Mar 23, 2021 Frisco - Planning and Zoning Commission

[00:00:02]

WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING, THE FRISCO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WERE GATHERED AT

[CALL TO ORDER]

PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSISTS OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE COMMISSIONER CONE, COMMISSIONER KENDALL, COMMISSIONER BOX, OUR VICE CHAIR.

COMMISSIONER KELLY, OUR SECRETARY.

COMMISSIONER COLBERG. COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

I'M ROB COX AND YOUR CHAIR FOR THIS EVENING, REPRESENTING STAFF.

THIS EVENING WE HAVE IN DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JOHN LETTELLIER, ANTHONY SATARINO, KARI WHITE. WELCOME, KARI.

SARAH NELMS FROM ENGINEERING WITH JASON GRAHAM AND JOEL FITTS FROM FIRE.

WE HAVE ALYSSA SANDERS.

AM I MISSING ANYONE THIS EVENING? LEGAL IS NOT PRESENT THIS EVENING, EXCELLENT.

ALL RIGHT. FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING 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 BLUE SPEAKER CARD AND APPROACH THE PODIUM.

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 IT, IN WHICH CASE YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM TEN MINUTES. PLEASE NOTE THAT 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 TO RESPOND TO AN INQUIRY THROUGH THE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY, OR TO INDICATE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE PLACED ON A LATER AGENDA.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT WISHES TO SPEAK DURING CITIZEN INPUT THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE, I'M GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA, WHICH IS THE

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THE COMMENTS ON THESE MEETINGS, MEETING MINUTES, OR DO WE HAVE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE MARCH 9TH MEETING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 2 IS APPROVED.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

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

ANY MEMBERS 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 SIX THIS EVENING.

ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM THREE, OK, ANY OTHERS? ALL RIGHT, WE WILL PULL ITEM THREE.

DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEMS FOUR THROUGH SIX? TO APPROVE ITEMS OR THREE OR SIX AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0, ITEMS FOUR THROUGH SIX ARE APPROVED.

CONGRATULATIONS. ALL RIGHT.

ITEM THREE, THE [INAUDIBLE] PLAN AND SITE PLAN FOR CORNER SHOPPING CENTER BLOCK A, LOT

[3. Façade Plan & Site Plan: Four Corners Shopping Center, Block A, Lot 14 (FACP21-0014 & SP21-0009)]

OWNERS WESTWOOD RESIDENTIAL.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS A [INAUDIBLE] PLAN AND SITE PLAN FOR THE URBAN LIVING PROJECT.

THE REQUEST TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS A MINOR AMENDMENT TO GO FROM A 14 FOOT FOUR PLATE TO A NINE FOOT GROUND FLOOR PLATE THAT THE STATED DOES REQUIRE.

A MINOR AMENDMENT TO BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

THEREFORE, THAT IS WHY THE [INAUDIBLE] PLAN IS FOR YOUR REVIEW THIS EVENING.

SITE PLAN AND ALL OF THE APPLICABLE ZONING ORDINANCE AND SUBDIVISION OR ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I HAVE A QUESTION. WHY IS THIS NOT MEETING THE 14 FOOT MINIMUM HEIGHT? SO AS DISCUSSED IN THE STAFF REPORT, THERE WERE TWO MAIN REASONS.

THE FIRST BEING THE LOTS THAT ARE FRONTING ONTO OR EXCUSE ME, THE UNITS THAT ARE FRONTING ONTO DOE CREEK THERE.

DOE CREEK IS A COLLECTOR ROAD.

SO IT'S NOT NEVER GOING TO REALLY HAVE TRAFFIC AND THAT'S GOING TO FAVOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT SINCE IT'S A SHORT STREET.

THE SECOND IS DUE TO THE SITE'S TOPOGRAPHY.

SO AS YOU COME DOWN INTO THE SOUTHEASTERN AREA OF THE PROJECT, DOWN THROUGH HERE, THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF GRADE CHANGE.

