* This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting. [CALL TO ORDER] [00:00:04] WELCOME TO THE OCTOBER 19TH CITY OF PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. I'LL NOW CALL THE MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:00 PM. IF ALL PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. FIRST ITEM ON [CONSENT AGENDA] OUR AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS THAT ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NON-CONTROVERSIAL. ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THE AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. COMMISSION, DOES ANYBODY WANT TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE AGENDA? COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF? MR. CHAIRMAN, CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. SECOND. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS PRESENTED. PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES SEVEN TO ZERO. UM, COMMISSIONER LINGFELTER IS NOT WITH US THIS EVENING DUE TO ILLNESS. OKAY, UM, NEXT ITEM IS [1. Public Hearing – Replat: Hunters Glen Five-A, Block 7, Lots 2R & 4R-6R – Park/playground on four lots on 70.8 acres located at the southeast corner of Independence Parkway and Maumelle Drive. Zoned Single-Family Residence-9 with Specific Use Permit No. 66 for Governmental Service Yard. Project #R2026-035. (Administrative consideration) ] PUBLIC... CONSIDERATION, EXCUSE ME. 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 CONSIDER IT - CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDER IT - CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT WHERE AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS. NON-PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS, LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND TO ENSURE MEETING FISH - EFFICIENCY MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. ALL RIGHT. READ ITEM NUMBER ONE, PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE. HUNTERS GLENN 5A, BLOCK SEVEN, LOTS 2R AND 4R THROUGH 6R. PARK PLAYGROUND ON FOUR LOTS ON 70.8 ACRES LOCATED AT THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF INDEPENDENCE PARKWAY AND MALMULE DRIVE, ZONED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE NINE WITH SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NUMBER 66 FOR GOVERNMENTAL SERVICE YARD. THE APPLICANT IS CITY OF PLANO. THIS ITEM IS FOR ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS DONNA SEPULVEDO, LEAD PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. THE PURPOSE FOR THIS REPLAT IS TO MODIFY EASEMENTS NECESSARY FOR PARK IMPROVEMENTS AND THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM? ALL RIGHT SEEING NONE, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING SO I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY SPEAKERS REGISTERED FOR THIS ITEM? WE HAVE SPEAKERS REGISTERED FOR THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NO REGISTERED SPEAKERS FOR THIS ITEM. THANK YOU. SO I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. COMMISSIONER BENDER? SECOND THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO A SECOND TO APPROVE AS PRESENTED. PLEASE VOTE. COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF? I THINK YOURS REGISTERED. THANK YOU. MOTION PASSES SEVEN TO ZERO. STILL HAVE TO VOTE EVEN WHEN YOU MAKE THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. [2. Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2026-006: Request to amend Planned Development-184 Retail/General Office on 31.3 acres of land out of the Robert Benefield Survey, Abstract No. 99, located at the northeast corner of Preston Road and Parker Road in the City of Plano, Collin County, Texas, to increase the total square footage of retail and service uses allowed in Tract 2. Zoned Planned Development-184-Retail/General Office and located within the Preston Road Overlay District. Project #ZC2026-006. (Legislative consideration)] ITEM NUMBER TWO. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO. REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 184 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE ON 31.3 ACRES OF LAND OUT OF THE ROBERT BENFIELD SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 99 LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PRESTON ROAD AND PARKER ROAD IN THE CITY OF PLANO, COLLIN [00:05:01] COUNTY, TEXAS TO INCREASE THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE OF RETAIL AND SERVICES USES ALLOWED IN TRACK TWO. ZONE PLAN DEVELOPMENT 184 RETAIL GENERAL OFFICE AND LOCATED WITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PETITIONER IS 3516 PRESTON LP. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. LILIANA MOREJON WITH DEVELOPMENT REVIEW. I WILL BE PRESENTING THE NEXT ITEM RELATED TO THE AMENDMENTS TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 184. AS MENTIONED, THE SUBJECT'S PROPERTY IS LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PRESTON AND PARKER ROAD. PD 184 INCLUDES 31 ACRES CONSISTING OF THREE DIFFERENT TRACKS. THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IS LOCATED WITHIN TRACK TWO, WHICH IS HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE ON THE AREA PROVIDED IN FRONT OF YOU. THE FOUR, THE PHOTOS ALSO SHARED, UH, SHARE THE EXISTING BUILDING. THE IMAGES WILL ALSO HELP PROVIDE CONTEXT ON WHAT IS BEING REQUESTED. THE REQUEST IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT IS TO AMEND THIS PD 184 WHICH INCLUDES TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS WHICH IS SHARED ON THIS SLIDE AND WILL BE COVERED IN MORE DETAIL IN THE NEXT SLIDES. PD 184 CURRENTLY ALLOWS FOR USES PERMITTED WITHIN THE OU, 01 DISTRICT. ADDITIONALLY, IT ALLOWS FOR USE OF ONE BANK OR FINANCIAL INSTITUTION AND TWO RESTAURANTS OR CAFETERIAS HAVING A MINIMUM OF 4,000 SQUARE FEET. WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED IS ALLOWING FOR RETAIL AND SERVICE USES PERMITTED IN THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT AND NOT SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. THE LIST OF THESE USES WHICH, UH, WHICH ARE THE CURRENT AND PROPOSED USES WERE PROVIDED AS AN ATTACHMENT TO THE STAFF REPORT. THE NEXT REQUEST IS TO INCREASE THE AMOUNT OF RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED WITHIN THE EXISTING SHOPPING CENTER BUILDING. CURRENTLY THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ALLOWS FOR 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL AND SERVICE SQUARE FOOTAGE. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCREASE THIS ALLOWANCE TO 13,500 SQUARE FEET. SO BOTH COMPONENTS OF, BOTH COMPONENTS ARE CONSI - THE TWO PROPOSED AMENDMENTS EVALUATED SEPARATELY WERE EVALUATED SEPARATELY FOR CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN THE COMMUNITY CORNERS DES- DESIGNATION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP. THE PURPOSE OF THIS COMMUNITY CORNER'S DESIGNATION IS TO GENERALLY SERVE THE RETAIL AND SERVICE NEEDS OF ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOODS. REQ- REQUEST A GENERALLY CONFORMS WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHILE REQUEST B DOES NOT AND THEREFORE FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED. AND I'LL TOUCH IN MORE DETAILS DURING THE NEXT SLIDES. OKAY, SO BOTH COMPONENTS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY CORNERS DESCRIPTION, BUT BECAUSE THE PROPOSED RETAIL AND SERVICE USES ALLO - BECAUSE THE PROPOSED RETAIL AND SERVICE USES ALIGN WITH THE INTENDED USES AND VISION FOR THIS AREA. THERE ARE THREE PRIORITIES ASSOCIATED WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THIS DESIGNATION. HOWEVER, ONLY PRIORITY ONE APPLIES TO THIS REQUEST WHICH EMPHASIZES REDUCING EXCESS RETAIL ZONING AND SQUARE FOOTAGE. REQUEST A DOES NOT CONFLICT WITH PRIORITY ONE AS RETAIL INCLUDING SERVICES ARE ALREADY ALLOWED IN THIS DISTRICT. HOWEVER, REQUEST B DOES NOT MEET PRIORITY NUMBER ONE BECAUSE IT INCREASES THE TOR - TOTAL AMOUNT OF RETAIL AND SERVICE USES, UH, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RETAIL AND SERVICE USE SQUARE FOOTAGE ALLOWED IN TRACK TWO. IN SUMMARY, THE REQUEST, REQUEST A WOULD NOT CHANGE THE LAND USE CLASSIFIC- CLASSIFICATION OF TRACK TWO AND WOULD NOT IMPACT THE COMMUNITY CORNERS MIXED USES. HOWEVER, REQUEST B WOULD INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF RETAIL TYPES BEYOND THE RECOMMENDED RANGE FOR PRESTON AND PARKER ROAD MEASUREMENT AREA. AND AS A RESULT, FINDINGS ARE REQUIRED TO APPROVE THE REQUEST. ADDITIONALLY, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN HAS A SET OF POLICIES THAT DISCOURAGE EXPANDING RETAIL ZONING AND EMPHASIZE, EMPHASIZES REVITALIZATION OF EXISTING RETAIL CENTERS AS SHOWN ON THE SCREEN. REQUEST A MEETS THESE POLICIES FOR IT PROVIDES GREATER FLEXIBILITY TO ACCOMMODATE A VARIETY OF RETAIL AND SERVICE TENANTS WITHIN THE EXISTING DEVELOPMENT. REQUEST [00:10:01] B DOES NOT MEET THESE POLICIES FOR IT WOULD CONTRIBUTE TO AN EXISTING OVERSUPPLY OF RETAIL ZONING IN THE CITY. WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY, STAFF RECEIVED 10 LETTERS IN SUPPORT. WITHIN OUR 200-FOOT NOTICES, STA- STAFF RECEIVED FOUR LETTERS IN OPPOSITION. AND IN TOTAL, STAFF RECEIVED 17 LETTERS AND ONLINE RESPONSES WHICH INCLUDES, WHICH INCLUDES 10 SIGNED LETTERS IN SUPPORT WITHIN THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND FOUR IN OPPOSITION WITHIN 200 FEET. THE ZONING REQUEST WOULD MODIFY EXISTING STIPULA- STIPULATIONS IN PD184 TO ALLOW THE 13,500 SQUARE FOOT FEET OF RETAIL AND SERVICE USES WITHIN TRACK TWO. STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF ALLOWING SERVICE USES ON THIS SITE. HOWEVER, THE INCREASE TO THE RETAIL ALLOWANCE IS INCONSISTENT WITH THE COMMUNITY CORNER'S DESIGNATION OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND OTHER POLICIES FOR REDUCING THE ABUNDANCE OF RETAIL ZONING. PER THE COMPLI - PER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FINDINGS POLICY, THE REQUEST MUST BE FOUND CONSISTENT WITH THE GUIDING PRINCIPLES OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND SUBSEQUENTLY BENEFICIAL TO THE IMMEDIATE NEIGHBORS, NEIGHBORS AND SURROUNDING COMMUNITY. AND GENERAL, GEN - AND GENERAL PUBLIC INTEREST IN THE COMMISSION, IF THE COMMISSION WISHES TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL, UH, TO CITY COUNCIL. AND THIS IS THE END OF MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE WITH A PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. UM, I HAVE ONE QUICK QUESTION. I THINK IT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT SOMEWHERE, BUT I WANNA MAKE SURE AND SAY IT OUT LOUD. SO THIS REQUEST ISN'T ACTUALLY INCREASING THE TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE ON THE SITE, JUST HOW MUCH OF IT CAN BE USED FOR RETAIL. IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANY NEW BUILDINGS, WE'RE JUST REALLOCATING THE SPACE FOR RETAIL USES THAT WERE WHAT, OFFICE USES BEFORE? SERVICE USES, INCLUDING OFFICE USES AS WELL. OKAY. OKAY. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE THAT... SO WE'RE NOT BUILDING ANY MORE BUILDINGS, THIS IS JUST A USAGE QUESTION. YES. OKAY, GREAT. UH, COMMISSIONER OLLIE. THERE WAS A... I'M TRYING TO FIND IT. THERE, THERE WAS A LINE IN THE PACKET ABOUT THE SITES, I'M GUESSING TRACK TWO, HAD PREVIOU- PREVIOUSLY BEEN ISSUED C OF OS FOR RETAIL OR SERVICES? I CAN'T REMEMBER WHAT I SAW. UM, CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT WAS, OF WHAT USES WERE THOSE? YES. SO THE ORIGINAL PD SPECIFICALLY ALLOWS FOR RETAIL USES, BUT, UM, WE HAD, UH... COS WERE GIVEN OR GIVEN TO SERVICE USES. SO IN ORDER TO CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE SERVICE USE AND RETAIL, IT'S WHY THE, THIS, THIS, WE AMENDED THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO MAKE SURE THAT THERE'S CLARIFICATION BETWEEN SERVICE USES AND RETAIL USES. SO THE C OF OS, WAS, WAS THERE ANY RESTRICTION, UM, ON THE SITE EITHER IF THE, WHAT WAS ISSUED FOR RETAIL USER WAS GOING ABOVE THE 10,000, LET'S USE THAT AS AN EXAMPLE. WAS THERE ANY RESTRICTION, UM, TO HOW MANY COOS WERE GIVEN TO SERVICE USERS VERSUS RETAIL OR, YOU KNOW, HAVE WE EXCEEDED ESSENTIALLY THE RETAIL USES IN THE PAST DUE TO THE COOS WE'VE GIVEN OUT? UH, NO. UM, THE 10,000 WAS FOLLOWED. IT WAS JUST FOLLOWED FOR RETAIL AND SERVICE. IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN JUST RETAIL. UM, SO IT'S NEVER BEEN MORE THAN 10,000. THE CLARIFICATION IS TO ADD SERVICE TO THAT ALLOWANCE, AND THAT'S THE FIRST PART OF THE REQUEST. GOTCHA. UM, SECOND QUESTION. ONE OF THE, UH, PUBLIC COMMENTS HAD A BLURB ABOUT, UH, INCREASED TRAFFIC, NOISE, GARBAGE, ET CETERA. UM, IS THIS A BIG ENOUGH CHANGE FOR US TO HAVE ASKED FOR A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS OF SOME KIND? NO. NO. OKAY. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER BRENOFF. