[00:00:02] ALL RIGHT, WELCOME TO THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE FRISCO PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION WE'RE GATHERED AT SIXTY ONE ZERO ONE FRISCO SQUARE BOULEVARD AND THE TIME OF SIX THIRTY P.M.. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CONSISTS OF FRISCO RESIDENTS APPOINTED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. TONIGHT, COMMISSIONERS PRESENT ARE COMMISSIONER CONE, COMMISSIONER KENDALL. COMMISSIONER. BOX COMMISSIONER KELLY. COMMISSIONER COLBERG. COMMISSIONER MORGAN. I'M ROB COX HERE THIS EVENING, OUR OFFICERS HERE IN A FEW MINUTES. SO WE DIDN'T STATE THAT EARLIER TONIGHT. THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS CITIZEN INPUT. LET ME LET ME TAKE ROLL. I'M SORRY. I WAS READY TO ROLL TONIGHT, NO PUN INTENDED. PRESENT FROM DEVELOPMENT SERVICE ARE JOHN LETTELLEIR, ANTHONY SATARINO, JONATHAN HUBBARD, LORI CROSS FROM ENGINEERING. WE HAVE JOEL FITZ AND [INAUDIBLE] FIRE, WE HAVE ALISSA SANDERS. ANYBODY ELSE I MISSED THIS EVENING? EXCELLENT [INAUDIBLE] I GOT YOUR NAME RIGHT THIS TIME, I THINK? I'M WORKING ON IT, MAN. ALL RIGHT. SO FIRST ITEM ON OUR AGENDA IS CITIZEN INPUT. IF YOU WISH TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION REGARDING ANY ITEMS THAT ARE ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA, YOU MAY DO SO AT THIS TIME. PLEASE COMPLETE A BLUE SPEAKER CARD AND APPROACH THE PODIUM PRIOR TO YOUR COMMENTS. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD, OUR MEETINGS ARE RECORDED, SO PLEASE SPEAK DIRECTLY INTO THE MICROPHONE. PLEASE ADDRESS ALL COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION, NOT TO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE OR ANY APPLICANTS PRESENT THIS EVENING. TO ENSURE 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 HAVE A MAX OF TEN MINUTES. PLEASE NOTE THE COMMISSIONERS CANNOT DISCUSS OR TAKE SPECIFIC ACTION ITEMS DURING CITIZEN INPUT OR ON ITEMS NOT ON THE PERSON AGENDA, EXCEPT TO PROVIDE A STATEMENT OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION TO THE RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY. TO RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY OR TO INDICATE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE PLACED ON A LATER AGENDA. WE WILL HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS LATER ON SPECIFIC GUIDANCE. BUT IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK DURING PUBLIC INPUT THIS EVENING? ALL RIGHT, SEEING NONE WE'RE GOING TO MOVE ON TO THE NEXT ITEM ITEM TO CONSIDER AND ACT [APPOINTMENTS] UPON THE ELECTION OF THE CHAIRPERSON, VICE CHAIRPERSON AND SECRETARY OF THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FOR OUR CHAIRPERSON? I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ELECT ROB COX FOR CHAIRPERSON. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ARE THERE ANY OTHER MOTIONS? SECOND FOR ROB COX. I HAVE A SECOND ON FROM ED KELLEY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ROB COX WILL BE CHAIR. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU. NEXT UP IS THE VICE CHAIRPERSON. DO I HAVE ANY MOTIONS FOR VICE CHAIR? MOVE TO NOMINATE DAVID BOX. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONE. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. ARE THERE ANY OTHER NOMINATIONS? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE ANY OPPOSE? THE MOTION CARRIES 6-0. THE NEXT ELECTION IS FOR SECRETARY. DO I HAVE ANY NOMINATIONS FOR SECRETARY? I'D LIKE TO NOMINATE ED KELLY? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX FOR ED KELLY. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE ANY OPPOSE? THE MOTION CARRIES 6-0 ED KELLY WILL BE THE SECRETARY. NO NEED TO MOVE CHAIRS. SO THAT IS ROB COX AS CHAIR, DAVID BOX AS VICE CHAIR, AND ED KELLY, THE SECRETARY. CONGRATULATIONS. THANK YOU FOR SERVING US. WE ALL SERVE. ALL RIGHT. NEXT ITEM ON AGENDA NUMBER THREE. [APPROVAL OF MINUTES] ITEM THREE IS CONSIDER AND ACT UPON APPROVAL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING ON SEPTEMBER. TWENTY SECOND TWENTY TWENTY. ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THIS AGENDA ITEM OR DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES OF THE SEPTEMBER 22ND MEETING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM THREE IS APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. NEXT UP ON OUR AGENDA 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 THE CONSENT ITEMS MAY CONSIDER ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY. ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS MAY DO SO WITH THE MAJORITY APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION. WE HAVE ITEMS 4 THROUGH 11 THIS EVENING. ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEMS 4-11? MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS 4-11 ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0 ITEMS. ITEMS 4-11 ARE APPROVED. ALL RIGHT. THIS EVENING, WE HAVE QUITE A FEW PUBLIC HEARINGS. [00:05:02] I THINK WE HAVE EIGHT PUBLIC HEARINGS AND ONE LEGISLATIVE AGENDA ITEM ON OUR AGENDA. AND I WANT TO REVIEW THE PROCESS. EACH PUBLIC HEARING IS PRECEDED BY A STAFF INTRODUCTION OF THE REQUEST. THE APPLICANT IS THEN PERMITTED TEN MINUTES TO MAKE HIS OR HER PRESENTATION TO THE COMMISSION FOLLOWING QUESTIONS OF THE STAFF AND APPLICANT BY THE COMMISSION. THOSE WISHING TO SPEAK ARE WELCOME TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION. ALL SPEAKERS, INCLUDING THE APPLICANT, NEED TO COMPLETE A SPEAKER'S CARD AND PROVIDE IT TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT. IF THERE ARE ORGANIZED GROUPS IN ATTENDANCE, WE SUGGEST THAT YOU SELECT REPRESENTATIVES TO PRESENT YOUR POSITIONS. PLEASE AVOID REPEATING WHAT HAS BEEN STATED BY PREVIOUS SPEAKERS OTHER THAN STATING THAT YOU AGREE WITH THEIR COMMENTS. PLEASE NOTE YOU'RE ONLY ALLOWED ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. REPEAT APPEARANCES TO THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED. AFTER ALL, PERSONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THIS CASE WILL BE CLOSED. NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE CASE IS TABLED TO A FUTURE DATE AND THE COMMISSION, INCLUDING THE MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A FUTURE ME AFTER CLOSING A PUBLIC HEARING. MEMBERS OF THE COMMISSION MAY HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE STAFF OR APPLICANT. PLEASE NOTE THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ONLY MAKES A RECOMMENDATION REGARDING ZONING CASES. UNLESS THE COMMISSION DENIES THE CASE AND THE APPLICANT DOES NOT APPEAL THE DENIAL, FINAL ACTION REQUIRES A PUBLIC HEARING BY THE CITY COUNCIL. YOU ARE ENCOURAGED TO CONTACT THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICE STAFF AS TO WHEN THE CASE WOULD BE CONSIDERED BY THE CITY COUNCIL. SO FIRST UP IS ITEM TWELVE, ITEM TWELVE, SUBSTANTIALLY CONFORMING SITE PLAN GRIFFIN PARK. [12. Substantially