Welcome to the February 2nd planning City of Plano Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I'm calling to order the meeting to order tonight at 6:00 pm. If you would all please rise and join me in the Pledge of Allegiance. I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. Thank you very much. Comments of public interest. There are none. Nobody's registered. All right. Consent agenda. Consent agenda. 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. Commissioner. Anybody would like to remove an item from the consent agenda, and we do have Commissioner Lingenfelter on zoom as well. So, Commissioner, if you want to make a motion or something, just raise your hand and try to get my attention, if you would, please. All right. Anybody want to remove an item from the consent agenda? Nobody. Commissioner Bronsky, I move, we approve the consent agenda as submitted. Commissioner Bruno, I second the motion. All right, we have a motion and a second. Please vote. Commissioner Lingenfelter, your vote. Thumbs up. Okay, I'll take that as an I. Motion passes 8 to 0. All right. Items for individual consideration. Items for individual consideration. Public hearing items, unless instructed otherwise by the chair speakers will be called in. The ordered registrations are received. Applicants are limited to a total of 15 minutes of presentation time, with a five minute rebuttal if needed. Remaining speakers are limited to 30 total minutes of testimony time, with three minutes assigned per speaker. The presiding officer may modify these times as deemed necessary. Administrative consideration items must be approved if they meet city development regulations. Legislative consideration items are more discretionary except as constrained by legal considerations. Nonpublic hearing items presiding officer will permit limited public comment for items on the agenda not posted for a public hearing. Presiding officer will establish time limits based upon the number of speaker requests, length of the agenda and to insure meeting efficiency, and may include a total time limit. Me to read both items. Read item one and one B together please. Agenda item number one A. Request to rezone 14.6 acres of land out of the Joab Butler Survey. Abstract number 46. Located on the west side of Los Rios Boulevard, 1250ft north of Merriman Drive in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas, from planned development. 173 estate development to single family residence six. This item was tabled November 17th, 2025 and January 5th, 2026. Petitioner's Meadows Baptist Church agenda item number one be Meadows Brook additions and Meadows Baptist Church Addition block one, lot one are 58 single family residence, six lots, two common area lots, and a religious facility on one lot on 27.3 acres. Located at the north west corner of Los Rios Boulevard and Merriman Drive. Zoned. Planned development 173 estate development. The applicant is Meadows Baptist Church. Good evening, commissioners. Destiny woods, planner with the Planning Department. The applicant is requesting to table this item to the March 2nd meeting. They have met with the surrounding community and are going to be changing the request to SF seven. Instead of the initial initial requested SF six zoning. And that's going to be to address some of the neighborhood concerns that we heard last time. So this item is both items are recommended to be tabled to the March 2nd, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I'm available for any questions. The applicant is also here. Commission questions of staff. Nobody. Okay, I do have a public hearing. So let's open the public hearing. Do we have anybody registered to speak? I know we have the applicant here, but there are none. Okay. All right. I'll close the public hearing Commission Commissioner Bronsky. So I'd like to first start off by saying this is a part of the reason I think it's great that our developers and neighbors can work together. And so with that good heart in mind, I move that we table agenda item one A to the March 2nd, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Mr. Bruno, I agree with Commissioner Bronowski's comments and I second the motion. All right. We have a motion and a second. Any comments? Anybody? Please vote. Commissioner Lingamfelter, I. Motion passes 8 to 0. Right. Item one B. Commissioner Bronsky I move we table item one B to the March 2nd, 2026 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Commissioner Bruno I second the motion. