[00:00:01]
>> [OVERLAPPING]. GOOD EVENING. WELCOME TO
[CALL TO ORDER]
THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRISCO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.WE ARE GATHERED TONIGHT AT 6101 FRISCO SQUARE BOULEVARD AND THE TIME IS 6:31 P.M.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSISTS OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
TONIGHT, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE: COMMISSIONER STEVE CONE, JON KENDALL, LIFE, YOU KNOW THAT FEELING WHERE YOU'RE LIKE, I'VE LOST A NAME.
>> THANK YOU ED. [OVERLAPPING].
>> BRYAN MORGAN, ED KELLY, BRITTANY COLBERG, OUR SECRETARY.
MY NAME IS DAVID BOX, I'M YOUR CHAIR FOR THIS EVENING AND VICE CHAIR, AND THE CHAIR ROB COX IS OUT THIS EVENING.
REPRESENTING STAFF [NOISE], SORRY GUYS.
REPRESENTING STAFF FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JOHN LITTELLIER, JONATHAN HUBBARD, SUZANNE PORTER, CINDY JACKSON, AND KAYLA KLIONE?
>> KIHANO. [LAUGHTER] [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T HAVE TO START OVER, DO I?
>> REPRESENTING ENGINEERING, RICARDO ORDONESE; FROM FIRE, JOHN GILAT AND ALYSSA BARSTOW; AND LEGAL, ALYSSA COTTON.
>> GOT IT. THANKS EDWARDO, AND EDWARDO TORRES. ANYONE ELSE? GREAT. THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZEN INPUT.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING ANY ITEMS THAT ARE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, YOU MAY DO SO AT THIS TIME.
THOSE ITEMS DESIGNATED AS PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL ALSO HAVE PUBLIC HEARING PERIODS.
PLEASE COMPLETE A BLUE SPEAKER CARD AND APPROACH THE PODIUM.
PRIOR TO YOUR COMMENTS, PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD.
OUR MEETINGS ARE RECORDED, SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE.
PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE OR ANY APPLICANTS PRESENT THIS EVENING.
TO ENSURE THERE'S ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL TO SPEAK, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES, UNLESS YOU MUST ADDRESS THE COMMISSION THROUGH A TRANSLATOR, IN WHICH CASE YOU MAY HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 10 MINUTES.
PLEASE NOTE, THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION DURING THE CITIZEN INPUT ON ITEMS NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA, EXCEPT TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION OR 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.
ANYONE HERE THIS EVENING, WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK DURING CITIZEN INPUT? SEEING NONE, WE'LL MOVE TO THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA,
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
WHICH IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE NOVEMBER 22ND, 2021 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.COMMISSIONERS, DO WE HAVE ANY COMMENTS ON THE MINUTES OR CAN I HAVE A MOTION?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF NOVEMBER 22ND, PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER MORGAN.
>> SECOND, COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES, 5-0.
THANK YOU. NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NONCONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. ANY COMMISSION MEMBER MAKING SUCH REQUESTS PRIOR TO A MOTION, SORRY, THIS IS MISSING A STATEMENT.I'LL START OVER. NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NONCONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. ANY COMMISSION MEMBER MAKING SUCH REQUEST PRIOR TO A MOTION AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT ITEMS MAY CONSIDER ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY.
ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO COMMENT ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MAY DO SO WITH A MAJORITY APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.
TONIGHT WE HAVE ITEMS 3 THROUGH 13.
ARE THERE ANY ITEMS THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION, COMMISSIONERS?
>> MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS 3 THROUGH 13.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER KENDALL.
>> SECOND, COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES, 5-0.
[14. Open Space Plan & Site Plan: Lexington Parks, Block O, Lot 18 (OS21-0120 & SP21-0123)]
TONIGHT WE HAVE SEVEN ITEMS IN THE REGULAR AGENDA, FIVE WHICH ARE PUBLIC HEARINGS.EACH PUBLIC HEARING IS PRECEDED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST.
THE APPLICANT IS THEN PERMITTED 10 MINUTES TO MAKE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION.
FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF AND APPLICANT BY THE COMMISSION, THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK ARE WELCOME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION.
ALL SPEAKERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT, NEED TO COMPLETE A SPEAKER'S CARD, WHICH IS BLUE, IN FRONT OF US HERE ON THE PODIUM, AND PROVIDE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.
[00:05:01]
IF THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANTS, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESENT YOUR POSITION.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 THAT YOU HAVE ONLY ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
REPEAT APPEARANCES TO THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED.
AFTER ALL PERSONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED, UNLESS THE CASE IS TABLE TO A FUTURE DATE AND THE COMMISSION INCLUDES IN THEIR MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A FUTURE MEETING.
AFTER CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.
PLEASE NOTE, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ONLY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING CASES.
UNLESS THE COMMISSION DENIES THE CASE AND THE APPLICANT DOES NOT APPEAL THE DENIAL, FINAL ACTION REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AS TO WHEN THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
WE MOVE TO THE PUBLIC THE REGULAR AGENDA, WE HAVE ITEM 14, OPEN SPACE PLAN AND SITE PLAN, LEXINGTON PARKS, BLOCK O, LOT 18, OS21-0120 AND SP21-0123.
OS21-0120 AND SB21-0123 WERE ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER 25TH, 2021.
THIS BODY APPROVED A 30-DAY EXTENSION AT THE NOVEMBER 22ND MEETING TO THE MEETING TONIGHT.
THE STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND FOUND THAT IT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCES, ENGINEERING STANDARDS, AND OTHER APPLICABLE CODES.
FOR THAT REASON, STAFF RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> APPRECIATED. ARE THEY WORKING TOWARDS ANSWERING THE QUESTIONS?
>> OKAY. ANY QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM, COMMISSIONERS? THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM NUMBER 14 FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF'S REPORT AND TO DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT FOR REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL.
