Recording in progress. Welcome to the September 15th, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. I will now call the meeting to order at 6:04 p.m. Will you please rise and join me with the pledge? Pledge allegiance to the flag. United States of America and to the Republic for which it stands. One nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all. I would like to recognize that Chair Ratliff and Commissioner Tong are not with us tonight. Henry. Comments of public interest. There are none. Okay. So we will start with the 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. Does anyone wish to pull an item from the consent agenda? Mr. Bruno, I move that we approve the consent agenda. Commissioner. Mr. Lawson second. We have. Yeah, we have a motion and a second. Please vote. The vote is 6 to 0. The motion passes. 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 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. 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. Agenda item number one, please. Agenda item number one. Heritage houses addition block A lots one through six six urban residential lots on 1.3 acres. Located at the southwest corner of I Avenue and 17th Street. Zoned urban residential and located within the Haggard Park Heritage Resource Overlay District System was tabled on September 2nd, 2025. The applicant is Gene Lu Design, LLC and this item is for administrative consideration. Good evening. Good evening commissioners. My name is John Kim, senior planner with the planning department. Again, the item is located at the intersection of 17th Street and ninth Avenue. I do just want to point out one thing on this Replat. The setback on the screen is shown as 30.5, but it is 32.5 per the packet as well. The item is recommended for approval as submitted. I'm available for any questions. Thank you, Mr. Kim. Do any commissioners have any technical questions for staff? Commissioner Brounoff? Yes. Why are the building line setbacks different from the houses facing 17th Street, as opposed to the ones facing I Avenue? So it's based on the observed setback for the street. So because the the ones along 17th Street front, 17th Street, it's based on the houses to the west. The for the rest of the block and then the houses that face I Avenue. That's based on the house to the south of their property. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. I will call the public hearing to. Thank you. Do we have any anyone who wishes to speak? There are no registered speakers, but the applicant is available to answer questions. Is anybody on the commission have questions for the applicant? Mr. Brounoff? Please state your name and address for the record. My name is James Marlett. Address is 6113 Florence Road, Northlake, Texas. Sir. Yes, sir. My question is. Since these are located directly across the street from the Dart light rail line, I'm wondering if you've given any consideration to noise insulation to protect the property owners and the residents from the noise from the trains. It's a good question. I don't have an answer for that. I'm the land surveyor putting the plat together. As far as the development side, that would be a good question for for, say, Chris and Jean. And they are not here. They're not here? No, sir. Okay. All right. Thank you sir. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you very much sir. Thank you. I will close the public hearing and confine conversation to the commission. Mr. Langfelder. Commissioner. All right. I was just going to make a motion. If nobody else has any comments to that. We approve this as recommended by staff. Okay. I have a motion, and I have a motion. I have a motion and a second. Does anyone else have any questions? Mr. Bruno? Follow up on that working. There we go. Yeah. Just to follow up on my question about the noise. I mean, I, I recognize that, you know, building houses across the street from a train track is not ideal. But given the neighborhood, I don't know what else they could do with this land except build houses on it. It's a residential area, so I'll just express my hope and my suggestion that you will. Mr. Bartlett. You'll convey a suggestion to the owners that they take that into account and provide suitable noise insulation. But I'll go ahead and vote for this. Any other comments? Okay. If you would, please vote. That item passes 6 to 0. Public hearing item number two. Please. Agenda item number two. Request to rezone from regional Employment to Regional Commercial on 4.84.5 acres. Located on the south side of State Highway 121 1335ft west of Coyote Road. Located within the State Highway 121 Expressway Corridor. Overlay districts. This item was tabled on August 18th, 2025. The petitioner is quite marketplace LP and this item is for legislative consideration. Thank you. Good evening. Commission. My name is Molly Coryell, interim lead planner with the planning department. The applicant is requesting to rezone the subject property as shown in the screen from Regional Employment the district to regional commercial. The RC district to allow for retail use as of the to allow for retail use of the property permitted in the RC district. Here is the zoning exhibit showing the boundaries of the property. And here is the most recently approved concept plan from 2022 with the lots. The subject area of the property highlighted. The history. In the year 2000, approximately 550 acres along State Highway 121 corridor were rezoned to a combination of RC and RC districts to create a uniform set of standards along the South. State Highway 121 corridor just east of Preston Road. The subject property and most of the State Highway 121 corridor were largely undeveloped at the time of this rezoning in 2016. Plans for the UCD Plano Shopping Center were submitted for the southwest corner of State Highway 121 and County Road. And as part of this purchase and development zoning case, 2016, Dash 009 requested the rezoning of 2.4 acre portion of the property, which is shown in green, shown in green as on as you can see on the screen from RC to RC, which allowed lot lines to match the zoning boundaries on the concept plan for the new shopping center. This zoning change was supported to create a rational zoning boundary, avoiding the zoning boundary along the shopping center that was created when this property was rezoned in 2000. In 2021, the applicant did request to rezone the 4.5 acres of the development shown in yellow from RC to RC, similar to the zoning request made today, and the Planning and Zoning Commission denied the request, citing the city's excessive retail zoning. For a comparison of the RI and RC districts in the districts are identical in area, yard, and bulk requirements, as well as other development standards. However, the requested RC district allows for retail and restaurant uses by right, whereas the existing RC district places square footage. Limitations on retail and restaurant uses in order to provide a focus on employment uses. The subject property is located within the Expressway Corridors category of the future land use map, and development in these corridors is expected to include a mix of retail service, office, restaurant, medical, hotel and technology based uses. While the request is consistent with the description of the expressway corridors category as a mix of uses, that includes retail uses, there are several council city council adopted policies and studies that do not support the expansion of retail oriented zoning, namely the proposed zoning change. The proposed zoning change does not align with the redevelopment of regional transportation corridors. Policy. Revitalization of retail shopping centers policy. Land use policy action for specifically in the Comprehensive Plan, as well as the retail study of underperforming and vacant retail areas and the City of Plano Shopping Center Review, which are all policies and studies adopted by City Council. These four policies and studies relate to the reinvestment, revitalization and redevelopment of existing retail development for regional transportation corridors, as well as neighborhood retail corners, and limiting the extension of retail zoned land and discouraging the development of new retail centers along major intersections in Plano. The overall development of the State Highway 121 County Road intersection includes a mix of restaurants with drive thrus, financial institutions, banks, and two superstore developments. However, the superstore to the east was previously a Kroger and has since been vacated. The subject property is shown on. The concept plan is intended to be used for a multi-tenant personal service shop along Ridgeview, and then a bank along State Highway 121. If this property is zoned, additional retail could be developed and further exacerbate the decline of existing retail development within this intersection. Overall, it is not necessary or prudent to rezone property within this area to allow for the development of additional retail uses. Five responses to the zoning case have been submitted in the form of official signed letters within 200ft of the subject property, three in opposition, one neutral, and one in favor. And there have been no other types of responses received throughout the city. In summary, the applicant is requesting to rezone the property from Re to RC to allow for additional retail uses for the existing commercial development. The area has adequate retail development already at this time, and the request is not in conformance with the recommendations and policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Therefore, staff is recommending denial. Thank you and I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you, Miss Curiel. Do we have any technical questions for staff? Mr. Bender? Not not for staff, but I have some. Okay. Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you. I mean, I understand that there is an excess of retail development in the city, and the policy is to discourage further retail, new retail development. But is this property specifically earmarked as a pad site for a drive through fast food type restaurant with with a drive through? No. As shown on the most recent concept plan approved, it is shown as a bank. However, my understanding from the applicant is that since it has to be 5000ft■!S or more, tht the bank, the speculative bank wanting to move in there doesn't need 5000ft■!S. And so additional retail stores will need to be added as part of the building in order for the bank to be able to move there. Oh, so the goal is for a bank to move there, a bank with some additional retail, because the bank can't occupy 5000ft■!S, whh they need at least 5000ft■!S of building area at the site, because it can't be less than 5000ft■!S. Based on the retail corner design guidelines. Does a bank require RC zoning as opposed to rezoning? No. The bank is allowed within Re, but the retail that is needed to be a companion to the bank by. According to the applicant, they can only occupy 10% of the building square floor area. So the issue is that the bank that that is allowed by right in the Re district needs retail to accompany it in order to meet that 5000 square foot minimum, according to the retail design guidelines. Okay. I'm sorry, I thought I read in the packet that this was a pad site. It's a pad site. In regards to it functioning as being along the highway and everything, but by the definition in the retail corner design guidelines, it it it will be over 5000ft■!S. So by that definition it's not a pad site. However in form and function outside of the retail design guidelines, it it would it could operate as a pad site. Mr. Bell, do you have anything you'd like to add? No, I think you said that. Well, that was actually my mistake. We. The retail corner design guidelines specifies pad sites as buildings 5000 square foot or less. But however, in kind of the general planning term planning, since the function of this being a retail site up along the frontage road with the big box retail in the back, it's functioning like a generic pad site location would. Okay. If we do not approve the zoning change, what uses could they make of this property? Yes. So employment generating uses such as office, personal service shop. Office, medical office, banks, financial institutions are all examples of allowed uses within the Re district. Conversely, the uses allowed in the RC district but are prohibited in the Re district include things such as car washes, farmers markets, superstores, indoor vehicle parts sales, garden centers, vehicle repair and vehicle leasing and renting, which is allowed by Sup. So I guess conversely. Those are uses that would be allowed in RC that are not currently allowed in the district. It's not an exhaustive list, but those are just some examples of uses that would be allowed in the RC district. In driving by the property over the weekend, I noted that the the western boundary of this property is in fact a street. It's a paved roadway. I don't know if it's a public or a private street, but it's it's got, it's it's wide enough to be a street. Has the staff considered that that could be like a natural barrier to further expansion of RC zoning? Yes. I believe those are fire lanes and that is constructed cross access by the applicant as part of the development for future development to the west. It's not a street that's maintained by the city of Plano. No. The reason I ask is if you take that street, it leads to the the the brand new Kroger in the back and all the retail associated with it. And it, it, it sort of includes this little this this pad site however you define it as part of that, that development. And I'm wondering whether it makes sense to just go ahead and incorporate it as a part of the RC development, or whether it just wants to, you know, to be there as a, as an isolated re. So those conversations those conversations have occurred over the past decade since this project originally came through. And the request, the original intent was to make it all RC at that time to allow it to be full. Retail center staff was against the entire center, becoming RC at that time, but said it was okay to at least match the lot lines. And so the the kind of the first zoning case in 2016 was kind of a gimme just to align the property boundaries. And then 2021, when they came back, staff was against the expansion of the RC, because what we often see is that there's a little bit of creep and that it's this site, and then they set up connections and the next site and the next site based on the way they set up the cross access to the property. We saw a similar example on the east side of Coyote Road, where they again, they were approved for medical office, designed for medical office. And the zoning was again moved over one more lot to allow additional retail. So we do see there is some potential for retail creep in this area. Okay. All right. Thank you, Vice chair Ali. I think Mr. Bell just answered my first question when this came in in 2021. Is there anything significantly different from what was submitted in 2021? No, there is not. So given that and this might be a question to legal given that they did not choose to appeal to city council, which is the appeal process we have. This feels a little bit like a backdoor appeal. We've already decided on this and it's coming up again. Is that allowed? Essentially it is allowed. There's a there's a two year waiting period. But but that's expired okay. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Bender. Yeah I was waiting for comments for the commission rather than technical questions. Any further technical questions for the staff? Okay. I will call the public hearing. Oh. Oh. I'm sorry. Go ahead. I have a question in our packet, page number 19. The mix of uses now and this block. Can you explain this to us? Yes. So the mix of uses in the employment. Oh my gosh. The expressway corridors category. So the mix of uses is determined by the uses that are either existing or have been basically programed to exist. So in this case the mix of uses did not does not significantly change because. The way that uses are categorized for. The future land use map or the Land Use and Housing Index considers personal service and bank similar to the uses. Mr. Bell, do you have anything to add? Yes, because the mix of uses of the comprehensive plan is very high level. There's really only four types retail, office, institutional and industrial. And because the the bank and the personal service shops lend itself to more of a retail environment, it's classified in that kind of generic way at a 30,000 square foot level, 30,000 foot level. And you can we're not getting to the like the actual or we're below the actual percentages. It's just because of we have like additional undeveloped, undeveloped lands, right in that block. So the comprehensive plan level is very high and it's classified as retail, the zoning level, much more at the surface level is not zoned, is not retail zoning, and it's not proposed for retail use with the bank with this approval, it would allow retail zoning and retail uses on the property. Okay, okay. Thank you. Any further questions? Okay. I will call the public hearing. Do we have any speakers? The applicant has a presentation. Okay. If you'd come down and please state your name and address for the staff or. Good evening. My name is Michael Doggett with Animas Civil Engineering. I'm at 1610 Maple Leaf Drive in Wylie, Texas. And on behalf of United Commercial Development, who's also in the audience, I think Jackie Wolpert is registered to speak as well on behalf of this. Just wanted to say thanks for staff for working with us on this. We did read the staff report, actually, a few things that that came out of that are great points there. There really is no fundamental difference between the two zoning districts, except for that the regional employment restricts the 10% rule, which which doesn't allow more than 10% retail on one of our one of our pads is a multi-tenant building. Let me show the there we go. This is a site plan of our overall project. Lot eight, which is in the southwest corner, is a multi-tenant building and currently under the rezoning, we would not be allowed to have more than 10% of retail uses on that corner. One other thing, and this kind of came up with our on one of the the comments from the commissioner about the access Texdot actually put in that access, and it actually created the natural divide for the property from the the property to the west. So when UCD bought the property they were actually buying, they were kind of told or forced to buy up to that, that driveway. So if, if we had to buy only to the, the RC zoning, that is exactly what they would have done when we went through zoning in 2016, it was to create the Kroger lot. And and Jackie can talk more about the 20 2021 case. But but the request before you really is to is to see is it's I think it's pretty straightforward. This is an entire shopping center that it really has a spot that needs to be cleaned up, where the natural divide still provides cross access across both properties. It is it is a retail kind of energized corner. That is that the market is really kind of wanting to be in a retail setting. The the bank use that was mentioned, there is a bank that is going that's interested in going on lot seven, which is the northwest corner. But as mentioned, there's the pad site rule. The pad site rule, you can't have one. You can have one pad site under 5000ft■!S for every five acres. Currently we're maxed out on that. So if this becomes a RC zoned property, we can't build a 3000 square foot fast food user on there. We do have an interest from a national tenant from a bank. In order to build that bank, we would have to build a two tenant or three tenant building where a retail user would want to go next to that bank. So I hope that answers that question. This is really just like I said, it's a cleanup of the zoning. We do have tenant interest. The we talked about the curb cut from TxDOT. And then the other thing that wasn't mentioned, it's not really shown in the staff report, but it does show up on one of the exhibits in the staff report is that as we were going through and creating the zoning legal description, we actually determined that a portion of Kroger and a good portion of lot seven are actually in both zoning districts. So this is a cleanup for not just not just these two lots to create something where we could generate retail. This is also the cleanup zoning. That was a mistake in the zoning district. So that's what our request is. I'll be happy to answer any questions. Again. Jackie's here to answer any development questions as well. We respectfully request your approval. We have any questions for staff or for the applicant. Just one. Could you your last statement, could you repeat that that the Kroger would sit in two zones. There is a corner where the second word of cross axis is exists, where that green arrow. Is that a portion of that lot of the Kroger lot is actually in the rezoning, the line itself. And I don't I apologize, but I don't know how to switch between this presentation and yours, but actually showed the lot lines on one of the exhibits you had up earlier that can point that out. There you go. So on this blue line, the blue line represents the area of request. If you look at lot seven, which is the northernmost lot, there is a darker line that's to the east of it. That is the actual lot limits between lot six and lot seven. And then as it comes to the South, where it makes the first 90 degree bend, there's a rectangle, albeit very small, there's a rectangle there that is in the Kroger lot. And then as you go further south where the next jog is, there's another square there that's also in the art, the Re. So yes, to elaborate on that, it looks from what we can surmise is the concept plan in 2016 and the zoning boundary were intended to align before ever reason. There is some form of a mismatch. So in the couple small rectangles there is kind of split zoning on the Kroger side as well. Okay. Thank you. Any other questions for the applicant. Thank you sir. Yep. Please state your name and address. Hi Jackie Wolpert, 7001 Preston Road, suite 410. Dallas. And I work with United Commercial Development, the developer. So I just want to further explain a couple things. So to answer second, Vice Chair Ali's original point about the 2021 case. So in 2021, we weren't under construction on this development. And we came in requesting that zoning change and we didn't have buildings. The Kroger wasn't built. And now we're at a point where the Kroger's built, we're 100% leased on the buildings that are next to Kroger that are built. And we're under construction on the the building on the west side of Kroger. And we just have a lot of interest for retail, regional, commercial type uses that we