Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Good evening. Welcome to the May 4 City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I've called the meeting to order at 06:00PM. If you all please rise and join me in the pledge of allegiance. Thank you very much. Items on the agenda tonight. Consent agenda.

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

Commission, would anybody like to remove an item from the agenda for separate consideration? Commissioner Ronski.

I move we approve the consent agenda as submitted.

Commissioner Lingenfelter.

I second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion passes seven to zero. Commissioner Brunoff, is absent this evening. Items for individual consideration.

Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items. Unless instructed otherwise by the chair, speakers will be called in the order registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of fifteen minutes of presentation time with a five minute rebuttal, if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to thirty total minutes of testimony time with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as con as constrained by legal considerations. Non public hearing items. The presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing.

The presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda, and to ensure meeting efficiency, and may include a total time limit.

Okay. If you go ahead and read items one a through one d together, please.

Agenda item one a, request to rezone 1.4 acres of land out of the Maria C. Vela survey, abstract number 935, located at the Southeast corner of Legacy Drive and Parkwood Boulevard in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas from commercial employment to planned development 73 commercial employment. The the petitioner is TRQ Plano LLC. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number one b, EDS Campus edition Block A Lot 1 R, professional general administrative office day care center and commercial antenna support structure on one lot on 54.2 acres located at the Southeast corner of Legacy Drive and Parkwood Boulevard.

Zone commercial employment. The applicant is TRQ Plano LLC. This item is for administrative consideration pending agenda item one a. Agenda item number one c, EDS campus edition, Block A Lot 2, professional general administrative office on one lot on 32 acres located on the South Side of Legacy Drive, 1,595 feet east of Parkwood Boulevard, zone commercial employment. The applicant is TCAL Property Owner LLC.

This item is for administrative consideration pending agenda item one A. Agenda item number one D, EDS Campus Edition, Block A Lot 3, professional general administrative office on one lot on 35.44 acres located on the North Side of Tennyson Parkway. 1,725 feet east of Parkwood Boulevard. Zone commercial employment. The applicant is TCAL Property Owner LLC. This item is for administrative consideration pending agenda item one A.

Good evening, commissioners. My name is John Kim, senior planner with the planning department. Here's item one A through D. So, this zoning case and the associated plans will be located at Legacy Drive and Parkwood Boulevard. Item 1 A specifically is located at the Southeast Corner of Parkwood and Legacy.

So you can see the dotted lines tracing out the lot b item one a area. And then Lot 1 Block A is in purple, which is item b. Lot 2 Block A in orange is item 1 c. And then Lot 3 Block A is item 1 d. And then Lot 4 Block A is a remaining remaining parcel from the replatting for the whole site.

And there is the the associated replat for all four of these properties. And so on the screen, there is a snippet from the preliminary site plan showing the, planned development 73 Dash CE area. And so this is where the plaza and the proposed antenna slash sculptural structure will be located at. And so this is that northwest corner of the property. And also with this case, there is a associated open space plan, o s p twenty twenty six Dash zero zero one.

And that will be with this case. So as for this request, it is for a public plaza. So it will be point seven six acre plaza located at the Southeast corner. They're gonna have modified landscape requirements in lieu of the standard requirements as well as some other stipulations. And then for the sculptural structure, it will be up to a 280 feet in height structure.

And within that structure, there can be a stealth commercial antenna at any height, as long as it's fully encased within the structure. So I wanna begin with the public plaza first. So, again, the public plaza must be designed in substantial conformance with the open space plan. So the open space plan is on the right, so it just needs to meet, majority of these items as as close as possible to what is shown. There are some modified landscaping requirements of the required landscape open space area.

45% must be planted with native and adaptive species for our City Of Plano plants list. There will be a minimum of 12 trees planted on the site. They will be shade trees. If they wanna do ornamental, additional trees can be planted in lieu of the shade tree. There is a required eight foot landscape edge along the property boundaries, and that also takes into consideration some easements and hike and bike trails and other improvements on the site.

And within the landscaping, there can be boulders or other aggregate materials up to 10%. So it is limited to that amount. Along Parkwood Boulevard and Legacy Drive, there are hike and bike trails as well that are required. That is in line with the Parks Master Plan as well. And then within the plaza, the all walkways must be a minimum seven feet.

Additionally, within the open space, public plaza, they must provide a minimum of three amenities listed below, bike racks, pedestrian scout lighting, decorative paving materials, seating, way finding signage and guides, or other amenities as approved by the director of planning. And just to note, on the left side of the open space plan, there is a pedestrian bridge that will be built by the city at the northwest corner of this plaza. And so that will kind of help promote pedestrian activity and promote safer walking conditions across Parkwood Boulevard. Additionally within the plaza, there is a sculptural structure that is proposed on the site. It must be designed in substantial conformance to the tower design development, which is shown on the right here.

The tower, and the structure is allowed to be up to 280 feet in height. And, again, an antenna is allowed within the structure, but it must be a stealth antenna and located fully within the tower. Any ground equipment associated with it, has to be located fully within the tower, underground, or screened off-site. I do wanna talk about the setbacks here. So in our zoning ordinance, there is a requirement for right away for commercial antennas to be set back from the right away 125% of the height.

So that would be 350 foot in this case. So but we are proposing a right of way setback of 50 feet from Legacy from Legacy Drive and 125 feet from Parkwood Boulevard. Excuse the excuse the second Legacy Drive there. The residential setback. So, there is a residential building community to the southwest across Parkwood Boulevard and it is 320 feet.

There is an equation in our zoning ordinance and it requires a setback for five thirty five feet typically. In order to mitigate that risk, we are the applicant is proposing to build instead of risk two category standards to risk category three for the international building code. Additionally, with the structure, for the lighting at the top, there shall be no flashing, strobing, rotating, or chasing light effects allowed between 10PM and 6AM. All structures above 200 feet must receive approval from the FAA, and that will also apply to this sculptural towers tower, antenna tower. And additionally, we have received some concerns about, you know, the noise and light and other compliance.