>> I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER COLBERG.
>>SECOND, COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? MOTION DISAPPROVED, 5-0.
[15. Open Space Plan & Site Plan: Stonebriar Mall at the Bridges, Block A, Lot 4D (OS21-0121 & SP21-0104)]
ITEM 15, OPEN SPACE PLAN AND SITE PLANS, STONEBRIAR MALL AT THE BRIDGES, BLOCK A, LOT 4D; OS21-0121 AND SP21-0104.OWNER, SON, FRISCO CORNER, LLC.
>> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.
THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER 25TH AND YOU APPROVED AN EXTENSION AT THE LAST P&Z MEETING, AND THE APPLICANT IS WORKING WITH STAFF TO FINALIZE THE PROJECT.
HOWEVER, JUST WEREN'T ABLE TO GET IT DONE PRIOR TO THIS MEETING.
THEREFORE, WE ARE RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL OF THIS APPLICATION WITH THE ITEMS AS SHOWN IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT NEED TO BE ADDRESSED.
>> FOR THOSE WHO MAY BE IN THE ROOM OR WATCHING, THIS IS PROCEDURAL, THE STATE OF TEXAS HAS A TIMELINE, AND SO WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE TIMELINE AS OUTLINED BY STAFF.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, FELLOW COMMISSIONERS? HAVE A MOTION.
>> MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM 15 FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND I DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL.
>> I HAVE A MOTION, COMMISSIONER MORGAN.
>> SECOND, COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? MOTION DISAPPROVED BY A VOTE OF 5-0.
[16. Public Hearing - Replat: The Bluffs at Chapel Creek, Block A, Lot 9 (RP21-0046)]
NEXT, ITEM 16, WHICH IS A PUBLIC HEARING.REPLAT, THE BLUFFS AT CHAPEL CREEK, BLOCK A, LOT 9; RP21-0046.
>> YES, COMMISSIONERS, THE APPLICANT DID SUBMIT THIS PROJECT AND THE APPLICANT IS STILL WORKING ON REDOING REVISIONS TO THE PLANS.
THEREFORE, WE RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ACCEPT THEIR 30-DAY EXTENSION REQUEST TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THE ITEM TO THE JANUARY 11TH, 2022 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
>> TO JANUARY 11TH, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
[00:10:01]
>> MOVE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION, COMMISSIONER MORGAN.
>> SECOND, COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? PASSES, 5-0, WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM?
>> SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION, COMMISSIONER KENDALL.
>> WE NEED TO LEAVE IT OPEN. [OVERLAPPING].
>> OH, I'M SORRY, THAT IS CORRECT.
>> [OVERLAPPING] I'LL TAKE A MOTION.
>> MOVE TO ACCEPT THE RECOMMENDATION FOR A 30-DAY EXTENSION REQUEST FOR THIS ITEM AND TABLE THE ITEM TO THE JANUARY 11TH, 2022 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO [OVERLAPPING].
>> TO CONTINUE TO PUBLIC HEARING.
A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER KELLY.
>> SECOND, COMMISSIONER COHEN. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES, 5:0.
THIS ITEM WILL BE ON THE JANUARY 11TH, 2022 AGENDA.
[17. Public Hearing - Replat: The Potter's House of North Dallas, Block A, Lot 1 (RP21-0048)]
ITEM 17, PUBLIC HEARING, REPLAT, THE POTTER'S HOUSE OF NORTH DALLAS, BLOCK A, LOT 1; RP21-0048.OWNER, THE POTTER'S HOUSE OF NORTH DALLAS INC.
>> COMMISSIONERS, SIMILAR TO THE PREVIOUS ITEM YOU JUST ACTED ON, THE APPLICANT IS CONTINUING TO WORK THROUGH REVISIONS FOR THIS REPLAT.
WE RECOMMEND THAT YOU ACCEPT THE 30 DAY EXTENSION REQUESTS TO CONTINUE TO PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THE ITEM TO THE JANUARY 11TH, 2022 TO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
>> ANY QUESTIONS, COMMISSION? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN TO PUBLIC HEARING?
>> MOTION, COMMISSIONER KELLY.
>>SECOND, COMMISSIONER KENDALL. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? PASSES, 5-0, WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM?
>> I'D LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE ACCEPT THE 30-DAY EXTENSION REQUESTS, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TABLE THE ITEM TO JANUARY 11, 2022 PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING.
>> HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE.
>> OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
THIS ITEM WILL BE ON THE JANUARY 11, 2022 AGENDA.
ITEM 18, PUBLIC HEARING REPLAT,
[18. Public Hearing - Replat: Lexington, Phase 14, Block B, Lots 40 & Lot 3X (RP21-0049)]
LEXINGTON PHASE 14, BLOCK B, LOTS 40 AND LOT, 3XRP21-0049.OWNER, BLUE BONNETS BR DEVELOPMENT, LLC.
>> THANK YOU. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT IS TO CREATE A SEPARATE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION LOT OUT OF A DRAINAGE EASEMENT THAT IS LOCATED ON LOT 40.
THAT PLOT COMPLIES WITH ALL REQUIREMENTS OF THE ZONING CODE AND STATE REGULATIONS, AND STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL.
>> ANY QUESTIONS OF STAFF ON THIS ITEM? IF NOT, WE CAN HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING, COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. SECOND?
>> COMMISSIONER CALLEN, ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ALL OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM?
>> SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> ON THE MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING, WE HAVE A SECOND?
>> SECOND COMMISSIONER, KINDLE.
THE MOTION WAS COMMISSIONER KOHLBERG. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY ONE OPPOSED? I DID FAIL TO ASK IF THE APPLICANT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS ITEM.
[NOISE] ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT? IF NOT, CAN I HAVE A MOTION?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 18 AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF.
>> WE HAVE A MOTION. COMMISSIONER MORGAN TO APPROVE.
