[4d. Consider and act upon a request for a Site Plan for an Amenity Center on Windsong Ranch Phase 6E Addition, Block X, Lot 3, on 1.9± acres, located on the northwest corner of Bridges Drive and Verdin Street. (DEVAPP-24-0018)]

[00:15:04]

IS IT 4D OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO ITEM FOUR D IS AN AMENITY CENTER IN WINDSONG RANCH. IT'S TO CONSTRUCT A COVERED OPEN AIR, 18,900 SQUARE FOOT AMENITY CENTER AND ASSOCIATED ON STREET PARKING. AND THEN WITHIN THE AMENITY CENTER, THERE WILL BE OFFICES. AND UTILITIES THAT ARE ABOUT QUESTIONS ON THIS ITEM. MS THERE IT LOOKS LIKE ON THE RESIDENTIAL ROADS THAT THERE'S IT'S INSET FROM THE ROAD. BUT IT DOESN'T LOOK INSET ON . DO YOU LIKE THE END CUTS AS OPPOSED TO ON BRIDGES. YOU DIDN'T BECAUSE YOU STILL HAD THE ROOM TO MANEUVER. OKAY. IS THERE AND ALSO IS THERE A REASON SO WE'REE HAVING A LOT OF CARS PARKING THERE. AND I MEAN, I THINK THE EXPECTATION ALSO IS THAT PEOPLE WHO LIVE IN THIS WON'T NECESSARILY DRIVE TO THE SPOT.

THEY MAY WALK TO IT, OR THEY MAY RIDE THEIR BIKES TO IT. MAYBE, POTENTIALLY, MAYBE. I DON'T KNOW ABOUT THAT. WHAT'S AND IS THE THERE'S ABOUT A PERMIT THAT MEANS OKAY JUST JUST CURIOUS WHAT THAT MEANT. OKAY. I JUST WAS THE ON STREET PARKING JUST WITH NOTHING ONLY WAS JUST A LITTLE CONCERNING TO ME, ESPECIALLY ALONG BRIDGES. BUT WE'LL SEE. OKAY. THANK YOU.

YEAH. YOU AND I EMAILED A BIT ABOUT THIS AS WELL. MY CONCERN WHEN I DROVE BY IT, I GUESS, ON SUNDAY, WAS THAT I CAN TOTALLY APPRECIATE THE BRIDGES AS A WIDER STREET. IT STILL FELT A LITTLE AWKWARD TO ME, KIND OF KNOWING THAT THERE WERE GOING TO BE THOSE. I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE TERM IS, BUT THEY'RE GOING TO PLAY SOMETHING IN THE STREET TO KIND OF SET. IT STILL FEELS A BIT AWKWARD TO ME. THE INSET PARKING WAS ACTUALLY NOT A CONCERN ALONG VIRDEN AND TOLLIVER, AT LEAST IN MY OPINION. BUT BRIDGES, IT JUST SEEMED ODD TO HAVE THAT IN THE STREET ITSELF. IS THERE AN OPTION TO INSET IT ALONG BRIDGES? I WOULD HAVE TO SPEAK TO OUR ENGINEER. I MEAN, THERE MIGHT BE AN OPTION, BUT I THINK THAT THE SITE PLAN CURRENTLY, ESPECIALLY IF YOU SEE KIND OF JUST LOST IT. KIND OF WHERE THE AMENITY CENTER EXTENDS OUT TO.

AND SO THE THIS OUTLINE HERE THAT'S GOT LIKE THE, THE DARKENED LINE IS THE ACTUAL ENCLOSED AREA. THE REST OF THIS IS OPEN. BUT YOU CAN SEE IT KIND OF GOES CLOSE TO THE PROPERTY LINE. SO THAT MAY BE A REASON WHY THEY DIDN'T WANT TO INSET THAT PARKING ON THAT SIDE. SO DAKAR, A QUICK QUESTION. YES SIR. SO LET'S JUST SAY THAT IF, IF THERE WAS TO BE ANY CHANGE TO THIS AND THE PARKING AT THIS POINT, THERE'D BE NO OBLIGATION FOR THE OWNER TO DO ANYTHING, BECAUSE AT THE STAGE THAT IT'S AT OBLIGATIONS. IS THAT CORRECT?

[00:20:32]

ONE'S. AND SO WE WANT S MUCH PARKING AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE WE DON'T NECESSARILY KNOW IT'S A PRETTY POPULAR SPORT. AND SO WE WOULDN'T WANT TO DO AWAY WITH THE PARKING ON BRIDGES. WE THINK THAT IT'S PERTINENT TO THE SITE. SO YOU'RE SAYING WE'RE BEHIND THE CURVE ON PICKLEBALL PROSPER? IS THAT THE POTENTIALLY IS THAT THE ISSUE? THIS IS A RANDOM PROCEDURAL QUESTION, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS DID THE BECAUSE IT'S A SITE PLAN APPROVAL, DID THIS HAVE TO GET POSTED. AND HAVE YOU HEARD FROM ANY OF THESE RESIDENTS AROUND IT. NO, I DON'T KNOW. I MEAN, WINDSONG IS PRETTY WELL THOUGHT OUT, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THIS WAS ALWAYS PROPOSED AS A FUTURE PICKLEBALL. I MEAN, ON THE ON THE PLAT, IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE AN AMENITY CENTE. OKAY. SO I'M SURE THEY'RE AWARE OF IT. THAT'S GOOD. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS ON 4D? IF NOT, TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ANY MOTION WE MAY HAVE ON 4D. CAN I ASK CAN I ASK A CLARIFICATION QUESTION BEFORE WE BEFORE WE DO THAT. SO THIS IS OR ISN'T WITHIN OUR PURVIEW TO KIND OF SAY WE HYPOTHETICALLY, IF WE DON'T LIKE THE PARKING ALONG BRIDGES BECAUSE TO THE POINT FROM EARLIER REGARDING THE HEALTH OR SAFETY, IS THAT THE ONLY REASON WE COULD THEORETICALLY VOTE NO, I AND DAVID CAN CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG, BUT I THINK YOU'RE WITHIN YOUR RIGHT TO DO WHATEVER YOU. WANT. YOU DON'T HAVE TO SPECIFY SPECIFICALLY WHY THAT PARTICULAR SIZE OF STREET. WE ALLOW PUBLIC PARKING ANY PLAT YOU. YEAH, IT'S A NUMBER THAT WE JUST FELT WAS APPROPRIATE. BUT THERE IS NOT A SPECIFIC RATIO TO GO OFF OF. TO SAY YOU NEED THIS MANY SPACES FOR IT. BUT THE BRIDGES, PARKING, BRIDGES, DRIVE PARKING IS INCLUDED IN THAT 31. IT IS INCLUDED IN THAT. OKAY. THANK YOU. GOOD QUESTIONS. DO WE HAVE A MOTION ON FOUR D. MR. CHAIRMAN, I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEM FOUR D ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU, COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD, WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE FOUR D. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? I'LL SECOND. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER FURY. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSENT.

AGENDA ITEM FOUR D, SUBJECT TO TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THE

[Items 4g. & 4h.]

[00:25:02]

MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0. AND THE NEXT ONE WAS FOR THE NEXT ONE WILL BE FOR G. AND FOR H IS TIED TO THAT ONE. AS WELL. ON THE MIDDLE SCHOOL. OKAY, SO ITEM FOUR G IS THE SITE PLAN FOR PROSPER MIDDLE SCHOOL. NUMBER SEVEN. IT'S TO CONSTRUCT A 214,900. AGAIN THEY'RE PROPOSING A LIVING SCREEN THERE INSTEAD OF GARDENS. THIS PHASE TWO PHASE THREE AND FOUR OF THE PLAT. YOU APPROVED I THINK I WANT TO SAY TWO OR SO MONTHS AG. THIS EDGE RIGHT RIGHT THERE. HIF DOING LIVING SCREENS ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. AND SO IN THE ORDINANCE YOU CAN IT'S YOU CAN DO A MASONRY WALL. BUT OTHER TIMES THAT WE'VE ALLOWED FOR LIVING SCREENS IN THE PAST SPECIFICALLY FOR PROSPER ISD, I HAD UNDERSTOOD THAT WE HAD ALLOWED LIVING SCREENS FOR THE SCHOOLS IN THE PAST BECAUSE THEY WERE BEING BUILT WHERE THERE WAS ALREADY AN EXISTING HOMES, WHO HAD WHO HAD THEIR FENCES ALREADY UP. SO WE DIDN'T WANT TO DOUBLE DOUBLE FENCE. IN THIS INSTANCE, IT LOOKS LIKE THAT'S NOT NECESSARILY THE CASE. I NOT SURE WHICH IS GOING TO BE FIRST, BUT CAN YOU HELP ME UNDERSTAND THE BASIS FOR THAT REASON? WHY WE'VE DONE THAT IN THE PAST? I THINK HISTORICALLY SPEAKING, THE REASON THAT'S BEEN DONE IS THE WALLS, THE ORDINANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE

[00:31:14]

GAPING AROO MAKE SURE THAT THAT'S ADEQUATE. BUT I THINK IT'S GOING TO SCHOOE BUILDER. BECAUSE IF THERE'S A TRAIL. YEAH. NOW, I ALSO KNOW THERE ARE SUBDIVISIONS THAT ARE STILL BEING DEVELOPED THAT AREN'T UP TO THE EDGE OF THE PROPERTY. AND IN SEVERAL SCHOOLS, RIGHT IT MAKES ME WONDER WHAT 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 PRESENT IT TO THE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. PRIOR TO THE MEETING. SO I KNOW

[5. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to rezone 20.1± acres on Collin County School Land Survey 12, Abstract 147, Tracts 8 & 10 from Agricultural and Commercial Corridor to Planned Development–Commercial Corridor, located on the northwest corner of Dallas Parkway and First Street. (ZONE-24-0007)]

FORMS, BUT I THINK THEY'RE IN RELATION TO SOME CASES. AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST TO REZONE 20.1 ACRES ON COLLIN COUNTY SCHOOL LAND SURVEY 12 ABSTRACT 147.

TRACKS EIGHT AND TEN FROM AGRICULTURAL AND COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT.

COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR LOCATED ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF DALLAS PARKWAY AND FIRST STREET, THIS IS CASE ZONE DASH 20 4-0007. OKAY, SO IF YOU GUYS REMEMBER THE LAST TIME THIS ITEM WAS TABLED AT THE PREVIOUS PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION MEETING, TOWN STAFF IS REQUESTING THAT

[00:35:05]

THIS ITEM BE TABLED INDEFINITELY TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL TIME FOR THE APPLICANT TO FINALIZE THE REQUEST. THERE'S JUST SOME THINGS THEY WANT TO REWORK THAT ARE GOING TO CAUSE MAJOR CHANGES TO THEIR CONCEPTUAL PLAN. SO THEY'RE JUST REQUESTING THIS ITEM BE TABLED INDEFINITELY. AND SO FOR THE PROCESS. WOULD JUST REQUEST THAT YOU GUYS REMOVE THAT FROM THE TABLE, CLOSE THE FROM THE TABLE BEFORE I CLOSE WO A DENSITY OF 2.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THIS I APOLOGIZE JUST TO FIT ALL OF THIS ON ONE SLIDE IS DIFFICULT. SO THE FONT MIGHT BE A LITTLE SMALL. SO AS YOU CAN SEE WITH THE SETBACKS, THE SETBACKS ARE THE SAME.

EXCEPT THERE'S NO TYPE C LOT ANYMORE. SO THERE'S NO 30 FOOT FRONT SETBACK. AND THEN FOR THE LOT TYPES THERE IS NO TYPE C, WHICH MEANS THOSE 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS ARE GONE. THE TYPE B STAYED THE SAME, AND THERE'S A MINIMUM OF 60 OF THOSE REQUIRED. AND THE TYPE A LOTS INCREASED BY 250FT■!S. THEY WERE IN THE ORIGINAL PLAN DEVELOPMENT AT 10,000FT■!S. AND THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT, THEY'RE GOING TO BE AT 10,250. THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS GOING TO BE 76 INSTEAD OF 80, 70 ON A CUL DE SAC. AND THEN THE MINIMUM LOT DEPTH IS GOING TO BE INCREASED BY 15FT FROM 125 TO 140, AND THEN 120 ON A CUL DE SAC. THE NUMBER OF STORIES OR THE HEIGHT OF THE BUILDING DOESN'T CHANGE, AND THE LOT COVERAGE WON'T CHANGE FROM THE FROM THE PLAN DEVELOPMENT.

[00:40:06]

SWITCHING HERE. ARE SOME OF THE USES. BY RIGHT, THIS IS UNDERSTANDABLE. SO THAT WILL BE BY SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. AND THEN WE FELT IT WAS A GOOD ZONING FRT THE DEVELOPMENT FOR YOUR BUILDING MATERIALS, YOUR.

DESIGN, THE EXTERIOR STORIES, OTHER THAN THE FIRST STORY ON SIDE AND REAR ELEVATIONS, CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS MAY NOT BE USED AS A FACADE CLADDING MATERIAL FOR PORTIONS OF UPPER STORIES, OR THAT ARE IN THE SAME VERTICAL PLANE AS THE FIRST STORY. ANY PORTION OF AN UPPER STORY, EXCLUDING WINDOWS, THAT FACES A STREET OR PRIVATE PARKS OR HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL, SHALL BE 100% MASONRY. CEMENTITIOUS FIBERBOARD MAY BE USED UP TO 20%. THE EXTERIOR CLADDING OF CHIMNEYS SHALL BE BRICK, NATURAL OR MANUFACTURED STONE OR STUCCO, AND THEN CEMENTITIOUS MATERIALS MAY BE USED FOR ARCHITECTURAL FEATURES INCLUDING WINDOW BOX OUTS, BAY WINDOWS, ROOF DORMERS, GARAGE DOOR HEADERS, COLUMNS, CHIMNEYS, NOT A PART OF THE EXTERIOR WALL, ETC. AND THEN FOR THE ROOFING STANDARDS FOR THIS. SO FOR THE MATERIALS STRUCTURES CONSTRUCTED ON LOTS SHALL HAVE A COMPOSITION SLATE, CLAY, TILE, STANDING SEAM, METAL OR CEMENT OR CEMENT SLASH CONCRETE TILE ROOF. METAL ROOF SHALL BE NON-REFLECTIVE COLORS. AND THEN FOR THE PITCH A MINIMUM OF 65% OF THE SURFACE AREA OF COMPOSITION. ROOFS SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM ROOF PITCH OF EIGHT BY 12, AND THEN A MINIMUM OF 75% OF THE SURFACE AREA OF CLAY, TILE, CEMENT, TILE, SLATE OR SLATE PRODUCTS. STANDING SEA, METAL OR CONCRETE TILE SHALL MAINTAIN A MINIMUM ROOF PITCH OF THREE BY 12. SO HERE'S KIND OF THERE ARE MORE ELEVATIONS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET. I JUST CLIPPED ONE TO KIND OF GIVE YOU AN EXAMPLE OF WHAT THE HOUSES LOOK WOULD LOOK LIKE FOR PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY AND AMENITIES. THEY'RE PROVIDING A COUPLE OF FEATURES. ONE IS AN ENHANCED ENTRANCE, ANOTHER IS A COMMUNITY AMENITY PARK, AND THE OTHER IS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK.

AND I WILL GO BACK TO THE THEN E THE COMMUNITY EXAMPLE OF THE CONNECTIVITY THROUGHOUT THE.

NEIGHBORHOOD. I BELIEVE ON THE SOUTH PORTION OF IT. AND THEN THERE WILL BE THREE INCH CALIPER SHADE TREES AND 40 FOOT INTERVALS ON THE NORTH AND SOUTH SIDE OF THE ENTRANCE. AND HERE'S AN EXAMPLE OF THE ENTRANCE RIGHT HERE. AND THEN FOR THE COMMUNITY AMENITY PARK, THEY TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE AT LEAST FOUR OF THESE AMENITIES.

