[00:00:02]
          YOU FEEL LIKE IT'S LIKE, YEAH, WE DO GREAT. WE DO GREAT. I DON'T GET THAT EITHER. ALL RIGHT. IF WE'RE GOOD IN THE BACK, WE'RE GOING TO GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. WE GOOD? OKAY. 
          [1. Call to Order / Roll Call. ]
THANK YOU. EVERYBODY READY? YES, SIR. BORN READY. GOOD EVENING. THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 5TH, 2024. PROSPER PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:00 PM. PLEASE NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS ARE PRESENT THIS EVENING FOR THOSE MEMBERS IN THE AUDIENCE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION, THOSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION MUST COMPLETE THE PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORM LOCATED ON THE TOWN WEBSITE OR IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. I HAVE A FEW UP HERE ALREADY. THIS EVENING. IF YOU'RE ATTENDING IN PERSON, PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD CHAIR, A STAFF MEMBER PRIOR TO THE MEETING. WHEN CALLED UPON, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD. ITEM TWO THIS EVENING IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. WILL EVERYONE PLEASE RISE? I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR 
          [3. Election of Officers ]
          [CONSENT AGENDA]
COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD, I'D LIKE TO PULL FOR BE 
          [Items 4b. & 4c.]
          [00:08:16]
FOR ONE, WHY WOUD WE WAIT TO. IF THIS COULD BE THAT THIS COULD COME BEFORE US IN THE NEXT MEETING? WHY WOULDN'T WE JUST WAIT TILL THEN AND APPROVE IT? AND IT ALL JUST GOES THROUGH TOGETHER. AND 
          [00:10:57]
THE STREET. AND SO IF IT WAS FLIPPED TO WHERE MIKE HOWARD LANE WAS, THE SITE WHERE WE HAD THIS ISSU, I DON'T THINK WE'D BE IN FAVOR OF IT BECAUSE IT'S TECHNOLOGY, LANE, AND IT'S AN INTERNAL STREET WITHIN DEVELOPMENT. WE DON'T BELIEVE IT'S AS APPLICABL. 
          YEAH. 
          WE WERE LOOKING AT THE SETBACK, WHAT THE REQUIREMENT WAS. AND Y'ALL MAY REMEMBER WE JUST RECENTLY CHANGED COOK TO MIKE HOWARD DRIVE WHICH DOESN'T NECESSARILY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO WITH THE CASE. OTHER TO THE FACT THAT THESE CROSSLAND BUILDINGS ARE ACTUALLY NICE LOOKING BUILDINGS AND THEY COVER UP IF YOU IS OFFO THE EAST. AND THAT LAY DOWN YARD FROM ANY PEOPLE THAT ARE DRIVING ALONG DOESN'T REALLY HURT ANYTHING TO DO IT, YOU KNOW. AND SO WE THOUGHT, OKAY, LET'S DO IT. AND THEN THE. TIMING CAME IN MATTER WHAT THE SETBACK OF THE BUILDING IS WE'RE ACTUALLY DOING AT THE STAFF LEVEL. AND IT SHOULD BE ON YOUR NEXT AGENDA AS FAR AS THE PROCESS GOES. SO THIS IS NOT SOMETHING THAT'S GOING TO BE OUT. YOU KNOW, IN THE NEXT YEAR OR SOMETHING. IT'S GOING TO HAPPEN RIGHT. AWAY. IF FOR SOME REASON UNITS AND THEY WILL STILL BACK TO WHERE WE WIND UP WITH SOMETHING THAT'S APPROVED THAT THAT AS FAR AS THIS IS CONCERNED, BUT NOT GOING TO BE APPROVED AS FAR AS THE AMENDMENT IS CONCERNED. IT'S TO ME, IT'S PURELY ESTHETICS. WHEN YOU GET RIGHT DOWN TO BRASS TACKS. SO OKAY, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF ON THE FLOOR B OR C AT THIS POINT? IF NOT, LET'S B ANDK YOU COMMISSIONER BLANCHETT. WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE B AND C. DO WE HAVE A SECOND I SECOND HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER JACKSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOUR B AND FOUR C SUBJECT TO TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. 
          PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND THE MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0 IS THE NEXT ITEM THAT YOU GUYS PULLED. 
          [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) ]
CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST TO REZONE 5.7 ACRES ON GEORGE HORN SURVEY ABSTRACT 412. TRACK TWO, FROM AGRICULTURAL TO HUNDRED AND 70FT SOUTH OF FRONTIER PARKWAY. THIS IS CASE ZONE DASH 20 4-0017. ALL RIGHT. JUST TO SHOW YOU THE PROPERTY BOUNDARY HERE, AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S RIGHT ON THE WEST SIDE OF CUSTER ROAD AND A LITTLE BIT SOUTH OF FRONTIER PARKWAY. THIS PROPOSAL IS FOR TO CONSTRUCT A RETAIL BUILDING ON THE NORTHERN TRACK. SO IT'S GOING TO BE SPLIT INTO TWO LOTS. AND THEN TO CONSTRUCT A PRIVATE SCHOOL AT THE BARN, GREENHOUSE, MUSIC ROOM AND PLAYGROUND ON THE SOUTHERN TRACT. THE HISTORY ON THIS IS THAT EARLIER THIS YEAR, THERE WAS A REQUEST FOR THIS SIMILAR PROJECT UNDER A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA. HOWEVER, IT WAS RELOCATED TO ADDRESS PREVIOUS CONCERNS REGARDING THE LOCATION OF THE PREVIOUS REQUEST. HERE'S THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN. WE CAN SEE IT SHOWS RETAIL, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES ON THE SUBJECT PROPERTY. THE FUTURE LAND USE NEIGHBORHOOD OFFICES AND SMALL MEDICAL OFFICES. HERE'S A ZONING MAP THAT SHOWS THE CURRENT ZONING OF THE AREA. AND HERE'S KIND OF A CHART THAT BREAKS IT ALL DOWN. SO IT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AGRICULTURAL. TO THE NORTH IS ZONED AGRICULTURAL. IT'S GOT THAT SELF-STORAGE FACILITY ON IT THAT JUST WAS INCORPORATED LATER. TO THE EAST IS THE CITY OF MCKINNEY. TO THE SOUTH IS AGRICULTURAL, AND IT'S THE HOUSE OF WORSHIP. IT'S RAY MILLS CHURCH. AND THEN TO THE WEST, YOU HAVE SOME SINGLE FAMILY ESTATE. LOTS. SO HERE IS THE ENTIRE SITE PLAN. THE ENTIRE 5.7 ACRES. SO THIS IS GOING TO BE WHERE THE NORTH, THE RETAIL BUILDING IS GOING TO BE ON THE NORTHERN TRACT. AND THEN HERE IS GOING TO BE THE PRIVATE SCHOOL ON THE SOUTHERN TRACT. AND THIS IS GOING TO BE DEVELOPED FIRST. THIS IS PRIMARILY WHAT THE ZONING REQUEST IS FOR. AND HERE'S KIND OF A ZOOMED IN ANGLE OF THE TRACK TO THE SOUTH. SO YOU CAN SEE EXACT SAME AS THE RETAIL DISTRICT IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE. THERE ARE NO CHANGES TO THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS HER. THE USES PERMITTED BY RIGHT WILL COME THROUGH. AND THESE ARE THE LIST OF USES THAT ARE GOING TO BE PERMITTED FOR BOTH TRACKS. ON TRACK TWO, IT'S ONLY GOING TO BE THE PRIVATE SCHOOL. AND THEN NO MEDICAL OFFICE, JUST PROFESSIONAL. AND SO FOR THE NORTHERN TRACK, THESE ARE THE LANDSCAPING REQUIREMENTS. THE ONLY DIFFERENCE HERE IS ON THE WESTERN END THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WAS INCREASED ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND THEN ON THE SOUTHERN TRACT AGAIN THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS HERE WERE THAT THE LANDSCAPE BUFFER WAS INCREASED ON THE WESTERN SIDE ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL AREA. AND INSTEAD OF THE PLANTINGS FOR THESE BUFFERS THAT ARE IN THE 15 FOOT LANDSCAPE AREA, THEY'RE GOING TO THE REQUIRED SCREENING FOR THE NORTHERN TRACT. THERE'S ONLY GOING TO BE A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL ADJACENT TO THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. ALL OF IT COMPLIES WITH OUR ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THE SCREENING TO THE NORTHERN TRACT. FOR THE SOUTHERN TRACT, WHERE THE PRIVATE SCHOOL IS 
          [01:45:03]
GOING TO BE LOCATED. THERE'S NO SCREENING REQUIRED ON THE NORTHERN BOUNDARY. THERE'S NO SCREENING REQUIRED ADJACENT TO CUSTER. THE ONLY SCREEN THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED, PER OUR ORDINANCES, ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. SINCE THE CHURCH IS ZONED RESIDENTIAL. AGRICULTURAL. 
          ORDINANCE SAYS YOU CAN DO A MASONRY WALL, A LIVING SCREEN. THEY DECIDED TO DO A LIVING SCREEN AND STAFF IS IN SUPPORT OF THAT. AND THEN ALSO ALONG THE WESTERN BOUNDARY ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL. STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A LIVING SCREEN AS THIS AS WELL. TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE EXISTING TOPOGRAPHY IN THE AREA. FOR THE BUILDING MATERIALS FOR THE NORTHERN TRACT. IT'S GOING TO BE CLAY FIRED BRICK. GRANITE, MARBLE, STONE, JUST ESSENTIALLY MASONRY. 
