Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Pre-meeting briefing. It's now 6.03, September 8th, 2026. And our meeting is now in order and first item is administrative comments. Ms. Hensley?

Yes, let me pull that. September 1st, council action. I think I mentioned this a few months ago. We are working through some short-term rental draft regulations that you will see on our agenda later this fall. Council direction was to actually put some draft language to actually draft some code language that I'll be bringing back to them in October for some further scrubbing. So like I said, it'll be later this fall before that hits a Planning and Zoning Commission work session. But if you have any questions about it, let me know. New business that evening, they had several items that had been to the commission previously. 715 Barbara Lane SUP. This was a barn on a rather large lot off of Barbara Lane that was approved unanimously. CalA estates re-flat with a variance. This was, if you remember, the elderly woman is selling the back part of her lot to individual property owners in CalA estates, but her lot didn't meet the minimum lot width requirement for SF-36, so that was the reason for the variance. That was approved unanimously. Eagle Tavern SUP, that was approved as a condition to limit their business to two pool tables. That was approved four to two. Uh, chalk and steel sign exception. This is the Billy Ritz place going in, um, on Keller Parkway, kind of back behind where Zaxby's and some of those other businesses are. Um, that was approved unanimously. They wanted two attached signs for their lease space, if you remember. And then the UDC amendment related to EV charging stations, that was approved unanimously with that addition that staff made between P&Z and council to, um, note that, uh, The SEP requirement does not apply to single-family homes in the Old Town Keller neighborhood sub-district. Okay.

Next is review the agenda items. Item D1 is to consider the minutes for the August 11th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Are there any additions, comments, corrections? Motion. Okay. Item D2 is to consider the minutes for the August 25th Planning and Zoning Commission Okay, item E1 is to consider a request for a specific use permit for a nail salon to operate at 1637 Keller Parkway. And Mr. Flanders, you have this one?

Yes, sir. Like you said, this is a request for Earth Nail Spa to operate as a spa at 1637 Keller Parkway. The building that they're moving into is currently finishing out final building inspections. They are currently located in the city of Carrollton and they're looking to expand to the city of Keller. Business will offer manicures and pedicures and it will also have a dedicated wellness room that will consist of a massage bed and red blue light therapy. They mentioned they will not provide any massage therapy, medical services or alcoholic beverages. And the estimated employee count is 20 total. Their proposed hours of operation are Monday to Friday 10 a.m. to 8 p.m., Saturday 9 a.m. to 7 p.m., and Sunday 10 a.m. to 6 p.m. Their parking requirement for this property is 14 spaces, and the new location building being developed will have 38 spaces total. This is a public hearing, so we did mail out letters. We have not received any public feedback, and the applicant will be here this evening to answer any questions you got.

Comments? Item E2 is to consider a request for a specific use permit for a dog grooming and boarding facility to operate at 750 South Main Street. And Mr. Edelman.

Yes, sir. So this is an SUP request for Pet Care Plus to operate a pet grooming and boarding facility in an existing lease space. Just to clarify, in the commercial zoning district, an SUP is required to operate a boarding facility, whereas a grooming-only facility can be done by right. This is a public hearing. We have not received any feedback from the public. The applicant did state that they'll be here this evening.

Okay, good. Questions? Item E3 is to consider a request of variance to the City of Keller Unified Development Code And that is Ms. Dunham.

Yes. So this is a request to replace the existing monument sign for the movie house eatery. It's actually an off-premise sign. The applicant is requesting to replace it with a sign that would serve both the movie house and the existing businesses at 242 Roofs Now. Town center zoning does have very specific design standards for what that sign can look like. So what they're proposing is a larger width and square footage than what the UDC allows. This is not a public hearing. However, the applicant will be here if you have any questions.

Okay. Okay, great. What's the sign for?

It's for both the movie house eatery and the existing businesses over at 242 Roof Snow.

So how much larger is the new sign versus the old sign? Proposed. This is existing.

So the existing sign is approximately 72 square feet. The proposed sign would be 120 square feet. Mostly it puts the other businesses more.

It does. They requested services of the city about trimming the trees and making some adjustments to the sight lines. Is that within something the city can do or is that outside?

We're working through that with parks and they're They manage the contract with the landscaping crews that do all of Town Center. I'm not aware of any reason that it would not be able to be done at the request of the city. It's a normal tree trimming activity for businesses that want to have more visibility on their sign. They're not asking to remove the trees just to Well, the one where the sign is going. But currently those businesses, you know, in this little strip where we've got Sugar Llamas and Sunny Street, all they have is their attached building sign. They don't have any monument sign space. And it's a kind of funky situation in that the monument sign is actually on that property where that multi-tenant building is rather than on the movie house sign.

It would draw more attention, but we can talk about that later.

Item E4 is consider a planned development zoning change for commercial and light industrial to planned development mixed use for Samantha Springs Commerce Park Edition on North Main. And Ms. Hensley, that's yours.

Yeah.

So all the rest of the items will be mine. So Samantha Springs is a proposed planned development. It's a mixed use planned development with 31 brownstone units. The rest of the development is non-residential and open space. Along the northern boundary of the PD, there's three existing vacant structures that the applicant intends to retain, repurpose. Most of you are probably familiar with Shannon Brewery. That's at the northeast corner. of the property, they're intending to reactivate it with a different brewer. Just to the west of that is the old bottling plant, intending on retaining that building but repurposing it for some other use. And then kind of at the entrance, that northwest entrance, is the old Harvest Christian Church, also vacant right now. It's technically two buildings. And we have some slides showing the square footage. Applicant is also hoping to repurpose that, not into a church, but some other type of business. And then the rest of it would be new construction. Some of it has already started, which is a little unusual. The applicant did get their civil plans approved previously. So when I say under construction, I mean infrastructure and the large pond at the back of the property, but no new buildings have started construction. That's what the PD would give. the ability for them to move forward with site planning, and then ultimately building permits. But the applicant wanted, I think specifically, and they'll have a presentation this evening and be able to speak a lot more to all of this, but wanted to be able to put the roads in to access the brewery and those other existing buildings on the north side. So it's a little unusual to see the civil plans already come into fruition, but the PD is what will give the ability, again, to do further site planning and building permits in the future. Okay.

Any questions? Process or whatever? That is a public hearing and, of course, we'll work our way through that. Item E5 is to consider a, well, that's an amendment to the fluff if we approve E4. If E4...

So I think what you're asking, Chairman, is if the vote on E4 is a recommendation for denial of the PD, do you still have to take action on the fluff request? The answer is yes, because that moves it forward to City Council, even if that's another recommendation for denial.

Item E7 was considered a requested site plan with variances for Kroger at 1025 Keller Parkway. And again, Ms. Hensley?

Yes, so this is for a new Kroger. If this project was approved, they would be closing the existing one right here at the corner of Keller Parkway and Roof Snow eventually. and opening this new store kind of north of the existing CVS there. So if you recall, about 10 years ago, Kroger was approved for a very similar but not identical project at the same location. They have owned this property for many years. The project that was approved in 2016 was a slightly smaller store that had the same basic amenities and services proposed. They never moved forward on that development proposal, never got into permits or anything like that. So all of the approvals that were done in 2016 have expired. So this is a whole new process basically for them. But the SUP, which is the first item on the agenda, and I should back up for a second kind of process question for you, Chairman. On both Samantha Springs and Kroger, do you want... to hear the presentations all up front, meaning, I guess Samantha Springs will do just the PD presentation, but for Croker, the site plan presentation is much more detailed than the SUP presentation. So if you would like, I can do those all together. The SUP and the site plan have to be voted on separately though, just however you guys want the information. The SUP triggers specifically for Croker are for grocery store and town center. For the fuel pumps, those require an SUP. The outdoor display that they're requesting also requires an SUP. Seasonal sales also require an SUP. And then the pharmacy component. With or without a drive-through, a pharmacy requires an SUP in Sound Center. So those are all, again, the SUP triggers for that particular project.

So we're going to do the... site plan comes first, and then you're going to do all these amendments, variances? Is that what I'm getting from this?

So we have the SUP just to allow the store, the fuel pumps, et cetera, as the first item for Kroger, and then the second item is the site plan.

Well, I think it would be helpful for everybody to get all the presentations at once, because especially if they're public comments, they're going to make comments that are probably more germane to the SUPs than... You mean to the cyclone? Yeah. It's just because the comments are all going to be in the middle, so it would be helpful to just get everyone's feedback at the beginning.

Right, right. And the reason we order them that way is when it goes to council, if they don't end up getting the SUP, then the cyclone is for naught because they have to have the SUP to even be considered for the cyclone. They chose to do these at the same time. They could have pursued the SUP by itself before turning forward with the cyclone. So on the site plan, there's 10 total variances. On the SUP, we didn't call it a variance, but they are asking for five fuel pumps. The UDC only allows four. So it would be 10 fueling stations or one on each side of the pump versus eight, which is what's allowed by the UDC. But the UDC requires an SUP for the fuel center regardless of the number of pumps.

So we're going to vote on each one of these things. Are you saying there's 15 items to vote for?

No, no, no, no. We, I mean, The SUP is one item. The site plan is a separate item. Those are the two votes. Now, within those votes, if you decide to make amendments to motions or conditions or anything like that, that could certainly happen. Or if you want, you know, we're okay with eight out of the ten variances, but not these two. That would all be taken care of with the one vote on the one item.

So one vote for the SUP, one for site plan. And then when you guys present it, break it down. the public is going to speak on that agenda.

Do we still legally have to do two public hearings?

So the site plan's not a public hearing? Yeah.

Oh, you're right. And if that, the SGP, with all of those variances, if the commission ends up making, there's a difference of opinion about those variances, we are going to hand it like an amendment to the question on the table. So somewhere in there, somebody is going to make a motion to approve And with that, I will say, is there any further discussion after we get a second? And then we can start amending it to our hearts of content. But it may be that the first one, we take a vote on it, we discuss it, we vote on it, it goes down. The second one, we discuss it, we vote on it, it goes up. And what you're saying is to the staff, try to keep up with us as far as, I know you will, that, okay, they approved that one, maybe they denied the next one. But it'll be very orderly, and at the end of it, we'll know what we're voting on. But yeah, I agree with your statements. It'll be one big discussion at first. All right.

Are there any other questions? Has Kroger, since they have acquired the Tom's Tom, have they discussed what the plans are for that particular grocery store? Since it's a different brand, but they own that grocery store.

They have not.

That's interesting.

I didn't know that.

So they own Kroger's and TomTom and they want to put in another one. They want to replace Kroger with a bigger Kroger.

They don't want to add a third. What did you just say? You said they own TomTom? Kroger owns TomTom. They bought Alvarez's.

Yeah, I didn't know that.

The company did.

I got you. So you've got Kroger that... going to go in the graveyard, but it's not going to be probably torn down. Then they own this tom-tom. What are you going to do with it? Then they want to build this big, beautiful thing off the center of the road.

Okay. Well, in the interest of keeping this meeting tonight somewhere going to end before midnight, I would like to focus on the question on the table, which is only the new Kroger What they do with the old Kroger and what they do with Tom Thumb is being discussed.

It's a pretty germane discussion for me because their plans for that building and that grocery store are fairly important to how I would consider a vote on it. Because if you think of... that corridor, if building this new super program causes two large commercial spaces to go vacant, I don't want two Spirit Halloweens on 1709 River Snow. That's not what I want in town. We have one member from council here. I know that's not what council is gonna want on our main corridor. I think it's pretty important. I would like to hear from the applicant.

the role of a commissioner to get too far astray. That is what we have a city council for. They will determine how the development of the city goes beyond that corridor on that corner.

So if they... So you're saying if you're going to rule it out of order if I ask them what their plans are for it? Because I tend to ask that question.

Well, you can ask that question and then if that question is not answered quickly, reasonably quickly, and I don't know what that means, three minutes, two minutes, whatever, but then we're going to keep moving. And again, sometimes I think the commission, we kind of get astray. We start solving all the problems in the community instead of what's just in front of us tonight. And when that goes forward to the council, then that would be very appropriate. I'm sure they're going to hear quite a bit from the community on those issues.

I want to quickly say I agree with Eric, though. I think it's more germane than that. I think that it is in the purview of the planning and zoning to know what they're doing with part of the zoning that's across the street that they own. So I agree with Eric.

And I think if you shut it down, one of us will probably bring it right back up. just because it's too big a deal because there's four grocery stores that two survive. One's a church and one's a Planet Hollywood, Planet Fitness, Steinmark, it failed. So you're gonna have two ghost towns. I think it's, as a citizen, you're representing citizens, so I think it's only fair that if they're gonna turn this into a desolate ghost town, we should know that.

Yeah, if they didn't own those facilities, I might.

Yeah, I didn't know that they bought Tom Thumb.

And in the discussion where they met upstairs, that was one of the biggest things that the citizens talked to me with there, I think, that night.

Just FYI to the chairman.

Well, FYI to the commission. If you don't agree with a ruling from the chair, you can appeal the decision of the chair.

And what that does, without debate, we basically vote.

which other side that you want to be on. So there is a mechanism for handling that.

I think it's a great idea we know this ahead of time. You do know this ahead of time.

Okay. Thank you. I know it ahead of time. Okay. Any other questions? I know one of the issues that the staff has been working on is the traffic issue. Is that going to be detailed briefing during our presentation from your presentation.

So Alonzo is here, and he will be presenting the traffic portion of the staff presentation. As I told him earlier, I can read the slides to you. But he certainly has the expertise and has been the one reviewing the traffic impact analysis provided by Kroger. So if you have questions about it right now, we've got the time. He's here.

Yeah, it would be helpful if you want to. We have the time. Let's go ahead and use it.

While he's doing that, the other question I have is kind of a parks and rec thing because do we have the maps that show where both of these, this and the springs, are going to be connecting in?

I'm sorry, can you...

I meant to ask with the last public hearing, we're going to be connecting in the Springs project into the, they have a plan to go into our existing parks and rec overlay.

I'm not sure they're actually planning on doing that. That was something I think they indicated verbally they would take off the plans, but maybe it's... Yeah, because we talked about that in the community. You mean like connecting to the east where Harmons and Farms is?

or they're talking about doing part of the road where they're going through snow, are they not going to do that part of the trails? That they will be required to. So I didn't know whether we had the map so that everyone could be able to see that they would. Yeah, we can pull up the trail map. Yeah, just for in there. Sure. Thank you. While he's getting that pulled up.

How many acres is this super center? Okay.

Kroger but I gotta look it up because I'm I don't want to mix the two so what they're doing that is not required to connect to any trails that are in that I thought that was part of because when there are trails but the dead end at the properties So they will be required to connect. And I'm sorry, I don't have a slide showing this. So this is Samantha Springs. So for Samantha Springs, the trail goes along 377. And they will be required to make that connection. They're not required to make the connection to the east. Because there is not a trail that comes right up to their property line on the east.

There's like a fence there, right? Or something that blocks it? I can't remember.

That trail that comes through that neighborhood. Through Harmons and Farms? There was a fence. I'm not sure if it's... A lot of it got torn down when it was damaged.

On the screen, what you'll see is a layout of the proposed site there in Kroger, the northeast corner of Roof Snow and 1709. What I have taken the liberty of placing on here is the cut-out image from the site plan and the proposed improvements that was included or reflected in the study. Because of scale, they also had another improvement signal timing at the intersection of Johnson and Rue Snow. That's on here as well. That's part of this, but it's not shown on this graphic. What they have shown is a traffic signal at Indian Blanket a left turn and a right turn into the site. You can kind of see the highlighted gray underneath there. Also as part of this is widening roof snow to that four lane divided up until the north part of their property and then transitions back down to the two lane. There's another driveway just north of the drainage channel, which is there, which has a left turn from the north and a right turn from the south. We'll talk about this in the next image to the right. And then what they're proposing is an additional left turn in where town center lane is. Right now it operates as a right in, right out. What they're proposing is to modify the median, put a turn lane in so that you have a left in and a right in with a turn lane as well. At the, go ahead please. At the intersection itself, the only physical modification that is being proposed is that consideration of a right turn lane on 1709. However, there's some concerns about the proximity of the signal AT&T or some kind of, maybe it was a transformer. But that's what that right turn lane there reflects. Three through lanes will remain a single left, a single left, three throughs. The major changes are going to be repurposing the pavement that's in place, maintain a dual left from the south. a single through and then a single through and right. In order for that through and right to work, that's why this has to be, had to have somewhere to receive that. And then we'll have essentially repurposing of this outside lane to be a through right instead of just a right. Right now we have left, left, through and a right. We're proposing changing that outside lane to a through right. The note on the bottom is that the applicant does ask for consideration to not meet level service C at this intersection. We'll talk about what that means.

So sorry, can you go back for a second? You said there were some concerns about that corner. Are they real concerns or are they not real concerns?

So they are real concerns because there's going to be some relocations that are going to be required. I think the bigger discussion, if I may, I'm going to try to unhide the sheets that are currently hidden. I don't know if those have come up. I think they'll come up. So what I've taken the liberty of doing is taking the traffic study itself and just essentially said, the numbers themselves are not as important as the colors. So we're going to take this intersection of Roof Snow and Johnson River. And essentially, it takes the eastbound, westbound, north, and south. You're going to go left, through, or right. It's going to be for the morning and afternoon. A lot of numbers. What level of service? A level of service is a grade from A to F. F being failed, E being capacity. The UDC requires that all development target and achieve a level of service C for their development. And so what I've done here is I've taken directly from their study what life looks like today with an empty lot, what life looks like tomorrow with a fully developed Kroger, and I've taken the liberty of highlighting what does not meet a level of service, C, and then what tomorrow looks like with their proposed improvements, re-timing the signal, reallocating the phasing, and who gets greens, etc. And it works. So everything that they say, you know, today, whatever it operates at, it operates at, and it all meets C or better. Tomorrow, it'll be worse than a C, as indicated by the red, but with their improvements, No more red. And so the numbers specifically are not the issue or the thing you should take note of, but how many red squares are up there? And that's what I wanted to try to make the point here. Before... Today at Indian Blanket, it's a T-intersection, so there's not a whole lot of congestion to be dealt with. Tomorrow, we'll have the exiting westbound operating at less than level service C. Therefore, something needs to be done. What they propose is to put in a traffic signal. As a result of that traffic signal, we achieve all level service C targets. That's the green arrow, or green checkmark.

So how long do we live in F and D before improvements are actually put in? Because I'm hearing that we approve it, they start making changes to the site plan and traffic actually starts following.

So this, the traffic signal would be required as part of their construction, so F would not exist. Okay. It wouldn't exist because their recommendation is that the signal go in as part of their... Got it, so it all happens at the same time concurrently.

Question for you, if you can, I don't know if you can zoom in or whatever. Right now, Roche knows two lanes from Johnson to 1709. So right in front of Kroger, they're going to make it four, five, six lanes? They're going to tear it into their own property to make it that many lanes? Yes. So that's what I heard you say.

Yes, that's correct. So what we're seeing here, and this is probably something that's better to zoom in on the site plan, what they're showing is that we already exist in a four-lane divided at the intersection, as is indicated, shown here. What they're proposing, and what certainly we would recommend, is that at the drainage channel, so this four lane next down to two at the drainage channel, is at the drainage channel north for the distance adjacent to their property, that four lane divided be continued to the north. Can you break it down a little bit, you know, the baseball field? It would go back down to the two lane where the church drive

So you're driving four lanes, and when you get to that church turn in, it goes to two. So I certainly just want one person to answer. Okay, thank you. Oops, got to go back to the hidden slide here.

Okay, so that was the signal. The next one is, and I've circled it, what we're talking about here is that uncontrolled drive to the south, just north of the drainage channel, how it exists today. There's access road B. They're suggesting that when they connect, and there's no reason to go into the numbers, we're not hitting any reds. No improvements are required for that free flow right in, right out through here.

This is the one that bothers me.

