Oct 27, 2020 Frisco - Planning and Zoning Commission

ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

ITEM THREE, CONSIDER AND ACT UPON APPROVAL MINUTES OF THE REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING ON OCTOBER 13, TWENTY TWENTY.

HAVE ANY QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON THESE MINUTES OR A MOTION? MOVE TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FROM THE REGULAR PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION OF TEN THIRTEEN. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

ANY OPPOSE? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

[CONSENT AGENDA]

ALL RIGHT. NEXT ON OUR AGENDA THIS EVENING IS CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS. THE CONSENT AGENDA CONSISTS OF ROUTINE AND NON-CONTROVERSIAL ITEMS. ANY COMMISSION MEMBER MAKING SUCH REQUEST PRIOR TO A MOTION AND VOTE ON THE CONSENT ITEMS MAY CONSIDER ITEMS INDIVIDUALLY.

ANY MEMBER OF THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO MAKE COMMENTS ON A CONSENT AGENDA ITEM MAY DO SO WITH MAJORITY APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSION.

WE HAVE ITEMS FOUR THROUGH NINE THIS EVENING.

ARE THERE ANY THAT NEED TO BE PULLED FOR INDIVIDUAL CONSIDERATION? MR. CHAIR, I'D LIKE TO PULL NUMBER NINE.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX TO PULL NUMBER NINE.

ARE THERE ANY OTHERS THAT NEED TO BE PULLED? OK, DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEMS FOUR THROUGH EIGHT? MOVE TO APPROVE ITEMS FOUR THROUGH EIGHT.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE.

AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO, ITEMS FOUR THROUGH EIGHT ARE APPROVED.

ITEM NINE, SITE PLAN LEGACY LOT B BLOCK B LOTS ONE AND THREE SP 20-0068.

[9. Site Plan: Legacy Creek, Block B, Lots 1 & 3 (SP20-0068)]

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR.

THIS ITEM IS ON THE AGENDA THIS EVENING, RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL, PENDING A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE, OR EXCUSE ME, THE PD AS DISCUSSED IN THE STAFF REPORT.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

COMMISSION BOX. COMMISSIONER CONE.

COMMENTS QUESTIONS? ANTHONY, THANKS FOR INTRODUCING.

HAVE A QUESTION.

I WAS A LITTLE CONFUSED READING THROUGH AND TRYING TO UNDERSTAND.

[00:10:01]

IT APPEARS THAT ONE OF THE MAJOR CHANGES HERE IS TO REMOVE ANY TYPE OF CROSSING OVER THE CREEK THAT RUNS THROUGH THIS PARCEL.

YES. WITH THE OPTION TO UTILIZE TOWN AND COUNTRY BOULEVARD AND POSSIBLY A SIDEWALK ALONG TOWN AND COUNTRY BOULEVARD OR SIDEWALK ALONG 121 FRONTAGE ROAD, IS THAT CORRECT? THAT IS CORRECT. THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SHOWS TWO CROSSINGS OVER THE CREEK AREA.

THIS SITE PLAN WOULD ELIMINATE BOTH OF THOSE AND SHOW THEM, AS YOU STATED, ALONG TOWN AND COUNTRY AND ON STATE HIGHWAY 121.

ARE YOU FAMILIAR? I COULDN'T FULLY READ.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEVEL-- LET ME STATE THAT AGAIN.

IT LOOKS LIKE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT YOU HAVE PULLED UP THERE IN THE MIDDLE DOES SHOW A CROSSING.

IT LOOKS LIKE IT WAS CHANGED TO ONE CROSSING.

THAT IS CORRECT.

THROUGH THE PARKS AGREEMENT THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVED, THE TWO THAT WERE SHOWN IN THE PD WERE REDUCED TO A SINGULAR POINT IN THAT AGREEMENT.

AND THAT IS THE MIDDLE PICTURE UP ON THE SCREEN.

IS PARKS HERE TO EXPLAIN WHY? UNFORTUNATELY, THERE'S NOT A REPRESENTATIVE FROM PARKS HERE TONIGHT.

OK, I HAVE A REAL PROBLEM WITH, I'LL USE COMMISSIONER CONE'S WORD, CONNECTIVITY WITH LOSING CONNECTIVITY ACROSS THIS CREEK FOR THESE TWO PARCELS.

THE AMENITIES ARE ON THE NORTHEAST, WELL, MOSTLY THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THIS NEWLY PROPOSED CREEK. AND THERE'S NO WAY TO GET THERE FROM THE PROPERTY TO THE WEST WITHOUT A CROSSING THAT'S SAFE AS WELL AS A AMENITIZED.

PARKS ARE GREAT.

I LIVE NEAR COTTONWOOD CREEK PARK, WHICH IF YOU'VE NEVER BEEN TO COTTONWOOD CREEK PARK, GO. IT'S GREAT.

AND THE GREAT THING IS WE'RE ABLE TO GET THERE.

WE'RE ABLE TO MOVE ABOUT.

THEY'RE BEAUTIFUL BRIDGES AND IT'S ALL PART OF THE MASTER PLAN.

AND THIS JUST LOSES CONNECTIVITY.

JOHN OR ANTHONY, CAN YOU CLARIFY? I BELIEVE I SAW IN THE STAFF IN THE REPORT AND THIS ONE HAD COME UP BEFORE THEY HAD THE 30 DAY WAIVER ON THIS CASE.

WHAT ARE OUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ON THIS CASE? SO THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THE COMMISSION HAS ALREADY APPROVED A 30 DAY EXTENSION.

SO THIS EVENING THERE DOES WOULD HAVE TO BE SOME ACTION ON THE ITEM, EITHER FOR APPROVAL OR DENIAL. YOU COULD ALSO HAVE THE OPTION TO APPROVE THE PLAN WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT, WHICH WAS REDUCING THOSE TWO CROSSINGS.

BUT FOR INSTANCE, TABLING WOULD NOT BE AN OPTION THIS EVENING SINCE IT WOULD AUTOMATICALLY APPROVE THE PLAN UNDER THAT 60 DAY APPROVAL PERIOD.

MAY I ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION? DOES PD CHANGE OVERRIDE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR DOES A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OVERRIDE THE PD CHANGE? I BELIEVE IN THIS SPECIFIC CASE, THE PARKS AGREEMENT WOULD OVERRIDE THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

BUT I'D HAVE TO LOOK AT THE SPECIFIC LANGUAGE AND I DON'T HAVE THE AGREEMENT IN FRONT OF ME, BUT--. SO WE'RE MODIFYING THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

YES, THE ITEM BEFORE YOU THIS EVENING AND THE MINOR AMENDMENT WOULD MAKE A MODIFICATION TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 273 IF APPROVED.

AND THEN THAT PARK AGREEMENT IS ON TOP OF THAT.

THAT IS CORRECT.

HOW THIS AFFECTS A PARK AGREEMENT.

I'M NOT EXACTLY SURE.

IT MIGHT HAVE TO GO BACK TO CITY COUNCIL, IT MIGHT NOT.

I DON'T KNOW THE PROCESS INVOLVED WITH THAT.

BUT FOR APPROVAL TONIGHT IS THE OPEN SPACE PLAN AND THE SITE PLAN AND THE SITE PLAN REFLECTS NO CROSSING OVER THE WATERWAY.

THAT IS CORRECT. YES, I SEE THE APPLICANT HERE.

I DON'T IF YOU WANT TO ASK HIM ANY QUESTIONS OR--.

I'LL HAVE SOME STAFF QUESTIONS BEFORE THEN.

ANTHONY, ON THE PLAN, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THAT WAS APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

YES. AS IS WITH A WATER CROSSING.

WITH THE TWO WATER CROSS.

WITH THE TWO WATER CROSSINGS.

THAT'S RIGHT. HAS CITY COUNCIL SEEN THE ONE THAT REDUCES IT TO ONE WATER CROSSING? YES, THAT DOCUMENT WAS ALSO APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

IT WAS ALSO APPROVED BY CITY COUNCIL.

YES, SIR. BUT WE'RE UNCLEAR IF WE TOOK AWAY IF WE ALLOWED THE ONE WATER CROSSING TO BE REMOVED. WE'RE NOT REAL SURE WHETHER THAT GOES BACK TO CITY COUNCIL OR NOT.

THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WOULD BE WITHIN THE PARKS AGREEMENT.

AND I'M NOT SURE THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THAT.

THE SITE PLAN WOULDN'T HAVE TO.

BUT I'M UNCLEAR ON THE PARKS AGREEMENT PART.

OK, THAT MIGHT BE A QUESTION FOR MR. LETTELLEIR. SO THE QUESTION, JOHN, IS WITH THIS PROJECT DOES THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THE PARKS AGREEMENT OVERRIDE THE PD OR IS THE PD OVERRIDE THE PARK AGREEMENT IN PLACE FOR THIS CROSSING? THE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WILL TAKE PRECEDENT. SO THE FACT THAT THERE'S A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN PLACE, WE CHANGE THE PLAN

[00:15:05]

DEVELOPMENT HERE DOES NOT CHANGE THE COMMITMENT THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS WHAT YOU STATED? THAT'S RIGHT. I JUST WANT TO BE CLEAR.

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TAKES PRECEDENCE OVER THE PD.

THAT WAS NEGOTIATED--.

CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO ELIMINATE CROSSINGS, BUT THAT WOULD BE AT THEIR DISCRETION. THAT'S RIGHT.

BUT THE OTHER OPTION, LET'S SAY, IF THIS IS APPROVED TONIGHT AND YOU DECIDE TO PUT THE WATER CROSSINGS IN, THAT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE APPEALED TO COUNCIL AND THEN COUNCIL CAN HAVE THE ULTIMATE SAY.

BUT WHAT HIS STAFF IS DOING IS ANTHONY HAS EXPLAINED IS WE'RE OPERATING WHAT PARKS HAS SUBMITTED. AND I WISH PARKS WAS HERE TONIGHT TO EXPLAIN THEIR POSITION.

AND THERE MIGHT BE FEASIBILITY ISSUES THERE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES WERE NOT AWARE OF. OK.

COMMISSIONER CONE. SO ANTHONY CAN YOU CLARIFY ON THE, I DON'T HAVE IT HERE IN FRONT OF ME, BUT IN THE PACKET, IT GIVES THE FOUR CRITERIA FOR DETERMINING WHETHER THIS IS A MAJOR OR MINOR CHANGE.

AND CAN YOU JUST EXPLAIN SO THAT EVERYONE IS ON THE SAME PAGE HERE, THAT IF IT'S A MINOR CHANGE, IT'S A LOWER LEVEL OF APPROVAL.

AND CAN YOU EXPLAIN CRITERIA. SURE.

SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE LAYS OUT TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF APPROVAL PROCESSES WHEN THERE'S A CHANGE TO A PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

SO THERE'S MINOR AND MAJOR.

THE MAJOR IS A ZONING CHANGE THAT HAS TO GO TAKE PLACE THROUGH PLANNING ZONING COMMISSION AND THEN CITY COUNCIL, JUST LIKE A NORMAL ZONING REQUEST WOULD.

A MINOR AMENDMENT CAN BE APPROVED BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, NO PUBLIC HEARINGS. IT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA AND SO FORTH.

THERE'S FOUR CRITERIA THAT THE REQUEST HAS TO MEET IN ORDER TO BE CONSIDERED A MINOR AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING OR TO THE PD.

DOES NOT PROPOSE ANY NEW GENERAL TYPE OF USE BEYOND THOSE INITIALLY APPROVED.

DOES NOT INCREASE HEIGHTS OF BUILDINGS OR FLOOR AREA RATIO.

DOES NOT DECREASE THE AMOUNT OF OPEN SPACE BEING PROVIDED AND OR THE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY OF THE PD.

AND DOES NOT CHANGE ACCESS, CIRCULATION OR INFRASTRUCTURE IN A WAY THAT WOULD IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES. SO THOSE ARE THE FOUR CRITERIA FOR A MINOR AMENDMENT.

OK, AND CAN YOU JUST REPEAT THAT FOURTH ONE AGAIN? BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT I WANT TO FOCUS ON.

SURE. DOES NOT CHANGE ACCESS, CIRCULATION OR INFRASTRUCTURE IN A WAY THAT WOULD IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

OK, AND SO BASED ON THE STAFF REPORT, STAFF IS LOOKING AT THE TWO SIDEWALKS.

SIDEWALK ALONG 121 AND A SIDEWALK ALONG TOWN AND COUNTRY.

RIGHT. WHICH WILL, I BELIEVE YOU TOLD ME THOSE WILL GET BUILT NO MATTER WHAT HAPPENS WITH THE PARK. WE BUILD SIDEWALKS ALONG ROADS AS THEY DEVELOP.

SO IT'S SAFE TO SAY THAT THOSE EXISTING SIDEWALKS WILL BE EXTENDED AT SOME POINT WITH DEVELOPMENT. THOSE ARE GOING TO HAPPEN.

YES. SO THE QUESTION IS, DOES THIS WATER CROSSING, ELIMINATING THE WATER CROSSING, DOES THAT CHANGE THE CIRCULATION? WHAT WAS THE OTHER WORD? CIRCULATION AND--.

ACCESS, CIRCULATION OR INFRASTRUCTURE IN A WAY THAT WOULD IMPACT SURROUNDING PROPERTIES.

OK, AND SO WHETHER IT IMPACTS THE SURROUNDING PROPERTIES OR NOT IS A LITTLE BIT OF A SUBJECTIVE JUDGMENT CALL THAT STAFF HAS TO MAKE.

SURE. THEY COULD GO ONE WAY OR THE OTHER BASED ON WHETHER THEY FEEL IT'S GOING TO IMPACT THAT. OK, AND IF STAFF HAD DETERMINED THAT THIS DOES IMPACT CIRCULATION OR DOES IMPACT ACCESS BETWEEN THE [INAUDIBLE] PARCELS, HOW WOULD STAFF HAVE PROCEEDED THEN WITH THIS REQUEST FROM THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THE DEVELOPER? SO LIKELY IT WOULD HAVE GONE THROUGH A MAJOR AMENDMENT PROCESS.

OK, BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR MINOR.

IT WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR A MINOR. SO THEN YOU WOULD HAVE HAD TO HAVE DONE A PUBLIC HEARING AND OPEN UP THE--.

OPEN UP TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

OK, TWO MORE TECHNICAL QUESTIONS.

SO WE'RE ALL ON THE SAME PAGE.

ON THE THE EXISTING SIDEWALK ALONG 121 IS FAIRLY CLOSE TO THE HIGHWAY.

THAT'S CORRECT. SOMETHING LIKE FOUR OR FIVE FEET, I BELIEVE.

I THINK IT WAS FIVE OR SIX FEET.

YES, OK. AND THE EXTENSION OF IT IS NOT INTENDED TO BE SHIFTED AWAY FROM THE ROAD AT ALL.

IT'LL BE ROUGHLY THE SAME FOUR OR FIVE FEET.

YES. BASED ON THIS PLAN, IT IS SHOWING THAT IT WILL BE CONNECTING IN TO THE EXISTING SIDEWALK, YES.

OK. AND SO CONNECTING INTO IT AND MAINTAINING A STRAIGHT THE SAME DISTANCE.

CORRECT. OK, ON THE TOWN AND COUNTRY SIDE, YOU TOLD ME IT WAS THE SAME ISSUE, THAT THE EXISTING SIDEWALK IS CLOSE ABOUT FOUR OR FIVE FEET, MAYBE CLOSER.

I BELIEVE THAT'S CORRECT, YES.

OK. AND THE PLANNED SIDEWALK WOULD CONTINUE ALONG THAT SAME PATH AND WOULD STILL BE CLOSE TO TOWN AND COUNTRY. SAME DISTANCE ROUGHLY.

CORRECT. OK, THAT'S ALL I HAVE RIGHT NOW.

A COUPLE OF COMMENTS I HAVE ON THIS.

I THINK WE'RE TALKING AN EIGHTH OF A MILE HERE FROM TOWN AND COUNTRY DOWN TO THE HIGHWAY,

[00:20:01]

AND I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A CROSSING ACROSS A FLOOD PLAIN.

THAT COULD BE PRETTY PRICEY IF THAT'S THE REASON WHY PARKS AND REC DID IT, I DON'T KNOW.

BUT SO YOU'RE TALKING REALLY A BASICALLY A QUARTER MILE ROUND TRIP, A LITTLE BIT OVER QUARTER MILE ROUND TRIP TO WALK THIS ENTIRE FLOODPLAIN, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE BECAUSE OF THE ANGLES ON THE NORTH SIDE.

1500 FEET AROUND.

I DON'T THINK THAT'S--. AND THAT'S WHY WE WANTED TO ESTABLISH THE WHAT'S HAPPENING AT 121 AND WHAT'S HAPPENING IN TOWN AND COUNTRY.

