Nov 21, 2022 Frisco - Planning and Zoning Commission

NEED A MOTION FOR THE WORK SESSION.

ANY OPPOSE.

MOTION PASSED FIVE ZERO.

YEAH. AND LIKE, AS DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR THE WORK SESSION? I'LL MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE WORK SESSION ON THE ON NOVEMBER 8TH.

A MOTION BY ED.

SECOND. SECOND BY BRIAN.

I HAVE AN ISSUE. ALL RIGHT, WE'VE GOT AN ISSUE.

AND ITEM NUMBER ONE AT THE VERY BOTTOM.

AND WHEN I SECOND MOTION, THEY SPELLED MY NAME WRONG, SO IF THEY CAN JUST CORRECT THAT.

OKAY. LET THAT BE NOTED TO CORRECT SEAN MERRILL'S NAME.

REVISE THE MOTION TO APPROVE THE MINUTES WITH THE CORRECT SPELLING OF SEAN'S NAME.

I HAVE A SECOND. FIRST BY ED, SECOND, SECOND BY BRIAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE MOTION PASSES? FIVE ZERO. NOW BACK TO WAR.

NOW, NOW I'M BACK ON QUEUE.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NON CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS AND COMMISSIONER COMMISSION MEMBERS MAKING SUCH REQUESTS PRIOR TO A MOTION AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT ITEMS MAY CONSIDER ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY AND MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MAY DO SO WITH THE MAJORITY APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.

WE HAVE ITEMS FOUR THROUGH 22 OF THIS EVENING.

ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? IF NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS FOUR THROUGH 22 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AS SUBMITTED.

I'VE GOT A MOTION BY BRIAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY PETE OR JAKE.

THAT'S A NEW NAME.

LAST NIGHT IT WAS PETER.

YOU GUYS, WE JUST STICK WITH JAKE.

SECOND BY JAKE. ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.

[23. Conveyance Plat: Panther Creek East, Block A, Lots 1-3 (CP22-0035)]

TONIGHT WE HAVE THREE ITEMS. TWO WITH A PUBLIC HEARING ON THE AGENDA.

AND I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS.

EACH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS PERCEIVED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTS.

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 AND PROVIDE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.

IF THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE, 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 5 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.

TO ENSURE EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK, THE COMMISSION MEMBERS CAN VOTE TO LIMIT TIME.

IF A LARGE VOLUME OF PEOPLE ARE WISHING TO SPEAK, PLEASE NOTE THAT 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.

THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE CASE IS TABLED TO A FURTHER DATE.

AND THE COMMISSION INCLUDES IT IN THEIR MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A FURTHER MEETING.

AFTER CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT.

PLEASE NOTE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ONLY MAKE A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING CASES UNLESS THE COMMISSION DENIES THE CASE AND THE APPLICANT DOES NOT APPEAL TO DIAL FINAL ACTION REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BY CITY COUNCIL.

YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT YOUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AS TO WHEN THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL.

WITH THAT, WE WILL DIVE INTO ITEM 23 CONVEYANCE PLAN.

PANTHER CREEK ESTATE BLOCK A LOTS ONE THROUGH 3CP TO 2-0035 OWNERS R.

S PANTHER HILL INVESTMENTS LLC, PANTHER VILLAGE INVESTMENTS LLC AND HILLCREST HEIGHTS, LLC.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

THIS PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 26, 2022, AND THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION AT THE OCTOBER 25TH MEETING. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND FOUND THAT IT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH CITY ZONING ORDINANCES, ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND OR OTHER APPLICABLE CITY CODES. AS A RESULT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DISAPPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST FOR THE REASONS NOTED IN YOUR STAFF

[00:10:02]

REPORT. THANK YOU.

AT THIS TIME, ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO. IF THERE ARE NO QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, DO I HAVE A MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM 23 FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL.

I HAVE A MOTION BY BRIAN.

SO AGAIN, SECOND BY ED.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO OR MOTION 23 IS DENIED.

[24. Public Hearing - Replat: Frisco Public Library, Lots 1 & 2 (RP22-0045)]

PUBLIC HEARING THIS IS ITEM 24 PUBLIC HEARING RE PLAT FRISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY LOTS ONE AND TWO RP 22-0045. OWNERS FRISCO COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS.

THE ITEM BEFORE YOU IS ONE MUNICIPAL USE OPERATED BY THE CITY ON TWO LOTS ON 31.3 PLUS OR MINUS ACRES ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DALLAS PARKWAY AND COTTON GIN ROAD.

ZONED INDUSTRIAL AND NEIGHBORHOOD NUMBER 21.

THIS ITEM MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE.

I HAVE A MOTION TO REMOVE ITEM 24 FROM THE TABLE.

SO MOVED. A MOTION BY BRIAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY ED, ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE.

THIS ITEM IS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE.

THANK YOU. THE PROJECT WAS SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER TEN, 2022 THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION, CONTINUED THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TABLED THIS ITEM AT THE NOVEMBER 8TH, 2022 MEETING BY A VOTE OF 6 TO 0.

THE APPLICANT REQUESTS TO WITHDRAW THIS CASE.

THE STAFF RECOMMENDS THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVE THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL.

ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? GO AHEAD. SO MOVE.

MOTION BY ED, SECOND BY JAKE, EXCUSE ME.

ALL IN FAVOR.

ANY OPPOSE.

WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING.

WOULD ANYONE LIKE TO COME BEFORE SEEING NONE? I MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION BY BRIAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY SHAWN.

ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

WITH THAT, ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? JUST ONE COMMENT.

I HAD SOMEONE REACH OUT TO ME AND THEY THOUGHT BECAUSE THIS WAS BEING REMOVED, THEY GO, OH, IS THAT ARE THEY NOT GOING TO HAVE THE FRISCO PUBLIC LIBRARY? THAT IS NOT THE CASE.

WE WILL STILL HAVE OUR CURRENT LIBRARY.

IT WILL BE CLOSED, I THINK, DECEMBER 9TH AND REOPEN LIKE FEBRUARY 7TH, SOMEWHERE IN THAT BALLPARK.

THAT'S ABOUT RIGHT. THAT'S I THINK I'M EXACT, BUT I MOVE IT.

ALL RIGHT. SO PLEASE OUT THERE, IF YOU'RE LISTENING, I'D LIKE TO MOVE ON ITEM 24 TO ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S REQUEST FOR REMOVAL FOR REMOVING OF THE CASE.