But I just want to note that although some ordinance requirements are not expressly written in the PD stipulations, They are still subject to all city ordinances. So, you will have to still meet those requirements. So, within the zoning ordinance for a plan development, there is a typical size requirement of that a PD district be minimum five acres. But if it is up, it can be approved by City Council if it is required to implement the comprehensive plan or another study. Some of the plaza and sculptural benefits are, place making, promotes promoting pedestrian activity, supporting a more vibrant and accessible employment center, and providing a more connected and active area.

And that will be done through all the trails, the sidewalks, the plaza itself, and just the general cultural, influence of the new tower. I do have on screen, all the PD stipulations for reference. I won't go over those one by one, but we can reference those as needed. As for the comprehensive plan, it does meet the three policies for the community design, place making, and pedestrian environment policy. For the responses within the subject property, we received one.

For responses outside the subject property, we received one in support and one in opposition. The one in support is the, you know, still part of the lot one, lot A response. So it's the same one as counted within the property. And then citywide, we had five total responses for the zoning case. And so now I wanna move on to the preliminary site plans.

So on the screen, what you'll see here is the north half of the preliminary site plan, and they are proposing a general office, a day care center that will be accessory, and then the proposed sculptural structure slash antenna tower located in the northwest corner of the site. And so that's shown in this preliminary site plan here. And then here is the southern half of the preliminary site plan showing the the parking garages and the news private streets that will be built. So the purpose for their preliminary site plan is to show that their proposed office campus, the plaza as proposed in the zoning case in the northwest corner of

the

property. During the preliminary engineering plan studies, there were some concerns and staff is looking into the capacity of the existing infrastructure and what improvements will need to be required to support this use. And so there is still additional research being done on the capacity here, and there will be updates later. Because of this, the owner must enter into an agreement with the city as approved by City Council to complete any necessary improvements. Next, have the revised site plan for Lot 2, Block A.

This one is just modifying the property lines. Same with Lot 3, Block A as well. And so, again, we're just updating property boundaries for both the existing office developments. And so in summary, the proposed plaza must be substantially in conformance of the open space plan that is attached and meet modified landscape requirements and site design. The allowed 280 foot sculptural structure can host in commercial antenna fully enclosed and meet stealth design.

The structure with the modified setbacks will be built to higher standards and must be substantially in conformance with the tower development design. And PD 73 CE is below the typical five acre requirement but may be found appropriate by the city council to establish the zoning district. Recommendation for item A, zoning case twenty twenty six zero zero three. Recommended for approval as submitted subject to city council issuing a specific finding that a district is required to implement the conference of plan. Item one B, the preliminary site plan twenty twenty six zero zero four, recommended for approval subject to the following conditions.

City Council approval of zoning case twenty twenty six-three, results of the water and sewer demand analysis, any resulting mitigation from the water and sewer demand analysis and an affiliated development agreement approved by the City Council as may be required. Issuance of a favorable determination by the Federal Aviation Administration before site plan approval. And additions and alterations to the engineering plans as required by the engineering department. Items one C and one D, the revised site plans twenty twenty six zero zero five and revised site plan twenty twenty six zero zero six is recommended for approval subject to the following conditions. City council approval zoning case 2026Dash003 and filing on the replies for EDS Campus edition Block A Lots 1 Through 4.

Available for any questions and the applicant is also here with the presentation.

Alright. Commission, questions of staff. Mister Bronski.

Mister Kim, thank you very much. Just for clarity sake, can you go back to the zoning response numbers?

The citywide?

Yeah. So looking at the the packet, would you say that some of the responses that were in there were in response to this case or a different case?

So, we did recent receive some responses that appeared to be for a different zoning case. So, we have reached out to those individuals to confirm if they have which zoning case they meant to respond to. We didn't receive a response from some individuals and have removed one response but are still waiting on the other responses, the other three responses shown.

But from from reading the responses what their comments were, it appeared to be that it wasn't necessary for this case. Is that correct?

Yes, that is correct.

Okay. And I only have one other small question. When you talked about the antenna, you said it can be at any place on the or it can be at ground level as well as at 280 feet?

Right. So as long as it is fully concealed and meets our stealth design requirements, then it can be placed at any height, but it must be fully enclosed within the structure.

Yeah. Okay.

Thank you very much.

Mister Raleigh.

Just a couple of clarifying questions. Sturdier construction that conceals the antenna, we get to certify that it meets the level three, whatever you quoted. Right?

Correct.

Okay.

The bridge that will be built by the city, this case is not necessarily contingent on us on the city doing that. That's basically the city making that area more livable, walkable.

Correct.

Okay.

The equation that seems to govern what's the word I'm looking for adjacency? Is that dependent on the height of the structure? So for instance, if this was shorter than the two eighty, would they would it naturally meet the residential adjacency?

Yes. Correct. So the height, basically, part of the equation is you take any portion of the structure above 25 feet, and then you multiply it by two to add it to the increased residential setback. And so lowering the height would decrease the overall amount.

And it's probably a safety thing if the thin leans one way, it doesn't hit whatever is next to it, essentially.

Right. Okay.

One last question. The 10PM to 6AM light restriction. Any is that in our legislation that gives us that time? You know, my baby girl sleeps at 8PM, for instance. How do we get that timing?

Yeah. So I did reach out to the our environmental services department, and they did say we do have, you know, daylight and nighttime hours that our noise ordinance kind of complies with as well. And so I think that's what the 10PM to 6AM basis was on. But again, it would also still have to receive FAA approval for that as well. But we would need to make sure, but that's what the time was.

Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Tong.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Can you go back to the page where it specifies the antenna and like how they're supposed to be stealth and within the enclosed you said you had a word that you said it has to be enclosed somewhere.

Do you mean with the actual stipulation itself? Would you like that?

Well, I just wanna see what kind of description on the materials or the appearance of the antenna because they they can be inside. Right? They they have to be inside.

