[3b. Consider and act upon a Final Plat for Starview, Phase 2, Block A, Lots 1-12, 1X, & 2X, Block B, Lots 1-20, Block C, Lots 1-24, Block D, Lots 1-32, Block E, Lots 1-13 & 17-20, and Block F, Lots 1-13 & 1X, on 38.4± acres, located on the northeast corner of Lovers Lane and South Coleman Street. The property is zoned Planned Development-67 (PD-67) Gates of Prosper. (D22-0006) ]

I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO TOWN STAFF ON ITEM THREE B. GOOD EVENING COMMISSION. THREE B IS A FINAL PLATFORM STARVE YOU FACE TO REMEMBER AT THE LAST MEETING STARVE YOU PHASE ONE WAS APPROVED. SO THIS IS JUST A CONTINUATION ONTO THIS RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. UM I'LL TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE TO ME. OKAY UM, JUST QUESTIONS ABOUT THIS SERVICE.

THIS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT IS SIGNIFICANTLY MORE DENSE THAN THE ONE THAT WE APPROVED LAST WEEK. I SUPPOSE, BECAUSE I NOTICED IT'S LIKE THIS IS 3.285 LOTS PER ACRE, WHERE HIS LAST WEEK WAS 2.05 SO SIGNIFICANTLY SMALLER LOTS A LOT MORE. UNITS CRACK. AND IN HERE AS WELL AS NO. THERE'S NO GREEN SPACE. THERE'S NOTHING IN HERE OTHER THAN JUST LOT OF RESIDENTIAL UNITS, SO CAN YOU AS THEIR BIT. WAS THERE ANY DISCUSSION IN TERMS OF GREEN SPACE OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. UM, THERE WAS NOT DURING THE REVIEW PROCESS, I THINK, BECAUSE THIS IS ALREADY UM PLANNED FOR I THINK THIS IS PD 67, WHICH IS LIKE COMMISSIONER REEFS TALKED ABOUT.

I THINK THIS BELIEF THIS IS THE GATES OF PROSPER. UM AND THIS IS ALREADY PLANNED FOR SO THERE WASN'T REALLY ANY DISCUSSION ABOUT ANY OPEN SPACE REGARDING THE PLAN. IT WAS JUST SINCE IT'S THE SECOND PHASE OF A PLANT THAT'S ALREADY APPROVED TO BE JUST MAKE SURE COMPLIED WITH ALL OF OUR OTHER REQUIREMENTS AND. OKAY SO, BEING NEW ON HERE, I'M NOT FAMILIAR WITH THE BACKGROUND. HISTORY OF THIS, SO THEY'RE EXPLAIN A LITTLE BIT MORE THE HISTORY SO I CAN UNDERSTAND. SO THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT FOR THE GATES OF PROSPER THAT'S BEEN APPROVED IN SO THEY'RE DIFFERENT PHASES OF THE GATES OF PROSPER. UM THIS IS JUST ONE OF THE STAR VIEW IS JUST ONE OF THE PHASES IN THAT. P D, UM AND SO THESE ARE THE ALLOWED MARK SIZES PER THIS PD.

I KNOW IT DOES SEEM A LITTLE BIT DENSER, BUT, UM, THESE ARE PERMITTED PER THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT. SO YOU'RE TELLING ME THAT UNDER THE PD, IT'S THIS IS THIS MEETS ALL THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE PD. THAT'S BEEN APPROVED BECAUSE THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES OF LOTS. I THINK IT'S KIND OF CUT OUT HERE. BUT ON THE LAND YOU SUMMARY LIKE YOU CAN SEE THERE'S TYPE A TYPE B TO THE DIFFERENT VARIATIONS OF LOTS , UM, AND AS LONG AS THE PROPOSED LOT TO MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WERE CHECKING FOR, FROM THE PLANNING ASPECT, AND AS LONG AS THEY MEET THOSE REQUIREMENTS, THEN THEY'RE DEEMED ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THEY'RE DEEMED, UM AND CONFORMANCE WITH THE ALLOTTED UM, A LOT DIMENSIONS FOR THE PD. NEITHER QUESTIONS ON ITEM THREE

[00:05:06]

B FOR TOWN STAFF. IF NOT ALL, ENTERTAIN EMOTIONAL. ADAM THREE B. RECEIVING. ALL MOTION THAT WE APPROVE ITEM THREE B SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL RIGHT, WE HAVE A MOTION.

COMMISSIONER HARRIS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? NO 2ND 2ND COMMISSIONER REASON ITEM THREE B . ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSIDERED GENERAL THREE BE SUBJECTED POUNDS RECOMMENDATIONS. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 0. CITIZEN COMMENTS. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC. HOWEVER THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON ANY TOPIC NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA. PLEASE COMPLETE A PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORM AND PRESENTED TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT PRIOR TO THE MEETING. DO WE HAVE ANYBODY IN GENERAL COMMENTS THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME

[4. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to amend the Future Land Use Plan from Downtown Office (DTO) to Downtown Retail (DTR), generally located on the southwest corner of West Seventh Street and North Coleman Road. This is a companion case to ZONE-23-0016. (COMP-23-0003).]

FORWARD AT THIS TIME WE MOVE ON WITH HER REGULAR JEAN, AUTUMN NUMBER FOUR. OKAY LET'S MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR THIS EVENING. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON REQUEST TO HAVE IN THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN FROM DOWNTOWN OFFICE GTO TO DOWNTOWN RETAIL D T. R. GENERALLY LOCATED ON THE SOUTHWEST CORNER OF WEST SEVENTH STREET AND NORTH COLEMAN ROAD. THIS IS A COMPANION CASE TO ZONED AS 23-0016. COMCAST 23-003. SO THIS ITEM WAS A COMPANION ITEM TO A REZONING CASE AT THE SAME LOCATION. THEY WERE GOING FROM SF 15 TO DT ARE, UM AND INITIALLY WE DECIDED TO HAVE THEM DO A FUTURE LAND USE PLAN AMENDMENT, BUT UPON THE LAST PUBLIC HEARING UM, THIS IS KIND OF A FOLLOW UP. AND SO THERE WAS A COMPREHENSIVE PLAN THAT WAS APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL THAT KIND OF ELIMINATED THE BREAKOUTS IN OUR DOWNTOWN, SO ALL OF ITS JUST DEFINED AS OLD TOWN, AND SO THEREFORE WE DECIDED THAT THIS CASE IS NO LONGER NEEDED NOW ACTUALLY NEEDS TO BE TAKEN ON IT BECAUSE THERE IS NO DISTINCTION IN MY DOWNTOWN ANYMORE AND OUR FUTURE CHINESE PLAN AT LEAST SO AT THIS POINT, I KNOW WE TABLED THIS ALBUM OR CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING. SO I GUESS TO GO AHEAD AND WRAP THAT UP. ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS AT THIS POINT? THEN ONCE YOU RUN AWAY TOO QUICK , THANK YOU ANY QUESTIONS, SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AS WE SAID WE WOULD CONTINUE THIS MEETING. IS THERE ANY OTHER COMMENTS AT THIS TIME BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? I'LL MAKE THIS BRIEF.

SO. BASICALLY BASED ON THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. THE ENTIRE DOWNTOWN IS CONSIDERED. SAME.

AND HOW CONSIDER THE OLD TOWN DISTRICT NOW ANYTHING THAT ANYONE WANTS TO DO IF THEY WANT TO PUT AN OFFICE BUILDING. THEY WANT TO PUT A RETAIL LOCATION. THE DTS F SINGLE FAMILY. YES, THAT'S THE IMPLANTING OF FAMILY , AND I WOULD ASSUME THAT'S MAYBE RENTAL PLACES OR IS IT IS THAT HOUSING HOMES HOMES, BUT THE LAWS ARE A LITTLE SMALLER THAN THEY WOULD BE OUR TYPICAL SINGLE FAMILY. YEAH. DISTRICTS, UM AND THE GTR IS DOWNTOWN RETAIL. DOWNTOWN RETAIL, RIGHT? OKAY. SO WHICH ONE OF THEM MISSING GTO? HONEST GOING? I THINK THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN INITIALLY BEFORE THE COMPLAINT WAS AMENDED WAS CTO AND THEY'RE GOING TO BE TR. BUT THE ZONING CASE WAS GOING FROM SINGLE FAMILY TO D. T. R. SO NO. SO WE NO LONGER CONSIDERED SOMETHING THAT WE SHOULD REVIEW. WHEN SOMEONE'S PUTTING ANY OF THESE THINGS DOWNTOWN. IT'S JUST A MATTER OF WHAT THEY WANT TO, OR WOULD IT JUST SHOW UP ON THE CONSENT AGENDA? SO FOR OUR FOR OUR DOWNTOWN ZONING CASES WOULD COME BEFORE YOU IN PUBLIC HEARINGS, BUT THERE WOULDN'T BE ANY FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS IN THE DOWNTOWN. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. YEAH GOOD QUESTIONS.

ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THERE'S NO ACTION NEEDED ON ITEM NUMBER FOUR THIS EVENING. NO, IT'S OFF. IT'S ALL WERE WRAPPED UP ON THAT ONE. WE JUST HAD IT ON THIS ONE, BECAUSE WE CONTINUE THE PUBLIC HEARING FROM LAST MEETING. YES, YES,

[5. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request for a Specific Use Permit for a new Drive-Through Restaurant, on 1.5± acres, located south of West Frontier Parkway and east of North Dallas Parkway. (ZONE-23-0013)]

SIR. ALRIGHT. AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER FIVE. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDERED ACT UPON A REQUEST FOR A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR A NEW DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT ON 1.5 ACRES, LOCATED SOUTH OF WEST FRONTIER PARKWAY AND EAST OF NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY . THIS IS CASES OWN DASH 23 THAT 0013. OKAY SO THIS IS A CASE FOR A SPECIFIC EAST PERMIT FOR A DRIVER. THE RESTAURANT? UM SO IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED ON THE CORNER OF DNT AND WEST FRONTIER. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S CURRENTLY UNDEVELOPED. SO THE ZONING IS PLAN DEVELOPMENT 69 IN THE BASE ZONING FOR THAT IS OUR RETAIL

[00:10:02]

DISTRICT PARA ZONING ORDINANCE AND OUR RETAIL DISTRICT. ALL DRIVE THROUGHS HAVE TO GET AN ISSUE P. SO THAT'S WHY THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. UM THIS IS THE PSP FOR THE OVERALL DEVELOPMENT, SO THIS DRAFTY IS GOING TO BE A PORTION OF A LARGER COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT AT THE CORNER OF THE ANTI IN FRONTIER AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S KIND OF THE BIG BOX RETAIL STORE DOWN. THERE WAS KIND OF THE ANCHOR SITE. UM, AND THIS IS JUST KIND OF A PART OF THAT DEVELOPMENT. THIS IS A SITE PLAN. UM, KIND OF THE SOLID. AND SO ONE OF THE, UM. CONDITIONS THAT THE AFRICAN IS WANTING. SO UM, PER OUR ZONING ORDINANCE, UM , THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS FOR DRIVE THROUGH A MINIMUM 10 FT WIDE LANDSCAPE ISLAND SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND THE OUTER EDGE OF THE DRIVE THRU LANE FOR MINIMUM DISTANCE EQUAL TO EQUAL THE LENGTH OF STACKING REQUIRED FOR DRAFTING FACILITY AND ALSO PRO ZONING ORDINANCE FOR STACKING SPACES RESTAURANT WITH DRIVE THRU. FIVE SECONDS, SPACES FOR FIRST WINDOW ORDER BOARD OR OTHER STOPPING POINT UH, AND SO INSTEAD OF MEETING THAT REQUIREMENT THEY ARE REQUESTING TO DO A 10 FT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. UM HOWEVER, ONLY 5 FT OF THAT PROPOSED PROPOSED BUFFER RUBY ON THE ACTUAL SITE. THE OTHER 5 FT WOULD BE ON THE ADJOINING SITE. UM HERE IS A KIND OF A PICTURE OF SO ON THE RIGHT. IS THIS SITE IN QUESTION TONIGHT? AND SO AS YOU CAN SEE, THEY'RE ONLY BE 5 FT, PROVIDED ON THEIR SIDE OF THAT PROPOSED 10 FT LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THE OTHER FIVE WOULD BE PROVIDED BY THE ADJOINING RESTAURANT. AND SO WHEN STAFF EVALUATES SCP REQUESTS, WE KIND OF LOOK AT THESE FOUR CRITERIA AS YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE, AND I THINK IN OUR REVIEW OF THIS ITEM NUMBER FOUR HAS ANY IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA THAT MITIGATED WE BELIEVE THAT IT IS NOT UM DUE TO THE FACT THAT THEY'RE NOT PROVIDING ALL 10 OF THAT LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON THE ON THE ACTUAL SITE THAT THEY'RE RELYING ON THE OTHER SIDE PROVIDE THE OTHER FIVE. WE DID NOT ONE. WE JUST PREFER THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THAT LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT FOR THE PARKING ISLAND. UM IF THEY DON'T THEN I BELIEVE THAT WOULD BE FINE WITH THE BUFFER, BUT IT'S JUST THAT THAT BUFFER IS BEING SPLIT BETWEEN THEM AND THE OTHER SIDE.

AND SO THAT IS OUR POINT OF CONTENTION. UM, STAFF. IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL FOR THIS CASE FOR THIS REASON, AND THIS HAS BEEN NOTICED AND WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY, UM, NOTICES IN FAVOR OR AGAINST THIS CASE. I WILL NOW TAKE ANY QUESTIONS. YEAH GO AHEAD. GO BACK TO SLIDES RIGHT HERE. YES. FIVE THAT THEY ARE BORROWING FROM THE ADJOINING THE REGISTER. IS THAT TAKE AWAY. THE 10 FT REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT RESTAURANT. THEY WERE TO OWN THAT. 5 FT. MM HMM. I MEAN, THAT'S THE RESTAURANT ONLY HAS 5 FT. THE OTHER RESTAURANT ONLY HAS YES, ESSENCE. THEY'RE SHARING OF 5 FT, SO NEITHER OF THEM REALLY HAD. I MEAN, HIS BREAST ROD OWNS IT. YES SO UNLESS THEY PROVIDED, LIKE 15 ON THE OTHER SIDE. BUT RIGHT NOW THEY'RE KIND OF SHARING THE FIVE IN BETWEEN. IN THE RESTAURANT. THAT'S TOO BASED ON THIS. TO THE WEST. THAT'S STILL WITHIN OUR SPACE. THE NORTH THAT'S GOING INTO SAMANA, RIGHT? YES SO THE RESTAURANT OF THE WEST IS STILL US. I'LL SHOW YOU THE SO IF HOW WOULD THAT IMPACT THE REST POWER. RESTAURANTS LIKE THEY'RE RIGHT. THIRIS IS JUST SO THIS IS KIND OF CURRENTLY IT'S UNDEVELOPED RIGHT NOW. SO THE RESTAURANT THAT IS TO THE WEST? YES. TO CONSIDER THAT 5 FT TO BE PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT. WITH THAT KIND OF PULL THEM OUT OF COMPLIANCE AT THAT POINT TO IT, AND I THINK THAT'S THE POINT OF THAT WE'RE GETTING AT WAS THAT NEITHER ONE. WELL, I THINK ONE WE WANT THEM TO JUST DO THE PARKING ISLAND LIKE AS PER VOTER. ZONING ORDINANCE. I THINK THE REASON WHY THEY DIDN'T MEET THIS STANDARD RIGHT HERE WITH THE LANDSCAPING WAS JUST I BELIEVE IT'S ALLOWED ISSUE, BUT I'LL LET THE APPLICANT CLARIFY WHY THEY COULDN'T MEET THIS PORTION OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE. WE TYPICALLY JUST WANT THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE ORDERS HERE, HOWEVER, IF THEY'RE DOING SOMETHING DIFFERENT, WE WOULD WANT THEM TO AT LEAST PROVIDE 10 ON EACH SIDE TO MITIGATE THE, UM THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENT. UM AND RIGHT NOW, I THINK ANOTHER POINT SINCE THIS IS UNDEVELOPED. IF WE DID APPROVE THIS LIKE THIS, THERE'S NO TIMETABLE WHEN THAT OTHER RESTAURANTS COMING IN, SO THEY WILL ONLY BE 5 FT. PROVIDED FOR WE DON'T KNOW HOW LONG SO. FOR THE MOST PART OF IT WOULD MAKE MORE SENSE FOR US TO CONSIDER THIS. JUST TO DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT 5 FT IS SUFFICIENT. OPPOSED TO CONSIDERING WELL, THERE'S ANOTHER 5 FT OF THE USED AS A BUFFER. ESSENTIALLY I THINK THAT'S THE THING JUST IS 5 FT.