Conforming Site Plan: Griffin Parc, Phase 3, Block A, Lot 12 (SCSP20-0068)] PHASE THREE BLOCK A LOT TWELVE SCESP TWENTY DASH ZERO ZERO SIX EIGHT. OWNER'S MAURICIO GIRALDO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS ITEM IS BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING AS A REQUEST FOR VARIANCE ARE ALSO DISCUSSED AS A WAIVER IN THE 1994 SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE. SO GIVE YOU A BRIEF HISTORY ON THE REASON THAT STAFF AND THE APPLICANT ARE BRINGING THIS FORWARD FOR TONIGHT. THIS IS A ALTERNATE TYPE OF SCREENING THAT IS BEING REQUESTED. THIS LOT WAS FILED ON JUNE 18TH, 2002. THAT THEN KICKS IN THE NINETEEN NINETY FOUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE WITH THE THOROUGHFARE REVISIONS THAT WERE DONE IN 2000, IS THE APPLICABLE CODE TO REVIEW THIS PROJECT AGAINST. SINCE THIS LOT DOES SIDE TO [INAUDIBLE] PARKWAY, THE REQUIREMENT FOR SCREENING IS A MASONRY SCREENING WALL. THERE ARE SEVERAL CHALLENGES TO THE SCREENING ON THE SITE. THE FIRST IS THAT THE MASONRY WALL THAT IS CURRENTLY THERE IS FAILING. ALSO, THERE IS A 12 INCH SANITARY SEWER LINE THAT IS RUNNING VERY CLOSE PARALLEL TO THIS WALL. STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO TAKE A LOOK AT WHAT COULD BE DONE. HENCE, THIS IS THE REASON FOR BRINGING THIS UP FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING. IT IS COST PROHIBITIVE, OBVIOUSLY, FROM A CITY STANDPOINT TO MOVE THE SEWER LINE. IN ADDITION, THE CITY IS ALREADY WORKING IN THIS AREA TO MOVE THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. CURRENTLY, THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAILS SITS RIGHT ALONG THE MASONRY SCREENING WALL HERE THAT HAS SETTLED OVER TIME AND IS CAUSING SOME DRAINAGE ISSUES SO THAT THE CITY IS CURRENTLY REWORKING THAT NOW. SO THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING A COMBINATION OF, LET ME PULL UP THE PICTURE HERE, A COMBINATION OF AN OPEN ORNAMENTAL METAL FENCE WITH CEDAR INSETS INSIDE. AGAIN, THIS DOES NOT MEET THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE AT THE TIME THAT THIS LOT WAS FILED. HOWEVER, THERE IS THE VARIANCE PROCEDURE, AS OUTLINED IN THE 2000 AMENDMENT TO THE SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE THAT IF APPROVED BY THE PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION, WOULD ALLOW FOR THIS TYPE OF SCREENING. SO THERE ARE THE CRITERIA THAT WERE LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT WITH THE STAFF RESPONSE TO EACH OF THOSE CRITERIA FOR A VARIANCE. JUST TO SUMMARIZE, STAFF DID FIND THAT ALL OF THE CRITERIA WERE MET THAT WOULD MAKE IT APPLICABLE FOR THE VARIANCE OR THE WAIVER, AND THAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL THIS EVENING OF THE VARIANCE. AND I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT CRITERIA OR THE CASE IN GENERAL. THANK YOU, ANTHONY. SO IS THIS ACTUALLY ON HOA LAND OR IS THIS ON AN INDIVIDUAL PERSON'S LAND? SO IT'S MAINTAINED BY THE HOA. OK, THAT'S EXCELLENT. IT DOESN'T CHANGE MY ANSWER EITHER WAY. I JUST I THINK I REALLY WANTED TO UNDERSTAND. SO THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF PROPERTY, THE FENCES, YOU KNOW, THAT SEWER LINE HAS PROBABLY HELPED CAUSE SOME OF THE EROSION THERE AND DOES NOT MAKE SENSE TO FORCE A MASONRY WALL ON [00:10:06] THAT PIECE OF LAND LIKE WE HAD BEFORE, WHICH CRUMBLED AND IT WOULD BE HARD TO MAINTAIN IN THE FUTURE WITHOUT REPLACING THAT WATER LINE. RIGHT. RIGHT, AND IT COULD IMPACT THE CITY'S ABILITY, YOU KNOW, TO QUICKLY MAKE REPAIRS OR ANYTHING TO THAT SANITARY SEWER LINE, SHOULD THE CITY NEED TO BE ABLE TO GET IN THERE. WE WOULD HAVE TO REBUILD THE MASONRY WALL IF WE HAD THAT BECAUSE. YEAH, BECAUSE THAT WAS EXISTING PREVIOUSLY. OK, QUESTIONS FOR STAFF, AND THIS IS NOT A PUBLIC HEARING, FOLKS. IS THE PROPERTY TO THE SOUTH OF THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY ALSO AFFECTED. I CAN'T TELL FROM HERE WHETHER I KNOW IS YOUR LOCATOR, MIGHT YOU JUST SHOW ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY BUT THE ONE TO THE SOUTH, IS THAT ALSO? NO, IT IS NOT, ACTUALLY, THAT SEWER LINE JOGS OVER AND SO THE JOG AND HOPEFULLY I CAN--. SO THE SEWER LINE'S NOT UNDER THE MASONRY WALL ON THE SOUTH PROPERTY? THAT IS CORRECT. OKAY GOT IT. AND SO ARE WE GOING TO MOVE THAT PATH OVER AS WE GO THROUGH THIS PROCESS AND FIXES, WE'RE GOING TO MOVE IT AWAY FROM THAT WALL? YES, THE HIKING BIKE TRAIL IS IS CURRENTLY ALREADY BEING RECONSTRUCTED IN THIS AREA AND IT'LL GO CLOSER TO [INAUDIBLE] AND BY DOING SO ALSO ALLOWS FOR THE LIVING SCREEN TO BE PLANTED AGAINST THE PROPOSED SCREENING. BUT YES, THAT WORK IS ALREADY BEING DONE. WE'LL HAVE A LIVING SCREEN AS WELL AS THE ORNAMENTAL FENCING. THAT'S CORRECT, YES. AND THE APPLICANT HAS COMMITTED TO AN EIGHT FOOT LIVING SCREEN, THE EIGHT FOOT, EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT AT THE TIME OF PLANTING VERSUS WHAT THE ORDINANCE WOULD OTHERWISE REQUIRE AT SIX-- IS THE APPLICANT PAYING FOR THAT LIVE SCREEN OR IS THE CITY PAYING FOR THAT BECAUSE OF THE [INAUDIBLE]? NO, THE APPLICANT IS PAYING--. IT'S A PART OF MOVING BIKE AND HIKE. YEAH, THE CITY'S COVERING ALL THE COSTS OF MOVING THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THAT'S UNDER A CIP PROJECT. BUT AS FAR AS ALL THE SCREENING AND REMOVAL OF MASONRY THAT'S RIGHT. THE HOA IS RESPONSIBLE IN THE AGREEMENT WITH THE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNER TO--. SO MORE THAN LIKELY HAVING A LIVING SCREEN AND THE ORNAMENTAL FENCING IS GOING TO BE LESS EXPENSIVE THAN THE MASONRY WALL THAT COULD CRUMBLE IN THE FUTURE. YEAH, I'M NOT SURE EXACTLY THAT COST--. YEAH. THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE OUR EASEMENTS PROBABLY HAVE NOT HELPED HERE. BUT DID YOU GET YOUR QUESTION ANSWERED? YEAH, I JUST HAD ONE THOUGHT. SO IS THERE ANY ISSUES WITH THE SEWER LINE ON THE PROPERTIES NORTH OF THIS SUBJECT? YES, I THINK THERE IS ANOTHER CONFLICT WHEN YOU GO UP A LITTLE BIT NORTH TO THAT HOA LOT THAT I THINK THERE'S SOME ISSUES WITH THAT SCREENING WALL AS WELL. BUT AT THIS POINT, THE HOA AND THE CITY ARE ONLY ADDRESSING THIS ONE PARTICULAR LOT. OK, THAT'S ALL I HAD. MR. BOX? QUESTIONS, ANTHONY, THANKS FOR THE EXPLANATION. WHILE IT WOULD NOT BEAR INTO THE CITY'S DECISION, ARE WE AWARE IF THE HOA HAS ANY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENTS FOR MASONRY MASONRY WALL AND HAVE THEY BEEN INVOLVED IN THIS? YES, THE HOA HAS BEEN VERY INVOLVED THROUGH THIS THROUGHOUT THE WHOLE PROCESS. I'M NOT SURE OF ANY SPECIFIC EVIDENCE THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MASONRY WALL. ACTUALLY, OUR BUILDING OUR BUILDING STANDARDS. THIS IS ONE ACTUALLY I INTRODUCED THIS HOA TO OUR CITY MANAGER TEAM BECAUSE THEY HAD TO BRING A BUNCH OF DIFFERENT PEOPLE IN FROM DIFFERENT DEPARTMENTS TO ADDRESS SOME OF THESE ISSUES. IT WAS A PRETTY COMPLEX SITUATION BECAUSE OF THE SEWER LINES, BECAUSE OF THE HIKING BIKE