can't accommodate in the shopping center because of the zoning. So in 2021, I understand that it was denied then, but we weren't under construction and we didn't we weren't at the place that we are at today. So that was why we didn't push it forward beyond that. Please, Vice Chair Ali. There we go. I understand that, and I'm trying to remember the discussion in 2021. Here's what I'm hearing. You are not under construction. We approved a a site. Well not approved. You were asking for a certain approval on site plan. If you did not get the approval, then why not build within those constraints? What? What I'm hearing is you went ahead and built what you wanted to build. And because your constraints are limiting what you want to build versus what the city is asking you to build, we now need to release the constraints on you. And I'm struggling with why should we do that? Because the city has its own objectives, which is to, in a well-managed way, ensure that the retail environment that exists citywide, not just for this site, is managed in a healthy way. We have a lot of underutilized retail spaces in the city, and adding more when we have so much that we that is, quite frankly, dilapidated, not yielding anything doesn't seem to make sense. So why should we submit our objective to yours? Making sense? Yeah. No. That's understood. So we built the building or we're under construction right now on the building on the west of Kroger, which is part of currently part of the rezoning, with the hope that we would get tenants interested, that would fall under that zoning. And that just is not the case. The types of tenants that we're that are interested in going in this shopping center are, are the RC zoning type retail tenants. So like, for example, we have a swim school that we think would be a really great use for that building and would bring would be really great for all the the families that live behind the Kroger and in the general area and under the swim school has their pool equipment, is outside of their space and under RC zoning. We actually don't have the Or sorry under our zoning, we actually don't have the right to for the swim school to put their pool equipment outside of the building. We that would that's not allowed under the zoning to our understanding. So we can't accommodate the swim school even under even under our zoning, even though the use is allowed just how they operate, their their build out is not falling within the zoning. So that's one of the reasons that RC zoning would open that up for us. Additionally, we we have restaurants that want to be here, but we don't have any space for them in the buildings that we've already built. They're completely leased out. And they are we have people that are interested in not just the space that Michael talked about next to the proposed bank, but that would want to be in the building that is already under construction west of Kroger as well. Pet stores. We can't that's not allowed under our zoning. So all these tenants, they want to be in the center with the Kroger. They want to be at this intersection. They want to be in our development, but we just can't accommodate them under the zoning that we have today. I get it, and I sympathize. But again, I am we're not I we are being asked to make. Fixed decisions on variable macroeconomic conditions. Retail was booming ten years ago. It crumpled. Office was booming. It crumpled. It's coming back. You know, we it's difficult to make zoning decisions based on what is, you know, in vogue every 2 or 3 years, which is what why we when we set our zoning standards and ordinances, it's trying to look a little bit more long term so that not just you guys, but everybody else coming into the city have a clear guideline as to what the environment, as stable as we can make it, you know, is happening. So for instance, he talked about Texdot. So what if your neighbor to the left, Texdot puts an access lane there and they know they can write? I think that there actually are access points. Maybe my point is, if that divides that lot and that individual comes back and goes, this is now a natural boundary and this is now a natural boundary, and it keeps on creeping left and left and left, that it's a hard way to do business, if that makes sense. Yeah. Understood. So I understand that there are access points over that to the property to the West. We don't own that. So that's a different owner. And they actually required us. And when we were originally buying the property, they required that they wanted cross access because they wanted access over to Coit Road. So I understand I understand what you're saying, but I think that what's there today is a cohesive shopping center. And the boundary line for the shopping center is the yellow line that's shown on there. And we're just asking for that entire shopping center to be under the same zoning. We have. Any other questions for the applicant? Okay. Thank you very much for your time. Thank you. Do we have any other speakers? There are no other registered speakers. Okay. I will close the zoning case and. Retain conversation for the Dyess. Commissioner Bender. Thank you. Chairman. I just had some comments. You know, this this situation is somewhat common. And what I mean is, you know, landowners have rights as well. And decisions that we make have economic impact. And it's not this applicant's fault that the city of Plano has excess retail. We have a lot of excess retail that is not being brought to the highest and best use and retail, as well as office and many other developments are based upon timing and opportunity. This particular retail center is very vibrant, growing, and a lot is going on that adds tax value to the city of Plano, the shopping center to the east where the Kroger used to be. Yeah, there's clearly excess capacity there. But because the Kroger has moved, there'll be ample opportunity for redevelopment of that center. And and I think that when you look at this site, yeah, I am concerned about retail creep. But if you look at this site, it makes natural sense to me that the whole center should be one cohesive center, especially with that access to the back of the shopping center. And, you know, there are times where we need to limit retail that's not at, you know, advantageous, but the fact that, you know, we're standing behind the fact that we have excess retail across the city. Isn't this individual developer's fault. And they have they have rights to develop this land as well. That's going to create economic value for the city. So those are some of my comments. And I think when this was, you know, laid out before, we probably should have zoned it all the same, obviously. But those are my comments. Thank you. Commissioner Bender, vice Chair Alley I hear Commissioner Bender. I'm thinking of a case that came, I think was in the art district where knowing what the zoning was, the individual acquired the land and came over the top going. I knew what the zoning was. I acquired the land, but I really want to use it for something else. So now change it. It it doesn't work that way, right? If in 2000 and in 2016, again before the land was acquired, the zoning, the basin. The basin was what it was in 2016. We gave some leeway. Right. And even knowing where that leeway boundary was, you develop that site to creep a little bit. Now we're going to have to go clean some squares and corners around the edges or something of that nature. That to me is almost, you know, it almost feels like it's a, you know, I see what you want city, but I will do what I want to do, you know, and that's, that doesn't sit well, you know, if it was a case that they owned it before and we layered disadvantageous zoning on top of them that I would I would take that point. But the facts were the facts were the facts. And you bought it with full knowledge of what the zoning is. And coming back for us to almost remediate and alleviate that for you. Given that, again, the city has its own. Objectives written within the Comprehensive Plan fort and talked through. I'm not in favor of that. And it was the same argument we made that was made in 2021. Thank you sir. Commissioner Lingamfelter. I've been going back and forth. When I got this last week to, to start reviewing and, and I, I saw the point that Commissioner Ali was saying about, you know, did they not know what they had originally. But the more I got into it, the more I thought about it. And and it does make sense, I see what with what Commissioner Bernoff had said about the the drive. It does create a very natural, a natural break with that large, almost like a street. But but a but a drive there cleaning up the the zoning. It does seem to be a natural natural break. And it does. It does look odd for it to, to be split kind of down the middle of, of the shopping center as it stands right now. So, you know, I'm after much more thought and deliberation. I do feel like I know that we're recommending denial because of of the comprehensive plan and things like that. But I think if we get into again, that's as we kind of noted, that's kind of a high range. But as we get to the deep, deep details, it does make sense that we're cleaning this up and we're still holding true to comprehensive plan, just just aligning that line. So it's more of a natural break. Thank you sir. Commissioner Bruno thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, I agree with Commissioner Bender and Lingenfelter. I think first, the parcel of land here is very small. It's it's a pad site. This is basically a de minimis situation where this is not a major departure from our policy concerning, you know, addressing an excess of retail development in the city. This is a tiny little strip on the edge of what ought to be a unified development. I agree that the, the the driveway along the western boundary does, does provide a natural boundary to the development along with highway 121, Ridgeview Drive and Coyote Road. This development is contained within those boundaries, and it ought to have the same zoning otherwise. I mean, you've got a little corner on the upper northwest corner that's a different zoning. You've got a parking lot that is otherwise undivided, which serves Kroger, except, you know, two rows of parking spaces are in a different category than all the rest of the parking lot, which makes no sense to me. I do recall the earlier case we had where the property owner was sitting on a a piece of land, I think, also facing highway 121 where there was a split zoning and he was trying to unify the zoning. We voted against that case, and I also voted against it because the owner admitted, under questioning that he had not researched the zoning before he bought the property. And because of the owner's negligence in that case, I was persuaded to vote against it. There is no negligence by the owner here. I mean, the owner hasn't done anything wrong. The owner is just trying to clean up his, you know, his development. And that other case, interestingly, the city council overruled us and approved that previous application, if I recall correctly. So I'm going to go ahead and vote to approve this. I think it's a de minimis thing. It's just it's a cleanup situation. It is not a major departure from our policy. Thank you sir. Commissioner Bender thank you chairman. You know, not to debate the art district case, but the facts of that case were slightly different. I think in this case, as commissioners, we're