          AND THEN ON THE SOUTHERN TRACK, IT'S GOING TO BE HARDY BOARD SIDING WITH BATTEN AND TRIM. AND HERE'S GO BACK TO THIS ONE ON THE NORTHERN TRACK. THAT'S JUST OUT OF OUR ZONING ORDINANCE FOR WHAT MASONRY IS CONSIDERED FOR DRAINAGE. THERE'S GOING TO BE RETENTION ON THE NORTHERN LOT. IF THEY CAN'T REQUIRE ACQUIRE DRAINAGE AND RETENTION EASEMENTS FROM THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNERS TO USE THE EXISTING POND, WHICH IS PROBABLY MORE THAN LIKELY TO HAPPEN, THAT THEY'LL HAVE TO DO THE RETENTION ON THE NORTHERN TRACT. AND THEN AS PART OF THEIR ZONING AS WELL, THEY DID TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. AND THERE IS A TIA THAT WAS PROVIDED IN YOUR PACKET. AND ADHERENCE TO THE TRAFFIC MANAGEMENT PLAN IS GOING TO BE REQUIRED AS PART OF THIS ZONING. AND IT HAS BEEN REVIEWED AND APPROVED BY THE TOWN'S ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT. 
          SO IN CONCLUSION, NOTICES WERE SENT OUT FRIDAY, OCTOBER 25TH FOR THIS CASE. WE RECEIVED TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION, ONE THAT WAS IN YOUR PACKET FROM THE CHURCH, AND THEN ANOTHER ONE THAT WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE PACKET WENT OUT, WHICH I BELIEVE WAS PROVIDED TO YOU GUYS. TODAY. 
          BUT STAFF DOES YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE THEM TO. OKAY. I THOUGHT THEY MIGHT HAVE HAD A PRESENTATION, BUT I CAN ANSWER QUESTIONS. AND THEN WE CAN LET THE APPLICANT ANSWER THE QUESTIONS. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM. SO LET'S WE'LL HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS AND MAYBE WE'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND WHOEVER WANTS TO THAT. SO I'LL START OFF SOME QUESTIONS. 
          SO YOU KNOW I THINK THE SECOND OPPOSITION FORM THAT WE GOT THIS EVENING, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M CLEAR ON THIS. AND I GUESS IT'S TECHNICALLY IN OPPOSITION, BUT IT REFERENCES THIS DRAINAGE ISSUE THAT YOU HAVE UP ON THE SLIDE. SO, SO LET'S REVIEW THAT A LITTLE BIT. 
          DO WE HAVE THE DRAINAGE COVERED. BECAUSE THAT IS A BIG POND. IT'S GOT SOME BIG FISH IN IT. I KNOW THAT POND PRETTY WELL. ANYWAY. IT'S GOT THAT. AND SO THAT IS A BIG ISSUE. AND TO THAT BECAUSE I THINK YOU MENTIONED THE NORTH PART OF THIS REZONING IS GOING TO BE WHERE IF THEY HAVE TO DO ANY RETENTION POND OR WHATNOT, IT'S GOING TO BE ON THE NORTH SIDE. DO WE HAVE ANY CLUE WHAT KIND OF THESE ARE THE ONLY THINGS THAT THEY COULD PUT ON THAT RETAIL BUILDING. THESE USES HERE AND THAT WAS DONE BECAUSE THEIR SEPTIC OVER ON THAT SIDE. SO OUR TOWN ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT WAS LIKE THERE CAN ONLY BE SPECIFIC USES THAT CAN GO ON SEPTIC. AND THESE ARE THE ONLY USES OUTLINED THAT COULD BE SUPPORTED OFF OF BOTH OF THESE. THE DAYCARE TO IT'LL BE ON SEPTIC AS WELL. CORRECT. OKAY. OKAY. SO I GUESS MY QUESTION WE'LL HAVE THE DRAINAGE COVERED. AND WE'VE GOT THE SPACE ON THAT NORTH LOT TO COVER THAT. SO THIS ISSUE OF IMPACTING THE NEIGHBORHOOD OR THE CHURCH. YEAH. AND THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO IS THEY'RE GOING TO DO THE RETENTION POND ON THE NORTHERN LOT. THAT'LL TAKE CARE OF THE DRAINAGE ISSUE. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR ZACHARY. ONLY QUICK QUESTION IF I UNDERSTAND ON THE SITE PLAN ON THE SOUTHERN TRACK, ARE WE REQUIRING OR AND IF THE APPLICANT IS OKAY WITH THIS, THAT'S PROBABLY IS FINE. BUT IT APPEARS I THINK A 20 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH A LIVING SCREEN. ARE WE? ARE WE DEFINING LIVING SCREEN THERE? SIMILAR TO THE ALTERNATING. YES. SO FROM THE SCHOOL YOU WON'T SEE THE POND. IS THAT YOU PROBABLY WON'T SEE THROUGH. I MEAN, IT'LL BE BLOCKING THE TWO. YEAH, THAT'S THE POINT. I MEAN, IS THAT. I GUESS I'D LIKE WHEN WE OPEN IT UP. I'D LOVE THE APPLICANT TO SPEAK TO THAT, IF THAT'S WHAT THEY WOULD WANT, BUT I FEEL LIKE YOU WOULD WANT TO SEE THE POND, BUT. WELL, THE ISSUE IS LIKE IT'S EITHER THAT OR THE MASONRY WALL, AND YOU DEFINITELY WOULDN'T SEE IT IF YOU HAD THE WALL IN FRONT OF IT. SO IS IT AN OPTION TO NOT DO EITHER? I MEAN, IT'S PART OF THE PLAN THAT YOU GUYS CAN DO WHATEVER YOU WANT. YOU GUYS CAN CHANGE THE STANDARDS TO HOWEVER YOU SEE FIT. IT'S JUST AS STAFF. THERE HAS TO BE SOME SORT OF SCREENING ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL, AND WE FELT LIKE THE LIVING SCREEN WAS MORE APPLICABLE TO THIS SITE. OKAY. WELL, YOU KNOW HOW FAST TREES GROW HERE, SO THEY'LL QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT, WILL WE? YEAH. YOU BET. 
          THERE WAS ALSO AN OBJECTION BY THE CHURCH SOUTH OF THIS PROPERTY. WHAT WAS THEIR OBJECTION? SO I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY. SO HE CALLED ME ON FRIDAY BEFORE THE PACKET WENT 
          [01:50:02]
OUT AND WE HAD LIKE A 25 MINUTE CONVERSATION, BUT HE WAS JUST LOOKING FOR INFORMATION ABOUT THE PROJECT, AND HE DIDN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY WHAT. HONESTLY, WHEN HE LEFT THE PHONE CALL, HE SAID THAT HE HADN'T MADE HIS MIND UP YET. AND THEN HE SENT ME THE EMAIL. I WANT TO SAY 30 MINUTES LATER. SO I DON'T KNOW SPECIFICALLY WHAT WAS THE REASON HE JUST THE CALL WAS ABOUT, HEY, WHAT'S GOING ON IN THE PROPERTY? I GOT A NOTICE, BUT HE DIDN'T SAY SPECIFICALLY WHAT THE REASON FOR OBJECTION WAS. I THINK I CAN GIVE YOU A LITTLE BIT OF INSIGHT INTO WHAT THAT WAS AT THE BEGINNING OF THIS PROCESS. THIS WAS DIFFERENT THAN THE FIRST ONE, OBVIOUSLY, BECAUSE THIS IS A NEW BUILDING, THE FIRST ONE MEANING THE FIRST REQUEST THAT CAME THROUGH THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY EVERYONE HAS THE SAME COMPONENTS, BUT IT'S ALL BEING BUILT NEW, WHEREAS THE OTHER ONE WAS RETROFITTING SOMETHING THAT WAS IN EXISTENCE AND PART OF THIS PROCESS. IF YOU LOOK THE WAY THAT THE BUILDING'S LAYOUT, IT'S KIND OF A LONG, DEEP TRACT OF PROPERTY. THERE WERE ISSUES THAT THAT WE WERE TRYING TO ADDRESS WITH THE APPLICANT. AND ONE OF THE MAIN ONES WAS FIRE SAFETY AND HOW THOSE FIRE TRUCKS OR HOW DO THE FIRE TRUCKS GET ACCESS TO ALL THE COMPONENTS THAT WOULD BE ON THE LOT. AND ONE OF THE POSSIBLE ALTERNATIVES, THROUGH ONE OF THE MANY ITERATIONS THAT WE WENT THROUGH, WE ALL WERE SEEING THIS ONE. WE PROBABLY THE APPLICANT PROBABLY MOANS WHEN THEY THINK ABOUT HOW MANY WE WENT THROUGH DIFFERENT VERSIONS TO BE ABLE TO GET TO THIS POINT, TO BRING IT TO ONE OF THOSE WHICH IS RIGHT UP ADJACENT TO THIS SOUTHERN BOUNDARY LINE. FIRE LANES ALREADY THERE. IT'S, YOU KNOW, THE ONLY PEOPLE THAT USE IT ARE FIRE TRUCKS. AND OBVIOUSLY PEOPLE GOING TO THE CHURCH. I MEAN, IT'S ACCESS AS WELL. AND WE ORIGINALLY HAD ASKED IF IN FACT, THE PARTICULAR LAYOUT AT THAT TIME WAS WHAT WENT FORWARD, THAT THE CHURCH ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IT POTENTIALLY COULD BE USED FOR LIFE SAFETY ISSUES, NOT ACCESS TO THE CHURCH, BUT FOR THE FIRE TRUCK AND WE THINK THAT PROBABLY CAUSED THE CHURCH A LITTLE BIT OF, OF HEARTBURN, NOT KNOWING WHAT EXACTLY THAT MEANT, YOU KNOW, AND I MEAN, IT'S FIRE LANE. YOU CAN'T PARK ON IT NOW NO MATTER WHAT. AND THEN I THINK THAT PERHAPS CAUSED THE CHURCH TO THINK, WELL, YOU KNOW, PARENTS ARE GOING TO BE PARKING THERE ALL THE TIME WHEN THEY'RE DROPPING THEIR KIDS OFF. WELL, THEY CAN'T SO BECAUSE OF THAT, THAT HESITANCY, WE WOUND UP CHANGING WHAT THE LAYOUT WAS THAT NO LONGER AFFECTED THAT FIRE LANE. AND, YOU KNOW, REALITY IS FIRE TRUCKS ARE PROBABLY GOING TO USE WHATEVER ACCESS THEY CAN TO PUT OUT A FIRE. I DON'T THINK THEY'RE GOING TO, YOU KNOW, WAIT, OH, WE CAN'T GO OVER THERE. BUT BUT SIMPLY STATED, IT WAS NO LONGER AN ISSUE. WE FIGURED OUT HOW TO DO IT WITHOUT IT. AND THE FIRE MARSHAL SIGNED OFF ON THE PROPOSAL THAT THAT WAS SUBMITTED, WHICH IS THE RESULT OF WHAT YOU SEE. AND SO WE NEVER ACTUALLY WENT AND HAD A LONG CONVERSATION. DAKARI, AS FAR AS I KNOW, WAS THE ONLY ONE IN OUR OFFICE THAT THAT TALKED TO THE CHURCH REPRESENTATIVE. AND, YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH OF THE INFORMATION WAS RELAYED BECAUSE I WASN'T IN THAT CONVERSATION THEIR VIOLATION IS NOT CONSIDERED PART OF WHAT THE USE IS GOING TO BE. AND SO I THINK FOR ALL PRACTICAL PURPOSES, THAT ONE'S GONE AWAY TOO. SO NOT TO SAY WE DON'T HAVE IT, BUT AT THE SAME TIME I DON'T THINK IT'S RELEVANT. THANK YOU FOR THAT EXPLANATION. AND SO ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT. THEN I'LL GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IF THERE'S NOT AND IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE DO YOU WANT TO TALK TO WE MAY HAVE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS. OR IF YOU HAVE A PRESENTATION, BUT. WE'LL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR SURE THAT ALL OF THEM WELL THESE THESE TWO. YES. THAT'S THE OTHER THING. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS WILLIAM OFFKEY. MY ADDRESS IS 7261 SAN SABA DRIVE, MCKINNEY, TEXAS. 75070. LIKE DAKARI SAID, DAVID SAID, WE'VE BEEN HERE TO CITY COUNCIL BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO FIND ANOTHER LOCATION. 
