>> WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED.
[00:00:02]
WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRISCO PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION.[CALL TO ORDER]
WE WERE GATHERED AT 6101 FRISCO SQUARE BOULEVARD, AND THE TIME IS 6:30 PM.THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION CONSISTS OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL.
TONIGHT, COMMISSIONERS PRESENCE ARE TIFFANY WELLS, MICHAEL HOWARD, BRITTANY COLBERG, WARREN RUIZ, AND STEVE COHEN, AND I, JON KENDALL, AS YOUR CHAIR REPRESENTING STAFF FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, WE HAVE JOHN LETTELLEIR, JONATHAN HUBBARD, ROLANDREA RUSSELL, DANIEL PONDER, SEAN O'QUINN, ENGINEERING, JOEL FITZ, SHELLY LANG, AND JACQUELINE PARKER.
DID I PRONOUNCE THAT RIGHT? O OH, JACQUE PARKER.
FROM LEGAL, WE HAVE RYAN PITTMAN.
I THINK RECORDS SHOW DANIEL PONDER THIS IS YOUR LAST MEETING.
WITH THAT THE NEXT ITEM ON AGENDA IS CITIZEN INPUT.
IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING THE 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 ANY APPLICANT PRESENT THIS EVENING.
TO ENSURE THERE'S ENOUGH TIME FOR ALL TO SPEAK, PLEASE LIMIT YOUR COMMENTS TO A MAXIMUM 5 MINUTES.
UNLESS YOU MUST ADDRESS THE COMMISSION THROUGH A TRANSLATOR, IN WHICH CASE YOU MAY HAVE A MAXIMUM 10 MINUTES.
PLEASE NOTE THE COMMISSION CANNOT DISCUSS OR TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION DURING CITIZEN AND INPUT ON ITEMS NOT POSTED ON THE AGENDA EXCEPT TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INQUIRY OR TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO YOUR INQUIRY OR TO INDICATE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE PLACED ON A LATER AGENDA.
WITH THAT. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK DURING CITIZEN INPUT? FOR THOSE THAT MIGHT BE REGULARS, I KNOW WE HAVE BLUE SPEAKER CARDS HERE, BUT THEN YOU'LL HAVE TO TAKE EXTRA STEPS ON THE OPPOSITE SIDE OF THE DIES TO LOWER OVER THERE.
IF I DON'T SEE ANYONE. NEXT ITEM ON THE AGENDA IS APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES.
[APPROVAL OF MINUTES]
>> MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE MAY 13, REGULAR PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION.
>> WE HAVE TWO, SO WE'LL HAVE TO DO THEM INDIVIDUALLY.
>> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY BRITTANY.
SECOND BY TIFFANY. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
WITH THAT WE HAVE ITEM 3. GO AHEAD.
>> DIDN'T HAVE ANY MINUTES, BUT MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE, SO IS IT MINUTES?
>> IT'S NOT MINUTES, BUT THERE ARE NO MINUTES.
>> IT'S ON THERE. WE JUST BYPASS IT.
APOLOGIZE FOR THOSE WHO HAD NOT KNOWN.
THERE WAS SOME A LITTLE EXCITEMENT TWO WEEKS AGO.
THE NEXT ITEM AGENDA APPROVE MINUTES.
NEXT ITEM IS THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[CONSENT AGENDA]
THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NON CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. ANY COMMISSION MEMBER MAKING SUCH REQUESTS PRIOR TO A MOTION AND VOTE ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MAY DO SO INDIVIDUALLY.ANY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO SPEAK, MAKE COMMENTS ON CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MAY DO SO WITH THE MAJORITY OF THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.
WE HAVE ITEMS 4-7 THIS EVENING.
ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION?
JOHN GILLETTE IS HERE. I'VE MARKED HIM.
BUT DO I HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION FOR ITEMS 4-17?
>> I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS 4-17 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
>> SECOND BY TIFFANY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
LASTLY, TONIGHT WE HAVE FIVE PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA, AND I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS.
EACH PUBLIC HEARING ITEM IS PROCEEDED BY STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUESTS.
THE APPLICANT IS THEN PERMITTED 10 MINUTES TO MAKE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION.
THE 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 THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESENT YOUR POSITIONS.
PLEASE AVOID REPEATING WHAT HAS ALREADY BEEN STATED BY PREVIOUS SPEAKERS, OTHER THAN TO STATE THAT YOU AGREE WITH THEIR 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 VOLUME OF PEOPLE ARE WISHING TO SPEAK.
PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.
REPEAT APPEARANCES TO THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED.
[00:05:01]
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 FUTURE DATE, AND THE COMMISSION INCLUDES IT IN A MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A FUTURE MEETING.
AFTER CLOSING PUBLIC HEARING, MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR 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, LET'S PULL UP ITEM 18.
[Conveyance Plat: Preston Promenade, Block A, Lots 1-12 (CP25-0007)]
ITEM 18, CONVEYANCE PRESTON PROMENADE, BLOCK LOTS 1-12 CP 25-0007.OWNERS NORTHEAST CORNER, PRESTON PANTHER CREEK, LTD, SUMMIT PRESTON, LLC, AND VICTRON STORES LP.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THE ITEM THAT WAS JUST READ INTO THE RECORD WAS DISAPPROVED BY THE PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION ON MAY 13, 2025.
SINCE THAT TIME, STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE APPLICANT.
HOWEVER, AS OF DATE, THE APPLICANT STILL HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH ALL OF THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS THEREFORE, THE ITEM IS BEFORE YOU ONCE AGAIN FOR DISAPPROVAL.
>> THANK YOU. THIS IS THE ONE THAT'S NOT A PUBLIC HEARING.
ARE THERE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION?
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION. I MOVE TO DISAPPROVE ITEM NUMBER 18 FOR THE REASONS IDENTIFIED IN THE STAFF REPORT AND DELEGATE TO STAFF THE AUTHORITY TO PROVIDE A WRITTEN STATEMENT TO THE APPLICANT OF THE REASONS FOR THE DISAPPROVAL.
>> SECOND BY STEVE. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
ITEM 19, PUBLIC HEARING REPLAT BROOKSIDE PHASE 1B BLOCK AD,
[Public Hearing – Replat: Brookside Phase 1B, Block AD, Lots 6 and 7 (RP25-0003)]
LOT 6 AND 7 RP 25-0003, OWNER SHATTUCK HOLMES, LTD.>> THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THE ITEM BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING IS TO ADJUST THE INTERNAL LOT LINE.
THESE LOTS AS PRESENTED DOES SATISFY WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF PLAN DEVELOPMENT 280.
STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL.
I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
JUST A REMINDER, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING.
>> THANK YOU. IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND DO THEY WISH TO SPEAK? DO I HAVE A MOTION OPEN PUBLIC HEARING?
>> SECOND BY TIFFANY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
WE'RE IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 19.
>> SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING.
>> A SECOND BY STEVE. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE. MOTION PASSES 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING PORTION IS NOW CLOSED FOR ITEM 19.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR ENTERTAIN A MOTION? I'LL BE ONE OF YOU FIVE COMMISSIONERS.
>> WELL BEING SO NICE. MOVE TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM 19 AS SUBMITTED BY STAFF.
>> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY BRITTANY.
>> SECOND BY TIFFANY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
CONGRATULATIONS. ITEM 20, PUBLIC HEARING REPLAT.
[Public Hearing - Replat: Tapestry Addition, Phase 2, Block B, Lots 1-9 (RP25-0006)]
[INAUDIBLE] PHASE 2 BLOCK B LOTS 1-9 RP 25-0006.OWNERS [INAUDIBLE] HOMES2 LLC. HOPEFULLY I SAID THAT RIGHT.
>> THANK YOU, CHAIR AND MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION.
THE ITEMS THAT WAS JUST READ INTO THE RECORD WAS SUBMITTED ON MAY 12, 2025.
THE APPLICANT HAS SINCE REQUESTED A 30 DAY EXTENSION TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME TO ADDRESS STAFF COMMENTS.
STAFF RECOMMENDS APPROVAL OF THE 30 DAY EXTENSION REQUESTS, CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING, AND TABLE THE ITEM TO THE JUNE 24, PLANNING & ZONING COMMISSION MEETING.
HAPPY TO ENTERTAIN ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I ASSUME APPLICANT WANTING IT TABLED, BUT IS THERE A MOTION OPEN PUBLIC HEARING?
>> REOPEN BECAUSE WE CONTINUED IT.
>> WE WANT TO TABLE BUT WE NEED TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> OH, I LOOK OVER HERE FOR JOHN. WE NEED TO REOPEN.
>> CORRECT. DO I HAVE A MOTION OPEN TO THE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> SECOND BY WARREN. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSED? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
WE'RE IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 20.
IT'S BEEN PROPOSED BEFORE WE CLOSE.
IT'S BEEN PROPOSED TO ALLOW A 30 DAY EXTENSION AND EXTEND IT TO JULY 22.
BEFORE WE CLOSE, IF THERE'S ANYONE HERE AND I DON'T SEE ANY, I ENTERTAIN A MOTION BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
>> YOU HAVE TO LEAVE THE PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.
>> JUNE 24. I APOLOGIZE. I HAD THAT WRONG.
[00:10:04]
THANK YOU FOR CORRECTING ME. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO TABLE TO THE JUNE 24 MEETING AND ACCEPT THE APPLICANT'S 30 DAY EXTENSION?>> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY AND CONTINUE THE PUBLIC PUBLIC HEARING.
>> PUBLIC HEARING ON THE JUNE 24 MEETING.
>> SECOND BY BRITTANY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
ITEM 20 HAS BEEN TABLED TO THE JUNE 24 AND WE WILL CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING.
ITEM 21. PUBLIC HEARING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FRISCO PARK 121 SUP 25-0003.
[Public Hearing - Specific Use Permit: Frisco Park 121 (SUP25-0003)]
OWNERS FANON FAMILY LAND LTD.>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.
BEFORE YOU ALL THIS EVENING IS A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR AN OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER.
AS SOME OF YOU ALL MAY REMEMBER, A SIMILAR REQUEST CAME BEFORE THE COMMISSION IN AUGUST OF LAST YEAR.
THE COMMISSION RECOMMENDED APPROVAL OF THAT REQUEST.
HOWEVER, WAS LATER DENIED BY CITY COUNCIL IN SEPTEMBER OF LAST YEAR BY A VOTE OF 4-2.
CITY COUNCIL AT THE TIME, CITING THAT THIS WAS NOT THE RIGHT USE ADJACENT, THE MAJOR TRAIL THAT RUNS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THIS PROPERTY, AND THEY PREFERRED TO WAIT AND SEE WHAT CAME OUT OF THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
SINCE THIS CASE OR SINCE THE PREVIOUS CASE WAS DENIED, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE HAS BEEN ADOPTED.
THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DOES RECOMMEND RETAIL FOR THIS PROPERTY, WHICH IS FURTHER CLASSIFIED AS 100% NON RESIDENTIAL USES.
THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT HAS SUBMITTED A NEW CASE, WHICH IS THIS CASE BEFORE YOU ALL THIS EVENING.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO DEVELOP TWO OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER BUILDINGS ORIENTED EAST WEST WITH THOSE TWO BUILDINGS TOTALING JUST OVER 180,000 SQUARE FEET.
THE BUILDINGS BEING TO THE EAST AND WEST ALLOWS FOR THE TRUCK DOCKS TO BE INTERNALIZED.
BUT IT ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE PRIMARY FACADES AND THE MAIN ENTRANCES TO FRONT THE PARK LAND TO THE NORTH AND THE TRAIL THAT RUNS ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF THE BUILDING.
THE APPLICANT IS TAKING ADVANTAGE OF THE PARK LAND TO THE NORTH AND THE TRAIL BY WORKING WITH THE GRADES AND PROPOSING AN OVERLOOKED DECK WITH SEATING.
THERE'LL ALSO BE CONNECTIONS DOWN TO THE TRAIL VIA AN EIGHT FOOT SIDEWALK, WHICH THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING TO INCORPORATE EDUCATIONAL PATHS.
THERE ARE A SERIES OF RENDERINGS THAT THE APPLICANT HAS DONE.
WE CAN TAKE A LOOK THROUGH THOSE.
EACH OF THESE VIEWS HERE WILL BE INCLUDED AS EXHIBITS TO THE SUP SHOULD THIS MOVE FORWARD.
YOU DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL THIS EVENING, SUBJECT TO THE EXHIBIT B, THE EXHIBIT C, WHICH IS THE OPEN SPACE LANDSCAPE PLANS AND THESE RENDERINGS THAT YOU'RE SEEING HERE AS WELL AS THE BUILDING ELEVATIONS HERE, WHICH DO COMPLY WITH THE ALLOWED HEIGHT AND BUILDING MATERIALS PERMITTED WITHIN THE HIGHWAY DISTRICT.
AGAIN, YOU DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL THIS EVENING AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
>> THERE MAY BE QUESTIONS. IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND DO THEY WISH TO PRESENT?
>> COMMISSIONER PATRIS, 27 74 BANDOLIER, LANE FRISCO, TEXAS.
WE DON'T HAVE A FORMAL PRESENTATION.
WE FEEL REALLY GREAT ABOUT STAFF'S PRESENTATION, THEN WE ALSO HAD A CHANCE TO MEET WITH A FEW OF YOU TO GO OVER A COUPLE OF THE FINER DETAILS AND ANSWER A FEW QUESTIONS IN THAT REGARD.
HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL HAVE. IN ADDITION WITH ME.
WE HAVE DAVID HICKS AND THE ENGINEERING TEAM WITH PORT EAST GROUP, THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU. I KNOW YOU FILLED THE CARD OUT FOR YOURSELF.
IF ONE OF THEM GETS CALLED OUT, IF YOU'LL FILL OUT A CARD ALSO.
DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING?
>> SO MOVED. MOTION BY BRITTANY?
>> SECOND BY TIFFANY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 21.
NOT SEEING ANYONE. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING?
>> SECOND BY BRITTANY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
PUBLIC HEARING PORTION HAS BEEN CLOSED FOR ITEM 21.
TIFFANY, YOU SPOKE UP YOU'RE STARTING THIS END.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT? MICHAEL.
[00:15:04]
>> I DON'T WANT ANY QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT, BUT IF IT'S APPROPRIATE TO HEAR FROM THE COMMISSIONERS THAT SAT ON THE COMP PLAN COMMITTEE I'D LOVE TO HEAR MORE CONTEXT ON THE THE HISTORY OF THE DISCUSSION ON HOW THIS ENDED UP BEING IDENTIFIED AS THE BEST USE OF RETAIL.
>> I WAS IN SUPPORT OF THIS BEFORE AND AFTER RE-WATCHING OUR LAST P&Z MEETING FROM AUGUST, AND ALSO WATCHING COUNCIL'S WAY THAT THEY FLESHED IT OUT IN SEPTEMBER, I FEEL VERY CONFIDENT THAT THIS IS A GREAT DEVELOPMENT HERE.
I REALLY APPRECIATED THAT THE BAY DOORS ARE FACING THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, AND I REALLY APPRECIATE JUST THE ADDITIONAL AMENITIES THAT THEY ADDED EVEN SINCE WE SAW THEM WITH THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL.
I KNOW THEY HAVE 12 FEET THAT THEY HAD TO WORK WITH THE GRADE, AND JUST TO SEE THE SEATING THAT THEY ADDED, AND EVERYTHING THAT REALLY ENGAGES THAT HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, I WAS IMPRESSED WITH.
I KNOW THEY IMPROVED SOME TREE SCREENINGS AS WELL.
WHEN I GOT A CHANCE TO ASK SOME QUESTIONS, THEY WERE TELLING ME ABOUT THAT.
I FEEL LIKE IT REALLY FITS HERE.
THIS IS A TRICKY SPOT RE-WATCHING CITY COUNCIL.
I KNOW BILL WHITER, AND HE WAS A CHAIR BEFORE FOR P&Z, FOR ANYBODY THAT MIGHT NOT KNOW THAT HISTORY, BUT HE WAS JUST TALKING ABOUT, AGAIN, THAT THIS IS A TRICKY SPOT, BUT WE HAVE A BATCH PLANT, I THINK THAT I HAD MY DIRECTIONS WRONG.
IT'S TO THE WEST WHERE THE BATCH PLANT IS AND THEN WALMART TO THE EAST, BUT I THINK THIS IS A GOOD SPOT, AND I SUPPORT IT AGAIN.
>> THIS IS A REALLY HARD ONE BECAUSE THE APPLICANT HAS DONE A GOOD JOB ON ANOTHER CASE THAT WE HAD, AND THIS LOOKS GOOD.
THEY'VE DONE ALL THE THINGS THAT MOST CITIES WOULD WANT AN APPLICANT TO DO.
IT'S HARD TO ASK THEM TO DO MUCH MORE.
IT'S NOT REALLY ABOUT THE APPLICANT OR THE USE, IT'S JUST ABOUT THE LOCATION IS THE BIGGEST PROBLEM.
IF WE LOOK SHORT TERM, THIS MAKES SENSE.
IF WE'RE ONLY LOOKING FOR THE NEXT 5, 10 YEARS, THIS MAKES REASONABLE SENSE, THERE'S A BATCH PLANT, THERE'S A WALMART, THERE'S A SCHOOL, THERE'S A LITTLE INDUSTRIAL BUILDING.
