[00:00:02]
FEBRUARY 18TH, 2025. CALLED TO ORDER ITS 6:30 P.M..
[A. CALL TO ORDER]
PLEASE RISE FOR THE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE.START WITH THE PUBLIC APPEARANCE. SPEAKERS ARE ALLOWED THREE MINUTES TO SPEAK.
THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION IS UNABLE TO RESPOND OR DISCUSS ANY ISSUES THAT ARE NOT BROUGHT UP DURING THIS SECTION THAT ARE NOT ON THE AGENDA, OTHER THAN TO MAKE STATEMENTS OF SPECIFIC FACTUAL INFORMATION IN RESPONSE TO A SPEAKER'S INQUIRY, OR RECITE EXISTING POLICY IN RESPONSE TO AN INQUIRY.
ANYBODY HERE TONIGHT THAT WOULD LIKE TO SPEAK? OKAY. THEN I'LL MOVE ON TO THE CONSENT AGENDA.
[D. CONSENT AGENDA]
ALL CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS LISTED ARE CONSIDERED TO BE ROUTINE BY THE PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION, AND WILL BE ENACTED BY ONE MOTION. THERE WILL BE NO SEPARATE DISCUSSION OF THESE ITEMS UNLESS A COMMISSIONER.SO THE ONLY THING THAT'S ON THE CONSENT AGENDA TONIGHT IS THE APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES FROM THE PREVIOUS MEETING, JANUARY 21ST, 2025. I'LL MAKE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT AGENDA.
I'LL SECOND IT. OKAY. WE HAVE A MOTION AND A SECOND TO APPROVE.
CAN WE GO AHEAD AND GET A VOTE, OR IS THE, IS THE VOTE STILL, ARE WE STILL VOTING VOCALLY? VERBALLY? YES. IT'LL BE A ROLL CALL. VOTE. OKAY.
OKAY. MOTION PASSES FIVE TO NONE.
WE'LL MOVE ON TO PUBLIC HEARINGS. WE'LL START WITH ITEM Z, A20243021, ZONE MAP.
[E. PUBLIC HEARINGS]
AMENDMENT PRINCETON TOWN CENTER. DISCUSSION AND POSSIBLE ACTION AND RECOMMENDATION TO CITY COUNCIL REGARDING A REQUEST FROM TRI NATION GLOBAL INVESTMENTS, P 67 PARTNERSHIP FOR A ZONE MAP AMENDMENT FOR PROPERTY BEING 66.659 ACRE TRACT OF LAND SITUATED IN THE HARDIN WRIGHT.SURVEY ABSTRACT NUMBER 957, CITY OF PRINCETON, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS.
I GUESS WE'LL GO AHEAD AND HAND IT OFF TO YOU COLE.
GOOD EVENING COMMISSION, COLE DAVENPORT, CITY PLANNER.
THIS REQUEST IS TO REZONE THE DEVELOPMENT KNOWN AS PRINCETON TOWN CENTER, LOCATED OFF OF 380 IN BEECHAM, FROM PD 43 TO PD 43 AMENDED. THIS PLAN DEVELOPMENT MODIFIES THE PARKING, SIGNAGE AND LANDSCAPE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT. SO UP ON THE SCREEN IS THE LOCATION OF IT.
AND THAT APPLIES IN THAT SHADED REGION THERE KNOWN AS THE SHOPPING CENTER AREA.
SO, ON THE SCREEN AS YOU CAN SEE YOU HAVE THE EXISTING REGULATIONS AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED, ESSENTIALLY, THE DEVELOPERS ASKING A REDUCTION FROM FOUR AND A HALF SPACES PER 1000FT² TO FOUR SPACES PER 1000FT² FOR LARGE RETAIL SUPERSTORES THAT DON'T INCLUDE BUILDING MATERIALS OR HARDWARE SALES.
ADDITIONALLY, THE TOTALITY OF THE DEVELOPMENT WILL BE PARKED AT 4.0 PER 1000FT², AS OPPOSED TO THE 4.8 PER 1000FT² THAT CURRENTLY EXISTS IN THAT SHOPPING CENTER AREA, WHILE ALSO ALLOWING A PARKING REQUIREMENT OF 2.7 SPACES PER 1000FT² ON THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS THAT ARE LOCATED WITHIN THAT SHOPPING CENTER AREA.
STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS CHANGE, AS IT'S DECREASING THE IMPERVIOUS AREA BECAUSE THERE'S LESS PARKING, AND THE LARGE RETAIL TENANTS ARE SUPPORTIVE OF THIS, AS WELL AS PARKING STANDARDS ARE DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THEM ON THEIR BUSIEST DAYS OF THE YEAR, SO STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS CHANGE. THE NEXT ITEM IS GOING TO BE RELATED TO LANDSCAPING.
[00:05:05]
SO THAT ALLOWS THEM A LITTLE BIT MORE FLEXIBILITY AS FAR AS WHERE THEY CAN PUT TREES.THE REQUESTED CHANGES ALSO ALLOW FOR ONE SPACE, I MEAN ONE TREE FOR EVERY 20 PARKING SPACES, AS OPPOSED TO THE ONE PER TEN PARKING SPACES THAT CURRENTLY EXIST WITHIN OUR ORDINANCE.
SO THAT'S GOING TO GIVE US SIGNIFICANTLY MORE LANDSCAPING ALONG 380.
SO IT'S GOING TO BE HIGHLY VISIBLE. ADDITIONALLY, THAT PREVIOUSLY MENTIONED SHOPPING CENTER AREA THAT'S SHADED IN THE CONCEPT PLAN IS GOING TO BE 7% OPEN SPACE AND LANDSCAPING AS OPPOSED TO THE 10% THAT'S REQUIRED IN OUR ORDINANCE.
SO, IT'S A SLIGHT REDUCTION. OVERALL, STAFF IS SUPPORTIVE OF THIS REQUEST AS WELL BECAUSE WE BELIEVE IT'S A FAIR TRADE OFF TO GET THAT LARGE LANDSCAPE SET BACK ALONG 380, WHERE IT'S HIGHLY VISIBLE IN RETURN FOR THESE MINOR CHANGES.
LASTLY, THE DEVELOPER IS REQUESTING CHANGES TO OUR SIGN ORDINANCE TO ESSENTIALLY ALLOW FOR BIGGER MONUMENT AND MONUMENT UNIFYING DEVELOPMENT SIGNS, AS WELL AS A LITTLE BIT OF SOME FLEXIBILITY REGARDING MATERIAL.
WE HAVEN'T NECESSARILY DONE A PLANNED DEVELOPMENT SIMILAR TO THIS.
SO, I HAVE A QUESTION. ON THE PROPOSED PARKING. IT ORIGINALLY WAS FIVE SPACES PER THOUSAND ORIGINALLY.
AND THEN IT CAME TO US ASKING TO GO TO 4.5 AND NOW THEY WANT TO GO TO 4.0.
IS THAT CORRECT? YES, THAT'S CORRECT. BUT THIS ONLY APPLIES WITHIN THAT MENTIONED SHOPPING CENTER AREA IN THE LARGE RETAILERS THAT IT WOULD BE AFFECTING ARE IN FAVOR OF THIS AS WELL AS IT'S DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE THEM WHEN THEY'RE AT THEIR BUSIEST TIMES.
SO, COLE JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT I UNDERSTAND CORRECTLY, THE PARKING THAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT REDUCING IS ONLY IN THAT SHADED, THAT SHADED KIND OF CENTER AREA THERE. THE PARKING RATIO WOULD NOT BE IMPACTED FOR THESE SMALLER RETAIL FRONTS ALONG I GUESS THIS IS 380. THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND THE IMPACT OF REDUCING THAT PARKING SPACE WOULD BE TO ALLOW ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING ON 380 BY REDUCING THAT NUMBER OF PARKING SPACES.
IS THAT WHAT YOU'RE WHAT THEY'RE LOOKING FOR THE REDUCTION FOR ULTIMATELY FOR THOSE TWO THINGS NOT RELATED I'M SORRY, THOSE AREN'T NECESSARILY RELATED, BUT I'LL INVITE THE DEVELOPER UP HERE TO SPEAK REGARDING EXACTLY WHAT THEIR GOAL IS WITH ASKING FOR THE REDUCTION.
YEAH, THAT'D BE GREAT. THANK YOU. MR. HISS, IF WE COULD OPEN THE PUBLIC HEARING AND THEN HAVE THE DEVELOPER SPEAK OR ANSWER THE QUESTIONS, PLEASE. OPENING THE PUBLIC HEARING AT 6:40 P.M.. ROB, COULD YOU TURN ON YOUR MIC? THE BUTTON ON THE RIGHT.
THANKS. THERE WE GO. ROB LEWIS, KIMLEY-HORN ADDRESS 2600 NORTH CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY, RICHARDSON, TEXAS. TO ADDRESS YOUR QUESTION, MISS KELTON.
THE REDUCTION IN PARKING IS A LITTLE BIT OF A FUNCTION OF PROVIDING THAT ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE BUFFER AS WE PUSH THE SITE TO THE NORTH A LITTLE BIT TO PROVIDE FOR THAT 30, THAT 35 FEET BUFFER, IT DOES NATURALLY COMPRESS THAT THAT PARKING FIELD A LITTLE BIT AND PUSH US DOWN TO THAT 4.0 NUMBER.
AND AS COLE SAID THAT IS A NUMBER THAT ALL OF THOSE RETAILERS ARE VERY COMFORTABLE WITH.
AND SO, I LOOKED AT THE NUMBERS BEFORE COMING TO THE MEETING THIS EVENING ON THAT PLAN THERE.
WE'RE AT ABOUT 4.05, 4.06 IN THE SHADED AREA.
AND TO MAXINE'S POINT, THE ORIGINAL REGULATION WAS FIVE.
THE CITY STANDARD IS 5.0 PER 1000, THAT'S RIGHT.
AND THEN WE GOT IT DOWN TO FOUR AND A HALF, AND NOW WE'RE ASKING FOR AN ADDITIONAL REDUCTION.
SO WAS IT YOU GUYS WHO ASKED FOR THAT INITIAL REDUCTION FROM 5 TO 4.5.
[00:10:01]
YES. SO, WHEN WE REZONE TO PD 43 LAST CALENDAR YEAR, WE MADE THAT THAT REQUEST TO GO FROM 5 TO 4.5.YES. AND THEN YOU REWORKED IT AGAIN AND YOU SAID, ACTUALLY WE ONLY REALLY NEED FOUR.
THAT'S RIGHT. THE SITE PLAN HAS UNDOUBTEDLY MORPHED A LITTLE BIT BETWEEN NOW AND THEN.
AND AS WE'VE COMPRESSED, LIKE I SAID, PROVIDE FOR THE BUFFER AND DO SOME THINGS THIS AND THAT.
OKAY. THANK YOU. AND MY QUESTION IS, YOU'RE SAYING FOR RETAIL SUPERSTORES.
WELL, THAT'S WHAT IT WAS PREVIOUSLY AS WELL. IT WAS 5.0, THEN IT WENT TO 4.5 FOR RETAIL SUPERSTORES AND NOW IT'S GOING TO 4.0 FOR RETAIL SUPERSTORES AND WHAT'S TO SAY YOU'RE NOT GOING TO COME BACK HERE IN ANOTHER MONTH OR SOMETHING SAY WELL THE REST OF THE SHOPS NOW WANT TO REDUCE IT.
OKAY. PLEASE SPEAK INTO THE MIC. SO YOUR FIVE PER IS FOR BASIC SMALL SERVICE RETAIL.
WE IN MOST MUNICIPALITIES ALMOST ALL OF THEM.
AND THE PROTOTYPE FOR THE TENANTS IS ONLY FOUR.
AND SO ALMOST EVERY MUNICIPALITY HAS CHANGED TO THAT FOR BIG BOX RETAIL YOU KNOW YOUR MARSHALLS, YOUR TJ'S. THEY JUST DON'T NEED FIVE. IN THIS CASE, WE WERE ASKED TO PUSH THINGS BACK TO BE ABLE TO GET MORE LANDSCAPING BECAUSE WE WANTED THE DRIVE ALONG 380 TO HAVE A LITTLE BIT BETTER FEEL.
SO, IN DOING THAT, WE PUSHED IT BACK TO CREATE THAT 35%, 35-FOOT BUFFER AREA.
AND THEN WE STILL HAVE THE LANDSCAPING THAT'S UP BY THE BUILDINGS AND IN THE PARKING TREES.
BUT FOR AND EVEN ON THE BIG STORES LIKE A LOWE'S, THEIR INTERNAL REQUIREMENT IS ONLY 3.3.
AND IF YOU'VE BEEN, YOU KNOW, THERE'S ONLY A FEW DAYS OF THE YEAR, MAYBE WHEN WE'RE ALL GOING TO BUY PLANTS, THAT THE PARKING LOT IS FULL. THE REST OF THE TIME IS JUST NOT LIKE THAT.
SO IN KEEPING WITH, YOU KNOW, I'VE BUILT 8,000,000FT² IN MY CAREER, AND THE ONE THING I REGRET THE MOST IS WE BUILT TWO DOG GONE MUCH PARKING. YOU KNOW, WE JUST HAVE YOU CAN GO TO 60, ONE OF MY SHOPPING CENTERS, AND YOU'LL SEE PROBABLY TWO THIRDS OF THEM WERE BUILT UNDER THE OLD STANDARD OF FIVE. AND IT JUST YOU COULD SHOOT A CANNON DOWN THE FRONT END OF THE PARKING LOT AND NEVER HIT ANYBODY.
IT'S JUST UNUSED RESOURCES. CAN YOU GIVE ME SOME OF YOUR DEVELOPMENTS, NAMES OF YOUR DEVELOPMENTS LOCALLY THAT I MIGHT KNOW? YEAH. EVERYTHING AT MCKINNEY AND HARDIN IS MINE.
MCKINNEY AND HARDIN AT 380 AND HARDIN, 380 AND HARDIN.
OKAY. YEAH. COSTCO. COSTCO. CINEMARK, AT HOME.
COSTCO IS A PARKING NIGHTMARE, FRANKLY. YEAH, BUT COSTCO IS EVEN ABOVE THE 5.5.
THEY'RE AT 230 MILLION RIGHT NOW. WE ARE BUILDING ANOTHER STORE FOR THEM IN CELINA.
THAT PARKING REQUIREMENT THERE IS 5.5 FOR THEM, BUT IT'S FOUR ON EVERYTHING ELSE.
SO, WHAT ABOUT TJ MAXX AREA THAT DEVELOPMENT IN ALLEN FAIRVIEW.
AND THEY'RE TRYING TO. HAVE YOU BEEN THERE ON A SATURDAY.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING. SORRY. PARDON.
IT DOESN'T HAVE ENOUGH. ON SOME DAYS MAYBE. BUT FOR MOST DAYS IT'S GOT PLENTY.
COLE, QUESTION FOR YOU. WHAT IS WALMART SET AT? THAT WAS MY NEXT QUESTION. WHAT IS OUR WALMART HERE IN PRINCETON, WHAT IS THEIR SPACING? I BELIEVE IT'S THE 5 TO 1000FT². OKAY. FIVE SPOTS FOR EVERY 1000FT².