          SO WE HAVE HERE ON OLD CUSTER ROAD. SAME CONCEPT AS BEFORE. NEW LOCATION IF I NEED TO. KIND OF REFRESH YOU ON THAT, I WILL. OTHERWISE I CAN JUST ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. I'LL 
          [01:55:05]
JUST OPEN WITH A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS BECAUSE I KNOW THE CHURCH IS JUST TO THE SOUTH HERE, BUT AS FAR AS THE DAYCARE, MAYBE KIND OF REVIEWING, I KNOW IT WAS IN OUR PACKET. WHAT ARE THE MAX NUMBER OF STUDENTS? AND THEN ARE Y'ALL EVEN OPEN ON SATURDAYS AND SUNDAYS WITH THIS? IT'S JUST DURING THE WEEK, RIGHT? JUST DURING THE WEEK. AND IT'S NOT A DAYCARE. IT'S A PRIVATE SCHOOL FOR FOUR AND FIVE YEAR OLDS. OKAY. YEAH. AND WHAT WAS YOUR CAP ON STUDENTS? THERE'S FOUR CLASSROOMS, 16 PER CLASSROOM OR 64? 64. YEAH. QUESTIONS? I HAVE A QUESTION. 
          OH, THIS IS MY NIGHT FOR PARKING CONCERNS. I GUESS I'M GOING TO ASK A PARK. YOU KNOW, SO I NOTICED YOU'VE GOT ON THIS PLAN. LET'S SEE. THERE'S 21 SPACES, AND MAYBE YOU DON'T HAVE WITH 64 STUDENTS. MAYBE THERE'S NOT AN ALL PARENT EVENT THERE OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT. BUT OBVIOUSLY 21 SPACES WOULDN'T BE ENOUGH IF YOU HAD AN ALL PARENT COME TO SEE ALL THE KIDS SING A SONG OR WHATEVER YOU MIGHT DO, RIGHT? SO DO YOU. DO YOU HAVE THOSE KIND OF ACTIVITIES AND HOW WOULD YOU HANDLE THE PARKING FOR THAT KIND OF A LARGER THOSE ACTIVITIES? YOU JUST DON'T HAVE IT. OKAY, SO THIS IS ONLY ENOUGH PARKING IS IF I SAW WHAT WAS ASSIGNED HERE. THERE FOR TEACHERS AND STAFF. WE HAVE TEN STAFF MEMBERS SCHEDULED. OKAY. SO THAT LEAVES US 11 FOR GUESTS AND WHATEVER FOR GUESTS OR PARENTS THROUGHOUT THE DAY. CORRECT. OKAY. AND BASICALLY, I MEAN, THE WAY WE DROP OFF, IF YOU ALL ARE FAMILIAR WITH CHICK FIL A AND THE TWO LANES, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE GOT. SO STAFF AND THE TEACHERS WILL TAKE THE CHILD OUT OF THE CAR. THE CAR NEVER STOPS RUNNING AND THEY KEEP GOING. SO WE'RE IN AND OUT WITHIN 15 20 MINUTES MAX. OKAY. 
          ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. WHAT ARE THE HOURS OF OPERATION? WHAT? WHAT WOULD THE MORNING START TIME BE IN THE EVENING? MORNING? DROP OFF IS BETWEEN 810 AND 830. AND PICK UP IS AT 230. AND THEY'LL BE OUT BY 250. AND AS FAR AS THE CHURCH SCHOOL GOES, THEY DON'T START. THEY DON'T DROP OFF TILL NINE. SO WE HAVE A 30 MINUTE BUFFER THERE AND THEN THEY PICK UP AT TWO. OKAY. DID YOU. BUT THIS ISN'T DAYCARE. THIS ISN'T LIKE LITTLE KIDS OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT. I MEAN THIS IS KIDS THAT CAN FOUR YEARS OLD IS AS YOUNG AS THEY ARE. DID YOU ANSWER THE QUESTION? IF YOU DID, I APOLOGIZE. HOW MANY TOTAL STUDENTS? 64. OKAY, THAT'S WHAT I CAN'T REMEMBER IT'S GOING TO BE COMMERCIAL. WHAT, DO YOU ALL HAVE PLANS FOR THAT OR ANY IDEA OF WHAT THAT'S GOING TO BE? WELL, WHAT WE'RE DOING IS WE'RE REPRESENTING THE OWNER. WE'RE BUYING THE 2.2 ACRES FOR THE SCHOOL. OKAY. AND THEN WE JUST DECIDED ON STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION. LET'S JUST ZONED THE WHOLE THING AT THIS POINT. HE'S HAPPY TO DO THAT. AND SO WE'RE JUST KIND OF. SO THAT REALLY WOULD BE OUTSIDE OF Y'ALL'S PURVIEW. Y'ALL WILL BE YOU'RE GETTING YOUR PART ON THE BOTTOM HALF. AND THEN THAT'LL BE A DIFFERENT RIGHT. AND THEY'LL COME BACK. BUT THEY GOT TO LIVE WITHIN THE PARAMETERS THAT THE STAFF IS SETTING RIGHT NOW. OKA. AND WHEN DOES THIS GO TO. SORRY. 
          WHEN DOES THIS GO TO COUNCIL. THAT 26TH. OKAY. I HAVE A QUESTION. THE LAST TIME YOU WERE HERE, I THINK ONE OF THE HICCUPS OR ONE OF THE ISSUES WAS THE ANIMALS WITH THE FARM PART. WHAT HAS THE LAST THING I'VE HEARD IS DOWN TO A MINI COW OR TWO, AND MAYBE SOME CHICKENS. OKAY, SO IT'S NOT A ZOO OR ANYTHING. IT'S NOT LIKE IT WAS GOATS, I THINK BEFORE OR SOMETHING ALONG THOSE LINES. OKAY, SO IT'S A MINI. A MINI COW AND CHICKENS, RIGHT? SO WE'RE JUST GOING TO LIVE BY WHATEVER THE ORDERS ARE WITHIN THE CITY. SO DID YOU HAVE ANY COMMENT? I DON'T WANT TO COMPLICATE WHAT DOESN'T NEED COMPLICATED, BUT I DID WANT TO JUST ON THE LIVING SCREEN, YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS PROTECTING THE POND IS THAT PREFERRED? NOT PREFERRED. I MEAN, DO YOU CARE? LIKE. WELL, WE WOULD PREFER JUST TO KIND OF. THERE'S A LOT OF TREES OUT THERE RIGHT NOW, AND WE'D LOVE TO BE ABLE TO SEE THE POND FROM THE SCHOOL. OKAY. BUT STAFF HAD, YOU KNOW, OFFERED THE LIVING SCREEN, WHICH WE WILL CERTAINLY DO IF THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REQUIRED TO DO. BUT WE WOULD MUCH RATHER KIND OF LEAVE IT A LITTLE BIT MORE OPEN. BUT I UNDERSTAND, YOU KNOW, WE UNDERSTAND WHY THEY REQUESTED IT. YEAH. USUALLY I'M ALL FOR THE. BUT I FEEL LIKE YOU MAY HAVE TO ACTUALLY SOMEWHAT TAKE TREES OUT OR SOMETHING IN ORDER TO ACTUALLY FACILITATE THE LIVING SCREEN. SO I DON'T KNOW THAT I APPRECIATE THE SPIRIT OF 
          [02:00:04]
IT. AND MAYBE MY ONLY CAVEAT WOULD BE IF THE ONE HOUSE BEHIND IT WAS OKAY WITH IT. BUT THAT IS THE REQUIREMENT IN THIS CONFIGURATION TO APPLY THAT IN MY OPINION, YOU WOULD NOT HURT STAFF'S FEELINGS IF YOU DECIDED THAT THEY DIDN'T NEED THE LIVING SCREEN. THE ONLY REASON THAT WE OPTED WITH THE LIVING SCREEN IS TECHNICALLY, IT SHOULD HAVE THE MASONRY WALL AGAIN, IF YOU REMEMBER, WAS WAS SOMETHING THAT WAS DISCUSSED THE FIRST TIME WHEN IT CAME AT THE OTHER LOCATION. AND WE'RE NOT THE INTENT IS NOT TO SCREEN THE POND. IT'S TO SCREEN THE RESIDENCES ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POND FROM SEEING WHAT'S GOING ON AT THE SCHOOL NOW. YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, FROM A PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE, IT WOULDN'T BOTHER ME AT ALL TO LOOK ACROSS THE POND AND SEE THE ANIMALS AND, YOU KNOW, ALL THAT SORT OF STUFF. BUT WE CAN'T LOOK AT IT FROM THE PERSONAL PERSPECTIVE. WE GOT TO LOOK AT IT FROM THE OTHER. SO YOU ALL ARE WITHIN YOUR RIGHTS TO SAY, YOU KNOW WHAT, THERE'S PLENTY OF TREES. THE POND IS THERE. THERE'S A FAIR AMOUNT OF DISTANCE. CHAIR DANIEL OBVIOUSLY IS FAMILIAR WITH THE POND THAT THAT CAN TELL YOU IT'S BIG ENOUGH TO WHERE IT SERVES, YOU KNOW, A PRETTY GOOD SEPARATION, I BELIEVE. AND IF YOU ALL ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT, WE'RE PERFECTLY FINE WITH THAT. WE HAD ALREADY BACKED OFF THE WALL TO THE SCREEN, BUT THERE ARE A LOT OF TREES THERE. AND SO WE IT'S A BEAUTIFUL TREE. 
