Jan 26, 2021 Frisco - Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:02]

GOOD EVENING, WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRESCO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION

[CALL TO ORDER]

AND THE TIME IS 6:33 P.M.

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSISTS OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE COMMISSIONER KENDALL, COMMISSIONER BOX, OUR VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER KELLY, OUR SECRETARY, COMMISSIONER COLBERG AND COMMISSIONER MORGAN. I'M ROB COX.

I'M YOUR CHAIR FOR THIS EVENING. CURRENTLY ABSENT THIS EVENING IS COMMISSIONER CONE.

HE WILL BE HERE SHORTLY, WE'LL READ HIM IN WHEN HE GETS HERE.

THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING IS CITIZEN INPUT--.

I'M SORRY. LET'S JUST MOVE BACK.

REPRESENTING STAFF THIS EVENING, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES.

WE HAVE JOHN LETTELLEIR, ANTHONY SATARINO, PHILLIP [INAUDIBLE], JONATHAN HUBBARD, LORI CROSS AND CHRIS LEONARD.

FROM ENGINEERING, WE HAVE JOEL FITZ AND TOYIN [INAUDIBLE].

GOT IT RIGHT IN BETTER.

FIRE DEPARTMENT, ALYSSA SANDERS AND FROM LEGAL WE HAVE BRIAN PITTMAN.

DID I MISS ANYONE? OK, NOW THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS CITIZEN INPUT.

IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING ANY ITEMS THAT ARE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, YOU MAY DO SO AT THIS TIME.

PLEASE COMPLETE A BLUE SPEAKER CARD AND APPROACH THE PODIUM.

WE WILL ALSO HAVE CITIZEN INPUT DURING PUBLIC HEARINGS LATER IN THE AGENDA.

PRIOR TO YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.

OUR MEETINGS ARE RECORDED, SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE.

PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE OR ANY APPLICANTS PRESENT THIS EVENING.

TO ENSURE THERE'S ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL TO SPEAK, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES UNLESS YOU HAVE MUST ADDRESS THE COMMISSION THROUGH A TRANSLATOR IN WHICH YOU MAY HAVE A MAXIMUM TEN MINUTES.

PLEASE NOTE THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION ITEM DURING CITIZEN INPUT OR ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA, EXCEPT TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY, OR TO INDICATE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE PLACED ON A LATER AGENDA.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK DURING CITIZEN INPUT THIS EVENING? OK, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM, WHICH IS THE ITEM TWO APPROVAL OF THE

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE MINUTES? COMMENTS? OR DO I HAVE A MOTION? TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM JANUARY 12TH 2021.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO ITEM TWO APPROVAL.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

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

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

THIS EVENING WE HAVE ITEMS THREE THROUGH FIVE.

ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? OR DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE TO FIVE? MOTION.

MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS THREE THROUGH FIVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE.

OPPOSE. THE MOTION CARRIES THE FIVE ZERO, ITEMS ARE APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. ALL RIGHT.

[6. Public Hearing – Replat & Site Plan: Hall Park, Phase E, Block A, Lots 1R1- 2 (RP20-0027 & SP20-0096)]

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, PRESENT YOUR POSITIONS.

PLEASE AVOID REPEATING WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BY PREVIOUS SPEAKERS OTHER THAN STATING THAT YOU AGREE WITH THEIR COMMENTS.

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

REPEAT APPEARANCES TO THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED.

FOR ALL PERSONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK TO A 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 THAT 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 WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL.

THE FIRST ITEM UP ON THE AGENDA.

[00:05:02]

REPLAT AND SITE PLAN [INAUDIBLE] PHASE E, BLOCK A, LOTS ONE R ONE DASH TWO RP TWENTY TWO ZERO ZERO TWO SEVEN SB TWENTY TWO ZERO ZERO NINE SIX.

OWNERS HALL [INAUDIBLE] GAYLORD PARKWAY, LLC.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT IS TO SUBDIVIDE ONE LOT INTO TWO PARTS PER THE APPLICANTS REQUEST.

STAFF IS VERIFIED THAT THIS REPLAT DOES NOT CREATE A SUBSTANDARD LOT AND MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT 59.

THE SITE PLAN ALSO BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS TO ENSURE THAT ALL STANDARDS ARE MET WHILE CREATING A NEW LOT.

THERE ARE NO ALTERATIONS TO THE SITE NOR FAÇADE CHANGES AT THIS TIME.

WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF BOTH THE REPLAT AND THE SITE PLAN, AS OUTLINED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THE SITE PLAN IS CONDITIONALLY APPROVED PER STAFFS REQUEST AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES FIVE OH.

WE'RE NOW IN PUBLIC HEARING.

DOES ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO PUBLIC HEARINGS NOW CLOSED.

COMMISSIONERS, ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM SIX? ANY COMMENTS OR DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SIX.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

ITEM SIX IS APPROVED.

MR. CHAIR, CAN I ASK COMMISSIONER COLBERG TO CONFIRM WHAT SHE RECOMMENDED TO APPROVE BASED ON STAFF RECOMMENDATION? THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING.

YES. YOU WANT TO RESTATE THAT FOR THE RECORD? YES. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SIX AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

[INAUDIBLE] BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO.

LET IT BE NOTED. MR. CONE IS IN THE HOUSE. ITEM SIX IS APPROVED AGAIN.

ITEM SEVEN, PUBLIC HEARINGS, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT [INAUDIBLE].

[7. Public Hearing - Specific Use Permit: COBB BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 8 (SUP20-0019)]

WE WILL COME GET YOU WHEN YOU'RE DONE.

SO, ANTHONY, CAN I READ BOTH ITEMS IN AT THE SAME TIME OR DO I NEED TO READ THEM IN SEPARATELY? THEY BOTH REQUIRE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

TO BE READ AND AT THE SAME TIME.

BUT THAT IS SEPARATE PUBLIC HEARINGS AS WELL? OR SAME PUBLIC HEARING? YEAH, OK, WE'LL GO WITH ONE AT A TIME.

ITEM SEVEN PUBLIC HEARINGS, SPECIFIC PERMIT [INAUDIBLE] BUSINESS PARK ADDITION BLOCK A LOT EIGHT SEP TWENTY DASH ZERO ZERO ONE NINE OWNERS [INAUDIBLE] REALTY PARTNERS, LLC.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, WHICH IS SUP-- EXCUSE ME, WHICH WAS ORDINANCE TWENTY TWENTY ZERO FIVE DASH THREE ZERO FOR THE SELF-STORAGE FACILITY AND A PORTION OF AN INDUSTRIAL BUILDING ON MAY 29TH, 2020.

SINCE THE APPROVAL OF THE SELF-STORAGE USER DOES NOT REQUIRE AS MUCH LEASE SPACE AS AS THE ADOPTED SUP ALLOWS.

SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUP REQUEST IS TO RESCIND THE LARGER LEASE SPACE THAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED FOR THE SMALLER LEASE SPACE THAT THE APPLICANT IS ACTUALLY PROPOSING TO YOU.

THE EXHIBIT BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING AND WAS INCLUDED IN YOUR PACKAGE, SHOWS A LITTLE BIT OF OVERVIEW ALSO GOING IN TO THE NEXT CASE AS WELL.

SO SPECIFIC TO THIS CASE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF SUP FOR THE SELF-STORAGE FACILITY SUBJECT TO THE SITE DEVELOPING IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SITE PLAN SET FORTH IN EXHIBIT B. BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS? [INAUDIBLE] ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? ONE QUESTION, ANTHONY.

YES? CAN YOU PULL UP THE PICTURE? YOU HAVE TO PULL THAT START ON THE EAST SIDE.

I COULDN'T-- I WAS HAVING PROBLEMS TO TELL FROM THE PICTURE AND THEN FROM THE SITE PLAN AROUND WHAT SORT OF FENCING OR OTHER WAS REQUIRED, BECAUSE THIS IS VISIBLE FROM I THINK THAT'S COUNTY. MM HMM.

TO THE EAST. WHAT I COULDN'T TELL YOU MAY WANT TO GO TO THE SITE PLAN ACTUALLY TO SHOW THAT. RIGHT.

SO THAT. SO THAT'S JUST TO CONFIRM IN REQUEST FOR THE CONTRACTOR SHOP STORAGE.

RIGHT? THAT'S THE QUESTION.

THAT'S CORRECT. [INAUDIBLE].

SO WE CAN ACTUALLY THE NEXT ITEM IS YES.

YES, I GOT THIS ONE.

THIS REQUEST WILL BE TO RESCIND THE LEASE FACE THAT'S THERE NOW AND ADOPT AN SUP FOR THAT SMALLER SPACE. THANK YOU.

[00:10:01]

ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING.

A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO, PUBLIC HEARINGS ARE OPEN.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE AT THIS TIME? ANY COMMENTS? MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM SEVEN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

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

ITEM EIGHT, PUBLIC HEARINGS.

[8. Public Hearing - Specific Use Permit: COBB BUSINESS PARK ADDITION, BLOCK A, LOT 8 (SUP20-0017)]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CONTRACTOR, SHOP AND STORAGE WITHIN THE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING PLAN.

DEVELOPMENT NINETY SEVEN ALLOWS THIS USE WITH CITY COUNCIL ADOPTION OF AN SUP.

THE PORTION OF THE SPACE CURRENTLY ENTITLED FOR SELF STORAGE FACILITY HAS JUST APPROVED.

THAT SPACE WILL NOW PROPOSE TO BE REDUCED AND THIS CONTRACTOR STORAGE YARD WOULD MEET THE PROPOSED LINE OF THE SUP SELF STORAGE SPACE FROM THE LAST CASE.

THIS IS AGAIN A CONTRACTOR SHOP AND STORAGE YARD.

SO THERE ARE SEVERAL REQUIREMENTS IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE CONCERNING THE AMOUNT OF STORAGE THAT CAN TAKE PLACE ON THE BUILDING OR EXCUSE ME, IN THE YARD BEHIND THE BUILDING. IN ADDITION, SCREENING REQUIREMENTS.

SO THE APPLICANT IS MEETING, AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, ALL OF THOSE REQUIREMENTS, AS OUTLINED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

TO DISCUSS COMMISSIONER BOXES QUESTION ABOUT THE SCREENING.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE DOES REQUIRE A MASONRY SCREENING WALL OR A COMBINATION OF LIVING SCREENING DEVICE AND SCREENING DEVICE FOR THE STORAGE YARDS THAT ARE VISIBLE FROM THE STREET OR FROM RESIDENTIAL.

IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THERE WILL BE OTHER BUILDINGS IN THE FUTURE ALONG[INAUDIBLE] AVENUE AND NORTH COUNTY, WHICH WILL BLOCK THE VIEW OF THIS SPACE.

SO FOR THAT REASON, STAFF HAS ALLOWED THEM NOT TO AND MOVE FORWARD WITH HAVING TO DO THE MASONRY SCREENING WELL, AND INSTEAD THEY ARE PROPOSING A WOOD FENCE AROUND THIS AREA.

THIS IS OUR REQUIREMENT FOR THE WOOD FENCE? SINCE IT'S NOT THE OFFICIAL SCREENING FOR THIS, I BELIEVE IT'S JUST A SIX FOOT FENCE.

THANK YOU. I THINK YOU SHOULD CONFIRM THAT.

I THOUGHT THE PLAN SAID EIGHT FOOT FENCE.

THEY PULL IT BACK UP HERE.

YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

AN EIGHT FOOT FENCE.

SO IT'S JUST A EIGHT FOOT WOODEN FENCE.

SO WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM THIS EVENING.

THERE ARE SEVERAL CONDITIONS THAT STAFF IS PLACED ON TO BE ADOPTED WITH THIS SUP THAT WOULD ENSURE THAT THE STORAGE SPACE THAT DOES NOT EXCEED THE 20 PERCENT OF THE BUILDING'S GROSS FLOOR AREA.

AND IN ADDITION, THE STORAGE SPACE DOES NOT MOVE INTO ANY PARKING SPACES, LOADING AREAS, FIRE LANES, VEHICULAR MOVING AISLES OR CUSTOMER PICK UP LANES.

AND AGAIN, THOSE CONDITIONS ARE CONSISTENT WITH THE PROVISIONS WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

TO BE CLEAR HAS THE APPLICANT AGREED TO ALL THE BLUE LINE CHANGES IN YOUR REPORT, AS WELL AS THE FOUR CONDITIONS AND THE RECOMMENDATION? YES. OK.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? [INAUDIBLE] MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

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

SO ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, MY BRAIN IS NOT WORKING.

[00:15:03]

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM? JUST A QUESTION. ANTHONY, BACK TO THE SCREENING FENCING, IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S INCLUDED, WE'RE APPROVING IT, APPROVING THE PLAN WITH THAT ON THERE, WOULD IT BE PRUDENT, IN YOUR OPINION, TO CONDITION TO THAT? OR ARE WE PROTECTED BASED BECAUSE IT'S ON THE DOCUMENT AS SUBMITTED.

