Jan 12, 2021 Frisco - Planning and Zoning Commission

ANY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO MINUTES ARE APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT, NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. ANY COMMISSION MEMBER MAY [INAUDIBLE] REQUESTS PRIOR TO A MOTION AND A VOTE ON THE CONSENT ITEMS MAY CONSIDER ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY.

ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MAY DO SO WITH THE MAJORITY APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.

WE HAVE ITEMS THREE THROUGH 10 THIS EVENING.

I THINK THAT'S WHAT SEVEN ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEMS 3 THROUGH 10.

MOVE TO APPROVE, ITEMS THREE THROUGH TEN.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ARE APPROVED.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED.

ALL RIGHT. THIS EVENING WE HAVE SEVEN PUBLIC HEARINGS AND TWO REGULAR ITEMS ON THE AGENDA.

[11. Open Space Plan & Site Plan: Westside Market Addition, Block A, Lot 7 (OS20-0083 & SP20-0084)]

I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS FOR THE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

EACH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS PRECEDED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST.

THE APPLICANT IS THEN PERMITTED TEN MINUTES TO MAKE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF AND APPLICANT BY THE COMMISSION.

THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK ARE WELCOME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

ALL SPEAKERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT, NEED TO COMPLETE A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PROVIDE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.

IF THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESENT YOUR POSITIONS.

PLEASE AVOID REPEATING WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BY PREVIOUS SPEAKERS.

OTHER THAN STATING THAT YOU AGREE WITH OUR COMMENTS, PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. REPEAT APPEARANCES TO THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED.

AFTER ALL PERSONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE CASE IS TABLED TO A FUTURE DATE.

AND THE COMMISSION INCLUDES IN THEIR MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A FUTURE MEETING. AFTER CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.

PLEASE NOTE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ONLY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING CASES UNLESS THE COMMISSION DENIES THE CASE AND THE APPLICANT DOES NOT APPEAL THE DENIAL FINAL ACTION REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AS TO WHEN THE CASE WILL BE

[00:05:01]

CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

ALL RIGHT. FIRST ITEM THIS EVENING ON THE AGENDA IS ITEM ELEVEN, OPEN SPACE PLAN AND SITE PLAN. WESTSIDE MARKET ADDITION BLOCK A LOT SEVEN (OS20-0083 & SP20-0084) OWNERS LF2 FRISCO OUTPARCELS LIMITED PARTNERSHIP.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON NOVEMBER 16TH 2020.

THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION COMMISSION APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION REQUEST ON DECEMBER 8TH 2020.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND FOUND THAT IT FAILS TO MEET THE CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, ZONING ORDINANCE, ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND OR OTHER APPLICABLE CITY CODES, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, RULES, POLICIES OR STANDARDS AS NOTED NEXT TO THE EACH REASON FOR DENIAL IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE DENIAL IS BASED ON THE SITE PLAN ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION TWO POINT ZERO SIX POINT ZERO FIVE NONRESIDENTIAL DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN WHICH A 30 FOOT REAR YARD IS REQUIRED IN THE BUILDING DID ENCROACH THIS REAR YARD.

WITH THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED FOR THE OPEN SPACE PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL AND DISAPPROVAL FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT FOR THE SITE PLAN, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANTHONY, WE HAVE TWO ITEMS THEN RIGHT.

SO WE'LL NEED A VOTE ON EACH ITEM SEPARATELY.

YEAH, NO, IT'S ALL COMBINED TOGETHER.

IT'S OPEN SPACE PLAN THAT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL SINCE THERE WERE NO OUTSTANDING CONDITIONS. AND THEN THE SITE PLAN RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL AND DISAPPROVAL SINCE IT DID VIOLATE THE REAR YARD.

SO OUR VOTE WILL BE OK.

SO COMMISSIONERS, TWO ITEMS ON HERE AS PART OF THIS ONE IS RECOMMENDING FOR APPROVAL ON THE OPEN SPACE PLAN AND ACCEPTING THE DENIAL ON THE SITE PLAN ITEMS. ANY QUESTIONS ON THESE? PRETTY CLEAR CUT TO ME, SO.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, ITEM 11.

CAN CLARIFY ACCEPTING WOULD MEAN THAT YOU ACCEPT THE APPROVAL OF OPEN SPACE AND THE DENIAL OF THE SITE PLAN. [INAUDIBLE] OR THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR ANTHONY.

IF THAT IS THE CHOICE, DO WE NEED TO FOLLOW THE RECOMMENDED LANGUAGE AND DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT? YES, THAT WOULD BE CORRECT.

OKAY. I MOVE TO APPROVE THE OPEN SPACE PLAN AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF.

AND I MOVE TO DENY AND DISAPPROVE THE SITE PLAN BASED ON THE REASONS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. DELEGATE STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL.

SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO OPEN SPACE PLAN IS APPROVED.

SITE PLAN IS DENIED. ITEM TWELVE OPEN SPACE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

[12. Open Space Plan & Preliminary Site Plan: The Arbors Frisco, Block A, Lots 2,3 & 5 (OS20-0084 & PSP20-0035)]

THE ARBORS FRISCO BLOCK A LOTS TWO, THREE AND FIVE (OS20-0084 & PSP20-0035) OWNERS NASH FM 3537 L.L.C..

THANK YOU MR CHAIR. THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON NOVEMBER 16TH 2020.

THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION REQUEST ON DECEMBER 8TH, 2020 BY A VOTE OF SIX TO ZERO.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS PROJECT AND FOUND THAT IT FAILS TO MEET THE CITY SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE, ZONING ORDINANCE, ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND OR OTHER APPLICABLE CITY CODES, ORDINANCES, REGULATIONS, RULES, POLICIES OR STANDARDS.

AS NOTED NEXT TO EACH REASON FOR DENIAL IN THE STAFF REPORT, THE OPEN SPACE PLAN IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

THE APPLICANT IS MEETING ALL THE CRITERIA FOR THE OPEN SPACE.

HOWEVER, ON THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT ZONING ORDINANCE SECTION FOUR POINT ZERO SEVEN POINT ONE TWO STRUCTURES IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY AUTOMOTIVE USE. THE PROVISION REQUIRES THAT ALL BUILDING STRUCTURES AND OUTDOOR SPEAKERS USE IN CONJUNCTION WITH ANY DRIVE THROUGH OR DRIVE IN RESTAURANT SHALL BE LOCATED A MINIMUM OF TWO HUNDRED FEET AWAY FROM ANY RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TWO DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS.

THE OUTDOOR SPEAKER BOXES ARE LOCATED APPROXIMATELY SIXTY EIGHT FEET AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT TO THE WEST.

SO MY UNDERSTANDING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, THE ISSUE IS THE I'M LISTENING. YES, SORRY.

WERE YOU FINISHED? I'M SORRY. WERE YOU TRYING TO SHOW SOMETHING? GO RIGHT AHEAD. I WAS JUST GOING TO PULL UP AN EXHIBIT, BUT UNDERSTANDING ON THIS ITEM THE APPLICANT IS LOOKING FOR SOME TYPE OF VARIANCE BECAUSE OF THE DISTANCE LIMITATION FROM THE OUTDOOR SPEAKER TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING, BECAUSE THERE'S AN OPEN SPACE LAYER BETWEEN THE ACTUAL RESIDENTIAL HOUSING.

[00:10:01]

YES, THAT IS CORRECT MR. CHAIR. YES. IF I UNDERSTAND PROPERLY AND THIS IS I'M GOING TO ASK THE COMMISSIONER IF THEY WOULD LIKE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK OR NOT.

BUT WHAT I UNDERSTAND PROPERLY, IT HAS TO BE TO THE ZONING LINE.

RESIDENTIAL LINE IS NOT THE BOUNDARY THERE BY STATUTE.

THAT IS CORRECT. THE STATUTE READS THAT IT IS TO THE RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICT.

AND SO WHILE THERE WOULD BE OVER 200 FEET FROM THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY TO THE RESIDENTIAL LOT LINE, THERE IS AN HOA LOT IN BETWEEN THOSE TWO.

HOWEVER, THAT HOA LOT IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

SO THAT'S WHERE THIS PROVISION IS NOT BEING MET BY THE APPLICANT.

OKAY. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK IF THE COMMISSION WOULD ALLOW YOU TO.

COMMISSION I WOULD LIKE TO PERSONALLY WOULD LIKE TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT ON THIS.

AT LEAST GIVE THEM AN OPPORTUNITY TO STATE THEIR CONCERNS.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO DO SO? WHAT WOULD YOU RECOMMEND THE MOTION BE? LET'S OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

MOVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

LET ME JUST.

ANY OPPOSE THE MOTION CARRIES 5 0.

LET ME STATE THIS AS PUBLIC COMMENTS VERSUS PUBLIC HEARING.

I'VE GOT SOME STUFF ANYWAY TOO FOR THE RECORD, DO YOU WANT ME TO MODIFY THE MOTION? YES, LET'S OPEN IT UP FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

SO I'D LIKE TO CORRECT MY MOTION TO MOVE TO OPEN FOR PUBLIC COMMENT.

A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES FIVE 0.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE.

WE WILL TAKE COMMENTS FROM THE PUBLIC, WHICH IS THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT, SO IF YOU CAN JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. WE WILL HAVE YOU FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD AS WELL.

DO YOU GUYS WANT ME TO REMOVE THE MASK IS EVERYONE.

I DON'T HAVE A REQUIREMENT FOR THAT.

OK, JUST TO MAYBE MAKE A LITTLE BIT EASIER FOR EVERYBODY TO HEAR ME.

SO MY NAME IS MARK PITTMAN. RESIDE AT 4513 DEXTER COURT, PLANO, TEXAS, SEVEN FIVE ZERO NINE THREE. WE ARE THE APPLICANT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY AND WE APPRECIATE YOU GUYS TAKING THE TIME TO GO THROUGH ALL THE STUFF.

WE HAD SENT THE PACKAGE.

AND I KNOW WE'RE HAVING SOME IT PROBLEMS AT THE MOMENT TO SHOW THIS, BUT I DID BRING SOME PRESENTATION MATERIALS THAT WE COULD PASS AROUND.

WE UNDERSTAND THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENT THAT TWO HUNDRED FEET WOULD BE STANDARD BETWEEN ANY SORT OF ORDER BOARD, BETWEEN ANY RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY.

I THINK WE ARE FORTUNATELY IN A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE WHERE THERE IS AN OPEN SPACE THAT EXCEEDS THAT REQUIREMENT.

