1. (MC) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2024-019 – Request to amend Urban Mixed Use-2 on 86.2 acres located on the west side of Coit Road, 970 feet north of Mapleshade Lane, to modify phasing and development standards. Located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway Overlay District. Projects #ZC2024-019 & #DP2024-001. Petitioners: C190R Land Ltd., Crow-Billingsley Ltd. No. 10, Crow-Billingsley 635 Beltline, Ltd., The Neighborhoods at Coit No. 1 Beacon CD, Ltd., The Neighborhoods at Coit No. 1 Beacon EJ, Ltd., Sherpa Dallas Properties, Ltd., Beacon Square Association, and University Business Park II. (Legislative consideration)

[1. (MC) Public Hearing: Zoning Case 2024-019 – Request to amend Urban Mixed Use-2 on 86.2 acres located on the west side of Coit Road, 970 feet north of Mapleshade Lane, to modify phasing and development standards. Located within the 190 Tollway/Plano Parkway Overlay District. Projects #ZC2024-019 & #DP2024-001. Petitioners: C190R Land Ltd., Crow-Billingsley Ltd. No. 10, Crow-Billingsley 635 Beltline, Ltd., The Neighborhoods at Coit No. 1 Beacon CD, Ltd., The Neighborhoods at Coit No. 1 Beacon EJ, Ltd., Sherpa Dallas Properties, Ltd., Beacon Square Association, and University Business Park II. (Legislative consideration)]

ONE ON REGULAR.

ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR.

SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.

APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO A TOTAL OF 15 MINUTES OF PRESENTATION TIME, WITH A FIVE MINUTE REBUTTAL IF NEEDED.

REMAINING SPEAKERS ARE LIMITED TO 30 TOTAL MINUTES OF TESTIMONY TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER.

THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.

ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS.

LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONTAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE IS ZONING CASE 2024-019 REQUEST TO AMEND URBAN MIXED USE TWO ON 86.2 ACRES LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF COIT ROAD, 970FT NORTH OF MAPLESHADE LANE, TO MODIFY PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

LOCATED WITHIN THE 190 TOLLWAY PLANO PARKWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT PETITIONERS C190R LAND LIMITED.

CROW-BILLINGSLEY LIMITED NUMBER TEN.

CROW-BILLINGSLEY 635 BELTLINE LIMITED.

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT COIT NUMBER ONE BEACON CD LIMITED.

THE NEIGHBORHOODS AT COIT NUMBER ONE BEACON EJ LIMITED OR LIMITED.

SHERPA DALLAS PROPERTIES LIMITED BEACON SQUARE ASSOCIATION AND UNIVERSITY BUSINESS PARK II.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING.

COMMISSION. MY NAME IS MOLLY CORYELL, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

IT WAS OFF.

THAT'S BETTER.

THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN AMENDMENT TO THE URBAN MIXED USE TWO DISTRICT TO MODIFY PHASING AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

HERE IS THE ZONING EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST.

A LITTLE BIT OF A SITE HISTORY HERE.

IN 2014, THE UMU-2 DISTRICT WAS ESTABLISHED TO FACILITATE THE BEACON SQUARE DEVELOPMENT.

IN 2020, MODIFIED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS RELATED TO SIGNAGE, LIVE WORK UNITS AND INCREASED SORRY.

EXCUSE ME, DECREASED RETAIL AND RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE WAS APPROVED SINCE THEN.

PHASE ONE OF THE DEVELOPMENT, WHICH INCLUDES A MIX OF RETAIL, MULTIFAMILY, OPEN SPACE AND OFFICE USES, IS NOW PARTIALLY COMPLETE.

THE PROPOSED PHASING AMENDMENTS TONIGHT ARE RELATED TO BLOCK B AND B1, WHICH YOU CAN SEE IN THE YELLOW PORTION OF THIS GRAPHIC.

THEY THIS BLOCK IS CURRENTLY A PART OF PHASE 3 OR 4.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO MOVE IT TO PHASE ONE.

THIS WOULD APPROVE ADDITIONAL RETAIL IN PHASE ONE TO BE BUILT.

THE USES RETAIL.

THE SIGNAGE STANDARDS AMENDMENTS ARE RELATED TO A DISTRICT IDENTITY SIGN.

AS YOU CAN SEE THE GENERAL LOCATION IS DEPICTED BY THE STAR.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A FOUR SIDED, CUBE SHAPED IDENTIFICATION SIGN.

CURRENTLY, OUR ZONING ORDINANCE ONLY ALLOWS A V SHAPED TWO SIDED SIGN.

[00:05:03]

HOWEVER, THESE MODIFIED STANDARDS WOULD ALLOW A CUBE SHAPE WHICH IS RELATED TO THE DISTRICT IDENTITY.

HOWEVER, ONLY TWO FACES OF THE SIGN WILL ACTUALLY HAVE A COPY AREA AVAILABLE FOR LETTERING AND LOGOS.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE FRONT AND THE FRONT AT THE BOTTOM OF THAT SPECK IN THE MIDDLE SHOWS WHERE THE SIGN WOULD BE, AND THEN THE BACK BACK AREAS WOULD JUST BE BLANK.

THE PROPOSED TEXT AMENDMENTS WOULD ALLOW EXCEPTIONS FOR IDENTIFICATION SIGN AREA FOR UP TO 150FT².

ADDITIONALLY, IN THE CASE OF A MONUMENT SIGN, SQUARE FOOTAGE SHALL BE MEASURED BY THE OVERALL HEIGHT AND WIDTH OF THE SIGN, EXCLUDING THE BASE.

