat.

Okay.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bronski. So two quick questions. If you could go forward. Woodmower. Woodmower. There you go. What it's saying there in the replat language is not requesting that we complete a findings form. Is that correct? Mr. Bell.

That's correct. This is not a findings as you would see in a zoning case.

Okay. I just wanted to clarify that. And so my second question is, the way this was currently zoned and constructed, Should they have completed the sidewalk already through that property or was that something that we allowed them time to make changes to?

It is something that we allow. If we look at the PD, the PD, like the picture that I've shown, it's more on having the suburban character of this development. So we allow them to not construct the sidewalk. As a matter of fact, engineering has no intentions or no plans as of the moment to construct any sidewalk in that particular development.

So my question was for the church. When the church went in, and they had to put the initial part of their sidewalk, was the expectation that they were gonna put the sidewalk on that other space and they just did not complete that?

The church was built so long ago, I don't believe we have the records to confirm that one way or the other.

Okay, so that's what I was trying to understand, if they had a responsibility that they should have put the sidewalk in already and had not done so.

So that was what I was asking about, thank you. Commissioner Lally.

Thank you for clarifying that the sidewalks, the engineering department, they don't have any intention to build the sidewalk now. But per the street designs for this type of street, are sidewalks required?

Yes.

So maybe any time in the future, the city might decide to add them?

So according to the engineering department, for this development, they are not intending to construct a sidewalk unless the property owner asks to do so.

Okay, so there is a probability that one of the property owners, they need to build a sidewalk. So will that force the other property owners to continue the sidewalk?

So it depends on the property owner, if the property owner wants to request for a sidewalk on their part, in the frontage of their property, but I don't think that it'll force the other property owners to do the same thing.

I would say it's unlikely that the city would build a sidewalk just for one lot, just because the drainage in that area is the bar ditch, and so that sidewalk would affect the drainage significantly. If you travel this neighborhood, you'll notice it is... It has a rural character. The zoning of it actually requires certain types of fencing to keep that kind of rural character. And so we're of the opinion that that is a unique quality and characteristic of this neighborhood. And it's worthy of the variance.

And do we have some sort of escrow in case the city would... Because some cities have an escrow in the future if they want to build sidewalks. So there's enough money...

Not for this specific purpose.

Okay. Thank you.

Commissioner Brunoff.

Thank you. Is it correct that the, I guess both lots together are currently zoned plan development 173 estate development. Is that correct?

Yes.

And does that zoning category allow for the religious facility on what will become lot one? In other words, if we approve this application, we will not be throwing the church into a non-conforming status, will we?

No, sir. Religious facilities would be allowed on both lots.

That's what I thought. Okay. And as to the proposed lot number two, how many homes can you build on a single planted lot? One. One. Okay. And this is not an application to change the zoning, is it? No, it's not. Okay. So if we approve... the application, what we have is lot two, which would authorize the construction of one home on that lot. Is that correct? Correct. And if the applicant, if the purchaser for some reason decided to do something else, something non-residential, subdivision or whatever, he'd have to come in and ask for a zoning change and probably some replats and site plans and so forth, right? So that would be something we are not dealing with in this case. Is that correct?

So what they're trying to apply in here for this development is just a variance for the sidewalk. So in case that there are other uses that supposedly should go into the other lot that's vacant right now, as long as it's allowed within that district, then they don't have to go through zoning change.

Okay, so what we're... What we would be left with if we approve this is a lot one with a church on it, lot two is a single lot which would allow the construction of a single home with a variance from the sidewalk requirement. Correct. Okay.

Commissioner Lingenfelter. I don't know if this really is going to change my vote either way because I see the purpose with the bar ditch and just the look and everything. It does sound like there's some concern with what Commissioner Ali had just said and Mr. Brunoff had said, but is there a way to approve something like this so that there's a condition so that if they go non-residential, they would have to do a sidewalk versus if it stays residential, we're granting that they don't need a sidewalk kind of thing?

I don't believe so. We'd have to look into that and get back to you. However, it helps, I think. You know, there's a chance that an institutional use, a school, a daycare are technically permitted uses on this site, but they would need to provide two points of access. They need to provide fire protection. It is very likely that they would need to plat for easements or for access purposes.

I can't guarantee that, but it is very likely.

That helps.

Commissioner Bender?

Thank you, Chairman. If you look at those pictures, and I'm familiar with this area, there's no continuous sidewalk on what's being proposed as lot two. There's no sidewalk on the other side of that lot, right?

It's all, as you see in the picture, that's the way it is all the way down.

So this is consistent with that whole area and neighborhood. Is that correct?

Correct, sir. Thank you.

All right. No questions from commission. All right. This is a public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. Do we have any registered speakers on this item? No, sir. All right. I'll close the public hearing. Commission? Commissioner Ali.

I think what we were just trying to get at, it was just... comfort on the fact that Even the church essentially was grandfathered in that we had some mechanism just in case, you know, he always kind of like a plan for the extreme but it sounds like we have some level of levers if It's not residential. So with that I I move we approve the waiver as recommended by staff Commissioner Lally

Very glad I had the waiver, correct. Commissioner Brunoff, yes.

Could I propose a slight amendment to the motion that the commission find that based upon the information provided by staff in the packet, all the conditions necessary to approve the requested variants have been met as a finding? I'm going to believe that's already basically stated in the staff report, correct?

Yes. Okay.

So that's effectively inherent to the motion.

Okay. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes eight to zero.

Number six.

Agenda item number six, receive an update and hold a discussion on phase one of the Legacy Area Master Plan. The applicant is the City of Plano. This item is for information only.

If I could interrupt before you get started. For those of y'all that were here for other cases, you are more than welcome to stay with us the rest of the night if you'd like to, but we will not get our feelings hurt if y'all would like to leave.

You're welcome.

I can see you looking around like we're seeing if it was okay.

