Mar 04, 2025 Planning and Zoning Commission

[1. Call to Order / Roll Call]

[00:00:08]

BABY. THIS. AND ALL THE MISSIONARIES ARE PRAYING FOR THIS MEETING. FOR THOSE HERE 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. SO I WOULD ASK EVERYONE TO RISE, PLEASE. 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. THANK YOU. ITEM THREE THIS EVENING IS OUR CONSENT AGENDA. ON THIS

[CONSENT AGENDA]

ALL THOSE COMMISSIONERS IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE A, THREE B, THREE C AND THREE D SUBJECT TO TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS. PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. AND THAT MOTION

[Items 3.e & 3.f]

OKAY. GOOD AFTERNOON. COMMISSIONERS AND CITIZENS OF PROSPER. WE HAVE ITEM THREE AND THREE. IT WITH THREE IS THE CONSIDERING ACT UPON THE REQUEST FOR A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN FOR INDOOR AND OUTDOOR COMMERCIAL AMUSEMENT, MEDICAL OFFICE, PROFESSIONAL OFFICE, RESTAURANT, RETAIL BUILDINGS ON HUB 38 EDITION. BLOCK A LOTS ONE THROUGH EIGHT ON 32 ACRES.

LOCATED ON SITE ON THE NORTHWEST CORNER OF PROSPER COMMONS BOULEVARD AND UNIVERSITY DRIVE.

THIS IS THE LOCATOR MAP FOR THE LOCATION. THIS IS THE DESCRIPTION JUST BASICALLY WHAT IS IN THE STAFF REPORT. THEY WANT CONSTRUCT 17 BUILDINGS ON COVERING EIGHT EIGHT. WELL EIGHT LOTS OVER 197 690FT■!S ACROSS EIGHT LOTS. AS I STATED EARLIER, THIS IS THE SITE PLAN. THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS REALLY HARD TO SEE THE LOTS. SO I HAVE A AN ADDITIONAL ONE WHERE THE LOTS ARE ACTUALLY HIGHLIGHTED. AND ALONG WITH THIS IS THE. EXCUSE ME, THE CONVEYANCE PLAT FOR THIS LOCATION AS WELL. SAME WITH THE CONVEYANCE. PLUS WE WILL ALSO HIGHLIGHT THOSE LOTS.

AND THERE WAS PREVIOUSLY THERE WERE QUESTIONS REGARDING THE, YOU KNOW, THE OPEN SPACE FOR THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. YES. YEAH. OPEN QUESTIONS REGARDING THE OPEN SPACE WHERE IT WAS ON THAT PLAN. AND ALSO NEXT TO LOT THREE, IS THAT OPEN SPACE OR WHAT IS THAT RIGHT THERE. TO THE RIGHT. TO THE RIGHT OF LOT THREE. YEAH. YES. ON LOT FOUR. RIGHT. I'M SORRY. OH YES. RIGHT THERE. SORRY. YOU SAID IT EARLIER. THIS IS A THIS IS OPEN SPACE. THEY APPLICANT COULD HAVE DID A WE AS STAFF. I'VE TAKEN COPIOUS NOTES OF RECOMMENDED THEM ACTUALLY SHOW THE OPEN SPACE POSSIBLY EVEN COLOR CODED. BUT LIKE WE STATED EARLIER, ALL THIS IS JUST BLACK AND WHITE AND

[00:05:07]

TRANSFORMER. I MEAN, THE, THE HIGH VOLTAGE, I MEAN THE POWER LINES. WHERE ABOUT ONE IS, IS THERE A TRANSFORMER LINE OR SOMETHING IN THAT AREA? ARE YOU REFERRING TO THE WHAT IS THAT EASEMENT THAT. THEY HAS TO BECAUSE IT'S GOING TO GO ADJACENT TO THE DEALERSHIP, CORRECT? YEAH. SO YEAH. THANK YOU. THE OVERHEAD ELECTRIC LINES PASS THROUGH THIS WAY. OKAY. SO THE EXPANSE OF THE EASEMENT STARTS IN THIS LOCATION AND GOES ALL THE WAY TO THE END OF THAT ARROW RIGHT HERE. OKAY. SO IT'S THE BUILDING IN LOT ONE, THEN I GUESS IT'S LIKE THE BUTTS UP RIGHT TO THAT. THAT SPACE. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT SPACE ON THIS SIDE OF THE BUILDING IS IN THE EASEMENT AREA, AS IS THE PARKING. IS THERE ANY LIKE, DISTANCE REQUIREMENTS BETWEEN WHERE, I GUESS THAT EASEMENT IS AND WHERE YOU CAN ACTUALLY PUT A BUILDING, OR IS THAT WHAT THAT IS? THE APPLICANT PLACED SEVERAL OF THESE BUILDINGS RIGHT ON THE EASEMENT LINE. SO RIGHT UP TO IT. SO THERE'S NO ADDITIONAL SPACE. SO YOU COULD YOU COULD BUILD RIGHT UP TO WHATEVER THAT EASEMENT IS WHAT IT IS. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. YES. AND THEN THIS EASEMENT HERE IS FOR PIPELINE. SO THEY'VE BUILT RIGHT UP TO IT. AND THE DETENTION WILL BE HANDLED ON EACH LOT. THEY WILL DETERMINE WHETHER IT'S UNDERGROUND OR OTHER. BUT THIS ONE AREA IS AS SOME OF IT'S OPEN SPACE BUT SOME OF IT IS DETENTION AREA. AND WOULD THAT BE DETENTION OR RETENTION. WOULD IT BE ALWAYS. IT WOULD BE A WET POND. OKAY. IS THERE ANY WAY THAT WE COULD TURN THAT INTO AN AMENITY TO KIND OF KIND OF SOFTEN THAT SPACE UP WHERE IT WOULD ALWAYS HAVE WATER OR ALWAYS LOOK A LITTLE BIT MORE SPECIAL, I GUESS. OKAY. WE DON'T HAVE THE SPECIFICS ON HOW IT WILL LOOK. I DON'T KNOW IF THERE IF IT'S A SLOPE WITH GRASS OR IF THERE ARE WALLS. CERTAINLY WE CAN LOOK AT THE DESIGN OF IT AND TRY TO SOFTEN IT UP SO IT DOESN'T. I JUST THINK WHEN YOU LOOK AT WHEN I LOOK AT THIS AND I KNOW IT'S A BLACK AND WHITE AND I SEE A LOT OF BUILDINGS, I SEE A LOT OF PARKING. ANYTHING THAT WE CAN DO TO KIND OF DRESS THIS AREA UP A LITTLE BIT MORE, I THINK WOULD BE VERY BENEFICIAL. IF I COULD ASK A QUICK TERMINOLOGY QUESTION. SO SPECIFICALLY WHEN WE WERE TALKING ABOUT LOT ONE JUST A SECOND AGO AND THE WHITE AREAS THAT SURROUND IT. SO IT THE WHITE AREA IN BETWEEN THE 5000 SQUARE FOOT BUILDING AND THE PARKING THERE, WHEN THE TERM OPEN SPACE IS USED, IS THAT GREEN OR IS THAT JUST NOT A BUILDING? LIKE, IS THAT INTENDED TO BE GRASS WITH LIKE A SIDEWALK FROM THE PARKING LOT UP TO THE BUILDING, OR IS IT A CONCRETE? BASICALLY CIRCLE AROUND THE BUILDING? RIGHT NOW IT TENDS TO BE JUST SIMPLE GRASS GREEN SPACE AROUND THE BUILDING. OKAY. SO WHEN YOU SAY OPEN SPACE ON HERE,

[00:10:04]

GOD BLESS YOU. SO BEING THE NATURE OF A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AT THIS TIME, THE APPLICANT HAS NOT IDENTIFIED ALL OF THE SIDEWALKS. THEY WILL HAVE SIDEWALKS AROUND THE BUILDING AND THE OPEN SPACE, FOR INSTANCE, ON THIS LOT, FOR INSTANCE. I MEAN, WE DID DETERMINE, YOU KNOW, WHERE ARE THE SIDEWALKS? THIS ONE'S A LITTLE BIT MORE DETAILED THAN THE OTHERS. SO AS I RECALL, THEY DID NOT NECESSARILY PUT EVERYTHING ALL THE WAY UP TO THE BUILDING ON EVERY LOT AS OPEN SPACE, BECAUSE THEY KNEW THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE SIDEWALKS.

HOWEVER, EVERY SINGLE LOT IS OVER THE OPEN SPACE REQUIREMENT. THE ONE THAT WAS CLOSEST WAS THIS LOT SIX, AND THAT IS WHY THEY GOT REALLY DETAILED AND PUT THE SIDEWALK LOCATIONS SO THAT THEY COULD VERIFY THAT THEY WOULD HAVE THE 7% OPEN SPACE. EVERYTHING ELSE WAS WAS QUITE A BIT OVER THE 7% REQUIREMENT. I'M GOING TO ASK THE SAME QUESTION. DIFFERENT. I'M GOING TO TAKE ONE OF YOUR TRICKS. OPEN SPACE CAN BE DEFINED AS NON BUILDING. IT CAN BE IMPERVIOUS. IT CAN BE PERVIOUS. IT CAN BE PAVEMENT. IT CAN BE LANDSCAPING. IT CAN BE ANYTHING NON BUILDING CORRECT.

THERE ARE CERTAIN THINGS THAT IT CANNOT BE. IT CANNOT BE REQUIRED LANDSCAPING BUFFERS. IT CANNOT BE SIDEWALKS. IT CANNOT BE BUILDINGS. IT CANNOT BE YOU KNOW, PARKING AREAS, ANYTHING THAT IS NOT ON THAT LIST OF WHAT IT CANNOT BE CAN BE OPEN SPACE. DETENTION PONDS ARE ONE THING THAT IT'S. DETERMINATION BASED ON HOW IT'S DESIGNED. IS IT IS IT TRULY AN OPEN SPACE AND AMENITY, OR IS IT JUST A DETENTION POND AND A PARKING AREA? SO WHAT YOU WERE REFERRING TO ON LOT SIX AS AN EXAMPLE, THEY WENT AHEAD AND DETAILED THE SIDEWALKS BECAUSE THEY'RE THAT CLOSE, BECAUSE THEY WANTED TO GET THE CALCULATION RIGHT FOR THE. THAT'S CORRECT. THAT'S GOOD CLARIFICATION. THANK YOU. AND THEN THE WATER EASEMENT ON THE SOUTH SIDE IS ALSO A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT AS WELL I GUESS BECAUSE THERE. SO YOU'RE REFERRING TO LOT EIGHT. WELL, ACTUALLY ON THE 380 SIDE. YES. THE WHOLE THING ON THE 380 SIDE. YEAH. OKAY. SO GREEN SPACE OR LANDSCAPE EASEMENT IS NOT NECESSARILY I MEAN, BECAUSE THEY CAN'T DEVELOP ON THAT LAND BECAUSE THERE'S THE PIPELINE UNDERNEATH. RIGHT. SO THEY STILL GET CREDIT AS A LANDSCAPE CREDIT FOR THAT EVEN THOUGH IT'S NOT DEVELOPABLE LAND ANYWAY. YES. AT THE SAME TIME THEY CAN'T THEY THE DEVELOPER SAYS THEY CAN'T FULLY DEVELOP ON TOP OF THAT ENTIRE EASEMENT. SO WHATEVER THEY CAN USE THE REMAINING THAT THEY DO, CONSIDER THAT AS THEIR OPEN SPACE. ISN'T THE SPIRIT OF A LANDSCAPE EASEMENT TO BE LANDSCAPED, NOT JUST TURF OR TO CONTAIN SOME VARIETY OF TREES, SHRUBBERY, BUSHES, PLANTS, WHATEVER, WHATEVER THE ESTHETIC IS. SO IN THAT PARTICULAR EASEMENT, 50 FOOT EASEMENT OR WHATEVER, 75 FOOT EASEMENT, WHATEVER THAT IS LIKELY THEY WON'T BE ABLE TO DO ANY SORT OF TRUE PLANTINGS OR OTHERWISE. IT'S PROBABLY GOING TO BE GRASS, MUCH LIKE FURTHER TO THE WEST, WITHIN REASON. IS THAT SAFE TO SAY? CORRECT. MY UNDERSTANDING IS THERE IS AN AGREEMENT OF WHAT IS ALLOWED. AND YOU ARE CORRECT. IT WON'T BE THE TYPICAL LARGE TREES IN THAT AREA. OKAY, HOW ABOUT ON PARKING? THERE LOOKS TO BE A LOT OF PARKING, A LOT MORE THAN WHAT IS REQUIRED IN OUR ORDINANCE. WHEN I LOOKED IT UP, I THINK THEIR REQUIREMENT WAS LIKE 900 SPACES. AND THIS IS JUST UNDER LIKE 1600 SPACES. IF THE APPLICANT IS HERE, CAN WE ASK THEM POTENTIALLY TO LOOK AT REDUCING SOME OF THE PARKING AND MAYBE CREATING SOME OPEN SPACE WITHIN THE. WITHIN THIS COMPLEX TO. TO DO SO HERE? YES. THE APPLICANT IS HERE. I ASK THAT QUESTION. GREAT. THANK YOU. DO WE HAVE TO DO ANYTHING TO INVITE THEM? I DON'T THINK SO. OKAY.