IT SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF KIND OF PUSHING NUMBERS AROUND SO THAT WE CAN JUST ULTIMATELY SAY WHAT IT IS WE'RE TRYING TO DO MORE BUILDINGS, MORE SHOPS, AND LESS PARKING FOR IT.
[00:15:02]
AND, YOU KNOW, MENTIONED COSTCO AND THAT THEY'VE GROWN SO MUCH.I MEAN, THINK ABOUT TEN YEARS FROM NOW, THESE BUILDINGS ARE STILL GOING TO BE THERE 20, 30, 40 YEARS FROM NOW, PROBABLY. SO, I THINK PUTTING BUILDINGS YOU KNOW, IN PLACES WHERE PARK WHERE, YOU KNOW, NOBODY HAS PLACES TO PARK. WE DON'T HAVE PUBLIC TRANSPORTATION HERE.
YOU KNOW, IT'S DEFINITELY SOMETHING THAT I WONDER, IS THAT REALLY HAVE WE REALLY GONE TO THE MADE THIS THE LAST RESORT BECAUSE, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHAT THESE VARIANCES ARE INTENDED TO BE IS KIND OF A LAST RESORT.
LIKE WE CAN'T DO THIS WITHOUT ACTUALLY WITHOUT ACTUALLY HAVING A VARIANCE HERE.
WE'RE NOT SAYING, WE'RE NOT ASKING YOU TO GO TO FIVE, WE'RE ASKING YOU TO STAY AT FOUR AND A HALF. I BELIEVE IT'S 4.8, RIGHT? THAT'S WHAT WAS APPROVED LAST YEAR, LAST MARCH.
4.8 WAS APPROVED. I THINK IT WAS 4.5, WASN'T IT? 4.5 WAS APPROVED. I THINK IT'S IMPORTANT TO SHOW THAT THERE'S A DESIGNATION OF THREE DIFFERENT TYPES HERE.
YOU HAVE THERE SUPER CENTER WITH BUILDING MATERIALS.
YOU HAVE THE SUPER CENTER WITHOUT BUILDING MATERIALS. AND THEN YOU HAVE THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS UP FRONT. SO YOUR SUPER CENTER WITH YOUR BUILDING MATERIALS IS CURRENTLY AT 3.0 BASED ON THE PREVIOUS PLAN DEVELOPMENT, AND THAT'S NOT CHANGING.
YOUR CURRENT RETAIL SUPERSTORES IS AT 4.5, AND YOUR CURRENT INDIVIDUAL LOTS ARE AT 4.8.
YOU'RE NOT ONLY ASKING TO REDUCE THE SUPERSTORES WITHOUT BUILDING MATERIALS FROM 4.5 TO 4.0, YOU'RE ALSO ASKING TO REDUCE THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS FROM 4.8 TO 2.7.
SO, ON THE INDIVIDUAL LOTS, YOU'RE REDUCING THE PARKING BY HALF.
NO, THAT'S NOT CORRECT. I'M SORRY, WHAT'S NOT CORRECT? WE ARE REQUESTING TO GO TO 2.7. THAT IS A FUNCTION OF THE INDIVIDUAL BOXES.
UNDERSTOOD. AND I'M GETTING, THAT I UNDERSTAND IT'S LIKE YOU'RE LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL LOTS, BUT THE AREA AS A WHOLE WOULD STAY AT THAT 4.0, THAT I UNDERSTAND. AND I WAS GOING TO GET THERE.
MY CONCERN IS SO JUST LIKE LOOKING AT THE PLAN, IF YOU LOOK AT THE BIG BOX SUPERSTORE WITHOUT BUILDING MATERIALS IN YOUR PHASE THREE, THAT PROPERTY ALONE IS 148,000FT². WHEN YOU GO FROM THE FIVE SPACES, WHICH WOULD BE 740 SPACES DOWN TO A FOUR AND A HALF, THEN DOWN TO A FOUR, AT FOUR YOU'RE AT 592, WHICH MEANS FOR THAT ONE BUILDING, YOU'RE REDUCING BY ALMOST 150 SPACES JUST FOR THAT ONE SINGLE LOT.
AND THEN WHEN YOU START LOOKING AT INDIVIDUAL LOTS BEING FROM 5 TO 2 AND A SEVEN, YOU'RE 2.7.
BUT THE OVERFLOW THAT YOU'RE WANTING TO DO FROM ONE OF THE BOX STORES IS FULL.
WHERE DOES THAT OVERFLOW GO? THAT WOULD BE MY CONCERN.
ONLY ON THREE DAYS A YEAR WILL YOU HAVE PEOPLE BE FIGHTING FOR PARKING SPACES.
DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFIC DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THAT, THAT WE CAN SEE.
AND AS SOON AS IT COMES IN, YOU TRY TO GO TO WALMART ANY DAY OF THE WEEK, YOU CAN'T GET A PARKING.
IT'S BECAUSE IT'S THE ONLY RETAILER YOU'VE HAD AND NOW YOU'RE GOING TO BE ADDING OTHER THINGS.
THERE ARE CATEGORY KILLERS. YOU CAN BUY CLOTHING AND GROCERIES AND HEALTH AND BEAUTY AIDS.
IT'S A ONE STOP SHOP AS A DISCOUNT RETAILER. THAT WILL CHANGE A BIT WHEN YOU GET TJ AND HOME GOODS AND ROSS AND THEN ALL THAT CLOTHING, DOLLAR, CRAFT DOLLAR, ALL THAT STARTS GOING SOMEWHERE ELSE, YOU'LL SEE NECESSARY, YOU WON'T SEE MASSIVE CHANGES IN THEIR PARKING BECAUSE OF THE FOOD THEY BRING, RIGHT. BUT IF MARKET STREET COMES, YOU'LL SEE ANOTHER GROCERY OPPORTUNITY HERE.
BUT WHAT YOU'RE NOT ACCOUNTING FOR IS THE GROWTH OF THE POPULATION AT THE SAME TIME, CORRECT? YEAH. I MEAN, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE OTHER CORNERS THAT GROW AND ADD FOOD TOO.
SO, YOU KNOW YOU'RE GOING TO IT'S ALL GOING TO GROW.
UNTIL I SEE, YOU KNOW, ACTUAL DATA TO SUPPORT WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AS FAR AS THE REST OF THE COUNTRY IS DOING THIS, I'M JUST GOING TO CONSIDER IT SUBJECTIVE. SO, I'LL ADD SOMETHING ELSE SUBJECTIVE.
AND, YOU KNOW, THERE, YOU KNOW, YOU GO INTO AUSTIN AND YOU HAVE YOU KNOW, I THINK I THINK IT WAS IT COSTCO, HEB IN AUSTIN. THEY HAVE, YOU KNOW, TWO FLOORS AND A PARKING GARAGE.
THE YOU KNOW, THEY DIDN'T PLAN. THAT'S A DIFFERENT TYPE OF PROPERTY, THOUGH.
[00:20:04]
THAT'S MY POINT IS THAT APPLES TO ORANGES. AND I THINK WE HAVE A HARD TIME CONVINCING CELINA AND MCKINNEY.AND SIR, DO YOU MIND IF I FINISH MY SENTENCE? SURE. OKAY. THE POINT IS, WHAT WE'RE HERE FOR IS TO MAKE SURE THAT WE PLAN APPROPRIATELY.
WE PLAN FOR THE GROWTH. WE HAVE A LITTLE BIT OF WE HAVE SOME IDEA OF HOW MUCH WE'RE GOING TO GROW, AND THE IDEA IS THAT WE ARE TRYING TO PLAN AHEAD FOR WHEN THE CITY BECOMES THAT POPULATED IN PARKING.
PARKING. I DOUBT WHEN YOU OPEN, IT'S GOING TO BE A, YOU KNOW, THAT'S GOING TO BE AN ISSUE.
BUT WHAT ABOUT FIVE YEARS FROM NOW, TEN YEARS FROM NOW WHEN THE POPULATION HAS EXPLODED? SO, THE IDEA OF WHAT WE ARE HERE FOR IS TO HELP ENSURE THAT THERE IS ADEQUATE PLANNING.
DID ANYBODY ELSE HAVE A SPECIFIC NOTE ABOUT. WE HAVE 13,000, POTENTIALLY 13,800 MORE RESIDENTS THAT 56 SUBDIVISIONS ARE ALREADY APPROVED, PERMITTED OUTSIDE OF THE MORATORIUM? WE HAVE. SO, BY REDUCING THIS SPACING, I FEEL THAT'S GOING TO GREATLY IMPACT THE CLOSE TO 40,000 WE HAVE LIVING HERE. AND THEN WE'RE GOING TO ADD ANOTHER 14,000 PEOPLE.
I HAVE ONE MORE QUESTION. SO, YOU'RE VERY EXCITED AND I CAN SEE THAT YOU REALLY WANT THIS, RIGHT. WHAT DO YOU STAND TO LOSE IF YOU DON'T GET IT? YEAH. I MEAN, I'VE PERSONALLY INVESTED ALMOST $2.5 MILLION IN ENGINEERING AND LAND EXTENSIONS AND THINGS LIKE THAT. BUT I THINK THE MOST IMPORTANT THING IS WE'LL HAVE TO PULL OUT 2 OR 3 BOXES, AND THEY MAY DECIDE THEY'RE DOING BUSINESS HERE, DOESN'T THEY DON'T WANT TO.
YOU KNOW, WE WERE HAVING ISSUES WITH PLACES LIKE FLOWER MOUND THAT ARE DOING THINGS WHERE IT'S ABOVE THE NORM, AND THEY JUST KIND OF MAKE THE DECISION. IT'S TOO DIFFICULT TO DO BUSINESS THERE.
SO I MEAN, WE DON'T WANT TO DO THAT. AND SO AT THE END OF THE DAY, YOU'RE CONCERNED THAT YOU'LL HAVE TO PULL OUT A COUPLE OF RETAIL SPACES AND THAT MAYBE ONE OF YOUR COMPETITORS MIGHT GET THAT BUSINESS.
WELL, I MEAN, I THINK I THINK POSSIBLY, BUT YOU'RE GOING TO GET BECAUSE THEY WILL COME AS THE GROWTH COMES, THEY WILL COME, RIGHT? NOT NECESSARILY. NOT NECESSARILY.
IT DEPENDS ON THE LOCATION, THIS LOCATION BECAUSE IT'S SIGNALIZED.
AND WE HAVE THE CONFLUENCE OF ALL THIS. THE BAD NEWS IS GOING TO BE THAT THE TRAFFIC ON 380 UNTIL IT SOLVED WITH A MUCH BIGGER DECISION, YOU KNOW, THEN YOU'RE GOING TO HAVE TRAFFIC ISSUES BECAUSE OF WHAT WE BRING.
THAT'S JUST WE HAVE TRAFFIC ISSUES AND PARKING.
PARKING IS YOU KNOW, THERE'S NO NEED TO SPEND THE MONEY ON 4.5 IF FOUR WORKS.
AND THAT'S WHAT THE STANDARD IS FOR ALL OF THESE RETAILERS, WHEREVER THEY GO.
IN SOME PLACES IT'S EVEN LOWER BECAUSE THEY HAVE TRANSIT, RIGHT? BUT HERE WE DON'T. BUT FOUR IS TYPICALLY EVERYWHERE IN NORTH TEXAS IS NOW GONE TO FOUR.
CAN YOU COME BACK WITH THAT DATA? SURE. I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO NOTE THAT ALSO IN OUR ORDINANCES, YOU KNOW, WHEN IT NOTES THAT A VARIANCE IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE CASE OF LAST RESORT, IT'S NOT.
IT SPECIFICALLY NOTES THAT IT'S NOT. THERE ARE SOME EXCEPTIONS WHEN IT COMES TO LIKE A BUSINESS THING WHERE IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY AT IT, THAT I DON'T HAVE IT UP TO QUOTE IT. BUT IF YOU'RE GOING TO LOSE MONEY BY DOING THE DEVELOPMENT, IT SPECIFICALLY NOTES IN OUR ORDINANCES THAT DOES NOT COUNT AS A CASE OF LAST RESORT.
SO IT CAN. YOU ASKED ME THAT. I DIDN'T SAY THAT THAT WAS WHY I WAS GOING TO DO THINGS.
YOU ASKED ME HOW MUCH THAT I HAD. WELL, THAT'S THE THAT'S THE POINT YOU MADE.
SO. SO WHAT I'M GETTING AT IS I MAY DECIDE NOT TO DO IT, AND THAT WILL BE MY DECISION.
AND IF I END UP LOSING MONEY, THEN THAT'S OKAY, BECAUSE I'M A BIG BOY.
AND THIS IS THE FIRST TIME IN ABOUT TEN DIFFERENT SHOPPING CENTERS WHERE WE'VE HAD THIS ISSUE.
SO, IT WILL IF WE HAVE TO GO TO 4 5, IT'LL REQUIRE A REDUCTION IN SOME OF THE BOXES.
BUT WHY DIDN'T YOU COME TO US INITIALLY WHEN IT WAS INITIALLY FIVE, WHY DIDN'T YOU JUST COME AND SAY, WELL, WE WANT IT TO BE FOUR? WELL, SOME OF THIS IS IN RESPONSE TO THE FACT THAT THE CITY ASKED US TO PUSH THINGS BACK, TO GET MORE RESTAURANTS IN THOSE FRONT BUILDINGS HAVE ENOUGH PARKING TO PARK, GENERALLY AT LEAST HALF THE BUILDING AT RESTAURANT AND PUSH IT BACK SO THAT WE COULD HAVE MORE GREEN SPACE AND TREES AND SHRUBS UP AGAINST THOSE BUILDINGS, THE RESTAURANTS AND THE SHOPS BUILDINGS THAT ARE ALONG 380.
[00:25:06]
PART OF THE NEGOTIATION, YOU SAID, OKAY, CAN WE LOWER THE AMOUNT OF PARKING FOR.YES IT WAS THE MAYOR AND THE CITY MANAGERS, WHICH NONE OF THEM ARE HERE.
THAT WAS THEIR REQUEST AND. THAT WAS OUR TRADE OFF THAT WE CAME TO, THAT IF WE DID MORE TO PRETTY UP 380, PROVIDE MORE LANDSCAPING AND TREES, BRING IN BETTER QUALITY OF RESTAURANTS THAT WE COULD PUSH IT BACK BECAUSE THE BOXES IN THE REAR, THEY DON'T NEED 5 OR 4.54, FOUR IS FINE. CAN I ASK WHO AT THE CITY REQUESTED? DO WE HAVE ANY DOCUMENTATION REGARDING THAT FROM THE CITY? I KNOW YOU WERE IN SOME OF THE MEETINGS, AND PERHAPS MISS COOK CAN SPEAK TO THAT.
SHE'S THE ASSISTANT CITY MANAGER. I'D LIKE TO SEE DOCUMENTATION ON THAT.
HI. ALISON COOK. WE DO HAVE AN AGREEMENT WITH THEM FOR THE 35 FOOT.
THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPE ALONG 380, BECAUSE WE WANTED TO DRESS UP THE 380 CORRIDOR.
AND THE CODE DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT THE CODE REQUIRES, IS IT TEN CRAIG.
CODE REQUIRES TEN. AS YOU KNOW 380, IT'S A GATEWAY, IT'S A MAIN ARTERY IN OUR CITY.
AND SO, WE REALLY WANTED SOMETHING BETTER. AND THIS IS 100 ACRES.