THIS IS TO EVEN OUT THE GRADE WITH COIT ROAD, AND THEN ONE OF THE ALLOWED FREESTANDING SIGNS, WHICH IS THE IDENTITY SIGN YOU JUST SAW IN THE PREVIOUS SLIDE.

IT MAY BE DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE IDENTITY SIGN EXHIBIT IN THE ADOPTED DEVELOPMENT PLAN.

THE UPDATED DEVELOPMENT PLAN CAN BE SEEN HERE.

THE NEXT PAGE SHOWS PHASING AND THEN THIS IS THE INCLUDED SIGN EXHIBIT.

FOR CONFORMANCE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THIS AREA IS LOCATED IN THE SUBURBAN ACTIVITY CENTERS AND OPEN SPACE NETWORK.

FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORIES.

BECAUSE THE PREVIOUSLY APPROVED MIX OF USES AND THE ESTABLISHED CHARACTER DEFINING ELEMENTS ARE NOT BEING ALTERED, THIS REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, AND HERE IS A CHART SHOWING THE POLICIES OR STUDIES RELATED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND THE ANALYSIS.

FOR RESPONSES RECEIVED, ONE RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED.

AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S JUST IN THE NORTH EAST CORNER OF THE SITE.

IT'S ONLY A PORTION OF A PROPERTY.

THAT RESPONSE WAS IN SUPPORT AND AGAIN ONLY ONE RESPONSE WAS RECEIVED.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE SAME RESPONSE ON THE CITY WIDE RESPONSE MAP.

BECAUSE ADDITIONAL RETAIL IS BEING INCLUDED IN THAT BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE UMU DISTRICT STANDARDS AND PURPOSE STATEMENT.

STAFF ADDITIONALLY, WITH THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE SIGNAGE STANDARDS.

THE PURPOSE OF IT IS TO ALLOW FOR UNIQUE DISTRICT BRANDING SIGNAGE, BUT NOT INCREASING THE SIZE OR NUMBER OF ALLOWABLE FREESTANDING SIGNS ALONG COIT ROAD, AND WITH THE REQUEST BEING CONSISTENT WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS, AND THE APPLICANT HAS A REPRESENTATIVE HERE AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER TONG.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

DO YOU KNOW IF THE SIGN IS HAS LIGHTS INSIDE? IS IT LIT UP FROM INSIDE OR FROM OUTSIDE? THE ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE DOES SHOW A BACKLIT, WHICH IS ALLOWED PER THE ARTICLE 22 SIGNAGE STANDARDS THAT THE THIS AREA OF THE UMU-2 IS ALLOWED IN.

HOWEVER, THAT'S JUST AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE.

SO THAT PICTURE, THE LIGHTING WOULD HAVE TO CONFORM TO ANY ZONING, BUT STAFF DIDN'T IDENTIFY THE LIGHTING AS AN ISSUE DURING OUR REVIEW.

OKAY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF. IS THE CUBE SIGN GOING TO HAVE A TOP LIKE A ROOF? THE APPLICANT CAN ANSWER THAT QUESTION.

OKAY. I MEAN, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ELECTRICAL THINGS INSIDE FOR THE LIGHTING, THEN THEY PROBABLY NEEDS PROTECTION OF SOME KIND.

PER THE EXHIBIT, IT DOES LOOK LIKE THAT.

IT'S COVERED LIKE THERE WON'T BE LIGHT POLLUTING, BUT I'LL LET THE APPLICANT CONFIRM THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION.

LIKE THE SIZE OF THE SIGN, ARE YOU COUNTING ONLY THE BLACK PORTION OR YOU LIKE THE WHOLE SQUARE? THE WHOLE SQUARE IS CONSIDERED THE SIGN AREA.

SO IT WOULD BE THE DIMENSIONS.

HOWEVER, THEN.

SO WHICH ONE IS THE BASE? IT'S JUST THE BOTTOM PORTION, RIGHT.

THE BASE IS THE BOTTOM AS WELL AS THAT RETAINING WALL.

THAT'S PUTTING IT AT GRADE.

THAT'S CONSIDERED THE BASE.

OKAY. SO THE SIGN IS THE WHOLE THING.

ONE CLARIFICATION THAT THE COPY AREA IS LIMITED TO THE AREA IN BLACK FOR THIS SPECIFIC SIGN.

YES. YES.

PER THE EXHIBIT THE COPY AREA IS ONLY THE BLACK AREA, BUT THE SIZE OF THE SIGN IS IT LIKE THE BLACK PORTION OR THE WHOLE THING? THE BLACK IS THE ONLY PLACE THEY'LL BE ALLOWED TO PUT LETTERING AND LOGOS.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE? OKAY.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

I BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

SOUNDS LIKE WE HAD ONE.

SO IF THE APPLICANT WANTS TO STEP FORWARD, YOU DON'T HAVE A PRESENTATION.

[00:10:03]

YOU'RE JUST. NO. NO PRESENTATION.

VERY GOOD. JUST JASON LEHIGH WITH WESTWOOD, CIVIL ENGINEER ON THE PROJECT REPRESENTING THE OWNERSHIP FROM OWNERSHIP.

THERE WILL BE A TOP ON TOP OF THE SIGN.

SO YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? I'VE ANOTHER QUESTION.

YEAH. SO WHAT WILL BE THE USE OF THE OTHER SIDES OF THE CUBE.

BECAUSE YOU KNOW LIKE THE FRONT.

CLOSER TO THE MIC PLEASE.

IT'S JUST TO MATCH THE ESTHETICS THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT FROM AN ESTHETIC PERSPECTIVE.