THE HARD PART, IS THE SAME PROBLEM WE HAVE THE COMP PLAN IS, HOW DO YOU THINK ABOUT THE LIFE CYCLE OF THESE THINGS, AND WILL THIS MAKE SENSE IN 30 YEARS? MOST LIKELY NOT.
WILL THIS MAKE SENSE IN 50 YEARS? ALMOST DEFINITELY NOT.
THEN THE QUESTION WE HAVE AS P&Z, IS WHAT DO WE DO? DO WE APPROVE THINGS TODAY THAT MAKE SENSE TODAY, EVEN IF LONG TERM, THEY MAY NOT BE THE BEST USE? I THINK I'LL LET WARREN SPEAK TO THIS MORE, BUT ON THE COMP PLAN, WE TALKED ABOUT THE 121 CORRIDOR, AND WHAT IS ALL OF 121 GOING TO LOOK LIKE? WE TALKED A LOT ABOUT JUST THE BATTLE FOR 121, AND WHAT ARE THE OTHER CITIES DOING? IT'S CLEAR WHAT MCKINNEY AND ALLEN ARE TRYING TO DO WITH THEIR 121.
THEY'RE CLEARLY GOING A DIFFERENT DIRECTION THAN THIS FOR THEIR PORTIONS OF 121.
LEWISVILLE WENT A DIFFERENT DIRECTION.
THEY WENT VERY HEAVILY INTO WAREHOUSES AND SHOWROOMS RIGHT ALONG THEIR HIGHWAY THERE.
OTHER PLACES THEY'VE MANAGED TO TUCK THEM AWAY A LITTLE BIT BACK BEHIND SOMETHING.
WE HAVE ONE WE APPROVED RECENTLY WHERE, WELL, IT WAS NOT IDEAL TO TAKE A BEAUTIFUL GREEN SPACE IN FRISCO, AND PUT SOME ALSO BEAUTIFUL LOOKING WAREHOUSES IN THE MIDDLE OF IT.
THOSE WAREHOUSES DID NOT CUT OFF CIRCULATION AROUND THE AREA.
THEY DID NOT SIT IMMEDIATELY AGAINST THE HIGHWAY.
THERE WAS JUST A LOT OF ADVANTAGES [NOISE] OVER THAT SITE AND PROBABLY ADVANTAGES OVER OTHER SITES THAT WE EVEN HAVE EVEN ALONG 121, THERE HAVE TO BE OTHER SITES THAT HAVE MORE ADVANTAGES THAN THIS SITE.
WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU CAN LOOK AT IT AND YOU CAN EMPHASIZE THE BACK OF THE STORE.
YOU CAN EMPHASIZE THE BUILDINGS THAT ARE THERE.
SOME OF THEM WILL BE THEIR LONG TERM, SOME WON'T.
THE OTHER WAY TO LOOK AT THE SITE IS YOU LOOK AT ONE OF THE PRETTIEST SITES IN FRISCO.
IF YOU WERE TO TALK TO A LOT OF PEOPLE AND SAY, WHAT DO YOU THINK FRISCO SHOULD DO WITH ITS PRETTIEST LOCATIONS? THE TOP 5, TOP 10, PRETTIEST LOCATIONS IN FRISCO.
WHAT WOULD BE THE DESIRE ON THE COMP PLAN FOR FUTURE LAND USE? WHAT WOULD BE THE DESIRE OF RESIDENTS FOR FUTURE USES NEXT TO TRAILS, NEXT TO PARKS? THE ONLY THING THAT I'VE LOOKED AT THIS THAT MIGHT MAKE MORE SENSE IS IF IT HAD A SLIGHTLY SMALLER FOOTPRINT AND IT ALLOWED FOR FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT AROUND IT.
IT ALLOWED FOR FUTURE CIRCULATION AROUND IT.
FIVE YEARS AGO, IF I TOLD YOU THAT WAS A SCHOOL TO THE NORTH,
[00:20:03]
WELL, WE ALL WOULD HAVE SAID, THAT'S A SCHOOL.FOREVER MORE, THAT'S AN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL.
WE NO LONGER CAN VIEW ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS THAT WAY.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE USE OF THAT SCHOOL BUILDING WILL BE IN 10, 20, 30, 40, 50 YEARS.
WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE USE OF THE AGING RETAIL TO THE EAST WILL BE IN 30, 50 YEARS.
WE CERTAINLY KNOW THAT THE LESS DESIRABLE STUFF CLOSER INTO THIS WILL MOST LIKELY BE GONE MUCH SOONER THAN THAT.
IF YOU LOOK AT A LONG TERM FUTURE AND A HIGHER LEVEL VIEW, GO UP 50,000 FEET AND SCAN OUT AND SAY, LONG TERM, DOES THIS QUARTER OF 121 AND CUSTER WANT OLD RETAIL THAT'S HARD TO DEVELOP, AND DOES IT WANT WAREHOUSES IN THIS CORNER? I WOULD THINK THAT WOULD BE THE PROBLEM WE HAVE WITH THE COMP PLAN, IS MOVING TOWARDS A 121 OVERLAY, POSSIBLY AT LEAST A 121 RESEARCH STUDY ABOUT WHAT WE WANT THE FUTURE 121 TO LOOK LIKE RELATIVE TO THE OTHER CITIES, AND THIS GIVEN ITS CURRENT SIZE, AS PRETTY AS IT MAY BE, STILL DOES NOT QUITE WORK FOR THIS SITE, AND MAY NOT WORK FOR THE OVERALL FUTURE VIEW FOR THE CITY, FOR 121, AND SO I WOULD BE CONCERNED ABOUT US DOING THAT STUDY, AND SIX MONTHS FROM NOW, SCRATCHING OUR HEADS AND GOING, WOW, THIS DOES NOT FIT WITH WHAT THIS 121 IN DEPTH STUDY CAME UP WITH.
>> [NOISE] I'M NOT NEARLY AS ARTICULATE AS HE IS, BUT I WOULD OFFER AN OPPOSING VIEW TO SAY THAT A LOT OF SMALL BUSINESSES WOULD APPRECIATE THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A SPACE THIS NICE THAT HAVE THAT MUCH STORAGE CAPACITY, THAT MUCH, VARSITY IS NOT THE RIGHT WORD, FLEXIBILITY, THAT'S THE WORD I WAS LOOKING FOR.
THERE'S A LOT OF FLEXIBILITY IN THE DESIGN, AND IF I'M A SMALL BUSINESS OWNER, SOMETIMES I'M LOOKING FOR A NICER LOCATION THAT STILL HAS THE SAME FLEXIBILITY AS WHAT YOU WOULD FIND IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA.
IT JUST DEPENDS ON WHAT PERSPECTIVE YOU'RE LOOKING AT.
>> I'VE GOT A FEW THOUGHTS I'D LIKE TO SHARE.
IF THE APPLICANT WOULDN'T MIND COMING UP, THE DEVELOPER, I THINK NOW THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT, BUT THE DEVELOPER PREP THESE FEW QUESTION.
IF YOU GIVE US YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS.
>> IF I UNDERSTAND RIGHT, YOU'VE DONE A FEW THESE DEVELOPMENTS BEFORE?
>> CAN YOU TELL US, IS THIS YOUR SECOND BUILDING, THIRD BUILDING.
I'M NOT SAYING THAT'S HOLDING, JUST SO I CAN BETTER UNDERSTAND.
>> WE'RE A PUBLICLY TRADED REAL ESTATE INVESTMENT TRUST, AND WE DO THIS OFFICE WAREHOUSE TYPE OF PRODUCT ACROSS THE SUN BELT US.
OUR PARTICULAR OFFICE IN THE DFW AREA.
WE OWN AND OPERATE AND MANAGE APPROXIMATELY EIGHT MILLION SQUARE FEET OF PRODUCT, AND WE'VE, I WOULD SAY, SELF DEVELOPED ABOUT HALF OF THAT, AND SO WE'RE PARTICULARLY INTRIGUED AND ENGAGED IN THIS 121 CORRIDOR.
WE'VE DEVELOPED, I THINK, IN TOTAL, ABOUT 21 BUILDINGS, GOING FROM FLOWER MOUND, LEWISVILLE, ALL THE WAY UP TO MCKINNEY, ALONG THIS 121 CORRIDOR.
LIKE WARREN RUIZ SAID, THE FLEXIBILITY OF OUR BUILDINGS IS REALLY WHAT WE REALLY PRIDE OURSELVES ON.
>> IF YOU COULD BE MORE SPECIFIC WITH THAT FLEXIBILITY, MAYBE SOME PAST TENANTS OR WHAT TYPE OF TENANTS? I'M NOT HOLDING YOU TO THOSE NAMES, AND I REALIZE THERE'S [INAUDIBLE] [OVERLAPPING], BUT IF YOU COULD SAY, HEY, THESE ARE THE TYPE OF TENANTS THEY'RE LOOKING IN THIS AREA BECAUSE YOU'RE WILLING TO SPEND THIS MONEY, I'M ALWAYS CURIOUS, YOU'RE LIKE, HEY, THESE ARE THE TYPE OF TENANTS WHO ARE LOOKING FOR SPACE IN THIS AREA REGION.
>> THERE'S GOING TO BE A LOT OF DIFFERENT EXAMPLES.
WE DEVELOP 10 BUILDINGS IN THE LEWISVILLE 121 NEAR MARINA VISTA AND 121, ALL THOSE BUILDINGS RANGE IN SIZE FROM ROUGHLY 60,000 TO ABOUT 120,000.
VERY SIMILAR, THE TENANT SIZE RANGES GO FROM ABOUT 15,000 UP TO ABOUT 100,000.
I WOULD SAY THE SWEET SPOT IS TENANTS BETWEEN 15 TO ABOUT 30 WOULD ENCOMPASS MOST OF OUR TENANTS, AND THEN A HANDFUL THAT ARE BIGGER THAN THAT, BUT I WOULD SAY THE TYPES OF USERS, YOU HAVE SHOW ROOM USES, SO YOU HAVE A LOT OF, WE CALL IT FLOORING, TYPE OF TENANTS THAT HAVE A SHOW ROOM OPERATION OR A TRAINING FACILITY.
SOME SPECIFIC EXAMPLES, WE HAVE A FUSION FLOORING SHOWROOM IN THE LEWISVILLE OPERATION.
WE HAVE THE VIKING SHOWROOM AT THAT SAME LOCATION.
[00:25:01]
THE COMPANY ACTUALLY HAS TWO DIFFERENT COMMERCIAL SIDE OF THE BUSINESS AND THEN THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE.ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE OF THE BUSINESS, THEY HAVE BASICALLY WORKING KITCHENS FOR CHEFS TO COME TEST EQUIPMENT FOR THEIR RESTAURANTS ACROSS THE UNITED STATES.
THEN ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, IT'S ACTUALLY VIKING BASED APPLIANCES AND SOME OTHER SUB BRANDS THAT THEY OWN THAT YOU COULD GO FOR YOUR CUSTOM KITCHEN AND GO PICK OUT THE APPLIANCES.
WE DID A DEAL WITH LIBERTY MUTUAL, THE INSURANCE COMPANY WHO HAS A BIG HEADQUARTER OPERATION IN THE PLANO AREA.
THEY CAME IN, AND THEY NEEDED A TRAINING FACILITY FOR THEIR ADJUSTERS.
THEY BUILT TRAINING IN THE FRONT PORTION OF THE BUILDING WITH SOME OFFICE SPACE, AND THEN IN THE WAREHOUSE, THEY ACTUALLY CONDITIONED THE WAREHOUSE AND BUILT A REPLICA HOUSE FOR THEIR ADJUSTERS TO TRAIN.
THEN YOU HAVE WHOLESALE USES WHERE SOMEBODY HAS EITHER A HEADQUARTER OPERATION, A PRODUCTION FACILITY, OFFICE SPACE, AND THEN MAYBE SOME DISTRIBUTION IN THE BACK.
THERE'S A LOT OF UNIQUE EXAMPLES, ANYTHING THAT GOES WITH THAT TOO. [OVERLAPPING]
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION [INAUDIBLE]? [OVERLAPPING]
I KNOW WHEN WE SAW YOU BEFORE, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I HAD IT CORRECTLY.
I KNOW THAT STAFF REACHED OUT TO THE HOA THAT WAS CLOSE BY.
DID YOU AS WELL REACH OUT TO THE HOAS?
>> YES. WE DID SET UP MEETINGS WITH THEIR BOARDS.
>> DID YOU HAVE ANY RESIDENTS THAT HAD ANY NEGATIVE FEEDBACK?
>> NO, THE BIGGEST CONCERN WAS REALLY RELATED TO ACCESS, AND SO ANY CONCERNS WOULD BE RELATIVE TO GOING TO THE NORTH LIKE, HEY, THIS DEVELOPMENT ISN'T CREATING TRAFFIC INTO OUR NEIGHBORHOODS? THE ANSWER IS ABSOLUTELY NOT.
OUR TRAFFIC IS GOING ON AND OFF THE SERVICE ROAD OF 121.
FOR THIS TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT, WE THINK THAT'S THE BEST TYPE OF TRAFFIC FLOW IS TO GO STRAIGHT TO A STATE HIGHWAY, WHICH IS 121 IS A TRUCKING ROUTE.
OUR TYPE OF BUILDINGS ALSO DON'T LEND THEMSELVES TO HIGH VOLUME TRUCKING.
I WANTED TO POINT THAT OUT BECAUSE ONE IS SIZE AND TWO IS THE AVAILABILITY OF ONSITE TRAILER PARKING, WHICH WE DON'T OFFER EXCESS TRAILER PARKING THAT YOU MIGHT SEE IN SOME OTHER LARGER DEVELOPMENTS.
THAT ACCESS WAS THE BIGGEST CONCERN.
A LOT OF THEM EVEN SAID, HEY, WE HAVE CUSTOMERS AND RESIDENTS THAT HAVE NEEDS FOR SMALL BUSINESSES THAT WOULD LOVE TO BE CLOSE TO HOME, THEY JUST DON'T HAVE A PLACE TO GO.
WE THINK THERE'S A NEED THERE BASED ON OUR OTHER DEVELOPMENTS THAT WE'VE DONE IN OTHER NEIGHBORING MUNICIPALITIES THAT THIS IS A HOLE THAT, I THINK, IN SOME CASES, FRISCO IS MISSING, SERVING THE NEEDS OF THEIR COMMUNITY WITH THIS IN-BETWEEN FLEXIBLE PRODUCT, LIKE MR. RUIZ SAID.
WE EVEN HAVE EXAMPLES OF THOSE TYPE OF TENANTS.
ONE, WE HAD FRISCO WHOLESALE LUMBER, OPENED UP A WINDOW AND DOOR DIVISION WHERE THEY SELL TO RESIDENCES.
THEY CAME TO OUR LEWISVILLE PROPERTY.
THE NAME IN THERE IS FRISCO, I WOULD IMAGINE THEY WOULD HAVE LOVED TO STAY IN FRISCO TO DO THEIR SHOW ROOM.
IT'S A WINDOWS AND DOORS SHOW ROOM IN THE FRONT AND THEN A DISTRIBUTION OPERATION IN THE BACK, BUT THIS WOULD BE A PERFECT TYPE OF FACILITY FOR A BUSINESS LIKE THAT TO STAY IN FRISCO VERSUS GOING TO ANOTHER MUNICIPALITY.
TAKE A SEAT AND I MAY HAVE QUESTIONS LATER.
>> FULL TRANSPARENCY. IF THIS CASE ISN'T TOO CONTROVERSIAL, I MAY NOT SPEND AS MUCH TIME, BUT BECAUSE THIS ONE CAME FOR US, I THOUGHT IT WAS IMPERATIVE THAT I DO A LITTLE MORE HOMEWORK ON THIS.
IT IS A UNIQUE SITE, I CAN'T DISAGREE WITH THAT.
YOU TRY TO GO WHAT'S BEST FOR FRISCO IF IT'S FIVE YEARS, 20 YEARS, 50 YEARS.
I USED TO LIVE OFF INDEPENDENCE, AND IT'S ABOUT FOUR NEIGHBORHOODS UP, I REALIZE THAT, SO IT'S NOT ADJACENT.
TALKED TO THEM AND STAYING CLOSE WITH THAT HOA AND SAY, HEY, OUT OF CURIOSITY, TALKED TO THREE OR FOUR OF THEM. WHAT WOULD YOU LIKE HERE? WOULD YOU LIKE A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT RESTAURANT SORT OF THING? THEY'RE LIKE, NO.
THEY GO, WE'VE GOT PLENTY OFF OF THE TOLLWAY.
THEY SAID WE'VE GOT OUR NEIGHBORHOOD GROCERY STORE AND THERE WASN'T A REAL, I GUESS, DRAWL TO THAT.
THREE FRIENDS AT A CLUB I'M A MEMBER OF, LIVE IN HUNTERS CREEK, THAT IS THE ADJACENT NORTH OF THIS, PULLED THIS PLAN UP TO THEM WHILE GOLFING, AND GOT THEIR FEEDBACK, AND I WAS LIKE, WOULDN'T IT BE BETTER IF WE HAD SOME RESTAURANTS HERE? THEY'RE LIKE, NO.