THE SITES GROUP IS 66 OF THE 100 ACRES. SO, IT'S THE MOST SIGNIFICANT DEVELOPMENT.
ERIC, LET ME KNOW IF I'M WRONG ON THAT. IN THE INCENTIVE AGREEMENT, WE DO HAVE THE 35 FOOT THAT THEY SAID THEY WOULD DO BECAUSE WE WANTED THE VISIBILITY OF THE CORRIDOR. AND AS THEY GO THROUGH THE SITE PLANNING PROCESS, THEN IT GETS INTO THE GRANULAR STAGE ABOUT WHAT NOW NEEDS TO CHANGE. SO, BEFORE IT WAS MORE OF A CONCEPTUAL.
WE CAN GO BACK TO LESS LANDSCAPE. BUT WHY WOULD WE.
OKAY. SO LET ME UNDERSTAND BECAUSE I THOUGHT WE'RE HERE TONIGHT.
IT'S A PROPOSED CHANGE BUT YOU JUST SAID THAT THE 35 FOOT LANDSCAPING IS ALREADY IN THE AGREEMENT.
SO HOW CAN IT BE PROPOSED TO GO FROM 10 TO 35? BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S ALREADY IN THE AGREEMENT YOU HAVE WITH THEM? OUR AGREEMENT IS SEPARATE FROM THIS ORDINANCE AND THIS PARKING.
SO, WE NEED TO CLEAN IT UP AND PUT IT IN THE PD.
SO, OUR AGREEMENT IS TOTALLY SEPARATE AND IT'S A PUBLIC RECORD.
I THINK I HAVE THE SAME QUESTION BECAUSE WHEN I ASKED IF THE PARKING AND THE LANDSCAPING WAS RELATED, I WAS JUST TOLD NO, THAT THOSE TWO THINGS WERE NOT A TRADE OFF.
AND YOU JUST SAID THAT IN THE AGREEMENT WITH THEM, IT'S TO DO 35 FOOT LANDSCAPING.
SO THERE IS AN AGREEMENT FROM ABOUT A YEAR AND A HALF AGO WHEN IT STARTED.
AND THAT AGREEMENT IN ITS TOTALITY INCLUDED THE 35 ACRE ADDITIONAL SETBACK AND SOME OTHER THINGS TO BRING IN THE TENANTS THAT THE SITE GROUP IS BRINGING IN. SO THAT AGREEMENT, THERE'S PERFORMANCE DATES, AND SO ALL OF THOSE THINGS HAPPEN WHEN AND IF YOU MUST COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION, YOU MUST BRING A CERTAIN BIG BOX TENANT THINGS OF THAT NATURE.
THAT'S WHEN THAT AGREEMENT COMES INTO FOLD. RIGHT NOW, IT'S JUST A SIGNED DOCUMENT.
THAT'S AN INCENTIVE AGREEMENT. IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT.
COULD WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THE AGREEMENT? SURE. OKAY. MISS COOKE, THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT YOU'RE REFERRING TO IS THE ONE THAT CITY COUNCIL APPROVED LATE LAST YEAR, AND THAT IS INCLUDED IN THEIR PACKET, THE P AND Z MEMBERS PACKET.
SO YOU HAVE IT IN THE PACKET TONIGHT. IT IS. OKAY.
YES. SO. WE CAN PULL IT UP ON THE SCREEN. I MEAN IT WAS.
BUT HOW CAN I CLARIFY FOR TONIGHT'S PURPOSE? BECAUSE THE LANDSCAPE IT VERY CLEARLY SAYS CAN YOU GO TO THE LANDSCAPING ONE. IT VERY CLEARLY ON THERE SAYS WHERE IS IT.
THE THIRD ONE, A MINIMUM TEN FOOT LANDSCAPE BUFFER IS THE EXISTING REGULATION.
THE PROPOSED IS TO GO TO 35. SO BUT YOU'RE SAYING IT'S ALREADY AGREED UPON.
WELL LET ME CLARIFY. WE HAVE AN INCENTIVE AGREEMENT.
MANY THINGS ARE AGREED UPON, BUT YOU HAVE TO GO THROUGH THE PROCESS FOR THEM TO BE FINALIZED.
[00:30:05]
FIRST OF ALL, YOU HAVE TO GET A SITE PLAN APPROVED. YOU HAVE TO GET A PD APPROVED, YOU HAVE TO GET YOUR CIVIL BUILDING PLANS APPROVED, AND YOU HAVE TO COMMENCE CONSTRUCTION.SO, I THINK THAT'S THE CONFUSION. I AGREE WITH THAT.
BUT WHAT IF ALL OF US SAY NO TONIGHT TO THE CHANGING FROM 10 TO 35? THE WAY YOU'VE WORDED IT TO US, WE CAN'T SAY NO.
I MEAN, CERTAINLY YOU CAN SAY NO. WE CAN HAVE LESS LANDSCAPE.
IS THAT WHAT WE'RE TALKING ABOUT? YEAH, I THINK YEAH, I THINK I THINK THE QUESTION HERE IS IF, IF YOU'VE ALREADY PRE AGREED TO THIS BUILDERS INCENTIVE.
GOTCHA. AND WE REMOVED THAT INCENTIVE BY VOTING NO AGAINST THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS, THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO YOUR AGREEMENT WITH THE DEVELOPER TO BRING THE DEVELOPMENT TO PRINCETON.
AND ARE WE SAYING WELL WE NEVER DREAMED ANYONE WOULD WANT LESS LANDSCAPING.
BUT ARE YOU SAYING NO TO PARKING? SO I UNDERSTAND THE ISSUE IS PARKING, NOT MORE LANDSCAPING? THAT'S CORRECT. OKAY. AND BUT I THINK WHAT'S HAPPENING HERE IS THOSE TWO ISSUES ARE GETTING CONFLATED.
GOTCHA. I AGREE. AND THAT'S WHY I WANTED TO CLARIFY WITH THE FIRST GENTLEMAN.
IS THE REDUCTION IN PARKING A TRADEOFF FOR THE LANDSCAPING? HE SAID NO. THEN THE SECOND GENTLEMAN CAME UP AND SAID THAT IT WAS THAT IT WAS RELATED.
SO I'M STILL HAVING A HARD TIME UNDERSTANDING IF IT'S A TRADEOFF .
DO WE HAVE TO GIVE UP THE PARKING TO GET THE LANDSCAPING, YES OR NO? THAT'S THE FIRST QUESTION. ERIC, IN OUR INCENTIVE AGREEMENT, DO WE HAVE A SITE PLAN THAT SHOWS A CERTAIN AMOUNT OF PARKING? I THINK SO. BUILDINGS BACK. OKAY. IN THE SITE PLAN.
I'M SORRY TO INTERRUPT, BUT CAN YOU SPEAK INTO THE MIC SO THOSE LISTENING IN CAN HEAR? CAN YOU COME UP? YEAH. BARELY HEAR. WE WERE ASKED TO PUSH IT BACK AND THEY WANTED MORE LANDSCAPING.
IN DOING SO, WE CREATED MORE PARKING TO THE FRONT AND MORE LANDSCAPING SO THAT THE RESTAURANTS THAT THE CITY MANAGEMENT STAFF AND THE MAYOR WANTED WAS WE WEREN'T GOING TO HAVE AN ISSUE WITH THAT BECAUSE THE WORST THING YOU WHAT YOU DON'T WANT IN A GOOD QUALITY SHOPPING CENTER IS YOUR OUTPARCELS TO NOT HAVE ENOUGH PARKING SO THAT YOUR RESTAURANTS ARE YOU DON'T HAVE ENOUGH PARKING FOR RESTAURANTS, AND THEY'RE PARKING EVERYWHERE RIGHT.
AND THEY GET MAD. THE BOXES THEMSELVES ARE RARELY EVEN USED BEFORE.
BUT THIS THE NEGOTIATIONS WE HAD WAS PUSHING IT BACK, CREATING MORE LANDSCAPING, WHICH THEN AFFECTED THE PARKING AT THE END OF THOSE PARKING FIELDS THAT YOU SEE WITH THOSE BOXES.
SO THAT'S THE REASON FOR THAT. THE, THE, THAT'S REALLY WHAT IT WAS.
AND THAT ADDS UP TO, I GUESS I'M CONFUSED AND MAYBE SOMEBODY CAN PROVIDE SOME CLARIFICATION.
WE'RE BEING TOLD THAT REDUCING THE PARKING INCREASES THE LANDSCAPING.
BUT YET ONE OF THE STIPULATIONS IS REDUCING THE LIVING LANDSCAPE FROM 10% TO 7%.
SO WHAT ARE WE GAINING BESIDES THE SETBACK? CAN YOU SAY THAT AGAIN I DIDN'T FOLLOW.
SO, PART OF THE PROPOSED LANDSCAPE REGULATION AMENDMENTS IS REDUCING THE REQUIRED 10% OF THE ENTIRE SITE BEING DEVOTED TO LIVING LANDSCAPE FROM 2 TO 7%. SO I'M SEEING REDUCTION IN PARKING AND A REDUCTION IN LANDSCAPING.
BUT YOU'RE SAYING THAT ONE IS A TRADE OFF FOR MORE OF THE OTHER.
IT WAS. I'M NOT SURE HOW THE TEXT IS SHOWING UP, BUT BASICALLY THE DEAL WAS STRUCK WITH ME TO PROVIDE MORE LANDSCAPING ACROSS THE FRONT, PUSH IT BACK, GET RID OF THE ROAD TO NOWHERE THAT WAS IN THE BACK.
AND THAT'S WHAT WE DID. ARE YOU INSINUATING THAT THE PREVIOUS MAYOR AND CITY MANAGER MADE A DEAL TO GO AGAINST THE CITY ORDINANCE? NO, I'M JUST SAYING IT WAS SUGGESTED, AND WE ALL AGREED THAT IT WAS BETTER TO HAVE A MORE ATTRACTIVE 380 CORRIDOR THAN IT WAS TO HAVE, YOU KNOW, AND THAT WAS THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS THAT THEY WANTED US TO SHOW IS.
MISS CRUM, I'D LIKE TO CLARIFY THE SEVENTH PERSON.
YES. YEAH. SORRY TO CLARIFY ON THE 7% ITEM. THAT'S ONLY WITHIN THE SHOPPING CENTER AREA.
AND ADMITTEDLY THAT STIPULATION IS IN THERE TO ACCOUNT FOR TWO OF THE LOTS IN THAT AREA.
[00:35:03]
WE HAVE TWO OF THOSE ANCHOR TENANTS. WE'VE RUN THE MATH ON IT WHO DO NOT MEET THE 10% REQUIREMENT ON THEIR LOT.HOWEVER, THE OTHER 7 OR 8 OF THEM DO MEET THAT REQUIREMENT.
SO US PUTTING THAT STIPULATION IN IS TO ALLOW FOR IF AS WE MOVE THROUGH THE FINALIZATION OF THIS PROCESS, IF A BOX CHANGES OUT, IF WE HAVE TO TWEAK THE LOT LINE DUE TO A TENANT REQUEST TO ALLOW FOR SOME FLEXIBILITY IN THAT NUMBER, THE REDUCTION FROM 10 TO 7 DOES NOT APPLY TO ANYTHING ON THE CONCEPT PLAN THAT'S OUTSIDE OF THE SHADED AREA.
SO WE HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY OVER 10% ON THE LOTS TO THE FRONT BECAUSE OF THE 35FT THAT WE'RE.
IT DOES NOTHING TO IT AT ALL. SO, YOU'RE NOT BEING AFFECTED BY THE WIDENING.
ALL OF THE RIGHT OF WAY IS THERE THAT TXDOT NEEDS TO CONSTRUCT THEY'RE WIDENING.
THEY'RE NOT TAKING ANY RIGHT OF WAY FROM OUR PROPERTY HAS NO IMPACT.
AND I HAVE TWO QUESTIONS. YES, MA'AM. FIRST QUESTION IS, HOW ARE YOU GOING TO ACCOUNT FOR THE FACT THAT THERE'S NO DRAINAGE THERE? SO BY GOING THE 35FT, YOU'RE JUST GOING TO FLOOD 380 WHEN IT RAINS? I'LL SPEAK TO THAT BECAUSE THERE IS NO DRAINING. MISS ELLIS, TXDOT IN THEIR WIDENING PROJECT, THEY ARE REMOVING THE BAR DITCHES AND THEY ARE ADDING STORM SEWERS ALONG US 380.
AND THEY ARE REQUIRED TO ADHERE TO THE CITY'S DRAINAGE CRITERIA.
AND MR. LEWIS CAN SPEAK TO HOW THEY'RE MEETING THAT SPECIFICALLY.
WHENEVER WERE YOU, I'M SORRY, MR. LEWIS, WERE YOU THE ONE THAT WAS HERE AT THE AUGUST MEETING? YES, SIR. OKAY, SO YOU WERE THE ONE THAT I ASKED THE QUESTION TO BECAUSE MY CONCERN WAS ABOUT DRAINAGE.
IT WAS ABOUT BOTH THE ALONG 380 AND IN THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT'S GREAT. BUT IS DO WE HAVE THE ABILITY TO HAVE DEVELOPMENTS OR IS THERE LIMITATIONS FOR HOW AND HOW MUCH WATER THEY DUMP INTO THERE OFF OF 380 FROM THEIR DEVELOPMENTS? YES. THE CITY ORDINANCE REQUIRES THAT THE AMOUNT OF STORMWATER THAT WILL EXIT THIS SITE AFTER ITS DEVELOPMENT, AFTER IT'S DEVELOPED, CANNOT EXCEED WHAT IT CURRENTLY DRAINS TODAY, AND IT'S PRE-DEVELOPED CONDITION.
SO TXDOT DESIGNED THEIR WIDENING PROJECT WITH THE CURRENT CONDITION IN MIND, AND THIS DEVELOPMENT WILL NEED TO KEEP THAT AT THAT SAME LEVEL OF RUNOFF OR LESS TO MEET CITY ORDINANCE.
DOES THAT AND MR. HISS, OUR PROJECT ACTUALLY DOES NOT DRAIN WATER TOWARDS 380.
THE 380 WIDENING PROJECT ACTUALLY SENDS WATER THROUGH THE PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT PROJECT.
TO THE NORTHWEST, NOT THE NORTHEAST. SORRY. NORTHEAST.
NORTHEAST. OKAY. AND SO, YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE AMOUNT OF WATER YOUR DEVELOPMENT IS GOING TO DEPOSIT INTO THE DRAINAGE THAT'S BEING INSTALLED BY TXDOT ALONG 380 IS ESSENTIALLY NOTHING, RIGHT? RIGHT OUTSIDE OF THE RIGHT OF WAY, WE ARE NOT SENDING ANYTHING FROM PRIVATE DEVELOPMENT PROPERTY INTO 380.
THAT'S RIGHT. OKAY. AND I ASKED YOU BACK IN AUGUST ABOUT THE DRAINAGE AT THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY. YES, SIR.
AND YOU ACTUALLY TOLD ME SOMETHING DIFFERENT.