Good evening, Commission. My name is Maryam Zaheer, Senior Planner with the Planning Department. The Legacy Area has developed over several decades into one of North Texas' premier employment centers and mixed-use destinations. The project area is located in the far northeast boundary of the city, as shown in the graphic, and is approximately 4.6 square miles, or 3,182 acres. Within this area, there is approximately 45 million square feet of commercial space, 96,000 workers, and 10,000 residents. The main focus of this evening's presentation is the findings from phase one of the Legacy Master Plan. However, I'll first provide a brief overview of the plan background for this planning effort. The city's vision for the Legacy Area dates back to the 1981 Comprehensive Plan, which envisioned the area as an employment hub. Envisioned this part of Plano as a second major regional employment hub alongside downtown Dallas. The current Comprehensive Plan provides the policy foundation for this area through both the employment centers and Urban Activity Center's future latest categories. as well as the other policies shown on the screen. The Legacy Area Master Plan is intended to build from the existing policy framework of the Comprehensive Plan for the area, but provide a more detailed look at how those broad policies should apply across Legacy. In 2024, the Economic Development Department partnered with Freese & Nichols to interview property owners and tenants in the Legacy and Granite Park area. The purpose was to understand existing strengths and challenges, future needs and perspectives on redevelopment and infill. There were 18 interviews conducted and the responses were generally related to the three topics towards the bottom of the screen, which included business environment, physical environment and regulatory environment. For business environment, respondents noted factors changing the office market, including aging, office inventory, and market demand. Regional competition was increasing from other employment centers in the region, including Uptown Dallas, Las Colinas in Irving, and The Star in Frisco. They also identified business needs such as hotels, conference, and event spaces. For physical environment, respondents identified the need for more programmed activities and community open spaces, the need for better internal connections and walkability, and concerns regarding congestion and intersection delays within the area. For regulatory environment, respondents raised issues related to connections and circulation within the area, a desire for better and more flexible economic incentives, and the need for regulations that are adaptable to better accommodate reinvestment and redevelopment in the area. The results of this sentiment survey reinforce the need for a district-specific planning effort to address the challenges facing property owners and tenants within Legacy and Granite Park. In January of 2026, council directed and approved funding to address the challenges facing legacy through the development of a legacy area master plan. The development of the plan is a collaborative effort between the economic development department and the planning department and is aimed at addressing kind of challenges facing the legacy area. Those challenges include changing market conditions, development opportunities evolving regulatory environment which includes recent state legislation allowing multifamily and mixed-use development by right and commercially zoned areas which represents a notable shift from the city's long-standing policy direction for legacy which has historically emphasized preserving land for employment generating uses as well as infrastructure capacity Based on these conditions and factors, there is a need for a focused planning effort to help navigate these challenges and provide guidance on Legacy's future development. Phase one of the Legacy Master Plan was initiated with the existing conditions analysis. The intent of the analysis was to establish a baseline understanding of the legacy area and analyze topics such as policy and regulatory framework, economic and market conditions, demographics, as well as the other topics shown on the screen. Because the study area covers approximately 4.4 square miles and includes different development patterns and conditions, the study area was subdivided by common form and use mix into the eight sub areas shown on the map. The visual kind of to the right of the screen. The sub areas approach recognizes that there is not a single uniform development mix and type across the legacy project area and allows us to better understand the differences among the sub areas and consider different planning approaches that may be appropriate in different parts of the legacy study area. Based on our analysis, there were five major takeaways or findings that were uncovered through the existing conditions analysis. First was that legacy is a strong employment base but involving office market. There are approximately 96,000 jobs in the legacy area and office development represents approximately 54% of the land use mix. However, performance varies significantly with older office formats experiencing higher vacancies. Second was that retail performance is generally strong, but there are gaps. Legacy West continues to perform strongly, while some older mixed-use retail areas have higher vacancies. The analysis also found that Legacy is a more limited mix of entertainment and everyday services compared with regional competitors, and those regional competitors that we analyzed were Uptown Dallas, Las Colinas and Irving, and The Star in Frisco. Third was that housing diversity is limited. Residential development is concentrated primarily in the mixed-use areas and the southeast corner of the study area. The supply within the district is weighted toward higher-end rental products with fewer entry and mid-priced rental and ownership opportunities. Fourth is that public open space is limited relative to the size of the legacy study area. Much of the accessible open space is privately owned and managed and concentrated around mixed use areas. And lastly, Legacy is excellent regional access, but more limited internal connectivity. D&T and State Highway 121 provide for strong regional access, but the campus-oriented street pattern, large blocks, wide intersections, and significant pedestrian network gaps make internal trips much more challenging. This concludes the key findings of the existing conditions analysis and provides the technical baseline for the area. The second major component of phase one was understanding how the people who live, work, own property, develop and spend time in legacy view the area. The stakeholder outreach completed during this phase was building on the work that was completed in 2024 and targeted a variety of more specific topics to understand needs and desires for the area and development. Phase one engagement was conducted from May through July of this year and was intended to broaden outreach and better understand community and stakeholder priorities. The planning department engaged with Frieza Nichols to conduct this engagement. The engagement plan included multiple opportunities for participation to ensure input was received from a broad variety of community members and stakeholders. The community survey received 230 responses. There were 11 stakeholder interviews conducted, 14 responses received from the stakeholder survey, and there were also two Legacy Hall in-person events, and approximately 50 individuals were engaged. Before getting into the feedback topics, it's helpful to distinguish where community and stakeholder feedback differed. Community feedback tended to focus more on the day-to-day experience of legacy, living there, working there, navigating the area, and spending time there. The strongest community priorities included parks and green space, gathering places, retail and dining options, walkability, and transportation connections. Views on future development were more varied and focused on context-sensitive development. Stakeholder feedback placed greater emphasis on long-term economic competitiveness for the legacy area. They consistently identified Legacy's corporate