[00:15:05]

BUT SOME OF THE DETAILS THAT YOU SEE ON THE ON THE RIGHT SIDE IS WHAT WE WANTED TO DEVELOP. SO WE WANTED WE WENT IN A LITTLE MORE DETAIL ON THE PARKING RATIOS, THE SIDEWALKS AND EVERYTHING ELSE. BUT OTHERS, I THINK IT WAS JUST LIKE A KIND OF A PLACEHOLDER FOR SOME OF THE ITEMS, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO MAKE SURE IT FITS IN TO THE SITE. BUT TO THE POINT THAT THE COMMISSIONERS HAS AROUND CAN THE PARKING BE REDUCED? ABSOLUTELY. WE WILL NOT BUILD MORE PARKING THAN WHAT'S REQUIRED. IT WILL BE CONVERTED TO OPEN SPACE, GREEN SPACE OR WALKING AREAS. BASED ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN. SO I'M SORRY, I COULDN'T QUITE HEAR EVERYTHING YOU SAID. SO THE PARKING WILL NOT BE OVER. IT WILL JUST BE WHAT WE'RE LOOKING FOR AT THE END. YES, YES.

PARKING WILL BE FOR BASED ON THE USE. WE'LL JUST MAKE SURE IT'S APPROPRIATE FOR THE USE WE HAVE.

IT WILL NOT BE OVER. WE WILL NOT BUILD MORE PARKING THAN REQUIRED. BUT IF THERE'S OPEN SPACE REMAINING, IT WILL BE CONVERTED INTO GREEN SPACE OR JUST AMENITY AREAS. LIKE, I GUESS WHAT I'M LOOKING AT, LIKE LOT FOUR IN PARTICULAR, THERE SEEMS TO BE A LOT OF PARKING CENTERED AROUND THAT AREA. IS THAT USE ALREADY DESIGNATED THAT YOU THINK IS GOING TO REQUIRE THAT, OR IS THAT AN AREA THAT YOU FEEL THAT THERE MIGHT EVENTUALLY END UP BEING LESS PARKING OR OPEN SPACE? CORRECT. THE FINAL USE HAS NOT BEEN FULLY DETERMINED ON THAT ONE BECAUSE OF RESTAURANT OR RETAIL. IT WAS PUT IN AS PARKING. BUT AS YOU'RE ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, IF BASED ON THE FINAL USE, IF THAT COULD BE REDUCED, IT'LL BE REDUCED, OR IF THE BUILDING EXPANDS AND THE FINAL IN THE SITE PLAN THAT'S SUBMITTED, THAT WILL BE CHANGED TO INCLUDE OPEN WALKING AREAS AND SIDEWALKS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. SO, SO ON THE PARKING IF THEIR INTENT IS TO NOT EXCEED OUR PARKING, CAN WE PUT A CAP ON THE APPROVAL TO MAXIMIZE THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT WE'RE GOING TO HAVE IN THIS DEVELOPMENT? I GUESS I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE I'M UNDERSTANDING YOUR QUESTION. ARE YOU ASKING IF WE COULD PLACE. I'LL GIVE AN EXAMPLE AS A CONDITION TO APPROVING THE SITE PLAN. A CAP ON THE PARKING ALLOWED? YES. SO IF HE'S HE SAID THEY'RE NOT GOING TO YOU PUT MORE PARKING IN GREATER THAN WHAT OUR REQUIREMENT IS. SO LIKE IN THE EXAMPLE OF WHAT HOW THIS IS DRAWN OUT, OUR REQUIREMENT IS 901 SPACES. AND THE ACTUAL DRAWN OUT HERE IS 1562 IF I COUNTED CORRECTLY. SO CAN WE THEN THEREFORE PUT A, A CAP TO SAY THAT THERE WOULDN'T BE MORE THAN 1000 SPACES SO THAT WE'RE NOT IN A SITUATION WHERE WE HAVE THIS LARGE ADDITIONAL PARKING. RIGHT NOW, WE HAVE 73% MORE PARKING THAN WHAT WE DESIGNATE. I WOULD ARGUE THAT THAT THAT THE SITE PLAN APPROVAL PROCESS IS NOT THE APPROPRIATE TIME TO ESTABLISH A CAP ON THE PARKING. IF WE WANTED TO ESTABLISH PARKING MAXIMUMS, THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN SOMETHING WE COULD HAVE DONE. WHEN THE INITIAL ZONING ORDINANCE FOR THIS SITE WAS DRAFTED, OR IF WE WERE TO REVISE THE ZONING FOR IT. SO I WOULD RECOMMEND NOT INCLUDING A PARKING MAXIMUM AS A CONDITION TO APPROVING THIS SITE PLAN. THE APPLICANT IS AGREEING TO IT. IT'S NOT LIKE WE'RE ASKING THEM TO DO SOMETHING IS NOT AGREEING TO. THAT WAS HIS WORDS. YEAH. YEAH. CAN I JUST ADD IT THAT THE USE MIGHT CHANGE, RIGHT. IN THE SENSE, FOR EXAMPLE, WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WILL BE BUILT THERE IN THE FINAL SPACE IF IT'S A RESTAURANT OR SOME OTHER SPORTING AREA AND WE NEED MORE PARKING. SO I THINK THAT'S THE THING THAT COULD BE DONE ON THE FINAL SITE PLAN, BECAUSE RIGHT NOW WE DON'T KNOW WHAT THE EXACT USE AND WHAT THE PARKING RATIO WOULD BE FOR THAT USE. IF IT'S A RESTAURANT VERSUS LIKE A RECREATION FACILITY VERSUS VERSUS JUST RETAIL. SO THAT WAS THE THAT WAS THE REASON WHY WE DID NOT INCLUDE IT. YEAH. AND TYPICALLY FROM A, YOU KNOW, MAX VIABILITY STANDPOINT, WE DON'T WANT TO BUILD ANY MORE PARKING THAN WE HAVE TO. WE WANT TO OPTIMIZE A BUILDING, PARKING FOR THE BUILDING FOR THE DESIRED USE TO MAXIMIZE THOSE USES. SO.

[00:20:04]

THEREFORE. HAVE A PARKING MAXIMUM OF 10% GREATER THAN WHAT OUR MINIMUM REQUIREMENT IS. SO THAT WAY WHATEVER YOU'RE USES, WE THEREFORE HAVE ENOUGH PARKING TO SUPPORT YOUR USE PLUS ADDITIONAL 10%. BUT AT THE END, WE'RE NOT GOING TO END UP WITH SUCH A BIG PARKING LOT, WHICH WE HAVE RIGHT NOW. MR. CHAIR, CAN I ADD SOMETHING? SOMETHING THAT THAT IS SORT OF MISSING FROM THIS DISCUSSION IS MOST ALL OF THESE BUILDINGS ARE ONE STORY BUILDINGS, AND THERE'S NOTHING THAT PREVENTS THEM FROM BEING 2 OR 3 STORY BUILDINGS. AND IF THEY BECOME 2 OR 3 STORY BUILDINGS, THEY'LL NEED 2 OR 3 TIMES AS MUCH PARKING. SO I THINK YOU'VE GOT TO KEEP THAT IN CONSIDERATION AS, AS THEY'RE GOING FORWARD. AND SO HAVING THE LIMIT ON THE PARKING, BASED ON WHAT THE REQUIRED USE IS, IS FINE. BUT YOU ALSO HAVE TO KEEP IN MIND HOW MANY FLOORS IT'S GOING TO BE, BECAUSE AGAIN, THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT WOULD WOULD CHANGE WITH THAT. CORRECT.

PARDON ME. THEY BUILD A BIGGER BUILDING. OUR PARKING REQUIREMENT CHANGES. CORRECT. IT WOULD BE THEORETICALLY DOUBLE IF THEY PUT ON A SECOND FLOOR, OR TRIPLE IF THEY. I'M ALL I'M STATING IS MAXIMIZING THAT WE'RE NOT GOING TO HAVE MORE THAN A 10% ABOVE WHAT OUR REQUIREMENT IS, WHICH MEANS THAT IF THEY PUT A BIGGER BUILDING IN AND IT REQUIRES MORE PARKING, THEY'RE STILL ALLOWED TO DO IT. I JUST MY INTENT IS NOT TO END UP WITH THE 73% MORE PARKING THAT WE'RE CURRENTLY LOOKING AT ON THIS DEVELOPMENT, AND I UNDERSTAND AND, YOU KNOW, I THOUGHT WE WERE TALKING ABOUT WE COLLECTIVELY SINCE Y'ALL ARE TALKING BUT TALKING ABOUT TYING IT TO THE USE. AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT THAT TOOK INTO ACCOUNT THE MULTIPLE STORIES BECAUSE THE USE MIGHT NOT CHANGE, MIGHT BE A ONE STORY OFFICE, BUT IF THEY PUT A TWO STORY OFFICE, THEN NOW IT'S TWICE AND THE USE IS STILL OFFICE. SO I JUST WANTED TO BE ABLE TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT AN EXTRA FLOOR. AND THAT WAS THE REASON WHY I SAID JUST CAPPING AT 10% ABOVE WHATEVER THE WHATEVER THE. I GUESS I'M JUST GOING TO CHIME IN, I APOLOGIZE. THAT WHEN WE APPROVE A SITE PLAN, WE'RE TELLING THE DEVELOPER THAT THEY COULD GO OUT AND BUILD THIS AS A SCENE, ALTHOUGH I KNOW IT'S THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, SO THEY HAVE MORE DETAILED DRAWINGS TO SUBMIT LATER ON, BUT WE'RE TELLING THEM THAT THIS IS HOW THE BUILDING LAYOUTS CAN LOOK.

THIS IS HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS ARE GOING TO BE CONSTRUCTED, WHERE THE ENTRANCES, THE EXITS ARE. AND SO IF THE APPLICANT IS AGREEING THAT WE'RE ONLY THAT THEY'RE ONLY GOING TO HAVE A CERTAIN NUMBER OF PARKING SPOTS, THEN THAT HAS TO BE REFLECTED ON THE SITE PLAN ITSELF. OTHERWISE, WE CAN'T APPROVE A SITE PLAN THAT HAS WHAT, 1500 SPOTS BUT THEN HAVE, BUT THEN IN WRITING, ALLOW FOR A LOWER NUMBER OF SPOTS. THAT BECOMES A CONTRADICTION THAT MAYBE WE UNDERSTAND TONIGHT, BUT YEARS FROM NOW, IF THAT'S IF IT TAKES THAT LONG TO DEVELOP, THAT'S GOING TO CREATE QUITE A BIT OF CONFUSION AND REALLY, FRANKLY, THAT THE SITE PLAN IS GOING TO WIN IF IT SHOWS A LARGER NUMBER OF SPOTS. SO I UNDERSTAND THAT IF WE WANT THAT AND THE APPLICANT AGREES TO THAT, TO HAVE A IF THEY, LET'S SAY A THOUSAND SPOTS OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, THAT HAS TO BE REFLECTED ON WHAT'S BEING SUBMITTED. OTHERWISE WE'RE WE WOULD BE APPROVING A SITE PLAN THAT IS CONTRARY TO WHAT YOU ARE WANTING RIGHT NOW. THAT'S ALL I'LL SAY ON THAT TO THAT. SO I AM THE NEWEST MEMBER OF THE BOARD. SO FORGIVE ME FOR WHAT'S PROBABLY A REMEDIAL QUESTION HERE, BUT IF SO, DAVID, TO YOUR POINT, THESE ARE ALL ONE STORY BUILDINGS ON THIS SITE PLAN. SO AS THIS IS PRESENTED, THAT'S WAY MORE PARKING THAN IS NEEDED ON WHAT IS PRESENTED HERE. SO WHAT IS THE PURPOSE OF REFLECTING THIS MUCH PARKING ON THIS SITE PLAN WITH THIS SET OF BUILDINGS? I CAN TRY AND ANSWER THAT. WE REALLY DIDN'T KNOW THE USE FOR THE MIDDLE SECTION, RIGHT? THIS WAS FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE SITE PLAN AND THE CONVEYANCE PLAN.