here because these decisions are hard in a city that's mostly built out. And I think that the comprehensive plan is a 30,000 foot view. And I and I would agree that, you know, the excess retail we have, that ship sailed 20 years ago. We've had excess retail for 20 years. But building retail, where people want retail and where they're going to do business is still important. And so for that reason, I'm going to be voting to change this to regional commercial. Thank you. Thank you sir. Commissioner lolly, listening to the other commissioners, you know, like they're very convincing. But to me, I find it very difficult for me to like to like, why do you need the retail? Because you're building the bank. Why are these, like, two uses are, you know, like, connected? Why are they need. Why are they needing the retail? Because they said that you like to build the bank. They needed those. You like to be a retail rather than the service. So I find it a little bit like difficult for me to justify the like the arguments. And I also read in our packet that the city did like extensive research and like we have like a couple of reports about the retail and like excessive retail and unused retail around the city. So I don't think that I'm going to be and I understand you like the boundary thing, but and you like and they had the chance before when they did the other portion, they could have like thought about it and they like they would have just did the zoning change at that time, 2016, when they just did the like the other portion to clean it up. But, you know, like but I do have you like one question to to the city. Like can they go back and clean this borderline with. So these small areas I don't know if it's like a legal thing. Can we ask them to. That actually is what this is doing. Part of the reason for the tabling was to get that cleaned up. So should this be approved, it would all be one unified zoning that's been cleaned up. No. But like I mean you're like, if we keep it there employment regional employment, can they go back and change this? Yeah certainly could. We certainly could do that. Call a public hearing to do that for sure. Thanks. Any other conversation? Okay. Commissioner Bender yeah, I just I believe this makes sense to, to clean this up so that this we can have the same developer finish the development, have a cohesive development. I'm concerned down the road that we're going to have a parcel that's going to be difficult to develop in, in utilize to create economic good for the city. So I believe that we should grant this. Thank you. Okay. Is that a motion, sir? Yes. Okay. I have a motion. Commissioner Lingamfelter. I'll second that motion. We have a motion and a second. Just. Chair, is the motion to approve as submitted by the applicant? Yes. Okay, great. Just clarifying. Okay. Yeah. We have a motion to approve. And a second, is there any other conversation? Okay. Please vote. Motion fails. 3 to 3. Well, so actually what happens is that means there's no recommendation. But you can make more motions if you prefer. Okay. Question. On the make motions because obviously it's it's split 3 to 3. So if we make a motion to deny that's an additional motion okay I move. We deny as recommended by staff okay I have a motion to deny as recommended by staff. Commissioner Lolly I'll second. So we have a motion and a second for denying the. Item. Please vote. The motion fails 3 to 3. Do we want to try anything else? Okay. So this moves forward with no recommendation from planning and zoning to City Council. Item number three. Agenda. Item number three. Request to amend urban mixed use to district to add veterinary clinic as a permitted use on blocks A and B of the development plan on 86.2 acres. Located on the west side of State Road 970ft north of Mapleshade Lane. Located within the 190 Tollway, Plano Parkway and Expressway Corridor overlay districts. Petitioners R, c r2 land Lttd EPC, c 190 R2, LLC, Crow Billingsley Limited, number ten. Crow Billingsley 635 Beltline limited. The Neighborhoods at Coy, number one beacon CDD limited. The Neighborhoods at Coy, number one, beacon, EJ L.t.d Sherpa Dallas Properties Limited, Beacon Square Association, Incorporated, and University Business Park two. This item is for legislative consideration. Okay. Good evening commissioners. The purpose of this zoning change is to request an amendment to the Oumu two district. The subject property is really for the entirety of the two district, as shown here in the location map, as well as the zoning exhibit. But tonight we really want to zero it in and just talk about two blocks within the Oumu two zoning district. And that would be block A and block B, which are the two multi-tenant retail buildings along Coyote Road just to the very east of the Mu2 district boundary. The request tonight is to add a veterinary clinic as an allowed use just within these two blocks, block A is constructed and block B is currently under construction. The proposed changes to the two exceptions, again just under the two exceptions for block A and B, the only text amendment being proposed is that veterinary clinic is an additional allowed use within the Mu2 district for those two blocks. Staff finds that a veterinary clinic use is appropriate within the retail settings as part of a mixed use district. Veterinary clinics do not allow commercial pet sitting as part of their operations, and additionally a veterinary clinic is a permitted use within other mixed use districts that would be the central business one and business government zoning districts. Similar uses such as outdoor kennels and pens and commercial pet sitting will remain prohibited uses within the zoning district. Should the zoning case be approved by City Council. The Mu2 district is within the Suburban Activity Centers Future Land use category, and the proposed zoning change has minimal impacts to the Comprehensive Plan and therefore is meeting the Comprehensive Plan. As far as responses go, we've received one response from a property within 200ft of the subject zoning case in favor of the proposal, and we have received no other responses throughout the city. In summary, the purpose of this request to amend the Mu two district to allow veterinary clinics. Is appropriate in retail settings, including those in mixed use districts where there is adequate separation from residential uses, such as in this case with blocks A and B of the Mu two district. Therefore, staff is recommending for approval as submitted. I'm available to answer any questions. Thank you all. Thank you, Miss Coryell. Do we have any technical questions for staff vice chair Ali? Just one I and this was me not looking hard enough. Can you differentiate between commercial pet sitting and the overnight care of sick and injured animals. And that vet clinic would need to do. Yes. So they're operationally veterinary clinics do offer potential overnight care for injured or sick animals that might need monitoring. That is different than commercial pet sitting. So veterinary clinic does have the ability to still monitor injured animals overnight for the purposes of administering care in a commercial pet sitting situation, someone might be able to drop off their pets before a vacation or something like that, even regardless if there's any sort of care that needs to be administered to them due to an illness or an injury. So the difference is that a commercial pet sitting purely exists to watch the animal. A veterinary clinic has the ability to monitor the health of an animal in overnight situations. But in our ordinance language, what is the language that delineates between both? Is it length of stay? It's really the number. You know what? What is it? The purpose of a veterinary clinic is to administer care to animals. And so the difference is that if an animal has to stay overnight in order to have care administered, then that is a part of the operations of veterinary clinic. It is not part of their operations to allow animals to stay overnight for the purposes of caring for the animals in a commercial pet sitting, studying the. Typically the limits to the amount of animals that can be kept overnight for monitoring or for health reasons is six. Okay. So okay, so the language is number of animals. Sounds like we have something around medical versus cursory care service service okay. Thank you. Thank you Commissioner Ali I do have a question about the you know like this particular zoning. So this particular zoning applies to this lot or this development. Right. I couldn't find it anywhere else in the city. The mixed use to so the urban mixed use two. Commissioner, are you talking about the approval of a veterinary clinic use. Yeah. So like so my question is, you know, like if we approve this one, it's not going to affect other areas in the city without before like coming to us. That is correct. Other ummu properties such as Collin Creek and Heritage Creekside. They do. The veterinary use clinic is still prohibited within those urban mixed use boundaries. So this zoning case is only impacting blocks A and B of Ummu two Beacon Square. Thank you, thank you. Any other technical questions? Okay, I'll call the public hearing with the applicant. Wish to address the commission. Okay. There are no registered speakers, but the applicant is available to answer questions. Okay. Does anybody have questions for the applicant? Okay. I'll close the public hearing and confine conversation to the Dyess Commissioner Bender motion to approve. I have a motion to approve. Commissioner Ali. Second, I have a motion by Commissioner Bender. A second by Commissioner Ali. Is there any further discussion? Commissioner Brounoff, I just have a quick observation that I think what makes this case acceptable is the ordinance prohibiting outdoor pens and kennels, which effectively, you know, rules out the treatment of large livestock like horses and cows and things like that, which would not be appropriate for this neighborhood. But the indoor treatment of dogs, cats and small pets, I think, is perfectly appropriate. So okay. Any other comments? Okay. Please vote. The motion passes 6 to 0 non public hearing items. Item number four Discussion direction on the update of the city sign regulation. The applicant is the City of Plano. So good evening commissioners I'm Robin Kirk. I'm senior planner in the development services division of the planning department. I'm joined today by my colleague from the Building Inspections Department, also, who is the chief building official and will also be available for questions. This item is a discussion and direction item concerning specific aspects of our ongoing update to the sign regulations. We're not requesting a call for public hearing, and we're not requesting any voting item at this time. Here's a very short background summary on the sign regulations update. So this item has been in the PNC work program for several years, with some sustained pauses due to the evolving legal environment, waiting on several Supreme Court decisions, and just seeing how the city was going to react. This effort is separate from the zoning ordinance rewrite and outside of the scope of that, other than any kind of minor changes that will be needed, this project is expected to end before that one, and the only modifications to the signs expected from the rewrite project are going to be just formatting to make it fit into the new unified code. The goal of this project is