presence, accessibilities, amenities, and overall quality as strengths for the area. There were also concerns about aging office properties, changing office demand, and competition from newer employment centers. Stakeholders generally supported maintaining a mixed-use environment as they were viewed as an asset to the workforce. Additionally, stakeholders expressed a need for employer supporting uses such as hotel, conference center, or event space. So while the feedback of the two groups did differ, there was significant overlap in the underlying feedback. Staff reviewed the engagement findings and organized what we heard into six key themes as shown on the screen. I'm gonna work through each of these themes individually and provide a little bit of an overview of what we heard related to each. The first feedback theme is employment and economic vitality. The major takeaway is that Legacy's fundamental role as a premier employment center and the need to maintain the employment base remains highly valued. At the same time, there is recognition that maintaining that position will require adaptation as older and underperforming office properties face greater reinvestment needs and workplace preferences evolve. Lastly, employers consider the surrounding environment, amenities, accessibility, infrastructure, hotels, conference facilities, and the overall employee experience as part of the business environment and the need to strengthen it. This slide shows the most needed land uses based on both groups' feedback. So we have community feedback and stakeholder feedback. And I want to call out that the stakeholder feedback is specific to the survey results and not the interviews that were conducted. As you can see, community feedback was significantly strong about parks and green space, gathering event space, which we've called out, and then stakeholder feedback varied a little bit throughout. This leads into our next key theme, which is land use evolution and strategic reinvestment. Feedback focused on targeting reinvestment on aging, vacant, and underperforming office and commercial properties rather than the legacy area as a whole. Although a small percentage of respondents desired new residential development, views varied considerably. They varied on the amount and location of residential development preferred and mixed-use development. Respondents prioritized balancing the evolution of the area while maintaining its role as a major employment center because additional residential development would represent one of the more significant changes from legacies, historic land use direction of maintaining the area as an employment hub. We wanted to kind of present a more close look at the housing feedback or residential feedback we received, um, rather than kind of grouping it under mixed use. So this slide here showcases the feedback. that respondents responded to regarding the most needed housing type in the legacy area. As you can see, it has both the percentages and the number of responses. I just wanted to point out that the stakeholder feedback has very few responses and so it just kind of captures a very small, narrow window of that feedback. So we've broken up residential feedback related to both community feedback and then I'll get into stakeholder feedback. But only about 17% of the community survey respondents identified new housing as a needed development type and was less commonly reported in comparison to other land use gaps such as open space. Among the respondents interested in housing, there was no consensus on the appropriate form. Feedback ranged from townhomes to multifamily, with some interest in housing integrated vertically with retail and other uses. And lastly, existing mixed use areas and surrounding areas, as well as underutilized land around employment campuses, were the settings prioritized for potential housing. Stakeholder feedback similarly reflected a range of views as it relates to residential housing of the stakeholders who responded. Workforce housing was viewed as a potential opportunity particularly housing that could allow more employees to live closer to their workplace and reduce commute distances. There was also interest in housing as part of mixed use context where residential can contribute to the activity outside traditional office hours and potentially support reinvestment in aging properties. But there was also concerns about maintaining legacies identity and the traffic impacts that housing could have. The next, the third theme is amenities, services and activity. We consistently heard interest in a broader mix of everyday amenities, including dining, retail, grocery, and other services that benefit both employees and residents. We also heard a desire for more activity outside of traditional office hours, entertainment, events, gathering spaces, and evening and weekend activity. And importantly, respondents emphasized access. Amenities are most useful when people can conveniently reach them from employment areas and other destinations. Parks and open space were among the clearest findings from the engagement. There was a strong interest in more parks, trails, usable grain spaces, plazas and gathering areas. Existing greenery, mature trees and landscaping were also highly valued and respondents wanted to retain the green qualities that already contribute to the legacy areas character and expand tree shaded pedestrian walkways or in spaces. Participants also had an interest in trail and pedestrian connections between open spaces and destinations. The fifth theme is transportation options, connectivity and access. Congestion, parking and access were reoccurring concerns, particularly around major employment areas and intersections. Another major issue was internal connectivity. Respondents identified gaps in the pedestrian and bicycle network make it difficult to travel between employment areas, residences, amenities, open spaces, and other nearby destinations. And there was also interest in more practical transportation options for first and last mile connections and short internal trips. And the final theme from the engagement findings is the district's identity and character. Participants consistently valued Legacy's high quality development, landscaping, safety, and overall appearance, and expressed a desire to maintain Legacy's established qualities. At the same time, there was interest in creating a more cohesive identity across the broader Legacy area while retaining distinct qualities of individual areas. Placemaking, streetscape, landscaping, gateways, branding, and stronger physical connections were all identified as potential ways to reinforce sense of place. Taken together, the six themes provided us with guidance as to what people value about Legacy today and where they see opportunities for the area to evolve. The next phase of the plan will move from developing an understanding of the area's existing conditions and gathering input toward developing plan direction. The first step will be to establish plan goals based on the existing conditions analysis and phase one engagement. From there, staff will begin evaluating potential development scenarios and strategies. for legacy and its individual sub areas and coordinate with supporting departments to evaluate implementation strategies. Those scenarios will allow us to explore where change may be appropriate and what the future mix intensity, scale and form of development could look like in different parts of legacy. Phase two engagement will provide the community and stakeholders an opportunity to review the draft goals, potential development scenarios, and supporting strategies. That feedback will then be used to establish a preferred plan direction. That concludes my presentation. Staff recommends that the commission provide feedback regarding the phase one engagement findings for the Legacy Area Master Plan. I'm available for any questions that the Commission may have. We also have representatives from the Economic Development Department here and also Connor Roberts with the Freese and Nichols team. But I also wanted to open up the floor to the Commission to provide any general observations that you may have that would help inform the next phase of development for the plan.