Mhmm.

However, my understanding is they need to be have line of sights for it to work, right? So I'm imagining the materials that can be used for this to work has to be see through or transparent or nothing? Maybe it just hollow on the outside, or is it what does enclosed mean?

Mhmm. So, the applicant may be able to get into more details because I think they are still working on a final design. But the applicant does have to make sure that, you know, it is in substantial conformance to this, design development that's shown here. And, you know, I think there are, you know, perforations and things like that, as you mentioned, for antennas to, send signals out. I'm not an expert in that. So the applicant may have more, comments on the design.

Sure. Sure. What what's the, from city point of view, from our ordinance point of view, what kind of things that we we we can or or, regulate on the design of the a tower like this?

So as far as this this case goes, it has to be substantially conforming to the design development. And so this graphic that they provided us, it must be, you know, very substantially conforming to this plan,

Is this graphic? Does this picture?

Yes. This graphic will be adopted as part of the ordinance.

Okay.

And so to make any changes, substantial changes that have to go back to the rezoning process to change the rendering.

Gotcha. Thank you.

Thank you.

Commissioner Lalie?

I have, two questions, actually. The first one is Commissioner,

can you pull your microphone down where we can hear you? Okay. Thank you.

So, you like so the antenna is allowed use in, P D 63. Right? Which is the existing p d.

So the existing p d, was repealed in a previous zoning case. So P D 73, CE is is the new designated plan development district number. Mhmm. But that being said, you know, antennas can be allowed as anywhere within if they are 60 feet or below.

Mhmm.

And if they're over 60 feet, in most districts, they typically require, like, a specific use permit. But in this case, you know, a a tower in the height of 280 feet would have required one.

And that's gonna be part of the PD if if we approve it. Right?

Right, to allow

it. Okay. Yeah. Yeah, sounds good. Yeah, thank you.

Alright, commissioner. Any other questions of staff? Alright, not seeing any. Thank you, Mr. Kim. I'm going to open public hearing. I do believe the applicant has a presentation. Mister Alstrom, you know the drill.

Mister chair commission, my name is Bill Dahlstrom, 2323 Ross Avenue. I'm here with Michael Elost with KDC, Alex Rathburn with Kimberly Horn, Victoria Morris, Jackson Walker also. We are really honored and pleased to be here for this application. This is, you know, a once in a lifetime opportunity. We think this is a fantastic place making opportunity for the city at this location and I want to thank John and Mike and and Mike and Christine of course for helping us shepherd through this process because there were a lot of issues.

We started with a sculpture. We thought that it made sense if there's a sculpture there to have the ability to put in the antenna. So, that's how we got to where we are And the as the staff report's fantastic, it basically states our project. It's to allow a commercial antenna support structure up to two eighty feet when designed as a sculptural tower located on an amenitized plaza. We're trying to create a there there a place.

It's it's I think I like to look at the totality of the project, not just the tower, not just the plaza but them together much like a lot of iconic and distinguished places around the world. It's not just one thing, it's combination of lot of these things. So it's more than just art. We're creating a vibrant community focused amenity utilizing art and the plaza. I think that's really important.

John took a lot of my thunder. So I'm gonna try to go quickly. I'm gonna try to go quickly. So again, this is the zoning map CE to the Northeast and South and PD 65 for central business central businesses to the West. Mike or John showed a very similar exhibit.

I wanted to acknowledge that what we're here before is a PD for that green rectangle and the rest of the the campus is permitted by Wright today. We're not here asking for zoning for the campus. The campus is already permitted. The sculptures, my understanding, the sculpture is already permitted too. The the fact that we want to put in the antenna subjects us to certain setbacks, which is why we're here is to address some of those setbacks.

So the campus is permitted, the sculpture is permitted. We're again requesting the ability to put in stealth antenna in the the sculpture. And from an aerial point of view, this is the again the site Southeast Corner of Legacy And Parkwood. The open space again it's it's an integral part of this whole project and as was stated in the staff report the enhanced landscape and other amenities elevate the pedestrian experience and that's what we're wanting to do here. It's it it it connects with the rest of the campus but the rest of the campus is going to be as integral and iconic as this this corner.

The tower is intended to be and I know we keep using the word iconic distinguished place making feature for the office campus for the campus as well as for for for the legacy business area. Then the regs that we've are are proposing will allow the antenna to be put inside and John hit it really very well on the conformance with the comp plan in terms of the place making in public spaces, diverse resilient economy, and community design policies. So we we do comply and further the the comprehensive plan. This is a a one of our subsequent conceptuals of the public the public open space that we're proposing and I I think that the city staff did a great job of a a detailing what we're proposing. 45% of the land of the area needs to be landscaped with turf grasses.

We can include boulders, shrubs, grasses, other ground cover, a minimum of twelve three inch trees, 10 to 12 foot hike and bike trails on Legacy And Parkwood. The seven foot trails which are actually going to be wider as you can see on the on the exhibit through the site amenities within the site as well. So it's it's as it said in the staff report enhanced landscaping and enhanced experience. I'm going to go back to the exhibits that John showed. This is again looking from the Northwest looking Southeast into the site.

That would be Legacy on your left and Parkwood on your right. And you can see the the proposed bridge, pedestrian bridge across Parkwood. And then this is another exhibit. Don't know if anybody has seen this but this is looking due west down legacy. Legacies off to the right. So we think this is a great project for a great campus, for a great city. We're really excited about this. Really look forward to getting on and starting this project. Michael Lost is here. Alex Rapun is here also to answer any questions and we're also here to answer questions on the preliminary site plan and the other plans. So, we respectfully request a recommendation of approval on this.

Thank you. Thank you, mister Dahlstrom. I have one quick question for you. Don't wander far. We're gonna have

some other people too.

Yes, sir. Just looking at the renderings, I know we're not looking at the architecture of your buildings. I'm just looking at it for comparison purposes. It looks to me like one of the tallest building proposed on the campus is eight stories. Is that correct?

