>> GOOD EVENING AND WELCOME TO [00:00:03] THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRISCO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, [CALL TO ORDER] WE'RE GATHERED 6101 FRISCO SQUARE BOULEVARD AND THE TIME IS 6:32 PM. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSIST OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE COMMISSIONER CONE, COMMISSIONER KENDALL, COMMISSIONER BOX OUR VICE CHAIR, COMMISSIONER KELLY OUR SECRETARY, COMMISSIONER COLBERG, COMMISSIONER MORGAN, AND I'M ROB COX, I'M YOUR CHAIR FOR THIS EVENING. REPRESENTING STAFF THIS EVENING, I NEED ONE SECOND, I'LL PULL THAT OUT. >> I'LL JUST LOOK AT MY NOTE HERE. >> [OVERLAPPING] YEAH, I'M GOING MAKE SURE I HAVE IT RIGHT. FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WE HAVE JOHN LETTELLEIR, JOHNSON HOVER, SUZANNE PORTER, JONATHAN POLLARD, KERRI WHITE, AND KAYLA QUIJANO. IN ENGINEERING WE HAVE JOEL FITZ FROM FIRE, WE HAVE ELICIA BARSTOW. I THOUGHT I SAW JOHN GILLETTE IN HERE, HOW ABOUT THAT? FROM LEGAL WE HAVE RYAN PITTMAN. AM I MISSING ANYONE SITTING? >> TWAIN. >> TWAIN. EXCELLENT. TWAIN [INAUDIBLE] IS IN THE HOUSE TONIGHT. THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS CITIZEN INPUT. [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 CLICK THE 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 THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE OR APPLICANTS PRESENT THIS EVENING. TO ENSURE THERE'S ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL TO SPEAK, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO A MAXIMUM FIVE MINUTES UNLESS YOU MUST ADDRESS THE COMMISSION THROUGH A TRANSLATOR IN WHICH YOU HAVE 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 WRITE 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. TONIGHT WE HAVE TWO SPEAKER CARDS FOR CITIZEN INPUT ON ITEM 9, THAT ARE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, ARE NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, SO THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO SPEAK. WE HAVE DAVID WEINREB AND THEN WE HAVE A MOTION, I APOLOGIZE. IT IS A HUB? >> MOTION. >> PARDON. >> MOTION. I APOLOGIZE. PLEASE STATE YOUR ADDRESS, NAME AND ADDRESS. >> HELLO. CAN YOU HEAR ME? >> YES. >> MY NAME IS DAVID WEINREB. IT'S A PLEASURE TO BE HERE TONIGHT. AS THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER TO THE DALLAS [INAUDIBLE]. >> IF YOU COULD PLEASE SPEAK YOUR ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD? >> I'M SORRY. IT'S DAVID R WEINREB, 5530 NORTH FORTY PLACE. MY HOME ADDRESS, IT'S IN DALLAS 75252. ANYWAY, PLEASURE TO BE HERE. AS THE ADJACENT LANDOWNER TO THE DALLAS [INAUDIBLE] PSP IN QUESTION, I WANTED TO SHARE SOME REMARKS. A LITTLE BACKGROUND. FOR THOSE OF YOU I HAVE NOT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO MEET, I PREVIOUSLY CO-FOUNDED AND RAN THE HOWARD HUGHES CORPORATION FOR A DECADE AND DECIDED TO FOCUS MY TIME NOW ON MY FAMILY OFFICE. FIRST, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT AS THE APPLICANTS' NEIGHBOR, WE WANT TO WORK WITH THE CITY ON TRANSFORMING THIS BROADER LAND PARCEL INTO A DEVELOPMENT THAT ENRICHES THE CITY WITH ITS DESIGN AND A SENSE OF PLACE. PRIOR TO THIS PSP SUBMITTAL, WE'VE SHARED WHAT I BELIEVE TO BE A PRODUCTIVE WORKING RELATIONSHIP BASED ON MUTUAL RESPECT. WITH THAT SAID, I AM RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION NOT APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S PSP SUBMITTAL BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS NOT SUBMITTED A COMPLETE PSP APPLICATION AS REQUIRED OF ALL