JUST LIKE AN ESTHETIC, OKAY.

YEAH. CORRECT. THANK YOU. YEAH.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MR. BROUNOFF.

OH, THANK YOU. I JUST SAY OVER THE WEEKEND I HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRIVE THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AND I WAS IMPRESSED BY WHAT IS THERE SO FAR.

IT GAVE, OF COURSE, I DIDN'T GO INSIDE THE BUILDINGS, BUT FROM THE OUTSIDE IT IMPRESSED ME AS BEING A QUALITY DEVELOPMENT.

THERE ARE A NUMBER OF MULTI-FAMILY BUILDINGS BUILT.

THEY HAVE MASONRY EXTERIORS.

EACH BUILDING HAS A DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, COLOR AND DESIGN EXTERIOR.

THERE'S BEEN ATTENTION GIVEN TO DESIGN FEATURES.

SO EACH BUILDING HAS ITS OWN INDIVIDUAL DESIGN CHARACTERISTICS.

I WAS IMPRESSED IN TERMS OF THE THEY WANT TO ACCELERATE TO MOVE THE RETAIL AND LOT B AND B1 TO PHASE ONE. I THINK THAT'S PERFECTLY ACCEPTABLE.

I MEAN, THE REQUIREMENT IS THERE HAS TO BE A CERTAIN MINIMUM AMOUNT OF NONRESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE DEVELOPED IN RELATION TO THE RESIDENTIAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, AND THIS BY INCREASING THE NONRESIDENTIAL FOOTAGE, THEY ARE BRINGING THEMSELVES EVEN FURTHER INTO COMPLIANCE THAN THEY ALREADY ARE.

RIGHT, AND SINCE THE, THE RETAIL THAT'S ALREADY THERE SEEMS TO BE.

PRETTY MUCH FULLY OCCUPIED AND THEY ANTICIPATE, YOU KNOW, A GOOD MARKET FOR.

YOU KNOW LEASING OUT WHAT THEY'RE ABOUT TO BUILD.

I THINK IT WOULD CREATE.

YOU KNOW, AN INCOME STREAM FOR THEM WHICH WOULD FACILITATE THE CONTINUED CONSTRUCTION OF PHASES TWO AND THREE.

SO ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION? IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE DOING? YEAH.

I MOVE WE APPROVE.

ITEM AGENDA ONE SECOND.

OKAY, WELL, WE HAD A ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF.

A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CARY.

I WANT TO MAKE SURE I DIDN'T MISS. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A DISCUSSION ON THE ITEM? MICROPHONE. MICROPHONE AND LEAN INTO THE MICROPHONE.

IN OUR PACKAGE ON PAGE 31 AND THE EAST SIDE ZONING, IT SAYS PD 215, AND ON THE TEXT IT SAYS PD 125 SO IT'S JUST LIKE A COMMENT.

I DON'T KNOW WHICH ONE IS YOU LIKE.

PROBABLY IT NEEDS A CORRECTION OR SOMETHING.

WE'LL MAKE NOTE OF THAT.

THANK YOU.

DO WE NEED TO INCLUDE THAT CHANGE IN THE MOTION OR NOT? WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S CORRECT IN THE CAPTION.

IS IT CORRECT IN THE CAPTION? THAT'S AN OFF-SITE PROPERTY.

IT'S JUST HOW IT'S NOTED IN THE EXHIBIT.

OKAY, SO WE'RE GOOD.

YES. OKAY. ALL IN FAVOR, PLEASE VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES 6 TO 0.

THANK YOU. NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. 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 INSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY, AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. SORRY.

THESE ARE STICKY.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO.

[2. (DS) Final Plat and Site Plan: McCall Plaza, Block A, Lot 1 – Community center on one lot on 0.2 acre located at the southeast corner of 15th Street and J Avenue. Zoned Downtown Business/Government with Heritage Designation-26. Projects #FP2024-012 and #SP2024-021. Applicant: City of Plano. (Legislative consideration of subdivision ordinance variances)]

FINAL PLOT AND SITE PLAN.

MCCALL PLAZA BLOCK A LOT.

ONE COMMUNITY CENTER ON ONE LOT ON 0.2 ACRE.

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 15TH STREET AND J AVENUE.

ZONED DOWNTOWN BUSINESS GOVERNMENT WITH HERITAGE DESIGNATION 26 APPLICANT CITY OF PLANO, AND THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCES. GOOD EVENING, MR. CHAIR. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

MY NAME IS RAHA POLADI, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A CITY INITIATED FINAL PLAT AND A SITE PLAN FOR MCCALL PLAZA IN DOWNTOWN PLANO.

TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON THIS PROPERTY.

THIS PROPERTY WAS FORMERLY OWNED BY HOUSTON AND TEXAS CENTRAL RAILROAD IN 20TH CENTURY.

IT WAS CONVEYED TO CITY OF PLANO IN 1980.

THE PLAZA WAS ADDED AND IN 2018 IT IT WAS DEDICATED AS A RIGHT OF WAY.

[00:15:04]

WITH CURRENT PROJECT, THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO COMPLY WITH THE STATE LAW REGARDING THE ALLOWABLE USES AND FUNCTIONS OF CITY RIGHT OF WAY. THE CITY OF PLANO IS PROPOSING TO ABANDON A PORTION OF THE RIGHT OF WAY THAT INCLUDES MCCALL PLAZA.

