YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT THE MINUTE. GOTCHA. ALL RIGHT, WE'LL GO AHEAD AND GET STARTED. WE'RE [1. Call to Order / Roll Call.] [00:00:04] READY IN THE BACK. GOOD EVENING. THIS IS THE REGULAR MEETING OF THE TUESDAY, DECEMBER 3RD, 2024. PROSPER. PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION. THE MEETING IS CALLED TO ORDER AT 6:01 P.M. PLEASE NOTE FOR THE RECORD THAT ALL COMMISSIONERS, WITH THE EXCEPTION OF COMMISSIONER HARRIS, ARE PRESENT. COMMISSIONER HARRIS IS IN ROUTE. HE SHOULD ARRIVE HERE MOMENTARILY. FOR THOSE IN THE AUDIENCE ADDRESSING THE COMMISSION, THOSE WISHING TO ADDRESS THE COMMISSION MUST COMPLETE THE PUBLIC COMMENT REQUEST FORM LOCATED ON THE TOWN WEBSITE OR IN COUNCIL CHAMBERS. IF YOU'RE ATTENDING IN PERSON, PLEASE SUBMIT THIS FORM TO THE BOARD CHAIR OR A STAFF MEMBER PRIOR TO THE MEETING. WHEN CALLED UPON, PLEASE COME TO THE PODIUM AND STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS. FOR THE RECORD. ITEM TWO THIS EVENING IS THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE. IF EVERYONE WILL PLEASE RISE. I PLEDGE ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND TO THE REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS. ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL. ALL RIGHT. ITEM NUMBER THREE THIS EVENING. OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS [CONSENT AGENDA] EVENING HAS ITEMS THREE A THROUGH THREE G. ON THE MINUTES OR ON OUR CONSENT AGENDA THIS EVENING, THE FIRST TWO ARE THE MEETING MINUTES THREE A AND THREE B. AND WOULD ANY COMMISSIONERS LIKE TO PULL ANY OF THE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS OFF THIS EVENING FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? I'D LIKE TO PULL THREE A AND THREE B, PLEASE. SO THREE A AND THREE B ARE BEING PULLED BY COMMISSIONER CARSON. ANY OTHERS? THREE C AND THREE D. THREE C AND THREE D ARE BEING PULLED BY COMMISSIONER JACKSON. ANY OTHERS THAT WE WANT TO PULL THIS EVENING FOR FURTHER DISCUSSION? SO AT THIS TIME LET'S TALK ABOUT ITEMS THREE A AND THREE B. THE MEETING MINUTES AND WHY THOSE ARE BEING PULLED. GONNA MAKE A MOTION FIRST ON THE REMAINING WE CAN I MEAN WE CAN DO WE WANT TO DO IT ALL AT ONCE. YEAH. LET'S DO THAT. OKAY, I LIKE THAT. SO YOU WANT TO ENTERTAIN A MOTION ON THREE, THREE, THREE? YES. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEMS THREE E AND F, THREE E, F AND G. OKAY, SO WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE FLOOR TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE E, THREE F AND THREE G. DO WE FROM COMMISSIONER HAMILTON, DO WE HAVE A SECOND? A SECOND. SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER JACKSON. PLEASE NOTE FOR THE RECORD, COMMISSIONER HARRIS ARRIVED AT 6:03 P.M. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE E, THREE F AND THREE G. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0. APPROVED. SO LET'S TAKE IT [Items 3a & 3b] BACK TO CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE A AND THREE B. AND COMMISSIONER CARSON, YOU WANTED TO DISCUSS THOSE? YEAH, I'D TAKE NO EXCEPTION TO THEM, BUT I WAS NOT HERE FOR THOSE, SO I DIDN'T WANT TO APPROVE THOSE, SO I'LL ABSTAIN FROM THAT VOTE. OKAY. ANY OTHER CONVERSATION ON THREE A OR THREE B? IF NOT, I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO APPROVE THE MEETING MINUTES IN THE WORK SESSION. MINUTES. ITEMS THREE A AND THREE B. SO MOVED. ALL RIGHT. MOTION COMMISSIONER HAMILTON. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. SECOND. COMMISSIONER FOR A TO APPROVE A MEETING. CONSENT AGENDA. ITEMS THREE A AND THREE B. THE MINUTES FROM THE LAST MEETING. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE A AND THREE B, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND AND THAT MOTION CARRIES 6 TO 0. PLEASE NOTE, COMMISSIONER CARSON DID NOT VOTE AS HE WAS NOT IN ATTENDANCE AT [Items 3c & 3d] THE LAST MEETING. SO THEN I'LL TAKE IT TO TOWN STAFF. LET'S LOOK AT CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE C AND THREE D THIS EVENIN. WELCOME. THANK YOU. FIRST THING, WE NEED YOU TO DO. EXCUSE ME. WE PROBABLY MADE A HICCUP. WE PROBABLY SHOULD HAVE HAD THIS ON CONSENT ON REGULAR AGENDA IN THE FIRST PLACE. BUT REMEMBER, WE TABLED THIS, SO WE NEED YOU ALL TO BE ON THE RECORD. NO. I NEED YOU TO PULL IT OFF THE TABLE. IF YOU WOULD, PLEASE. OKAY. LET'S GO AHEAD AND PULL ITEMS THREE C AND THREE D OFF THE TABLE AND OPEN IT UP FOR DISCUSSION THIS EVENING. DO WE NEED TO HAVE A VOTE ON THAT? ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF PULLING OFF THREE C AND THREE D FROM LAST SESSION'S TABLE? WHEN WE TABLE IT, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT CARRIES 6 TO 0 TO DISCUSS IT. THIS EVENING. OKAY. AND THEN THE SECOND THING HOUSEKEEPING. JUST SO EVERYBODY KNOWS, COMMISSIONER CARSON HAS A POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST ON ON THESE. AND SO THAT'S WHY HE'S RECUSED HIMSELF AND DISAPPEARED INTO THE BACK. HE WASN'T JUST BAILING OUT. THANK YOU. AS YOU RECALL, THIS WAS WAS ON THE AGENDA LAST TIME AND SORT OF LATE IN THE DAY, WE WOUND UP WITH A LITTLE BIT OF CONFUSION, PRIMARILY CENTERED AROUND AN EASEMENT THAT EXISTS ON THE SIDE OF THE CAR WASH, THAT THE EASEMENT BELONGED TO. THE LASEMA HOA, THE PROPERTY. UNDERNEATH THE EASEMENT, SO TO SPEAK, [00:05:06] BELONGED TO SEPARATE PROPERTY OWNER. AND THERE WAS SOME CONFUSION THAT WE NEEDED TO GET STRAIGHT AS WE WERE GOING THROUGH THAT, THAT PROCESS. AND SO IT WAS THE STAFF THAT ASKED YOU ALL TO TABLE THAT ITEM SO WE COULD COULD FIGURE THAT OUT AND MAKE SURE THAT WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS THAT WOULD COME UP LATER ON, THAT WE SHOULD HAVE SPENT MORE TIME LOOKING AT. AND AS IT TURNS OUT, WE ARE FINE WITH THE WAY IT IS. THERE WAS SOME DISCUSSION ABOUT THE LOCATION OF THE PROPOSED SIDEWALK AND DID IT NEED TO GO THROUGH A SECTION OF THE EASEMENT? AND WAS IT POSSIBLE TO MAKE AN ALTERNATE ROUTE TO WHERE THE SIDEWALK WASN'T THROUGH THAT, THAT EASEMENT, WHICH IS CERTAINLY SOMETHING THAT THAT WE CAN DISCUSS AS PART OF THE CONSTRUCTION PROCESS WITH THE APPLICANT. BUT TECHNICALLY SPEAKING, THE EASEMENT ALLOWS THEM TO DO THAT. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THAT WE WERE WE'RE LOOKING INTO. AND SO HAVING SAID THAT, HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS IF YOU HAVE THEM. OTHERWISE, THE STAFF'S RECOMMENDATION IS AND YOU CAN EITHER DO THEM SEPARATELY OR TOGETHER. ONE IS A SITE PLAN, ONE IS THE PLAT. SO THEY'RE OBVIOUSLY TIED TOGETHER. YOU CAN WHATEVER ACTION YOU WANT TO TAKE CAN BE ONE BOTH SEPARATE WHATEVER THAT THAT PART'S UP TO YOU. BUT BUT STAFF'S RECOMMENDING APPROVAL. SO I KNOW THERE WILL BE A COUPLE OF QUESTIONS HERE. ONE, I GUESS. DID Y'ALL MEET WITH LEGAL COUNSEL AND REVIEW THIS AND ANSWER ISSUES OR ANY PERSPECTIVES THERE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE KNEW AT THE LAST MEETING OR. NO, SIR. AND THAT THAT WAS PART OF WHAT WE NEEDED TO DO. AND WE DIDN'T HAVE TIME TO DO THAT LAST TIME OR WE HOPEFULLY WOULD HAVE BEEN ABLE TO GET ALL THE INFORMATION FOR YOU. BUT WE JUST AGAIN, WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T ALLOWING SOMETHING TO HAPPEN THAT WAS GOING TO BE A PROBLEM OR GIVING YOU BAD INFORMATION THAT WOULD WOULD CAUSE A BAD DECISION. AND SO WE DID. WE HAD SEVERAL CONVERSATIONS WITH THE ATTORNEYS AND THEY SAW THE EASEMENT AND EVERYTHING AS FAR AS THE PROCESS AND WHAT WAS GOING ON. AND WE'RE COMFORTABLE AND THEY'RE COMFORTABLE WITH IT. OKAY. OTHER QUESTIONS. YES, I MY QUESTION IS, YOU KNOW, AS A COMMISSIONER, YOU KNOW, WE'RE SITTING HERE ALL THE TIME AND WE'RE TALKING ABOUT SCREENING WALLS AND TREES AND ALL THESE THINGS TO, TO MAKE SURE THAT WE'RE NOT PULLING STUFF OUT AND REPLACING THINGS BACK INTO TO WHERE IT'S NOT IMPACTING THE COMMUNITY VERSUS THE STORE OR WHATEVER THE CASE MAY BE. I WOULD JUST SAY, I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF THEY COLLABORATED WITH THE HOA TO MAKE SURE THAT THEY'RE NOT IMPACTING ANY OF THEIR STUFF. THAT WAS MY BIG THING, BECAUSE JUST LOOKING AT THIS, THIS, THIS HERE THAT THEY JUST MOVED THE SIDEWALK OVER JUST A LITTLE BIT, THEN ALL THE TREES AND BUSHES WOULD, WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED. AND ALSO THERE'S A LIGHT POLE RIGHT? WHEN YOU'RE DRIVING INTO THE COMMUNITY, THE FLAGPOLE, THAT WOULD PROBABLY BE IMPACTED AS WELL WHERE IT SITS. SO YOU'RE I DON'T SEE WHY WE WOULD WANT TO CHANGE THE ESTHETICS OF A 1000 HOME COMMUNITY FOR THE CAR WASH, FOR SIDEWALK. THAT'S MY BIG THING. I BELIEVE THAT'S UNDERSTANDABLE. AND AS I SAID, IT'S A CONVERSATION THAT WE WILL CERTAINLY HAVE AS WE'RE GOING THROUGH THAT PROCESS WITH THE APPLICANT. AS FAR AS THE CONSTRUCTION PART OF IT IS, IS BUILDING DEPARTMENT AS FAR AS INSPECTIONS AND BUILDING. AND SO FORTH. AND THEN PART OF IT IS THINGS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY END UP BEING WITH ENGINEERING AND CIVIL PLANS. AND SO FORTH. AND SO THERE WILL BE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES FOR CONVERSATIONS DURING THAT PROCESS. AND THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS WE WANTED TO LOOK AT WAS TO FIND OUT WHAT WHAT RIGHTS EVERYBODY HAS AND WHAT ENTITLEMENTS EVERYBODY HAS, SO WE CAN MAKE SURE THAT EVERYBODY WAS OPERATING UNDER THE SAME SET OF RULES AND REGULATIONS. AND THAT'S PART OF THE REASON WHY WE ASKED THIS TO BE TABLED IS SO WE COULD MAKE THAT DETERMINATION. SO WOULD THE APPLICANT BE WILLING TO ADJUST THE SIDEWALK? I'M GUESSING I'M NOT ASKING A QUESTION WRONG. I DON'T WANT TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION SINCE I DIDN'T ASK THAT SPECIFIC QUESTION. OKAY. HE MIGHT. GOOD AFTERNOON, COMMISSIONER CLAY CHRISTIE, CLAYMORE ENGINEERING, 1903 CENTRAL DRIVE. SO THE SIDEWALK HERE IS A LITTLE BIT OF A CHALLENGE, AND THERE'S A COUPLE OPPORTUNITIES THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT ON HOW THAT IS. THE KIND OF YOUR PROTOTYPICAL WHERE YOU'D WANT TO PUT THE SIDEWALK WOULD BE IN THE RIGHT OF WAY IN THE STREET, RIGHT OF WAY WHERE THE CITY'S LAND IS AND THE STREET RIGHT OF WAY AND EVERYTHING ELSE. WE'RE REQUIRED TO PUT A TEN FOOT SIDEWALK IN THERE. AND CURRENTLY WHERE THE ENTRY FEATURES AND THE STRUCTURES OF THAT HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION THAT COMES IN THERE, IT'S ACTUALLY LOCATED IN THE CITY'S PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. IT'S NOT ON [00:10:02] PRIVATE PROPERTY ANYMORE. AND SO IT'S IN THE CITY RIGHT OF WAY. SO WE'RE NOT ABLE TO LOCATE THE SIDEWALK IN THE CITY RIGHT AWAY WHERE IT WOULD NORMALLY BE LOCATED. IF WE DID, WE LOOKED AT RUNNING IT AROUND KIND OF IN THE FRONT OF WHERE, WHERE THE LITTLE STRUCTURE IS, YOU KNOW, IN BETWEEN ESSENTIALLY THE STRUCTURE IN THE STREET THAT WOULD NARROW THAT SIDEWALK DOWN TO ABOUT SEVEN, 7.5FT IS WHAT IT WOULD NARROW. THAT DOWN TO. THERE'S ALSO A FIRE HYDRANT, I BELIEVE, AND MAYBE A POWER POLE, MAYBE A LIGHT POLE YOU'RE TALKING ABOUT. THAT'S IN THERE. THAT WOULD KIND OF NARROW THAT THE CLEARANCE WALK. IT WOULD MATCH. IT WOULD GET YOU THAT THREE FOOT CLEAR THAT YOU NEED FOR ADA PURPOSES. BUT THEN WE WOULDN'T BE ABLE TO MEET THAT TEN FOOT REQUIREMENT TO GO IN BETWEEN THERE AND TO STAY KIND OF CLOSER INTO THAT PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY. SO THAT'S KIND OF WHY YOU SEE THE FUNKY JOG ON THE SIDEWALK THAT GOES BACK TO THE RIGHT AND EVERYTHING ELSE, AND WHICH COULD, YOU KNOW, WHICH WOULD IMPACT SOME OF THE SMALL LANDSCAPE STUFF THAT WE HAVE THERE. AND TALKING WITH CLUB, CARWASH AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I MEAN, THEY'D BE WILLING TO HELP MAINTAIN OR, YOU KNOW, IF WE HAVE SOME ROOM TO TRY TO, YOU KNOW, ONCE WE GET THE SIDEWALK IN AND PLANT SOME OTHER SHRUBS AROUND THERE AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, THEY DON'T HAVE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT. AS FAR AS MOVING THE SIDEWALK FURTHER INTO THE SITE AND FURTHER EAST. THE CHALLENGE THAT WE HAVE WITH THAT IS THAT IF YOU'VE BEEN OUT ON THE SITE, THERE'S A TON OF GRADE CHANGE. AND SO THERE'S A SIGNIFICANT AMOUNT OF GRADE CHANGE AND SO IF WE MOVE THAT SIDEWALK FURTHER EAST, WHAT THAT'S GOING TO DO IS THAT'S GOING TO REQUIRE THE NEED FOR A RETAINING WALL OVER THERE. TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE SOILS AND EVERYTHING ELSE, JUST BECAUSE THE GRADE IS SO STEEP AND YOU'VE GOT TO KEEP THAT SIDEWALK DOWN LOW. THE CHALLENGE WITH THAT IS THAT CURRENTLY, THAT WHOLE ENTIRE AREA IS NOT ONLY ENCOMPASSED BY AN HOA EASEMENT. THERE'S ALSO UTILITY AND SANITARY SEWER LINES IN THAT EASEMENT. AND TYPICALLY YOU'RE NOT ALLOWED TO PUT A RETAINING WALL WITHIN THOSE EASEMENTS BECAUSE THAT'S CONSIDERED ANOTHER STRUCTURE. AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE. SO WITH THOSE CONSTRAINTS, THAT'S KIND OF WHY THAT LIKE I SAID, THE SIDEWALK ALIGNMENTS KIND OF FUNKY. THE WAY THAT IT HAS TO GO AROUND AND GO DO THAT. BUT THOSE ARE THE OPTIONS THAT WE COULD KIND OF LOOK AT DOING. I DON'T KNOW THAT PUTTING A RETAINING WALL INSIDE AN EASEMENT IS GOING TO BE VERY DESIRABLE FOR THE CITY. BUT IF SAYING, HEY GUYS, LOOK, IF YOU GUYS JUST WRAP IT AROUND THE FRONT AND IT NARROWS, YOU KNOW, THAT LITTLE AREA, IT'S STRAIGHT VERSUS THE MEANDERING REQUIREMENT AND GO ALONG THE FRONT THERE. YOU KNOW, WE REALLY DON'T