AS HIGHLIGHTED IN ORANGE, THERE IS AN EIGHT FOOT RETAINING WALL THAT'S COMING THROUGH THIS PROPERTY. SO THE GROUND FLOOR IN THIS AREA ACTUALLY SITS BELOW THE TYPICAL GRADE OF THE SITE. FOR THOSE TWO REASONS, STAFF LOOKED AT THIS IN AGREEING WITH THE APPLICANT

[00:05:10]

IN ADDITION, WE WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT, AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, TO HAVE 70 PERCENT GLAZING ON THE GROUND FLOOR, EVEN THOUGH THEY'RE NOT DOING THE 14 FOOT CEILING HEIGHT AND EXCUSE ME, AND BALCONIES ON THE WESTERN AND SOUTHERN FACADES TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPEN SPACE TO THE SOUTH AND THE FLOOD PLAIN TO THE WEST.

WHAT IS THE CEILING HEIGHT ON THE OTHER FLOORS? THE NINE FOOT AS WELL, OR I BELIEVE SO, YES.

SHOULD BE NINE FEET ACROSS.

YES. SO THANKS FOR THE EXPLANATION THERE.

SO WHERE ARE THE GRADE, OR WHERE THERE THE GRADE ISSUES, ANTHONY? WHAT DOES THE PD CURRENTLY REQUIRE THAT THEY BE 14 FOOT ABOVE THE GRADE OR JUST 14 FOOT FROM THE GROUND? SO THE ONLY REQUIREMENT IS THAT IT'S 14 FOOT GROUND FLOOR.

THAT'S HOW IT'S STATED IN THE PD.

SO IT WOULD JUST BE JUST THAT.

BUT THEY KNOW FROM THE GRADE THAT I HAVE TO MANAGE THE GRADE. MY POINT FOR PULLING THIS AND THIS IS CORRECT.

THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. IS ESTHETICALLY, I DON'T THINK THE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY ESTHETICALLY LOOKS RIGHT WITHOUT 14 FOOT.

THERE'S A REASON THIS IS BUILT INTO THE PD TO REQUIRE THIS.

WE TALK A LOT ON THIS COMMISSION AROUND.

WE WANT TO MAKE SURE IF WE BUILD THINGS INTO THE PD THAT FUTURE COMMISSIONER FUTURE COMMISSIONS UNDERSTAND THERE'S A REASON WHY THAT WAS BUILT INTO THE PD.

I DON'T THINK THERE'S ANY REASON TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THOSE MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY.

OK. ESTHETICALLY OR BECAUSE THAT'S IN THE PD? THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER. COMMISSIONERS, ANY THE OTHER COMMENTS ON THIS? ANY OTHER THOUGHTS? CAN I ASK A QUESTION OF STAFF THEN? BASED OFF OF WHAT THE COMMISSIONER SAID, CAN YOU JUST ELABORATE ON TYPICALLY WHY WE REQUIRE 14 FOOT ON THE FIRST FLOOR? SURE. SO OUR FORM BASE CODE REFERS TO THIS IS WHERE THE STANDARD IS GENERATED FROM, REFERS TO A COMMERCIAL LOOK ON THE FIRST FLOOR OF URBAN LIVING PROJECTS.

SO THIS BEING IN LINE WITH OTHER PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY THAT HAVE THE SAME REQUIREMENT, EITHER HAVE TO FOLLOW THE FORM BASED CODE WHERE THEY HAVE A LITTLE BIT TWEAK STANDARD. THAT'S PART OF THE PD, WHICH THIS ONE DOES, BUT IT IS TO GIVE A COMMERCIAL LOOK ON THAT FIRST FLOOR AND SOMETIMES TO BE ABLE TO ACTUALLY CONVERT SOME OF THAT SPACE IN THE FUTURE TO FULL COMMERCIAL USES.

AND YOU WOULD NEED THAT 14 FOOT CEILING HEIGHT, OBVIOUSLY, FOR THE COMMERCIAL VERSUS THE NINE FOOT TO LEASE IT OUT.

OK, IN CASE OF THIS PARTICULAR CONSENT AGENDA ITEM, DO DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO OVERRIDE THIS BECAUSE IT'S NOT A PUBLIC SAFETY FACTOR? TYPICALLY, WE CAN ONLY COME [INAUDIBLE] WITH CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS IF IT SERVES PUBLIC SAFETY. SO SO A MINOR AMENDMENT IS AT THE DISCRETION OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION? WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO APPROVE OR DENY THE AMENDMENT, REQUEST THE OTHER ITEMS, MEET OUR CODE AND REQUIREMENTS.