So the next one we're going to take is unsignalized. It's the access road to Town Center Lane, which is the church street. It's a public street. It's used as a drive, but it's a public street up to where Cul-de-Sac's at the north end. There are no improvements recommended for this. It currently operates at an F. Tomorrow, it'll still be an F, so that would be a hard sell to say. Mr. Developer, you need to do something about it. And that's not an uncommon response of a developer saying, why do I have to fix something that's already broken? However, if I may add, the new eastbound left turn, and I added these arrows so we can have an idea of what we're talking about, will come in and without any improvements, it's going to be operating at level service E. beyond that C, but E is at capacity. And this is important, why I wanted to do this first and go back to the next, but let me hear your question, please.

So, but today, I can't make a left turn into that, if I'm going eastbound on 1709.

That's correct.

I cannot turn.

That's correct.

To me, that's going to be the problematic one because traffic backs up at 1709. You come out on Sunday with church, and now you're going to ask me to allow a right, a left turn across all that traffic is...

I see it actually similar to, so I live on, excuse me, I live on Chandler Road, and that stoplight at Johnson, or some field backs up that far, and it There's two car accidents a month at that intersection. So when I saw this, it kind of made me a little nervous on that through, because folks are usually going to try to shotgun it across from Starbucks to, I don't know if Starbucks is somewhere we went to. I think that left turn is kind of problematic from a safety standpoint.

And that's what this red highlight here actually identifies. We'll put it in, and they're going to experience enough delay that it has reached its capacity. You're not going to get through very easily. However, to be fair, it's not altogether different than the current left end that exists on the existing Kroger west of the signal.

But it's far enough back from the light.

They're roughly the same distance.

As I said, it's the same, the problem, the problem, well, it's not really the problem, it's the silver screen across left, and it is...

And during periods, you don't turn left.

Yeah, and I was just saying, it just seems like it's so much further that most people go to the one behind, past the Starbucks.

There's four opportunities off of 1709 to turn into that south property. You're correct.

If the senator could get to that church, not to allow left turns out of the church. It'd have to be right on.

I think going west.

that's why you stop it you just on sunday you shut it down because either a you get a cop to shut down traffic around the left you pay him to do that or b

So yeah, and I think it'd be appropriate to ask the development team because they're going to have a part of their traffic presentation as part of their session. I'm pointing this out only because as you're going east, you're going to have a hard time turning left or north. And if you're and I know it's peak period, where are you going to turn and step? I won't turn off the signal. How many entrances and exits do they have at the church?

Sorry? How many entrances and exits do they have at that church? Two. One on Rooftop and one on 1709. That's what I was afraid of. And then empty into that addition. No. It's a fire gate.

And the one that goes into 1709 is actually the road and it's not really their entrance. It just happens to go to their church.

Okay. So what I've done here, and this is arguably the most dynamic graphic. There's no argument that today is not, we don't live in Shangri-La. There's some issues already today at the intersection. Tomorrow, there's going to be more issues. You can see, and just by evidence, by more red blocks. With the lane geometrics of Rio, It does make improvements, but it still makes a couple of them worse. And in particular, what we'll see is that in the eastbound left turn, oops, eastbound left turn is right at that C threshold. Regardless, the point that I'm making is that our goal is to at least not make things worse. And I have a little purple highlight here because what was red yesterday, and it's going to be hard to argue why it shouldn't be red today. It shouldn't be on the developer's shoulders to do that. And that's what I highlighted in purple. The two that I circled in black were not red and are now. So that's why, and I don't want to take a hard look you know, screaming from the mountaintops on this because a bad intersection is a bad intersection. But this is why there is a question that was answered. How did the application fail to meet the UDC requirements? There are two movements that are not red that even after recommended improvements are red. That's the black and white or black and red part of that statement. That's the challenge we have. From your perspective, is there anything that can be done to make them black? That's not fair, because I wasn't hired to answer that question before. In fact, the engineer was hired to answer that, and that was the direction. To the point, I got dramatically sarcastic. I don't care if it's a diamond interchange that solves the problem. Suggest it so that somebody else can give away the farm, not me. And this is where we are.

And that's when they're asking for a waiver or an exemption from the seat?

I don't know what we're asking a waiver for. They don't want to meet code standard C. That's what's being asked for in the evidences.

It's those two circles.

But to answer your question indirectly, what are we as a city agreeing to give away? I don't know.

Not Lucy.

Well, but those two aren't there. It's the two circle ones that are the difference. Not all the others because we already had red in the other ones.

That's correct.

So it's really just the two circles that got created.

But today I'm an 8. And now I'm going to an 8.

So... And I appreciate you saying that, again, and that's why I didn't want to get into the specific numbers, just the quantity of red squares. All we're saying is the study was done well. It is a sound study. It's done by the numbers. I agree with the numbers. It doesn't meet the C for those two movements, and technically it doesn't meet the criteria that we've set out in UDC.

Okay, that was very helpful, thank you.

And this is what I'll say out there as well. young people and your wrecks are going to quadruple and it's going to be fatalities and major things because brand new drivers and you have confusion so there's got to be something from that the police get involved in this planning tech stock gets involved because you've got brand new drivers. And so it could even be the point that they're not even allowed to go down Roof Snow at 3 o'clock or 8 o'clock in the morning. You shut it down. They have to go a different route. Because you already got F's.

I'm just waiting for the fatalities. Well that's just wait time though. It actually would make it harder to get in an accident if they're waiting in line for

Yeah, you're beyond 60 seconds average per vehicle just sitting and waiting. Yeah. Yeah.

I didn't make it.

You're just not making it.

There's going to be more distracted drivers who are going to have more around into the back of you because they're not paying attention.

Yeah, and the other thing I didn't read in all that information was what was the projected volume into that grocery store?

I did not put that in here. I just put the results of those volumes, but it is specific in that study.

Because right now, the volume is split between Kroger and Tom Thunk. You left or right, reach either direction. Now they're all going into that one place.

Well, recall that we don't know what they're doing with Tom Thunk.

No, I'm just saying. Just right now, it's split.

I understand what you're saying.

Yeah, I want to be as objective as possible, but for the sake of clarity, I want to put this in context as well. And I mean to be just that, objective. We currently have a grocery store that is about 60, 65,000 square feet, roughly. with four access points on 1709 and three on Roof Snow. One for the trucks in back, one for the driving front, and one that they share with the bank. We're now proposing a 100,000 square foot, 50% larger, a little bit more, with two drives on Roof Snow. because that northern drive actually belongs to the church. Two drives, now one of them is signalized, and one drive off of 1709. 50% larger, half the points of access. Whether you're a traffic engineer or not, somewhere in those numbers, don't always add up.

And this has already been bought and paid for? This land?

the land years ago, right? They've owned it, you said 2016?

And I don't, I don't have the exact date of purchase, but it hasn't changed ownership since before they applied for this in 2016, so.

Well thank you for your stuff.

And we passed it in 2016.

Correct. Your slides were very good. Very good.

Did 2016 have the same kind of traffic scope? I'm sorry? Did 2016 have a similar traffic scope?

I can't imagine they would have allowed the site plan without it. That would have been right before me. And I actually have, they did perform a full TIA in 2016.

And the 2016 site plan did have a gas station. Yes, sir. Are there electric Charging stations associated in this? No, they weren't on that plan. They weren't on that, okay. All right. Well, the way that I anticipate this happening, we have public hearings on six of these agenda items, but you can see that the latter two are the big advance, and there's probably going to be some interest there. So I'll make a statement to the folks that are out there to speak that they can talk to us under persons to be heard, or they can wait for the public hearing. So we may see quite a queue for persons to be heard at the beginning of the meeting, and then they go home, or it may be until later. But anyway, that's gonna be the battle plan as we go into this, and we'll work our way through it. Assuming that we get to around nine o'clock, the mallet here and call a comfort break for 10 minutes so if you don't have to start if you're timing your biological functions to stay close to 9 o'clock then you can hear the whole gory details yes chairman may I make a suggestion to the public come and speak to peace once if you just offer twice

He usually tells them if they're here to speak on the public hearing to wait, but I don't know that you can mandate that they don't get to speak, right?

No, I'm not asking not to speak, but just because I'm into this meeting, if you could just say, hold your opinion to one time.

Okay, I can request that. minute so anyway if they want to speak for the three minutes and they're welcome to do so so anyway we've got seven or eight minutes before we move to the dais we do have one of our commissioners is going to zoom in on us so staff I've asked Sarah if you see Bill Schlegel waving at you probably wants to say something so bring it to my attention if I'm not aware of it since that monitor is over in the corner and with that chairman we do have one more item on the agenda after public hearing consider request to approve the amendments to the City of Keller UDC adopted ordinance to add a new community facilities zoning district, providing penalties, authorizing publication, establishing an effective date. And who briefed this?

This will be mine as well. So a lot of cities have kind of a generic zoning district that they put community centers or city facilities, school properties into communities. Keller has never had one of those, though we do have those types of designations in the future land use plan. So this creates a community facility zoning district that could be used in the future for aligning with the flood in different parts. Because if you look at this underlying zoning for a lot of our municipal or school district facilities, a lot of times it's residential or maybe some other zoning that doesn't really reflect exactly what the lot is being used for. Again, it's a pretty simple zoning district. It's not super lengthy. There's not a lot of design guidelines. It's a very small use chart. But there is language in there that would allow council to approve other uses within the CF zoning by SUP. So it really gives them the ultimate description on what goes in that case.

Can I ask a question about what's permitted by permit versus SUP? Are we also discussing that? Absolutely.

This is fully a draft by yours truly at the direction of the council. So please, if there's something that you're concerned with, think that we should modify, if you have the bandwidth to do it at the end of this meeting, absolutely, please.

Let's call this regular meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission City of Keller meeting to order on September 8th. It is now 7-0-4. With that, would you please join me for the pledges to the flag? Please stand.

I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,

Honored the Texas flag, I pledge allegiance to thee, Texas, one state under God, one and indivisible. Okay, thank you very much. I'd like to introduce your Planning and Zoning Commission, starting with my right down here, please.

Deborah Johnson.

Erin Farner.

Eric Leist. John Scott.

Michelle Sandoval-Cavanez.

And I paused there because I was waiting for one of our commissioners is going to join us via Zoom, and he will join us shortly, I'm sure. And I'm John Baker, your chairman for this evening. Okay, continuing with our agenda, this is persons to be heard. This is a time for the public to address the Commission on any subject. However, the Texas Open Meetings Act prohibits the Commission from discussing issues which the public has not been given three business days notice. Issues raised may be referred to city staff for research and possible future action. Each speaker will be allowed three minutes. Now, we have several public hearings tonight, and I know many of you, I've got several people that want to speak about the Kroger, which I believe is agenda item six. The way it works, if you want to save your three minutes until we get to that Kroger agenda item, that would be fine. Or if you choose, you could come now and speak under persons to be heard. So I'll leave that up to you. But it looks like it's going to be a long agenda, and we could be several hours away from the Kroger issue. So is there anybody here that wishes to speak to the commission on any issue on the agenda or anything in general. Okay, seeing no interest, we will move on. The consent agenda, consider the minutes for the August 11th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. Consider the minutes for the August 25th Planning and Zoning Commission meeting. And I'm open for comments, questions or corrections for that, We can take them as one. And I have a motion by Commissioner Scott.

Motion to close public hearing.

This is just to approve the consent agenda. Oh, a motion to approve the agenda on the table.

Thank you.

Okay. And Commissioner Farner? I second. Okay. We have a motion and a second to approve. Any further discussion? Let's go ahead and vote. Consent agenda is approved 6-0 If Miss Helms me when you see if you see our Zoom Commissioner show up. Would you give me a heads up, please? Certainly All right. Now we're at item new business a one which is a public hearing That item is to consider a request for a specific use permit for Earth Nail Spa to operate in a 2,675-square-foot lease space within a 7,500-square-foot building on approximately 1.03 acres located at 1,100 feet east of the intersection of Keller Parkway and Keller Smithfield Road, legally described as Block 3, Block A of the Cook Addition, zoned retail. The address is 1637 Keller Parkway, Unit 200. This is SUP-2608-0025. And Mr. Flanders?

Thank you, Chairman. Good evening, Commissioners. Aerial and zoning map before you. Subject property is zoned retail. Earth Nail Spa is a spa that is currently located in City of Carrollton. They are requesting an SUP to operate a spa at 1637 Keller Parkway. and SUP is required to operate a spa in the retail zoning district. The applicant has stated that Earth Nail Spa will provide professional nail services in a modern, upscale environment. They will provide 16 manicure stations, 10 pedicure stations, and a dedicated wellness room. The business will not provide massage therapy, medical services, or alcoholic beverages. Business will consist of approximately 20 employees, and their hours of operation are shown before you below. Here is just an elevation of the building. Outlined in red is the location of the proposed spa. And here is just a floor plan provided by the applicant. The front entrance is to the left side of your screen. The business will occupy 2,675 square feet of a new building at 1637 Keller Parkway that is approximately 7,500 square feet. And the UDC parking requirement for this application is 14 spaces, and there are approximately 38 spaces of parking provided on the property. Below is the surrounding zoning and land use of all the neighboring properties. Subject property is zoned retail and designated retail commercial on the city's future land use plan. On August 27th, the city mailed out 14 letters of notification for this public hearing. and staff has not received any public feedback in response to this request. Section 8.02 of the UDC states when considering an SUP request, the commission shall consider the following factors, that the use is harmonious and compatible with surrounding existing uses, the activities requested by the applicant are normally associated with the permitted uses in the base district, nature of the use is reasonable and appropriate, any negative impact on the surrounding area has been mitigated, and that any additional conditions specified ensure that the intent of the district purposes are being upheld. Again, the request before you this evening is an SUP to operate a spa in the retail zoning district. Commission has the following options when considering a SUP request, recommend approval, recommend approval with modifications, table, or recommend denial. And if a recommendation is provided tonight, this application will be forwarded to the October 6 City Council agenda. And staff and the applicant are here for any questions.

All right. Thank you very much. If the applicant is here, do you wish to say anything? Okay. Seeing no interest, Commissioner Farner?

A motion that we close the public hearing.

And Commissioner Leish? Second. Okay. We have a motion to close the public hearing with a second. Any further discussion? Let's go ahead and vote. Okay, the public hearing is now closed. The vote was six to zero. Are there any? I see Commissioner Farner.

Yes, Mr. Flanders, I don't know if you have it available, but do you know how many nail salons are currently kind of in this area?

So we have approximately 60 total in the city of Keller. This is located on Keller Parkway, and we have about 13 on Keller Parkway.

Okay. Well, I have no issue with it, and I welcome, you know, a company that wishes to expand into Keller.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Scott?

Erin, Commissioner Erin, she asked my question.

That's good. All right. So with that... Commissioner Lice.

Just quick clarification. Did you say 60? I'm assuming if you said 60, that is the category with which nail salons fall into? That is correct.

60 includes nail salons, barber shops, cosmetology services, massage businesses. I apologize for not clarifying that. But yes, it is 60 total all throughout Keller.

Perfect. Just wanted to get that on the record with that. I move to approve item E1 as presented.

I second.

So you made a motion to approve there? Okay, thank you. We have a motion to approve with a second. Any further discussion? And let's vote. Okay, that motion is approved, six to zero. And as stated, they'll go before the council on October 6th. Next item. E2 is a public hearing Consider a request for a specific specific use permit for pet care plus to operate a dog rooming and boarding facility in an existing 2088 square foot lease space within a 33,000 square foot building on the west side of South Main located 800 feet from South Main and Bear Creek And zone commercial and address 750 South Main, SUP 2608-0024. And Mr. Edelman? Thank you, Chairman.

I have the aerial and zoning maps shown here. Property is zoned commercial. Pet Care Plus is requesting a specific use permit to operate a pet grooming and boarding facility at 750 South Main Street. in an existing lease space that was previously occupied by Well Groomed, which is another pet grooming business. In the commercial zoning district, an SUP is required to operate a pet boarding facility, whereas a grooming-only facility would be allowed by right. PetCare Plus is currently operated by two owners and employs two professional groomers. With the proposed relocation to the subject property, the applicant anticipates adding two additional employees. And the business will provide professional dog grooming services, including bathing, haircuts, nail trimming, ear cleaning, and other routine grooming services, as well as providing overnight and short-term dog boarding. The hours of operation are shown on screen there. The business will occupy an existing lease space that is approximately 2,088 square feet. No interior or exterior modifications have been proposed. The UDC parking requirement for a retail or personal service establishment is one space per 200 square feet of gross floor area. The requirement for this space would be 11 parking spaces. Parking is shared between the businesses within this multi-tenant development where there are 219 regular and eight accessible spaces. There's a floor plan provided by the applicant. Again, they've stated that they are not currently planning to remodel the interior of the lease space. Subject property is zoned commercial and designated retail commercial on the city's future land use plan. As are all surrounding properties. All surrounding properties are also zoned commercial. On August 27th, the city mailed out 10 letters of notification to all property owners within 300 feet of the subject site. Staff has received no public feedback in response to the request. Quick reminder of the UDC factors to consider when hearing an SUP request that Ethan read to you previously. Again, the request before you is for a specific use permit to operate a pet boarding facility in the commercial zoning district. Commission has the following options when considering this request. Recommend approval as submitted. Recommend approval of modifications. Table or recommend denial. And if a recommendation is provided tonight, the application will be forwarded to the October 6th City Council agenda. If you have any questions, staff and the applicant are available.

All right. Thank you. And is the applicant here and wish to say anything? Okay. With that, Commissioner Leist.

Move to close the public hearing.

Thank you. Commissioner Farner.

I second.

Okay, we have a motion and a second to close the public hearing. Any further discussion? Let's vote. Public hearing is now closed with a vote of six to zero. All right, we have any questions? Commissioner Leist?

I just want to say I think it's great that someone has found the space to use it for the exact same use. It seems like a good move. Just welcome to Keller. And with that, I will move to approve Item E2 as presented.

Okay. And I see your request, Ms. Sandoval-Cabanas and Ms. Varner.

I second the motion.

Okay. We have a motion to approve and a second. And we must have some discussion. That's the sound of all cabanas.

Is the applicant actually here? Can I ask you a question? Yes, could you? Sorry, I know everybody wants to get to Kroger. I promise it's really quick. Yes, ma'am. Hi. Hi. It looks like a relatively small space. I'm just curious if you guys are going to limit the amount of pets you're going to be boarding. Is there a limit on the size? It just looks like really small. There's not any outdoor space to take these dogs.

Absolutely. So we limit our size on the pets that we allow. We don't allow big dogs to board with us. And then we only offer the boarding services to our current grooming clients, not any outside clients to that. And then we limit our boarding state to like 10 dogs. Yeah, that's about it. Okay, great. Thank you very much. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Commissioner Johnson.

If I could ask one more question along those lines. It mostly is, is there going to be staff on site overnight with the animals, or are they going to be there by themselves?

At this new location, we are wanting to add a staff overnight.

Okay.

Yes, ma'am.

Thank you.

Thank you.

All right. Thank you. So we still have that motion with a second. Any further discussion? Okay, let's vote. That motion is approved six to zero and you'll be before the city council October 6th and wishing well with your project. With that, we're moving on to item E3, Consider a request for a variance to the City of Keller Unified Development Code Article 8 Zoning Districts Town Center for one monument sign located on the west side of Roof Snow at the north intersection of Bear Creek and Roof Snow. Block A of the Movie House Addition Zone Town Center addressed as 242 Roof Snow Drive. And UDC-2608-0010. And Ms. Zimmerman.