Eight stories. Correct. Yes. So I'm sorry. Thank you. Eight stories right there.

Okay. So give or take a 100 feet tall? Yes. Okay. So so we're talking about the tower being towering over the tops of the building so you could see it from entire complex.

The eight story probably be more than that, but yes, you're right. It'd be towering over the six, seven, and eight story buildings on the campus. Right.

Okay. I just want to get proportion 280 feet on the tower and roughly a 100 feet on the on the building. So just to get a relative perspective of how tall it was compared to the rest of development. Alright. Have a follow-up question for mister Kim in just a minute. Commissioner Leenefelder.

Yeah. Just, I I had questions, mainly about lighting and and sound. Suspect there's not a lot of sound, but I know Mr. Kim had mentioned, I guess, the operating equipment can be on-site but screened, and then obviously subject to the sound ordinance and stuff. Are we expecting a lot of sound?

We're not expecting a lot of sound and again, there are sound. We went over this several times with the city staff. There are sound ordinances. They're lighting ordinances. They're building standards we have to comply with. So, I I think a lot of those construction issues are already covered.

And then as far as lighting, mean, you may not have gotten to it all so far but what what's what are you what's the vision with the lighting? Is it projected lighting or is it going to glow? What's the idea of

lighting inside I'll ask Mr. Alas to come up and correct me if I'm wrong, but we haven't finished the design yet, but it is intended to be internal and a glow. Yes.

A glow to

it. Okay. That was it.

Commissioner Ollie? I think you've kind of answered my question. You said that the sculpture is permitted by Wright, but from a height perspective and adjacency perspective, even if this was not a Stealth Tower, you would need to come, I believe, for an SUP in order for a sculpture at 280 to be that close?

No. There's actually a they're unlimited or 20 stories. I can't remember off the top my head. Height limit in this area. So if it were just a tower, would comply with the typical setbacks and high requirements of any other building or structure.

Ian, I know we're still designing, but the material at the top of that globe or ball reflective in nature, you know, I understand the light will be contained within the ball, but there's sun reflecting off of stuff and catching the eyes of residents or whatever the case may be. What are we thinking?

Yes. We have looked at that. We are currently looking at it. I will also submit that one of the world's best developers, builders, KDC is in charge of this. They are going to be doing glare studies. They're going to be all over the the glare issue and again, to the extent we have city standards, we will be complying with those city standards on glare. KDC's done numerous projects in in Plano. They've done numerous projects throughout the the country. They are familiar with the issue of glare and how to address it.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Lali.

Is this open space is going to be open to the public?

Yes, ma'am. Okay. Thank you. Yeah, it's

going be cool. Alright. Commissioner Bender.

Thank you, chairman. Just similar questions. The plaza will be accessible to the public and outside of the security area, correct?

Correct. We'll have security fence surrounding it and we're working with the city attorney on the the public access.

That's great.

That's that's.

Okay.

Exciting. We don't have anything like that in that area. Thank you. Commissioner Tong.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It's funny that I mics you're also asking about the public access at the park. So other than the bridge going over to the other side of Parkwood, does the park or does the antenna area connect to any other areas on the campus? Or it's just kind of isolated and then just can only go to the

We will

have security on the east side of the plaza and on the south side. So it will not have direct access, unsecured access. So it will be cordoned off, yes.

Okay, so public can only to go to

Only get to that plaza, correct.

Go to that plaza.

Thank you.

And then go through the bridge to the other side to the other side of Parkwood, that's it.

Correct.

Okay, thank you.

I'm gonna follow-up on that question a little bit because the hike and bike trails and all that are outside the secure area, correct? Yes sir, they are. Okay, so that's one question. Second is, you'll have gates or something in the secure fence. I'm thinking about the employees who can leave the campus, cross the pedestrian bridge without going long way around. There would be a gate

or something right There would be a gate probably. Yes, sir. And there'll probably be some means of trying to get trying for vehicular access into the site but it will be closed off as well.

I'm just thinking

about For maintenance purposes. Yeah.

Yeah. I'm just thinking about all those employees that want to walk to lunch and I'm sure the businesses over there on Legacy would like for them to walk to lunch. I think so. So, okay. Any other questions of the applicant? Alright, seeing none, we do have one registered speaker.

Jeff Greason.

Mr. Greason, if you'd introduce yourself with name and address please.

Good evening, commissioners. I'm Jeff Greason, the first owner of 7241 Parkwood Boulevard since the development was built in 2006, twenty years now. I welcome AT and T to the neighborhood. My concerns are narrow. I have four asks about how, not whether, this project proceeds.

The image you see here is a scale visualization from the 3rd Floor master bedroom of my home, looking northeast towards the proposed structure. At Honest Scale, the tower extends above the top of the frame. First, residential setback. The rule for two eighty foot telecom support structure requires 535 feet from residential, and this tower will be 215 feet closer than that. Staff identified the rules purpose as to mitigate the risk of falling, which is addressed by the risk category three construction provision.

But the binding exhibit d filed with the city shows the structure non illuminated, while AT and T's CEO published an illuminated rendering on LinkedIn on April 28. The staff report is silent on the actual residential impacts, glare, luminance, and lighting nuisance. I would ask the Commission to add residential impact mitigation provision, photometric glare, and noise studies at upper floor residential windows at the site plan stage. Second, outdoor lighting. The PD has one narrow illumination provision.

No flashing, strobing, rotating, or chasing between 10PM and 6AM. The city's outdoor lighting code separately governs shielding, property line caps, and nuisance. I would ask the commission to expressly apply the outdoor lighting code with site plan analysis at upper floor windows, not just ground level. Third, sign code parity. As the side by side shows, the binding exhibit d is non illuminated, while the CEO's published rendering shows the structure illuminated.