SINCE IT SHOWS IT ON THAT DOCUMENT, THAT WOULD BE WHAT THEY'RE THE MINIMUM THAT THEY'RE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE FOR THE ADOPTED SUP ON THAT EXHIBIT.

OK, WELL, ONE THING I WOULD ADD IS THAT'S NOT PART OF THE CONDITIONS.

AND THE TEXTS-- MAKE THAT PART OF THE CONDITION BECAUSE WE HAD AN INCIDENT THAT WAS YEARS AGO. IT WAS CALLED OUT ON THE SITE PLAN, BUT NOT IN THE ORDINANCE ITSELF.

SO IF THAT'S THE INTENT DO CALL THAT OUT.

SO EVERYBODY'S AWARE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 8 SUBJECT TO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION AND AN ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT TO INCLUDE EIGHT FOOT FENCE ALONG THE JUST A SCREEN ALONG THE EASTERN, ALONG THE SHOP ALONG THE EASTERN BORDER AND THE SOUTHERN BORDER.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO ITEMS 8 APPROVED.

WE CAN PULL COMMISSIONER KENDALL OUT OF HIS HIDING PLACE.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM NINE, PUBLIC HEARING, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, FRISCO REGIONAL DONATION BLOCK

[9. Public Hearing – Specific Use Permit: Frisco Original Donation, Block 21, Lots 8-12 (SUP20-0018)]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A CHURCH ON SEPTEMBER 19TH, 1997.

THE CHURCH IS NO LONGER IN OPERATION AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RESCIND THIS SUP AND REDEVELOP THE SITE.

STAFF SENT THE REQUIRED PUBLIC HEARING NOTICES SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH STATE LAW AND NOT RECEIVED ANY OBJECTIONS TO THE REQUEST.

WITH THAT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 43.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

IS THE APPLICANT COME HERE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING? WOULD YOU CARE TO SPEAK? ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS OF STAFF? ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO, WE'RE NOW IN PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYBODY HAVE ANY PRO OR CON AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT THEY WOULD LIKE TO TALK ABOUT NOW? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

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

ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? QUESTIONS? MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NINE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO, ITEM NINE IS APPROVED.

[10. Public Hearing - Zoning: Fairways Office Park (Z20-0018)]

THE GENE MCCUTCHEON. TWENTY FIFTEEN LIVING TRUSTEE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT IS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY SHOWN HERE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO OFFICE 2.

THIS REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OF BUSINESS PARK ON THE PROPERTY, AS WELL AS THE RECENTLY GRANTED OFFICE 2 ZONING ON THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS REQUEST FOR ITS PROXIMITY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH. AND WHILE THE OFFICE 2 DISTRICT DOES ALLOW UNLIMITED HEIGHT, THERE ARE CERTAIN HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY WHEN A BUILDING IS OVER TWO STORIES WHEN A BUDDING SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

THE APPLICANT HAS REACHED OUT TO THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT COMPANY FOR THE HOA TO THE SOUTH.

THEY DID REQUEST ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ON THE OFFICE 2 ZONING DESIGNATION SO THAT THEY COULD PROVIDE THAT TO THEIR RESIDENTS.

HOWEVER, TO DATE, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM ANY RESIDENTS ON THIS REQUEST.

[00:20:06]

AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

YOU MAY HAVE.

ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF AT THIS TIME? IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD THEY CARE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOVE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0, A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

SO ANY ONE WOULD LIKE TO CARE TO COMMENT ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? PUBLIC HEARING? SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE.

OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO.

PUBLIC VIEWING IS NOW CLOSED.

ALL RIGHT. SO THIS PARTICULAR ITEM DOES BUTT UP AGAINST THE [INAUDIBLE].

IT WAS [INAUDIBLE] AGRICULTURE OR WHAT'S THE CURRENT ZONING ON THE SIDE OF THIS? SINGLE FAMILY.

AND I'M SORRY, THE PROPERTY IS THE PROPERTY TODAY IS ZONED AG.

YES. INTO ITS BUSINESS PARK IN OFFICE TO THE EAST AND WEST OF IT? SO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION IS BUSINESS PARK FOR ALL OF THIS AREA RIGHT ALONG 380 UNTIL YOU GET TO THE HARD CORNER OF CHAMPIONSHIP.

AND THERE IS A COMMERCIAL NOTE THERE.

AS FAR AS THE ZONING ON THE PROPERTY, EVERYTHING, THIS PROPERTY AND EVERYTHING TO THE EAST OF IT IS AG.

THE PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE WEST CAME BEFORE YOU ALL A COUPLE OF MONTHS AGO AND WE RECENTLY REZONED THAT PROPERTY FROM AG TO OFFICE TWO.

SO WE GOT OFFICE 2.

THIS IS OFFICE 2.

THE OTHER SIDE IS JUST AG.

THAT IS CORRECT. THIS IS AG.

AND THAT WILL BUTT UP AGAIN.

BASICALLY YOU GOT THE PGA OVER HERE.

ONE OF THE LIKELY THE TWO PARCELS TO THE EAST WILL COME BEFORE US AT SOME POINT.

THAT IS CORRECT.

CAN YOU HIGHLIGHT THE SOMEWHAT ADJACENT LANDS OF THE SOUTHEAST THERE? SO I GUESS THAT SOUTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY, THAT'S [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTY, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT.

THIS PROPERTY AND THIS PROPERTY OWNED BY FISD AND POTENTIAL DISCUSSIONS FOR A FUTURE MIDDLE SCHOOL AND HIGH SCHOOL.

OK, AND THEN THE CORNER THAT YOU MENTIONED IS ALREADY ZONED FOR COMMERCIAL? KNOW THE CORNER IS ZONED AG FROM A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION.

ALL OF THIS PROPERTY IS BUSINESS PARK.

HOWEVER, THERE IS A COMMERCIAL NODE IN THERE.

SO AS YOU MENTIONED, IN THE FUTURE, IT IS LIKELY THAT THESE PROPERTIES WILL BECOME BEFORE YOU FOR ZONING. POTENTIALLY WHAT YOU WOULD SAY IS MAYBE MORE OFFICE 2 ZONING ALONG HERE.

THERE IS THE POTENTIAL THAT A PROPERTY OWNER MAY BECOME AND POTENTIALLY REQUEST SOME RETAIL ZONING AT THE HARD CORNER.

WE'LL JUST HAVE TO WAIT AND SEE.

THANK YOU. SURE. ALL RIGHT.

YOUR COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR? SEEING NONE.

AS A GENERAL RULE, I THINK WE SHOULD BE CAUTIOUS ANY TIME WE'RE GOING FROM AG TO SINGLE USE ZONING. BUT IN THIS CASE, IT'S A SMALL PROPERTY AND IT'S KIND OF CONSTRAINED.

AND I DON'T SEE OTHER USES, OTHER OPTIONS.

SO IT MATCHES THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

SO THIS CASE, IT MAKES SENSE TO ME.

ABSOLUTELY. I THINK I CONSIDER THIS HIGHWAY ZONING AND WE DON'T HAVE THE HIGHWAY DESIGNATION ON THIS. BUT CERTAINLY AT THIS [INAUDIBLE] HIGHWAY, WE NEED TO HAVE JOB CENTERS. WE NEED TO HAVE-- I LIKE THE OFFICE DESIGNATION THAT ALSO, YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT MULTIFAMILY, SO I'M HAPPY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE THAT'S NOT THE RIGHT PLACE FOR IT.

CHAIRMAN COX, YOU MENTIONED BEING ON THE HIGHWAY.

THAT IS OBVIOUSLY A CONCERN FOR US IS SMALL SINGLE USE ENTITIES ALONG A HIGHWAY CAN TURN INTO A STRING OF DOZENS AND DOZENS OF SINGLE USE THINGS ALONG HIGHWAYS.

BUT I DON'T SEE ANOTHER CHOICE TO DO THAT HERE.

I THINK WHEN YOU'RE FIRST IN THAT PROCESS, IT-- AND THE FIRST ONE TO SELL OR DEVELOP, YOU KIND OF SET THE TONE. YET FROM THE LANDOWNER PROPERTY RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE, YOU'VE GOT TO HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING WITH THEIR PROPERTY.

SO I'M ACTUALLY IN SUPPORT OF THIS.

AND ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DO I HAVE A MOTION? YES. MAKE MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 10 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE].

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO, ITEM 10 IS APPROVED.

CONGRATULATIONS. ITEM ELEVEN, PUBLIC HEARING, COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT AND FUTURE LAND

[11. Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) Update (CA20-0002)]

[00:25:10]

CITY COUNCIL APPROACHED US AND ASKED US TO LOOK AT AREAS THAT HAD MIXED USE RESIDENTIAL AND TO SEE IF THEY FIT INTO THE CURRENT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND SEE IF THEY MAKE SENSE TODAY. AND STAFF AT A WORK SESSION WORKED WITH COUNCIL AND THEY LOCATED 14 SEPARATE AREAS THAT SEEMED THAT THEY COULD BE DESIGNATED TO A USE THAT WASN'T MIXED USE, EXCEPT FOR HALL PARK, WHICH WAS DESIGNATED A MIXED USE BECAUSE OF THE ZONING CHANGE.

AND I THINK SO THAT'S THE BEFORE AND AFTER GRAPHIC.

BUT IF YOU CAN SEE THE AREAS OUTLINED IN BLACK, THOSE ARE THE AREAS THAT WE'RE FOCUSING FOR CHANGES.

EACH ONE OF THESE AREAS STAFF SENT COURTESY NOTICES HIGHLIGHTING THE SPECIFIC AREAS THAT WERE AFFECTED FOR EACH PROPERTY OWNER.

AND WITH THAT, I CAN TAKE QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. QUESTIONS TO STAFF AT THIS TIME? I HAVE A QUESTION.

WHEN WE DID THE WORK SESSION BACK IN THE FALL, DO YOU KNOW IF ANY OF THE ADJACENT LANDOWNERS OR THE POTENTIALLY AFFECTED LANDOWNERS, WERE THEY NOTIFIED PRIOR TO THE WORK SESSION OR WERE THEY NOT KNOWN PRIOR TO THE WORK SESSION? I DON'T BELIEVE SO, NO.

WE NOTIFIED THEM AFTER THE WORK SESSION AND WITH A COMPLIANT AMENDMENT, NOTIFICATION IS NOT REQUIRED. COUNCIL ASKED US TO SEND NOTICES TO THE PROPERTY OWNERS AFFECTED, WHICH WE DID. I APPRECIATE THAT.

OK, I HAVE A MOTION OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? MOVE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

ANY. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRY SIX ZERO. A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

ALL RIGHT. I KNOW WE HAVE A COUPLE OF FOLKS WHO HAVE SIGNED UP TO SPEAK THIS EVENING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.

[INAUDIBLE] KELLY, 4126 [INAUDIBLE] DRIVE, FRISCO.

THANK YOU, CHAIR.

I'M SPEAKING ON BEHALF OF BELNAP F.P.

OWNING LAND THAT IS, I THINK, DESIGNATED AND NUMBER FIVE, IT HAS BEEN MIXED TO USE IN THE LAND USE PLAN IN THE PAST.

AND THE PLAN NOW CALLS FOR IT TO BE CONVERTED TO RESIDENTIAL.

WE ARE CURRENTLY VISITING WITH THE CITY ABOUT LAND THAT IS NEEDED SEVERAL ACRES FOR THE PANTHER CREEK PARKWAY EXTENSION, WHICH GOES IN PART THROUGH OUR LAND FOR DRAINAGE EASEMENT, AS WELL AS FOR RIGHT OF WAY FOR PANTHER CREEK.

AND ADDITIONALLY, FRISCO STREET.

THE EXTENSION FROM [INAUDIBLE] ROAD UP TO PANTHER CREEK THAT IS PLANNED FOR LATER THIS YEAR WILL COME DIRECTLY THROUGH OUR PROPERTY.

AND THIS PARTICULAR CHANGE WOULD ALTER THE LAND USE FROM MIXED USE TO RESIDENTIAL ALONG THAT FRISCO STREET, WHICH WOULD KEEP US FROM DEVELOPING THE CORNER ON THE SOUTH AND EAST SIDE AND THE CORNER ON THE NORTH AND EAST SIDE FOR RETAIL.

SO THAT WOULD CHANGE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE OF OUR PROPERTY AND WOULD REDUCE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH IS CURRENTLY BEING POTENTIALLY PURCHASED BY THE CITY.

SO IT'S NOT SOMETHING THAT WE FAVOR.

WE WANT IT TO RETAIN THE MIXED-USE DESIGNATION AND WE'D PREFER THAT.

ADDITIONALLY, THE PORTION OF OUR LAND TO THE WEST OF THE PROPOSED EXTENSION ALSO BE MIXED USE SO THAT THE SOUTHWEST CORNER AND NORTHWEST CORNER COULD ALSO BE LIKE RETAIL AS WELL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT, JOHN WAGNER.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.

I WON'T WORK IT OUT THIS TIME.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH, CHAIR.

MY NAME IS JOHN WAGNER AND I REPRESENT FC DALLAS AND WE'RE NUMBER SIX, IF WE COULD HAVE

[00:30:02]

] SO WE'RE DO NOT-- THAT LAND RIGHT THERE IS CURRENTLY ZONED OFFICE 2.