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. UM, AS I UNDERSTAND IT, THE CURRENT ZONING ALLOWS 10,000 SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL. IS THAT CORRECT? MM-HMM. IS... ARE ALL OF THOSE 10,000 SQUARE FEET WITHIN TRACT TWO? THE STIPULATION, YES, STAYS WITHIN TRACK TWO. I MEAN, PRESENT ZONING, UH, TRACK TWO AUTHOR - IS AUTHORIZED TO CONTAIN 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL. MM-HMM. IS THERE ANY RETAIL IN TRACT TWO AT THIS TIME? [00:15:02] AND I ASK THAT BECAUSE WHEN I DROVE BY, ALL I SAW WERE SIGNS FOR THINGS LIKE SPAS AND A NAIL SALON AND, UM, A, A, A VACATED SPACE THAT WAS FORMERLY OCCUPIED BY A TITLE COMPANY AND A, AND A, A BANK IN ITS OWN BUILDING. I DIDN'T SEE ANY RETAIL AT ALL. WAS I MISSING SOMETHING? NO. UH, BUT THE, IT, THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE THE O - THE OPPORTUNITY TO, IF, IF - OF COURSE. A TENANT COMES IN FOR, FOR A RETAIL USE, HE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE THAT OPTION. NOW, DOES THE 3,500 SQUARE FOOT INCREASE THAT THEY ARE SEEKING, DOES THAT REPRESENT THE VACATED SPACE THAT WAS FORMERLY A TITLE COMPANY? IT REPRESENTS THE SPACE, UH, TO MY UNDERSTANDING OF THE FIRST, THIS, THE FIRST LEV - THE FIRST, A SUITE IN THE FIRST LEVEL, WHICH - YES, YES, IT WAS THE, IT WAS THE TITLE COMPANY. IT WAS THE TITLE COMPANY, OKAY. OH. NOW, UM, MAYBE MR. BELL, YOU, YOU CAN ANSWER THIS. AND THIS IS A SEMANTIC QUESTION. IS THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION MERELY THAT THE, UH, THE APPLI - PART B OF THE APPLICATION IS DISFAVORED UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, OR IS THE STAFF RECOMMENDING THE OTHER D WORD, WHICH IS DENIAL? UM, NO, STAFF IS NOT RECOMMENDING DENIAL ON THIS CASE. UM, IT IS A FINDINGS CASE BECAUSE IT INCREASES THE ALLOWANCE FOR RETAIL ABOVE THAT, WHICH IS RECOMMENDED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR THIS AREA. OKAY. THE COMPETENCE PLAN IS FAVORED. ALL RIGHT. IN DRIVING BY THE PROPERTY OVER THE WEEKEND, I NOTICED THERE WAS A BRICK WALL TO THE EAST OF TRACT TWO. IN YOUR OPINION, WOULD THAT, UH, PROVIDE ADEQUATE BUFFERING FROM WHATEVER'S ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT WALL? UM, THAT IS A TYPICAL, UM, DIVIDER BETWEEN NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING, YES. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE FIRST SLIDE OR THE SECOND SLIDE REGARDING THE ACTUAL REQUEST, REQUEST... YEAH, UM, SORRY. MAYBE RIGHT AFTER THAT, THERE'S A WORDING. YES, THAT ONE. SO, UM, ON REQUEST A, IT SOUNDS LIKE EVERYTHING IS, UM, STAFF RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. WE DON'T HAVE TO DO ANYTHING, BUT EXCEPT FOR THOSE USES SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS? YEAH, SO THE, THE, THE, THE WAY IT IS WRITTEN IS IT MUST BE A RETAILER SERVICE USE PERMITTED IN THE RETAIL DISTRICT AND NOT A USE THAT IS SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. SO IF IT IS SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, IT'S A PROHIBITED USE. IT'S NOT ALLOWED THERE. THAT'S THE WAY IT'S BEEN STRUCTURED. OKAY. SO THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THINGS LIKE VEHICLE RELATED USES AND SOME OTHER THAT MAY HAVE BEEN PERMITTED. UM, AND SO TO AVOID THOSE POTENTIAL IMPACTS, UH, THE, THE PD WAS AMENDED TO SAY IT'S SUBJECT TO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, IT'S NOT PERMITTED. OKAY. SO IS THAT THE SAME? DOES THIS EXCEPTION, UH, ALSO APPLY TO TRACK ONE AND TRACK THREE IN THE SAME CORNER? NO, ONLY TO TRACK TWO. ONLY TO TRACK TWO? CORRECT. AND IS THAT COMMON TO ONLY TO THAT TRACK TWO, NOT TO THE REST OF THE CORNER? TRACT ONE AND THREE HAVE THEIR OWN DISTINCT LIST OF REGULATIONS THAT ARE SPECIFIC TO THEM. UM, IN THIS CASE, WE'RE MODIFYING WHAT IS AN EXISTING PROVISION THAT FOR TRACK TWO ONLY, THEREFORE IT WILL STILL ONLY APPLY TO TRACK TWO. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRUNSKY. UH, OKAY. UH, THANK YOU FOR YOUR PRESENTATION TODAY. MM-HMM. UH, SO, UH, MY FIRST QUESTION, IF YOU COULD GO TO PAGE 27 OF YOUR PRESENTATION. PAGE 20. THAT'S 17. 18. 27? 27, PLEASE. PAGE 27. NEXT ONE. THERE IT GOES. SO, UH, COULD YOU EXPLAIN TO ME THE, UM, THE REASON THAT STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE ALLOWANCE, UH, ALLOWING THE SERVICE CHANGE WHILE IT'S, UH, DISFAVORED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN? A LOT OF USES THAT ARE EXISTING THERE NOW WERE ALLOWED BY CO. UH, WE'RE JUST TRYING TO MEET WHERE W- W - THE EXISTING USES THAT ARE THERE TODAY, UM, YOU KNOW, AND TRYING TO ALIGN IT WITH ESSENTIALLY WHAT... YEAH, WHAT... A LITTLE BIT OF WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS ASKING FOR, THE INTENT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, BUT THOSE USES ARE ALREADY EXISTING, UM, SO WE'RE TRYING TO HONOR, UM, [00:20:01] THE COS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR THAT, F- FOR THAT BUILDING. SO THERE'S EXISTING STIPULATION SAYS THAT THEY'RE LIMITED TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET. SO JUST ADDING SERVICE DOES NOT INCREASE THAT ALLOWANCE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT WOULDN'T CHANGE ANYTHING UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IT WOULDN'T TRIGGER FINDINGS. SO, UM, THAT ASPECT OF THE REQUEST, STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF JUST ALLOWING SERVICE WITHIN THAT 10,000. YEP. IT'S THE ADDITION THAT IS, UM, WHAT IS DISFAVORED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. UM, IT MAY BE A LITTLE CONFUSING THAT IT'S HERE IN ONE PARAGRAPH. I THINK THAT MAY BE THE CONFUSION. UM, SO IF YOU BROKE THAT STARTING WITH HOWEVER, OUT INTO A THIRD BULLET, THAT IS RELATED SPECIFICALLY TO THE INCREASE TO 13,500 SQUARE. BUT THE, THE SECOND, THE PART AFTER THE HOWEVER IS IN FACT WHAT THE STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF, CORRECT? AND THEY'RE SUPPORTIVE OF BOTH A AND B? STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF A. B IS A... REQUIRES FINDINGS, AND THEREFORE STAFF IS SIMPLY S- SIDING BACK WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN WHICH SAYS IT'S DISFAVORED UNLESS THE C- COMMISSION CAN MAKE FINDINGS. OKAY. COULD YOU, COULD YOU EXPLAIN SOME REASONS WHY... WELL, I GUESS THAT'S LEFT TO US TO FIGURE OUT, BUT - ANYTIME THERE'S A FINDINGS CASE, STAFF HAS MADE A COMMITMENT TO THE PUBLIC BASED ON TO WHAT WENT INTO CREATING THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT IN THOSE CASES, SO INCREASES IN HEIGHT AND DENSITY OR WHERE THEY DO NOT COMPLY WITH THE MIX OF USES, UM, STAFF DOES NOT SU - UM, SUPPORT THOSE CASES, DOES NOT RECOMMEND APPROVAL. HOWEVER, WE WILL CITE BACK, UM, WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN SAYS ABOUT WHAT IS NECESSARY TO APPROVE A FINDINGS CASE. SO STAFF ISN'T NECESSARILY SUPPORTIVE OF THIS OR DISFAVORED OF IT? IS THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? WE, WE LEAVE THAT DECISION TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND CITY COUNCIL. SO YOU MAKE THOSE DISTINCTIONS IN CERTAIN CASES, BUT NOT OTHERS? WE... ANY FINDINGS CASES, WE DO NOT DO THAT. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, IT'S, IT'S A TWO-PARTER. WE'RE SIMPLY CLARIFYING THAT, UM, THE FIRST PART, WHICH DOES NOT TRIGGER FINDINGS, STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF. SO SHOULD THE COMMISSION WISH TO REMOVE THE 13, THE INCREASE PORTION OF THIS, THEN STAFF WOULD BE IN SUPPORT. YEAH, SO THAT'S MY CONCERN IS I'VE GOT, UH, I'VE GOT A REAL SERIOUS CONCERN THAT, UM, WE HAVE A LOT OF RETAIL SPACE THAT GOES ALL ACROSS THE CITY AND, UH, CREATING MORE ADDITIONAL RETAIL SPACE, UM, KIND OF DIL - DIMINISHES THE CAPACITY THAT WE HAVE FOR THE RETAIL SPACE AND THE REUSE OF THAT SPACE RATHER THAN, UH, CREATING MORE RETAIL SPACE. BUT I WAS CURIOUS, YOUR COMMENT ABOUT THE ORIGINAL PD AND THE, THE RELATIONSHIP TO THE RETAIL OF WHAT WE'RE PUTTING IT UP TO, IS THAT... DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY, THAT THE ORIGINAL PD WOULD HAVE PERMITTED THIS ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE AS RETAIL? THE ORIGINAL PD SPECIFIES THAT 10,000 SQUARE FEET IS ALLOWED FOR RETAIL USE. OKAY. WHAT IT'S UNCLEAR IS THE SERVICE USE COMPONENT, WHICH IS WHY IT WAS BROUGHT IN FRONT OF YOU TONIGHT TO MAKE SURE THE, TO DIFFERENTIATE- DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN SERVICE USE AND RETAIL USE WITHIN THE RETAIL, UH, DISTRICT, THE RE - THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT. SO THIS, THIS WOULD STILL BE A SERVICE USE AS WELL AS A RETAIL USE? IF APPROVED, YES. IT MIGHT, IT MIGHT HELP TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON WHAT IS ACTUALLY PLANNED FOR THE SITE. I'M, I'M, I DON'T MEAN TO SUGGEST THAT HE ISN'T... THAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO INCRE - TO ADD 13,000... TO FILL 13,500 SQUARE FEET WITH RETAIL. I DON'T BELIEVE THAT'S THE CURRENT PLAN, BUT THE ZONING CHANGE WOULD IN, WOULD IN REALITY ALLOW THAT IN THE TEXT. AND SO THAT IS WHAT IS TRIGGERING THE FINDINGS CASE. OKAY. YEAH. AND SO I SEE THAT. AND SO MY LAST QUESTION, I WANNA BE CLEAR, BECAUSE I DIDN'T UNDERSTAND IT WHEN YOU FIRST SAID IT, BUT THIS, THIS WILL BE SUBJECT TO RETAIL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, CORRECT? SO THAT WE WOULDN'T NECESSARILY HAVE AN AUTOMOTIVE... SO NO USES SUBJECT TO RE - UH, RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS WOULD BE ALLOWED. SO IT, IT'S JUST, IT WOULDN'T BE AN ALLOWED USE FOR THIS TRACK TWO WITHIN THIS PD. SO ANYTHING THAT WOULD TRIGGER RETAIL ADJACENCY WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO GO ANYWHERE THAT'S CORRECT. WOULD BE ALLOWED. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S... I, I WAS UNDERSTANDING THE OPPOSITE THAT, UH, Y - THEY WERE WANTING AN EXCEPTION FROM THE RETAIL ADJACENCY STANDARDS, AND FOR THIS AREA, I THINK THAT WOULD BE A VERY BAD THING. ANYWAY, I'LL WAIT AND TALK TO THE, UM, TO THE GENTLEMAN COMING UP OR, UH, WHOMEVER, BUT THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR QUESTION AND ANSWERING MY QUESTIONS. COMMISSIONER BENDER. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. UM, IF YOU COULD, IF YOU COULD TURN BACK TO THE SLIDE THAT HAS THE PICTURES, UH, OF THE... YEAH. SO WHAT MAY NOT, UH, YOU, YOU KNOW, UH, FOR THOSE WATCHING, UM, THIS IS A LITTLE BIT OF A HYBRID, IN MY VIEW, IN TERMS... THERE'S A WHOLE ENTIRE RETAIL CENTER AT PRESTON AND, UH, PARKER ROAD, RIGHT, THAT YOU DON'T SEE IN THIS PICTURE. THE OTHER THING YOU DON'T SEE IN [00:25:01] THIS PICTURE IS THE BANK BUILDING THAT'S ON THE FRONT, RIGHT, THAT FACES CHARLES AND, AND PRESTON. AND, UM, I USED TO LIVE IN THIS AREA, SO I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THAT CENTER, AND THERE IS A VERY STRONG PRIVACY WALL BEHIND IT, AND, UH, BUT IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A HYBRID. WE DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH OF THIS TWO-STORY RETAIL, UM, AND SOME OF THE USES THAT HAVE BEEN IN THAT PIECE, IN THAT TRACK TWO, ARE ALSO OFFERED IN OTHER PARTS OF THE CENTER, SOME OF THE SAME VERY USES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED. AND THIS IS JUST A COMMENT THAT DO WE HAVE ACCESS RETAIL IN PLANO? YES, WE HAVE A LOT OF ACCESS RETAIL, BUT, UM, THE CHALLENGE IS IT'S NOT ALL IN THE RIGHT PLACE. AND SO, YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND THAT WE HAVE EXCESS RETAIL AND TRY NOT TO ADD MORE, BUT IN MANY CASES, THIS IS A VERY PROMINENT CORNER. AND SO, YOU KNOW, UM, I SEE IT, YOU KNOW, AS NOT A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE, BECAUSE IT DOESN'T IMPACT... THE USES ARE NOT IMPACTING THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORS. WAS THERE A QUESTION FOR STAFF IN THERE SOMEWHERE? NOT... NO. OKAY. JUST COMMENT. I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE. OKAY. IS THAT IT? OKAY. COMMISSIONER LALLI. I HAVE, UH, A COUPLE, A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. UH, THE FIRST ONE IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE, SO WE DID A RESEARCH OR, LIKE, ANALYSIS FOR THE RETAIL, UM, AROUND THE CITY, UH, OR THIS AREA. UH, DO WE HAVE, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE, THE SAME ANALYSIS FOR THE OFFICE? BECAUSE WE ARE REPLACING, LIKE, OR WHERE THEY ARE REQUESTING TO REPLACE AN OFFICE WITH A RETAIL. SO, DO WE HAVE THIS ANALYSIS FOR THE OFFICE? BECAUSE WE HAVE A LOT OF OFFICE SPACES, YOU KNOW, LIKE, AROUND THE CITY, WHICH ARE VACANT ALSO. SO, WE'RE GETTING A LITTLE BIT INTO THE DETAILS, UM - I'M SORRY. OF THE WAY THAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN TRACKS LAND USE. SO, WE HAVE A MAP. EVERY SINGLE PARCEL IN, IN PLANO HAS GIVEN A DESIGNATE... ONE OF SEVEN DESIGNATIONS, UH, BETWEEN NON-RESIDENTIAL AND RESIDENTIAL. UM, IN THIS CASE, THE SITE IS CURRENTLY DESIGNATED AS OFFICE BECAUSE THE AMOUNT OF OFFICE SQUARE FOOTAGE ON PARCEL. WITH THIS ALLOWANCE TO CHANGE RETAIL, IT FLIPS FROM OFFICE TO RETAIL, WHICH INCREASES THE PERCENTAGE OF RETAIL IN THIS CORNER ABOVE THE AMOUNT RECOMMENDED BY THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. SO, YES, WE DO MEASURE OFFICE, UM, BUT IT'S, AGAIN, IT'S BASED ON THAT PARCEL AND WHAT'S ACTUALLY ON THE PROPERTY. WE DON'T HAVE... IF AN OFFICE, UM, ANALYSIS OF... IF YOU'RE REFERRING TO, LIKE, THE RETAIL STUDY, IF WE HAVE TOO MUCH RETAIL - UH-HUH. WE DO NOT HAVE THAT SAME SIMILAR ANALYSIS FOR OFFICE, BUT WE DO HAVE THIS MAPPING, WHICH IS WHAT LEADS INTO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN MIX OF USES AND THE FINDINGS CASES, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. YEAH, BUT WE DO HAVE, YOU KNOW, LIKE A LOT OF OFFICES, LIKE A VACANCY IN OFFICE, UH, SO, YOU KNOW, LIKE, I KNOW, YOU KNOW, LIKE, WE DON'T HAVE THE STUDY, BUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH... YEAH. AND MY OTHER, MY OTHER QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE, IS THE... BECAUSE YOU'RE LIKE, UM, IT'S MENTIONED, THE PACKET MENTIONED THAT, UH, THE RETAIL IS OVER THE 75, WHICH IS AROUND 94. IS WALMART, YOU KNOW, LIKE, CONTRIBUTING BECAUSE IT'S A BIG, UH, BOX, UH, ALSO? YES. SO THE COMMUNITY CORNER IS MEASURED AS A WHOLE, SO NOT JUST TRACK TWO, BUT THE WALMART AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT'S IN THAT COMMUNITY CORNER DESIGNATION IS MAPPED, IS CONSIDERED TOGETHER. SO THE 94%, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, OVER THE 75% RETAIL, UH, CONTRIBUTES TO, YOU KNOW, LIKE, THE BIG BOX. THAT'S CORRECT. AND DO WE KNOW WHAT PERCENTAGE? IF YOU, LIKE, NOT REGARDING ONLY TRACK TWO, UH, WHAT PERCENTAGE THAT 3,500, IF WE INCREASE THE 3,500, WHAT PERCENTAGE OF THE WHOLE RETAIL? IS IT GONNA BE, LIKE, 94.5, OR IS IT GONNA BE, LIKE, 100 OR MORE? UH, I BELIEVE WE DO HAVE THAT INFORMATION. UM, LET ME FIND IT IN THE REPORT AND I'LL - YEAH, I'M SORRY. YEAH, THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ALI, I'M GONNA JUMP IN LINE IN FRONT