ONE OF THE VARIANCES THAT THE APPLICANT DESIRES TO SEEK AS PART OF THIS PROJECT IS A VARIANCE FROM FRONTAGE REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5.2.C.3A OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES ALL NONRESIDENTIAL CORNER LOTS TO HAVE A MINIMUM CONTINUOUS FRONTAGE OF 170FT ON ALL ABUTTING STREETS IN THIS SECTION.

MCCALL PLAZA HAS 99FT FRONTAGE ALONG 15TH STREET AND 165 FRONTAGE OFF OF JAY AVENUE.

THE OTHER VARIANCE THAT THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING IS FROM ACCESS REQUIREMENTS OF SECTION 5.2.C.4A OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES ALL NONRESIDENTIAL LOTS TO HAVE A MINIMUM OF TWO POINTS OF ACCESS TO A PUBLIC STREET.

WITH THE UNIQUE NATURE OF THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS MAINLY PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED.

1.1 DIRECT POINT OF ACCESS AND A SECOND POINT OF ACCESS WILL NOT BE REQUIRED, AND THEREFORE THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. AS FOR COMPLYING WITH VARIOUS APPROVAL CRITERIA.

DUE TO THE AREA'S PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED NATURE AND HISTORIC LAND USE PATTERN, GRANTING OF THE VARIANCE WOULD NOT BE DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH, OR WELFARE, OR INJURIOUS TO THE OTHER PROPERTY.

AS FOR CRITERIA NUMBER TWO, THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE DOWNTOWN HERITAGE DISTRICT, WHICH HAS LAND USE AND TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS UNIQUE FROM OTHER AREAS OF PLANO. MOST PROPERTIES IN THE HERITAGE DISTRICT HAVE NARROW LOT WIDTH AND RELY UPON ON STREET PARKING FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS.

SORRY, I PUSHED IT.

CRITERION NUMBER THREE FOR THIS PROPERTY IS.

THE PROPOSED LOT CONFIGURATION MATCHES THE EXISTING PLAZA BOUNDARIES AND IS LIMITED IN SIZE TO MAINTAIN THE FRONTAGE AND ACCESS TO THE LOTS THAT REMAIN ORIENTED TOWARDS TODAY'S DART RAIL LINE, AND AS FOR CRITERION NUMBER FOUR, THE REQUEST WILL NOT VARY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ORDINANCE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THEREFORE, PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT, SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF A RESOLUTION ABANDONING THE EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY.

IN ADDITION TO A VARIANCE TO SUBSECTION 5.2 C THREE POINT A OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONTAGE FROM 175FT TO 90FT.

99FT, AND ALSO A VARIANCE TO SUBSECTION 5.2.C.4A OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ALLOW NO DIRECT ACCESS OR SECOND POINT OF ACCESS FOR THIS PROJECT.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, MR. RATLIFF. JUST TO CLARIFY, THE CITY IS GOING TO STILL OWN THE PROPERTY.

JUST FEE SIMPLE INSTEAD OF RIGHT OF WAY, CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY, JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

THANK YOU. EXCELLENT QUESTION.

ANYONE ELSE? I HAVE A QUESTION.

SO YOU'RE LIKE, IT'S GOING TO THE MCCALL PLAZA IS GOING TO STAY AS IS.

CORRECT. YES. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE LIKE A DIFFERENT USE OR ANYTHING? IT IS JUST TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW IN TERMS OF PLATTING AND HAVING A SITE PLAN.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

I DON'T SEE THAT WE HAVE ANY SPEAKER ON THIS, DO WE? NOPE. OKAY. WE DO NOT.

VERY GOOD. ALL RIGHT.

COMMISSION. MAKE A MOTION.

WE APPROVE THE SUBJECT.

APPROVE THIS SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE CITY COUNCIL RESOLUTION.

ABANDONING THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE TWO VARIANCES AS LISTED THAT I'M NOT GOING TO TRY TO REPEAT.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

ON ITEM TWO.

TO APPROVE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, PLEASE VOTE.

THAT ITEM CARRIES 6 TO 0.

ITEM THREE PLEASE.

[3. (DW) Preliminary Site Plan: Plano East Senior High School Addition, Block 1, Lot 1R – Public school on one lot on 67.1 acres located at the northeast corner of Los Rios Boulevard and Merriman Drive. Zoned Estate Development. Project #PSP2024-028. Applicant: Plano Independent School District. (Administrative consideration pending Board of Adjustment approval of zoning ordinance variances)]

ITEM THREE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN PLANO EAST SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL ADDITION, BLOCK ONE, LOT 1R.

PUBLIC SCHOOL ON ONE LOT ON 67.1 ACRES, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LOS RIOS BOULEVARD AND MERRIMAN DRIVE ZONED ESTATE DEVELOPMENT.

APPLICANT, PLANO INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL OF ZONING ORDINANCE VARIANCES.

GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS DESTINY WOODS, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN TO SHOW A PROPOSED SCHOOL BUILDING, RELOCATION OF TENNIS COURTS AND A NEW PARKING LOT.

[00:20:05]

WITH THE PROPOSED SITE CHANGES, THE APPLICANT WILL BE REQUESTING TWO ZONING ORDINANCE, VARIOUS VARIANCES FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR THE TENNIS COURT AND BLEACHERS TENNIS COURT BLEACHERS AND REQUIRED PARKING.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

APPROVAL OF VARIANCES TO SUBSECTIONS 15.900.2A AND 16.700.21 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF.

SO CAN YOU PLEASE POINT OUT WHERE IS THE EXACTLY WHERE THE BLEACHERS ARE GOING TO BE? BECAUSE I FEEL LIKE I COULDN'T FIGURE OUT.

SO THIS IS IN THAT AREA.