THAT IS CORRECT. [INAUDIBLE] I WOULD SAY ONE THING I DO WANT TO ADD, THIS IS SOMETHING THAT IN MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT ON THIS AND WHAT WE DIDN'T KNOW AT THE TIME WITH THE ZONING, AND THIS IS WHY WE HAVE MINOR AND MAJOR AMENDMENTS, BECAUSE WHEN WE GET TO THIS LEVEL OF DETAIL, WE CAN MAKE AN INFORMED DECISION.

AS ANTHONY POINTED OUT, DOE CREEK IS NOT GOING TO HAVE THE COMMERCIAL TRAFFIC THAT MOST COMMERCIAL STREETS WOULD HAVE.

THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN LITTLE ELM ON THE WEST SIDE, MOST OF THAT PROPERTY'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN. SO IT FURTHER RESTRICTS.

THEN YOU HAVE THE GRADE CHANGES ON THE PROPERTY.

SO WITH THOSE FACTORS, WE'VE WORKED WITH THEM TO SOFTEN THAT APPROACH WHERE WE COULD COM E INTO AN AGREEMENT TO DO AN ADDITIONAL ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED MORE. I MEAN, THE GLAZING ON THE FIRST FLOOR AND THEN DOING BALCONIES.

AND THERE'S ALSO ONE OTHER THING ABOUT MAKING CONNECTIONS TO THE FOOD TRUCK COURT THAT WASN'T THERE BEFORE AND DOING SOME ADDITIONAL HARDSCAPE IMPROVEMENTS THERE ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING THAT THEY WEREN'T GOING TO DO IN THE FIRST PLACE.

SO THEY DID MAKE CONCESSIONS ON THIS, AS WELL AS DRESSING UP THE EAST SIDE OF THE FACADE, BECAUSE A CASE THAT YOU'LL BE SEEING LATER, THERE WAS A THEATER THAT WAS PROPOSED TO THE

[00:10:05]

YOU MAY RECALL WHEN THE ZONING CASE CAME THROUGH, THAT THEATER IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN.

THEY'RE GOING TO PROBABLY DO A TWO STORY OFFICE BUILDING.

SO SINCE THAT'S OFFICE BUILDING IS FOUR SIDED, THEY ALSO WORKED WITH US TO DRESS UP THAT FACADE OF THE PARKING GARAGE COMPARED TO WHAT IT WAS BEFORE, BECAUSE THEN THAT PARKING GARAGE WAS GOING TO BE FACING THE BACK OF A THEATER.

SO THEY PUT MORE DETAIL ON THAT THAN ORIGINALLY PLANNED.

SO THERE'S A NUMBER OF THINGS THEY DID WORK WITH US ON THAT WENT INTO THIS CONSIDERATION WHY STAFF, RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT.

AND THEN IF YOU DENY IT, THEN THE APPLICANT CAN APPEAL THIS TO CITY COUNCIL.

SEEMS LIKE TO ME THERE'S.

OCCASIONALLY, COMMON SENSE NEEDS TO TAKE OVER AND TOPOGRAPHY.

UM. CAN MAKE IT MAKE AN IMPACT.

I THINK THE THE REASON FOR HAVING, YOU KNOW, 14 FOOT.

HEIGHTS ON THE BOTTOM FLOOR ARE ALSO FOR THE COMMERCIAL RETAIL COMPONENTS AND DOESN'T SOUND LIKE THIS IS GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THAT.

SO. I'D LIKE TO TIME IN A QUESTION [INAUDIBLE] I AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BOX AS FAR AS THE APPEARANCE GOES, THAT THE NINE FOOT ON ALL FOUR FLOORS DOESN'T LOOK AS GOOD AS THE 14 FOOT ON THE FIRST FLOOR. I DEFINITELY AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT.

I ALSO AGREE WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION THAT THIS WILL NOT BE CONVERTED TO, UNLIKELY TO BE CONVERTED TO COMMERCIAL SPACE EVER.

SO I DON'T THINK WE'RE LIMITING ITS FUTURE USE AS THAT.