>> SECOND, COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? ITEM 18 PASSES 5-0, CONGRATS.
[19. Public Hearing - Specific Use Permit: Frisco West Addition, Block A, Lot 1 (SUP21-0007)]
>> MOVE TO ITEM 19, PUBLIC HEARING, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, FRISCO WEST ADDITION.
BLOCK A, LOT ONE, SUP 21-0007.
>> COMMISSIONER, THIS IS AN APPLICATION FOR SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY.
JUST TO GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF BACKGROUND ON THE PROPERTY, THERE IS ALREADY A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY USES.
IN 2005, IT WAS APPROVED AND THE APPLICANT OR THE OWNER AT THE TIME, AT LEAST, CONSTRUCTED THE 1ST PHASE OF TWO PHASES OR TWO BUILDINGS WITH THE 1ST PHASE.
[00:15:01]
AS YOU CAN SEE, IN THE AERIAL, THE ONE BUILDING WAS CONSTRUCTED AND THE 2ND WAS NOT.THEY ARE REQUESTING AT THIS TIME TO GET APPROVAL FOR A CHANGE TO THIS EXISTING SUP EXHIBIT, WHICH WOULD SHOW A MEMORY CARE ADDITION TO THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY AS WELL AS WHAT IS CALLED OUT IN THE STAFF REPORT, AS COTTAGES.
THEY ARE DUPLEXES AS WELL AS A CLUBHOUSE.
IT IS THE INTENT THAT THE DUPLEXES WOULD BE FOR RESIDENTS THAT ARE IN TRANSITION BETWEEN LIVING INDEPENDENTLY AND NEEDING FULL-TIME CARE.
IN THE STAFF REPORT, WE'VE LISTED SOME SERVICES THAT WILL BE ON-SITE FOR THOSE RESIDENTS.
BECAUSE DUPLEXES, THAT USE IS NOT NECESSARILY ALLOWED IN THIS ZONING DISTRICT, IT IS TIED TO THE MEMORY CARE.
THEREFORE, WE ARE PROPOSING THREE PARTICULAR CONDITIONS RELATED TO THAT.
THAT THE EXPANSION WOULD ONE, HAVE THE SAME OPERATOR OVERSEEING BOTH THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY ON THE COTTAGES, THAT NO UNITS WOULD BE INDIVIDUALLY CONVEYED OR SOLD, AND THAT THE MEMORY CARE CENTER WOULD BE COMPLETED FIRST BECAUSE THE COTTAGES, LIKE I SAID, ARE AN ANCILLARY USE OF THE MEMORY CARE FACILITY.
JUST TO GO OVER SOME OF THE PARTICULARS, THE PROJECT IS SURROUNDED BY SCHOOL AND A BUS YARD TO THE NORTH AND TO THE EAST, AND CHURCH AND OFFICES TO THE SOUTH.
[NOISE] THEN THERE'S RESIDENTIAL ACROSS THE STREET ON LEGACY DRIVE.
THERE IS SOME EXISTING SCREENING AS FAR AS LIVING SCREEN, SOME LANDSCAPING ALONG THE SCHOOL PROPERTY SITE.
[NOISE] SCREENING IS ACTUALLY NOT REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING OPEN SPACE WITH THIS ADDITION.
IT IS LOCATED IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER [NOISE] WHERE THERE'S GOING TO BE A DETENTION POND AND THEN SOME TRAILS, SIDEWALKS AROUND IT WITH THE SEATING AREA AND A PERGOLA.
THEN THEY HAVE SOME ADDITIONAL AMENITIES TO COMPLY WITH THE CRITERIA IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FOR OPEN SPACE.
OVERALL, THEY ARE PROPOSING A LITTLE BIT OVER 10 PERCENT OF PHASE 2 WILL BE OPEN SPACE.
PHASE 1 WAS DEVELOPED WHEN WE HAVE DIFFERENT REGULATIONS SO THE OPEN SPACE WILL BE OVERALL LESS THAN 10 PERCENT OF THE SITE.
STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE THOUGH OF THIS PROPOSAL BECAUSE THEY ARE PROVIDING MUCH MORE THAN WHAT IS ALREADY THERE.
WE HAVE REVIEWED COMPATIBILITY WITH REGARDS TO MEANS OF INGRESS AND EGRESS AND PARKING.
LIGHTING AND ALL OF THOSE ITEMS WILL BE COMPLIANT WITH OUR CURRENT REGULATIONS.
STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT'S ARCHITECT ABOUT HOW TO DESIGN THE ADDITIONAL BUILDINGS.
YOU CAN SEE THE EXISTING BUILDINGS HERE.
THE PROPOSED ADDITION WILL MIRROR THE BRICK WITH THE STONE, EMPHASIS ON THE PITCHED AREAS.
THEN THE ADDITIONAL COTTAGES WILL HAVE A STUCCO WITH BRICK BASE.
WE HAVE THESE FOR YOUR REFERENCE IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS ON THOSE.
THE APPLICANT [NOISE] HAS CHOSEN NOT TO SIGN THE VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS, I'LL BE ABLE TO ANSWER THAT OR THE APPLICANT CAN ADDRESS THAT.
OVERALL, WE ARE RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY SUBJECT TO THE CONDITIONS, INCLUDING APPROVAL OF THE OPEN SPACE PLAN, THE FACADE PLAN, AND THEN THE THREE CONDITIONS I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT HOW THE ASSISTED LIVING, THE MEMORY CARE AND THE COTTAGES WILL BE LINKED. THAT IS ALL I HAVE FOR YOU.
>> I APPRECIATE IT. I HAD A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS.
THE COTTAGES THEMSELVES, I IMAGINE, WILL SERVE MORE OF AN INDEPENDENT LIVING TYPE ENVIRONMENT GIVEN THAT THEY'RE SEPARATE, AND IT LOOKS LIKE THEY HAVE GARAGES FROM THE DESIGN.