YOU TOLD ME THAT THAT Y'ALL WERE GOING TO MAKE UP FOR THE FACT THAT YOU DIDN'T HAVE YOU AT THAT POINT, IT LOOKED LIKE YOU DIDN'T HAVE ADEQUATE DRAINAGE TOWARDS THAT PORTION OF THE PROPERTY BECAUSE IT'S FLOOD ZONE RIGHT THERE THAT COMES RIGHT UP TO YOUR PROPERTY.
AND YOU SAID IT WAS ACTUALLY GOING TO DRAIN TOWARDS 380. I DIDN'T REALIZE AT THAT TIME.
I ACTUALLY REALIZED THE NEXT DAY AND I EMAILED THE MAYOR ABOUT IT AND WHATNOT.
THEY'RE NOT. SO NOW YOU'RE SAYING THAT THE DRAINAGE IS ACTUALLY GOING TO GO BACK TO THE BACK OF THE PROPERTY? AT THAT POINT IN TIME, YOU HAD SAID THAT YOU WERE WORKING ON SECURING A DRAINAGE EASEMENT FROM THE PROPERTY OWNER BACK THERE.
HAVE YOU DONE THAT YET? I'LL ADDRESS THE FIRST PART OF YOUR COMMENT.
[00:40:02]
I DON'T BELIEVE I WOULD HAVE STATED IN AUGUST THAT OUR ENTIRE SITE WAS DRAINING TOWARDS 380.HOWEVER, TO ADDRESS THE SECOND SO THE SITE NATURALLY DRAINS TO THE NORTH.
IT'S RECORDED. OKAY. WELL, THAT WAS A MISSPEAK ON MY PART.
OUR SITE NATURALLY DRAINS TO THE NORTH OF THE PROPERTY.
THERE'S AN EXISTING STREAM THAT CUTS THROUGH THAT WE'RE NOT DISTURBING.
AND THEN OUR WATER ULTIMATELY GOES OFF SITE TO TICKEY CREEK AND FLOWS AWAY TO THE EAST.
YOU'RE SAYING THAT YOU'RE DUMPING INTO A FLOOD ZONE ONTO PRIVATE PROPERTY, WHERE IT'S ALL GOING TO GO THROUGH THERE, AND YOU HAVE SOMEHOW FIGURED IT OUT SO YOU DON'T HAVE TO GET AN EASEMENT IF THAT PROPERTY OWNER IS WATCHING THIS MEETING.
IF THEY'RE NOT, I WOULD SUGGEST THEY COME BACK AND WATCH THIS MEETING.
WE HAVE OUR DRAINAGE REPORT IN. WE ARE NOT CREATING AN ADVERSE IMPACT TO DOWNSTREAM PROPERTIES, BY THE WAY THAT WE'RE DESIGNING OUR DOWNSTREAM DISCHARGE.
I THINK THAT THERE'S A LOT OF PEOPLE IN THIS CITY WHO WOULD QUESTION YOUR ENGINEERS, WHAT THEY COME UP WITH FOR WHETHER OR NOT A PROPERTY WOULD FLOOD BECAUSE I'VE SEEN THESE PROPERTIES THAT KIMLEY-HORN ENGINEERS OKAYED.
SO, TIME WILL TELL ON THAT, BUT I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU GUYS TAKE A VERY CLOSE LOOK AT WHERE YOU'RE DUMPING WATER, BECAUSE YOU DO HAVE PEOPLE WHO ARE PROPERTY OWNERS HERE AND PEOPLE NOW WHO ARE LEADERS WHO AREN'T GOING TO TAKE THAT ANYMORE. SO, I WOULD STRONGLY SUGGEST THAT YOU GUYS FIGURE OUT A WAY WHERE PRIVATE PROPERTY OWNERS AREN'T GOING TO HAVE WATER DUMPED ONTO THEIR PROPERTY, WHICH IS EXACTLY BASICALLY WHAT YOU'RE TELLING ME IS GOING TO HAPPEN WITHOUT PAYING THEM FOR IT.
IN ANY CASE, THAT I THINK THAT ANSWERS REALLY ALL THAT I NEED TO KNOW.
ACTUALLY, I DID WANT TO DO WANT TO KNOW DID YOU ATTEMPT TO GET THAT EASEMENT? HAVE Y'ALL ATTEMPTED TO GO TO THE PROPERTY OWNER AND SECURE THAT, THAT DRAINAGE EASEMENT THROUGH THEIR PROPERTY? AT THE POINT IN TIME WHEN WE THOUGHT WE NEEDED IT.
YES, SIR. WE DID ATTEMPT TO DO SO. AND SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE FIGURING OUT THAT YOU COULDN'T GET THE EASEMENT, AND THAT'S WHY YOU'RE ATTEMPTING TO SECURE ANOTHER WAY TO DUMP THE WATER IN THE SAME PLACE WITHOUT ACTUALLY SECURING AN EASEMENT.
SO, I'D LIKE TO GO BACK TO MIKE BECAUSE I HAD TWO QUESTIONS.
MY SECOND QUESTION IS IF I'M UNDERSTANDING WHAT WAS SAID.
THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MAYOR, THE CITY MANAGER, CITY STAFF TO DO THE 4.0, THE 35 FOOT. SO, MY QUESTION IS HOW MUCH OF WHAT IS PROPOSED TONIGHT IS BASICALLY ALREADY IN AN AGREEMENT THAT WAS MADE BETWEEN THE MAYOR, THE CITY MANAGER AND THE OTHERS.
I CAN'T ANSWER THAT FOR YOU. LET ME. I'M NOT SURE HOW MUCH WENT INTO THE INCENTIVES AGREEMENT.
IT'S A REALLY PRETTY SIMPLE DOCUMENT. WHAT IT SAYS IS IN EXCHANGE FOR BRINGING A COUPLE HUNDRED MILLION IN RETAIL SALES AND A COUPLE THOUSAND JOBS, WE WERE GOING TO GET A WAIVER OF IMPACT FEES, AND THE SIGNAL LIGHT AND MEDIAN BREAKS WERE GOING TO BE PAID FOR IN I GUESS A TWO YEAR PERIOD OR THREE YEAR PERIOD BASED ON WHAT WE ACTUALLY BRING IN RETAIL SALES.
ALLISON CAN SPEAK MORE CLEARLY TO THAT. WE RESPONDED TO A REQUEST BY THE MAYOR WHO WANTED TO HAVE MORE GREEN SPACE ALONG 380.
IN DOING SO, WE PUSHED IT BACK, WHETHER THAT WAS THE RIGHT THING TO DO.
IF YOU LOOK ON THAT SITE PLAN, DO YOU SEE HOW FLAT THAT LINE IS BEHIND THE TEXAS ROAD? AND THEN YOU KIND OF SEE HOW IT JUMPS UP A LITTLE BIT, KIND OF GOES FLAT AND THEN COMES BACK DOWN.
ERIC, WE HAVE YOUR LANDSCAPE EXHIBIT. WE COULD SHOW THAT.
I THINK IT SHOWS IT A LITTLE MORE CLEARLY. JUST A MOMENT.
YEAH. SO, I HAVE A QUESTION WHILE WE'RE WAITING FOR HIM TO PULL THAT UP.
SO, YOU SAID THAT YOU HAD ATTEMPTED TO GET THE EASEMENT.
[00:45:01]
YOU WERE UNSUCCESSFUL IN DOING SO. SO, YOU REDESIGNED IT TO BE MORE EFFICIENT, TO NOT NEED THAT EASEMENT.WHY NOT JUST DESIGN IT THAT WAY IN THE FIRST PLACE, TO BE THE MOST EFFICIENT, TO NOT INTRUDE ON THE PRIVATE PROPERTY BEHIND THE BEHIND YOUR PROPERTY? WELL, WE DON'T FLOW ANYTHING MORE TO THE BACK THAN IS ALLOWABLE BY STATE LAW.
THAT WAS NOT MY QUESTION. AND I ASKED THIS GENTLEMAN.
JUST SOME ADDITIONAL COMPLICATIONS AS WE WORK THROUGH IT.
SO THAT'S REALLY THE REASON WHY IT'S JUST IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A DIFFERENT DESIGN.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT MORE COMPLICATED, HOWEVER STILL DOABLE.
CAN YOU, I'M OKAY WITH HEARING COMPLICATED STUFF.
I'D LOVE TO HEAR THIS COMPLICATED IDEA. YOU, WE MAY HAVE A FEW PEOPLE HERE THAT ARE ANXIOUS TO GET HOME, AND I APOLOGIZE IF YOU ARE, BUT I DON'T WANT YOU TO LEAVE UNTIL YOU EXPLAIN TO US IN DETAIL WHAT YOU HAVE DONE, HOW YOU HAVE PLANNED THIS, SO THAT YOU CAN DUMP IT ALL IN THE SAME EXACT AREA WHERE YOU SAID BACK IN AUGUST THAT YOU WOULD NEED TO HAVE A DRAINAGE EASEMENT TO BE ABLE TO DUMP IT BACK THERE.
SO EXACTLY WHAT HAVE YOU DONE THAT'S HOWEVER COMPLICATED IT MAY BE TO MAKE SURE THAT DUMPING IT IN THE SAME AREA WHERE YOU SAID YOU NEED AN EASEMENT, ATTEMPTED TO SECURE AN EASEMENT COULD NOT GET THE EASEMENT.
AND NOW YOU'RE SAYING YOU CAN DUMP IN THE SAME PLACE BECAUSE OF THIS COMPLICATED PLAN? SO I WOULD LOVE TO HEAR THAT. SECONDLY THE AFTER THE AUGUST MEETING, WHENEVER THIS WENT TO CITY COUNCIL, I BELIEVE YOU, SIR, MENTIONED SOMETHING THAT I DIDN'T SEE BEFORE WAS THAT THERE WAS GOING TO BE A DETENTION POND OR RETENTION POND SOMEWHERE IN THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF THE PROPERTY.
THAT WAS SOMETHING THAT HADN'T BEEN SPOKEN ABOUT BEFORE. I DON'T KNOW IF THAT WAS BROUGHT UP AS AN IDEA AFTER I HAD BROUGHT IT UP IN IN THE AUGUST MEETING, AND THEN IT HAS BEEN DROPPED SINCE THEN BECAUSE I DON'T SEE IT ON THE PLANS HERE.
SO I'M ALSO CURIOUS ABOUT THE THAT IT WAS EITHER THE DETENTION POND OR A RETENTION POND.
I CAN'T REMEMBER WHICH ONE. I'M CURIOUS ABOUT WHAT EXACTLY HAPPENED WITH THAT.
WHY DID THAT CHANGE AND HOW DID IT COME TO BE IN THE FIRST PLACE? BECAUSE IT WASN'T TALKED ABOUT AT FIRST. AND THEN ALSO, I'M WILLING TO LISTEN TO THIS COMPLICATED PLAN OF YOURS.
YEAH. SO THE DETENTION ITEM, DETENTION FOR THIS PROPERTY ACTUALLY WORSENS DOWNSTREAM IMPACTS.
IF WE PROVIDE A DETENTION POND, IT SLOWS DOWN THE RATE AT WHICH THE STORMWATER RUNOFF FROM OUR PROJECT RELEASES, ULTIMATELY TO TICKEY CREEK. WE'RE KIND OF IN THE MIDDLE, IF YOU WILL, OF TICKEY CREEK.
SO TO SAY IT SIMPLY, IT IS BETTER FOR DOWNSTREAM OF TICKEY CREEK FROM OUR PROJECT SITE FOR US TO ALLOW OUR STORM DRAIN RUNOFF TO GET IN AND MOVE DOWNSTREAM, RATHER THAN DELAYING IT TO MEET UP AT THE SAME TIME WITH A LARGE FLOW OF WATER COMING FROM UPSTREAM.
SO WHAT WE CALL A DETENTION TIMING STUDY. IT ANALYZES LARGE PORTIONS OF DRAINAGE BOUNDARIES AND YOU KNOW, STREAMS AND RIVER SECTIONS. AND SO WE'VE RUN THROUGH THAT ANALYSIS AND IT SAYS THAT IF WE USE A DETENTION POND, IT IS WORSE FOR DOWNSTREAM DRAINAGE THAN IF WE RELEASE OUR WATER DIRECTLY.
SO THAT'S WHY WE DO NOT HAVE A DETENTION POND INCLUDED FOR THIS PROJECT.
SO HOW ARE YOU SLOWING DOWN THE WATER? RIGHT, SO THEN THAT'S THE PIECE WHERE WE NEED TO DESIGN SOMETHING TO ALLOW FOR SPREADING OF THE WATER. SO OBVIOUSLY WE'RE GOING TO PUT IT INTO A STORM DRAIN PIPE, RIGHT.
A LARGE UNDERGROUND SYSTEM THAT'S GOING TO CONVEY WATER TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER.
SO WHAT WE DO IS WE WE PULL THAT PIPE BACK FROM THE BOUNDARY LINE A LITTLE BIT.
TO RELEASE ACROSS THE BOUNDARY LINE IN A MORE NATURAL SHEET FLOW CONDITION, RATHER THAN IF IT WERE JUST LIKE A HEADWALL THAT YOU SEE WHERE WATER JUST COMES OUT LIKE IT'S UNDER A CULVERT. SO, THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE TO REDESIGN, TO ENHANCE THE DESIGN A LITTLE BIT, TO ELIMINATE THAT ADVERSE IMPACT ON THE DOWNSTREAM PROPERTY.
AND THAT WAS REALLY CONVOLUTED. YOU SAID WE NEED TO DESIGN.
SO, YOU'RE SAYING IT HASN'T BEEN DESIGNED YET. NO. WE HAVE MR. HISS, THE, SO TONIGHT IS A LAND USE DISCUSSION.
AND SEPARATE FROM THAT IS AN ENGINEERING REVIEW WHICH WE ARE IN THE MIDDLE OF.
[00:50:03]
WE THERE. MR. LEWIS IS WORKING WITH CITY ENGINEERS TO DESIGN A SYSTEM THAT MEETS THE CITY'S CRITERIA, AND THAT WE WILL NOT RELEASE PERMITS UNTIL THEY PRODUCE A PLAN THAT FULLY MEETS THE CITY'S DRAINAGE CRITERIA.WATER TODAY LEAVES THIS SITE AND GOES INTO THE OTHER PROPERTIES INTO THAT CREEK TODAY.
THAT WATER FLOWS LIKE THAT TODAY IT'S A NATURAL FLOW OF THE WATER AND THEIR SYSTEM WILL BE DESIGNED TO NOT FLOW, HAVE WATER EXIT THEIR SITE ANY FASTER OR ANY HIGHER VOLUME THAN WHAT HAPPENS TODAY NATURALLY.
HERE TONIGHT WE'RE DISCUSSING LAND USE. IS THERE PARKING REDUCTION APPROPRIATE.
YOU ALL AS A BODY CAN RECOMMEND TO CITY COUNCIL TO EITHER APPROVE OR DENY THIS REQUEST.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE REALLY HERE. I'D LIKE TO FOCUS THE CONVERSATION ON THE REQUEST AT HAND, WHICH IS A PARKING REDUCTION, SOME LANDSCAPE VARIANCES AND SO FORTH.
BUT I DO WANT TO FOCUS OUR CONVERSATION. I APPRECIATE THAT.
MR. HISS, I WE'RE HAPPY TO COME THE DRAINAGE. EVERY PLACE IS A LITTLE BIT DIFFERENT, BUT THINK OF IT LIKE THIS.