          I MEAN, IT'S GOT A LOT OF TREES. SO, YOU KNOW, REALLY I THINK IT REALLY COMES DOWN TO THOSE RESIDENTS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THAT POND, BECAUSE THAT POND, I MEAN, YOU CAN SEE REAL EASY. 
          NOW, THE THING IS, IF YOU LOOK THAT PARKING LOT TO RAY MILLS BAPTIST, THOSE RESIDENTS CAN SEE RIGHT IN THAT PARKING LOT. I MEAN, IT'S JUST THERE. SO IT'S LIKE THEY'RE KIND OF USED TO SEEING SOME SOMETHING GOING ON OVER THERE. SO THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY THING FOR US IS IF WE MODIFY THIS ANY, AS WE'VE GOT TO BE COGNIZANT OF THOSE RESIDENTS AND MAKE SURE AND THERE'S ONLY A HANDFUL. I MEAN IT'S JUST KIND OF TALKING TO THEM AND MAKING SURE, YOU KNOW, THAT WOULD BE OKAY IN THAT CASE. SO WE'RE SET. THE BUILDINGS ARE SET SO FAR BACK. THEY REALLY ARE. I MEAN, AND SO AND I DON'T THINK YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE A TON OF ACTIVITY GOING ON ALL THE TIME. AND YOU KNOW, SO IT'S SOMETHING WE'RE LOOKING AT. THAT'D BE GREAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT. THIS EVENING? THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR YOUR CONSIDERATION. WE APPRECIATE IT. 
          THANK YOU. SO THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. ARE THERE ANY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND DISCUSS OR REVIEW ANYTHING THIS EVENING ON REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN? IF NOT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I, I THINK MOST OF US WERE IN FAVOR OF THIS CONCEPT BACK WHEN IT CAME TO US EVER HOW LONG AGO THAT WAS. NOW. AND I THINK THIS IS A I'LL START OFF HERE, COMMISSIONER HAMILTON, TAKE TAKE IT OFF YOUR BACK FOR A CHANCE. I THINK THIS IS A GOOD SPOT FOR IT. I THINK IT'S A WIN WIN FOR EVERYBODY. YOU KNOW, IT'S LOW USE. THE ONLY THING IS, YOU KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO GO NORTH OF IT. BUT YOU GOT TO REMEMBER JUST NORTH OF THAT STORAGE BUILDINGS THAT HAVE BEEN THERE FOREVER. SO I THINK REGARDING LIVING SCREENING, I THINK THE KEY THING THERE IS IF THERE WERE ANY CHANGES MADE, AND I'M PROBABLY NOT A PROPONENT OF DOING THAT, IS YOU JUST NEED TO MAKE SURE THOSE CITIZENS IN THAT NEIGHBORHOOD ARE AWARE OF THAT AND JUST KIND OF AND THERE'S NOT MANY TO TALK TO MAKE SURE EVERYBODY'S OKAY WITH THAT. SO THAT'S MY $0.02, BUT I'LL OPEN THE FLOOR TO REMAINING COMMISSIONERS ON THEIR COMMENTS. MY ONLY OTHER COMMENT, WHICH I THINK COMMISSIONER HARRIS, WE WERE ASKING OURSELVES THIS QUESTION, BUT THE DRAINAGE SITUATION AND THE ONE COMMENT THAT WAS RECEIVED I THINK IS A VALID ONE. I THINK THERE'S A PLAN IN PLACE. IT FEELS LIKE THERE'S A PLAN IN PLACE TO DO THE STUDY, UNDERSTAND IT. IF NOT, YOU CAN APPLY IT ON THE NORTH, WHICH IS SO I DON'T KNOW IF YOU CAN SPEAK TO THAT JUST BRIEFLY. YEAH. NO, THE PLAN IS THE MOST LIKELY SCENARIO IS THAT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE RETENTION ON THE NORTHERN TRACT, WHICH MEANS THAT THEY WON'T DRAIN INTO THAT EXISTING POND, WHICH WILL REMEDY THAT PERSON'S CONCERNS. OKAY. IS IT PLAUSIBLE TO IF JUST TO MAKE A MOTION LIKE, HOW DO WE TIE IN THE ABILITY TO GET THE RESIDENTS APPROVAL TO ELIMINATE THE LIVING SCREEN? WE JUST PUT. I THINK WE COULD JUST I DON'T WANT TO ASK THEM. WELL, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, IF THE COMMISSION IS AMENABLE TO THAT, YOU JUST PUT SOMETHING IN THE ORDINANCE THAT OR EXCUSE ME, IN THE MOTION THAT STATES IF THE RESIDENTS DON'T OBJECT, THEN THE SCREEN OF TREES THAT'S THERE WILL WILL BE SUFFICIENT. AND, YOU KNOW, WE CAN SEND THE RESIDENTS ALL THE LETTER EXPLAINING WHAT'S GOING ON AND 
          [02:05:02]
THEY CAN RESPOND YAY OR NAY. AND THEN WE KIND OF GO FROM THERE. BUT THEN THAT'S AGREEABLE TO YOU. BUT THEN DO WE? SO IF ONE PERSON OBJECTS, DOES THAT CONSTITUTE A NO? I MEAN, I THINK I MEAN, FRANKLY, IT HAS TO. RIGHT. I MEAN, I DON'T KNOW, THAT'S A TOUGH ONE BECAUSE IF YOU GOT, YOU KNOW, A LOT OF RESIDENTS, YOU SAY YOU GOT 150 RESIDENTS IN THAT AREA, 149. I HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO PROBLEM WITH IT AND ARE COMFORTABLE WITH THE SCIENCE ON IT. AND ONE PERSON IS AND THAT'S A TOUGH NO. I WOULD SAY ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. YEAH. IT'S JUST THE ONE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE POND, WHICH WOULD BE JUST THE WIDTH OF THE WILL NORTH AND SOUTH, THE WIDTH OF THE PROPERTY, WHICH WOULD BE THE SAME AS ANY OTHER DEVELOPMENT ANYWHERE ELSE. SO I BELIEVE THERE'S FIVE THAT ARE THERE OR, YOU KNOW, THE COMMISSION COULD JUST DECIDE, YOU KNOW WHAT, THERE'S PLENTY OF TREES THERE IN THE POND AND THE TREES SERVED AS AN ADEQUATE SCREEN AND JUST LEAVE IT AT THAT. BUT IF WE WANT SOME ASSURANCES, THEN, YOU KNOW, WE COULD DO IT WITH US SENDING THEM A LETTER AND SEE WHAT THEY SAY. BUT THEN, COMMISSIONER HARRIS, IT PROBABLY WOULD HAVE TO BE ALL OR NONE IF WE ELIMINATE THE LIVING SCREENING, WILL THE PEOPLE BE NOTIFIED THAT THIS IS GOING TO COUNCIL AT THAT POINT, OR WAS THE ONE NOTIFICATION, THIS ONE, THERE WILL BE A NEWSPAPER NOTICE WHEN IT GOES TO COUNCIL, BUT WE WON'T SEND MAIL OUTS AGAIN UNLESS DAVID WANTS US TO. YEAH. THERE AREN'T THERE AREN'T THAT MANY. I WAS LIKE, THERE'S ONLY A FEW PEOPLE, RIGHT? YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT HALF A DOZEN PROBABLY. SO I THINK IT WOULD. I MEAN, I FEEL LIKE WE'RE WANTING TO ELIMINATE THE LIVING SCREEN AND MAKING SURE THAT THE PEOPLE THAT IT WOULD IMPACT HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE A SECOND SET OF EYES TO SEE THAT THAT'S SOMETHING WE'RE DOING. AND THAT WAY THEY HAVE THE ABILITY TO GO TO COUNCIL IF THEY OBJECT TO IT. 