That is outdoor lighted signage, not just an abstract sculpture. Plano's sign code prohibits a broader category, flashing, blinking, fading, dissolving, any effect that gives the appearance of movement twenty four hours a day. The PD's narrower provision creates an inconsistency with how every other illuminated sign in Plano is regulated. I would ask the commission to amend the PD's illumination provision to match the sign code standard. Finally, form type persistence.

The staff report at page 20 states that any substantive change to the design of the tower would require a zoning change. I would ask the commission to operationalize that principle in PD text naming the globe, the shaft, and the wishbone base as formal elements that determine substantive change. Each of these narrow, each of these asks is narrow, code anchored, and within the commission's authority. My May 1 red line sent to staff contains a specific language. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Very thorough. Thank you very much. Any questions? Nobody? Okay. Thank you, sir. Appreciate your time. All right. Do have any other registered speakers on this item? I'll close the public hearing. Restrict comments to the commission. Mr. Kim, can you come back up? I've got a couple of follow-up questions for you.

Just to confirm something that the applicant said, if if this was not a cellphone tower Mhmm. If it was just a sculpture, would we need a PD for it?

No. It would be allowed. The zoning ordinance specifically stipulate has stipulations whenever it is a antenna support structure, and so that's when the right of way setbacks and the residential setback is applied. But for a typical structure or sculpture, it would not.

Okay. And and and does that also apply to any lighting or any of those items? Would that need a PD if it wasn't for the cell tower?

So the property would still have to meet, like, lighting and noise ordinance requirements. It's separate from the structure as in it's still covers it.

So the current light spill off the site and shielding and all the things that apply to every other commercial property would apply to this as well if it wasn't a cell phone tower? Yes. Okay. So all those glare studies and everything were gonna be required either way but they're codified under the PD as well. Correct. Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Lingenfelter.

You just kinda answered some of my questions there. The height height didn't matter. It it has to it really it's really just about the cell tower in this particular case, correct?

Correct. Okay.

And then just a side question, and maybe jumping way ahead, but does the city have a perspective timeline for the bridge on when that would be constructed?

I don't think so at this time. They're still working on the design and the other details of the bridge. Okay.

Commissioner Lali.

I wanted just confirm that you like this design is not finalized, right? Because you're like, if we approve the zoning case, you know, like all the PD, it's the design is part of it. So, if it's not finalized and we approve this one, if they change anything, they're gonna have to come to us. So is this a final design? Because, you know, like, the applicant keeps saying that, you know, like, is they're working on it.

It's

not a final design. So is it a final design, or it's not?

Right. So they they are still working on, you know, minor details. But if, again, if they do wanna make any substantive changes to the actual tower itself, then they would have to go through a zoning case to make any significant changes.

So the bay you know, basically, what we are approving is the ball and, you know, like, in the structure supporting structure. Right?

Generally, yes.

Not the, you know, like, not the size of the ball, not the size of the supporting structure, anything like that?

Yeah. As long as it is in substantial performance.

Yeah. Could it be like double the size of the supports at least? Like, I know that we're gonna limit the height, but what about the actual structure?

I can speak to this. So, that is a determination made by the director of planning. And so, it is our intent that the sign significantly comply. If the ball gets significantly bigger, it'll be back in front of you for a change. That'll be a significant change. If the wishbone design changes, that'll be a significant change. That will come back before you. Okay. If there's small material changes, if the shape is changed in very small ways, that would probably be deemed as substantial conforming, but that decision will ultimately be made by the Director of Planning.

Oh, okay. Well, thank you. Oh, we're excited. Like it. Looks nice. We're going to have our miniature Union Tower here.

Commissioner Brownsky.

So, I really like I like the sculpture a lot but I do have a couple questions as it relates to this being a sculpture rather than a sign. What, what is the difference between, could you give me a definition of what we consider signage? So, while reviewing the design of the tower and the sculptural structure, the director of planning and the building chief building official,

did meet, regarding this tower and determined that it is not a sign and that it is a sculpture.

Okay. Yeah. I kind of wish he was here tonight because I'm we had some conversations about what signage looks like and I I can understand, the citizens concern and confusion, I guess, in what signage looks like as opposed to sculptures look like. When we talked about the glare studies and things like that, is there a specific height or a specific it just from the ground level or is it from different levels?

So, with the building permit, they are required to submit a photometric plan. It was not necessarily a glare study, but it's a photometric plan saying the level of illumination at the property line. So, any location along the property line, they must show the highest level of illumination.

Okay. And the picture that we had being approved, can you go back to that? Is that the one that we're submitting as far as what it's supposed to look like?

Yes. It is kinda cut off. This this picture is extended a little more showing the more of the campus, but yes.

So one thing I don't notice, I don't notice any color as it was relative to that. Would the addition of color and, things of that nature, would that be substantive? How do we define substantive?

Like, the material, like, of the structure, like like if it was a blue tower itself.

So if it becomes a blue tower, then that would be substantive?

I think it would be up to the director of planning's interpretation,

but

Okay. So then, we would definitely see it back then if the colors were changing and things. Okay. Thank you very much. Potentially.

Commissioner Ali. I'm gonna beat a dead horse a little bit. It's the old what is a bill, what is a sign and what is a sculpture. It's the I believe the colors are supposed to reflect the company's logo. Why doesn't that make that a sign? And why does the ability to put in a little bit more language into the PD to regulate what effect of that signage on the neighboring individuals? Why don't we have that?

Mister Andrew, would you mind addressing the question?

No problem. So in our code, we generally treat full logos as signs. If you just depict, say you depict a crayon but you don't write Crayola on it, we don't consider that a sign. We had to come up with some way to split art from signage. And so that's been our traditional interpretation. If you're not putting your full logo up there, like if they just did a cell phone but it didn't say AT and T on it or reflect the full logo, we're gonna call it art. And that is very consistent with First Amendment law and works better, I think, generally for the city.

So it's the copy versus the background, essentially? Copy on it, which we don't regulate copy, but copy on it sounds like it changes it to signage.