SO THIS IS KIND OF A JUDGMENT CALL THAT I THINK STAFF IS CORRECT.

I THINK COMMISSIONER BOX IS CORRECT.

JUST TO DUCKTAIL ON THAT IS I'M GLAD COMMISSIONER BOX PULLED IT FOR, SO THAT WE CAN HAVE THE DIALOG. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE TOPOGRAPHY OVER THERE ARE ON FOUR TWENTY THREE. I'VE SEEN MANY OF THE OTHER APARTMENTS THAT THE OBSTACLES THAT THEY HAVE TO OVERCOME. AND AGAIN, THE COMMERCIAL ISSUE, BUT WHY I'M GLAD YOU PULLED IT IS WE STILL HAVE PROPERTY THAT WILL HAVE SOME TOPOGRAPHY ISSUES.

AND I DON'T WANT I THINK IT MESSAGES.

THIS WAS A VERY UNIQUE SITUATION.

AND IF IT DOES FRONT POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL OPPORTUNITIES THAT, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE WON'T GO IN THE FUTURE, HEY, WE WANT THE SAME THING.

SO JUST BY THIS ONE BEING APPROVED IS NOT GIVING A BLANK SLATE FOR FUTURE ONES.

SO THAT'S WHY WE I'M GLAD WE HAVE [INAUDIBLE].

THE PRESIDENT SAID CASE BY CASE.

THAT'S RIGHT.

ANTHONY IS THE APPLICANT HERE, IF WE COULD ASK THEM A QUESTION.

YES, THE APPLICANT IS YOU ABSOLUTELY CAN ASK THE APPLICANT QUESTIONS.

CAN I ASK A QUICK QUESTION? WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR HIM TO COME UP. ANTHONY, JUST SO EVERYONE'S CLEAR, YOU SAID SOME THING ABOUT THEY WOULD GO WITH THE 70 PERCENT GLAZING ON THE FIRST FLOOR.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN TO EVERYONE WHAT THAT IS? YES. SO I, WE, THAT'S ALSO FOLLOWS PART OF THAT FORM BASE CODE REQUIREMENT.

AND THAT LU2 IN OUR FORM BASE CODE, WHICH IS SIMPLY A HIGHER GLAZING PERCENTAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR THAT YOU WOULD TYPICALLY SEE WITH THAT 14 FOOT CEILING HEIGHT JUST BECAUSE OF THE ELEVATED, TALLER CEILINGS.

BUT NOW THEY'VE EXPANDED THAT TO REQUIRE THAT ON ALL THE GROUND FLOOR.

SO YOU'RE STILL GETTING THE YOU'RE STILL GETTING A HIGHER GLAZING PERCENTAGE ON THE FIRST FLOOR, JUST NOT THE 14 FEET GLAZING ISN'T THAT PURPLE LOOK GOING ACROSS? YOU KNOW, THAT'S JUST HIGHLIGHTING FOR YOU COMMISSIONER BOX? SIR, IF YOU CAN JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. SURE.

MY NAME IS JAIME BEARD.

2595 NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY, FRISCO, TEXAS, WITH BGE.

I'M ACTUALLY THE CIVIL ENGINEER.

I'M NOT THE APPLICANT, BUT I'M THE ONLY ONE HERE, I GUESS WITH KNOWLEDGE OF PROJECT.

WELL THERE'S TWO OF US. BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THAT I CAN.

I'M OBVIOUSLY NOT THE ARCHITECT ON THE PROJECT, BUT I'M HAPPY TO GIVE YOU WHATEVER BACKGROUND. SURE, I MAY HAVE ARCHITECTURE QUESTIONS.

SO, YEAH, GOTCHA.

I FEEL VERY LIMITED.

YEAH. YEAH. I APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND SHARING FORWARD TODAY.

SO YOU HEARD MY CONCERN.

ARE YOU AWARE OF, THE ORIGINAL DESIGN WAS TO GO WITH THE 14 FOOT BECAUSE SOMEBODY SPENT MONEY FOR THE DRAWINGS.

RIGHT. WERE THERE OTHER REASONS BESIDES THE TOPOGRAPHY NOT TO GO WITH THE 14 FOOT? ARE YOU AWARE? YOU KNOW WHAT? I CAN TELL YOU THAT I'M AWARE OF CONSTRUCTABILITY ISSUES AND JUST LOGISTICS WHEN IT COMES TO CONSTRUCTING AND SHIFTING THE PLATES.