          DO YOU AGREE WITH THAT? SO I'M OF THE OPINION AND I THINK THE SPIRIT OF WHAT WE WANT TO DO IS GOOD. I HAVEN'T BEEN OUT THERE IN A WHILE JUST TO LOOK SPECIFICALLY AT MAYBE SOME OF Y'ALL DID DRIVE IT THIS WEEK TO SEE WHAT THE EXISTING TREES ARE. I MEAN, I KNOW THERE'S SOME THERE. I JUST VERY COGNIZANT OF THE FACT THAT, YOU KNOW, WE DO THAT THAT'S OUR STANDARD TO HAVE THE YOU KNOW, WE'RE GOING FROM THE WALL TO THE LIVING SCREENING. I THINK WE NOTE OUR COMMENTS AND HOPE THOSE GET BACK TO COUNCIL. AND I THINK THAT GIVES A COUPLE MORE WEEKS TO LOOK THROUGH IT AND SAY, I'M SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PROJECT. IF THERE'S ENOUGH TREES THERE, I UNDERSTAND, BUT I HAVEN'T. I DID NOT DRIVE IT THIS WEEK TO SEE IF THE TREES. I WOULD JUST BE RELUCTANT TO ELIMINATE THAT UNTIL I HAD MORE INFORMATION. I GUESS I DROVE IT TODAY, AND THE FACT THAT THIS TIME OF YEAR THERE'S LESS COVERAGE. AND SO WHAT DID YOU SEE? AND IT WAS A IT WAS A GREAT SCREEN. I MEAN, IT WAS, IT WAS IT WAS A LOT OF SCREEN. YEAH. SO I, I WOULD LIKE TO ELIMINATE THAT IF POSSIBLE. AND PROTECT AS MANY OF THESE TREES AS POSSIBLE BECAUSE I THINK THE BUILDINGS ARE SET BACK FAR ENOUGH THAT I THINK THAT THE IT'D BE MORE UPSETTING IF WE END UP TAKING TREES DOWN. YEAH, YEA, THAT WOULD BE BAD. WE DON'T WANT A LIVING SCREEN. IS THAT WHAT IT WOULD BE? WHERE THEY HAVE TO RIP TREES OUT TO THEN PUT A NEW. BECAUSE IT SEEMS LIKE INSTEAD OF GETTING RID OF THE LIVING SCREEN, WE WOULD APPROVE EFFECTIVELY THAT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE TREES THAT ARE THERE ARE NOT PROVIDING LIGHTING FOR THE SCREEN, THEY WOULD HAVE TO ADD TREES. I THINK THEY WOULD JUST FILL INTO WHAT'S EXISTING THERE. WE WOULDN'T MAKE THEM TAKE TREES OUT OF THERE. YEAH, I WAS BEING A BIT DRAMATIC ON THE TAKING TREES OUT PART, BUT I THINK IF YOU WOULD LIKE TO GO TO THE CINEMA, I'LL SHOW YOU A GREAT EXAMPLE OF A LIVING SCREEN THAT WAS NOT APPLIED CORRECTLY. AND THEY TRIMMED UP THE LIVING SCREEN TO LOOK LIKE TREES, WHICH IS NOW NOT SCREENING ANYTHING. SO WHICH EFFECTIVELY IS WHAT YOU HAVE WITH NICE, PRETTY MATURE TREES. SO I JUST FEEL LIKE WE'RE YOU'RE STARTING TO I DON'T KNOW, I THINK I THINK WE'RE I JUST DON'T WANT TO CREATE MORE TURBULENCE. A ON THE OWNER AND OR ON THE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER. BUT I THINK ABOUT THE 64 KIDS THAT ARE GOING TO BE GOING HERE. AND I THINK THAT'S A GREAT AMENITY. I THINK WATER AND TREES IS PROBABLY WHAT MORE KIDS THAT AGE NEED VERSUS SITTING IN CLASSROOMS. SO I REALLY APPRECIATE WHAT THE WHAT THE APPLICANT IS TRYING TO DO. AND THAT'S THE ONLY REASON I WAS LEANING INTO THAT. MY ONLY THOUGHT ABOUT THIS IS, YOU KNOW, AND I'M IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE LIVING SCREENING ALONG THAT, ALONG THAT POND ONLY ON TRACK TWO. TRACK TWO IS THE ONE WITH THE SCHOOL, RIGHT? I WOULD NOT INCLUDE IT ON TRACK ONE SINCE WE DON'T KNOW WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE, SO I WOULD THINK WE'D NEED TO LIMIT IT TO TRACK TWO. AND ON TRACK ONE, THERE'S A REQUIREMENT FOR THE MASONRY WALL ON TRACK ONE, RIGHT? ALL RIGHT. SO I THINK WE'RE WE'RE MOVING COMMENTS OR MOTION I THINK WE KIND OF HAVE A PROCESS HERE. THE DRAINAGE ISSUE. WELL ACTUALLY I'M ONE THAT THINKS THAT I'M OKAY WITH THE LIVING STREAM BEING PUT UP. IT JUST BASED ON THE POINT THAT THERE ARE OTHER PEOPLE WHO LIVE AROUND THERE AND THEY MAY NOT WANT TO LOOK AT A SCHOOL THAT'S NOT IN USE OVER THE WEEKEND. SO 
          [02:10:05]
AND HAVING A COMMERCIAL BUSINESS THERE, REGARDLESS OF THE NATURE OF THE COMMERCIAL BUSINESS, THE PEOPLE THAT LIVE ON THE OTHER SIDE OF POND MAY HAVE THE EXPECTATION THAT IF COMMERCIAL BUSINESSES POP UP, THEY WILL HAVE A MASONRY WALL, OR THEY WILL HAVE A LIVING SCREEN OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT TO KIND OF BLOCK THAT FROM VIEW. THE OTHER PIECE IS THE DRAINAGE ISSUE. 
          I'M. YEAH, I'D BE COMFORTABLE WITH IT IF SOMEONE WHO, YOU KNOW, IT'S THE FIRE, IT'S THE FIRE CHIEF OR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT THAT'S GOING TO GIVE US THE FINAL OR SOMEONE ELSE IS GOING TO GIVE US THE FINAL ANSWER ON THE DRAINAGE. IT'S ENGINEERING. ENGINEERING. AND SO OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT IS GOING TO BE THOROUGH. THEY'RE GOING TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT THE APPLICANT THAT HAD THE CONCERN THAT THEIR THAT THEIR CONCERN IS COMPLETELY ADDRESSED. RIGHT. 
          WELL AND PART OF THE SO FOR THE ZONING, WE DIDN'T REQUIRE A FLOOD STUDY, BUT PART OF THE SITE PLAN PROCESS, THERE WILL BE A FLOOD STUDY DONE WHETHER WHATEVER THEY DO, JUST TO VERIFY THAT THE RETENTION OR DRAINAGE, FROM OUR PERSPECTIVE, THERE IS NO WAY ONCE WE GET IN THERE AND OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT GIVES US THE CLEAR, THEY WILL GIVE US A CLEAR. AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT APPLICANT COULD BE DISAPPOINTED WITH THE OUTCOME, RIGHT? CORRECT. BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO SOLVE THE ISSUE TOTALLY. WHAT HAPPENED? JUST JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR IS ORIGINALLY WHEN THE APPLICANT TOLD US THAT THEY WERE LOOKING AT THIS SITE AND WE STARTED GOING THROUGH THE VARIOUS ITERATIONS AND SO FORTH, THE CONVERSATION CAME UP LOTS OF TIMES ABOUT WHETHER OR NOT THESE TRACKS WOULD IT BE ABLE TO DRAIN INTO THAT EXISTING POND, AND WE WERE THE ONES THROUGH OUR ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT THAT SAID, NO, YOU WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO DO THAT WITHOUT GETTING THE ENGINEERING STUDY THAT SHOWED HOW MUCH THE WATER WOULD RISE AND FLOW WITH THE EXTRA DEVELOPMENT AND THE DETENTION OF THE WATER GOING IN AND BEING RETAINED. AND IN ORDER TO DO THAT, YOU'D HAVE TO DO A FULL BLOWN STUDY, AND THEN YOU'D HAVE TO GET RELEASES OR EASEMENTS FROM ALL THE PEOPLE WHO HAVE FRONTAGE ON THAT POND, BECAUSE IT WOULD AFFECT THE WATER LEVELS IN THEIR YARD, SO TO SPEAK. AND IT BECAME CLEAR REALLY QUICKLY THAT THAT NONE OF THAT WAS GOING TO HAPPEN. AND SO THAT'S WHY THERE IS A DETENTION POND THAT'S SHOWN ON THE LOT TO THE NORTH THAT WILL HANDLE THE DRAINAGE AND THE DETENTION FOR BOTH TRACKS TO KEEP OUT OF THE POND. SO WE'RE THE ONES WHO WEREN'T GOING TO ALLOW THAT POND TO BE ABLE TO BE USED. IT WASN'T SO MUCH THE, THE, THE ADJACENT PEOPLE THAT THAT WERE SAYING, WE DON'T WANT IT. WE WERE SAYING, YOU CAN'T DO IT. AND SO I IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN PERFECTLY. 
          IT WILL WIND UP BEING A NEW DETENTION POND ON THE OTHER SIDE, TRACKED ON THE NORTHERN TRACT. ALL RIGHT. I'M GOOD. COMMISSIONER. ANY COMMENTS? LET'S TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR A MOTION. REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. A MOTION THAT WE APPROVE. AGENDA ITEM SEVEN, SECOND. OKAY. WE HAVE A DID WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN FROM COMMISSIONER HARRIS. WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER FIORE. 
          ARE WE GOING TO ADD ANY COMMENTS AROUND THE WHO WAS THE SECOND? WAS THAT YOU KNOW. OH OKAY. 
          GOOD. I GOT THAT RIGHT. BEFORE WE ADD ANY OTHER COMMENTS TO IT, ARE WE APPROVING IT AS IS? NO. I SECONDED IT AS IS. I WAS IN FAVOR OF KEEPING THE LIVING STREAM. OKAY, SO THAT'S THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR. SO ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN, SUBJECT TO TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. WE'VE GOT LET ME GET THIS COUNT. WE'VE GOT ONE, TWO, THREE, FOUR, FIVE, SIX ARE IN FAVOR. ALL THOSE OPPOSED. AND WE HAVE ONE. COMMISSIONER HAMILTON OPPOSED TO REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER SEVEN. THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS I CAN GIVE. AND I JUST WANTED TO GO ON RECORD THAT MY OPPOSITION IS NOT TO THE CASE, BUT TO THE LIVING SCREEN. SO I JUST WANTED THAT TO GO ON THE RECORD THAT I SUPPORT THIS. 