SO THESE ARE THE TENNIS COURTS, AND THEN THERE'S A BLEACHER HERE ON THAT CORNER.

YES. RIGHT THERE.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. THANK YOU.

THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, BUT I BELIEVE WE HAVE.

DO WE HAVE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON IT OR ARE THEY JUST REGISTERED THEIR OPINION? WE HAVE TWO REGISTERED TO SPEAK.

OKAY. AS I SAID, IT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU GIVE YOU A FEW MINUTES TO TELL US WHAT YOU'RE THINKING.

I HAVE MR. JOSHUA [INAUDIBLE] AND [INAUDIBLE].

PLEASE GIVE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

SURE. MY NAME IS JOSHUA [INAUDIBLE].

I LIVE AT 4525 SPRINGHURST DRIVE.

VERY GOOD. GOOD EVENING.

THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND FOR EVERYTHING THAT YOU DO FOR OUR COMMUNITY.

I MOVED TO TEXAS TWICE, AND BOTH TIMES I CHOSE PLANO.

I'M DEEPLY CARE ABOUT THE CITY.

ALSO, THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT I LIVE IN.

I SUPPORTED THE RECENT TAX PROPOSAL THAT WAS AVAILABLE TO FUND THIS PROJECT BECAUSE I WANT OUR SCHOOLS TO HAVE THE RESOURCES THEY NEED.

HOWEVER, I ASK YOU TO OPPOSE THIS RENOVATION PROPOSAL FOR THE PLANO EAST HIGH SCHOOL CAMPUS BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE NEGATIVES OUTWEIGH THE POSITIVES.

I'LL KEEP MY TWO POINTS SHORT.

FIRST, I SPECIFICALLY OPPOSE THE RELOCATION OF THE TENNIS COURTS.

THE PROPOSAL PLACES THESE NEW COURTS BEHIND THE HOUSES IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

DIRECTLY TO THE TO THE RIGHT OF THAT DIAGRAM.

MERRIMAN ESTATES, THE LIGHTS AND THE NOISE FROM THE TENNIS COURTS WILL CARRY INTO OUR HOMES LATE INTO THE EVENING.

THEY ALREADY DO, BUT BUT FORTUNATELY THEY ARE CURRENTLY A FEW HUNDRED FEET AWAY.

THE PUBLIC PLAYS IN THESE COURTS AT ALL TIMES OF THE DAYS AND NIGHTS.

SO IF YOU WERE TO APPROVE THE RELOCATION OF THESE LIGHTS AND THE COURTS A FEW FEET BEHIND OUR FENCES, IT WILL DISRUPT THE PEACE AND QUIET THAT WE CURRENTLY ENJOY AND THAT'S THE FIRST POINT. THE SECOND POINT IS THE BUDGET FOR THIS IS $48 MILLION.

THE DESIGN SHOWS THAT THE TENNIS COURTS AND THE PARKING LOT ARE GOING TO SWAP PLACES, SO THEY'LL HAVE TO DIG THOSE UP DIRECTLY, MOVE THEM, REQUIRING BOTH TO BE RIPPED UP AND THE NEW CONCRETE TO BE POURED.

I WOULD SUGGEST PROPOSING AN ALTERNATE DESIGN.

TAXPAYER MONEY COULD BE SAVED BY NOT HAVING TO TEAR UP THE EXISTING PARKING LOT, AND REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES AVAILABLE TO THE 11 TO 12TH GRADERS, WHICH PARKING IS ALREADY A PROBLEM FOR THEM, AND RATHER TO KEEP THE TENNIS COURTS BETWEEN THE ACTIVITY CENTER, THE STUDENT ACTIVITY CENTER IN BUILDING B5, WHICH IS ROUGHLY WHERE THEY'RE AT TODAY. THE DIFFERENCE HERE IS JUST A SHORTER WALK.

SO I ASK, ARE THE EXTREME CHANGES BEING PROPOSED HERE NECESSARY, AND FOR WHAT GOOD? SHOULD WE TRADE THE PEACE AND QUIET OF A NEIGHBORHOOD LIVING NEXT DOOR, COMMUNITY, FOR THE RARE CONVENIENCE OF A SHORTER WALK? IS IT NOT WISER TO CHOOSE AN ALTERNATE DESIGN THAT BOTH SAVES MONEY FOR TAXPAYERS AND DOES NOT DISRUPT A PEACEFUL NEIGHBORHOOD? I'D LIKE YOU TO IMAGINE SOMEONE PUTTING TENNIS COURTS AND BRIGHT LIGHTS ON TOWERS RIGHT BEHIND YOUR FENCE, AND WOULD YOU OPPOSE THAT? SO I ASK YOU TO REJECT THIS PROPOSAL AND REQUIRE THE PLANO ISD TO PROPOSE A DIFFERENT STRATEGY FOR THE TENNIS COURTS SPECIFICALLY.

PLEASE DON'T DIMINISH THE QUALITY OF LIFE OF OUR NEIGHBORHOOD AND PROPERTY VALUES BY INTRODUCING BRIGHT LIGHTS LATE AT NIGHT, NOISE AND NUISANCE.

AGAIN, THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SHARE MY PERSPECTIVE SO YOU CAN MAKE A BALANCED DECISION.

I KNOW YOU HAVE THE COMMUNITY'S BEST INTENTIONS AT HEART FOR BOTH THE SCHOOLS AND THE COMMUNITIES.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, AND THE SECOND SPEAKER.

YES, SIR. PLEASE GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

YES, MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE] MY ADDRESS IS 4409 REDBRIDGE.