Thank you very much. That was a lot of information that the staff report was a I'm not going to call it a light read. There's a lot of information in there. So it was a lot of great information, so thank you very much for that. I had one quick question, then I'll see if the other commissions have one. I am always astounded at the disparity between the number of jobs in Legacy and the number of residences in Legacy at 66,000 versus 10,000. Was that correct out of the data? I may be a little off on that. And is that, is the 10,000 population, is that current population or is that number of units and how much, what the population could be or is that the residents that we counted from the census or where did that number come from?

The population count comes from the census. It's from, I believe, the 2023 on-the-map data that's published by the Census Bureau.

Okay. And then where did the employment data come from? The same source. Okay. So we're consistent with where the data came from. Okay. So anything that's been built in the last three or four years? No. may not be reflected in that which is probably not okay all right that was i know those numbers haven't probably changed dramatically in three or four years but hopefully they will soon all right commission questions of staff or the consultants Commissioner Langenfelder.

I just first want to commend you and all the staff that's done a really good job with this. It looks great. I like the Venn diagram approach kind of that you guys did with the community versus stakeholders and everything and see how they overlap and everything and prioritize in that form. It was a great approach. um i had to continue that approach it does look like i see um kind of what uh our chairman was uh was uh kind of alluding to um a business a business area like legacy like this that doesn't die at night you know that it's that has a has a population lives as well beyond that and it looked like that was something that the community and even stakeholders were looking for with the amenities and having activities and other things that keep people in that area and it doesn't become a coast town at night kind of thing. So I do like that approach and I think we're going in a good direction here.

Commissioner Olley. Clarifying questions. In one of the slides you said there was a bullet point that said balance and context sensitive development. Can you expand?

Yeah, so I think we recognize that the sub areas, the existing form and development kind of varies. So when you think about what kind of development may be appropriate in one area and may not be appropriate in another, for example, mixed use development, we already have our mixed use, you know, core along our tollway core is kind of the name of this sub area. And so when you think about you know the for example southern portion or the boundary of the legacy area You know that mixed-use development may not be the most appropriate there So thinking about the context that exists today and maybe what's appropriate to kind of introduce within those areas the second question in both the community and the stakeholders

gathering and event space was actually almost similar percentages, if my memory serves me right. I would hazard a guess that means something different to both. Did you get a sense of what gathering and event space meant to the community versus what it meant to corporate, essentially?

Yeah, I think there were some more specific comments that spoke to that. I think the community was looking for gathering spaces for like live entertainment, for example, and that might fit into the context of what the community was looking for. Stakeholders were kind of more vocal about wanting... Convention space. Yes, convention space or meeting spaces or event spaces, like kind of flexible event space.

One other question, well two. I know it was one person, but one of the stakeholders indicated independent living as a priority. Did they give any more information as to, that struck me as interesting?

I was looking at each other so introduce yourself chairman thank you for having me tonight my name is Connor Roberts with Friesen Nichols thank you for the question commissioner so those stakeholder survey responses sort of had the same context if you will being a survey that the community was given the opportunity so the additional side of the stakeholder and we had the interviews in terms of assisted living specifically coming up I don't recall any specific comments in the interview portion and so really the context that we would have would just be compared to the other options and the survey that's fair lastly this is more of a question so workforce housing one of the if I look at

downtown Chicago, for instance, is the one that comes to my head. A decent amount of workforce housing is almost short-term in nature in terms of when you relocate people to come work for the job, there's a three-month stay while they try to figure out where they're going to live in the city. Do we have a sense of how much of our current housing units are essentially corporate-owned? No?

No, I don't think we have data on that.

Okay.

All right.

Thank you. Commissioner Bender.

Thank you, Chairman. Can I have a few questions and I think a few comments? Just so you understand my context, I lived in Legacy West for six and a half years. story single family homes that are right across the street from Legacy West. So I have a really good feel for there's no dry cleaner, right? So I have a feel for what's there, what's not there, that sort of thing. But I think in the larger context, when we look at Legacy and we look at kind of phase two or 2.0, as we move forward, I think it's important that we don't look at this in a vacuum. So when you think about what's happening, the star was mentioned, but Frisco Station was not mentioned. And when you look at the plaza and you look at the redevelopment of Willow Bend and all the other development that's going to occur, and I see Michael sitting at the top back here. And the additional award shifts, that's going to be needed to retain the corporate clients that we have and continue to attract clients. I think we need to look at this in a broader context. And when you look at developments like the fields that are up the tollway and some of these other things, PGA, I think we would be remiss if we did not include that in this analysis. I think that would be a blind spot that we would look back on and say, what were we thinking? So I think as we move forward, from my perspective, I think we need to have that view. Because I think what we have today, we're very highly leveraged with a lot of corporate clients, with large employers like Bank of America. Everybody talks about the obvious ones. but they have about 7,000 plus employees right now in corporate drama. So there are a lot of employers there. And so I know that the work that the EDC team does is intense. And I think that as we move forward, we need to make sure that we're incorporating all these different elements and the competitive nature of what occurs on a daily basis of keeping those deals. We see the deals we get. What we don't hear about in Plano are the deals we don't get, right? And there are a lot of deals that we don't. Michael is up there. That's just reality, right? We talk about the wins, but there are a lot of wins that happen around us. So I think we can continue to keep this economic engine running, but I think we need to have a larger context than just looking at legacy. Those are my comments.

Thank you. Commissioner Tong.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This was a great presentation, as always. Thank you so much to all the staff members. This was a great job. And as I can see that you're looking for the commission to provide feedbacks and observations. What I can provide is I realize there are two things that I think from my experience with Legacy West and with traveling there or working there sometimes, going to meetings over there in the In the general area, I realized two things. One is that traffic is always bad. And I noticed that transportation is one of the items that's on your report. But I didn't see any kind of a separated kind of on your report. kind of bar report that the graphs doesn't have a separate item for transportation. So I wonder if that's some kind of area that you may develop in the next phase, that you will provide more transportation options, maybe more bus routes, or maybe more rideshare opportunities, maybe I say bike opportunities for people to get to from point to point. There are lots, lots of kind of mid to high density residential areas. They're not immediately connected to the shopping areas. And thinking about how those people get to the shopping areas without driving, that will reduce the traffic, that will reduce the parking. Sometimes you drive around those parking garages like all the way to the top, you can't find parking. That's a problem with Legacy West. That's one thing, parking and transportation in general. And the second thing is I do think that probably we need to look into more housing opportunities over there. I understand that the stakeholders and the community have slightly different views on what kind of housing opportunities that they want but I would say looking at that area we're looking I think in the future we are looking to have more and more young adults or young families to be there so I would say probably look at more options or solutions to smaller size families housing opportunities

Thank you.

Commissioner Ali.