MAINTENANCE OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. THE HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION IS GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED WHERE MEMBERSHIP IS MANDATORY FOR EACH LOT, AND IT WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL COMMON AREAS OR COMMON FACILITIES. NEXT SESSION IS THE COMMERCIAL SECTION. SO AGAIN, HERE'S THE PLAN. SEE THIS IS THE COMMERCIAL AREA HERE ON THE HARD CORNER. SO HERE ARE THE COMPARISONS BETWEEN THE DISTRICT STANDARDS AND PD 44 VERSUS THIS ONE. BEFORE YOU TONIGHT. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS RIGHT HERE. THERE'S GOING TO BE A ZERO FOOT SIDE SETBACK OR REAR SETBACK. IF IT'S ADJACENT TO THIS CREEK AREA. JUST TO GIVE THEM THE OPTION TO DO PATIOS NEXT TO THE WATERFRONT. IF YOU LIKE. THAT'D BE A NICE FEATURE. AND SO HERE

[00:45:01]

LISTED BY RIGHT. AGAIN, I WON'T GO OVER EVERY. SPECIFIC USE PERMANENT AS OPPOSED TO BY RIGHT. AND THEN HERE ARE THE LIST OF USES THAT WOULD BE ELIMINATED IF THIS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WERE APPROVED. FOR THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS FOR THE COMMERCIAL SECTION. SO THE PRIMARY MATERIALS ARE GOING TO BE CLAY, FIRE BRICK, GRANITE, MARBLE, STONE. THE SECONDARY MATERIALS WHICH CAN ONLY BE 10% OF AN ELEVATION AREA, IS GOING TO BE ANY PRIMARY MATERIAL, ALUMINUM OR OTHER METAL, CEDAR OR SIMILAR QUALITY DECORATIVE WOOD, EIFS OR STUCCO. AND THEN FOR BIGGS BOX, SPECIFICALLY ARCHITECTURAL CONCRETE BLOCK, ARCHITECTURALLY FINISHED CONCRETE TILT WALL OR SPLIT FACE CONCRETE MASONRY UNIT FOR SCREENING AGAINST RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY. THERE WILL BE AN EIGHT FOOT MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED BY THE FIRST PROPERTY TO DEVELOP. IT'S TYPICALLY A SIX FOOT WALL ADJACENT, BUT IN THIS PD IT'S EIGHT, AND THEN THERE WILL BE A WALL MAINTENANCE EASEMENT PROVIDED ALONG BOTH SIDES OF THAT SCREEN. WALL. AND THEN FOR PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY, CONNECTIVITY AND AMENITIES, THE BIG FEATURE HERE IS GOING TO BE THAT CREEK AREA. AND THAT CREEK AREA IS GOING TO BE LOCATED ON A SEPARATE LOT THAT'S GOING TO BE OWNED AND MAINTAINED BY THE PROPERTY'S ASSOCIATED PROPERTY PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION. THAT'S GOING TO BE ESTABLISHED FOR THIS AREA, AND IT WILL CONSIST OF A MEANDERING WALKING PATH SPANNING BETWEEN LEGACY DRIVE, FRONTIER PARKWAY THAT INCLUDES PEDESTRIAN CONGREGATION AREAS AND FOR MAINTENANCE.

AGAIN, THERE'S GOING TO BE A PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION ESTABLISHED FOR THIS, WHERE MEMBERSHIP IS MANDATORY FOR EACH LOT. AND THAT WILL THEY WILL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF ALL COMMON AREAS AND OR COMMON FACILITIES. AND IN CONCLUSION, STAFF SENT NOTICES OUT FOR THIS FRIDAY, OCTOBER FOURTH. IF YOU REMEMBER, IT WAS ON YOUR LAST AGENDA. WE SENT NOTICES OUT THEN, BUT THERE WAS A ZONING SIGN ISSUE. THERE HAS BEEN NO CITIZEN RESPONSE FOR THIS AND STAFF DOES RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS REQUEST. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS HAVE A PRESENTATION TO MAKE. OKAY, SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU GUYS WANT TO ASK ME FIRST OR LET THE APPLICANT PRESENT TO YOU NEXT. BUT WHAT DO WE HAVE BEFORE WE OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING HERE? MR. CHAIR, ANY QUESTIONS OF ZACHARY RIGHT NOW BEFORE WE HAVE THE APPLICANT COME FORWARD? MR. CHAIR, COULD I ADD A PROCEDURAL THING? I'M SORRY. I SHOULD HAVE DONE THIS AT THE BEGINNING, BUT I WAS ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL HERE. YOU ALL MAY REMEMBER. AND ZACHARY JUST MENTIONED IT, THAT THIS ACTUALLY HAD BEEN ON YOUR LAST AGENDA, BUT THE SIGNS HAD BEEN POSTED ACROSS THE STREET IN THE WRONG PLACE, AND WE HAD TO ADJUST THAT AND CONSEQUENTLY, WE ASKED YOU ALL TO TABLE IT AND OPEN AND CONTINUE THE OPEN PUBLIC HEARING. WE DID THE SAME THING THAT WE DID ON THIS PAST CASE THAT YOU JUST DID. SO IF YOU WOULD PULL IT BACK OFF THE TABLE AND THEN YOU WOULD ACTUALLY BE REOPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AS OPPOSED TO OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING, IT'S JUST A MINOR TECHNICALITY. NO. YEAH. WE HAD A COUPLE OUT THERE. MY BAD. SORRY. NOPE. NO WORRIES. SO LET'S DO THAT. LET'S GO AHEAD AND PULL THIS BACK OFF THE TABLE AND WE'LL CONTINUE. AND THE PUBLIC HEARING WITH THAT OPEN NOW OR REOPEN IF THAT'S THE RIGHT TERMINOLOGY. ANY QUESTIONS FOR TOWN STAFF RIGHT NOW I DON'T HAVE TO PRESENT THAT AGAIN. DO I? I DON'T HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE ONE TWO SLIDES. THEY WERE LIKE 30S SLIDES. AND I THOUGHT YOU COULD SPLIT. BUT ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS TIME? I JUST HAVE ONE. WHEN YOU TALKED ABOUT THE LOT SIZES OF RESIDENTIAL. YES, SIR. YOU HAD A MINIMUM. I THINK IT WAS 12,500FT■!S. WAS IT OR A RANGE? WHAT WAS THAT, 12,000 520,000? YEAH. LET ME GO BACK TO THE RIGHT HERE. YES. OKAY. BUT THEN IN THIS, THIS LITTLE. THE OTHER CHART, THIS LITTLE CHART THINGY, IT GOES DOWN TO 10,000. THAT IS CORRECT. AND IS 10,000 CONSIDERED MEDIUM OR IS IT CONSIDERED A HIGH DENSITY. WELL, SO THE LOT SIZES ARE REQUIRED IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY. RESIDENTIAL IS SUPPOSED TO BE 12.5 TO 20,000 OR A COMBINATION OF LOTS THAT ALLOW FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY FOR THE DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE TO BE MET. SO THE DENSITY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING HERE. SO AS LONG AS THE DENSITY IS WITHIN 1.6 TO 2.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE, THAT'S CONSIDERED MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. REGARDLESS OF WHAT THE LOT SIZES ARE. SO IF THERE'S A VARIATION OF LOT SIZES THAT CAN MAKE IT FALL WITHIN THAT THAT RANGE, THEN IT'S CONSIDERED A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PER OUR FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. WHEN ARE YOU GOING TO HAVE TO REPEAT AGAIN? SLOWER. OKAY, SO THE REASON THE REASON WHY I ASKED. BECAUSE THE NUMBERS JUST DON'T FIT PROPERLY FROM ONE SCREEN TO THE NEXT OR FROM ONE SLIDE TO THE NEXT. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE ALL CLEAR. YEAH, WE'RE NOT APPROVING SOME HIGH DENSITY. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. SO MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL PER FUTURE LAND USE

[00:50:04]

PLAN. IT BREAKS IT OUT EITHER BETWEEN LOT SIZES OR DENSITY. BUT IT SAYS DENSITY IS THE MOST IMPORTANT THING WHEN IT COMES TO THAT. SO IT SAYS THAT TYPICALLY A MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD IS GOING TO HAVE LOTS THAT RANGE FROM 12.5 THOUSAND TO 20,000. THAT'S WHAT THE RANGE IT GIVES FOR THE LOT SIZES. HOWEVER, IT SAYS THAT THESE NEIGHBORHOODS CAN AS LONG AS THE DENSITY IS MET, THESE NEIGHBORHOODS CAN HAVE A VARIATION OF LOT SIZES WITHIN THEM, SO THEY CAN HAVE 10,000, 11,000 AS LONG AS THEY CAN . THAT SOME OF THOSE CAME IN AND THEY WANTED TO HAVE A SMALLER HOME OR A SMALLER LOT SIZE, THEIR ARGUMENT WAS THAT, WELL, THERE'S A THERE ARE HOMES IN WINDSONG THAT HAVE THE EXACT SAME. IT MAY HAVE BEEN THIS IS THE ARGUMENTS IN ONE SONG HAVE THE SAME LOT SIZE AS THE HOUSES THAT THEY'RE PROPOSING. BUT OUR RESPONSE TO THAT WAS WE TAKE WINDSONG ON THE AGGREGATE. SO THAT MEANS THAT OF ALL OF THE HOMES IN THIS, THIS AREA OF THAT LOCATION AVERAGE OUT OF ALL THE HOMES ON THAT LOCATION, ON AVERAGE, THEY MEET THE MEDIUM DENSITY REQUIREMENT.