just to modernize and simplify the code, and then to ensure our compliance with all the legal directives on signs. So while drafting the text amendment is still ongoing and we're looking for direction on the ongoing drafting process tonight, there are several changes expected that I can discuss. Now. I listed five here. Changes to comply with the recent court decisions on the content based regulation. Sign measurement standards will change to more accurately reflect actual copy space. We do expect that to decrease some of our variance requests. Temporary sign code will be moved from the code of ordinances to the zoning ordinance, so all sign regulations will be found in the zoning ordinance. At that time. More restrictions on sign lighting near residential neighborhoods, and then some changes to rules for very small commercial signs like garage sale signs being used temporarily off premises. So during this discussion on ordinance changes, three topics have emerged that are listed here. Tonight's item will introduce some background on these topics and seek direction from the Commission. If commissioners want to request additional research or examples. This direction can also be provided in full or in part at a later date as needed. So that's just something to keep in mind as we go through this information. So just to kind of heads up on the format of this presentation, I will go through all the slides on all three topics. First, they follow the structure of the staff report. For your reference, I'll reserve our for discussion questions for the end of my presentation. I will go through all those questions just to give you a heads up on the scope. And then we'll do the discussion. Won't be as bad as it sounds. Sign Nonconformities are currently regulated in article 22, in the ordinance within the sign regulations, rather than article seven or Nonconformities which regulates all of the structures. So the current regulations stipulate three broad categories of how nonconforming rights for signs are lost. Those are shown here if it's moved altered reinstalled or replaced, if there's a change of occupant or a change of land use at the location served by the sign, or if the sign is destroyed to a degree specified within the ordinance. Now, we did some peer city research on this to see how our sign regulations specifically compare within the region. The full tabulation of the city regulations is available in the staff report. It's a pretty large table in there. Just very briefly, most cities surveyed did revoke nonconformity rights. If it was if a sign was altered, relocated, removed and replaced destroyed, the destruction definitions really across the board included the cost of replacement and the formula. About half of the cities had some kind of regulation that was related to the business using the sign. Although these did vary, there wasn't a really consistent pattern with that, and all of the cities surveyed did actually have nonconformity rules specific to signs in the sign article. They weren't contained in the regular nonconformity section, just like our ordinance currently is. In the discussion questions. At the end of this presentation, the Commission will be asked to consider regulations for nonconforming signs and loss of nonconformity. So the second topic we'll look at is poll signs. These are freestanding signs. They're supported by a vertical framework. This graphic shows two examples. One has the single pole, one has two poles. You can see the one with two poles has multiple kind of facades on it. Billboards as shown here are not considered poll signs when they receive applications. Under our current regulations. They contain off premise commercial messaging and they're not permitted in Plano. So poll signs are currently prohibited in some parts of the city within the overlay districts, within some of the zoning districts shown here on the slide and in the staff report within some pdds, in addition to, of course, the prohibitions on signs in residential areas, our peer city survey on pole sign regulation did find that some cities do not permit any new pole signs at all. Others restrict the areas where they're permitted pretty greatly, and all of the surveyed peer cities do restrict new pole signs to a much greater degree than Plano currently does. You can see a tabulation of the Peer City research in the staff report. To go with the previous information. This map shows the areas of Plano that prohibit pole signs in pink, or it's showing up kind of purple for me, and the areas that permit them are in green. So of course, this doesn't reflect the sign regulations that prohibit most pole signs in residential zoning districts. And the discussion questions. At the end of this presentation, the Commission will be asked to consider whether regulations on new pole signs should change as we rewrite the regulations. If new pole signs are prohibited, existing pole signs would be subject to nonconformity. Regulations for signs. So the third topic here is monument sign heights and regulation through overlay districts. We're kind of combining the two. Plano does have five overlay districts that provide additional design standards for major corridors. Architectural standards have already been removed from overlay regulations due to state legislative mandates several sessions ago, so staff is now considering removing some or all overlay districts as part of the rewrite project. Current overlay regulations prohibit pole signs. They contain various modifications on height limits for monument signs, and then some add restrictions on residential adjacency as well. Got two graphics here. And these are also of course in the staff report. These are the existing overlay districts that have signed standards. This is just your regular map of the overlay districts. Existing monument sign regulations are shown here. You can see that each district has pretty unique restrictions. This maps also found in the staff report as an attachment for visibility. So staff is considering two options for monument sign height regulations that would balance some concerns associated with overlay districts. Option A is summarized here in this slide to keep overlay districts, but simplify the regulations to minimize the differences between these districts. There would be a single overlay sign section proposed that would also include the Research Technology Center zoning district information. This option may create some nonconforming signs as heights change. Option B is summarized here. Remove overlay regulations on signs and regulate monument sign heights based on thoroughfare type. So this option would create a more consistent set of regulations throughout the city without favoring specific corridors with overlays. It is based on the concept that the scale of roadways is generally correlated with speed of travel, and higher speeds require larger signs for safety and legibility. We did find that was an industry recommendation. So this map contains a great deal of information, but it's intended to visualize clusters of development where we might expect to see signs along with the corridors shown by thoroughfare type. So that first column in the key shows the thoroughfare types. That second column shows land use types, and you really want to focus on the clusters of commercial activity, the institutional pockets within residential areas like schools and parks that do use monument signs as well. For the commission's reference, we've also reproduced the thoroughfare plan map here, and it's also linked in the staff report. The commission is asked to consider which of these options is best to further development. Sorry to further develop in our ordinance drafts staff does support option B because it provides that rational relationship between sign and roadway size, and can be used citywide. Staff recommends that the Commission provide direction regarding changes to the city's sign regulations. This direction can be given now or at a later time, if more research or site visits or other needs that come up in discussion are necessary. For next steps, we'll just continue. Continue refining our regulations. Receive public input. We have several opportunities to do that. When the draft is complete, the commission will be asked to call a public hearing at that time. I'll go through all of the discussion question slides here, but I'm not going to read them out loud. We'll return after general questions on the presentation to this slide. So question one category here pertains to the nonconforming sign regulations with these five questions for consideration. There's kind of a main one and then four bullets under it. Since the pole sign and monument sign overlay topics also do touch on concerns about nonconformity. Just keep these questions in mind throughout the discussion. Question topic two here has two considerations about pole sign prohibitions. Direction. Topic three is about regulating signs via overlay districts, and then two option staff identified as alternatives to the current standards if needed. And finally, question four are there any issues related to signs that the Commission would like staff to consider as we continue to draft these new regulations? This concludes the staff presentation. I'm happy to answer questions from the Commission. My colleagues are here as well to answer questions. Otherwise, we'll return to the discussion. Question one to begin staff direction discussion. Thank you, Miss Kirk. Do we have. So what we'll do is we'll ask some general if we have general questions. And then we'll go through the four points one at a time okay. Do we have any general questions Commissioner Ali. Oh, sorry. Commissioner. Ali. Sorry, Ben. Sounds like. Quick question. Difference between a pole sign and a billboard sign. Is it just on prem versus off premises? Otherwise structurally they are the same definition. You're asking what's the difference between a billboard and a sign and a billboard? So off premises signs are prohibited. If it's an on premise sign, it would be categorized as a freestanding sign currently, which would probably be a pole sign. With that structure, it would need to meet size requirements as well. So is a different size requirement and off premises. Or is it size requirement only or is it off premises on prem only? New billboard signs are not permitted, so there is no standard for them. But if it was on premise, it would be considered a pole sign and have to follow the pole sign standards. So if I build a pole sign on prem and it's massive, it's large billboard size, but it's on my premises, is that allowed? Only if it meets the the size regulations? So if it's billboard size it's going to be too big. Okay. Along 75 it could be 40ft tall, but there is an area regulation, and I actually don't have a good sense of how that compares to a standard billboard size. Okay. Thank you. Yeah. Commissioner lolly, I wanted to know what's the size? What's the height limit on the monument sign versus the pole sign? About the height limit, yes. You can kind of see some of those in the map here, but monument sign height limits are much lower. Because, you know, like I read, I think I'm somewhere in the report. It reaches 40 foot. 40 foot? Yeah. Just along highway 75. There are special regulations for all signs. And in our research, we didn't find that they specified the overarching category is freestanding signs. And both monument and pole signs are currently under