YEAH.

IF THOSE WERE LOCATED DIFFERENTLY, YOU KNOW, IF THOSE WERE PART OF A TRAIL NETWORK AND THEY WERE AWAY FROM THE ROADS AND STUFF, THEN YOUR POINT WOULD BE WELL MADE, THAT, HEY, THERE'S ANOTHER EQUALLY AS GOOD TRAIL CONNECTION JUST A LITTLE WAYS AWAY.

BUT WE'VE DETERMINED THAT PHYSICALLY THESE ARE NOT TRAIL CONNECTIONS THROUGH THERE.

THESE ARE JUST SIDEWALKS ALONG THE ROADWAY.

AND THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE. THERE'S A BIG DIFFERENCE.

BUT THERE'S ALSO COST FACTORS THAT I LET PARKS DEAL WITH, AND FORCING THEM INTO CROSSING THAT FLOODPLAIN WHEN THEY'VE IDENTIFIED A REASON TO REMOVE THAT WITH SOME OF THE CAPITAL CHALLENGES WE HAVE AND THE COVID CHALLENGES WE HAVE, THAT MIGHT BE SOME OF THE FACTORS MITIGATE IT THERE. I THINK PROVIDES CONNECTIVITY ON THE NORTH SIDE PRETTY GOOD WITH THE SOUTH SIDE, BE IT MAYBE A FUTURE SOMEWHERE IN THE FUTURE THEY CAN DO, BUT IT WILL BE UP TO THE COMMISSION TO MAKE A DETERMINATION WHAT THEY WANT TO DO ON THIS EVENING.

WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IN PLACE, IT OVERWRITES ANYTHING AND IT STILL IS ACTIVE AND IT WILL TAKE THE CITY COUNCIL ACTION TO OFFSET THAT.

ONE THING I DO WANT TO MENTION, SINCE YOU BROUGHT UP TRAILS ALONG STREETS, WE HAVE TRAILS THROUGHOUT THE CITY THAT ARE ADJACENT TO STREETS.

THE MINIMUM SET BACK IS FIVE FEET FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB.

SO WE HAVE THOSE THROUGHOUT THE CITY.

THAT'S CORRECT. AND THAT'S WHY, JOHN, I BROUGHT IT UP THAT THE DISTANCE MATTERS.

RIGHT? THERE'S LOTS OF TRAILS ALONG HIGHWAYS THAT MY FAMILY AND I USE ON A REGULAR BASIS.

AND PEOPLE ARE KIND OF SHOCKED LIKE THEY DON'T LIVE IN FRISCO.

LIKE YOU LET YOUR KIDS, YOUR LITTLE KIDS GO ON A TRAIL NEXT TO A HIGHWAY AND I SAID, WELL, SURE, WE'VE GOT LIKE 10 FEET, WE'VE GOT A BERM AND WE'VE GOT LOTS OF SEPARATION.

IT'S GREAT. AND I THOSE OTHER PLACES WHERE WE ONLY HAVE FOUR OR FIVE FEET AND NO, I WOULDN'T TAKE MY KIDS ALONG THAT.

THAT'S NOT A TRAIL AT THAT POINT.

THEN IT'S JUST A SIDEWALK THAT'S KIND OF THERE FOR SAFETY REASONS TO KEEP PEOPLE OFF THE STREET. AND IT'S GOOD. I'M GLAD WE HAVE THEM.

THESE ARE GREAT EXAMPLES OF ONES I'M GLAD THEY'RE THERE, BUT THEY'RE NOT THE EQUIVALENT OF THE ONES WHERE--.

AND SINCE WE'RE TRYING TO CONNECT A PARK, IF WE WERE JUST TRYING TO CONNECT A CAR DEALERSHIP WITH, YOU KNOW, PARKING LOT TO PARKING LOT, THAT'S ONE THING.

BUT I THINK THAT'S WHERE I'M ASSUMING THAT'S WHY THIS FROM THE VERY GET GO HAD THE WATER CROSSINGS. AND I THINK IT'S BEEN THE INTENT ALL ALONG, HAVE THE WATER CROSSING.

SO WITHOUT PARKS HERE TO EXPLAIN WHAT HAS HAPPENED TO KIND OF CHANGE THIS NOW, THAT MAKES IT HARD TO ACCEPT.

BUT I THINK FROM A CONCERNED AGENDA ITEM PERSPECTIVE, UNLESS THERE'S AN OVERRIDING PUBLIC SAFETY ISSUE, IT'S HARD FOR US TO GO AGAINST THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEM.

THE FACT THAT THERE'S NOT A CROSS FLOOD PLAIN, I THINK I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WOULD LEGALLY BE CONSIDERED A MITIGATING FACTOR FROM A SAFETY PERSPECTIVE.

GO AHEAD.

MAYBE SOME OF YOUR EDUCATION ON THE PURPOSE OF THE CURRENT LAYOUT THAT YOU HAVE HERE.

JOSH MILLSAP.

KFM ENGINEERING 621 N MAIN STREET GRAPEVINE, TEXAS.

WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH RICK [INAUDIBLE] IN THE PARKS DEPARTMENT.

SO THE MAIN PURPOSE, THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO HAVE A LOW WATER CROSSING ON THE CREEK THAT WE COULD NOT DISTURB ANY OF THE TREES.

AS WE GOT INTO THE DESIGN AND THE ENGINEERING, THE DRAINAGE COMPONENT, IT GOT INTO A LARGE BOX CULVERT THAT ULTIMATELY MAKE A BIG DISTURBANCE IN THE CREEK, WHICH KIND OF TOOK AWAY FROM THE ORIGINAL INTENT OF MAINTAINING THAT CREEK SINCE IT IS A SHORT WAY UP TO TOWN AND COUNTRY OR DOWN BELOW.

WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE PRESERVE THE TREES.

WE DID ORIGINALLY. THEIR INTENT WAS TO COME DOWN WITH A LOW WATER CROSSING SINCE IT WAS FAIRLY SHALLOW. HOWEVER, THE LOW WATER CROSSING WITH FRISCO STANDARDS AND ENGINEERING, YOU ACTUALLY HAVE TO RAISE IT ABOVE THE 100 YEAR FLOOD PLAIN SO THAT CREATE A LARGE BOX CULVERT WHICH MADE IT MORE INTRUSIVE CREEK CROSSING.

PARKS WANTED TO MORE MAINTAIN THAT BEAUTY WITHIN THE CREEK AND HOLD THE CROSSINGS ALONG

[00:25:05]

TOWN AND COUNTRY AND THEN 121.

WITH 121, WE ARE HAVING TO EXTEND THE BOX CULVERTS AND ACTUALLY RAISE THE HEAD HEADWALL BECAUSE IT IS CURRENTLY ABOUT A THREE TO ONE SLOPE STRAIGHT OFF THAT SERVICE ROAD.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO EXTEND THAT AND PLAY AROUND WITH HOLDING UP THAT SIDEWALK, MAKING MORE USABLE TRAIL SYSTEM ALONG 121 AS WELL.

CAN YOU IN PLAIN LANGUAGE, TELL ME WHAT YOU JUST SAID ALONG 121? [LAUGHTER] SO, SO AT THE-- LET'S SEE IF I CAN USE-- RIGHT ALONG RIGHT AT WHERE THE SOUTHERN PART OF THE PARK IS ADJACENT TO 121 SERVICE ROAD.

THERE'S CURRENTLY A DRAINAGE BOX CULVERT WHERE THE DRAINAGE COMES UNDER 121.

SO THE SLOPE IS VERY STEEP AS YOU COME OFF 121.

SO WHAT WE'RE HAVING TO DO IS RIP OUT THAT HEADWALL FOR WHERE THE CULVERTS TIE INTO AND RAISE EVERYTHING UP.

SO WE'RE HAVING TO DO A LOT OF DRAINAGE WORK RIGHT THERE AT THE SOUTHERN EDGE TO HELP GET THAT SIDEWALK THROUGH.

IF YOU WALK OUT THERE, THERE IS CURRENTLY SOME FARM THAT USED TO BE THE FARM.

THERE IS SOME TRACTOR TRAILS WHERE THE FARMER USED THAT AND IT DOES CROSS THE CREEK.

SO THERE A NATURAL PATH DOWN THROUGH THAT THAT I BELIEVE THE FARMER STILL USED DOWN THROUGH THE BOTTOM OF THAT. THE REALITY IS YOU'RE TAKING THIS AREA RIGHT HERE AND YOU'RE MAKING IT DEGRADE AND PROTECTING IT FROM EROSION WITH THE BOX CULVERT AND THE SIDEWALK WILL GO OVER THAT. CORRECT.

OK, THANK YOU.

I HAVE A FOLLOW ON TO THAT. SO IT'LL HELP SUPPORT THE SIDEWALK, KEEP IT FROM FALLING IN.

YOU KNOW, KEEP THE SIDEWALK FROM FALLING AND CREATE MORE SAFE, INCREASE THE SAFETY FOR THE CROSSING THERE AS WELL.

WILL IT INCREASE THE DISTANCE AWAY FROM THE ROAD? FOR WHAT IT IS NOW, YES.

YES. BECAUSE WE ARE EXTENDING THE-- WE'RE EXTENDING THE CULVERT TO THE NORTH FURTHER AWAY FROM 121 THAN WHAT IT IS NOW TO CREATE MORE SPACE FOR THAT SIDEWALK.

OK. CAN YOU QUANTIFY HOW MUCH MORE IT'S GOING TO BE? I BELIEVE IT'S ABOUT FIVE FEET.

SO THE SITE PLAN CURRENTLY SHOWS THAT MATCHING THE CURRENT SIDEWALK, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT--. WE'RE MATCHING THAT-- WE'RE TYING INTO THE SIDEWALK OVER IN THE VW TRACT THAT STUBBED OUT THAT ENDS AND THEN WE ARE EXTENDING THAT SIDEWALK BACK TO THE WEST.

OK, SO THE EXISTING SIDEWALK, WHEN WE STEP INTO IT, THEN, WILL THE NEW SIDEWALK MAINTAIN THE SAME DISTANCE FROM THE BACK OF THE CURB OR WILL IT BE FURTHER? WILL IT TURN? GENERALLY THE SAME.

GENERALLY THE SAME. YES. OK, SO MY QUESTION WAS, ARE WE MAKING THIS IS GOING TO BE FURTHER BACK THAN CURRENT? SO THE ANSWER IS NO. IT'LL MATCH THE EXISTING ONE AT THE SAME DISTANCE.

IF WE DID NOT MAKE THE DRAINAGE IMPROVEMENTS, IT WOULD HAVE TO MOVE CLOSER TO 121.

OK, OK. YEAH.

SO WE'RE NOT GETTING FURTHER AWAY, BUT WE'RE NOT GETTING ANY CLOSER.

CORRECT. WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

OK, THANK YOU. WAS THERE A TALK WHEN--.

I'M JUST I'M NOT BUYING THIS THIS IDEA THAT, YOU KNOW, THE SIDEWALK CONNECTION ON THE 121 IS EQUIVALENT TO A LOW WATER CROSSING ACROSS THE MIDDLE OF THE PARK.

I JUST I'VE TALKED TO ENOUGH OTHER PEOPLE OUT THERE THAT WORK WITH THESE THINGS.

AND I COULDN'T FIND ANYONE THAT AGREED THAT THEY'RE EQUIVALENT, THAT THEY'RE THE SAME AND SAME THING WITH TOWN AND COUNTRY BECAUSE IT'S SO CLOSE TO--.

CAN YOU RESTATE THAT, BECAUSE I'M NOT UNDERSTANDING WHAT YOU JUST SAID? OK, I'M IN THE MIDDLE OF THE PARK WHERE THEY NEED TO PUT A BOX CULVERT? SO THE QUESTION WAS AND THIS IS THE KEY THING ABOUT STAFF'S DECISION TO CALL THIS A MINOR, A MINOR CHANGE.

IS THIS THE EQUIVALENT IF WE SAY, WELL, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE DON'T HAVE TO GO VERY FAR AROUND, THEY HAVE TO GO DOWN TO THE SIDEWALK ON 121 OR THEY HAVE TO GO UP TO THE SIDEWALK AT 121, I MEAN, UP AT TOWN AND COUNTRY.

RIGHT. ARE THOSE EQUIVALENT CONNECTIONS? AND I'VE TALKED TO ENOUGH OTHER PEOPLE THAT I CAN'T FIND ANYONE THAT AGREES THAT THOSE ARE EQUIVALENT AS AN EQUIVALENT AS FAR AS USEFULNESS FOR PEOPLE, FOR THE RESIDENTS, PEOPLE USING THE PARK.

THERE WILL JUST BE FEWER PEOPLE WILLING TO TAKE THEIR KIDS DOWN TO 121 TO CROSS THAT WAY.

MORE OF THEM WILL GO UP TO TOWN AND COUNTRY BECAUSE A LITTLE BIT SLOWER.

BUT WAS THERE ANY TALK ABOUT TRYING TO MAYBE REVERT BACK TO THE ORIGINAL? BECAUSE THE ORIGINAL PLAN HAD A WATER CROSSING UP AT THE NORTH.

WAS THAT GOING TO BE THE SAME ISSUE OR PROBLEM WITH THE BOX CULVERT UP AT THE NORTH? THAT WAS WITH THE ORIGINAL ZONING THAT DID NOT HAVE PARKS INPUT ON THE PART DESIGN.

CORRECT. OK, I'M JUST TRYING TO FIND OUT IF THERE WAS ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT, OK, WE'RE GOING TO GIVE UP OUR DIRECT CONNECTION ACROSS THE MIDDLE.

IS THERE ANYTHING WE CAN DO TO UPGRADE THE CONNECTION THAT TOWN AND COUNTRY OR THE

[00:30:03]

CONNECTION AT 121 TO MAKE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE EQUIVALENT TO WHAT WE HAD BEFORE? AND THE ORIGINAL THOUGHT IS, IS THAT PD TIES IN, IT DRAWS MORE TO AN OPEN SPACE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS CLOSE TO THE TOWN AND COUNTRY CONNECTION. OK, WE DID AS I STATED, THE ORIGINAL INTENT WAS TO HAVE LOW WATER CROSSING, BUT NOT INCLUDE THE BOX CULVERT AND ALL THE INTERRUPTION AND REMOVAL OF TREES AND DISTURBANCE OF THE CREEK.

SO CAN YOU DESCRIBE ON THE NORTH SIDE KIND OF THE SAME WAY YOU DID THE SOUTH SIDE? IS THERE ALSO ANY ADJUSTMENTS THAT HAVE TO BE MADE UP THERE SIMILAR TO THE 121? WE'RE CURRENTLY WORKING WITH THE CITY AS THAT'S PART OF THE TOWN AND COUNTRY EXPANSION THAT WITH THE NEW WIDENING OF TOWN AND COUNTRY.

SO WE'RE WORKING WITH THE CITY ON THE HOW THIS SIDEWALK WOULD CONNECT BACK IN THE LOCATION OF THAT.

ONE THING I JUST HAD-- PARDON MY INTERRUPTION.

I JUST WANT TO CORRECT ONE THING ABOUT JOSH MISSTATED.

AS FAR AS ZONING CASES, ALL DEPARTMENTS ARE INVOLVED IN THE DEVELOPMENT OR NOT THE DEVELOPMENT, BUT IN THE REVIEW OF THAT ZONING CASE.

PARKS WAS INCLUDED AT THE TIME OF ZONING AS WELL.

SO THERE WAS NOT A PARK AGREEMENT IN PLACE AT THAT TIME? THAT IS CORRECT.

AND THAT IS A SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE IN TERMS OF WHAT THE INTENT OF THE LAND WAS AND THE USE OF THE LAND, BECAUSE WE'VE TALKED ABOUT IT MIGHT BE A PARK, BUT THERE WAS NO PARK AGREEMENT IN PLACE WITH DETAILS.

IS THAT ACCURATE? I WOULD SAY THE PARK AGREEMENT WAS BEING DISCUSSED DURING THE TIME OF THE ZONING, AND THAT WAS TAKING LONGER THAN MUCH LONGER THAN WHAT IT TOOK THE ZONING.

THERE'S A LONG PROCESS WITH THAT.

BUT I WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR.

PARKS WAS INVOLVED IN ZONE.

AND AS FAR AS THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT WAS DONE ON THIS PROPERTY.

YES. THANK YOU.

[INAUDIBLE] FOLLOW ON TO THAT, WHEN WE SAY PARKS, TO BE CLEAR, WE'RE TALKING ABOUT PARKS AND RECREATION STAFF. THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT HAS TO GO BEFORE THE PARKS AND REC BOARD, IS THAT CORRECT? IT DOES NOT GO BEFORE THE PARKS AND REC BOARD UNLESS THE PARK STAFF DECIDES TO TAKE IT FORWARD TO THEM.

