[00:00:01]
>> GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING.
[CALL TO ORDER]
THE FIRST SCHOOL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WERE GATHERED 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, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE; COMMISSIONER COHEN, COMMISSIONER KENDALL, COMMISSIONER BOX, OUR VICE-CHAIR, COMMISSIONER KELLY, OUR SECRETARY AND COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG, AND QUENCHER MORGAN.
I'M ROB COX A NEW CHAIR FOR THIS EVENING.
REPRESENTING STAFF THIS EVENING FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE HAVE JOHN LETTLER, JONATHAN HUBBARD, CARRIE WHITE, CINDY JACKSON, LAURIE CROSS, AND KIRSTEN COUNSELOR.
FROM ENGINEERING, WE HAVE JOEL FITZ AND RICARDO DENNIS.
FROM FIRE, ALYSSA SANDERS, AND FROM LEGAL WE HAVE RYAN PITTMAN.
>> DID YOU SAY HIS LAST NAME RIGHT CORRECTLY?
>> WE'RE JOINING US. IT WAS NOT THAT.
THAT WAS A YES, JOHN [NOISE] THE FIRST ITEM ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING IS CITIZEN INPUT.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING ANY ITEMS THAT ARE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA THAT YOU MAY DO SO AT THIS TIME.
PLEASE COMPLETE A BELIEF SPEAKER CARD, APPROACH THE PODIUM.
YOU ALSO HAVE A CHANCE STIRRING TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS LATER THIS EVENING AS WELL.
PROUD OF 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 OF US SPEAK, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES UNLESS GMS ADDRESS THE COMMISSION THROUGH A TRANSLATOR, IN WHICH CASE YOU HAVE A MAXIMUM 10 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 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 WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING CITIZEN INPUT THIS EVENING? DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK DURING CITIZEN INPUT OR DURING A PUBLIC HEARING? PUBLIC HEARING. ALL RIGHT.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
THE NEXT ITEM, ITEM 2 CONSIDER AN ACT UPON APPROVAL OF MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON JULY 27TH, 2021.COMMISSIONERS, DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, OR A MOTION ON ITEM 2?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE JULY 27TH, 2021 MEETING.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 60 ITEM 2 IS APPROVED.
NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS CONSIDERED AN ITEMS.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NONCONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. COMMISSION MEMBER MAKING SUCH REQUESTS PRIOR TO MOTION AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT ITEMS WHEN WE CONSIDER ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY.ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON CONSENT ITEMS MAY DO SO WITH THE MAJORITY APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.
WE HAVE ITEMS 3 THROUGH 13 THIS EVENING.
ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED OUT FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION?
>> MR. CHAIR I LIKE THE PULL NUMBER 3.
>> OKAY. ANY OTHERS? WE HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 4 THROUGH 13.
>> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS 4 THROUGH 13.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES.
[3. Conveyance Plat: Frisco 45 Addition, Block B, Lots 2-11 (CP21-0012)]
COMMISSIONER BOX, YOUR REASON FOR PULLING ITEM 3?>> OKAY. I THINK SHE'LL HAVE A PAPER FOR YOU TO ASSIGN.
IF YOU WANT TO STEP OUT FOR A SECOND, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND WORK ON THAT ITEM WITHOUT YOU.
ITEM 3 CONVEYS FLAT FRISCO 45 ADDITION BLOCK B LOTS 2-11CP21-0012 OWNERS 121 SPRING CREEK, LLC.
COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THIS PARTICULAR CONSENT ITEM? DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 3 IS SUBMITTED.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 50.
>> DO YOU ASK MR. BOX TO COME BACK IN PLACE?
[14. Public Hearing - Replat: Frisco Original Donation, Block 61, Lots 4 & 5C (RP21-0033)]
>> THIS EVENING WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA AND I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS.
EACH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS PRECEDED BY A STANDARD DEDUCTION AND THE REQUEST THE APPLICANT IS IMPLEMENTED 10 MINUTES TO MAKE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION.
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF OR 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 AND 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 POSITION OR THEIR COMMENTS.
TIME LIMIT IS FIVE MINUTES PER SPEAKER TO ENSURE EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK.
THE COMMISSION MEMBERS CAN VOTE DELIMIT SPEAKING
[00:05:03]
TIME IF A LARGE VOLUME PEOPLE ARE WISHING TO SPEAK, PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.REPEAT APPEARANCES TO THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED, AND FOR ALL PERSONS ARE BEGINNING 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 TABLE TO A FUTURE DATE AND THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING THE 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 APPLICANT.
PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION ONLY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING CASES UNLESS THE COMMISSION DENIES A CASE AND THE APPLICANT DOES NOT APPEAL THAT DENIAL, FINAL ACTION REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AS TO WHEN THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING, ITEM 14, PUBLIC HEARING REPLY.