that category. Okay. But it's just along that corridor. The the height limits are much lower. So you're like just along the 75 is the monument and the pole sign. Are you like allowed to be 40 foot under current regulations? Yes. If you want to take a look at this map, the kind of purple strip that goes up 75 is the 40 foot regulation area that's applied to the pole and the monument. Yes. Right. That's my question. So you're like but everywhere else in the city, the monument sign should be lower. Yes. Right. Thanks. Commissioner Bender. Yes? I had a question for the building official. Okay. Yeah. Question. Really? Around the enforcement. Enforcement? Are there changes that you would like to see that would make your job and the job of your department easier and more effective as they go through this process? So so building official, I wouldn't say there's anything that we're targeting specifically. I think we're just trying to make the sign ordinance at the permitting stage easier to understand for anyone that comes in and has any difficulty with what we have now, I think that would be the the main goal of what we would like to see. And so simplification of of our sign ordinance is the target. And there's a lot of things that we have proposed that help do that. And that's probably the best thing that we, we think we're accomplishing or trying to accomplish. I got it. So simplification and then making it part of the the permit, the permit process. Yes. Yeah. Because I have seen, you know, from an enforcement perspective, I saw a sign recently that a restaurant put up along the tollway that was very tall, I know, not authorized, advertised all sorts of things, drinks and wasn't up very long. So your your team, I think, enforced the regulations. So thank you. Thank you for doing that. I just want to hear from you really simplification and making it part of the permit process would make it easier for your team. Yes, I think that's really what we're our what we would like to see accomplished. I think enforcement is always an issue, whether you have a simple sign ordinance or someone that doesn't comply with that in any, at any rate. But we're always there to help make sure we enforce it when needed. And consistency be consistent. Right. Okay. Thank you. Any other general questions? Okay. So let's move and discuss each one of these one at a time. So we'll take the first one. Should the city's goal for nonconforming signs to be removed, to remove them over time or allow them to remain in a maintained condition. Commissioner Ali. My view I think. Allowing natural attrition bring the built environment into formance. With our ordinance and and the comprehensive plan is generally a good noninvasive way. To get there without forcing unnatural actions. So I think I would be more in favor of allowing them to be removed over time. And we can talk more about what the mechanism or the trigger point is repair versus replace and what have you. But I think the overlying vision of allowing attrition to naturally move you to the ideal, quote unquote, ideal state that we're looking for, it's probably the best way to go. Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Bruno. Thank you. Should we allow signs to be repaired if they're damaged? Yes, I think so. Should nonconforming signs be permitted be replaced with an identical sign, like if they're blown down in a storm or something like that? I would say yes. Should they be removed upon a change of owner occupancy? Absolutely. Because the nonconforming status benefits the owner or occupant. If the owner occupant goes away, then there's no reason to maintain nonconforming status. Now with respect to a time limit, after which the sign loses its nonconformity, such as advertising a business that has vacated the business vacates. I don't understand the reason for a subsequent time limit. I think vacating the property should automatically, immediately make the sign illegal. Okay. And now a sign structure with no copy. I think we need to allow a time limit, because sometimes, you know, if it's like a a marquee sign with removable letters, they would need some time to, you know, change the copy, you know, a reasonable time, not too terribly long. But I'm general with those qualifications. I'm in favor of all four of those. Yeah, okay. Thank you sir. Commissioner Lingamfelter. I guess going down the list as well for for my my thoughts behind it. I know that. If if you're doing a repair to a building or something and it's classified as a repair, let's say a roof or something, it's not a reroof. It's just simply repairs. You don't necessarily need to get permits, things like that. And I do feel like as far as signage goes, if it is, if that sign exists, that business is there and though it nonconforming at this time may have conformed at one time, but at this time it's nonconforming, I still think they should have a right to continue to repair it, and permitting is not necessary. It's a repair. Same thing. If replacement. I've been going back and forth on that one. I almost feel like it's kind of a repair. But then that's that's kind of that's when you go into like my example with the roof, if I've got to put a new roof on a building, a commercial building, I'm going to have to permit that roof. So I do lean towards permitting that. But I do think if that business is still there, that ownership is still there, though it nonconforming. They can do a like sign, but they do need a permit again because it's a it's replacement. And then as far as obviously I agree completely. If if there's no if that business is no longer there ownership and everything and that and that signage was particularly for specific businesses no longer there then there's no there's no that makes zero sense to keep it. So at that time, a nonconformity, I do think it should be removed. And in any future signs should conform. And then I, I wasn't totally following the fourth fourth line item, totally. But with the no copy thing and stuff. But. Again, I think, I think I've said pretty much what what I'm trying to get at, but I think repairs, as long as they're there, I think you can treat it like a repair and permitting is not necessary. Otherwise you do need a permit and or no business, no no sign. Thank you, sir, Commissioner Bender. Thank you chairman. I echo a lot of commissioner comments on A, B, C, and D, you know, and I and I'm assuming that this applies to electronic signs as well as traditional signs. Would that be would that be correct? I'm sorry. Can you repeat the question. Yes. I'm assuming these ordinances apply to electronic signs as well as it would be any traditional design code. Right. The other thing regarding some of these items, A through D, really many times the lease is tied to the sign. So if there's a change in the use of, say, a retail store that maybe has a pole sign, then there's no reason at that point we could it would be a nonconforming sign. So I agree with the items noted here. That would also not bring economic harm to the retailer. By following that process is the if we have existing nonconforming signs now, are those tracked or how are those tracks so that in the event that a retailer, for instance, that has a pole sign, vacates the premises, is a city notified of that, and then subsequently they're able to make sure that that nonconforming sign is removed. How is that? How is that managed? Do you want to answer this? Okay. I think that if we have a situation that comes up when some businesses change, that's our opportunity to check the sign. When a Co changes, okay. That's the only time we know if we have a sign that would be nonconforming. So it's done during the co co process CEO governance okay. And they need to get a Co. If they want to change a sign you would get two permits Co sign permit. So that's how we know. Got it. Perfect. Thank you. Miss Sebastian I just wanted to note the the questions about being permitted to be repaired and replaced. It's really about allowed under what should our new nonconforming standards be that we would have a permit. And I think most of these cases, any sort of sign new or most changes would require a permit. So the question is really just about permissions. So just wanted to point that out okay. Thank you ma'am. Commissioner Olli I think to Miss Sebastian's point, the lens I look at this is Commissioner Bender mentioned economic harm is if we are forcing a change of a structure, that to me is economic harm. So with that lens, should nonconforming signs be permitted to be repaired? That's not a forcing a change of structure. They have the structure. If we have if we don't permit them to repair, we are imposing some kind of economic tax, so to speak. I don't see that view with replacement. Right. You're going to the business is going to incur that cost regardless. And that is an opportunity for the city to go build the new thing. According to standard. Right? I imagine if I, if I owned a dwelling and it burnt down and I needed to rebuild, I can just rebuild it however I want. I need to rebuild it according to standard, to conform to whatever the standard of that of the day is. C is fairly duh. For option D, agree with everyone. Once there is a change of ownership that feels like a natural. Way to move compliance. Assigned structure with no copy. If it's the same ownership, I don't think we can force compliance without bringing again back to the term economic harm on the individual, since the only thing that is difference there. And correct me if I'm wrong, we're not regulating content. We are essentially regulating structure height size type and what have you. I don't agree that a structure with no copy would be a trigger point. In order to force compliance. Thank you sir, Commissioner Lingenfelter. Another thing I wanted to just question also is with like multi-tenant signage, if you have a pylon sign or pole sign that has multi tenants and one leaves and it's just simply wording or an advertisement, maybe have a little logo on on a, on a section. But, but all the others are still there and it's intended to be multifamily or multifamily not multi-tenant. Sorry. They I don't think that that should trigger anything. I think that because that kind of goes to an extreme cost, if they have to somehow revise a massive sign that that's intended for multi, multi tenants, just because one left or things like that. So. Yeah, I think to your point I had a little bit of my, my only struggle with what I'm hearing from everybody is letter C the change in ownership or occupancy. I'm thinking if I've got one owner that. The occupant leaves to replace it with an exact same occupant and go back around that, I'm I'm a little hesitant on that. But other than that, I kind of agree with what everyone else is saying. Commissioner lolly and I have, you know, the same point on C and D, actually. So if you like a developer or like a new owner wanted to acquire a, like a building that has the sign that has the like everything and they don't want to change a lot, are we going to force them to change the sign because it's a new ownership? If they like, they're going to get they say like because the sign is like attached to a building, right? So if they buy the building with the sign with the intention to remodel the building, but you keep the sign because it's in good shape, good structure, they don't want to. So do we force them to like I think it's unfair. We force them to change it because