I KNOW THAT'S BEEN AN ISSUE.

WE'VE DONE I'VE DONE PROJECT WITH WESTWOOD OVER THE LAST FIFTEEN, SIXTEEN YEARS IN FRISCO WHAT WE'VE DONE THAT EXACT PRODUCT AND I KNOW WE'VE ENCOUNTERED THAT.

SO THAT MAY HAVE BEEN A FACTOR.

THAT'S THE ONLY THING I'M AWARE OF.

GOT IT NOW. THANK YOU. SO I'M NOT AN ENGINEER BY ANY MEANS AT ALL.

I'M AN ENGINEER AND AN AGGIE.

SO BEAR WITH ME.

[00:15:01]

YEAH, ALL OF THAT. SO I GUESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND 14 FOOT OR NINE FOOT.

YOU'VE GOT TO PLAY WITH FOUR PLATES.

SO WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE? I DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THAT'S A DIFFERENCE.

I'LL JUST RELAY. THAT'S WHAT I'VE HEARD.

THAT'S PROBABLY MORE OF A CONSTRUCTION QUESTION, TO BE HONEST WITH YOU.

I'M SURE IT'S A FRAMING AND TRADES ISSUE.

IT'S NOT NECESSARILY A DESIGN ISSUE, BUT THAT THAT'S I KNOW THAT'S BEEN OUT THERE IN THE PAST. OK, WELL, I WAS JUST SAYING. [INAUDIBLE]I MEAN. YEAH.

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT MEANS. I MEAN, WHAT DOES THAT MEAN? YOU'RE A MECHANICAL ENGINEER.

IT WOULD BE.[INAUDIBLE] YEAH, YEAH.

OK, THE AIR CONDITIONING AND PLUMBING AND.

YEAH. OK, SO.

I APPRECIATE YOUR TIME. YEAH.

YOU BET. THANK YOU, SIR.

MR. BOX? CAN I ADD A COMMENT TO WHAT YOU SAID? JUST THE FACT THAT FOR SCHOOL REQUIRES THE 14 FOOT FIRST FLOOR IN OUR MULTIFAMILY IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE KIND OF UPGRADED EXPECTATIONS THE FRISCO DOES ACROSS THE BOARD.

SO I LIKE THE FACT THAT WE KIND OF GO WITH THAT IS OUR STANDARD.

AND THEN.

AND THEN MODERATE FROM THERE.

IF WE NEED TO MAKE AN EXCEPTION FOR A PARTICULAR SITE THAT MAKES SENSE WHERE WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE'RE GIVING ANYTHING UP.

I STILL AGREE WITH YOU ON THE APPEARANCE SAKE, BUT I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S WORTH THE ADDED COST TO THE DEVELOPER TO STICK WITH THE 14 FOOT.

THIS IS ONE COMMENT.

I JUST WANT TO ADD. IT IS A COST SAVINGS TO THE DEVELOPER, BUT IT IS 14 FEET.

NOT ALL OF THESE HAVE BEEN 14 FEET.

IT'S ONLY WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE FLEX SPACE.

SO FLEX SPACES CAN BE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL IN THE NEXT, LATER ON DOWN THE ROAD.

THANK YOU. WE GO BACK TO I JUST THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE A COMMON SENSE VIEW OF SOME OF THESE PROJECTS, UM.

TO TAKE MR. CONE'S POINT OF HAVING HIGH STANDARDS AND THEN MAKING EXCEPTIONS BASED OFF MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES IS A VALID APPROACH.

I SAID.

CAN I? SO, JOHN, YOUR COMMENT IN THAT NONRESIDENTIAL OR FLEX SPACE WOULD BE 14, THEY STILL CAN BUILD FIRST FLOOR TO NINE IF IT'S ONLY RESIDENTIAL.

DID I UNDERSTAND THAT CORRECTLY? THAT'S RIGHT.

THIS IS ALL GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL.

AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE SUPPORTING THE MINOR AMENDMENT.

THERE'S NOT REALLY A PLACE.