Thank you, Chairman. So 242 Roof Snow Drive does have an existing monument sign that currently serves as an off-premise sign for Movie House Eatery, which is actually a 250 Roof Snow Drive. The applicant is proposing a sign that would serve both properties, both the Movie House Eatery and the multiple businesses at 242 Roof Snow Drive. Now the UDC does have very specific design standards for what monument signs can look like. Ultimately it comes out to a sign that is six feet in height up to 12 feet wide and so about 72 square feet. The applicant is proposing a sign that does meet that six feet height requirement, but is approximately 120 square feet and about 20 feet in width. Per the UDC standards, the sign will be externally illuminated, and here is both a drawing and rendering of what that sign would look like. The proposed sign would replace the existing monument sign of the property, again located on the west side of Roof Snow Drive and the Beer Creek Parkway intersection. The existing tree and landscape island would have to be removed to accommodate the larger sign. EUDC variance does not require public hearing, so no notifications were sent out to the public. However, they did have the opportunity to speak on this during persons to be heard. Section 2.07 of the UDC lists the following criteria that the Commission shall look at when considering a variance request. That there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land involved. That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the public. That the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other lands in the area. that the granting of the variance will not constitute a violation of any other valid ordinance in the city, and that the strict compliance with the regulations and or that the purpose of the regulations will be served to a great extent by the alternative proposal. So just a brief summary of the variances requested. First, to allow a monument sign to be approximately 20 feet wide, and second, to allow that sign to be approximately 120 square feet. Planning and Zoning Commission has to find options when considering a UDC variance request, recommend approval as submitted or with modifications, table or recommend denial. If a recommendation is provided tonight, this application will be forwarded to the October 6 City Council agenda. Staff and the applicant are here if you have any questions.

All right, thank you. Is there a representative of the applicant wish to add anything? Thank you. And your name and address, please. Yes, sir.

It's Sam Pan with Realty Capital at 909 Lake Carolyn Parkway in Irving. Thank you, staff, for the presentation. As usual, hit everything. Just wanted to kind of underscore a couple of things. Very simple, sort of the intention of what we're doing here as background It took us some time to get this center that's got seven locally owned businesses in it fully leased, stabilized, and feeling good about the businesses that are in there, how they're complimentary to each other, and then kind of what their path forward is for continued growth. So really all we're trying to do is give these seven tenants the best shot at success. And sight lines to storefront signs. Pretty simple and easy request and an easy way to do that. You may have noticed in the very first photo that the existing condition does have a tree where kind of half of this proposed sign is going to be. That tree pretty severely inhibits the sight line to the center at a very effective spot, right? This sign, the existing sign, was placed at what I would tell you is the most effective spot. You're sitting at a stoplight. You can't help but look over and see this sign. The intent there is kind of two birds, one stone, remove that tree, widen the sign, and give not only that very first ten, so you can see there Miss Saigon would now have direct sight line to the two signs they have, and then the other six would have a panel on the monument. So that's the idea there. And then in terms of the variance to go double wide, the idea there is that Movie House already had their sign So where does the 242 strip put their sign? Clearly the most effective place is to do it right here in the same island that was chosen by Movie House for obvious reasons. So that's that. There's also, if you do notice in this rendering here, we did miss one small little sliver sort of down the middle, but the sign, the shop drawing on the left is correct. The idea is to have that masonry border in the middle kind of closely capture what the spirit of the existing signs around town center look like. Um, and then, uh, the only other thing in terms of sight lines, and I know we've been having conversations with staff, but there are some trees along roof snow, uh, that contrary to popular belief are actually not controlled by us. They're actually owned and maintained by the city. Uh, and so we just asked for some cooperation and maybe trying to low limb the trees to encourage, uh, you know, higher canopy or whatever the experts say would be a fair solution for the health of the trees, but then also the health of the site line to these businesses and for the businesses' health. That's what I've got. I'm certainly happy to answer questions.

Okay, sir. If you'll stay close by, we may have some questions for you. Yes, sir. And with that, Commissioner Johnson.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I just wanted to... because I thought you were going to stay up here, but that's okay. And you clarified one of them, because I had seen that, you know, in the picture that we had in our packet, too, that it looks like it's more two individual signs instead of one sign merged together, is what I'm seeing from the picture. So I just was, but you had clarified that, so thank you for that, because it does look like the two individual things. I very much appreciate that you're making it more visible because when you are at that light, really all you see is the movie theater sign and you really don't see any of the others. And when you're driving by quickly, it is difficult when they're just on the building to see what is in there. You're not going above the height that is typically in the town square, so I believe that you're kind of matching it. So I just want to convince you on those things. Thank you.

All right, thank you. And Commissioner Farner?

So I have a couple questions. I'm the tree hugger, so I have to ask. You're cutting down onto the trees, and you're trimming the others, which I appreciate. Surprise, surprise. Are you and the city or parks looking to replace that tree by planting something elsewhere?

It was really kind of part of the overall discussion on the other trees along Roof Snow, and no, at this point, at this time, there's not anything in the works, in the plans at the moment to replace that particular tree right now. You know, kind of where the existing tree.

And my other question is, does not appear that all the tenants will be represented by this sign. So is there a reason that some are not being presented on the sign?

Yes, ma'am. So if you look at the picture on the right, Miss Saigon is the very first tenant that you see. And once that tree is gone, when you're sitting at that light, you sort of don't need to have that panel on the monument sign. because their actual sign is the very first one, and they've got two signs, so a sign on each of the facades, kind of perpendicular to each other, so their sign's already kind of like, bam, right there. It's the other six that are kind of a little farther back that would benefit more from the panels on the sign.

All right, and my last question, the landscaping, is that done by the town center crew or is that being done by you and the tenants in this monument place? Are you going to keep flowers and the landscaping this way or is that part of the town center?

Yes, ma'am. It is actually on our property but has been maintained by the movie house. But in conversations with the movie house folks, you know, in increasing the size of this, we'll collaborate and figure out how, you know, who's going to be better at it and who's building back whom and that sort of thing. But it would be private maintenance, whether us or movie house or kind of a combination of the two.

And it is nice that y'all are collaborating in order to, for the benefit of all tenants. So I appreciate that effort.

Yes, ma'am. All right. Thank you. And Commissioner Sandoval Cabanas.

My question is actually more for staff. So I appreciate that it's not going up here in Keller. We're trying to keep things low. We're trying to keep things low key, but still have our businesses thrive. It is definitely going out. Are there other examples of signs that we have done this for that are this large for other businesses? I can just see us starting this path of, well, now my business should need a sign because my business isn't

on the front where the big sign is and then we end up where we didn't want to be in the first place which is we have lots of big signs now it might be an impossible question that i just asked you so i we actually talked about this um i don't think there is another example in town center where someone has asked for this exact exception a lot of that has to do with the way the lots are configured as i mentioned in the pre-meeting this is a very unusual situation in that This sign is on the property where the multi-tenant building is. It's actually not on the movie house lot. So if both of the lots had frontage, they would have their individual monument signs. So I think the simple answer is we haven't had that in town center. It doesn't mean that someone else might come and ask for it, but a lot of times it doesn't even come up because the individual businesses have their own space to put the monument sign. It's just not the case here. This is a unique problem. Yes. Okay. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. And Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One quick question. The tree, will that be demolished?

Yes, sir. The tree would need to be removed in order for that sign to be widened.

A question maybe to the staff as a question is if that tree could be removed, uplifted, and planted someplace in a memorial of someone, something, Would that be an option that could be done?

The Parks Department has a program for benches, I know for sure, like park benches. I think trees as well. I'm not well versed in that program, unfortunately. Commissioner Farner probably knows it a lot better than I do. It exists. I don't know if removing this tree and replanting it would even be feasible. I am not an arborist or a good opportunity. Or even if that would be something the applicant would be interested in doing.

I would just put that to you as a possibility. It shows signs of good faith. If you were to move the tree instead of just destroy it like a lot of these home builders come in and do these zero lot lines. So I think it would be a good motion for you guys to move it and donate it in honor of so-and-so. Because I go to that movie house quite a bit. Thank you.

All right, thank you. Commissioner Farner?

I motion that we approve item E3 as presented.

Thank you. Commissioner Johnson?

Second.

We have a motion to approve with a second. Any further discussion? Okay, let's vote. Okay, that motion passes five to one. And you two will be before the city council. I don't know where you went. Anyway, on October 6th. Thank you. Okay, moving on. Let's consider a planned development. This is a public hearing. Consider a planned development zoning change from commercial and light industrial to planned development mixed use for Samantha Springs Commerce, a proposed planned development on 15.6 acres consisting of 31 brownstone units, approximately 8.19 acres of non-residential development, and approximately 3.27 acres of open space. And this is the Samantha Springs Commerce Park addition, located on the east side of North Main, and addressed 800 North Main Street, and it is zone dash. 4608-0003. And Ms. Hensley?

And that should be zone-2608-003. I already found my first typo this evening. Aerial map on the left-hand side of your screen is zoning on the right. The property is zoned primarily light industrial, but with a little pocket of commercial up at that northwest corner where the Old Harvest Christian Church was located. The surrounding properties to the north, Stone Commercial. To the south is Light Industrial. To the east, Single Family Residential. Mostly the Harmons and Farms neighborhood, but some SF36 there off of Norma Lane. And then to the west, oddly we have some commercial just running along 377, but of course the actual structures and development are in the Katy Road Zoning District across 377. So... Here is the concept plan for the plan development we're looking at this evening. We'll kind of work through the different sub areas the applicant is proposing, and I've got a separate slide showing what the sub areas are, but hopefully you had a chance to look at some of the renderings the applicant provided in the packet. That top left one, that water feature more or less lines up with the water feature shown. It's kind of an entry point. to the development here along the main Paseo that a lot of this development is going to be centered around. Current conditions shown on the left-hand side of your screen. As I mentioned in the pre-meeting, the applicant's already moved forward with some of the infrastructure, putting in the streets and obviously the large pond you can see that ultimately will make up a good chunk of the open space for this project. Little unusual to have the infrastructure go first, Applicant, I think, is definitely hoping to provide that access to the brewery. If you've been in Keller for a while, you probably remember the old Shannon Brewery that was located here on the northeast corner of the development. And then the applicant's rendering is on the right showing the reuse and repurpose of the structures on the north end, and then the non-residential development happening here in the middle, and then the brownstone units here on the south end of the project. The current future land use plan designation is retail commercial along 377 and then the back two-thirds or so of the property is designated patio garden townhome. Surrounding flood designations identical to the south and the north at RTC along 377 and then PGT farther east. To the east across the property line is high density single family residential. And then to the west, retail commercial with a tech flex overlay. That's what that stripe kind of hashing is on the image. The applicant is asking for a future land use plan amendment going from retail commercial and PGT to mixed use. That'll be the next item on the agenda. All right. So getting into the sub areas that I mentioned. Sub area A, up at the northwest corner of the development is where The existing church building is. It's technically two structures, I think, connected by a walkway, currently vacant. Subarea B has the old bottling plant and Shannon Brewery. Subarea C and D are all non-residential development, again, centered around that central Paseo. And then subarea BR is the brownstone units located on the south end of the development. The applicant did provide a very detailed list use chart for the plan development showing what would be allowed by right by SUP or not at all and all of the sub areas including the brownstone units and also some comparison commercial as the base zoning for the non-residential areas that's their comparison and then multifamily not doesn't really anticipate brownstones in Keller but use that as a comparison just to have something to kind of see what might be allowed right now in the city. So I'm certainly not going to go through every single one of these uses, but we have them in the slides. Happy to pull them up and discuss further either with staff or the applicant as we go through this project. Looking at that Brownstone sub area, again, the maximum number of units proposed is 31. They are planning to have them deed restricted to be owner occupied and not rented. While they would be attached in several sections, they would be on individual lots. And the minimum lot size, found my second typo, should be about 2,500 to 3,500 square feet, not 15,000. Minimum lot width and depth, 25 feet and 60 feet respectively. The garages would be minimum two-car capacity tuck-under units, so they would be underneath the brownstone unit, access from the rear. All of the entrances in the development standards are required to have some type of front porch or covered stoop. Landscaping would primarily be in a dedicated courtyard with at least one ornamental tree for each unit. And the building materials on the exterior of the units would be 80% masonry. So another rendering provided by the applicant showing kind of that courtyard space along the street. And then at the bottom right showing the different examples entry to those units. A little bit more information from the applicant in terms of how they would regulate the frontage for the brownstones. They've broken up the plan development in three different types of frontages, residential, pedestrian, and paseo. And so the frontage for the brownstone units obviously would be the residential held to these standards. And then they also provided the image on the right kind of showing bird's eye view how those units would be arranged so with again the garages behind for access here's your entrance with the front porch area courtyard would be kind of a continuous courtyard though separated by individual walls but would give the the feeling of a continuous landscaped area non-residential sub-areas a and b again these are the sub-areas that already have structures in them that the applicant hopes to repurpose and reuse. Like I mentioned, subarea A has the church. Subarea B includes the bottling plant and the brewery. All of these structures are currently vacant. Minimum lot size proposed for subareas A and B is 10,000 square feet, which is less than what is required in the base zoning of commercial minimum lot width of 100 feet varies from that 150-foot requirement in commercial. There is no minimum lot depth or lot coverage requirement in the UDC for commercial zoning. And then setbacks proposed at 10 feet for sub-areas A and B, definitely different than what's in commercial, though these are developed lots already with the structures on them. I'm sure you could tell from the aerial, the existing Shannon Brewery is already about 10 feet off the property line that they share with the drainage area for Harmons and Farms. So likely that that setback would continue with the ancillary uses they hope to construct next to the brewery. And there is no plan to move the brewery off that property line. Subareas C and D are intended to be positioned around that Paseo shown there with the red. line, the facades of the buildings that would be facing that red line would be required to follow these Paseo frontage standards. Let me get into the next chart a little bit more. Maximum building height of 40 feet, a little bit more than what we have in commercial. They're proposing a minimum building width as percentage of lot. We don't have that in commercial zoning, but we also don't anticipate a unique project like this. So really trying to create a space along that Paseo that is enjoyable for the pedestrians, hopefully walking within that Paseo zone, which would be a minimum of 25 feet, no vehicular traffic allowed in that Paseo zone, and then would also have on either side of the Paseo zone a furniture or street tree area five feet in width. Finally, the pedestrian frontage. So this is shown in blue in the graphic here. So this is all the space that is facade of those buildings around the Paseo but not actually facing the Paseo. These are the standards. These sides of those buildings would be required to follow. Still with a little bit of a pedestrian zone adjacent to the building at three feet. And then next to that pedestrian zone, six feet of a furniture zone for trash receptacles, benches, what have you, but might be encroached by a vehicle overhang because that would be a section you would have some parking in, right? Not next to the paseo, but next to the parking lots serving these different businesses. The applicant intends to have all parking shared between the uses, except of course for the brownstone garages. Development standards state that on-street parking will be counted towards the parking requirements, so that's a little bit different than how we have done it in other developments throughout Keller with the on-street parking. Typically, we require all of your parking to be met on-site, but again, those parking ratios are anticipating a bit of a different type of project than what's proposed here. They did provide a couple of ratios they wanted to follow for this project that are slightly different than what's in the UDC Retail, they're actually going with a little bit more aggressive ratio. General office, 1 to 330. The UDC usually requires 1 to 350. It depends on the size of the building. And then the brownstones, two enclosed spaces per unit. Everything else would have to follow what's in the UDC in terms of parking requirements. The applicant has six open space areas spread throughout the building. Of course, the one that kind of catches your eye first is the large pond at the back that will be kind of the terminating view for that paseo if you're walking down through those retail areas. Applicant also has two preservation areas and a central water feature, that one we looked at on one of the first slides. They're exceeding the 15% open space requirement for plan developments coming in at almost 21% open space. Applicant intends to comply with the landscape requirements in the UDC Section 9.03, which is the non-residential landscaping requirements along with the US Highway 377 North overlay district requirements. The level of detail that you're normally accustomed to seeing with a full landscape plan would come in with the individual detailed site plans for each phase of this project. So they would have to show each tree and shrub and where those are gonna be put and how they're screening the parking lot, all those kinds of things would have to come in with a detailed site plan. Same thing for screening and fencing. UDC does require masonry screening when a single family development is constructed adjacent to a developed non-residential use. In this case, the development is coming in next to some single-family residential, so that would have to be addressed on the detailed site plan, showing the material, the height, and the location details for all of the screening and fencing throughout the project. The applicant definitely wants to focus on pedestrian connectivity throughout this project, and so each detailed site plan would also have to show sidewalk and trail locations for the particular lot being proposed for development. To follow up on the conversation in the pre-meeting, the trail connection that affects this particular property runs along Highway 377, so they would be required to construct that, but they're also intending to construct sidewalks throughout the development, including one that completely encircles the pond at the back of the project. Applicant has already given us full civil plans for the roadway, another key infrastructure, which is, of course, actually under construction. They will be required to provide additional drainage and utility information with those detailed site plans. Two points of access off North Main Street will serve this development. Both of those are public streets, so Samantha Springs Court on the north and then Adelaide Court on the south. They both terminate in cul-de-sacs that meet the city's standards for turnarounds. end of August, we mailed out 29 letters of notification for this public hearing, posted a notice sign on the property. We have not received any written feedback in response to this request. UDC guidelines for considering a zoning change, whether the use is permitted by the proposed change will be appropriate in the immediate area, whether the proposed change is in accord with any existing or proposed plans, the amount of vacant land currently classified for similar development in the vicinity and elsewhere in the city, the recent rate at which land is being developed in the same zoning classification as the request, particularly in the vicinity of the proposed zoning change, how other areas designated for similar development will or will not be affected if the proposed amendment is approved, and any other factors affecting the community. So again, the request before you this evening is a plan development zoning change for Samantha Springs, 15.63 acres, which includes 31 brownstone units, about eight acres of non-residential development, and about three acres of open space. As a reminder on the process, it is outlined in the staff memo, but I didn't put it on a slide. The UDC allows applicants seeking a plan development to come in with a concept plan with the understanding that they have to come back later on with a detailed site plan which is what this applicant has chosen to do. You can do that with one detailed site plan, or you can do it in phases. The applicant can decide. But they have written into their development standards that if those future detailed site plans are in substantial conformance with the plan development, no public hearing would be required, and they would go straight to city council for consideration and approval. In other words, if their detailed site plan, as proposed, as the PD is proposed, if their detailed site plan, future detailed site plans are in substantial conformance with the PD, they would not come back to the commission. They would go straight to the council. Options for the commission this evening, recommend approval, recommend approval with modifications, table, or deny. This item, like all the others this evening, will go on to council on October 6th with a recommendation from the commission this evening. And Chairman, the applicant does have a presentation if you want to hear that before we move forward.

All right. Thank you. Is the applicant here and wish to make a presentation?