SO IT'S. NOT YOU MIGHT HAVE A HOUSE THAT'S LOWER, BUT THEN YOU MIGHT HAVE ONE THAT'S FAR SQUARE FOOT ON AND WAS ALL WIPED OFF. SO THAT'S WHERE I'M GOING. LIKE YOU. WELL, AND I THINK THE COMMERCIAL SECTION GOT BIGGER FROM THE LAST PLAN DEVELOPMENT AND SO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA GOT SMALLER FROM THE LAST ONE. SO THERE'S LESS ACREAGE FOR THOSE LOTS TO COVER. TALKING ABOUT THE CHART THAT SHOWS WHAT UNDER THE PROPOSED PD, WHAT THE SIZES ARE THE CHARTS. YEAH. RIGHT THERE THAT CHART. SO THERE WAS 49 MINIMUM AT 12,000FT■!S. AND ALLF THOSE ARE NOW GONE. THAT IS CORRECT. AND SO THE TYPE A ONES GOT BIGGER. SO INSTEAD OF 10,00. IT'S 10,250. BUT THE COMBINATION OF ALL THESE LOTS ESPECIALLY COMMERCIAL. JUST THE MAX DENSITY THE MEDIAN, THEY JUST INCREASED MORE THE SMALLER THEY'RE BASICALLY I MEAN CANDIDLY, THEY'RE MAXING OUT THE. DENSITY.

YEAH. AND THEY'RE USING THE LOOPHOLE OF DENSITY OVER THE WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION MULTIPLE TIMES ABOUT WHAT THE DISCREPANCY IN THE TWO DIFFERENT STANDARDS BETWEEN MEDIUM MEDIUM DENSITY AND I GUESS CALL IT MINIMUM SIZE, YOU KNOW. SO ALL RIGHT. YEAH. THEY BASICALLY SQUEEZED SQUEEZED THE RESIDENTIAL DOWN, MADE THE LOTS. SMALLER, PACK MORE HOUSES AND A MAX OF 2.5, MAXED IT OUT AS MUC. SO CAN YOU ADDRESS OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE BRING THE APPLICANT UP OR. YES. SO ON THE YOU READ THROUGH ALL THEIR ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS COMMERCIAL OMMR RESIDENTIAL? BO. BOTH OR BOTH OF THEM. THE QUESTION I HAVE IS

[00:55:15]

PD 44. AND THEN COMMISSIONER 33? AND THANKS, DAVID, FOR REOPENING THE WOUND ABOUT THE MISSING, THE SIGNS ON THE WRONG SIDE THOSE PHOTOS. AND YOU'RE LIKE, WHAT? KIND OF HAD SOME DIAGONAL LINES.

HAD A CONCEPT PLAN INCLUDED IN THAT PD THAT THE I THINK THEY WERE PRETTY OPTIMISTIC. I'LL PUT IT THAT WAY, OF HOW SMALL THEY COULD MAKE THE DRAINAGE FACILITY THROUGH THE DEVELOPMENT. AT ONE POINT IT DIDN'T SEEM TO MAKE MUCH SENSE. THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT HAD A LAYOUT OF IN THE PLAN. IF YOU COUNTED ALL OF THOSE SQUARES ON THE PLAN, IT HAD 220 LOTS. YET THE PD LANGUAGE POINTED OUT THAT. THERE WAS A MAX OF 198 LOTS, SO THERE WAS LITTLE HAVE REALLY ODD SHAPED TRIANGULAR, LOTS OF KEY LOTS. THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL RUNNING THROUGH THE NEIGHBORHOOD ACTUALLY WOULD HAVE CROSSED. I BELIEVE 13 PEOPLE'S FRONT DRIVEWAYS. SO OBVIOUSLY NOT EFFICIENT FOR A HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. AND THE OTHER PLAN THIS WAS BEFORE THE TOWN'S HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL PLAN HAD BEEN FLESHED OUT. IT DIDN'T ANTICIPATE OR ACKNOWLEDGE THE FACT THAT WHAT'S GOING ON NOW, WHICH IS THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THERE TO THE SOUTH OF THE DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT EASEMENT ADJACENT TO THE MIDDLE SCHOOL, UPCOMING MIDDLE SCHOOL AND LEGACY GARDENS AND ALSO THERE WAS NO COMPONENT OF A HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL EXTENDING PAST THE ENTRY INTO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO THERE WAS NO. HIKING BIKE TRAIL IN THE PD AND THE CURRENT PD.

IT'S AN OLDER PD. SOMETIMES THAT HAPPENS WE'RE PROPOSING TWO TYPES BECAUSE IT IS A CONCEPTUAL LAYOUT. AND, YOU KNOW, NOTHING IS DONE UNTIL THE ENGINEERING IS DONE. THAT'S WHERE WE CAME IN WITH THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE ACTUALLY SHOWN AS SHOWN ON THE PLAN HERE IS OVER 11,500FT■!S. IT'S ACTUALLYA LITTLE BIT MORE THAN THAT. BUT YEAH, I HATE TO GET INTO TO THE TENTS AND THE SINGLE DIGITS BECAUSE IT IS EARLY IN THE PLAN. BUT BASED ON THAT CURRENT PLAN, THERE'S A 223 LOTS. THE PD IS ASKING FOR A CAP OF 225. JUST KIND OF ROUND UP AND, YOU KNOW, WHO KNOWS, WE MIGHT FIND A WAY TO FIND ANOTHER LOT. DON'T SEE IT. BUT YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHERE WE'RE AT. COUPLE HIGHLIGHTS IN THERE. WE AS DAVID THE EXISTINGT PLANS A LITTLE AND ILLEGIBLE BUT I BELIEVE IT SAYS IT'S AROUND 6.5 ACRES. AND THE AMENITY CENTERS INCLUDED WITHIN THE PARK, WHICH IS KIND OF AWKWARD.

I'VE DONE IT ACTUALLY, AT VILLAGES AT LEGACY THOUGHT IT WAS GOING TO BE A GREAT PLAN. IT IT LOOKS NICE, BUT IT IS KIND OF QUIRKY BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE UNSURE OF WHERE THE TOWN PARK STOPS AND WHERE PRIVATE HOA BEGINS. WE TRIED TO ADDRESS THAT BY PUTTING

[01:01:28]

TRAIL CONNECTION THROUGH THE OUT OF THE NEIGHBORHOOD IN BETWEEN. LOTS TO THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THAT RUNS EAST WEST ALONG THE SOUTH SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. WE HAVE ONE STREET FRONTAGE THAT FRONTS ON NEXT ALL VERY WELL RESPECTED AND

[01:05:16]

IS THAT I MEAN, WHAT IS THAT? IS THERE? IT DOESN'T LOOK LIKE THERE'S ANY PARKING AROUND IT. WHAT'S STARTED WITH THE FIRST SUBMITTAL. WE THAT WAS PRESENTED TO US. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS . WANTED TO ASK YOU RIGHT THERE. SO IN THAT AGAIN IN THE COMMERCIAL AREA, THE, THE RETAIL AREA, THERE'S A LITTLE DOUBLE LINE THAT GOES THROUGH RIGHT IN THE FLOODPLAIN AREA.

YES. THAT'S WHAT IS THAT IT'S NOT REGRET TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT. YOU'RE RIGHT. THAT ISN'T LABELED. THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THAT'S REFERENCED IN THE COMMERCIAL STATEMENT. SO THAT'S A HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. SO IN THE COMMERCIAL STANDARDS IT TALKS ABOUT A HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL. AND I THINK IT'S IN THE STAFF REPORT AS WELL. IN BETWEEN LEGACY AND FRONTIER ALONG THE. DRAINAGE WAY. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT THAT'S INTENDED. THAT'S WHAT THE OKAY GREAT. WELL YES. AND THEY AND IT IT'S IT IDENTIFIES THOSE AS BEING DWELLINGS WITH REQUIRED FRONT PORCHES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN WHAT THAT MEANS. SO THIS IS A THE DEVELOPER HAD. ACKNOWLEDGED HAD NOTICED THAT IN LEGACY HOMES THAT ARE BUILT IN THAT AREA, HE FELT THAT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA TO JUST GENERALLY FEELS LIKE THAT'S A GOOD PLANNING PRINCIPLE. SO HE WENT AHEAD AND COMMITTED TO THAT IN THIS PD AS WELL. SO IT'LL HAVE THE SAME KIND OF FEEL AS THE LEGACY GARDENS NEIGHBORHOOD IMMEDIATELY TO THE. THE EAST THAT HAS THAT SAME PROVISION WRAP AROUND PORCH OR JUST A IS, BUT WE HAVEN'T TALKED ABOUT IT. BUT WHICH I THINK IT WAS IN CLINT'S PRESENTATION. OH, IT'S ON YOURS

[01:11:36]

O ENGINEERING. WITH WE'VE OBVIOUSLY YOU CAN SAY WE'RE HEDGING OUR BETS A LITTLE BIT BY COMING IN A LITTLE BIT LOWER THAN THAT. SO WE'RE GOING TO EXCEED THOSE. SO YEAH THAT'S THAT IS WHAT IT IS. SO I LOVE THAT QUESTION. SO. IF I'M NOT I WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CORRECT. MEDIUM DENSITY PER ORDINANCE IS 1250. RIGHT. OR OR 12.5.

