May 04, 2026 Planning and Zoning

[00:00:01]

GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE MAY 4TH CITY OF PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. I'LL CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:00 PM.

IF YOU'D ALL PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ITEMS ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT.

[CONSENT AGENDA ]

COMMISSION WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE AGENDA FOR SEPARATE CONSIDERATION? COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I MOVE, WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

I SECOND. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. COMMISSIONER BROUNOFF IS ABSENT THIS EVENING. ALL RIGHT. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION.

[Items 1.A - 1.D]

SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED.

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

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

THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY.

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

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

NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING.

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

IF YOU GO AHEAD AND READ ITEMS 1A THROUGH 1D TOGETHER, PLEASE.

AGENDA ITEM 1A. REQUEST TO REZONE 1.4 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE MARIA C.

VELA SURVEY. ABSTRACT NUMBER 935 LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LEGACY DRIVE AND PARKWOOD BOULEVARD IN THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS. FROM COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 73 COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT.

THE PETITIONER IS TRQ PLANO, LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1B. EDS CAMPUS ADDITION BLOCK A LOT 1R PROFESSIONAL, GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE, DAYCARE CENTER AND COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE ON ONE LOT ON 54.2 ACRES.

LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LEGACY DRIVE AND PARKWOOD BOULEVARD.

ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT. THE APPLICANT IS TRC PLANO, LLC.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING AGENDA ITEM 1A.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1C. EDS CAMPUS ADDITION BLOCK A LOT 2 PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON ONE LOT ON 32 ACRES LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LEGACY DRIVE, 1595FT EAST OF PARKWOOD BOULEVARD.

ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT. THE APPLICANT IS TCAL PROPERTY OWNER, LLC.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING AGENDA ITEM 1A.

AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 1D. EDS CAMPUS ADDITION BLOCK A LOT 3 PROFESSIONAL GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICE ON ONE LOT ON 35.44 ACRES. LOCATED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF TENNYSON PARKWAY, 01,725FT EAST OF PARKWOOD BOULEVARD.

ZONED COMMERCIAL EMPLOYMENT. THE APPLICANT IS TCAL PROPERTY OWNER LLC.

THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION PENDING AGENDA ITEM 1A.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS JOHN KIM, SENIOR PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

HERE IS ITEM 1A THROUGH D. SO THIS ZONING CASE AND THE ASSOCIATED PLANS WILL BE LOCATED AT LEGACY DRIVE AND PARKWOOD BOULEVARD. ITEM 1A SPECIFICALLY IS LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF PARKWOOD AND LEGACY.

SO YOU CAN SEE THE DOTTED LINES TRACING OUT THE LOT.

THE ITEM 1A AREA AND THEN LOT 1 BLOCK A IS IN PURPLE, WHICH IS ITEM B.

LOT 2, BLOCK A IN ORANGE IS ITEM 1C, AND THEN LOT 3, BLOCK A IS ITEM 1D, AND THEN LOT 4 BLOCK A IS A REMAINING PARCEL FROM THE REPLATTING FOR THE WHOLE SITE, AND THERE IS THE ASSOCIATED REPLAT FOR ALL FOUR OF THESE PROPERTIES.

[00:05:09]

AND SO THIS IS WHERE THE PLAZA AND THE PROPOSED ANTENNA/SCULPTURAL STRUCTURE WILL BE LOCATED AT.

AND SO THIS IS THAT NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. AND ALSO WITH THIS CASE THERE IS AN ASSOCIATED OPEN SPACE PLAN OSP2026-001. AND THAT WILL BE WITH THIS CASE.

SO FOR THIS REQUEST IT IS FOR A PUBLIC PLAZA.

SO IT WILL BE 0.76 ACRE PLAZA LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER.

THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE MODIFIED LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN LIEU OF STANDARD REQUIREMENTS AS WELL AS SOME OTHER STIPULATIONS.

AND THEN FOR THE SCULPTURAL STRUCTURE, IT WILL BE UP TO A 280FT IN HEIGHT STRUCTURE.

AND WITHIN THAT STRUCTURE THERE CAN BE A STEALTH COMMERCIAL ANTENNA AT ANY HEIGHT AS LONG AS IT'S FULLY ENCASED WITHIN THE STRUCTURE.

SO I WANT TO BEGIN WITH THE PUBLIC PLAZA FIRST.

SO AGAIN, THE PUBLIC PLAZA MUST BE DESIGNED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE WITH THE OPEN SPACE PLAN.

SO THE OPEN SPACE PLAN IS ON THE RIGHT. SO IT JUST NEEDS TO MEET THE MAJORITY OF THESE ITEMS. AS CLOSE AS POSSIBLE TO WHAT IS SHOWN. THERE ARE SOME MODIFIED LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS.

OF THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE OPEN SPACE AREA 45% MUST BE PLANTED WITH NATIVE AND ADAPTED SPECIES FOR OUR CITY OF PLANO PLANTS LIST. THERE WILL BE A MINIMUM OF 12 TREES PLANTED ON THE SITE.

THEY WILL BE SHADE TREES IF THEY WANT TO DO ORNAMENTAL.

ADDITIONAL TREES CAN BE PLANTED IN LIEU OF THE SHADE TREE.

THERE IS A REQUIRED 8-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE ALONG THE PROPERTY BOUNDARIES, AND THAT ALSO TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION SOME EASEMENTS AND HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS AND OTHER IMPROVEMENTS ON THE SITE AND WITHIN THE LANDSCAPING.

THERE CAN BE BOULDERS OR OTHER AGGREGATE MATERIALS UP TO 10%.

SO IT. SO IT IS LIMITED TO THAT AMOUNT. ALONG PARKWOOD BOULEVARD AND LEGACY DRIVE, THERE ARE HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS AS WELL THAT ARE REQUIRED. THAT IS IN LINE WITH THE PARKS MASTER PLAN AS WELL.

AND THEN WITHIN THE PLAZA ALL WALKWAYS MUST BE A MINIMUM 7-FEET.

ADDITIONALLY, WITHIN THE OPEN SPACE PUBLIC PLAZA, THEY MUST PROVIDE A MINIMUM OF THREE AMENITIES LISTED BELOW BIKE RACKS, PEDESTRIAN SCALE LIGHTING, DECORATIVE PAVING MATERIALS, SEATING, WAYFINDING, SIGNAGE AND GUIDES, OR OTHER AMENITIES AS APPROVED BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING.

AND JUST A NOTE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE OPEN SPACE PLAN, THERE IS A PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE THAT WILL BE BUILT BY THE CITY AT THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THIS PLAZA, AND SO THAT WILL KIND OF HELP PROMOTE PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY AND PROMOTE SAFER WALKING CONDITIONS ACROSS PARKWOOD BOULEVARD.

ADDITIONALLY, WITHIN THE PLAZA, THERE IS A SCULPTURAL STRUCTURE THAT IS PROPOSED ON THE SITE.

IT MUST BE DESIGNED IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO THE TOWER DESIGN DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT HERE.

THE TOWER AND THE STRUCTURE IS ALLOWED TO BE UP TO 280FT IN HEIGHT.

AND AGAIN, AN ANTENNA IS ALLOWED WITHIN THE STRUCTURE, BUT IT MUST BE A STEALTH ANTENNA AND LOCATED FULLY WITHIN THE TOWER.

ANY GROUND EQUIPMENT ASSOCIATED WITH IT HAS TO BE LOCATED FULLY WITHIN THE TOWER, UNDERGROUND OR SCREENED OFF SITE.

I DO WANT TO TALK ABOUT THE SETBACKS HERE. SO IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, THERE IS A REQUIREMENT FOR RIGHT OF WAY.

FOR COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS TO BE SET BACK FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY, 125% OF THE HEIGHT.

SO THAT WOULD BE 350FT IN THIS CASE. SO WHAT WE ARE PROPOSING A RIGHT OF WAY SETBACK OF 50FT FROM LEGACY FROM LEGACY DRIVE AND 125FT FROM PARKWOOD BOULEVARD.

EXCUSE ME. EXCUSE THE SECOND LEGACY DRIVE THERE.

THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK. SO THERE IS A RESIDENTIAL BUILDING COMMUNITY TO THE SOUTHWEST ACROSS PARKWOOD BOULEVARD.

AND IT IS 320FT. THERE IS AN EQUATION IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, AND IT REQUIRES A SETBACK FOR 535FT TYPICALLY. PUT IN. IN ORDER TO MITIGATE THAT RISK.

WE ARE. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD INSTEAD OF RISK TWO CATEGORY STANDARDS TO RISK CATEGORY III FOR THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE.

[00:10:11]

AND 6:00 A.M. ALL STRUCTURES ABOVE 200FT MUST RECEIVE APPROVAL FROM THE FAA, AND THAT WILL ALSO APPLY TO THIS SCULPTURAL TOWERS TOWER, ANTENNA TOWER. AND ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE RECEIVED SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE NOISE AND LIGHT AND OTHER COMPLIANCE. BUT I JUST WANT TO NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH SOME ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE NOT EXPRESSLY WRITTEN IN THE STIPULATIONS.

THEY ARE STILL SUBJECT TO ALL CITY ORDINANCES, SO IT WILL HAVE TO STILL MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS.

SO WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS A TYPICAL SIZE REQUIREMENT OF THAT A PD DISTRICT BE MINIMUM 5 ACRES. BUT IF IT IS. IT CAN BE APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL IF IT IS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN OR ANOTHER STUDY.

SOME OF THE PLAZA AND SCULPTURAL BENEFITS ARE.

PLACEMAKING PROMOTES PROMOTING PEDESTRIAN ACTIVITY, SUPPORTING A MORE VIBRANT AND ACCESSIBLE EMPLOYMENT CENTER, AND PROVIDING A MORE CONNECTED AND ACTIVE AREA.

AND THAT WILL BE DONE THROUGH ALL THE TRAILS, THE SIDEWALKS, THE PLAZA ITSELF, AND JUST THE GENERAL CULTURAL INFLUENCE OF THE NEW TOWER.