OF YOU SINCE WE'RE GOING TO SECOND ROUND HERE. UM, YOU SAID SOMETHING A SECOND AGO THAT UP TILL NOW, THE SERVICE USES, WE'RE ADDING THE SERVICE USES TO THE RETAIL TO HAVE RETAIL AND SERVICE LIMITED TO 10,000. SO WERE THE SERVICE USES IN THE PAST CONSIDERED OFFICE USES? OR HOW WERE THEY... SINCE IT DIDN'T ALLOW... SINCE IT WAS SILENT, HOW DID Y'ALL CONSIDER THOSE? UM, IF IT HAD BEEN FULLY LEASED UP WITH SERVICE AND THE... AGAIN, IT'S MEASURED ON A PARTIAL BASIS, SO IF THE MAJORITY OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE IS SERVICED, THEN IT GETS CLASSIFIED AS A RETAIL TYPE UNDER THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THERE'S ONLY FOUR CATEGORIES, RETAIL, OFFICE, INDUSTRIAL, AND INSTITUTION. SO IT BECOMES A RETAIL USE. AGAIN, WE'RE GETTING INTO THE, THE DETAILS HERE. UM, HOWEVER, THERE IS, UM, ALSO MEDICAL OFFICE, AND SO IT'S CURRENTLY LEASED UP WITH DESIGNATIONS THAT TIP IT INTO THE OFFICE CATEGORY. THEREFORE, WITH THIS CHANGE, THAT, THIS CHANGE TO [00:30:01] THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FEET FOR RETAIL IS WHAT'S TAKING IT FROM OFFICE TO RETAIL. YEAH, I GUESS I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THE PD WAS SILENT, BASICALLY SILENT ABOUT SERVICE USES IN THE PAST. IT HAD RETAIL AND IT HAD OFFICE. SO, SO LET ME BE CLEAR ABOUT THAT. UM, THE OTHER TRACKS, TRACK ONE AND TRACK THREE, LIST SERVICE AS A PERMITTED USE. AND SO IT'S STAFF'S INTERPRETATION THAT SERVICE WAS NOT EXPLICITLY PERMITTED IN TRACK TWO. HOWEVER, THE CERTIFICATES OF OCCUPANCY HAVE BEEN ISSUED IN THE PAST. UM, WHEN THE APPLICANT CAME IN TO GET ANOTHER CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, IT WAS DENIED FOR THE REASONS THAT, THAT SERVICE WAS NOT A PERMITTED USE. THROUGH THOSE DISCUSSIONS WITH THE APPLICANT, IT WAS AGREED BASED ON THE PAST HISTORY AND, AND NOT CREATING AN ISSUE THAT, UM, STAFF WOULD BE SUPPORTIVE OF A CHANGE TO ALLOW RETAIL AND SERVICE SUBJECT TO THE CURRENT LIMITATION OF 10,000 SQUARE FEET. YOU REMEMBER THAT WAS THE ORIGINAL CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING - YEAH. THAT WAS MADE SEVERAL WEEKS AGO. UM, SINCE THAT TIME, THE ORIGINAL CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING, THE APPLICANT CAME FORWARD WITH THE ZONING REQUEST AND IN THAT IT INCLUDED ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE, WHICH WAS NOT ORIGINALLY DISCUSSED. AND THAT IS THE ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT IS TRIGGERING THE FINDINGS IN THIS CASE. YEAH, I GUESS MY QUESTION WOULD BE IF THE SERV - IF THEY WERE SILENT ABOUT SERVICE USES, WE'VE, WE'VE NOW DECIDED TO PUT THEM OVER THE, ON THE SIDE OF THE LINE WITH RETAIL ON THE 10,000 FOOT MEASURE. IF WE PUT THEM ON THE SIDE OF THE LINE WITH OFFICE, WE WOULDN'T NEED TO BE ADJUSTING THE 10,000. ADDING, ADDING SERVICE TO THE ADDITIONAL 10,000 SQUARE FEET DOES NOT TIP THEM OVER THE POINT. IT'S THE ADDITIONAL 3,500 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. 'CAUSE THE MAJORITY OF THE BUILDING AT THAT POINT COULD BE RETAIL. OKAY. I THINK THAT ANSWERED MY QUESTION. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER OLLIE. THIS IS GONNA SOUND REPETITIVE. I JUST WANNA CLARIFY, KINDA LIKE LINK THE DOTS IN MY HEAD. UM, TOTAL SQUARE FOOTAGE IN TRACTOR IN QUESTION IS 13,500, CORRECT? OF WHICH IT SOUNDS LIKE 10,000 IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED BY EITHER SERVICE OR OFFICE USERS WITH NO RETAIL CURRENTLY IN THERE. IT'S NOT CURRENTLY OCCUPIED. IT'S WHAT'S ALLOWED BY P - BY THE PD TODAY. WHAT'S ALLOWED BY THE PD? MM-HMM. SERVICE AND - SERVICE AND RETAIL, NOT SERVICE AND OFFICE, RIGHT? JUST RETAIL. 10,000 OF JUST RETAIL. SO THE CHANGE WOULD BE - WHAT IS USING THE SPACE RIGHT NOW? IT'S VACANT. THE SPACE IS - THE WHOLE BUILDING IS VACANT. JUST - WE CAN LET THE APPLICANT SPEAK TO WHO THE CURRENT TENANTS ARE. OKAY. I CAN GO THERE. UM, BUT IF I'M TRACKING BOTH THE HISTORY AND WHAT IT SEEMS LIKE HAPPENED, IT WAS RETAIL AND NO SERVICE. SOMEHOW WE ALLOWED CEOS OF SERVICE. SO STAFF HAD TO HONOR FUTURE, UM, CEOS FOR SERVICE. UM, BUT IF WE NOW TAKE UP THE, SOME OF THE SPACE THAT MAYBE WAS OCCUPIED BY SERVICE IN THE PAST AND MAKE IT RETAIL, THAT'S WHAT IS TRIGGERING THIS, UH, NON-CONFORMANCE TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE ALLOWANCE TO USE A FULL 13,M500 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL USES, THAT'S WHAT'S PROPOSED TO BE LEASED, BUT THE ALLOWANCE TO DO THAT IS WHAT TRIGGERS THE FINANCES. OKAY. COMMISSIONER LALLY. UH, SO I JUST WANTED TO, A CLARIFICATION. UH, WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE RETAIL ZONING, WHICH ALLOWS, YOU KNOW, LIKE SERVICE, UH, USES, RIGHT? AND, YOU KNOW, LIKE NOW WE'RE DOING RETAIL AND SERVICES. AND WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN, YOU KNOW, LIKE A TRAVEL AGENCY OR INSURANCE, YOU KNOW, LIKE OFFICE VERSUS LIKE A NAIL SALON OR ONE OF THOSE? RETAIL IS A LITTLE CONFUSING BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING DISTRICT. IT'S A LAND USE AND IT'S ALSO A, A USE CLASSIFICATION THAT INCLUDES MULTIPLE, IT'S A GROUP OF USES ESSENTIALLY. SO YOU HAVE VARIOUS TYPES OF RETAIL USES. YOU ALSO HAVE VARIOUS TYPES OF SERVICE USES. MM-HMM. AND SO YOU'RE, UM, YOU KNOW, LAUNDROMATS, YOUR DRY CLEANERS, THOSE ARE SERVICE USES. OKAY. RETAIL IS LIKE A RETAIL STORE OR ANYTHING ELSE THAT'S SELLING GOODS. UM, SO THERE'S A WHOLE HOST OF USES THAT WERE PROVIDED IN THE PACKET OF WHAT FALLS INTO EITHER A RETAIL USE CLASSIFICATION OR A SERVICE USE CLASSIFICATION. SO THE RETAIL THAT'S, UH, WRITTEN IN THE, UH, YOU KNOW, LIKE IN THE PD IS FOR RETAIL USES AND NOT, YOU KNOW, LIKE RETAIL ZONING, RIGHT? IT IS, IT PERMITS THE USES THAT ARE RETAIL CLASSIFICATION IN THE RETAIL ZONING DISTRICT. YEAH, CERTAIN, UH, LIKE WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE ADJACENCY STANDARDS, IT ALLOWS [00:35:01] ANY RETAIL THAT IS PERMITTED IN THE RETAIL ZONING, ANY SERVICE THAT IS PERMITTED IN THE RETAIL ZONING WOULD ALSO BE PERMITTED ON THIS SITE EXCEPT FOR THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY STANDARDS. OH, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BROMSKY, YOU GOT A FOLLOW UP? ONE MORE QUESTION. SORRY. UM, THE CONVERSATION EARLIER WAS ABOUT, UH, THE HISTORIC, THE HISTORY OF, UM, THE COS. CAN YOU KIND OF GIVE ME A SUMMARY OVERVIEW OF THE, THE WAY THAT WE'RE LOOKING, WE'RE NEEDING TO LOOK AT THIS HANDLED VERSUS HOW IT WAS HANDLED? I DON'T WANNA SPECULATE TOO MUCH ABOUT HOW IT WAS HANDLED IN THE PAST BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE THE DETAILS ON THAT. UM, BUT THERE HAS BEEN A CHANGE OF PROCESS, UM, IN THE LAST SEVERAL YEARS WHERE, UM, THE COS ARE REVIEWED DIFFERENTLY NOW. SO THAT IS WHY THE NEW PROCESS CAUGHT THE, UM, RESTRICTION THAT DIDN'T ALLOW THE SERVICE USES NOW. BUT WHY DID IT HAPPEN THE FIRST TIME? I, I CAN'T SPECULATE. WELL, I WASN'T NECESSARILY ASKING WHY. I WAS ASKING, UM, WHAT WAS THE DYNAMIC THAT DID NOT CATCH IT PREVIOUSLY, I GUESS. YEAH. I, I WOULD BE SPECULATING BECAUSE I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE, UM, THE STEPS OF THAT PROCEDURE IN THE PAST. AND SO WOULD THE, WOULD THE THIR - THE ENTIRE 13,500 OR THE ADDITIONAL 3,500, HAS THAT ALREADY BEEN USED AS A RETAIL USE? NO. IN PREVIOUS COS? AGAIN, PARTS OF THE BUILDING HAVE BEEN USED FOR RETAIL. UM, IT, I DON'T BELIEVE, AND AGAIN, THE APPLICANT CAN SPEAK TO WHAT THE LEASING HISTORY OF IT HAS BEEN, AND I DON'T BELIEVE THE INTENT IS TO LEASE THAT ADDITIONAL 3,500 WITH RETAIL. I BELIEVE THAT THE, THE REQUEST IS THE APPLICANT WANTS MORE FLEXIBILITY TO DO RETAIL OR SERVICE WITHIN THAT 13,500 SQUARE FEET. OKAY. UM, SO HISTORICALLY, IT'S NOT HAD C - WELL, I GUESS I'LL WAIT TO TALK TO THE APPLICANT ABOUT THE CO HISTORY. UM, OKAY. THANK YOU MUCH. ALL RIGHT. LOOKS LIKE THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF. SO, UM, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. I DO BELIEVE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT HERE, UM, AND REGISTERED. SO MR. HINKLEY, WOULD YOU LIKE TO COME? CAN YOU JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE? MR. CHAIRMAN, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS ALAN HINKLEY. ADDRESS IS 12300 PARK CENTRAL DRIVE, DALLAS, TEXAS. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE TONIGHT. I'VE PUT UP ON THE SCREEN AN OBLIQUE, UH, AERIAL OF THE INTERSECTION. UH, MY INVOLVEMENT IS WITH THE ENTIRE CENTER AND MY PREDECESSOR WAS INVOLVED IN THE 1994 ZONING CASE WHERE WE WORKED WITH, UH, UH, HARRINGTON HOME PLACE PEOPLE TO BASICALLY DOWNZONE, RESU - REDUCE SOME OF THE DENSITY AND COME UP WITH THE CURRENT PLAN. SO I DO HAVE SOME HISTORY THERE AND JUST WANTED TO JUST, UH, BE SURE YOU SAW SOME OF THE PICTURES. THIS IS NOT A FOUR CORNERS PROPERTY. IT'S A VERY NICE, WELL-OCCUPIED WEST PLANO RETAIL CENTER. AND WE'VE WORKED VERY HARD TO HAVE A DIVERSE MIX OF USES HERE, OFFICE, MEDICAL, UH, RESTAURANTS, AS, AS WELL AS SOME FURNITURE USES. SO WE WORK VERY HARD THERE. WE'VE OWNED THE PROPERTY AND BEEN INVOLVED IN THE PROPERTY FOR OVER 30 YEARS, SO WE'RE LONG-TERM HOLDERS OF REAL ESTATE, AND IT'S IMPORTANT TO US, AND WE WANNA BE A PART OF THE COMMUNITY. UM, OBVIOUSLY THE, UH, VENEER AND CASTTONE AND STUFF IS, IS GOOD LOOKING AND IS LASTED. SO, UM, ESSENTIALLY, THIS IS WHAT I WANTED TO JUST CLARIFY IS WE GOT A DIVERSE MIX OF BALANCE USES, UH, LONG-TERM OWNERS. UH, WE HAVE UNIFIED LEASING, SO WE HAVE CONSISTENCY ACROSS THE ENTIRE INTERSECTION. IT LOOKS GOOD, AND THE PROJECT LOOKS GOOD, AND THERE'S BEEN A STRONG TAX BASE AND OVERALL OCCUPANCY. THE OVERALL SITE PLAN YOU'VE SEEN, SO I DON'T NEED THAT, THIS IS TRACK TWO. SHE WAS PRETTY THOROUGH. LET'S TALK ABOUT THE BACKGROUND OF 3516 PRESTON, THE ACTUAL REQUEST ITSELF FOR TRACK TWO. TO US, IT'S JUST A SIMPLE REQUEST. IN COMING FORWARD WITH A NEW TENANT, WE CAME AND THE CO HAD COME UP. FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS JUST A SCRIBNER ERROR. UH, THE TERM RETAIL VERSUS RETAIL SERVICE. WHEN WE DID THE ORIGINAL PD, WE'VE ALWAYS LEASED THIS PROJECT AS RETAIL, AND I THINK THERE'S A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RETAIL AND RETAIL DISTRICT THAT INCLUDES THE SERVICES UNDERNEATH IT. SO WHEN WE BUILT THIS PROJECT IN 2001, WE IMMEDIATELY [00:40:01] PUT THE CLEANERS IN THERE. WE'VE HAD EVELYN KERSHAW SALON IN THERE FOR A LONG, LONG TIME. THESE ARE SERVICE USES, AND WE HAVE A NAIL STORE. THE, UH, 3,500 SQUARE FEET, WHICH IS THE TITLE COMPANY, WAS THERE IN 2001. WE JUST RECENTLY LOST THAT TENANT. SO FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THERE WAS NEVER AN ISSUE BETWEEN SERVICE OR RETAIL. WE, WE LEASED THE WHOLE PROJECT AT THAT CORNER WITH RETAIL AND SERVICE. IT WAS ONLY RECENTLY WHEN THERE WAS A DIFFERENT TYPE OF REVIEW, THIS HAD COME UP. SO THE STAFF ASKED US TO COME FORWARD TO AMEND THIS PD, SO THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE TONIGHT. AND DURING THE PROCESS, WE REALIZED THAT BECAUSE WE NOW HAVE A SERVICE USE THAT'S UPSTAIRS, THE BAR METHOD, WE NO LONGER HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO PUT ANY TYPE OF RETAIL OR RETAIL SERVICE IN THIS BOTTOM FLOOR, WHICH IS THE NORTH END CAP. AND THIS IS A DIVERSE PROJECT. WE LET BASICALLY TENANTS PICK WHERE THEY COULD BE SO THEY'RE LONG-TERM, UH, AND, AND HAVE THE ABILITY TO REALLY SERVE THE COMMUNITY. SO THAT'S WHY WE'VE ASKED FOR THE 3,500 SQUARE FOOT INCREASE. WE DO NOT BELIEVE, SINCE OFFICE IS WEAK IN THIS AREA, THAT WE WOULD BE ABLE TO GET ANOTHER OFFICE TENANT. SO WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR YOUR HELP ON THAT TO GET US THERE. SO HERE'S, HERE'S THE CONCLUSION. UH, JUST, I JUST RESPECTFULLY REQUEST YOUR APPROVAL. UM, WE THINK THIS KEEPS THE PROJECT VIBRANT AND FLEXIBLE FOR THE COMMUNITY. WE THINK IT'S A GOOD DECISION GIVEN THE SPECIFIC FACTS IN THE CASE AND THAT OVERALL INTERSECTION, IT DOESN'T REALLY CHANGE ANY DYNAMIC. THERE'S NO NEW BUILDING. THIS JUST GIVES THE COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO LEASE TO THE BEST TENANT THAT'S GONNA STAY THERE LONG TERM. IT ALLOWS THE ENTIRE FIRST FLOOR TO HAVE THE FLEXIBILITY TO BE RETAIL IN SERVICE. UH, JUST OF NOTE, I DID WALK THE HAVERSHAM NEI- NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE THE LEGAL NOTICES ARE HARD TO UNDERSTAND AND, AND BASICALLY TRIED TO MEET WITH SOME OF THE HOMEOWNERS THAT HAD SOME QUESTIONS. AND SO LASTLY, I JUST ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT. I'M HERE FOR QUESTIONS AND APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. THANK YOU, MR. HINKLEY. UM, SO LET ME SEE IF I'M KINDA UNDERSTANDING. SO WHAT HA - AND KINDA WHAT IT SOUNDS LIKE HAPPENED IS THAT THE BAR STUDIO, IS THAT RIGHT? BAR METHOD. YEAH, BAR METHOD ENDED UP GOING UPSTAIRS AND THUS USING THAT MANY SQUARE FEET OF YOUR RETAIL ALLOWANCE - YES. WHICH CREATES A SITUATION WHERE YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH RETAIL SERVICE ALLOWANCE LEFT TO BACKFILL THE TITLE COMPANY SPACE. CORRECT. AND SO YOU'RE ASKING FOR FLEXIBILITY TO INCREASE THAT SQUARE FOOTAGE SO THAT YOU CAN BACKFILL A RETAIL SERVICE USE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, ON THE END CAP, IN THE, EFFECTIVELY, THE TITLE COMPANY SPACE - CORRECT. WITHOUT EITHER HAVING TO MOVE SOMEBODY OR LOSING YOUR UPSTAIRS USE. SO WHAT IS YOUR OCCUPANCY OF THIS BUILDING RIGHT HERE? IS THE REST OF THE UPSTAIRS COMPLETELY LEASED OR? SO MONARCH DENTAL OCCUPIES MOST OF THE SQUARE FOOTAGE UPSTAIRS. THIS USED TO BE, UH, A CENTURY 21 OR, UH, A REAL ESTATE OFFICE UPSTAIRS. WE'RE EXPECTING THAT TO BE OFFICE AGAIN, BUT THE DOWNSTAIRS WE'RE EXPECTING RETAIL. SO IT'S, IT'S OVER, UM, 70% LEASE, BUT WITH THE TWO SPACES WE'RE THERE. BUT OVERALL PROJECT, WE'RE OVER 90% IN THE OVERALL PROJECT. THIS SPECIFIC BUILDING, WE JUST HAVE THIS VACANCY WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. SO ONE OF THE CONCERNS OF THE MASTER PLAN IS OBVIOUSLY THE