I JUST WANT TO BE VERY CLEAR, JUST LIKE ON ANY DEVELOPMENT PLANS AND ZONING CASES, ALL THE DEPARTMENTS INVOLVED IN REVIEWING THOSE ARE INVOLVED IN THOSE CASES.

OK, DO WE KNOW ON THIS PARKS DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT WAS THIS TAKEN-- DID STAFF DECIDE TO TAKE THIS BEFORE THE PARKS AND REC BOARD? I DO NOT KNOW THAT FOR SURE.

OK.

IT WAS HANDLED OUT OF THE CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE.

THEY WERE COORDINATING IT.

BUT I WILL TELL YOU THIS, I'M SORRY, BUT PARK'S STAFF WAS INCLUDED IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT INCLUDES THE LOW WATER CROSSING.

YES. OK. I MADE COMMENTS EARLIER, I SAY WHAT I'VE LEARNED IS NORTH TO SOUTH IS EIGHT HUNDRED AND FIFTY FEET.

I'M WEARING A FITBIT TONIGHT.

I THINK PEOPLE CAN ACTUALLY GAIN A BUNCH OF STEPS WALKING BACK AND FORTH ON THIS PARK.

MOST OF THE PEOPLE WILL, AS I LISTENED AND LEARNED AND THOUGHT MORE, YOUR AMENITIES ON THE NORTHEAST SIDE OF THIS PARK, MOST PEOPLE ARE GOING TO ENTER IT FROM THE NORTH.

THEY'RE NOT GOING TO ENTER FROM THE SOUTH.

SO I HAVE NO PROBLEM WITH REMOVING THE CROSSING.

COMMISSIONER KENDALL.

I WAS GOING MAKE A MOTION. ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A COMMENT OVER HERE? I HAVE A MOTION. MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NINE.

I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF. ALL RIGHT.

PLEASE.

ANTHONY, QUESTION FOR YOU.

YES, SIR. IS ONE OF THE OPTIONS THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT EARLIER THAT WE COULD MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS, BUT WITH ADJUSTMENTS OR CHANGES TO IT? YES, THE RECOMMENDATION FROM STAFF IS FOR APPROVAL PROVIDED SUBJECT TO THE APPROVAL OF THE MINOR AMENDMENT.

RIGHT. SO THAT'S UP FOR THE COMMISSION'S CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING.

OK, IF WE HAD A QUESTION ABOUT WHETHER THIS IS THE APPROPRIATE VENUE, WHETHER THIS SHOULD REALLY BE A MINOR CHANGE, WHAT WOULD BE THE PROCEDURE TO ADDRESS THAT AND TO HAVE STAFF LOOK AT THAT, TO DECIDE IF THIS REALLY SHOULD BE A MAJOR CHANGE? SO STAFF HAS REVIEWED IT AND FINDS THAT IT'S A MINOR AMENDMENT.

AND IF THE PLANNING COMMISSION DOESN'T AGREE THEN THAT WOULD NEED TO BE PART OF THE MOTION THAT YOU DON'T AGREE THAT THIS IS A MINOR AMENDMENT.

OR YOU DON'T AGREE TO THE MINOR AMENDMENT.

[00:35:03]

YOU'D HAVE TO JUST DENY THE PLAN AND THEN STAFF WOULD HAVE TO--.

OK, CAN YOU PULL UP THE PICTURE OF THE THREE JUST SO WE CAN LOOK AT IT ONE LAST TIME? SO WE'RE BEING CLEAR. SO WE'RE APPROVING THE SITE PLAN TONIGHT THAT WILL, IN ESSENCE, CHANGE THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT AND REMOVE THE--.

I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY THAT THAT IS NOT YOUR STATEMENT.

OK. DO NOT CHANGE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS AND ZONING.

THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OVERRIDES THE PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

SO WE'RE NOT CHANGING THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

WE'RE ONLY CHANGING THE ZONING AND THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

THAT CORRECT? YES, NOT THE ZONING.

YOU JUST HAVE A PLAN BEFORE YOU.

PLAN BEFORE A SITE PLAN. OK, WE HAVE A SITE PLAN.

SO ONCE WE APPROVE THE SITE PLAN, IF WE APPROVE THE SITE PLAN, THAT CONFLICTS WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, ANTHONY, THEN WHAT'S THE NEXT STEP? THAT WILL BE FOR PARKS TO DETERMINE IF THERE'S ANY FURTHER ACTION OR IF THAT PARKS AGREEMENT NEEDS TO GO BACK TO CITY COUNCIL.

I'M NOT AWARE OF THAT.

BUT FROM THE STANDPOINT OF THE APPROVAL OF THIS PLAN, IT WOULD BE APPROVED AND THAT THEY'D BE ABLE TO THEN SUBMIT CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS THAT WOULD THEN INDICATE THAT THEY CAN START CONSTRUCTION AND MOVE FORWARD IN THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS.

I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NINE AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF AND SUBJECT TWO ITEMS ONE AND TWO IN STAFF REPORT.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDELL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

SO, MOTION CARRIES FOUR ONE.

ANY OPPOSED? OPPOSED.

COMMISSIONER CONE, IF YOU CAN JUST STATE YOUR REASONS FOR DENIAL PLEASE.

YES, THIS CHANGE IS NOT IN THE BEST INTEREST OF THE PEOPLE OF FRISCO, THE RESIDENTS OF FRISCO. AND I'D LIKE TO HAVE MORE INPUT FROM THE PARK STAFF BEFORE WE MAKE THESE DECISIONS IN THE FUTURE. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER CONE.

I WOULD JUST SAY THAT YOU FEEL THAT IT'S NOT CONFIRMED THAT IT IS IN THE BEST INTEREST OF FRISCO. AND I THINK THAT COMMISSIONER CONE HAS HIS THOUGHTS ON THAT WERE STATED.

I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE.

BY STATING THAT IT'S MY FEELINGS.

OF COURSE. SO.

ALL RIGHT. SO ITEM NINE IS APPROVED.

[10. Public Hearing – Specific Use Permit: Rescind Specific Use Permit-220 (SUP20-0010)]

TONIGHT, WE HAVE SEVEN PUBLIC HEARINGS ON THE AGENDA.

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 OUR ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT.

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

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

PLEASE NOTE THAT YOU ONLY HAVE ONE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK.

REPEAT APPEARANCES TO THE PODIUM ARE NOT PERMITTED.

AFTER ALL PERSONS HAVE BEEN GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK, THE PUBLIC HEARING PORTION OF THE CASE WILL BE CLOSED AND NO FURTHER TESTIMONY WILL BE PERMITTED UNLESS THE CASE IS TABLED TO A FUTURE DATE. AND THE COMMISSION INCLUDES IN THEIR MOTION TO CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING TO A FUTURE MEETING.

AFTER CLOSING THE 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 CITY COUNCIL.

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

ALL RIGHT. SO THE FIRST ITEM ON OUR REGULAR AGENDA IS ITEM TEN, PUBLIC HEARINGS, SPECIFIC USE PERMIT, RESCIND SPECIFIC USE PERMIT TWO TWENTY.

SUP 20-0010.

OWNERS DFC LEGACY WEST R.E.

SERIES, LLC.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE JULY 28TH, 2020 P&Z MEETING.

THIS ITEM DOES NEED TO BE REMOVED FROM THE TABLE.

SO I HAVE A MOTION TO REMOVE THIS ITEM FROM THE TABLE.

SO MOVED. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

SECOND. SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL.

ITEM IS REMOVED FROM THE TABLE.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. SINCE TABLING, THE STAFF HAS WORKED WITH THE APPLICANT TO DEVELOP A TIMELINE FOR SUBMISSION OF A SITE PLAN FOR THIS PROJECT.

AS YOU RECALL, STAFF HAD ORIGINALLY REQUESTED TO RESCIND THIS SUP SINCE THE DAYCARE DID NOT DEVELOP ON THE PROPERTY.

THE APPLICANT HAS AGREED TO SUBMIT A COMPLETE SITE PLAN ON OR BEFORE JULY 26, 2021.

IF THAT DOES NOT OCCUR, THEN STAFF WILL AGAIN RECOMMEND THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION CALL A PUBLIC HEARING TO RESCIND THE SUP IN THE THIRD QUARTER OF 2021.

THEREFORE, THE [INAUDIBLE] STAFF RECOMMENDS OPENING AND THEN CLOSING THE PUBLIC HEARING AND ACCEPTING STAFF'S WITHDRAWAL OF THE ITEM.

BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

THANK YOU. [INAUDIBLE] TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME.

DO I HAVE MOTION OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING?

[00:40:01]

SO MOVED.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO. A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE WHO WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 10 AT THIS TIME? SEEING NONE. MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARINGS.

MOTION BY MR. KENDALL.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

ALL RIGHT, COMMISSIONERS, YOU WANT TO HAVE ANY QUESTIONS? WOULD YOU LIKE TO SET THE WITHDRAW? I MOVE TO ACCEPT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR WITHDRAWAL.

MOTION TO APPROVE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION FOR WITHDRAWAL BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ITEM 11, PUBLIC HEARINGS.

ITEM 10 IS WITHDRAWN.

[11. Public Hearing - Sign Variance: Frisco Flyers Addition, Block A, Lot 3 (V20-0009)]

SIGN VARIANCE. FRISCO FLYER'S EDITION BLOCK A LOT 3.

[INAUDIBLE] 20-0009.

OWNERS [INAUDIBLE] PARTNERSHIPS [INAUDIBLE] LIMITED.

THANK YOU, CHAIR AND COMMISSION. TONIGHT, YOU HAVE BEFORE YOU A REQUEST FOR A VARIANCE TO THE SIGN ORDINANCE FOR A WALL SIGN.

A WALL SIGN IS DEFINED AS A SIGN ERECTED AGAINST AN EXTERIOR WALL ERECTED PARALLEL TO A WALL OR PAINTED DIRECTLY ONTO A WALL.

A WALL SIGN IS LIMITED IN HEIGHT RELATIVE TO A BUILDING'S HEIGHT.

A WALL SIGN IS LIMITED BY HEIGHT, BY THE HEIGHT OF THE WALL SIGN, WIDTH IS LIMITED BY THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN. THE SIGN GREATER THAN SIX FEET IN HEIGHT, MAY BE A MAXIMUM OF 50 PERCENT OF A WALL LENGTH ON WHICH IT IS LOCATED.

TWO PERMITS WERE SUBMITTED FOR SIGNS ON THE SAME BUILDING ELEVATION.

THE ELEVATION PLAN PROVIDED FOR EACH PERMIT ONLY REFLECTED A SINGLE SIGN.

THE SIGN PERMIT EXAMINERS HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF CONCURRENT REVIEWS OF AN ADDITIONAL SIGN SCOPE. EACH APPLICATION BY ITSELF IS PERMISSIBLE FOR THE INDIVIDUAL SIGNS AND WERE APPROVED. THESE PERMITS WERE REVIEWED AND ISSUED BASED ON INCOMPLETE INFORMATION PROVIDED ON THE ELEVATION DRAWINGS. THE SIGN THAT IS INSTALLED IS GREATER THAN 60 PERCENT OF THE WALL LENGTH. THIS WOULD LIMIT THE SIGN TO FOUR FEET IN HEIGHT.

THE SIGN INSTALLED IS GREATER THAN SIX FEET TALL, WHICH LIMITS THE SIGN TO 50 PERCENT OF THE WALL LENGTH ON WHICH IT IS LOCATED.

THE SIGN ORDINANCE STATES THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION SHALL DETERMINE THAT A SIGNED REQUEST MEETS THREE OF THE FOLLOWING CRITERIA IN ORDER TO APPROVE A VARIANCE REQUEST. THE FOUR CRITERIA ARE AS FOLLOWS WITH STAFF'S COMMENTS TO FOLLOW.

THE SIGNS SHALL NOT ADVERSELY IMPACT THE ADJACENT PROPERTY VISIBILITY SIDES AND THE LIKE.

STAFF'S COMMENT. THE SIGN IS LARGER THAN WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE ON OTHER BUILDINGS AND MAY HAVE AN IMPACT, CREATING A NUISANCE TO OCCUPANTS OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES BY ITS BRIGHTNESS OR SIZE. THE SIGN WILL BE OF UNIQUE DESIGNER CONFIGURATION.

STAFF'S COMMENT.

THE SIGN EXCEPTION IS NEEDED DUE TO RESTRICTED AREAS, SHAPE, TOPOGRAPHY OR PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT ARE UNIQUE TO THE PROPERTY ON WHICH THE SIGN WOULD BE ERECTED.

STAFF COMMENT.

IN THE LOCATION THAT'S PROPOSED, THERE ARE NO UNIQUE PROPERTY RESTRICTIONS, SHAPED TOPOGRAPHY OR PHYSICAL FEATURES THAT WOULD NECESSITATE THE DEVIATION FROM THE PRESCRIBED SIGN LENGTH REQUIREMENTS.

THE SIGN EXCEPTIONS SUBSTANTIALLY IMPROVES THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE WELFARE AND DOES NOT VIOLATE THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE.

STAFF'S COMMENT. AN INCREASE IN WALL LENGTH FOR THE SIGN DOES NOT IMPROVE THE PUBLIC CONVENIENCE. THE INTENT OF THE ORDINANCE DOES REQUIRE WALL SIGN BE CONSTRUCTED OF A LIMITED SIZE IN PROPORTION TO A BUILDING.

PORTIONS OF THE SIGN MAY BE LOCATED ON A DIFFERENT ELEVATION OF THE SAME BUILDING TO BRING IT INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THE ORDINANCE.

THE VARIANCE DOES NOT MEET ANY OF THE FOUR CRITERIA.

STAFF RECOMMENDS DENIAL OF THIS VARIANCE.

AND IF YOU HAVE ANY QUESTIONS.

SO FROM WHAT I UNDERSTAND, THERE IS A PROCESS HERE, TWO DIFFERENT SIGN APPROVALS WERE OBTAINED. WAS THERE SOME CONFUSION WHETHER THEY'RE SEPARATE ENTITIES, SAME ENTITY? I MEAN, I'M A LITTLE BIT MISTAKEN ON HOW-- I DON'T UNDERSTAND EXACTLY HOW THIS OCCURRED.

SO I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WAS IT BECAUSE THERE ARE TWO SEPARATE ENTITIES WE DIDN'T GET THE CATCH THAT THEY WERE GOING IN THE SAME BUILDING OR--? THE SIGNS WERE SUBMITTED BY THE SAME SIGN CONTRACTORS.

STARLITE SIGNS IN MIDDLE OF MAY, CONCURRENTLY AT THE SAME TIME.

[00:45:01]

THEY WERE REVIEWED BY TWO DIFFERENT STAFF MEMBERS AND THE TWO STAFF MEMBERS HAD NO KNOWLEDGE OF THE TWO SIGNS BEING REVIEWED THE SAME TIME.

SO THE EXHIBIT A THAT'S BEFORE YOU TODAY IS WHAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL PERMIT. THE TOP ONE FOR SIGN NUMBER S 20 00317 AND THE BOTTOM FOR S 20 00315.

SO IT WAS ASSUMED BY EACH INDIVIDUAL PLAN REVIEWER THAT IT WAS A SINGLE SIGN ON A SINGLE ELEVATION. THERE WAS AN ASSUMPTION MADE, BUT THEY WERE SUBMITTED AT THE SAME TIME? THAT IS CORRECT. BY THE SAME SIGN CONTRACTOR? CORRECT. SO IT SOUNDS--.

WHY DON'T YOU ASK THAT QUESTION, WAS A GOOD QUESTION.

DO THEY NORMALLY SUBMIT TWO DIFFERENT SUBMISSIONS FOR SIGNS ON THE SAME BUILDING AT THE SAME TIME, OR DO THEY--? WHEN IT IS ASSUMED BY THE CONTRACTOR THAT THEY ARE INDIVIDUAL SIGNS, EACH REQUIRES A SEPARATE PERMIT. THAT IS CORRECT.

SO THAT'S A NORMAL ASSUMPTION BY THE CONTRACTOR? THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. OK.

BUT WHEN [INAUDIBLE] 20 -00317 WAS SUBMITTED, DID IT REFLECT THE SIGN THAT SAID CARRINGTON ON THE BUILDING OR JUST THE PROPOSED SIGN FOR [INAUDIBLE]? WHAT IS BEFORE YOU IS WHAT WAS SUBMITTED FOR EACH INDIVIDUAL SIGN.

SO ONE DID NOT REFERENCE THE OTHER IN THE SUBMISSION BY THE APPLICANT? THAT IS CORRECT. AND THAT'S NOT UNUSUAL.

THAT IS UNUSUAL. IT IS UNUSUAL.

OK.

