16. Consider a resolution setting a public hearing under Section 311.003 of the Texas Tax Code for the creation of a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone containing approximately 684.88 acres of land generally located East of North Dallas Parkway, North of U.S. Highway 380, West of Preston Road, and South of West Prosper Trail. (CE)

[16. Consider a resolution setting a public hearing under Section 311.003 of the Texas Tax Code for the creation of a Tax Increment Reinvestment Zone containing approximately 684.88 acres of land generally located East of North Dallas Parkway, North of U.S. Highway 380, West of Preston Road, and South of West Prosper Trail. (CE)]

REGULAR AGENDA PURSUANT TO SECTION 551.007 OF THE TEXAS GOVERNMENT CODE, INDIVIDUALS WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COUNCIL FOR ITEMS LISTED AS PUBLIC HEARINGS WILL BE RECOGNIZED WHEN THE PUBLIC HEARING IS OPEN. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 16 IS TO CONSIDER RESOLUTION SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING UNDER SECTION 311.003 OF THE TEXAS TAX CODE FOR THE CREATION OF A TAX

[00:10:02]

INCREMENT REINVESTMENT ZONE CONTAINING APPROXIMATELY 684.88 ACRES OF LAND, GENERALLY LOCATED EAST OF NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY, NORTH OF THE US HIGHWAY 380, WEST OF PRESTON ROAD, AND SOUTH OF THE WEST PROSPER TRAIL. BEFORE YOUR PRESENTATION, CHUCK, I'M ACTUALLY GOING TO ASK THE COUNCIL TO TABLE THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE A MOTION TO TABLE IT TO JUNE OF 2025. IS THERE ANY WOULD BE WILLING TO MAKE THAT MOTION? I HAVE A MOTION FROM THE MAYOR PRO TEM. SECOND, BY MARCUS. SECOND BY JEFF HODGES. ALL IN FAVOR? AYE. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY.

THANK YOU. CHUCK. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 17. CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING. CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A

[17. 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) (DH)]

REQUEST TO REZONE. 120.5 ACRES ON COLLIN COUNTY SCHOOL LAND SURVEY 12 ABSTRACT 147, TRACT 45 FROM PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 44 SINGLE FAMILY AND RETAIL TO PD TO A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT WITH SINGLE FAMILY AND RETAIL USES. LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LEGACY DRIVE AND FRONTIER PARKWAY. MR. HOOVER, YOU DO NOT GET OFF AS EASY AS CHUCK DID. WELL, JUST IN KEEPING IN LINE.

MAYOR. COUNCIL. THANK YOU. KEEP IT IN LINE WITH THIS FAST AS THINGS ARE GOING. I DON'T WANT TO HANG ON TOO LONG, SO I'M GOING TO CUT THIS DOWN FROM ABOUT 125 SLIDES TO ABOUT 60. SO SHOULD GET YOU OUT OF HERE IN ABOUT 45 MINUTES, IF THAT'S OKA. SERIOUSLY? SO HERE WE GO. THIS PARTICULAR CASE IS ACTUALLY A PIECE OF PROPERTY THAT'S CURRENTLY ZONED AS A PD FOR THE SAME GENERAL TYPES OF USES THAT THE REQUEST IS, IS TO CHANGE IT TO, WHICH IS MORE COMMERCIAL. IF I GO THE RIGHT DIRECTION, DOESN'T IT? TO GO INTO RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL, APPROXIMATELY A 7030 SPLIT 70% AND 90 ACRES WOULD BE RESIDENTIAL FOR THE 30 ACRES WOULD WOULD BE COMMERCIAL. IT WAS ORIGINALLY ZONED PD 44. AS I MENTIONED. THERE WE GO. NOT SURE WHAT I'M DOING WRONG. FUTURE LAND USE PLAN SHOWS IT BEING THE SAME MIX. BASICALLY WHAT IS BEING PROPOSED AS FAR AS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLANS ARE IS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, WHICH ACCORDING TO OUR ORDINANCE IS LOTS THAT ARE DENSITY HAS TOE BETWEEN 1.6 AND 2.5 DWELLING UNITS PER ACRE. THOSE TWO DON'T ALWAYS MATCH AS FAR AS WHAT THE LOT SIZE IS VERSUS WHAT THE DENSITY IS, AND THAT'LL COME BACK IN IN A LITTLE BIT. AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT IT. BUT I WANTED TO POINT IT OUT NOW WHAT THOSE THINGS ARE. AND THEN RETAIL AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICE, THOSE ARE BASICALLY THE KINDS OF THINGS THAT YOU SEE IN STRIP CENTERS AND COMMERCIAL CENTERS THAT ARE ADJACENT TO RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOODS, PERHAPS GROCERY STORES. BUT ALL OF THE INDIVIDUAL TYPES OF SHOPS THAT THAT YOU SEE, AND THAT'S WHAT THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS CALLING FOR. THIS IS THE BREAKDOWN OF WHAT IT IS THAT SHOWS WHERE THE COMMERCIAL IS AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT SURROUNDING AREA. YOU SEE ALL THE ZONINGS PARTS OF IT'S ACTUALLY IN SALINA. THE REST ARE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS THAT ARE PRIMARILY RESIDENTIAL. THIS IS WHAT THE PROPOSED RESIDENTIAL SECTION WILL LOOK LIKE. YOU CAN SEE THE COMMERCIAL IS UP IN THE TOP LEFT CORNER. THIS WOULD BE THE LAYOUTS OF WHAT THE HOUSES ARE. ALL THE LOTS ARE EXCUSE ME, PIECE OF PROPERTY DOWN THE BOTTOM ALL THE WAY TO THE RIGHT. IT WOULD BE A PARK THAT'S BEEN DEDICATED TO THE CITY AS PART OF THE PARKS DEDICATION FOR SUBDIVISIONS, THERE'S A SMALL SECTION IN THE CENTER THAT WOULD BE THE AMENITY CENTER LOCATIONS, AND THEN THAT THE AREA UP IN THE TOP IS THE COMMERCIAL CONCEPT PLAN. I'M NOT DOING SOMETHING RIGHT. IT'S NOT WORKING. THIS IS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED. THE DENSITY WOULD REMAIN WITHIN THE 1.6 AND THE 2.5. THERE WOULD BE 221 SINGLE FAMILY LOTS ON THE 90.7 ACRES, AND DENSITY WOULD WIND UP BEING 2.4 DWELLING UNIT.

THESE ARE THE DISTRICT REGULATIONS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL CHOSE FRONT YARD SETBACKS AND

[00:15:09]

SIDE YARD SETBACKS. SIZE OF LOTS, HEIGHTS PRETTY MUCH. I WON'T SAY STANDARD, BUT BUT TYPICAL FOR THIS TYPE OF SUBDIVISION AS FAR AS THE CRITERIA IS CONCERNED, THIS TABLE IS IN HERE. IT'S FOR ILLUSTRATION PURPOSES ONLY, AND IT'S PARTLY GETS BACK TO WHAT I MENTIONED ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE LOTS AND THE NUMBER OF THE LOTS, AND THEN WHAT THE DENSITY IS FOR THE RESIDENTIAL NEIGHBORHOOD, THE CURRENT REQUIREMENTS HAVE LOWER LIMITS AS FAR AS THE SMALL LOTS ARE CONCERNED, AND LOWER LIMITS AS FAR AS WHAT THE LARGER LOTS ARE CONCERNED. AND THE PURPOSE OF THIS TABLE IS JUST TO SHOW HOW THESE THE NEW LOTS THAT ARE BEING PROPOSED SPREAD OUT IN THAT DENSITY. THERE WERE THREE TYPES OF LOTS IN THE CURRENT ZONING TYPE A, TYPE B, AND TYPE C 10,000, 11,000 AND 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED RANGES FROM A LOW OF APPROXIMATELY 10,500 TO A HIGH OF FAIRLY SIGNIFICANT. BUT BUT REALISTICALLY, THERE'S A HANDFUL THAT ARE HIGHER, BUT PRIMARILY IT GOES UP TO ABOUT 12,000 TO 13,000FT■!S. SO THE RANGE IS FAIRLY CONSISTENT, A LITTLE BIT LARGER, BUT FAIRLY CONSISTENT WITH WITH WHAT IS THERE. THE RANGE STILL IS A LITTLE LOWER THAN WHAT IS IN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL. THE LOT COUNT IS LOWER. THE SIZES MEET WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS, THE DENSITY OR EXCUSE ME, THE SIZES ARE A LITTLE BIT SMALLER THAN WHAT THE REQUIREMENT IS, BUT THE DENSITY FALLS WITHIN THE DENSITY RANGE. SO TECHNICALLY SPEAKING IT'S STILL CONFORMS WITH MEDIUM RESIDENTIAL. THE USES THAT ARE IN THERE CURRENTLY NOW ARE QUITE A BIT MORE THAN WHAT THE RESULT IS. AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED, I'M NOT GOING TO READ THEM ALL TO YOU, BUT YOU CAN SEE THERE ARE A FAIR AMOUNT OR ACTUALLY MORE THAT WERE ELIMINATED AS PART OF THIS PROCESS IS WHAT ARE CURRENTLY ALLOWED. WHAT DID I DO? THERE WE GO. ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS WOULD BE ONE THING I DID NOT MENTION. THE CURRENT PD DOES NOT HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND THEREFORE THE STANDARDS THAT ARE IN THERE ARE NOT ENFORCEABLE. AND SO PART OF THIS PROCESS, BY CHANGING IT FROM THE CURRENT PD ZONING TO WHAT'S BEING REQUESTED, WOULD ALLOW THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO BE PART OF THE PROCESS. AND THESE ARE MATERIALS THAT WOULD BE PERMITTED AS PART OF THE NEW STANDARDS. THIS IS JUST A LISTING. AGAIN, FAIRLY TYPICAL OF WHAT WE HAVE AS FAR AS THE FACADES ARE CONCERNED, THE TYPES OF MATERIALS, WHAT'S GOING TO BE WHERE PERCENTAGES THAT ARE MASONRY REQUIREMENTS VERSUS SECONDARY MATERIALS. AND SO FORTH. AND AGAIN, I'M NOT GOING TO READ ALL THESE TO YOU. THESE ARE REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT THE HOUSES WOULD LOOK LIKE I THINK IN YOUR PACKETS YOU'VE PROBABLY GOT ABOUT 50 PICTURES. AND I'M NOT GOING TO SHOW YOU ALL THE PICTURES. THIS IS JUST AGAIN REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT THEY LOOK LIKE. THESE ARE SOME OF THE AMENITIES THAT WOULD BE PEDESTRIAN ORIENTED AS FAR AS THE COMMUNITY IS CONCERNED. AND ENHANCED ENTRANCE. SOME OF THE AMENITY PARK THAT WAS IN THE CENTER THAT I MENTIONED IN THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK THAT'S ON THE EASTERN EDGE, THAT WOULD BE BECOME TOWN PROPERTY IF THIS IS APPROVED. THIS IS JUST THE ENTRYWAY, THE ENHANCEMENT THAT'S NOT COLORIZED. THERE'S A COLORIZED VERSION LATER ON THAT YOU CAN SEE. SO AGAIN, IS JUST TALKING ABOUT THE VARIOUS COMPONENTS. THIS IS A LITTLE BETTER VERSION OF WHAT THAT LOOKS LIKE. THESE ARE COMMUNITY AMENITIES THAT ARE WILL BE INCLUDED AS PART OF THE REQUIREMENTS IN THE PD ITSELF.

THERE WILL BE A HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION HAS TO BE APPROVED BY STAFF, WHICH ALSO GETS APPROVED BY THE TOWN ATTORNEY. THE COMMERCIAL SECTION. AGAIN, THIS IS WHAT THE OVERALL LAYOUT LOOKS LIKE. THESE ARE THE STANDARDS FOR THE COMMERCIAL. SUAREZ AGAIN, SETBACK SIZE OF

[00:20:06]

LOTS. AND SO FORTH. THESE WERE THE USES BY RIGHT. YOU WILL SEE AS YOU GO THROUGH THESE AND AS YOU'VE PROBABLY SEEN IN YOUR STAFF REPORTS THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL USES IN HERE THAT THAT STAFF REQUESTED BE ELIMINATED FOR BETWEEN WHAT THE CURRENT ZONING IS AND WHAT THE PROPOSED WOULD BE THERE ARE SOME THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED OF WHICH STAFF WERE IN OPPOSITION TO WHICH AGAIN, JUST SHOWS HOW IT HAS CHANGED OR HOW IT WOULD CHANGE. THESE ARE THE THINGS BY RIGHT. I'LL EXPLAIN WHAT THESE HIGHLIGHTED THINGS ARE LATER. AND THEN THERE ARE SOME THAT WOULD BE REQUIRED OR HAVE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS TO BE APPROVED. AND THEN. THERE ARE AGAIN SOME THIS SHOWS THE ONES THAT ARE HIGHLIGHTED WITH THE DARK BOLD SHOW. THINGS LIKE GAS PUMPS FOR INSTANCE, WERE ALLOWED BY RIGHT IN THE CURRENT AND THEY WOULD NOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT SPECIFIC USE PERMITS OR NOT ALLOWED AT ALL. THESE ARE AGAIN A LIST OF THE ONES THAT WOULD BE ELIMINATED. THESE ARE THE BUILDING MATERIALS. AGAIN, CONSISTENT WITH WHAT ARE TYPICALLY USED TO SEEING COMING FROM US IN THESE PROJECTS. A RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY REQUIREMENTS. THERE HAS TO BE A SCREENING WALL, MASONRY SCREENING WALL IN BETWEEN THE COMMERCIAL AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENTS. THERE'S A WALL MAINTENANCE EASEMENT THAT'S PROVIDED ON BOTH SIDES AND A PARTICULAR CAVEAT IS THIS IS WHICHEVER PART OF THE DEVELOPMENT GOES IN FIRST IS REQUIRED TO BUILD THE WALL. SO IF THE HOUSE IS GOING FIRST, THEY HAVE TO BUILD THE WALL. SO IT'LL BE THERE BEFORE THE COMMERCIAL COMES IN. THE COMMERCIAL HAPPENS TO GO FIRST.

THEY BUILD THE WALL BEFORE THE RESIDENTIAL. SO FIRST IN BUILDS THE WALL. IS THERE JUST SOME OF THE FEATURES. IS THERE. THAT'S THE COMMERCIAL AREA. THERE'S THE CREEK AREA THAT'S IN THERE. IT'S GOING TO BE LOCATED ON A SEPARATE LOT. THERE'S A PATHWAY MEANDERING WALKWAY THAT GOES THROUGH IT, AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT COULD BE UTILIZED AS AMENITIES FOR RESTAURANTS OR OTHER TYPES OF, OF BUILDINGS, PERHAPS EVEN SOME OF THE RETAIL CONFRONT. IT TURNED INTO AN AMENITY WITH WATER AND FOUNTAINS, AND PEOPLE LOVE WATER. SO HOPEFULLY THAT WOULD BE A GOOD POSITIVE FOR ANY RESTAURANTS THAT WENT IN. THIS IS A SUMMARY OF WHAT THE APPLICANT IS REQUESTING. MAXIMUM OF 55 OF THE TOP A LOT TYPE A LOTS WHICH WERE THE 10,500 LOTS WHICH ARE A LITTLE BIT BIGGER THAN WHAT WHAT CURRENTLY IS THE MINIMUM SIZE FOR THE TYPE A STAFF'S RECOMMENDING OF 50? A MAXIMUM OF 50 OF THOSE. THE TYPE C LOTS 12,000FT■!S. THE APPLICAS REQUESTING A MINIMUM OF 50, AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING A MINIMUM OF 55. BUT NOT TOO FAR. RETAIL SHOPS ARE PERMITTED ARE IN THERE. EXCUSE ME FOR UP TO 70,000FT■!S AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDING THEY NOT EXCEED 39,999, WHICH WOULD MEAN THAT BIG BOXES WOULD KICK IN AT 40,000FT■!S. BIG BOXES WOULD REQUIRE SPECIFIC USE PERMITS, AND I'M GOING TO SKIP INSTEAD OF GOING THROUGH ALL OF THESE THINGS, I'M GOING TO SKIP A LITTLE BIT TO THIS POINT RIGHT HERE. AND THIS APPLICATION WENT THROUGH PLANNING COMMISSION ABOUT THREE WEEKS AGO NOW, AND IT WAS APPROVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION BY A 4 TO 3 VOTE RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY A 4 TO 3 VOTE. THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PEOPLE BEING IN FAVOR, WHICH THERE WERE PARTS OF IT THEY LIKED AND PEOPLE NOT BEING IN FAVOR WAS THE DISCREPANCY THAT I MENTIONED EARLIER ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE IN THE SIZE OF THE ACTUAL LOTS, AND HOW THAT'S INTERPRETED AS AS LOW, MEDIUM, OR HIGH DENSITY, AND THEN WHAT THE ACTUAL DENSITY REQUIREMENT IS. AND SO EVEN THOUGH THE MAJORITY OF THE LOTS THAT ARE IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, AS WELL AS I MEAN AN EXISTING ZONING AS WELL AS THE CURRENT PROPOSAL, DO NOT FALL WITHIN THAT 12,500 TO 20,000 SQUARE FOOT RANGE. THEY

[00:25:07]

DO FALL IN BOTH INSTANCES WITHIN THE DENSITY REQUIREMENTS, WHICH IS 1.6 TO 2.5 UNITS PER ACRE.

THAT'S CONFUSING. COUNCIL MAY REMEMBER AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THE UPDATE TO THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN THAT CONVERSATION CAME UP THAT THOSE TWO THINGS ARE SOMETIMES INCONSISTENT AND OUT OF WHACK. THERE WAS DISCUSSION WITH THE COMMITTEE ON THE FUTURE LAND USE COMP PLAN COMMITTEE WITH THE PLANS WITH THE COUNCIL, ALL THROUGH THAT PROCESS AND IT DIDN'T GET RESOLVED. IT STAYED THE SAME. AND IT HAS COME UP SEVERAL TIMES AS WE'VE GONE THROUGH PROPOSED DEVELOPMENTS THAT HAVE COME THROUGH OVER THE LAST YEAR, ESPECIALLY SIX MONTHS TO A YEAR.

AND IT'S SOMETHING THAT WE ARE LOOKING AT AND WE WILL BRING BACK SUGGESTIONS AS WE GO THROUGH THIS. THIS UDC UNIFIED DEVELOPMENT CODE PROCESS, BECAUSE WE'RE LOOKING TO SEE HOW TO KIND OF CORRECT SOME OF THE INCONSISTENCIES THAT WE DO HAVE THAT THAT EXIST. BUT HAVING SAID THAT AND TRYING TO EXPLAIN WHY THERE WAS THAT SPLIT VOTE IN THE FIRST PLACE, THIS IS A SUMMARY.

ALL THIS INFORMATION IS IN THE PACKET THAT YOU GOT. AND LITERALLY IT WAS PROBABLY 175 TO 200 PAGES, PROBABLY ONE OF THE LONGEST ONES, IF NOT THE LONGEST SINCE I'VE BEEN HERE THAT Y'ALL HAVE GOTTEN. IT WAS IMPORTANT TO PUT ALL THE INFORMATION TOGETHER, BUT P AND Z'S VERSION, WHICH IS IN THIS FIRST COLUMN, IS THE RECOMMENDATIONS. THERE WERE 11 ITEMS AND THERE'S A SHEET THAT YOU HAVE IN THERE. I THINK IT'S PAGE THREE OF THE TEN AND THE STAFF REPORT. IT'S WRITTEN OUT. AND SO IT'S NOT IN A CHART FORMAT. YOU HAVE TO READ THROUGH IT. YOU HAVE TO FLIP THAT BACK THROUGH PAGES TO FIGURE OUT WHERE EACH OF THE CRITERIA IS. BUT THERE WERE 11 THINGS THAT WERE PRIMARILY DIFFERENT BETWEEN THE VERSION THAT THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION BASED. THEIR DECISION ON. AND AFTER THAT MEETING, THE STAFF WENT THROUGH ALL OF THE COMMENTS AND THE DISCUSSIONS THAT P AND Z HAD HAD, AND WE REVISITED SEVERAL OF THE ITEMS THAT WERE THERE AND HAD, AND IT WAS A LOT OF THE STAFF. IT WASN'T JUST THE PLANNING STAFF AND WENT THROUGH AND WE CAME UP WITH A PROPOSED LIST OF ADJUSTMENTS, IF YOU WILL, OF THINGS THAT WE SENT BACK TO THE APPLICANT AFTER THAT PLANNING AND ZONING MEETING AND WHAT WE CAME UP WITH WERE WAS A LIST THAT HAD ALL THE COMMENTS AND THAT WAS SENT TO THE APPLICANT, WHICH IS WHAT THE MIDDLE COLUMN IS. IT SAYS TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDATION, AND THAT HAS THE CHANGES OF THE 11 ITEMS THAT WERE DIFFERENT, WHILE THE OTHER THINGS AND THE 175 PAGES KIND OF BOILED DOWN TO THOSE 11 ISSUES. AND THAT'S WHAT WE SENT BACK TO THE APPLICANT SHORTLY THEREAFTER, PROBABLY A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO, AND SAID, THIS IS WHAT STAFF IS GOING TO RECOMMEND. AND THE COLUMN ON THE RIGHT IS WHAT THE RESPONSE WAS FROM THE APPLICANT COMING BACK.