I think Commissioner Bender makes a great point. Yes, we need to come up with a plan for legacy, but looking at Plano as a whole, and if I'm not mistaken, being able to offer a suite of employment center variety that can appeal to different types of corporate clientele, right? Yeah, the folks who would feel better in the Collin Creek, Willow, Willow and Ben kind of setting and versus the more traditional downtown-y feel that Legacy would provide. That, I think, as you're coming up with that plan, is almost like a Plano employment master plan, for lack of a better word. I don't know if it would be beneficial. I think it was six different areas to kind of go through those six one by one and give feedback on the identified six. Would that be beneficial to you all versus trying to piecemeal a hodgepodge of feedback that don't quite weave a theme? That's more of a question to the commission.

Okay, let's hold on that just a second. I think we can see if we have any other comments first. Commissioner Brunoff.

Thank you, Chairman. Again, my compliments to the staff in Fries and Nichols for excellent work in surveying the interested parties and coming up with their view on things, which would be an important consideration in developing a plan. It strikes me that Preserving the essential character of the legacy area as a major employment center has been and must remain the ultimate goal of any plan that is created. The additional items which the survey respondents spoke favorably and asked for, parks and green spaces, community gathering, event spaces, dining, entertainment, retail, residential, and so forth, are all important, but they should serve the ultimate goal of maintaining the area as a major employment center. And I think that means that, for example, residential construction should be proportionate to the primarily employment center character of the area. It has been suggested that all of these different desired attributes, things could be put together in the form of a mixed-use development. I think mixed-use developments are fine and dandy. I mean, I'm totally in favor of them, but I think there are some practical considerations here. One of them is the size of the area. It's 4.9 square miles. If you're talking about walkability, that's an awfully big area to ask people to walk. 4.9 square miles, if it were a perfect square, you would have over two miles on each side. Nobody's going to walk two miles to the grocery store, let's face it. So if you consider the entire area as sort of one big amorphous mixed-use development, I think the emphasis would be more on improving transit and connectability by means other than walking. for example, through internal transportation devices, circulating bus or van routes.

You can certainly put in parks and green spaces with trails that would be conducive to be used by bicycles and those electrified scooters that are everywhere that

or usually found lying on their sides on sidewalks downtown. But I mean, the connectability can be served by means other than walking. And if your goal is a 4.9 square mile mixed use development, I think you're going to have to develop other means of connectivity. An alternative to that would be instead of considering the entire area as one mixed use development, consider the area as primarily, as I said before, a major employment center. with one or two sub areas devoted to putting in smaller self-contained mixed use developments that could be walkable with connectivity to the employment center portions of the area. I'm sure those are not the only ways that this could be treated, but those are a couple of suggestions and there may be others. But again, I think it's important that all of the other amenities that have been asked for, the parks, the community gathering and event spaces, dining, retail, and so forth, be arranged in such a way as to serve the ultimate character of the property as a major employment center. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Bronski.

Thank you so much for all your hard work on all of this.

I've got a couple questions. Let me ask Fries and Nichols first. Can you give me a broader scope of the respondents? When I look at some of these numbers and I look at some of the percentages, what I see, I think on page 56 or something where it was talking about housing, there were eight pieces of input there. And so it makes the percentages really see kind of skewed. Yeah. Thank you.

Sure. I can speak to that a little bit.

So yeah, the one, uh, the stakeholder feedback.

Right. So the approach in this phase one engagement is really three prongs. So it was our community feedback. That's what we sort of blasted out to a wide range of folks. And we can slice and dice that data based off of folks that live and work in legacy or just work in legacy or don't live or work. And, you know, we can slice and dice that several different ways on the stakeholder feedback. We we have the survey, but we also had the interviews themselves. So I want you to kind of think of the stakeholder approach as that joint effort between, Hey, we'd like to talk to you one-on-one. And we did, we hosted several online, um, sort of somewhat anonymous, you know, discreet meetings with them so that they could speak candidly with the consultant team. We also would then sort of peddled the survey to them and say, Hey, if you don't mind, could you please also complete the survey? Could you potentially distribute it to other members of your organization? So think of that as in tandem with the stakeholder interviews, and that's why you're seeing some of that respondent rate being a little bit lower.

When you look at the stakeholder feedback, and it says 67% want the mid-rise multifamily, well, that's two out of six. Right.

Right, understood. And that's why we ended up opting to provide the actual total count so as to not mislead. We'd had that conversation actually internally with staff that initially if you just present that as a 67% number, it might be misunderstood to mean a large respondent base. So that was the intent of providing the actual respondent count.

On these, seeking feedback for these, were they individually asked or were these options for them to select?

These were options. So think of this as a...

So could they have selected more than one option?

I'm not certain if they could.

If I want a mid-rise and I want an attached single family?

If I remember correctly, I don't believe we structured the question to give multiple ranking type. I'd have to go back and take a look at that, Commissioner. That's a good question.

So my second question was I really appreciate the effort of gathering community feedback. Mm-hmm. I noticed only looking at your percentages, about 39% of the total community feedback were actually people in that area. Is that about what you got? It was very early on in the report.

That sounds about accurate. I'm not sure if we can go back.

Is that statistically significant enough for us to make decisions on it?

it' s a good question and so I want to that brings up a good point these are not statistically significant surveys these are really intended to be a guiding tool to both you the city council the city staff on making recommendations so no it is not a statistically significant when it comes to the community feedback we intended to cast a wide net legacy benefits from residents and visitors from all over, specifically visitors from folks that don't live in the area. So we wanted to make sure that we gave an opportunity to sort of provide their feedback with the caveat that we asked them to identify themselves. That way, if we ever did want to go back and say, okay, well, what are our Plano residents actually saying? We could go back and sort of take a more minute look at that.

So here's my concern in the way the data has been provided, especially in context of what you just mentioned. So in order for us to make the best informed decisions, we not only need to be able to know what is our community wanting and what is our community needing, but to be able to look at data and make those determinations on something that would be statistically significant, or at least from a perspective of Are we just hearing feedback from people who don't want new housing anywhere in Plano, or are we hearing from people that want to build multifamily housing all across the entire city of Plano?

Right, right.