CAN YOU CLARIFY WHY THAT'S UNUSUAL? THEY HAVE TO SUBMIT TWO SEPARATE APPLICATIONS FOR TWO SEPARATE SIGNS, BUT IF IT'S ON THE SAME SIDE OF A BUILDING, WOULD IT NORMALLY SHOW ALL OF THE SIGNS THAT WOULD BE ON THAT SIDE OF THE BUILDING? FOR A PROJECT OF THIS TYPE, YES, IT WOULD.

THEY WOULD PROVIDE US WITH A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT SHOWS ALL THE SIGNS ON THE BUILDING, BECAUSE EACH ONE MAY IMPACT THE OTHER.

OK. SO EACH SIGN IS SUPPOSED TO BE--.

IS THE PROBLEM THAT THE TOTAL OF BOTH SIGNS, THE LENGTH OF IT, THE HEIGHT IS OFF BECAUSE OF THE TOTAL BOTH SIGNS BUT OF EACH SIDE WAS INDIVIDUALLY DONE THE HEIGHTS ARE CORRECT? SO STAFF COULD LOOK AT THIS TWO DIFFERENT WAYS, WHETHER IT'S ONE SIGN OR THAT IT'S INDIVIDUAL SIGNS. FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS VARIANCE, I AGREE ADMINISTRATIVELY THAT WE COULD CONSIDER THIS ONE SIGN.

SO IT'S THE LENGTHS, TOO, BECAUSE YOU CAN'T BE OVER 50%.

THAT WOULD BE CORRECT. SO AT THIS POINT, THE BOTH OF THE SIGNS IN COMBINATION LOOK LIKE THIS AND THERE ARE APPROXIMATELY 62 PERCENT OF THE WALL LENGTH ON WHICH THEY'RE LOCATED.

THERE'S ALSO A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN BECAUSE THERE'S AN OFFSET AT THIS POINT OF THE BUILDING. AND I AGREE.

AT THIS POINT OF THE BUILDING, THE WALL OFFSETS IN.

STAFF ALSO NEEDS TO MAKE A CONSIDERATION WHETHER THAT OFFSET CAN STARTS A NEW WALL OR WE CAN CONSIDER THAT ENTIRE PORTION.

ADMINISTRATIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS VARIANCE, WE WOULD CONSIDER THIS AN ENTIRE LENGTH AND SAY THAT IT'S APPROXIMATELY 62 PERCENT, IF THAT MAKES SENSE.

AND IS SUPPOSED TO BE 50 PERCENT.

FOR A SIGN THAT'S IN EXCESS OF SIX FEET, IT WOULD BE 50 PERCENT.

AT 60 PERCENT OR BELOW, IT COULD BE UP TO 60 PERCENT.

AND AT FOUR FEET IT COULD BE 75 PERCENT.

SO AT SIX FEET AND BELOW AND WE'RE AT, WHAT, SIX--? THESE DIMENSIONS ARE NOT ACTUALLY CORRECT.

THIS SIGN WAS SUBMITTED AT APPROXIMATELY BECAUSE OF THE OFFSET TO THE LETTER, APPROXIMATELY SEVEN FEET, 10 INCHES.

AND THE OTHER ONE IS AROUND SIX FOOT TWO INCHES.

AND BECAUSE OF THAT, THE FIRST LETTER--.

BECAUSE OF THE C AND THE G, CORRECT.

AND THEN YOU HAVE SOME OF THE SO THERE'S SOME TECHNICALITIES HERE BECAUSE SOME OF THE CARRINGTON STUFF IS DEFINITELY THE SIGN ITSELF IS SIX FOOT BUT THEN YOU ADD THE BOTTOM OF THE G IN THE TOP OF THE C, SO THE MAJORITY OF THE SIGN IS UNDER SIX FOOT.

BUT BECAUSE OF THAT, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? WOULD THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? SURE. HI, IT'S GOOD TO SEE YOU GUYS AGAIN.

I'M MATT [INAUDIBLE] FROM SEVENTY FOUR HUNDRED GAYLORD PARKWAY IN FRISCO.

I'M ASSUMING YOU GUYS READ THE LETTER THAT I WROTE TO YOU GUYS KIND OF LAYING OUT THIS PROCESS. BUT, YOU KNOW, BASICALLY WHEN WE FIRST WENT FOR THIS SIGNAGE, WE WERE TOLD THAT WE CAN'T HAVE IT BECAUSE IT'S TWO ENTITIES AND WE NEED TO SEE BOTH LEASES.

AND I TRIED TO EXPLAIN THAT, YOU KNOW, THESE EMPLOYEES, IT'S UNDER ONE UMBRELLA.

[00:50:02]

THESE EMPLOYEES WORK BOTH WAYS.

SO WE WANTED TO SEE TWO LEASES DEFINING DIFFERENT SPACE, WHICH WE AREN'T DOING INSIDE THAT OFFICE. SO I WAS ABLE TO GET TO THROUGH MULTIPLE CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF THAT IF WE WERE ABLE TO DO A DVA FOR THE ENTITY, THAT WE COULD GET BOTH SIGNS ON THE BUILDING LIKE THIS. AND THEN WHEN WE WENT THAT ROUTE, MY SIGN COMPANY CAME TO ME AND SAID, HEY, CAN WE START MANUFACTURING? WOULD YOU SIGN THIS WAIVER, START MANUFACTURING TO INDEMNIFY US SO WE CAN MEET YOUR TIMELINE? I WAS OPEN TO THAT, BUT MY RESPONSE WAS SURE, ONLY IF YOU GO BACK TO THE CITY AND DOUBLE TRIPLE CHECK THAT YOU CAN GET THE SIZE, LOCATION, COLOR, EVERYTHING OF THESE SIGNS.

THE RESPONSE OF THE CITY WAS YES, YOU CAN HAVE THAT ONCE YOU HAVE THE DVA.

SO WE WENT AND FILED THE DVA.

I RELEASED THE SIGNED COMPANY.

YOU KNOW, A WEEK OR TWO LATER WE GOT THE DVA.

WE SENT IT TO THE CITY.

WE SENT IT IN FOR PERMANENT AND IT WAS APPROVED AND INSTALLED PER THE PLANS.

SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF IN A TOUGH SPOT ON THIS ONE.

YOU KNOW, I WAS TRYING TO MAYBE PROPOSE THAT IF WE COULD REDUCE THE SIGNAGE ALLOWED ON THE REST OF THE BUILDING BECAUSE THE REST OF THE OTHER SIDES OF THE BUILDING ARE SIGNIFICANTLY LARGER.

I DON'T KNOW IF WE'RE ALLOWED TO TRADE LIKE THAT, BUT IN MY MIND, THAT WOULD BE MAYBE AN ALTERNATIVE TO HELP US GET THROUGH THIS.

BUT, YOU KNOW, IT'S TOO BIG FOR THE PLAN.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE HERE KIND OF HAT IN HAND AGAIN, SAYING, GUYS, YOU KNOW, THIS IS A MISTAKE THAT OCCURRED.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE THINK IT LOOKS PRETTY GOOD.

WE THINK IT DOES NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT THE NEIGHBORS.

MIKE BARNES, WHO'S DEVELOPING THOSE SIX SLOTS THERE, WE BOUGHT THAT LAND FROM AND JASON ROGERS, WHO RUNS THE FRISCO FLYER'S BUILDING.

YOU KNOW, THEY THINK IT LOOKS GREAT.

THEY DON'T, YOU KNOW, THEY'RE EXCITED ABOUT HAVING MORE DEVELOPMENT THERE AND MORE TRAFFIC IN THAT AREA. SO, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A GOOD WORKING RELATIONSHIP WITH THOSE GUYS.

AND, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK FORWARD TO GETTING INTO THAT BUILDING WHENEVER SPECTRUM FINISHES WHAT THEY NEED TO FINISH. BUT, YOU KNOW, I'M HAPPY TO DISCUSS OR ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

I JUST, YOU KNOW.

I WANT TO GET IN FRONT OF YOU GUYS.

THANK YOU. SO THE QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS POINT, COULD THESE SIGNS BE MOVED TO THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BUILDING? SO THE DESIRED INTENT OF THE APPLICANT, THE TENANT, THE OWNERS, WOULD BE THE E ELEVATION FOR THE PARKING LOT AND EASE OF IDENTIFICATION OF THE BUILDING AND THE WEST ELEVATION FOR THE SLIM CHANCE THAT YOU COULD SEE IT FROM THE TOLLWAY OR ONE OF THOSE OTHER ROADS SO THAT, YOU KNOW, THE NORTH AND WEST ELEVATIONS DON'T OFFER MUCH VISIBILITY OPPORTUNITY IN THAT AREA.

SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S REALLY NOT OUR INTENT TO DO THAT.

WE DON'T THINK, YOU KNOW, BENEFITS US THAT MUCH TO DO THAT.

AND AT THIS POINT, YOU KNOW, THERE'S SIGNIFICANT EXPENSE INVOLVED WITH GOING THAT ROUTE.

BUT YOU'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING SIGNS IN THE OTHER ELEVATION.

NO, SO THIS ELEVATION IS-- THIS IS THE WEST ELEVATION AND THEN THE EAST ELEVATION TO FACE THE PARKING LOT ONLY HAS THE CARRINGTON SIGN AND WHICH IS ALLOWED BECAUSE IT'S SHORTER ON THAT SIDE. YEAH.

OK, THANK YOU.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT AT THIS TIME? CAN I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE NOW A PUBLIC HEARING, SO WE WILL PROBABLY ADDRESS YOU HERE AGAIN IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A BREAK.

ARE THERE ANY FOLKS THAT WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? AND I MOVE TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING.

A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

OR DO YOU HAVE SOME CARDS DOWN THERE? OK, LET ME GRAB.

COMMISSIONER MORGAN, CAN YOU GRAB THOSE? SORRY ABOUT THAT.

OK, SO [INAUDIBLE] SPOKE.

MR. SUTTON, IS IT RICK SUTTON? YES, IT IS. OK, THANK YOU.

AND I'M RICK SUTTON WITH KIEFFER STARLITE SIGN.

I RESIDE AT 1110 SQUIRES LANE IN [INAUDIBLE], TEXAS.

ACTUALLY BEEN WITH KIEFFER STARLITE NOW FOR, OR FOR STARLITE FOR 31 YEARS.

SO I'VE BEEN HERE TO SEE FRISCO JUST CONTINUE TO GROW.

AND IT'S BEEN AWESOME.

I JUST ALSO WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IT'S A PLEASURE TO WORK IN YOUR CITY.

YOUR PEOPLE ARE GREAT.

IT IS NOT UNCOMMON FOR US WITH THIS THE WAY THIS WAS SENT IN, IT WAS SEEN AS A PACKAGE AND WE DID THIS SO THAT THE CARRINGTON HAD TO BE PERMITTED SEPARATELY FROM [INAUDIBLE].

[00:55:02]

SO WHEN MY PERMIT PERSON TURNED THIS IN, IT WAS JUST ALL IN THE SAME PACKAGE.

THEY BOTH SAY WEST ELEVATION.

SO I GUESS THE FACT THAT WHEN THEY DID GET TO THE CITY, THEY SPLIT THEM UP AND SENT THEM TO DIFFERENT PEOPLE.

I WILL SAY THAT YOU GUYS ARE-- FRISCO'S GREAT TO WORK WITH.

THEY'RE VERY PROFESSIONAL.

THEY TAKE CARE OF US REAL WELL AND JUST THIS SIGN, THE WAY THIS IS SET UP, THE CARRINGTON ITSELF, THE LETTERS ARE RIGHT ABOUT SIX FOOT TALL AND EVEN THE G, WHICH IS A DESCENDER, IS RIGHT AT SIX FOOT TALL.

THE SIGN OVERALL HEIGHT IS ALMOST EIGHT FOOT TALL, BUT IT'S ALLOWED THAT IN CODE.

THE QUESTION HERE IS THE LENGTH.

AND IT DID END UP BE LIKE 62 PERCENT OF THE LENGTH OF THAT 122 FOOT BUILDING, WHICH I WISH THAT EITHER IN PERMITTING OR OUR FOLKS HAD HAD CAUGHT IT BECAUSE IT WENT ALL THE WAY THROUGH AND WAS APPROVED.

IT WAS BUILT, IT WAS INSTALLED, AND IT WASN'T UNTIL WE CALLED IN A FINAL INSPECTION THAT IT WAS BROUGHT UP THAT THE SIGN WAS TOO LONG.

AND THAT IT'S KIND OF UNFORTUNATE.

I DON'T THINK THAT WITH THE HEIGHT OF THE LETTERS ON THE BUILDING THAT ANYTHING LOOKS OBTRUSIVE, I THINK THEY'RE DONE REALLY WELL.

IT'S INTENDED TO BE ON THE WEST ELEVATION SO THAT IT COULD BE SEEN FROM THE GREATEST DISTANCE, LIKE FROM THE TOLLWAY.

AND WE WOULD VERY MUCH LIKE TO HAVE YOU GUYS APPROVE LEAVING THAT SIGN AS IT IS . I THINK THEY MENTIONED THAT IF-- I MEAN, WE COULD PUT SIGNS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE, BUT THEY DON'T CHOOSE TO DO SO.

I MEAN, WE COULD STILL GO BACK AND ADD SIGNS THERE, BUT I THINK THEY WOULD FOREGO THAT IS WHAT I UNDERSTAND. IF THEY COULD KEEP THIS THE WAY IT IS.

AND IF YOU GUYS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR ME, I'M WITH THE SIGN COMPANY SO I CAN ANSWER ANYTHING, I'D LIKE TO DO THAT.

OK, THANK YOU SO MUCH, SIR.

ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU.

ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM AT THIS TIME? OK, SEEING NONE.

DO I HAVE EMOTION? MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED. I THINK THIS IS A SITUATION.

I MEAN, IT JUST SEEMS LIKE A DIFFICULT SITUATION.

SOME HUMAN COMPONENTS INVOLVED.

I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE WAS ANYTHING MALICIOUS ABOUT THE SUBMITTAL.

IT'S HARD TO FIGURE THAT THERE WOULD BE.

THE SIGN FOR THE MOST PART, AS YOU KNOW, THE LETTERS ARE SIX FOOT TALL OR LOWER.

BUT I DO UNDERSTAND THE C GOING UP, THE G GOING DOWN MAKES IT SEEM A LOT BIGGER.

YOU KNOW, THE--. IT'S HARD TO, IN MY OPINION, TO PULL A SIGN OFF THAT WE APPROVED THROUGH OUR PROCESS AND I DO STRUGGLE WITH THAT FROM MY COMMENTS.

BUT I WANT TO OPEN UP TO THE COMMISSION HERE AND TAKE COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION.

YEAH, I'LL MAKE A FEW COMMENTS.

SO, YOU KNOW, I TALKED TO A FEW STAFF TO BETTER UNDERSTAND THIS AND YOU KNOW, THE QUESTION I WAS ASKED, YOU KNOW, WAS THERE A MALICIOUS INTENT? AND THEY TOLD ME THAT THIS SIGN COMPANY IS PHENOMENAL TO WORK WITH, THAT YOU HAVE A GREAT REPUTATION HERE.

AND SO THAT'S GREATLY APPRECIATED.

IT'S ONE OF THOSE I ACTUALLY DRIVE BY EVERY MORNING, I COME EARLY, SO I SEE IT AND IT POPS OUT. I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE IT OFF OF FRISCO STREET.

I CONSIDER MYSELF ON THE PRO DEVELOPMENT SIDE BECAUSE THERE'S A COST INVOLVED FOR HAVING TO MOVE THIS SIGN AND THERE'S A COST OF MOVING IT.

YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME, YOU KNOW, HOLES TO PUT IN AND ONE OR THE OTHER COMPANY WILL-- I WOULDN'T SAY DRASTICALLY BE IMPACTED, BUT IT WILL NOT HAVE THAT FACING ANYTHING.

IT'S THE MOST VISIBLE.

BUT WITH THAT SAID.

YOU KNOW, I LOVE FRISCO BECAUSE IT DOES HAVE A VERY STRICT SIGN ORDINANCE AND I PROBABLY GO BACK AND FORTH EVERY TIME, BUT I KNOW WE'RE NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT, BUT I WOULD PROBABLY NOT BE IN FAVOR OF THIS.

AND I WOULD I WOULD GO WITH STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION.

AND I'M SO GRATEFUL FOR YOUR SUPPORT IN THE CITY.

[01:00:01]

I THINK I SAW YOUR LETTER. YOU'VE GOT FIVE COMPANIES HERE OR FIVE BUILDINGS AND SO GRATEFUL FOR YOUR COMMITMENT TO FRISCO.

BUT I FEEL IT'S IMPORTANT THAT WE MAINTAIN THAT UNDER 50 PERCENT.