AND IN SOME OF THEM ARE GENERALLY THE SAME. SOME OF THEM WERE WERE ADJUSTED. YOU CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE LOTS THE MINIMUM AND THE MAXIMUM OF THE TYPE A'S AND THE TYPE CS. THE STAGGERED SETBACKS, THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SALES AND ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENTS. THOSE ARE PRIMARILY CONSISTING OF ALCOHOL, BASICALLY LIQUOR STORES. IT'S WHAT THAT AMOUNTS TO. SALES AND ESTABLISHMENT ARE DEFINITIONS THAT WE HAVE IN OUR TEXT AND OUR CODES. PRIMARILY WHAT IT MEANS IS IF YOU TAKE SOMETHING OUT AND YOU MAKE MORE THAN 75% OF YOUR INCOME FROM IT.

SO WHATT THAT MEANS IN SIMPLE ENGLISH IS IF IT'S A LIQUOR STORE, YOU OBVIOUSLY ARE TAKING IT OUT AND TAKING IT HOME. IF IT'S A GROCERY STORE THAT FALLS UNDER RETAIL BECAUSE GROCERY STORES, EVEN THOUGH THEY SELL BEER AND WINE, THEY DON'T MAKE 75% OF THEIR INCOME OUT OF THE SALE OF THE BEER AND WINE. SO THAT THAT ISN'T ALLOWED BECAUSE IT FALLS INTO THE LIQUOR STORE.

BUT IF IT'S A GROCERY STORE THAT HAS BEER AND WINE, THAT'S ALLOWED WITH THE TABC LICENSE, IF IT'S A RESTAURANT, IT DOESN'T GET 75% OF THEIR INCOME, WHICH IS REALLY A BAR. IT'S NOT A RESTAURANT. THEN THAT WOULD BE ALLOWED TO. BUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS WE DON'T HAVE

[00:30:01]

BASICALLY THE LIQUOR STORES, WHICH COMES FROM THAT, THAT DISTINCTION, THE DRIVE THROUGH ON THE BANKS, THE COMMERCIAL INDOOR AMUSEMENT AT THINGS LIKE, AND SOME OF THESE ARE GONE AND NOT EVEN AROUND ANYMORE, BUT DATES MYSELF, I GUESS. BUT THINGS LIKE MAIN EVENT, YOU KNOW, AND DAVE AND BUSTER'S, YOU KNOW, THOSE ARE INDOOR AMUSEMENT TYPE ACTIVITIES. AND THEN THERE ARE SMALLER ONES THAT ARE THINGS LIKE CHUCK E CHEESE, WHICH WERE PIZZA PLACES WHERE KIDS, LITTLE KIDS PRIMARILY WOULD, WOULD GO AND HAVE THEIR BIRTHDAY PARTIES AND SUCH. AND THAT'S WHAT THE APPLICANT IS PROPOSING IS LESS THAN 15,000FT■!S WOULD BE PERMITTED. ALL THE REST BIGGER THAN THAT WOULD REQUIRE A SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. STAFF SAYING, NOW ALLOW ME THIS SPECIFIC USE PERMIT. AND THEN AGAIN, YOU KNOW, YOU CAN CAN READ THROUGH WHAT THE REST OF THESE ARE, BUT WHAT IT AMOUNTS TO AT THE END OF THE DAY, HERE IS STAFF IS RECOMMENDING, OH, ONE MORE THING, NOTICES WERE SENT OUT ON FRIDAY, NOVEMBER THE 8TH AND WE'VE GOTTEN NO RESPONSES FROM ANYBODY. WHAT WE'LL FIND OUT WHERE IT IS WAS THE RECOMMENDATION. AGAIN, AS I MENTIONED FROM P AND Z WAS FOR THREE AND THE THREE COMMISSIONERS AND WHY THEY WERE OPPOSED CAME DOWN TO THAT DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE LOT SIZES, STAFF US IS RECOMMENDING THAT IT BE APPROVED SUBJECT TO OUR LIST OF RECOMMENDATIONS THAT ARE IN THERE. THE MIDDLE COLUMN WE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THOSE OF THE 11 THINGS WHERE WE HAD DIFFERENCES. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT THAT STAFF WOULD RECOMMEND. IF IT'S APPROVED, THAT THOSE BE INCLUDED, THAT THE APPLICANT REASON WE'VE GOT THIS, I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT IS THE APPLICANT KNEW WHAT WE WERE GOING TO DO AND THEY WANTED US TO. AT LEAST I GUESS ALLOW FOR A REPRESENTATION OF THOSE WERE THE THINGS THAT THEY DIDN'T AGREE WITH. AND THAT'S WHERE WE CAME UP WITH THAT LIST. AND SO WE THOUGHT IT WAS EASIER FOR Y'ALL TO SEE ALL OF THESE TOGETHER, AS OPPOSED TO FLIPPING BACK AND FORTH ON ON ALL THE PAGES. SO, SO THAT'S WHY THAT'S HERE. IT'S JUST CAN WE BEFORE WE MOVE ON TO THE FROM THIS CHART, I JUST WANT TO CLARIFY ONE THING BECAUSE I, I LISTENED TO THE PNC HEARING, AND I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT, YOU KNOW, EVERYONE THAT DIDN'T LISTEN UNDERSTANDS THE P AND Z REALLY DID NOT TAKE UP THE COMMERCIAL PORTION BECAUSE THEY WERE TOLD BY THE APPLICANT THAT IT WAS A PLACEHOLDER. THERE WERE NO PLANS FOR ANY TENANTS OR PURCHASING RIGHT NOW, AND THAT THEY WERE BASICALLY BOXES ON A PAGE BECAUSE STAFF REQUIRED THEM TO DO SOMETHING. SO JUST TO CLARIFY HERE, PLANNING AND ZONING DIDN'T REALLY I MEAN, THEY TOOK IT. I GUESS, AS IT WAS PRESENTED, BUT THEY DIDN'T REALLY HAVE A DISCUSSION OR A RECOMMENDATION ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE CLARIFY THAT WE'RE NOT IF WE GO WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, WE'RE NOT GOING AGAINST ANYTHING P AND Z DID. THEY REALLY DIDN'T TAKE UP THE MATTER. YES, MA'AM. I WOULD AGREE. IN GENERAL, I WOULD AGREE WITH EVERYTHING YOU SAID AND OUR OUR REQUEST OF THE APPLICANT WAS A LITTLE MORE THAN JUST PUTTING BOX ON A PIECE OF PAPER. I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, THAT'S KIND OF WHAT IT WAS, IN ALL FAIRNESS, BECAUSE OUR REQUIREMENTS FOR PDS ARE YOU HAVE TO SHOW A CONCEPT PLAN. AND THEY TOLD US FROM THE BEGINNING THEY HAD NO IDEA WHO OR WHAT MIGHT WIND UP BEING IN THAT COMMERCIAL AREA. AND WE SAID WE UNDERSTAND THAT, BUT YOU HAVE TO REPRESENT SOMETHING IN THERE BECAUSE THAT'S HOW WE DETERMINE UTILITIES AND ACCESS AND ROADWAYS AND ALL THOSE AND SPACING IN BETWEEN AND LANDSCAPE EASEMENTS AND ALL THOSE TYPES OF THINGS, SO THAT THAT IS TRUE. WE KNEW THAT GOING IN. THEY TOLD US THAT THEY DIDN'T HAVE THAT. AND THAT WAS RELAYED TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION. PLANNING COMMISSION BELIEVED, AS DO I, THAT ANYBODY WHO CAME IN TO DEVELOP THAT IS ALMOST CERTAINLY GOING TO HAVE TO GO BACK THROUGH THAT CONCEPT PROCESS ANYWAY. AND SO WE WERE MORE FOCUSED ON WHAT THOSE USES POTENTIALLY COULD BE. AND I DO THINK THE PLANNING COMMISSION UNDERSTOOD THAT PART THAT THEY WERE WEEDING OUT A LOT OF THE OLD WERE GOING TO BE ADDING IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PUTTING IN THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS AND SUCH. BUT YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY CORRECT. THEY SPENT

[00:35:02]

VIRTUALLY NO TIME ON ON THAT PIECE BASED ON HOW IT WAS PRESENTED TO THEM. YEAH, I'D LIKE TO ADD AS AN ADJUNCT TO. YES, SIR, DEPUTY MAYOR PRO TEM SAID I WAS UNDER THE IMPRESSION FROM TALKING TO ONE OF THE PNC MEMBERS THAT THEY HAD MOVED AT SOME POINT, THE LINE, THAT SOUTHERN BOUNDARY OF THE COMMERCIAL PIECE TO ACCOMMODATE SOMETHING WITH THE RESIDENTIAL PIECE IS THAT IS THAT NOT TRUE IN THE OLD PD? I THINK THEY'RE ADDING TEN ACRES TO THE COMMERCIAL SITE FROM THE PREVIOUS PD. OKAY, MAYBE THAT WAS EXPANDING THAT COMMERCIAL SITE, RIGHT? YEAH, YEAH. AND THE OLD PD, IT KIND OF CUT IT OFF AND THEY WERE REALLY GOING TO RECLAIM THE FLOODPLAIN. AND NOW THEY'RE TAKING IN TEN ACRES. SO THEY'RE GAINING TEN ACRES OF THE COMMERCIAL AND LOSING IT. AND THE RESIDENTIAL, THE OLD ONE WAS KIND OF A FUNKY DIAGONAL LINE.

AND THIS ONE JUST SHOOTS STRAIGHT ACROSS. THAT IS TRUE. OKAY, MR. HUBBARD, JUST MAKE SURE YOUR PRESENTATION IS DONE. YES, SIR. OKAY, SO NOW WE'RE INTO. NOW WE'RE INTO QUESTION.

SORRY, I. I DIDN'T MEAN TO. I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY. I DIDN'T KNOW IF HE WAS MOVING ON. NOW, DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? I JUST HAVE A COUPLE CLARIFYING QUESTIONS IN REGARDS TO THE DRIVE THROUGH IN THE CURRENT PD. IT'S BY RIGHT FOR THE ONE ITEM BECAUSE I KNOW SOME OF OUR OLDER PD'S HAVE DRIVE THRUS ALLOWED. IT DOESN'T HAVE THIS, ONE DOESN'T HAVE A LIMIT.

IT JUST ALLOWS DRIVE THRUS. OKAY. SO THAT THAT WAS MY. YEAH OKAY. SO THAT'S IMPORTANT. I THINK. AND THEN AND I WOULD JUST BE INTERESTED IN STAFF'S PERSPECTIVE ON THE RESIDENTIAL ADJACENCY. THAT'S THE PART TO ME THAT LOOKS THE MOST CONCERNING. AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU GUYS IS RECOMMENDATION VERSUS THEIR RESPONSE. I WOULD JUST BE CURIOUS. YOUR. THE I WOULD TELL YOU THE MAIN DIFFERENCE BETWEEN WHAT WHAT WE'RE RECOMMENDING AND AGAIN ON THE PNC SIDE TO KIND OF REITERATE A LITTLE BIT WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER BARTLEY WAS TALKING ABOUT, PNC REALLY DIDN'T GET INTO THAT CONVERSATION, AND THEY LEFT IT AS THE EIGHT FOOT MASONRY WALL, WHICH IS WHAT OUR CURRENT ORDINANCE IS NOW KIND OF ACROSS THE BOARD, IN BETWEEN COMMERCIAL AND RESIDENTIAL.

AFTER WE HAD MORE DISCUSSIONS ABOUT THE SIZE OF THE BOXES, THE WAY THAT THEY LOCATED THE BOXES, AND IT BROUGHT UP THE DISCUSSION AND THE STAFF SIDE OF THE EQUATION WILL IF WE HAVE THESE BIG BOXES AND THEY'RE SCRUNCHED RIGHT UP AGAINST THE DEVELOPMENT, IT'S A 80,000 SQUARE FOOT. WHATEVER IT HAPPENS TO BE. AND THE ONLY THING THERE IS AN EIGHT FOOT WALL AND A TREE EVERY 30FT, THAT'S PROBABLY NOT GOOD ENOUGH. AND SO WE SENT THE PROPOSAL BACK THAT THE TYPES OF USES ALONG THE SOUTHERN EDGE, SOUTHERN AND EASTERN EDGE, ALONG THE RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE LIMITED IN HEIGHT, AND IT WOULD BE LIMITED IN THE TYPES OF DEVELOPMENT THAT WENT THERE. THE APPLICANT RESPONDED BACK TO THAT WITH THEIR REQUEST. WAS TO DOUBLE THE BUFFER. IT'S NORMALLY A 15. THEY PROPOSED DOUBLING IT TO 30 AND THEN PUTTING IN A DOUBLE ROW OF TREES, AS OPPOSED TO THE NORMAL, YOU KNOW, ONE PER 30. THERE BASICALLY WOULD PUT ONE FOR 15, STAGGER THEM AND IT WOULD WOULD CREATE MORE OF A OF A, A HIGHER SEPARATION. IF YOU WILL, AFTER A WHILE. OBVIOUSLY TREES HAVE TO GROW, BUT YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT THEN IT WOULD BE BETTER. THAT WAS KIND OF THEIR COUNTER TO WHAT OUR PROPOSAL WAS. AND WE PRIMARILY WERE PROPOSING THAT BECAUSE NOBODY KNOWS WHAT THE COMMERCIAL USES ARE GOING TO BE. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT THE DIFFERENCE IS BETWEEN THE TWO. I MY POSITION, FRANKLY, WOULD BE OR STAFF'S POSITION. ALL OF US, I THINK WOULD WOULD BE PRETTY UNANIMOUS IN IT. THAT AS LONG AS WE DON'T KNOW, WE WOULD THINK OUR SUGGESTION WOULD BE BETTER. NOT THAT THEIRS IS A BAD SUGGESTION IF WE KNEW WHAT IT WAS, IT MIGHT BE ABLE TO BETTER HAVE A BETTER OPINION OR A DIFFERENT OPINION, BUT NOT KNOWING. WE THINK THAT IT'S BETTER THE WAY WE'RE PROPOSING IT. IT'S NOT SAYING THEY CAN'T DO IT. THEY STILL HAVE TO HAVE ESPS. THEY CAN PUT IT IN FRONT, PUT MORE OF THE PARKING IN THE BACK. I MEAN, IT'S NOT TAKING IT AWAY, IT'S JUST DESIGNING IN THE DARK, WHICH IS KIND OF WHAT EVERYBODY'S DOING. AND WE'VE BEEN LONG ANSWER AND I'M SORRY COUNCIL HAS BEEN CONSISTENT WITH THAT. IF YOU LOOK AT WINDMILL HILL, YOU KNOW HOW IT PROGRESSES FROM RESIDENTIAL UP TOWARDS PRESTON. IF YOU LOOK AT THE PD THAT WE APPROVED NEXT TO THE KROGER SILVERMAN'S PROPERTY, IT WAS IT WAS PRETTY MUCH OFFICE AND MEDICAL UP AGAINST THE RESIDENTIAL. SO I THINK YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT'S CONSISTENT WITH WHAT WE'VE PREFERRED FOR OUR RESIDENTS SINCE THAT IS

[00:40:04]

GOING TO BE A PROBABLY A 1 MILLION PLUS. YOU KNOW, NEIGHBORHOOD. AND IT IS THAT WAY IN SEVERAL PD DEVELOPMENTS AROUND TOWN, ON CORNERS, ESPECIALLY. YOU KNOW. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT? OKAY. THANK YOU, MR. HOOVER. YES, SIR. DOES COUNCIL HAVE QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION? YEAH, I'M GOING TO MOVE UP HERE TO NOT MEAN TO NOT TRY AND MOVE UP A LITTLE BIT THERE. THANK YOU.

GOOD EVENING, MAYOR. AND COUNCIL. MY NAME IS CLINT RICHARDSON. TEN 950 RESEARCH ROAD, FRISCO, TEXAS. 75033 HERE ON BEHALF OF THE APPLICANT FOR THIS, THERE'S TWO KIND OF APPLICANTS HERE. THERE'S A CURRENT OWNER THAT OWNS THE ENTIRE PROPERTY AND ANOTHER APPLICANT THAT'S LOOKING TO BUY THE RESIDENTIAL AND DEVELOP THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION. DAVID, CAN I GO BACK TO YOUR SUMMARY? OH, SURE. IS THAT A OH, GOSH, BOY, YOU DON'T HOLD IT DOWN. WELL, THAT THING HUMS. SORRY. THERE YOU GO. SO JUST REAL QUICK ON THIS. A COUPLE LITTLE THINGS FROM MY MEMORY AND HOPEFULLY I'M NOT SPEAKING OUT OF TURN HERE, BUT ON THE TOP A THE PLANNING AND ZONING WE THERE WAS A MAXIMUM NUMBER DEFINED IN THERE. IT WAS 150 FOR THE TOP LOTS.

THERE WAS A MINIMUM NUMBER FOR THE TYPE C, IT WAS 40 LOTS. THOSE WERE ALL. AND THAT WAS I THINK THAT'S THE ONLY THING I NOTED IN THERE FROM THE PNC APPROVAL. SO JUST REAL QUICK ON THAT. SO 150 TYPE A, 4040 TYPE C, TYPE C, I THINK THERE WERE 225. THERE WAS A 225 CAP. WE'RE NOW 221. BUT AT THE PNC WE AGAIN WE ADDED THE TYPE C AT THE DAIS. AND THE DAY WE HAD COMMITTED TO 40 OF THOSE AND WE KEPT THE TYPE A AT 150. IT WAS IT WAS A PNC. YEAH. OKAY. LET'S SEE IF I CAN'T GET FORWARD NOW I'LL BE OKAY. RIGHT, RIGHT. YOU WOULD THINK THIS IS MORE INTUITIVE THAN APPARENTLY I THINK IT IS. HERE WE GO. ALL RIGHT. SO JUST REAL BRIEFLY, KIND OF REVIEW WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY, HOW THE TOWN LOOKS AT THIS AREA. AND THEN REAL BRIEFLY KIND OF WHAT'S AROUND US. SO THIS IS THE CURRENT PD. THIS IS AN EXHIBIT IN THE PD. I JUST COLORED IT UP ON ADOBE JUST TO MAKE IT A LITTLE EASIER. YOU CAN SEE THAT IT HAS KIND OF A FUNKY SHAPE FOR THE RED COMMERCIAL AREA HAS A DASHED IN AREA THAT'S LABELED. IT'S HARD TO READ THAT AREA, BUT IT CALLS IT THE CHANNEL AREA. I BELIEVE VERY OPTIMISTIC INTERPRETATION OF WHAT THAT DRAINAGE WOULD HAVE TO BE IN THE FUTURE. SO THIS IS THE EXHIBIT A AND THE CURRENT ZONING, AGAIN, RESIDENTIAL, COMMERCIAL KIND OF AN ODD SHAPE WITH THE RESIDENTIAL BOUNDARY EXTENDING UP THERE TO FRONTIER. AND THAT BLUE IS A VERY, VERY, VERY, VERY APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF THE FLOODPLAIN AT THAT TIME. SO HERE IS THE EXHIBIT D THAT WAS IN THE CURRENT ZONING KIND OF HIGHLIGHTS THERE. OBVIOUSLY THE FLOODPLAIN LINE IS VERY DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WAS ON EXHIBIT A, THE CHANNEL AREA IN GREEN IS GROWN A LITTLE BIT, BUT STILL OVERLY OPTIMISTIC IN ITS NATURE OF HOW BIG AND HOW WIDE IT WOULD BE. YOU'LL NOTICE THAT ON THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT, THEY'RE ACTUALLY SHOWING DAYCARE THERE ON FRONTIER, WHICH KIND OF REFLECTS THE REALITY OF WHAT FRONTIER FRONTAGE IS, WOULD BE THE PROPE, MOST LOGICAL USE. I THINK DAYCARE WAS ALLOWED RIGHT IN THE RESIDENTIAL, SO IT DOESN'T CONFLICT WITH THE PD, BUT IT KIND OF SKEWS THE PD SHOWING THE RESIDENTIAL UP TO FRONTIER, WHEN REALLY IT WASN'T GOING TO BE RESIDENTIAL USES. ACCORDING TO THIS PLAN, AT LEAST, THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL IS SHOWN IN ORANGE THERE. IT'S WHAT'S ALSO REFLECTED ON THE CURRENT TOWN'S MASTER PLAN. THIS PD CAME BEFORE THE MASTER PLAN, SO THE MASTER PLAN KIND OF REFLECTS WHAT'S HERE. NOT NECESSARILY. MAYBE WHAT THE MASTER PLAN WOULD HAVE DRAWN UP IN A VACUUM. AS YOU CAN SEE, THIS HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL CROSSES, I BELIEVE 13 DRIVEWAYS, 14 DRIVEWAYS AND FIVE STREET INTERSECTIONS, WHICH OBVIOUSLY ISN'T VERY CONDUCIVE TO TOOLING AROUND IN A KID ON A BICYCLE. IT SHOWS THE PARK AREA. IT'S HARD TO READ, A SCAN OF A SCAN OF A SCAN OF A FAX, BUT I BELIEVE THAT SAYS AROUND 6.56.5 ACRES.