          IT'S JUST THE LIVING SCREEN. I DIDN'T WANT TO FORCE THAT. YEAH. NO. DULY NOTED. NO. CAN I JUST ADD TO THAT? I STRONGLY WAS IN FAVOR OF REMOVING THAT LIVING SCREEN, BUT I DIDN'T WANT TO VOTE AGAINST THIS PROJECT AT THIS POINT. SO THAT THAT WAS THE MOTION MADE. BUT I THINK YOU HAVE ALL OF US. YEAH. SO THAT WAS NOT WHAT I WANTED. SO 6 TO 1 VOTE, AS IS PRESENTED TO US THIS EVENING, I THINK WHAT NEEDS TO HAPPEN, THE NOTES FOR THE COUNCIL MEETING NEED TO NOTE THAT ABOUT THE LIVING SCREEN. DO A LITTLE MORE RESEARCH. THERE. AND I THINK EVERYBODY WANTS TO DO THE RIGHT THING THERE. THAT MAKES SENSE. AND SO IF THAT CAN BE NOTED AND PASSED ALONG, WHEN IT GETS TO THAT POINT, WE'LL GO FROM THERE. SO I DO APPRECIATE THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU ALL FOR COMING. I WISH YOU THE BEST OF LUCK HERE IN A COUPLE OF WEEKS. AND THANKS FOR BEING HERE. YEAH, 
          [02:15:04]
THAT WAS KIND OF ODD. IF YOU DIDN'T WANT TO VOTE AGAINST IT. YEAH. SO WE KIND OF. BUT IT'S A YOU COULD HAVE. YEAH. THAT'S FINE. SO AGENDA ITEM, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER EIGHT REVIEW ACTIONS 
          [8. Review actions taken by the Town Council and possibly direct Town Staff to schedule topic(s) for discussion at a future meeting. ]
TAKEN BY THE TOWN COUNCIL AND POSSIBLY DIRECT TOWN STAFF TO SCHEDULE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE MEETING. OKAY, I JUST WENT BACKWARDS. OH, I THINK I MOVED IT OFF. OKAY. SORRY ABOUT THAT. OH, NO WORRIES. ALL RIGHT, SO PREVIOUSLY, THE TOWN COUNCIL MEETING ON THE 22ND, THERE WAS NOTHING ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. ON THE REGULAR AGENDA WAS THAT WAS THE ONE ON THE LAST MEETING OR HAS IT ALREADY BEEN APPROVED? THAT WAS THE LAST MEETING. OKAY. SO YEAH, IT WAS ON THE LAST MEETING AND THAT WAS APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL. AND THEN FOR THE UPCOMING TOWN COUNCIL ITEMS NEXT WEEK, WHICH IS GOING TO BE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS FOR THE NOTICE OF APPEALS FOR ALL THE SITE PLANS AND PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS ARE APPROVED TONIGHT. THERE WILL BE NOTHING ON THE REGULAR AGENDA. EVERYTHING THAT WAS APPROVED TONIGHT WILL BE ON THE 26TH. AND THEN FOR UPCOMING ITEMS ON THE 19TH FOR THE REGULAR AGENDA. THIS CASE HAS NOT BEEN NOTICED YET, AND I THINK YOU'VE SEEN IT A COUPLE TIMES IN OUR RUNDOWN, BUT IT'S A PD FOR 305 EAST SEVENTH STREET. THEY'RE WANTING TO SPLIT THE LOTS ABOUT A 26,000 SQUARE FOOT LOT. THEY'RE WANTING TO SPLIT IT AND IT'S GOING TO BE ABOUT 13,000FT■!S FOR EACH LOT. BUT THE ZONING IS 15,000. SO TO PRESERVE THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AND TO NOT ALLOW THEM TO SPLIT IT DOWN ANY FURTHER, JUST DOING A PLAN DEVELOPMENT FOR THAT. AND THEN THE PD AMENDMENT THAT YOU GUYS HEARD ABOUT FOR THE PROSPER BUSINESS PARK AND THE CONSENT AGENDA THAT WILL BE COMING TO YOU GUYS. WE HAVE A NOTICE FOR THAT ONE EITHER, BUT THAT WILL PROBABLY BE ON THE NEXT AGENDA TO AND THAT IS EVERYTHING THAT I HAVE. UNLESS YOU GUYS HAVE QUESTIONS FOR ME, I WILL NOT BE ABLE TO BE AT THAT MEETING. JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, NOVEMBER 19TH. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? YEAH, I WAS GOING TO ASK ABOUT TOPICS FOR FUTURE DISCUSSION OR MEETINGS. IT SEEMS LIKE THERE'S THREE THINGS I WANTED TO SAY. 
          ONE WAS THE LIVING SCREEN. I THINK IF WE COULD HAVE A DIALOG ABOUT LIVING SCREENS AND MAYBE WE NEED TO REVISIT IT, WHETHER IT'S THE SCHOOL DISTRICT OR LAND PROPERTY ADJACENT, SOME, YOU KNOW, AMENITY THAT WE'D WANT TO PROTECT. I FEEL LIKE I FEEL LIKE WE NEED TO REVISIT THAT. SO THAT WAS JUST ONE THING. AND THEN NUMBER TWO WAS PICKLEBALL PARKING THAT WE PROBABLY NEED TO ADDRESS PICKLEBALL PARKING OR PARKING IN GENERAL BECAUSE WE HAVE LAKEWOOD PARK COMING ONLINE IN THE NEXT TWO WEEKS. WE HAVE RAY PARK COMING ONLINE IN THE SPRING, AND THEN THIS WINDSONG RANCH DEVELOPMENT HAS PICKLEBALL AS WELL. SO I FEEL LIKE THAT'S A TOPIC THAT WE PROBABLY SHOULD LOOK AT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE KIND OF HAVE A POSITION ON IT. MAYBE THAT MEANS LOOKING AT WHAT OTHER AREAS ARE DOING AS FAR AS PARKING, AND WHAT IN RELATION TO THAT. AND THEN MY LAST THING IS, I FEEL AS A AS A COMMISSION, IF WE'RE VOTING AGAINST SOMETHING, I FEEL LIKE WE SHOULD STATE OUR REASONS, WHETHER IT'S PUBLICLY IN, IN THIS FORUM OR VIA EMAIL TO STAFF, AND THAT INFORMATION SHOULD BE CONVEYED TO TOWN COUNCIL. SO THEY HAVE AN IDEA OF WHY, BECAUSE SOMETIMES THEY DON'T HAVE THE FULL RATIONALE OF WHY SOMEBODY VOTED AGAINST SOMETHING. AND SO I THINK JUST TONIGHT BEING A PERFECT EXAMPLE, I WOULD WANT MY OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION, NOT TO BE THAT IT WAS AGAINST THIS PROJECT, BUT I THINK IT'S AGAINST THE ACTUAL MOTION ITSELF. AND, YOU KNOW, TONIGHT WE ALSO HAD THE OTHER ZONING CASE WHERE IT WAS A MIXED VOTE. I FEEL LIKE THAT'S ALSO A GREAT OPPORTUNITY FOR US TO STATE IF WE'RE VOTING AGAINST SOMETHING TO COUNCIL. SO THEY HAVE THAT INFORMATION TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION FOR WHEN THEY SEE THAT CASE. COMMISSIONER, I'D LIKE TO SAY THANK YOU FOR THAT BECAUSE AS YOU ALL KNOW, I MAKE VIRTUALLY ALL THE PRESENTATIONS TO THE COUNCIL AND THERE'S NOT A SINGLE TIME GOES BY WHEN THERE'S A SPLIT VOTE HERE THAT I'M NOT ASKED. WELL, WHAT WAS THE DISCUSSION? WHY DID THE PEOPLE VOTE AGAINST IT? AND SO I USUALLY I GO BY MEMORY OF, YOU KNOW, BASED ON WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS. AND GENERALLY IT'S NOT THAT HARD TO FIGURE OUT. BUT ONCE IN A BLUE MOON, I'LL, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A VOTE THAT DOESN'T REALLY HAVE THE DISCUSSION THAT GOES WITH IT. AND SO THAT I JUST HAVE TO MAKE AN ASSUMPTION, SO TO SPEAK, OR SAY, YOU KNOW, FRANKLY, IT WASN'T DISCUSSED. BUT BUT I DO THINK THAT'S A GOOD IDEA. LET ME SAY THAT. AND LET ME ALSO LET ME MAKE ONE POINT WHILE WE'RE STILL HERE, WHILE WE'RE STILL ON THE RECORD. WHEN I MADE MY COMMUNICATION TO THE APPLICANT IN TERMS OF HOW I VIEWED THEIR POSITION AND HOW I VIEWED THEIR PRESENTATION AND HOW IT WAS 
          [02:20:06]
GOING TO VOTE ON THEIR PRESENTATION. AND WHEN I STATED I DIDN'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THE PRESENTATION THAT HINGED ON A CONVERSATION THAT TOOK PLACE PRIOR TO THAT VOTE, ALL THE COMMISSIONERS HAD NOT YET SPOKEN AT THAT POINT. SO WHEN ONE COMMISSIONER PROVIDED THEIR INPUT, IT VALIDATED A PORTION OF THE ARGUMENT THAT WE WERE HAVING OR THE CONVERSATION THAT WE WERE HAVING, THAT WAS ESSENTIALLY THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE. HOWEVER, I AM NOT AN AUTHORITY ON THAT THING. 