WE HAVE BEEN FOR VARIOUS TIME, HAVE BEEN EXPLORING OPPORTUNITIES WHAT TO DO WITH THAT AREA. WE'VE BEEN TALKING TO, JOHN, DIFFERENT CITY FOLKS AS FAR AS WHAT WE WOULD DO WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AROUND FC DALLAS AND [INAUDIBLE] AT A STADIUM AND WE HAVE A TREMENDOUS WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH YOUR ORGANIZATION, HAS BEEN WONDERFUL.

AND WHILE WE DON'T HAVE ANY PARTICULAR PLANS THIS TIME, WE'VE BEEN TALKING INTERNALLY AND BEEN INTERVIEWING DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS POTENTIALLY TO LOOK AT THINGS THAT WOULD HAVE HOTEL, RESTAURANTS, OFFICE, RESIDENTIAL IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

AND SO WHAT WE BELIEVE IS THAT THE URBAN CENTER MORE CORRESPONDS TO THAT.

NOW, WE KNOW THAT IT DOESN'T CHANGE THE ZONING, AND WE ALSO KNOW THAT IF WE COME UP WITH ANY PLAN, WE'RE GOING TO NEED TO COME BEFORE YOU AND PRESENT SOMETHING THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO LOOK AT AND APPROVE FROM A STANDPOINT OF ITS VIBRANCY AND WHAT IT WOULD ADD TO THE ECONOMY AND WHAT IT WOULD DO TO THE AREA.

SO WE KNOW THAT WE HAVE HAD TO GO THROUGH-- WHAT WE'RE WOULD LIKE TO SEE IS THAT IF THE LAND USE GOES TO BUSINESS PARK, THEN THAT WOULD BE JUST ONE ADDITIONAL THING THAT WE'D BE WORKING THROUGH, WHICH WE THINK IS MORE ACCOMMODATING TO WHAT MAYBE WHAT WOULD END UP IN THAT PARTICULAR AREA.

AND WE'RE TALKING BEYOND THE BLUE.

THE BLUE WOULD BE EVEN WITHIN THE COMPLEX.

SO THAT'S OUR PREFERENCE.

SO I'M JUST HERE TO MAKE THAT STATEMENT.

AND IF THERE'S A WAY OF KEEPING THAT AT THE URBAN CENTER, WE'D BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRY SIX ZERO, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

COULD YOU DO A COUPLE OF THINGS FOR US? COULD YOU WALK US THROUGH ITEM FIVE? I REALLY WANT TO UNDERSTAND THAT PARTICULAR ITEM.

WHAT'S GOING ON WITH RHODES? WHAT'S I THINK--? I'M SORRY, WHAT'S THE QUESTION? OK, HOLD ON JUST A MINUTE.

AND LET JOEL DO HIS MAGIC HERE AND KIND OF EXPLAIN TO US WHAT'S GOING ON.

SO WE ENTER.

YES, I'M JOEL FITTS TRANSPORTATION PLANNING MANAGER.

I CAN TELL YOU WHAT THE PLANS ARE FOR THE ROADS.

THE CITY IS CURRENTLY DESIGNING, WHICH YOU CAN SEE ON THIS MAP IS THIS IS PANTHER CREEK PARKWAY AND IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN TO BUILD IT FROM THE TOLLWAY TO PRESTON ROAD.

CONSTRUCTION IS EXPECTED TO START LATER THIS YEAR.

AND THEN ANOTHER PROJECT FOLLOWING SHORTLY THEREAFTER, A SEPARATE PROJECT, BUT KIND OF RELATED IS EXTENDING FRESCO STREET UP TO CONNECT TO PANTHER CREEK PARKWAY.

FRISCO STREET IS ON OUR [INAUDIBLE] PLAN, EVENTUALLY TO CONNECT TO THE TOLLWAY, EVENTUALLY THAT WAY.

BUT WHAT I'VE DRAWN IS SOLID IS WHAT'S ACTUALLY GOING TO BE UNDER CONSTRUCTION LATER THIS YEAR. IT'S CURRENTLY UNDER DESIGN.

ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THOSE ROADS? SO FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF THE PROPERTY IN YELLOW, WHICH WE CURRENTLY HAVE AS MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD, RIGHT? IT'S A CURRENT WHICH ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE 20 PERCENT COMMERCIAL.

SO THE ROAD CHANGES A LITTLE BIT IN TERMS OF WHAT WAS GOING TO BE HAPPENING THERE TO BE

[00:35:07]

YOUR PARTICULAR PROPERTY, YOU'RE CONCERNED ABOUT THE TWO HARD CORNERS AT FRISCO STREET AND PANTHER CREEK AND THEN FRISCO STREET RIGHT HERE IN ELDORADO.

CORRECT. THAT'S REALLY WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS.

AND SO BY CHANGING THE JOB, BY CHANGING FROM 80 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL TO 20 PERCENT COMMERCIAL FROM LAND USE PLAN TO 100 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL, THAT MEANS WE'RE GOING TO SAY THERE'S 100 PERCENT--THERE'S NO CORNERS THERE FOR RETAIL OR ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT.

WHEN IT'S MIXED-USE. IT'S NOT TALKING ABOUT RETAIL AT THE CORNER.

SO FIRST OF ALL, THIS PROPERTY ZONED AGRICULTURE.

THEY DO NOT HAVE ZONING FOR MIXED USE.

THEY DON'T HAVE ZONING FOR RETELLS.

THE LAND USE PLAN, CORRECT? THAT'S RIGHT. AND THIS IS JUST THE LAND USE PLAN.

SO THERE'S NO VALUE ASSOCIATED WITH IT AS IN WITH ANY ZONING REQUEST THAT COMES BEFORE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN IS USED AS A GUIDE TO EVALUATE THAT ZONING REQUEST.

SO ANYTHING ABOUT POTENTIAL ZONING IN THE FUTURE, THAT'S TO BE DECIDED AT A LATER DATE.

AND I WANT TO MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THE DISCUSSION ABOUT RIGHT OF WAY, DISCUSSION ABOUT ZONING ARE TWO SEPARATE MATTERS THAT CAN'T BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER.

THE ONLY DIFFERENCE THERE IS AS ROADS GO THROUGH TO PEOPLE.

I UNDERSTAND THAT PANTHER CREEK AND FRISCO STREET INTERSECTION NEAR.

SO WHEN YOU SAY MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU CAN'T NECESSARILY DOESN'T NECESSARILY GUARANTEE RETAIL ON THE CORNER OR--.

THAT'S RIGHT. AND DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT OF MIXED USE ACTUALLY GETS DEVELOPED ON THE ZONE FOR THE PROPERTY. CASE IN POINT, SEVERAL YEARS AGO, SOME OF YOU MIGHT REMEMBER THAT WE HAD A ZONING REQUEST FOR MIXED USE JUST WEST OF THE BAYLOR SCOTT AND WHITE.

IT DID NOT COMPLY WITH ALL THE STANDARDS OF A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT RECOMMENDED FOR DENIAL . P&Z DENIED IT.

IT WAS NEVER APPEALED BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY? YEAH, JOHN, YOU MIGHT BE ABLE TO ANSWER THIS QUESTION ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER.

SO NOT THE PROPERTY ACROSS THE STREET, ACROSS PANTHER CREEK FROM THIS PROPERTY.

WHAT IS THE ZONING FOR THAT NORTHEAST CORNER OF PANTHER CREEK AND FUTURE FRISCO STREET? YOU KNOW, I'M TALKING ABOUT THE NORTHEAST CORNER.

AND THE OTHER FUTURE FRISCO STREET RIGHT BEFORE IT CURVES UNDERNEATH THE TOLLWAY.

OK, YOU GO FURTHER TO THE NORTH? I GUESS BOTH CORNERS THEN, NORTHEAST AND NORTHWEST CORNER.

JUST TO GET AN IDEA OF WHAT WE HAVE IN THAT AREA.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMMERCIAL.

I MEAN, THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH COMMERCIAL YOU CAN SUPPORT IN AN AREA.

UNDERSTOOD. I WAS JUST CURIOUS BECAUSE THERE'S NOT A SINGLE FAMILY, THOUGH, ALONG THAT.

IS THERE ANY SINGLE FAMILY ALONG PANTHER CREEK? I DON'T RECALL EXACTLY.

YEAH, YEAH.

ON THE CURRENT PLAN. THE ZONING ON THIS CURRENT YELLOW SHADED AREA IS AGRICULTURAL.

YOU SAID.

THAT'S RIGHT FROM LOOKING AT ANTHONY'S PULLING UP THE GIS MAPS.

THE PANTHER CREEK IS AGRICULTURAL.

YES, CORRECT.

ANTHONY.

RIGHT. [INAUDIBLE] AND JOHN, FROM A LANDOWNER RIGHTS PERSPECTIVE, CHANGE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES NOT IMPACT LANDOWNER RIGHTS.

THE LANDOWNER STILL HAS AN OPPORTUNITY AS THEY WOULD TODAY AS YOU MENTIONED, THIS PROPERTY IS CURRENTLY ZONED AS AG.

IF THEY WANTED TO DEVELOP IT, THEY WOULD NEED TO COME IN FOR A ZONING CHANGE REQUEST? CORRECT. MATTER IF THEY'RE COMING IN FOR WHAT THE LAND USE PLAN SAYS TODAY OR WHAT IT'S BEING RECOMMENDED TO SAY TOMORROW.

[00:40:02]

THE ONLY WAY THAT ZONING CHANGES IS WITH A ZONING A REQUEST.

ONTO TO THE EAST OF THIS YELLOW PROPERTY, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE WE'RE LEAVING THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AS A MIXED USE ON THE I CALL THE TWO PARCELS TO THE EAST? [INAUDIBLE] IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT TO THE EAST.

I'M LOOKING AT THE LARGE--.

THE TOP PIECE UP HERE? YEAH, BASICALLY, ALL THE LAND BETWEEN THIS LAND AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS RUNNING ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACKS.

AND IT'S GOT MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE MAP.

[INAUDIBLE] [INAUDIBLE] THAT'S NOT CHANGING FROM WHAT I CAN TELL.

RIGHT, RIGHT. BECAUSE BASICALLY WHAT'S ON THE LET'S SAY, THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF THE BNSF AND PANTHER CREEK AND THIS LOOKS LIKE CONTINUE TO HAVE MIXED USE ON THAT.

YES, SO IF THAT'S CORRECT, THEN I GUESS MY QUESTION JUST IS WHAT'S MAKING US CHANGE THIS PART OF THAT AREA FROM MIXED USE, LIKE THE REST OF IT OVER TO SINGLE FAMILY FOR THAT SECTION OF THIS AREA? OK. SO LET'S DO THIS.

I'M ANSWERING YOUR QUESTION.

SO WHERE TO PUT THAT ONE MARK THAT IS DEVELOPED IS FRISCO SPRINGS SO SHOWN THAT IT'S RESIDENTIAL WHERE THAT HAS THE MIXED USE DESIGNATION ON THERE, BECAUSE AT ONE TIME WE TALKED ABOUT POSSIBILITY OF A RAIL STATION.

I THINK THAT'S UNLIKELY AS WE GO DEEPER INTO THIS.

SO THAT IS CHANGING.

AND THEN WHEN YOU GO TO WHAT IS JUST TO THE LEFT OF THE FIVE, WE JUST DON'T SEE MIXED-USE HAPPENING IN THAT AREA JUST BECAUSE OF THE SIZE OF THE PARCEL.

YOU SAY THE SIZE OF THE INDIVIDUAL PARCEL, BUT IF THE ADJACENT LAND IS OWNED BY THE SAME LAND OWNER, A LOT OF TIMES WE KIND OF TAKE THOSE INTO ACCOUNT THAT IT'S MULTIPLE PARCELS, BUT ONE CONTIGUOUS LAND DEVELOPMENT USUALLY.

WELL, HERE'S WHAT WE DON'T KNOW.

IS IT GOING TO BE SOLD OFF? WE DON'T KNOW THAT.

AND, YOU KNOW, SEPARATED BY PANTHER CREEK.

SO THAT'S PRETTY WIDE FLOODPLAIN THERE.

BUT AGAIN, YOU'RE NOT DETERMINING ZONING AND ZONING WORKS.

I MEAN, THE PLAN WORKS SORT OF LIKE BOTH WAYS.

IF, YOU KNOW, ZONING REQUEST COMES IN.

MAKES SENSE. YEAH, THAT HAS A POSSIBILITY.

BUT I CANNOT STAND HERE TODAY AND SAYS, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO GET SUCH A REQUEST.

SO BUT THIS IS A GUIDE ON FUTURE ZONING REQUEST.

IT DOES NOT SET IN STONE WHAT IT'S GOING TO BE A ZONE FOR, BUT IT IS USED AS A GUIDE TO EVALUATE SUCH REQUESTS.