THERE. AND THEY HAVE THEIR AMENITY CENTER, WHICH IS INCLUDED IN THE PD NESTLED IN WITHIN THAT RECTANGULAR PARK AREA, ABOUT THREE QUARTERS OF AN ACRE. ALSO ON THE PD, THERE IS NO MASONRY SCREENING BETWEEN THE USES. IT'S SIMPLY A LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH A OF A EVERGREEN HEDGE ON A 25 FOOT WIDE MINIMUM WIDE BUFFER. AND THEN AGAIN, KIND OF LIKE OUR PLAN. THESE ARE

[00:45:04]

CARTOON PLANS SHOWN ON HERE. BUT YOU CAN SEE THAT THEY HAD A KIND OF A MIX OF USES WITH A DRIVE THROUGH BANK, A DRIVE THROUGH QUICK SERVICE RESTAURANT, A COUPLE RETAIL STORES, KIND OF RESTAURANTS ORIENTED THERE TO THE CREEK. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHERE WE ARE CURRENTLY WITH THE CURRENT PD. THE. LET ME I WENT THE WRONG WAY. AGAIN, THIS IS SO AND THEN KIND OF AROUND US, SO AROUND US ON BASICALLY ALL SIDES NOT ROADS TO OUR EAST AND TO OUR SOUTH IS THE LEGACY GARDENS COMMUNITY. IT'S PD, THERE'S PART OF IT'S CURRENTLY CONSTRUCTED. AND THEN IT RECENTLY HAD A PD UPDATED, I FORGET, MAYBE A YEAR OR SO AGO THAT THE PORTION THAT THEY'RE ABOUT TO CONSTRUCT NOW IN THAT NEW SECTION THERE'S A MIX OF 8000, 9000 AND 10,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. I FORGOT TO MENTION THAT ON THE CURRENT PD, THIS IS A MIX OF TEN, 11 AND 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS, AND IN THOSE LOTS THE MINIMUM LOT. THE HOME SIZES ARE 1900 TO 2000 102,300 RESPECTIVELY. THERE. SO BACK TO OVERALL. SO LEGACY GARDENS. THERE'S A MIX OF EIGHT NINE AND TEN ZERO ZERO ZERO SQUARE FOOT LOTS PLANNED FOR THE AREAS THAT ARE THE NEWER AREAS, WHICH IS ALL OF OUR EASTERN BOUNDARY AND ALL OF THE BOUNDARY TO THE SOUTH. THAT'S NOT THE SCHOOL, THE MIDDLE SCHOOL, DIRECTLY TO THE SOUTHEAST SOUTHWEST PORTION. THOSE MINIMUM SIZE HOMES ARE 2300 FOR EACH OF THOSE SIZE LOTS PER THEIR PD. AND THEN IN THE OTHER PHASES, THERE ARE SOME 10,000, 11,000, 12, FIVE AND 15,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. BUT OVERALL, WITH THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY, JUST OVER 57% OF THE LOTS IN THAT COMMUNITY ARE GOING TO BE 10,000 SQUARE FOOT OR LESS. SO AND AS DAVID MENTIONED AS WELL, YOU KNOW, THIS AREA IS SHOWN AS MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL WITH THE CORNER BEING RETAIL AND NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES. SO KIND OF WHERE WE WERE AND WHERE WE ARE. RIGHT NOW. SO WHAT WE'RE PROPOSING. ON THE RESIDENTIAL I MENTIONED EARLIER, WE'RE WE STARTED AT 225 AND WE'VE CONTINUED TO REFINE THE PLAN, AND NOW WE'RE DOWN TO 221 LOTS AS OUR PROPOSED CAP FOR THE COMMUNITY. THE TYPICAL LOT SIZE IS GOING TO BE 76 BY 140 FOR THE MINIMUM. LOTS, WHICH IS IF YOU DO THE MATH THERE, YOU'RE AT 10,640. WE'VE SET THREE LOT TYPES. THE REASON FOR THE DEPTH, ADDITIONAL DEPTH IS DEVELOPER HERE OBVIOUSLY KNOWS THE MARKET VERY WELL. AND THE HOMEBUILDERS HE WORKS WITH AND THEY UNDERSTAND THAT THE RESIDENTS WANT A LARGER AND DEEPER BACKYARD WHERE POOLS, PLAYGROUNDS, GENERAL KIND OF FESTIVITIES AND FUN HAPPENS. SO THE IMPETUS FOR THIS PLAN WAS TO HAVE EXTRA DEEP LOTS TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN FOR THESE VERY NICE HOMES THAT ARE GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED HERE. THOSE THOSE HOMEBUILDERS THAT ARE SIGNED UP WITH THE DEVELOPER ARE COVENTRY, SOUTHGATE AND SHATTUCK HOMES.

ALL OF THOSE HAVE A LONG AND NICE HISTORY HERE IN PROSPER VILLE AND VERY HIGH QUALITY HOMES. SO WE HAVE A MIX OF THREE LOT TYPES. AS DAVID NOTED, 10,500. WE DID UP TO 10,000 TO 10,500. AGAIN THE MATH GIVES YOU 10,640. BUT YOU KNOW, GIVE US A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY IN CASE THERE'S A SQUIRRELY LOT OR TWO THAT WE DON'T PAINT OURSELVES INTO A CORNER. SO OUR MINIMUM IS AT 10,500 TYPE B LOTS, 11,000 SQUARE FOOT AND TYPE C LOTS 12,000 SQUARE FOOT. THE MINIMUM THAT WE'VE AND THAT TABLE THAT'S IN THERE THAT DAVID MENTIONED EARLIER IS THE ACTUAL RESULTS OF THIS PLAN THAT YOU SEE BEFORE YOU OBVIOUSLY WE'D LIKE TO GIVE OURSELVES A LITTLE BIT OF WIGGLE ROOM ON SOME OF THE HIGH AND LOW END, ABOUT FIVE LOTS, AS DAVID POINTED OUT, WE'RE PROPOSING, I BELIEVE, 55 MINIMUM OR MAXIMUM ON THE TYPE A AND 50 ON THE TYPE C MINIMUM, AND STAFF'S RECOMMENDED FIVE ON THE OTHER WAY. AGAIN, I DON'T THINK THAT'S A BIG DEAL, BUT IT GIVES THE ENGINEER WHO'S SWEATING BULLETS BACK THERE. IF WE APPROVE THIS PLAN, THAT HOPEFULLY HE'S PERFECT WITH THIS PLAN, IT GIVES HIM A LITTLE BIT OF LEEWAY FOR NOT TO BE PERFECT AT THIS STAGE, WHICH IS VERY EARLY IN THE PROCESS. WE HAVE THE PARK DEDICATION AREA THERE. WE MET EARLY ON IN THE PROCESS WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT AND THEN CONFIRMED THEIR NEED AND WANT FOR THE PARK THERE. OBVIOUSLY IT'S RIGHT ACROSS FROM THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL. MAKES PERFECT SENSE. THE AREA OF THE PARK IS 7.1 AND CHANGE ACRES, WHICH IS LARGER THAN THE ACTUAL RATIO OF PARKLAND DEDICATION PER YOUR ORDINANCES, WHICH IS ONE ACRE PER 35 UNITS, WHICH WOULD HAVE BEEN AT 6.3 ACRES. WE ELECTED TO DO THAT TO MAXIMIZE THAT AREA, AND THEN, ALONG WITH THE SLIVER OF LAND THAT'S BETWEEN, I FORGET WHAT THAT STREET NAME IS OVER ON THE LEGACY GARDENS. THERE'S SOME

[00:50:02]

ADDITIONAL LAND THERE THAT'S OUTSIDE THIS BOUNDARY, BUT ADJACENT THAT IT SHOULD GET IT RIGHT TO OR VERY CLOSE TO THE 7.5 ACRES THAT IS THE GOLD SIZE FOR A NEIGHBORHOOD PARK. SO WE HAVE OUR COMMUNITY AMENITIES, MINI PARK AREA LOCATED CENTRALLY WITHIN THE NEIGHBORHOOD. THAT WAS DONE INTENTIONALLY TO HAVE A GOOD ENTRANCE INTO THE COMMUNITY. WE HAVE AN ENHANCED ENTRANCE OFF OF LEGACY WITH A HIKE AND BIKE WIDTH TRAIL ON ONE SIDE OF THE ROAD COMING ALL THE WAY IN FROM LEGACY TO THE COMMUNITY PARK AREA, WE ALSO HAVE A THE HIKE AND BIKE ALONG THE ENTIRETY OF THE RESIDENTIAL FRONTAGE AS WELL AS THE COMMERCIAL FRONTAGE AS WELL AS THE SKIP THROUGH ALONG THE CREEK AREA AND THE COMMERCIAL WE PURPOSELY PUT INTO THE PLAN AREAS WITHIN MID-BLOCK OPENINGS AND AREAS THAT YOU COULD HAVE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTION WITHIN THE COMMUNITY, AND THEN EASY WAYS TO POP OUT OF THE COMMUNITY TO THE SOUTH, TO THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL THAT'S BEING CONSTRUCTED BY LEGACY GARDENS AND THE FRISCO ISD MIDDLE SCHOOL THAT CONNECTS TO EAST WEST ACROSS THE AREA. LET'S SEE. AND THEN IF YOU NOTICE THE LITTLE DOTS ON THERE, WE HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO REQUIRE THE HOMES THAT FACE ONTO THOSE OPEN SPACE AREAS. THE COMMUNITY PARK AREA, AS WELL AS THE NEIGHBORHOOD PARK TO BE REQUIRED TO HAVE A FRONT PORCH ON THE HOME. I BELIEVE THAT'S A NICE LOOK WHEN YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE OPEN SPACE THERE, AND THE BUILDERS HAVE OBVIOUSLY DONE THAT BEFORE, AND OTHER COMMUNITIES AROUND AROUND TOWN AND MAYBE PROLIFERATED MORE WITHIN THE COMMUNITY. BUT THESE LOTS WILL, AS A MINIMUM WILL BE MANDATED TO HAVE A FRONT PORCH INCORPORATED INTO THE PLAN. WE ALSO, AS DAVID SAID, YOU KNOW, WE HAD THE CASE APPROVED AT P AND Z AND THEN SOME ADDITIONAL COMMENTS CAME TOWARDS US TO CONSIDER. WE DID GO AHEAD AND COMMIT TO THE OPEN FENCING ALONG THE FRONT RETURNS SO WE CAN DRIVE DOWN THE FENCE. YOU'LL BE ABLE TO SEE INTO AND HAVE THAT OPEN FEEL AS YOU LOOK TOWARDS THE HOMES. AND THEN FOR THE LOTS, THE SIDE TO A STREET, THOSE THOSE WILL WILL BE OPEN FENCING TO IMPROVE THE OPENNESS FEEL OF THE COMMUNITY. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY, AS DAVID SAID, WE HAVE COMMITTED TO THE ARCHITECTURAL GUIDELINES VIA THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. SO ALL IN ALL, ON THE RESIDENTIAL, WE FEEL LIKE IT'S, YOU KNOW, IT'S AN IMPROVED PLAN. IT DELIVERS ON THIS NEXT ONE HERE. YEAH. SO THERE'S A PRETTIER VERSION OF JUST WHAT I SHOWED YOU. IT DOESN'T HAVE ALL THE HIGHLIGHTS THAT I WANTED TO HIT, BUT ON THE OTHER ONE TO KIND OF GUIDE THE CONVERSATION. BUT AS YOU CAN SEE THERE, LEGACY GARDENS SURROUNDING BOTH SOUTH AND EAST SIDES. THE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, WHICH I BELIEVE IS SLATED TO OPEN NEXT FALL, THE FUTURE MIDDLE SCHOOL, WHICH IS SLATED TO OPEN FALL OF 26. SO THERE'S A LITTLE RENDERED VERSION AND ZOOMED IN OF THE ENHANCED ENTRY. EXACTLY HOW MANY TREES AND HOW MANY SHRUBS WILL WILL TO BE DETERMINED. BUT JUST KIND OF GIVE YOU A MORE COLOR FEEL FOR HOW THAT WILL LOOK COMING FROM LEGACY ENTRANCE. AND THEN THERE'S KIND OF A SNAPSHOT OF HOW THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS IN BETWEEN LOTS COULD LOOK. AND THIS IS A THIRD, 3 OR 4 VERSIONS OF OUR LAND, OUR LAND PLAN TO GO CONCEPT LAYOUT FOR THE AMENITY PARK AREA CURRENTLY IN THE PD, WE HAVE IT LISTED AS A MIX OR A LIST OF ELEMENTS THAT CAN BE CHOSEN. A MINIMUM OF FOUR, A MINIMUM OF ONE OF WHICH WOULD BE ONE OF THE BIG BOY ITEMS, WHICH IS THE PICKLEBALL AND THE SAND VOLLEYBALL. SO THIS JUST KIND OF SHOWS OUR PLAYGROUND FACILITY. EXCUSE ME. SO THIS KIND OF SHOWS HOW THIS COULD LAY OUT. WE'RE JUST TRYING TO SEE HOW THE, THE PIECES FIT TOGETHER. THIS ONE KIND OF HAS A LITTLE BIT OF EVERYTHING MIXED IN THERE. WELL, THIS ONE WILL BE REFINED AS THE DEVELOPMENT GOES AND WORKING WITH THE BUILDERS AND THEIR THEIR INPUT FROM THEIR POTENTIAL HOME BUYERS. OH, THERE WE GO. SO THAT'S KIND OF THE SUMMARY ON THE RESIDENTIAL, ON THE COMMERCIAL. AGAIN, WE RESHAPED THE AREAS COMPARED TO THE CURRENT PD TO REFLECT KIND OF THE REALITY. EVEN THOUGH PD SHOWED A DAYCARE UP ON FRONTIER. SO SHOWING THAT AS RESIDENTIAL IS A LITTLE AWKWARD I GUESS. SO THIS SQUARES IT UP SO IT HAS A BETTER OPPORTUNITY. THIS GREEN AREA INDICATES KIND OF A SCIENTIFIC WILD GUESS ABOUT WHAT THE FLOODPLAIN COULD LOOK LIKE AT SOME POINT. THE BLUE LINE IS THE CURRENT FLOODPLAIN, SO OBVIOUSLY IT'S GOING TO TAKE SOME REFINEMENT. THIS WILL BE TIED TO THE IMPROVEMENTS OF LEGACY AND SUCH. BUT AND AS DAVID SAID AND AMY NOTED, THIS

[00:55:03]

IS THIS IS REALLY JUST A CARTOON. IT REALLY HAS NO MEANING OR ANY KIND OF, YOU KNO, ELABORATE THOUGHT PROCESS BEHIND IT. IT BASICALLY WAS INTENDED TO SHOW, HEY, WE'RE GOING TO HAVE AN ACCESS OFF LEGACY. WE HAVE ACCESS OFF OF FRONTIER. THERE'S GOING TO BE A MIX OF KIND OF BUILDINGS AT STAFF'S GUIDANCE, WE TRIED TO SHOW A FEW BUILDINGS THAT WERE MORE OR LESS ORIENTED TOWARDS THE CREEK AREA TO KIND OF REFLECT THAT INTENT, THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SOME FOCUS TOWARDS THE CREEK AREA. BUT BEYOND THAT, IT REALLY IS A CARTOON. OBVIOUSLY, YOU ALL HAVE YOUR OWN PROCESS THROUGH THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND SITE PLANNING PROCESS, WHERE ANY APPLICANT OR ANY KIND OF USER THAT DOES COME ALL AROUND ON THIS PROPERTY, THEY WOULD COME THROUGH THE PROCESS AND HAVE THAT GO THROUGH THEIR. SO A COUPLE OF HIGHLIGHTS OF THINGS THAT WERE ADDED THE PREVIOUS PD DID NOT HAVE THE HIKE AND BIKE TRAIL ALONG FRONTIER AND LEGACY UP AROUND THE COMMERCIAL. THIS HAS BEEN ADDED TO THIS ONE SO IT WILL CONNECT WITH THE OTHERS AROUND THERE, EXTENDING EASTWARD WITH THE LEGACY GARDENS. AND THEN WE ADDED THE CONNECTION THROUGH THE CREEK AREA TO KIND OF FURTHER ENGAGE THE PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIVITY THROUGH THERE. AND THE RESTAURANTS. ONE OF THE THINGS WE ALSO COMMITTED TO EARLY ON, IT WAS ALSO IT WAS INCLUDED IN THE CURRENT THE VERSION THAT WAS APPROVED AT P AND Z WAS THE ENHANCED EIGHT FOOT WALL. THE TOWN STANDARD IS A SIX FOOT STANDARD MASONRY WAL. WE COMMITTED TO GOING TO EIGHT FOOT TO HELP WITH THE NOISE, SOUND, VISUAL AID. THAT, AND AS DAVID POINTED OUT, WE'RE COMMITTING IN THIS PD THAT NO MATTER WHICH DEVELOPMENT HAPPENS FIRST, THAT DEVELOPMENT WILL BUILD THAT SCREENING WALL TO AVOID THE SCENARIO WHERE IF THE RESIDENTIAL WERE TO HAPPEN FIRST, THE HOMES BUILD WOODEN FENCES, COMMERCIAL HAPPENS LATER OR JUST ONE PART OF THE COMMERCIAL HAPPENS AND THEN THEY ONLY BUILD 400FT OF THE WALL. SO ALL OF THAT WALL IN BETWEEN THE RETAIL AND THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT OF THE PD WOULD BE BUILT AT THE FIRST STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT. IT'LL BE NICE AND FINISHED. NOBODY'D HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT IT AFTER THAT. SO ONE OF THE THINGS THAT DAVID SAID, WE HEARD FEEDBACK THAT THERE WAS CONCERN ABOUT THE ADJACENCY AND HOW THOSE TWO INTERACT. YOU KNOW, IT'S NOT A DIFFERENT OR UNUSUAL THAN COMMERCIAL VERSUS RESIDENTIAL ALL OVER,AL NOT ONLY THIS TOWN, BUT EVERY TOWN AROUND IT, ALL AROUND AROUND THE SUBURBS, THE ZONING ORDINANCE ATTACKS THAT BY DOING THE MASONRY WALL WITH THE TREES AND EVERYTHING. SO THAT KIND OF SETS THE STANDARD FOR, HEY, THIS IS HOW WE SEPARATE COMMERCIAL FROM RESIDENTIAL. WE UNDERSTAND IT'S A PD, SO WE WANTED TO GO ABOVE AND BEYOND. SO AGAIN WE STARTED WITH THE EIGHT FOOT. AND THEN AFTER HEARING CONCERNS ABOUT THAT EVEN MORE, WE SAID, ALL RIGHT, LET'S GO ABOVE AND BEYOND. LET'S DO THE DOUBLE ROW OF TREES AND STAGGER THEM. YOU KNOW, WE HAD SOME DISCUSSION. IF YOU WANT TO GO SPECIES SOME CEDAR, SOME LIVE OAK, WHATEVER TO HELP. MAYBE ENHANCE IT EVEN MORE AND THEN WE ALSO PUT IN THE BUILDING SETBACKS. WE INCREASED IT VERSUS THE COMMERCIAL. THE STANDARDS IN THE COMMERCIAL ZONE SO THAT EVEN MORE SO YOU TRY TO PROTECT THE RESIDENTS BY PUSHING THE BUILDINGS FURTHER INTO THE SITE, PARTICULARLY WITH THE TWO STORY BUILDINGS. AND THEN THE CURRENT OWNER AND HIS THE APPLICANTS ARE REPRESENTATIVES HERE TO KIND OF DISCUSS MORE OF THE SPECIFIC USES, KIND OF ABOUT ALCOHOL SALES AND SOME OTHER THINGS THAT ARE KIND OF COMPLICATED, BUT JUST REAL QUICK. I JUST I LOOKED IT UP BEFORE WE CAME, AND THE ALCOHOL BEVERAGE SALES IN YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE DEFINITION, IT JUST SAYS MEANS ANY ESTABLISHMENT PLACE OF BUSINESS OR PERSON ENGAGED IN THE SELLING OF ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE BEVERAGES AS DEFINED BY THE TABC, AS AMENDED TO THE GENERAL PUBLIC OR OFF PREMISE PERSONNEL OR HOUSEHOLD CONSUMPTION. I'M NOT A TABC EXPERT, BUT I'M NOT SURE HOW THAT AND THE P AND Z VERSION OF THE PACKET. THERE WAS ACTUALLY A LITTLE STICKER ADDED TO OUR LIST OF PERMITTED USES, WHICH LISTED GAS STATIONS, GROCERY STORES, PRIVATE RETAILERS, AND RESTAURANTS AS ALLOWED BY RIGHT, AND THAT WAS APPROVED AT P AND Z. AND THEN THE TWO INSTANCES THAT DAVID ALLUDED TO NOW WAS BAR AND LIQUOR STORES WERE APPROVED AT P AND Z AS BEING A SUP ON A LIST OF USES AT P AND Z. SO I THINK I'LL LET THEM SPEAK ON THEIR OWN SPECIFICALLY.