SUFFICIENT ENOUGH FOR THIS SIDE, BECAUSE AS OF NOW, UNTIL THE OTHER SIDE COMES IN AND JUST BE 5 FT THERE OUTSIDE OF THE ORDINANCE. AND I UNDERSTAND ORDINANCES, THEREFORE, THERE FOR

[00:15:03]

A REASON. IS THERE ANOTHER ISSUE THAT STAFF HAS WITH ONLY 5 FT. BEING. IS IT AN AESTHETIC ISSUE ? IS IT A SAFETY ISSUE? IS THERE A LARGER ISSUE OUTSIDE OF JUST THE FACT THAT IT'S THE LETTER OF THE LAW THAT STEP? I THINK IT'S THAT, BUT IT'S ALSO KNOWING WHAT THIS INTERNET IS FOR DRIVE THROUGHS, AND SO WE WANT DRIVE THROUGHS TO BE IN FULL COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. IF THE SENTIMENT WAS DIFFERENT, MAYBE WE WOULD FEEL I MEAN, WE STILL WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO COMPLY WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT I THINK IT'S THAT UM WE KIND OF KNOW WHAT THE SENTIMENT IS FOR DRIVE THROUGHS, AND WE WANT THEM TO BE UP TO STANDARD TO THE ZONING ORDINANCE TO WHERE THEY JUST CONFORM WITH EVERYTHING. UM, AND I THINK THAT'S THE BIGGEST ISSUE HERE.

ZONE TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THAT. IF YOU HAD THIS 10 FT SETBACK ON THIS EXACT CASE TODAY. WITH THE RECOMMENDATION FOR APPROVAL. I THINK WE'D BE MORE IN FAVOR OF IT. I HESITATED , SAYING THAT WE'D BE IN FAVOR OF SOMETHING BEING OUT OF COMPLIANCE WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, BUT I THINK THAT WE WOULD HAVE LESS OF AN ISSUE WITH IT IF THE TEMPERED BUFFER WAS PROVIDED ON THE WESTERN EDGE, ALL 10 FT. IN AN IDEAL WORLD AND MAKE SURE MY SIMPLE MATH UNDERSTAND THAT LANDSCAPE SETBACK BETWEEN THE TWO LOTS OR TWO DEVELOPMENTS. EVERYONE LOOKING AT TWO RESTAURANTS. PERFECT SCENARIOS. 20 FT. 10 FT ON ONE 10 FT ON THE OTHER.

CORRECT SO WE HAVE A 20 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK. CORRECT CORRECT. THEY DIDN'T MEET THAT THING IN THE ORDINANCE ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE PARKING ON IT AROUND THE DRUGS WERE THIS IS LOOKING LIKE TOTAL WOULD BE 15 SO FAR SHORT BETWEEN THE TWO, OKAY? BUT IF WE'RE TAKING THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER AS THE PERFECT WORLD IN THIS, WE WOULD PREFER 10 ON THIS OTHER SIDE INTEND ON THE PROPOSED TONIGHT. SO HELP ME AND I'M I'M STILL DONE COMPLETELY UNDERSTANDING IF I READ THE STANDARDS. IT'S A MINIMUM 10 FT WIDE LANDSCAPE ISLAND AROUND THE OUTER EDGE OF THE DRY THROUGH LANE. SO THE REAL REQUIREMENT HERE IS AROUND THE DRIVE THROUGH LINE, WHICH I SEE THEY GOT 10 FT. LANDSCAPE EXCEPT OVER ON THAT SMALL PORTION OF THE ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE DRIVE THRU IS THAT RIGHT? SO IS THERE SOMETHING ELSE? THAT'S NOT WHAT WE HAVE BEEN PROVIDED THAT TALKS ABOUT A TENSE 10 FT LANDSCAPES SETBACK ON THE OUTER EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, SO I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO EXTEND IF YOU CAN SEE RIGHT HERE. I THINK IT'S SUPPOSED TO EXTEND FURTHER HERE.

SO OKAY. THAT'S WHAT'S ACTUALLY MISSING BASED UPON. YES, BECAUSE WORDS LIKE THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT THE STACKING SPACE IS THE KIND OF THE ISSUE SO FOR THE RESTAURANT WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH, THEY NEED A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF STACKING SPACES THAT ARE REQUIRED, AND WE WANT THE LANDSCAPE TO EXTEND TO WHERE THAT STACKING SPACES WOULD END. OKAY SO HOW DOES THAT IS THERE ANOTHER REQUIREMENT THAT'S NOT LISTED ON HERE ABOUT NEEDING A 10 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK ON THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. WHERE THEY'VE GOT 5. FT IS THAT SOMETHING ELSE? THAT'S NOT IN THE ORDINANCE SUCH AS WHAT THEY'VE MADE AS THE PROPOSAL, LIKE IN LIEU OF DOING WHAT'S REQUIRED IN THE ORDINANCE. THEY SAID, OKAY, WE'LL DO A LANDSCAPE BUFFER. OKAY, SO OKAY. LET ME MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. SO IF THEY HAD HAD A 10 FT LANDSCAPE. IRELAND. AND THAT LITTLE PORTION OF THE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE ANY SETBACK. THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO HAVE THAT BUFFER. PROFESSIONAL YES, THAT'S JUST IN THEIR PROPOSAL TO BE TWO OPPOSITE THERE EXACTLY. SO OKAY. UM. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE. SO FROM THE STAFF, THAT'S YOUR RECOMMENDATION. MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND TO YOUR RECOMMENDATION. IS FOR DENIAL. BUT MY QUESTION IS. ARE YOU RECOMMENDING DENIAL THE ENTIRE SCP OR JUST THIS LANDSCAPE VARIANTS? UM I THINK WE RECOMMENDED NOW THE LANDSCAPE THERE IS BECAUSE I THINK THE SGP IS GOING TO COME REGARDLESS BECAUSE IT'S REQUIRED BUT THEY'RE ALSO ADDING THIS CONDITION TO THE SNP. WE ARE IN DENIAL OF SPECIFICALLY, THERE SHOULD BE BECAUSE THERE'S THIS CONDITION. IF THIS CONDITION WASN'T THERE WOULD PROBABLY BE IN PAYROLL BECAUSE AS AS YOU KNOW, THIS PSP RIGHT HERE HAS BEEN APPROVED AND WE ANTICIPATE DRAFTEES COMING RIGHT THERE. UM, BUT IT'S JUST THAT THE LANDSCAPING ISSUES THE BIGGEST THING. AND BEFORE WE HAVE BECAUSE I THINK THERE'S SEVERAL QUESTIONS WE HAVE. I THINK THE APPLICANT WOULD BETTER ANSWER. OUTSIDE OF THAT, AND I KNOW KIND OF KIND OF ASKED A LITTLE BIT EARLIER, BUT I'M ASKING A BIT DIFFERENTLY. ARE THERE ANY OTHER ISSUES THAT GIVE YOU CONCERN ABOUT THIS OUTSIDE OF THE 5? FT BECAUSE WHEN WE ASKED, YOU SAID , IF IT WASN'T FOR THAT, WE WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE IN FAVOR . THAT'S NOT A DEFINITIVE YES. SO WHAT? OTHER ISSUES. OUTSIDE OF THAT THERE ARE THERE ARE NO OTHER ISSUES OUTSIDE OF THAT, BECAUSE I THINK WE ARE FINE WITH THE PROPOSAL THAT THEY MADE JUST WE WANT ALL 10 FT ABOUT TO BE ON THE ACTUAL SITE. SO IF YOU'RE

[00:20:01]

GONNA TYPICALLY, WE JUST WOULDN'T WANT THEM TO VARY FROM THE ZONING MORNINGS AT ALL. BUT IF YOU ARE GOING TO VARY FROM THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AT LEAST PROVIDE THE AMOUNT THAT'S SPECIFIED IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. SO LIKE IF YOU'RE GONNA HIT THE REQUIREMENTS, THE 10 FT WIDE LANDSCAPE ISLAND AND YOU'RE NOT GONNA DO THAT. WE WANT THE 10 FT WIDE LANDSCAPE BUFFER ON SITE. WE DON'T WANT ONLY 5 FT PROVIDED ON SITE. THAT'S KIND OF THE POINT OF CONTENTION. SO UM, I THINK WE WOULDN'T HAVE ANY CONCERN. IF THAT 10 FT WAS PROVIDED ON THAT SITE BECAUSE IT COULD BE ALLOWED ISSUE THAT THEY CAN'T HELP AND SO WE'RE WILLING TO WORK WITH THE APPLICANT, BUT IT'S JUST THAT WE JUST DON'T FEEL LIKE IT HAS BEEN PROPERLY MITIGATED. YET WITH ONLY 5 FT, PROVIDED AND YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE 5 FT. IN BETWEEN. THE TWO RESTAURANTS THIS SHARING PERIOD THIS YEAR. BECAUSE IT SOUNDS LIKE WE'VE GOT TWO ISSUES. WE'VE GOT TO SHARE AREA AND THEN WE'VE GOT THE DRIVE THROUGH AREAS THAT CORRECT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT CORRECTLY.

THE BUFFER ISSUE IS BECAUSE OF THE DRAFTER ISSUE, AND SO THEY'RE JUST SAYING, HEY, FOR WHATEVER REASON, WE CAN'T MEET THIS LANDSCAPE ISLAND ISSUE. SO INSTEAD OF DOING THAT, WE'RE GOING TO DO THE BUFFER. AND SO I THINK WE'RE SAYING, OKAY, THAT'S FINE. BUT YOU CAN'T SPLIT THE BUFFER AND WE PROVIDE FIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE. WE WANT THE WHOLE BUFFER TO BE ON THE SITE.

I'LL TELL YOU WHAT I APPRECIATE THE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. I THINK THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ADAM AND WILL PROBABLY COME BACK AND SO APPLICANT IS HERE THIS EVENING, SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE, AND I BELIEVE THE APPLICANTS HERE AND THE PRESENTATION. GOOD EVENING COMMISSIONERS. MATT MOORE. CLAYMORE ENGINEERING 301 SOUTH COLEMAN PROSPER TEXAS HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF MCDONALD'S . THEY ARE THE PROPOSED USER AT THIS LOCATION. YEAH, I THINK STAFF SUMMARIZED THE THEIR INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE.

I'VE DEALT WITH STAFF HERE FOR SEVERAL YEARS. I'VE HAD DIFFERENT INTERPRETATIONS OVER THE YEARS OF THAT DRIVE THROUGH SCREENING. I CAN GO LOOK AT THE MCDONALD'S AT 4, 23 AND 3 80 HAS A VERY SIMILAR ENTRY TO THE DRIVE THROUGH THAT WE HAVE HERE. IT DOES NOT HAVE 10 FT. AROUND THE ALL THREE SIDES. UM I CAN LOOK AT JACK IN THE BOX OVER AT 4, 23 AND 3 80 VERY SIMILAR APPROACH. THEY DON'T HAVE THAT WRAPPING THE ENTRY POINT AS WELL. AGAIN WITH IT BEING A DOUBLE DRIVE THRU IT DOES MOVE THE ORDER POINT BACK JUST BECAUSE OF HOW EVERYTHING EMERGES FROM THE DRIVE THRU OPERATION STANDPOINT. WHICH KIND OF PRESENTS PRESENTS THAT CHALLENGE. UM AS STAFF INDICATED WE HAVE DISCUSSED THIS WITH SEVERAL COUNCIL MEMBERS AND STAFF OVER THE LAST YEAR, HONESTLY. THIS PARTICULAR USER HAS BEEN ON THIS SITE PLAN SINCE HDB WAS ANNOUNCED. I MEAN, THIS IS ALL PART OF THE MASTER PLAN THAT WE'VE BEEN WORKING FROM OVER A YEAR. WE'VE DONE SOME THINGS TO TRY AND MITIGATE THAT AGAIN. THE ADJACENT RESTAURANT THAT IS SET TO COME BEFORE YOU SHORTLY. WE DO HAVE A 10 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK OUTSIDE THAT DRIVE THROUGH LANE TO MEET THE INTENT OF THAT. WE HAVE 6.1 FT ON THE ACTUAL MCDONALD'S SIDE.

TO GET TO A TOTAL OF A LITTLE OVER 15 FT. IN THAT SHARED ISLAND THERE THAT WILL BE HEAVILY PLANTED. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THE CONCERN WAS, YOU KNOW JUST THE APPEARANCE AND AESTHETICS OF IT. YOU KNOW, WE WE'VE GOT A BANK PLAYING FOR THE HARD CORNER.

WE'VE GOT A FUELING STATION CAR WASH, THAT'S AN ACCESSORY USE FOR HPV. WE'VE GOT A COFFEE USER, AND THEN WE'VE GOT MCDONALD'S HERE. WE FEEL LIKE THAT. THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING WE'VE DONE WITHIN THAT SHARED ISLAND. WILL BE SUFFICIENT TO HELP SCREEN THAT WE'VE WE'VE MET THE REQUIREMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING AS WELL AS ON THE EAST SIDE. AND I THINK THAT WE'VE GOT AN APPLICABLE USE HERE. SO AGAIN, IT COMES DOWN TO INTERPRETATION OF THE ORDINANCE.

AGAIN I CAN FIND OTHER EXAMPLES IN TOWN THAT VERY SIMILAR TO WHAT I HAVE HERE. BEGIN THANKS CHANGED INTERPRETATIONS CHANGE, AND SO I THINK THAT'S WHY WE'RE HAVING THE DISCUSSION. SO I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY OTHER SPECIFIC QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE. WHY WHY? SPECIFICALLY, UH. COULD YOU NOT GET TO THE 5? FT IS IT IS IT A MATERIALS ISSUE? IS IT THAT IT'S ALREADY BEEN SORT OF PLANNED OUT AND IT WOULD REQUIRE YOU TO HAVE TO. I MEAN, WE PLANNED OUT WE SOLD LAND TO A TB, UM, BASED ON PREVIOUS MASTER PLAN THAT YOU KNOW, EFFECTIVELY LIMITED THE WIDTH OF THE TWO SIDES. WE'VE TRIED TO AGAIN. WORK WITH STAFF TO MITIGATE ALL OF THE CONCERNS.

BUT IT'S JUST A LIMITATION BASED ON THE AREA THEY NEEDED FOR A FUEL STATION CAR WASH WITH THEIR THEIR STORE. AND SO YOU KNOW, WE'RE TRYING TO, YOU KNOW, MAKE BEST USE OF THE LAND WE'VE GOT.