>> CAN YOU JUST SHOW HOW THOSE CARS GET BACK THERE? I KNOW YOU SAID INGRESS AND EGRESS IS THERE, BUT I WAS HAVING A HARD TIME SEEING EXACTLY HOW THEY WOULD GET BACK THERE, AS WELL AS IF THE FUTURE RESIDENTS HERE ARE LIKELY TO WANT TO WALK, IT'S A VERY WALKABLE AREA, AND HOW CAN THEY GET AROUND? COTTONWOOD CREEK PARK IS NOT THAT FAR AND THERE IS AN UNDERPASS THAT THEY CAN GET TO BY WAKE LANE.
[00:20:02]
HOW CAN THEY GET THERE? IF YOU HELP ME WITH THAT?>> I'M GOING TO USE THE SCREEN UP HERE, BUT I GUESS I CAN USE THIS.
THERE IS AN ENTRANCE OFF OF AVON LANE AND IT WRAPS AROUND THE SITE.
THAT'S YOUR VEHICULAR ACCESS THROUGH THERE AND THEN IT ALSO COMES UP AND GOES AROUND THE NORTH SIDE.
THAT'S HOW THE CARS WOULD GET TO THE COTTAGES AND TO THE DRIVEWAYS.
DO YOU HAVE ANY PARTICULAR QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT BEFORE I MOVE ON TO THE PEDESTRIAN?
>> MAY I A QUESTION ON AVON LANE BEFORE SHE LEAVES THAT? ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER, THERE IS ACCESS FROM THAT AREA.
THEY DON'T HAVE TO ACCESS IT DIRECTLY FROM LEGACY, IS NOT WHAT I'M SEEING?
>> YES. PUSHING ERASE BUT IT'S NOT ERASING.
>> OKAY, SO AVON LANE COMES IN OFF OF LEGACY AND THEN THE ACCESS IS GOING TO BE OFF OF THAT. THEN OBVIOUSLY, THE SITE ITSELF HAS ALSO A DRIVE OFF OF LEGACY TO THE NORTH OF THE BUILDING THAT'S EXISTING.
>> I'LL JUST ANSWER MY OTHER QUESTION.
TO GET TO THE PARK, THEY HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO WALK THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT TO THE SIDEWALK AND LEGACY AND OVER AND AROUND?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER CONE.
>> A QUESTION JUST TO FOLLOW ON WITH THE SOUTHEAST CORNER THERE WHERE IT MEETS AT LORD AVON LANE DEAD ENDS.
CAN YOU CONFIRM IF AVON LANE IS GOING TO EVENTUALLY BE EXTENDED TO THE EAST?
I BELIEVE THAT'S THE RAIL HEAD PROJECT.
IT WILL BE EXTENDED ALL THE WAY TO DALLAS PARKWAY THROUGH THERE EVENTUALLY.
>> OKAY. EVENTUALLY WHEN THAT'S DONE, A RESIDENT WOULD BE ABLE TO TURN IN OFF OF DALLAS PARKWAY, FRONTAGE ROAD ONTO AVON LANE AND ENTER THIS PROPERTY FROM THAT SIDE ALSO?
OKAY. THAT'S GREAT. OTHER QUESTIONS.
>> YEAH. THERE ARE FIVE CONDITIONS HERE AND THREE OF THEM INVOLVE THE APPLICANT.
HAS THE APPLICANT AGREED TO THOSE THREE CONDITIONS?
>> THE APPLICANT WAS MADE AWARE OF THOSE WITH DISCUSSIONS AND WITH STAFF BACK IN SEPTEMBER, AND THEY ARE HERE SO IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, PARTICULARLY FOR THEM THERE.
>> I WOULDN'T WANT TO PASS THIS IF THEY HAVEN'T ALREADY AGREED.
>> SURE. YEAH. MY UNDERSTANDING DISCUSSIONS HAPPEN WITH OTHER STAFF MEMBERS BEFORE I TOOK HOLD OF THIS CASE, BUT I WAS ACTUALLY SENT BY THE APPLICANT THESE CONDITIONS, SO THEY ARE AWARE OF THEM.
>> ONE THING I DO WANT TO EMPHASIZE BY HAVING THESE COLLEGES INDEPENDENT LIVING, IT NEEDS TO BE UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTIRE FACILITY, OTHERWISE IT BECOMES A DIFFERENT ANIMAL.
I'LL SAY IN THESE TOP OF OPERATIONS, IT JUST NEEDS TO BE UNDER ONE OPERATOR.
>> THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING IF THEY'D AGREED [INAUDIBLE].
>> QUESTION ON ITEM 3, IT SAYS OF THE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY, DO WE CONSIDER THAT ALSO THE MEMORY CARE FACILITY OR SHOULD WE DENOTE THAT SEPARATELY?
>> I USE ASSISTED LIVING FACILITY BECAUSE THAT'S THE UMBRELLA OF THE SUP.
IF IT NEEDS TO BE MORE SPECIFIC, I CAN TRY TO ADDRESS THAT [OVERLAPPING].
>> [INAUDIBLE]. THAT'S SOMEWHERE. THE SUP APPLIES TO THE ENTIRE PROPERTY.
>> COMMISSIONER CONE, JOHN FOLLOWING ON WHAT YOU JUST SAID, THE OPERATOR HAS TO BE THE SAME FOR ALL OF THEM.
DOES THE OWNERSHIP OF THE COLLEGES HAVE TO BE THE SAME AS THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSISTED LIVING?
>> THE OWNERSHIP NEEDS TO BE ONE OWNER OF THIS ENTIRE PROPERTY AND OPERATION.
IF THEY SELL IT, YOU JUST CAN'T SELL OFF THE COTTAGES TO ANOTHER OPERATOR AND THEN YOU HAVE ANOTHER OPERATOR LIKE ON THE MEMORY CARE.
YOU'VE GOT ONE ORGANIZATION THAT RUNS THE ENTIRE FACILITY.