BUT ON THE RIGHT SIDE SECTION WE KNEW. AND THEN YOU CAN SEE IT'S IT WAS APPROXIMATELY WHAT THE USAGE WAS GOING TO BE FOR OFFICE OR MEDICAL OR RESTAURANT. AND THE MIDDLE SECTION WERE ORIGINALLY THE IDEA WAS, HEY, WE ARE CONVINCED WE ARE DOING A CONVEYANCE PLAN. WE DON'T EVEN HAVE TO KNOW THE USE. WE CAN BREAK UP THE LAND 14, TEN, TEN, 20 ACRES, WHATEVER THAT IS. BUT THEN WE WENT BACK AND SAID, HEY, LET'S PUT IN LIKE A OFFICE RETAIL RESTAURANT AND INCLUDE PARKING. SO THAT'S HOW IT WAS DESIGNED. BUT THERE'S NO SPECIFIC USE IN MIND. WHEN WE

[00:25:04]

BUT NOBODY THAT I KNOW OR AS A DEVELOPER, WE ARE NOT BUILDING MORE PARKING THAN THE MINIMUM REQUIRED. SURE. BUT DOESN'T THAT INHERENTLY MAKE THIS SITE PLAN AS PRESENTED INCONGRUENT WITH YOUR INTENTIONS? BECAUSE THERE'S WAY MORE PARKING HERE THAN THAN IS NEEDED? THE ONLY REASON WE HAD IT IS LIKE FOR THE USE. FOR EXAMPLE, IF YOU HAD LIKE A CONVENTION CENTER THAT'S USED THAT'S APPROVED IN THIS PD, OR IF THERE'S LIKE A CONFERENCE CENTER THAT'S USED, SO THERE'S AN AMUSEMENT PARK THAT'S APPROVED IN THE PD. IF YOU USE THAT, YOU WANT TO MAKE SURE THE USER CAN HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SPOTS, RIGHT? THERE'S LIKE THESE WEDDING DESTINATIONS AND OTHERS THAT HAVE THAT HAVE MORE, MORE SPOTS THAN A TYPICAL RETAIL OR RESTAURANT. SO WE ARE SHOWING THE POSSIBILITIES FOR END USERS TO COME IN AND SAY, HEY, THERE'S PARKING. NOT THAT THEY WOULD BUILD IT OR WE WOULD BUILD IT OR THEY WOULD USE ALL OF IT. BUT SAYING, HEY, IF YOU HAVE A USE THAT REQUIRES THE PARKING, THERE'S ENOUGH PARKING SPACE IN THERE. BUT IT BUT THE SITE PLAN WOULD COME BACK TO PLANNING AND ZONING ANYWAY IF THE USE CHANGED. RIGHT. YEAH. THEY WOULD HAVE TO COME BACK FOR THE DETAILED FINAL SITE PLAN. YOU WOULD HAVE TO APPROVE OR DISAPPROVE AT THAT TIME FOR EACH OF THESE BLOCKS ANYWAY. SO WE HAD AN ISSUE LIKE THIS A COUPLE OF WEEKS AGO WHERE I ULTIMATELY GOT COMFORTABLE WITH IT WITH SOME ANGST, ADMITTEDLY, WHERE THE WHAT WAS BEING PRESENTED WAS SO PRELIMINARY THAT IT MIGHT ULTIMATELY BE SOMETHING ELSE.

AND I UNDERSTAND WITH THE PERMITTED USES OF THIS PD THAT THAT WHAT THESE BUILDINGS ARE COULD CHANGE. I THINK MY ANGST MORE THAN ANYTHING IS THAT WITH WHAT IS PRESENTED HERE, WITH WHAT COULD BE BUILT, THE PARKING THAT IS ON HERE DOES NOT MATCH WHAT YOU SAY YOUR INTENTIONS ARE. SO JUST FROM A PRINCIPLE PERSPECTIVE, I'M KIND OF STRUGGLING WITH WITH APPROVING A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, WHICH IS NOT GOING TO BE BUILT. AT WHAT POINT USING THAT, USING THE APPLICANT'S KIND OF DEFINITION, LET'S SAY SOMETHING POPS UP ON LOT FOUR. YOU HAVE A TOTALLY DIFFERENT USE. AT WHAT POINT DOES IT TRIGGER? I'M GOING TO SAY, I DON'T KNOW IF IT'S THE RIGHT TERM. A RE-APPROVAL OF A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS THAT AM I ASKING THE RIGHT? OKAY. YOU ARE. AND HONESTLY, WE HAVE THAT QUESTION INTERNALLY. I MEAN THAT THAT ISSUE INTERNALLY QUITE A BIT BECAUSE IF YOU CHANGE IT FROM A DENTIST OFFICE TO A CHIROPRACTOR'S OFFICE, IS THAT A CHANGE? PROBABLY NOT. BUT IF YOU CHANGE IT FROM A DOCTOR'S OFFICE TO A COFFEE SHOP, THAT COULD BE HUGE. YOU KNOW, AS FAR AS AS WHAT THE DIFFERENCE FROM A JUST A USE PERSPECTIVE, WHAT'S REQUIRED THERE? POSSIBLY GREASE TRAPS, POSSIBLY ADDITIONAL PARKING. WELL, LET'S SAY SOMETHING MORE EGREGIOUS. LET'S SAY INSTEAD OF A 35,000 SQUARE FOOT RETAIL RESTAURANT, IT'S 150,000 SQUARE FOOT CONVENTION CENTER, RIGHT? THAT CLEARLY IS. SO THERE'S SOME DEGREE OF THAT HAS TO COME. I MEAN, HONESTLY, THAT'S WHAT I WAS TRYING TO. YEAH, YEAH, YEAH. SO IF I MAY ASK A QUICK QUESTION AND WHATEVER WE HAVE HERE, WE DON'T HAVE THE RIGHT TO BUILD THIS RIGHT. WE HAVE TO COME BACK TO THE TOWN FOR THE FINAL SITE PLAN AND WHATEVER THAT'S PRESENTED HERE. CORRECT. THIS IS JUST PRELIMINARY FOR THE CONVEYANCE PLANNING PURPOSES. AND THERE'S NOTHING HERE THAT WE COULD TAKE AS A RIGHT TO BUILD, OR WHETHER IT'S THE BUILDING, PARKING DOESN'T MATTER. CORRECT. YOU KNOW, I WOULD AND IT'S A LOT MORE THAN THIS. AND I KNOW I'LL HATE MYSELF AFTER I'VE SAID THIS, BUT THIS IS WHAT PRELIMINARY SITE PLANS ARE BASICALLY THROW DOWN PLANS. FOR THE MOST PART, DEVELOPERS HAVE AN IDEA OF THE TYPE OF USE THAT THEY WANT TO PUT TOGETHER, BECAUSE THERE'S A DESIRE TO HAVE A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF COHESION AND COMPATIBILITY. YOU DON'T WANT TO PUT TEN TOTALLY DIFFERENT, UNRELATED THINGS IN THE SAME CENTER BECAUSE THEY'RE JUST NOT COMPATIBLE AND IT'S GOING TO CAUSE LONG RANGE PROBLEMS. SO YOU HAVE A CERTAIN CONSISTENCY AND AGAIN, COMPATIBILITY THAT YOU'RE GOING TO GO FOR HAVING THE ADDITIONAL PARKING REALLY TO ME JUST SHOWS THAT YOU CAN I DON'T BELIEVE FOR A SECOND THAT THEY'RE GOING TO BUILD. AND ANYBODY WOULD BUILD THIS MUCH MORE PARKING BECAUSE THERE'S NO MONEY IN THAT. IF YOU WERE GOING TO BUILD SOME EXTRA STUFF, YOU'RE GOING TO BUILD ANOTHER BUILDING SO YOU CAN LEASE IT. YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T LEASE THE PARKING SPACES TO SOMEBODY ACROSS THE STREET. SO, YOU KNOW, I THINK THAT DOESN'T REALLY CAUSE ME THE HEARTBURN AS HAVING

[00:30:05]

BUT I WOULD JUST TELL YOU THAT WOULD MAKE THE NEXT STAGE FOR US A LOT SIMPLER. IF IT WAS A LITTLE BIT MORE IDENTIFIED, OBVIOUSLY AT THAT STAGE IT WILL HAVE TO BE JUST SO YOU UNDERSTAND, THE INTENT BEHIND OUR COMMENTARY TONIGHT IS JUST A LITTLE CONCERNING, THAT THE LACK OF QUALITY QUALITATIVE COMMUNITY BENEFITS VERSUS PURELY DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS. SO WITH THAT NO, NO. ABSOLUTELY APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK AND WITH YOUR GUIDANCE IS WHAT WE ARE AS DEVELOPERS ABLE TO BRING THINGS THAT THE CITIZENS LIKE. AND IF IT'S IN THE PROSPER. BUT THE ONLY CHALLENGE WE HAVE BEEN WORKING ON IS WITH THE END USERS, RIGHT? THEY SAY, HEY, WHAT'S POSSIBLE? WHAT CAN I DO? SO WE'RE JUST TRYING TO DO THE RIGHT BALANCE AND DO WHAT'S RIGHT FOR PROSPER AND RIGHT FOR IT. ABSOLUTELY. TAKE TAKE ALL YOUR COMMENTS AND EVERYTHING.

REALLY APPRECIATE IT. OKAY. WELL APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE. AND THE ADDITIONAL QUESTIONS. LISTEN WE READY TO GO TO A MOTION OR WHAT THE WHAT'S A LOT IS GOING TO BE BUILT FIRST AS YOU SAY SIX IS THAT'S THE ONE THAT YOU'RE. YEAH. LIKE THE 678. WE HAVE USERS FOR SIX SEVEN AND EIGHT.

THE PROSPER COMMENTS. AND 380 INTERSECTION IS WHAT WE WANT TO BUILD FIRST. AND THE OTHERS WE DON'T HAVE LIKE FINALIZED USERS YET, BUT EVERYTHING ELSE IS. SO LOT FOUR COULD LOOK A LOT DIFFERENT. LOT LOT COULD LOT DIFFERENT. YEAH. AND PROBABLY YEAH. OKAY. WELL THANK YOU ALL FOR BEING HERE. KNOW Y'ALL PROBABLY DIDN'T THINK YOU'D BE COMING UP. SO APPRECIATE THE ADDITIONAL DETAIL AND WORKING WITH OUR COMMUNITY. AND I'M GOING TO TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION FOR ITEMS THREE E AND THREE F. IF WE HAVE A MOTION ON THE TABLE TO MOVE FORWARD HERE.

MR. CHAIRMAN, CAN I ASK, CAN I ASK ONE MORE CLARIFICATION QUESTION? SO THIS ALMOST ANSWERS ITSELF, I BELIEVE, BECAUSE OF THE TERMS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN AND FINAL SITE PLAN, BUT I JUST WANT TO MAKE SURE THERE'S NO AMBIGUITY BETWEEN WHAT LEGAL COUNSEL SAID HERE AND WHAT YOU SAID. DAVID. SO WHAT IS APPROVED TODAY IS NOT YOU KNOW, YOU CAN'T GO DIG DIRT AND BUILD THESE BUILDINGS, YET THEY HAVE TO COME BACK WITH A FINAL SITE PLAN, WHICH PRESUMABLY IS GOING TO REFLECT THE PARKING RATIO THAT THEY SUGGEST WILL BE REFLECTED. CORRECT? THAT'S CORRECT. YES, SIR. YEAH. AND LET ME CLARIFY WHAT I WAS SAYING THERE, THERE ARE CERTAIN RIGHTS THAT WE ARE GRANTING THEM WHEN WE APPROVE THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN. IT IS NOT THE RIGHT TO GO AND CONSTRUCT THE BUILDING. THEY HAVE FURTHER STEPS ALONG THE DEVELOPMENT PROCESS FOR THAT. MY POINT BEING THOUGH, THAT ONCE WE THIS IS APPROVED THERE, THIS THIS IS THIS IS THE SITE PLAN THAT THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN THAT IS APPROVED. AND SO THEY WHEN THEY COME BACK FOR THOSE WITH ADDITIONAL DETAILS AND WHETHER IT MAY BE THE LANDSCAPING OR WHATEVER IT MAY BE, IF IT'S LARGELY IN CONFORMANCE WITH THIS, THAT'S, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE WHAT IT IS. AND IT. WOULD YOU DISAGREE WITH THAT, DAVID? NO, I WOULD AGREE. FOR INSTANCE, IF THIS IS APPROVED AND THEY COME BACK WITH A PROPOSAL FOR A FINAL PLAT ON SOMETHING OR EXCUSE ME, FINAL SITE PLAN ON SOMETHING AND WE DECIDE THAT WE NO LONGER LIKE THIS. WE THINK IT OUGHT TO BE A SOCCER FIELD. THEN THEY, I BELIEVE, WOULD HAVE SOME RIGHTS TO THE FACT THAT THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN WAS APPROVED BECAUSE THAT SOCCER FIELD IS HUGELY DIFFERENT FROM WHAT THIS IS. AND SO THAT'S THE KIND OF THING THAT WE COULDN'T DO. BUT THE SPECIFICS OF EACH OF THESE LOTS

[00:35:05]