HAVE ANY ISSUES WITH THAT. BUT THEN NOW WE'RE ASKING YOU GUYS FOR SOMETHING ELSE OF NOT PROVIDING THAT FULL TEN FOOT WIDTH IN THE SIDEWALK. AND I DON'T KNOW IF THAT'S IDEAL. FROM THAT STANDPOINT. BUT AND GIVE ME ONE SECOND. RIGHT. I DIDN'T WANT TO MISSPEAK. SO JOSH CARSON IS WHO CLUB CARWASH REACHED OUT TO AND WHO HAD BEEN TALKING TO AT THE WHENEVER THEY INITIATED THIS PROJECT. THIS PROJECT'S BEEN WORKING ON FOR OVER A YEAR NOW OF GOING THROUGH DIFFERENT THINGS AND STUFF LIKE THAT. AND THEN WHENEVER WE GOT TWO WEEKS AGO, WHENEVER WE WERE HERE AND WE DID GET TABLED. JUSTIN BARNES, THE OTHER GENTLEMAN THAT WAS HERE WITH ME LAST WEEK. HE'S WITH CLUB CARWASH THERE OUT OF MISSOURI. HE WASN'T ABLE TO MAKE IT TONIGHT AND APOLOGIZES THAT. BUT JUST COULDN'T GET A FLIGHT AND GET EVERYTHING BACK DOWN HERE. BUT HE REACHED OUT TO JOSH WHENEVER WE GOT TABLED. AND JUST HADN'T HEARD BACK FROM HIM. JUST YET. AND ABLE TO DO THAT. HE KNOWS THAT WHENEVER THEY DID TALK TO HIM INITIALLY, THERE WASN'T A WHOLE LOT OF OPPOSITION. THEY DID TALK ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AND EVERYTHING ELSE THAT WAS THERE, AND THEIR CONCERN WAS TO MAKE SURE AND ENSURE THAT THEIR STRUCTURES WEREN'T GOING TO GET REMOVED AND EVERYTHING WHICH CLUB CARWASH CONFIRMED AND AGREED. NO, WE'RE NOT MESSING WITH THAT. ANY OF THAT STUFF, ANY OF THE STRUCTURES, IT LOOKS NICE. IT'S A NICE ENTRY FEATURE. FOR WHAT WE HAVE AND EVERYTHING ELSE. SO THAT'S LIKE I SAID, I'M, I KIND OF GAVE SOME OPTIONS. I KIND OF GAVE SOME DISCUSSION. WE'RE OPEN TO TALK BACK AND FORTH TO TRY TO FIND A SOLUTION FOR IT. TO TRY TO SEE WHAT WE CAN DO TO GET THAT SOLVED, TO GET THE NEEDED SIDEWALK, THE NEEDED ACCESS AND EVERYTHING THAT WE NEED THERE TO BE ABLE TO PROVIDE IT IN THE BEST WAY. ALRIGHT. THANK YOU. THANK YOU FOR THAT BEING HERE AND THAT PRESENTATION. I DON'T KNOW. THIS ISN'T A PUBLIC HEARING, SO I DON'T KNOW IF THERE'S ANY QUESTIONS. I DON'T KNOW HOW WE CODIFY ANYTHING THAT WAS JUST MENTIONED OFF THE CUFF TOO, WITH LANDSCAPE FEATURES AND BUSHES AND THINGS LIKE THAT. WELL, GO AHEAD, MISTER. ARE THOSE THINGS THAT ARE GOING TO BE DISCUSSED WHEN THEY COME BACK TO US? ARE THEY COMING BACK AFTER THIS PART AT ANY POINT TO DISCUSS SITE PLANNING, OR IS IT OKAY? NO, SIR. THEY WON'T BE COMING BACK TO Y'ALL. THEY'LL THEY'LL BE COMING BACK TO STAFF. AND WE'RE AWARE OF MOST ALL OF THESE THINGS THAT WERE MENTIONED AS FAR AS, AS THE CONFLICTS AND THE WATER LINES, SEWER LINES, SIDEWALK WIDTHS, ALL OF THOSE THINGS. AND WE OBVIOUSLY HAVE [00:15:02] CERTAIN AMOUNT OF LATITUDE AND LEEWAY. I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO BLATANTLY IGNORE ORDINANCES THAT WE HAVE, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE CAN'T WORK WITH WITH DEVELOPERS, WHICH WE DO FREQUENTLY. THIS IS NOT THE ONLY PLACE IN TOWN THAT THAT HAS SITUATIONS LIKE THIS. AND SO, YOU KNOW, THAT'S THAT'S SOMETHING THAT WE HAD ALREADY SPOKEN ABOUT INTERNALLY. AND WE DO APPRECIATE THEM REACHING OUT AND EXPLORING ALL THESE OPTIONS, AS YOU CAN TELL BY THAT DESCRIPTION. THIS DOES OBVIOUSLY THEY DIDN'T JUST SHOW UP AND COME UP WITH ALL THIS STUFF. THEY'VE BEEN TRYING TO COME UP WITH WITH DIFFERENT ALTERNATIVES AND IDEAS. SO I'M PRETTY CONFIDENT WE'LL BE ABLE TO WORK THROUGH THIS. WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE ORIGINALLY, AND AGAIN, I APOLOGIZE FOR THE LATE NOTICE LAST TIME, BUT WE JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE WEREN'T DOING SOMETHING WRONG BECAUSE WE FOUND OUT SO LATE THAT IT WAS A LITTLE DIFFERENT THAN THAN WHAT WE HAD THOUGHT IT WAS AT THE BEGINNING. NOBODY'S FAULT. JUST, YOU KNOW, FACT OF LIFE AND FIND OUT YOU GOT TO FIX IT OR AT LEAST INVESTIGATE IT. SO THAT'S WHAT THE PROBLEM WAS. AND ONE OTHER THING THAT I'LL WILL COMMENT ON JUST A LITTLE BIT IN REGARDS TO THAT ENTRY AND EVERYTHING ELSE. I KNOW THERE WERE SOME CONCERNS ABOUT THE LANDSCAPE. ONE, 234. ALONG, ALONG THE LASEMA RIGHT OF WAY. ALONE. WE'RE GOING TO BE ADDING 12 TREES INTO THERE AND MORE SHRUBS THAN I CAN LOOK AT ON MY LITTLE LANDSCAPE PLAN TO COUNT, BUT THEY'LL BE SEPARATED ON ABOUT THREE FOOT CENTERS. ALL THE WAY THROUGH THERE. AND IT WILL ACTUALLY BE A DOUBLE ROW OF SHRUBS. THERE'LL BE ONE OUT ALONG THE KIND OF CLOSER ALONG THE SIDEWALK THERE, AND THEN EVERYTHING WILL ESSENTIALLY ALONG THE EDGE OF THE FACADE, AS WELL AS ALONG THE EDGE OF THE PAVING ALONG THERE, TOO. THERE WILL BE A SECONDARY ROW OF SHRUBS IN