[00:00:02] >> GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO [CALL TO ORDER] THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRISCO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WE'RE GATHERED 6101. FIRST CASE WHERE BOULEVARD AND THE TIME IS 6:31 PM. MY NAME ON THE COMMISSION CONSISTS OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT'S COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE COMMISSIONER KHAN, COMMISSIONER BOX OUR VICE-CHAIR, COMMISSIONER KELLY OUR SECRETARY, COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG, AND COMMISSIONER MORGAN. COMMISSIONER KENDALL WAS ABSENT THIS EVENING. I'M ROB COX. I'M YOUR CHAIR FOR THIS EVENING. REPRESENTING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE HAVE JOHN LITTLER, JONATHAN HUBBARD, SUZANNE PORTER, SAINT JACKSON, AND KIRSTEN CANCER. FROM ENGINEERING, WE HAVE JASON GRIMM AND JOEL FITZ, AND FROM FIRE, WE HAVE ELISA VESSEL. FROM LEGAL, WE HAVE RYAN PITTMAN. DID I MISSING ANYONE? OH, JOHN GILLETTE WALKED IN LOOKING DAPPER AS USUAL. GET THAT LITTLE CHECKMARK. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE? ALL RIGHT. ITEM 2, [APPOINTMENTS] CONSIDER AN ACT UPON ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON, VICE-CHAIRPERSON, AND SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. >> MR. CHAIR, I THINK YOU NEED CITIZEN INPUT FIRST. >> I HAVE CITIZEN INPUT IN A DIFFERENT ORDER. >> OH, I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. >> [LAUGHTER] ALL RIGHT. DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIRPERSON? >> I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE ROB COX FOR CHAIR. [NOISE] >> RECOGNIZE THAT KELLY NOMINATING ROB COX. ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS AT THIS TIME? >> FOR? >> FOR CHAIR. ALL RIGHT. CAN WE HAVE A VOTE ON ROB COX AS CHAIR? [OVERLAPPING] DO WE HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND. >> DAVID BOX, COMMISSIONER BOX SECONDS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TRUST. >> CONGRATULATION. >> CONGRATS. >> DO WE HAVE NOMINATIONS FOR VICE-CHAIR? >> I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO NOMINATE DAVID BOX FOR VICE-CHAIR. >> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> COMMISSIONER KELLY SECONDS A NOMINATION BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? [NOISE] ALL RIGHT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. ACTUALLY, I CAN VOTE IN THOSE, RIGHT? >> WELL, NO. >> OKAY. NOW THAT AM CHAIR AGAIN I'M OVER. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. >> 5-0. DO WE HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY? >> WE CAN NOMINATE BRITNEY KOHLBERG FOR SECRETARY? >> DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? CAN WE HAVE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES AT 5-0. >> CONGRATULATIONS. >> CONGRATULATIONS. COMMISSIONER KELLY THANKS FOR YOUR YEARS OF SERVICE AS OUR SECRETARY. >> HEY, YOU'RE WELCOMED. >> GREAT JOB OF CATCHING WHEN I MISS THE SIGNATURES. >> NO PROBLEM. [LAUGHTER] >> THIS WOULD BE A HIGH BAR FOR BRINGING IT. [LAUGHTER] >> IS IT AN OCCURRENCE EVERY MEETING JUST WATCH OUT FOR? IS THAT WHAT I GET TO? [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER]. >> DON'T WORRY ABOUT ONE AND A QUARTER. >> OKAY. >> I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY APPROPRIATE TIME, WE CAN SWITCH SEATS. [OVERLAPPING]. >> YOURS, OVER HERE. >> OKAY. SURE. >> DON'T HAVE TO, I DON'T BELIEVE. >> WE'LL JUST STAY RIGHT HERE. >> OKAY. >> [BACKGROUND] WE'LL STAY RIGHT HERE. >> OKAY. >> WE'LL CHANGE THE GUARD ANOTHER TIME. >> YEAH. >> EXCELLENT. THAT LEAVES US INTO ITEM 3, OR ACTUALLY BEFORE ITEM 3, 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 IT 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 YOUR COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE OR ANY APPLICANTS PRESENT THIS EVENING. MAKE SURE THERE'S ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL TO SPEAK. PLEASE ON YOUR COMMENTS TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES UNLESS YOU MUST ADDRESS THE COMMISSION THROUGH A TRANSLATOR IN WHICH CASE YOU WILL HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 10 MINUTES. PLEASE NOTE, THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION DURING CITIZEN INPUT. WE'RE 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. WE WILL ALSO HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS LATER IN THE AGENDA THIS EVENING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT CARES TO SPEAK DURING CITIZEN INPUT AT THIS TIME? THE NEXT ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS ITEM 3, [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING ZONING MEETING ON SEPTEMBER 28, 2021. COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THE MEETING MINUTES? >> MOVE TO APPROVE MINUTES FROM SEPTEMBER 28TH, IS SUBMITTED. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> [OVERLAPPING]AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THE MINUTES ARE APPROVED. [NOISE] THAT LEAVES US TO OUR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. [CONSENT AGENDA] [NOISE] THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. [00:05:04] ANY COMMISSION MEMBER MAKING SUCH REQUESTS PRIOR TO EMOTION AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT ITEMS MAY CONSIDER ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY. ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON CONSENTED AGENDA ITEMS MAY DO SO WITH A MAJORITY APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE ITEMS AS 4 THROUGH 19 THIS EVENING. ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? THERE'S A LOT ON THERE. ARE WE GOOD? CAN I GET A MOTION ON ITEMS 4 THROUGH 19? >> MOVE TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS 4 THROUGH 19. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. CONGRATULATIONS ON THOSE ITEMS. [NOISE] NEXT ON OUR AGENDA, [20. Open Space Plan & Preliminary Site Plan: The Shops at Willow Bay Addition, Block A, Lot 3 (OS21-0083 & PSP21-0044)] WE HAVE EIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA. I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS. EACH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS PRECEDED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS IN PERMITTED 10 MINUTES TO MAKE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION. FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF, AN 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 THEY 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. THE TIME LIMIT IS FIVE MINUTES PER SPEAKER TO ENSURE EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK. THE COMMISSION MEMBERS CAN VOTE TO LIMIT SPEAKING TIME IF A LARGE VOLUME OF PEOPLE ARE WISHING TO SPEAK. 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 TO 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 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 A COMMISSION DENIES A 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 SO IN THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. EXCELLENT. ITEM 20, OPEN SPACE, PLAN AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, THE SHOPS THAT WILL OBEY ADDITION BLOCK A, LOT 3, OS21-0083 AND PSP21-0044, OWNERS FRISCO-STONEBROOK, LLC. [NOISE] >> THANK YOU. THIS REQUEST WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON AUGUST 16TH AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED A 30-DAY EXTENSION ON SEPTEMBER 14TH. THE APPLICANT STILL NEEDS MORE TIME IN WHICH TO FULFILL THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND THE OPEN SPACE PLAN. THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT ARE NOT ITEMS THAT ARE NOT CURRENTLY COMPLIED WITH. THEIR FIRST STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL, AND THAT COMPLETES MY PRESENTATION. >> EXCELLENT. JOHN, ON THIS PARTICULAR CASE AND THE NEXT CASE, DO WE NEED A PUBLIC HEARING ON IT? >> NO. >> OKAY. WITH THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS ON ITEM 20 HERE? >> A QUESTION FOR CITY ATTORNEY. THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS TO DENY, SHOULD THIS ACTUALLY BE DISAPPROVED? >> YEAH. I THINK THE TECHNICAL LANGUAGE IN THE STATUTE IS DISAPPROVE. >> OKAY, JUST WANTED- >> THAT'S ONE PART OF YOUR MOTION. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. >> CAN I GET A MOTION ON ITEM 20? >> MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM 20 FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE REASONS OF THE DISAPPROVAL. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. >> SECOND. >> SECOND, BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE. MOTION CARRIES FIVE, ZERO. THE ITEM IS DISAPPROVED. >> THANK YOU. [21. Open Space Plan & Preliminary Site Plan: The Railhead, Phase 1, Block A, Lots 1 & 5 (OS21-0085 & PSP21-0051)] >> ITEM 21, OPEN SPACE PLAN AND PULMONARY SITE PLAN, THE RAIL-HEAD PHASE 1, BLOCK A, LOTS 1 AND 5, OS21.0085 AND PSP21.0051. OWNERS WEIGHED FIRST GALILEAN PARTNERS AND TOLD AWAY MAIN PARTNERS, LP. >> COMMISSIONERS, THE APPLICANT SUBMITTED THIS PROJECT IN AUGUST AND RECEIVED ONE EXTENSION. THEY ARE STILL WORKING THROUGH THE CASE AND WORKING THROUGH STAFF'S COMMENTS. THEREFORE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL OF THIS CASE AND THE APPLICANT INTENDS TO SUBMIT AT A LATER DATE TO CONTINUE. >> EXCELLENT. IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WILL THEY CARE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS ON ITEM 21? >> SURE, I HAVE ONE QUESTION. THE PDE HAS EXTENSIVE REQUIREMENTS FOR PHASING. [00:10:01] THIS, IF IT DOES COME BACK TO US, DOES NOT HAVE ANY PHASING REQUIREMENTS IN IT. HOW SHOULD WE CONSIDER THAT? BECAUSE THIS WAS EXTENSIVELY CONDITIONED IN THE PDE FOR THAT. >> WELL, THEY HAVE TO MEET THE PHASE AND REQUIREMENTS. JUST LIKE ON PHASE 1, THEY CAN DO TWO OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUILDINGS AND THEY GOT TO PUT IN A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF INFRASTRUCTURE BEFORE THEY CAN DO THE THIRD ONE. I THINK IT'S A 100,000 SQUARE FOOT OFFICE BUILDING THEY HAVE TO BUILD. >> I THOUGHT IT WAS THE OPEN SPACE AS WELL? >> WELL, THE OPEN SPACE, I HAVE THAT INCLUDED IN THIS PHASE 1. >> IS IT. OKAY, I UNDERSTAND. OKAY >> WE CAN CLARIFY THAT IN THE STAFF REPORT. >> OKAY. THEY'D BE KEARNY THANK YOU. [OVERLAPPING] >> COUNTY FOR YOU AGAIN. >> EXCELLENT. OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 21? >> I THINK JUST APPROVE ITEM 21, FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT, DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE REASONS OF DISAPPROVAL. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES 5-0 ITEM IS DISPROVED. ALL RIGHT. [22. Public Hearing - Replat: The Grove Frisco Retail Addition, Block A, Lot 1 (RP21-0035)] ITEM 22 PUBLIC HEARING REPLANT THE GROVE FRISCO RETAIL ADDITION BLOCK A LOT 1 RP 21.00035 OWNERS, LAKES LITTLE SCHOLARS, MONTESSORI FRISCO, LLC. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2021. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 30-DAY EXTENSION AS PERMITTED UNDER HOUSE BILL 3167. SHOULD THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANT THE EXTENSION? THIS ITEM WILL BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 9TH, 2021 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. THEREFORE, IT IS RECOMMENDED TONIGHT THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THE 30-DAY EXTENSION REQUEST. CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER 9TH, 2021 PLANNING, AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> ARE THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD THEY CARE TO SPEAK. OKAY ON THIS ITEM? WHEN WE'RE IN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS ANYONE WANTING GOING TO WANT TO DISCUSS THIS ONE OUTSIDE THE PUBLIC HEARING OR CAN WE TABLE JUST DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING? OKAY. ALL RIGHT, SO MOTION, YEAH [OVERLAPPING] GO AHEAD. >> MOVE DOWN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER COHEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN IS ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE. WE GET A MOTION ON THIS ONE. >> YES. CNN MOVE TO APPROVE THE 30-DAY EXTENSION, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER 9TH, 2021 P&Z COMMISSION MEETING. >> MOTIONED BY COMMISSION BY MR. MORGAN? >> SECOND. >> SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER COHEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THIS ITEM IS TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 9TH. TWENTY-THREE PUBLIC HEARING RE-PLAN ENCLAVE AT [23. Public Hearing - Replat: Enclave at Creekwood, Block B, Lots 1R & 2R (RP21-0038)] CREEKWOOD BLOCK B LOTS 1R & 2R RP 21.00038, OWNERS WITH TAMMY TAXES LLC. >> THANK YOU. THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 13TH, 2021. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 30-DAY EXTENSION AS PERMIT UNDER HOUSE BILL 3167. SHOULD THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION GRANT THE EXTENSION, THIS ITEM WILL BE PLACED ON THE NOVEMBER 9TH, 2021 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA. THEREFORE, TONIGHT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED THAT 30-DAY EXTENSION REQUEST. CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER 9TH, 2021 PLANNING, AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> ALL RIGHT. IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD THEY CARE TO SPEAK? ALL RIGHT. SAME AS LAST ITEM. I'D LIKE TO GET A. >> YES. >> UNLESS WE HAVE QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME. >> MR. CHAIR WE DO HAVE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THE SIDE. >> EXCELLENT. SO WE'LL OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. GO AHEAD. >> MOVE DOWN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND. BY MR. COLBERT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW HERE. MR. CONE MARI IF YOU WOULD JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS WHEN YOU COME UP. >> HEY, SORRY, I DON'T KNOW HOW THIS IS DONE. THIS IS MY FIRST TIME. I RECENTLY MOVED TO THIS PLACE. >> COULD YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. >> SORRY. CONE MARI. I'M FROM 913 GINGHAM STREET, THAT'S ACTUALLY RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. THE WHOLE REASON I PICK THAT LOAD WAS BECAUSE OF THE CUL-DE-SAC. THAT'S AN OPEN PLACE OR ARE HAVING KIDS SOON AS WELL. I WOULD LIKE THE CUL-DE-SAC TO BE THERE. THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I'M PROPOSING THIS. PRETTY MUCH IT. I DON'T WANT TO TAKE UP MUCH OF YOUR TIME. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU. ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM, IF THIS GETS TABLED, SIR, THERE WILL BE ANOTHER PUBLIC HEARING THAT WE'LL GO THROUGH THE DETAILS OF THE CASE IN MUCH MORE DETAIL BECAUSE IT'S NOT READY TO BE. WE DON'T HAVE ALL THE DETAILS YET. OKAY. ANY OTHER FOLKS THAT WISH TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? [00:15:11] ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM OR DO WE WANT TO TALK ABOUT THIS ONE OUTSIDE OF PUBLIC HEARING? >> MOVE TO APPROVE THE 30 DAY EXTENSION REQUEST AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLED ITEMS TO THE NOVEMBER 9TH, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. >> EXCELLENT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERT. >> SECOND. >> SECOND. BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES 5-0. >> SORRY, THIS CASE WILL BE BROUGHT BACK UP NOVEMBER 9TH. >> OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR SPEAKING AND BEING HERE AND PARTICIPATING. ALL RIGHT. [24. Public Hearing - Replat: Frisco Senior Center, Block A, Lot 1 (RP21-0040)] ITEM 24 PUBLIC HEARING REPLANT FOR FRISCO SENIOR CENTER BLOCK A LOT 1 RP21.00040 OWNERS. CITY OF FRISCO? >> YES, COMMISSIONERS. THIS IS FOR THE FRISCO COURTS BUILDING OR THE MUNICIPAL COURTS BUILDING, WHICH WAS RECENTLY OR PREVIOUSLY THE FRISCO SENIOR CENTER. THE PLAQUE CONFORMS TO THE SITE PLAN WHICH WAS APPROVED AND THE CONSTRUCTION WHICH HAS BEEN COMPLETED. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS REEF FLAT. >> I APOLOGIZE. I WAS TRYING TO READ SOMETHING THERE. THE APPLICANT IS A CITIZEN OF FRISCO, SO I DON'T THINK WE HAVE ANYTHING ON THAT. >> JUST TO BE CLEAR, ALL OF THE INFRASTRUCTURE CHANGES THAT WERE PLANNED ARE DONE APPROPRIATELY AND YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO APPROVE? >> THAT IS CORRECT, YES. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION UP IN PUBLIC HEARING? >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN, IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? >> SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE, PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING, NOW CLOSE. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? >> I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 24, AS SUBMITTED. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES, 5-1. ITEM 24 IS APPROVED. [NOISE] ITEM 25 PUBLIC HEARING, [25. Public Hearing - Replat: Frisco Square, Block A, Lot 1R (RP21-0041)] RE-FLAT FRISCO SQUARE, BLOCK A LOT 1R, RP21-0041, OWNERS, COLUMBIA MEDICAL CENTER PLANO SUBSIDIARY, LP. >> COMMISSIONERS, THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 13TH AND THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A 30-DAY EXTENSION AS PERMITTED IN HOUSE BILL 3167, TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL CHANGES TO THE PLAN PRIOR TO ACTION BEING TAKEN. THEREFORE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACCEPT THE 30-DAY EXTENSION REQUEST, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THE ITEM TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON MEETING ON NOVEMBER 9TH, 2021. >> EXCELLENT. IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD THEY CARE TO SPEAK? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES, 5-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. ANYONE THAT WOULD CARE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM TO ACCEPT? >> I MOVE TO ACCEPT THE 30-DAY EXTENSION REQUEST, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TABLE THE ITEM UNTIL THE PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING OF NOVEMBER 9TH. [NOISE] >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. [OVERLAPPING] >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5-0. [NOISE] ITEM 25 HAS BEEN APPROVED IN TABLE 2, THE NOVEMBER 9TH MEETING. [26. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (ZA21-0006)] ITEM 26, PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT, AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE ZA21-0006, OWNERS, CITY OF FRISCO. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALLED A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AT THEIR SEPTEMBER 14TH, 2021 MEETING. AS SOME OF YOU MAY RECALL, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE IN DECEMBER 2020, AMENDING THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER USES FOR PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL BETWEEN PARVIN BRANCH AND PGA PARKWAY. THAT WAS PART OF A ZONING CASE THAT OCCURRED BECAUSE OF STAR BUSINESS PARK. THE REQUEST BEFORE YOU TONIGHT LOOKS TO EXPAND THAT BOUNDARY TO ALLOW OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER USES FOR PROPERTY ZONED INDUSTRIAL BETWEEN PARVIN BRANCH SOUTH TO PARVIN CREEK PARKWAY. THAT'S THE FIRST PIECE OF THE REQUEST, IS TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARY TO ALLOW OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER USES. THE SECOND PIECE OF THIS REQUEST IS TO LIMIT THE APPLICABILITY OF FACADE REQUIREMENTS AND BUILDING [00:20:06] MATERIAL STANDARDS OF THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT BETWEEN PARVIN BRANCH AND PANTHER CREEK TO ONLY APPLY TO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND PORTIONS OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS THAT ARE WITHIN 300 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, ADJACENT PRESTON ROAD. THIS ENSURES THE STANDARDS OF THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT ARE MAINTAINED ALONG THE PRESTON ROAD FRONTAGE, BUT ALLOWS FLEXIBILITY FOR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS AND PORTIONS OF INDUSTRIAL BUILDING AS YOU GET FARTHER OFF OF PRESTON ROAD. STAFF HAS RECEIVED A COUPLE LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS REQUEST WHICH WERE PROVIDED TO YOU ALL PRIOR TO TONIGHT'S MEETING. THIS IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE. >> CITY OF FRISCO WAS THE APPLICANT, SO WE DON'T NEED THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK, BUT ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? >> I HAVE ONE, JONATHAN. FIRST, I'M DEBATING ABOUT THE 300 FEET. >> SURE. >> WHAT ARE THE NORMAL SETBACKS OFF OF PRESTON ROAD FOR BUILDING PURPOSES? BECAUSE I STILL WOULD WANT SOMETHING NICE TO BE VISIBLE FROM PRESTON ROAD AND NOT A INDUSTRIAL BUILDING. >> SURE. UP IN THIS AREA, THOSE SETBACKS, YOU MIGHT HAVE A 50-FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, AND THEN A LOT OF THOSE SETBACKS ARE GOING TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE PARTICULAR ZONING DISTRICT SO 25, 30 FEET, SOMETHING LIKE THAT. >> VARIATION, I GET THAT. >> IT'S GOING TO VARY. JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ON WHERE THE 300 FEET CAME FROM, JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF COMFORT ON THAT, IS THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT IS 750 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF PRESTON ROAD. THAT CAME ABOUT WHEN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT WAS BEING CREATED. THAT'S ABOUT THE TYPICAL DEPTH OF A RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. THE 300 FEET ESSENTIALLY COVERS PRETTY MUCH EVERYTHING IN THE PERIMETER OF A DEVELOPMENT. IF YOU WERE TO GO DOWN PRESTON ROAD, FOR EXAMPLE, AND MEASURE A LOT OF THE PAD SITES THAT ARE ALONG PRESTON ROAD, THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN THAT 280-320 FEET RANGE SOMEWHERE IN THERE. SO 300 FEET IS GOING TO CLEARLY COVER EVERYTHING THAT IS DIRECTLY RIGHT UP ON PRESTON ROAD, AND WE SPECIFICALLY SPECIFIED THAT IT IS 300 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WHILE THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT IS FROM THE CENTER LINE OF PRESTON ROAD THE WAY THIS STANDARD IS WRITTEN WHEN IT'S TALKING ABOUT THE FACADE REQUIREMENTS, IT IS THE FIRST 300 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. >> GOT IT. THANKS FOR THAT. >> SURE. >> IN YOUR COMMENT THAT YOUR TYPICAL PAD SITE WOULD BE 275-325, IS THAT FROM CENTER LINE? >> NO, THAT'S FOR PROPERTY LINE. >> THAT'S FROM POVERTY LINE. THANK YOU. >> I HAD THE FOLLOWING QUESTION TO THAT, JONATHAN. IF A PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED WITH THE DETENTION POND IN FRONT ALONG PRESTON ROAD, IS IT CONCEIVABLE THAT IT WOULD BE WIDE ENOUGH THAT THE BUILDING BEHIND IT COULD BE VERY VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD, BUT YET NOT BE REQUIRED TO MEET THESE STANDARDS. >> DEPENDING ON THE SIZE OF THE DETENTION POND THAT IS REQUIRED, I GUESS, TYPICALLY YOU COULD SAY THAT THAT'S CONCEIVABLE. ONE THING THAT I WOULD ADD THOUGH, AS A SAD NOTE TO THAT IS WE ARE REALLY WORKING ON WHEN SOMEONE WANTS TO DO A DETENTION POND THAT WE ARE USING THAT DETENTION POND TO COUNT TOWARDS THEIR OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT AND WE'RE SIGNIFICANTLY WORKING TO DRESS UP THOSE SPACES. THEN IF YOU ARE GOING TO HAVE A ELEVATION FROM IT THAT DETENTION POND, YOUR OPEN SPACE, WE ARE GOING TO WORK TO DRESS UP THAT BUILDING FACADE AS WELL. SO MAYBE IT'S NOT COVERED WITHIN THE 300 FEET. BUT THERE'S GOING TO BE A WHOLE SEPARATE CONVERSATION THAT STAFF IS GOING TO HAVE WITH SOMEONE IN THAT SCENARIO. >> LET ME JUST ADD TO THAT. JUST KNOWING THE AREA, YOU'RE GOING TO DO DETENTION IS GOING TO BE DOWNSTREAM IF YOU'RE NOT GOING DO IT AT THE TOP OF THE PROPERTY, AND AGAIN, THIS ONLY APPLIES TO PROPERTY THAT ZONE INDUSTRIAL [OVERLAPPING] IN THIS AREA. BUT WHEN YOU LOOK AT MOST OF THE PROPERTIES, ESPECIALLY ON THE WEST SIDE OF PRESTON ROAD, THE DRAINAGE PATTERN GOES FROM, IF YOU GET DOWN TO SOUTHERN END IS GOING FROM [NOISE] THE SOUTHEAST TO THE NORTHWEST. THEN WHEN YOU GET UP AROUND PARVIN BRANCH, THE SAME THING, IT'S FLOWING TO THE WEST. IF YOU HAVE ANY DETENTION THAT'S GOING TO BE AWAY FROM PRESTON ROAD. [00:25:01] >> NO, THAT THAT'S A GREAT ANSWER, JOHN AND JONATHAN, THAT WAS GREAT ANSWER ALSO. I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS. >> IT WAS A GOOD QUESTION. >> [NOISE] MY THOUGHT ON THIS IS THAT BY ELIMINATING THOSE MATERIAL REQUIREMENTS FOR THESE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS MAKES OUR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS VERY COST-COMPETITIVE TO OTHERS IN THE METROPLEX, REALLY. IT'S REALLY SOMETHING THAT WILL ALLOW FRISCO TO HAVE BETTER CHANCES FOR INDUSTRIAL GROWTH. >> COMMISSIONER KELLY IS JUST ON WHAT WOULD FACE PRESTON SO YOU STILL WOULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY EVERYTHING TO THE WEST, FOR EXAMPLE, TO BE YOUR TYPICAL INDUSTRIAL THAT COULD BRING BUSINESS HERE. I'M STRUGGLING WITH AESTHETICALLY, PEOPLE DRIVING UP AND DOWN PRESTON WHICH IS A MAJOR ARTERY IN OUR CITY, AND POTENTIALLY, WE GAVE THE REQUIREMENT TO COME ALL THE WAY DOWN TO PGA PARKWAY. BUT NOW LOOKING TO REDUCE IT FURTHER SOUTH AND I'M STRUGGLING WITH WHERE THAT'S ONLY BECOME A MORE TRAVELED AREA, TO GIVE THIS ABILITY. >> I LOOK AT THIS IS, THESE ARE THE BUILDINGS BEHIND BUILDINGS. THE FACADE IS ON THE FRONTAGE, AND THE BUILDINGS IN THE BACK WOULD NOT BE REQUIRED TO HAVE THE SAME FACADE. >> IT'S IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THAT THE STANDARDS THAT WE'RE SPEAKING TO TONIGHT ARE THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS, WHICH LIMIT THE NUMBER OF MATERIALS TO USE, A CERTAIN STONE PERCENTAGE, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. THIS IS NOT JUST COLD TURKEY DOING AWAY WITH THE CITY'S FACADE REQUIREMENTS. ONCE YOU'RE BEYOND THAT 300 FEET, THE CITY STILL HAS FACADE REQUIREMENTS, MASONRY REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY ARE GOING TO HAVE TO FOLLOW. THIS [OVERLAPPING] IS NOT DOING AWAY WITH THOSE. >> THE THREE DIFFERENT MATERIALS, I BELIEVE, REQUIREMENT. >> YES. I THINK IT LIMITS, YOU CAN'T HAVE NO MORE THAN THREE MATERIALS JUST TRYING TO KEEP THINGS SIMPLE. ALSO, WHERE THE BASE ORDINANCE SAYS, YOU KNOW, BRICK, AND STONE, AND TILT WALL AND VARIOUS THINGS LIKE THAT JUST AS YOU HAVE TO USE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF NATURAL STONE ON EACH FACADE. WE GET INTO CHALLENGES WHEN YOU THINK ABOUT YOUR INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS ON THE FRONT OF THE BUILDINGS WHERE THERE'S OFFICE, IT'S REALLY EASY FOR THEM TO DO. IT DOES BECOME A CHALLENGE AS YOU GET ON THE BACKSIDE OF THE BUILDINGS WHERE IT'S BAY DOORS AND AND LOADING DOCKS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SHOULD THESE ORDINANCE GET PASSED OR THESE AMENDMENTS GET PASSED, IT ALLOWS FOR GREATER FLEXIBILITY IN AREAS LIKE THAT BUT STILL MAINTAINS THAT AESTHETIC QUALITY ALONG PRESTON ROAD, WHERE MOST PEOPLE ARE GOING TO SAY IT RATHER MUST VISIBLE. >> WE'VE ALREADY PASSED THIS FOR THE NORTHERN SECTION, AND WE ALREADY HAVE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS HAVE BEEN BUILT ALONG PRESTON AND NORTHERN SECTION, CORRECT? >> THAT IS CORRECT. BETWEEN PARVIN BRANCH AND PGI PARK. >> YEAH, AND IF I GO BACK AND DRIVEN BY THERE, THEY'RE NOT UGLY BUILDINGS. THERE'S NOT AN ISSUE WITH THEM FROM A FACADE PERSPECTIVE IN MY OPINION. I THINK THE 300 GIVES US FLEXIBILITY TO ENSURE THAT ANYTHING REALLY TRULY FACING PRESTON AND INDUSTRIAL ZONE. THEY'RE GOING TO WANT TO USE AS MUCH LAND AS POSSIBLE SO THEY'RE GOING TO GET AS CLOSE TO PRESTON AS POSSIBLE AND THEY'LL BE USING THE MATERIALS WE NEED WITHIN THAT 300 FEET. THAT'S MY TAKE ON THAT. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? >> DO I HAVE A MOTION OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? >> SO MOVE. >> MOTION BY MR. KELLY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES, FIVE-ZERO. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? >> SEEING NONE, MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES, FIVE-ZERO. ANY OTHER CONVERSATION ON THIS, COMMISSIONER BOX, DO YOU HAD ANY OTHER STATEMENTS OR QUESTIONS? >> THE LETTERS IN SUPPORT OF THIS WERE FROM THE DEVELOPERS SO OF COURSE THEY'RE GOING TO BE IN SUPPORT OF IT. I WOULD JUST LIKE TO SAY, I'M STRUGGLING WITH 300 FEET STILL. WHY 300? WHY NOT 400? WHY NOT 375 WHEN IT'S 750 FROM CENTER OF PRESTON? I TAKE YOUR EXPERTISE ON THIS AND I DO THINK THAT THERE IS NO REASON FOR THEM TO WRAP A BUILDING IN OUR DIFFERENT REQUIREMENTS. BUT THERE ARE THE, AS YOU MENTIONED THERE, THE FACADE REQUIREMENTS THAT THE CITY HAS. [00:30:02] I THINK WE CAN LEAN ON THAT. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS ITEM? >> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 26 AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COHEN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, FIVE-ZERO. ITEM 26 IS APPROVED. ITEM 27, PUBLIC HEARING AND ZONING, [27. Public Hearing - Zoning: Four Corners (Z21-0010)] FOUR CORNERS, Z21-0010. OWNERS, FS WC LP, CVS PHARMACY SPECIFIED PROPERTIES. I WISH I KNEW MY ROMAN NUMERALS LXXX 1B, I'M NOT GOING TO THINK OF IT, LP IN AN HEB GROCERY COMPANY LP. >> THANK YOU. PLAN DEVELOPMENT 254 WAS ADOPTED IN APRIL 2016 TO ACCOMMODATE A TRADITIONAL RETAIL DEVELOPMENT WITH A BIG BOX USER AND ASSOCIATED RETAIL AS WELL AS SINGLE-FAMILY AND URBAN LIVING USERS ON THE SOUTHERN [NOISE] PORTION OF THE PROPERTY. FOR THIS REQUEST, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO AMEND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ADOPT DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND EXHIBITS TO ACCOMMODATE PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENTS. A FEW OF THOSE CHANGES THAT I WANT TO GO OVER TONIGHT, THE FIRST BEING THE EXPANSION OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO EXPAND THE BOUNDARY OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT FARTHER SOUTH AND INCLUDE WHAT YOU SEE HERE ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU AS TRACT H. [NOISE] THIS IS TO ALLOW FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PET RESORT, MEDICAL OFFICE, AND ADDED RETAIL RESTAURANT SPACE. THERE IS A NATURAL DRAINAGE AREA THAT WRAPS AROUND THIS TRACT. STAFF DID WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO MAKE IMPROVEMENTS TO THIS DRAINAGE AREA, WHICH WILL SERVE AS A CONTINUATION OF THE CENTRALIZED OPEN SPACE THAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GORDON HEIGHTS. WE HAVE A FEW EXHIBITS THAT I CAN SHARE TONIGHT. THIS IS THE OVERALL PLAN AND AS YOU CAN SAY HERE, THIS IS THE CENTRALIZED OPEN SPACE AREA THAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED ON THE NORTH SIDE OF GORDON HEIGHTS. THIS HERE IS THAT CONTINUATION THAT I WAS TALKING ABOUT. SECOND, THE SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT, THAT'S BEING THIS AREA HERE. THE ORIGINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT 216, STATED THAT THE SINGLE-FAMILY AREA WAS TO DEVELOP IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SINGLE FAMILY STAMP AND STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS THEY EXISTED OR MIGHT BE AMENDED. STAFF DID WORK WITH THE APPLICANT TO PROVIDE STANDARDS THAT WILL PULL THESE HOMES CLOSER TO THE STREET, REQUIRE FRONT PORCHES, AND HAVE ENHANCED ELEMENTS ON THE HOME FACADES THAT ARE VISIBLY EXPOSED TO THE STREET OR OPEN SPACE. THESE ARE MANY OF THE STANDARDS THE STAFF HAS RECENTLY BEEN WORKING WITH APPLICANTS ON TO INCORPORATE IN OUR PLAN DEVELOPMENTS JUST TO GIVE THEM MORE OF THAT COMMUNITY FEEL AND PULL THEM UP CLOSER TO THE STREET. LASTLY, IT'S IMPORTANT TO NOTE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT TO PLACE THE FOOD TRUCK PARK. IN THE PRIOR PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THERE IS A FOOD TRUCK PARK HERE AT THE END OF THIS ROUNDABOUT AREA. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REPLACE THAT FOOD TRUCK PARK WITH A SIT DOWN RESTAURANT THAT WILL HAVE VIEWS OUT ONTO THE CENTRAL OPEN SPACE AREA. THE SECOND PIECE OF THAT IS THIS BUILDING HERE WAS SHOWN AS AN ANCHOR. AGAIN, AN ANCHOR RETAIL STORE AND ENTERTAINMENT USE POTENTIALLY, THAT HAS BEEN REPLACED WITH A TWO-STORY MEDICAL OFFICE BUILDING. ALSO IMPORTANT TO POINT OUT THIS EVENING THAT WHILE THE 2016 PD ORDINANCE DOES ALLOW A MAXIMUM OF 740 URBAN LIVING UNITS, THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING ANY ADDITIONAL RESIDENTIAL WITHIN THIS REQUEST. STAFF DID SEND A COURTESY EMAIL TO THE HOS WITHIN 1500 FEET OF THE ZONING REQUEST, NOTIFYING THEM OF THE PROPOSED ZONING REQUEST. TO DATE, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK. ONE LAST THING TO POINT OUT THIS EVENING IS THAT FSWC, LP HAS OR DID ENTER INTO A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN OCTOBER 2020 THAT ESTABLISHED BUILDING MATERIALS STANDARDS AND CODES FOR A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY, THAT BEING TRACTS ONE THROUGH SEVEN THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN HERE. WHAT WAS NOT PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS CVS THAT'S ALREADY CONSTRUCTED. THE SPECIFIED PROPERTY, WHICH IS THE MULTI-FAMILY THAT IS CONSTRUCTED. THE FSWC, L PROPERTY, WHICH IS ANOTHER MULTI-FAMILY BUILDING THAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION, AND THEN THE HEB GROCERY COMPANY, LP PROPERTY THAT IS HIGHLIGHTED IN GREEN HERE. THE REASONING FOR HEB CHOOSING NOT TO ENTER INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS INCLUDED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT. THIS CASE HERE IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE. [00:35:04] >> FIRST QUESTION I HAVE IS ON TRACT 6. ON A SINGLE FAMILY, WHAT HAS CHANGED THERE? ARE THE LOT SIZES CHANGED? WE MADE ANY CHANGES A LOT SIZES? >> SO PD THAT'S IN PLACE TODAY DEVELOP IN ACCORDANCE WITH SF7 STANDARDS. >> OKAY. >> THAT'S HOW IT IS. THE PD THAT IS BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT, STILL SF7 STANDARDS. IT'S JUST PULLING THE BUILDINGS OR PULLING THE HOMES CLOSER TO THE STREET INSTEAD OF THAT TRADITIONAL 25 FOOT BUILDING SETBACK FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, YOU HAVE 18 FEET FROM BACKUP CURB, ALSO LOOKING TO INCORPORATE FRONT PORCHES ON ALL THE LOTS THAT DON'T HAVE A J-SWING GARAGE. IT'S REALLY JUST ENHANCING THE STANDARDS, BUT THEY'RE STILL ALL SF7 ONES. >> THAT'S REALLY WAS MY CONCERN. I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE WEREN'T GOING DOWN ON THAT. ON TRACT 7, THERE WILL BE THE CORRESPONDING OPEN SPACE. OUR OVERALL PLAN DEVELOPMENT OPEN SPACE PERCENTAGES STAY THE SAME? >> THAT IS CORRECT. EVERYTHING NORTH OF GORDON HEIGHTS THAT'S BEEN CONSTRUCTED, THAT'S IN THE 2016 PD ORDINANCE, NONE OF THAT IS CHANGING. WITH THE ADDITION OF THE PROPERTY SOUTH OF GORDON HEIGHTS THAT YOU SEE HERE, IT BRINGS IN AN ADDITIONAL FIVE ACRES OF OPEN SPACE. >> OKAY. >> IT ALL CONNECTS TO THE OPEN SPACE NORTH OF GORDON HEIGHTS. >> JUST A COMMENT ON THE OPEN SPACE, I LIKE THE FACT YOU USING AT THE BUFFER BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD THAT'S ALREADY BUILT. I APPRECIATE THAT. THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE AT THIS TIME. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS PEOPLE? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> GO AHEAD. >> MY CONCERN IS IS THAT THE PET THING IN TRACT 7 AND THE OUTDOOR, I GUESS, AREA FOR PETS TO STRETCH THEIR LEGS AND SO ON. HOW FAR IS IT FROM THERE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? I THINK WHAT YOU HAVE UP RIGHT NOW IS THIS AREA RIGHT HERE ON THE LEFT. >> I'VE GOT THIS AREA HERE? >> YEAH. HOW FAR IS THAT? MY CONCERN IS THAT IT SHOULD BE A PLAY YARD AND THERE ARE BARKING DOGS OUT THERE BOTHERING THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT'S REALLY WHERE I'M COMING FROM. HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY THAT WOULDN'T BE A PROBLEM. >> YOU'RE ABOUT IN THE 400ISH FEET RANGE. >> HUNDRED YARDS. >> HUNDRED YARDS. IT'S BUFFERED WITH TREES. LET ME SEE IF I CAN GET A BETTER IMAGE HERE. THE APPLICANT MAY BE ABLE TO SPEAK BETTER. >> WELL, WAIT TILL THEY COME UP. >> THE LAND PLAN FOR WHAT IS PROPOSED FOR THE PARTICULAR DOG RESORT. >> I WILL WAIT. >> I HAD A QUESTION ON SECTION 7 [OVERLAPPING] JUST TALKING ABOUT IT. JUST REMIND US THE IMPLICATIONS OF CHANGING THAT AND ADDING THAT INTO THE PD. WHAT WAS ALLOWED THERE BEFORE VERSUS WHAT WE'RE ALLOWING NOW? >> TRACK 7. >> TRACK 7. >> TRACK 7 IS ON DAG, IT IS NOT WITHIN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT. AG USES IS THE ZONING THAT'S ON THE PROPERTY TODAY AND THIS REQUEST LOOKS TO BRING IT INTO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND ALLOW THE USES THAT YOU HAVE ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU. >> THANK YOU. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT CLEAR TO EVERYBODY THAT BY ADDING THIS INTO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, WE ARE REZONING IT FROM AG TO MEET THE STANDARDS OF THE PLAN DEVELOPED? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THANK YOU. >> THAT MEANS WE WOULDN'T GET ANY OTHER APPROVAL ON THIS OTHER THAN CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS ON LIKE PSP. >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THE ONLY REASON I ASKED THAT QUESTION BECAUSE HIS COMMENT ABOUT THE PET IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS VERY RELEVANT. THE APPLICANT WANTS TO SPEAK TODAY. >> SURE. BECAUSE I CAN CERTAINLY SPEAK TO THIS, BUT THEY CAN PROBABLY ARE BETTER EQUIPPED TO ANSWER THE QUESTION. >> WILL THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? >> GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS CHARLES HODGES. 13642 OMEGA DALLAS IS GREAT TO SEE EVERYBODY. NOW THAT WE'VE COME THROUGH IT HOPEFULLY. AS THE ORIGINAL MASTER PLAN OR I'M VERY EXCITED ABOUT THIS AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT BECAUSE WE'RE NOW FINALLY COMPLETING OUR TRAIL SYSTEM ALL THE WAY OUT TO 423. [00:40:02] THAT WAS ONE OF MY ORIGINAL GOALS. I LIKE WHAT WE'RE DOING ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF GORDON HEIGHTS. AS YOU'VE SEEN THE EVOLUTION OF OUR PARK, WE WANT TO EXTEND THAT. THE PLACEMENT OF THE BUILDINGS AND IN PARTICULAR THE PLACEMENT OF THE PET RESORT. I'M PROUD OWNER OF FIVE BIRD DOGS, SO I'M VERY SENSITIVE TO ALL THOSE ISSUES. WERE A FOOTBALL FIELD AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL 400 FEET, AS JONATHAN STATED. MOST OF THESE RUNS ARE EITHER ENCLOSED OR ARE COVERED. IT'S NOT AS IF WE HAVE A VERY LARGE OPEN PLAY AREA WHERE THEY'LL BE A LOT OF OVERNIGHT OR AFTER HOURS EXERCISING OF THE DOGS THERE. WE HAVE INCREASED AS YOU CAN SEE, THE WIDTH OF THE GREEN BELT AND THE AREA THAT WE ARE DEVELOPING OUTSIDE OF THE DRAINAGE AREA ON THAT END TO PROVIDE FURTHER SPACING FROM RESIDENTIAL. I WOULD THINK WE'RE PROBABLY PUSHING CLOSER TO 450 FEET TO THE BACK OF A RESIDENTIAL UNIT ITSELF. WE BELIEVE WE HAVE A LOT OF VISUAL THERE'S A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF TREES THAT WE'VE INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN. THE TRAIL SYSTEM ACTUALLY SEGREGATE, SO THEY'LL BE PEOPLE MOVING UP AND DOWN THAT TRAIL SYSTEM BETWEEN THE RESORT AND THE RESIDENTIAL. WE THINK WE'VE GOT A GOOD ADEQUATE SPACING THERE. >> THANK YOU FOR THAT. >> YOU BET. >> HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. >> THANK YOU. DO I HAVE A MOTION OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING? >> [FOREIGN] WILL TALK TO PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONE SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES 50. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WANTS 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 KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> [OVERLAPPING] AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 50. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. JUST LOOKING AT THE SETBACKS AND ON THIS PET COMPONENT, THE WESTERN SIDE OF IT IS A BUILDING THAT IS NEXT TO STREET, WHICH IS NEXT TO PARKING, WHICH THEN GOES INTO OPEN SPACE. THAT'S NOT FOR THE DOGS, THEN GOES INTO THE EIGHT FOOT WALKWAY, WHICH THEN GOES INTO THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT, WHICH BACKS INTO THE HOUSE. THERE'S A BETTER CLEAR PICTURE INSIDE OF OUR DOCUMENTATION ON OUR COMPUTERS HERE. THAT'S PRETTY GOOD. I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE IT'S A VERY VALID POINT AND WE ASK THAT AS YOU FINALIZE YOUR PLANS, THAT WE KEEP THINGS AS FAR AWAY FROM THE DUMPSTERS AND IN ANY PLAY AREAS FAR AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY LINE AS POSSIBLE JUST TO OPTIMIZE THAT FOR THE FAMILIES THAT LIVE THERE. BUT I DO THINK IT'S A GOOD ADDITION TO THE PLAN. MY ONLY OTHER QUESTION I WANT TO MAKE SURE, AND ALWAYS EXCITED FOR HEB TO BE IN OUR DEVELOPMENT HERE IN FRISCO. FROM GROWING UP IN SAN ANTONIO'S THEY'RE GOING TO BE GREAT PARTNER FOR FRISCO. LET ME UNDERSTAND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT THEY HAVE TO FOLLOW. >> HEB AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, HEB HAS RECOGNIZED THE BUILDING MATERIALS AND THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, [NOISE] AND DO NOT SEE A REASON TO SIGN ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT STATING THAT THEY WILL COMPLY WITH THOSE. THEY HAVE ACKNOWLEDGED FOR THAT COMMENT THAT THEY WILL FOLLOW THE PD STANDARDS. >> GOT YOU. SO THE PD HAS STANDARDS IN IT? >> THAT IS CORRECT IT DOES. >> ALL RIGHT. I'M GOOD WITH THAT. >> THAT THEY'RE SUBJECT TO? >> THAT IS CORRECT. >> THAT'S ALL QUESTIONS I HAVE AT THIS TIME. >> CHAIRMAN COX, I HAD TO FOLLOW ON TO THE CONVERSATION JONATHAN, ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL. I FEEL BETTER ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL STUFF TO THE WEST. MY CONCERN IS GOING TO BE THE RESIDENTIAL'S APARTMENTS TO THE NORTH. CAN WE GET AN IDEA AS TO WHETHER THERE'S ANY ACTUAL DOG RUNS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING AND HOW CLOSE ARE THOSE TO THE RESIDENTS' BALCONIES ON THE APARTMENTS ACROSS THE STREET? >> DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO WHAT THE PLAN IS? >> WANT TO TALK ABOUT THOSE [OVERLAPPING] GORDON HEIGHTS IS THE ROAD THERE? >> YOU WANT TO SPEAK TO WHAT THE PLAN IS FOR THAT NORTHERN BUILDING? >> YEAH. I BELIEVE THERE IS A COVERED SET RUNS ON THAT SIDE. I WILL TELL YOU THAT THE DEVELOPER WESTWOOD OF THE MULTIFAMILY WAS VERY SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE DOING. WE INVOLVE THEM IN ALL THE DISCUSSIONS FOR THIS. QUITE FRANKLY, IT'S GREAT SERVICE TO THEM BECAUSE IT'S A WAY FOR FOLKS TO CHECK IN THEIR DOGS INTO THE RESORT AND THEN THOSE THAT ARE LIVING IN THE MULTIFAMILY THEMSELVES. WE REALLY DID SPEND A LOT OF TIME TALKING TO THEM ABOUT THAT, MAKING SURE THEY SUPPORTED AND ENDORSED WHAT WE'RE DOING. [00:45:04] >> NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. I'M SURE THAT'S THE CASE. I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT WHATEVER SETBACKS OR BUFFERS WE HAVE THERE, JONATHAN, THAT LANDSCAPING AND ALL OF THAT THAT MIGHT OFFER A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A BUFFER. I GUESS JUST FOR THE RECORD, WE TALKED ABOUT A GOOD DISTANCE TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY HOMES, BUT MAY NOT BE AS FAR OF A DISTANCE TO THE RESIDENTS IN THOSE APARTMENTS. NOT DEAL KILLER OBVIOUSLY, BUT JUST TO GO ON THE RECORD WITH THAT. >> YOU'RE PROBABLY CLOSER TO THE 150 FOOT RANGE FROM BUILDING TO BUILDING. ON NORTH-SOUTH VERSUS THE SINGLE-FAMILY TO THE LAST. >> FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, AS AN IMPORTANT THING TO LOOK AT IS NOT AS IMPORTANT AS AN EXTRA SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD BECAUSE IF YOU HAVE A PROBLEM, IT'S HARDER TO LEAVE IF YOU'RE IN A SINGLE FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD AND HAVE THAT TYPE OF PROBLEM WHERE IN MULTIFAMILY, IT COULD CAUSE PROBLEMS FOR THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT, BUT PEOPLE CAN MOVE APARTMENTS TYPICALLY A LOT EASIER IF THERE IS AN ISSUE. [OVERLAPPING] THAT WOULD BE MY ONLY. >> MOSTLY AGREE WITH THAT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT CREATING A CODE ENFORCEMENT HAZARD WHERE CITY STAFF IS GETTING CONSTANT CALLS FROM THE PROPERTY MANAGEMENT AND THEY'RE SAYING WE'RE HAVING TROUBLE WITH DOGS, WHATEVER TIME IT IS. I JUST WANT TO POINT THAT OUT NOW. >> IT IS A GREAT PERSPECTIVE THERE. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. HODGES. SIR, THE PD CURRENTLY ENTITLES THE LANDOWNERS AND THE DEVELOPER TO 740 MULTIFAMILY UNITS? >> CORRECT. >> WITH THE CURRENT TWO PROPERTIES, ONE IN PLACE, I THINK ONE UNDER CONSTRUCTION, THERE ARE 628 UNITS THAT ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. >> CORRECT. >> WOULD YOU BE PREPARED TO GIVE UP A 112 UNITS GIVEN THAT THAT'S WHAT'S ALREADY UNDER CONSTRUCTION ON THAT WOULD ALLEVIATE THE OPPORTUNITY FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS TO BE BUILT ON THIS PROPERTY. >> I DON'T BELIEVE THERE ARE ANY INTENTIONS ON THAT. I WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO GRANT THAT AS THE MASTER PLANNER AND ARCHITECT, BUT OUR OWNERSHIP REPRESENTATIVE IS HERE SO HE CAN CERTAINLY ADDRESS IT. >> I'D LIKE FOR THEM TO ADDRESS IF THAT SOMETHING THEY WOULD BE WILLING TO OFFER. >> WE WOULD LIKE TO MAKE THAT AS PART OF OUR MOTION TO APPROVE [OVERLAPPING]. >> MR. COX CAN YOU RUN THROUGH THOSE NUMBERS AGAIN WHILE WE ARE WAITING FOR THE? >> SURE. THE PD ENTITLES TO 740 UNITS OF MULTI-FAMILY. PHASE 1, WHICH HAS LOT 15, INCLUDES 345 UNITS. PHASE 2, WHICH IS LOT 14, HAS 283 UNITS FOR 628 UNITS, LEAVING 112 UNITS POTENTIAL FOR DEVELOPMENT. THAT WOULD LIKE TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE OUT, SO IT CANNOT BE DEVELOPED ON THE PROPERTY. >> I THINK IS A GOOD POINT WAS RAISED HERE. THERE IS NO INTENT FOR BUILDING ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENTS. WHAT WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO IS IF THEY FOUND THAT THEY HAD TWO OR THREE EXTRA UNITS WITHIN THE TWO DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE ALREADY UNDERWAY. WE WOULD NOT WANT TO COME BACK AND REZONE, BUT IF THERE'S A WAY TO STATE IT SO THAT THEY'RE ALLOWED TO HAVE SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THE NUMBER IN THE EXISTING TWO DEVELOPMENTS, I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN ISSUE. >> UNDERSTAND. THERE MAY BE SOME CHANGES TO NUMBER. [OVERLAPPING] >> YEAH, MAYBE SOME TWEAKING GOING ON, ON UNITS. >> OKAY, JOHN. >> NO EXTENSION BEYOND THE EXISTING TWO DEVELOPMENTS OF MULTI-FAMILY. >> OKAY. THANK YOU. I APPRECIATE THAT. >> YOU BET. >> CAN I ASK A CLARIFYING QUESTION WITH THAT? JUST A CLARIFYING QUESTION HODGE. JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR, THERE IS NOT SPACE IDENTIFIED FOR THOSE 112 UNITS, THERE'S NOT ANY PLANS FOR THEM CURRENTLY? >> NO. >> OKAY. >> NO. IT'S A NUMBERS ISSUE. WE WOULDN'T WANT TO HAVE TO TRIGGER OR REZONE. >> UNDERSTOOD. >> FOR TWO UNITS? >> YEAH. [LAUGHTER] COULD YOU PUT TWO MORE STUDIO APARTMENTS IN OR SOMETHING. >> YEAH. I'LL PUT YOU IN THE BEHIND. >> YEAH. I THINK IT'S A FAIR STATEMENT. >> JOHN IS THERE ANY FLEXIBILITY TO YOU AS DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES IF IT GOES TO OVER OR WOULD IT BE LOCKED IF WE DID THIS. >> I WOULD SUGGEST IN JUST WHAT CHARLES HAD TO SAY AND I THINK KEVIN IS COMING UP. SINCE THERE'S 112, MAYBE THE PROPOSAL MAYBE TAKE AWAY 75 AND THEN LEAVE THE OTHERS JUST TO MAKE SURE TO COVER THEIR BASIS. BECAUSE ONE THING I WANT TO POINT OUT, YOU DO HAVE THE ZONE EXHIBIT THAT SHOWS TWO RESIDENTIAL PROJECTS. THE FIRST ONE HAS BEEN BUILT. THAT'S ONE CLOSEST TO 423. THE OTHER ONE THING HAS BEEN PERMITTED. BUT YEAH, YOU COULD HAVE CHANGES AS MR. HODGES POINTED OUT, BUT MAYBE WAS A COMPROMISE WITH 112. I DON'T SAY THEY'RE GOING TO BE DOING A 112 UNITS, BUT MAYBE SAY SLASH THAT BY 75. >> LET ME ASK A QUESTION A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT WAY. [00:50:01] ARE THESE TWO TRACKS THE ONLY TRACKS THEY CAN BUILD? [OVERLAPPING] >> YES. >> THAT'S ALREADY IN THE DEVELOPMENT, CORRECT? >> YES. >> YES. >> I DON'T KNOW THAT MAKING A CHANGE TO THE NUMBER WILL MATTER. >> BUT THEY COULD HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO REDESIGN THAT BUILDING AND ADD ANOTHER 100 PLUS UNITS, AND I WOULD RATHER NOT HAVE THAT ADDED. [BACKGROUND] >> IT'S NOT STICKS AND GROUND. >> YEAH. I'M JUST SAYING JUST BECAUSE SOMETHING HAS BEEN PERMITTED DOESN'T PREVENT THEM FROM COMING BACK WE CAN CHANGE [OVERLAPPING] >> ABSOLUTELY. WE'VE SEEN THAT AS ANOTHER CONSENT AGENDA ITEM TONIGHT. >> YEAH. >> JONATHAN DO YOU HAVE SOMETHING TO ADD? >> NO. >> OKAY. >> I DON'T KNOW. >> I THINK THE SECOND TRACK WHICH IS. >> I WOULD ASK FOR TAKING AWAY 100 UNITS AND ASK IF 12 UNITS FLEXIBILITY IS ENOUGH? >> JONATHAN CAN YOU PULL UP WHERE THIS IS LOCATED ON THE SITE PLAN? >> SURE. THIS IS PROBABLY A BETTER MAP. LET'S LOOK HERE. [LAUGHTER] RIGHT HERE, THIS IS WHAT HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED. THAT'S LOT 15, THAT'S THE 345 UNITS AND THEN WHAT YOU SEE HERE THAT IS LOT TWO. THAT'S THE 293 UNITS THAT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED AND ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION. >> THEY ARE UNDER CONSTRUCTION? >> YES. >> OKAY. >> MR. HODGES I NEED TO ASK YOU A QUESTION FOR YOU TO RESPOND. [LAUGHTER] WOULD THE OWNER BE WILLING TO GO WITH 12 UNIT FLEXIBILITY. DOES THAT GIVE THEM THE FLEXIBILITY THEY NEED? >> OUR OWNER, THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT POINTED OUT THAT LAND IS ALREADY SOLD. WE WOULD BE AGREEING TO SOMETHING ON SOMEBODY ELSE'S LAND. THAT REALLY BRINGS UP A STICKY POINT. I THINK RESTRICTING IT TO THE TWO AREAS THAT ARE THERE IF THERE'S A WAY TO CRAFT A CONDITION TO DO THAT SO THAT NO RESIDENTIAL CAN GO BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THE TWO RESIDENTIALLY DESIGNATED TRACKS. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE ONLY WAY WE CAN AGREE ON THAT, BECAUSE WE DON'T OWN THAT PROPERTY ANYMORE. BUT I SEE EXACTLY WHERE YOU GO, KNOW EXACTLY. I THINK PROBABLY THE WAY TO DO IT IS LET'S ASSUME WE COULD CRAFT A CONDITION SAYING MULTI-FAMILY CAN'T GO BEYOND THE BOUNDARIES OF THOSE PROPERTIES. >> OKAY. >> IT'S ALREADY IN THE PD THAT WAY. >> IT'S ALREADY IN THE PD. >> WE JUST DON'T NEED EXTRA UNITS [OVERLAPPING]. >> LISTEN I HEAR YOU. ENOUGH, I UNDERSTAND. >> I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY THAT WAY IN THE PD, BUT. >> RIGHT. >> BUT IF WE CAN REDUCE SOMETHING THAT'S NOT BEING BUILT, SO IT CAN'T BE BUILT IN THE FUTURE I WOULD RATHER DO. >> YEAH, I UNDERSTAND. WE'RE NOT IN A POSITION TO CONDITION SOMEBODY ELSE'S PROPERTY. >> I UNDERSTAND. >> THE ONE YOU ALREADY SOLD. [LAUGHTER] RIGHT? >> RIGHT. >> IT COULD BE A LITTLE LAWYERS INVOLVED. >> I APPRECIATE THE DESIRE TO REDUCE THIS. I THINK IN THE REALITY IS THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOGICAL LIMIT TO THE SIZE THAT PIECE OF LAND RIGHT THERE. HOW MANY UNITS THEY CAN PUT ON IT. >> SEEN A LOT OF UNITS STUCK IN THE PROPERTIES. >> YEAH. >> JONATHAN, CAN YOU CLARIFY, DO YOU KNOW HOW MANY FLOORS IS THAT SECOND PHASE, THE SECOND PARCEL FOR MULTIFAMILY? >> IT WAS FOUR STORIES. >> IT WAS FOUR STORIES, I DON'T KNOW OFF THE TOP OF MY HEAD. >> OKAY. >> IS THAT FOUR STORIES THAT SECOND BUILDING? [BACKGROUND] [LAUGHTER] I CAN ZOOM IN [OVERLAPPING]. >> THERE IS GREAT CHANGES OVER THERE ON THAT WESTERN SIDE AND SO I HAD A LITTLE BIT THAT DIP DOWN. >> THIS IS THE ONE THAT HAD THE UNDERGROUND PARKING, IS IT? WE HAD TALKED ABOUT ONE TIME? >> I JUST KNOW SOME OF THE UNITS ARE BELOW GRADE COMPARED TO THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE RESIDENTIAL. >> JOHN, CAN YOU REMIND ME? IS THIS THE SITE WHERE WE WAIVED THE RETAIL REQUIREMENTS ON THE GROUND FLOOR OF THIS PROPERTY? >> YES, FROM A PROPORTION OR THE PROPERTY, YES. >> OKAY. WHICH IS GOOD MOVE. >> ALL RIGHT. >> I'M IN FAVOR OF TABLING IT TO HERE FROM THE OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY. I THINK IT'S A BIG ENOUGH ISSUE AS WE'RE LOOKING TO REDUCE MULTIFAMILY ACROSS THE CITY. THAT'S WHERE MY VOTE WILL GO BUT I WOULD BE INTERESTED IN HEARING FROM OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. >> WHEN I WAS A COMMISSIONER 5 YEARS AGO WHEN THIS CAME, [00:55:01] WE VOTED FOR THIS NUMBER OF APARTMENTS AT THIS SPOT AND THEY'VE ACTUALLY PLANNED FOR LESS APARTMENTS THAN WHAT THEY WERE GRANTED. TO ME THAT MAKES A GOOD PARTNER. THEY'RE NOT TRYING TO STUFF IT AND I THINK THIS ONE IS ONE OF THOSE MUTE POINTS WHERE THE REALITY IS GOING TO BE LESS THAN WHAT WE APPROVED. I'M ALL IN FAVOR FOR VOTING ON THIS, THIS EVENING, MYSELF. BUT I DO APPRECIATE YOUR DESIRE TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS STATED IN FRISCO. THE KEY IS WE'RE REDUCING THE NUMBER OF APARTMENTS BUILT, IS THE REALITY. >> IN FUTURE ENTITLEMENT. CAN I JUMP IN HERE THEN AND ASK MAYBE EITHER JOHN OR JONATHAN THE QUESTION. IF THIS WAS ALREADY BUILT AND WE'VE DONE THIS WITH SEVERAL OTHER PLACES WHERE THERE'S MULTIFAMILY ZONING OUT THERE. THERE'S AN ENTITLEMENT FOR ADDITIONAL UNITS AND WE'VE GONE IN AND WORKED WITH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO REZONE IT, TO DECREASE THAT. SOMETIMES ELIMINATING COMPLETELY. IS THIS A CASE WHERE ON A STAND ALONE CASE, IT COULD BE REZONED WORKING WITH THE LANDOWNER AND THE CITY TO REZONE IT TO MATCH WHAT'S BUILT? >> THAT IS SOMETHING THE CITY CAN, EITHER CITY COUNCIL OR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CAN INITIATE A PUBLIC HEARING BUT IF THE OWNER OBJECTS TO IT, AND THEN IT COULD TRIGGER A THREE QUARTER VOTE. THE POSSIBILITY IS ALWAYS THERE. >> OKAY. >> I'M OKAY AGREEING WITH COMMISSIONER BOX IF ANYONE ELSE IS INTERESTED IN DOING THAT. >> I'M LEANING TOWARDS AGREEING WITH CHAIRMAN COX ON THE FACT THAT THESE ONCE BEEN BUILT AND ONCE PERMITTED AND THAT'S THE INTENTION AND THERE'S SOME PHYSICAL BOUNDARY HERE TO PUT ANYMORE SO I'M HAPPY WITH WHAT'S HERE. >> I'LL JUST SAY I TEND TO AGREE WITH COMMISSIONER BOX. COMMISSIONER KELLY? >> I AGREE AS WELL. >> I CAN MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM 27 TO THE OCTOBER 26 MEETING FOR THE PURPOSE OF GOING BACK TO THE ACTUAL OWNER OF THIS PROPERTY TO OBTAIN THEIR AGREEMENT TO REDUCE BY A 100 UNITS. >> I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. >> I WILL SECOND IT. >> I HAVE A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> AYE. >> ALL THOSE AGAINST? >> NAY. >> THAT MOTION WAS DENIED, 3-2 FOR THIS ITEM WILL NOT BE TABLED. DO I HAVE ANY OTHER MOTIONS? >> I'LL GO AHEAD AND MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 27 AS SUBMITTED. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? >> NAY. >> MOTION CARRIES, 4-1. ITEM 27 IS APPROVED AS SUBMITTED. COMMISSIONER BOX IF YOU CAN JUST STATE FOR THE RECORD YOUR OBJECTION? >> MY OBJECTION IS I WOULD HAVE PREFERRED TO GO BACK TO THE LANDOWNER OF THE SECOND MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY ON SHEET 2 OF 6 TO REDUCE THE ENTITLEMENT DOWN BY A 100. >> THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. CONGRATULATIONS AGENDA HAS BEEN APPROVED. ITEM 28, PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE NUMBER 406, [28. Public Hearing: Ordinance Number 406, Ordinance Number 82-01-01, & Ordinance Number 83-05-05 Ordinance No. 406 and Ordinance No. 82-01-01 (Z21-0014)] ORDINANCE NUMBER 82 DASH 01 DASH 01, AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 83 DASH 05 DASH 05, ORDINANCE NUMBER 406 AND ORDINANCE NUMBER 82 DASH 01 DASH 01. Z21 DASH 0014, OWNERS, MULTIPLE OWNERS. [NOISE] >> THANK YOU. [LAUGHTER] THIS PROJECT IS PART OF A CITY INITIATIVE TO FIND AREAS IN THE CITY THAT ARE ZONED MULTIFAMILY BUT ARE NOT DEVELOPED HIS MULTIFAMILY AND THEN RESUME TO MATCH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT IS ON THE GROUND. THIS PARTICULAR ITEM HAS BEEN CONTINUED TWICE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, IT WAS MOST RECENTLY CONTINUED TO THE SEPTEMBER 28TH MEETING, HOWEVER, IT WAS INADVERTENTLY LEFT OFF OF THAT AGENDA. STAFF HAS RE-ADVERTISED THIS AND IS REQUESTING ONE FINAL 30 DAY EXTENSION, TO THE NOVEMBER 9TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO FINALIZE THE DOCUMENTATION AND STANDARDS. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE REQUESTED 30 DAY EXTENSION. >> THIS WAS INITIATED BY THE CITY? >> I'M SORRY? >> THIS WAS INITIATED BY THE CITY, CORRECT? >> YES. >> DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER COLBERT, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5 0, [01:00:01] PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? >> SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> POINT OF ORDER, WE SHOULD CONTINUE THIS PUBLIC HEARING [OVERLAPPING] >> THAT IS A GOOD POINT OF ORDER, SO WE DO NOT WANT TO SHUT DOWN, NO SECOND ON THAT MOTION. DO I HAVE ANOTHER MOTION? >> MOVE TO APPROVE THE EXTENDED EXTENSION FOR 30 DAYS, CONTINUE WITH THE PUBLIC HEARING THEY WILL DECIDE UP TO NOVEMBER 9. >> JUST DROP 30 DAYS TO SAY [OVERLAPPING] SINCE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, THIS AS A ZONING CASE, 30-DAY SHORT CLOCK THAT'S GOING TO APPLY TO ZONING CASES. YOUR RECOMMENDATION IS TO TABLE THIS ITEM, CONTINUE [OVERLAPPING] ON NOVEMBER 9TH MEETING, THEY CAN CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING. >> YOU WANT TO RESTATE THAT? [OVERLAPPING]. >> WE'LL BE GLAD TO RESTATE THAT. WE WANT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER 9TH, 2021 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING. >> [INAUDIBLE] BY MR. MORGAN. >> SECOND. >> SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 5.0 AS ITEM'S BEEN TABLED UNTIL CONTINUED IN TABLED UNTIL NOVEMBER 9TH, PLAN ZONING MEETING. [29. Public Hearing - Zoning: Hazelwood (Z21-0015)] ITEM 29, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING HAZEL WOOD, Z 21.00015, OWNERS GR BK EDGEWOOD LLC. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT TO ACCOMMODATE A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPMENT THAT IS FOCUSED AROUND DISPERSED OPEN SPACE TRACKS AND A FLOODPLAIN AREA. THE APPLICANT AND STAFF HAVE WORKED TOGETHER TO DEVELOP STANDARDS, WHICH ARE NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT LEND THEMSELVES TO ATTRACTING PEOPLE, ENCOURAGING SOCIAL INTERACTION AND CREATING COMMUNITY. JUST A FEW OF THOSE THINGS THAT I WANT TO GO OVER TONIGHT. FIRST BEING THE OPEN SPACE AND THE LARGE FLOODPLAIN AREA THAT YOU SEE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEDICATE THE 66.6 ACRES ON THE SOUTHERN HALF OF THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE CITY. THIS WILL SERVE AS A CONTINUATION ON THE FUTURE FRISCO GREEN PARK, WHICH IS ON THE EAST SIDE. IT WILL ALSO ALLOW FOR THE HIKING BIKE TRAIL CONNECTIONS TO BE MADE TO CONNECT TO THE OVERALL HIKING BIKE TRAIL SYSTEM NETWORK. IN ADDITION, THE APPLICANT AND STAFF WORKED TOGETHER TO ORIENT LOTS TOWARDS THE FLOODPLAIN. THESE LOTS ALL ALONG HERE ACTUALLY FRONT THE OPEN SPACE WHERE EARLIER RENDITIONS AND OTHER PLACES THAT YOU SEE AROUND TOWN BACK, IN THIS CASE, ALL OF THESE LOTS WILL FRONT THAT OPEN SPACE AREA. AS I MENTIONED, THE FLOODPLAIN AREA DOWN HERE IS ABOUT 66.5 ACRES. HOWEVER, IN ADDITION TO THE LAND DEDICATION, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE NINE ACRES, WHICH IS ABOUT 12 PERCENT OF THE PROPERTY TO BE DEVELOPED AS THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. THAT BEING THIS AREA AND KIND OF THE NORTHERN HALF OF THE PROPERTY AS USABLE OPEN SPACE. THOSE SPACES WILL BE REQUIRED TO BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DETAILED OPEN SPACE PLANS THAT WILL BE TIED TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ORDINATES. SECOND, TALKING ABOUT FRONT PORCHES. AS YOU ALL ARE AWARE, STAFF TYPICALLY WORKS WITH APPLICANTS TO INCORPORATE FRONT PORCHES ON ALL LOTS THAT FRONT, OPEN SPACE OR NATURAL AREAS OR PARKS. HERE THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE A FRONT PORCH MEETING THE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE ON ALL LOTS, REGARDLESS OF THEIR LOCATION WITHIN DEVELOPMENT. I'M LOOKING AT THE BUILDING SETBACKS AND THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO PULL THE HOMES CLOSER TO THE STREET, THAN WHAT IS PERMITTED FOR PATIO HOMES AND TOWN HOMES UNDER THE ZONING ORDINANCE, WHICH IS CURRENTLY 25. HERE THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH STAFF TO PULL ALL OF THESE LOT UNITS CLOSER TO BE18 FEET FROM BACK OF CARB. LASTLY, TOWN HOME ELEVATIONS, I KNOW STAFF AND APPLICANTS RECENTLY HAVE HAD CONVERSATIONS REGARDING FLAT FRONTS. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TOWN HOME ELEVATIONS THAT INCORPORATE AND OFFSET, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, BETWEEN THE END UNITS AND THE ANTERIOR UNITS TO CREATE ADDED ARCHITECTURAL INTERESTS AND PREVENT THE BUILDINGS FROM HAVING THAT FLAT FRONT. THIS APPLICANT DID HAVE AN HOA MEETING ON JUNE 10TH, 2021, PRIOR TO SUBMITTING THIS ZONING REQUEST. THE MEETING WAS WELL ATTENDED BY A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO POSED A NUMBER OF GENERAL QUESTIONS. ONE OF THOSE PRIMARY QUESTIONS WAS THE DESIRE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT PROVIDE AN AMENITY CENTER, IN THE HOPES THAT FUTURE RESONANCE HERE WOULD NOT TRY TO USE THERE AMENITY CENTERS. THE APPLICANT DID GO BACK FROM EARLIER DESIGNS, KIND OF DO SOME REDESIGNS AND DID INCORPORATE AN AMENITY CENTER ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT. THIS PROPERTY, THE OWNER HAS VOLUNTARILY SIGNED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH BUILDING MATERIALS, STANDARDS AND CODES. [01:05:01] THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON THE SAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA AS THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THE ZONING REQUEST. LASTLY, THIS REQUEST DOES COMPLY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL MAY HAVE. >> THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME OR WOULD DO [INAUDIBLE] >> A COUPLE QUESTIONS JUST FOR JONATHAN. THE AMENITY CENTER AND THE POOL. >> YES. >> IS THAT REQUIRED TO BE A POOL? > IT IS NOT. WHEN YOU SAY REQUIRED TO BE A POOL. [OVERLAPPING] PER CODE? >> IN THE PD. >> IN THE PD. >> IN THE PD. THE APPLICANT HAS INCLUDED DETAILED OPEN SPACE PLANS. THEY ARE SHOWING A POOL HERE, WE ARE CERTAINLY GOING TO REVIEW ANY FUTURE PLANS AND OF ORDINANCE WITH THESE DETAILED PLANS. THERE IS THE MINOR AND MAJOR AMENDMENT CRITERIA OF THE ZONING ORDINATES, WHICH WOULD BE REVIEWED AGAINST IF THEY CHOSE TO COME BACK AND TAKE OUT THE POOL. THAT WOULD BE A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE IN MY REVIEW OF IT. I WOULD SAY THEY WOULD HAVE TO PROVIDE THE POOL BECAUSE THAT IS WHAT THEY'RE SHOWING IN THEIR DETAILED EXHIBITS. >> IF THEY DID WANT TO REVIEW IT THOUGH, THAT WOULD NOT COME BACK TO US THOUGH AS A MAJOR CHANGE, WOULD IT? >> IF IT WAS IF IT WAS DEEMED A MAJOR AMENDMENT, THEN IT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU AS A ZONING REQUEST, AS YOU SAY HERE TONIGHT, IF IT WAS DEEMED A MINOR AMENDMENT, IT WOULD COME BACK BEFORE YOU AT THE TIME, PRELIMINARY SAT PLAN OR [INAUDIBLE] PLAN, WHICH YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO ACT ON THAT PRELIMINARY SAT PLAN OR SORRY, YOU WOULD STILL HAVE TO ACT ON THAT MONITOR AMENDMENT AT THAT TIME OF THE PRELIMINARY SAT PLAN OR SAT PLAN. >> THANK YOU. >> JONATHAN IS AS I WAS READING THE INFORMATION BEFORE THE MEETING AND LISTENING TO YOU AS WELL, THERE ARE STILL MAJOR PROPOSALS IN THEIR REQUEST TO REDUCE THE AMOUNT OF SETBACKS. I MEAN WE'RE LOOKING AT FOR A PATIO HOME, THE ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARD IS 25 FEET AND THEY ARE ANYWHERE FROM 3.5 TO 10.5, AM I READING THAT CORRECT? >> I WANT TO CLARIFY, [OVERLAPPING] THE ZONING ORDINATES IS 25 FEET FROM THE PROPERTY LINE. WHAT THEY'RE PROPOSING WITH THE STANDARDS, THE 3.5 FEET TO 10.5 FEET PUTS THEM 18 FEET, 25 FEET FROM BACKUP CARB. TRADITIONALLY YOU'RE 40 FEET FROM BACKUP CURB WHEN YOU HAVE A 25 FEET SETBACK. THIS IS DIFFERENT THE WAY THE STANDARDS AND THE PD OR FROM BACK-OFF CURB, THE ZONING ORDINANCES FROM PROPERTY LINE. AM I MAKING SENSE? >> APPLES TO APPLES IS WHAT [INAUDIBLE]. >> [OVERLAPPING] APPLES AND APPLES SOMETIME TRYING TO [OVERLAPPING] >> IF YOU WANT LIKE AN APPLES TO APPLES COMPARISON THING, THEY'RE LOOKING 18, BECAUSE THERE'S A RANGE HERE, THERE'S A ZONE. 18 TO 25 FEET FROM BACKUP CURB VERSUS 43 FROM BACK-OFF CURB. >> THIS IS SIMILAR WHAT YOU FIND IN THE [INAUDIBLE] OR GRAND PARK FOR THEIR SINGLE FAMILY HOMES,. >> YES. >> FOR THE TALENT HOMES. [BACKGROUND] >> FOR SINGLE FAMILY. >> FOR THE SINGLE FAMILY. >> LIKE THE DARLENE HOMES OVER THERE. >> THIS IS MORE THAN THE ONE PROJECT WE SAW DOWN IN AUSTIN, I THINK EDD WILL REMEMBER THAT. HE SAID IT WAS TOO CLOSE AND I AGREED WITH HIM WHERE THE PORCH WAS MAYBE TEN FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB AND IT WAS TIGHT [OVERLAPPING] >> THEN IF YOU IF YOU REMEMBER THAT A FEW MONTHS BACK WE HAD THE VILLAGE ON MAIN ZONING ACROSS SOUTHEAST CORNER. THESE ARE THE SIMILAR STANDARDS TO THAT. >> PICTURES LOOK FAMILIAR TOO. >> JONATHAN, ANOTHER QUESTION ON THE FLOODPLAIN THAT'S GOING TO BE DEDICATED TO THE CITY. >> YES. >> THE CHART SAYS 63.6 ACRES OF THAT IS FLOODPLAIN, AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER THREE ACRES OF THE PORTION THAT'S GOING TO BE DEDICATED THAT IS NOT IN THE FLOODPLAIN. >> THAT'S CORRECT. >> THAT'S CORRECT. SO 63 OF THE 66 ACRES CANNOT BE DEVELOPED ON? >> RIGHT, THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH STAFF. I MAY ACTUALLY GO TO A DIFFERENT EXHIBIT TO MAKE THIS A LITTLE BIT CLEAR [NOISE]. THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH STAFF, SO WE HAVE THE FUTURE. FIRST GO ON THE GREEN PARK HERE. JUST SOUTH OF HOLLY HAWKE, YOU HAVE A PORTION HERE OUT OF THE FLOODPLAIN. [01:10:04] THE APPLICANT WORK WITH STAFF TO PROVIDE ABOUT THREE ACRES HERE AND TO ALLOW FOR A CONTINUATION. THERE MAY BE ALLOWANCES FOR A STRUCTURE, OR A TRAIL HEAD, OR SOMETHING IN THAT AREA TO BE DEVELOPED OUTSIDE OF THE FLOODPLAIN. SOMETHING THAT THEY COULDN'T DEVELOP IN THE FLOODPLAIN, THEY'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO DEVELOP UP HERE. >> IF THEY DEDICATE THOSE THREE ACRES TO THE CITY, THEN YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE CITY WOULD BE ABLE TO BUILD SOMETHING ON THAT HIGH AND DRY THREE ACRES? >> YES. >> BUT NOT THE APPLICANT, BUT THE CITY. >> THEY'RE GOING TO BE DEDICATING THAT LAND TO THE CITY AND THE CITY WOULD COME UP WITH A PLAN TO DEVELOP IT. >> THANK YOU. >> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? >> I WOULD JUST MAKE AN OBSERVATION. I KNOW YOU'VE PROBABLY PUT A LOT OF HARD WORK INTO THIS ONE. IT APPEARS TO ME AS THOUGH THIS IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE ONE WE HAD NOT TOO LONG AGO, WHERE THERE WAS NO OPEN SPACE IN THESE CLUSTER OF STREETS IN THE HOMES HERE. VISUALLY IT DOESN'T REALLY LOOK GOOD. I THINK WHAT I'M HEARING YOU SAY IS THAT BECAUSE OF THE FLOODPLAIN AREAS, AND THE PERIMETERS, AND ALL OF THAT OPEN SPACE THAT'S BEING DEDICATED. THEY'RE EXCEEDING THEIR REQUIREMENTS. IT JUST DOESN'T HAPPEN TO BE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT WHERE WE'D LIKE IT. >> IF YOU ARE GOING TO COUNT ALL OF THAT FLOODPLAIN AREA PLUS WHAT THEY ARE PROVIDING, THEY'RE OVER 50 PERCENT. >> IT'S JUST A SHAME. IT'S NOT IN THE MIDDLE. [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] >> JUST IN THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, JUST WITHIN THE DEVELOPED AREA, THEY ARE PROVIDING NINE ACRES OF OPEN SPACE, WHICH EQUATES TO 12 PERCENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. FOR A DEVELOPMENT LIKE THIS, PADDY HOMETOWN HOME IS 15 PERCENT, THEY'RE AT 12 PERCENT. WE'LL SAY MIGHT BE THAT THE OPEN SPACE ISN'T HERE, FOR EXAMPLE, BUT STAFF AND THE APPLICANT WORKED VERY CLOSELY TO ORIENT THESE LOTS TOWARDS THE OPEN SPACE, AND ENSURE THEIR SIDEWALKS HAVE STRAIGHTS THAT OPEN UP TO THE FLOODPLAIN AREA THAT ARE ON THE SOUTH THAT'S GOING TO ALLOW FOR VIEWS. IT'S REALLY INTENDED THAT ALL OF THE RESIDENTS WITHIN THIS COMMUNITY HAVE COMPLETE INTERACTION WITH THE TRAIL SYSTEM WITH THAT DEDICATED AREA. >> NOW I CAN SEE THERE'S A LOT OF WORK. IT JUST LOOK MAYBE DIFFICULT PROPERTY TO WORK WITH TO BECAUSE OF THE WORD IS. >> SURE. THEN THERE IS NATURAL TOPOGRAPHY ON THIS SIDE, WHICH TO SOME DEGREE IS CREATING WHAT YOU SEE HERE. FOR EXAMPLE, THIS AREA OVER HERE, MY STAFF DID TRY TO WORK WITH THE ADJACENT SUBDIVISION TO HAVE THOSE LOTS FRONT THAT I