>> THIS IS A WONDER IF WE NEED TO MAKE THAT CLEAR.
>> NO. IS SPECIFIED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT OR THE CONDITION THAT YOU HAVE, THE OPERATOR, WHOEVER OWNS IT, THERE HAS TO BE UNDER THE SAME OPERATION.
GOING FORWARD IF THEY END UP SELLING THIS, THEY HAVE TO SELL IT WHERE THE ENTIRE OPERATION IS SOLD.
THAT'S COVERED IN THE CONDITIONS THAT SUZANNE WENT OVER.
>> OKAY. JUST TO CLARIFY THAT, BECAUSE IT DOES SAY OPERATOR HAS TO BE THE SAME, BUT THEORETICALLY, TWO DIFFERENT LANDOWNERS COULD USE THE SAME OPERATOR AND MEET THAT CRITERIA.
>> LANDOWNERS. NOW, YOU'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE ONE LANDOWNER ON THIS. THIS IS ONE LAW.
>> IT'S ONE PLOT, BUT THEY CANNOT SUB-DIVIDE IT AND TRY TO SELL OFF AFTER SOMEBODY.
>> THEY COULD SUBMIT. SOMEBODY COULD SUBMIT A REPLANT, BUT IT WOULD BE RECOMMENDED FOR THE DIAL OR FOR NOT COMPLYING
[00:25:02]
WITH THE SUP IF COUNCIL APPROVES THE ORDINANCE.>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? COMMISSION? IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND WOULD HE OR SHE LIKE TO SPEAK?
>> GOOD EVENING, CHAIRMAN BOX AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
MY NAME IS JIM DEWEY WITH JDJR ENGINEERS, THE CIVIL ENGINEER FOR THE PROJECT, AND I AM RESPONSIBLE FOR MANY OF THE EXHIBITS THAT WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE SUP.
MY ADDRESS IS 2500, TEXAS DRIVE, SWEET 100, IRVING, TEXAS 75062.
I'M HERE TONIGHT IN REPRESENTING THE CURRENT OWNER, WHICH IS A FAITH-BASED NON-PROFIT COMPANY.
I WAS ACTUALLY WORKED ON THE 2005 CASE AS WELL, THAT WAS FOR A DIFFERENT OWNER AND OPERATOR THAT HAS SINCE SOLD HIS PROPERTY.
THE FIRST SUP SHOWED A BUILDING ADDITION BEHIND THE ASSISTED LIVING THAT WAS NEVER CONSTRUCTED.
THE CURRENT OWNER JUST SIMPLY WANTS TO CONSTRUCT THE PROJECT SHOWN ON THE EXHIBIT.
IT'S JUST DIFFERENT FROM THE ORIGINAL SUP AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE FOR THE REVISION.
THE STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB IN THEIR STAFF REPORT.
I DON'T WANT TO GO OVER THE PARTICULARS, BUT I WOULD LIKE TO EMPHASIZE THAT WE CERTAINLY AGREE WITH ALL FIVE OF THE CONDITIONS THEY HAVE.
THEY WANT TO OPERATE THIS FACILITY.
THEY HAVE NO INTENTIONS OF SELLING ANY PIECE OFF ONE.
IT'S AGAINST THE LAW BECAUSE IT'S ONE PLOT.
I THINK JOHN MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT GETTING THAT REPLOTED WOULD BE VERY DIFFICULT.
I JUST WANT TO RUN THE SAME OPERATOR, THE SAME BUSINESS THAT THEY'RE RUNNING THERE NOW.
THE COTTAGES AS WE SPOKE ARE FOR MORE INDEPENDENT SENIORS, BUT THEY ALSO CATER TO PEOPLE THAT CAN LIVE THERE FOR A LITTLE WHILE AND THEN TRANSITION TO THE ASSISTED LIVING.
MORE SO THAN MAYBE THE MEMORY CARE.
WITH THAT, I'D BE GLAD TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU HAVE REGARDING THIS SUP REVISION.
IN ADDITION, THE ARCHITECT OF RECORD, KEVIN DURHAM IS ALSO HERE IF YOU WANT TO ASK ANY QUESTIONS REGARDING THE ARCHITECTURE OR THE BUILDING DESIGN.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR BEING HERE TONIGHT.
ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> QUESTION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD IS, THE APPLICANT WAS NOT WILLING TO SIGN THE DEVELOPER'S AGREEMENT?
>> MY UNDERSTANDING IS THEIR IN-HOUSE ATTORNEY DID NOT APPROVE OF SOME OF THE LANGUAGE AND WAS MAINLY BASED ON THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NON-PROFIT AND IT HAD TO DO, IN MY UNDERSTANDING, WAS THE CITY'S ABILITY TO PUT SOME LIENS ON THE PROPERTY.
I'M NOT AN ATTORNEY, BUT THEY WERE NOT WILLING TO SIGN THAT AGREEMENT AS WRITTEN.
>> OKAY. THANKS. JUST FOR THE PUBLIC, THAT IS A VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT.
ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT?
>> WE CAN MOVE TO PUBLIC HEARING.
WE GOT A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING?
>> MOTION, COMMISSIONER KELLY, SECOND, COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES FIVE, ZERO.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM?
>> SITTING DOWN AND MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> MOTION CLOSED. COMMISSIONER, KINDLE? SECOND, COMMISSIONER COLBERT. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES FIVE, ZERO.
COMMISSION. ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM? NO QUESTION.
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY TO THE APPLICANT THAT I REALLY LIKE THIS DESIGN YOU'VE COME UP WITH HERE.
BEING NEXT TO THE RAIL HEAD LIKE THAT, IT'S JUST A NICE ADDITION TO THAT AREA AND THOSE COTTAGES THERE.
>> OBVIOUSLY CHANGING FROM THE HUB AND SPOKE MODEL IS A LITTLE MORE MODERN.