I DO HAVE ON SCREEN ALL THE PD STIPULATIONS FOR REFERENCE.

I WON'T GO OVER THOSE ONE BY ONE, BUT WE CAN REFERENCE THOSE AS NEEDED.

AS FOR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT DOES MEET THE THREE POLICIES FOR THE COMMUNITY DESIGN, PLACEMAKING AND PEDESTRIAN ENVIRONMENT POLICY.

FOR THE RESPONSES WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. WE RECEIVED ONE FOR RESPONSES OUTSIDE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY RECEIVED ONE IN SUPPORT AND ONE IN OPPOSITION.

THE ONE IN SUPPORT IS THE, YOU KNOW, STILL PART OF THE LOT 1 BLOCK A RESPONSE.

SO IT'S THE SAME ONE AS COUNTED WITHIN THE PROPERTY.

AND THEN CITYWIDE, WE HAD FIVE TOTAL RESPONSES FOR THE ZONING CASE.

AND SO NOW I WANT TO MOVE ON TO THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS.

SO ON THE SCREEN WHAT YOU'LL SEE HERE IS THE NORTH HALF OF THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

AND THEY ARE PROPOSING A GENERAL OFFICE A DAYCARE CENTER THAT WILL BE ACCESSORY.

AND THEN THE PROPOSED SCULPTURAL STRUCTURE/ANTENNA TOWER LOCATED IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE SITE.

AND SO THAT'S SHOWN IN THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN HERE. AND THEN HERE IS THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN SHOWING THE PARKING GARAGES AND THE NEW PRIVATE STREETS THAT WILL BE BUILT.

SO THE PURPOSE FOR THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS TO SHOW THAT THEIR PROPOSED OFFICE CAMPUS, THE PLAZA, AS PROPOSED IN THE ZONING CASE IN THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.

DURING THE PRELIMINARY ENGINEERING PLAN STUDIES THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS.

AND STAFF IS LOOKING INTO THE CAPACITY OF THE EXISTING INFRASTRUCTURE AND WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WILL NEED TO BE REQUIRED TO SUPPORT THIS USE.

AND SO THERE IS STILL ADDITIONAL RESEARCH BEING DONE ON THE CAPACITY HERE.

AND THERE WILL BE UPDATES LATER. BECAUSE OF THIS, THE OWNER MUST ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY AS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL TO COMPLETE ANY NECESSARY IMPROVEMENTS. NEXT, WE HAVE THE REVISED SITE PLAN FOR LOT 2 BLOCK A.

THIS ONE IS JUST MODIFYING THE PROPERTY LINES.

SAME WITH LOT 3, BLOCK A AS WELL. AND SO AGAIN WE'RE JUST UPDATING PROPERTY BOUNDARIES FOR BOTH THE EXISTING OFFICE DEVELOPMENTS.

AND SO IN SUMMARY THE PROPOSED PLAZA MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE OPEN SPACE PLAN THAT IS ATTACHED AND MEET MODIFIED LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS AND SITE DESIGN. THE ALLOWED 280-FOOT SCULPTURAL STRUCTURE CAN HOST A COMMERCIAL ANTENNA FULLY ENCLOSED AND MEET STEALTH DESIGN. THE STRUCTURE WITH THE MODIFIED SETBACKS WILL BE BUILT TO HIGHER STANDARDS AND MUST BE SUBSTANTIALLY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE TOWER DEVELOPMENT DESIGN AND PD-73-CE IS BELOW THE TYPICAL 5 ACRE REQUIREMENT, BUT MAY BE FOUND APPROPRIATE BY THE CITY COUNCIL TO ESTABLISH THE ZONING DISTRICT.

RECOMMENDATION FOR ITEM A ZONING CASE 2026-003.

RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL ISSUING A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE DISTRICT IS REQUIRED TO IMPLEMENT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

[00:15:09]

CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF ZONING CASE 2026-003.

RESULTS OF THE WATER AND SEWER DEMAND ANALYSIS.

ANY RESULTING MITIGATION FROM THE WATER AND SEWER DEMAND ANALYSIS AND AN AFFILIATED DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPROVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL AS MAY BE REQUIRED.

ISSUANCE OF A FAVORABLE DETERMINATION BY THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION FOR BEFORE SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. ITEMS 1C AND 1D THE REVISED SITE PLANS 2026-005 AND REVISED SITE PLAN 2026-006 IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL ZONING CASE 2026-003 AND FILING OF THE REPLAT FOR EDS CAMPUS ADDITION BLOCK A LOTS 1 THROUGH 4.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE WITH A PRESENTATION.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION QUESTIONS OF STAFF. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY.

MR. KIM, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE ZONING RESPONSE NUMBERS? THE CITYWIDE? YEAH. SO LOOKING AT THE PACKET WOULD YOU SAY THAT SOME OF THE RESPONSES THAT WERE IN THERE WERE IN RESPONSE TO THIS CASE OR A DIFFERENT CASE? SO WE DID RECEIVE SOME RESPONSES THAT APPEARED TO BE FOR A DIFFERENT ZONING CASE.

SO WE HAVE REACHED OUT TO THOSE INDIVIDUALS TO CONFIRM IF THEY HAVE WHICH ZONING CASE THEY MEANT TO RESPOND TO.

WE DID RECEIVE A RESPONSE FROM SOME INDIVIDUALS AND HAVE REMOVED ONE RESPONSE, BUT ARE STILL WAITING ON THE OTHER RESPONSES.

THE OTHER THREE RESPONSES SHOWN, BUT FROM READING THE RESPONSES AND WHAT THEIR COMMENTS WERE, IT APPEARED TO BE THAT IT WASN'T NECESSARILY FOR THIS CASE.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY. AND I ONLY HAVE ONE OTHER SMALL QUESTION.

WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE ANTENNA, YOU SAID IT CAN BE AT ANY PLACE ON THE.

IT CAN BE AT GROUND LEVEL AS WELL AS A 280FT.

RIGHT. SO AS LONG AS IT IS FULLY CONCEALED AND MEETS OUR STEALTH DESIGN REQUIREMENTS, THEN IT CAN BE PLACED AT ANY HEIGHT, BUT IT MUST BE FULLY ENCLOSED WITHIN THE STRUCTURE.

OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

JUST A COUPLE OF CLARIFYING QUESTIONS. THE STURDIER CONSTRUCTION THAT CONCEALS THE ANTENNA.

WE GET TO CERTIFY THAT. THAT IT MEETS THE LEVEL 3, WHATEVER YOU CALL IT.

RIGHT? CORRECT. OKAY. THE BRIDGE THAT WILL BE BUILT BY THE CITY THIS CASE IS NOT NECESSARILY CONTINGENT ON US ON THE CITY DOING THAT. THAT'S BASICALLY THE CITY MAKING THAT AREA MORE LIVABLE, WALKABLE. CORRECT. OKAY. THE EQUATION THAT SEEMS TO GOVERN WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? ADJACENCY. IS THAT DEPENDENT ON THE HEIGHT OF THE STRUCTURE? SO FOR INSTANCE, IF THIS WAS SHORTER THAN THE 280 WOULD THEY WOULD IT NATURALLY MEET THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY? YES. CORRECT. SO THE HEIGHT BASICALLY PART OF THE EQUATION IS YOU TAKE ANY PORTION OF THE STRUCTURE ABOVE 25FT, AND THEN YOU MULTIPLY IT BY TWO TO ADD IT TO THE INCREASED RESIDENTIAL SETBACK.

AND SO LOWERING THE HEIGHT WOULD DECREASE THE OVERALL AMOUNT.

AND IT'S PROBABLY A SAFETY THING. IF THE THING LEANS ONE WAY, IT DOESN'T HIT WHATEVER IS NEXT TO IT ESSENTIALLY.

RIGHT. OKAY. ONE LAST QUESTION. THE 10:00 P.M.

TO 6:00 A.M. LIGHT RESTRICTION. ANY? IS THAT IN OUR LEGISLATION THAT GIVES US THAT TIME? YOU KNOW, MY BABY GIRL SLEEPS AT 8:00 P.M., FOR INSTANCE.

SO. HOW DO WE GET THAT TIMING? YEAH. SO I DID REACH OUT TO, THE.

OUR ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT. AND THEY DID SAY WE DO HAVE DAYLIGHT AND NIGHTTIME HOURS THAT OUR NOISE ORDINANCE KIND OF COMPLIES WITH AS WELL.

AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHAT THE 10:00 P.M. TO 6:00 A.M.

BASIS WAS ON. BUT AGAIN, IT WOULD ALSO STILL HAVE TO RECEIVE FAA APPROVAL FOR THAT AS WELL.

BUT WE WOULD NEED TO MAKE SURE, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE TIME WAS. OKAY.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

[00:20:05]

DO YOU MEAN WITH THE ACTUAL STIPULATION ITSELF? WOULD YOU LIKE THAT? WELL, I JUST WANT TO SEE WHAT KIND OF DESCRIPTION ON THE MATERIALS OR THE APPEARANCE OF THE ANTENNA BECAUSE THEY CAN BE INSIDE, RIGHT? THEY HAVE TO BE INSIDE.

HOWEVER, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEY NEED TO BE.

HAVE LINE OF SIGHT FOR IT TO WORK. RIGHT? SO I'M IMAGINING THE MATERIALS THAT CAN BE USED FOR THIS TO WORK HAS TO BE SEE THROUGH OR TRANSPARENT OR NOTHING? MAYBE IT JUST HOLLOW ON THE OUTSIDE OR, WHAT DOES ENCLOSED MEAN? SO THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO GET INTO MORE DETAILS BECAUSE I THINK THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON A FINAL DESIGN.

BUT THE APPLICANT DOES HAVE TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, IT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE TO THIS DESIGN DEVELOPMENT THAT'S SHOWN HERE.

AND, YOU KNOW, I THINK THERE ARE YOU KNOW, PERFORATIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT, AS YOU MENTIONED, FOR ANTENNAS TO SEND SIGNALS OUT. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THAT.