SO BASED ON THAT, I GUESS I WOULD ARGUE THAT IT'S BETTER TO LEAVE THE STATUS QUO TO LEAVE IT AS IS, UNLESS WE HAVE COMPELLING, STRONG, COMPELLING REASON, SOME OF THESE VERY COMPELLING REASONS BECAUSE OF SURROUNDING WHAT'S BEEN DEVELOPED AROUND THEM, WHAT'S GOING ON OR SOMETHING. BUT THE ONES THAT DON'T HAVE A STRONG, COMPELLING REASON AND YOU HAVE A RESIDENT LAND OWNER SPEAKING OUT OPPOSED TO IT, I WOULD THINK WE NEED TO HAVE A STRONGER, MORE COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE, EVEN THOUGH WE KNOW.

WELL, NO, IT DOESN'T CHANGE ZONING, BUT IT DOES IMPACT PEOPLE'S THOUGHTS AND DECISIONS ABOUT THINGS. I JUST THINK WE NEED YOU TO HAVE A MORE COMPELLING REASON ON THIS PARTICULAR SITE. THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT ON THIS ONE.

[00:45:05]

I DON'T KNOW IF I DISAGREE ON THAT.

I DON'T KNOW THAT MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOODS, LAND USE PLAN IS NECESSARILY BAD THERE.

COMPARED TO SOME OTHER LAND USES, THAT URBAN CENTER OR, YOU KNOW, SUBURBAN ACTIVITY AREA.

SO THOSE ARE SOME OF THE ONES THAT I WOULD BE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT MYSELF.

SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? BECAUSE THERE WERE ALSO WERE THE ITEM AROUND THE TOYOTA STADIUM.

I'D LIKE TO TALK ABOUT AS WELL IF WE CAN BRING THAT ONE UP.

CHAIRMAN COX, BEFORE YOU DO THAT, CAN I ASK A GENERAL QUESTION I SHOULD HAVE ASKED EARLIER TO STAFF.

IN THE PRESENTATION.

THE NUMBERS DON'T SEEM TO MATCH UP WITH WHAT WAS IN THE PACKET.

AND WHAT I MEAN BY THAT IS WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ITEM NUMBER FIVE ALONG FRISCO STREET.

ITEM NUMBER SEVEN IN THE PACKET IS THE EXACT SAME PIECE OF LAND AND DESCRIPTION.

AND SO I'M TRYING TO MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR ON WHICH NUMBERS MATCH WITH WHICH PARCELS.

AND THERE'S A COUPLE OF OTHERS LIKE THAT SEEM--.

TO BE SOME DISCREPANCY THERE.

WE GET THAT CHANGED.

I WANT TO POINT THAT OUT NOW JUST BECAUSE I WAS A LITTLE HARDER TO DISCUSS A COUPLE OF THE ONES WHEN WE DON'T HAVE A HIGHLIGHTED PRINTOUT ABOUT SOME OF THE SPECIFIC PARCELS.

THE LIKE RIGHT THERE ARE SEVEN LOOKED LIKE IT WAS ALSO NUMBER FIVE.

YEAH, THEY LOOK THE SAME.

RIGHT. BEFORE WE LEAVE THIS ITEM, I'D JUST LIKE TO THROW MY COMMENTS OUT.

I HAPPEN TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER CONE ON THIS PARTICULAR ONE RECOMMENDATION THAT IF THERE'S NOT A COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE IT, WE SHOULD LEAVE IT.

SO ITEM EIGHT HERE ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, I THINK CERTAINLY IF WE CHANGE IT TO BUSINESS PARK, WE DO HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO TAKE BUSINESS PARK AND DO LIKE WE DID A [INAUDIBLE] OFFICE PARK AND GO TO MIXED USE.

I JUST DON'T KNOW WHY WE AT THIS TIME, BASED ON A REQUEST BY THE LANDOWNER, WHY WE WOULD ACTUALLY CHANGE THIS PARTICULAR ONE IS SUCH A SMALL SLIVER AROUND THERE IN TERMS OF THE PIECE OF LAND. AND TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE IF YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE URBAN CENTER THAT WOULD BE ON YOUR SPINE.

IF THEY WERE DEVELOPED THAT COURSE, THE ZONING WOULD HAVE TO CHANGE AND SO FORTH.

BUT, YOU KNOW, FUTURE YOU KNOW, FUTURE COUNCILS AND SO FORTH WILL BE LOOKING AT THE LAND USE PLAN AND OUR CHANGES TO IT AS THEY MAKE DECISIONS.

SO I DON'T KNOW.

I THINK THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, AS WELL AS THE PREVIOUS ITEM, REALLY NEED TO BE MODIFIED AT THIS TIME. THE REST OF THEM, I'M ACTUALLY FINE WITH.

MY OPINION, BUT I OPEN IT, OPEN IT UP TO CONVERSATION.

I WOULD SUGGEST THAT WE MIGHT TO MAKE THIS APPROVED WITH THE ELIMINATION OF THOSE TWO ITEMS. I'M STRUGGLING AND I HEAR THE INDIVIDUAL REPRESENTING THE LANDOWNER.

BUT HAVING STILL INCLUDING IN THAT PROPERTY, THAT'S TO THE EAST NUMBER FIVE, I'M CONFUSED WITH NUMBERS RIGHT NOW. [INAUDIBLE] IT INCLUDED IN THAT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS-- SORRY, IS URBAN RESIDENTIAL, I BELIEVE.

AND THAT JUST DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR THIS AREA.

AND I'D RATHER REMOVE GUIDANCE FOR THAT FROM THE LAND USE PLAN FROM THIS AREA.

THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE LAND OWNER, IF YOU FIND IF YOU CREATE SOMETHING REALLY COOL, YOU CAN'T BRING IT FORWARD TO THE CITY.

BUT I DON'T THINK THAT'S SOMETHING WE WANT IN THE LAND USE PLAN THAT FAR OFF OF THE SPINE AS YOU AS YOU CALLED IT.

COMMISSIONER. I WOULD I THINK I'M CONFUSED WITH WHAT'S APPLICABLE TO WHAT.

MY PREFERENCE IS ACTUALLY TO TABLE THIS AND HAVE STAFF PUT BACK TOGETHER, PUT THE INFORMATION BACK TOGETHER SO THE PUBLIC HAS A CLEAR VIEW AND WE DO AS WELL.

I THINK WE DEFINITELY NEED TO FIX THE ITEM NUMBER TO MAKE IT MATCH UP TO THE PICTURE.

I THINK THAT WOULD DEFINITELY--.

AND THE PACKET DIDN'T PDF CORRECTLY.

IT DOESN'T LOOK THE SAME AS WHAT I SEE ON THE SCREEN.

OK, SO I THINK THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY THERE FOR THE PUBLIC.

I KNOW THERE IS AN ISSUE WITH THAT.

THE LAST TIME I SAW BEFORE IT WAS FOR IT, IT WAS FIXED.

SO YEAH, IT HAPPENED.

[00:50:01]

TECHNOLOGY HAPPENS.

[INAUDIBLE] I THINK GOOD POINTS THERE.

THE, YOU KNOW, IF YOU WANTED TO TABLE IT AND GOT COMMISSIONERS TO DO THAT, WHAT WOULD YOU ASK THEM TO FIX SPECIFICALLY? ADDRESS. SO I WOULD ASK THAT THE DOCUMENTATION BE RE POSTED PER THE REQUIREMENTS AND IN A FORUM WHERE THE PUBLIC AS WELL AS OTHERS REVIEWING, CAN SEE THE INFORMATION AS FAR AS STAFF WAS WANTING TO PRESENT.

UNFORTUNATELY, TECHNOLOGY GOT THE BEST OF IT RIGHT NOW.

SO WHAT I SEE HAPPENING HERE IS TAKE WHAT'S ON THIS PLAN THAT'S ALL UP ON THE SCREEN AND THEN HAVE THESE OTHERS THE NUMBERS CORRELATE BACK TO THAT.

AND THE MAPS. THAT IS CORRECT.

THAT THESE NUMBERS HERE NEED TO CORRELATE AND JOHN, ALONG WITH THAT, THE MAPS, I THINK SOME OF THE MAPS NEED TO BE CORRECTED THEMSELVES BECAUSE THEY'RE EITHER TRUNCATED OR CUT OFF OR IT'S NOT CLEAR.

WHEN YOU SAID CUT OFF, I GOT TO SEE TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT.

IN FRONT OF US. IT'S LIKE YOU'RE ONLY SEEING HALF THE MAP AND IT'S A PAGINATION ISSUE.

AND IT WAS PDF'D.

SO WE WOULD LIKE SOME ADDITIONAL CLARIFICATION ON WHAT CAN GO ON THE PROPERTY UP THERE OFF FRISCO STREET, BECAUSE WITH COMMISSIONER BOX, I DON'T WANT RESIDENTIAL, YOU KNOW, URBAN RESIDENTIAL THERE.

CERTAINLY I UNDERSTAND HIS NEED FOR, YOU KNOW, HAVING THE ABILITY TO DO SOMETHING ON CORNERS FROM A LAND USE PLAN PERSPECTIVE.

BUT I DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW THAT URBAN RESIDENTIAL--.

WE'RE GOING TO DO WE CAN FRAME IT.

WE CAN'T TELL EXACTLY WHAT THAT WILL BE.

SO WE CAN GIVE IS LIKE JUST AN EXERCISE JUST A COMPARISON.

BUT ULTIMATELY, AS I STATED BEFORE, IT ALL COMES DOWN TO A ZONING CASE AND ACTION ON THAT .

OK, COMMISSIONER BOX, TALK ABOUT TABLING ARE THERE ANY CONCERNED WITH THAT OR WOULD YOU RATHER MAKE A DECISION? JUST THOUGHTS ON THAT.

YOU KNOW, MY EXPERIENCE BEING UP HERE, WE OPEN THIS UP.

THIS IS THE FIRST TIME I GUESS IN FIVE YEARS WE'VE REALLY REVISED THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, ONE THING I DID WANT I ADD WE DID HAVE A WORK SESSION ON THIS BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND IT WAS DONE THE LAST TWO YEARS.

AND THEN THE ONE WITH CITY COUNCIL WAS DONE IN NOVEMBER, OCTOBER.

WELL, MY POINT WAS THAT WE DON'T DO THIS EVERY DAY, SO WE DO IT EVERY COUPLE OF YEARS.

WE SHOULD TAKE TIME AND GET IT RIGHT.

AND SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF IT.

JUST FOR YOUR POINT, COMMISSIONER BOX TO GET IT DOCUMENTED THAT DOCUMENTATION RIGHT TO TABLE. SO, MR. CONE, YET ANOTHER POINT. YES.

JUST BEFORE WE TALK ABOUT TABLING, I KNOW WE WERE ABLE TO ADDRESS SOME WITH YOU, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. WAGNER, AS IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TABLING.

WE OBVIOUSLY DIDN'T SPEND A LOT OF TIME.

YOU BROUGHT UP SOME CONCERNS OR THOUGHTS OF NOT HAVING IT RECATEGORIZED HOW YOU'RE IF YOU'D LIKE TO SPEAK ON YOUR COMFORTABLE MEETING WITH STAFF AND TALKING THAT THROUGH, OR MAYBE IF YOU WANT TO EXPAND ON WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING TO DO, I KNOW YOU DON'T HAVE ANY PLANS CURRENTLY, BUT THIS IS PROBABLY YOUR OPPORTUNITY IF YOU'D LIKE TO TELL US ANYTHING THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING AS WE LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, TABLING THIS AND MAKING THE DECISION IT BE IN TWO WEEKS.

AND I WOULD NEED YOU TO COME TO THE PODIUM TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, PLEASE.

AS YOU'RE WALKING UP, MORE SPECIFIC IS TELL US YOUR THOUGHTS ABOUT TABLING THIS, WE DIDN'T SPEND MUCH TIME SPECIFICALLY ON YOUR PROPERTY.

I MEAN, YOU GUYS OWNED ONE HUNDRED AND FIFTEEN ACRE PLUS TO THE SOUTH.

AND OBVIOUSLY, I IMAGINE YOU'D WANT SOMETHING SPECIAL ADJACENT TO YOUR PROPERTY.

SO ANYTHING WE SHOULD KNOW MOVING FORWARD? WELL, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S ARTICULATED THE BEST I CAN.

I MEAN, WE'VE BEEN THINKING ABOUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS SYNERGISTIC TO THE STADIUM.

AND WE'VE HAD A LOT OF DIFFERENT IDEAS FROM OWNERSHIP.

AND WE'VE ACTUALLY, THROUGH 2019, SPENT A LOT OF TIME TALKING TO FOUR DIFFERENT DEVELOPERS TO COME IN AND WORK WITH US AND TRY TO PICK AND CHOOSE.

AND THEN WE GOT TO COVID AND JUST KIND OF PUT THE SKIDS ON THAT FROM A STANDPOINT.

[00:55:05]

WE'RE NOT DEVELOPERS IN THE SENSE OF WHAT MAKES SENSE.

