Dec 13, 2022 Frisco - Planning and Zoning Commission

WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRISCO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.

[CALL TO ORDER]

[00:00:04]

THE TIME IS 6:30 P.M..

THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION CONSISTS OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY CITY COUNCIL.

TONIGHT, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE STEVE CONE, SEAN MERRELL, BRYAN MORGAN, ED KELLY, JAKE PETRAS, BRITTANY COLBERG AND MYSELF, JOHN KENDALL.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZEN ENDPOINT.

IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING ANY ITEMS THAT ARE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, YOU MAY DO SO AT THIS TIME.

PLEASE COMPLETE 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 COMMISSIONERS, NOT TO THE MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE OR ANY APPLICANT PRESENT THIS EVENING TO ENSURE THERE IS ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL TO SPEAK.

PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO A MAXIMUM OF 5 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 CITIZEN INPUT ON ITEMS, NOT ON THE POSTED AGENDA, EXCEPT TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY OR TO INDICATE THAT A MATTER MAY BE PLACED ON A LATER AGENDA. I DON'T SEE ANYONE HERE FOR CITIZEN INPUT.

THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.

[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]

ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO ITEM TWO, APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES? MOVE TO APPROVE.

MOTION BY SEAN.

SECOND. A SECOND BY BRYAN.

ANY OPPOSE? ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO.

THE APPROVAL OF MINUTES HAVE PASSED.

NEXT IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

WE HAVE ITEMS THREE THROUGH 15 TONIGHT.

ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? I'M AWARE OF ONE.

I'D LIKE TO PULL ITEM NUMBER 11, SO I MAY RECUSE MYSELF FROM IT.

WE'LL MOVE THAT ONE OUT, BUT DO I HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS THREE THROUGH TEN AND 12 THROUGH 15? SO MOVED.

MOTION BY BRITTANY.

SECOND BY ED.

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

IF COMMISSIONER CONE WILL RECUSE HIMSELF, WE WILL GO TO ITEM 11.

[11. Site Plan: Dove Creek, Block H, Lot 23 (SP22-0140)]

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS WITH REGARDS TO ITEM 11? [INAUDIBLE] 30 DAY EXTENSION; THERE'S NOTHING TO TALK ABOUT.

OKAY. DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 11? SECOND. MOTION BY ED.

SECOND BY JAKE.

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

ITEM 11 IS APPROVED.

TONIGHT, WE HAVE FOUR PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA, AND I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS.

EACH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS PERCEIVED 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 AND PROVIDE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.

IF THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESENT YOUR POSITIONS.

PLEASE AVOID REPEATING WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BY PREVIOUS SPEAKERS OTHER THAN STATING THAT YOU AGREE WITH THEIR COMMENTS.

THE TIME LIMIT IS 5 MINUTES PER SPEAKER.

TO ENSURE EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK, THE COMMISSION AGAIN CAN VOTE TO LIMIT SPEAKING IF A LARGE GROUP 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

[00:05:05]

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

PLEASE NOTE THAT PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSIONS ONLY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING CASES UNLESS THE COMMISSION DENIES THE CASE, THE APPLICANT DOES NOT APPEAL THE DENIAL. FINAL ACTION REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL.

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

WITH THAT, LET'S GO INTO ITEM 16 OF THE REGULAR AGENDA.

[16. Open Space Plan & Preliminary Site Plan: Hillcrest Village, Block A, Lot 2 (OS22-0095 & PSP22-0056)]

HILLCREST VILLAGE BLOCK A LOT TWO OS22-0095 AND PSP 22-0056 OWNER'S LIFE FELLOWSHIP MINISTRIES.

THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

THE PROJECTS THAT WERE JUST READ INTO THE RECORD WERE SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER 24TH, 2022.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION AT THE NOVEMBER 21ST, 2022 MEETING.

SINCE THAT TIME, THESE PROJECTS HAVE BEEN RESUBMITTED AND REVIEWED BY STAFF.

DURING THIS REVISION, STAFF FOUND THAT THE PROJECTS FAIL TO COMPLY WITH CITY ORDINANCES, CODES, POLICIES AND STANDARDS, AS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS APPROVAL FOR THE REASONS STATED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I APPRECIATE IT. WHILE COMMISSIONER KELLY WAS NICE ENOUGH TO GRAB ME SOME WATER.

I'M CHOKING, SOMEONE [INAUDIBLE] WHATEVER ONE OF YOU MIGHT HAVE DONE, BUT WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR HIM, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? ED, DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF WITH REGARDS TO ITEM 16? DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEM 16? I MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM NUMBER 16 FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF'S REPORT AND DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT FOR THE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL.

I HAVE A MOTION BY BRITTANY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND BY BRYAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE? A MOTION IS DENIED, ITEM 16.

ITEM 17 OPEN SPACE PLAN AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FRISCO LA CIMA.

[17. Open Space Plan & Preliminary Site Plan: Frisco La Cima, Block A, Lot 3 (OS22-0098 & PSP22-0057)]

THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

THESE ITEMS WERE SUBMITTED ON OCTOBER 24TH THIS YEAR.

THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION AT THE NOVEMBER 21ST, 2022 MEETING WITH A VOTE OF 5 TO 0.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE PROJECT AND HAS FOUND THAT IT FAILS TO COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S ZONING ORDINANCE, ENGINEERING STANDARDS AND OTHER APPLICABLE CITY CODES AND ORDINANCES FOR THE REASONS LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

STAFF THEREFORE RECOMMENDS DISAPPROVAL FOR THE REASONS THAT ARE LISTED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.

WITH REGARDS TO ITEM 17, THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, BUT DO WE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? I WOULD ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM 17.

MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM 17 FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED, THE STAFF REPORT DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL.

MOTION BY BRYAN. SECOND.

A SECOND BY SEAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO.

ITEM 17 IS DISAPPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. WITH REGARDS TO ITEM 18, I APOLOGIZE.

I WILL HAVE TO RECUSE MYSELF FOR THIS ONE.

I'LL TURN THE TIME OVER TO BRYAN.

ITEM 18 PUBLIC HEARING.

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

ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE STANDARD GARAGES OF AMERICA AT FRISCO BLOCK A LOT ONE SUP22-0006.

OWNER'S JOHN FERGUSON.

I BELIEVE THIS ITEM WAS TABLED.

SO DO I HAVE A MOTION TO PULL THIS BACK OFF THE TABLE? SO MOVED. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER SEAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSED? MOTION IS NOW APPROVED, AND THE ITEM IS OFF THE TABLE.

THANK YOU, CHAIR, AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.

AS STATED PRIOR, THIS ITEM, THE PUBLIC HEARING FOR THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AND CONTINUED TO TODAY TO ALLOW FOR STAFF THE APPLICANT

[00:10:06]

AS OF DATE, THAT VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ESTABLISH BUILDING MATERIALS STANDARDS AND CODE CODES HAVE NOW BEEN SIGNED AND RETURNED TO THE CITY.

THIS AGREEMENT WILL BE PLACED ON THE SAME CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM AT THE TIME OF THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO THE REQUEST REMAINS THE SAME WHERE THIS IS A REQUEST FOR A MINI WAREHOUSE USE WITH THE SUP AND FOR THE ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE STANDARDS TO ALLOW FOR THE THREE STOREY BUILDING, SPECIFICALLY FOR THE STORAGE BUILDING WHICH IS DESIGNATED AS BUILDING ONE.

SINCE THIS ITEM WAS TABLED, STAFF HAS RECEIVED ONE ADDITIONAL PROJECT IN FOOT FORM WHICH HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO YOU THIS EVENING.

WE STILL DO RECOMMEND APPROVAL FOR THE SUBMITTAL WITH THE CONDITIONS LISTED IN THE REPORT.

I AM HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ANYONE HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME.

I HAVE A QUESTION DOWN HERE.

BASED ON THE INPUT FORM, THERE WAS A QUESTION ABOUT THE ROAD ON THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN IF ALL OF THE ROAD FOR THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN BE COMPLETED BASED ON JUST THIS SITE, OR IS THERE A REQUIREMENT TO ALSO GO OFF SITE TO GET SOME ACCESS FOR A ROAD? I'LL DEFER TO JOEL ON THIS ONE.

SO AS SHOWN IN THIS EXHIBIT, THE PROPERTY LINE IS RIGHT HERE, AND SO WHAT THIS EXHIBIT DOES IS IT PROPOSES THAT THE ROAD IS SPLIT DOWN, STRADDLES THE PROPERTY LINE, WHICH IS PRETTY COMMON WHEN TWO PROPERTIES ARE ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER AND A ROAD IS BUILT BETWEEN THEM.

THEY USUALLY SHARE THE RIGHT OF WAY.

IT OFTEN COMES DOWN TO TIMING.

IF ONE DEVELOPER COMES IN FIRST, WHAT TYPICALLY HAPPENS IS THEY WILL CONTACT THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY AND SAY, WILL YOU DEDICATE RIGHT AWAY AT THIS POINT? AND THEN ME, THE FIRST PROJECT WILL BUILD THE ROAD A CERTAIN DISTANCE.

THEN THEY'LL SHARE THE ROAD.

SO THAT'S THE TYPICAL WAY THAT DEVELOPMENT OCCURS, AND SO THAT'S THE WAY THIS PLAN HAS BEEN SHOWN.

OF COURSE, NOTHING IS CONSTRUCTED FROM A ZONING EXHIBIT.

IT WOULD STILL NEED TO GO THROUGH SITE PLAN AND CONSTRUCTION PLAN, AND AT THAT TIME THEY WOULD TALK WITH THEIR NEIGHBORS AND TALK ABOUT THAT AND NEGOTIATE, AND IF SOMETHING WAS NOT AGREED TO, SOMETHING MIGHT HAVE TO CHANGE, AND THEN THEIR CONCEPT PLAN WOULD HAVE TO SHIFT OR CHANGE AS WELL.

SO THIS IS WHAT IS CURRENTLY PROPOSED.

IT DOES TALK ABOUT IT DOES ASSUME THAT THEY WILL NEGOTIATE AND GET RIGHT OF WAY FROM THEIR NEIGHBOR FOR PART OF THE ROAD, AND THEN THE ROAD WOULD BE BUILT JUST TO THIS POINT, AND THEN THAT LEAVES THE FLEXIBILITY FOR THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY OWNER TO TAKE THE ROAD AND IN A DIFFERENT DIRECTION OR END IT THERE.

WHATEVER WORKS FOR WHAT THEY PLAN TO DEVELOP.

THERE'S FLEXIBILITY BEYOND THAT POINT.

OKAY FOLLOW UP QUESTION ON THAT ROAD.

DO WE SHOW ANY FUTURE CONNECTION FROM THERE OUT TOWARDS THE TOLL ROAD TO DALLAS PARKWAY? SO THIS LEVEL OF ROAD IS NOT ON OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN ONLY COVERS FOUR AND SIX LANE DIVIDED ROADS.

THIS IS A COLLECTOR'S ROAD, AND SO THOSE ARE THERE'S JUST A FEW MINOR OR FEW SMALL NUMBER OF COLLECTOR ROADS THAT ARE PART OF THE ARTERIAL SYSTEM THAT ARE ON OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN, BUT IN GENERAL, COLLECTORS ARE MORE A LOCALIZED NEGOTIATION SYSTEM WHERE WE WORK WITH LANDOWNERS TO SAY, HEY, IT WOULD BE GOOD FOR THIS ROAD TO GO HERE TO PROVIDE ACCESS TO PROPERTY HERE AND THERE, AND IT COULD GO AND CONNECT TO DALLAS PARKWAY AGAIN, IF THAT WORKS OUT FOR THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH, BECAUSE IT WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH TO MAKE THAT CONNECTION.

WE HAVE NO REQUIREMENT FOR THAT BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S NOT ON OUR THOROUGHFARE PLAN.

IT'S JUST ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE KIND OF WORK WITH DEVELOPERS AS THEY COME IN TO WORK OUT THOSE THINGS AND WHAT WORKS FOR THEM AND WHAT MIGHT MAKE SENSE FOR CIRCULATION IN THE REGION, BUT NO REQUIREMENT FOR IT TO HAPPEN.

OKAY. THANK YOU, JOEL.

I HAD ONE MORE QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S FOR YOU, JOEL.

IF IT'S NOT, IT'D BE FOR STAFF, THEN.

THE NORTH SOUTH POWER LINES THAT ARE COMING THROUGH THERE, THEY'RE SHOWING CROSSING THE ROAD, AND AS A GENERAL RULE, WE TYPICALLY TRY TO AVOID DEVELOPING UNDER POWER LINES BECAUSE THE IDEA THAT THE CITY IS TRYING TO PRESERVE THOSE AS A CORRIDOR FOR KIND OF THE REGIONAL TRAIL NETWORK.

CAN YOU SPEAK TO THE POSSIBILITY OF CUTTING OFF THAT CORRIDOR THERE INSTEAD OF PRESERVING THAT CORRIDOR UNDER THE POWER LINES? OR WOULD A FUTURE TRAIL BE ABLE TO GO THROUGH THERE AND STILL GET ACROSS THAT ROAD?

[00:15:04]

ESSENTIALLY LIKE THAT.

SO IN THE CASES OF A DEVELOPMENT THAT INCLUDES A POWER LINE EASEMENT, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS.

ONE, THEY NEED TO WORK WITH THE POWER COMPANY TO GET AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT TO WHETHER IT'S CROSSING IT OR PUTTING ANYTHING ALONG IT.

THEY NEED TO GET AN ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT WITH THE POWER COMPANY, FOR THE POWER COMPANY TO BE IN AGREEMENT WITH THAT BEING THERE.

USUALLY THAT DOES WORK OUT IN TERMS OF THEY HAVE AN AGREEMENT.

NOTHING CAN BE A CERTAIN VERTICAL HEIGHT AND THEY HAVE THE RIGHT TO RIP IT UP IF THEY NEED TO AND IF THEY HAVE TO REPAIR SOMETHING, THINGS LIKE THAT.

THE TRAIL IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IF THIS PROPERTY HAS A UNIQUE CONSTRAINT OR WHATEVER, THAT IT HAS A FIRE LINE CUTTING THROUGH IT ON BOTH SIDES AND SO FORTH.

IT IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE CAN WORK WITH THEM TO FIND A WAY FOR THE TRAIL TO GO THROUGH OR ELSE IT MIGHT GO AROUND THE FRONT OF THE PROPERTY AND DO SOMETHING LIKE THIS BEFORE IT GETS BACK THERE.

THERE'S A COUPLE OF POSSIBILITIES.

I'M NOT 100% SURE.

JOEL, ONE THING THAT COMES TO MIND FRISCO MARKET NORTHWEST CORNER OF DALLAS PARKWAY AND MAIN STREET HAS A SIMILAR SITUATION WHERE YOU GOT THE OVERHEAD LINES, YOU GOT SIMILAR SITUATION, BUT YOU GOT OPEN SPACE AND TRAIL WORKING IN THAT.

SO IT HAPPENS ALL OVER THE CITY.