HANG ON FOR ONE SECOND BEFORE I WANT TO MAKE SURE WE DON'T GET CONFUSED HERE. TERRY, I THINK YOU HAVE A RELEVANT OPINION ON THAT BEFORE WE EVEN GO DOWN THIS THE REST OF THE PATH TO SHARE THAT I DO SHARE AND EVEN IF THEY WERE GIVEN THE RIGHTS THAT THEY REQUESTED BY ALCOHOL SALES, THEY STILL WOULDN'T, YOU STILL WOULDN'T BE ALLOWED TO DO IT FOR TWO REASONS. NUMBER ONE IS. THE

[01:00:06]

ALCOHOL SALE ON ALCOHOL BEVERAGE ESTABLISHMENT. THAT MEANS A BUSINESS THAT THAT DERIVES 75% OR MORE OF ITS INCOME FROM ALCOHOL SALES. AND AS FOR ON PREMISE CONSUMPTION, THE ONLY ON PREMISE CONSUMPTION THAT WE ALLOW THROUGH THE LOCAL OPTION ELECTION IS RESTAURANT USE IS A RESTAURANT WITH A MIXED BEVERAGE PERMIT. SO THE A PLACE THAT SOLD MORE THAN 75%, 75% OF THE PROCEEDS WERE RELATED TO ALCOHOL WOULDN'T QUALIFY AS A RESTAURANT IN ALL LIKELIHOOD. THE OTHER THING ABOUT THE PACKAGE SALES, AGAIN, WE HAD A LOCAL OPTION ELECTION IN 2020 THAT ALLOWS PACKAGE SALES. HOWEVER, THERE'S A PROVISION IN THE ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CODE THAT SAYS THAT A HOME RULE CITY IN ITS CHARTER CAN PROHIBIT ALCOHOL SALES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS. WE ACTUALLY HAVE THAT IN OUR TOWN CHARTER IN SECTION 11.07. AND OBVIOUSLY THIS IS A RESIDENTIAL AREA, AND UNDER THE TERMS OF OUR CHARTER PROVISION, OUR AND OUR CHARTER PROVISION WOULD, WOULD, WOULD TAKE PRECEDENCE OVER THE ZONING ORDINANCE. AND OF COURSE, STATE LAW AS WELL. SO EVEN IF THOSE WERE PERMITTED IN THE ZONING ORDINANCE, YOU STILL COULDN'T DO THEM BECAUSE THEY VIOLATE OTHER PROVISIONS OF STATE LAW OR THE TOWN CHARTER. NOW, IF YOU, FOR EXAMPLE, WITH A RESTAURANT COULD COULD HAVE MIXED BEVERAGE PERMIT AND HAVE ALCOHOL SALES ON PREMISE, YOU COULD HAVE A CONVENIENCE STORE THAT HAS BEER AND WINE SALES FOR OFF PREMISE CONSUMPTION. SO THERE ARE OTHER OPTIONS AVAILABLE TO YOU. BUT A CARTE BLANCHE SAYS PACKAGE SALES, FOR EXAMPLE, WILL NOT FLY BECAUSE IT VIOLATES OUR OUR EXISTING CHARTER AND STATE LAW. SO THE STAFF, DAVID HAS RECOMMENDED THAT THOSE THOSE TWO USES BE ELIMINATED AND I WOULD AGREE BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DO THEM ANYWAY. OKAY, I GUESS I CAN. I ASK YOU A QUESTION ABOUT THAT. SURE. YEAH. SO WHAT? SO WHAT SCENARIO WOULD JUST TAKE THE WHEN YOU MENTIONED LIKE A 7-ELEVEN OR A GROCERY STORE HAVING THE BEER AISLE OR WHATEVER, HOW WHAT WOULD THAT FALL UNDER AS FAR AS A PERMITTED USE, AS YOU ALL HAVE IT DEFINED IN YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE, IF IT'S AN AUTHORIZED RETAIL USE, THAT WOULD THAT WOULD ALLOW, FOR EXAMPLE, AS I UNDERSTAND, THE PROPOSAL IS FOR A CONVENIENCE STORE TO HAVE AN SUV THAT WOULD COME FORWARD WITH WITH AN SUP IF SOMEONE WANTED TO COME INTO THE CONVENIENCE STORE AND I MOST, MOST CONVENIENCE STORES AND MANY CONVENIENCE STORES HAVE OFF SALE SALE OF BEER AND WINE FOR OFF SALE PREMISES, THE GROCERY STORE DOESN'T REQUIRE ANY SPECIAL TYPE OF PERMIT. AND DAVID, CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. THEY WOULD BE ABLE TO DO THAT AS WELL. SO YOU WOULD STILL HAVE OPTIONS AVAILABLE FOR THE SALE OF ALCOHOL FOR OFF PREMISE CONSUMPTION. BUT PURSUANT TO WHAT STATE LAW REQUIRES IN OUR LOCAL OPTION ELECTION REQUIRES REQUIRED.

YEAH. EXCEPT YOU OBVIOUSLY KNOW THIS BETTER THAN I, BUT I'M I GUESS I'M LOOKING I WHEN I LOOKED AT IT, I FAILED TO SEE LIKE SAY A PERMITTED USE TYPE THAT'S LISTED UNDER COMMERCIAL THAT I THINK WOULD MAKE THE, THE OWNER CURRENT OWNER COMFORTABLE. AND DAVID EVEN WITH THIS THAT THOSE IF A USER CAME IN LIKE A CONVENIENCE STORE OR A GROCERY OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT, THAT THEY WOULDN'T HAVE THAT QUESTION OF, COULD WE HAVE A BEER AND WINE SALES IN THE STORE? CORRECT? I MEAN, AND DAVID, BUT THAT'D BE PERMITTED. YEAH. IF SOMETHING LIKE A PACKAGE STORE THAT WOULD NOT BE PERMITTED. LET ME LOOK. I'M TRYING TO FIND A CONVENIENCE STORE ON HERE IS A.

VERY CONVENIENT FOR ME. YEAH. IT WAS MOVED TO A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS PUMPS AND WITH. WITH SUP? SUP? YES. OKAY, OKAY. I GUESS I'LL SAY I'LL LET THEM SPEAK TO A COUPLE OTHER THINGS.

FOR INSTANCE, LIKE THE SIZE OF THE COMMERCIAL MUSIC AND OR AND THE DRIVE THROUGH AND THE BANK AND THINGS LIKE THAT, BUT JUST KIND OF MAKE SURE, CHECK MY NOTES REAL QUICK, MAKE SURE I DIDN'T SKIP OVER ANYTHING. THE LAST ONE, I BELIEVE. LET ME GO BACK TO THE SUMMARY REAL QUICK.

THE LAST ONE ABOUT THE SITE PLAN AND FACADE PLANS. THAT WAS A NEW COMMENT THAT WE FIRST SAW WHEN

[01:05:01]

WE PULLED THE PACKET. THAT WASN'T DISCUSSED WITH US PRIOR TO THAT, AND FRANKLY, I'M NOT SURE WHAT THAT'S INTENDED TO DO. IF Y'ALL HAVE PROVISIONS IN YOUR ZONING ORDINANCE, THAT HOUSE SITE PLANS, THE FACADE PLANS ARE ALREADY APPROVED. SO IF Y'ALL CAN PROVIDE SOME IF STAFF COULD PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION ON THAT, THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL FOR US. OTHER THAN THAT, OBVIOUSLY WE YOU KNOW, WE WORKED HARD WITH STAFF, HEAD OF P AND Z. WE WENT TO P AND Z GOT THEIR I THINK MOST OF THE KIND OF DAVID'S POINT WAS MOST OF THE COMMENTS WAS MORE ABOUT THE, THE DENSITY OF THE RESIDENTIAL. WE CONTINUED TO KIND OF WORK ON THAT. WE KEPT WHITTLING DOWN ON IT, CHALLENGING THE ENGINEER TO DEFINE IT BETTER AND BETTER AND BETTER AS WE WENT ALONG IN THE PROCESS. WE FEEL LIKE THE PROPOSAL NOW IS VERY SIMILAR TO THE CURRENT PD. THE DENSITY IS WITHIN THE MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL GUIDELINES. WE THINK THEY'RE VERY QUALITY LOTS DEPTH WISE, WIDTH WISE, THAT ARE GOING TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT A VERY QUALITY HOME BUILDING COMMUNITY.

AND WE'VE EXCEEDED THE PARK MINIMUMS. WE'RE GOING TO DO A VERY NICE COMMUNITY CENTER THERE IN THE CENTER OF IT. AND WE'VE TRIED TO INCORPORATE A LOT OF PEDESTRIAN CONNECTIONS THROUGHOUT THE COMMUNITY. WE FEEL LIKE IT'S GOING TO BE A REALLY, REALLY NICE COMMUNITY ON THE RESIDENTIAL PORTION. AND AGAIN, ON THE COMMERCIAL, I FORGOT TO MENTION, THEY'RE ALSO CONNECTED TO THE BUILDING STANDARD, THE ARCHITECTURAL STANDARDS, BUT THEY STRUCK OUT QUITE A FEW USES THAT WERE IN THE CURRENT PD AND IN YOUR CURRENT COMMERCIAL ZONING STANDARDS, AND YOU SQUARED UP THE PROPERTY AND MADE IT MORE USER FRIENDLY TO ACCOMMODATE THE ENGINEERING OF THAT DRAINAGE THAT COMES THROUGH THERE. SO WITH THAT, JUST KIND OF RESPECTFULLY ASK FOR YOUR APPROVAL TONIGHT AND HERE TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. SECOND, A FEW QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. ALL RIGHT. AT THIS TIME, THE THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND I HAVE ONE PERSON, MR. SHADEGG, THAT IS REGISTERED TO SPEAK DURING THE PUBLIC HEARING. IT SAYS ANSWER QUESTIONS OR AS NEEDED. SO DID YOU HAVE ANYTHING IN PARTICULAR YOU WANTED TO BRING FORWARD? NOTHING TO ADD AT THE MOMENT THAT I WANTED TO SEE AVAILABLE TO ANSWER QUESTIONS. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU.

OKAY. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM? HEARING NONE. I'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT THIS TIME AND WILL NOW OPEN UP FOR COUNCIL DISCUSSION. COUNCILWOMAN BARTLETT, IF YOU WANT TO START IT. YEAH, I JUST WANT TO SAY THANK YOU GUYS FOR BRINGING THIS PROPOSAL. IT IS AN IMPROVEMENT OVER PD 44, I THINK, FOR YOU AS WELL, ADDING THE TEN ACRES OF COMMERCIAL AND KIND OF HAVING SOME CLARIFICATION ON ON THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, I'M PERSONALLY JUST I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE TOWN STAFF'S RECOMMENDATIONS. I THINK THAT BETWEEN P AND Z AND US, THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN MADE ARE AN IMPROVEMENT TO WHAT WAS PASSED AT P AND Z, AND I'LL REMIND EVERYONE, IT WAS 4 TO 3, SO THEY WERE SPLIT ON IT. SO I THINK THIS HELPS A LITTLE BIT. MAKE IT JUST IMPROVE IT A LITTLE BETTER, MAKE IT MORE, MAKE IT FIT WITH SOME OF THE OTHER DEVELOPMENTS WE HAVE APPROVED IN THE PAST WITH SOME OF THE PROVISIONS THAT THAT WE'VE DISCUSSED TONIGHT. SO WITH THAT, I WILL LET SOMEBODY ELSE TALK, BUT I'M COMFORTABLE WITH IT. AS TOWN STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED. THANK YOU. YEAH, I WOULD ECHO THAT. I WOULD SAY I'VE LOOKED AT THIS A COUPLE OF DIFFERENT TIMES IN LOOKING AT THE PREVIOUS ONE, THE COMMERCIAL REDEFINED IS A MUCH IT'S A GREATER ENHANCEMENT. I HAD A QUESTION ON THE STAGGERED SETBACKS. I KNOW THERE WAS A RECOMMENDATION BY STAFF AT 25, 30 AND 35, AND THE FIVE ADDITIONAL FEET. COULD YOU SPEAK TO THAT REAL QUICK? I DIDN'T GET THAT IN THE PRESENTATION. YES, SIR. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO IS IT COMES DOWN TO WHAT DOES IT LOOK LIKE AS YOU'RE DRIVING DOWN THE ROAD AND WE ALLOW IN OUR ORDINANCE WHAT ARE CALLED J SWINGS, WHICH ARE GARAGES WHERE YOU COME IN, YOU KNOW, FROM THE SIDE AND IT GIVES A FINISHED LOOK AS OPPOSED TO A GARAGE DOOR LOOK TO THE STREET. AND WHEN THAT IS DONE, THAT ALLOWS YOU TO INCREASE OR ENCROACH FIVE FOOT INTO WHAT THE FRONT YARD SETBACK IS. AND OUR THOUGHT WAS, IF YOU ALLOW THE 20, 25 AND 30 ON THE STAGGERED AND THEN YOU HAVE THE J SWING, YOU'RE 15FT FROM YOUR FRONT PROPERTY LINE, WHICH CONCEIVABLY IF YOU'VE GOT A HOUSE NEXT TO IT, IS AT THE BACK END OF THAT STAGGERED AT 30FT. THAT'S A REAL AWKWARD LOOK. AND WE DIDN'T THINK THAT THAT WAS A GOOD IDEA.

AND SO THAT'S WHY WE SAID, OKAY, LET'S START WITH THE 25 OR THE REVERSE AND SAY, YOU CAN'T GET

[01:10:08]

CLOSER THAN 25FT, WHICH THEN FORCES IT THE RESPONSE BACK FROM THEM. AND I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR THEM, BUT THE REASON IT'S EVEN DISCUSSION IN THE FIRST PLACE IS I THINK IT WOULD IT HAD TO BE IT WAS ONLY ONE TALKING. BUT THE IDEA OF HAVING AN ENHANCED BACKYARD, THAT'S WHY THEY HAVE 76 FOOT WIDE LOTS INSTEAD OF 80 FOOT WIDE LOTS. SEEMS KIND OF INCONSEQUENTIAL, BUT IT ALLOWS THE REAR YARDS TO GO FROM 125 TO 140. SO YOU CAN HAVE MORE BACKYARD WHEN YOU PUT IN YOUR POOLS AND YOUR POOL HOUSE AND WHATEVER ELSE YOU DO. SO THEIR THOUGHT WAS, IF WE'RE PUSHING THEM BACK, IT'S EATEN UP THAT DISTANCE THAT WAS IN THERE, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE PUSHING TO HAVE THE 20. SO THEY'RE BOTH AS FAR AS I'M CONCERNED, THEY'RE BOTH VALID REASONS. BUT WE LIKE THE IDEA OF HAVING THE EXTRA FIVE FEET IN THE FRONT AS OPPOSED TO IN THE BACK. SO THAT'S THE WHOLE DIFFERENCE. AND THEY CAN ADD SOMETHING IF THEY WANT TO TELL YOU. SO IN PARKSIDE ON THE LARGER LOTS, WHICH WOULD BE THE C LOTS HERE, THEY'RE 35. AND IT JUST BECAUSE IT'S A BIGGER HOME IT JUST LOOKS BETTER. AND 20FT IS THE LENGTH OF YOUR CAR. SO I MEAN LIKE THAT'S A REALLY CLOSE VIEW TO THE STREET. WE JUST DID DISCUSS IT IN THE PRESENTATION. SO I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE ADDRESSED THAT. AND WITH THAT I DO THINK THAT WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS AN UPGRADE FROM WHAT WE HAVE. I'M COMFORTABLE WITH THE QUANTITY OF HOUSES THAT HAVE BEEN PROPOSED. I LIKE THE DEEPER LANDSCAPE BUFFER, BUT I ALSO LIKE THE, YOU KNOW, HAVING SOME KIND OF IDEA AND FRAMEWORK SIMILAR TO WHAT WE'VE DONE WITH OTHER ESTABLISHMENTS IN TOWN.

ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT. SO IF THERE'S A WAY TO INCORPORATE THE WIDER LANDSCAPE, BUFFER AND TAYLOR IN WHAT THAT YOU KNOW, MULTI-TENANT OR ONE, ONE TENANT WOULD LOOK LIKE, I'D LIKE TO FIND A BLEND THERE TO KEEP THAT WIDER BUFFER WHERE POSSIBLE. BUT ALL IN ALL I THINK IT'S A, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN STAFF HAS DONE A GREAT JOB AND THEY DID A GOOD JOB TO ANALYZE IT, EVEN THOUGH IT WAS ON THE NOT ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE. AND A LOT OF THIS PRESENTATION HAS BEEN ON THE COMMERCIAL. SO IT'S A GOOD BALANCE. THANK YOU SIR. ANYBODY ELSE WANT OTHER COMMENTS? I'M SORRY SIR, I MEANT TO INCLUDE MY NOTE AND I REALIZE I MAY HAVE MISSED MY CHANCE TO SPEAK TO THE MOTION. I THOUGHT I HAD TURNED IN MY CARD AND I DON'T KNOW THAT IT MADE IT TO YOU. DAVID BOND.

HOPEFULLY I'M NOT TOO FAR OUT OF TURN. YEAH, WE'LL TAKE IT. YEAH. I APOLOGIZE IF LIMITED TIME.