Thank you, Sarah. My name is Jason Clonch with Catalyst Commercial, 3838 Oak Lawn. I'm here with my associate, Lee Einswaller, on behalf of Joe McCombs, and we really appreciate your time tonight. I'm assuming I can just scroll. That works, too. Thank you. I'm going to try to go over some of the highlights. I know staff did a really good job presenting the proposal. And I know tonight hopefully won't be a long night for you, but I'll try not to plow the same field. You know, this is a unique site. As staff had mentioned, we were engaged on this project after all the engineering had been approved. But we do see this as a great opportunity to sort of rethink the existing zoning and put together a concept plan that sort of honors the site. Obviously, it's a little bit more context sensitive than the neighbor and provides hopefully a catalyst to activate the 377 corridor. The owner has spent a lot of time, and I know this is a legacy development for the owner, and we really tried to create the amenities and make sure that we provided enough detail to ensure that this is truly a signature destination. As staff mentioned, this does align with commercial uses and also the townhome uses along the corridor, so we wanted to acknowledge that process as well. So why this project? Why do we deviate from the existing light industrial zoning or base and commercial? Obviously, it's got great frontage along 377. This area is central to a huge choice population that we think would be benefited by serving with a good mixed-use project with a commercial focus. Obviously, there is existing infrastructure in place that provided both an opportunity and a challenge. The site plan had to work through that existing infrastructure. As staff had mentioned, we're certainly going to accommodate the trail along 377, but we've provided connectivity throughout the development, including around the pond and the amenity. And it really does, I think, we've tried to do our best to balance the new and existing commercial in a context-sensitive way that also fosters sort of the vibrancy that the new brownstones would create. But we spent a lot of time with Harmsen Farms, and we wanted to make sure that as we designed this, based on the infrastructure, that we really buffered that project as well. As staff had mentioned, all the infrastructure is in place. And again, the property is currently zoned light industrial and commercial. And it does have existing access management already approved by TxDOT for the two access points as shown. As we commence on this process, some of the things that sort of emerged that were sort of our guiding compasses, we wanted to create sort of the community gathering place. And so you can see that we did that through both the Paseo and the central water feature. We wanted to integrate a mix of uses while we think the site obviously, you know, could respond to commercial. It's a lot of land along a location. It essentially could be challenging to fill up that much development purely with commercial. And so we wanted to integrate the mix of uses. We also feel like the brownstones provide a certain vibrancy that purely the commercial uses wouldn't. We've spent a lot of time creating a destination, creating something unique. There's a lot of detail in this application, but really the intent was to provide assurance to staff and really security that the details would essentially be played out as designed and as the images reflect. And then obviously we spent a lot of time preserving open space and some of the existing tree canopies, so we wanted to make sure that we both protected and preserved and integrated a sense of quality. And then I also want to underscore the economic focus, you know, trying to create and maximize the amount of appropriate commercial uses and also create an opportunity to really jumpstart some of the existing commercial uses, the buildings that are on place in a way that balances the uses that are proposed, so. Some of the key elements, and staff did a good job, but again, a functional water feature that serves as both the detention-retention, the Paseo through the middle, heavily a commercial-focused program throughout the development, and then I think staff did a good job laying out some of the variances in the lot are essentially to allow this to be able to be flexible and be developed over phases intentionally, but yet The way that we've designed the frontages, and I'll have Lee explain that in a minute, so that there's a rhythm and a structure and integrity of the project so that as this project does unfold, it's done in a very organized way. We've provided very thoughtful access and internal circulation. We've maximized the amount of open space. And staff did say that we've got a couple of parking variances, but essentially we meet or exceed your parking requirements, even according to the existing standards. And as you can see, we really spent a lot of time buffering the program to adjacent residential neighborhood. And I've actually enjoyed working with Harmons and Farms, our adjacent partners, and again, We originally proposed a trailhead access. There's de facto trailhead as people used to use the brewery and cut through. We would love to see that happen. I don't think that the neighborhood necessarily rejected that in wholesale. There's really just not a functional way for the HOA to accept that. So we're going to accommodate that, but we're not going to require that just because we just don't think there's a meaningful connection that could be engineered on the other side of the fence. But we do want to make sure that there's internal connection throughout the project. And I think staff did a really good job. You can see the existing brewery and the church considered in terms of adaptive reuse, which the zoning would accommodate. Sort of the central development with the paseo and the water feature, and again, adjacent to the existing 31 fee-owned brownstones that are proposed. This is a view down the promenade with your back facing 377. And this is an example, an illustrative of the brownstones themselves and the facade that's proposed, how maybe the masonry walls would look with the natural materials. And then we wanted to provide some maybe additional details so you can see how the courtyards would accommodate the proposed green space as mentioned. And this is the look of the brownstones, again with 377 to your back, looking how those would be oriented in the type of style and design that are anticipated and also regulated. Staff had mentioned the site is predominantly light industrial zoning with the church currently under the existing commercial use. This proposal does align with your existing future land use plan. Obviously, there's some nuances to this, so we did work with staff to propose a mixed-use overlay or a mixed-use future land use plan to accommodate the development. And then I'm going to have Lee walk through, again, to answer any questions, but walk through sort of the organization of the document itself.

Thanks, Jason. So this is the organization of the document shown here. There is a narrative that opens it up. There's sort of the framework for the whole site, a discussion of the development standards, a discussion of those particular frontages that we are regulating to make sure that we get that quality pedestrian environment, the parking standards, which are slightly modified from the existing, the open space and where it's located on the site, and where some of the key, especially off-site signage, would be located. Each of those we'll get a chance to look at. This is also the slide, if you really cared about seeing what the size of the existing buildings are. This is the one place that that's annotated on one of the images. So there you can see the size and scale of the existing buildings. They're fairly large, industrial-looking buildings, if you've ever driven past the site. And today it's just... a very flat, boring site with two cul-de-sac roads on it. So one of the key things that we did, I don't know, you guys are typically, in a sense, one of the biggest users of the existing use table in the zoning ordinance. While there isn't a use table, there are use lists in each district, and in fact, it changes district to district, sometimes what the same use might be called, So it's quite challenging to look at your uses. So we pulled together what unfortunately is a huge table in the document, a multi-page table, but we tried very carefully to show where we are proposing change. So those gray boxes and the red text are where we are actually proposing a change from the base district, so the C district for the commercial area, and we used the MF district to look at for the Brownstone area. So these give you some sense that we're actually narrowing the options that we're, for the most part, keeping the special use permits that you require for almost all uses. In some particular cases, we've narrowed things. You'll see the bank savings loan and credit union says no drive-through, for example. This is a mixed use area. If you want to bank, you want to walk up bank. So we have tuned up the use table a little bit. We brought over only one use that I recall from the light industrial district that was underlying this area. because we think it might actually be a sort of quasi-industrial use that would be compatible on those two northern parcels. And that would be assembly of light electronic instruments that we're talking about here. But other than that, for the most part, the use table's all there. You can have a look at it. You can compare it against the columns for what your uses are today. And I apologize the table's so long, but it's because your use lists are so long today. So that is complete in the documentation you were provided. I also want to make sure that you understand how the rules for these red lines and blue lines and purple lines are intended to work. The access points are the access points that are there today. There's no need to change those, thank goodness. However, we have said that once you get past those access points, the character of the streets and the relationship of the building to the streets should change. It should become more pedestrian friendly. And so that's what you're seeing in each of these frontages. There is one specific to the residential brownstone area. There is one specific to the paseo that is the walkable street that runs down through the center of those commercial buildings. And there is a sort of generic pedestrian frontage around the outside of all the rest of the buildings. So there's no backs of buildings pointing at any of these streets. Any of the areas that you are walking in there, you are going to see something that is an active frontage. And that's what each of these little drawings shows. So this is the central spine that runs down all the way from 377 back to the lake. It's intended to be a beautifully lit, lovely framed area in which we have shop fronts, restaurants, whatever along the sides, and a sidewalk that is directly adjacent to them. but also a walkable internal center street there. It's 25 feet wide. It allows a beautiful view all the way back to the lake and the fountain feature at the lake at the back. So that's the Paseo frontage that we are proposing. Then these are the blue streets, the sort of remaining outsides of all of those buildings that were shown. The blue streets, the key thing there is we're putting on street parking on these streets. And while that may seem strange to have parking right in this walkable area, actually it provides pedestrians with a feeling of comfort that one, there might be a parking space right out in front of my favorite store. but two, also that they're protected from the traffic lanes. So in many ways, this is advantageous. The one thing that we have done is in order to narrow the lane width itself, the width of pavement that we need, we are stealing back two feet, up to two feet, where you may have vehicle overhang over the sidewalk. So the curb would be there, and instead of parking blocks, which sit two feet or whatever back from the curb, We're allowing the curb to serve as the parking block. And so that furniture zone that is designated B there, sorry, it's shown here in the C, the on-street parking might actually extend about two feet over the sidewalk that's there. But it doesn't impede the pedestrian zone itself, which meets all the ADA requirements, which sits adjacent to the buildings. So that's the pedestrian frontage. A little more of a generic frontage. And yes, it has parking along it. The final frontage is the residential frontage. This is only in the brownstone area. The brownstones you saw are intended to have little courtyards in the front with short fences. and a sidewalk that is adjacent to them. We did not manage the tree lawn that is shown here. Right now, the actual accurate drawing is the one that's rendered in which the tree ends up in the courtyard area. We couldn't fit it in the street because it turns out there are too many utilities there. We'd have to widen the street to get past the utilities. And there was no desire to widen this street that's going to be a small residential street. So this is the narrow frontage for serving those street areas. It serves then rear access to parking to all of the units. This is, just so you understand it from the top down, this is what that front little courtyard would look like. It's about six feet deep until you hit the front port. There's a four foot sidewalk proposed and a two foot green space between the street itself and the sidewalk to separate those two. Then there is the ability to have up to 40 feet deep for the building and the entire lot is allowed to be as short as 60 feet and actually a minor correction from what the staff was suggesting. The gray is actually not the garage. The garage is tucked under the building The grey is the drive going into the garage. It might well have parking on it. It is off the rear and off the alley. The pedestrian area is along the streets here in the front. Does that make sense? Finally, the parking standards. We did ask for a little relief here. One of the main reasons is because all of the parking spaces fundamentally lead to all of the people places. So if the parking spaces are close enough, people will feel comfortable parking along the street, parking in the parking lot in the back. Maybe they're parked over at the brewery and they're walking over to the restaurant. All of those possibilities will be true. There are no on-street parking spaces in the Brownstone area. Actually, there's only the rear parking in the Brownstone area. We have a series of open spaces. Those were kind of presented already, but they are primarily street-facing open spaces so that the feeling of this site from 377 should be a positive experience. There's your trail, that Wigley Trail that's going along the roadway, is the connection of the trail along 377. And then, as we've noted, we have the ability to go down through the Paseo and actually be engaged with that entire retention pond that's in the back there. One of the key things that we wanted to make certain of, this is a fast-moving roadway adjacent to here. We don't want to have any crashes out front. We don't want people stopping in the middle of traffic there. So we're trying to do a very good job of way finding for the site. So because of that, we have some limited monument signs. Those are the purple rings. So there are three possible sites for monument signs. Those would be for a specific tenant for the most part. And then at the entrance itself, the two orange signs coming from the north, the one on the north side coming from the south, the one on the south side is shown And those would be multi-tenant signs. They're not designed or anything yet. I don't have anything to show you like that. But at least at present, there is a size established in the draft code that's included. Having said that, we've gone through a lot of process already. Jason has managed to take this from simple concept planning through the DRC with a workshop We've prepared a draft PD. There's been feedback from the staff which has been super helpful. There has been a workshop held already, a corridor committee meeting, an HOA meeting, and here we are tonight. Final steps are to get to city council and then those detailed site plans would come in presuming that we get through this. No proposal yet for which ones would come first. But as the market demands, those detailed site plans would come in. So with that, any discussion, questions for Jason or I?

All right. Thank you. I think we'll go ahead and listen if there's anybody here that would like to make comment. This is a public hearing, and if you guys will stay close by, I'm sure we'll have some more questions. So as a public hearing, is there anybody here that wishes to comment on this agenda item? Okay, Commissioner. Yes, sir. And if you would, your name and address, please. Of course.

Paul Jones. I'm at 912 Homestead Drive. My property is literally an easy stone throw from the old Shannon's Brewery. So I have a vested, very much a vested interest in what's going on here. And... Again, I've not received anything from our HOA regarding Harms and Farms being involved in this. I know that that's been presented, but I'm not aware of anything. My concern with this is, again, they're asking city council to make a change to the zoning, but yet there's not a definitive plan from what I've heard, and I've tried to listen very carefully, and perhaps y'all can educate me more if I've missed, as to what exactly will happen with the abandoned Samantha Springs location and also the abandoned Shannon's location. I've just been heard that they will be repurposed. And again, I don't know exactly what that means in terms of what will it be repurposed, what will be in that facility. Again, I'm within 20 feet of the Shannon's facility in my backyard. So I have a paramount concern as to what will be done with that property if this zoning change is made. and they can basically do whatever their plan is going to be. Again, the brownstones concern me just from a property value standpoint. It's been my experience seeing brownstones go in in North Richland Hills and Watauga and everywhere else, and what ends up happening is that they become rental values for investors. They become rental properties. You can go to the current one standing... I see I've only got two minutes, but you can go to the current... brownstones that are right across from the city from the Keller ISD plan center there by the Target in North Richland Hills. You drive up and down, and there's literally six to seven signs every time you drive down with those brownstones for lease. So that, of course, has the ability to affect the property values of Harmonson Farms, having brownstones that will go down in value because people don't live in them, just renters live in them. And all of us know, let's not be naive, renters don't take care of properties as nice as if they own them, no different than when you rent a car. And so I have concerns about that piece, which I don't really know is whether that's on the agenda here today in terms of the final decisions on that. I see that we have a city council meeting scheduled for October 6th. But again, my concern is just what is the ultimate purpose of these buildings, of the Harvest Church, of the Samantha Springs, and of the Shannon's Brewery as to what those will really end up becoming because I haven't heard exactly what's going to happen with those properties. Obviously, selfishly, I don't want something that's undesirable going in right in my backyard. Again, without any specificity, I would just oppose it at this point given the fact that there's not specific information regarding what exactly is going to happen with that. Because as we have all seen, developers promise many things, but then the ultimate product that's delivered is different. And I think everyone here in the planning committee and at the Keller City Council know what's happened right down the street when we were supposed to have these beautiful apartments, brownstones, condos, an amphitheater, all these beautiful fountains like what we've seen today, all these beautiful fountains and beautiful lights, and it's going to be a destination point. And what ended up happening? We got an apartment complex and yet another strip center, half of which is vacant right now. The Hungry Howies even went out of business there. And now we have a, I think there's two restaurants. The rest of the strip center is empty. There's a boxing studio and a massive apartment complex. That's what we got. That wasn't what was told that we were going to get back in the day, but that's what ended up happening. And again, I just say these things to just encourage the the Planning and Development Committee to keep those in mind as they decide how they want to progress on this. Thank you.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Ms. Helmsley, isn't there some verbiage in there that says that these brownstones, they're going to have a deed restriction that they be owner-occupied?

That is correct.

So that issue of the rental of the brownstones is not an issue?

No. I always like to make the distinction that deed restrictions are not something that the city of Keller enforces. So while it will be written into the development standards, it will be on the owner to enforce those deed restrictions.

Okay.

All right. Well, thank you. I appreciate it.

Okay. Is there anybody else that wishes to speak on this subject? And with that, Commissioner Farner?

A motion that we close the public hearing.

And Commissioner Johnson?

Second.

We have a motion and a second to close public hearing. Any further discussion? Okay, let's vote. Okay, the public hearing is now closed. The vote was six to zero. With that, we'll open it up to the commission for questions and comments and Commissioner Farner.

So thank you for your presentation. I did study this in detail over the weekend and I do have some questions for you on your 3.1 table. I don't know if you want to come up and if you can look at that. So I think you did a really good job of showing the comparison because we've had some, and Commissioner Leis and I have argued over these and gone through them. So a couple of them that I questioned, but you did explain, is the electronic instrumentation. Is that kind of a, are you thinking computer repair shop? What are you thinking in an instrument facility?

It's just a way to bring a jobs component in here.

If you could speak into the mic, please, sir.

Apologies. It's a way to bring a jobs component to the project. There's no guarantee that we'll get it. It's just a use that we wanted to carry over today that northern portion of the site with the church. No, not the church. That's commercial, designated commercial today. But the brewery portion of the site and then the remainder of the site is light industrial. So we just took the opportunity to cherry pick. That's the only use from light industrial I believe we brought over because it seemed harmless inside a building. And we do need to repurpose at least one of those buildings, the Samantha Springs one. Could even be the church gets repurposed that way. I don't know. But it just seems like something worth keeping I don't think we feel strongly enough about it that if people are strongly objecting to it We wouldn't strike it from the use table.

Yeah, I didn't have too much problem I just kind of wanted to get your thoughts on it. You know further down 377 we have some kind of shops The entertainment indoors is permitted by right and not by SUP. I guess our last meeting we had a couple where indoor entertainment is a SUP. So why did we go permitted by right versus SUP?

Always worth asking. If you want to make it SUP, it's an SUP. But it does seem more harmless indoors than it does outdoors. And so we did suggest that maybe you would consider in this particular area, which is industrial and commercial now, and many of the buildings are located a fair distance away from residential, that it might be possible to have one by right.

Yeah, I had no issue with like the brewery. I liked your plans, you know, to reopen it, to repurpose, to have that entertainment venue back there. That one just stuck out. So let's go swimming pools permitted by permit in the commercial and retail area. So what are you thinking there?

Yeah, I, I, well, uh, so I will admit, um, uh, once I tried to learn to dive in a old strip shopping center, down in Austin that is still a dive shop and it has its own internal swimming pool and they teach people how to scuba dive in the swimming pool. So that is exactly what I personally had in mind. Completely harmless, it's indoors, it's not available to everybody necessarily. It's a commercial enterprise.

I guess because you're allowing indoor entertainment, now you're allowing swimming pools by permit instead of by SUP. Those two to me, I could see in Aqua Tots, I have a two and a half year old grandson and I have to get the pleasure of getting to take him, which is not always pleasurable, but to me those two I guess together should have been more SUP versus permitted.

we would fully understand if that's the way that you feel. I was also imagining a YM or YWCA. That's an indoor swimming pool in a facility that's pretty harmless from the outside.

Yeah. The accessory structures in a commercial also allowed by permit, not by SGP. So what are we, are we thinking that we're going to allow just, you know, them to put up a Home Depot shed in the back of it? What is your thought there or the reason?

I may need Sarah's help to get to an exhibit that would work. It might be on the first one, so you might get there.

Just go to the table that you've got. Is it on there?

Here we go. The real intent of that ancillary use for commercial only was essentially to provide an extension of the brewery, if it made sense, to essentially be able to pull that forward and activate the waterfront feature, and that's it. So if you can imagine, you know, some tables and some chairs by the brewery, and again, if you had an answer to use associated with the brewery where you might have some outdoor dining or some restaurant or some service space, that was the only thing that was contemplated in the answer or use for the commercial.

Okay. Are you planning an HOA for the brownstones?

Yes, there'll be an HOA both for the residential and the commercial areas.

Are you planning on submitting multiple site plans?

We've created flexibility. While this is an amazing site and well-located, it's going to be challenging to activate, and we acknowledge that. And so we've accommodated this. We do think that, obviously, this proposal and the level of detail and the restrictions provide staff and hopefully commission and council with the assurance that they need. But I do see this project being developed over time. And I think it would be... almost impossible to develop this entire project in one phase, and so we've accommodated the flexibility to allow that to happen.

Well, since you bring that up, I'd like to go to Section F under site plan conformance, which states that there's going to be substantial conformance to the site plan, that no P&Z is required, and it will go straight to the city manager, not to city council. So I think I have a bit of an issue with... not having detailed information, not having a detailed site plan, and then asking us to say, we approve of you not coming back to the commission and not going to council.

Apologies. That's an error, and it should say city council, and we're happy to make that change before the council sees it.

Yeah, I still think I have some problems with not coming back before and not giving the public a chance to hear and see what you're proposing. Um, nor that the final plat would receive PNZ and I think in section G you probably also need to check that to also state that, uh, PNZ can only give you recommendations and it would have to go to city council. Um, so With that, I don't necessarily have a problem with brownstones being that we are an aging community, that we are, a lot of us, you would like us to leave our homes and downsize to allow the younger generation to come in, but there's not a place for a lot of people who want a smaller place. I do think that the parking is tight. I do think that that wall behind the brownstones does not give me a lot of options to possibly exit my parking, nor, like here, I think it's building those bottom two on the south, that there's... This, to me, feels like kind of when Southlake were over at the REI and the pizza and the Paseos and walking through there, right? I don't allow my husband or my children to drive in that pedestrian place because there's too many people, there's too many cars, and there's not enough place to back up. So I see some of the parking in here. Like that, I get into some dead ends, right? And it doesn't come to me allow for some traffic flow at the back of these buildings. It does at the top because I can get into Samantha Springs you know, cul-de-sac, but at the back, you know, I don't have much of an option. So I would just kind of think about some of the parking. I think you've adequately done it. I just think that in front of like the church, that kind of seems to me a little bit of a dead end. How am I going to, if I'm one of those last ones, I don't have the bandwidth to, you know, to back out. So, you know, my husband tells me I'm a little bit cautious driver, so I'm probably the one who would not be parking in those areas.

Um, I'll try to address a couple of things. If you table this out, we're actually over-parked probably by 100 parking spaces. We were looking for ways to create some economies because I do see that you would likely park here and hopefully utilize multiple businesses and take advantage of the mix of uses. We did work with staff and we've had two separate DRC meetings And we really spent a lot of time with GFF, our architect, and the engineer and staff working through all the accessibility and the circulation. Some of that was intentional for traffic calming and essentially to put the cars where they need to go and make sure that this remains pedestrian oriented, but it did require some some iterations and some flexibility in order to get to this design.

Okay.

Also, I would say that it could be that a few things that you're looking at, and I'm just going to show you one, this is actually drivable, this section right here.