MOTION BY ED. SECOND BY JAKE.

ANY OPPOSE MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.

THIS ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED.

[25. Public Hearing - Replat: Shawnee Trail Church of Christ, Block A, Lot 1 (RP22-0046)]

ITEM 25, PUBLIC HEARING REPLAT SHAWNEE TRAILS CHURCH OF CHRIST BLOCK A, LOT ONE RP 22-0046, OWNERS SHAWNEE TRAIL CHURCH OF CHRIST INCORPORATED.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS.

THIS IS A REQUEST TO REPLAT TWO PROPERTIES, TWO LOTS INTO ONE LOT.

PURSUANT TO THE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL FOR PSP 220046 THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON OCTOBER 11. THE PLAT CONFORMS WITH THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN REFERENCED PREVIOUSLY AND AFTER THE PROPERTY IS DEVELOPED, A RE PLAT WILL THEN BE SUBMITTED TO DEDICATE THE EASEMENTS RELATED TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY.

STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST.

BEFORE WE ASK QUESTIONS AND YOU HAVE A MOTION OPEN PUBLIC HEARING SO MOVED.

SO BY OUR MOTION BY BRIAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY SHAWN.

ANY OPPOSE.

WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING.

SEEING NONE, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION BY BRYAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY STEVE.

A MOTION PASSES. FIVE ZERO.

ANY OPPOSE?

[00:15:01]

WE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ANY QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, CONCERNS WITH ITEM 25 AT THIS TIME? WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 25 IS SUBMITTED.

MOTION BY BRIAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY JAKE.

ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.

GRADUATIONS FOR ITEM 26.

[26. Public Hearing – Specific Use Permit: Garages of America at Frisco, Block A, Lot 1 (SUP22-0006)]

YOU ALL FORGIVE ME. I DO NEED TO RECUSE MYSELF FOR THIS ONE.

SO I WILL STEP OUT AND TURN IT OVER TO BRIAN.

BUT LET THE RECORD SHOW THAT COMMISSIONER KENDALL HAS EXITED THE ROOM.

SO ITEM 26 TONIGHT, PUBLIC HEARINGS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT GARAGES OF AMERICA AT FRISCO.

BLOCK A, LOT ONE.

SUP 22-0006.

OWNER JOHN FERGUSON.

GOOD EVENING. WELL, BEFORE YOU GO INTO THAT, JAKE HAD A LEGAL QUESTION FOR ME EARLIER TODAY AND WE WERE TALKING JUST BEFORE THE MEETING.

SO RECOMMEND THAT YOU GO INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION TO CONSULT WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE.

THERE'S LANGUAGE FOR THAT, RIGHT? MOVE TO BREAK FOR EXECUTIVE SESSION.

THERE'S LANGUAGE. THERE'S YEAH, THERE'S LANGUAGE.

THERE'S SPECIFIC LANGUAGE.

YES. WHERE'S THE LANGUAGE? BOTTOM OF PAGE FIVE.

BOTTOM OF PAGE. WELL, I'M LOOKING AT THE AGENDA.

YOU'RE LOOKING AT THIS ONE.

5510001. SO WE'RE GOING TO EXECUTIVE SESSION PER TEXAS LOCAL TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE 551.001.001.

OKAY. SO DOES SOMEBODY MAKE A MOTION FOR THAT? YES, MAKE A MOTION SECOND.

SO DO I HAVE A MOTION TO MOVE US INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION? MOVE TO MOVE, MOVE TO EXECUTIVE SESSION PER 551-071.

PRIVATE CONSULTATION WITH ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY.

THE MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PETRUS.

SECOND, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER ED.

ALL IN FAVOR, ANY OPPOSED.

WE ARE IN EXECUTIVE SESSION.

RECONVENING FROM EXECUTIVE SESSION WHERE NO ACTION WAS TAKEN.

SO WITH THAT, WE READ THE CASE IN.

AND IT IS NOW UP TO YOU.

MS.. STEPHANIE, THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING AGAIN, COMMISSIONERS.

THE APPLICANT BEFORE YOU IS REQUESTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT AND AN ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE STANDARD FOR BUILDING HEIGHT FOR A MINI WAREHOUSE SELF STORAGE FACILITY. THE PROPOSED FACILITY CONSISTS OF FIVE BUILDINGS TOTALING 126,100 SQUARE FEET COMPOSED OF SEVERAL BUILDINGS.

THE FIRST BUILDING IS SELF STORAGE.

BUILDING NUMBER ONE WOULD BE A THREE STORY SELF-STORAGE BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET.

THE GARAGE BUILDINGS, NUMBER ONE AND TWO WOULD CONSIST OF TWO ONE STORY GARAGE BUILDINGS, EACH WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 24 AND A HALF FEET, AND GARAGE BUILDING NUMBER THREE AND FOUR WOULD BE TWO ONE STORY GARAGE BUILDINGS, EACH WITH A BUILDING HEIGHT OF 26.6 FEET.

THE ZONING ORDINANCE LIMITS BUILDINGS WITHIN THE COMMERCIAL ONE ZONING DISTRICT TO TWO STORIES WITH A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 40 FEET.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A THREE STOREY SELF-STORAGE BUILDING WITH A HEIGHT OF 40 FEET.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROPOSAL AND RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF BOTH THE SUP AND THE INCREASE OF THE BUILDING STORIES FOR THE MAXIMUM, I'M SORRY, FOR THE SELF STORAGE BUILDING NUMBER ONE, FROM 2 TO 3 STORIES SUBJECT TO CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL.

JOHN, THERE WAS A STATEMENT IN THE STAFF REQUEST, TOO, THAT MENTIONS THAT THE TWO REQUESTS ARE RELATED BUT SHOULD BE ACTED UPON SEPARATELY.

I WASN'T QUITE CLEAR ON WHAT THAT WAS.

THAT WAS THE TWO REQUESTS BEING THE SUP, AND THEN THE OTHER WAS THE ALTERNATE.

HOLD ON. LET ME LOOK AT THAT.

[00:20:18]

I KNOW EVERYTHING'S INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION SECTION.

SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE WANT TO.

DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? A MOVE TO A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PETRAS.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE ALL IN FAVOR.

AYE.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? I DO HAVE A BLUE CARD HERE.

MR. FRED GAINES.