SO THE APPLICANT MAY HAVE MORE COMMENTS ON THE DESIGN.

SURE, SURE. WHAT'S THE, FROM CITY POINT OF VIEW, FROM OUR ORDINANCE POINT OF VIEW, WHAT KIND OF THINGS THAT WE CAN OR REGULATE ON THE DESIGN OF THE ANTENNA, OF TOWER LIKE THIS.

SO AS FAR AS THIS, THIS CASE GOES, IT HAS TO BE SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMING TO THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT.

AND SO THIS GRAPHIC THAT THEY PROVIDED US IT MUST BE, YOU KNOW, VERY SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMING TO THIS PLAN.

IF THAT MAKES SENSE OKAY. AND SO TO MAKE ANY CHANGES, SUBSTANTIAL CHANGES THAT HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE REZONING PROCESS TO CHANGE THE RENDERING.

GOTCHA. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER ALALI.

LIKE I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS ACTUALLY SO THE FIRST ONE IS.

IN PD 63 RIGHT? WHICH IS THE EXISTING PD? SO THE EXISTING PD WAS REPEALED IN A PREVIOUS ZONING CASE.

SO PD-73-CE. IS THE BUT THAT BEING SAID, YOU KNOW ANTENNAS CAN BE ALLOWED AS ANYWHERE WITHIN IF THEY ARE 60FT OR BELOW.

IF THEY'RE OVER 60FT IN MOST DISTRICTS THEY TYPICALLY REQUIRE LIKE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT.

BUT IN THIS CASE, YOU KNOW, A TOWER IN THE HEIGHT OF 280FT WOULD HAVE REQUIRED ONE.

AND IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE PD IF WE APPROVE IT.

RIGHT? RIGHT, TO ALLOW IT. CORRECT. OKAY. YEAH.

YEAH SOUNDS GOOD. YEAH THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NOT SEEING ANY. THANK YOU, MR. KIM. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AND I DO BELIEVE THE APPLICANT HAS A PRESENTATION.

MR. DAHLSTROM, YOU KNOW THE DRILL. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR, COMMISSION. MY NAME IS BILL DAHLSTROM, 2323 ROSS AVENUE.

I'M HERE WITH MICHAEL ALOST WITH KDC, ALEX RATHBUN WITH KIMLEY-HORN, AND VICTORIA MORRIS WITH JACKSON WALKER ALSO.

WE ARE REALLY HONORED AND PLEASED TO BE HERE FOR THIS APPLICATION.

THIS IS, YOU KNOW, A ONCE IN A LIFETIME OPPORTUNITY.

WE THINK THIS IS A FANTASTIC PLACEMAKING OPPORTUNITY FOR THE CITY AT THIS LOCATION.

AND I WANT TO THANK JOHN AND MIKE AND MIKE AND CHRISTINA, OF COURSE, FOR HELPING US SHEPHERD THROUGH THIS PROCESS BECAUSE THERE WERE A LOT OF ISSUES. WE STARTED WITH A SCULPTURE. WE THOUGHT THAT MADE SENSE.

IF THERE WAS A SCULPTURE THERE TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO PUT IN THE ANTENNA.

SO THAT'S HOW WE GOT TO WHERE WE ARE. AND AS THE STAFF REPORTS, FANTASTIC.

IT BASICALLY STATES OUR, OUR PROJECT IS TO ALLOW A COMMERCIAL ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE UP TO 280FT WHEN DESIGNED AS A SCULPTURAL TOWER AND LOCATED ON AN AMENITIZED PLAZA. WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A THERE, THERE A PLACE.

IT'S I THINK I LIKE TO LOOK AT THE TOTALITY OF THE PROJECT, NOT JUST THE TOWER, NOT JUST THE PLAZA.

BUT THEM TOGETHER, MUCH LIKE A LOT OF ICONIC AND DISTINGUISHED PLACES AROUND THE WORLD.

[00:25:06]

SO IT'S MORE THAN JUST ART. WE'RE, WE'RE CREATING A VIBRANT, COMMUNITY FOCUSED AMENITY UTILIZING ART AND THE PLAZA.

I THINK THAT'S REALLY IMPORTANT. JOHN TOOK A LOT OF MY THUNDER, SO I'M GOING TO TRY TO GO QUICKLY.

I'M GOING TO TRY TO GO QUICKLY. SO AGAIN THIS IS THE ZONING MAP.

CE TO THE NORTH EAST AND SOUTH END. PD 65 FOR CENTRAL BUSINESS CENTRAL BUSINESSES TO THE WEST.

MIKE OR JOHN SHOWED A VERY SIMILAR EXHIBIT. I WANTED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHAT WE'RE HERE BEFORE IS PD FOR THAT GREEN RECTANGLE. AND THE REST OF THE OF THE CAMPUS IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT TODAY.

WE'RE NOT HERE ASKING FOR ZONING FOR THE CAMPUS.

THE CAMPUS IS ALREADY PERMITTED. THE SCULPTURES.

THE SCULPTURE IS ALREADY PERMITTED TOO. THE FACT THAT WE WANT TO PUT IN THE ANTENNA SUBJECTS US TO CERTAIN SETBACKS, WHICH IS WHY WE'RE HERE, IS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THOSE SETBACKS.

SO THE CAMPUS IS PERMITTED, THE SCULPTURES PERMITTED.

WE'RE AGAIN REQUESTING THE ABILITY TO PUT IN A STEALTH ANTENNA IN THE SCULPTURE.

AND FROM AN AERIAL POINT OF VIEW, THIS IS THE AGAIN, THE SITE.

SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LEGACY AND PARKWOOD. THE OPEN SPACE.

AGAIN, IT'S AN INTEGRAL PART OF THIS WHOLE PROJECT.

AND AS WAS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND OTHER AMENITIES ELEVATE THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE.

AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE WANTING TO DO HERE. IT CONNECTS WITH THE REST OF THE CAMPUS, BUT THE REST OF THE CAMPUS IS GOING TO BE AS INTEGRAL AND ICONIC AS THIS, THIS CORNER. THE TOWER IS INTENDED TO BE. AND I KNOW WE KEEP USING THE WORD ICONIC DISTINGUISHED PLACEMAKING FEATURE FOR THE OFFICE CAMPUS, FOR THE CAMPUS, AS WELL AS FOR THE LEGACY BUSINESS AREA.

AND THE REGS THAT WE ARE PROPOSING WILL ALLOW THE ANTENNA TO BE PUT INSIDE.

AND JOHN DID REALLY VERY WELL ON THE CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMP PLAN IN TERMS OF THE PLACEMAKING AND PUBLIC SPACES, DIVERSE, RESILIENT ECONOMY AND COMMUNITY DESIGN POLICIES.

SO WE DO COMPLY AND FURTHER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

THIS IS A ONE OF OUR SUBSEQUENT CONCEPTUAL OF THE PUBLIC, THE PUBLIC OPEN SPACE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

AND I THINK THE CITY STAFF DID A GREAT JOB OF DETAILING WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING.

45% OF THE LAND OF THE AREA NEEDS TO BE LANDSCAPED WITH TURF GRASSES.

WE CAN INCLUDE BOULDERS SHRUBS, GRASSES, OTHER GROUND COVER, A MINIMUM OF 12 3" TREES, 10 TO 12 FOOT HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS ON LEGACY AND PARKWOOD. THE 7 FOOT TRAILS WHICH ARE ACTUALLY GOING TO BE WIDER, AS YOU CAN SEE ON THE ON THE EXHIBIT THROUGH THE SITE AMENITIES WITHIN THE SITE AS WELL. SO IT'S, IT'S AS IT SAID IN THE STAFF REPORT, ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND ENHANCED EXPERIENCE.

I'M GOING TO GO BACK TO THE EXHIBITS THAT JOHN SHOWED.

THIS IS AGAIN LOOKING FROM THE NORTHWEST, LOOKING SOUTHEAST INTO THE SITE.

THAT WOULD BE LEGACY ON YOUR LEFT AND PARKWOOD ON YOUR RIGHT.

AND YOU CAN SEE THE PROPOSED BRIDGE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE ACROSS PARKWOOD.

AND THEN THIS IS ANOTHER EXHIBIT. I DON'T KNOW IF ANYBODY HAS SEEN THIS, BUT THIS IS LOOKING DUE WEST DOWN LEGACY.

LEGACY IS OFF TO THE RIGHT. SO WE THINK THIS IS A GREAT PROJECT FOR A GREAT CAMPUS FOR A GREAT CITY.

WE ARE REALLY EXCITED ABOUT THIS. I REALLY LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING ON AND STARTING THIS PROJECT.

MICHAEL HERE ON ALEX RATHBUN'S HERE ALSO TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

AND WE'RE ALSO HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND THE OTHER PLANS.

SO WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST A RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL ON THIS.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. DAHLSTROM. I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR YOU.

DON'T WANDER FAR. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME OTHER PEOPLE TOO I KNOW WE'RE NOT LOOKING AT THE ARCHITECTURE OF THE BUILDINGS. I'M JUST LOOKING AT IT FOR COMPARISON PURPOSES. IT LOOKS TO ME LIKE ONE OF THE TALLEST BUILDING PROPOSED ON THE CAMPUS IS 8 STORIES. IS THAT CORRECT? 8 STORIES.

CORRECT. YES, SIR. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. 8 STORIES RIGHT THERE.

OKAY. SO GIVE OR TAKE 100FT TALL. YES. OKAY. SO WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE TOWER BEING TOWERING OVER THE TOPS OF THE BUILDING.

SO YOU COULD SEE IT FROM ENTIRE COMPLEX. THE STORY WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE THAN THAT.

BUT YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, IT WOULD BE TOWERING OVER THE 6, 7 AND 8 STORY BUILDINGS ON THE CAMPUS.

RIGHT. OKAY. I JUST WANT TO GET A PROPORTION 280FT ON THE TOWER AND ROUGHLY 100FT ON THE ON THE BUILDING.