THAT AREA. SO THERE WILL BE ALSO JUST TO TALK ABOUT IT, SOME, YOU KNOW, CONSIDERABLE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING THAT WE DO ADD IF WE DO. FOR THE SIDEWALK, TAKE OUT A COUPLE OF SHRUBS AROUND AROUND THE DEAL THAT WE'RE YOU KNOW, WE'RE NOT HERE TRYING TO GET AROUND ANYTHING ON THOSE LANDSCAPE ITEMS OR NOT WORK ON IT OR WHATEVER IT IS. AS DAVID MENTIONED, AND WORKING WITH STAFF QUITE THOROUGHLY, WE'RE TRYING TO FIND THE BEST SOLUTION FOR THAT. AND WE'RE OPEN TO IT. ON ON WHAT WE'RE YOU KNOW, ON WHAT IT IS. I MEAN, WE'RE NOT OUT THERE. WE JUST WANT TO RIP OUT THE SHRUBS, JUST TO RIP THEM OUT AND PUT A SIDEWALK IN. WE'RE WE'RE DEFINITELY WORKABLE AND AMENABLE TO TRY TO GET THAT SOMETHING, THAT ONE THAT THE HOA IS HAPPY WITH AND TO SOMETHING THAT, YOU KNOW, THE TOWN AND CAR WASHES. I MEAN, THEY THEY TAKE PRIDE IN THEIR STORES. THEY WANT TO HAVE SOMETHING THAT LOOKS SHARP AND LOOKS NICE. THIS ISN'T A, YOU KNOW, GRUNGY, DIRTY PLACE THAT COMES IN AND STAYS DIRTY. THEY WANT TO KEEP IT UP. THEY WANT TO MAKE IT LOOK SHARP AND THEY WANT TO BE GOOD. ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. AND THAT ADDITIONAL COMMENTARY AND WORKING WITH THE STAFF AND THE HOA THERE TO TRY TO MAKE IT A WIN WIN FOR EVERYBODY. SO WITH THAT, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS FROM COMMISSIONERS OF STAFF OR APPLICANT AT THIS POINT? SO ITEMS THREE C AND THREE D I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION. IF WE HAVE A MOTION FOR THREE C AND THREE D. I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE C AND THREE D. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU COMMISSIONER HARRIS, HAVE A MOTION FROM COMMISSIONER HARRIS TO APPROVE THREE C AND THREE D. DO WE HAVE A SECOND? SECOND, HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD. THANK YOU. SO WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE C AND THREE D, SUBJECT TO TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING THREE C AND THREE D, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THE MOTION CARRIES 123, FOUR, FIVE. ALL THOSE OPPOSED TO ONE. SO THOSE IN APPROVAL OF THREE C AND THREE D ARE COMMISSIONER HAMILTON COMMISSIONER HARRIS. COMMISSIONER DANIEL, COMMISSIONER BLANCHARD AND COMMISSIONER FOR THOSE OPPOSED COMMISSIONER JACKSONON. SO MOTIN CARRIES 5 TO 1. ALL RIGHT. LET'S MOVE TO OUR REGULAR AGENDA THIS [REGULAR AGENDA] EVENING. AND YEAH, WE CAN GET COMMISSIONER KARSON BACK. ARE YOU. WELCOME. BACK. [00:20:05] ALL RIGHT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT YOU WANT TO DO WITH THE REVIEW ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE TOWN COUNCIL. AND POSSIBLY DIRECT TOWN STAFF TO SCHEDULE TOPICS FOR DISCUSSION AT A FUTURE MEETING. YES, WITH REGARDS TO ANNOUNCEMENTS, JUST A REVIEW OF WHAT HAPPENED LAST WEEK AT COUNCIL. THERE WERE THREE ITEMS ON CONSENT, ALL OF WHICH WERE APPROVED, INCLUDING THE ORDINANCE FOR TWIN CREEKS SCREENING WALL FACADE PLAN FOR GATES OF PROSPER AND THE RESTAURANT IN THAT LOCATION AT THAT LOCATION ON PRESTON ROAD. AND THEN THE NOTICE OF APPEALS. THERE WAS NO ACTION TAKEN ON THOSE. IT WAS APPROVED. NOTHING WAS AN ISSUE. AND THEN AS FAR AS THE REGULAR AGENDA, CREEKSIDE AND SCHOOLHOUSE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS WERE BOTH APPROVED. CAN YOU TELL ME WHERE THERE ARE ANY MODIFICATIONS ON THOSE PLANNED DEVELOPMENTS? THERE WERE MODIFICATIONS TO THE CREEKSIDE DEVELOPMENT FROM THE TIME THAT IT WENT TO PLANNING, AND ZONING COMMISSION, TO COUNCIL. THERE WAS A SIGNIFICANT NUMBER OF CHANGES, AND THE COUNCIL APPROVED WITH STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. AND THEN ON THE SCHOOLHOUSE, THE APPROVAL WAS SPECIFIED THAT THAT THE SCHOOLHOUSE ITSELF THAT LOT DID NOT HAVE TO DO A SCREENING WALL. SO WHICH IS WHAT YOU ALL HAD CONSIDERED AS WELL. WITH REGARDS TO THE LIVING SCREEN. SO THAT WAS THE ONLY CHANGE ON THE SCHOOLHOUSE AND THEN ON THE ON THE CREEK SIDE, ONE, JUST SO AS A LEARNING FOR ALL OF US, IS THERE SOMETHING YOU COULD SEND US THAT SHOWS WHAT CHANGES THEY MADE JUST SO WE HAVE AN IDEA OF WHAT CHANGES THEY MADE FROM. SURE. WHAT WE WHAT WE PASS SO WE GET AN IDEA OF WHAT THEY WERE LOOKING FOR. THAT WE CAN LEARN FROM. I GUESS FOR THE FUTURE. YES, WE CAN DO THAT. OKAY. DO YOU LIKE. IS THAT THE ONE WHERE. YES. WE WERE A SPLIT VOTE. YES. CAN YOU EXPLAIN OFF THE TOP. WHAT DID THEY CHANGE TO? SOME OF THE THINGS? YES. DAVID WILL. SINCE I WAS THE ONE