CHOSE NOT TO. BUT HERE AGAIN, THE APPLICANT IS CHOOSING TO PRESERVE SOME OF THOSE NATURAL AREAS, HAVE LOTS FRONT ONTO THAT NATURAL SPACE. JUST ANOTHER WAY TO MADE OUR BEST PRACTICES METHODS AND LAYING OUT A COMMUNITY. >> THANK YOU. >> THERE ARE SOME CURVILINEAR STREETS HERE. >> [OVERLAPPING] JONATHAN, FOR THE RECORD, JUST TO CLARIFY FOR EVERYBODY WATCHING. LAND THAT'S IN THE FLOODPLAIN, WAS THIS DEVELOPMENT EARLY DEVELOPMENT. WE DON'T GIVE CREDIT FOR THAT AS OPEN SPACE, DO WE? >> IT'S DEVELOPMENT BY DEVELOPMENT. WE DO WORK WITH SOME DEVELOPERS TO SAY WHAT IMPROVEMENTS THEY CAN MAKE TO ESSENTIALLY GET A SMALL CREDIT. I MEAN, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO GET ALL OF YOUR 10 PERCENT OR 15 PERCENT, OR WHATEVER IT MAYBE. HERE IN THIS CASE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, FOR A BLANKET ANSWER, ARE THEY GETTING CREDIT PER SAY FOR ANY OF THIS? NO. THE WAY THE STANDARDS ARE WRITTEN, THEY ARE PROVIDING 12 PERCENT OUTSIDE OF THAT FLOODPLAIN AREA. HOWEVER, IT WAS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT STAFF STRONGLY TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION AS WE WERE NEGOTIATING THIS CASE. THAT WHILE YOU MIGHT NOT GET CREDIT PER SAY THAT IT IS, THEY'RE HAVING LOTS FRONT IT, THEY'RE TAKING ADVANTAGE OF IT, THEY'RE PRESERVING IT, AND THEN THEY'RE GOING ABOVE AND BEYOND, AND PROVIDING EVEN 12 PERCENT WITHIN THE DEVELOPED AREA. >> ONE THING I WANT TO EMPHASIZE ON THAT QUESTION. GRAHAM, THERE'S A LOT OF FLOOD PLAIN, AND AS JONATHAN EXPLAINED, WE WORKED WITH THE [INAUDIBLE] ON THIS TO ONE FRONT LOTS ON IT. [01:15:03] IF YOU HAD ALL THE LOTS BACKING TO THAT FLOODPLAIN, WHERE THERE'S NO ACCESS TO IT, THEN WE'LL BE LOOKING FOR MORE OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE DEVELOPMENT ITSELF BECAUSE YOU'VE JUST CREATED A WALL BETWEEN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE DEVELOPMENT. BUT THIS WAS INTENTIONALLY LAID OUT AS SUCH TO PROVIDE A DISPERSAL OF OPEN SPACE, BUT ALSO TAKEN ADVANTAGE OF THE NATURAL FEATURES. COUPLE OF THINGS THAT A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN RECOMMENDS THAT WE WORK INTO THE DEVELOPMENT. ALL SIDES ARE NOT CREATED EQUAL. AS JONATHAN MENTIONED, HOLLY HAWKE WHEN THAT WAS GOING IN, WE'RE TRYING TO GET THEM TO FRONT OVER. WE DIDN'T QUITE KNOW ABOUT THIS AT THAT TIME, BUT THE OUTCOME HERE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, THEY COULD THEY COULDN'T BACK LOTS TO IT TO THOSE OTHER LAWS BECAUSE OF THE DRAINAGE IN THERE, BUT THEY COULD HAVE TURNED THEIR BACK ON IT. WE HAVE SEVERAL DEVELOPMENTS IN THE CITY WHERE THAT'S HAPPENED. WHERE YOU'VE GOT A DRAINAGE WAY, LOTS BACK IN ON BOTH SIDES. PEOPLE TEND TO DUMP GRASS CLIPPINGS OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT BECOMES A CODE ENFORCEMENT ISSUE. BUT WHILE THEY'RE DOING HERE, IS ARE OPENING IT UP. WE'RE IN FULL SUPPORT OF THOSE. >> TO JONATHAN, CAN YOU ON THE DENSE DENSITY SUMMARY, IT'S 2.6 UNITS PER ACRE ON THE GROSS, INCLUDING ALL THE FLOODPLAIN AREA. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED ME THIS EARLIER, I HAVE BALLPARK IDEA, BUT CAN YOU TELL US WHAT THE DENSITY IS ON THE NET DEVELOPABLE LAND? >> SO IF YOU DO. [OVERLAPPING]. >> RESIDENTIAL AREA OR STATE? >> I GUESS THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. >> IF YOU DO THE DENSITY BASED ON THEIR RESIDENTIAL LOT AREAS, THE 65 ACRES, IT COMES OUT TO 6.2. >> OKAY. I SHOULD HAVE ASKED YOU THIS EARLIER WHEN WE WERE TALKING THIS MORNING, JOHN, BUT THE 6.2 UNITS PER ACRE, CAN YOU TRANSLATE THAT INTO OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS INTO STRAIGHT ZONING? WHAT WOULD BE A SIMILAR TYPE OF [OVERLAPPING]? >> PADDY HOME AND TOWN HOME RANGE. THAT'S EVERYTHING BEING DEVELOPED OUT LIKE THIS. THEY'RE PROVIDING A VARIETY OF DIFFERENT LOT SIZES IN THOSE SPACES. NOT ALL TOWN HOMES ARE PADDY HOMES. >> OKAY. >> ONE OTHER THING THAT I WANT TO MENTION, AS WE LOOK TO IT, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THIS REQUEST COMPLYING WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, IT'S NOTED AS SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. WHICH NOTES A RANGE, AND THIS 6.2, EVEN IF YOU ARE LOOKING AT THE DENSITY JUST BASED ON THE RESIDENTIAL AREA, NOT THE OVERALL, THAT 6.2 IS STILL WITHIN THE RANGE NOTED IN THE COMP PLAN FOR SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD. >> OKAY. THE CLASSIFICATION THEN THAT'S DENSER THAN SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. IF EITHER ONE OF YOU KNOWS, I'VE TOP OF YOUR HEADS. BECAUSE SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOODS SUCH A BROAD CATEGORY IN THE PLAN. >> YES. SUBURBAN NEIGHBORHOOD IS WHAT'S GOING TO COVER YOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, WHETHER IT YOU'RE DETACHED OR ATTACHED, AT YOUR SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, ZERO MULTIFAMILY. WHEN YOU START GETTING INTO MULTIFAMILY, YOU'RE LOOKING MORE AT YOUR URBAN CENTER, SUBURBAN RECREATIONAL ACTIVITY CENTER, TODOS HAS HIGHER DENSITY DESIGNATIONS. >> THE TOWN HOMES ARE INCLUDED IN THAT SUBURBAN DIVERSIFICATION? [OVERLAPPING] >> YES, THEY ARE. >> THEY HAVE THEIR OWN INDIVIDUAL LOTS. WHICH THESE ARE. >> YEAH. OKAY. THANK YOU. >> [OVERLAPPING] THEY'RE CONSIDERED MULTIFAMILY. >> YEAH. >> ALL RIGHT. ANYBODY ELSE BEFORE I ASK THE APPLICANT TO COME UP? ALL RIGHT. WILL THE APPLICANT CARE SPEAK? I'M GOING TO LET YOU INTRODUCE YOUR LAST NAME. [OVERLAPPING] >> YOU GOT TO GIVE IT A TRY. >> TRYING TO READ YOUR HANDWRITING [OVERLAPPING] [LAUGHTER] THAT'S OKAY. >> JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS [INAUDIBLE]. >> STEVE SHERMAN, 8430 FAIR OAKS, FRISCO, TEXAS. I SEE EVERYBODY AGAIN. IT WAS MAY OF LAST YEAR OR I GUESS THIS YEAR, SEEM LIKE A LONG TIME AGO. THAT WE HAD A VILLAGE ON MAINE. AS YOU CAN SEE THE PRODUCT-WISE, WE'VE LAID THIS UP VERY SIMILARLY WITH THE FRONT SETBACK. I THINK WE CLASSIFIED AS A BUILD-TO-ZONE. IN THAT, I THINK THE OTHER COMPONENT, I DON'T HAVE A LOT TO ADD TO WHAT JONATHAN SAID BECAUSE HE DID A GREAT JOB. THE OTHER COMPONENT ON THE BUILT-TO-ZONE IS YOU DON'T HAVE A CHOICE, YOU DON'T GET TO JUST BUILD A SMALLER HOUSE OR A SHALLOWER HOUSE PER SAY, IT HAS TO BE WITHIN THAT BUILD-TO-ZONE, THE FRONT OF THE HOUSE. I THINK THAT WAS WORTH NOTING BECAUSE THAT'S A BIG RESTRICTION, I KNOW I WAS HESITANT TO AGREE TO, BUT IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE WANT TO DO. THE OTHER THING I JUST WANT TO TALK ABOUT IS THE PORCHES, [01:20:02] WE COMMITTED TO EVERY PRODUCT HAVING A PORCHES. I KNOW YOU SAW THE CHARACTER IMAGERY FOR THE TOWNHOMES. THE OTHER COMPONENTS ON THE 55S AND THE 40S, THE WAY THE 55S LAYOUT, THOSE ARE FRONT ENTRY, 44 WIDE PRODUCT, 20 FEET OF ITS GRABS THAT HAS TO BE SET BACK IN INHERENT DESIGN OF THOSE FOUR PLANES MEAN THAT, THAT PORCHES ACTUALLY ABOUT 20 FEET WIDE. YOU CAN'T REALLY DESIGN A PORCH WITHIN 3.5 FEET TO THE FRONT PROPERTY LINE IS SET BACK THAT FAR, TO MEET THE STANDARD 7 BY 10 PORCHES THAT WE REQUIRE, I THINK THAT'S WORTH NOTING. THEN OF COURSE, TRYING TO ORIENT THIS SITE TO FLOW TOWARDS THE FLOOD PLAIN OR THE OPEN SPACE WAS REALLY THE BIG COMPONENT. ALONG WITH THE PROGRAMMED OPEN SPACES THAT WE ARE, "GETTING CREDIT FOR," THEY ARE DESIGNED TO BE GATHERING PLACES HERE'S AN EVENT LAWN ON ONE THAT HAS A FIRE PIT, SOME SHADE STRUCTURES. ONE IS JUST A LAWN AREA AND THEN THE OTHER ONE HAS A PLAYGROUND WITH SOME SMALL SHAPES STRUCTURES THAT'S RIGHT AT THE ENTRANCE AND ARE FULLY INTEND TO BUILD A POOL WITH THAT. THAT IS SOMETHING THAT REALLY CAME UP IN THE HOA MEETING THEY WERE REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT THEY WANTED [NOISE] US TO COMMIT TO THAT BUT WE DIDN'T INITIALLY LAY THAT OUT, BUT WE WENT AHEAD AND DID THAT. CHRISTOPHER SO IS HERE WITH US TOO. IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER. >> ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR ACTUALLY, HAVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND APOLOGIZE? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? DO YOU HAVE A MOTION OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING? >> WE HAVE TALKED ON PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MR. KOHLBERG, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. [BACKGROUND] >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES, 5-0 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. NOW, WOULD ANYBODY CARE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? >>THING NON-MOVING CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY MR. BOX [OVERLAPPING]. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSION MORGAN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> [BACKGROUND] >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES, 50 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. I THINK THERE'S A LOT OF GOOD THINGS GOING ON HERE, LIKE COMMISSIONER KELLY, I'M A LITTLE CONCERNED THAT IT DOESN'T SEEM LIKE THERE'S GREEN SPACING ANYWHERE IN HERE. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN SPACE AND I APOLOGIZE FOR MY, YOU HAVE THIS HERE, BUT KIND OF GOING OVER THERE. YOU'RE SIX BLOCKS AWAY IN SOME CASES FROM THE GREEN SPACE, THREE BLOCKS, FOUR BLOCKS I'M SORRY, NOT SIX. JUST A LITTLE CONCERNED ABOUT WHERE IT'S LOCATED. I WOULD RATHER HAVE THE HOUSES UP HERE AND THEN HAVE MORE OF, SOMETHING GOING VERTICAL ACROSS THERE, BUT I UNDERSTAND I'M NOT A DESIGNER AND I DON'T DO THIS FOR A LIVING. IT SEEMS LIKE WE COULD BREAK UP SOME OF THESE LONG STREETS LIKE HE DID OVER HERE. I JUST HAVE A CONCERN ON THIS SIDE OVER HERE, AND IN A TOWNHOMES AREN'T FRONTIER THAN HERE. REALLY ANY OPEN SPACE. THAT'S MY CONCERNS ON IT. OPENED UP TO OTHER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS. >> JUST ONE JUMP ON AND SAY I CONCUR WITH WHAT CHAIRMAN COX SAID THERE. WE'RE KIND OF BACK TO THAT LOP-SIDED LOOK AGAIN, WHERE THERE'S MORE GREEN SPACE ON THE WESTERN SIDE AND NONE ON THE EASTERN SIDE, AND ON THAT LAST NEIGHBORHOOD, BECAUSE OF THE TOPOGRAPHY AND BEING SQUEEZED, THERE WASN'T ANY ROOM FOR IT BUT HERE, IT'S EQUAL SIZES ON BOTH THE WEST AND THE EAST PORTION THERE, SO I HAVE THAT CONCERN. MY SECOND BIG CONCERN IS ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE THERE, IT'S A NICE GREEN BELT THERE THAT'S UNDEVELOPED OR IT'S CLOSE TO HOLLY HAWKS, I LIKE THE SEPARATION THERE. I'D MUCH PREFER THAT THE 55 FOOT LOTS CAME ALL THE WAY DOWN ALONG THE EASTERN SIDE THERE CLOSEST TO THE HOLLY HAWK RESIDENTS, AND THEN THE BIGGEST CONCERN, I'M JUST GOING TO THROW THIS OUT THERE AND I'LL TURN OVER TO MY OTHER COMMISSIONERS, IS IT'S THE AREA THE SITE. FM 423 IS VERY CONSTRAINED. I HOPE THAT ALL THE COMMISSIONERS WILL LOOK AT THIS SITE IN TERMS OF THIS IS NOT COIT, HILLCREST, CUSTER. THERE'S NO MAJOR HIGHWAY NEARBY THAT'S NOT CONGESTED, 380 IS NEARBY BUT IT'S NOT 121, 380 IS NOT THE DALLAS NOR TOTAL WAY. THAT 423 CONSTRAINT NEAR THE LAKE EFFECT WHERE THERE'S NOTHING TO THE WEST TO LET TRAFFIC FUNNEL THROUGH THIS AREA OTHER THAN FM 423, [01:25:06] THERE'S NO TEEL PARKWAY TO THE EAST THAT GOES ALL THE WAY DOWN TO 121. THIS IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE TOUGHEST TIGHTEST SPOTS IN ALL OF FRISCO. BECAUSE 380 IS UP THERE, WE'VE ALLOWED DENSITY UP ALONG 380 IN ORDER TO GET JOBS, OFFICE BUILDINGS, ENTERTAINMENT, COMMERCIAL, RETAIL. IF 380 WAS A MAJOR HIGHWAY, AND IF 423 WENT THROUGH AND TEEL PARKWAY WENT THROUGH 121 AND THERE WAS A PARALLEL ROAD TO 423 AND THERE WAS A NICE NORTH-SOUTH GRID IN THIS AREA, THIS WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE TO ME, BUT THIS SITE DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO ME, FOR THIS MUCH DENSITY. AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT THAT BUT I WANT TO HEAR WHAT OTHER COMMISSIONERS HAVE TO SAY ABOUT HOW THIS LOCATION MATCHES WITH THE POTENTIAL DENSITY? >> MR. BOX, CAN WE GO. >> FIRST OF ALL, I AGREE WITH THE OPEN SPACE. I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT YOU HAVE DONE A LOT OF WORK AROUND IT AND AS WELL AS FROM THE SOUTH LOOKED TO MAINTAIN, TO GRANT THAT TO THE CITY, BUT ALSO MAINTAIN THAT SO IT CAN BE DUE OVER THE CITY AS WELL, BUT MUCH LIKE THE OTHER PROPERTY, AS WAS SAID, I'M REALLY CONCERNED. THE OPEN SPACE IS REALLY ON THE PERIMETERS. THERE ARE SOME PIECES OF OPEN SPACE OR GREEN SPACE. IN THE MIDDLE THERE'S A SPACE ON THE CENTRAL NORTH SIDE, I'M NOT SURE I'D LET MY KIDS PLAY THERE, AND THIS IS HEAVY DENSITY. WE SPENT SOME MONEY GOING TO LOOK AT SOME PROPERTIES AROUND THE COUNTRY. ONE OF THE PROPERTIES, AUSTIN MUELLER, WE LOOKED AT STAPLETON IN DENVER. JOHN, WHAT DO WE LOOK AT IN SOUTH OF DENVER? WHAT'S THAT PROPERTY CALLED, IF YOU RECALL? [NOISE] >> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER. THERE WAS CHERRY CREEK. >> IT WAS SOUTH AT WHERE WE DROVE QUITE A BIT DOWN AND THEY WERE BUILDING MASS TRANSIT TO GO UP TO DENVER FROM IT. >> I CAN'T REMEMBER. [OVERLAPPING]. >> IT WAS CALLED, THERE AS WELL. ONE THING THAT THEY DID THERE VERY WELL, IT'S NOT JUST PUT IN PATIO HOMES AND TOWNHOMES. THEY PUT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF PRODUCTS. THEY'VE MORE THAN TWO TYPES OF PRODUCTS IN AN AREA LIKE THIS, WHICH EVEN THOUGH IT WAS DENSE, IT DIDN'T FEEL AS DENSE BECAUSE YOU HAD VISUAL CHANGES TO PROPERTIES. YOU HAVE PROPERTIES WITH STOOPS YOU HAD AND YOU'VE GOT SOME TOPOGRAPHY HERE TO PLAY WITH. I MEAN, I CAN SEE IT ON THE DRAWINGS. I JUST THINK THERE'S SOME ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY THIS IS AN AREA THAT'S YOU'VE GOT FIELDS THERE, YOU'VE GOT AN AREA HERE THAT ACTUALLY 380 WILL BE A MAJOR HIGHWAY IN THE FUTURE. I THINK IT CAN SUPPORT SOME DENSITY. IT'S NOT THERE YET, BUT IT'S IN THE DRAWING AND YOU GUYS KNOW THAT. BUT THERE'S ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY WITH THIS PROPERTY, THEN JUST THIS. I MEAN, THIS CAME AS I'M LOOKING AT THIS LAST FEW DAYS, IT JUST LOOKS LIKE PIANO KEYS TO ME. IT'S JUST IT'S LIKE PIANOS OVER AND OVER AS THE CHAIR SAID, SOME CURVILINEAR ON THE EAST SIDE, BUT I'M JUST NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THE DENSITY GIVEN THE TYPE OF PRODUCT. I THINK THIS TYPE OF DENSITY WHERE IT CAN BE DEVELOPED AND HAVE OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE DEVELOPERS AND OWNERS IS STILL THERE, BUT IT NEEDS TO BE MORE CREATIVE, HAVE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PRODUCT. >> I THINK THERE'S THREE TYPES OF PRODUCT ON THIS, AREN'T THERE? THERE [OVERLAPPING] IS TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF PATI HOMES, 55S, 40S, AND THEN TOWNHOMES, IS THAT CORRECT? JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE. BECAUSE AT THE WHITE ONES OUT HERE ON THE EDGE HERE TO OUR 55S, YOUR 40S IN YET. >> BUT I THINK THERE'S SOME STILL SUBMITTED ADDITIONAL OPPORTUNITY WHEN LOOKING AT THESE OTHER PROPERTIES, AND MUCH LIKE CANALS HAS DONE, THEY WOULD BUILD OPEN SPACE AND THEN BUILD THESE PROPERTIES AROUND THE OPEN SPACE. GREAT THAT. THERE'S SOMEWHAT ORIENTED TOWARDS THIS OPEN SPACE TO THE SOUTH, BUT THEY'RE STILL WAY NORTH OF THAT, AND IF YOU WANT YOUR KIDS TO BE ABLE TO PLAY NEARBY. THAT ALSO ADDS TO MARKETABILITY OF THESE PROPERTIES. I NEED SOME MORE WORK. >> I'LL COME TO THAT IN A MINUTE. >> YEAH. >> COMMISSIONER KELLY. >> [NOISE] EXCUSE ME. WHEN I LOOKED AT THIS, IT LOOKS REAL DENSE TO ME. I'M NOT A DESIGNER AND I DON'T PROFESS TO BE, YOU GUYS DO THIS FOR A LIVING. BUT IT JUST APPEARS TO ME AS THOUGH THERE'S TOO MUCH HERE WITHOUT ACCESS TO A LITTLE BIT OF A PARK ANYHOW. IT REMINDS ME OF THE ONE WE DID I GUESS IT WAS AT PRESTON AND MAINE ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, WE JUST DID IT. [01:30:03] IT LOOKS SIMILAR TO THIS WHEN WE FIRST GOT IT BUT COMMISSIONER COX WAS POINTING OUT THIS AREA RIGHT HERE. THAT MEAN THOSE PEOPLE ARE PRETTY MUCH LANDLOCKED, OR IT LOOKS LIKE ROW HOMES. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THIS BE REWORKED A LITTLE BIT. I UNDERSTAND IT'S A DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY WITH THE PERIMETERS HAVING THE OPEN SPACE AND ALL THAT BUT IT WOULD BE NICE, MAYBE WE HAVE TO GIVE UP SOME UNITS OR SOMETHING I DON'T KNOW. BUT I'M NOT IN FAVOR OF THIS CURRENT DESIGN. >> COMMISSIONER COLBERG. >> ONE OF THE THINGS I REMEMBER BACK IN MAY WAS WHAT A GOOD LISTENER YOU ALL WERE TO US AND HOW YOU TWEAKED THINGS JUST TO MAKE SURE THINGS WERE EXCELLENT, AND I REMEMBER COMMENDING YOU ALL IN THAT. I AGREE WITH THE FELLOW COMMISSIONERS I DON'T WANT AND NONE OF US WANT TO BE DESIGNERS UP HERE. I APPRECIATE WHAT YOU'VE DONE WITH A DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY IN DEDICATING SO MUCH TO THE CITY. I DON'T WANT TO PERSONALLY STIFLE THAT AND I'M TORN HERE WITH SEEING THE SAME THINGS AS MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, AND ALSO WANTING TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE TRUSTING STAFF AND KNOWING THAT YOU ALL HAVE BEEN WORKING HARD ON DEALING WITH A DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY. I TOO WISH THAT THINGS COULD BE DIFFERENT AND TWEAKED SIMILAR TO HOW THINGS WERE TWEAKED BEFORE. AGAIN, I'M JUST TORN AND NOT WANTING TO OVER-DESIGN UP HERE OR STIFLE ANYTHING. >> THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER MORGAN. >> [INAUDIBLE] >> YOU CAN APPROACH US. IF YOU GIVE ME A MINUTE. >> WELL, I DON'T THINK I HAVE ANYTHING ELSE TO ADD. YOU GUYS HAVE COVERED ALL THE ISSUES I THINK QUITE THOROUGHLY, AND I'M IN SUPPORT OF THOSE ISSUES. I SEE WHAT YOU GUYS SEE. I'VE HAD THE SAME CONCERNS, SO I WON'T BELITTLE OR DELAY THE DISCUSSION. I'M IN THE SAME BOAT. >> I'M JUST GOING TO APPRECIATE THAT. I WANT TO ADD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS TO WHAT I SAID EARLIER. I THINK [INAUDIBLE] IS A NATURAL TRANSITION BETWEEN A NEIGHBORHOOD LIKE HOLLYHOCK, AND A ROAD LIKE 423. I WILL TELL YOU I'M NOT CONVINCED THAT THIS IS A TOWNHOME NEIGHBORHOOD, I'M JUST NOT. I THINK IF YOU HAD TOWN-HOMES MORE IN THE FLAVOR OF THE CANALS WHERE THEY'RE ON NEWS AND MORE INTEGRATED INTO THE WALKABILITY AND SO FORTH, IN THE ADS AND HAVE SOME CHARACTER THAT WAY, A COUPLE OF ROWS OF THOSE FRONTING A PARK OR SOMETHING, PROBABLY MORE FOR, I THINK THIS WOULD BE A REALLY GOOD PATIO HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. OR IF THE DENSITY WAS ALONG 423 OF THE TOWN-HOMES AND YOU WORK YOUR WAY TO THE SINGLE-FAMILY NEIGHBORHOOD. I THINK COMMISSIONER [INAUDIBLE] POINT ON THE 55S GOING ALONG TO HOLLYHOCK I AGREE WITH THAT. WE HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD OVER AT TEAL AND LEBANON THAT CAME IN WITH SOMETHING VERY SIMILAR, AND WE ACTUALLY HAD AGREED TO SOME PATIO HOMES AND IT GOT DENIED AND EVENTUALLY IT WENT TO SF7. I CAN'T REMEMBER THE NAME OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. >> A CHURCH PROPERTY. >> YES, A CHURCH PROPERTY SO I DO THINK LESS DENSITY ON THIS PROPERTY WITH MAYBE A LITTLE DIFFERENT MIXTURE ON THE 55S IN A SMALLER TOWNHOME COMPONENT THAT'S UTILIZE AN OPEN SPACE IS MY ADVICE TO YOU. IF THIS DOESN'T GET APPROVED, IF IT GETS APPROVED THEN MY ADVICE IS NO GOOD SO THAT'S JUST MY THOUGHT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE APPLICANT ON SOME OF THE ENGINEERING ON THIS PROPERTY WHAT ARE THE BIG CHALLENGES THAT YOU HAVE? IF YOU WANT TO COME UP AND SPEAK AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS YOU CAN SPEAK IN THE MIC, AND I'LL HAVE YOU FILL OUT A BLUE SPEAKER CARD AFTERWARD, SIR? >> SURE [INAUDIBLE] >> CHRISTOPHER HERNANDEZ, WITH KIMLEY-HORN, I'M THE ENGINEER ON THIS PROJECT. JUST TO SPEAK TO A COUPLE OF THE CONCERNS THAT YOU'VE HAD ON THE DESIGN AND ENGINEERING SIDE. WE'VE HAD A COUPLE OF SIMILAR THOUGHTS THROUGHOUT THIS LAYOUT PROCESS. WE'VE LOOKED AT A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT LAND PLANS AND WORKED IN A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT COMMENTS. TO TOUCH PARTICULARLY ON THE EAST SIDE OF THE SITE FRONTING HOLLYHOCK RIGHT NOW THAT'S QUITE A LARGE DRAINAGE DITCH. WHAT WE'RE GOING TO BE DOING IS PICKING UP THAT LARGE AMOUNT OF FLOW THAT GOES INTO THAT DITCH COMPLETELY ACTIVATING AN OTHERWISE INACTIVE AREA. THE STORM DRAIN INFRASTRUCTURE THAT'S REQUIRED IS SO WIDE THAT IT WOULD ACTUALLY BECOME [01:35:06] OBSTRUCTIVE TO PROPERLY INSTALLING SOME OF THE OTHER UTILITIES WERE WE TO PUT IT IN A STREET FOR INSTANCE. WE CAN'T LINE THE HOMES DIRECTLY BACKED UP TO HOLLYHOCK BECAUSE OF THOSE INFRASTRUCTURE CONSTRAINTS. WE SAW THAT AS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INSTEAD OF TRYING TO SAY, "LET'S JUST LEAVE THE DITCH THERE, LEAVE THE WATER IN AND IT'S ALREADY WORKING. LET'S JUST ACTIVATE THAT SPACE, CONNECT THE TRAIL THROUGH, AND JUST MAKE IT A BETTER PUBLIC EXPERIENCE FOR PEDESTRIANS, BICYCLISTS, FOR INSTANCE." SOMETHING YOU CAN'T SEE ON THIS PLAN IN THE SOUTHWEST WHERE THAT FLOOD PLAIN CREEPS OFF IN THAT INTERSECTION. WE ARE GOING TO BE UTILIZING WHAT THE CITY OF FRISCO CONSIDERS TO BE USABLE SLOPES. RIGHT NOW WE ARE TRYING TO MODIFY THE EMBANKMENTS OF PANTHER CREEK AS IT FLOWS THROUGH TO PULL SOME OF THAT GROUND BACK AND LEAVE A MUCH FLATTER AREA. THAT IN CASES OF HIGH STORMS IT CAN CREATE MORE STORM WATER STORAGE, SO WE DON'T HAVE TO DO SOMETHING LIKE DIG A DETENTION POND SO WE'RE NOT ADVERSELY IMPACTING THE CREEK OR WATER SURFACE ELEVATIONS. BUT WHAT WE'LL ALSO BE DOING IS PROVIDING USABLE SPACE THAT THE CITY CAN ACTIVATE IN OTHER WAYS AND JUST ENCOURAGE USERS TO COME IN ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE CREEK, AND REALLY ENJOY THIS WHOLE THING AS A PARK. WE COULD PROBABLY MAKE OUR DESIGN WORK THAT WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO TOUCH THAT FLOOD PLAIN AT ALL BUT IT WAS EXPRESSED BY CITY STAFF THAT WE REALLY WANTED TO BE ABLE TO USE THE EFFECTS OF THE DEVELOPERS OUT THERE AND MOVE AROUND SOME DIRT AND REALLY MAKE THINGS WORK FOR THE PUBLIC A LITTLE BIT MORE. AS TO THE MIX, WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT THAT THERE AREN'T TOO MANY TOWN HOMES IN THIS AREA. TO THAT, WE CAN REALLY SPEAK TO THE FACT THAT WE TOOK OUR LARGEST LOTS AND FRONTED THEM ALL ON THE OUTSIDE, SO TO ANYONE WHO'S NOT LIVING IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD IT CAN REALLY FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES APPEAR AS A NEIGHBORHOOD FULL OF 55-FOOT UNITS. FOR THE MOST PART, UNLESS YOU'RE LIVING IN HERE YOU'RE BARELY GOING TO SEE THE TOWN-HOMES AT ALL. EVEN IF YOU ARE SAY ON THE SOUTH SIDE UTILIZING THAT TRAIL, WE PULLED THAT TRAIL DOWN AWAY FROM THOSE UNITS SO IT'S A MUCH MORE PRIVATE EXPERIENCE THAT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING THAT GREENBERG IS GOING TO ADD INTO THIS DEVELOPMENT AS WELL. PERHAPS THEY APPEAR IN A LITTLE BIT MORE OF A SUBTLE WAY BUT BECAUSE OF SOME OF THE EXISTING CONSTRAINTS ON THE SITE WE REALLY JUST WANTED TO FIND A PLACE WHERE WE COULD USE WHAT WE FEEL LIKE IS A HEALTHY MIX OF THE 55S, THE 40S WHICH ARE ZERO LOT LINES SO THAT ADDS A LITTLE BIT OF VARIETY IN THE APPEARANCE. THEN OF COURSE, THE ELEVATION THAT WE SAW OF THE TOWNHOME. IT LOOKS MORE LIKE A LARGE MANOR THAN SAY FIVE OR SIX TOWN-HOMES NEXT TO EACH OTHER SO REALLY SOME OF THE STYLISTIC CHOICES WE HOPE WILL BRING A LITTLE BIT OF DIVERSITY TO THE PRODUCT IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD AND HOPEFULLY NOT LOOK LIKE ROW HOMES. THAT'S DEFINITELY NOT THE APPEARANCE THAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR HERE SO I DEFINITELY JUST WANT TO LET YOU ALL KNOW THAT WE ARE LISTENING AND REALLY HAVE TRIED TO INCORPORATE A LOT OF THESE REQUESTS AS FAR AS THE FEEL OF SOME OF THESE NEIGHBORHOODS. >> WE APPRECIATE THE LISTENING BECAUSE I KNOW THAT WHEN WE HAD THE LAST PROJECT IT WAS SOME OF THIS THERE WAS GOOD LISTENING THAT WENT ON, AND WE WERE ABLE TO GET THE AGREEMENTS. I DO APPRECIATE THE USE OF THE OPEN SPACE AND FRONTING THE FUTURE FLOOD PLAIN AND SOME OF THOSE VISUAL THINGS FOR THOSE FEW PROPERTIES THEY GET TO SEE THAT. I THINK THAT I'M NOT HEARING THAT THERE'S OVERWHELMING SUPPORT FOR THE LEVEL OF DENSITY IN THE MIX HERE BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GIVING YOU A GOOD GUIDANCE ON WHAT TO CHANGE IF WE DON'T APPROVE IT, OR IF WE WANTED TO TABLE IT. I THINK I WILL TAKE ANY CONSIDERATION FROM THE COMMISSION HERE ON THAT. >> IF YOU DON'T MIND, I JUST WANT TO BRING SOME POINTS UP AND [INAUDIBLE] RIGHT THERE. I WANT YOU TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S THAT DISTANCE WHERE THE LOTS BACKING UP TO ROCKHILL ON THIS LOCATION? WHAT'S THE DISTANCE DOWN TO THE OPEN SPACE THERE? IF COULD JUST WORK ON THAT. THEN A COUPLE OF THINGS, COMMENTS WERE MADE ABOUT FM 423 ABOUT BEING CONGESTED. LET'S BE FAIR, LET'S NOT PENALIZE DEVELOPERS WITHIN FRISCO, 423 IS A TEXT OFF-ROAD. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OVER IT. WE DO NOT HAVE ANY CONTROL OF THE WATER DISTRICTS THAT DEVELOPED ALONG 380. WHAT OTHER COMMUNITIES HAVE APPROVED IN MUCH GREATER DENSITY THAN WHAT WE SEE ON THIS PROPERTY. I JUST WANT TO PUT THAT IN PERSPECTIVE. THEN YOU GOT INDUCED DEMAND, WE'VE GOT FURTHER DEVELOPMENT THAT'S HAPPENING UP NORTH. BUT THIS IS NO FAULT OF THE APPLICANT HERE. WHEN YOU TALK ABOUT THE DENSITY ALONG 380, [01:40:02] 380 IS GOING BE A HIGHWAY AT SOME POINT, IT WILL BE IMPROVED. WHEN YOU BRING UP TILL PARKWAY, THAT DOES NOT CONTINUE BECAUSE OF SOMETHING THAT HAPPENED OVER 40 YEARS AGO. AGAIN, HERE'S SOMEBODY THAT'S COME HERE BEFORE THAT WANTS TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY [INAUDIBLE] COMPLIANCE. WHAT'S THE DISTANCE FROM THOSE LOTS DOWN TO [OVERLAPPING] >> IT'S MORE ABOUT 750 DEPENDING ON WHERE YOU'RE MEASURING FROM. AS THE OPEN SPACE TURNS AND BECAUSE OF THE FEW LITTLE NOTCHES AND THE INLET [OVERLAPPING] >> WHAT I WANT TO BRING UP IS ON STAPLED, NO. THE PROJECT FOR [INAUDIBLE] IN ARIZONA, BUCKEYE. THEY WERE HAVING LOTS WITHIN LIKE 800 FEET, 800 FEET, TWO BLOCKS IS WHAT THEY WERE SHOOTING FOR. I JUST WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT. WHILE THESE TRAITS MAY APPEAR LONG TO PUT IT IN PERSPECTIVE, THIS IS SHORTER THAN YOUR TYPICAL RESIDENTIAL BLOCK WHICH IS 1,200 FEET, SO IT'S SHORTER. EVERYTHING WAS WORKING TOWARDS PROVIDING DIRECT ACCESS TO THOSE OPEN SPACE AREAS, WALKABILITY IS PROVIDED. THANK YOU. ASK A QUESTION TO THE ENGINEER. FOR THE NORTHERN HALF OF THIS PROPERTY, ARE THERE ANY TOPOGRAPHY CHALLENGES THAT WORK BEST OR ONLY WORK WITH TOWN HOMES AND DENSER PATIO HOMES. WE UNDERSTAND THE FLOODPLAIN ON THE SOUTHERN THE DROP-OFF AND ALL OF THAT. BUT IS THERE ANYTHING ON THE NORTHERN HALF, THAT'S A TOPO CHALLENGE WHERE YOU. I THINK AS FAR AS THAT TOPOGRAPHY IS CONCERNED, WE CAN MAKE THE GRADES WORK ON SITE WITH VARIOUS PRODUCTS WITH A TOWN HOME, YOU CAN STEP THE PAD WITH A ZERO LOT LINE. SAY YOU CAN PUT A WALL ON ONE SIDE OR HAVE BEEN EXPOSED TO BEING, FOR INSTANCE. I THINK IT'S REALLY MORE JUST ABOUT THE ORIENTATION THAT WE HAD. THE WAY THAT WE'VE LAID OUT THE SITE IN THIS WAY IS TO GIVE SOME OF THOSE LINES OF SIGHT OUT TO THE FLOODPLAIN AND HAVE SOME OF THAT GENERAL OPEN FEELING. BUT I WOULDN'T SAY THAT THE TYPOGRAPHY LED SPECIFICALLY TO SOME OF THOSE CHOICES BECAUSE AS YOU CAN SEE, AS YOU GO ACROSS THE SITE, EACH DIFFERENT TYPE OF UNIT IS STACKED IN A SIMILAR ORIENTATION. FOLLOW-ON QUESTION TO THAT, IS THERE ANY TOPOGRAPHY CHALLENGES THERE THAT WOULD MAKE A 50-FOOT LOTS OR REALLY 60-FOOT SEMI FOR COUNT THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS. IS THERE ENOUGH GREAT VARIATION THAT MAKES THOSE MORE DIFFICULT? THE WIDER YOUR LOT IS, THE MORE DIFFICULT IT BECOMES TO FIT THOSE ON SAY, SOME OF THE THREE AND FOUR PERCENT NATURAL GRADES THAT YOU