I'M JOINING A MOTION. [00:00:02] HAVE A MOTION TO.. [CALL TO ORDER] RECONVENE. RECONVENE THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION. SO MOVED. COMMISSIONER COLBERG, SECOND FROM PETRAS. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FOUR-ZERO. LET THE RECORD SHOW THE COMMISSION MADE NO DECISIONS WHILE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION. SO BEFORE WE WENT INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION, WE HEARD FROM THE APPLICANT. I WOULD LIKE TO ASK THE COMMISSION. I'LL GO AHEAD AND ASK FIRST, ARE THERE QUESTIONS THAT YOU HAVE OF STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? JAKE. THE FIRST ONE'S FOR PHILIP. THE COMPARISON ON THE MAIN EVENT AND LA FITNESS. THOSE ARE BOTH ABOVE THE ROOFLINE BUT ARE KIND OF MIXED IN. CAN YOU EXPLAIN HOW THOSE ARE INTERPRETED AND HOW THEY ARE DIFFERENT FROM THIS REQUEST? YES. SIGNS ARE ALLOWED TO STICK ABOVE A ROOF, A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE, AND BE COUNTED AS THE WALL BELOW AND IN THESE TOO. I DON'T THINK THAT WAS THE CASE IN THESE TWO. I BELIEVE THESE TWO WERE INTERPRETED JUST TO BE PART OF THE WALL BELOW ALTOGETHER INTERPRETED BY STAFF YET. ALL I HAVE. THANK YOU. YOU HAD A QUESTION ON. MAYBE THIS IS FOR PHILIP, NUMBER FOUR. THIS IS ON THE FOUR CRITERIA. IT SAYS THE SPECIAL EXEMPTION SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVES THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE AND DOES NOT VIOLATE THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE. PHILIP, CAN YOU ELABORATE ON THE STAFF COMMENT ABOUT WHERE IT SAYS THE SIGN IS ONLY VISIBLE FROM 22% OF THE ROADS FRONTING THE PROPERTY AND ONLY 10% OF THE ELEVATED TOLLWAY. CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT THAT MEANS? SO MY INTENT THERE WAS JUST TO REFERENCE THEIR MAIN POINT THAT IT WAS TO ACHIEVE GREATER TO MAXIMIZE VISIBILITY FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY, WHICH INDEED IN THEIR PETITION THEY ALSO SAID THAT, HEY, YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO MAXIMIZE IT BECAUSE THERE'S BUILDINGS HERE. IT WAS JUST TO POINT OUT TO YOU THE FACTS OF EXACTLY WHAT MY SURVEY REVEALED AS TO WHERE YOU COULD SEE THINGS FROM. AND IT'S VERY MINIMAL TO BEGIN WITH. SO THAT WAS MY ONLY POINT IN THAT. WELL, CAN YOU JUST, I GUESS, RESTATE WHAT THAT MEANS, THAT ONLY 10% OF THE ELEVATED TOLLWAY. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] SO I DROVE THE TOLLWAY GOING FROM SOUTH TO NORTH AND COULD NOT SEE THE SIGN AT ALL. IT WAS BLOCKED BY THE MEDIAN BARRICADE. I DROVE THE TOLLWAY FROM THE NORTH TO THE SOUTH AND YOU COULD ONLY SEE IT WHENEVER IT POPPED OUT BETWEEN THE MARRIOTT BEING CONSTRUCTED THERE IN THE ADJACENT BUILDING FOR A SMALL AMOUNT OF TIME WHEN ON THE ELEVATED TOLLWAY SECTION. OKAY. SO YOU'RE SAYING THAT MOST OF THE TIME THAT YOU'RE UP THERE ON THE ELEVATED TOLLWAY, YOU CAN'T EVEN SEE THE SIGN REGARDLESS OF THE SIZE. [CONSENT AGENDA] I COULD NOT SEE THE TOWER. COULD NOT SEE THE TOWER? YEAH. THE SIGN IS NOT THERE YET, SO I COULDN'T SPEAK TO THE SIGN ITSELF, BUT AT THAT TIME I COULD NOT SEE THE TOWER. PERSONALLY DRIVING, OR WAS SOMEBODY RIDING WITH YOU? IS THAT A SAFETY QUESTION? HOPEFULLY LOSS PREVENTION IS LISTENING. NO, I WAS BY MYSELF AND I DON'T DRIVE A FOUR BY FOUR TRUCK, SO I DRIVE A SMALL CAR. SO I WAS LOW. BUT IT WAS IT IS A VEHICLE ON THE ROADWAY. I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. AS YOU SAW IN THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF ADVISED THAT THEY DO NOT BELIEVE QUALIFICATIONS THREE AND FOUR ARE MET. YOU MADE SOME COMMENTS. I DIDN'T GET THEM DIRECTLY. WHY YOU BELIEVE THREE AND FOUR ARE MET JUST AS YOU MEAN. YOU MEAN READ WHAT THOSE ARE OR DO YOU KNOW? I KNOW WHAT THEY ARE. FROM A STANDPOINT OF THERE'S NO SPECIAL EXCEPTION. [23. Conveyance Plat: Frisco Medical Pavilion II, Block A, Lot 1 (CP22-0018)] WE HAVE TWO LARGE BUILDINGS IN FRONT OF US AND MAKE US NON VISIBLE. SO WE DO THINK THAT THERE IS A A PHYSICAL FEATURE THAT PREVENTS US FROM BEING SEEN. SO WE WOULD THINK WE COMPLY FROM THAT STANDPOINT THEN RESPECTFULLY TO FILL UP. I'VE KNOWN PHILLIP SINCE I WAS GOOD LOOKING, SO I REALLY DON'T WANT TO IMPEDE HIS WHAT HE SAID HERE. BUT WE PURPOSELY, AFTER SEEING THE REPORT, WE LITERALLY PUT A DRONE OUT TO SEE WHAT WAS THE ELEVATIONS LIKE AND TOOK PICTURES AND YOU HAVE THAT EXHIBIT IN FRONT OF YOU. SO WE WANTED TO SEE WHETHER THERE WAS VALIDITY OR NOT TO THE STATEMENT. AND SO WHAT WE DID THERE IS TO SHOW THAT IT'S A MUCH LARGER LINE OF SIGHT THAN IS THERE. SO WE DO THINK THAT THAT LINE OF SIGHT IS PRESENT. AND WE THINK THAT THE NUMBER FOUR IS ABOUT PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE. WELL, THE ISSUE IS, ONCE YOU CAN SEE US, YOU'RE GOING TO BE ABLE TO UTILIZE MORE DRIVES TO GET INTO THE TO THE CENTER. ANY TIME YOU HAVE MORE ACCESS, YOU DON'T HAVE AS HEAVY OF A TRAFFIC IMPACT TO ONE DRIVEWAY. [00:05:06] AND THAT'S WHERE OUR CONCERN COMES IN. WE HAVE WE HAVE ONE MAIN DRIVEWAY OFF OF MAIN. AND IF WE AREN'T UTILIZING THE OTHER DRIVEWAYS, WE'RE GOING TO CAUSE ISSUES ON MAIN STREET WHERE THERE'S NO QUESTION. SO WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE UTILIZE THE OTHER DRIVEWAYS WHEREVER POSSIBLE SO THEIR INTEREST IS OFF OF LEGACY ALSO. ON THE THERE'S THERE'S THIS OFF OF LEGACY. THERE'S ALSO ENTRANCES OFF OF THE DNT, THE FRONTAGE ROAD. OFF THE FRONTAGE ROAD THAT GO THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. YES, CORRECT. WE WANT TO USE ALL OF THEM BECAUSE WE KNOW WHAT OUR TRAFFIC CONDITIONS ARE LIKE ON A SATURDAY. AND I'M NOT TALKING ABOUT GRAND OPENING. I'M TALKING ABOUT ON SATURDAY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. YES, SIR. I APPRECIATE IT. I DIDN'T SEE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF THE COMMISSION. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. SO CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. I HAVE A MOTION FROM CONE. SECOND FROM PETRAS. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FOUR-ZERO. WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING AND I DID HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING CARD. IS IT ROSE? YEAH. THAT WAS FROM YOU. CORRECT. OKAY. THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WHO'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE, MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE FROM OREGON. SECOND, SECOND FROM COLBERG. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FOUR-ZERO. THE COMMISSION WE HAVE IN THE STAFF REPORT, IT'S CLEAR THAT WE NEED TO GAUGE THE EFFICACY OF THE REQUEST AND OUR APPROVAL OR DENIAL BASED ON FOUR CHARACTERISTICS THAT ARE STRAIGHT FROM THE SIGNING ORDINANCE. STAFF HAS STATED IT MEETS TWO OF THE FOUR. I THINK THE APPLICANT HAS MADE A CASE, AS I HEARD, THAT THAT OBVIOUSLY HE AGREES WITH THE TWO, BUT THAT THREE IS, THEY BELIEVE THREE THE TOPOGRAPHY AND SHAPE BECAUSE IT'S SITUATED BEHIND TWO BUILDINGS. [24. Open Space Plan & Site Plan: Preston Main Village, Block A, Lot 4 (OS22-0052 & SP22-0083)] THAT'S JUST THE LOCATION, IN MY OPINION. THAT'S THE LOCATION WHERE WHERE THE PROPERTY IS AND A CHOICE OF THE APPLICANT. WE'RE VERY EXCITED THAT HEB IS MOVING INTO THIS PROPERTY AND MOVING INTO THE CITY. BUT THIS IS THE THE LOCATION THAT THEY CHOSE. AND THE ORDINANCE HAS NOT CHANGED SINCE THEY ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED IN PHILIP, CAN YOU CONFIRM THAT AS THE ORDINANCE CHANGED IN THE AMOUNT OF PERCENTAGE OF WALL AND OTHER ITEMS THAT THAT REQUIRE THIS TO COME TO US FOR EXCEPTION? IT ACTUALLY HAS IT HAS INCREASED MARGINALLY. WHAT CAN YOU SAY IT AGAIN, WHAT HAS CHANGED? THE AMOUNT, THE WIDTH HAS INCREASED MARGINALLY. SO PRIOR TO THAT, THE SIGN WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO BE SMALLER. THEY WOULD HAVE ONLY BEEN ALLOWED 50% INSTEAD OF 57%. GREAT. THANK YOU. SO CORRECT MY STATEMENT, BUT WE'VE ACTUALLY BECOME MORE, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU DEFINE LIBERAL AND CONSERVATIVE THERE WITH WITH THE REQUIREMENT. I ASK ONE QUESTION TO PHILIP REALLY QUICK. SORRY, I DIDN'T ASK THIS EARLIER. I UNDERSTAND THIS. WHAT WE'RE SEEING IS THE VIEW FACING THE TOLLWAY, THIS TOWER FACING LEGACY WITH THERE BE SIGNAGE AND THE LETTERS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE AS WELL. OR IS THIS JUST ONE SIDE? THIS IS THE ONLY SIGN REQUEST WE'VE HAD IS ON THIS ONE EAST FACING SIDE. THANK YOU. AND THEN NUMBER FOUR WAS LET ME. [25. Public Hearing - Replat: Gateway Church, Block A, Lot 1 (RP22-0020)] GIVE ME A SECOND, IF YOU WOULD. NUMBER FOUR WAS AROUND PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE. AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT'S CASE IS THAT THERE'S POTENTIAL FOR A LARGE AMOUNT OF TRAFFIC. AND BY ADDING THIS SIGNAGE, THERE IS ADDITIONAL IDENTIFICATION THAT THE BUSINESS IS LOCATED HERE, WHICH WOULD POTENTIALLY OPEN UP AN ADDITIONAL ROUTE INTO THE PROPERTY. THEREBY THEREBY PUBLIC SAFETY, I THINK WAS WHEN ONE TERM THE APPLICANT MENTIONED AS WELL AS JUST ABILITY TO TO ACCESS APPROPRIATELY. I DON'T HAVE A VOTE. I ACTUALLY I COULD HAVE A VOTE IF THERE WAS A TIE. BUT I'M I'M TORN ON THIS. I'D LIKE TO JUST GET SOME FEEDBACK ON WHERE OTHER COMMISSIONERS THOUGHTS ARE GIVEN, GIVEN THE PARAMETERS OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE THAT WE HAVE. YOU GO? YES. I SPENT A LOT OF TIME LOOKING AT THIS, DROVE THE TOLLWAY AND KIND OF MY MY BIGGEST TAKEAWAY IS I FEEL LIKE THE ORDINANCE IS PENALIZING THE USER'S PREFERRED LOCATION OF THE SIGN BECAUSE THEY'VE MADE AN ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENT TO THE BUILDING. AND SO WHEN I INTERPRET THESE FOUR CRITERIA. [00:10:02] I DON'T COUNT IT OUT. IF THEY WERE TO PUT A SIGN AND I CREATED AN EXHIBIT, IF THEY WERE TO PUT THE SIGN AT THE NORMAL LEVEL, THAT THEY WOULD BE ALLOWED A WIDTH OF 172 FEET. THEN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT. AND THEY'RE TRYING TO BE MORE APPROPRIATE, BE MORE CONSERVATIVE, HAVE A SIGN THAT IS VISIBLE FROM THE TOLLWAY, WHICH I, I RESPECT AND ADMIRE. AND THE ARCHITECTURAL ENHANCEMENT IS ALMOST FITTING, IN MY OPINION, TO BE THIS SIZE SIGN. AND SO WHEN, WHEN I INTERPRET THE FOURTH ITEM OF THE ORDINANCE, I DO THINK IT SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVES PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE FROM AN ACCESS STANDPOINT, ALLOWING VISIBILITY FOR MULTIPLE SAFE INGRESS AND EGRESS TO THE SITE FROM MULTIPLE [26. Public Hearing - Replat: LDC Clearview Addition, Block A, Lots 3R & 5 (RP22-0021)] POINTS. AND I DON'T THINK IN ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM IT VIOLATES THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE, BECAUSE IF THEIR INTENT WAS TO JUST GET AS BIG OF A SIGN AS THEY WANT, THEY WOULD GO AND BUILD 172 FOOT GAUDY MONSTROSITY ON THE SIDE OF THE BUILDING. SO I FULLY SUPPORT THIS THIS REQUEST. WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT A SIGNIFICANT AND I THINK THEY MADE THREE OF THE FOUR CRITERIAS THAT I'D LIKE TO RESERVE THE RIGHT TO MAKE A MOTION. SO YOUR COMMENT IS YOU BELIEVE THEY'VE MET NUMBER FOUR? YES, SIR. COMMISSIONER CONE. YES, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR PHILIP. THE REASON SO THE HEIGHT RESTRICTION, JUST TO CLARIFY THIS IS IN THE PACKET, BUT JUST TO RESTATE WHAT'S IN THERE, THE REASON THAT THE LETTERS ARE RESTRICTED IN HEIGHT TO AROUND FOUR FOOT SOMETHING IS BECAUSE OF THE WIDTH OF THE THE TOWER. AND IF THE TOWER WERE WIDER, THEN THE SAW THE LETTERS GET PROGRESSIVELY TALLER AS THE TOWER GETS WIDER. IS THAT CORRECT? STATEMENT. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SO. SO I BELIEVE STAFF HAS MENTIONED THAT IT'S 57%. SO IF IF THE SIZE OF THE WALL IS BIGGER, 57% WOULD BE BIGGER. YES, THAT'S YOUR QUESTION. THAT'S MY QUESTION. JUST CONFIRMING. SO IS IT. SO I'M JUST GOING TO SAY YES, BASED ON MATH. YES. OKAY. IF I'M UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY. SO WHAT'S YOUR QUESTION REGARDING THAT? THERE'S THE INTENT OF THE SIGN ORDINANCE IN PHILIP IS NOT TO KEEP THEM FROM BEING A SIX FOOT SIX SIGN ON A BUILDING THERE. THE PROBLEM IS MATH THAT BECAUSE OF THE WAY WE CALCULATE THE MATH, THE SIX FOOT SIX SIGN IS NOT ALLOWED BECAUSE THE TOWER IS NOT WIDE ENOUGH TO ACCOMMODATE THAT SIZE OF A SIGN. IS THAT A FAIR WAY TO DESCRIBE IT? THE WAY I EXPLAIN IT USUALLY IS THAT THE MATH IS THERE TO MAKE THE SIGN SCALE WITH THE BUILDING. THE SIGN SCALE WITH THE BUILDING. NOW I UNDERSTAND THAT OK. I THINK WE RUN INTO THIS ISSUE A LOT WITH THE SIGN ORDINANCE BECAUSE WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THIS, WE HAVE A REASON. WE