SO LOOK TO FOLLOW UP TO THAT, SO THAT'S KIND OF PUSHED THESE LOTS A LITTLE BIT. AND THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I MEAN. GENERAL LAYOUT. I MEAN, WHEN YOU START PUTTING 10 FT. THREE SIDES OF

[00:25:03]

YOUR BUILDING INSIDE YOUR PARKING LOT. I MEAN, I JUST DID IT. REQUIRES A TON OF REAL ESTATE AND YOU KNOW AGAIN, WE FEEL LIKE THIS PLAN. MEETS THE INTENT AND THE SPIRIT OF THE ORDINANCE. SO WE YEAH, RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT WE MOVE FORWARD AS PRESENTED TONIGHT. YES ARE YOU ALL DOING THE YOU'RE DOING THE WORK FOR THE OTHER THE OTHER LOCATION AS WELL RIGHT NEXT DOOR. YES. SO SO IT'S NOT GONNA BE WHERE THEY'RE GONNA BE COMING BACK AND ASKING FOR 5 FT. ON THE ON THE WHERE IT'S 10 FT. FOR THE YEAH. I MEAN, WE'VE GOT WE'VE GOT A VERY SIMILAR INSTANCE ON BOTH OF THESE. AGAIN WE'VE GOT THE 5 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK ON THE PROPOSED COFFEE USER SITE. AND THEN WE'VE GOT A PRETTY SIGNIFICANT LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT'S ON THE FUEL STATION CAR WASH SITE THAT WE'RE WORKING THROUGH WITH H E B. JUST MAKE SURE MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR. I THINK ON THAT IT'S PRETTY CERTAIN AT THIS POINT THAT THAT 10 FT BUFFER BETWEEN THE COFFEE APPLICANT AND MCDONALD'S TONIGHT THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE AS IT'S PRESENTED. AND YOU'RE SAYING THAT 5 FT. YOU MENTIONED SOMETHING EARLIER SAID IT'S ACTUALLY 6 FT. CHILDREN 6.1 FT FROM THE BACK OF CURB TO OUR PROPERTY. IT'S A 5 FT LANDSCAPE BUFFER JUST NOTED THAT WE'VE GOT AN EXTRA 1.1 FT. SO IN WHEN WE WERE MEASURING INCHES FILM. SO THE LANDSCAPE PLAN SHOULD HAVE BEEN. I THINK PART OF YOUR PACKET LANDSCAPE PLAYING SHOWS.

YEP, PRETTY SUBSTANTIAL PLANNING'S ONE PRETTY TIGHT SPACE IN THERE TO HELP, YOU KNOW, ENHANCE THAT SCREEN. AN ANIMAL AND ALL THAT. I LIKE THAT STUFF.

COMMISSIONERS ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING? YEAH. YES. QUESTION.

OKAY. SO ON THE. ON THE REMAINDER OF THE DRIVE THROUGH WHERE THIS BUT THE ISSUE HERE.

WHAT'S THE WHAT'S THE DISTANCE OF THAT? WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE THAT FROM DOESN'T HAVE THE LANDSCAPE. 30 FT. 30 FT. ROUGHLY. I MEAN, I'M NOT APPROXIMATELY WHAT ARE YOU PROPOSING IS SEPARATES THAT FROM THE MAIN DRIVE AREA THAT THE DRIVE THROUGH WHAT IS THERE, THERE'S NOT ANY BECAUSE IT JUST A WHITE LINE ON THE DRIVING. TWO STRIPING.

GIVEN THAT YOU HAD A FIXED AREA. DID AND I'M JUST CURIOUS ABOUT THE PLANET. WAS THERE A CONSCIOUS DECISION? GIVE THE 5 FT UP ON THAT SPECIFIC SIDE. BECAUSE IF YOU HAD GIVEN THE 5 FT UP, SAY ON THE EAST SIDE WOULD HAVE BEEN ESSENTIALLY JUST SHIFT THE ENTIRE THING OVER TO THE RIGHT. YES SO WOULD YOU. WAS THERE A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO SAY? OKAY, IF WE'RE GONNA GIVE UP 5 FT. THIS IS EXACTLY WHERE WE HAVE. WE'RE GOING TO GIVE IT UP. ABSOLUTELY AND THE REASON FOR THAT IS WE'VE GOT A NEW COLLECTOR ROAD STREET THAT'S GOING IMMEDIATELY EAST OF THIS LOCATION. THAT'S BEING BUILT AS PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT. SO WE HAVE A PUBLIC THOROUGHFARE THAT WILL GO FROM FRONTIER SOUTH. THROUGH OUR SITE. SO OBVIOUSLY WITH THAT STREET VIEW BEING THAT CLOSE TO THE EDGE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH THE 10 FT ON THE EAST SIDE TO ME WAS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE WEST SIDE. GIVEN THAT WE'VE GOT OTHER USERS LANDSCAPE BUFFERS TO PUT IN SCREENING THAT WILL HELP SCREEN ANYTHING. YOU KNOW WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING FROM THE WEST BETWEEN BUILDINGS LANDSCAPING. OTHER THINGS WE FELT LIKE THE SOUTH COME AND FACING HDB AS WELL AS EAST FACING THE COLLECTOR ROAD. WAS THE AREA THAT. WE NEED TO FOCUS ON RATHER THAN THE WESTERN SIDE.

AND ALL THOSE PRODUCTS ALL PRETTY FLAT. REALLY. THERE'S NO THAT'S WHY I'M PAYING OUT THERE.

WHAT ROAD IS THAT COMING ON THE ON THE EAST SIDE. WE HAVEN'T NAMED IT YET, BUT IT'S SPLITTING THAT PROPERTY COLLECTOR THAT IS ON THE THIRD PAIR PLAN. I GOT YOU SO I MEAN, I'M GONNA PUT THIS OUT THERE FOR JUST CONTEXT . MY CLIENT BOUGHT THE ENTIRE MET AND TRACKED, WHICH WAS ROUGHLY 70 ACRES. WE'RE DOING THE HDB DEAL HE HAS SOLD TO MEDICAL USER THAT RESTRICTED THEM FROM DOING ANY KIND OF RETAIL RESTAURANT PADS. ON THE LAND TO THE EAST OF THIS COLLECTOR OF SO ALL OF OUR RETAIL CENTRIC USES ARE FOCUSED ON THIS COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT.

[00:30:07]

SO THAT'S GONNA BE CONSIDERED. THAT WILL BE CONSIDERED A HARD CORNER, RIGHT? THERE IS BUT THAT'S GONNA BE CONSIDERED AFTER THAT COULD BE CONSIDERED KIND OF A HARD CORNER. OF THIS IS IF I'M LOOKING AT THIS CORRECTLY, BECAUSE THAT'S FRONTIER PARKWAY AND WHATEVER WROTE THIS IS CORRECT. I'M GOING NORTH. GOT TOO HARD CORNERS. I GUESS IF YOU WILL, YOU GOT THE DNT CORNER.

AND THEN AND THEN WHAT WAS THIS ALSO KEEP IN MIND. WE'VE GOT 100 FT WIDE DRAINAGE CHANNEL.

SEPARATING FROM FRONTIER AS WELL. SO IT'S NOT YOUR TRADITIONAL HARD CORNER. DON'T DON'T MAKE THE HEART AS I SAY, HARD QUARTER, BUT I MEAN A CORNER INTERSECTION INTERSECTION BACK TO THE MAP THAT SHOWS THE KIND OF THE BLOWOUT OF EVERYTHING WITH. YEAH, THAT ONE OUT THERE. SO THAT'S A GOOD POINT. YOU'VE GOT ALL THAT DRAINAGE RIGHT IN FRONT OF THAT, UH, IN FRONT OF EVERYTHING THERE, DON'T YOU? WE'LL SEE THAT AGAIN. WE JUST FELT LIKE YOU KNOW THE SOUTH AND THE EAST SIDE WAS MORE IMPORTANT FROM A SCREENING PERSPECTIVE. GIVEN THAT WE'VE GOT, YOU KNOW, A DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE. WE'VE GOT ANOTHER. RESTAURANT BUILDING AND EVERYTHING ELSE REALLY LIMITING YOUR VIEW. THAT 30 FT ENTRY POINT INTO THE DRIVE THROUGH I JUST WANT TO MAKE IT CRYSTAL CLEAR. UM. THERE ISN'T AN INCH TO GIVE. THAT'S WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. EVERYTHING IS EVERY EVERY FOOT IS ACCOUNTED FOR IT IF SOMEONE WERE TO COME HERE AND SAY, HEY, EITHER THE 5 FT OR NOTHING. IT WOULD HAVE TO BE NOTHING BECAUSE YOU DON'T HAVE AN ADDITIONAL 5 FT. TO GIVE HARRIS IF I COULD HAVE GIVEN IT TO YOU WOULD HAVE. I MEAN, I'VE BEEN DEALING WITH STAFF ON THIS FOR 67 MONTHS NOW TRYING TO WORK THROUGH THIS IF I HAD ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY, I WOULD I WOULD HAVE EXPLORED IT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING. THIS TIME. APPRECIATE IT VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. SO THIS IS I DON'T NUMBER FIVE. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ISLAND AND WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THIS EVENING THAT WANTED TO SPEAK RELATIVE TO ITEM NUMBER FIVE. THAT ALL MEANS IT'S A PUBLIC HEARING. COMMISSIONERS I'M NOT REALLY PART OF THE AUDIENCE OR THE PUBLIC AS YOU CAN TELL, WILL ALLOW IT BACK TO THE JUST THE TWO SITES. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS I THINK YOU NEED TO NOTICE WHILE YOU'RE MAKING YOUR DELIBERATIONS ABOUT THIS THAT THE COUNCIL IS VERY SERIOUS ABOUT LANDSCAPE SCREAMING AS STREAMING AND SCREENING AROUND. THE DRIVE THROUGHS. THEY'VE MADE THAT VERY CLEAR TO ME SINCE PROBABLY THE FIRST DAY I CAME TO WORK HERE. YEAH. AND IF YOU LOOK THERE IN THE MCDONALD'S SIDE. THERE REALLY IS NO SCREENING. AS FAR AS THE DRIVE THRU IS CONCERNED, AND THERE'S TWO LANES, WHICH IS WHERE SOME OF THE 5 FT WENT. WHICH I THINK IS IMPORTANT. AND THEN YOU LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S IN BETWEEN THE TWO RESTAURANTS. THERE AND THEN. THE OTHER SIDE. THERE'S NO SCREENING AT ALL, UM, ON THE DRIVE THROUGH , AND THEN THERE IS NO SCREENING AT ALL ON THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY, SO WHAT'S GOING TO HAPPEN? IS AS THE SECOND DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, YOU'RE GOING TO BE BEING ASKED TO DISREGARD THE SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ON THAT SIDE. IF THERE'S REALLY NO PLACE TO GO OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT HAS TOLD US THAT HDB IS TOLD THEM THEY COULD HAVE IT. THIS INAL FEET IF THEY WANTED SOME, SPECIFICALLY 5 FT. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S TRUE OR NOT. I WOULDN'T IN THAT CONVERSATION.

EXCUSE ME. IT'S JUST I GUESS HEARSAY FROM THAT PERSPECTIVE, BUT BUT THERE THERE IS NOT ENOUGH LANDSCAPING AND MCDONALD'S SIDE AND THEIR SCREENING AND THERE'S NONE. THE WAY THIS IS DRAWN OUT ON THE OTHER SIDE, AND WE DON'T BELIEVE THAT THE STAFF LEVEL THAT THIS IS WHAT COUNCIL'S DIRECTIVE TO US HAS BEEN WHEN IT HAS BEEN A SCREEN. THE 10 FT. ON THE DRIVE PHASE. SO THAT IS WHAT MAKES RECOMMENDING UNDERSTANDING LANDSCAPING ON THE OTHER SIDE WATER WHEN YOU SAY THE OTHER SIDE ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT THE WEST SIDE OF THE CORRECT COFFEE PLACE MOVING COFFEE, WHICH WOULD BE A GAS STATION ON THE OTHER SIDE, BUT THERE'S NO LENS GET.

THERE'S NO SCREENING WHATSOEVER THE DRIVE THROUGH THERE THERE'S ANOTHER SHELL. AND THERE ISN'T GONNA BE ANY PLACE TO PUT IT. IS THAT PART OF THIS S U P IS NOT PART OF THIS ACTUALLY P. BUT

[00:35:04]

IT'S PART OF THIS DEVELOPMENT, WHICH IS WHY WE BELIEVE THAT THE SCREENING THAT IS BEING PUSHED OVER ON TO THEIR SITE. IT'S GOING TO CAUSE PROBLEMS LATER. SO I AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT I BECAUSE OF YOU. BROUGHT UP A NUMBER OF ADDITIONAL ISSUES. BUT I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT BECAUSE, AS IT'S BEEN EXPLAINED 5 FT. OF LANDSCAPE SETBACK AND NOT TRYING TO MINIMIZE. I'M JUST SAYING THAT THE BUT BUT WHY ADDITIONAL 5 FT. THE REQUIREMENT IS 10 PROPOSING FIVE. SO WHAT WE'RE WHAT WE'RE DISCUSSING IS 5 FT. WHETHER OR NOT THAT 5 FT. SHOULD MAKE OR BREAK THIS DEVELOPMENT. AND I'M I'M I'M STILL TRYING TO UNDERSTAND ALL THE ISSUES THAT ARE INVOLVED IN THAT. YOU BROUGHT UP A NUMBER OF OTHER ISSUES. DOES THAT ADDITIONAL 5 FT OF SETBACK. YOU BROUGHT UP A NUMBER OF ISSUES ABOUT SCREENING. IF THEY WERE TO ADD FIVE ADDITIONAL FEET OF SETBACK . DOES IT ADDRESS ALL OF THOSE OTHER ISSUES THAT YOU TALKED ABOUT? OR WOULD WE THEN HAVE TO DEAL WITH EACH OF THOSE ADDITIONAL ISSUES WHEN THE RESTAURANT COMES BEFORE? ZONING IF THEY COME BEFORE HIS ONLY IT DEPENDS UPON HOW IT'S LAID OUT BECAUSE I THINK WHAT'S GETTING LOST IN THE SHUFFLE HERE IS THE REQUIREMENT IS 10 FT OF SCREENING ON THE DRIVE THROUGH WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED FOR THE MCDONALD'S RIGHT NOW IS NONE.