APPLICANTS. SPECIFICALLY FOR THE CITY'S PSPS CHECKLIST, THIS SUBMITTAL APPEARS TO BE MISSING THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION; OPEN SPACE PLAN, FACADE PLAN, LANDSCAPE PLAN, TREE MITIGATION PLAN, WATER AND WASTEWATER DEMAND ANALYSIS, UPDATED TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS, DOWNSTREAM ASSESSMENT, UNIT MIX, AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH UNIT TYPE. IN THE APPLICANT'S PD IT STATES, AND I QUOTE, "THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT DISTRICT MUST COMPLY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF ALL ORDINANCES, RULES, AND REGULATIONS OF FRISCO AS THEY CURRENTLY EXIST, OR MAYBE AMENDED." IN THIS CONTEXT, THE APPLICANT IS SERVING IN A PROPRIETARY AS OPPOSED TO A GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION. AS SUCH, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE HELD AT THE SAME STANDARDS AS EVERYONE ELSE. FOR THE BENEFIT OF FRISCO RESIDENTS, LANDLORDS, AND SMALL BUSINESS OWNERS, THE APPLICANT SHOULD BE REQUIRED TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE PSP APPLICATION BEFORE P&Z AND FULLY REVIEW THEIR SUBMITTAL. [00:05:03] THIS IS ESPECIALLY CRITICAL GIVEN THE EXTRAORDINARILY HIGH UNPRECEDENTED UNIT COUNT RELATIVE TO THE LAND SIZE PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT ON THEIR LAND. THE PAST PRACTICE IN FRISCO HAS BEEN THE FACADE HAS ALLOCATED MULTIFAMILY UNITS AMONG MULTIPLE OWNERS IN THE SAME PD BY THE ACREAGE EACH PARTY HOLDS. AFTER REVIEWING THE CITY'S PLAN AND THEIR PROPOSED PSP, IT IS UNCLEAR TO US AS TO HOW THE APPLICANT DETERMINE THEY HAD RIGHTS TO 1,200 MULTIFAMILY UNITS OUT OF AN APPROVED 4,000 MULTIFAMILY UNIT PD. BASED ON A PRO RATA SHARE OF ACREAGE WITHIN THE APPROVED PD, THE CITY TRACK WOULD HAVE THE RIGHTS TO 732 UNITS AND THE ADJACENT TRACK WOULD HAVE THE RIGHTS TO THE REMAINING 3,268 UNITS. WE ASK THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO REQUEST OF STAFF HOW THEY DETERMINE THE APPLICANT'S TRACKED HAD RIGHTS TO 1,200 MULTIFAMILY UNITS. WE WOULD HOPE AND EXPECT THE CITY TO FOLLOW ITS OWN PAST PRACTICE AND ALLOCATE UNITS BASED ON ACREAGE AS OPPOSED TO ARBITRARILY. IN CONCLUSION, I WANT TO REITERATE THAT AS THE OWNER OF THE ADJACENT LAND PARCEL FOR OVER 14 YEARS, I AM FULLY COMMITTED TO FIRST GO LONG-TERM AND WANT THE CITY TO CONTINUE TO GROW AND STAND OUT AS A BEACON AND ATTRACTION IN THE METROPLEX. I LOOK FORWARD TO WORKING WITH PLANNING, THE COUNCIL, CITY MANAGER, AND ANY OTHER PARTY TO MAKE OUR PLAN THE BEST POSSIBLE FIT FOR THE CITY AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE HIGHEST QUALITY. I SEE IT AS THE CROWN JEWEL OF MY FAMILY OFFICE AND A GENERATIONAL ASSET THAT MY CHILDREN AND GRANDCHILDREN WILL CONTINUE TO WORK ON. AS SUCH, THE ADJACENT LAND AND WHAT HAPPENS ON IT IS OF KEEN INTEREST TO ME. THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR HEARING ME OUT, AND I APPRECIATE ALL OF YOU VERY MUCH. >> THANK YOU SO MUCH. JOHN DEAN ENGEL, YOU WANT TO ADD TO THAT? >> NO. >> OKAY. I'M ASSUMING THAT THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, THIS HAS BEEN APPROVED TO BE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA, CONSENT? >> YEAH. THIS IS ON THE CONSENT AND WORKMAN, YOU'RE A LITTLE BIT ON THE CONSENT. >> LET ME GET TO THE NEXT PART. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK TONIGHT? I THINK YOU SAID IT WAS JUST AN OPPOSITION OF AGENDA ITEM 9. WE WILL MOVE ON FROM CITIZEN INPUT. THERE'S NO ONE ELSE. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] CONSIDER AN ACT UPON APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 24TH, 2021. >> I MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM PLANNING AND ZONING COMMITTEE MEETING ON AUGUST 24TH. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES, 6.0 MINUTES ARE APPROVED. [CONSENT AGENDA] NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM. THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS, AND COMMISSION MEMBER MAKING SUCH REQUESTS PRIOR TO A MOTION AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM MAY DO SO INDIVIDUALLY. ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS, MAY DO SO IN THE MAJORITY OF THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE ITEMS 2-10 THIS EVENING, ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? >> YES. ITEM NUMBER 2. >>OKAY. ITEM NUMBER 2, YOU NEED TO RECUSE YOURSELF, IS IT? >> YES. >> ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? OKAY. I DO HAVE A MOTION ON ITEMS 3-10. >> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS 3 THROUGH 10 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES, 6.0 ITEM 3 THROUGH 9 ARE APPROVED. COMMISSIONER KELLY WOULD YOU JUST LIKE TO RECUSE YOURSELF REAL QUICK? [2 Final Plat: Dove Creek (FP21-0034)] >> YES. I NOW NEED TO MAKE A BRIEF PRESENTATION ON THIS BECAUSE I WAS GOING ASK YOU TO PULL ITEM NUMBER 2, BUT COMMISSIONER STEVE WAS GOING TO DO IT. >> OKAY. LET ME READ IT THEN. ITEM 2, FINAL PLAT DUCK CREEK FP21.0034 OWNERS 124 FRISCO PROPERTY LLC. >> ON THIS ITEM, WE DID HAVE A MEETING WITH THE APPLICANT TODAY, AND IN THE STAFF REPORT THEY'RE ASKING FOR EXTENSION TO THE OCTOBER 12TH, BUT AFTER MEETING WITH THEM TODAY, THEY WANT TO BE ON THE 28TH. THEY UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE PUT THEM ON THE 28TH AND THEY'RE NOT READY, THEY'RE GOING TO EITHER HAVE WITHDRAWAL OR BE DISAPPROVED. BUT THEY FEEL THEY CAN GET EVERYTHING IN ORDER FOR THAT 28TH MEETING, SO MY RECOMMENDATION TO YOU IS TO GRANT THEIR EXTENSION BUT TO THE SEPTEMBER 28TH MEETING. [00:10:08] >> DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? >> I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR THE EXTENSION TO THE OCTOBER 28TH. >> SEPTEMBER. >> SEPTEMBER, I APOLOGIZE. TO THE SEPTEMBER 28TH, 2021 MEETING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES. 5.0 ITEM 2 HAS BEEN MOVED TO SEPTEMBER 28TH. AS YOU GO WHEN YOU GET DONE AND I FILL OUT THE REPORT WOULD BE GREAT. RECUSER REPORT. TONIGHT WE HAVE TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA AND I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS. THIS PUBLIC HEARING ITEM PRECEDED BY A STAFF INDUCTION REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS INCREMENTED 10 MINUTES TO MAKE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION. FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT BY THE COMMISSION THAT WISH TO SHOULD SPEAK, ARE WELCOME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. ALL SPEAKERS INCLUDING THE APPLICANT NEED TO COMPLETE A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PROVIDE FOR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. THERE'RE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE WHICH 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. THE TIME LIMIT IS FIVE MINUTES PER SPEAKER, PLEASE ENSURE EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK. THE COMMISSION MEMBERS MAY VOTE TO LIMIT SPEAKING TIME, IF WE HAVE A LARGE VOLUME OF PEOPLE WISHING TO SPEAK. PLEASE KNOW YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, REPEAT APPEARANCES TO THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED. FOR