[INAUDIBLE] MATTHIAS HALBERT 2600 NETWORK BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 HERE IN FRISCO, TEXAS, REPRESENTING BULLER ENGINEERING, THE CIVIL ENGINEERING FIRM HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, FRED GAINES IS AVAILABLE FOR QUESTIONS AS WELL AS THE APPLICANT, SHOULD THEY BE NECESSARY.

THANK YOU FOR THIS STAFF REPORT.

BASICALLY SUMMED IT UP VERY WELL.

OBVIOUSLY, THERE'S TWO REQUESTS FOR THE SAP AND THE BUILDING HEIGHT INCREASE, WHICH TECHNICALLY IS NOT A HEIGHT INCREASE TO THE FOOT HEIGHT, BUT MORE TO FROM 2 TO 3 STORIES.

BUT THE SAP BASICALLY CONSISTS OF ONE SELF STORAGE BUILDING AND THEN THE FOUR GARAGES OF TEXAS BUILDINGS PER THE ZONING CODE THAT SAP IS REQUIRED FOR THE MINI WAREHOUSE USE THAT BOTH OF THOSE FIT INTO.

WE AGREE WITH THE STAFF REPORT THAT THE USE IS COMPATIBLE.

THERE'S NO RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY.

THE SITE IS ALSO ENCUMBERED BY FLOODPLAIN.

IT CONTAINS ENCORE TRANSMISSION EASEMENTS AND THEN IT DOES REQUIRE SOME PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY DEDICATION AS WELL FOR SOME PUBLIC STREETS AS WELL AS PUBLIC STREET IMPROVEMENTS AS WELL. SO LOOKING AT THAT, TRYING TO FIND THE BEST, HIGHEST AND BEST USE, OBVIOUSLY, THIS IS A SITE THAT SOME OF YOU'VE BEEN ON THE COMMISSION FOR A WHILE, HAVE PROBABLY SEEN IN PAST YEARS COME IN FRONT OF YOU.

BUT OBVIOUSLY NOTHING HAS COME TO FRUITION IN TERMS OF DEVELOPMENT ON THIS SAME PROPERTY LOCATION.

SO LOOKING AT THE THE OTHER LOCATION, THAT'S ONLY ABOUT 0.8 MILES AWAY FROM THIS SITE LOCATION ON ALL STARS AVENUE, THE SUCCESS THAT THAT LOCATION HAS HAD, IT IS A UNIQUE PRODUCT THAT OFFERS THESE REALLY LUXURY GARAGES FOR RESIDENTS OF THE CITY.

THIS LOCATION SEEMED IDEAL FOR THIS USE.

BASED ON THE SUCCESS AND DEMAND AT THE OTHER LOCATION, THEY'RE EXPECTING HIGH SALES AT THIS LOCATION AND REALLY TO BE SOLD OUT BEFORE CONSTRUCTION IS EVEN COMPLETE AT THIS LOCATION AND A GRAND OPENING IS ENSUED.

NOW WE ARE INTENDING TO COMPLY WITH IN YOUR SEP PACKAGE, YOU HAVE A SITE PLAN IN ELEVATIONS.

OBVIOUSLY, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS THAT THE SITE WILL BE DEVELOPED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THOSE FULL INTENTIONS THERE.

THE APPLICANT DID RECEIVE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ON THE BUILDING STANDARDS FROM CITY STAFF.

THEY DEFERRED THAT TO THE LANDOWNER.

THEY ARE NOT THE LANDOWNER AT THIS TIME.

THEY ARE UNDER CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENT TO PURCHASE THE LAND UPON ENTITLEMENTS, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE TONIGHT'S HEARING AS WELL AS CITY COUNCIL IN JANUARY.

AND THERE'S CONTRACTUAL AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THAT PURCHASE AGREEMENT FOR THE LAND ITSELF, THAT CONFLICT WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT THE CITY HAS PRESENTED TO THE APPLICANT.

THE APPLICANT DID PROVIDE A LETTER IN AUGUST STATING THOSE CONFLICTS AND THAT THEY COULD NOT SIGN THAT LETTER AT THIS TIME.

BUT UPON SUCCESSFUL APPROVAL OF THE SUP PACKAGE, THEY'D BE MORE THAN OPEN TO WILLING TO WORK WITH THE CITY AND TO SIGN THAT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MAY HAVE.

AS I MENTIONED, FRED GAINES WITH GARAGES OF TEXAS IS ALSO HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

WE RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR APPROVAL AS WAS PRESENTED IN CITY STAFF REPORT.

THANK YOU. MR. GAINES, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK OR JUST BE AVAILABLE IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS.

ALSO, NOTE TWO WE HAVE ONE PUBLIC INPUT FORM THAT WAS SUBMITTED.

IT IS IN OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST.

DO I NEED TO STATE THE NAME OF WHO THAT'S FROM? JOHN OR I WOULD.

SO THIS OPPOSITION IS FROM TRACY MILLER.

THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH OF THIS SITE.

JOHN, IS IT APPROPRIATE TO HAVE THAT READ INTO THE RECORD? NO. ANY OTHER INPUT? ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? QUICK.

A MOVE TO A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER PETRAS.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MERRILL.

[00:25:03]

ALL OPPOSED. MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OF STAFF? I HAVE SOME COMMENTS TO MAKE.

AND IF NO ONE ELSE HAS QUESTIONS, I'M GOING TO TAKE THE CLASSIC APPROACH THAT PEOPLE TALK ABOUT WITH REAL ESTATE AND THAT IS LOCATION, LOCATION, LOCATION.

AND I JUST WANT MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER WHETHER OR NOT THIS IS A GREAT LOCATION FOR THIS SITE, FOR THIS PROJECT.

I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT.

I DRIVE BY THE OTHER ONE ON A REGULAR BASIS, AND SO I THINK IT'S A REALLY GOOD PROJECT.

I DO HAVE SERIOUS RESERVATIONS ABOUT THIS LOCATION.

I KNOW THAT THE LANDOWNER TO THE SOUTH HAS ALSO EXPRESSED SERIOUS RESERVATIONS, AND WHEN THIS ISSUE FIRST CAME UP BACK IN 2019 TO GO FROM AGRICULTURAL TO COMMERCIAL, I HAD SERIOUS RESERVATIONS AT THE TIME, AND I WAS AFRAID THAT AS TIME WENT ON THAT THIS SITE WOULD BE LESS AND LESS IDEAL FOR THIS TYPE OF USE. AND SO THIS IS KIND OF MY CONCERN HAS COME TRUE SINCE MY CONCERNS IN 2019.