SO KIND OF FROM A TECHNICALITY STANDPOINT, WE KNOW WE DON'T MEET THE ORDINANCE, BUT WE DO THINK THAT THE INTENT OF WHAT EVERYONE IS TRYING TO ACHIEVE, WHICH IS TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS FROM ANY SORT OF NOISE THAT COULD BE CONTRIBUTED FROM THE ORDER BOARD IS MET BY THE FACT THAT WE HAVE A LARGE GREEN SPACE, WHICH IS HEAVILY WOODED IN BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AND THE COMMERCIAL PROPERTY.

SO WE ARE FORTUNATE THAT NEWLAND, WHICH IS THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF THE GROVE, DESIGNED IT THIS WAY. AND SO WE'RE HOPING THAT WE CAN AT LEAST HAVE THAT DISCUSSION WITH EVERYBODY TO REVIEW AND GO OVER THOSE QUESTIONS.

WE ALSO DO HAVE THE HOA SUPPORT.

THEY HAVE A LETTER THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE PACKAGE.

WE HAVE THE CURRENT DEVELOPER OF THE GROVE SUBDIVISION THAT HAS PROVIDED APPROVAL AS WELL. SO WE'RE HOPING WE CAN PROVIDE YOU GUYS, YOU KNOW, THE FULL DETAILS OF ANY QUESTIONS AND ORDERS.

BUT WE DO CURRENTLY, BOTH PROPERTIES OR BOTH ORDER BOARDS MEET OVER THE TWO HUNDRED FOOT REQUIREMENT TO THE ACTUAL PROPERTY LINE OF THE ACTUAL HOME, NOT THE HOA SUBDIVISION GREEN SPACE AREA. OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE.

THANK YOU. YES.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT HAS COMMENTS THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO MAKE FROM A PUBLIC PERSPECTIVE TODAY? OK, I'D LIKE A MOTION TO STOP PUBLIC COMMENT.

I HAVE A POINT OF QUESTION MR. CHAIR. IF WE HAVE QUESTIONS, WOULD YOU WANT WOULD THOSE COME AFTER WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENT SECTION.

CORRECT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION. SO MOVED.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES FIVE 0.

WE ARE NO LONGER TAKING PUBLIC COMMENTS.

THIS WAS ALL THE LETTERS FROM THE HOA PLUS WE HAD SOME QUESTIONS ABOUT WOULD THAT EVER BE DEVELOPED THE HOA LOT.

SO WE HAVE AN EMAIL CONFIRMATION FROM THE CURRENT DEVELOPER REFERENCING.

SO THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS.

THANK YOU.

ANTHONY, SO I HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE.

MY UNDERSTANDING THAT THIS IS NOT A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THIS A STRAIGHT ZONING, CORRECT? I BELIEVE THAT IS CORRECT.

YES. AND I DO WANT TO POINT OUT, COMMISSION LAST YEAR,

[00:15:11]

THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVED ON THIS PROPERTY, DID NOT SHOW DRIVE THRU'S SIMILAR BUILDING CONFIGURATION.

AND THE APPLICANT IS NOW COMING THROUGH REQUESTING TO ADD THOSE DRIVE THRU'S AS THEY HAVE SOME TENANTS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT DRIVE THROUGH SPACE.

SO THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE, I THINK THAT THERE'S SOME VALIDITY TO, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE WANT TO KEEP THE SOUND AWAY FROM RESIDENTIAL AND WE DO HAVE A BARRIER HERE.

IS THIS AN ORDINANCE THAT WE CAN OVERRIDE OR THAT WE CAN GRANT A VARIANCE ON AS A COMMISSION? THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR THAT IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR A VARIANCE TO THAT STATUTE IN THE ORDINANCE NO.

SO WE CAN'T APPROVE IT.

WE HAVE NO WAY TO APPROVE IT AS A VARIANCE TO WHAT THE LAW STATES.

THAT IS CORRECT. THERE'S NOT A VARIANCE FOR THIS PROVISION.

LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION.

IF THIS GETS DENIED HERE, DO THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL.

I BELIEVE FROM HERE THEY WOULD APPEAL TO THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, THEY'D HAVE TO PROVE A HARDSHIP IN THIS CASE.

AND COUNCIL WOULD NOT HAVE AUTHORITY OVER THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

IT'D GO TO A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

OKAY. IF THIS WAS A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, WOULD WE HAVE MORE LATITUDE? NOT UNLESS THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT OVERRODE THAT RESTRICTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

WE CAN. YEAH, BECAUSE THIS IS JUST STRAIGHT ZONING.

COMMISSIONERS, I'LL OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS, COMMENTS.

COMMISSIONER BOX YOU ACTED LIKE HE HAD A COMMENT HERE A MINUTE AGO OR A QUESTION.

I CHANGED MY QUESTION AND DIRECTED TO ANTHONY.

CAN YOU RESTATE I DIDN'T HEAR EXACTLY WHAT YOU SAID FROM THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT WOULD THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT, HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO GRANT A VARIANCE IN THIS CASE IF THIS WAS BROUGHT TO THEM IN THE SAME FASHION AND THEY DEEMED IT WORTHY.

YES. IF THE APPLICANT WAS ABLE TO PROVE A HARDSHIP.

SO LOOKING AT THIS PROJECT, YOU HAVE THE APPLICANT BOUGHT PROPERTY UNDER THE SAME EXACT ORDINANCE THAT WE'RE READING FROM NOW THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE FOR SEVERAL YEARS.

SO I'M NOT SURE WHAT THE HARDSHIP WOULD BE.

BUT IF THE BOARD FOUND THAT THERE WAS A HARDSHIP, THEN YES, THERE'S THE POTENTIAL THERE FOR GRANTING A VARIANCE THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT.

BUT TO RESTATE, WE DO NOT HAVE STATUTORY AUTHORITY TO OVERRIDE THE ZONING ORDINANCE IN THIS CASE.

CORRECT. THERE IS NOT A VARIANCE PROVISION TO THE STATUTE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

I MEAN, I THINK THE ONLY HARDSHIP I COULD THINK OF IS COVID-19 CHANGING USES AND NEEDS IN TERMS OF FROM A HARDSHIP PERSPECTIVE.

BUT THAT MIGHT BE A STRETCH.

BUT BECAUSE THIS WAS ORIGINALLY THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN WAS NOT WITH DRIVE THROUGH BECAUSE. THAT'S RIGHT.

AND THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN DID NOT SHOW ANY DRIVE THRU'S.

GOT A QUESTION, ANTHONY, JUST CLARIFYING ON THE HANDOUT THAT WAS JUST GIVEN TO US, IT'S THE SAME THAT WAS IN THE PACKET, THE ORIGINAL THE I GUESS YOU CALL IT THE COVER PAGE THAT HAS A PICTURE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

IT SHOWS KIND OF A 3D RENDERING.

IT'S THE FIRST PAGE. I KNOW YOU CAN'T PULL IT OR CAN YOU PULL IT UP ON THERE.

WELL. I'M HAVING SOME TECHNICAL DIFFICULTIES AGAIN, IT LOOKS LIKE.

MAYBE YOU CAN ANSWER WITHOUT LOOKING AT IT.

SURE. WHICH DIRECTION IS THAT LOOKING FROM? IS THAT LOOKING FROM THE HOA LAND GREENBELT TOWARDS THE DEVELOPMENT? I'D HAVE TO SEE THAT PICTURE AGAIN.

AND CAN I ASK THE IS IT OK IF I ASK THE APPLICANT WHICH DIRECTION OR DO YOU KNOW? I THINK IT'S A VERY FAIR QUESTION.

YEAH. IF THE APPLICANT IF I CAN ASK YOU A QUESTION.

OF COURSE. SO THAT IS LOOKING FROM CUSTER, LOOKING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT.

SO THAT'S FROM CUSTER ROAD.

THAT'S THE ANGLE.

THAT'S LOOKING WEST.

LOOKING WEST. LOOKING WEST FROM CUSTER ROAD.

FROM CUSTER ROAD. AND SO THE DRIVE THRU'S IN QUESTION WOULD BE ON THE BACK SIDES OF THESE BUILDINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT.

CORRECT THEY WOULD. AND TO ANSWER THE OTHER QUESTION, THE IDEA BEHIND IT WAS OF DUE TO COVID-19, OTHERWISE WE WOULDN'T HAVE REQUESTED THIS THESE PARTICULAR TENANTS ASKED FOR THIS STUFF. SO WE ARE TRYING TO SEE IF WE CAN.

YEAH, I UNDERSTAND THAT.

TRUST ME. ARE THERE OTHER WAYS TO SOLVE FOR THIS IN TERMS OF

[00:20:09]

REDESIGN OF THE ORDER PROCESS OR SPEAKER BOX.

WHAT ARE THOSE OTHER WAYS? POTENTIALLY.

WE'VE HAD A RECENT CASE AT COIT AND MAIN, VERY SIMILAR SITUATION ACTUALLY, WHERE STAFF WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE A WALL BETWEEN THE POINT OF ORDER AND THE RESIDENTIAL. SO THE DRIVE THRU IS LITERALLY A PORTION OF THE DRIVE THROUGH, GOES THROUGH A WALL WITH A ROOF STRUCTURE OVER IT THAT WAS CONSIDERED POTENTIALLY BROUGHT UP FOR THIS.

THIS SITE DESIGN DOES NOT WORK AS WELL.

THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME MORE SIGNIFICANT SITE MODIFICATIONS WHERE THE ORDER BOARD IS RIGHT NOW. AND THIS ONE DOES NOT SIT DIRECTLY IN THE BACK OF THE BUILDING LIKE IT DID AT THE COIT AND MAIN SITE.

AND SO THAT WOULD REQUIRE REMOVAL OF SOME PARKING AND SOME MODIFIED STACKING AREAS TO THIS PLAN TO MAKE THAT WORK.

BUT THAT COULD BE AN OPTION.

BUT SO IF A DRIVE THROUGH WAS A REQUIREMENT AT THAT LOCATION TO SELL IT, TO DEVELOP IT OR WHATEVER, THEN THERE WOULD HAVE TO BE MODIFICATIONS TO THE PROCESS TO FIT WITHIN THE STATUTES TO USE THE WALL.

THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

I'M SORRY, JOHN. I JUST WANT TO LET IT BE KNOWN TO THE COMMISSION THAT WE RECOMMENDED THAT TO THE APPLICANT, THE APPLICANT DENIED THAT OPTION.

AND ANTHONY, I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION FOR YOU.

I WAS GOING TO ASK YOU.

DO WE HAVE NEIGHBORHOODS WHERE COMMON GROUNDS ARE ZONED SOMETHING OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL . NOT OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD, MOST, BY AND LARGE, ARE GOING TO BE ZONED RESIDENTIAL.

I CAN'T THINK OF ANY THAT ARE NOT DOESN'T MEAN THAT IT DOESN'T EXIST.

IT'S A BIT OF A STRETCH.