YES, SIR. YEAH. I JUST WANTED TO SPEAK BRIEFLY TO THE COMMERCIAL ITEMS YOU MENTIONED, MR. HARTLEY. DAVID BOND WAS FIRES ENGINEERING, 501 GEORGE BUSH HIGHWAY AND RICHARDSON. WE WOULD LIKE TO, I GUESS MAYBE VISIT ON THESE BECAUSE WE THINK WHAT WHAT WE BROUGHT TO P AND Z AND WHAT WE'VE EVEN REVISED HERE WITH THIS PROPOSAL, IT DOES MAKE A LOT OF SENSE. YOU KNOW, IN THE COMP PLAN, NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES SHOULD BE STRATEGICALLY PLACED ALONG THE PERIMETER IN ORDER TO ATTRACT PATRONS FROM NEIGHBORING COMMUNITIES. YOU KNOW, WE THINK THIS IS A PRIME OPPORTUNITY FOR THAT. WE'VE GOT THREE CORNERS OF SALINA AND ONE OF RETAIL, YOU KNOW, WE'VE BROUGHT FORWARD TO YOU GUYS A PLAN THAT ALREADY REMOVES GAS STATIONS, ALREADY REMOVES QSRS FROM THE USE OF ALLOWED USES. SO WE THINK WE THINK THIS THIS WORKS NICELY. MR. SHATTUCK IS HERE WITH HIS BUILDERS. THEY KNOW WHAT'S COMING AND THEY'RE IN FAVOR OF IT. YOU KNOW THEY'RE HERE PRESENTING. ARE THOSE REMOVED OR ARE THEY BY SUP? I'M SORRY IF THEIR USES YOU SAID WERE REMOVED. WERE THEY? THEY WERE NOT REMOVED. THEY WERE JUST MERELY SUPPES. CORRECT. THEY'VE BEEN REMOVED. SO THERE'S NO THERE'S NO ABILITY TO HAVE A CONVENIENCE STORE WITH GAS. EVEN BY AN SUP. I THOUGHT I READ THAT IT WAS AN SUP. SO THOSE WERE PREVIOUSLY ALLOWED BOTH OF THOSE BY RIGHT. AND WE'VE ASKED THAT THOSE BE BE PULLED. YES, MA'AM. OKAY. I THINK I THINK I HAVE THAT CORRECTLY UNLESS I'M TOTALLY MISTAKEN, MR. HOOVER. HAD ONE PERSON DRIVE INS AND QSRS AND CONVENIENCE STORES WHERE I'M SORRY. BY SUP. MY APOLOGIES. YEAH. THANK YOU. I DID MISSPEAK, BUT, YOU KNOW, WE'VE GOT A PAGE AND A HALF OF THINGS THAT HAVE BEEN TAKEN OFF HERE, YOU KNOW, COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT. ENDURE. YOU KNOW, I WAS JOKING WITH THE GROUP. YOU KNOW, MY COLLEGE ROOMMATE. FIRST TIME HE WENT BANK WAS TO ADD HIS WIFE TO HIS BANK ACCOUNT. YOU KNOW, SO WE FEEL LIKE HAVING VEHICULAR ACCESS TO A BANK IS PRETTY CRITICAL TO THOSE. THE BIG BOX NUMBER KEEPING THAT AT 39 OR 40,000FT, WE JUST FEEL LIKE THAT'S SUPER LOW. YOU KNOW, WHEN YOU GET AN ALDI OR A SOME OF THESE KIND OF NICHE GROCERS, YOU KNOW, THEY'LL BE IN THERE AT

[01:15:03]

THAT 40 ISH THOUSAND FEET. WE FEEL LIKE THAT MAKES A LOT OF SENSE THAT IT WOULD BE ALLOWED.

80,000 IS THE NUMBER ELSEWHERE. WE'RE PROPOSING TO DROP THAT TO 70 TO KEEP KROGER. AND SOME OF THE MORE TRAFFIC GENERATING USES AWAY. YOU KNOW, WE DO HAVE YOU KNOW, WE'VE INCREASED. WE'VE DOUBLED. IN FACT, OUR ADJACENT LANDSCAPE BUFFER OFFERED UP ADDITIONAL TREES TO KIND OF ADDRESS THE PROXIMITY ISSUES THAT YOU'RE MENTIONING. YOU KNOW, YOU DO HAVE OFFICE IN OTHER LOCATIONS HERE. WE JUST DON'T KNOW HOW MUCH ROOM WE'RE GOING TO HAVE BETWEEN THE FLOODPLAIN AND THE PROPERTY. SO WE THINK TO TIE THAT AT THIS EARLY STAGE IS A LITTLE BIT, YOU KNOW, WE JUST FEEL LIKE IT'S A LITTLE BIT PREMATURE. SO APOLOGIES FOR JUMPING IN HERE LATE. WOULD BE HAPPY TO DISCUSS ANY OF THESE ITEMS IN MORE DETAIL WITH YOU AND WOULD APPRECIATE. MAKE SURE I'M CLARIFYING WITH STAFF. NO, THOSE RIGHTS, THOSE THE STORES ABOVE.

WELL IT SAYS PERMITTED BY RIGHT 39 999. BUT YOU CAN STILL HAVE A BIG BOX OVER 40,000FT■!S. IT'S JUST BY SCP SO IT'S NOT ELIMINATED. IT'S JUST IT'S JUST THAT IT'S BY SCP. AND I THINK THE REASON FOR SOME OF THAT IS SINCE THE APPLICANT DOESN'T KNOW THE TENANTS YET, DOESN'T KNOW THE DEVELOPMENT YET, IT'S JUST A CONCEPT. IT GIVES. IT GIVES THE COUNCIL AN ABILITY TO LOOK AT WHAT'S COMING AND SORT OF GIVE DIRECTION ON WHAT WE THINK OUR RESIDENTS WOULD WANT, ESPECIALLY SINCE LIKELY SOUNDS LIKE THE RESIDENTIAL COMPONENT WILL COME FIRST. AND SO, YOU KNOW, MY REASON IS JUST ONLY FOR JUST MAKING SURE THE RESIDENTS THAT BUY THOSE HOMES AGAIN OVER $1 MILLION MOST LIKELY ARE COMFORTABLE WHERE THEY'RE LIVING. WHEN A COMMERCIAL COMPONENT COMES LATER, THEY'RE NOT LISTENING TO KROGER DROP OFFS OR ALDI DROP OFFS OR WHOLE FOOD DROP OFFS AT 4 A.M. AND SO THAT'S THAT'S WHY I THINK SOME OF THESE ARE IN HERE. AND I THINK THEY'RE VERY GOOD CHANGES FROM FROM STAFF. BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE CLARIFY. IT'S NOT ELIMINATED. IT'S JUST BY SCP. I'M SORRY I DIDN'T MISSPEAK ON THAT. AND YES. AND THAT'S WHERE WE THOUGHT THE 70,000 FLOOR MADE SENSE. THAT'S KIND OF WHERE YOU CAPTURE THOSE, YOU KNOW, THOSE SUPER KROGER AND HEB AND THE USERS LIKE THAT. THAT WOULDN'T MAKE SENSE TUCKED INTO A CORNER NECESSARILY. AND WE FELT, YOU KNOW, THAT 70,000 MADE SENSE. YOU KNOW, POTENTIALLY 60. BUT YOU GET YOU GET I THINK THE RIGHT TYPE OF NEIGHBORHOOD GROCER AT THAT 60 AND UNDER LEVEL THAT THAT WOULDN'T NECESSARILY NEED TO HAVE THAT AN SUP FOR Y'ALL'S CONSIDERATION.

THANK YOU. I JUST HAVE A QUICK QUESTION AND MAYBE THIS IS FURTHER DOWN THE ROAD, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE YOU HAVE A CONSIDERABLE AMOUNT OF FLOODPLAIN ON THAT SITE. SO HAVE YOU GUYS STARTED THAT THAT RECLAMATION PROCESS OR WHERE ARE YOU ON THAT. BECAUSE THAT'S GOING TO IMPACT WHAT YOU GUYS PROPOSE DOWN THE ROAD AND YOUR SITE PLAN. YEAH, ABSOLUTELY. YOU KNOW, WE'D LOVE TO GET A HARD CORNER PARCEL ON KIND OF THE NORTH SIDE OF THAT CREEK. I DON'T EVEN KNOW IF THAT'LL BE FEASIBLE. WE'VE TAKEN SOME INITIAL STUDIES. YOU KNOW, THIS IS A UNIQUE IN THAT IT FLOWS FROM SALINA THROUGH PROSPER AND BACK INTO SALINA, YOU KNOW.

RIGHT. SO THERE'S QUITE A FEW, YOU KNOW, THE SCHOOL DISTRICTS WORKING ON SOME PIECES TXDOT, YOU KNOW, SO THERE'S A LOT OF MOVING PARTS. WE'VE DONE SOME INITIAL STUDIES AND SIZINGS ON THE CROSSING. I THINK LEGACY IS PROBABLY FLOODED TODAY. IF YOU DROVE OUT, I MEAN IT'S VERY UNDERSIZED. SO THAT'S COMING UP WITH A BRIDGE ON THE SOUTHBOUND SIDE HERE IN THE VERY NEAR FUTURE, THE RESIDENTIAL IS GOING TO BE BRINGING THE NORTHBOUND LANES UP WHEN THEY DO THEIR DEVELOPMENT RIGHT. THE GREEN HATCHED AREA THAT WE'RE SHOWING, IF I CAN GET TO IT. YES. THERE THAT IS A FIRST BLUSH AT IT. THAT'S ALL WE WERE KIND OF ABLE TO GET TO AT THIS POINT. YOU COULD SEE MR. ANDREWS, JUST THE STARK DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GREEN HATCH AND THE BLUE LINE THAT KIND OF CUTS ACROSS. AND SO WHENEVER IT'S THAT HIGH OF A LEVEL, WE'RE WORKING TO, TO NARROW IT DOWN, THERE'S ALWAYS SOMETHING CHANGING WITH WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES AT THE FEDERAL LEVEL. AND THAT'S AN ELEMENT THAT'S IN PLAY HERE. THAT WOULDN'T FRANKLY, ALLOW THAT CHANNELIZED ELBOW THAT YOU SEE IN THE IN THE APPROVED PD. SO THIS IS KIND OF THE FIRST PASS. YOU KNOW, WE'D LOVE TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, SOMETHING SIMILAR TO WHAT YOU SEE AT GATES WHERE YOU'VE GOT FOLKS THAT KIND OF CAN ADDRESS AND SURROUND AN AREA. WE'LL, WE'RE WORKING TO SEE HOW FEASIBLE THAT IS, WHAT WE WHAT WE DON'T WANT TO DO IS TO BRING, YOU KNOW, A PRETTY PICTURE, LIKE PERHAPS WHAT YOU KNOW, I KNOW PROSPER ARTS WAS APPROVED A MONTH OR SO AGO AND SHOWED BUILDINGS OUT IN THE FLOODPLAIN. WELL, THAT'S A GREAT PICTURE. I DON'T KNOW HOW FEASIBLE THAT'S GOING TO BE. YOU KNOW, WE UNFORTUNATELY PERHAPS HAVE ERRED ON THE OTHER SIDE WHERE, YOU KNOW, IT'S SO HIGH LEVEL AT THIS POINT. YOU KNOW, WE JUST WE DIDN'T EVEN TAKE AN AGGRESSIVE STAB TO SAY, HEY, YOU KNOW, THIS IS WHAT WE COULD DO. YOU KNOW, I WAS JOKING WITH MR.

[01:20:05]

HOOVER WHEN WE WERE SPEAKING ABOUT THIS CONCEPT PLAN. YOU KNOW, THE PD FOR WINDSONG SHOWS EVERYTHING ALONG 380 AND JUST ONE HATCHED COLOR, YOU KNOW, AND SO WE'RE WE'RE TRYING TO GET A LITTLE BIT CLOSER WITH WHAT WE'VE PROVIDED. BUT IT IS, YOU KNOW, EVEN LOOKING AT THIS PLAN, I COULD SEE THE FIRE MARSHAL IS GOING TO HAVE ALL SORTS OF HEADACHES, YOU KNOW, THAT SORT OF THING. SO WE'VE STARTED WE'RE WORKING ON IT. IT'S JUST TAKEN A LITTLE BIT LONGER THAN WE WOULD HAVE HOPED. OKAY. NO, I APPRECIATE THAT. ALL RIGHT, WELL, LET'S GO BACK TO COUNCIL DISCUSSION THEN, SIR. THANK YOU SIR. THANK YOU BOTH. THE MAYOR PRO TEM HAVE WEIGHED IN. JEFF.

ANY COMMENTARY? YEAH. YOU KNOW, I HAVE KIND OF A QUESTION. JUST CURIOSITY. REALLY. IT TALKS ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE RESIDENTIAL AREA THAT THE PARK IS AT THE END OF PHASE TWO. I GUESS, WHICH IS BASICALLY WHEN THE WHOLE THING IS FINISHED, BECAUSE IN PHASE ONE, THERE'S GOING TO BE. WHAT IS CALLED, LET ME SAY, IMPROVEMENTS TO LEGACY. AND WHAT WHAT ARE THOSE IMPROVEMENTS? JUST. YOU KNOW, GENERALLY. GUESS I FOLLOW YOUR QUESTION. THERE'S NO INTENTION FOR IT TO BE A TWO PHASE RESIDENTIAL COMMUNITY. IT'S ONE. OKAY. SO AND THERE IT SAID THAT THE YEAH, THE RESIDENTIAL WOULD BE IN THE FIRST. AND THIS ONE WAS TALKING ABOUT 5 TO 10 YEAR PLAN. THE INITIAL PHASE THE IMPROVEMENTS TO LEGACY. SECOND PHASE IS THE PARK. WHERE IS THAT AT. SORRY I WAS IN THE PACKET. I WAS READING THAT AND IT'S PRETTY LONG I DON'T YEAH IT'S VERY, VERY LONG. YEAH. IT'S EASY TO GET LOST IN THERE'S LIKE SO IT'S NO, NO THE THERE'S NO INTENTION FOR THE RESIDENTIAL TO BE TWO PHASE. IT'S THE DEVELOPER INTENDS TO MAKE IT ONE PHASE.

THE PARK WILL BE COMPLETED. OUR INTENTION IS TO WORK WITH THE PARKS DEPARTMENT TO DO A PARKS PHASE AGREEMENT TO HELP FACILITATE THAT GETTING KICK STARTED. OBVIOUSLY, IT MARKETS WELL FOR SELLING HOMES, SO THAT'S THE INTENT FOR THE PARK. IT'S GOING TO BE DELIVERED FIRST PHASE OKAY. YEAH. LEGACY IMPROVEMENTS WILL ALSO BE INTENDED TO WORK WITH THE STAFF ABOUT A THOROUGHFARE IMPACT FEE AGREEMENT TO HELP PAY FOR THE LEGACY. THE MIDDLE SCHOOL IS WORKING ON. LEGACY RIGHT NOW, DRAGGING IT UP FROM PROSPER TRAIL JUST TO KIND OF GIVE YOU SOME ADDITIONAL COLOR. AND STAFF CAN PROBABLY REITERATE THAT OR CORRECT ME, BUT IMPROVEMENTS TO LEGACY WATER WISE, SEWER WISE, SEWER IS BEING DRIVEN BY HEAVY BUT WATER LINE AND LEGACY PAVEMENT IS BEING DRIVEN BY THE MIDDLE SCHOOL TO OUR IMMEDIATE SOUTH TO BRING FACILITIES THIS WAY, WHICH IS GREAT. OKAY. NOW, OTHER THAN THAT, I MEAN, I WAS IT MADE ME VERY NERVOUS INITIALLY TO READ IT, SEEING ALL THE BY RIGHTS AND NOT REALLY KNOWING WHAT WE WERE DEALING WITH, BUT TAKING IT AS A, AS, AS IT COMES. I THINK THAT'S IT'S A GOOD COMPROMISE. AND SO I'M, I'M IN FAVOR OF IT. WITH THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION, STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. ABSOLUTELY.

OKAY. I JUST WANT TO I AGREE WITH WHAT ALL THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SAID. AND I, I LIKE WHAT PLANNING AND ZONING HAD HAD RECOMMENDED ALONG WITH WHAT STAFF HAS RECOMMENDED. AND I AGREE WITH WHAT STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS. I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK THAT HAS BEEN PUT INTO THIS AND, AND I, I DO AGREE WITH WHAT STAFF IS RECOMMENDING. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. SAME, SAME. CRAIG, DO YOU WANT CRAIG? DO YOU HAVE ANY COMMENTARY? NO. I APPRECIATE THE WORK THAT BOTH STAFF AND PNC TO CHANGE MAKE SOME CHANGES. I THINK IN KEY AREAS AND I'M SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT THEY'VE PROPOSED. THANK YOU. OKAY, A QUICK CLARIFICATION. SORRY, I THINK IT'S PERFECTLY CLEAR CLARIFICATION. SO YOU'RE GOING TO CORRECT CORRECT. SOMETHING THAT MIGHT BE WRONG.

YES. NO. YEAH. THE I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR IT SOUNDS LIKE THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION PRESENTED TO US WAS NOT THE RESTRICTIONS ABOUT THE USES IN THE COMMERCIAL AND THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPE BUFFER WITH THE DOUBLE ROW OF TREES. WE PROPOSED THAT BACK TO STAFF AS A EITHER OR. THERE WAS NOT A AN SCENARIO. THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN, IT'S A LITTLE THEY WE PROPOSED A DOUBLE ROW OF TREES AND A WIDENED LANDSCAPE BUFFER AND THE ENHANCED BUILDING SETBACKS INSTEAD OF THE RESTRICTIONS ON THE USES AND THE WAY IT'S WRITTEN NOW, BOTH ARE IN THERE. CAN WE GO BACK TO THE CHART, PLEASE? ACTUALLY, LET'S LET'S LET MR. HOOVER ADDRESS THAT BY GOING BACK TO THE CHART AND SHOWING. YEAH, WE'RE NOT DOUBLE DIPPING OKAY. HE'S HE'S CORRECT. WHAT, WHAT THEY PROPOSED. ARE WE HERE? I'M GOING THE WRONG WAY. I'M SORRY. I KEEP DOING THIS THING BACKWARDS.

[01:25:02]

OKAY? I'M SAYING SO WHAT WE HAVE ALL THE WAY DOWN WHERE WE WE'RE PROPOSING THE WALL AND THE LIMITED USES DEPENDING ON THE SIZE. IN LIEU OF THAT, THEY WERE PROPOSING THE OTHER. AND WE'RE STICKING WITH OURS. RIGHT. SO TO CLARIFY, I THINK COUNCIL THE MAYOR PRO TEM MENTIONED HE WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE 30 FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER, BUT THAT'S NOT THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. NO. SO OBVIOUSLY Y'ALL CAN CHANGE THAT. THAT'S RIGHT. I THINK WHAT YOU HEAR IS EVERYBODY'S INDICATED SUPPORT FOR THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION. SO WITHOUT. ALL RIGHT. SO WITH THAT IS THERE A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM. YES. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEM NUMBER 17 SUBJECT TO STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS IN THE PACKET. AND A AGREED UPON DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT. YES. ALL RIGHT. I HAVE A MOTION FROM COUNCILWOMAN BARTLEY, SECOND BY COUNCILMAN REY. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION

[18. 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) (DH)]

PASSES, SEVEN ZERO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU, MR. HAYWOOD. ALL RIGHT. OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS TO CONDUCT A PUBLIC HEARING AND CONSIDER AND ACT UPON A REQUEST TO REZONE 5.7 ACRES ON GEORGE HORNE SURVEY ABSTRACT 412. TRACK TWO FROM AGRICULTURAL TO PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. RETAIL LOCATED ON THE WEST SIDE OF CUSTER ROAD AND 470FT APPROXIMATELY SOUTH OF FRONTIER DRIVE. MR. HOOVER, THANK YOU, MAYOR. SORRY. GIVE ME JUST A SECOND HERE. Y'ALL WILL BE HAPPY. THIS ONE IS NOT NEARLY AS LONG AS THE LAST ONE YOU'VE ACTUALLY MAY HAVE SEEN. YOU MAY RECALL SEEING THIS PROPOSAL NOT TOO LONG AGO. AND HERE I AM, GOING THE WRONG WAY AGAIN. OKAY, THE SITE IS OVER ON. I CALL IT OLD CUSTER ROAD, BUT IT'S THE LITTLE STRETCH OF CUSTER THAT WAS THE ROAD. AND THEN THE LITTLE CURVE THAT WENT ON THE EASTERN SIDE. AND THIS IS IN BETWEEN THE CHURCH AND THE SELF-STORAGE UNITS THAT ARE THERE. I THINK I NEED TO GO BACK TO CLICKER SCHOOL OR SOMETHING. I'M HAVING TROUBLE WITH THIS TONIGHT. THE PURPOSE IS IT'S TAKEN THE PIECE OF PROPERTY AND IS PROPOSING TO ZONE IT INTO A PD THAT WILL HAVE TWO TRACKS.