I THINK YOU GUYS WILL DO VERY WELL THERE AND BE HIGH DEMAND.
>> FRISCO'S GOT AN AGING POPULATION.
>> WE'RE PART OF THAT. [LAUGHTER] WE ALL ARE.
>> I LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 19, WITH THE FIVE CONDITIONS IN THEIR RECOMMENDATION IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE SUBJECT TO THE STAFF REPORT'S RECOMMENDATION TO COMMISSIONER KELLY?
>> SECOND. COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES FIVE, ZERO.
CONGRATULATIONS. LOOKING FORWARD [OVERLAPPING] TO COMING UP.
[20. Public Hearing - Zoning: Hazelwood (Z21-0015)]
ITEM 20, PUBLIC HEARINGS, ZONING HAZELWOOD, Z21-0015, OWNER IS GRBK EDGEWOOD LLC.THIS ITEM WAS TABLED IN THE PUBLIC HEARING CONTINUED AT THE OCTOBER 12TH, 2020 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
I'LL FIRST LOOK FOR A MOTION TO REMOVE THE ITEM FROM THE TABLE.
[00:30:01]
>> MOTION, COMMISSIONER COLBERT, ALL ON SECOND?
>> SECOND COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED? ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE FIVE, ZERO.
>> THANK YOU. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE OCTOBER 12TH MEETING AS THE COMMISSION NOTED CONCERNS RELATED TO DENSITY AND WHETHER OR NOT THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY WAS SUITED FOR TOWN HOMES, AS WELL AS A LACK OF OPEN SPACE, PARTICULARLY ON THE EAST SIDE.
THEN LASTLY, AS WELL AS THE DESIRE TO SEE LARGER LOTS ADJACENT THE HOLLYHOCK DEVELOPMENT TO THE EAST.
SINCE THIS ITEM WAS TABLED, THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HAD A WORK SESSION TO FURTHER DISCUSS THIS REQUEST WITH THE APPLICANT ON NOVEMBER 9TH OF THIS YEAR.
AS A RESULT OF THE TABLING AND THAT WORK SESSION, THE APPLICANT HAS REVISED THE REQUEST THAT WE WILL GO OVER TO IT TONIGHT.
JUST TO HIT THE HIGHLIGHTS OF THAT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE OVERALL DENSITY FROM 2.6 UNITS AN ACRE TO 2.1 UNITS AN ACRE.
THE PLAN THAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU TONIGHT HAS 327 LOTS.
PREVIOUSLY THERE WERE 405 LOTS.
NEXT, THEY HAVE INCREASED THE NUMBER OF PATIO HOME 55 LOTS FROM 56 LOTS TO A 116 LOTS AND THEN REPLACED THE PATIO HOME 40 LOTS THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED ADJACENT THE HOLLYHOCK DEVELOPMENT WITH PATIO HOME 55 LOTS.
OKAY. ALL OF THESE LOTS ADJACENT HOLLY HAWKE THERE PREVIOUSLY PATTY ON PARTIES.
THOSE ARE NOW PATIO HOME 55 LOTS.
THEY HAVE ALSO INCREASED THE USABLE OPEN SPACE FROM NINE ACRES TO 12.7 ACRES.
THAT 12.7 ACRES EQUATES TO 16.8 PERCENT WHICH EXCEEDS THE 15 PERCENT REQUIREMENT FOR PATIO HOME AND TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENTS.
IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE OUT THERE WAS SOME CONCERN THAT THERE WAS A DISCREPANCY IN THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE PROVIDED TO THE EAST AND THE WEST SO YOU CAN SAY NOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS SPREAD OUT THE OPEN SPACE ACROSS THE WHOLE DEVELOPMENT.
ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT PREVIOUSLY THE APPLICANT WAS PROPOSING TOWN HOME ELEVATIONS SIMILAR TO THOSE THAT HAD BEEN RECENTLY APPROVED IN DEVELOPMENTS LIKE PARK VISTA AND VILLAGE ON MAIN.
BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING NEWLY DESIGNED TOWN HOME ELEVATIONS, AS YOU CAN SEE HERE.
WE'LL JUST FLIP THROUGH A FEW OF THOSE.
THE APPLICANT IS IN ATTENDANCE TONIGHT AND IT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS NOTED IN THE STAFF REPORT, SUBJECT TO THE EXHIBIT-BASED STANDARDS IN THE ASSOCIATED EXHIBITS.
WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> I DON'T THEN I APPRECIATE IT AND THANKS FOR ALL YOUR WORK ON THIS.
I KNOW YOU TOOK FEEDBACK FROM US DURING THE WORK SESSION, DURING THE DAY WHEN WE TABLED IT.
FROM YOUR OPINION, ARE THERE ITEMS THAT WE HAD OPINIONS ON OUTSIDE OF THE ELEVATIONS? BECAUSE THEY WERE DIFFERING OPINIONS ON THE ELEVATIONS THAT ARE NOT IN WHAT WE HAVE IN FRONT OF US.
I SEE THE CURVILINEAR, OBVIOUSLY THE OPEN SPACE CHANGE.
I THINK THE BIG ITEM ON THE OPEN SPACE AS WELL AS WHEN YOU COME IN FROM THE EAST SIDE, YOU HAVE A VIEWPOINT, COMMISSIONER KELLY, YOU TALKED ABOUT THAT DURING THE WORK SESSION.
>> WHICH IS A VERY POSITIVE THING, YOU CAN SEE OPEN SPACE THROUGHOUT AS WELL.
>> YEAH, NO. I MEAN, FROM MY NOTES, IT ALL CAME DOWN TO THOSE ITEMS THAT ARE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
DENSITY. WHAT THAT DENSITY IS, THERE WAS A DESIRE TO SAY LARGER LOTS AND WHAT THAT MEAN WAS DISCUSSED AT THE WORK SESSION.