WHO DID ALL THE TALKING. IT'S NOT FAIR TO MAKE HER EXPLAIN IT SO. PRIMARILY WHAT IT WAS BOILED DOWN TO IS WE TOOK THE INFORMATION THAT CAME FROM THE DISCUSSION THAT TOOK PLACE WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION ON CREEKSIDE IS WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT HERE. AND OBVIOUSLY, THERE WAS SOME CONCERN FROM THREE OF THE SEVEN OF YOU SINCE THE VOTE WAS 4 TO 3. AND PRIMARILY IT SEEMED THAT THAT THAT DISCUSSION WAS GEARED MORE TOWARDS THE, I'LL CALL IT SOMETIMES DISCONNECT BETWEEN WHAT CONSTITUTES DENSITY VERSUS WHAT CONSTITUTES LOT SIZE AND NUMBER OF LOTS. AND THERE IS SOME, SOME DISCONNECTS. I WOULD SAY IN, IN OUR ORDINANCE, AS FAR AS, AS WHAT THOSE ARE. AND I THINK THAT IS PRIMARILY WHAT THE COMMISSION WAS, WAS CENTERED ON AND DIDN'T SPEND AS MUCH TIME ON THE COMMERCIAL SIDE AS FAR AS THE LAYOUT, THE CONCEPT PLAN, BECAUSE THE APPLICANT MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY HAD NO IDEA WHAT THEY WERE PLANNING ON DOING THERE. SO THEY JUST, QUOTE, THREW SOME BOXES ON THERE BECAUSE THAT'S WHAT STAFF TOLD THEM TO DO. NOT ENTIRELY ACCURATE, BUT CLOSE ENOUGH. THE COUNCIL I THINK MOST OF THEM ACTUALLY WATCHED THE COMMISSION MEETING AND HEARD WHAT, WHAT YOUR DISCUSSIONS WERE AND UNDERSTOOD THAT THEY AT THE SAME TIME HAD A LITTLE MORE CONCERN, I WOULD SAY NOT TO MAKE LIGHT OF THE RESIDENTIAL SIDE, BUT A LITTLE MORE CONCERNED ABOUT THE COMMERCIAL SIDE, BECAUSE THERE WAS NO PLAN AND BECAUSE IT WAS JUST BOXES THAT THAT WERE THROWN OUT THERE. AND THEY WANTED A LITTLE MORE DEFINITIVE PLAN FOR WHAT WAS IT GOING TO LOOK LIKE, WHAT THE WHAT WERE ACTUALLY THE TYPES OF BUILDINGS THAT WERE GOING TO BE BUILT THERE? Y'ALL MAY RECALL THEY HAD NO IDEA ABOUT THE FLOODPLAIN AND HOW THAT WAS GOING TO BE ADJUSTED, BECAUSE THEY HADN'T EVEN STARTED THAT YET, WHICH IS FINE. THAT'S THE WAY NORMALLY, THE WAY THE PROCESS WORKS. YOU DON'T DO THAT TO YOUR LITTLE LATER INTO IT. SO WE KNEW SOME OF THAT WAS GOING TO COME FROM HAVING HEARD COUNCIL TALK ABOUT SIMILAR TYPES OF SITUATIONS IN THE PAST. AND SO WHAT WE WOUND UP WITH IS A CHART THAT WE WILL SEND OUT TO Y'ALL THAT WAS WAS PUT TOGETHER FOR THE COUNCIL PRESENTATION, AND WE DIDN'T EVEN HAVE IT TO HAVE GIVEN IT TO Y'ALL. SO IT WASN'T LIKE IT WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. BUT WE DIDN'T HAVE IT UNTIL AFTER WE HAD YOUR MEETING, BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE WE GOT SOME OF THE INFORMATION FROM. AND THAT CHART THERE WERE [00:25:01] BASICALLY 11 ITEMS THAT NEEDED SOME TWEAKING IN THAT PROPOSED PD. AND OUT OF THE 11, THERE WERE THREE COLUMNS, THREE SETS OF CRITERIA, ONE, WHICH IS WHAT THE RESULT WAS FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION VOTING FOUR THREE TO APPROVE IT. SECOND COLUMN WAS THE STAFF'S LIST OF WHAT WE THOUGHT WE HEARD FROM THE PLANNING COMMISSION, ADDING A FEW MORE THINGS BASED ON WHAT WE THOUGHT NEEDED TO BE ADDED. BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. AND THEN A FEW MORE THINGS STILL, WITH THE EXPECTATIONS OF WHAT WE THOUGHT THE COUNCIL WOULD THINK WAS IMPORTANT BASED ON ON PREVIOUS DECISIONS AND THEN THE THIRD COLUMN WAS AND WE SENT ALL OF THAT TO THE APPLICANT SO THEY COULD SEE THE FIRST TWO COLUMNS, SO TO SPEAK, AND THEN THE THIRD COLUMN WAS THEIR RESPONSE BACK AND THINGS THAT THEY WANTED. OUT OF THE 11 ITEMS THAT WE HAD AND HOW THAT FIT. SO WE HAD PMS, WE HAD STAFF, AND THEN WE HAD THE APPLICANTS AND WHAT THE COUNCIL DECIDED TO DO AFTER DID THE PRESENTATION. THE APPLICANT WAS GIVEN THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK. COUNCIL VOTED TO APPROVE IT WITH THE CENTER COLUMN, WHICH WAS THE RECOMMENDATIONS THAT THAT CAME FROM STAFF. AND SO THINGS THAT THAT WE HAD ADDED BASED ON THE CONVERSATIONS YOU ALL HAD, WERE THERE. AND THEN THE THINGS THAT THAT WE ADDED FOR WHAT WE THOUGHT IT NEEDED AND WHAT WE ANTICIPATED THAT THE COUNCIL WOULD THINK IS IMPORTANT. AND IT DIDN'T MAKE ANY OTHER CHANGES. THEY JUST VOTED TO APPROVE IT WITH THAT SET OF COLUMNS. COUPLE OF THINGS. SO, YOU KNOW, RIGHT OFF AND LIKE I SAID, WE'LL SEND OUT THE CAR. WE'LL SEND IT OUT TO YOU FIRST THING IN THE MORNING. THAT THAT CHART. AND I THINK THAT WILL 99% TELL YOU WHAT THE DISCUSSION WAS ABOUT. BUT FOR INSTANCE, ON THE LOTS THE ORIGINALLY THE PROPOSAL THAT THAT WAS APPROVED HERE I THINK HAD 230 LOTS. THE FINAL VERSION HAS 221. SO THAT LOWERED THE DENSITY, BUT IT ALSO ALTERED THE SIZES A