you're like, I have a lot of clients. They buy new, like new buildings. They remodel the building, they keep the sign because it's good. It's not like, unless it's, you know, like it needs repair or like a structurally unstable. That's another thing. And I agree with you like everybody else. Right. But you're like, I think it's like a we're forcing them to pay money just because you're like, they bought a building and maybe they I know that you like most of the other like people that are going to remodel the building itself. But like if the sign is good and they can it can be reused, but it's still like it's still keep the nonconforming status. I know it's probably the process would take more time to replace all these signs to be in compliance, but I think it's more fair to me. Thank you, Madam Commissioner Bender. Thank you. Chairman. I think the purpose of items C and D is, is really to bring people into conformance over time. And so if we never force somebody upon ownership change or sale of the building to comply will never have signs conforming to to the ordinance. So I would advocate that item C and D are important to moving forward in having the city have something that's enforceable, because at the time of the sale of the building, that's going to be known to the purchaser, and they're going to have to do that as they get a Co. So that's the time for the city to take the position that it's non-conforming. If we don't do that, we might as well grandfather it for forever. So those are my thoughts. So my comment was not necessarily my comment was I agreed with you on change of ownership. Right. It was change of occupancy that I was struggling a little bit with. Thank you, Commissioner Brounoff. I see an another problem with see as worded, this just occurred to me. Suppose the business has a change of owner, but the actual business itself continues in operation. For example, if an owner dies and leaves the business to a son or daughter as the new owner, but it's the same business, would it be fair at that point to require. Replacing the sign? I think probably not. Or if, you know, if I own ABC shoe store and I sell it to Commissioner Bronsky, but he wants to continue to operate it under the name of ABC Shoe Store and continue to sell shoes without any other change in the nature of the business. Perhaps it's unfair to require Commissioner Bronsky to replace the sign. So maybe we should focus on. Should nonconforming signs be removed upon change of the nature of the business rather than the owner per se? But but people die and leave their businesses to, you know, family members all the time. I mean, sure, absolutely. Thank you sir. Commissioner Ali, excellent point. And I probably will still think a change of ownership is a natural inflection point. So maybe a word and we put in there is it should be a transactional change right. Versus like, you know, deeding and what have you meaning a sale happened or some kind of transactional change, either legal entity, business entity or something of that nature that will perhaps get, you know, you know, I'm leaving my business to my son kind of deal. Or maybe it's a sale thing. Okay, maybe I, I will word it here, but maybe it has to be an exchange of funds that triggers the action. Right? Because I think, again, what I'm looking for is food. In terms of food disclosure, if you're buying something and we as part of your sale, we let you know. The city lets you know that you're non-conforming here. When you buy that, you're buying that liability, and it's up to you to make it come up to standard with the city. Right? So if again, back to Commissioner Bender, if we don't set hard tripwires to force what our ultimate goal is, then this discussion is moot. You know, if we if we need to have some hard lines somewhere that naturally move us in the right direction. You know, as I think about this and I think about owning a shoe store and the transaction, the sale of the property happening underneath my feet, maybe I'm not the owner of the property. Maybe I'm a tenant leasing the building, and now I'm being forced to pay for a new sign simply because the new owner, well, that's if the owner wants to pay for it and not push it onto me. But it would seem to me that if I were, if it were me, that was the tenant. Now, I understand what you're saying here about there's got to be somewhere to find this. But I do see that there can be some delicacy done to respect the tenant as well. If the tenant continues and the transaction was happening underneath their feet, I don't think the landowner is going to necessarily say, you know what, don't worry about it. I'll just cover the cost in in replacing a sign for me, the tenant that's leasing the building because the transaction occurred. But but the onus is always on the landowner. It's in all of our ordinances. The onus is always on the landowner. I understand, you know, so the tenant basically bears no harm in this scenario, right? It's the tenant is not non-conforming. The owner is non-conforming. And if ownership changes, the new owner is essentially assuming that nonconformity. And it's at that point the city should have the right to step in and go. You need to conform. Okay. All right. Thank you sir. Commissioner. So I have a question. What happens to like a non-conforming use? How do you enforce the non-conforming use? Like when they change the use they have to comply? I don't know. Well, what what can I ask, do you want to answer? So typically when this happens, if someone is coming in for a certificate of occupancy or a building addition or a site plan, those are the triggers for us to check the use. And if the use what they're asking for is not permitted, then our next step is to look. Is this a non-conforming? There may have to be some research done to ascertain that. There may need to be a formal decision from the Director of planning saying, yes, this is a nonconforming use or no, it's not. And then that case, there's different permissions if it's not performing or if it's just essentially a legal construction or illegal occupancy. But there are some like because of zoning changes, some like some of the uses are non-conforming, like not in Plano, but in like in other cities. It happens here in Plano as well. They come in and the business was permitted at the time, and the zoning has changed and they're still there and stayed. Yeah, it's the state under the same use. So when the use changes, do you force them to comply? It somewhat depends on the regulation. We make the entire building come into compliance. No not necessarily. But the use if the use changes the use has to be permitted use at the time. Yes. Yes. Yeah. Permanent use. But you're like does the building need to comply with that also because you're like you know what. How you like what am I going. It's just you're like, if you're going to say that the building is non-conforming, you're like, in the sign is non-conforming. Are you going to force the like the client to like or the owner to change the, you know, like if the use is the same, let's say I would say the use and use structure are really are really two separate things. But generally speaking, you're allowed to use things as is. Right? The structure can stay as is when you're making changes, those changes and then comply with the current regulations. But isn't the sign is a structure also, you know, like it's it's I'm just like looking at it as something exists in existence. And if they don't want to change it, I mean, the structure itself, right. Sure. I think we're speaking about buildings or uses specifically, but typically I think that what happens is when we find the sign change is often regulated through the business has changed, and they're coming in for a signed permit asking for a change to show the business name, or they're coming in because they've you're going to get a certificate of occupancy and they're going to change. And so that's the only time we really know when there's going to be a change in ownership or change in business name. We're not going to regulate the transactions in the sales. It'll be when they come for a permit or a certificate of occupancy. At that point. We then open up the code and say, is what they're asking for meeting the code or is it not? If it's not, sometimes there's rights as nonconforming signs to either keep them or not. And I think that's really what we're asking for today is when when we get to that point is okay, or do we want to allow them to keep going or not? Thanks. Commissioner Lingamfelter. All right. I think I think I I'm going to have to step in a little bit and give some insight from as a I'm not personally a building owner, but I have been employed by a building owner for a long time who owns about 45 properties across DFW retail and office commercial specifically, all of which has lots of signage and and signage is the lifeblood of these properties. When I am asked to look at a property before they buy it, and I walk the property and I look at the roofs and I look at the HVAC systems, and I look at the parking lot, and I look at the structure and the foundation, and, and I walk the tenant spaces and all the floors and all and, and really focus on, okay, what I need to do. And I and I'm actually the one that puts a five year plan together on what I expect to spend. And I look at a sign, let's say there's a pylon sign on this property, multi-use and multi-tenant, and it's in great shape as a good foundation, has good structure. It's being used. I assume that it's permitted. It's there, it's been there. It's been in there a long time. It's in use now. However, if maybe it's not conforming. I do not know this. I doubt the seller will tell me. Maybe not. They may not even know that it's not conforming. So we buy the property. I have budgets in place for all the other stuff, but I didn't put anything in for the signage. And signage is very expensive, especially like a pylon sign. You're talking hundreds of thousands of dollars. That's a big miss. If I suddenly get an congratulations letter from the city on buying your new property, great. I thank you for coming in to apply for a shell Co lot. But so you know your sign does not comply. It's in nonconformance. You now need to tear it down demo costs and you need to now build a new structure. If you'd like to have a sign that's that's huge. That's huge. If that's the trigger that that's that's that's a big deal. I think a natural attrition kind of thing that that Commissioner Ali kind of alluded to at the very beginning of all this conversation may be more of a better trigger if it's just a failing sign. It does need to be replaced. Then those costs are going to be incurred no matter what. And then that does make more sense that they could. They need to spend $300,000 on a sign regardless. So let's make sure it complies. I think that actually makes much more sense as far as a line. Okay. All right. Thank you sir. Commissioner Bender thank you chairman. You know, the signage issue topic has been a topic for a long time on planning and zoning in the city, dating back probably ten years when I was on planning zoning. So this is not a new topic. And and it's a challenging topic. And Commissioner Lingenfelter, you you made some great comments, right? Because, you know, I mentioned economic harm before. The purpose is really not to do economic harm. But, you know, without being specific, you know, there are none. There are signs