I THOUGHT IT WAS FASCINATING THAT THAT'S JUST NOT SOMETHING THAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR.
THEN I WENT TO A RESTAURANT FRIEND, AND SAYS, HEY, WOULD YOU THINK THIS WOULD BE A GREAT LOCATION? HE'S LIKE, THIS WOULD BE, IN HIS WORDS, A CRAPPY LOCATION.
[00:30:01]
IT'S MID BLOCK.IT'S IN-BETWEEN CUSTER AND INDEPENDENCE.
THE INGRESS, EGRESS IS REALLY TERRIBLE FROM IF IT BE SIGNAGE OR THAT.
HE GOES, WE WOULD FAIL MISERABLY IF WE WERE A RESTAURANT TYPE OF THING, AND WE WOULDN'T GET ENOUGH TRAFFIC FROM THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, WHICH IS BEAUTIFUL.
HE GOES THE SETTING, BUT HE GOES, NO, WE WOULD FAIL HERE.
I WAS LIKE, IS IT A MULTI-FAMILY SITE? I THINK A LOT OF RESIDENTS ARE PUSHING BACK ON A MULTI-FAMILY.
JUST TRYING TO BACK INTO, WHAT IS THE LONG TERM USE OF THIS? THERE IS A NEED FOR, WE USE THE WORD INDUSTRIAL, I'D SAY MORE OF A BUSINESS PARK AS SOME OF THE DESCRIPTIONS YOU USED IN THE TENANTS THAT WOULD BE HERE.
THIS IS A NEED. I LOOK AT SO MUCH WHERE PEOPLE, IF IT'S THERE BUILDING A HOME, IF THEY ARE LOOKING AT DIFFERENT PRODUCTS OR SERVICES ARE HAVING TO DRIVE TO, WHICH ARE GREAT CITIES, LEWISVILLE OR DOWNTOWN DALLAS BECAUSE WE HAVE A SHORTAGE OF BUSINESS PARKS, AND IF PEOPLE ARE GETTING MORE AND MORE FRUSTRATED AT THE TRAFFIC, IT'S BECAUSE WE HAVE TO DRIVE TO IT, AND IF IT'S IN OUR BACKYARD, THAT'S ONE OF THE THINGS THAT REDUCES TRAFFIC.
I THINK THIS HAS A MINIMAL, AND I DON'T WANT TO SAY NON-SIGNIFICANT TRAFFIC IMPACT BECAUSE IT DOESN'T REALLY ADJOIN A NEIGHBORHOOD.
IT DOESN'T SHARE A DRIVEWAY OF ANY SORT.
ALL THE NEIGHBORS OF THE HUNTERS CREEK GO OUT TO CUSTER IN AND OUT.
THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO THE LEFT OF THE ELEMENTARY, DON'T CONNECT HERE.
IT'S REALLY SITTING ON AN ISLAND, AND TO ME, OUTSIDE OF A CHURCH, I THINK THIS IS HANDS DOWN THE BEST PLAN THAT WE COULD HAVE PRESENTED IN FRONT OF US, NOT FOR JUST TODAY, BUT FOR FIVE YEARS, AND IT'S OKAY, WE DIFFER FOR SURE FOR 20-50 YEARS.
I HEAR IT ALL THE TIME, IS FRISCO STRUGGLING? WE DO NOT HAVE BUSINESS PARKS OR AN INDUSTRIAL TYPE OF DEVELOPMENT.
I DON'T GET A VOTE, AND THERE'S ONLY FIVE, SO I DON'T GET TO DO A TIE BREAKER EITHER.
IF I WERE VOTING, I WOULD HANDS DOWN SUPPORT THIS, BUT THOSE ARE MY THOUGHTS.
ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE ENTERTAIN A MOTION?
>> I WANT TO HEAR MICHAEL'S THOUGHTS, PLEASE.
>> I'M SORRY, MICHAEL. GOOD JOB, WARREN. GOOD CATCH
>> IT'S NOT WHAT I INITIALLY ENVISIONED FOR THIS PROPERTY, BUT I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS INCLUDING THE APPLICANTS.
I THINK THIS IS A UNIQUE OPPORTUNITY TO INTRODUCE A UNIQUE PRODUCT TO FRISCO AND THERE MIGHT BE SOME OF THIS ELSEWHERE, BUT I LIKE THE HIGH VISIBILITY ON 121.
I THINK THERE WILL BE BUSINESSES ATTRACTED TO THIS USE AND ATTRACTED TO THIS SITE.
IT DOESN'T INTERFERE, COMPETE WITH THE TRAIL, SO I CAN SUPPORT IT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANT FOR IT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION?
>> JUST TO BE CLEAR, I DON'T THINK I DISAGREE WITH ANYTHING THAT ANYBODY ELSE HAS SAID, AS FAR AS SHORT TERM, NEAR TERM.
I GUESS THE ONLY DISAGREEMENT WOULD BE 50 YEARS FROM NOW. YEAH SHORT TERM.
WE NEED TO BE CLEAR THAT THIS IS THE PROBLEM WE'RE GOING TO HAVE INCREASINGLY WITH LESS AND LESS AND LESS GREEN SPACE AVAILABLE, IS THAT WE'RE GOING TO COME UP AGAINST GOOD LOOKING, GOOD USES, EVERYTHING APPROPRIATE ABOUT THIS WITH TWO EXCEPTIONS, ONE BEING, IT IS VERY PRETTY.
THE PARK WILL BE A LITTLE BIT LESS BEAUTIFUL BECAUSE OF THIS, AS PRETTY AS WE MAKE IT ON THE BACK.
THE ONLY THING I WOULD HAVE ASKED WOULD HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT MORE TREES OR MORE BEAUTIFICATION ON THE BACK SO THAT WHEN PEOPLE ARE IN THAT OPEN SPACE IN THE BACK, THAT THE WALL IS HIDDEN EVEN MORE SO.
BUT THAT WOULD MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE BEARABLE.
ALL THE GOOD REASONS THAT WE'VE HAD LOTS OF CASES LIKE THIS WHERE THERE'S BEEN GREAT PROJECTS AND PEOPLE HAVE SAID THINGS LIKE I AGREE WITH UNIVERSAL IF IT WASN'T ON THAT SITE.
WE'VE HAD PEOPLE VOTE THAT WAY. WE HAVE PEOPLE SAY THAT.
THERE'S BEEN LOTS OF THINGS WHERE WE'VE SAID THIS IS GOOD, JUST NOT ON THIS SITE.
THAT'S JUST WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT IT REALLY IS JUST ABOUT THE QUICKLY SHRINKING BEAUTIFUL SPACES THAT WE HAVE LEFT IN FRISCO.
>> GO AHEAD TO TIFFANY YOU FIRST.
>> I'M JUST CURIOUS BETWEEN STEVE AND MICHAEL.
I DON'T KNOW WHO WANT TO TAKE ON THIS QUESTION, BUT I KEEP HEARING THAT YOU DON'T LIKE THE USE ON THE SITE, BUT WHAT WOULD BE IDEAL IN ALL MINDS IN TERMS OF THE SITE OR FOR THE FUTURE OF FRISCO? BECAUSE I'M JUST CURIOUS TO SEE BECAUSE ESPECIALLY LIKE WITH YOU, STEVE, I KNOW YOU SAT ON THE COMP PLAN.
YOU HAVE A LITTLE BIT MORE INSIGHT YOU AND WARREN IN TERMS OF WHAT THE DILEMMA WAS, AND ALSO HEARING WHAT JOHN IS SAYING ABOUT SOME OF THE NEIGHBORS IS LIKE, THEY DON'T WANT A RESTAURANT.
THEY DON'T WANT A MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT.
WHAT OTHER USES WOULD HAVE BEEN IDEAL FOR THIS SITE OUTSIDE OF THIS?
[00:35:02]
>> I THINK IRONICALLY THE BEST USE FOR THIS SITE IS ITS CURRENT USE BECAUSE THAT GIVES MAXIMUM FLEXIBILITY FOR THE FUTURE.
IF THIS WAS A LESS EXPENSIVE OR LESS BEAUTIFUL OR SOMETHING SITE WHERE YOU COULD SEE IT BEING LIKE A PLACEHOLDER FOR 20 YEARS.
THIS WAS THE FACILITY THAT 20 YEARS FROM NOW IT'S GOING TO BE GONE, AND IT'S GOING TO GIVE LOTS OF FLEXIBILITY.
WHENEVER SOMEONE COMES IN AND SAYS, I WANT TO TAKE THIS MUCH BROADER AREA, NOT JUST A LITTLE ISLAND HERE, BUT THIS WHOLE BROADER AREA HERE, ENCOMPASSING POSSIBLY THE FORMER SCHOOL SITE, A FORMER WALMART, UP AND DOWN THAT ENTIRE 121 QUARTER, IF YOU LOOK AT A MUCH BROADER AREA, SOME DAY IN THE FUTURE, SOMEONE'S PROBABLY GOING TO WANT TO UPGRADE THAT ENTIRE AREA OF CUSTER AND 121.
IF THIS WAS A USE THAT WOULD NOT BE IN THE WAY OF A FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF A MUCH BROADER AREA THERE, IT'S LIKE THE OTHER ONE WE APPROVED DOWN THE ROAD WHERE WE SAID, PEOPLE CAN DEVELOP NICE STUFF AROUND THAT OTHER ONE AND IT DOESN'T STAND IN THE WAY.
THAT'S WHERE I CAME TO THE CONCLUSION OF IF THIS EVEN HAD A SMALLER FOOTPRINT AND COULD BE TUCKED IN A LITTLE BIT MORE TO WHERE PEOPLE COULD STILL DEVELOP TO THE WEST TO THE NORTH AND ALL THE WAY AROUND AND IT DIDN'T BLOCK THINGS OFF.
I'D BUY OFF ON IT BECAUSE THE NEAR TERM USE IS SOLID.
I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. BUT I DON'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO GO IN THERE AND PUT A RESTAURANT IN THERE TODAY.
I DON'T THINK WAS GOING TO DO THAT STUFF.
THE DILEMMA WE HAVE IS NEAR TERM, THIS MAKES SENSE.
I DO THINK LONG TERM, IT MOST LIKELY WILL NOT.
>> CAN I ASK YOU A QUESTION, JONATHAN, PLEASE.
>> MR. HUBBARD. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND.
THE CURRENT ZONING IS HIGHWAY ZONING, CORRECT?
>> WITHIN HIGHWAY ZONING, BY RIGHT, THIS COULD BE OFFICE WAREHOUSE, CORRECT?
>> COULD BE OFFICE WAREHOUSE. THAT IS CORRECT.
>> WHICH WOULD BE UP TO 50% CORRECT.
>> THAT IS CORRECT. IT'S THE OVER THE 50% THRESHOLD THAT FLIPS IT INTO OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER, WHICH IS REQUIRING THE SUP.
>> AM I UNDERSTANDING CORRECTLY THAT THE ONLY REASON THIS IS EVEN BEFORE US IS BECAUSE OF THE REQUEST FOR THE FLEXIBILITY TO ADD POSSIBLY MORE WAREHOUSE.
IF IT HADN'T COME BEFORE US, SOMEBODY ELSE COULD HAVE COME IN THERE AND HAD THEIR OFFICE WAREHOUSE, BUT NOT HAD TO AGREE TO THE VOLUNTARY DEVELOPMENTAL STANDARDS THAT IS BEFORE US, IS THAT CORRECT?
>> THAT'S CORRECT. SOMEONE COULD HAVE SUBMITTED A SITE PLAN FOR OFFICE WAREHOUSE AND MET ALL OF THE CITY'S DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, THE BUILDING SETBACKS, AND THAT SITE PLAN WOULD HAVE BEEN PUT ON THE CONSENT AGENDA.
THE COMMISSION WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED TO APPROVE IT SUBJECT TO IT THAT IT DID MEET ALL OF THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
THE CITY WOULD NOT HAVE ASKED THAT THEY VOLUNTARILY SIGN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT BECAUSE THOSE ARE ONLY TYPICALLY ASSOCIATED WITH ZONING ACTIONS, SUPS, ZONING CASES.
>> RESTATE A ONE MORE TIME FOR ME.
WHAT ARE THE PARAMETERS OF USE BY R VERSUS THE SOUP?
>> IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, THERE'S THERE'S TWO LAND USES.
THERE'S OFFICE SHOW ROOM, AND THEN THERE'S OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER.
IN OFFICE SHOW ROOM, YOU CAN HAVE WAREHOUSING UP TO 50%.
IF THE APPLICANT'S BUSINESS MODEL HAD WAREHOUSING UNDER 50%, THEY COULD HAVE SUBMITTED A SOT PLAN FOR OFFICE SHOW ROOM AND CONTINUED ON THROUGH THE PROCESS.
WHAT IS BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT EXCEEDS THAT 50% WAREHOUSING OR THE FLEXIBILITY TO AT LEAST HAVE 51, 52, 70, WHATEVER WAREHOUSING, THEREFORE, IT IS THE OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER USE, WHICH REQUIRES APPROVAL OF AN SUP IN THE HIGHWAY ZONING DISTRICT, WHICH IS WHY THIS REQUEST IS BEFORE YOU ALL THIS EVENING.
>> ARE THERE ANY LIMITATIONS IN TERMS OF THE RATIO IN SUP RIGHT NOW?
>> THEY COULD GO 90% IF THEY WANTED TO?
>> THAT'S SOMETHING WE'D WANT TO CONSIDER, PERHAPS PUTTING A CAVEAT THAT'S SAY I'M ALL FOR IT, BUT I DON'T THINK 90% WAREHOUSE IS A GOOD IDEA THING?
>> PERSONALLY, I WOULD SAY NO, THE SHOW ROOM, YOU DON'T KNOW HOW IT'S GOING TO WORK OUT.
[00:40:02]
I HATE IF IT WAS ON THE DEVELOPER SIDE, THEY MAY USE FIVE, THEY MAY USE 40%, WHAT THEIR SHOW ROOM, THEIR OFFICE PORTION IS THE FLEXIBILITY BECAUSE YOU CAN TIE DOWN THEY MAY HAVE A TENANT FOR 20 YEARS, THAT IS GOING TO USE 20%, BUT IN 30 YEARS, THE MODEL CHANGES AND IT IS A LITTLE MORE OF A DISTRIBUTION TYPE COMPONENT.I WOULD HATE TO THEM BE LIKE WE CAN'T GET THIS TENANT THAT ONLY NEEDS 5%.
I DON'T WANT TO PIGEONHOLE THEM TOO MUCH.
I THINK REASON HAD THE APPLICANT COME UP.
I THINK SOME OF THE TENANTS THAT ARE LOOKING THIS AREA.
I THINK ARE GOING TO, I CAN'T GIVE A PERCENTAGE, BUT ARE GOING TO BE SUFFICIENT ON PROVIDING SOME TYPE OF OFFICE UP FRONT.
AGAIN, I'M JUST ONE OPINION, BUT I DON'T THINK WE CAN. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I'D LIKE TO HEAR JOHN'S OPINION.
>> I AGREE WITH WHAT JOHN SAID, I WOULDN'T WANT TO PUT ANY LIMITATIONS ON IT HIM.
I'LL SAY AS YOU DRIVE PAST THIS FACILITY, OTHER FACILITIES, BUT NONE OF YOU CAN TELL ME.
IS THAT 70%? IS THAT 50%? IS THAT 40%? BUT AS JONATHAN EXPLAINED, THE TRUCK DOCKS ARE INTERNALLY CENTRALIZED, SO THEY'RE NOT VISIBLE FROM THE HIGHWAY.
THE OTHER THING TO ADD IS THE OPEN SPACE TREATMENT, WHICH IS PART OF THIS SUP PROCESS IS TIED DOWN TO WHAT THEY HAVE TO DO.
>> [INAUDIBLE] WANT TO MAKE ONE OTHER COMMENT JUST AFTER HEARING JOHN TOO.
I KNOW MR. HUBBARD, I MEANT TO SAY.
I KNOW SOMETHING THAT WE TALK ABOUT A LOT IS THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING DIVERSITY OF PRODUCT FOR RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS.
I KNOW WHAT WE'RE ABOUT TO HAVE BEFORE US IS TO LOOK AT THE FIELDS PROJECT AGAIN.
THAT WAS SOMETHING WE TALKED ABOUT AT THAT TIME, TOO, IS JUST THE IMPORTANCE OF HAVING THAT DIVERSITY.
HERE AGAIN, I SEE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR DIVERSITY OF A COMMERCIAL PRODUCT.
AGAIN, I THINK MANY TIMES WE'VE HAD A FEW CASES THAT HAVE COME BEFORE US TWICE.
SOMETIMES MY ANSWER WAS A CERTAIN WAY THE FIRST TIME AND WHEN IT CAME BEFORE ME A SECOND TIME, THEN I HAD A DIFFERENT VIEW OF IT, ESPECIALLY IF SOME THINGS CHANGED AS IN THIS CASE.
I THINK AGAIN, I'M CONFIDENT THAT THIS NEEDS TO GO BEFORE COUNSEL SO THAT THEY CAN SEE IT AND SEE WHERE THEY LAND WITH THIS AS THEY PROCESS IT.
>> I APPRECIATE YOUR ALL COMMENTS.
>> I ASKED TWO QUESTIONS OF STAFF NOW SINCE I CAN READ THE WRITING ON THE WALL, OBVIOUSLY.