KNOWING THIS IS PRELIMINARY, IT POTENTIALLY COULD CHANGE. BUT IF THEY COME BACK EXACTLY LIKE IT, WE MAY BE LIMITED. WHAT ELSE DO THOSE FEW THINGS I MENTIONED? IS THERE ANYTHING ELSE I'M MISSING THERE? NO, SIR. IF YOU SAID PLANNING, BUT THAT WOULD BE THE ONLY OTHER THING. AND IF YOU SAID THAT, THEN IT'S ON THE SAME LIST. BUT FACADE SITE PLAN PLANNING THOSE WOULD WOULD BE THE THINGS THAT OPEN SPACE, LANDSCAPING. THOSE ARE THE THINGS THAT THAT YOU HAVE CONTROL OVER. BUT BASED OFF OF WHAT COUNCIL JUST SAID, IF WE APPROVE THIS AS IS HYPOTHETICALLY, THIS IS THE LAW, KIND OF LIKE SOME OF THE OTHER OLD IN GENERAL. WHAT WE DON'T KNOW IS WHETHER OR NOT RIGHT NOW, BECAUSE IT'S AT THE PRELIMINARY STAGE, WHETHER OR NOT THE LANDSCAPING AND THE OPEN SPACE AND THOSE OTHER COMPONENTS ACTUALLY ARE SATISFIED WITH THIS BECAUSE THEY'RE NOT THERE. WE DON'T HAVE THE NUMBERS. WE DON'T SEE WHAT WHAT THEY ARE. I MY GUT FEELING IS THEY'RE NOT COVERED IN IN THIS PLAN. THE SIDEWALKS AREN'T THERE. AS WE MENTIONED BEFORE, THAT'S GOING TO TAKE AWAY FROM FROM OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING AREAS. SO IT IT I DON'T SEE HOW IT COULD COME BACK EXACTLY LIKE THIS AND MEET ALL OF OUR REQUIREMENTS. NOW, COULD THEY STILL HAVE MORE PARKING THAN IT'S REQUIRED? YEAH, MAYBE. BUT I STILL THINK IT'S UNLIKELY BECAUSE IT'S RUN INTO THIS A LOT, ESPECIALLY LIKE WITH THE GIANT BOOK THAT GLENN AND I HAVE OF PDS. RIGHT. WE RUN INTO THIS A LOT WHERE WE APPROVED SOMETHING TEN, 15 YEARS AGO. THE COUNCIL'S POINT, AND IT COMES BACK TEN YEARS LATER. AND WE KIND OF SHOT OURSELVES IN THE FOOT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T THINK OF ALL OF THESE DIFFERENT THINGS. AND THERE'S NOTHING YOU CAN DO NOW. SO I UNDERSTAND WHAT COMMISSIONER HAMILTON AND FURY ARE THINKING ABOUT IS LIKE THE WHAT IF AFTER THIS. BUT I THINK, I THINK ONE OF THE THINGS THESE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROCESSES.

YOU'RE ASKING, DAVID, WHAT IS OUR TOWN PROCEDURE AND HOW THIS GOES AND WHAT LEVERS WE HAVE THERE. AND COUNCIL IS SPEAKING TO LITIGATION AND SPEAKING TO HOW EXPOSED ARE WE TO LITIGATION. THOSE ARE TWO TOTALLY SEPARATE THINGS. WE MAY, IN OUR TOWN'S PROCEDURE AND PROCESS, PUSH THINGS AND HAVE STOP POINTS WHERE WE CAN COME BACK AND REREVIEW THINGS. WHAT COUNSEL IS SAYING IS THAT THE APPLICANT COULD ALSO GO TO THEIR REPRESENTATION AND SAY, YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO DO THAT, REGARDLESS OF WHAT OUR PROCEDURE IS. SO WHAT DAVID IS SAYING IS, YEAH, THEY'LL COME BACK AND THEY'LL HAVE TO GET THEIR FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVED BY US. AND

[00:40:05]

AND I JUST WANT US TO REMEMBER THAT AND THAT WE CANNOT BACK DOWN AND START HAVING THEM MOVE THINGS AROUND JUST BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE IT. AND AT ANY STAGE IN THIS PROCESS, WHETHER IT'S THE PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN, FINAL SITE PLAN, ANYTHING LIKE THAT, THE ONLY THING WE CAN LOOK AT IS WHETHER OR NOT THIS COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE. THEN IN EFFECT. AND IN THIS CASE, THAT'S WHAT WE HAVE TO LOOK AT. AND SO I FEEL LIKE WE'RE KIND OF GETTING STUCK IN THE WEEDS JUST A LITTLE BIT ON WHAT PRECEDENT OR WHAT VESTED RIGHTS THEY MAY HAVE. OUR ONLY JOB RIGHT NOW IS TO MAKE A DETERMINATION AS TO WHETHER THIS SITE PLAN COMPLIES WITH THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND SO I JUST WOULD ADVISE THAT THAT'S KIND OF HOW WE MOVE FORWARD IN THIS CONVERSATION. I UNDERSTAND THAT WHAT DAVID AND I ARE SAYING MAY SOUND CONTRADICTORY OR MAY NOT SOUND COMPLETELY IN LINE WITH EACH OTHER, BUT I THINK FROM BOTH OUR BOTH OUR PERSPECTIVES IS THAT WE HAVE TO BE COMFORTABLE WITH THIS, WITH WHAT'S BEING APPROVED MOVING FORWARD. BUT THERE ARE CHANGES THAT WILL THAT COULD BE MADE AND THAT WILL LIKELY NEED TO BE MADE. BUT AGAIN, THIS IS THIS PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN IS BASED OFF THE ZONING ORDINANCE AND THAT IS WHAT'S BEING APPROVED OR THAT IS WHAT'S UNDER CONSIDERATION FOR BEING APPROVED. IS THERE A TIME LIMIT ON A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN A SHOT CLOCK, IF YOU WILL, FOR THE NEXT STEPS. TWO YEARS. OKAY, SO IN THE EVENT LOTS 5 OR 6, SEVEN AND EIGHT, ROCK AND ROLL AS PLANNED FOLLOW THE PROCESS FOR ONE, TWO AND 3 OR 1, TWO, THREE AND FOUR. DON'T. IN TWO YEARS THEY'RE BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. THEY MAY HAVE DIFFERENT INFORMATION, DIFFERENT PLANS, DIFFERENT. IS THAT FAIR ASSESSMENT? OKAY. SO WITH THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF A COUPLE OF THINGS. ONE, THAT THESE BUILDINGS AND USES MAY BE TOTALLY DIFFERENT, AND TWO, THAT DEVELOPERS TYPICALLY DON'T BUILD MORE PARKING THAN THEY HAVE TO. I KIND OF GO BACK TO MY QUESTION BEFORE, AND THIS IS WHAT I'M STRUGGLING WITH, IS WHY THIS SITE PLAN DOES NOT REFLECT THE AMOUNT OF PARKING THAT THE DEVELOPER WOULD INTEND TO BUILD WITH THESE USES THAT ARE PROPOSED ON THE SITE PLAN. SO WHEN THE DEVELOPERS UP HERE AND IT'S THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE, I MEAN THAT'S GREAT TO HAVE THE DEVELOPER HERE AND SAYING WE'RE NOT GOING TO BUILD MORE PARKING THAN WE HAVE TO, BUT IT'S REFLECTED ON HERE. THAT THAT'S JUST A REAL STRUGGLE FOR ME. I WOULD REALLY, I DON'T THINK, HAVE ANY PROBLEM APPROVING IT IF IT REFLECTED SOMETHING THAT THE DEVELOPER SAID THEY MIGHT INTEND TO BUILD, IF THOSE TURN OUT TO BE THE USES. SO THAT'S THAT'S MY THAT'S MY STRUGGLE WITH THE HOW THIS SITE PLAN IS PRESENTED AS IT'S IN FRONT OF US. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS? WE I THINK WE'VE TALKED THROUGH A LOT OF DIFFERENT OPTIONS. THIS IS ITEMS THREE AND THREE F ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. DO WE HAVE A MOTION FROM ANY OF THE COMMISSIONERS ON ITEMS THREE AND THREE F. AND THEY'RE KIND OF TIED TOGETHER I GUESS. SO I MOVE THAT WE APPROVE ITEMS THREE E AND THREE F ON THE CONSENT AGENDA. SO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE ITEMS THREE AND THREE F FROM COMMISSIONER HARRIS. DO WE HAVE A SECOND. SECOND WE HAVE A SECOND FROM COMMISSIONER BLANSETT. ALL THOSE IN FAVOR OF APPROVING CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS THREE AND THREE F SUBJECT TO TOWN STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS, PLEASE RAISE YOUR HAND. WE HAVE ONE. COMMISSIONER. HARRIS.

[00:45:01]

ALL THOSE OPPOSED. WE HAVE COMMISSIONER HAMILTON, COMMISSIONER JACKSON AND COMMISSIONER POOR AGAINST THE MOTION CARRIES ON THREE AND THREE F.

AND THAT WAS A 4 TO 3 VOTE. ALL RIGHT I THINK WE HAVE A CITIZEN. COMMENTS. THE PUBLIC IS INVITED TO ADDRESS THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION ON ANY TOPIC. HOWEVER, THERE THE COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO DISCUSS OR TAKE ACTION ON ANY TOPIC NOT LISTED ON THIS AGENDA. THERE ARE NO COMMENTS.

LET'S MOVE TO THE REGULAR AGENDA. AND I DON'T BELIEVE WE HAD ANY COMMENT CARDS THIS

[4. Conduct a Public Hearing and consider and act upon a request for a Specific Use Permit for a Drive-Through Restaurant on Frontier Retail Center Revised, Block A, Lots 1-2, on 2.8± acres, located on the east side of Dallas Parkway and 800± feet south of Frontier Parkway. (ZONE-24-0021)]

DEVELOPMENT 67 TO THE NORTH IS A VACANT LOT, BUT IT'S GOING TO BE PART OF PART OF THE HEB LOT TO THE EAST. THIS HEB TO THE SOUTH, AS YOU CAN SEE. OH, I DON'T KNOW. I JUST DID TO THE SOUTH IT'S COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR AND THEN TO THE WEST IT IS COMMERCIAL. AND A LITTLE FURTHER NORTH HERE IS THERE'S A SITE PLAN FOR CHASE BANK. ALL RIGHT. SO THE HISTORY ON THIS TRACK, IT IS PLANNED DEVELOPMENT 69 AS TRACT ONE OF THAT PLANNED DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS A PRELIMINARY SITE PLAN APPROVED JUNE 6TH OF 2023 ON THAT PSP FOR THE CHICK FIL A SITE. IT SHOWED TWO STANDALONE RESTAURANTS ON LOTS ONE AND TWO. AND THEN THERE HAVE BEEN MULTIPLE SITE PLANS APPROVED IN TRACT ONE SINCE THE PSP HAS BEEN APPROVED. HERE IS WHERE THE CHASE BANK WENT. THIS IS WHAT IT SHOWS ON THE PSP, AND THIS IS KIND OF WHAT IT SHOWS ON THE APPROVED SITE PLAN. THERE IS A MCDONALD'S APPROVED HERE. AND THEN OBVIOUSLY THE H-E-B WAS APPROVED AS WELL IN THIS TRACT.

THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF THE SITE PLAN FOR MCDONALD'S ON THE LEFT. AND THEN ON THE RIGHT IS AN EXAMPLE OF CHASE BANK. SO OUR DRIVE THRU STANDARDS, THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, WHEN WE WENT THROUGH THAT PROCESS IN 2023, ONE OF THE RECOMMENDATION WAS TO REVISE THE DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS PERTAINING TO DRIVE THRUS. SO ON THAT ADVICE, TOWN STAFF INITIATED THESE AMENDMENTS AND IT WAS APPROVED BY TOWN COUNCIL ON JANUARY 9TH, 2024. SO ABOUT A YEAR AGO, CHANGE. AND ONE OF THESE AMENDMENTS INCLUDED PROHIBITING STACKING AND DRIVE THROUGH LANES BETWEEN A BUILDING AND ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY. AS YOU CAN SEE HERE ON THIS PLAN. AND I'LL GO TO KIND OF THE CLEANER ONE AND THIS SITE PLAN HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY, OR THIS SCP HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY. THE APPLICANT IS SHOWING THE STACKING AND THE DRIVE THROUGH LANES BETWEEN THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY AND THE BUILDING. SO AS PART OF THEIR REQUEST, THEY ARE REQUESTING THE SCP, BUT AS PART OF THE SCP, THEY'RE REQUESTING FOR THE ALLOWANCE FOR THE STACKING DRIVE THROUGH LANES TO BE BETWEEN THE BUILDING AND THE ADJACENT RIGHT OF WAY. AND HERE'S THE LANDSCAPE PLAN ELEVATIONS FOR THE FACADE. SO THE ZONING ORDINANCE SETS A LIST OF CRITERIA WHEN EVALUATING SPECIFIC USE. PERMIT REQUEST. IS THE USE HARMONIOUS AND COMPATIBLE WITH ITS SURROUNDING EXISTING USES? THE PROPOSED USES ARE THE ACTIVITIES REQUESTED BY THE APPLICANT NORMALLY ASSOCIATED WITH THE REQUESTED USES? IS THE NATURE OF THAT USE REASONABLE? HAS ANY IMPACT ON THE SURROUNDING AREA BEEN MITIGATED? STAFF FEELS LIKE THIS CRITERIA HAS NOT BEEN MET DUE TO NOT MEETING THE STANDARDS IN OUR ZONING ORDINANCE FOR DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS, AND CONCLUSION FOR THIS CASE. NOTICES FOR THIS WERE SENT OUT FRIDAY, FEBRUARY 21ST. WE HAVE NOT RECEIVED ANY CITIZEN RESPONSE AND STAFF IS RECOMMENDING DENIAL DUE TO NONCOMPLIANCE WITH OUR TOWN REGULATIONS. I WILL NOW TAKE ANY QUESTIONS THAT YOU GUYS HAVE FOR ME. COMMISSIONERS. QUESTIONS FOR TOWN STAFF. IF NOT, THIS IS A PUBLIC HEARING ITEM AND WE MAY HAVE QUESTIONS LATER. AND THE APPLICANT IS HERE TONIGHT. SO IF YOU'D LIKE TO HAVE THEM COME UP.