HAVE SIGNED ORDINANCE FOR A REASON. WE'RE TRYING TO KEEP THE CITY LOOKING A CERTAIN WAY. AND THERE'S A LOT OF TIMES WHERE DEVELOPERS AND BUILDERS TRY TO DO SOMETHING THAT CREATES A SIGN THAT A LOT OF CITIES WISH THEY DIDN'T HAVE IN THEIR CITIES AND THAT WE WERE TRYING TO PREVENT. I DO WORRY WHENEVER THE SIGN ORDINANCE GETS IN THE WAY OF OF COMMUNICATING OR DOING SOMETHING THAT WOULD BE BETTER FOR THE CITY. SO ON THE SPECIFIC CRITERIA, I DO AGREE WITH STAFF'S ASSESSMENT ON NUMBERS ONE AND TWO. [27. Public Hearing - Replat: Hall Park, Phase C3, Block A, Lot 4R; Phase C4, Block A, Lot 1; Phase D, Block A, Lots 2, 3, & 5 (RP22-0022)] I DO CONCUR WITH THAT. ON NUMBER THREE, I DO FEEL LIKE IT'S UNUSUAL TO HAVE THIS SIZE OF A STORE, THIS SIZE OF A OF A OF A BUILDING THAT'S DESIGNED TO BE WHAT NORMALLY A LOT OF TIMES IS IMMEDIATELY ADJACENT UP AGAINST A TOLLWAY. TO HAVE THIS BUILDING BE THAT FAR SET BACK JUST BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT WAS AVAILABLE AND THAT'S THE NATURE OF THE SITE, WE WANT LARGE MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS LIKE THIS WHERE THERE'S A LOT OF DIFFERENT THINGS GOING ON IN THERE. IF IT WASN'T, IF H-E-B WAS UP AGAINST THE TOLL WAY CLOSER, I COULD SEE ANOTHER BUILDING BEING BACK ON THIS PORTION OF IT, HAVING A SIMILAR CHALLENGE OF TRYING TO BE SEEN THAT FAR AWAY FROM THE TOLLWAY. SO I DO FEEL LIKE TOPOGRAPHY, DISTANCE, PHYSICAL, PHYSICAL DISTANCE FROM THE TOLLWAY PLAYS INTO THIS AND CREATES A PROBLEM FOR THE WHOEVER, WHETHER IT'S H-E-B OR ANYONE ELSE. WHOEVER'S BUILDING THERE I THINK WOULD BE FACING THE SAME PROBLEM. I APPRECIATE WHAT PHILLIP DID AS FAR AS HOW, YOU KNOW, HOW MUCH OF THE DRIVE TIME YOU CAN ACTUALLY SEE THE SIGN, PARTIALLY BECAUSE I PAY ATTENTION TO THAT MYSELF ALL THE TIME. [00:15:03] I CAN'T DRIVE UP ON THE TOLLWAY WITHOUT THINKING ABOUT WHAT YOU CAN SEE AND CAN'T SEE AND WHAT SIGNS YOU CAN READ AND CAN'T READ CAN AND CAN'T READ EVEN IF ONLY 10% OF THE TIME THAT YOU'RE UP THERE. I DO THINK THAT IS QUICK ENOUGH FOR SOMEONE FROM OUTSIDE THE AREA DRIVING BY TO GET A GLIMPSE AND TO BE ABLE TO SAY, HEY, THAT'S THE THAT'S WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR, EVEN IF IT'S REALLY QUICK. I DO THINK THAT IF IT WAS 0% OF THE TIME, IF THERE WAS A WALL THERE AND YOU'RE LIKE, YOU CAN'T SEE IT AT ALL NO MATTER WHAT. [28. Public Hearing - Replat: PARK 25, Block C, Lot 4 (RP22-0024)] THAT WOULD BE DIFFERENT. BUT EVEN 10% OF THE TIME TO ME IS MEANINGFUL TO SOMEONE DRIVING BY IN THE AREA. SO I GUESS THAT PLAYS IN SO ON NUMBER THREE, GOING BACK TO NUMBER THREE, I DO THINK THAT THE SITE MATTERS. I THINK THE PHYSICAL LOCATION MATTERS AND DOES RESTRICT WHOEVER IS BUILDING A BIG BOX OVER THERE. THEY DO HAVE A CHALLENGE TO BE SEEN FROM THE TOLLWAY. SO I WOULD SAY THAT I COULD ARGUE AND DO THINK THE NUMBER THREE THAT IT DOES MEET THE CRITERIA FOR NUMBER THREE. AND IF I NEED TO STATE THAT ANY CLEARER OR NOT, BUT JUST TO KEEP FROM SAYING IT OVER OVER AGAIN, NUMBER FOUR, I DO THINK IT WOULD BE IN THE PUBLIC INTEREST FOR PEOPLE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE SIGN FROM THE TOLLWAY. AND I DO THINK IT IMPROVES THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE BY MAKING THE SIGN MORE VISIBLE FROM THE TOLLWAY. SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT JUST TO SEE WHERE ONE ELSE IS AT. SO QUESTION TO YOU ON NUMBER THREE. YES. IS THERE ANYTHING DIFFERENT AND UNIQUE ABOUT THIS PROPERTY THAN WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT OR WHEN THEY, SORRY I DON'T KNOW WHEN THEY BOUGHT IT, WHEN THEY DECIDED TO CONSTRUCT AN H-E-B ON THIS PROPERTY IN YOUR OPINION? NO, NO. I THINK THAT THEY BOUGHT IT KNOWING THAT THEY WOULD BE THAT FAR BACK. THIS REMINDS ME OF SOME OTHER CASES WE'VE HAD WHERE WE ALLOW TO SIGN ORDINANCE BECAUSE A BUILDING, I THINK CARRINGTON'S THE ONE THAT COMES COMES TO MIND. AND I DRIVE PAST ALL THE TIME THAT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T SIT IMMEDIATELY ON THE ROAD, IT PHYSICALLY SITS BACK FROM THE MAIN DRIVE ROAD GOING PAST IT. WE THOUGHT IT WAS APPROPRIATE THAT PEOPLE BE ABLE TO SEE THAT SIGN FROM THE THE MAJOR ROAD THAT PEOPLE ARE DRIVING BY ON. [29. Public Hearing - Replat: Victory at Stonebriar Addition, Block A, Lot 6 (RP22-0026)] ON FOLLOWING WITH THAT, THOUGH, I GUESS THERE WAS SOME QUESTION ABOUT WHY THE APPLICANT DIDN'T FIGURE OUT SOONER THAT THEY COULDN'T BUILD A SIX FOOT SIX SIGN THERE. WHY THIS DIDN'T COME UP SOONER IN THE PROCESS? I DON'T KNOW. I THINK THE APPLICANT SAID THEY DIDN'T KNOW. I DON'T THINK THAT'S A FAIR QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT OR OUR CITY STANDARDS ACTUALLY HAVE BECOME 50 TO 57% SINCE THEN. SO THAT'S A POSITIVE FOR THEM. YEAH. SO I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS DIDN'T COME GET DISCOVERED EARLIER. I GUESS WHERE COULD HAVE BEEN SOLVED IN A DIFFERENT WAY EARLIER. COMMISSIONER MORGAN. SO MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE ISSUE IS NOT THAT THEY. WELL, THE VISIBILITY OF SEEING THE TOWER ITSELF, IT'S THE LIMITED PERSPECTIVE OF, I GUESS, THE VIEWPOINTS OR PERSPECTIVES. IF I CAN SEE THE TOWER, THE QUESTION IS I WANT BIGGER LETTERS ON THE TOWER. BUT IF I CAN SEE THE TOWER, I CAN SEE THE TOWER. SO IF OUR SIGN ORDINANCE IS, IF DEFINED THE SIZE OF THE LETTERS, BASED ON THE SIZE OF THE WALL AND THE SIZE OF THE WALL IS WHAT IT IS. I DON'T SEE A UNIQUENESS HERE. THE RESTRICTED AREA IS NOT GOING TO BE IMPROVED BASED ON THE SIGN SIZE OF THE LETTERS. THE RESTRICTED AREA IS THE RESTRICTED AREA. BASED ON WHERE I'M STANDING. SO IF MY LETTERS ARE FOUR FEET TALLER THAN THEY SHOULD BE, IF I'M STANDING OVER HERE, I'M STILL NOT GOING TO SEE THE LETTERS. IF I'M STANDING HERE, I CAN SEE THE LETTERS. SO TO ME, THAT DOESN'T THAT DOESN'T SATISFY THE THE NEED. I'LL PROBABLY STAY IN LINE WITH THE SUGGESTION OF STAFF. [30. Public Hearing - Replat: Frisco Multi-Event Center Addition, Block B, Lots 2 & 4 (RP22-0028)] [31. Site Plan: Frisco Multi-Event Center Addition, Block B, Lot 2 (SP22-0090)] I DON'T SEE WHERE MAKING THE LETTERS BIGGER IS GOING TO CHANGE. THE VISIBILITY. THE VISIBILITY, ALL THE ALL THE ISSUES I'VE HEARD AND SEEN WITH VISIBILITY IS BASED ON WHERE I'M AT, NOT NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE, NOT THAT IT'S NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE THE LETTERS. AS FAR AS PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE FOR FOOT LETTERS IS NOT GOING TO SOLVE A PUBLIC CONVENIENCE OR WELFARE THING, IN MY OPINION. SO I'M JUST GOING TO SUPPORT STAFF ON THEIR RECOMMENDATION ON THIS ONE. COLBERG, ANYTHING TO ADD FOR QUESTIONS? NO, I WOULD LOVE JUST VISUALLY. WE WERE SITTING ON THE SLIDE. PHILIP, IF YOU DON'T MIND HELPING US, THAT WAS THE PROPOSED VISUAL AND THAT WAS WHAT WE WERE LOOKING AT FOR A WHILE. CAN WE GO TO THE ONE THAT WOULD BE THE APPROVED VISUAL, SEEING THE MAIN EVENT AND LA FITNESS ALL IN PERSPECTIVE [00:20:04] TO HOW EVERYTHING FITS. I THINK THIS IS THE ONE HERE. POSSIBLY IT'S GHOSTED ON MOST OF THE AREAS, BUT IT'S HIGHLIGHTED. I CAN'T HEAR YOU. SO SORRY. I THINK THIS IS THE ONE ON THE BELOW HERE. YOU SEE THE LA FITNESS. REST OF THE PICTURE IS GHOSTED, BUT THE TOWER IS HIGHLIGHTED. TOWER, LA FITNESS, MAIN EVENT. I THOUGHT THERE WAS ONE MORE. I'M SORRY. THERE WAS LIKE A SLIDE THAT WAS SITTING HERE IS KIND OF LIKE A HOME SCREEN FOR A WHILE AND WE WERE KIND OF GETTING USED TO VISUALLY SEEING THE LARGER LETTERS. YES. BUT THEN ISN'T THERE A SLIDE WHERE THIS IS IN COMPARISON TO WHAT THEY WOULD LOOK LIKE AS AS APPROVED ALLOWED. RIGHT. THIS. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT'S WHAT I NEEDED. I APPRECIATE THAT. YEAH. I'M HAVING A HARD TIME WITH THIS BECAUSE I ALWAYS END UP FINDING MYSELF, RESPECTING NOT ONLY STAFF, RESPECTING OUR ORDINANCES AS IS, AND ALWAYS KNOWING THAT FRISCO DOES AN EXCELLENT JOB MAKING SURE THAT WE DO THINGS SET APART AND DO THINGS RIGHT. I WILL TELL YOU, AND THIS IS GOING TO BE JUST VERY OPINIONATED AND I APPRECIATE EVERYTHING THAT COMMISSIONER CONE SAID BECAUSE I AGREE WITH A LOT OF THE POINTS HE SAID. BUT VISUALLY, TO ME AS A FEMALE, I DESIGN I. THIS LOOKS SMALL AND HARD TO SEE AND IT SEEMS TO FIT WELL WITH THE PROPOSED PROPOSAL FROM THE APPLICANT. SO, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WE'VE HAD THINGS BEFORE US BEFORE THAT SEEMED KIND OF A TRUCE OR THINGS THAT DIDN'T SEEM LIKE THEY FIT. AND WE HEARD CASES AND WE WERE TRYING TO WORK THROUGH IT. AND THIS SEEMS TO FIT WITH THE PROPOSAL, AND I'M JUST HAVING A HARD TIME SAYING NO. AND AT THE SAME TIME, I UNDERSTAND AND RESPECT THE CITY. AND SO I'M JUST I'M REALLY TORN RIGHT NOW. THAT'S WHERE I AM. SO, SO ON THREE AND FOUR, DO YOU HAVE ANYTHING YOU WANT TO ADD TO YOUR COMMENT OR IF NOT, THAT'S FINE. NO, I AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER CONE SAID IN THAT I FEEL THAT THERE IS A UNIQUE RESTRICTION IN THAT WE DO HAVE SPECIFICALLY A BIG BOX RETAILER THAT HAS TO BE SO SET BACK FROM THE TOLLWAY AS WELL AS WITH OTHER BIG BUSINESSES IN FRONT OF IT. SO I DO THINK THAT'S A CHALLENGE. I UNDERSTAND ALSO YOUR POINT IN THAT THE BUSINESS KNOWS WHAT THEY'RE GETTING INTO WHEN THEY BUY THIS SPOT. AND SO THAT AGAIN IS WHERE I SEE THE CHALLENGE AND IMMEDIATELY GOING, OH YES, WE IT'S NOT UNIQUE, BUT I ALSO SEE THE BIG PICTURE OF HOW IT FITS AND HOW IT DOES SEEM TO MATCH THE SURROUNDING AREA, TO HAVE THE LARGER PROPOSED LETTERS TO BE ABLE TO BE SEEN FROM THE TOLLWAY, TO KNOW THAT IT JUST SEEMS TO WORK WITH THE AREA. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GETTING A LITTLE STUCK. THAT. SO I MAY OR MAY NOT GET A VOTE THIS EVENING. AS I MENTIONED A MOMENT, I'M I'M A LITTLE STUCK. BUT AS I READ THROUGH NUMBER THREE AND FOUR AND I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH STAFF AND WITH COMMISSIONER MORGAN AND THAT I'M NOT SURE THERE'S A DIFFERENCE IF YOUR VIEW CORRIDOR IS X, Y IS X, IF THE SIGN IS FOUR FEET OR SIX FEET, WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE DIFFERENCE IF YOU ONLY HAVE A LIMITED VIEW CORRIDOR? AND HOW DOES THAT IMPACT THE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE? SO I'M COMMISSIONER MORGAN. I AGREE WITH WITH WHAT YOU HAD SAID THAT I DON'T THINK IT QUALIFIES AS THIS. I WILL TELL YOU FROM A VISUAL PERSPECTIVE, IT'S TOO BIG, IN MY OPINION. AS PROPOSED, IT TAKES UP TOO MUCH OF THE WALL. AND THAT'S WHY WE HAVE A RESTRICTION IN OUR ORDINANCE AT 57%. BUT HE SAID, I MAY OR MAY NOT GET A VOTE. CAN I GET ON TO WHENEVER YOU'RE DONE, ADD ANOTHER COMMENT. YES. COMMISSIONER PETRAS HAD RESERVED TO MAKE A MOTION. SO I DO WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE TO YOU, OKAY. COMMISSIONER PETRAS, YOU OK IF I MAKE ANOTHER COMMENT? I YIELD. OKAY. THANK YOU. SO I AGREE WITH WHAT COMMISSIONER THE COMMISSIONER SAID ABOUT THE VIEW CORRIDOR TO THE TOWER ITSELF IS LIMITED. BUT I DIDN'T MENTION EARLIER. I GUESS I TOOK IT THE OTHER WAY THAT BECAUSE THE TIME THAT YOU SEE THE TOWER IS LIMITED, THE SMALLER SIZE LETTERS AND THE LIMITED TIMES THAT YOU SEE, THE TOWER TO ME GO HAND IN HAND IN A NEGATIVE WAY. AND THAT THE LARGER LETTERS GO BETTER WITH THE LIMITED TIME AS YOU'RE DRIVING BY AND YOU HAVE A LIMITED VIEW OF THE TOWER. THE LARGER LETTERS DO CATCH, DO CATCH MY EYE MORE. I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER COLBERG BRINGING UP THIS SIGN. THIS IS THE IMAGE THAT KIND OF CONVINCED ME THE MOST. AND I THINK I'M HAVING THE BIGGEST PROBLEM WITH THE GAP BETWEEN THE 57% AND MAYBE GOING ALL THE WAY UP TO WHAT THE LETTER'S BEING REALLY BIG. [00:25:08] AND I WANTED TO KNOW IF THE IF WE COULD TALK ABOUT SOMEWHERE IN BETWEEN THE, SAY, FOUR FOOT AND SIX FOOT OR FOUR FOOT SOMETHING IN SIX FOOT SOMETHING. IS THAT AN OPTION? COMMISSIONER CONE I DON'T THINK THAT'S AN OPTION IN PURVIEW BASED ON THE ORDINANCE OR OUR APPROVAL THAT THE CITY COUNCIL HAS PROVIDED US. AN ORDINANCE IS NOT TO NEGOTIATE SIZE. IT'S JUST A YES OR NO. OKAY. SO MY FINAL COMMENT IS I DO THINK THAT WE PUT BOX, WE PUT OUR BOX, WE PUT STAFF IN A REALLY TOUGH SPOT. AND THIS ALWAYS COMES UP WITH SILENCES WHERE WE ASK PHILLIP TO MAKE A REALLY TOUGH JUDGMENT CALL AND WE ASK STAFF AND IT'S NOT ALWAYS A CLEAR CUT 100%. [32. Public Hearing - Replat & Conveyance Plat: Prosper High School #2 Addition, Block A, Lot 1 & Prosper Middle School No. 5 Addition, Block A, Lots 1, 2, & 3 (RP22-0029)] AND WE JUST ASK THEM, YOU'VE GOT TO. IF IT'S 60/40 SPLIT, YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE A DECISION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER. SO I DON'T THINK THAT CHANGING SAYING THAT WE DISAGREE WITH THEIR FINAL DECISION ON THE FOUR