BUT IT'S DOING ALL THIS OTHER STUFF.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, GOES TOWARDS THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION TO SUPPORT IT AS ANTHONY COVERED. ANY QUESTIONS ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE OF THE DAIS? OK, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM THREE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL.

SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED?NAY.

THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ONE.

COMMISSIONER BOX, CAN YOU JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD, WHY YOU VOTED IN THE NEGATIVE.

SURE. JUST STILL FEEL THAT WE SHOULD STICK WITH THE 14 FOOT IN THE NON RESIDENTIAL AREA OF THE BUILDING. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BOX.

ALL RIGHT. NOW FOR THE REGULAR AGENDA.

[7. Final Plat: Preston Hickory Addition, Block A, Lot 4R (FP21-0004)]

I WANT TO THANK I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS.

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

EACH PUBLIC HEARING, THE APPLICANT IS PERMITTED TEN MINUTES TO MAKE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT BY THE COMMISSION THAT IS WISHING TO SPEAK ARE WELCOME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.

ALL SPEAKERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT, NEED TO COMPLETE THE 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 YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

REPEAT APPEARANCES TO THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED.

AFTER ALL PERSONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE CASE IS TABLED TO A FUTURE DATE AND THE COMMISSION INCLUDES IN THEIR MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING INTO 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 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 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AS TO WHEN THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

ITEM SEVEN FINAL PLAT PRESTON AND HICKORY ADDITION BLOCK A, LOT 4R FP21-0004 OWNERS T5 HICKORY HOLDINGS, LLC.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON FEBRUARY 8TH, 2021.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION ON MARCH 9TH,

[00:20:01]

AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS PROJECT BE DENIED AND DISAPPROVED THIS EVENING FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ANY COMMENTS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? IS THE APPLICANT HERE TO SPEAK? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? [INAUDIBLE] TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MR. CHAIR, I'M NOT SURE [INAUDIBLE]. YEAH, I APOLOGIZE. IT IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING FINAL PLAT.

THERE.

EITHER ONE OF THESE PUBLIC HEARING IS [INAUDIBLE].

SO I RETRACTED PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT.

SO DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM SEVEN? MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF'S REPORT AND DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

THANK YOU. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRY 6-0 ITEM SEVEN IS DISAPPROVED.

OR THE DENIAL IS APPROVED.

ITEM EIGHT PRELIMINARY PLAT BROOKSIDE PHASES 1A AND 1B PP21-0001 OWNERS HQ HOLDINGS LP.

[8. Preliminary Plat: Brookside, Phases 1A & 1B (PP21-0001)]

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION ON FEBRUARY 23RD, 2021.

THE APPLICANT DID NOT RESUBMIT THE PROJECT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT REVIEW SCHEDULE. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND FOUND THAT IT FAILS TO MEET THE CITY'S ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND OTHER APPLICABLE CITY CODES, ORDINANCES, REGULATION, RULES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS.

AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THAT THIS PROJECT BE UP FOR DENIAL AND DISAPPROVAL THIS EVENING FOR THE REASONS LISTED. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

JUST ONE QUESTION I HAVE ON THIS ONE HAVE YOU GUYS STARTED WORK WITH THEM ON THESE ITEMS? IS IT STILL CONVERSATIONS ONGOING? YES, WE ARE WORKING VERY CLOSELY WITH THEM AND WE'RE MAKING PROGRESS? YES.

OK, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM EIGHT? I MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM EIGHT FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSE? THE MOTION CARRIES 6-0 ITEM EIGHT IS DISAPPROVED.

[9. Results of the March 16, 2021 City Council meeting.]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THOSE RESULTS WERE PROVIDED FOR YOU IN THE PACKET AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS, ANY COMMENTS FOR STAFF ON THE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES? THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ITEM 10, SCHEDULE OF FEATURE DISCUSSION ITEMS.

[10. Schedule of future discussion items.]

AND SO AS SOON AS I HEAR BACK FROM HIM, I'LL LET YOU KNOW.

SECOND ON THE PARKING MAYBE IN APRIL OR MAY.

I'LL BRING BACK THE PARKING AGAIN.

I'M ONLY CONCENTRATING ON RETAIL.