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Commissioner Lingamfelter I. Motion passes 8 to 0. Right. Item two. Agenda item number two. Request to amend specific use permit number 56 for commercial antenna support structure on point one acre of land out of the Maria C Vela survey. Abstract number 935. Located 220ft north of Democracy Drive and 220ft east of Partnership Road in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas. Presently zoned commercial employment. Remanded by City Council on January 12th, 2026, petitioners, Democracy Partners Limited. This item is for legislative consideration. Good evening. My name is Molly Correa, lead planner with the planning department. The request at hand is for the existing Sup number 56, which is shown on this aerial. And as you can see, the adjacent zoning of the subject property is all in the Commercial Employment District. This request. Coming forward to you tonight is still largely the same. So they are still proposing to reduce the permitted height from 120ft to 95ft. And additionally, they are changing the sign design from a stealth monopole to a human initiated tree or a faux tree. And there's no changes being made to the base. Commercial employment, zoning, a little bit of history for you. So originally this request was approved in May of 2024. The request was for a stealth monopole tower for up to 120ft. However, the initial design was a tree design which you see at the image at the top of the screen. The request was revised to a flagpole design. Throughout the comment review process between staff and the applicant. However, in July 2025, just over a year later, PNC approved a two year waiver for this request for a two year waiting period for this request so the applicant could come back and revise their request, which they submitted in September of 2025. And they did want to go back to the Foa tree design. Some additional history since this item was last heard at PNC in November 2025. The item was scheduled for PNC and the commission voted four four, which moved the item forward automatically to counsel with no recommendation. In January 2026, however, the item went to City Council and the applicant was proposing significant design changes, and so the applicant requested that the item be remanded back to PNC so that the PNC, the Planning and Zoning Commission, could consider the changes into design prior to the item being heard at City Council. So, as you can see with these two images and it's actually bigger on the next slide, you can see that the previous design that PNC considered over to your left. Yes, is the original mono eucalyptus design. However, the design revised design now emulates a magnolia tree. As you can see, it's more of a broad leaf design with branches that extend closer to the bottom of the fake trunk faux trunk area and then extend outwards and then kind of create a conical shape moving up, which emulates a magnolia tree, which is a native species. Again, an SCP is required if the structure if the pole structure is over 60ft in height and there are zoning incentives for stealth tower design. And that includes faux trees. And if the. In this case, the tower is mimicking a native tree species and form which is required in order to meet the stealth design, which is a change from the previous request that the commission heard in November is that is now meeting the purpose of a stealth design by emulating a native tree. The proposed tower is 95ft in height. They are proposing a magnolia tree design, and with three carriers, the structure is next to an existing building that is 27ft in height and an eight foot masonry screening wall. The request does not change the land use. So the comprehensive. So our long range planning team did not complete a full comprehensive plan analysis. However, Community Design Action three seeks to minimize visual impact of overhead utilities and wireless communication facilities. And our comprehensive planning team did provide in the staff report that the faux tree design emulates a magnolia tree, which does reduce the visual prominence and is therefore meeting the purpose of that action. Within the Comprehensive Plan. We did not receive any responses within 200ft of the zoning request, and additionally, we received one's response citywide in favor of the request. So in summary, the request tonight is to amend the existing specific use permit number 56. Sorry, it says 65. Its specific use permit number 56, for a commercial antenna support structure to reduce the height from 120 to 95ft, and to change the design from the stealth monopole to the human initiated tree. Staff is recommending approval subject to the following. That would be that the plan needs that. It needs to be consistent with the approved site plan, the faux tree design, and then that all antennas and other equipment attached to the support structure must be screened from view by the faux tree foliage, and namely, that the support structure, elevation and associated details on page two of the zoning exhibit are adopted as part of the ordinance. Thank you so much, and I'm happy to answer any questions. And the applicant is here tonight as well. Okay. Questions of staff. Commissioner Bruno. Oh, I'm sorry, I was hoping to speak after Mr. Bronsky. Okay. Commissioner alley, just one. What's our process to make sure those requirements that you laid out actually happens? I don't imagine we have a certificate of occupancy for, you know, a stealth tower. Thank you for that question. So by tying the page two of the zoning exhibit is the image of the tree design that is emulating magnolia tree. And by tying that to the adopted ordinance, it actually becomes a code enforcement issue. If they're not able to keep up the maintenance of