[00:00:04] THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRISCO PLANNING AND [CALL TO ORDER] ZONING COMMISSION, WE'RE GATHERING AT 6101 FRISCO SQUARE BOULEVARD AND THE TIME IS 6:30 P.M. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSISTS OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT'S COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE COMMISSIONER CONE, COMMISSIONER KENDALL, COMMISSIONER BOX, OUR VICE CHAIR. COMMISSIONER KELLY, OUR SECRETARY. COMMISSIONER COLBERG. COMMISSIONER MORGAN. I'M ROB COX. I'M YOUR CHAIR FOR THIS EVENING. REPRESENTING STAFF THIS EVENING FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES. WE HAVE JOHN LETTELLEIR, ANTHONY SATARINO, CYNDIE FARABAUGH AND CHRIS LEONARD. FROM ENGINEERING WE HAVE JASON GRIMM AND JOEL FITTS. FROM FIRE WE HAVE JOHN GILLETTE. FROM LEGAL WE HAVE RYAN PITTMAN. DID I MISS ANYONE THIS EVENING, WE'RE ALL GOOD. I DIDN'T HAVE TO SAY [INAUDIBLE] NAME THIS EVENING. EXCELLENT. I'VE BEEN PRACTICING. ALL RIGHT. THE FIRST ITEM ON THE 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. YOU WILL HAVE A CHANCE TO SPEAK DURING THE EIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS LATER THIS EVENING AS WELL. 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 MUST ADDRESS THE COMMISSION THROUGH A TRANSLATOR IN WHICH YOU HAVE YOU MAY HAVE A MAXIMUM OF TEN MINUTES. PLEASE NOTE THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION 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 ITEM. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK DURING CITIZEN INPUT THIS EVENING? OK, WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS AFTER AWHILE. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] ALL RIGHT. ITEM TWO APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON JANUARY 26, 2021. COMMISSIONERS ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS, CHANGES TO THE MEETING MINUTES OR DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. MOVE TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM THE JANUARY 26 MEETING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0 ITEM TWO IS APPROVED. [CONSENT AGENDA] NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. ANY COMMISSION MEMBER MAKING SUCH REQUEST PRIOR TO A MOTION AND VOTE ON CONSENT ITEMS MAY CONSIDER ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY. ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MAY DO SO WITH THE MAJORITY APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE ITEMS THREE THROUGH TEN THIS EVENING. COMMISSIONERS, ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR ANY INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION OR DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEMS THREE THROUGH 10. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS 3 THROUGH TEN. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ARE APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. TONIGHT WE HAVE EIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA. [11. Public Hearing - Replat: Preston Ridge Addition CCCCD, Block A, Lot 1R (RP21-0001)] I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS. 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 PROVIDED 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 THEIR COMMENTS, PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. REPEAT APPEARANCES TO PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED UNLESS YOU'RE ASKED A QUESTION BY THE COMMISSION. AFTER ALL PERSONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK AT 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 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. ALL RIGHT. FIRST UP IS ITEM 11 PUBLIC HEARING. REPLAT. PRESTON RIDGE ADDITION CCCCD. BLOCK A LOT 1R RP21-0001 OWNERS, COLIN COUNTY COMMUNITY COLLEGE DISTRICT. [00:05:06] THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE JANUARY 12TH, 2021 MEETING AND DOES NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE. MOVE TO REMOVE ITEM ELEVEN FROM THE TABLE. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0. ITEM 11 HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TABLE. THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE]. MR. SATARINO DOES IT ALSO, DO WE NEED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AS WELL? YES, A PUBLIC HEARING WAS CONTINUED, SO AND THE APPLICANT IS WITHDRAWING. SO STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN ACCEPT THE APPLICANTS WITHDRAWAL OF THE PROJECT. MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. HANG ON IS THE APPLICANT HERE, AND WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK. I DON'T BELIEVE SO. OKAY GO AHEAD. MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 ZERO. A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. SO, ANTHONY, YOU STATED THAT THE APPLICANT WISHES TO WITHDRAW. YES, THAT IS CORRECT. OK. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANTS WITHDRAW. SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES 6 0. ITEM ELEVEN IS [INAUDIBLE]. [12. Public Hearing - Replat:: Meadowbrook Addition, Block 7, Lot 1R (RP21-0002)] ITEM TWELVE. PUBLIC HEARING REPLAT MEADOWBROOK ADDITION BLOCK 7. LOT 1R RP21-0002 OWNERS FOR FRISCO FAMILY SERVICES CENTER. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. THIS REPLAT CONFORMS TO SITE PLAN SP NINETEEN ZERO ZERO TWO FOUR THAT THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED ON JULY TWENTY THIRD 2019. THE REQUIRED INFRASTRUCTURE HAS BEEN INSTALLED FOR THE APPROVED CONSTRUCTION SET AND THE PROJECT IS NEARING COMPLETION. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. OKAY IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD THEY CARE TO SPEAK? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES 6 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 12 AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE ANY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES 6 0. ITEM 12 IS APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. ITEM 13, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING. [13. Public Hearing - Zoning: Amendment to Ordinance No. 05-09-75 - Fairwater (Z21-0001)] AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-09-75 FAIRWATER (Z21-0001). OWNERS, MULTIPLE OWNERS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SO THESE NEXT FIVE ZONING CASES ARE PART OF A DEVELOPMENT SERVICES INITIATION TO IDENTIFY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE EITHER TOWNHOME OR IN SOME CASES MULTIFAMILY ZONING, BUT HAVE DEVELOPED TWO DIFFERENT USES. SO THIS FIRST ONE THIS EVENING FOR THE FAIRWATER SUBDIVISION, IT HAS A REMAINDER TOWNHOME TRACK. SO THE STAFF IS CLEANING UP THE ZONING AND ZONING THE SUBDIVISION TO SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. OK, IS THE CITY INITIATING HERE? YES. THESE NEXT FIVE CASES ARE CITY INITIATED ZONING CASES. I'LL JUST ASK JUST TO MAKE SURE IT'S ON