THEY HAVE GONE BACK AND TAKEN A LOOK AT THAT AND REDUCED THE OVERALL DENSITY.
BUT WHAT THAT EQUATES TO DO WAS A LOT MORE 55 SO THERE ARE A LOT MORE OF THE LARGER LOTS THAN PREVIOUSLY PROPOSED OPEN SPACE AS YOU JUST MENTIONED.
THEN LASTLY, CAN ONE OF THOSE HARDEST THINGS TO WRAP YOUR HEAD AROUND OR WHERE THE COMMISSION WAS MAYBE SPLIT AS WHETHER OR NOT THEY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IS A TOWN HOME DEVELOPMENT AND ULTIMATELY THE DIRECTION THAT HANDLE WIND WAS OKAY.
WE'RE GOING TO DO TOWN HOMES HERE.
BUT WHAT DOES THAT LOOK LIKE? WE WANT TO SEE SOMETHING DIFFERENT, SOMETHING THAT WE HAVEN'T SEEN IN OTHER DEVELOPMENTS.
THAT'S WHERE THE APPLICANT WENT BACK, WORKED WITH THEIR TEAM, AND PROPOSED ESSENTIALLY BRAND NEW ELEVATIONS THAT WE HAVE NOT APPROVED ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE CITY.
>> I DON'T HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS. COMMISSION.
>> I JUST LIKE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
EXHIBIT SEEK, COMPARISON EXHIBIT.
A GREAT PIECE OF WORK REALLY HELPS ME UNDERSTAND THE CHANGES AND THANK YOU FOR THAT.
THAT'S A REALLY GOOD PIECE OF WORK.
[00:35:03]
>> I'LL JUST ADD THAT. HOW MUCH YOU APPRECIATE THE DEVELOPER LISTING TO US, TAKEN IN THOSE RECOMMENDATIONS AND SUGGESTIONS AND WORKING WITH US TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING.
I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE PRETTY NICE, SO APPRECIATE THAT.
>> ONE COMMENT ON THAT. ONE RECOMMENDATION WE TALKED ABOUT THAT CAN'T BE TIED DOWN IN THIS RIGHT NOW, BUT JUST THE EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD, HOLLY HAWKE TO THE EAST.
WE HAD TALKED ABOUT JUST CONTINUING THE DESIGN THAT THEY HAVE ALONG ROCK HILL PARKWAY, THAT BASICALLY YOU GUYS WAS GOING TO BE A CONTINUATION OF THAT SO THE RESONANCE OF HOLLY HAWKE, AND THE OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS IN THE NORTH WHO FEEL LIKE IT FITS IN WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD THERE.
THAT THE SIDEWALKS AND TREES AND JUST THE LARGER LOTS ALL THE WAY AROUND THE OUTSIDE OF IT FITS IN BETTER WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD SO WE APPRECIATE THAT.
>> WOULD THE APPELLANT LIKE SPEAK? GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR WE GOOD TO MOVE AND PUBLIC HEARING? I HAVE A MOTION?
>> WHOSE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> COMMISSIONER KELLY AND I'M BACK AGAIN.
COMMISSIONER KONE, ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES 5,0. WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING.
IS THERE ANYONE HERE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING?
>> SEEING UNMOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE FROM YOU, COMMISSIONER KELLY.
>> COMMISSIONER MORGAN. GOOD TO SEE YOU.
>> SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> MOTION PASSES 5,0. COMMISSIONER, ANY FINAL QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS?
>> I JUST WANT TO SAY ONE OTHER TIME AND IT'S PROBABLY A REPEAT OF EVERYONE COMMENTS ALREADY.
BUT I FEEL LIKE THIS IS A TEXTBOOK CASE OF JUST REALLY GOOD PARTNERSHIP IN WORKING WITH STAFF AND SPENDING A LOT OF BEHIND THE SCENES TIME AND EFFORT INTO MAKING SOMETHING EXCELLENT AND RIGHT.
I KNOW A LOT OF TIMES WE SEE DEVELOPMENTS GO UP AND IT'S QUICK TO MAYBE COME INTO MY LIKE, OH, THERE'S ANOTHER THIS SO THERE'S ANOTHER THAT BUT TO KNOW THE HARD WORK AND TIME AND EFFORT IN JUST REALLY GOOD LISTENING SKILLS.
MAKING THIS TRULY SOMETHING SET APART AND VERY FORWARD THINKING AND TRYING TO FIND SOMETHING THAT'S A GOOD FIT FOR FRISCO IS JUST IT WAS GOOD TO WATCH AND VERY COMFORTING.
THANK YOU AGAIN FOR EVERYBODY'S HARD WORK IN THIS.
>> NOW, I WOULD JUST ADD JONATHAN, YOU MENTIONED, THERE WAS A STRUGGLE.
IS THIS A TOWN HOME COMMUNITY, WHAT IS IT? WITH THE SUBMISSION MONTH OR SO AGO, AS WE SAW IT, IT WAS NEITHER.
NOW IT'S SOMETHING MUCH BETTER.
THESE RESONANCE HAVE A NICE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE TO RELIEVE, TO GO SEE, MAKE A COMMUNITY AND THEY'VE GOT THIS BIG AREA, OF COURSE, TO THE SOUTH WHICH IS A NICE VIEW QUARTER AS WELL.
EXCITED TO SEE THIS BUILT AND COME ONLINE.
OBVIOUSLY, IN THAT PART OF FRISCO, WE'RE GOING TO SEE A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF GROWTH OVER THE NEXT COUPLE OF YEARS AND LOOK FORWARD TO SEEING THIS, COME FORWARD. ANY OTHER COMMENTS?
>> COUPLE COMMENTS BASED JUST ON SOME RESIDENT FEEDBACK FROM HOLLY HAWKE QUESTION JONATHAN, JUST TO REITERATE THE OUTSIDE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.
ALONG 423 AND ALONG ROCKY PARKWAY, THOSE ARE WHERE THE LARGER 55 FOOT LOTS ARE?