WE'RE LOOKING FOR A GOOD PARTNER THAT WE'VE BEEN IN TOUCH WITH DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN THE CITY. WHAT MAKES IT, YOU KNOW, WHO WOULD DO DO WELL? AND WE'RE JUST CONCERNED THAT IF THIS LAND USE PLAN JUST GOT CHANGED, THE BUSINESS PARK THAT IT'S WE REALIZED WE'RE OFFICE TOO.

WE'VE GOT TO COME ON IN.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PRESENT YOUR PLAN.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO LOOK AT IT AND YOU'RE GONNA SAY, YES, THIS IS SOMETHING THE CITY WOULD LIKE TO SEE ON THAT.

JUST IN THE FUTURE.

PEOPLE THAT AREN'T HERE AT THIS TIME, IF THIS ENDS UP BEING FIVE YEARS DOWN THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE THAT IT'S JUST I KNOW FROM REAL ESTATE BACKGROUND, WHILE THE ZONING IS WHAT COVERS IT, LAND USE PLAN, THE PLAN IS A FACTOR.

AND IF IT BECOMES A FACTOR, THEN THAT'S JUST ONE MORE THING THAT WE'VE GOT TO WORK THROUGH ON THAT.

BUT IF IT'S SUPPORTIVE OF KIND OF WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT IN THE URBAN CENTER, IT IS AN ENTIRELY WE KNOW THE ZONING IS THAT'S JUST OUR REQUEST.

I MEAN, WE HAVE LIKE AND WE HAVE NOTHING THAT WE CAN COME TO AND SAY, THIS IS IT.

I GET THESE PICTURES AND I CAN SHOW YOU ALL THIS.

WE JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SLATE THAT WE'VE GOT IS AS CLEAN SO THAT WE CAN WORK WITH YOU AND COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT YOU ALL ENJOY.

THANK YOU. YEAH.

THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BOX.

CHAIR, WOULD YOU ENTERTAIN GETTING AN INFORMAL HAND UP OF, WE TALKED ABOUT NUMBER EIGHT OF NOT SUPPORT. SOME PEOPLE NOT SUPPORTING THE CHANGE AND KEEPING IT WHERE IT IS PUT TO GETTING AN INFORMAL HAND UP TO DIRECT STAFF ON WHAT THE COMMISSION'S IDEA IS FOR NUMBER EIGHT.

I THINK WE CAN JUST ASK THE COMMISSIONERS THAT WANT TO STATE IF THEY WANT IT CHANGED FROM WHAT THE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF IS TODAY ON THIS ITEM.

I BELIEVE I DO, MYSELF.

I DO I.

CLARIFY. YOU DO, TOO WHAT? I WANT TO RETAIN NUMBER EIGHT, AS IN THE CURRENT LAND USE PLAN.

OK. THANK YOU.

NUMBER FIVE.

I DO.

I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE, AS I MENTIONED, THE URBAN RESIDENTIAL THAT'S INCLUDED AND SOME WAY TO TAKE THAT OUT.

AND I'M NOT I WOULD ALSO BE TABLING ITEM FOR STAFF IF THERE'S SOME OTHER DESIGNATION THAT COULD BE USED.

COMMISSIONER KENDALL ANY THOUGHTS? YOU KNOW IT'S CAUTIOUS WITHOUT SEEING IT IN FRONT OF US, I.

YOU KNOW, I WOULD CONTRADICT HIS, I SEE TWO DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROPERTY IS THE FIRST TIME THAT I SEE WHERE YOU COULD AS YOU BROUGHT A PLAN FOR AND THAT WE NEED THE HARD CORNERS.

I COULD SEE THAT BEING PRESENTED IN FRONT OF.

AND IF IT MAKES SENSE TO PNZ AND TO COUNCIL, I WOULD SEE IT BEING APPROVED IF WE NEEDED TO CARVE OUT THOSE THREE TO FIVE ACRES.

I DON'T FEEL THE CHANGING OF THE ZONING HURTS YOU.

THAT'S JUST. THE LAND USE PLAN.

THE LAND USE PLAN.

AND AS MR. LETTELLEIR MENTIONED, WE'RE NOT CHANGING.

IT SITS AG, IT'S JUST THE FUTURE.

AND THEN ALSO WITH THE PROPERTY THAT JOHN WAGNER MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, NORTH FC DALLAS, YOU KNOW, OWNING THAT HUNDRED FIFTEEN ACRES IS IT'S ONE OF THOSE WHERE IT'S KIND OF IN A HYBRID. IT'S BETWEEN PRESTON AND DNT AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE.

I JUST KNOW IF I HAD TO GUESS, I THINK THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO PROTECT THEIR ASSET OF 115 ACRES. SO I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO PUT SOMETHING POORLY IN FRONT OF US.

I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S TO JUST MAKE MONEY.

IT'S SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BENEFIT THEIR MASSIVE, YOU KNOW, MULTI MILLION DOLLAR DEVELOPMENT. SO RESTRICTING THEM, I WOULD BE HESITANT.

I MEAN, WE'RE TALKING LAND USE PLANS WHICH ARE NOT FIXED IN STONE.

BUT I DO THINK, YOU KNOW, I'M IN AGREEMENT ON THAT.

COMMISSIONER KELLY. I STAND WHERE I WAS ORIGINALLY THAT ITEMS FIVE AND EIGHT SHOULD NOT BE ALTERED. I'D BE WILLING TO APPROVE THE OTHER ITEMS THAT ARE IN THE PACKAGE.

IF SECOND THING WOULD BE TO TABLE IT AND FIX ITEMS FIVE THROUGH EIGHT AND HAVE IT COME BACK. I THINK TABLING YOU'RE GOING TO FIX THE PAGINATION ISSUES AND THE NUMBERING SYSTEM TO MAKE SURE THAT THE SYSTEM.

BUT NOT THE RECOMMENDATION.

I THINK THAT WE. WELL, I'M SAYING MY GUIDANCE TO STAFF WOULD BE TO TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT FIVE AND EIGHT AND MAKE SURE THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE WANT, BECAUSE I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO DO IT. COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. I TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION, WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY ON NUMBER EIGHT, I DO AGREE WITH RETAINING THEIR CURRENT STATUS IN THAT FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING NEW TO ADD, BUT I WOULD I WOULD LIKE TO KEEP ITEM EIGHT THE

[01:00:01]

FIX THE PAGINATION, IF WE'RE LOOKING FOR THE FULL DIRECTION FOR STUFF.

SO I THINK STAFF ALMOST EVERYONE AGREES ON ITEM EIGHT THAT THEY PROBABLY WOULD LIKE TO LEAVE IT. AS YOU GO THROUGH, WE TABLE IT.

FIVE IS STILL UP IN THE AIR IN TERMS OF WHAT COMMISSIONERS WOULD LIKE TO SEE.

AND I THINK GETTING IT TO A CLEAR FINAL, A FINAL VERSION WITH THE NUMBERS FIXED, WE'RE ALL TALKING THE SAME THING.

SO WHEN IT DOES GET APPROVED OR THAT IT'S CLEAR AS IT MOVES FORWARD TO COUNCIL.

SO I THINK MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO TABLE IT AND ADDRESS THOSE THREE THINGS.

NUMBER. IS IT NUMBER EIGHT? WE'VE DECIDED DNT AND MAIN.

I AGREE. AND THE REASON I AGREE, I THINK IT MATTERS IS THE FACT THAT IT'S ONLY 30 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL, EVEN THOUGH IT IS ALONG THE SPINE, IT IS DOWNTOWN, THE AREAS THAT WE CAN HAVE MIXTURES OF USES, BUT IT'S ONLY 30 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL VERSUS IF THIS WAS 80 PERCENT, THAT DOES MATTER QUITE A BIT.

I THINK.

THE SECOND THING THAT I THINK IS IMPORTANT, JOHN, IS IF THERE'S ANY MORE WE COULD DO, JUST KIND OF SHOW THE SURROUNDING, BECAUSE THE MAPS YOU GUYS GAVE US JUST SHOWS THAT SINGLE, YOU KNOW, PIECE. AND I THINK WHAT'S SURROUNDING IS CRITICAL, LIKE ITEM NUMBER FIVE.

YEAH. SO LET ME JUST BE VERY SPECIFIC, BECAUSE I DON'T WANT HIM TO GO DO, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

I DON'T WANT TO DO IT ON ALL 12 OR 16 ITEMS. WHICH ITEM, NUMBER FIVE.

I UNDERSTAND. YOU WANT TO UNDERSTAND.

I WOULDN'T MIND SEEING WHAT'S AROUND IT IN TERMS OF LAND USE PLAN AND SO FORTH BETWEEN THAT AND THE TOLLWAY.

I MEAN, THAT AND THE TOLLWAY AND THAT IN THE THAT SPOT IN PRESTON, OR IS THAT THE ONE THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO. NO. WHAT ACTUALLY, I WAS THINKING FOR ALL OF THEM AND HERE'S WHY WE SAID TRYING TO MAKE IT EASIER FOR THE PUBLIC TO UNDERSTAND WHAT'S BEING DONE HERE.

IT TOOK ME A LONG TIME TO TAKE THESE INDIVIDUAL PARCELS AND COMPARE THEM TO THE MASTER MAP AND TO GO THROUGH ALL 16 OF THEM AND DO THAT.

AND SO IF THEY'RE HAVING TO FIX SOME OF THE OTHER MAPS ANYWAY ON MAKING THEM.

TO ME, PULLING OUT A SNAPSHOT OF THE HIGHLIGHTED PARCEL THAT'S OUTLINED IN BLACK AND THEN THE ONE SURROUNDING IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO BE CLEAR TO BECAUSE THERE ARE A COUPLE OF OTHER ISSUES ON OTHER ONES ON HERE WE PROBABLY SHOULD TALK ABOUT.

WE JUST HAVE GOTTEN TO THEM YET.

YEAH, I DON'T KNOW IF I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT.

IN TERMS OF PUTTING AN EXTRA LAYER BURDEN ON STAFF.

I DO THINK WE HAVE GIS MAPS.

WE HAVE OTHER WAYS TO GO SEE THAT THAT ARE PUBLIC.

IF PEOPLE WANTED TO REALLY DRILL DOWN INTO THAT AND THEY ARE COUNTING ON US TO GET INTO THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL FOR THEM.

BUT I DO NOT WANT TO PUT THAT BURDEN ON STAFF TO UNLESS THERE'S A VERY SPECIFIC INSTANCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR CLARIFICATION ON.

THERE, IS IT HOW MUCH MORE DIFFICULT WOULD IT BE TO DO THE SURROUNDING ADJACENT? WELL, OK, I WOULD WANT THAT ARTICULATED EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR.

SO, YES IT, I MEAN A LOT OF THIS IS JUST CHANGING IT.

I MEAN, FROM LIKE URBAN CENTER TO SUBURBAN REGIONAL CENTER.

I MEAN, THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE OF FIVE PERCENT GOING FROM, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL TO, I MEAN RESIDENTIAL GOING TO COMMERCIAL.

I MEAN, IT'S KIND OF LIKE WHAT ARE WE GOING TO EXTRAPOLATE OUT OF THAT? OK, NO, I AGREE WITH THAT.

COULD WE NARROW IT DOWN THEN TO JUST A FEW OF THEM THAT ANY OF THAT HAVE A SIGNIFICANT CHANGE THEN FROM WHAT THEY HAVE? WHAT I WOULD ASK, IF YOU HAD SPECIFIC QUESTIONS AS YOU RESEARCHED THEM, IF YOU COULD SEND THAT TO JOHN AND ADDRESS THAT LIKE WE DO WITH QUESTIONS, AS IF WE TABLE IT, I THINK I WOULD PROBABLY BE THE BEST THE BEST ONES TO UNDERSTAND.

SO HE CAN MAYBE EVEN A CONVERSATION SO YOU GUYS CAN GET ON A MAP AND [INAUDIBLE].

WELL, I HAVE ALREADY FIGURED OUT WHAT ALL OF THEM HAVE.

I'M JUST TRYING TO SAVE THE PUBLIC OR ANYONE ELSE WHO WANTS TO DO THE SAME THING FROM HAVING TO GO TO OUR GIS MAPS OR TO HAVE TO DO TOO MUCH.

I'M TRYING TO FIGURE OUT IF THE PUBLIC REALLY WILL WANT TO SPEND TAXPAYER DOLLARS ON THAT.

AND IN THAT CASE, WITH THE TOOLS THAT WE ALREADY HAVE IN PLACE.

I'M IN SUPPORT OF DOING THAT FOR A NUMBER FIVE AND NUMBER EIGHT.

OK, THOSE ARE ONES WE HAVE QUESTIONS ON AND AND WE'RE GOING TO TALK ABOUT THOSE AGAIN.

SO I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT BLOW OUT AND JUST TAKE THE SURROUND TAKE THE SURROUNDING AREAS AND SHOW WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE CLAIM DESIGNATION IS.

WELL, LET ME PUT THIS BACK.

THERE WAS GENERAL CONSENSUS.

I'M NOT CHANGING ANYTHING AROUND TOYOTA STADIUM.

IT WAS KEEPING THAT AS IT WAS.

SO IF THAT'S THE INTENT THEN RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE TO LEAVE IT.