WE KNOW WHERE THIS IS GOING TO COUNSEL, WHICH IS GOOD.
I THINK BRITTANY BRINGS UP THE BEST POINT THAT WE ALWAYS LOOK AT WHAT THE STATUS QUO IS AND WHAT'S CURRENTLY ALLOWED.
I THINK LAST TIME WE EVEN TALKED ABOUT THAT TOO, THAT THAT'S THE RISK IS THAT WE MIGHT END UP WITH A LITTLE BIT LESS PRETTY LOOKING BUILDING GOING THERE AND I FULLY EMBRACE THAT RISK THERE.
DID YOU ALL LOOK AT ANY OPPORTUNITY OR ANY WAY TO KEEP THIS FROM BLOCKING THE SCHOOL SITE AND THE PARK TO THE NORTH TO WHERE FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OR FUTURE ACCESS TO THAT PARK IS NOT COMPLETELY BLOCKED OFF BY THIS.
I KNOW WE HAVE THE BEST ACCESS POSSIBLE ON THE TAKES TRAIL TO THE EAST.
BUT DID YOU ALL LOOK AT THAT AT ALL? TRYING TO MAKE IT TO WHERE THE PARK IS A LITTLE PRETTIER WITHOUT A BIG WALL AND ALSO THAT WEST SIDE WHERE THERE'S A WALL IF THERE'S ANY WAY TO KEEP THAT OPEN FOR FUTURE USE?
>> JUST SO I'M CLEAR, I UNDERSTAND THAT THEY'RE HAVING TO DO A WALL ON THE NORTHERN SIDE FACING THE PARK, IS THAT CORRECT? LIKE A MASONRY WALL?
>> ON THE WESTERN AND THE NORTHERN ON THE PORTION THAT IS ZONED AG.
>> I GUESS I WOULD THROW THAT OUT TO MY COMMISSIONERS, IS THERE A WAY TO MAKE IT LOOK LESS LIKE A BIG WALL AND SOMETHING A LITTLE BIT MORE ATTRACTIVE FACING THE PARK, IF THAT'S AN OPPORTUNITY FOR US.
>> JONATHAN, WHAT ARE THE SHOWN THERE ON THE NORTH SIDE?
>> JUST THAT PORTION OF THE NORTH.
>> WE'VE GOT AN ENGINEER WHO KNOWS.
IF OUR WONDERFUL ENGINEER, IF YOU GIVES YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND THEN WE'LL TURN OVER YOU TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION.
IF YOU COULD ANSWER, FOX YOUR COMMENTS ON SPECIFICS OF THAT WALL OR WHAT THAT WOULD LOOK LIKE, IF THERE IS ANY.
MY ADDRESS IS 2999, OLYMPUS BOULEVARD, DALLAS, TEXAS 75019.
THE FREE STANDING WALL THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS ON THE WESTERN SIDE OF THE, [OVERLAPPING]
>> I THINK YOU'RE SAYING RIGHT HERE.
IT'S A EIGHT FOOT HIGH MASONRY WALL SCREENING THE WESTERN NORTHERN SIDES OF THE PROPERTY.
>> LET ME ASK YOU THIS. ARE YOU IN THAT AREA IN CERTAIN PLACES,
[00:45:03]
I THINK WILL BE ABLE TO SUPPLEMENT TREES, FOLIAGE IN THERE.I WOULD RECOMMEND YOU DOING THAT ALONG THE NORTHERN PROPERTY LINE, THAT'S GOING FROM THE CORNER AND GOING DOWN TO THE BOTTOM RIGHT OF THE SCREEN.
I WANT TO MAKE SURE AND I'LL SEE JAKE SHAKING HIS HEAD.
>> HERE'S HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF WHERE THEY'RE ALREADY INCORPORATING ADDITIONAL TREES AND PLANTINGS IN THAT NORTH AREA.
>> MR. SONY, ARE YOU SUGGESTING REMOVING PART OF THE WALL OR HAVING GAPS IN IT TO ONLY HAVE TREES?
I WISH I DID. IS IT JUST A SCREENING WALL BACK THERE OR DO YOU HAVE A RETAINING WALL BACK THERE?
THERE ARE PORTIONS THAT ARE RETAINING, BUT THERE WILL BE A SCREENING WALL THE ENTIRE LIKE I'VE SHOWN.
>> WHEN YOU GOT A RETAINING WALL BACK THERE, WHAT YOU WANT TO BE CAREFUL?
>> NOW THAT'S LIKE A 10 FOOT WALL.
>> WHEN YOU DO LIKE TREES AND SO HOW TALL IS THE RETAINING WALL? GO FROM THE CORNER ON DOWN. WHAT IS THAT HEIGHT?
>> SURE. I'LL TELL YOU WHERE THERE'S PORTIONS, THERE'S A PORTION OF RETAINING WALL RIGHT HERE AND A PORTION OF RETAINING WALL RIGHT HERE.
THEY RANGE FROM 8-10 FEET IN HEIGHT WITHIN THOSE SECTIONS, WHERE OUR SITE ON THE WESTERN SIDE IS LOWER THAN THE ADJACENT PROPERTY.
BUT THE INTENTION, AS WE WERE DESIGNING THIS WAS TO BASICALLY HAVE A LAYERED APPROACH WHERE WE HAVE A FREE STANDING WALL FOR SCREENING PURPOSES, AND THEN ALSO LAYERING THAT WITH TREES ALONG THE ENTIRE EDGES.
THEN AS JONATHAN HAD MENTIONED, ALSO MORE SCREENING IN THAT TRIANGULAR AREA IN THE BACK.
I DON'T THINK IT'S BEEN DISCUSSED SINCE I WAIT ON JONATHAN, BUT TOP MODEL ON THE NORTHERN SECTION.
THERE'S A PROVISION OF DOING A LIVING SCREEN.
IT'S GOT TO BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHT FEET, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE A COMBINATION OF A WALL.
WOULD YOU GET IN THAT TIGHT SPOT AND LOOKING AT A RETAINING WALL.
SOMETIMES YOU CAN GO WITH ORNAMENTAL PLANTS LIKE CREATE MYRTLES AND WHATNOT.
THE ROOT SYSTEM IS NOT AS INVASIVE ON A RETAINING WALL.
THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT COULD BE PART OF HALLS MOTION. [OVERLAPPING]
>> THAT THEY WOULD HAVE AN OPTION TO IN THOSE SECTIONS WHERE THERE'S A RETAINING WALL?
>> I THINK IT'D BE PROBABLY BETTER ON THE NORTH SIDE BECAUSE I WANT TO TELL YOU, I'M VERY FAMILIAR WITH THE AREA.
>> I'LL WALK THAT MORE THAN ANYBODY ELSE HERE.
BUT WHEN YOU LOOK ALONG THE OTHER SIDE, WHERE YOU GOT THE WATER TANKS.
>> THOSE CONCERNED ABOUT WHAT? THOSE ARE NOT GOING TO BE GOING ANYTIME SOON BECAUSE IN THE FUTURE, WE ALL NEED WATER.
I WOULD ASK IF SOMEONE DOES INCLUDE THAT IN THEIR MOTION, AND THE MOTION WOULD BE, I'M SUGGESTING, IF YOU'RE SAYING I'M JUST WALKING THROUGH IF YOU ANDREW POO WITH THE CONTINGENT THAT WHERE THERE IS RETAINING WALLS, YOU CAN SUPPLEMENT FOR A LIVING SCREEN, I WOULD JUST ENCOURAGE OR MAYBE RECOMMEND IS, AND I KNOW YOU GET EXCITED APPLICANT ABOUT NOT HAVING RETAINING WALL, BUT THESE NEED TO BE A LITTLE MORE OF A MATURE TREE.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE THESE TWO, THREE INCH CALIBER TREES.
I DON'T KNOW IF IT BE, JOHN, IF YOU WOULD RECOMMEND A MINIMUM OF CALLED A 10, 12 FOOT HEIGHT OR WOULD YOU RATHER HEAR SAYING A 6-8 INCH CALIBER TREE.
BUT I JUST DON'T WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE PUTTING BABY TREES THAT ARE GOING TO TAKE US 10 YEARS TO ACTUALLY FELL IN A LIVING SCREEN.
>> WHAT DO WE LIKE TO DO WHATEVER TO DO.
>> I'M TRYING TO GIVE IDEAS FOR THIS.
>> WHAT I THINK, IF YOU WANT TO GO WITH LARGER TREES, [OVERLAPPING] I WOULDN'T GO UP TO EIGHT INCHES.
I MEAN, THE LARGER THE TREE THAT YOU PUT IN, GENERALLY, IT TAKES LONGER FOR THAT TREE TO TAKE ADJUST.
THAT'S RIGHT, BECAUSE IT'S USED TO THIS CLIMATE, NOW IT'S BEING SHIPPED OVER HERE.
>> CREPE MYRTLE IS MUCH SMALLER.
>> WELL, CREPE MYRTLES, WE CAN SPECIFY LARGER PLANTS.
I MEAN, YOU GOT TO REMEMBER, IT GOT TO BE A MINIMUM HEIGHT OF EIGHTH AND A LOT OF THE TREES EVEN THREE INCH CALIBER, THEY'RE AROUND ABOUT 12-14, BUT WE COULD LOOK FOR OTHER TYPE OF TREES, BUT I WOULDN'T SPECIFY ANYTHING GREATER THAN SIX.
I'LL SAY IN THE 4-6 RANGE ON SHADE TREES.
>> IS THAT MAYBE A MINIMUM FOR CREPE MYRTLES?
>> I'D LIKE TO GET THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS INVOLVED AND GET SOMETHING MORE TO THIS.
>> I KNOW WE COULD JUST MOVE TO THE TREES THAT ARE ON THE 121 RIGHT NOW JUST ON THE BACK SIDE.
>> THEY'RE READY TO GO. I DROVE BY IT TODAY. IT'S READY.
[00:50:02]
>> JACOB, IF YOU COULD ANSWER IF YOU'RE OPEN TO PUTTING SOME TREES IN THOSE SUPPLEMENT AREAS UNDER WALL.
>> SO I THINK IT'S A WONDERFUL IDEA.
THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER COHEN.
I THINK THERE'S A HUGE BENEFIT TO TRY AND HAVE A LIVING SCREEN THERE AS OPPOSED TO A MASONRY SCREEN WALL THAT CAN VARY IN HEIGHT AND PERHAPS BE AS HIGH 16 FEET FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES.
WHAT I WOULD SUGGEST, INSTEAD OF OVER COMPLICATING THE MOTION IS, PERHAPS, ENCOURAGE STAFF TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT AND MAKE GOOD FAITH EFFORTS TO MAKE A FULL LIVE SCREEN WALL DURING THE PSP AND THE OSP PROCESS.
I THINK JON JOHNSON CERTAINLY KNOW WHAT YOUR INTENT IS.
CERTAIN CALIPERS COULD BECOME PROBLEMATIC, AS JOHN MENTIONED EARLIER, WITH THE INTEGRITY OF THE RETAINING WALL, IF YOU PUT A SIX INCH CALIBER LIVE OKE CLOSE TO THAT WALL.
IT COULD DISRUPT THE LONG-TERM VIABILITY OF THAT WALL.
I JUST THINK THERE'S SOME PLAY IN IT AND THERE'S A LOT OF DETAIL THAT WE CAN WORK ON DURING THAT PROCESS AS OPPOSED TO HEAR FROM THE DICE WITH RESPECT.
>> I'M GOING TO TELL YOU THE OPPOSITE VIEW.
I LIKE TO GET THIS INCORPORATED INTO THAT I WOULD LIKE TO TIE DOWN, BUT THAT'S SOMETHING YOU CAN DIRECT US TO WORK ON BETWEEN NOW, WHEN IT GOES TO COUNSEL BECAUSE I WANT TO GO TO COUNSEL UNTIL THE JULY MEETING OR WE'RE TIME ABOUT JULY.
IT'S NOT GOING TO TAKE A WHOLE LOT OF THOUGHT TO WORK ON IT.
IT'S VERY SIMPLE ABOUT WE KNOW WHICH TREE SPECIES WILL BE MORE SUITABLE. LET'S DO THAT.
>> GO AHEAD. SORRY, I KNOW YOU WANT TO, BUT I'M GOING TO MOVE THIS ALONG SO I GREATLY APPRECIATE IT.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION THOUGH ON THE TREES.
>> THE STAFF. THERE'S ALREADY A LIVING SCREEN.
I'VE WALKED THAT LAND MULTIPLE TIMES TO GO AND LOOK AT IT AND SEE WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK AND FEEL LIKE FROM THE PARK.
JUST SO STAFF IS AWARE INSTEAD OF DOING A FLAT LIKE TREES 30-FOOT ON CENTER, HOWEVER, WE USUALLY DO IT WHERE WE SPACE THEM OUT, IS STAFF ABLE TO WORK WITH THE LANDSCAPE ARCHITECT TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXISTING TREE COVERAGE THAT'S ALREADY THERE AND REALLY FOCUS ON FILLING IN GAPS, ESPECIALLY IN THE HEIGHT THAT YOU'D END UP GETTING A REALLY IMPRESSIVE LIVING SCREEN WITH THE PARK THERE USING THE NATURAL EXISTING TREES PLUS THE ONES.
>> LET'S JUST WORK ON THAT BETWEEN NOW AND COUNSEL, THAT'S A DIRECTION.
>> TO DO ALL OF THE STUFF THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT RIGHT NOW, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK AND REDO THEIR GRADE PLAN BECAUSE THERE'S A 10-FOOT DIFFERENCE IN GRADE FROM THE FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION TO THE GRADE OF THE RETAINING WALL.
IF THEY'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE HEIGHT OF THE RETAINING WALL, THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO REDO THEIR CORNERS.
>> I DON'T KNOW IF THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DO THAT OR NOT.
THAT'S SOMETHING WE CAN DISCUSS.
>> WE'RE NOT REMOVING THE RETAINING WALL, WE'RE JUST REMOVING THE SCREENING WALL.
JUST THE COSMETIC PART ABOVE IT, IS THAT RIGHT?
>> I THINK WE'VE TALKED ABOUT THIS PRETTY SUFFICIENT.
I WANT TO GO TO A LITTLE DIRECTION.
>> THERE'RE TWO QUESTIONS. I ONLY GOT TO ANSWER TO ONE THOUGH, SO.
>> I'LL JUST MENTION, JUST NORTH OF THE SITE, THERE'S A TREE GROVE THERE THAT EXISTS TODAY.
IT'S PRETTY WELL DENSE, AND THAT'S SOMETHING WE HAVE IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE ABOUT WORKING WHEN YOU GOT NATIONAL GRADES THERE.
BUT WE GOT TO GET OUR LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS AND THEIR ENGINEER TOGETHER AND FIGURE THIS OUT.
IT'S NOT ROCKET SCIENTISTS OR SCIENCE, BUT THEY NEED TO BE QUICKLY RESOLVED.
IT'S THE THING WHEN YOU DO WITH STRAIGHT WALLS.
THEY'RE ACTUALLY THE MOST DIFFICULT DOING AS AN ENGINEER CAN CONFIRM IS WHEN THE LONGER YOU SPAN THE BUILDING, THE FLATTER THE SITE NEEDS TO BE A VERY LITTLE SLOPE, BUT YOU HAD ONE MORE QUESTION.
>> SAME QUESTION I ASKED EARLIER ABOUT.
ON THAT WESTERN SIDE, DID STAFF LOOK AT THAT TO SEE IF THERE WAS ANY POSSIBLE WAY TO AVOID BLOCKING, ESPECIALLY IF IT'S GOING TO BE A LIVING SCREEN, FIRST OF ALL, TO AVOID BLOCKING FUTURE REDEVELOPMENT OF THE AREA TO THE SOUTHWEST AND THE SCHOOL AND THE PARK AND EVERYTHING TO THE NORTH.
DID YOU GUYS LOOK AT THAT TO SEE IF THERE'S ANY POSSIBILITY THERE?
IF YOU WERE TO WALK FROM THAT BUILDING THERE TO THE SCHOOL OR FROM THE SCHOOL TO THAT BUILDING?
>> ESSENTIALLY THE WEST TO THE SCHOOL.
>> YOU'LL JUST BE WALKING IN THIS.
>> FUTURE USE. LIKE I SAID, THE FUTURE USE FOR THAT STUFF THAT'S GOING TO BE REDEVELOPED THERE.
THE SAME THING WE DID WITH THAT OTHER ONE WHERE IT WAS A TRIANGLE AND PEOPLE COULD THEY COULD STILL GET ALL THE WAY AROUND THE SITE.
[00:55:01]
OTHERWISE, THIS IS JUST A PERMANENT 50 YEAR, 80 YEAR BLOCKAGE.>> WELL, I'M NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY.
I'M ASKING DID SOMEONE MEASURE AND EVALUATE AND SAY, THIS WON'T FIT.
IT'S GOING TO COST $50,000 OR SOMETHING.
I'M ASKING DID SOMEONE CHECK TO SEE IF IT IS PHYSICALLY POSSIBLE? THAT'S MY LAST QUESTION.
>> YOU GOT THE WATER TANKS THERE.
THEN THIS IS GOING TO BE RIGHT UP AGAINST THAT.
THERE'LL BE NO ACCESS THROUGH THAT AREA.