I THINK IT JUST MAKES THINGS LOOK A LITTLE CLEANER THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY.

AND I KNOW IT WAS NOT INTENTIONAL, BUT I WOULD NOT BE IN SUPPORT OF THIS OR IN SUPPORT OF STAFF SUPPORT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, SO I ECHO MY FELLOW COMMISSIONERS COMMENT, MR. [INAUDIBLE]. THANK YOU FOR INVESTING IN OUR CITY.

MR. SUTTON. THANK YOU FOR BEING A PARTNER.

I THINK WE ALL WOULD LOVE TO BE IN KERRVILLE.

SO WE'RE JEALOUS OF YOU.

JUST WE LOVE FRISCO, BUT YOU GOT TO THE HILL COUNTRY.

THERE'S SOMETHING ABOUT THAT. BUT I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR MR. SUTTON, JUST A PROCEDURE QUESTION, BECAUSE THIS WAS A QUESTION OF PROCEDURE.

WHILE HE'S WALKING UP, BOTH SIGNS LOOK GOOD, BUT WHEN THEY'RE TOGETHER, THEY LOOK A LITTLE CLUSTER. IT'S A LOT.

SO, MR. SUTTON, I APPRECIATE YOU MENTIONING YOUR COMPANY SUBMITTED EVERYTHING INTO A PACKET, BUT THE CITY DOES LOOK AT EACH INDIVIDUALLY, AND I ACTUALLY LIKE IT SEPARATION OF DUTIES. SO WE DON'T HAVE ANY TYPE OF GROUP THINK.

SO I LIKE THAT PROCESS.

IS IT NORMAL OR WAS IT AN OVERSIGHT TO NOT INCLUDE BOTH SIGNS ON EACH SUBMISSION SHOWING THIS IS WHAT WE PLAN ON PUTTING ON THIS BUILDING? THIS SUBMISSION IS FOR THIS AND THIS AND THIS PART OF THE PACKET IS FOR THIS? I ACTUALLY IN HINDSIGHT, WE WOULD LIKE TO HAVE GONE BACK AND PUT BOTH ON THE SAME ELEVATION. LIKE I SAID, I HAD PREVIOUSLY STATED THEY WERE BOTH SHOWN WITH THE WEST ELEVATION AND IN THE SAME PACKET.

AND WHEN YOU DO SUBMIT THESE, THEY LOOK AT THEM INDIVIDUALLY AS FAR AS YOU GET A SEPARATE PERMIT FOR EACH ONE.

THERE ARE SOME CITIES THAT LOOK AT IT ALL TOGETHER AND YOU HAVE A PERMIT FOR THE ENTIRE SIGN. WE KNEW THIS WASN'T THE CASE THERE, SO MY PERMIT SPECIALISTS JUST WENT AHEAD AND BROKE IT DOWN INTO EACH ONE INDIVIDUALLY.

LIKE I SAID, NOTHING INTENDED, JUST TRYING TO DO IT SIMPLER FOR THE CITY.

AND AND YES, WE NOW WE WOULD LIKE TO SAY THAT IT WOULD BE BETTER IF WE'D HAD ANOTHER SUBMITTAL THAT SHOWED BOTH OF THEM ON THE SAME PAGE.

THANK YOU. AND WE DID HAVE THAT, BUT WE JUST DIDN'T PUT IT IN THE PACKET.

SURE. THANK YOU FOR THAT.

AND THANK YOU FOR BEING A LONG TERM PARTNER WORKING WITH JOHN AND HIS STAFF.

YEAH, THIS IS A HARD ONE.

IT IS REALLY HARD BECAUSE.

YEAH. SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WHAT WOULD HAPPEN IF WE SUPPORTED STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION, THESE SIGNS HAVE TO COME OFF? AT LEAST ONE OF THEM DOES. THEN THEY HAVE TO REDO ONE ON THE SIGNS.

THEY CAN DO WHATEVER THEY COULD RESIZE THEM.

THERE'S OPTIONS THERE, BUT ALL OF THOSE, OF COURSE, THEY ALL HAVE COSTS AND THAT AT LEAST ONE OF THEM WOULD HAVE TO COME DOWN.

AND IN THE INTENT, WHEN I LOOK AT THE LETTERING, YOU KNOW, THE SIX FOOT, YOU HAVE THE C GO UP AND THE G GO DOWN IN REALITY, I UNDERSTAND THAT'S LARGE, BUT THE LETTERS THEMSELVES ARE UNDER SIX FOOT. YOU KNOW, WE'RE CLOSE ON THAT 60 PERCENT TO 62 PERCENT OF THE SIGN.

AND I JUST WONDER IF WE'RE REALLY JUST--.

IT SEEMS VERY TECHNICAL WHERE WE'RE AT ON THIS ONE BASED OFF THE HUMAN COMPONENTS INVOLVED, IN MY OPINION.

ABSOLUTELY. ABSOLUTELY.

SO IF I UNDERSTAND WHAT I'VE HEARD, THE HEIGHT OF THE SIGN IS OK.

THE LENGTH OF THE SIGN IS THE PROBLEM.

AND I THINK I HEARD IT'S SIXTY TWO FEET.

AND IT CAN ONLY BE 50 FEET.

50 PERCENT.

YEAH, I WAS ONLY REFERENCING PERCENTAGES, SO IT COULD BE 62 PERCENT OF THE OVERALL WALL LENGTH OF SO 122, SOME 75 FEET.

SO HOW MANY FEET ARE WE TALKING ABOUT? BECAUSE IT GETS DOWN TO THE 50 VERSUS 60 BECAUSE IT CAN REALLY ONLY BE AS IS 50 PERCENT.

SO WE ARE 15 PERCENT OVER 75.

SO SOMEONE DO A QUICK MATH ON THAT.

THE CHALLENGE IS BECAUSE OF THE HEIGHT OF SOME OF THE LETTERS IT THROWS AT 50 PERCENT VERSUS THE 60 PERCENT.

THE HEIGHT IS OK. RIGHT.

I'M SORRY. SAY AGAIN. IS THE HEIGHT IS THE LETTER--.

ABSOLUTELY. THE HEIGHT CAN BE BECAUSE THAT'S THE FIRST CRITERIA THAT YOU COME UP WITH.

YOU TAKE BUILDING HEIGHT AND YOU FIND THE MAXIMUM SIGN.

[01:05:03]

AND THEN THE NEXT CRITERIA IS ONCE YOU KNOW YOU'RE WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING AS A SIGN, THEN YOU TACK ON WHAT THE MAXIMUM OVERALL LENGTH OF THE SIGN CAN BE.

SO WE'RE I'M TRYING TO GET TO IS HOW MUCH LONGER IS THIS SIGN THAN IS ALLOWED? ARE WE TALKING TEN FEET? WE'RE TALKING FIVE FEET? ARE WE TALKING--? IT'S AROUND 62.

IT'S AROUND 62 PERCENT.

SO IT CAN IT IS-- IT'S 12 PERCENT HIGHER AND 12 PERCENT OF 75 FEET THAT IT IS.

IT'S AROUND ABOUT EIGHT, NINE FOOT.

NINE FEET LONGER THAN IT'S ALLOWED TO BE.

YES, SIR. BUT PHILIP, CAN YOU CLARIFY THE 50 AND 60 PERCENT? I'M SORRY. NO, I'M JUST SAYING I BECAUSE AS A PRACTICAL MATTER, I LOOK AT THIS AS A MISTAKE. IT'S INSTALLED AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT NINE FEET.

WE'RE IN AN INDUSTRIAL SECTION OF TOWN.

DOESN'T REALLY AFFECT RESIDENTS THAT MUCH AT ALL, I GUESS.

AND IT DOES GIVE VISIBILITY TO THE TOLLWAY.

SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS SIGN.

CAN YOU CLARIFY, YOU MENTIONED THERE'S A 50 PERCENT MAXIMUM AND THAT A 60 PERCENT MAXIMUM.

WHAT'S THE QUALIFIER? RIGHT. SO AS THIS SIGN IS MEASURED FROM THE HIGHEST ELEMENTS, IT IS IN EXCESS OF SIX FEET. SO IT COULD BE SIX FEET, ONE INCH.

AND AT THAT POINT IT'S LIMITED TO 50 PERCENT OF THE WALL WIDTH OR LENGTH.

EXCUSE ME.

BUT IF IT'S LESS THAN 72 INCHES, LESS THAN SIX FEET, IT CAN GO TO 60 PERCENT.

THAT CAN GO TO 60 PERCENT.

CORRECT. BECAUSE THE C WENT ABOVE AND THE G WENT BELOW.

IT THROWS THAT OFF.

AND DOT THE I.

HE MIGHT ASK YOU TO PUT A WATER FEATURE IN THERE, TOO.

SO I'M GOING TO HOLD OFF ON THAT.

I'M SORRY.

[LAUGHTER] WE'RE TALKING ABOUT EIGHT FEET ON A SEVENTY FIVE FOOT BUILDING.

YEAH, I HAVE ONE MORE PHILLIP.

IS, DOES THE SIGN ORDINANCE ALLOW THEM TO PLACE ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING? IF THEY HAVE WALL LENGTH THAT IS NOT USED ALREADY BY ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE.

CORRECT. THERE'S NO SIGNAGE THERE TODAY.

APPLICANTS SAID HE WOULD FOREGO HIS RIGHT TO DO THAT IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS.

DID I SAY THAT RIGHT? YES. IF I UNDERSTAND THERE'S ONE OTHER WALL LENGTH THAT HAS SIGNAGE ON IT CURRENTLY, CORRECT? THIS IS THE W ELEVATION, THE E ELEVATION JUST HAS THE CARRINGTON SIGN, AND THESE ARE ONE HUNDRED TWENTY TWO FOOT, THE OTHER ELEVATIONS ARE ABOUT TWO HUNDRED AND TWENTY FEET. THESE ARE THE SMALLER ELEVATIONS.

COMMISSIONER KELLY, CAN YOU ASK THE APPLICANT THAT FOR THE RECORD? CAN YOU STEP UP TO THE MICROPHONE? SO IF WE WERE TO APPROVE THIS AS IT'S INSTALLED, WOULD YOU BE WILLING TO FOREGO YOUR RIGHT TO PUT SIGNS ON, WHAT IS IT, THE NORTH AND THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING? YES, SIR. OKAY, THANK YOU.

QUESTION FOR STAFF. SO WE TALKED ABOUT THE THE LENGTH.

SO THE HEIGHT, THE PROBLEM WITH THE HEIGHT IS, WHAT, FIVE? IS IT FIVE OF THE LETTERS THAT ARE TALLER THAN THE OTHERS? WELL, ACTUALLY, EVEN WITH THE-- WITHOUT THE TALLER LETTERS, WE'RE STILL IN EXCESS OF SIX FEET OR SIX FOOT TWO INCHES.

SO, YOU KNOW, WE'RE RIGHT THERE.

IT'S DOES COME DOWN TO SOME NOMINAL DIMENSIONS.

AND SO THE LOWER CASE LETTERS ARE SIX FEET, SIX FEET, TWO INCHES.

SIX FEET AND SIX FEET, TWO INCHES.

SO THE C IS MORE THAN SIX FEET, TWO INCHES, OBVIOUSLY, THEN.

ABSOLUTELY. CAPITAL C.

I BELIEVE IT'S AT 6' 2".

SO I GUESS IT'S [IUNAUDIBLE] I'M LOOKING AT THE FIRST TWO LETTERS.

I'VE GOT A CAPITAL C AND A LOWERCASE A.

AND THERE'S MORE THAN A FEW INCHES DIFFERENCE IN THEM, AM I CORRECT? FOR SURE. SO WHICH-- HOW TALL IS THE CAPITOL C? IT STATES SIX FOOT ON THIS DRAWING RIGHT HERE.

THAT'S WHAT I THOUGHT.

SO THE LOWERCASE A THEN IS NOT SIX FEET.

DO WE KNOW HOW TALL THE LOWERCASE LETTERS ARE? WELL, IF YOU LOOK ON THE RIGHT HAND SIDE, WE HAVE THE [INAUDIBLE], WHICH IS ACTUALLY A SIX FOOT TWO INCH SIGN.

SO THE N IT SAYS FOUR FOOT FOUR ON THE LOWERCASE LETTERS, SIX FOOT ON THE UPPERCASE ON THE CARRINGTON SIGN. SO WHEN YOU GET INTO THE TECHNICAL PORTIONS, IF I'M MEASURING THE OVERALL SIGN, SO IT'S THE HIGHEST ELEMENTS, THE LOWEST ELEMENT.

SO TECHNICALLY, WHENEVER I MEASURED THIS SIGN, IT WAS SEVEN FEET, 10 INCHES.

NOW I GET IT.

THAT MAKES SENSE. OK, THE ONLY POINT I'M MAKING IS JUST FROM A VISUAL STANDPOINT.

IF CARRINGTON WAS ALL IN UPPER CASE LETTERS AND [INAUDIBLE] WERE ALL UPPERCASE LETTERS, I DO THINK VISUALLY I COULD SEE WHERE IT WOULD BE OVERWHELMING TO THE WALL.

[01:10:02]

TO ME, IT'S FORTUNATE THAT CARRINGTON'S A LONG NAME WITH A LOT OF LOWERCASE LETTERS.

IF WE DO DECIDE TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF AGREEMENT TO ALLOW THIS TO STAY, IT MAY NOT BE IDEAL, BUT IT MAY NOT BE AS BAD AS WE MAY BE IMAGINING IT EITHER IS WHAT I'M TRYING TO SAY IS THAT VISUALLY IT MAY BE OK.

IN ORDER TO AVOID SETTING A PRECEDENT, I AGREE WITH THOSE COMMISSIONERS WHO HAVE TALKED ABOUT TRYING TO WORK OUT SOME KIND OF ARRANGEMENT TO WHERE, YOU KNOW, WE GIVE UP SOME AVAILABLE SIGNAGE ON THE OVERALL BUILDING SO THAT WE'RE NOT SETTING A PRECEDENT WHERE SOMEONE COMES IN AND WANTS TO DO THIS EXACT SAME THING ON ALL FOUR SIDES OF A BUILDING.

JUST TO BE CLEAR, WE DON'T SET PRECEDENTS WITH SIGN VARIANCES.

CORRECT. ONE STANDS ON ITS OWN.

WE SAY THAT. BUT THE REALITY IS THAT PERCEPTION.

YEAH, THERE'S PERCEPTION MANAGEMENT AND WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH PRECEDENT.

SO WE HAVE TO DEAL WITH THE PERCEIVED PERCEPTION OF A PRECEDENT HERE.

JOHN, IF THE COMMISSION WERE TO MOVE TO APPROVE THE EXCEPTION, BUT DISALLOW ANY ADDITIONAL SIGNAGE ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE, IS THAT SOMETHING YOU CAN ENFORCE? AND HOW WOULD THAT STICK WITH THE PROPERTY OR HOW WOULD THAT BE MANAGED? I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT WOULD BE MANAGED BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE A NIGHTMARE OF LIKE HOW IS THAT ENTERED INTO THE SYSTEM? HOW'S THAT ENFORCED? PROPERTY CHANGED HANDS? THEY HAVE NO KNOWLEDGE THAT THAT'S SUCH A CONDITION ON THE PROPERTY.

YOU KNOW, I WOULD SAY FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I THINK EACH SIGN REQUEST HAS TO STAND ON ITS OWN. WE EITHER GRANT THE SIGN VARIANCE.

WE DON'T NEED TO PUT ANY MORE BUREAUCRATIC PROCESSES ON OUR STAFF IN MY OPINION.

IF WE GRANT A VARIANCE ON THIS, THIS ONE STANDS ON ITS OWN.

YOU KNOW, I THINK TO COMMISSIONER KELLY'S POINT, I THINK THERE WAS-- WE HAVE SOME CULPABILITY IN THE PROCESS AS WELL.

WE'RE NOT, YOU KNOW, INCURRING COSTS.

WE DON'T HAVE TO INCUR THE COST.

BUT I THINK NOT PUTTING THAT COST ON THE LANDOWNER HERE IS PROBABLY THE RIGHT THING TO DO, CONSIDERING THAT WE'RE TALKING TO YOUR POINT, EIGHT FEET, EIGHT OR NINE FEET.

BUT THAT'S UP TO YOU, YOU COMMISSIONERS, BECAUSE I'M NOT VOTING ON THIS ONE UNLESS SOMEONE RECUSES HIMSELF. I DO LIKE WHAT COMMISSIONER KELLY SAID ABOUT TRYING TO FIND SOME KIND OF SOLUTION. I THINK WHAT YOU SAID, CHAIRMAN COX, ABOUT WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT ADDING BUREAUCRACY. WE'RE ALSO CONCERNED ABOUT SMALL BUSINESSES AND BUSINESS OWNERS.