TRAIL, BECAUSE OF THE BUILDING STANDARDS. THERE IS MULTIPLE DEPARTMENTS THAT HAD TO BE INVOLVED IN THIS, IF I'M NOT MISTAKEN. THAT'S CORRECT. IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLEX THAN A TYPICAL WALL REPLACEMENT, UNFORTUNATELY. AND ONE MORE QUESTION. I APOLOGIZE. SO I KNOW MY VOTE, I REALLY APPRECIATE THE HOMEOWNER PUTTING IN THE LIVING SCREEN AND THE HEIGHT THAT THEY'RE PUTTING IT IN. IS THAT THEN A REQUIREMENT TO MAINTAIN THAT HEIGHT GOING FORWARD? OR HOW IS THAT MANAGED FROM A CODE PERSPECTIVE? SO THEY'LL HAVE TO MAINTAIN THE EIGHT FEET TO A MINIMUM OF EIGHT FEET IN HEIGHT? GREAT THANK YOU. AND THIS IS, IN FACT, THE HOA HAS TO MAINTAIN IT. THAT IS CORRECT. THE HOA WILL BE MAINTAINING THIS LIVING SCREEN. THANK YOU. EXCELLENT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DO I HAVE A MOTION? SO, FIRST OF ALL, I SUPPORT GETTING THIS DONE PROPERLY AND COMING TOGETHER TO SOLVE FOR THIS PROBLEM. I REALLY APPRECIATE STAFF WORKING ON THAT, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE IT'S EASY TO LOSE US IN THE WEEDS FOR ALL THE OTHER BIG PROJECTS WE HAVE, BUT DEFINITELY APPRECIATE IT'S TAKEN. [00:15:01] I KNOW IT'S TAKEN THE HOA SOME TIME TO GET TO THIS POINT, SO I DEFINITELY APPRECIATE THAT THAT WE WERE ABLE TO GET THIS DONE. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON THIS? MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 12 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 12 IS APPROVED. ITEM 13, PUBLIC HEARINGS, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. [13. Public Hearing – Specific Use Permit: Rescind Specific Use Permit-20 (SUP20-0011)] RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 20, SUP 20-0011 OWNER'S KKB SUPPLIES INC. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE SUP ON JULY 18TH, 2000. THE SUP WAS ISSUED FOR A PRIVATE CLUB TO AN ESTABLISHMENT AT THE TIME THAT WAS DRY FOR THE TYPE OF ALCOHOL PERMIT REQUESTED THROUGH TABC. AT THIS POINT, AS STAFF HAS VERIFIED THAT THE PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT IS NOT ACTIVE THROUGH TABC. AND AS YOU KNOW, WE HAVE INITIATED A PROCESS TO EVALUATE SUPS THAT ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY. THIS FALLS UNDER THAT CATEGORY AND SO STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO RESCIND THE SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. WE DID SEND COURTESY NOTICE TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AS WELL AS THE NOTICES REQUIRED BY STATE LAW. WE DID RECEIVE SEVERAL EMAILS AND PHONE CALLS REQUESTING ADDITIONAL INFORMATION ABOUT THIS PROJECT. NONE WERE IN SUPPORT OR IN OPPOSITION TO THE REQUEST. AND WITH THAT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. RECEIVE ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE OWNER? NO SPECIFIC FEEDBACK FROM THE OWNER, SO WE WERE NOT ABLE TO GET HOLD OF THEM. NO WE SENT A CERTIFIED MAILER THEN AS WELL AS THEY RECEIVED A NOTICE. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE THE APPLICANT HERE, RIGHT? THAT IS CORRECT. THE CITY INITIATED--. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? MOVE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIED 6-0 PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? MOVED TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING'S NOW CLOSED. ALL RIGHT. ANY COMMENTS ON THIS ONE? YOU KNOW, MY ONLY COMMENT I ALWAYS HATE IN OUR FIRST ROUND WHEN WE DON'T ACTUALLY ARE ABLE TO TALK TO THE OWNER OR GET A RESPONSE FROM AN OWNER. BUT IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, I THINK THIS WOULD NOT IMPACT AN OWNER BECAUSE PRIVATE CLUBS ARE NO LONGER REQUIRED. RIGHT. THEY'RE CURRENTLY NOT OPERATING UNDER A PRIVATE CLUB STATUS-- SPECIFIC USE PERMITS ARE DESIGNED TO BE RESCINDED, IF NOT USED BY THE ORIGINAL INTENT. ONE THING I DO WANT TO MENTION, IN ADDITION TO SENDING THE CERTIFIED LETTER, WE'RE ALSO GETTING A NOTICE. AND THEY ALSO HAD A LARGE SIGN PLACED ON THEIR FRONT YARD. [LAUGHTER] I UNDERSTAND THAT. BUT SOMETIMES PEOPLE OWN PROPERTIES THAT ARE RENTED AND THE LEASERS NEVER KNOW ABOUT IT. BUT DO I HAVE MOTION ON ITEM 13? ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS? LET'S GO TO COMMENTS. ANYBODY HAVE A COMMENT? SORRY ABOUT THAT. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER KELLY. MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM THIRTEEN AS PRESENTED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE WE'RE APPROVING THE REQUEST TO RESCIND IT. SO I HAVE A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY AND A SECOND BACK TO MR. KENDALL. ALL THOSE IN--. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM THIRTEEN IS APPROVED TO RESCIND. SOMETIMES THAT LANGUAGE CAN GET FUNNY, RIGHT? 14 PUBLIC HEARINGS. SPECIFIC USE PERMIT RESCIND. [14. Public Hearing – Specific Use Permit: Rescind Specific Use Permit-47 (SUP20-0012)] SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 47 SUP20-0012 OWNER'S [INAUDIBLE] PROPERTIES, LLC. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE SUP ON THIS PROPERTY ON AUGUST 3RD, 1998. THE SUP WAS ISSUED FOR A PRIVATE CLUB TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY WAS DRY FOR THE TYPE OF ALCOHOL PERMIT REQUESTED THROUGH TABC. STAFF HAS VERIFIED THAT THERE IS NO ACTIVE PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT THROUGH TABC. THE CITY IS IN THE PROCESS OF RESCINDING SUPS THAT ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY. THE RECOMMENDATION FOR YOU TONIGHT IS TO RESCIND S47 ON THIS CASE. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. ALL RIGHT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. I GUESS MY LEFT EAR IS FASTER THAN MY RIGHT EAR. [00:20:04] PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ALL RIGHT. TEAM QUESTIONS ON ITEM 14? I MEAN, ANTHONY, JUST LIKE BEFORE THERE WAS A CERTIFIED LETTER MAILED, THERE WAS A NOTICE MAILED AS WELL AS JOHN LETTELLEIR SAID A SIGN PUT UP. THAT'S RIGHT. SO PLENTY OF NOTICE. PLENTY OF NOTICE. AND NOT AT THIS SIGN, BUT THIS SIGN. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION THEN? MOTION TO APPROVE REQUEST TO RESCIND THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT ON ITEM 14. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0 ITEM 14 IS APPROVED. ITEM 15, PUBLIC HEARING SPECIFIC USE PERMIT RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 62 SUP20-0013 [15. Public Hearing – Specific Use Permit: Rescind Specific Use Permit-62 (SUP20-0013)] OWNER'S [INAUDIBLE] LTE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE SUP ON JANUARY 4TH, 2000. THE SUP WAS ISSUED FOR A PRIVATE CLUB TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY WAS DRY FOR THE TYPE OF ALCOHOL PERMIT REQUESTED THROUGH TABC STAFF HAS VERIFIED THAT THERE IS NO ACTIVE PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT THROUGH TABC. STAFF, AS YOU KNOW, IS INITIATING A PROCESS TO REPEAL RESCIND SUP PERMITS THAT ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT 62 THIS EVENING. AND ONCE AGAIN, ON THIS ITEM, WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY INPUT FROM THE OWNER? THAT IS CORRECT. WE DID GET PHONE CALLS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS WITHIN THE AREA ASKING QUESTIONS AND REQUESTING SOME ADDITIONAL INFORMATION, BUT NOT THE PROPERTY OWNER SPECIFIC, NO. YOU COULDN'T GET A HOLD OF [INAUDIBLE]. NO, SIR--. ALL RIGHT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. MOVE TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ANY COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM OR DO I HAVE A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE THE SUP RESCISSION, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ON ITEM 15. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 15 IS APPROVED. ITEM 16, PUBLIC HEARING, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT RESCIND ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-03-01 SUP [16. Public Hearing – Specific Use Permit: Rescind Ordinance No. 92-03-01 (SUP20-0014)] 20-0014 OWNER'S PRESTON ROAD COMPADRES LIMITED. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR, CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED THE SUP ON MARCH 3RD, 1992. THE SUP WAS ISSUED FOR A PRIVATE CLUB TO THE ESTABLISHMENT AT A TIME WHEN THE CITY WAS DRY FOR THE TYPE OF ALCOHOL PERMIT BEING REQUESTED THROUGH TABC. STAFF HAS VERIFIED THAT THERE IS NO ACTIVE PRIVATE CLUB PERMIT ISSUED THROUGH TABC CURRENTLY. THE CITY IS REVIEWING SUPS THAT ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY WITH THE RECOMMENDATION TO RESCIND. THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION THIS EVENING IS TO RESCIND ORDINANCE NUMBER 92 03 01. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS. THIS ITEM, WE'VE ONCE AGAIN, WE DID NOT HEAR BACK FROM THESE FOLKS. THAT IS CORRECT. AGAIN, SIMILAR TO THE OTHER ITEMS, WE DIDN'T RECEIVE QUESTIONS AND REQUESTS FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FROM SURROUNDING PROPERTY OWNERS. AND THERE WAS A SIGN PUT ON THEIR PROPERTY? YES, THERE WAS AN. ALL RIGHT. SO IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THAT HACIENDA NEEDS, IF I COULD JUST LOOK IN THE PACKET HERE. I'M LOOKING AT THIS SUP20-0014. IT GOES INTO THERE'S NO DETAIL ON ITEMS I'M LOOKING FOR-- IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S A LITTLE BIT OF ISSUE HERE. EVERYTHING IS CLEAR. I GUESS THE LOCATOR WAS THE LAST THING, ITEM 15 AND YOU HAVE THIS ITEM. JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE EVERYTHING WAS GOOD ON THE PACKET. OK, SORRY ABOUT THAT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM 16? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 16 IS IN PUBLIC HEARING. [00:25:03] IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME. THIS IS HOME OF THE MARGARITA MACHINE, IT'S NOW IN THE SMITHSONIAN, SO, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER CONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ANYBODY HAVE QUESTIONS, COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM OR A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE THE RESCISSION OF ORDINANCE 92-03-01, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF ITEM 16. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. SECOND SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. JOHN, I ALMOST GOT LOST THERE, MAN. MAKING SURE I WAS PAYING ATTENTION, RIGHT? ITEM 16 IS APPROVED. ITEM 17 PUBLIC HEARING ZONING 380 OFFICE PARK Z TWENTY TWO ZERO ZERO ZERO SIX OWNERS 380 [17. Public Hearing - Zoning: 380 Office Park (Z20-0006)] MEDICAL PARK OFFICE OFFICE PARK LLC AND SKLG HOLDINGS LLC. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY SHOWN HERE OR NOT FROM AGRICULTURAL TO OFFICE--THERE IT IS--THE PROPERTY SHOWN HERE, FROM AGRICULTURAL TO OFFICE 2. THIS ZONING REQUEST, IS COMPATIBLE WITH THE RETAIL THAT IS PERMITTED TO THE TO THE WEST AND THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN DESIGNATION OF BUSINESS PARK TO THE EAST. STAFF HAS REVIEWED THIS REQUEST FOR ITS PROXIMITY TO THE SINGLE FAMILY SUBDIVISION TO THE SOUTH AND THE LIMITED PROPERTY DEPTH, WHICH IS ABOUT SIX HUNDRED AND NINETY FIVE FEET, ESPECIALLY WHEN CONSIDERING THE FUTURE EXPANSION OF US380. IT IS IMPORTANT TO NOTE THAT ALTHOUGH THE OFFICE TO DISTRICT DOES HAVE UNLIMITED HEIGHT, THERE ARE HEIGHT RESTRICTIONS THAT APPLY WHEN A BUILDING IS OVER TWO STORIES WHEN ABUTTING SINGLE FAMILY. THAT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT WAS PROVIDED WITHIN YOUR STAFF REPORT FOR YOUR REVIEW. THE APPLICANT DID REACH OUT TO THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF THE HOLLYHOCK SUBDIVISION, AS THEY DO STILL RETAIN THE SINGLE FAMILY LOTS THAT ARE ALONG THE SOUTHERN BORDER OF THIS REQUEST, AS WELL AS THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS AND AT THIS TIME HAS NOT HEARD BACK FROM ANY OF THEM. STAFF HAS, HOWEVER, BEEN IN CONTACT WITH ONE HOLLYHOCK RESIDENT WHO DID HAVE SOME GENERAL QUESTIONS ABOUT THE OFFICE 2 DISTRICT. HOWEVER, THAT RESIDENT DID NOT INDICATE IF THEY WERE FOR OR AGAINST THIS REQUEST. THIS REQUEST IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. TONIGHT, YOU DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL AS OFFICE TO. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME FROM COMMISSIONERS? IS THE APPLICANT HERE WHERE THEY CARE TO SPEAK? OK, CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING? MOVE TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR? AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. PUBLIC IS NOW CLOSED. SO INTERESTING REQUEST HERE NEXT TO THE SINGLE FAMILY, I DON'T THINK THIS THESE SINGLE FAMILY HAD BEEN DEVELOPED YET, CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. SO ANYBODY WHO BOUGHT IN THIS AREA WOULD UNDERSTAND WHAT WAS GOING ON BEHIND IT. THAT IS CORRECT. SO TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION, SO, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF THE SINGLE FAMILY THAT HAS DEVELOPED ALL OF THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT, RETAIL, THAT'S DIRECTLY BEHIND THAT. AND THEN THE PROPERTY THAT'S IN QUESTION TONIGHT, NONE OF THIS SINGLE FAMILY HAS DEVELOPED, BUT ALL OF THIS PROPERTY RIGHT HERE IS DESIGNATED AS BUSINESS PARK ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. FROM A COMP PLAN PERSPECTIVE, WHAT IS THIS? HOW'S THIS LABELED? BUSINESS PARK. BUSINESS PARK. OK. WHICH IS ONE HUNDRED PERCENT NONRESIDENTIAL USES, SO THE [INAUDIBLE] DOES COMPLY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FOR THE COMP PLAN. IN TERMS OF OFFICE, YOU KNOW, RIGHT UP AGAINST THE RESIDENCE. THEY HAVE A LIMIT. YOU KNOW WHAT, WITHIN 40 FEET YOU CAN ONLY GO CERTAIN HEIGHTS. YES, SO IN THE OFFICE TO DISTRICT, IT ALLOWS UNLIMITED HEIGHT. HOWEVER, WHERE BUILDINGS OR STRUCTURES ARE ALTERED TO EXCEED TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT, THOSE