LITTLE BIT. AND THERE WERE IN THE CURRENT PROPOSAL THERE WERE 10,000, 11,000. AND 12,000 SQUARE FOOT LOTS. AND THEY MOVED THE MINIMUM 10,000 MOVED UP TO I THINK IT WAS 10,500. DON'T QUOTE ME ON ALL OF THESE. I'M TRYING TO GO OFF MEMORY, BUT 10,500. AND THERE WAS A MAXIMUM OF THOSE SIZE. LOTS OF 50. AND THEN THE LARGER LOTS, THE 12,000. THERE WAS A MINIMUM OF THOSE OF 55. AND SO IT SHIFTED EVERYTHING UP A LITTLE BIT. AS FAR AS THE SIZES ARE CONCERNED. THEY ALSO PRODUCED A TABLE WHICH WILL ALSO SEND. AND IT'S NOT GOING TO WIND UP BEING 100% ACCURATE BECAUSE IT'S DONE BY COMPUTER. IT'S NOT DONE BY SURVEYORS. WHEN THEY GET OUT AND LAY THEM OUT AND PUT IN THE ROADS AND DRAINAGE AND ALL THOSE THINGS, THAT HAS TO HAPPEN. BUT IT HAS ALL 221 LOTS. AND WHAT THE SQUARE FOOTAGE OF EACH OF THOSE 221 LOTS ARE. SO YOU CAN SEE WHAT THE BREAKDOWN IS, AND YOU CAN SEE ACROSS THE BOARD. THE LOTS ARE BIGGER THAN WHAT YOU SAW FROM WHAT'S THERE CURRENTLY. NOW. WELL, I GUESS NOT NOW BECAUSE THAT WAS PASSED, BUT WHAT WAS THERE AND THE PREVIOUS PD AND EVEN VERSUS THE CONVERSATIONS THAT THAT TOOK PLACE WITH Y'ALL AND THE APPLICANT WHEN, WHEN IT CAME THROUGH AT THE P AND THINK THOSI SAID, DENSITY WENT DOWN, LOT COUNT WENT DOWN. AVERAGE SIZE OF THE LOTS ALL SLID UP A LITTLE BIT. AND I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT Y'ALL WILL NOT NECESSARILY THAT THE THREE OF YOU WILL BE, YOU KNOW, ABSOLUTELY ECSTATIC ABOUT. BUT I THINK YOU WILL DEFINITELY SEE IMPROVEMENT, WHICH IS I THINK, IMPORTANT. AND THEN SEVERAL OF THE OTHER THINGS, THERE WERE CONDITIONS THAT WERE IN THERE AS FAR AS THE COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT WAS CONCERNED, HOW IT FIT WITH THE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT. SO WE DIDN'T WIND UP WITH A SITUATION WHERE YOU'VE GOT ALL THE RESIDENCES IN. THEY'VE BEEN THERE FOR TEN YEARS AND THE COMMERCIAL COMES IN AND THEY WANT TO PUT A I'M NOT GOING TO SAY IT, I'LL JUST SAY BIG BOX RIGHT IN EVERYBODY'S BACKYARD. AND YOU KNOW, THE YOU'VE SEEN THAT MOVIE BEFORE. YOU KNOW HOW THAT GOES. AND SO TRYING TO PREVENT THOSE AND YOU'LL SEE THAT IN THAT, THAT CHART THAT WE SEND TO YOU. SO I THINK ALL IN ALL, I THINK IT TURNED OUT MUCH, MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT IT WAS AS FAR AS THE EXISTING PD ZONING WAS. BUT I THINK IT'S ALSO MUCH BETTER THAN WHAT IT WAS WHEN IT CAME TO Y'ALL. AND I THINK THAT WAS PART OF A GROUP EFFORT. AND SO THANK YOU ALL FOR DOING THAT. WENT FROM 150 OF THE MINIMUM [00:30:04] SIZE LOTS TO 50. CORRECT. AND THEN MORE OF THE BIGGER LOTS. AND THERE ARE ACTUALLY MORE WHEN YOU LOOK AT THAT THAT TABLE AND BECAUSE THEY'RE, THEY'RE LOCKED IN TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. NOW LIKE I SAID, THAT TABLE MIGHT CHANGE A LITTLE BIT, BUT IT'S NOT GOING TO CHANGE DRASTICALLY. AND THEY'RE MAXED AT 221 LOTS. SO THEY THEY REALLY CAN'T CHANGE THEIR MIND, DECIDE TO MAKE A BUNCH MORE IN THE MIDDLE, YOU KNOW, BECAUSE THEY'LL THEY'LL WIND UP NOT HAVING TO HAVE MORE OPEN SPACES, WHICH THEY'LL HAVE BECAUSE THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO FILL THEM IN WITH LOTS. SO I, I THINK Y'ALL ARE GOING TO BE HAPPY WITH IT. GOOD. THANK YOU. I THINK IT'D BE GREAT TO HAVE THAT TYPE OF INFORMATION WHENEVER WE LIKE. WE'RE A SPLIT VOTE AND WE KNEW THAT. THAT GOES TO COUNCIL. THEY WOULD BE KIND OF A LOT OF DIALOG ON IT. IT HELPS US TO FIGURE OUT WHAT IT IS WE COULD DO DIFFERENTLY. LOOKING AT IT. BUT I THINK AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE GOT A MUCH BETTER DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE OF ALL THE DISCUSSION FROM ALL THE SIDES. I AGREE, I DON'T I DON'T HAVE ANY DOUBT THAT IT'S A BETTER DEVELOPMENT AND I ONLY WISH I'D HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT SENDING IT THE CHART IN THE TABLE OUT TO YOU FOR THIS PURPOSE. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, YOU MIGHT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACTUALLY ASK A SPECIFIC QUESTION. BUT, YOU KNOW, WE CAN OBVIOUSLY DO THAT AT THE NEXT MEETING. BUT NOW THAT THEY'VE ALL HEARD TOO, IT WON'T JUST BE ME THAT FORGETS. IT'LL HAVE TO BE ALL OF US THAT FORGETS AND SOMETHING LIKE THAT. SO. SO WE'RE ALL ON NOTICE. BUT I THINK THAT'S A VERY GOOD IDEA. SENDING BACK YOU KNOW WHAT COUNCIL DOES. WE USUALLY EXPLAIN IT. BUT SOMETHING LIKE THAT WAS A LOT MORE COMPLICATED THAN OBVIOUSLY THAN A NORMAL EXPLANATION. BUT BUT I DO THINK IT WAS A GOOD PROCESS. AND I THINK WE CAME OUT WITH A GOOD PRODUCT. AND WHAT'S OUR NEXT MEETING LOOKING LIKE AGENDA WISE? I GUESS THAT WOULD BE THE 17TH, RIGHT? WHAT WHAT'S WHAT ARE YOU LOOKING AT THERE? WE'VE GOT A COUPLE OF THINGS THAT WE ARE WORKING AT TRYING TO FINALIZE AS FAR AS GETTING INFORMATION NEEDED TO BE ABLE TO. ONE OF THEM NEEDS POSTING BECAUSE IT'S A ZONING CASE, NOT A BIG DEAL. SO ANOTHER LOT THAT'S IN THE DOWNTOWN AREA LOOKING TO DO KIND OF THE SAME THING THAT YOU'VE SEEN A COUPLE OF TIMES BEFORE, TAKING AN EXISTING LOT OR TWO AND CHANGING THE ZONING TO BE ABLE TO DO WHAT WHAT THEY WANT TO DO, WHICH IS BUILDING A HOUSE. BUT THE ZONING CATEGORIES DOWN THERE ARE DIFFERENT THAN WHAT WE HAVE IN MOST PLACES. AND THE COUNCIL HAS HAS MADE IT PRETTY CLEAR THAT THEY WANT TO SEE PD TYPE DEVELOPMENTS OR ZONING THERE AS OPPOSED TO STRAIGHT ZONING. AND SO WE'RE WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THAT. AND THEN THE OTHER ONE IS JUST PLAT PLAT SITE PLAN. AND WE'RE WORKING OUR WAY THROUGH THAT. SO WE COULD HAVE TWO. WE COULD HAVE ONE ON ONE OR WE COULD HAVE NONE. AND WE'LL KNOW THAT BY THE FIRST OF NEXT WEEK. SO YOU'LL HAVE SOME NOTICE OF WHICH WAY IT IS. BUT EITHER WAY, WE DON'T ANTICIPATE IT. IF THERE IS A MEETING BEING COMPLICATED, BUT THAT'S WHERE WE ARE NOW. OKAY. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THANKS FOR THE REVIEW AND ANY OTHER QUESTIONS OR COMMENTS FROM THE COMMISSION THIS EVENING. YEAH, REALLY QUICK AS IT RELATES TO THE SCHOOLHOUSE. SO IN THE IN THE COUNCIL MEETING, WHAT WAS APPROVED WAS THE AGENDA ITEM. AND THERE WAS A MOTION BY COUNCILWOMAN BARTLEY TO APPROVE IT WITHOUT A CONCRETE SCREENING WALL. SO AND YOU AND I HAD SOME EMAIL EXCHANGE ABOUT THIS, BUT SINCE WE'RE ALL HERE, I FIGURE I'LL ASK BECAUSE WHAT WAS APPROVED WAS, IN MY INTERPRETATION, WHAT WAS IN THE PACKET, WHICH INCLUDED THE LIVING SCREEN. THERE WAS A MOTION TO REMOVE A SPECIFICALLY, I EVEN WENT BACK TO WATCH IT. A CONCRETE WALL. SO I THINK WHAT COUNCIL APPROVED DID INCLUDE THE LIVING SCREEN TECHNICALLY, BECAUSE THERE WAS THE DISCUSSION ACTUALLY SURROUNDED WHETHER THERE WOULD BE A CONCRETE WALL OR NOT. AND I THINK THERE WAS SOME EITHER A MISUNDERSTANDING OR CONFUSION FOLLOWING OUR MEETING, WHETHER WE HAD ACTUALLY VOTED FOR A LIVING SCREEN, WHICH TECHNICALLY WE DID, OR A CONCRETE WALL, WHICH WE DIDN'T. SO I GUESS I JUST WANTED TO I DON'T EVEN KNOW WHERE I'M GOING WITH THIS OTHER THAN I THINK TECHNICALLY THE COUNCIL APPROVAL INCLUDED THE LIVING SCREEN, BECAUSE WHAT WAS REMOVED FROM THE PACKET WASN'T IN THE PACKET AT ALL. SO THERE'S JUST THERE'S LITTLE AMBIGUITY OVER IT, AND I THINK IT'S GOING TO COME BACK EITHER TO STAFF OR TO US AT SOME POINT. BUT I JUST WANTED TO RAISE THAT BECAUSE THAT WAS MY INTERPRETATION. BEING AT THE MEETING AND REWATCHING IT AFTERWARD. I DON'T KNOW IF YOU HAVE ANY THOUGHTS ON THAT, DAVID. WELL, MY INTERPRETATION WOULD BE THAT THE MOTION THAT [00:35:04] WAS MADE WAS TO APPROVE THE ZONING FOR THE SCHOOL WITHOUT A WALL, AND THERE WAS NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER AS FAR AS THE LIVING SCREEN IS CONCERNED, WHICH WOULD PUSH THAT BACK TO WOULD THERE BE IN SILENT, WOULD PUSH IT BACK TO STAFF TO DEAL WITH AS IT COMES THROUGH WITH THE SITE PLAN PROCESS AND WHAT THAT LIVING SCREEN ACTUALLY IS? AND THE FACT THAT I THINK VIRTUALLY ALL OF YOU, ALL DURING YOUR DISCUSSIONS, ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE'S A FOREST ON THAT LOT IN THE BACK END ANYWAY, RIGHT BEFORE THE POND, IF WE CONSIDER THAT TO BE THE LIVING SCREEN, THEN THAT'S IT. AND IF IT NEEDS A COUPLE OF TREES TO FILL IN, BARE SPOTS, THEN WE'LL WORK OUR WAY THROUGH THAT. BUT THERE ISN'T ANYBODY'S INTENTION THAT WE'RE GOING TO MAKE THEM PUT A WALL OF TREES, ONE EVERY 20FT ALL THE WAY. THE WHOLE DISTANCE OF THE PROPERTY. THAT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN. ALL RIGHT. THANKS FOR POINTING THAT OUT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? IF NOT, AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FIVE IS A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I'LL ENTERTAIN A MOTION TO ADJOURN. I MOTION WE ADJOURN. MOTION TO ADJOURN. COMMISSIONER JACKSON SECOND. SECOND. COMMISSIONER HARRIS, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF ADJOURNMENT. MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0. WE ARE ADJOURNED. * This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.