>> ALONG THE TWO MAJOR THOROUGHFARES?
>> OKAY. THANK YOU. THERE'S WANT TO GET THAT ON THE RECORD.
THE SECOND QUESTION I RECEIVED WAS, WHY THE TOWN HOME'S HERE? WE DID TALK AT THE WORK SESSION AND LAST TIME THAT A NUMBER OF PEOPLE FELT THAT HAVING MORE VARIETY INSIDE THE NEIGHBORHOOD JUSTIFIED HAVING SOME TOWN HOMES.
EVEN THOUGH THE AFRICAN SIGNIFICANTLY REDUCED THE NUMBER OF TOWN HOMES AND INCREASED THE LARGER LOTS STILL HAVING THAT THIRD TYPE OF CHOICE FOR THE PEOPLE MOVING INTO THE NEIGHBORHOOD.
THE LAST POINT HERE, JUST THAT TRAIL GOING DOWN THE EAST SIDE FROM ROCK HILL WILL SOMEDAY CONNECT TO THE RESONANCE OF HOLLY HAWKE AND THE RESONANCE TO THE NORTH OF ROCK HILL TO A VERY LARGE TRAIL NETWORK AND A LARGE PARK.
>> DOWN TO THE SOUTH AND SO THAT'S SOMETHING THE APPLICANT MADE SURE TO INCLUDE THAT CONNECTOR.
>> AS WE CONTINUE TO BUILD OUT THE TRAIL NETWORK IN THE CITY, IT'S ONLY BECOMING BETTER.
IT'S ACTUALLY REALLY NICE TO GO WALKING AND HIKING THROUGH THE CITY.
>> ONE MORE THING ON THAT, THE WESTSIDE ALSO THERE'S GOING TO BE EVENTUALLY A CONNECTOR OR THE TRAIL NETWORK WILL THEN CONNECT JONATHAN, I BELIEVE UNDER 423?
>> YES. I BELIEVE WE DISCUSSED THAT DURING THE WORK SESSION AND THAT EXACT LOCATION WAS BRIEFLY MENTIONED, YES.
>> WELL, WITH THAT, I HAVE A MOTION?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 20, SUBJECT TO THE EXHIBIT B STANDARD SUBMITTED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
>> I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER MORGAN?
>> SECOND COMMISSIONER COLBERT, ALL IN FAVOR?
>> OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES 5,0.
[21. Results of the December 7, 2021 City Council meeting.]
[00:40:02]
>> ITEM 21, RESULTS OF THE DECEMBER 7TH, 21, 2021 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.
I JUST WANT TO BRING UP ONE OR BOTH OF THEM HAVE TO DO WITH THE 380 OVERLAY DISTRICT.
I'M PUT JONATHAN IN CHARGE OF THE PROJECT ABOUT 18 MONTHS AGO.
HE'S DONE A PHENOMENAL JOB AND BRIAN CLOSURE TO THIS CASE SO THEY'LL CITY COUNCIL UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED THE OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS.
THAT'S A CHANGE TO THE ZONING ORDINATES AND THEN REZONING THE PROPERTIES ALONG 380 WITH EXCEPTION OF FIELDS.
THAT WAS APPROVED AND THE ORDINANCE SHOULD BE ADOPTED IN JANUARY.
THAT WAS DUE TO JONATHAN'S PROJECT MANAGEMENT SKILLS AND LEADERSHIP, YOU BROUGHT THAT PROJECT TO CONCLUSION.
>> NICE JOB IN THE MIDDLE OF 18,000 OTHER THINGS. [LAUGHTER]
[22. Schedule of future discussion items.]
>> ANY FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS?
>> LITTLE THANKS. I WANT TO MENTION PROMOTED JONATHAN TO PLANNING AND ZONING MANAGER.
>> WHO'S DONE THAT COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO.
THAT'S JONATHAN HAS RUN IN THE SHORT TIME AND HE'S BEEN HERE, I PROMOTED HIM JUST BECAUSE HE'S WELL FINE AND HE GETS PROJECTS DONE, HE'S A BEARER THOROUGH, FOLLOWS THROUGH AND VERY DEPENDABLE.
HE WAS PROMOTED AND THEN I'LL BE CREATING ANOTHER MANAGER FOR DEVELOPMENT REVIEW.
I WON'T BE FOCUSING ON THAT UNTIL THE FIRST OR SECOND QUARTER OF NEXT YEAR.
I DO WANT TO HAVE A WORK SESSION WITH THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION COVERING TWO TOPICS.
IT WILL EITHER BE THE SECOND MEETING IN JANUARY OR FEBRUARY.
THOSE TWO TOPICS I WANTED TO DISCUSS RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN THE COMMISSION AND STAFF, THAT'S ONE AND I'M GOING TO ELABORATE.
WE CAN TALK ONE ON ONE. THE SECOND.
AT THE LAST WORK SESSION, THERE WAS DISCUSSION ABOUT PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF FOURTH ARMY AND STONE BURKE.
THE ALPHABET WOULD LIKE TO APPEAR AND ANOTHER WORK SESSION TO DISCUSS FURTHER OR TO GET THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AND SO THOSE WOULD BE THE TWO ITEMS ON THAT WORK SESSION.
>> THANK YOU. IT'S JOHN, ANY OTHER ITEMS TO BRING UP TO STAFF FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION?
>> NO, THIS IS YOUR OWN MEETING, SO DECEMBER AND JULY LIVES THEY ONLY TIME TO HAVE ONE MEETING.
>> IF YOU WANT TO MEET UP HERE, I'M SURE WE'LL ALL MEET YOU.
>> [LAUGHTER]. WELL, THAT LEAVES US AS ONE THING.
>> OPPOSE? THE MOTION WAS KELLY.
[LAUGHTER] THE SECOND WAS MORGAN.
WE ARE ADJOURNED AT 7:14. THANK YOU.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.