SO WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO BALANCE THE RIGHT AMOUNT.

WE DON'T GET TOO MUCH. WELL, WE TAKE CARE OF BOTH SIDES.

ABSOLUTELY. BUT IF THERE'S A WAY TO-- IF ENOUGH COMMISSIONERS ARE WILLING TO APPROVE IT WITHOUT ADDING A LAYER OF DIFFICULTY TO STAFF, THEN I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THAT.

IF THAT'S THE ONLY WAY TO TAKE CARE OF THE BUSINESS OWNER AND TO TRY TO FIX THIS, THEN I WOULD ALSO BE OK ADDING STIPULATIONS IF WE HAD TO.

HOW'S THAT? I THINK IT'S FAIR TO SAY.

OK, DO I HAVE ANY MOTIONS? I MOVE TO APPROVE THE SIGN VARIANCE ITEM 11.

A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

SIGN VARIANCE IS APPROVED THREE TWO.

ANY OPPOSED? NAY.

COMMISSIONER KENDALL, CAN YOU STATE YOUR REASON FOR DENIAL? AND THE COMMISSIONER BOX.

REASON IS SUPPORTING STAFF RECOMMENDATION.

BUT ALSO, I'M HAPPY FOR THE APPLICANT.

I MEAN, I'M GRATEFUL THAT YOU AREN'T GIVING TO INCUR THAT COST.

SO THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BOX.

WE HAVE A SIGN ORDINANCE FOR A REASON, AND MAXING OUT THE ORDINANCE IS NOT WHY THE ORDINANCE IS WRITTEN. I THINK WE MAXED OUT THE ORDINANCE HERE AND I'M NOT THRILLED WITH THAT. I AM, AS I MENTIONED, I APPRECIATE THE INVESTMENT YOU MADE IN THE CITY OF FRISCO.

AND I APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT THESE ARE NOT HAVING TO COME DOWN AND HOPE THAT THIS DOES NOT OCCUR IN THE FUTURE. AND I THINK MAYBE INTERNALLY WE HAVE SOME PROCESSES TO FIX ON THAT AS WELL. SO WE CAN TRY TO FIGURE OUT IF THIS HAPPENS, NOT ONLY ON THIS KIND OF-- NOT JUST A SIGN VARIANCE, BUT ANYTHING WHERE WE HAVE TWO ITEMS ON ONE PIECE OF PROPERTY GO INTO TWO SEPARATE PEOPLE COULD CAUSE SOME CHALLENGES.

SO CONGRATULATIONS ON THE APPROVAL OF ITEM 11.

THANK YOU, GUYS. I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT YOU GUYS DO FOR US.

GREAT JOB, AS USUAL.

THANK YOU. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU ALL. THANK YOU.

ALL RIGHT. ITEM 12, PUBLIC HEARINGS, ZONING AMENDMENT TO ORDINANCE NUMBER EIGHTY FIVE,

[12. Public Hearing - Zoning: Amendment to Ordinance No. 85-12-01 (Z20-0009)]

DASH ONE ZERO ONE Z, TWENTY TWO ZERO ZERO ZERO NINE.

OWNERS, MULTIPLE OWNERS.

AND BEFORE YOU GET INTO THAT, FOR THE OTHER FOLKS IN THE AUDIENCE OUR SIGN VARIANCE BELIEVE IT OR NOT, ARE PROBABLY ARE SOME OF THE MOST COMPLICATED CASES THAT WE GET INTO AND IN OUR PLANNING AND ZONING HERE.

SO THANK YOU FOR SITTING THROUGH THAT.

[01:15:03]

YEAH, WE ARE WORKING ON REVISING.

SO ITEM TWELVE. I'LL TURN IT OVER TO YOU, ANTHONY.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS INITIATED A PROCESS TO IDENTIFY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE MULTIFAMILY ZONING, BUT DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY.

PER ORDINANCE EIGHTY FIVE 1201 TRACT FIVE, WHICH IS A PORTION WITHIN THE CROWN RIDGE SUBDIVISION, IS ZONED MULTIFAMILY 15.

THE SUBDIVISION HAS DEVELOPED AS SINGLE FAMILY.

ALL LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION HAVE BEEN PLATTED AND STAFF IS PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A DISTRICT THAT ALIGNS WITH HOW THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED, WHICH IN THIS CASE IS A MIX OF SINGLE FAMILY, EIGHT POINT FIVE AND SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN.

THEREFORE, THIS EVENING, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL TO REZONE ON THE PROPERTY TO SINGLE FAMILY EIGHT POINT FIVE AND SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN.

AS INDICATED IN YOUR STAFF REPORT, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT, WILL THE APPLICANT CARE TO SPEAK ON THIS? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

SECOND. SECOND BY COMMISSIONER CONE.

AND ALL THOSE IN FAVOR. AYE.

ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE HERE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE. MOVE TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE. A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

SO THIS IS ONE OF THOSE ITEMS WHERE WHEN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS DEVELOPED, THERE WAS MULTIFAMILY AS PART OF THE ZONING, SO THAT IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO THAT NEIGHBORHOOD IN THE FUTURE, THAT MULTIFAMILY ZONING WOULD STILL BE ALIVE.

AND IS OUR OBJECTIVE TO REMOVE MULTIFAMILY AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE FROM THESE LEGACY NEIGHBORHOODS THAT WERE DEVELOPED AS SINGLE FAMILY.

IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT IS CORRECT.

OK, DOES THIS HAVE MULTIFAMILY IS THIS MULTIFAMILY THAT WAS TIED TO THIS? IS THAT PART OF OUR DENSITY CAP AS WELL IN TERMS OF THE CITY MAX BUILD OUT NUMBER? WELL, WHEN PROPERTY'S BEEN DEVELOPED AS SINGLE FAMILY, WE TAKE THOSE MULTIFAMILY UNITS OFF. SO WE HAVE A RUNNING TOTAL.

WE HAVE THE REAL TOTAL FROM THE SINGLE FAMILY.

OK, PERFECT. SO THIS WON'T AFFECT ANY OF THOSE NUMBERS, BUT CERTAINLY IT PROTECTS THE CITY AND THE RESIDENTS IN THE LONG TERM.

SO IF ANYTHING WERE TO HAPPEN IN THESE NEIGHBORHOODS, THEN THERE'S NO WAY FOR MULTIFAMILY TO DEVELOP IF SOMETHING CAME IN AND BOUGHT UP A BUNCH OF PROPERTY OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES, CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT.

YES. OK, ANY QUESTIONS? CHAIRMAN COX, JUST SO WE'RE CLEAR FOR THE RECORD, THE REASON WE'RE GETTING RID OF THE MULTIFAMILY, THE REASON WE'RE REZONING IT TO SINGLE FAMILY THIS SIZE IS TO MATCH WHAT'S ON THE GROUND.

WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE.

WHAT'S CURRENTLY THERE. SO EVERYONE KNOWS THAT'S WHY WE'RE GOING REMOVING ANYTHING THAT'S NOT THERE. IT'S ALLOWED.

AND ONLY ALLOWING WHAT'S BEEN BUILT.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE MATCHING THE ZONING TO HOW THE IS DEVELOPED, AND THAT'S WHY WE'RE CHOOSING TO ZONE IT TO A POINT FIVE AND SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN.

CORRECT. OK, CAN I GET A MOTION TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? I THINK WE HAVE A CITIZEN THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK.

AND I THINK I'D LIKE TO HEAR THE COMMENTS.

MOVE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

WE ARE REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING.

THANK YOU. MA'AM, IF YOU CAN SAY YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND THEN FILL OUT SPEAKER CARD WHEN YOU'RE DONE THAT'D BE GREAT.

YES. JENNY [INAUDIBLE], 9523 NIGHT LANE.

THAT HOUSE RIGHT THERE. BUT MY QUESTION WAS, IS WHY IS THIS PARCEL ONLY? WHY DOESN'T IT NOT OPEN UP THE WHOLE CROWN RIDGE ISSUE? THE REASON WE ASK IS BECAUSE WE'VE HAD SOME ISSUES WITH NEXT GEN HOMES BEING LOOKED AT AND USING AS MULTIFAMILY IN THE NEXT NEIGHBORHOOD UP.

SO IF THIS LEGACY IS BEING DONE FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD, I MEAN FOR THIS PORTION, WHY ISN'T IT FOR THE WHOLE NEIGHBORHOOD? LOOK, I'LL ADDRESS THAT AFTER WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

IS THERE ANYONE ELSE THAT WOULD CARE TO SPEAK AT THIS TIME? OK, I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING.

SO MOVED. A MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AGAIN.

SO TO ME, THE REASON FOR IT IS THERE'S DIFFERENT PIECES OF ZONING FOR DIFFERENT NEIGHBORHOODS. AND SO WE CAN ONLY ADDRESS EACH INDIVIDUAL ZONING AS A SEPARATE ITEM.

SO EACH PLAN DEVELOPMENT OR NEIGHBORHOOD AS A SEPARATE ITEM.

SO THERE MAY BE ANOTHER REVISION ON ANOTHER PIECE OF LAND IN THE FUTURE THAT WHERE WE WANT TO CHANGE, TAKE AWAY MULTIFAMILY ZONING IF IT'S ALREADY BUILT OUT.

SO IF THERE IS NEIGHBORHOODS THAT AREN'T COMPLETELY BUILT OUT THAT HAVE ZONING, WE WILL NOT CHANGE THAT BECAUSE WE CAN'T TAKE AWAY THE RIGHTS OF FOLKS WHO MAY BE WANTING TO BUILD SOMETHING ON LAND THAT THEY OWN THAT HAS NOT BEEN DEVELOPED.

[01:20:01]

BUT CERTAINLY OUR GOAL IS ANYTIME THERE IS NEIGHBORHOODS COMPLETELY BUILT OUT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PROTECT WHAT'S BUILT.

SO IF ANYTHING EVER HAPPENS IN THE FUTURE, INVESTORS COME IN AND TRY TO BUY UP NEIGHBORHOODS, AS THIS PERSON SPOKE ABOUT EARLIER, THEN THEY CAN'T BUILD OTHER THINGS.

SO THAT'S THE REASON.

SO WE CAN ONLY DEAL WITH ONE PARCEL AT A TIME.

AND I THINK YOUR EXAMPLE EARLIER OF A TORNADO COMES IN AND DESTROYS THE AREA.

SOMEBODY CAN'T COME AND BUILD MULTIFAMILY HERE.

THEY'D HAVE TO REBUILD SINGLE FAMILY, SEVEN OR EIGHT A HALF.

SO THIS IS THIS NEIGHBORHOOD GOING TO BE ADDRESSED IN A DIFFERENT TIME? THE OTHER PARTS OF IT? MAY OR MAY NOT BASED OFF HOW IT'S BUILT OUT AND WHAT'S IN IT AND IF IT NEEDS REVISION OR NOT. YES, I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR.

THE AREA THAT YOU'RE REZONING TONIGHT ARE SUPPOSED TO BE REZONED IS THE ONLY MULTIFAMILY AREA WITHIN EIGHTY FIVE 1201 THAT'S ZONED MULTIFAMILY.

THAT IS CORRECT. ANTHONY, CAN YOU JUST FOR THE RECORD THEN TELL EVERYBODY WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS TO THE NORTH AND THE EAST AND THE SOUTH? ABSOLUTELY. AND THE WEST, COVER EVERYTHING.

SO THE WEST TO THIS PARCEL OVER HERE? OK, SO THAT IS ZONED COMMERCIAL ONE, AND THEN TO THE NORTH IS PATIO HOME TO THE EAST IS EIGHT POINT FIVE SINGLE FAMILY, EIGHT POINT FIVE, SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN AND PATIO HOME.

AND THEN TO THE SOUTH, A SINGLE FAMILY, EIGHT POINT FIVE.

SO THOSE ARE ALL SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS, EXCEPT FOR, OF COURSE, THE COMMERCIAL ALONG PRESTON ROAD.

THANK YOU FOR CLARIFYING THAT.

ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION ON ITEM 12.

MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM 12. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ITEM THIRTEEN, PUBLIC HEARING ZONING, AMENDMENT TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT 38.

ITEM TWELVE IS APPROVED.

[13. Public Hearing - Zoning: Amendment to Planned Development-38]

OWNERS, MULTIPLE OWNERS.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS INITIATED A PROCESS TO IDENTIFY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE MULTIFAMILY AND TOWNHOMES ZONING, BUT HAVE DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY. PLAN DEVELOPMENT 38 WAS AMENDED FOR THIS AREA IN 2004 AND REZONE THE PROPERTIES OF MULTIFAMILY 19 AND TOWNHOME.

A LATER AMENDMENT TO THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT WAS ADOPTED IN 2005 THAT ESTABLISHED PATIO HOME DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AND EXHIBITS.

THE SEDONA NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THESE STANDARDS AND EXHIBITS.

HOWEVER, IN THE LEGAL HEADING OF THE 2005 ORDINANCE, THE MULTIFAMILY DESIGNATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN REMOVED FROM THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

THEREFORE, STAFF IS PROPOSING TO AMEND THE 2005 ORDINANCE AND CORRECT THE LEGAL HEADING.

ESTABLISHING THE ZONING AS PLAN DEVELOPMENT 38 PATIO HOME.

STAFF HAS REVIEWED THE LANGUAGE AND FURTHER ELIMINATED ANY STANDARDS THAT ARE NO LONGER NECESSARY. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING THIS EVENING THIS PROPERTY BE REZONED TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 30 PATIO HOMES SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS NOTED BELOW AND THE ASSOCIATED EXHIBITS WITHIN THE PACKET.

I WOULD BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION OPEN PUBLIC HEARING ON THIS ITEM? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN. IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST ITEM 13 THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE. DO I HAVE A MOTION? SEEING NONE, MOVE TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION LIKE COMMISSIONER BOX, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

SO ONCE AGAIN, THIS HAS BEEN BUILT OUT WITH PATIO HOMES.

THAT IS CORRECT. THERE WAS OTHER ZONING ON HERE THAT WE NO LONGER WOULD CARE FOR.

THAT'S RIGHT. THE MULTIFAMILY 19 ZONING AND THE TOWNHOMES ONLY WEREN'T UTILIZED AND SO WAS DEVELOPED AS PATIO HOME.

AND SO THIS IS TO CLEAN UP THAT ZONING IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE PD.

QUESTION. YES.

SO ALL THE STRIKETHROUGHS IN THE FOLLOWING REPORT, LIKE LANDSCAPING AND GARAGE, ALL THE STRIKETHROUGHS ARE TO MAKE IT THE WORDING PROPER WITH THE PATIO HOMES.

SO THAT'S CORRECT.

ANY TIME WE'RE AMENDING A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT AS WELL, STAFF GOES THROUGH TO MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THE STANDARDS IN THE PD ARE UPDATED.

SO, FOR INSTANCE, SOME OF THE LANDSCAPING STANDARDS ARE NOW IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE.

SO WE WOULD FALL BACK ON THAT INSTEAD OF HAVING TO HAVE THEM IN THE PD.

OKAY, THANKS. RIGHT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION--? WAS SENT IN VIA EMAIL.

OK, WOULD YOU MIND ADDRESSING THAT CONCERN THAT THE CITIZEN HAD? DO YOU REMEMBER WHAT THAT WAS? I CAN READ IT FOR YOU.

YEAH. IF YOU COULD READ IT FOR ME REAL QUICK.

I DON'T HAVE IT PULLED UP HERE.

SO JUST TO CLARIFY, WE'RE AN AGENDA ITEM THIRTEEN.

YES. YES. WE IN THE RIGHT PLACE.

THE CITIZEN WAS CONCERNED THAT WE WERE AMENDING THIS TO ALLOW DUPLEXES INSTEAD OF

[01:25:01]

TOWNHOMES AND THEY WERE CONCERNED ABOUT ALL THE IMPLICATIONS THAT COULD HAVE.

IS THERE ANYTHING IN THIS CHANGE THAT IS ALLOWING DUPLEXES? NO. ALL HOUSING WOULD BE DETACHED, SINGLE FAMILY PATIO HOME DESIGNATED DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS, NO DUPLEX.

NO DUPLEXES, NO TOWNHOMES.

AND SO A 100 PERCENT SINGLE FAMILY DETACHED.

THAT IS CORRECT. OK, GOOD.

IN CASE THEY'RE WATCHING HOME, SO MAKE SURE THEY FEEL LIKE THEY'VE BEEN RESPONDED TO.

ABSOLUTELY. ARE YOU MR. WALLACE? OK, WE ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE A PUBLIC HEARING OPEN.

SO LET ME REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOVE TO REOPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONE, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN SIR.

IF YOU WANT TO COME, WE'LL JUST ASK YOU TO FILL OUT SPEAKER CARD WHEN YOU'RE DONE AND JUST STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR US.