I PREFER NOT TO HAVE ANY ACCESS RUNNING IN THAT AREA BECAUSE, I MEAN, THAT'S WHERE CERTAIN PEOPLE WILL GO HIDE AND DO ALL THINGS.
>> I'M JUST ASKING IF IT PHYSICALLY WORK, THEN YOU COULD WORRY ABOUT WHETHER IT MADE SENSE.
BUT IF IT DOESN'T PHYSICALLY WORK, THEN IT'S A LOOP POINT.
>> BUT THAT IF I UNDERSTAND, AND COUNSEL LEGO, DIRECT ME IF YOU FEEL DIFFERENT, I WOULD ENCOURAGE IF SOMEONE'S GOING TO MAKE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL TO INCLUDE IN THAT MOTION SAYING NOT CONTINGENT, BUT SAY RECOMMEND FOR APPROVAL WITH THE UNDERSTANDING THAT THERE IS AN OPPORTUNITY TO INCLUDE PORTIONS OF A LIVING SCREEN WITH A MINIMUM OF FIVE-INCH CALIBER TREES, AND ALSO STAFF'S DISCRETION.
>> SHOULD WE SAY THAT PLAN SHOULD BE DONE BEFORE IT GETS TO COUNCIL.
>> THAT PLAN SHOULD ALSO BE DONE FOR COUNSEL.
>> I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 21 IS SUBMITTED BY STAFF, SUBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS THAT STAFF MENTIONED IN THE STAFF REPORT.
ALSO ADDING TO THE OPPORTUNITY TO ADD A LIVING SCREEN WITH A MINIMUM FIVE INCH CALIBER TREES. DOES THAT RIGHT? I FELT LIKE MY GRAMMAR WASN'T RIGHT.
ALSO AT STAFF'S DISCRETION INITIALLY HAPPEN BEFORE COUNSEL.
>> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY BRITTANY.
>> SECOND BY TIFFANY. ALL IN FAVOR?
>> MOTION PASSES 4, 0. CONGRATULATIONS, YOU-ALL.
LET RECORDS SHOW AS STEVE COHEN VOTED AGAINST IT.
I THINK WE KNOW REASONS FOR NOT UNLESS YOU WANT SOME ADDITION.
>> I JUST WANT TO VERY QUICKLY SAY WE HAVE VERY LITTLE BEAUTIFUL OPEN SPACES LEFT, AND SO WE NEED TO BE VERY CAUTIOUS WITH WHAT WE ALLOW NEXT TO THE PRETTIEST PLACES IN FRISCO.
BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW THE ANSWER TO WHETHER OR NOT THIS COULD ACCOMMODATE FUTURE CONNECTIONS ON THE WESTERN SIDE, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT YET.
[Public Hearing - Zoning: Planned Development-280 (Z25-0002)]
PUBLIC HEARING ZONING, PLAN DEVELOPMENT 280Z25-0002, OWNERS MULTIPLE OWNERS.>> THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, COMMISSIONERS.
BEFORE YOU ALL THIS EVENING IS A REQUEST TO AMEND PLAN DEVELOPMENT 280.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT 280 IS THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT GOVERNS THE FIELDS DEVELOPMENT.
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED PLAN DEVELOPMENT 280 IN APRIL OF 2020, LATER AMENDED IT IN SEPTEMBER, 2022, AND NOW THE APPLICANT IS BEFORE YOU ALL WITH THIS REQUEST TO ACCOMMODATE CHANGES TO THE DEVELOPMENT PLAN AND ADJUSTS FOR MARKET CHANGES.
TO GO OVER THE CHANGES JUST BRIEFLY, STARTING AT THE TOP, WE HAVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENT.
IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT, IT REQUIRES THAT THE POINT WEST AND POINT EAST SUBDISTRICTS PROVIDE NO LESS THAN 50% OF THE NET ACREAGE TO BE NON-RESIDENTIAL OR URBAN MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT AND NO MORE THAN 50% BE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT.
UNFORTUNATELY, THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THIS SECTION REFERENCED THE WRONG SUBDISTRICT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO JUST CORRECT THE LANGUAGE AND REVISE IT TO REFERENCE THE CORRECT SUBDISTRICT SO THAT IT READS POINT EAST AS IT SHOULD.
NEXT, LOOKING AT URBAN LIVING AND MULTIPLEX UNITS BY RIGHT.
WITHIN THE FIELDS PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THEY HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF UNITS BY RIGHT.
ANY ADDITIONAL UNITS ARE EARNED THROUGH AN EARN-OUT PROVISION.
CURRENTLY, THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT ALLOWS 02,000 FIELDS URBAN LIVING AND MULTIPLEX UNITS BY RIGHT.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INCREASE THAT NUMBER FROM 2,000 UNITS TO 2,500 UNITS BY WRITE.
BUT AGAIN, ANY ADDITIONAL UNITS WOULD BE REQUIRED TO BE EARNED THROUGHOUT THE EARN-OUT PROVISION.
THAT MAXIMUM UNIT, THERE'S A MAXIMUM UNIT COUNT LISTED WITHIN THE PD, THAT'S 8,500 FIELDS URBAN LIVING IN MULTIPLEX UNITS.
[01:00:04]
THE APPLICANT IS NOT PROPOSING TO INCREASE THAT OVERALL NUMBER.AS WE'RE SPEAKING OF EARN-OUTS, SO AGAIN, ANYTHING OVER BY WRITE, THE APPLICANT HAS TO EARN.
THAT IS THAT ONE UNIT FOR EACH 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF CLASS A OFFICE OR ONE UNIT FOR EACH 1,000 SQUARE FEET OF FULL SERVICE UP SCALE HOSPITALITY AND UPSCALE RETAIL.
WORKING WITH THE FIELDS DEVELOPMENT, WORKING WITH THE UNIVERSAL DEVELOPMENT, IT HAS BEEN DETERMINED THAT 1,325 FIELDS URBAN LIVING AND MULTIPLEX UNITS HAVE BEEN DEEMED EARNED FOR THAT DEVELOPMENT, AND THEREFORE, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO CODIFY THAT WITHIN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.
AGAIN, PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE LANGUAGE DEEMING 01,325 FIELDS URBAN LIVING AND MULTIPLEX UNITS EARNED IN ASSOCIATION WITH THE UNIVERSAL PROJECT.
BUT AGAIN, THE OVERALL NUMBER UNITS OF 8,500 IS NOT CHANGING.
NEXT, LOOKING AT TABLE 4-1, WHICH IS WHAT WE HAVE ON THE SCREEN BEFORE YOU.
WITHIN THE PD, THERE'S TABLE 4-1 THAT LOOKS AT ALL OF THE VARIOUS SUBDISTRICTS WITHIN FIELDS, AND THEN IT HAS ALL OF THE VARIOUS PRODUCT TYPES, AND THEN IT ALLOCATES MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUMS PER EACH SUBDISTRICT.
THERE'S ALREADY LANGUAGE WITHIN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT ALLOWS CITY COUNCIL THE AUTHORITY TO MAKE CHANGES TO TABLE 4-1 WITH THE RECOMMENDATION CITY COUNCIL NOT AS A ZONING ACTION, HOWEVER, WITH THIS BEING BEFORE YOU ALL TONIGHT, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IT.
WHAT THEY ARE PROPOSING TO INCORPORATE IS A RE-ALLOCATION OF TOWN HOME UNITS AMONGST THE VARIOUS SUBDISTRICTS.
THEY ARE NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE THE OVERALL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY UNITS.
AGAIN, IT IS JUST A REALLOCATION.
THE OVERALL NUMBER OF SINGLE FAMILY IS 5,000 UNITS.
THAT'S NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE.
EACH ONE OF THESE SUBDISTRICTS ALSO HAS A MAXIMUM DENSITY PER SUBDISTRICT.
THAT IS NOT PROPOSING TO CHANGE EITHER.
AGAIN, IT IS JUST A RE-ALLOCATION.
NEXT, AFTER TABLE 4-1, THERE IS A TABLE 4-2 THAT INCORPORATES ALL OF THE VARIOUS DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE VARIOUS PRODUCT TYPES.
>> I'M NOT SEEING IT UP FRONT.
IT HAS YOUR FRONT SETBACK, YOUR REAR SETBACK, YOUR MINIMUM LOT WIDTH, YOUR MINIMUM LOT DEPTHS, AND THAT'S ALL LISTED IN THE TABLE.
UNFORTUNATELY, THERE WAS A SURVEYING ERROR THAT CAUSED ONE HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED OVER THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
THEREFORE, TO ADDRESS THAT ISSUE INSTEAD OF HAVING TO TEAR THAT HOME COMPLETELY DOWN, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO GIVE THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES THE AUTHORITY TO ALLOW THAT SMALLER LOT TO BE FRONT ENTRY.
THE WAY THE PD READS TODAY, ALL OF THEIR SMALLER LOTS, PRETTY MUCH ANYTHING 3A, 3B, THEY'RE ALL REQUIRED TO BE REAR ENTRY.
THE BIGGER LOTS CAN BE FRONT ENTRY OR REAR ENTRY, AND THIS GIVES THE DIRECTOR THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE.
IT'S REALLY JUST THIS ONE INSTANCE BECAUSE IT'S TIED DOWN TO THE SUB-DISTRICT TO THE SPECIFIC PHASE, SO THIS IS NOT BEING OPENED UP TO THE WHOLE FIELDS DEVELOPMENT.
PERIMETER LANDSCAPING AND STREET NAME REFERENCES ON THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS ORIGINALLY ADOPTED IN '20, LATER AMENDED IN '22.
PGA PARKWAY WAS STILL KNOWN AS ROCK HILL PARKWAY.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO UPDATE LANGUAGE TO CORRECT ROCK HILL PARKWAY TO PGA PARKWAY.
LOOKING AT PARKS AND TRAILS, WHICH I KNOW I PASSED A SECOND AGO.
PLAN DEVELOPMENT 280 REQUIRES A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PARKLAND, A CERTAIN SIZE OF PARK IN EACH OF THE VARIOUS SUB-DISTRICTS.
THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS FROM 12-8, CONTAINING NO FEWER THAN 72 ACRES, INCLUDING DETENTION, RETENTION AREAS, AND UTILITY EASEMENTS AND EXCLUDING FLOODPLAIN.
REMOVING THE PARKS FROM MIDTOWN EAST AND THE MIDTOWN WEST SUB-DISTRICTS, AS YOU SEE HERE,
[01:05:03]
AND REDUCE THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK REQUIREMENT FOR UNIVERSITY VILLAGE TO ONE PARK OF AT LEAST FIVE ACRES OF MINIMUM AGGREGATE PARKLAND.ONE THING TO CLEAR UP IN THE FIELDS PD, THERE ARE PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS, AND THERE ARE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS.
THERE ARE CERTAIN PARK REQUIREMENTS, PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS PER SUB-DISTRICT, THERE ARE ALSO CERTAIN OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS PER SUB-DISTRICT.
THIS IS NOT CHANGING ANYTHING RELATED TO OPEN SPACE, THIS IS SPECIFIC TO PARKLAND.
THEY'RE ALSO LOOKING TO CLARIFY THE TRAIL SETBACK REQUIREMENTS, ADJACENT SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL LOTS AND TO PROVIDE A MINIMUM SIX FOOT SETBACK BETWEEN THE TRAIL EDGE AND THE PROPERTY LINE WHERE TRAILS ARE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO A NON RESIDENTIAL REAR OR SIDE LOT LINE.
IN BOTH OF THOSE CASES, LESSER DISTANCES MAY BE APPROVED, SUBJECT TO DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING SERVICES AND DIRECTOR OF PARKS AND RECREATIONS APPROVAL.
THEN LASTLY, THERE IS A PROPOSED CHANGE TO EXHIBIT L1.
THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL SETBACK ZONE.
THIS IS THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGE SUB-DISTRICT NORTH OF UNT OFF PRESTON ROAD.
IN 2020 AND 2022, THERE WAS AN ARBITRARY LINE DRAWN THAT DIVIDED THIS TO THE NORTH SOUTH AND THEN 750 FEET FROM THE CENTER LINE OF PRESTON ROAD, SAYING WHERE RESIDENTIAL IS PERMITTED, WHERE RESIDENTIAL IS NOT PERMITTED.
NOW THAT THE APPLICANT HAS GOTTEN INTO THE MORE SPECIFICS, THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING TO REVISE THAT LINE AS SHOWN HERE.
FROM THE STRAIGHT ARBITRARY LINE TO MAKING IT GO NORTH SOMEWHAT IN THAT AREA HERE.
BUT AGAIN, THIS IS KEEPING ALL OF THE RESIDENTIAL STILL SOUTH OF THE FLOODPLAIN.
IT'S NOT ENCROACHING NORTH OF THAT FLOODPLAIN.
I KNOW I JUST WENT THROUGH A LOT OF INFORMATION VERY QUICKLY, BUT YOU DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL THIS EVENING SUBJECT TO THE CHANGES THAT I WENT OVER AND THE ASSOCIATED EXHIBITS THAT WERE PART OF THE PACKET, AND I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.
>> IS THE APPLICANT HERE AND DO THEY WISH TO SPEAK? DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING?
WE ARE IN PUBLIC HEARING FOR ITEM 22.
COME ON UP. IF YOU'LL JUST HAND THAT CARD TO RIGHT THERE.
>> YOU JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS, AND THEN WE WOULD LOVE TO GIVE YOU FIVE MINUTES.
>> MY NAME IS YORGAN LISSON, ADDRESS 720 HOWOOD LANE AND PROSPER TEXAS, AND PROPERTY OWNER IN THE ZONE BUT NOT YET BUILT.
>> DO YOU WANT TO CIRCLE THAT AREA? I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU CAN DRAW ON THERE.
>> SOMEWHERE OVER THERE. MR. ROBERT WENT THROUGH A LOT OF THE THINGS THAT ARE IN THERE AND THERE ARE INDEED CORRECTIONS AND MODIFICATIONS IN THIS 49 PAGE DOCUMENT THAT ALL MAKE SENSE.
HOWEVER, THE PARK AND TRAIL SECTION IS WHAT CAUGHT MY ATTENTION BECAUSE YOU HAVE SEEN THE TABLE, I THINK IT WAS TABLE 91 THAT PROPOSES A TRADE OFF LESS PARKS, BUT MORE ACREAGE.
NOW, LESS PARKS AUTOMATICALLY DOES CHANGE THE APPEAL OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD, BUT PERHAPS BALANCED WITH MORE ACREAGE FOR PARKS.
WHEN YOU THEN LOOK AT HOW IT'S WORDED, THERE'S A VERY STRANGE THING THERE.
THE ACREAGE NOW FOR THE PARKS, WHICH IS 72 ACRES, WHICH, BY THE WAY, OUT OF 2,150 ACRES OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS REALLY NOT A LOT, SO 72 ACRES.
BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN IN THE DEFINITION OF PARKLAND, IF WE ACCEPT THIS PROPOSAL, WE NOW INCLUDE UTILITY EASEMENTS.
NOW THERE ARE AN AWFUL LOT OF UTILITY EASEMENTS IN THIS 2,150 ACRES.
IN FACT, THERE MIGHT NOT NEED TO BE A LOT OF PARK TO ADD UP TO 72 ACRES IN TOTAL.
MY RECOMMENDATION OR MY REQUEST TO THE COMMISSION HERE IS TO PLEASE TAKE A LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC CHANGES REQUESTED TO PARKS AND TRAILS,
[01:10:04]
AND TO STRIKE THE FACT THAT UTILITY EASEMENTS WOULD BE INCLUDED WHEN YOU COUNT PARKLAND.PARKLAND AND UTILITY EASEMENTS ARE VERY DIFFERENT IN THE FRISCO ZONING REQUIREMENTS.
THEY SERVE A VERY DIFFERENT PURPOSE.
IN FACT, YOU DO NOT CONSIDER UTILITY EASEMENTS ANYWHERE AS PARKLAND BECAUSE YOU CAN ACTUALLY NOT BUILD A PARK ON A UTILITY EASEMENT.
THERE ARE VERY SPECIFIC LIMITATIONS ON THE PLANS AND THE THINGS YOU CAN DO.
THIS DEFINITION AS USED HERE SHOULD NOT INCLUDE UTILITY EASEMENT AS PARKLAND, FOR SURE, NOT IN THE 72 ACRES. THANK YOU.
>> THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR BEING HERE.
>> LEAVE ONE MORE. COME ON OUT, THEN.
>> THANK YOU, COMMISSIONERS. MY NAME IS LANCE TAYLOR.
I LIVE AT 5970 WILLOUGHBY LANE IN FRISCO.
I THINK I'M AGNOSTIC AT THIS POINT BECAUSE I DON'T KNOW ENOUGH INFORMATION.
THE MATERIALS PRESENTED IN THE AGENDA ARE QUITE FULSOME.
THEY DO A REALLY GOOD JOB OF EXPLAINING WHAT IS BEING DONE.
I DON'T SEE ANYTHING THAT EXPLAINS WHY IT'S BEING DONE.
I'D LOVE STAFF TO JUST OFFER SOME COMMENTARY ON WHY THE APPLICANT IS SEEKING TO REDUCE THE PARK ACREAGE AND THE PARK NUMBERS.