BUT IS THERE ANYTHING, ANY RULING, ANY ORDINANCE, JOHN, THAT WOULD PREVENT A NEIGHBORHOOD FROM HAVING AN HOA GROUND THAT WAS LIKE A GREENBELT LIKE THIS? THAT WAS NOT SINCE IT'S NOT DEVELOPABLE, IS IT POSSIBLE THAT IT COULD BE ZONED SOMETHING OTHER THAN RESIDENTIAL? AS ANTHONY POINTED OUT, WHEN YOU GOT A HOA PROPERTY, IT'S GENERALLY ZONED WHAT THE REST OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS.

THAT'S FOR REASONS JUST LIKE THE REASON DOING A LOT OF CONVERSIONS OF BAD ZONING BACK TO THE BASE LEVEL BASE SINGLE FAMILY OR WHATEVER.

RIGHT. ARE WE TRYING TO SOLVE THE PROBLEM HERE? I MEAN. NO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UNDERSTAND IT.

IT'S PRETTY STRAIGHTFORWARD.

WE DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY OF THIS COMMISSION TO OVERWRITE THE STATUTE.

RIGHT. SO WE CAN KEEP TALKING ABOUT IT.

BUT I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT'S GOING TO GET US.

THEY HAVE OTHER AVENUES TO PURSUE RIGHT THROUGH THE ADJUSTMENT BOARD.

AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO POINT OUT, AS ANTHONY MENTIONED, THEY'VE GOT TO PROVE A HARDSHIP.

AND THE THING OF IT IS THIS IS AN ORDINANCE THAT'S BEEN IN PLACE BEFORE THEY ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY AND THERE'S NOT ANY HARDSHIP AND WE RECOMMENDED A SOLUTION FOR THEM.

IT WOULD REQUIRE SOME CHANGES TO THIS, BUT IT WOULD MOVE IT FORWARD.

BUT THAT WAS DECLINED.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT ELSE TO DO.

WELL THE ITEM BEFORE US.

WE REALLY DON'T HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO CHANGE THIS.

THAT'S RIGHT. SO IT'S BLACK AND WHITE.

COMMISSION IS AWARE.

IF A SCREENING LAW SO WE HAVE A DOUBLE TREED LANDSCAPE WALL, IF THE REQUIREMENT WOULD BE A SCREENING WALL, TO SAY A MASONRY SCREENING WALL EIGHT FOOT TALL, I MEAN, THAT'S NOT A PROBLEM. I MEAN, IF THAT'S WHAT IT TAKES.

BUT I THINK OUR UNDERSTANDING WAS ALSO THAT BASED UPON THE CURRENT ZONING, THAT THAT COULD BE THE DELINEATION, IF THAT'S THE REQUIREMENT OR REQUEST FROM P&Z.

BUT AGAIN, LIKE MR. MORGAN SAID, I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE ISSUE OR IF WE HAVE TO JUST STILL GO THROUGH A BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS. BUT IF THAT'S THE REQUEST, WE CAN MAKE THAT BUT, YEAH, I THINK THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A NEW SITE PLAN TO CHANGE WHATEVER IT IS BACK THERE MIGHT EVEN CHANGE THE OPEN SPACE PLAN.

I DON'T KNOW. BASICALLY, I'LL SIMPLIFY.

I MAY NOT BE EXACTLY 100 PERCENT BECAUSE BASICALLY, YOU KNOW, PUTTING A WALL THERE ADJACENT TO THE DRIVE THROUGH ADJACENT TO THE DRIVE THRU IT IS NOT PUTTING IT BACK HERE ON THE PROPERTY LINE, BUT THERE ALONG THE DRIVE THROUGH WHERE YOU HAVE THE WINDOWS AND THE SPEAKER BOXES THEY ARE TRYING TO CONTAIN THE SOUND FROM DRIFTING OVER INTO THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BECAUSE SOUND TRAVELS AT DIFFERENT RATES AND WHATNOT, DEPENDING ON ATMOSPHERIC CONDITIONS.

[00:25:01]

AND SO WHEN THIS ORDINANCE WAS PUT INTO PLACE, IT WAS TO MINIMIZE THE SOUND TRAVELING OVER ONTO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES BECAUSE THAT HAD BEEN AN ISSUE IN THE PAST, HASN'T BEEN AN ISSUE TODAY BECAUSE WE HAD THIS STANDARD IN PLACE.

BUT IT IS OUR ORDINANCE.

AND, YOU KNOW, UNFORTUNATELY, WE DON'T HAVE AN OPTION HERE TO CHANGE IT OR TO OVERRIDE IT BASED OFF THESE PARAMETERS. I UNDERSTAND THE PARAMETERS.

I WANTED TO MAKE SURE WE UNDERSTOOD, AS A COMMISSION.

NOW, WITH ALL THIS SAID AND I'LL OFFER TO THE APPLICANT, I MEAN, YOU COULD WITHDRAW THIS CASE, GO BACK AND MODIFY IT TO MEET TO COME TO AN AGREEMENT.

THAT WOULD BE MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU, BUT THAT'S TOTALLY UP TO YOU.

SO LET ME ASK THE QUESTION, THOUGH.

IF WE DON'T HAVE.

WELL YOU NEED TO COME TO THE MIKE. SO BASED UPON MY UNDERSTANDING, WE WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS THEN OR IF WE MAKE THAT MODIFICATION OF THE SCREENING WALL. WHAT I'M SAYING IF WE CAN COME TO AN AGREEMENT BASED ON WHAT I JUST SAID THERE, NO, YOU WOULD NOT. YOU WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO GET THAT PLAN APPROVED.

BUT IF WE CAN DO THAT, WHAT WE DID ON THE OTHER PROJECT, THEN WE CAN RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS, BECAUSE THEN YOU ACTUALLY HAVE PART OF THE BUILDING THAT'S HELPING TO BLOCK THE SOUND. I DON'T THINK THAT WOULD BE AN ISSUE FOR US.

OKAY. I WAS UNAWARE THAT THIS WAS THE CASE.

I APOLOGIZE, CAN I JUMP IN AND ASK JOHN A CLARIFYING QUESTION.

SURE. JOHN JUST ON THE ORDINANCE.

SO WE'RE CLEAR RIGHT NOW IT'S CLEAR CUT THAT THE WAY IT IS, THE ORDINANCE GIVES US NO CHOICE. IT HAS TO BE.

THAT IS CORRECT. 200 FEET.

BECAUSE THERE'S NO BARRIER WALL. BECAUSE THERE'S NO BARRIER WALL.

DOES THE ORDINANCE SAY IF THERE'S A BARRIER WALL, THE DISTANCE CAN BE SHORTER? HERE'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAYS.

OK, YOU GOT THE 200 FOOT SET BACK.

BUT THE BUILDING ITSELF CAN SERVE AS A BARRIER.

SO LET'S SAY IF THIS BUILDING WAS FORGET ABOUT ALL THE OTHER ORDINANCES IS RIGHT UP ON THE PROPERTY LINE. AND SO THAT BUILDING IS 100 FEET WIDE AND THE DRIVE THRU WAS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING. THAT WOULD BE WITHIN 100 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE.

BUT THE BUILDING IS BLOCKING THE SOUND.

IN THAT CASE, IT IS PERMISSIBLE.

OK, BUT YOU HAVE THE BUILDING A PHYSICAL STRUCTURE.

THIS IS WHY I RECOMMEND THE WALL AND THE ROOF, AS ANTHONY HAD SUGGESTED.

THAT'S WHAT, WELL, I THOUGHT WAS RECOMMENDED TO THE APPLICANT.

YOU DO THAT. THAT WILL WORK IN ORDER TO SATISFY THAT REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT IS PART OF THE BUILDING. OK, THANK YOU.

BUT IT TAKES A MODIFICATION OF THE SITE PLAN.

CORRECT. THAT'S RIGHT.

AND SO NOW YOU HAVE TO TAKE ACTION ON THE PLAN AS ANTHONY MENTIONED, BECAUSE THEY HAVE THEIR ONE 30 DAY WITHDRAWAL.

SO IF YOU WANT, YOU COULD WITHDRAWAL, RESUBMIT, MODIFY THIS AND THEN COME BACK BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OR THEY CAN DENY IT.

AND THEN AGAIN, YOU JUST GO AHEAD AND RESUBMIT.

YES OUR REQUEST WOULD BE THAT. OKAY. I JUST NEED YOU TO SPEAK INTO THE MIC SO THAT'S RECORDED.

YEAH, WE WOULD WITHDRAW THE APPLICATION WORK WITH STAFF TO MAKE THAT ADJUSTMENT AGAIN I WAS UNAWARE THAT WE COULD ATTACH IT TO THE BUILDING VERSUS MASONRY SCREEN WALL AT THE OTHER SIDE AND WHAT THOSE REQUIREMENTS WOULD BE.

SO WE WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF AND TRY TO GET THIS ACCOMMODATED.

I THINK YOU GUYS UNDERSTAND OUR INTENT.

YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO BE GOOD NEIGHBORS.

THE HOA HAS ALREADY AGREED TO IT AS WELL.

AND WE DO UNDERSTAND THE ORDINANCE THAT NORMALLY THE RESIDENTIAL IS A ABUTTING THE COMMERCIAL. SO, YEAH, YOU CAN'T HAVE THAT.

WE WOULD NEVER EVEN COME AND ASK YOU GUYS FOR THAT.

SO THIS WAS ONLY A DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCE.

SO WE'LL WORK WITH STAFF AND TRY TO GET IT KNOCKED OUT.

SIR. CAN YOU CONFIRM, ARE YOU REQUESTING WITHDRAWAL OF BOTH THE OPEN SPACE PLAN AND THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN OR ONE OR THE OTHER? IF YOU CAN STATE THAT FOR THE RECORD? YES, WE WILL REQUEST WITHDRAWAL OF BOTH THE OPEN SPACE AND THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.

OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION.

MOVE TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S WITHDRAWAL OF ITEM 12.

SECOND. OK, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE.

ANY OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO ITEM IS WITHDRAWN.

THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU. YEP. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

LEARN SOME NEW THINGS ON THAT ONE.

[13. Public Hearing - Replat: Frisco Lakes by Del Webb, Village 26, Block 26A, Lot 1 (RP20-0025)]

ITEM 13 PUBLIC HEARING REPLAT FRISCO LAKES BY DEL WEBB, VILLAGE 26, BLOCK 26A, LOT 1 (RP20-0025) OWNER CITY OF FRISCO.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT IS TO RECONFIGURE THE COMMON PROPERTY LINE BETWEEN FRISCO LAKES HOA COMMON AREA AND THE CITY'S PROPERTY.

SO I PULLED UP THIS MAP FOR YOU.

THERE WAS A JOINT PROJECT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FRISCO AN THE U.S.

ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, PULTE HOMES AND FRISCO LAKES HOA WE'RE ALSO INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT. AND THIS WAS TIED TO THIS VILLAGE 26 LOT AND THE CITY OF FRISCO COMPLETED

[00:30:04]

ENVIRONMENTAL HABITAT PROJECT.

AND THIS WAS ALL DONE IN 2016.

THIS INCLUDED WETLANDS AND A MAINTENANCE TRAIL WITHIN THIS LOT.

AS PART OF THIS PROJECT WITH THE ARMY CORPS THE CITY WAS REQUIRED TO PURCHASE THE PROJECT FOR MAINTENANCE REASONS AND NOTE THAT THIS WAS DONE THROUGH MEET'S AND BOUNDS AND NOT AN OFFICIAL PLAT. FURTHERMORE, STAFF NOTICED THAT A PORTION OF THE MAINTENANCE TRAIL WAS BUILT OUTSIDE OF THIS DESIGNATED EASEMENT.

AND ON FRISCO LAKES HOA PROPERTY.

STAFFERS WORKED WITH THE FRISCO LAKES HOA TO COME TO A RESOLUTION.

THE HOA HAS AGREED THAT THE CITY COULD TAKE OVER MAINTENANCE AND UPKEEP OF THE ENTIRE PARCEL TO THE SOUTH OF VILLAGE TWENTY SIX, WHERE THIS TRAIL IS MERGED WITH 423.

AND FURTHERMORE, STAFF HAS VERIFIED THIS REPLAT DOES NOT CREATE A SUBSTANDARD LOT AND MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT 185.

AND WITH THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM AS SUBMITTED THIS EVENING.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU, ANTHONY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM THIRTEEN THIS EVENING.

SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES FIVE 0.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM THIRTEEN THIS EVENING.

ONE QUESTION FOR STAFF. YOU SAID IN THE REPORT THAT THIS WAS THE INTENT ALL ALONG.

[INAUDIBLE] THAT THE INTENT ALL ALONG WAS THAT THIS PLAN WOULD END UP BEING OWNED BY THE CITY. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S CORRECT.

YES. AS PART OF THAT ARMY CORPS PROJECT, CERTAIN PORTIONS OF IT HAD TO BE OWNED BY THE CITY, THE WETLAND AREA, THE MAINTENANCE TRAIL AND SO FORTH.

AS YOU CAN SEE, THE MAINTENANCE TRAIL TAKES KIND OF AN ODD PATH THROUGH.

SO THE PROPERTY LITERALLY BIFURCATED THAT HOA LOT.

SO TO CLEAN UP THOSE LINES, THE CITY IS GOING TO TAKE OVER THAT SOUTHERN PART.

SO IT'S ALL UNDER THE CITY CONTROL NOW.

BUT YES, AS PART OF THAT ARMY CORPS PROJECT THE CITY IS REQUIRED TO HAVE THAT PROPERTY UNDER THEIR CONTROL. OK, THANK YOU.

YES. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 13.

MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 13, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO ITEM 13 IS APPROVED.

[14. Public Hearing - Replat: The Hills of Kingswood, Block C, Lots 5-8 (RP20-0026)]

ITEM 14 PUBLIC HEARING REPLAT AT THE HILLS OF KINGSWOOD BLOCK C LOTS FIVE THROUGH 8 (RP20-0026) OWNERS HILLS AT KINGSWOOD, V, LLC.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT IS TO ABANDON A TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT AND WATERLINE EASEMENT.

TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT WAS REQUIRED TO PREVENT DEAD IN STREETS OF LILAC LANE OF BALFOUR COURT WITH THE CONSTRUCTION OF KINGSWOOD PHASE ONE, WHICH IS THE SUBDIVISION, OF THE FIRST PHASE OF KINGSWOOD JUST TO THE WEST.

THE TEMPORARY ACCESS EASEMENT IS NO LONGER NEEDED WITH THE FILING OF THE FINAL PLATS FOR PHASES FIVE A AND 5 B, THE TEMPORARY ACCESS TO LOT SIX WAS PREVIOUSLY ABANDONED, WITH THE FINAL PLAT FOR 5A.

THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM AS SUBMITTED AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE THIS EVENING? WOULD THEY CARE TO SPEAK.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING.

SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM OR DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE, ITEM 14 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO ITEM FOURTEEN IS APPROVED.

[15. Public Hearing - Replat:: Preston Ridge Addition, Block A, Lot 1R (RP21-0001)]

ITEM 15 PUBLIC HEARING REPLAT PRESTON RIDGE ADDITION.

BLOCK A LOT 1R (RP21-0001).

OWNERS COLLIN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON DECEMBER 14TH 2020.

THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 30 DAY EXTENSION TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO BE MADE TO THE PLAN PRIOR TO ACTION BEING TAKEN.

PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE OR DENY A ONE TIME, 30 DAY EXTENSION REQUEST TO THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION GRANT THE EXTENSION THIS ITEM WILL BE PLACED ON THE FEBRUARY 9TH 2021 PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA FOR EITHER APPROVAL OR DENIAL OR DISAPPROVAL, DEPENDING ON THE APPLICANT'S ABILITY TO SATISFY ALL STAFF'S COMMENTS. IN ADDITION, THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC HEARING THIS EVENING.

THE PUBLIC HEARING WILL NEED TO BE OPENED AND CONTINUED.

[00:35:02]

AND THEN THE ITEM TABLED TO THE FEBRUARY 9TH 2021 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT, WOULD THE APPLICANT, CARE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING.

ALL RIGHT, FOLKS, BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, ANYBODY HAVE AN ISSUE WITH CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING AS WE GET INTO THAT? SO WE'LL TAKE A MOTION INSIDE OF THAT.

OK, SO A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

ANYBODY CARE TO SPEAK ON THIS THIS EVENING, SO FOLKS, WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ACCEPT THE EXTENSION.

MOVE TO ACCEPT A 30 DAY EXTENSION, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THAT ITEM UNTIL THE FEBRUARY 9TH MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

BECAUSE WE CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING, JOHN.

WE DON'T HAVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 16 PUBLIC HEARING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT RESCIND SPECIFIC USE

[16. Public Hearing - Specific Use Permit: Rescind Specific Use Permit-66 (SUP20-0020)]

PERMIT-66 (SUP20-0020) OWNERS SEC PRESTON, LEBANON LIMITED.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE SUP ON DECEMBER 7TH 1999.

THE SUP WAS ISSUED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY WAS DRY FOR THE TYPE OF ALCOHOL PERMIT REQUESTED THROUGH THE TABC.

THERE IS NO ACTIVE TABC PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE CLUB FOR THE CURRENT USER AS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 66 BE RESCINDED THIS EVENING AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THANK YOU.

IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK.

THE CITY INITIATED IT. OH CITY INITIATED.

I'M SORRY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ALL RIGHT. ANY CONCERNS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? ANY QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 16.

MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, ITEM 16 TO RESCIND S 66.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

ITEM 16 IS APPROVED FOR RECENSION.

[17. Public Hearing - Specific Use Permit: rescind Specific Use Permit-99 (SUP20-0021)]

ITEM 17. PUBLIC HEARINGS.

SPECIFIC USE PERMIT RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT NINETY NINE (SUP20-0021).

OWNERS SPC LOT 11, LIMITED.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE SUP ON NOVEMBER 7TH, 2000.

THIS SUP WAS ISSUED TO THE ESTABLISHMENT, AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY WAS DRY FOR THE TYPE OF ALCOHOL PERMIT REQUESTED THROUGH TABC.

AGAIN, THIS IS AS STAFF'S REQUEST TO GO THROUGH SUP'S THAT ARE NO LONGER ACTIVE AND SHOULD BE RESCINDED. THERE IS NO ACTIVE PERMIT FOR A PRIVATE CLUB FOR THE CURRENT USER THROUGH TABC. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS ITEM SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 99 BE RESCINDED AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU ANTHONY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVED. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM SEVENTEEN AT THIS TIME.

SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

SAME THING ON THIS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS OR DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM SEVENTEEN.

MOVE TO RESCIND SUP 99 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

ANY OPPOSED. THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO ITEM SEVENTEEN IS APPROVED TO RESCIND SUP 99.

[18. Public Hearing - Specific Use Permit: Rescind Specific Use Permit-139 (SUP20-0022)]

EIGHTEEN PUBLIC HEARINGS. SPECIFIC USE PERMIT RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT DASH ONE THREE NINE (SUP20-0022).

OWNERS ARBUTUS PROPERTY TEXAS LLC.

THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE SUP ON FEBRUARY 3RD, 2004.

THE SUP WAS ISSUED TO THIS ESTABLISHMENT AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY WAS DRY FOR THE AMOUNT OF ALCOHOL THAT THE APPLICANT WANTED TO PURSUE THROUGH TABC.

[00:40:01]

SO DIFFERENT THAN THE OTHER TWO CASES, WHILE THERE WAS THE OPTION TO SERVE ALCOHOL, THIS WAS ONE THAT EXCEEDED THAT AND NECESSITATING THE NEED FOR A PRIVATE CLUB ON THE PROPERTY.

AGAIN, THIS IS A STAFF INITIATED ITEM WHERE STAFF IS GOING THROUGH AND VERIFYING SUP'S THAT HAVE NO ACTIVE PERMIT THROUGH TABC.

THIS IS ONE OF THEM.

THERE'S CURRENTLY A MAJOR AUTOMOTIVE REPAIR FACILITY ON THE SITE, WHICH IS A DIFFERENT SUP S214. SO THERE IS NO PRIVATE CLUB.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 139 BE RESCINDED THIS EVENING.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONE.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING.

MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

COMMISSIONERS. ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS OR DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM EIGHTEEN.

MOVE TO RESCIND S139 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

ANY OPPOSED THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO ITEM EIGHTEEN IS APPROVED FOR RECENSION.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE.

[19. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance Subsection 3.02.01 (ZA20-0008)]

ALL RIGHT. ITEM NINETEEN PUBLIC HEARINGS.

ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT.

AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE.

SUBSECTION 3.02.01 (ZA20-0008) OWNERS CITY OF FRISCO.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY COUNCIL CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM ON OCTOBER SIXTH 2020. AND THIS IS TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AND DISTANCE SEPARATION REGULATION.

SO NOTE THAT THIS WOULD APPLY TO EVERY USE THAT ALLOWS THE SALE OF ALCOHOL IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE USE [INAUDIBLE] THOSE CONDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT CONTAIN THE DISTANCE OR SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

CITY COUNCIL HAS PREVIOUSLY INQUIRED ABOUT REMOVING THE ALCOHOL DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS ASSOCIATED WITH LAND USE THAT ALLOW ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. CURRENTLY, ALL USES THAT ALLOW THE SALE HAVE MINIMUM DISTANCE OR SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

THERE IS A CHART INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET THAT WENT OVER THE VARIOUS USES AND WHAT THOSE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS ARE CURRENTLY.