FRISCO, ORIGINAL DONATION BLOCKS 61 LOTS 4 & 5C RP21-0033, OWNERS PRICE AND CINDY HUBBARD AND I UNDERSTAND THAT MIGHT BE A CORRECTION ON THAT TO TIFFANY HUBBARD ZONE.
>> YES. WE WILL MAKE A VERBAL AMENDMENT TO CHANGE THE OWNERS TO BRYCE AND TIFFANY HUBBARD.
IF THE EXTENSION IS GRANTED, WE'LL CORRECT THAT ON THE STAFF REPORT WHEN IT COMES FOR FINAL APPROVAL?
>> ABSOLUTELY. IS THE APPLICANT HEARING WHERE THEY CARE TO SPEAK? DO I HAVE A MOTION OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER BOX.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COHEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 60 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING?
>> SEEING NONE MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 60.
>> MR. CHAIR DO WE NEED TO REOPEN AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS CASE?
GENERALLY, YOU DO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
IF YOU WANT TO CONTINUE, YOU HAVE TO OPEN IT OKAY UP AND THEN CONTINUE.
ON THIS ONE, DO WE NEEDED TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR DO WE JUST NEED TO VOTE ON IT NEXT TIME? THIS IS REALLY ABOUT THE EXTENSION.
>> THEY'RE ASKING FOR AN EXTENSION [OVERLAPPING]
>> WELL, THEY'RE ASKING EXTENSION, BUT IT IS A PUBLIC HEARING [OVERLAPPING] IF WE SHOULD CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, PUBLIC HERE AND STOPS TONIGHT.
>> I MEAN, I'D LIKE TO GIVE THE PUBLIC AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IF THEY'D LIKE TO WHEN IT COMES UP.
>> WHY DON'T WE WANT TO TAKE A MOTION OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING.
>> CAN I MAKE THIS ALL IN ONE MOTION?
>> NO. WE HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND THEN [OVERLAPPING]
>> WE HAVE TO REOPEN PUBLIC HEARINGS.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES 60.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? IF WE'RE GOING TO CONTINUE THIS AND TABLE THE VIALS AND WANT MAKE EXCEPT THE VERBAL CORRECTION ON THE NAME.
AS PART OF THAT MOTION, PLEASE?
CORRECT THE OWNER'S NAME TO TIFFANY HUBBARD FROM CINDY AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE AUGUST 24TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
>> AT THE RIGHT ONE FOR THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COHEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES THE 60 AS ITEM HAS BEEN TABLED AND PUBLIC HEARING HAS BEEN CONTINUED TO AUGUST 24TH.
[15. Preliminary Site Plan: SEC Hillcrest Road and Panther Creek Parkway (PSP21-0038)]
ITEM 15, PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.>> I'VE GOT A RECUSE MYSELF FOR ITEM 15.
YOU MIGHT WANT TO GO THAT WAY THIS TIME BECAUSE IT MIGHT BE A LITTLE BIT [LAUGHTER] YOU HAVE TO GO OUTSIDE.
LET ME KNOW THAT COMMISSIONER KENDALL IS RECUSING HIMSELF FROM ITEM 15.
ITEM 15 PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, SEC HILLCREST ROAD IN PANTHER CREEK PARKWAY, PSP21-0038, OWNERS PANTHER CREEK VENTURES LIMITED.
>> THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO SPLIT THIS TRACT INTO ONE MULTIFAMILY LOT AND ONE RETAIL LOT.
THE PROPERTY IS LOCATED WITHIN PLAN DEVELOPMENT 2 PURSUANT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO EXHIBIT C A PORTION OF THE SUBJECT PROPERTY FALLS WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREA A.
IN THIS AREA, COMMERCIAL USES SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM ALLOWED AREA OF 25 ADJACENT AND CONTIGUOUS NET ACRES OF LAND AT THE INTERSECTION OF THE FUTURE HILLCREST ROAD EXTENSION IN PANTHER CREEK PARKWAY.
ACCORDING TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 2, ONCE THE COMMERCIAL AREAS ARE DEVELOPED, THE REMAINING ACREAGE CAN BE DEVELOPED LIMITED TO THE USES SET FORTH IN SECTION 1.2A.
IT'S WORTH NOTING THAT MULTIFAMILY IS ONE OF THOSE PERMITTED USES BUT POSTDOCS ANALYSIS, ONLY 12 ACRES OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA HAVE BEEN DEVELOPED WHICH LEAVES 13 ADDITIONAL ACRES THAT NEED TO BE DEVELOPED AS COMMERCIAL, LEAVING ONLY ABOUT 50 ACRES REMAINING OF THE 17.8 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES SHOWN.
[00:10:05]
THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE DEVELOPED AS A DIFFERENT USE.THEN PSP21-0038 AS HAS SHOWN HAS 12.2 ACRES BEING DEVELOPED AS MULTIFAMILY WHICH EXCEEDS THAT 4.8 ALLOWED.