IN THEE NEW WHAT THE PD WOULD ALLOW. BUT AS I THAT'S WITH THE ENGINEERING, NOT IN THE SAME SPIRIT AS WHAT'S HAPPENING. WHAT HAPPENED OVER THERE. YOU DON'T HAVE ANY LOSS THAT EVEN MEET THE MINIMUM, THE MINIMUM MEDIUM DENSITY SIZE. NONE. NOT ONLY THAT, BUT THEY'RE EVEN. WHAT, A 1500 SQUARE FEET LESS? BUT BECAUSE OF THE WAY THAT THEY'RE CONSTRUCTED ON THE PROPERTIES, YOU FEEL LIKE IT MEETS THE OVERALL REQUIREMENT OR IT DOES MEET, LET'S SAY IT MEETS THE OVERALL REQUIREMENT. BUT AS A PRODUCT, YOU'RE PRODUCING A PRODUCT THAT DOESN'T MEET THE MINIMUM. YOU DON'T HAVE ONE HOME THERE THAT MEETS THE EVEN WHAT WE CONSIDER A MEDIUM DENSITY HOME TO BE LIKE. SO YOU'RE PUTTING A LOT, A LOT OF MUCH SMALLER HOMES ON THIS PROPERTY, JUST AS MANY AS YOU CAN

[01:15:07]

. THE ORIGINAL ONE, THE HOME SIZE WAS 1900, 2100, 2300, AND NOW IT'S AT 2000 402,800. SO THE HOME SIZE IS SIGNIFICANTLY BIGGER THAN WHAT WAS PREVIOUSLY ON THE ON THE PD. SO. BUT LESS THE LESS LOT SIZE LESS LOT. BUT YES. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT THE MINIMUM LOT DEATH BEFORE IS 125. NOW IT'S 140. THE MINIMUM LOT WIDTH IS 80. IT'S 76 I MEAN 80 VERSUS 76.

I THINK THAT'S JUST THAT'S REALLY SMALL. BUT ISN'T THAT DISCUSSION BUT THAT'S PULLING STUFF FROM THE SIDES. LIKE YOU MENTIONED. RIGHT. YOU'RE TAKING YOU'RE TAKING AWAY A LITTLE BIT OFF THE SIZE TO ADD IT TO THE BACKYARD. RIGHT, RIGHT. SO I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE LOT BEING A LITTLE BIT SMALLER BECAUSE I'M ACTUALLY MORE IN FAVOR OF THE FACT THAT THE HOUSE SIZE IS LARGER, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE YOU REALLY GET INTO QUALITY AND VALUE AND PRICE AND SO I'M GLAD THAT THE HOUSE SIZE IS GOING FROM 1900 TO 2400, MINIMUM AND WELL, BUT SO THAT I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THAT'S A GREAT POINT. I DISAGREE WITH IT, BUT IT'S A GREAT POINT. BUT I THINK IT'S GREAT. AND LET'S BE CLEAR, THIS IS THE PERSON THAT HAS A LOT MORE EXPERIENCE IN TERMS OF HOMES THAN ME. SO LET'S JUST MY DISAGREEMENT IS WITH ALS BY LAND. THE HOUSE CAN CAN THE HOUSE, BUT THEY'LL BUY THE LAND.

SO I JUST, I UNDERSTAND WHERE YOU'RE COMING FROM. I THINK THAT THE VALUE THAT WE OFFER, I MEAN, IT'S THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT. IT CONTINUES TO GO UP. I MEAN, THAT IS WHAT WE VALUE IS THAT LAND, THAT DIRT, THAT DIRT IS TO ME IS WAS DONE PREVIOUSLY THAT DIDN'T MAKE SENSE PERSONALLY. MAKE SENSE. YEAH. SO THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF THE LOTS THOSE ARE MINIMUMS. SO IN THE IN THE PLAN THAT YOU'VE PRESENTED HERE, WHAT IS THE AVERAGE LOT SIZE ACROSS ALL OF THOSE HOMES. IT'S 11,840FT■!S. THAT'S MORE DETAIL THAN I WANTED TO GIVE. BUT THAT'S WHAT IT IS. SO AGAIN, JUST TO AGAIN, THIS IS THIS THING'S EVOLVED AND WE'VE TIGHTENED IT UP FROM PROCESS. AY SAY WE COULD PUT 40 TYPE C, 11 OR 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS.

INCLUDE THAT INTO THE PD TO GIVE E LOOK AT MY NOTES HERE. AGAIN, THIS IS TOUGH BECAUSE THE ENGINEERING IS NOT DONE. IT'S LIKE THE MAN IN THE MAX. I KNOW ON EACH OF THESE WHERE WE'RE AT NOW. YEAH. THIS IS THIS IS TOUGH BECAUSE YOU REALLY ARE EARLY IN THE PROCESS. I THINK WE COULD PUT A CAP ON THAT OF, AGAIN, THIS IS OUT OF 225, 223 ISN'T THE ACTUAL PLAN. IF YOU COUNTED

[01:20:05]

ALL THE DOTS, I THINK WE COULD CAP THAT AT 150 JUST TO COMFORTABLY DO THAT. THAT'S WHA.

YEAH. SO YOU'RE 76 BY 140, WHICH IS OUR TYPICAL. NOW WE HAVE STANDARDS THAT ALLOW US TO GO LESS THAN THAT. AND CUL DE SACS AND THINGS. BUT EVEN A 76 BY 40 IS 10,640. SO THE MASS IS PRETTY EASY. NOW WE HAVE SOME LOTS THAT ARE COMING IN A LITTLE UNDER THAT BECAUSE OF ODD SHAPES AND CUL DE SACS AND BULBS AND EVERYTHING. BUT, YOU KNOW, OUR STANDARD LOT IS 76 BY 140.

THAT'S 10,640 RIGHT THERE. SO AGAIN, WE'VE WE'VE UPPED THE LOW END FROM TEN TO 10 TO 50 ON EVERY ONE OF THE LOTS IS GOING TO BE IN EXCESS OF 10 TO 50. AND WE'RE WILLING TO MATCH THE HIGH END. WE CAN'T GET TO THE 49 THAT'S IN THE CURRENT PD, BUT WE CAN GET I BELIEVE WE CAN GET TO THE 40 AND LIVE WITH THAT. IF THAT HELPS KIND OF SOLIDIFY THE TOP END LOT SIZE. SO COMPARED TO THE EXISTING PD IS 40 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS AND THEN A CAP OF 150 ON THE 10,002 50. YES.

OKAY. BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY PRETTY CLOSE TO THE PLAN YOU PRESENTED. YES. AND WE'RE NOT TRYING TO PUT YOU IN A CORNER. I KNOW IT'S REAL EARLY IN THAT BECAUSE, YEAH, YOUR AVERAGE IS WAY OVER WHAT THE MINIMUMS ARE. AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO. YEAH. OBVIOUSLY ZONING AND PLANNING THEY GO TOGETHER. ONE INFLUENCES THE OTHER. BUT AT THIS POINT WE'VE WE'VE DONE ENOUGH WORK ON THAT PLAN THAT WE HAVE BEFORE YOU IS PRETTY TIGHT. SO I FEEL LIKE WE CAN STRETCH AND GET THOSE GOALS PUT INTO THE PD. WITH THE CAP OF THE 150 ON THE TOP ACE AND A MINIMUM OF 40 ON THE. WE WORK WITH STAFF TO INTEGRATE THE TYPE C ALL THE SAME STANDARDS, AND TYPE B JUST LARGER LOT MINIMUM. CAN I ASK A QUESTION ON THE JUST BACK TO THE A, B, AND C AGAIN? SO IF WE'RE DOING A MINIMUM OF 40 ON TYPE C AND WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF 60 ON TYPE B, WE'RE AT 100. AND YEAH, THE MINIMUM OF 60 WOULD COME OFF. I WOULD SAY HEY WE HAVE A MINIMUM OF 40 ON THE TYPE C'S.