YEAH, SO CROSSING LIKE THIS, AND THIS IS NOT UNUSUAL FOR TRAILS TO GO THROUGH AND CROSS FIRE LINES THAT ARE UNDER POWER LINES, BUT LIKE IF THIS IS, YOU KNOW, ALL PAVED AREA, IS THAT KIND OF WHAT YOUR CONCERN IS, THAT IT'S ALL PAVED AREA? NO, MY CONCERN WAS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THIS GETS APPROVED, THAT IT DOES NOT HINDER THE CITY'S ABILITY TO BRING A REGIONAL TRAIL UNDERNEATH THAT UTILITY LINE, AND I THINK THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT CAME OUT OF THE LAST HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL MASTER PLAN.

JOHN, AFTER THE DEVELOPMENT YOU JUST MENTIONED WAS BUILT, IT WAS KIND OF A DISCUSSION OF HOW DOES THE CITY AVOID KIND OF DOING THOSE HINDRANCES IN THE FUTURE.

SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF THIS GETS APPROVED, IT DOES NOT HINDER THE CITY'S FUTURE PLANS, UNDERNEATH THAT UTILITY.

WE FIND A WAY TO GET THEM THROUGH.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. YEAH, SO THE ROUNDABOUT SHOWN THERE ON THE LOWER RIGHT THAT'S GOING IN REGARDLESS OF THIS PROJECT, CORRECT? IT'S NOT PART OF IT.

RIGHT, SO THERE IS A PROJECT RIGHT NOW THAT IS DOING A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR FOUR ROUNDABOUTS ALONG FRISCO STREET AND THIS BEING ONE OF THEM , AND SO, RIGHT, IF THIS DEVELOPMENT WAS NOT OCCURRING, THIS INTERSECTION IS STILL UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR A ROUNDABOUT.

IT'S CURRENTLY GOING THROUGH A PRELIMINARY DESIGN THAT WILL GO THROUGH COST ESTIMATES AND FEASIBILITY STUDY AND SO FORTH.

SO YES, THE ROUNDABOUT WOULD BE OCCURRING REGARDLESS OF THIS PROPERTY DEVELOPING.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK.

IF YOU WOULD STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, PLEASE.

GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. MATTHIAS HALBERT 2600 NETWORK BOULEVARD, SUITE 310 HERE IN FRISCO, TEXAS.

HERE IS THE CIVIL ENGINEER ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT.

AS STAFF REPORTED HERE, WE WERE HERE IN NOVEMBER.

REALLY A LOT OF THE CONVERSATION WAS CENTERED AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AROUND THE BUILDING STANDARDS.

WE TOOK THAT TIME.

WE WORKED WITH STAFF, WE WORKED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY.

WE'RE HAPPY TO ANNOUNCE, OBVIOUSLY, THAT'S BEEN SIGNED AND REALLY JUST WAITING ON THE CITY COUNCIL TO APPROVE THAT SO THAT CAN GET EXECUTED VERSION.

SO REALLY, WE TOOK THAT TIME, MADE SURE WE TOOK CARE OF THE ACTION ITEMS THAT CAME OUT OF THE NOVEMBER MEETING.

YOU KNOW, AS COMMISSIONER CONE MENTIONED, WE ALREADY HAVE APPROVAL FROM ONCOR ON THE ENCROACHMENT AGREEMENT THAT'S NEEDED TO CROSS THAT TRANSMISSION LINES.

SO I KNOW JUST FROM OTHER PROJECTS THAT HAVE HAD THIS SIMILAR SITUATION, USUALLY WE DON'T HAVE IT AT A ZONING STAGE, SO WE'VE ALREADY GOT THAT APPROVAL FROM ONCOR.

THAT COINCIDES WITH THESE PLANS AND THE ADJACENT OWNER TO THE SOUTH, NOTHING FORMAL, BUT VERBALLY, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE IN PLAY TO DEDICATE THAT LAND TO CONTINUE WHAT IS RESEARCH BOULEVARD FURTHER TO THE WEST AND DEDICATE THAT PROPER RIGHT OF WAY ON THEIR PIECE OF PROPERTY AS WELL.

SO JUST TO ANSWER A COUPLE OF THOSE QUICK QUESTIONS FOR YOU, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT THERE, BUT I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER QUESTIONS.

YOU KNOW, I THINK THE REALLY THE BIG ACTION ITEM WAS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

WE'RE HAPPY TO REPORT THAT WE GOT THAT DONE, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS THE COMMISSION MIGHT HAVE.

[00:20:01]

NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT DATE THIS WAS SUBMITTED, BUT THE DATE I HAVE IS TODAY AT 4 P.M..

YOU WERE NOT IN RECEIPT OF THAT LETTER, TO MY KNOWLEDGE.

YOU JUST GOT IT AT 4 P.M..

THAT'S PROBABLY WHY.

WELL AND IT SAYS TO DATE WE HAVE NOT HEARD FROM THE DEVELOPER NOR HAVE WE SEEN ANY PLANS.

YOU'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH THEM, IS WHAT YOU'RE TELLING US.

I'M NOT SURE WHO THAT LETTER IS WRITTEN.

MATTHIAS [INAUDIBLE] SHAKING HIS HEAD, YES, FRED GANZ.

THEN YES. AGAIN, I'M NOT SURE WHICH LETTER YOU'RE REFERENCING.

IT'S HARD FOR ME TO SAY, BUT I KNOW WE DID REACH OUT AND CONTACT ALL THE ADJACENT OWNERS.

FRED, DO YOU MIND? GOOD EVENING. FRED GANZ 2323 TARPLEY CARROLLTON, TEXAS SUITE 100.

ARE WE TALKING ABOUT OUR NEIGHBORS TO THE SOUTH? YES, SIR. MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS.

VERY EXPLICIT, VERY SHARING OF PLANS, ELEVATIONS.

SO I DON'T KNOW WHERE THAT [INAUDIBLE] ONE THING, IF YOU DON'T MIND, I TALKED TO [INAUDIBLE] TODAY.

THAT'S THE PROPERTY OWNER TO THE SOUTH, AND SHE TOLD ME IN THAT CONVERSATION THAT SHE AND FRED GANZ HERE HAVE KNOWN EACH OTHER FOR A LONG TIME.

SO GOOD FRIENDS.

HER WORDS GOOD.

WELL, SHE'S A VERY NOTABLE LANDOWNER/DEVELOPER IN THE AREA.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY CONCEPTUALLY ARE ON BOARD.

IF I MAY SAY SO, SHE LOVES THE GARAGES, PASSIONATELY.

SHE'S NOT A FAN OF THE SELF STORAGE UNLESS IT LOOKED LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING, AND IF YOU LOOK AT THE ELEVATIONS TODAY, I DON'T KNOW OF ANY SELF STORAGE FACILITY THAT LOOKS MORE LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING THAN THE ONE WE'RE PROPOSING TO BUILD.

SO I THINK WE'VE DONE EVERYTHING WE CAN TO MEET HER REQUESTS.

BEYOND THAT, CAN'T HELP IT.

I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR WORKING ON THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

THAT'S FANTASTIC. THANK YOU.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS I JUST WANT TO INTERRUPT, BUT TALKING TO SHEILA, SHE WAS THINKING THIS WAS A FOUR STORY BUILDING.

I SAID, IT'S NOT.

IT'S MEETING THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT, WHICH IS 40 FEET.

HER CONCERN WAS ABOUT VISIBILITY OFF OF THE DALLAS PARKWAY, BUT IF YOU GO TO STREET MAPS AND LOOK TOWARDS THE EAST, IT'S GOING TO BE HARD TO BE SEEN WITH THE VEGETATION AND LIKELY TO BE DEVELOPMENT ADJACENT TO IT. SO IT'S NOT LIKE IT'S RIGHT UP ON THE DALLAS PARKWAY, ACTUALLY SITS BACK AROUND, I THINK, SOMETHING LIKE 1.2-1.5K FEET FROM THE RIGHT OF WAY OF DALLAS PARKWAY.

SHE ALSO MENTIONED THAT IT WOULD BE OUT THE FRONT DOOR OF COSTCO.

I MEASURED ROUGHLY IT WAS ABOUT 400, 300 FEET BACK FROM THE FRONT OF COSTCO, MEASURING FROM DRAWING THAT LINE TO THE SOUTH AND MEASURING EASTWARD, AND MENTIONED THAT THE BAY DOORS FOR THIS SELF STORAGE IS FACING INWARD ON THE PROPERTY FACING WEST, AND THEN WHEN YOU GOT THE ONE STORY BUILDINGS FOR THE CAR GARAGES THOSE WILL BE BLOCKING THE VIEW OF THE BAY DOORS. EXACTLY.

REAL QUICK FOR THE GARAGES, ARE THESE GARAGES MEANT FOR CARS OR ARE THEY MEANT FOR TRAILERS, BOATS, LARGE RVS? 95% OF OUR BUYERS ARE CAR COLLECTORS.

WE DON'T DETERMINE WHETHER THEY'RE STORING AN RV OR CARS, BUT WE'VE SOLD TO VERY FEW RV OWNERS.

THE ONES THAT WE HAVE SOLD TO ARE USUALLY ALSO CAR COLLECTORS AND FRIEND.

FRED, SPEAK INTO THE MIC, PLEASE.

SORRY, SHOULD I REPEAT MYSELF? I HEARD YOU. THE ANSWER WAS 95% OF OUR BUYERS ARE CAR ENTHUSIASTS.

WE CREATE CAR COMMUNITIES, AND THAT'S WHAT'S SO REALLY COOL ABOUT THE NICHE THAT WE'VE CREATED AND OCCASIONALLY THERE'LL BE AN RV, BUT IT'S USUALLY BECAUSE THEY'RE ALSO A CAR COLLECTOR.

THE CAR COMMUNITY AND THE RV COMMUNITY DON'T REALLY MESH ALL THAT WELL.

SO YOU DON'T DICTATE OR RESTRICT WHAT TYPES OF VEHICLES THAT THEY STORE IN THESE FACILITIES AS LONG AS THEY FIT, RIGHT? NO, BUT 65% OF OUR BUYERS ARE PORSCHE COLLECTORS.

[00:25:02]

I'M NOT A CAR GUY, SO I'M THE WRONG GUY TO BE TALKING ABOUT THIS.

WELL, A LARGE PERCENTAGE OF THOSE CARS BE ON TRAILERS OR WILL THEY BE SELF DRIVEN INTO THEIR FACILITY? PRETTY MUCH SELF DRIVEN. THE REASON WHY I ASK MAYBE THIS IS A QUESTION BACK TO STAFF HAS THE INTERNAL WORKINGS OF THE PROPERTY BEEN WORKED OUT SO THAT IF THERE ARE LARGE VEHICLES, RVS, TRAILERS THAT CAN MAKE THESE TURNS OR MANEUVERS BECAUSE IT DOES LOOK A LITTLE TIGHT IN THERE.

WE DESIGN THEM SO THAT RVS ARE ABSOLUTELY AVAILABLE.

AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE ONCOR EASEMENT, IF WE WERE TO HAVE AN RV, THAT WOULD BE THE IDEAL PLACE FOR THEM.

SO WE WOULD STEER THEM IN THAT DIRECTION.

THAT'S 100 FOOT EASEMENT.

WE'VE ALSO GOT ALL THE FIRE LANES THAT ARE SHOWN ON HERE AS WELL.

SO, I MEAN, IF A FIRE TRUCK CAN GET IN AND OUT OF THIS SITE AND EVERYTHING ELSE, TOO, YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE AN EASY TIME WITH TRAILERS OR BOATS OR EVEN RVS OR A SIMILAR SIZE.

THERE'D CERTAINLY BE PLENTY OF MANEUVERABILITY ON THERE.

SOMETHING TO POINT OUT, I MEAN, SINCE THIS REQUIRES AN SUP, IF RV'S ARE TO BE STORED ON THE PROPERTY, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK AND AMEND THE SUP.

SO IT'S NOT ALLOWED.

THAT'S IF THEY'RE BEING STORED OUTSIDE.

WE DON'T ALLOW OUTSIDE STORAGE, PERIOD.

WE ALSO BUILD MEZZANINES IN EVERY ONE OF THESE UNITS AND THE MEZZANINE ARE AT A HEIGHT THAT DOESN'T ALLOW AN RV TO PARK UNDERNEATH IT.

SO THAT KIND OF DISCOURAGES THAT USE TO A GREAT EXTENT, AND IT ENDS UP BEING ALL CARS.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? YEAH, I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

BASED ON THE CONCERN I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE ENCORE UTILITY EASEMENT COMING THROUGH YOUR PROPERTY THERE.

YES, SIR. DO YOU SEE THERE BEING ANY DIFFICULTY ALLOWING THE THE CITY TO COME THROUGH WITH A MAJOR REGIONAL TRAIL THROUGH THERE? IT'S ALREADY ON OUR PLAN.

OKAY. IT GOES ACROSS THE FRONT AND AT ONE POINT IN TIME IT WAS ON THE NORTH END AND CAME BACK ON THE WEST END NEAR THE GREEN SPACE THERE, AS YOU SEE . THAT ENDED UP NOT BEING ACCEPTABLE.

NOW IT'S COMING DOWN FRISCO STREET AND TRAVERSING ALONG RESEARCH DRIVE.

SO IT'S ALREADY A PART OF OUR DRAWINGS.

OKAY, I NEED SOMEONE FROM STAFF, MAYBE, TO ELABORATE.

CAN YOU ELABORATE ON WHAT WE MEAN BY IT'S ALREADY DRAWN IN THERE? WHAT SIZE AND DIMENSIONS? YEAH, AFTER I SPOKE PREVIOUSLY, I WENT AND LOOKED IT UP BECAUSE I REALIZED I DIDN'T HAVE IT ON THE TOP OF MY HEAD, BUT OFTENTIMES OUR HIKE AND BIKE MASTER PLAN HAS A LINE DRAWN ON THE MAP OF THE CITY THAT SHOWS, YOU KNOW, POWER LINE EASEMENTS BEING WHERE THE TRAIL IS GOING TO BE.

IN THIS CASE, IT'S, I'M NOT SURE WHICH THIS MIGHT BE A BETTER SLIDE.

IN GENERAL, YOU CAN SEE THAT THERE'S A POWER LINE RUNNING LIKE THIS, AND THAT'S THE LINE THAT THE HIKE AND BIKE MASTER PLAN.

IT'S MORE OFF LIKE THIS IN THE WORLD AS OPPOSED TO IT'S NOT HERE, IT'S THERE.

SO THEREFORE, AS HE SAID, THE TRAIL IS NOT GOING TO COME THROUGH HERE.

INSTEAD, IT'S GOING TO COME AND MEET FRISCO STREET, AND AGAIN, I DON'T THINK I HAVE EXACTLY WHERE IT'S GOING TO BE, BUT--I THOUGHT IT WAS UP HERE AND CAME DOWN ACROSS.

YEAH. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT IT IS.

SO IT'S LIKE COMES DOWN HERE, GOES LIKE THIS AND GOES LIKE THAT ESSENTIALLY, BUT IT DOESN'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THE POWER LINE THAT'S THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY BECAUSE THAT DOESN'T LINE UP WITH WHERE THE TRAIL GOES ON THE HIKE AND BIKE MASTER PLAN AND MORE FOLLOWS THIS POWER LINE.

IS THAT A CHANGE TO THE HIKE AND BIKE MASTER PLAN? BECAUSE WHAT I REMEMBER FROM THE ORIGINAL ONE WAS ANY MAJOR UTILITY LINE KIND OF HAD PROPOSED PRESERVATION.