ADDITIONALLY, THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE CALL THE TIGERLILY AGREEMENT DATED MARCH 7TH, 2000 AND ITS SUBSEQUENT AMENDMENTS THAT WE FEEL APPLIES TO THE SUBJECT PROPERTY.
PURSUANT TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, NO MORE THAN 300 MULTIFAMILY UNITS MAY BE DEVELOPED ON THE PROPERTY SUBJECT TO THE AGREEMENT AND I'VE INCLUDED AN ATTACHMENT.
THE MAXIMUM DENSITY OF SUCH UNITS SHALL NOT EXCEED 20 PER ACRE AND THEY SHALL BE BUILT IN THE PORTION OF THE PROPERTY DESIGNATED AS TRACT I, VERDE PANTHER CREEK APARTMENTS LOCATED ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF PANTHER CREEK PARKWAY, A LITTLE BIT EAST OF PRESTON ROAD AND APPROVED BY P AND Z ON JULY 24TH, 2007, CONSTRUCTED 295 OF THE 300 PERMITTED UNITS.
FURTHERMORE, THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON TRACK 3 AS YOU CAN SEE WHERE MULTIFAMILY IS NOT PERMITTED UNDER THE AGREEMENT.
THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING MULTIFAMILY WHERE IT'S NOT ALLOWED PER THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
AS A RESPONSE, THEY HAVE STATED OUR ANALYSIS SHOWS THAT MULTIFAMILY IS PERMITTED ON THE PROPERTY BUT THAT ANALYSIS HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED TO STAFF.
FURTHERMORE, THE APPLICANT SELF-PROVIDED COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT IN THE EVENT THAT MULTIFAMILY IS PERMITTED.
IN RESPONSE TO STAFF'S COMMENTS, CITING THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THE APPLICANT RESPONDED, "THE REFERENCED CODE IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO MULTIFAMILY 15 AND 19 ZONING DISTRICTS." BUT THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 2 WHICH DOES NOT ESTABLISH A BASE ZONE OF MULTIFAMILY 15 OR 19 AND THUS DOES NOT APPLY.
THAT BEING SAID, STAFF MAINTAINS THAT WHERE PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO A SILENT, THE ZONING ORDINANCE APPLIES.
SECTION 3.2 OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT SAYS, "AS AMENDED HERE IN, THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT SHALL CONFORM TO ANY AND ALL APPLICABLE ARTICLES AND SECTIONS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS IT PRESENTLY EXISTS OR MAYBE AMENDED." SOME EXAMPLES INCLUDE THE BUILDING ORIENTATION, SEPARATION FROM RESIDENTIAL AND OPEN SPACE DIMENSION.
STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND FOUND THAT IT FAILS TO MEET THE STANDARDS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND FOR THESE REASONS, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL AS STATED.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, YOU MADE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, USED UP THE 295 OF THE 300 APPLICABLE MULTIFAMILY UNITS?
>> ON THE VERDE TRACK AND TRACK 1?
>> CORRECT WHICH IS ON THE NORTHWEST PORTION OF TRACK 1.
>> ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? WILL THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK? CAN GET YOUR BLUETOOTH SPEAKER CARDS WOULD BE GREAT.
>> WE DO HAVE A CLASS DRIVE AS WELL, WE CAN SHARE SOME SLIDES, THAT'D BE GREAT.
WE CAN WORK WITH THAT. [NOISE]
>> [INAUDIBLE] THIS WAY. [INAUDIBLE]
>> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS MATTHIAS HUBBERT, 6,017 MAIN STREET HERE IN FRISCO, TEXAS 75034.
FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME HERE TONIGHT.
I'M STANDING HERE REPRESENTING THE APPLICANT WHO BELIEVE THAT THEY HAVE ENTITLEMENTS FOR A 12 PLUS ACRES OF MULTIFAMILY ON THIS TRACT.
WE'RE HERE TONIGHT, BASICALLY, AT THE ADVICE OF THE CITY PLANNING STAFF.
WE WERE INSTRUCTED TO BASICALLY SUBMIT THIS APPLICATION AND PRESENT HERE TO THE COMMISSION AND TO CITY COUNCIL IF NEEDED, BASICALLY, TO STATE OUR ZONING ANALYSIS IN THE EVENT THAT STAFF WAS NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE ANALYSIS TO US.
THIS IS BASICALLY STARTED ABOUT 10 MONTHS AGO WHERE THE APPLICANT HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH CITY STAFF AND THEY REQUESTED ZONING ANALYSIS, KNOWING THAT THIS WOULD BE AN INTERPRETATION OF SOME SORTS FROM A LEGAL STANDPOINT WITH A PD ZONING ORDINANCE AND A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON EFFECT.