THE SOUTHERN TRACK WOULD BE PRIVATE SCHOOL. THE NORTHERN TRACK WOULD BE SOME TYPE OF A RETAIL BUILDING. THIS AREA IS ON SEPTIC SYSTEMS. SO THE PROPOSED USES ARE EXTREMELY LIMITED AS TO WHAT CAN GO THERE. I GOT TO IT. THIS SHOWS WHERE IT IS AS FAR AS THE FUTURE LAND USE PLAN IS CONCERNED, AND IT SHOWS IT AS LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL, PRIMARILY. IT'S AGAIN, IT'S ON SEPTIC. IT WILL PROBABLY REMAIN ON SEPTIC FOR QUITE SOME TIME. THE RETAIL IS AGAIN IT'S SIMILAR TO WHAT WAS BEFORE. IT'S PRIMARILY NEIGHBORHOOD SERVICES THAT YOU WOULD FIND ADJACENT TO A NEIGHBORHOOD. THE SHOWS OWNERSHIP OF THE LAND, HOW IT'S ALL SET. AND AGAIN, THIS IS THE SURROUNDING ZONINGS. IT'S EITHER VACANT CHURCH OR SELF-STORAGE. RESIDENTIAL IS IMMEDIATELY TO THE WEST. EXCUSE ME, THE PROPOSAL. AND THIS IS WHAT THE TWO TRACKS LOOK LIKE. AND THE NORTHERN TRACK IS RELEVANT BECAUSE YOU CAN SEE THERE IS A PROPOSED DETENTION POND THAT'S THERE ON THE NORTHERN PIECE. THAT DETENTION POND WOULD SATISFY THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS. SORRY. THE DRAINAGE REQUIREMENTS FOR BOTH OF THE TRACKS THERE IS AN EXISTING DETENTION POND THAT'S THERE NOW. THAT'S TO THE LEFT. IT'S THEY'RE LABELED OR TO THE WEST IT'S LABELED AS POND. THAT'S PRIMARILY, IN FACT, COMPLETELY FOR THE ADJACENT PROPERTIES TO THE WEST. AND THERE WAS ORIGINALLY, I THINK, SOME CONCERN THAT PERHAPS ANY PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT ON ON THESE TWO TRACKS WOULD NEGATIVELY IMPACT THAT POND, AND THERE ISN'T GOING TO BE ANY IMPACT BECAUSE IT'S NOT GOING TO BE USED. ALL THE DRAINAGE WILL GO TO THE DETENTION POND. THAT WILL BE CONSTRUCTED ON THE NORTH. AND AGAIN, YOU CAN SEE THE THAT THE NORTH JUST HAS THAT ONE SMALL BUILDING WITH PARKING LOT. THAT IS A CONCEPT. AGAIN, IT'S SIMILAR TO THE LAST THING YOU SAW. IT'S A THROW DOWN. NOBODY REALLY KNOWS WHAT'S GOING TO GO THERE. THE LIST OF PERMITTED USES AS I MENTIONED, IS, IS QUITE SMALL BECAUSE OF THE FACT

[01:30:04]

THAT IT IS ALL ON SEPTIC SYSTEM. THIS PRIVATE SCHOOL THAT THAT'S BEING PROPOSED IS THE SAME CONCEPT AND PRINCIPLE OF WHEN YOU SAW THIS, WHEN IT WAS ORIGINALLY PROPOSED TO BE LOCATED IN OLD DOWNTOWN AREA AND THE OLD ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, OR NEXT TO THE ADMINISTRATION BUILDING OF OR OF THE SCHOOL DISTRICT THAT WENT THROUGH THE PROCESS AT THE TIME. AND THERE WAS A HICCUP WHEN IT GOT TO COUNCIL AND DIDN'T GET APPROVED. SO THE APPLICANTS DECIDED TO FIND SOMEPLACE THAT WAS A LITTLE MORE OUT OF THE BEATEN PATH, SO TO SPEAK, WHICH IS HOW THEY CAME ACROSS THIS PATH. THE PRINCIPLE IS STILL ALL THE SAME. IT'S A REVIEWED SCHOOL, PRIMARILY OR SOLELY GEARED TOWARDS FOUR YEAR OLDS. THAT WOULD LEARN ABOUT FARM ANIMALS AND ALL SORTS OF THINGS TO START OFF THEIR LIFE BEFORE THEY ACTUALLY GET INTO THE PRE-K, PRE-K WORLD AND MOVING ON THROUGH SCHOOL. THAT'S ALL THAT WILL BE. HERE ARE THE KIDS, AND I'LL LET THE APPLICANT TELL YOU MORE ABOUT THAT LATER. BUT THERE'S A TWO STORY BUILDING. THERE'S GREENHOUSE, THERE'S A LITTLE BARN. THERE'S SEVERAL ACTIVITIES THAT WILL GO ON. AND AS FAR AS AS THE SCHOOL IS CONCERNED. I DON'T KNOW HOW CLINT MADE THIS THING GO ABOUT 90 MILES AN HOUR, AND I'M HAVING TROUBLE KEEPING IT ON. YOU SEE, ALL THE TREES. IT'S ALSO IMPORTANT TO NOTICE THE FIRE LANE IN THE FRONT. THERE ARE ALSO TWO LANES OF TRAFFIC FOR DROPPING OFF THE KIDS AND PICKING UP THE KIDS. IT WILL BE LIMITED TO A MAXIMUM OF 60 STUDENTS. DOESN'T MEAN THAT'S HOW MANY WILL BE THERE, BUT THERE WON'T BE ANY MORE THAN 60 STUDENTS. VERY LIMITED TIME, SO THERE WILL BE 15 30 MINUTE WINDOW AT THE MORNINGS WHEN THEY'RE DROPPED OFF, AND THEN 15 TO 30 MINUTE WINDOW IN THE AFTERNOON WHEN THEY'RE PICKED UP. THERE'S APPROXIMATELY 13 PARKING SPACES ON THE SITE. THERE ARE FOUR TEACHERS AND ONE STAFF MEMBER. SO THERE'S I MAY HAVE GOTTEN THAT WRONG. I BELIEVE IT WAS FIVE TOTAL. AGAIN, THE APPLICANT CAN CAN STRAIGHTEN THAT OUT WHEN THEY VISIT WITH YOU, BUT THERE IS MORE THAN AMPLE PARKING SPACES FOR THE EMPLOYEES. AND THEN ANY PARENT THAT MIGHT COME, IF THEY HAVE A PARENT TEACHER CONFERENCE OR SOMETHING ALONG THAT LINE, YOU KNOW, THIS IS JUST THE STANDARDS FOR THE REGULATIONS AS FAR AS SETBACKS AND SO FORTH AND SO ON. AGAIN, THESE ARE THE PROPOSED PERMITTED USES. AS YOU CAN SEE, IT'S PRETTY TIGHT AS FAR AS AS WHAT THEY ARE AND THE LIMITED AMOUNT OF WHAT THEY ARE.

HERE WE GO. AND THIS IS JUST THE STANDARDS FOR THE NORTHERN TRACK A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT BUT BUT PRIMARILY THE SAME. AND AGAIN LOW LOW DENSITY OF WHAT IT IS. THIS IS THE SOUTHERN VERSION.

THESE ARE THE PROPOSED SCREENING REQUIREMENTS ON THE NORTHERN AND THE EASTERN AND THE SOUTHERN BOUNDARY. THERE ARE NO REQUIREMENTS ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY BASED ON THE USES ADJACENT AND SO FORTH. THAT'S PER THE CODE. AND THEN ON THE WESTERN BOUNDARY, THE CODE SAYS THAT THERE SHOULD BE A SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL ALONG THERE. THERE IS LITTLE FOREST THAT'S ON THE WESTERN EDGE ON THE PROPERTY ITSELF, WHICH THEY PROPOSE TO LEAVE. AND THEN THERE'S THE POND THAT'S ON THE WESTERN EDGE. AND SO REQUIRED SCREENING WOULD BE NONE. AND THEN THE MASONRY WALLS ON THE SOUTH AND THE WEST, THE PROPOSED IS NONE WITH LIVING SCREENS ON THE SOUTH AND THE WEST WENT THROUGH. THIS IS JUST BUILDING MATERIALS. WHAT IT'S GOING TO LOOK LIKE. THESE ARE ILLUSTRATIONS OR OF THE ELEVATIONS WHAT IT WILL LOOK LIKE. IT'S PRETTY SIMILAR TO WHAT HAD BEEN PROPOSED AT THE OTHER LOCATION. THIS IS ALL NEW OR THE OTHER ONE WAS REDO. THIS IS THE DETENTION POND I MENTIONED EARLIER BEYOND THE NORTHERN TRACK FOR BOTH PIECES.

THERE WAS. THIS IS A SLIGHT MISNOMER. IT WASN'T TECHNICALLY A FULL BLOWN TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS. IT WAS A TRAFFIC ANALYSIS. THERE ARE DIFFERENT TYPES AND DEGREES OF TRAFFIC

[01:35:02]

IMPACT ANALYSIS. THOSE ARE DETERMINED BY OUR CITY ENGINEER'S OFFICE OR TOWN ENGINEER'S OFFICE. EXCUSE ME. AS FAR AS WHAT THOSE TYPES WILL BE, THIS WAS WAS DONE, PERFORMED, SUBMITTED TO ENGINEERING, REVIEWED BY ENGINEERING AND THE FIRE DEPARTMENT TO MAKE SURE THERE WAS ADEQUATE ACCESS. IT WAS A VERY RIGID MANAGEMENT PLAN THAT WAS DEVELOPED AS FAR AS THE TIMING AND HOW IT WILL BE DONE WHEN STUDENTS ARE DROPPED OFF, A STAFF MEMBER WILL BASICALLY COLLECT THE CHILD OUT OF THE CAR, TAKE THEM INTO THE BUILDING, BACK AND FORTH SO THERE'S NO KIDS WANDERING AROUND AND NO PEOPLE PARKING AND WANDERING AROUND. SO IT'S VERY TIGHT, VERY RIGID, AND IT'S DESIGNED TO EFFECTIVELY GET KIDS IN AND OUT AND PARENTS IN AND OUT WHILE THEY'RE DRIVING. THE THIS DIAGRAM OR THIS THIS PICTURE IS HERE TO SHOW IN. IT'S NOT AS CLEAR AS UNFORTUNATELY OF WHAT IT IS BECAUSE IT'S A LITTLE BIT OLDER. BUT TO SEE THERE'S THE, THE NORTHERN CLUSTER, THE OLD CLUSTER IF YOU WILL, WHICH RUNS ALONG IN FRONT OF THE CHURCH AND IN FRONT OF THE TWO PROPERTIES HERE AND THEN THE, THE STORAGE FACILITY AND THEN THE NEW CLUSTER WHICH GOES AROUND TO THE EAST AND HEADS UP THE MAIN REASON FOR THE TRAFFIC ANALYSIS WAS ONCE THIS FACILITY IS BUILT AND GO BACK AND YOU SE. WELL. I'M SO SORRY. I'M HAVING SO MUCH TROUBLE. I GUESS IT JUST DOESN'T LIKE ME AT THE MOMENT. BUT WE'LL PUT IT BACK. I'M SORR.

BEAR HUG. OKAY. YOU SEE THAT? IT'S GOT THE CIRCULAR AND THE BOTH ONE WAY IN AND ONE WAY OUT.

AND THEN IMMEDIATELY TO THE SOUTH, WHERE IT SAYS CONCEPTUAL PLAN THERE. THAT'S WHERE THE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY IS. IT'S HARD TO MAKE IT OUT, BUT BUT IT IS THERE. AND THAT'S THE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY THAT'S ON THE BOUNDARY OF THE CHURCH. AND SO THE ORIGINAL CONCERN WAS, ARE THOSE GOING TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER OR ARE THEY TOO CLOS? NUMBER ONE, WHICH IS PART OF THE REASON WHY WE WANTED THE ANALYSIS. AND THEN NUMBER TWO, WOULD THEY HAVE CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER AS FAR AS PEOPLE COMING AND GOING AT THE SAME TIME IN DIFFERENT LOCATIONS? AND PART OF THAT ANALYSIS, WE'LL GO BACK TO THE AERIAL. NOW. HERE YOU CAN SEE THE CHURCH, THE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY YOU CAN SEE NOW IS RIGHT UP AGAINST THAT ROW OF TREES, WHICH IS ON THE SITE THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S THE NORTHERN DRIVEWAY. BUT THEN THE CHURCH ALSO HAS THE SOUTHERN DRIVEWAY THAT COMES OUT AND GOES TO THE ACCESS TO, TO CUSTER. AND SO THE ABILITY FOR THE TWO TO BE SEPARATED EXISTS JUST BASED ON WHAT'S ALREADY THERE BETWEEN THE EXISTING DRIVEWAYS ON THE CHURCH AND THE CURRENT DRIVEWAYS ON ON THE SCHOOL. SO STAFF DOESN'T BELIEVE THAT THAT THOSE WILL WIND UP BEING IN CONFLICT WITH EACH OTHER. PLUS THERE'S LIMITED AMOUNTS OF TIME. SO IT DID COME UP. IT WAS DISCUSSED, NOTICES WERE SENT OUT ON ON NOVEMBER THE 8TH. THERE WERE TWO LETTERS OF OPPOSITION THAT CAME BACK IN. ONE WAS ASKING QUESTIONS PRIMARILY ABOUT WILL THE POND, THE EXISTING POND BE IMPACTED BY THE DEVELOPMENT? THAT ANSWER IS NO. AS I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY, THEY'RE BUILDING A NEW POND. AND THEN THE SECOND ONE WAS FROM THE CHURCH THAT WAS CONCERNED ABOUT THE ACCESS TO THE DRIVEWAYS THAT I MENTIONED PREVIOUSLY. THE CHURCH DOES CONSTITUTE MORE THAN 20% OF THE SURROUNDING. LET ME SHOW YOU THIS DIAGRAM SO YOU UNDERSTAND WHAT I'M TALKING ABOUT. THIS DOESN'T COME UP VERY OFTEN, BUT THE PURPLE AREA IS THE 20, EXCUSE ME, THE DISTANCE AREA OF WHO ACTUALLY HAS TO GET NOTIFIED WHEN YOU'RE DOING A ZONE CHANGE. SIMILAR TO THIS OR OTHER TYPES OF ZONING CHANGES. AND IT'S IT CONSTITUTES A 20% EXCUSE ME IF MORE THAN 20% OF THAT AREA IS IN OPPOSITION AND IT'S NOT THE AMOUNT OF PEOPLE, 20%. IT'S THE AMOUNT OF SPACE, 20% THAT IT CONSTITUTES THE NEED FOR WHAT'S CALLED A SUPERMAJORITY OR IN THIS CASE,

[01:40:04]

SIX OUT OF THE SEVEN COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE TO VOTE TO APPROVE IT. IF IT WINDS UP GOING THAT DIRECTION. AND BECAUSE THE CHURCH DOES CONSTITUTE MORE THAN 20%, THEIR LETTER OF OPPOSITION AMOUNTS TO THE FACT THAT IT NEEDS THE SUPERMAJORITY. DOES THAT MAKE SENSE, OR DID I BUTCHER THAT? OKAY, I WON'T MAKE YOU GO THROUGH IT AGAIN. AND I THINK THAT'S ALL I'VE GOT HERE.

YEAH. SO THAT'S THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE. THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTED 6 TO 1 TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OF THIS. THE ONE WAS COMMISSIONER HAMILTON AND THE COMMISSION ACTUALLY VOTED TO APPROVE IT WITH THE MASONRY WALL AS OPPOSED TO A SCREENING WALL WITH, WITH THE FACT THAT THE, THE TREES ARE ALREADY THERE, THE PONDS ARE ALREADY THERE. AND THE INITIAL CONVERSATION WAS PERHAPS THAT SOME TREES COULD BE PLACED IF THERE WERE ANY, ANY SPOTS, IF YOU WILL, WHERE SOMETHING ELSE NEEDED TO BE IN PLACE. MOST OF THE COMMISSION, I THINK IF YOU ALL LISTENED TO THIS, MOST OF THE COMMISSION, I THINK, AGREED THAT, YOU KNOW, THERE WERE PLENTY OF TREES AND THE WALL MIGHT BE OVERKILL, BUT THAT'S WHAT THE ORDINANCE SAID. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THE 6 TO 1 WAS.

COMMISSIONER HAMILTON JUST SAID, LOOK, I'M NOT OPPOSED TO THIS. I'M JUST OPPOSED TO MAKING THEM PUT A WALL THERE. SO THAT'S WHY IT WAS 6 TO 1. SO THE STAFF RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVAL. WE WOULD FRANKLY BE QUITE COMFORTABLE IF COUNCIL DECIDES TO APPROVE IT. NOT COMFORTABLE THAT IF YOU DECIDE TO APPROVE IT, YOU SAID THAT OUT OF ORDER. IF THE COUNCIL DECIDES TO APPROVE IT, STAFF WOULD BE COMFORTABLE NOT TO HAVE THE WALL THERE BECAUSE WE THINK THERE'S MORE THAN SUFFICIENT SCREENING THERE BETWEEN ALL OF THE TREES AND THE POND. BUT THAT OBVIOUSLY IS COUNCIL'S DECISION. SO THANK YOU. THANK YOU DAVID. QUESTION QUESTIONS FOR MR. HOOVER. YES, SIR. WAS THERE A I'M SORRY. WAS THERE A CONSIDERATION? FIRST OFF I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS ONE COME BACK. I REMEMBER IT FROM DOWNTOWN AND IT BROKE MY HEART THAT IT WASN'T THE RIGHT LOCATION. I FEEL VERY GOOD ABOUT THIS. MY ONLY CONCERN IS WITH THE AGE OF THE ATTENDEES. FOUR YEARS OF THOSE VERY INQUISITIVE MINDS AND THERE'S A BIG POND. SO I AGREE THAT, YOU KNOW WHAT? THE WALL WAS THERE A CONSIDERATION OF LIKE AN OPEN FENCE OR SOMETHING TO KIND OF THERE WILL BE A FENCE AND THE APPLICANT CAN EXPLAIN THAT A LITTLE BETTER TO YOU. BUT AS OPPOSED TO THE, YOU KNOW, SIX FOOT MASONRY WALL, IT BLOCKS OUT THE VIEW OF THE POND, WHICH YOU WOULD THINK THE KIDS WOULD WANT TO SEE. SO THANK YOU, CHRIS. JUST HAVE A CLARIFICATION ON THE TRACT ONE WITHOUT THE SCHOOL. AND I KNOW THESE ARE CONCEPTUAL. SO THE BUILDING IS SHOWN ON THERE AND IT'S CONCEPTUAL FOR, YOU KNOW, FUTUR. IF ARE THERE LIMITATIONS OTHER THAN THE USES. ARE THERE LIMITATIONS OF THE BUILDING SIZE. THAT'S I'M JUST THINKING, YOU KNOW LIKE MAYBE ONE OF THOSE USES CAME BUT THEY WANTED A MUCH LARGER BUILDING. WOULD THAT HAVE TO COME BACK OR THERE? THERE ARE LIMITATIONS. THE PRIMARY ONE, FRANKLY, IS GOING TO BE THE FACT THAT IT'S A SEPTIC SYSTEM. SO THERE'S ONLY SO MUCH SIZE YOU CAN PUT IF THEY IF THEY DECIDED TO, TO PUT A FEED STORE THERE, FOR INSTANCE, AND WE JUST PUT THAT THERE BECAUSE IT'S KIND OF OUT IN THE COUNTRY, NOT REALLY.