THE IDEA THAT WE'RE GOING TO PRESERVE ALL OF THEM, AND MY UNDERSTANDING WAS THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE THREE MAJOR TRAILS COMING THROUGH THIS AREA, THE ONE THAT YOU POINTED OUT OVER ON THE EAST SIDE OF RESEARCH ROAD, THE ONE THAT RUNS ACROSS THIS PROPERTY, AND THEN THE COTTONWOOD CREEK ONE COMING FROM ACROSS THE TOLLWAY AND THEY ALL KIND OF INTERSECT AND MEET, WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT MAKES THIS PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH PRETTY UNIQUE AND SPECIAL.

THE HIKE AND BIKE MASTER PLAN DOES HAVE A LINE FOR EACH TRAIL, SO IT DOES NOT HAVE A LINE ON ABSOLUTELY EVERY POWER LINE.

IT DOES GIVE US THE FLEXIBILITY IF YOU'RE TRYING TO CONNECT ONE OVER HERE TO ONE OVER HERE, BUT THERE'S NOT A PROPOSED ROUTE SHOWN ON EVERY SINGLE POWER LINE ROUTE, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

WE HAVE LOOKED AT WHERE THIS TRAIL IS GOING TO GO AND HAVE WORKED OUT THAT IT DOESN'T NEED TO GO THROUGH THERE, DOESN'T NEED TO GO THROUGH HERE.

[00:30:01]

I CAN'T DRAW.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF. YEAH, ONE MORE QUESTION ON THE BUILDING.

YOU TALKED ABOUT THE BUILDING LOOKING LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING.

THIS IS FOR THE APPLICANT. WE TALKED ABOUT NOT BEING ABLE TO SEE IT FROM THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY OR DALLAS PARKWAY.

I GUESS, QUESTION, JOHN, IS IF IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THERE, DOES IT LOOK LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING ON ALL SIDES OR JUST THE FRISCO STREET SIDE? I'LL VENTURE TO SAY IT LOOKS LIKE IT ON ALL SIDES BECAUSE WE'RE AT ABOUT 70 TO 75% GLASS ON ALL SIDES.

OKAY. THANK YOU.

YES. PRETTY AGGRESSIVE GLASS PERCENTAGE.

OKAY. VERY NICE, AND THEN QUESTION FOR STAFF FOLLOWING UP ON THAT, IS THAT A REQUIREMENT OF THE SUP, JOHN? YES, [INAUDIBLE], AND OTHER SUPS WHERE WE ADOPT THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS.

PERFECT. THANK YOU. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

SO I BELIEVE SINCE WE TOOK IT OFF THE TABLE, THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN.

WE DON'T NEED TO REOPEN THAT. CORRECT.

PUBLIC HEARINGS ALREADY OPEN? YES, IT'S ALREADY OPEN.

SO IS THERE ANYBODY HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

SECOND.

MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PETRAS.

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

OKAY, SO WE'RE OUT OF PUBLIC HEARING.

ANYBODY HERE HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, THOUGHTS, CONCERNS? MY COMMENTS ARE THE SAME AS THEY WERE IN NOVEMBER.

THIS IS A LITTLE DIFFICULT PIECE OF PROPERTY IN THE SHAPE OF IT, AND I THINK THAT THE PROPOSED BUILDING IS FITS WELL.

I LIKE THE I'M GLAD THAT YOU WORKED WITH STAFF TO GET THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS CORRECT AND AGREED TO.

I DO THINK IT LOOKS MORE LIKE AN OFFICE BUILDING THAN A STORAGE FACILITY.

SO I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THIS AS I WAS IN NOVEMBER.

I OBVIOUSLY HAVE SEVERAL COMMENTS ON THIS.

KIND OF REFERRING BACK TO WHAT OUR FORMER CHAIRMAN, DAVID BACH, SAID AT OUR LAST MEETING WHERE HE TALKED ABOUT IT'S ALWAYS GOOD TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF DISCUSSION AND DEBATE CAN BE VERY HEALTHY AND GOOD, AND THE OTHER THING I TOOK AWAY FROM THAT WAS IT'S OUR JOB TO PROTECT FRISCO.

IN THE END, THAT'S WHAT WE NEED TO DO.

SO WHAT I ASKED MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS LAST TIME TO DO WAS TO PLEASE DRIVE UP AND DOWN FRISCO STREET, RELOOK AT THE AREA, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE BEFORE WE VOTE THAT WE KNOW WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON AND THAT WE KIND OF GET ON THE SAME PAGE.

THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING, IS THAT WE DON'T LOOK AT THIS AS APPROVING SELF STORAGE IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.

THAT'S NOT WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON TONIGHT.

TONIGHT WE'RE VOTING ON SHOULD WE ADD SELF STORAGE IN A NON INDUSTRIAL AREA? AND IF ANYONE HAS ANY DOUBTS ABOUT THAT, I HOPE YOU TOOK THE TIME TO GO AND LOOK AND SEE.

WE KNOW THAT THE FRISCO, THE TOLLWAY IS NOT A SELF STORAGE AREA, IT'S NOT A WAREHOUSE AREA.

THE DEVELOPMENTS TO THE WEST AND TO THE SOUTH OF THIS JUST BASED ON THE HIGH VALUE LAND THAT'S THERE WILL END UP BEING HIGH VALUE TOLLWAY LAND.

TYPICALLY, WE DON'T APPROVE SELF STORAGE IN THOSE KINDS OF AREAS.

THE FRISCO STREET CORRIDOR IS NOT AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.

THERE'S ROUGHLY 22 TO 24 BUILDINGS, DEPENDING ON HOW YOU COUNT THEM ALONG FRISCO STREET.

THE PUBLIC STORAGE UNITS THAT ARE THERE ARE THE OUTLIERS.

THEY'RE THE MINORITY.

THERE'S ONE THAT EXISTS AND THERE'S ONE THAT'S BEING BUILT, AND THAT'S IT.

FROM MAIN STREET TO EL DORADO.

THERE'S TWO OTHER STORAGE FACILITIES ALONG THAT FRISCO STREET, BOTH OF THEM ON THE EAST SIDE.

NEITHER OF THEM ON THE WEST SIDE.

THERE'S ONE WAREHOUSE BUILDING THAT LOOKS LIKE A WAREHOUSE HAS DOCKING BAYS AND EVERYTHING, BUT IS NOT BEING USED AS A WAREHOUSE.

IT'S BEING USED AS MORE OF A COMMERCIAL BUILDING.

WHEN YOU GET CLOSER TO THIS PROPERTY UP HERE, THERE'S A RELIGIOUS FACILITY NEXT DOOR.

THERE'S A SPORTS FACILITY NEXT DOOR, AND THEN THERE'S RETAIL GOING UP TO EL DORADO.

ACROSS THE STREET THERE IS AN OFFICE PARK.

IT'S NOT INDUSTRIAL PARK. IT'S AN OFFICE PARK.

ABOUT A HALF DOZEN OR SO OFFICE BUILDINGS WITH MORE HOPEFULLY TO COME IN THE FUTURE.

ALSO, ALONG FRISCO STREET, WE HAVE THREE HOTELS AND A VARIETY OF OTHER OFFICE MEDICAL USES OUT OF THE 22 TO 24 BUILDINGS.

SO THAT'S ALL I'M ASKING IS IF WE AGREE, IF COMMISSIONERS WANT TO SAY, YEAH, THIS IS A GOOD PROJECT, I AGREE.

THIS IS A NICE PROJECT.

IT'S JUST IN A LOCATION THAT SEEMS VERY UNUSUAL FOR FRISCO TO APPROVE SELF STORAGE IN THIS LOCATION.

SO BEFORE WE VOTE ON IT, WE ALWAYS TALK ABOUT IMAGINING THE FUTURE.

WE ALL KNOW WHAT A BRAND NEW SHINY STORAGE UNIT LOOKS LIKE.

THIS WILL LOOK REALLY NICE WHEN IT'S FIRST BUILT.

THE CONCERN WOULD BE IMAGINE WHAT GETS DEVELOPED NEXT DOOR OVER THE NEXT FIVE, TEN, 20, 30 YEARS, AND WHAT IS A 30 YEAR OLD SELF STORAGE BUILDING LOOK LIKE? OR A 40 YEAR OLD OR 50 YEAR OLD? AND THAT'S REALLY OUR QUESTION IS, IS THIS NICE DEVELOPMENT TODAY THE BEST USE FOR THIS L AND APPROPRIATE TO EXTEND SELF STORAGE ACROSS FRISCO STREET IN A NON INDUSTRIAL AREA? SO THAT'S ALL I'LL THROW OUT IS THAT IF WE SAY YES, I THINK EVEN THOUGH THIS IS NOT AN INDUSTRIAL AREA, I STILL THINK WE SHOULD GO AHEAD AND ADD THESE STORAGE UNITS HERE, AND

[00:35:09]

THAT WOULD BE THE UPSIDE, BUT I WANT US TO THINK ABOUT THAT BEFORE WE VOTE IN FAVOR OF IT.

ANYBODY ELSE HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS? YEP. THOSE ARE GOOD COMMENTS.

I THINK THIS SPECIFIC PIECE OF PROPERTY SIMILAR TO WHAT I HAD MENTIONED, IS INCREDIBLY DIFFICULT AND VERY, VERY CHALLENGING TO DEVELOP AND THESE POWER LINES THAT RUN THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF OUR CITY, NO ONE LIKES THEM.

THEY ARE A PAIN TO DEAL WITH, AND COMPOUNDED WITH THAT, THIS IS A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT I THINK IS EFFECTIVELY ON IT'S OWN LITTLE ISLAND, AND AS YOU DRIVE NORTH ON FRISCO STREET, THERE'S A LOT OF COMMERCIAL AND ARGUABLY INDUSTRIAL TYPE USES WAREHOUSES, DOCKING BAYS, THINGS OF THAT NATURE. I LIKE THE CONCEPT, I REALLY LIKE THE GARAGES.

I THINK IT'S A REALLY, REALLY COOL OPPORTUNITY FOR SELF STORAGE.

A LOT OF GUYS USE IT AS THEIR OWN OFFICE.

A LOT OF GUYS USE IT FOR A MAN CAVE.

I MEAN, IT'S A NEAT TYPE USE, AND THE ONE WE ALREADY HAVE IN FRISCO IS SOLD OUT AND THERE'S A DEMAND HERE IN TOWN.

SO AS FAR AS THIS SPECIFIC LOCATION, I THINK IT MAKES SENSE IN MY OPINION, BECAUSE IT IS SURROUNDED BY A CREEK, LARGE TRANSMISSION LINES THAT RUN RIGHT THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF IT, MAKING IT VERY, VERY CHALLENGING TO GET, IN MY OPINION, SOMETHING THAT IS A BETTER LOOK AND FEEL OR A HIGHER AND BETTER USE.

SO I'LL BE SUPPORTING IT TONIGHT AND THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

THANKS. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? CAN I JUST ASK, YOU SAID THAT YOU FEEL LIKE FRISCO STREET IS AN INDUSTRIAL STREET? I DIDN'T QUITE CATCH WHAT YOU SAID.

BASED ON THE FACT THAT THERE'S A COUPLE OF DOZEN BUILDINGS AND SITES ALONG THERE AND THERE'S ONLY THREE INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS OUT OF THE 24.

CAN YOU KIND OF ELABORATE ON WHY YOU STILL THINK THAT AREA IS AN INDUSTRIAL AREA? SO IT'S A FAIR QUESTION, BUT WHEN I LOOK AT INDUSTRIAL AND WAREHOUSE AND COMMERCIAL IN A VERY SIMILAR TYPE BROAD STROKE, SO, WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT THE BADMINTON FACILITY JUST TO THE SOUTH AND THEN THE FIELD HOUSE AND ALL OF THOSE THOSE ARE EFFECTIVELY WAREHOUSE BUILDINGS FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, AND SO THAT DOES HAVE MORE OF A HEAVY COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL LOOK AND FEEL IN MY OPINION, A LOT OF WALL CONSTRUCTION, NOT WHAT WE WOULD SEE IN OFFICE OR COMMERCIAL.

[INAUDIBLE] I MEAN, SO THAT TAKES THE NUMBER UP TO MAYBE FOUR OR FIVE OUT OF THE 24.

IF WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE [INAUDIBLE] CONSTRUCTION THAT'S NOT ON FRISCO STREET, WE CAN DRIVE IT TOGETHER.

WE'LL GO. OKAY, WELL, THAT WAS KIND OF WHAT I HOPED EVERYBODY WENT AND DROVE AND KIND OF LOOKED AT IT.

SO THE QUESTION IS, THOUGH, THE THE HOTELS, THE SCHOOLS, THE RELIGIOUS FACILITIES, BASICALLY MY COMMENT ON THAT IS THAT FRISCO STREET IS VERY MUCH A PEOPLE CENTERED STREET, AND I THINK IN 5 TO 10, 15, 20 YEARS, IT WILL BE MORE AND MORE AND MORE A PEOPLE CENTERED STREET, MEANING IT'S NOT A STORAGE FACILITY STREET.

IT'S ABOUT PEOPLE COMING AND GOING TO RETAIL, SHOPPING, HOTELS, SPORTING EVENTS, ALL OF THAT.

SO IT'S A PEOPLE CENTERED STREET.

WE'RE ADDING ROUNDABOUTS TO IT.

WE RARELY PUT ROUNDABOUTS IN INDUSTRIAL AREAS, SO THAT KIND OF JUST ADDS MORE TO IT.

LIKE I SAID EARLIER, IF WE WANT TO SAY IN SPITE OF THERE BEING VERY FEW OTHER BEING ZERO INDUSTRIAL BUILDINGS, ZERO STORAGE BUILDINGS ON THE WEST SIDE, CLOSE TO THE TOLL ROAD, THIS WOULD BE THE FIRST AND ONLY ONE, HOPEFULLY THE ONLY ONE ALONG FRISCO STREET THERE AND BEING VERY FEW ALONG FRISCO STREET ON THE EAST SIDE, AND WE STILL SAY, BUT WE STILL THINK THIS IS OKAY AND WE'RE GOING TO CROSS OUR FINGERS AND HOPE FOR THE BEST THAT IT STILL LOOKS GOOD WITH OTHER USERS.

I DID WANT TO COMMENT ON THE FACT THAT IT'S NOT ALWAYS RELEVANT WHAT THE USER IS PLANNING ON DOING TODAY.

WE'VE SAID THIS MANY TIMES FROM UP HERE IS WE'RE ALWAYS WORRIED ABOUT THE SECOND OWNER AND THE THIRD OWNER AND THE FOURTH OWNER, AND THAT'S WHERE WE COME TO PROTECTING FRISCO IS THAT IT MAY LOOK GREAT WITH A BUNCH OF HORSES IN THERE.

MAYBE I CAN GET A PORTION, PUT IT IN THERE TOO, SOMEDAY, BUT WHAT WILL THIS LOOK LIKE LONG TERM? AND THAT'S WHERE WE HAVE TO IMAGINE THE FUTURE FOR THAT AREA.

ONE FINAL THING ON THAT.