FOUR CORNERS. WE HAVE AN OVERABUNDANCE OF VACANT SPACE, BUT WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US IS THIS PROJECT IS 90 PLUS PERCENT LEASED NOW, AND BASICALLY THESE ARE YOUR TWO VACANCIES? CORRECT. IN THE ENTIRE CENTER? J - AND JUST IN THIS BUILDING RIGHT HERE. AND THEN, AND THE OTHER PART OF THE CENTER, YOU, YOU CONSTANTLY HAVE SOME TENANTS THAT ARE COMING AND GOING, BUT IT'S AN EXCELLENT PROJECT. I MEAN, EOS FITNESS IS THERE, YOU HAVE ALL THE DIFFERENT USES THAT ARE THERE. OKAY. I MAY HAVE SOME MORE, BUT LET ME MOVE ON TO SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS. COMMISSIONER BRINOFF. NO, THANK YOU. UM, IS THERE ANY RETAIL USE GOING ON IN THAT BUILDING AT THE PRESENT TIME? I BEG YOUR PARDON, SIR? IS THERE ANY RETAIL USE GOING ON IN THAT BUILDING AT THE PRESENT TIME? ANY RETAIL TENANT? YES, SIR. UM - WHO IS THAT? WELL, THE, YOU'VE GOT THE, THE CLEANERS, THE SPA - NO, NOT SERVICE. UH, RETAIL - OH, OKAY. IN THE SENSE OF SELLING GOODS. YEAH. UH, NOT AT THIS TIME. OKAY. UM, DO YOU HAVE A, UM, PLEASE UNDERSTAND, I, I'M NOT ASKING YOU FOR, YOU KNOW, YOUR CONFIDENTIAL BUSINESS DETAILS ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN YOU AND YOUR TENANTS, BUT IN A GENERAL SENSE ONLY, DO YOU HAVE A PROSPECTIVE RETAIL TENANT WHO, WHO WANTS TO COME INTO THE BUILDING? UH, THE - AT THE PRESENT TIME? YES. WE HAVE A, A TENANT RIGHT NOW THAT'S INTERESTED IN THAT, THAT NORTH END CAP. OUR, THE SHOP COMPANIES DOES LEASING THERE. THEY DO LEASING IN OTHER PARTS OF PLANO, AND THEY DO A VERY GOOD JOB, AND WE HAVE A PROSPECT THERE FOR THAT END CAP. WOULD THAT BE A, A RETAIL PROSPECT AS OPPOSED TO A SERVICE PROSPECT? [00:45:01] IT'S MY UNDERSTANDING IT'S RETAIL. AND, UH, AND HOW MANY S - UH, HOW MANY SQUARE FEET WOULD, UH, WOULD THAT OCCUPY? THEY WOULD TAKE THE 3,500 FEET THAT' AVAILABLE. OH, OKAY. OKAY. YES, SIR. THAT USED TO BE THE TITLE COMPANY. IT'S JUST, IT'S JUST A ONE, IT'S JUST ONE SPACE THAT'S 3,500 FEET THAT'S ON THAT NORTH END CAP. AND THAT'S THE REASON WE'RE ASKING FOR FLEXIBILITY. YEAH. HOW BIG IS THE OTHER VACANT SPACE? THE VACANT SPACE ABOVE IT IS 2,000 FEET. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THIS ONE. GREAT. COMMISSIONER LALLY. WHAT'S THE... I DON'T KNOW IF WE CAN ASK THIS QUESTION OR NOT. YOU LIKE, WHAT'S THE LEASE TERM, UH, THAT, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF SOME RETAIL COMES INTO THIS CORNER, SO YOU'RE LIKE HOW LONG? YEAH, WE'RE NOT, WE CAN'T DO THAT. WE'RE JUST TALKING ABOUT USES. WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT TERMS. OKAY. AND YOU'RE LIKE, UH, THEN I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR STAFF PROBABLY. WILL THIS CHANGE, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF IT'S A RETAIL, WILL THIS CHANGE LIKE ANY PARKING RATIO OR IT DOESN'T? I BELIEVE RETAIL AND SERVICE HAVE THE SAME PARKING RATIO. YEAH. THERE'S AMPLE PARKING HERE. THIS, THIS PROPERTY IS OVER PARKED. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THAT IT? OKAY. COMMISSIONER OLLIE. UH, JUST ONE QUESTION. THE TITLE COMPANY THAT YOU JUST LOST, WAS THAT YOUR ORIGINAL OCCUPANT OR, OR DID YOU HAVE PREVIOUS OCCUPANTS OF THAT SPACE AND WHAT WERE THEY USERS-WISE? IT WAS THE ORIGINAL OCCUPANT. SO WE HAD, UM, BASICALLY THEY CHANGED THEIR NAME THREE TIMES, BUT BASICALLY IT WAS THE SAME TITLE COMPANY FOR, GOSH, 24 YEARS, 25 YEARS. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER BROMSKY. SO THANK YOU FOR COMING TODAY. I, UH, I'M IN YOUR CENTER QUITE FREQUENTLY. UM, SO I WANNA BACK UP AND TALK ABOUT... SO IN THIS TRACK THREE, OR TRACK TWO, I'M SORRY. IN THIS TRACK TWO THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT, WHAT IS THE, UH, AMOUNT OF RETAIL SQUARE FOOTAGE THAT YOU'RE USING TODAY? IN JUST TRACK TWO? YES. UH, WELL, I DON'T... I'VE NEVER REALLY BIFURCATED, YOU KNOW, SERVICE VERSUS RETAIL. IN OUR MINDS, IT'S EITHER RETAIL OR OFFICE. I UNDERSTAND. BUT I WOULD SAY THAT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS IF IT'S, IF YOU DETERMINE THIS IS ALL SERVICE, THEN IT'S BASICALLY THE SERVICE, UH, THE FOUR TENANTS THAT ARE SERVICE, AND THEN YOU HAVE THE MONARCH DENTAL SPACE THAT'S MEDICAL OFFICE. OKAY. SO THEN CURRENTLY, YOU WOULD, YOU WOULD HAVE ZERO RETAIL BEING USED OUT OF THE 13,500 YOU'RE REQUESTING? YEAH. I MEAN, I, IT, C- CURRENTLY, I- IF YOU DETERMINE IT THAT WAY AND YOU CALL IT SERVICE, THAT WOULD BE THE CASE. I MEAN, THAT'S HOW WE'RE DETERMINING IT RIGHT NOW. OKAY. IS THAT, THAT'S WHY YOU CAME BEFORE US. ISN'T THAT WHAT I'M UNDERSTANDING? WELL, WE'RE HERE TO CLARIFY THE SERVICE EVEN THOUGH IT WAS PREVIOUSLY... IT, IT HAS BEEN PREVIOUSLY GRANTED SINCE DAY ONE. I THINK IT'S A SCRIVENER ERROR. THE, THE SERVICE OR THE RETAIL? BOTH, BECAUSE IT'S ALWAYS BEEN RETAIL ZONED, AND IT, AND TO ME, THAT'S RETAIL DISTRICT. SERVICE COMES UNDERNEATH THE RETAIL DISTRICT. SO THAT'S THE WAY I UNDERSTAND IT. I COULD BE WRONG THERE, BUT THAT'S HOW I UNDERSTAND IT. SO IF, IF YOU WANNA CALL ALL THOSE SERVICE TENANTS, YES, THEY'RE SERVICE TENANTS. BUT IT'S A RETAIL CENTER. IT, THE WHOLE PROJECT HAS RETAIL IN IT. YEAH, SURE. NO, I, I GET IT. I'M JUST TRYING TO, I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THE NECESSITY TO ADD 3,500 MORE SQUARE FEET IN A CITY THAT IS WAY OVER RETAILED. AND LIKE I SAID, I'M IN YOUR CENTER FREQUENTLY. RIGHT. UH, I ATE AT PLUCKER'S LAST WEEK. UM, SO I'M JUST TRYING TO UNDERSTAND THAT. WELL, I- IF YOU HAVE A 3,500 SQUARE FOOT VACANCY THAT'S OFFICE TODAY AND YOU CAN'T ACCOMMODATE THAT 3,500 FEET - WELL, YOU SHOULD BE ABLE TO TODAY. YOU, YOU CANNOT, BECAUSE WE'VE ALREADY CONSUMED 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL OR SERVICE USES. YOU'RE CAPPED AT 10,000 FEET TODAY, SO WE CANNOT LEASE THE 3,500 SQUARE FEET DOWNSTAIRS BECAUSE THE, BETWEEN THE BAR METHOD AND THE FOUR OTHER TENANTS, YOU'VE, YOU'RE BASICALLY RIGHT AT YOUR 10,000 FEET. SO IT, IT, IT, THAT'S RIGHT. CAN, CAN YOU EXPLAIN THAT, MR. BELL? WELL, I MEAN, I'M... 'CAUSE I JUST ASKED ABOUT THE RETAIL. AGAIN, IT'S 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL SERVICE. THE APPLICANT'S CORRECT. UM, AND SO IT IS CURRENTLY AT ITS LIMIT AND COULD NOT GO ABOVE IF THAT CURRENTLY VACANT SPOT BECOMES AVAILABLE. IT'S - SO AM I UNDERSTANDING THEN I- IF WE DON'T APPROVE PART B, THAT SPACE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO BE OCCUPIED BY ANYTHING? NOT BY SE - RETAILER SERVICE. IT COULD BE OFFICE OR ANOTHER PERMITTED USE. MEDICAL OFFICE, ANY OTHER KIND OF OFFICE. SO ANY, ANY OFFICE. SO THEN THE CONTEXT OF WHAT I WAS ASKING, I GUESS, [00:50:01] THEN SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE 10,000 SQUARE FEET, YOU'VE ALREADY COMPLETELY CONSUMED ALL OF THAT AS RETAIL OFFICE OR RETAIL, UM - SERVICE SERVICE. SERVICE. AND SO YOU'RE LOOKING TO HAVE THAT ONE, UH, ADDITIONAL 3,500 BROUGHT OVER TO MATCH THE REST? YES, TO HAVE FLEXIBILITY LONG-TERM, TO BE ABLE TO HAVE THE, THE PROJECT STAY LEAST AND VIBRANT AND, AND STAY AS PART OF THE COMMUNITY. OKAY. SO MY LAST QUESTION, UH, YOU KNOW, SO I'M, I, UH, I WANNA SAY THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR REACHING OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS IN THE HAVERSHAM, UH, NEIGHBORHOOD THERE AND ALONG THAT AREA. SO MY QUESTION IS, UH, DID YOU REACH OUT TO THE CHURCH ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL? WE DID NOT. OKAY. I WASN'T AWARE THERE WAS ANY OBJECTIONS FROM THERE. NO, NO, NO. I- I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU WERE... I MEAN, THEY'RE PROBABLY THE LARGEST CONSUMER ON ALL FOUR CORNERS THERE PUT TOGETHER, RIGHT, BEING ON BOTH SIDES OF, UH, PARKER AND PRESTON, RIGHT? AND SO I WAS JUST CURIOUS IF YOU HAD REACHED OUT TO ALL THE OTHER NEIGHBORS, IF YOU'D REACHED OUT TO THE NEIGHBORS ACROSS THE STREET AS WELL. NO, SIR, DID NOT. UM, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S NOT A RETAIL ON ALL FOUR CORNERS. IT'S A UNIQUE SITUATION THERE AT PRESTON AND PARKER, AND IT'S, IT'S A, IT'S A GREAT CORNER, BUT I DID NOT. OKAY. NO, THAT'S ALL. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. THANK YOU AGAIN FOR, UH, COMING IN AND, UH, GOING THROUGH ALL OFO QUESTIONS - THANK YOU. TRYING TO HELP ME CLARIFY WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSION, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? NONE? OKAY. DON'T GO FAR. WE MAY COME BACK TO YOU. IT HAPPENS SOMETIMES. OKAY. UM, THEN, UH, I THINK WE HAVE ONE OTHER REGISTERED SPEAKER. IS THAT CORRECT? TH- THAT IS CORRECT. UM, MICHELLE GILLS. GILES. GILES. MICHELLE GAUZE. MS. GILES, IF YOU'LL JUST INTRODUCE YOURSELF AND YOUR ADDRESS. YES. AND DOES THIS DISPLAY, IF I SHOW YOU... I'M NOT SURE WHAT THIS IS. I CAN DISPLAY SOMETHING. THERE YOU GO. PUT YOUR PAPER ON TOP OF THAT, AND IT SHOULD PROJECT UP ONTO THE SCREEN FOR US. ACTUALLY, OKAY. IT'S MY BACKYARD. HI, MY NAME'S MICHELLE GILES, AND I LIVE DUR - IF YOU COULD MOVE OVER A LITTLE CLOSER TO THE MICROPHONE. OH, SORRY. OKAY. THANK YOU. YES. M NAME IS MICHELLE GILES, AND I WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK IN OPPOSITION TO ADDING 3,500 EXTRA OF RETAIL. UM, I, OF ALL THE HOMES THAT ARE IMPACTED BY THIS, UM, I AM THE ONE MOST IMPACTED. I'M DIRECTLY BEHIND 3516. I'VE LIVED IN MY HOME FOR 30 YEARS BEFORE, WHEN IT WAS JUST A FIELD BEHIND. I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THE SERVICES. THEY'VE BEEN, THEY'VE BEEN PRETTY QUIET, BUT WITH THE ADDITION OF RETAIL, WE HAVE CONCERNS, AND I KNOW SOME OF MY NEIGHBORS DO TOO, UM, THAT I'D LIKE TO DETAIL. UH, NUMBER ONE, THAT RETAIL WOULD PROBABLY GENERATE, UM, MUCH MORE TRASH AND TRASH COLLECTION. THIS HAS NOT BEEN MANAGED VERY WELL. FOR THE LAST COUPLE OF YEARS, THREE TIMES A WEEK, THE TRASH HAS BEEN COLLECTED DURING QUIET HOURS. SO AT TUESDAY, THURSDAY, AND SATURDAY, UM, BETWEEN 4:00 AND 5:00 AM, YOU KNOW, THAT TRASH, AND I HAVE A, I HAVE A VIDEO, UM, COMES ALONG AND, AND IT'S JUST SO LOUD. IT'S LIKE GUNSHOTS EVERY MORNING. SO I DIDN'T KNOW THAT IT WAS OUTSIDE OF QUIET HOURS. IT HAS BEEN RESOLVED, UM, BUT DEFINITELY IT'S, IT'S RIGHT BEHIND ME. IF IT COULD MOVE, THAT WOULD BE FABULOUS. UM, LIGHTING, THERE'S A LIGHT, A LOT OF LIGHT POLLUTION, WHICH IS WHAT I WANTED TO SHOW HERE. UM, AS YOU CAN SEE, THAT'S MY FENCE, THE DARK AREA IS MY FENCE, AND THOSE ARE THE LIGHTS. I DID, UM, WORK WITH THE CITY A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO. IT'S NOT AS BAD, BUT IT JUST ILLUMINATES MY ENTIRE BACKYARD. WHEN I WALK OUTSIDE, AND I FEEL LIKE MY NEIGHBORS PROBABLY LIVE A DIFFERENT LIFE THAN I DO, WHEN I WALK OUTSIDE AND I LOOK TOWARDS THE WEST, YOU CAN JUST SEE THE BLINDING LIGHTS. AND A LOT OF THAT IS FROM RIGHT HERE. THIS IS WHAT'S ILLUMINATING THE FRONT OF THE STORE. SO I'M CERTAINLY CONCERNED WITH 3,500 EXTRA SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL, MORE LIGHTING ISSUES. UM, AND THEN ONE THING I'D LIKE TO POINT OUT TOO, THE LANDSCAPING. IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING FOR THE TRACT, IT SAYS, "TREES PLANTED ALONG THE SCREENING WALL BETWEEN PD184R02 AND PD471SF6, WHICH IS MY NEIGHBORHOOD, SHALL BE PLANTED ON 50-FOOT CENTERS SUPPORTED BY AN IRRIGATION SYSTEM." AND THAT'S NOT THE CASE. THERE'S DEFINITELY SEVERAL HUNDRED SQUARE FEET WHERE THERE AREN'T TREES. UM, IT IS A SIX-FOOT WALL. IT W, IT'S NOT THE BEST BARRIER, AS MAYBE HAD BEEN MENTIONED BEFORE. UM, YOU KNOW, THERE ARE PROBABLY THINGS THAT COULD OCCUR THAT WOULD MAKE IT A BETTER SITUATION, BUT I DON'T FEEL THAT NECESSARILY THEY'VE BEEN THE BEST NEIGHBORS. UM, LIKE I SAID, THE SERVICES AREN'T SO MUCH AN ISSUE, BUT DEFINITELY INCREASING THE RETAIL IS A CONCERN WITH ALL OF US. AND I GUESS JUST TO SUMMARIZE, UM, THE OWNERS OF THE BUILDING, OF COURSE, IT'S, IT'S ABOUT PROFITS, BUT TO ME AND MY NEIGHBORS, [00:55:02] UM, THIS OBJECTION IS ABOUT OUR HOMES AND OUR PEACE AND OUR COMFORT AND OUR SLEEP. I'M S... I STILL WAKE UP AT FOUR IN THE MORNING BECAUSE OF THAT TRASH THING. IT'S GONNA TAKE A LONG TIME TO GET OVER IT, AND JUST THE ENJOYMENT OF OUR PROPERTY. GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. OKAY. UM, MR. BELL, JUST MAKE SURE THAT I KNOW WHERE OUR BOUNDARIES ARE. IT SOUNDED LIKE SHE HAD SEVERAL CODE ENFORCEMENT THINGS THAT NEED TO BE REFERRED TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. UM, I PRESUME WE CAN PUT HER IN TOUCH WITH CODE ENFORCEMENT OR WE CAN, UH, COMMUNICATE HER CONCERNS TO CODE ENFORCEMENT. WE SURE CAN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. UM, LET ME MAKE SURE WE DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER SPEAKERS REGISTERED? THERE ARE NONE. OKAY. LET ME CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN I'LL, UM, COMMISSION, UH, DEBATE AMONGST THE COMMISSION. UH, COMMISSIONER BROSKI. SO FIRST, I JUST WANTED TO MAKE A COMMENT. IF YOU DOWNLOAD THE PLANO FIX IT APP, THEY, UM, THEY... I FIND THAT THEY'RE VERY RESPONSIVE TO THE, TO THOSE KIND OF THINGS. UM, UH, I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF. UM, WHEN SHE TALKS ABOUT THE, UM, THE TREES AND, UH, THE 50-FOOT CENTERS AND THE, THE IRRIGATION AND THINGS, IS THAT SOMETHING, UH, IF THIS IS A, UH, ADOPTED OR IF THERE ARE SOME CHANGES, WE CAN MAKE SURE WE FOLLOW UP ON THOSE KIND OF ISSUES? WE, WE COULD FOLLOW UP ON THEM REGARDLESS. UM, THERE SHOULD BE AN ADOPTED, UM, SITE PLAN AND LANDSCAPE PLAN FOR THIS PROPERTY THAT WE CAN CHECK THE CONFORMANCE WITH. OKAY. THANK YOU. MM-HMM. UM, CAN I ASK THE PROPERTY OWNER A QUESTION? YEAH. YEAH, WE CAN HAVE THE APPLICANT BACK UP IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. YEAH. MR. HINCKLEY? YES, SIR. YEAH, SO THANK YOU FOR COMING BACK UP. UM, UH, YOU HEARD HER, UH, CONCERN, AND SO, UH, I HAVE A LITTLE CONCERN ABOUT THE TREES AND, UH, THE BUFFERING THERE, BUT, UM, HAVE YOU, UH, SPOKEN TO ANYBODY IN THE COMMUNITY CONCERNING THE, THE LIGHT POLLUTION AND THE LIGHT PROBLEMS THAT, UH, ARE BEING EXPERIENCED? YOU KNOW, THIS IS THE FIRST