BASICALLY, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED A OFFICIAL ZONING ANALYSIS FROM STAFF OUTSIDE
[00:15:04]
OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA FOR THIS MEETING WHICH WAS ISSUED LAST FRIDAY ON AUGUST 6TH, 2021.AGAIN, THERE WAS A PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT AND CITY STAFF ON JANUARY 29TH OF THIS YEAR, 2021 WHERE THE STAFF REQUESTED ZONING ANALYSIS FROM CITY PLANNING STAFF.
THE CITY ISSUED PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING NOTES STATE THAT STAFF CONTINUES TO RESEARCH IN TERMS OF ZONING ANALYSIS AND RECOMMENDED ADDITIONAL MEETINGS WITH CITY STAFF TO DISCUSS THE MULTIFAMILY ENTITLEMENTS.
ADDITIONAL DISCUSSIONS WITH STAFF AFTER THE PRE-SUBMITTAL MEETING, A CLEAR ANALYSIS FROM THE CITY WAS STILL NOT PROVIDED.
STAFF DEFERRED TO PROVIDE A ZONING ANALYSIS, INSTRUCTED THE APPLICANT TO SUBMIT A FORMAL APPLICATION WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE TODAY.
THIS BSP APPLICATION AND STAFF DEFERRED TO PROVIDE A ZONING ANALYSIS AT THAT TIME.
THE APPLICANT TRIED TO PRESENT THEIR ZONING ANALYSIS TO STAFF AND SEVERAL DIFFERENT INSTANCES AND AGAIN STAFF DEFERRED AND SAID, THIS NEEDS TO BE A FORMAL APPLICATION, THIS NEEDS TO BE A PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSIONER CITY COUNCIL.
THE APPLICANT HAS NOW TAKEN STEPS, INPUT, AND SUBMITTED A FORMAL APPLICATION FOR REVIEW AS WE STATED HERE.
THROUGH THIS REVIEW PROCESS, THROUGH THE REVIEW COMMENTS, AGAIN, HAVE FAILED TO PROVIDE ANALYSIS AS A STAFF REPORTER REPEATED.
IT WAS JUST STATED THAT MULTIFAMILY WAS NOT A PERMISSIBLE USE.
BUT KNOW THE DETAILS THAT WERE JUST PRESENTED HERE TO YOU NOW.
WE RECEIVE THOSE COMMENTS, WE RESUBMITTED, WE PROVIDE OUR ZONING ANALYSIS AT THAT TIME IN FORM OF EXHIBITS AND STATEMENTS THAT WERE JUST PRESENTED.
AS THIS TIME HERE, AUGUST 10TH, 2021, WE STILL HAVE NOT RECEIVED THE STAFF COMMENTS OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC HEARING AGENDA THAT WAS PRESENTED ON THE EVENING OF AUGUST 6TH, 2021.
A MAJORITY OF THE COMMENTS ARE STILL EXCLUDED FROM THE AGENDA ITEM HERE.
THEY ARE STATED BUT SOME OF THOSE REQUIRE ADDITIONAL MARK-UPS AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE THAT ARE TOUGH JUST TO DECIPHER OF NATURE.
WITH THIS IN MIND, WE'RE HERE IN FRONT OF YOU AS STAFF ADVISED, WE'RE PRESENTING OUR CASE, WE'RE PRESENTING OUR ZONING ANALYSIS TO YOU GUYS.
WE'RE JUST LOOKING FOR HELP AND UNDERSTANDING OF THE CITY'S ZONING ANALYSIS.
WE HAVE OUR FINDINGS, THE CITY HAS THEIR FINDINGS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO CREATE A COLLABORATIVE EFFORT HERE WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY COME TO SOME AGREEMENT.
WE WANT TO BE A PARTNER WITH THE CITY, WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE CITY.
I THINK ALL OF THE APPLICANT AND THE DESIGN TEAM AND EVERYONE INVOLVED IN THIS PROJECT HAS WORKED WITH THE CITY IN THE PAST AND WOULD LOVE TO CONTINUE THOSE RELATIONSHIPS.
BUT WE'RE RESPECTFULLY ASKING FOR A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING OF STAFF'S ZONING ANALYSIS HERE TONIGHT.
WITH THAT, I'M GOING TO TURN OVER TO MYRON DORIC, WHO'S GOING TO WALK THROUGH SOME OF THE ACTUAL LEGAL ZONING ORDINANCES AND THE INTERPRETATIONS HERE.
BUT I'M HERE FOR ANY QUESTIONS SHOULD YOU GUYS HAVE ANY. THANK YOU.
>> LET ME MAKE A RESPONSE TO PUT SOME FACTS TO THIS AND DISAPPOINTED THAT THE [INAUDIBLE] IS STATING THAT STAFF HAS BEEN NON-RESPONSIVE AND ACTUALLY AN E-MAIL WAS SENT FROM YOUR CLIENT MATHIAS TO THE CITY MANAGER, COMPLAINING ABOUT PLANNING STAFF AND IT WAS VERY CLEAR OF WHAT THE CITY MANAGER WROTE.
THAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR DETERMINATION FROM STAFF PREMATURELY, THEY NEED TO GO THROUGH THE FORMAL PROCESS.
WE DID HAVE A LEGAL CASE SEVERAL YEARS AGO IN WHICH A STAFF MEMBER WROTE A LETTER AND IT WAS ERRONEOUS THAT THE PERSON RELIED ON AND IT HAD LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.
THEY WERE INFORMED SEVERAL MONTHS AGO.
>> I'D LIKE TO ADD TO THAT, JUST VERY BRIEFLY THAT IT'S NOT THE CASE THAT STAFF HAS NOT BEEN RESPONSIVE.
THERE HAVE BEEN NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS WITH THE APPLICANT WITH OUR OFFICE, WITH CITY STAFF.
IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE IS NO MYSTERY ABOUT WHAT ZONING ORDINANCE APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY, THERE'S NO MYSTERY ABOUT WHAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT APPLIES TO PROPERTY, I'M NOT AWARE OF A LEGAL OBLIGATION THE CITY HAS TO PROVIDE WHATEVER THE ZONING ANALYSIS IS THAT IS BEING SOUGHT FROM THE CITY.
BUT TO THE EXTENT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A REQUEST FOR THAT ANALYSIS, WE'VE HAD NUMEROUS CONVERSATIONS ABOUT THAT.
THE PD ORDINATES THAT'S IN PLACE ON THE PROPERTY IS CLEAR, AS WELL AS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S IN PLACE IN THE PROPERTY.
I UNDERSTAND, APPLICANT MAY HAVE A DIFFERENCE OF OPINION BUT IT'S NOT ACCURATE AND WE DISAGREE WITH THE RECITATION OF FACTS THAT WERE JUST PROVIDED.
>> THANK YOU. WE STOPPED THE CLOCK BY THE WAY.
>> OKAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. [LAUGHTER]
>> TO THE CHAIR MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION, MY NAME IS MYRON DORIC AND I GUESS I'M GOING TO PRESENT THE DIFFERENCE OF OPINION.
>> YOU STATE YOUR ADDRESS AS WELL?
>> YES. IT'S 2323 ROSS AVENUE, DALLAS, TEXAS SUITE 60075201.
[00:20:07]
THIS IS FROM THE FAA'S LEGAL WEBSITE AND IT JUST CAPTURED THIS IDEA CLEARLY, AND SO I DECIDED TO USE IT.NEARLY EVERY JURISDICTION HAS HELD THAT SHALL IS A CONFUSING WORD BECAUSE IN SOME INSTANCES IT CAN MEAN MAY, WILL, OR MUST.
THIS CASE TURNS ON THE USE OF THE WORD SHALL IN PD2.
IN ONE INSTANCE, EVEN THE SUPREME COURT HAS RULED THAT WHEN THE WORD SHALL APPEARS IN STATUTES, IT CAN MEAN MAY.
STATUTES, OF COURSE, ARE LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENTS OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT.
AN ORDINANCE SUCH AS THIS ONE IS A LEGISLATIVE ENACTMENT UNDER THE CITY'S AUTHORITY DELEGATED BY THE STATE.
IN 1.18 A, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREAS AS INDICATED ON EXHIBIT C, CONSISTS APPROXIMATELY OF 138 ACRES OF LAND, OF WHICH ONLY 55 NET ACRES SHALL BE DEVELOPED AS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES, AS MORE FULLY DESCRIBED IN 1.18 A BELOW.
THE REMAINING ACREAGE WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL AREAS, WILL BE LIMITED TO THOSE USES SET FORTH IN PARTS OF SECTION 1.2.
STAFF IS INTERPRETING THIS TO MEAN THAT 55 ACRES ARE MANDATORY AND CREATE A FLOOR THAT HAS TO BE MET BEFORE OTHER USES CAN BE MADE.
WE BELIEVE THAT SHALL HEAR IS USED AS MAY, AND WE BELIEVE THAT WHEN ANYTHING THAT'S NOT USED AS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES CAN BE USED FOR THE RESIDENTIAL USES THAT WE PROPOSED.
PART OF THE CONTEXT THERE IS THAT IT SAYS ONLY 55 ACRES, IT DOESN'T SAY 55 ACRES MUST OR 55 ACRES IS REQUIRED.
ALSO IN 1.18 B, THE UNDER-USE LIMITATIONS, IT SAYS, "NO MORE THAN 55 ACRES." IT DOESN'T SAY THERE THAT 55 ACRES IS REQUIRED.
>> YES. LET ME FIND IT, I THINK I'VE PASSED IT.
1.18 B USE LIMITATIONS, NO MORE THAN 55 NET ACRES SHALL BE DEVELOPED AS NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USE AS SET FORTH IN 1.18 A.