YOU KNOW, WE DON'T REALLY HAVE COUNTRY, BUT YOU KNOW, RELATIVELY SPEAKING IT'S OUT THERE. THEN THAT WOULD BE BECAUSE WE WERE TRYING TO FIGURE OUT WHAT COULD THEY ACTUALLY PUT THERE. AND WE WERE HAVING TROUBLE COMING UP WITH SOMETHING TO FEED, STORE REALLY ISN'T GOING TO NEED ANY TYPE OF SEWAGE. SO IT WOULD PROBABLY BE MORE OF A BIG WAREHOUSE, BUT JUST A LARGER BUILDING TO BE ABLE TO HOLD THE FEED AND THAT COULD FIT THERE. THE AMOUNT OF PARKING WOULD STILL BE LIMITED BECAUSE IT'S PRIMARILY GOING TO BE THE RETAIL PIECE IN THE FRONT, NOT, YOU KNOW, THERE'D BE JUST A HANDFUL OF SPACES REQUIRED IN THE BACK. SO WE DIDN'T FEEL LIKE THAT WOULD RUN INTO CONFLICTS. AND THEN THE OTHER HANDFUL OF USES THAT ARE THERE ARE JUST NOT GOING TO LEND THEMSELVES. SO THEY'RE RESTRICTIVE ENOUGH. AND THEN IF ONE OF THOSE USES WAS SELECTED OR WHATEVER, THEN THE PARKING ORDINANCES AND STUFF WOULD ALSO TAKE CARE OF THOSE OTHER COMPONENTS, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE, I MEAN, IF WE'RE CONCERNED ABOUT PARKING OVER HERE, THE NEIGHBORS ARE OR TRAFFIC, I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT EXPANDING OR HAVE THE POTENTIAL, JUST LIKE WE WERE DOING WITH THE PRIOR CASE WHERE WE'RE TRYING TO NOT BE OVERLY BURDENSOME ON THE PART THAT WANTS TO PROCEED. AND OBVIOUSLY, I AGREE WITH MARCUS.

I'M GLAD TO SEE THIS ONE COME BACK. AND IT SEEMS LIKE A MUCH BETTER LOCATION. I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE WE'RE NOT JUST LEAVING A BLANK SPACE THAT HAS KIND OF MORE THAN I THAN I UNDERSTAND.

SO THANK YOU SIR. WE CAME UP PART OF HOW WE CAME UP WITH THAT LIST IN THE FIRST PLACE. WE DIDN'T JUST, YOU KNOW, KIND OF PULL THEM OUT OF THE AIR. WE LOOKED AT WHAT THE REQUIREMENTS

[01:45:04]

OF EACH OF THE USES WOULD BE FROM A PARKING PERSPECTIVE FOR THE BUILDING PERSPECTIVE, THEORETICALLY ABOUT WHAT THE SIZES WOULD BE, JUST JUST USING NORMAL PARAMETERS. WE LOOKED AT HOW MUCH POTENTIAL DRAINAGE MIGHT COME OFF BECAUSE THE DETENTION POND IS GOING TO HAVE TO BE THERE, AND IT'S GOT TO SATISFY BOTH TRACKS. SO IT'S GOING TO HAVE TO BE BIGGER THAN NORMAL. AND THAT'S THE LIST THAT THAT WE CAME UP WITH TO TRY AND BE THE LEAST INTRUSIVE AND THE LEAST DEMANDING ON THE SEWAGE SYSTEM, SINCE IT'S GOING TO BE A SEPTIC SYSTEM AND NOT STORM SEWER. AND IT'S PROBABLY COULD BE NEVER BEFORE STORM SEWER GETS THERE, QUITE FRANKLY, BECAUSE WE PROBABLY AREN'T GOING TO PUT IT THERE. IT'S UNLIKELY MCKINNEY IS GOING TO PUT IT THERE. NORTH SALINA. SO IT MAY ALWAYS BE THAT WAY. CAMERA THIS MAY BE THIS MAY BE A QUESTION FOR THE APPLICANT.

BUT AS FAR AS PARKING, YOU KNOW, I KNOW WHEN THE KIDS ARE IN SCHOOL THERE'S PLENTY OF PARKING. BUT WILL THEY BE HAVING DIFFERENT EVENTS FOR THE KIDS AT EVENINGS WHERE PARENTS ARE GOING TO BE THERE TO? AND IF SO, WILL THERE BE ENOUGH PARKING THEN? IS THAT SOMETHING I CAN LET THEM COME UP AND ADDRESS? BECAUSE WE REALLY DIDN'T WE DIDN'T GET INTO THAT IN AS MUCH DETAIL BECAUSE OF THE NATURE OF THE AGE OF THE KIDS AND WHAT THEY'RE DOING. SO I CAN'T ANSWER THAT. DOES THE APPLICANT HAVE A PRESENTATION? OKAY. WELL THEN, CAMERON, IF YOU DON'T MIND, WE'LL JUST WAIT TILL HE DOES HIS PRESENTATION. WE'LL ASK HIM THEN. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? YES.

JUST A QUICK ONE. JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T SEE THE COMMERCIAL SEPTIC A WHOLE LOT THESE DAYS.

WHERE IS THAT COMMERCIAL SEPTIC LOCATED? IT LOOKS LIKE ON THAT PROPERTY WE KNOW. IS IT GOING TO BE SHARED OR IS IT IS IT ON THE NORTHERN TRACT OR IS IT GOING TO BE SHARED? IT WILL NOT BE SHARE, WILL NOT BE SHARED. IT HAS TO BE SELF-SUFFICIENT. THAT'S PART OF IT. AND SEPTIC SYSTEMS ARE REGULATED BY THE COUNTY THROUGH THEIR HEALTH DEPARTMENT. WE DON'T REALLY GET INVOLVED IN THOSE OTHER THAN YOU KNOW, HELP COORDINATE AS FAR AS THE PROCESS IS CONCERNED, BUT THE SYSTEM ITSELF WILL BE ON SITE. THEY MAY BE ABLE TO TELL YOU EXACTLY WHERE THEY'RE PLANNING ON PUTTING IT, BUT PRIMARILY IT JUST HAS TO HAVE THE LINES TO WHERE IT DISPERSES OUT IN THE FIELDS. AND THEY HAVE PLENTY OF OPEN SPACE TO DO THAT. OKAY. BUT IT WILL BE EACH EACH ONE, EACH EACH PROPERTY WILL HAVE THEIR OWN, THEIR OWN SPECIAL SEPTIC. YES, SIR. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? NO THANK YOU. THANK YOU, MR. HOOVER. THEN AT THIS TIME WE WILL HEAR FROM THE APPLICANT. THANK YOU. GOOD EVENING. MY NAME IS WILLIAM MOCK, 7261 SAN SABA DRIVE, MCKINNEY, TEXAS. 75070. I'M HERE REPRESENTING JP FINLEY AND HIS WIFE, MICHELLE. AS YOU RECALL, I WAS HERE, I THINK, BACK IN APRIL. IT'S SAME, SAME THING. WE JUST PICKED A LOCATION THAT WAS NOT NEAR DOWNTOWN. SO AS YOU RECALL, BASICALLY IT'S A SCHOOL DESIGNED FOR FOUR AND FIVE YEAR OLDS TO TEACH THEM BASICALLY TO LOVE, TO LEARN. AND WE HAVE FOUR CLASSROOMS, 16 STUDENTS PER CLASSROOM, AND TEN TEACHERS AND STAFF MEMBERS TOTAL. WE HAVE 21 PARKING SPACES, SO WE HAVE A LIMITED AMOUNT OF PARKING, BUT WE'RE NOT REALLY PLANNING TO HAVE A LOT OF EVENTS OR AFTER SCHOOL EVENTS OR THINGS OF THAT NATURE RIGHT NOW, DIRECTLY CENTERED ON TEACHING. AND OUR HOURS ARE BASICALLY THE DROP OFF TIME IS 8 TO 830, AND THE PICKUP TIME IS 230 TO 3. SO WE'RE NOT IN CONFLICT WITH DROP OFF AND PICKUP WITH THE CHURCH. HOURS ARE STAGGERED. WE'RE OUT. THEY DROP OFF LIKE AT 9:00 AND THEY'RE OVER AT TWO. SO THERE'S NO CONFLICT THERE. IF I HAD THE CAREFUL WITH THE CLICKER FOR ONE OF THOSE, DAVID. THERE WE GO. WE FOUND A SITE PLAN. OKAY. IF YOU LOOK THERE WE WILL COME IN OUR PARENTS WILL COME IN FROM THE NORTH AND THERE'S TWO LANES. IF YOU CAN SEE THE TWO LANES OF CARS KIND OF THINK CHICK FIL A AND THE PARENT WILL DRIVE IN, THEY'LL PULL ALL THE WAY UP AND A TEACHER OR A STAFF MEMBER WILL ACTUALLY GO TO THE CAR, TAKE THE STUDENT OUT OF THE CAR BY THE HAND AND WALK THEM INTO THE BUILDING, AND THEN THE PARENT PULLS OUT AND EXITS TO THE SOUTH. WE HAVE HAD AN IN DEPTH TRAFFIC STUDY AND GONE OVER IT WITH STAFF, AND SO WE THINK WE CAN GET IN AND OUT OF THERE, PROBABLY WITHIN 15 MINUTES. BUT

[01:50:03]

WE'RE GIVING OURSELVES A 30 MINUTE WINDOW TO DO THAT. SO IT SHOULD BE VERY QUICK AND HIGHLY EFFICIENT. AS FAR AS THAT GOES, I THINK LAST TIME WE HAD THE FARM, WE'RE NOT GOING TO DO ANY WEIRD ANIMALS. JUST WHATEVER THE CITY OF PROSPER ALLOWS WITHIN THE CITY LIMITS. SO BUT IT IS A LEARNING EXPERIENCE FOR THE CHILDREN. THERE'S ALSO A GREENHOUSE WHERE THEY CAN LEARN TO PLANT AND GROW AND, YOU KNOW, EXPERIENCE THAT. SO WE'RE PRETTY EXCITED ABOUT THE OPPORTUNITY.

WE'RE GLAD WE'RE ABLE TO COME BACK AND SEE IF WE CAN RESURRECT THIS SCHOOL AND MAKE IT INTO A REAL GREAT EXPERIENCE FOR THESE CHILDREN. WITH THAT, I'LL JUST ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE. THANK YOU. CAMERON, DO YOU GET THE ANSWER TO YOU'RE LOOKING FOR THAT? YES, SIR. OKAY. DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE A QUESTION? YES, SIR. SO ON THIS IMAGE RIGHT HERE, I SEE THE QUEUE LANE. I INTERPRETED THOSE TO BE PARKING SPOTS. NO, THOSE. IF YOU SEE THE PAIR OF BOXES, THOSE ARE ACTUALLY THE CARS. THE PARKING SPOTS ARE IF YOU LOOK AT THE LINES ON THE OUTSIDE THAT DOWN THE SOUTHERN BORDER BORDER AND IN FRONT OF THE SCHOOL, WE HAVE 21 SPACES, THREE PULL STRAIGHT IN. YES, SIR. AND THEN THERE'S AND THEN ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE FIRE LANE TOWARDS CUSTER, WE HAVE SEVEN PARKING SPACES THERE, SO THERE'S A TOTAL OF 21. AND AGAIN WE HAVE TEN STAFF MEMBERS.

OKAY. SO THE SQUARES BASICALLY IS THE QUEUE LANE WHERE THE CARS WOULD BE ROTATING OUT. FIRE LANE IS A BUFFER. YOUR PARKING SPOTS ARE TO THE NORTH WEST AND SOUTH. AND YOU'VE GOT A IF YOU TUCKED IN RIGHT THERE BY CUSTER. YES. SO YOU'LL YEAH, WE COME IN FROM THE NORTH AND THE LIKE I SAID, THE PAIR OF BOXES REPRESENT THE VEHICLES. GOTCHA. OKAY. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. YEAH, I JUST HAVE I DO HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF A CONCERN WITH THE PARKING. SO MY QUESTION IS, DOES THE OWNER OWN THE ENTIRE PROPERTY EVEN TO THE NORTH? BECAUSE. AND THE REASON WHY I'M ASKING IS I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S AN ABILITY TO EXTEND THE BOUNDARY LINE 30 OR 40FT NORTH AND PUT IN MORE PARKING JUST BECAUSE I'M WITH. REALLY YOU'VE GOT 11 SPACES. IF ALL YOUR STAFF IS THERE FOR 60 KIDS.

AND I USED TO TEACH PRESCHOOL, SO I KNOW HOW YOU KNOW, LITTLE JOHNNY HAD A ROUGH MORNING. MOM NEEDS TO WALK HIM IN. DROP OFF ISN'T GOING TO HAPPEN. HE'S FREAKING OUT. SO AND SO. THEY LOST THEIR LUNCH. THEY NEED TO, YOU KNOW, THERE'S A MILLION REASONS WHY PARENTS WOULD BE IN AND OUT WITH 60 STUDENTS. I'M JUST CONCERNED THAT THAT'S NOT ENOUGH PARKING. WE DO NOT OWN THE ENTIRE TRACK. WE'RE TAKING THIS 2.2 ACRES AND THE BALANCE OF THAT NOW, WE HAVE A GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE WITH THE OWNER. BUT AT THE PRICE PER SQUARE FOOT, THIS COST TAKING ANOTHER 30 OR 40FT. YEAH. THERE'D BE COST PROHIBITIVE. OKAY. IS THERE ANY PLACE ELSE YOU CAN SQUEEZE A FEW MORE SPACES. WE'VE KIND OF SQUEEZED IT, YOU KNOW, AS MUCH AS WE CAN.

AGAIN, YOU'RE RIGHT, BUT I GUESS I THINK 10 OR 11 SPACES FOR PARENTS TO COME IN AND DO SOME BUSINESS AND LEAVE AGAIN. THERE'S ONLY 64 STUDENTS. HOPEFULLY WE THINK THAT WOULD BE ADEQUATE. OKAY. AND AGAIN, OUR PARKING ANALYSIS AND YOU KNOW, WE KIND OF BEAT THIS AROUND PRETTY HARD. IT'S BEEN SEVERAL MONTHS FOR US TO GET TO THIS POINT. CAN SOMEBODY PARK IN THE LIKE WHEN IT'S NOT DROP OFF AND PICK UP? CAN SOMEONE PARK IN THE DRIVE AISLE? MAYBE THAT WOULD I DON'T KNOW, I'M I JUST KNOW HOW IT IS WITH PRESCHOOLERS AND THEY ARE NOT PREDICTABLE. I KNOW THE FIRE MARSHAL DOES NOT WANT US PARKING IN THE FIRE. FIRE LANE? NO, BUT I'M SAYING IN THE QUEUING LANES WHERE QUEUING LANES ARE OKAY. YEAH. MAKE SURE YOU HAVE EXTRA SPACE TO PARK.

YEAH, YEAH. YOU COULD STAND THERE. YEAH. THAT'S NOT ILLEGAL. OKAY. THAT'S WHAT WILL HAPPEN.

YEAH, THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT I WAS JUST GOING TO FOLLOW UP ON. WITH WHAT COUNCIL MEMBER BARTLEY IS TALKING ABOUT. YOU KNOW, WITH, WITH I'M SURE YOU ALL ARE GOING TO HAVE MEET THE TEACHERS. AND WHEN YOU'VE GOT MEET THE TEACHERS, THERE'S GOING TO BE NEED TO BE A LOT OF PARKING AND WE CAN'T WE CAN'T PARK ON THE STREET WITH. IF THEY DO THAT, I'M SURE THEY'LL STAGGER THE TIMES FOR THE CLASSROOMS. AND SO THAT'S GOING TO BE A DIFFICULT THING. EVEN EVEN WITH ONE CLASSROOM, HOW MANY WERE HOW MANY ARE IN EACH CLASSROOM? 16, 16. SO THOSE ARE THOSE ARE THINGS THAT WE'VE JUST GOT TO MAKE SURE WE FOCUS ON. I UNDERSTAND. IN PART THE REASON

[01:55:04]

WE BRING THAT UP IS THAT'S ONE OF THE ONE OF THE THINGS THAT'S A CONCERN WITH, WITH ONE OF THE ADJACENT RESIDENTS. BUT IF WE WERE IF WE WERE TO DO THAT, I THINK WHAT COUNCILMEMBER BERKELEY SAID, WE CAN JUST PARK IN THE IN THE, YOU KNOW, IN THAT DRIVE THROUGH LANE, IT'S OUTSIDE THE FIRE LANE. AND AS LONG AS WE'RE NOT ENCROACHING INSIDE THE FIRE LANE, WE SHOULD BE FINE TO DO THAT. SO THAT THAT PROVIDES US, QUITE FRANKLY, ANOTHER 14 SPOTS. AND NOT TO SOLVE ALL THE PROBLEMS IN THE WORLD. BUT IF YOU HAVE AN EVENT, YOU KNOW, GETTING SOME KIND OF MUTUAL AGREEMENT TO USE THE PARKING SPACES AT THE CHURCH, YOU KNOW, WE LOOK FORWARD TO BUILDING A VERY GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH THE CHURCH. THAT'S A GOOD ENTITY. AND ABSOLUTELY. AND WE'VE MET THE PASTOR AND THE SENIOR PASTOR AND ALL. SO WE'VE STARTED THAT. GOOD. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? NO. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. APPRECIATE IT. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THIS ITEM IS A PUBLIC I'M SORRY. BEFORE YOU GO, HANG ON FOR ONE SECOND. JUST LET ME READ THIS AND THEN I'M GOING TO ASK YOU A QUESTION. THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING. THEREFORE, I'LL OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE BESIDES YOURSELF WHO SIGNED UP TO SPEAK? WOULD YOU LIKE TO ADD TO YOUR COMMENTS? NO. I THINK THE ONLY THING THAT I WOULD LIKE TO DOVETAIL ON WHAT DAVID MENTIONED, WE WOULD HAVE HAD A SEVEN ZERO VOTE AT PNC, BUT IT WAS WE WERE TALKING ABOUT THE SCREEN WALL ON. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS ON THE WEST SIDE, AND THERE WERE SOME PNC MEMBERS THAT FELT WE'RE FAR ENOUGH FROM THE POND, AND THERE'S ENOUGH TREES BACK THERE. WE REALLY DIDN'T HAVE TO PLANT MORE TREES. IT WAS GREAT AS IT WAS. AND THAT WAS HIS OBJECTION, WAS HAVING TO PLANT MORE TREES TO CREATE A SCREEN WALL. THE OTHER QUESTION I THINK SOMEONE HAD WAS THE FENCE. AND THERE IS A FENCE ALL THE WAY AROUND CONNECTING OUR BUILDINGS, AND WE'RE BACK IN THE FAR ENOUGH FROM THE WATER. SO OUR FENCE IS GOING TO BE EXTREMELY SECURE. AND SO WE, WE THINK WE'RE WE'LL HANDLE THE KEEPING THEM AWAY FROM THE WATER. WHAT TYPE OF FENCING IS THAT GOING TO BE AROUND THE PLAYGROUND AND FARM AREA? IT'S ACTUALLY IT'S GOING TO BE WOOD FRAME WITH EXPANDED METAL. SO IT'S KIND OF A FARM LOOK IF YOU WILL. BUT IT'LL KEEP SMALL ANIMALS IN AS AS WELL AS CHILDREN. SO YEAH, IT'S MORE OF A CAGE. WE HAVE GRANDKIDS. WE KNOW THEY'RE BOYS. THEY'RE CLIMBING. YEAH. BUT THAT'S I THINK I JUST WANT TO MAKE THOSE CLARIFICATIONS. IF THERE'S ANYTHING ELSE, I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER THEM. OTHERWISE, WE LOOK FORWARD TO YOUR SUPPORT. IS THERE ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK AT THIS PUBLIC HEARING? HEARING NONE. WE'LL CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. AND IT'S NOW COUNCIL DISCUSSION. I'LL START WITH IT. JUST THE REST OF THE COUNCIL MEMBERS HAVE SAID I'M SO ENCOURAGED TO HAVE THE APPLICANT BACK WITH THIS PARTICULAR THIS I MEAN, IN TERMS OF THE PROPERTY, I CAN SEE THE VISION ON IT. IT JUST SEEMS SEEMS GREAT. SO HOPEFULLY WE CAN WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THE MINOR ISSUES THAT WE HAVE OTHER COMMENTS. I THOUGHT, I THOUGHT IT WAS A GREAT CONCEPT WHEN Y'ALL WHEN Y'ALL WERE HERE THE FIRST TIME AND I THINK IT'S A GREAT CONCEPT NOW I JUST MY MAIN COMMENT IS JUST BE BE VERY CAUTIOUS AND BE BE IF IT GETS APPROVED, BE GOOD NEIGHBORS WITH REGARDS TO PARKING AND THE TRAFFIC. I, I HAD A QUESTION FOR STAFF. SORRY IF WE TO MAKE A MOTION WITHOUT THE MASONRY WALL, WE HAVE TO EXCLUDE THAT RIGHT. CORRECT. IN OUR MOTION TO NOT HAVE A MASONRY WALL. YES. TO NOT REQUIRE. OKAY. YOU'D HAVE TO. I WAS JUST WANTING TO MAKE SURE WE CLARIFIED THAT. YES I AGREE WITH WHAT'S BEEN SAID. I THINK THE OPEN FENCING AND WELL NOT OPEN FENCING, BUT BECAUSE YOU DON'T WANT KIDS GOING OUT, BUT BEING ABLE TO SEE THE POND IS MUCH MORE IMPORTANT TO ME THAN A MASONRY WALL. THERE. SO OKAY. DID YOU WANT TO MAKE A MOTION? SURE. IF EVERYBODY ELSE IS DONE TALKING, I'M NOT SEEING ANY. OKAY. MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE. SORRY. LET ME LOOK AT NUMBER 18.