THE CITY'S AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE SUCH REGULATIONS IS DERIVED FROM THE TABC, WHICH PROVIDES MUNICIPALITIES THE OPTION OF ADOPTING BY ORDINANCE THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS, THE PURPOSE OF THIS ITEM, AGAIN, IS TO CONSIDER THE POSSIBLE REPEALING OF ALL ORDINANCES THAT IMPOSE THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

DARREN STEVENS IS HERE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT THIS EVENING.

THERE WAS A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT THE COORDINATION WITH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND ANY REPORTS OF, YOU KNOW, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES AND PROXIMITY TO CHURCH, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PUBLIC HOSPITALS, DAYCARE CENTERS AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES. THE USES WHERE THE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS ARE REQUIRED.

OVERALL, THERE THERE WAS NO MEASURABLE REPORTS, NO KNOWN ISSUES.

BUT CERTAINLY, YOU KNOW, DARREN IS HERE TO BE ABLE TO HELP ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT THE COMMISSION HAS SPECIFICALLY FOR THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

STAFF DID SEND THESE PROPOSED CHANGES OUT TO COMMUNITY LEADERS, HOA CONTACTS, RESIDENTS FRISCO ISD, PROSPER ISD PRIVATE SCHOOLS, THE CHAMBER, CHURCHES AND CHILD CARE FACILITIES.

WE DID RECEIVE FEEDBACK THAT FRISCO ISD AND PROSPER ISD WERE OPPOSED TO THE REQUEST THAT CORRESPONDENCE WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

WE DID RECEIVE ONE LETTER OF OPPOSITION FROM A PRIVATE PRESCHOOL.

THAT CORRESPONDENCE WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKET.

WE DID RECEIVE A NUMBER OF QUESTIONS AND SO THE STAFF REPORT KIND OF WENT THROUGH SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS THAT WE DID RECEIVE FROM THESE VARIOUS COMMUNITY GROUPS.

ONE THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD ALLOW LIQUOR STORES.

TO MAKE THAT CLEAR. THAT IS NOT THE CASE WITH THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS.

THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PROVISION OF LIQUOR STORES IN THE CITY OF FRISCO. WHAT IS THE REASON FOR THESE CHANGES? AGAIN, THIS WAS A RESULT OF CITY COUNCIL'S DIRECTIVES OF STAFF.

AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, [INAUDIBLE] DISCUSSED IN STAFF REPORT IN RECENT YEARS CITY COUNCIL'S APPROVED VARIANCES TO REDUCE OR ELIMINATE THESE DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS.

AND AGAIN, WITH NO KNOWN ISSUES THROUGH THE POLICE DEPARTMENT.

AND THAT THESE AMENDMENTS WOULD ALLOW ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE SALES ESTABLISHMENTS TO OPERATE NEXT TO CHURCHES, PRIVATE AND PUBLIC SCHOOLS, PUBLIC HOSPITALS, DAYCARE CENTERS AND CHILDCARE FACILITIES. AND AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, WHILE THESE DISTANCE SEPARATIONS WILL BE REMOVED, THERE STILL HAS TO BE THE APPROPRIATE ZONING FOR THAT USE TO GO INTO.

[00:45:01]

SO THERE IS AN EXAMPLE GIVEN IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IF A PROPERTY ADJACENT TO A PUBLIC SCHOOL IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL CONVENIENCE STORE SELLING ALCOHOL COULD NOT OPERATE ADJACENT TO THAT SCHOOL. ZONING DOES NOT PERMIT THE USE THAT THAT WAS A RESIDENTIAL ZONED PROPERTY. SO JUST KEEP THAT IN MIND TOO THE ZONING STILL HAS TO ALLOW FOR THE USE.

AND ALSO THESE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS DO NOT REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WHERE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IS REQUIRED.

AND GENERALLY THAT COMES IN WITH PRIVATE CLUB, ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT BREWERY, WINERY DISTILLERIES.

AND SOME OF THOSE USES DO REQUIRE SUP'S IN CERTAIN ZONING DISTRICTS.

SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF AMENDING THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS SHOWN IN THE PACKET. THERE ARE SEVERAL PAGES OF RED STRIKETHROUGH AND AGAIN THOSE ARE THOSE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS THAT ARE CURRENTLY THERE FOR EACH OF THOSE LAND USES IN THE CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.

WITH THAT, I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT, DO WE WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS NOW OR DO WE WANT TO GO AHEAD AND OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. [INAUDIBLE] ASK A QUESTION OFF OF SOMETHING HE JUST SAID.

OKAY. YOU JUST KIND OF GAVE A LIST OF THINGS THAT WOULD STILL REQUIRE AN SUP.

YES. IN THAT LIST, DID YOU SAY PACKAGE LIQUOR SALES WOULD STILL REQUIRE AN SUP OR I DON'T KNOW IF YOU DID OR NOT, BUT EITHER WAY COULD YOU CLARIFY, I DIDN'T MENTION THAT ONE SPECIFICALLY. NO, I DID NOT.

I COULD PULL UP THE CHART FOR YOU.

YEAH, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IS CORRECT, THAT THIS IS NOT DOING ANYTHING TO OPEN UP.

IT DOESN'T DO ANYTHING TO.

AND IT WOULD NOT BE AN SUP TO FOR PACKAGE LIQUOR IT'S JUST SAY THAT AGAIN. IT'S NOT CURRENTLY A USE PERMITTED, BUT AGAIN, NOT CURRENTLY A USE THAT'S PERMITTED IN OUR USE CHART OR CITY IS ALLOWED TO PERMIT.

OK.

BUT THAT HELPS.

THANK YOU ANY FURTHER QUESTIONS ON THAT SUBJECT THERE.

ALL RIGHT, ONE OF THE QUESTIONS I DID HAVE I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK IT NOW IN TERMS OF HAVE WE GONE THROUGH AND LOOKED AT WHAT ZONING WE DO HAVE AROUND CURRENTLY AROUND CHURCHES, SCHOOLS AND SO FORTH, AND DO WE HAVE AREAS OF CONCERN IN TERMS OF WE'RE NOT IN THAT ON A SPECIFIC LEVEL ASSOCIATED WITH THIS, THIS ZONING AMENDMENT.

NO, BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF ANY AREAS OF CONCERN, BUT WE HAVE NOT GONE THROUGH THAT PROCESS HERE. [INAUDIBLE] MOTION OF A PUBLIC HEARING OR YOU HAVE COMMISSIONER CONE YOU HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION. ONE MORE QUESTION, JUST YOU YOU SAID THAT WE SENT OUT LETTERS TO THE SCHOOLS AND CHURCHES AND OTHER GROUPS.

THAT'S RIGHT. BUT ONE OF THE PEOPLE THAT RESPONDED TO THE CITY SAID THAT THEY REPRESENTED A CHURCH AND THEY HAD NOT RECEIVED A LETTER.

YES. DID WE SEND OUT LETTERS TO THAT CHURCH AND ALL OTHER CHURCHES? SO WE WERE ABLE TO COMMUNICATE WITH THE FOLKS THAT WE HAD ON FILE.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T HAVE A COMPREHENSIVE LIST OF EVERY CHURCH IN THE CITY OR EVERY CHILD CARE FACILITY.

WE WERE ABLE TO SEND IT OUT TO THE ONES THAT WE HAD ON FILE.

AND THAT WAS THE, YOU KNOW, THE COMMUNITY GROUPS THAT WE WERE ABLE TO SEND THAT TO.

IT DID GET I KNOW FILTERED.

I KNOW THE ONE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT WAS ABLE TO SPEAK TO THEM, BUT WE JUST SIMPLY DIDN'T HAVE EVERY CHURCH ON FILE WITH AN ADDRESS AND SO FORTH OR EMAIL ADDRESS.

ALL RIGHT.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? THE ONE PERSON WE HAVE IN THE AUDIENCE.

SEEING NONE, OH, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND.

SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

[00:50:04]

AS I GET INTO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS FROM COMMISSIONERS, QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS BEFORE I MAKE ANY COMMENTS.

UNDERSTANDING THAT COUNCIL IS THE ONE THAT'S KIND OF INTERESTED IN MAKING THESE MODIFICATIONS. WHAT'S DRIVING THEIR REASON FOR THE CHANGE? DO WE KNOW? YOU KNOW, IN THE NUMBER OF YEARS SINCE THESE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS HAVE BEEN IN PLACE, WHICH IS 2002, SO THAT'S BASED WELL, ALMOST 19 YEARS TO NEXT MONTH, THEY HAVEN'T BEEN ANY ISSUES. AND SO THEY'VE JUST SINCE THEY INSTITUTED THEIR WAIVER PROVISION, WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY THE TABC JUST A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

AND WE HAD THREE OF THOSE.

THEY JUST FELT LIKE, YOU KNOW, WE NEED TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

ARE THEY REALLY NECESSARY? AND AS ANTHONY POINTED OUT, WE CONSULTED WITH POLICE BECAUSE IN MY YEARS OF WORKING IN OTHER CITIES ANYTIME YOU ARE DEALING WITH ALCOHOL, THE ISSUE OF CRIME CAME UP POLICE TOOK A LOOK AT HERE'S OVER 19 YEARS SINCE WE'VE BEEN WET.

ARE THERE ANY STATISTICAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT A CRIME HAS OCCURRED AND HAS NOT BEEN THE CASE. SO COUNCIL, ASKED THE QUESTION, DO WE NEED THESE TODAY? TABC DOES ALLOW CITIES TO DO WAIVERS OR MODIFY THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS WHERE THEY'RE EQUAL TO OR LESS OR ABOLISH THEM ALTOGETHER? SO THIS REQUEST IS TO NOT HAVE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

BUT AS ANTHONY HAS MENTIONED NOW SOME OF THE USES THAT DO REQUIRE AN SUP, THOSE WILL REMAIN IN PLACE.

AND SO THAT'S WHERE THE CITY HAS THE LEGISLATIVE AUTHORITY TO EITHER DENY OR APPROVE, APPROVE OR APPROVE WITH CONDITIONS THOSE USES IN THOSE DISTRICTS.

WE HAVEN'T DONE THE ANALYSIS TO KNOW IF WE'VE GOT AREAS WHERE IF WE REMOVE THESE RESTRICTIONS THERE COULD BE A SITUATION NEXT TO A SCHOOL OR A CHURCH.

WE DON'T KNOW THAT YET.

WELL, WE HAVEN'T DONE A THOROUGH ANALYSIS [INAUDIBLE] AS ANTHONY POINTED OUT.

I THINK ABOUT THE CASE WE HAD OVER THERE ON PRESTON AND LEBANON WITH THE SHELL STATION.