If you put your full trademark, registered mark, whatever you have copyrighted, or your company name and you're using the lettering, that's your standard lettering, we're gonna call that a sign. But if if you have something less or different from that, then, like I said, I think the crayon's the easiest one. If you have a picture of a crayon but you never write Crayola on it, we're not going to say that that's Crayola's.

Even if we know it's Crayola's Fair enough.

Same thing with, say, an Italian restaurant where they paint a mural on the side that looks like an Italian restaurant. Right. We're calling it art.

That's fair. Can we embed language that defines what, quote, substantive change is into the PD?

You certainly could. I don't believe there is a defined term for substantive change. The ordinance does allow it does have some language in terms of changing adopted exhibits for the open space plan, for example. But there aren't substantial conformance for a rendering such as this. So if that's something the commission wants to do, you certainly can.

I do want to clarify the record though to say that a change in the color is not something that has been discussed for me, I know that the Director of Planning would make a determination on one way or the other. So I don't want to speak on her behalf and say that that would definitely be a substantive change. If it goes from light blue to medium blue, is that a substantive change in color? That's her decision to make. What's before you tonight is to delegate that decision to the city's director of planning to make those decisions and to bring those back if she feels that it is substantive change.

Okay. One last question. We talked about the photometric glare at the property line. I'm going to assume that we have particular guidelines as maximum minimum limits and what have you. And that's what we'll be measuring.

That's correct. There's a different level of foot candles. The sound they're measured at the property line.

Okay. Alright.

Thank you. Alright.

Alright. Commissioner Tong.

Thank you, mister chairman. I want to talk a little bit about the that pedestrian bridge. So for tonight's case, if we approve the case, does it include approval of building that bridge or it doesn't?

So it's not the approval, but the location, like, specific to the plaza. It it's kind of approved on there but the actual pedestrian bridge does not need the approval tonight.

But is this something that's included in the project that the city will have to spend money on to building that bridge if this plaza is built?

Correct. It will be city design and built.

The language the language in the ordinance says that a bridge may be constructed on the on the plaza. It is not requiring the bridge to be built with the PD stipulations.

Okay, okay. I'm just questioning the function of the bridge right now because I realize that little public park there doesn't go anywhere. So even though you say it connects to Baiken Trail, what kind of what trail does it connect to? Because on Legacy, other than the sidewalk, because there's a long sidewalk in front of EDS, I don't know if it connects to

There's a planned hike and bike trail on both sides of Legacy all the way to the trail along Preston Road, and it'll connect further west into the Shops of Legacy, further west to Legacy West. There's a network of bike trails.

Right.

So it's

They're awfully constructed at this moment, but they are being pieced by the by the city or when properties redevelop, they're putting in the larger sidewalks.

Okay. That's part of the plan, and that plan, it includes that bridge goes to

It includes the trail connection. It doesn't specify whether that's aggravated or or or via a bridge. But the width of that and the general location is set by the park's master plan, yes.

Okay. And that'll be on the, I guess, North Side Of Legacy 2, I mean, on the EDS side?

The the correct, the bridge is currently proposed just on the South Side Of Legacy across Parkwood. There will be another trail location on the North Side.

Yeah, the South Side Of Legacy. Okay. You.

Alright. Commissioner Bronsky.

Yeah. So, I have a question for miss D'Andrea as it relates to the logo, the image itself. When I go to the Southwestern Bell's design of logos and the actual images looks like in 1984 and then again in 2005, this ball that is blue is affiliated as the logo that they have registered and the text that they have next to it changes from 1969, 1984, 2005, as well as 2016 and more current, but the ball itself doesn't change at all. And so I'm curious as to, did we investigate whether the ball itself was their trademark or the ball and the name was their trademark?

I don't know if what kind of investigation was done on the trademark. I just know our philosophy and how we generally make determinations on this. And, you know, I've discussed that with building inspections in the past and the planning director in the past, but I I have not been involved in any kind of investigation, any kind of determinations that way.

So, mister Kim, can you can you tell me any additional information as it relates to the logo itself as to this ball and especially with it being blue and looking at the history of AT and T, that ball sure looks like a logo.

Yeah. So I think, you know, when the director of planning and the chief building official met, I'm sure there was, you know, some consideration of the history of the logo as it relates to the structure. I don't wanna speak on their behalf about what their interpretation was, but at the ultimate ultimately, it was determined that it was not a sign. And so, that is what we are.

Yeah, I think the conversation was based on facts, past practice of interpreting what is art versus what is a sign and using that same consistent principle, it was deemed in their opinion not to be a sign.

Yeah. I I wish we had the chief building official here because, as I've looked at it and especially gone through some of these, information relative to AT and T's ball. To me, that looks much more like a logo than, I originally thought it is especially since it's going to be basically the color of the image itself, as well. So, do I have some concerns about that and it's unfortunate we don't have the building official here tonight to give us a little more detail but thank you very much mister Kim.

Alright. Other questions of staff? Nobody? Okay. We're going to take these one at a time. So the first item is going to be item 1A. Is anybody prepared to make a motion? I'll make a motion that we approve item one a as presented by the staff. Mr. Lingenfelter.

I'll second that.

Alright. We have three other lights on. If people want to make comments? Mr. Ali, did you want to make a comment?

One comment, I don't know if this is pertinent, can we approve I'm going to mess up the words Mike said, given the planning director, almost like plan director needs to define for us what substantive change is. And we add that language to the motion. Or is that necessary? I'm open to push back.

My reaction is I don't think it's necessary, but may ask, is there a common definition of substantive?

Think she would always be your first line because she is the one who interprets ordinances, so that would be including the PD language. So she is the front line of figuring out compliance.

On a daily basis.

On a day to day basis. She will certainly have heard your comments here and concerns, but if you wanted to give a more specific limit like about color, if you're especially interested in that or something that might be a better direction. Just say to her, if the color's changing, bring it back.