YES, MY NAME IS DALE GUIDRY.

I LIVE AT NINE NINE ZERO BELL ROCK ROAD IN THE SEDONA COMMUNITY.

I WON'T [INAUDIBLE] THIS BUT WHEN THE OLDER RESIDENTS OF OUR COMMUNITY RECEIVED THIS ZONING NOTICE, THERE WAS CONFUSION ABOUT WHAT IT WAS GOING TO BE ZONED AS.

AND THE LAST PART IT SAYS.

THIRTY EIGHT. ZONE TO PLAN DEVELOPMENT, 38 MULTIFAMILY, 19 TOWN HOME RETAIL.

THEY READ THAT AS BEING MULTIFAMILY IS STILL GOING TO BE PART OF THE VIABLE PART OF THE ZONING. IF IT IS JUST SINGLE FAMILY, WHY ISN'T IT NOT TO DELINEATE A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING? ZERO LOT LINES.

WE'VE GOT 157 UNITS IN THIS COMMUNITY.

IT'S ALL BUILT OUT.

THE CONCERN THAT SOMEBODY'S HOUSE BURNS DOWN.

SOMEBODY IS PUT IN A MUFFLER PLACE RIGHT NEXT DOOR TO THEM.

SINGLE FAMILY DWELLINGS WOULD BE PERFECT WITH THIS.

AND I BELIEVE THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE CHANGED IT TO.

WE'VE GOTTEN RID OF THE OTHER USE CASES THAT WERE PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED.

THIS CHANGE GETS RID OF THOSE AND KEEPS IT A SINGLE FAMILY ONLY.

RIGHT, I THINK THE CONFUSION WAS WITH THE NOTICE THAT WENT OUT.

YEAH.

IT'S HARD TO EXPLAIN ALL THAT ON THAT LITTLE CARD.

I'M SURE THAT. BUT I DO APPRECIATE THAT.

ONE THING I DO WANT TO MENTION, AND THERE SHOULD BE A NOTE ON THAT CARD WHERE YOU CAN GO TO THE CITY'S WEBSITE DEPARTMENT WEBSITE.

IT PROVIDES A LITTLE FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE ZONING CASE ITSELF.

YEAH. SO BUT I THINK IT'S GOOD FEEDBACK IN TERMS OF SOME OF THESE REVISIONS THAT WE'RE DOING FOR FOLKS. THANK YOU FOR THAT FEEDBACK AND THANK YOU.

SO THANK YOU FOR READING YOUR MAIL.

NOW, DO I HAVE ANY OTHER ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME IN PUBLIC HEARING? OK, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO A PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED AGAIN.

I JUST WANT TO SAY I WANT TO MENTION, AS WE DO THESE ZONING CASES, IF THERE IS AN HOA, I DO HAVE STAFF MAKE CONTACT WITH THE HOA PERSON AS ANOTHER MEANS OF GETTING THE INFORMATION OUT OF WHAT'S HAPPENING WITH THE ZONING CASE.

SO WE'RE TRYING TO ADDRESS IT FROM DIFFERENT ANGLES.

ABSOLUTELY. THERE'S TIMES WE'RE NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO REACH EVERYBODY, BUT STAFF DOES A THOROUGH JOB TRYING TO INFORM THE AFFECTED RESIDENTS OF THE CHANGE.

IT GETS CONFUSING.

I GET A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON THIS.

IT GETS CONFUSING TO PEOPLE, BUT IT CERTAINLY IS A GOOD THING THAT THIS IS GOING ON.

AND APPRECIATE ALL THE FOLKS THAT ARE HERE TONIGHT WITH PUBLIC COMMENTS AND INTERESTED IN WHAT'S GOING ON AND WHY IT'S GOING ON.

SO, YOU KNOW, THANK YOU FOR THAT.

SO DO I HAVE A MOTION IN ITEM THIRTEEN OR ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM THIRTEEN AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER BOX, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

ITEM THIRTEEN IS APPROVED.

OK, ITEM FOURTEEN.

[14. Public Hearing - Zoning: Repeal Planned Development-54 and Ordinance No. 83-02-05 (Z20-0012)]

PUBLIC HEARING ZONING REPEAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT 54 AND ORDINANCE NUMBER EIGHTY THREE DASH ZERO TWO TWO ZERO FIVE Z TWENTY DASH ZERO ZERO ONE TWO.

OWNERS, MULTIPLE OWNERS.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS INITIATED PROCESS TO IDENTIFY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE TOWNHOME ZONING THAT HAVE DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY.

PER ORDINANCE EIGHTY THREE ZERO TWO ZERO FIVE, THE KINGSBRIDGE AND PRESTONWOOD SUBDIVISIONS ARE ZONED WITHIN CURRENTLY WITHIN PLA DEVELOPMENT FIFTY FOUR FOR TWO FAMILY AND TOWN HOME. AND THIS IS IDENTIFIED AS TRACT ONE.

UP HERE ON THE LOCATOR MAP.

HOWEVER, THESE SUBDIVISIONS HAVE DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY.

ALL LOTS WITHIN THESE SUBDIVISIONS HAVE BEEN PLATTED AND STAFF IS PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A DISTRICT THAT ALIGNS WITH HOW THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED, WHICH FOR TRACT ONE IS PATIO HOME. FURTHERMORE, ORDINANCE EIGHTY THREE ZERO TWO ZERO FIVE HAS BEEN AMENDED

[01:30:04]

SEVERAL TIMES, WITH VARIOUS PORTIONS CARVED OUT FOR OTHER ZONING REQUEST.

TRACTS ONE AND TWO, AS IDENTIFIED ON THE LOCATOR MAP, REPRESENT THE REMAINING TRACTS WITHIN THE ORDINANCE.

WITH THAT TRACT TWO IS ZONED SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN AND HAS DEVELOPED ACCORDING TO THE SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN STANDARDS PER THE 1984 ZONING ORDINANCE.

RATHER THAN LEAVING THIS TRACT AS THE ONLY REMAINING TRACT, STAFF WILL FORMALLY REPEAL AND IN ITS PLACE ADOPT AN ORDINANCE ZONING TRACT TWO A SINGLE FAMILY.

WITH THAT, STAFF AGAIN IS RECOMMENDING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TRACT ONE TO PATIO HOME AND TRACT TWO TO SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS.

OK, DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

SO [INAUDIBLE], YOU HAD SPOKEN EARLIER.

WOULD YOU CARE TO SPEAK SOME MORE OR IN THIS PARTICULAR SECTION AND THEN MR. PATTERSON? WELL, I JUST WANTED FURTHER CLARIFICATION.

YOU JUST RESTATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AS WELL FOR THE RECORD, FOR THE FOLKS ON THE TV.

I'M MICHELLE BRITTEN OF 7919 MAIDEN LANE, FRISCO, TEXAS, RIGHT UP THERE IN THE MIDDLE OF THE YELLOW SQUARE.

I THINK A LOT OF THE CONFUSION HAS TO DO WITH THE DESCRIPTION OF THE ZONING, BECAUSE IT'S NOT CLEAR TO THOSE OF US WHO ARE NOT INTIMATELY ACQUAINTED WITH THE TERMINOLOGY.

OUR NEIGHBORHOOD IS ENTIRELY SINGLE FAMILY HOMES, EXCEPT FOR A SPOT ALONG KINGSBRIDGE ROAD THAT DOES HAVE SOME DUPLEXES.

THERE AREN'T ANY TOWNHOMES AND WE'RE NOT SURE EXACTLY WHAT NEIGHBORHOOD 19 IS GOING TO BRING IN OR HOW SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN IS DEFINED.

COULD WE GET DEFINITIONS OF THOSE? SURE. WE'LL DEFINITELY GET TO THAT AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARING.

YES. THANK YOU.

I THINK ACTUALLY YOU'LL BE HAPPY WITH THE ZONING THAT COMES ALONG.

MR. PATTERSON. [INAUDIBLE] PATTERSON, WOULD YOU CARE TO SPEAK? WE HAVE TO FINISH THE PUBLIC HEARING FIRST AND THEN WE CAN ASK YOU A FOLLOW UP QUESTION AFTER THE PUBLIC HEARINGS CLOSED.

IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO MAKE YOUR COMMENTS FIRST.

AND I'LL ASK A FOLLOW UP QUESTION, SIR.

I'M CARL PATTERSON AND I LIVE AT 10370 CASTLE DRIVE IN PRESTON RIDGE, BEEN THERE SINCE MID 92. AND WHEN THIS CAME OUT AND THE SIGNS CAME OUT AND SEVERAL PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET THROUGH NEIGHBORHOOD WATCH, ALL CONFUSED ABOUT THIS POSTCARD.

AND THE NEIGHBORHOOD HAS BEEN BUILD OUT FOR YEARS.

THE ONLY OPEN SPOT THERE IS AS HILLCREST AND ALL THE ROAD BEHIND A LITTLE SHOPPING CENTER . OTHERWISE. BUT I CANNOT SEE HAVING MULTIPLE HOMES, TOWNHOMES OR APARTMENTS OR WHATEVER IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

TRAFFIC IS TERRIBLE ALREADY IN THIS NEIGHBORHOOD.

CANNOT HANDLE NO MORE TRAFFIC.

ABSOLUTELY. THANK YOU.

THANK YOU FOR THAT COMMENT. THANK YOU FOR YOUR SERVICE AS WELL, SIR.

DO I HAVE ANY MORE COMMENTS DURING PUBLIC HEARING? YOU MIGHT WANT TO SIT UP HERE.

WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A WE'RE GOING TO TALK WITH YOU, MR. PATTERSON, PERSONALLY. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

ANY OPPOSED? THE MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS CLOSED.

SO THE FIRST THING I WANT TO ADDRESS.

THE NEIGHBORHOOD IS BUILT OUT.

BUT THE ORDINANCE THAT BUILT THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS FROM 1984, OK? AND SO THE STANDARDS, WHAT WE CALL SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN POINT FIVE IS NOW THE STANDARD THAT WE BUILD OUR GREAT WORLD CLASS NEIGHBORHOODS.

IN OTHER WORDS, THEY HAVE TO BE 7500 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

AND THAT'S THE WAY THE BOTTOM HALF OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD WAS BUILT, THE TOP HALF OF THIS NEIGHBORHOOD THAT WAS BUILT WITH PATIO HOMES.

BUT WHAT YOU MAY NOT REALIZE, MR. PATTERSON, IS IF SOMETHING HAPPENED TO YOUR HOUSE, BURNED DOWN, SO FORTH, AND SOMEBODY CAME IN AND BOUGHT IT TODAY, THEY COULD BUILD MULTIFAMILY.

WE DO NOT WANT THAT TO HAPPEN.

THAT IS WHY WE ARE GOING THROUGH THIS PROCESS.

AND I APOLOGIZE THAT IT'S HARD TO STATE THAT ON THAT LITTLE CARD AND THE CONFUSION.

[01:35:05]

BUT WHAT WE'RE DOING IS TRYING TO PROTECT YOU, THE RESIDENT, FROM FUTURE THINGS THAT COULD HAPPEN IF SOMETHING REALLY TRAGIC HAPPENED.

OK, AND SO--.

THE STANDARDS THAT YOU WOULD HAVE TO REBUILD A HOUSE IF IT WERE, YOU KNOW, IF SOMETHING HAPPENED WOULD HAVE TO FOLLOW OUR CURRENT ZONING STANDARDS ARE CALLED SEVEN POINT FIVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THAT AND THEN OUR PATIO HOME STANDARDS IF IT'S A PATIO HOME.

AND SO I THINK TO CLEAR THAT UP, WE'RE REALLY PROTECT YOU FROM THE WORST CASE SCENARIO.

THAT PROBABLY WILL NEVER HAPPEN.

BUT WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IF FOR SOME REASON SOMETHING HAPPENED AND HOUSES WERE TORN DOWN, YOU CAN'T GO PUT IN TOWNHOMES AND YOU CAN'T GO PUT IN MULTI-FAMILY HOMES.

AND I'M GOING TO LET MR. ANTHONY HERE MAKE SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS ABOUT THE SEVEN POINT FIVE STANDARDS.

WHAT THAT MEANS, THAT MEANS THE SAME AS OUR OTHER NEIGHBORHOODS THAT BUILD SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE. SO IF YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THAT.

ABSOLUTELY. SO THE TWO DIFFERENT TRACTS, TRACT ONE TO PATIO HOME.

SO ALL OF THE HOMES WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION IN TRACT ONE, BOTH SUBDIVISIONS WITHIN TRACT ONE HAVE DEVELOPED TO THE PATIO HOME STANDARDS.

SO THEY ARE AT A DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOME, 5000 SQUARE FOOT LOT SIZE, AND MEET THE SETBACKS THAT WERE ESTABLISHED IN THE NINETEEN EIGHTY FOUR ZONING ORDINANCE, VERY SIMILAR FOR SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN.

SO THAT ZONING DISTRICT WILL APPLY TO TRACT TWO.

THESE ARE A LITTLE BIT LARGER LOT SIZES, BUT AGAIN, WOULD RESTRICT ANY TYPE OF REDEVELOPMENT TO DETACHED SINGLE FAMILY HOUSING ON 7000 SQUARE FOOT SIZE LOTS.

SO, MR. PATTERSON, DID THAT CLARIFY FOR YOU AND I'M GETTING A NOD OF THE HEAD.

MS. [INAUDIBLE] DID THAT HELP, OK? THAT ALL ON THE CARD BECAUSE THIS IS A VERY COMPLICATED WORDING, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE ZONING FROM BACK THEN, WE HAD AN ORDINANCE.

AND SO THERE'S A DIFFERENCE. YOU HAD TO MAKE A LAW FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE BUILT.

NOW WE HAVE ZONING STANDARDS.

AND SO WE CAN JUST SAY SINGLE FAMILY, SEVEN POINT FIVE, AND WE DON'T HAVE TO REFERENCE THE WHOLE ORDINANCE, THE LAW ITSELF.

AND SIR YOU HAD A COMMENT AS WELL.

ARE YOU-- IS IT MORE CLEAR FOR YOU? OK, THAT'S A YES. I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WAS CLEAR, BECAUSE THIS IS ONE OF THOSE THINGS WHERE WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S VERY CLEAR TO OUR RESIDENTS WE'RE PROTECTING THEM IN THIS PROCESS AND CLEANING THINGS UP.

ALL RIGHT, DO I HAVE ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS POINT? DO I HAVE A MOTION? I JUST HAVE KIND OF A COMMENT AND CONCERN IS-- MS. [INAUDIBLE] IS IT? CAME UP AND SAID SHE HAD MOVED HERE IN 92, AND THEN MR. PATTERSON SAID HE MOVED IN 92.

AND I DON'T KNOW WHO HAS SENIORITY.

I'D LOVE TO KNOW WHAT MONTH YOU MOVED IN 92.

JULY AND DECEMBER.

SEPTEMBER. OK, I GUESS YOU'RE THE SENIOR HERE.

THANK YOU.

HAVE ME BY FIVE YEARS.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

AYE. ANY OPPOSED? MOTION CARRIES FIVE ZERO. ITEM FOURTEEN IS APPROVED.

THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING PART OF THE PROCESS.

APOLOGIES THAT IT WASN'T MORE CLEAR FOR YOU, BUT THIS IS WHY WE HAVE PUBLIC HEARINGS TO GIVE OUR CITIZENS A CHANCE TO TALK AND TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THINGS.

AND IT'S OUR DESIRE FOR YOU TO HAVE COMMUNICATION ON THESE THINGS.

CAN I ASK STAFF REAL QUICK, JOHN, IF ANYONE HAS A FOLLOW ON QUESTIONS? WHEN THESE GREAT FOLKS GO BACK TO THEIR NEIGHBORS AND KIND OF EXPLAIN TO THEM WHAT HAPPENED HERE TONIGHT, WHO SHOULD THEY REACH OUT TO IF THEY WANT TO JUST FOLLOW UP AND CLARIFY DIRECTLY WITH STAFF? THEY CAN FOLLOW UP WITH ANTHONY.

OK, SO JUST CALL TO SAY FRISCO PLANNING DEPARTMENT AND TALK TO ANTHONY SATARINO.

ANTHONY SATARINO, THANK YOU.

OF COURSE, WORLD FAMOUS ANTHONY.

SO WE WANNA MAKE SURE ALL QUESTIONS ARE ANSWERED.

YEAH. INFORMATION'S ALSO ON THE WEBSITE TOO IF THAT HELPS.