SO REALLY, IT COMES DOWN TO NUMBER FIVE AND THEN DOING A COMPARISON BETWEEN MIXED USE AND LET'S SAY GOING TO SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL.

WHAT IS THAT YOU MADE A COMMENT ABOUT? YOU DON'T WANT ANY URBAN LIVING THERE.

SO BASICALLY, NO APARTMENTS.

SO WHAT DOES THAT TRANSLATE INTO? SO WE'RE BRING THAT BACK.

[01:05:02]

MY RECOMMENDATION WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, TABLE FOR TWO WEEKS AND WE'LL BRING IT BACK, BECAUSE IF THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN ACCOMPLISH AND GET IN THE PACKET NEXT WEEK.

THANK YOU, I'M OK TO MOVE THAT TO NUMBER FIVE.

THANK YOU. I'LL JUST THROW THIS OUT THERE.

SO YOU'RE THINKING ABOUT NUMBER TWO TO ME ALSO FALLS IN THE CATEGORY OF NUMBER FIVE AND NUMBER EIGHT. SO I'LL FOLLOW UP WITH YOU JOHN ON AN EMAIL ON THAT [INAUDIBLE] WITH THAT, THEY SOUND LIKE WE HAVE A CONSENSUS HERE TO TABLE THIS AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 11 TO DO THAT? MOVE TO TABLE ITEM 11 AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO THE MARCH 9TH.

OH NO FEBRUARY 9TH.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

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

AYE. ANY OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO.

WE'RE TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY.

[12. Public Hearing - Zoning Amendment: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance - Food Truck Uses (ZA20-0010)]

AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE.

FOOD TRUCK USES ZA20-0010 OWNER CITY OF FRISCO.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY COUNCIL CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING ON DECEMBER 1ST, 2020 TO AMEND THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE ADDITION OF FOOD TRUCK USE REGULATIONS.

CITY COUNCIL INQUIRED ABOUT ALLOWING FOOD TRUCK COURTS SIMILAR TO SURROUNDING MUNICIPALITIES. CURRENTLY, FOOD TRUCKS ARE ONLY ALLOWED WHEN ASSOCIATED WITH SPECIAL, SEASONAL AND PARKING LOT EVENTS THROUGH A HEALTH, TEMPORARY HEALTH PERMIT.

LIMIT OPERATIONS OF TEMPORARY SITES SUCH AS HALL OFFICE AND COLLIN COLLEGE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED.

AND THESE CHANGES WOULD FORMALLY PROVIDE FOR THESE USES.

STAFF HAS COORDINATED WITH INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS TO DEVELOP REQUIREMENTS OF FOOD TRUCKS AS PERMANENT AND TEMPORARY SITES.

FOOD TRUCK COURTS MAY BE CREATED AS A PORTION OF A SITE DEVELOPMENT WITH PERMANENT FACILITIES LIMITED IN TIME OR DURATION OF OPERATION.

FOOD TRUCK TEMPORARY SITES WOULD BE ALLOWED IS FOR A PERIOD OF SIX MONTHS IN CONJUNCTION WITH AN EXISTING BUSINESS.

REQUIREMENTS FOR PERMITTING, PARKING, SANITARY FACILITIES, SANITATION, SEPARATION FROM ADJACENT USES AND OPERATIONAL LIMITATIONS WOULD PROVIDE BE PROVIDED BY AN ADDITIONAL FOOD TRUCK VENDOR STANDARDS IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES.

THE OPERATIONS OF FOOD TRUCKS ASSOCIATED TO PERMITTED SPECIAL EVENTS OR OTHER CITY ACTIVITIES ON PUBLIC PROPERTY REMAIN AT THE DISCRETION OF THE CITY.

THESE ADDITIONS DO NOT APPLY TO AT LARGE SHORT TERM MOBILE VENDOR OPERATIONS AT LARGE OPERATIONS WILL BE EVALUATED IN THE HEALTH ORDINANCE REVIEW LATER ON THIS YEAR.

STAFF SENT THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE CHAMBER OF COMMERCE AND PREVIOUS PERMITTED FOOD TRUCK VENDORS, AND AS OF YESTERDAY, NO COMMENTS WERE RECEIVED.

I DID SPEAK WITH THE CHAMBER EARLIER TODAY JUST TO SPEAK, JUST TO CLARIFY WHAT THE DEFINITION OF A FOOD TRUCK IS VERSUS LIKE TRAILER MOUNTED MOBILE OPERATIONS.

AND ACTUALLY THAT'S PART OF THIS REQUEST IN THE CODE OF ORDINANCES EXCUSE ME, IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IT'S RENAMING THOSE THAT TYPE OF USE FROM A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR TO A STATIONARY FOOD VENDOR.

SO PREVIOUS THOSE TRAILER MOUNTED OPERATIONS OR LIKE A CART PUSH OPERATION WAS A MOBILE FOOD VENDOR. AND WE'RE REQUESTING THOSE JUST FOR CLARITY AND TO STEER CUSTOMERS IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION THAT THEY'D NOW BE CALLED A STATIONARY FOOD VENDOR.

SO WE CLARIFIED THAT WITH THE CHAMBER.

AND I DO EXPECT TO CONTINUE TO COORDINATE WITH THEM WITH ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT ARE RECEIVED THROUGH THAT. THE CHAMBER.

STAFF RECOMMENDS A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS AS SHOWN ON THE FOLLOWING PAGES.

DELETIONS ARE RED STRIKETHROUGH.

ADDITIONS ARE BLUE [INAUDIBLE] BLUE UNDERLINE TO BE TO BE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.

LET ME JUST GET TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE DEFINITIONS AND SO FORTH.

I UNDERSTAND THE PERMANENT FACILITY HERE.

I THINK I UNDERSTAND A TEMPORARY FACILITY IF FROM A CASE PERSPECTIVE.

IF WE HAVE A FOOD TRUCK LIKE MI COCINA HAS A FOOD TRUCK, IN THE COVID WORLD.

THEY GO OUT TO A HOA EVENT AND AT THE POOL AND HAVE A FOOD TRUCK AND PEOPLE COME OVER AND GET THEIR FOOD. IS THAT COVERED UNDER THIS PARTICULAR ORDINANCE OR IS THAT THE HEALTH CODE ORDINANCE.

THAT WOULD [INAUDIBLE]. I'M SORRY.

GO AHEAD. THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE NEED TO BE EXPLORED AS PART OF THE HEALTH ORDINANCE FURTHER DOWN THE LINE.

[01:10:01]

CURRENTLY, THERE'S TWO REALLY AVENUES THAT THEY GO DOWN WHEN THEY DO THE HOA.

THEY DO PRIVATE PARTIES WHICH PRIVATE PARTIES WE'RE NOT INVOLVED IN.

SO IF AN HOA INVITE SOMEONE TO THEIR TO THEIR HOA CENTER AND ONLY THE PEOPLE WHO ARE INVITED, THE GUESTS COME AND THEIR SERVICED THERE, THAT'S A PRIVATE EVENT.

ON THE OTHER PART IS WHERE MI COCINA JUST SHOWS UP.

OK, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT'S REALLY NOT ADDRESSED AT ALL RIGHT NOW.

THEY THAT'S LIKE AN AT LARGE PERMIT.

SO WE'RE ISSUE WE WOULD ISSUE A PERMIT THROUGH [INAUDIBLE] AND MOBILE FOOD VENDORS WOULD JUST SURVEY THE CITY AND STOP WHERE THEY WANT.

SO THAT'S NOT BEEN ADDRESSED.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S CLEAR THAT WE'RE WE UNDERSTAND WHAT'S IN WHAT'S NOT IN AND WHAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED THROUGH OTHER ORDINANCES, WHICH SOUNDS LIKE THE HEALTH ORDINANCE WOULD ADDRESS MOBILE FOOD VENDORS.

WHICH WE WANT TO SUPPORT THEM TO A DEGREE AS LONG AS WE UNDERSTAND HEALTH AND SO FORTH.

BUT THIS IS ALL ABOUT THE FOOD COURTS AND MORE TEMPORARY OR PERMANENT.

AND SO WHEN YOU SAY ON A TEMPORARY USE ON A DEVELOPED SITE, A, THAT IS TYPICALLY A STATIONARY VEHICLE NOT MOVING IN AND OUT EVERY DAY, OR IS IT STILL FOOD TRUCKS ARE MOVING EVERY DAY. ARE THE SPOTS THERE, YOU KNOW, ALLOCATED WITH POWER AND WATER? WHAT'S REALLY DICTATES THAT? CORRECT. SO WE HAVE THAT STATIONARY WHICH WE'RE MOVING FROM THE MOBILE FOOD VENDOR TERM TO THE STATIONARY FOOD VENDOR TERM.

THAT'S YOUR TRAILER MOUNTED THINGS THAT AREN'T A VEHICLE MOUNTED OPERATION.

SO IT COULD BE JUST A CART THAT THEY HAD.

I THINK HOME DEPOT HAD A HOT DOG STAND OUT FOR MANY YEARS.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY DO ANYMORE.

THAT'S ALWAYS BEEN PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDINANCE.

SO I'M SORRY. I MISSED THAT [INAUDIBLE].

AND ME TOO. SO THAT WAS ALREADY PERMITTED AND THAT WILL BE CONTINUED TO BE PERMITTED.

IT WOULD ONLY BE RENAMED AS A STATIONARY FOOD VENDOR.

THE MOBILE EXCUSE ME, THE FOOD TRUCK TEMPORARY SITE WOULD HOST ACTUAL FOOD TRUCKS BY DEFINITION, WHICH ARE BASICALLY A RESTAURANT THAT IS ON MOUNTED ON A VEHICLE BY DEFINITION BY THE STATE OF TEXAS.

THEY'RE ALSO REGULATED BY THE STATE OF TEXAS.

MOBILE FOOD TRUCKS MUST GO TO A PREP SITE EVERY NIGHT SO THEY CAN GET ADDITIONAL REFRIGERATION, CLEAN THEIR VEHICLES, CREATE LOGS OF FOOD HANDLING.

IT'S VERY REGULATED, ACTUAL FOOD TRUCKS.

SO THERE ARE DIFFERENT AVENUES THAT YOU HAVE TO GO DOWN NAVIGATE TO HAVE OPERATIONS ON A SITE, WHETHER IT BE THE WHAT WE'RE GOING TO CALL A STATIONARY FOOD VENDOR OR A FOOD TRUCK. STATIONARY FOOD VENDORS ARE A LITTLE MORE REGULATED BECAUSE WE WANT TO KEEP THOSE HOT DOG STANDS A LITTLE BIT PUSHED BACK FROM THE MAJOR THOROUGHFARES, A LITTLE BIT CLOSER TO THE BUSINESSES THEY'RE OPERATING.

WE DON'T WANT THEM ON VACANT PARCELS OF LAND.

SO THEY'RE A LITTLE MORE NICHE AS FAR AS AND THEY'RE NOT REGULATED BY THE STATE AND THERE'S NOT ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THEM TAKING THEM OFF SITE EVERY DAY.

SO THERE IS DIFFERENT REGULATIONS FOR THE TWO.

EXCELLENT. COMMISSIONER KELLY.

I SEE THERE'S A LOT OF WORK BEING PUT INTO THIS, SO I'M NOT TRYING TO BE CRITICAL HERE.

I JUST WAS TRYING TO VISUALIZE WHERE THIS MIGHT BE IN FRISCO.

AND I'LL TELL YOU WHY.

I THOUGHT ABOUT, LIKE AT OUR ATHLETIC FACILITIES, YOU KNOW, WHERE YOU'D HAVE YOU MIGHT HAVE THE SAME FOOD TRUCK SHOW UP EVERY SATURDAY FOR SOCCER GAMES OR FOOTBALL OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT THERE'S A THERE'S A PROVISION IN HERE THAT SAYS THAT THE FOOD THAT STATIONARY FOOD VENDORS SHOULD BE LOCATED WITHIN 50 FEET OF AN ENTRANCE OF A PRIMARY BUILDING THAT HOLDS A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY, WHICH MEANS A BUILDING.

AND THEN I READ SOMEWHERE ELSE WHERE YOU HAVE TO HAVE ACCESS TO RESTROOM FACILITIES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. OK, SO THIS ISN'T TO SET IT UP AROUND THE BALLPARKS.

THIS IS THE CENTERED AROUND SOME EXISTING BUILDING THAT EXISTS THAT WOULD ALLOW THIS.

SO I WAS TRYING TO VISUALIZE WHERE WOULD THAT BE? SO. HAPPEN IN FRISCO.

ONE PICTURE HERE IS FRISCO MERCANTILE.

SO POSSIBLY FRISCO MERCANTILE COULD COME FOR A TEMPORARY FOOD TRUCK SITE, SUBMIT AN APPLICATION WITH BUILDING INSPECTIONS FOR A IT'S ALMOST LIKE AN EXTENSION OF THEIR CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY.

SO IF THERE IS SOME STAFF DISCRETION IN THERE AS FAR AS THE PARKING IS PARKING BEING ACCOMMODATED, IS THE BATHROOMS BEING ACCOMMODATED.