[00:30:04]

SO. ALL RIGHT. I'LL HAVE A FOLLOW UP QUESTION FOR MR. KIM IN JUST A MINUTE. SO COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

YEAH, JUST I HAD QUESTIONS MAINLY ABOUT LIGHTING AND SOUND.

I SUSPECT THERE'S NOT A LOT OF SOUND, BUT I KNOW MR. KIM HAD MENTIONED I GUESS THE OPERATING EQUIPMENT CAN BE ON SITE, BUT SCREENED.

AND THEN OBVIOUSLY SUBJECT TO THE SOUND ORDINANCE AND STUFF.

ARE WE EXPECTING A LOT OF SOUND? WE'RE NOT EXPECTING A LOT OF SOUND. AND AGAIN, THERE ARE SOUND.

WE WENT OVER THIS SEVERAL TIMES WITH THE CITY STAFF.

THERE ARE SOUND ORDINANCES THERE ARE LIGHTING ORDINANCES.

THERE ARE BUILDING STANDARDS WE HAVE TO COMPLY WITH. SO I THINK A LOT OF THOSE CONSTRUCTION ISSUES ARE ALREADY COVERED.

AND THEN AS FAR AS LIGHTING, YOU MAY NOT HAVE GOTTEN TO IT ALL SO FAR, BUT WHAT, WHAT'S THE VISION WITH THE LIGHTING? IS IT, IS IT PROJECTED LIGHTING OR IS IT GOING TO GLOW OR WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE IDEA? BUT IT IS INTENDED TO BE INTERNAL AND AGLOW. YES.

ADD GLOW TO IT COMMISSIONER OLLEY. I THINK YOU'VE KIND OF ANSWERED MY QUESTION.

YOU SAID THAT THE SCULPTURE IS PERMITTED BY RIGHT.

BUT FROM A HEIGHT PERSPECTIVE AND ADJACENCY PERSPECTIVE, EVEN IF THIS WAS NOT A STEALTH TOWER, YOU WOULD NEED TO COME, I BELIEVE, FOR AN SUP IN ORDER FOR A SCULPTURE TO 80 TO BE THAT CLOSE.

NO, THERE'S ACTUALLY A UNLIMITED OR 20 STORIES I CAN'T REMEMBER OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD.

HEIGHT LIMIT IN THIS AREA. SO IF IT WERE JUST A TOWER, IT WOULD COMPLY WITH THE TYPICAL SETBACKS AND HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS OF ANY OTHER BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. OKAY. AGAIN, I KNOW WE'RE STILL DESIGNING, BUT THE MATERIAL AT THE TOP OF THAT GLOBE OR BALL REFLECTIVE IN NATURE, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THE LIGHT WILL BE CONTAINED WITHIN THE BALL, BUT AS SUN REFLECTING OFF OF STUFF AND CATCHING THE EYES OF RESIDENTS OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE.

WHAT? WHAT ARE WE THINKING? YEAH, WE HAVE LOOKED AT THAT.

WE ARE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT IT. I WILL ALSO SUBMIT THAT ONE OF THE WORLD'S BEST DEVELOPERS, BUILDERS, KDC, IS IN CHARGE OF THIS. THEY ARE GOING TO BE DOING GLARE STUDIES.

THEY'RE GOING TO BE ALL OVER THE GLARE ISSUE.

AND AGAIN, TO THE EXTENT WE HAVE CITY STANDARDS, WE WILL BE COMPLYING WITH THOSE CITY STANDARDS ON GLARE.

KDC HAS DONE NUMEROUS PROJECTS IN PLANO. THEY'VE DONE NUMEROUS PROJECTS THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

THEY ARE FAMILIAR WITH THE ISSUE OF GLARE AND HOW TO ADDRESS IT.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER ALALI. IS THIS OPEN SPACE IS GOING TO BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC? YES, MA'AM. OKAY. THANK YOU. YEAH, IT'S GOING TO BE COOL.

COMMISSIONER BENDER. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. JUST SOME MORE QUESTIONS.

THE PLAZA WILL BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC. AND OUTSIDE OF THE SECURED AREA.

CORRECT? CORRECT. WE'LL HAVE SECURITY FENCE SURROUNDING IT.

AND WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY ON THE PUBLIC ACCESS.

THAT'S GREAT. THAT'S EXCITING. WE DON'T HAVE ANYTHING LIKE THAT IN THAT AREA.

SO THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. IT'S FUNNY THAT I'M ACTUALLY ALSO ASKING ABOUT THE PUBLIC ACCESS OF THE PARK.

SO OTHER THAN THE BRIDGE GOING OVER TO THE OTHER SIDE OF PARKWOOD, DOES THE PARK OR DOES THE ANTENNA AREA CONNECT TO ANY OTHER AREAS ON THE CAMPUS OR IT'S JUST KIND OF ISOLATED AND THEN JUST CAN ONLY GO TO THE PARK.

SO NO, IT WILL NOT HAVE DIRECT ACCESS ON. ON SECURED ACCESS.

SO IT WILL BE CORDONED OFF. YES. OKAY. SO PUBLIC CAN ONLY.

THAT'S IT. CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. I WANT TO FOLLOW UP ON THAT QUESTION A LITTLE BIT, BECAUSE THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS AND ALL THAT ARE OUTSIDE THE SECURE AREA.

CORRECT? YES, SIR. THEY ARE. OKAY. SO THAT'S ONE QUESTION.

SECOND IS YOU'LL HAVE GATES OR SOMETHING IN THE SECURE FENCE? I'M THINKING ABOUT THE EMPLOYEES BUT CAN LEAVE THE CAMPUS ACROSS THE PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE WITHOUT GOING A LONG WAY AROUND.

THERE WOULD BE A GATE OR SOMETHING. THERE WILL BE A GATE, PROBABLY. YES, SIR. AND THEY'LL PROBABLY BE SOME MEANS OF TRYING TO GET TRYING FOR VEHICULAR ACCESS INTO THE SITE, BUT IT WILL BE CLOSED OFF AS WELL FOR MAINTENANCE PURPOSES.

YEAH, I'M JUST THINKING ABOUT ALL THOSE EMPLOYEES THAT WANT TO WALK TO LUNCH, AND I'M SURE THE BUSINESSES OVER THERE ON LEGACY WOULD LIKE FOR THEM TO WALK TO LUNCH. I THINK SO. [LAUGHTER] SO OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT?

[00:35:02]

JEFF GREASON. MR. GREASON, IF YOU INTRODUCE YOURSELF, YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. I'M JEFF GREASON, THE FIRST OWNER OF 7241 PARKWOOD BOULEVARD SINCE THE DEVELOPMENT WAS BUILT IN 2006.

20 YEARS NOW I WELCOME AT&T TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.

MY CONCERNS ARE NARROW. I HAVE FOUR ASKS ABOUT HOW.

NOT WHETHER THIS PROJECT PROCEEDS. THE IMAGE YOU SEE HERE IS A SCALE VISUALIZATION FROM THE 3RD FLOOR MASTER BEDROOM OF MY HOME.

LOOKING NORTHEAST TOWARDS THE PROPOSED STRUCTURE.

AT HONEST SCALE, THE TOWER EXTENDS ABOVE THE TOP OF THE FRAME.

FIRST RESIDENTIAL SETBACK. THE RULE FOR 280 FOOT TELECOM SUPPORT STRUCTURE REQUIRES 535FT FROM RESIDENTIAL, AND THIS TOWER WILL BE 215FT CLOSER THAN THAT.

STAFF IDENTIFIED THE RULES PURPOSE AS TO MITIGATE THE RISK OF FALLING, WHICH IS ADDRESSED BY THE RISK CATEGORY III CONSTRUCTION PROVISION.

BUT THE BINDING EXHIBIT D FILED WITH THE CITY SHOWS THE STRUCTURE NON ILLUMINATED, WHILE AT&T CEO PUBLISHED AN ILLUMINATED RENDERING ON LINKEDIN ON APRIL 28TH, THE STAFF REPORT IS SILENT ON THE ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL IMPACTS, GLARE, LUMINANCE AND LIGHTING NUISANCE.

I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO ADD RESIDENTIAL IMPACT MITIGATION PROVISION, PHOTOMETRIC GLARE AND NOISE STUDIES AT UPPER FLOOR RESIDENTIAL WINDOWS AT THE SITE PLAN STAGE. SECOND OUTDOOR LIGHTING. THE PD HAS ONE NARROW ILLUMINATION PROVISION NO FLASHING, STROBING, ROTATING OR CHASING BETWEEN 10:00 P.M. AND 6:00 A.M.

THE CITY'S OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE SEPARATELY GOVERNS SHIELDING, PROPERTY LINE CAPS AND NUISANCE.

I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO EXPRESSLY APPLY THE OUTDOOR LIGHTING CODE WITH SITE PLAN ANALYSIS AT UPPER FLOOR WINDOWS, NOT JUST GROUND LEVEL. 3RD SIGN CODE PARITY AS THE SIDE BY SIDE SHOWS THE BINDING EXHIBIT D IS NON-ILLUMINATED, WHILE THE CEO'S PUBLISH RENDERING SHOWS THE STRUCTURE ILLUMINATED.

THAT IS, OUTDOOR LIGHTED SIGNAGE, NOT JUST AN ABSTRACT SCULPTURE.

PLANO SIGN CODE PROHIBITS A BROADER CATEGORY FLASHING, BLINKING, FADING, DISSOLVING ANY EFFECT THAT GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF MOVEMENT 24 HOURS A DAY. THE PD'S NARROWER PROVISION CREATES AN INCONSISTENCY WITH HOW EVERY OTHER ILLUMINATED SIGN IN PLANO IS REGULATED.

I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO AMEND THE PD'S ILLUMINATION PROVISION TO MATCH THE SIGN CODE STANDARD.

FINALLY, FORM TYPE PERSISTENCE. THE STAFF REPORT AT PAGE 20 STATES THAT ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE TO THE DESIGN OF THE TOWER WOULD REQUIRE A ZONING CHANGE.

I WOULD ASK THE COMMISSION TO OPERATIONALIZE THAT PRINCIPLE IN PD, TEXT.