SO NO MATTER WHAT WE DO ON SITE, WE HAVE TO EITHER HOLD IT OR PUT IT IN PIPES.
WE HAVE TO NEVER LET THAT AMOUNT OF WATER INCREASE ONTO OUR NEIGHBOR, AND WE NEVER HAVE.
AND WE HAVE TO BASICALLY ALSO KEEP UP WITH THE VELOCITY, BECAUSE THE OTHER BIG THING IN A BIG STORM IS NOT JUST THAT THE BATHTUB RISES AND THE PIPES DOWN HERE, AND IT ONLY LET SO MUCH OUT.
THE OTHER PROBLEM IS, IS THE VELOCITY IN WHICH WATER COMES.
THAT'S THEIR FIRST AND FOREMOST REQUIREMENT TOO AND THEY ACTUALLY DO A GOOD JOB.
WE LOOKED AT BUILDING A POND IN THE BACK AS AN ALTERNATIVE, BUT IT DIDN'T TAKE CARE OF SOME OF THESE ISSUES THAT WHAT IF WE GET A SEVEN INCH RAIN, IT'LL OVERWHELM THAT LITTLE POND AND IT'LL FLY OVER TO THE NEIGHBORS TO THE NORTH.
SO WE LOOKED AT DOING IT A DIFFERENT WAY. LIKE I SAID, WE'RE ALMOST THERE, WE'RE PRETTY CLOSE.
WE THINK WE'VE GOT A WAY THAT WORKS, WE'RE ON 2 OR 3 ROUNDS OF CIVIL DRAWINGS WITH THE CITY.
MOST OF THE STUFF, LIKE WE'RE TALKING ABOUT TONIGHT WAS PRETTY WELL SET A WHILE AGO.
AND SO JUST TO CLARIFY, DRAINAGE, IT'S NOT DESIGNED YET BECAUSE I'VE BEEN TOLD IT'S NOT DESIGNED, BUT THERE'S SOME TWEAKS AND THEN WE'RE WORKING. IT IS DESIGNED AND THERE ARE TWEAKS BEING MADE TO IT.
SO WE STILL HAVE TO WORK THROUGH THAT, AND WE OF COURSE WILL.
WE WANT WHAT YOU WANT IF YOU COME BACK AND SAY, WELL, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT POND IF YOU WANT IT FOR NOTHING OTHER THAN ESTHETICS, I'LL ADD A TWO ACRE POND IN THE BACK.
THE MAYOR ORIGINALLY WANTED US TO DO THAT POND, BECAUSE SHE WANTED US TO HAVE A SIDEWALK THAT BASICALLY WALKED ALL THE WAY DOWN AND CAME AROUND, AND THEN WE WERE GOING TO DO A PATH AROUND THAT POND.
BUT THEN THEY DECIDED THEY DIDN'T WANT THAT. SO I'M NOT SURE WHY, BUT OURS IS JUST TO SERVE AND TRY TO MAKE SOMETHING AS NICE AS WE CAN GET IT. SO THAT'S WHY WE DO LANDSCAPING, THAT'S WHY WE DO PONDS.
WE WANT A NEIGHBORHOOD TO BE PROUD OF IT. I'M ALL FOR THE LANDSCAPING.
AND IT ALSO AND IT ALSO GIVES MORE SOIL FOR IT TO ABSORB SO THAT YOU DON'T HAVE TO WORRY ABOUT THIS AMOUNT OF DISCHARGE, WHICH IS WHY MR. CRAIG, THIS IS DIRECTLY WHAT MY QUESTIONS ARE DIRECTLY RELEVANT TO THE VARIANCE I ACTUALLY HAPPEN TO BRUSH UP ON THE VARIANCE, THE ORDINANCES ON GETTING A VARIANCE BEFORE COMING HERE.
AND PUTTING CONCRETE IN DOES FOR THE REASONS THAT HAVE COME UP HERE AND CLEARLY HAVE COME UP DURING THE DESIGN OF THIS IT CAUSES ISSUES WITH, WITH WATER DISCHARGE AND ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU'RE RIGHT NEXT TO A FLOOD ZONE.
[00:55:04]
SO, CRAIG, IT AS THE ORDINANCES INDICATE, ANY VARIANCE THAT COMES IN FRONT OF US, IT SPECIFICALLY NOTES THAT IF IT MAY AFFECT, EVEN IF IT'S INDIRECTLY, IT MAY AFFECT THE FLOOD DISCHARGE.I DON'T REMEMBER THE EXACT WORDING, BUT GOOD ENOUGH TO WHERE I CAN STATE THAT.
IT DOES SAY IN THE ORDINANCES THAT AS LONG AS THERE'S SOME SORT OF IMPACT THERE WITH WHAT THE CITY HAS PLANNED AND INCLUDING ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, INCLUDING FLOODING OR WATER DISCHARGE. SO IT IS APPLICABLE TO THIS MEETING, ESPECIALLY CONSIDERING THERE'S BEEN A KIND OF A LOT OF IN ADDITION TO THE PARKING THING. BUT WHAT'S CAUSING THE WATER DISCHARGE? IT'S THE PARKING LOTS, RIGHT? IT'S THE CONCRETE.
YEAH. AND BY REDUCING THAT, THERE'S A COUPLE OF THINGS WITH REDUCING.
I TOLD YOU, I'M REALLY INTO THIS ISSUE BECAUSE I'VE GONE TO A LOT OF MY SHOPPING CENTERS THAT ARE 20 YEARS OLD, AND IT'S ALMOST EMBARRASSING TO SEE THAT MUCH PAVING THAT'S UNUSED.
NOT ONLY IS IT A RESOURCE, THAT'S BUT ALSO THINK OF IT THIS WAY.
ONE OF THE THINGS THAT WE'RE DEALING WITH IS EARLY ON, WE BUILT THESE BIG PARKING LOTS, AND WE DIDN'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT HOW FAST AND HOW MUCH WATER HIT THEM. THE LESS AREA YOU HAVE, THE MORE IMPERVIOUS AREA YOU HAVE, AND IT SLOWS IT DOWN AND IT ACTUALLY ABSORBS MORE OF IT.
THE OTHER ISSUE HERE IS AN ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUE IS THAT WHEN YOU HAVE CARS ON A PARKING LOT, THE EXHAUST AND THE ACTUAL FLAKES THAT COME OFF OF THE RUST AND THINGS ON CARS IS ACTUALLY A POLLUTANT THAT GOES ONTO THAT PARKING LOT.
AND SO, YOU WANT TO REDUCE SOME OF THOSE THINGS TOO.
THERE'S A LOT OF THINGS BEING DONE BY OUR INDUSTRY THAT'S NOT JUST ABOUT MONEY.
IT'S ACTUALLY ABOUT HOW CAN WE HELP THE ENVIRONMENT.
HOW CAN WE REDUCE COST? HOW CAN WE REDUCE ENERGY CONSUMPTION PER PROJECT? YOU KNOW, CONCRETE'S A BIG, BIG YOU CREATES A LOT OF USE.
WOULDN'T THE SOLUTION MAY BE PUT MAKE LESS BUILDINGS THERE, WHICH IS WHAT YOU'RE ARGUING FOR.
LIKE IT SEEMS LIKE LESS BUILDINGS THERE, LESS NEED FOR PARKING, LESS CARS AND LESS ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERNS, AND THEN I THINK EVERYBODY'S HAPPY. I THINK YOU HAVE A GOOD POINT, BUT THEN IT DOESN'T WORK ECONOMICALLY.
WHAT CHANGED FROM MARCH OF LAST YEAR TO FEBRUARY OF THIS YEAR, THAT MADE FOUR AND A HALF.
OKAY THEN, BUT NOT NOW. MOSTLY MOVING IT BACK, THE GREEN SPACE ALONG THE FRONT.
IF YOU ADD FIVE CARS, SIX CARS ALL ACROSS THE FRONT OF THAT PARKING FIELD AND BRING IT BACK DOWN, YOU'RE GOING TO BE PRETTY CLOSE TO FIVE. YOU'RE BACK TO THE TRADE OFF.
IT'S A LITTLE BIT OF A TRADE AND YOU'RE BACK TO THE AGREEMENT.
BUT THAT WAS OUR UNDERSTANDING THAT THAT IF WE DID THOSE THINGS, THEN WE WOULD BE ABLE TO ASK FOR THE LESS PARKING, WHICH WE AT THE TIME WE CAME IN A YEAR AND A HALF AGO, WE SAID THE STANDARD THROUGHOUT NORTH TEXAS AND THE PROTOTYPES FOR THE RETAILERS IS FOUR.
THEN THAT SHOULD HAVE BEEN PRESENTED TO US AT THAT TIME AND NOT COMING BACK NOW FOR THE LET'S SEE, IT WAS ORIGINALLY FIVE, THEN FOUR AND A HALF AND NOW FOUR.
I'M NOT, YOU KNOW. PRETTY SURE IT WAS 4.8. I READ IT BEFORE COMING.
SOMEBODY CAN PROVE ME WRONG IF THEY PULL IT UP. NOT BEING PRIVY TO THE CLOSED DOORS, YOU KNOW AGREEMENTS ABOUT WHO'S OKAY WITH WHAT I GET THAT AS A LANDSCAPER, I CERTAINLY APPRECIATE THE EXTRA THE FRONTAGE THAT THAT I WOULD BE OKAY WITH, BUT I DON'T KNOW THAT IT WOULD BE ACCEPTABLE.
AND I DON'T KNOW THE MINDSET OF THOSE WHO ARE ASKING FOR THAT.
BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE THAT IT BEING OKAY AT THE COST OF LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PARKING SPACES.
AND I THINK THAT'S WHAT WE CAN ALL AGREE ON, IS THAT IS WHERE THE CONCERN IS.
I'VE SEEN DEVELOPMENTS LIKE TOKYO HOUSE BE, YOU KNOW, WHEN THEY FIRST OPENED, THEY WERE SO OVERWHELMED BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE ANY OTHER SIT DOWNS THAT WE LITERALLY SAW PEOPLE PARKING IN TXDOT EASEMENT TO GO TO DINNER.
AS MAXINE MENTIONED EARLIER, WALMART IS CONSTANTLY FLOODED, AND IF THEY'RE AT THE EXISTING, YOU KNOW, THEN KEEPING KIND OF IN YOU KNOW, CONFORMANCE WITH OTHER PROPERTIES, THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY DOESN'T HAVE A REDUCTION.
I WANTED TO JUST MAKE A NOTE. AND I KNOW YOU ALL ARE AWARE OF THIS.
THE REDUCTION IS ONLY IN THE SHADED AREA THAT WE SHOWED ON THE CONCEPT PLAN.
SO EVERYTHING ALONG THE FRONT IS SUBJECT TO THE STANDARD ORDINANCE.
HOWEVER. I THINK WE'RE CLEAR ON THAT. ON THE RESTAURANTS, WE'RE AT ABOUT TEN PER THOUSAND.
AND I KNOW THAT WE'RE NOT WRITING THAT STIPULATION INTO THE PD.
IF THAT IS SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP TO ALLEVIATE ANY CONCERNS, TO ENFORCE SOMETHING GREATER THAN FIVE PER THOUSAND FOR OUR TWO SIT DOWN RESTAURANT PADS OR FOR OUR FOR RETAIL SHOPPING LOTS. THAT MIGHT BE SOMETHING THAT WE COULD ENTERTAIN GOING,
[01:00:01]
YOU KNOW, THOSE TENANTS, THOSE RESTAURANTS, THEY WANT MORE THAN FIVE AS IT IS.I BELIEVE ON THE ROADHOUSE LOT. I THINK WE'VE GOT SOMETHING LIKE 10 OR 11 SPACES PER THOUSAND.
YEAH. SOME OF THE BUILDINGS UP FRONT ARE FAR BEYOND WHAT YOU SEE IN OTHER PLACES, BECAUSE WE FEEL LIKE THE LACK OF SIT DOWNS AND THE LACK OF RESTAURANTS IN GENERAL, IT DOES WHAT WE DID IN MCKINNEY AND WHAT WE'RE DOING IN CELINA AND FLOWER MOUND.
IT WOULD BE SORT OF A PLACE. AND SO THAT'S WHAT THAT'S WHY WE PROPOSED THAT.
IT WAS JUST SPIT BALLING SOMETIMES TO GET A BETTER PRODUCT IF IT WILL JUST A BETTER PRODUCT.
AND WHETHER WE HIT THE MARK, I DON'T KNOW. BUT THAT WAS THE INTENT.
IT WAS ALL DONE IN THE IN WITH, YOU KNOW, WITH GOOD INTENTIONS AND WE SPIT BALLED IDEAS.
AND THESE ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT I PROPOSED TO THEM. WE ARE WAY OVER PARKED ON THE FRONT.
WE'RE AT WHAT IS PROTOTYPE FOR RETAILERS IN THE BACK.
I DON'T THINK YOU'LL I DON'T THINK YOU'LL HAVE A PROBLEM WITH IT. BUT I UNDERSTAND YOUR CONCERN.
WE DIDN'T DO A POND IN THE BACK BECAUSE IT WAS.
NO ONE WAS GOING TO USE IT. AND SO. AND IT DIDN'T MATTER FOR THE DRAINAGE, BUT THOSE WERE ALL THINGS THAT WE HAD ORIGINALLY PROPOSED YOU KNOW, WHICH WERE AGREED UPON, ONE AGREED UPON BY ANYBODY WE HAD PROPOSED.
AND THEN WHEN WE DISCUSSED THE PLANS. BUT WE WERE JUST TOLD 20 MINUTES AGO THAT THINGS WERE AGREED UPON, THAT 35 FOOT WAS AGREED UPON. THERE'S ALWAYS SOME LEVEL OF NEGOTIATIONS IN THE OFFICE TO COME UP WITH WHAT? I'LL POP IN AND CLARIFY REAL QUICK. THIS BODY CAN TURN ANYTHING DOWN TO SOMEONE MENTIONED, I CAN'T REMEMBER. IT'S BEEN 20 MINUTES. WE CAN'T TURN THIS DOWN.
YOU CAN TURN ANYTHING DOWN. THE CITY COUNCIL WAS BELIEVING THAT 35FT ALONG THREE 380 IS GETTING WIDENING, AND IT'S NOT THE PRETTIEST STREET.
SO, WE WERE TRYING TO MAKE A BETTER VIEW CORRIDOR.
AND THERE IS, I GUESS, A TRADE OFF, BUT IT DOESN'T MEAN WE HAVE TO HAVE IT.
IF WE WANT MORE PARKING AND LESS LANDSCAPING, WE CAN LOOK AT THAT TOO.
SO YOU HAVE OPTIONS. WE'RE ALREADY GETTING LESS LANDSCAPING HERE, RIGHT? I MEAN, WE CAN REDUCE THIS UP. I MEAN, I'M SAYING YOU'RE NOT STUCK.
WELL, WE KIND OF ARE, BECAUSE YOU SAID IT WAS AGREED UPON THE GENTLEMAN BACK THERE.
AND I APOLOGIZE FOR NOT REMEMBERING YOUR NAME SO THAT PEOPLE ARE GOING TO PULL OUT.
HE MIGHT EVEN PULL OUT IF WE DON'T AGREE TO SOME OF THIS.
AND PART OF THE INCENTIVE AGREEMENT YOU DO BEFORE YOU COME AT THIS LEVEL.