BASICALLY TAKE THAT MINIMUM SHIFT IT TO THE NEW TYPE C AND A CAP OF 150 ON THE TYPE A, AND THE B'S WILL JUST FALL OUT TO WHAT THEY COME OUT TO BE. SO GOOD. I APPRECIATE YOUR OKAY BECAUSE OTHERWISE WE'RE WE PUT IT IN A CONFLICTING MATH THERE. YES, YES. THAT'S WHY I WAS ASKING. SO WE ELIMINATE THE MINIMUMS ON THE, THE MINIMUM. WE PUT A CAP ON THE LOW END AND A MINIMUM ON THE HIGH END. AND THEN THE B'S FALL OUT WHEN THEY FALL OUT. BUT AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU'RE NOT ANTICIPATING THAT THAT AVERAGE LOT SIZE IS GOING TO DROP BELOW. NO. AGAIN, THE WAY THAT THE PLAN IS LAID OUT RIGHT NOW, WHICH INCORPORATES THE PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS, THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPE AREA, THE AMENITY AREA, THE PARKLAND WHERE WE'RE EXCEEDING THE MINIMUMS, ALL THOSE THINGS, THE ACTUAL MATH WHERE WE'RE AT NOW IS 11.8. SO WE DON'T ANTICIPATE ANY NOMINAL, SIGNIFICANT, SIGNIFICANT CHANGES TO THE CONCEPT PLAN AS WE HAVE DRAWN UP RIGHT NOW. SO WITH THOSE WITH THAT AVERAGE, YOU BACK IT INTO THE ACTUALS. THAT'S WHERE WE'RE COMING UP WITH THE CAPS AND THE MEANS FOR THE TYPE A'S AND THE TOP C'S. YEAH, I MEAN MY PERSONAL $0.02. AND THIS IS PIGGYBACKING A BIT ON WHAT COMMISSIONER HAMILTON SAID. I PUT A LOT OF VALUE IN THE MINIMUM HOME SIZE GOING UP TO 2000 402,800. THAT'S A PRETTY BIG JUMP. YOU KNOW, 11,840. THAT'S OVER A QUARTER ACRE. I LIVE ON LESS THAN A QUARTER ACRE HERE IN PROSPER. YOU KNOW, IT SEEMS OKAY TO ME TO HAVE THAT KIND OF AVERAGE, AVERAGE LOT SIZE. MR. CHAIR, IF I COULD ADD ONE MORE THING AND IT'S NOT, IT'S ANOTHER NUMBER TO JUST KEEP IN MIND THERE'S A SECONDARY THING. I KNOW WE'RE TALKING ABOUT THE LOT SIZES. I KNOW COMMISSIONER HARRIS HAS HAS MENTIONED IT SEVERAL TIMES. YOU KNOW THE 12,500, WHICH IS THE FLOOR, SO TO SPEAK, FOR THE MEDIUM DENSITY. BUT THE OTHER THING THAT'S IN THERE THAT REALLY COMES INTO PLAY IS WHAT THE DENSITY IS. AND IT CAN BE MORE THAN 2.5. AND FRANKLY, THEY'RE PRETTY CLOSE TO THE 2.5. AND SO THEY CAN'T REALLY. AND THESE NUMBERS THAT THEY HAVE ARE MINIMUMS. THEY'RE THEY'RE NOT NECESSARILY ALL GOING TO BE THAT THEY CAN'T BE SMALLER THAN THAT.

BUT A LOT OF THEM ARE GOING TO HAVE TO BE BIGGER IN ORDER FOR THEM TO KEEP THEIR 2.5 DENSITY.

BECAUSE IF THEY GET TO 2.6, THEY CAN'T DO IT BECAUSE THEY'RE NO LONGER IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY.

THEY'RE NOW IN THE HIGH DENSITY. SO YOU HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT DENSITY NUMBER WHILE YOU'RE YOU'RE LOOKING AT WHAT THE LOT SIZES ARE BECAUSE THEY, THEY DO PLAY AGAINST EACH OTHER IN SOME

[01:25:06]

INSTANCES. THEY DON'T THEY DON'T REALLY COMPLEMENT EACH OTHER. AND I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT NOT TO LOSE SIGHT OF THAT. YEAH. IT'S A IT'S A 2.48. SO THEY'RE UP AGAINST IT. YEAH. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR CLINT THIS EVENING OR SO. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING I KNOW I'VE GOT ANOTHER COMMENT REQUEST FORM. IS THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS, THIS EVENING OR COMMENTS, IF WE DO HAVE ANY OF THOSE, JUST MAKE SURE TO STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. EXCUSE M. YES, SIR. A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE THING ON THE STAFF'S SUMMARY, THEY HAD THE MAXIMUM WALK COVERAGE EXISTING IS 45. AND OUR PD IT'S ACTUALLY REQUESTING 50. THAT'S JUST A REFLECTION THAT HOMES JUST KEEP GETTING BIGGER AND BIGGER AND DEEPER. AND DEEPER AND DEEPER. SO WE ARE ASKING FOR AN INCREASE FROM THE 45 IN THE CURRENT PD TO 50. THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT FOR REMEMBERING THAT. AND THEN ALSO ON THE LAST, ONE OF THE LAST THINGS IN THE STAFF REPORT ABOUT THE SCREENING, IT IT NOTES THAT AND IT'S I REREAD OUR PD PACKAGE. IT IS A LITTLE UNCLEAR THAT IT'S WORDED THAT WHATEVER DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS FIRST SHALL BUILD THE SCREENING WALL AND THAT WAS INTENDED TO BE IF THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPS FIRST, THEY WILL BUILD THE SCREENING WALL. IF THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPS FIRST, THEY WILL BUILD THE SCREENING WALL. AND THAT WOULD AVOID THE CONCERN YOU HAD EARLIER ABOUT WOODEN FENCE VERSUS MASONRY. WHO COMES FIRST? WHERE DO YOU BUILD IT? MAINTENANCE. ALL THOSE THINGS.

SO THE APPLICANT LOOKING TO PURCHASE AND DEVELOP THE RESIDENTIAL IS WORKING WITH THE OWNER OF THE COMMERCIAL SO THAT IT'S GOING TO BE THE WAY IT'S I THINK STAFF INTERPRETED IT OR WROTE IT UP IN THE REPORT WAS THE FIRST COMMERCIAL TRUCK WOULD BUILD THIS SCREEN WALL. IT'S INSTEAD INTENDED TO BE THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT PERIOD. WHETHER IT'S SINGLE FAMILY OR COMMERCIAL. SO THAT WOULD HAVE THE SCREENING WALL BUILT. FIRST TIME SOMEBODY TURNS DIRT AND BUILDS ANYTHING, WHETHER IT'S A COMMERCIAL SIDE OR THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, THE WALL GOES IN. SO SORRY ABOUT THAT. LIKELY THAT WOULD BE THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE AT THIS POINT. THAT WOULD BE THE STAGE OF THE GAME, UNLESS THE COMMERCIAL COMES UP WITH A USER THAT WE DON'T KNOW ABOUT AND THEY'RE READY TO GO REALLY, REALLY FAST. THERE'S A LOT MORE WORK TO DO TO GET THAT COMMERCIAL SIDE READY TO GO WITH ALL THE. IN ALL LIKELIHOOD, IT'LL BE THE COMMERCIAL. AND AGAIN, THAT'S UNUSUAL FOR THE RESIDENTIAL OR EXCUSE ME, IT'LL BE THE RESIDENTIAL UNUSUAL FOR THE RESIDENTIAL BUILT MASONRY SCREENING WALLS. BUT WE FELT LIKE AND WE'VE DONE THIS IN OUR OWN NEIGHBORHOODS AND FURTHER DOWN IN VILLAGE OF THE LEGACY THAT THE CONFLICT WITH THE WOOD VERSUS THE BRICK IS, IT'S UNAVOIDABLE. UNLESS YOU JUST BUILD THE WALL FIRST TIME RIGHT OUT OF THE BOX. IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE MONEY UP FRONT, BUT IT'S A LOT LESS HEADACHE. AND YOU GET THE FINISHED PRODUCT. DAY ONE. WELL, I APPRECIATE YOUR PRESENTATION AND GOING THROUGH ALL OUR QUESTIONS. AND THAT WAS VERY USEFUL. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS BEFORE WE CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING? AT THIS POINT, NO MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE. SO I'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS FOR DISCUSSION HERE. REGULAR AGENDA