So that's where I'm trying to get through some of these numbers to understand. So I've got to say a couple things. I agreed strongly with Commissioner Bender and his insights about making sure that we keep the insight of what else is going on around us uh, secondly, I think it is very important. Commissioner Rudolph said it. And to me, it's one of the keys to this entire thing is keeping this area employment focused. And I think when we even look at the numbers, when we look at the percentages of community and stakeholders that are wanting new multifamily in this area, those numbers are both fairly small. And so I, I start to get a little nervous whenever we start talking about more multifamily or more housing in this area when we don't see that that's what the numbers are suggesting. And I guess that's the other area where I'm looking for to be able to make a determination on whether it makes more sense to have more housing in these areas from Fries and Nichols standpoint as far as what we're seeing and addressing things like the aging retail, the aging office, as well as the aging housing that is already going on up in this area. Mm-hmm. what' s your thought on that?

I think it' s a fair comment for sure. Part of the reason of presenting this information tonight and me being present tonight is to hear your thoughts on how did this phase one engagement component go? It seems like we might be missing a little bit of some context. What we' ll do is we' ll adjust our approach moving forward through our phase two engagement. You should see that adjustment. I know our phase two will be more focused on recommendations that staff will be providing and things like that. And so I think we can really sort of dive into those topics a little bit more, you know, what exactly do you mean when you say, you know, more multifamily, for example, you know, and what context is that? So it's really, it's really great feedback and I appreciate it. And I think you'll see that adjustment as we continue to move forward to the planning process.

I just want us to be careful about making the recommendations so that we're making the right ones for the future, because again, It's hard sometimes for us to see from here what that future looks like, but being able to rely on a group like you guys at Friesen and Nichols, you guys have a proven track record of being able to help lead and guide us in those directions. So I guess my last point, I guess I'll circle back around. I really think it's important for us to focus on the employment piece of what this represents. And I have to agree with most of the commissioners around here. I didn't hear enough in this about transportation. And to me, that's the number one thing I hear across Plano when I go almost anywhere in Plano is more about transportation, more about mobile mobility. And so I'd like to see us really getting a focus on what a lot of our community needs today And as we grow and change in Plato, what we're definitely going to need tomorrow. So that's kind of my feedback. Thank you very much.

I'm going to jump in here. I've got a couple of lights on, but y'all have already gotten to speak once. I have a couple of follow-up questions. We had a presentation, you might correct me, but it's been a while ago about the housing study that was done about housing, where people who work in Plano are living. Have you all reviewed that? Are you planning to review that as part of this effort?

Yeah, so part of the existing conditions analysis took into account the housing study. I think it was the northeast boundary that was like a study area within the housing study. We took that into consideration and kind of reviewed that. And that's how we determined there's kind of this few entry and mid-level income housing.

The reason I ask that question is you made a reference a couple times to workforce housing. Okay. Y'all made a reference a couple times about workforce housing, and I know one of the challenges that I've heard, and I've not heard it often, but I know it exists at Legacy, is the hospitality industry, the retail industry, The price of the housing and legacy versus the opportunity to make enough money to afford that housing is there's a disparity there. And so I hope that when you're talking about workforce housing, you're talking about looking at all ranges, not just the professional and C-suite, but also the folks. that are in the hospitality industry and where they're living and where they have the opportunity to live to be able to work in Legacy because I think that's a challenge as some of our hospitality and retail and restaurant owners down there is finding help. And we need to make sure that there's, number one, housing available, number two, transportation available, so that those industries can continue to thrive because that's a vibrant part of that community. So I want to make sure we have something in there. And I know the housing study had some information because it looked all the way up, as I recall, into Frisco and maybe all the way as far as Prosper at one time about where people lived versus where they were commuting from. Am I remembering that correctly? I think, Drew, you did that, didn't you?

Yeah, we reported on, I mean, the vast majority are commuting from outside of our study area.

Yeah, so I just want to make sure that we fold that knowledge into this study because I think that's a critical component to help us understand if we're going to have a housing component of this, we need to understand what housing we're looking for, not just housing. Because housing doesn't need to be a very expensive penthouse if that's not the person we're looking for. if we need somebody that's looking for a different level job. So let's make sure we fold that in as just my primary comment. And then transportation, I'm not gonna rehash that. Y'all have heard that from everybody. Okay, Commissioner Bender.

make some excellent points regarding housing. And, you know, I think just offer a couple of perspectives. Commissioner Baranski referenced it, you know, statistically, and I think you would agree, this is not statistically significant to make a business decision off of, right? The stakeholder feedback is good feedback. Those are from the stakeholders, I'm assuming, that are listed in the report. But when you look at the community feedback, it's one, it's two, it's three. You can't make a business decision off of that. And the other things, when we think about Legacy 2.0, I think we have to think about it as an evolution. It started with pennies, EDS, and other things just happened around it. And so, you know, having lived there, one of the things that developers are really good at doing is promising versus delivering, right? And so I know when, you know, we executed a contract there in Legacy, there was supposed to be a grocery store, ready to eat grocery stores, all sorts of different stuff. None of that happened. Why? The rents are too expensive. You can't make a living. There's a retail, there's like a 7-Eleven type store there that's subsidized by the developer, right? So there are a lot of things that really have to be looked at really hard. Working with a lot of the employers in the area, very few employees live in Legacy or Plano. And I think the housing study would prove that out. But The standard deviation, if we're doing something statistically significant, I'd expect to see a calculation. Can't do that with these kind of numbers. Anyway, I think these are all good comments, but I think there's a lot of work to do because we have some very sophisticated competition that's happening up the road and with a lot of money behind it. And so I think what we need to do here, we need to study it very, very well and really make some good decisions as we move forward.

Commissioner Ali.

Two quick clarifying questions. One of them is to, I think it was Commissioner Bender's point. We recently made decisions, I'm thinking around JCPenney and the hotel that has been built and the access for entertainment space and open space and what have you. I'm going to assume that wasn't incorporated into this because it's not live open space yet. Okay. Second question, when I look at the stakeholder count, that's a count by company, right? So if I see 11, if you can go back to the slide that had the chart or graphs, So if I see, you know, four respondents in parks and green spaces, that's four companies, not four individuals.

Not necessarily. There were 14 survey respondents, and there were overlaps. So some companies may have had three respondents from that company complete a survey. Others may have had none.