AT THE TIME WE LOOKED AT THE SITE.

IS THIS THE BACKSIDE OF A RETAIL SHOPPING CENTER OR IS THIS THE FRONT SIDE OF THE TOLL ROAD AND THE FRONT SIDE OF A KIND OF AN INCREASINGLY EXPANDING DOWNTOWN AND KIND OF AN ACTIVITY CENTER? AND I THINK OVER TIME, WE'VE SEEN THAT THIS SITE IS MORE AND MORE AND MORE IS STILL IT'S STILL A BEAUTIFUL SITE TOPOGRAPHY WISE WITH THE CREEK AND THE TRAILS AND ALL THAT THAT'S GOING THROUGH THERE.

AND SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE EVERYONE TO KIND OF TAKE A LOOK AT THE MULTIPLE REASONS WHY THIS MIGHT NOT BE THE BEST USE FOR THIS SITE AND THIS MAY NOT BE THE BEST PROJECT FOR THIS SITE.

A COUPLE OF QUICK THINGS WOULD JUST BE, LIKE I SAID, THE VISIBILITY FROM THE TOLL ROAD, THE PROXIMITY TO THE THE MAJOR TRAIL NETWORKS COMING THROUGH HERE, INCLUDING ON THE ON THE HIKE AND BIKE MASTER PLAN, IT SHOWS A MAJOR UTILITY TRAIL GOING THROUGH THIS SITE.

AND SIRI WANTS TO TALK TO ME.

AND SO THIS IS MORE OF A KIND OF A CROSSROADS IN FRISCO.

THIS IS KIND OF THE HEART OF THE CITY.

AND I JUST WOULD BE HARD PRESSED BASED ON THE CURRENT LAYOUT AND DESIGN TO SUPPORT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO KIND OF BREAK UP THE CONTINUITY OF THAT, THE POTENTIAL CONTINUITY OF THAT AREA AND WHAT COULD POSSIBLY COME THERE IN THE HEART OF THE CITY.

THE OTHER COMMENTS. I HAVE A FEW AND SOME QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, MR. FRED. GAINS OR GAINS.

WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS TO FRED GANS 2323 TARPLEY CARROLLTON, TEXAS.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE TONIGHT.

SO IN THE COMMENTS FROM YOUR ENGINEER EARLIER YOU HE HAD MENTIONED AND WHEN I READ YOUR LETTER IN REGARDS TO THE VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, IT SOUNDED LIKE YOU WERE FULLY IN FAVOR OF EXECUTING THAT DOCUMENT AND WORKING WITH STAFF BUT HAD DIDN'T HAVE THE ABILITY TO EXECUTE IT BECAUSE YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NOT THE CURRENT LANDOWNER AND HAVE THE PROPERTY UNDER CONTRACT.

YOUR ENGINEER HAD MENTIONED THAT THERE WERE SOME CONFLICTS CONTRACTUALLY, WITHOUT GETTING INTO THE WEEDS OF ANYTHING PROPRIETARY IN YOUR AND YOUR PSA. CAN YOU SHARE WITH ME HOW THAT WOULD BE OF A CONFLICT IF YOU EXECUTED THAT DOCUMENT? WELL, IT'S IMPOSING A DEED RESTRICTION ULTIMATELY ON THE LAND, AND I CAN'T DO THAT IN FAVOR OF AN OWNER THAT I'M NOT.

SO I WAS ADVISED BY MY ATTORNEY THAT THAT'S NOT A DOCUMENT THAT WE CAN SIGN UNTIL WE BECOME AN OWNER.

SO THAT'S WHY WE DEFERRED TO AFTER THE APPROVAL OF THE SUPP.

WE'D BE HAPPY TO WORK WITH THAT.

SO IF WE MADE OUR APPROVAL CONTINGENT UPON YOU EXECUTING THAT AGREEMENT, THAT VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT, THAT VOLUNTARY AGREEMENT, DO YOU HAVE ANY CONCERNS WITH THAT? I DON'T THINK SO.

BUT WHEN I WAS FIRST GIVEN THAT AGREEMENT OR WE WERE FIRST GIVEN THAT AGREEMENT WAS THE DAY OF OUR APPLICATION OR SUBMITTAL DEADLINE FOR THE AUGUST HEARING, THE DAY OF I WAS TRAVELING, I NEVER GOT TO SEE THE AGREEMENT.

AND SINCE THEN, IT REALLY WAS KIND OF DEFERRED TO THE OWNER, YOU KNOW, TO WORK OUT.

[00:30:04]

AND APPARENTLY THAT WAS NEVER DONE.

HE DIDN'T SEE THE DOCUMENT UNTIL TODAY.

AND IT'S A 14 PAGE DOCUMENT AND IT CONTAINS A LOT OF INFORMATION.

A LOT OF AN EXHIBIT WAS 16 ITEMS THAT REFERENCE ORDINANCES AND BUILDING CODES AND ALL THESE THINGS THAT I COULDN'T BEGIN TO TELL YOU WHAT THE CONTENT OF THAT IS.

SO AS LONG AS WE HAVE TIME TO UNDERSTAND IT, I THINK WE CAN GET THERE WITH NO PROBLEM.

BUT IT'S THIS IT'S NOT A DOCUMENT THAT YOU WANT TO BE HANDED IN ONE DAY AND ASK TO EXECUTE.

THAT'S A FAIR COMMENT.

I APPRECIATE THAT.

THE ONE FROM MY PERSONAL ISSUE AND THE REASON WE WENT INTO EXEC WAS FOR ME, I HAD SOME SOME COMMENTS AND SOME HEARTBURN.

AND SIMPLY BECAUSE I DIFFER FROM COMMISSIONER CONE, I THINK THE LAND USE IS APPROPRIATE.

I THINK IT MAKES MAKE SENSE AT THIS LOCATION.

I THINK YOU HAVE SOME I THINK IT'S REALLY TOUGH TO PUT SOMETHING, I DON'T THINK NIEMANN IS GOING TO GO IN THE MIDDLE OF.

IT'S IT'S A TOUGH LOCATION.

IT'S A TOUGH PIECE OF DIRT.

IT IS, AND YOU KNOW, YOU'VE GOT 100 FOOT WIDE TRANSMISSION LINE EASEMENT THAT RUNS THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT.

AND SO I THINK YOU GUYS ARE DOING REALLY WELL.

AND I AND I COMMEND YOU FOR WORKING WITH STAFF ON SOME OF THE DESIGN FEATURES THAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE.