I DISAGREE THAT IT'S A DIFFICULT SITE BECAUSE IF YOU GO DOWN THE UTILITY LINES, THERE FEELS LIKE THE PEOPLE DOWN AT THE LARGE DEVELOPMENT AT MAIN AND

[00:40:02]

SO THAT'S MY OTHER CONCERN ABOUT THIS IS THAT I THINK WHAT'S GOING TO GET BUILT TO THE SOUTH OF THIS IS GOING TO BE A REALLY NICE DEVELOPMENT, GIVEN THE SAME TOPOGRAPHY AND THE SAME CHALLENGES, AND THERE'S GOING TO TURN THEM INTO ASSETS FOR THEIR DEVELOPMENT, AND I'M NOT SURE THAT THIS DEVELOPMENT TURNS THOSE THINGS INTO AN ASSET.

IT JUST KIND OF DEALS WITH THEM AND BUILDS STORAGE UNITS.

WELL, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE ALL THE CONVERSATIONS AND COMMENTS AND PERSPECTIVES.

IS THERE A DIFFERING COMMENT OR PERSPECTIVE THAT NEEDS TO BE PRESENTED OR HAVE THEY ALL BEEN SHARED OR DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 18? MOTION TO APPROVE.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER--SECOND--AND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER PETRAS.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5 TO 1.

COMMISSIONER CONE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO ELABORATE ANYMORE? YES, I'D JUST LIKE FOR THE RECORD, I DO NOT FEEL THAT FRISCO SHOULD PUT SELF STORAGE UNITS IN NON-INDUSTRIAL AREAS, ESPECIALLY CLOSE TO THE TOLL ROAD.

JON'S NOT HERE, SO I'LL SAY CONGRATULATIONS.

CAN WE GO GET HIM? YEAH.

SOMEBODY WANT TO GO GET JON? SORRY.

CONGRATULATIONS TO YOU GUYS.

YOU BET.

OH, YEAH.

WELCOME BACK. [INAUDIBLE] ALL RIGHT. NUMBER 19 PUBLIC HEARING ZONING BELL YARD FRISCO Z22-0011

[19. Public Hearing - Zoning: Bell Yard Frisco (Z22-0011)]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

SO REAL QUICK, JUST A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY ABOUT THE PROPERTY.

SO IN SEPTEMBER, I GUESS I SHOULD SAY, THE SURROUNDING PROPERTY.

SO IN SEPTEMBER 2014, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE REZONING THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE EAST AND SOUTH FROM COMMERCIAL ONE TO RESIDENTIAL.

SPECIFICALLY, YOU HAVE SINGLE FAMILY IN THE FORM OF PATIO, HOME TO THE EAST AND MULTIFAMILY TO THE SOUTH.

THE PROPERTY OWNER OF THE SUBJECT TRACT AT THE TIME DECLINED TO ENTER INTO THAT TO BE A PART OF THAT ZONING REQUEST.

SINCE THAT TIME, STAFF HAS HAD A NUMBER OF INQUIRIES TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO MULTIFAMILY STAFF, HAS CONSISTENTLY STATED THERE WOULD BE NO SUPPORT FOR MULTIFAMILY ON THIS PROPERTY AND THAT ANY RESIDENTIAL ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY WOULD NEED TO BE SINGLE FAMILY IN NATURE, THAT BEING INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED, TOWNHOMES OR GREATER.

SO BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT YOU HAVE A REQUEST TO REZONE THIS PROPERTY TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TOWNHOMES TO ACCOMMODATE A TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENT TOWNHOMES BEING ON INDIVIDUALLY PLATTED LOTS.

AS SOME OF YOU ALL MAY REMEMBER, THIS REQUEST HAS COME IN FRONT OF THE COMMISSIONERS A COUPLE OF TIMES NOW IN THE FORM OF A WORK SESSION.

THE APPLICANTS HAVE REVISED THE REQUEST TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION'S CONCERNS.

MOST NOTABLY, THEY HAVE REDUCED THE NUMBER OF UNITS FROM 103 UNITS TO 95 UNITS.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THEY HAVE WORKED WITH STAFF TO CREATE A DEVELOPMENT THAT LENDS ITSELF TO FUTURE WALKABILITY OF THE AREA, AS WELL AS ATTRACTING PEOPLE, ENCOURAGING SOCIAL INTERACTION AND CREATING COMMUNITY.

SO A FEW THINGS TO POINT OUT TONIGHT.

FIRST, LOOKING AT THE OPEN SPACE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING 2.1 ACRES, THAT BEING 15% TOWNHOME DEVELOPMENTS DO REQUIRE A MINIMUM OPEN SPACE PERCENTAGE OF 15%. THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS MEETING THAT.

SO IN TERMS OF OPEN SPACE THAT 2.1 ACRES IS MADE UP OF TWO OPEN SPACE AREAS, THE CENTRAL OPEN SPACE AREA ON THE EAST AND THEN THE WEST OPEN SPACE AREA ALONG OHIO DRIVE.

THE CENTRAL OPEN SPACE AREA IS ALSO BEING DESIGNED TO COUNT NOT ONLY AS OPEN SPACE BUT BEING DESIGNED TO BE DETENTION AS WELL.

YOU ALSO SEE THERE ARE A NUMBER OF LOTS FRONTING OHIO DRIVE.

THE APPLICANT WORKED WITH STAFF TO FRONT LOTS TOWARDS OHIO DRIVE IN ORDER TO ASSIST IN CARRYING OUT THE VISION OF FUTURE WALKABILITY IN THIS AREA.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A MINIMUM 50 FOOT LANDSCAPE AREA ALONG OHIO, AS I MENTIONED, WITH A DOUBLE ROW OF TREES AND ENHANCED PLANTINGS FOR ALL OF THE LOTS FRONTING OPEN SPACE.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE FRONT PORCHES, MEETING THE STANDARDS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE.

[00:45:05]

IF YOU REMEMBER BACK FROM THE WORK SESSION, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A SERIES OF TOWNHOME ELEVATIONS TO CREATE ADDED INTEREST ALONG THE STREETSCAPE AND PREVENT MONOTONY, AND THEN LASTLY, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO BUILD POOL BUILDINGS CLOSER TO THE STREET, SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE IN THE CANALS OF GRAND PARK, BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, THERE IS THE CONCERN THAT WE DON'T WANT TOWNHOMES JUST BEING FLAT.

THIS PD PROPOSAL DOES INCORPORATE STANDARDS TO ALLOW VARIATION ALONG THE FRONT SETBACK, WHICH IS EVIDENT ON THE EXHIBIT C.

THE APPLICANT DID HOLD AN HOA MEETING IN OCTOBER OF THIS YEAR.

THIS MEETING WAS WELL ATTENDED BY A NUMBER OF RESIDENTS WHO POSED GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE REQUEST.

ALL OF THOSE IN ATTENDANCE EXPRESSED GENERAL SUPPORT.

SINCE THEN, STAFF HAS SENT A COURTESY EMAIL TO ALL HOUSES WITHIN 1500 FEET, AND TO DATE STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY PROJECT INPUT FORMS ON THIS REQUEST.

I DID HAVE ONE CALL FROM A RESIDENT EARLIER TODAY, BUT AGAIN JUST ASKING GENERAL QUESTIONS, NOT STATING SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION.

THIS REQUEST DOES COMPLY WITH THE CITY'S FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND IS RECOMMENDED FOR SUPPORT THIS EVENING.

THE APPLICANT IS IN ATTENDANCE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM, AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ARE THERE ANY INITIAL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME OR DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? WOULD THE APPLICANT LIKE TO SPEAK FIRST.

NO, WE'RE HERE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE ANY.

THANK YOU FOR COMING TONIGHT.

WITH THAT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING.

A MOTION BY SEAN. SECOND.

SECOND BY STEVE.

ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSED SIX ZERO.

WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING.

I DO HAVE ONE CARD FROM FRED LUSK.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO COME UP.

PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FIRST, PLEASE.

FRED LUSK 9912 MALLORY.

JON, RICHARD, GOOD TO SEE YOU.

AS THE STAFF MEMBER SAID, THEY DID HAVE A NEIGHBORHOOD MEETING.

IT WAS ATTENDED BY ABOUT TEN OR 12 PEOPLE LIVING IN THE GENERAL AREA, AND AS YOU SAID, THERE WAS NO OPPOSITION.

IN FACT, THERE WAS A LOT OF THANKFULNESS BECAUSE WE HAVE BEEN AFRAID FOR YEARS THIS IS GOING TO BE MORE APARTMENTS.

SO THE TOWNHOUSES, WHATEVER THEY'RE CALLED, IS FINE.

THERE ARE A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT I MAINLY WANT TO DIRECT TO STAFF TO REFER TO THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS THAT ARE AFFECTED.

WHAT CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ENTRANCE AND EXIT FOR THE TRACT TO THE NORTH OF THIS WHEN IT DEVELOPS AS TO HOW IT INTERACTS WITH THE EXIT IN THIS TRACT, THERE'S A MUCH SMALLER AND AN ELEVATION PROBLEM TRACT ON THE NORTH SIDE.

AND THE ENTRANCE TO IT WILL PROBABLY BE RIGHT ALMOST NEARLY OPPOSITE THIS ONE OR SHOULD BE OPPOSITE THIS ONE.

IS THIS ENTRANCE OF THE NORTH ON WARREN PARKWAY RIGHT IN RIGHT OUT, OR IS IT EITHER WAY? WE CAN'T ANSWER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME.

CAN THEY? WELL, WE'LL LET YOU JUST, YOU'VE GOT 5 MINUTES AND THEN WE'LL GO FROM THERE.

WELL, I CAN'T REMEMBER.

I THINK IT MAY BE RIGHT IN, RIGHT OUT, WHICH WOULD BE A PROBLEM.

THE OTHER PROBLEM THAT I'VE BEEN WORKING ON FOR ABOUT SIX MONTHS WITH THE PARK DEPARTMENT, WHEN YOU DRIVE UP DARCY, WHICH IS THE STREET IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST OF [INAUDIBLE] HERE, THE LAST STREET IN THAT NEXT SUBDIVISION, THE KB SUBDIVISION, AND YOU GET UP TO ENTER ON TO WARREN PARKWAY.

THE WEEDS GROWING OFF TO YOUR RIGHT, TO YOUR LEFT, WHERE THE CIRCLE UP THERE, THE ROUNDABOUT TRANSITIONS OVER TO THE WAY IT'S CURRENTLY DESIGNED. YOU CAN'T SEE CARS COMING IN THAT WAY.

IN ADDITION TO THAT, THERE'S A ROW OF TREES NOW, BUT FROM WEST OF DARCY, ALL THE WAY FOR ABOUT 200 FEET OR 100 FEET.

I HOPE THAT WHEN THIS DEVELOP HAPPENS, THOSE TREES WILL BE COMPLETELY TAKEN DOWN TO THE WEST OF DARCY BECAUSE THEY IT'S HARD THE TRAFFIC UNTIL SUCH TIME, AND EVEN WHEN THE CITY DOES ADD THE SECOND TWO LANES ON THE SOUTH SIDE, WHICH AS I UNDERSTAND THE ENGINEERING IS FINALLY CONSENTED TO DO IT'S STILL GOING TO BE A VISION A SIGHTLINE PROBLEM WHEN YOU'RE TRYING TO ENTER WARREN PARKWAY FROM THE SOUTH ON DARCY

[00:50:04]

THANK YOU. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE TO SPEAK WITH REGARDS TO ITEM 19? IF NOT, IS THERE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY SEAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY STEVE.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

THANK YOU. WITH THAT I THINK A QUESTION THAT WAS BROUGHT UP THIS IS PROBABLY FOR JOEL AS WE ALWAYS LOVED HIM TO COME UP.

I KNOW THERE'S ASSUMPTIONS THAT COME TO MIND IS YES WE ALWAYS TRY TO HAVE ROADS INTERSECT DIRECTLY ACROSS FROM EACH OTHER, BUT IF YOU COULD MAYBE SHED SOME LIGHT [INAUDIBLE] THAT NORTH ENTRANCE OF HOW IT MAY LINE UP WITH THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE RIGHT.

YES, SO AS YOU SAY, WE HAVE A REQUIREMENT THAT ROADS THAT CONNECT TO A SIDE ROADS THAT CONNECT TO A UNDIVIDED ROAD LIKE WARREN PARKWAY IS HERE, THEY MUST EITHER ALIGN WITH EACH OTHER OR BE OFFSET BY THE PROPER DISTANCE SO THAT THEY DON'T INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER AND CAUSE PROBLEMS. THE PROPERTY TO THE NORTH HAS GONE THROUGH SOME SITE PLANNING IN THE PAST, BUT I'M NOT AWARE OF AN APPROVED SITE PLAN GOING THROUGH AT THE MOMENT.

SO IT'S STILL UNKNOWN EXACTLY WHAT WILL BE ON THE NORTH, THE EMPTY PROPERTY DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH, BUT YES, WE WOULD REQUIRE THE DRIVEWAY ON THE OTHER SIDE TO LINE UP WITH THAT OR ELSE BE OFFSET OUR PROPER DISTANCE SO THAT THEY WOULDN'T INTERACT WITH EACH OTHER.

HEY, JOEL, I THINK DIRECTLY TO THE NORTH OF THAT STREET THAT YOU DRAW ON, I THINK THAT YOU'VE GOT HOMES TO THE NORTH THERE AND THEN THAT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY IS A LITTLE BIT FURTHER TO THE WEST.

THIS IS THE LINE THAT DEFINES THE EMPTY PROPERTY.

THIS IS EMPTY PROPERTY, AND THIS IS NEIGHBORHOOD PROPERTY.

YES, AND SO THIS ENTRANCE ROAD DOES NOT LINE UP WITH ANYTHING THAT'S GOING TO BE ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND IT IS SPACED THE PROPER DISTANCE AWAY FROM DARCY LANE TO THE EAST. IT DOES MEET ALL OF OUR STANDARDS FOR THAT.

APPRECIATE THAT CLARIFICATION.

ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? MAKE A COMMENT. YES, I ACTUALLY DID A SITE VISIT TO THIS AND I DROVE UP ON THAT EAST SIDE ROAD THERE AND TRIED TO MAKE A LEFT ONTO [INAUDIBLE], AND I KNOW EXACTLY WHAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, AND I ASSUM THAT THE CITY WILL CLEAR THAT OUT, AND THERE'S A WALL THERE, TOO, I GUESS, AND SO I ASSUME IT'LL ALL BE TAKEN CARE OF WHEN THIS DEVELOPMENT GETS BUILT.

I PERSONALLY LIKE THE FACT THAT THESE ARE TOWNHOMES RATHER THAN MORE APARTMENTS.

I THINK IT GIVES A LITTLE BIT MORE RELIEF TO THIS AREA OF THE CITY, AND I'M IN FAVOR OF THIS PROJECT.

I'M VERY MUCH IN FAVOR OF THAT ROUNDABOUT OFF TO THE NORTHWEST.

THAT'S A BEAUTIFUL ROUNDABOUT.

IT'S A REALLY ICONIC ROUNDABOUT, I THINK, FOR THE CITY, BUT THE REASON WHY I LIKE THIS PROJECT IS THE WAY IT INTERACTS WITH IT.

