[00:00:01] >> WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRISCO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. [CALL TO ORDER] WE ARE GATHERED AT 6101 FRISCO SQUARE BOULEVARD, AND THE TIME IS 6:30 P.M. ON THE DOT. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSISTS OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE STEVE CONE, SHAWN MERRILL, MICHAEL HOWARD, JON KENDALL, WARREN ROES, TIFFANY WELLS, AND MY NAME IS BRITTANY COL BERG. REPRESENTING STAFF TONIGHT; FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE HAVE JOHN LETLER, JONATHAN HUBBARD, ROLANDREA RUSSELL, DANIEL PONDER, PEYTON SHERMAN, AND SEAN O QUINN, ALSO HOLLY MARTIN. FROM ENGINEERING, WE HAVE JOEL FITZ, AND RICARDO OR DONEZ. I DIDN'T DO THAT WELL, DID I? THAT'S GOOD. >> ARE YOU SURE? >> I FEEL LIKE I PULLED A JON KENDALL THERE CARD. >> I'LL BE GOOD, I'LL WORK ON IT. >> FROM FIRE, WE HAVE ALYSSA BARSTOW, AND IT'S HER BIRTHDAY. >> HAPPY BIRTHDAY. >> HAPPY BIRTHDAY. >> ALSO JOINING US TONIGHT, WE HAVE LEGAL COUNSEL, ALICE AND COTTON. [APPOINTMENTS] THE NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA TONIGHT ARE THE APPOINTMENT OF OFFICERS. WE WILL CONSIDER AND ACT UPON ELECTION OF A CHAIR PERSON, VICE CHAIRPERSON, AND SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. WE WILL START WITH OUR NOMINATIONS FOR CHAIR, AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE JON KENDALL AGAIN. YOU'VE DONE AN EXCELLENT JOB SERVING IN THAT ROLE, AND I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE YOU FOR CHAIR. >> I'LL SECOND. >> DO WE HAVE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS FOR ANYBODY ELSE FOR CHAIR? PERFECT. THEN I'LL CLOSE NOMINATIONS AND THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND MAKE THE MOTION TO HAVE YOU BE CHAIR AGAIN. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND BY SHAWN. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 6: 0, SO JON KENDALL, CONGRATULATIONS, AND THANKS FOR BEING OUR CHAIR AGAIN. >> THANK YOU ALL. HONORED AND HUMBLE FOR YOUR ALL SUPPORT, SO APPRECIATE IT. >> SHOW ME TO HAND WITH YOU THIS BACK. >> [OVERLAPPING] I TAKE OVER. DOES SHE CONTINUE? >> [INAUDIBLE] >> DO I TAKE OVER FROM HERE? >> YES. >> ALL RIGHT. WERE YOU HAND OVER SOME PAPERS? I THINK WE'RE ACTUALLY KNOW IT ALL, BUT WE [INAUDIBLE]. >> RECEPTOR SUDDENLY GETS HANDED OVER? NO. THAT'S LATER TONIGHT AT. EXCEPT. >> ALL RIGHT. WE'LL FINISH THE NOMINATIONS WITH REGARDS TO NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR. DO YOU HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? I KNOW I'VE GOT ONE FOR BRITTANY COLBERG. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS? >> I WOULD LIKE TO NOMINATE STEVE CONE. >> WONDERFUL. WE'VE GOT TWO NOMINATIONS. ARE THERE ANY THINGS THAT WANT TO BE BROUGHT UP BEFORE WE GO FOR A VOTE FOR EITHER OF THOSE? >> BECAUSE OF UNUSUAL CIRCUMSTANCES, IT'S ONLY HAPPENED I THINK ONCE IN THE LAST 20 YEARS FROM WHAT I CAN TELL. I'M GOING BACK IN THE HISTORY. I JUST HOPE THAT THE NEW COMMISSIONERS WHO ARE KIND OF PUT IN AN AWKWARD SITUATION WILL VOTE BASED ON KIND OF SKILLS AND EXPERIENCE. I THINK I'VE BEEN CHAIRING MEETINGS FOR KIND OF BACK TO 37 YEARS NOW AND SERVED ON PNG FOR SEVEN YEARS, CPAC A COUPLE OF TIMES AND PLENTY OF OTHER MEETINGS. SO I ASK FOR YOUR SUPPORT DURING MY LAST TWO YEARS ON PNC. >> APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU'VE DONE. AS YOU KNOW, SOMETIMES CAN BE WE'VE GOT TWO GREAT PEOPLE. I'M NOMINATING FOR BRITTANY COLBERG. I APPRECIATE EVERYONE HERE SERVES AND GIVES A LOT, BUT A LOT OF BRITTANY'S LEADERSHIP SKILLS HAVE BEEN AMPLIFIED AND APPRECIATE ALL THAT YOU'VE DONE, AS YOU'VE SERVED AS SECRETARY, AND YOU'VE DONE GREAT. BE BRUTALLY HONEST, YES, I SIT AS CHAIR. I WAS READY TO SEE IF THAT WAS SOMETHING SHE WANTED TO BE CHAIR. I THINK SHE'S READY. SHE MAY NOT THINK SO. YOU WOULD BEEN ASKING IF YOU WANTED THAT. IF YOU'RE NOT WANTING THAT JUST YET, I WOULD BE HONORED TO HAVE YOU AS VICE CHAIR. BUT WITH THAT, WE'LL GO. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE WE MOVE FORWARD WITH NOMINATIONS? I'LL GO. I WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S FAIR. I DON'T KNOW IF WE DO RAISE BECAUSE I DON'T WANT TO JUST SAY ONE FIRST, THE NEXT ONE. >> IT'S A GOOD QUESTION. I DON'T KNOW HOW. >> THAT WAS NOMINATED FIRST. WELL, SORRY. >> THE ONE THAT WAS NOMINATED FIRST, YOU TAKE A VOTE ON THAT PERSON AND THEN THE PERSON NOMINATED SECOND, THEN YOU TAKE A VOTE ON THAT. >> I MADE A MOTION FOR BRITTANY COLBERG. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY WARREN. ALL IN FAVOR. >>AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? >> ARE WE OPPOSING OR WERE JUST VOTING FOR THE TWO DIFFERENT PEOPLE? >> WE'RE VOTING. BUT ASSUMING THAT YOU DIDN'T VOTE. SO PEOPLE THAT VOTED FOR, CORRECT? >> ALL RIGHT. I'VE GOT FOUR AND TWO NOT VOTED FOR IT. SEAN, YOU HAD A MOTION FOR STEVE CONE. IS THERE A SECOND? >. I'LL SECOND? >> I'VE GOT A SECOND BY STEVE CONE. ALL IN FAVOR. I'VE GOT TWO VOTES. [00:05:03] >> BRITTANY COLBERG CHAIR. >> ALL RIGHT. WE APPRECIATE YOU ALL. LASTLY, BEFORE WE JUMP INTO THE AGENDA. SECRETARY; DO YOU HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY? >> I'D LIKE TO BE NOMINATED FOR SECRETARY. >> STEVE CONE. I KNOW I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE SHAWN MERRILL FOR SECRETARY. ANY OTHER THINGS? NOMINATIONS? ALL RIGHT. STEVE CONE, DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR STEVE CONE FOR SECRETARY? >> I'LL SECOND. >> I'VE GOT A SECOND FOR WARREN. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> AYE. >> WE GOT FOUR. ALL RIGHT. THEN I MADE A MOTION FOR, I THINK THAT WOULD PROBABLY QUICKLY ANSWER, BUT A MOTION FOR SHAWN MERRILL. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> I'LL SECOND. >> SECOND. A MOTION FOR SHAWN. >> MOVE FOR SEAN TO BE SECRETARY. YEAH. I DON'T THINK WE DID SIGHT ORDER. >> IT'S FOUR TO TWO. >> YEAH. I DON'T KNOW. >> YEAH [INAUDIBLE]. >> IF THE FLOW IS OFF. NO PROBLEM. ALL RIGHT. WONDERFUL. I THINK WE'VE GOT STEVE CONE. APPRECIATE YOU SECRETARY. BRITTANY APPRECIATE YOU SERVING AS VICE CHAIR. >> ABSOLUTELY. >> WITH THAT, WE JUST DO THIS ONCE EVERY YEAR, AND WE'LL NOW DIVE INTO THE MEETING. NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS CITIZEN INPUT. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING ANY ITEMS 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 COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE, OR THE APPLICANT PRESENT THIS EVENING. TO ENSURE THAT THERE IS ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL TO SPEAK, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO A MAXIMUM OF FIVE MINUTES UNLESS YOU MUST ADDRESS THE COMMISSION THROUGH A TRANSLATOR, IN WHICH CASE, YOU MUST HAVE A MAXIMUM OF 10 MINUTES. PLEASE NOTE THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION DURING CITIZEN INPUT ON ITEMS NOT POST ON THE 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 THE MATTER MAY BE PLACED AT A LATER AGENDA. WITH THAT, IS THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK DURING CITIZENS INPUT? I SEE IT MAYBE. WHEN WE GET THERE, WE'LL MAKE SURE. I THINK YOU HAVE I'VE GOT YOUR PAPER RIGHT HERE. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] NO ONE THERE. WE'LL GO ON TO NEXT. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES. >>MOVED TO APPROVAL MINUTES FROM OCTOBER 8TH. >> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY SHAWN. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY BRITTANY. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6: 0. [CONSENT AGENDA] NEXT ON THE AGENDA IS THE CONSENT AGENDA. THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. ANY COMMISSION MEMBER MAKING SUCH REQUESTS PRIOR TO MOTION AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT ITEMS MAY CONSIDER ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY. ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MAY DO SO WITH THE MAJORITY APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE ITEMS FOUR THROUGH 19 TONIGHT. ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? YOU HAVE ONE THAT NEEDS TO BE PULLED? >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON ONE OF THEM, SO I GUESS I SHOULD PULL IT, RIGHT? >> YES. >> I HAVE A QUESTION ON NUMBER FIVE. >> ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR TO PROVE ITEMS FOUR AND SIX THROUGH 19? >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY BRITTANY. >> SECOND. >>SECOND BY STEVE. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 6:0. [5. Final Plat: The Shops at Willow Bay, Block A, Lot 6 (FP24-0051)] ITEM FIVE HAS BEEN PULLED. >> LET ME PULL UP THE MAP OF FIVE? >> SEAN O' QUEEN IS ON HIS WAY UP. WE'RE LOOKING AT ITEM FIVE. >> THIS MAY BE A JOLT QUESTION. >> THIS IS THE FINAL PLAT FOR THE SHOPS AT WILLOW BAY BLOCK A LOT SIX FP 24-0051 OWNERS WILLOW BAY VENTURES, LOC. >> HOLD ON A SECOND. I WANT TO PULL UP THE AGENDA ITEM AS WELL ON HERE. >> PULLING THAT UP. THIS IS THE NORTH EAST QUADRANT OF ELDORADO AND COIT. >> SORRY, I SHOULD HAVE BEEN MORE READY. >> YES, THAT'S CORRECT. >> GIVE ME A SECOND. THANK YOU, JOHN. SO AGAIN, THIS IS GOING TO BE A JOLT QUESTION, I BELIEVE. >> SEAN, THANK YOU FOR IT. >> I GO TO THAT I BELIEVE IT'S A CVS THERE QUITE OFTEN. >> THEN IT'S A BREAK SHOP NEXT DOOR. >> YEAH. WHEN I PULL OUT OF THERE, GOING NORTH TO GET OUT OF THAT DRIVEWAY TO PULL BACK ON THE COIT, TO GO NORTHBOUND, THAT DRIVEWAY EXITING THE PARKING LOT INTO THE THROAT OF THE ROAD GOING IN. THERE'S AN ISLAND THERE AND YOU CANNOT GO ACROSS. YOU HAVE TO YOU HAVE TO TURN RIGHT, MAKE A U TURN, AND I'VE SEEN SO MANY VEHICLES GET STUCK. YOU HAVE TO MAKE A THREE POINT TURN OR GO INTO THE MUD. [00:10:03] IS THERE A WAY TO FIX THAT WITH THIS PLAT SINCE THAT LINE IS RIGHT ON THE BOUNDARY OF THAT TO FIX THAT MEDIAN OPENING? >> WE HAVE RULES ABOUT, WE CALL IT EITHER THROAT LENGTH OR STACKING DISTANCE ON A DRIVEWAY. YOU WANT TO HAVE YOUR DRIVEWAYS A CERTAIN DISTANCE FROM A MAJOR ARTERIAL SO THAT TRAFFIC WAITING TO GET OUT ONTO THE ARTERIAL ISN'T GRID LOCKED WITH TRAFFIC COMING IN, TRYING TO TURN LEFT OR RIGHT INTO THE FIRST DRIVEWAY THAT'S LOCATED THERE. SOMETIMES DEVELOPMENTS WILL WANT TO TRY TO SQUEEZE IN SOMETHING THAT VIOLATES THAT STACKING DISTANCE. THE ONLY WAY WE CAN ALLOW THAT IS IF THERE'S A MEDIAN DOWN THE MIDDLE OF THE DRIVEWAY THAT PREVENTS THE MOVEMENT THAT YOU'RE TRYING TO MAKE THAT YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT, BECAUSE, AGAIN, IT'S TOO CLOSE TO COIT IN THIS SITUATION. WE DON'T WANT TRAFFIC TURNING OUT OF THE CVS, TURNING LEFT INTO THAT DRIVEWAY BECAUSE IT'S TOO CLOSE TO COIT SO YOU ARE SUPPOSED TO TURN RIGHT, MAKE YOU TURN OR GO SOMEWHERE ELSE IN THE DEVELOPMENT. THEY HAVE EXPRESSED CONCERNS WITH PEOPLE GOING THE WRONG WAY ON THAT, AND WE HAVE TALKED. >> ALSO SEEN THAT, YES. >> WE'VE TALKED TO THEM ABOUT WHAT STRIPING THEY CAN DO AND SIGNS THEY CAN DO ON THE SITE. IT'S NOT A PUBLIC STREET, IT'S PRIVATE PROPERTY, SO WE'VE ADVISED THEM ON WHAT THEY COULD DO. BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO CHANGE OUR STANDARDS AND LET THEM REMOVE THE MEDIAN AND DO ANYTHING BECAUSE IT WOULD VIOLATE OUR STANDARDS AND BE TOO CLOSE TO COIT TO HAVE THAT BE A FULL ACCESS INTERSECTION OF TWO FIRE LANES. >> UNDERSTOOD. ALL RIGHT. >> IT IS SOMETHING WE HAVE TOLD THEM WHAT THEY COULD DO TO MAKE IT BETTER. THEY JUST HAVEN'T DONE IT YET. >> GO AHEAD. >> ALL RIGHT. WITH THAT, IF THERE'S NO OTHER QUESTIONS, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM FIVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> WE MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER FIVE ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. >> SECOND. >> MOTION BY STEVE. SECOND BY SEAN. ALL IN FAVOR. >>AYE. >>ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6: 0. WITH THAT, TONIGHT, WE HAVE FIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA, [20. Public Hearing - Replat: Custer Bridges, Block A, Lot 8R (RP24-0027)] AND I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS. EACH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS PRO-CEDED BY 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 CARD AND PROVIDE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. IF THEY ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS AND ATTENDANCE, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SELECT A REPRESENTATIVE TO PRESENT YOUR POSITIONS. PLEASE AVOID REPEATING WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BY PREVIOUS SPEAKERS OTHER THAN TO STATE THAT YOU AGREE WITH THE COMMENTS. THE TIME LIMIT IS FIVE LIMITS PER SPEAKER. TO ENSURE EVERYONE HAS A CHANCE TO SPEAK, THE COMMISSION MEMBERS CAN VOTE TO LIMIT SPEAKING TIME IF A LARGE GROUP OR A LARGE VOLUME OF PEOPLE ARE WISHING TO SPEAK. PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. REPEAT APPEARANCES AT THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED. AFTER ALL PERSONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION CASE WILL BE CLOSED, AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE CASE IS TABLED TO A FUTURE DATE, AND THE COMMISSION INCLUDES IT IN THEIR MOTION. CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A FUTURE MEETING. AFTER CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF AND THE APPLICANT. PLEASE NOTE. THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION ONLY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING CASES. UNLESS THE COMMISSION DISAPPROVES THE CASE, AND THE APPLICANT DOES NOT APPEAL THE DISAPPROVAL, FINAL ACTION REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BY CITY COUNCIL. YOU'RE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT YOUR DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AS TO WHEN THE CASE WILL BE CONSIDERED BY CITY COUNCIL. WITH THAT, NOR IS ARE UP THERE. LET ME GET MY PAPER TURNED OVER. WE'RE GOING TO START WITH ITEM 20. PUBLIC HEARING RE-PLAT CUSTER BRIDGES BLOCK A LOT 8R RP 4-0027 OWNERS HT CUSTER SS OWNERS LP. >> THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION. THE ITEM THAT WAS JUST READ INTO RECORD MUST BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE. >> MOTION TO REMOVE ITEM FROM THE TABLE. >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY BRITTANY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY SHAWN. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? ITEM HAS BEEN REMOVED FROM THE TABLE. >> THANK YOU. THE PROJECT BEFORE YOU ALL THIS EVENING WAS SUBMITTED ON SEPTEMBER 9TH. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION AND TABLED THIS ITEM TO TONIGHT'S MEETING ON OCTOBER 8TH. THE PURPOSE OF THIS RE-PLOT IS TO ABANDON AND DESIGNATE NECESSARY EASEMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF THIS PROPERTY. THIS PLAT DOES CONFORM TO THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY STAFF, MAY 9TH, 2022, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THE RE-PLOT AS SUBMITTED. I'M OPEN TO ANSWERING ANY QUESTIONS. >> ANY QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC HEARING? >> MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY SEAN. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY STEVE. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? WE'RE IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 20. >>SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? >> MOTION BY BRITTANY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY TIFFANY. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6: 0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION, IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OR THE APPLICANT, I APOLOGIZE IF IF THE APPLICANT WAS HERE AND THEY WISHED TO SPEAK, WITH THAT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 20. [00:15:02] >> MOTION BY SEAN. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MICHAEL. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6: 0. CONGRATULATIONS. ITEM 21. [21. Public Hearing - Replat: 5th Street Office, Block A, Lot 1 (RP24-0029)] PUBLIC HEARING RE-PLAT FIFTH STREET OFFICE BLOCK A LOT ONE RP 24-0029 OWNERS PDT HOLDINGS INC. >> GOOD EVENING, COMMISSION. THE PURPOSE OF THIS REPLAT IS TO DEDICATE NECESSARY EASEMENTS FOR DEVELOPMENT. THE PLAT CONFORMS TO THE SITE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON FEBRUARY 12TH OF 2019. STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL AS SUBMITTED. >> WONDERFUL. DO YOU HAVE A MOTION OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? >> SO MOVED. >> MOTION BY BRITTANY. DO I HAVE A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> I GOT A SECOND BY STEVE. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6-0. WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 21. >> SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY SEAN. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY BRITTANY. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED FOR ITEM 21. IS THE APPLICANT HERE? WANT TO MAKE SURE THEY HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK IF THEY'D LIKE, IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. >> MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 21 AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF. >> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY BRITTANY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY SEAN. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6-0. [22. Public Hearing - Specific Use Permit: Rescind Specific Use Permit S-283 (SUP24-0015)] CONGRATULATIONS. ITEM 22. PUBLIC HEARING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT RESCIND, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT S-283 SUP 24-0015, OWNERS FIRST BAPTIST CHURCH. >> THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RESCIND THE SUP BECAUSE THE ZONING ORDINANCE NO LONGER REQUIRES AN SUP FOR THIS USAGE. HOWEVER, THERE'S AN ERROR IN THE MAPS WHEN THE NOTICES WERE SENT OUT. THEREFORE, STAFF RECOMMENDS CONTINUING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TABLING THIS ITEM TO THE NOVEMBER 12TH PZ MEETING. >> WONDERFUL. WITH THAT, THEY ARE EXPERIENCED. THEY MAY COME OFF AS TWO NEW COMMISSIONERS, BUT WE'LL WALK YOU THROUGH THIS PROCESS, BUT DO YOU HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? >> MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY STEVE. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY SEAN. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6-0. ARE THERE ANYONE HERE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 22? WE'RE NOT LOOKING FOR A MOTION TO CLOSE, BUT DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> I HAVE A QUESTION FOR THE STAFF, IF I CAN ASK. WHAT DID YOU SAY WAS AN ERROR? I'M SORRY, I MISHEARD YOU. >> PREVIOUSLY, THERE WAS AN SUP REQUIRED FOR A CHURCH OPERATION IN 2022. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED AN ORDINANCE THAT NO LONGER REQUIRED AN SUP FOR THE OPERATION OF A CHURCH. NOW THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RESCIND THE SUP, SO IT'S NOT TIED TO THEIR PROPERTY. >> TO WHAT DATE ARE THEY WANTING TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> BECAUSE THERE WAS AN ERROR IN THE MAPS WHEN THE NOTICES WERE SENT, STAFF IS RECOMMENDED TO TABLE IT TO THE NOVEMBER 12TH MEETING. >> NOVEMBER 12TH. >> THAT'S THE ERROR I WAS LOOKING FOR. YOU SAID MAPS. I DIDN'T HEAR WHAT YOU SAID EARLIER. I UNDERSTAND NOW. >> I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF SOMEONE WANTS TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION TO CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE NEXT MEETING. >> [OVERLAPPING] SPECIFIC TO SAID NOVEMBER 12TH. >> UNTIL NOVEMBER 12TH. >> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY SEAN. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY BRITTANY. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6-0. ITEM 22 IS TABLED AND WILL BE CONTINUED ON THE NOVEMBER 12TH P AND Z MEETING. [23. Public Hearing - Zoning: Champions Frisco (Z24-0002)] TWENTY THREE. A PUBLIC HEARING ZONING CHAMPIONS FRISCO Z24-0002, OWNERS PGA 76LP. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. [OVERLAPPING] >> I APOLOGIZE, BEFORE YOU CONTINUE MR. HUBBARD. FOR THE RECORD TO SHOW, WE DO HAVE ONE COMMISSIONER SHAWN MERRILL RECUSING HIMSELF FOR THIS ITEM 23. AND GO. >> SINCE THE AGENDA WAS POSTED THIS PAST FRIDAY, THE APPLICANT HAS DETERMINED THAT ADDITIONAL TIME IS NEEDED TO WORK THROUGH SOME OF THE OUTSTANDING ITEMS. THEREFORE, THEY ARE REQUESTING THAT THIS ZONING REQUEST BE TABLED TO THE JANUARY 28TH, 2025 PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING. STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST, THEREFORE, IS RECOMMENDING THAT THE COMMISSION OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TABLE THIS ITEM TO THE JANUARY 28TH, 2025 MEETING. >> WITH THAT, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? >> SO MOVED. >> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY BRITTANY. >> SECOND. >> I'VE GOT A SECOND BY TIFFANY. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5-0. WE'RE IN PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 23? >> I MAKE A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING UNTIL THE JANUARY 28TH, 2025 MEETING. [00:20:05] >> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY BRITTANY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY MICHAEL. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5-0. ITEM 23 HAS BEEN TABLED TO JANUARY 28TH OF 2025. NEXT YEAR, WHICH IS WHY I THINK THAT'S ACTUALLY NOT FAR AWAY. >> WE'LL BLINK, AND IT'LL BE HERE. >> YES. IF YOU'LL INVITE HIM BACK ON, WE'LL GO TO ITEM 24. WHILE HE'S WALKING BACK UP. ITEM 24, [24. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance (ZA24-0003)] PUBLIC HEARING. ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT. AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE ZA24-0003, OWNERS THE CITY OF FRISCO. >> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS. A LITTLE BIT OF HISTORY. THE ZONING ORDINANCE WAS MOST RECENTLY UPDATED IN 2019 REGARDING REQUIREMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS, STEALTH ANTENNAS, THIS TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE. WELL, UNFORTUNATELY, THE STANDARDS THAT WENT THROUGH BACK IN 2019 FELL SHORT, AND IN DISCUSSIONS WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, THEY WERE NOT AS ENFORCEABLE AS INTENDED WHEN THAT ORDINANCE WENT THROUGH. THEREFORE, TO ADDRESS SHORTCOMINGS OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, STAFF IS PROPOSING TO PROVIDE REVISED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR ANTENNAS, AND THAT'S WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR THIS EVENING. DURING THE SUMMER AND FALL OF 2023, STAFF, INCLUDING SOME MEMBERS OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE DID MEET WITH THE MAJOR CARRIERS AND SOME THIRD PARTY GROUPS IN THE INDUSTRY TO BETTER UNDERSTAND ANTENNA INFRASTRUCTURE AREAS LACKING COVERAGE ACROSS THE CITY, CARRIERS NEEDS, THEIR FUTURE TECHNOLOGIES, SO ALL OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WAS [NOISE] GATHERED IN THOSE MEETINGS WAS TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION DURING THE DRAFTING OF THIS ORDINANCE. STAFF