RECORD. ABSOLUTELY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES SIX 0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. SO JUST TO VALIDATE THIS FOR THE PUBLIC, ANYBODY WATCHING ON VIDEO WHEN WE HAVE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE COMPLETED THAT ARE, FOR EXAMPLE, THIS ONE, IT WAS ZONED RESIDENTIAL SINGLE FAMILY AND TOWNHOME. THAT'S CORRECT. YES. BECAUSE IT WAS COMPLETELY BUILT OUT AS SINGLE FAMILY. THERE'S NO REASON FOR THAT TOWNHOME. THAT'S CORRECT. ZONING. AND SO BY CHANGING THIS TO JUST SINGLE FAMILY, IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD [00:10:02] FLOOD, TORNADO FIRE, IT WOULD BE REBUILT ONLY AS A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT. THAT'S CORRECT. OK. ALL RIGHT. I PROBABLY WILL REPEAT THAT AGAIN TONIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 13? I DO HAVE ONE RECOMMENDATION OF STAFF BEFORE THE MOTION. IN THE DESCRIPTION. AND I BELIEVE THIS IS THE DESCRIPTION THAT GOES TO THE HOMEOWNERS [INAUDIBLE] THE FOLKS WITHIN A CERTAIN RADIUS. IT'S A LITTLE CONFUSING THE WAY IT READS BECAUSE IT READS A REQUEST TO AMEND A PORTION OF ORDINANCE, NO, ET CETERA, ET CETERA, AND THEN I'LL RESTART ALL RESTART AND TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN AND TOWNHOME TO SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN. AND IT SAYS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN AND TOWNHOME. RIGHT. IT'S JUST CONFUSING. I WONDER IF THERE'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO SAY CURRENTLY ZONED OR TO RESTATE THAT IN THE FUTURE. SURE. JUST AN ITEM FOR STAFF TO CONSIDER NO ACTION. SO I WILL SAY, ASIDE FROM THE LEGALESE, IF YOU WILL, OF THE DESCRIPTION, THE PROPERTY OWNER NOTICES THAT WERE SENT OUT DID CONTAIN ANOTHER STATEMENT THAT SOUGHT TO PROVIDE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY THAT THIS IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, THAT THE TOWNHOME ZONING WOULD BE GOING AWAY AND IT WOULD BE ZONED TO SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN. AND THEN ALSO TO CLARIFY TWO ON THE WEBSITE, WE DID PUT THAT SIMILAR DISCUSSION ON THE WEBSITE. SO ANYBODY VISITING THE CITY WEBSITE WOULD HAVE THAT INFORMATION AS WELL. BUT I UNDERSTAND. I THINK THAT HELPS THE RESIDENTS QUITE A BIT. SURE. NOW, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 13. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM THIRTEEN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE ANY OPPOSED. THE MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO ITEM 13 IS APPROVED. [14. Public Hearing - Zoning: Amendment to Ordinance No. 12-11-75 (Z21-0002)] ITEM 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS. ZONING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 12-11-75 (Z21-0002) OWNERS. MULTIPLE OWNERS. THANK YOU MR. CHAIR. SO SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ZONING CASE STAFF IS LOOKING TO CLEAN UP THE ZONING ON THIS PROJECT. THIS IS FOR THE LEXINGTON SUBDIVISION. THERE IS A MULTIFAMILY ZONE TRACK THAT HAS DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY. SO WITH THIS REQUEST AND STAFF IS REQUESTING TO ZONE THIS AREA TO PATIO HOME, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. ONCE AGAIN, THE CITY IS THE APPLICANT HERE CORRECT. THAT IS CORRECT. I DO HAVE A QUESTION IN TERMS OF PATIO HOMES. WHERE IS THIS ALL THESE HOMES, PATIO HOME, OR IS THIS THE MINIMUM BUILD? THE MINIMUM BUILD? YES. OK, SO SOME OF THESE ARE LARGER THAN PATIO HOME SITES. I BELIEVE SOME OF THEM COULD FALL INTO A LITTLE BIT LARGER, BUT BY AND LARGE, THEY'RE MOSTLY PATIO HOMES. FINALLY, THIS DOES NOT IMPACT THE PUBLIC, AT THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR PRIVATE STREETS, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THIS HAS THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT WILL REMAIN IN PLACE UNCHANGED. SO JUST ONE QUESTION ON THE DESCRIPTION IT SAYS TO REZONE THE PROPERTY FROM MULTI-FAMILY 19 TO PATIO HOMES THEN BELOW IT SAYS ZONE MULTIFAMILY 19 WITH THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, DO WE NEED TO STATE MULTIFAMILY 19 TO PATIO HOMES WITH A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT? NO. WE DO NOT. OKAY. BECAUSE THERE'S NO ACTION ON THE SUP. OK, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES SIX 0. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES SIX 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 14. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 14 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES SIX 0. ITEM 14 IS APPROVED. [15. Public Hearing - Zoning: Repeal Planned Development-128 (Z21-0003)] PUBLIC HEARING ZONING REPEAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT -128 (Z21-0003) OWNERS. MULTIPLE OWNERS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CURRENTLY IN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT ONE TWENTY EIGHT. THE COMMERCIAL TRACT AT THE HARD CORNER ALLOWS FOR COMMERCIAL ONE DEVELOPMENT AS WELL AS MULTIFAMILY. THE PROPERTY HAS DEVELOPED PER COMMERCIAL ONE STANDARDS IN THE PD. THEREFORE, STAFF IS REQUESTING TO REMOVE THE MULTIFAMILY ALLOWANCES ON THIS TRACT. IN ADDITION, THE TOWNHOME SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH HAS TOWNHOME ZONING AS WELL AS COMMERCIAL ONE ZONING STAFF IS REQUESTING TO REMOVE THIS COMMERCIAL ONE ZONING FROM THE TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT. THE PD STANDARDS WILL BE CARRIED FORWARD. SOME OF THESE STANDARDS HAVE BEEN MODIFIED OR REMOVED EITHER THROUGH ZONING ORDINANCE CHANGES AND THEY'RE NO LONGER APPLICABLE AND THEN BROUGHT IN TO CURRENT STANDARDS. SO THE RECOMMENDATION THIS EVENING IS FOR APPROVAL IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, COMMERCIAL ONE FOR TRACT ONE AND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TOWNHOME FOR TRACT TWO SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS [00:15:02] NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND THE ASSOCIATED EXHIBIT. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS INITIATED BY THE CITY, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING. MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES SIX 0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ALL RIGHT. THIS IS ANOTHER ONE WHERE THIS DEVELOPMENT IS BUILT OUT AND IT HAD SOME OTHER OPTIONS ON IT IF DURING THE TIME THAT IT WAS BEING DEVELOPED. SO WE WANT TO REMOVE SOME OF THE MULTIFAMILY AND THE TOWNHOME SO THAT ANYTHING HAPPENS TO THESE PARTICULAR BUILDINGS, THEY WILL BE BUILT AS, AS IS. RIGHT. OK, ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE COMMISSIONERS OR QUESTIONS. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM FIFTEEN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES SIX 0 ITEM 15 IS APPROVED. [16. Public Hearing - Zoning: Amendment to Ordinance No. 05-09-75 - Lakeside at Lonestar Ranch (Z21-0004)] ALL RIGHT. ITEM SIXTEEN, PUBLIC ZONING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER 05-09-75 - LAKESIDE AT LONESTAR RANCH (Z21-0004) OWNERS, MULTIPLE OWNERS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE LAKESIDE AT LONESTAR RANCH SUBDIVISION HAS A REMAINDER OF TOWN HOME AND A BIT OF RETAIL ZONING. STAFF IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE SUBDIVISION TO SINGLE FAMILY EIGHT POINT FIVE, WHICH IS CONSISTENT WITH HOW THE PROPERTY HAS DEVELOPED. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ONCE AGAIN, THIS IS CITY INITIATED RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVE. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES 6 0. IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE. MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES 6 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ALL RIGHT. SO LET ME JUST MAKE SURE THIS IS CLEAR TO THE PEOPLE IN THIS SUBDIVISION. IT CURRENTLY IS ZONED RETAIL ZONED SINGLE FAMILY FIVE AND ZONED TOWNHOME. SO IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO THE BUILDINGS THAT WERE BUILT, IF ANY OF THOSE THREE THINGS COULD BE BUILT BY FUTURE LAND OWNER. IN THE AREA THAT THOSE OTHER ZONING CLASSIFICATIONS ARE. YES. AND SO WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS PROTECT THE SINGLE FAMILY. THE POINT FIVE ZONING THAT IS THERE, BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS BUILT OUT. CORRECT. SO THIS PROTECTS THE LANDOWNERS, THE HOMEOWNERS THERE FROM ANYTHING EVER BEING BUILT THERE. IF THERE IS TORNADO FIRE OR NATURAL DISASTER TYPE SITUATION OR SOMEBODY BOUGHT UP A BLOCK AND WANTED TO PUT IN TOWNHOMES. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT'S CLEAR FOR THE FOLKS THAT MIGHT BE WATCHING ONLINE WHERE IT'S NOT 30 DEGREES OUTSIDE. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM SIXTEEN. MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM SIXTEEN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF, MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0. ITEM SIXTEEN IS APPROVED. CONGRATULATIONS. ALL RIGHT. [17. Public Hearing - Zoning: Amendment to Ordinance No. 05-09-75 - Austin Ridge at Lonestar Ranch (Z21-0005)] ITEM 17 PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER ZERO FIVE DASH ZERO NINE, DASH SEVENTY FIVE, AUSTIN RIDGE AT LONESTAR (Z21-0005) OWNERS, MULTIPLE OWNERS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE AUSTIN RIDGE AT LONESTAR RANCH HAS A REMAINDER TOWNHOME TRACT ASSOCIATED WITH IT. STAFF IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO ITS DEVELOPED STATE. WHICH IS SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. AND THIS IS CITY INITIATED, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONE. SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER BOX, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0. 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 THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. SO JUST TO ONCE AGAIN CLARIFY FOR OUR VIEWING AUDIENCE AND THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE HERE, IF ANYTHING HAPPENED TO THE HOUSES THAT WERE HERE TODAY, IT'S ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN AND TOWNHOME. IN THE FUTURE, IT WOULD ONLY BE SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN. THAT IS CORRECT. SO NOTHING COULD BE TOWNHOMES COULDN'T REPLACE HOUSING THAT WAS IN THIS [00:20:06] PARTICULAR LOCATION. THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WAS A NATURAL DISASTER OR SOMETHING OR SOMEBODY BOUGHT SO THIS PROTECTS THE NEIGHBORHOODS. THAT IS CORRECT. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM SEVENTEEN. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER SEVENTEEN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE. ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES SIX 0. ITEM SEVENTEEN IS APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. ITEM EIGHTEEN, PUBLIC HEARING. [18. Public Hearing - Comprehensive Plan Amendment: Future Land Use Plan (FLUP) Update (CA20-0002)] COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT, FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. FLUP UPDATE (CA20-0002) OWNERS CITY OF FRISCO. GOOD EVENING CHAIR. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED TO THE JANUARY TWENTY SIX MEETING. COULD YOU REMOVE IT FROM THE TABLE. DO HAVE A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS FROM THE TABLE AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR, AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES 6 0. ITEMS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TABLE. SO THIS ITEM WAS TABLED FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS TWO PROPERTY OWNERS CAME TO SPEAK CONCERNED WITH THE POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND USE PLAN CHANGE. IN YOUR REPORT IT'S ITEM NUMBER FIVE AND ITEM NUMBER SIX. ITEM NUMBER SIX, YOU DECIDED TO KEEP IT AS URBAN CENTER AN ITEM FIVE YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS AND LOOK AT THAT SITE AS A MIXED USE IN MORE DETAIL. SO INCLUDED IN THE AND WE WANTED TO FIX THE FORMATTING ERRORS. SORRY ABOUT THAT. I WAS GOING TO ASK. YES. SO THE FORMATTING ERRORS HAVE BEEN FIXED SO THAT THE NUMBERS CORRESPOND TO THE MAP? YES. OK, YES. SO IN THE REPORT THERE'S TWO MAPS TO LOOK AT. THIS MAP DEPICTS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WITH THE SURROUNDING LAND PLACE TYPES, AND I DON'T KNOW WHERE YOU WANT TO START MAYBE INTO TALKING ABOUT THE SPECIFIC SITE. THE FOLLOWING MAP IS AN ILLUSTRATIVE PLAN THAT OUTLINES THE CHALLENGES AND THE POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT USING TOWNHOMES. BECAUSE YOU MENTIONED THAT URBAN YOU MAY NOT BE INTERESTED IN PUTTING URBAN LIVING ON THE SITE. JUST TO CLARIFY CHRIS, THIS IS ITEM FIVE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THIS IS ITEM FIVE. YES. THANK YOU. YES. AND WE'LL WAIT UNTIL YOU ARE DONE WITH YOUR. AND SO AND WITH THAT, THERE'S A COUPLE OF CHALLENGES THERE'S LOT ORIENTATION THAT'S A MAJOR CREEK. AND AS WELL, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, MIXED USE THE CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNER MENTIONED THAT HE MAY HAVE WANTED TO PUT RETAIL SITES ON THE CORNERS, AND THAT IS NOT REALLY PART OF THE MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD PLACE TYPE. AND SO THOSE ARE THE TWO MAIN POINTS THAT TO CONSIDER. ANY OTHER CHANGES IN THE DOCUMENT SINCE WE WERE HERE LAST THAT WE NEED TO BRING UP. NO, WE RETAINED URBAN CENTER ON ITEM NUMBER SIX AND DISCUSSION POINTS FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE. ALL RIGHT. ARE IS THAT ALL YOU HAVE FOR PRESENTATION. YES. AND THIS IS CITY INITIATED, CORRECT? YES. FROM A COMMISSION PERSPECTIVE, WOULD YOU WANT TO ASK QUESTIONS NOW OF STAFF FEEL FREE TO OR WE COULD DO IT AFTER A PUBLIC HEARING? BUT I'LL HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS. BUT I WANT TO HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC AGAIN. OK. TO ASK YOU ABOUT ITEM NUMBER 11. THIS IS THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF PARKWOOD AND WARREN, AND I SENT A QUESTION ABOUT POSSIBLY CHANGING THIS TO A MATCH, WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. JUST CAN YOU CONFIRM, JUST FOR THE RECORD, THAT CURRENTLY THERE IS A BUSINESS PARK OR THERE'S OFFICES THAT ARE ON THAT CORNER? YES, YES, OK. I JUST THROWING THAT OUT, WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT AFTERWARDS, THEN ON THE WHEN WE WERE DISCUSSING, I JUST WANTED TO CONFIRM THAT THAT'S CURRENTLY HAS OFFICES THERE. AND THEN ON THE NUMBER 10, THE ONE RIGHT ABOVE IT, IT'S RECOMMENDED TO GO TO BUSINESS PARK, BUT IT CURRENTLY HAS A HOSPITAL AND CURRENTLY HAS MULTIFAMILY. [00:25:04] YES. ON THE CORNER OF IS THAT LEBANON AND PARKWOOD. OK, SO I JUST WANTED TO POINT THOSE TWO THINGS OUT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THEM MORE LATER. BUT I DO THINK WE NEED TO TALK ABOUT THE NUMBER 10 SPECIFICALLY AS WE GET INTO DETAILS. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED THE MOTION CARRIES SIX 0. WE ARE NOW IN PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING. SIR DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK THIS EVENING? I BELIEVE I'VE MADE MY COMMENTS THROUGH EMAIL AND PERFECT HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT. JUST LET IT BE NOTED THAT WE HAVE RECEIVED THE PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE HAD PREVIOUSLY. IT IS STILL PART OF THIS CASE. SO COMMENTS FROM THAT PUBLIC HEARING ARE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT. ANYONE ELSE THIS EVENING WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? OK, DO I HAVE A MOTION CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER, WHO WAS THAT ONE MORGAN I'M SORRY I COULDN'T TELL WHICH END. COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED MOTION CARRIES SIX 0 THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. SO, SIR, WE DID GET YOUR LETTER AND TAKE INTO ACCOUNT ALL THOSE THINGS. SO LET'S GO BACKWARDS, IF WE CAN, IN TERMS OF ITEM 11, THEN 10. AND I WANT TO TALK ABOUT ITEM FIVE, BECAUSE THOSE SEEM TO BE THE ITEMS THAT ARE IN QUESTION FOR THE COMMISSION. SO IF WE CAN GO TO ITEM 11 REAL QUICK, YOU CAN START THERE. [INAUDIBLE] TABLE. YEAH, OK. SO THIS IS CURRENTLY OCCUPIED PROPERTY, SO THERE'S ALREADY BUILDINGS HERE. PART OF IT, PART OF IT IS VACANT LAND. YES, THAT AREA IS DEVELOPED. SO YOU'VE GOT A HOTEL AND MEDICAL OFFICES THERE. IS MEDICAL OFFICE FALL UNDER COMMERCIAL. YES, IT DOES FALLS ON OUR BUSINESS PART. SO I THINK THERE'S A COUPLE LOTS THERE, BUT THEY WOULD FALL UNDER THAT AREA. SO THIS ALLOWS US TO GET RID OF IT'S NOT AN AREA WHERE WE NEED MULTI-FAMILY. RIGHT CORRECT. OK. I'M FINE WITH THAT. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT WAS CLARIFIED. ITEM 10. CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT YOU SAID TWO THINGS. YOU SAID COMMERCIAL AND BUSINESS PARK. WOULD WE TALK ABOUT. BUSINESS PARK WOULD COVER WHAT'S THERE TODAY? YEAH. MY QUESTION WAS, IS THAT A MORE ACCURATE DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S THERE MOST LIKELY TO STAY THERE LONG TERM SINCE IT'S ALREADY DEVELOPED OUT AS A SMALL BUSINESS PARK? THAT ONE JUST MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME THAT WE WOULD CHANGE IT TO BUSINESS PARK. BUSINESS PARK VERSUS COMMERCIAL NODE. YES, CORRECT. NO, I DON'T THINK SO. I THINK BUSINESS PARK DOESN'T NECESSARILY SUPPORT MAYBE IT DOES AND I'M WRONG AND DOESN'T SUPPORT HOTEL. DOESN'T SUPPORT. NO BUSINESS PARK WOULD SUPPORT HOTEL. IT WOULD SUPPORT COMMERCIAL ONE TWO ONE. IN SUPPORTING RETAIL AND RESTAURANTS IS IN BUSINESS PARK, THAT'S IN THE DEFINITION AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WE CHOSE COMMERCIAL NODE HERE ON ITEM 11. ON NUMBER 11. BUT I'M FINE IF YOU WANT TO CHANGE IT TO BUSINESS PARK. I THINK THAT MAKES SENSE. I THINK COMMISSIONER CONE YOU MAKE A GOOD POINT HERE, AND I AGREE WITH IT AND WOULD SUPPORT THAT. SO IF ANYBODY HAVE A PROBLEM, I DON'T HAVE A PREFERENCE ON IT BECAUSE I THINK THAT WERE BOTH GOING TO SUPPORT SIMILAR THINGS MY ONLY THING THERE AT PARKWOOD AND WARREN WOULD WE EVER NEED C ONE. NO I DOUBT. AND THE REASON BEING, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE CENTER OF PRESTON RIDGE AND POWER CENTRE, WE GOT THE MALL AND THEN THE MALL IS GOING TO BE, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALREADY REDEVELOPING AROUND THE SITE. SO, NO, I DON'T SEE AS A STRONG RETAIL. NOW, TO ADD TO THAT, PARKWOOD HAS NOT BEEN A STRONG RETAIL CORRIDOR. [00:30:05] AND THAT'S WHY WE DID LIKE BACK IN 2005, MADE CHANGES TO ALLOW RESIDENTIAL ALONG PARKWOOD, BECAUSE BOTH THE EDC AND THE CITY HAD TRIED TO LURE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT ALONG PARKWOOD AND THEY JUST WERE NOT INTERESTED BECAUSE YOU DID NOT HAVE THE TRAFFIC VOLUMES LIKE YOU DID ALONG PRESTON AND ONE TWENTY ONE ON THE TOLLWAY. I'M THINKING IN TERMS DIFFERENTLY, NOT RETAIL OR MULTIFAMILY. I THINK WE AGREE THAT IT NEEDS TO CHANGE. IT WAS WHETHER WE NEED C1 COMMERCIAL. I DON'T SEE C1 THERE. OK. ALL RIGHT. I'M AGREEMENT WITH THAT. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A QUESTION ON IT. SO IF WE MAKE A MOTION TONIGHT, THAT WILL HAVE TO BE AND SOMEONE CAN WRITE DOWN ITEM 10, DNT AND LEBANON ROAD GOING FROM MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD TO BUSINESS PARK. SO IN THIS PARTICULAR, THIS IS WHERE THE HOSPITAL. IT'S ACTUALLY AROUND THE HOSPITAL. YES, AROUND THE HOSPITAL. MAP UP TO MATCH UP TO THE SCHOOL HIGH SCHOOL ON THE NORTH SIDE AND INCLUDES THE EXISTING APARTMENTS. DO WE HAVE A DETAILED PLAN ON THIS SITE LIKE WE DID ON THE OTHER SITES IN HERE I THOUGHT . NO WE DIDN'T PROVIDE IT I WILL TELL YOU WITH THE MULTIFAMILY THAT EXIST ON THAT. THAT'S ZONING THAT WAS DONE LIKE BACK IN THE 80S, MAYBE IN THE 70S. SO THAT WAS DEVELOPED. SO, YOU KNOW, THE HOSPITAL LIKE WE'VE SEEN AND, YOU KNOW, ON OUR TOURS, HOSPITALS EXPAND THAT, YOU KNOW, THAT COULD HAPPEN AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I'M NOT SAYING IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN, BUT THAT'LL BE FOR A FUTURE DISCUSSION. OKAY. QUESTIONS ON ITEM 10. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH HOW IT IS CURRENTLY IS BEING PROPOSED. MY THOUGHT WAS TO TRY TO JUST MATCH UP MORE ACCURATELY WITH WHAT'S THERE. SO IT LOOKS LIKE A VERY STABLE SITE. THAT MULTIFAMILY WILL BE THERE FOR QUITE A WHILE AND THAT HOSPITAL WILL BE THERE SO THIS IS. FROM A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN PERSPECTIVE, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS THE RIGHT THING THERE? SO, I MEAN, THAT'S WHY THEY'RE TAKING AWAY THE MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK AND JUST GOING TO BUSINESS PARK ON THE YEAH, AND I AGREE WITH TAKING AWAY THE MIXED USE THERE BECAUSE I DON'T THINK THAT MAKES SENSE THERE ANYMORE BASED ON WHAT'S THERE. BUT THOSE SEEM LIKE VERY WHEN I SAY STABLE. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS LIKE WE'RE CHANGING SOMETHING THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE CHANGED RIGHT NOW IF THOSE ARE GOING TO BE STABLE THERE FOR THE NEXT 50 TO 80 YEARS, I THINK WE SHOULD ONLY CHANGE THINGS THAT WE HAVE A COMPELLING, REASON TO CHANGE THEM. SO I THINK THERE'S A COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE THIS FROM MIXED USE BECAUSE 80 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL IS TOO HEAVY THERE. BUT SOMETHING THAT'S 25 OR 30 PERCENT THAT MATCHES THE EXISTING USE MAKES MORE SENSE TO ME. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU ARE DOING THE FUTURE, LAND USE PLAN YOU ARE NOT CHANGING ZONING ON A PIECE OF PROPERTY. SO THEY GOT THE ZONING IN PLACE. AND SO BY CHANGING THE LAND USE PLAN, YOU'RE NOT CREATING ANY NONCONFORMITY ON THE PROPERTY. BUT YOU'RE JUST SAYING, LIKE IN THE FUTURE, IF THAT DOES I MEAN HOSPITALS, HAVE A TENDENCY TO EXPAND AS THEY BECOME LARGER. YOU LOOK AT PRESBYTERIAN OR SOUTHWEST MEDICAL, THEY EXPAND IN THE FUTURE. SO I THINK NO HARM SHOWING THAT AS A FUTURE BUSINESS PARK FOR THAT EXPANSION. I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO MATCH UP WITH WHAT'S THERE SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE IF WE WERE TO SAY WHAT WE THINK THE LAND USE SHOULD BE, IT WOULDN'T BE IN AN 80, 20 OR SEVENTY FIVE 25. THAT WOULDN'T BE A MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD. IT COULD BE. THAT'S WHY I'M SAYING. I THINK THAT LOCATION NEXT TO THE TOLLWAY MAKES SENSE, NOT AS A MIXED USE, BUT AS A MIXTURE OF USES, TO PUT IT MORE PRECISELY. AND WHEN WE DID THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN ON THE COMP PLAN, THAT WAS ONE OF THE GOALS WE DID. WE ALWAYS CONSIDERED WHAT'S ZONED, WHAT'S THERE, WHAT MAKES SENSE IN THE FUTURE. SO UNDER THOSE THREE CRITERIA, ONE OF THE TWO MIXTURE OF USES, EITHER THE TWENTY FIVE PERCENT RESIDENTIAL OR THIRTY PERCENT RESIDENTIAL WOULD MAKE SENSE THERE TODAY. MAKES SENSE IN THE FUTURE. AND IT WOULD MATCH WITH WHAT'S THERE, SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE MAKING A CHANGE TO A BUSINESS PARK WHEN WE DON'T SEE THAT HAPPENING ANY TIME IN OUR LIFETIMES. WELL, WHEN YOU MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD MATCH IF YOU WENT 25 OR 30 PERCENT, I DON'T SEE THAT MATCHING IT WOULD ACTUALLY EXCEED WHAT'S EXISTS THERE TODAY ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I THINK THAT WOULD BE THE CLOSEST MATCH, EVEN IF IT'S NOT, IT'S NOT [00:35:03] EXACT. SO I'M JUST PUTTING THIS UNDER THE CATEGORY OF IF WE DON'T NEED TO CHANGE IT, IF IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE ANYTHING, THEN BEST TO BE LEFT ALONE. I THINK FROM A COMMISSION PERSPECTIVE. DOES ANYONE ELSE AGREE WITH THAT OR WANT TO CHANGE TO THAT? YOU HAVEN'T PROVIDED A CATEGORY TO CHANGE IT TO, THAT WOULD MAKE SENSE. SO THAT I MEAN, SO YOUR THING IS NOT DOING ANYTHING OR MAKING ANY CHANGES THERE? NO, NO. THAT'S ALL I'M SAYING. I'M SAYING CHANGE IT TO A THERE'S REALLY ONLY TWO OTHER CATEGORIES. RIGHT. THE SUBURBAN REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTER MAKES THE MOST SENSE BECAUSE IT'S GOT THE LOWEST, RESIDENTIAL AVAILABLE. SO I THINK ZERO PERCENT RESIDENTIAL DOESN'T MAKE SENSE IN A PLACE LIKE THAT. AND THEN 25 PERCENT IS REALLY OUR ONLY OPTION. SO SOMETHING ABOVE ZERO PERCENT IS WHAT I'M SAYING. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S I THINK WE CAN KEEP, AS IS IF THE CURRENT ZONING IS IN PLACE, IF THE RESIDENTIAL IS THERE FOR 50, 80 YEARS, THEY HAVE NOTHING TO WORRY ABOUT. I MEAN, BUT IF IT WERE TO GROW THAT HOSPITAL, I'D LOVE FOR THAT TO GROW. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE ZONING, JUST FUTURE USE. BUT I DON'T KNOW. BUT NOTHING IS STOPPING THE HOSPITAL FROM GROWING WITH SAYING IT'S 20 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL EITHER OR 25 PERCENT. AND THE HOUSING THERE IS RELATIVELY NEW. IT'S NOT GOING TO THEY'RE NOT GOING TO TEAR DOWN IN FIVE YEARS. THAT'S JOHN. THAT'S MY I'M HEARING HEARING ALL OF COMMENTS HERE. I'M JUST IN A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DO YOU NORMALLY CONSIDER CURRENT USE AND CURRENT ZONING IN A SITUATION WHERE THAT APPEARS THAT WILL BE THERE FOR SOME TIME, EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT BE WHAT WE ENVISIONED IF IT WAS NOT THERE. WHEN YOU DO THAT, BUT ALSO SOMETHING THAT'S HAPPENED SINCE THE LAND USE PLAN WAS PUT TOGETHER IS THE HOSPITAL WAS NOT EVEN A THOUGHT AT THAT PARTICULAR TIME. NOW IT IS. SO THAT'S A CHANGE THAT HAS OCCURRED WITHIN THE AREA. AND I THINK THAT CHANGE JUSTIFIES CHANGING IT FROM MIXED USE. I THINK 80 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL NO LONGER MAKES SENSE BECAUSE OF THE HOSPITAL. IT'S REALLY A QUESTION FROM A COMMISSIONERS PERSPECTIVE. THERE'S THREE THINGS WE CAN DO ON 10. WE CAN LEAVE IT THE WAY IT CURRENTLY IS. WE CAN MODIFY IT TO BUSINESS PARK OR WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE IT TO A DIFFERENT CATEGORY. PROBLEM IS, I HAVEN'T HEARD A CATEGORY THAT MATCHES. I MEAN, I [INAUDIBLE] AS STEVE SUGGESTS, I KNOW SUBURBAN REGIONAL ACTIVITY CENTER AND. I THINK THAT'S WHAT YOU RECOMMENDED BECAUSE THAT'S 25 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL IS THE LOWEST RESIDENTIAL PERCENT. SO SRAC, THAT MAKES SENSE BASED ON THE LOCATION, TOO. SO ALL OF THE FACTORS FOR THAT SITE SRAC DOES MAKE SENSE FOR A LONG TERM PLANNING PURPOSES. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR JOHN. I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THAT CATEGORY AS WELL, IF WE WENT THAT DIRECTION WOULD THAT LIMIT OR PROHIBIT ANYTHING THAT YOU ALL SAW, THAT POSSIBLY WOULD BE GOOD FOR THE FUTURE. I'M CHANGING IT TO SUBURBAN REGIONAL, NO, BECAUSE WHENEVER THE HOSPITAL COMES IN, WE WOULD BE LOOKING AT REZONING ON THE PROPERTY. SHOULD THEY ACQUIRE, SHOULD THEY I WANT TO EMPHASIZE, SHOULD THEY ACQUIRE BECAUSE THERE'S NO PLANS FOR THEM TO ACQUIRE. BUT IF THEY DO, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REZONE THE PROPERTY SINCE THE PROPERTY IS LIMITED TO THE MULTIFAMILY THAT'S THERE. ALL RIGHT ANYBODY I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM CHANGING IT TO SUBURBAN REGIONAL, IT'S TWENTY FIVE PERCENT RESIDENTIAL, SEVENTY FIVE PERCENT COMMERCIAL. IT INCLUDES REGIONAL TRACT [INAUDIBLE] VENUES URBAN RESIDENTIAL, SENIOR HOUSING, HOTELS, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, CORPORATE OFFICE RESTAURANTS, MULTI-[INAUDIBLE] COMMERCIAL, BIG BOX I MEAN THERE'S A LOT OF OPPORTUNITY THERE, IF ANYTHING EVER HAPPENED ON THAT PARTICULAR CORNER FOR REDEVELOPMENT. ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT? I AGREE WITH THAT. I THINK THAT TAKING THE 80 PERCENT RESIDENTIAL OFF IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING TO DO HERE. YEAH, I AGREE. ALL RIGHT, SO SOMEBODY WANT TO MAKE A MOTION WITH THAT IF WE MAKE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM. BUT WE NEED TO WAIT SO I GOT IT. DOCUMENT IT. LET ME RESTATE THAT. SO LET'S GO TO NUMBER FIVE HERE. COMMISSIONER COX CAN I JUST ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF ON NUMBER EIGHT. SURE. AND I ASKED THIS EARLIER I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. [00:40:01] MY UNDERSTANDING WAS ORIGINALLY ONE OF THE LANDOWNERS INITIALLY HAD BEEN OPPOSED TO THE CHANGE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. BUT NOW THE LANDOWNER IS OK WITH THAT. CHRIS INTERACTED WITH ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER. THEY WERE FINE WITH IT. AND THEN JUST WITHIN THE PAST YEAR, WE DID A REZONING THERE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER THAT REMOVED THE RESIDENTIAL. YES, OK, I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY THAT. SO THE RESIDENT, THE OWNER THAT SENT US THE EMAIL HAS NOW STATED THAT THEY'RE OK CHANGING IT. YEAH, THAT ONE ON THE BOTTOM CHRIS. YEAH, WELL, HUDSON SENT THE LETTER. DID YOU SEE HUDSON'S LETTER. THAT'S WHAT HE'S REFERRING TO. YEAH. YOU KNOW, HE NEVER RESPONDED IF HE WAS OK. HE JUST SENT THE LETTER. AND THAT'S IT. YOU DID NOT HAVE INTERACTION WITH HIM. NO. I'M FINE WITH LEAVING THIS EIGHT WHERE IT'S AT IN THIS DOCUMENT ALONG PRESTON, WE HAVE THE OVERLAY DISTRICT. WE HAVE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON HERE, CERTAINLY NOT A PLACE WHERE WE WANT. I THINK THE COMMERCIAL NODE IS REALLY WHAT THAT IS DESIGNED FOR. THE OTHER THING I WANT TO ADD TO THAT, WHEN WE HAD RESIDENTIAL ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER, IT WAS A CHALLENGE TO INTEGRATE RESIDENTIAL I THINK THE MARKET, PROVED IT JUST WASN'T DEEMED WORTHY OF RESIDENTIAL. I AGREE WITH CHANGING THIS. OBVIOUSLY, THE NORTHWEST CORNER MAKES SENSE TO CHANGE. IT'S ALREADY BEEN CHANGED. THE SOUTHEAST CORNER I HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE TROUBLE WITH AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT ZERO IS THE RIGHT AMOUNT, BUT, YOU KNOW, GOING DOWN TO 20 OR 25 PERCENT MAKES MORE SENSE. BUT I'M OK WITH THAT ONE ALSO. SO IT'S NOT A HUGE AREA AND THERE'S A LOT OF OTHER STUFF GOING ON IN THAT AREA. SO I'M FINE LEAVING IT WITH THAT. I DON'T THINK ZERO PERCENT IS THE BEST RIGHT THERE, BUT IT'S STILL IT'S OK. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE GO TO 5 NOW. ALL RIGHT. 5 DNT IN ELDORADO. ACTUALLY, IT'S REALLY COBB HILL AND FRISCO STREET. SO IN THIS IF YOU CAN GO TO THE NEXT SLIDE ON THIS ONE. OK NO ONE MORE SO IN TERMS OF SO THE LANDOWNER HAS REQUESTED THAT WE LEAVE THIS PARTICULAR LAND USE PLAN, AS IS STATED IN THE MIDDLE OF A TRANSACTION THAT THEY'RE TRYING TO THEY DON'T WANT TO HAVE ANY IMPACT ON. A COUPLE OF THINGS IN REALLY APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS THAT WE GOT FROM LANDOWNER ON THIS ONE. BUT FROM EMAIL PERSPECTIVE AND FROM OUR LAST MEETING, A COUPLE OF CHALLENGES WE HAVE. COBB HILL IS IS NOT A THROUGH ROAD TODAY. WE DON'T KNOW IF IT EVER WILL BE. IT WILL NOT. IT WILL NOT BE BECAUSE OF THE RAILROAD TRACKS. YES. AND IT'S NOT REALLY I DON'T THINK IT'S CONDUCIVE TO RETAIL FROM A LAND USE PERSPECTIVE. IT'S STILL TO BE DETERMINED AT THE CORNER OF FRISCO STREET AND PANTHER CREEK, IF THAT COULD BE RETAIL. BUT I DON'T KNOW. I THINK FROM AS WE SEE WITH THE COBB HILL NEIGHBORHOOD HERE, IT CERTAINLY IS NOT A MULTIFAMILY AREA. WE WOULD NOT PUT MULTIFAMILY IN THIS PARTICULAR AREA, IN MY OPINION. YOU KNOW, I KIND OF IT'S A QUANDARY FOR ME, BECAUSE I HATE TO CHANGE SOMEONE'S LAND USE PLAN ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY BECAUSE IT IS ACTIVE. BUT YET I DO THINK THAT I THINK THAT SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD IS THE RIGHT LAND USE FOR IT. THAT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MEAN THAT WE NEED TO CHANGE IT NOW AS A COMMISSION. THAT'S UP TO THE COMMISSION. SO I'M GOING TO I WANT TO DEFER TO MY FOLKS UP HERE ON THAT PARTICULAR ITEM AND GET COMMENTS ON THIS. SO I'LL START DOWN ON MY LEFT OVER HERE. QUESTIONS, COMMISSIONER MORGAN, ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, BECAUSE I THINK THIS IS THE ONE THAT BASICALLY WE WERE STUCK ON LAST TIME. AND THIS IS CURRENTLY ZONED WHAT. AG. ONE THING I WANT TO ADD I WENT BACK AND LOOKED AT THE TWO LAST TWO COMPREHENSIVE PLANS, ONE IN 2000 ONE IN 2006. OH, SORRY. GO BACK TO THAT SO THIS AREA AS WELL AS [00:45:05] THAT AREA WAS SHOWN AS SINGLE FAMILY. SO FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, JUST TO LET YOU KNOW THAT SECOND, EVEN THOUGH THERE MAY BE A LANDS TRANSACTION, THE LAND USE PLAN DOES NOT GUARANTEE ZONING. I MEAN, JUST LIKE WE'RE DOING ALL MIXED USE ZONING REQUESTS, WE HAVE A DIFFERENT LAYERS THAT PEOPLE HAVE TO GO THROUGH TO SEE IF IT'S EVEN DOABLE. SO SINCE THE OWNER OR THEIR REPRESENTATIVE IS THERE, WANT THEM TO HEAR THAT IT DOESN'T GUARANTEE THAT IT COMMITS THE CITY TO A PARTICULAR ZONING CASE. AND SO JUST TO ECHO THAT, IF WE DID NOTHING TONIGHT ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE WOULD GUARANTEE IF YOU CAME WITH A RETAIL CORNER THERE, THAT THAT WOULD GET PASSED. THAT'S RIGHT. BECAUSE THAT'S A PURE ZONING CASE EITHER ONE, IF YOU CHANGE IT TO RESIDENTIAL, DOES NOT MEAN YOU WON'T GET YOUR ZONING PASSED. I MEAN, LOOK AT I MEAN, WE HAVE A PRECEDENT, A NUMBER OF ITEMS AND THAT WE DEAL WITH HERE ON AN ONGOING BASIS THAT WERE DIFFERENT LAND USE PLANS. BUT SOMETHING GREAT CAME UP. AND WE I MEAN LOOK AT THE HOSPITAL WE JUST MENTIONED THE HOSPITAL THERE AT LEBANON AND THE TOLLWAY THAT WAS NOT ON THE LAND USE PLAN, BUT IT WAS THE USE CAME AND SO FORTH. SO I THINK IT'S ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT THE ZONING CASE STANDS ON ITS OWN. I DO UNDERSTAND THE DESIRE TO HAVE A DIFFERENT LAND USE ON THAT BECAUSE WE ARE CHANGING THAT. SO I APPRECIATE THAT A LOT. SO I GO BACK TO COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ANY QUESTIONS OR ANY COMMENTS. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS. AGAIN, WE'RE NOT CHANGING ZONING TONIGHT. WE'RE ONLY OFFERING SOME SUGGESTIONS FOR FUTURE LAND USE AND GIVEN WHAT I SEE AROUND HERE, GIVEN THE TOPOGRAPHY, GIVEN ALL THESE THINGS, I'M OK WITH THE SUGGESTED SUBURBAN UP. I WOULD YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, IF THERE'S SOMETHING RETAIL THAT COMES IN ON THE CORNER UP THERE THAT'LL COME IN AS A ZONING CASE AND WE DEAL WITH IT, THEN. DID MAKE A CHANGE THERE ON FRISCO STREET ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF ELDORADO RECENTLY TO ADD RETAIL, THAT WAS NOT IN THE LAND USE PLAN. SO THAT'S AN EXAMPLE WHERE WE WE WERE ABLE TO AND THE NEED WAS THERE AND SO FORTH. COMMISSIONER COLBERG. COMMENTS. I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS. I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER MORGAN'S SENTIMENTS. KELLY WHAT'S YOUR THOUGHT? I CAN SEE WHY STAFF MADE THIS RECOMMENDATION, BECAUSE AS YOU LOOK AT THIS, IT WOULD LOOK LIKE A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AT SOME POINT. BUT I ALSO AGREE THAT IF THE LANDOWNER WANTED TO COME IN WITH A COMMERCIAL, THAT WOULD BE A ZONING CASE AND WE WOULD DEAL WITH IT AT THAT TIME. SO. COMMISSIONER BOX. I HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO ADD, MY THREE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS DOWN THERE STATED, I DO WANT TO THANK MR. COLLIER FOR HIS TIME AND FOR EDUCATING US ABOUT THE PROPERTY. IF THERE IS A FUTURE, AS THEY SAID, IF THERE'S A FUTURE REQUEST COMING IN, I ENCOURAGE YOU TO FOLLOW THE SAME PROCESS AND SAID, AS YOU KNOW, AND YOU STATED IN YOUR EMAIL TO US IS THIS DOES NOT CHANGE THE ZONING IT CHANGES THE LAND USE PLAN. SO I WILL BE IN FAVOR. MIC WENT OUT AND HE STATED HE WOULD BE FAVORING TO MOVE THE STAFFS RECOMMENDATION. STAFFS RECOMMENDATION. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER KENDALL THOUGHTS. QUICKLY ECHOING THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS AND I'M VERY OPEN MINDED TO WHAT COMES IN THIS CORNER BECAUSE IT'S WHAT'S PUT IN FRONT OF US. AND, YOU KNOW, I CAN BASE IT OFF OF THAT AND WOULD BE VERY OPEN TO IT. BUT YEAH, I'M IN SUPPORT OF STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. OK, YOU WON'T BE SURPRISED TO HEAR, BUT I FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT THIS IS A GREAT EXAMPLE OF SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD JUST LEAVE ALONE. THIS WAS A SINGLE FAMILY BACK IN THE OLD COMP PLAN IN 2000 AND 2006. ON THE COMP PLAN WE VERY INTENTIONALLY CHANGED THIS FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO TO WHAT YOU SEE TODAY ON THIS ENTIRE CORNER, THIS ENTIRE PIECE. AND THE THINKING AT THE TIME WAS WE TREATED IT ALL AS ONE AND KIND OF LUMPED IT ALL TOGETHER THERE. THIS PIECE HERE IS BEING CHANGED OR IS BEING RECOMMENDED FOR CHANGE BECAUSE IT'S ON THE BOUNDARY. I GET IT. AND I THINK THE STAFF DID A GREAT JOB ON THIS MAP. IT CLEARLY SHOWS HOW THIS IS A BOUNDARY PIECE. IN THE FUTURE IT COULD GO SINGLE FAMILY. IF THE MARKET WANTS SINGLE FAMILY IN THE FUTURE, THEN IT'S NEXT TO SINGLE FAMILY. AND I DON'T THINK THERE'D BE ANY PROBLEM GETTING THAT APPROVED IF IN THE FUTURE THE [00:50:03] DEVELOPMENTS TO THE EAST THAT ARE SAYING MIXED USE AND THE ONE TO THE NORTH, IF THE MARKET WANTS TO SEE MORE STUFF THERE, THEN I WOULD SAY WE LEAVE THIS ALONE AND REALLY LET THE MARKET DICTATE IN THE FUTURE. IF THIS WAS CURRENTLY SINGLE FAMILY, I'D BE FINE LEAVING IT ALONE. IF THE COMP PLAN COMMITTEE IN 2015 SPENT TIME ON THIS AND THOUGHT THAT IT MADE SENSE TO LEAVE IT SINGLE FAMILY, THEN EVEN IF I THINK SOMETHING ELSE MIGHT BE BETTER THERE, I'D SAY LEAVE IT ALONE. BUT IN THIS CASE I WOULD SAY WE GO WITH WHAT THE CITIZENS ON THE COMP PLAN CAME UP WITH, THEN BACK TO THAT STANDARD OF DO WE HAVE A COMPELLING REASON? IS THERE SOMETHING HAPPENING TODAY IS THERE SOMETHING GOING ON THAT COMPELS US TO SAY THIS ABSOLUTELY SHOULD NOT BE WHAT IT IS? I THINK A LOT OF THE OTHER ON THE LIST MAKE GOOD SENSE, BECAUSE THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED THERE ZONING AS HAPPENED, THINGS HAVE HAPPENED. I DON'T KNOW THAT ANYTHING HAS CHANGED SINCE THE COMP PLAN COMMITTEE MET IN 2015 THAT WOULD CAUSE US TO WANT TO CHANGE THIS TODAY. LIKE WE SAID, IT'S NOT GUARANTEEING ANY ZONING FOR THE LANDOWNER. SO I THINK THIS IS JUST A GREAT EXAMPLE OF LEAVING SOMETHING ALONE. I'D LIKE TO STATE ALSO THAT I LIVE IN COBB HILL AND SO I LIVE IN THE ADJACENT NEIGHBORHOOD THERE. AND BASED ON THE HIGH SCHOOL TO THE SOUTH, THE MULTIFAMILY TO THE SOUTH EAST THE POTENTIAL FOR SOME KIND OF DEVELOPMENT THERE ALONG THE RAILROAD TRACK AND PANTHER CREEK AND THEN THE POTENTIAL FOR WHAT'S COMING TO THE NORTH AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF THE COBB HILL NEIGHBORHOOD, YOU KNOW, IS A SHORT EIGHT STORY HOSPITAL IN MY BACKYARD AND A LOT OF OTHER STUFF. SO WE KIND OF KNOW THAT THAT SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE AN ISLAND, KIND OF AN OASIS OF SINGLE FAMILY. AND SO REALLY WE'RE JUST KIND OF TALKING ABOUT THE EDGES OF IT, YOU KNOW, DOES A SINGLE FAMILY JUMP ACROSS [INAUDIBLE] STREET OR NOT. OK, LET'S LET'S LET A FUTURE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE MAKE THAT DECISION. LET'S LET THEM DIG INTO THIS A LITTLE BIT MORE IN DEPTH FOR THIS WHOLE AREA AND LET THEM DECIDE WHETHER THIS AREA NEEDS TO BE CHANGED OR LET'S JUST LEAVE THAT ALONE FOR SOMEONE ELSE IN THE FUTURE TO REALLY DIG INTO IT. OH, I DIDN'T BUY IT FOR YOU IS A LEAVE ALONE, WHICH I DON'T NECESSARILY DISAGREE THAT. I MEAN, I THINK THE LAND USE PLAN HERE SHOULD BE RESIDENTIAL SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT DOES NOT MEAN WE NECESSARILY HAVE TO CHANGE IT IN THAT IT'S A VALID THING TO NOT DO ANYTHING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. BUT THAT'S I'LL LEAVE THAT UP TO THE COMMISSIONERS HERE. IF ANYBODY HAS CHANGED WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, WHETHER THEY WANT TO GO AHEAD AND CHANGE IT TO SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD OR LEAVE IT ALONE. I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER CONE'S POINTS ON THAT. WE DON'T HAVE TO MAKE A CHANGE, YOU KNOW, AND I WOULD LIKE TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT, OBVIOUSLY, THE WHOLE PACKAGE. BUT I ASSUME WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO KIND OF DO THIS. IT'S GOING TO BE ONE VOTE. SO I'M KIND OF ASKING IF THIS IS ONE. THERE'S OTHER ONES ON HERE THAT I DON'T FEEL ARE GREAT CHANGES. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M GOING TO KIND OF LET THOSE ONES GO. AND THE IDEA OF LET'S COME TO SOME CONSENSUS ON THE 14 THAT ARE ON THE LIST AND THAT THIS IS ONE, I GUESS I'LL GO WITH THE LAST THING THAT THE TIE GOES TO THE RUNNER. IF IT'S A TOSS UP IN YOUR MIND AS TO WHETHER THERE SHOULD BE SINGLE FAMILY OR MIXED USE, I WOULD SAY STICK WITH THE LAST DECISION OF THE LAST COMP PLAN COMMITTEE. SO COMMISSIONER CONE I DON'T THINK WE NEED TO TELL THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS HOW TO MAKE THEIR DECISIONS. I THINK, YOU HAVE THE OPINION TO LEAVE IT ALONE. YOU ALSO STATE THAT YOU AGREE THAT IT SHOULD BE SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT YOU DON'T THINK WE SHOULD MAKE A CHANGE? NO, I DON'T AGREE THAT IT NECESSARILY SHOULD BE SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. YOU THINK IT SHOULD BE MIXED USE? I CAN SEE THAT BEING MIXED. I THINK MIXED USE MAKES MORE SENSE TODAY AND IN FUTURE BUT THAT COULD CHANGE. BUT FOR OUR OTHER COMMISSIONERS HERE, THE QUESTION IS THAT I HAVE STATED ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THAT THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD OR IT IS A QUESTION TO LEAVE IT ALONE. IS THAT VALID, DOES THAT ARGUMENT WORK FOR ANYONE? I DON'T GET TO VOTE AT THIS POINT UNLESS WELL, I'LL JUST SAY, HOPEFULLY [INAUDIBLE] KNOWS US SWITCHING SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD IN A LOT OF TIMES I HAVE TO LEAN ON THE STAFF. ALWAYS WERE NOT THE EXPERT WERE RESIDENTS. AND WE HAVE STRONG FEELINGS. WE WANT TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS. BUT I DO LEAN ON THE STAFF AND I'M GOING FOR THIS WITH STAFFS RECOMMENDATION. BUT IN NO WAY DOES IT IMPACT MY DECISION OF WHAT YOU'RE BRINGING IN FRONT OF US. WHATEVER ZONING IT WERE TO STAY. IF YOU BRING SOMETHING GREAT, I'M GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF SOMETHING GREAT. IF IT'S SOMETHING THAT I DON'T THINK FITS WELL THERE, I'M GOING TO BE NOT IN SUPPORT OF IT. SO FOR THIS FOR THAT REASON, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT STAFF. BUT I HOPE, YOU KNOW, THAT DOESN'T IMPACT IF YOU BRING A GREAT PRODUCT IN FRONT OF US. ANYBODY THAT WANTS TO DO NOTHING ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. [00:55:01] AND DOING NOTHING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE SORRY, I GOT CONFUSED WITH MY TERMS SPEAKERS] THE LAND USE PLAN IS MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD. OK GOOD. THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD. SO DOING NOTHING, TALKING BACK AND FORTH, NOT MAKING A CHANGE MEANS YOU LEAVE IT AS MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD OR STAFF RECOMMENDATION THAT SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD SO AS DO NOTHING OR I DON'T HAVE ANYBODY SAYING LET'S CHANGE IT TO ANYTHING ELSE. SO. I'M NOT GETTING ANYBODY SAYING THAT THEY WANT TO CHANGE IT, SO I THINK I'M GOING TO DO AT THIS POINT AND LET'S JUST ANY OTHER COMMENTS THAT NEED TO BE MADE. SO WHAT I'M GOING TO DO IS ASK FOR A MOTION ON THIS ITEM 18. I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO ACCEPT EXCUSE ME FOR ITEM 18 ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF STAFF WITH EXCEPTION TO NUMBER SIX, WHICH WAS OUTLINED IN THE PACKET, BUT IS WAS DIFFERENT THAN STAFF'S ORIGINAL RECOMMENDATION. AND NUMBER SIX TO REMAIN, AS IS URBAN CENTER NUMBER 10, TO CHANGE FROM MIXED USE NEIGHBORHOOD TO SUBURBAN RETAIL ACTIVITY CENTER. HANG ON A SECOND NUMBER SIX WAS CHANGED. NUMBER SIX. THAT WAS A RECOMMENDATION FROM LAST TIME TO LEAVE, AS IS. CORRECT. I THOUGHT THAT WAS FIXED IN HERE. OK, IT WAS NOT. IT'S DOCUMENTED THAT P&Z MADE THE RECOMMENDATION, BUT I WANTED TO MAKE IT CLEAR. THANK YOU. IN THE MOTION THAT WE WERE RECOMMENDING. TO BE REMAINED. NUMBER TEN, TO MODIFY FROM STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF BUSINESS PARK TO SUBURBAN RETAIL ACTIVITY CENTER AND. YES WE GOT THAT. AND NUMBER 11, TO CHANGE, BUT REVISE FROM STAFFS RECOMMENDATION OF COMMERCIAL NODE TO BUSINESS PARK. OKAY. SO A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX TO APPROVE WITH THE STATED CHANGES. NO SECOND. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, ALL THOSE COMMISSIONERS, ALL THOSE WHO VOTE FOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSED. NAY. ITEM 18 IS APPROVED FIVE ONE. COMMISSIONER CONE AS NORMAL. CAN YOU PLEASE STATE YOUR REASONS FOR DENIAL? YES. I DO NOT THINK WE SHOULD CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR AREAS THAT WE DO NOT HAVE A STRONG, COMPELLING REASON TO CHANGE THEM FROM WHAT THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMMITTEE CAME UP WITH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, AND SIR THANK YOU FOR PLEASE BRING ANY ZONING CASE FORWARD AND WE WOULD DEFINITELY LOOK AT THAT ON ITS OWN MERIT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. SO ITEM 18 ALL. IF YOU COULD FORWARD THAT TO US SO WE CAN MAKE IT PART OF THE PACKET OR THE CASE FILE. I WILL DO THAT. [19. Results of the February 2, 2021 City Council meeting.] ITEM 19 RESULTS OF THE FEBRUARY 2ND 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THOSE RESULTS WERE PROVIDED FOR YOU IN THE PACKET. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THE RESULTS OF THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. [20. Schedule of future discussion items.] ALL RIGHT. ITEM 20, SCHEDULE OF FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS. SO GO AHEAD. OH, YES. COMMISSIONER KENDALL. YEAH, I KNOW I HAD MULTIPLE COMMISSIONERS REACH OUT TO ME AND MULTIPLE CITY STAFF. AT THE END OF THE MEETING THEY WANT TO RECOGNIZE THE BEST DRESSED PERSON. SO, JOHN GILLETTE, THANK YOU FOR LOOKING REALLY SHARP TONIGHT. [INAUDIBLE]. DEFINITELY GOT IT GOING ON SO LET IT BE KNOWN THAT JOHN GILLETTE WAS THE BEST DRESSED PERSON TONIGHT IN THE 85 N95 EVENING IS THE MARCH 9TH PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. WHO IS GOING TO BE ATTENDING.I DID HEAR FROM ED AND BRYAN. SO ED SAID HE'LL BE HERE. BRYAN IS POSSIBLY MIGHT BE OUT, BUT THAT IS SPRING BREAK WEEK AND WE DON'T TAKE OUR KIDS ANYWHERE. ANYONE THAT IS KNOWN TO BE OUT THAT WEEK, I'M GOING TO BE HERE, OK? SO I WILL MAKE SURE I'M HERE THAT WEEK AS WELL. OK. SO BRYAN'S THE ONLY QUESTION, OK? ANY OTHER FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT WE NEED. GO AHEAD COMMISSIONER RAIL. YEAH. PANDEMIC LIKE IT IS BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC I'M GOING TO PUT THAT OFF UNTIL WELL I DON'T THINK WE WOULD WANT TO DO IT THIS WEEK. [01:00:02] SO NOW WHAT IS MAYBE IN THE LATE SPRING SCHEDULE AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I WILL. BUT I'M LOOKING AT PROBABLY THE SPRING WHEN IT'S A LITTLE MORE PLEASANT WEATHER, BECAUSE THE LAST TIME WE HAD IT SCHEDULED, ACTUALLY THE WEATHER WASN'T THAT GREAT AND IT WASN'T WORKING OUT FOR A NUMBER OF REASONS. SO, NO, THAT'S STILL IN THE BACK OF MY MIND TO SCHEDULE THAT. SO THEY DID A GOOD JOB ON THE OPEN SPACE FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT. BUT WE'LL GET THAT RESCHEDULED. AND I'M GOING TO WAIT TILL THE NUMBERS ARE BETTER ON THE PANDEMIC BEFORE I'M BRINGING PEOPLE TOGETHER. AND I'LL COORDINATE WITH DONNY AS WELL. DONNY CHURCHMAN. ANY OTHER DISCUSSION ITEMS FROM STAFF. NO. OK, JUST ONE CLARIFYING POINT ON ITEM EIGHTEEN THAT WILL GO IN FRONT OF CITY COUNCIL AS WELL. AND SO THAT REQUIRES CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL. THAT'S RIGHT. CORRECT. SO IF YOU KNOW OUR LANDOWNER CAN STILL HAVE THINGS CHANGE AT THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING. THAT'S RIGHT. IF IT'S SO DETERMINED THAT THEY DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE PLANNING AND ZONINGS RECOMMENDATION. BUT IT'S NOT A DENIAL. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE SO THE DENIAL PROCESS IS NOT IN PLACE, BUT CERTAINLY CITY COUNCIL HAS THAT LEEWAY AS WELL. THAT WOULD BE MARCH 2ND CITY COUNCIL MEETING. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLARIFIED ON ITEM 18. ALL RIGHT. THAT JUST LEAVES US WITH ONE ITEM THIS EVENING. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR AYE. ANY OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES SIX ZERO WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 7:30 PM. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.