TO HAVE BEER AND WINE SALES IN THAT CONVENIENCE STORE BECAUSE THERE WAS A SCHOOL THAT HAD BEEN BUILT. I FELT LIKE THAT WAS A BIT OF AN UNDUE BURDEN ON THAT PARTICULAR LANDOWNER PERSONALLY. BUT, YOU KNOW, ONE THING TO KEEP IN MIND, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST A REQUIREMENT FOR THE USE, BUT THAT DOESN'T PREVENT A SCHOOL FROM OR A CHURCH LOCATING NEXT DOOR TO SUCH A FACILITY.

AND SO, AS ROB MENTIONED NOW THIS IS WHAT HAPPENED ON THE SHELL STATION AT PRESTON AND LEBANON THEY WERE THERE BEFORE THE CITY BECAME WET AND THEN THEY GOT THEIR ALCOHOL PERMIT AND THEN SEVERAL YEARS LATER FISD ACQUIRED THE PROPERTY ON THE WEST SIDE OF PRESTON TO BUILD HUNT MIDDLE SCHOOL.

AND THEY HAVE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THAT COMES OUT TO PRESTON ROAD, WELL WITHIN THE THREE HUNDRED FOOT DISTANCE REQUIREMENT.

AND SO WHEN THEY WERE SELLING THAT SHELL, THEY HAD TO GET A NEW ALCOHOL PERMIT THAT TRIGGERED THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENT BECAUSE IT WAS CHANGING HANDS.

AND THERE'S AN EXAMPLE WHERE THERE HAVEN'T BEEN ANY ISSUE.

THE TWO HAS BEEN NEXT TO EACH OTHER WHENEVER HUNT MIDDLE SCHOOL OPENED UP.

YOU KNOW, MY OPINION ON THIS IS THAT IT JUST DOESN'T SOUND GOOD WHEN YOU SAY WE'RE GOING TO TAKE THESE RESTRICTIONS AWAY AND BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD THINK THAT, WELL, THEN IT CAN HAPPEN. BUT WHAT I'M HEARING IS THAT THERE ARE OTHER SAFEGUARDS AND THERE ARE OTHER MECHANISMS TO PREVENT IT FROM HAPPENING.

THAT IS A LIQUOR STORE BEING AVAILABLE, OR BEING PUT TOGETHER NEXT TO A SCHOOL OR CHURCH.

SO IT'S JUST THE WORDING IN THIS IS CONFUSING.

WE'RE TAKING SOMETHING AWAY.

BUT YET, IN MY OPINION, WHAT I THINK I'M UNDERSTANDING IS THAT WE'RE TAKING SOMETHING AWAY, BUT WE STILL HAVE A WAY TO CONTROL THE ENVIRONMENT.

IS THAT RIGHT. YEAH. ON CERTAIN USES, THAT'S WHAT ANTHONY WAS SPELLING OUT, THOSE WERE NOT TAKING THE SUP REQUIREMENT AWAY FROM THE USES.

THAT'S ON THE BOOKS TODAY.

THIS IS ONLY ABOUT BASICALLY PACKING SALES, CONVENIENCE STORES, SELLING ALCOHOL, REMOVING THOSE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

DOES THAT ALSO COVER RESTAURANTS THAT HAVE BARS.

[00:55:13]

YES, THIS WOULD ALSO APPLY TO RESTAURANTS SERVING ALCOHOL AS WELL.

PRIVATE CLUBS BE CLEAR ON ALCOHOL AND BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS, 75 PERCENT RIGHT. SO THE RESTAURANT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE LESS THAN 60 PERCENT ALCOHOL.

THAT'S PER OUR DEFINITION AND TABC'S.

THE QUESTION ON PRIVATE CLUB WAS THAT.

OK, SO PRIVATE CLUBS, THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS YOU SEE UP ON THE SCREEN WOULD BE REMOVED.

BUT THE USE STILL REQUIRES AN SUP TO BE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL.

ANTHONY. YES.

I KNOW IN CASES PAST, SOMETIMES YOU'LL GIVE US SOME INFORMATION ON SOME SURROUNDING CITIES AND HOW THEY TAKE CERTAIN SITUATIONS DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY OF THAT INFORMATION FOR US ON THERE ORDINANCES.

I HAVE INTERNALLY RESEARCHED THAT JUST A LITTLE BIT, BUT I WOULD NEED SOME TIME TO PREPARE, YOU KNOW, TO REVIEW THAT AND MAKE SURE IT'S CORRECT.

WE'VE DONE A LITTLE BIT OF AN ANALYSIS OF SURROUNDING CITIES, SO I NEED A LITTLE BIT OF TIME, BUT I COULD GET THAT TO YOU.

SURE. I WAS JUST CURIOUS. SURE.

THANKS. ANTHONY, IF I CAN JUST CONFIRM, AS I READ THE STAFF REPORT AND JUST TO DIVE IN A LITTLE DEEPER, THE WAY I READ IT IS AN SUP IS REQUIRED FOR SPECIFIC TYPES OF ESTABLISHMENTS, INCLUDING A DISTILLERY, A BREWERY, A WINERY.

AND THESE ARE AS DEFINED IN STATUTE OR BY TABC.

CORRECT. CORRECT.

A PRIVATE CLUB AND AN ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT, WHICH THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT DEFINITION IS ANY ESTABLISHMENT THAT DERIVES 75 PERCENT OR MORE OF ITS GROSS REVENUE ON A QUARTERLY BASIS FROM THE SALE OR SERVICE OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGES, AND THAT WOULD BE IN STORE OR PACKAGED TO TAKE OUT OF THE STORE.

IS THAT IF THAT [INAUDIBLE].

AND I WOULD JUST BE TALKING ABOUT WINE AND BEER TODAY.

CORRECT. YES.

AND I BELIEVE THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT IS LIMITED TO ON PREMISE CONSUMPTION.

BUT YES, ALL OF THOSE USES, YOU MENTIONED, DO REQUIRE SUP.

AND THAT WOULD NOT CHANGE AS A RESULT OF THIS AMENDMENT.

SO THE REALISTIC ITEMS IF NEXT TO A CHURCH OR SCHOOL IS ZONED RETAIL.

RIGHT. RIGHT. THEN YOU COULD TYPICALLY HAVE A RESTAURANT AND YOU CAN HAVE CONVENIENCE STORE IT SAYS YOU CAN HAVE BREWPUBS TOO.

THAT'S CORRECT. YES.

NOW A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WITH BREWPUBS BREWPUBS HAVE SOME CONDITIONAL RESTRICTIONS THAT WOULD REMAIN IN PLACE THAT [INAUDIBLE] DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS BUT DON'T REQUIRE AN SUP THAT MADE THIS CHART VERY COMPLICATED.

BUT THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR SOME CONDITIONAL STANDARDS THAT BREWPUBS HAVE TO MEET, DON'T HAVE TO GET SUP FOR IT.

BUT THERE ARE SOME CONDITIONAL STANDARDS WITH THAT.

IN ADDITION TO A CONVENIENCE STORE OR A GROCERY STORE, FOR EXAMPLE.

SURE.

SELLS WINE AND BEER WOULD BE ALLOWED IF IT MEETS OTHER ZONING REQUIREMENTS AS CODIFIED.

THAT'S RIGHT. SO IN THE CASE, IF WE LOOK AT MARKET STREET, FOR EXAMPLE, THEY SELL BEER AND WINE YOU GOT THE CHURCH RIGHT NEXT TO IT NOW, THEY TOOK OVER THE GANDER MOUNTAIN FACILITY. THEY'RE PROBABLY WELL WITHIN THE DISTANCE.

CERTAINLY. THE RESTRICTIONS, BUT THEY KNEW THAT GOING IN THAT'S RIGHT. SO THEY ACCEPTED THAT.

AND THAT'S ON THEM. WE COULDN'T STOP THAT, COULD WE? NO, THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS APPLY TO THE ESTABLISHMENT ITSELF THAT'S SELLING ALCOHOL YES, UNDER THE CURRENT PROVISIONS, THERE WOULD NEVER NOT BE A PERMIT ISSUED TO MARKET STREET TO BE ABLE TO SELL ALCOHOL BECAUSE OF THE CHURCH THERE UNDER THE CURRENT STATUTE.

YOU HAVE TO PRESS THE BUTTON RICHARD.

IF THERE IS A SITE WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE YOU MENTIONED THE CORNER SHOPPING CENTER OR WHATEVER, WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO PUT A RESTAURANT PACKAGE STORE AND A CHURCH, OK, THE RESTAURANT THAT SELLS BEER AND ALCOHOL CAN BE THERE BECAUSE IT'S ON PREMISE.

IT'S ONLY IF THAT RESTAURANT [INAUDIBLE] WAS A BAR IT DRIVES 75 PERCENT OR MORE OF ITS ALCOHOL, THEN IT WOULD FALL UNDER THE 300 FEET.

THE OTHER ESTABLISHMENT THAT FALLS UNDER THE THREE HUNDRED FEET THAT YOU THINK ABOUT MOST OFTEN WOULD BE A PACKAGE STORE OR THE CONVENIENCE STORE OR TOM-THUMB.

[01:00:04]

THOSE ARE REGULATED, BUT JUST A PERRY'S OR WHATEVER OTHER RESTAURANTS ARE IN THE CITY THAT SELL BEER AND WINE FOR OWN PREMISES CONSUMPTION ARE NOT PROHIBITED AS LONG AS THEY DON'T EXCEED THE 75 PERCENT.

I AGREE WITH THAT. THIS IS HARD BECAUSE IT'S THE LANGUAGE IS DIFFICULT TO UNDERSTAND HOW IT WILL REALLY IMPACT IF WE TAKE THIS AWAY.

THERE ARE ALL THESE OTHER SAFEGUARDS IN PLACE I WOULD THINK THAT THEY WOULD LOOK AT THIS.

AND I'VE HAD THIS FEEDBACK, BY THE WAY, FROM SOME OF THE HOA LEADERS.

THERE'S A WOW, WE'RE JUST GOING TO LET THINGS GO CRAZY.

AND THAT'S THE PERCEPTION.

BUT IF YOU TAKE THE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS, AWAY WE TALK ABOUT ALL THESE OTHER SAFEGUARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE THAT STILL HAVE TO BE APPROVED, BUT THEY CAN BE APPROVED.

WITH THIS IN PLACE, THEY CANNOT IS THAT CORRECT.

IT'S STILL A VARIANCE PROCESS THE CITY COUNCIL CAN GRANT AS THEY GRANTED TO THE SHELL STATION. THAT WAS ADDED IN A FEW YEARS BACK, RIGHT? TABC ALLOWS CITIES TO ADOPT A VARIANCE PROCESS TO THEIR STANDARD DISTANCE SEPARATION REQUIREMENTS. AND CITY COUNCIL CHOSE TO DO THAT.