MAYBE A LITTLE BIT OF CLARITY ON THAT WOULD HELP ME BRING THAT BACK TO MY NEIGHBORHOOD AND HELP THEM UNDERSTAND WHY WE SEEK THIS CHANGE. THANK YOU.
>> IS THERE ANYONE BEFORE WE MAKE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION.
>> MOTION AND CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING.
>> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY TIFFANY.
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES FIVE, ZERO.
PUBLIC HEARING PORTION IS NOW CLOSED FOR ITEM 22.
BEFORE WE GO THROUGH, JONATHAN, IF YOU COME ON UP.
I HAD THE CLARIFICATION, BUT MAYBE YOU COULD TOUCH ON WHY MAYBE THAT ON A HIGH LEVEL, THE CHANGE OF THE REDUCTION IN OPEN SPACE OR CHANGE IN THE ZONING EVEN BETTER. MR. JOE FITS?
HE'S JUST MOVING OUT OF THE WAY BEING.
>> JUST BEING A GENTLEMAN. GOOD EVENING.
THANK YOU FOR ALLOWING ME TO SPEAK.
>> WE KNOW WHO YOU ARE, BUT JUST FOR PEOPLE IN THE AUDIENCE WHO ARE WATCHING, MAY KNOW WHO YOU ARE.
>> I'M JACQUE PARKER, AND I'M THE PARKS ENGINEER FOR THE CITY OF FRISCO.
FIRST OF ALL, JUST TO TOUCH ON THESE PARKS THAT WE'RE REFERRING TO ARE THE PUBLIC PARKS THAT GET COUNTED, WE REQUIRE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PARKS.
WHEREAS WE'RE SAYING PARKS HERE, THAT DOESN'T MEAN THERE AREN'T PARKS AND THE PRESERVE THAT ARE PRIVATE PARKS THAT ARE SERVING THE RESIDENTS.
THERE'S THAT. NOW, I CANNOT SPEAK TO WHY FIELDS HAS COME IN AND ASKED TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKS, I WAS HOPING THAT THEY WOULD BE THERE TO EXPLAIN THAT WE CAN JUST TAKE THE REQUEST AND EVALUATE IT AND GO FROM THERE.
WE'RE STILL MAINTAINING AND WE HELD TO THE 72 ACRE REQUIREMENT.
THERE ARE SOME EASEMENTS, SOME OF THEM ARE DRAINAGE EASEMENTS, SOME OF THEM ARE ELECTRICAL EASEMENTS WITHIN THAT COUNT.
I BELIEVE THAT THAT HAS BEEN THERE IN THE COUNT FROM THE GET GO.
THEY'RE NOT SHIFTING US THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT PARK AND WHATNOT.
THAT HAS BEEN IN THERE SINCE THE ORIGINAL PD, I BELIEVE.
I DON'T HAVE THE STAFF HERE TO VERIFY THAT FOR CERTAIN, BUT I KNOW THAT SOME OF THEM HAVE ALWAYS BEEN IN THE LAND.
THE BROOKSIDE SOUTH PARK THAT'S UNDER CONSTRUCTION RIGHT NOW, THAT'S ONE OF THEM, IT'S GOT A DRAINAGE EASEMENT IN IT.
WE JUST CANNOT PUT VERTICAL STRUCTURES IN THERE.
IT CAN STILL BE USED FOR SOCCER AND FOR DIFFERENT THINGS IN THAT PARK.
IT DOESN'T MEAN THERE'S A FENCE AROUND IT AND NOBODY CAN USE IT FOR A PARK.
WE DID EVALUATE THE PONDS, THE EASEMENTS, AND WHATNOT AND FELT LIKE WE WERE GETTING A BALANCED AMOUNT OF PARKLAND, AND STAFF WAS AMENABLE TO DEALING WITH THE 72 ACRES IN THE FASHION THAT THEY SUBMITTED IT.
YES, THERE ARE SOME EASEMENTS.
THERE ARE SOME CASES WHERE THERE'S SOME ELECTRICAL EASEMENTS, AND WE DO HAVE SOME PATHS AND TRAILS THAT MEANDER BACK AND FORTH ACROSS THOSE ELECTRICAL EASEMENTS EVEN.
JUST BECAUSE THERE ARE EASEMENTS, THAT DOES NOT MEAN THAT WE CAN'T USE IT AS PARKLAND.
>> JONATHAN, IF YOU CAN, IT'S FINE, IT MIGHT BE A SHORT ANSWER OR NOT AN ANSWER.
DID THEY MENTION A REASON FOR THE REQUEST? I HAVE A FEW ASSUMPTIONS.
I WANT TO BE CAREFUL IN COMING TO CONCLUSIONS,
[01:15:02]
BUT BY ANY CHANCE THEY MENTIONED REASON FOR THIS REQUEST?>> THE NEGOTIATIONS WITH PARKS WERE NOT.
>> NO, I MEANT JUST IN GENERAL.
THEY DIDN'T GO INTO FM OR IF THE FIELDS DEVELOPMENT DIDN'T SAYS THIS IS THE REASON WHY WE'RE REQUESTING A CHANGE IN THAT.
>> YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT SPECIFIC TO PARKS?
>> NO, JUST IN THE ZONING OF THIS.
>> THERE WERE A NUMBER OF DIFFERENT REASONS FOR THE DIFFERENT CHANGES.
THERE'S NOT AN OVERALL ONE THING THAT POINTS TO EVERYTHING.
FOR EXAMPLE THERE HAVE BEEN ONGOING NEGOTIATIONS AND AMENDMENTS TO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AS IT RELATES TO FIELDS WEST AND THE CITY'S PARTICIPATION WITH PARKING GARAGES AND THINGS OUT THERE.
THAT'S WHERE YOU HAVE PART OF THOSE NEGOTIATIONS FROM THE 2000 BY RIGHT UNITS TO TO THE 2,500 UNITS.
THERE'S THE EARNOUT PROVISION FROM UNIVERSAL.
BACK IN 2020, BACK IN 2022, WHEN THE PD WAS DONE, IT DID NOT SPECIFICALLY CALL OUT, YOU GET SO MANY EARNOUTS WHEN A THEME PART COMES HERE.
THAT'S SOMETHING NONE OF US CONTEMPLATED AT THE TIME.
HOWEVER, IF YOU LOOK AT THE LANGUAGE FOR CLASS A OFFICE, HOTEL, HOSPITALITY, IT'S STILL VERY MUCH GEARED TOWARDS WHAT HAS BECOME OF THE UNIVERSAL RESORT.
STAFF WORKED WITH THE FIELD'S TEAM TO APPLY APPROPRIATE CALCULATIONS THAT'S IN THE PD TODAY TO WHAT IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION FOR UNIVERSAL AND CAME OUT WITH THE 1,325, AND WE'RE TYING THAT DOWN.
AS I REFERENCED A SECOND AGO, ROCK HILL PARKWAY HAS BEEN CHANGED TO PGA PARKWAY, WHICH IS NECESSITATING THE UPDATES TO THAT.
I LOOKED AT THE CHANGES TO THE EXHIBIT L1, AS I SAID A SECOND AGO, THAT RESIDENTIAL LINE IN THE UNIVERSITY VILLAGE SUB-DISTRICT, YOU THINK BACK TO 2020 WHEN WE WERE REZONING 2,100 ACRES, THIS PD IS SOMEWHAT DIFFERENT THAN SOME OF OUR OTHER PDS WHERE YOU HAVE DETAILED ZONING EXHIBITS.
WE ALL WORK TOGETHER AS A TEAM BACK IN 2020 AND BACK IN 2022 TO PUT ALL OF THOSE PARAMETERS IN PLACE.
BUT NOW THAT THEY HAVE A SINGLE FAMILY DEVELOPER FOR THAT PROPERTY AND THEY'RE LOOKING AT WHAT MAKES SENSE.
IF YOU LOOK AT EXHIBIT L1 HERE AND HOW THE LAND LAYS OUT AND THE TOPOGRAPHY, IT MAKES SENSE FOR THAT SINGLE FAMILY TO PULL UP FURTHER.
>> TO THE GREEN BELT BECAUSE FOR EXAMPLE, IF IT WEREN'T, YOU COULD POTENTIALLY HAVE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DIRECT THE NEIGHBORHOOD BEHIND IT WITHOUT THAT GREEN BELT.
>> I THINK THAT'S SUFFICIENT. I WAS GOING THROUGH THAT I WANT TO MAKE YOU LONG WINDED.
I'LL JUST MAKE A FEW COMMENTS AND IF THERE'S OTHERS BECAUSE WE DID HAVE RESIDENT SHOW UP.
THERE MIGHT BE PEOPLE LISTENING AS THREE OF US WERE PART OF THAT ZONING PROCESS AND LIKE YOU MENTIONED, IT'S 2,100 ACRES, AND IT'S LARGE ENCOMPASSING AND 21 ACRES IS PROBABLY A MINIMUM 20 YEAR PROJECT.
IT'S REALLY HARD TO TIE DOWN SOMEONE TO A LOT OF SPECIFICS WHEN WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE MARKET, WHAT THE PRODUCT WILL BE, HOW THE DEVELOPMENT WILL GO.
WE'LL GO THROUGH POSSIBLY ONE, IF NOT FOR SURE, TWO RECESSIONS THROUGH THIS WHOLE PROCESS.
RATHER THAN AS YOU MENTIONED, JUST RE-AMEND EVERY TIME ONE ITEM COMES THROUGH, YOU WAIT TO ENCOMPASS WHEN MULTIPLE COMES THROUGH.
IT MIGHT FEEL LIKE IT'S OVERWHELMING TODAY AS WHY ARE YOU THROWING FIVE, 10, 15 THINGS AT US? THERE'S A LOT OF MINUTE THINGS AND ONE OR TWO MAY STICK OUT TO YOU AS BEING A LITTLE MORE LARGER.
I WILL SAY IN THE FENCE AND OF FIELDS DEVELOPMENT, I HAVE BEEN EXTREMELY IMPRESSED.
IF YOU HAVE HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO DRIVE LEGACY ROAD, THE TREES, I JUST GET ULTRA EXCITED.
I CAN ASSURE YOU AND I'M NOT PICKING OUT CITIES, BUT I'LL JUST CALL OF THEM.
WHEN SOMEONE BUILDS A SIX LANE ROAD, I SURE YOU'LL NEVER IN AMERICA SEE SOMEONE GO PUT IN IMMENSE AMOUNT OF TREES.
THE NUMBER I IRONICALLY WAS WITH ME LAST WEEK AND HE DID A PRESENTATION,
[01:20:02]
$20 MILLION IN TREES WERE SPENT.I THINK I FEEL VERY COMFORTABLE AND MAYBE I'M JUST ONE OPINION, BUT THERE'S BEEN NO CORNERS CUT IN THIS DEVELOPMENT.
I THINK IT WAS MORE JUST GETTING SOME CLARITY AND THERE'S THEY'VE MOST DEFINITELY BUILT SOME TRUST FOR ME.
I CAN'T SPEAK FOR MY COMMISSIONERS, BUT HOPEFULLY REALIZE THIS IS IT MAY FEEL OVERWHELMING, BUT I THINK THESE ARE VERY MINUTE CHANGES THAT ARE BEING PRESENTED.
DO YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF OR THE APPLICANTS NOT HERE, SO JUST BE FOR STAFF OR.
>> I HAVE ONE QUESTION. WHAT PAGE IS THAT?
>> PAGE 3 OF 49 ON THAT, JUST UNDER TABLE 4-2 SAYS TO ADDRESS THE SURVEYING AREA THAT CAUSED THE HOME TO BE CONSTRUCTED OVER THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
I'M JUST CURIOUS WHY IT WOULD BE NECESSARY TO BE INCLUDED HERE AND NOT GO THROUGH THE BOARD OF ADJUSTMENTS.
>> BECAUSE WHAT IS BEING CHANGED HERE IS NOT THE LOT WIDTH OR THE LOT DEPTH OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT.
IT IS THE PROVISION TO ALLOW THE LOT TO BE FRONT ENTRY, WHICH IS SPECIFICALLY CALLED OUT IN THE PUD.
WE'RE NOT MAKING ANY CHANGES TO LOT WIDTH OR LOT DEPTH, AND BY DOING IT THIS WAY, THEY'RE NOT ASKING FOR ANY VARIANCE.
BY CHANGING THIS, BY ALLOWING IT TO BE FRONT ENTRY, GIVING JOHN THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE THAT LOT AS FRONT ENTRY, IF SOMEONE WERE TO SAY, DOES THIS LOT CONFORM TO THE ZONING, THE ANSWER IS YES.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ANY VARIANCES.
IT COMPLIES WITH PLAN DEVELOPMENT 280.
>> BUT IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT IT'S BUILT OVER THE SIDE YARD SETBACK.
>> THAT WAS THE ISSUE. THAT IS WHAT HAPPENED.
IF WE DIDN'T DO ANYTHING, THAT IT IS CORRECT.
BUT BY DOING THIS, IT ALLOWS THEM TO TAKE WHAT WAS A 3B AND CHANGE IT TO A 3A WHICH WOULD [OVERLAPPING] MAKE.
>> WHICH IS DIFFERENT SIDE YARD.
>> THAT'S CORRECT. IT HAS DIFFERENT SIDE YARDS.
>> THERE'S A BUNCH OF GOOD ITEMS ON HERE THAT MAKE PERFECTLY GOOD SENSE.
I'D RATHER SPEND OUR TIME ON THE COUPLE THAT JUMP OUT AND THAT JUST JUMP OUT TREMENDOUSLY.
ON THE DEEMED EARNED, YOU SAID YOU GUYS CAME UP WITH A FORMULA SOMEHOW EQUATING HOTEL SPACE AND SQUARE FOOTAGE OF OFFICE SPACE WITH OUTDOOR AMUSEMENT.
THAT MAKES SENSE. JUST CURIOUS, WAS THAT DISCUSSED DURING THE UNIVERSAL SUP ABOUT THE POTENTIAL FOR ALLOWING THAT TO BE DEEMED EARNED?
>> NO. I WAS NOT PART OF THE SUP.
>> IT MAKES LOGICAL SENSE, BUT OBVIOUSLY THAT'S A HUGE CONCERN FOR LOTS OF PEOPLE AND FOR ME THAT SEEMS LIKE A BIG FINANCIAL THING THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN BEST 2020 HINDSIGHT TO HAVE TALKED ABOUT DURING THE SUP.
I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT IT WASN'T TALKED ABOUT OR BROUGHT UP BACK THEN.
>> WE'RE STUCK NOT KNOWING WHETHER THAT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO OR NOT.
ON SURFACE IT SEEMS TO ME BE LOGICAL TO ME, BUT I DON'T REALLY HAVE A GOOD WAY OF JUDGING ALL OF OUR OTHER AMUSEMENT PARKS AND HOW WE'VE DEEMED EARNED WHATEVER IT IS WE'RE DOING THERE.
THE BIG ONE THAT JUMPS OUT OF ME IS I'M NOT REAL SURE ON THE REASON WHY WE WOULD DECREASE ANY OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR PARKS.
CAN YOU JUST CLARIFY EXACTLY WHAT IS BEING DECREASED AND GOING AWAY AND WHAT IS NOT DECREASING IN THE OVERALL CHANGE?
>> CURRENTLY, THERE ARE 12 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS REQUIRED.
IT'S REDUCING THE 12 NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS TO EIGHT NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS.
BUT THE 72 ACRES, WHICH IS THE OVERALL PARKLAND, WHICH WAS WHAT WAS AGREED TO IN 2020, REMAINED IN PLACE IN 2022, THAT IS REMAINING IN PLACE HERE.
WHILE THE NUMBER OF PARKS IS BEING REDUCED FROM 12 TO EIGHT, THE OVERALL AMOUNT OF PARKLAND IS NOT BEING DECREASED.
THE LANGUAGE REGARDING INCLUDING DETENTION RETENTION AREAS, UTILITY EASEMENTS AND EXCLUDING FLOODPLAIN,
[01:25:03]
AGAIN, MOST OF THE PARK CHANGES WERE NEGOTIATED WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND AND CMO THAT PARKS REPORTS TO.BUT AS JACKIE SAID, AND PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, THIS IS JUST BRINGING CLARITY TO THE PUD.
AGAIN, CITY STAFF HAS BEEN WORKING WITH THE FIELDS DEVELOPER SINCE 2020 ON VARIOUS PARKS AND VARIOUS PARKS AGREEMENTS, AND THERE ARE ALREADY PORTIONS OF PARKLAND WITHIN THE FIELDS DEVELOPMENT THAT IS IN THESE AREAS.
AGAIN, PLEASE CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG ON THAT.
AS YOU MOVE TO TABLE 9-1, TABLE 9-1 IS THE TABLE, AND I THINK I HAVE THE CHANGES UP HERE.
IT'S THE TABLE THAT LISTS THE MINIMUM PARK SIZE, THE MINIMUM AGGREGATE PARKLAND AND ONE PARK OF AT LEAST X IN EACH OF THE VARIOUS SUB-DISTRICTS.
ONE OF THE PROPOSED CHANGES IS AS A RESULT OF THE MIDTOWN WEST SUB-DISTRICT IS THE SUB-DISTRICT WHERE FIELDS WEST IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION.
IF ANY OF YOU ALL HAVE SEEN ANY RENDERINGS OF FIELDS WEST, THERE'S A VERY LARGE POND OR LAKE SURROUNDED BY GREEN SPACE ON THE SOUTH END OF THAT.