BUILDINGS SHOULD NOT BE LOCATED ANY CLOSER TO SINGLE FAMILY THAN A DISTANCE EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE REQUIRED REAR YARD SPECIFIED, PLUS TWICE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING ABOVE TWO STORIES. SO, FOR EXAMPLE, IN THIS CASE, LET'S SAY YOU HAD A 50 STORY BUILDING, SO THAT [00:30:02] LAST 10 FEET WOULD BE OVER THE TWO STORIES, 40 FEET. AND THEN THERE REAR YARD'S 30 FEET. SO TWO TIMES THE REAR YARD, 60 FEET OR SORRY, THIS IS EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE REQUIRED REAR YARD, 30 FEET AND THEN TWICE WHAT'S OVER SO 50 FEET FROM THAT PROPERTY LINE FOR A 50 FOOT BUILDING, IF THAT MAKES SENSE. FOR A 50 FOOT BUILDING? YES. OK, SO FOR A HUNDRED FOOT BUILDING IT'D BE 100 FEET? FOR A 100 FOOT BUILDING, IT WOULD BE 30. YEAH, 150 FEET. OK, SO INCREASES. AS IT GETS LARGER, INCREASES HOW FAR YOU HAVE TO BE AWAY FROM THE PROPERTY? THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN, WE ARE ON 380 CORRIDOR, RIGHT? AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT ELEVEN HUNDRED FEET, WHICH IS A QUARTER MILE. IS IT HOW DEEP IT IS? SIX HUNDRED NINETY FIVE FEET. SO IT'S AN EIGHTH OF A MILE DEEP. OK, SO THAT'S REALLY HIGHWAY ZONING. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE TO PROTECT THAT CORRIDOR FOR OFFICE JOBS SO FORTH. YEAH. WE CERTAINLY WOULDN'T WANT SINGLE FAMILY ANY CLOSER THAN THAT. WE CERTAINLY DON'T NEED ANY MORE APARTMENTS RIGHT THERE IN TERMS OF MULTIFAMILY. SO I'M GLAD THIS IS NOT THAT SO, I DON'T HAVE ANY MORE QUESTIONS FOR MYSELF. I HAVE THE FOLLOWING QUESTION. ARE YOU ABLE TO KIND OF CLARIFY A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT YOU SAID ABOUT THE HEIGHT A MINUTE AGO? SURE, SO THE ORDINANCE WHEN YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE O2 DISTRICT, IT HAS UNLIMITED HEIGHT. HOWEVER, IT WANTS TO PROTECT SINGLE FAMILY TWO FAMILY PATIO HOME RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS. SO IN THOSE INSTANCES, IF YOU HAVE A BUILDING THAT'S OVER TWO STORIES IN HEIGHT, YOU ESSENTIALLY HAVE TO HAVE ADDITIONAL SETBACKS FOR THOSE TALLER BUILDINGS. THAT SPECIFIC REQUIREMENT BEING EQUAL TO THE SUM OF THE REQUIRED REAR YARD, PLUS TWICE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING, ABOVE TWO STORIES MEASURED FROM THE GROUND LEVEL. SO AS AN EXAMPLE, YOU HAVE 40 FEET. THAT'S TWO STORIES. IF YOU HAVE A 50 FOOT BUILDING, YOU WOULD TAKE THAT EXTRA 10 FEET, DOUBLE IT AND THEN ADD THE REAR YARD TO IT TO GET 50 FEET AS AN EXAMPLE. SO A 200 FOOT BUILDING WOULD BE TWO HUNDRED AND THIRTY FEET OR 250? A 200 FOOT BUILDING WOULD BE 160 TIMES 2, 320, 360 RIGHT. YEAH. SO, SORRY, THE SETBACK IS 30. YEAH. YEAH. SO. SO IN REALITY TWO HUNDRED FOOT BUILDING WOULD BE AT LEAST THREE HUNDRED AND SIXTY FEET AWAY, WHICH WOULD GIVE IT THREE HUNDRED FEET TO THE HIGHWAY WHICH YOU HAVE YOUR RIGHT OF WAYS AND ALL THE OTHER STUFF THAT YOU HAVE TO DEAL WITH UP THERE. SO I'M JUST TRYING TO GET TO REALITY. SURE. YOU KNOW, IT'D BE VERY DIFFICULT TO PUT A 200 FOOT BUILDING HERE. SURE IT WOULD. YEAH. I MEAN, AND YOU TAKE INTO ACCOUNT PARKING AND EVERYTHING ELSE. YEAH. AND PLUS YOU JUST WOULDN'T THROW A 12 STORY BUILDING RIGHT HERE ON THIS PIECE OF PROPERTY BY ITSELF. MORE THAN LIKELY. CAN YOU NARROW THAT DOWN A LITTLE BIT? WE SAID TWO HUNDRED FOOT BUILDING WOULD BE HARD TO DO. CAN WE CLARIFY THAT A LITTLE BIT MORE IN KIND OF A BALLPARK OF WHERE WE THINK THE HEIGHT LIMIT WOULD BE? OR IS THAT HARD TO DO? I MEAN, WITHOUT HAVING A PLAN, I WOULD SAY IT WOULD BE HARD TO KIND OF BALLPARK IT FOR YOU BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, KEEPING IN MIND, AS I MENTIONED EARLIER, YOU HAVE TO TAKE IN THAT 380 WIDENING INTO ACCOUNT. SO THAT'S GOING TO TAKE A PORTION OF THE PROPERTY THERE, YOU KNOW, FIRE LANES. AND THEN WHATEVER YOU DO, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TO PARK IT. YOU HAVE THE 10 PERCENT OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. YOU KNOW, THERE IS THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IN THE SCREENING WALL AND ALL THAT, YOU KNOW, ADJACENT THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY GOING FROM NON-RES TO RES. YOU'VE GOT TO TAKE THAT SCREENING INTO CONSIDERATION. SO I DON'T HAVE A BALLPARK FOR YOU. HOW TALL IS DR. PEPPER BUILDING? IT'S 11 STORIES, ISN'T IT? 15 STORY, I DON'T KNOW HOW TALL THAT IS. THIS IS A GOOD GAUGE, RIGHT? THAT'S HOW WIDE IS THAT, YOU KNOW, BUILDING, SO I'M NOT I PERSONALLY AM NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT. I THINK THE FACT THAT OWNERS, LANDOWNERS WOULD KNOW THIS BEFORE THEY MOVED IN IS ALWAYS A GOOD THING. BUT THIS IS WHAT I MEAN, WE, YOU KNOW, HIGHWAY ZONING, RIGHT? YOU THIS IS WHERE WE NEED OFFICE SPACE AND JOBS ON THE NORTH SIDE. [00:35:04] SO WE DON'T HAVE TO HAVE PEOPLE DRIVING THROUGH OUR CITY. I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHTS MYSELF. BUT ANY OTHER COMMENTS HERE? I WANT TO FOLLOW ON. OBVIOUSLY, I AM CONCERNED ABOUT THE HEIGHT. YOU KNOW, IT'S COMING OUT A LITTLE BIT TALLER THAN I THINKING, BUT WHAT YOU JUST SAID, JONATHAN, WAS GOOD. IT'S NOT JUST THE SETBACK REQUIREMENT AND THE HEIGHT THAT LIMITS. THERE'S OTHER FACTORS, TOO, THAT WOULD PHYSICALLY LIMIT THE HEIGHT OF A BUILDING. CAN YOU GO THROUGH THAT LIST JUST ONE MORE TIME, JUST SO EVERYONE ELSE KNOWS? BECAUSE ALL THOSE THINGS ARE THINGS THAT PROTECT THE HOMEOWNERS NEXT DOOR. SURE. I MEAN, ONE OF THE MOST COMMON THINGS THAT YOU THINK ABOUT IS, OF COURSE, THE PARKING. THEY, OF COURSE, COULD GO UNDERGROUND OR DO STRUCTURED PARKING, BUT THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU GET INTO THE COST OF THAT. SO YOU DO HAVE TO THINK ABOUT THAT. BUT THE TALLER YOU GO, THE MORE SQUARE FOOTAGE YOU GO, SO YOU'VE GOT TO PARK IT. YOU KNOW, THERE IS THE WIDENING OF 380. SO THAT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME OF THE POTENTIAL LAND. SO WHAT ACTUALLY IS DEVELOPABLE LAND, 10 PERCENT OF THE NET LOT AREA TO BE SET ASIDE AS USABLE OPEN SPACE. YOU DO HAVE A LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND EVERYTHING THAT HAS TO GO ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROPERTY LINE HAS TO BE ACCOUNTED FOR, GOING FROM NON-RES TO RES, THE FIRE LINES WE MENTIONED. SO THERE ARE ALL THOSE DEVELOPMENT REQUIREMENTS THAT THE APPLICANT IS GOING TO HAVE TO MEET AND PROVE TO STAFF THAT THEY'RE MEETING WHEN THEY COME IN FOR PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. AND ALL OF THOSE THINGS TOGETHER AT THE END OF THE DAY ARE GOING TO LIMIT WHAT CAN ESSENTIALLY BE BUILT ON THE PROPERTY. OK, THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT--. WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE BUILDING HIM, MYSELF, BUT I'LL LET YOU FINISH YOUR STATEMENT. NO, I AGREE WITH YOU. I WANT TO KIND OF GET THAT ON THE RECORD AND MAKE SURE WE'RE ALL CLEAR THAT BECAUSE ANYTIME WE GO FROM AGRICULTURAL TO A STRAIGHT ZONING THERE'S ALWAYS A REASON FOR US