[6. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to rezone 120.5± acres on Collin County School Land Survey 12, Abstract 147, Tract 45 from Planned Development-44 (Single Family & Retail) to a Planned Development with Single Family and Retail uses, located on the southeast corner of Legacy Drive and Frontier Parkway. (ZONE-24-0013) ]

ITEM NUMBER SIX. COMMISSIONER HAMILTON, I'M GOING TO START WITH YOU. IF YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTS THIS EVENING. I AM IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGES ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE. I DO LIKE THE CONNECTIVITY WITH THE HIKING WALKING TRAIL BETWEEN THE NEIGHBORHOOD TO CONNECT TO THE PARK. I LIVE IN A NEIGHBORHOOD THAT HAS A SIMILAR TYPE OF SITUATION, AND HAVING AN AMENITY THAT YOU CAN GET TO WITHIN 2 TO 3 MINUTES ADDS VALUE TO THE ENTIRE NEIGHBORHOOD. SO WHETHER YOU'RE ON THE SIDE CLOSEST TO LEGACY AND YOU HAVE THE AMENITY CENTER IN THE MIDDLE OR WALKING TO THE PARK, I THINK THAT'S A GREAT CONNECTIVITY. SO I'M REALLY IN FAVOR OF HOW THAT IS LAID OUT AND THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THAT THEY HAVE ON THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE PROPERTY. I'M DEFINITELY IN FAVOR OF THE LARGER HOME SIZES, AND I APPRECIATE THE COMPROMISE ON ADDING THE MINIMUM OF 40 TYPE C LOTS. SO I'M VERY IN FAVOR OF ALL THAT. THE COMMERCIAL ON THE NORTH WEST CORNER, I'M NOT AS I GUESS I'M I'M HAVING A HARD TIME VISUALIZING HOW THAT'S GOING TO LOOK, I GUESS. RIGHT NOW I THINK THE CAR COULD YOU PULL UP WHAT THEY CAN BUILD BY. RIGHT. I THINK ONE OF THEM WAS LIKE A GAS STATION, RIGHT, WITH PUMPS. SO BY RIGHT. OH, GOTCHA. OKAY, SO NOW IT'S. IT SHOULD BE PERFECT. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WAS GOING TO BE MY QUESTION. OKAY, GREAT.

THANK YOU. SO THESE ARE ALL WHAT IT WAS BEFORE. CAN YOU FLIP INTO WHAT IT IS NOW. ALSO FOR

[01:30:10]

CLARIFICATION FOR THESE USES THIS IS WHAT IT WOULD BE NOW. AND I JUST HIGHLIGHTED WHAT WAS BY RIGHT PREVIOUSLY. YEAH. OKAY. YEAH. AND YEAH THERE'S ALSO THESE USES THAT WOULD GO AWAY AS WELL IF IT WERE TO GET APPROVED. OKAY. AND THEN THE THROUGH THE MIDDLE OF THE COMMERCIAL AREA WHERE THERE'S THE, THE GREEN SPACE AND THERE'S A WALKING TRAIL, WHO MAINTAINS THAT? AGAIN, THE PROPERTY OWNERS ASSOCIATION, THE HOA ON PROPERTY FOR THE. YEAH, THERE'S GOING TO BE A POE FOR THE COMMERCIAL AREA THAT EVERYONE HAS TO BUY INTO, AND IT'LL BE MAINTAINED BY THEM. I HAVE NO OTHER. I HAVE NO OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS. I'M IN FAVOR OF ALL THE CHANGES THAT WERE MADE TO THIS TONIGHT. AND PREVIOUSLY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

COMMISSIONER HARRIS. YEAH, OF COURSE YOU CAN PASS YOUR CHOICE. I THINK THANK YOU FOR THE PRESENTATION. THANK YOU FOR ANSWERING OUR QUESTIONS AND BEING SO THOROUGH. AND THANK YOU FOR MAKING THE CHANGES THAT YOU MADE FROM THE LAST PRESENTATION TO THIS PRESENTATION. YOU KNOW, I DON'T YOU KNOW, OVERALL, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE. I REMEMBER THE FIRST TIME THAT YOU ALL BROUGHT THIS TO US, AND I THINK MANY OF THE CHANGES THAT WE DISCUSSED, AS WELL AS YOUR OPENNESS TO MAKE ADDITIONAL CHANGES, ARE IMPORTANT. I THINGS AND TO HAVE CERTAIN MINIMUMS AND MAXIMUMS. BUT I THINK WE NEED TO HAVE ALL THAT STUFF IN WRITING MOVING FORWARD.

AND I'M ALWAYS GOING TO BE A PROPONENT OF KEEPING OUR MINIMUMS WHERE THEY STAND AND BEING HARD AND FAST ON THAT. I THINK WE GET A LOT OF PROPOSALS IN ALL THE TIME, AND EVERYONE IS ASKING FOR AN INCH HERE AND AN INCH THERE, AND YOU LOOK UP AFTER A COUPLE OF YEARS AND YOU'VE GIVEN UP QUITE A BIT. AND I THINK EACH ONE HAS TO STAND ON ITS OWN, AND YOU'VE GOT TO MAKE A STRONG CASE IF YOU WANT THOSE MINIMUMS REDUCED. AND WE'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT YOU MAKE THAT CASE. SO THAT WAS EVIDENCE OF THAT TODAY. I THINK THE ARGUMENT IN TERMS OF THE OVERALL APPEAL, I THINK IS ONE THAT IS CONVINCING. AND FOR THAT REASON I CAN SUPPORT THIS. BUT YOU KNOW, I HAVE THE SAME RESERVATIONS ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL, BUT I DON'T THINK WE KNOW ANYTHING RIGHT NOW ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY, I MEAN, WHATEVER IS UP THERE IS OBVIOUSLY COULD CHANGE DRAMATICALLY BY TOMORROW. SO, YOU KNOW, APPROVING ANYTHING THAT WOULD BE A WASTE OF TIME. SO I HAVE NO ISSUES MOVING FORWARD WITH THIS. WELL, I WOULD HAVE TO SAY I USUALLY ALIGN WITH YOU, BUT I DISAGREE IN THIS INSTANCE. I APPRECIATE THE HOUSE SIZE CONSIDERATION. I AGREE WITH THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS. I THINK THAT'S A POSITIVE NET BENEFIT, BUT ALL WE'VE EFFECTIVELY DONE IS PUT A BIGGER HOUSE ON A SMALLER LOT. AND I APPRECIATE THAT. IN THE SPIRIT OF THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN, IT MEETS THE DENSITY. I THINK THAT'S THAT'S A BIT OF A OF A LOOPHOLE. AND I THINK WE'RE MAXING OUT EVERY POSSIBLE WAY TO MEET WITHIN THAT WHICH I DON'T ALWAYS APPRECIATE. I THINK IT'S THIS IS A DEVELOPER ORIENTED RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT THAT I DON'T, I DON'T LOVE. IT'S MORE LOT COVERAGE. THE SMALLER LOT WIDTH. I ACTUALLY PROBABLY DISAGREE WITH COMMISSIONER HAMILTON. I WOULD PAY MORE FOR LAND THAN THAN HOUSE. FRANKLY, AT THIS POINT IN PROSPER FOLKS OVER THE YEARS HAVE TALKED ABOUT MEDIUM DENSITY. I THINK THERE'S A CERTAIN SPIRIT OF PROSPER THAT THAT THAT'S TRYING TO PROTECT. AND I THINK THERE'S THIS GRAY AREA THAT EXISTS BECAUSE THE LAND USE PLAN ALLOWS IT TO EXIST, WHICH SHOULD GET FIXED. BUT THAT'S SEPARATE THAN TONIGHT, THAT WHENEVER YOU HAVE A MINIMUM OF 12, FIVE, IN WHICH VERY FEW OF THOSE LOTS EVEN MEE. TO ME, WE'RE GIVING WE'RE CONTINUING TO GIVE AND GIVE. AND I THINK YOUR SUMMARY WAS REALLY GOOD OF HOW FAR ARE WE GOING TO GO BEFORE WE DRAW A LINE AND REALIZE THAT THERE WAS AN INTENT AND A SPIRIT OF A MEDIUM DENSITY LOT, AS OPPOSED TO A HIGH DENSITY LOT, AND WE'RE CLOSER WITH THESE TYPE A'S TO A LOW DENSITY LOT THAN WE'RE EVEN EVEN THE MEDIUM DENSITY BECAUSE OF THAT GRAY AREA. SO I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT AS IT'S PROPOSED. THERE WASN'T A LOT OF EFFORT PUT INTO IT, BUT I FEEL LIKE WE'RE PUSHING EVERY POSSIBLE WAY TO STAY WITHIN AND MAXIMIZE LOTS.