the tree. Based on the graphic provided, as well as the other stipulations included as part of the adopted ordinance. So it would then become manageable by code enforcement to make sure that the design of the tree is being followed. Okay, one other question. Did we give them the stealth design or did they come up with the magnolia? They provided the broad leaf design that emulates the magnolia tree to us. We had provided some comments. The branches were already pretty close to the base, and so we just asked that to emulate more of a conical shape, but it was very small, like it was already doing that just a little bit more. Mr. Bronsky so question on the magnolia tree design. Last time the the people were here, they were saying that there was no design, there was no faux tree design. That was something that would be similar to this. How common is the magnolia tree design as a faux tree example for these kind of towers? Commissioner Bronsky first first vice chair Bronsky. Just make sure I'm understanding your question. So you're asking. So previously they had said that there was no native tree species that could be used for stealth tower design. So how is the magnolia tree? No, no no. Or how common is this magnolia tree design in its usage? And is it is it something that's new, or is it something that they found or were able to develop? Or the. I believe that the broad leaf design was already available in the applicant can speak more on that. However. You know, I'm not sure I'm equipped to answer that question. I think that question is better suited for the applicant. That's okay. Thinking through it, I'm frankly happy that they found something that a the staff could approve, and b that was native to us. I just was curious that I'm happy they found it. So I just wanted I was trying to gather a little more information for myself. That's a good question. Thank you ma'am. Of course, other questions of staff. Seeing none, I'll open the public hearing. I think we do have the applicant here. Does anybody have questions for the applicant? Do you have a presentation for us or you just available for questions? Very, very brief, mainly to show you the sample board that is showing your pictures. So you can actually see what this design is going to look like. And I should note I want to say it into the microphone so I don't show you. But one of these leaves is on. Why don't you start with introduce yourself and got ahead of myself. My name is Mason Griffin and I reside at 4908 Spyglass Drive in Dallas, Texas, and I have a magnolia tree in my front yard and one just around the corner. And so what I've done is literally this afternoon took magnolia leaf off of one of the trees. So I'm going to walk this sample board around so you can see it. If you'd like to pass it around. You're welcome to, but I'll show you the one that is that is not faux, not human initiated. So why don't you start with holding it up right there? So it'll be on camera for anybody that's watching and including. Okay, so which one is the real one and which one is the. Okay. So that's the one off your magnolia tree off of of the neighborhood Magnolia. And yeah. So I can pass this around okay. If anyone would like to see it or I think we can see it, I think it's more important that we see it from here, frankly. Okay, great. Yeah, absolutely. Well again, that's the this is the real Magnolia. And that's a that's a pretty good match. So that is a pretty good match. All right. But yes I'm available for, for for for any questions that people might have okay. So questions of the applicant Commissioner Bronsky. So the. Do you feel confident that the upkeep and maintenance to maintain this is something that you guys can handle? Yes. Absolutely. Absolutely. Just to just to go over a couple of maintenance issues, usually on a cell tower, the maintenance is just the responsibility of the tower owner. And you might have one property owner that's, that's that's holding them accountable. In this case we've got the legacy Association, the HOA, the the city of Plano, the property owner, as well as all of the tenants coming in and out of those office buildings every day. And so I feel certain we will be held accountable by by folks calling and and letting us know what's going on. Additionally, in fact, frankly, I did not know about my own client is they actually install cameras within low down within the trees so that they can respond appropriately to maintenance requests. They don't monitor them 24 seven. That'd be a waste of resources. But if someone has a complaint, they're able to just punch up the the view on their screen like a ring device and determine what type of response is needed, if any. In addition to that, I just want to say thank you for making the effort to a find something that our staff could approve, but more so even is being able to find something that is native that does work for us. Thank you know, I think this is a great solution. I want to compliment Mr. Bell and Miss Coryell for their assistance to this whole process and working with us to to find a solution that I think, I think really does. It's it's the best