YOU'VE GOT THE WIDENED SIDEWALKS, YOU'VE GOT THE ENHANCED TREES, AND YOU DO HAVE SOME SETBACK THERE.

SO I REALLY LIKE THE WAY THIS IS GOING TO LOOK.

STEVE, IT LOOKS LIKE YOU.

I MIGHT HAVE ONE QUESTION FOR JOEL.

I WAS TRYING TO CATCH YOU BEFORE YOU RAN AWAY.

HE'S TRYING TO GET STEPS IN, DON'T WORRY. [CHUCKLING] YEAH, THAT'S GOOD.

I BELIEVE YOU TOLD US BEFORE, JOEL, BUT CAN YOU REMIND US AGAIN ON THE FUTURE OF WARREN PARKWAY COMPARED TO WHAT'S SHOWN ON THE SITE PLAN HERE, IF THERE'S GOING TO BE ANYTHING DIFFERENT THAN WHAT'S SHOWN HERE.

I THINK WHICH ONE WOULD BE BEST TO SHOW.

SO SEVERAL YEARS AGO, THE THOROUGHFARE PLAN WAS CHANGED BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THIS WAS PLANNED TO BE A FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY, AND SO WHAT YOU SEE OUT THERE TODAY WAS PLANNED TO BE ONE HALF OF THE ROAD, YOU KNOW, AND THEN EVENTUALLY THE OTHER HALF OF THE ROAD WOULD BE BUILT AND YOU'D HAVE A FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROADWAY.

BUT THOROUGHFARE PLAN WAS CHANGED SEVERAL YEARS AGO.

WE DIDN'T NEED THAT MUCH CAPACITY, ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ROUNDABOUT WENT IN.

THE ROUNDABOUT HELPED IT NOT NEED TO BE SUCH A BIG ROAD, AND SO WHAT THAT ALLOWS US TO DO AND THE PLAN IS TO TAKE THE EXISTING ROAD AND MOVE IT AWAY FROM THE IT'S SO CLOSE TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD, TO THE NORTH, BECAUSE THIS ROAD WAS BUILT UNDER AN OLD STANDARD WHEN A FOUR LANE DIVIDED ROAD HAD NOT MUCH OF A PARKWAY.

IT'S LIKE ROAD, SIDEWALK AND WALL REALLY CLOSE.

SO THE IDEA IS TO TAKE THAT ROAD AND MOVE IT UNTIL IT'S MORE CENTERED.

I'M SORRY, IT'S HARD TO DRAW THROUGH HERE, BUT TAKE THE EXISTING ROAD, WIDEN IT A BIT, AND SHIFTED AWAY FROM THE WALL TO THE NORTH.

SO KIND OF CENTER IT IN THE RIGHT OF WAY, AND SO THEN IT WOULD BECOME KIND OF LIKE A THREE LANE WIDE ROAD THAT ALLOWS YOU TO HAVE ONE LANE IN EACH DIRECTION WITH A TURN LANE

[00:55:10]

I'LL GO OUT THERE AND TAKE A LOOK TO SEE IF THERE'S A TREE THAT NEEDS TO BE REMOVED, EVEN RIGHT NOW TO FIX.

I MADE THAT MOVEMENT TONIGHT.

YEAH, THERE'S SOME SITE DISTANCES.

OKAY. SO DID YOU SAY THAT WE'RE GOING TO MOVE THE ROAD TO INCREASE THE DISTANCE WITH THE SIDEWALK TO THE NORTH? YES. THAT'S THE GREATEST THING I'VE EVER HEARD.

YOU KNOW, I LOVE THAT. WAITING FOR THAT FOR A LONG TIME.

[INAUDIBLE] THAT ROAD ALL THE TIME. YEAH.

NO, ABSOLUTELY. IT'S GOING TO BE GREAT FOR THAT NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE NORTH, BUT BACK ON POINT HERE IS WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT HERE, JOEL, DOES THIS SHOW THE SOUTHERNMOST EXTENT OF WARREN PARKWAY TO THE NEIGHBORHOOD? WILL IT MAYBE SHIFT ANY TO THE SOUTH? OH, SO YOU CAN KIND OF SEE HERE HOW THE ROAD GOES LIKE THAT, YOU KNOW, AND SO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN IS WHAT'S COMING OFF OF THE ROUNDABOUT.

IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE MUCH AND AGAIN, SORRY, IT'S REALLY HARD TO DRAW WITH A FAT FINGER ON HERE, BUT I CAN'T DO IT.

I'M NOT BEING ABLE TO DO IT VERY SPECIFICALLY, BUT ANYWAY, INSTEAD OF ANGLING UP LIKE YOU SEE, IT'S GOING TO PRETTY MUCH GO STRAIGHT EAST AND IT'LL DO THAT ALL THE WAY TO HILLCREST.

AND AGAIN, IT'S REALLY HARD TO DRAW THAT STRAIGHT AND WITHOUT REALLY THICK LINE, BUT ESSENTIALLY THIS LINE OF ROAD, YOU TAKE THAT AND EXTEND IT EAST, THAT KIND OF GIVES YOU A SENSE.

LET ME TRY TO DRAW THAT AGAIN.

I'LL DRAW AN ARROW, SEE THAT EDGE OF ROAD, EXTEND THAT STRAIGHT EAST, AND THAT KIND OF SHOWS YOU WHERE THE SOUTH EDGE OF WARREN WILL BE.

SO ARE YOU EXTENDING WHAT LOOKS LIKE THE ROADWAY THERE OR YOU DRAWING WHERE THAT KIND OF DASHED LINE IS? THAT'S ACTUAL ROAD [INAUDIBLE] MAINTAIN THAT SOUTHERN? YES. WHAT I WAS TRYING TO SAY IS THIS THIS LINE WHICH I CAN'T DRAW [INAUDIBLE] YOU TAKE THAT CURB LINE AND EXTEND IT STRAIGHT EAST AND THAT'LL BE THE NEW SOUTHERN EDGE OF THE ROAD AS YOU GO ALL THE WAY TO HILLCREST.

THEIR PLANS JUST HAD TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT WAS EXISTING, AND THEN THEY WILL ADAPT WHEN THEY GET WITH THE CITY ON.

EXACTLY THAT WAS DECIDED WHEN WE REZONED THIS AREA TO RESIDENTIAL, ALL OF THAT WAS BEING WORKED OUT, DOWNGRADED BOTH WARREN AND GAYLORD FROM MAJORS DOWN TO A COLLECTOR SIZE STREETS SINCE THEY DID AND AT HILLCREST AND THEY'RE ALL WITHIN ABOUT A HALF MILE OF EACH OTHER.

SO IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY SENSE TO HAVE ALL THAT CONCRETE DOWN BECAUSE THE CAPACITY WASN'T NECESSARY, AS JOEL POINTED OUT.

I THINK THAT'S GREAT. I JUST WANT TO CONFIRM IT WASN'T CURVING TOWARDS TO THE SOUTH, BUT IT'S JUST GOING TO EXTEND JUST KIND OF STRAIGHT ACROSS.

EXACTLY. THAT'S GREAT.

I KNOW I HAD A FEW QUESTIONS, BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYONE ELSE HAS AN OPPORTUNITY.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT. IF YOU WANT TO GO FIRST, THEN WE'LL LET THE APPLICANT COME UP.

I THINK IT WILL BE A SHORT ANSWER FOR STAFF AND THEN I'LL GO TO THE APPLICANT.

I KNOW WE DISCUSSED A POSSIBILITY OF THREE STOREY ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER.

DOES THE ZONING ALLOW A THREE STOREY PRODUCT ON THIS PROPERTY OR? EVERYTHING IS TWO STOREYS.

AND THAT ZONING ONLY ALLOWS TWO STOREY.

CORRECT. OKAY, WELL THEN I DON'T NEED TO ASK THAT QUESTION.

ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

WITH REGARDS TO YOUR EASTERN BORDER, I KNOW THERE'S SOME TOPOGRAPHY THERE.

I MEAN, IT COULD BE A FIVE FOOT.

I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S AN EIGHT FOOT DROP.

FROM YOUR PLAN, IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE SPOT, FOUR STEPS THERE.

FIRST QUESTION, IS THAT ACCURATE OR AND THEN I'LL GO WITH MY NEXT QUESTION.

IS THERE A CONNECTION IN YOUR OPEN SPACE TO STEP DOWN INTO THE SIDEWALK BELOW? WE HAVE DISCUSSED THAT.

I THINK I'D HAVE TO ASK JONATHAN IF WE FINALIZED THAT DISCUSSION.

YOU WANT TO TAKE THAT? SURE. YES, WE INITIALLY LOOKED AT HAVING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CONNECT, BUT THE NEIGHBORHOOD ADJACENT TO US WASN'T REALLY KEEN ON THAT.

SO WE DECIDED TO NOT.

UNDERSTOOD. YOU CAN'T FORCE IT, BUT I WOULD HAVE LOVED ONE, BUT I UNDERSTAND THERE'S GOT TO BE [INAUDIBLE].

WE ACTUALLY WOULD LIKE TO HAVE IT AS WELL.

I WOULD TOO, BUT WE PICK OUR BATTLES, SO THANK YOU FOR ASKING THAT.

ALL RIGHT, THAT'S ALL I HAVE. NO, I GUESS IT'S ONLY [INAUDIBLE].

I WOULD HAVE LOVED TO SEE THREE STORY ON THIS NORTHERN BORDER JUST BECAUSE IT IS ABUTTING A FOUR STOREY PRODUCT.

I MEAN, THE SOUTHERN SIDE OF THE SOUTHERN.

THAT'S JUST A PERSONAL PREFERENCE BUT I UNDERSTAND STAFF ARE MUCH SMARTER THAN US AND IF THAT'S THEY FEEL IT'S A TWO STOREY PRODUCT I THINK THEY MIGHT HAVE [INAUDIBLE] JONATHAN SPEAK TO THIS. I BELIEVE THEY MIGHT HAVE LET US DO IT, BUT THE MARKET ANALYSIS WE'VE DONE INDICATES THAT'S NOT REALLY WHAT RENTS WILL [INAUDIBLE].

[01:00:08]

WE'RE GETTING MIXED REVIEWS ON THAT.

THREE STOREYS, TWO STOREYS.

WE DON'T WANT TO FORCE YOU TO BUILD SOMETHING THAT YOU CAN'T SELL, SO I APPRECIATE YOU CONSIDERING IT.

I THINK YOU HAD A QUESTION. A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

YEAH, AND GREAT QUESTION ON THE ACCESS TO THE EAST THERE, AND I APPRECIATE IT [INAUDIBLE] AT LEAST TRYING ON THE WALKING ACCESS TO THE EAST GREEN SPACE THERE.

MY QUESTION JUST IS ON THE LEFT SIDE, THE WEST SIDE, YOU'VE A GREAT JOB WITH THE THE TREES AND THE SIDEWALK AND ALL OF THAT HEADING UP TOWARDS WARREN.

I WAS JUST CURIOUS ON ALONG, WARREN, WHY YOU CHOSE NOT TO DO STREET TREES KIND OF ALONG THE FUTURE WARREN PARKWAY INSTEAD OF DOING STREET TREES.

IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE TREES UP AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT INSTEAD OF DOING STREET TREES CLOSER TO STREET.

ANOTHER ONE FOR HIM, I THINK.

WE BASICALLY WENT AHEAD AND PUT IN SOME TREES, BUT AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE INFORMAL PLANTING WITH UNDERSTORY AND STREET TREES.

SO NOT WHAT I WOULD CALL QUITE A STREET TREE CONCEPT, BUT STILL A NICE GREEN EDGE ALONG THAT PEDESTRIAN WALKWAY.

OKAY, AND LAST QUESTION ON THAT.

JUST ANY TIME WE CAN PUT THE STREET TREES CLOSER TO THE CURB AND PROTECT THE SIDEWALK INSIDE OF THEM, IT'S ALWAYS PREFERRED IN MY MIND, BUT I KNOW THIS IS NOT FINAL, SO YOU GUYS ALWAYS HAVE THE OPTION OF DOING THAT IF YOU WANTED TO.

SURELY THE STAFF WOULD SUPPORT THAT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU WANTED TO DO.

SO THAT'S ALL I HAVE.

I WANTED TO THANK YOU FOR THIS, THE CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT LIKE WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE DONE.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLAN.

I THINK THE NEIGHBORHOODS SURROUNDING SHOULD BE VERY THANKFUL.

I THINK THIS IS A LOT BETTER OPTION THAN WHAT SOME OF THE POSSIBILITIES WERE.

SO APPRECIATE STAFF, THE APPLICANT AND THE NEIGHBORS WORKING TOGETHER ON THIS.

WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM 19.

MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 19.

MOTION BY SEAN. SECOND.

SECOND BY BRITTANY.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO.

CONGRATULATIONS. WE'LL MOVE ON TO ITEM 20.

[20. Public Hearing - Zoning: Planned Development-196 (Z22-0017)]

A ZONING PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 196 Z22-0017 OWNERS: MULTIPLE OWNERS.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 196 WAS ADOPTED IN JULY OF 2006 AND LATER AMENDED IN APRIL OF ZERO NINE TO ACCOMMODATE THE DEVELOPMENT THAT YOU SEE OUT THERE TODAY.

SO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 196 IS THE AREA THAT IS BOUND IN YELLOW, AND AS YOU CAN SEE, LIKE I SAID A MOMENT AGO, MOST OF IT HAS DEVELOPED.

WHAT HAS NOT DEVELOPED IS THE VACANT TRACT ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF DALLAS PARKWAY AND WARREN PARKWAY.

SO TODAY, THE VACANT TRACT IS TRACTS ONE AND FIVE.

SO AS COMMON WITH MOST PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS OLDER THAN TEN YEARS AND MARKET CHANGES, THE APPLICANT IS BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT TO REQUEST TO AMEND PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 196 TO ADOPT NEW DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR A REDESIGNED TRACT.

SO FOR PURPOSES OF THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT MOVING FORWARD, LIKE I SAID, THE VACANT TRACT IS TRACTS ONE AND FIVE TODAY.

THIS IS ALL BECOMING A SINGLE TRACT KNOWN AS TRACT FIVE.

THE PROJECT HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY COUNCIL'S POLICY FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

SO TO GO OVER THAT BRIEFLY UNIT COUNT.

SO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 196 WAS ADOPTED PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL'S POLICY FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

IN TERMS OF UNIT COUNT, THAT'S 55 UNITS TO THE ACRE.

IN THIS CASE, THE RESIDENTIAL ENTITLEMENTS FOR THE OVERALL PD 196 DO EXCEED WHAT MAY BE CONSIDERED ON THE PROPERTY UNDER THAT POLICY, BUT WITH THAT BEING SAID, SO THERE ARE 800 UNITS ALLOWED ON THE VACANT TRACTS TODAY.

SO WHAT'S IN RED, 800 UNITS ALLOWED, TRACT ONE, 300 UNITS, TRACT FIVE, 500 UNITS.

SO WITH THIS REQUEST, TRACT ONE BEING ELIMINATED, WE'RE REMOVING 300 UNITS.

SO THERE'S A MAXIMUM OF 500 UNITS.

SO AGAIN, REMOVING 300 UNITS.