DISCUSSED THE PROPOSED DIRECTION OF THIS ORDINANCE WITH CITY COUNCIL DURING A WORK SESSION IN NOVEMBER 2023, AND THEN WENT BACK BEFORE CITY COUNCIL DURING A WORK SESSION IN MAY 2024 TO DISCUSS THE DRAFT ORDINANCE. IN A NUTSHELL, THIS CAN BE BROKEN DOWN INTO THREE THINGS, COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS, NON-STEALTH, THAT'S LIKE WHAT YOU SEE IN THE PICTURE HERE, REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THERE'S NO CHANGE TO THAT. THIS TYPE OF ANTENNA REQUIRES A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TODAY, AND UNDER THIS DRAFT IT WOULD CONTINUE TO REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THE SECOND MONOPOLES, WHAT YOU SEE HERE. IN THOSE WORK SESSIONS WITH CITY COUNCIL, CITY COUNCIL MADE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THESE WERE NOT STEALTH, SO UNDER OUR ORDINANCE TODAY, THESE ARE STEALTH, AND THEY ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN CERTAIN AREAS. AGAIN, CITY COUNCIL MADE IT VERY CLEAR, THIS IS NOT STEALTH. MONOPOLES SHOULD BE CLASSIFIED AS COMMERCIAL ANTENNAS, AND REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THIRD CATEGORY, COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS. WITH COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS, STAFF IS PROPOSING THAT THEY BE PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS AND PERMITTED BY RIGHT AND RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHEN THE PRIMARY USE ON THE PROPERTY IS A CHURCH, SCHOOL, ATHLETIC STADIUM OR FIELD, OR UTILITY STRUCTURE. WHERE THEY'RE PERMITTED AND THEM BEING PERMITTED BY RIGHT, THERE'S NO CHANGE THERE. THAT'S WHERE THEY'RE ALLOWED TODAY UNDER THIS DRAFT, THAT IS WHERE THEY WOULD CONTINUE TO BE ALLOWED. UNDER TODAY'S ORDINANCE, THAT'S REALLY THE EXTENT OF STEALTH ANTENNAS. IT'S GOT A FEW PICTURES, BUT THAT'S REALLY IT. UNDER THIS DRAFT, STAFF IS PROPOSING TO BETTER DEFINE WHAT COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNA IS AND PROVIDE MORE ROBUST CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS. WHAT ARE THOSE CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS? WELL, FIRST OFF, AS I JUST MENTIONED, PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN NON-RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, AND RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS WHEN THE PRIMARY USE ON THE PROPERTY IS CHURCH, SCHOOL, ATHLETIC STADIUM OR FIELD, OR UTILITY STRUCTURE. SECOND, REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING DISTRICT SETBACKS. YOU ARE PROPOSING TO DEVELOP A COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNA IN 01, YOU WOULD FOLLOW THE 01 SETBACKS. THE ORDINANCE TODAY IS JUST UNCLEAR ON WHETHER OR NOT THAT SHOULD HAPPEN, SO WE'RE JUST MAKING IT VERY CLEAR YOU SHOULD COMPLY WITH THE SETBACKS. NEXT, TALKING ABOUT SETBACKS, TALKING ABOUT HEIGHT. [00:25:05] UNDER THE ORDINANCE TODAY, THESE ANTENNAS, THEY ALSO HAVE TO FOLLOW THE HEIGHT OF THE ZONING DISTRICT THAT THEY ARE IN. AS YOU ARE AWARE, MANY OF THE NON-RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS HAVE A MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF 40 FEET, AND THAT'S NOT REALLY ACCOMMODATING TO THE CARRIERS. YOU DON'T SEE MANY 40 FOOT TALL TOWERS. TO ENCOURAGE CO-LOCATING, TO ENCOURAGE FEWER TOWERS, STAFF IS PROPOSING THE ANTENNAS ALLOW THIS TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE TO EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT OF THE DISTRICT. IT'S WRITTEN IN A WAY TO WHERE THIS PARTICULAR USE CAN EXCEED THE MAXIMUM BUILDING HEIGHT, BUT AGAIN, IT IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS WHEN DOING SO. IF YOU EXCEED THE BUILDING HEIGHT, YOUR ADJACENT COMMERCIAL PROPERTY, YOU JUST HAVE TO MEET THE BUILDING SETBACKS AS THEY ARE. THE 01 SETBACKS, THE HIGHWAY SETBACKS, AGAIN, WHATEVER THE SETBACKS ARE, YOU MEET THEM. HOWEVER, IF YOU ARE EXCEEDING THE BUILDING HEIGHT, AND YOU ARE CONSTRUCTING ON OR ADJACENT RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, SO WE ALREADY ZONED RESIDENTIAL OR PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL IN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, THE SETBACK SHALL BE INCREASED BY TWO FEET FOR EVERY ONE FOOT THE PROPOSED ANTENNA EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PRESCRIBED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. AS A WAY TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENT, YOU CAN STILL EXCEED THE HEIGHT, BUT YOU'VE GOT TO BUILD THOSE TOWERS FURTHER AWAY FROM THE RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. NEXT, ASSOCIATED BUILDINGS AND OR STRUCTURES SHALL BE ARCHITECTURALLY COMPATIBLE WITH THE DEVELOPMENT IN WHICH THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE IS LOCATED. THIS IS A MECHANISM TO JUST FURTHER ENHANCE THE STEALTH NATURE OF WHAT STEALTH IS. IF IT'S GOING TO BE STEALTH, IT NEEDS TO BLEND IN, IT NEEDS TO COMPLY WITH THE DEVELOPMENT THAT SURROUND IT. NEXT, THE PLACEMENT OF GROUND MOUNTED EQUIPMENT SHALL BE INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN OF THE ANTENNA, THE STRUCTURE ITSELF, OR PLACED IN AN AREA THAT IS OFF TO THE SIDE. I'M SURE, AS WE'VE ALL SEEN, THERE ARE SOME PICTURES HERE, THE STEALTH ANTENNA, THE SO CALLED FLAGPOLE IS NOT VERY OBTRUSIVE, HOWEVER, WHEN IT HAS A LARGE MASONRY ENCLOSURE AROUND THE BOTTOM, IT SCREAMS, I'M AN ANTENNA, SO THAT IS ESSENTIALLY WHERE THAT IS COMING FROM. WITH THIS PROPOSED AMENDMENT, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES WILL HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE WHETHER A PROPOSAL MEETS THE DEFINITION OF STEALTH, MEETS THESE CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS THAT I JUST SPOKE TO. IF THE APPLICANT OR THE COMMISSION WERE TO DISAGREE WITH THE DIRECTOR'S RULING, THIS DRAFT HAS A BUILT IN APPEAL PROCESS. ALL OF THAT THAT I JUST WENT OVER WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL, AS I SAID, DURING THAT MAY 2024 WORK SESSION. STAFF GOT DIRECTION TO MOVE FORWARD. AFTER THAT MAY WORK SESSION, STAFF DID SEND THE DRAFT ORDINANCE OUT TO THE MAJOR CARRIERS AND THESE THIRD PARTY GROUPS FOR FEEDBACK. [NOISE] STAFF DID RECEIVE FEEDBACK FROM SEVEN GROUPS. IT WAS IN THE STAFF REPORT. THERE WERE A NUMBER OF BULLETED ITEMS THAT WENT OVER THE TYPE OF FEEDBACK THAT THE CITY GOT. THAT FEEDBACK WAS SHARED WITH CITY COUNCIL DURING AN AUGUST 2024 WORK SESSION. BASED ON THE FEEDBACK THAT WAS RECEIVED, THERE WERE TWO CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THE DRAFT. FIRST BEING THAT COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS BE PERMITTED BY SUP ON MULTIFAMILY PROPERTY BEING ZONED MULTIFAMILY 15 OR MULTIFAMILY 19 OR PROPERTY THAT IS DEVELOPED AS URBAN LIVING. WHERE DID THAT COME FROM? WHY WAS THERE THE CHANGE? SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT THE CITY RECEIVED FROM THE CARRIERS WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS SENT OUT IS THAT WHEN I STATE THAT COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS ARE PERMITTED BY RIGHT IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, WHEN THE PRIMARY USE IS THE CHURCH, SCHOOL, ATHLETIC FIELDS, UTILITY STRUCTURES, THERE WAS A DESIRE BY SOME THAT THIS TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE JUST BE PERMITTED IN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. [00:30:04] FOR EXAMPLE, IF THERE'S AN AMENITY CENTER LOT OR AN HOA LOT, THEY COULD DEVELOP COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS ON THOSE LOTS. SECOND IS THAT THERE WAS A CONCERN OVER ROOFTOP ANTENNAS AND HOW THEY COULD EXCEED. PREVIOUSLY, THEY COULDN'T EXCEED OVER 10 FEET. THERE WAS CONCERN THAT THAT WAS TOO RESTRICTIVE, SO THAT HAS BEEN REMOVED. THEY COULD GO 10 FEET, 12 FEET, WHATEVER IT