THAT WAS ORIGINALLY CONTEMPLATED TO BE CITY PARKLAND.
HOWEVER, IN DISCUSSIONS BETWEEN THE FIELDS TEAM AND CITY STAFF, IT'S DETERMINED THAT IT'S PROBABLY BETTER OFF FOR THAT SPACE TO BE OPEN SPACE RATHER THAN PARK.
FOR EXAMPLE, THOSE SPACES ARE NOT GOING AWAY.
HOWEVER, THAT WILL ALLOW THEM, THEY'RE GOING TO BE PRIVATELY OWNED, PRIVATELY MAINTAINED.
THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE ESSENTIALLY SOME MORE FLEXIBILITY PER SE OF SOME THINGS THEY CAN DO IN THAT AREA, WHICH WOULD BE VERY DIFFERENT IF THAT WERE CITY PARKLAND.
FOR EXAMPLE, THAT'S WHY YOU SEE MIDTOWN WEST JUST MARKED OUT TO MIDTOWN EAST, A LARGE PORTION OF MIDTOWN EAST IS TAKEN UP BY UNIVERSAL STUDIOS.
THERE'S A SMALL PORTION AROUND IT.
ONCE AGAIN, YOU LOOK BACK AT PREVIOUS AMENDMENTS NOBODY CONTEMPLATED UNIVERSAL STUDIOS.
BASED ON THINGS THAT MORE SPECIFICS, UNIVERSAL, FIELDS WEST IS COMING.
IT'S NECESSITATED CHANGES TO THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT PLAN.
BUT AGAIN, THE OVERALL INTENT IS NOT CHANGING.
AGAIN, THE 72 ACRES THAT WERE DISCUSSED FROM DAY 1 ARE STILL GOING TO BE REQUIRED.
GOING BACK TO WHAT I SAID A SECOND AGO WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE TOWN HOME UNITS AND THAT REALLOCATION, IT'S A REALLOCATION OF WHERE DOES PARKLAND GO, WHERE DOES OPEN SPACE GO.
THERE'S STILL A LOT OF LAND OUT THERE TO BE DEVELOPED.
THERE'S STILL SUB-DISTRICTS THAT ARE UNKNOWN.
>> I THINK YOU'RE GOOD, JONATHAN.
>> CAN I ASK A QUESTION? JUST TO CLARIFY, YOU'RE SAYING BASED ON THIS CHART HERE THAT CURRENTLY IN MIDTOWN EAST, AS WRITTEN, THAT'S THE MIDDLE ONE THERE ON THE CHART.
CURRENTLY, MIDTOWN EAST, REALLY THE REMAINING PORTION THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE UNIVERSAL GATES, BECAUSE YOU'RE NOT GOING TO DO THE STUFF INSIDE THE GATES.
THE REMAINING PORTION OF MIDTOWN EAST IS SUPPOSED TO GET A FOUR ACRE PARK AND IT IS SUPPOSED TO GET ONE PARK OF AT LEAST TWO ACRES.
NO, I GUESS THAT'S AGGREGATE PARKLAND AREA.
THERE'S SUPPOSED BE AT LEAST ONE TWO-ACRE PARK IN MIDTOWN EAST AND AGGREGATE OF FOUR ACRES OF PARKLAND TOTAL.
>> TOTAL. FOR EXAMPLE, YOU COULD HAVE ONE PARK OF AT LEAST TWO ACRES.
YOU HAVE TO GET UP TO FOUR ACRES.
[01:30:01]
THEN THOSE OTHERS COULD HAVE FOUR HALF ACRE PARKS TO GET THE OTHER TWO ACRES.>> UNDER THE REVISIONS, HOW MUCH REQUIRED PARK SPACE WILL BE IN MIDTOWN EAST?
>> IF THIS GETS APPROVED, IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE ZERO.
NOW, THIS DOESN'T PREVENT THEM FROM PROVIDING PARKLAND.
BUT AGAIN, TO MAKE IT CLEAR AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.
>> WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CITY PARKLAND. THAT'S THE DISTINCTION.
I WANT TO TELL YOU THE EXACT NUMBER JUST SO THAT I'M NOT OFF.
OF THE MIDTOWN EAST SUB-DISTRICT, PER WHAT YOU SEE ON THE SCREEN, CHANGES TO 9-1, THAT REMOVES THE PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS, THAT'S CITY PARK REQUIREMENTS.
THEY'RE STILL REQUIRED TO HAVE 8% OPEN SPACE.
>> I THINK WE'RE GETTING HUNG UP ON, 72 ACRES IS NOT CHANGED.
>> IF I CAN SAY SOMETHING HERE.
I HOPE YOU GUYS PICKED UP ON WHAT WAS JUST CLARIFIED HERE.
WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS IF THIS HAD BEEN DISCUSSED BACK DURING THE UNIVERSAL CASE.
IT HAD COME FORWARD AND SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO BUILD 97 ACRES INSIDE OF A GATE AND WE'RE GOING TO REMOVE REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLIC CITY PARKLAND IN THAT AREA.
THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN A HUNG UP FOR ME AND FOR I THINK A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THAT AREA.
I UNDERSTAND SHIFTING AROUND IN GENERAL.
BUT ALL OF A SUDDEN, WE'RE TAKING AN AREA, SAYING, YOU KNOW WHAT? THAT FOUR ACRES OF PARKLAND COULD BE SHIFTED TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE TOLLWAY, IS THAT CORRECT? IT COULD BE SHIFTED ANYWHERE ELSE IN THE FIELDS IF THEY WANT THAT TO GO THERE.
FOR THE PEOPLE LIVING IN EAST VILLAGE ARE GOING TO BE MOVING IN THERE, PEOPLE IN THAT AREA.
I DON'T SEE ANY ADVANTAGE TO THE CITIZENS OF FRISCO FOR NO LONGER REQUIRING FOUR ACRES OF PUBLIC PARKLAND IN THAT SECTION OF FIELDS.
>> LET ME ASK THIS QUESTION BECAUSE MY INTERPRETATION AND SOMEBODY CAN ANSWER THIS.
THE REASON WHY THE REMOVAL OF PARKS IS THE CITY OF FRISCO DON'T WANT TO TAKE ON THE RESPONSIBILITY OF THAT.
>> OPEN SPACE. IS YOUR CONCERN MORE ABOUT THE CITY OF FRISCO NOT HAVING PARKS IN THAT AREA OR IS IT MORE ABOUT THE OPEN SPACE GREEN SPACE FOR YOU?
>> I'M SORRY. THE WAY JONATHAN SAID IT WAS THAT THOSE FOUR ACRES OF PUBLIC PARKLAND WILL GO SOMEWHERE ELSE.
>> WELL, THEY'RE STILL IF YOU'RE GOING TO MAINTAIN 72 ACRES OF PARKLAND. IT IS MY UNDERSTANDING.
>> THAT NUMBER IS NOT CHANGING.
>> THAT'S NOT CHANGING. MY CONCERN IS THE WHERE.
NOW THOSE FOUR ACRES OF PARKLAND ARE GOING TO BE MAINTAINED BY THE CITY SOMEWHERE ELSE.
IF I'M UNDERSTANDING COMPLETELY.
>> ONE THING THAT I DO WANT TO ADD IS THAT A LOT OF THESE PARKLAND REQUIREMENTS ARE DRIVEN BY THE RESIDENTIAL, AND THERE IS A PROVISION IN THE PUD THAT A PARK SHALL BE WITHIN 2,600 FEET OF THE LOT LINE OF ALL THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT IT SERVES.
WHEN YOU SAY ALL OF THE PARKLAND COULD SHIFT TO THE WEST SIDE, FOR EXAMPLE.
>> I KNOW WHAT YOU MEAN, BUT YOU'RE SAYING POTENTIALLY, COULD THAT FOUR ACRES SHIFT TO THE WEST SIDE.
THERE ARE OTHER PARAMETERS WITHIN THE PUD, FOR EXAMPLE, THE ONE THAT I JUST REFERENCED ABOUT A PARK SHALL BE WITHIN 02,600 FEET OF EVERY LOT LINE OF THE UNIT OF THE RESIDENTIAL THAT IT SERVES.
THERE ARE STILL OTHER PARAMETERS THAT ARE GOING TO KEEP THOSE PUBLIC PARKS CLOSER TO THOSE PEOPLE THAT THEY'RE SERVING.
AGAIN, WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT OR THE REST OF THE EXAMPLE, THE GREEN SPACE, THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENTS, NONE OF THOSE HAVE CHANGED.
NONE OF THOSE ARE PROPOSING TO CHANGE.
>> I THINK WE'RE GETTING AT LEAST.
I SEE, JACKIE, DID YOU HAVE SOMETHING YOU WANT SAY YOU JUST PREPARED?
>> PARKS DEPARTMENT IS IN GREEN.
>> ONE THING TO ADD IS LIKE JONATHAN IS SAYING.
I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR ABOUT IT.
IS LIKE WHERE THE RESIDENTIAL IS GOING, RESIDENTIAL IS WHAT REQUIRES PARKLAND.
AS JONATHAN EXPLAINED, WHEREVER THEY'RE LOCATING THE RESIDENTIAL,
[01:35:02]
THAT'S GOING TO BE A FACTOR IN LOCATING OPEN SPACE.THAT DOESN'T MEAN THEY GET TO MOVE ALL PARK LAND.
THEY DON'T GET TO MOVE ALL THE PARK LAND TO ONE AREA AND CALL IT GOOD.
YOU HAVE THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS IN THE PUD THAT THEY HAVE TO MEET, AND THIS IS WHAT STAFF REVIEWS WHEN THAT PLAN COMES IN TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE COMPLYING WITH THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS.
>> I HEAR THAT. CAN I JUST ASK IF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE A CONCERN OR AN ISSUE, IF WE WERE TO AMEND THIS TO SAY THAT IT'D STILL BE IN THE BEST INTEREST FOR PEOPLE IN THE AREA AROUND UNIVERSAL TO REQUIRE FOUR ACRES OF CITY PUBLIC PARKLAND CLOSER TO THE UNIVERSAL PARK.
WHICH IS INSIDE OF THE GATE? DO YOU GUYS HAVE A PROBLEM IF THEY WERE TO BUILD FOUR ACRES OF PARKLAND ALONG UNIVERSITY PARKWAY?
>> IT SEEMED LIKE YOU'RE SAYING SOMETHING THAT THE ORDINANCE ALREADY HAVE.
IF THERE'S RESIDENTIAL AREA FOR THIS PARTICULAR ZONING OR THIS AREA WHERE THEY'RE REQUIRED TO HAVE PARKLAND WITHIN X AMOUNT OF FEET, ARE YOU NOW TRYING TO ADD ON MORE STIPULATIONS?
>> NO. THE STIPULATION FOR NEARNESS TO RESIDENTIAL IS FOR NEW NEIGHBORHOODS ONLY, AM I CORRECT ON THAT?
>> IT'S FOR THE RESIDENTIAL WITHIN FIELDS [OVERLAPPING] NOT TO INTERRUPT, BUT ONE ADDITIONAL THING AS YOU'RE HAVING THIS DISCUSSION AND WHAT JACKIE WAS BRINGING TO MY ATTENTION TO RECALL, IN ADDITION TO THE 2,600 FEET, THERE IS ALSO EXHIBIT P, WHICH IDENTIFIES THE LOCATIONS OF THESE PARKS.
>> FOR EXAMPLE, AGAIN, THIS IS THE EXHIBIT THAT THAT'S TIED TO THE PD.
COULD THIS PARK SHIFT A LITTLE THIS WAY OR THIS WAY? YES, THERE IS FLEXIBILITY FOR THESE PARKS TO SHIFT SOMEWHAT.
BUT AGAIN, GOING BACK TO WHAT YOU WERE SAYING A SECOND AGO, COULD THEY JUST PICK UP ALL THIS PARK LAND AND SAY, WE'RE JUST GOING TO PUT IT ALL ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE TOLLWAY? NO.
>> THAT'S NOT WHAT I'M SAYING. LET ME TRY TO BE CLEAR.
IF YOU LIVED IN COBB HILL, DURING THE DISCUSSIONS FOR UNIVERSAL.
ONE OF THE NUMBER ONE CONCERNS PEOPLE HAD WAS THAT YOU SUDDENLY HAD 97 ACRES ENCLOSED IN A FENCE.
THAT WAS REALLY ONE OF THE BIGGEST HANG UPS PEOPLE LIVING THERE SAID, I'M NOT AS CONCERNED ABOUT AMUSEMENT PARK.
I'M CONCERNED ABOUT LOSING THE ABILITY TO WALK ACROSS THE STREET AND GO TO THINGS AND SO IT'S GOING TO BE THIS AREA THAT'S CLOSED OFF.
I VERY DISTINCTLY REMEMBER THE DISCUSSION BEING, WELL, THERE WILL STILL BE OTHER THINGS, OTHER OPEN SPACE, OTHER PARKS IN MIDTOWN EAST.
IT'LL BE A LITTLE BIT FURTHER AWAY FROM THE COBB HILL RESIDENTS, BUT THERE WILL STILL BE PUBLIC PARK LAND IN MIDTOWN EAST.
THAT'S MY CONCERN IS THAT NOW WE ARE TAKING THAT POTENTIALLY NO PUBLIC PARK LAND AREA AND MAKING IT BIGGER IS MY CONCERN.
IF YOU LIVE IN COBB HILL EXISTING, YOU ARE NOW SAYING THE CLOSEST PUBLIC PARKS TO YOU ARE GOING TO BE FURTHER AWAY.
>> THERE'S ALREADY THE EXISTING ONES IN COBB HILL AND SURROUNDING?
>> IF THERE'S NO POCKET PARKS WITHIN YOUR COMMUNITY?
>> NO, JOHN HAS MADE VERY CLEAR TO ME THAT THAT'S A NEIGHBORHOOD H AWAY SPACE.
WHAT'S DISCUSSED HERE ON PARK LAMB IS FOR THE FIELDS DEVELOPMENT IS NOT FOR DEVELOPMENT.
THEY'RE OPEN TO THE PUBLIC, BUT I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.
THIS IS NOT ADDRESSING PARK NEEDS BEYOND THE BOUNDARY OF FIELDS.
>> WELL, WE NEED TO STAY WITHIN THAT BUBBLE BECAUSE WHAT YOU'RE ASKING IS TO PROVIDE PARKS FOR ANOTHER REASON THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT THAT WAS NOT CONTEMPLATED WHEN THIS WAS ORIGINALLY APPROVED.
>> WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT THIS IS AN UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCE THAT WE SHOULD BE AWARE OF? WHEN WE TAKE 97 ACRES AND WE ENCLOSE IT BEHIND A FENCE, IT CAUSES REPERCUSSIONS IN THE GREATER AREA, AND WE SHOULD TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION.
IF I CAN JUST ASK MY QUESTION, IF I CLARIFIED THE CONCERN, DO ANY OF MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS HAVE A CONCERN WITH HAVING FIELDS CONTINUE TO PUT FOUR ACRES OF PUBLIC PARKLAND IN MIDTOWN EAST? WOULD THAT BOTHER ANYONE IF THEY WERE REQUIRED TO TO HAVE THAT OBLIGATION?
I I WANT TO GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THIS.
I THINK IT'S BEEN VERY VETTED OUT.
PARKS HAS GIVEN SUPPORT OF IT.
CITY STAFF HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS EXTREMELY DETAILED, SO I WOULD WANT TO GO EXACTLY WITH CITY RECOMMENDATION.
[01:40:04]
>> EVEN IF SOMETIMES WE COME UP WITH NEW IDEAS ON THE DIAS, WHICH WE OFTEN DO, AND SOMETIMES WE CHANGE [OVERLAPPING].
>> DO YOU ASK MY OPINION, I WOULD 100% SUPPORT CITY STAFF ON THIS AND THE PARKS DEPARTMENT WHO FEEL GOOD ABOUT THIS.
>> BUT THEY ALL STAFF FELT GOOD ABOUT.
>> YOU KEEP CHANGING. I'M JUST LET YOU KNOW MY ANSWER IS NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
>> I UNDERSTAND, BUT YOUR REASONING IS NOT JUSTIFIED.
>> WELL, MY REASONING IS YOURS ISN'T, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE.
JUST FOR THE RECORD, IS STAFF IS VERY THOROUGH IN WHAT THEY DO.
MY REASONING IS WE HAVE A PHENOMENAL STAFF THAT HAS SPENT COPIOUS HOURS ON THIS.
WE HAVE A PARKS DEPARTMENT THAT IS WELL RESPECTED.
IT MAY NOT JUSTIFY THE ONLY THING YOU WILL BE APPROVED IF I CHANGE IT, BUT WE'RE NOT GOING TO KEEP GOING BACK FORTH.
YOU AT LEAST KNOW WHERE I'M STANDING.
IF YOU HAVE QUESTIONS, THEN LET'S HAVE THE AIR COMMISSIONER SHARE THEIR OPINION.
BUT YOU ASKED WHAT OUR OPINION.
>> TO MAKE CLEAR THOUGH, IF WE LEFT IT, IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS WANTED TO LEAVE THE FOUR ACRE REQUIREMENT THERE.