ALL OF THE SCREENING IS PUSHED OVER TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY HALF ON THE MCDONALD'S AND HALF ON THE COFFEE SITE. WHICH MEANS NOT ONLY IS MCDONALD'S NOT COMPLYING WITH THE REQUIREMENT IS THE COFFEE PLACE IS NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO COMPLY WITH WHAT THE ORDINANCES AND THAT'S NOT PART OF THIS ISSUE P BUT IT BE UNREALISTIC NOT TO LOOK AT AND UNDERSTAND WHAT THE SITUATION IS. IT'S BEING CREATED. SO IT ISN'T GONNA BE ONE RESTAURANT THAT'S NOT ABIDING BY THE RULES . IT'S GOING TO BE BOTH. AND SO THE WAY TO FIX IT IS TO PUT THE SCREENING ON THE DRIVE THROUGH AT THE MCDONALDS WHERE IT BELONGS. AND WHEN YOU SAY SCREENING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT UH , KEEPING IT TO WHERE YOU CAN'T SEE IT TREES OR OR GENERALLY BUSHES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. AND SO INSTEAD OF HAVING 10 FT OF SHRUBS AND BUSHES. WE WOULD HAVE 5 FT. THERE'S NONE. THERE'S NONE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH. YOU'RE GONNA BE ABLE TO SEE THAT DRIVE ALL THE WAY AROUND. BUT I MEAN, YOU'RE ABLE TO SEE EVERY DRIVE THROUGH THAT YOU DON'T HIDE DRIVE THROUGHS. I MEAN, I DRIVE PAST CHICK FIL A EVERY DAY AND YOU SEE THAT DRIVE THROUGH AND EVERYTHING YOU SEE OLDER EXAMPLES THAT HAVEN'T BEEN BEING UM. MANAGED PROPERLY, SO TO SPEAK. I CAN SHOW YOU EXAMPLES ALL OVER TOWN OF THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT NOW THAN THEY WERE AT THE TIME I WAS DEVELOPED. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT YOU KEEP DOING IT WRONG. THAT'S A GOOD POINT. I REALLY THAT WAS ACTUALLY A QUESTION THAT I HAVE. I'M SORRY. DID YOU HAVE VERY GOOD? GO AHEAD. UM HOW MUCH OF OUR CURRENT HOW MANY OF OUR CURRENT DRUG THROUGH GUIDELINES, ESPECIALLY THE ONES THAT PERTAIN TO THIS DEVELOPMENT WERE ADDED. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE THIS TOP OF MIND, BUT WE'RE AT IT SAY WITHIN THE LAST FEW YEARS. THAT MCDONALD'S OUT THERE ON THE 4 23 AND 3 80 HAS BEEN APPROVED FOR YEARS. IT'S BEEN THERE FOR A WHILE, AND I'M SURE THAT IT WOULD HAVE BEEN APPROVED FOR A WHILE BACK, SO I WOULD HAVE TO GUESS ABOUT FOUR. MAYBE FIVE YEARS, MAYBE A LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT. SAME THING FOR MOST OF WHAT'S OUT THERE. THE CHICK FIL A AND THE OTHER AREAS HAVE WE HAD DRIVE THROUGH GUIDELINES BECAUSE I KNOW WITHIN THE LAST YEAR DRIVE THROUGH GUIDELINES HAS BEEN A MAJOR TOPIC HAVE WE HAD ADDITIONAL ORDINANCES OR GUIDELINES THAT HAVE BEEN ADDED TO UM, TOWN ORDINANCES. ADDRESSING THIS OR DID WE HAVE ANY OTHER SORT OF GUIDELINES THAT WERE ADDED ADDRESSING THIS LANDSCAPING ISSUE THE SCREENING ISSUE. THINGS THAT WOULD NOT HAVE IMPACTED THOSE OLDER. DEVELOPMENTS BUT WOULD IMPACT FUTURE DEVELOPMENT. WE HAVE NOT CHANGED ORDINANCES SPECIFICALLY FOR STRAIGHTEN ZONING. SITES OF PROPERTY, SO TO SPEAK, OF WHICH DRIVE THROUGHS DON'T EXIST. THEY ARE REQUIRE ISSUE PS. WE HAVE BEEN GIVEN ADDITIONAL GUIDELINES THAT ONLY THROUGH THE PLAN UPDATE. REMEMBER THERE WAS SOME IN THERE ABOUT DRIVE THROUGHS AS WELL AS CONVERSATIONS THAT HAVE TAKEN PLACE WITH THE COUNCIL DURING MEETINGS IN DISCUSSIONS OF OTHER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, AND WITH IT BEING A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THERE ARE ACTUALLY ANY NUMBER OF THINGS THAT CAN BE REQUESTED BY THE CITY STAFF PLANNING COMMISSION AND THE

[00:40:04]

COUNCIL AS FAR AS WHAT NEEDS TO OCCUR FOR APPROVAL OF A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. THAT'S ONE OF THE REASONS WHY YOU, ACTUALLY YOU, BUT WHY SPECIFIC USE PERMITS ARE GENERALLY UM, SET OUT TO BE ABLE TO PUT LIMITATIONS AND ADDITIONS ON WHATEVER THE PARTICULAR USES . THAT REQUIRES, AS SHE P SO HAVING BEEN GIVEN THE GUIDELINES AND THEN TOLD REPEATEDLY BY THE COUNCIL THE NUMEROUS OCCASIONS THAT THERE IS A DESIRE TO DO BETTER ON THE DRIVE THROUGHS THAN WHAT HAVE BEEN DONE IN THE PAST. THAT'S PARTLY WHY YOU SEE WHAT THIS IS. THERE IS ALREADY THE ORDINANCE ABOUT 10 FT, BUT THERE IS ALSO TO MAKE IT BETTER AND MAKE IT LESS. AND SO THAT'S WHY I'M SITTING HERE AND TELLING YOU THAT THIS DOES NOT MEET THE CURRENT ORDINANCE AND THAT IS THAT SOMETHING IN MY OPINION THE COUNCIL IS GOING TO WANT TO SEE. A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE ON THE DRAINAGE AREA. THAT'S ALL FRONTIER. WHAT'S IN THAT AREA? IS THAT GOING TO BE GRASS GRASS , PROBABLY THAT FRONTIER HAVE LIMITED AMOUNT OF LANDSCAPING THAT'S ALLOWED TO GO IN. DRAINAGE AREAS, SO AND I CAN'T TELL YOU THE SPECIFICS THAT THAT'S MORE OF THAT. WITH TONIGHT'S CASE, DO WE CORRECT? OKAY? IN HONEST 5 FT IN THE 10 FT. THE THIS STRIP OF LAND 15 FT OR 16.4 FT. WHATEVER IT IS. I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR WHAT LANDSCAPING IS GOING TO BE, AND THERE'S GOING TO BE SOME BUSHES OR TREES AND WHATNOT. DO WE HAVE A SLIDE? I THINK THERE'S SOME SLIDES IN THERE. I GUESS I WON'T UNDERSTAND THIS 15 FT BETWEEN TWO DRIVE THROUGHS. PUTS ON WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.

LIKE WHAT DOES THAT IT'S NOT JUST A SECTION OF DEAD GRASS OR THERE'S GOING TO BE YO. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. I THINK WE'VE GOT SOME SLIDES IN THERE IN THE CASE. I WANT TO THANK YOU HELP ME. THIS IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. RIGHT HERE, RIGHT? COMMISSIONERS THERE'S A LANDSCAPE PLAN AND PAGE 32 OF YOUR PACKETS. IF THAT WILL MAKE IT EASIER. DON'T HAVE A SLIDE OF ONE. I GUESS IT'S NOT IN THE PRESENTATION. I SAW THAT. I JUST NEEDED A BIGGER PICTURE. SO JUMP, ARNOLD. YES A LITTLE BETTER GIVEN THAT GIVEN THAT ALL OF THIS SORT OF OCCURRING IN A REALLY KIND OF POTENTIALLY BUSY AREA SO THE AREA BETWEEN THE. MCDONALD'S THE RESTAURANT. GAS STATION THAT'S COMING IN. THE COFFEE SHOP THAT'S GOING TO BE THERE ALL SHARING THE SAME SPACE , ASSUMING A LITTLE FURTHER AWAY TO THE NORTH WILL BE HDB. I'M GUESSING, UM, SELF SOUTH OF IT, OKAY? SO THEY'RE ALL GOING TO BE SHARING THIS VERY BUSY SPACE. DOES. THE REDUCTION IN THAT SETBACK. WITHIN THAT CONTEXT. DOES IT MAKE IT SEEM IF YOU'RE GOING TO END THE FACT THAT IT'S IN THE DALLAS STARS, ALWAYS DISTRICT ALL OF THOSE THINGS THOSE THINGS MAKE IF YOU WERE GOING TO ALLOW A DEVIATION FROM THE ORDINANCE. WOULD THOSE BE MITIGATING FACTORS FOR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OR DO YOU SEE THOSE THINGS AS NON CONSEQUENTIAL. THEY DON'T REALLY IMPACT THIS AT ALL. IT'S STILL YOU KNOW WHEN THE ORDINANCE WAS ENVISIONED. IT WAS ENVISIONED WITH ALL OF THESE THINGS HAPPENING, NOT BECAUSE IN MY MIND, I'M WONDERING ARE WE? BECAUSE THE ORDINANCE IN MANY WAYS I KIND OF ENVISIONED. IT IS SOMETHING THAT PROTECTS THESE STAND ALONE OR MAYBE IF THERE'S MAYBE SMALLER RETAIL AREAS FROM THESE DRIVE THROUGH EYESORES FROM POPPING UP AND SITTING VERY CLOSE TO YOU THE ROAD OR, YOU KNOW, NOT HAVING ANY LANDSCAPING, SO AS YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE STREET, ALL YOU DO IS YOU SEE CARS LINED UP AND PILED UP. AND THIS SEEMS LIKE A DIFFERENT INSTANCE LIKE IT'S ALL OF THE CONTEXT AROUND IT IS BUSY CAR LIKE THIS. ONE THING DOESN'T IMPACT THE AESTHETICS AS MUCH AS IT WOULD IF IT WERE IN A STANDALONE AREA OR AN AREA MUCH CLOSER TO RESIDENTIAL HOUSING. THERE'S THIS DOES THAT MAKE SENSE OR UNDER THE QUESTION YOU'RE SAYING YES, SIR. BUT I WOULD TELL YOU THAT IF YOU LOOK AT ALL THE GUIDELINES FROM THE DRIVE THROUGHS AND THE FAST FOOD RESTAURANTS I DON'T BELIEVE THERE'S A PLACE IN TOWN WHERE YOU'RE GOING TO SEE TO THAT ARE NEXT TO EACH OTHER BECAUSE THAT'S ONE OF THE MAIN

[00:45:04]

GUIDELINES THAT EXIST AS WELL. YOU DON'T HAVE THEM NEXT TO EACH OTHER, AND YOU HAVE THIS SPECIFIC SCREENING AROUND THE DRIVE THROUGHS AND THIS PARTICULAR CASE. YOU DON'T HAVE THE SCREENING AROUND THE DRIVE THROUGHS. YOU'VE GOT TWO OF THE DRIVE THROUGHS THAT ARE SQUEEZED TOGETHER THAT ARE GOING TO BE RIGHT NEXT TO GAS PUMPS, WHICH ARE REALLY NOTHING MORE THAN MORE DRIVE THROUGHS, WHICH IS RIGHT NEXT TO A BANK, WHICH IS ALSO GOING TO HAVE A DRIVE THROUGH AND AS YOU START MOVING ALL OF THESE DEFICIENCIES. DEVIATIONS WHATEVER YOU WANNA CALL IT TOWARDS THE WEST. THEY'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE SOME PROBLEM THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE ABLE TO MET. BE MET BASED ON WHAT THE EXISTING REGULATIONS ARE, AND THE GUIDELINES THAT ARE IN EXISTENCE, PLUS WHAT THE STAFF HAS BEEN TOLD FROM THE COUNCIL IN PREVIOUS ONES THAT HAVE COME IN AND DISCUSSIONS THAT TOOK PLACE DURING THE CAMP PLAN UPDATE AND SO FORTH, AND SO THERE IS NO ONE POINT OUT AGAIN. THERE IS NO LANDSCAPING, SCREENING OR BUFFERING ON THE DRIVE THROUGH RIGHT NOW THAT GOES THROUGH MCDONALD'S THAT LANDSCAPING THAT'S BEING SHOWN IS PARTLY ON THIS PROPERTY LINE AND PARTLY ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S NOT THE DRIVE THROUGH. SO IT'S ALREADY MOVED FROM THE LOCATION OF THE ORDINANCE REQUIRES IT TO BE. AND THERE IS NO ROOM THE WAY THIS IS LAID OUT FOR ANY LANDSCAPING TO COVER UP THE DRIVE THROUGH AT THE COFFEE SHOP. AND AGAIN. COFFEE SHOP IS NOT PART OF THIS S U P. I WANT TO BE REAL CLEAR ABOUT THAT. BUT WHEN THAT S U P COMES IN, WE'RE GONNA BE STANDING HERE HAVING THE SAME CONVERSATION AGAIN AND THERE WILL BE NO ROOM TO ADJUST THEN BECAUSE THERE WON'T BE ANY PROPERTY ON THE OTHER SIDE UNLESS IT'S IN THE GAS PUMPS. WE'LL SEE HOW WELL THAT GOES AT THAT TIME. LET ME CLARIFY. I JUST I'M WE MAKE SURE I UNDERSTAND. BECAUSE I'M NOT COMPLETELY GETTING THIS. WHEN YOU MAKE THIS YOU SAID THAT FROM MCDONALD'S RIGHT NOW, WHAT'S BEING SHOWN IS THERE IS NO LANDSCAPE AROUND THE DRIVE THROUGH. THE CARDS ARE I LITTLE BLACK THINGS THAT YES, RESEMBLE CARS. BUT THERE'S NO LANDSCAPING THAT KEEPS YOU FROM SEEING THAT WE'RE ONLY ON OKAY. BUT IN THE IN THE SOUTHERN PART OF THAT THEY'RE, SAYS 10 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK THAT'S AROUND THE SOUTHERN EDGE OF SOUTHERN EDGES AND ON THE ON THE WEST OR ON THE EAST SIDE, THERE'S A 10 FT. THAT GOES ALONG THE BUILDING. SO THERE SO THE ONLY PORTION THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT IS THAT 30 FT OR SO WHERE THE BLACK MARKS ARE? IS THAT RIGHT? THAT'S THE ONLY PORTION WHEN YOU YOUR STATEMENT WAS THAT THERE'S NO LANDSCAPE AROUND THE DRIVE THRU , AND YET IT APPEARS TO ME THAT THERE IS OTHER THAN THAT ONE PORTION, SO I JUST WANNA MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING. AND THEN WHEN YOU SAID THERE'S NO LANDSCAPE ON THE COFFEEHOUSE, WHAT I'M SEEING IS A 10 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK ON THE SOUTHERN END. AND 10 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK ALONG THE EASTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE. THAT COVERS THE FULL LANCE DRIVE THROUGH THAT BUILDING. DOES IT? NOT IF YOU COUNT THE LANDSCAPING TWICE. YOU CAN'T COUNT THE SAME 10 FT FOR 10 FT ON BOTH SIDES, BUT ON THIS PLANE ON ONE OR IT WORKS ON THE OTHER , BUT IT DOESN'T WORK FOR BOTH. OKAY, BUT WHAT I'M SEEING ON THIS PLAN THAT MAY BE WHERE I'M JUST NOT. I SEE 10 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK ON THE COPY OF BUILDING AND THEN 5 FT LANDSCAPE ON MCDONALD'S. I'M SEEING 15 FT HERE. THAT'S WHAT I SEE. IS THAT NOT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED OR I REALIZED THAT. SOMETHING 15 FT HERE. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT WOULD AS FAR AS THE COFFEE HOUSE. I MEAN, I REMEMBER AGAIN. I KNOW THAT'S NOT IT, BUT IT MEETS THE FULL REQUIREMENTS FOR THE 10 FT.