ALL PERSONS WHO WILL BE GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TEST RUNNING WILL BE PERMITTED, UNLESS THE CASE IS TABLED TO A FUTURE DAY AND THE COMMISSION INCLUDES IN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A FUTURE MEETING. AFTER CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT. PLEASE NOTE, THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION ONLY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING CASES UNLESS THE COMMISSION DENIES THE CASE, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT APPEAL IT, FINAL ACTION REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU'RE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AS TO WHEN THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. ITEM 11, OPEN SPACE PLAN, [11 Open Space Plan & Preliminary Site Plan: University Village North, Block A, Lot 1 (OS21-0082 & PSP21-0047)] A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, UNIVERSITY VILLAGE NORTH BLOCK A, LOT 1OS21-0082 & PSP 21- 0047. >> GOOD EVENING. THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON JULY 26TH, 2021. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION PREVIOUSLY APPROVED A 30-DAY EXTENSION DURING THE AUGUST 24TH MEETING, BY A VOTE OF FOUR TO ZERO. STAFF REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND FOUND THAT IT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, ENGINEERING STANDARDS, AND OTHER APPLICABLE CITY CODES, AS NOTED NEXT TO EACH REASON FOR DENIAL. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. >> THE APPLICANT HERE, WOULD THEY CARE TO SPEAK? DOUBLE MOTION, OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6.0, PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE WHO CARES TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? >> MOTION MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION MOVED BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6.0 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ONE AND DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON IT? >> IS THIS MORE OF A TIMING, THAT THEY JUST NEED MORE TIME TO FINISH UP THE ITEMS THAT ARE OPEN? >> THAT'S CORRECT. AS PART OF THEIR FIRST REVIEW COMMENTS, STAFF HAD SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THIS AREA. THE TURNAROUND THAT THEY'RE NOW PROPOSING IS A MAJOR ITEM THAT NEEDS TO BE ADDRESSED, AND THEY DID JUST NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE TIME TO DO SO. >> THANK YOU. >> YEAH. >> I THINK I HEARD THERE WERE DEFINITELY WORKING ON IT WITH STAFF, MAKING PROGRESS. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO DISAPPROVE THIS ITEM? >> I MOTION TO DISAPPROVE ITEM 11 FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND DELEGATE THE STAFF AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES THE 6.0 ITEM 11, IS DISAPPROVED. ITEM 12, PUBLIC HEARING REPLAT AND FINAL PLAT [13 Public Hearing – Replat & Final Plat: Frisco Fire Station Nine Addition, Block A, Lots 1-3 (FP21-0037)] FRISCO FIRE STATION 9 EDITION BLOCK A LOTS 1-3 FP21.0037. OWNER, THE CITY OF FRISCO. FRISCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS A REPLAT AND FINAL PLAT FOR, LIKE YOU SAID, FRISCO FIRE STATION NUMBER 9. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT IS TO REMOVE A TEMPORARY TURNAROUND EASEMENT LOCATED ON DONNY MAYFIELD WAY OFF OF LOT 3, IN FAVOR OF A FIRE LANE ACCESS AND UTILITY EASEMENT INTO THAT LOT. THE FINAL PLAT IS FOR FRISCO FIRE STATION NUMBER 9, STAFF HAS VERIFIED THAT THE REPLAT MEETS ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. ENGINEERING SERVICES IS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REPLAT/FINAL PLAT AND AT THIS POINT, [00:15:06] I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. >> OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? >> SO MOVE. >> MOTION OF MY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6.0. DOES ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM HERE THIS EVENING? >> SEEING NONE, I MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES, 6.0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM OR DO I HAVE A MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 12 AS SUBMITTED. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES, 6.0 ITEM 12 IS APPROVED. >> ITEM 13, RESULTS OF THE SEPTEMBER 7TH, [14 Results of the September 7, 2021 City Council meeting.] 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. STAFF OR COMMISSIONERS, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REPORT THAT WE RECEIVED? >> WITH NO CASES? >> NO CASE. [LAUGHTER] >> EXACTLY. >> YEAH. JOHN, WE WERE SAYING AT WORK SESSION ON SIGN ORDINANCE AND I BELIEVE CITY COUNCIL HAD A WHITE SESSION. >> THAT'S RIGHT. [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT'S FUTURE DISCUSSION ON RIGHT. >> I WAS ASKING FOR FEEDBACK OF THE MEETING WHICH WOULD FIT, I THINK IT WAS THE SAME DAY. >> NO. WELL, THIS IS THE RESULT OF THE COUNCIL MEETING, NOT OF THE WORK SESSIONS. LET ME READ IN 14 AND WE CAN ASK THAT QUESTION. [15 Schedule of future discussion items.] >> THANK YOU. >> ITEM 14, SCHEDULE FEATURE DISCUSSION ITEMS. >> JOHN, WE RECENTLY HAD A WORK SESSION ON SIGN ORDINANCE, AND I BELIEVE IT IS A TOPIC FOR A WORK SESSION THAT CITY COUNCIL HAD. ANY FEEDBACK OR ITEMS THAT COUNCIL DISCUSS? IT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR THE COMMISSION. >> BECAUSE THE NEXT STEP WE PLANNED TO HAVE THE ASSIGNED ORDERS BEFORE COUNCIL IN OCTOBER. PHILIP COVERED THAT AND WENT OVER SOME OF THE CONCERNS THAT COMMISSION HAD, SUCH AS THE POP-UP BOARD. SO THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT TIME LIMITS ON THAT AND HOW MANY OF THOSE COULD BE POPPING UP AND NOT TO GET TOO FAR INTO THE WOODS. YOU MAY NOT HAVE TOO MANY TODAY, BUT IF MORE CITIES ALLOW THERE'S THE POTENTIAL, THEY'RE AWARE OF THAT. NOTHING THEY INQUIRED ABOUT WAS LIKE REAL ESTATE SIGNS OF ONE LARGE PARCEL WAS BROUGHT UP, I GUESS 500-FOOT SPACING OR SO. MAYBE THAT NEEDS TO BE A LITTLE BIT LOW MORE THAN 500 FEET. ALL IN ALL, IT WAS A GOOD DISCUSSION. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER ITEMS THAT WE NEED TO BRING UP FOR DISCUSSION? >> FOR FEATURE DISCUSSION? THEY'LL BE A WORK SESSION ON A PARTICULAR PROJECT AND I WANT TO MENTION NOW WHAT THAT PROJECT IS, BUT I'LL TO FIND OUT WHAT DAYS FOR COUNCIL. THEY'LL BE A JOINT WORK SESSION BETWEEN COUNCIL PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION AND EDC BOARD. >> ON THE GOLDWYN PROJECT? >> I DON'T KNOW. >> IS THIS AN OCTOBER THING? >> MORE THAN LIKELY IT'LL BE IN OCTOBER. >> OKAY. >> YEAH. PREFER TO HAVE IT IN OCTOBER AFTER ALL THE APPOINTMENTS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE, IN CASE THERE IS ANY NEW MEMBERS. >> I WILL BE OCTOBER 19TH, WHICH IS NOT A PLANNING ZONING NIGHT, BUT IT IS. >> YEAH, THAT WON'T BE ON A TUESDAY. >> YEAH. FOR THAT ON LOOKING TO HAVE THAT MEETING AT THE [INAUDIBLE] SO WE CAN SOCIAL DISTANCE. >> ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> MOVE TO ADJOURN. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, 6.0. WE ARE ADJOURNED, 6.51 PM. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.