AND SO 35FT OF LANDSCAPING ON 35 IS NOT A BAD THING I THINK WE CAN ALL AGREE ON.
YOU MIGHT HAVE TO MAKE SOME MODIFICATIONS. BUT THE FUNCTIONALITY TO THE 4.0 SPACES, THAT'S NOT IN OUR AGREEMENT BECAUSE WE DIDN'T HAVE THIS GRANULAR. WE HAD MORE OF A CONCEPTUAL PLAN.
ALL THESE OTHER TIMES, WHY WASN'T EVERYTHING JUST GIVEN TO P&Z IN THE VERY BEGINNING? AND WHY, IF YOU'VE DEVELOPED HOW MANY MILLIONS OF ACRES WAS HE NOT ABLE TO PROVIDE SOMETHING MORE GRANULAR VERSUS THIS CONCEPTUAL PLAN THAT ALREADY TOOK THESE THINGS INTO CONSIDERATION? AND BACK TO THE INCENTIVE AGREEMENT? I DON'T THINK THAT INCENTIVE CAN CHANGE ZONING RATIOS.
THIS BODY CAN. SO OUR INCENTIVE AGREEMENT WAS KIND OF WITHIN THE SCOPE OF WHAT WE KNEW AT THE TIME.
BUT IF THE 35FT, IF THE ADDITIONAL LANDSCAPING DOESN'T WORK, IT DOESN'T WORK.
BUT YOU SAID IT'S PART OF THE INCENTIVE AGREEMENT.
SO THEN WHAT HAPPENS TO THAT? WELL, AND WHAT HAPPENS IF WHAT THIS GENTLEMAN SAID THAT SOME OF THOSE STORES WILL PULL OUT, HE MIGHT PULL OUT WHAT HAPPENS THERE? I MEAN, IT'S ALL IT'S ALL RELEVANT BECAUSE YOU HAVE TO GO TO A BANK AND GET MONEY, AND THEN THE MONEY HAS TO OFFSET THE STAFF. SO I MEAN, LIKE HE SAID, THE FINANCING HAS TO WORK.
ACTUALLY, THE ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY SAYS THAT THAT FINANCIAL FEASIBILITY OF OF THE DEVELOPER IS,
[01:05:05]
IS NOT A REASON TO COME FOR A VARIANCE. IT IS NOT LIKE IT'S IT SPECIFICALLY SAYS DO NOT COME TO US AND SAY, I CAN'T MAKE THIS A GOOD BUSINESS DECISION WITHOUT THAT SAID, THAT WAS ONE OF THE THINGS.AND AGAIN, WE LIVE IN THE REAL WORLD. THIS PROJECTS 100 MILLION IN TOTAL COST.
IT TAKES 3035 MILLION IN EQUITY. IT'S A VERY LARGE DEAL IN A MARKET THAT IS CONSIDERED TERTIARY.
I FOUGHT LIKE CRAZY FOR IT. I LOVE IT HERE AND I WANT TO SEE IT HAPPEN AGAIN.
IT HAS TO MEET CERTAIN INVESTMENT THRESHOLDS, RIGHT? OR NO DEAL CAN GET DONE. I MEAN, YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING UNLESS THE NUMBERS WORK.
IF I LOSE RETAILERS, THEN MY NUMBERS DON'T WORK.
SO I HAVE TO GO BACK TO THE DRAWING BOARD. MAYBE WHAT WE DO IS GET RID OF THE 35 UP FRONT, PUSH IT, PUSH IT UP AND GET MORE PARKING. I CAN LIVE WITHOUT THE SIGNAGE INCREASE IF YOU REALLY.
I MEAN, AS FAR AS THE LANDSCAPING, ONE TREE PER TEN IS A BIT IS A BIT MUCH, BUT YOU KNOW, WE'LL FIGURE IT OUT. IS THE INCENTIVE. THE LAND ITSELF OR IS IT THE USE OF THE LAND? SO IS THE DOES HE GET THE THE ADDITIONAL THE 35.
FEET OF LANDSCAPING. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT. CAN YOU SPEAK TO THAT? SO THE INCENTIVE IS TIED TO DEVELOPING WHAT YOU'RE LOOKING AT TONIGHT.
AND IT HAS TO BE DEFINED. SO WE DEFINED IT BY SQUARE FOOTAGE AND WE PUT IN THE 35 ADDITIONAL.
SO THAT IT WOULD HAPPEN. GOT IT. THANK YOU. NOT TO KEEP BRINGING UP ISSUES, BUT I HAVE ANOTHER CONCERN WITH THE REDESIGN OF THIS PLAN TRUCK ACCESS FOR THESE BIG BOX STORES BY REMOVING THAT DRIVE THROUGH LANE IN AND AROUND THE BACK OF THE BUILDING FROM THE PLANS THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED, YOU'RE PRETTY MUCH FORCING ALL THOSE 18 WHEELERS ONTO BEACHUM TO GET INTO THE PROPERTY WITHOUT HAVING TO DRIVE THROUGH THE PARKING LOT.
NOT. NOT NECESSARILY. NO. WE HAVE TWO SIGNAL LIGHTS, AND THE WAY THE TRUCK TURNED EXHIBITS FOR THESE RETAILERS SHOW EXITING BASICALLY THROUGH THOSE TWO LIGHTS AND BACK OUT TO BEACHUM. SO THERE'S THREE DIFFERENT WAYS TO GET THEM IN.
IS THAT SOMETHING YOU SEE ON A LOT OF OTHER PROPERTIES? GENERALLY ALL OF THEM. BECAUSE IF YOU GOT THAT MANY STORES, THEY'RE GOING TO MOSTLY COME.
THEY TYPICALLY USE ACCESS ROADS BEHIND THE BUILDING, WHICH YOU DO STILL HAVE.
RIGHT. SO KNOWING TRUCK DRIVERS, THEY'RE GOING TO TAKE THE PATH OF LEAST RESISTANCE RATHER THAN DRIVING THROUGH A BUNCH OF CIVILIAN CARS, THEY'RE GOING TO GO UP. BEECHAM, SO YOU'RE DRIVING A LOT OF THAT TRAFFIC ONTO WHAT'S A NON-MAJOR ROAD.
IT'S AN ARTERIAL, BUT THOSE ARE TREE ISLAND CONCRETE TREE ISLANDS.
SO THEY WON'T I MEAN I CAN'T KEEP TRUCKS FROM DOING WHAT THEY'RE GOING TO DO.
WE DO LITTLE THINGS WITH LANDSCAPING LIKE PUT FOUR FOOT TALL BOULDERS.
WE DO EVERYTHING WE CAN. BUT THE KEY THING FOR THE RETAILERS IS TO BE ABLE TO GET THEIR TRUCKS IN AND OUT, BASICALLY LATE AT NIGHT WHEN THEY LOAD AND OFF LOAD.
AND WE, YOU KNOW, WE RESTRICT THEM DURING THE DAY, BUT THERE'S AN OCCASIONAL GUY THAT SHOWS UP FROM SOMEWHERE AND GOES WHEREVER HE WANTS TO GO. BUT IN THEIR LEASES, THERE'S EXHIBITS THAT TALK TO HOW THEY'RE SUPPOSED TO ENTER AND WHAT THE WHAT THE TRUCK ROUTE IS. UNDERSTOOD. I DON'T DISAGREE, I'M JUST SAYING BY REMOVING THAT ADDITIONAL ARTERY OFF OF 380 INTO THE PROPERTY.
IT'S GOING TO NATURALLY WANT THEM TO GO THAT ROUTE.
AND THAT'S SOMETHING THAT DOES HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED. WHICH ONE DID WE TAKE AWAY? THE BREAKS ON THE PREVIOUS MAPS AND THE PREVIOUS PLAN DEVELOPMENT APPROVAL AND WAS LABELED CREEKSIDE DRIVE, BUT I BELIEVE IT CONNECTS TO THE CYPRESS BEND LIGHT.
THERE IS STILL A DRIVE AISLE TO THE REAR OF ALL THE PROPERTIES THAT WILL HAVE A CONNECTION TO BEECHAM, AND THEN THIS EXHIBIT SHOWS WHERE THE EXISTING CYPRESS BEND LIGHT IS ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE EXHIBIT.
YES, I WAS COMPARING IT TO THE PREVIOUS APPROVAL, THE PREVIOUS DESIGN PLAN APPROVAL THAT HAD THAT CYPRESS BEND LIGHT EXTENDED INTO A ROADWAY DOWN BEHIND THOSE BOX STORES. SO EVERYTHING HAS BEEN SHIFTED OVER TO THE LEFT.
IT LOOKS LIKE THERE'S BEEN ANOTHER STANDALONE, LARGER RETAIL ADDED IN FROM THE ORIGINAL PLANS.
THAT KIND OF I'M ASSUMING WAS WHY THAT ROAD WAS CUT OFF.
WITHOUT SEEING THE AN OLDER VERSION, I'M NOT REALLY SURE, BUT THAT WAS PART OF THE VERSION.
[01:10:02]
CRAIG, WHERE THEY HAD THE ROAD TO NOWHERE, THE $18 MILLION ROAD THAT WAS GOING TO HAVE LESS THAN A THOUSAND PEOPLE ON IT.IT WAS SOMETHING THAT WHEN WE FIRST CAME IN, WE WERE ASKED TO SITE PLAN AROUND THIS ROAD THAT CAME OFF BEECHAM, THAT CAME AROUND. AND HONESTLY, IT WAS A REALLY EXPENSIVE ROAD TO BUILD THAT MIGHT HAVE LESS THAN A THOUSAND PEOPLE AT MAX USE IT. IT WAS A IT WAS WE FELT IT WAS A PET PROJECT FROM SOMEBODY.
SO WHAT WE DID IS JUST MADE OUR DRIVE 30FT AND HAVE IT RUN ALL THE WAY ALONG THE BACK, BASICALLY.
AND YOU CAN COME UP AND YOU CAN GET TO THE SIGNAL LIGHT AND YOU CAN STILL GET OVER THERE TO THE FOURTH LIGHT, WHICH IS ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE BANK, AND WHERE SCOOTERS AND ALL THAT IS.
THERE'S ANOTHER LIGHT OVER THERE THAT YOU CAN GET TO, BUT WE HAVEN'T ADVERTISED THAT BECAUSE THAT TENDS TO BE MORE OF A RESIDENTIAL DRIVE BACK THERE. AND SO PEOPLE CAN USE IT. BUT YOU KNOW, I DON'T THINK I MEAN, IT'S DESIGNED FOR A TRUCK TO BE ON IT.
BUT WE FELT LIKE IF WE SELF CONTAINED IT TO THE SITE, HAD HIM COME OUT AT THE TWO SIGNALS AND GO OUT TO BEECHAM, THEN THAT WAS THE SAFEST AND THE BEST WAY TO HAVE TRAFFIC FLOW, TO HAVE THE SHOPPING TRAFFIC COME OUT TO BEECHAM OR THE 18 WHEELER TRAFFIC. WELL, BOTH. BOTH. NO. OKAY.
THANK YOU. DID I? YOU DID. THANK YOU.
DOES ANYONE ELSE HAVE ANY COMMENTS? MR.. IF YOU MAYBE ASK THE AUDIENCE IF THERE'S ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SPEAKERS, AND THEN YOU NEED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AND CONFINE THE COMMENTS TO THE COMMISSION.
ANY ADDITIONAL PUBLIC SPEAKERS TONIGHT? SPEAK NOW OR FOREVER HOLD YOUR PEACE.
ALL RIGHT. AND. OKAY WE WILL THEN CLOSE THE PUBLIC COMMENTS AT 7:44 P.M..
WE DIDN'T EVEN GET TO THE SIGNAGE. I'D JUST LIKE TO QUICKLY POINT OUT THAT I'M NOT A FAN OF THE STUCCO OPTION BEING SWEPT IN HERE. I'D LIKE TO SEE THAT BEING KEPT AS A MASONRY.
JUST TO KEEP WITH SOME, YOU KNOW, A UNIFIED LOOK FOR NEIGHBORING PROPERTIES.
WE CAN DO THAT. OKAY. I THINK, YOU KNOW, JUST BASED ON SOME DISCUSSIONS AND THE FEEDBACK THAT I'M HEARING, I HOPE I'M NOT SPEAKING FOR EVERYONE TO SAY THAT I'M NOT COMFORTABLE WITH THESE CHANGES AT ALL.
I THINK THERE NEEDS TO BE MORE DEEP DIVE INTO THIS FROM A PERSPECTIVE OF WHAT'S BEST.
I PERSONALLY WOULD PROPOSE THAT WE TABLE THIS UNTIL WE GET SOME OF THE DOCUMENTATION AND EVIDENCE, FOR LACK OF BETTER WORD FROM SOME OF THE THINGS WE WERE LOOKING AT. PERSONALLY, I'D LIKE TO SEE THE TXDOT DRAWINGS. LAST I CHECKED, THOSE HADN'T BEEN FINALIZED.
AS FAR AS EASEMENTS, THEY KEEP CHANGING THEM.
I MEAN, YOU'RE TALKING LITERALLY HUNDREDS OF PARKING AND REDUCTION FROM ORDINANCE TO 4.0.
SO, UNLESS ANYBODY HAS ANY OTHER I WOULD MAKE A MOTION TO REQUEST ACCOUNT.
OH SORRY. TO REQUEST A COUNCIL TO NOT PASS THIS INSTEAD OF TABLING IT.
SO THAT STATE LAW THAT YOU'RE REFERENCING DOES NOT APPLY TO ZONING.
IT'S ONLY TO GOTCHA DEVELOPMENT PLANS. OKAY. SO IN THAT CASE, IT SOUNDS LIKE THERE'S A LOT HERE BECAUSE MY UNDERSTANDING IS YOU GOT SIX MONTHS BEFORE YOU CAN APPLY AGAIN. MY THOUGHTS ARE IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU GOT SIX MONTHS WORTH OF PLANNING WORTH OF PROBLEMS.
[01:15:07]
UNLESS ANYBODY ELSE, DO YOU GUYS FEEL LIKE YOU CAN FIGURE OUT ALL THIS STUFF? DRAIN IT? I'D BE VERY SURPRISED IF DRAINAGE DIDN'T COME UP AT CITY COUNCIL TOO.YOU GUYS THINK YOU CAN FIGURE THIS OUT? AND EXPLAIN THAT TO CITY COUNCIL, YOUR DRAINAGE PLANS AND YOUR IF WE WERE TO TABLE THIS TILL, THE NEXT MEETING, AND YOU'VE BOUGHT YOURSELF A WHATEVER IT IS A MONTH, DO YOU THINK YOU'LL BE ABLE TO COME UP WITH GOOD ANSWERS, BECAUSE THEY'RE PROBABLY NOT GOING TO BE ANY EASIER ON YOU THAN WE ARE.
JUST AND I'D LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE GET SOMEONE FROM THE CITY HERE TO REVIEW WITH US WHAT THEY'VE ALREADY AGREED ON THAT. NOW WE'RE HEARING THAT THEY AGREED INCENTIVE AND THAT THAT MAYOR DOESN'T WORK HERE ANYMORE, BUT THE CITY MANAGER DOES. I CAN SPEAK ABOUT THE INCENTIVE.
WELL, WE'D LIKE A PRESENTATION FOR THAT IS WHAT I'M RECOMMENDING.