NAMING THE GLOBE, THE SHAFT AND THE WISHBONE BASE AS FORMAL ELEMENTS THAT DETERMINE SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

EACH OF THESE NARROW. EACH OF THESE ASKS IS NARROW CODE ANCHORED AND WITHIN THE COMMISSIONING AUTHORITY.

20 SECONDS I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

THANK YOU. VERY THOROUGH. THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

ANY QUESTIONS? NOBODY? OKAY. THANK YOU SIR. APPRECIATE YOUR TIME.

ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? OKAY.

I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. RESTRICT COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.

MR. KIM, CAN YOU COME BACK UP? I'VE GOT A COUPLE OF FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR YOU.

JUST TO CONFIRM SOMETHING THAT THE APPLICANT SAID.

IF THIS WAS NOT A CELL PHONE TOWER, IF IT WAS JUST A SCULPTURE, WOULD WE NEED A PD FOR IT? NO, IT WOULD BE ALLOWED. THE ZONING ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY STIPULATES HAS STIPULATIONS WHENEVER IT IS A ANTENNA SUPPORT STRUCTURE.

AND SO THAT'S WHEN THE RIGHT OF WAY SETBACKS AND THE RESIDENTIAL SETBACK IS APPLIED.

BUT FOR A TYPICAL STRUCTURE OR SCULPTURE, IT WOULD NOT.

OKAY. AND, AND IS THAT ALSO APPLY TO ANY LIGHTING OR ANY OF THOSE ITEMS? WOULD THAT NEED A PD IF IT WASN'T FOR THE CELL TOWER? SO THE PROPERTY WOULD STILL HAVE TO MEET LIKE LIGHTING AND NOISE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS.

IT'S SEPARATE FROM THE STRUCTURE AS IT'S STILL COVERS IT.

SO THE CURRENT LIGHT SPILL OFF THE SITE AND SHIELDING AND ALL THE THINGS THAT APPLY TO EVERY OTHER COMMERCIAL PROPERTY WOULD APPLY TO THIS AS WELL IF IT WASN'T A CELL PHONE TOWER? YES. OKAY, SO ALL THOSE GLARE STUDIES AND EVERYTHING, WE'RE GOING TO BE REQUIRED EITHER WAY,

[00:40:01]

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. YOU JUST KIND OF ANSWERED SOME OF MY QUESTIONS THERE.

BUT THE HEIGHT. HEIGHT DIDN'T MATTER. IT HAS TO REALLY.

IT'S REALLY JUST ABOUT THE CELL TOWER IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE. CORRECT? CORRECT. OKAY. AND THEN AND THEN JUST A SIDE QUESTION.

AND MAYBE JUMPING WAY AHEAD. BUT DOES THE CITY HAVE A PROSPECTIVE TIMELINE FOR, FOR THE BRIDGE ON WHEN THAT WOULD BE CONSTRUCTED? AND I DON'T THINK SO AT THIS TIME.

THEY'RE STILL WORKING ON THE DESIGN AND THE OTHER DETAILS OF THE BRIDGE.

OKAY. COMMISSIONER ALALI. I WOULD JUST TO CONFIRM THAT THIS DESIGN IS NOT FINALIZED.

RIGHT? BECAUSE, LIKE, IF WE APPROVE THE ZONING CASE OR THE PD THE DESIGN IS PART OF IT.

SO IF IT'S NOT FINALIZED AND WE APPROVE THIS ONE, IF THEY CHANGE ANYTHING, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME TO US? SO IS THIS A FINAL DESIGN? BECAUSE YOU'RE LIKE, THE APPLICANT KEEPS SAYING THAT YOU'RE LIKE, THIS IS THEY'RE WORKING ON IT. IT'S NOT A FINAL DESIGN.

SO IS IT A FINAL DESIGN OR IS IT NOT? RIGHT. SO THEY ARE STILL WORKING ON, YOU KNOW, MINOR DETAILS.

BUT IF AGAIN, IF THEY DO WANT TO MAKE ANY SUBSTANTIVE CHANGES TO THE ACTUAL TOWER ITSELF, THEN THEY WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH A ZONING CASE TO MAKE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGES. SO THE, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WHAT WE'RE APPROVING IS THE BALL.

AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE IN THE STRUCTURE SUPPORTING STRUCTURE, RIGHT? GENERALLY, YES. NOT THE LIKE, NOT THE SIZE OF THE BALL, NOT THE SIZE OF THE SUPPORTING STRUCTURE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT? YEAH. AS LONG AS IT IS IN SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE.

LIKE I KNOW THAT WE'RE GOING TO LIMIT THE HEIGHT, BUT WHAT ABOUT THE ACTUAL STRUCTURE? YEAH. I CAN SPEAK TO THIS. SO THAT IS A DETERMINATION BY.

MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. AND SO IT IS OUR INTENT THAT THE SIGN SIGNIFICANTLY COMPLY.

IF THE, IF THE BALL GETS SIGNIFICANTLY BIGGER, IT'LL BE BACK IN FRONT OF YOU FOR A CHANGE.

THAT'LL BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE. IF THE WISHBONE DESIGN CHANGES, THAT WILL BE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT WILL COME BACK BEFORE YOU.

OKAY. IF THERE'S NO MATERIAL CHANGES, IF THE SHAPE IS CHANGED IN VERY SMALL WAYS, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE DEEMED A SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMING.

BUT THAT DECISION WILL ULTIMATELY BE MADE BY THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING. OKAY.

THANK YOU. THANKS. WE'RE EXCITED. YOU LIKE IT LOOKS NICE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE OUR MINIATURE UNION TOWER HERE.

[LAUGHTER]. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I REALLY LIKE I LIKE THE SCULPTURE A LOT, BUT I DO HAVE A COUPLE QUESTIONS AS IT RELATES TO THIS BEING A SCULPTURE RATHER THAN A SIGN. WHAT. WHAT IS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, COULD YOU GIVE ME A DEFINITION OF WHAT WE CONSIDER SIGNAGE? SO WHILE VIEWING THE DESIGN OF THE TOWER AND THE SCULPTURAL STRUCTURE, AND THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND THE BUILDING CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL AND DID MEET REGARDING THE TOWER AND DETERMINED THAT IT IS NOT A SIGN AND THAT IT IS A SCULPTURE.

OKAY. YEAH, I KIND OF WISH HE WAS HERE TONIGHT BECAUSE WE HAD SOME CONVERSATIONS ABOUT WHAT SIGNAGE LOOKS LIKE.

AND I, I CAN UNDERSTAND THE CITIZENS CONCERN AND CONFUSION, I GUESS, IN WHAT SIGNAGE LOOKS LIKE AS OPPOSED TO SCULPTURES LOOK LIKE. WHEN WE TALKED ABOUT THE GLARE STUDIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT.

IS THERE A SPECIFIC HEIGHT OR A SPECIFIC LOOK? IS IT JUST FROM THE GROUND LEVEL OR IS IT FROM DIFFERENT LEVELS? SO WITH THE BUILDING PERMIT IT. THEY ARE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN.

IT WAS NOT NECESSARILY A GLARE STUDY, BUT IT'S A PHOTOMETRIC PLAN SAYING THE LEVEL OF ILLUMINATION AT THE PROPERTY LINE.

SO ANY LOCATION ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE, THEY MUST SHOW THE HIGHEST LEVEL OF ILLUMINATION.

OKAY. AND THE PICTURE THAT WE HAD BEING APPROVED, CAN YOU GO BACK TO THAT? LET ME SEE IF THEY HAVE A. IS THAT THE ONE THAT WE'RE SUBMITTING AS FAR AS WHAT IT'S SUPPOSED TO LOOK LIKE? YES. IT IS KIND OF CUT OFF. THIS, THIS PICTURE IS EXTENDED A LITTLE MORE SHOWING MORE OF THE CAMPUS, BUT YES. SO ONE THING I DON'T NOTICE, I DON'T NOTICE ANY COLOR AS IT WAS RELATIVE TO THAT.

WOULD THE ADDITION OF COLOR AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, WOULD THAT BE SUBSTANTIVE? HOW DO WE DEFINE SUBSTANTIVE? LIKE THE MATERIAL LIKE OF THE STRUCTURE.

LIKE, LIKE IF IT WAS A BLUE TOWER ITSELF. SO IF IT BECOMES A BLUE TOWER, THEN THAT WOULD BE SUBSTANTIVE? I THINK IT WOULD BE UP TO THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING'S INTERPRETATION.

[00:45:01]

OKAY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

I'M GOING TO BEAT A DEAD HORSE A LITTLE BIT. YOU KNOW, IT'S THE OLD WHAT IS THE BILL? WHAT IS THE SIGN AND WHAT IS A SCULPTURE? IT'S THE BECAUSE QUOTE, I BELIEVE THE COLORS ARE SUPPOSED TO REFLECT THE COMPANY'S LOGO.

WHY DOESN'T THAT MAKE THAT A SIGN? YOU KNOW, AND WHY DOES.

THE ABILITY TO. PUT IN A LITTLE BIT MORE LANGUAGE INTO THE PD TO REGULATE WHAT THE EFFECT OF THAT SIGNAGE ON THE NEIGHBORING INDIVIDUALS.

WHY DON'T WE HAVE THAT? MS. D'ANDREA. WOULD YOU MIND ADDRESSING THE QUESTION? NO PROBLEM. SO IN OUR CODE, WE GENERALLY TREAT FULL LOGOS AS SIGNS.

IF YOU JUST DEPICT, SAY YOU DEPICT A CRAYON BUT YOU DON'T WRITE CRAYOLA ON IT, WE DON'T CONSIDER THAT A SIGN.

WE HAD TO COME UP WITH SOME WAY TO SPLIT ART FROM SIGNAGE, AND SO THAT'S BEEN OUR TRADITIONAL INTERPRETATION.

IF YOU'RE NOT PUTTING YOUR FULL LOGO UP THERE.