Are you going to allow people to drive it? Yes. From the reading, it sounded like that was for emergency use only.

I think we expected driving on La Strada or not.

You... Could, depending on how it functions, but I think primarily it would be a fire lane access. Okay. Inactivated, but you could essentially the way it's been designed drive on it. So we would, I think from the applicant's perspective.

Okay, please, would you please speak into the mic? Thank you, Chairman.

From the applicant's perspective, I think we would like that to remain primarily pedestrian focused.

So I'll take that one back. That leaves just one right here at the end that's unconnected. Everything else is actually connected. If you look at all of the parking lots, you're right, the one in front of the church, but that's existing today and was designed originally that way. All of the other spaces, including the brewery, et cetera, even this cul-de-sac has been opened up to the adjacent parking area. So we were trying hard to create circulation. As Jason says, hopefully we're over parked so that people will find a parking space, but you know what they do if they don't, they circle. So those movements kind of need to be necessary. So this is the only one. Part of this is because there's a significant grade change where this wall is going to go up. That's the only reason for that wall right there. There's about a six foot grade change there.

So again, if you did not find a parking spot and you circled, I could not circle there, right? So I just see that, yeah, I just see that as, from the schematics, it looks a little tight, you know? So I get that you're separating it from the brownstones. I really like the feel and the look. There's just, those two kind of stuck out. So Mr. Chair, I'll turn it back. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. And Commissioner Scott.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Gentlemen, thank you for the presentation. Let's go over this, how you get in and out of your complex. And do you have an egress on the backside?

There's no egress or egress to the rear or to the south or to the north.

Okay. Use your pointer, please, sir, and show me how you get into your facility.

Right here off of 377 and right here off of 377. That's the only entrance exits.

Are these both wide enough? I see one has like an entrance exit. The other one is just maybe a servant's entrance. Is that what that is?

It actually is wide enough for both directions. It just doesn't have the center median.

I'm sorry. Say that again.

Sorry. The southern one is wide enough for two-way traffic in and out. It just does not have the center median. This is showing a center median. which is the width of the road today as built. Both of those roads are built today. They're not new.

Okay, and just because you're in addition, if you look in some of these corners, can an ambulance get and a fire truck get all the way in the back? That's a good one.

We visited with staff, and again, we've had two DRC meetings. At this point, I think both of those meetings, staff was comfortable with this design. Again, we'd still have to meet site development permit requirements, so there's no variances allowed. So is that a yes or no? This design would still have to go through a site development permit process for staff to sign off on this, but we've gone through two DRC meetings, and yes, we believe staff's comfortable with this design as proposed.

Okay. What is the cost of one of these units?

We've got the builder here, but I think the proposed cost on these would be somewhere between $1.2 and $1.4 million each.

I do appreciate the gentleman that spoke earlier about the concern about turning into rental properties. Is there any way that you guys can put it into your Bylaws that you're not allowed to sell it. I mean, use it as a lease.

We're comfortable with the deed restrictions. We're comfortable placing language in the HOA, and we're certainly comfortable placing this in the language when it's adopted per zoning that would be allowed to give staff and council as much assurance as possible, legally possible.

I don't know if I can ask staff to make sure we have that. It would have been nice to have had it to decide on the vote on this tonight.

So they did include in the development standards that are part of the agenda packet a commitment to de-restrict these to owner-occupied units rather than rentals. The question that I think staff needs to get, I need to get clarification on, is I don't know what the city's enforcement role would be with a deed restriction, even if it is in the development standards. If they're not, for whatever reason, following those deed restrictions, the city has not typically gotten involved with enforcement there. But they have, I think to answer your question, Dr. Scott, is there is right now in the proposed development standards a line where they have committed to deed restricting the brownstone units to owner occupied.

All right, a couple of questions as far as total amount of occupants as far as the vehicles. How many vehicles can this place take, including homeowners and commercial? And can a fire truck get in between all that? If you go back to your one slide that you have people walking and you've got the houses on each side, is that wide enough for fire trucks to get through? Because if you catch one house on fire, you're going to move on to the next one. Are these houses going to have sprinkler systems in them?

They will be sprinklered, and these will have to meet, again, all of your code. They'll have to meet the fire department standards before they're approved during the site development process, or they won't be able to allow it to move forward. I will look up the table. I can tell you the residential, it's 31 units, and each one's required to have two parks per. And I'll... look up the parking standards for the commercial and all. I know we were, I think, more than 100 over the required parking per the table.

And then I know your centerpiece is going to be your brewery. Have you had any, how do you say, interest in other businesses, a higher retail, anything of that nature?

We've had some conversation with commercial, but again, with the light industrial zoning, without a way to activate the site, it makes it very challenging to market. We've had a number of conversations with different brewers, some that staff have provided, economic development staff were provided. We've got connections with those operators, but again, Without the adjacency predictability and the assurance with the zoning, it makes it really, really difficult to market the project as it is since today.

And then because it's a brewery, I never heard you say anything about doing outdoor concerts or anything of that nature.

We don't have any allowable concerts or outdoor entertainment as such as it relates to this current zoning, and I don't anticipate anything that would be proposed as such. Mr. Chairman, thank you, sir.

All right, thank you. I have several questions. First, your artist's rendition is beautiful. I hope someday we see that built that way. I think the Paseo, I think, is very attractive, the way that you've designed that. I appreciate the fact that it basically complies with the flop, that You're trying to keep the zoning within parameters. You said something in your presentation that all the utilities had been put in. Now, what do you mean by that? Are you talking about water lines?

It's an industrial site. It was set up and platted for industrial use, and those lots are all there. The two streets with the cul-de-sacs are there.

So Adelaide? That street is there? Yes.

Yes. Adelaide and Samantha Springs Court are both currently installed with all underground water, storm, sewer, with essentially the detention-retention pond currently in place that could accommodate light industrial today. Already plotted.

The reason I sound a little surprised, I drove to this and went down near the old Shannon Brewery, And I saw the large pile of dirt. I take that's going to get distributed somewhere. But I was surprised at the vertical development from the south to the north, that Adelaide must be 30, 40 feet above what the other street is. So when you make this wall between your brownstones and the retail development, how are you going to account for that vertical displacement there?

It's not that great at that point. Actually, it slopes up slowly towards that point, and I believe the wall is like 12 feet or something like that.

Yeah, a minimum of... Let me speak into the mic. It'll be a minimum of 6 feet. Again, sort of the tallest point of the wall, and the greatest elevation will be back towards the pond to make the elevation change, but essentially, as you work towards 377, the front driveway will essentially be at grade, but that wall... will certainly be functional. It'll serve as essentially a retaining wall and an aesthetic wall between the two different types of programs.

Okay, thank you. Is it your plan, you've divided this into four sub-areas plus BR for the brownstones, and do you have any vision as to what the phasing of this construction of the entire project would be?

We don't today. Again, we've been marketing the brewery with the zoning approval. I would see that that would be very attractive and a whole lot easier to activate. I would see that the brownstones, likely because we've got a builder in place, would be second, and then the remaining commercial would come in in phases.

All right. I, too, have some issues with your... Plan development standards as far as your table of uses. I made only a couple of notes here. Distillery with 1500 foot tasting room in sub-areas C and D is permitted. No SUP. That if you had a distillery that took up one of those entire buildings with an outside, that that one building would become a distillery.

If you're uncomfortable with that, we're happy to turn it back to an SUP. Okay. Most distilleries today are rather modest in scale. They're a small batch, you know, kind of high-end whiskey guys or whatever. And that's frankly what we're hoping for. If you want to put a cap on the area of that and keep it, if you want to put it back to SUP, just leave it wide open.

I agree, SUP would be much better. But light manufacturing, wholly enclosed, same thing, permitted in areas C and D, which is all of your retail commercial there in the center of your project. And I'm just saying, worst case, we could end up with that entire development, or a large portion of it, being light manufacturing. When the picture that I saw, which Looks to me like a good place to go walk around and spend some money.

Again, I think the intent would be for that to be in areas A and B, but we would be happy to remove that at your desire.

Maybe we touched on this, but in the I think it's in the BR sub-district that you have detached garages are okay by permitted.

No, I think we banned them. Let me simply say that it was the intent to ban detached garages in that area that it had to be incorporated into the building.

The building heights that you've proposed for...

It says detached is permitted in the brownstone, so you're correct.

Okay, I am correct. Detached private garages in the brownstones by permit only. We'll replace that. Permitted. And my question would be, why would you have detached garages in there?

It was never intended. We were scrambling quite quickly to make tonight's meeting, so I apologize for that.

Okay. Thank you. You get a promotion for that. On the standards for the Paseo pedestrian and residential, the frontages are 40 feet, 40 feet, and 45 feet. And that leads me to ask the question, are these buildings you're building, are they going to be one or two stories? And are these just facades you're putting on the front of those buildings?

Right now, I believe they're intended to be single story. And they could be tall single-story, if you imagine a cinema or some other kind of use that might possibly be in there.

But if you'll go to what you're zipping through, if you'll go to page 18, 19, and 21, you show that. There you go.

Here's the Paseo frontage. And yes, we are showing a minimum of 18 feet tall, which is taller than many single-story buildings would be, and a maximum of 40 feet tall.

Okay. Yeah. The brownstones, if you'll go to page 22, if you happen to have that there, it's the one where you show the bird's eye view of the brownstones with the gray pads.

Yes.

That one right there. The... You answered my question. The gray pads are just a pad. They're not the garage. So the garage, a two-car garage, is going to go inside that building that's 40 by 25 feet. Yes. If I've got that looking at that. That's correct. But the front, so the front of that, you're not going to build a 40-foot deep garage, are you?

No. The garage is likely to be only 25 feet deep or so, and the garage is tucked under. So the ground floor of the residential unit will come fairly close to where the driveway is, and we're tucking the garage below each unit. So it's not that the garage is taking up the ground floor of that residential unit. It's in the basement, if you will.

So you're going to have... So some of that elevation that I just talked about five minutes ago, you're going to go, that's going to be one level. And then when you park your car, you're going to walk up a...

The street out front is maybe at this level, yes.

And then that's why you could show the residential street as being level. And so then, because I was looking at this for the frontage for the residential, it's 45 feet. And my question then becomes, is that going to be two or three stories from the residential side?

At present, it could be three stories.

It could be three stories because when I look at that plan right there, 25 times 40 is 1,000. And if you're going to sell it for $1.2 million, you're going to need three stories to kind of spread out that price per foot.

Or two stories with a deck above. That would be the other option could be three stories or two stories with just a deck or elevation above Okay.

All right My question I guess you answered it when you said you think that most of the retail Commercial that being built is going to be single story because I was going to ask about the parking plan That you must have predicated those numbers on a single story throughout it if it had been two stories where you say you have it a base story, which is retail, and then you put an office on top of it. Now we're going to have two times that amount of parking requirement.

We'll be obviously limited by parking. The only probably potential opportunity for height might be along the pond where you could have a deck seating sort of above that would function sort of as a second floor that would overlook the water feature, which could be nice. But again, we'll be limited by parking. I think the majority of the commercial If possibly not all, maybe just single story. This would allow that flexibility.

If you will pull up your... You've looked at it, the overhead schematic that shows your green spaces on page eight of your proposal. Right there, you just passed it.

They're not really annotated. That's good enough right there. Okay.

And the four... retail buildings that are in the center. On the east side, you identified that gray street as being not a street, but it's going to be weight-bearing so that if necessary, cars could get through it. And if you'll look at the south parking lot of that series of buildings where the retaining wall or where the wall is between your brownstones and that retail, if I were to turn into your development and go eastbound and I get to the very end there of that parking lot, unless I use your fire lane to get to the north, I'm in a box canyon right there. Do you see what I'm saying? Because that wall that is being built between the brownstones and the retail continues down toward the pond, at least to the sidewalk, So it's really kind of an area of concern for the traffic flow there. And it lends itself to the discussion, a comment earlier, that it just seems real tight.

It absolutely is real tight. We've worked with staff in detail, again, to meet the fire requirements, and it would still be a requirement for this to meet the site development permit requirements, but it is tight.

Yeah, yeah. On page, do you have your page four and five of your proposal up there of the standards? I don't think you had it in your presentation. Ms. Hensley may have to help you with that.

Chairman, you said page four and five.

Yes. When I got to this part, detailed site plan, number one, applicant is required to submit a detailed site plan for any phase of development within the planned development district for City Council consideration and approval. Now, jump down to paragraph three. Review of the DSP for the entire site provides Council an opportunity to confirm that development details, it lists them, have been addressed and the project may proceed. If the DSP materially complies with the development standards, approval by City Council is non-discretionary and no public hearing is required. I had, when I read that, I said, now, so you're going to give, we're going to, the city is going to give an overall approval, and we have a schematic, and then we see if it comes substantially conformative. If you go to the next page, and there, substantial conformance. And if there's substantial conformance, which probably would take four lawyers and a judge to figure out, but if there is any discussion, it seems like this is an open-ended project. And the city is just alone for it. And where I really struggle with this verbiage is I ask staff, have we ever done this in the past? And they said, yes, we have. We did it at Center Stage, which is a half a mile up the road. from this project. And as was pointed out earlier, Center Stage approved 10 years ago, and it was, again, approved in phases. And we ended up with the apartments, and we ended up with retail, which is all reasonable. And then here, just in the last two or three years, we did an amended planned, where we put in approximately 40 patio homes down on the southeast corner that were, I don't think that those had been there originally. It doesn't really, but they had been single families, but anyway, we approved it, and now we are still waiting for something to be developed at the corner of Mount Gilead and 377. And so when I, basically it was the same process was used for Center Stage. And I think your project looks very attractive. My question would be, how do you address the fact that your project is not going to stretch out for 10 plus years? And it has been amended a number of times that In fact, we at one time in the last two to three years approved a medical building to go on that southwest corner that subsequently has not been built. And as one gentleman referred, at one time there were going to be three restaurants with a common area out there, grass area in front of it. So I guess what I'm saying, maybe your neighbors to the north haunt your project. And what can you say that would

ameliorate my concerns for that well what we have tried to say is if the building footprints if the height of the buildings if the width of the streets if all those components match what we said in here and what we drew in here then we ought to be able to get to not have a public hearing about whether this is okay because we've already had one at this point in time where people have said, yes, this is okay. So that was the great hope is that we would actually create a benefit for building it exactly the way it's shown here by not requiring a public hearing if you build it just like we described. So it's really hardening this concept plan, hardening the code, the streets and their cross-sections that apply to it. It's hardening all of those things to make sure that we get this place that we have talked about. That's what happens in this model is is if it's really the same, we can get a detailed site plan for it that is a match and that that's easier to get approved than it typically would be. That's really what we're saying is the big approval is the generic approval for the site. Yes, please do what you're suggesting you're going to do on the site. If a detailed site plan comes in and It looks completely different from what we're talking about here. The Paseo is gone. The open space is all in the back corner. You know, whatever might happen, right, in the developer's preferred world, that would be a significant change, and it would come through the standard process. But what we are asking for is is this plan and its components to be sort of believed in so that we can find the tenants and etc and put them on the site without having to go through long drawn-out processes that would change the allocation of rights to the site okay uh thank you appreciate that i want to listen to my fellow commissioners and see what they

what their thoughts are. And so with that, Commissioner Sandoval-Cabanas?

I'm not going to harp on the other things that have already been said. I only had a couple more things I just wanted to point out. I am a little concerned about the section that you guys talked about for the parking spaces, that you're not going to have that two-foot curb. And so we all own trucks. Mm-hmm. We can all say that we're all gonna park in. That's not gonna happen because everybody and their moms thinks that they can back into a space better. So trucks here backwards into where people walk.

With the tailgate down, et cetera. I hear you.

Yeah, with the tailgate down, speakers on. I'm just kidding.

So the trade-off, the trade-off, which would be an unfortunate one in my personal opinion, is a wider street in which we could place parking blocks and then you would park in the traditional manner and you would equally perhaps hang over but the parking block would usually be a foot and a half or two feet in from the curb and so the overhang would be less so there is a solution to this which would be would require widening the road however I

I can appreciate wanting space for pedestrians and not wanting to take away the greenery and the beautiful project that you guys have put together. Envisioning my toddler walking on a crosswalk and then having somebody trying to pull in and not having that barrier gives me great pause. So that's all I wanted to throw out there. And then for, I just wanna harp on, I'm sorry, harp on one thing. The accessory dwelling that we were talking about earlier. Can I just, for staff, what does that mean? The accessory dwelling as part of a preliminary structure? Does that mean what I think he thought it meant, which is that you can just have people outside as like a outside restaurant space outside of the brewery? Because I imagine somebody like living in the area.

No. So the way... it's written here is as an accessory dwelling as part of a primary structure in sub areas A and B, but a dwelling indicates someone is living there.

Okay, so I would just say that should probably be an SUP if not allowed at all, because that just didn't quite make sense to me.

Again, I think we wouldn't want to accommodate any living in that area, but in terms of an ancillary building to essentially be, which would be the brewery or an active restaurant, we would like to have the ability to expand the patio as an as part of the brewery itself.

And that makes total sense, but that's not the same.

Right.

So just for some clarification, the way the use chart reads, ancillary use is not found in the use chart anyway. It would not be a problem for... We allow accessory structures on non-residential properties with the building permit. We have guidelines for those. So whether it's in the use chart or not, it's an allowable thing to do on non-residential properties. What's in the use chart is accessory dwelling as part of a primary structure, which is allowed in certain areas of Keller. If you think about Old Town, I can't off the top of my head think of it if it's by right or SUP, but the idea behind that is like living quarters above your retail shop on the bottom floor. I don't know that that was purposefully done in this or just maybe carried over from the commercial district is maybe what happened here.

We'll work with staff to resolve that item.

That'd be great. And then I think I agree with my fellow commissioners and the lovely gentleman who came in to speak is that I can appreciate that you guys want to get things started and I think that this is beautiful. I don't want to stand in the way of beautiful but it's beautifully vague, and I think that that's necessary for many parts of your project, but I think that for me, in my community, I think it is too vague for me to say if you just meet the blurred image, it's good enough, and I think it will require more times to come back, so I am hesitant to give a blanket okay. Even though it looks beautiful, I think that it has too much wiggle room currently, which may be necessary at this stage, but I don't think I would be in favor of that blanket statement. Thank you, Commissioner.

All right. Thank you. Commissioner Johnson?

Okay, and I agree with almost everything that all the fellow commissioners have said. I have a few other things to sort of add to it to not try and be redundant. But most of the things in the chart that you're permitting, I would almost say, need to be SUP. And they've touched on the light industrial. I just don't like the idea we're blanket doing that. But the one that I haven't heard mentioned that we have guidelines on now, you have the electronic charging stations as permitted, which means there wouldn't be some structure that we've even just recently passed. Well, I think it's still got to go before city council.

I was trying to be one step ahead of what you just passed. It... It does suggest not for commercial use, so the thought was you cannot have a Tesla supercharger out there. You can have one at your house in your brownstone, you can perhaps have one if you somehow had a designated commercial parking space, you could have one for that one commercial parking space, but you could not provide for commercial charging of cars. So we did try to get that right, but I'm happy to live with whatever just got adopted. We just weren't sure it was gonna get there in time.

Well, and Sarah, we worked on the new, isn't that going to address the issue?

Well, so it's a PD and they're able to do something different than what's in other zoning. I think my most recent comment on this was, what does this mean in the way that they have it written? So I think there's a little bit more work to be done to clarify what could and could not be allowed.

We hope that you wouldn't exclude that, again, in enclosed garages of the Brownstone so that they could have private charging. But if you all want to have control over the commercial area and charging stations, we understand that that's sort of a work in process. And if we need to eliminate that or come back with an SGP, we're happy to do that.

Well, and what I'm referring to is something else that we're working with the city on. And what we did was we segregated out the personal for the reasons that you're talking about. But I don't think it's went before council yet, correct, Sarah?

It did. It was passed last week. Okay.