AROUND THE DRIVE THROUGH THE ONLY THING WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THAT LITTLE PORTION THERE ON THE EAST SIDE. ON THE EAST SIDE. THERE'S AN ON THE WEST SIDE. OKAY, SO THAT THAT, ALONG WITH ALONG THE DRIVE THROUGH IS THAT WHAT THAT IS? BECAUSE I JUST SEE A TRASH ENCLOSURE THAT COVERS AROUND THAT, SO THAT'S SO THAT LINE BECAUSE PART OF THE DRIVE THROUGH THERE, OKAY? THAT'S HOW YOU GET TO THE DRIVE THROUGH. YOU GET TO THE PLACE TO PICK UP YOUR COFFEE. OR THE ACTUAL THAT'S ACTUALLY THE READER BOARD. THAT YOU GO UNDER IF YOU'VE EVER BEEN TO. WELL, I CAN'T TELL YOU WHAT IT IS THIS TYPE OF COFFEE PLACE FACILITY. THAT'S WHERE YOU GO UNDER THE LITTLE CANOPY. YOU MAKE YOUR ORDER, AND THEN YOU COME AROUND AND GO UP TO THE SIDE AND YOU PICK IT UP WHERE IT SAYS A LOT. NUMBER FOUR. OKAY? OKAY, BUT I JUST WAS TRYING TO CLARIFY THE

[00:50:05]

STATEMENT TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD THAT THE COFFEE THE CARBON HOUSE. THEY DO THEY HAVE THE LANDSCAPING SCREENING TO COVER UP THE DRIVE THRU AREA NOT ON THE WESTERN SIDE, WHICH IS PART OF THE REQUIREMENT, RIGHT? YES YES, AND THEY HAVE 5 FT. WHICH WOULD BE THE MITIGATING PLEASE WRITE THEY WOULD NEED A 10 FT LANDSCAPE SET BACK ON THE EAST OR THE WEST SIDE. RIGHT IN LIEU OF. THE LANDSCAPING SCREENING COVERING UP THE DRIVE THRU CARS RIGHT TECHNICALLY SHOULD HAVE A 10 FT. FOLLOW THE REGULATIONS. THE ORDINANCE, YOU SHOULD HAVE A 10 FT. STRIP OF LANDSCAPE BUFFER ALL THE WAY AROUND THE DRIVE THROUGH ON ALL THREE SIDES WHERE THERE IS A DRIVE. RIGHT. BOTH. THERE ESTABLISHMENT SO THE COFFEEHOUSE WON'T HAVE IT EITHER. THEY WILL NOT HAVE ANY. THEY DON'T HAVE IT. NOW APPLICANTS RAISED HIS HAND I DON'T EVEN KNOW IS THAT PART OF IT? IS THAT ALSO PART OF THE COFFEEHOUSE PART OF THAT. PROPERTY. GO AHEAD. YOU CAN COME UP AND, UH, TRY. DISCUSS SOME OF THE STATEMENTS I'VE HEARD. I'M GONNA GIVE SOME HISTORY. LIKE I SAID, H E B IS PUTTING ON A SITE FOR A COUPLE OF YEARS. YOU'VE HAD MANY MICROPHONE TALKING TO MIKE. MANY DIFFERENT CONVERSATIONS WITH STAFF COUNCIL MEMBERS, OTHER FOLKS ON THE LAYOUTS. I I'VE BEEN IN TOWN FOR YEARS. NOW I KNOW WHAT DRIVE THROUGHS ARE IN THE TOWN OF PROSPER AND THAT FOUR LETTER WORD THAT THEY ARE. IT'S PROBABLY ALMOST THE BIGGEST FOUR LETTER WORDS MULTI FAMILY. WE TOOK INTO CONSIDERATION FEEDBACK WE'VE RECEIVED ON THE LOCATION WHERE WE WOULD PUT THESE DRIVERS FOR Q. S. R S THE DISCUSSION WAS WE PREFER HIM ON FRONTIER, NOT ON THE TOLLWAY. THAT'S ONE HOW WE GOT HERE. I CAN I CAN SHOW YOU SIGHTS OF CUSTER. COIT. 4 23 THAT HAVE DRIVE THROUGH SIDE BY SIDE. YES I KNOW IT'S PREFERRED TO HAVE THEM SEPARATED OUT. THE DISCUSSION WAS HEY, WE'D PREFER HIM ON FRONTIER BE RIGHT HERE. THIS IS WHY WE STARTED ON THIS LOCATION. NOW I GET THAT WAS DISCUSSIONS A YEAR AND A HALF AGO. BUT WE DIDN'T LAY THESE OUT AT THIS LOCATION. WITHOUT THOUGHT AND FEEDBACK AND INPUT. WE'VE GOT 15 FT BETWEEN THE COFFEE USER. MCDONALD'S. WE'VE GOT 5 FT ON THE WEST SIDE OF THE COFFEE USER, AND WE'VE GOT A LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITHIN THE FUEL STATION CAR WASH TO HELP BUFFER AND BEEF UP THE SCREENING ON THE COFFEE USER. SAME WAY THAT WE'RE TRYING TO DO IT FOR MCDONALD'S. WE'VE BEEN VERY DELIBERATE. I WILL TELL YOU. WE WORK. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN OUT THERE. WE'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT. WE KNEW THAT WE NEED A LITTLE BIT MORE REAL ESTATE. WE DID GET MORE REAL ESTATE FROM HPV TO GET TO THIS POINT. BUT THE CORPORATE USER THAT'S THAT'S NICE. YOU ALL'S THAT CASE HAS NOT BEEN SUBMITTED YET. THE REAL ESTATE DEAL. POINTS ARE STILL BEING WORKED THROUGH. BUT THAT IS EMINENT BECOMING FALL WITHIN THE SAME INVESTMENT GROUP OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE AS THE MCDONALD'S THE SAME GROUP. OKAY LOTS ARE OWNED BY THE SAME INDIVIDUAL. SO REALLY THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WOULD WHO ARE MAKING THE DECISION FOR THE 5 FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK ON THIS SIDE ARE THE SAME PEOPLE WHO WOULD BE MAKING THE SIMILAR DECISIONS FOR THE STARBOARD, THE CARPET USER ON THE LIPS ON THE WEST SIDE. CORRECT CORRECT. IT'S ALL UNDER THE SAME OWNERSHIP. AGAIN, RIGHT? OKAY, LET ME LET ME OKAY. I WAS TRYING TO MAKE SURE I UNDERSTOOD WHAT THE STAFF WAS SAYING. CLARIFYING THAT AND I THINK I'VE GOT THAT. BUT LET ME MAKE THIS STATEMENT TO YOU, AND I UNDERSTAND YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON THIS FOR A LONG TIME. I THINK THE ORDINANCE IS VERY CLEAR. I DON'T KNOW THAT THERE'S A LOT OF THE DEBATE ABOUT WHAT IT SAYS BECAUSE THE MINIMUM A MINIMUM 10 FT LANDSCAPE. IRELAND SHOULD BE CONSTRUCTED AROUND THE OUTER EDGE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING HERE IS NOT THAT YOU CAN'T ARGUE THAT IT IS. IT'S NOT THAT AT ALL. NOW IS IT A REASONABLE WHAT? YOU'RE PROPOSING? REASONABLE I DON'T KNOW. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE TRYING TO DECIDE TONIGHT. YOU KNOW, I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU'RE SAYING. BUT IT DOESN'T MEET THE ORDINANCE AND WE'RE IN. WE'RE GONNA WE'RE FACED WITH HAVING TO DECIDE THAT. AND YOU HAD TO HAVE KNOWN THAT IF AS LONG AS YOU'VE BEEN WORKING ON IT, YOU KNOW THAT YOU'RE COMING WITH SOMETHING. THAT'S A VARIANCE FROM THE ORDINANCE. SO THANK YOU. THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED WITH STAFF AND COUNCIL, RIGHT. I WOULDN'T HAVE DONE THIS LIGHTLY. I'LL PUT IT BACK. SO THAT THAT'S THE ISSUE.

[00:55:03]

NOW WHAT I UNDERSTAND IS I LOOK AT THE AT THE PICTURE AT THE PLANT. UH UM. THERE IS THE ONLY PORTION OF THE DRIVE THROUGH THAT IS NOT LANDSCAPED. WE HAD DOESN'T HAVE A LANDSCAPE VIOLENT AROUND IT. IS THIS PORTION THAT IS ON THE INNER EDGE. ON THE INSIDE. YOU'VE EVERYTHING THAT'S VISIBLE FROM THE ROAD FRONTIER, THE NEW ROAD THAT YOU'RE BUILDING AND FROM ABS PARKING LOT AREA. IS PRETTY IS BLOCKED THE LANDSCAPE. I UNDERSTAND THAT UH, TECHNICALLY, WHAT YOU'VE GOT IS 15 FT OF LAND WELL, 5 FT. THE COFFEE LOT IS NOT BEFORE US. SO WE GOT FIVE YEAR LANDSCAPE THAT IS OFFSET. IT'S AWAY FROM THE UH , FROM THE OUTER EDGE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH, BUT THERE'S LANDSCAPING THERE THAT WOULD PROTECT THE VISIBILITY FROM THAT DISTANCE FROM THAT. FROM THAT LOCATION FROM THE FROM THE WESTERN SIDE. IT'S JUST NOT RIGHT UP NEXT TO THE DRIVE THROUGH LINE. SO I GUESS WHAT I WANT TO GUESS WHAT I'M SAYING IS THAT THAT'S THE ISSUE BEFORE US AND YOU HAD TO KNOW THAT THAT WAS GOING TO BE THE ISSUE BECAUSE IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, IT'S PRETTY CLEAR TO ME WHAT THE ORIGINS SAYS. AND UH, AND QUESTIONS WHERE THAT'S REASONABLE OR NOT TO MAKE THIS VARIANCE. I. THAT'S MORE OF A STATEMENT THAT IT IS A QUESTION AT THIS POINT, SO I DON'T HAVE ANY MIND NOTHING ELSE RIGHT NOW. APPRECIATE THAT SUMMARY. UH, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT THIS EVENING. ANYTHING ELSE DO YOU WANT PER CENT THIS EVENING? SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING IT IT'S OPEN TO ANYBODY IN THE AUDIENCE THIS EVENING.

WANT TO STEP FORWARD? UH COMMENTARY ON ADAM NUMBER FIVE THIS EVENING. DAVID I DON'T KNOW YOU MAY NOT HAVE FINISHED YOUR COMMENTS OR YOU HAVE ANY MORE, OKAY? SO I DO HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION FOR MATT. I APOLOGIZE, MAN. ON THE ON THE. ON THE ISLAND AREA FOR THE LANDSCAPING.

IS THAT GONNA BE ONE BIG? I'M GONNA CALL THE FLOWERBED, BUT ONE BIG FOR BOTH FOR BOTH, OR IS IT GOING TO BE TWO SEPARATE ONES? THAT MAKES THE FACT THAT 5 FT. 10 FT. SECONDLY ONE BIG AREA THAT'S GOING TO BE LANDSCAPE TOGETHER, OR IS IT GOING TO BE SEPARATE? I MEAN, THE 10 FT WOULD BE LANDSCAPE WITH THE COFFEE USER DEVELOPMENT WILL BE DEVELOPED WITH MCDONALD. OKAY THEY'RE GONNA BE DOING IT SEPARATELY. THEY'RE TWO SEPARATE PROJECTS. THEY'RE GONNA I MEAN, OKAY. I DIDN'T KNOW IF THE WHOLE IF THE LANDSCAPING WAS GOING TO BE LIKE A MASTER PLAN, WE CAN WE CAN LOOK AT THAT. I DON'T THINK THAT'S NOT A QUESTION IS IT WOULD BE A 5 FT. UH, ROW HERE.

DOES A SEPARATION AND THEN A 10 FT ROPE, OR WILL THERE BE A 15 FT. ROLE OF SCREENING AND TREES AND ALL THAT. I KNOW IT SOUNDS LIKE A DISTINCTION WITHOUT A DIFFERENCE, BUT IT'S WE COULD DO ANYTHING BUT THE REASON THERE'S A PROPERTY LINE RIGHT, SO IRRIGATION IS GOING TO WANT TO BE ON BOTH LOTS, SO THERE'S DIFFERENT THINGS THAT YOU FACTOR INTO IT WHEN YOU YOU'RE SUBDIVIDING THIS INTO TWO LOTS AND THAT BEING ONE OF THEM. NOT TO SAY COMMISSIONER HARRIS. I CAN'T GO IN AND FIGURE OUT A SOLUTION FOR THAT. 15 FT. IF THAT IS STICKING POINT. I CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO SOLVE THAT. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. ANSWER MY QUESTION. THANK YOU. ANYBODY ELSE THIS EVENING? WANT TO STEP FORWARD WITH COMMENTARY? YEAH. I THINK, UM. WHENEVER YOU DO MAKE THE MOTION, IT WOULD JUST BE ALSO WITH THIS CONDITION WITH IT. UM, JUST SAYING THAT THEY BE YOU DENY OR IMPROVING THIS BUT THE CONDITION WITH THE S U P JUST WHEN YOU MAKE THE MOTION.

UM JUST ALSO INCLUDE THIS SUV CONDITION AS WELL. THEY'RE PROVIDING THE 10 FT LANDSCAPE BUFFER INSTEAD OF DOING WHAT THE ONE PEOPLE DIDN'T SAYS. OKAY? IN THAT THAT'S A SIMPLE IF THE MOTION IS FOR APPROVAL, YOU'RE WANTING THIS WORRYING IS WHAT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING, ESSENTIALLY JUST THAT WOULD BE APPROVED WITH THIS CONDITION. BUT IT IS NUMBER TWO, EVEN A CONDITION. AND THAT'S MY ONLY THING. I UNDERSTAND THAT. IT'S PART OF THE CONTEXT IS YOU KIND OF PRESENTING IT, BUT THE CONDITION THAT WE'RE APPROVING IS A 5% 5 FT PROPOSED BUFFER PERIOD. YOU CAN'T. I MEAN, THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT DEVELOPMENTS AND WHEN THE OTHER DEVELOPMENT COMES IN, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE TO DISCUSS THAT DEVELOPMENT ESSENTIALLY, WOULD BE THE NUMBER NUMBER TWO.

THEN IT'S REALLY NUMBER ONE. NUMBER ONE RIGHT NUMBER TWO. YEAH SO NUMBER ONE WOULD BE GOOD WITH THAT. OKAY I WOULD JUST BE. EXCUSE ME, BUT JUST THAT NUMBER ONE THE CONDITION OF THE S U P.

[01:00:03]

OKAY? YEAH. WE HAD THIS. THIS IS OUR SLIDE. YES THIS IS OUR SLIDE. SO THIS IS JUST SHOWING YOU THIS WAS HONESTLY FOR ME FOR MY TALKING POINTS. UM BUT, YEAH, IT'S JUST WHEN YOU MAKE THE MOTION JUST INCLUDE THIS PORTION ONE RIGHT HERE. JUST FOR THE RECORD. THAT'S THE ONLY NO. IT'S GOOD. APPRECIATE THAT, CAN I I'M SORRY. LET ME OKAY. I FIRST OF ALL. THIS CONDITION. UH HUH.

ASSUMING WE WENT THIS WAY, YES, YES. FIRST OF ALL THIS CONDITION DOES NOT MEET. THE LANGUAGE OF THE LANDSCAPE BOARD. IT'S NOT THE ORDINANCE BECAUSE IT'S NOT. WE'RE NOT. YOU'RE NOT REQUESTING A 10 FT BUFFER ON THE OUTER EDGE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH YOU'RE ALLOWING. INSTEAD. A. 10 FT BUFFER ON THE WEST PROPERTY LINE. THAT'S THAT'S THAT'S A. THAT'S DIFFERENT THAN WHAT THE LANDSCAPE BOARD SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU GUYS ARE APPROVED OR SUGGESTING A SOMETHING THAT'S DIFFERENT FROM THE ORDINANCE. TWO. YES AND ANYTHING THAT'S PASSED THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY LINE CAN'T BE PART OF THE ISSUE P AND WHAT YOU'RE PROPOSING. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION MORE DIRECTLY. WHAT. THAT WE WOULD BE ALLOWING BECAUSE WE'RE NOT RECOMMENDING IT, BUT WHAT Y'ALL WOULD BE ALLOWING IS INSTEAD OF THE 10 FT BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER THAT'S REQUIRED BY THE ORDINANCE ALONG THE DRIVE THROUGH YOU WOULD ALLOW A 5 FT LANDSCAPE STRIP ON THE WESTERN EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S WHAT YOU WOULD BE DOING AS FAR AS APPROVING THIS. SO NOW I'M STILL CONFUSED. ISN'T THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED? 5 FT.