AND SO I LIKE THESE USE.

MY CONCERN IS, IS WE'RE HEARING FROM FRED GAINES TODAY IF WE APPROVE THESE ENTITLEMENTS BECAUSE OF SOME SENATE LEGISLATION THAT WAS PUT INTO PLACE A FEW YEARS AGO THAT MAY SUPERSEDE.

ACTION THAT WE TAKE TO ENSURE THAT WHAT WE'RE SEEING HERE TONIGHT IS ACTUALLY WHAT GETS BUILT ON THAT DIRT.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT'S GOING TO GET BUILT.

THIS IS AND I BELIEVE THAT I BELIEVE LIKE GOING THROUGH SUPS BECAUSE YOU'RE OBLIGATED TO BUILD WHAT YOU SAY YOU'RE GOING TO UNDERSTAND.

AND I'M A DEVELOPER AS WELL, AND CERTAIN THINGS CHANGE.

AND WHEN THINGS DO CHANGE, YOU MAY BE PUT IN A POSITION TO HAVE TO SELL THIS WITH THESE UNDERLYING ENTITLEMENTS AND THEY MAY NOT HAVE THE REPUTATION THAT YOU DO.

AND THAT PUTS US IN A PRECARIOUS SITUATION BECAUSE WE ARE WE'RE HERE AT THIS DAIS TO ENSURE THAT THE BEST PRODUCT IS IS PUT AND DEVELOPED IN THE CITY. AND SO WITH AS MUCH TRUST AS WE HAVE AND I'VE ASKED ABOUT YOU AND YOU HAVE A FLAWLESS REPUTATION THROUGHOUT NORTH TEXAS AND THROUGHOUT THE COUNTRY.

MY CONCERN IS, IS ANOTHER POTENTIAL BUYER.

AND SO WE'VE ASKED LEGAL TO GIVE US A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIFICS ON A MECHANISM TO ENSURE THAT WE HAVE PROTECTIONS OVER THESE ENTITLEMENTS.

I AM GOING TO AND I HOPEFULLY THIS IS OK AND HOPEFULLY YOUR UNDERLYING LANDOWNER IS OKAY WITH THIS, BUT I WOULD RECOMMEND THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL THE DECEMBER MEETING TO GIVE US AN OPPORTUNITY TO KIND OF SET THIS UP.

AND I'LL RESERVE MY RIGHT TO TO MAKE A MOTION AT THE APPROPRIATE TIME MR. CHAIRMAN, BUT.

IF I MAY ASK, WOULD WOULD THAT LEAVE US AT THE JANUARY 3RD CITY COUNCIL? YES, IT WOULD. IT WOULD, YES.

AFTER JAKE'S DONE, I GOT ONE QUESTION FOR YOU.

OKAY. HI, JOHN. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I LIKE THE PRODUCT.

I'VE LOOKED AT ACTUALLY BUILDING THIS TYPE OF PRODUCT MYSELF.

I THINK IT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE.

I THINK IT'S A GREAT OPPORTUNITY TO PUT A BETTER TYPE OF OFFER AND AMENITY TO THE COMMUNITY AS OPPOSED TO YOUR TYPICAL RUN OF THE MILL CLIMATE CONTROL OR SELF STORAGE PRODUCT.

I REALLY, REALLY LIKE THIS PRODUCT.

I THINK THE LOCATION IS APPROPRIATE.

I THINK IT'S THE RIGHT DIRT.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THE THE DESIGN OF IT AND WE HAVE SOME SOME PROTECTIONS, WE'RE LOOKING TO GET SOME MECHANISMS IN PLACE TO.

YES, SIR. GET WHAT WE ARE SEEING HERE.

AND I THINK IN ORDER TO DO THAT, WE'RE GOING TO NEED ADDITIONAL FEEDBACK FROM LEGAL COUNSEL IN ORDER TO KIND OF BUTTON THAT UP.

SO HOPEFULLY, CONTRACTUALLY, THAT STILL CAN WORK FOR YOU.

BUT THAT WILL THAT WILL BE MY RECOMMENDATION.

THANK YOU. OKAY.

THE QUESTION I HAVE FOR ANDREW IS WHAT YOU MENTIONED, JOHN.

SO YOU ARE AWARE OF THE AGREEMENT IN AUGUST AND THEN THE PROPERTY OWNER DIDN'T SEE THAT AGREEMENT UNTIL TODAY.

RIGHT. AND LET ME BE VERY CLEAR ABOUT THIS.

I WAS GONE FOR THAT ENTIRE WEEK THAT THAT DOCUMENT WAS ASKED FOR US TO BE SIGNED ON THE DAY OF A SUBMITTAL.

I DIDN'T. WE SUBMITTED A LETTER ON AUGUST 29TH STATING THAT WE WOULD AGREE TO SIGN THIS AGREEMENT WHEN WE'RE THEN THE OWNER SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE SUP.

SO I DID WHAT I COULD AS A NON OWNER, BUT I THINK THIS DOCUMENT, THE OWNER, MR.

[00:35:07]

FERGUSON, HE HADN'T SEEN THAT AGREEMENT UNTIL TODAY.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND I DIDN'T FEEL LIKE IT WAS MY RESPONSIBILITY AND I KIND OF FORGOT ABOUT IT, TO BE TRUTHFUL WITH YOU.

IT JUST GOT LOST IN THE SHUFFLE.

AND WHEN I WHEN THIS CAME UP TODAY AND I READ THROUGH IT IN ITS ENTIRETY.

HE CALLED ME AND HE HAD CONCERNS ABOUT THE CONTENT AS AN OWNER BECAUSE HE WASN'T SURE WHAT THAT WAS GOING TO DO TO IMPOSE DEED RESTRICTIONS ON HIS PROPERTY GOING FORWARD IN THE EVENT I GO AWAY.

SO I THINK HE HAD SOME VALID CONCERNS, BUT I CAN'T SPEAK FOR HIM.

MAKES SENSE TO GIVE A TIME TO WORK THOSE CONCERNS OUT A LITTLE BIT.

RIGHT. AND AND IN ADDITION TO THAT, I THINK STAFF IS CAPABLE AND LEGAL IS CAPABLE OF COMING UP WITH A MECHANISM TO WHICH THOSE RESTRICTIONS WOULDN'T KICK IN UNTIL YOU TAKE FEE.

SIMPLE OF THAT DIRT. I THINK THAT'S THE FAIREST WAY TO HANDLE IT.