          WE DON'T HAVE LAPTOPS UP TO BE ABLE TO GO AND CHECK BACKGROUND AND HISTORY, SO WE RELY ON ONE ANOTHER TO PROVIDE US WITH THAT SORT OF INFORMATION AND THAT INDUSTRY KNOWLEDGE. AND THAT'S WHY THERE IS A DIVERSITY OF BACKGROUND ON THIS PODIUM OR DAIS OR HOWEVER. SO AS WE MOVE DOWN, ONCE COMMISSIONER CARSON MADE A POINT ABOUT THE LAND AND THE IMPORTANCE OF THE LAND, THAT WAS A BIG PART OF MY POINT. BUT I DON'T WORK IN REAL ESTATE, SO I COULD NOT DEFINITIVELY MAKE THAT POINT TO SOMEONE WHO DOES WORK IN REAL ESTATE. SO ONCE THAT POINT HAD GONE TO COMMISSIONER CARSON, HE GAVE HE GAVE CREDIBILITY TO THAT PIECE. AND ONCE HE GAVE CREDIBILITY TO THAT PIECE, THAT SHIFTED THE CONVERSATION. THEN THE IDEA OF HAVING A LARGER HOME ON A SMALLER LOT ISN'T AS IMPORTANT. AND IT MADE MORE SENSE. SO I'LL GIVE CREDIT TO COMMISSIONER CARSON FOR TAKING THE POINTS THAT I MADE, AS WELL AS THE POINTS OF COMMISSIONER HAMILTON, AND PUT THEM SUCCINCTLY IN A REBUTTAL. HIS REBUTTAL MADE A GOOD POINT. BEFORE I MAKE A VOTE, I'M GOING TO ALWAYS MAKE SURE THAT THE VOTE THAT I MAKE IS THE RIGHT VOTE. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE TIMING. I DON'T CARE ABOUT THE APPLICANT. I DON'T CARE ABOUT ANYBODY ELSE BUT THE PEOPLE. AND IF THAT VOTE IS IMPORTANT, I'M GOING TO MAKE THE RIGHT ONE. I DON'T CARE IF IT'S AFTER OR BEFORE OR WHENEVER. BEFORE WE LEAVE THESE CHAMBERS, IT WILL BE DONE CORRECTLY. AND THAT'S WHY I MADE THE VOTE THAT I MADE. AND I STAND BY THAT VOTE NOW, AND I WOULD NOT HAVE STOOD BY THE VOTE THAT I WOULD HAVE MADE EARLIER THAN THAT. BUT THIS VOTE I STAND BY AND I CAN SIT HERE AND DEFEND IT. THAT'S THE POINT I THINK NEED TO BE MADE. ALSO, I DID HAVE ANOTHER POINT. 
          THE CONSENT AGENDA. HAVE WE EVER EXPLORED HAVING THE CONSENT AGENDA AFTER THE REGULAR AGENDA? AND THE ONLY REASON WHY I ASK IS BECAUSE THE APPLICANT SOMETIMES IS HERE, AND THEY MAY ONLY HAVE A TEN MINUTE PRESENTATION. THERE MAY BE SOMETHING THAT'S THAT WE MAY NOT HAVE ANY ISSUE WITH, BUT THEY END UP HERE FOR A LOT LONGER. WE RARELY HAVE APPLICANTS HERE FOR THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO I FIGURE IF WE DO THE REGULAR AGENDA, WE GET ALL OF OUR APPLICANTS OUT AND THEN WE CAN HAVE OUR CONVERSATION AND CONSENT AGENDA WITHOUT IMPACTING THE PEOPLE WHO ARE OUR GUESTS. 
          AND THEN, YOU KNOW, AND THEN USUALLY ONCE WE'VE HAD A LOT OF THE CONVERSATIONS IN THE REGULAR AGENDA, IT MAY PREPARE US FOR THE CONVERSATION WE HAVE IN THE CONSENT AGENDA. AND MIGHT EXPEDITE THAT CONVERSATION. IT'S JUST A SUGGESTION, NOT EVEN SOMETHING THAT YOU EVEN NEED TO THINK ABOUT ANY FURTHER THAN THIS, BUT IT'S JUST SOMETHING I WAS, I WONDERED, AND I DON'T KNOW IF WE WERE CONSIDERED IT. THAT'S IT. WE GENERALLY KNOW WHO'S HERE FOR WHAT AGENDA, BECAUSE OBVIOUSLY WE DEAL WITH THEM BEFORE THEY EVER GET TO THE POINT OF HAVING SOMETHING COME TO THE COMMISSION AND SO WE KNOW WHETHER IT'S THE ENGINEER OR WHOEVER, IF THERE IS NO ONE HERE FOR ANY OF THE CONSENT ITEMS, WHICH SOMETIMES ARE SOMETIMES YOU'RE NOT, AS YOU MENTIONED, YOU KNOW, WE CAN ALWAYS CHANGE THE ORDER. THE COMMISSION CAN JUST FLIP THE ORDER AND PUSH THE CONSENT AND EXCUSE ME, CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS TO THE END AND PULL UP WHATEVER REGULAR HEARINGS THERE ARE. SO IT DOESN'T NECESSARILY MATTER WHAT ORDER THEY'RE IN. WHEN WE GET THEM TO YOU, Y'ALL CAN MOVE THEM AROUND BASED ON ON WHO THE AUDIENCE IS, AND WE CAN HELP IN THAT. IF THAT'S SOMETHING THAT Y'ALL WOULD LIKE TO DO. IF THERE'S NOBODY HERE TO TALK ABOUT THE CONSENT IN THAT WAY, YOU STILL HAVE THE ABILITY TO PULL THEM OFF AND DISCUSS THEM AS OPPOSED TO FEELING PRESSURED FOR THAT. I WAS JUST IT WAS JUST SOMETHING I WAS MENTIONING. I THINK IT'S A VALID POINT. THANK YOU FOR THE KUDOS. APPRECIATE IT IS WE TRY AND DO THAT IF WE KNOW OR IF WE KNOW THERE'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING EASY AND WE DON'T LOAD IT UP WITH 2 OR 3 PUBLIC HEARINGS BEFORE WE GET TO THE SOMETHING EASY, WE'LL USUALLY PUT THAT FIRST. SO WE CAN CAN DO THAT. SO WE TRY AND HELP FOR PEOPLE TO LEAVE. BUT YOU KNOW, WE'RE HAPPY TO DO THAT. OKAY. 
          THE ONLY ITEM I WOULD LIKE TO ADD TO I APPRECIATE COMMISSIONER HAMILTON. I MEAN, PART OF OUR GOAL, ESPECIALLY WITH, YOU KNOW, A NEW A NEW COMMISSION AND, AND NEW MEMBERS IS KIND OF FINDING OUR KIND OF STRIDE AND OUR COHESION TO WHERE HOW WE BRING ALTERNATING VIEWPOINTS. I THINK IT'S A VERY VALID TO AND TIMELY. SO I APPRECIATE YOU BRINGING THOSE UP. I WOULD ACTUALLY ADD I WOULD LOVE TO FIGURE OUT WITH COUNCIL'S GUIDANCE, YOURS, ETC, HOW WE CLARIFY THIS MEDIUM DENSITY. THIS IS LIKE THE 10TH TIME SINCE I'VE BEEN INVOLVED THAT WE'VE HAD THIS DISCUSSION, 
          [02:25:01]
AND THERE'S LITERALLY TWO SEPARATE THINGS THAT DRIVE THIS DISCUSSION IN THE SAME LAND USE PLAN. SO I THINK WE OWE IT TO US TO GIVE US THAT GUIDANCE, BECAUSE THAT'S REALLY A DOCUMENT IN WHICH WE ALL LEAN TO. AND YOU CAN LITERALLY MAKE TWO SEPARATE ARGUMENTS THAT BOTH ARE SUPPORTED BY THE LAND USE PLAN. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE VALID IF WE'RE GOING TO IF WE CAN. AND I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S NECESSARILY REVISING IT, BUT PROVIDING CLARITY AS TO WHICH OF THOSE, BECAUSE WHEN I READ IT, NEITHER OF THEM TAKES PRECEDENT. 
          IT BOTH COULD BE APPLIED. YOU COULD INTERPRET IT EITHER WAY, FRANKLY. SO I THINK IT WOULD BE VALID TO FIGURE OUT HOW DO WE REMOVE THE GRAY AREA TO THAT WITHIN REASON, A LITTLE GRAY AREA IS NOT TERRIBLE, BUT THAT'S A PRETTY STARK DIFFERENCE IN WHAT WE DISCUSSED TONIGHT. SO YEAH, Y'ALL MAY REMEMBER AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE COMP PLAN UPDATE WITH THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN UPDATE. IN THAT PROCESS, WE GOT HUNG UP ON THIS SAME CONVERSATION AND, YOU KNOW, IN MY OPINION, WE KIND OF WALKED AWAY EVEN WHEN IT WENT THROUGH COUNCIL WITHOUT ANY KIND OF RESOLUTION WHATSOEVER. AND IF I WERE KING, I WOULD JUST SAY WE GET RID OF THE DENSITY AND WE USE THE NUMBERS. WE GOT. IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE NUMBERS, CHANGE THEM. BUT BECAUSE THOSE THINGS ARE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER, THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE. I MEAN, YOU CAN, YOU KNOW, TALK TO YOURSELF IN THE MIRROR FOR 15 MINUTES, AND WHEN YOU'RE DONE, YOU'RE NO BETTER OFF THAN WHEN YOU STARTED BECAUSE THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE. THEY ARE, I WOULD SAY, NOT DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSED, BUT THEY'RE CLEARLY OPPOSED TO EACH OTHER. YOU EITHER HAVE THE SIZES OR YOU HAVE THE DENSITY. 