SEE. THAT'S TYPICALLY BECAUSE, WHETHER YOU'RE LOOKING AT A 50, 60, OR 70 FOOT WIDE LOT, WE TEND TO ALLOW FIVE FOOT SIDE YARDS NOW, AND OF COURSE THAT WHOLE ENTIRE PAD HAS TO BE FLAT ACROSS THE FRONT. THE MORE YOU HAVE A STEEP STREET THAT'S GOING ACROSS YOUR WIDER PAD, THE GREATER YOUR DIFFERENTIAL, THE GREATER LIKELIHOOD THAT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO BUILD A RETAINING WALL ON EVERY SINGLE LOT. IT BECOMES EASIER WHEN WE CAN HAVE MORE FREQUENT AND SMALLER STEPS IN-BETWEEN. MAYBE THAT'S A MORE PROPER ANSWER TO YOUR QUESTION. THOSE NARROWER LOTS ALLOW US TO STEP MORE FREQUENTLY AND NOT HAVE, SAY, A THREE-FOOT RETAINING WALL BETWEEN EACH UNIT. THAT'S A GREAT ANSWER. I WAS ASKING THAT ON PURPOSE JUST BECAUSE THE SURROUNDING NEIGHBORHOODS ARE MUCH LARGER LOTS, 7,000, 8,000, 9,000 SQUARE FEET, THERE COULD BE SOME TOPOGRAPHY CHALLENGES THAT MAKE IT HARD TO DO THOSE SIZE LOTS ON THIS PIECE OF LAND. THAT'S END OF MY QUESTIONS. I DO HAVE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS, SO CHAIRMAN, WHENEVER YOU WANT TO MOVE ON. I THINK I WOULD SHARE YOUR COMMENTS AT THIS POINT. I WANT TO GO BACK TO NOT TO OBVIOUSLY BE THE DEAD HORSE, BUT I DO REALLY THINK WE NEED TO THINK SERIOUSLY ABOUT HOW EAST FRISCO HAS A VERY DIFFERENT THOROUGHFARE PLAN AND NETWORK THAN WEST FRISCO. THERE'S JUST NO DOUBT ABOUT THAT AND IT'S NO ONE FAULT. NO ONE DID ANYTHING WRONG BY OWNING LAND NEXT TO F AND 423. I JUST THINK WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE REALITY THAT WERE DEALT. THERE'S A LAKE TO THE WEST OF F AND 423, AND SO F AND 423 IS A SIX LANE DIVIDED ROAD THAT DOES NOT HAVE ANY PARALLEL STREETS NEARBY. IT JUST DOESN'T. WE HAVE TO KEEP THAT IN MIND. 380 SOMEDAY MAY BE AS GOOD AS 121 AND DALLAS NORTH TOLL WAY, BUT I DON'T KNOW HOW LONG OUT IN THE FUTURE THAT IS. THAT'S ANOTHER LONG TIME OUT IN THE FUTURE AND THERE WILL BE A LOT OF GROWTH IN THE MEANTIME. I DON'T KNOW IF 380 EVER CATCHES UP TO THE GROWTH 121, EIGHT LANES, YOU DIVIDE IT WITH FRONTAGE ROADS AND DALLAS NORTH TOLL WAY, SIX LANES AND EIGHT LANES WITH THE FRONTAGE ROAD. I JUST WANT TO KEEP THAT IN MIND THAT THIS PART OF FRISCO, IF THIS SAME NEIGHBORHOOD WAS GOING IN OFF OF OHIO AND [INAUDIBLE], AND THOSE ARE SOME EXAMPLES THAT THE JOB SENT ME EARLIER WAS WE HAVE SIMILAR EXAMPLES WHERE WE HAVE LARGE LOTS LIKE THIS AND WE HAVE SOME DENSER NEIGHBORHOODS NEXT TO THEM. BUT THE PEOPLE COMING OUT OF THOSE DENSER NEIGHBORHOODS CAN FUNNEL ONTO OHIO AND HILL-CREST AND GET A 121 VERY QUICKLY. [01:45:04] THE PEOPLE THAT ARE COMING OUT OF THIS DENSER NEIGHBORHOOD DON'T HAVE THAT SAME OPPORTUNITY TO FUNNEL OUT ONTO MULTIPLE STREETS. I REALLY WANT TO MAKE THAT POINT THAT THE LOCATION OF THE GEOGRAPHY, IT'S NOT THE DEVELOPER'S FAULT. IT'S NOT ANYONE'S FAULT. IT JUST IS, AND IT'S UP TO US TO DEAL WITH THAT. [OVERLAPPING] I'M SORRY, LET ME ASK YOU QUESTION. WAS THERE ANYTHING ELSE THAT YOU CAN ADD ON TO WHAT I SAID ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE SITE AND THE TRAFFIC? SURE. AS FAR AS TRAFFIC IS CONCERNED, WE HAVE HAD OUR TEAM PERFORM A TRAFFIC IMPACT ASSESSMENT AND IT WAS DETERMINED THAT BASED ON THE INCREASE IN THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC FLOWS AT THE INTERSECTION OF ROCKWELL AND 423 IN PARTICULAR, THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN SO MUCH AS A SIGNAL THAT IS WARRANTED BASED UPON THOSE INCREASE IN FLOWS. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE IMPROVING INTERSECTIONS AT THAT WESTERN STREET, THAT'S ABOUT, SAY, A QUARTER OF THE WAY DOWN THE SITE, HALF THE WAY DOWN THE DEVELOPABLE AREA. CURRENTLY WE'VE BEEN WAITING TO HEAR A FINAL DECISION FROM THE CITY ON WHETHER OR NOT WILL BE ASKED TO BUILD A ROUNDABOUT THAT'S GOING TO BE AT OUR CENTRAL NORTHERN ENTRANCE. THAT OF COURSE, AS YOU SEE WITH ROCK-HILL AND TEAL AS WELL, THOSE CAN HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THESE TRAFFIC CONCERNS, AND GREENBERG HAS EXPRESSED THAT THEY WOULD BE OPEN TO THIS IF IT'S ULTIMATELY REQUESTED AS WELL. WE ARE TRYING TO FUNNEL OUT SOME OF THOSE POTENTIAL DIFFICULTIES JUST BY MAKING SURE THAT WE'RE KEEPING TRAFFIC MOVING. WE'RE ALSO GOING TO BE DESIGNING TURN LANES TO SUBMIT DETECT STOP FOR FM 423 JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT AT LEAST IF SOMEBODY IS GOING TO BE COMING IN AND TURNING, THAT CAN BE STACKING IN THAT TURN LANE, NOT BACKING UP THE THROUGH TRAFFIC THAT MIGHT BE COMING THERE. THANK YOU FOR THAT THEY'LL HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE FEARS OF THE NEIGHBORS. I DON'T KNOW HOW MANY OF YOU HAVE TALKED TO THE PEOPLE IN HOLLY HAWKE AND OBVIOUSLY SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE FOR THIS AND SOME OF THEM ARE GOING TO BE AGAINST THIS. BUT SEVERAL ONES I'VE TALKED TO ARE CONCERNED BECAUSE SOME ARE SET AND HOLLY HAWKE ON THE NORTH SIDE ARE ALREADY LARGER LOTS. WE TALK ABOUT THE TRANSITION, IT'S WEIRD IF THEY WERE FLIPPED. IF THIS WAS ON THE NORTH SIDE OF ROCK-HILL PARKWAY AND THIS WAS BACKING UP TO THE COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL THE RETAIL. WE TEND TO DO TRANSITION ZONES WHERE WE MAYBE DO A LITTLE BIT DENSER, CLOSE TO 380, BACKING UP TO ACADEMY SPORTS, BACKING UP TO THOSE THINGS. BUT INSTEAD, THEY JUST HAPPENS TO BE LARGER LOTS, SEVEN THOUSAND, EIGHT THOUSAND, NINE THOUSAND SQUARE FOOT LOTS THERE. INSTEAD OF TRANSITIONING FROM 380 GOING DOWN FOR 23, WE'RE REVERSING COURSE. WE'RE DOING THE LARGER LOTS UP ALONG CLOSER TO HIGHWAY, AND WE'RE SUDDENLY INSERTING A VERY DENSE NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE MIDDLE OF REALLY FOUR AREAS THAT HAVE HAVE LARGER LOT. I WANT EVERYONE TO LOOK AT THAT TOO. [INAUDIBLE] I CAN ADDRESS THAT THE OHIO 11 ON INTERSECTION WHERE WE AT ONE TIME TALKED ABOUT PADDING HOMES AND TOWN HOMES, TRANSITIONING TO THE OTHER PART FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY PRODUCTS INTO INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS AND SO FORTH. THAT WASN'T MAJOR HIGHWAY LIKE 423. I THINK I WOULD HAVE A PROBLEM BUYING A HOUSE BACK AND UP TO 423 PATIO HOME PERSONALLY, THAT DIDN'T HAVE THE BUFFER ON IT JUST BECAUSE OF THE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC THAT DOES GO ON 423, I DON'T THINK FROM A DENSITY PERSPECTIVE, THE ISSUE IS TRAFFIC OR WHERE THEY'RE LOCATED. I DON'T THINK THIS IS A TOWN HOME AREA PERSONALLY. I THINK IT'D BE A GREAT PATIO HOME NEIGHBORHOOD. I DON'T THINK IT'S A TOWN HOME NEIGHBORHOOD MYSELF. WE HAVE 4,000 TOWN HOMES GOING OVER IN THE FIELDS DEVELOPMENT. I THINK THERE'S DEMAND FOR SMALLER UNITS. I SUPPORT HAVING SMALLER FOOTPRINTS. THE 40S, 50S, 55S HERE. I JUST DON'T THINK THIS IS REALLY A TOWN HOME AREA PERSONALLY. THAT'S JUST THE REASON WHY I'M NOT FOR IT BECAUSE OF THE 423. I JUST THINK IT'S THIS LEVEL OF DENSITY IS NOT NEEDED RIGHT HERE. I AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT FINE. JUST ADD ON ONE THING WHILE THE NEIGHBORS SAID WAS THAT THE PERSON THE HOLLY HAWKE ASKED ME WHY TOWN HOMES THERE AND SAID WHAT WHAT IS IT THAT'S COMING AND WHAT PLACE-MAKING, WHAT AMENITIES, WHAT'S COMING TO THAT AREA THAT MAKES A WALKABLE NEIGHBORHOOD WITH TOWN HOMES AND I DIDN'T HAVE AN ANSWER FOR THAT NEIGHBOR. I AGREE WITH CHAIRMAN ON THAT. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS FIRST? >> NO, I THINK IT'S DENSITY. IT'S THE MIX OF PRODUCTS IS JUST WRONG FOR THIS AREA. I AGREE WITH WHAT SHE SAID. I COULD SEE A DIFFERENT TYPE OF TOWNHOME HERE. I WOULD DIFFER IN THAT. BUT MORE CREATIVE THAN WHAT WE'VE ALREADY PUT IN MULTIPLE PLACES IN THE CITY, BRINGS SOMETHING NEW TO THE CITY. >> ALTHOUGH, I DID APPRECIATE THE PORCHES [OVERLAPPING]. >> AGREED. >> [INAUDIBLE] IT'S NOT THAT I DON'T LIKE THE TOWNHOMES, I JUST DON'T LIKE THEM HERE JUST TO BE FRANK WITH HIM. [01:50:01] ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A STATEMENT THEY WANT TO MAKE. I DON'T KNOW THAT WE'RE GIVING THE APPLICANT ENOUGH DETAILS TO TABLE THIS AND TRY TO FIX SOMETHING. I THINK IN MY OPINION AT THIS POINT, WE ARE EITHER GOING TO BUY INTO THIS THE WAY IT IS? >> I WOULD CONCUR. >> ALL RIGHT. I THINK IT'S A BIGGER CONVERSATION. REWORK IN MY OPINION. I'M OPEN TO WHATEVER THE COMMISSION THINKS. >> I THINK IT'S A COMPLETE REDESIGN. BUT LOVE THE FACT THAT YOU INCORPORATED A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT YOU WORK WITH THE CITY ON. BUT THAT'S JUST THAT THE DENSITY IS TOO MUCH GIVEN THE AREA AS WELL AS JUST THAT THE PRODUCT IS JUST DOESN'T MATCH WHAT I THINK WE NEED FOR THE CITY RIGHT HERE. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? DO YOU HAVE ANY MOTIONS? >> MAKE A MOTION TO DENY 29? >> I SUGGEST THIS. SINCE SHE HAD SUGGESTIONS BUT YOU CAN'T PUT YOUR FINGER ON IT. THAT IS WHAT I'M THINKING, LETS TABLE IT SO WE HAVE A WORK SESSION SO YOU CAN PROVIDE MORE CONSTRUCTIVE COMMENTS TO THE APPLICANT, AND TABLING AND HAVING THE WORK SESSION AND MAKING SURE IT WORKS OUT FOR EVERYBODY BECOMES A LITTLE BIT CHALLENGING. MAY WE TABLE TO THE FIRST MEETING IN DECEMBER AND HAVE A WORK SESSION IN-BETWEEN BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO BE IN THE HOLIDAYS. I DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO COME OUT OF IT. HOW MUCH TIME STEVE YOU AND YOUR TEAM IS GOING TO NEED TO WORK ON IT. FOR THAT PROPOSAL BEFORE YOU. >> LET ME JUST ASK THE APPLICANT, IS THAT YOU'VE BEEN REALLY GOOD TO WORK WITH HERE IN THIS PROJECT AND OTHER PROJECTS. WE JUST WANT TO BE AS TRANSPARENT WITH YOU AS WE CAN. >> YEAH, I THINK I WOULD PREFER IT. I JUST I'M HESITANT BECAUSE ALL THE FEEDBACK THAT WAS JUST GIVEN WAS [OVERLAPPING]. IF I SAID I'LL COME BACK IN A MONTH AND JUST TAKE WHAT YOU GAVE ME. I'M NOT SURE WHAT I WOULD DO. >> WHICH IS WHY WE WANT YOU TO SUGGEST THE WORK SESSION SO THAT WE NARROW DOWN THAT FEEDBACK. >> THAT'D BE FINE. I THINK THAT'S PROBABLY THE BEST ALTERNATIVE. I WOULD AGREE WITH THAT. >> TABLE TO YOUR DECEMBER 14TH MEETING [OVERLAPPING]. >> SORRY, SEND MY MOTION. >> YEAH. MOTION WE SEND IT. ARE YOU IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT? >> YES, I AM. >> I THINK THAT'S ONLY FAIR. >> IS THAT ENOUGH? >> PROVIDE DIRECTION OR? >> WE'VE GOT HOLIDAYS COMING UP. IS THAT ENOUGH TIME? THE BEGINNING OF DECEMBER? >> BUT HERE, IF WE HAVE TO TABLE AGAIN, WE CAN TABLE ON THE 14TH. WE'RE GOING TO BE VISITING WITH STEVE TO SEE WHAT DATES ARE GOOD. THEN I'LL BEGIN WITH Y'ALL ABOUT WHAT DATES WILL BE GOOD AND SEE WHERE WE CAN SETTLE ON. WE WANT TO TRY AND DO IT ON THE NIGHT OF A P&Z MEETING OR IF WE HAVE LIGHT AGENDA, TAKING A LOOK AT THAT, OTHERWISE [OVERLAPPING]. >> NOT NOVEMBER 9TH. >> WHAT? >> [LAUGHTER] NOVEMBER 9TH. >> DO WE TABLE THERE? >> THAT'S ON THE 9TH. >> YEAH. WE TABLED WEDNESDAY NIGHT. >> OKAY. >> DO I HAVE MOTION OF OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? >> YEAH. MOVED OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOST OF MY COMMISSURE BOX. >> SECOND. >> SECOND MY COMMISSIONERS AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? >> MOTION CARRIES FIVE, ZERO. ANYONE WHO WANTS TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ASSIGNMENT THIS TIME? ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE THIS ITEM INTO THE DECEMBER 14TH MEETING? >> MOVE TO TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE DECEMBER 14TH MEETING. CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> THE REASON FOR TABLING IS OVER CAN HAVE A WORK SESSION AND TRANSIT COMMISSION [OVERLAPPING]. >> FOR THE PURPOSE OF HOLDING A WORK SESSION TO SHARE SOME MORE CONSTRUCTIVE FEEDBACK FOR GUIDANCE. >> MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES FIVE, ZERO. WE'LL TABLE THIS ITEM TILL THE DECEMBER 14TH MEETING FIELD. ALL RIGHT. I'M 30. [30. Results of the October 5, 2021 City Council meeting.] RESULTS OF OCTOBER 5TH, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING. >> NOW THERMO DOES HAVE THAT ONE ITEM. CITY COUNCIL APPROVED THAT THAT WAS AN AMENDMENT TO THE STAR BUSINESS OR A MOUNTAIN STAR BUSINESS PART, BUT THE STAR IN THE FIRST ROUND. >> EXCELLENT. >> ITEM 31 SCHEDULED FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS. [31. Schedule of future discussion items.] I JUST HAVE ONE ITEM FOR DISCUSSION WHICH IS TOMORROW EVENING. HOW LONG WOULD THAT WORK SESSION BE SCHEDULED FOR AND WILL THERE BE FOOD? THAT'S FOR MR. BOX. [LAUGHTER] MR. BOX, ASKED THAT QUESTION. >> I DON'T THINK THEY EVER DID ASK. I DON'T THINK HE ASKED THAT QUESTION. >> HE DID. HE ASKED IT YESTERDAY IN THE CONVERSATION. [01:55:02] [LAUGHTER] >> IT STARTS AT SIX O'CLOCK AND SO WE MIGHT FINISH UP EIGHT OR NINE. THEY'LL BE FOOD AVAILABLE. >> ALL RIGHT. YOU THINK IT'S GOING TO GO FOR A COUPLE HOURS? >> WE'LL GO FOR A COUPLE HOURS. >> OKAY. >> IT'LL BE THE CITY COUNCIL, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND THE EDC BOARD AT THIS MEETING. >> ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING TO BE ADDED TO OUR FUTURE DISCUSSION? ANYTHING YOU HAVE FOR US? >> BEFORE YOU CLOSE THE MEETING I WANT TO COMPLEMENT SUZANNE PORTER AND THEN SCOTT HAMMOND, WHO'S ONE OF OUR PLANNING TAGS. BUT THEY'RE WORKED REALLY HARD AT THIS PAST WEEK TO GET THIS PACKET OUT SINCE WE'RE SHORTHANDED LAST WEEK, JONATHAN SANDY GOT THEIR WORK DONE BEFORE THEY WENT OFF ON VACATION. BUT WHAT I'VE BEEN POSSIBLE WITHOUT SCOTT AND SUZANNE'S WORK ON IT. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR SERVICE OR CITY? >> ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR ALL THE WORK ON ITEM 29. I KNOW ITS A LOT OF WORK. HERE WE CHANGE THINGS BUT IT'S WHAT WE DO. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? >> MOVE. >> MOVE MOTION BY MR. KELLY. >> SECOND BY MR. KOHLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE MOTION CARRIES FIVE, ZERO. WE ARE ADJOURNED 8:27. MS. GILBERT * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.