SO LET'S GO AHEAD AND OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING ON REGULAR AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR. I'LL ASK THE APPLICANT IF THEY'RE HERE TO COME UP. WHEN THE APPLICANT COMES UP, JUST STATE NAME AND

[00:50:02]

YOU CAN SEE THAT OUR DRIVE THROUGH LANES ARE ADJACENT TO NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY. THEY ORIGINATE ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, SO ON THE NORTH SIDE OF THE SITE, AND THEY WRAP AROUND PARALLEL TO NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY, AND THEY EXIT AT THE SOUTH SIDE OF THE BUILDING. IN THIS SITE PLAN, YOU CAN SEE THE STACKING POINT, THE STACKING VEHICLES UP TO THE ORDER POINT.

SO I BELIEVE THE ZONING ORDINANCE REQUIRES FIVE STACKS UP FROM ENTRANCE TO THE ORDER POINT. WE ARE PROVIDING 14 VEHICLES FROM THE ISOLATED ENTRY TO THE FIRST MENU BOARDS. WE DO HAVE A CONTINUOUS BYPASS LANE AND THEN DOWNSTREAM OR TO THE RIGHT OF OUR MENU BOARDS.

THERE'S ADDITIONAL STACKING AVAILABLE. BUT HERE WHAT I'M SHOWING IS WHAT THE CODE REQUIREMENT IS UP TO THE ORDER POINT. HERE'S THE PROPOSED BUILDING FACADE THAT WOULD FRONT NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY. SO ALONG THIS FACADE WE HAVE ADDITIONAL PLAN AND ELEVATION ARTICULATION.

WE HAVE RAISED PARAPETS AND WE HAVE ADDITIONAL GLAZING. SO WE ARE ACTUALLY PROPOSING STOREFRONT GLASS ALONG THIS FACADE OF THE BUILDING WITH SPANDREL GLASS AND AWNINGS OVER EACH OF THESE WINDOWS. SO WHAT'S UNIQUE ABOUT THIS FACADE AND THIS BUILDING THAT REALLY THIS FACADE, COMPARED TO THE TYPICAL CHICK FIL A THAT YOU MAY HAVE SEEN AROUND, IS THE FACADE THAT'S FACING THE TOLLWAY IS ENHANCED WITH ADDITIONAL GLASS AND AWNINGS. SO HERE'S OUR PROPOSED A RENDERING OF OUR PROPOSED LANDSCAPE PLAN, JUST TO SHOW HOW MUCH GREEN SPACE WE DO HAVE SHOWN ON THE PROPERTY. AND IN THE NEXT SCREEN WE'RE GOING TO SEE THE LANDSCAPING. IF YOU ARE STANDING ON NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY LOOKING TOWARDS THE SITE. I'M GOING TO ZOOM IN BECAUSE I'M NOT SURE HOW WELL YOU CAN SEE ON YOUR SIDE. SO IN THIS VIEW YOU ARE STANDING OR IN A VEHICLE IN NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY FACING THE DRIVE THROUGH LANES. WHAT WE HAVE HERE, STARTING FROM THE BOTTOM UP, WE HAVE SIX FOOT TALL EVERGREEN SHRUBS. AT TIME OF PLANTING THEY WILL BE SIX FEET TALL. THE INTENT OF THAT ELEVATION IS TO COVER A VEHICLE. SO IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR SCREEN AND I'M NOT SURE IF YOU CAN SEE EVEN MY CURSOR, WHERE YOU ARE GENERALLY IN THIS AREA IS WHERE THE DRIVE THROUGH CANOPY IS BEHIND THIS SET OF LANDSCAPING IS WHERE THE

[00:55:08]

EXPLAIN WHAT'S NOT GOOD ABOUT I MEAN, I LOVE YOUR LANDSCAPING TOO, BUT SAY SAY THAT ON THE WOULD BE ON THE WHAT'S THAT? THAT WOULD BE THE EAST SIDE. IF YOU HAD A DRIVE THROUGH TOWARDS HEB OR. WHAT WOULD THAT LOOK LIKE FROM Y'ALL'S PERSPECTIVE OR WHAT? WHAT ARE THE WHAT ARE THE NEGATIVES TO THAT FROM Y'ALL'S PERSPECTIVE? SURE. SO ESSENTIALLY YOU WOULD ENVISION THIS ENTIRE SITE ROTATED ABOUT 180 DEGREES, WHERE THE DRIVE THROUGH LANES WOULD BE ADJACENT TO HEB. THE BUILDING WOULD ALSO BE ADJACENT TO HEB. IN ORDER FOR THAT LAYOUT TO WORK, THE DRIVEWAYS INTO THE SITE WOULD NEED TO COME IN FROM THE LEFT SIDE OF THE SCREEN AND THE RIGHT SIDE OF THE SCREEN, MEANING OUR DRIVEWAY ACCESS POINTS WOULD END UP BEING ACTUALLY CLOSER TO NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY IN THE CONFIGURATION THAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE. WE ARE ACTUALLY MOVING CHICK FIL A'S TRAFFIC AWAY FROM NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY, AWAY FROM THOSE TWO MAJOR ENTRY POINTS, SO THAT WE'RE NOT CREATING ANY CONGESTION RIGHT THERE AT THOSE PUBLIC DRIVEWAYS.

WE'RE BRINGING THEM INTO THE SITE, INTO THE OVERALL SITE, AND THEN ENTERING THE CHICK FIL A SITE. SO WE'RE REALLY TRYING TO ISOLATE THE MOVEMENTS TO GET INTO CHICK FIL A VERSUS CAUSING ANY CONGESTION, ANY IMPACTS TO SURROUNDING DEVELOPMENTS BY KEEPING OUR OUR DRIVEWAY POINTS NEAR THE TWO ACCESS POINTS OFF OF NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY COULD. OKAY. COULD YOU COULD YOU FLIP IT AND THEN JUST KEEP YOUR ACCESS POINTS HIGHER INSTEAD OF SO FLIP IT SO THAT THE. THE DRIVE THROUGH IS MIRRORED AND IT'S UP TOP AND NOT BRING THE ENTRANCES DOWN, BUT KEEP THEM UP SO THEY'RE NOT COMING OFF THE ROAD. THAT'S AN EXCELLENT QUESTION. WE DID EVALUATE THAT.

CHICK FIL A HAS A HIGH STANDARD OF EXPECTATIONS FOR THEIR SITE DEVELOPMENT, WHETHER IT'S PARKING OR THE STACK THAT THEY THE VEHICLE STACK THAT THEY NEED TO OPERATE AND WHAT THEIR EXPECTATION IS IN ORDER FOR US TO KEEP THOSE TWO ACCESS POINTS AT THE TOP OF THE SCREEN AND THEN FLIP THE SITE AROUND, THE CIRCULATION OF THE SITE WOULDN'T WORK WELL. THERE WOULD BE A LOT OF U-TURNS JUST TO TRY TO GET INTO THE DRIVE THROUGH LANES, AND WE WOULDN'T EVEN BE ABLE TO PROVIDE THE OVERALL VEHICLE STACK IN THE IN THE SITE IF WE HAD THAT KIND OF CONFIGURATION.

CAN YOU SHOW THAT OTHER IMAGE THAT HAD THE H-E-B NEXT TO YOU LIKE THE. YES, SIR. I GUESS I WANTED TO THERE. SO IF YOU LIFT IT LIKE A STAFF RECOMMENDATION, WHERE CAN YOU POINT OUR LIKE, YOU KNOW, YOU HAVE THE YELLOW CIRCLES THERE THAT ARE YOUR IN AND OUTS. NOW WHERE WOULD THOSE.

ENTRANCE AND EXITS BE. IF YOU. ARE YOU ABLE TO SEE MY CURSOR ON YOUR SCREEN? SO ONE WOULD BE ABOUT RIGHT HERE AND THE OTHER ONE WOULD MOST LIKELY BE IN LINE WITH IT ON THE THE SITE, WHERE FOR IT TO WORK OUT, THE STAFF WOULD BE GOING. I'M GOING TO TRY TO HOVER SLOWLY SO YOU CAN FOLLOW MY CURSOR. IT'D BE MOVING LIKE THAT WHERE THE EXIT OF THE DRIVE THROUGH LANE WOULD BE RIGHT ABOUT HERE. THE DRIVEWAYS WOULD, BECAUSE OF HEB IN THE AREA AND SOME OTHER USES IN THE AREA, PLACING THOSE DRIVEWAYS CLOSER TO NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY. MAY CREATE A SITUATION WHERE WE JUST FEEL LIKE THE LAYOUT WE ARE PRESENTING WILL HELP MOVE THE TRAFFIC AWAY FROM NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY. SO IF IT'S IN THE SPOT WHERE YOU WERE POINTING TO AT THE TOP AND THE

[01:00:06]

THAT'S CORRECT. AND I DO WANT TO ADDRESS WE CAN'T GET ANOTHER DRIVEWAY OFF OF NORTH DALLAS PARKWAY. SO WE ARE THIS DEVELOPMENT CAN'T GET ANOTHER DRIVEWAY. THERE'S THOSE TWO.

THERE'S THREE DRIVEWAYS. AND WE HAVE THE TWO DRIVEWAYS FLANKING OUR PROPERTY. RIGHT. THERE'S A THERE'S A CHICK FIL A NEAR MY HOUSE BY WINDSONG RIGHT OFF OF 380. THE CHICK FIL A THAT'S NEXT TO PANERA AND ALL THAT STUFF. WHEN YOU THE DRIVING LANES FOR THE DRIVE THROUGH ARE NEXT TO A ROADWAY, IT'S OPPOSITE 380 AND YOU CAN'T JUST GO IN TO THE DRIVE THROUGH OFF OF THAT ROAD.

YOU HAVE TO GO ALL THE WAY AROUND THE CHICK FIL A TO ENTER THE DRIVE THROUGH, AND THEN IT TAKES YOU THROUGH THE DRIVE THROUGH AND IT EXITS. ALMOST SIMILAR TO WHAT IF THIS WERE FLIPPED, HOW IT WOULD LOOK AND IT EXITS YOU RIGHT ON THAT SIDE ENTRANCE, BUT YOU DON'T THINK GOES THIS WAY THOUGH, RIGHT? THE BUILDING IS ORIENTED IN THE OPPOSITE DIRECTION. SO THIS BUILDING NOW IS PARALLEL TO THE TOLLWAY. AND YOUR EXAMPLE THOUGH, IT'S A IT'S LIKE A T YOU HAVE THE, THE MAIN ARTERY AND THEN CHICK FIL A IS A T. YES. BUT THE, THE DRIVE THROUGH PART, CAN YOU FLIP TO THE OTHER DIAGRAM YOU HAD. THANK YOU. IT'S STILL THE LONG THE LONG LANE OF THE DRIVE THROUGH IS STILL PARALLEL TO 380 IS SIMILAR TO WHERE IT IS HERE. PERFECT. YEAH.

IS IT PERPENDICULAR. IT ACTUALLY MAKES A 90 DEGREE. YOU ENTER IT AND THEN IT MAKES A LEFT TURN PERPENDICULAR. YEAH. THEN I WOULD HIGHLIGHT BUT THEN IT'S PARALLEL TO THREE. AND YOU RECEIVE YOUR FOOD ON THE FRONTAGE OF 380 AT THAT ONE. YEAH. WHERE YOU RECEIVE YOUR FOOD. BUT THE LONG LINE WHERE YOU'RE DRIVING THROUGH TO PULL UP TO THE, THE TELLER, NOT TO THE TELLER, TO THE PEOPLE STANDING OUT THERE TAKING YOUR ORDER. THAT'S PARALLEL TO 380.