TIME THAT, UH, WE'VE HEARD FROM HER. TWO YEARS AGO, WE CONVERTED THE LAMPS FROM THE METAL HALIDE TO AN LED. MM-HMM. AND WE HAD SOME GLARE SHIELDS ADDED TO THAT AS WELL AS SOME TIMERS. UH, THE, THE TRASH SITUATION, I, I NEVER HEARD OF. I THINK, UH, ANYTIME YOU HAVE ADJACENCY NEXT TO RESIDENTIAL, THERE'S SITUATIONS WITH THAT, AND DEALING WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT IS VERY DIFFICULT. IT'S LIKE DEALING WITH A MAFIA. AND SO TO GET THINGS, CANS IN THERE AND THINGS, IT'S VERY HARD TO SCHEDULE. SO AS SHE STEPPED BY, I JUST TOLD HER WE WERE NOT AWARE OF THAT. I'D BE HAPPY TO HELP. NO, I MEAN, IT SOUNDS LIKE THE- THE TRASH COORDINATE. HAS BEEN RESOLVED AND SO - RIGHT. THAT'S THE FIRST I'VE HEARD OF THAT. SO, UM, WE'VE MANAGED THAT PROPERTY A LONG TIME, AND SURE THERE'S ISSUES THAT COME UP, AND THE, UM, I, I DON'T HAVE AN ANSWER ON, UH, THE, THE SITUATION SHE'S RESPONDED TO ON THE TRASH - SURE. OR THE LIGHTING, BUT WE WOULD BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH HER AND, AND TURN OFF THE LIGHTS AND MAKE SURE ALL THE GLARE SHIELDS ARE DONE. THAT'S, THAT'S, THAT'S EASY TO DO. WE'VE, WE'VE TRIED TO WORK VERY HARD TO BE A GOOD NEIGHBOR. AND I, I REALLY, UM, WHEN I THINK ABOUT THAT ENTIRE COMPLEX AND WHAT THE, THE CHANGE IN THE 3,500 SQUARE FEET RELATIVE TO THE ENTIRE, UH, AREA THAT IS THERE, UH, I, I'M NOT, WITH ALL DUE RESPECT, I'M NOT SURE THERE'S GONNA BE A LOT OF TRAFFIC DIFFERENCE - CORRECT. UNLESS YOU'RE GONNA PUT IN SOMETHING THAT'S GONNA BE, UH, I CAN'T EVEN IMAGINE SOMETHING AT 3,500 SQUARE FEET THAT WOULD BE, WOULD MAKE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN THE TRAFFIC. WOULD, WOULD THAT BE YOUR INTERPRETATION AS WELL? YES. WE DON'T EXPECT THERE TO BE ANY CHANGE AT ALL IN TERMS OF THE, THE AMOUNT OF TRASH, ALL THOSE TYPE OF THINGS. IT, IT'S SET UP TO ACCOMMODATE THAT. SO WE'RE NOT, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY TYPE OF USER THAT WOULD, WOULD CREATE THAT. IT'S JUST TOO SMALL OF A SQUARE FOOTAGE. YEAH. SO, I MEAN, I, I WOULD, UH, I WOULD V - BE VERY, UH, HAPPY IF YOU COULD WORK WITH HER AND THE OTHER NEIGHBORS, UH, ESPECIALLY ON THE, THE TWO ISSUES THAT SEEM TO BE STILL MOSTLY OUTSTANDING FOR THEM, IS THAT LIGHT POLLUTION. I CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT THOSE KIND OF LIGHTS LOOKING IN, IN, INTO MY BACKYARD. I GO TO BED EARLY, SO I GET IT. UM, AND THE TREES, I MEAN, WE NEED TO MAKE, BE MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING UP WITH, UM, THE LANDSCAPING THAT WE'RE PROMISING THE COMMUNITY THAT WE'RE GOING TO PUT IN. THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. THOSE WOULD BE MY COMMENTS. THANK YOU. YES, SIR. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER. THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. UM. I AM NOT [01:00:01] UNDERSTANDING WHY HE CAN'T PUT A RETAIL TENANT IN THE FORMER TITLE COMPANY SPACE TODAY WITHOUT GOING THROUGH THIS PROCEDURE, AND I'LL TELL YOU MY THINKING ON THAT. YES, I'LL TELL YOU MY THINKING ON THAT. THIS CASE CAME TO US BECAUSE THE CITY DISTINGUISHED BETWEEN A RETAIL USE AND A SERVICE USE, UM, AND FOUND THAT, UM, AN AMENDMENT TO THE PD WAS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO LEGALIZE THE SERVICE USES THAT WERE THERE. NO. WELL, PART A OF THE APPLICATION IS TO BRING SERVICE USES AS AN ADDITIONAL ALLOWED USE IN THE SHOPPING CENTER. THE REASON GIVEN TO DO THAT IS BECAUSE THE SERVICES WERE NOT INCLUDED WITHIN THE DEFINITION OF RETAIL, AND THEREFORE THEY HAD TO BE SEPARATELY AUTHORIZED. ALL RIGHT? IF THAT IS THE CASE, THEN THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT ALLOWANCE FOR RETAIL WOULD NOT HAVE APPLIED TO SERVICE USES BECAUSE SERVICE USES WERE DIFFERENT. AND THEREFORE, THE SERVICE USES THAT ARE PRESENTLY IN THE BUILDING, TO ME, SHOULD NOT COUNT AGAINST THE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT CURRENT ALLOWANCE FOR RETAIL, BECAUSE RETAIL IS DIFFERENT FROM SERVICE. THEREFORE, HE'S NOT USING ANY SPACE IN THAT BUILDING RIGHT NOW FOR RETAIL. HE HAS A 10,000 SQUARE FOOT ALLOWANCE. HE CAN PUT A RETAIL TENANT IN 3,500 SQUARE FEET AND HAVE 6,500 SQUARE FEET LEFT OVER. I MEAN... YEAH. I, I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE, BUT THEN THERE'S A ZONING VIOLATION TO RESOLVE BECAUSE THERE'S PERMITTED... THERE'S USES IN THAT SUITE THAT ARE NOT PERMITTED. AND SO WE WOULD LIKE TO AVOID THAT AND RESOLVE THE SITUATION THROUHAN. I UNDERSTAND THAT. YES. IT IS NECESSARY. NO, NO. I HAVE NO DESIRE TO, TO THROW THESE, YOU KNOW, GOOD FAITH TENANTS WHO HAVE SERVICE BUSINESSES IN, UH, INTO A NONCONFORMING STATUS THROUGH NO FAULT OF THEIR OWN, ESPECIALLY AFTER THE CITY ISSUED THEM COS. NO, NO, NO. I, I DON'T WANNA DO THAT. I'M JUST SAYING, I'M, I'M NOT CONVINCED OF THE NECESSITY FOR PART B OF THE APPLICATION BECAUSE I THINK HE'S PERFECTLY FREE TO PUT A RETAIL TENANT IN THAT, THAT VACANT SPACE. I ALSO, HOWEVER, HAVING SAID THAT, I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MAKES A HECK OF A LOT OF DIFFERENCE BECAUSE THIS IS ONE BIG SHOPPING CENTER AND THIS BUILDING IS, UH, IS TOTALLY CONSISTENT AND IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE WHOLE, THE SHOPPING CENTER AS A WHOLE, THE SHOPPING CENTER AS A WHOLE IS REPLETE WITH RETAIL USES AND SERVICE USES. THERE'S A BLOOD BANK, THERE'S A MEDICAL OFFICE, THERE'S A GREAT CLIPS, THERE'S A TRAVEL AGENCY AND SO FORTH, SCATTERED THROUGHOUT TRACTS ONE AND THREE. UM, AND, UM, HAVING SERVICE USES AND AN OCCASIONAL RETAIL USE IN TRACT TWO TO ME IS JUST IN KEEPING WITH THE CHARACTER OF THE SHOPPING CENTER AS A WHOLE. SO, I MEAN, I CAN GO AHEAD AND VOTE FOR PART B. I'M NOT CONVINCED IT'S NECESSARY, BUT I DON'T THINK IT HURTS ANYTHING. OKAY. COMMISSIONER ALI. UM, CLARIFYING QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO ON SCREENING, UM, I BELIEVE, UH, THE PERSON WHO HAD A COMMENT SAID THERE'S A SIX-FOOT WALL SCREENING, UM, BUT ALSO LANDSCAPE, UH, CALLS FOR THE TREES OR WHAT HAVE YOU. I MIGHT BE WRONG, BUT MY MEMORY SEEMS TO SUGGEST THAT IT'S AN EITHER OR, NOT A YES AND. SO IT... DOES THE, DOES A WALL SUFFICE TO MEET SCREENING, UH, REQUIREMENTS? IT DEPENDS ON WHAT WAS APPROVED PER THE LANDSCAPE PLAN AT THE TIME. SO WE WOULD HAVE TO GO BACK AND LOOK TO SEE WHAT - TO SEE. OKAY. WHAT... MM-HMM. IS THAT IT? OKAY. UM, I, I THINK, UM, COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF SUMMARIZED THIS CASE PRETTY WELL. YEAH. I'M GONNA KIND OF RESTATE IN MY OWN WORDS. IT, IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WE'VE GOT A SCRIVENER DEFINITIONAL PROBLEM THAT WE'RE TRYING TO CLEAN UP BOTH WITH PART A AND PART B BECAUSE IT, IT DOESN'T, IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE TO ME THAT WE'RE REALLY CHANGING THE WAY THIS CENTER HAS BEEN USED SINCE ITS INCEPTION. UM, WE'RE JUST REALIZING THAT MAYBE SOME, WE HAD SOME DEFINITIONAL PROBLEMS, BUT AS FAR AS THE, THE TENANTS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE AND THE TENANTS THAT ARE STILL THERE AND THE TENANTS THAT ARE REQUESTED TO BE THERE, IT IS COMPLETELY CONSISTENT WITH A RETAIL CENTER. UM, THE FACT THAT IT WAS SILENT ON SERVICE IS WHAT'S CREATING THIS WHOLE A AND B PROBLEM FOR US. AND SO, UM, WE'RE NOT A... THE APPLICANT IS NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL SQUARE FOOTAGE. THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR AN EXPANSION OF USES. IN FACT, THEY'RE EVEN RESTRICTING SOME USES THAT WEREN'T RESTRICTED BEFORE. AND AT LEAST IN MY MIND, THEY'RE LONG-TERM PLAYERS THAT HAVE BEEN HERE A LONG TIME THAT HAVE, HAVE KEPT A VERY, VERY NICE LOOKING CENTER [01:05:01] THAT I THINK IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT THE COMP PLAN WAS ASKING FOR AS A FULLY OCCUPIED, WELL-MAINTAINED, UM, PROFESSIONALLY MANAGED CENTER THAT, THAT IS AN ASSET TO THE COMMUNITY. AND, AND I THINK THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT THEY'RE DOING. AND, UM, AND, AND SO I, I DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEM WITH A, WITH PART A OR PART B, REQUEST A OR REQUEST B, UM, FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, BECAUSE I THINK IT, ALL IT'S DOING IS CLEANING UP THIS LEGACY PROBLEM THAT WE'VE GOT WITH LANGUAGE IN THIS PD. SO, UM, I'VE GOT TWO MORE LIGHTS ON AND THEN WE'LL SEE WHERE WE GO FROM THERE. COMMISSIONER LALLI. UM, I'M ACTUALLY LOOKING AT THE MAP. I DON'T KNOW WHERE THE LADY'S, UH, PROPERTY IS, BUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE RETAIL, IF WE APPROVE IT TONIGHT, IT'S GONNA GO ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF THE RETAIL, WHICH IS, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH... AND ACROSS, UH, CHARLES PLACE, IT'S, THE STREET IS ONLY OFFICE. SO HER PROPERTY PROBABLY ON THE EAST SIDE, AND IT'S THE BACK OF THE BUILDING. SO PROB - YOU KNOW, LIKE, AND PROBABLY, YOU KNOW, LIKE, THERE AREN'T A LOT OF LIGHTS AND NOISE IS GONNA BE ON THE BACK OF THE BUILDING, RIGHT? SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF ADDING THE RETAIL ON THIS, UM, AS WELL. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER ALI. A LITTLE BIT OF A YES, AND, UM, THE, THE WAY I LOOK AT THINGS LIKE THIS IS, OKAY, LET ME GO EXTREME, RIGHT? IF WE CHASE ALL THE TENANTS OUT AND IT ALL BECOMES RETAIL, HE'S ALLOWED TO OCCUPY UP TO 10,000 SQUARE FEET OF RETAIL. DOES ANOTHER 3,500 OF ALL RETAIL REALLY BLOW THIS PLACE, THIS, THE, THE, THE INTENT OF THIS, UM, PARCEL OF LAND UP? IT, IT DOESN'T FEEL LIKE, UM, THAT, THAT'S THE CASE NECESSARILY. UM, THE OTHER THING, AGAIN, BACK TO WHAT, UH, CHAIRMAN SAID, IT FEELS LIKE WE ALMOST BOXED OUR, UH, UM, OUR RESIDENT INTO A LITTLE BIT OF AN UNTENABLE SITUATION JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE CHANGED DEFINITIONS TO SOME EXTENT AND, UM, OUR ISSUING OF COS IN THE PAST, UNDER OUR PAST PROCESS AND WHAT HAVE YOU CAUSED SOME CONFUSION. SO IF THERE'S A, UH, A WAY TO CLEAN THAT UP WITH ONE, UM, VOTE, UM, INCLINED TO DO SO. COMMISSIONER BRONSKY. SO, UM, I AGREE WITH VICE CHAIR ALI. UM, IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS, UH, SOME CONFUSION AND, UH, I DO BELIEVE THAT COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF, UH, STATED IT VERY CLEARLY. UM, UH, MY ONLY HESITATION, UM, IS THAT I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT, UH, THE COMMITMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS MADE TO ADDRESSING THE, THE LIGHTS AND THE TREES, UH, GET, GET TO HAPPENING. AND IT SOUNDS LIKE, MR. BELL, YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO HELP THE RESIDENT GET IN CONTACT WITH CITY SERVICES AND MAKE THAT, UH, MAKE THAT HAPPEN. UH, I DON'T BELIEVE, UM, THAT THE CHANGE TO THE 3,500 IS NECESSARILY SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DO RELATIVE TO MR. BRUNOFF EXPLAINED, BUT, UM, I DO THINK THAT IT WOULD GO BETTER FOR THE ENTIRE THING TO NOT HAVE THIS CONFUSION THAT WE'RE HAVING. AND SO I DO HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION, AND YOU PROBABLY AREN'T GONNA HAVE A CLUE WHAT THE ANSWER IS GOING TO BE TO IT, BUT IS THIS KIND OF ERROR THAT WE'VE MADE HERE MORE PREVALENT OR DO WE HAVE ANY CONCEPT OF HOW THIS COULD BE IN OTHER AREAS? IT WOULD BE HARD TO GUESS THAT WE ISSUE HUNDREDS OF COS A MONTH, SO IT'S HARD TO SAY. THIS IS THE FIRST ONE I'VE SEEN LIKE THIS WHERE THERE'S BEEN, UH, JUST A CLEAR HISTORY OF CO ISSUANCE. BUT WHAT I DO HEAR FROM YOU, MR. BELL, IS SOMETHING THAT I WANNA COMMEND THE CITY ON, AND THAT IS, UM, BEING ABLE TO CREATE A NEW SYSTEM THAT CATCHES THESE KIND OF THINGS. AND I THINK LONG-TERM, UH, IT'S GONNA BE A BENEFIT TO BOTH OUR, UM, COMMERCIAL CLIENTS AS WELL AS OUR RESIDENTIAL CLIENTS IN THE CITY. SO I WANNA COMMEND THE CITY ON CREATING NEW PROCESSES THAT ALLOW US TO CATCH THESE PROBLEMS AND TO ADDRESS THEM CORRECTLY SO THAT, [01:10:01] UH, PEOPLE LIKE, UH, THE APPLICANT CAN DO BUSINESS AND HAVE A HEALTHY, THRIVING ENVIRONMENT, AND ALSO RESIDENTS CAN BE CONFIDENT OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT'S, WHERE, AND, UH, WHY IT'S BEEN PUT TOGETHER THAT WAY. SO, UH, THAT SAID, UM, WITH THE CONFIDENCE THAT THE COUPLE ISSUES ARE GONNA BE CLEANED UP, UH, I'M GONNA BE IN FAVOR OF THIS. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM TWO ON OUR AGENDA, INCLUDING BOTH PART A AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND PART B. COMMISSIONER OLLIE, DID YOU HAVE A COMMENT OR WERE YOU IN LINE TO - I'M SORRY, YOU DIDN'T HAVE YOUR MIC ON. SECOND. OKAY. AND THEN BEN, UM, DID YOU HAVE ANOTHER COMMENT OR QUESTION? NO, NO, JUST A QUESTION. YOU'RE LIKE, SO, UM, WE ARE APPROVING THIS, THE 13,500 SQUARE FOOT, BUT YOU'RE LIKE, IT'S NOT NECESSARILY IT'S GONNA BE LIKE A RETAIL, UH, USE, RIGHT? IT MIGHT BE ALSO SERVICE USE, RIGHT? IT'LL ALLOW EITHER 13,500 OF RETAIL OR OF SERVICE OR SOME COMBINATION THERE. YEAH. YEAH. SO YOU'RE LIKE ONE OF THE USES THAT'S, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, YOU GAVE US IN THE, UH, APPENDIX, RIGHT? THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BENDER. I'M GONNA SECOND THE MOTION. AND WE'VE ALREADY GOT A SECOND, BUT ANOTHER SECOND NEVER HEARD. A SECOND, SECOND. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND AND A THIRD. EVERYBODY PLEASE VOTE. OKAY, MOTION PASSES SEVEN TO ZERO. WE ARE GONNA NEED TO FILL OUT SOME FINDINGS FORMS, AND UNFORTUNATELY, OUR ELECTRONIC SYSTEM IS DOWN, SO WE'RE GONNA HAVE TO DO THEM OLD SCHOOL ON PIECES OF PAPER. SO WE'RE GONNA TAKE ABOUT A FIVE-MINUTE BREAK, UM, TO DO THEIR PAPERWORK. BUT, UH, MR. HINKLEY, THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR LONG-TERM COMMITMENT TO THE CITY OF PLANO. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK. THANK YOU. OH, AM I NOT THE END OF MY... WE'LL RECONVENE AT 7:22 PM, AND, UH, [3. Public Hearing – Zoning Case 2026-007: Request to amend Article 22 (Signs) and related articles of the Zoning Ordinance to revise the City's sign regulations. Project #ZC2026-007. Tabled October 5, 2026. (Legislative consideration)] IF YOU'LL READ PUBLIC HEARING ITEM NUMBER THREE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER THREE, REQUEST TO AMEND ARTICLE 22 SIGNS AND RELATED SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO REVISE THE CITY'S SIGN REGULATIONS. THE PETITIONER IS CITY OF PLANO. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. SENIOR PLANNER IN THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DIVISION. I'M JOINED TONIGHT BY MY COLLEAGUE IN BUILDING INSPECTIONS, GINA SCOTT, THE, UH, BUILDING INSPECTIONS MANAGER AS WELL, AND SHE'LL BE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF IN ADDITION TO CHRISTINA AND I. SO THIS UPDATE HAS BEEN A PART OF THE PNZ WORK PROGRAM FOR A NUMBER OF YEARS NOW, UH, THROUGH LEGAL AND LOGISTICAL HURDLES THAT INCLUDED SOME FEDERAL COURT DECISIONS. SO WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, THE COMMISSION HAS PROVIDED DIRECTION ON SEVERAL QUESTIONS, AND THAT FULL PROPOSED ORDINANCE TEXT IS READY FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION TONIGHT. THIS IS ATTACHMENT ONE IN YOUR PACKET. THIS PROJECT IS SEPARATE FROM THE FULL ORDINANCE REWRITE PROJECT, UH, WHICH DOES EXCLUDE THE ARTICLE ON SCIENCE FROM ITS SCOPE. THESE ITEMS ARE JUST SOME HISTORY ON THE, UH, REQUEST FOR DIRECTION AND DISCUSSION, AND THEN THE CALL OF THE PUBLIC HEARING IN AUGUST TO CONSIDER THIS REVISION. UH, STAFF HAS IDENTIFIED THE REASONS THIS UPDATE IS RECOMMENDED. COURT DECISIONS, INCLUDING THE TWO MAJOR CASES THAT ARE SHOWN ON THIS SLIDE, PROHIBIT CONTENT-BASED REGULATION OF SIGNS IN MOST CASES. SEVERAL OF THE CATEGORIES AND THAT THE OTHER REGULATIONS IN THE CURRENT ORDINANCE REQUIRE READING SIGN CONTENT TO KNOW HOW IT IS CATEGORIZED. STATE LAW ALSO DOES AFFECT REGULATIONS FOR NON-CONFORMING SIGNS REQUIRING CHANGES TO THE EXISTING STANDARDS TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW, PARTICULARLY CHAPTER 216 THAT YOU'LL HEAR MENTIONED THROUGHOUT THIS PRESENTATION. STAFF DOES ALSO PROCESS FREQUENT SIGN VARIANCE REQUESTS THAT ARE APPROVED BY THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT AND WOULD NOT REQUIRE VARIANCES UNDER THESE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, IMPROVING EFFICIENCY FOR THE CITY. SO THE PRESENTATION IS GOING TO FOLLOW THE STRUCTURE OF THE STAFF REPORT IN THESE FIVE PARTS, ONE SECTION ON TERMINOLOGY HERE, FOLLOWED BY THE FOUR SECTIONS ON PROPOSED UPDATES TO THE REGULATIONS. STARTING WITH TERMINOLOGY, THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS TERMS THAT DESCRIBE MONUMENT SIGNS, THE SIGN FACE SUPPORTED BY THE SIGN STRUCTURE HERE. THE SIGN COPY IS DISPLAYED ON THE FACE. MANY MONUMENT SIGNS DO ALLOW THE FACE OR THE COPY TO BE CHANGED WHILE THAT STRUCTURE REMAINS INTACT. THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS TERMS THAT DESCRIBE POLL SIGNS. SOME POLL SIGNS [01:15:01] ALLOW THE FACE OR THE COPY TO BE CHANGED WHILE THE CABINET AT THE TOP AND THE POLE REMAIN THE SAME. OTHERS ALLOW THAT ENTIRE CABINET ON TOP TO BE CHANGED WITHOUT REMOVING THE POLE. THIS GRAPHIC SHOWS SOME TERMS USED FOR WALL SIGNS. SO WE HAVE TWO EXAMPLES OF WALL SIGNS IN ONE GRAPHIC HERE. WALL SIGN COPY IS OFTEN DISPLAYED WITHIN A CABINET THAT'S MOUNTED FLUSH WITH THE WALL AND ALLOWS THE COPY TO BE CHANGED OUT ON THE FACE WHILE THE CABINET REMAINS IN PLACE. OTHER WALL SIGNS ARE MADE OF COPY MOUNTED DIRECTLY TO THE WALL, LIKE THIS LOWER ONE. IN THIS CASE, THE MEASURED COPY AREA IS ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACE OF THE SIGN FOR REGULATION PURPOSES. SIGN... WHOOPS. SIGN TERMINOLOGY IS ESPECIALLY RELEVANT WHEN DISCUSSING WHAT CHANGES CAN BE MADE TO NON-CONFORMING SIGNS, PARTICULARLY IN TERMS OF COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW LIKE CHAPTER 216. UH, THAT'S THE MAIN REASON FOR THIS TERMINOLOGY SECTION HERE. SIGN STRUCTURES LIKE POLES OR THE MONUMENT BASES ARE RARELY REPLACED WHEN THE SIGN FACE CHANGES TO REFLECT NEW TENANTS AND OWNERS. THE NEXT FOUR SECTIONS OF THE PRESENTATION GO OVER THE FOUR CATEGORIES OF SIGN REGULATION UPDATES PROPOSED. UH, THEY'RE NUMBERED. THE PARENTHETICAL NUMBERS YOU SEE ON THE TITLES OF THESE SLIDES CORRESPOND WITH THE UPDATE NUMBERS IN THE STAFF REPORT IN THE PACKET. UH, THEY'RE MOSTLY IN ORDER, BUT NOT ENTIRELY, SO THIS SHOULD HELP TRACK WHERE THEY WERE SLOTTED IN. THIS FIRST CATEGORY HERE IS THE ARTICLE STRUCTURE AND CONSOLIDATION UPDATES. CURRENTLY, MOST OF THE SIGN REGULATIONS ARE IN ARTICLE 22 IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT OTHERS ARE FOUND IN ARTICLE 10 AND, UH, THEN IN A COUPLE CHAPTERS IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AS WELL. ALL THE SIGN REGULATIONS ARE PROPOSED TO BE MOVED INTO ARTICLE 22 WITH THIS UPDATE. THAT'S THE SIGNS ARTICLE. OTHER THAN THOSE REVIEWED SPECIFICALLY THROUGH THAT SPECIAL EVENT PERMITTING PROCESS THAT REMAIN IN THE CHAPTER OF THE CODE DUE TO THE SPECIFICITY WITHIN THAT SPECIAL EVENT PERMITTING PROCESS. SIGN SPECIFICATIONS IN THE PROPOSED TEXT ARE ORGANIZED NOW IN THE TIME, PLACE, MANNER FORMAT. UH, THESE ARE THE THREE ASPECTS OF SIGN STANDARDS THAT CAN BE REGULATED BY CITIES WITHOUT ANY REGARD TO CONTENT. AND THE STRUCTURE'S ALSO USER-FRIENDLY FOR STAFF AND APPLICANTS TO TELL WHAT'S ALLOWED FOR SIGNS. JUST BREAKING DOWN THE TIME, PLACE, MANNER A LITTLE MORE. TIME REGULATES WHEN. THIS CAN BE LITERAL, ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF THOSE TEMPORARY SIGN PERMITS FOR SIX WEEKS. PROCEDURAL, LIKE SIGNS CAN BE PLACED ONLY AFTER A CO IS APPROVED. UH, PLACE REGULATES WHERE ON THE LARGER SCALE, LIKE IN THE ZONING DISTRICT OR RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY. AND THEN MANNER REGULATES HOW A SIGN CAN BE PLACED AND USED, UH, LIKE THE SIZE, SMALLER WEAR QUESTIONS LIKE SETBACKS AND THEN SPECIAL REGULATIONS SPECIFIC TO SIGN TYPE BUT NOT THE CONTENT OF THE SIGN. ANOTHER IMPORTANT CONSOLIDATION STEP THAT WE'RE PROPOSING IS THE REMOVAL OF SIGN REGULATIONS FOR ALL OF THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS AND THE SIGN STANDARDS SPECIFIC TO THE RESEARCH TECHNOLOGY CENTER OR RT ZONING DISTRICT. STAFF FOUND THAT UPDATES TO MONUMENT SIGN HEIGHT STANDARDS AND THE DIRECTION TO PROHIBIT POLL SIGNS ADDRESSED MOST OF THOSE OVERLAY AND RT REGULATIONS AND WOULD REALLY CREATE VERY FEW NONCONFORMING SIGNS WHILE PROMOTING A MORE EQUITABLE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE ENTIRE CITY. SO THE SECOND CATEGORY OF PROPOSED UPDATES IS ADMINISTRATION AND ENFORCEABILITY UPDATES. SEVERAL ADMINISTRATIVE UPDATES WERE JUST INTENDED TO REMOVE SOME PROCEDURAL ITEMS FROM THE ORDINANCE TEXT, LIKE APPLICATION ITEM LISTS, FINE AMOUNTS, THINGS THAT STAFF MAY WANT TO CHANGE QUICKLY WITHOUT GOING THROUGH AN ENTIRE ZONING CASE. UH, THE NONCONFORMITY SECTION WAS UPDATED TO BETTER COMPLY WITH THOSE CHAPTER 216 REGULATIONS THAT AVOIDS THE NEED FOR THE CITY TO COMPENSATE OR CONVENE A SIGN BOARD WITH SPECIFIC MAKEUP REQUIRED BY THE STATE. AND A PROCEDURE FOR GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES TO ASSERT IMMUNITY WAS ADDED. THIS IS EXPECTED TO REDUCE VARIANCE REQUESTS FOR SIGNS SINCE MANY OF THOSE HAVE ACTUALLY BEEN FROM GOVERNMENTAL ENTITIES. SEVERAL DEFINITIONS WERE ADDED TO AVOID CONTENT-BASED REGULATION OF ELEMENTS THAT DON'T MEET THE SIGN COPY DEFINITION. UH, NEW DEFINITIONS ALSO HELP DISTINGUISH WHAT IS AND ISN'T SIGN COPY AT ALL. SO THE FULL TEXT OF THESE NEW DEFINITIONS, THESE TERMS THAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE SLIDE, ARE FOUND IN THE PACKET. THE DEFINITION SECTION ALSO UNDERWENT FULL LEGAL REVIEW AND SOME TERMS THAT WERE NOT USED IN THE ORDINANCE, LARGELY DUE TO CONTENT REGULATION, UH, WERE REMOVED. SO HERE'S THE THIRD CATEGORY OF PROPOSED UPDATES, GENERAL SIGN REGULATIONS. UM, [01:20:01] EXISTING SIGN AREA MEASUREMENT STANDARDS INCLUDE THIS, AND YOU CAN SEE THIS ILLUSTRATED HERE UNDER CURRENT ON THE LEFT IMAGE. UM, THERE'S AN AREA PENALTY FOR USING A SHAPE OTHER THAN A SINGLE RECTANGLE TO ENCLOSE AND MEASURE SIGN AREA. SO IT DOES ALLOW UP TO FOUR RECTANGLES TO BE USED, BUT EACH ADDITIONAL RECTANGLE USED IMPOSES A 10% REDUCTION ON THE ALLOWED TOTAL AREA OF THE SIGN. UM, THIS WAS REALLY COMPLICATED TO ADMINISTER. IT LED TO MANY SIGNS JUST BEING MEASURED AS BOXES AND A LOT OF WHITE AREA KIND OF BEING LEFT IN, UM, SO THAT THEY COULD AVOID THAT PENALTY OF 10% AREA. SO THE ORDINANCE UPDATES INTRODUCE A SIMPLER, MORE FLEXIBLE EIGHT LINE ENCLOSURE PROPOSED AS SHOWN ON THE RIGHT. THESE ARE UP TO EIGHT LINES AT RIGHT ANGLES ENTIRELY ENCLOSING THE SIGN AREA, WHETHER THAT'S THE COPY AREA OR THE CABINET. UH, THERE'S NO SIZE PENALTY ASSOCIATED WITH MAKING A SHAPE OTHER THAN A RECTANGLE, AND THAT ALLOWS MANY NON-RECTANGULAR SIGNS TO BE MEASURED MORE ACCURATELY AND AVOID VARIANCE REQUESTS. SOME CHANGES TO MONUMENT SIGN AREA ARE ALSO PROPOSED HERE. SIGN AREA MEASUREMENT, UH, WOULD EXCLUDE THE BASES. YOU CAN SEE THIS DARK GRAY RECTANGLE AT THE VERY BOTTOM IS OUR BASE IN THIS SIMPLE IMAGE. UM, THE BASES WOULD STILL BE INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL SIGN HEIGHT THOUGH, SO YOU COULDN'T MAKE A GIGANTIC BASE AND HAVE A REALLY, REALLY TALL MONUMENT SIGN THAT WASN'T ALLOWED. UH, THIS CHANGE IS INTENDED TO IMPROVE DESIGN FLEXIBILITY AND REDUCE VARIANCE REQUESTS SINCE THE SIGN CABINETS ARE DISTINCT FROM THE BASES. THE BASES CANNOT CONTAIN ANY COPY AREA. THE ILLUMINATION SECTION HAS BEEN UPDATED. UH, FIRST OF ALL, JUST TO REFERENCE OTHER CITY CODES THAT HAVE CHANGED. IT NEEDED TO BE UPDATED. IT WAS OUT OF DATE WITH OTHER CHANGES TO THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. UM, ALSO IN RESPONSE TO SOME PREVIOUS ADJACENCY CONCERNS THAT WERE BROUGHT TO THE CITY'S ATTENTION, A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY RESTRICTION HAS BEEN ADDED. SO YOU CAN SEE THE TOP SIGN SHOWS SOMETHING THAT'S ALLOWED BECAUSE IT'S SCREENED. THE MIDDLE ONE WITH THE RED X SHOWS SOMETHING THAT IS NOT ALLOWED. IT IS CLOSER THAN 300 FEET TO THESE GREENHOUSES ON THE RIGHT. IT IS NOT SCREENED BY ANYTHING. AND THEN THE BOTTOM ONE IS 300 FEET AWAY. IT'S ALLOWED. UM, SO AN ILLUMINATED SIGN FACING A RESIDENTIAL AREA, LIKE ALL THREE OF THESE ARE, MUST BE AT LEAST 300 FEET AWAY UNLESS IT'S FULLY SCREENED OR UNLESS THAT SIGN IS OVER THE PRIMARY ENTRANCE TO A BUSINESS. UM, SO OTHER UPDATES IN THIS CATEGORY INCLUDE EXPANDING THE HISTORIC SIGN REGULATIONS CITYWIDE RATHER THAN JUST IN THE BG ZONING DISTRICT. UM, WE DO HAVE HISTORIC SIGNS THROUGHOUT THE CITY. WE'VE CONSOLIDATED THOSE TEMPORARY SIGN CATEGORIES IN ADDITION FROM, TO MOVING THEM OUT OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES. UM, WE'VE TAKEN THEM INTO FEWER CATEGORIES TO AVOID CONTENT REGULATIONS. UH, WE'VE REWRITTEN THEM IN THE TIME, PLACE, MANNER, FORMAT DESCRIBED PREVIOUSLY HERE. UM, WE DID INTRODUCE A CATEGORY FOR VISUAL PROMOTIONS, WHICH ARE PROMOTIONAL ITEMS LIKE CLOUD BUSTER BALLOONS, UM, INFLATABLES, PENNANTS, THINGS THAT DON'T MEET THE SIGN DEFINITION BECAUSE THEY LACK SIGN COPY, BUT WERE REGULATED IN THE SAME CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES AS TEMPORARY SIGNS. UH, REGULATIONS ON FLAGS AND FLAGPOLES THAT WERE ALSO IN THAT CHAPTER OF THE CODE OF ORDINANCES HAVE BEEN MOVED STRAIGHT INTO THE ZONING ORDINANCE. FLAGS ARE REGULATED IN ARTICLE 22 AND FLAGPOLES UNDER HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS IN ARTICLE 13 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. UH, THIS FOURTH AND LAST CATEGORY OF UPDATES TO THE REGULATION IS CATEGORICAL SIGN REGULATIONS. UM, SO BASED ON DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION, NEW POLL SIGNS ARE PROHIBITED CITYWIDE HERE. EXISTING POLE SIGNS ARE ALL NONCONFORMING AS A RESULT OF THAT. UH, TO FOLLOW STATE LAW, THESE SIGNS CAN CHANGE COPY, CHANGE CABINETS, BUT THEY CANNOT BE REBUILT IF THEY ARE DESTROYED PER OUR NONCONFORMITY REGULATIONS. UM, STAFF'S UNDERSTANDING OF THIS DIRECTION WAS THAT IT WAS TO APPLY TO PERMANENT POLL SIGNS, BUT NOT TEMPORARY SIGNS, AND WE ARE PLANNING TO ASK THE COMMISSION TO CONFIRM THIS IN DISCUSSION AT THE CONCLUSION OF THIS PRESENTATION. MONUMENT SIGN DESIGN REGULATIONS CLARIFY THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A MONUMENT SIGN WITH A BASE AND A POLL SIGN. UM, ALL THE SIGNS SHOWN IN THIS GRAPHIC ARE ALLOWED UNDER THOSE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, WHICH CAN BE FOUND IN YOUR PACKET. THE SIGNS IN THIS GRAPHIC ARE NOT ALLOWED UNDER THE PROPOSED REGULATIONS, SO JUST TO ILLUSTRATE WHERE IT CROSSES OVER INTO PULSE SIGN [01:25:01] TERRITORY THAT IS PROHIBITED. SIGN F ON THE LEFT HAS TOO NARROW OF A BASE SINCE THE BASE MUST BE AT LEAST 50% OF ITS CABINET WIDTH. IT IS ALLOWED TO HAVE MULTIPLE BASES LIKE THIS, BUT THEY MUST ADD UP TO AT LEAST 50% WIDTH. THESE TWO CLEARLY DON'T. UH, SIGN G ON THE RIGHT HAS TOO TALL OF A BASE, THAT DARK GRAY RECTANGLE RELATIVE TO THE CABINET, THE LIGHT GRAY ON TOP, AND WOULD BE CONSIDERED A POLE SIGN BECAUSE OF THAT. SO BASED ON DIRECTION FROM THE COMMISSION, MONUMENT SIGN HEIGHT AND COPY AREA ARE REGULATED BASED ON THE ADJACENT THOROUGHFARE TYPE UNDER THE PROPOSED STANDARDS. AND THIS MAP IS JUST FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES, THIS IS THOROUGHFARE PLAN MAP HERE. UH, SINCE THOROUGHFARE TYPE IS A PROXY FOR SPEED AND SIZE, LARGER SIGNS WOULD BE VIEWED FROM LARGER, FASTER ROADS FOR SAFETY AND EFFECTIVENESS PER INDUSTRY STANDARD. WALL SIGN TYPES ARE CONSOLIDATED IN THE NEW REGULATIONS. A LOT OF CONTENT-BASED CATEGORIES REMOVED, FEWER CATEGORIES FOR WALL SIGNS THAT ARE BASED ON SIZE OF THE BUILDING, HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICALLY ORIENTED SIGNS ARE CLARIFIED IN THE PROPOSED TEXT. VEHICLE CANOPY SIGNS ARE ALLOWED ON THE SIDES OF VEHICLE CANOMIES... CANOPIES THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM STREETS. UM, THE ADDITION OF THE NON-COMMERCIAL GRAPHICS TERM TO THE