THE SAME WAY THAT WE MADE A CHANGE FROM STAFF RECOMMENDATION ON THE LAST CASE, THAT HAPPENS DURING DISCUSSION.
WE'RE SUPPOSED TO MAKE CHANGES AS THINGS COME UP.
WOULD YOU HAVE A CONCERN IF THE OTHER COMMISSIONER SAID, "I'M FINE LEAVING THE FOUR ACRE PUBLIC PARK IN MIDTOWN EAST."
>> WE'RE GOING TO GO DOWN THE LIST IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.
>> I WOULD LIKE TO SUPPORT THOUGH. GOOD.
ON THIS EXHIBIT, THIS IS ALSO SHOWN THE HIKING BIKE TRAILS.
YOU HAVE PANTHER CREEK THAT'S TO THE EAST THERE.
THAT TRAIL WILL GO UNDERNEATH PANTHER CREEK.
THERE'S CONNECTIVITY OF TRAILS FROM SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS THAT WILL GO INTO FIELDS.
THAT HAS ALWAYS BEEN IN THE PLANTS.
THERE'S ON STREET, THERE'S OFF STREET TRAILS.
THERE'S QUITE A BIT OF TRAILS THAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED HERE.
AS FAR AS PEOPLE LIVING TO THE SOUTH HAVING ACCESS TO THE DIFFERENT PARKS, THEY'RE PROVIDED WHERE PEOPLE CAN EITHER HIKE, OR BIKE, OR WALK.
I JUST WANT TO BRING THAT VERY CLOSE. [OVERLAPPING]
>> I DON'T DISAGREE WITH THAT..
>> ONE OF THE THINGS WHEN I FIRST JOINED P&Z THAT I THINK WAS PRESSED WAS THAT AS MUCH AS I UNDERSTAND, STEVE, THAT THERE ARE TIMES THAT WE MIGHT BRING UP STUFF, THAT THE DESIGN ON THE DIAS CAN GET DANGEROUS IN THE SENSE OF, WE DON'T NEED TO ALWAYS BE LOOKING HOW CAN WE CHANGE SOMETHING? AGAIN, I UNDERSTAND AND APPRECIATE WHEN THINGS COME TO MIND AND WE NEED TO DISCUSS THEM.
I THINK A LOT OF TIMES WE NEED TO MAKE SURE THAT IF WE DO HAVE SUGGESTIONS OR QUESTIONS THAT WE ASK THAT TO STAFF AHEAD OF TIME, THEY HAVE THAT OPPORTUNITY TO COME BACK WITH US WITH WHAT THEY'VE SPENT THEIR TIME DOING.
I APPRECIATE SO MUCH THAT WE HAVE A PARKS ENGINEER HERE AS WELL, WITH YOUR EXPERTISE.
I'M COMPLETELY COMFORTABLE SUPPORTING THE WAY STAFF HAS PRESENTED THIS TO US AT THIS TIME.
>> COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS, MICHAEL?
>> HEARING JONATHAN SAY THAT THERE ARE OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PD THAT PROTECTS ACCESSIBILITY OR WALKABILITY TO PARKS, MAKES ME COMFORTABLE AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT REDUCING THAT 72 ACRE REQUIREMENT.
IT DOESN'T BOTHER ME, WE'RE REDUCING THE QUANTITY OF PARKS OR THAT WE'RE CHANGING THE LOCATION OF POTENTIAL PARKS.
ULTIMATELY, THIS GIVES THE DEVELOPMENTS MORE FLEXIBILITY ON THE SIZE AND QUANTITY.
I DON'T ASSOCIATE A BUNCH OF SMALL PARKS AS BEING BETTER THAN ONE LARGER PARK.
I THINK THE IDEA IS THAT WE CAN NOW GET 72 ACRES PIECED IN THE RIGHT PLACES AT THE RIGHT SIZES AND GIVE FLEXIBILITY TO SOMETHING SPECIAL WHERE IF WE ARE OVERLY RESTRICTIVE ABOUT THE NUMBER, QUANTITY, AND SIZE, WE MAY NOT GET THE BEST PARK SYSTEM.
ULTIMATELY, I THINK THE CITY MIGHT BENEFIT FROM MAINTAINING LESS SMALL PARKS.
FOR A LOT OF REASONS, I'M COMFORTABLE JUST APPROVING IT AS A STAFF RECOMMENDS.
AS LONG AS THE ACRES IS NOT MINIMIZING WHAT JONATHAN WAS SAYING IN TERMS OF THERE'S STILL OTHER THINGS THAT PROTECTS OVERALL THE AREA WITH GREEN SPACE IN DIFFERENT AREAS.
FROM PARKS AND RECREATION, I DO UNDERSTAND WHY I WENT 12-8.
I DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT.
>> ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FOR STAFF BEFORE WE ASK.
>> I APOLOGIZE. I THOUGHT YOU WENT FIRST [INAUDIBLE].
>> [INAUDIBLE] OPINION ALWAYS.
>> I'LL SAY THAT WHEN JONATHAN FIRST STARTED READING IT AND IT JUST SAID, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO REDUCE THE NUMBER OF PARKS.
IN MY MIND, IT IMMEDIATELY WENT FROM GREEN TO GRAY, FROM PARK TO CONCRETE.
FROM GREEN TO GRAY? THAT'S THAT'S WHERE MY MIND WERE.
BUT THEN WHEN THE CONVERSATION SHIFTED FROM WE'RE TALKING ABOUT CITY PARKLAND
[01:45:01]
DOESN'T CHANGE THE REQUIREMENT FOR OPEN SPACE AND WENT FROM GRAY BACK TO GREEN AGAIN.I THINK I SEE IT MORE LIKE A SHUFFLE BOARD.
>> I'M NOT SEEING THE PROBLEM.
>> ANYTHING ELSE BEFORE WE GO FORWARD?
>> THERE'RE TWO THINGS. I AGREE WITH WHAT JOHN SAID ABOUT THERE'S ACCESS TO TRAILS GOING THROUGH THE AREA.
CAN WE AT LEAST AGREE THOUGH THAT WHAT WE'RE SAYING IS THERE'S STILL ACCESS TO PARKS FROM THE EXISTING HOMEOWNERS THERE BUT FURTHER AWAY.
THIS PUSHES CITY PARKS FURTHER AWAY FROM AN EXISTING NEIGHBORHOOD THAT SITS NEXT TO A 97 ACRE FENCED IN PIECE OF PROPERTY.
I HOPE YOU UNDERSTAND. I HAVE TO GO BACK AND LIVE IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD AND EXPLAIN TO MY NEIGHBORS WHY I LET IT GO, WHY I DIDN'T SPEAK UP, WHY I DIDN'T SAY SOMETHING ABOUT.
>> I DON'T SEE ANYBODY I COULD ACCUSE YOU OF THAT.
>> THAT'S EXACTLY RIGHT. BUT THEY WILL ACCUSE ME OF FAILING TO CONVINCE ANYBODY ELSE THAT IT MATTERS THAT CITY PARKS WILL NOW BE FURTHER AWAY FROM THIS AREA BECAUSE OF UNIVERSAL, AND NOW IT'S ALMOST LIKE ADDING ANOTHER LAYER OF DISTANCE FOR CITY PARKS FURTHER AWAY.
BECAUSE UNDER THE OLD ZONING, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN CITY PARKS INSIDE OF WHERE UNIVERSAL IS.
UNDER THE OLD ZONING, COBB HILL WOULD HAVE BEEN ACROSS THE STREET.
>> THERE WOULDN'T HAVE BEEN UNIVERSAL.
>> BEFORE UNIVERSAL, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NEARBY CITY PARKS.
THAT WAS ONE OF THE BIG CONCERNS THAT MY NEIGHBORS BROUGHT UP WAS NOW THIS WHOLE BIG AREA OF 97 ACRES, THERE WILL BE NO CITY PARKS THERE.
NOW I FEEL LIKE WE'RE PUSHING THEM EVEN FURTHER AWAY FROM EXISTING RESIDENTIAL.
WHERE UNIVERSALS ARE, THAT POTENTIALLY COULD HAVE BEEN ALL COMMERCIAL.
>> YEAH. MIDTOWN EAST IT COULD HAVE BEEN. [OVERLAPPING].
>> YEAH. JUST WHERE UNIVERSAL IS, IT COULD HAVE BEEN ON COMMERCIAL?
>> IF THAT'S THE CASE, THERE WOULD BE NO PARK.
>> BUT THE REQUIREMENT WAS FOUR ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK SOMEWHERE IN THAT MIDTOWN EAST.
EVEN IF THAT WAS 100% MIXED USE DEVELOPMENT SOMEWHERE IN MIDTOWN EAST, THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN FOUR ACRES OF CITY PARK.
>> BUT LET SAY WHAT UNIVERSAL IS IS ALL COMMERCIAL, SO THEY COME IN AND PUT THE PARK RIGHT THERE.
UNDER THE UNDER THE ZONING TODAY'S THEY COULD PUT THE PARK THERE?
>> THEY COULD HAVE PUT THE PARK AT THE FURTHEST EXTENT OF MIDTOWN EAST, AND THERE WOULD BE NOTHING WE COULD SAY ABOUT THAT BECAUSE IT WAS STILL WITHIN THE ADJACENT DISTRICT.
>> NO. BUT IT WAS REQUIRED UNTIL WE VOTE, IT'S REQUIRED THAT THERE'S A FOUR ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK SPACE IN MIDTOWN EAST.
>> AT YELLOW DOT IS A FOUR ACRE PUBLIC PARK IN MIDTOWN EAST, AND I JUST TRAINED..
>> WHICH IS FURTHER AWAY [OVERLAPPING] THAN THIS SCREEN SPOT RIGHT HERE.
>> THAT'S THE REASON I DREW BECAUSE THIS YELLOW DOT THAT I DREW IS FURTHER AWAY THAN THIS WHICH I'VE COVERED UP NOW.
>> THIS SCREEN THAT IS REQUIRED UNDER THIS ORDINANCE.
>> WE'RE STILL GETTING IN THE HYPOTHETICALS.
THAT'S AN APPROXIMATE LOCATION FOR PUBLIC PARK.
I'LL LET IT GO HERE, BUT I HAVE ANOTHER QUESTION.
WE'VE NOT ANSWERED THE QUESTION THAT THE GENTLEMAN, THE OTHER PUBLIC SPEAKER ASKED.
JONATHAN, BY ALLOWING UTILITY SPACE TO COUNT EITHER TOWARDS OPEN SPACE OR GREEN SPACE. I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED ON THAT.
BY DOING THAT, ARE WE IN ESSENCE GOING TO END UP WITH LESS OPEN SPACE THAN IF WE COUNTED THOSE SEPARATELY.
THOSE ARE UTILITY EASEMENTS OVER THERE. THEY DON'T COUNT.
YOUR 72 ACRES CAN'T BE UTILITY EASEMENTS. CAN YOU CLARIFY THAT?
>> [OVERLAPPING] I HEARD THAT. IT DOESN'T.
YOU JUST CAN'T BUILD OVER UTILITY EASEMENT. SAME THING WITH RESIDENTIAL.
YOU CAN'T BUILD AN IMPROVEMENT BECAUSE THEN YOU'RE GOING TO BLOCK WHERE THE UTILITY LINES ARE, BUT THE UTILITY EASEMENT ITSELF COULD HAVE WALKWAYS OVER IT, YOU CAN HAVE SOCCER PARKS ON IT.
WHATEVER DOES IT BLOCK THE ACTUAL WALKING ON TOP OF UTILITY EASEMENT.
YOU'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD A PERMANENT STRUCTURE OVER IT.
>> THAT'S MY QUESTION IS, IF YOU HAVE TWO ACRES OF UTILITY EASEMENT? CAN THAT WHOLE TWO ACRES BE USED, OR IS IT ONLY LIKE THE PERPENDICULAR CROSSING, A TRAIL CAN CROSS UNDER UTILITY EASEMENT? I REALLY THINK WE ARE TRADING MAYBE A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE THAT'S NOW ALL OF A SUDDEN, GET CHECKED THE BOX.
IT'S OPEN SPACE, BUT IT'S ALL UNDER UTILITY EASEMENTS WITH MINIMAL USE.
>> I'M GOING TO SPEAK UP. I APPRECIATE YOUR SAYING, BUT I THINK IT'S VERY MINIMAL.
[01:50:09]
I THINK THEY'VE GONE ABOVE AND BEYOND.I'M EXTREMELY HAPPY WITH THIS DEVELOPMENT.
WE'RE GETTING SO MUCH INTO THE WEEDS.
>> I'M JUST LETTING KNOW MY FEELINGS OF 72 ACRES AND TWO OF IT IS ACROSS EASEMENTS AND CROSSWAYS OR WALK GOING ACROSS IT.
IF I WOULD JUST SHARE IF YOU'RE WANTING TO HOLD DIS TO I THINK PEOPLE HAVE IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A STATEMENT, I THINK MAKE A STATEMENT, AS A QUESTION.
>> MY STATEMENT IS, WE DO NOT KNOW TO THE GENTLEMAN'S QUESTION.
>> HE CAME OUT HERE TO SPEAK TONIGHT TO ASK A LEGITIMATE QUESTION, AND WE HAD AN ANSWER THAT'S NOT REAL CLEAR.
WE DO NOT KNOW HOW MUCH OF THE 72 ACRES THAT COULD HAVE BEEN TRUE WIDE OPEN OPEN SPACE SEPARATE FROM THE PLACES THAT CAN'T BE BUILT ON.
I THINK HE'S PROBABLY RIGHT THAT THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN MORE OPEN SPACE OVERALL.
WE WOULD HAVE HAD 72 ACRES OF NON-EASEMENT OPEN SPACE PLUS ALL OF THE EASEMENTS THROUGHOUT.
WE'RE GOING TO PLAY WITH HYPOTHETICALS MORE NIGHT.
PARKS WILL MAKE THE DETERMINATION IF IT'S A GOOD SITE FOR A PARK OR NOT. THEY'LL WEIGH IN.
BUT I JUST WANT TO SAY ON UNIVERSAL, THAT WAS A THOUGHTFUL DECISION.
WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE A PARK WITHIN A COMMERCIAL USE.
IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE LOCATED OUTSIDE BECAUSE IT WILL NOT BE ACCESSIBLE TO THE PUBLIC.
WITH THEIR APPROVAL OF THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR UNIVERSAL THAT REQUIRES THE PARK TO SHIFT, JUST LIKE WHAT WE HAD UP ON THE PRESERVE.
HAD A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK UP THERE.
NEIGHBORHOOD PARK IS NOT GOING TO HAPPEN IN A GATED COMMUNITY BECAUSE THE PUBLIC DOES NOT HAVE ACCESS.
THIS IS A LARGE DEVELOPMENT AND IT'S TO BE EXPECTED.
BUT AS DEVELOPMENT PLANS COME IN, THAT'S WHERE STAFF FITS IT OUT BEFORE IT APPEARS BEFORE THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION.
>> ITEM 22. DO I HAVE A MOTION FOR ITEM 22?
>> MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 22, SUBMITTED BY STAFF.
>> I'VE GOT A MOTION BY BRITTANY.
>> SECOND BY TIFFANY. ALL IN FAVOR?
RECORD SHOWS STEVE COHEN WAS NAY.
DID YOU WANT TO MAKE ADDITIONAL COMMENT?
>> YES. THE REASON I VOTED NAY WAS BECAUSE WE DO NOT KNOW FOR CERTAIN THE IMPACT OF ADDING THE EASEMENTS TO QUALIFYING.
I DO NOT AGREE THAT WE SHOULD REMOVE THE REQUIREMENT FOR FOUR ACRES OF PUBLIC PARK LAND INSIDE OF THE MIDTOWN EAST DISTRICT.
>> ITEM 23, RESULTS OF THE JUNE 3RD,
[Results of the June 3, 2025, City Council meeting.]
2025 CITY COUNCIL MEETING.>> IT WAS ONLY ONE ITEM AND THAT'S THE SUP AND THAT'S WHERE THE APPLICANT DID A SOUND STUDY.
BUT WE DID HAVE THAT SOUNDS RECOMMENDED TO COUNSEL TO INCLUDE THAT SOUND STUDY IN THE SUP ORDINANCE.
WHEN WE TAKE IT BACK, WE INCLUDE THAT.
THE REASON FOR DOING IT SHOULD SOUND BECOME AN ISSUE IN THE FUTURE.
WE'LL BE ABLE TO FALL BACK ON THAT STUDY.
IF THEY'RE EXCEEDING, THEN THAT GIVES US SOME MORE TEETH IN THE ORDINANCE.
GOING FORWARD THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING WHERE THE SOUND STUDY MAY JUST BE REQUIRED, BUT WE'RE NOT EXPERTS ON THAT.
WHAT WE'VE DONE SO FAR HAS WORKED OUT PRETTY WELL.
WE'LL SEE WHAT HAPPENS WITH THIS ONE.
>> THANK YOU. WITH THAT, ITEM 24.
[Schedule of future discussion items.]
SCHEDULE FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS. WE HAVE ANY WORKSHOPS COMING UP THAT WE NEED TO BE AWARE OF.>> WITH THAT, ONLY ONE ITEM LEFT?
>> SECOND BY BRITTANY. ALL IN FAVOR.
>> ANY OPPOSE? MOTION PASSES 5-0.
WE'RE ADJOURNED AT 8:25 PM.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.