MAY BE. HOWEVER, THE STANDARD THAT THEY STILL BE SCREENED FROM A VIEW SIX FEET AT THE PROPERTY LINE, THAT IS TO REMAIN. THAT STANDARD IS CONSISTENT WITH SCREENING STANDARDS FOR OTHER THINGS ACROSS THE CITY, FOR EXAMPLE, GENERATORS OR TRANSFORMERS OR ROOFTOP UNITS, ALL OF THOSE HAVE TO BE SCREENED, SO THIS STANDARD IS CONSISTENT WITH THAT. IN CLOSING, THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS ARE INTENDED TO INCENTIVIZE COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNAS BY PERMITTING THEM BY RIGHT INSTEAD OF HAVING TO GO THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS. YOU MEET THE CONDITIONAL DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, YOU WOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO GO STRAIGHT TO SITE PLAN AND POTENTIALLY GET A SITE PLAN APPROVED WITHIN 30 DAYS. THIS ORDINANCE AMENDMENT IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL THIS EVENING, AS NOTED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. >> ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF/APPLICANT BEFORE WE GO [NOISE] TO PUBLIC HEARING? BLESS YOU. >> NOW, IS THERE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? >> MOVE TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY STEVE. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY SEAN. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 6.0. WE'RE IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 24. >> LOOKS LIKE WE DO HAVE A BLUE SPEAKER CARD. THANKS FOR FILLING THAT OUT AHEAD OF TIME. RYAN BECK, DO YOU WANT TO SPEAK, OR ARE YOU? >> YES, PLEASE COME ON UP. IF YOU'LL GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND IF ANYONE ELSE IS WANTING TO SPEAK, PLEASE FILL OUT A BLUE SPEAKER CARD. >> GREETINGS COMMISSIONERS, RYAN BECK, 600 HIDDEN RIDGE IRVING, TEXAS, 75038, HERE ON BEHALF OF VERIZON. I'M COMING BEFORE YOU TONIGHT, ALONG WITH MY COLLEAGUE, TERRIS BRAGE, TO EXPRESS OUR SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS ABOUT THE CHANGES YOU'RE MAKING TO YOUR POLICIES GOVERNING CELLULAR INFRASTRUCTURE. VERIZON IS JUST AS AWARE AS YOU ARE ABOUT HOW FAST FRISCO IS GROWING, AND WE'RE EAGER TO KEEP UP WITH THE GROWTH AND STAY AHEAD OF IT LIKE WE DO IN MOST PLACES AROUND THE COUNTRY. UNFORTUNATELY, DUE TO BURDENSOME PROCESSES AND POLICIES IN THE CITY, WE HAVE NOT BEEN ABLE TO GROW ALONGSIDE YOU TO KEEP UP WITH THE DEMAND FOR CONNECTIVITY. I SAY DEMAND BECAUSE OUR CUSTOMERS ABSOLUTELY DEMAND THAT THEIR DEVICES WORK ANYWHERE AND EVERYWHERE, AND I'M SURE THAT RESONATES WITH YOU WELL AS WELL. THIS IS CRITICAL NOT ONLY FOR EVERYDAY LIFE AND HOW WE LIVE, WORK, AND PLAY, BUT IT'S ESPECIALLY CRITICAL FOR PUBLIC SAFETY. OUR GOAL IS TO ENSURE RESIDENTS AND VISITORS IN THE CITY OF FRISCO HAVE THE SAME ACCESS TO DEPENDABLE VOICE AND DATA SERVICES, JUST LIKE SOME OF YOUR NEIGHBORING JURISDICTIONS HERE IN NORTH TEXAS. WE HAVE SIGNIFICANT CONCERNS WITH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, WHICH IS DRAFTED IN A WAY THAT WILL MAKE IT VIRTUALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE INDUSTRY TO DEPLOY ADDITIONAL MACRO CELL SITES IN THE CITY OF FRISCO. AGAIN, I'M SAYING THAT ON RECORD. WE CANNOT DEPLOY IF THESE POLICIES ARE ADOPTED. GIVEN THAT THE DRAFT YOU WERE CONSIDERING WAS ONLY MADE AVAILABLE THIS PAST FRIDAY, OCTOBER 18TH, WE REQUEST YOU POSTPONE YOUR VOTE ON THIS MEASURE. WE WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A WORK SESSION WITH YOU ALL, THE COMMISSIONERS, SO THAT THE INDUSTRY CAN THOROUGHLY DISCUSS AND REVIEW THE LANGUAGE AND SUGGESTIONS WE MADE TO THE CITY ON MAY 24, 2024, AS ONLY A COUPLE OF THE SUGGESTIONS THAT WE MADE WERE ACTUALLY IMPLEMENTED. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THE COMMISSION FULLY UNDERSTANDS THE COMPLEXITY AND REQUIREMENTS FOR DEPLOYING CELLULAR INFRASTRUCTURE, AND WHAT GOOD PUBLIC POLICY CAN LOOK LIKE TO PROTECT THE CITY'S INTERESTS, BUT IT IS ALSO FEASIBLE FOR THE INDUSTRY. IF THE COMMISSION MOVES FORWARD WITH PASSAGE, IN LIEU OF TABLING, TO HAVE A WORK SESSION WITH THE INDUSTRY, WE WILL BE MEETING WITH MEMBERS OF CITY COUNCIL TO DISCUSS OUR CONCERNS AND THE IMPACT THAT THIS WILL HAVE ON THE CITY AND THEIR CONSTITUENTS. IF FRISCO MOVES FORMALLY TO ADOPT THIS ORDINANCE, YOU'RE LEAVING US NO CHOICE, BUT TO PURSUE ALL LEGAL OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO US. WE CANNOT LET OUR CUSTOMERS SUFFER FROM POOR SERVICE DUE TO POOR PUBLIC POLICY ADOPTED BY THE CITY OF FRISCO. THANK YOU. >> THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ARE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT ARE HERE TO SPEAK ON ITEM 24? NONE. I'LL TAKE A MOTION. >> MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. >> MOTION BY BRITTANY. >> SECOND. >> SECOND BY SEAN. ALL IN FAVOR? >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES, 6.0. PUBLIC HEARING PORTION FOR ITEM 24 IS NOW CLOSED. [00:35:01] QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? >> I HAVE A QUESTION. >> ASK RIGHT NOW. >> THESE ORDINANCES AS THEY'RE DEVELOPED, HOW DIFFERENT ARE THEY THAN OUR NEIGHBORS? BECAUSE I'M SURE THEY'RE DOING SOME OF THE SAME STUFF THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO, WHICH IS HIDE THESE THINGS AND TRY TO MAKE THEM NOT AS OBTRUSIVE AND JUST OUT THERE. HAVE WE LOOKED AT CELINA, PROSPER, MCKINNEY, OTHER CITIES THAT ARE GROWING AND WITH THE SAME STANDARDS THAT WE GOT? >> YES. AS PART OF AS PART OF THE EXERCISE OF AMENDING OUR ORDINANCE, WE DID LOOK AT OTHER ORDINANCES FOR SOME OF OUR NEIGHBORING CITIES. THERE ARE SOME SIMILARITIES. THERE ARE SOME DIFFERENCES. THE DRAFT ORDINANCE WAS PROVIDED TO THE CARRIERS IN MAY 2024 AFTER THAT WORK SESSION WITH CITY COUNCIL, SO THE ONLY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WAS PROVIDED IN MAY 2024 TO THE ORDINANCE THAT WAS POSTED WHEN THE AGENDA WAS POSTED LAST FRIDAY, ARE THOSE TWO CHANGES THAT I MADE REFERENCE TO THE ALLOWANCE IN MULTIFAMILY AND URBAN LIVING, AND THEN TO THE ROOFTOP ANTENNAS. THOSE ARE TWO ADDED CHANGES. SOME OF THE FEEDBACK THAT WAS PROVIDED FROM THE CARRIERS, I DO UNDERSTAND THAT SOME OF THEIR FEEDBACK WAS BASED ON ORDINANCES FROM SURROUNDING CITIES. ALL OF THE FEEDBACK WAS DISCUSSED WITH THE CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE, AND WE WENT OVER MAYBE WHY THEY DID, WHAT THEY DID, AND ULTIMATELY, IT WAS DETERMINED THAT OUR ORDINANCE WAS FAIR AND COULD STAND ALONE AS PROPOSED AS DRAFTED. >> IS THERE ANY PRESSING CASES OR DEVELOPMENT GOING ON RIGHT NOW THAT THIS NEEDS TO BE PASSED IMMEDIATELY NOW? >> I DO NOT HAVE ANY SUBMITTED CASES. I DO NOT SPEAK FOR VERIZON, THE VERIZON REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE HERE THIS EVENING OR ANY OF THE OTHER SALE CARRIERS OR THIRD PARTY GROUPS. I DO KNOW THAT A LOT OF THEM ARE HOLDING OFF, JUST WAITING TO SEE WHAT COMES OF THIS. BECAUSE AS I SAID EARLIER, IT'S NOT SAYING THEY CAN'T DEVELOP UNDER THE ORDINANCES TODAY. THEY CERTAINLY CAN, AND THEY CERTAINLY HAVE. IT JUST DOES NOT NECESSARILY ACCOMMODATE A LOT OF THEIR NEEDS. FOR EXAMPLE, THEY NEED A TOWER THAT'S 90 FEET IN HEIGHT. WELL, UNDER OUR ORDINANCE TODAY, LET'S JUST SAY THEY'RE PROPOSING THAT IN RETAIL. WELL, THEY CAN'T GO OVER 40 FEET. NO SUBMITTED CASES, BUT THERE ARE PEOPLE WAITING. I'M NOT MAKING ANY RECOMMENDATIONS ONE WAY OR OTHER ON WHAT TO DO, BUT JUST THE FACTS. >> FEW QUESTIONS. I'VE HAD QUESTIONS, BUT DID YOU HAVE QUESTIONS? ARE YOU THINKING? [OVERLAPPING] >> JUST A QUESTION. I KNOW YOU HAD A COUPLE OF WORK SESSIONS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. >> YES. >> RIGHT ALONG THE WAY. I DO FEEL UNCOMFORTABLE SINCE WE DID NOT HAVE A WORK SESSION WITH P&Z. UNLESS I'M WRONG, DID WE HAVE A WORK SESSION WITH P&Z ON THIS? >> WE DID NOT. >> OKAY. I