ORDINANCE ALSO DOES WORK FOR THIS, CLARIFYING THE DECORATIONS THAT ARE COMMON ON CANOPIES, THE STRIPES AND SWIRLS. IT ALLOWS THEM WITHOUT THEM NEEDING TO BE MEASURED AS SIGN COPY. UM, THIS DOES EXCLUDE LOGOS PER THE DEFINITIONS. STAFF FOUND THAT THE REQUEST IS IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PARTICULARLY THE POLICIES AND ACTIONS THAT ARE SHOWN HERE. UM, AND MORE DETAIL ON THESE POLICIES AND ACTIONS CAN BE FOUND IN THE STAFF REPORT SECTION IN YOUR PACKET, UH, ON COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONFORMANCE. SO OUR OUTREACH FOR THIS INCLUDED FEEDBACK FROM STAKEHOLDERS THROUGH MODEL CODE REVIEW AND A STAKEHOLDER, LAST STAKEHOLDER SURVEY DISTRIBUTED TO INDUSTRY MEMBERS. UM, WE ALSO DID TARGET EMAIL REQUESTS FOR FEEDBACK AFTER THIS ZONING CASE WAS POSTED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW. THREE EMAILS WENT OUT TO ALL THE KNOWN INDUSTRY CONTACTS TO THE CITY OF PLANO. UM, FUTURE PLANNED UPDATES TO THE SIGN ARTICLE DO INCLUDE GRAPHICS TO ILLUSTRATE SOME OF THESE SIGN REGULATION CONCEPTS. NONE OF THE GRAPHICS IN THIS PRESENTATION ARE SLATED FOR INCLUSION IN THE ACTUAL ORDINANCE TEXT. THESE ARE JUST ILLUSTRATIONS FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESENTATION. UM, THEY'RE GOING TO BE A GRAPHICS PACKAGE IN THE FUTURE UDC AND SIGN WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT PACKAGE. UM, BUT MEANWHILE, ATTACHMENT TWO IN YOUR PACKET DOES PROVIDE SOME UNOFFICIAL GRAPHIC PRESENTATIONS OF SIGN TYPES TO ILLUSTRATE THOSE CONCEPTS HERE. THESE GRAPHICS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE PART OF THE ORDINANCE. WE RECEIVED ONE ONLINE RESPONSE FROM OUTSIDE THE CITY OF PLANO. UH, WE RECEIVED ONE ADDITIONAL RESPONSE VIA EMAIL FROM OUTSIDE PLANO ADDRESSING AN EARLIER VERSION OF THE ORDINANCE TEXT THAT HAD BEEN POSTED FOR REVIEW. UH, IN SUMMARY, THIS REQUEST IS TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO UPDATE SIGN REGULATIONS. THE PROPOSED CHANGES ALIGN WITH STATE AND FEDERAL LAW, AND THEY PROVIDE THE BENEFITS SHOWN HERE, CENTRALIZING THE REGULATIONS, INTRODUCING SOME DEL - DESIGN FLEXIBILITY, BUT SOME PROTECTIVE RESTRICTIONS IN OTHER AREAS AND REDUCING RELIANCE ON THE VARIANCE PROCESS. UH, STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL AS SHOWN IN ATTACHMENT ONE, WHICH IS THE DRAFT ORDINANCE TEXT. AND STAFF'S HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS NOW. THANK YOU. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A LONG PROCESS AND Y'ALL HAVE BEEN KIND OF TROD - TRUDGING THROUGH IT FOR A WHILE NOW, SO APPRECIATE YOUR DILIGENCE IN GETTING THIS TO US. I KNOW IT'S A COMPLICATED TOPIC, SO THANK YOU. UM, I HAD ONE QUESTION, AND I THINK IT AROSE FROM ONE OF THE CITIZEN COMMENTS, BUT I COULDN'T FIND IT, AND SO I JUST WANNA ASK THE QUESTION. FOR, UM, CANOPIES, AND I'M SPECIFICALLY THINKING OF GAS STATION CANOPIES, UM, IS IT ALLOWED TO HAVE THE SIGN ON, LET'S SAY THEY'RE ON A CORNER, ON EITHER STREET, ON THE SIDE OR THE FRONT, AND, AND/OR IS IT JUST ONE OR IS IT BOTH? WHAT'S ALLOWED ON A GAS STATION CANOPY AS FAR AS SIGNAGE? SO, UM, THERE WERE TWO DRAFTS OF THE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS POSTED FOR PUBLIC REVIEW, AND THAT COMMENT DID GO TO THE FIRST DRAFT. UM, IN THE FIRST DRAFT, IT STATED THAT THERE WAS ONLY ONE SIGN ALLOWED, AND THE CURRENT DRAFT THAT'S IN YOUR PACKET, IT'S ALLOWED ON ANY SIGN THAT'S VISIBLE FROM THE STREET, SO THAT COULD [01:30:01] PERHAPS IN THEORY, BE ALL FOUR SIDES OF A CANOPY. UM, WE'RE ENVISIONING IF IT'S ON A CORNER, CERTAINLY BOTH OF THE ADJACENT STREETS, PERHAPS EVEN A THIRD SIDE ON AN APPROACH. UM, BUT NOT A SIGN THAT'S ENTIRELY HIDDEN FROM STREET VIEW. NO, FROM REASONABLE STREET VIEW - RIGHT. BY LIKE A BUILDING OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. OKAY. SO THEY COULD HAVE MULTIPLE SIGNS IF THEY'RE ON A - YES, THEY COULD HAVE MULTIP SIGNS. THEY'RE ON A CORNER LIKE MOST GAS STATIONS ARE, THEY COULD HAVE SOMETHING FACING BOTH STREETS. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND WE DID, UH, INCORPORATE THE FEEDBACK WE GOT INTO THAT REVISION. GREAT. THAT'S WHAT I WENT LOOKING FOR IT AND, BUT I JUST DIDN'T, WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT GOT ANSWERED, SO. ALL RIGHT, THAT WAS MY ONLY QUESTION. UM, COMMISSIONER TONG. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. UM, ACTUALLY, MY QUESTION IS ALSO RELATED TO THE GAS STATIONS. SO WOULD THE PRICES SIGNS, UM, I, I NOTICED THAT SOME OF THEM ARE ON POLES. WOULD THEY BE CONSIDERED POLE SIGNS IF THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, CHANGING PRICES ON THEM? WOULD THEY BE CONSIDERED - NON-CONFORMING? POLE SIGNS THAT ARE NON-CONFORMING. UM, IF YOU LOOK IN THE OVERLAY DISTRICTS CURRENTLY THAT DON'T ALLOW POLE SIGNS NOW, I BELIEVE THEIR GAS STATION SIGNS ARE IN MONUMENT STYLE. MM. UM, AND FUTURE CONSTRUCTION WOULD REQUIRE MONUMENT STYLE SIGNS FOR THOSE. OKAY. SO ALSO ON POLE SIGNS, UM, WHAT WOULD BE CONSIDERED TEMPORARY VERSUS PERMANENT? 'CAUSE I ALSO REMEMBER SEEING SOME FOR LEASE OR FOR SALE COMMERCIAL BUILDING SIGNS AROUND POLES, MAYBE THE, THE LITTLE POLES, BUT THEY'RE, UM, LIKE ON ONE OF YOUR, UM, EXAMPLES FOR NON-CONFORMING. UM, WOULD THAT BE TEMPORARY? SO WHAT, HOW DO YOU DEFINE TEMPORARY AND THEN, AND PERMANENT? UM, SO TEMPORARY SIGNS ARE DEFINED IN THE ORDINANCE IN THE DEFINITION SECTION AND THERE IS A SECTION ON TEMPORARY SIGNS. UM, IT'S OUR HOPE THAT AS PART OF THE DISCUSSION TODAY, WE DO CLARIFY THE COMMISSION'S INTENT IN PROHIBITING TEMPORARY, I MEAN, PROHIBITING POLL SIGNS. UM, THERE IS SOME SUGGESTED TEXT THAT I THINK WAS DISTRIBUTED TO YOU AND I'LL SHOW IT ON THE, UH, DOT CAM HERE AS WELL. OOPS. IT'S TOO SMART. UM, IF YOU LOOK AT Q HERE, THIS IS TAKEN FROM OUR PROHIBITED SIGN SECTION IN THE DRAFT TEXT IN ATTACHMENT ONE OF YOUR PACKET ON THIS ITEM. UM, WE'RE PROPOSING A CHANGE POLL SIGNS EXCEPT FOR THE TEMPORARY SIGNS ALLOWED. THAT WOULD INCLUDE THINGS LIKE REAL ESTATE SIGNS, UH, THAT ARE ON THOSE SMALL POLLS. IT IS A POLL IF IT DOESN'T MEET THE MONUMENT DEFINITION AND REGULATIONS. UM, SO YEAH, EVEN THE TINY GARAGE SALE SIGN OR POLL SIGN. UM, WE'D LOVE TO KNOW IF THE DISCUSSION GOES THIS WAY, WE CAN HAVE THIS AMENDMENT ADDED AS PART OF THE MOTION. SO WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THAT UP HERE AND THAT WAS GONNA BE ONE OF MY QUESTIONS TOO. AND WE REALIZED THAT THE SIGN WE REQUIRE PEOPLE TO PUT UP FOR ZONING CHANGES WOULD BE A TEMPORARY POLE SIGN. YEAH. UM, SO IF YOU GO TO THE - WE DON'T WANNA VIOLATE OUR OWN ORDINANCE. YEAH. IF YOU GO TO THE GOVERNMENT IMMUNITY SECTION, SIGNS REQUIRED BY A GOVERNMENTAL ENTITY ARE ACTUALLY PART OF THAT SECTION. AND I BELIEVE ZONING CASE SIGNS THAT ARE REQUIRED WOULD FALL UNDER THAT. BUT WERE IT NOT, YOU'D BE RIGHT. YEAH. DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? WELL, I WANNA MAKE SURE THAT WE HAVE, UH, DO, CAN YOU PROVIDE THE DEFINITION OF THE TEMPORARY SIGNS? BECAUSE RIGHT NOW IT SAYS - I DON'T HAVE THE ENTIRE TEXT IN FRONT OF ME. TEMPORARY, LIKE IS THERE A LENGTH? YEAH, IT'S IN THE, IT'S IN THE DEFINITION SECTION. IF YOU GO TO THE DEFINITION SECTION, UH, CHRISTINA WILL GIVE IT TO ME AS WELL. I SHOULD HAVE PRINTED THE ENTIRE THING. PAGE 111 OF YOUR PACKET. 111. THIS IS PAGE 10 OF THE ATTACHMENT ONE. UM, IF YOU LOOK AT THE VERY BOTTOM THERE, THE, THAT'S THE ACTUAL DEFINITION OF TEMPORARY SIGNS. NOT SURE WHY IT'S PLURAL. YEAH. YOU WANNA READ THAT AND I'LL COME BACK TO YOU? WELL, THAT'S MY QUESTION. WHAT IS THE LIMITED PERIOD OF TIME? I MEAN, IS IT TWO MONTHS, TWO YEARS? I MEAN, SOME COMMERCIAL SIGNS CAN BE SITTING THERE FOR FIVE YEARS. THEY WILL NEVER TAKE IT DOWN. WHAT IS THE TIME LIMIT FOR TEMPORARY? WHAT DOES IT TEMPORARY MEAN? YEAH. SO, UH, THE TEMPORARY SIGNS REQUIRE PERMITS. IF YOU LOOK AT THAT, UH, SUBSECTION THAT'S REFERENCED THERE, 22403, THERE ARE DIFFERENT TIME LIMITS UNDER THAT TIME, PLACE, MANNER SETUP FOR THE DIFFERENT TYPES. EVERYTHING FROM, I THINK IT'S LIKE FIVE DAYS FOR GARAGE SALE SIGNS OR SOMETHING TO MUCH LARGER LIMITS. UM, [01:35:01] WE DO HAVE THE INTENT THAT THE CHIEF BUILDING OFFICIAL OR HIS OR HER DESIGNEE CAN MAKE THE CALL ON WHETHER A SIGN IS TEMPORARY. UM, AND GINA COULD POSSIBLY SPEAK TO HOW THEY DO THAT, BUT IT WOULD CERTAINLY VARY AMONG THOSE CATEGORIES OR THEIR SUBCATEGORIES. SO CURRENTLY, AS OUR PROPOSED RIGHT NOW, IF WE APPROVE IT, THAT MEANS THE POST SIGNS WILL NOT, THE NON-CONFORMING POLL SIGNS WILL NOT INCLUDE THE TEMPORARY SIGNS. SO THE TEMPORARY SIGNS CAN BE POLL SIGNS. IS THAT CORRECT? UM, SO IF YOU APPROVE THE TEXT AS IT IS IN YOUR PACKET WITHOUT THE AMENDMENT THAT WAS PROVIDED HERE, THE TEMPORARY POLL SIGNS WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. THEY WOULD BE PROHIBITED AS POLL SIGNS. IF YOU APPROVE THE TEXT WITH THE AMENDMENT THAT'S SHOWN HERE UNDER Q, THE TEMPORARY SIGNS WOULD BE EXCLUDED FROM THE PROHIBITION THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED. GOT YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS MY CONFUSION. YEAH, THANK YOU. OH YEAH, SORRY. I WAS READING. YEAH. I JUST WANT TO JUMP IN THAT THIS WHOLE THING WAS WRITTEN WITH THE INTENT THAT THOSE TEMPORARY SIGNS WOULD BE ALLOWED. AND WE DID SOME LAST MINUTE CHANGES TO LANGUAGE AND, AND I THINK WE WEREN'T QUITE THINKING THROUGH EXACTLY WHAT THAT MEANT FOR THOSE TEMPORARY SIGNS. IF YOU ALL DON'T APPROVE THIS AMENDMENT, WE'VE GOT A LOT OF WORK TO DO TO FIGURE OUT HOW WE'RE DEALING WITH THOSE, THOSE SMALL SIGNS, BECAUSE THAT'S ELECTION SIGNS, THAT'S ALL SORTS OF IMPORTANT THINGS. SO WE, YES, WE'RE POSING THIS QUESTION TO YOU, BUT IF YOU SAY NO, WE NEED TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. JUST WANTED TO MAKE THAT REALLY CLEAR. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER TONG, ANY FOLLOW UP? NO, I'M GOOD. THANK YOU. OKAY. COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF. UH, THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN. UM, I WAS GONNA ASK ABOUT ELECTION SIGNS SINCE THIS IS THE SEASON. UM, WOULD THEY BE POLL S - UH, THE TYPICAL ELECTION SIGN IS TWO PIECES OF CARDBOARD STAPLED TO A WOODEN STAKE. OKAY. WOULD THAT BE A POLL SIGN? YES. AND UNDER DEFINITION EXCEPTION Q, WOULD, WOULD THAT BE A TEMPORARY SIGN? YES. SO IT WOULD BE ALLOWED? IF THAT DEFINITION Q IS ALLOWED. UNDER DEFINITION CUE ON THE HANDOUT. ON AMENDMENT IT WOULD BE ALLOWED, YES. OKAY. UM, I THINK WE OUGHT TO APPROVE, UM, EXCEPTION Q AS ON THE HANDOUT BECAUSE, UM, MS. DEANDRE'S BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR 10 YEARS AND I THINK SHE'S EARNED A BIT. THANK YOU, MR. RUNOFF. UH, COMMISSIONER LALLI. UH, SO YOU'RE LIKE, SO THE, UM, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE SIZE OF THE SIGN, LIKE HOW YOU MEASURED THE COPY OF THE SIGN. IS THIS FOR THE COPY ITSELF OR, YOU KNOW, LIKE IF, UH, THERE'S A LOGO ATTACHED TO THE SIGN? SO HOW DO YOU MEASURE? AND IS THE EIGHT IS THE MAXIMUM, RIGHT? EIGHT, UH, LINES IS THE MAXIMUM. UM, YEAH. SO IT'S, UH, IT'S DIFFERENT FOR DIFFERENT SIGN TYPES. ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT POLITICAL SIGNS SPECIFICALLY? NO, NO. OKAY. JUST LIKE THE REGULAR SIGNS. YEAH. UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THE TIME, PLACE, MANNER SETUP IN ALL THOSE DIFFERENT SIGN TYPES, PARTICULARLY IN THAT FIRST SECTION ON, I THINK IT'S CALLED SIGNS REQUIRING A PERMIT. UM, IF THE SIGN HAS A CABINET THAT DISPLAYS THE FACE, YOU'RE MEASURING THE CABINET. IF IT'S A RECTANGLE, YOU'RE JUST PROBABLY GONNA USE FOUR OF THOSE EIGHT LINES. BUT LIKE WHAT ABOUT THE LOGO? F-A-N-N, I'M SORRY. UM, SO THE LOGO WOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE SIGN. PART OF THE SIGN? YEAH. IF IT MEANS THE LOGO DEFINITION, IT WOULD BE CONSIDERED PART OF THE SIGN. AND YOU CAN, YOU CAN DRAW A LINE, YOU KNOW, LIKE UP TO EIGHT LINES AROUND THIS, YOU KNOW, LIKE THE LOGO AND, UH, WHATEVER COPY IS THERE ON THE SIGN. THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH. AND I HAVE ANOTHER ONE. IT'S LIKE, UH, THERE ARE SOME SIGNS THAT DOES NOT HAVE, LIKE, IT'S NOT IN A CABINET. IT'S NOT, IT'S JUST LIKE THE LETTER, MAYBE LIKE ABOVE A CANOPY, UM, YOU KNOW, LIKE JUST THE NAME OF A RESTAURANT OR SOMETHING LIKE THIS. MM-HMM. UH, AND JUST THE LETTERS, YOU KNOW, LIKE, UH, FLOATING ABOVE A CANOPY. MM-HMM. IS THIS ALLOWED? UH, YEAH, THAT'S ALLOWED UNDER A CANOPY SIGN, CANOPY AWNING SIGN TYPE. OH, OKAY. THANKS. OKAY. COMMISSIONER OLI? OKAY. WE'VE ANSWERED GAS CANOPY. WE'VE ANSWERED TEMPORARY, WHAT IS TEMPORARY OR NOT. UM, I, YOU HAD A COMMENT ON EIGHT, UP TO EIGHT LINES AT RIGHT ANGLES. UM, THAT THREW ME OFF A LITTLE BIT. UH, SO IF I, FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, HAD LIKE A HEXAGON SHAPED SIGN, HOW DOES THAT, IS THAT CONFORMING? DOES THAT VIOLATE, DOES IT [01:40:01] HAVE TO BE, WHAT'S THE FIDELITY TO THAT RIGHT ANGLE, UM, WORDING THAT, THAT WE HAVE IN THE ORDINANCE? UM, SO THE EIGHT LINES ARE AT RIGHT ANGLES TO EACH OTHER, MEANING YOU CAN'T DO AN ARC AND YOU CAN'T DO A SLANT. UM, THEY WOULD BE AT 90 DEGREES TO EACH OTHER. SO YOU COULDN'T MAKE AN OBTUSE OR AN ACUTE ANGLE WITH TWO OF THE LINES AS PART OF YOUR MEASUREMENT. I COULDN'T DRAW A HEXAGON. OKAY. UM, SO IF YOU LOOK AT THIS PICTURE I'VE GOT UP, LOOK AT LINES ONE, TWO, THREE. MM-HMM. THEY MAKE THIS RIGHT ANGLED ZIGZAG, RIGHT? MM-HMM. I COULD NOT TAKE ONE OVER, COME TO THE RIGHTMOST END POINT OF ONE AND CONNECT IT TO THE RIGHTMOST ENDPOINT OF THREE AND SAY THERE'S ONE LINE THAT WOULD CREATE AN OBTUSE ANGLE THAT WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED UNDER THIS REGULATION. ANY REASON WHY - IS THERE A REASON WHY... THAT LEVEL OF SPECIFICITY? UM, I THINK THE SIMPLICITY OF MEASURING IT. OKAY. UH, IT WAS FLOATED TO ACTUALLY USE PRETTY ADVANCED TOOLS TO OUTLINE THE EXACT, UH, IMAGE AND GET ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT COPY IN IT. I THINK THE CONCERN WAS JUST THAT WE'D BE CREATING SOME BARRIERS TO TECHNOLOGY FOR SOME PEOPLE, PARTICULARLY BECAUSE WE'RE PROPOSING THIS FOR BOTH TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT SIGNS, NOT JUST INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS WILL BE USING THIS. AND BECAUSE IT'S FAIRLY EASY TO CALCULATE THE AREA OF ANY NUMBER OF RECTANGLES, THIS WAS JUST CONSIDERED A MORE EQUITABLE MEASUREMENT TOOL. WELL, AND THIS IS THE MAIN USE OF THIS IS TO BE ABLE TO MEASURE THE SIZE OF THE COPY, NOT NECESSARILY THE SHAPE OF THE FRAMING OF THE CABINET. UM, WE'VE, WE'VE HAD A COUPLE VARIANCE CASES WITH CABINETS THAT WERE ODDLY SHAPED BECAUSE OF LOGOS, SO IT, IT COULD REALLY BE USED FOR EITHER ONE. OKAY. UM, SECOND QUESTION, UH, THE 300 FEET ADJACENCY, UH, THIS IS MORE TO CLARIFY MY ASS- ASSUMPTION, IT WILL BE FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE CENTER OF THE SIGN? YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE SLIDE ELIMINATION? YEAH. MM-HMM. IT'S FROM WHERE THE SIGN IS TO THE NEAREST PROPERTY LINE, I THINK. IS THAT RIGHT? YEAH. WHAT ARE WE DOING LIKE THE TOP? YEAH, WE HAVE STRAIGHT LINES HERE FOR SIMPLICITY, BUT IT COULD BE A SLANTED LINE. NO, WHAT I, WHAT I'M POINTING AT, SO FOR INSTANCE, IF IT'S A MONUMENT SIGN THAT IS TALL, RELATIVELY TALL, IF YOU TAKE IT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE TOP OF THE SIGN, IT'S A LITTLE BIT LONGER VERSUS IF YOU TAKE IT FROM THE PROPERTY LINE TO THE BASE OR THE CENTER, YOUR, YOUR DISTANCES CHANGE. TRYING TO REMEMBER MY, UH, GEOMETRY OF A TRIANGLE, RIGHT? IS, IS IT, IT'S PROBABLY MEASURED ALONG THE GROUND, I WOULD THINK, RIGHT? IS IT MEASURED ALONG THE GROUND? YEAH, WE'RE MEASURING ON THE GROUND FROM THE BASE. ALONG THE GROUND. OKAY. FROM WHERE IT IS. UM, LAST QUESTION. UH, THE THRESHOLD FOR A SIGN TO BE DESTROYED BEFORE, UH, WE CAN BASICALLY FORCE IT INTO CONFORMANCE, WHAT IS THAT? IT'S 60%. 