I AM A MEMBER OF THE HOA FOR MERRIMAN ESTATES, AND JUST HERE, LIKE JOSH, TO VOICE OUR CONCERNS.

ONE THING THAT HE DIDN'T MENTION IS WE ACTUALLY HAVE A TRAFFIC CALMING PETITION ON MERRIMAN DRIVE.

AT THE MOMENT, WE'RE WORKING WITH CHAD OSTRANDER, WHO IS HELPING US FIND A WAY TO MITIGATE THE TRAFFIC FROM THE SCHOOL, AND THE ONLY ENTRANCE TO THE TENNIS COURT NOW IS OFF MERRIMAN DRIVE.

[00:25:01]

SO WE'RE WE'RE THINKING IF THIS DEVELOPMENT PROCEEDS, IT'S GOING TO BRING MORE TRAFFIC, AND IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN ON MERRIMAN DRIVE, IT'S A STRAIGHTAWAY SO THE STUDENTS FROM SCHOOL JUST GO BACK AND FORTH FULL SPEED.

I MEAN, IT'S 30 MILES AN HOUR.

WE'VE CAUGHT THEM GOING 50 OR 60.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY NOW TO TRY TO PUT SOME SPEED BUMPS TO SLOW IT DOWN WHILE WE FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION.

SO WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT, IT ONLY BRINGS MORE TRAFFIC.

I GUESS MORE THINGS CAN HAPPEN.

WE'VE GOT LOTS OF LITTLE KIDS.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS PRETTY NEW AS OF 2015, I THINK, AND NOW THAT IT'S FULLY DEVELOPED, THERE'S LOTS OF LITTLE KIDS WALKING AROUND EVERYWHERE, AND THERE'S A PLAYGROUND NOT TOO FAR AWAY AND WITH ALL THE EXCESS TRAFFIC, THE DEVELOPMENT, THERE'S GOING TO BE EXCESS TRASH GRADING FROM THE PROJECT THAT'S GOING TO FLOW INTO SOME OF THE HOMES BACK THERE ON SPRINGHURST WHERE JOSH LIVES, AND WE'RE ACTUALLY WORKING WITH ANOTHER GENTLEMAN, BECAUSE THERE'S ALSO SOME GRADING ISSUES ON THE ENTRANCE INTO THE TENNIS COURTS.

AT THE MOMENT, SOME OF THE HOUSES ARE BEING FLOODED WHEN IT RAINS.

NOT THAT WE'VE GOT A LOT OF RAIN THIS SUMMER, BUT WHEN IT DID.

WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY NOW TO FIGURE OUT A WAY TO REGRADE THAT AREA.

SO JUST BRINGING ALL THAT DEVELOPMENT IN, WE JUST WANT YOU TO BE AWARE THAT IT'S AFFECTING THOSE ALL THOSE HOMES ON SPRINGHURST THAT BACK UP INTO THAT DEVELOPMENT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

DO WE HAVE ANYBODY ELSE? WE DO NOT. OKAY.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE AND SPEAKING EVEN THOUGH IT WAS A NON, YOU KNOW, PUBLIC SPEAKING ITEM.

I DO APPRECIATE YOU COMING DOWN AND REGISTERING YOUR OPINION.

KEEP IN MIND FOR US, THIS IS KIND OF AN ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESS.

YOUR BEST OPTIONS ARE PROBABLY AT THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

THEY'RE THE ONES THAT WOULD.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO, I THINK, MAKE YOUR CASE THERE VERSUS HERE.

OUR JOB HERE IS PURELY ADMINISTRATIVE VERSUS LEGISLATIVE.

SO QUESTIONS ANYBODY? COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION.

MR. CARY? YEAH.

I GUESS IN LIGHT OF WHAT WE LEARNED HERE I HAVE A LOT OF QUESTIONS.

I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH JURISDICTION WE HAVE OVER THEM, BUT I'M CURIOUS AS TO MAYBE WHY THE PISD WANTS TO SWAP THESE THINGS, AND I CERTAINLY YOU KNOW, I'M SYMPATHETIC TO AND LOOKING AT THIS TO THIS YOU KNOW AND WHAT OUR JURISDICTION IS OVER THIS I GUESS IS, IS A QUESTION.

DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO USH ON THIS A LITTLE BIT FOR PISD? I DON'T THINK WE HAVE THAT ROOM.

I THINK ULTIMATELY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

WELL, FIRST OFF, PROBABLY AT PISD'S BOARD MEETINGS MIGHT HAVE BEEN A PLACE TO, AND YOUR IDEA ABOUT WHY ARE WE SPENDING $48 MILLION? I HAVE NO IDEA WHY THEY'RE DOING THIS, BUT THAT'S THEIR DEAL, AND IT'S NOT EVEN A CITY THING.

THEY'RE DOING THIS JUST TO KIND OF COMPLY WITH OUR PROCESSES.

THEY'RE BEING GOOD NEIGHBORS BY DOING THIS, BASICALLY, AND SO I THINK OUR BEST OPTION HERE IS TO GET THEM TO BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, WHERE THEY, THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT IS GOING TO MAKE THE DECISION AND THE RIGHT CASE MADE THERE.

YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THERE'S ROOM FOR IMPROVEMENT, BUT IT'S NOT SOMETHING WE'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DO ON AN ADMINISTRATIVE ITEM.

YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? MR. RATLIFF? JUST A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

THE VARIANCES ARE FOR PARKING AND BLEACHERS.

IS THERE ANY ZONING RESTRICTION ON THE LIGHTING IN THIS CASE? ON THE LIGHTING? OH, SORRY. ON THE LIGHTING.

