. >> JACK CHECK WITH YOU BUT WELCOME TO THE APRIL 20TH, 2026 CITY OF PLANO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AND I CALL THE ORDER MEETING TO ORDER AT 6:00 PM IF YOU'D PLEASE RISE AND JOIN ME IN THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG UNITED STATES JUST THANK YOU VERY MUCH . CONSENT AGENDA. CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA WILL BE ACTED UPON IN ONE MOTION AND CONTAINS ITEMS THAT ARE ROUTINE AND TYPICALLY NONCONTROVERSIAL ITEMS MAY BE REMOVED FROM THIS AGENDA FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION BY COMMISSIONERS OR STAFF. MISTERS WOULD ANYBODY LIKE TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE AGENDA BEFORE WE DO THAT I DO WANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT WE HAVE COMMISSIONER BROUN OFF ON US VIA WITH US VIA ZOOM TONIGHT. SO I'M GOOD YES BECAUSE THEY RAISE YOUR HAND MAKE SURE YOU CAN HEAR US SO. ALL RIGHT SO ANYBODY LIKE TO REMOVE AN ITEM FROM THE CONSENT AGENDA? COMMISSIONER BRODSKY, I MOVE WE APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER LEONARD FELDER. I'LL SECOND ALL RIGHT. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE THAT LINK AND FILTER THAT SECOND MR. RUDOLPH THUMBS UP. OKAY. YEAH RIGHT. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. THANK YOU. ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION ITEMS FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS UNLESS INSTRUCTED OTHERWISE BY THE CHAIR OUR SPEAKERS WILL BE CALLED IN THE ORDER REGISTRATIONS ARE RECEIVED. APPLICANTS ARE LIMITED TO TWO 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 EACH TIME WITH THREE MINUTES ASSIGNED PER SPEAKER. THE PRESIDING OFFICER MAY NOT MAY MODIFY THESE TIMES AS DEEMED NECESSARY ADMINISTRATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS MUST BE APPROVED IF THEY MEET CITY DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS. LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION ITEMS ARE MORE DISCRETIONARY EXCEPT AS CONSTRAINED BY LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS NON PUBLIC HEARING ITEMS. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL PERMIT LIMITED PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA NOT POSTED FOR A PUBLIC HEARING. THE PRESIDING OFFICER WILL ESTABLISH TIME LIMITS BASED UPON THE NUMBER OF SPEAKER REQUESTS LENGTH OF THE AGENDA AND TO ENSURE MEETING EFFICIENCY AND MAY INCLUDE A TOTAL TIME LIMIT. >> THINK YOU CAN READ ITEM NUMBER ONE PLEASE. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER ONE SIGNATURE PLAZA BLOCK A LOTS 1R7R AND EIGHT RETAIL RESTAURANT AND HEALTH FITNESS CENTER ON THREE LOTS ON 9.7 ACRES LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF COYOTE ROAD 625FT NORTH OF RIDGE VIEW DRIVE. ZONED REGIONAL COMMERCIAL AND LOCATED WITHIN THE STATE HIGHWAY 121 AN EXPRESSWAY CORRIDOR OVERLAY DISTRICTS THE APPLICANT IS KROGER TEXAS L.P. . THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION. >> GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS ANNA SOUTER. >> I'M A PLANNER FROM THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. >> THE PURPOSE OF THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS TO SHOW TO A NEW PROPOSED RESTAURANT RETAIL BUILDINGS, MODIFIED LOT LINES AND IMPROVEMENTS RELATING TO THE RE-USE OF AN EXISTING GROCERY