across the city probably, you know, the city would probably rather not have at this point. Right? They just are not attractive. And they're not they don't fit the look and feel of the community. And I think that's really what we're trying to do, is have an ordinance that is very pleasing to the eye. And over the course of time, we can bring people into compliance without doing economic harm. I think that's really the intent, and there have been a lot of great points made here, and I know that staff has done a lot of a lot of hard work. And, you know, I noticed the cities that that were listed are of similar size and so forth. You know, there are some smaller cities like Coppell that have very restrictive sign ordinances and things like that, where it has to fit into, you know, the architectural design and so forth. So we're not being that restrictive. But I think it's important that we have clear, concise regulations that can be enforced. And then I think over time that we we bring people into compliance so that we have a city that our citizens enjoy looking at, and we don't have signs that we look at that we wish were not here and there, and there are some of those. So those are my comments. Thank you sir. Commissioner Brounoff. Thank you. Thinking further about change of ownership or occupancy, I'm thinking a better approach might be that. Nonconforming status continues so long as the business continues, regardless of ownership or tenancy. You could even add a codicil to that provided you clear the hurdle of, you know, not not indulging in prohibited, you know, content regulation. But you could say, for example, the nonconformity continues so long as the business continues under the same name. Because if once you change the name, then there would be a reason to have to replace the sign with something else, and then I would want the sign to conform to city ordinances. So assuming that does not raise an impermissible content regulation, that might be a way to go. Yeah okay. Yeah. Thank you sir. Commissioner lolly. So so now we're looking also at the pole signs and we might like we probably we're still on nonconforming for a moment so. Yeah. No, I mean you like I'm coming to the nonconforming so like so if we you like prohibit all the pole signs. All these pole signs on 75 that are going to be nonconforming. So like, did you think of you like giving a notice to the owners and see what their like input also on you like the sign changes. Are they going to be. So I guess our question is what kind of public input are you. How are you attracting public input. So we have a couple of public input strategies already. But because we're drafting the regulations, that will really affect a lot of how we get further public input. Our next step for public input is actually talking to industry and surveying sign industry officials, officials like employees. We've done that once previously, but that was with a different set of draft regulations. So we do need to kind of redo that work. So are you reaching out to to businesses within Plano and kind of getting feedback from them as well? I think at this point, we're looking for the commission to kind of put us in the ballpark, and then we know where to frame our public input from there. Other than it being too open ended before we go out. All right. Thank you, sir. So you like but are you going to send, you know, like in case any signs is nonconforming. Are you like going to send notices to the owners. We haven't specifically considered that yet. I think it kind of depends on the scale of what how many nonconformities we might be creating. So it depends on your answers to the next couple questions to help us frame what that input should be. And is there like any compensation from the city to those owners that you'd like to encourage them to change the sign? In case you like to expedite? I would say there's there's no budget for that. Okay. But that would be a council decision. Thanks, Commissioner. Ali, let me see if I can move us along. Do we do a little bit of a show of hands, give them direction on the four points? Would that work to move us along? And if we have majority on each bullet point, then that's quote unquote your direction. And if there's some stipulations to a bullet point we can add, add it to that. And that's your direction. Just to move us to the next question. So would that work in asking the first question, should nonconforming signs be permitted to be repaired? Correct. And I think I think we've all kind of I think we've all said that's okay. We are good with that. So that's direction number 1.1. Are we all good with 1.1. Yes okay. And two, should nonconforming signs be permitted to be replaced with an identical sign? I have no he says no. Everybody says no except no. Okay. We're good with that. We're saying no direction on that. Number three, should nonconforming signs be removed upon change of ownership or occupancy? And I say no as well. Okay. So that's a no. That's a yes, but that's a no. Well, I understand the I think there needs to be some massaging of that. And I might, I might change myself to a yes. Yeah. But it depends on how the, how it's verbal verbalized. There's a long road ahead on this project. Sure. Might I suggest asking about Commissioner Bruno's suggestion about having that question be just about change of use or. Sorry, business name. Thank you. How would we feel about if it were to change of business name is that. Where's that line drawn as far as like for my example, it's more of a multi-tenant building business. Names change a lot, but it's still all the office use or typical. But that's constantly changing. Where would we draw that line? I mean, in that scenario, the city doesn't get to see that necessarily, am I? If there's a change of business name or sign? Yeah. Okay. I would suggest we could consider something different for multi-tenant signs. And sometimes shopping centers change names. So like a change in name of shopping center could be a trigger that would align with a change of name of business. Okay, I would I would be more inclined, I think I think we're kind of inclined to go that more that direction. If you kind of I can see that that that path because then they're going to have to buy new signage anyways for that change in name. And finally, should there be a time limit after which the signs loss of its nonconformity, such as advertising, a business that has vacated the premises or assign structure with no copy, I would say yes. On the first part of the and no on the no copy part, I would. I would tend to agree with that too. Yeah. Mr. Bruno. I'd say yes to the whole thing. Okay. There should be a time limit. Yeah, okay. I mean, they should have a time if it's a message sign, like, you know, some just pick an example. Churches like to put inspirational messages on their signs outside and they change them from time to time. I have no problem with the business owner changing the copy on a sign with changeable type, for example, or a marquee sign with that's electronic and they change the message. I don't have a problem with that at all. I don't know if the terminology of no copy is intended to go that go as far as you're talking about. Yeah, but I mean, if it's a if it requires physical removal of letters and putting up additional letters, there will be a time when the sign is blank. I understand. But again, I don't think the intention of what they're asking us is that limited time window. Yeah, I think I think our point is, is if there's something that's changeable in the process, that we give them a little bit of time to make that change, as opposed to saying, well, the sign was vacant for five minutes. And so it's got to, you know, right there should there should be a time. I think there's logic in that. And what I was suggesting is the no copy part should actually be removed. That's not a trigger. Well, in my view, for nonconformity, because the conformity that we are talking about is more structure, not on content. Unless I'm thinking of that. Wrong can be either way. Yes, Mr. Bruno, thank de is trying to get at is if the business vacates and the sign is sitting there with with no business in the building and there's nothing on the sign, there's no reason why the sign should, should survive. I think that's what it's. Yeah, I think we're in agreement with that. So if the new owner is going to come in so they're going to change the sign anyways, right. So it's just the the amount of time I think I think you've gotten what what we're talking about here. Okay. Let's go on to number two. Should pole signs be prohibited citywide or in a more area. Where am I reading? Should pole signs be prohibited citywide or in more areas of the city? I would say prohibited. I don't like yeah, I don't like both signs. Okay. That's two, Mr. Bender. You're no more pole signs, guys. No more pole signs. That's our answer number three. Should the city continue to regulate signs via overlay districts? Yes or no? No. I picked option two. Well, yeah. That thoroughfare. I think it's more reasonable. B b b. We're good with option B. I'll be the one dissenter. I'm actually more simplified today. We're good with option B, number four. Are there any other issues related to signs that the Commission would like the staff to consider? I have like I have a question. So on screens like digital screens, like the ones that we the legacy requested, like those like digital screens, the lits like the movable screens. Are you asking. Yes. You're like, no, but you like, do you have regulations regarding this or are you? Yeah. Is it part of the sign regulation? Because these are just like it's going to be like screen maybe on the wall or on a pole or like in a corner? Mr. Bell, I know specifically for those signs that are permitted in the legacy area that there is a time limit. They have to be static for a certain amount of time for the electronic signs, but might be like in some other areas of the city, they want to put those signs. So is there regulation for these kind of signs? I have to look into that. I don't know the answer off the top of my head. I'm sorry. Yeah. We can bring back some more information about electronic signs in general at our next discussion. Commissioner Langfelder. Yeah, I was I was going to what I wanted to kind of piggyback your electronic sign thing because that is something that concern as far as brightness and how, how, how much might be going on, especially if you're in an area where maybe high traffic driving and stuff, and it could be very distracting or even blinding to to people as they're driving. You know, I do think that there should be some regulations as far as that placement and what they can do. So. Mr. Bell, don't quote me on this. I may be mistaken, but I think those signs were written specifically for those districts, and they're not allowed elsewhere. But we can confirm that. So I was I thought that I'd seen some churches that had some digital signs as well. So but I do think we need to get a little bit more information on that, if you would please. Any other questions? Any other comments? Excellent. Seeing no more business before us, I will adjourn at 801. Have in the city to increase efficiency and inspection times. So the GIS Department was able to plot all of these food service establishments, their locations, and enable us to edit a map with the data we had on permits, inspection dates, frequencies, all of that information in one