Okay. I I would go more if the intensity of the color is changing, bring it back. If the size and girth of the ball is changing materially past, I'm going to make something up 10% more than the circumference that we have looked at, bring it back. If the height is a no brainer, anything higher than what is currently. If the girth of the base, unless it is needed to achieve the Tier three wind, whatever technical term we call it, bring it back.

Yeah. Fair. I think I think it's fair to kind of do what what I refer to as legislative intent. That that's noted that I'm sure she'll listen to our comments and and understand what our intent is. Alright. So, we have a motion and a second. Everybody, please vote. Motion passes seven to zero. Alright. Item one b which is the preliminary site plan.

Can somebody put that slide up on the screen just so we know what we're voting on? Is that possible? Just wanna make sure we all know exactly what we're voting on here. Here we go. Okay. Item one B. Commissioner Bronski.

I move we approve agenda item one B as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Bender. Second the motion. Alright, we have a motion and a second. Any questions or comments? Nobody? Okay. Please vote. Item passes seven to zero. Alright. Item one C and one D. Mr. Bronsky.

I move we approve agenda item one C as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Tong.

I second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second for item one C. Please vote. Motion passes seven to zero. Okay. Item one D. Commissioner Ronski.

I move, we approve agenda item one D as recommended by staff.

Commissioner Lienfelter.

I'll second.

Alright, we have a motion and a second on item one D. Please vote. Motion is approved, seven to zero. You all for being here tonight. Thank you very much.

Item number two.

Agenda item number two, request to amend heritage landmark designation one h one on three. Eight acres of land out of the Solomon Fitzhugh survey. Abstract number three twenty seven located on the Southeast corner of 15th Street and Pittman Drive in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas to modify development standards. The petitioner is city of Plano. The item is for legislative consideration.

Good evening, commissioners. Destiny Woods, planner with the planning department. So tonight we're looking at this zoning case for heritage designation one. So the area of the subject property is shown in yellow. And the Amy Wilson House and or Heritage Farmstead Museum is the City of Plano's first heritage landmark designation.

A heritage landmark designation is a zoning overlay district. So, the Planning and Zoning Commission may modify development standards in order to preserve or protect the landmark. So, one of those requested modifications is to allow crushed granite for gated parking areas on-site. Crushed granite is not a permitted paving type in the zoning ordinance. So, this is a requested allowance and then, both the Heritage Commission and city staff find that crushed granite is an appropriate paving material to protect and maintain the integrity of the landmark.

The other modification to the existing development standards is to allow a historically appropriate identification sign. And a conceptual design of the sign is shown on the screen, but it is subject to approval of a certificate of appropriateness that would be approved by the Heritage Commission. So, this screen shows the associated stipulations and those modifications I mentioned in blue. And then this request does meet the policies, the applicable policy set by the comprehensive plan. So we did receive two letters within the 200 foot buffer of the subject property

in

support, and six responses citywide. So, the Heritage Commission did recommend this item for approval by a vote of six to zero, and staff also recommends for approval as submitted. I'm available for any questions, as well as Mrs. Pulotti with the Heritage Division of Planning and the representative from the Heritage Farmstead Museum is also here if you have questions.

Questions of staff?

I just want to make one clarification that the picture of the sign that you saw is not a final design sign. That's just an illustrative example. The final sign would need to be approved with the Heritage Commission for its appropriateness of the site.

Commissioner Lalali.

Yeah, that was actually my question about the sign. If it's the, you know, like, and what's the relationship between the sign that you showed with the actual house. And I believe actually the I would be in favor of the gravel because it is permeable. So I think it's more sustainable than asphalt. And if it serves the purpose, so I think it's a good idea.

Commission, any other questions of staff? None? Okay. I'm gonna open the public hearing. And I believe the applicant is here. Do we have any questions of the applicant? No? Do we have any other registered speakers? Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Bender. Motion to approve. Commissioner Ali. Spent too much

time looking at period pieces of appropriate paving. Second.

Commissioner Lingenfelter, did you have a oh, okay. You turned the light off. Alright. We have a motion and a second. Please vote.

Motion approved seven to zero. Item number three.

Agenda item number three, Elviso Addition Block A Lot 1 professional general administrative office on one lot on 0.3 Acre located on the South Side Of 18th Street, 175 feet west of K Avenue, zoned downtown business government. The applicant is GAG Construction Services. The this item is for legislative consideration of a subdivision ordinance variance.

Okay. Hello again. So this property is located on 18th Street, just East of I Avenue. It's located on the South side. There's currently a building on the property. Let me sorry about that. Here's the plat that is in review today. So there is currently a building built on the property. It used to be a formal home built around the nineteen forties. Currently, today, it is surrounded by other developed parcels.

There is a building to the to the East, antenna to the West, and then some residential homes to the South. So in order for this property to get a certificate of occupancy, the lot is required to be platted, and so that's why part of why we are here today. Upon review, staff found that the the lot width along 18th Street is 73 feet. The subdivision ordinance requires a minimum frontage of a

100

feet along the street. So we are requesting a reduction to the frontage along 18th Street. Staff did do an analysis of the request prior to this hearing. We found that there's no detriment to public safety, health, or welfare, or injury to other property. Conditions upon which the request for a variance is based are unique to the subject property and are are not generally applicable to other properties.

And the subject property is surrounded by other developed parcels, limits which the ability to modify lot dimensions, and the requested variance does not vary the provisions of the zoning ordinance or the comprehensive plan. Staff recommends that the find recommended that the findings are met and approval subject to the following. A variance two subsection five dot two dot c dot three dot a of the subdivision ordinance to reduce the minimum required furnish from 100 feet to 73 feet and additions and or alterations to the engineering plans as required by the engineering department. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, mister Kim. I just have one question. This lot hasn't changed since 1940, correct?

I believe so.

Okay. So this is a house Very minor. It's been there for eighty years. They're not asking to do anything that hasn't been there for a long, long time. Right. Okay. That's just wanna make sure I was clear. Alright. Commission, any questions of staff? I believe we do not have a speaker on the side. Don't have any registered speakers.