STORE BUILDING AS A HEALTH FITNESS CENTER. WITH THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, THE PROPOSED RETAIL RESTAURANT BUILDINGS AND LOTS SEVEN R AND EIGHT ARE REQUESTING A REDUCTION IN THE REQUIRED LANDSCAPE EDGE FROM 30FT TO 19FT TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF BRIGHTER LANES ON COYOTE ROAD WHEN THE SITE WAS ORIGINALLY DEVELOPED IN 2004 A 30 FOOT WIDE LANDSCAPE EDGE WAS PROVIDED ALONG QUITE ROAD. HOWEVER NO RETURN LANES WERE REQUIRED UNDER THE STANDARDS IN EFFECT THAT TIME WHERE THE NEW BUILDINGS PROPOSE CONSTRUCTION OF TWO RIGHT TURN LANES ARE NOW REQUIRED. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REDUCE THE LANDSCAPE EDGE FROM 30FT TO 19FT TO ACCOMMODATE THE TURN LANES WHILE MAINTAINING CONSISTENCY WITH THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE EDGE OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES. >> THE FIRST IMAGE SHOWS THE EXISTING LANDSCAPE EDGE ON LOT EIGHT WHICH IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED AND ALIGNED WITH THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY. THE SECOND IMAGE TAKEN DURING RUSH HOUR SHOWS THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED RIGHT TURN LANE TO THE HELP TO HELP REDUCE THE CONGESTION AND IMPROVE ACCESS. >> THERE ARE TWO PROVISIONS TO ALLOW A LANDSCAPE EDGE REDUCTION. >> THE FIRST REQUIRES 40 FEET OF LANDSCAPING BETWEEN THE BACK OF THE CURVE OF THE STREET INCLUDING THE RIGHT OF WAY AND THE LANDSCAPE EDGE. THE APPLICANT PROVIDES ONLY 33FT SO IT DOES NOT QUALIFY FOR AN AUTOMATIC REDUCTION. THE SECOND ALLOWS OF THE 15 FOOT REDUCTION IF THE FULL REQUIREMENT WOULD PREVENT REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT IN A SAFE AND EFFICIENT MANNER. UNDER THIS PROVISION THE APPLICANT REQUESTS A REDUCTION FROM 30FT TO 19FT. IF APPROVED THERE WILL BE 19FT OF LANDSCAPE EDGE ON SITE AS SHOWN IN GREEN IN GREEN IN THE IMAGE ON THE PREVIOUS SLIDE AND AN ADDITIONAL 14FT OF LANDSCAPING WITHIN THE RIGHT OF WAY. >> THE REQUEST REDUCTION ACCOMMODATES THE REQUIRED TURN LANES WHILE MAINTAINING SAFE AND EFFICIENT SITE CIRCULATION. IT ALIGNS WITH ADJACENT PROPERTY AND PRESERVE A CONSISTENT STREETSCAPE. MEETING THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE REQUIRED FINDINGS BEING MET TO ALLOW A REDUCTION OF THE LANDSCAPE EDGE SHOWN ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. >> AND THAT CONCLUDES MY PRESENTATION. I'M AVAILABLE FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM. >> THANK YOU. I DO HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE WORD FINDINGS HAS A UNIQUE MEANING FOR US. IS THIS ACTUAL FINDINGS FOR THIS ACTION? SO IT'S USUALLY WRITTEN INTO THE STAFF REPORT. >> THERE'S A LIST OF THE THINGS THAT THE COMMISSION NEEDS TO FIND. >> SO IN THIS CASE THE FIND THAT THE COMMISSION IS A GENERAL SENSE OF THE WORD FINDINGS NOT THE FINDINGS FORMS THAT YOU'RE USED TO WITH THE ZONING CASES. IN THIS CASE YOU NEEDED TO FIND THAT IT IT IS NEEDED TO MAINTAIN EFFICIENT CIRCULATION AND ACCESS AND SAFETY FOR THE SITE. OKAY. WHAT'S NOT? WE'RE NOT FILLING OUT AN ACTUAL FINDINGS FORM CORRECT OR OUR PROTOCOLS JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE HAVE THE RIGHT DEFINITION OF THAT ITEM. SO OKAY. THAT WAS MY QUESTION. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF ? COMMISSIONER LOLLY SO I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. YOU LOOK AT THE DRIVE AISLES ARE 30 FOOT WIDE. ARE THESE REQUIRED OR CAN THEY NARROW THEM SO THEY PUSH EVERYTHING EASTWARD? ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE DRIVER THE DRIVE AISLES INSIDE THE SITE THAT YOU LIKE THAT TWO LIKE THIS ONE IS THE ONE ON THE EAST SIDE. IT'S THREE FOOT WIDE. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO. SO YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE DRIVE AISLE INSIDE THE SIDE INSIDE THE SITE. SO IT'S NOT ON THE NORTH SIDE ON THE EAST SIDE. ON THE EAST SIDE? YEAH. YOU KNOW, LIKE BEHIND THE PROPOSED RESTAURANT. YES. SO IT IS 30 IS IT REQUIRED TO BE 30 OR CAN THEY PUSH EVERYTHING YOU LIKE? THEY CAN PUSH IT MAYBE LIKE SIX FOOT TO MAKE IT 24. >> SO THE 30FT IS AN EXISTING DRIVE. >> I'LL GOING TO THE THE ACTUAL DEVELOPMENT IT'S EXISTING RIGHT NOW IT COULD BE LESSER BUT THE 30FT IS LIKE WHAT I SAID EXISTING OUR EXISTING. AND MY OTHER QUESTION IS YOU KNOW LIKE ARE THESE PARKING SPACES THE PROPOSED ONE WITH THE RESTAURANTS ARE THESE SIZE FOR A RESTAURANT? >> I MEAN YOU'RE LIKE THAT'S WHY THEY HAD THOSE NUMBER OF PARKING AND THEY CAN PRODUCE THEM TO GET MORE LANDSCAPE. SO THE NUMBER OF PARKING IS ACTUALLY PER SQUARE FOOT. SO THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT THEY HAVE ARE ACTUALLY WHAT'S REQUIRED PER SQUARE FOOTAGE. >> YES. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO THEY CAN'T REDUCE THE PARKING TO GET MORE? IT CAN BE MORE BUT IT CANNOT BE LESSER UNLESS THEY ASK FOR A REDUCTION. >> THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? OKAY. DON'T HAVE ANY I KNOW THE APPLICANT IS HERE IF WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. DOES ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? NOBODY. OKAY. THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM SO WE DO NOT HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING. SO COMMISSION MR. WILLIAM FELTER I FIND THAT THIS MAKES SENSE. IT'S GOING TO LINE UP WITH THE ADJOINING PROPERTIES. IT DOES SEEM LIKE IT'S A NECESSARY THING TO DO FOR THE FOR THESE RIGHT TURN LANES TO BE THAT WOULD DEFINITELY IMPROVE THE TRAFFIC PATTERN. SO I ACTUALLY RECOMMEND AND THAT WE APPROVE THIS AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF I MOVE THAT WE OKAY WE HAVE A MOTION MR. THANK YOU CHAIRMAN. I WOULD SECOND OKAY. MOTION DOES THAT ADDRESS THE FINDINGS? QUESTION AS FAR AS THE MOTION IS CONCERNED, IS THAT ANSWER THAT IT DOES BECAUSE THE RECOMMENDATION WAS WRITTEN IN A WAY THAT INCORPORATES THE FINDINGS. OKAY. WE TRIED TO MAKE IT EASY FOR YOU ALL. OKAY. I'M SORRY, COMMISSIONER BRUNO IF I DID NOT LOOK TO SEE IF YOU HAD YOUR HAND UP IF YOU HAD ANY QUESTIONS. NO. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION IN A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. THUMBS UP FROM COMMISSIONER RUNOFF. MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. THANK YOU EITHER NUMBER TWO A AGENDA ITEM NUMBER TWO DICKINSON ADDITION BLOCK ONE LOT ONE CAR WASH ON ONE LOT ON 0.8 ACRE LOCATED AT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF K AVENUE AND 22ND STREET ZONED LIGHT COMMERCIAL WAS SPECIFIC USE PERMITS NUMBER 82 FOR AUTO LEASING FACILITY AND NUMBER 223 FOR LIGHT INTENSITY INTENSITY MANUFACTURING. THE APPLICANT IS KIAH ENTERPRISE