PROPOSED BUFFER ALONG THE WESTERN PROPERTY LINE. ISN'T THAT WHAT'S ON HERE? THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. Y'ALL WOULD BE ALLOWING, HMM. YEAH IF THE MOTION IS TO MOVE FORWARD, AS OUTLINED BY THE AFRICAN, RIGHT, I THINK Y'ALL ARE JUST SAYING YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE IT'S NOTED THAT WE'RE MOVING FORWARD TO APPROVE THE ISSUE WITH THE FOOT BUFFER AS PRESENTED BY THE APPLICANT. I THINK THEY JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE GET THE WORDING IN THE MOTION GOES THAT WAY. THIS IS LANGUAGE. THAT YOU'RE SAYING IF WE APPROVE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANT. THIS IS THE LANGUAGE THAT HAVE TO BE STATED. ADAM. NUMBER ONE ONLY NUMBER ONE OVER JUST TALKING, OKAY? THANK YOU. BECAUSE THEY OKAY? BECAUSE NUMBER TWO DOESN'T SEEM TO BE WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. NO IT IS A STATUE OF IT'S REALLY JUST INFORMATION. THERE ISN'T A 10 FT BUFFER. THERE'S ONLY A 5 FT BUFFER AND THE OTHER 5 FT THAT'S BEING BANTERED AROUND IS ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY THAT DOESN'T COUNT. THANK YOU. AND LIKE SENSE. ALRIGHT I'M GONNA GO AHEAD. ANYONE WANT TO COMMENT ONE LAST TIME BEFORE WE CLOSE THIS PUBLIC HEARING, YOU STILL ASK QUESTIONS OF STAFF. WE NEED TO I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE. AND, UH, TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS IF THEY HAVE ANY OTHER FURTHER QUESTIONS FOR ANYONE, OR ANY THOUGHTS ON MOVING TOO EMOTIONAL NUMBER FIVE THIS EVENING. 20 START WITH YOUR ECONOMY COMMISSIONER HERE. I DON'T KNOW WE'RE GOING TO START THAT. WAIT A MINUTE, SO YOU'RE JUST RIGHT HERE WITHIN REACH, RIGHT? UM. I MEAN, THIS IS A DIFFICULT ONE.

MATT. YOU KNOW, WE HAVE SPOKEN AND I THINK UM I THINK A LOT OF THE CONTEXT THAT YOU BROUGHT UP IT WAS VERY VALID, RIGHT? IT'S AN AREA WITH A LOT OF ACTIVITY. I THINK THAT'S SORT OF REDUCES THE AESTHETIC ISSUE IN MY OPINION, YOU KNOW. THE FACT THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BE A TON OF CARS JUST MOVING AROUND ANYWAY, RIGHT? SO HAVING, UM. FIVE ADDITIONAL FEET ABOVE OR DOES THAT CHANGE THE GAME? IN TERMS OF AESTHETICS? DOES IT RAISE ANY SAFETY ISSUES? I HAVEN'T HEARD IT IT RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL SAFETY ISSUES. UM I THINK THE STICKING POINT FOR ME. ONE I WANTED TO HEAR STAFF'S POSITION ON IT, AND I WANTED TO KNOW. WAS IT JUST YOU KNOW WE HAVE NO PROBLEMS WITH IT. BUT THE ORDINANCE AS A CERTAIN THING. AND UM, WE RECOMMEND NOT

[01:05:06]

APPROVING, BUT WE DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH IT. UM AND HAD THAT BEEN THE POSITION TO STAFF? I MIGHT. I WOULD. HAVE BEEN NO PROBLEM. SAYING I APPROVED BUT I THINK THAT STAFF POSITION IS A BIT DIFFERENT. IT'S WE THINK THAT THE ORDINANCES THERE FOR A REASON WE SUPPORT THE AUDIENCE, AND WE THINK THAT THAT MAKES A BIG DIFFERENCE. UM. ALSO I THINK YOU MADE YOU MADE THE POINT. AND YOU KNOW AS SOON AS YOU SAID IT I WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO BRING IT UP IN MY REMARKS AS WELL. THERE ARE TWO THINGS OVER THE LAST YEAR. TWO YEAR AND A HALF THAT HAVE SAID THE COUNCIL AND THIS COMMISSION ON FIRE. ONE A IS MULTI FAMILY AND ONE B IS DRIVE THROUGH. AND WE HAVE HAD MEETING UPON MEETING CITIZENS UPON CITIZENS COMING HERE. WE HAVE HAD TO GO BACK AND FORTH WITH TOWN COUNCIL. UM ON THOSE TWO POINTS. AND I'VE YOU KNOW, MY POSITION IS IF STAFF IS FEELS THIS STRONGLY ABOUT UH, THE ORDINANCE BASED UPON WHAT I'VE HEARD. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE ADDITIONAL WORK BEING DONE TO SEE IF WE CAN RESOLVE THAT PARTICULAR ISSUE. AND I'M NOT REALLY ABLE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT. THE OTHER AREAS. THE OTHER PROPERTIES THOSE PROPERTIES AREN'T PART OF THIS. AND IF WE WERE TO TAKE FIVE IF WE WERE TO DO THAT, THEN WHEN THE OTHER PROPERTY COMES IN, WE WOULD NOT BE ABLE TO USE THAT BECAUSE THEN THEY WOULDN'T HAVE TO GET THE SAME ACCOMMODATION 5 FT BECAUSE THEY WOULDN'T HAVE A FULL TENT. UM SO AND THAT INSTANCE YOU KNOW, I CAN'T SUPPORT IT. AS IT STANDS, I WOULD LOVE TO SEE A LITTLE BIT MORE CONVERSATION. IF THERE IS ANY WAY I THINK YOU REMARK TOWARDS THE END THAT THERE IS A POSSIBILITY THAT YOU CAN KIND OF WORK SOMETHING OUT. I WOULD LOVE TO SEE IF WE CAN DO THAT. UM BECAUSE I ALSO FEEL VERY STRONGLY THAT IF WE HAVE AN ORDINANCE, AND I THINK WE NEED UNLESS THERE IS A UM, SIGNIFICANT REASON WHY THAT ORDINANCE IS IRRELEVANT OR INSIGNIFICANT IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, BECAUSE OF THE CONTEXT , I WOULD LIKE TO SEE US SUPPORT THESE ORDINANCES. UM SO FOR THAT REASON, IT'S JUST CAN'T SUPPORT IT AS A AS THE PLAN STANDS CURRENTLY. THANKS COMMISSIONER HARRIS COMMISSIONER REEVES. YOU KNOW, I LOOK AT I'M LOOKING AT THE LANDSCAPING DESIGN HERE AND . AND I KEEP LOOKING AT THE PODIUM BECAUSE TO ME THE PODIUMS ABOUT 15 FT. FROM ME, I WOULD IMAGINE, UM AND THAT TO ME, THAT'S A THAT'S A LOT OF BUFFER AND, UM THERE'S A THERE'S A LOT OF LANDSCAPING YOU CAN DO, AND IN 15, FT AND. YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF LANDSCAPING THAT'S GOING AROUND HERE AND THAT 30 FT OF DRIVE THAT IS NOT BEING LANDSCAPED. UM IT'S BEING TO ME IT'S BEING BUTTERED WITH WITH OTHER LANDSCAPING AROUND THE WHOLE FACILITY. AND. TO ME A LANDSCAPING. FOR A FACILITY IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN THAN THAN THE DRIVE THROUGHS. NOW THE PART THAT WORRIES ME IS WE DON'T HAVE THE ISSUE P FOR THE OTHER.

RESTAURANT AND SO WE DON'T HAVE WE DON'T HAVE THAT OTHER 10 FT. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHAT CONCERNS ME. YOU KNOW, AS AS IT IS, I THINK THAT THAT FOR DRIVE THROUGHS, I DO THINK THAT I THINK THE TOWN ONCE SOME DRIVE THROUGHS BECAUSE IT'S EASY. THAT'S THAT'S THE WAY OUR CITIZENS. THAT'S WHY CITIZENS TODAY OR OR GETTING THEIR THEIR FOOD DEAD AND UBER EATS AND ALL OF THE QUICK AND EASY THINGS OF TODAY. AND SO I DO THINK THAT THERE ARE SOME, BUT I DO KNOW NO COUNCIL STANCE ON DRIVE THROUGHS AS WELL. AND SO I HAVE TO TAKE THAT INTO CONSIDERATION. BUT I ALSO KNOW THAT THEY WANT TO BE HERE AND A TBS AN IMPORTANT PROJECT AND THAT'S PART OF THIS THIS PROJECT AS WELL. AND SO THERE ARE A LOT OF THINGS TO CONSIDER. BUT I THINK 5 FT. FOR THIS PARTICULAR WAY TO THINK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR PROJECT 5 FT FOR THIS PARTICULAR PARTICULAR PROJECT. IS SOMETHING I THINK I CAN CAN. AS OF RIGHT NOW, I COULD WRAP MY HANDS AROUND. THANKS, COMMISSIONER REACH FOR THOSE COMMENTS, COMMISSIONER BLANCHETTE THANK YOU. CHAIRMAN. UM SO. I HAVE? YEAH. AS AS A. COMMISSIONER ON THE PLANNING AND ZONING

[01:10:10]

COMMISSION. IT'S ALWAYS IMPORTANT WITH THE STAFF. IS RECOMMENDING, AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE YOU STAFF UNDERSTANDS. I'M ALWAYS VERY YEAH, YOU KNOW, RESPECT VERY MUCH WHAT THEY HAVE TO SAY, AND THEIR AND THEIR REASONING AND SO FORTH. UM IN THIS IN THIS PARTICULAR INSTANCE, THOUGH, I'M I'M BUT I THINK THAT THE MEANING OF THE PURPOSE OF THE ORDINANCES TO PROVIDE UH UM. BUFFER LANDSCAPE BUFFER. AROUND UNSIGHTLY. DRIVE THROUGHS DRIVE THROUGHS ARE DEEMED UNSIGHTLY AND, UH, AND SO THERE SO THEY NEED BUFFALO. IT SEEMS TO ME THE OTHER ISSUE WITH DRIVE THRU IS ALWAYS THE STACKING ISSUES AND LOTS OF CARS BLOCKING ROADS THAT'S NOT HAPPENING HERE. THIS IS ALL HAPPENING INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY, SO THERE'S NO PROBLEM WITH THE DRIVE THROUGH THE SETUP THAT IT IS NOW. THE ONLY ISSUE HERE. IT SEEMS TO ME THAT THE 10 FT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS PROVIDED ON 80% OF THE ENTIRE DRIVE THROUGH. THE ONLY PORTION THAT'S NOT BLOCKED SPECIFICALLY BY DRIVE BY LANDSCAPE BUFFER. IS THAT 30 FT. OR SO THAT'S THERE ON THE ON THE WESTERN EDGE ALL OF THAT INTERNAL IT DOESN'T FACE TO ANY EXTERNAL VIEWS. WHEN YOU LOOK AT THE LANDSCAPE THAT'S PLANNED FOR THIS PROPERTY FROM FRONT TIER, THERE'S A LARGE DRAINAGE DITCH. AND THEN THERE'S A LOT OF LANDSCAPE THAT'S PROVIDED ALONG NORTH END THERE'S LANDSCAPE ALONG THE EAST AGES LANDSCAPE ALONG THE SOUTHERN EDGE. ALL OF THAT'S BLOCKING. UM THIS THIS DRIVE THROUGH SO TO ME, I THINK THAT THAT THE MEANING THE REASON FOR THE ORDINANCE IS MET HERE. UM WITH WITH WHAT THEY PROPOSED. I OKAY. I'M SATISFIED WITH IT. THE FIVE SKATE 5 FT LANDSCAPE ALONG THE PROPERTY LINE ON THE ON THE WESTERN SIDE. UM, IT'S NOT THE FULL 10. 10 FT. BUT IT'S NOT. BUT AGAIN, IT'S INTERNAL TO THE PROPERTY. THE DRIVE THRU THAT'S NOT BEING BLOCKED BY LANDSCAPE DIRECTLY, SO I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEM WITH WHAT WE'VE GOT PROPOSED HERE AND CERTAINLY DON'T FEEL I FEEL I FEEL IT'S APPROPRIATE TO SEND IT TO COUNCIL HAS HAS BEEN PROPOSED BY THE APPLICANTS. THANKS COMMISSIONER. BLANCHETTE APPRECIATE THOSE COMMENTS, APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMISSIONER'S COMMENTS AND APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT BEING HERE THIS EVENING. NO, THERE'S A LOT OF WORK BEEN DONE.

APPRECIATE WHAT TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDS AND YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY, YEAH, WE'VE GOT A VERY STRICT ACCORDANCE HERE. IT SAYS WHAT IT SAYS. IT'S THE LETTER OF THE LAW. BUT YOU KNOW, WE HAVE COMMISSIONS AND THINGS FOR A REASON TO LOOK AT ALL THE DIFFERENT FACTORS AND THE DECISION THAT COMES OUT OF THIS TODAY. WHATEVER THAT DECISION IS RIGHT. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT THE NEXT DECISION THAT COMES FORWARD WITH THE NEXT TRAP THROUGH WHEREVER THAT MAYBE WE, THAT'S WHY WE'RE HERE RIGHT TO MAKE DECISIONS TO TAKE ALL THE FACTORS WE'VE GOT IN THIS ONE CASE. AS COMMISSIONER, BLANCHETT POINTED OUT AND TRY TO MAKE OUR BEST DECISION. OTHERWISE IT JUST WE FOLLOW THE LETTER OF THE LAW, AND THAT'S WHAT WE DO, YOU KNOW. SO THAT BEING SAID, I MEAN A LOT OF GOOD COMMENTS THIS EVENING AND, UH. WHEN I LOOK AT IT, IT'S TOTALITY. HCB WAS LISTED IN DALLAS MORNING NEWS TODAY. YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO START BREAKING GROUND? THE FIRST PART OF 24. SO THINGS ARE MOVING ON THIS PROPERTY PRETTY QUICK, AND I'M GUESSING ONCE THAT HAPPENS, THE REST OF THIS STUFF IS GOING TO START MOVING FAIRLY QUICKLY. SO I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT IT IS.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S A LOT OF FACTORS. IT SOUNDS LIKE THE APPLICANTS MOVED. THESE LOCATIONS AROUND MAYBE MULTIPLE TIMES. WE KNOW THERE'S ANOTHER TOWN JUST TO THE NORTH. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY BUSY. IT'S GOING TO BE VERY SUCCESSFUL FOR THE TOWN FROM ECONOMIC STANDING UP FOR SURE. SO I LOOK AT THAT, AND I CAN SUPPORT. MOVING THIS ISSUE FORWARD AS OUTLINED BY THE AFRICA KNOWING THAT THE 5 FT 6.4 THE ONLY THING I THINK I HEARD THE APPLICANTS SAY THAT THERE WOULD BE AN OPPORTUNITY, PERHAPS TO PUT SOME LANDSCAPING IN THAT FOOT. I DON'T KNOW THAT YOU COULD LOOK AT THAT. THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING IF WE HAVE A MOTION MOTION AS SUCH TO POTENTIALLY LOOK AT IF IT DOES GO FORWARD. I DO HAVE A QUESTION FOR STAFF, SO IF THIS FAILS OR GOES FORWARD, IT GOES TO TOWN COUNCIL EITHER WAY, CORRECT. DOESN'T. MR TOWN COUNCIL EITHER WAY, AND WHEN IS THIS SLAVE FOR COUNCIL REVIEW. IT WILL GO TO THE FIRST MEETING IN OCTOBER. 1ST MEETING OCTOBER , SO EITHER WAY, IT'S GOING TO TOWN COUNCIL, OKAY? HMM SO THAT'S THE ONLY THING IF WE DID

[01:15:06]

HAVE A MOTION FOR APPROVAL. YOU KNOW IF THERE'S ANY OTHER REQUIREMENTS THAT WE WANT TO GIVE THE COUNSELOR RECOMMENDATIONS THERE. WE COULD WEAVE THAT IN THE MOTION OR JUST KIND OF KNOW IT'S NOTED HERE FOR THE RECORDING AS WELL. SO I CAN SUPPORT IT AS OUTLINED WITH EVERYTHING THAT WE'VE TALKED THROUGH AND THE BUFFERS WE HAVE AROUND. SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE IT BACK FOR REGULAR AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER FIVE THIS EVENING. DO WE HAVE A MOTION? ONE THING I WANT TO SAY IS A POINT OF PRINCIPLE. THERE'S FOUR OF US HERE THIS EVENING. THERE IS A CHANCE WE'LL HAVE A TUTU TOWER HAS HAPPENED BEFORE, AND IF THAT HAPPENS, WE CAN'T GET A RESOLUTION THERE THAN THAT MOTION WOULD FAIL AND WE WILL GO TO THE NEXT MOTION. JUST IF THAT'S THE WAY IT PANS OUT. SO WE WON'T BE HERE THAT WE'LL GET THROUGH IT SOMEHOW. SO REGULAR DATA HARM NUMBER FIVE.