JUST WANT TO SAY THAT I'D FEEL LESS CONFIDENT IN OUR TECHNICAL KNOWLEDGE OR ABILITY TO ASK DEEP QUESTIONS, NOT HAVING HAD A WORK SESSION, AND IT FEELS LIKE THE CITY COUNCIL HAS THE ADVANTAGE OF HAVING PROBABLY A LITTLE BIT DEEPER KNOWLEDGE THAN WE DO, BUT I'M JUST GOING TO SAY I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE AT THE MOMENT. >> UNDERSTAND. JONATHAN, IF YOU COULD, AND I UNDERSTAND THIS IS YOUR OPINION OR CITY'S OPINION. WE HAD ONE PERSON COME UP AND VERIZON SPEAK UP, FEELING THAT IT MIGHT SLOW THINGS DOWN OR BE A BARRIER. DO YOU KNOW MAYBE SPECIFICALLY WHAT YOU THINK WHAT BARRIER? BECAUSE I FEEL WE WANT CARRIERS TO COME IN, WE ALL WANT SERVICE, AND I GET IT, THEY MAY NOT HAVE HAD TIME. THE OTHERS MAY FEEL I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THE OTHER CARRIERS. I'M NOT SAYING BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T COME, THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF IT OR AGAINST IT, THAT'S NOT RIGHT FOR ME TO SAY, BUT OUR CITY DOES SUCH A THOROUGH JOB. IS IT THE MORE OF THE QUALITY THAT WE'RE REQUIRING? IS IT THE PROCESS? IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'RE REMOVING SUP AND HAVING GIVEN IT TO STAFF. [00:40:01] >> SURE. >> AT A HIGH LEVEL, IT FEELS LIKE IT SPEEDS IT UP, BUT IF THEY SAY IT MIGHT SLOW DOWN, MAYBE WALK ME THROUGH. >> I THINK THE BEST WAY TO ANSWER THAT IS MAYBE IF I JUST GO THROUGH SOME OF THIS FEEDBACK THAT WE RECEIVED. FOR EXAMPLE, REQUEST TO ALLOW THIS USE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONING DISTRICTS, NOT ONLY AS A SECONDARY USE TO A CHURCH, SCHOOL, PUBLIC, PRIVATE ATHLETIC STADIUM, OR FIELD, OR PUBLIC OR PRIVATE UTILITY STRUCTURE. ON THAT POINT, WE'RE SAYING, YOU HAVE TO FIND NON-RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, OR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY THAT HAS ONE OF THOSE AS THE PRIMARY USE. WE'RE SAYING, YOU CAN'T JUST GO BUILD THIS TYPE OF INFRASTRUCTURE ANYWHERE IN THE CITY, SO IT IS MORE LIMITING ON WHERE YOU CAN PUT IT. >> WAS THAT FOR AESTHETIC REASONS? I KNOW WE LOOKED AT ONE THAT LOOKED, WE'RE STARING AT IT RIGHT NOW, VERY TACKY LOOKING BRICK WALL AROUND IT. >> AESTHETICS AND JUST ALSO PROTECTING OUR RESIDENTS. >> YEAH. >> AESTHETICALLY. YOU HEAR SOME PEOPLE LIKE, I DON'T WANT THIS, IT CAUSES CANCER, AND I'M NOT SAYING THAT. I DON'T HAVE ANY STUDIES SAYING THAT, THE CARRIERS AREN'T GOING TO SAY THAT, BUT IT IS IMPORTANT TO PROTECT OUR RESIDENTS. VERY SIMILAR IF WE WERE TO HAVE A ZONING REQUEST AND DO YOU PUT A 20 STORY OFFICE BUILDING RIGHT OUTSIDE MY WINDOW? DO YOU PUT A 200 FOOT TOWER RIGHT OUTSIDE MY WINDOW? ON THAT SAME NOTE, THERE WAS A REQUEST TO REMOVE OR LESSEN THE INCREASED SETBACK TO RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES OR PROPERTIES IDENTIFIED AS RESIDENTIAL ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WHEN THE HEIGHT EXCEEDS THE MAXIMUM HEIGHT PRESCRIBED BY THE ZONING DISTRICT. AGAIN, WE ARE LIMITING THE AREAS WHERE THE TOWERS CAN BE DEVELOPED. REQUEST TO CLASSIFY MONOPOLES AS A COMMERCIAL STEALTH ANTENNA. THIS HERE, IS GOING TO BE SIGNIFICANTLY CHEAPER THAN THAT. AGAIN, IN THOSE WORK SESSIONS, CITY COUNCIL MADE IT VERY CLEAR TO STAFF ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS THAT THEY DID NOT WANT TO SEE THIS PERMITTED BY RIGHT. NOW, THAT'S NOT TO SAY THAT THERE AREN'T PROPERTIES ACROSS THE CITY WHERE THIS MAY BE APPROPRIATE. WE'RE NOT JUST SAYING YOU CAN'T DO IT. IT FALLS UNDER JUST THE COMMERCIAL ANTENNA DEFINITION, AND YOU WOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE SUP PROCESS TO DEVELOP THAT. THERE WAS REQUEST TO REMOVE THIS PROPOSED IMAGERY, BECAUSE SAYING, IT'S NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN. THIS IS TOO COSTLY. WITH THAT SAID, AGAIN, AS I SAID A MOMENT AGO, NOTHING HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. I DON'T HAVE ANY SUBMITTED CASES. HOWEVER, I WOULD DISAGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT. THERE'S JUST A FEW THINGS, AGAIN, JUST HIGHLIGHTING SOME OF THOSE CONCERNS THAT WE HEARD WHEN WE RECEIVED FEEDBACK FROM THE CARRIERS. AGAIN, SOME OF THE FEEDBACK FROM THE VERIZON REPRESENTATIVES THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT, SOME FEEDBACK FROM SIX OTHER GROUPS, BUT I THINK YOU CAN SEE FROM THAT FEEDBACK WHERE SOME WOULD SAY THAT IT'S LIMITED. >> I'LL SHARE ONE MORE THOUGHT, AND THEN I KNOW STEVE HAD AN OPINION BECAUSE I THINK IT IS VALID IN WHAT HE SAID, IS I WANT EVERYONE IN OUR COMMUNITY TO HAVE SERVICE. IT'S IMPERATIVE. IF THE INTERNET GOES OUT OR PHONE GOES DOWN, MY KIDS, I DON'T KNOW WHAT TO DO. I DON'T KNOW HOW TO BE A DAD, THE WORLD ENDS. IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE HAVE IT. >> THIS IS SELF SERVICES. THIS IS NOT THE INTERNET. IT'S SELF SERVICE. >> IT'S SELF SERVICE. YES, I WAS JUST TRYING TO BE FUNNY. BUT WHAT I DO LOVE IS WHEN SEAN SAYS, WHAT ARE THE OTHER CITIES DOING? I'M NOT AS CONCERNED WHAT THE OTHER CITIES ARE DOING AS THERE'S A REASON WHY IT'S DALLAS, FORT WORTH, AND FRISCO. FRISCO IS SPECIAL, SO I'M NOT TRYING TO DO WHAT THE OTHER CITIES ARE DOING. >> I DID MENTION SIMILAR CITIES. >> SIMILAR CITIES. THAT'S FAIR. I LOVE THAT WE HAVE HIGH STANDARDS, AND I REALIZE THERE'S A POSSIBLE HIGHER COST. I GET EXCITED THAT WE'RE NOT LOWERING THE BAR WITH THE SURROUNDING AREAS. THE REASON WHY EVERYONE WANTS TO KEEP BUILDING HERE, THE REASON WHY PEOPLE KEEP WANT TO MOVE HERE, IT'S IN THE DETAILS. PEOPLE LOVE THAT WE'RE PUSHING ON PEOPLE OF THESE TYPE OF THINGS. [00:45:03] THAT EXCITES ME, BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THAT THERE'S A NEED THAT PEOPLE WANT SELF SERVICE. THAT'S JUST MY FEELING. I'M OPEN TO IDEAS OR THOUGHTS. YES, MR. LETTELLEIR. >> YES, I JUST WANT TO MAKE A COUPLE OF COMMENTS. ONE, ARE WE AWARE OF SELF SERVICE COVERAGE THAT IS LACKING? YES, AND SO IS CITY COUNCIL. THAT WAS BROUGHT UP WITH COUNCIL AS THIS DOCUMENT WAS BEING WORKED ON. COUNCIL, AS JONATHAN POINTED OUT, COUNCIL WAS CLEAR IS WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO SEE. THAT IS BEING COMMUNICATED. THERE'S NOTHING TECHNICAL ABOUT THAT. BUT WE'RE ALSO, WHAT JONATHAN WENT OVER, WE'RE MAKING PART OF THIS EASY, WAS A STRAIGHTFORWARD PROCESS, IF IT IS STEALTH VERSUS CLEANING UP THE DEFINITION OF STEALTH WHERE IF IT'S NOT STEALTH, YOU HAVE TO GET AN SUP. WE SAY, IF YOU DO THIS, MUCH EASIER THAN IF YOU WANT TO DO X. THAT MAY WORK SESSION, THERE'S BEEN FIVE MONTHS. THEN THE REQUEST TO, WELL, LET'S TABLE. THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES TO PARTICIPATE IN THE DISCUSSION. UP ON THE MAY MEETING, WE HAD DISCUSSIONS. AUGUST, WE HAD A WORK SESSION WITH COUNCIL. OPEN WORK SESSION AS WE WENT THROUGH THE CHANGES, AND AS JONATHAN POINTED OUT, A COUPLE OF COMMENTS WERE MADE. THOSE COMMENTS WERE ADOPTED IN THIS DRAFT TONIGHT, SO THERE'S BEEN PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITIES FOR PUBLIC INPUT. AS JONATHAN MENTIONED, LEGAL HAS BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS PROCESS. >> I APPRECIATE IT. FOR THOSE THAT MAY NOT BE AWARE, WHEN PEOPLE COME, THEY GO, "WHY IS YOUR CITY ALWAYS LOOK DIFFERENT?" THE FIRST THING I TELL THEM, I GO COUNT ALL THE BILLBOARDS IN OUR COMMUNITY. THEY'RE LIKE, "WELL, WHERE ARE THEY?" I GO EXACTLY COUNT THEM. I THINK WE'RE LESS THAN THREE, AND IT'S BECAUSE OF WHAT OUR CITY STAFF AND LEADERSHIP HAD DONE 15, 20 YEARS AGO, AND THAT SEPARATES US. IT IS SOMETHING SPECIAL, AND BECAUSE OF THIS, ARE WE GOING TO HAVE 20-30 MORE JUST UGLY LOOKING SELF SERVICE TOWERS? I DO GET EXCITED THAT WE'RE RAISING THE BAR OF WHAT WE WANT TO CONTINUE THE CITY TO LOOK LIKE. >> CAN I SAY ONE MORE POINT? >> YEAH. >> CAN YOU GO BACK TO THE SLIDE OF THE MONOPOLES? I REMEMBER THE DAY MY SON, BECAUSE