[15. Public Hearing - Zoning: Repeal Planned Development-198 & Amend Ordinance No. 85-01-10 (Z20-0013)]

ITEM NUMBER 15, PUBLIC HEARINGS, ZONING REPEAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT ONE NINE EIGHT AND AMEND ORDINANCE NUMBER EIGHTY FIVE ZERO ONE DASH TEN Z TWENTY TWO ZERO ZERO ONE THREE OWNERS, MULTIPLE OWNERS. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIR. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES HAS INITIATED PROCESS TO IDENTIFY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE TOWNHOME ZONING THAT HAVE DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY.

PER ORDINANCES EIGHTY FIVE ZERO ONE TEN AND ZERO SIX ZERO TWO TWELVE, WHICH IS PLANNED

[01:40:02]

DEVELOPMENT 198, THE PRESTON HILLS SUBDIVISION IS ZONED FOR TOWNHOME.

HOWEVER, THE SUBDIVISION HAS DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY.

ALL LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION HAVE BEEN PLATTED AND STAFF IS PROPOSING TO REZONE THE PROPERTY TO A DISTRICT THAT ALIGNS WITH HOW THE PROPERTY DEVELOPED, WHICH IN THIS PARTICULAR CASE, A SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN AND PATIO HOME.

ALSO WITHIN PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 198 IS A MULTIFAMILY NINETEEN TRACT.

STAFF HAS ANALYZED THE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS FOR THE MULTIFAMILY NINETEEN TRACT AND CONCLUDED THAT IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE WITHIN THE PD.

IT CAN BE JUST ZONED TO STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY NINETEEN.

IT MEETS ALL OF THOSE DEVELOPMENT RESTRICTIONS.

THEREFORE, IT'S RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL AS SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN PATIO HOME AND MULTIFAMILY NINETEEN.

I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

SO LET ME JUST GO BACK THROUGH THIS.

SURE. PULLING THE MULTI-FAMILY TRACT OUT OF THE PD? YES. SO WE'RE MAKING IT MULTIFAMILY TOWNHOME AND SINGLE FAMILY.

THAT IS CORRECT. SO IF FOR SOME REASON SOMEBODY GETS A WILD HAIR AND THEY WANT TO TEAR DOWN THE MULTIFAMILY, YOU CAN BUILD SINGLE FAMILY HOMES OR TOWNHOMES.

WE WERE ALLOWED TO DO THAT WITHIN THE ORDINANCE TODAY, BUT IT ZONING WILL BE MULTIFAMILY 19 ON THAT MULTIFAMILY TRACT.

SO IT JUST WON'T BE IN THE PD.

RIGHT. IT WILL NOT BE PART OF A PD.

IT'LL BE STRAIGHT MULTIFAMILY 19 ZONE.

ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ITEM THIS EVENING? SEEING NONE, I MOVE TO CLOSED PUBLIC HEARING.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW CLOSED.

SO I THINK WE KIND OF HAVE A THEME HERE TONIGHT.

DO YOU HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF? YES. ON THE MAP YOU'RE LOOKING AT WE'RE LOOKING AT ANTHONY.

CAN YOU CLARIFY THE SOUTHERNMOST PORTION OF THE MULTIFAMILY 19 TRACT? THAT'S A SINGLE FAMILY CUL DE SAC.

CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHY THAT'S STILL INCLUDED IN THE MULTIFAMILY TRACT? ON THE VERY SOUTHERN SIDE? YEAH, THE VERY SOUTHERN TIP OF THAT KIND OF WHAT LOOKS LIKE A REVERSE NEVADA.

THAT'S A [INAUDIBLE].

IT DOES, I GUESS, MY APOLOGIES.

IT DOES CUT OFF AT THAT, I BELIEVE THAT'S STRATTON LANE.

STRATTON DRIVE. YES, CORRECT.

SO THE LINE SHOULD HAVE GONE RIGHT THERE.

MY APOLOGIES ON THAT THOUGH.

THAT IS NOT IN THE PD? NO, THAT WILL BE ZONED TO THE SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN.

THAT'S PART OF THE ZONING.

OK. THAT'S CORRECT. SO THE ZONING IS CORRECT.

YES. YES.

SO THAT SHOULD BE IN THE RED BOX.

THAT IS CORRECT. YES.

THANK YOU FOR CATCHING. WE NEED TO MENTION THAT IN THE ORDINANCE AND ALL.

JUST TO CLARIFY, FOR THE RECORD OR NOT, YEAH.

ALL THE ACREAGE IS MATCH UP.

SO IN ALL THE [INAUDIBLE].

SO IT WOULDN'T HURT, BUT THEY'LL CERTAINLY BE FIX ON THE WAY TO CITY COUNCIL.

SO INCLUDING THE MOTION TO SAY, INCLUDING THE SINGLE FAMILY ON CERTAINLY ON STRATTON LANE . [INAUDIBLE].

OK. OK. ALL RIGHT.

DO I HAVE A MOTION? I MOVE TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 15 WITH THE CORRECTION THAT THE HOUSES IN [INAUDIBLE] COURT NEED TO BE CORRECTLY IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE SINGLE FAMILY.

RIGHT. AND NOT PART OF THE MULTIFAMILY 19 TRACT.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER CONE, GOOD CATCH.

A SECOND BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN.

PUBLIC ITEM 15 IS APPROVED.

ALL RIGHT. WE'RE GOING TO GO ON TO ITEM 16, PUBLIC HEARING, ZONING REPEAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT

[16. Public Hearing - Zoning: Repeal Planned Development-204 (Z20-0014)]

TWO ZERO FOUR Z TWENTY DASH ZERO ZERO ONE FOUR.

OWNER, MULTIPLE OWNERS.

THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. STAFF HAS INITIATED A PROCESS TO IDENTIFY DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE TOWNHOMES ZONING, BUT HAVE DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY.

PER ORDINANCE ZERO SIX ZERO EIGHT EIGHTY NINE.

A PORTION OF THE [INAUDIBLE] SUBDIVISION IS KNOWN FOR TOWNHOME.

HOWEVER, THIS SUBDIVISION HAS DEVELOPED A SINGLE FAMILY.

ALL LOTS WITHIN THE SUBDIVISION HAVE BEEN PLATTED AND STAFF IS PROPOSING TO REZONE TO A DISTRICT THAT ALIGNS WITH HOW THIS PROPERTY HAS DEVELOPED, WHICH IN THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT, A SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN.

IN ADDITION, STAFF WILL BRING FORWARD ALL PLAN DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND AS ALWAYS, WE'LL REVIEW AND HAVE REMOVED SOME THAT NO LONGER APPLY.

AND SO THEREFORE, STAFF IS RECOMMENDING APPROVAL OF THIS ITEM AS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT TWO ZERO FOUR RETAIL PATIO HOME, SINGLE FAMILY, SEVEN SINGLE FAMILY, EIGHT POINT FIVE SINGLE FAMILY, TEN SUBJECT TO THE STANDARDS NOTED BELOW AND THE ASSOCIATED EXHIBITS WITHIN THE STAFF REPORT. I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY SPECIFIC QUESTIONS.

SO THE BIG CHANGE HERE IS THE TOWNHOME TRACT.

THAT'S RIGHT. THE TOWNHOME TRACT IS BEING REZONED TO A SINGLE FAMILY SEVEN.

[01:45:07]

AND THEN ALL THE OTHER STANDARDS BROUGHT FORWARD.

ALL RIGHT, DO I HAVE A MOTION TO OPEN A PUBLIC HEARING? MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KELLY, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.

A PUBLIC HEARING IS NOW OPEN.

IS THERE ANYONE WANT TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS PARTICULAR ITEMS HERE? SIR, WHY DON'T YOU COME DOWN? WE NEED YOU TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS AND MAKE SURE YOU FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD IF YOU HAVEN'T ALREADY. UH, MY NAME IS [INAUDIBLE].

11198, [INAUDIBLE] FRISCO.

UH, ACTUALLY THERE ARE SEVERAL HOUSES IN [INAUDIBLE] STREET AND [INAUDIBLE] ROAD--.

CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THAT MICROPHONE CAUSE IT'S HARD.

YEAH. THANK YOU SO MUCH.

UH, ACTUALLY, THERE'S AN EMPTY LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE, WHICH ACCORDING TO ORDINANCE NUMBER ZERO SIX ZERO EIGHT EIGHTY NINE, IT'S ZONED AS A RETAIL.

BUT UNDER ORDINANCE, IT'S MENTIONED THAT THE RETAIL TRACT AND A MAXIMUM OF EIGHTY MULTIFAMILY UNITS SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR THIS TRACT.

BUT THERE ARE HOUSES ON THAT STREET WHICH ONE OF THOSE HOUSES IS MINE AND MOST OF THOSE RESIDENTS DO NOT LIKE TO SEE MULTIFAMILY BEHIND THEIR HOMES.

ACTUALLY, IT IS ZONED AS A RETAIL AND A MAXIMUM OF 80 MULTIFAMILY UNITS ALLOWED, ACCORDING TO THIS ORDINANCE.

SO YOUR QUESTION IS, MAKE SURE YOU HAVE A QUESTION IN TERMS OF WHAT THIS IS GOING TO BE ALLOWED ON THIS TRACT TODAY AND THEN WHAT WILL BE ALLOWED IF WE MAKE THIS CHANGE? UH, I THINK THIS CHANGE THAT YOU MENTIONED, DOES IT AFFECT THAT AREA, THAT EMPTY LOT ON THE NORTH SIDE, SOUTH EAST OF HILLCREST AND [INAUDIBLE] PARKWAY? IT IS EXACTLY BEHIND MY YARD.

AND IT IS ZONED AS A RETAIL AND A MAXIMUM OF 80 MULTIFAMILY [INAUDIBLE] ON THE SECOND FLOOR ABOVE THAT RETAIL BUILDING'S.

LET US CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN WE WILL ADDRESS YOUR COMMENTS.

THANK YOU SO MUCH. APPRECIATE IT.

SO ANYBODY ELSE CARE TO SPEAK FOR OR AGAINST THIS ITEM? DO I HAVE A MOTION TO CLOSE A PUBLIC HEARING? SO MOVED. MOTION BY COMMISSIONER MORGAN, SECONDED BY COMMISSIONER KELLY.

PUBLIC HEARINGS NOW CLOSED.

ANTHONY, YOU WANT TO ADDRESS THE NORTH, THE NORTHWEST CORNER HERE? ABSOLUTELY. SO THAT PART OF THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT IN PLACE NOW THAT PROPERTY IS ZONED A BASE OF RETAIL.

THERE IS A PROVISION THE MAXIMUM OF 80 MULTIFAMILY UNITS SHALL BE ALLOWED FOR THE SECOND FLOOR ABOVE THE RETAIL BUILDINGS.

PARKING FOR THE RESIDENTIAL UNIT SHALL BE SEPARATE FROM THE PARKING REQUIRED FOR THE RETAIL DEVELOPMENT. SO THIS CONDITION WAS AGAIN, IT'S CURRENTLY IN THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

IT IS BEING BROUGHT FORWARD AS WELL, SINCE THIS IS AN UNDEVELOPED LOT THAT IS AN ENTITLEMENT THAT NEEDS TO MOVE FORWARD WITH THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

SO IT IS, AGAIN, A BASE RETAIL AS OWNING TRACT WITH THE MAXIMUM OF 80 UNITS ALLOWED ON THE SECOND FLOOR. SO TO ADDRESS THAT, BECAUSE IT IS AN EMPTY LOT, WE CANNOT CHANGE THE ZONING ON THAT. THAT WOULD BE A FORM OF EMINENT DOMAIN.

WE DON'T WANT TO TAKE AWAY THEIR ENTITLEMENT.

BUT THE LAW STATES TODAY THAT THEY CAN BUILD RETAIL ON THE GROUND FLOOR AND ABOVE IT UP TO 80 APARTMENTS OR MULTIFAMILY.

SO THE CHANCES OF THAT HAPPENING HERE IS NOT REAL STRONG BECAUSE IT'S NOT A REAL BIG PIECE OF LAND. AND WE DON'T HAVE VERY MANY [INAUDIBLE] APARTMENT UNITS IN FRISCO.

BUT THEY HAVE THAT RIGHT.

WE CAN'T TAKE THAT RIGHT AWAY FROM THEM BECAUSE THEY HAVEN'T BUILT ON THAT YET.

THE REST OF THIS IS REALLY CLEANING UP THE REST OF THIS, JUST LIKE THE OTHER UNITS TONIGHT. THE OTHER CASES TONIGHT, WE WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CLEAN UP ALL THE THINGS WE'RE ALLOWED TO CLEAN UP THAT PROTECTS YOUR HOUSES.

IF FOR SOME REASON THEY WANTED TO COME FORWARD AND BUILD SOMETHING DIFFERENT ON THIS LOT, THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING IF THEY DID SOMETHING DIFFERENT THAN THE RETAIL AND OR THE MULTIFAMILY ABOVE THE RETAIL.

[01:50:01]

BUT YOU WOULD YOU WOULD ALWAYS HAVE RETAIL THERE.

WHETHER THEY BUILD A MULTIFAMILY IS IT WOULD BE UP TO THEM.

WE DON'T HAVE ANY, I DON'T THINK IN FRISCO, ANY RETAIL UNITS THAT HAVE MULTIFAMILY ABOVE THEM THAT I'M AWARE OF.

OH, YEAH, WE DO.

WHERE AT? RIGHT OUT HERE.

YEAH, BUT I'M TALKING ABOUT SMALL EIGHTY UNIT TYPE PLACES I GUESS IS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, BOUTIQUE KIND OF THINGS.

YOU KNOW, MOST OF THEM ARE AT LEAST FOUR STORIES.

YEAH. MOST OF THOSE ARE FOUR STORIES AND THAT'S WHAT I WAS REFERRING TO.

SO WE CLARIFY THAT ON THIS PIECE THAT'S BEING DISCUSSED IS YOU COULD NOT DO ONLY MULTIFAMILY, CORRECT? RIGHT. WE WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT PEOPLE ARE CLEAR ON THAT.

AND JUST DO A MULTIFAMILY UNIT YOU HAVE TO DO RETAIL ON THE BOTTOM.

RETAIL ON THE BOTTOM WITH MULTIFAMILY AND MULTIFAMILY COULD GO ON AND GO UP TO TWO STORIES. SO WE JUST SAID.

YEAH, AND THAT'S ON PAGE 28 OF THE ORDINANCE.

YEAH. YEAH. SO, SIR, WHY DON'T YOU COME COME UP? I WANT TO ASK YOU A QUESTION, BECAUSE LEGALLY, I HAVE TO ASK YOU A QUESTION FOR YOU TO TALK. SO COME UP HERE AND TELL US WHERE THIS IS IN TERMS OF YOUR REFERENCE.

SO IT COULD BE IN THE MICROPHONE.

IF WE CAN ASK YOU SPECIFICALLY WHAT STREET YOU LIVE ON.

THIS STREET. OH, CANNOT MAKE IT UP.

OH, YOU LIVE RIGHT HERE, RIGHT? EXACTLY. AND BEHIND MY YARD, IS THIS AN EMPTY LOT.

AND THERE ARE SEVERAL HOUSES ON.

YES. AND THIS STREET.

THAT STREET. IT WILL BE VERY HIGH IF THEY BUILD IN THE FUTURE MULTIFAMILY ABOVE THAT RETAIL.

YEAH, THE LEGALITY OF THIS PLAN IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED, WE'RE NOT CHANGING THAT, BECAUSE IF WE CAN'T CHANGE THAT WITHOUT THE OWNER'S PERMISSION ON THIS PIECE OF LAND, THAT'S EMPTY. OK.

SO HOPEFULLY THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE MAY BE A RETAIL BUILT THERE SOMEDAY, THAT WE CAN'T STOP THAT AT THIS POINT.

AND THIS DOES NOT CHANGE ANYTHING ON THAT PIECE OF LAND.

OK. MUCH AS WE WANT TO WE WOULD LOVE FOR HOUSES TO BE THERE, BUT THAT'S A PRETTY MAJOR INTERSECTION THERE. SO, YOU KNOW, THERE COULD BE RETAIL BACK THERE.

THAT DOESN'T CHANGE FROM WHEN YOU BOUGHT YOUR HOUSE.

NOTHING'S CHANGING BACK THERE OTHER THAN WHAT YOU HAD YOU KNEW ABOUT WHEN THEY BOUGHT THE HOUSE. SO WE'RE NOT ADDING OR TAKING AWAY ANYTHING FROM THAT.

IT'S THE REST OF THE SUBDIVISION THAT WE'RE CLEANING UP BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY BUILT OUT.

THAT MAKES SENSE? OK. I WISH I COULD DO SOMETHING ON THAT, BUT YEAH, WE CAN'T.

THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? THANK YOU FOR PARTICIPATING AND BEING PART OF THIS, SIR.

THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.

ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS OR MOTIONS AT THIS TIME? MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM 16 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF.

MOTION BY COMMISSIONER KENDALL, SECOND BY COMMISSIONER BOX.