IT'S ON THE FLOOR FOR A MOTION. AND A BOAT. CHAIRMAN I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE. I DON'T NUMBER FIVE AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANT. UM, WHICH WOULD INCLUDE THE 5. FT LANDSCAPE SETBACK ON LONG WESTERN PROPERTY LINE IN LIEU OF THE. OF THE LANDSCAPE ALONG THE DRIVING THROUGH. ON THE WESTERN PORTION. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. COMMISSIONER BLENDS IT, SO WE HAVE EMOTIONAL THE FLOOR TO APPROVE REGULAR AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER FIVE WITH A 5 FT OF PROPOSED BUFFER ON SITE FOR THIS CASE, UH, THIS PLANT OR NOT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION. I'LL SECOND. SO RIGHT? WE HAVE A SECOND TO THAT MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER REEVES. SO LET'S GO TO A VOTE ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT FOR ITEM NUMBER FIVE WITH A FIVE LETTER PROPOSED BUFFER ON SITE, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. WE HAVE THREE VOTES IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. WE HAVE ONE AGAINST SO THE MOTION CARRIES ON ITEM NUMBER FIVE. APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. APPRECIATE TOWN STAFF. ALRIGHT AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX THIS EVENING CONDUCT A PUBLIC

[6. Conduct a Public Hearing to Consider an Ordinance Amending Chapter 1, “General Provisions, Administration and Procedures,” of the Town’s Zoning Ordinance, by Amending Subpart (E) of Subsection 7.11, “Amortization of Nonconforming Uses or Structures,” of Section 7, “Nonconforming Uses and Structures,” by Providing for Amortization Procedures consistent with Senate Bill 929, and Subpart (A), “Zoning Changes,” of Subsection 8.2, “Public Hearing and Notice,” of Section 8, “Changes and Amendments to all Zoning Ordinances and Districts and Administrative Procedures,” by Providing for Notices relative to a Change in a Zoning Regulation that Could Result in a Nonconforming Use, Consistent with Senate Bill 929.]

HEARING TO CONSIDER IN ORDER AMENDING CHAPTER ONE. GENERAL PROVISIONS, ADMINISTRATION AND PROCEDURES OF THE TOWN ZONING ORBITS. MENDING SUB PARTY OF SUBSECTION 7.11. AMORTIZATION OF NONCONFORMING USES OR STRUCTURES OF SECTION SEVEN. NONCONFORMING USES AND STRUCTURES PROVIDING FOR EMERGES ASIAN PROCEDURES CONSISTENT WITH SENATE BILL 9 29. AND SOME PART A ZONING CHANGES OF SUBSECTION 8.2. PUBLIC HEARING AND NOTICE OF SECTION EIGHT. CHANGES AND AMENDMENTS TO ALL ZONING ORDINANCES AND DISTRICTS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES BY PROVIDING FOR NOTICES RELATIVE TO A CHANGE IN ZONING REGULATION THAT COULD RESULT IN A NONCONFORMING YEARS CONSISTENT WITH SENATE BILL 9 29. I APOLOGIZE FOR THAT BEING SO LONG, JERRY, THAT COMES DIRECTLY FROM OUR LAWYER. THOSE SO I DIDN'T WANT TO MENTION IT.

RESORTS THIS IS FROM WHAT WAS PRESENTED TO COUNCIL. THREE WEEKS AGO. YES BUT IT WAS THAT MEETING WHERE THEY WENT THROUGH ALL LIKE THE TEXAS STATE PASSED . UM SO THIS IS A ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO GET US IN CONFORMANCE WITH SENATE BILL 99 FROM OUR TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE . UM SO WHAT THEY HAVE PASSED IS ESSENTIALLY IF THE TOWN RE ZONES AND AREA AND THAT RENDERS THE EXISTING USE ON THAT PROPERTY NONCONFORMING, TYPICALLY IN THE PAST A USED TO DETERMINE THE TIME IT TOOK FOR THE OWNER TO RECOUP THEIR INVESTMENT IN THAT PROPERTY SINCE THEN USES NOW NONCONFORMING, HOWEVER, THE CHANGE HAS BEEN MADE IS THAT THE OWNER NOW MUST RECEIVE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE USE AS WELL AS A WIND DOWN TIME PRIOR TO CEASING THE NONCONFORMING USE OF THE PROPERTY. THIS IS JUST FOR TOWN INITIATED REZONING AND WERE ALSO REQUIRED TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE TO THE CAMERA PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE OF EACH PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ANY PROPOSED ADOPTION OF OR CHANGE TO HIS OWN REGULATION OR BOUNDARY UNDERCURRENT. INFORMING USE OF A PROPERTY IS NOT PERFORMING USE OF THE REGULATION OF BOUNDARY HAS ADOPTED OR CHANGED AND THAT ONE IS THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE TO PUT IN THE NOTICE. UM SO THAT'S THIS IS JUST GETTING US CONFORMANCE WITH TEXAS STATE LAW CHANGE THE LANGUAGE THAT'S BEEN PUT ON NOTICE OR IS THE CHANGE.

SO THE CHANGE IS SO THE CHANGES THE PROCESS FOR AMORTIZATION THE PROCESS INITIALLY, IF YOU SEE THAT BULLET POINT FOR THE DB A SO THAT'S HOW IT USED TO BE SO EASY BEING USED TO DETERMINE SO STAFF, NOT STAFF OF TOWN REZONED THE PROPERTY. AND MADE THE EXISTING PROPERTY NONCONFORMING . THEN THERE'S EVA WOULD DETERMINE HOW MUCH TIME THAT OWNER WOULD GET TO RECOUP THEIR INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. BUT NOW WE HAVE TO PROVIDE THEM WITH FAIR MARKET VALUE FOR THAT USE AS WELL AS THE WIND DOWN TIME BEFORE WE TERMINATE THE USE OF THAT NON CONFORMING. ON THAT PROPERTY, AND ALSO WE HAVE TO PROVIDE WRITTEN NOTICE. NOW THAT WE'RE DOING THAT, AND THIS IS

[01:20:02]

THE LANGUAGE THAT WE HAVE TO PUT IN THE WRITTEN NOTICE. SO IT'S BOTH OF THESE THINGS. IT'S DEMORALIZATION AND THE WRITTEN NOTICE. THANK YOU FOR REVIEWING THAT, UH. IS THIS GOING TO HAPPEN A LOT? I MEAN, WILL THIS CHANGE A LOT? I MEAN, WILL THIS BE I MEAN, HOW OFTEN HEARING OF TERMINAL YOU MAY LOSE THE RIGHT TO CONTINUE YOUR PROPERTY FOR ITS CURRENT USE. I MEAN, HOW OFTEN THIS IS GOING TO PLAY OUT, I GUESS. PROBABLY NOT VERY OFTEN. GENERALLY WHEN TOWNS.

TAKE ON OUR CITIES TAKE ON A TASK OF REZONING PIECE OF PROPERTY OR, YOU KNOW, 100 ACRES 1000 ACRES. WHATEVER IT IS, THERE'S USUALLY SPECIFIC REASONS FOR IT, AND THERE GENERALLY AREN'T EXISTING USES. AND THERE THERE COULD BE LIKE UP HERE. THERE COULD BE A FARMHOUSE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT YOU TYPICALLY DON'T HAVE BUSINESSES THAT THAT ARE THERE. AND THIS THIS PROCESS GENERALLY TOOK PLACE NORMALLY BEFORE. WHY THE LEGISLATURE FELT LIKE THEY NEEDED TO TAKE CARE OF IT. THERE WAS PROBABLY SOME INSTANCE IN AMARILLO, BUT CAUGHT THEIR ATTENTION AND THAT THEY NEED TO DO IT. BUT I REALLY DON'T SEE IT HAPPENING. IT JUST. FRANKLY IT DOESN'T MAKE SENSE FOR PROSPER IN THE POSITION THAT WE'RE IN RIGHT NOW FOR US TO GO OUT AND JUST RESUMED 50 ACRES OR EVEN ONE ACRE AND CERTAINLY IT WOULDN'T BE AS SPECIFIC USE BECAUSE YOU KNOW, MEANING ONE LOT ONE BUILDING AND WE GO AND REZONE THAT. PROBABLY JUST GOING TO BE CREATING THIS SITUATION. THAT'S WORSE. SO I'D BE SURPRISED IF YOU SEE IT. BUT THE LEGISLATURE DID SAY WE HAD TO CHANGE OUR RULES. EVEN WITH THE DALLAS MORE THROWAWAY COMING IN, AND SOME OF THE ISSUES AROUND PREVIOUS ZONING IN THE DALLAS NORTH TOLLWAY DISTRICT. DO YOU DO? YOU FORESEE US HAVING I'M SURE IT WOULD BE A LAST RESORT TO HAVE TO LIKE GO THROUGH A REZONING PROCESS, BUT IT'S UNLIKELY THAT TOWNS WOULD DO IT . NONE OF THIS APPLIES IF AN OWNER COMES IN, DOESN'T MATTER WHAT USES ARE THERE THEY BOUGHT IT ALL UP, AND THEY COME IN, AND THEY WANT TO CREATE A PD OR OR CHANGE OF PD OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO THAT. IT'S ONLY WHEN THE TOWN DOES A TOWN OR A CITY DOES TOWN INITIATED ZONING PROCESS FOR THIS TO COME INTO PLAY? AND I JUST CAN'T SEE US STILL. I GUESS. NEVER SAY NEVER PRETTY DARN AND SLIM. THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON NUMBER SIX. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ALBUM THAT WE HAVE ANY COMMENT. REQUEST FORMS. WE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANYTHING ON THIS ONE. SO SINCE THIS IS AND I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ANYONE WANNA COME FORWARD AND COMMENT THAT'S IN THE AUDIENCE THIS EVENING ON ADAM, NUMBER SIX.

I'LL TAKE THAT AS A NO. AND SO WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER SIX. TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR QUESTIONS OR COMMENTARY WITH STAFF. AND IF NOT, THEN WE COULD ENTERTAIN EMOTIONAL ITEM SIX. A MOTION TO PROVE AND NUMBER SIX HAS WRITTEN . ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FROM COMMISSIONER REEVES. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? WELL SECOND COMMISSIONER BLANCH , SAID COMMISSIONER HARRIS BOTH I THINK SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO APPROVE ADAM NUMBER SIX, SUBJECT TO TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS.

PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION CARRIES 4 TO 0. ALL RIGHT, THANK YOU. WE MOVE ON TO AGENDA ITEM

[7. Conduct a Public Hearing to Discuss and Consider an Ordinance amending the Town’s Subdivision Ordinance by amending Subpart (1) of Section (D), “Plat Required,” of Section 10.03.004, “Applicability,” to Comply with Revised Language contained in House Bill No. 3699; amending Subsection (B) of Section 10.03.034, “Director of Development Services,” relative to Authorizing the Director of Development Services to Approve or Deny Plats; amending Section 10.03.063, “30- day Time Frame for Plat Approvals,” to Reflect that the Right to 30-day Action for Plat 2 Page 3 of 3 Applications Begins on the Filing Date and One or More 30-day Extensions shall be authorized; adding a Definition of “Filing Date,” amending the Definitions of “Approval” and “Plat,” and repealing the definitions of “Administratively Complete” and “Official Submission Date,” contained in Section 10.03.192, “Words and Terms Defined”; providing that the phrase “Official Submission Date” shall be replaced with the phrase "Filing Date” in Sections 10.03.084(f)(2) and 10.03.085(h)(2).]

NUMBER SEVEN CONDUCTED PUBLIC ADVANCE. HERE WE GO AGAIN CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING TO DISCUSS AND CONSIDER AN ORDINANCE MEANING THE TOWN SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE BY MANY SUPPORT, ONE OF SECTION DATE PLANT REQUIRED OF SECTION 10.03 0.004 APPLICABILITY TO COMPLY WITH REVISED LANGUAGE CONTAINED IN HOUSE BILL 36 99. AMENDING SUBSECTION B OF SECTION 10.3.