THAT BACK PART. YES. YEAH. THAT'S THAT'S WHAT I'M SAYING. AND THAT'S WHERE THE CARS NOW IT CURVES. BUT THIS LONG PART, THIS LONG BASE HERE, IT'S PARALLEL TO THE TOLLWAY SIMILAR TO THE WAY IT WOULD. IT'S PARALLEL TO 380. THE ONLY REASON WHY I'M SAYING THAT IS IN ORDER TO KEEP THE, IN ORDER TO KEEP PEOPLE FROM STACKING UP ON THAT ROAD THAT'S RIGHT NEXT TO IT. CHICK FIL A BRINGS THEM INTO THE PROPERTY FIRST, THEN BRINGS THEM AROUND. AND IF THIS WERE FLIPPED, THAT'S HOW YOU WOULD HAVE TO DO IT HERE TO KEEP OFF OF THE TOLLWAY. SO YOU DON'T HAVE IF THERE'S IF THERE'S A, YOU KNOW, A HEAVY FLOW, THEY DON'T BACK UP ONTO THE TOLLWAY OR THE SERVICE ROAD, YOU'D BRING THEM ALL THE WAY INTO THE PROPERTY AND THEN THEY WOULD GO THROUGH. NOW I'M SAYING THEY DID THAT AT THE CHICK FIL A BEFORE, BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU ALL DID AN EVALUATION AND FOUND THAT IT WOULDN'T WORK HERE TO BRING THEM INTO THE PROPERTY, THEN PULL THEM INTO THE DRIVE THROUGH. AND SO I'M WONDERING, WAS THERE SOMETHING THAT YOU IDENTIFIED IN A PREVIOUS PLAN THAT TOLD YOU THIS WON'T WORK IN THE FUTURE OR. SO IN IF WE WERE TO KEEP ACCESS POINTS OFF OF THIS DRIVE AISLE AND TO TRY TO GET THE DRIVE THROUGH ENTRANCE TO WORK, YOU WOULD ESSENTIALLY BE MAKING A SHARP U-TURN TO ENTER THE DRIVE THROUGH LANES. SO YOU WOULD BE ENTERING THE DRIVEWAY. WE WOULD TRY TO GET AN ENTRANCE INTO THE DRIVE THROUGH LANES, MAYBE SOMEWHERE HERE. IN ORDER TO HAVE THAT CONFIGURATION, WE WOULD JUST NOT HAVE AN WE WOULD NOT BE MAXIMIZING THE AMOUNT OF STAFF WE COULD BE GETTING ON THE SITE. AND REALLY, WHAT WE'RE PRESENTING HERE IS A MAXIMIZED AMOUNT OF DRIVE THROUGH STACK FOR CHICK FIL A. GOT IT. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. IS THERE. I HAD A COUPLE EASY QUESTIONS, BUT I'LL GO WITH THE HARDER ONE.

FIRST, THE LOCATION OF THE WELL A I ACTUALLY AGREE AND LIKE THAT WE'RE PULLING TRAFFIC IN OFF. I LIKE THE CONFIGURATION AS IT IS. PERSONALLY I THINK THAT IT PULLS THE TRAFFIC ONTO THE PROPERTY. I THINK WE ALL KNOW H-E-B WILL HAVE PLENTY OF TRAFFIC PROBLEMS. WE DON'T NEED CHICK FIL A TO EXACERBATE IT. SO I LIKE THAT YOU'RE GETTING THOSE IN. THE QUESTION IS, WHENEVER YOU YOU DO HAVE ABOVE A REQUIRED STACK, WHICH I THINK IS GOOD WHERE YOU'RE AND I DON'T KNOW THE CORRECT CHICK FIL A TERMS WHERE YOU ORDER AT IS PRETTY FAR BACK AWAY FROM THE BUILDING AND OR FROM WHERE YOU RECEIVE YOUR FOOD WITH A DOUBLE DRIVE THROUGH CONFIGURATION LIKE THIS. COULD THAT NOT SHIFT WHERE YOU COULD GET MORE OF A STACK? I'M GOING TO SAY SHIFT SOUTH AND GET MORE OF A STACK INTERNAL AND NOT THEORETICALLY. THIS IS GOING TO PROBABLY BACK UP DURING PEAK TIMES INTO THAT PARKING LOT, WHICH IS STILL PREFERRED OVER AN ACCESS ROAD OR A AN INTERNAL

[01:05:04]

I JUST THINK THAT MIGHT HELP THE TRAFFIC FLOW IN GENERAL, BUT THAT'S TOTALLY IN THE WEEDS. BUT SO WE COULD SHIFT THE MENU BOARDS, THE ORDER POINT A LITTLE FURTHER SOUTH TO THE RIGHT. IN THIS VIEW, HOWEVER, CHICK FIL A HAS THEY KNOW HOW LONG IT TAKES FROM WHEN YOU ORDER TO WHEN HOW LONG IT TAKES YOU TO DRIVE AROUND TO WHEN YOU GET YOUR FOOD. AND THERE IS A CALCULATED AMOUNT FOR THAT SEPARATION. SO THE QUESTION BEHIND THE QUESTION IS, THE ONLY PART OF THIS PLAN THAT I DON'T LOVE IS KIND OF THE CONFIGURATION WHERE THE DUMPSTER LOCATIONS ARE IN RELATION TO KIND OF BEING CENTER POINT OF THE WHOLE THING, AND THEY'RE NOT REALLY SCREENED VERY WELL. I THINK IN THAT ONE RENDERING YOU SHOWED THAT WE DID NOT HAVE BEFOREHAND. IT ACTUALLY DOES SHOW A LITTLE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING OUTSIDE THAT SIDEWALK. MY THOUGHT PROCESS THERE WAS IF YOU SHIFTED THAT DOWN, WOULD THAT HELP? WOULD THAT HELP KIND OF SHIELD THE DUMPSTER ENCLOSURE A LITTLE BIT WITH A LITTLE BIT MORE LANDSCAPING WITHOUT THAT SIDEWALK? SO THAT WAS THE QUESTION BEHIND THE QUESTION. BUT I THINK YOU ANSWERED IT WELL. MY ONLY OTHER PARKING RELATED QUESTION IS OVER ON THE SOUTH. HOW MANY PARKING SPOTS ARE REQUIRED PER THE PLAN? PER THE CITY ZONING ORDINANCE, I BELIEVE, I WANT TO SAY 57. HOW MANY ARE PROVIDED ARE 73. OKAY, SO YOU'RE OVER PARKING A LITTLE BIT? YES. PROVIDING ADDITIONAL THE SIX THAT ARE ON THE SOUTH END? YES. THERE'S A COUPLE OF THOSE THAT IF YOU'RE A PATRON AND YOU'RE BACK, YOU'RE BACKING INTO THAT DRIVE THROUGH EXIT THAT DOESN'T FEEL SAFE. IT DOESN'T FEEL SUPER PREFERRED. IF YOU'RE A PARENT WITH A BUNCH OF KIDS, SOCCER KIDS SCREAMING, GETTING THEIR CHICK FIL A, YOU'RE GOING TO HIT A BACKHAND CAR. YOU KNOW THAT IF YOU'RE OVER PARKED, THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING I WOULD CONSIDER. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT THAT WOULD HOLD UP ME WANTING TO APPROVE IT OR NOT, BUT IT FEELS A LITTLE. WE LOOK AT THIS A LOT, WHEN IN FACT, LAST MEETING WE HAD THIS SAME CONVERSATION ABOUT DRIVE THRUS AND PARKING AND BLIND SPOTS. SO SOMETHING YOU MAY CONSIDER, YOU MAY LIKE THE ADDITIONAL PARKING. IT MIGHT NOT BE, BUT THOSE ARE THE THREE MAIN THINGS I HAD FOR YOU RIGHT NOW. OKAY. ANY OTHER COMMENTS OR QUESTIONS FOR THE APPLICANT? OR ARE YOU DONE WITH YOUR PRESENTATION? I AM OKAY, WELL GREAT JOB. THANK YOU. CAN YOU FLIP BACK TO THAT LAST THE LAST PAGE BECAUSE I THINK IT'S PRETTY RELEVANT. THE LANDSCAPE OR THE RENDERING. HERE YOU GO. THAT'S A PRETTY TELLING PICTURE THERE IN MY OPINION. FOR ME THIS SAYS A LOT. IT SHOWS THE I MEAN, KIND OF JUMPING AHEAD A LITTLE BIT. I THINK I APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING THIS A, I THINK THIS PACKAGE THAT YOU SHOWED IS VERY HELPFUL.

THANK YOU. SO THANK YOU FOR DOING THAT. I THINK THIS ALSO SHOWS A LOT THAT, YES, ALTHOUGH YOU WERE COMING INTO THIS WITH THE DENIAL AND THERE ARE VERY GOOD REASONS WHY TOWN WAS DENYING IT, YOU ARE TRYING TO SHOW GOOD FAITH AND WORK WITHIN THOSE CONSTRAINTS TO THE BEST OF YOUR ABILITY, WITH SOME PRETTY SIGNIFICANTLY ENHANCED LANDSCAPING. I DON'T THINK YOU JUST HEARD US TALK FOR 30 MINUTES BEFORE ABOUT ANOTHER SITE PLAN WITH LANDSCAPING THAT PROBABLY HAS ONE THIRD OF THIS, SO I THINK THIS IS PRETTY TELLING AND I APPRECIATE YOU SHOWING THAT. THANK YOU SO MUCH WITH THAT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? ALL RIGHT. APPRECIATE IT. WELL, APPRECIATE YOU BEING HERE AND YOUR TIME AND WORKING WITH STAFF AND GETTING TO THIS POINT. AND ANY QUESTIONS FOR STAFF AT THIS POINT. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE AUDIENCE THAT WOULD LIKE TO COME FORWARD AND SPEAK ON THIS ITEM? JUST PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME AND ADDRESS FOR THE RECORD, GOOD EVENING, COMMISSIONERS MATT MOORE, 301 SOUTH COLEMAN PROSPER, TEXAS 75078 I'M ACTUALLY HERE TONIGHT ON BEHALF OF DNA FRONTIER LP. THAT IS THE LANDOWNER THAT HAS BEEN WORKING WITH CHICK FIL A ON THIS. WE WERE ALSO THE MASTER DEVELOPER OF THE CENTER THERE AT FRONTIER AND THE TOLLWAY. I'VE BEEN IN TOWN DOING WORK NOW FOR TEN YEARS, SO I'M VERY VERSED ON THE TOWN'S PREFERENCES AND REQUIREMENTS. WE'VE WORKED DILIGENTLY WITH MR. HOOVER AND DAKARI ON THIS. WE KNEW FROM DAY ONE THAT WE WERE KIND OF UP AGAINST AN UPHILL BATTLE HERE.

WE UNDERSTOOD THE REQUIREMENTS. WE ALSO UNDERSTOOD THE SITE CONSTRAINTS THAT WE WERE UP AGAINST WITH HEB. WE HAD TO WORK WITH HEB ON THIS LAYOUT. THIS WAS THE ONLY LAYOUT THAT HEB WOULD APPROVE FOR CHICK FIL A TO COME INTO THIS SHOPPING CENTER. TRAFFIC IS A HUGE CONCERN NOT ONLY FOR HEB, BUT FOR CHICK FIL A, AS WELL AS US AS THE SHOPPING CENTER OWNER. AND SO WE'VE BEEN VERY SENSITIVE TO THOSE CONCERNS, WHICH IS WHAT LED US TO THIS ORIENTATION, WHICH

[01:10:01]

AGAIN, WE WANTED TO BE WE WANTED TO PUT OUR BEST FOOT FORWARD HERE. WE FEEL LIKE WE'VE GOT THAT. HEB IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS PLAN. AS I'VE MENTIONED, WE'VE HAD TO WORK TO GET THEIR SIGN OFF, AND WITH THAT, I'LL BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS HAVE. BUT AS THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE OVERALL SHOPPING CENTER DEVELOPER, WE APPRECIATE THEIR EFFORTS. WE APPRECIATE STAFF'S TIME AND YOUR TIME ON EVALUATING THIS. SO THANK YOU FOR YOUR TIME AND BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU GUYS MIGHT HAVE. ANY QUESTIONS? COMMISSIONER HAMILTON, YOU LOOK LIKE YOU HAD A QUESTION. NO. NO QUESTIONS. I JUST HAD COMMENTS. BUT NO QUESTIONS HERE. READY TO COMMENT, AREN'T YOU? I'M READY TO COMMENT. YOU ARE ALL RIGHT.

THANK YOU FOR BEING HERE. APPRECIATE THE COMMENTS. AND I DO HAVE. CAN I ASK BEFORE WE BEGIN COMMENTS? CAN I ASK A QUESTION? YEAH. YEAH. PLEASE GO AHEAD. OKAY. FIRST STAFF. YES.

SO THIS IS A REQUEST FOR AN SUP. THAT'S WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON THAT WE'RE NOT VOTING ON A SITE PLAN.