LIKE IF THEY JUST DID A CELL PHONE, BUT IT DIDN'T SAY AT&T ON IT OR REFLECT THE FULL LOGO, WE'RE GOING TO CALL IT ART. AND THAT IS VERY CONSISTENT WITH FIRST AMENDMENT LAW AND WORKS BETTER, I THINK GENERALLY FOR THE CITY. SO IT'S THE COPY VERSUS THE BACKGROUND, ESSENTIALLY? COPY. COPY ON IT, WHICH WE DON'T REGULATE COPY BUT COPY AND IT SOUNDS LIKE IT CHANGES IT TO A SIGNAGE.

IF YOU IF YOU PUT YOUR FULL TRADEMARK YOUR OR YOUR REGISTERED MARK, WHATEVER YOU HAVE COPYRIGHTED OR, OR YOUR COMPANY NAME AND YOU'RE USING THE LETTERING THAT'S YOUR STANDARD LETTERING.

WE'RE GOING TO CALL THAT A SIGN. BUT IF, IF YOU HAVE SOMETHING LESS OR DIFFERENT FROM THAT, THEN LIKE I SAID, I THINK THE CRAYON IS THE EASIEST ONE.

IF YOU HAVE A PICTURE OF A CRAYON, BUT YOU NEVER WRITE CRAYOLA ON IT, WE'RE NOT GOING TO SAY THAT THAT'S CRAYOLA'S.

EVEN IF WE KNOW IT'S CRAYOLA'S. RIGHT. SAME THING WITH, SAY, AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT WHERE THEY PAINT A MURAL ON THE SIDE THAT LOOKS LIKE AN ITALIAN RESTAURANT. RIGHT. WE'RE CALLING IT ART. THAT'S FAIR.

CAN WE EMBED LANGUAGE THAT DEFINES WHAT, QUOTE, SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IS INTO THE PD? YOU CERTAINLY COULD. I DON'T BELIEVE THERE IS A DEFINED TERM FOR SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

THE ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW IT DOES HAVE SOME LANGUAGE IN TERMS OF CHANGING ADOPTED EXHIBITS FOR THE OPEN SPACE PLAN, FOR EXAMPLE. BUT THERE AREN'T SUBSTANTIAL CONFORMANCE FOR A RENDERING SUCH AS THIS.

SO IF THAT'S SOMETHING THE COMMISSION WANTS TO DO, YOU CERTAINLY CAN. I DO WANT TO CLARIFY THE RECORD, THOUGH, TO SAY THAT A CHANGE IN THE COLOR IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED FORMALLY, THAT I KNOW THAT THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING WOULD MAKE A DETERMINATION ON ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON HER BEHALF AND SAY THAT THAT WOULD DEFINITELY BE A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE. IF IT GOES FROM LIGHT BLUE TO MEDIUM BLUE, IS THAT A SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IN COLOR? THAT'S HER. THAT'S HER DECISION TO MAKE. WHAT'S BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS TO DELEGATE THAT DECISION TO THE CITY'S DIRECTOR OF PLANNING TO MAKE THOSE DECISIONS AND TO BRING THOSE BACK IF SHE FEELS THAT IT IS SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE.

OKAY. ONE LAST QUESTION. WE TALKED ABOUT THE, THE PHOTOMETRIC GLARE AT THE PROPERTY LINE. I'M GOING TO ASSUME THAT WE HAVE PARTICULAR GUIDELINES AS MAXIMUM MINIMUM LIMITS AND WHAT HAVE YOU. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'LL BE MEASURING.

THAT'S CORRECT. THERE'S A DIFFERENT LEVEL OF FOOT CANDLES. THAT'S HOW THEY'RE MEASURED AT THE PROPERTY LINE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN.

I WANT TO TALK A LITTLE BIT ABOUT THE THAT PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE.

SO FOR TONIGHT'S CASE, IF WE APPROVE THE CASE, DOES IT INCLUDE APPROVAL OF BUILDING THAT BRIDGE OR IT DOESN'T? SO IT'S NOT THE APPROVAL BUT THE LOCATION LIKE SPECIFIC TO THE PLAZA.

IT'S KIND OF APPROVED ON THERE. BUT THE ACTUAL PEDESTRIAN BRIDGE DOES NOT NEED THE APPROVAL TONIGHT.

BUT IS IT SOMETHING THAT'S INCLUDED IN THE PROJECT THAT THE CITY WILL HAVE TO SPEND MONEY ON TO BUILDING THAT BRIDGE? IF THIS PLAZA IS BUILT? CORRECT, IT WILL BE CITY DESIGN AND BUILD.

SO THE LANGUAGE, THE LANGUAGE IN THE ORDINANCE SAYS THAT A BRIDGE MAY BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE ON THE PLAZA.

IT IS NOT REQUIRING THE BRIDGE TO BE BUILT WITH THE PD STIPULATIONS.

[00:50:05]

I DON'T KNOW IF IT CONNECTS TO.

FURTHER WEST INTO THE SHOPS AT LEGACY, FURTHER WEST TO LEGACY WEST.

THERE'S A NETWORK OF BIKE TRAILS. RIGHT.

OR WHEN PROPERTIES REDEVELOP, THEY'RE PUTTING IN THE LARGER SIDEWALKS. OKAY.

THAT'S PART OF THE PLAN. AND THAT PLAN INCLUDES THAT BRIDGE GOES TO.

IT INCLUDES THE TRAIL CONNECTION. IT DOESN'T SPECIFY WHETHER THAT'S ACCURATE OR VIA A BRIDGE, BUT THE WIDTH OF THAT AND THE GENERAL LOCATION IS SET BY THE PARKS MASTER PLAN.

YES. OKAY. AND THAT WILL BE ON THE I GUESS NORTH SIDE OF LEGACY TO MAIN ON THE EAST SIDE.

THE CORRECT. THE BRIDGE IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED JUST ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF LEGACY ACROSS PARKWOOD.

THERE WILL BE ANOTHER COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. YEAH. SO I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MS. D'ANDREA AS IT RELATES TO THE LOGO, THE IMAGE ITSELF, WHEN I GO TO THE SOUTHWESTERN BELL'S DESIGN OF LOGOS AND THE ACTUAL IMAGES LOOKS LIKE IN 1984 AND THEN AGAIN IN IN 2005. THIS BALL THAT IS BLUE IS AFFILIATED AS THE LOGO THAT THEY HAVE REGISTERED AND THE TEXT THAT THEY HAVE NEXT TO IT CHANGES FROM 1969, 1984, 2005, AS WELL AS 2016 AND MORE CURRENT.

BUT THE BALL ITSELF DOESN'T CHANGE AT ALL. AND SO I'M CURIOUS AS TO, DID WE INVESTIGATE WHETHER THE BALL ITSELF WAS THEIR TRADEMARK OR THE BALL, AND THE NAME WAS THEIR TRADEMARK? I DON'T KNOW IF WHAT KIND OF INVESTIGATION WAS DONE ON THE TRADEMARK. I JUST KNOW THAT OUR, OUR PHILOSOPHY AND, AND HOW WE GENERALLY MAKE DETERMINATIONS ON THIS AND, YOU KNOW, I'VE DISCUSSED THAT WITH BUILDING INSPECTIONS IN THE PAST AND THE PLANNING DIRECTOR IN THE PAST, BUT I. I HAVE NOT BEEN INVOLVED IN ANY KIND OF INVESTIGATION OR ANY KIND OF DETERMINATIONS THAT WAY SO, MR. KIM, CAN YOU CAN YOU TELL ME ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION AS IT RELATES TO THE LOGO ITSELF AS TO THIS BALL, AND ESPECIALLY WITH IT BEING BLUE AND LOOKING AT THE HISTORY OF AT&T? THAT BALL SURE LOOKS LIKE A LOGO. YEAH. SO I THINK, YOU KNOW WHEN THE DIRECTOR OF PLANNING AND THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL MET I'M SURE THERE WAS, YOU KNOW, SOME CONSIDERATION OF THE HISTORY OF THE LOGO AS IT RELATES TO THE STRUCTURE.

I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK ON THEIR BEHALF ABOUT WHAT THEIR INTERPRETATION WAS.

BUT AT THE ULTIMATE, ULTIMATELY IT WAS DETERMINED THAT IT WAS NOT A SIGN.

AND SO THAT IS WHAT WE ARE. AGAIN, I THINK THE CONVERSATION WAS BASED ON PAST PRACTICE OF INTERPRETING WHAT IS ART VERSUS WHAT IS A SIGN? AND USING THAT SAME CONSISTENT PRINCIPLE, IT WAS DEEMED, IN THEIR OPINION, NOT TO BE A SIGN.

YEAH. I WISH WE HAD THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE BECAUSE AS I'VE LOOKED AT IT AND ESPECIALLY GONE THROUGH SOME OF THESE INFORMATION RELATIVE TO AT&T'S BALL TO ME THAT LOOKS MUCH MORE LIKE A LOGO THAN I ORIGINALLY THOUGHT IT WAS ESPECIALLY SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE BASICALLY THE COLOR OF THE IMAGE ITSELF AS WELL.

SO I DO HAVE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THAT. AND IT'S UNFORTUNATE WE DON'T HAVE THE BUILDING OFFICIAL HERE TONIGHT TO GIVE US A LITTLE MORE DETAIL.

BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH, MR. KIM. OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF.

NOBODY. OKAY. WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THESE ONE AT A TIME.

SO THE FIRST ITEM IS GOING TO BE ITEM 1A. IS ANYBODY PREPARED TO MAKE A MOTION? I'LL MAKE A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM 1A AS PRESENTED BY THE STAFF.

MR. LINGENFELTER, I'LL SECOND THAT. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE THREE OTHER LIGHTS ON. DO PEOPLE WANT TO MAKE COMMENTS? MR. OLLEY, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A COMMENT? ONE COMMENT.

[00:55:04]

ALMOST LIKE PLANNING DIRECTOR NEEDS TO DEFINE FOR US WHAT SUBSTANTIVE CHANGE IS.

CAN WE ADD THAT LANGUAGE TO THE MOTION? OR IS THAT NECESSARY? I'M OPEN TO PUSHBACK. MY REACTION IS I DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.