OF PLANO LLC. THIS ITEM IS FOR LEGISLATIVE CONSIDERATION OF RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY SCREENING. >> THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION I'M DESTINEE WOODS PLANNER WITH THE PLANNING DEPARTMENT. SO THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS FOR A CAR WASH. THERE IS ALREADY AN EXISTING CAR WASH ON THIS LOT CURRENTLY BUT THAT WILL BE DEMOLISHED AND REPLACED WITH THE PROPOSED CARWASH THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY. SO THE IMAGE ON THE LEFT SHOWS THE AREA OF THE LOCATION AREA OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AND ON THE RIGHT THE PROPOSED PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN A MINOR CHANGE WAS MADE TO THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AFTER THE ITEM WAS POSTED ONLINE AND THAT CHANGE WAS ONLY TO REFLECT AND EDIT IN THE IN A TABLE NOTING THE VARIANCES BEING REQUESTED. >> SO ARTICLE 20 1.500 OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO REQUIRE SCREENING FOR A CAR WASH WHENEVER IT'S WITHIN 300FT OF A RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT WHERE THAT SCREENING WOULD NOT NORMALLY BE REQUIRED BY THE ZONING ORDINANCE. >> SO THERE IS A SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE SEVEN DISTRICT ABOUT 240FT WEST OF THE CAR WASH FACILITIES. AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SIX FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL FOR OVER HALF THE LENGTH OF THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE AND HEADLIGHT SCREENING FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE PROPERTY LINE THAT FALLS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. THERE'S ALSO A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING BETWEEN THE CAR WASH AND THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT THAT WILL ALSO SERVE AS A BUFFER. AND STAFF FINDS THAT THE SCREENING THE EXISTING TWO STOREY BUILDING AND THAT THOSE THINGS ARE ADEQUATE TO MINIMIZE THE IMPACT OF THE CAR WASH ON THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. >> SO THIS GRAPHIC IS SHOWING THE LOCATION OF THE MASONRY WALL AND THE LOCATION OF THE HEADLIGHT SCREENING. SO SHOWN IN YELLOW YOU CAN SEE THE EXTENT OF THE WALL AND IN RED IS THE SCREENING BOTH ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. SO WHERE THE RED LINE ENDS IS WHERE THE RIGHT OF WAY WILL BEGIN. SO HAVE A SCREENING IS NOT BEING PROVIDED IN THAT AREA. >> THIS PHOTO SHOWS THE VIEW ALONG 22ND STREET FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT BOUNDARY FACING THE SUBJECT PROPERTY AT THE BOTTOM OF THE CURVE ON THE STREET IN THIS PHOTO SHOWS THE VIEW ALONG 22ND STREET FROM THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FACING THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT AT THE TOP OF THE CURB ON THE STREET SO THE APPLICANT IS ALSO REQUESTING VARIANCES FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT FOR VACUUMS AND CARPORTS EXCEEDING THE HEIGHT REQUIREMENTS WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK. BUT THOSE VARIANCES ARE OUT OF THE SCOPE FOR THIS PRESENTATION AND THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING STIPULATIONS THE FIRST THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL OF A VARIANCE TO SUBSECTION 13.502 C TO ALLOW FRONT YARD TO