AND I BELIEVE IT'S IN YOUR PACKETS. BUT WE'D LIKE IT WITH ALL THE OTHER.
GOTCHA. INFORMATION THAT WE'RE REQUESTING. YOU'RE SAYING THAT THAT THAT INCENTIVE AGREEMENT IS HERE? YEAH. YES. MISS KELTON, I INCLUDED IT IN THE PACKET.
SO, YOUR OPTIONS TONIGHT ARE TO TABLE THIS REQUEST.
YOU CAN TAKE A VOTE TO RECOMMEND APPROVAL OR DENIAL.
IF YOU RECOMMEND DENIAL CITY COUNCIL CAN ONLY APPROVE IT WITH A SUPERMAJORITY VOTE.
YEAH. GO AHEAD. I DON'T NECESSARILY WANT TO DENY IT, BUT I DO WANT TO SEE SOME MORE DATA.
AND I DO SEE I WANT TO SEE SOME MORE FINITE PLANS THAT ADDRESS SOME OF THESE CONCERNS.
BECAUSE RIGHT NOW THE BIG CONCERNS HERE, I THINK, ARE TOO BIG FOR US TO JUST BLANKETLY SAY, OKAY, LET'S MOVE IT FORWARD. THAT DOESN'T MEAN THAT MY PERCEPTION OR ANYONE ELSE'S IS CORRECT OR INCORRECT.
I THINK THERE'S JUST NOT ENOUGH DATA TO MAKE THAT DECISION FOR ME PERSONALLY.
I WANT TO SEE SOME OF THESE STUDIES THAT THEY'VE RETENTION STUDY OR YOU MENTIONED AND SOME DATA AROUND THE NEIGHBORING CITIES BEING SIMILAR DEVELOPMENTS WITH, YOU KNOW, FOUR SPACES OR WHATEVER.
AND I HAVE TO GO AT THE WORST TIME TUESDAY AT 11 A.M., IF I EVEN WANT TO BE IN AND OUT IN LESS THAN TWO HOURS, OKAY. SO, I JUST WANT TO SEE SOME MORE DATA. YES.
I JUST WANT TO SEE SOME MORE DATA. RIGHT. SO, I'M NOT SAYING THAT I WANT TO DENY IT.
I WANT TO SEE MORE DATA. AND I THINK I WOULD AGREE WITH GENTRY.
I DON'T REALLY WANT TO SEE THIS COMPLETELY DENIED. I DON'T, YOU KNOW, BOTH SIDES OF THE AISLE. I DON'T THINK ANYBODY WANTS TO SEE THIS PROPERTY NOT HAPPEN RIGHT. WE JUST NEED TO FIGURE OUT WHAT WE CAN DO TO MEET IN THE MIDDLE AND MAKE SURE THAT ALL OF THESE ISSUES ARE ADDRESSED, AND MAKE SURE THAT WHEN THIS PROPERTY GOES THROUGH, IT'S DONE IN A WAY THAT'S NOT GOING TO BE LONG TERM HARMFUL TO THE CITIZENS IN AND AROUND THIS PROPERTY. THE OTHER THING I'D LIKE TO SEE IS MORE INFORMATION AROUND REDIRECTING ALL OF THAT 18 WHEELER TRAFFIC ONTO BEACHUM.
THAT SOUNDS LIKE A HORRIFIC IDEA. I UNDERSTAND YOUR POINT ABOUT LOW UTILIZATION OF THAT ROAD THAT WOULD GO BEHIND THERE. I WANT TO SEE SOME MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THAT RIGHT.
I UNDERSTAND THE COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS DONE ON THAT.
I'D LIKE TO SEE MORE INFORMATION ON THAT, BECAUSE IF WHAT YOU'RE SAYING AND HOW MY MIND IS INTERPRETING IT IS CORRECT, THEN AGAIN, I GO BACK TO THE FAIRVIEW DEVELOPMENT WITH THE TJ MAXX.
RIGHT. THEY'VE GOT THAT STREET THAT RUNS BACK ALONG RIGHT.
THAT IT'S LOW TRAFFIC, BUT I CAN'T IMAGINE ALL THE TRAFFIC THAT DOES FLOW THROUGH THERE, GOING THROUGH THAT PARKING LOT OR THROUGH THAT VERY NARROW ENTRYWAY, TWO OF THEM THAT RUN ALONG THE TJ MAXX.
AND ON THE OTHER SIDE OF COMING UP TO, I GUESS, LIKE THE DICK'S SPORTING GOODS OR SOMETHING, RIGHT. I JUST CAN'T IMAGINE ALL OF THAT TRAFFIC BEING REROUTED.
SO WHILE IT MAY BE LOW TRAFFIC, THE IMPACT OF THAT TRAFFIC MIGHT BE HIGH.
SO AGAIN, I JUST WANT TO SEE MORE INFORMATION ON IT.
[01:20:01]
THE AMOUNT OF MONEY THAT THE CITY. I'M USING AS AN EXAMPLE .I'M NOT USING IT, I'M NOT USING IT AS A QUALIFIER.
OKAY. I'M NOT MAKING A STATEMENT OF ITS SUCCESS OR FAILURE ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.
I'M USING IT PURELY AS AN EXAMPLE. SO NOT A QUALIFIER.
OKAY. SO OUTSIDE OF PROVIDING ADDITIONAL TXDOT INFORMATION THAT SHOWS WHERE WE'VE BEEN NEGOTIATING WITH THE CITY AND WITH TXDOT FOR THOSE CURB CUTS. AND OF COURSE, THOSE EASEMENTS SHOULD BE DONE NOW.
YOU WANT TO SEE THAT INFORMATION, CORRECT? YEAH.
I'M NOT WORRIED ABOUT THE CURB CUTS. I'M TALKING ABOUT THE WIDENING PROJECT THAT'S COMING WHERE THEY'RE ADDING A LANE TO BOTH SIDES, BECAUSE THE LAST I CHECKED, THAT PROJECT HASN'T BEEN FINALIZED, WHICH MEANS THEY DON'T KNOW WHAT EASEMENT THEY'RE GOING TO HAVE TO HAVE.
AND FOR SURE, UNTIL THAT'S FINALIZED, THE THREE 380 WIDENING FOR TXDOT, THE PLANS ARE FINALIZED.
IT'S OUT TO BID. WE HAVE THOSE FINALIZED PLANS.
AND AS MR. LEWIS STATED, NO ADDITIONAL RIGHT OF WAY IS NEEDED FROM THIS DEVELOPER.
BECAUSE I KNOW THOSE PLANS WERE ORIGINALLY AVAILABLE ON TXDOT'S WEBSITE AND THEY'VE BEEN REMOVED. AND THE LAST I WAS TOLD BY A TXDOT REPRESENTATIVE, THEY WERE STILL UNDER REVIEW FOR CHANGES. SO IF YOU HAVE THAT DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THEY'VE BEEN FINALIZED WITH CONSTRUCTION, LET THEN I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THAT AS WELL. SURE.
I MET WITH TXDOT LAST WEEK AND IT'S OUT TO BID.
THE PLANS ARE DONE. SO, THEY'RE TAKING CONTRACTOR COMMENTS NOW.
AND I AGREE, SIR. YEAH. IF YOU CAN SPEAK IN THE MICROPHONE. I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE UP HERE.
I LOVE THAT THERE'S MORE GREENERY. I THINK AS FAR AS AN ENVIRONMENTAL.
YOU BROUGHT UP YOURSELF HOW THAT'S ENVIRONMENTALLY HELPFUL, I THINK.
I TOTALLY AGREE WITH THAT. SO AS FAR AS BASICALLY, I AGREE WITH EVERYBODY ELSE.
I WANT TO SEE THAT DATA. I WILL SAY THAT IT SOUNDS LIKE THIS IS GOING TO GET TABLED.
I'M STILL WAITING FOR A MOTION. BUT BEFORE THAT HAPPENS, I WANT TO MENTION ONE THING.
I WOULD ASK YOU ONE THING, YOU KNOW, CAN YOU DO THIS? CAN YOU DESIGN THIS REALISTICALLY AND STAND IN FRONT OF US ALL? STAND IN FRONT OF THE WORLD AND SAY, HEY, I WILL STAKE MY CAREER OR MY DEVELOPMENT, WHATEVER.
$2.5 MILLION YOU PUT INTO THIS. WOULD YOU STAKE THAT ON YOUR CAREERS? THE MONEY THAT YOU PUT INTO IT. WOULD YOU ACTUALLY PUT THAT DOWN AND SAY, HEY, IF I'M WRONG ABOUT THIS, IF IT TRAFFIC ENDS UP BEING A DISASTER WITHIN A YEAR OR TWO, OR IF THE NEIGHBORING PROPERTY ENDS UP GETTING FLOODED AND DESTROYED.
WOULD YOU, WOULD YOU, YOU KNOW, ARE YOU THAT CONFIDENT THAT YOU'RE NOT WILLING TO STAKE YOUR CAREER ON IT? THAT'S WHAT I WOULD ASK YOU AS YOU'RE PUTTING THAT TOGETHER. YEAH. WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO DO TO MAKE IT RIGHT, RIGHT? I MEAN, AT THE END OF THE DAY, WE CAN'T EVER BE SURE OF ANYTHING, RIGHT? WE JUST HAVE TO, WE'RE. WE DO EVERYTHING UNDER OPERATING UNDER A LOT OF ASSUMPTIONS RIGHT? AND SO WE UNDERSTAND THAT EVERYTHING CAN'T BE PROVEN OUT. BUT WE'VE SEEN SO MUCH IN THIS CITY DONE AND HANDLED IN A WAY THAT MAYBE COULD HAVE BEEN BETTER, MAYBE GIVEN MORE FORESIGHT TO THE IMPACT OF THE RESIDENTS AND THE GROWTH RATE THAT IS HAPPENING HERE AND THE YOUNG FAMILIES THAT ARE MOVING HERE. AND, I MEAN, YOU SEE SCHOOLS CLOSING BECAUSE PEOPLE ARE MOVING HERE JUST AT AN INCREDIBLE RATE.
THE IMPACT. RIGHT. WHAT IS THE TRUE IMPACT? AND AGAIN, WE CAN'T PREDICT EVERYTHING.
BUT FROM MY PERSPECTIVE, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR ANYBODY ELSE.
THIS CITY COULD HAVE DONE BETTER IN A LOT OF WAYS OF GIVING MORE FORESIGHT TO THE DEVELOPMENTS, THE AGREEMENTS, THE DISCUSSIONS. WE JUST COULD HAVE DONE BETTER.
AND THAT'S ALL I WANT HERE, IS TO KNOW THAT WE'RE DOING BETTER NOW.
I AGREE. I ALWAYS PUT MY REPUTATION BEHIND EVERY PROJECT.
SO YOU HAVE MY WORD. AND THAT'S WHAT WE'VE DONE HERE.
EVERYWHERE WE GO, WE SEE THAT CITIES, SMALLER CITIES, ARE GROWING.
AND NOW THEY'RE DEALING WITH TRAFFIC. THEY'RE DEALING WITH STORM DRAINAGE.
THEY'RE DEALING. AND WE ARE, FOR BETTER OR LACK OF A BETTER TERM, WE SOMETIMES ARE THE [INAUDIBLE].
EVERY PLACE WE'VE GONE FROM MCKINNEY TO CELINA TO FLOWER MOUND, WE'VE ENDED UP WE'RE DOING ONE IN ANNA, WE'RE HAVING TO GO OUT MUCH FARTHER WITH OUR ENGINEERS TO TAKE IN ALL THAT WATER AND MAKE SURE THAT IT'S BEING HANDLED DOWNSTREAM CORRECTLY.
[01:25:09]
I ALWAYS DO THAT. SO, THIS IS NOT A BIG ASK IF I'M GOING TO STAND BEHIND IT.YOU KNOW, IF WE NEED TO MEET YOU HALFWAY ON A COUPLE OF THINGS.
SUPPORT SOME OF THE CLAIMS THAT YOU'RE MAKING, COME BACK WITH SOME OF THAT.
LET ME I CAN GET IT TO YOU IN TWO WEEKS. I MEAN, THE STUFF THAT I'M SAYING IS STUFF THAT I JUST HAVE TO GO ON THE WEBSITES FOR THOSE CITIES WE'RE BUILDING IN AND GIVE THAT TO YOU FOR THE PARKING RATIOS FOR THOSE BOXES, I CAN SEND YOU THE I CAN GIVE YOU A LIST OF THOSE TENANTS.
AS FAR AS. THESE ARE EXISTING DEVELOPMENTS, CORRECT? I WANT TO BE ABLE TO GO OUT AND VISIT THESE DEVELOPMENTS AND LOOK AND SEE WHAT THE IMPACT IS TO SEE THIS PROVED OUT, NOT DEVELOPMENTS THAT YOU'RE WORKING ON THAT HAVE ALREADY BEEN APPROVED FOR SIMILAR VARIANCES.
I DON'T WANT TO SEE THAT. I DON'T CARE ABOUT SOMETHING THAT HASN'T HAPPENED YET. I WANT TO SEE A DEVELOPMENT THAT IS REAL AND IS FUNCTIONING WITH THE VARIANCE THAT YOU'RE ASKING FOR HERE TONIGHT. OKAY, SO WE'VE GOT A COUPLE WE JUST COMPLETED.
SO WE'LL SEND THEM TO YOU. THANK YOU. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION THAT AT THIS TIME WE.
TABLE ITEM E.1ZA20243021. PENDING PRESENTATIONS AS HAS BEEN REQUESTED BY THE COUNCIL HERE. MISS ELLIS, IF YOU COULD SPECIFY THAT YOUR WHICH MEETING YOU'RE TABLING IT TO.
ARE WE LOOKING AT THE NEXT REGULAR MEETING IN MARCH? THE 17TH MARCH MEETING? YES, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE 30 DAYS.
SHOULD BE A SUFFICIENT AMOUNT OF TIME TO PROVIDE ALL THE INFORMATION THAT WE'RE REQUESTING.
OKAY. WE CAN DO THAT. WE'LL WORK WITH THE DEVELOPER TO GET INFORMATION ON PARKING AND OTHER MUNICIPALITIES WHERE THEY HAVE SOME EXAMPLE SUBDIVISIONS OR PARKING, SHOPPING, TRAFFIC, DRAINAGE AND LANDSCAPING.
OKAY. THANK YOU. NOTED. AND YOU NEED TWO MONTHS.
NO, I THINK THE MONTH IS ADEQUATE, WE CAN. AND MORE DETAIL REGARDING THE CITY INCENTIVES, BECAUSE I'M READING IT HERE, AND IT'S NOT AS DETAILED AS WHAT'S BEEN DISCUSSED TONIGHT.
THANK YOU. THAT'S A FIRST. DO I HAVE A SECOND? SECOND. OKAY. WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE FOR, DO I NEED TO READ THE ITEM NUMBER AGAIN? NO, JUST GO DOWN THE LINE.
WE'LL GO AHEAD AND TAKE A ROLL CALL VOTE, STARTING WITH MAXINE.
FIVE TO NOTHING. IT WE WILL TABLE IT UNTIL THE MARCH 17TH MEETING.
AND WITH THAT, WE'LL GO AHEAD. I'LL TAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN.