Okay. Commissioner Ali? Roundup question. Since this has been unchanged since 1940, does it have to go through anything heritage wise?

I believe it is not within the heritage designated, district, so it would

not. Okay.

Commissioner Lalali.

I don't know if this is, you know, like a legal question or, you know, like, the lots on both sides or, you know, like, along this, you know, like, frontage, are these all compliant? Like, they have the 100 foot frontage? Is it the only lot? I know that you like you said that this is that you like whatever we're voting on is going to be specific to this lot. Mhmm. But you know like are there other lots? So are we you know like just giving our decision on up you know like on this lot specifically or you know like this so I don't know if this is.

Right. I do believe there are especially around the Downtown Plano downtown areas. There are historically smaller lots that are kinda running into this issue and so we have had to request these variances for these lots.

It's individually. So, you like so we.

Individually, yes. It's been identified for something to address in the zoning and subdivision ordinance rewrite for some of these older parcels around downtown.

Okay. So, you like so, whatever decision that we make today, it, you know, like it's not going to be applied to, you know, like everybody. Okay. Thank you.

Just because I'm really familiar, that little shed that you see just to the right of this, that's the outbuilding of one of the oldest houses in Plano, so I know it's not going anywhere. And there's a beautiful cell phone tree right to the west of there, which we may have discussed in a previous meeting. The prettiest in town. So neither one of those is going any place anytime soon. Alright. I'll make a motion we approve this as presented by city staff. Commissioner Lalie?

And I'll second.

Alright. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Motion approved seven to zero. Item number four.

Agenda item four, Parker Town Center, Block 1, Lot 2A, medical office on one lot on 0.5 acre located on the East Side of K Avenue, six ninety feet north of Parker Road, zoned retail. The applicant is Nature's Choice Management Company, plc. Item is for legislative consideration of landscape edge reduction.

Thank you.

There we go.

On the map here, we have the subject property. It is located along K Avenue within the adjacent to a larger shopping center area. On the right is the current site plan under review at this meeting. So I do wanna point out, just a couple things about the current configuration of the site, as well as the request that is being proposed. So on this site, there used to be a building, a restaurant.

You can see it on the right image here. It has since been torn down, but there was a building here that was built pre our landscape requirements. And so there was no landscape requirements in effect at the time when it was built. And so there is a fire lane that is connecting to the existing shopping center lots, and so that will be continued to be provided. And then on the left image here, you also see there is a retaining wall along Kay Avenue, and that is also within part part of their, you know, sidewalk and landscape, that area.

And so there are some top topographical challenges, sorry, as it relates to this site. And so in the subject property, there is a 10 foot landscape edge required along Kay Avenue, and that is consistent with our park's master plan due to the existing site conditions of the retaining wall, keeping the fire lane, where it is today. There is some challenges associated with developing the full 10 foot landscape edge. So you can see on the image on the right, so the hike and bike trail is right in the center and right along the property line, and you can see there is a 12 foot hike and bike trail easement. And then after the hike and bike trail easement, there is the proposed seven foot landscape edge.

And then also within that landscape edge, there is proposed to be a four foot concrete sidewalk, and that will take up a significant significant portion of the landscape edge as well due to the grading of the site. Section seventeen one hundred dot f allows the commission to reduce the required landscape edge when the reduction is required for public improvements. So staff recommends the item for approval subject to the required findings being met to allow reduction of a landscape as shown in the revised site plan. I'm available for any questions.

Thank you, mister Kim. So, just one quick question. That sidewalk, if you can go back to the one that has the zigzag sidewalk on it, I presume the reason that sidewalk is that way is to provide ADA access from the street up to the facility? Yes. That is correct. So Because of this retaining wall?

Yep. So in order to build out the hike and bike trail here, the retaining wall will be pushed back further into the site, and then they will make connections from the existing sidewalk to the new hike and bike trail that will be proposed. And so there will still be connect connections for the pedestrian without interruptions. So, that's why you see this kind of zigzag pattern today.

Okay. Thank you. Commissioner Bronski?

Just for clarity sake, can you go to the last page? Nope. There you go. So, when it talks about required findings, that's not talking about the findings form relative to the comprehensive plan that's. Correct. A terminology usage there. Correct. Okay. Thank you. That's all I had.

Commissioner Ali.

From my memory and education, the purpose of the 10 foot landscape edge is what? Zero to obscure.

Right. So it is to provide, you know, enough room for landscaping to be provided, such as trees and shrubs. I do wanna note that even with the construction of the sidewalk at this location here, they are still able to provide the required number of shrubs and trees. So effectively, they are still able to meet some of the landscape edge requirements, but just the typical width that would be required cannot be met.

But the edge is not to obscure what is behind that buffer. It's just more of a visually appealing as you go along K Avenue.

Right. And it it is also serving to provide screening from any like parking lots as well as any drives as well. So, you would need shrubs here as well as trees. And so the applicant is able to meet that where there is room.

Thank you. Alright, Commissioner Lali.

And that was actually my question. You know, like they would they are gonna be able to put any shrubs for, you know, like for headlights and everything and it's enough, you know, like you think in your opinion, it's enough. They can accommodate these.

Yes, we do have a revised landscape plan as well and associated with this revised site plan. It is not being presented tonight but based on the info we have, they are providing enough.

Fair enough. Yeah. Thank you.

Alright. Any other questions? We do have the applicant here is available for any questions. Any questions for the applicant? Nobody? Okay. Thank you, mister Kim.

Okay. Thank you. Commission?

Mr. Lingenfelter?

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

Commissioner Rodsky. Second. Alright. We have a motion and a second. Please vote.

Motion passes seven to zero. Alright, comments of public interest?

We had no one registered for comments of public interest.

Okay. Any other business for the commission this evening? No? Okay. We'll stand adjourned at 07:16 p. M. The time. So, we have a lot of the conversations that are going on. So, that helps us out

a

lot so that