WE'RE DOING AN SUP HERE. CORRECT. SO WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED IN ORDER FOR IF I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE SUP IS MERELY AUTHORIZING THEM TO BUILD A DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANT. AND IF WE APPROVE IT, IT WOULD AUTHORIZE THEM TO WAIVE THE CURRENT REQUIREMENT OF ITS LOCATION. IF YOU APPROVE THE LAYOUT AS IT IS, THIS LAYOUT. BUT WHAT'S NOT BEFORE US IS THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPE THAT THEY HAVE SAID HERE AND EVERYTHING. SO IS IT POSSIBLE FOR US TO APPROVE THE SUP WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING IS THAT'S BEEN PROPOSED HERE, HAS BEEN IS ALSO A PART OF THAT OR. OR THE OTHER THING IS, I DON'T KNOW WHETHER STAFF IS SATISFIED ASSUMING THIS IS PASSED OVER YOUR OVER THE DENIAL, I WOULD FIND IT BEING SOMETHING THAT I WOULD, YOU KNOW, IF I APPROVED IT OVER THE OVER IN CONTRARY TO OUR TOWN ORDINANCE, I WOULD WANT THAT ENHANCED LANDSCAPING. AND I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT IT'S ACTUALLY AS ENHANCED AS WE CAN GET IT TO, TO OFFSET THIS WAIVER OF THE ORDINANCE. SO I DON'T KNOW IF STAFF'S HAD A CHANCE TO CONSIDER HOW MUCH LANDSCAPING, WHETHER THIS IS THIS ENHANCEMENTS ARE ENOUGH OR WHETHER YOU PROPOSE MORE OR WHATEVER. DO YOU HAVE ANY INPUT ON THAT? SO TO YOUR FIRST QUESTION, YOU CAN APPROVE THE SUP WITH THAT CONDITION. ABOUT THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING.

TO YOUR SECOND QUESTION, I'D HAVE TO GET WITH OUR LANDSCAPE DEVELOPMENT PLANNER. I KNOW THEY MEET THE REQUIREMENTS FOR WHATEVER LANDSCAPING THEY HAVE TO HAVE ALONG THE THOROUGHFARE FOR DRIVE THROUGH RESTAURANTS, SPECIFICALLY ON THE EXTRA LANDSCAPING. I'D HAVE TO GET WITH HIM TO CONFIRM THAT THEY HAVE, LIKE THE EXTRA CALIPER INCHES AND THINGS OF THAT NATURE, BUT THAT CAN BE A CONDITION OF THE OF THE SUP. OKAY, SO I WOULD THINK IT'D BE IMPORTANT FOR THE COMMISSION IF, IF WE'RE LOOKING AT APPROVAL OF THIS IN, IN WAIVING THE CURRENT TOWN ORDINANCE, THAT IT WOULD BE SUBJECT TO THAT KIND OF SUBJECT TO THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING AND PERHAPS AND AT LEAST AS A MINIMUM, WHAT'S BEEN PROPOSED HERE AND PERHAPS FURTHER LOOK BY THE LANDSCAPE OF THE CITY. QUICK QUESTION. SO MR. MORRIS, SAYING THAT THEY HEB DOES NOT WANT ANY OTHER. LAYOUT AND THAT IF THE LAYOUT IS DIFFERENT, THEN HEB WILL NOT APPROVE THAT DEVELOPMENT. THERE WAS IS THIS SOMETHING THAT TOWN STAFF WAS AWARE OF? I PERSONALLY WAS NOT AWARE OF IT. YEAH, IT IS NOT. BUT IT IS THAT YOU WEREN'T UNAWARE OF IT OR IT IS NOT AS IT IS NOT. YES, SIR. I'M SORRY. NO, NO, NO WORRIES. I'LL ANSWER THAT. RIGHT. I'LL MAKE SURE.

OKAY. SO AWARE OF IT. BUT I WILL ALSO TELL YOU IT IS NOT AT ALL UNCOMMON FOR BIG BOX TO HAVE ALL SORTS OF RULES AND REQUIREMENTS FOR THE PAD SITES AROUND THEM, SO IT DOESN'T SURPRISE ME THAT

[01:15:06]

THERE IS A FILED DOCUMENT AT THE COUNTY WITH REAL ESTATE EASEMENTS AND RESTRICTIONS THAT WE HAVE TO ABIDE BY. WE HAD TO WORK WITH THEM TO GET TO THIS POINT. RIGHT. I'M TRYING TO UNDERSTAND, SO THAT WE CAN TALK ABOUT THE THING THAT ACTUALLY MATTERS, BECAUSE ONE WASN'T AWARE THAT HEB WOULD PULL OUT OR WOULD FORCE YOU ALL NOT TO DEVELOP. SO WHAT I'M ASKING IS TO UNDERSTAND SPECIFICALLY, WHAT IS THE GUIDELINE THAT THEY PLACED BEFORE YOU. NOW, IF THEY'RE SAYING THAT, THEY JUST WANT TO UNDERSTAND IF WHAT THEY'RE SAYING IS THAT THEY DON'T WANT THE DRIVE LANES TO BE AWAY FROM THE TOLLWAY. SO WHICH IS WHAT THE DIAGRAM THAT STAFF HAS PRESENTED WHERE YOU'D FLIP IT. BUT THE ACCESS ROADS, HOW YOU ACCESS IT WOULD BE UP TO YOU. SO THAT MEANS IF YOU COULD FLIP THOSE FOUR, PUT THEM UP AT THE TOP, YOU CAN MOVE THOSE ACTS. I'M NOT I'M SURE THAT THERE'S A WHOLE THAT'S A WHOLE SEPARATE THING. BUT MOVING THOSE ACCESS POINTS TO HIGHER UP WOULD ALLOW THEM TO ENTER THE PROPERTY THAT WOULD SATISFY HEB'S CONCERNS. AND HAVING THAT STACKED DRIVE AWAY FROM THE TOLLWAY WOULD ALLEVIATE THE TOWN'S CONCERNS. BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT IS NOT POSSIBLE. AGAIN, I'VE GOT TWO USERS, TWO GREAT CORPORATE CITIZENS, TWO GREAT USERS THAT ARE VERY PARTICULAR ABOUT THEIR OPERATIONS, H-E-B AND CHICK FIL A. IF I DID THAT, YOU KNOW, AS LONG AS I KEEP THE ACCESS, THOSE CRITICAL ACCESS DRIVES THAT COME OFF THE TOLLWAY, IF I KEEP THOSE CLEAR OF DRIVEWAYS, HEB IS PROBABLY FINE. BUT THAT PROBABLY DOESN'T WORK FOR CHICK FIL A BECAUSE THEY CAN'T GET THEIR STACK, THEY CAN'T GET THEIR PARKING, THEY CAN'T GET THEIR OPERATIONS WHERE THEY NEED IT.

THIS WAS A DANCE THAT I HAD TO DO BETWEEN BOTH OF THOSE USERS. AGAIN, THE CONFIGURATION WE'VE GOT, H-E-B HAS SITE PLAN APPROVAL RIGHTS OVER THESE TWO LOTS. WE HAD TO GO WORK WITH THEIR REAL ESTATE TEAM, THEIR DEVELOPMENT TEAM, TO GET TO THIS POINT THAT THAT'S THE STACK, THAT'S THE ACCESS IN AND OUT OF THE SITE. THAT'S ALL OF IT. WE HAD TO WORK WITH THEIR TEAM TO GET TO THIS POINT. SO AGAIN, THEORETICALLY, I THINK WHAT YOU'RE SAYING MR. HARRIS COULD BE DONE, BUT IT DOESN'T PROBABLY WORK FOR CHICK FIL A FROM A STACKING OPERATION STANDPOINT.

SO THEN I'M BACK TO SQUARE ONE WITH A USER THAT CAN'T OPTIMALLY USE THEIR REAL ESTATE. THEY NEED TO. THEY NEED TO DO. IS THE SITE PRESENTED HERE. AND THIS IS THIS IN PRELIMINARY. WELL, YES.

THAT'S THAT'S NOT MY QUESTION. THIS IS PARTIAL CURIOSITY AS, AS I'M KIND OF THINKING THROUGH IT NOW. BUT AS, AS YOU MENTIONED THE CC AND AHS IS THIS IN DOES THIS MATCH WHAT'S ALLOWED OR THOSE BEING AMENDED TO PROVIDE? WE HAVE AMENDED OUR CC RIGHTS BASED ON THIS SITE PLAN, AND HEB HAS SIGNED OFF ON THIS SITE PLAN. GOT IT. AND THEN I BELIEVE YOU'RE IN THE REAL ESTATE GAME.

SO I MEAN, THIS IS WHAT WE'VE HAD TO GET APPROVED THIS EXACT PLAN. YEAH. THANK YOU, THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT, ONE MORE THING, MR. CHAIR. SO. YES, SIR. JUST SO EVERYBODY'S CLEAR, AND I'M I'M NOT INTO THE I THINK THEY'VE DONE A GREAT JOB OF TRYING TO ACCOMMODATE WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR. AND SO I DON'T WANT WHAT I'M GOING TO SAY TO SOUND ARGUMENTATIVE TO A CERTAIN EXTENT. I'M AGREEING WITH WHAT, WHAT MR. MOORE WAS JUST SAYING. WE AT THE STAFF WOULD NOT ALLOW THE DRIVES RIGHT OFF THE TOLLWAY. LIKE LIKE THE APPLICANT SHOWED WOULD, WOULD, WOULD BE THE CASE BECAUSE WE HAVE THROAT LENGTHS AND DISTANCES BEFORE YOU MAKE YOUR FIRST MANEUVERS AND

[01:20:06]

BUT HOWEVER, HAVING SAID THAT, I THINK THE LANDSCAPE THAT'S BEING PROPOSED, I THINK IF IT COMES IN LIKE IT'S SUGGESTED, YOU'RE NOT GOING TO SEE THE DRIVE THROUGH ANYWAY. AND SO I BELIEVE, YOU KNOW, OUR RECOMMENDATION IS ALWAYS GOING TO BE FOLLOW THE ORDINANCE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, HAVING SAID THAT, I BELIEVE IF THE COMMISSION BELIEVES THAT, THAT THE LANDSCAPING IS SUFFICIENT TO BASICALLY SERVE THE PURPOSE AND MEET THE CRITERIA OF THE INTENT OF WHY THE ORDINANCE WAS PUT IN IN THE FIRST PLACE, WHICH IS TO SCREEN THE DRIVE THROUGH SO YOU DON'T SEE THEM. I DON'T HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT. SO TELL US TO USE OUR COMMON SENSE BASICALLY. YES, SIR. GOT IT. ALL RIGHT. THANKS, DAVID. APPRECIATE THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE I CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING I WANT TO GO AHEAD AND CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING. TAKE IT BACK TO THE COMMISSION. AND COMMISSIONER HAMILTON, I'M GOING TO START OFF WITH THE COMMENTS TONIGHT AND Y'ALL CAN JUST GO WITH IT FROM THERE. HOW ABOUT THAT? WOW. YEAH. JUST THOUGHT WE'D CHANGE IT UP A LITTLE BIT. AND THEN ACTUALLY A COMMISSIONER GOES AFTER THAT. WE'LL WORK THE OTHER WAY OKAY. SO I THINK WHAT COMMISSIONER BLAND SAID SAID SPOT ON. I UNDERSTAND WHERE STAFF'S COMING FROM. I TOTALLY UNDERSTAND THAT, UNDERSTAND THE IMPORTANCE OF THAT ORDINANCE AND ADHERING TO IT. BUT I ALSO UNDERSTAND WE'RE DECISION MAKING BODY THAT HAS TO TAKE SOME OF THESE UNIQUE CASES AND SOMETIMES MAKE DECISIONS. OTHERWISE THERE WOULD BE NO NEED FOR THIS PROCESS. RIGHT. SO I THINK IN THIS CASE I HAVE TO LOOK AT ALL THE FACTORS. I KIND OF LOOK AT WHERE IT'S LOCATED. I KIND OF LOOK AT THE APPLICANT, I KIND OF LOOK AT THE FACADE PLAN IS WONDERFUL. THE LANDSCAPE PLAN IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE BETTER ONES THAT WE'VE SEEN HERE IN A WHILE.