AND I THINK IT I THINK THERE'S A MECHANISM TO COME UP WITH THAT.

I THINK WE JUST NEED I THINK WE CAN DO THAT.

ONE QUICK OTHER COMMENT IS I, I TOOK SOME TIME A LITTLE BIT TO LOOK AT THE OPPOSITION A LITTLE BIT JUST TO KIND OF SEE WHERE THEY WERE COMING FROM.

IT IS THE LANDOWNERS IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH.

THIS SAME LANDOWNER HAD A REQUEST FOR REZONING WITHIN THE LAST FEW MONTHS.

THAT IS CORRECT. AND IN ADDITION, THAT SAME LANDOWNER ALSO DIDN'T WANT TO FILE.

THE VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND WANT TO JUST STRAIGHT ZONING.

AND SO WITH ALL DUE RESPECT AND JUST A COMMENT TO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS, I DON'T KNOW IF I WOULD PUT AS MUCH WEIGHT INTO THAT OPPOSITION IF YOU'RE GOING TO TRY AND TALK OUT OF BOTH SIDES OF YOUR MOUTH.

YEAH, SHE LOVES THE SHE LOVES THE GARAGES.

I WILL TELL YOU THIS.

THAT LETTER HAS NO BEARING ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING.

I MEAN, AS FAR AS THE VOTE IT DOES ON COUNCIL, THOUGH.

UNDERSTOOD. I'D LIKE TO SAY SO.

PLEASE GO AHEAD. I AGREE WITH JAKE THAT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT.

I REALLY LIKE THE MATERIALS THAT ARE HERE.

I THINK THE ISSUE IS BEING ABLE TO TIE THAT DOWN.

AND I WOULD ALSO GO ALONG WITH TAKING THE TWO WEEKS OR THE TIME IT WOULD TAKE TO PROTECT BOTH SIDES, BOTH YOURSELF AND THE CITY, SO THAT WE GET THE PRODUCT THAT WE SEE HERE, WHICH I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF.

HAPPY TO DO IT, HAPPY TO DO IT.

YEAH. AND A FOLLOW ON COMMENT.

I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR THAT THE MESSAGE FROM THE LANDOWNER TO THE SOUTH SIMPLY REINFORCED WHAT I ALREADY BELIEVED FOR YEARS ABOUT THIS LOCATION.

SO IT'S NOT NEW INFORMATION.

IT WAS INTERESTING TO SEE THAT IT'S THE SAME PROBLEM WE'VE HAD ALL ALONG.

THE PEOPLE THAT ARE LOOKING FROM THE SOUTH, THE PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT DOWNTOWN FRISCO.

LOOKING AT THE SOCCER STADIUM COMING NORTH.

SEE THIS AS KIND OF AN EXTENSION OF DOWNTOWN FRISCO, AN EXTENSION OF THE TOLL ROAD AREA.

AND MAYBE SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS CAN HELP ME.

I DID SAY I JUST HAD RESERVATIONS ON THIS LOCATION.

CAN YOU OFFER REASONS WHY, OF ALL THE POSSIBLE THINGS THAT COULD GO BY THE TOLL ROAD AND COULD GO NEXT TO A A VERY KIND OF A BEAUTIFUL PIECE OF LAND? WHAT I'M TRYING TO GET IS TRYING TO AVOID MAKING MISTAKES.

THERE ARE OTHER PLACES IN TOWN WHERE WE HAVE ALLOWED COMMERCIAL BOXES UP AGAINST A CREEK OR UP AGAINST OPEN SPACE.

INSTEAD OF INSTEAD OF TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THOSE SPACES, WE'VE ALLOWED THE BACK SIDES OF A DRY CLEANER'S OR THE BACK SIDES OF A STORE OR THE BACK SIDE OF A STORAGE UNIT UP AGAINST OPEN SPACE. AND I UNDERSTAND WHY WE MIGHT HAVE DONE THAT 20 OR 30 YEARS AGO, BUT CAN YOU MAYBE HELP ME UNDERSTAND WHY THE WAY THE CITY IS DEVELOPING AND WITH SOMETHING LIKE THIS, THIS CLOSE TO THE TOLLWAY IN THE HEART OF THE CITY? STORAGE UNITS ARE THE THING THAT THE CITIZENS OF FRISCO ARE GOING TO SAY YES IN TEN OR 20 YEARS AND LIKE TO SAY, I'M GLAD THAT THE CITY ALLOWED STORAGE UNITS IN THAT LOCATION. I MAY.

SO THOSE ARE GREAT COMMENTS, MR. COWEN. MY MY OPINION, THOUGH, IS IF YOU DRIVE NORTH SOUTH ON FRISCO STREET, IT IS A FOR THE MOST PART, AN INDUSTRIAL CORRIDOR, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, ON BOTH SIDES OF THE STREET.

YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT THE INTERNATIONAL BADMINTON FACILITY, BUT IT IT HAS THE SAME ARCHITECTURAL FEEL AND ELEMENTS TO IT.

SO ALTHOUGH I WOULD AGREE WITH YOU, IF IT WAS A SINGLE STORY WITH A, YOU KNOW, A CHAIN LINK FENCE AROUND IT, SELF STORAGE.

[00:40:05]

TYPICAL RUN OF THE MILL TYPE PRODUCT.

THIS IS A THREE STORY CLIMATE CONTROLLED WITH A HIGHER END ARCHITECTURAL ELEMENTS THAT GIVING A BETTER VISUAL AID TO THAT HARD CORNER.

AND SO IT HAS A LOT OF THE LOOK AND FEEL OF THE REST OF THE CORRIDOR UP AND DOWN FRISCO STREET OF THINGS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED AND KIND OF C ONE, C TWO TYPE LAND USE AND ZONING.

AND CANDIDLY, I THINK THIS IS A BETTER USE THAN SOME OF THE THINGS THAT WE COULD SEE WITH HIGHWAY ZONING THAT WAS CONSIDERED FOR THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH WITHOUT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT UP AND DOWN THE TOLLWAY.

I MEAN, IF FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, THERE'S A REASON I WOULD HAVE LOVED FOR COSTCO TO HAVE PUT A SOME SORT OF ELEMENT THAT WOULD HAVE CO MINGLED WITH THE GREEN SPACE AND OPEN SPACE AND THE CREEK BACK THERE.

BUT WE'RE KIND OF LEFT WITH WITH WHAT WE ARE.