outcome in my view. So Plano does an incredible job on making sure that we have the best hires for our staff. And so I actually have said what you've said, and even more so I agree with you. It shows it definitely having worked with well anyway, it shows Mr. Alley, I was going to jab Mike a little bit, but I'll reserve that. But to what Commissioner Bronsky initially asked Miss Coryell, was this off the market that you bought it, or did you customize it specifically? This was this was on the market. And I think because of course, I was here 2 or 3 months ago talking about this, I think what I was referring to at the time is that even this tree, if you were to look at comparable Texas native trees, I'm just going to confess something here. They're not that narrow native trees. And so what I was speaking of is a true 95 foot tree in North Texas is going to have a width that is, that is, you know, as wide as this room at the base. And this will not have that. This will be slightly wider than the eucalyptus design. So I do think it's definitely better. But, but. Anyway so it's, it's, but it's a comparable. Yes. It'll be a comparable enough close as close as we really can get. Yeah. Thanks. Yeah. Thank you, Commissioner Lolly. And what about the density of the leaves? Are you going to put it in the spec? You like it? Because we're going to have permits restriction. Like for me. I'm sorry, I'm sorry I am a little bit under the weather. No, no. Yeah. So you're like what's the density of the leaves. You're like are you going to attach it? Like, are you going to provide a spec for how many leaves are going to be because there is one on 18th Street and it is very sparse. So how do we how are you going to control the density of the leaves. So it covers everything and it looks nice. Sure. Miss Correa pointed that out to me and said this, that's that, that tree, that structure is the source of a lot of the concerns here. And I looked at it on Google Maps and I said, I can't believe what I'm looking at. That's a well, anyway, that. I can't promise it will look precisely like this image, but it'll it'll substantively look like look like this in terms of leaf density. And one of the requirements that that that will be under is that the antennas themselves and they'll be room for three carriers. Actually, there'll be room for four sets of antennas, the three major carriers, and then a fourth spot should another, you know, dish enter the market. Or one of the other carriers want another set of antennas? Those antennas will be totally covered. Now again, their branches and limbs on a tree. So if you were to stare at it long enough, you could you could find your way through visually and see them. But but they won't be sticking outside of the leaves and branches. Yeah, it's going to be covered. Yes, ma'am. Does that answer your question? Yes. Yeah. Yeah. Thanks. Great. But nothing like that other tree. I want to emphasize that. So every time I see us, I. Oh gosh, this is the tree that we're talking about. It's at the end of our street. I look at it all the time. Yeah. Okay. Are there other questions of the applicant? Nobody. Okay. Thank you very much for coming to see us again. Well, I know you didn't want to see me again, but we thought we had a good story to tell. Thank you for continuing to work with us. I appreciate it. Thank you. All right. Do we have any other speakers registered? No, sir. Okay. I'll close the public hearing. Commissioner Brounoff I move, we approve. Item two, as recommended by staff Commissioner Bronsky second. All right. We have a motion and a second. Hang on a second. Commissioner Lingenfelter, I didn't ask you if you had any questions on this one. I apologize, all right? I was just going to make a motion, but they beat me to it, so. But I will say, I glad to see you. All right. We have a motion and a second. Please vote. Commissioner Lingenfelter. I said I oh, you said I, I thought you just said hi. No no no I as in okay. Gotcha. All right. Your vote is recorded. Thank you. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you. All right. Thank you for continuing to work with us on it. All right. Items three A and three B if you'd read them together please. Agenda item number three A request to rezone 99 acres of land out of the Maria C Villa survey. Abstract number 935 and the Jacob Cook Survey, abstract number 189. Located at the southeast corner of Legacy Drive and Parkwood Boulevard in the city of Plano, Collin County, Texas. From planned development 62 commercial employment to commercial employment. The applicant is TRK Plano, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration. Agenda item number three. B request to waive the two year waiting period for initiation within the next 12 months of rezoning. One or more portions of the 99 acre property, located at the southeast corner of Legacy Drive and Parkwood Boulevard. Zoned planned development 62. Commercial employment. The applicant is TRK Plano, LLC. This item is for legislative consideration. Thank you. Good evening commissioners. My name is John Kim, senior planner with the Planning Department. On the