Did they do it with the private, like we were talking about? Yes, ma'am. Okay. So we may already have, maybe, and working with staff probably could get, but no one had touched on that one. Indoor entertainment facility. normally would not concern me, but we recently have had an issue in town with one of the facilities who have now brought in more gaming type of contents, and so that's been an issue. And so I don't know if I wouldn't want them to come back with an SUP, so we at least know what kind of entertainment facility would be going into any of the buildings. It's not saying don't allow it, it's just saying SUP so it has to come back before and we didn't touch on. The other one that no one's touched on is the grocery store. I mean, are we talking about putting sprouts in there? I mean, that's kind of vague to me, especially if it's permitted and not SUP, as it stated originally, because we had it as an SUP.

There are some fantastic markets out there. I don't see this site really accommodating any large format or even really medium format grocer, but there are some really small markets that could provide a really nice amenity that would complement the programming for this, and we would want to sort of reserve the option for that.

Well, and I like the idea. I'm just thinking it's almost like the things that y'all went ahead and permitted, I would have left as the SUPs as we're in here.

Preferably if there's a square footage requirement that you would want to restrict that to. I think that would be better to eliminate the larger format. But in this case, we would want to reserve the right for market.

Right.

Small market.

That's what I was thinking. It needs to be the smaller kind of market. And then the other one no one's touched on. What about this radio broadcasting without tower? What exactly do you see that as envisioning as instead of being the SUV that we had?

It's a studio. It's like a radio station doesn't really need a tower anymore for the most part, but they're over the internet and whatever else. So that was the thought is, wow, if you have a radio station that's willing to be a storefront in one of these buildings, nothing wrong with that. A guy sitting there with his headphones and DJing and whatever, I don't know. But it doesn't allow outdoor music. It's not any of those things. It's really just Inside a space that acts like an office, there's a radio station.

So like a YouTuber.

That too maybe. Just saying. A lot of that going on.

But that was some of the things because we took them from SUP and just allowed them by right. And recently in this area, there's been a thing when a city changed something by right basically and allowed it, permitted it. And there's questions on some of the things when originally it had to have come back before them. So it bypasses PNZ, it bypasses City Council. And so sometimes there's questions that the community has about what it is. They may say yes to it, but by bypassing the process, sometimes I don't think that that's necessarily the way we want to look at it. That kind of went through your chart, the ones that they didn't touch on. I have a real big issue, especially with the one dead end street, because The one question is, if you are at the end of that street and you didn't see parking in any of those spaces, tell me how you're getting out of there.

Can you repeat the question?

On the one street that goes along the wall. I just want to hear how one of y'all would get to the end. All those spaces are filled. You got down there. You don't have a place in the space to turn around. Explain to me how you're going to navigate that.

Yeah, I think likely you'd have to create a hammerhead at the end in order for that to function. So again, we would have to work with engineering and staff and the fire department to approve that design.

And that kind of was me. It's like I can't even see where I can get down there and do anything, be stuck. The other question I have is it looked like the Paseo was all walking. But is it not on the one street between the A and B and the other retail buildings? That's a pass-through street, though, there. Not like it is in the back. You will be passing over, you know, the one...

Stamp paving.

Yeah. Stamp paving.

Yeah, those would be stamp paving to carry the design through. That's correct.

Right. Are you going to turn to the picture that I was...

It could also be raised.

And that might be so that at least there's a slowdown for the traffic for the people.

Yeah, it would be very common for it to be level with the sidewalk.

Yeah.

ADA accessible.

And then that way they at least have to slow to go through that.

The cars would struggle and the pedestrians would enjoy it.

Right. And I don't know if you want to point to it for the audience but that's the area that I was talking about right there for those that were asking. Yeah, if you did do a little bit of a raise, because it's going to be across, and at least there's a slowdown for the pedestrians. There was something. I do like the idea of this area, I will tell you that. It's just some of these things, I'm wondering if we need to come back potentially with a few of these things kind of hammered out a little bit before it's presented. I do have one concern that y'all had mentioned in your of starting with the buildings that are there. I understand that, and you're phasing. But because of what happened in Center Stage, my concern is jumping next to the brownstones. That's how we ended up with apartments and didn't have the rest of the facility done. I would at least like some consideration of why that might be the way to move it instead of getting some of these retail restaurants in there at least. If nothing else leased out, has there been any thought And if you're going to start this with no leasing done, are we just going to start building and not have a percentage? Or would you be willing to potentially consider doing 50%, 60% lease space before you even break ground?

So we've had this conversation with staff and applicant, and while I would want You know, my desire is that 100% of this can be pre-leased and constructed. We'd be excited about it. I think without the brownstones to be able to move forward and without essentially the adjacency predictability of the zoning, even marketing the current brewery as it is has been challenging, if difficult. If we're committing to any percent of pre-leasing on the commercial core, I really feel like the applicant's likely going to stick with the light industrial zoning and the existing infrastructure and sort of roll the dice. I think it would be impossible to activate this project with any prescription on how much commercial activation's going to be required in order to advance the zoning. And while we would want that to happen, there's no market guarantees in order for that to happen.

So do you see that since there is existing buildings, are we talking about at least trying to get those filled, refurbished, filled with it before we would even venture to starting brownstones ground?

We've had the discussion. We do feel like with the zoning in place that the brewery would likely be something that could be activated fairly soon and quickly. And again, I think we would follow with the brownstones and then the rest of the project would just need to be able to be developed in phases with the market opportunity. But we're going to have to bake in flexibility in order for this vision to come to fruition. I do feel very confident about that. And you can understand the concern we have, because I know you know the facility that we're talking about. And we had a conversation with staff, and again... We've worked for over a year on this design. It's a very challenging project. The topo's already in place. The infrastructure's already in place, which creates some challenges and some design sort of obstacles that we've worked really hard with the engineers and the architect to come up with something that is truly walkable and destination and has the right kit of parts that we feel like could be successful and attract the type of tenants that you envision or imagine. But I think without having the flexibility that we would be in the same do loop trying to lease the space, I honestly think the applicant would be better off just maintaining the light industrial. And I hate to say that because I really think this is a strong vision, but I think we would end up in a do loop that he may be worse off without the light industrial than he would with those requirements.

And then a little bit of question about the brownstones is because I understand about the parking in the back but I know I was in the meeting in April and we talked about them being three-story and we potentially talked about then are we having elevators in them that are going to go from the garage to the two stories above it or is that still being potentially talked about?

Do you want to answer those questions? Yes. Do you want to address any details on the brownstones?

just introduce yourself. Hi, Kurt DeVos, 1708 Joyner Lane, Keller, Texas. I'm a Keller citizen. Happy to answer your questions. Yes, we've already met with the elevator companies. We've built multiple brownstones of this nature. I've got 20 plus that are happening right now in Westlake itself. I think that this is a fantastic design and Our desire is actually to beat what we have up there. I get everybody's skepticism given the past and what's happened. Again, I'm a Keller citizen. I understand completely. But there's been a great effort to bring this legacy project alive and make this thing happen. And all the way down to the concept of these brownstones, making sure that they are a high-end finish and that they do bring something to the table that you typically would not get. Like someone mentioned, I believe, some units that were over off of by KCAL, I believe. what was mentioned tonight. But what is intended and what you saw there absolutely will bring some flexibility and honestly a great spot for our aging community, which we need.

Well, I mean, you're up here now, so I mean, I give you the opportunity to tell, because I got to hear about some of the things you were going to put in. If there's anything else you want to talk about the brownstones that set them apart from other things. communities of brownstones because there is your Keller resident, you know, we want to keep it small and I'm one of the, I do, I want to keep it small, but I do also recognize that right off of 377 and it is already in the fluff zone to potentially do some brownstones there. But, um, the other one concern I have is, is if I'm a visiting person, I have nowhere to park, but over in the commercial part, is that correct?

Well, I would say that beyond just the two in the garage itself, that is a driveway directly behind the units itself. So there's the opportunity for some guests to park on their property.

So if the garages are under these units, is there ramps that are going down?

I'll set that a little bit straight there. There's some opportunities because of the topography, as Chairman Baker was talking about, that's happening on the site. So what that does is allow some opportunities for some what we call drive-in type basement scenarios that are there, which we've done that. There's also the opportunities there to level out. And so maybe we have a few units that are three stories where the garage is in that 21-foot section of that garage.

So it's like first floor.

Yeah, and then you have a guest suite downstairs or maybe even a study that's downstairs with a utility area and a little four-year area and so forth. And then we have an elevator that goes up itself. that's kind of what we're looking at. And I really like the ability to have a beautiful presence because with the elevation that's taking place there, where it really doesn't highlight cars being parked, but it's residential and it's quality residential coming in. That's what the intent was. So that's where we're sitting right now.

Well, and that's what I saw. I mean, we're not going to have on-street parking in the residential. So...

Kirk, did I misspeak when I said no on street parking? Is there guest parking on street?

No. Are you talking about this street? I think they want me to point where you were talking about. You're talking about right here? Nope, nope, nope. On the core street, on Adelaide. On this side? I think you can have, it's a residential street. Mm-hmm. I think you can have some on-street parking from that perspective. But what I really was talking about was when you come into this loop right here, and then we have little driveways basically going to the garage that's not a part of this actual path zone itself.

Okay.

Right? That's kind of what we were trying to illustrate in that.

I think you got it.

That would create a full loop all the way through this is what it would do.

I think pretty much you've answered a lot of my questions that I had that I hadn't heard answers to, but I still, I'm leaning towards needing some more concrete facts. I mean, I love the idea of this. I think we're getting somewhere, but I do think I'm with chairman Baker. I do think things need to come back through the process and not just give everything by right to the, to the decision factors. So that's kind of where I'm sitting. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you. Uh, Commissioner Lysht.

Thanks. So I want to clarify something. I've been listening very intently for a little over an hour, almost two at this point. So am I hearing you right that you're saying if city council does not grant you the zoning for, or if city council does grant you the zoning, for this mixed-use facility, but you can't build the brownstones right away, that one, you won't be able to get tenants for commercial, and two, you would recommend that the owner, the property owner, just keep it light industrial?

I think prescribing a required amount of commercial outside of the existing brewery and the church as adaptive reuse will be very problematic to advance the zoning case and for this project to be potentially successful.

Can you help me understand why 32 homes would not building them before you get, say, let's just say one of the commercial segments set up, how that would

make the project a non-starter i mean i'm not a you know an end user but we do a lot of leasing and i think having the vibrancy of 31 brownstones there at a million two and with the activity and all the infrastructure there would would certainly be a creative to to leasing the the center can i say without a doubt that you know the the project would not be successful um no but i think it would be very challenging and be hard to commit

Okay, I do find that hard to believe when we've got a facility up the road that has not 32 families living in there, but Sarah, how many apartments are at center stage?

I believe it's 496 or somewhere around there.

496 apartments and I think 60 houses. I like this project, but I find it a little silly that we're not going to be able to lease a high quality restaurant or retail plot. Because we just have to have 32 homes when, I mean, I have a case study in our town that says we've got over, we have 14 times that, and they can't fill some of their spots. So I'm just not buying that. I love the project. I think it's great. But I love the project as presented. And I think that's what I'm trying to, and what I'm trying to do with my comments is, I don't have a lot of questions, really. I just wanted to still get us to a motion that i i hope will pass um because i think this should pass i think the city this is a good project for the city but i think if the if the um if the posture is that if we can't go do this and build 32 single-family pgt homes right away um like i think i've bought i think i wasn't on pnz but i think we've bought that before and we don't like what we got um so i would i would encourage you to to just consider the flexibility there because i think if you build it and you build something like this they'll come and 32 homes this isn't going to change that from my perspective you may disagree and y'all have have the right to disagree with my perspective i think just the the only other thing and i'm starting with the i'm doing the opposite of what i typically do start out with some negatives before i give you some some compliments to stay with stay tuned but i think that i i'm troubled as my other fellow commissioners are with um it it appear it i know that i know this is not the intention but when i when i see hey we want to get this set up and then we really don't want to come back and we do the process anymore with no public hearings and am i right to understand no public hearings like so no pnz at all and then no public hearings at council is that correct Or would there be a public hearing for site plans?

There would be a public hearing for site plan at council. And again, I think we would be flexible. The intention of that was really for convenience if, again, What you're getting if you adopt this zoning is assurance and the standards with a whole lot of detail that doesn't exist. And again, if you start moving buildings around or don't build this exact plan because there are so much details, I think that gives you some level of assurance. The timing of that is probably a little bit harder to nail down. But again, I think we'll be more than happy to work with staff. And if you guys are uncomfortable with that process, it's intended to be a convenience. Again, if we materially adhere to these standards, and you all have a preferred method where this does run back through P&Z for detailed site plan. I think, you know, obviously we can consider that.

Yeah, I mean, I think for convenience sake, I mean, we're here, so usually we don't go this late, but I don't think it's an inconvenience. I do think that it is helpful, and I'll just say, like, I think you'll have noticed, and I mean, I think the gentleman who's doing the brownstones will tell you that... I think maybe coming to P&Z might be a little bit helpful. I think that especially we've had a lot of turnover on council recently, and so you may think you know what's going to do while there, but I think coming to this body and helping synthesize things has helped strengthen proposals and catch some things that maybe council wouldn't have liked or wouldn't be disposed to. I think it's a good use of your time. I don't... there being a public hearing at city council it's not really a sticking point for me um as long as there is that opportunity for a notice to go out the public to be heard i just wanted to make sure we weren't getting rid of him at both stages um but i would i would just i'd recommend i think it's helpful to come through this body um um and then i would just recommend that i think i think your uses are overly permissive um across the board um i think uh one it i think I don't think you're trying to just allow folks and have that be part of the marketing and say, well, hey, look, you can just come in here and open your business and you don't even need an SEP. I would hope that's not the case, but again, I think especially because this establishment and this proposal is so close to residential, I would recommend sticking as close to the use charts for commercial as possible. If something's SUP, I would come with strong rationale as to why it shouldn't be SUP. I certainly wouldn't want a brewery to just go in by right. We want to know what that brewery is because there's different... I mean, there's different types of breweries in different markets and brands, and some of them might not be appropriate to be right next to this gentleman's backyard. But, I mean, Shannon Brewery, overall, I think it was a great neighbor, and it was a local Keller thing. So just consider that. But from where I'm at, just to kind of wrap up, I think this is an excellent project. If this came in 80% of what you have recommended or what you have pictured it to be, it would rival what goes along the freeway in South Lake. Yeah. in my opinion, your trophy club.

I think it's awesome.

And I know that you want that to be the case. You want what you have proposed to happen because it's going to make you all the most returns. It's going to be the most valuable option on the table. So I don't think we're trying to sneak anything through here just to get 32 homes because I don't think that's why you guys spent a year planning this. That wouldn't make any sense. But I do support this with the consideration, like, I think we need to be investing in a couple of key commercial components, the brewery, and then pick another one. I mean, personally, I think you should just go for that center with the pesto. That's going to get folks to come in here. If you have that part built out, and granted, I'm not a real estate developer, I'm not a commercial developer, but I feel a lot more strongly from my gut instincts that part of the reason why Center Stage hasn't been able to pull folks in is they just haven't built it there's the there's the desire for it to go in there right we're after covid i think the economy settled a bit more so um from my standpoint um i would um i think the cleanest thing there's so many amendments that we could potentially make um uh i would i would love to hear a motion and commissioner sandoval cabanas is up to make one um i i think having a motion which with um just conditions or strong recommendations is probably best, because there's a lot of stuff you guys are going to go away and change. So I think getting in the weeds here with making amendments might be not a good use of our time. And that'll allow us to get to the audience out here that also wants to .

One thing you need please consider. I'm Joe McCombs, by the way. I've been here since 82. I've served on the council. My name's on the plaque at the hall. That's what I want to see happen. It will happen. I live in Keller. I'm not a developer. I hit and run. So please take that into consideration. I've worked on this for a lot of years. When the city came to me 12 years ago and said, hey, we really want to have a brewery, that's why that brewery's there. And I went through two brew masters, or two brewing companies, And I learned a lot of financial lessons. I want that brewery open as fast as I can get it open. That's why I went ahead and put the streets in. And then the church, he came to me and said, hey, we want to move into the bottling plant. I said, then I had a, not a mortuary, but a, Crematory. Didn't want that either. It's a buzzkill coming out of a brewery. My point here, gentlemen, ladies and gentlemen, is this is a project that all has to work together. Please. It can't be piecemealed. I'm going to make sure that that happens. He can tell you.

Awesome. I really appreciate it.

I really wish my time.

Thank you. No, thank you. Yeah, so with that, I mean, my comments are over. I kind of said the motion I'm hoping to happen, but we'll see.

Chairman, can I make a quick point of clarification?

Who are we talking? Oh, thank you. There you are.

Yes. So while I think there are different things that we can do, and Steph is more than happy to work with the applicant in terms of how the approval process is written here, I want to make sure we're clear, site plans are not zoning. And so they don't require public hearings. It would be very unusual for us to build into the PD a requirement for a public hearing for a site plan. We can certainly add more SUP requirements, which is a zoning action and would require public hearings, the same process you see week in, week out for SUP actions. We can certainly build in more touches by P&Z for those detailed site plans. Certainly anything with a variance, just like you're seeing this evening with Kroger, would have to come through P&Z, but I just don't want to give an expectation for surrounding property owners that

site plans would carry you know if it was a use allowed by right it most likely would not carry a public hearing requirement if there's no zoning action my desire is mostly for the scps for the notice for the for for the neighbors and thank you for the reminder that the site plans don't need that that notice but again the concern was mostly to make sure we're going to counsel at least um but again i do i do think pnz will be helpful for you there um some of your concerns may get addressed this property if uh

Executed according to this we'll have to come through and be replanted as well.

So Okay, I Think we're gonna have some motions here. Let's go ahead and put them on the table Commissioner Sandoval Cabanas Yes in in the effort of trying to move things forward.

I think I I hope that all All of you gentlemen feel the positivity that we have for this planned development, and I do not wish to see it sink in the water. I am just hearing a lot of things that have come up, and I would suggest instead of us trying to piecemeal it together, you were taking very good notes of our thoughts and feelings somewhat. I would motion that we actually move to deny as is rather than try to pick it apart line by line with different amendments for how we all feel in different ways. So just to clean it up, I would recommend that we deny as written and I would encourage you to take your notes and work with staff and see what is feasible for you and what is not to be prepared for city council. So I move to deny as written.

Okay, thank you. And do we have a second?

Commissioner Farner I will second the motion so that way we can open further decision vote on it Okay.

Now we do have a motion and a second and it is is there any further discussion and Commissioner Farner

So I second Commissioner Sandoval's comments about the positivity. But I do believe that, and to Commissioner Lice's statements about not trying to amend this thing to death, I do think that we need to look at the charts, we need to look at section F as pointed out, G that was pointed out, the sections that the chair pointed out, and come back. And my question to Ms. Hensley is, if they came back, would it have to be back as a public hearing, or could they come back and just re-present to the commission with changes as requested?

Point of order. Sure. Go ahead. And that might just be a point of information. If we vote to deny, there's no, we make a recommendation and they come back. I believe the intent is we would, if you want to hear it again, we need to table it.

Okay.

Just to get to what I think you were trying to communicate.

That's correct.

So correct. So if the vote this evening was a recommendation to deny, it would move on to council with that recommendation. And the applicant could still make adjustments and changes and revisions like we've seen many times before. They could not come back and say, well, we had 31 brownstone units at P&Z, and now we're going to propose 47. That kind of change, we would say, no, no, no, you're increasing the density. They couldn't change the base zoning or other things like that. But they could make the revisions in response to the feedback received tonight and from staff. If you were to table it, technically the public hearing is closed. It is at the chair's discretion if he would like to reopen that. on the meeting date where you hear it again.

Okay. Thank you. So I cede to, I know Ms. Kavanis would like to make a statement, but I would prefer that we table and make the change than, but I do think that there are plenty of things. I'm very much for it if we were to make some changes and corrections.