NEXT, LOOKING AT OPEN SPACE, AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED A SECOND AGO, PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 196 WAS ADOPTED PRIOR TO CITY COUNCIL'S POLICY FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENTS, AND THE CASE OF OPEN SPACE, THAT BEING 10%, THIS DEVELOPMENT DOES EXCEED THE 10% BECAUSE AS YOU SEE HERE, TRACT SIX, WHICH IS ABOUT SEVEN AND ONE HALF ACRES, ACCOUNTS FOR 20.3% OF THE OVERALL PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT IS THE SOLE OPEN SPACE

[01:05:04]

SO WHILE IT MEETS THE PERCENTAGE, IT DOES NOT MEET WHAT WE WORK TOWARDS TODAY AS FAR AS AMENITIZING IT, THE BUILDINGS INTERACTING WITH IT.

AS YOU CAN SEE HERE, A MAJORITY OF TRACT SIX IS WATER.

SO WHILE IT IS THE OPEN SPACE, THE APPLICANT DID WORK WITH STAFF TO REDESIGN OR ACCOMMODATE THE POOL, THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE OF WHAT THEY ARE DOING ON TRACT B TO REALLY TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE OPEN SPACE AND REALLY AMENITIES THERE SOUTHERN EDGE DOING SOME TERRACING TAKING SOME STAIRS DOWN FROM THEIR BUILDINGS DOWN INTO THAT OPEN SPACE AND THEN THIS IS ALL TIED DOWN IN AN EXHIBIT EXHIBIT H INTO THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AND THEN LASTLY PHASING.

THAT'S ALSO THE THIRD COMPONENT OF THE CITY COUNCIL POLICY FOR MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.

SO PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF A CO FOR ANY RESIDENTIAL ON TRACT FIVE.

SO BEFORE THEY CAN DO ANYTHING ON TRACT FIVE, RESIDENTIAL WAS THE FIRST OFFICE TOWER ON TRACT FIVE I KNOW THIS KIND OF SPLIT INTO TWO, BUT ONE OF THE TWO OFFICE TOWERS ON TRACT FIVE MUST BE CONSTRUCTED OR TOPPED OUT TO A HEIGHT OF 15 STOREYS, AND THAT FIRST OFFICE TOWER MUST ALSO BE A MINIMUM SQUARE FOOTAGE OF 200,000 SQUARE FEET.

THE PROPERTY OWNER HAS VOLUNTARILY SIGNED THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND IT DOES COMPLY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN.

FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE CRITERIA NOTED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, THIS REQUEST IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THIS EVENING.

THE APPLICANT IS HERE SHOULD YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR THEM, AND I'M ALSO HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF THIS TIME BEFORE WE ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY'D LIKE TO SPEAK? YES, JAKE. YOU HAD MENTIONED EARLIER THAT THEY'RE REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF ALLOWED MULTIFAMILY UNITS, BUT THAT'S CORRECT, BUT TODAY THE ENTITLEMENTS OR THE CURRENT ENTITLEMENTS ON THE PROPERTY ARE ONLY FOR TOWNHOME, NOT FOR MULTI.

AM I READING THAT WRONG? SO YES, I MEAN, THERE ARE MULTIFAMILY ENTITLEMENTS.

THERE IS A LINE IN THE CURRENT PD THAT STATES THEY COULD DEVELOP TOWNHOMES AS WELL BECAUSE THAT LANGUAGE IS THERE TODAY.

THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING THAT LANGUAGE STAY, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE ZONING EXHIBIT, THERE ARE MULTIFAMILY ENTITLEMENTS ON TRACT ONE AND FIVE TODAY 300 ON TRACT ONE 500 ON TRACT FIVE.

SO ALL OF TRACT B, WHICH IS CURRENTLY TWO TRACTS TODAY THERE'S 800 UNITS ENTITLED TRACT ONE IS ESSENTIALLY BEING DELETED.

IT'S ALL BECOMING TRACT FIVE.

SO WITH THE REMOVAL OF TRACT ONE, 300 OF THOSE UNITS ARE JUST GOING AWAY.

SO WE ARE REMOVING UNITS, BUT THEY ARE STILL MULTIFAMILY UNITS.

THANK YOU. STILL CLARIFICATION, OR ARE YOU GOOD, JAKE? I'M GOOD, THANK YOU.

QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? TO FOLLOW ON TO THAT QUESTION.

SO JUST TO CLARIFY THAT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE ENTITLED TO BUILD 800 MULTIFAMILY UNITS, CORRECT, ON THOSE TWO TRACTS? CORRECT. OR THEY ALSO HAVE THE OPTION TO BUILD TOWNHOMES.

SO THE WAY THE PD SAYS TODAY, TOWNHOMES INCLUDES VERTICAL UNITS AND FLATS AND MULTIFAMILY USES.

SO IT DEFINES ESSENTIALLY WHAT RESIDENTIAL IS, AND THEN FURTHER DOWN IT SAYS THE MAXIMUM RESIDENTIAL UNIT COUNT. SO THEY COULD DEVELOP ALL MULTIFAMILY, THEY COULD DEVELOP SOME TOWNHOMES, THEY COULD COMBINE IT.

SO THAT'S THE WAY THE PD IS WRITTEN TODAY.

OKAY. OKAY, JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, THOUGH, YOU DO HAVE A ZONING EXHIBIT IN THE CURRENT PD.

SO THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY CAN DEVELOP THE ENTIRE SITE AS RESIDENTIAL.

RIGHT, AND AT ONE TIME, THAT'S ALL THEY WANTED TO DO.

I TOLD THEM, NO, WE HAVE THE ZONING EXHIBIT.

THIS IS WHERE THAT ZONING EXHIBIT CAME IN HANDY AND SAYS, NO, YOU CAN'T.

COMMERCIAL IS REQUIRED.

WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY CREATED, IT WAS ABOUT DOING OFFICE ON THE CORNER.

SO WITH THIS REQUEST AND SINCE THIS IS THE LAST PART OF THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS DONE BACK IN 2005 OR SIX, THIS IS CLARIFYING WHERE THE OFFICE AND WHEN THE OFFICE IS GETTING BUILT TO MEET THE COUNCIL'S DIRECTIVE OF SEEING OFFICE DEVELOPMENT OCCURRING WITH RESIDENTIAL, AND TO FOLLOW UP ON WHAT JOHN JUST STATED.

SO THAT PROVISION THAT'S IN THE PD TODAY THAT TALKS ABOUT TOWNHOMES, THAT TALKS ABOUT MULTIFAMILY, LIKE IF YOU CONTINUE TO READ ON IN THAT PROVISION, IT

[01:10:10]

OKAY, VERY GOOD. SO TODAY THE REQUIREMENT IS TO DO SOME COMMERCIAL.

YEAH, THERE IS COMMERCIAL REQUIREMENT TODAY.

SO IT'S JUST MORE DETAIL DEFINED.

YES SO THE IMPROVEMENT IS THAT WE'RE REDUCING THE TOTAL NUMBER OF MULTIFAMILY UNITS AND CLARIFYING DEFINING THE ALREADY REQUIRED COMMERCIAL OFFICE. YES, BECAUSE BEFORE COUNCIL ADOPTED THEIR POLICY SEVERAL YEARS AGO, IT WASN'T THEY COULD HAVE DONE THE RESIDENTIAL ZONE FIRST AND DID THE COMMERCIAL LATER.

WHAT YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU TONIGHT IS, AS JONATHAN MENTIONED, WHAT WAS IT, 17 STORIES? 15 STORIES.

AND A MINIMUM OF 200,000 SQUARE FEET OF OFFICE SPACE.

THAT'S WHAT THE FIRST PHASE OF DOING THAT WITH THE MULTIFAMILY.

IS THE HEIGHT FOR THE COMMERCIAL CHANGING AT ALL OF WHAT [INAUDIBLE] WE'RE SPECIFYING THE HEIGHT.

YEAH. SO TODAY WE'RE NAILING DOWN A SPECIFIC 15 STOREY MINIMUM FOR THE COMMERCIAL OFFICE AND THE EXISTING PRIOR TO CHANGING, WAS THERE ANY HEIGHT RESTRICTION OR HEIGHT MINIMUM, DO YOU REMEMBER? I MEAN, THERE WAS A MAXIMUM HEIGHT OF 500 FEET, BUT THERE WAS NO THERE WAS NO MINIMUM, AND IN THE PD TODAY, THERE ARE HANDFUL OF OFFICE RENDERINGS THAT I'M SURE YOU KNOW, THE COUNCIL AT THE TIME, THAT WAS THE HOPE THAT IS WHAT WOULD BE THERE, BUT THERE WAS NOTHING TYING ANYONE DOWN TO DOING THAT.

THAT WAS JUST A HOPE, ESSENTIALLY, BUT THE PD HAS PLENTY OF FLEXIBILITY OR OUTS TO NOT DO THAT.

THE PD THAT IS BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, AS JOHN MENTIONED, HAS BEEN REVIEWED IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY COUNCIL'S POLICY AND ALL OF THAT IS TIED DOWN.

SO THE PHASING, THE 15 STOREYS, THE MINIMUM 200,000 SQUARE FEET, IT'S ALL TIED DOWN IN THE LINE.

VERY GOOD. YES.

I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND HOW THIS IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED.

SO WHAT YOU HAVE SHOWN UP HERE IN AREA A IS COMMERCIAL AREA.

THE OFFICE BUILDINGS ARE--AREA A IS ALREADY DEVELOPED TODAY.

THESE ARE ESSENTIALLY ALL MULTIFAMILY BUILDINGS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S SOME GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL THAT'S ALL ALREADY DEVELOPED TODAY.

THE REASON THAT IT'S SHOWN ON THIS EXHIBIT IS BECAUSE IT'S ALL PD 196 TODAY.

OKAY, AND ESSENTIALLY THIS REQUEST IS A REPEAL AND REPLACE.

SO WE'RE BRINGING FORWARD ALL OF THESE STANDARDS SO THAT ESSENTIALLY ALL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT STILL COMPLIES WITH THE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN PLACE, BUT THE REAL MEAT OF WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT IS DEVELOPMENT ON TRACT B, TRACT FIVE.

YES. YEAH.

SO WHEN I LOOK IN THE PACKET YOU PROVIDED, EXHIBIT E, I LOOK AT THESE PICTURES THAT LOOK LIKE RESIDENCES AND THAT WOULD BE ON THE CORNER.

NOT ON THE HARD CORNER. THE HARD CORNER IS THE OFFICE, AND NEXT TO THAT IS IF WE GO BACK I CAN.

YEAH, I'M TRYING TO. SO THE OFFICE IS ON OKAY SURE ONE SECOND.

LET ME JUST A COUPLE OF THINGS.

LET'S JUST LOOK AT THIS OVERALL EXHIBIT HERE.

SO YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TWO OFFICE BUILDINGS HERE.

YOU HAVE OFFICE BUILDING, OFFICE BUILDING, AND YOU HAVE MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT THERE.

SO WHAT I'M LOOKING AT ON EXHIBIT E IS THIS BLUE CIRCLE YOU JUST DREW.

SO WHAT YOU ARE LOOKING AT ON EXHIBIT A, ALL OF THOSE RENDERINGS THAT I PULLED UP HERE, ALL OF THESE ARE FROM THE PD THAT WAS PUT IN PLACE IN 2006 AND AMENDED IN 2009.

SO ALL OF THIS DEVELOPMENT HERE COMPLIES WITH THESE FIRST FEW EXHIBITS, AND THESE EXHIBITS ARE HERE BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, SOMEONE CALLS AND SAYS, DOES THAT EXISTING DEVELOPMENT COMPLY WITH PD 196? ALL OF EVERYTHING OUT THERE THAT WAS DEVELOPED WAS DEVELOPED UNDER THIS TODAY THAT YOU SEE THIS.

THE QUESTION AS FAR AS TYING DOWN NEW DEVELOPMENTS.

SO THE MULTIFAMILY THAT I JUST HAD IN THE BLUE CIRCLE IS THIS HERE.

[01:15:05]

THIS IS THE OFFICE IN THE RED CIRCLE.

THESE ARE NEW EXHIBITS THAT WE ARE ADOPTING IN THIS NEW PD.

THESE EXHIBITS ARE NOT IN THERE TODAY.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE I OFFER THE APPLICANT [INAUDIBLE]? JONATHAN SO THE OFFICE BUILDINGS DO NOT REQUIRE ANY KIND OF COMMERCIAL ON THE GROUND FLOOR.

IS THAT CORRECT? OFFICE BUILDINGS [INAUDIBLE] FIRST I ASK ABOUT THE OFFICE AND ABOUT THE RESIDENTIAL.

ARE YOU SAYING DOES OFFICE REQUIRE TO HAVE SOMETHING OTHER THAN OFFICE ON GROUND FLOOR? CORRECT. IS THERE ANY DIFFERENT GROUND FLOOR REQUIREMENT? OFFICE IS OFFICE.

OKAY. ON THE MULTIFAMILY, THEY ARE NOT REQUIRED TO HAVE ANY GROUND FLOOR COMMERCIAL.

HOWEVER, IF YOU SEE ON THE EXHIBIT HERE AND THE [INAUDIBLE] ON THE SOUTH SIDE, THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING THAT AREA AS A FLEX SPACE.

SO THERE WOULD BE THE POTENTIAL TO COME BACK IN THE FUTURE AND FLIP THAT TO COMMERCIAL IF THERE WAS A MARKET FOR IT THERE.

THAT IS A DISCUSSION THAT STAFF HAD WITH THE APPLICANT.

I UNDERSTAND FROM THE APPLICANT THAT THEY KIND OF REACHED OUT SOME TO SOME DIFFERENT PARTNERS ON THEIRS, AND FROM WHAT WE UNDERSTAND, THERE WASN'T THE MARKET FOR IT.

THAT'S WHAT THEY TOLD US, BUT THEY ARE CONSTRUCTING IT.

MARKET CHANGES.

THE BUILDING COULD FLIP TO COMMERCIAL IN THESE AREAS.

CAN YOU CIRCLE THAT? YOU MEAN THAT HASHED AREA DOWN THERE? KIND OF AT THE CURVE. OKAY.

SO THAT TODAY IS GOING TO BE APARTMENTS, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE PHYSICALLY BUILT TO BE CONVERTIBLE IN THE FUTURE IF THEY EVER WANTED TO? THAT'S CORRECT. THANK YOU.

WITH THAT, IF THE APPLICANT'S HERE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO SPEAK OR GIVE A PRESENTATION OR IF YOU JUST WANT TO SAY THAT YOU'RE HERE FOR QUESTIONS, WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTIONS. OKAY.

I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE IT AWAY IF YOU DID HAVE A PRESENTATION.

I'LL SAY A FEW WORDS. GOOD EVENING, CHAIR AND COMMISSIONERS.

DAVID MARTIN 2728 NORTH HARWOOD STREET IN DALLAS.

HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT, I DON'T WANT TO BE TOO REPETITIVE OF THE DISCUSSION THAT'S ALREADY BEEN HAD AND THANK YOU TO JONATHAN FOR THE PRESENTATION.

I THINK THE THREE MAIN THINGS TO HIGHLIGHT WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN HIGHLIGHTED ARE ONE, THIS IS A REDUCTION OF 300 MULTIFAMILY UNITS COMPARED TO WHAT'S ALLOWED BY RIGHT TODAY UNDER EXISTING ZONING.