WHAT ITEM NUMBER 1818. OH, MAKE A MOTION TO AGENDA. ITEM NUMBER 18. WITHOUT THE MASONRY WALL REQUIREMENT, I'D HAVE A MOTION. SECOND, BY CHRIS KERN. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT. WE APPRECIATE IT. SO

[19. Consider and act upon authorizing the Town Manager to execute a Construction Agreement awarding CSP No. 2024-35-B to ANA Site Construction, LLC, related to the Upper Doe Branch Wastewater Line (Teel Parkway – PISD Stadium) project, for $5,492,167 and authorize $300,000 for construction phase contingencies. The total purchase order amount is $5,792,167. (PA)]

NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 19 TO CONSIDER AND ACT UPON AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT AWARDING CSP NUMBER 2024, DASH 30 5-B TO.

[02:00:04]

ANA SITE CONSTRUCTION, LLC RELATED TO THE UPPER DOE BRANCH WASTEWATER LINE. TEAL PARKWAY TO PISD STADIUM PROJECT FOR $5.492167 MILLION AND AUTHORIZE 300,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE CONTINGENCIES. THE TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER IS 5,792,000 167,000. PETE ANAYA, PLEASE.

THANK YOU. YES. OUR GUEST. RIGHT. OKAY. BEFORE. BEFORE WE GO INTO THE SCORING CRITERIA, I WAS JUST GOING TO MENTION A FEW HIGHLIGHTS OF OUR WASTEWATER LINE CAN HAVE A HIGHLIGHT, BUT WE'VE GOT. YEAH. THAT'S A LOT. SO WE'RE CONSTRUCTING A LITTLE OVER FOUR MILES OF SANITARY SEWER. THE PIPE DIAMETER RANGES FROM 27IN TO 12IN. WE WILL BE DECOMMISSIONING TWO LIFT STATIONS, WHICH HELPS THE OPERATIONS OF THE WASTEWATER SYSTEM. THE FIRST ONE IS THERE AT LEGACY, WHERE THE LINE TURNS NORTH. THERE'S A LIFT STATION THERE THAT TAKES CARE OF LEGACY GARDENS. AND SO WE'LL TAKE THAT OFFLINE. AND WE'RE SCHEDULED TO HAVE IT OFFLINE BY MAY OF 2025, BECAUSE IN WORKING WITH THE SCHOOL DISTRICT, THEY'LL BE NEEDING TO START CONSTRUCTION ON THE ROADWAY ABOUT THAT TIME. AND THE OTHER LIFT STATION IS ON FRONTIER AT PISD STADIUM. THE STADIUM COMPLEX PUT IN A LIFT STATION THERE, AND THIS PROJECT WILL SEEK COMMISSION. THAT LIFT STATION AS WELL. AND WE ALSO HAVE A LITTLE SPOT THERE WHERE DALLAS PARKWAY AND FRONTIER, WHERE H-E-B IS H-E-B PRE-INSTALLED. THEIR SECTION UNDER UNDERNEATH THEIR PAVEMENT SO WE WOULDN'T HAVE TO DISTURB THEIR DEVELOPMENT. SO THAT WAS THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT FOR ABOUT $187,000. SO THAT WAS THAT WAS DONE ALREADY. SO THAT'S IN IN IN THE GROUND WILL TIE INTO IT ON EITHER SIDE OF IT. WE RECEIVED BIDS FIVE BIDS OCTOBER 17TH. WE WENT THROUGH OUR NORMAL COMPETITIVE SEALED PROPOSAL PERCENTAGES. THE COST BEING 65, TIMELINE BEING 25 AND QUALIFICATIONS BEING 10%. ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE WAS OVER $8 MILLION, WHICH WE'RE HOPING THAT HE WAS HIGH AND HE WAS. SO WE HAD $7 MILLION BUDGETED. PROPOSALS CAME IN ANYWHERE FROM 5.4 MILLION TO 8.2 MILLION. THE TIME, AND IT CAME FROM 330 DAYS TO 430 DAYS, WHICH WE THINK IS A REASONABLE TIME FRAME TO GET THIS CONSTRUCTION. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE SCORING CRITERIA A AND A SITE CONSTRUCTION CAME OUT AS THE HIGHEST RANKED FIRM WITH A BID OF $5,492,167 AND A TIME FRAME OF 330 DAYS. WE DID. WE HAVEN'T WORKED WITH ANA SITE CONSTRUCTION, BUT WE CALLED ALL THEIR REFERENCES AND OF COURSE THEIR THEIR REFERENCES ARE GOING TO SAY NICE THINGS BECAUSE THAT'S WHY THEY'RE USING THEM. THEY, THEY TELL US ABOUT IT. BUT WE ALSO DID CHECK WITH SOME OF OUR CONSTRUCTION SUPERINTENDENTS HAVE WORKED IN OTHER LOCATIONS, AND WE REACHED OUT TO THE CITY OF PLANO, AND THEY HAD VERY NICE THINGS TO SAY ABOUT A SITE CONSTRUCTION. SO WITH THAT, WE RECOMMEND THE AWARDING OF THE CONTRACT TO ANA. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. IS THERE ANY QUESTIONS AT THIS POINT FOR STAFF? BECAUSE I ONLY QUESTION MAYBE IT'S JUST ME, NOT REMEMBERING THIS, BUT THE CONTINGENCY AMOUNT IS INCLUDED IN THE IN THE FULL ESTIMATE. AND THAT'S JUST YOU'RE JUST LETTING IT'S JUST BASICALLY STATING THAT THAT'S THE CONTINGENCY AMOUNT. IT COULD POTENTIALLY BE $300,000 LESS. IS THAT RIGHT? IS AM I READING THAT RIGHT? YES. YES OKAY. I KNOW IT NEVER IS, BUT YOU WANT TO ADDRESS A REASONABLE. YES. THE, THE ACTUAL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT WILL BE THE 5.4 MILLION, THE $300,000 CONTINGENCY IS SOMETHING THAT HELEN AND THE REST OF US HAVE TALKED ABOUT FOR A WHILE, WHERE IT HELPS EXPEDITE THE CHANGE ORDER PROCESS, WHERE THAT MONEY IS ALREADY SET ASIDE WITHIN THE POA. AND WE CAN WE CAN GENERATE CHANGE ORDERS FASTER THAT WAY. SO WE'RE APPROVING 5.792 OR 5.4. 5.7 FOR THE PURCHASE ORDER TOTAL FIVE SEVEN. OKAY. I SEE IT NOW I SEE IT OKAY OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FOR STAFF? OKAY.

[02:05:12]

OBVIOUSLY IT'S SOMETHING WE GOT TO GET DONE. IT'S UNDER THE ENGINEER'S ESTIMATE. IT'S. YEAH.

GO AHEAD. YEAH. I'M SORRY. AND MAYBE I'M NOT SEEING IT, BUT AS FAR AS PERFORMANCE OR DELAYED PROJECT, I MEAN, THIS IS A VERY AGGRESSIVE TIMELINE COMPARED TO THE OTHER ONES. AND THE COST IS CONSIDERABLY LESS. SO WHAT ARE OUR. BECAUSE WE'VE HAD BAD EXPERIENCES WITH OTHER COMPANIES IN THE PAST, WHAT ARE OUR OUR OUR? I HATE TO SAY. YEAH. DAMAGES. DAMAGES. YEAH. WELL $1,000 A DAY IS THE STANDARD FOR THIS SIZE CONTRACT. ISN'T THAT ALSO REGULATED BY STATE LAW OR IS THAT STANDARD. THAT'S A STANDARD NUMBER. I HAVE TO DEFER TO TERRY ON THAT. IT'S THE NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS HAS SUGGESTED GUIDELINES. OKAY. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'RE FOLLOWING. I HAVE TO ADDRESS THAT. YEAH. YES. THOUSAND DOLLARS A DAY OKAY OKAY. THANK YOU. THAT WAS WHAT I WAS QUESTIONING. ANYONE ELSE? DOES ANYONE HAVE A MOTION ON THIS PARTICULAR ITEM AS GREG, YOU RAISED YOUR HAND LAST TIME. I WAS CURIOUS IF YOU WANTED IN ON THIS ONE. YEAH. I MOVED TO APPROVE AUTHORIZE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT AWARDING CSC, CSP NUMBER 2024, DASH 3035, DASH B TO AN ANCHORED SITE CONSTRUCTION LLC RELATED TO THE UPPER DOE BRANCH WASTEWATER LINE. KILL PARKWAY TO PISD STADIUM PROJECT FOR $5,492,167 AND AUTHORIZE $300,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE CONTINGENCIES. THE TOTAL PURCHASE ORDER AMOUNT IS $5,792,167. OKAY, SECOND, BY JEFF MOTION AND BY CRAIG, SECOND BY JEFF. ALL IN FAVOR? MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY. LET'S START TOMORROW. THANK YOU. OKAY. THANK YOU. AGENDA ITEM NUMBER. ALONG HERE COMES OFF ON AGENDA ITEM NUMBER 20 IS. TO CONSIDER AND

[20. Consider and act upon awarding RFP No. 2024-28-B for Stop Loss Insurance to QBE for the Town’s self-insurance fund, effective January 1, 2025, and authorizing the Town Manager to execute all documents for the same. (TL)]

ACT UPON AWARDING RFP NUMBER 2024 DASH 28 B FOR STOP LOSS INSURANCE TO QBE FOR THE TOWN SELF-INSURANCE FUND EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1ST, 2025, AND AUTHORIZING THE TOWN MANAGER TO EXECUTE ALL DOCUMENTS FOR THE SAME. TONY, WELCOME. GOOD EVENING. I'M HERE TO PRESENT TO YOU THE RENEWAL OPTIONS FOR OUR ANNUAL STOP LOSS INSURANCE. AS YOU KNOW, THE TOWN PURCHASED A STOP LOSS INSURANCE TO PROTECT AGAINST CATASTROPHIC LOSSES FOR OUR MEDICAL INSURANCE AND PRESCRIPTION COVERAGE THROUGH OUR BENEFITS CONSULTANT, HOLMES MURPHY. THEY CONTRACT WITH A SPECIALTY BENEFITS TO GO OUT. WE DID AN RFP AT THE BEGINNING OF NOVEMBER. WE DID RECEIVE FOUR FIRM BIDS, ONE BEING OUR INCUMBENT QBE. THE STAFF IS RECOMMENDING TO RENEW THE STOP LOSS INSURANCE WITH QBE. CURRENTLY WE ARE AT A $100,000 DEDUCTIBLE LEVEL. WE ARE PROPOSING TO INCREASE THAT TO $125,000, WHICH WOULD ASSUME MORE RISK FOR THE TOWN. BUT WE FEEL THAT THE SUBSTANTIAL COST SAVINGS IN THE PREMIUM WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO DO THAT. AND THEN TO TAKE THOSE DOLLARS TO HELP BOLSTER THE HEALTH INSURANCE FUND THAT WE HAVE. THANK YOU.

TONY. SO. BEFORE I DOES ANYBODY ELSE HAVE QUESTIONS ON THIS BEFORE I GO OVER A COUPLE ITEMS? OKAY. YOU MAY ASK I DON'T KNOW. SO WHEN IT SAYS CURRENT PROVIDER IN OUR FIXED COST IS 830,429, IS THAT WHAT'S IN THIS YEAR'S BUDGET? CORRECT. OKAY. SO WE'RE IF WE GO WITH THE 125 DEDUCTIBLE, OUR FIXED COST IS $116,000 LESS. DOES THAT GO INTO JUST BEEFING UP THE FUND BALANCE IN THAT FUND? YES, MA'AM. THAT'S WHAT THE INTENTION IS, IS TO HELP INCREASE THAT FUND BALANCE OF THE HEALTH FUND. OKAY. SO IN THE FINANCE COMMITTEE MEETING, I HAD FOUR QUESTIONS FOR YOU, IF YOU DON'T MIND, IF WE JUST COVERED THOSE FOUR SO WE CAN GET THEM OUT. OKAY. SO ONE WAS THE ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS FOR THE PROGRAM. I HAVE REQUESTED THAT I DO HAVE DAVID FROM HOLMES.

MURPHY. I'M NOT SURE IF HE CAN SHED SOME LIGHT. I DO NOT HAVE THE CURRENT TOTAL AMOUNT FOR THAT. BUT. RIGHT. SO SPECIFICALLY IN THE PRESENTATION YOU GAVE, THERE'S ZERO ADMINISTRATIVE COSTS LISTED. AND THEN IN OUR PARTICULAR IN THE PACKAGE IN THE SLIDE. SO YEAH, I

[02:10:01]

WAS JUST CURIOUS WHAT THAT IS BECAUSE YOU'VE GOT A TPA, YOU'VE GOT A IN FACT WE WERE THE STOP LOSS PERSON HAD ANOTHER COMPANY. SO THEY'RE GETTING FEES IN THERE SOMEWHERE. SO MAKE SURE WE CAN COMPARE ALL THOSE. YES SIR. THANK YOU. I'LL BE HAPPY TO SPEAK TO THAT. SO I'M WITH HOLMES. MURPHY. I AM ONE OF THE CONSULTANTS THAT SERVES THE CITY AND THE MANAGEMENT TEAM. THE AVANT SPECIALTY IS PART OF HOLMES. MURPHY. THEY'RE ONE OF OUR ONE OF OUR MEMBER ORGANIZATIONS. THEY ARE PAID BASED ON OVERRIDE COMMISSIONS, WHICH ARE BUILT INTO THE PLAN.

YOU KNOW, NO MATTER IF YOU'RE USING US OR ANYONE ELSE. AND THOSE ARE 5%, SIR. OKAY. IS THAT THAT'S FOR JUST FOR AVANT. IT'S FOR AVANT. HOLMES. MURPHY. IT GOES BACK TO THE TEAM. SO THE WHOLE ADMINISTRATIVE COST IS 5% FOR THE ENTIRE PROGRAM. YEAH. THE REST OF IT IS MADE UP OF PREMIUMS TO COVER THE EXPECTED RISK. AND THE CLAIMS. OKAY. SORRY. I'M GOING TO REFER BACK TO MY QUESTION SHEET. SO. THE IT LISTED IN HERE IS ALSO A 50% RATE CAP. THAT'S WHAT'S OUR CURRENT RATE CAP 50%. IS IT NOT TO EXCEED NEXT YEAR. THAT'S KIND OF THE WORST CASE SCENARIO. AND WITH A LOT OF THE EXPENSIVE DRUGS THAT ARE ON THE MARKETPLACE NOW, SOME SOME INCREASES ARE 60% AND BEYOND. AND IN SOME CASES THE RATES MAY NOT BE RENEWED IS WHAT WE'RE FINDING WITH STOP LOSS. BUT WE ACTUALLY WHEN WE'RE REQUESTING AS PART OF THE MARKETING PROCESS, WE WENT OUT TO 15 DIFFERENT CARRIERS, REQUESTED QUOTES BACK. AS TONY SAID, WE GOT FIVE THAT WERE FIRM OR FOUR FOUR THAT WERE FIRMED UP AND WE ASK WE REQUEST A RATE CAP OF NOT TO EXCEED RATE CAP. IT DOESN'T MEAN IT WON'T COME IN LOWER THAN THAT NEXT YEAR, SIR. OKAY. BUT OUR CURRENT ONE IS 50%. YES, SIR. IT'S STILL YES. REMAINS AT 50%. YES. OKAY. OKAY. SO DID WE WERE WE ABLE TO GET THE ESTIMATE ON THE 150 K DEDUCTIBLE? WE WERE NOT. IS THAT BECAUSE WE'RE SO CLOSE TO RENEWAL? CLOSE. SO CLOSE TO RENEWAL WAS ONE ISSUE. THE OTHER THING IS PROBABLY WELL, WE COULD HAVE GOTTEN THAT WITH A LITTLE MORE RUNWAY. UNFORTUNATELY, I DON'T KNOW THAT I WOULD NECESSARILY RECOMMEND THAT THRESHOLD. IF YOU LOOK AT WHERE YOU ARE RIGHT NOW, YOU'RE KIND OF IN THAT SWEET SPOT BETWEEN A RECOMMENDED THRESHOLD OF 101. 25 IS KIND OF THE RECOMMENDED LEVEL, GIVEN WHERE YOU ARE AND WHERE YOUR GROWTH IS. FROM AN INSURANCE COMPANY STANDPOINT. I MEAN, I WORKED AT I WORKED AT BLUE CROSS FOR TEN YEARS. I WAS DIRECTOR OF UNDERWRITING THE GROUP YOUR SIZE. WHAT THEY'RE USING CURRENTLY IS 140. SO YOU'RE KIND OF RIGHT IN THAT RANGE OF IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT THE NEXT FEW YEARS WHERE YOU WANT TO GO, WE ALWAYS RECOMMEND THAT KIND OF KIND OF MY PERSPECTIVE SINCE I DID THAT FOR TEN YEARS, IS USE YOUR BULLETS WHEN YOU NEED THEM FOR WHEN YOU GET THE BIG INCREASE, OR ULTIMATELY IT'S YOUR PLAN AND YOU CAN TAKE ON THE RISK IF YOU HAVE THE FUND BALANCE TO MANAGE THAT ADDITIONAL R AND SO THIS IS NOW BACK TO TONY. IN THIS PARTICULAR FUND, WE DO NOT HAVE VERY STRONG FUND BALANCES. THAT'S CORRECT. SO OKAY. YEAH. SO WHICH IS WHY YOU IT LEADS TO YOUR POINT. YES SIR. SO THE SO CARRYING THROUGH FURTHER THE I BELIEVE WE'RE GOING TO HAVE SOME A BUDGET AMENDMENT LATER ON BASED ON CLAIMS OUT OF THIS PARTICULAR FUND AS WE GO FORWARD. I WOULD ASK THAT WE BUDGET FOR ALL THE DEPARTMENTS AT THE MAX EXPECTED LIABILITY RATHER THAN THE EXPECTED, BECAUSE I SO THAT WE CAN BUILD SOME FUND BALANCES BECAUSE I THINK WE'RE AT $110,000 FOR FUND BALANCE ON THIS ONE. SO JUST FOR THE FUTURE, I CERTAINLY WOULD WANT US TO SEE THE PLANNING FOR ALL THE DEPARTMENTS WHEN WE BUILD OUR BUDGET BACK IN JUNE OR WHENEVER WE DO THAT, THAT WE GO TO THAT NEXT LEVEL. SO AND JUST FOR CLARIFICATION, YOU'RE WANTING THAT AT THE AGGREGATE LIMIT THAT THE EXTRA 25% FOR, FOR MY, FOR MY TEAMMATES HERE, I'M GOING TO JUST WALK THROUGH THAT AND EXPLAIN THAT. THE REASON I WOULD SAY YES TO THAT IS BECAUSE THAT WOULD BE THE MAXIMUM AMOUNT THAT THE TOWN WOULD HAVE TO PAY. SO THEREFORE, IF WE DO NOT FUND IT TO THAT LEVEL, WE WILL GET IF WE HAVE A MASSIVE CLAIM, YOU WILL GET A LARGE SHORTFALL THAT WE'LL HAVE TO COME UP WITH AT THE END. AT SOME POINT IN THE BUDGET YEAR.