BE INSTRUCTED TEN FEET ABOVE THE GENERAL GROUND LEVEL. BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT APPROVAL FOR A VARIANCE SUBSECTION 13.903 B TO ALLOW A CARPORT WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK THE CONSTRUCTION OF A SIX FOOT MASONRY SCREENING WALL TO SCREEN THE SITE FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT HEADLIGHT SCREENING CONSISTING OF EVERGREEN SHRUBS ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE WITHIN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK AND ADDITION OR ALTERATIONS TO THE ENGINEERING PLANS AS REQUIRED BY THE ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. I'M AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AND THE APPLICANT IS ALSO HERE FOR QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY ONE QUICK QUESTION FOR ME SO ARE BETWEEN THIS SITE AND THE RESIDENTIAL IS NOT JUST A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING, IT'S ALSO THE DART RAIL CORRIDOR, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT BECAUSE I KNOW ONE OF OUR ISSUES WITH CARWASHES IS IS NOISE SO IT'S NOT JUST A BUILDING. WE ALSO HAVE A RAIL LINE ACTIVE RAIL LINE. YES, THAT'S RIGHT. >> GREAT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KLINEFELTER, I JUST HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHY DID THEY NOT EXTEND THAT MASONRY WALL THROUGH THE ENTIRE LENGTH OF THE SITE NOW? >> SO IF IT'S EXTENDED I'LL BRING THAT VIEW BACK UP. BUT IF THE WALL IS EXTENDED INTO WHERE THE RED IS, IT WOULD BE IN THE FRONT YARD SETBACK WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MORE VARIANCES FOR THE SITE AND THEN IT ALSO POSED CHALLENGES WITH TOPOGRAPHY AND UM BEING ABLE TO SEE COMING OFF OF 22ND AROUND THE CURVE. COMMISSIONER ALI JUST ONE THERE IS IT IS AN OLD CAR WASH ON SITE HAS BEEN DEMOLISHED. WHAT WAS THE SCREENING FOR THAT ONE WAS IN PLACE SO THE CAR WASH HASN'T BEEN DEMOLISHED YET BUT IT WILL BE THERE'S CURRENTLY SHRUBBERY ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE BUT IT ONLY EXTENDS UP TO ABOUT WHERE THAT WALL IS IS BEING PROPOSED. IT DOESN'T EXTEND TO THE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. IT'S JUST SHRUBS NOT EXCEEDING THE TYPICAL HEIGHT OF HEADLIGHTS SCREENING FROM A REQUIREMENT PERSPECTIVE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG I THINK THE REQUIREMENT IS ON THE HEIGHT OF THE SCREENING, NOT NECESSARILY ON THE TYPE OF THE SCREENING. SO IF IT WAS A SIX FOOT LIVING SCREEN WOULD THAT SUFFICE? >> SO I THINK IT'S ACTUALLY BACKWARDS IF I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION CORRECTLY THERE THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT MEANT FOR SCREENING. IT'S JUST THAT IF THIS COMMISSION SEES THAT SCREENING SHOULD BE PROVIDED THEN YOU CAN RECOMMEND SOME SORT OF SCREENING. >> THEY'RE PROVIDING A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL BECAUSE THAT'S TYPICALLY WHAT WE SEE TO SCREEN JUST YOU KNOW, FOR A SCREENING WALL. BUT THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY REQUIRED. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NONE. OH. >> OH, MICHAEL. SORRY. COMMISSIONER BERNOFF. YES. THANK YOU. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES. OKAY. NOW HAVE THERE BEEN ANY COMPLAINTS FROM THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS WITH REGARD TO THE PRESENT CARWASH OH, THERE'S BEEN NO COMPLAINTS THAT I'VE RECEIVED SINCE THIS HAS BEEN POSTED BUT WE CAN CONFIRM THAT WITH THE PROPERTY STANDARDS DIVISION AFTER THIS. >> OKAY. IS THAT IS THE NEW CARWASH EXPECTED TO PRODUCE LIKE GREATER IMPACT ON ON THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IN TERMS OF NOISE OR LIGHT THAN THE THAN THE EXISTING ONE DOES THE ONLY IMPACT THAT I CAN SEE BEING GREATER WOULD BE THE VACUUM PUMPS THAT ARE STATIONED CLOSER TO THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. BUT OTHER THAN THAT I DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY OTHER OKAY BUT THE THE APPLICANT IS IS PROPOSING AND IS WILLING TO PUT IN THE WALL AND THE HEADLIGHT SCREENING. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF MR. LANE FILTER YOU CAN YOU DEFINE THE HEAD HEADLIGHT SCREENING LIKE THE HEIGHT OF THE SHRUBS OR WHAT WHAT DO WE IT SOUNDS LIKE IT'S JUST GOING UP TO ABOVE THE BUMPER ABOVE THE HOOD OF A CAR, RIGHT? >> IT'S IT'S TYPICALLY ABOUT 18IN OFF THE GROUND IF SOMEONE COULD VERIFY THAT FOR ME. BUT YES, TYPICALLY WOULD JUST BE SCREENING THE HEADLIGHTS OF A VEHICLE AND NOT NECESSARILY COMING UP AS HIGH AS A SCREENING WALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. IT COULD BE LIKE THE SAME HEIGHT OF AS A WING WALL IF THAT WERE IF THAT WERE THERE. BUT IT'S REALLY JUST TO ADD JUST AND ANY EXTRA BARRIER THAT'S FEASIBLE IN THAT LOCATION, WOULD IT BE FEASIBLE WHAT WITH THE BEING IN THIS IN THAT FRONT SIDE SETBACK FRONT YARD SETBACK UM TO DO MAYBE SOMETHING LIKE A LIVING SCREEN THAT MATCHES THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL SO IT ALL JUST KIND OF IS A LITTLE MORE CONTINUOUS ACROSS SO I'M NOT SURE IF A LIVING SCREEN WOULD HAVE THE SAME CONCERNS FOR VISIBILITY AND LIKE TOPOGRAPHY CHANGING IF I CAN ANSWER THAT ONE FOR YOU, THERE'S A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. YOU CAN SEE IT ON THE PLAN AND YOUR YES, YOU YOU CAN'T PUT ANYTHING THAT TALL IN THAT VISIBILITY TRIANGLE BUT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE STRIPING THERE? YEAH, THAT'S NOT A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. IT'S JUST STRIPING FOR LIKE TO GET PEOPLE TO NOT TO DRIVE OVER. WELL FROM THE SAFETY PERSPECTIVE THAT SHOULD BE A VISIBILITY TRIANGLE. OKAY. JUST TO CLARIFY THE LINK IN THE LANDSCAPE LIGHT SCREEN AND REQUIRES THAT THEY BE FIVE GALLON MINIMUM SHRUBS THAT MUST BE A MATURE HEIGHT OF I JUST HAD IT HERE IT'S LIKE AN 18 TO 40IN RIGHT I'M SORRY 30 TO 42IN. OKAY. SO MORE 3 TO 4FT IN THIS. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF LEAVE THE APPLICANT IS HERE. IS ANYBODY HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OF THE APPLICANT? I'M NOT SEEING ANY COMMISSION. MR. BRONSKI. I MOVE WE APPROVE THIS AGENDA ITEM AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF COMMISSIONER LALLY. I'LL SECOND RIGHT A MOTION AND A SECOND. PLEASE VOTE. MR. BRUNO OFF HAS A THUMBS UP MOTION PASSES 7 TO 0. ALL RIGHT. THAT'S EVERYTHING ON OUR POST AGENDA. IS THERE ANY OTHER BUSINESS BEFORE THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING? NO, NO, NO. SO THIS MEETING WILL STAND ADJOURNED AT 6:21 P.M. . OKAY, I'M LOOKING AROUND. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE A FUTURE PART. THERE WAS NOTHING HERE, YOU KNOW, BUT TREES AND THE CREEK AND GRASS