AND SO THERE'S ONLY SO MANY THINGS THAT YOU CAN HAVE THAT'S GOING TO GO AND FACE A COSTCO.

100,000 SQUARE FOOT BOX.

RIGHT. WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO PUT A CASINO OVER HERE.

SO FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK IT IS COMPATIBLE WITH OTHER USES AND THAT LAND USE AND THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT GOES UP AND DOWN THE FRISCO STREET.

AND SO ALTHOUGH SELF STORAGE ISN'T THE SEXIEST TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT PROJECT IN THE WORLD, I'M A BIG FAN OF KIND OF THE DESIGN AND HOW THEY'VE WORKED WITH STAFF TO MAKE CERTAIN ELEMENTS AMENABLE AND MARKETABLE, WHICH IS ANOTHER PIECE OF THE PUZZLE THAT I TYPICALLY LOOK AT.

SO. JUST ANY COMMENT FROM ANY OF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS BEFORE I SAY ANYTHING ELSE.

I SAID ONCE THE ONE COMMENT, AND I UNDERSTAND, AND THAT'S WHY I'M ASKING MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS TO CONSIDER THAT AREA THE SAME WAY THAT WE TALKED ABOUT IN 2019.

AND THAT WAS THE TRANSFORMATION FROM WHAT WAS GOING TO BE JUST KIND OF A PLAIN INDUSTRIAL AREA TO WHAT IT'S REALLY TURNED INTO.

REALLY, IT'S NO LONGER JUST AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.

AT THE TIME, THERE WAS SOMETHING LIKE 30 PLUS ACTIVITY CENTERS INSIDE THOSE WAREHOUSES IN THAT AREA.

I LIVE RIGHT THERE, SO I DRIVE THEM DOWN.

FRISCO STREET 110 AT THE TIME, I DRIVE PAST THE OTHER GARAGES ON A DAILY REGULAR BASIS FOR YEARS GOING TO STALEY.

AND I REALLY LIKE THE LOOK. AND SO MY CONCERN, I GUESS, IS JUMPING ACROSS BRISCOE STREET.

I DON'T SEE IT AS A CORRIDOR.

I SEE IT MORE AS THE AREA BETWEEN FRISCO STREET AND THE RAILROAD TRACKS HAS DEVELOPED AS AN INDUSTRIAL LOOK, BUT NOT A TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL LOOK.

AND IT'S BEEN MORPHING AND TRANSITIONING.

AND I THINK TEN YEARS FROM NOW IT WOULD BE EVEN LESS INDUSTRIAL.

AND THAT IS MY CONCERN IS THAT TEN YEARS FROM NOW, 20 YEARS FROM NOW, I'M WILLING TO BET THAT THIS WILL BE ONE OF THOSE PROJECTS THAT PEOPLE WILL LOOK AT AND WONDER, SCRATCH THEIR HEADS, KIND OF LIKE WE DO TODAY ON A LOT OF THINGS THAT WERE APPROVED 20 YEARS AGO.

WE SCRATCH OUR HEADS AND SAY, WHY? WHY IS THIS BOX HERE? WHY IS THIS BUILDING HERE? THIS DOESN'T SEEM LIKE AN APPROPRIATE LOCATION FOR IT.

SO I JUST ASK OTHERS TO KIND OF TAKE ANOTHER LOOK AT THAT AREA.

CONSIDER ALL, CONSIDER THE SCHOOL THAT'S THERE.

CONSIDER THE ACTIVITY CENTERS THAT HAVE GONE IN THERE.

CONSIDER THE USES THAT HAVE GONE IN THERE AND WHAT THAT AREA HAS MORPHED INTO FROM TRADITIONAL INDUSTRIAL AND WHAT IT'S GOING TO CONTINUE TO MORPH INTO OVER THE COMING YEARS.

I THINK THE THE LAND TO THE SOUTH HAS SO MUCH POTENTIAL THAT IT WILL DEVELOP AS A RATHER HIGH END DEVELOPMENT.

AND I THINK THAT'S WHEN WE'RE GOING TO BE LEFT SCRATCHING OUR HEADS SAYING, WAS STORAGE UNITS THE BEST THING TO GO IN NEXT TO A FUTURE HIGH END DEVELOPMENT? OKAY, GOOD. ANY COMMENTS FROM YOU? I'VE SAID MY I'VE MADE YOU THINK OF ME.

IF NOT, DO WE HAVE EMOTIONAL? NOT. I'M 26.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM NUMBER 26 TO THE DECEMBER 13TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

ALSO, THEN I HAVE A QUESTION.

DO YOU WANT TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING? AND IF YOU DO, YOU NEED TO REOPEN THAT AND MAKE THAT PART OF YOUR MOTION IF YOU WANT.

YOU DON'T HAVE TO.

BUT IF YOU DON'T CONTINUE IT WHEN THE MEETING COMES UP, YOU DON'T HAVE THE OPPORTUNITY TO OPEN UP THE PUBLIC.

ANYBODY FROM THE PUBLIC HAD THEIR OPPORTUNITY.

SO I LOOKED. I'LL KEEP MY MOTION AS STATED.

GOOD WITH THIS BE THE WE TYPICALLY KEEP THE PUBLIC HEARINGS OPEN WHEN WE TABLE? THIS IS YOUR OPTION.

IT'S NOT TYPICALLY DO WE TYPICALLY DO.

SO THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO NOT CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, BUT TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE DECEMBER 13TH MEETING.

[00:45:06]

COMMISSIONER.

MOTION ON THE FLOOR IS TO NOT CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

DO WE HAVE A SECOND ON THAT MOTION? MR. CHAIRMAN, IF I MAY? YES. MAKE A WITHDRAWAL ON MY FIRST MOTION.

OKAY.

I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO WE'LL HOLD THAT.

THERE'S A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC..

SECOND. SECOND.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PETRAS, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

ALL OPPOSED. MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

CHAIRMAN, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO TABLE ITEM NUMBER 26 UNTIL THE DECEMBER 13TH PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION HEARING AND KEEP AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLE THIS ITEM UNTIL THE DECEMBER 13TH MEETING.

SECOND MOTION BY COMMISSIONER PETERS.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SHAWN.

ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSED MOTION PASSES? FIVE ZERO.

THIS THIS MOTION ITEM IS TABLED TO THE DECEMBER 13TH MEETING.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU VERY MUCH, FRED.

I'LL BE SCHEDULING MEETING WITH YOU AND JOHN FERGUSON FOR US TO MEET.