WE READ THAT TO MEAN THAT THE INTENT OF THE CITY WAS TO CREATE A MAXIMUM AND NOT TO CREATE A MINIMUM, THAT MUST BE DEVELOPED.
AGAIN, WHEN WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES IN 1.18 B I, OR 1, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM ALLOWED AREA OF 25 ADJACENT CONTIGUOUS ACRES AT THE INTERSECTION OF FUTURE HILL CHRIS, EXTENSION IN PANTHER CREEK PARKWAY.
FROM OUR READING OF THIS, THE INTENT IS TO PROVIDE A MAXIMUM AND NOT A MINIMUM.
THE SAME THING HAPPENS WITH COMMERCIAL AREA B, NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL USES SHALL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM ALLOWED AREA OF 30 ADJACENT ACRES.
WE DON'T READ ANYTHING THERE TO REQUIRE A MINIMUM.
NOW, IF STAFF IS CORRECT THAT THE INTENT IS THAT THERE MUST BE THOSE CONTIGUOUS ACRES IN COMMERCIAL AREA A AND COMMERCIAL AREA B, THEN WE HAVE A PROBLEM WITH COMMERCIAL AREA B.
BECAUSE COMMERCIAL AREA B IS ALREADY DEVELOPED AND HAS 10.6 ACRES LESS THAN THE 30 ACRES STATED.
THE STAFF IS NOT BEING CONSISTENT IN THEIR INTERPRETATION, IF THEIR INTERPRETATION IS IN FACT CORRECT.
THEN THE PDE DOES MENTION THAT COMMERCIAL USES ARE ALLOWED IN SOME OF THE RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE, IF THEY MEAN THAT THERE HAS TO BE 55 ACRES, OF 1.18 A PERMITTED USES IN THE COMMERCIAL AREAS AND THE RESIDENTIAL VILLAGE, WELL, WE'VE ALREADY SURPASSED THAT.
SO WE DON'T THINK THAT THAT'S AN APPROPRIATE ARGUMENT.
WITH REGARD TO THE TIGERLILY AGREEMENT, WE HAD CORRESPONDENCE PROBABLY LAST FALL, WITH THE CITY ON THE TIGERLILY AGREEMENT.
OUR POSITION IS, THE TIGERLILY AGREEMENT WAS EXPRESSLY
[00:25:03]
LIMITED TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS IN PLACE PRIOR TO PD 2, IT REFERENCED THAT ORDINANCE, AND NOT THIS FUTURE ORDINANCE.OUR OTHER ISSUES WITH THE TIGERLILY AGREEMENT IS THAT, ALTHOUGH THE TIGERLILY AGREEMENT WAS RECORDED, THE CURRENT LANDOWNER WAS NOT A PARTY TO THAT AGREEMENT, NOR WAS THE CITY IN THE CHAIN OF TITLE.
SO WE DON'T BELIEVE IT IS A VALID DEED RESTRICTION THAT CAN RUN WITH THE LAND, NOR DID THE CITY OWN ADJACENT LAND THAT WAS BENEFITED BY THAT AGREEMENT, SO WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THAT AGREEMENT RUNS WITH THE LAND AND BINDS OUR CLIENT.
[NOISE] WE WILL WORK TO SATISFY ANY OF THE ORDINANCE STANDARDS THAT STAFF CAN SHOW US ARE APPLICABLE TO THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN.
AS WE'VE STATED, WE HAVE NOT GOTTEN A LOT OF THESE COMMENTS UNTIL JUST FRIDAY WHEN THE AGENDA CAME OUT.
NOW, I THINK WE CAN'T JUST SAY THAT BECAUSE THE PDE IS SILENT, THAT SOMETHING IS APPLICABLE.
IF THERE'S LANGUAGE IN THE CODE, IF THE MULTI-FAMILY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SAID THEY WERE APPLICABLE TO EVERY MULTIFAMILY PARCEL IN THE CITY OR THEY WERE APPLICABLE IN PDES WHEN NO OTHER DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS WERE STATED, THEN WE COULD AGREE THAT THOSE ARE APPLICABLE.
BUT JUST SAYING SOMETHING'S APPLICABLE BECAUSE YOU SAY IT, I DON'T THINK MEETS THE TEST OF MAKING IT APPLICABLE.
WITH THAT, I'LL FINISH MY COMMENTS.
[NOISE] WE'D LIKE TO BE ABLE TO CONTINUE TO WORK ON THIS SITE PLAN AND TO MEET SOME OF THE STANDARDS THAT THE CITY CAN SHOW US ARE APPLICABLE, AND PRESENT YOU WITH, AT A LATER DATE, A SITE PLAN THAT WE THINK YOU CAN APPROVE. THANK YOU.
>> ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? DO WE HAVE A MOTION OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CULVER.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES.
5 0 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? [NOISE] YOU ALL ACTED LIKE YOU WANTED TO TALK EARLIER.
>> [LAUGHTER] I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GIVE EVERYBODY A CHANCE.
>> SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION BY COMMISSION [INAUDIBLE].
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES.5 0 OF PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.
THANK YOU FOR THE EXPLANATION ON YOUR POSITION ON SOME OF THESE ITEMS. THIS IS A COMMENT FOR STAFF IN TERMS OF, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS GO WITH THE PROPERTY, AND THEN YOU HAVE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND THEN YOU HAVE ZONING, IN THAT ORDER, OR SOME ORDER BASED OFF HOW IT'S LAID OUT IN THE DOCUMENT.
>> THAT'S ACCURATE? AS WE HAVE SEEN EVERY OTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE'VE HAD BROUGHT IN FRONT OF US, AND IT'S BEEN PROS AND CONS ON IT BECAUSE SOMETIMES YOUR DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS GOOD AND SOMETIMES IT'S DIFFICULT.
I THINK FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HERE IS IN PLACE FROM A MULTIFAMILY PERSPECTIVE.
THE OTHER ITEMS THAT YOU TALK ABOUT IN TERMS OF THE NUMBER OF ACRES, MAY OR MAY NOT BE A MEET POINT.
I DON'T KNOW IN TERMS OF THE LIMITATION ON WORDING OF SHALLOW VERSUS CAN VERSUS ONLY VERSUS ALL KINDS OF DIFFERENT THINGS, AND WE HAVE TO GET OUR LEGAL INTERPRETATION FROM OUR COUNCIL AND FROM CITY STAFF ON THESE THINGS.
I THINK THERE'S DEFINITELY EARLY STATES OF POSITION HERE, THAT IT'S HARD FOR ME TO OVERRIDE BASED OFF MY LIMITED KNOWLEDGE OF LEGAL JARGON AND SO FORTH.
CAN YOU JUST OPEN IT UP FOR COMMENTS HERE.
>> QUESTION ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
>> ATTACHED WITH THE LEGAL DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY.
[00:30:01]
>> I GUESS THEN THAT [INAUDIBLE] FOR ME.
THE PROPOSED MULTIFAMILY ON ONE LOT AND RETAIL ON THE SECOND LOT GO AGAINST WHAT THE PD SPECIFIES.
>> THAT STEPS DETERMINED [OVERLAPPING].
>> THAT'S YOUR INTERPRETATION?
>> THIS IS ASKING TO BREAK THE PD.
THAT'S NOT THE REQUEST, IT'S JUST A MATTER OF INTERPRETATION.
YOUR INTERPRETATION IS IT GOES AGAINST THE PD SPECIFICATIONS.
>> WELL, LET ME ANSWER ON THEM.
RELATED DOWN THE STAFF REPORT, YOU HAVE THE DEVELOPERS AGREEMENT, YOU GOT THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND IT'S LAID OUT.
>> SO THIS REQUEST FOR MULTIFAMILY AND RETAIL GOES AGAINST WHAT'S ON THE PAPER?
>> WELL, BASED ON OUR INTERPRETATION.
THAT INCLUDES THE LEGAL AS WELL.
>> HEAD COMMISSIONER KELLY, ON PAPER AND FILED OF RECORD.
>> YEAH. THEN THE APPLICANT SAID THAT THEY WANTED MORE TIME TO WORK THIS OUT.
WOULD THAT SERVE ANY USE AT ALL IN YOUR OPINION?
JUST BECAUSE SHE'S BEEN WITH US FOR LESS THAN A YEAR.
>> [INAUDIBLE] BEFORE, THERE'S A THIRD OF A DAY SHOT CLOCK.
THEY CAN OFFER THAT UP TO CONTINUE TO WORK, AND I'M OBLIGATED TO ACCEPT THAT, ITS TOTALLY AT YOUR DISCRETION, OR YOU CAN TAKE WHAT OUR RECOMMENDATION IS, WHICH IS DISAPPROVAL FOR THE REASONS STATED, AND THEN THE APPLICANT TAKES THE NEXT MOVE.
THAT WOULD BE BEFORE CITY COUNCIL.
>> IT'S GOING TO BE HARD FOR ME TO INTERPRET ANYTHING DIFFERENTLY THAN WHAT OUR COUNCIL IN STAFFORD ARE TELLING ME ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
>> WELL, I WANT TO GO BACK TO THE MENTIONED THAT THERE WAS THE DESIRE TO TRY TO WORK THROUGH THIS AND FIGURE ALL THIS OUT.
WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE AND HOW WOULD THAT HAPPEN? WOULD WE VOTE AGAINST THIS AND THEY START OVER?
>> OPTION. IF YOU DENY IT, THEY'RE OPTION, 14 CALENDAR DAYS FROM TODAY, THEY SUBMIT A LETTER AND HAVE IT ON MY DESK WITHIN 14 CALENDAR DAYS.
THAT MEANS IF THAT'S THE 24TH AND IT COMES ON THE 25TH, THEY'RE OUTSIDE OF THAT REQUIREMENT.