POINTS IS GOING AGAINST STAFF. THEY WERE PUT IN A TOUGH SPOT TO BEGIN WITH AND THEY SAID, OKAY, 60, 40 OR 55, 45, IT SPLITS THIS WAY. AND I CAN SAY, WELL, I THINK IT SPLITS THE OTHER WAY SLIGHTLY ENOUGH TO SAY THAT I THINK IT MEETS CRITERIA THREE AND FOUR, EVEN IF IT JUST BARELY DOES. SIR OK. IN THE COMMENTS OR COMMISSIONER PETRAS I WILL HONOR YOUR REQUEST TO HOLD FOR A MOTION. RECLAIM MY TIME, THANK YOU. I'LL MAKE ONE BRIEF COMMENT. I DO DRIVE A REALLY BIG TRUCK AND SPEND SOME TIME GOING UP AND DOWN THE TOLLWAY. AND I HAD A MUCH LONGER VIEW CORRIDOR OF THE TOWER. THAT'S MY THAT'S MY PERCEPTION. SO JUST JUST A SLIGHT DISAGREEMENT. BUT I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE SAME VARIANCE ITEM NUMBER 434 AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. YOU WILL NEED TO CALL OUT LIKE WHAT STEVE COHN MENTIONED ABOUT DO YOU WANT TO CHANGE? ONE OF THOSE THAT YOU'RE FINDING IS TO MODIFY IN ORDER TO MEET THREE OUT OF THE FOUR. OKAY. SO I IN MY MOTION, I HAVE TO DEFINE WHICH ONE OR DO I HAVE TO SAY THAT I DISAGREE WITH STAFF AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT? YOU KNOW, I HAVE TO SAY YOU DISAGREE WITH STAFF, BUT WE FEEL NUMBER THREE LIKE WHAT STEVE IS. YEAH, YOU CAN SAY I BELIEVE IT MEETS THREE OF THE FOUR BECAUSE NUMBER FOUR, I'M INTERPRETING AS BLAH, BLAH, BLAH. AND MY MOTION IS I'M OF TO APPROVE SOME VARIANCE. ITEM NUMBER 34 IS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT BECAUSE I BELIEVE THE FOURTH. IS IT THE THIRD ONE OR THE FOURTH ONE? THE FOURTH ONE, I BELIEVE THE APPLICANT MEETS THE FOURTH SIGN VARIANCE CRITERIA. GIVING THEM THREE OUT OF THE FOUR. HAVE A MOTION TO.. LET ME ASK THIS. I'M SORRY FOR INTERJECTING MYSELF, BUT STEVE, YOU AGREED WITH BOTH. WELL, YOU SAID SO. YOU MENTIONED FOUR. OKAY, THAT'S YOUR MOTION. THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE TABLE. THAT'S RIGHT. SO SO THE MOTION ON THE TABLE IS THAT THREE OF THE FOUR QUALIFIED BEING ONE, TWO AND FOUR TO APPROVE. [33. Public Hearing - Specific Use Permit: Lexington Parks, Phases 8, 11, & 13 (SUP22-0001)] CAN I HAVE A SECOND? HAVING NO SECOND, THE MOTION JUST FAIL. I WILL ENTERTAIN ANOTHER EMOTION.. BEFORE THAT. CAN I ASK A QUESTION? SINCE IT ALL HINGES ON THE FOUR CRITERIA ITEMS, NUMBER THREE AND FOUR, I DON'T THINK OUR CLEAR CUT BLACK AND WHITE, AND THAT'S WHY STAFF IS IN SUCH A TOUGH POSITION. AND I THINK THAT'S WHERE WE ALL GET HUNG UP. CAN I JUST ASK THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS ON THREE AND FOUR, DOES ANYONE AGREE WITH WITH SAYING YES TO BOTH NUMBER THREE AND YES TO NUMBER FOUR? OR DO YOU FEEL MORE STRONGLY ABOUT THREE OR MORE STRONGLY ABOUT FOUR? I GUESS THAT'S REALLY WHERE THIS ALL HINGES, IS WHICH ONES ARE MORE COMPELLING. I PERSONALLY THINK THAT THREE AND FOUR PASS THE 50% THRESHOLD FOR ME AND THAT'S THE ONLY WAS I DID NOT. SECOND, THE MOTION IS THAT I WOULD PREFER A MOTION THAT SAYS THAT IT MEETS ALL FOUR OF THE CRITERIA, BUT I WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT BEFORE THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS SPEAK UP ABOUT HOW THEY INTERPRET THREE AND FOUR. I THINK WE'RE PUTTING A PRECARIOUS POSITION WITH THAT MOTION FAILING. SO RIGHT NOW, STEVE, YOU CAN MAKE A MOTION AND STATE YOUR REASON AND AND THEN THEN IF SOMEBODY LIKES IT, THEIR SECOND HINT AND TAKE A VOTE ON IT, I'D RATHER NOT TAKE HAND COUNTS. I'D RATHER TAKE A MOTION. SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM AS RECOMMENDED. I'M SORRY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE ITEM STATING THAT OF THE FOUR CRITERIA, I AGREE WITH STAFF'S ASSESSMENT THAT IT MEETS CRITERIA ONE AND CRITERIA TWO, AND I BELIEVE THAT THE REQUEST MEETS CRITERIA NUMBER THREE, AND THAT THERE IS A PHYSICAL [00:30:08] GEOGRAPHIC TOPIC OF TOPOGRAPHICAL PROBLEM CHALLENGE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY. AND I BELIEVE THAT THE REQUEST MEETS ITEM NUMBER FOUR, THAT THIS WOULD SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE AND WELFARE BY MAKING THE ACTUAL SIGN MORE VISIBLE MORE OFTEN FOR WHEN PEOPLE CAN SEE IT. A MOTION TO APPROVE BASED ON THE OPINION THAT IT MEETS ALL FOUR. I HAVE A SECOND FROM PIETRUS. ALL IN FAVOR. HI. HI. HI. OPPOSED. A MOTION PASSES 3 TO 1. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. AND SO I JUST WANT. SO, BRIAN, AS YOU STATED DURING THE PUBLIC COMMENT, NOTE THAT THAT'S THE REASON FOR OPPOSITION, AS YOU STATED. AND STEVE, IF STAFF DOES NEED SOME ASSISTANCE WITH DOCUMENTING WHAT YOUR DECISION WAS, IF YOU COULD PLEASE HELP STAFF OVER THE NEXT WEEK. ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. APPLICANT STAFF AS WELL AS COMMISSIONER. I WANT TO THANK YOU FOR THE DISCUSSION ON THAT ON THAT CASE. AND JUST FYI, I JUST IT WAS SEVERAL COMMISSIONERS AGO THAT THEY ASKED, WELL, WHY DO WE HAVE THESE PARTICULAR GUIDELINES? I SAID, WELL, THAT'S WHAT'S BEEN APPROVED. AND SO WE WANT SOMETHING DIFFERENT. SO I'LL PUT IT ON TO THEM. AND AFTER ABOUT SEVERAL MONTHS AGO, THESE WILL LOOK PRETTY GOOD. YEAH, BUT I DO WANT TO CALL OUT UP FOR A TREMENDOUS AMOUNT OF WORK TO GO BACK AND, AND REVISE OUR SIGN ORDINANCE. AND WE'RE OVER THE PAST IT WAS WITHIN THE PAST YEAR WHERE IT WAS APPROVED, WASN'T IT? EARLIER THIS YEAR, WAS IT? OKAY. SO THANK YOU. APPRECIATE THAT.. AND WELCOME HEB. WE'RE EXCITED TO HAVE YOU. ITEM 35, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING. 165 FRISCO TOLLWAY IS Z22-0014, OWNERS 165 FRISCO TOLLWAY PARTNERSHIP LIMITED. THANK YOU BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT AS A REQUEST TO RAISE THEM THE PROPERTY SHOWN HERE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO HIGHWAY. THE HIGHWAY DISTRICT ACCOMMODATES A VARIETY OF OFFICE, RETAIL AND SERVICE USES FOR THE PURPOSE OF CREATING A HIGH QUALITY MIXTURE OF LAND USES. SO IF YOU READ THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HIGHWAY DISTRICT, IT SPECIFICALLY SPEAKS TO STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND US 380. HOWEVER, FOR THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY HAS GIVEN THE SAME DESIGNATION OF HIGHWAY, THAT BEING HIGHWAY TOLLWAY AS STATE HIGHWAY 121 AND US 380. SO BECAUSE OF THAT, HIGHWAY ZONING IS APPROPRIATE FOR THIS PROPERTY DUE TO ITS LOCATION ALONG THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY. IN ADDITION TO