MR. HISS. WE HAVE ONE ADDITIONAL AGENDA ITEM, F ONE.
IF YOU WOULD INTRODUCE, I APOLOGIZE. THE LAND ENTITLEMENT.
[F. REGULAR AGENDA]
NOT A PROBLEM. CRAIG FISHER, THE DIRECTOR OF DEVELOPMENT SERVICES, AS REQUESTED BY MISS MAXINE ELLIS.I HAVE A PRESENTATION TODAY TO PRESENT THE CITY'S LAND ENTITLEMENT MAP.
WE HIRED A GIS TECHNICIAN IN JANUARY OF LAST YEAR TO BRING GIS SERVICES IN-HOUSE.
IT'S BEEN REALLY EXCITING TO HAVE THAT READILY AVAILABLE.
OUR GIS TECHNICIAN, HIS NAME IS TYLER PILKINGTON.
HE PUT TOGETHER THIS LAND ENTITLEMENT MAP IS AVAILABLE ON OUR WEBSITE.
THOSE ARE EXISTING SUBDIVISIONS, AND THEN THE PROPERTIES THAT ARE YELLOW ARE ALREADY ENTITLED, MEANING THEY HAVE SOME LEVEL OF APPROVAL FROM CITY COUNCIL.
EITHER A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT HAS BEEN APPROVED, APPROVED IN MANY INSTANCES, IF NOT ALL OF THEM.
AND MR. DAVENPORT, IF YOU COULD ZOOM IN AND CLICK ON ONE OF THE YELLOW ONES, JUST AS AN EXAMPLE.
SO THIS WHEN YOU CLICK ON ANY PROPERTY, IT'S AN INTERACTIVE MAP.
YOU CAN ZOOM IN AND OUT, YOU CAN PAN YOU CAN SEARCH BY ADDRESS.
YOU CLICK ON THE PROPERTY, A LITTLE WINDOW POPS UP.
[01:30:04]
HOW MANY MULTI-FAMILY LOTS. AND THEN THE DATE THAT THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR THE ZONING WAS APPROVED.SO, A LOT OF INFORMATION. IT'S VERY HELPFUL TO SEE THERE'S A LOT THAT HAS BEEN APPROVED.
SO I'D BE HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU ALL HAVE.
WE CAN MAKE IT BETTER. SO PLEASE GIVE YOUR IDEAS I LOVE THIS.
YES. SO FIRST I HAVE TO THANK YOU. GREAT JOB.
I DO HAVE A FEW QUESTIONS. THANK YOU. YES, PLEASE.
I'D LOVE FOR THE FEEDBACK, BUT GREAT JOB. AWESOME.
FIRST QUESTION. MORNING RIDGE, PHASE THREE CALL IF YOU'RE ABLE TO CLICK ON THAT ONE. IF YOU JUST CLICK ON THE LEFT SIDE AND CLICK WHERE IT SAYS MORNING RIDGE ON THE LEFT WITH ALL THE LITTLE YELLOW FOLDERS.
MORNING RIDGE PHASE THREE. SO ON MORNING RIDGE PHASE THREE.
THAT SAYS 2009, CORRECT. SO, THIS PROPERTY IN PARTICULAR DOES NOT HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
ZONING. I'M SORRY. YOU CAN OR YOU OKAY? YEAH.
YOU CAN PURCHASE LAND. I JUST WANTED TO REQUEST TO GET IT ZONED AND DEVELOP WITHOUT ANY AGREEMENT.
GENERALLY THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT IS IS SOUGHT BY THE DEVELOPER.
IF THEY NEED SOME SORT OF CONCESSION OR SOME INCENTIVE TO HELP MAKE THE FINANCES PENCIL OUT.
IN THIS CASE, IT WAS ZONED BACK IN 2009. THAT'S WHEN IT WAS ENTITLED.
SO THE THE NOTE ABOUT DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENTS DOESN'T APPLY TO THIS PARTICULAR PROPERTY.
AND THEN THIS ONE WAS AN ONGOING DEVELOPMENT.
SO PHASE THREE, YOU'LL SEE THAT IN THE NEXT COUPLE OF MONTHS.
SO THEY'LL COME FORWARD WITH THEIR FINAL PLAT THAT THE INFRASTRUCTURE IS UNDER CONSTRUCTION NOW.
OKAY. SO I ASSUME THAT GOES FOR MORNING RIDGE PHASE TWO.
THERE IS A TYPO ON THE PRINCETON LUXURY APARTMENTS.
IT SAYS THAT THE APPROVALS WERE GIVEN THREE 215.
SO, I THINK THAT SHOULD BE 2015. YES. THAT'S CORRECT.
WE LOOKED AT THIS EARLIER TODAY. YES. 2015, MARCH 19TH, I THINK.
DON'T QUOTE ME ON THAT. BUT YES, MARCH OF 2015.
SO ANYTHING BASICALLY THAT SAYS ZONING MEANS THAT THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THAT LAST SENTENCE THAT SAYS THEY'RE ONLY VALID FOR TEN YEARS.
CORRECT. YEAH. THAT APPLIES JUST TO PROPERTIES THAT HAVE A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
IF THERE IS A DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, THAT'S WHAT WE PUT IN THE APPROVALS GIVEN.
IF THERE'S NOT, WE JUST NOTED WHEN THE ZONING WAS APPROVED.
AND WHAT ABOUT THE ONES THAT SAY NSSA. THE NSSA STANDS FOR NON STANDARD SANITARY SEWER AGREEMENT.
THOSE ARE FOR PROPERTIES THAT ARE OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS AND OUTSIDE OF OUR ETJ.
IT'S AN AGREEMENT THAT WE ONLY SERVE SEWER TO THOSE PROPERTIES.
SO WE DO NOT HAVE ANY OTHER JURISDICTION. SO AN AGREEMENT WAS REACHED TO SERVE SEWER.
THAT AGREEMENT THOSE AGREEMENTS GO TO CITY COUNCIL.
DOES THAT ANSWER YOUR QUESTION? AND ONE MORE QUESTION.
SORRY. HIDEAWAY RV PARK. IT SAYS APPROVAL WAS GIVEN.
IT JUST SAYS PLANS. IT DOESN'T SAY DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.
ZONING JUST SAYS PLANS. OKAY. YES, I'M FAMILIAR WITH THIS ONE.
IT'S AN RV PARK OUTSIDE OF CITY LIMITS. THEY ARE IN OUR ETJ.
SO THEY WERE SUBJECT TO OUR SUBDIVISION ORDINANCE.
SO THEY SUBMITTED PLANS FOR PRELIMINARY PLAT AND FINAL PLAT BACK IN 2002 OR 22.
EXCUSE ME. AND ONE SORRY. ONE MORE QUESTION. ON THE AND THIS KIND OF GOES ALONG WITH THIS, BUT ON THE SELF ASSISTANT APPLICATION PROCESS ON OUR WEBSITE, YOU KNOW, YOU
[01:35:09]
CAN GO AND APPLY FOR A PERMIT OR AN APPLICATION.THERE'S A FRANCHISE UTILITY PERMIT. UNDERSTAND THAT.
HOWEVER FOR BUILDING PERMITS. IT'S GOT PREDETERMINED LIKE WIN MORE PHASE TWO, MORNING RIDGE PHASE TWO AND THREE. SO THEY CAN APPLY FOR BUILDING PERMITS.
WHY IS IT SEPARATED OUT BY AND NOT JUST? SURE FOR A COUPLE OF REASONS.
AND IT'S ALSO EACH SUBDIVISION HAS DIFFERING TERMS IN THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, AND SOME OF THOSE TERMS IMPACT THE FEES. THE BUILDING PERMIT FEES THAT ARE COLLECTED.
THERE'S SOME MINOR FLUCTUATIONS IN THE PRICE THAT THE PERMITTEE HAS TO PAY.
SO THAT'S WHY YOU'RE SEEING A LARGE LIST ON THAT.
OKAY. BUT IF I WANT TO DO A BUILDING PERMIT. LIKE I WANT TO EXTEND MY I WANT TO BUILD AN EXTENSION ON MY HOUSE. WHERE WOULD THAT FALL UNDER HERE.
THERE'S A I BELIEVE IT'S CALLED A REMODEL PERMIT OR A BUILDING ADDITION.
I'LL LOOK FOR IT. OKAY. I DIDN'T SEE IT, BUT THANK YOU.
I CAN SHOW YOU THAT OFFLINE. THANK YOU. THOSE ARE ALL REALLY GOOD QUESTIONS.
I JUST WANT TO ADD, I, I BUILT THESE GIS DASHBOARDS AND THERE ARE A LOT OF WORK.
SO PROPS TO TYLER. HE DID A REALLY GOOD JOB ON THIS.
TYLER. YEAH. TYLER PILKINGTON IS OUR GIS TECHNICIAN.
YEAH. I WILL PASS ON YOUR PRAISE. YEAH. GREAT JOB TO HIM.
AND AS AN EXTENSION OF THAT, IF HE WANTS ANOTHER PROJECT TO WHICH WOULD BE A GREAT LEARNING EXPERIENCE AND, HELP FULFILL SOMETHING THAT I'VE BEEN ASKING FOR A WHILE, WHICH, WHICH WOULD BE A DATABASE THAT WE CAN ACTUALLY PULL THE SHAPEFILES AND PULL THE DATA OURSELVES.
YOU'VE ACTUALLY SENT ME SOME ME REQUESTING IT DIRECTLY FROM YOU, BUT WHEN THINGS GET UPDATED IN THE SYSTEM, YOU KNOW, I WOULD HAVE TO GET ANOTHER ONE FROM YOU GUYS INSTEAD OF COMING BACK, IS THERE? MAYBE, LIKE, FOR INSTANCE, WHEN YOU GO ON TO COLLIN.
COLLIN COUNTY APPRAISAL DISTRICT, WHATEVER. YOU CAN GO ON THERE AND YOU CAN PULL ALL THAT DATA.
IT'S JUST, YOU KNOW, YOU CLICK ON WHAT YOU WANT, YOU CAN EXPORT A SHAPEFILE BECAUSE I LIKE TO DO MY OWN GIS, YOU KNOW, TO PREPARE FOR THESE MEETINGS CAN BE KIND OF LIMITING JUST WORKING WITH WHAT YOU GUYS HAVE.
SO AND I'M SURE I'M NOT THE ONLY ONE THAT LIKES THE ABILITY TO DO THAT OR EVEN, YOU KNOW, SOME OTHER PEOPLE MAY PULL IT JUST TO THROW IT IN AN EXCEL SPREADSHEET OR WHATEVER.
SO THE ABILITY TO ACTUALLY EXTRACT THE DATA, IT'S SOMETHING THAT THAT I BELIEVE YOU GUYS WITH YOUR ENTERPRISE LICENSE, ENTERPRISE ESRI LICENSE, YOU SHOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO DO IT MIGHT BE A GREAT PROJECT AND HELP TO MAKE ALL THIS DATA TO WHERE WE CAN ACTUALLY BUILD IT OURSELVES AND MAKE OUR OWN MAPS FOR THE FOR THOSE OF US THAT WANT TO DO IT, OR OUR OWN, MAKE OUR OWN NERDY EXCEL SPREADSHEETS OR WHATEVER.
BUT YEAH, I THINK THAT'S SOMETHING TO SHOOT FOR THAT WE COULD PROVIDE THAT DATA OPEN SOURCE.
I KNOW MANY MUNICIPALITIES AND GOVERNMENTS HAVE THEIR GIS DATA AVAILABLE AND WE CAN EXPLORE THAT.
ONE OTHER THING IS SOMETHING, AGAIN, I'VE REQUESTED BEFORE, AND I DON'T WANT TO SEEM LIKE I'M GETTING ON YOU BECAUSE I KNOW YOU GUYS ARE BUSY AS HECK WITH ALL THIS DEVELOPMENT, BUT FOR THE PLATS THAT DON'T HAVE ENTITLEMENTS THAT COME, THAT COME TO US FOR THE FIRST TIME, I LIKE TO BE ABLE TO LOOK AT THOSE AND ASK QUESTIONS.
IF YOU GUYS, I MEAN, MY THOUGHTS WOULD BE LIKE, MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT FOR BECAUSE IT'S ALREADY IN A SHAPEFILE FORMAT, SOMEBODY'S DOING THIS IN GIS AND PRINTING IT OUT AND SENDING IT TO YOU GUYS.
SO JUST MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT WHERE THEY SEND YOU GUYS A SHAPEFILE OR GEODATABASE, WHICH IS JUST FILE TYPES, GUYS. THE SO THAT YOU CAN JUST SHOVE THAT INTO YOUR DATA, INTO WHATEVER DATABASE HE BUILDS.
SO IT'S NOT ANY ADDITIONAL WORK FOR YOU GUYS TO BUILD THE DATABASE, MAKE IT A REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEVELOPER TO TURN THAT IN ALONG WITH THE APPLICATION. AND THEN, YOU KNOW, PEOPLE LIKE ME CAN GO ON AND EXTRACT IT AND I CAN PREPARE IT,
[01:40:02]
PREPARE BETTER FOR THESE MEETINGS BECAUSE THAT'S SOMETHING THAT UNTIL IT'S APPROVED BY US AND COUNCIL, IT DOESN'T END UP ON THESE PLAN DEVELOPMENT MAPS.SURE. UNDERSTOOD. I'LL EXPLORE THAT. I KNOW I'VE LOOKED AT IT A LITTLE BIT WITH OUR WITH TYLER AND THE AMOUNT OF, WE COULDN'T PUT ALL OF THAT INTO THE PUBLIC FACING MAP.
IT JUST IT'S TOO MUCH INFORMATION, IT WOULD BOG THE SYSTEM DOWN.
BUT I THINK ASKING FOR INDIVIDUAL SHAPE FILES THAT COULD BE AVAILABLE IS SOMETHING WE CAN EXPLORE.
THEN YOU COULD THEN DOWNLOAD ON A PROJECT BY PROJECT BASIS.
IS THAT. YEAH. I MEAN, IF YOU LOOK AT LIKE HOW COLLIN COUNTY DOES IT LIKE IT'S JUST LIKE LINE BY LINE IF YOU WANT THIS DATA, IT'S LIKE A IT PULLS FROM I FORGET WHAT THE NAME OF IT.
THERE'S A BETTER NAME FOR IT, BUT IT'S, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ON THE MAP.
IT CAN BE. YEAH, YEAH, THAT'S WHAT I'VE EXPLORED.
IT COULD NOT BE ON THE MAP. IT WOULD SLOW EVERYTHING WAY TOO DOWN IF WE IF WE HAD EVERYTHING ON THE MAP AVAILABLE ALL THE TIME, BUT HAVING IT SEPARATE FOR DOWNLOAD, I THINK I'LL LOOK INTO THAT PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE ONE.
UNDERSTOOD? YES, I'LL EXPLORE THAT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? APPRECIATE THE FEEDBACK. THANK YOU ALL FOR YOUR TIME.
GREAT. THANK YOU. THANKS, CRAIG. I'D LIKE TO MAKE A MOTION TO ADJOURN SECOND.
ALL RIGHT. WE'LL ENTERTAIN THE MOTION TO ADJOURN.
WE'LL ROLL CALL ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU GUYS. WE WILL ADJOURN AND BE BACK AT THE NEXT MEETING MONDAY,
MARCH 17TH.
* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.