THAT ONE ON THE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THE HOME DEPOT OVER THE [INAUDIBLE] I REMEMBER THE DAY MY SON WAS, LIKE SIX OR SEVEN YEARS OLD. HE SAID, "DAD, THAT FLIGHT POLE LOOKS PRETTY COOL. I SAID, "THAT'S AN ANTENNA." HE'S LIKE, "THAT'S AN ANTENNA?" THAT'S A STEALTH ANTENNA TO ME. I'M SORRY. NOW, THE BUILDING AROUND IT, MAYBE NOT SO MUCH. MAYBE WE NEED SOME LANDSCAPE AROUND THAT TO HIDE IT A LITTLE BIT BETTER. BUT TO ME, THAT'S A STEALTH ANTENNA. THAT'S MY POINT. THAT'S ALL I WANT TO SAY. >> THAT'S FAIR. AGAIN, AND WHAT'S GREAT ABOUT THIS COMMISSION IS WE HAVE DIFFERENT OPINIONS AS I ACTUALLY FEEL MY JUNIOR HIGH HAD THREE OF THEM. BUT BY US ALLOWING THAT-. >> CORRECT. >> WHAT WE'RE NOW ALLOWING THAT BASE, IT'S A NUISANCE. A NUISANCE IS A STRONG WORD, BUT IT'S AN EYESORE. I'M LEANING ON THE CITY STAFF. I DON'T GET TO VOTE, BUT I WOULD BE IN SUPPORT OF THE STAFF FROM THIS. BUT ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE I PITCH THE MOTION? >> I HAVE A LOT OF COMMENTS, AND A LOT OF QUESTIONS. MY FIRST QUESTION IS, IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, WHO'S RESPONSIBLE FOR MAINTAINING THE FLAG? WHOSE OBLIGATION IS THAT? >> THE CARRIER, AND WE HAVE HAD ISSUES IN THE PAST. I'VE HAD TO USE CODE ENFORCEMENT. >> AS A VETERAN OF THE UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, I TAKE OFFENSE TO THE FACT THAT THOSE FLAGS ARE NOT PROPERLY MAINTAINED WHEN THEY'RE ALLOWED TO BE USED IN THAT MANNER. >> I AGREE. >> I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO GO ON RECORD AS SAYING THAT I DIDN'T PARTICULARLY CARE FOR HIS TONE WHEN HE CAME UP AND MADE HIS PRESENTATION. IT SOUNDED AS THOUGH, WHAT'S THE WORD I'M LOOKING FOR? >> THREATENING. >> THAT'S THE WORD I WAS LOOKING FOR. THREATENING. IT SOUNDED VERY THREATENING. AND AS I SAID, I'M A MARINE, I DON'T RESPOND TO THREATS PASSIVELY. SO I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE ANYONE ELSE THAT COMES BEFORE US AND DECIDES TO MAKE A PRESENTATION SUCH AS THIS THAT THEY WOULD TAKE A DIFFERENT TONE WHEN THEY COME BEFORE US BECAUSE I DIDN'T APPRECIATE IT. ALL SAID. >> ANY OTHER COMMENTS? >> I WANTED TO JUST FOLLOW UP ON THE FLAG. OH, DID YOU HAVE THEM, PLEASE? >> I THINK WE HAVE A UNIQUE SITUATION IN THAT MANY TIMES WE ARE SEEING THINGS BEFORE COUNCIL MIGHT HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO SEE IT, AND WE ARE VOLLING UP TO THEM THINGS THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED AND WORKED ON TOGETHER TO GET THEIR FINAL VOTE. BUT IN THIS CASE, THIS HAS BEEN IN REVERSE ORDER, [00:50:02] WHERE COUNCIL HAS WORKED ON THIS, HAS SEEN THIS, HAS DISCUSSED THIS AND NOW IT'S BACK TO US TO VOLLEY BACK TO THEM. SO I FEEL COMFORTABLE WITH THEIR TIME WITH STAFF'S TIME WITH THE DETAILS THAT HAVE GONE IN ON THIS TO VOLLEY THIS BACK UP. TO THEM SINCE THEY WERE THE ONES THAT DUG DEEP AND WORKED ON IT. >> STEVE. >> YEAH. IF I FELT LIKE THIS WAS GOING TO DO WHAT YOU MENTIONED, JOHN, IS THIS ABOUT HOLDING HIGHER STANDARDS? I DON'T KNOW. I CAN'T READ THAT INTO THE LANGUAGE HERE TO UNDERSTAND IF THAT'S REALLY WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO HERE. AND IF I FELT CONFIDENT WE COULD GO OUT TO THE PEOPLE AND SAY, THIS IS GOING TO SPEED UP THE PROCESS, AND THIS IS GOING TO SPEED IT UP, THEN I WOULD HAVE LOTS OF CONFIDENCE WITH THAT. SO I CAN'T GO FORWARD, SEND THIS UP TO COUNCIL WITH THIS QUESTION MARK OF, DOES THIS SPEED UP GETTING BETTER SELL SERVICE ACROSS FRISCO? AND DOES THIS ADD THE LOOK THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. LIKE 100% AGREE WITH YOU ON THAT. I DON'T FEEL ABOUT HOW OUR NEIGHBORS ARE DIFFERENT. I TOOK THAT COMPLETELY THE OTHER DIFFERENT WAY. >> YEAH. >> I TOOK THAT AS, ARE OUR NEIGHBORS DOING SOMETHING ELSE THAT'S MORE CLEVER, WHERE THEY'VE GOT HIGH STANDARDS AND A FASTER PROCESS IN ACCOMMODATING. I'D LIKE TO STEAL THEIR IDEAS, NOT LOWERING OUR STANDARDS TO ANYBODY ELSE ON THAT. SPECIFICALLY ON THIS FLAGPOLE, I'LL EMBARRASSINGLY ADMIT I LIVE ACROSS THE STREET FROM THIS, AND I NEVER NOTICED THAT BASE UNTIL JUST THIS MOMENT. I'M SORRY. I LOOK AT A LOT OF THINGS. I SEE A LOT OF THINGS, AND I DID NOT KNOW THAT THAT WAS AN ANTENNA FOR YEARS. I JUST DIDN'T. SO I UNDERSTAND COUNCIL HAD LOOKED AT THAT AND HOW IT DOES STAND OUT. BUT I AM VERY CONCERNED ABOUT US NOT HAVING HAD A WORK SESSION. I KNOW BRITTANY SAID THAT COUNCIL HAS DONE THAT, AND SO, IT SHOULD ALL BE GOOD AT THIS POINT. BUT I FEEL LIKE IF WE'D HAD A WORK SESSION IN THE LAST FIVE MONTHS, AS WAS POINTED OUT, WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN ALL OF US COMFORTABLE THAT WHAT WE'RE SENDING FORWARD ACCOMPLISHES WHAT'S BEST FOR THE RESIDENTS AND AT THIS POINT, WE CAN'T TELL EVEN COUNCIL THAT WHAT THEY'VE DISCUSSED AND COME UP WITH NECESSARILY IS BEST FOR RESIDENTS AND I DON'T FEEL COMFORTABLE THAT WE HAVE A PLAN TO DO THAT. EVEN THOUGH I LIKED WHAT STAFF SAID UNTIL THE PERSON FROM VERIZON SPOKE, WHETHER I AGREE WITH HIS TONE OR NOT, WHICH I APPRECIATE WHAT WARREN SAID. I WOULD HAVE LIKED TO HAVE KNOWN MAYBE SOONER THAT THERE WAS MAYBE STILL SOME QUESTION MARKS AS TO WHETHER THIS REALLY DOES SPEED UP THE PROCESS FOR OUR RESIDENTS AND THE ULTIMATE GOAL, I THINK IS TO SPEED UP GETTING MORE CELL SERVICE IN APPROPRIATE AESTHETIC WAY. >> YEAH. AND I THINK, AND I AGREE WITH EVERYTHING, AND I APOLOGIZE, IF I CAME AS YOUR COMMENTS WERE VERY VALID WITH REGARDS TO WHAT YOU SAID AND MAKING SURE THAT YES, I'M NOT SAYING WE'RE BETTER THAN ANY CITIES AROUND US. WHAT IT IS, IT DOES FOR MY CLEARLY READ, IT DOES SPEED IT UP, BUT THERE'S A FINANCIAL BURDEN ON OUR CARRIERS AND WE'RE WANTING SOMETHING NICER HERE. AND SO I THINK WHAT I TAKE IS THAT THEY MAY NOT WANT TO INVEST SOME OF THE AESTHETICS THAT WE'RE GOING TO REQUIRE IN OUR CITY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS BEFORE I ENTERTAIN A MOTION? >> I HAVE ONE MORE. I THINK IT'S WORTH REMINDING EVERYONE HERE THAT WE'RE MAKING RECOMMENDATIONS TO COUNCIL. WE'RE NOT PASSING ORDINANCES OURSELVES. SO IF THEY WERE TO COME BEFORE US WITH THE WORK SESSION, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN DONE AS A COURTESY, AND NOTHING ELSE. WE'RE HERE TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION TO COUNCIL. IT'S COUNCIL'S JOB TO ADOPT ORDINANCES. >> WITH THAT, DO YOU WANT TO MAKE A RECOMMENDATION? >> I WOULD LIKE TO MOVE THAT WE APPROVE THE AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. TELL ME HOW TO SAY IT THE CORRECT WAY. >> YOU SAID IT RIGHT. THAT'S ITEM 24. >> ITEM NUMBER 24. I HAVE A MOTION BY WARREN. A SECOND? >> SECOND. >> A SECOND BY BRITTANY. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> OPPOSE? >> NAY. >> TWO MOTION PASSES THREE, TWO. >> WAIT, THREE OPPOSED. >> OH, I'M SORRY. DID YOU SAY NAY? >> YEAH. >> I TOTALLY APOLOGIZE. >> WE HAVE A SPLIT VOTE FOR THE FIRST TIME EVER. >> WE HAVE A SPLIT VOTE? FIRST TIME, AND I APOLOGIZE. >> SO I'VE GOT THREE, WARREN, BRITTANY, AND MICHAEL. SO FOUR, STEVE, SEAN AND TIFFANY OPPOSE. OH, YES. >> I'D LIKE TO KNOW THE REASON FOR OPPOSITION, AND THEN YOU NEED TO TAKE A SECOND MOTION BECAUSE BY THE END, YOU NEED TO HAVE A MOTION OF APPROVING IT, TABLEING IT, DENYING IT, SO FORTH. >> SO I DON'T VOTE ON A TIE. >> YOU ONLY VOTE IN CASE OF A TIE? >> THAT I'D SAY IT IS A TIE. >> SO YES, YOU DO VOTE. [00:55:01] >> I WANT TO BE RESPECTFUL BEFORE I MAKE THAT MOTION. TIFFANY, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU'D LIKE TO SAY? >> I KNOW WE PUT A LOT OF EMPHASIS ON COUNCIL AND WHAT OUR ROLE IS, AND I THINK WE HAVE TO LOOK AT OURSELVES, AND THERE'S A REASON WHY THEY PUT US ALL TOGETHER BASED UPON OUR EXPERTISE. AND SO I DON'T WANT US TO MAKE OURSELVES SEEM LESSER BECAUSE I THINK THEY ALSO RELY ON HOW WE THINK, HOW WE SEE THINGS BECAUSE WE DO HAVE INDIVIDUALLY IDEAS OR EXPERIENCES IN TERMS IN DIFFERENT AREAS, WHETHER IT'S CONSTRUCTION, ARCHITECTURE, AND STUFF. I THINK THE ORDINANCE, I HEAR A LOT OF STUFF ABOUT CONNECTIVITY, ABOUT THIS, ABOUT THE PROCESS. WHEN I READ THE ORDINANCE, I FEEL LIKE IT WAS MORE ABOUT WHAT WE WANT TO SEE AND WHAT WE WANT TO MAKE THE PROCESS EASIER, WHICH IS, I THINK IS GREAT. BUT I DO AGREE WITH SOME OF THE COMMISSIONERS, AND ESPECIALLY WITH ME BEING NEWER, I'M NOT PRIVY TO ALL THE STUFF THAT WAS DONE. SO THAT WAS REALLY MY MAIN REASON IN TERMS OF IF I HAD MORE TIME TO REVIEW THAT AND SEE WHAT WAS THE ISSUES PRIOR TO, MAYBE IF THEY HAD SOME ISSUES WITH PREVIOUS CASES OR THINGS THAT WE SUBMITTED, THEN I CAN MAKE A BETTER JUDGMENT, BUT I ALSO THINK WE NEED TO DEFINE WHETHER WE'RE DEALING WITH CONNECTIVITY ISSUES, OR ARE WE DEALING WITH SOLELY THE PROCESS. BECAUSE I THINK EVERYBODY BEEN GOING ALL AROUND THE TABLE ON DIFFERENT THINGS. AND I THINK THAT YEAH, IT WILL HELP CONNECTIVITY, BUT I FELT LIKE THE ORDINANCE WAS REALLY TRYING TO DEAL WITH THE AESTHETICS AND ALSO MAKING IT A PROCESS EASIER. THAT'S WHAT I FELT LIKE HE WAS TRYING TO ACCOMPLISH. SO THAT'S THE ONLY REASON WHY I VOTED THE WAY I DID. IF NOBODY HAS SOMETHING ELSE TO SAY, I WILL MAKE A MOTION TO DEFER IT. >> I APPRECIATE IT. SO WE'VE GOT A 3,3 VOTE. I'VE ALLUDED TO WHERE I STAND IS OUR CITY DOES A PHENOMENAL JOB. IT'S BEEN THOROUGH. IT'S BEEN FIVE MONTHS. OUR CITY COUNCIL HAS DONE A WORKSHOP. IT POSSIBLY THE IMPRESSION I GET, IT'S GOING TO BE POSSIBLY A LITTLE BIT MORE FINANCIAL BURDEN TO RAISE THE BAR TO BE IN FRISCO AND HAVING THAT AND THAT EXCITES ME BECAUSE PEOPLE WILL CONTINUE TO WANT TO LIVE HERE WHEN IT LOOKS BEAUTIFUL FOR YEARS AND YEARS TO COME. SO WITH THAT, I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 24. >> ARE YOU MAKING A MOTION OR YOU'RE JUST VOTING? >> NO, I'M VOTING. >> YOU'RE JUST VOTING? >> YEAH. I'M THE [INAUDIBLE] JUST VOTING FOR IT, BUT I APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. PLEASE KNOW I THINK A LOT OF YOURS. YOU HAD VERY STRONG OPINIONS AND TOTALLY RESPECT THOSE, SO I APPRECIATE IT. SO WITH THAT, ITEM 24 IS APPROVED. >> ARE YOU FOR RECORD TO GET ON THE NAYS? >> YES. >> YEAH. >> TIFFANY, DID YOU WANT TO REPEAT? >> IT FAILED. >> NO, WHAT WE USUALLY DO IS IF IT FAILS, THE ONES THAT WERE ON THE SITE VOTE, WOULD YOU LIKE TO GO ON RECORD A SENTENCE OR TWO OF WHY YOU VOTED AGAINST IT? >> WELL, I JUST FELT LIKE ME PERSONALLY THAT BEING NEW, MORE TIME TO SEE SPECIFICALLY WHAT STAFF WAS DOING IN TERMS OF WHAT THE WORK SECTION AND WHAT WAS THE INTENT, AND ALSO TO JUST GIVE ME MORE TIME TO SEE WHAT WAS THE BEHIND THE SCENES AND WHAT WAS COUNCIL THINKING. >> THAT'S IT. THANK YOU. SEAN. >> I AGREE WITH WHAT TIFFANY SAID, AND I'M NOT NEW, BUT THIS WAS NEW TO ME AS OF SATURDAY WHEN I READ THIS, AND THERE'S A LOT TO CATCH UP ON. SO I THINK THIS IS A BIG ISSUE, AND I THINK IT'S NOT FAIR THAT WE WERE FED ALL THIS INFORMATION REALLY QUICKLY, AND THEN DECIDED, HEY, LET'S VOTE ON THIS. I WISH I COULD HAVE BEEN MORE INVOLVED IN THE PROCESS EARLIER ON WITH OTHER WORK SESSIONS WITH THE CITY COUNCIL. I REALLY WISH THEY WOULD HAVE INVITED US TO THAT. I WOULD REALLY LIKE US AS A CITY TO REALLY WORK OUT AND REACH OUT AGAIN. I KNOW THERE'S BEEN SOME BACK AND FORTH, BUT AGAIN, I DON'T SEE WHAT THE HURRY IS ON THIS SO I WANTED TO SEE THIS PUSH DOWN THE ROAD A LITTLE BIT AND MAYBE WORK A LITTLE BIT MORE WITH THE PROVIDERS. BUT ALSO, I DO WANT TO SAY THAT, MAN, I AM GETTING A LITTLE SICK AND TIRED OF DRIVE AROUND PARTS OF THE CITY, ESPECIALLY AROUND STONE BAR, AND I CAN'T USE MY PHONE. SO I GUARANTEE A LOT OF FOLKS I KNOW WOULD MUCH RATHER HAVE ONE OF THESE MONOPOLES SOMEWHERE NEAR THEIR HOUSE AS OPPOSED TO NOT HAVING GOOD CELL PHONE SERVICE. THAT'S HOW I FEEL. >> STEVE. >> I WAS SURPRISED TO SEE THIS IN THE AGENDA ON FRIDAY BECAUSE I KNEW THIS WAS IN THE WORKS, AND I GUESS I THOUGHT THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE MORE DISCUSSION AND MORE IN DEPTH UNDERSTANDING BEFORE. SO I VOTED NO BECAUSE I WOULD LIKE TO UNDERSTAND BETTER WHAT WE ARE RECOMMENDING TO CITY COUNCIL. IF I WAS TALKING TO A CITY COUNCIL MEMBER, I COULD NOT CONFIDENTLY SAY THAT I FELT COMFORTABLE WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING. >> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, ITEM 25. [25. Results of the October 15, 2024, City Council meeting.] RESULTS OF THE OCTOBER 15TH, 2024, CITY COUNCIL MEETING. [01:00:01] >> I'M TRYING TO REMEMBER WHAT THAT WAS. WE DID HAVE ISP FOR DAYCARE. I MENTIONED TO COUNCIL WE HAD AIR REGARDING THE DISTANCE OF THE DAYCARE OPEN SPACE FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY. IT WAS NOT AS GREAT AS REFERENCED IN THE STAFF REPORT. SO I HAD THAT CORRECTED. THEY'RE STILL RECOMMENDED APPROVAL. EVERYTHING ELSE WAS TAKEN CARE OF. [26. Schedule of future discussion items.] >> WITH THAT, ITEM 26, SCHEDULE A FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS. >> WARREN, DO YOU HAVE THE DATES FOR THOSE NEXT CPAC MEETINGS BY CHANCE? I THINK I'VE GOT THEM. HANG ON. >> DECEMBER, RIGHT? >> OH, DECEMBER. >> NO. SO LET ME GIVE YOU THE DATES. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I GET IT RIGHT FOR YOU. LET ME SEE. OH, WAIT. >> THE JOINT SESSION IS DECEMBER 5TH. >> I REMEMBER IT. >> YEAH. AND I THINK IT'S NOVEMBER 6. NOVEMBER 6TH IS THE OPEN HOUSE. >> IS IT A WEDNESDAY? >> THAT'S A WEDNESDAY NIGHT. >> YES, IT IS. >> IT'S AN OPEN HOUSE AND SO THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEES, FUTURE LAND USE PLAN WILL BE DISCUSSED. AREAS IN WHICH CHANGES ARE BEING MADE. WE ARE NOTIFYING THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION, SO THEY'RE AWARE OF CHANGES BEING PROPOSED BY CPAC, SO THEY HAVE A CHANCE TO COMMENT. >> JOHN, AT THAT OPEN HOUSE, IT'S NOT JUST THE FUTUREOUS PLAN. >> THE MAIN CONCENTRATION IS ON THE FUTUREOUS PLAN, NOT THE DOCUMENT ITSELF. >> WILL THE DOCUMENT BE PRESENTED TO THE PEOPLE AT A DIFFERENT OPEN HOUSE THEN? >> WE'LL HAVE THE DOCUMENT PRESENTED TO CPAC LATER. >> OKAY. >> SO THAT'S THE INTENT OF DOING THAT AT THE DECEMBER MEETING. >> I SEE SEAN HAS A QUESTION. >> FOLLOW UP QUESTION. NOW THAT WE'VE GOT A NEW SECRETARY VOTED IN, HE STILL HAS TO GO BACK AND SIGN THE PLANS BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE A SECRETARY EARLIER? >> IT IS UNSIGNED BACK THERE, YES. >> UNSIGNED. >> JUST A REMINDER. >> AND I THINK THAT ALSO MEANS MICHAEL HOWARD HAS BEEN DEMOTED DOWN ONE SEAT. DOES THE SECRETARY SAY, HOW ARE YOU? >> I USED TO HAVE A SEAT OVER THERE. >> YEAH. >> I DON'T KNOW. >> I DIDN'T KNOW IF YOU WANTED TO COME IN. >> I'M TALKING ABOUT THAT. >> ONE THING I DO WANT TO ADD, SORRY, FOR INTERRUPTING, BUT AT THAT DECEMBER MEETING, P AND Z WILL BE INCLUDED IN THAT DISCUSSION WITH THE CITY COUNCIL AND COMPREHENSIVE PLAN ADVISORY COMMITTEE. >> THAT'S THAT THURSDAY, DECEMBER 5TH MEETING? >> FIFTH OR SIXTH. >> I JUST PULLED UP THE EMAIL, I FOUND IT. [OVERLAPPING] THAT MEETING WILL START 5:30. >> AT THE GROVE, SENIOR CENTER, SO THAT'LL BE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC ALSO. >> 5:30? >> 5:30-7:30, I THINK IT SAID. >> 5:30 ON THURSDAY THE FIFTH. >> THEN WE DO HAVE A WORK SESSION FOLLOWING THIS MEETING. >> WITH THAT, THERE'S ONLY ONE ITEM LEFT BEFORE WE GO UP TO WORK SESSION. >> MOVE TO ADJOURN. >> MOTION BY SEAN. >> SECOND. >> AND SECOND BY MICHAEL. ALL IN FAVOR. >> AYE. >> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES SIX-ZERO. WE ADJOURNED AT 7:33 P.M. FOR THOSE THAT ARE AWARE, THERE IS A WORK SESSION UPSTAIRS ON THE THIRD FLOOR. [BACKGROUND] LET'S GO TO THE THIRD FLOOR, NO ONE'S PAYING ATTENTION. [BACKGROUND] * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.