screen in yellow, you'll see the property boundaries of the zoning case. It's located at the southeast corner of Parkwood Boulevard and Legacy Drive. On this slide here you'll see the surrounding zoning. To the northeast and south is all commercial employment. And then to the west is PD 65 Commercial Business one. So to talk about the site, the property was annexed and zoned to Commercial Employment in 1980, and later in 1992, it was developed as the headquarters for Electronic Data Systems EDS. After many years in Plano, in 2018 the offices closed and the property has remained vacant since that time. In 2023, the applicant brought forward a zoning case that established PD 62 CE that PD was designed to facilitate a mixed use development anchored by life science manufacturing. Uses. The PD was tailored for the development at that time of its creation. Just to describe the PD a little further, there was a an adopted open space with that zoning case, along with the modified standards and uses associated with with the stipulations, the associated preliminary site plan with the case expired on November 7th, 2025, and the applicant has let us know that they are no longer pursuing that development associated with that zoning case. And on the screen to the right, you'll see the adopted open space plan with the zoning case there. So for the request for item three A, it is to repeal the existing plan. Development 62 Commercial Employment and Zoning and return the property to its original base property. Zoning of commercial employment. Because the applicant is no longer pursuing the associated development and the original plans have expired, staff is in support of the request. Approving the request will allow the site to be developed per typical CE standards. The property is located within the Employment Centers Future Land Use Area, or M, and it is consistent with the description and priorities, the mix of uses and character defining elements of the dashboard. Oh sorry, I was behind the screen there. We have received two responses within 200ft. And then on the map there is an additional response that was not met. So we do have a total of three just to update. Citywide we have received seven. And then the additional one that I mentioned. If item three A is approved, this would trigger the two year waiting period for future rezoning of the property, as required by section 4.800 of the zoning ordinance. These. These waiting periods prevent successive applications by the owner, where an applicant can exhaust participation by surrounding property owners. If item three is approved, the request for item three B is to request to waive the two year waiting period, as required by section 4.800 of the Zoning Ordinance for zoning cases submitted before February 2nd, 2027. So the applicant is requesting this, and this would allow multiple zoning cases to be submitted on the property. And it can cover different acreages at different times. So it can be like a 40 acre PD and then a the remaining acreage PD. So that can be allowed. And this will allow the applicant to have flexibility with future development and design of the site. For the two year waiver. Subsection 4.802 allows for waiver for allows for the waiver of the two year waiting period, if determined by the Planning and Zoning Commission, that there are substantive reasons to permit waiving the time period. Substantive reasons for waive the two year period include, but are not limited to, correction of an error a change of conditions affecting the property which was not known at the time of zoning, or a change in public plans or policies that affects the property. Item three A is recommended for approval as submitted. Item three B is recommended that a waiver of the two year waiting period for cases submitted before February 2nd, 2027 be granted, subject to City Council approval of Zoning Case 2025 zero 23. I'm available for any questions. All right. Thank you. Just a observation just to make sure that just kind of lead off is that by basically repealing this PD, we're putting this property back the way it was before the PD. And and that will be 100% consistent with the comprehensive plan at that time. Correct? Yes. Correct. Okay. So it's really kind of a revitalization of the purpose of that property the way it was originally intended in the comp plan. Correct. Okay. Great. Thank you, Commissioner Tong. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to go back to that. Three reasons for granting the waiver. So which one are we using right now? So the reasons can include these but are not limited to it. And so there are other factors that the commission can determine as part of this request. So the staff is supporting this change or the waiver is based on a different reason from these three. Is that correct? I just don't know which one that you're basing the decision upon. Yeah. So I feel, you know, since it is reverting to the original zoning and the applicant is no longer pursuing the prior development that was associated with the zoning case, that it was appropriate for this request. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ali. Let me say that back to you because I looked at it as more reason number two, that is a change of conditions affecting the property, which has not been, for lack of a better word, fully fleshed out at the time of the zoning, which is now. Is that a fair way to think about it? Yeah, I think it's also partially about condition two in that they could do this in one step, but due to their development timelines, they're they're being upfront that they need a two step process to do that. And so step one is three. And step two would be a subsequent zoning case to come back for future plans okay. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Bruno. Thank you. Know, I also am looking at ground number two change of conditions in that the the property owner is no longer pursuing the previously approved plan development. I happen to have read in the newspaper that the reason they're not pursuing it is for the repeal of certain federal subsidies, which would have made the project possible. Yeah. Okay. Commissioner Bender, thank you. Chairman, I agree with the chairman's comments that approving this basically puts the property back the way it was and is in full conformance with the comprehensive plan. Other questions for staff. All right. Seeing none, we do have a public hearing. Let me open the public hearing. I think the applicant is here. If we have questions for the applicant. Does anybody have questions for the applicant? Nobody does. The does the applicant wish to make a presentation or y'all just here for questions okay. I'm sorry. Okay. Commissioner lolly, you do have a question for the applicant. For the applicant okay. So the applicant come forward, please. If you introduce yourself, please. Good evening. Commissioners. My name is Eric Danielson, represented by TRC Plano LLC. This evening. I'm representing happy to stand for any questions in regard to the presentation that was previously made. Yes. So my question is what's your planning to do with the land. That's the PD does not allow you to do? Can we ask this question legal to ask? No. Well, since we're not considering a site plan, this is just a straight zoning case I think we've got we need to focus just on zoning, not on the the plan. So yeah, I think our focus tonight needs to be just on the land use. If we can land use, I feel certain he'll be back. Or somebody. Yeah. But I mean you're like, my question is why is you like, what's the reason for the rezoning? Let's put it this way. Yeah. If I could add, there is a plan attached to the ordinance, and they are they are committed to that plan in the ordinance. So the PD is now obsolete. It makes sense to remove that plan from PD. Yeah, that makes sense. Thank you. Thank you again. City staff has been excellent to work with. We will definitely continue to do that here as we move forward. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant. Seeing none. Thank you very much. Thank you chairman I'll close the public hearing. Oh do we have any other speakers? No, sir. Okay, I'll close the public hearing. Reserve committee comments to the commission Commissioner Bronsky. So I'd like to first say that I'm happy that we have waited and that we are putting this back to where it belongs, because I believe that there are still opportunities for us to have. Campus facilities like this for customer or for our businesses. And so I'm very happy that we're going this direction and bringing this back into conformance with our comprehensive plan. I'm in complete agreement with, so I move, hang on, hang on. We have some other people that want to talk. So just hold hold your thoughts. Yeah. Okay. I let me ask Commissioner Langenfeld because he had his hand up when you started talking to make sure he he gets his chance here. Commissioner, I was actually just going to make a motion, but I can I can come behind. Okay. So then I'll. And then Commissioner Alley, did you have comments or were you interested in a motion? Okay. So you want to wait till after the motion then. Okay, Commissioner alley, I was just more I see less as. Reverting back to commercial employment and what have you, but more, given the change of conditions, we are resetting the slate. And when they come back with the new PD or whatever else they want to come back with, we'll then have discussions on whether that's applicable. For Plano and for the site. Thank you. I agree with you. Okay, now, Commissioner Bronsky I move, we approve agenda item three A as recommended by staff and Commissioner Lingamfelter. I will second that motion. All right. So we have a motion and a second. Everybody please vote. Commissioner Lingamfelter. Yes I. Motion passes 8 to 0. All right. Item three B Commissioner Bronsky I move. We approve agenda item three B as recommended by staff. Commissioner lolly. I'll second. All right. We have a motion and a second on item three. B please vote Commissioner Langfelder I. Motion passes 8 to 0. Thank you all very much for being here. We look forward to seeing you back very soon. All right. We have any other business before the commission this evening? No, sir. All right. We stand adjourned at 6:36 p.m.