Okay. Thank you. I'll ask the applicant here. And the way this thing is shaping up, apparently, a motion to deny, with all the conversation, the council will listen to all this conversation. You fellows, ladies, have listened to the conversation. And if you wanted to make changes to it before it got to the council, that would be appropriate. And then they would consider it at that time. Option two is that we could table it and you come back to a date certain, not forever, and that would give you time to just adjust it as it is right now, and then we would reconsider it. So that's kind of what the commission is faced with right now. And I'm not a big fan of tabling it. I think we can move it forward, either denial or approval, because after all, we're only a recommending body. And as such, the council can listen to this discussion, understand what the issues are, and they can either say yay or nay. So with that in mind, is there anybody from the applicant's camp that would like to say what their preference would be? Sure, go ahead.

I've been working on this project for a number of years. I brought this before the city last year before I put the streets in. So it's no surprise this is what was coming. This project, since I bought the church, I can't sell it as another. I mean, I've had a lot of opportunities to bring another church in. You know how much money that brings into the city. I can't open the brewery because I don't have a street down to it. It needs a new... This project's cost me $3,000 a day to sit there. That's my motivation here, to do something with it. I'm not getting any younger. You can kick it down the road and you can... I just need some help getting it before the council by October.

Pardon me. Say that again, please.

I just want to get it before the council meeting October the 7th.

And that's a very good option. And I think that is appropriate.

Tell me, John, what would you recommend I do?

Pardon me?

What would you recommend I do to get this across the finish line?

I think people seem to think that when they table it and they get to rework it, and we go through another discussion, we could end up in another box canyon where we just don't quite have all the facts to make a decision. I would rather the commission vote. Everybody knows the discussion. It's a very difficult decision that everybody's going to make here tonight. But as a recommendation, it goes to the council, and the council can either take our advice or turn it down based upon what we heard tonight If in fact what you get to the council and you don't have to go before the council on October 6th you could delay your presentation for a few weeks as you work on the issues that were presented tonight, which is I saw the parking at the east end of the That that is an issue that might be helpful to get fixed And any other faint words that you can say about the phasing of the project would be helpful. Was there anything else? Oh, and the table of uses, where you change things from being permitted to being, if they're just changed to an SUP, would make everybody in the community feel a lot more comfortable.

Work with staff. We feel comfortable we can work with staff between now and October. And if we need to delay, we can. But I think moving this forward.

So you want to move forward with the process tonight. I think that's a good way to move it forward. And any changes or whatever, any adjustments that might be made can be made. And if you need more time, you can delay your presentation to the council. But it would be your call to do that. But right now, you would be able to go to the council as we fleshed it out tonight with whatever the vote turns out to be.

I'm just a little confused. I mean, I hired Jason and his crew.

Pardon me?

I hired Jason Clouch and his crew, recommended by Sarah, that they were good at this. And I don't see how, with all this work with staff, and I've come before you, PNZ meeting while there's not there hasn't been more communication. It's like The system I guess Jason will do everything he can working with the staff To get it approved All right, so with that

If that's your comments, Ms. Kavanas, do you have anything further?

My intention is to get you to city council. We are a recommending body that what we saw here is not what I would recommend in total. We had a few things that if you make changes, I foresee very positively that it would be taken by council. I can't promise what they're going to do, but my hope is that if we just vote on it, that you will then be able to get to city council with some of these changes, and hopefully it will be able to pass through there. So this is my goal. My intention of denying this as is is just to drive a point home of the different pieces that we were not comfortable with. It did not by any means mean that I'm not positive on your project as a whole. I think it just needs some changes. And this is quite common for coming, you know this way better than I do, that coming through PNZ is just the first time you're able to hear some of this, the whole body's thoughts on things.

What I do know is they do this for a living. And a commission, what's your profession? Are you an engineer? I move to call the question.

Okay, yes. Yes. Oh, you called the question. I agree. That's a good point. With that, we fleshed out the issue. We have a motion. And you've withdrawn. You're finished, Ms. Cabanas?

I can't speak with the vote. I'm voting.

Let me restate the motion.

I move to call the question. So the next step is that we vote on if we are going to continue discussion. That's a no. Or if we're going to move immediately to voting, that would be a yes. And if my motion prevails to call the question, then we vote on the question.

All right. Thank you. He is correct. So if everybody feels confident that they are ready, we'll just do it by a show of hands, that they're ready to vote, that they've heard enough, Please indicate affirmative with a show of hands. And it looks like that's unanimous. So thank you. We are now going to vote on the motion. The motion is to deny. So if you vote in the affirmative, you're voting to deny. Negative would be the opposite, obviously. So with that, let's vote. Okay, that motion to deny passes four to two. And once again, I have to... All right. So again, unless you request otherwise, you'll be before the city council on October 6th with this presentation and with all of the conversation you've heard tonight, whether you want to adjust it a bit or not, that's your option. So with that, Thank you very much. Thank you, everybody, for your patience and understanding. Are you ready to start the next agenda item?

I am, Chairman. I didn't know if we wanted to quickly get through the future land use plan item that's related to the PD and then take a break before Kroger. Okay. But whatever the .

We can do that. You've got three minutes. We're starting to. We need a break. Go ahead, please.

All right, so the applicant is requesting to change the land use designation. This is the same site we just looked at on the previous item. They want to change that designation from retail commercial to patio, I'm sorry, from retail commercial and patio garden townhome to mixed use. The 2021 Future Land Use Plan established the mixed use land use category. I am not going to read this to you, but basically it says that there is a mix of non-residential and residential uses in the mixed use designation. We looked at the surrounding FLEP designations during the last items. The identical to the south and north, some residential to the east, and then west is retail commercial with a tech flex overlay. Notice of the future land use plan amendment was included on the public hearing notification sent out at the end of last month. We have not received any response from the public. Options for the commission, recommend approval, table order, recommend denial. And this will go on to council on October 6th with the PD with a vote from the commission this evening.

All right, thank you. Are there any questions? Commissioner Farner?

A motion that we'll close the public hearing. Second.

Okay, thank you. And any other questions, discussion? Let's go ahead and vote. Okay, the public hearing is now closed 6-0. And Commissioner Lice.

I'm going to motion to approve this item because I believe it's the intent of this body that if the recommendations we made for all of the uses in the SEP, those to me fall secondary to the zoning change that was requested. And so my motion is to approve this knowing that it's We like the zoning. We like the vision. It is mostly uses and a couple other smaller things. So that's my motion.

All right. Commissioner Sandoval-Cabanas?

I second.

Okay. Commissioner Leist, I have you as a requester. That was left over.

No, I just wanted to make sure I was speaking before.

All right. Thank you. So we have a motion and a second to approve the FLOP change. And no further discussion. And let's go ahead and vote. OK, that is approved 6-0. I'm going to call a reset. Let's get started for the second half. And we now have this. Hensley, I wouldn't call you Helmsley all of a sudden. Ms. Hensley is going to brief us on item E6.

All right. So I'm going to present E6 and E7 back to back, but they will be voted on separately by the commission. So the first is to consider a request.

May I interrupt you? Certainly. I'm rushing the process, but let me read it into the record. This is item E6, public hearings. I'm going to consider a request for a specific use permit for an approximately 99,992 square foot grocery store with fuel pumps, pharmacy with drive-through outdoor display and seasonal sales located on 17.58 acres on the north side of Keller Parkway at the northeast corner of Town Center Lane and Keller Parkway. inside the TIF boundary split zone town center and addressed as 1025 Keller Parkway, SUP-2604-0008. And we are going to combine item six and seven, which is basically what I've just read to you, plus item seven is to consider a site plan with variances for Kroger, the same verbiage, the same store. And it is site SITE-2604-0003. So what we're going to do tonight is a public hearing on both of those items. And we'll discuss them together. And then at the end, we'll probably make two different motions to handle item E6 and item E7. And then we'll be done. We have one more item on our agenda, but most folks will be headed home, I'm sure. So with that, Ms. Hensley, if you'll brief us, please.

Thank you, Chairman. Aerial map on the left-hand side of your screen. Zoning map on the right. The property is zoned town center. Surrounding zoning, SF 8.4 to the north. And I'm sorry, SF 8.4 is... separated from this particular lot, and we'll have some pictures showing that, by a little sliver of access drive for Life Church. So it's technically surrounded by town center zoning, but there is that residential to the north office to the west, and then town center zoning to the south, and then that bottom western corner kind of across from CBS. Yes. The applicant is seeking a specific use permit for a new Kroger grocery store. SUP will also apply to fuel pumps, outdoor display, year-round outdoor display, seasonal sales, and a pharmacy. In 2016, the council approved a similar but not identical project for Kroger. It was bigger at about 123,590 square feet. That project did not progress to the next development phases, so there was A site plan with variances similar to what you're reviewing tonight. There was an SUP similar to what you're reviewing tonight, but there were no building permits or further development, so any previous approvals have expired. If this project moves forward, the applicant intends to close the existing Kroger store that's at the southwest corner right across the street here of Keller Parkway and Rusno Drive. And, of course, the applicant also has a site plan with variances for the grocery store. We'll go through that presentation immediately after this one. So SUP triggers for this particular application, again, the grocery store, the fuel pumps slash sales, they're allowed in town center zoning as an accessory use to a grocery store that's at least 50,000 square feet. The applicant is proposing five pumps, so 10 different dispensing options. The UDC technically only allows for four pumps. Seasonal sales also require an SUP, so does a pharmacy even without a drive-through in town center. The UDC technically prohibits outdoor storage and display except as part of a special event or some sort of seasonal display of 30 days or less, but the applicant is requesting to have that outdoor display year-round. I will say all of these SUP triggers were also proposed in 2016 and were approved as part of that SUP application. Operating hours for this store will mirror the current store hours, which are 6 a.m. to 11 p.m., with some modified hours for the pharmacy. Loading and deliveries right now are proposed to follow the store operating hours. So current conditions, just to kind of orient everybody to where this site is, I know we all drive by this on a regular basis through that intersection, but just as a quick check-in, that top image is looking from Keller Parkway, kind of northwest, uptown center lane, the middle, and I wanted to make sure and show this particular image because it shows that Life Church drive access on the left-hand side of the screen and then the screening wall that is at the rear of the properties in Woodford. The Kroger property line is actually not at that screening wall. It's closer to along here, and we'll be able to see that more in the site plan images, but just to make that that clear the Kroger property line actually doesn't extend all the way back here. So might help to understand why certain things are the way they are on the site plan. And that bottom image is basically standing on the access drive looking south onto the vacant Kroger property. We will look at the site plan as a separate agenda item. I've got it here on the screen but we'll dig into it more in a moment. Future land use plan designation on this property is a combination of mixed use and office. It's surrounded on the southeast and west by mixed use with a little bit of office to the west and then to the north, high density single family residential across that access drive. We did include, I'm sorry, at the end of August, we mailed out 28 letters of notification for this public hearing to all property owners within 300 feet. As of about 4 o'clock this afternoon, we had received nine letters of opposition to this SUP request. The properties shown in red on this map are those that are opposed within the 200 or 300-foot buffer. In terms of percentage of land opposed within that 200-foot buffer that can potentially trigger a supermajority, they're at 3.7%. Quick reminder slide on factors to consider when evaluating an SUP that were read earlier by Ethan, Calvin, and Alexis. And then a reminder on those SUP triggers. Options for the commission. Same as previous SUP items. And then we'll just keep going right into site plan item. Same aerial and zoning maps. Wanting to pull up this image first, it's their site plan overlaid on the floodplain map. So the reason you'll see this site is pushed farther north is because so much of it is in the floodplain the closer you get to Keller Parkway. And Alonzo is here this evening if you have specific questions about floodplain. But wanted to make sure we showed this image to begin with because it kind of helps understand the entire site layout and why I think certain design choices were made and why the store is positioned where it is. Same current conditions we looked at in the previous presentation. So now we'll get into the variances that are requested. The applicant is meeting all of the parking requirement for both the fuel station and the grocery store. Total parking requirement combined is 385 regular spaces and 10 accessible spaces. They've got 407 regular and 11 accessible throughout the site. So they're meeting the UDC requirement there. The town center guidelines in the UDC prohibit large parking lots in front of buildings. So that is what they're proposing. And so that's the first variance request to allow that off-street parking in front of the building. Second variance request, the UDC requires a continuous landscape island in large parking lots such as this one. The applicant has installed or proposed to install landscape islands throughout the parking lot. Just in case, just making sure it's what all of these are. So these things that say CC are cart corrals. All of the rest of these with trees in them are The landscape islands, they're spaced appropriately according to the UDC requirements, but the applicant is requesting not to actually do the continuous landscape island. As I mentioned, the UDC allows fuel pumps as an accessory use to the larger grocery stores, has some additional regulations. The applicant is meeting All of these requirements, they've got a kiosk proposed at 200 square feet, which is less than the 350 max, no convenience store, no outdoor vending or storage. Looks very similar to the one that was constructed just a few years ago at the Kroger at Roof Snow in North Tarrant Parkway. The one exception was mentioned in the SUP requirement in terms of wanting five pumps instead of the four allowed by UDC. The canopy and columns are all in materials and colors that are either identical or very complementary to the color scheme and materials used for the main store. And so that also fulfills the UDC requirement that they are aesthetically compatible. Moving into the elevations of the main store, south elevation is about 72% masonry and 28% metal. All four elevations of the building have a combination of concrete panel, brick fiber, brick fiber cement siding and metal panels. And then also they have the metal canopies that are located at least on the front and two sides of the building here and then over the pickup window and drive-through location. So let me back up just a second. So south elevation is what will be facing Keller Parkway. West elevation facing Roof Snow, where you have the pickup area and the drive-through for the pharmacy. East elevation is facing Life Church. And then the north elevation is facing that Life Church drive access and then the homes beyond that. This is where they have their third variance request. The UDC requires no more than 50 feet of continuous building without some sort of articulation or architectural feature. They are requesting to not provide that on that backside of the building. Variances four and five both have to do with the design of the building. The UDC for town center requires buildings to be two stories. The applicant is requesting just a one story building, but they are meeting the height requirement if you do choose to do a one story building in town center. And then the UDC in town center also requires pitched or mansard roof designs. The applicant's requesting to do a flat roof for the grocery store building. Signage, the UDC allows one sign per building elevation or lease space. For this particular store facing Keller Parkway, it could be up to 200 square feet. The applicant is asking for the front elevation to have the two sign groupings. So here for the pickup and also for the pharmacy drive-thru. the main entrance sign, and then also the Starbucks logo down here, so a total of three spots of signage. And then they're also requesting that this sign be allowed to be about 550 square feet, which exceeds the 200 square foot max. The west elevation, so again, this is facing Rue Snow, would have two signs, one for the pharmacy and one for the pickup location. So that is the six variants. related to those signs on the front and the west side of the building. They also intend to install a monument sign at the two locations shown here off the town center lane entrance and then another here at the first drive off of Roof Snow. The specs and design for both of these monument signs meet the UDC. So there's no variance requested on these. This is just showing what that would look like. The applicant did provide a detailed landscape plan showing buffers along Roof Snow Drive, Keller Parkway, Town Center Lane, along with plantings on the backside of the building. The UDC requires foundation plantings at the front and sides of all non-residential buildings. The applicant is requesting as their seventh variance to provide no foundation plantings. I'm sure we'll elaborate more in their presentation on the reasons for each of these variances, but one of the things on the foundation plantings is with all of the amenities and services they have going on on the different sides of the buildings, they just felt it was not feasible. The UDC requires all required landscape open areas to be completely covered with living plant materials. It does give allowances for wood chips or gravel, mulch, things like that under trees and shrubs. The applicant is actually requesting in all of these landscape islands to use artificial turf rather than either sod or one of the materials listed in the UDC, so that is their eighth variance request. I will note that all of this sod area in the buffers and Right outside the parking lot here, this is actual sod. It is not turf used along the streets and the perimeter of the development. Proposed plans show a 10-foot landscape area adjacent to the Life Church property along Town Center Lane, which is required, that 10-foot buffer. They do have trees planted from down here close to Keller Parkway all the way up with a break for the drive and then farther up. This is about where that cul-de-sac is on Town Center Lane, and then farther north there are no tree plantings. The applicant will be installing a retaining wall in this location and has requested a variant to not do the tree plantings in this area to avoid a conflict with the retaining wall. And I will hand it over to our Public Works Director, Alonzo Lignon, for the next several slides regarding roadway access and traffic. Thank you.

Lonzo Nguyen, Public Works Director. What we laid out here for reference are the three access points that are being proposed with the site. A, at Indian Blanket. B, just north of the drainage channel. And C, while it's labeled there, most of the discussion will be down here at its intersection with 1709.

And we'll go to the next one.

The applicant has provided a full traffic impact analysis, the traffic study. To be clear, the traffic study was performed well. The numbers are sound, the calculations are verified, the assumptions made have been reviewed and fully agreed to. What we're looking at this evening is the results of that work and the variance that's being requested. Proposed plans begin with showing a new left turn into the North Town Center Lane. That's that median that is essentially right in front of CVS. What they're proposing is an eastbound left turn. To be clear, the distance between Town Center Lane And Rue Snow is roughly the same distance between Rue Snow and the existing left-in opportunity to the west, to the existing Kroger. I've taken a liberty of trying to condense the remainder of the traffic study into these following slides. Just off of here, for sake of scale, one of the recommendations, and we'll talk about that in the next slide, was to make signal improvements, signal timing improvements, to Johnson Road and Rue Snow. The red lines indicate the additional turn movements that are being constructed, which includes a traffic signal at Indian Blanket, southbound left, northbound right, and then at the drive north of the drainage channel, southbound left, northbound right. I'm going to come back to this. That's the image to the right. And then here's what we just looked at earlier. These are the proposed lane configurations. The blowup of Roof Snow intersection shows no improvements for the eastbound traffic lanes. The westbound traffic lanes shows an additional right turn lane going east and north, which requires a reestablishing of that curb line. The bigger changes is the reapplication of the existing pavement or repurposing of it. We're going to continue northbound, have the two left turn lanes, a through, but the current dedicated right becomes a through right, which complements the additional alignment to the north. Headed south, all lanes remain the same, except for the outside dedicated right becomes a right through combination. The applicant is requesting that, well, I'll show you the request, is to not meet a couple of level of C requirements outlined in the UDC. Let me get to this. So the, as I mentioned earlier, the signal timing at this intersection and what we're showing here, and it's not as important the numbers that are in the table. What is important is what is highlighted in red, whether or not there's a green check mark. The first table is, a reflection of conditions as it exists today. The second table, which is repeated, the exact same thing. It's eastbound, westbound, northbound, southbound. The movements are left, through, and right. And then it's reflected in the level of service. The level of service is a reminder, is a grade that's given. A is essentially free flow. Vehicles can do what they want. And then it progresses all the way up to E, which is a capacity that the road operates at. That F is a failed condition. stop and go, capacity goes down, speed goes down, just stop and go traffic. So that you have an idea what A and F is. What the Unified Development Code requires of all development is that they make improvements commensurate that would result in a level of service C. C as in Charlie. Charlie. So what they're showing is that today there's no problem at Roof Snow and Johnson Road. Tomorrow, when the development is constructed, they expect one of those movements, northbound left throughs, not surprising at the signal, is going to operate in a failed condition or a condition that does not meet the level of service C, which is why it's highlighted red. However, after the retiming, and that's what I'm highlighting here on the bottom, my recommendation is to retime the signal. It meets that goal. Additionally, the next access to the south, that Indian blanket, same thing. Existing, not a problem. Tomorrow, exiting problem. With the signal, no problem. So they did a good job of hitting that. The next one. to the south is that drive just north of the drainage channel. Same thing, not a problem. But it meets it. There's no requirements of improvements. We've hit C. I'm going to jump over that next slide and go over to the access point C. And that's the public road intersection with 1709. What they're recommending is they eastbound left turn. They're also recommending at this point no improvements other than to put in that left turn lane. The study really is a reflection of the desires of the developer as well to reflect the same kind of access they have on 1709 to the west. It still hits a level of service E for that new left turn. And the reason I skipped over the previous slide was that level of service E will indirectly start to impact this. So this is the intersection of Roof Snow and 1709. It is not a surprise that it is not a free-flowing great intersection to go through during the peak period. The morning not so bad, the afternoons a lot worse. And so you can see those areas that do not meet the current level of service C. Once the development is completed and up and running, The anticipation is that we would have more failed conditions or more conditions beyond C than what we experienced today. But based on the geometric improvements that we talked about, and that is the turning the dedicated right turns into right throughs and to add that additional right turn lane, that there are improvements. And that's what this purple here is on the side. So you can see that they have made improvements with their recommendation of lane assignments and lane use. However, there are two areas, this here, which would be the northbound right turn lane, the shared right through, and then the southbound shared right through, both of which would be operating worse than it would have been had it been a dedicated right turn lane, which is what you see up here. The request of the applicant is to... be considered for approval in light of this and not meet that level of service C threshold. While I'm up here, I'll also get an opportunity to talk about drainage and utilities. If you have questions, I'll be happy to answer those, but the applicant will have a presentation which will also touch on traffic as well. As for the drainage and utilities being served by existing utilities in the area, because it has a drainage channel to the south that leads directly into the town center ponds, The drainage was actually very straightforward and simple and it was analyzed several times and works. And we can go on to land use.