          AND WHEN YOU TRY AND SQUEEZE THEM BOTH TOGETHER, AND IF YOU THINK ABOUT IT, 1.6 TO 2.5 OVER 100 ACRE DEVELOPMENT OR 50, THAT'S HUGE. AS FAR AS WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IN STRUCTURES ARE, LOTS THAT YOU CAN HAVE. SO I WE'RE IN THE PROCESS OF GOING THROUGH JUST STARTING THE UDC UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE. AND AS PART OF THAT PROCESS, WE'RE LOOKING AT ALL OF OUR DEVELOPMENT REGS ACROSS ALL THE DEPARTMENTS. PART DEDICATION, FOR INSTANCE, AND HOW ALL THAT COMES INTO PLAY, ENGINEERING STANDARDS, HOW THAT COMES INTO PLAY AND OBVIOUSLY PLANNING, BUILDING. AND SO FORTH. AND ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE GOING TO BRING BACK TO Y'ALL, FRANKLY, IS DOING AWAY WITH THAT DENSITY KICKER, AND WE'LL JUST LEAVE THE NUMBERS IN THERE. AND IF WE WANT TO REVISIT THOSE, BECAUSE OUR MEDIUM DENSITY IS PRETTY HIGH COMPARED TO MOST SURROUNDING MEDIAN DENSITIES, BUT THAT'S FINE IF THAT'S WHAT WE WANT. IT DOESN'T MAKE ANY DIFFERENCE HOW HIGH IT IS, BUT WE'LL GET RID OF THAT CONFLICT AND WE WON'T EVEN WORRY ABOUT THE DENSITY NUMBER. 
          WE'LL JUST WORRY ABOUT THE LOT SIZES AND DEAL WITH THAT. AND THEN WE CAN CAN FIGURE OUT HOW TO ADDRESS THAT ACCORDINGLY. BUT SO THAT THAT PROCESS THIS FRIDAY THING AND I GUESS AS GOOD A PLACE AS ANY TO SAY THIS, THE NOTICE THAT WE SENT OUT INVITING COMMISSIONERS AND COUNCIL OR INVITING ENGINEERS AND DEVELOPERS, BUT THE PRIMARY REASON WAS THE CONSULTANTS WERE COMING WITH STAFF TIME. IT WAS LIKE GETTING EVERYBODY WE KNOW WHO THEY ARE, BUT A LOT OF THE OTHER DEPARTMENTS HAVEN'T NECESSARILY MET THEM. AND SO THAT CONVERSATION WAS JUST GOING TO BE GETTING EVERYBODY USED TO EACH OTHER TALKING ABOUT PROCESSES. AND WE THOUGHT WHILE THEY WERE HERE, WE MIGHT AS WELL LET ANYBODY KNOW THAT THEY COULD COME AND MEET THESE FOLKS, BECAUSE THAT'S WHO'S GOING TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS OVER THE NEXT 4 OR 5 MONTHS. SO THERE'S NO OBLIGATION AT ALL TO COME. IT WAS JUST AN OFFER BECAUSE THE REVERSE WAS WE DON'T TELL YOU THEY WERE HERE. AND THEN EVERYBODY WANTS TO KNOW, WHY DIDN'T YOU TELL US THEY WERE HERE? AND SO THIS WAY, IF YOU CAN'T COME, IT'S NO BIG DEAL. YOU'RE NOT REALLY MISSING ANYTHING OTHER THAN THAN MEETING THEM. AND YOU'RE GOING TO GET PLENTY OF OPPORTUNITY TO DO THAT. AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THE PROCESS. ALL RIGHT. OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS JUST I DON'T WANT TO KEEP YOU GUYS HERE LONGER. I JUST HAVE A QUICK THING FOR COMMISSIONER HAMILTON. 
          SO ONE THING DAVID'S BEEN HAVING US DO FOR OUR STAFF REPORTS TO TOWN COUNCIL IS NOTE WHAT THE PNC RECOMMENDATION WAS AND WHO WAS IN OPPOSITION TO IT AND WHO WAS IN FAVOR OF IT. BUT THAT'S NOT IN THE POWERPOINT. SO WHEN HE'S RUNNING IT DOWN FROM MEMORY, LIKE THE STAFF REPORT IS NOT IN FRONT OF HIM TO LOOK AT. SO I GUESS FOR BOTH OF YOU, IS THAT SOMETHING THAT YOU WANT IN THE POWERPOINT FOR TOWN COUNCIL IS THE RECOMMENDATION. AND WHO VOTED IN OPPOSITION AND SPECIFICALLY WHY? YEAH, I THINK THEY I GUESS IN MY PAST WORLD THAT WAS INFORMATION THAT WAS COMMUNICATED SO THAT THEY HAD MORE CLARITY VERSUS JUST A YES OR NO ON THIS PERSON. AND WHETHER THAT PERSON WANTS TO STATE IT ON THE RECORD IN THE MEETING, OR WHETHER THEY WANT TO SHOOT YOU AN EMAIL AFTERWARD, THAT'S WHATE REQUIREMENT OR WHATEVER THAT DECISION IS, I JUST WANT I JUST FEEL LIKE THEY SHOULD HAVE THAT BACKGROUND OF WHY SOMEBODY VOTED A CERTAIN WAY. IF IT'S AGAINST SOMETHING THAT WAS THAT BOTH STAFF AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING AND A 
          [02:30:07]
MOTION IS MADE, THEY'RE VOTING AGAINST IT. THERE'S GOING TO BE QUESTIONED AS TO WHY. 
          ABSOLUTELY. OKAY. I JUST ADD I AGREE TOTALLY WITH THAT. BUT I ALSO THE ONE THING I THINK IS THAT I THINK WE ARE OBLIGATED, WE SHOULD WE SHOULD STATE OUR OPPOSITION TO SOMETHING IF WE'RE VOTING AGAINST IT. IT SHOULD BE STATED HERE IN THE PUBLIC MEETING AND WHY. AND I MEAN, I DON'T THINK IT'S INAPPROPRIATE THAT THE MINUTES EVEN REFLECT THOSE WHO VOTED AGAINST SOMETHING AND THEIR REASONS. AND A SHORT SENTENCE STATEMENT. BUT I DEFINITELY THINK THOSE REASONS OUGHT TO BE PASSED ON TO THE COUNCIL. AND THERE IS A MEMO. AM I MISSING SOMETHING? I THOUGHT THAT THIS HAS BEEN THE PRACTICE FOR QUITE SOME TIME. YEAH, BECAUSE I'VE HAD CONVERSATIONS WITH COUNCIL BEFORE ABOUT TRYING TO TELL Y'ALL THERE IS A MEMO THAT GOES OUT. IT'S CALLED A RESULTS MEMO THAT GOES OUT ACTUALLY TOMORROW ABOUT WHAT Y'ALL DID. AND THAT RESULTS EMAIL GOES OUT TO SOME STAFF DIRECTORS AND A COUPLE OF OTHER FOLKS. BUT IT PRIMARILY IS IT GOES TO ADMINISTRATION AND THE COUNCIL AND THOSE RESULTS MEMOS HAVE EXACTLY WHAT Y'ALL ARE TALKING ABOUT. THE BREAKDOWN IS 5 TO 2 AND THERE'S TWO PEOPLE WHO VOTE AGAINST IT. THERE'S THE NAME OF WHO VOTED AGAINST IT AND WHY YOU VOTED AGAINST IT. SO THAT'S THERE. WE HAVEN'T HISTORICALLY PUT THOSE IN THE MINUTES. WE JUST PUT WHAT THE VOTE WAS. BUT WE CAN IF YOU ALL THINK IT'S APPROPRIATE TO PUT THEM THERE. BUT THEN, LIKE I SAID, I GET ASKED WHEN IT GETS TO THE COUNCIL LEVEL, IF IT'S NOT UNANIMOUS AND SOMEBODY OR SEVERAL SOMEBODIES VOTED AGAINST IT, I GET ASKED WHO VOTED AND WHY AND SO SINCE WE'RE GOING TO START DOING THIS A LITTLE MORE VISIBLY, SO TO SPEAK, THAN Y'ALL WILL JUST START SEEING IT, WE'LL PUT THEM IN THE MINUTES AND WE'LL PUT THEM IN THE COUNCIL PRESENTATIONS. WHEN IT GOES TO THEM, THEIR STAFF REPORTS THEIR VERSION OF THE STAFF REPORT, WHICH BASICALLY WHAT Y'ALL SEE WITH WHATEVER ACTIONS THAT Y'ALL TOOK. SO WE'LL INCLUDE THAT. ALL RIGHT. GOOD CONVERSATION. SO I DO WANT TO TALK FOR A LITTLE BIT HERE. I THINK ALL THE POINTS WERE VALID I APPRECIATE EVERYONE'S COMMENTS TONIGHT. AND I THINK ANYTIME YOU HAVE A SPLIT VOTE, WHETHER IT'S 4 OR 3, I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. I THINK THAT'S A GOOD THING. I WORRY ABOUT COMING INTO A LOT OF THESE SESSIONS OR MEETINGS. I WORRY ABOUT SOMETIMES WHEN WE ALL KIND OF VOTE THE SAME WAY. SO I KIND OF LIKE IT WHEN WE HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS AND THOUGHTS, AND THEN IT GOES TO A COUNCIL AND THEY HAVE THEIR THOUGHTS. WE ALL REPRESENT OUR CITIZENS. WE'RE ALL GOING TO HAVE DIFFERENT VIEWPOINTS. WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT BACKGROUNDS. WE ALL HAVE DIFFERENT THOUGHT PROCESSES ABOUT A NUMBER OF THINGS. AND WE ALL JUST TRY TO REPRESENT OUR CITIZENS AS BEST WE CAN. SO I THINK TO HAVE SOME SPLIT VOTES IS GOOD. AND IN THE SPIRIT OF DEMOCRACY, SINCE WE HAVE THAT GOING ON IN THE ELECTION, I THINK YOU KNOW, ALL VOICES BE HEARD. AND I THINK IT WAS A GOOD MEETING TONIGHT, AND I APPRECIATE ALL THE COMMENTS. AND I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN, WHICH IS ITEM NUMBER NINE, A MOTION THAT WE ADJOURN. I HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HARRIS, SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER JACKSON. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT, RAISE YOUR HAND. AND IT DOES CARRY 7 TO 0.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.