Okay. So we reached out to individuals who were working for the company, not necessarily a company spokesperson who was speaking for the company.

No, I think the company executives who we offered interviews to distributed that to other kind of executives within the team. It wasn't necessarily to employees of the company.

So if that's the case, then I would argue this becomes statistically significant. So for instance, if I'm looking at this in J.P. Morgan, according to this, responded to interview and survey participants, that individual is responding on behalf of J.P. Morgan and their 6,000 employees, right? So if you got 11 companies, out of the 36 or so that are indicated here, that is statistically significant, especially if some of those companies are weighted heavily in terms of the individuals that are, quite frankly, the primary stakeholders of that space. So if we can get some clarification on if I'm understanding that correctly, I know Capital One didn't respond, but if they had, that's... 8,000 people that essentially the company is saying this is the view representative of our employees. So that clarification will help me understand how I hold that particular feedback and chart.

Thank you, Commissioner. And Mariam had it correct. So the stakeholder interviews themselves were with you know, select individuals that the Economic Development Department had sort of contact on file with for some of these companies. Now, the survey, the stakeholder feedback that you're seeing here, the sort of quantifiable data was solicited to them, the individuals that we spoke with, and also asked to be distributed. So that's where you're seeing a little bit of a difference between the stakeholder conversations and the number of stakeholder respondents we had in their survey.

No, no, I understand that, but If you reach out, I work for Capital One. If you reach out to Capital One asking for an executive's feedback, nothing is coming out of my computer without it being vetted by legal compliance. Is it representative of, it's not my view I'm putting there. I'm putting the view of the larger representation of the company. That's what I'm trying to understand. What am I? What am I seeing here? I understand.

I understand. So when we spoke with them in person and to an extent, when we solicited these responses, we were asking them to sort of keep their keep their company hat on, if you will. And so I guess you could say to an extent they were in a way answering on behalf of their, you know, in their role at the company, not particularly now. It's a little hard to control that exactly, particularly in the conversations. We would have discussions with them, and some of them lived in the area, lived near the area, and they were very explicit of, well, personally, I think this, but from a company operations standpoint, I think this. So we made those distinctions as best we could. in the discussion notes. It's a little harder to capture here, but ultimately that's how we pitched it to them. Now, whether they did that or not, it's a little kind of to be seen, but that's at least how we framed it to them.

Okay. A follow-up question on that. Did you all attempt to or do you plan to or would it be a good idea to poll or survey the employees... at some of the major employers to see where they live, would they move there, why or why not? What do they want to see after work? Did you all get any of that kind of information?

We did make an effort to actually on the community feedback side of things. That's why we had respondent options that were I live and work in the legacy area. we tried to kind of cast that wide net we did discuss strategy on on soliciting specific uh input from specific company work bases but i would say that the community feedback gave an opportunity for an individual to identify themselves as that exact type of respondent someone who lives and works in legacy we would assume that that would probably be just a staff individual not an individual that we were soliciting on the stakeholder side so

I don't know as much about this as you do, but it seems to me that if I work in Legacy but I don't live there and I come in at 8 o'clock at 745 and I leave at 515, the odds of me sticking around in the evening or coming in on the weekend to do a community engagement thing are pretty thin. But if my employer sends a survey around and says, hey, take three minutes and fill this out, I think the odds of us getting a bunch of those back are pretty thin.

go way way up and we did we we shared these links um with with the individual companies now again whether it's a little bit difficult to really tie down the exact individual that was responding so whether the company did or didn't you know blast that out i will say all of these online functions were live you know for for an extended period The in-person engagements that we did just to get visibility, those were held during the week, during the launch hour, for that exact reason. We understand that we would have gotten somewhat of a skewed respondent base if we were to show up on a Saturday at Legacy Hall, for example.

Okay, that makes me feel a little better about it.

And if it's something that you'd like to see us potentially adjust moving forward, that's also why we're here today. We have a whole sort of second wave of engagement that's deliberately under review right now on how we're going to do it on the second phase of work. So we've heard some good respondents here.

In my mind, one of the reasons that companies come to Legacy is because their employees are happier there. And that's certainly what we're going for, right? And so it seems to me that if we want to see what that happiness index is... There's no better way than by asking them. I think the more employee feedback we can get from the major employers, the better. I don't know what the best way to do that is. That's why we hire you guys. That's right. But I think from my perspective, I would love to get a really good statistically significant enough sample. of employees over there to understand. I like working in legacy because I don't live in legacy because I do live in legacy because I want to move to legacy with those, but I can't find a house or I need a house or, you know, I just be curious as to, I think that might be a really enlightening piece as to why they come to legacy versus looking for a job in one of our competing neighbors.

Right. We can certainly place an emphasis on that as we move into the second phase. So understood.

Commissioner Bender.

Thank you, chairman. Just echoing a couple of your comments. Uh, you know, they have their own barista. You don't have to leave to go get Starbucks, right? They have a full-time barista for two or three floors. They have cafeterias. They have on-site Starbucks. They have all sorts of different things. And I'm sure the EDC guys would also tell you that, you know, once a company relocates here, they have, you know, one, two, or three floors, and they've been there for five years, and they renew for another five years, right? their employees tend to relocate so that they can commute to legacy. So when it comes time and they're being dragged away to Frisco just north of 121 or someplace, you know, the employer is less likely to do that because they're concerned about losing employees, right, to your point. So I think, you know, there's a lot of these things together. Maybe offline we can provide some input. Because I think there's better ways to capture some of the information that you're looking for. It's also interesting when people talk about open spaces and entertainment and meeting places, having lived there for six and a half years, it sounds like people that haven't lived there. Because, you know, we have a food hall with an entertainment venue and we have meeting rooms and community rooms and All sorts of things that are there, people may just not know about them. And so part of that maybe is a PR campaign as you move forward. But there's a lot of those opportunities there. Child care, dog parks. You know, the city has land right across from the Renaissance on the west side of the Renaissance behind the... capital one bank that is set for a park. We just don't have it in the bond, right? But there's a lot of that open space. We also have open space that is private open space where it's the condo and the apartment high rise level, whatever it is. And that can only be used by those residents. So there's a lot of space there. You just have to know where it is.