TO PAUSE AND JUST THINK ABOUT ALL THE WHAT IFS. AND I FEEL LIKE YOU GUYS HAVE KIND OF EXPLAINED THAT WHAT COULD HAPPEN HERE IS NOT MAYBE AS HIGH AS WE WERE THINKING OR SOME OF US WERE THINKING. SO I FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE WITH IT, KNOWING ABOUT THOSE RESTRICTIONS, JUST GETTING THAT OUT ON THE RECORD. SURE. AND AS COMMISSIONER BOX JUST POINTED OUT, THERE WOULD BE A FRONT YARD AND A SIDE YARD SETBACK AS WELL. OF COURSE, YOU HAVE PARKING AND THINGS IN THOSE AREAS, BUT AS FAR AS LIMITING BUILDING SQUARE FOOTAGE. WE'RE JUST SAYING THAT THE SIZE OF THIS PROPERTY AND ITS PROXIMITY TO THE HIGHWAY LIMITS, WHAT COULD BE DONE THERE, EVEN THOUGH THE ZONING IS ALLOWING UNLIMITED HEIGHT, THERE'S NOT A PHYSICAL WAY TO GO. IT'S NOT UNLIMITED HEIGHT. RIGHT. BECAUSE OF THE CONSTRAINTS THAT ARE BUILT INTO THE PROPERTY, INTO THE ZONING LAW, WE JUST DON'T PUT A CAP ON IT THE. SO WE DON'T HAVE TO PUT IT INTO A SPECIFIC PD OR SOMETHING WHICH CAPS IT. THERE'S A LOGICAL CAP IN THERE. THERE'S RESTRAINTS THAT ARE IN THERE. WHICH IS WHY I'M NOT CONCERNED ABOUT IT. AND ALSO, ALISSA JUST LOOKED UP THE DR. PEPPER KEURIG BUILDING IS ONE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY SEVEN FEET TO THE TOP. THANK YOU. OK, ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? MOTION TO OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. WE ALREADY DID THAT. YEAH. I'M SORRY. WE'RE TAKING MOTIONS TO APPROVE OR DENY. ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 17 IS APPROVED. SOMETIMES I GET LOST WHEN WE'RE GOING THROUGH A LOT OF THESE AND I'M LIKE, DID WE OPEN THAT PUBLIC HEARING OR NOT? ITEM 18 PUBLIC HEARING ZONING PARK 25 Z20-0007 OWNER'S 195 [18. Public Hearing - Zoning: Park 25 (Z20-0007)] [INAUDIBLE] FRISCO LLC SD 701709 FRISCO LLC IN TEXAS ONE THREE LAND FRISCO LLC. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING TO RAISE ON THE PROPERTY SHOWN HERE FROM COMMERCIAL ONE AND HIGHWAY TO INDUSTRIAL. THE PROPOSED ZONING DOES ALIGN WITH THE INDUSTRIAL ZONING THAT IS ON THE REMAINDER OF THE STAR BUSINESS PARK AND DEVELOPMENT. CONSISTENT WITH WHAT HAS BEEN DEVELOPED IN THE INDUSTRIAL PARK, THE APPLICANT DOES INTEND TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER USES ON THE PROPERTY. THAT USE BEING PROHIBITED UNDER THE CURRENT COMMERCIAL ONE AND HIGHWAY ZONING. SO WHILE THIS IS A PERMITTED USE IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT, IT IS PROHIBITED BY THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT. THE PROPERTY SHOWN HERE IN YELLOW DOES FALL WITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD LIGHT DISTRICT. THEREFORE, STAFF IS PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT THAT WOULD ALLOW THAT USE BETWEEN PARVIN BRANCH AND PGA PARKWAY. THAT BEING THE NEXT ITEM ON TONIGHT'S AGENDA FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. STAFF DID SEND A COURTESY EMAIL TO A BRETTON WOODS HOA ON OCTOBER 2ND, MAKING THEM AWARE OF THIS REQUEST THAT BEING THE WAY DIRECTLY ACROSS PRESTON ROAD HERE. AT THIS TIME, STAFF HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY FEEDBACK FROM THE RESIDENTS, NOTING SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION OF THE REQUEST. [00:40:02] THIS REQUEST DOES COMPLY WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN OF INDUSTRIAL PARK FOR THE PROPERTY. YOU DO HAVE A RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT AS INDUSTRIAL. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. ALL RIGHT, ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME? WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? OK, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0; THE PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. SO ANYONE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. ALL RIGHT. COMMENTS, QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. I HAVE A QUESTION AND IT MAY APPLY TO THE NEXT ITEM BECAUSE THEY'RE LINKED. SURE. IF MOVED TO INDUSTRIAL, IS THERE A OPPORTUNITY FOR THE DEVELOPER TO PUT IN LOADING BAYS FACING PRESTON OR HOW DOES THAT WORK FROM A DELIVERY PERSPECTIVE? SURE. SO AS IT RELATES TO THIS SPECIFIC REQUEST BEING THE INDUSTRIAL JUST REZONING THE PROPERTY [INAUDIBLE] I JUST HAVE TO FOLLOW THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND BE SCREENED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WOULD THE ZONING ORDINANCE AS INDUSTRIAL ALLOW LOADING BAYS FACING PRESTON? DO YOU RECALL? I DON'T RECALL. OK. IT DOES NOT REQUIRE THEM TO BE PERPENDICULAR WHEN YOU'RE IN THE [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICT AND THEN THERE'S ANOTHER SECTION IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE I'M NOT SURE IT'S APPLICABLE, BUT ANYTIME YOU HAVE THE BACK SIDE OF THE BUILDING, THAT BEING YOUR SERVICE AREA, THEN THAT REQUIRES A 50 FOOT LANDSCAPE EDGE. AND AN EXAMPLE OF THAT IS ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF WARREN PARKWAY, JUST WEST OF PRESTON ROAD, WHERE YOU GOT THE CENTER OF PRESTON RIDGE AND YOU HAVE THOSE RETAIL STORES, THEY BACK UP TO WARREN PARKWAY. THANK YOU. SO THERE IS PROTECTION WITHIN THE ZONING ORDINANCE FROM THE SETBACK, SCREENING, ETC.. THANK YOU. FROM A LAYOUT. I MEAN, YOU WOULDN'T WANT YOUR PUBLIC PARKING WITH 18 WHEELERS. YOU'D HAVE TO WIDEN AND YOU WOULDN'T WANT TO DO THAT ON BOTH SIDES OF THE BUILDING. WITH OUR INDUSTRIAL PARK HERE, THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE A CORRECT USE OF THIS PROPERTY. IT'S BEEN PRETTY SUCCESSFUL AND TO HAVE IT ISOLATED ALL AROUND US, YOU KNOW, MOST OF OUR BIGGEST INDUSTRIAL PARK ISOLATE HERE IS A PRETTY GOOD THING, IN MY OPINION. GO AHEAD, COMMISSIONER BOX. I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY PICTURE DOES NOT GO ALL THE WAY TO PGA PARKWAY? THAT'S CORRECT. THE REQUEST IS TO CHANGE, REMOVE THE OVERLAY DOWN TO PGA PARKWAY. WHAT'S THE PURPOSE OF THAT? OK, SO THE REQUEST THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT RIGHT NOW, IS 820-007 IS JUST TO RAISE THE PROPERTY WITHIN OUR BUSINESS PARK. THAT BEING THE PROPERTY SHOWN HERE. THE NEXT ITEM FOR TONIGHT DOES LOOK AT AMENDING THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM PARVIN BRANCH ALL THE WAY TO PGA PARKWAY, REALLY FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF HAVING CLEAN BOUNDARIES. WE CAN, OF COURSE, DISCUSS THAT AT THE NEXT ITEM, ALTERNATIVES TO THAT. BUT IT'S THE INTENT THAT THAT IS JUST A CLEAN CUT. THANK YOU FOR THAT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO YOU'RE GOING TO WE CAN TALK ABOUT THAT LATER. I THINK THE ZONING ON THIS PARTICULAR PIECE OF LAND MAKES SENSE BASED OFF WHAT ALL IS GOING IN THIS AREA. AND I THINK IT IS DONE AESTHETICALLY WELL ENOUGH TO BE ON PRESTON ROAD. AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT A SIX LANE ALMOST SUPERHIGHWAY UP HERE. RIGHT. SO PRETTY. AND TO THAT POINT, IT DOES GO INTO THE NEXT ITEM A LITTLE BIT. BUT IN THE DISCUSSION OF AMENDING THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW THE USE, IN THE NEXT ITEM WILL ONLY BE TALKING ABOUT THEY USE ALL OTHER PRESTON ROAD OVER LAKE DISTRICT STANDARDS, LANDSCAPING, THE CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STONE ON THE BUILDING. ALL OF THOSE THINGS WILL STILL APPLY. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM-- I HAVE A COMMENT CHAIRMAN COX. THANK YOU. I AGREE WITH WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, THAT, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT'S HAPPENING TO THE WEST OF THIS, WITH THE BUSINESS PARK, THAT THIS MATCHES--NOT WITH BUSINESS PARK WITH THE INDUSTRIAL OR REALLY INDUSTRIAL BUSINESS PARK, KIND OF HIGH SCALE, INDUSTRIAL CLEARLY MATCHES WITH THAT. OBVIOUSLY, THE CONCERN THERE WOULD BE, YOU KNOW, BEING ON PRESTON ROAD AND THE THE SINGLE FAMILY THAT ARE ACROSS THE STREET FROM PRESTON ROAD. [00:45:02] JONATHAN, CAN YOU JUST TELL US REAL QUICK ON THE APPEARANCE FOR THE BUILDINGS? WE'VE TAKEN CARE OF THERE WON'T BE BAYS HORIZONTAL. THERE WON'T BE A LONG BUILDING WITH BAYS HORIZONTAL TO PRESTON. WE'VE CLARIFIED THAT. WHAT ABOUT THE APPEARANCE OF THE BUILDING FROM THE PRESTON PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY ZONING DISTRICT? SURE. SO IN GENERAL, THE BUILDINGS WILL BE REQUIRED TO MEET THE CITY'S NONRESIDENTIAL DESIGN STANDARDS. THE MASONRY STANDARDS. ONE HUNDRED PERCENT MASONRY. HOWEVER, WITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT, DEPENDING ON WHICH SUB DISTRICTS YOU ARE, YOU ARE REQUIRED TO HAVE A CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF STONE ON THE BUILDING AND THEY WILL BE REQUIRED TO DO THAT AND UNDERSTAND THAT AND HAVE RECOGNIZED AND HAVE EVERY INTENT TO DO THAT ON THE DESIGN OF THESE BUILDINGS. I CAN JUST CLARIFY, THIS IS ACTUALLY THE ANSWER YOU GAVE A COUPLE OF MINUTES AGO. WE'VE ALREADY COVERED THAT. YES, I WAS JUST CLARIFYING BECAUSE I WASN'T CLEAR ONCE. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE YOU DIDN'T ASK A DIFFERENT QUESTION. NO, I WAS JUST REPEATING THAT, JUST TO MAKE SURE SINCE IT IS RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY THERE, THAT JUST SO WE'RE ALL CLEAR THAT WHEN WE STARTED SAYING INDUSTRIAL ZONING, IT'S EASY TO PICTURE, UGLY INDUSTRIAL. BUT THIS IS STILL AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU ASKED THE SAME QUESTION THAT COMMISSIONER BOX ASKED. I WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT IT WASN'T A DIFFERENT QUESTION AND I WAS MISSING SOMETHING. YEAH, I WAS JUST BUILDING ONTO THAT. OK, PERFECT. AND THEN JUST REPEAT THEN THE SETBACKS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT OFF OF PRESTON ROAD. THE SETBACKS WILL FOLLOW THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT AS FAR AS THE [INAUDIBLE] DISTRICT THAT WE HAD ON THE PREVIOUS CASE, THOSE DO NOT APPLY. THERE'S A 50 FOOT LANDSCAPE SETBACK AS WELL? RIGHT THAT'S WHAT MR. LETTELLEIR STATED EARLIER? OH, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE SETBACK. YES. OH, SORRY. YES. THE LANDSCAPE SETBACK ALONG PRESTON ROAD AS DEFINED BY THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT. YES. ALL OF THAT WILL STILL APPLY TO THIS. OK, VERY GOOD. ARE THERE GOING TO BE ANY TRAFFIC CONSIDERATIONS AROUND PGA PARKWAY AND PRESTON ROAD WITH THE ADDITIONAL LARGE TRAFFIC GOING IN AND OUT? 18 WHEELERS AND SUCH. YOU ASKED ABOUT THE INTERSECTION OF PRESTON AND PGA, IS THAT WHAT YOU ASKED? THAT OR ANY ENTRANCES OR EXITS ALONG PRESTON ROAD ALONG THIS INDUSTRIAL ZONING ALREADY WITH WHAT HAS BEEN BUILT AND PLANNED ALREADY, WE'RE ALREADY LOOKING AT, FOR INSTANCE, THE INTERSECTION OF PRESTON AND CORPORATE DRIVE AS A POSSIBLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL. SO WE YOU KNOW, WITH ANY TRAFFIC SIGNAL, WE HAVE TO DO THE STUDIES AND ACTUALLY SHOW THAT THE TRAFFIC IS THERE AND MEET CERTAIN FEDERAL WARRANTS BEFORE WE WOULD WANT TO INSTALL A SIGNAL OR EVEN TEXT THAT WILL ALLOW US TO INSTALL SIGNAL ON PRESTON ROAD. BUT WE ARE KEEPING AN EYE ON THAT. AND ESPECIALLY WITH THE AMAZON DISTRIBUTION CENTER AND EVERYTHING, WE ARE GOING TO KEEP OUR EYE ON THAT TO SEE IF THAT INTERSECTION SPECIFICALLY WILL EVENTUALLY WARRANT A SIGNAL. QUESTION COMMISSIONER MORGAN? CAN I JUST SAY ONE FINAL THING JUST ON THE--ANYONE THAT HAS NOT BEEN UP TO THIS SITE. IT IS PRETTY. IT'S A GORGEOUS SITE. AND SO IF YOU WANT TO SEE A REALLY NICE LOOKING INDUSTRIAL AREA, THE NEW TRAIL THAT'S GOING ON UP THERE BY THE CREEK AND STUFF, THEY'VE DONE A REALLY NICE JOB UP THERE. SO IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN IT, GO UP AND CHECK IT OUT. ABSOLUTELY. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 18 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 18 IS APPROVED. ITEM 19, PUBLIC HEARINGS, ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT AMENDMENT TO ZONING ORDINANCE ZA [19. Public Hearing - Zoning Ordinance Amendment: Amendment to Zoning Ordinance (ZA20-0006)] TWENTY DASH ZERO ZERO ZERO SIX OWNER'S CITY OF FRISCO. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION DID CALL A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM AT THEIR AUGUST 25TH, 2020 MEETING. PER THE PREVIOUS ITEM, THE APPLICANT FOUR STAR BUSINESS PARK DID SUBMIT A ZONING REQUEST TO REZONE THAT PORTION WITHIN THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM COMMERCIAL ONE AND HIGHWAY TO INDUSTRIAL WITH THE INTENT TO DEVELOP ADDITIONAL OFFICE, WAREHOUSE AND DISTRIBUTION CENTER USES ON THE PROPERTY. THAT BEING A USE THAT IS NOT ALLOWED OR THAT IS ALLOWED IN THE INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT PER THE PREVIOUS REQUEST, HOWEVER, IS PROHIBITED BY THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT. THEREFORE, STAFF DOES PROPOSE AMENDING THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT TO ALLOW OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER USES WHERE INDUSTRIAL ZONING EXISTS BETWEEN PARVIN BRANCH AND PGA PARKWAY. ALL OTHER PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT STANDARDS, LANDSCAPING, EXTERIOR APPEARANCE OF BUILDINGS, BUILDING MATERIALS, ETC. WILL REMAIN IN EFFECT. AS PREVIOUSLY DISCUSSED, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION OF TAKING THIS AMENDMENT FROM PARVIN [00:50:05] BRANCH TO PGA PARKWAY IS ESSENTIALLY TO HAVE THAT CLEAN CUT BOUNDARY. THIS ITEM IS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, AS NOTED WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. AND WITH THAT, I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. LOOKING AT THE LOCATOR ON THIS ONE AS WELL. THERE WAS A COMMENT EARLIER ABOUT MOVING THIS DOWN TO PGA PARKWAY. SO THE INTENT OF THIS LOCATOR MAP AND THE REASON THAT THIS LOCATOR MAP WAS PROVIDED WITH THIS CASE WAS TO ESSENTIALLY SHOW THAT THE AREA IN YELLOW IS THE AREA THAT WAS REQUESTED FOR THE PREVIOUS CASE TO BE REZONE TO INDUSTRIAL. BAY AREA TO THE SOUTH, THIS AREA RIGHT HERE, IT IS ZONED AS RETAIL TODAY. HOWEVER, IT