AND I JUST DON'T THINK THAT THAT IS WHAT CREATES THE BEST DEVELOPMENTS AND PROSPER. ON THE FLIP SIDE, I'M PERFECTLY OKAY WITH THE WITH THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT. I THINK THAT'S A

[01:35:06]

GOOD, GOOD CORNER FOR WHAT'S, YOU KNOW, CONCEPTUALLY SHOWN. AND I THINK THE SITE PLAN AND THE WAY THAT WE ARE VERY THOUGHTFUL IN THAT WILL WORK OUT ANYTHING ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE.

SO I CAN CERTAINLY SUPPORT THE COMMERCIAL COMPONENT, BUT I AM NOT IN FAVOR OF THE RESIDENTIAL AS AS OUTLINED IN HERE. MR. JACKSON. I WOULD JUST SAY I ECHO COMMISSIONER HARRIS, COMMISSIONER CARSON. THE OTHER PIECE I WOULD SAY IS WHEN I SEE A DEVELOPMENT WITH ALL OF THESE HOMES AND NO REAL AMENITIES. SO YOU'RE IN PROSPER. THERE'S NO YOU GOT A SMALL BACKYARD, YOU CAN'T PUT A POOL IN IT, AND THERE'S NOTHING AROUND. INSIDE THE COMMUNITY FOR FOLKS TO DO OUTSIDE OF A PARK. IT JUST KIND OF BECAUSE THERE'S SO MANY HOMES.

THERE'S NO NO ACTUAL POOL OR SOMETHING FOR FOLKS TO GO TO IN THERE. IT'S JUST A LOT OF HOMES AND A SMALL AMOUNT OF SPACE. SO I'M NOT I'M NOT FOR IT. SO I'LL BE VOTING AGAINST IT.

COMMISSIONER BENSON. ACTUALLY, I LIKE THIS PROPOSAL. I THINK IT'S ALL. I THINK IT'S WELL DONE. I THINK IT'S A NICE LOOKING DEVELOPMENT. I LIKE THE CHANGES. I APPRECIATE THE CHANGES THAT WE'RE MAKING. I THINK THEY'RE IMPROVEMENTS TO WHAT'S BEEN PRESENTED TONIGHT AND SO WE CAN AND AS LONG AS WE'RE STILL MEETING WITHIN THE LAND USE PLAN REQUIREMENTS, THEY ARE WHAT THEY ARE. AND I THINK THAT'S I THINK THESE THIS DOES THAT. SO I'M I'M CERTAINLY IN FAVOR OF THIS.

COMMISSIONER FUREY. SO I WILL BE FAR FROM A A DENSITY PROBLEM, THOUGH. I MEAN, I PERSONALLY HAVE LIKE A QUARTER ACRE. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT, I LIVE ON A LITTLE LESS THAN A QUARTER ACRE. AS KIND OF THE THRESHOLD FOR WHERE WE WANT RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT TO BE.

YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO APARTMENTS HERE. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THE COMMERCIAL. I PRESUME THAT WHEN ALL IS SAID AND DONE, THAT COMMERCIAL PLAN IS NOT GOING TO COME TO FRUITION. IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING DIFFERENT. BY THE TIME THAT ACTUALLY HAPPENS, IT'S GOING TO BE BACK IN FRONT OF THIS BOARD. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH WITH THE PROPOSAL. THE ONLY QUESTION THAT I WOULD HAVE AND PERHAPS IT'S ONE FOR STAFF IS THAT DO WE ACTUALLY NEED TO TABLE THIS AND VOTE ON IT WITH THOSE CHANGES THAT WERE DISCUSSED AT THIS MEETING REGARDING THE MINIMUMS, RATHER THAN APPROVING IT AS IT IS BEFORE US NOW? YOUR CHANGES CAN JUST BE MADE IN THE MOTION.

UNDERSTOOD. ALL RIGHT. THANKS, COMMISSIONER FURAY, AND I'LL KIND OF FINALIZE THE COMMENTS HERE. AND WE'LL SEE WHERE THE VOTE GOES. I THINK THEY WERE APPROVED TO GO.

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 44. CORRECT. WITH ALL THOSE LOT SIZES THAT I SEE THERE, AND I SEE WHAT IMPROVEMENTS WE GET WITH THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT THAT WE'RE GETTING IN PLACE, I THINK IT'S GOING TO BE A QUALITY PRODUCT. AND YEAH, THE LOT SIZES ARE WHAT THEY ARE. BUT REALLY, AS IT WAS SHOWN AGAIN, WE'VE GOT A WHOLE COMMITMENT TO IN WRITING, BUT YOU'RE SHOWING 11,800 SQUARE FOOT ON THAT PLAN. WE LOOKED AT AND I KNOW THAT MAY CHANGE AND UNLESS WE HAVE IT DOCUMENTED, IT DOESN'T REALLY MEAN A LOT. SO I'M ACTUALLY IN FAVOR KIND OF TO ECHO COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD'S COMMENTS OF THESE CHANGES FROM WHERE WE STARTED, WHETHER I LIKE THE SIZE OF A LOT OR A SIZE OF A HOUSE, I'M GOING FROM 44 TO THIS NEW PLAN THAT'S PROPOSED TONIGHT. SO I'M I'M IN FAVOR OF THESE CHANGES. I LIKE THE COMMENTARY WE HAD ABOUT THE THE CAP OF 150 ON THE TOP, A 10,250 IF THAT'S HOW IT GOES. SO I'M IN FAVOR OF THE CHANGES FROM WHERE WE WERE TO WHERE WE'RE GOING. I THINK IT'S AN IMPROVEMENT. I APPRECIATE YOUR WORK ON IT, AND I APPRECIATE TOWN STAFF. AND SO WITH THAT, I'LL TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSIONERS TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION. WE HAVE SEVEN OF US. SO IF WE HAVE SOME DIFFERENT VOTES HERE TODAY, THAT'S THE WAY IT'LL GO. NOW THIS GOES TO TOWN COUNCIL. WHEN THEIR NEXT MEETING OR THE NEXT ONE AFTER THAT. OKA.

SO WE CAN'T. THAT'S THE WEEK OF THANKSGIVING. THAT THAT THAT TUESDAY OF THANKSGIVING WEEK.

OKAY. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. SO I APPRECIATE SO WE'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION IF SOMEONE WANTS TO PUT A MOTION ON THE FLOOR AND SEE WHERE IT GOES. MR. CHAIRMAN, WITH THE FOLLOWING CHANGES THAT THE THAT A TYPE C LOT BE ADDED. MINIMUM OF 12,000FT■!S WITH A MINIMUM OF 40. AND THAT WE SET

[01:40:01]

THE MAXIMUM FOR TYPE A LOTS TO BE 150. THAT THE LOT COVERAGE, MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE WOULD BE MODIFIED FROM 45 TO 50%. AND THAT THE DESCRIPTION OF THE WALL BEING BUILT BY THE BETWEEN THE DEVELOPMENTS WOULD BE FIRST, WOULD BE BUILT BY THE FIRST DEVELOPMENT BETWEEN THE RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, THAT THAT LANGUAGE WOULD BE CORRECTED AND ONE OTHER THING, IF YOU DON'T MIND ADDING IS WE'RE WE'RE ALSO REMOVING THE MINIMUM ON THE TYPE B AND YES, REMOVING THE MINIMUM OF TYPE B I'LL SECOND THAT MOTION. OKAY. VERY GOOD MOTION. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR. AND I KNOW WE'RE GETTING THAT DOCUMENTED FOR THE THAT MOTION. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THAT MOTION, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND SO WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HAMILTON IN FAVOR. COMMISSIONER DANIEL, COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD, COMMISSIONER FÜLE. ALL IN FAVOR? ALL THOSE OPPOSED? WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HARRIS, COMMISSIONER CARSON AND COMMISSIONER JACKSON AGAINST. SO THE MOTION CARRIES ON REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SIX AND A43 VOTE. THANK YOU EVERYONE. APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE.

THANKS. AND ALL THE WORK ON THA. ALL RIGHT. OKAY. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN THIS EVENING

[7. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request to rezone 5.7± acres on George Horn Survey, Abstract 412, Tract 2 from Agricultural to Planned Development–Retail, located on the west side of Custer Road and 470± feet south of Frontier Drive. (ZONE-24-0017) ]