I mentioned this in the SUP presentation. Currently, use designation is mixed use in office. Site plan application, even with variances, does not require a public hearing, so we did not send out dedicated public hearing notifications for the site plan, but there were public hearing notifications that went out, of course, for the specific use permit. Section 2.07A2 of the UDC lists criteria for the commission when considering a site plan with variances, that there are special circumstances or conditions affecting the land, that the granting of the variance will not be detrimental to the community. that the granting of the variance will not have the effect of preventing the orderly subdivision of other property, that the granting of the variance is not a violation of other city ordinances, and the strict compliance with the regulations, and or that the purpose of the regulations will be served to a greater extent by the proposal. So a summary of the variances requested, off-street parking in front of the building, to not install those continuous landscape islands within the parking lot, to provide no articulation or other architectural features on the north or rear facade of the building, to construct a one-story building in the town center zoning district that's about 33 feet in height, to utilize a flat roof on the grocery store building, to allow the two signs on the front plus the Starbucks logo and two signs on the west, those are the pickup and the pharmacy signs, and for the sign above the main entrance to exceed 200 square feet, to provide no foundation plantings, to allow the use of artificial turf within the parking lot landscape islands, to omit tree plantings from the landscape easement, that 10-foot buffer along Town Center Lane north of where the cul-de-sac is, and to not meet those UDC requirement of level of service C at the Keller Parkway and Rue Snow Drive intersection and access point C, excuse me. Options for the commission. recommend approval, recommend approval with modifications table, or recommend denial. The applicant team is here, and they do have a presentation. Chairman, I don't know if you want to open the public hearing first or hear from the applicant team before we move on.

Well, I would like to go ahead and hear the applicant give their presentation, and we'll hear public comment. Does that seem appropriate?

All right. Good evening, commissioners. John Vitava representing Kroger 751 Freeport Parkway in Coppell. I am a Keller resident and very glad to be here. Thank you for your time tonight. I know it's going long, so we'll get through this quickly. So this is the store. This is a quick fly around of what we are looking to propose here. Whoops, that did not work. Do you know if that's going to play by any chance? It's a video, yeah. When you rely on technology, it sometimes fails. We had a flyover video. And what this was going to do was show you around the entire building so you could see kind of the enhanced landscaping that's going to be around the building, the placement on the property of where the building is going to be, the amenities that the building is going to have. And then you're also going to see from behind, you're going to see some of the enhanced landscaping that's back there as well, too, to provide extra privacy for the neighbors behind. And in addition, shows that the height of the building actually sits about 19 and a half feet lower than the neighboring properties behind us, and also about 260-ish feet from the property line. So that's about 85 yards. Dak Prescott may have a hard time hitting that building on the fly from the property line. So we'll move forward. The location here next to the Life Church, Roof Snow, northwest corner, Roof Snow and Keller Parkway. And again, the property was originally proposed in 2016 and approved. This is a smaller version of that property too. So what we wanted to do was scale down, look at being a good neighbor here for the community as well. So it's about 20,000 square feet smaller than the original concept that was proposed in 2016 and approved. You're gonna find that it's clean and modern. It's got a expanded selection of products, about 35,000 products under one roof. You've got a fuel center where you can redeem your points that you earn as a Kroger shopper. And a pharmacy drive-through window as well too, so you have that ease of access to pick up your prescriptions. And a dedicated area for pickup toward the back of the building that's away from main traffic so that it's a safer experience for our pickup staff to bring orders out to the vehicles and load them into cars safely. And within this property, you're going to see more choices. You're going to see home goods, toys, and so much more throughout the store as well, too. So here's the fly around. No wonder it didn't work. So what you're going to see here is you've got the fuel center, the way it's landscaped around the property. Just kind of a quick overview of how this property looks and the amenities that it's going to provide for the local community. One of the things that you might not see is the When we get around to the back, you might not see the dumpsters that are back there as well, too. We do have covered dumpsters with an exhaust, so that's to maintain any potential odors that may come from there. But with regard to that, Kroger tries to keep as much as we can out of the landfill with our Zero Hunger, Zero Waste social and environmental impact plan. And to date, In the last year, we donated 4.5 million pounds of food to the local community. That's throughout North Texas. And we're trying to meet our goals of 3 billion meals served. We've actually exceeded that goal that was set for last year. But here's the pickup area that's at the rear of the store. You'll notice the landscape buffer that's behind the store to the road there before you even get to the neighboring properties. So you notice that it's carefully designed. We want to be a good neighbor to the residents that are here, and we want to ensure that everybody has a safe and enjoyable experience with Kroger while they're shopping as well. And we'll skip ahead to that. So this is a quick look at the future of Keller's future grocery store here. This is indicative of what you're going to find in a Kroger marketplace of this size. These are all pictures from our newest Kroger marketplace stores that have been built. These are a little bit bigger. These are the 123,000 square foot stores, so it'll be scaled down just a little bit. You might not see as much apparel in this store as you would see in one of the newer stores, but you're still going to see a large produce section You're going to find floral as well, too, enhanced floral so that you can. Kroger is actually America's largest florist. You can find that online. We've got our meat and seafood section. So you've got more bunkers. You've got the fresh cases in the back as well, too. Plenty of people. I think there was 18 people in this picture. And so plenty of space still available as well. Moving on, you've got Deli Bakery and plenty of options there, fresh options. We have the enhanced pharmacy as well too. Plenty of space there to offer people a little bit of distance. And then we've got some newer services that you're going to see throughout the store, like the dedicated pickup area. You've got a Murray's gourmet cheese shop. You've got our kitchen place, home goods throughout the store. You've got our toys. You've got school and office equipment there as well. And we also have, at one of our stores, we have partnered with a local cafe, Pax and Beneficia, to offer a cafe within our store as well, too. So that's what you see there at the bottom. You're going to see some enhanced decor that resonate with our local campaign. Our milk is sourced directly from Vandervoort's Dairy over in Fort Worth, so we want to call that out for our shoppers as well, too. You've got wider aisles, and you've plenty of options to move about fit plenty of people here down this hallway without bumping into one another. And then, of course, we've got the fuel center, of course. That's something that we currently don't have unless you go further down Roof Snow. And then to take a look for yourself, here's some options, too, if you wanted to go and see what a Kroger marketplace, a new Kroger marketplace looks like. These are three of the newest that have opened up, and we have four more that are currently under construction, with two that are set to open later this year in Anna and then the Sendera Ranch neighborhood of Fort Worth. With that, we have a team here who can help answer your questions. If there's any questions you have of us, I'm sure there's going to be plenty. But wanted to thank you for your time, and if there's anything we can do for you to help move this along, we're happy to do that.

All right. Thank you very much. Okay, this is a public hearing. This is a time for the public to come forward and speak on this issue. Now, I have, I believe there's six folks signed up, five, I guess. If you're not one of these people and you're here to speak on Kroger, if you'll stop by our secretary over here on my left, and fill out one of these little speaker sheets. All it does is identify who you are and your address, and we'll put you in the queue to come forward. So with that, Pam Lewis, are you here? And would you please come forward? Pam Lewis? She went home. She went home. OK. Carrie Corey?

Short people. Hi, how are you tonight? Thank you so much for just being here and all that you do. And I know it's very late. My name is Carrie Corey. I live at 516 Bennington in the Woodford homes. And I actually didn't even read about this until today. So forgive me for not being maybe a little bit more prepared. We've lived in the community for 15 years. And I have five sons, and now just getting married and having daughter-in-laws. My husband would have been here, but he was taking care of my youngest at the homecoming parade, which dovetails very well into this, because some of my concerns that I wrote down are things like the traffic. I think that we're all concerned about the traffic. My youngest is at Keller High as a sophomore, and the... If any of you have been in that area during either the mornings or the evenings when school is getting out and teenage drivers along with parents that are trying to get their kids to school, it's incredibly dangerous. And we have great police and law enforcement that are there to make sure that happens. So having something of this size open up and the traffic, and it was a beautiful, beautiful presentation, a beautiful story. I'm a professional grocery shopper with five sons, for sure, and all their friends. And I also worked in the grocery industry for six years and also in education for 30. So it is beautiful, but that was one of my concerns. And then also, for every choice that we make, there are unintended consequences for those choices. And with this, the impact on the community, I would be concerned about well water. There's a lot of wells. With Samantha Springs, we used to live off of Mount Gilead and Trail Ridge, and those are all wells. So what if there's a leak with the gas? If the south wind blows, the gas fumes, the ethanol, all those things, my husband's a family practice functional medicine physician. And those would be very real concerns for us and all of the residents behind there. Because, again, what about with all the digging and the time it takes to put this in? What happens with all the land and the dirt and everything that we would be breathing in? That's a concern. And then my question would be, you know, for all of our kids, what is their fun locally? You know, we have to drive to Watago. We have to go down, you know, further for anything fun. Is there any way to make something like equine or something like that in that area or to remodel the Kroger. If you go to that Kroger, it's half empty all the time. The parking lot could be revamped. And my time is almost up, but when I read, we commit to preserving a safe, informed, and vibrant community of quality neighborhoods, thriving businesses, and natural beauty by setting the standard for municipal engagement, collaboration, service, and innovation. This Kroger goes against everything in that mission statement. Thank you for the time.

All right. And could we have Nathaniel Dunning?

Good evening, my name is Nathaniel Dunning and I live in the Woodford subdivision, immediately north of this site, roughly within 1,000 feet of the proposed facility. My main concern is going to be the traffic on what is currently a one lane in each direction road. We already experienced significant congestion, especially during school dismissal, and this project had a major high traffic use directly beside that constrained area. I'd like to know whether the current traffic impact analysis specifically accounts for school dismissal traffic, including walking traffic, as the east side of the road does not have a fully connecting sidewalk between 1709 and Johnson Road. I'd also like to know if there's sufficient lighting to safely walk across the street during the early morning for school commutes. I know we have a lot of runners that also run this road early in the morning, specifically student athletes. That's also a major concern. I'd also like to know whether the required infrastructure improvements to be completed before the store opens and if those hypothetical improvements would be funded by Kroger or by the City of Keller and our taxpayers. I'm also concerned that this appears to relocate the existing Kroger rather than bring in new business. We've seen... To our east, where the former Big Lots was, there have been issues filling that space. And to our west, where there used to be an Albertsons, that still sits empty today. So we've seen issues filling these vacant spaces. So I'd like to know if that's being addressed with a new business coming in or something, or if we're going to have this massive hole in our town center area. I'll yield the rest of my time with that.

All right.

Thank you very much.

Robert Krieger, I believe.

Good evening, Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Rob Krieger. I reside at 408 Bennington Lane. I can't imagine how many people have stood here over time with a NIMBY or a not-in-my-backyard approach, and I never thought I'd be here. Monday, when I got the letter from the city, I really had that feeling strongly. Over the past week, I've done my best to not only view this as a homeowner, but really separate myself from that and try to view this as a citizen of Keller. And having lived in Woodford for six years within the 300-foot marker, Let me just say off the bat, Kroger, I have no doubt, really smart people that have done their homework. If it made more sense to renovate the store they have, I'm sure they would have pursued that. I've got no doubt that it's a clean, vibrant store. I've got no doubt about what they're wanting to do. Where my doubts come in, similar to what other neighbors have shared tonight, the traffic study, I'm no engineer and I can barely count to 10 some days, but the traffic study didn't instill much confidence. Getting a right onto Roof Snow, I'm not convinced is as big of a problem as all the traffic getting out and beyond. And as other neighbors have said, without exaggeration, it is gridlock. Ironically, when I tried to drive to Kroger around 4, 430, I mean, it is stopped. I've also got some questions about noise and lighting. Respect that there's consideration for the HVAC, or I'm sorry, for the ventilation, but Is there been any noise assessment to this? Even little things like the sounds of beeping forklifts. I saw look like three trailer docks in there, big loading and receiving operations for such a large footprint. Totally understand you need it, but do we really understand sands that little road? What is the noise impact? And also from a lighting perspective, is there anything to prevent spilling over into Woodford, etc. ? And the last thing, and again, not to be redundant, but I love Ace Hardware. I go there and I can't help but notice the store that's closed right next to it every time. Another member mentioned the Albertsons. For all I know, there could be a great tenant ready to go for the existing Kroger, but I do, if not, I do have some concerns about, does that sit there empty? You know, Kroger's got every right to want to build a store, and I respect that, but you can almost throw a stone and hit three different Starbucks within this location, a grocery store with a fuel center across the road. I would just ask everyone, is this what we want for Keller Town Square for the future? I know they own the lot, totally understand that. And frankly, if I'm Kroger, I'd probably want to build there too. But I just want, I would kindly ask that this commission or this board considers what is best for long-term Keller, the city that we all, really just the charm that drew us to the city in the first place. So I'll yield the rest of the time. Thank you.

All right. Thank you very much. And Farah Januah. And you can correct me when you give me your name and address, please.

Oh, that's fine. It's Januah.

Januah.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you for trying to...

Good evening. My name is Farah. Thank you for giving me this time to speak tonight. Tonight was also my daughter's final homecoming parade as a senior at Keller High School. I was excited to be there to cheer her and her swim team along with our other amazing Keller students, but I chose to be here instead because I feel strongly that this proposal could have a much more lasting impact on our family and neighborhood and community at large. I'm here to respectfully ask the P&Z Commission to recommend against the proposed SUP for the new Kroger. I want to be clear that I'm not against development and I'm not against Kroger at all. I actually shop at the current Kroger across the street. I understand Keller is growing and growth is important. My concern is whether this particular development at this particular location and scale is the right fit for our community. I live within the 200-foot proximity of this proposed development, so this isn't simply a planning issue on a map for me. My family and my neighbors would be living with the increased traffic, noise, lighting, odors, garbage, and delivery trucks, and other commercial activity essentially in our backyards every day for years to come. Traffic is one of our biggest concerns. Roof Snow is already heavily traveled and is an important route for Keller High students. Everyday students drive through this area and walk to school from our neighborhood, including my children, and I regularly see our cross-country athletes running across the Roof Snow sidewalks in the morning on the west side. They're already sharing these roads with significant traffic. Adding a major grocery store with a gas station and additional vehicles, delivery trucks, turning movements, and more people coming into the area to shop puts even more activity in an already busy area. My concern isn't simply inconvenience, it is whether we are making an already challenging area less safe for our students. We also need to ask whether another large grocery store is truly needed here. There is already a Kroger and a Tom Thumb nearby, along with other commercial properties and vacant or underutilized spaces nearby. I understand that healthy competition can benefit consumers, but what happens if we simply shift customers from existing stores to mainly just one, this new one, and eventually create more vacant commercial properties? Once the development of this scale is approved, there is no turning back. It would be impossible to undo it. I'm not asking Keller to stop growing. I'm simply asking us to grow a little more thoughtfully. Please consider the residents who live next to this property, our students and athletes, the businesses already here, and the long-term character and quality of life in what is literally the heart of Keller. I respectfully ask you to recommend against this SUP and consider a better use and fit for this location. Thank you for listening to those of us who will live with the consequences of this decision long after tonight. Thank you.

And now Donna Hirabayashi.

Good evening. I found out about this proposal halfway through dinner tonight, and I was elected by my family to come. And several of my neighbors, including Pam and Brittany, bailed out on me. And so I guess I'm carrying the torch for Hallelujah Trail. All right. So I'm a retired Navy commander and a retired federal government facility manager with the Missile Defense Agency. And I've worked for over 50 years. And my husband and I decided several years ago to find the most wonderful town in the United States that we can move to and consolidate our family. So we chose Keller, and we love it. We live with our oldest daughter and her three kids, and my youngest daughter and her three kids had one to be born, another one by the end of the week, a mile and a half away. So we're very close to this proposed development. And we have a homestead on the Hallelujah Trail where we raise sheep, pigs, chickens, and meat rabbits. And we have a huge garden. And we have 52 solar panels. We actually sell electricity to the city of Keller. We are trying to be as independent as possible and live as organically as possible. We would never shop at Kroger, mind you. We shop at organic markets or grow it ourselves and can it ourselves or freeze dry it ourselves. So I'm just saying we don't want someone else coming in where there's plenty of places to shop around here for groceries. We don't want someone coming in and bringing all the additional traffic and toxins and all of the stuff that it's gonna bring. And like I said, I'm just carrying the torch for Hallelujah Trail and I love Keller and I'm so glad to be here. Thank you very much. All right.

Thank you for your service and please, Benna Gomez. Hello.

My name is Bertha Gomez, and I represent KidCare Pediatrics. We're located at 230 North Roof Snow, which is right across from the proposed Kroger store. My main concern is our traffic. Getting out at four, it's impossible right now, because all the high school students are coming by, and I'm just concerned about the traffic that this project's going to increase. I would hope that it will not create access for our patients to get into their parking lot because they'll be turning them against, not towards Kroger, but the other way. I think it's good that there's more development in Keller. I'm not opposed to the store. I just want to make sure that we will have easy access to our business. Thank you.

All right. Thank you. And David Dunning. And on deck next will be Ralph Osgood. If Mr. Osgood wants to stand over here to the side and be ready, that'd be great. Mr. Dunning?

Hello, I'm David Dunning. I'm a Woodford resident, so just north of the proposed site for the Kroger store. And I appreciate the presentation by the Kroger representatives. It was very, very impressive. I'm going to echo a lot of the residents who have spoken already. One of my biggest concerns is traffic on Roof Snow going up towards Johnson. It is incredibly congested during mornings and afternoons. I'm assuming that traffic study, I got the impression there'll be a traffic light on Roof Snow, a new one up, and I'm wondering how does that affect when that's a red light and you've got traffic coming, how is that going to affect traffic that's already congested. I'm also concerned about the west going, turning into Kroger from Keller Parkway. I know that roof snow gets very congested heading west, and so it backs up for people who are trying to turn south onto roof snow. And will that block people who are going eastbound on Keller Parkway trying to get into the Kroger store that way? I've been T-boned back on the canes because someone just, they were blocked or something and they just tried to cut across and they T-boned me. So I'm very concerned about the traffic. The lighting on Roof Snow is very bad between Keller Parkway and heading north to Johnson. There really aren't any traffic lights on that street. I'm one of those runners who run in the dark in the mornings. It's very dark there, and the students, you know, they're crossing in the darkness. I think something, whether or not that store goes in, I think something needs to be done there. Then I'm also concerned about The effect of the other stores, if the Kroger closes in the mall it's in right now, do you have a domino effect where now the Anchor store is gone, do you lose all those other stores? So I think there's a lot of things to consider. Also, is that really the most attractive and does that add toward the distinctiveness or is that the best opportunity, most attractive opportunity to make Keller more distinctive and unique to its citizenry? I just don't know if the Kroger is the best use for that site. So thank you for that consideration.

Thank you. Okay, Mr. Osgood, and then next will be Ara Mills, if you want to get in the lineup.

Mr. Osgood? Good evening, Mr. Chair and Commissioners. Is it possible to have the Public Works Director come up and explain one more time, Roof Snow, from 1709 up to Johnson, what the configuration would be?

Sure, we can take a few seconds. Thank you, appreciate that. Why don't you just make, do you, if you can make your remarks and then when we finish with the public comment, then we're going to get into it very deeply, and I'm sure Mr. Lenin will be happy to explain.