Thank you. Commissioner Lally.

I actually would like to see the other Plano residents and maybe the surrounding city also point of view and to be included in this survey. Because we're not building something just for the legacy who works and lives there. You want to attract other people also to this area, right? Employers or those retails. probably they're not benefiting from the people who live there or work there, maybe, because maybe they go and shop somewhere else. So it is important to me to see those 230 from other Plano or probably the surrounding area. I actually worked in the shops at Legacy sometime in the past when it was really new. And a lot of people couldn't afford to live in that area. So they were going to the surrounding areas. So I second that we need to... review the housing in that area, but also I would like to see the other surrounding area and other people who support the retail, supports the restaurants in that area too. That's my opinion.

Thank you. Commissioner Tong.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. So I wanted, if you could go back to that bar chart slide, because that chart actually tells a lot of data that we didn't quite catch earlier. I kind of want to piggyback on the point that our Commissioner Bender mentioned that, okay, we have so many choices at Legacy West. why there's such a high demand from either both the communities and the stakeholders saying that we need dining options, we need entertainment options, we need retail spaces, we need gathering event spaces. Isn't Legacy West enough? It's not. based on the feedbacks, right? The reasons are, from what I heard, or from what I see, because I have a lot of friends who work in that area, who live in that area, they don't go to Legacy West for one reason, parking. And the second reason, too expensive. For the third reason, there are really not that many choices. Yeah, there's a food hall, but... I mean, all the other restaurants are really high-end, high-end. For a regular 825 worker at Toyota, would they be able to afford to go to lunch at Tommy Bahamas every day, right? So it's really they don't have a lot of choices. So I would like to respect the feedbacks from the community, from the stakeholders, and look into maybe more surveys or research on these dining high-demand categories, the dining options, the retail options, the entertainment. I would actually want to know the distances. How far would they want to go from their employment to where they want to have lunch or they want to shop during lunch hours or their life circle? Would that be two miles, four miles? You know, this is a four-mile square, right? Sorry, five-mile square. So how long would you... would you be willing to travel for all these amenities? So that's my kind of analysis from this.

Sure, yeah, thank you very much. And like I said, I think the underlying denominator from what we've heard is we need to dive into these a little bit more, get a better understanding, get a bigger sample size, for example, to help you guys make a more educated decision on it. So absolutely heard, and we'll make that adjustment.

Thank you. Commissioner Ali.

All right, here's my feedback. I think we agree probably a modified approach to engagement that gives us a little bit more insight into how much weight we put to the respondent. Is this a company speaking? Is this an individual speaking? Is this a person who lives in, lives and works in, commutes from outside? How far they commute? All of that good stuff. I actually think we're missing something where we almost need to define the identity and character we wanted Legacy West or we want Legacy West to be. Right now it feels, yes, they're the sub areas, but it feels like it's trying to be at the same time a high density kind of like downtown vibe feel, and at the same time a more residentially suburban adjacent kind of feel. It can't be both. We need to define what it is we want Legacy West to be, especially if it's kind of like the crown jewel of Plano. Is it a diamond or a ruby? Let's choose which one. I think you heard on transportation. Similar to how we said pull out on a wider planocentric view, I think transportation should pull out similarly. What does the transportation solutions that feed into the area, then there's a different solution on the internal to what Commissioner Brunoff was kind of talking about, is a different solution to the internal transportation network for that particular site. And lastly, I get a little bit of heartburn when I hear plan and the rigidity that that seems to insinuate. If we did this plan in 2018, 2019, we would have set ourselves up for trouble because the world changed, right? So whatever the final plan, guidelines, whatever it may be, some attempt to make it breathable, flexible, adaptable, knowing that Things change very quickly. Office stock, that was like you must get in a certain format five years ago. Right now, most employers are probably trying to build office stock that tracks folks back into the office, five days a week versus hybrid or whatever the case may be. So those larger themes, I think, would be what I'll be looking for in the next phase.

Commissioner Bender. Chairman, I just have one other question. To what extent was the, and this is a question about governance, was the Legacy Association included as part of this?

So we did review kind of their existing review criteria as part of the existing conditions analysis, but it was not something that was, you know, we didn't work with them through the engagement process.

And I would add that this may not be well known, but they provide infrastructure, maintenance, and the legacy development. So they're really a key stakeholder, in my view. They also have a pretty big stroke with who is on the board and represents things. So I would encourage that they be included in that. Make sure as we move forward that we have the right input and governance structure from a city perspective to do what needs to be done. Great.

Thank you.

All right. I think we've about exhausted this. I'm going to close with one thought. This is my last one and then I'm going to throw it to you all and ask you one question. I think Commissioner Ali said it earlier and so I want to bring it back at the end of the meeting is that The sub areas I think are important when y'all, when all this is finished that we almost are gonna look at eight sub area plans as opposed to one global plan because they do have very different characters. So I presume that at some point that will come back in some format where each sub area has its own emphasis and its own character and its own identity because they do. And so I'm not gonna ask y'all to go through it tonight because I know y'all know that already or you wouldn't have divided it up like you did. I'm going to ask you all a question. Is there anything that we didn't talk about at the risk of opening the can of worms? Is there anything that you'd like to ask us to answer for you that we didn't give you adequate feedback on tonight? I'm seeing a lot of no. Okay. All right. I hope that helped you out. This wasn't an action item. Just one quick thing.

I just want to put on the record that the commission was provided the feedback from Mr. Turner prior to the meeting. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Thank you all very much. We look forward to seeing you back at some point again in the future. You've got a lot of work to do.

Thank you.

All right, next item on the agenda, comments of public interest. Do we have anybody registered to speak tonight?

No, we do not.

Okay, and then I think, Mr. Bell, you had an announcement?

Yes, just one quick announcement. I want to introduce our newest senior planner, Ms. Liliana Morjone. Wave, please. She's joining us from the city of Rowlett, and we're happy to have her.

Welcome.

Welcome.

All right, no other business before the commission tonight. We'll stand adjourned at 7.42 p.m.