SO WE WOULD ISSUE A TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY TO FRISCO MERCANTILE TO HAVE

[01:15:01]

SO THESE FOOD TRUCKS.

THEY HAVE TO GO BACK AND BE REPLENISHED EVERY NIGHT AND THEY HAVE TO BE SERVICED, I GUESS.

BUT THEY WOULD HAVE A DESIGNATED SPOT AND THEY COME BACK EVERY DAY OR EVERY OPERATIONAL TIME TO THE SAME PLACE.

AND THAT'S WHEN WE'RE CALLING IT A PERMANENT FACILITY.

CUSTOMERS TO GO USE THE FACILITIES.

IT WOULD BE AN EXTENDED PERMANENT.

SO WE HAVE THE PERMANENT FOOD TRUCK COURT.

IT WOULD BE LIKE A DEVELOPER WHO COMES AND SAYS, I WANT TO DEVELOP A PARCEL OF LAND AS A FOOD TRUCK COURT. THEN WE HAD THE TEMPORARY FACILITIES, WHICH WOULD BE AN EXISTING BUILDING THAT WANTS TO HAVE FOOD TRUCKS ASSOCIATED TO THEIR BUSINESS THAT HAS THE FACILITIES TO SUPPORT THAT FUNCTION.

LIKE FRISCO MERCANTILE, POSSIBLY.

SO, YEAH, BUT ABSOLUTELY.

FOOD TRUCKS, THEY WOULD LEAVE THE SITE EVERY DAY AND THEY WOULD COME BACK AT ANY TIME AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PERSON WHO OPERATES THAT EXISTING BUSINESS AS LONG AS THEY'RE OPEN.

COMMISSIONER KELLY, JUST FOR AS AN EXAMPLE, AS I SEE IT PRETTY REGULARLY ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS AT NEBRASKA FURNITURE, YOU'LL HAVE FOUR TRUCKS OUT THERE.

AND THIS IS SOMETHING YOU COULD SEE IT LIKE AN IKEA IN FRISCO WHERE THEY HAVE THE TRAFFIC COUNT, TO USE THE WORD, JUSTIFY HAVING A FEW FOOD TRUCKS IN THAT PARKING LOT.

AND THE IKEA WOULD ALLOW THE PEOPLE TO GO IN AND USE THE FACILITIES.

YES, BECAUSE IT'S IT'S THE WHOLE REASON WHY.

YES, YES.

YEAH. FOOT TRAFFIC. I MEAN, THEY'RE THERE AND, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T MIND WAITING FOR THEIR ORDER OR PICKUP TRUCK OR ANYTHING BECAUSE THEY CAN GO EAT WHILE THEY'RE THERE.

AND [INAUDIBLE] BUT I THINK ONE ONE POINT IS BOB'S FOOD TRUCK MAY NOT BE THE FOOD TRUCK THAT COMES THE NEXT DAY AND MAYBE SALLY'S FOOD TRUCK, IT WOULD BE A FOOD TRUCK.

IT JUST MAY NOT BE THE SAME ONE.

ABSOLUTELY. WE WOULD ON A SITE PLAN, WE WOULD APPROVE OF QUANTITY AND LOCATION, AND IT WOULD BE UP TO THE OPERATIONS OF THE OF THE FOOD TRUCKS WHO COMES TO THAT SITE.

IT WOULD BE GOING THE PERMIT THE EXTENSION FOR THE TEMPORARY CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY WOULD BE FOR SIX MONTHS.

AND WE MADE IT FOR SIX MONTHS SO THAT POSSIBLY SOMETHING DIDN'T WORK IN THAT SIX MONTHS.

POSSIBLY WE HAD SOME ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS THAT WERE TROUBLED BY THE COMING AND GOING OF THE TRAFFIC.

SO WE COULD SAY, NO, WE NEED TO EITHER MODIFY THEIR OPERATIONS OR WE NEED OR IT'S GOOD AND LET'S MOVE FORWARD AND ISSUE ANOTHER SIX MONTHS.

SO THAT WOULD GIVE THEM SOME LONG TERM STABILITY AND LET THEM RECOUP SOME OF THE COST OF POSSIBLY WHAT IT TOOK TO STAND UP AN OPERATION AND MOVE FORWARD.

ADDITIONALLY, WE HAVE HALL OFFICE RIGHT NOW AND WE HAVE COLLIN COLLEGE.

I'M NOT SURE THEY'RE DOING IT STILL WITH COVID, BUT OR HALL OFFICE FOR THAT FACT.

BUT THEY WERE DOING SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR TO HEALTH PERMITS, ALMOST LIKE A TEST CASE TO SEE HOW IT WORKED. SO WAS COMMISSIONER KELLY CORRECT IN STATING THAT YOU HAD TO BE 50 FOOT FROM THE BUILDING IS THE MAX? SO WHAT HE WAS QUOTING SPECIFICALLY IN HERE IS FOR THE STATIONARY FOOD VENDOR, WHICH WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT LANGUAGE.

ALL WE'RE CHANGING IS THE NAME.

SO THOSE STATIONARY FOOD VENDORS THEY WENT FROM MOBILE TO STATIONARY THAT'S YOUR TRAILERS AND YOUR CARTS. LIKE THE HOME DEPOT HOT DOG STAND, THEY DID HAVE TO BE WITHIN 50 FEET OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING AND 100 FOOT BACK FROM A MAJOR THOROUGHFARE BACK UP CURB.

THE REASON IS, IS WE WANTED TO GET THOSE THOSE OPERATIONS CAN STAY THERE ALL THE TIME.

THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE NOT.

YOU CAN PARK A TRAILER THERE AND LEAVE IT THERE 365 DAYS A YEAR.

SO WE WANTED IT CLOSE TO THE BUSINESS, BUT A LITTLE BIT BACK FROM THOROUGHFARE.

SO JUST TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND A SITUATION LIKE THAT.

SOMEBODY HAS A, YOU KNOW, A PUSH CART HOT DOG STAND OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT.

THEY CAN'T GO UP AND DOWN THROUGH THE PARKING LOT AT FC DALLAS STADIUM.

THEY NEED TO BE 50 FOOT IN 50 FOOT AT THE FRONT OF THE ENTRANCE OF THE BUILDING.

AND THAT RULES ALREADY EXISTING.

IT'S ALREADY EXISTING NOT PROPOSED HAS CHANGED.

THAT RULES ALREADY EXISTING, JUST THE TITLE OF IT IS CHANGED.

CORRECT. OK, SO I'M HAPPY.

ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANKS FOR THAT.

I APPRECIATE IT. YES SIR.

SO DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED.

MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO. A 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. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO.

SO WE'RE OUT OF PUBLIC HEARING.

MS. COLBERG I HAD A COMMENT THAT COULD BE MOBILE OR STATIONARY.

AND YOU JUMPED IN THERE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE I COULD SAY IT.

RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

[LAUGHTER] BUT THEY'RE ALL WITHIN 50 FOOT.

[01:20:02]

[LAUGHTER] I'M SO HAPPY FOR YOU TO GET TO WORK ON THIS.

SEE WE'RE NICE. ONE OF THE HARDEST WORKING GUYS IN THE CITY.

IT'S LIKE THE GUY, THE PERSON WHO HAS TO WORK THE LUGGAGE.

YEAH. CART AT THE AIRPORT, YOU KNOW, ALWAYS GETS DEALS WITH, YOU KNOW, SOME TOUGH ISSUES.

SO GREAT JOB ON THIS.

SO WE REALLY DO APPRECIATE IT.

I'M GOING TO OPEN IT UP FOR QUESTIONS.

I'LL JUST GO DOWN THE ROAD HERE.

COMMISSIONER CONE, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE READY TO SAY SOMETHING.

I AM. I JUST GOT A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS PHILLIP THAT I SENT TO STAFF EARLIER.

I DON'T KNOW IF THEY GOT FORWARDED TO YOU OR NOT, BUT HOPEFULLY THEY'RE PRETTY EASY.

ON SECTION TWENTY TWO, THREE THREE FOUR.

IT'S CALLED THE TIME AND DURATION SECTION AND IT TALKS IN THERE ABOUT PROFESSIONAL SPORTS AND CONCERTS AND ALLOWING LIKE ONE HOUR BEFORE AND AFTER IF THERE'S A PROFESSIONAL SPORTS OR PROFESSIONAL CONCERT.

MY CONCERN WAS MORE ABOUT MAYBE IF THERE'S A BETTER WAY OF LABELING THAT TO REFER TO THE THE LARGE CAPACITY VENUE, WHICH WAS SOMETHING THAT ANTHONY HAD RECOMMENDED OR MENTIONED TO ME THAT, WHETHER IT'S A PROFESSIONAL OR AMATEUR EVENT GOING ON IN THERE, IT HAS THE SAME NUMBER OF PEOPLE A LARGE NUMBER OF PEOPLE.

TO ME, IT MAKES SENSE NOT TO NOT TO LABEL IT AS PROFESSIONAL, BUT SOMEHOW TARGET THE VENUES THAT WE'RE TRYING TO TARGET.

AGREED. DOES THAT MAKES SENSE? YES. THEN THE SECOND QUESTION IS JUST ON THE ONE HOUR BEFORE, LET'S GO BACK TO THE FIRST QUESTION.

WAS THERE A CHANGE THAT WAS REQUIRED THAT WE WOULD NEED TO NOTE IN A MOTION OR.

YES, THAT WE RECOMMEND? WE CAN EITHER JUST RECOMMEND THAT STAFF REVISE THE WORDING OR WE COULD TRY TO WORDSMITH IT OURSELVES HERE. I'M FINE EITHER WAY.

I'D RATHER JUST RECOMMEND THAT THEY REPLACE THE WORD PROFESSIONAL WITH ANOTHER DESCRIPTOR. SO, PHILLIP.

DO YOU AGREE THAT THAT NEEDS TO BE DONE? YES, I DO. ACTUALLY READING THAT AGAIN THIS AFTERNOON, IT WAS VERY SPECIFIC TO PROFESSIONAL AND THAT WASN'T REALLY THE INTENT.

IT WAS REALLY ABOUT THE VENUE, NOT THE ACTIVITY.

I KNOW WHAT YOU MEANT. YOU.

IT WAS IT WAS TRYING TO SAY VENUES WITHOUT SAYING VENUES.

SO IT WASN'T INTENDED THAT THAT THE EXCEPTION APPLIED TO THINGS THAT MAY BE VERY CLOSE TO RESIDENTIAL, SINGLE FAMILY OR EVEN WITHIN NEIGHBORHOOD UNITS.

SO.

DOES YOUR DESIRE TO TO DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN AMATEUR AND PROFESSIONAL BASED OFF LIKE HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL STADIUM OR FRISCO FOOTBALL LEAGUE STADIUM VERSUS FC DALLAS? NO, IT WAS TRULY MEANT TO.

SO THAT THE EXCEPTION APPLIES TO DR.

PEPPER STAR CENTER, THE MULTI PURPOSE EVENT CENTER, THE TOYOTA STADIUM AND THINGS OF THAT CAPACITY AND NOT NECESSARILY.

OURS.

NOT NECESSARILY SMALLER EVENTS THAT THAT DON'T NEED THAT TYPE OF EXCEPTION.

SO WITH IT SO WE MADE A MOTION TO UPDATE THE DEFINITION LANGUAGE.

MAKE A MOTION TO CORRELATE THE EXCEPTION FOR THE ONE HOUR TO VENUE CAPACITY, NOT PROFESSIONAL OR AMATEUR SPORTING EVENTS WHAT WOULD BE YOUR RECOMMENDATION TO CAPACITY THEN? TWENTY FIVE THOUSAND. I'M CONFUSED BECAUSE FC DALLAS HOLDS 21, I THINK.

YOU SAID 2500 I THINK THAT'S WHAT I PULLED UP ON THE [INAUDIBLE].

IMMA SUGGEST THAT WE'LL HEAR ABOUT STEVE, WHATEVER OTHER COMMENTS THAT WE MAY JUST TABLE IT AND JUST BRING IT BACK.

OR IF IT'S NUMBER OF WORDSMITHING BECAUSE I PREFER Y'ALL BE ACTING ON A CLEAN COPY.

OK, WE WERE GOING TO GET THERE.

MR. CONE YOUR SECOND ITEM? SECOND ONE'S AN EASIER ONE JUST ON THE ONE HOUR BEFORE AND AFTER. IT'S JUST THAT SEEMS SHORT TO ME, NOT KNOWING THE SPECIFIC DETAILS OF WHAT EVENT IS HAPPENING. I DON'T KNOW IF WE COULD SIMPLY JUST SET THAT ALONG EITHER 90 MINUTES OR TWO HOURS OR THREE HOURS OR SOMETHING THAT I KIND OF THINK THE MARKET WILL TAKE CARE OF ITSELF IN THIS IF WE'RE IF WE'RE DOING IT IN THE RIGHT PLACES WHERE IT'S NOT, YOU KNOW, NEAR SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOODS AND STUFF, THAT THERE MAY BE THERE MAY BE MAJOR EVENTS

[01:25:02]

THE CONCERN WAS ABOUT THE RESTROOMS STAYING OPEN.