AND THEN THERE'S BEEN THREE CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL UNDER THE VARIANCE PROVISION AND ALL HAVE BEEN APPROVED.

I THINK YOU'RE SAYING NOT JUST THAT SHELL EXAMPLE, BUT THERE'S TWO OTHER EXAMPLES IN RECENT. ARE WE TALKING DO YOU KNOW, THE LAST FIVE YEARS, 10 YEARS? IT WOULD BE WITHIN THE LAST THREE YEARS.

OKAY. BUT RIGHT NOW IT'S ALLOWED SOMEONE COULD COME IN AND ASK CITY COUNCIL FOR VARIANCE, FOR THE 300 FOOT RULE AND THEY CAN GRANT IT ACCORDING TO TABC ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCES.

THAT IS CORRECT. OK. AND JUST TO AGREE WITH WHAT THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS SAID ABOUT THE FEEDBACK THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT FROM THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE SENT IN LETTERS, IT DOES READ AS IF THEY'RE SEEING THIS AS A VERY MAJOR CHANGE THAT SIGNIFICANTLY.

ONE OF THEM SPECIFICALLY TALKS ABOUT HIS DISAGREEMENT IS WITH PRIMARY FOCUS ON LIQUOR SALES. AND THEN HE GOES ON TO LIST ALL OF THE CONCERNS THAT HE HAS IF A ESTABLISHMENT HAD THEIR PRIMARY FOCUS ON LIQUOR SALES NEXT TO HIS SCHOOL.

BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT ANY BUSINESS THAT HAS PRIMARY FOCUS ON LIQUOR SALES WOULD MEET THAT 75 PERCENT THRESHOLD AND WOULD STILL REQUIRE A SUP.

SO LIQUOR SALES IN LIKE A PACKAGE LIQUOR SALE AND SEE DISCUSSION.

THE CONCEPT.

IT IS NOW. BUT IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THAT ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT CATEGORY, WHERE FOR ON PREMISE CONSUMPTION MORE THAN SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT, YES, THAT DOES REQUIRE A SUP TO BE ADOPTED BY CITY COUNCIL BEFORE THAT ESTABLISHMENT CAN RECEIVE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY OR OPERATE WITHIN THE CITY.

OK. I'M GOING TO TELL YOU MY PERSONAL OPINION, ESPECIALLY SINCE COUNCIL HAS THE ABILITY TO DO A VARIANCE ANYWAY.

MY INCLINATION IS TO LEAVE THIS AS IT IS AND NOT REMOVE IT.

OK. QUESTION, AND I THINK COMMISSIONER COX ALREADY KIND OF CLARIFIED THIS, BUT AS I LOOK AT THE CHART HERE, ALL THIS WOULD DO IS THEN ALLOW RESTAURANTS THAT SELL LESS THAN 60 PERCENT OF ALCOHOL SALES AND OR MAYBE, LET'S GIVE THE EXAMPLE, A CONVENIENCE STORE OR A GROCERY STORE THAT WOULD ALSO HAVE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SALES.

THE BREWPUB IS IT'S OWN LITTLE.

YEAH THAT WOULD CORRECT. THAT WOULDN'T HAVE THE EXTRA RED TAPE THEN OF THE MEASURING.

THAT'S RIGHT, THERE WOULD BE NO MEASUREMENT THAT COULD BE NEXT TO ONE OF THOSE ESTABLISHMENTS.

THAT IS CORRECT.

OK. YOU KNOW, THE ONLY THING I THINK IT DOES BY MORE BEING A KNOWN ENTITY, THAT WHEN YOU'RE BUYING A PIECE OF LAND, WHAT YOU CAN DO WITH THAT PIECE OF LAND.

TODAY WITH THE ORDINANCE THE WAY IT IS, WE CAN HAVE THE THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAD WITH THE SHELL STATION. YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE AN ENTITY COMING IN AFTER AND CHANGING THE GAME FOR A LANDOWNER. AND SO THEY KNOW THAT GOING IN.

CORRECT. WHO KNOWS THAT GOING IN.

THAT THE PURCHASER OF THE NEW LAND OWNER SHOULD KNOW THAT GOING IN.

TO ME THAT IS NOW A CHURCH OR PRESCHOOL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, I DON'T HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER. THAT'S A GOOD. SO ARE THERE STIPULATIONS ABOUT WHO'S THERE FIRST?

[01:05:06]

SO IF I PERMIT YET OR I'M GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS AND THEN SOMEONE ELSE JUMPS IN AND SO IT'S A RACE. BUT I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S THE USE CASE THAT IS DRIVING THIS OR IF IT'S YOU KNOW, I REALLY DON'T UNDERSTAND DON'T KNOW THE SPECIFIC USE CASE THAT'S DRIVING THIS AT THIS TIME. THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO KNOW, I THINK.

WELL, I'M WITH THE COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S DRIVING THIS EITHER.

IT'S VERY CONFUSING.

AND I WOULD JUST ASSUME LEAVE IT ALONE, ESPECIALLY IF THE COUNCIL'S GOT AN ABILITY TO PROVIDE A VARIANCE.

IN MOST CASES LIKE THAT, THEN WHAT'S THE NEED TO CHANGE THIS AND AS THE POLICE SAY THERE'S NOTHING BROKEN HERE, WE'RE NOT HAVING ISSUES, SO WHY ARE WE DOING THIS? I JUST WANT TO REITERATE WHAT I MENTIONED EARLIER COUNCIL HAS DIRECTED STAFF WHEN THEY DID THE CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING ABOUT REMOVING THESE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS.

THERE'S NOT ANY SPECIFIC CASES, BUT THEY FELT LIKE AFTER 20 YEARS THERE HASN'T BEEN ANY ISSUE AND NO LONGER FEEL IT'S NECESSARY TO HAVE THESE DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS ON THE BOOKS.

COMMISSIONER KELLY AND MORGAN, I APPRECIATE YOUR COMMENTS.

AND I'M ON THE OTHER SIDE.

I THINK REMOVING THIS SIMPLIFIES OUR ORDINANCE, BUT ALSO LEAVES IN PLACE THE RIGHT LEVERS FOR US TO BE ABLE TO PULL TO DISALLOW CERTAIN TYPES OF ESTABLISHMENTS.

NOW, IT'S CLEAR TO SOMEBODY WHO'S GOING TO BUY A PIECE OF LAND THAT THERE'S A SUP FOR THESE TYPE OF ACTIVITIES.

AND THESE OTHER ACTIVITIES NEED TO MEET THE ZONING REQUIREMENTS RATHER THAN HAVING DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS GOVERNMENT, LESS BUREAUCRACY TO GET SOMETHING DONE IN TERMS OF THE PROCESS.

I THINK I DON'T NECESSARILY LIKE THE FACT THAT EACH OF THESE HAVE DIFFERENT DISTANCE LEVERS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S GOOD.

I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MEETS THE NEEDS OF THE CITY AT THIS POINT.

IF THEY WERE ALL THE SAME, MAYBE IT'S A DIFFERENT CONVERSATION.

YOU KNOW, 800 FEET HERE, A THOUSAND FEET THERE, 300 FEET THERE.

BUT THAT'S NOT THE QUESTION THAT CITY COUNCIL CALLED THE PUBLIC HEARING ON.

SO I THINK THERE IS ENOUGH SAFEGUARDS IN OUR ORDINANCE AND SO FORTH THAT THIS MAY BE AN ARCHAIC WAY OF MANAGING THAT IT MAY NOT BE NEEDED ANYMORE.

THAT'S REALLY WHAT THE QUESTION IS IN FRONT OF US.

AND SO I RESPECT BOTH SIDES ON THIS EQUATION.

I CERTAINLY DON'T WANT A CONVENIENCE STORE GOING UP NEXT TO MY CHURCH, IF POSSIBLE.

BUT I DO THINK RETAIL IS THERE AND DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU'RE BUYING.

AND I CAN UNDERSTAND WHY SOMEONE WOULD WANT TO, YOU KNOW, HAVE A GAS STATION ON THE CORNER THAT HAPPENS TO BE NEXT TO A CHURCH.

THAT SELLS LIQUOR, BEER AND WINE.

BEER AND WINE JUST BEER AND WINE. YEAH, A CONVENIENCE STORE.

IN FRISCO A CONVENIENCE STORE IS JUST BEER AND WINE.

[LAUGHTER]. CHAIRMAN COX CAN I JUMP IN ON THAT.

THE MOST COMPELLING ARGUMENT I HEARD WAS THAT YOU COULD BE A CURRENT LANDOWNER PLANNING TO BUILD AN ESTABLISHMENT.

SO YOU KNEW THE RULES WHEN YOU BOUGHT THE LAND.

SOMEONE ELSE BUYS THE LAND NEXT DOOR TO YOU AND THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE THE RULES ON YOU. THE LANDOWNER, IF THEY BUY THE LAND NEXT DOOR TO YOU AND THEY'RE FASTER AND THEY'RE PLANNING AND FUNDING AND ALL THAT AND THEY BUILD A SCHOOL OR CHURCH OR SOMETHING NEXT DOOR TO YOU, THEY SUDDENLY CHANGE YOUR ABILITY AND NOW YOU'RE DEPENDENT ON A VARIANCE FOR A POLICY THAT I'M NOT CONVINCED STILL NEEDS TO EXIST.

SO NOW YOU'RE PUTTING BUSINESS OWNERS AND LANDOWNERS AT RISK.

I'D ALSO LIKE TO SAY WITH MORE AND MORE OFTEN, USUALLY CHURCHES LOCATED INSIDE OF SHOPPING CENTERS, THAT'S BECOMING MORE AND MORE COMMON.

I THINK THE GANDER MOUNTAIN WAS A GREAT EXAMPLE THAT IF THEY HAD MOVED IN THERE FIRST AND THE PEOPLE PLANNING TO BUILD MARKET STREET WERE JUST A LITTLE BIT BEHIND THE CURVE, MARKET STREET WOULD REQUIRE A VARIANCE.

AND IT SEEMS BASED ON CITY COUNCILS PRECEDENTS, THEY VERY LIKELY WOULD'VE GOTTEN IT.

BUT BUSINESS OWNERS AND LENDERS DON'T LIKE TO DEPEND ON MAYBES.

THERE'S PAD SITES ALL AROUND THE OLD GANDER MOUNTAIN.

CORRECT. RIGHT. I MEAN, SO AND BACK TO WHAT THE POLICE SAID IF THE POLICE HAD SAID THAT THERE WAS CONCERNS.