THAT SEEMS TO BE THE EASIEST LOW HANGING FRUIT, ESPECIALLY WITH NEIGHBORHOOD CENTERS.

SO I'LL GET INTO THAT IN THE PRESENTATION.

I DID SEND OUT AN EMAIL EARLIER.

SO ON APRIL THE 27TH ENGINEERING IS UPDATING THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE AND AS REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. AND YOU HAVE AN ADVISORY COMMITTEE, WHICH IS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND WE HAVE A FEW OF YOU THAT'S IN THE REAL ESTATE BUSINESS.

SO THAT SATISFIES THAT REQUIREMENT.

AND THEN WE HAVE ONE PERSON, PROPERTY OWNER FROM THE ETJ, SINCE WE'RE GOING TO BE APPLYING ANY TIME TO APPLY THE IMPACT FEE ORDINANCE TO THE ETJ, YOU HAVE TO HAVE A PROPERTY OWNERS ON THE ADVISORY COMMITTEE.

SO YOU ALL BE MAKING A RECOMMENDATION FOR THAT TO GO BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.

SO AGAIN, WE'RE SHOOTING FOR APRIL 27TH.

THAT MEETING WOULD START AT 5:30 HERE IN THE COUNCIL CHAMBERS.

SO IF YOU CAN'T MAKE IT, PLEASE LET LORI OR MYSELF KNOW ABOUT THAT.

THAT IS A TUESDAY, IS THAT BEFORE TUESDAY? YES, BEFORE. SO TALKING TO JASON GRIMM EARLIER, HE ESTIMATED THIS TAKE ABOUT 30 MINUTES TOPS, BUT THEN WANT TO START AT SIX IN CASE I DID RUN OVER AND NOT KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE AGENDA.

I WANT TO BE MINDFUL OF THE APPLICANTS SO THEY'RE NOT WAITING AROUND ON THAT.

SO 5:30 WILL BE THE START TIME FOR THAT.

DID YOU HEAR FROM JASON? YEAH.

JOHN, DOCUMENTS WILL BE POSTED.

YES, I KNOW THE EXACT WELL, TRYING TO GET THOSE OUT EARLIER THAN NORMAL THAN THE THURSDAY

[00:25:04]

SO YOU HAVE TIME TO REVIEW IT BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW IT'S GOING TO BE, A JOURNAL.

IT'S PRETTY THICK AND GIVING YOU TIME TO REVIEW.

THIS IS WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. YEAH.

AND THEN LAST, THIS IS SARA NELMS LAST MEETING AT P AND Z.

SHE'S GOING OVER TO FLEET SERVICES.

SHE'S NOT LEAVING THE CITY, BUT SHE'S MAKING THE TRANSFER OVER INTO PUBLIC WORKS.

KIND OF DOES. IT IS DISAPPOINTING.

SHE'S DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB. DISAPPOINTING FOR US.

YOU KNOW, MAYBE NOT FOR HER.

THIS IS JOHN KENDALL'S FAULT.

WE HAD AN INTIMATE CONVERSATION FOR LIKE 35 MINUTES COME UP IN CONVERSATION.

SO, THANK YOU, SARA.

I'M GLAD YOU'RE GOING TO BE WITH THE CITY STILL.

SO WE STILL HAVE YOUR TALENTS AND WE'LL MISS YOU HERE.

IT'S ALL YOU DO FOR US.

ANYTHING ELSE? THAT'S ALL I HAVE, SO COMMISSIONERS, ANYTHING FOR STAFF THIS EVENING? BUT STAFF? I WOULD SAY THANK YOU TO OUR GUESTS THAT COME OUT.

WE ENJOY IT. I WISH MY MOM INVITED ME OUT AND WE [INAUDIBLE] WANT THIS TO COME.

AND SHE KEPT HIM LOCKED IN THE CLOSET.

I REALLY DON'T KNOW OR HAVE FACTS ON THAT.

YEAH, IT'S GOOD.

I WISH I HAD LEARNED SOME OF THE THINGS THAT YOU'RE ALL LEARNING.

SO THANK YOU. YES.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. ANYTHING ELSE FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT? I'LL HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.

SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE.

ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0.

WE ARE ADJOURNED.

6:57 AND STILL TALKING.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.