THAT, THE REQUEST IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE NON RESIDENTIAL ZONING OF THE PROPERTIES TO THE NORTHEAST AND SOUTH, AS WELL AS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OF COMMERCIAL NODE. THIS REQUEST IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THIS EVENING AS HIGHWAY AND WITH THAT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. IT'S JUST CLARIFICATION. YOU'D MENTIONED THE IS APPROPRIATE FOR THE LAND BEING ALONG THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY. CORRECT HIGHWAY ZONING IS APPROPRIATE. HIGHWAY ZONING IS A APPROPRIATE ZONING DISTRICT ALONG THE TOLLWAY. ARE ANY OF THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES ZONED AS HIGHWAY? NO. YOU HAVE RETAIL AND COMMERCIAL ONE TO THE NORTH, INDUSTRIAL AND COMMERCIAL ONE TO THE EAST AND COMMERCIAL ONE AND OFFICE TWO TO THE SOUTH. SO ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? AT THIS POINT. IF NOT, IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WOULD THEY LIKE TO SPEAK THIS EVENING? OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THE RECORDS SHOW THAT MR. NEWMAN SAID HE'S FINE THIS EVENING. NOT WILLING, NOT SORRY, WRONG WORD. NOT NEEDING TO SPEAK THIS EVENING. HE'S AVAILABLE. BETTER WORD, JIM. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. HAVE A MOTION, COMMISSIONER CONE, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER PETRAS. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FOUR-ZERO. WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE I'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? TWO OF YOU HERE? IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY. SEEING NONE. MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE FROM COLBERG. A SECOND FROM PETRAS, ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FOUR-ZERO. SO I WOULD LIKE TO PROVIDE SOME COMMENT. I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE BROADNESS OF HIGHWAY ZONING COMPARED TO WHAT'S ZONED THERE TODAY IN AGRICULTURE. [00:35:08] I WENT THROUGH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, SECTION 3.02, THE USE CHART AND HIGHLIGHTED ALL OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN ON NONRESIDENTIAL USES. ALL THE DIFFERENCES OF CONCERN BETWEEN WHAT IS ZONED NOW AS AGRICULTURE AND WHAT IS ZONED NOW AS HIGHWAY. I APPRECIATE THE COMMENT AND AGREE THIS IS A THIS IS POTENTIALLY APPROPRIATE ZONING BECAUSE IT'S ALONG THE HIGHWAY AND WE DO HAVE OTHER HIGHWAY ZONING, AS YOU MENTIONED, AS WELL. BUT AS I LOOK AT THE USE CHART, THE WAY I SEE IT IS THIS WOULD OPEN UP THE OPPORTUNITY WITH RIGHT. THAT A AUTOMOBILE PART SALE OUTSIDE. SORRY, [INAUDIBLE] THAT, AUTOMOBILE PAVED PARKING LOT OR GARAGE WOULD GO IN THIS PART ON A VEHICLE PARKING LOT OR GARAGE. AUTOMOBILE REPAIR, MAJOR OR MINOR, AUTOMOBILE SALES USED, NEW, AUTOMOBILE STORAGE. IT ALSO STATES ALL THE WAY. BIG BOX RETAIL BY RIGHT FORWARDING OR SORRY THAT WOULD REQUIRE A AFTER COMPLYING WITH CONDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS, BUT OTHER ITEMS OF CONCERN POTENTIAL COMMERCIAL, AMUSEMENT, INDOOR OR OUTDOOR. IT'S NOT BIG ENOUGH FOR DISNEY. IT'S STILL NOT COMING. CONVENIENCE STORE WITH OR WITHOUT GAS PUMPS, ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING PLANTS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S RIGHT. HOLD ON. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I SAY THAT RIGHT. THAT IS INCORRECT. EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY, SALES AND RENTAL, MAJOR OR MINOR. A FLEA MARKET INSIDE. A SMALL ENGINE REPAIR SHOP, TRAILER RENTAL TRANSIT CENTER. HEAVY TRUCK SALES. POTENTIAL WITH CONDITIONAL APPROVAL FOR URBAN LIVING. OUTSIDE STORAGE AND DISPLAY A PRINT SHOP. MAJOR AND MINOR. A RECYCLING CENTER. A RECYCLING COLLECTION. THE POINT. I'M REALLY CONCERNED ABOUT THE POTENTIAL RIGHTS THAT THIS WOULD GRANT THE EXCUSE ME THIS WOULD GRANT THE APPLICANT IF APPROVED, THIS WOULD, THAT WOULD NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC APPROVAL OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. I DO HAVE A QUESTION OF THE APPLICANT. WELL, BEFORE YOU DO THAT, I JUST WANT TO BRING UP A FEW POINTS THAT YOU CALL OUT. PLEASE. YOU'VE GOT A TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT APPLIES TO THE PROPERTY THAT PRECLUDES THOSE USES WITHIN 750 FEET OF THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THAT'S IN PLACE. AND SO LET'S SAY, COULD YOU GET A CAR DEALERSHIP ON FRISCO STREET? WELL, COULD. BUT ARE THEY GOING TO LOCATE THERE? THEY WANT TO BE WHERE IT'S HIGHLY VISIBLE. SO THERE ARE SOME USES THAT'S JUST NOT GOING TO MAKE SENSE. YOU GET SOMEBODY THAT WANTS TO DO, LET'S SAY, OUTSIDE STORAGE. WE GOT OTHER ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO MEET. BUT THE ONE THING HERE IS THE VALUE OF LAND IN FRISCO IS GOING TO PRECLUDE A LOT OF THOSE USES. SO THE QUESTION MAY COME UP, WELL, WHY DON'T WE JUST TAKE THEM OUT OF THE USE CHART? WE CAN'T. WE HAVE TO PROVIDE WHERE THEY CAN GO. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, THERE ARE CERTAIN FACTORS BEYOND THE CITY CONTROL THAT'S GOING TO KIND OF REGULATE WHAT DOES GO IN AND WHAT DOESN'T. SO I JUST WANT TO MENTION THAT. SO CAN YOU EXPAND THE TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT? WOULD NOT ALLOW WHAT WITHIN [INAUDIBLE] ONE IS CAR DEALERSHIPS. I DON'T THINK THAT'S AH PERMISSIBLE, BUT I DON'T HAVE THAT RIGHT IN FRONT OF ME TO STATE WHAT THAT IS. BUT YOU DO HAVE THAT AND IN PLACE. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING IS THE OVERLAY DISTRICT SUPERSEDES. OH YEAH. THIS IS NOW THE ONLY WAY TO DO GO DO DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT CALLS OUT AS YOU'RE DOING A SPECIFIC ZONING AND YOU CALL IT THAT OUT SPECIFICALLY. BUT IF A STRAIGHT ZONING THAT OVERLAY DISTRICT IS IN PLACE, THAT TAKES PRECEDENT, IT REMAINS IN FORCE. AND JUST LIKE WHEN YOU BROUGHT UP CONVENIENCE STORES, GAS PUMPS, WELL, YOU GOT TO BE AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION. NONE OF THIS IS AT A MAJOR INTERSECTION. SO THAT PRECLUDES THAT USE. BUT THIS PROPERTY. CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS PROPERTY DOES HAVE SOME CHALLENGES. FROM A EASEMENT PERSPECTIVE, THEY'VE GOT HIGH POWER TRANSMISSION LINES. YOU DO HAVE FLOOD PLAIN ON THE PROPERTY. AND I'LL LET YOU KNOW THAT WE'RE HAVING DISCUSSIONS WITH MR. NEWMAN ABOUT EXTENDING THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, BUT THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH ZONING, NO QUID PRO QUO. BUT THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT DEVELOPMENT ALONG COTTONWOOD CREEK. [00:40:02] WE HAVE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS IN BOTH THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE TO ADDRESS THAT. WE HAVE THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS THAT'S IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE THAT ANY TIME DEVELOPMENT OCCURS. WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO MEET THE OPEN SPACE. AND IF THEY WOULD DO SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAT'S MAYBE LESS, THEN THAT WILL BE COMING BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WHERE YOU HAVE FULL AUTHORITY TO VOTE IT UP OR DOWN. SO WE'VE GOT A LOT OF STANDARDS IN PLACE TO REGULATE, BUT THERE'S PORTIONS OF THIS IN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE EASEMENTS AND IT DOES LIMIT THE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIAL ON THE PROPERTY. BUT, THE REQUEST AT IN FRONT OF US TO CHANGE FROM AGRICULTURAL TO HIGHWAY DOES SIGNIFICANTLY INCREASE THE OPTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. IS THAT? WOULD YOU AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT? OKAY. HOW ABOUT TAKE IT TO RETAIL? TAKE IT OFFICE TOO. YES, IT CHANGES IT BECAUSE THE AG IS JUST LIMITED TO FARMLAND AND RESIDENTIAL. YEAH. AND I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM A FEW OF THOSE THINGS THAT JOHN HAD MENTIONED. THE PROPERTY IS IN THE TOTAL OVERLAY DISTRICT, SO SOME OF THE USES, FOR EXAMPLE, AUTOMOBILE SALES USED OR NEW LOTS ALLOWED IN HIGHWAY, IT'S PROHIBITED IN THE TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. SAME THING FOR LIKE BUILDING MATERIAL SALES OR THAT THAT'S MAJOR OR MINOR. WHILE IT MIGHT BE ALLOWED IN HIGHWAY. IT'S PROHIBITED IN THE TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT. SO FELLOW. COMMISSIONER COLBERG. I ALREADY DID. I WAS MAKING SURE. IT'S SO LONG AGO NOW. WHEN YOU BROUGHT UP YOUR POINTS. AND I APPRECIATE YOU DOING ALL THAT RESEARCH, BUT I WAS TOTALLY WITH YOU ON THE CONCERNS. I'M REALLY GLAD THAT YOU BROUGHT THAT UP. AND THEN HEARING JONATHAN TALK ABOUT THE TOLLWAY OVERLAY DISTRICT, I'M NOT CONCERNED ANYMORE. SO. MY ONLY QUESTION WAS PROBABLY FOR THE APPLICANT. I WAS A BIT CONFUSED ON THE THE CONFLICTED NATURE OF EXECUTING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND [34. Public Hearing - Sign Variance: Frisco Market Center, Block A, Lot 16 (V22-0007)] CONFLICTING WITH YOUR WORKING PARTNERSHIP AGREEMENT. IS THIS AN APPROPRIATE QUESTION FOR YOU? IS THAT IN SCOPE OF OUR ZONING DECISION? YOU KNOW, JAKE CAN ASK THE QUESTION AND THEN HE CAN RESPOND. BUT. I'M JUST CURIOUS. IT'S NOT MOVING THE NEEDLE FOR ME. I'M JUST CURIOUS. I'LL JUST MENTION, LIKE, ON SUCH AN AGREEMENT. THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COUNCIL ACTS ON, BUT I JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. I'M MORE THAN WILLING TO DISCUSS THIS IN CLOSED SESSION, IF THAT WOULD BE YOUR DESIRE. I TEND TO AGREE WE WON'T BE ABLE TO DISCUSS THIS IN CLOSED SESSION SO YOU CAN STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD. JIM NEWMAN 9801 CAMPHILL, FRISCO, TEXAS 75034. THIS IS A PARTNERSHIP THAT WE'VE BEEN ENGAGED IN FOR A COUPLE OF DECADES. WE TAKE THE LONG VIEW IN FRISCO. THIS PROPERTY IS NOW BECOMING APPROPRIATE FOR A HIGH END TYPE DEVELOPMENT. WE'RE BEGINNING TO GET INQUIRIES FOR QUALITY DEVELOPMENTS. I UNDERSTAND YOUR LAUNDRY LIST THERE, WHICH IS NOT PART OF MY LAUNDRY LIST AT ALL, BUT WE NEED TO BE ABLE TO SAY THIS PROPERTY CAN BE USED FOR THIS OR THAT IN ORDER TO MARKET IT AND CREATE A USE PLAN FOR IT. SO, YOU KNOW, WE'VE TRIED TO ACCOMMODATE EVERYTHING THE CITY HAS ASKED US TO DO AS FAR AS THE REQUIRED USE IS THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND USE PLAN. AND WE'VE CHECKED ALL THE BOXES AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL AND WE WOULD THOROUGHLY ENJOY TO BE ABLE TO TAKE THIS PROPERTY TO ITS NEXT LEVEL. ANYTHING I'VE BEEN INVOLVED IN, WHETHER IT WOULD BE THE RAILHEAD OR WHETHER IT BE NEWMAN VILLAGE OR OTHER PROJECTS, I'VE WORKED AROUND FRISCO, I THINK YOU CAN SEE THAT I'M NOT TRYING TO COMPROMISE ON ANY DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT ARE OUT THERE, BUT THIS IS THE EASIEST PATH TO MOVE FORWARD. THANK YOU. WHILE YOU'RE UP, MR. NEWMAN, CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION. IS THERE A DIFFERENT ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT WOULD ALLOW YOU TO BE ABLE TO MARKET THIS PROPERTY? BECAUSE WHILE I CAN SPEAK FOR MYSELF, I HIGHLY RESPECT YOU AND THE WORK YOU'VE DONE IN THE CITY. SO THANK YOU. AND YOU AND I HAVE MET ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS. I'M CONCERNED IF THIS WOULD FALL INTO DIFFERENT HANDS. [00:45:03] THE ZONING GOES WITH IT, AS YOU KNOW. IS THERE IS ANY OTHER ZONING CLASSIFICATION THAT COULD WORK ON THIS PROPERTY FOR WHAT YOU'RE WANTING OR WHAT YOU'RE VISUALIZING TO BE ABLE TO MARKET AS. LET ME INTERJECT MYSELF ON THAT ONE. WE DID HAVE PRIOR DISCUSSION AND I RECOMMENDED THEY SEEK HIGHWAY ZONING ON THE PROPERTY FROM WHAT THEY WANT TO DO. REFUSED TO ANSWER OR NOT. JOHN IS EXACTLY CORRECT THERE. THIS ZONING DOES ALLOW US TO HAVE OFFICE, WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE. IT ALLOWS US TO HAVE MULTIPLE RESTAURANTS, WHICH WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE. IT ALLOWS US TO HAVE RETAIL AND THE FLEXIBILITY, MAYBE EVEN SOME OTHER STRUCTURES. BUT THIS IS THE MOST FLEXIBLE ZONING THAT WOULD BRING THE POTENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY TO ITS HIGHEST AND BEST USE. I DO WANT TO REITERATE THAT IF THIS WAS NOT ALONG THE DNT, WE WOULD NOT BE RECOMMENDING IT OR 380 OR 121, IT WOULD HAVE TO BE ALONG ONE OF THOSE THREE CORRIDORS. NOW, THE CONCERNS THAT I'VE HEARD TONIGHT ARE BASED ON THE WRONG SET OF CRITERIA. THE CRITERIA NEED TO BE THE DNT OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE HIGHWAY ZONING GIVES THE MOST FLEXIBILITY WITHIN DNT THE TOLLWAY DISTRICT OVERLAY DISTRICT. SO I THINK THAT'S THE CRITERIA THAT WE WOULD WANT TO MEASURE