AND I WOULD BE OK WITH A STIPULATION BEING THAT, YOU KNOW, THEY CAN OPERATE FOR TWO HOURS BEFORE, TWO HOURS AFTER AS LONG AS THE RESTROOMS ARE AVAILABLE DURING THE WHOLE TIME OR SOMETHING. SO.

IS THE RULE. ARE WE DEALING WITH AFTER OR ARE WE DEALING WITH BEFORE AS WELL? IT IS BOTH, AND THAT'S ABSOLUTELY THE CASE.

IT'S TIED TO SANITATION AND AVAILABILITY OF RESTROOMS. BUT THERE IS THE CAVEAT IN THE STATEMENT THAT IT'S THEY CAN ALSO REQUEST LONGER THROUGH THE BUILDING OFFICIAL APPROVAL.

AND THAT WOULD BE WHERE THEY CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT THEY ACTUALLY HAVE FACILITIES BECAUSE THEY MAY HAVE TEMPORARY FACILITIES.

BECAUSE THERE IS A VARIANCE APPROACH IS WHAT YOU'RE STATING? BECAUSE I THINK ABOUT I THINK ABOUT A LOT OF THINGS.

I THINK ABOUT OUR JIMMY BUFFETT CONCERTS WE HAD HERE IN AN HOUR BEFORE WOULD NOT NECESSARILY DO US ANY GOOD TAILGATING AND THOSE TYPES OF THINGS.

I CAN SEE AN HOUR AFTER OR NOT TO, YOU KNOW, OR NOT TO EXCEED MIDNIGHT OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. I THINK THAT COULD BE FURTHER CLARIFIED IN TERMS OF A MAJOR EVENT.

YOU KNOW, I ALSO THINK THE OTHER, SO WE ONLY HAVE ONE VENUE RIGHT NOW.

IT'S OVER 25000, WHICH IS PROBABLY TOYOTA.

BUT WE ALSO HAVE THE PGA, WHICH COULD HOLD PROBABLY 60000.

SO IN THAT VENUE, IT JUST HAPPENS TO BE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF VENUE.

SO FOR A LOT OF EVENTS LIKE JIMMY BUFFETT, THERE'S ALSO A SPECIAL EVENT ASSOCIATED TO IT THAT GOES TO THE CITY. AND THIS ORDINANCE IS NOT APPLICABLE AT ALL.

TWO FOLLOW UP COMMENTS.

[INAUDIBLE] SO WITH THE PGA TOURNAMENTS, WOULD THAT BE A SPECIAL EVENT? MOST LIKELY THERE WOULD BE A SPECIAL EVENT ASSOCIATED TO IT WHERE THEY COORDINATE WITH THE CITY, THE GLOBAL PICTURE OF EVERYTHING THEY DO.

ALL RIGHT. FOOD TRUCKS, WOULD IT BE APPROVED AS PART OF THAT.

AND I AM OF THE MINDSET WITH COMMISSIONER CONE TO THE ONE HOUR BEFORE AND AFTER PROBABLY IS ARBITRARY AND NOT NECESSARILY BASED ON THE TYPES OF EVENTS WE HAVE HERE.

MAYBE WE WANT MIGHT WANT TO LOOK AT THAT IF WE DO TABLE IT JUST A LITTLE BIT.

WE DO HAVE TO HAVE THE FACILITIES AS LONG AS THE FACILITIES ARE OPEN THAT ARE REQUIRED FOR RESTROOMS. BUT.

COMMISSIONER COX, I'M THINKING NOW, YOU KNOW, 90 MINUTES OR EVEN TWO HOURS OR SOMETHING THAT JUST GIVES A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY WITHOUT GOING TOO FAR, BECAUSE THERE IS THE VARIANCE. YOU KNOW, IF SOMEONE HAS A SPECIAL EVENT THAT NEEDS FOUR HOURS, FIVE HOURS, THEY COULD ASK FOR THAT.

SO, COMMISSIONER COLBERG, YOU HAD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS.

WELL, AND THAT'S WHAT I'M KIND OF SEEING IN HERE.

THE VERBIAGE SAYS OR OTHERWISE APPROVED BY THE BUILDING OFFICIALS.

SO IT SEEMS LIKE THAT'S ALREADY BUILT IN THERE TO HAVE SOME FLOAT.

AND THEN MY SECOND QUESTION IS, IF WE PUT IN THERE PERMITTED TO OPERATE FOR PICK THREE HOURS, ARE WE NOW THEN PIGEONHOLING THESE EVENT CENTERS TO ALSO STAY OPEN IN WHICH THEY WOULDN'T HAVE NECESSARILY AT THOSE TIMES, AND NOW THEY HAVE TO MAKE SURE THE RESTROOMS ARE AVAILABLE OR WHATNOT.

BUT. LIKE LET'S SAY AGAIN, IT WAS IKEA WE'LL USE THEM AS EXAMPLE EARLIER, BUT LET'S SAY THEY'RE NORMAL BUSINESS HOURS ARE TO OPEN UP AT 11:00.

AND THEN NOW THAT THIS HAS PERMITTED TO OPERATE FOR THREE HOURS, ARE THEY GOING TO HAVE TO DO A SPECIAL OPEN JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT THOSE RESTROOMS ARE AVAILABLE? I DON'T KNOW. I'M ASSUMING THAT THE THAT THE FOOD TRUCKS THAT ARE GOING TO THESE TEMPORARY LOCATIONS HAVE A CONTRACT WITH THE VENDOR THAT THE LAND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO PARTICIPATE IN. AND THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE STATING YOU HAVE TO BE OPEN TWO HOURS BEFORE OR TWO HOURS AFTER, ONE HOUR BEFORE OR ONE HOUR AFTER.

CORRECT? YOU'LL ONLY HAVE TO BE OPEN FOR AN IKEA OR A FRISCO MERCANTILE AT THE TIME THAT THE FOOD TRUCKS ARE OPERATING AND THEN THE FOOD TRUCKS NEED TO DEMOBILIZES IS REASONABLE AS REASONABLE TIME AS POSSIBLE.

THE SPECIAL EVENT IS WHEN YOU PEOPLE HAVE PEOPLE COMING INTO IT FOR A LONG TIME PERIOD OF TIME, SHOWING UP EARLY OR HANGING OUT AFTERWARDS.

SO THAT'S WHERE THIS SPECIAL CONDITION COMES IN TO ALLOW FOR A LONGER PERIOD OF TIME.

COMMISSIONER COLBERG'S POINT THE VARIANCE MAY TAKE CARE OF THAT.

BUT IF THERE'S RULES THAT WE WANT TO IF WE ARE TABLING TO FIX THIS FIRST DEFINITION, TAKE A LOOK. I WOULD ADVISE TAKING A LOOK AT THAT AND JUST SEE IT FROM A SITUATIONAL COMPONENT THAT MAKES SENSE TO BE AN HOUR.

YOU PROBABLY ALREADY HAVE. BUT I DO THINK POST EVENT AND PRE EVENT, WE MIGHT WANT TO NOT HAVE TO GO TO VARIANCE ON OUR STANDARD TYPE EVENTS LIKE THAT.

[INAUDIBLE] I WANT TO ADD I FIND WHAT PHILLIP SAID IS WHEN THERE'S A WAIVER, IF THAT'S

[01:30:02]

THEY DON'T HAVE TO GO THROUGH A FORMAL PROCESS.

SO IT'S ADMINISTRATIVE AND I'D MUCH RATHER KEEP IT THAT WAY.

YOU KNOW, LIKE HOW IT'S STATED IN THEIR AUDITS AND GIVE PHILIP THE FLEXIBILITY.

I MEAN, THAT'S JUST COMMON SENSE.

AND YOU NEVER KNOW OF THE UNEXPECTED.

SO THAT'S WHY IT CERTAINTY AS IT IS.

AND THE WAY I THINK OF IT IS, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE A CONCERT THAT ENDS AT MIDNIGHT AND WE STILL HAVE FOOD TRUCKS THERE AT TWO O'CLOCK, THAT MAY BE A BURDEN ON THE RESPONSE OF POLICE TO GO OUT THERE AND SHUT TRUCKS DOWN THERE AND MAKE A LOT OF GENERATOR NOISE AND ABOVE AND BEYOND, POSSIBLY THE SANITATION PROBLEM WITH BATHROOMS NOT BEING AVAILABLE.

SO THAT'S WHERE I'M COMING FROM, RIGHT.

IF WE'RE GOING IF WE'RE LEAN TOWARDS TABLING IT, I THINK WE WOULD MOVE TO THAT RECOMMENDATION SOONER THAN LATER.

AND, YOU KNOW, I FEEL A RESPONSIBILITY OF IF I SEE THINGS IN THE AGENDA.

I MEAN, THERE'S OBVIOUSLY PUBLIC COMMENT, BUT THESE ARE THINGS THAT ARE PRIVATE, OFFLINE CONVERSATIONS THAT WE CAN APPROACH STAFF BEFORE THIS MEETING.

AND I DON'T THINK THEY HAVE TO BE ONE SURPRISED BY IT.

AND I REALIZE THERE'S ALWAYS EXCEPTIONS, BUT I THINK IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE CONSIDER THAT. AND I KNOW I NEED TO WORK ON THAT IS A LOT OF MY QUESTIONS.

I SHOULD WE GET OUR AGENDA ON FRIDAY AND WE CAN REACH OUT ON FRIDAY, SATURDAY, SUNDAY, MONDAY, AND NOT ALWAYS HAVE ALL OUR QUESTIONS HERE AT THIS FORUM.

THAT'S JUST MY PERSONAL FEELING.

WELL, I THINK RIGHT NOW ARE WE GOING, I THINK ITEM THE FIRST TIME WE TALK ABOUT DEFINING THE VENUE NEEDS TO BE DONE, GET THAT RIGHT.

AND SO WE DO NEED TO TABLE IT TO DO THAT.

ANYTHING ELSE THAT COMMISSIONERS WANT TO INPUT ON? I'M FINE.

AS WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT WITH THE VARIANCE PROCESS, IF IT IS GOING THROUGH, I'M NOT HAVING TO GO THROUGH A LARGE FORMAL PROCESS.

I'M FINE WITH THAT. SO.

MR. COX CAN WE HAVE STAFF TO LOOK AT THE 25000 NUMBER AND KIND OF REVIEW THAT.

AND I WAS KIND OF SEEMS A LITTLE HIGH TO ME, BUT BASED ON WHAT YOU GUYS SAID ABOUT THE OTHER MAJOR VENUES, SO MAYBE THEY CAN COME BACK WITH US, KIND OF A REASONABLE THRESHOLD OF WHERE TO CUT OFF THE MAJOR VENUES AND WHAT VENUES.

WHAT VENUES THAT APPLIES TO, RIGHT NOW IT'S ONLY ONE.

SURE I CAN PROVIDE A LIST.

YEAH THAT WOULD BE GREAT. OK, STAFF YOU HAVE IF WE DID TABLE THIS, DO YOU HAVE ENOUGH TO TO WORK ON.

WELL ARE THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS? NOT THAT. I THINK WE CAN'T PERSONALLY REACH OUT STAFF.

OK, WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST THAT IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS HAVING TO FILL UP BY THURSDAY, THIS WEEK, FIVE O'CLOCK, AND THEN I WOULD TABLE THIS FOR A MONTH TO THE FEBRUARY TWENTY THIRD CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL.

BUT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, THE REASON FOR THAT WOULD BE GET YOUR COMMENTS IN BY THURSDAY. THAT GIVES US TIME TO REVIEW THOSE AND THEN GET RYAN'S COMMENTS ON IT BEFORE WE BRING IT BACK TO YOU.

ONCE AGAIN, GOOD WORK ON THIS.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS TO FEBRUARY TWENTY THIRD AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ? MOVE TO TABLE ITEM TWELVE TO THE FEBRUARY TWENTY THIRD PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE.

ANY OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO.

SO WE ARE TABLED UNTIL FEBRUARY 23RD.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM THIRTEEN, RESULTS OF THE JANUARY 19 TWENTY TWENTY ONE CITY COUNCIL

[13. Results of the January 19, 2021 City Council meeting.]

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT. ITEM 14.

THANK YOU, ANTHONY. ITEM 14, SCHEDULE FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS.

[14. Schedule of future discussion items.]

THAT WOULD BE JUST SOMEONE THAT'S A LEAD FOR OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT.

I JUST LIKE TO MARK UP THE PAVEMENT.

TRAFFIC GRAFFITI BY TRAFFIC ENGINEER.

AND SO.

AND MANY FOLKS WOULD LIKE THE TRAFFIC SIGNALS WHERE HE'S PUTTING THEM.

SO WE'LL GIVE HIM A LITTLE LEEWAY ON THAT.

ANY OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS SIDE OF THE DAIS? ALL RIGHT. JUST LEAVES US ONE THING THIS EVENING.

GO AHEAD. DO I HEAR A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE.

MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO.

WE'RE ADJOURNED AT 8:08. THANKS FOR COMING OUT.

THANK Y'ALL.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.