THEY COULD APPEAL TO CITY COUNCIL OR THEY MIGHT SAY, WELL, IF YOU DENY IT, THEY MAY JUST GO AHEAD AND RESUBMIT A CASE AT A LATER DATE.
BUT THEY DID HAVE A PRE-SUBMISSION MEETING ON THIS AND I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL THE COMMENTS THAT WERE IN ON THAT PRE-SUBMISSION MEETING.
>> BUT JOHN, THERE WERE MULTIPLE COMMENTS PROVIDED AT THE PRE-SUBMISSION MEETING.
>> A PRE-SUBMISSION MEETING, AS WELL AS WHAT WAS SUBMITTED HERE.
THERE'S MORE COMMENTS THAN ORIGINALLY PROVIDED, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THEY MEAN BY THAT SINCE SPECIFICS WERE NOT PROVIDED.
>> I THINK THE KEY HERE IS, COMMISSIONER MORGAN, I DON'T KNOW THAT THE STAFF'S OPINION ON THIS IS GOING TO CHANGE IN A MONTH.
>> AGREED. I WASN'T SURE IF THERE ARE ANY POTENTIAL OF WORKING THROUGH THIS OR NOT WORKING THROUGH THIS.
BECAUSE TO ME IT COMES DOWN TO OUR INTERPRETATION IS ONE AND THEIRS IS ANOTHER.
>> RESPECT THEIR INTERPRETATION.
>> IT'S HARD FOR ME TO GO AGAINST STAFF.
>> EXACTLY. MY POSITION IS GOING TO BE SUPPORT STAFF OR COUNSEL.
>> SURE, I'M IN THE SAME BOAT, I'M READING THE REPORT.
HAVING SOME HISTORY IN REAL ESTATE, THIS IS FILE TO RECORD.
HEARING THE FEEDBACK FROM STAFF AND COUNCIL, I'M NOT SURE HOW TO VOTE ANY OTHER WAY THAN TAKE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.
>> I DON'T SEE ANYTHING OR HAVEN'T HEARD ANYTHING TONIGHT THAT DIRECTLY CONTRADICTS WHAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION.
>> WELL, I THINK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM.
>> MAY I ADDRESS THE COMMISSION?
>> I DON'T KNOW THAT WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU.
[00:35:05]
I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR YOU AT THIS TIME UNFORTUNATELY.I THINK THE PROCESS HERE FROM HOW WE HAVE TO REVIEW THIS WILL HAVE TO GO WITH THE LEGAL INTERPRETATION AS FROM COUNCIL AND STAFF.
I DON'T THINK IT'S GOING TO GET RESOLVED IN THE NEXT MONTH, SO I THINK IT'S NOT LIKE ONE OR TWO TWEAKS WHERE WE CAN GO IN AND FIX THEM IS A MAJOR DIFFERENCE AT THIS POINT.
UNLESS THERE'S ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS?
MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM 15 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.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? DISAPPROVAL IS APPROVED 5-0.
THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR COMMENTS.
I KNOW IT'S NOT THE OUTCOME YOU WANT, BUT AT THIS POINT, I THINK WE HAD TO GO DOWN A PATH. THANK YOU.
ALL RIGHT. 16, RESULTS OF THE AUGUST 3RD, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
>> I NEED THE BLUE CARDS [INAUDIBLE].
WE CAN WAKE JOHN UP, HE'S PROBABLY TAKING A POWER NAP BACK THERE.
ALL RIGHT. 16, RESULTS OF THE AUGUST 3RD,
[16. Results of the August 3, 2021 City Council meeting.]
2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.>> DO YOU ALL HAVE ANY QUESTIONS?
>> THANK YOU, [INAUDIBLE]. ON 17,
[17. Schedule of future discussion items.]
SCHEDULE FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS. CAN YOU TAKE [INAUDIBLE] FOR ME TO THE STAFF? [INAUDIBLE]>> WELL, GO AHEAD. I DON'T HAVE ANYTHING FOR STAFF.
>> I THINK THE NEXT MEETING WHERE I INTEND TO HAVE IN THE '21-'22 SUBMISSION CALENDAR FOR YOUR INFORMATION.
THEN FOLLOWING THIS MEETING, WE'LL HAVE A WORK SESSION UP ON THE THIRD FLOOR, TALKING ABOUT THE SIGN ORDINATES DRAFT.
WE'RE LOOKING TO TAKE THAT TO CITY COUNCIL AND PROBABLY IN SEPTEMBER OR OCTOBER.
>> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING ELSE FOR THE STAFF [INAUDIBLE]? IT LEAVES US WITH ONE ITEM. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN?
>> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.
>> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, ACCEPT.
MEETING IS ADJOURNED, WE WILL BE MEETING UPSTAIRS.
WHAT FLOOR IS THAT? THE THIRD FLOOR FOR OUR WORK SESSION.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.