OKAY, SO WE THERE'S NOT NECESSARILY A RESTRICTION OUTSIDE OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE OR EXCUSE ME OUR CODE OF ORDINANCES REGULATES THE LIGHTING, AND SO THAT IS REVIEWED BY OUR BUILDING INSPECTIONS DEPARTMENT AT THE TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.

SO THEY'D BE SUBJECT TO THE SAME LAWS THAT APPLY TO PARKING LOT LIGHTING OR ANYTHING ELSE ABOUT SPILLOVER ONTO ADJACENT PROPERTIES, ETCETERA.

THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY.

JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THERE IS A CODE IN PLACE FOR THE FOR THE RESIDENTS TO UNDERSTAND.

THERE IS A CODE IN PLACE THAT WILL BE REVIEWED BY THE CITY STAFF TO MAKE SURE IT COMPLIES WITH THAT CODE.

RIGHT, AND PHOTOMETRIC STUDY WAS SUBMITTED THAT WILL ALSO BE REVIEWED IN CONFORMANCE WITH OUR LIGHTING ORDINANCES.

OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANYONE ELSE? COMMISSIONER TONG.

I JUST WANT TO SAY A LITTLE BIT OF COMMENT ABOUT LIGHTING, BECAUSE WE KIND OF LIVE VERY CLOSE TO SCHOOLS TOO, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT THE SCHOOL HAS A CURFEW OR A TIME FOR THE LIGHTS.

THEY WILL BE OFF, I THINK LIKE BY 10 OR 11 OR SOMETHING.

THAT'S THE SCHOOL'S RULES, BUT I'M NOT SURE ABOUT THE NEW ONE.

SO JUST A LITTLE BIT OF INFORMATION.

[00:30:01]

MAYBE YOU CAN LOOK IT UP AND TALK TO THE SCHOOLS OR THE PISD ABOUT THE TIME.

OKAY. MR. RATLIFF. I MAKE A MOTION WE APPROVE. SUBJECT TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT VARIANCE APPROVAL AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I SECOND. OKAY.

A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER RATLIFF, WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM THREE AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6 TO 0.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, BOTH OF YOU, AND I THINK, MR. [INAUDIBLE], YOU HAD REGISTERED TO SPEAK AT THE END ON THE SAME ITEM OR.

NO. NO.

OKAY. VERY GOOD.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ITEM FOR AGENDA.

[4. (RP) Final Plat: Parker Road Elevated Storage Tank Addition, Block A, Lot 1 – Transportation and utility structures/facility on one lot on 1.0 acre located on the west side of Premier Drive, 1,500 feet south of Parker Road. Zoned Corridor Commercial. Project #FP2024-013. Applicant: City of Plano. (Legislative consideration of subdivision ordinance variance)]

ITEM NUMBER FOUR IS A FINAL PLAT.

PARKER RD ELEVATED STORAGE TANK, ADDITION BLOCK A LOT ONE TRANSPORTATION AND UTILITY STRUCTURES FACILITY ON ONE LOT ON 1.0 ACRE.

LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF PREMIER DRIVE, 1500FT SOUTH OF PARKER ROAD.

ZONED CORRIDOR COMMERCIAL.

THE APPLICANT CITY OF PLANO, AND THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE.

THANK YOU, MISS MAGANA.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A FINAL PLAT FOR AN EXISTING UTILITY STRUCTURE OWNED AND OPERATED BY CITY OF PLANO. JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THIS PROPERTY, THIS PROPERTY WAS INITIALLY APPROVED AND CONSTRUCTED BACK IN 1970S AS A WATER TOWER.

AT THAT TIME, THE PROPERTY WAS ACCESSED THROUGH AN ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE PROPERTY.

IN 1978, WITH THE RECONFIGURATION OF PARKER ROAD AS WELL AS CONSTRUCTION OF PREMIER DRIVE, IT GAINED A 58 FOOT ACCESS ON PREMIER DRIVE.

ON 1988, A WOLF EDITION PROPERTY ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY WAS PLATTED.

AGAIN ALLOWING ONLY 58 FOOT OF ACCESS ON PREMIER DRIVE, WHICH IS LESS THAN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT OF 100FT.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A VARIANCE FROM SECTION 5.2.C.3A OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, WHICH REQUIRES NOT ALL NONRESIDENTIAL LOTS ON A STREET CLASSIFIED AS TYPE D OR BELOW, SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM STREET FRONTAGE OF 100FT.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY ONLY HAS 58FT OF FRONTAGE ALONG PREMIER DRIVE, WHICH IS A TYPE E STREET.

IN TERMS OF VARIANCE, APPROVAL CRITERIA AND ANALYSIS THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ACCESSED THROUGH THE ACCESS EASEMENT ON THE WEST SIDE OF PROPERTY, AND WITH THIS PROJECT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING AN OFF STREET ACCESS OFF OF PREMIER DRIVE.

IMPROVING THE ACCESS CONDITION.

THEREFORE CRITERIA NUMBER ONE IT IS NOT DETRIMENTAL TO THE PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH AND WELFARE OR INJURIOUS TO OTHER PROPERTIES. IN TERMS OF CRITERION NUMBER TWO, BASED ON THE RECONFIGURATION OF THE STREETS SURROUNDING THIS PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTHEAST OF THE WATER TOWER PROPERTY.

THIS PROPERTY WILL NOT HAVE MORE THAN 58 FOOT OF ACCESS, AND IF THIS VARIANCE REQUEST IS GRANTED, IT IS NOT APPLICABLE GENERALLY TO OTHER PROPERTIES.