THIS AGAINST AND. I DON'T SEE AN ISSUE THERE. I THINK COMMISSIONER MORGAN'S CORRECT ABOUT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT, JONATHAN. IS THERE A WAY TO KIND OF EYEBALL AND TELL US WHICH PORTION OF THE OF THIS PROPERTY WOULD BE COVERED UNDER THE OVERLAY, SHALL WE SAY, 750 FEET? 750 CAN FROM THE PROPERTY LINE, NOT FROM THE CENTER LINE LIKE IT IS ON PRESTON ROAD. THE REASON BEING THE TOLLWAY HAS MORE RIGHT OF WAY THE CRESCENT ROAD. WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT ANOTHER PART OF THE PROPERTY WOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE OVERLAY DISTRICT AND COULD POTENTIALLY BE DEVELOPED UNDER ANY ITEM WITHIN THE HIGHWAY ZONING ALLOWED. YOU START, GIVEN ALL THE OTHER CONSTRAINTS THAT WOULD APPLY TO THAT, GIVEN OUR GIVEN OUR CITY ORDINANCES, ETC.. SO YOU'RE LOOKING ALMOST DOWN THE MIDDLE. OKAY. THAT HELPS, BUT THAT DOES CLARIFY, CHAIRMAN BOX, THAT YOUR CONCERNS APPLY TO THE, SAY, THE EASTERN PORTION ROUGHLY OF THE PROPERTY ALONG FRISCO STREET. AND THOSE DOES APPLY THERE. IF I MAKE JUST A COUPLE OF QUICK COMMENTS, I DO AGREE. I APPRECIATE CHAIRMAN BOX. I DID THE EXACT SAME THING YOU DID. I LOOK THROUGH LINE BY LINE THE ENTIRE HIGHWAY ZONING THING. I DO AGREE THAT WE SHOULD ALWAYS BE CAUTIOUS ANYTIME WE GO FROM AG TO STRAIGHT ZONING. I THINK THERE'S ALWAYS RISK INVOLVED WITH THAT. I THINK ANY TIME AN ISSUE COMES UP TODAY, A LOT OF TIMES WE POINT BACK TO A STRAIGHT ZONING DECISION MADE TEN, 20, 30 YEARS AGO. AND SO THAT IS ALWAYS MY CONCERN, IS THAT TEN YEARS FROM NOW, THERE'S DIFFERENT PEOPLE ON P AND Z AND THERE'S DIFFERENT LANDOWNERS, AND SOMEONE COMES FORWARD AND PRESENTS SOMETHING THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD. AND THAT'S YOUR BOTTOM LINE CONCERN HERE IS THAT THEY HAVE A RIGHT TO BUILD IT. AND THE STAFF AT THE TIME SAYS, YOU KNOW, THIS MAY NOT BE WHAT FRISCO WANTS HERE. THIS MAY NOT BE THE HIGHEST AND BEST USE. BUT WE SOMEONE IN THE PAST GAVE THE RIGHT TO DO THIS. SO I AGREE. I AGREE WITH THAT CONCERN. THAT SAID, THEN THE QUESTION IS, ARE THERE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES? ARE THE THINGS THAT JUSTIFY IT THAT CAN GIVE US SOME LEVEL OF COMFORT BECAUSE THERE'S ALWAYS RISK GOING STRAIGHT ZONING. I THINK THE HAVING THE OVERLAY DISTRICT COVERING THE SAY ROUGHLY THE WESTERN HALF DOES GIVE ME A LOT OF COMFORT AND A LOT LESS RISK FOR THE SITE. I DO THINK JUST THE LOCATION OF THIS SITE DOES MAKE IT VERY UNLIKELY THAT A LOT OF THE USES THAT MAYBE WE WOULDN'T WANT TO SEE HERE THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED BY RIGHT OR UNLIKELY TO HAPPEN GIVEN THE UNIQUENESS OF THE CREEK CORRIDOR INTERSECTING WITH THE OVERHEAD UTILITY CORRIDOR CREATES A VERY SPECIAL GEOGRAPHIC PLACE THAT SOMETHING SPECIAL COULD BE DONE THERE. SO TO ME, THOSE ARE MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES THAT LEAN TOWARDS TAKING THE RISK OF DOING STRAIGHT ZONING AND THAT MOST LIKELY IT WILL TURN OUT FOR THE BEST LONG RUN. THAT'S ONE QUESTION, JONATHAN. I KNOW BUT ONE OF THE RIGHTS AND IT'S A BLUE RIGHT SO ITS USE IS PERMITTED IN THE DISTRICT INDICATED IF THE USE COMPLIES WITH CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS OR LIMITATIONS AND THE CORRESPONDING NUMERIC IN NOTE REFERRING TO URBAN LIVING INTEGRATED WITH THE HOTEL LAND USE AND THE END NOTE IS 43. [00:50:02] DO YOU HAVE THE ORDINANCE WITH YOU? CAN YOU [INAUDIBLE] WHAT 43 IS? THAT'S WHERE THEY HAVE TO COME IN AND GET A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT APPROVED. THAT'S RIGHT. ONLY ONE WE HAD DOWN WAS DOWN IN WADE PARK. SO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO SAY NO. YES, YES. THANK YOU. AND THEN SORT OF GIVE. SUPPORTED. GOOD. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION. PLEASE. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 35 AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. SECOND. A MOTION FROM COLBERG, A SECOND FROM PETRAS. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FOUR-ZERO. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS, FOR THE CONVERSATION. AND THANK YOU, CHAIRMAN BOX, FOR LEADING ON THE CONCERNS. I THINK WE SHOULD ALWAYS TAKE THESE REQUESTS SERIOUSLY. AS YOU POINTED OUT, ITEM 36 RESULTS OF THE JULY 5TH CITY COUNCIL MEETING. JOHN, INFORMATION IS IN THE PACKET. THAT'S RIGHT. ANY QUESTIONS? SCHEDULE A FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS. SO LET ME SAY FOR NEXT MONTH I GET BETTER DIRECTION ON HOW THE BUDGET IS GOING. AND AS I MENTIONED, SOME OF YOU, I'M LOOKING TO PROBABLY DO JOINT BETWEEN THE DOWNTOWN ADVISORY BOARD AND PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION TO TOUR SOME DOWNTOWNS IN NORTHWEST ARKANSAS LIKE ROGERS, FAYETTEVILLE, BENTONVILLE AND SOME OTHERS SINCE THEY'RE WITHIN AN AREA SO THAT PROBABLY A THREE DAY TWO NIGHTER AND SO LOOKING AT SOME TIME IN APRIL WHERE THE WEATHER IS IS BETTER BETTER.. NOT 110. THAT'S RIGHT. SO THAT'S ONE THING I ALWAYS TRY TO DO ON TOURS IS PICK A GOOD TIME. AND SO IT'S HIT OR MISS, BUT WE'RE SITTING UP AND TALKING TO DIFFERENT CITIES AND SEE ABOUT IT. SO SINCE I'M DOING THIS FOR THE BOARD, I THOUGHT IT'D BE GOOD TO HAVE THE COMMISSION ALONG TOO, SO. GREAT IDEA. APPRECIATE THAT. JOHN, YOU SEND SOME GOOD READING FOR US AS A COMMISSION OR IS THERE ANY READING ON SOME OF THESE CITIES THAT WE COULD READ BEFORE THAT? I KNOW BENTONVILLE SO YOU KNOW WHAT? BUT THIS IS ABOUT LOOKING AT DOWNTOWNS. I KNOW LIKE FAYETTEVILLE BEING A LITTLE OFF TOPIC, BUT, YOU KNOW, THEY GOT RID OF THEIR PARKING MINIMUMS. I DON'T AGREE WITH THAT. NOW THEY'RE A COLLEGE TOWN, SO IT'S A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT. SO ALL I SAY IS YOU HEAR ABOUT OTHER CITIES DOING X. OKAY, YOU GOT TO LOOK AT THE THE BIG PICTURE BECAUSE IF YOU COPY THEM, WELL, YOU MAY NOT HAVE THE SAME CONDITIONS. WE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC TRANSIT. IT'S MAINLY THE CAR, SO I'LL LEAVE IT AT THAT. SO THE OTHER ITEMS, FUTURE DISCUSSION, I'D LIKE TO BE BROUGHT UP. IF NOT THAT, LEAVE US WITH ONE THING. I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. NOTES FROM PERMISSION. MORGAN. SECOND FROM COLBERT. ALL IN FAVOR. AYE. OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FOUR-ZERO. ADJOURNED AT 8:34. THANK YOU. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.