DOES HAVE INDUSTRIAL PARK ON THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AND A KIND OF A RETAIL CORNER RIGHT AT THE CORNER. SO THAT'S THE PREVIOUS CASE, THE AREA IN YELLOW THAT WILL BE RETAIL AT THIS TIME. HOWEVER, THE ZONING AMENDMENT THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT NOW IS LOOKING TO AMEND THE PRESTON ROAD OVERLAY DISTRICT FROM PARVIN BRANCH TO PGA PARKWAY. SO ESSENTIALLY THIS WHOLE AREA HERE, ESSENTIALLY SO THAT IT IS A CLEAN BOUNDARY OF WHAT IS CHANGING. SO IF ANYONE COMES DOWN TO THIS SOUTHERN SECTION AND WANTS TO REZONE IT, THEY STILL HAVE TO COME TO US. IT'S JUST THAT THE OVERLAY DISTRICT WOULD ALLOW THAT IF THEY HAD THE ZONING. SURE. SO, LET'S SAY THE PROPERTY OWNER CAME IN TO REZONE THIS AREA HERE TO INDUSTRIAL, THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. THEY WOULD STILL HAVE TO COME BEFORE YOU ALL, CITY COUNCIL. BUT THIS CASE HERE WOULD ALLOW THEM TO DEVELOP OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTIONS CENTER USES ON THIS PROPERTY IF THEY CHOSE TO. IF THEY GOT THE ZONING FOR IT. IF THEY GOT THE ZONING. THEY STILL WOULD HAVE TO GET THE ZONING. THIS JUST MAKES IT CLEAN SO THAT IF WE EVER NEEDED TO HAVE THAT THERE, WE COULD DO IT AT THE APPROVAL OF PLANNING AND ZONING AND CITY COUNCIL. SURE. AND BECAUSE THE WAY THE LANGUAGE IS DRAFTED FOR THE ZONING AMENDMENT DOES SAY WHERE INDUSTRIAL ZONING EXIST BETWEEN PARVIN BRANCH AND PGA PARKWAY-- I FULLY UNDERSTAND IT; I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR, CLEAR TO THE COMMISSION. ALL RIGHT. WE'RE THE APPLICANT AGAIN, SO WE DON'T NEED TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ONE, I MEAN, WE NEED TO DO A PUBLIC HEARING. WE DON'T NEED TO DO THE APPLICANT SPEAKING. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? MOVE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE THAT'D LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR:. AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. PUBLIC HEARING'S NOW CLOSED. ALL RIGHT. THIS JUST SEEMS LIKE ONE OF THOSE THINGS THAT MAKES SENSE. I'LL OPEN IT FOR QUESTIONS. ANY COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS ON THIS. NO, AND I THINK IT MAKES SENSE FROM MY PREVIOUS QUESTION TO EXTEND TO PGA PARKWAY JUST MAKES IT CLEANER AND AND THE CHAIRMAN MADE A GREAT COMMENT. AND JONATHAN, YOU AGREE THAT STILL REQUIRES A ZONING CHANGE. THIS JUST ALLOWS INDUSTRIAL, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY REQUEST TO BE APPROVED, STILL HAS TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS. CORRECT. IT WOULD ALLOW OFFICE WAREHOUSE DISTRIBUTION CENTER USES. CORRECT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS, OR DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 19? MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 19, AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. ITEM 19 IS APPROVED. THAT LEADS US TO ITEM TWENTY RESULTS OF THE OCTOBER SIX TWENTY TWENTY CITY COUNCIL [20. Results of the October 6, 2020 City Council meeting.] MEETING. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. WE DID HAVE ONE ITEM ON FOR CITY COUNCIL LAST WEEK, AND I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS ABOUT THAT ITEM. ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS TIME. ALL RIGHT, THAT LEAVES US ITEM 21, SCHEDULED FEATURE DISCUSSION ITEMS. [21. Schedule of future discussion items.] I WANT TO THANK STAFF FOR AND JOHN FOR THE TOUR TODAY OF THE PGA. IT WAS BREATHTAKING, TO SAY THE LEAST. YOU KNOW, BEING A GOLFER, I PLAYED A LOT OF GOLF COURSES AROUND THE GLOBE. I HAVE SEEN A LOT OF PLACES. AND I CAN TELL YOU, WITHOUT A DOUBT, IT'S JUST A SPECTACULAR PIECE OF LAND AND VENUE AND [00:55:08] IT IS GOING TO BE SOMETHING, A JEWEL FOR FRESCO FOR 100 YEARS, AND SO I'M VERY THANKFUL FOR THAT. WELL, THANKS GOES TO BEN BREZINA FOR COORDINATING THAT. AND JONATHAN FOR DRIVING ONE OF THE VANS FOR US. THANK YOU. THAT TAKES US TO WHAT'S NEXT THEN FROM A FUTURE THING, BECAUSE THAT WAS BEEN ON FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEM FOR QUITE A WHILE. I KNOW WE HAVE A SIGN ORDINANCE CONVERSATION COMING UP HERE SOON. YEAH. SO THE SIGN ORDINANCE, NOT EXACTLY SURE WHEN THAT WILL COME FORWARD, BUT WE'LL BRING THAT BEFORE WE TAKE IT BEFORE CITY COUNCIL. AND SECOND, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT BRIEFLY ANOTHER TOUR. SO LOOKING AT MAYBE TWO WEEKS FROM TONIGHT IF THAT WORKS FOR EVERYBODY DOWNTOWN. SO TALKING ABOUT PATIO'S AT THE RAIL. SO I GOT TO COORDINATE THAT WITH MR. CHURCHMAN AND SEE IF THAT THAT'S GOOD. BUT IS THAT GOOD FOR YOU ALL? IT'S A BEAUTIFUL VENUE DOWN THERE. I'M GOING TO BE TIED UP FOR THE NEXT COUPLE OF WEEKS MYSELF, BUT I'M SURE THE STAFF HERE AND THE TEAM HERE WOULD BE GLAD TO GET OUT THERE. ANY OTHER FUTURE DISCUSSION ITEMS THAT THE COMMISSION WOULD LIKE TO BRING UP TO STAFF AT THIS TIME? JUST A FINAL WORD FOR STAFF, I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE FOR ALL THE HARD WORK. IT'S BEEN A HECK OF A YEAR. WE'RE STARTING A NEW FISCAL YEAR HERE IN FRISCO. 2020 HAS BEEN VERY DIFFICULT FOR A LOT OF FOLKS, A LOT OF HARD WORK WORKING REMOTELY. SO FOR JOHN, YOUR STAFF HAS DONE JUST A PHENOMENAL JOB, TEAMWORK AND SUPPORTING US AS A COMMISSION TO PUT US IN A REALLY GOOD LIGHT. AND SO I JUST WANT TO THANK EVERYONE IN YOUR ORGANIZATION FOR ALL THEIR HARD WORK AND DEDICATION TO OUR CITY. AND ONE THING I WILL SAY, EVEN THOUGH THE ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION PROCESS THAT WE HAVE IN PLACE WAS PUT IN PLACE BACK IN MARCH BECAUSE BECAUSE OF THE PANDEMIC, HAVE ANTHONY, JONATHAN AND OTHERS WORKING ON THE MORE ROBUST SYSTEM THAT SHOULD BE COMING ONLINE IN THE FIRST QUARTER. BUT TO GO TO AN ELECTRONIC SUBMISSION AS QUICKLY AS WE DID, BAND-AID APPROACH TOOK THE EFFORTS OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT, I.T. FINANCE [INAUDIBLE] PAYMENTS ONLINE WIDER. THAT WAS A LOT TO BE ACCOMPLISHED IN A SHORT TIME. SO THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THE PUBLIC SHOULD BE PROUD OF CITY GOVERNMENT AS HOW QUICKLY THEY RESPOND. ABSOLUTELY. I CALL IT, THE OVERNIGHT SENSATION, 10 YEARS IN THE MAKING. RIGHT. AND A LOT OF HARD WORK GOES INTO MAKING THE CITY LOOK GOOD. AND IT'S OUR CITY STAFF VOLUNTEERS THAT HELP MAKE US LOOK GOOD. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT AS WE KICK OFF A NEW YEAR HERE, I'M HONORED TO BE THE CHAIR OF THIS COMMISSION. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE THANK ALL OF US THAT DO THE DAILY WORK. SO WE APPRECIATE THAT. IF WE HAVE NOTHING ELSE ON THE DISCUSSION, I HAVE ONE LAST AGENDA ITEM. ANYBODY HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN? MOTION TO ADJOURN. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER COLBERG. SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR: AYE. ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES 6-0. WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.