SINCE THIS IS A UNIQUE SITUATION, AS FOR CRITERION NUMBER THREE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY DEVELOPED AND CONSTRAINED BY THE EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS ON ADJACENT PROPERTIES, AND A HARDSHIP WOULD RESULT IF THE STRICT LETTER OF THE REGULATIONS WERE CARRIED OUT.

AS FOR CRITERION NUMBER FOUR, THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT VARY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS PROJECT, SUBJECT TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANTING A VARIANCE TO SECTION 5.2.C.3A OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE ALLOWING 58FT OF FRONTAGE ON TYPE E STREET.

THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MIGHT HAVE.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM.

MR. BROUNOFF. THE TEXT OF THE SLIDE YOU SHOWED WITH THE FOUR CRITERIA FOR APPROVING A VARIANCE SAYS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL NOT APPROVE VARIANCES UNLESS IT SHALL MAKE FINDINGS BASED ON EVIDENCE PRESENTED TO IT IN EACH SPECIFIC CASE THAT ONE, TWO, THREE AND FOUR.

[00:35:01]

IF WE APPROVE THIS, DO WE HAVE TO MAKE FORMAL FINDINGS THE WAY WE DO IF FOR APPROVING THINGS THAT ARE CONTRARY TO THE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

AS LONG AS THE STAFF REPORT INDICATES THE FACTS THAT THIS IS BASED ON, IF YOU ALL APPROVE THE VARIANCE, I THINK IT'S ASSUMED THAT YOU AGREE WITH THOSE FACTS AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

SO IF YOU DISAGREE WITH THE STAFF REPORT AND THINK THAT THOSE FINDINGS CANNOT BE MADE, IT WOULD BE GOOD TO PUT THAT ON THE RECORD.

OTHERWISE, I THINK YOUR APPROVAL IS COVERED BY THAT STAFF REPORT, BECAUSE I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH THE STAFF'S FINDINGS ON EACH OF THOSE FOUR POINTS.

I LOVE YOUR TECHNICAL ANALYSIS THOUGH OF THE PROCESS.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ITEM.

IT'S A NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEM ON FOUR.

WE HAVE SOMEBODY. IT LOOKS LIKE THEY'RE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS.

THE APPLICANT IS AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FROM THE COMMISSION.

NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.

VERY GOOD COMMISSION ACTION.

MR. BROUNOFF. I MOVE, WE APPROVE.

ITEM FOUR. BASED UPON THE RATIONALE PROVIDED BY STAFF, AND IS THERE A CONDITION? WAIT A MINUTE. IT'S APPROVAL THROUGH JANUARY 6TH.

NO. THAT'S FINE.

SORRY. THAT'S THE NEXT ITEM.

I'VE JUMPED AHEAD ONE.

SORRY. YEAH, I MOVE, WE APPROVE ITEM FOUR, INCLUDING THE GRANTING OF THE REQUESTED VARIANCE BASED UPON THE RATIONALE PROVIDED BY STAFF.

THANK YOU. WELL DONE.

I SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF WITH A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER TONG TO APPROVE ITEM FOUR.

PLEASE VOTE. THAT ITEM CARRIES 6 TO 0.

MR. CHAIRMAN, I HAVE A QUICK QUESTION REGARDING THE WORDING OF THIS ITEM.

IN THE END. IT SAYS IT'S ACTUALLY WE APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE GRANTING THE VARIANCE.

IS THAT ARE THERE TWO SEPARATE ITEMS OF APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM AND GRANTING THE VARIANCE? NO. THEY WERE THE SAME MOTION.

WE DO THAT SO THAT WE DOCUMENT THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCES THAT ARE ACTUALLY VARIED FROM AS PART OF OUR RECORD.

THAT'S WHY WE LISTED IT THAT WAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

OKAY. ITEM FIVE.

[5. (DS) Discussion and Action – Extension of Approval Request – Site Plan: Plano Original Donation, Block 9, Lot 14R – Request to extend approval of a site plan for major vehicle repair and open vehicle storage on one lot on 0.5 acre located at the northeast corner of K Avenue and 12th Place. Zoned Light Commercial. Project #SP2024-015. Applicant: Lima Investments Group, LLC. (Legislative consideration)]

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

DISCUSSION AND ACTION.

EXTENSION OF APPROVAL REQUESTS FOR SITE PLAN PLANO.

ORIGINAL DONATION BLOCK NINE, LOT 14 R, WHICH IS A REQUEST TO EXTEND APPROVAL OF A SITE PLAN FOR MAJOR VEHICLE REPAIR AND OPEN VEHICLE STORAGE ON ONE LOT ON 0.5 ACRE, LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF K AVENUE AND 12TH PLACE.

ZONED LIGHT COMMERCIAL.

APPLICANT IS LIMA INVESTMENTS GROUP, LLC.

THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU, MISS MAGANA.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS A DISCUSSION AND ACTION ITEM FOR EXTENSION OF APPROVAL.

REQUEST FOR A SITE PLAN THAT IS CALLED PLANO ORIGINAL DONATION.

YOU HAVE SEEN THIS ITEM BACK IN JUNE OF 2024, AND THE COMMISSION GRANTED A THREE MONTH EXTENSION FOR THIS PROPERTY, AS THIS PROPERTY WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED BACK IN 2022.

THE APPLICANT IS NOW REQUESTING ANOTHER THREE MONTH EXTENSION TO THE INITIAL EXTENSION REQUEST, BASED ON THE ANALYSIS IN DETERMINING WHETHER TO GRANT APPROVAL TO REINSTATE OR EXTEND APPROVAL.