IT'LL BE NEXT WEEK. WE WON'T BE THIS WAY.

THAT'S FINE. THANK YOU.

YOU'LL GET. I'LL GET HIM.

OKAY. THANK YOU, GUYS.

I GOT ABOUT US LAYING ON THE FLOOR, SO.

THAT'S WHAT I WANT. THAT'S KIND OF WHY I SPOKE UP TONIGHT.

JUST SINCE WE CAN'T TALK ABOUT IT.

AND I APPRECIATE THAT I WAS NOT OUTSIDE.

RIGHT. THANK YOU.

AND YOU HAVE A PAPER COPY.

GIVE ME ONE MOMENT. MY COMPUTER'S LOCKED UP.

[27. Public Hearing – Specific Use Permit: Rescind Specific Use Permit S-266 (SUP22-0007)]

I'M GOING TO GO TO ITEM SEVEN.

ITEM 27, PUBLIC HEARING, SPECIAL USE PERMIT RESCINDS SPECIAL USE PERMIT, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, S-2266 SUP 22-0007, OWNERS CITY OF FRISCO.

THANK YOU. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE GRANTING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A LICENSED CHILD CARE CENTER ON THIS PROPERTY IN MARCH OF 2017.

TODAY, THE LICENSED CHILD CARE CENTER HAS NOT DEVELOPED.

FURTHER AN APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A ZONING REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO OFFICE ONE.

AND WHILE THE ZONING REQUEST TO OFFICE ONE DOES NOT HAVE ANY BEARING ON THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING RESCENDION OF THE SUP BECAUSE IT HAS NOT BEEN CONSTRUCTED.

THEREFORE, YOU DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION THIS EVENING TO RESCIND S266 AND WITHOUT.

WITH THAT I'LL ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

JONATHAN. FOR QUESTIONS, WE'LL HAVE A MOTION OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.

MOVE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY BRIAN.

SECOND BY JAKE.

ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.

WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING.

I DON'T SEE ANYONE.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? A MOTION BY JAKE.

SECOND. SECOND BY BRIAN OR BY SHAWN.

ALL IN FAVOR? BY ANY OPPOSE MOTION PASSES.

FIVE ZERO. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF? YES, JAKE. FORGIVE ME FOR NOT ASKING THIS EARLIER, BUT I FEEL LIKE THE IN THE WORK SESSION LAST WEEK WE HAD TALKED ABOUT THERE WAS AN EXPIRATION ON SUPS THAT WE HAD ADOPTED.

NO, THERE'S NOT.

ANY TIME YOU APPROVED SUP TO RESCIND THAT SUP, YOU HAVE TO COME BACK.

IT DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY EXPIRE.

LAND USE AND ENTITLEMENTS ARE IN PERPETUITY UNTIL THEY'RE RESCINDED OR CHANGED.

VERY GOOD. THAT'S ALL.

THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS NOT AN OWNERSHIP CHANGE, IS IT? NO. NO.

OKAY. YEAH.

I RECALL THERE WAS A ZONING CASE EARLIER TO CHANGE THIS TO OFFICE ONE.

RIGHT. BUT IT'S THE SAME LANDOWNER.

SO WE'RE NOT TAKING ANYTHING AWAY? NO, WE'RE DOING WHAT HE NEEDS DONE, RIGHT? I MEAN, THE. YES.

YES. LET ME MENTION THIS, TOO.

LET'S SAY IF HE DID WANT TO DO A CHILD CARE, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO COME IN AND REVISE IT BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT GOING TO BE BUILDING FOR THE SAME.

SO THAT ONE WOULD HAVE TO BE RESCINDED AND A NEW ONE APPROVED BECAUSE THE THIS IS AN APPLICATION FROM THE CITY OF

[00:50:01]

FRISCO. YES.

DOES THE LANDOWNER EXECUTED A DOCUMENT AGREEING TO THIS? NO, THEY DON'T HAVE TO.

YOU HAVE THREE ENTITIES THAT CAN CALL A PUBLIC OR TO REZONE PROPERTY.

THAT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER OR THE PROPERTY OWNER GIVEN THEIR CONSENT TO THE APPLICANT.

SECOND IS CITY COUNCIL, THIRD IS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

SO WE'RE OUT HERE. YOU'RE DOING THAT CALL FOR PUBLIC HEARING HAPPEN WITH THE APPROVAL OF AMENDING THAT PD FOR ED STONE.

AND SO WHAT WE FAILED TO DO WAS JUST HAVE PART OF THE THAT BEING PART OF THE RECEPTION OF THE SHIP, BECAUSE WHEN THAT SHIP WAS APPROVED, WE FOUND OUT SEVERAL MONTHS LATER THEY WERE NOT MOVING FORWARD.

WE SAID, WELL, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND RESCIND IT.

THEY SAID, NO, WE'RE STILL TRYING TO WORK OUT THE DETAILS.

AND THAT'S BEEN, WHAT, FOUR YEARS? FIVE YEARS. SO FIVE YEARS, THEY'RE GONE.

THEY GOT A NEW OWNER ON THE PROPERTY.

SO YOU YOU'VE CONNECTED WITH THAT OWNERSHIP ABOUT THAT WAS INCLUDED IN THE RECOMMENDATION WHEN HE WAS SEEKING OH ONE ZONING.

VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THANKS FOR THAT CLARIFICATION.

WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM 27.

I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 27 AND RESCIND S266.

MOTION BY BRIAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY JAKE.

ALL IN FAVOR I ANY OPPOSE MOTION PASSES FIVE ZERO.

ITEM 27 HAS BEEN RESCINDED.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT ITEM 26, RESULT OF THE NOVEMBER 15TH, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING, WE WHAT I

[28. Results of the November 15, 2022 City Council meeting.]

SAID NOVEMBER 28, OH DEAR, I APOLOGIZE.

ITEM 28, RESULTS OF THE NOVEMBER 15, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

NOW, THIS IS WHERE COUNCIL APPROVED THE ORDINANCE FOR THE ONE ACRE REZONING OUT BY THE TRAILS OF WEST FRISCO.

THANK YOU. ITEM 29 SCHEDULE A SCHEDULE OF FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS, ANYTHING THAT WOULD LIKE TO BE BROUGHT UP FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION

[29. Schedule of future discussion items.]

ITEMS. WITH THAT.

I HAVE ONE LAST THING.

DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOVE TO ADJOURN. MOTION BY STEVE.

SECOND BY SHAWN.