0.0 34. DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES RELATIVE TO AUTHORIZING THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES TO APPROVE OR DENY FLATS AMENDING SECTION 10.03 0.63. 30 DAY TIMEFRAME FOR PLAN APPROVALS TO REFLECT THAT THE RIGHT TO 30 DAY ACTION FOR PLAN APPLICATIONS. BEGINS ON THE FILING DATE IN ONE OR MORE 30 DAY EXTENSION SHALL BE AUTHORIZED. ADDING A DEFINITION OF FILING DATE, AMENDING THE DEFINITIONS OF APPROVAL AND PLANTS. AND REPEALING THE DEFINITIONS OF ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE. AN OFFICIAL SUBMISSION DATE CONTAINED IN SECTION 10.3

[01:25:02]

0.1 92 WORDS IN TERMS DEFINED PROVIDING THAT THE PHRASE OFFICIAL SUBMISSION DATE SHALL BE REPLACED WITH THE PHRASE FILING DATE IN SECTIONS. 10.03 84 F TWO AND 10.03 0.0 85. AGE, TOO. MM HMM. WELCOME TO THE ATTORNEYS. OKAY SO THIS IS ANOTHER, UM. TEXAS STATE LEGISLATURE BILL THAT WAS PASSED . THIS IS JUST GETTING ARE SUBDIVIDED INTO CONFORMANCE WITH THAT HOUSE BILL 3699 AND AS IT IS STATED IN THE DESCRIPTION THAT SO THIS IS THE FILING DATE STATE DEFINITION IS THAT THE DATE THAT THE PLAN IS SUBMITTED TO THE TOWN COMPLETED APPLICATION FEES IS GOING TO BE KNOWN AS THE FILING DATE. AND IF THERE'S SUBMITTAL NOT REVIEWED IN A TIMELY MANNER, WHICH IS 30 DAYS, ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OR ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL OR DENIAL HAS ALLOWED SO THAT BASICALLY SAYING THAT DAVID COULD APPROVE OR DENY THIS I MEAN, THE APPLICANT CAN APPEAL TO PINZI OR COUNSEL. IF THAT DECISION IS DENIAL. AND SO THIS IS CHANGING THE LANGUAGE AND OUR ORDINANCE TO THE DEFINITION OF FOLLOWING DATE THAT MATCHES WITH THE STATE BEING A MINUTE TO MATCH THE STATE'S DEFINITION. AS PREVIOUSLY STATED, UM THE STATE WILL NOW TRIGGER THAT 30 DAY ACTION PERIOD IN THE TOWN AND APPLICANTS MUTUALLY REQUEST EXTENSION OF THE 30 DAY PERIODS OF WE MISS IT IN THE TOWN IN THE AFRICAN AGREE WE CAN COME IN FRONT OF PMD TOWN COUNCIL TO GET A VERY DAY EXTENSION FOR THAT REVIEW PERIOD AND AGAIN. THIS IS JUST REMAINING THE DEFINITIONS THAT WE HAVE ON OUR BOOKS, SO REMOVING THE DEFINITION OF FILING DATE APPROVAL AND PLATT IS GOING TO BE ADDED OR AMENDED. AND THEN THE DEFINITIONS ADMINISTRATIVELY COMPLETE AND OFFICIAL SUBMISSION DATE ARE GOING TO BE REPEALED. UM AND THIS IS JUST AGAIN TO GET US SOME PERFORMANCE WITH TEXAS STATE LAW. THANK YOU. FOR THAT APPRECIATE THOSE SOME REASON. QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THIS ONE. ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. ALRIGHT I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON IDOL NUMBER SEVEN THIS EVENING OR IS THERE ANYONE IN THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK AROUND? I DON'T NUMBER SEVEN THIS EVENING. TAKE THAT AS A NO. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN AND I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO, UH COMMISSIONERS FOR ANY QUESTIONS AND OR EMOTIONAL ITEM SEVEN. MR CHAIRMAN. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ADAM, SEVEN SUBMITTED ALL RIGHT, SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE ADAM, SEVEN FROM COMMISSIONER BLANCHETT. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER HARRIS ON ITEM NUMBER SEVEN ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN THIS EVENING. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION CARRIES FOR 20. IT IS APPROVED. THANK YOU FOR PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. THE GENERAL ADAM NUMBER EIGHT THIS EVENING REVIEW

[8. Review actions taken by the Town Council and possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.]

ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TOWN COUNCIL AND POSSIBLY DIRECT TOWN STEPS SCHEDULED TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION IN THE FUTURE MEETING. OKAY SO THESE ARE JUST THE ANNOUNCEMENTS THAT WE HAVE THE OUTBACK FACADE THAT WENT TO P AND D AND THE TOWN COUNCIL WAS APPROVED INTO TIMBER 12TH. IT'S IN THE GATES OF PROSPER. ANY FACADE IN THE GATES OF PROSPER HAS TO GET COUNCIL APPROVAL ON THE UPCOMING COUNTY COUNCIL ITEMS. I KNOW THAT WE HAD PROSPER HILLS GOING FOR THE LAST TIME, BUT THEIR ISSUES GETTING THAT WAS AGREEMENTS BACK TO US, SO THEY ARE SCHEDULED TO GO. FOR THE ORDINANCE, ADOPTION AND DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. THE REZONING CASE THAT YOU GUYS SAW LAST LAST TIME AT 3 13 1 COLEMAN IS SCHEDULED TO GO AND THESE TWO AMENDMENTS THAT YOU JUST VOTED ON. ALSO SCHEDULED TO GO FOR TOWN COUNCIL. WE HAVE ALREADY NOTICED THOSE FOR TOWN COUNCIL AS WELL. IT'S JUST THAT WE'RE TRYING TO GET THOSE AS FAST AS WE CAN TO BE IN COMPLIANCE WITH STATE LAW, UM, AND FOR UPCOMING PNC. UH WE DO HAVE A RESULTING CASE AT TWO OF THE NINETIES FIFTH STREET. IT'S IN OUR DOWNTOWN AND THEY'RE REQUESTING TO REZONE FROM SINGLE FAMILY 15 TO DOWNTOWN SINGLE FAMILY. SO THAT IS THE CASE THAT YOU WILL HOPEFULLY SEE AT OUR NEXT MEETING, PROVIDED THEY GET ALL THE DOCUMENTS NEEDED TO BRING FORTH TWO QUICK ONE IS THAT REZONING CASE OF 3 13 GONNA BE TAKEN OFF OF TOWN COUNCIL'S AGENDA SINCE THERE WAS A REZONING CASE, AND THERE WAS THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT WAS TIED TO IT, SO THE FUTURE AND USE AMENDMENT HAS GONE IN CASE STILL NEEDS TO BE HEARD BY TOWN COUNCIL, OKAY? AND THE REZONING CASE COMING UP SF 15 TO D. T S F IS THAT AN ESSENCE EXTENDING THE BOUNDARIES OF DOWNTOWN. AND SINCE BECAUSE YOU'RE NOW TAKING SOMETHING THAT WAS OWNED A SINGLE FAMILY AS IN, IT'S WITHIN THAT DISTRICT, AND NOW YOU'RE DESIGNATED AS DOWNTOWN SINGLE FAMILY. WELL NO SO LIKE THE ZONING DISTRICTS FOR THE DOWNTOWN STILL EXIST, BUT THE FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENTS OF IT DON'T LIKE OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. THERE'S NO BREAKOUTS OF DETAILED GTR. BUT ZONING THERE STILL IS. SO THIS IS IN THIS. THIS IS IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA, BUT THE DOWNTOWN THIS PROPERTY STILL ZONED SINGLE FAMILY 15, AND THEY'RE JUST GONNA REASON, TOO, UM, DOWNTOWN SINGLE FAMILY BECAUSE I THINK THE SETBACKS ARE MORE ACCOMMODATING FOR THAT SOUNDING SONG. HOW DOES THE

[01:30:03]

AGENDA LOOK OTHERWISE? FOR THE OCTOBER 3RD MEETING, IS IT I THINK THIS ZONING CASE THAT WE ANTICIPATE HAVE OUR ANOTHER RECORD DEAL SOME TIME FOR ANOTHER ONE, SO THAT WOULD PROBABLY COME THE NEXT OCTOBER. AND SO IT WAS ON IN CASES. THIS IS PROBABLY IT AND THEN ANY CONSENT ITEMS THAT WE GET FOR DRC REVIEWS. UM, BUT I THINK THIS IS PROBABLY GONNA BE IT. NO ALRIGHT. WELL THANK YOU VERY MUCH. SO I THANK YOU ALL SO I DON'T KNOW WHO'S UP FOR POTENTIAL REAPPOINTMENT. UH, BUT WHOEVER IS I THINK THE COUNCIL DETERMINES THAT NEXT WEEK 26 SEPTEMBER MEETING SO THEREFORE, ON THE 3RD OCTOBER MEETING, THERE COULD BE SOME DIFFERENT FOLKS AROUND, BUT, UH SO THAT MEANS JUST, YOU KNOW, WILL LOOK LIKE A REAPPOINTMENT OF CHAIR AND THE OTHER SECRETARY AND VICE CHAIR AND ALL THAT. SO THAT ALL HAPPENED ON OCTOBER 3RD MEETING AS WELL. BUT THAT IS PART OF THE AGENDA AS WELL. SO THAT'LL THAT'LL BE A LITTLE PROCEDURAL FUN IF YOU WILL TO START OFF THE MEETING. YEAH SO THERE HAS BEEN A COUPLE NOT TO KEEP US HERE LONGER, BUT A COUPLE OF COMMENTS ON YOU KNOW, AS AS THE NEW PNC STORAGE OCTOBER 3RD AND POINTS FORWARD, RIGHT. UH MAYBE HAVING ZERO POTENTIAL, COMMISSIONER BLANCH SAID, BRING SOME EXPERIENCE HERE FROM SOME PAST COMMUNITIES TO HAVE SOME WORKING MEETINGS ON SOME THINGS, AND I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE PRIOR TO OFFICIAL PNC MAY I GUESS? YOU KNOW THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND IT, AND Y'ALL SURE SPEAK UP. BUT THE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND IT WAS YOU KNOW SOME OF THESE QUESTIONS, YOU KNOW, MAYBE A CONSENT ITEM THAT IS PULLED OR TALK THROUGH JUST TO HAVE A LITTLE YOU KNOW, I KNOW IT HAS TO BE POSTED. AND I GUESS THEY'D HAVE TO BE OUT HERE BUT JUST HAVE A LITTLE REVIEW OF SOME KEY THINGS. MAYBE PRIOR TO OUR FORMAL MEETING, STARTING AT SIX, SO I DON'T KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE, OR THAT'S SOMETHING THAT YOU KNOW, OBVIOUSLY WHEN THERE'S A LITTLE MEATIER AGENDA , AND THERE'S SOME BIGGER ITEMS, RIGHT, YOU KNOW THAT'S PROBABLY RELEVANT. SOME OTHER SOME OTHER ONES MIGHT NOT NEED THAT. BUT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POTENTIAL IS TO POTENTIALLY HAVE A WORKING SESSION. IF YOU WILL 30 MINUTES PRIOR TO OUR NORMAL MEETING. UM I DON'T SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT AT ALL. I'VE BEEN IN IN COMMUNITIES WHERE WE DID THAT, AND IT'S LIKE YOU SAID. WE GENERALLY WILL NOT DO IT EVERY SINGLE TIME WILL PICK THE ONES AT ALL. FOR INSTANCE, CONSENT PROBABLY DOESN'T REALLY NEED A WORK SESSION. BUT IF IT'S DEALING WITH ZONING OR ESPECIALLY SOME OF THE PDS CAN GET A LITTLE COMPLICATED, AND IT MIGHT BE EASIER TO HAVE THAT SO. WE CAN JUST KIND OF KEEP IT AS A RUNNING. UM ITEM, SO TO SPEAK AT , LIKE 5 30 IF THAT WORKS, SO EVERYBODY'S YOU KNOW, RACING TO GET HERE CAN'T CAN'T GET HERE.

IT'S OKAY. BUT THOSE CAN. SO WILL I'M NOT SURE WE'LL FIND OUT FROM THE TOWN ATTORNEY WHETHER OR NOT WE ACTUALLY HAVE TO HAVE AN AGENDA ITEM FOR YOU ALL TO DO THAT IS AMENDMENT TO YOUR BYLAWS OR SOMETHING. I CONFESS. I HAVEN'T ACTUALLY READ YOUR BYLAWS BEEN HERE. BUT IF WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING LIKE THAT WILL PUT IT ON THE AGENDA. OTHERWISE WE'LL JUST PLAN ON STARTING TO DO THAT. AS AS ITEMS COME UP FOR FUTURE AGENDAS. YEAH, THAT'S CORRECT. YEAH, WE CAN WORK ON IT. I DON'T KNOW IF THIS OCTOBER 3RD MEETING WILL NECESSITATE ANYTHING LIKE THAT. BUT I THINK AFTER THE NEW COMMISSIONS, APPOINTED AND MOVING FORWARD. IT WILL BE A GREAT OPPORTUNITY SO AND THERE MAY BE OPPORTUNITIES TO JUST OCCASIONALLY TO HAVE JUST WHAT I CALL THE WORKSHOP AND JUST TO HAVE SOME DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ONGOING THINGS . I KNOW THAT THE COUNCIL HAS US WORKING ON A HANDFUL OF THINGS RIGHT NOW. POSSIBLE ORDINANCES, AMENDMENTS AND LOOKING AT TRYING TO SPEED UP OUR DEVELOPMENT PROCESS AND LOOKING AT THE TOLLWAY AND DOWNTOWN AREAS COMING UP WITH THINGS AND IT MIGHT BE A REALLY GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO GET INPUT BACK FROM Y'ALL. I USED TO USING I'M PLANNING COMMISSIONS AND LIKE SOUNDING BOARDS FROM THINGS THAT THAT WE'RE THINKING ABOUT DOING. I KIND OF LIKE THAT, SO HOPEFULLY WE WON'T WORRY OUT, BUT WE'LL DO IT PERIODICALLY. IF IT'S SOMETHING, YOU'LL HAVE INTERESTING. YOU KNOW, JUST GOING THROUGH SOME OF THE I WOULDN'T SAY GO THROUGH ALL THE ORDINANCE OF JUST SOME OF THE GENERAL ORDINANCES THAT ARE THAT THE TOWN DEALS WITH ON A REGULAR BASIS MIGHT BE GOOD FOR US TO JUST GO THROUGH A LITTLE BIT. JUST SO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF SOME OF THE MAIN ORDINANCES THAT WE'VE GOT. WOULD BE GOOD FOR SOME OF THAT. SURE. YOU KNOW, I THINK ABOUT WORKSHOPS, SOMETHING THE COUNCIL THAT WE HAD A COUPLE OF TIMES HERE IN THE LAST YEAR, BUT YOU KNOW SOME OF THAT QUARTERLY TRAINING OR, YOU KNOW , UPDATE ON KEY THINGS, YOU KNOW , I THINK CONGRESS AND EVERYBODY'S SCHEDULE AS WELL. SO NO, I APPRECIATE THAT WOULD BE GOOD. APPRECIATE WHAT Y'ALL DO.

[01:35:07]

I KNOW THERE'S A LOT OF WORK PUT IN THE CASES FOR TONIGHT AND ALL THE EVENINGS AND, UH, YOU KNOW, WE TAKE IT VERY SERIOUS, AND I APPRECIATE Y'ALL LOOKING OUT FOR THE BEST INTERESTS OF THE TOWN OF PROSPECTS. ALRIGHT WELL, THERE'S NOTHING ELSE I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON NINE TO ADJOURN. THAT WE ADJOURN. FRONT MOTION COMMISSIONER HARRIS 2ND 2ND COMMISSIONER REEVES. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO ADJOURN. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION CARRIES 40 WE'RE ADJOURNED. 7:35 P.M. THANK

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.

1. Call to Order / Roll Call.

CONSENT AGENDA

4. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to amend the Future Land Use Plan from Downtown Office (DTO) to Downtown Retail (DTR), generally located on the southwest corner of West Seventh Street and North Coleman Road. This is a companion case to ZONE-23-0016. (COMP-23-0003).

5. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request for a Specific Use Permit for a new Drive-Through Restaurant, on 1.5± acres, located south of West Frontier Parkway and east of North Dallas Parkway. (ZONE-23-0013)

8. Review actions taken by the Town Council and possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.

Sep 19, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission

1. Call to Order / Roll Call.

CONSENT AGENDA

4. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to amend the Future Land Use Plan from Downtown Office (DTO) to Downtown Retail (DTR), generally located on the southwest corner of West Seventh Street and North Coleman Road. This is a companion case to ZONE-23-0016. (COMP-23-0003).

5. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request for a Specific Use Permit for a new Drive-Through Restaurant, on 1.5± acres, located south of West Frontier Parkway and east of North Dallas Parkway. (ZONE-23-0013)

8. Review actions taken by the Town Council and possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting.

Sep 19, 2023 Planning and Zoning Commission

Link

Social

Embed

Download

Download Selected Item