60. OKAY. AND WE HAVE THAT IN, IN HERE SOMEWHERE, IS THAT FROM STATE LAW? YES. THAT, THAT'S DICTATED BY STATE LAW. OKAY. THAT'S ALL I GOT. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. UH, COMMISSIONER BRUNSKY. YES. THANK YOU SO MUCH. OH MY GOODNESS. THIS HAS BEEN A LONG TIME COMING. SO I HAVE, UH, ONLY TWO QUESTIONS AND, UH, I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO PUT IN THE EXA - THE, UH, LINE QUEUE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE WANNA GET INTO RECYCLING EVERYTHING BECAUSE THAT WAS MY QUESTION ABOUT POLITICAL SIGNS AND ALL KINDS OF OTHER STUFF. SO MY TWO QUESTIONS. UM, HOW MANY NON-CONFORMING SIGNS ARE WE CREATING IN THE CITY? UM, SO WE DON'T HAVE AN INVENTORY OF THE SIGNS. WE ACTUALLY TRIED TO GET THAT, UH, FROM BUILDING INSPECTIONS AND JUST BECAUSE OF THE WAY THEY REVIEW SIGN PERMITS, WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET AN INVENTORY. UM, I CAN TELL YOU EVERY FREESTANDING PULSE SIGN WILL BE NON-CONFORMING. UM, IN THEORY, THERE COULD BE A SMALL NUMBER OF NON-CONFORMING MONUMENT SIGNS IN OVERLAY DISTRICTS. JUST AT A LOOK, WE TRIED TO LOOK AT THAT ON AERIALS AND WE WEREN'T ABLE TO IDENTIFY A LOT. UM, BUT HUNDREDS OF POLL SIGNS FOR SURE. SO DO WE, DO WE THINK THAT THERE WAS, UH, THERE WILL BE NO UNDUE BURDEN ON THE, UH, THE PEOPLE OPERATING THE, THE POLL SIGNS CURRENTLY TO MAKING THEM NON-CONFORMING? UM, SO ALL NON-CONFORMING SIGNS WILL BE ALLOWED TO STAY IN PLACE BECAUSE THEY'RE NON-CONFORMING. UH, AND THEN MY [01:45:01] LAST QUESTION, CAN YOU GO BACK TO PAGE 63, WHICH IS - I'M SORRY, 23? 63, I THINK. 63. YEAH. THERE YOU GO. UH, WHEN WE TALK ABOUT ALL THE STAKEHOLDERS AND WE, UH, LOOKED AT, YOU SAID, IT SAYS INDUSTRY, INDUSTRY PROFESSIONALS AND EMAILS SENT OUT TO INDUSTRIES. DID WE, DID WE LOOK AT OR REACH OUT TO ANY MAILING LISTS THAT WE HAVE OF RESIDENTS AS WELL? OR HOW DID WE GO ABOUT REACHING OUT TO THE RESIDENTS? UM, SO IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT WE DIDN'T DO ANY INDIVIDUAL OUTREACH TO RESIDENTS. SO NO WEBSITE LISTINGS OR PROMOTIONS THAT SAY, "HEY, WE'D LIKE YOUR INPUT ON ANY OF THIS?" NOT THAT I KNOW OF, NO. OKAY. BESIDES THE STANDARD, UM, THE ZONING CASE ALERTS, EMAIL, UM, AND THE ACTIVE ZONING PETITIONS, THE THINGS WE DO FOR ALL ZONING CASES. OKAY. AND THE NEWSPAPER NOTICE REQUIRED. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. COMMISSIONER LALLY. UH, I DO HAVE A COUPLE MORE QUESTIONS. UH, SO YOU'RE LIKE, SO THE PDS, CAN THEY STILL, UH, NEGOTIATE SIGNAGE, LIKE THE NUMBER OF SIGNS, THE LOCATION, THE SIZE AND EVERYTHING UNDER THIS ORDINANCE, OR IS IT GONNA BE, LIKE, EVERYWHERE? UM, SO WE DIDN'T TOUCH PDS. ANY STIPULATIONS IN PDS WOULD OVERRIDE THE ORDINANCE JUST LIKE THEY DO NOW. UM, BUT IF A PD REFERS TO THE ORDINANCE, LIKE, ANYTHING BY REFERENCE WILL UPDATE. OKAY. SO YOU LIKE IF THEY HAVE PULL SIGNS OR ANY, LIKE, NOW THEY'RE NOT, ANY SIGNS THAT ARE NOT ALLOWED BY THIS ORDINANCE, THEY ARE ALLOWED TO STAY BECAUSE IT'S IN THE PD, RIGHT? UM, IF A PD HAD A STIPULATION THAT SPECIFICALLY SAID IT COULD DO PULL SIGNS, THAT WOULD OVERRIDE ARTICLE 22 JUST AS IT DOES TODAY. SO WE STILL CAN SEE THOSE IN LUNCHTIME. BUT IF, IF THE PD SAID SOMETHING LIKE ALL SIGN TYPES ALLOWED IN ARTICLE 22 ARE ALLOWED, IT WOULD NOT INCLUDE PULSE SIGNS ANY LONGER AND THEY WOULD BE NON-CONFORMING. OKAY. AND THE OTHER ONE, YOU LIKE THE PAGE 140, THE TEMPORARY SIGNS, THE PROMOTIONAL SIGNS THAT'S BALLOONS AND YOU LIKE A FLAX AND - UH-HUH. ALL THESE. SO YOU'RE LIKE, IF WE APPROVE THE AMENDMENT QUEUE, WILL THIS, YOU'RE LIKE - I'M SORRY. CAN YOU REPEAT THE QUESTION? I'M SORRY. SO YOU'RE LIKE, UH, ON PAGE 140 IN OUR PACKET, IT'S, UH, SHOWING YOU LIKE THOSE INFLA - UH, INFLATABLE BALLOONS, THE FLAGS - UH-HUH. UM, LIKE THE SAIL. UH, IF WE APPROVE THE AMENDED, LIKE THE AMENDMENT QUEUE, WILL THIS AFFECT THESE SI- SIGNS OR... SO WHAT'S THE EFFECT OF - UM... US, YOU KNOW, LIKE APPROVING THIS AMENDMENT? SO NO, UM, AMENDMENT Q SPECIFICALLY WOULD NOT AFFECT THEM. CAN I SWITCH BACK TO THIS? 'CAUSE THESE ARE TEMPORARY SIGNS, RIGHT? Q IS A LIST OF, THIS IS A LIST OF PROHIBITED SIGN TYPES. Q SAID POLL SIGNS. IF YOU LOOK IN YOUR PACKET, IT JUST SAYS PULSE SIGNS. UM, WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING HERE IS THAT TEMPORARY SIGNS CAN BE ALLOWED TO BE PULSE SIGNS, MEETING ALL THE OTHER REGULATIONS FOR TEMPORARY SIGNS. UM, THIS DOESN'T AFFECT THE VISUAL PROMOTIONS BECAUSE THE VISUAL PROMOTIONS ARE NOT, UH, POLL SIGNS. THEY'RE NOT SIGNS AT ALL. BUT I MEAN, YOU'RE LIKE... YEAH. OH, THEY'RE NOT SIGNS, SO THEY ARE ALLOWED? NO. UH, THE REASON WE HAVE THAT CATEGORY IS FOR THINGS THAT DON'T MEET THE SIGN DEFINITION, MEANING THEY DON'T HAVE SIGN COPY. MM-HMM. BUT WE STILL WANTED TO TAKE THE CODE OF ORDINANCES CHAPTER IN WHOLE INTO OUR ORDINANCE, THE ZONING ORDINANCE. UM, SO WE DID CREATE THAT VISUAL PROMOTIONS CATEGORY TO ENCOMPASS THOSE. YEAH. SO THEY ARE NOT PART OF THE SIGN. THEY ARE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNS. UM, SO THEY'RE REGULATED IN ARTICLE 22, BUT THEY'RE NOT CONSIDERED SIGNS BECAUSE THEY DON'T HAVE SIGN COPY. SO THEY CAN PUT, YOU KNOW, LIKE ANY SIZE, ANY, YOU KNOW, LIKE SHAPE? UH, NO. THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET THE STANDARDS FOR BETTER FOR VISUAL PROMOTIONS IN THE ORDINANCE. OH, OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. UH, COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF. WELL, SINCE THERE DON'T APPEAR TO BE ANY MORE COMMENTS, UM, I'D JUST LIKE TO OBSERVE THAT, UM, WE CAN APPROVE THIS, UH, PROPOSED ORDINANCE, INCLUDING THE AMENDED LANGUAGE UNDER PARAGRAPH Q, UM, AND OBSERVE, YOU KNOW, UH, HOW THE, UH, ORDINANCE IS EFFECTIVE AND HOW IT'S ADMINISTERED AND HOW IT WORKS OUT OVER TIME. WE CAN ALWAYS TWEAK IT LA - I SAY WE. Y'ALL CAN ALWAYS TWEAK IT LATER . UM, AS, AS NECESSARY AND AS THE NEED ARISES. UM, SO I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO GO INTO A LINE BY LINE ANALYSIS OF THE, UH, OF THE DOCUMENT TONIGHT. BUT, UH, OVERALL, I THINK THE STAFF HAS DONE A TREMENDOUS JOB PUTTING THIS TOGETHER OVER 10 YEARS, I THINK WE WERE TOLD. AND I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE - I CAN'T YET. I HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING I HAVE TO HOLD. THIS IS, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM, SO WE'LL NEED TO DO OUR PUBLIC HEARING FIRST. SO HOLD THAT THOUGH. OKAY. UM, SO ANY [01:50:01] OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NOBODY? OKAY. AND I'LL OPEN OUR PUBLIC HEARING. DO WE HAVE ANY REGISTERED SPEAKERS ON THIS ITEM? THERE ARE NONE. OKAY. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONER BRUNOFF. NOW, THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM THREE ON OUR AGENDA, INCLUDING THE AMENDED LANGUAGE UNDER PARAGRAPH Q, UH, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. COMMISSIONER BINDER. SECOND THE MOTION. ALL RIGHT. COMMISSIONER ALI, DO YOU HAVE A COMMENT? ARE YOU SURE WE DON'T WANNA BAN POLITICAL SCIENCE? WE'LL LET THAT ONE GO. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE IT AS PRESENTED BY THE STAFF, UM, WITH THE ADDITIONAL LANGUAGE UNDER ITEM Q REGARDING, UH, ACCEPTING TEMPORARY SIGNS AS A, AS A PROHIBITED SIGNS IN THE LANGUAGE THAT THE STAFF PROVIDED. SO PLEASE VOTE. MOTION PASSES SEVEN TO ZERO. SO THANK Y'ALL AGAIN FOR ALL YOUR HARD WORK ON THIS. I KNOW IT'S BEEN A, A LABOR OF LOVE OR SOMETHING. ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE, UH, ONE ITEM [4. Recognition of Outgoing Members ] LEFT. MR. BRUNOFF, WOULD YOU JOIN ME DOWN AT THE... I'M GONNA DO THIS FACING OUR OTHER COMMISSIONERS, BECAUSE I KNOW THERE'S PEOPLE WATCHING ON TV, BUT I THINK IT'S MORE IMPORTANT TO DO THIS IN FRONT OF THEM. SO - OKAY. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE TO THE CITY OF PLANO ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. YOU HAVE BEEN A VALUABLE MEMBER. I'VE ALWAYS APPRECIATED YOUR COMMENTS AND YOUR INPUT AND YOUR EXPERIENCE, AND, UH, WE'RE GONNA MISS IT. SO THANK YOU VERY MUCH. A LITTLE TOKEN OF OUR APPRECIATION. UM, AND YOU HAVE, YOU HAVE 30 SECONDS. WELL, MY NAME IS MICHAEL BRUNOFF AND I LIVE AT 3404 WOOD HEIGHTS COURT. UM, THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THANK YOU, SIR. IT HAS BEEN, UH, AN HONOR AND A PRIVILEGE AND A PLEASURE TO SERVE THE PEOPLE OF PLANO ON THEIR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR THE LAST FOUR YEARS. UH, I'D LIKE TO THANK THE CITY COUNCIL FOR APPOINTING ME. AND, UH, I'D LIKE TO SAY IT'S ALSO BEEN AN HONOR AND A PLEASURE TO SERVE ALONGSIDE ALL OF YOU, MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, INCLUDING TWO DISTINGUISHED CHAIRMEN, MR. RATLIFF AND DAVID DOWNS. AND, UH, UM, I'D LIKE TO, UH, ALSO THANK C - OH, AND, OH, AND A, A, AN HONEST TO GOODNESS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GURU. UH, BUT I'D ALSO, I'D ALSO LIKE TO THANK, UH, THE LEGAL DEPARTMENT, MS. DEANDREA AND, UM, JILL MCFARLAND, WHO HAVE BEEN KEEPING US ON THE LEGAL, UH, STRAIGHT AND NARROW ALL THIS TIME. AND ESPECIALLY THE STAFF, CHRISTINA, YOU AND EVERYONE WHO WORKS IN YOUR DEPARTMENT, MR. BELL, MR. APPEAL BEFORE YOU, UH, DREW BRONNER, AND ALL OF THE PEOPLE IN THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. UM, IT'S BECAUSE YOU HAVE CONSISTENTLY DONE YOUR JOBS WELL THAT WE HAVE BEEN ABLE TO DO OUR JOB WELL. AND I THANK YOU FOR THAT. I'M GONNA MISS ALL OF YOU, BUT, UH, I'M SURE WE HAVE A - THERE'S PLENTY OF SEATS IN THE AUDIENCE. AN ABLE, AN ABLE REPLACEMENT ON HAND HERE WHO WILL, WHO WILL SERVE WITH DISTINCTION AND, UH, WISH YOU ALL A GOOD NIGHT. THANK YOU. WE HAVE ONE OTHER PRESENTATION. THANK YOU. WE DO HAVE ONE MORE, UM, PLAQUE WE'D LIKE TO GET OUT. UM, I'M HONORED TO PRESENT THE CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO MICHELLE DEANDREA, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY, FOR HER 10 YEARS OF SERVICE TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WOULD YOU JOIN ME UP HERE, MICHELLE? YOU'RE GONNA BE ON CAMERA. UH, DURING HER, HER TENURE, SHE'S BEEN INTEGRAL TO MANY MAJOR PROJECTS, UM, COMING BEFORE THIS COMMISSION, INCLUDING AND NOT LIMITED TO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN REVIEW COMMITTEE AND ALL THE RELATED, UM, TASKS LEADING UP TO ADOPTION OF THE 2021 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE SHORT-TERM RENTAL TASK FORCE AND RELATED UPDATES, THE ZONING AND SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REWRITE, SIGNED ORDINANCE UPDATES, UM, UPDATING CODES IN RESPONSE TO LEGISLATIVE THINGS SUCH AS THE SHOT CLOCK, BUILDING MATERIALS BILL, AND SB 840, DOING THE HEAVY LIFTING ON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS WITH MAJOR PROJECTS SUCH AS COLLIN CREEK MALL, HAGGARD FARMS, LEVON FARMS, AND MORE, OVERHAULING OUR POLICIES RELATED TO PARTICIPATION [01:55:01] IN PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SHE ALSO SER - HAS SERVED AS STAFF LIAISON TO THE HERITAGE COMMISSION AND BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT. UM, I'M SURE THERE ARE MANY THINGS I'M FORGETTING, AND THESE ARE PROBABLY NOT EVEN HER TOP 10 HARDEST PROJECTS. UH, BUT I WORKED WITH MICHELLE CLOSELY FOR MUCH OF THAT TIME, AND I'VE ALWAYS BEEN AMAZED BY YOUR WISDOM, YOUR CREATIVITY, AND COMMITMENT TO EXCELLENCE. UM, AND ALTHOUGH SHE'S NO LONGER SITTING, UM, BY THE CHAIR AT THESE MEETINGS, WE ARE GRATEFUL SHE IS STILL VERY ACTIVE BEHIND THE SCENES. SO PLEASE JOIN ME IN EXPRESSING APPRECIATION FOR MS. DEANDRE. THANK YOU. AND YOU'RE ALSO WELCOME BACK ANYTIME. . YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING? THERE'S NONE. MR. BERNOFF? THERE ARE MINIATURE BUTT CAKES IN THE CONFERENCE ROOM. PLEASE HELP YOURSELVES AND TAKE AS MANY AS YOU WANT. GREAT. THANK YOU. YEAH. ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT SAID, WE WILL STAND ADJOURNED AT 8:06 PM. * This transcript was created by voice-to-text technology. The transcript has not been edited for errors or omissions, it is for reference only and is not the official minutes of the meeting.