BUT I MAY ASK, IS THERE A COMMON DEFINITION OF SUBSTANTIVE? I THINK SHE WOULD ALWAYS BE YOUR, YOUR FIRST LINE BECAUSE SHE IS THE ONE WHO INTERPRETS ORDINANCES.

SO THAT WOULD BE INCLUDING THE PD LANGUAGE. SO SHE IS THE FRONT LINE OF FIGURING OUT COMPLIANCE.

ON A DAILY BASIS. ON THE ON A DAY TO DAY BASIS.

SHE WILL CERTAINLY HAVE HEARD YOUR COMMENTS HERE AND CONCERNS, BUT IF YOU WANTED TO GIVE A MORE SPECIFIC LIMIT, LIKE ABOUT COLOR, IF YOU'RE ESPECIALLY INTERESTED IN THAT OR SOMETHING, THAT MIGHT BE A BETTER DIRECTION TO JUST SAY TO HER, IF THE COLOR IS CHANGING, BRING IT BACK. OKAY.

I WOULD GO MORE. IF THE INTENSITY OF THE COLOR IS CHANGING, BRING IT BACK.

IF THE SIZE AND GIRTH OF THE BALL IS CHANGING MATERIALLY PASSED, I'M GOING TO MAKE SOMETHING UP 10% MORE THAN THIS.

THE CIRCUMFERENCE THAT WE HAVE LOOKED AT, BRING IT BACK.

IF THE HEIGHT IS A NO BRAINER ANYTHING HIGHER THAN WHAT IS CURRENTLY.

IF THE, THE GIRTH OF THE BASE UNLESS IT IS NEEDED TO ACHIEVE THE TIER III WIN, WHATEVER TECHNICAL TERM WE CALL IT. BRING IT BACK. YEAH.

I THINK, I THINK IT'S FAIR TO KIND OF DO WHAT I REFER TO AS LEGISLATIVE INTENT THAT THAT'S NOTED THAT I'M SURE SHE'LL LISTEN TO OUR COMMENTS AND UNDERSTAND WHAT OUR INTENT IS SO. ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND, EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 1B, WHICH IS THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

CAN SOMEBODY PUT THAT SLIDE UP ON THE SCREEN JUST SO WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON.

IS THAT POSSIBLE? JUST WANNA MAKE SURE WE ALL KNOW EXACTLY WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON HERE.

I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1B AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER BENDER. SECOND THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS? NOBODY? OKAY. PLEASE VOTE. ITEM PASSES 7 TO 0.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM 1C AND 1D. MR. BRONSKY I MOVE.

WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1C AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER TONG. I SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND FOR ITEM 1C.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. ITEM 1D COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. I MOVE, WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 1D AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER. I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND ON ITEM 1D PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION IS APPROVED 7 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU ITEM NUMBER 2. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 2. REQUEST TO AMEND HERITAGE LANDMARK DESIGNATION-1.

[2. Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2025-017: Request to amend Heritage Landmark Designation-1 (H-1) on 3.8 acres of land out of the Solomon Fitzhugh Survey, Abstract No. 327, located on the southeast corner of 15th Street and Pittman Drive, in the City of Plano, Collin County, Texas, to modify development standards. Project #ZC2025-017. (Legislative consideration)]

ABSTRACT NUMBER 327. LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF 15TH STREET AND PITTMAN DRIVE IN THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

THE PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO. THE ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION.

GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS, DESTINY WOODS, PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT.

SO TONIGHT WE'RE LOOKING AT THIS ZONING CASE FOR HERITAGE DESIGNATION ONE.

SO THE AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SHOWN IN YELLOW.

AND THE AMMIE WILSON HOUSE AND OR HERITAGE FARMSTEAD MUSEUM IS THE CITY OF PLANO'S 1ST HERITAGE LANDMARK DESIGNATION.

[01:00:01]

SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MAY MODIFY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN ORDER TO PRESERVE OR PROTECT LANDMARK.

SO ONE OF THOSE REQUESTED MODIFICATIONS IS TO ALLOW CRUSHED GRANITE FOR GATED PARKING AREAS ON SITE.

CRUSHED GRANITE IS NOT A PERMITTED PAVING TYPE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO THIS IS A REQUESTED ALLOWANCE. AND THEN BOTH THE HERITAGE COMMISSION AND CITY STAFF FIND THAT CRUSHED GRANITE IS AN APPROPRIATE PAVING MATERIAL TO PROTECT AND MAINTAIN THE INTEGRITY OF THE LANDMARK.

THE OTHER MODIFICATION TO THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IS TO ALLOW A HISTORICALLY APPROPRIATE IDENTIFICATION SIGN, AND A CONCEPTUAL DESIGN OF THE SIGN IS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN, BUT IT IS SUBJECT TO APPROVAL OF A CERTIFICATE OF APPROPRIATENESS. THAT WOULD BE APPROVED BY THE HERITAGE COMMISSION.

SO THIS SCREEN SHOWS THE ASSOCIATED STIPULATIONS AND THOSE MODIFICATIONS I MENTIONED IN BLUE.

AND THEN THIS REQUEST DOES MEET THE POLICIES.

THE APPLICABLE POLICIES SET BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

SO WE DID RECEIVE TWO LETTERS WITHIN THE 200 FOOT BUFFER OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IN SUPPORT AND 6 RESPONSES CITYWIDE. SO THE HERITAGE COMMISSION DID RECOMMEND THIS ITEM FOR APPROVAL BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0. AND STAFF ALSO RECOMMENDS FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AS WELL AS MRS. POLADI WITH THE HERITAGE DIVISION OF PLANNING.

AND THE REPRESENTATIVE FROM THE HERITAGE FARMSTEAD MUSEUM IS ALSO HERE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

QUESTIONS OF STAFF. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO MAKE ONE CLARIFICATION THAT THE, THE PICTURE OF THE SIGN THAT YOU SAW IS NOT A FINAL DESIGN SIGN.

THAT'S JUST AN ILLUSTRATIVE EXAMPLE. THE FINAL SIGN WOULD NEED TO BE APPROVED THROUGH THE HERITAGE COMMISSION FOR ITS APPROPRIATENESS OF THE SITE.

COMMISSIONER OLLEY. YEAH, THAT'S WHAT. THAT WAS ACTUALLY MY QUESTION ABOUT THE SIGN.

IF IT'S THE LIKE AND WHAT'S THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE SIGN THAT YOU SHOWED WITH THE ACTUAL LIKE THE HOUSE.

AND I BELIEVE ACTUALLY THE LIKE I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE GRAVEL BECAUSE LIKE IT IS PERMEABLE.

SO I THINK IT'S MORE SUSTAINABLE THAN ASPHALT.

AND IF IT SERVES THE PURPOSE, SO I, I THINK IT'S A GOOD IDEA.

OKAY. COMMISSION ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. I'M GOING TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE.

DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? NO? DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKERS? OKAY, I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

COMMISSIONER BENDER. MOTION TO APPROVE. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

I SPEND SO MUCH TIME LOOKING AT PERIOD PIECES OF APPROPRIATE PAVING.

SECOND. [LAUGHTER]. COMMISSIONER LINGENFELTER.

DID YOU. OKAY, YOU TURN THE LIGHT OFF MOTION APPROVED 7 TO 0. ITEM NUMBER 3. AGENDA ITEM

[3. Preliminary Plat: Alvizo Addition, Block A, Lot 1 – Professional/general administrative office on one lot on 0.3 acre located on the south side of 18th Street, 175 feet west of K Avenue. Zoned Downtown Business/Government. Project #PP2025-013. (Legislative consideration of a Subdivision Ordinance variance) ]

LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF 18TH STREET. 175FT WEST OF K AVENUE.

ZONED DOWNTOWN BUSINESS/GOVERNMENT. THE APPLICANT IS GAG CONSTRUCTION SERVICES.

THE. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF A SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE VARIANCE.

OKAY. HELLO AGAIN. SO THIS PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON 18TH STREET JUST EAST OF I AVENUE.

IT'S LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE. THERE'S CURRENTLY A BUILDING ON THE PROPERTY.

LET ME. SORRY ABOUT THAT. HERE'S THE PLAT. THAT IS IN REVIEW TODAY.

SO THERE IS CURRENTLY A BUILDING BUILT ON THE PROPERTY.

USED TO BE A FORMER HOME BUILT AROUND THE 1940S.

[01:05:02]

THERE IS A BUILDING TO THE, TO THE EAST. ANTENNA TO THE WEST AND THEN SOME RESIDENTIAL HOMES TO THE SOUTH.

SO IN ORDER FOR THIS PROPERTY TO GET A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, THE LOT IS REQUIRED TO BE PLATTED.

AND SO THAT'S WHY PART OF WHY WE ARE HERE TODAY UPON REVIEW STAFF FOUND THAT THE, THE LOT WITH ALONG 18TH STREET IS 73FT. THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIRES A MINIMUM FRONTAGE OF 100FT ALONG THE STREET.

SO WE ARE REQUESTING A REDUCTION TO THE FRONTAGE ALONG 18TH STREET.

STAFF DID DO AN ANALYSIS OF THE REQUEST PRIOR TO THIS HEARING.

WE FOUND THAT THERE IS NO DETRIMENT TO PUBLIC SAFETY, HEALTH OR WELFARE OR INJURY TO OTHER PROPERTY.

THE CONDITIONS UPON WHICH THE REQUEST FOR VARIANCE IS BASED ARE UNIQUE TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ARE NOT GENERALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER PROPERTIES.

THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS SURROUNDED BY OTHER DEVELOPED PARCELS, WHICH LIMITS THE ABILITY TO MODIFY LOT DIMENSIONS, AND THE REQUESTED VARIANCE DOES NOT VARY THE PROVISIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE OR THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE RECOMMENDED THAT THE FINDINGS ARE MET AND APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING VARIANCE TO SUBSECTION 5.2.C.3.(A) OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO REDUCE THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FRONTAGE FROM 100FT TO 73FT, AND ADDITIONS AND ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. KIM. I JUST HAVE ONE QUESTION. THIS LOT HASN'T CHANGED SINCE 1940.