AND I THINK, AND I WILL OFFER MY APPROVAL FOR THIS SUP AS IT WAS PRESENTED TO US TONIGHT WITH THAT LANDSCAPING PLAN, WITH THE FACADE. I MEAN, UNLIKE THE PRELIMINARY PLAN WE TALKED ABOUT EARLIER AND ALL THAT'S GOING TO POTENTIALLY NOT COME ABOUT THE WAY WE SAW IT TONIGHT. I NEED THAT LANDSCAPE PLAN TO GO FOR MY APPROVAL TONIGHT, AND I WILL OFFER THAT APPROVAL FOR IT. AND I KNOW THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF WORK DONE ON THE APPLICANT'S BEHALF WITH A LOT OF DIFFERENT PLAYERS. AND I KNOW I UNDERSTAND WHERE TOWN STAFF'S COMING FROM, AND I SUPPORT THAT POSITION AS WELL. BUT IN THIS CASE, I IN PERSONALLY, THE STACKING TO ME MAKES A LITTLE BIT MORE SENSE THE WAY I SEE IT HERE, AND I KNOW HEB, IT'S GOING TO BRING A TON OF PEOPLE. IT DOES IN MCKINNEY. I'VE ALSO SEEN A CHICK FIL A 75 AND 380 THAT BACKS RIGHT UP INTO 380 AND CAUSES MAJOR PROBLEMS. AND SO I SUPPORT THIS POSITION. AND COMMISSIONER FURAY, I'M GOING TO LET YOU TAKE IT ACROSS THE OTHER WAY. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. I WON'T BE LONG WINDED HERE. FIRST OF ALL, THANK YOU TO THE APPLICANT FOR PROVIDING SOMETHING WITH COLOR THAT'S EXTREMELY HELPFUL AS WE AS WE REVIEW IT. I THINK THE LANDSCAPE PLAN HERE MAKES THE DEAL FOR ME AS FAR AS APPROVAL, AS LONG AS WE CAN CAN APPROVE AROUND THAT. AND, YOU KNOW, THOSE BUSHES ARE SIX FEET TALL WHEN THEY GET PLANTED. I THINK THIS IS FINE. SO I'M SUPPORTIVE. THANK YOU, MR. CHAIRMAN. YES, I, I APPRECIATE THE STAFF'S POSITION AND UNDERSTAND THAT, I THINK. NORMALLY WE SHOULD SUPPORT THE OR SUPPORT THE COMPLIANCE WITH OUR ORDINANCES AND WHAT WE. BUT SOMETIMES THOSE ARE THERE ARE EXCEPTIONS THAT NEED TO BE MADE. THIS IS PROBABLY ONE THAT'S APPROPRIATE.

BUT I THINK IN GIVING THAT I AGREE THAT IT NEEDS TO HAVE THAT ENHANCED LANDSCAPING, THERE MAY BE AS A MINIMUM, AND I WOULD CERTAINLY HOPE THAT STAFF THAT WE SINCE WE HAVEN'T HAD A CHANCE FOR STAFF TO AND HEAR WHETHER STAFF HAS LOOKED AT THAT, THERE MAY BE FURTHER ENHANCEMENTS THAT THEY WOULD RECOMMEND. AND SO I WOULD I ASSUME WE WOULD SEE THAT AT A SITE PLAN. THIS ISN'T A SITE PLAN APPROVAL HERE TONIGHT. SO WE'D SEE THIS COME BACK IN A SITE PLAN. SO THAT WOULD BE MY INCLINATION THEN TO BE IN FAVOR OF THIS WITH WITH THE ENHANCED LANDSCAPING. I'M IN AGREEMENT WITH MY PEERS, THE OTHER COMMISSIONERS. I WOULD SAY GREAT PRESENTATION. I LOVE THE COLOR AS WELL. IT HELPED OUT A WHOLE LOT. SO BEING ABLE TO SEE THAT, SEE THE HEIGHT OF THE BUSHES AND TREES LETS ME KNOW THAT THIS ISN'T GOING TO BE AN EYESORE FOR 380. IT'S GOING TO BE SOMETHING

[01:25:04]

AND I APPRECIATE STAFF DOING THE DUE DILIGENCE. I DON'T TAKE THAT LIGHTLY AT ALL. SO DON'T DON'T THINK THAT'S THE MESSAGE WE'RE SENDING. I THINK SAFETY AND CIRCULATION IS REALLY, REALLY IMPORTANT. IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOOK AT A SITE PLAN OR A, YOU KNOW, A SPECIFIC USE TYPE LIKE THIS, SO THAT AND THEN LOOKING AT AN APPLICANT THAT'S COMING TO THE TABLE WITH SOMETHING, TRYING REALLY HARD TO WORK AND ENHANCE AND PROVIDE SOME ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING. THE BUILDING FACADES. I LOVE THE PRESENTATION AND THE COMMENTARY ON THE GLASS AND GLAZING. YOU KNOW, I THINK FROM THE FROM THE HIGHWAY OR FROM THE PARKWAY, THAT'S GOING TO LOOK MORE LIKE THE FRONT OF A BUILDING OR THE SIDE OF A BUILDING. IT'S NOT GOING TO LOOK LIKE A DRIVE THROUGH OTHER THAN THE CARS THERE. SO I THINK THAT WAS REALLY IMPORTANT. I THINK THE A COUPLE POINTS THAT I MADE WERE SMALL DETAILS THAT WE COULD WORK THROUGH ON A SITE PLAN, BUT ALL IN ALL, I HAVE NO ISSUES WITH IT, SO THAT'S MY SUPPORT. ONE LAST COMMENT. IF WE COULD ADD YOUR PRESENTATION TO THIS RFP, BE IT CAN WE DO THAT? CAN WE? IF WE GET TO A MOTION, CAN WE INCORPORATE THE PRESENTATION BY REFERENCE? GOOD POINT. OKAY. THANK YOU EVERYBODY FOR YOUR PRESENTATIONS. GOT A LOT OF INFORMATION THAT I DIDN'T HAVE. REALLY APPRECIATE THAT. APPRECIATE ALL THE HARD WORK THAT EVERYONE HAS DONE ON THIS STAFF, TOWN STAFF AS WELL. I CAN TELL YOU UP UNTIL DAVID'S PIECE AND THE H-E-B POINT, I WAS READY TO DISAPPROVE OR NOT APPROVE THIS. I WILL TELL YOU, THOUGH, I MAY NOT BE AS SWAYED AS MY COLLEAGUES, I THINK IT LOOKS LIKE A CHICK FIL A. IT LOOKS LIKE IT LOOKS LIKE EVERY CHICK FIL A I'VE SEEN. FOR THE MOST PART, I THINK THE LANDSCAPING IS A GREAT ADDITION, AND THAT IS THE PIECE THAT ESSENTIALLY SWAYS ME. BECAUSE IF THE SPIRIT OF THE LAW OR THE ORDINANCE IS TO BLOCK ALL OF THE CARS FROM THE TOLLWAY, AND THE LANDSCAPING IS DESIGNED TO ACHIEVE THAT, THEN I CAN BE COMFORTABLE WITH THAT. BUT IT ISN'T. I DO THINK THAT THIS COULD DON'T ACCEPT AS A REASON WHY WE COULDN'T MOVE THE LANES TO THE TOP, WAS THAT IT WAS TOO DIFFICULT TO CONFIGURE. I THINK IT COULD HAVE BEEN DONE. IT MIGHT HAVE BEEN DIFFICULT. IT MAY HAVE CAUSED A CHANGE IN CHICK FIL A'S FINANCE OR WHAT THEY WHAT THEY EXPECTED TO GET OUT OF THIS LOCATION, BUT IT WOULD HAVE MET THE REQUIREMENTS AND IT WOULD HAVE MET WHAT WE ARE LOOKING FOR. BUT BE THAT AS IT MAY, THIS IS NO REASON, ESPECIALLY GIVEN THE LANDSCAPING PIECE, NO REASON, TO STOP THIS DEVELOPMENT FROM MOVING FORWARD. SO WITH THAT, I DON'T HAVE AN ISSUE APPROVING AS LONG AS THE LANDSCAPING PIECES ARE INCLUDED. AND THANK YOU STAFF, FOR THE WORK THAT YOU DID ON THIS AND PROVIDING A FULL EVEN IN THIS CONVERSATION, A FULL PICTURE OF YOUR PERSPECTIVE, I APPRECIATE IT. JUST REMEMBER WHEN WE WERE UNDER COVID, I THINK WE ALL WERE HOPING THAT CHICK FIL A WOULD BE RUNNING THE IMMUNIZATIONS THAT WERE GOING ON BECAUSE THEY HANDLE TRAFFIC FLOW BETTER THAN ANYONE ELSE. SO I THINK I LOVE THIS PLAN THE WAY IT WAS PRESENTED. I LOVE THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING, THE FACADE PLAN, JUST ALL THE ADDITIONAL DETAILS THAT WENT INTO IT. I DON'T TAKE LIGHTLY GOING AGAINST STAFF, BUT THIS IS WHAT WE'RE CALLED TO DO IS HAVE AN OPINION AND HAVE COMMON SENSE. AND I THINK THIS IS A GREAT PLAN. I THINK IT FLOWS TO TRAFFIC VERY WELL. I THINK THE FACT THAT IT SATISFIES BOTH HEB AND CHICK FIL A, AND IT DOES SO IN A SAFE WAY WITH BETTER CIRCULATION, I THINK IS A WIN WIN. I DON'T THINK WE COULD FLIP THE PLAN AND GET THAT SAME CIRCULATION AND CONTROL OF THE TRAFFIC. SO I DO THINK THIS IS THE RIGHT SCENARIO FOR THIS TRACK OF LAND. AND SO I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE AGENDA ITEM NUMBER FOUR FOR SUP FOR DRIVE THROUGH ON FRONTIER PARKWAY CENTER. REVISED BLOCK A LOTS 1 TO 2 ON 2.8 ACRES. LOCATED ON THE EAST SIDE OF DALLAS PARKWAY. I'D LIKE TO MAKE THAT MOTION WITH THE CONDITION THAT THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING AND THE INFORMATION THAT WAS

[01:30:02]

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

RIGHT. IT JUST BLOWS. THAT'S THE ONE I WAS WANTING. IT WAS THE BANK. YEAH YEAH YEAH THAT'S RIGHT. YEAH WE DO GOT IT FOR TWO. IT WAS FOR TWO. BUT IT WAS A YOU KNOW IT'S KIND OF A SPLIT VOTE. SO THE LAST ONE PRIOR TO THAT THAT WAS SPLIT VOTE IS THE ONE WE TALKED ABOUT IN OUR WORK SESSION. YEAH. AND THAT'S THE ONE THAT WE'RE WORKING ON THE UPGRADES TO IT. AND EVEN THOUGH IT DOESN'T GO BACK OR COME BACK TO THE COMMISSION, WE'RE GOING TO SHOW YOU WHAT IT WOUND UP

[01:35:05]

YEAH. DIDN'T WANT TO RILE UP THE NEIGHBORS AGAIN. YEAH. THAT WAS THE OTHER ONE I WAS THINKING WHAT ABOUT THE DEVELOPMENT OFF OF PROSPER TRAIL AND THE TOLLWAY? THE WATER FEATURE. IS THAT GOING TO COME BACK TO US NEXT TIME TOO? NO, THAT PROBABLY WON'T BE BACK FOR AT LEAST A COUPLE OF MONTHS. OKAY. THE ARTS OF THE ARTS. OH. ARTS DISTRICT. OKAY. PROSPER ARTS COMING BACK TO US. OH, IT WILL BE. YEAH. I MENTIONED WE SAW THEM LAST WEEK AT A DIFFERENT EVENT, AND THEY'VE BEEN WORKING THROUGH INFRASTRUCTURE, WATER, SEWER, ESPECIALLY DRAINAGE, DETENTION.

THE WATER FEATURE IN THE FRONT HAD TO CHANGE SIGNIFICANTLY BECAUSE THEY'VE BEEN DEALING WITH FEMA AND THE CORPS AND ENGINEERS, AND EVERYBODY SEEMS TO HAVE DIFFERENCE OF OPINIONS.

AND SO IT'S NOT GOING TO BE QUITE AS WIDE AS THEY WANTED IT TO BE. IT'S GOING TO BE A LITTLE NARROWER. IT'S GOT TO HAVE CONCRETE SIDES. AND SO THEY'RE JUST WORKING TO TRY AND STILL MAKE IT LOOK NICE AND NOT JUST LIKE A DITCH AND STILL GET EVERYBODY TO SIGN OFF ON IT. SO IT'LL. FOUND OUT ENGINEERING WISE COULDN'T BE DONE. AND SO THAT'S WHY IT'S COMING BACK AGAIN. YEAH. YEAH. BECAUSE IT'S EVEN THOUGH IT'S A DRIED OUT. YEAH. EVEN THOUGH IT'S A DRIED OUT DITCH, IT'S CONSIDERED NAVIGABLE WATERS. AND THAT'S NOT A GOOD THING. I'M NOT SURE HOW MANY SHIPS ARE GOING TO GO UP AND DOWN, BUT STILL YOU NEVER KNOW I GUESS. STAFF AND THEN MEMBER FRIDAY WILL BE SENDING OUT THE FINAL VERSION OF YOUR LITTLE DRAFT THING. SO FLIP THROUGH IT, BUT DON'T GET TOO BOGGED DOWN IN THIS VERSION. WAIT TILL YOU GET THE OTHER ONE SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO READ IT TWICE. IT'S NOT. IT'S NOT GOING TO BE EDGE OF YOUR SEAT STUFF.

YEAH, IT DOESN'T HURT. ALL RIGHT. THERE ARE NO OTHER QUESTIONS I DON'T. NUMBER SIX IS ADJOURNED. I HAVE A MOTION TO ADJOURN. SO MOVED. MOTION. COMMISSIONER HARRIS, SECOND COMMISSIONER JACKSON, ALL THOSE IN FAVOR TO ADJOURN, RAISE YOUR HAND. MOTION CARRIES 7 TO 0. WE ARE ADJOURNED

* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.