SECONDLY, AS MR. LETTELIER MENTIONED, THIS PD INTRODUCES A MORE ROBUST PHASING REQUIREMENTS.

SO CONSTRUCTION OF THE FIRST OFFICE MUST BE COMPLETE BEFORE A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY FOR THE MULTIFAMILY CAN BE ISSUED, AND LASTLY, WE'RE MAKING THOSE IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PEDESTRIAN AREA AND EXPERIENCE ALONG THE SOUTHERN PORTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OVERLOOKING THE POND LOOKING TO THE SOUTH.

SO THAT WILL BE DONE THROUGH ADDING PEDESTRIAN OVERLOOKS, ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND SEATING AREAS, AND MAKING CONNECTIONS TO THE SIDEWALK THERE AROUND THE POND AND ALSO OUT WEST TO THE TRAIL ALONG DALLAS PARKWAY.

THIS HAS BEEN A VERY COLLABORATIVE EFFORT WITH STAFF, AND WE'RE VERY APPRECIATIVE FOR ALL THE FEEDBACK THEY PROVIDED.

OVERALL, WE FEEL LIKE THIS IS AN IMPROVEMENT TO WHAT'S ALLOWED BY EXISTING ZONING TODAY AND A BETTER SITE PLAN, AND FOR THOSE REASONS WE WOULD RESPECTFULLY ASK RECOMMENDATION OF APPROVAL AND WE'RE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS THERE MIGHT BE.

THANK YOU. IF YOU COULD FILL OUT A BLUE SPEAKER CARD AND PROBABLY I KNOW I HAVE AT LEAST ONE QUESTION.

SO IF YOU DON'T WANT STEPS, JUST I MEAN, AFTER YOU FILL IT OUT, JUST SIT DOWN AND STAY IN THE FRONT ROW.

I KNOW YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, BUT YOU THINK WE SHOULD DO PUBLIC HEARING FIRST AND THEN LET'S GO TO THOSE QUESTIONS.

THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.

MOTION BY BRITTANY. SECOND BY BRYAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSED SIX ZERO.

WE'RE IN PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 20.

SEEING NONE MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

A MOTION BY BRYAN.

A SECOND BY SEAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSED SIX ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

WITH THAT I BELIEVE, SEAN, YOU SAID YOU HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF.

YES, JOEL, I HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT THE TRAFFIC.

THIS AREA AND I WORK RIGHT ACROSS THE STREET.

I SAY CROSS THE STREET, BUT ACROSS THE TOLLWAY ON THE OTHER CORNER BY GAYLORD, AND I COME THROUGH HERE EVERY DAY, GOING HOME, GOING NORTH, TURN RIGHT ON GAYLORD.

MAN, THAT TRAFFIC IS BAD.

I KNOW I'VE READ THE NOTES IN HERE ON THE TIA AND THE QUEUE THAT BACKS UP FROM THAT SIGNAL.

IS THERE ANY MORE WIDENING HAPPENING ON DNT AT THAT AREA ON THE SORRY, DALLAS PARKWAY.

[01:20:01]

IS THAT GOING TO PUSH THE FRONTAGE ROAD OUT? NO, THAT WILL NOT MOVE THE FRONTAGE ROAD.

OKAY. I'M CONCERNED THAT THE TRAFFIC IS GOING TO BE BACKED UP PRETTY GOOD THERE.

I MEAN, IT'S ALREADY BACKED UP TO AT LEAST THAT SECOND, IF NOT THAT THIRD SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY, I THINK, A LOT OF THE TIMES WHEN I COME HOME.

ALSO, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN FOR ME ABOUT THE PROXIMITY OF ANY NEW SIGNAL THAT DOES COME ON, WARREN.

I KNOW I TALKED ABOUT IT THAT THEY WOULD HAVE TO DO ANOTHER ANALYSIS OF WARREN, BUT THAT PROXIMITY TO THE THE DIAMOND INTERSECTION AT THE DALLAS TOLLWAY.

THAT CONCERNS ME.

SO YES, I HAD A LOT OF THE SAME CONCERNS, AND ONE OF THE THINGS IS THAT WE DON'T REQUIRE A TIA FOR EVERY PROJECT, BUT WHAT WE REALLY DON'T REQUIRE OF MOST PROJECTS IS AN ACTUAL COMPUTER SIMULATION OF DOING MICROSCOPIC SIMULATION OF THE TRAFFIC, AND THAT'S ONE THING I WANTED TO SEE IS SHOW ME A MICROSCOPIC SIMULATION OF THE TRAFFIC ON DALLAS PARKWAY BECAUSE I TOO WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT CONCENTRATING THESE TWO BIG BUILDINGS ON DALLAS PARKWAY WITHOUT A LOT OF ACCESS TO OTHER WAYS IN AND OUT WOULD BE AN ISSUE.

I WAS PLEASANTLY SURPRISED.

I WENT OUT AND WATCHED TRAFFIC ON NORTHBOUND DALLAS PARKWAY MYSELF AND THEY VIDEOED IT AND SO FORTH, AND IT'S FUNNY, WHEN YOU DRIVE ON A ROAD, YOU ARE IN THE PLATOON OF TRAFFIC.

YOU'RE IN THE TRAFFIC THAT WAS RELEASED FROM THE LIGHT PREVIOUSLY, AND SO YOU GET THE IMPRESSION THAT IT'S JUST CONSTANT TRAFFIC THE ENTIRE WAY AND THEREFORE IT MUST BE THAT WAY THE ENTIRE MINUTE BEFORE YOU GOT THERE AND THE ENTIRE MINUTE AFTER YOU WERE THERE, BUT IF YOU'RE ACTUALLY STANDING ON THE CORNER HERE WATCHING IT, THERE WERE A LOT OF GAPS THAT PLATOON GOT TO.

THE SIGNAL WENT THROUGH IT AND/OR QUEUED UP AT THE SIGNAL AND DIDN'T BACK UP TO WHERE THESE DRIVEWAYS ARE GOING TO BE.

SO THAT WAS A LOT OF A RELIEF FROM MY INITIAL CONCERN, BUT OF COURSE, THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL NOW ADD TRAFFIC TO THAT AND WILL INCREASE THAT QUEUE AND SO FORTH, AND THAT'S WHAT I WANTED TO SEE ON THE TRAFFIC SIMULATION, AND SO THEY DID SHOW THAT IT IS GOING TO BE IT'S GOING TO ADD TRAFFIC OBVIOUSLY TO THE FRONTAGE ROAD, BUT WITH A LITTLE SIGNAL TIMING OPTIMIZATION, IT'S NOT GOING TO BE AS BAD AS I THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE, AND THAT'S AGAIN, I THINK I DESCRIBED IN THE MEMO THAT WE ACTUALLY WORKED WITH THEM TO CHANGE THE DESIGN BECAUSE ORIGINALLY THEY DIDN'T HAVE ANOTHER DRIVEWAY AND I WANTED ANOTHER DRIVEWAY FURTHER SOUTH TO HELP PEOPLE GET ON AND WEAVE OVER.

SO IT IS BETTER NOW THAN WHAT THE FIRST SCENARIO THAT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ONLY HAD TWO DRIVEWAYS.

NOW IT HAS THREE BECAUSE THIS DRIVEWAY IS ESSENTIALLY USELESS DURING PEAK HOUR.

YOU CAN'T GET OUT. SO, YOU KNOW, LOOKING AT THEIR ANALYSIS, I FEEL A LOT BETTER ABOUT IT.

IT WILL BE A BUSY AREA AS ALL DEVELOPMENT ALONG THE TOLLWAYS, EVERYTHING BUILDS OUT TO FULL BUILD OUT.

IT'S LIKE THE STAR AND FRISCO STATION, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE [INAUDIBLE] SERVICE D&E, AND THAT'S KIND OF WHAT WE HAVE BARGAINED FOR WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT WE WANT ALONG THAT CORRIDOR, AND ITS BIG CITY TRAFFIC AND WE ARE GOING TO HAVE BIG CITY TRAFFIC ALONG THE TOLLWAY.

WE JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE IT'S AS GOOD AS IT CAN BE.

ONE OTHER THING IS, YES, YOU'RE RIGHT, THIS IS A LOCATION WHERE WE LOOK AT A TRAFFIC SIGNAL.

WE ACTUALLY HAVE A LOT BETTER LUCK WITH TRAFFIC SIGNALS THAT ARE SPACED CLOSER TO AN INTERCHANGE WITH THE TOLLWAY THAN WE DO A CERTAIN DISTANCE AWAY.

SO WE WOULD PREFER THE SIGNAL TO BE HERE THAN IT WOULD BE AT THE NEXT ROAD OVER, WHICH IS [INAUDIBLE], AND THEN YOU'RE TOO CLOSE TO PARKWOOD, BUT THE CLOSER THE SIGNAL IS TO THE INTERCHANGE CURTIS CONTAINMENT, MUCH LIKE WE HAVE A LOT OF EXPERIENCE WITH LIKE WORLD CUP HERE NEAR CITY HALL AND SO FORTH. SO WE'RE WE'RE OKAY WITH THAT.

IS IT ESTIMATED THAT THERE'LL BE ACCELERATION DECELERATION LANES ON THE DALLAS PARKWAY OR THE DRIVEWAYS? WELL, WE WILL HAVE DECELERATION LANES FOR BOTH.

WE DON'T HAVE ACCELERATION LANES ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, BUT THEY EACH WILL HAVE A DECELERATION LANE.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS, BUT YES, JAKE.

JUST FOR JONATHAN, I JUST WANTED TO SEE IF YOU COULD KIND OF WALK US THROUGH A LITTLE BIT OF THE ENHANCEMENTS OF KIND OF AMENITIZING THAT SOUTHERN PORTION NEAR THE NEAR THE LITTLE POND THERE.

I MEAN, IT LOOKS LIKE IT HAS A STREET THROUGH WHICH OBVIOUSLY YOU YOU HAVE TO HAVE THAT.

[01:25:07]

THAT IS NOT A STREET THAT IS OPEN TO THE PUBLIC AT ALL TIMES.

SO ESSENTIALLY IT WILL SERVE AS ESSENTIALLY LIKE A PLAZA.

YOU CAN'T HAVE STRUCTURES IN IT BECAUSE IT IS A FIRE LANE, BUT IT'S AN EMERGENCY ACCESS ONLY FIRE LANE.

YOU CAN SEE THERE IS THE SIDEWALK.

SO ESSENTIALLY TODAY, AND HOW MUCH OF THE DEVELOPMENT OUT THERE TODAY IS THERE'S TRACT SIX.

THERE'S THIS SIDEWALK THAT GOES AROUND IT.

YOU HAVE THE STREET AND THEN YOU HAVE DEVELOPMENT ON THE OTHER SIDE AND THERE'S REALLY NO INTERACTION.

SO HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE AGAIN, THERE'S THE BUILDING.

ALL OF THESE UNITS ESSENTIALLY HAVE DIRECT ACCESS OUT, AND TO THIS PLAZA YOU CAN SEE THE WALLS WITH THE TERRACING SO THAT IT'S JUST NOT A DROP WITH ENHANCED LANDSCAPING ON TOP AND THEN YOU HAVE STAIRS DOWN ONTO THE SIDEWALK.

THERE'S ALSO, AS YOU CAN TRYING TO CHANGE COLOR, YOU KNOW, SEATING AREAS, OVERLOOKS THINGS OF THAT NATURE.

AGAIN, ALL ALLOWING RESIDENTS AND VISITORS TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THIS SPACE.

ONE OTHER THING THAT I WILL POINT OUT THAT I DID NOT MENTION EARLIER AND LET ME SEE, I THINK THERE'S A BETTER EXHIBIT TO SHOW THIS.

I'LL JUST USE THIS EXHIBIT.

SO THE SIDEWALK TODAY, RIGHT HERE, YOU CAN KIND OF SEE A LITTLE CIRCLE AREA WITH THIS ZONING REQUEST.

NOT ONLY ARE THEY ENHANCING THIS AREA TO GO DOWN TO IT, THEY'RE ALSO TAKING THIS SIDEWALK AND CONTINUING IT TO TIE INTO THE SIDEWALK ALONG DALLAS PARKWAY.

SO THERE ARE OPPORTUNITIES FOR PEOPLE TO EXIT THEIR UNIT OR COME DOWN HERE, GET ONTO THIS SIDEWALK AND COME ALL THE WAY UP TO WHERE PREVIOUSLY IT WENT HERE AND STOPPED AND THEN IT WENT HERE AND STOPPED.

SO THAT WOULD BE ADVANTAGE TO EVERYONE IN THIS AREA.

THANK YOU. WHILE WE'RE ON THAT TOPIC, BECAUSE I'M ULTRA FAMILIAR, I'VE BEEN ACTUALLY WALKING THIS TRAIL FOR EIGHT, TEN YEARS.

IT'S A HIDDEN GEM THAT YOU'RE ALMOST NEXT TO THE FREEWAY AND THERE'S NO ONE ELSE WALKING IT.

I ACTUALLY LOVE THIS TRAIL, BUT ONE THING I'VE BEEN COMPLAINING ABOUT FOR ALMOST TEN YEARS IS THIS SIDEWALK.

IT DOESN'T CONNECT TO THE SIDEWALK RIGHT THERE.

IS THERE ANY PLANS TO I KNOW YOU SHOWED THAT IT WAS GOING TO MAKE IT OUT TO DALLAS PARKWAY, BUT TO WRAP AROUND.

SO IT CONNECTS TO THE OTHER PORTION OF THE SIDEWALK BECAUSE RIGHT NOW YOU JUST HAVE IT DEAD ENDS HERE AND GOING OUT THIS WAY.

IS THERE ANY DESIRE FROM CITY OR THE APPLICANT TO MAKE THAT A FULL, I MEAN, LOOP? [INAUDIBLE] BUT YOU GOT DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNERS, BUT IT IS A DIFFERENT PROPERTY OWNER.

WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT HAPPEN.

SO IT'S NOT THIS OWNER FOR TRACT SIX.

THAT'S PART OF IT, AND THEN I DO UNDERSTAND FROM THE ENGINEERS THAT THERE ARE SOME GREAT CHALLENGES IN THAT AREA AS WELL.

SO IT'S NOT AS SIMPLE AS JUST SAYING HAVE IT CONNECT.

THERE ARE CHALLENGES.

THE TRAFFIC CIRCLE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE DEVELOPMENT.

THAT'S CATHY CI CIRCLE, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN.

CI CIRCLE IS THIS ROAD, THE ONE THAT LOOKS LIKE A LONGHORN? I DON'T KNOW IF EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT, BUT IF YOU LOOK AT A MAP, THIS IS A LONGHORN.

ANYWAY, I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU DO THAT.

THAT'S CATHY CI.

IT'S ACTUALLY JUST CI CIRCLE, BUT THE ROUNDABOUT IS JUST SIMPLY THE INTERSECTION OF MINERS CREEK AND AVENUE OF STAR.

I'M CONFUSED LOOKING AT THE EXHIBITS.

DOES THAT STAY THERE? NO, IT GOES AWAY.

SO I AM SAD.

THAT'S THE FIRST ROUNDABOUT IN THE CITY AND IT'S GOING TO GO AWAY.

BUT IF ANY ROUNDABOUT WERE TO GO AWAY, THIS IS THE ONE THAT SHOULD.