CORRECT? I BELIEVE SO. OKAY. SO THIS IS THE HOUSE IT'S BEEN THERE FOR 80 YEARS. THEY'RE NOT ASKING TO DO ANYTHING THAT HASN'T BEEN THERE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME.

RIGHT. OKAY. THAT'S JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I WAS CLEAR.

ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I BELIEVE WE DO.

NO, WE DO NOT HAVE A SPEAKER ON THIS SIDE RANDOM QUESTION. SINCE THIS HAS BEEN UNCHANGED SINCE 1940, DOES IT HAVE TO GO THROUGH ANYTHING HERITAGE WISE? I BELIEVE IT IS NOT WITHIN THE HERITAGE DESIGNATED DISTRICT, SO IT WOULD NOT.

ALL RIGHT I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS LIKE, A LEGAL QUESTION OR, LIKE, ARE THE LOTS ON BOTH SIDES OR LIKE ALONG THIS, LIKE FRONTAGE? ARE THESE ALL COMPLIANT? LIKE THEY HAVE THE 100-FOOT FRONTAGE? IS IT THE ONLY LOT I KNOW THAT YOU LIKE YOU SAID THAT THIS IS THE LIKE WHATEVER WE'RE VOTING ON IS GOING TO BE SPECIFIC TO THIS LOT.

BUT LIKE, ARE THERE OTHER LOTS? SO ARE WE YOU KNOW, LIKE JUST [LAUGHTER] GIVING OUR DECISION ON LIKE ON THIS LOT SPECIFICALLY OR LIKE IS. SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS IS.

GREAT. I DO BELIEVE THERE ARE ESPECIALLY AROUND THE DOWNTOWN.

PLANO DOWNTOWN AREAS. THERE ARE HISTORICALLY SMALLER LOTS THAT ARE KIND OF RUNNING INTO THIS ISSUE.

AND SO WE HAVE HAD TO REQUEST THESE VARIANCES FOR THESE LOTS.

INDIVIDUALLY OLDER PARCELS AROUND DOWNTOWN. OKAY. SO YOU LIKE, SO WHATEVER DECISION THAT WE MAKE TODAY, LIKE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE APPLIED TO LIKE EVERYBODY? THAT'S THE OUTBUILDING OF ONE OF THE OLDEST HOUSES IN PLANO.

SO I KNOW IT'S NOT GOING ANYWHERE. AND THERE'S A BEAUTIFUL CELL PHONE TREE RIGHT TO THE WEST OF THERE [LAUGHTER]. THE PRETTIEST IN TOWN. SO NEITHER ONE OF THOSE IS GOING ANY PLACE ANYTIME SOON. ALL RIGHT.

I'LL MAKE A MOTION. WE APPROVE THIS AS PRESENTED BY CITY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER ALALI. AND I'LL SECOND. ALL RIGHT.

WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE.

MOTION APPROVED 7 TO 0. ITEM NUMBER 4.

[4. Revised Site Plan: Parker Towne Centre, Block 1, Lot 2A – Medical office on one lot on 0.5 acre located on the east side of K Avenue, 690 feet north of Parker Road. Zoned Retail. Project #RSP2025-037. (Legislative consideration of landscape edge reduction)]

I'M SORRY. LOT 2A MEDICAL OFFICE ON ONE LOT ON 0.5 ACRE.

LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF K AVENUE. 690FT NORTH OF PARKER ROAD.

ZONED RETAIL. THE APPLICANT IS NATURES CHOICE MANAGEMENT COMPANY, PLLC.

[01:10:04]

THANK YOU. THERE WE GO. ON THE MAP HERE WE HAVE THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. IT IS LOCATED ALONG K AVENUE WITHIN THE.

ADJACENT TO A LARGER SHOPPING CENTER AREA. ON THE RIGHT IS THE CURRENT SITE PLAN UNDER REVIEW AT THIS MEETING.

SO I DO WANT TO POINT OUT JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS ABOUT THE CURRENT CONFIGURATION OF THE SITE, AS WELL AS THE REQUEST THAT IS BEING PROPOSED.

SO ON THIS SITE THERE USED TO BE A BUILDING, A RESTAURANT.

YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE RIGHT IMAGE HERE. IT HAS SINCE BEEN TORN DOWN, BUT THERE WAS A BUILDING HERE THAT WAS BUILT PRE OUR LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS.

AND SO THERE WAS NO LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS IN EFFECT AT THE TIME WHEN IT WAS BUILT.

AND SO THERE IS A FIRE LANE THAT IS CONNECTING TO THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER LOTS.

AND SO THAT WILL BE CONTINUE TO BE PROVIDED. AND THEN ON THE LEFT IMAGE HERE, YOU ALSO SEE THERE IS A RETAINING WALL ALONG K AVENUE.

AND THAT IS ALSO WITHIN PART OF THEIR YOU KNOW, SIDEWALK AND LANDSCAPE, THAT AREA.

AND SO THERE ARE SOME TOPOGRAPHICAL CHALLENGES.

SORRY. AS IT RELATES TO THE SITE. AND SO IN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, THERE IS A 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE REQUIRED ALONG K AVENUE. AND THAT IS CONSISTENT WITH OUR PARKS MASTER PLAN.

DUE TO THE EXISTING SITE CONDITIONS OF THE RETAINING WALL KEEPING THE FIRE LANE WHERE IT IS TODAY.

THERE IS SOME CHALLENGES ASSOCIATED WITH DEVELOPING THE FULL 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE.

SO YOU CAN SEE ON THE IMAGE ON THE RIGHT SO THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL IS RIGHT IN THE CENTER AND RIGHT ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE.

AND YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A 12-FOOT HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL EASEMENT.

AND THEN AFTER THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL EASEMENT, THERE IS THE PROPOSED 7-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE.

AND THEN ALSO WITHIN THAT LANDSCAPE EDGE, THERE IS PROPOSED TO BE A 4-FOOT CONCRETE SIDEWALK.

AND THAT WILL TAKE UP A SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT PORTION OF THE LANDSCAPE AS WELL DUE TO THE GRADING OF THE SITE.

SECTION 17.100.1.F ALLOWS THE COMMISSION TO REDUCE THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE EDGE WHEN THE REDUCTION IS REQUIRED FOR PUBLIC IMPROVEMENTS.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDS THE ITEM FOR APPROVAL, SUBJECT TO THE REQUIRED FINDINGS BEING MET, TO ALLOW REDUCTION OF THE LANDSCAPE EDGE AS SHOWN ON THE REVISED SITE PLAN.

I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU, MR. KIM. SO JUST ONE QUICK QUESTION. THAT SIDEWALK, IF YOU GO BACK TO THE ONE THAT HAS THE ZIGZAG SIDEWALK ON IT, I PRESUME THE REASON THAT SIDEWALK IS THAT WAY IS TO PROVIDE ADA ACCESS FROM THE STREET UP TO THE FACILITY? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

THE RETAINING WALL WILL BE PUSHED BACK FURTHER INTO THE SITE.

AND THEN THEY WILL MAKE CONNECTIONS FROM THE EXISTING SIDEWALK TO THE NEW HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THAT WILL BE PROPOSED.

AND SO THERE WILL STILL BE CONNECT. CONNECTIONS FOR THE PEDESTRIAN WITHOUT INTERRUPTIONS.

SO THAT'S WHY YOU SEE THIS KIND OF ZIGZAG PATTERN TODAY.

OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. JUST FOR CLARITY'S SAKE, CAN YOU GO TO THE LAST PAGE? OH, THERE YOU GO. SO WHEN IT TALKS ABOUT REQUIRED FINDINGS, THAT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT THE FINDINGS FORM RELATIVE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.

CORRECT THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAD. COMMISSIONER OLLEY.

FOR MY MEMORY AND EDUCATION, THE PURPOSE OF THE 10-FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE IS WHAT? IS NOT OBSCURE. RIGHT. SO IT IS TO PROVIDE YOU KNOW ENOUGH ROOM FOR LANDSCAPING TO BE PROVIDED, SUCH AS TREES AND SHRUBS. I DO WANT TO NOTE THAT EVEN WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE SIDEWALK AT THIS LOCATION HERE.

THEY ARE STILL ABLE TO PROVIDE THE REQUIRED NUMBER OF SHRUBS AND TREES.

SO EFFECTIVELY THEY ARE STILL ABLE TO MEET SOME OF THE LANDSCAPE EDGE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT JUST THE TYPICAL WIDTH THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED CANNOT BE MET.

BUT THE EDGE IS NOT TO OBSCURE WHAT IS BEHIND THAT BUFFER, IT'S JUST MORE OF A VISUALLY APPEALING AS YOU GO ALONG K AVENUE.

RIGHT. AND IT IS ALSO SERVING TO PROVIDE SCREENING FROM ANY LIKE PARKING LOTS AS WELL AS ANY DRIVES AS WELL.

SO YOU WOULD NEED SHRUBS HERE AS WELL AS TREES.

AND SO THE APPLICANT IS ABLE TO MEET THAT WHERE THERE IS ROOM.

THANK YOU

[01:15:02]

AND IT'S ENOUGH, YOU KNOW, LIKE YOU THINK IN YOUR OPINION, IT'S ENOUGH YES. WE DO HAVE A REVISED LANDSCAPE PLAN AS WELL AND ASSOCIATED WITH THIS REVISED SITE PLAN.

IT IS NOT BEING PRESENTED TONIGHT, BUT BASED ON THE INFO WE HAVE, THEY ARE PROVIDING ENOUGH.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WE DO HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE IS AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NOBODY? OKAY.

THANK YOU, MR. KIM. THANK YOU. COMMISSION. MR. LINGENFELTER, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THIS ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND.

PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. ALL RIGHT.

COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST. WE HAD NO ONE REGISTERED FOR COMMENTS OF PUBLIC INTEREST.

OKAY. ANY OTHER BUSINESS FOR THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING? NO? OKAY. WE'LL STAND ADJOURNED AT 7:16 P.M.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.