I THINK, COMMISSIONER KELLY, WHAT YOU WERE SAYING WITH THE POLICE IS THAT THEY WEREN'T SAYING THAT IT WASN'T WHEN THEY SAID IT'S NOT BROKEN, MEANING VARIANCES THAT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED WHERE EITHER THE CITY COUNCIL HAS ALLOWED A VARIANCE OR SOMEONE HAS MOVED IN, A

[01:10:03]

SCHOOL OR CHURCH HAS MOVED IN AFTER AN ESTABLISHMENT WAS THERE, THAT THEY HAVE NOT SEEN ANY PROBLEMS COMING FROM BEING CLOSER TOGETHER THAN THE THREE HUNDRED FEET, IS THAT CORRECT OF WHAT THE POLICE SAID TO US ANTHONY.

THAT IS CORRECT. YES. BASED ON CHURCHES AND SCHOOLS THAT ARE CLOSER THAN THIS DISTANCE AND OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT REPORTED ANY CONCERNS WITH THAT.

THAT IS CORRECT. NO KNOWN ISSUES WITH THEM.

OK, COMMISSIONER CONE, I WOULD JUST ADD TO YOUR COMMENT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DON'T THINK ABOUT TODAY. WE ALSO THINK ABOUT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, TEN YEARS FROM NOW, WHEN WE'RE LOOKING TO RECOMMEND CHANGES LIKE THIS TO CITY COUNCIL.

AND MY POSITION IS, THIS AS I SAID JUST A MOMENT AGO.

THIS STILL HOLDS THE RIGHT PROTECTIONS IN PLACE FOR THE RESIDENTS OF FRISCO, SO THESE ITEMS MAY BE DISALLOWED BASED ON THE REQUIREMENT OF THE SUP, BASED ON THE CURRENT ZONING IN PLACE AND ZONING REQUIRES APPROVAL, A ZONING CHANGE.

AND I WOULD ACTUALLY LIKE TO GO TO A CHURCH THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO A GROCERY STORE IT'D BE EASY TO GET TO A GROCERY STORE RIGHT AFTER CHURCH.

SO AS I SAID, I'M FOR THIS CHANGE.

ONE OF THE THINGS THAT HAS STRUCK ME AS MANY TIMES WE GET CASES IN FRONT OF US THAT WE NEED TO DECIDE AND TALK THROUGH.

DO WE FEEL THAT THIS SHOULD GO BEFORE COUNCIL TO MAKE A DECISION? AND THIS ALMOST SEEMS THE REVERSE WHERE COUNCIL HAS SAID WE ARE REQUESTING SOME SORT OF, YOU KNOW, CHANGES HERE.

AND SO NOW IT'S, YOU KNOW, UP TO US TO FLESH THIS OUT AND THEN DECIDE TO PUT THIS BALL BACK IN THEIR COURT. SO I FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT, AS YOU KNOW, THEM BEING THE ELECTED OFFICIALS, IF THEY'RE LOOKING INTO THIS AND SEEING THAT THIS IS SOMETHING THAT THEY WANT CHANGES, THAT THEY KNOW THE PARAMETERS, AND I THINK IT'S SAFE TO THROW IT BACK IN THEIR COURT. ARE YOU SAYING THAT IN THIS CASE IT'S BEEN VETTED, IT'S COMING THE OPPOSITE WAY? YES. A LOT OF TIMES IT STARTS WITH US AND WE VET IT AND WE DO THE INITIAL DISCOVERY AND RESEARCH ON IT AND THEN IT GOES UP AND THEN THEY START LOOKING INTO IT AND THEN WE'RE KIND OF LEFT WONDERING WHETHER THEY'LL AGREE WITH OUR RECOMMENDATIONS OR NOT.

EXACTLY. IN THIS CASE, THEY HAVE THOUGHT THROUGH THESE THINGS AND IT FEELS VETTED.

BUT IS THAT THE CASE? IS THAT A FAIR ASSESSMENT? WITH ALL RESPECT TO COUNCIL? I SEE THAT THEY GAVE THIS TO US FOR OUR OPINION AND I'M GIVING THEM MY OPINION BACK THAT THIS IS NOT GOING TO BE VERY POPULAR WITH THE PUBLIC BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO UNDERSTAND IT. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD POINT.

I THINK IT WAS CLEAR FROM THE LETTERS WE RECEIVED THAT HOW THE CITY MANAGES THE INFORMATION COMMUNICATING THIS REALLY MATTERS AS TO HOW PEOPLE PERCEIVE WHAT WAS DECIDED.

I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE VIEWED AS A TAKE AWAY AND PEOPLE ARE NOT GOING TO LIKE IT.

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT CITY COUNCIL, I THINK CITY COUNCIL, I'M GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT CITY COUNCIL KNOWS THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD FROM A NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT GETS PASSED ON TO THEM.

I MEAN, THAT'S GOOD. I MEAN, YES, AGREED.

GOOD. I JUST WANT TO REMIND, I HAD PLACED THIS ON COUNCIL'S AGENDA BECAUSE COUNCIL HAD DISCUSSED THIS FOR THEM TO CALL THE PUBLIC HEARING.

NORMALLY, WE WOULD PLACE THAT BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

BUT SINCE THIS WAS A COUNCIL REQUEST, I HAD THEM DO THE CALL FOR A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS PARTICULAR MATTER. THE REASON IT'S BEFORE YOU IS THIS IS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

AND SO IT'S ANY CHANGES TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE COMP PLAN THAT HAS TO COME BEFORE THIS BODY, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION FOR YOU ALL TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL SO THAT IS WHY THE CASE IS BEFORE YOU.

THEY CAN STILL DO WHAT THEY WANT TO DO NO MATTER WHAT WE DECIDE HERE.

SURE. SO COMMISSIONER KELLY'S POINTS, I THINK, ARE WELL MADE THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS THE CONCERNS BASED ON THE LETTERS WE RECEIVED AND PERSONAL FEEDBACK WE'VE GOT.

WE DO NEED TO ADDRESS THOSE.

BUT TO THE POINT THAT CORRECT? WE CAN VOTE ON IT HOWEVER WE SEE FIT, BUT IT WILL GO TO THEM AND THEY CAN DECIDE .

EXACTLY OUR VOTE DOES MATTER.

IF I CAN ADD ON ONE THING, JUST ON THE COMMENTS WE'VE RECEIVED FROM THE PUBLIC, LIKE MY RESPONSE BACK TO THE PEOPLE WHO I RECEIVED COMMENTS FROM WAS THAT THEIR OPPOSITION YOU KNOW WE STATED THAT THE TWO SCHOOL DISTRICTS VOICED THEIR OPPOSITION TO IT.

IF EVERYONE READS THE PUBLIC RECORD ON IT, THEY WEREN'T STRONGLY OPPOSED.

THE FACT THAT NO ONE OFFERED SPECIFIC EXAMPLES OR SPECIFIC CONCERNS.

I THINK IF WE HAD THE PUBLIC HERE STATING THESE SPECIFIC THINGS HAVE HAPPENED IN OTHER PLACES WHERE GROCERY STORES AND CONVENIENCE STORES WERE ALLOWED TO SELL ALCOHOL CLOSER TO

[01:15:02]

A CHURCH OR SCHOOL OR WHATEVER, BUT THE OPPOSITION WAS KIND OF BROAD AND NOT VERY SPECIFIC. IT'S SOMEWHAT OF A PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION AT THIS POINT.

I WOULDN'T GO THAT FAR.

I DON'T THINK IT'S JUST A PHILOSOPHICAL CONVERSATION, BUT IT IS DEFINITELY AN OPINION, RIGHT? YEAH, I GUESS THAT'S WHAT I MEAN.

THERE'S NO A SPECIFIC INSTANCE FOR OR AGAINST THAT'S COME TO.

AND I GO BACK TO THE CASE THAT IF THERE ARE SITUATIONS LIKE THE ONES WE'VE RUN INTO, THERE ARE ACCOMMODATIONS FOR THAT.

SO. FAIR ENOUGH. I MEAN, I APPRECIATE THAT COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

COMMISSIONER COLBERG YOU HAD A COMMENT? I WAS GOING TO ADD TO SOMETHING THAT COMMISSIONER CONE SAID.

THERE WAS ONE THAT WAS A SPECIFIC CASE OF THE ANALOGY OF IF THERE COULD BE A SPORTS BAR NEXT TO A HIGH SCHOOL.

BUT AGAIN, I THINK WE HAVE THAT QUESTION ANSWER BECAUSE THAT, OF COURSE, WOULD BE A CONCERN FOR ME AS WELL, HAVING A HIGH SCHOOLER.

RIGHT. BUT BEING THAT IT WOULD JUST BE THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD HAVE TO HAVE AN SUP, THERE WOULDN'T BE A SPORTS BAR NEXT TO I THINK A LOT OF TIMES WHEN WE ALWAYS GO TO THE EXTREME RIGHT, WHICH WE SHOULD WE SHOULD GO BOTH SIDES.

BUT WE'RE QUICK TO JUMP THROUGH, YOU KNOW, LIQUOR SALES NEXT DOOR TO A CHURCH OR A SPORTS BAR NEXT TO A HIGH SCHOOL.

BUT WHEN WE ACTUALLY LOOK THROUGH THE DETAILS, THAT WOULD REQUIRE AN SUP.

IT'S A GOOD POINT. YEAH. AND I THINK ONE OF THE CONCERNS WHEN YOU HAVE 70 SCHOOLS IN THE CITY THE SIZE OF FRISCO, YOU KNOW, IT'S HARD TO PLAN FOR EVERY EDGE CASE.

AND THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY I BELIEVE THAT THIS WOULD BENEFIT THE CITY IN TERMS OF LESS, YOU KNOW, HAVING TO MANAGE THIS PROCESS AS THEY GO THROUGH EVERY ZONING CASE AND LET THE ZONING TAKE CARE OF THINGS VERSUS THIS DISTANCE REQUIREMENT.

I DON'T GET TO VOTE THIS EVENING SINCE IT'S FIVE ZERO FIVE PEOPLE I MEAN, NOT 5 ZERO I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO BE FIVE ZERO. [LAUGHTER] BUT I APPRECIATE THE RESPECTFUL DIALOG ON BOTH SIDES OF IT, BECAUSE I DO THINK IT'S I SEE BOTH SIDES OF THIS PARTICULAR ISSUE.

I DO THINK SOME OF THE COMMUNICATION OUT YOU KNOW, IT'S ALWAYS A STRUGGLE TO GET THE INFORMATION OUT TO THE PUBLIC IN WAYS WHEN YOU'RE SENDING OUT YOUR NOTICES.

[INAUDIBLE] ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS POINT.

SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO DO IS TAKE A VOTE ON IT.

IF I GET A MOTION ON THIS IN ONE WAY OR ANOTHER AND WE'LL TAKE A VOTE ON IT.

MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 19 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF TO REVISE THE ZONING ORDINANCE.