BECAUSE IT'S THE FIRST ROUNDABOUT IN THE CITY, IT'S NOT BUILT CORRECTLY.

YEAH, IT DOESN'T MEET A LOT OF STANDARDS.

SO IT'S IF ANY ONE OF THEM WAS TO GO AWAY, THIS WOULD BE THE ONE, OTHERWISE WE'D HAVE TO REALLY REBUILD IT TO MAKE IT PROPER, BUT IT WAS BUILT BEFORE MY TIME, BUT IT'LL BE SAD TO SEE IT GO.

I HAD A FEW COMMENTS, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY IF SOMEONE HAS SOME QUESTIONS.

I JUST HAD A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

[01:30:09]

MY QUESTION WOULD BE, ARE YOU PLANNING ON BUILDING IT SO THAT IF PEOPLE WANTED TO KIND OF DO A LOOP AROUND THE DEVELOPMENT, MEANING THEY WALK ALONG THE POND, THEY GO TO THE WEST, THEY GET TO THE DALLAS TOLLWAY, MAKE SURE THAT YOU BUILD THAT SIDE ALONG THE PARKWAY SO THAT PEOPLE WOULD ENJOY WALKING ON IT, AND THEN THEY COULD CIRCLE AROUND UP TO WARREN PARKWAY AND DO LOOPS AROUND THE PROJECT.

THAT'S REQUIRED. YES, WELL, I UNDERSTAND THAT IT'S REQUIRED TO BUILD A SIDEWALK.

IT'S NOT REQUIRED TO MAKE IT ENJOYABLE AND PLEASANT TO WALK ON, AND THAT'S A BIG DEAL.

PEOPLE HAVE HEARD THIS 1000 TIMES FROM ME, BUT IF YOU GO UP TO THE TEXAS HEALTH RESOURCES, THE HOSPITAL [INAUDIBLE], YOU CAN WALK ALONG THE TOLLWAY WITH YOUR LITTLE KIDS AND YOU HAVE NO CONCERNS AT ALL.

IT'S VERY ENJOYABLE TO WALK ALONG.

I WOULD THINK THAT YOU WOULD BUILD SOMETHING SIMILAR HERE NEXT TO TALL OFFICE BUILDINGS.

YES, OUR INTENT IS TO MAKE IT AS PEDESTRIAN FRIENDLY AS POSSIBLE.

THAT'S ALL WE'RE LOOKING FOR. THANK YOU. SURE.

I WILL ALSO MENTION, I THINK THERE ARE SOME EASEMENTS ALONG THERE THAT CHALLENGES ON THE PLACEMENT OF TREES.

YEAH, SO SIMILAR TO JOHN'S POINT, THERE IS A LOT GOING ON ALONG DALLAS PARKWAY.

SO, YOU KNOW, STAFF HAD WORKED WITH FIRE TO ESSENTIALLY PULL BUILDINGS AS CLOSE TO ACCESS ROADS AS POSSIBLE IN CERTAIN SCENARIOS TO USE THE ACCESS ROAD FOR FIRE COVERAGE FOR EMERGENCY SERVICES PURPOSES, AND THAT'S WHAT WE WANT.

THAT'S WHAT WE ORIGINALLY WERE TRYING TO DO HERE, BUT IT WAS QUICKLY LEARNED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF EXISTING EASEMENTS, NOT EASEMENTS THAT ARE PROPOSED FOR THIS REQUEST, EASEMENTS THAT COULD BE MOVED, BUT A NUMBER OF EXISTING EASEMENTS THAT ARE OUT THERE TODAY.

SO TO YOUR POINT, THAT IS ACKNOWLEDGED.

YOU KNOW, STAFF, PARTICULARLY OUR SENIOR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT, WORKED WITH THEM TO FIGURE OUT WHERE WE COULD PUT TREES, AND I WILL HONESTLY SAY THEY ARE PUTTING TREES AND MAKING IT AS NICE AS THEY CAN EVERYWHERE THAT THEY CAN, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF EASEMENTS OUT THERE.

DO WE KNOW YET IF ANY OF THOSE EASEMENTS ARE GOING TO FORCE THE SIDEWALK TO BE WITHIN TWO FEET OF THE FRONTAGE ROAD OR THREE FEET OR FOUR FEET OR FIVE FEET.

NO, YOU'RE MEETING ALL THE REQUIREMENTS.

THE MINIMUM DISTANCE IS FIVE FEET.

THEY'RE MEETING THAT. YEAH, BUT AS I'VE MENTIONED MANY TIMES BEFORE, WE DO THE JOB IN WHICH WE CAN DO WITH THE EASEMENTS AND PHYSICAL CONSTRAINTS OUT THERE.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO MAKE THIS AS PLEASANT AS POSSIBLE, BUT IT IS CHALLENGING.

ALONG THE DALLAS PARKWAY HERE, THERE'S DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, UTILITY EASEMENTS THAT WE HAVE TO CONTEND WITH THAT DICTATES WHERE THE TREES CAN BE PLANTED.

I DON'T GET TO VOTE TONIGHT, BUT I DO WANT TO JUST SHARE MY SENTIMENT OF I THINK THIS IS A REALLY GREAT PROJECT WITH REGARDS TO TIGHTENING UP THE ZONING.

YOU KNOW, THOSE THAT MAY NOT KNOW IS EACH YEAR AS STAFF CITY, WE LEARN AND WE GET A LOT MORE DETAIL ON WHAT WE ASK OF THE APPLICANT IN WRITING THESE PDS AND SO FORTH, AND THIS ONE, THOSE THAT HAVE TAKEN TIME UP HERE AND ALSO MAYBE JUST LISTENING, IT IS VERY THOROUGH ON WHAT IS REQUIRED FOR THIS PROJECT, AND SO I COMMEND STAFF AND THE APPLICANT BEING WILLING TO AGREE TO THAT OF WHAT'S BEING ASKED, BECAUSE WE'RE GOING TO GET A 15 STORY OFFICE TOWER, AND I THINK THAT'S GREAT FOR OUR COMMUNITY LONG TERM.

WE'RE GOING TO NEED RESIDENTS TO BE EMPLOYED AND SO THERE'S GOING TO BE A NEED FOR MULTIFAMILY.

SOMETIMES IT'S A BAD WORD, BUT IF THERE WAS A PLACE TO HAVE IT 300 FEET OFF THE TOLLWAY, I WOULD THINK IS A PRETTY GOOD LOCATION TO HAVE THAT MULTIFAMILY DEVELOPMENT.

SO I'M EXCITED, AND WHAT THE ELEVATIONS THAT YOU'RE BEING HELD TO.

I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT PROJECT OR WILL BE A GREAT PROJECT.

YOU KNOW, IT'S ONE THING I REALIZE I TRY TO THINK OF THE DEVELOPERS YOU NEED TO SAVE ON COST BECAUSE I HAVE WALKED THIS TRAIL A COPIOUS AMOUNT OF TIMES OVER THE YEARS.

I THINK IT WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL WHEN ALL BUILT OUT WITH TWO TALL OFFICE BUILDINGS AND 500 APARTMENTS, MINIMUM OF 1000 PEOPLE HAVING THAT LOOPED AROUND, I REALIZE THAT MIGHT BE OUT OF YOUR CONTROL, BUT I THINK IT WOULD BE A GREAT AMENITY TO THE CITY.

I THINK IT'D BE A GREAT AMENITY TO YOUR DEVELOPMENT TO TRULY CONSIDER THAT AS YOU MOVE FORWARD.

I KNOW WE CAN'T TIE THAT TO YOU, BUT I JUST HOPE THAT DOES TAKE SOME SERIOUS CONSIDERATION, BUT I THINK THIS LOOKS REALLY GOOD FROM

[01:35:07]

I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 20 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MOTION BY STEVE.

SECOND BY SEAN.

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

CONGRATULATIONS. LAST ITEM: 21 PUBLIC HEARING.

[21. Public Hearing: Zoning: King Estates (Z22-0020)]

I'M SORRY. OH, YOU'RE RIGHT.

OWNERS PAUL D.

AND MARGEE D.

KING. I'LL JUST MAKE THE PRESENTATION FROM UP HERE.

THE PROPERTY OWNER APPEARED AT A CITY COUNCIL MEETING AND SHE WAS WONDERING HOW HER PROPERTY GOT ZONED.

SO THIS ALL STARTED WITH A MINOR PLAT THAT WERE COMING IN.

ZONING MAP SHOWS RESIDENTIAL ESTATE FOR THIS PROPERTY AND WANTS TO SUBDIVIDE.

HOWEVER, SUBDIVIDING IS NOT AN OPTION UNDER RESIDENTIAL ESTATE ZONING BECAUSE IT DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS.

THE LOT TODAY DOES NOT MEET THE MINIMUM STANDARDS FOR RESIDENTIAL ESTATE.

SO THE PROPERTY WAS ZONED AS SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL IN 1988, AND NO OTHER DESIGNATION WAS APPLIED AS FAR AS MINIMUM LOT SIZE. I DON'T KNOW WHY.

THEN IN 1993, WHEN THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS UPDATED, THE ZONING MAP WAS ADOPTED AT THAT TIME AND TOOK THIS PROPERTY TO RESIDENTIAL ESTATE.

WHAT WAS THE REASONING BEHIND IT? I DON'T KNOW, BUT I WENT BACK AND CHECKED THE ORDINANCE.

THE CITY FOLLOWED STATE LAW, WHICH IS THE SAME AS TODAY.

MAILING PROPERTY OWNER NOTICES BEFORE THE 10TH DAY, AND SO ALL THE PROPERTY OWNERS WERE NOTIFIED AND THEY SAY THEY WERE NOT NOTIFIED, BUT AS FAR AS I CAN TELL, THE CITY FOLLOWED THE PROCESS AS WE DO ON ALL ZONING CASES.

SO AFTER MRS. KING CAME BEFORE CITY COUNCIL, COUNCIL ASKED ME TO TAKE A LOOK AT IT.

I PUT A PROPOSAL TOGETHER TO TAKE THIS TO SINGLE FAMILY TEN BECAUSE BOTH OF THESE I MEAN, THE PROPERTY CAN BE SUBDIVIDED INTO TWO LOTS, AND THAT'S THE LARGEST LOT SIZE THAT CAN BE MET IS SF TEN, NOT S.F.

12.5, BUT SF 10.

SO THAT GETS THEM TO THE POINT OF WANTING TO SUBDIVIDE AND SELL THE PROPERTY.

SO STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS TO CHANGE THE ZONING TO SINGLE FAMILY TEN , AND WITH THAT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.

DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.

SECOND. MOTION BY ED. I HAVE A SECOND BY SEAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO.

WE ARE NOW IN PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE? NOT SEEING ANY. DO IHAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY BRITTANY.

A SECOND BY JAKE.

ALL IN FAVOR. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I HAD ONE QUESTION FOR JON. I'M SORRY FOR NOT ASKING THIS EARLIER, BUT THE TWO PARCELS ARE LISTED SEPARATELY ON THE TAX ROLLS, BUT THEY HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY SUBDIVIDED.

SO TO CLARIFY THAT. SO THEY BUT THAT CAN BE ADDRESSED BY MINOR PLAT THAT STAFF HAS THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE.

IT DOESN'T HAVE TO COME BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AS PROVIDED BY OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AND STATE LAW.

OKAY, THANK YOU. I THINK IT'S GOOD.

IT JUST ADDS WEIGHT TO DOING THE RIGHT THING FOR THIS RESIDENT HERE, AND IS IT ALL THE SAME ENTITY? I THINK IT'S STILL ALL UNDER THE SAME.

I DON'T REMEMBER SPECIFICALLY.

I CHECKED THE COLLIN COUNTY RECORDS AND I WON'T VOUCH FOR 100%.

THE LATEST RECORDS ONLINE, WHICH MAY NOT BE FULLY CURRENT, SHOW THE SAME OWNER FOR BOTH PARCELS WHICH ARE INSIDE THIS YELLOW BOX.

I'M STILL TRYING TO GET MY HEAD WRAPPED AROUND WHERE EXACTLY THIS IS.

I KNOW THIS IS ON NORTH COUNTY.

YES, IT IS ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF NORTH COUNTY AND ASHBURY.

OKAY, SO WHERE IS THE CASTLE, IF I MAY ASK? THE CASTLE? YEAH.

THAT'S NOT AROUND THIS PROPERTY.

NOT ON THIS PROPERTY.

ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE ONE THAT HAD THE ISSUES OF TAKING SO LONG TO BUILD? YEAH. THAT'S OFF OF ROGERS.

YEAH. ROGERS.

I'M SORRY. OKAY. THIS IS THE DRIVEWAY TO STALEY MIDDLE SCHOOL.

[01:40:02]

NOW, I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT.

BEFORE WE GET TO [INAUDIBLE]. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEM 21.

SO MOVED.

MOTION BY ED.

SECOND. A SECOND BY BRYAN.

ALL IN FAVOR? ANY OPPOSE? [INAUDIBLE] I ASSUME THAT WAS A MOTION.

THAT WAS A MOTION TO APPROVE.

RIGHT. APPROVE. IT WAS JUST SO MOVED [INAUDIBLE] MOVED TO APPROVE.

SI. GOTCHA. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO ITEM 21 IS PASSED.

CONGRATULATIONS. WITH THAT, WE'LL GO TO ITEM 22 RESULTS OF THE DECEMBER 6TH, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.

[22. Results of the December 6, 2022, City Council meeting.]

THE FIRST ONE HAD TO DO WITH WHEN A PETITION CAN BE SUBMITTED IN WHICH TO THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION UNANIMOUSLY APPROVED, AND THE SECOND ONE HAD TO DEAL WITH ED STONE. THAT'S REZONING THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF LEGACY AND STONE BROOK TO OFFICE ONE.

ITEM 23 SCHEDULE OF FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS.

[23. Schedule of future discussion items.]

I WAS ABOUT TO MENTION THAT, BUT YEAH, SHE'S TAKING A POSITION WITH THE CITY OF, I FORGOT, MIDLAND? IS THAT MIDLAND? SHE'S WORKED THERE BEFORE SO SHE KNOWS WHAT SHE'S GETTING HERSELF INTO, BUT ASSISTANT DIRECTOR IN PLANNING.

WELL, NO MIDLAND IS KNOWN AS THE DUBAI OF TEXAS.

SO CONGRATULATIONS.

[CHUCKLING] SO THAT'S EXCITING. CAN WE MOVE TO DENY THIS? I WISH WE COULD.

WE TRIED.

SHE DOESN'T LIKE US AS MUCH.

CHAIRMAN JON, IT'S ACTUALLY THE TALL CITY.

MIDLAND IS THE TALL CITY.

WE DO NOT HAVE A MEETING THE REST OF THE MONTH, SO PLEASE DO NOT SHOW UP.

WE HOPE. I THINK I SPEAK FOR ALL COMMISSIONERS.

WE HOPE EVERYONE HAS A WONDERFUL CHRISTMAS.

HAPPY HOLIDAYS AND APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S SERVICE.

WITH THAT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? SO MOVED. MOTION BY ED SECOND BY SEAN.

ALL IN FAVOR. MOTION PASSES SIX ZERO.

WE ARE OFFICIALLY ADJOURNED AT 8:13.

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.